ThirdWorld Quarterly, Vol21, No 6, pp 977 – 988, 2000

Globalizationand democratization: the responseo ftheindigenous peoples o f Sarawak

SABIHAHOSMAN

ABSTRACT Globalizationis amulti-layered anddialectical process involving twoconsequent tendencies— homogenizing and particularizing— at the same time. Thequestion of howand in whatways these contendingforces operatein Sarawakand in Malaysiaas awholeis therefore crucial in aneffort to capture this dynamic.This article examinesthe impactof globalizationon the democra- tization process andother domestic political activities ofthe indigenouspeoples (IPs)ofSarawak. It shows howthe democratizationprocess canbe anempower- ingone, thus enablingthe actors to managethe effects ofglobalization in their lives. Thecon ict betweenthe IPsandthe state againstthe depletionof the tropical rainforest is manifested in the form of blockadesand unlawful occu- pationof state landby the former as aform ofresistance andprotest. Insome situations the federal andstate governmentshave treated this actionas aserious globalissue betweenthe international NGOsandthe Malaysian/Sarawakgovern- ment.In this case globalizationhas affected boththe nation-state andthe IPs in different ways.Globalization has triggered agreater awareness of self-empow- erment anddemocratization among the IPs. These are importantforces in capturingsome aspects ofglobalization at the local level.

Globalization is amulti-layered anddialectical process involvingboth homoge- nization andparticularization, ie the rise oflocalism in politics, economics, religion andculture. In what ways do these contendingforces operatein Sarawak andin Malaysia asawhole?This article examines howglobalization affects the democratization process andother political activities ofthe indigenouspeoples (IPs) ofSarawak, and shows how the democratization process is aforcein capturingglobalization.

Impactof globalization on democratization Sarawakis oneof the states in the Federationof Malaysia. Situated in the western regionof the Island ofBorneo and with a total area ofabout 7 24450 squaremiles, Sarawakis almost as large as the wholeof Peninsular Malaysia. Thepopulation of Sarawak consists ofseveral IPs, suchas Iban,Bidayuh, Malays, Melanau,Kayan and Kenyah. Unlike Peninsular Malaysia, wherethe

SabihahOsman is atthe IKMAS Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor DE, Malaysia. E-mail:[email protected].my.

