Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People

of Sabah & Sarawak*

By Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria**

Introduction
After more than five decades of reflection on the theme of federalism and the
formation of Malaysia, there is still a basic need to question the issue of human
rights. Is human rights a key cornerstone of the Federal-State relations? What, if
any, are the roles of the Federal Government and State Governments of Sabah
and Sarawak in ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights, particularly
that of the indigenous people?

Fundamental to this discussion is the concrete evidence in Part II of the Federal

Constitution, Articles 5 – 13 which contain the key provisions pertaining to
fundamental liberties with a focus on equality (Article 8); civil and political freedoms
(Articles 7 and 10); religious freedom (Article 11); educational freedom (Article
12) and property rights (Article 13). Although the Articles do not use direct human
rights terminology, these fundamental liberties form the core of a human rights
framework.

Part III of the Federal Constitution provides citizenship rights. Article 153 makes
specific reference to the special position of indigenous people as natives of
Sabah and Sarawak along with the Malays. The provisions in Articles 161A, 161B
and 161E provide further constitutional safeguards to the natives of Sabah and
Sarawak in relation to their identity and lands.

The 20-Point Sabah and 18-Point Sarawak (20/18 points), Malaysia Agreement is
also built on the framework of human rights. Unlike the Federal Constitution, this
agreement is not legally binding but more of a moral commitment from political
leaders during the formation of Malaysia.

Based on this understanding, the four parties, namely the Federation of Malaya,
the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak and Singapore (which eventually left),
came together in 1963 to form Malaysia. Based on the pointers from the Federal

*
Paper presented on September 27, 2013 at the Workshop on “50 Years of Malaysia: Federalism
Revisited” organised by the Centre for Asian Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, National University
of Singapore.
**
Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria is the Principal Research Fellow, Institute of Ethnic Studies, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia and Secretary-General of Proham (Society for the Promotion of Human
Rights).
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 2

Constitution and the 20/18 points, these reflect civil, political economic, social
and cultural rights.

The roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government and State Governments
are governed by the Federal and State lists as provided in the Ninth Schedule of
the Federal Constitution. There is also a supplement to the Concurrent List for
Sabah and Sarawak. This aspect will be discussed later in this article.

The question then arises: who is responsible for ensuring the promotion and
protection of human rights? Is it a Federal or State responsibility? Or is it both?
How have the Federal and State Governments fared in the context of human
rights, especially in relation to the natives of Sabah and Sarawak?

The strongest commitment made by the Federal Government of Malaysia was on

September 9, 1999 when the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act (Act 597)
was gazetted. The Commission, known as Suhakam, held its inaugural meeting
on August 24, 2000. Since then Suhakam has played a major role in monitoring
human rights issues and concerns impacting the indigenous people of Sabah and
Sarawak. It also acts effectively as the main institution which scrutinises human
rights in Malaysia.

In the last 13 years the Suhakam has undertaken various monitoring tasks.
Therefore, a review of their work highlights many of the issues and concerns
affecting the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak. In this review we will
also discuss the roles of the Federal and State Governments in enhancing or
neglecting human rights. Suhakam's studies and reports are accurate in capturing
the violations on human rights as experienced by the people of Sabah and Sarawak,
which have direct implications for Federal-State relations.

This article focuses on human rights issues and concerns pertaining to the people
of Sabah and Sarawak. These issues have been well documented by Suhakam
from the time it was established. The writer was a two-term commissioner from
2006 to 2010 and participated in a number of field visits, roundtable discussions
and documentation.

The Suhakam Act mandates it to submit an annual report of its activities, findings
and recommendations. The sad reality is that despite more than 13 annual reports
submitted to parliament between 2001 and 2013, there has not been a single
debate or deliberation during parliamentary sessions or at the select committee
stage, simply because no time was allocated for the purpose. This demonstrates
the general approach adopted by the Federal Government and the administration
on matters pertaining to human rights.

On a similar note the Suhakam Annual Reports have specific chapters on Sabah
and Sarawak including various socio-economic reports undertaken; these too
have not been discussed in the State Assemblies. Although the state agencies
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 3

study them, the State Governments have neither adopted the findings nor ratified
the concerns in the majority of cases.

This paper will reveal that many of the root grievances and violations could have
been addressed effectively with open, rational, transparent and accountable
discussions. The Suhakam reports highlight legitimate concerns and human
rights violations. The Federal and State Governments would have been viewed
as being more responsive towards human rights concerns and violations of the
people of Sabah and Sarawak if it had provided the formal space to discuss the
same within the democratic freedoms.

