Comments and Objections Regarding the Orang Asli of Kampung Sungei Temir as given in the Detailed EIA Report The Proposed Water Transfer Project from Pahang DM to Selangor DE
by Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
9th November 2000

An examination of the EIA for 'The Proposed Water Transfer Project from Pahang DM to Selangor DE' has not been able to convince us that project is at all needed in the first place. Nor are we convinced that the water transfer plan itself is a sensible undertaking. We draw these conclusions on the basis that there are grounds to doubt the accuracy of the information collected and the professionalism in their interpretation that led the Consultants to come to the proposals contained in the EIA.

For our part, we would restrict our comments to the parts of the report that pertain to the impact on the Orang Asli, in particular the Temuan community of Kampung Sungei Temir in Klau.

In this regard, representatives from the Centre made two short day-trips to the community in November 2000 to verify the information contained in the EIA. Towards this end, the following chapters/sections of the EIA were closely looked at, and checked with the village headman (batin), his assistant (menteri) and some community members:

Executive Summary

Chapter 8 (sections 8.5.5 to 8.6.2)

Chapter 9: Existing Environment: Socio-economic and Population, and Archaeology.

Chapter 10: Existing Environment: Orang Asli Settlement, Sungei Temir

Chapter 11: Potential Impact and Proposed Implications: Land, Population and Heritage Considerations.

Appendix 10.1: Orang Asli Resettlement Plan

For example, it is stated that the Tok Batin is supported by two Menteri… (10.4; also, Table 1 of Appendix 1) when there is only ONE Menteri, or Assistant Headman in the village at Sungei Temir.

It was also stated that there are 38 Muslim households and the rest are non-Muslims practicing much of the animistic beliefs of their ancestors.... The Muslim members of the community have taken up Muslim names and these can be detected easily by a 'bin' for the male and a 'binti' for the female in place of anak lelaki and anak perempuan in their names [10.7.1].

The truth is there are no more than seven individuals (not households) who are Muslim. Clearly, although the Consultants interviewed all heads of households over a period of 10 days using seven enumerators in the process [10.7.1], this question was not put to them (as suggested in 9.1.2 (c) of the EIA). The assumption that a 'bin' or 'binti' in their names denote their religion as being Islam also reflects the Consultants' unfamiliarity with the Orang Asli situation (where such Malay names or Muslim labels are frequently given to Orang Asli by the authorities, often against their wishes).

Other inaccuracies include the untrue and unverified assertion that all houses are provided with hygienic toilets [8.5.5], and that no one in the community owns a car/van/jeep [Table 10.3] when in actual fact, the Menteri owns a Cherokee Jeep which he uses to transport the community's banana harvest to town (an important source of cash income for some families there, although not noted as such in the report). On the contrary, the report mentions that water melons are cultivated there [10.7.2 (a)] when this is not the case, or that outside employment includes work in logging camps [10.7.2 (a)], which is also not the case.

Poor communication and rapport

The Consultants contend that communicating with the Orang Asli is simple with Bahasa Malaysia as the linqua franca…[10.7]. For any one who has done fieldwork with Orang Asli, this is clearly an understatement. Communicating with Orang Asli, especially for brief, structured conversations aimed at soliciting quantifiable data, is not merely a matter of both parties understanding the language. You need to consider the context of the questioning, the time of day the questioning is done, the amount of time and patience extended to get the questions and answers understood, the tone and sincerity in which the information is solicited, and even the way the question is asked in the first place. For example, the Orang Asli usually treat a simple question such as, "How many children do you have" as a very complex matter. After all, it is not clear what is really meant by 'children'. Are you including just all those born to the parents, or do you include those adopted as well? What about those who have died, or those have married and are living away? Or are married and living with them? What about children-in-law?