ISSN0143-6597 print; 1360-2241 online/ 00/060977-12 Ó 2000 ThirdWorld Quarterly DOI: 10.1080/01436590020011981 977 SABIHAH OSMAN populationis madeup ofabout 55% Malays, 34%Chinese and11% Indians and others,no single ethnic groupin Sarawakis dominant.In 1998 the Sarawak populationnumbered 1.99 million, consisting of5.6% Melanau; 21.4%Malays; 28.6%Iban; 8% Bidayuh; 6% other indigenous people; 27% Chinese; and3 .9% others,including non-Malaysian citizens (Departmentof Statistics Malaysia, 1998).Hence, unlike Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawakpolitics andpolitical align- ments havebeen relatively uidbecause no one ethnic grouphas aclear majority; eachgroup must manoeuvreto seek the supportof others (Leigh, 1974). As inthe otherstates ofMalaysia, the conceptof democracy and multiparty elections is notentirely newto Sarawak.In 1956 elections wereheld for the KuchingMunicipal Council.Subsequently in 1963 the Žrst generalelections basedon the three-tier votingsystem wereorganized (Poritt, 1997;2 3 – 24, 27). Itwas,however, in June1970 that the Žrst direct elections wereconducted, and resulted inno single partygarnering majority support.The f ormationof a new state government,therefore, was beset with problems.As aresult, acoalition governmentbased on consociational politics was set upwhen the Sarawak UnitedPeople’ s Party ( SUPP)joinedthe coalition andestablished anewgovern- ment led byParti Bumiputera(Sanib, 1985; 124 – 125).With this coalition, Sarawakentered the 1970swith the Malay-Muslims playingan important role in the state governmentuntil the present.The Sarawak state governmenthas been basedon a ‘grandcoalition’ to ensurepolitical stability andto generate economicgrowth. However,political partyformation and elections are onlypart ofthe demo- cratic process.The popular phraseology that democracyis ‘governmentof the people,for the people,by the people’, is toof ormalistic, oftenassociated with the USformof government. Western liberal democracywithin acapitalist economyf ocuses onindividual liberties. Tothe liberals, ‘the ballot box[is] the mechanism wherebythe individualcitizens as awholeperiodically confer authorityon government to enact laws andregulate economicand social life’ (Held,1995: 17 – 18). Nevertheless, Malaysian democracyis ‘neither unambiguouslydemocratic nor authoritarian’(Crouch, 1996); it has also beendescribed as ‘asemi-democracy ora democratic – authoritarian state’(Case, 1993,1997).The government is elected throughelections heldonce every Ž veyears at bothstate andfederal levels. Ascitizens in ademocratic state, the peopleare awareof their rights and obligations,although some tendto viewthe system assomethingimposed from above.This is evidentfrom a surveyconducted in Sarawak in September1996. 1 Theresults ofthe surveyindicate that the IPsare awareof the meaningof democracy,which is notonly about holding elections, butalso aboutallowing all views,particularly fromthe grassroots, to beheardand dissent to bevoiced. Forexample, during the 1996Sarawak state election campaigns,voters consist- ently raised issues related to land,logging, social justice andthe Bakundam project andits impact onthe IPsinthe SungaiBalui Valley. Within this framework,one can pose questions aboutwhether the democratic process has enrichedsome, but disadvantaged others. To what extent havethe IPsalignedthemselves with the system? Has the tide ofglobalization exerted 978 THE RESPONSE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OFSARAWAK pressure towardsgreater political, social andcultural democratisation in Sarawak?In addition, is democracyperceived di fferently at variouslevels of representation? Besides holdingand participating inelections, at the grassroots level, democracyrevolves around the questionof f reedomof expression, freedomof the press, andfreedom for local peopleto exercise their rights, for exampleto maintain asustainable environmentand have access to customary land. This,however, does not mean that non-Westernstates are strangers to democracy,and democracy appears in various forms dependingon the socioeco- nomicand cultural milieu ofthe society in question(Mittelman, 1996a:8, Held, 1991: 139– 172).In Malaysia, includingSarawak, democracy as anidea and practice has beenexpressed in the formof musyawarah,ie consensusin decision making,which has longbeen a salient feature ofthe indigenouspolitical system. Theappointment of village headsand tuai rumah (longhouseheadmen) illus- trates this. 2 Althoughpolitical parties andregular elections are recent phenomena,the idea andprocess ofdemocracy are part andparcel ofthe indigenouscommunities and havebeen entrenched in their valuesystems. Amongthe IPs, democratic processes havelong been practised evenin the remote areas, eg musyawarah. The IPsfully understandtheir democratic rights interms ofland rights and environmentalissues, andwhat they are Žghtingfor. Regarding logging activi- ties andthe resistance toit, AlongSega’ a Penanfrom Ulu Limbang, afŽ rmed his rights whenhe said: Theearth is like our mother, our father. If youfrom thegovernment give orders to thecompanies to invade our land, you might as well cut off ourheads and our parents’heads too. When the bulldozers tear open the earth, you can see her blood andher bones even though she can’ t speak… Theforest is our home, our pantry, ourdepartment store and hospital. Whether we arebitten by snake, or suffering from aheadache,a feveror an injury, our doctor has always been there for us… Wealwaysknow how to get food in our undisturbed land and we aren’t dependent onyourhand-outs … Our landis not so large … We arein trouble because our land hasbeen taken and we havebeen made poor … TheŽ shin the river die because ofthe polluted water. The game  eebecauseof the companies [timber companies]. Whydoesn’ t thegovernment discuss it and educate people about it? Our Chief Minister,Taib Mahmud, should revoke the timber licenses. Why won’ t hehelp us? If we don’t blockade,who is goingto listen to us?That’ s whyI blockade.But Taib Mahmudshouldn’ t sendthe police and lay charges against us! It would be good if thePrime Ministerwould come to see me for himself!(Manser, 1996: 46 – 49) Sega’’s grievanceswere shared by his fellow countryman,Saya’ Megut. In his message toSarawak’ s Chief Minister, TaibMahmud, Saya’ wrote: …Whatkind of a governmentis ours?Can this be considered a governmentwhen thepeople have no right to live on their traditional lands? The companies are pushingever further into the interior. What is behind it? The government! Does it wantto destroy the entire land so it can say ‘ That’s wherewe haveestablished a reservationfor thePenans?’ … We aretired of hearing the bulldozers penetrating ourland. Our landis no longer the black edge of a Žngernail.We haveno other land.(Manser, 1996: 215). 979 SABIHAH OSMAN

Subsequently,on 22 August1995, a groupof 13 Penan f romUlu Baram signed adeclaration whichstated: Althoughthe government demanded that we becomesettled, we havebeen ignored. Evenour Ž eldshave been run over by bulldozers … We askall our ‘ relatives’, whereveryou are, for help.Speak forcefully with our government so that it stops thecompanies and places our communal areas in Ulu Baram under protection. (Manser,1996: 215)

