President
Soekarno declared land reform to be “an indispensable part of the Indonesian
Revolution” (CCCIL 1988). The consequent execution of development programs for
reconstructing the nation have provoked much hostility over issues concerning
territorial rights. Global market forces in Indonesia have also seen heavy
transnational flows of investments, capital, technology, foreign exchange and
human resources that have similarly created a great demand on sea and land
spaces.
Repelita vi, a chapter in Indonesia’s twenty-five-year long-term
Development Plan under the leadership of President Suharto, affirms the pledge
to carry out planning that will encompass “the whole nation, in an integrated,
well-directed manner involving continuous and interrelated stages”. Yet in
this momentum of change, several aspects of rural culture, in particular those
categories as the Suku-Suku terasing (isolated people) in Indonesia, are
severely criticised as a hindrance to progress.
The Orang Laut (sea nomads) in Riau, a categorical example of the
Suku-Suku terasing who practice a mobile life style and economy, will provide my
main point of reference, since that is where my own experience as an
anthropologist lies. This paper focuses on the Orang Suku Laut’s anxious
speculations about development projects infringing upon their living and life
spaces. The general ethnography presents the Orang Suku Laut self-perceptions
and their living spaces, their mode of production and the perceptions of the
Orang Laut by others. This paper based on information and observations gathered
through field work.
Prevailing definition of development, which misrecognise certain modes of
living and claims to property rights as unproductive, have resulted in pressure
programs causing dramatic changes to existing communities, thus threatening
their claims for the tenure of territoriality and their livelihood systems.
Hence, whether the momentum of change brought about by development programs in
Indonesia is harmoniously propelling continuity and adaptation into its agenda
to encompass one and all is the issue I want to consider in this paper.
Several pertinent questions are thus raised in this paper. The first
concerns rethinking the concept of nomadism and the question of production. The
second looks at the concept of ownership by examining forms of land tenure, or
what I deem more appropriate: the tenure of space or territoriality. This paper
is thus not solely devoted to the processes of change. Rather, it aims at
provoking anthropologist, economists and planners for development programs to
examine where and why they erect categorical boundaries. This simultaneously
confronts us with a new agenda in the frame work of change with two related
questions. First, “Are nomadic peoples capable of participating in
developmental programs?” Second, “who is to assume the responsibility of
continuity and adaptation?”
Background
and Setting
The
Orang Suku Laut in the Riau archipelago of Indonesia are more commonly referred
to as the Orang Laut. When translated, “Orang Suku Laut” means “a tribe of
sea people”. Existing literature refer to the Orang Laut as “sea nomads”,
“sea folk”, “sea gypsies” and “people of the sea”. The Orang Laut
are also sometimes referred to as Suku Sampan or Orang Sampan. The Orang Laut
have also been described as “sea hunters and gatherers” rather than as “fishermen”.
Reasons given have been that “sea fishing with them is for the most part
simply an extension of simple hunting and gathering”,which is basically a
“primitive” culture. Hence,with this prevailing view,I proceed to re-open
the case for the Orang Laut.
The Orang Laut in Riau traverse an archipelago that encompasses over
3,200 islands in an area spanning from the central part of the east coast of
Sumatra to the South China Sea. The archipelago is checkered by a diverse
population of about 50,000 people, which also includes the Malays, Javanese,
Baweanese, Minangkabau, Buton and Chinese. In 1993, the Kantor Social in Tanjung
Pinang estimated the Orang Laut population in Riau as comprising 1,757 males and
1,652 females. These given figures are highly disputable. In the course of my
field work, I found it impossible to coincide officially registered figures with
the census that I had recorded. The mobile economies of the Orang Laut and the
relaxed system of registering births and deaths officially in island Riau are
among the various reasons for their hazy population figures for the Orang Laut.
The Orang Laut live in a region which has been designated as a zone for
increased economic programs since December 1989. An economic co-operation
agreement formalised as the ‘Growth Triangle’ was signed between a Riau,
Singapore and Johor in Malaysia. This sub-regional co-operation is aimed at
complementing and linking the three countries endowed with different comparative
advantages to form a larger region with greater potential for growth. As a
result, limelight has once again shone on Riau bringing it to new heights of
political and economic importance.
Government and private business propositions have, among their various
other enterprises, focused on promoting the marine tourist industry in Riau. The
province is seen as boasting ‘an archipelago of virgin islands’. Plans are
under way to transform the island chain into the ‘Caribbean of the East’. To
lure investors to the sea, ‘pioneer status and tax breaks are being awarded to
promote marine tourism, particularly the building of marina clubs and resort
hotels, in the more remote parts of the archipelago’. Golf courses have also
been part of the scheme to turn Riau into an ideal tourist belt.
Against the backdrop of plans to transform Riau’s sea and land spaceare
the three million people who earn their living from fishing, farming, forestry
and trading in the province. Business analysts are taking note of Riau’s
territorial waters that span 235,000 square kilometres. They are now talking
about the vast ‘potential of the fishery industry’. Presently, the local
inhabitants in Riau practice open sea and kelong fishing and fish farming.
However, the joint partners of the Growth Triangle are more interested in
promoting higher-technology ventures in ‘aquaculture, seaweed and prawn
farming’.
