Anembiak Latong Rebak Baru

Observers to tell UN the true SARAWAK story

2011-04-20T18:30:00.000+08:00

From: Baru.net (FMT Staff)

The highly disputed Senadin win by Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) will be the leading example of polls malpractices which will be presented to the UN.
KUALA LUMPUR: The incident in Sarawak’s Senadin constituency involving PKR candidate Dr Michael Teo will be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva today.

The disputed results on April 16 will form the spine of a presentation to be made by Sarawak Report (SR) and other observers of the recently concluded 10th Sarawak election.

According to SR blogger Clare Rewcastle Brown, “we will tell exactly what happened (in Sarawak)”.

Citing Senadin, she said PKR was leading by 1,000 odd-votes during the last ballot counting in Miri City Stadium when suddenly a blackout “conveniently occurred”.

The blackout, she said, lasted an hour during which time the Election Commission (EC) continued counting.

“Suddenly they brought in ‘postal’ votes at an illegally late hour and SUPP was declared ‘winners’ with a slim 58-vote majority.

“The EC also announced 158 spoiled votes favouring PKR. The commission refused a recount despite the fact that there was a clear case for it,” she said.

Brown added that the Senadin incident was only one example that SR was planning to present to the UN.

She said SR’s report to the UN would include the “mass disenfranchisement of much of the population in the interior”.

This, she said, enabled Taib to operate a “rotten borough system” where seats are decided by just a tiny number of people whom he can pressure and influence.

“Some 470,000 natives do not voting rights out of Sarawak’s 2.5 million population.

“There is also the illegal touting of projects and votes by Barisan Nasional politicians, including the prime minister, in the run-up to the election.

“These are used as a direct bribe and form of blackmail. They tell the voters that they will not get the projects and worse, may be discriminated against in the provision of basic amenities if they do not vote BN, ” she said in her posting on SR.

Postal votes and bribery

On postal votes, she said this was another issue which would be made known to the UN.

She said SR would inform the UN about the abuse of postal votes and the “outrageous targeting of postal votes at single constituencies” BN wants to influence.

“We will also tell them about the practice of doubling up by sending in postal votes by the army and then bringing in plane loads of the same soldiers to vote in person as well and the introduction of suspicious last-minute ‘postal votes’ in order to try and boost BN’s tallies far later than legally allowed.”

The other areas that the report will highlihgt include the use of gangsters to intimidate and turn away voters from the polling stations, the abuses by the EC which included switching voters’ polling stations away from their home areas to distant places they cannot get to and hiding ballot boxes.

The UN will also hear of the tampering of Form 14, cutting off mobile phone networks on polling day as well as the “naked bribery by BN” of poor voters on the eve of the election.

Brown said the scale of these bribes went sky high at this election and was indicative of how unpopular BN is.

BN secured 55 seats against the opposition’s 16 in the April 16 polls.

RM1000 per door paid in Balingian

2011-04-20T18:20:00.002+08:00

By Clare Rewcastle Brown

KUCHING: Sarawak has changed and all Sarawakians know it. Chief Minister Taib Mahmud also knows it as he sits in his headquarters at Demak Jaya aware that all around him the people of the capital, his home town of Bintulu, Sibu, Miri and across the country have mobilised against him and want him out.

So strong and so obvious was the unity and determination of those population centres that Taib did not dare cheat too heavily and obviously in the urban areas (apart from some outrageous exceptions, like Senadin) the opposition swept to victory, more than doubling their seats and wiping out BN as a force in the cities.

But Taib cheated blatantly and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak colluded in this.

So what forms of rigging were used?

Taib used his sister-in-law Gertie Chong to bring the money. Gertie is Taib’s favourite brother Arip Mahmud’s second wife.

Her name pops up as a major shareholder in a good number of Taib’s crony companies.

She is a major shareholder of Jaya Tiasa, a plantation-based company which Taib gave Arip who then sold it to tycoon Tiong Hiew King of Rimbunan Hijau for a fat profit.

Gertie is also a fellow director and shareholder with Taib in Mesti Bersatu, and a shareholder in the Royal Mulu resort and Miri Properties, which owns the Marriott in Miri among other ventures.

She also is a shareholder in Lanco Plantations, along with Taib.

Funds from crony

Gertie has been associated with so many of the Taib family business ventures that have taken advantage of their political stranglehold on the state that it is no surprise that she was brought in to help with the emergency operation of keeping them in power at whatever cost.

Gertie was the one who was charged with bringing the bags of money over from Sibu to bribe and bully the impoverished voters.

This is how small and desperate the circle of Taib’s supporters has become.

She handed it out to the Taib’s Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) workers who then went round the houses distributing RM1,000 per door to people.

Last election (2006) it was only RM50! More than anything the wild inflation of Taib’s bribes tells you the level of his deep unpopularity.