Hydroelectric damproject

The IPs’commitment to maintaining their democratic rights canbe seen in their struggle to protect the environment.Concern about the environmentalimpact has surfacedbecause a decadeago the Sarawakgovernment forced the Ibanof BatangAi to resettle in anewarea, as their longhouseswere situated at the site ofthe proposedhydroelectric dam, supposed to bethe Žrst hydroelectricpower damin the state. TheBatang Ai damis situated inthe LubokAntu District in Sri AmanDivision. It was completedand ofŽ cially openedin August1985. The peopleaff ected bythe BatangAi damproject werepredominantly Ibans. The Ibansare nota landless people;they in fact ownlarge tracts ofland held under native customaryrights. Thedam project involvedthe resettlement of29 longhousesabove the damand four longhouses below the damsite. Theproject has unquestionablybrought some advantages,f oreach f amily inthe resettlement scheme was given11 acres ofland, Ž veforrubber cultivation, three forcocoa, twofor padi or general farming land, and one acre fororchards. But the disadvantagesseem to outweighthe positive impact. Forexample, there have beenproblems with loanrepayment and the rapiddepletion of the compensation paid.But the most important issue has beenthe erosionof the cultural identity ofthe Ibansin BatangAi (JayumA Jawan,199 4; 201 – 203, INSAN andauthors, 1992).According to John Phoa: Resettlementfrom damprojects has meant a huge[sic] lossof customary tenure to thenative lands. They also lost their ancestral land and customary rights, as well assacred burial ground and the forest which have been a majorsource of their subsistence.The forest and customary rights are part and parcel of the traditional and adat (customary)law of the shifting cultivators. Such losses are often ac- companiedby thebreak-down of the social fabric of the indigenous peoples. (Phoa, 1996: 211) With regardto cultural aspects, wehave to take intoaccount the worldviewof the IPs. Ingeneral, the economyof the IPsis small-scale; their life is associated with their land,from which they derive their foodand develop their culture. However,land ownership varies fromone ethnic groupto another. The Iban and Penan,f orinstance, are basically non-hierarchical,although there are some differentiations basedon gender and age. Although essentially egalitarian, Iban havebeen aware of long-standing status distinctions amongthemselves of raja berani (wealthyand brave), mensiaseribu (commoners),and ulun (slaves), with prestige still accruingto descendantsof the Žrst status, anddisdain todescen- dants ofthe third.The Brooke dynasty, which ruled Sarawak from 18 41to 1941, 980 THE RESPONSE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OFSARAWAK created political positions—headman ( tuai rumah),regional chief ( penghulu), andparamount chief ( temenggong)—in orderto restructure Ibansociety for administrative control,especially fortaxation andthe suppressionof head-hunt- ing(Sutlive Jr, 1992:8). In the case ofPenan, they know no hierarchy because theylive in verysmall andindependent groups; they have no needof chiefs and representatives (Manser,1996: 26). The Kelabit, Kenyah,Kayan and Melanau practise ahierarchical social structure (King,1993 ). The IPs’respect fortheir landpermits them toconserve their ecosystems for long-termuse. Conservation, however, is in conict with the Malaysian govern- ment in generaland the Sarawakgovernment in particular; underglobalization, the latter seeks the integration ofthe economyinto the openand f ree market system (Maiguashca,199 4: 368).As weshall see below,the IPshavebecome major victims ofthe policies that havebeen pushed by the globalization strategy. Market-led developmentssuch as loggingand hydroelectric power dams affect their economicsystem andtheir traditional livelihood.This is evidentamong the IPswithin the Asia – PaciŽc EconomicCooperation ( APEC)countries.Supported byvarious non-governmental organizations ( NGOs), their worseningplight has beenhighlighted in the mass media. Duringthe three APEC summit meetings in1995, 1996 and 1998 NGOs have heldtheir ownparallel gatherings(Gaspar, 1997: 10 6),later knownas the Asia– PaciŽc Peoples’Assembly ( APPA). APPA is anannual forum which high- lights concernsabout the ‘free trade,free market’model of trade andinvestment liberalization that APEC promotes. APPA seeks toresist globalization andto changeits agenda.At aforumon ‘ ConfrontingGlobalization: Reasserting Peoples’Rights’ , APPA participants reviewedthe effects ofglobalization on speciŽc areas, includingland, food security andagriculture, migrant workers, women,the environmentand f orestry,human rights anddemocracy, privatiza- tion andŽ nancial deregulation,and youth and education. APPA considers global- ization tobe aprocess that concentrates capital andpolitical controlin the hands ofa select few,rather thandistributing them equitablyamong the masses. Globalization also contains economicand social contradictions,and countries with different levels ofdevelopment are nottreated as equals.As aresult, developednations are in abetter position to exploit developingones. Thus, the sustainable developmentagenda that emergedwithin APEC in 1993is perceived as mere rhetoric.It cannotbe denied that globalization,which thrives onthe promotionof an ideology of consumerism andindividualism, has accelerated environmentalabuse the worldover, intensifying the destruction ofvarious ecosystems. At the same time, globalization has helpedenhance rights con- sciousness anddemocratic impulses insigniŽ cant ways. APPA has afŽrmed that ‘Whatwe need is true democratic cooperationamong peoples and countries of the Asia– PaciŽc basedon equality andmutual beneŽt, andupholding the realisation ofthe peoples’sovereignty and self-determination’ (quoted in The SundayMagazine ,13December 1998). While notsupportive of the idea ofa free-trade area,Malaysia’ s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamadsees APEC as beingable tocontribute to the well-beingof its members.He also believes that there couldbe ‘ social and political spin-offs fromthe APEC process …whichshould be regarded as a 981 SABIHAH OSMAN

