International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 6, Issue 11 (November 2019), Pages: 81-91

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Native customary land and ownership disputes among owners

 Author(s): Azima Abdul Manaf 1, *, Zaimah Ramli 1, Sarmila Md Sum 1, Suhana Saad 1, Ismail Omar 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
 2Faculty of Technology and Business Management, Tun Hussien Onn University of Malaysia, Parit Raja, Malaysia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1247-3265

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.11.011

 Abstract:

This article is related to the NCR (Native Customary Right Land) issue which focuses on the need to examine the meaning of ownership and delineation of customary land. The purpose is to understand the need for recognition of land ownership and documentation of land delineation based on the participatory mapping requirements. This article has applied the qualitative approach taking into account the native people's social experience and their worldviews on issues of ownership disputes in native customary lands. The findings were obtained by conducting semi-structural interviews in focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with respondents. Analysis of the study found the existence of meaning gaps in the context of ownership and delineation which is an issue to the problem of native customary land ownership. Hence, the recognition of land ownership has become a necessity for the community and the documentation is important as evidence of ownership. 

 © 2019 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Land ownership, Delineation, Native customary land, Participatory mapping, Ownership

 Article History: Received 5 May 2019, Received in revised form 4 September 2019, Accepted 6 September 2019

 Acknowledgement:

It is appreciated and thankful to SK-2017-002 Research Grant, led by Professor Dr Fuad Mat Jali, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for the financial support given to the high impact of publication project.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Manaf AA, Ramli Z, and Sum SM et al. (2019). Native customary land and ownership disputes among owners. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(11): 81-91

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1

 Tables

 No Table

----------------------------------------------

 References (27) 

  1. Azima AM, Selvadurai S, Ramli Z, Saad S, and Hussain MY (2015). Boundry and customary land ownership dispute in Sarawak. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4S3): 17-25. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s3p17   [Google Scholar]
  2. Beckert B, Dittrich C, and Adiwibowo S (2014). Contested land: An analysis of multi-layered conflicts in Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. ASEAS-Österreichische Zeitschrift für Südostasienwissenschaften, 7(1): 75-92.   [Google Scholar]
  3. BRIMAS (1999). Deklarasi perayaan gawai kelingkang: Nerabai menoa 1999. Available online at: https://bit.ly/2ATnwYi
  4. Bujang M (2004). Malaysi as case study: A community initiative: Mapping dayaks customary lands in Sarawak. In the Regional Community Mapping Network Workshop, Quezon City, Philippines, 2: 1-7.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Chapin M, Lamb Z, and Threlkeld B (2005). Mapping indigenous lands. Annual Review of Antropology, 34: 619-638. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120429   [Google Scholar]
  6. Colás AO (2013). Participatory mapping in the design process of a spatial data infrastructure SDI: A case study in the Biosphere Reserve Rio Platano (Honduras). M.Sc. Thesis, NOVA Information Management School (NIMS), Lisbon, Portugal.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Colchester M, Pang WA, Chuo WM, and Jalong T (2008). Tanah menyara hidup: Hak-hak tanah dan pengembangan perladangan kelapa sawit di Sarawak. Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, UK, and Perkumpulan Sawit Watch, Indonesia. 
  8. Dewi R (2016). Gaining recognition through participatory mapping? The role of adat land in the implementation of the merauke integrated food and energy estate in Papua, Indonesia. ASEAS-Österreichische Zeitschrift für Südostasienwissenschaften, 9(1): 87-105.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Gessa SD (2008). Participatory mapping as a tool for empowerment. International Land Coalition, Rome, Italy.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Hamid NA, Harun N, and Ismail N (2011). Pengambilan tanah bagi pembangunan ekonomi: Isu dan Penyelesaian. Jurnal Undang-Undang dan Masyarakat, 15: 135-148.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Hamzah MANM (2001). Konsep sempadan negeri dalam masyarakat. Jati-Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 6: 69-104.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Haug M (2017). Men, women, and environmental change in Indonesia: The gendered face of development among the Dayak Benuaq. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 10(1): 29-46.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Hennings A (2016). Assembling resistance against large-scale land deals: Challenges for conflict transformation in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 9(1): 33-52.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Herlihy PH and Knapp G (2003). Maps of, by, and for the peoples of Latin America. Human Organization, 62(4): 303-314. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.4.8763apjq8u053p03   [Google Scholar]
  15. IFAD (2009). Good practices in participatory mapping. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, Italy.   [Google Scholar]
  16. LOS (2007). State financial secretary (incorporation) ordinance. In: Law Revision, Sarawak. Commissioner of Law Revision Publisher, Malaysia. 
  17. Majid CF (2002). Vulnerability, control and oil palm in Sarawak: Globalization and a new era? Development and Change, 33(2): 189-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00247   [Google Scholar]
  18. Phoa J (2009). Protecting native customary rights: Is legal recourse viable alternative? Akademika, 77(1): 69-89.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Reyes VG, Orta-Martínez M, Gueze M, Luz AC, Paneque-Gálvez J, Macía MJ and TAPS Bolivian Study Team (2012). Does participatory mapping increase conflicts? A randomized evaluation in the Bolivian Amazon. Applied Geography, 34: 650-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.04.007   [Google Scholar]
  20. Selvadurai S, Er AC, Lyndon N, Sum SM, Saad S, Manaf AA, and Ramli Z (2013). Penan natives' discourse for and against development. Asian Social Science, 9(8): 72-78. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n8p72   [Google Scholar]
  21. Sletto B (2012). Indigenous rights, insurgent cartographies, and the promise of participatory mapping. Teresa Lozano Long Institute of Latin American Studies, London, UK: 12-15.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Smith DA (2003). Participatory mapping of community lands and hunting yields among the Buglé of Western Panama. Human Organization, 62(4): 332-343. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.4.cye51kbmmjkc168k   [Google Scholar]
  23. SUHAKAM (2011). Dasar Tanah di Sarawak. Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia, Penampang, Malaysia. 
  24. SUHAKAM (2013). Laporan Mengenai Inkuiri Nasional Hak Tanah Orang Asli/Asal di Malaysia. Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia, Penampang, Malaysia.
  25. SUHAKAM (2014). Laporan inkuiri nasional mengenai hak tanah orang Asal/Asli. Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia, Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia Publisher (JOAS), Penampang, Malaysia.  
  26. Vos RED (2016). Multi-functional lands facing oil palm monocultures: A case study of a land conflict in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. ASEAS-Österreichische Zeitschrift für Südostasienwissenschaften, 9(1): 11-32.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Zaimah R, Azima AM, Lyndon N, Sarmila MS, and Sivapalan S (2015). Cultural construct of customary land from the perspective of Bidayuh community. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4): 26-31. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s3p26   [Google Scholar]