This review also takes into account the human rights principles consistent with
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is important to note that
while Malaysia has ratified three conventions affecting children (CRC), women
(CEDAW) and disabled persons (CRPD), it has not done so with any of the major
human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (ICERD). Therefore, it appears that the response by the Federal
Government to human rights is selective. It has not readily benchmarked itself
by global standards.

In compliance with international standards however, Malaysia has signed a

number of important declarations such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples 2007, Declaration on the Right to Development 1986; the
UN Rio Declaration on Environment & Development 1992 and the UN Rio
+ 20 Declaration “The Future We Want”. Although such declarations are not
legally binding like conventions, Malaysia’s signing of these international level
declarations has a bearing nevertheless on their application at the domestic level.
The implications are there notably for indigenous land rights, forest management
and poverty alleviation as well as on matters related to religious and cultural rights.

The demographic breakdown of Sabah and Sarawak shows a diversity which is

very different from that of the population of Peninsular Malaysia. Politicians and
administrators are often very peninsular-centric and have little understanding of
East Malaysia’s distinctive context. The level of understanding and appreciation
has a direct impact on areas of governance.

Based on the 2010 Department of Statistics report, Sabah has a population of

3.2 million comprising Kadazandusun (17.71%), Bajau (14%), other Bumiputera
(20.57%), Malays (5.74%) and Murut (3.20%). There are altogether 72 ethnic
and sub-ethnic groups.

In the case of Sarawak there are 28 indigenous groups with a population of

2,471,140 comprising Ibans (28.87), Malays (22.98%), Bidayuh (8.03%), Melanau
(4.99%) and other Bumiputera (6.33%).
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 4

The four contemporary human rights issues, which have a bearing on the indigenous
people of Sabah and Sarawak with specific reference to how the Federal-State
Governments execute their policies and programmes, are citizenship, land,
development and religion.

Citizenship Issues in Sabah

On July 31 and August 1, 2006 Suhakam hosted three activities “to identify the
infringement and deprivation of human rights encountered by Malaysian citizens
in Sabah due to the influx of foreigners who were alleged to have Malaysian
identify cards.” In addition to a roundtable discussion the Suhakam team also
made visits to Kinarut, Sri Tanjung and Telipok. The third activity was a dialogue
with the residents of Kamong Maang.

The resulting issues, concerns and recommendations were documented in the

Suhakam 2007Annual Report.1 Subsequently in February 2010, Suhakam released
a full report titled “Human Rights and Citizenship in Sabah: Its impact on economic,
social and cultural rights.”2 Suhakam listed four main issues in this annual report.
They were, an abnormal increase in Sabah’s population; the dubious issuance
of identity cards to foreigners; foreigners with fraudulent Malaysian identity cards
having access to voting in the elections; and the issuance of IMM13 cards to
refugees displaced by civil war in the Southern Philippines. Suhakam called on
the Federal Government and the Sabah State Government to investigate the
allegations of infringements and deprivation of the rights of Sabahans. Furthermore,
Suhakam indicated that “these problems must be addressed quickly to protect
all Malaysians.”

One of the recommendations of the Roundtable discussion was the establishment

of “a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to look into all aspects pertaining to the
foreign population in Sabah.”3 Speakers at the discussions, including Joshua YC
Kong of the Consumer Association of Sabah and Labuan and Dr Chong Eng
Leong highlighted the need for an RCI.

A similar call was made by Proham,4 who hosted a Roundtable discussion on May
19, 2012 at University Malaysia Sabah on the theme of “Addressing Citizenship
Issues in Sabah” urging the Federal Government not to delay the establishment
of an RCI.5

It has taken more than five years for the Federal Government to announce the
establishment of an RCI since the Suhakam roundtable discussions in 2006.

1 Pages 53 to 59.
2 Suhakam 2007a.
3 Suhakam 2007a, p 15.
4 Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia (Society for the Promotion of Human Rights).
5 Proham 2012, pp 419 – 420.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 5

Following a public outcry on the matter, the Federal Government announced the
establishment of an RCI under the Chairmanship of Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip
Kiong on August 11, 2012.

The RCI has been very active from the time it was established. A recent Bernama
report6 stated that the RCI completed hearing the testimonies of 211 witnesses.
It is now in the stage of reviewing the evidence. They were expected to release
their report by December 21, 2013.

