By Doreena Naeg
The term ‘Dayak’ is historically as old as the existence of the people so named and not coined by the colonial powers
SARAWAK’S rich racial diversity forms a unique backdrop that helps define the state’s character.
Among its 2.4 million people, comprising a total of 27 ethnic tribes and other racial groups, a total of 45 languages and dialects are being spoken.
The state’s indigenous communities form a large chunk of its population with the Iban (700,000) taking the lead, followed by the Bidayuh (197,000), the Orang Ulu and the Melanau (137,000).
Further sub-divided into the Jagoi, Biatah, Bukar-Sadong, Selakau and Lara groups, the Bidayuh were formerly known as Land Dayaks because of their upland inhabiting tendencies while the Iban were named Sea Dayaks because of their inclination towards the coastal regions.
Upriver dwellers refer to the Orang Ulu, a general term covering the Penan, Kayan, Kenyah, Kelabit and Lun Bawang while the Melanau make up the country’s balance of indigenous people.
The natives (27 ethnic tribes) comprise the group called Dayak. In the 1970s and 80s, there was a suggestion to drop the term. Until that time, the natives found no fault with it and were quite happy to be known as Dayak.
However, after the suggestion was made, hairline fractures began to appear in the unity of the natives who were previously quite content to come under the broad umbrella of the Dayak community.
The issue was brought up time and again with lukewarm response, for the most part. Nonetheless, there was, to a certain degree, a change in mindset when the term Dayak was conspicuously avoided and non-Muslim Bumiputeras was used in its place. The only time the term was widely used was during Gawai, the Harvest Festival.
The issue resurfaced recently following comments, in both local and national print media, by Rural and Development Deputy Minister Datuk Joseph Entulu on dropping of the term, Dayak, citing that it bore connotations that were negative, derogatory, uncouth and low class.
He was also quoted as having further said the term was coined by the colonial powers.
The suggestion received negative feedback from most Dayak leaders and politicians.
Entulu, however, denied making such a suggestion, saying he had been misquoted.
Secretary-general of the Dayak Cultural Foundation and president of Bung Bratak Heritage Association, Datuk Peter Minos, said it should be realised that the term, Dayak, is historically as old as the existence of the people so named.
Since time immemorial, the Bidayuh have referred to themselves as Dayak that literally means people. The notion that the word was coined by anyone, or for that matter, the colonial power, has little basis.
“We can’t run away from history. The word is as old as the history of the Bidayuh people,” said Minos, who has done extensive studies on the subject.
According to him, his researches have taken him to Indonesia, London and Amsterdam where he discovered the written records of the Spaniards who came to the Far East in the 12th century, and of the Dutch who followed suit in 17th century.
Both sets of documents referred to a certain indigenous tribe in the Far East known as Dayak. When the Brookes landed in Sarawak, they borrowed the term from the Spaniards and Dutch and used it to refer to the natives.
Minos’ discovery quashes any allegations or claims that the term was created ‘anyone or any power’, if not the Dayak people themselves.
Author and Bidayuh culture expert, Patrick Rigep Nuek, agrees with Minos on the origin of the term.
“The Dayak people are the original people of this land and have been in existence for centuries,” he said.
According to him, ‘Dayak’ means ‘people’ and does not refer to a particular race or creed.
”It is common to hear the Bidayuh referring to the term, Dayak Cina, which means Chinese people,” Rigep elaborated.
“As far as I can remember, we have been calling ourselves Dayak,” he said, dismissing the allegation that the term was coined by the colonial powers.
The British took the term from the Dayak to generalise all the ethnic tribes, and further categorised them into Sea and Land Dayak based on their respective inclinations, he explained.
“They called the Iban Sea Dayak because they were living along riverine and coastal regions and the Bidayuh Land Dayak because of their inclination towards hilly terrains,” Rigep added.
Here, Minos observed: “The Spaniards came in the 12th century and Dutch in the 17th century. By then, the term Dayak was already being used (based on written records). And that was long before any of the Brookes ever stepped on our land. It is a total absurdity to allege that the colonial powers coined the term.”