Frequently, when Orang Asli are weary of the questioning, and in a polite gesture to get rid of you, they will say 'tak tahu' or 'do not know'. The Consultants obtained a very high incidence of such answers (about 90 per cent of the time, according to Table 10.4) to queries about the expected impacts on the Orang Asli's lives as a result of the project. In contrast, in a similar study by UKM anthropologist Hasan Mat Nor (March 2000), his 'not sure' responses only totalled 1.7 per cent [10.7.4.(c)].

Clearly, therefore, the Consultants' attempts to justify their high frequency of 'do not know' answers as, Questions on which they have no opinion are answered as 'entah-lah' or 'tak tahu', … which does not indicate that they do not understand the question, but implying having no opinion [10.7], must be seen as an attempt to justify a weak data-gathering process. To add that, it is perhaps beyond their comprehension to estimate this impact … [10.7.4.(c)] is not only condescending, but brings to bear weaknesses in the survey methodology.

For example, the Consultants argue that entering homes beyond the veranda to investigate such things may be a cause for callousness in the trust and confidence built [10.7.3]. On the contrary, not to do so indicates a lack of trust and confidence of the Orang Asli towards the interviewer, or that sufficient rapport was not established as is necessary to obtain true and accurate information.

Disputed 'Facts'

Contrary to the Consultants' assertion that there is no record on the formative history of the community [10.4}, the village folk were able to relate to us the origin of the names of several places within and outside their traditional territory. Some of the elders were also able to relate the more recent history of the community, as in the period when the British, Japanese and Communists were around. Certainly, the Orang Asli told us, the village was there "before the Chinese kampungs were established, before Felda opened up the area."

The villagers took particular exception to the Consultants' statement that there appeared to be no strong emotional attachment over the burial ground and the dead … (and that) …when posed with the question of a need for exhumation, the response given by the Orang Asli can be considered as immaterial [10.6].

To this they told us:
"Orang Asli percaya kepada nenek-moyang, tahu-kah? Semak, memanglah semak. Tapi dia punya tanda masih ada. Tak semestinya kita tak peduli. Walaupun pokok ada kiri, kanan, kita masih tahu tempat kuburan itu. Kalau jadi empangan, no way kita tak nak pindahkan. Ini bukan macam bangkai babi, bangkai ayam, tinggallah sahaja."

(Orang Asli believe in our ancestors, do you know that? The place may be overgrown but there are still signs (headstones). It's not as if we do not care. Even though there are trees to the left, right, we still can recognise the graves. If the dam goes on, there's no way we do not want to relocate the graves. This is not as if they are pig carcasses, or chicken carcasses where we can just leave them there.)

On claims by Consultants that visits to the burial grounds are not reported nor are there special periodic memorial service held to commemorate the deceased [10.6], they told us:

"Kuburan Orang Asli kita ada pergi melawat. Pergi berdoa kubur. Bukan hari-hari. Ada masa. Duduklah sini satu tahun. Tengoklah sendiri. Barulah tahu."

(We do visit the Orang Asli graves. We have prayers at the graves. Not everyday. But at specific times. Stay here for a year and see for yourself. Then you'll know.)

The Consultants may perhaps argue that that their information came from the Tok Batin who cannot recall even roughly the number of plots on the burial ground [10.6]. If this is so, the Consultants should have been aware that the Tok Batin is not a Temuan from the area but a Jah Hut from the Temerloh district. He had married a Temuan here and had long settled in Kampung Sungei Temir before being made the headman of the village. One would therefore not expect him to know all about the settlement. On the contrary, the Consultants should have checked with other elders who are more knowledgeable about the settlement.

Orang Asli agreeable to the project?

It is therefore clear that the survey conducted on the Orang Asli at Kampung Sungei Temir is of questionable application and usefulness. We find it difficult to accept, for example, that the survey done during the studies show that the Orang Asli in general are agreeable to the project and are willing to be resettled [Exec. Summary 11.3] or that the resettlement option were (sic) discussed with the Orang Asli of Sungei Temir and the Consultants see no objection to the approach… [Appendix 10.1; s1.7].