Potential dangers of displacing the local inhabitants posed by unchecked
development projects have not gone unnoticed. Soeripto, the governer of Riau
province, has noted the need to involve the Bintan islanders, with special
mention of the fishermen, in development projects planned for the province. He
was quoted as saying that they too could become involved in some way so that
they would not be ‘disturbed’ by the planned development. However, his
suggestions were without elaboration on how these fishermen could be involve in
the tourism industry.
On
many fronts, both directly and indirectly, the Orang Laut have been targeted for
what are hailed as modernisation and developmental schemes. The Growth Triangle
program has either already had an impact or is beginning to make imprints on
some local communities including those of the Orang Laut.
Just as critical is the official definition of Orang Laut communities.
Indonesian authorities classify rural communities into a hierarchically ordered
four-category scale. The four-category comprise swadaya (traditional) villages,
swakarya (traditional) villages, swasembada (developed) villages and pra-desa (pre-villages).
The letter is regarded as a group prior to rural community. These categories
correspond to ideas of ‘the expected stages of development through which rural
communities are to progress uniformly as they move toward true integration into
an advanced and modern Indonesian nation’. The Orang Laut are defined as the
suku-suku terasing (isolated and alien people), or suku-suku terbelakang (isolated
and backward peoples) who formcommunities
categorised as ‘pre-villages’ or ‘traditional’ villages.
Based on Colchester’s translation of the explanatory memorandum which
accompanied the 1979-1984 Five-Year Plan (Colchester 1986: 90), the identifying
characteristic of the suku- suku terasing are as follows. I have italicized the
issues for further emphasis in this paper.
1.Many of these people subsist partly by hunting, fishing and by
gathering forest products. Their rudimentary economics employ extremely simple
nomadic farming practices and equipment. These farming techniques are
devastating the environment and pose dangers to maintaining ecological
equilibrium.
2.These peoples have animistic practices. They are contrary to the five
principles of the state philosophy of Pancasila. The first of which is belief
in one Almighty God.
3.Their social systems are unstructured, in which people live in small
scattered and dispersed groups, isolated from the mainstreamof religious, ideological, political, economic, social and cultural
life. They distrust anything coming from the outside.
4.These peoples depending as they do on the resources of their natural
environment, are nomadic and, therefore, it is impossible for the government
to extend to them administrative and other services.
5.These peoples are generally minimally clothed, covering only their
vital parts.
6.The diet of these peoples is inadequate.
7.Their dwelling are merely
places that provide shelter and a place to sleep. They are far below the norm
and requirements that have been established for healthy, secure and
pleasurable human dwellings.
8.The health conditions of these peoples are far below generally accepted
norms for healthy living.
9.Formal education is unknown. Most of these people are illiterate.
10.The art and culture of these people has merely achieved a very
primitive level and their dances are still predominantly magico-religious in
character.
11.Their economics are centred on a system of barter. Monetary exchanges
are still largely unknown.
12.Most of these people remain ignorant of the existence of the government
or one of the concepts of the Indonesian nation and state. They have no sense
of their duties as citizens.
13.These people have no capacity or ability to with stand external and
internal political threats. In the context of the state doctrine of total
people’s defence, these isolated communities constitute weak groups and
regions within the total system of defence.
14.These people are not yet in a position to enjoy the fruits of national
development. Moreover, they are not contributing anything to the progress of
nation and state.
Such views of the Orang Laut’s non –relationship with spaces that
they occupy clearly mean that they are regarded as possessing no tenure
systems.
Their problems are compounded by Indonesian land rights legislation.
Indonesia’s land laws are enshrined in the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960 whereby
adat law replaced formalised Western Laws relating to land ownership. Under the
traditional adat land rights system, land is an inalienable and common property
of the community that cannot be bought, sold or leased.
However, Article 5 of the 1960 Basic Agrarian Law simultaneously
contradicts the traditional territorial rights of the Orang Laut. It states that,
‘The agrarian law which applies to the earth, water and air space is adat law
as long as it does not conflict with the national and State interests, based
upon the concept ofone nation, and
with Indonesian socialism along with regulations that are issued accoding to
this Law and with other legal regulations, all of above with due regard to
principles deriving from religious law’.
Furthermore, Articles 3 and 14 of the Basic Agrarian Law No.5 weaken the
position of tribal people to their land. Article 3 of the Law states clearly
that traditional communal property rights must have a form ‘that is consistent
with the national and State’s determination, based upon the concept of one
nation. Also, it cannot be contrary to others law and regulations with higher
force’. Article 14 adds to the anxieties by stating that the government
‘shall, within the frame work of Indonesian socialism, make a general policy
with regard to the supply, preparationand
use of the earth, water and air space along with natural wealth they contain for
the needs of the State, for the need of religion and other sacred uses,
according to the principle of the One True God, for the basic living needs of
the people, for the need to increase the production of agriculture, animal
husbandry and fishing, for the use of developing industry, transmigration and
mining. Hence, land rights are under pressure to be relinquished in the face of
competing claims by the state. The Law also only provides legal security to
registered property. This requirement overlooks the fact that documentary proof
of title is irrelevant in traditional law. Hence the predicament of the Orang
Laut.
Argument
It
is thus not surprising that most orang asli studies are concerned sociocultural
problems in view of changes brought about by developmental or modernisation
programs. Yet, as cautioned by Benjamin, ‘unarmed investigators have tended to
take up implicitly an evolutionary –ladder approach to cultural differences.