And where did this money come from?

It came from Shin Yang, a crony timber and plantation company which has relied on Taib for the fat concessions that have turned its owner Ling Chiong Ho from being a barge handler in Sibu, working for Taib’s brother Onn Mahmud’s Achipelago shipping monopoly just a few years ago, into a multi-millionaire.

So, of course Shin Yang had to cough up.

As far as Taib was concerned he was calling in favours – the sort of favours that gangsters call in.

Reduced majority

Just look at the evidence on Shin Yang’s palm concessions alone, all handed to them via private deals with Taib Mahmud’s Resources and Planning Ministry.

In just one case alone, Shin Yang is the major shareholder of Sarawak Oil Palms Bhd, which used to be a government venture.

Taib, in a typical move, privatised it into a public company in 1990 and Shin Yang was allowed to buy over 37% of the company.

Since then Sarawak Oil Palms says it has expanded its land-bank to 65,000 hectares, with 35,000 planted with oil palm in Sarawak.

Gerald Rentap Jabu, son of Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu (who also bought his way into scraping back his Layar seat) is also on the Board of Sarawak Oil Palms.

Until recently, Taib’s brother and proxy, Onn Mahmud, held shares in the company through his own nominee, Shea Kin Kwok, identified as a key player in the Japanese timber kick-back scandal.

Yet despite this Taib’s majority in Balingian was slashed from some 6,000 to around 2,000 on the day, so sickened have his people been by his greed and land grabbing.

Clare Rewcastle Brown is the founder of Sarawak Report

Victory not all that sweet

2011-04-17T14:13:00.002+08:00

Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud was returned to power in the 10th Sarawak election but it was a bittersweet win because it came with unprecedented losses in the Iban and Chinese seats.

IT was not quite the perfect storm that some people had predicted but the Sarawak election is a signal that the political landscape in the state has shifted in a way that its leaders had not foreseen.

Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud was returned to power with a two-thirds majority but his victory was punctured by unprecedented losses.

A total of 16 seats fell in the rural heartland where Barisan Nasional used to hold sway while Deputy Chief Minister and SUPP president Tan Sri Dr George Chan’s 30-year political career came to a crunching halt.

Dr Chan’s stunning defeat by a young DAP lawyer topped the trail of losses of other SUPP candidates, leaving the party with a big question mark over its future.

Taib’s party PBB remained on top of the game, retaining all the 35 seats it contested.

But even before the night was out, it was evident that Sarawak’s politics would never be the same again.

Taib’s coalition crossed the two-thirds margin shortly after 6.30pm, by which time five seats were confirmed to have fallen to DAP and PKR.

Before that, tweets from opposition politicians claimed they were on the way to smashing the Barisan’s two-thirds majority.

A Perak leader tweeted that he had received a call to ask Pakatan Rakyat to get ready to form the Sarawak Government.

But it was one of those “Sept 16” claims.

However, there has been a Chinese tsunami of sorts in the urban centres where DAP took 12 of 15 seats contested.

The DAP was the big winner in Sarawak and scored astonishing victory margins in several seats.

DAP also made a clean sweep of all the seats it contested in the capital.

The Chinese in Kuching have made themselves heard loud and clear.

In fact, Dr Chan’s defeat was a metaphor of the Chinese rejection of SUPP which they see as too much of a yes-man to Taib.

But the earth-shattering reality for Taib and his government was the erosion of support in the rural Iban seats.

Barisan not only lost Iban-majority seats but saw its victory margins in other Iban seats slide to an all-time low.

Politics in the rural hinterland is no longer what it used to be.

The Iban support can no longer be taken for granted.

Ba’Kelalan fell to Baru Bian, the indigenous lawyer who has been such a thorn in the side of Taib’s administration.

PKR’s win in Ba’Kelalan was expected but the party’s win in Krian, another Iban seat, was a big blow because the defeated incumbent Datuk Peter Nyarok Entrie is the deputy president of SPDP, a Barisan component party.

DAP’s ceramah in Kuching, Miri and the central basin of Sibu, Sarikei and Lanang had drawn massive crowds night after night.

Their Ubah mascot, a cute soft toy in the form of the Sarawak hornbill, was sold out and every night, there were more and more people wearing the signature red T-shirts at their ceramah.

Their grand finale in Kuching was the biggest rally that local folk had ever seen and the opinion that night was the Chinese tsunami would reach the shore the next day.

It was not the da xuan or big change that the party was hoping for but it has been DAP’s most successful outing in Sarawak.

SUPP, the party that has represented Chinese interest all these years, will have to do a lot of soul-searching on how to recover and remain relevant.

Voter turnout has been quite low in the last few elections.

It was no different this time around despite the most intense electioneering in Sarawak history.