Unfortunately this has not taken place and therefore Luke Rintod raised the
question “Where’s the RCI Report?” There seems to be some delay on the subject
but there has been no communication with the public on this.7

Implications of the Citizenship Concerns

There is a great impact on the political landscape in Sabah due to demographic
changes as the original natives are being outnumbered. In one sense the interests
of the people of Sabah has not been protected as the Federal system might have
been acting on politics of the centre as opposed to protecting the interest of the
state.

Welcoming the establishment of the RCI Proham on August 12, 2012 noted that
the Terms of Reference (TOR) did not call for the RCI “to provide effective
solutions such as what ought to be done if there are some who have been granted
citizenship but who did not qualify.”8 Another aspect noted by Proham was that the
RCI’s TOR “does not call the RCI to identify those responsible and recommend
appropriate action on the possible culprits, violators and collaborators.”

It was Dr Chong Eng Leong, who said in 2006, that “it is critical now and we need
drastic actions with strong political will and sincerity to save sovereignty of Sabah
within Malaysia. Sabah opted for formation of Malaysia because of security and
protection of sovereignty.”9

6 Bernama 2013.
7 The RCI report was finally released on December 3, 2014 and made available for sale to the general
public on December 12, 2014. Tan Sri Ali Hamsa, the Chief Secretary to the Government has given
an assurance that the RCI report has not been tampered with. However opposition politicians
and civil society leaders have casted doubts. The RCI conclusion was that “several government
officials were working in cahoots with syndicate members to issue genuine identification cards
to immigrants” (see “Sabah RCI: Syndicates blamed for issuing ICs for illegals”, http://www.
therakyatpost.com/news/2014/12/03/sabah-rci-report-released-today/, accessed January 9, 2015).
A permanent secretariat will be established to monitor the follow up of the findings headed by
the Deputy Chief Minister of Sabah Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan. There is also a public call for
the RCI report to be tabled in Parliament and Sabah State assembly for debate but this has not
materialised.
8 Proham, 2012a, pp 422 - 424.
9 Suhakam, 2007a.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 6

Granting of citizenship is the responsibility of the Federal Government. This impacts

civil and political rights and have a bearing on economic, social and cultural rights
as seen from the Sabah situation. The demographic shift has affected the natives
of Sabah directly as they become marginalised within their own neighbourhoods.
The general accusation by certain quarters is that this has been orchestrated to
ensure political dominance by the ruling political party. Furthermore there is a
Muslim-Christian divide as the majority of new citizens are Muslims from Indonesia
or the Philippines.

In this one area where the granting of citizenship falls under the Federal jurisdiction
but immigration powers remain with the State we see the potential failure to
safeguard the natives of Sabah from the new foreign arrivals. We now await the
Royal Commission report and for both the Federal and State governments to work
together to ensure border security and settle the citizenship related political crisis.

Issues Pertaining to Land

A second major area of concern is the indigenous ownership of land. One of the
main public complaints received by Suhakam from the indigenous people of Sabah
and Sarawak was in relation to land, particularly on customary land ownership. It
is in this context that between Dec 2010 and June 2012 Suhakam conducted a
National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous People in Malaysia. This was
the first time that Suhakam had undertaken such a national inquiry in contrast
with past inquires on specific allegations of human rights abuses.

In his message in the land inquiry report, Suhakam Chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam
recognised that “land is central to the life of the indigenous peoples.”10 He further
noted that “the violations of the land rights of the indigenous people takes many
forms and are perpetrated by a number of actors who mostly knowingly, carry out
economic activities in the pursuit of development that involve encroachments on
the traditional land of the community…”11

A total of 407 statements from Sabah and 198 statements from Sarawak were
recorded. These were categorised into seven issues, namely; administrative,
plantation, logging & forest reserve, inclusion into national or state protected
areas, community land development scheme, commercial development projects,
compensation and others.

