By: Usman Manor(Historical Source Analyst, Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia)
Indonesia is a country with a vast expanse. With a land area of 1,892,410.09 km², a sea area of 6,653,341.493 km², and 17,001 islands, Indonesia is the largest country in Southeast Asia (BPS, 2024). Its territory is larger than Western Europe, which is only approximately 1,500,000 km² (Mulya, 2013). This vast expanse is considered Indonesia’s advantage, but it often also creates problems. One of the main issues facing Indonesia is accessibility for residents, particularly in outermost and border regions.
Outermost and border regions are strategically located and face direct contact with other countries (Utomo, 2010). If compared to a house, Indonesia’s outermost and border regions are like porches that reveal the face of Indonesia. However, Indonesia’s border and outermost regions appear to be lagging behind rather than progressing. Issues of inequality, leading to vulnerability and poverty, are deeply embedded in the periphery of a country rich in natural resources and a cultural powerhouse. Yet, Indonesia’s natural and cultural richness should reflect the well-being of indigenous communities inhabiting these outermost and border regions.
Similar conditions are experienced by the indigenous people of Lepo’ Ma’ut, Lepo’ Ke, Oma’ Long, Sa’ban, Lepo’ Ndang, Nyibun, and Punan who inhabit the Malianu Regency, North Kalimantan Province. All of these indigenous people come from the Dayak Kenyah, Nyibun, and Ngorek tribes (sidakerta.kemdikbud.go.id, 2024). The indigenous people, numbering 343 heads of families, live in the villages of Apau Ping, Long Berini, Long Kemuat, Long Alango, Long Tebulo, and Long Uli, Bahau Hulu District (brwa.or.id, 2024). As a front porch from a Malaysian perspective, the indigenous people of Lepo’ Ma’ut, Lepo’ Ke, Oma’ Long, Sa’ban, Lepo’ Ndang, Nyibun, and Punan actually face various problems.
The rise of stigmatization, minimal educational services, and the widespread seizure of customary territories, especially customary forests, are daily problems faced by indigenous communities. In fact, the recognition and guarantee of the rights of indigenous communities have been stated in the 1945 Constitution, Article 18 (B) paragraph 2, namely: The State recognizes and respects customary law community units and their traditional rights as long as they are still alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia as regulated by law. In addition, the indigenous communities of Lepo’ Ma’ut, Lepo’ Ke, Oma’ Long, Sa’ban, Lepo’ Ndang, Nyibun, and Punan have actually been supported by Malinau Regency Regional Regulation Number 10 of 2012 concerning the Recognition and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Communities in Malinau Regency (brwa.or.id, 2024). In addition to the Regional Regulation, in 2019 the Regional Government issued Malinau Regent Decree Number 189.1/k.335/2019 concerning the Recognition and Protection of the Great Bahau Hulu Indigenous Community in Malinau Regency (brwa.or.id, 2024).
The vulnerabilities faced by the indigenous communities of Lepo’ Ma’ut, Lepo’ Ke, Oma’ Long, Sa’ban, Lepo’ Ndang, Nyibun, and Punan are exacerbated by the issue of food security. Furthermore, the lack of attention and education for women and children in the region contributes to the increasing vulnerability. Women and children are the benchmarks for a community’s sustainability. This also impacts the lack of documentation and the lack of opportunities for cultural advancement. Vulnerable food security and a lack of support for community rights contribute significantly to the erosion of cultural preservation and the weakening of welfare. Indigenous communities are indeed cultural reservoirs.
The conditions of the Lepo’ Ma’ut, Lepo’ Ke, Oma’ Long, Sa’ban, Lepo’ Ndang, Nyibun, and Punan indigenous communities in North Kalimantan are just a few examples of the vulnerabilities faced by indigenous communities. In general, many indigenous communities still live on the border, but receive little attention from stakeholders. Changing the term “outermost” to “frontier” in border areas has not changed the perspective on sustainable development in Indonesia, so outermost areas have not been prioritized. However, changing sustainable development priorities that prioritize indigenous communities in outermost areas will change perspectives on national resilience, both from the perspective of indigenous communities and from the perspective of communities in other countries that live side by side with indigenous communities.
