Are Ibans and Bidayuhs Natives of Sarawak?

June is the month for Gawai Dayak and like all other natives, Ibans and Bidayuhs in Sarawak do celebrate Gawai Dayak and although Ibans and Bidayuhs join other natives to celebrate the Gawai Dayak, are they natives of Sarawak as provided under the Federal Constitution? By asking this question, I meant no offence,insult or disrespect to the Ibans and Bidayuhs in Sarawak. I respect them and their cultures and like any other Malaysians I do care and is concerned about the welfare and the rights of the Ibans and Bidayuhs in this country and also other indigenous races in Sarawak. In fact, it is out of concern that I posed this question.

If we look at clause 6 of Article 161A of the Federal Constitution, it states as follows:

“In this Article “native” means –

(a) in relation to Sarawak, a person who is a citizen and either belongs to one of the races specified in Clause (7) as indigenous to the State or is of mixed blood deriving exclusively from other races; and

(b) …………………….............................................................................................................................................................
(7) The races to be treated for the purposes of the definition of “native” in Clause (6) indigenous to Sarawak are the Bukitans, Bisayahs, Dusuns, Sea Dayaks, Land Dayaks, Kadayans, Kelabits, Kayans, Kenyahs (including Sabups and Sipengs), Kajangs, (including Sekapans, Kejamans, Lahanans, Punans, Tajongs and Kanowits), Lugats, Lisums, Malays, Melanos, Muruts, Penans, Sians, Tagals, Tabuns and Ukits.”


Therefore, under the Federal Constitution, a person is a “native” only, if firstly, he is a citizen of Malaysia and second if he falls under the description of one of the races in clause (7) of Article 161A of the Federal Constitution.

Then how could some ibans and bidayuhs who were born and raised in this soil be a citizen if he or she possesses no identification papers? A person could not be a Malaysian unless he possesses the Malaysian identity card. The issue of identification papers, birth certificates and identity cards had been debated or raised in all, if not, almost all sessions of the sittings of the Dewan Undangan Negeri. We could see expression of frustrations in the faces of many Yang Berhormats in the august House each time they raised this issue because until today there are still many ibans and bidayuhs and other indigenous races who had not in their possession of any identification papers so as to identify themselves as Malaysians. Without identification papers, these people will never be able to open bank accounts or to pursue tertiary education. They may also not be able to register their marriages. Their future will be very bleak and how could we expect them to compete with the outside world?

Now, as could be deduced from clauses (6) and (7) of the said Article 161A of the Federal Constitution, “natives” do not include ibans and bidayuhs although we know for the fact that all natives celebrate the Gawai Dayak Festival. Therefore, although Ibans and Bidayuhs do celebrate Gawai Dayak, they are in my humble understanding of the Federal Constitution been excluded as natives of this soil. This is because the said clauses (6) and (7) of Article 161A of the Federal Constitution do no say ibans and bidayuhs are “natives”.

At the same time, who are the “sea dayaks” and who are the “land dayaks”? Are we going to say that ibans and bidayuhs who lived near the riverbanks and the seas are classified as “sea dayaks” and that those lived in the interior country as “land dayaks”? Or are we going to say ibans as “sea dayaks” and bidayuhs as “land dayaks”? We need to understand that Ibans are Ibans and bidayuhs are bidayuhs. It is like Hokkien people are Hokkien people and Hakka people are Hakka people although both are Chinese people. We should have no more terms like “sea Chinese” and “land Chinese” because if we say “sea Chinese” this could be rude or be wrongly construed as privates of Chinese race while "land Chinese" could be a slang to refer them as barbarians!

In local usage, we know Iban and Bidayuh are also Dayaks and Dayaks is a term used to identify all indigenous people of Borneo and not only a reference to Dayaks in Sabah and Sarawak alone.

Nowadays, we could even find other native races besides ibans and bidayuhs living near to the riverbanks and the seas. So, how to define them? Are they also be called as “sea dayaks”?

The failure of the Federal Constitution to clearly define “natives” or to include Ibans and Bidayuhs as “natives” of Sarawak, shows that despite already achieving 45 years of independence, the identity of the ibans and bidayuhs and many other indigenous races in Sarawak are yet settled and many of them could not even be identified as Malaysians, due to the failure of the relevant authorities to issue identification papers to them. I touched on Ibans and Bidayuhs, because they are the larger native races, but, I am also not neglecting or forgetting other native races, like Lun Bawangs, Berawans, etc., who are also equally not been considered natives of Sarawak, because they are not categorized as such in the Federal Constitution.

In all respect, Article 161A of the Federal Constitution has to be amended to make the term, “natives” to include ibans, bidayuhs and all other natives races and the terms, “land dayak” and “sea dayak” be abolished. At the same time, the term, “Dayak” should also be properly defined.

I am afraid that, the end effect is that if those who are natives but not categorized as natives in the Federal Constitution, the special privileges as provided under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution to these missed out natives, that is, Ibans, Bidayuhs, Lun Bawangs, Berawans, etc.) could legally be refused to be accorded to them.

Article 153 of the Federal Constitution provides for reservations of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak. This Article 153 of the Federal Constitution mentioned two types of people, that is the malays as one type and the other, the natives.

Again while Malays as a race is considered “natives” in Article 161A of the Federal Constitution, then, what is the reason behind the Federal Constitution that gave special mention of the Malays alone and not other native races in the said Article 153 of the Federal Constitution? The malays being natives as classified in Article 161A of the Federal Constitution should be treated the same as other natives and there should not be any difference and all natives irrespective their races should have corresponding rights to each other. Meaning that, the rights enjoyed by other natives should not be lesser than the rights enjoyed by the malays.

This is because both malays and other indigenous races in Malaysia are politically termed as “bumiputeras” and they are all natives for the purpose of special rights or protection accorded to them under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. Therefore, this could be deemed to create two classes of bumiputera, that is, malay as natives being one special class of its own and the other natives mentioned in the Federal Constitution as the other class of bumiputera.

Since Ibans, Bidayuhs, Berawans, Lun Bawangs, etc., although we all know as natives, but, not classified as natives in Article 161A of the Federal Constitution, could they be said are bumiputera?

Recently, I was told there was a bidayuh whose application for a loan of RM 5 million from a government agency to start a bumiputera entrepreneurship was rejected because he was said not a bumiputera. The father of the said Bidayuh youth who confided the matter to me was very annoyed that such right was not accorded to his son! The matter was then brought to Parliament by a leader of the then Opposition Leader, Lim Kit Siang.

Another effect is that for the purpose of the Malaysian race, I was told that some government forms only refer to Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others.... Why this was so? Who are "Others"? Meaning that, in Malaysia, only three races are recongizable, that is, Malay, Chinese and Indians! If there were such forms, this already showed that there was a smell of discrimnation against other natives and especially natives that are not included in Article 161A of the Federal Constitution and this could go against Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution. As a Malaysian race, at least the Chinese and Indians are recongizable along the Malays! Where do the natives stand?

May Iban and Bidayuh MPs raise this matter in Parliament to amend the Federal Constitution so as to make clearer the races that fall as “natives”.

I call for public awareness of this matter and invite comments.