Consequently differences that have in fact resulted from choice, such as
following a foraging way of life instead of swiddening or an intensive
agriculture one, have been seen instead as unavoidable steps in a progression
from primitivity toward civilisation’. Such characterisations of the orang
asli as noted by Benjamin have appeared numerously in text books, newspapers and
other media.
Heed must be paid Benjamin’s insightful caution. It is precisely the
‘evolutionary –ladder approach’ that deems the Orang Laut to be foragers
moving around helter –skelter in the vast expanse of the sea in search of
food. Tenure of territoriality for the Orang Laut is denied because they are not
recognised as producers, but as nomadic foragers. Depicted as premitive foragers,
the Orang Laut are also viewed in practising a rudimentary sort of economics.
Their fishing activities are seen as focused on immediate needs with no regard
to securing anything for their long –term well –being. Consequently, the
Orang Laut are depicted as a people whose lifestyle runs contrary to all aspects
of development, responsibility for the environment and the progress of the
nation and state. Such views have perpetuated the agenda of all those concerned
with developmental programs to aim for drastic changes such as the
‘disappearance’ of communities such as the Orang Laut.
This misrecognition is addressed in this paper. I argue for the need to
abandon the oversimplified dichotomy of equating nomadism with the unmonitored
extraction or removal of resources from the environment for human use, and
sedentarism with responsible producers or developers who appropriate resources
and convert them into objects of property that are properly managed for present
and future needs.
The question of production and tenure of territoriality among
hunters and gatherers is addressed here. Marx and Engels were of the opinion
that hunters and fisher-people belong to the ‘the undeveloped stage of
production’. Marx, in the ‘introduction to a Critic of political economy’,
also implied that production first begins with agriculturalists. Childe’s
model of social evolution, however, distinguishing between ‘savage’ food –gatherers
who act as parasites on nature, and ‘barbarian’ food –producers who
culture plants and animals, also harmed much subsequent discussion of hunting
and gathering activities. The Orang Laut, who are often regarded as hunters –gatherers
of the sea, are thought to forage for rather than produce their food. They are
almost never seen as owners of resources.
These perceptions assume a passive relationship between hunters –gatherers
and the physical world. I extrapolate Hunn and Williams’ point on hunting
societies to argue that there is considerable evidence to show that the Orang
Laut communities, too, ‘actively manage resources via social control,
political manoeuvres, symbol and ritual’. Ingold’s challenge to traditional
views on the definition of production inspires the need to re-examine the
appropriation of nature in hunting and gathering societies. I take as my
starting point Ingold’s study of the interrelationship between environment,
society, technology and culture to introduce a clarity to the concept of
production in Orang Laut communities. Several key issues are raised to look at
how the Orang Laut interact and transform the maritime world via their social
organisation and strategies to produce a clear understanding of their economic
frame work.
First, I challenge the view that the Orang Laut are simply foragers who
do not engage the components of their environment in relations of tenure. I
argue for their tenure of territoriality and coin the concept of the Orang
Laut’s network of tenure of territorialities. There is free access of sea
space and most coastal fringes to all Orang Laut and non –Orang Laut alike.
Yet, the issue that must be stressed here is that the Orang Laut regard the sea
not only as their life space that provides them with their main source of food
and income, but also as a living space. I show how different groups of Orang
Laut modify and organise sea and coastal spaces into areas for custodianship.
Orang Laut communities have stories to tell to stake their tenure of
territoriality. These stories are verified and respected by other neighbouring
Orang Laut and non –Orang Laut communities in the region. For generations,
their stories and rituals have accrued as their title deeds that in code their
primary claims of responsibility for the area and its resources.
Second, I argue that the Orang Laut are engaged in an enduring
relationship with their maritime environment. They are not foragers who procure
their food through instantaneous activities of extra action from an unmodified
environment. In taking Ingold’s cue to rethink the concept of production, I
argue that the Orang Laut manifest ways of production similar to other food
producer. The Orang Laut are involved in what have been distinguished as the
hallmarks of production. They are namely,investment of labor,a creation of a
lasting mutual dependency with a modified envirnment and a delayed return system
of harvest and consumption. I show how the Orang Laut’s ongoing and cordial
relationship of making presentation to sea and land spirits is the essence of
reproducing resources. The aim is to access and appropriate resources.
Third,an ethnographic account of the Orang Laut’s repertoire of
material and intellectual technology furnishes a requisite account of their
external and internal tools of production and reproduction respectively. This is
an analysis countering prevailing criticisms of the simple practices and
equipment of the Orang Laut. Besides the remarkable range of self-constructed
fishing gear that enables the Orang Laut to own their own means of prodction,this
section also draws attention to their intellectual technology. The latter must
not be overlooked. Intellectual technology is an important component of their
productive process. It is that which forms the platform of the Orang Laut’s
invalaualbe knowledge of the biodiversity of the maritime world,how maritime
species produces,the best ways of approaching and appropriating different
species and methods of labor co-0peration or formation of working partnerships
best suited for gleaning successful harvest from the sea.