Some saw the low turnout as a form of silent protest.

The perception was while many voters did not want to vote for Barisan, they were also not keen on voting for the opposition DAP or PKR and definitely not for PAS which lost all the seats it contested.

This election has been all about Taib or Pa Mao – the name by which he is known to all and sundry.

His 30 years in power, unfortunately, coincided with the ouster of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak.

His overstaying became such an awkward issue for his coalition government that he could not even celebrate his three decades in power.

The results suggest that the power transition will definitely take place.

Taib may even have to bring forward his transition plan to perhaps next year when PBB, of which he is president, is scheduled to hold its party election.

Taib has seen how he was openly criticised and ridiculed throughout the campaign, something which had never happened in any state election.

There is no denying the groundswell and it is not only against him but also those around him who have overstayed their welcome.

The Iban change of heart is also a slap in the face for PBB deputy president Tan Sri Alfred Jabu who represents the indigenous Pesaka wing of the party.

Jabu, who won narrowly, is the only top leader of Taib’s generation who has yet to indicate whether he is making way after the polls. Regardless, he will be under great pressure to go after this.

In overstaying, Taib had given the basis for others to cling on. Those who have overstayed are what is known as the Ming Court generation, the group which came to power with Taib in the 1980s.

The signs of what would happen last night were already in the 2006 election and the Sibu by-election but those in power chose not see it.

The outcome in Sarawak is not exactly a disaster for Barisan but it spells trouble in time to come.

The political transition after this becomes more crucial than ever to Barisan’s hold on Sarawak.

How Taib handles the transition which will impact the coalition’s ambitions in the general election.

Kemengalka pending bekaul isu NCR: Rundi

2011-04-14T10:54:00.002+08:00

Posted on April 13, 2011, Wednesday
Borneo Post Onlines

GAMBAR KENANG: Rundi (lima kanan) begulai enggau raban ke bukai ba rumah panjai lebuh bejalaika pengawa kimpin.

BINTULU: Pengari Kunsil Nengeri (DUN) Kemena Dr Stephen Rundi madahka, rayat ba Suai enggau Niah patut nulak raban penyakal ti ulih ngasuh penyerakup raban bansa tebererak.

Iya madahka, raban penyakal enggau naka ulih ngenataika isu Tanah Bansa Asal (NCR) dikena ngeruga runding rayat.

Isu ti dikenataika raban penyakal bekaul enggau tanah NCR ngagai rayat ba Suai tu udah lama.

“Rayat udah nemu penguntung nengah projek kerejasama tauka ngatika diri ba pengawa program pemansang tanah tu,”pia ku Rundi bejaku ba pengerami begulai enggau rayat ba Rumah Emperang Bayu, Sg Tutung,Batang Suai ditu.

Nyerumba nya, iya madahka rayat deka ngasaika penyenang enti tanah ulih dikemansangka kelebih ba pengawa nanam sawit.

“Barisan Nasional(BN) ulih nulung rayat ngemansangka tanah ti ulih nyungkukka penatai pemisi,”pia ku iya.

Iya ti mega nyadi Menteri Muda Pengerai enggau Perengkaguna Mensia Mayuh madahka, BN disadang ulih menang.

“Tu ulih dipeda nengah kaul sereta kerejasama ti diberi mensia mayuh ngagai BN ba DUN N.60 Kemena maya pengawa kimpin ti dipejalaika,”pia ku Rundi nerangka.

Berebak enggau nya, Rundi mega mujur bejalaika kimpin ngagai Rumah Merudi ba Suai enggau Rumah Jelian Lajon ba Ulu Niah.

Change We Must

2011-04-14T10:47:00.000+08:00

Dear Fellow Sarawakians,

On Saturday, 16th April, Sarawak goes to the polls. Sarawak today stands at the brink. Our state is broken and bleeding, the people oppressed, no thanks to deep corruption and massive abuses by this BN state government led by CM Abdul Taib Mahmud.

Poverty remains deeply entrenched. Wealth inequality is very large. Taib Mahmud and his family have become the richest political family in Southeast Asia. BN politicians and crony businessmen have also become extremely rich and have hidden all their wealth overseas. Meanwhile, many Malays and Native Bumiputeras live in crushing poverty. And things are getting worse. The price of petrol and essential commodities like food are rising and rising due to BN’s inefficient management of the economy. The poor are going to suffer the most when Barang Naik (BN) lagi!

NCR Land belonging to the native Bumiputeras of Sarawak has been grabbed by Abdul Taib Mahmud’s family and political cronies for themselves.

The development of rural infrastructure has been neglected even ignored. Abdul Taib Mahmud’s politics of development has been a dismal failure. Our rural health service is broken and under-serviced while our rural schools are badly resourced. Roads and other rural infrastructure promised by the BN are not built.