The inquiry report recognised “the unique relationship that indigenous peoples
have with their land, which is central to the way of life and collective identities.”12
It found “that there is a high level of frustration, anger and desperation among

10 Suhakam, 2013, p v.
11 Suhakam, 2013, p vi.
12 Suhakam, 2013, p xii.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 7

the indigenous communities because of the non-recognition of the rights to land,

resulting in the venting of dissent or threats, and lately open protests.”13

Suhakam made 18 specific recommendations and that the injustices be dealt with
in an expeditious and holistic manner, of which two were very significant. The first
was the establishment of an Indigenous Land Tribunal or Commission to resolve
issues and complaints related to indigenous people’s land claims. 14 The other
was the establishment of an independent National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples. Its function is to advise the government on laws and policies; propose
and monitor sustainable development, and promote participation.15

Suhakam wanted this report to be presented in Parliament but the Government

decided on setting up a National Taskforce led by Datuk Dr Mohd Tap Salleh, the
Chairman of the Integrity Institute of Malaysia. The taskforce was made up of 15
members including civil society representatives. This was announced by Datuk
Paul Low, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department on August 5, 2013.

The Government has made an assurance that the main function of the taskforce
is to oversee the implementation of the 18 recommendations. The move was
criticised by the Bar Council President, Christopher Leong as he felt that the
Suhakam report should also be simultaneously released to Parliament in order
for the recommendations to be adopted with immediate effect.

Noting that Suhakam is an independent Commission which undertook consultations

and deliberations with the affected people; all relevant parties including government
agencies, private sector, civil society; and academics, the current process of
having a taskforce going through the review really undermines its role as an
independent commission.

The Federal Government could have adopted Suhakam’s recommendations and

established an Indigenous Land Tribunal to undertake the resolution of land
related contestation rather than delay the process by reviewing the data gathered.
The Government and policy makers should accept the analysis provided by a
commission which they themselves had appointed to take on this role.

The elected representatives from Sabah and Sarawak, who are members of the
Cabinet, could have taken a more decisive step in supporting the recommendations
of Suhakam rather than agreeing for it to be reviewed. They could have taken a
positive step towards the land rights of the people by insisting on the establishment
of a tribunal rather than just another taskforce which would only further delay and
repeat the work of an independent commission.

13 Suhakam, 2013, p xii.

14 Suhakam, p 166.
15 Suhakam, 2013, p 174.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 8

One notices that every time an RCI is appointed and a report completed, the
Government tends to form another team to study the report and this team eventually
comes to a different conclusion or dilutes the findings.

Furthermore, the State Governments of Sabah and Sarawak also seemed very
resistant to Suhakam’s land report which was based on an independent inquiry of
the people, agencies, private sector and academics. In this area the implications
appear to be that both the Federal and State Governments are reluctant to respond
positively to Suhakam’s findings. As a consequence the people’s grievances
remain unresolved. There are also opinions on the ground that the development
model adopted in both Sabah and Sarawak is friendly to big businesses engaged
in logging, dam development and the plantation sector.

Implications of Land Issues

A possible counter argument could be that land is a state matter and not really
under the ambit of the Federal Government. So the issue pertaining to land could
be settled by the respective State Governments. This is the dominant view on the
surface, however, Wee Chong Hui reveals otherwise. He notes that the Federal
Constitution assigns functions in land and mines to the State Government, but
“the utilization and development of these natural resources are affected by federal
regulations.”16

This is illustrated in reference to the National Land Council which “was formed
to promote and control the utilization of land for mining, agriculture, forestry and
any other purpose.”17 Wee Chong Hui cites another way of restraining State
Governments as “through Federal Government employees holding state
government post.” Another interesting observation is “in 1995, the federal Minister
of Science, Technology and Environment issued an order to the effect that the
Federal EIA requirement does not apply to dams in Sarawak. The order favoured
the implementation of the Bakun Dam project. Although the order seems to give
the Sarawak State Government legal autonomy, there is no avenue for public
participation…”18

One major side effect of Federal-State relations is the narrow scope for State
Governments to raise revenue. The states, especially Sabah and Sarawak derive
their main revenue among others from “natural resources such as forest, land
and mines, state government are assigned the related tax revenues, royalties and
receipts from land sales… the limited sources of revenue risk over-exploitation of
these resources for the state government to maximise revenue.”19

16 Wee Chong Hui, 2011, p 559.

17 Wee Chong Hui, p 564.
18 Wee Chong Hui, p 565.
19 Wee Chong Hui, p 566.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 9

This could be one reason for the states to freely allocate the contested customary
lands back to the natives. There is a lot of contestation between the state authorities
and the indigenous people. The Suhakam report on the Penan Benalih blockade,20
Penans in Ulu Belaga21 and the Muru dam project22 reveal the lack of consultation
and the way these dams and plantation development projects were bulldozed,
causing tremendous socio-economic suffering to the poor indigenous people.