Four,the discussion narrows to looking at the individual Orang Laut’s
strategies for producing for the future. This reorients nations of the Orang
Laut as foragers concerned only with the present. The ensuing ethnographic
discussion on the networks of social obligations to share and help must be seen
as the Orang Laut’s framework of production. Within this framework of
production,the Orang Laut are able to stake a claim to the appropriation and
expantion of their resources earned through sharing and helping. This network of
obligations to share and help is comparable to a scheduling of productive
activities steeped in relations that are social,but more importantly,material.
Ingold speaks of the relationship between ‘storage’and sharing whereby
hunters and gatherers’invest their labor’and store their food in the
expectation of delayed return. I go a step further to argue that the Orang Laut
do not just earn equivalent shares in their network of social obligations. In
ways similar to all other producers keen to glean profits, the Orang Laut invest
in these networks and hope to multiply their resources as an insurance for their
future well –being. On this note, I shall proceed to discuss in greater detail
each of the issues that have been raised.
The
Tenure of Territory
Historically,
the Orang Laut were feudally organised into various suku. Different clans
occupied different territories and were assigned different tasks to serve the
ruler and were ranked accordingly. For example, the suku or orang Tambus who
were in charge of hunting dogs were among the lowest in rank, and the suku
Galang, a piratical tribe, was privileged group.
Such traditional polities no longer exist. Nevertheless, the Orang Laut
still organise themselves into separate clans occupying different islands and
moorage areas throughout the archipelago. Nowadays the Orang Laut do not speak
very much of themselves as suku Tambus or suku Galang, etc. This is
understandable in view of the connotations of servitude that such terms of
identification are associated with in the historical context of Riau.
Rather, my Orang Laut informants readily identified themselves as Orang
Pulau Nanga or Orang Teluk Nipah. It was a clear indication that they were keen
to talk of themselves as belonging to a certain territory. For instance, Pulau
Nanga and Teluk Nipah are islands in Galang area occupied by two different
groups of Orang Laut. These islands are in such close proximity that they are
within hailing distance. Yet the Orang Laut of both communities were adamant
that I recognise them as different groups occupiying distinct territories. Each
territory also acknowledged a different kepala(head) Orang Laut.
The sea and coastal fringes constitute life and living spaces for the
Orang Laut. Different groups of Orang Laut respect each other’s collective
tenure of territorial ownership. It is significant that other local non-Orang
Laut communities respect such areas as belonging to the Orang Laut too. On my
visit to the Pulau Nanga Orang Laut community,the Malays in the neighboring
island of Sembur instructed me to inform Bolong,the headman of the Pulau Nanga
Orang Laut community,of my presence before I commenced my fieldwork. Likewise,while
making known my presence to Bolong, the latter reminded me that he was only the
headman for the Orang Laut in Pulau Nanga. Bolong stressed that should I decide
to cross over to the other Orang Laut community in Teluk Nipah, then I would
have to seek meen’s permission. Meen was the headman of the ‘other’ Orang
Laut commonity in Teluk Nipah.
In the weeks that followed, Bolong’s younger sister, Suri, explained
her family’s territorial ownership of Pulau Nanga.
‘My father, Apong, used to live on the sea. Then he had enough
interaction with the Malays and took up a religion. He then cleared the jungle
–Pulau Nanga was formerly all jungle –and build his house here. It was an
atap house. Not like the zinc –houses that we live in now. Sometimes, my
father would live on land. Sometimes, he would on the sea. Our father was the
first to live on Pulau Nanga. Therefore, our keturunan (ancestry, descent) is in
Pulau Nanga. This is our tanah (land). No one can buy or take Pulau Nanga away
from us. All of us who live here are family. There are no outsiders among us’.
Non-Orang Laut communities in the area support Suri’s claim of
territorial ownership. They verify and respect the fact that Apong, an Orang
Laut, was indeed the first settler on Pulau Nanga, and thus the owner of the
island. In fact, the Chinese in the area tell me that even before Apong had set
up house on the island, his boat- dwelling family had already long before moored
their houseboats in the waters of Pulau Nanga.
In recognition of Apong’s descendants’ territorial claim of Pulau
Nanga, Meen, the headman of the Orang Laut community in Teluk Nipah, explained
how his family had in turn come to claim ownership of Teluk Nipah. In his
account, Meen also explained why his family had chosen not to go the
neighbouring Pulau Nanga in spite of it being inhabited by Orang Laut.
‘My mother’s name was Nenah and my father’s name was Gebak. Their
keturunan is Daik. We were facing difficulties there, so we rowed here for fish.
We were boat dwelling. We set up a kebun (small farm plot) and built a house in
Teluk Nipah. There were already people on Pualu Nanga. Apong had settled there,
but our asal is different. Although there were Orang Laut on Pulau Nanga, we did
not want to settle there. They were suku lain. We were the first Orang Laut to
settle on Teluk Nipah. This is our tanah’.
Meen’s claim of his family’s territorial ownership of Teluk Nipah
parallels with that of how Apong’s descendants have come to claim territorial
ownership of Pulau Nanga. The tenure of territoriality is contingent on the
exclusive story that each clan possesses. The cricial aspects being how they
were the first group to recognise the potential of the area as a moorage ground
or as a place to be cleared of jungle shrub for a settlement.
These stories are the group’s collective territorial
rights to a particular place or places. Although there continues to be free
access of sea and land space to all, the Orang Laut hold the title deeds to
these territories in the form of their stories. These title deeds modify and
organise sea and coastal spaces into areas for custodianship for the Orang Laut.
