Malaysia is a developmentalist state (Embong 2000), and Sarawak lives up to Scott’s description of high modernism (Scott 1998). Developmentalist states assume a direct role in promoting and guiding economic expansion and growth. High modernist ideology generally favours rational engineering of entire social orders in creating ‘realisable utopias’, pervasive planning and rationalised production (Scott 1998: 97–8). In Sarawak, strategies used by political parties in power, bureaucracies, and non-state economic actors make two assumptions: that rural Dayak groups are vulnerable to being left behind in the face of globalisation, and that they need to be brought into the ‘mainstream’ of development (Majid Cooke 2002).
As a land development program, Konsep Baru is viewed by officials as promoting Dayak into the ‘mainstream’ of economic development. It promotes the conversion of Native Customary Land into oil palm plantations. Although plantations are not new to Sarawak, having been introduced by the government since the 1960s (Ngidang 2002), Konsep Baru is novel in its systematic targeting of land claimed under customary rights. That the emphasis is on productivity is clear. Lands regarded as ‘idle’ are to be converted into tangible assets, in the form of shares, so that native peoples can become shareholders in oil palm companies working on their land on a joint venture basis. The ratio for the joint venture is 60 per cent for the company and 30 per cent for local communities, with the government acting as a trustee and enjoying a 10 per cent share. Companies are given provisional leases of 60 years (considered good for two production cycles and a necessary incentive for return on investment), the renewal of which will be dependent on the outcome of negotiations among stakeholders. Local communities as landowners are to receive ‘certificates of title’ upon registration of their land in a land bank. Such registration enables the conversion of rural landscapes into oil palm plantation blocks (see Figure 2.1).
To help hasten the registration of Native Customary Land for use in the joint ventures, the Land Code Amendment was introduced in the year 2000. The emphasis on productivity is different from earlier phases of plantation development which had a mixture of aims, one of which was Dayak social and economic development on what was considered in planning circles as ‘state land’ (Ngidang 2002). Community responses to Konsep Baru have been varied, ranging from outright acceptance to resistance (Majid Cooke 2002). In between are those who engage in strategic agriculture, converting their land to oil palm themselves, as a smallholder crop, ahead of company bulldozers. Overall, regardless of the responses, there has been widespread anxiety over many issues, including: the exact role of government as trustee, if and when the oil palm market crashes; the tying up of land for 60 years; and confusion over what ‘certification’ implies, that is, whether it suggests individual or group entitlements and what it means in terms of access in the long term (see Majid Cooke 2002, 2003a).
These concerns are the surface manifestations of a much deeper uncertainty over tenure. Although customary rights are legally acknowledged in the Sarawak Land Code, they are often superseded or ignored in practice, depending on which state institution interprets them. While there are moves towards making customary rights universal through the court system, in most interpretations state institutions regard customary rights as contingent, easily overridden by state development needs (see Majid Cooke 2003a). A major question was how land ‘certificates’ could provide customary owners with better security against future capture by government development projects or against potential manipulation by large corporations (Majid Cooke 2002).
A second group of concerns was linked to the ambitious scope of the project. Although targets were not specific, officials made clear that, in order to meet the target of creating one million hectares of oil palm by 2010, at least 400 000 hectares were to come from Native Customary Land (interviews at Kuching, September 2001; Daily Express, 14 July 2004). Since many issues remained unresolved, the ambitious scale of the program created anxiety. Unresolved doubts about the status of the land have not died down, and they became an election issue in the Ba Kelalan by-election in October 2004, providing the opposition candidate with a substantial margin of votes (Daily Express, 20 September and 3 October 2004).
As recently as 2004 and 2005, many issues remained unresolved, while others had surfaced. These were raised during a number of hearings organised by the Malaysian Human Rights Commission. At the hearings, questions were raised about administrative and planning procedures, and interpretations made about government ‘sincerity’ with regard to developing Native Customary Land (Daily Express, 31 December 2004, 1 February 2005). First, in relation to administrative and planning procedures, questions were raised by rural Dayak as to whether frequent encroachments onto their land were a result of a planning process where maps were drawn awarding provisional leases or logging concessions without appropriate ground checks being made. Second, with regard to the many concerns among rural Dayak about land ownership, a key issue was whether land ‘certificates’ would be given to individuals or to ‘landowning groups’. Many answers were given in the meantime. Finally, when some Dayak landowners drew their own conclusion, they were said to be sceptical about the government’s real intention in land development because, since the adoption of the Land Code Amendment pushing for land registration under Konsep Baru, they had observed a lack of government action to make Native Customary Land more transparent. Since 2000, Dayak claimed that progress on perimeter surveys of customary land had been slow, as was the process of issuing titles to owners (Daily Express, 1 March 2005). As a result, they claimed to have experienced continued encroachment onto their land by logging and oil palm companies. Among those who have submitted their land for development under Konsep Baru, a new concern is the temptation of selling their developed land for quick gain. Using the sale or attempted sale of titled customary land by some Dayak individuals at Kanowit (one of the first areas where customary landowners enlisted in the Konsep Baru program), the government expressed concern about further titling (Daily Express, 17 May 2004). When such sales take place, Dayak are considered innocent objects, ‘robbed’ by reckless speculators, not a people who actively made viable decisions considering the new and complex situations they find themselves in, even though some of those involved were said to be a syndicate of ‘prominent community leaders and businessmen’ (Daily Express, 18 and 27 May 2005). With many issues remaining unresolved. Konsep Baru is seen to be moving slowly.[7]
Officials and planners attribute Dayak selectiveness in embracing development projects to traditionalism or anti-developmentalism. Under Konsep Baru, native peoples are urged to become ‘modern’. Modernity is contrasted with conservatism and this duality is seen as seeping through every level of social life. But it is the mental attitudes that officials want to change. ‘A radical mental revolution is required to effect paradigm shift in the attitudes and perceptions of landowners towards developing [Native Customary Land]’ (Sarawak Ministry of Land Development 1997: 17). Accordingly, to become ‘modern’, a person must see land as a commodity or an economic asset, to be traded and not treated as an heirloom nor seen as the only form of wealth. Dayaks are told that individuals must be prepared to take risks, share the cost of development (against being overly dependent on government assistance), and choose better alternatives for land use instead of keeping land in its ‘original’ state (ibid.: 17–18). In Sarawak persuasion is the key to the exercise of state power.
The process of persuasion as engaged in by state officials forms the crux of the next section of this chapter, which examines the discursive and practical element to Konsep Baru. Persuasion involves a two-step process. The first step entails convincing the more sceptical rural Dayak groups that they are in danger of being left behind, and that Konsep Baru is a vehicle for ‘catching up’. A second step calls for persuading rural groups to accept a trade-off: economic development and welfare against some aspects of citizenship rights, especially freedom of expression and association. Given spatial limitations, the second step will be dealt with only briefly (based on fieldwork in Ulu Teru in 2000 and 2001), and ought to be the subject of another paper.