On March 20, 2014 when Malaysia presented its Working Group Report of the
Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council at Geneva it did not
make any proactive response or commitment towards resolving the land disputes
other than stating it will wait for the findings of the Taskforce set up to review the
Suhakam land inquiry report. This does not reflect a strong commitment on the part
of the Government to accept the major recommendations of Suhakam but rather
to delay the process through another review. The statement by the Government
uses the language of human rights but does not reflect any substantive action to
remedy the prolonged situation.

Development and Poverty Alleviation

The Federal Government has taken the lead role since 1970 in poverty alleviation
through various development plans such as the New Economic Policy, New
Development Plan and New Vision Plan. Using a poverty-line measurement, these
policies have been effective in reducing poverty from 49.3% to 3.8% between
1970 and 2009.23

The poverty rate for Sabah is the highest in the country at 19.2% in 2009, Sarawak
at 5.3% whereas Peninsular Malaysia is at 2.0%.24

The Malaysia Millennium Development Goals 2010 provides an interesting

analysis; “in ethnic terms, the bottom 40% of households in 2009 show a large
over-representation of other Bumiputera and others…”25

The main problem in the way data is analysed at the central level with national
averages or at the state levels neglects the disaggregated data. The Mid-Term
Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010 provides some breakdown of mean
incomes by state and sub-ethnic data: Sabah (Malay, Kadazandusun, Bajau,
Murut) and Sarawak (Malay, Iban, Bidayuh, Melanau). This shows higher income
levels for Malays in contrast to other native communities.

20 Suhakam, 2007b.
21 Suhakam, 2007c.
22 Suhakam, 2009.
23 10th Malaysia Plan, p 145.
24 Ibid, pp 397 – 399.
25 Malaysia Millennium Development Goals, 2010, p 19.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 10

A Suhakam micro-level case study report of the Penans in Ulu Belaga describes
the suffering of the Penans in Long Singu and Long Jaik. They are described as
the poorest groups in the country who live below the poverty level. They have
inadequate access to nutritious food, health care, education, housing and clean
water.26

Poverty is further complicated with a majority of the Penans met by Suhakam

not possessing legal documents such as identification cards or birth certificates.
This renders them stateless and restricts their access to the public sector health,
education and welfare services.

Implications for inclusive and sustainable development

The real struggle for the native groups of Sabah and Sarawak is to experience
economic development and improved quality of life on par with the majority of
people in Peninsula Malaysia. The use of disaggregated data and monitoring is
more effective as it will enable specific targeting.

The New Economic Model 2010 is an inclusive development model with a focus
on meeting the needs of the bottom 40%. The orientation would be towards growth
among the poor with market-based affirmative action focusing on building capacity
and capability. This is the thrust of the 10th Malaysia Plan.

At the recent launch of the Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Plan on September

14, 2013, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak appeared to send the wrong signals
as there seemed to be a shift from inclusive development to a strong thrust to
exclusive development. The fear is that certain sections of the political elite might
take advantage of the provisions.27

This plan identifies the Bumiputera as Malays (9 ethnic groups), Orang Asli (18
categories), Sabah Bumiputeras (40 ethnic groups) and Sarawak (60 ethnic
groups). He also indicated that the Muslim Bumiputeras made up 59.7% and non-
Muslim Bumiputeras 7.6% and together they comprised 67.9% of the population.

This categorisation by national averages distorts the disaggregated categories in

Sabah and Sarawak and therefore there is an urgent need to engage the people
at the grassroots rather than handling it in a top-down manner. It is suggested
that participatory development models would be more effective.

Aneeds basis approach anchored on human rights and empowerment will provide
stronger socio-economic development which is fair and just for all communities
based on equal opportunities.

26 Suhakam, 2007, p 3.
27 Najib, 2013.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 11

Religious Freedom and Use of the Term “Allah”

Based on the Malaysia Agreement, the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak have
no State religion and the implication is that Article 3 of the Federal Constitution
is not applicable in North Borneo. The Yang Di Pertuan Agong is the Head of the
Islamic religion.28

Christianity is the third largest religion in Malaysia with 9.2% of the population as
indicated by the 2010 Census report. However, Christians make up 42.6% and
26.6% of the population in Sarawak and Sabah respectively. A majority of the
Christians in the country are Malay speaking indigenous Malaysians residing in
Sabah and Sarawak.

While Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution places restrictions on the

propagation to Muslim, there are no restrictions on other aspects. The issue
regarding freedom of religion began when the Ministry of Home Affairs banned
the Malay language version of the Bible on December 22, 1981. But the ban was
loosely applied. On December 5, 1986, the Ministry announced that Christians
were banned from using three other words, namely; Kaabah (the sacred Muslim
shrine in Mekkah), Baitullah (house of God) and solat (prayer).

A number of court cases were initiated as a result of the Ministry of Home Affairs’
prohibition on the use of the word ‘Allah’ in The Herald, a weekly Catholic publication
on Jan 7, 2009. The Catholic church went to court on the matter on Feb 16, 2009
and on Dec 31, 2009, Kuala Lumpur High Court Judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan
declared that the Home Minister’s decision of prohibiting The Herald from using
the word ‘Allah’ in its Malay language publication, which catered specifically to
the people in Sabah and Sarawak, was illegal, null and void.29

The Federal Government challenged this decision and the matter went up to the
Court of Appeal. A three-member panel of judges at the Court of Appeal heard
the application and reversed the earlier High Court decision.

The Catholic Church then took the case to Malaysia’s highest authority, the
Federal Court. The appeal was heard by a panel of seven senior judges led by
Chief Justice Ariffin Zakaria on March 5, 2014.

On June 23, 2014, the Federal Court rejected an application for leave to appeal
the ban by the Court of Appeal with regards to the use of the word “Allah” in the
Catholic weekly, by a four to three vote.30

28 Federal Constitution, Article 3 (3).

29 Bernama, 2013.
30 Vathani Panirchellvum, 2014.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 12

Implications on the Religious Rights of the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak

The initial appeal by the Federal Government to the Court of Appeal is viewed as
controversial by the Churches as they claim that the Prime Minister had negotiated
a 10-point settlement in 2011 where the prohibited words could be used by Sabah
and Sarawak Christians in their churches.

The Bumiputera Christians of Sabah and Sarawak have been using the term
“Allah” for many generations even before the formation of Malaysia. This is well
documented by The Christian Federation of Malaysia, which provides a
comprehensive historical overview of the use of the term, especially by indigenous
Christians.31

Rev Datuk Jerry Dusing, head of the largest Malay speaking church, stated that
“both states have guaranteed safeguards in the 18-point and 20-point agreements
as conditions to be part of the new nation of Malaysia”.

He also highlighted that Article 11 (4) of the Federal Constitution provides only
for the control or propagation of any religious doctrine or belief amongst persons
professing the religion of Islam. However, there is no provision prohibiting the
use of certain words by non-Muslims and any such provision should be regarded
as unconstitutional.

The most recent statement by Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok, an ethnic Iban, who
is the Bishop of Kuching and also head of the Anglican Church in South East Asia
took a stronger stance. He said that the “unprecedented extra-judicial position that
the use of the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God is not an integral part of the faith and
practice of Christianity. This is an uncalled for, unnecessarily excessive and a gross
insensitive provocation. This is a travesty of our constitutional and human rights”.

This is at the heart of how native Christians of Sabah and Sarawak feel. From the
perspective of Peninsular Malaysia the “Allah” controversy has been portrayed
as a sudden interest by the Indian and Chinese Christians wanting to use the
term. However, this projection undermines the history and faith experienced by
the majority of Christian population who live in Sabah and Sarawak and who are
indigenous to the land.

The Sabahans’ have additional complaints against the Sabah National Registration
Department who are arbitrarily changing individuals’ religion due to many Sabah
Christians have the terms “bin” or “binti”.

Furthermore, Desmond Davidson of the Malaysian Insider has documented

stories of 64 native Christians “who claimed they were tricked into converting to
Islam” at Kampung Layung Maliau in Pitas with a payment of RM100.00. The

31 Christian Federation of Malaysia, 2013.

 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 13

article also indicated that the Sabah Islamic authorities have denied that such
actions took place.

Religious issues are at the heart of the contemporary contestation between the
Federal, State and ordinary people. The narrative above indicates that both the
Federal and State Governments have not done enough to protect the religious
freedom of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak from a human rights understanding.
This is one aspect which is clearly defined in the Federal Constitution as well as
in the 20/18 points agreement. The unique character of Sabah and Sarawak’s
indigenous people who are also termed as Bumiputeras and their identity as
Christians are being threatened by administrative and bureaucratic encroachments.