These rights mean that others should ask permission to enter their territory.
Perhaps more importantly, these rights also invest the Orang Laut with
responsibilities for the area and its resources. It is thus the concern of the
Orang Laut to jaga their territories and to maintain and reproduce the resources
in the area. The rituals performed by the Orang Laut are a manifestation of
their responsibility for custodianship.
Lacet, a member of the Pulau Nanga Orang Laut community, explained how
his older brother Ceco was responsible for protecting their village. ‘None of
us knows everything. Hence, each of us is responsible for different things. My
elder brother Ceco jaga kampong (protects the village). He protects our kampong
from other people who might try to harm us and disturb our tanah. From time to
time, Ceco will jampi (cast spells) and give beras (uncooked rice) to our
tenah’.
The
explantation offered for Ceco’s acts of scattering grains of uncooked rice was
twofold. First the rice is scattered in the open space that separates the front
and back of Pulau Nanga from other island communities. This rice scattering
ritual was thus to protect the Pulau Nanga Orang Laut from outsiders who may
have entered and caused harm and induce them to leave the territory. Second,the
rice is scattered to appease the hantu (spirit),governing the territory to
ensure the well-being and continued productivity of the area.
Thus,contrary to criticisms levelled at the Orang Laut’s apathy to
establishing an enduring relationship with their envirnment and their lack of
interest in increasing the productivity of the areas they occupy,the Orang Laut
have an reality expressed and exhibited a compelling manifestation of their
concern. The Orang Laut assume responsibility to protect and take care of the
area as soon as they assume collective tenture of territoriality. This
responsibilities is enhanced by the fact that the territory is given to them by
their ancestors. This gift establishes an inalienble bond between the givers and
recipients.
Ingold’s approach to understanding tenture as analogousto Mauss’s treament of the gift is appropriate for understanding the
inalienable bond between the Orang Laut and their tenture of territoriality.
Mauss’s theory of the gift revolves arround the spirit that is embedded in
person and things. A gift is more than an inactive object. The spirit that is
embedded in the gift bears the personhood of the giver ‘beyond the
spatio-temporal bounds of his own immediate self’. Thus through gifts ‘the
giver has a hold over the beneficiary’. The gift contains a power that is
‘invested with life’ and it seeks ‘to produce,on behalf of the clan and
the native soil from which it sprang’. Hence the constant concern of the Orang
Laut lies in the why they should piara,care for and protect their territory. The
Orang Laut express this concern by carrying out periodict rituals to empower the
continued life between the giver and themselves are recipients of the gift.
Every claim of tenture,as ingold correctly argues, is a ‘linear
projection of past into future,the rather than as a sequence of isolable events
each frozen in the instant of present’. All claims constitute ‘part of a
continuous process, expression an intention or promise for the future through
the fulfilment of past obligation. A contemporary patch of land is thus seen as
having a time dimention represented by ancestral estates’.
Elsewhere I discuss the categories of things possessed by the Orang Laut
and how these things are expressions of Orang Laut identity. I adapt Weiner’sterminology to refer to the gift of territoriality as inalienable objects
of the Orang Laut. In Weiner’s analysis of inalienable wealth,she states that
‘keeping these things instead of giving them away is essential to retaining
one’s social identity the primary value of inalienability, however, each
expressed through the power these things have to define and locate who one is in
the historical sense. The objects act as a vehicle for bringing past time into
the present, so that the histories of ancestors, titles or mythological events
become an intimate part of a person’s present identity. To lose this claim to
the past is to lose part of who one is in the present. The quality of sacredness
increases the more these things are kept out of circulation’.
Thus, during the second phase of my field work, when developmental
projects were threatening to encroach upon the Orang Laut territories in the
Galang area, the Orang Laut voiced their anxieties over losing their gift of
territoriality. Boat, a member of the Pulau Nanga community, was among the first
to raise the issue with me.
‘This place is going to be developed. In time to come, we will
experience difficulties. The government wants to build this place into a town.
We are still uncertain as to whether or not we would have to move. For us, we
have been on this land since we were young children. This is tanah kami (our
land) and not the tanah of others. Hence, we want to know what they intend to do
with our tanah. If the government wants to help, we will accept their help.
However, if they want to buy this tanah from us for Rp.20,000 or Rp.50,000, we
will not accept it. We have a lot here. This is because our father, mother and
siblings are all buried here. We do not want to disturb them. It will only make
us malu (ashamed) to move. Who wants to move? No one wants to. Just think. If
your father has died and you have buried him. You still want to disturb his
place what more do you want? Who is going to look after his grave if we move?
His hantu will kacau (disturb) us. We may not be able to see them, but they are
able to see us. We do not want to move to another island. We just want to live
and die in this one island, which is ours. This place has been marked out for
development all the way from Batam to Senyentong. They are building a high way
to link Batam to Senyentong and it will pass through Galang. Perhaps if this
development happens, they will tutup (close) our tanah and we will no longer be
able to kerja nyelan (work as a fisher- people). We will have to kerja ojek
(motorbike services) or bawah mobil (drive cars or taxis). If we do not know, we
will just have to learn. If we can dapat (get) fishing, then ofcourse we will
kerja nyelan. However, we not want to move. Our father gave us this tanah’.
The
Orang Laut also possess a concept of a network of interrelated territorialities.
