rnment control to establish 'law and order' in frontier areas, followed by the introduction of formal and 'orderly process' of native administration replacing traditional systems. Setting one people against another has sometimes formed part of this process, such as the use of Iban tribesmen by the Brookes in their establishment of control over Sarawak.
Now there is the 'rule of law', and the impact of legislation and regulation relating to land, forest and natural resources. All these laws, except in Thailand, have been inherited from colonial governments without significant amendments. However, what is new and different about the current situation is the speed at which new development, taking advantage of these laws, has reached tribal communities. An increasingly complex process of change now affects almost all tribal peoples. In the post-war era, many new developments causing serious environmental and other problems have surfaced, while the number and intensity of the more common ones such as mining, logging, commercial agricultural and resettlement projects, dam and highway construction, and tourism have increased. Nowadays, tribal people in some regions are also forced to move from their homelands for strategic, military and security reasons.
Independence has brought about new perceptions and contexts of development' along with socio-political relationships and alignments. In some regions, such as in the mainland countries of South-East Asia and in the Philippines, government authorities see the existence of autonomous tribal populations within the boundaries of the state, or demands by tribal populations for some degree of political autonomy, as a challenge to their authority and a possible pretext for aggression by foreign powers. As each of the SouthEast Asian countries progresses, it develops new and complicated legislation which frequently and directly, though unconsciously, affects the livelihood, but takes little consideration of the needs, of tribal peoples. Economically, modern agricultural development projects in the region do not only involve massive efforts in replacing traditional crops and livestock production but also productive techniques which development planners and experts consider superior, frequently without analysing carefully their environmental implications.
Unfortunately, the many misguided efforts and attempts by 'local elites' to apply inappropriate development policies, strategies and technologies to fragile environments where tribal people live are, sometimes, reinforced by bilateral financial aid institutions and international assistance. The World Bank has come under heavy criticism in recent years for ignoring non-economic considerations, and contravening many United Nations declarations for the protection of tribal communities, in its approvals of development funds. Such criticisms, fortunately, have caused the World Bank to reduce its support for transmigration projects in Indonesia (Colchester, 1987), led to its disassociation from plans to construct dams along the Chico River valley in the Philippines (Bello, 1981), and more recently withdrawal of its support for the timber-related industries in the region (New Straits Times, 3 October 1991).
By and large, the marginalization of indigenous tribal people has increasingly been viewed as the result of their domination and exploitation by advanced, outside socioeconomic groups, and the destruction of the physical environment by external activities. The increased incidence of food shortage experienced by many nomadic groups in SouthEast Asia, such as the Penan tribe of Sarawak, is frequently seen as the direct result of environmental damage caused through economic encroachment by economically advanced outside groups (Eder, 1987). In the case of the Penan, blame is placed on the timber industry (Hong, 1987). Similar rhetoric citing poverty as the result of inadequate attention given by planners, and that industrialists see urban squatters as a cheap source of labour-has been used to explain impoverishment among these and other low-inco