The Melayu: Customary Rights, Land and Identity

This new report explores why the Melayu peoples of Sumatra and Kalimantan retain customary land practices but do not self-identify as ‘indigenous.’ Drawing on literature, fieldwork, and community discussions, it assembles and distils available information on Melayu land tenure systems and highlights what this means for the recognition of their rights today.

Read the full report in English and Bahasa Indonesia

Peoples who self-identify as ‘indigenous peoples’ in Indonesia, either through the Constitutional term ‘masyarakat hukum adat’ (customary law communities) or through vernacular terms, such as suku asli (original tribe) and masyarakat adat (customary communities) - the term preferred by NGOs and the main indigenous organisation in Indonesia (AMAN) - commonly do so to make clear that they retain customary rights to their lands and territories and claim the right to self-determination, in accordance with international human rights law. Yet other ethnic groups may choose not to use these terms to self-identify, even though they may also continue to access their lands and resources through customary law. 

This study explores this puzzle with reference to the Melayu (Malay) peoples of Sumatra and Kalimantan.  It is published as a contribution to the current phase of implementation of the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) Remedy Framework, which requires companies that cleared lands for plantations between 1994 and 2020 to make remedy for any social harms caused by this ‘conversion’, paying particular attention to those with customary rights to their lands. 

The term Melayu (Malay) appears to originate in the 4th or 5th century of the current era (CE) in reference to early Buddhist kingdoms that emerged in southern Sumatra, seeking to control and contribute to the intercontinental trade between China and India and the Middle East. Originally a term that referred to the royal families of these sultanates, which rapidly spread their network across maritime Southeast Asia, only later was the term applied to the various subject peoples they ruled and then more widely to all speakers of a family of languages spread across the region. Today, the term is used by many different peoples to self-identify those with a history of connections to these sultanates who have adopted Islam as their religion.

The study shows how – based on sampling rather than an exhaustive survey - many of the various peoples who now think of themselves as Malay still uphold their relations to their lands and environments in terms of traditional concepts that may pre-date their adoption of Islam. We thus find ‘Malay’ communities that have land tenure systems akin to the matrilineal Minangkabau of West Sumatra, or the Bathin forest peoples of eastern Sumatra, the Dayak peoples of Borneo and so on. They may have adopted Islam and sharia law, they may consider themselves ‘modern’, but when it comes to how they govern and relate to their territories, lands and resources, they retain modified versions of customary law that have much deeper roots.

These findings have major implications for how these peoples’ rights are now taken into account by government, development agencies and companies – and voluntary certification systems like FSC. The report concludes with a series of recommendations on how these peoples should be more justly engaged with in the future.