Shifting Development Paradigms
The economic, social, and cultural vulnerabilities experienced by the indigenous peoples of Lepo’ Ma’ut, Lepo’ Ke, Oma’ Long, Sa’ban, Lepo’ Ndang, Nyibun, and Punan require a shift in development approaches. This shift begins with a long-term investment orientation for indigenous communities in outermost regions, focusing on developing human resources in addition to supporting infrastructure. Providing balanced nutrition, providing adequate education services, providing adequate healthcare facilities, providing good housing and sanitation facilities, and providing social assistance and affirmative action for indigenous communities are the initial steps in developing human resources in indigenous communities in outermost regions.
Often, efforts to develop indigenous communities are only explicitly translated into infrastructure development. However, developing indigenous communities requires an implicit translation that has a greater impact on their sustainability, namely the fulfillment of basic rights, including education and health. Addressing the issue of fulfilling basic rights for indigenous communities in outermost regions remains unevenly implemented and strategically planned. Furthermore, the fulfillment of rights remains partial and sectoral, without involving many stakeholders. Furthermore, the fulfillment of indigenous peoples’ rights in outermost regions is not sustainable.
Developing indigenous communities in outermost regions through the fulfillment of basic rights is interpreted as building national resilience. A solid foundation in the form of culture passed down from generation to generation by indigenous communities will serve as the primary foundation for building national resilience. Therefore, fulfilling basic rights for indigenous communities is crucial, particularly in efforts to safeguard their culture from the threat of extinction. If indigenous cultures decline, their resilience will falter. This condition will gradually impact national resilience. In other words, national resilience is heavily influenced by cultural resilience, while cultural resilience requires a stimulus in the form of fulfilling basic rights for indigenous communities.
A development orientation that focuses on long-term investment requires a strong foundation. However, indigenous communities currently lack a more implementable reference than Article 18 (B) paragraph 2 of the 1945 Constitution. The mandate of the 1945 Constitution to draft laws that operationalize the recognition and guarantee of indigenous peoples’ rights remains absent. Yet, the vulnerability of indigenous communities should reflect the importance of a more operational legal framework. The vulnerability of indigenous communities will slowly erode their cultural identity. Yet, indigenous communities possess a wealth of local wisdom, embodied in traditional knowledge and technology, which serve as cultural pathways and additional options for addressing challenges and vulnerabilities.
The Role of Stakeholders in Maintaining Borders and Maintaining the Sustainability of Indigenous Communities
The indigenous communities of Lepo’ Ma’ut, Lepo’ Ke, Oma’ Long, Sa’ban, Lepo’ Ndang, Nyibun, and Punan currently lack options for maintaining their livelihoods in border areas. However, all stakeholders can open up these options through collaboration and good practices in the form of policy alignment. This alignment begins with accelerating the ratification of the Draft Law on Indigenous Legal Communities, which is mandated by Article 18 (B) paragraph 2 of the 1945 Constitution. The draft law has been pending for almost a decade, leaving the recognition process for indigenous communities in limbo. A law that is more operational than the 1945 Constitution will strengthen the recognition of indigenous communities, thereby safeguarding their basic rights and the space within which they live. Following the ratification of the Draft Law, the creation of regulations in the form of Government Regulations and Presidential Regulations, which contain implementation rules and the roles of various parties, will increasingly demonstrate the role of all stakeholders in preserving the lives of indigenous communities.