bonus’(Gasper, 1997: 75). Thus, in orderto achieve the main goaland its bonus, the Malaysian state andbig business givepriority to its pushfor economic growthat the expenseof the IPsandthe environment.As such,Malaysia’ s loggingcompanies continue to exportraw hardwood and cut timber, leadingto destructive deforestation. As shownin Sarawak, the IPshavebeen the most affected bythe disappearanceof the forests in areas wheretheir native custom- aryrights are supposedto be constitutionally guaranteed. Indigenousmovements throughout the worldhave begun to realize their rights andhave voiced their special claims tothe land(Maiguashca, 199 4: 370).These movementshave to some degreecreated uneasiness in Malaysia. Despite their differences,the IPsare eagerto bepart ofthe ongoingdevelopment. ‘ Theylook forwardto a goodlife, astable family, apeaceful communitylife andwant to cultivate cordial relations with othergroups in the larger national community… Theywant their self-pride anddignity to berespected andsafeguarded’ (Hasan, 1998: 3). In 1997 the IPsweredisplaced forthe secondtime in orderto enablethe Malaysian governmentto buildthe Bakundam. Upon completion, the 2400- megawatt hydroelectricpower project will transmit electricity byunderwater cables notonly within Malaysia, butalso toa fewneighbouring Southeast Asian countries.Since this RM13.5billion 3 grandioseproject has agreat impact onthe environment,the IPswholive aroundthe proposedproject andthe environmen- talists havemade a numberof protests. However,the governmentignores their resistance. Infact, inthe beginningthe project was soldto Ekran Bhd, owned byaSarawakiantimber tycoon/hotel builder.Because ofthe 1997 – 98 economic andcurrency crisis, the federal governmenttook over the project,which has now beenpostponed indeŽ nitely. Nevertheless, resettlement ofthe affected 10000 IPs residing in the reservoir zonehas not,in the same way,been postponed. ThePrime Minister’s announcementof the project’s ‘indeŽnite postponement’ in September1997 was regardedas atriumphantvindication of the project’s ‘manyopponents’ . Theseopponents always asserted that the mega-projectwould bea ‘major economicdisaster’ , quite apart fromits ‘socially andenvironmen- tally destructive impact’(Salleh, 1999).Since ‘it poses gravethreats to the economy,ecology and the livelihoodof the affected indigenouspeople’ , the Coalition ofConcerned Non-Governmental Organizations on Bakun, which comprises 40 NGOs, arguedthat the project shouldbe scrapped.On 8 June1999 the Prime Minister announcedthat the governmentwas goingahead with the Bakunproject andTenaga Nasional Berhadwould play the leadingrole when the stalled project resumed( The Sun,9June1999). However, the power generationcapacity ofthe damwill bescaled downto 500megawatts, although there is ‘apossibility ofa higherŽ gure’. Thegovernment promises topay a total ofRM950 million to take overfrom Ekran Bhd and other parties. Theestimated cost ofcompleting the project will beaboutRM5 billion. Accordingto the Prime Minister, the governmentwanted to complete the project as soonas possible becauseof the rising demandf orelectricity followingeconomic recovery. Muchof the energyproduced by the scaled-downBakun dam project would haveto beconsumed in Sarawakitself, becausethe governmentplans to site energyintensive industries in Sabahand Sarawak. The question is, will investors 982 THE RESPONSE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OFSARAWAK