This election is critical. CM Abdul Taib Mahmud refuses to step down. He needs our help. We have to make him retire. This election is critical. BN is incapable of reform or renewal. They talk about “transformation” but they do little. After 30 years of BN government, things are worse than ever. The rot in our public services is too deep and our state leaders must be changed if we want to save our state and its people.

As the “hottest ever” election in the state since 1987, we therefore urge all Sarawakian voters outside Sarawak to please return to your constituency in Sarawak and to vote for change and for justice. Vote for PKR!

If you are unable to return home to vote, then we urge you to phone, e-mail, tweet, and/or campaign via facebook to encourage all your family and friends living outside Sarawak to return home to vote.

As well, we urge all Sarawakians to contact and speak with their family and friends who are voting in Sarawak to urge them to be brave and to vote for PKR. Tell them not to be afraid of BN intimidation but to vote for change and for justice.

Sarawak needs you! Will you respond?

Berubahlah! Vote PKR! Vote for change and for justice. The time is NOW!

Yours sincerely,

Baru Bian

Main Wayang

2011-04-14T10:43:00.000+08:00

Tanah NCR akan dikembalikan
by Jessica Jawing. Posted on April 14, 2011, Thursday

Najib umum tanah seluas 40 hektar di bawah Seksyen 5 (3) (4) dibatal untuk Zon Keinstitusian Kerajaan Bau

BAU: Harapan penduduk di kawasan DUN Tasik Biru untuk mendapat semula tanah Hak Adat Bumiputera (NCR) mereka daripada Seksyen 5 (3) (4) yang diwartakan sebagai tanah simpanan kerajaan kini menjadi nyata.

Ia berikutan pengumuman Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak semalam yang mengesahkan tanah NCR seluas 40 hektar di bawah seksyen berkenaan dibatalkan untuk tujuan Zon Keinstitusian Kerajaan Bau.

“Saya mengesahkan atas permintaan rakyat, Kerajaan Sarawak bersetuju supaya Pemberitahuan Warta Nombor 1309 Seksyen 5 (3) (4) di sepanjang persimpangan Jalan Grogo dan Opar dibatalkan,” katanya berucap selepas tinjauan mesra dan majlis bersama rakyat di Gerai Mas di sini.

Beliau turut mengumumkan berita gembira kepada penduduk di kawasan Gunung Singai, Bau apabila kerajaan negeri juga bersetuju bahawa penguatkuasaan tanah rizab kerajaan yang meliputi kawasan terbabit (Singai) dibatalkan wartanya dan kini selamat digunakan penduduk.

“Bagi kerja penyukatan tanah kampung dan lot tradisi, survei perimeter dan individu sememangnya sedang dijalankan berdasarkan peruntukan RM80 juta yang diluluskan kerajaan pusat untuk Sarawak.

“Manakala berhubung pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) Singai kerajaan bersetuju atas keputusan Timbalan Perdana Menteri yang juga Menteri Pelajaran Malaysia akan dipercepatkan.

“Iaitu daripada fasa kedua Rancangan Malaysia Kesepuluh (RMK-10) kepada fasa pertama RMK-10 iaitu akan dilaksanakan pada tahun ini,” kata beliau.

Lawatan pemimpin nombor satu negara ke pekan Bau turut membawa khabar gembira kepada komuniti Cina apabila kerajaan memperuntukkan RM500,000 kepada SJK Chung Hua Bau bagi menyiapkan blok baru sekolah itu.

Note: Asal suba tanah tu tanah adat (NCR) dayak, tang diambi perintah ngena section 5(3)(4), udahnya diatu nyau deka bepilih Najib madah ka meri pulai. Nama kebuah ngambi tanah tu suba deh? Tu mina 40 hektar, kati ko beribu-ribu hektar ke diambi sida Elia Geneid, Sda Roziah enggau bala crony Taib ti bukai? Kemaia sida deka meri pulai ngagai rakyat deh?

Berubah tauka pulai baka selama?

2011-04-10T13:23:00.003+08:00

FB: Unggal Rantai Naga

Sekeda tanya ti patut disaut kitai empu lebuh maia berpilih tu.

1. Kitai masuk gerempong Malaysia taun 1963. Reti nya, nyau deka 50 taun kitai merintah menua diri, ukai agi dipegai ribai, ukai mega dipegai Malaya. Nama kebuah kitai agi berandau pasal nadai api, nadai ai, nadai jalai raya?. Taja pan semua nya semina basic amenities, perintah ti megai perintah kitai ngelama tu, enda ulih mai semua pemansang nya. Sanggup kitai nganti 50 taun da? Enti meda pengelama sida perintah bejaku ka 'politik pembangunan' nyau deka setengah abad, peda meh gaya “pemansang” ti diberi sida. Nama patut digaga kitai deh? Majak milih sida, tauka nguji ka pengari bukai?

