ORANG ASLI CASE STUDY

1
ORANG ASLI CASE STUDY

• Introduction break into 3 groups
• Each group to divide into 3 subgroupsOA, State,
  Mediator
• 10 mins Read case study
• 20 mins Discusssion
• 5 mins Orang Asli present case
• 5 mins State present case
• 2 mins Orang Asli respond
• 2 mins State respond
• 3pm Mediator groups present recommendations

2
FOCUS OF QUESTION

• Can colonialism or sovereignty remove native
  title rights and rights of livelihood?
• Are these the same questions?
• Can Australians claim Australia as no mans land
  and remove native title rights of the Aborignes
  ?
• Can Americans claim USA and remove native title
  rights of the American Indians?
• Can Americans attack Iraq and remove native title
  rights of the indigenous groups?
• Can England colonise Scotland and remove their
  property rights?

3

• Orang Asli native title different from private
  registered native title - mainstream perceptions
  of land as an economic factor of production.
• Orang Asli not same category as other Malaysian
  citizens, OA have special attachment to land
  and without any skill, education or way to live
  as the other communities, they will find it
  difficult to relocate themselves and start
  afresh. - seriously disadvantaged in a market
  economy.
• For the indigenous people, Native title rights
  and livelihoods are intertwined. The Orang Asli
  are dependent on the forest for their day to day
  needs. Food, housing material, water, medicine.

4

• .
• OA depend on land for ETHNIC IDENTITY , CULTURE
  and tradition. Housing designs, community
  relationships- adat of leadership structure ,
  customs of hunting, clearing land, burial,
  births.- Use
  of land and communal ownership- sharing.
  Conservation rules on harvesting etc
• SPIRITUAL- when dead are buried, the dead are
  not gone but exist as spirits to protect the land
  and community. Orang Asli are intimately
  connected to the land.
• BUT, there is need for DEVELOPMENT.

5
RIGHTS TO DEVELOPMENT

• 2 competing interest are put against each other.
• Right of development vs right of livelihood
• Right of development and economic gain should not
  be at the expense of stealing from another. If
  not, it means that lives of minority groups are
  less valuable than other groups.
• One exception is that if development brings
  economic gain to the majority, then adequate
  compensation should be provided.

6
CONCLUSION

• 2 Legitimate conflicting rights livelihood
  rights vs development rights
• Native title rights are complex- cultural,
  spiritual attachment to land and inability to
  adapt to market economy not fully appreciated by
  mainstream legal systems- LIVELIHOOD RIGHTS
• More discussion and creative solutions need to
  be articulated to balance interest of OA and
  State
• Compensation more equitable and support
  programmes have to be comprehensive when native
  land is required for development