ABSTRACT
There are endless controversies over whether or not the Orang Laut own and may claim rights over areas that have historically formed their sailing routes, fishing grounds and moorage points. The first major impediment to understanding and accepting their notion of ownership lies in the supposition that they do not have any kind of fixed attachment to places. This assumption is based on the all too often negative characterization which stresses what they lack rather than what they have, namely an enduring relationship with their environment and an interest in increasing its productivity. This controversy suggests at least two ways in which the terms ‘ownership’ and ‘rights’ are understood: first, in terms of a permanent settlement that maintains exclusive privileges within an area with clearly defined boundaries; second, in terms of the movement across spaces to engage in and maintain social relationships with sites, navigational routes and surfaces for the practical business of gathering or harvesting maritime resources and rotating harvests to ensure the sustainability of resources. The latter means that the social relationships of ownership and rights are firmly anchored in the landscape via movement.
