![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article explores the interacting politics of native customary law, conservation, and rural development in Sabah, Malaysia. Drawing on the specific details of native property rights in a rural community and state conservation and agricultural development initiatives, this article delves into the inherent contradictions between the logic of conservation, commercial land development, and native land tenure regimes. Native smallholders in Sabah see their customary land tenure as remnant expressions of local autonomy, which has not been fully experienced since the advent of colonial rule at the end of the 19th century. Conversely, state-driven conservation and development plans, and the ways in which they adversely affect individuals' access to natural resources are viewed by villagers as the quintessential expression of the power of a centralized and undemocratic government. By probing at the intersection of these polarizing practices this article explores the relationship between the Malaysian state and agriculture-based villagers from the vantage point of access to and ownership of land and resources. The article concludes that Sabah's ruling elite benefit from the contradictions between conservation, development, and native land rights. It is to their advantage to maintain the status quo since political positions are not dependent on voter support in Malaysia's pseudo-democracy. Native people have tried to resist state control over their land tenure practices for over a century through de facto practices that undermine the intent of state rule. But these small-scale actions have not resulted in widespread changes. Therefore, the marginalization of native agriculturalists will continue until the time comes when Malaysia's pseudo-democracy transitions to an authentic democracy in which the interests of a broader section of society are a priority for the state.
Notes
1 Conservation here is defined as long-term, state-driven efforts aimed at protecting areas that have been determined to be important to the preservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.
2 According to Case [2001: 43] a pseudo-democracy ‘offers more to their citizens than plain authoritarian regimes … Yet because civil liberties remain brittle, indeed retractable, pseudodemocracies “lack … an arena of contestation sufficiently fair that the ruling party can be turned out of power.” Accordingly, psuedodemocracies have few of the protections associated with liberal democracy, but also lack the more systematic repression associated with hard authoritarianism’.
3 In this article I distinguish between rural, small-scale development and state initiated, large-scale development. This distinction is based not only on the amount of land involved in development plans, but also on who benefits from the project. Small-scale, rural development initiatives directly benefit smallholders through different cropping options, access to new markets, or other locally valuable programs. Large-scale development initiatives are not motivated by improving the livelihoods of rural farmers, but instead focus on land uses that generate large revenues for extra-local businessmen. An example, used later in this article is the removal of land from Kinabalu Park for the development of a copper mine. Three Malaysian businessmen own 51% of this mine; the Japanese government owns the remaining 49%[Rasiah, Citation1999. Very few people living around Kinabalu Park or the mine benefit from its activities, and in fact many have been harmed by the toxic tailings it produces [Ali, et al., Citation2004.
4 I have used a pseudonym for the name of the village and surrounding place names.
5 Kinabalu Park is noted for its diversity of orchids (1200 species), pitcher plants (9 species, 5 endemics), rhododendrons (29 species, 9 endemics) and rafflesia (2 species). The animal diversity is rich, including 101 mammal species (including orang utans), 290 birds, a great number of reptiles and frogs [Nais, Citation1996. It is also the highest mountain (4,095 meters) between the Himalayas and New Guinea and harbors a wide range of habitats, from rich tropical lowland and hill rainforest to tropical mountain forest, sub-alpine forest and scrub on the higher elevations [Kitayama, Citation1992.
6 The term ‘native’ used in the context of Sabah refers to indigenous peoples who come from ethnic groups such as Dusun, Rungus, Bajau, Kadazans, Orang Sungai, Murut, and others. The term is usually used in contrast to the Chinese, Indian, and Malay-Muslims.
7 For a full elaboration of this and other objectives of NEP, see The Second Malaysia Plan 1971–1975[Government of Malaysia, n.d.: 1–10].
8 This figure is based on a June 1996 household survey.
9 According to local rumors, the park administration has gone so far as to install surveillance cameras on the trees in the park.
10 A total of 45 villages share common boundary with the Kinabalu Park. Approximately 15,800 people live in these communities bordering the park, the majority of which are of the Dusun or Dusun-Kadazan ethnic group [Nais, Citation1996: 30].
11 Some documents report the figure to be 3,555 hectares [Government of Sabah, Citation2002.
12 While most people do not yet have private title to the majority of the land they own under customary law, they nonetheless consider land that they have cultivated for many years and for which they have applied for title, as private property. It is their belief that their tenure on land that they have applied for is secure, and that it is only a matter of time before they have the title in hand.
13 Excerpt from field notes, interview with L. 21 March 1996.
14 An example of more drastic action occurred in the early 1990s when the government attempted to expand the boundaries of Kinabalu Park without consulting surrounding communities. Community members became quite angered over a long history of watching politicians taking valuable resources for themselves. One night someone set fire to the area, damaging all the vegetation. The state was forced to back down from its attempts to expand the park, particularly since the land was now seen as valueless from a conservation standpoint. Feeling disenfranchised from legal avenues to claim rights to land, people felt that burning the remaining forest was the only way that they could assert their control over the land.
15 Villagers were afraid to cultivate this land due to the high levels of heavy metal contaminants (such as cooper, lead, iron) in the soil that resulted from the flood [see Ali et al., Citation2004. At the time of my fieldwork, nearly 20 years after the flood, the land still was unused.
16 The village development committee (Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung [Authority for Village Development and Protection] or JKKK) was initiated in Sabah in 1968 as a way to institutionalize a system of community development. Its role at the village level is supposedly to give local people a voice in deciding which development projects they feel are necessary [Kitingan, Citation1990: 54]. However as a political appointment, it also becomes UMNO's man-on-the-ground at the village level.
17 Two cows had recently been stolen from Tempulong and owners were afraid that more thefts would occur if the animals were grazed even farther away from the house lots.
18 Claims of past hunting and collection of forest products are commonly used by natives trying to establish a history of ownership of the land, even if they have not cultivated it [Doolittle, Citation2005.
19 According to current state regulations governing customary law, if land is continuously occupied for three years and if no one raises any objections, than the occupants are entitled to the land [Sabah Times, Citation2004.
20 In 2004 and 2005, nearly half of all complaints lodged with the commission were about land rights [2004a, 2004b; 2005].
21 In some places it is reported that complaints on land issue were up to 80% of the complaints the Suhakam receives [Bernama, Citation2005a, Citation2005b; see also Thien, Citation2005.
22 See http://www.kkhighcourt.com/Master_Schedule/master2007a.htm, cases JR 25-05-05, JR24-240-02, and K22-72-00, Ramblinin binti Ambit vs. the Director of Lands and Survey and Ramblinan binti Ambit vs. Ruddy Awah.