bringenergy-intensive industries there ( The Sun,9June1999)? This is unlikely, as Sarawakhas spare capacity beyondits present andf oreseeable futureneeds (Jomo,1999). The Deputy Chief Minister ofSarawak, George Chan, disclosed that Sarawakhas excess capacity anddoes not need any more power. At the federal level the DeputyEnergy Minister, ChanKong Choy, was reportedas havingsaid that ‘ourreserve powersupply of 45 per cent will beable tomeet the nation’s needsuntil the year2 000’.Inf act, Chanemphasized that the new plants in Perlis, Perakand Kedah will provideabout 3000 MW(about25% more) thanthe powerexpected to begenerated by the proposedBakun dam (Jomo, 1999). Tomake way for the constructionof the Bakundam, a groupof Bading (the sub-groupof the Kenyahcommunity) which has beenresiding in LongGeng settlement andLong Bulan are amongthe 10000 IPswhohave to beresettled. Forthe villagers, the questionof resettlement is the main focusin regardto the Bakunproject. They understood that, despite their protest against aproject which mightresult in oodingtheir area,which includes manyof their ancestors’ graveyards,there was noalternative. Sofar theyhave avoided radical confron- tation with the state. Thestrategy has beenf orthe affected villagers to linkup with NGOstotell the worldthat theyoppose the Bakum HEP,whichwill ood their homeland.To makethe most outof the project,they want guarantees from the governmentthat basic facilities suchas clinics andschools will bemade available, as well as easy access to townsso that theycan sell their farm products(Tan Chee Beng, 1997: 16 4). Althoughthe downsizedBakun dam project was postponed,the resettlement ofthe indigenousdwellers livingin the reservoir zonewas tobe implemented aspreviouslyscheduled. In fact, as stated bya Fact FindingMission sent bythe Coalition ofConcerned NGOsonBakun to Sarawak, the authorities there were ‘rushingthe resettlement’process; theywanted OperationExodus to be com- pleted byAugust1999, despite the downsizingof the powergeneration capacity of the dam (Harakah,14June1999). It is thus clear that large-scale governmentdevelopment programmes have threatenedthe IPs. Theirland is takenaway in the nameof development for the beneŽt ofa few.The development activities suchas hydroelectricdams, plantations ortourism projects uprootand forcefully displace the IPs. Further- more,since mid-1995,the Sarawakgovernment has beenpromoting the New Conceptof Native CustomaryLand Development for large-scale oil palm plantations. Underthis concept,the native customarylands will beleased outto private plantation companydevelopers f ora periodof 60 to 90years. As aresult, the IPswill most likely lose the rights to their land.Some of the IPsopposethis kindof development, which will robthem oftheir customaryland.