Dropping the term would be akin to ‘wiping the people off the face of the Earth’, he surmised.
“There are people on this Earth who are in extinction because of change to their name. And if that is to happen to the term Dayak, all the indigenous people of Sarawak will be extinction.”
Minos emphasised history must be respected because “it is our roots — our culture — for without history, we are a lost people.”
The indigenous people of Sarawak give the country its rich mosaic of traditions and cultures, which are a major lure of foreign tourists. They are the main actors in the play.
Land Development Minister Dato Sri Dr James Jemut Masing, also believes that the colonial powers could not have coined the term Dayak because it was in existence long before they set foot in Sarawak.
“The term used in this context is a generalised term that covers the three main non-Muslim Bumiputeras — Iban, Bidayuh and Orang Ulu.”
In Masing’s view, dropping the term will see the fragmentation of the indigenous people, and he is totally against the idea.
The Iban make up about 40 per cent of the indigenous community with the Bidayuh and Orang Ulu both at eight per cent.
Masing said disintegration would also bring about the non-recognition of the native people because there would then be too many small groups and that, according to him, is a far worse fate.
“It will disrupt the unity of the natives.”
Sharing similar sentiments, Rigep pointed out that Dayak, being a general term of reference for the natives, symbolised their solidarity.
“It is what that binds us together.”
Making an interesting point that is mostly ignored, he said in most official forms, the races indicated were Chinese, Indian and others.
“We are not one of the others,” he stressed.
“The term ‘others’ has adverse connotations — non-existence is one of them. Furthermore, dropping the term (Dayak) that gives the natives their identity will only exacerbate the situation,” he said.
In all fairness, the term (Dayak) should be inserted in all official forms in respect of the Dayak people who, after all, are the people of the land, he added.
The Brookes took the term Dayak to generalise all the Dayak and Rigep sees this as a blessing in disguise, saying “it is given to unite us.”
Minos believes the term gives the natives identity otherwise they will be lumped into ‘others’ as mentioned by Rigep.
He pointed out that the Chinese were also made up of many communities — Foochow, Hakka, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese — and they were generalised as Chinese.
“If you drop the term, Dayak, what then do you want to be,” Minos asked, emphasising that it took centuries for a name or a term to be established and accepted.
A Jew could be an American, European or Russian but he is still a Jew — likewise the Dayaks, he articulated.
A former state minister, Dato Sri Celestine Ujang, puts it simply: “The term Dayak has been widely accepted and established in this country. Whoever suggests that it should be dropped must be crazy.
“The term is just a term and any connotations — negative or positive — are all in the mind.”
This sentiment is shared by Masing, Rigep and Minos.
Rigep chipped in: “As a Bidayuh, if I were to say the term Dayak was uncivilised, uncouth and low class, then I would be suffering from inferiority complex. It shows I am not proud of who I am and what I represent.”
He totally agrees with Tasik Biru state assemblyman, Datuk Peter Nansian Ngusie, a Bidayuh, that being derogatory is what you make of it, not what you are.
“There is nothing derogatory or uncivilized about the term,” he said.
Minos said Malaysia is a democratic country where people were free to have their own perceptions even though he might disagree with them.
“We cannot control the minds and mouths of others but we can control our actions,” he added.
“It is up to the Dayaks themselves to prove the naysayers wrong and they have no reason to be ashamed of themselves for they are the rightful people of the land.”
Minos said he is proud to be a Dayak, even more so because he came from a humble beginning and despite the odds, managed to become what he is today.
Masing also said he is proud to be called a Dayak. Like Minos, he rose from the obscurity of the village to become a high-ranking politician.
“My parents are semi-illiterate and I was a poor kampong boy. Through determination and grit, I am what I am today.”
These two Dayak gentlemen became prominent figures in society through their own hard work.
And clearly, this goes to show that it’s not a term of reference or name that derogates a person but the person behind the name who either makes or breaks his own reputation through both word and deed.
Source Borneo Post