The development of comprehensive regulations will not only protect the Lepo’ Ma’ut, Lepo’ Ke, Oma’ Long, Sa’ban, Lepo’ Ndang, Nyibun, and Punan indigenous communities living in the border region between Indonesia and Malaysia, but will also encourage the recognition of the rights of other indigenous communities. In addition to the development of regulations, Indonesia currently lacks data and distribution maps that specifically describe indigenous communities living in outermost and border areas. Therefore, the absence of such data and maps can be an opportunity for collaboration between various parties to compile data and maps that will later serve as references in formulating policies for indigenous communities in outermost and border areas. The development of such data and distribution maps is not only the responsibility of Ministries/Institutions, but also the responsibility of Regional Governments, Academics, the Media, the Private Sector, and Partnerships (NGOs). The availability of such data and distribution maps will facilitate the development of affirmative action programs for indigenous communities in outermost and border areas.
Ultimately, culture-based development that prioritizes local wisdom among indigenous communities in outermost and border regions requires pentahelix intervention. Indigenous communities in outermost and border regions should be viewed as cultural hubs that can nurture diversity. Within indigenous communities, at least, traditions, traditional knowledge, and traditional technologies exist, providing alternatives to address current and future vulnerabilities. However, the culture that lives within indigenous communities requires preservation efforts through human resource development and the fulfillment of basic rights for indigenous communities. Therefore, the cultural path, seen as an alternative solution for development, requires space to thrive among indigenous communities. This cultural path will open up Indonesia’s outermost regions, showcase its natural and cultural riches, and encourage good practices in maintaining national resilience, with indigenous communities as the primary actors and a reference for all stakeholders in fostering unity.
References
Central Statistics Agency. (2024). Regional Statistics and Small Area Statistics. https://www.bps.go.id/id/statistics-table/3/VUZwV01tSlpPVlpsWlRKbmMxcFhhSGhEVjFoUFFUMDkjMw==/luas-daerah-dan-jumlah-pulau-menurut-provinsi–2023.html?year=2023. Accessed October 11, 2024, at 9:50 a.m. WIB.
Customary Territory Registration Agency. (2024). The Greater Bahau Hulu Customary Territory. https://brwa.or.id/wa/view/UzFObUltelJHVzg. Accessed October 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. WIB.
Darmadi, H. (2016). Dayak: Origins and Distribution in Borneo (1). Social Horizon: Journal of Social Education, 3(2), 322-340.
Giyarsih, S. R. (2014). Comprehensive Poverty Reduction in Indonesian Outermost Regions – Case Study of Nunukan Regency, North Kalimantan Province. Journal of People and Environment, 21(2), 239-246.
Mulya, L. (2013). Indonesia’s maritime posture: Measuring through Mahan’s theory. Historical Gazette, 10(2), 127-134.
Oping, J. S. (2018). The Effectiveness of Security for Indonesia’s Outermost Islands as an Effort to Resolve Conflicts in Indonesia’s Border Regions. Lex Privatum, 6(6).
Salim, M. (2017). Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) as a Manifestation of the Traditional Unity of the Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago. Al Daulah: Journal of Criminal and State Law, 6(1), 65-74.
Silipta, S., Komar, O., Hufad, A., & Jajat, S. (2021). Dayak Ethnic-Based Community Empowerment. PIPSI Journal (Indonesian Social Studies Education Journal), 6(2), 46-53.
Subiakto, W. D., & Bakrie, I. (2015). The Role of Customary Law in Protecting and Preserving Forests in Metulang Village, South Kayan District, Malinau Regency, North Kalimantan Province. Agrifor: Journal of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, 14(2), 293-314.
Syamsudin, S. (2008). The burden on indigenous peoples facing state law. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 15(3), 338-351.
Thontowi, J. (2015). Regulation of indigenous peoples and the implementation of the protection of their traditional rights. Pandecta Research Law Journal, 10(1).
Utomo, A. T. S. (2010). Optimizing the management and empowerment of outermost islands in order to maintain the integrity of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 10(3), 319-328.
The Melanesia Indonesia 