Adopting a stronger compliance to the Federal Constitution and adherence to the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the Declaration of the Rights of
Indigenous people, will provide the safeguards needed for religious and cultural
freedoms.

Conclusion
This paper focused on four key aspects, namely; citizenship, land, development
and religious freedom. These issues pose serious concerns for people at the
grassroots of Sabah and Sarawak. The Federal Government has neglected these
concerns by not seeking effective solutions and remedies. This could have serious
political implications in the future as ordinary citizens with unresolved grievances
look to alternative political solutions.

Similarly, the State Governments have not played a strong interventionist approach
in protecting the rights of the indigenous people. The State Governments could
have adopted the International Convention on the Rights of Indigenous people
as a guiding framework in all its dealings on state matters, especially rights to the
land. However, the data and findings show a pro-business and market friendly
approach as opposed to a pro-people approach in safeguarding the interest of
the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak from a human rights and people-
centred approach.

Looking at the 12th and 13th General Elections, it is important to note that it was
the political parties from Sabah and Sarawak who ensured that the Barisan
Nasional maintained control of Putrajaya. Both State and Federal elections show
a steady increase in the presence of opposition political parties’ representation,
particularly in Sabah and Sarawak’s urban seats.

Therefore, there is a need for both Sabah and Sarawak to utilise their political
base to seriously impact the human rights issues, especially on compliance with
the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous People. It is also imperative that
both the Federal and State Governments treat the grievances of the local
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 14

people seriously to ensure equal opportunities and a fair measure of equity for all
communities with equal outcomes through sustainable and inclusive development.

Five concluding themes could chart the way forward in strengthening andenhancing
the human rights approach to development and resolving the concerns of the
indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak. In doing so there will be stronger
Federal-State relations in addressing basic human needs and human rights.

First, there is a need for strong political leadership in adopting a human rights
framework consistent with the Federal Constitution, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people in articulating
socio-economic developments for this group. This pro- human rights and people-
friendly approach are not just political clichés but grounded in public policy and
delivery mechanisms with effective monitoring and complaints mechanism in place.

Second, to make a serious public policy commitment which takes people-

centred development, wealth enlargement through business and environmental
sustainability initiatives as articulated in the Post Rio UN document entitled “The
Future We Want”. Such a commitment will adopt a balanced holistic approach
to development. Malaysia is a signatory to this UN document and therefore both
Federal and State Governments must ensure its application and adoption in
addressing the concerns.

Third, foster greater consultative mechanism for maximum consultation and

partnership in development. The Federal and State Governments must engage all
stakeholders in an effective consultative and partnership. This is imperative to gain
a buy-in and must ensure a participatory process where the people are partners
in development and not mere objects. The Federal and State Governments must
adopt creative approaches in ensuring meaningful engagement at the grassroots
level through capability building and greater collaboration with civil society and
people movements.

Fourth, the Federal Government must strengthen Suhakam as a truly effective

intermediary mechanism with adequate powers not only to investigate violations
but also in ensuring the human rights violations are stopped and those guilty
brought before the courts. There must be a stronger commitment and political
will by both Federal and State Governments to accept the independent inquiry
process and findings to improve delivery and governance by public institutions.
There must be a greater accountability process and this could be enhanced by
both parliamentary and state assembly by-partisan human rights committees made
up of elected representatives from both sides of the political divide.

Fifth, Malaysia has made a commitment to develop a Human Rights action plan.
While this is long overdue, the Federal Government made a fresh commitment
during the 2013/2014 Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 15

In undertaking this task, the Federal Government should take into serious account
the issues and concerns of the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak; foster
effective public awareness; public sector compliance to human rights standards;
develop effective monitoring mechanisms and establish effective grievance
mechanisms. In doing so the Federal and State Governments will win the hearts
and minds of ordinary people.
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 16

References
1. Bernama (2013), “Sabah RCI proceedings end, Commissioners start
deliberating” www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/sabah-rci-proceedings-end-
commissioners-start-deliberating-1.359906 (accessed September 20, 2013).

2. Bolly Lapok (2014), “Gempuru Besai Gerija Anglika Jaku Iban Communiqué”
www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/gempuru-besai-gerija-
anglika-jaku-iban-communique-archbishop-datuk-bolly-la (accessed March
29, 2014).

