‘1Dayak’ – defending the land?

By Apang and John Riwang

We wish to make another important point: when any group of people decides to build a united front, it can only mean a “united front against whom/what?” In this case, who or what does ‘1Dayak’ represent, and against whom/what? We believe by identifying this, it could illuminate the crux of such a formation. As reported in the same article in The Borneo Post as pointed out yesterday, such a principle did not seem to exist.

Interestingly, the issue of land was mentioned and somehow, it was implied that this could be an issue that 1Dayak should take on. But it stopped short of saying “against whom/what?” should we take on this land issue? Jeffrey Kitingan told The Borneo Post that “There should be a body to centralize our issues especially when it comes to land.”

Then immediately following the above sentence, Kitingan made a U-turn in his statement when it came to the question of land: “Land is a very sensitive topic among the people.” Now the question is: to whom is it “sensitive”? Why is it sensitive? Oh, for those of you who are not well-versed in Malaysian politics, “sensitive” is synonymous with “sshh…never talk about or discuss this subject”.

We believe that such “sensitivity” only belongs to the privileged politicians. Such “sensitivity”, if discussed among the masses at length, will threaten the power held by the elites. The elites, then, conveniently put a taboo on all things deemed “sensitive” and install this ideology into the minds of the masses, in order to prevent them from talking about such issues, like land.

Really, is land such a “sensitive” issue to the Dayak masses? Do the masses cringe in fear or shame when land is mentioned? We don’t think so. In fact, it is the elites who refuse to talk about land when it matters most to the Dayak communities.

We believe land is the most crucial ingredient in moulding the many Dayak histories, identities, cultures, and even their political strengths. In other words, land is the embodiment of Dayak life. Ironically, if the newspaper report is anything to go by, land was not thoroughly discussed. In fact, there was more coverage on marketing handicrafts, ‘cultural shows’, credit union and so forth, while the issue of land took a back seat.

Now, if 1Dayak is to be established, then the land issue should take centre stage. Like all other indigenous communities around the world, land plays a crucial role in determining their lives. The challenge is this: how does this 1Dayak establishment intend to defend the customary land rights of the many Dayak communities in Sarawak, Sabah and Kalimantan (minus Brunei)?

Taking into account the many Dayak adat that govern the land tenure and land use systems among the diverse Dayak communities, how does 1Dayak aim to highlight these issues and solve the land problems created by the two nation states of Malaysia and Indonesia? Therefore, is the state not the common enemy of the dispossessed Dayak communities?

Then there is also the rhetoric of “Borneo Land of Dayaks” as a name. Forget about lumping some of the Dayak elites as being reactionary, when the proposal for a new Borneo was clearly in direct response to the Sarawak Tourism marketing name of ‘Land of the Headhunters’.

Devoid of fundamentals

Unity based on race or ethnicity has been shown the world over to be manipulative at best, and outright brutal on the other side of the scale. Hitler’s atrocities must still ring a loud bell. Nearer to home, Suharto’s Indonesia and even Malaysia’s own racist violence, must never be allowed to return, in whatever shape or colour.

We can understand that there are legitimate reasons not to pin hope on the Pakatan Rakyat (PR), especially when there is so much politicking within PR that climbing to the top is no certainty. So naturally, the immediate reaction is to create something new, so that chances of being at the top are easier.

We have no illusions about such people. However, if that is all there is, for all intents and purpose, then the elites ought not to hide behind something that is greater, the liberation of the masses.

Just a simple reminder: there are more issues that need urgent attention, such as losing one’s rights over land to the state via logging operations and large-scale plantation projects.

Establishing another new organisation under the Dayak umbrella without clear principles can only be socially and economically detrimental to the masses. Worse, it creates a dangerous illusion of “oneness”. Besides, the oppressed masses do not have just one skin color!

Advertisement