Participation of Semai people in constructing their own houses

What measures could be taken to increase participation of local inhabitants of Kg. Bt. 17 in constructing their own houses?

2.2.1. Definition and importance of participation

Although difficult to safeguard the interests of indigenous people it is critical to use a participatory approach, which is supported by major donors and international organizations.

(Davis & Soefestad, 1995). The Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets even states that only participatory methodologies are effective to eliminate poverty in a livelihood approach (DFID, 1999). The definition of participation varies depending on the discipline and research objectives.

In this research, it can be defined as: “taking responsibility with authority in partnership with other stakeholders” (Hamdi, 2014, p. 60). Nabeel Hamdi is one of the pioneers of participatory planning and outlines the importance of it in “The spacemaker’s guide to big change” (2014):

It is both efficient and equitable and fundamental to building community which is equivalent to building the social economy of place and not just the market economy – that is the economy of assets, tangible and intangible, necessary for well-being and for sustaining livelihoods. It is fundamental for human development expanding people’s freedoms and choices and their capacity to lead lives that they value. (Hamdi, 2014) Another pioneer of the dweller participation is N. John Habraken. The practice of TSP has some clear similarities with his theory of dweller participation. In ‘De dragers en de mensen: Het einde van de massawoningbouw’ (N. Habraken, 1961), later translated as ‘Supports: an alternative to mass housing’ (J. N. Habraken, 1972), he criticizes the repetitive, massive, homogeneous constructions. He proposed to separate the ‘support’ and ‘infill’. In this theory the state should

28

provide the ‘support’, while the infill is done by small-scale parties. The ‘support’ is resembled by structure provided by the TSP organization which is a simple house without any walls and windows. The infill is done or organized by the local people, as shown in Figure 16. The large difference here is that Habraken bases his theory on modern Western countries with very socio-economic statuses.

2.2.2. Activities of organic participation

The TSP can be seen as organic participation, because it is driven by social movement.

Furthermore, it is driven by intrinsically motivated local actors, rather than by policy actions of the state and implemented by bureaucracies which is the case with induced participation (Mansuri &

Rao, 2012). According to Mansuri & Rao, this kind of participation is effective because they arise endogenously and are leaded by highly motivated people.

The report gave a pragmatic description of the actual activities of participation that include:

 participation in decision making through consultative processes or deliberative bodies without the authority to make or veto resource allocation decisions;

 the contribution of cash, material goods, or physical labor to construct public goods or provide public services;

 the monitoring and sanctioning of public and private service providers;

 the provision of information and involvement in awareness-raising activities;

 the formation of neighbourhood committees (for instance, to reduce crime or resolve local conflicts);

 and the selection or election of local representatives.

TSP is mostly, regarding the owner, contribution of cash, material goods and physical labour.

2.2.3. Participation through co-financing

Co-financing is seen as essential for participatory projects, but can exclude the poor. Therefore, it might not be possible for the poorest to contribute financially. Contribution of material goods or physical can be possible. However, critics see this as an egregious tax on the poor (Mansuri &

Rao, 2012).

As the report states, for physical labour contribution to take place, the individual has to weigh the cost of time, social costs and psychic costs. The report also states, for an individual to participate it has to weigh the cost of time, social costs and psychic costs. For the Semai to make time, they have to consider the value of the participation to their other activities. For instance, during harvest season (especially in the morning) people have a higher preference for picking fruit than

participating in construction.

Any cash or material payoff during the project induces people to participate, but the effects tend to dissolve when the incentives are withdrawn (Mansuri & Rao, 2012). According to the report, positive effects will only occur when “projects explicitly link community-based organizations with markets, or provide skills training, do they tend to improve group cohesiveness and collective action beyond the life of the project” (Mansuri & Rao, 2012, p. 5).

29

Figure 16: House owner making wall infill Source: Dr. Wan, taken on 16-08-2016

2.2.4. Main elements of participatory action with indigenous people

Davis & Soefestad researched more specifically for indigenous people the key elements in a participatory approach. These elements are supplemented and visualised in Figure 17.

Participatory action through housing can increase the social capital, since it strengthens the relation between vertical and horizontal networks and connections.

Figure 17: Conceptual model of key elements in

Participatory Action with indigenous people Own work, derived from Davis & Soefestad (1995)

As described before in the previous section, Orang Asli suffer from a weak legal position with a threatened habitat, which impedes a participatory approach. Unfortunately, this is mostly outside the reach of the project.

Through history, Semai have been affected by many encounters with outsiders, which were usually not in their benefit. Therefore, gaining trust from them is vital before any action to take place. Most people speak Bahasa Malaysia, but communication in their local language can also greaten the trust of outsiders (Davis & Soefestad, 1995).

Traditionally, Semai are led by a body made up of elderly members of the community (Masron et al., 2013). This is a strong social structure, especially in more rural areas, which can be used in participatory action.

30

Indirect funding of projects can lead to reduced benefit to indigenous people due to bureaucracy and corruption. TSP is a small organization where all the money goes into the projects and is therefore performing well.

2.2.5. Conclusion

For this section the following research question was used: What measures could be taken to increase participation of local inhabitants of Kg. Bt. 17 in constructing their own houses?

Concluded from the literature review six important measures came forward to increase participation in the context of this thesis:

 Downward accountability through cultural appropriate communication is essential.

 Use existing strong traditional structure of the community for participatory action.

 Contribution through co-financing is essential for participatory projects, but can also be done through materials and labour.

 Positive effects in case of cash or material payoff can only occur when community-based organizations are linked with markets or when skills training is provided.

 Time, social costs and psychic costs of individuals should be taken in advance in any planning.

 Pay attention to those who tend to be excluded by inequality of gender, age and income.