For at least two years prior to the adoption of Konsep Baru in 1994, Dayak ‘vulnerability’ was a recurring theme adopted in different guises in the print media. Rural communities had real concerns over major shifts in their status from landowners to workers or minor shareholders in plantation companies. Fundamental concerns about access to the means of livelihood and tenure were not addressed or, if they were, only handled in a negative manner. These concerns were considered unfounded or old-fashioned by the proponents of Konsep Baru, who painted economic globalisation as inevitable and the perceived Dayak backwardness (katak di-bawah tempurong — ‘frog under the coconut shell’) as making them more ‘vulnerable’. If rural Dayak did not become active participants in globalisation, it was claimed, they might be left behind: ‘We have to transform the rights to our land into much more tangible assets that can increase in value, that can be transferable, and that can fit into our system of trade and business. Otherwise we will be left out.’^[8] Public debates were reduced to issues regarding technicalities, such as appropriate measures to adopt for land registration, so as to avoid confusion or delay, and for just compensation when land is withdrawn from the people for development.^[9]

Official claims of Dayak vulnerability are based on perceptions about their land tenure system, of leaving rich land ‘idle’, as the following quotations show. Chief Minister Taib was quoted in the Borneo Post of 19 July 1999 as saying: ‘The NCR [Native Customary Rights] land will be of not much use, unless something productive is done to exploit the natural wealth to help the people.’ He was supported by Polit Hamzah, General Manager of the Land Consolidation and Development Authority:

A large number of people have lands but they do not do anything about it. The Chief Minister wants to transform these lands into tangible assets. If these abandoned lands are transformed into plantations, landowners will receive shares making their rights over the lands become tangible assets (quoted in New Reality, May–June 2000: 18–19).

Similarly, an industry representative spoke of native peoples simply ‘wandering around’ in the jungle because there was abundant land.^[10]

Dayak can circumvent this vulnerability to poverty by making their land more marketable — so the argument goes. One sure way of making ‘idle’ land (tanah terbiar) more productive is through plantation agriculture. Plantations are equated with progress, while progress is seen as inevitable and not to be prevented: ‘Land owners who take harsh action to prevent the government’s move to develop their land through the private firms will only mar their own progress’ (Chief Minister Taib, New Reality, May–June 2000: 16).

The theme of rich but ‘idle’ land is picked up by many in government,^[11] and is shared by some elements within the public service, although among the latter there is a range of views. From one point of view, the ‘complex land tenure problem’ see is expected to melt away as farmers become better educated and are drawn away from farming activities (Chua 1992: 104). On the other hand, the position represented by Dandot (1992) suggests that neither ‘idle’ land nor the land tenure system is to blame, but rather: 1) the failure to provide clear explanations about the benefits or options of land development that are available to farmers; and 2) the inadequate surveying, demarcation and recognition of customary land prior to the introduction of land development schemes. However, both positions regard the native land tenure system as a ‘problem’ to be solved, not a solution for arriving at alternative types of land development.

Recently, the ideology of rural backwardness and vulnerability has not diminished nor taken on new form. In 2004, close to 10 years after the inception of Konsep Baru, the critique against rural cultural life as embodied in notions about ‘idle’ or ‘waste’ land continues.^[12]