2. Kitai bela nemu pengawa bala tuai menua Sarawak, sereta tuai kitai Iban mega. Enda iboh aku nusoi panjai agi, laban semua utai nya maioh udah dibantai ba macham bengkah website. Kitai mega nemu pengawa sida endang salah, nguna kuasa ti diberi rakyat ka sida kena ngumpul pengeraja dunya ka diri empu sereta kroni sida. Nama meh kebuah kitai majak ngasuh orang ti endang ditemu enda ulih dikarap ka agi, sereta terang-terang ngerumpak asil menua kitai, nyadi perintah kitai?

3. Nyadi di Semenanjung, orang ti nadai tanah, diberi tanah ngambi ka bisi endur bertanam bertupi, nanam sawit, nanam getah. Semua sida diberi benih sawit, paong getah, lalu skim nya digaga ka perintah jalai raya, diberi api, ai sereta mega diberi perengka kena berumah. Nama kebuah perintah menua kitai, enda ulih meri katan/allocation dikena nyaup rakyat ti endang sigi bempu ka tanah, ngemansang ka tanah sida empu? Nama meh enda tau enda berkunsi ka tanah kitai enggau kompeni baru perintah ka ngemansang ka tanah kitai?

4. Tiap kali udah semak maia berpilih, perintah lalu announce maioh macham projek. Maioh bengkah meh nilai projek, munyi ko sida ka tuai, peneka nyebut. Bisi sekeda projek mit, ti diberi terus e.g. atap 10 singkap sepintu, baja 8 kambut, anak manuk 20 iko, sereta duit ringgit RM200 sepintu. Lalu kitai mega dipadah, enti kitai terus ngundi sida, maioh agi, sereta besai agi, projek ti deka diberi. Udah abis berpilih, lalu ga nadai didinga rita projek. Ba menua kitai di Machan, lama bendar udah ninga bisi plan ka ngaga jambatan meraka Sg Kanowit, sereta jalai datai ke Ulu Machan, ngambi ka semua raban ti diau ba seberai pasar baka bala di Matau, Sg Latong enggau Sg Machan ulih ngena jalai darat datai ba pala tangga. Semaia tu disebut belama lebuh maya berpilih, tang udah tembu berpilih, lalu nadai didinga berita. Munyi ka salah jako, sunyi agi ari Nanga Sebelian, ti endur niang aki-ini kitai nyangkai ka diri belama-lama iya. Sekali tu, agi ka enda kitai andal ka jako sida?

Pengujong bendar, undi genap iko kitai berega amat. Nya kebuah genap iko kitai ti ulih pulai maia berpilih tu ila, bela pulai magang. Enti sema enda ulih pulai, kitai patut bertalipon engau bala apai-indai, bala menyadi, bala kaban belayan suku juru enggau semua orang ti dikelala kitai. Terang ka sida enggau silik utai ti nyadi ba serata menua, awak ka sida enda semina ninga ari mainstream media (surat khabar, RTM, TV3).

Pia mega, lebuh maia berpilih tu, enda ulih kelari ka bersengki penemu, laban kitai mensia endang nadai sebaka runding 100% . Taja pia, semua utai tu enda patut nyadi ka penyarut. Kitai ti rebak baru, patut ulih berunding enggau berkereja ngena chara baru, enggai ka kitai majak berpechah. Lebuh ti berkempen, jaga meh leka jaku, laban jaku ti badas, datai ari ati ti badas.

Anembiak Latong Rebak Baru

BN made us beg for our rights

2011-04-08T18:39:00.001+08:00

Written by: Dr. John Brian Anthony

BN politics is not to bring systematic development to Sarawak but a systematic rape and robbery of Sarawak resources and development fund.

Where is our NCR land title?

When we formed Malaysia, we dream of freedom, selfless government and prosperity. Our old Dayak folks wanted to see that they are rightful owner of the land that they cultivated. Today, is this so? No. About 95% of Dayak still do not have title to their land. Even their longhouses are constructed on land without title. If the land is not titled, Awang Tanah (Tengah) say it is State land. So Dayak today are basically people who are squatters in Sarawak because they do not erect their house on titled land.

DAYAK – do you accept that Dayak are squatters by virtue of BN land law and policies? God forbid, I do not accept such plight and I do not spare my effort to have a rightful place in the land of my fore fathers.

Who own Sarawak now?

It is Taib, the elite politicians and the very rich businessmen from the urban areas. They are given million of hectares of land. We Dayak received almost none. Is that acceptable? It is not acceptable and we must put an end to this situation.