In ways similar to the Bajau have three types of fishing grounds of relation to
their land-based settlements. They have choose to fish in areas close to their
village. An alternative decition is to embark on fishing voyages that may take
them several days away from their village. Otherwise,they may fish in distant
areas,which may take them away from their village for a number of months.
Yet the sites of production chosen,especially those of the latter
decition,are usually areas that are also cnsidered as part of their clan’s. It
is a network of territorial ownership through kinship. For example,it was a
common practice for Orang Laut families from Tiang Wang Kang to move to Palua
Nanga when they wanted a good harvest of sea cucumbers. Likewise,during the
season for comek(a variety of cattle fish),the Orang Laut from Pulau Nanga would
go to Tiang Wang Kang. In contrast,the Orang Laut in Teluk Nipah would head for
Bertam and Pulau Cakang,and vice versa.
Ingold has termed this as ‘fixed -point nomadism’,which entails ‘a
series of movies between pre-established locations’. The term ‘fixed-point
nomadism’ does not offer sufficient justice to the Orang Laut. Several reasons
prevail. First,the Orang Laut identify these sites as tempat kita juga.
Second,by identifying certain territories as such,they also assume
responsibility as custodians of the territory as discussed above.
Having made a point on why these sites of production should be considered
as the Orang Laut’s,I must also stress that the Orang Laut do fish in other
preestablished locations that they do not identify as tempat kita. They consider
these other territories as borrowed areas and present prestations to the spirits
whom they believe to govern the area. On the side of pragmatics,these movements
of settlement to the sites of production mean that populations of Orang Laut are
never so concerntrated in any one place to other hervest the area’s resources.
The network of territories thus serves to percel out resources.
Within the concept of territorial ownership for the Orang Laut,they also
observe the notion of the territorial ownership by sea spirit and land spirits.
Two Orang Laut friends from Pulau Nanga,Halus and Baggong,rowed me in a boat to
educate me in recognising and respecting the various forms of territorial
ownership by spirits. Halus said: ‘These corals here are rumah ikan(the house
of fishes). These are not dangerous areas’.
Later Bagong added:
‘Over there (pointing in the direction of jutting rocks) is a rumah
hantu laut (sea spirit’s house). It is best to avoid that area so as not to
disturb the spirit. There are spirits in all the tanjung (capes). Sometimes when
we come home, we fall ill immediately with a fver because the hantu laut has hit
our head’.
Important correlations can be drawn to territories identified as places
or houses of fishes, sea and land spirits. The houses of fishes are usually
coral reefs and small rocky or pebbly areas. These are important breeding
grounds for various varieties of fish. According to my Orang Laut friends, these
areas could be approached without fear of much danger. On the other hand, the
houses of sea spirits werelinked with accident- prone areas. Sacred territories
are also danger zones where the Orang Laut do not fish. These areas must be
approached with great caution and great respect. For instance, while traveling
with a group of Orang Laut from Tiang Wang Kang to Pulau Nanga, I was instructed
to remain to show respect to the spirits as we nigotiated a cape. This
ovservance of silence and great attentiveness also served to avoid any mishaps
until we had cleared the zone.
The
Appropriation of Maritime Products: Of Spiritual Matters and Economic Production
The
Orang Laut’s diet and income derives from a range of several fish species,
crustaceans, molluscs and other maritime creatures. Sometimes, they suppliment
their diet with hunted animals, fruits and berries gathered from surrounding
islands.
The Orang Laut are not passive dependents on the natural environment for
their resources. Instead, they have shown thatit is not uncommon for them to plan for amounts of catch to be harvested
from the sea prior to their fishing trips. For the Orang Laut, production levels
are achievable based upon the cordial relations that they establish with the
spirits who govern the territories they are entering. Territorial ownership, as
noted earlier, confers on the owner the right to be asked for permission to
enter and for the owners to be accorded due respect. Ceco of Pulau Nanga
elaborated:
‘Boat had asked the spirit to give him five to sixty fishes. The spirit
gave him even more. After that, one kilo of glutinous rice to the Tua peh Kong
(a Chinese spirit) near Teluk Nipah. Not to the Tua Peh Kong here, but to the
Tua Peh Kong there because Boat entered there and not here. Others give an egg
on a plate to the spirit. Yellow glutinous rice is given to the land spirit and
white glutinous rice is given to the sea spirit. There are many spirits in the
sea. There is Hantu Gin Bisu,Tok Putih,or Raja Blaer. There are many more’.
The
types of food prestations named by the Orang Laut varied,as did the ways in
which the prestations were made to the spirits. The crux of the issue that the
appropriation of maritime products is possible only if skill is combined with
humble and respectful attitude to the spirits governing the territory. An
amicable relationship rested on an exchange of goods and observing proper
rituals. In sum,spiritual matters and economic production are inseparable.
Intellectual
and Material Technology
The
Orang Laut deployand outstanding
wealth of material and intellectual technology to obtain their catch. The
material technology of the Orang Laut is wide ranging. Their boat is an
important example of their material technology that facilitates their mobile
economy. It functions both as a vehicle for them to traverse the archipelago and
as a house in which to live. The boat is thus their home and an important site
of production.