Loggingactivities

Besides the Bakunand Batang Ai damprojects, the IPsalso face problemof logging.Logging operations may not only cause ecological disaster butalso affect the economyand health ofthe indigenouspeoples. ‘ Inthe hilly terrain, 983 SABIHAH OSMAN loggingreduced the water-holdingcapacity ofthe land,aff ecting manyplant andanimal species anddestroying the foodweb. The IP’s major sourceof protein, namely the wildlife andŽ sh life in the forests andits waters, was severely depleted’( INSAN andauthors, 199 2:17, 61, 65 –67).The increased loggingactivities havealso attracted the attention ofenvironmentalists. As a result, the local populationhas becomemore conscious of environmental repercussions andof problems arising fromlogging, for they are the onesliving closest to the forest and,therefore, are most threatenedby the reckless destruc- tionof their habitat. Timberhas beenMalaysia’ s secondlargest exportearner after petroleum since the early 1980s. In1990export earnings from timber andtimber products amountedto RM8.9billion— or 11.3%oftotal exportproceeds— compared with RM10.6billion forpetroleum, RM 4.4billion forpalm oil andRM3 billion for rubber (INSAN andauthors, 199 2: 1).Although by the endof the 1970s diminishing available forest resources andheightened public awareness oftheir graveenvironmental consequences had reduced logging in Peninsular Malaysia, timber productionin bothSarawak and Sabah has nevertheless increased.By 1990Sarawak accounted for 18.8 million, or47%, of the 40million cubic meters loggedin Malaysia. At this rate, anaverage of 1850 acres are being takenout from Sarawak every day ( INSAN andauthors, 199 2: III).The main buyersare Japan,taking 45% of the total, andTaiwan, 2 0%.Timberis exported to the EU(Phoa,1996: 2 01),and timber concessionairyrights havebecome a covetedprize forpolitical ofŽce andpower, engendering a vicious circle of timber politics. Hencethe political economyof timber has shapedand moved Sarawakpolitics, at least overthe last twodecades. The question is, who beneŽts fromthe timber activities? As pointedout by Edmund Langgu in Parliament, ‘It wouldappear that after years ofaccelerated timber exploitation, veryfew rural dwellers havebeneŽ ted directly exceptas labourers’( INSAN and authors,199 2:17). TheSarawak Study Group’ s pioneeringstudy of logging in Belaga notes that political powerand family connectionswith leadingstate governmentpoliti- cians primarily determine access to timber concessions.Another set of beneŽciaries is the loggingoperators— urban ethnic Chinese Sarawakians—who actually runthe timber extraction andexport activities ( INSAN andauthors, 1992: VII). Besides loggingactivities, the environmentalists havealso highlightedissues suchas illegal logging, 4 favouritism ingranting logging concessions andcorrup- tion.Moreover, those whobeneŽ t most are the state government,concessionar- ies, timber contractors andsub-contractors. The timber workers,the majority of whom are IPs, accountf orless than4% of recipients ofthe total gross income earnedfrom the sale oftimber, althoughthey make up more than 95% of the total populationof those involvedin the industry.It cannotbe denied that, on the onelevel, timber activities havehelped Sarawak to develop, but f orthe populationas awhole,the problemsoutweigh the advantages(Hurst, 1990 :91). Inresponse to criticism fromthe environmentalist movements,the govern- ments accuse the latter oftrying to cut offa growth-basedeconomy at its early stages ofdevelopment. They ‘ woulddeny poorer countries their best prospects 984 THE RESPONSE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OFSARAWAK ofescape fromthe povertytrap’ (Hurst, 1990 :482).Therefore, some states are reluctant to facilitate co-ordinationby establishing effective globalgovernance mechanisms inrelation tothe environmentalagenda. TheMalaysian Premier DrMahathir has said, ‘the timber industryhelps hundredsof thousands of poor people in Malaysia …wedon’t cut all trees when wedo logging in the forests. Onlymarked mature trees are cut.We also do reforestation’(quoted in INSAN andauthors, 199 2: 2 –74).He wenton to say that ‘Malaysia is apoorcountry and just developing,and it is important forit toearn alittle revenuefrom its rich forest resources”(quoted in Manser,1996: 27 2). Mahathir’s views havebeen echoed by the SarawakChief Minister, Taib Mahmud,who claimed that ‘the timber industryhas helpedto pull outmore than half ofthose trappedin the povertylevel [sic]. Wedevelopbig timber operations whichwould yield [sic] thousandsof miles ofroads and hundreds of bridges and at the same time providejobs forthe local peopleon a moresecure and continuedbasis’ (quoted in Manser,1996: 2 05).James Wong,Sarawak’ s Minister ofEnvironment and Tourism, who himsel fcontrols over650 000 acres off orest concessions evenargued that ‘This landdoes not belong to the natives. Itis state land’( INSAN andauthors, 1992: 8 2).Yet the International Mission on ‘Natives’Rights andRainf orests foundevidence that Wong’s owntimber business, namely,Limbang Trading Company Limited, oneof the country’s most prosperoustimber companies,sells timber fromthe protectedspecies list ofthe government’s Select Committee onFauna and Flora ( INSAN andauthors, 1992: 82). Thelucrative natureof the timber industryhelps to explainwhy the state governmentbecame more defensive and sometimes easily repealedits consti- tutional obligations to the IPsbyignoring their rights to customaryland when it was challengedby protests andblockades from the indigenouscommunities. Theseprotests are anexercise bythe IPsin defenceof their democratic rights. InOctober 1987 the Malaysian governmenttook a harshmeasure bydetaining 42 IPsinUma Bawang on charges of ‘ wrongful-restraint’because they refused to dismantle their blockadesand ‘ unlawfuloccupation of state lands’. The IPs hadbeen engaged in a seven-monthblockade to halt the loggingof their ancestral lands.The arrests weremade following a major series ofarrests in Peninsular Malaysia. Amongthose detainedunder the Internal Security Act ( ISA) was Harrisson Ngau,a Kayanand a social activist. 5 With the blockadesof timber roadsand with otherkinds of resistance to forest destruction inSarawak, international andMalaysian attention havebeen focused on the problemof loggingand other environmental issues inSarawak and Malaysia. However, these incidents promptedthe SarawakState Legislative Assembly to amendthe Forest Ordinanceon 25November 1987, making it punishableby atwo-yearjail term anda Žneof $6000 i fapersonset upa structure ona roadconstructed by atimber licensee ora permit holder.As aresult, inDecember 1987 41 Penan andKayan and two members ofFriends ofthe EarthMalaysia wereimprisoned. However,this arrest didnot stop agroupof Penan representatives fromdeclaring that the amendmentwas unjust andreafŽ rming their right to buildblockades on their ownland to protect it. Theblockades were f ollowedby a series ofprotests andblockades in other 985 SABIHAH OSMAN