How? This coming election we go out in force and vote for Pakatan Rakyat candidates. Pakatan Rakyat promised to give us back our rights to the land that was created through farming from our fore fathers. Today, BN do not allow automatic hand down of NCR land to the descendant of thgose who farm the land. Why? This will allow BN to divide the land and sell it to rich companies or even sell it to their family members at cheap price and sell it to investors at high price. It is a simple mechanism to become rich and millionaires instantly.

We do not see much development in Sarawak.

BN keep on telling us that Sarawak has made big progress, is it so? The quality of our roads are bad. Our hospital and clinics and medical services are not adequate. Our school facilities and at most basics in the rural areas. Our drinking water is so poor that we have to resort to drinking rain water. We do not have electricity for 90% of our longhouses. Is that the “big” development that BN is tellin us after having led the government for over 30 years.

We have given BN a chance. Dr. James Masing observation that educated Dayak is not supporting BN is correct. Educated Dayak are educated in cities and travelled widely and they can see the development in Malaya and elsewhere. By making comparison, these graduate has come to the conclusion that BN actually did a poor deleivery of development in Sarawak. Excuses are many. Sarawak is big with small population etc. That is just excuses. Even towns like Selangau, Julau, Song, Kanowit, Marudi, Saratok, Spaoh, Lachau etcis not well equip. These towns even do not have good clean toilets as a basis of looking for progress`in Sarawak.

But then, billion of money is announced annually to Sarawak? If it is, then where is the money. The endless traffic of logging trucks and tug boats pulling timber barges are an hourly sight. But then where is the moeny gotten from timber to develop Sarawak.

We received 5% oil and gas royalty and every quarterly we received almost 400 million ringgit from Petronas – where is the development that BN is claiming that they are giving Sarawak. In fact we now learn that our Thief Ministers has many billions outside Sarawak. I hate to think about the money that Samling, WTK, KTS, Shin Yang, Naim Cendera has gotten from our natural resources.

Religious rights

Sarawak do not have official religion. Yet today, BN is enforcing restriction and rules for religious practices in Sarawak. The Allah issue and the translated Bible is just the tip of ice-berg. BN Sarawak has fail to bring Dayak issues to national level.

Economics Rights

So Dayak remained a farming community. BN has transform Malay from mere fishermen to global business players by pumping so much money to support Malay transformation. Dayak is included as Bumiputera but we Dayak never enjoy such rights. The Affirmative action of Dayak is limited to the very few. It is so difficult to get the small jobs from the development fund.

Education

In the Eygpt uprising, we see 14,000 students affected by the event and brought back to Malaysia. How many Dayak student are studying in Eygpt? These student are finance using tax payer money – but where are the Dayak students?

Conclusion

We have voted for BN for 40 years now. we have voted BN Dayak leaders. Have they been effective? NO! Dayak leaders are just passengers and doing almost nothing. They champion no issues and have not made any impact to improve the livelihood of Dayak. This is what we DayakBaru are voting against. We must change our leaders from the BN camp to the Pakatan Rakyat camp. Now is the time and let us triumph over the marginalization of BN.

The Sultan of Bintulu Helps Himself to The Airport!

2011-04-08T16:49:00.001+08:00

Diambi ari: Sarawak Report
The Sultan of Bintulu Helps Himself to The Airport!
Thursday, April 7th, 2011 GMT

The Old Bintulu Airport now occupies a prime space in the centre of the town.
Businessmen in Bintulu have been eying the opportunity of acquiring the vast area of the Central District occupied by the old airport.

This is public land, of course, and so its disposal comes under the control of the Chief Minster, because (outrageously) he is also the Planning and Resources Minister and Finance Minister and the man who dominates his home district of Bintulu.

Under an honest administration this valuable land would be auctioned openly and conditions would be attached to benefit the wider community. Such rules would not deter plenty of businesses that would be happy to make a go of improving the centre of their town.

Sadly, it will come as little surprise to readers of Sarawak Report that we have now received information that the Chief Minster has, instead, secretly handed the entire area to one of his own favourite family companies, Naim Cendera.

Handed over to nominees at a nominal price!

Two prime plots in the centre of developed Bintulu - worth tens of millions handed out for peanuts
A trip to the Land Registry in Bintulu has revealed that this vast area of prime land, two plots of 11.852 hectares and 2.841 hectares, was quietly handed to Naim Cendera in November 2008.

The rent requested for these areas is ridiculously low RM88,890 per year and RM3,409 per year respectively (with no requirement to put it up over the 60 year lease provided).

A deal of just over RM 4 million for the premium on the land is also registered, which again is peanuts for land that could raise Naim Cendera tens if not hundreds of millions in profits.

An insider has told Sarawak Report that during the secretive planning negotiations a ‘smart’ deal was arrived at whereby the runway, which is federal land, was planned for conversion into a dual carriageway to service the centre.

In this way the premium has been largely avoided, ignoring the value of the surrounding land. The two plots are assigned in the planning documents to commercial and residential purposes and both have been handed to Naim Cendera.

