Bumiputra and Pribumi: Economic Nationalism (Indiginism) in Malaysia and Indonesia

A DIVISION OF Malaysian and Indonesian societies into indigenous and non-indigenous categories is expressed by the terms bumiputra/non-bumiputra and pribumi/non-pribumi, respectively. While it must be emphasized that national development policies are not entirely based on an indigenous/non-indigenous dichotomy, such a dichotomy has become increasingly conspicuous in development strategies in Malaysia and, to a lesser extent, Indonesia. The rationale for this dichotomization seems to be based on the following three premises: (1) The basis for the division lies in the belief that the indigenous nationals do not have a share in the national economies commensurate with their proportion of the population and their status as original inhabitants of their respective territories. (2) Therefore, government development policies should be oriented, in part, to redress this perceived economic imbalance by ensuring that the indigenous sector of the economy is encouraged to increase its participation. (3) It is believed that more equitable participation of the indigenous group in the private economic sector will help to promote political stability. The purpose of this article is to analyze the implications of these premises. We will not be concerned with arguing the economic relevance, expedience or applicability of government policy towards the indigenous sector. Our focus will provide what we feel to be a muchneeded analysis of the origins and development of the terms, with emphasis on how and why they have emerged as key contemporary politico-economic concepts.