areas, suchas inSungai Tatau, Bintulu in 1989, Long Geng Village inthe upper RejangRiver in 1990,andin Belaga District in July 1991.For the Tataucase, eight Ibanlaunched a blockadeto preventthe timber company,Daiya Malaysia SdnBhd from encroaching further on native customaryland. In the case ofLong GengVillage, eight Kenyahset upa humanblockade to stop the logging activities in that area.As aresult ofthe Tattooblockade, eight Banwere sentencedto prisonterms betweensix andnine months, after beingfound guilty ofthe chargeof ‘ criminal intimidation’. EightKenya from the LongGeeing Village weref orcedto sign abondof good behaviour for six monthsand were later released (Phoa1996: 2 04).In August 1991 eight Bans weresent to prison followinga series ofprotests involvingmore than 70 men, women and children in anattempt to protect their customaryland rights fromencroachment by a loggingcompany, Uh Seeing Sawmill SDI Bad(Phoa 1996: 2 04;Gasper, 1997: 76– 80).In Kanowit, another blockade occurred at LongAjeng, Baram, where a groupof Penan, with the supportof other indigenous communities, organizeda protest to preventthe loggingof the area towhich the Penanpeople claim customaryrights. Besides arresting andcharging the indigenousgroups con- cerned,the state governmentalso chargedthe individualprotesters, includinga local environmentalist, AndersonMutang Urud, a Kelabit andleader ofthe SarawakIndigenous People’ s Alliance ( SIPA)fromLong Napir in UluLimbang. Hewas chargedunder Section 42ofthe Societies Act foralleged involvement in anillegal society andprovoking unrest in February199 2. Inresponse to the indigenouspeoples’ struggle andprotest movements,the state governmentaccused green activists, suchas Friends ofthe EarthMalaysia, the GreenPeace movementin Germanyand individuals suchas BrunoManser fromSwitzerland, of inciting the IPsto launchtheir protests andblockades. Commentingon this particular ‘interference’, SarawakChief Minister Taib Mahmudsaid, ‘It is ourhope that outsiders will notinterfere in ourinternal affairs, especially peoplelike BrunoManser. The state governmentof Sarawak has nothingto hide. Ours is anopen liberal society’ (BorneoBulletin , 19 July 1987,quoted in Manser, 1996: 160 ).To counter the allegations andcriticisms, the state governmenttightened control over the entryof foreign environmental- ists, journalists andŽ lm crews into the state. As pointedout by the Sarawak Chief Minister, foreignenvironmental activists ‘haveno right tocome and stir uptrouble in the State’( New Straits Times ,8July 1991).At the same time, the governmentblacklisted individuals fromforeign countries andPeninsular Malaysia, particularly Friends ofthe EarthMalaysia andBruno Manser, from enteringthe state. Thestate governmentdefended its timber policyon the groundsthat ‘Sarawakwas heavilydependent on its loggingindustry to progress. Loggingnot only brought in revenuesof several billion ringgit ayearto the State interms ofexport proŽ ts, it also generatedbusiness opportunitiesthroughout the State. Andit helpedto feedmore than 250 000 men, women and children of the State’s population’(Ritchie, 1993:61).In support of the state government,the Malaysian governmenthas engagedf oreignresearchers to counterwhat it regardsas misrepresented reports aboutMalaysian loggingactivities in 1992. Theproject, which cost betweenRM5 and RM10 million, focusedon the socio-environmentalaspects ofthe timber industrywith special referenceto 986 THE RESPONSE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OFSARAWAK