This vast development has gone for a piddly price - Naim Cendera 'hits it lucky' (again)

The former town-planner and member of the Bintulu Development Authority (and till recently a Director of Naim Cendera) Sylvester Ajah Subah says he knows just how the system works, which is why he is now campaigning as the candidate for the opposition PKR (PR) in the nearby constituency of Dalat in Mukah. He told us there is no such thing as transparency in Sarawak:

“Of course other people were interested in the land. But, it’s simple, the government is favouring the developer who is the blue eyed boy of the Chief Minister. The developer is the company that is very closely connected with the Chief Minister”

Taib’s blue-eyed boys

Sepawi – cousin to the Chief Minister. How come he does so well when it comes to Government contracts? The Blue-eyed Boy in question is of course Hamid Sepawi, the Chief Minister’s own cousin, who works with his ubiquitous partner Hasmi bin Hasnan in charge of endless construction businesses, public bodies and plantations all over Sarawak.

The duo are the veritable Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum at the top of numerous Boards of Directors and between them they own around half of the supposedly public holding company of Naim Cendera!

Both men have also featured on Malaysia’s Top 30 Rich List, owing to their vast shareholdings in the enterprises they manage. Time and again their success can be put down to the good fortune of being chosen by Taib to be awarded contracts and land concessions.

It is hardly surprising therefore that most insiders in Sarawak regard the men as none other than proxies and nominees for Taib himself – men behind whom the Chief Minister can hide his own business interests.

Premium for Lot 4172 is a mere RM 4 million. What if anything was paid for Lot 4173?

Consider how Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum started out in life. Let’s put it this way, they were nobody very much before Taib hit office in 1981, but after that their careers went stratospheric!

Take Hasmi bin Hasnan. His CV for Sarawak Plantations (which is a venture benefiting from the acquisition of over 50,000 hectares of State plantation lands which Taib decided to privatise ) explains that the 54 year old had been a humble valuer in the Land and Survey Department, until Taib took over in 1981 and made the department his crucial power-base for talking over the lands of Sarawak:
From valuer in a government department to top businessman in just a few years!
“He began his career in 1979 as a valuer n the Land and Survey Department of Sarawak. Since 1982, he has been involved in a wide range of businesses, including valuation, project management, property development and management, timber, construction and and publishing. He has been the Managing Director of Naim since 25 July 2003 as well as Non-independent Non-Executive Chairman of Sarawak Plantation Berhad since 30 August 2005. He also holds various directorships in other companies. He was awarded the Property Man of the Year for 2008 by the International Real Estate Federation in Kuala Lumpur” [Sarawak Plantation An. Rpt 2009]

Hasnan is the Executive Chairman of Sarawak Plantation and, together with the Director Hamid Sepawi, owns over 30% of this company made up of lands previously owned by the State under the Sarawak Land Development Board.

60 year old Hamid bin Sepawi is equally busy with public and private posts:

Sepawi just loves trees...
“He has been a substantial investor in a number of oil palm companies for about ten years, including such names as Landang Selezu Sdn Bhd, Medan Sepadu Sdn Bhd and Butrasemari Sdn Bhd. He is very active in timber, property, construction, as well as the oil palm business. He has been the Executive Chairman of Ta Ann Holdings Berhad a resource-based group since 1999, the Chairman and and a substantial shareholder of Naim Holdings Berhad and the Chairmand of Sarawak Energy Berhad (SEB), a company that owns 100% of a power-generating company in Sarawak namely SESCO Berhad” [Sarawak Plantation An.Rpt 2009]

Both these men have also benefited from their own extensive personal plantation licences of course and Hamid has also been appointed Chairman of SESCO, the public company that holds a monopoly over electricity supply.

Sepawi poses as a tree-hugger, but his company Ta Ann has sparked fury in Tasmania as well as Sarawak for its plunder of the forests

Hamid Sepawi also is the major shareholder in another supposedly public timber and plantation company Ta Ann – he owns a third of the shares in the company, which declared RM 1.5 billion in assets last year and a profit of RM 72 million. We are sure that Sepawi remembered to thank Taib Mahmud for all those concessions and licences that have been made available to Ta Ann through the behind closed doors negotiations that the Chief Minister favours when it comes round to deciding who gets what.

One can, on the other hand, forgive the suspicions of those who believe that this cousin of Taib is in fact just doing business on the Chief Minister’s behalf and holding most of that money in trust for him. After all, documents obtained by Sarawak Report prove that it was through just such a use of nominees that Taib shielded his real interest and shareholding in his North American properties!

More and more projects for Naim Cendera

Traditional government housing and nice fields in Batu Lintang, due to be developed by Naim Cendera
It is not just the businessmen of Bintulu that have been disappointed over the favouritism of the Chief Minister towards his Blue-eyed boys.