3. Chong Eng Leong (2007), “Human rights, citizenship, illegal immigrants and
stateless people” in Human Rights and Citizenship in Sabah: Its impact on
Economic, Social & cultural Rights, Suhakam: Kuala Lumpur.

4. Christian Federation of Malaysia (2013), “When, Why & How Christians use
the word Allah” www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/when-why-
and-how-christians-use-the-word-allah-the-christian-federation-of-malaysia/
(accessed May 16, 2013).

5. Christopher Leong (2013), “Implement recommendations made in Suhakam

Report of the National Inquiry into Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples”
www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/press_release_implement_
recommendations_made_in_suhakam_report_of_the_national_inquiry_into_
land_rights_of_indigenous_peoples.html (accessed August 26, 2013).

6. Department of Statistics (2010), Report on “Population Distribution & Basic

Demographic Characteristics”, Malaysia.

7. Desmond Davidson (2014), “Sabah Christians meet today in bid to reverse

conversions to Islam” www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/sabah-
christians-meet-today-in-bid-to-reverse-conversions-to-islam (accessed
February 4, 2014).

8. Federal Constitution of Malaysia (1957).

9. Jerry Dusing (2013), Statement by the Commission on Sabah Affairs of the

National Evangelical Christian Fellowship Malaysia, “Any attack on the Alkitab
is an attack on the religious freedom of Bumiputera Christians.”

10. Luke Rintod (2014), “Where’s the RCI report?” www.freemalaysiatoday.com/

category/opinion/2014/01/21/wheres-the-rci-report/ (accessed January 21,
2014).

11. Malaysia Agreement: 20-point (Sabah) and 18-point (Sarawak) http://

charleshector.blogspot.com/2012/09/malaysia-agreement-20-pointsabah-
and-18.html (accessed September 25, 2013).
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 17

12. Malaysia, the Millennium Development Goals at 2010, UN Country Team in

Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur.

13. Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006 – 2010, pp 58 – 59.

14. Najib Tun Abdul Razak (2013), “Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Plan”
www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/09/14/full-text-najib-bumi-speech.
aspx/ (accessed September 14, 2014).

15. National Economic Advisory Council (2010), New Economic Model (Part 1),
pp 24 – 25.

16. National Economic Council (2011), New Economic Model: Kuala Lumpur, pp
79 – 81.

17. National Taskforce, www.nst.com.my/nation/general/task-force-to-study-

report-on-orang-asli-land-rights-finalised-suhakam-took-18-months-to-
complete-it-1.334514 (accessed August 8, 2013).

18. Proham (2012), “Sabah citizenship issues need urgent review through Royal
Commission of Inquiry” in Denison Jayasooria (Ed) Proham & Human Rights
Concerns in Malaysia, 2013, JJ Resources: Kuala Lumpur, pp 419 – 422.

19. Proham (2012a), “Proham welcomes the establishment of the RCI” in Denison
Jayasooria (Ed) Proham & Human Rights Concerns in Malaysia, 2013, JJ
Resources: Kuala Lumpur, pp 422 – 423.

20. Suhakam (2007) Annual Report.

21. Suhakam (2007a), Human Rights and Citizenship in Sabah: Its impact on
Economic, Social & Cultural Rights.

22. Suhakam (2007b), Report on Penan Benalih Blockade Issue.

23. Suhakam (2007c), Report on Penan in Ulu Belaga: Right to land and socio-
economic development.

24. Suhakam (2009), Report on the Muru hydroelectric project and its impact
towards the economic, social and cultural rights of the affected indigenous
peoples in Sarawak.

25. Suhakam (2013), Report of the National Inquiry into the Land Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.

26. Suhakam Act: Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act 597),
www.suhakam.org.my/about-suhakam/akta-suhakan/akta-597/ (accessed
September 25, 2013).
 Human Rights Concerns & Indigenous People of Sabah & Sarawak 18

27. Tenth Malaysia Plan, Moving towards inclusive socio-economic development, pp 139 – 188.

28. United Nations (2012), “The Future We Want” www.uncsd2012.org/content/

documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%20 1230pm.pdf (accessed
July 1, 2012).

29. Vathani Panirchellvum (2014), “Federal Court denies The Herald’s appeal on ‘Allah’ ban”,
www.thesundaily.my/news/1089653 (accessed January 9, 2015).

30. Wee Chong Hui (2011), “Federal-State Relations in Natural Resource Management” in ISIS, Malaysia:
Policies & Issues in Economic Development.