A part from buying their boats,most of the other fishing gear such as
their spears,lances and harpoons are self-constructed. Hence,the Orang Laut are
able to own their own means of production. The Orang Laut obtain wood for the
shafts of their spears,lances and harpoons from the forest or mangrove swamps.
They need only buy the metal spearheads,prongs and nylon lines for their fishing
gear. The Orang Laut find these thing affordable. They manifest great
resourcefulness in constructing their own fishing devices. There are times when
they do not even have to buy any material at all. Alone the shoreline they look
for washed-up materials such as tyres or broken umbrellas to construct their
fishing gear.
The Orang Laut also piara or care for things that are ofimportance to them. These things include their fishing equipment. The
word piara is also used when the Orang Laut refer to the adaption of persons.
Therefore in ways similar to adopting a person,the Orang Laut explain that to
adopt things and spirits entails taking care
of,feeding,protecting,raising,maintaining and guarding the things or spirits.
The adopt things and spirits also entails binding them with a spell. The Orang
Laut explain that when they cast spells over their material technology for
fishing, it endows their fishing gear with supernatural power. In the example
given below, Meen, an Orang Laut from Teluk Nipah, explains why he must adopt
his boat:
I adopt my boat because I would not have enough to eat if I were to catch
only Rp.1,000 worth of fish per day. Therefore,in order to travel further away
safely and to catch as much as say,Rp.40,000 worth of fish. I need to adopt my
boat properly. I must feed and spellbind it to attain a good catch. To adopt my
boat, or as the Chinese would say,to kong(spellbind)it,I have to feed it with
glutinous rice and nuts by placing them in front and at the back of the boat’.
It
is clear that the Orang Laut’s intellectual technology is intertwined with
their material technology for their fishing activities. The Orang Laut adhere to
the belief that to reap plentifully from their possessions,such as their fishing
equipment,they have to adopt their things well. More importantly,by adopting a
thing,a bond is established between the owner and the thing. This is because the
owner,through adoption,has decided to merge his and the
thing’s
identity that in essence is their soul.
The material technological of the Orang Laut is ever increasing. Those
who have moved ashore are also adding the net-fishing method to their range of
material technology. However, most of these nets are expensive and they to be
acquiredfrom Chinese middlemen. Initiative is also exercised by the
Orang Laut to expand their fishing methods. During the course of my second field
trip,I observed how the Orang Laut in Teluk Nipah had started to construct their
own fish farms next to their coastal homes. They were breeding the fry that they
had caught to reach sizes that would fetchthema good
market price. They also explained that live fish were in high demand by sea food
restaurant and could thus be sold for higher prices.
Above the constsllation of their material technology,the Orang Laut never
failed to emphasize their possession of ilmu as a necessary aspect of their
technology for fishing. The word ilmu is an Arabic-derived term which means
‘knowledge’ or ‘science’. Wilkilson lists the different kinds of
‘knowledge’ that the word ilmu refers to as, ‘learning,science,magic,any
branch of knowledge or magic’. The word encompasses similar meaning of
‘magic’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘science’ for the Orang Laut and Malays in
Riau.
For the Orang Laut,the word ilmu is intertwined with menings of
magic,knowledge and science. I aim at showing the applicability of looking at
ilmu as the Orang Laut’s intellectual-cum material technology inaccessing and
appropriating their maritime
resources.
The Malays often talk of the Orang Lautas possessing the most powerful and extensive ilmu. By this,Malays
usually mean ilmu hitam(black magic),since they regard the Orang Laut’s use of
ilmu hitam as resulting from the latter’s ‘lack of religion’.
Consequently,the Orang Laut are seen as jahat(evil) and dangerously beholden to
spirits that control the maritime world.
The Orang Laut dispute this accusation. They talk of their good ilmu to
help the general well-being of a person. The Orang Laut explain that they have
‘not received any school education’, but learn by ‘retaining everything in
their memory’. An Orang Laut likened their acquirement of ilmu to ‘people
who attend school’.
From a young age through observing and participating in their parents’
fishing activities,the Orang Laut acquire the extensive ilmu necessary to be
adept fisher-people. Their ilmu comprises learning how to construct their
fishing gear and how to spellbind them into effective and powerful tools. Their
ilmu also includes learning how to understanding and control the winds,currents
and tides that govern the sea,to be knowledgeable about rice fishing
grounds,mangrove swamps,danger zones in contrast to areas for refuge,how to
navigate their way through the archipelago by studying the position of the
sun,the moon and the stars.
Through their ilmu,the Orang Laut also establish a spiritual linkwith the spirits that control the maritime world. This link is mediated
by deciding to piara spirits. Consequently,the Orang Laut enmesh themselves in a
net-work of exchange and obligations to reciprocate with the spirits conceerned.
Suri,an Orang Laut from Pulau Nanga,explained the concept of adopting spirit:
We
piara the spirit. It means like feeding a child-to give it food. They will not
harm us if we cast spells. This is why to be friend the spirit-so we become
friends with spirit. We place food on the rock. We ask the spirit to place fish
in front of our boat so that we would be able to spear the fish. Sometimes we
can notsee the spirit. But we
still cast spells and ask, “Please spirit!give me fish. I face difficulties.
If you want eat,I will give (something) later,perhaps glutinous rice or
cigarettes”. It is not the spirit who ask,but we will utter this request to
the spirit to place fish in front of our boat. The spirit will give and we will
spear. After we have earned some money,we may also adopt our boat(by) giving
glutinous rice and cigarettes. We give because we minta’.