Sarawak,and was sponsoredby the Malaysian TimberIndustry Development Counciland the SarawakTimber Industry Development Corporation (Phoa, 1996: 208). Althoughthe responsefrom the state andthe federal governmentto the indigenouspeoples’ blockades and protest movementswas to acertain extent negative,it nevertheless managedto attract international andMalaysian attention to the problemof logging in Sarawak.Overall, the globalization process has madeit possible forthe IPsto buildup their networkingwith other NGOs in and outside the country.A numberof people’ s organizationshave arisen amongthe IPs, suchas UmaBawang Resident’ s Association in Sarawak,Sarawak Penan Association, SarawakIndigenous People’ s Alliance ( SIPA),Friends ofthe Earth Malaysia, with bases inSarawak, and the BorneoResources Institute ( BRIMAS), an NGO whichworks on indigenous issues andacts as aresearch andresource centre onsuchissues. Theprotest movements,thus, should be seen in the wider contextof globalization. They manifest the IPs’struggle in defenceof environ- mental rights andsocial justice—‘in otherwords, about a just state’(Majid- Cooke,1999) and about a just social orderfor actors involvedat variouspolitical levels, includingnon-state politics. Althoughthe protest movementswere easily quashed,the real grievancesand deep-seated resentments persist.

Concludingremarks Inthe abovediscussion wehave looked at the impact ofglobalization on democratization,and how globalization forces havedisrupted the indigenous peoples’everyday li febysuch processes as loggingactivities andhydroelectric damprojects. Sarawakhas beneŽted considerablyfrom socioeconomic development, but unevendevelopment and marginalization ofcertain groups,particularly the indigenouspeoples, are also areality. As mentioned,the integration of Sarawak’s economyinto a moreopen and free-market system has affected the indigenouspeople’ s everydaylives. Throughstate orprivate development activities, suchas landdevelopment, the changesin agricultural activities, logging,road building, the expansionof urban areas andthe developmentof hydroelectricpower like the Bakundam project, the indigenouspeoples of Sarawakhave been f orcefullydisplaced andrelocated to newareas. Thedestruction ofthe tropical rainforest bylogging activities inSarawak is, inf act, notlimited to local controversial issues suchas blockadesand unlawful occupationof state landbetween the indigenouspeoples of Sarawak and the Malaysian/Sarawakgovernments. As noted,in some situations the federal and state governmentshave treated this problemas aserious globalissue between international NGOsandthe Malaysian/Sarawakgovernment. In this instance, globalization has affected boththe nation-state andthe indigenouspeoples in different ways. Inthe case ofSarawak, globalization has triggeredgreater awareness among the indigenouspeoples of sel f-empowermentand democratization, which are important forces in capturingglobalization. The indigenous peoples of Sarawak havebeen more courageous and bolder than their counterpartsin Peninsular 987 SABIHAH OSMAN

Malaysia. Throughtheir blockadesand protest movements,they have shown that theyknow how to use ‘power’to speakand to resist the globalizingforces that threaten their wayof life andeconomic activities.

Notes 1 Theresearch was conductedin Kuching, Samarahan, Asajaya andSimunjan. The research team consisted ofRashila Ramli, BilcherBala andSabihah Osman, all ofUniversity Kebangsaan Malaysia, and Lim Phay Ingof Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Theteam concentratedon interviewsand administering questionnaires inelection campaign centres inKuching,Asajaya, Samarahan andSimunjan. The team alsoclosely followed electionspeeches givenduring the rallies organizedby various political parties andindependent candidates. 2 Inthe past a longhouseheadman ( tuai rumah)was elected throughdiscussions held on the ruai (a roofed balcony)of the longhouse. A ballotwas cast bya simple showof hands. When the Brookes and the British colonizedSarawak, theycreated andappointed other political positions, namely, regional chief and paramountchief (JayumA. Jawan, 1994:46, Sutlive Jr, 1992: 8). 3 Theexchange rate beforethe July 1997 economic crisis was US$1 5 RM2.50.After theimposition of selective capital controlsin September 1998 the rate was Žxedat US$1 5 RM3.80. 4 Itis truethat, in general, logging activities are legal,but sometimes thelicensed logging companies do not workonly in their given area. Theyoften even go beyondthe Ž xedboundary. For this reason, ‘ Theydestroy cultivatedregions, plough through temuda (fallowrice Želds)and fruit gardens, and bulldoze graveyards’ (Manser,1996: 90). 5 TheInternal Security Act ( ISA)was Žrst introducedin 1960,when the 12-year emergency was liftedby the Malayangovernment. The Act empowers thepolice to hold for up to60 days anyone who acts ina manner consideredprejudicial to the security of Malaysia. ISA givesthe authorities wide powers of preventive detention.However, the ISA is nowbeing used to curb freedom ofexpression and restrain peoplefrom criticizingthe government.

988