It is also assumed that the Orang Asli of Kampung Sungei Temir have readily agreed to the new resettlement site in the Lurah Bilut Forest, "after various meetings and consultations" [Exec. Summary 11.6]. From our discussions, this appears to be not so. For despite the leaders insisting that they did not want to be resettled, they were pressured into agreeing to the dam, "in the name of national development" ("Dia desak-desak. Semua orang datang, cakap di mana nak pindah. Terpaksa setuju selepas tak ada pilihan").

Given no option but to move, the Orang Asli asked to be resettled upstream at Bukit Lancar and Ulu Temir, which are still part of their traditional territory, and which would not be inundated. This was not accepted. Instead, an area in the Lurah Bilut Forest, approximately 40 km away, was chosen.

The Temuan are not keen to move to the Lurah Bilut Forest because this is the traditional territory of another Temuan group (Kampung Sungei Ara, which incidentally is not mentioned in the report). They say that to resettle in the traditional territory of another Orang Asli community is like asking them to "fight with our own people" ("Rumah orang nak masuk, susah. Dia nak bagi kita lawan sendiri").

Thus, the conclusion the Consultants arrived at regarding the perceived willingness of the Orang Asli to resettle at the Lurah Bilut Forest area must be accepted with some misgiving. There are certainly no grounds for them to claim that free and informed consent was obtained from the Orang Asli.

Does resettlement work?

The Consultants see resettlement as a means to bring the Orang Asli into the mainstream economics consistent with the national development objectives [Appendix 10.1, s.1.1]. This is despite the fact that, by its own admission, Kampung Sungei Temir is already a success story in bringing the Orang Asli into mainstream economics [10.1].

There is no doubt, however, that resettlement is on the drawing board for Kampung Sungei Temir because the Orang Asli's land is required for the project.

Clearly, also, this is a case where the development project does not benefit the Orang Asli directly; rather it is to serve the water needs of an already privileged and wasteful sector many kilometres away. This conforms to the rationale of past resettlement schemes in the country - resettlement schemes that have proven time and again to be personal and social disasters for the people asked to make sacrifices for the sake of 'national development'.

No amount of sincere planning can lessen the impact of forced displacement felt by a people - whose very culture, identity and social psychology are rooted in a particular ecological niche. The mere replacement of their land with another, or the mere construction of identical houses, cannot ameliorate the breakdown in social structures that is inevitable in such circumstances.

The various options and details in the Orang Asli Resettlement Plan [Appendix 10.1] therefore do not convince us that it will succeed. On the contrary, because the Orang Asli have yet to be involved in a participatory capacity in the whole decision-making process, we have no reason to doubt that this resettlement, if it is to take place, is destined to become another social disaster in Orang Asli development planning.

Furthermore, the many prejudices and perceptions contained in the report reveal to us that the attitude towards the Orang Asli is one of condescension and latent spite. Thus, the (inaccurate) reference to their 'roaming' lifestyle [Exec. Summary 11.5], implying that the Orang Asli are nomadic, which they are not. Or that the houses in the resettlement scheme should be similar to those built under the PPRT scheme [Appendix 10.1, s1.5.4] which are grossly inferior ("like large chicken coops") and veritable heat traps. Or that the houses the Orang Asli built using materials available in the forests should be accorded no value [10.7.4.]. Worse still, that the implementation of a basic resettlement programme (that does not come close to compensating the sacrifice of the Orang Asli) should be feared by the Consultants as being seen by some as pampering the lot of the Orang Asli [Appendix 10.1, s1.7].

Conclusion

The proposed Pahang-Selangor water transfer project does NOT benefit the Orang Asli community at Kampung Sungei Temir.

We also know that the dams are not needed.

We therefore urge that the money meant for the two dams be instead directed towards genuine development projects for the Orang Asli and other deserving communities - and not be spent on further EIA reports that do not reflect the true situation.

Subang Jaya
9 November 2000