The
excerpt above clearly emphasized once again that the Orang Laut intertwine
spiritual matters and economic concerns to increase their production.
When discussing the Orang Laut’s technology in accessing their maritime
products,it is important to stress the importance of the working partnerships of
the Orang Laut requires them to work in pairs. Men and women from regular
partnerships when using the spear,harpoon and lance fishing method. The success
of the Orang Laut’s ilmu and jampi rests,among other factors,on whether the
fisher-couple cocok. The powers in a couple’s ilmu and their fishing abilities
are further heightened when in a partnership with one anoher. The partnership is
so significant that the couple’s productivity as a fisher-couple indicates if
the coule is compatiable. The success of a marriage is thus measured in this
manner.
Sharing
and Heling:Strategies in production
The
Orang Laut’s system of sharing and helping is yet another atrategy etrenched
in their mode of socioeconomic organization to access resources for the
production of food. This system is configurated within networks of social
obligations in intra-Orang Laut community exchanges.
Elsewhere,I have elaborated on how there is reality little or no actual
sense of solidarity between the Orang Laut themselves. Yet the Orang Laut feel
that they ought to have or at least to display a sense of group unity through
their net work of exchanges. It is the self-interest by calculating individuals
that is the important motivating factor in fulfilling their social obligations
to share and help.
Embedded in the obligations of sharing and helping are the knowledge and
unsigned contact by both the giver and the recipient that the latter is obliged
to reciprocate some time in the future. The delay in fulfulling obligations and
reciprocate establishes a bond of trust between the transactors and aims at
waiting without forgetting. This networkof social obligations is in essence the
willful regulation of events by the Orang Laut. They are investing in an idea of
the future for their own condition. Production is hence embedded in a set of
social relations.
For instance,Halus, a young Pulau Nanga Orang Laut boy,was left behind by
his father to fend for himself and his two younger brothers. His mother had died
some years before. Halus had a boat which he described as saya punya (I own).
The boat is in fact something that his cousin,Jais had given Halus to
bantu(help) the latter. However,it was an unspoken obligation on Halus’s part
that he would share part of his fish earning with jais. Likewise,it was a quiet
understanding that jais would be entitled to a share of Halus’s catch procured
with the boat that he had helped him with. Also,Halus was obliged to be Jais’s
fishing partner if the latter’s wife was unable to join him. However,should
Halus partner with Jais,there was also an unspoken undedstanding that part of
the fish earning would be share with the former. Hence,the cyclical network of
sharing and helping to increase the production level of each.
It yet another example,Pui’s family in the Pulau Nanga Orang Laut
cmmunity caught a huge turtle. News of her family’s catch apread around the
community immediately. Afer Pui had cut a sizable portion of the turtle for her
own family’s consumption, the rest was soon given to some of the other members
of the community. These were either given by Pui herself or to those in the
community who had come to ask for a portion of the turtle. While there was still
enough turtle to be shared,none of those who had come to ask Pui for a portion
of the turtle meat was refused. Pui was obliged to share and not to turn down
anyone with a request.
The distinction between ‘share’ and ‘sharing’ is
crucial. The divition of certain catches such as a huge turtle into ‘shares’
was expected. The members of the community with whom Pui had to distribute the
shares to was not determined. Pui could decide upon those with whom she would
share that meat. She was only obliged to share the extra meat with those who
approached her with a request. Although Pui had the freedom to decide with whom
she would share her extra food,she was also under great preasure to share it
with her extended family members.
Yet,it individual in this network also tries to gain as much as possible
for himself. It was not uncommon for the Orang Laut to exercise calculated
attempts not to share their suplus. These attempts are covered up to prevent
accusations of lokek(selfishness),and becoming edged out of the community’s
network ofsharing and helping that would profit them. Thus,it was not
unusual to hear of complains that there were members in the community who would
fake illness to obtain shares simply because they were either too lazy to go out
and fish or were greedy for more It is anther unsspoken understanding that
pregnant women and the infirm are entitled to shares without having to
reciprocate.
The idle objective of the system of sharing and helping however remain in
its intention to space out small portions of delicacies and other resouces for
the person and the rest of the community over the same length of time. Everyone
profits by this network of social obligations. This network of social
obligations in sharing of resources involves economic ties make the Orang Laut
group more stable than they might otherwise be. The co-residence of kin is thus
to some extent a function of the sharing of food and help. A person can rely on
the other members of the communiy to share their resources with him because
their sharing ultimately benefits themselves. Thus,the crux of the network of
social obligations is that relations between the Orang Laut are both social and
material.
Conclusion
Issues
discussed in this paper have focused on the necessity of clarifying concepts of
appropriation and production. It has been argued that oversights in conceptual
clarity have led to perceptions of the Orang Laut as roving hunters and foragers
engaged in an extractiveeconomy.
Defined as such,the Orang Laut are deemed not have the slightest concern for the
production and reproduction of resources. I have argued against these
unwarranted perceptions by possing the challenge to rethink the concepts of
appropriation and production. The implications are that they are inextricably
tied to other issues.
First,we need to acknowledge the Orang Laut’s claim for tenure of
territoriality. Second,we need to be aware that the Orang Laut are keen partners
in the production of resources.