Over in Kuching there was anger and dismay in January of this year when another prime piece of government land was handed over for commercial development to Naim Cendera again for what was regarded as a way below market price.

14 hectares of government housing land with extensive traditional grounds was slipped into the possession of Naim Cendera by cousin Taib Mahmud for a mere RM 20 million, which local businessmen consider to be a fraction of its real value.

This means that not only did the other local businessmen lose out (as usual) from the chance of winning a good contract, but the Sarawak taxpayer lost out, because so little money was gained from the sale of the public land. But, in a year or so, if BN get back into power, the profits will soon begin to pour into the Naim as it starts to develop the site.

Sub-contracting and the Bengoh Dam

There is money for Naim, even if the company can’t actually perform all the contracts that are handed to it. Lots of money. One recent example of the scandalous skimming of public money by the Taib family through the sub-contracting of public contracts was the awarding of the Bengoh Dam to Naim Cendera for RM 310 million. Sepawi promptly sub-contracted the whole job on to Synohydro a mere RM145 million, leaving a profit of RM165 million of taxpayers’ money neatly in the pockets of Taib’s cousin Hamid and his fellow shareholders!

Good detective work by the Dayak Blog in 2008, which spotted the RM 165 million difference between the award of the project to Naim Cendera and the subsequent sub-contract to Synohydro Corporation!

Such a handsome profit for Taib’s family member puts the ‘generous’ compensation payments touted for Bengoh’s Bidayuh villagers, who have been forced from their lands and seen their territories stripped bare, into some perspective!

Battle of the ‘Ngaus’ in Telang Usan

2011-04-08T15:36:00.000+08:00

Joseph Tawie | April 7, 2011
Another 'hot seat' in rural Sarawak is the Telang Usan constituency where PKR has the edge over its five rivals including Barisan Nasional.

KUCHING: For the past two years, Telang Usan has been making national and international headlines following the government’s proposal to construct two dams in the area – one at Sungai Tutoh and the other at Long Keseh on the Baram River.

The dam at Long Keseh is the better known issue.

Since the proposal for the dam was announced, the local Kayan, Kenyah and Punan communities have had sleepless nights.

When implemented this project will displace more than 10,000 natives from 10 longhouses from upper Long Keseh and submerge for good their churches, chapels, native customary rights (NCR) lands, roots and culture.

Besides, it is not known yet where and how these natives will be resettled.

This issue will be Harrison Ngau Laing’s platform going into the 10th state election. Ngau is the PKR candidate in the Telang Usan constituency.

Described as a “hot seat” for Barisan Nasional (BN), the constituency will see a six-cornered fight.

Telang Usan incumbent Lihan Jok has for some unknown reason declined to defend his seat and BN partner Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) is now fielding his cousin Dennis Ngau.

Others in the fight are Sarawak Nasional Party (SNAP) candidate Kebing Wan and two independents Jok Ding and Henry Belawing.

Belawei claims to be representing the agrarian coalition supported by Parti Ekonomi Rakyat Sarawak Bersatu (PERSB).

But the real battle is between the two Ngaus.

SNAP worry

Of the five candidates, Harisson appears to have an edge. He was a Baram MP in the 1980s.

Harisson was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for championing the cause of the marginalised people.

He was then an activist with Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) fighting injustice against the natives over the native customary rights (NCR) lands.

Following his release from Kamunting, he took up law studies and is now a respected NCR lawyer in Sarawak.

Kebing Wan, who is SNAP deputy president, has made many unsucessful attempts, in the past, at wresting the Telag Usan seat from BN.

Considered as a “recycled” candidate, Kebing’s lifestyle is well noted in the area.

They know him well enough what he can and cannot do in Telang Usan. He has been in politics for the past 20 years.

Rumours are rife that Umno is supporting SNAP candidates.

Voters in Telang Usan are worried that if SNAP wins. the candidate will likely jump ship to BN.

Despite SNAP’s denial and its continued push to promote the party as local-based, voters in Telang Usan remain sceptical.

BN’s ‘good work’

Meanwhile, PBB through Dennis is hoping to ride on non-defending incumbent Jok’s “good work” in supporting the consruction of the Baram dam.

Jok once described the construction of the dam as a “gift of God” for the Baram people. His comments, however, were much chastised by the opposition.

But Jok’s argument was simple. He said that because of the dam, some RM500 million worth of roads and other infrastructure projects were being constructed for Telang Usan.

It appears that Jok has schooled his cousin well in the business of politics.

Dennis is expected to continue pushing for the construction of the dam in Telang Usan.

Dennis, who was Jok’s personal aide, is closely associated with PBB and Chief Minister Taib Mahmud.

It means it will be easier for him to look for more funds for the development of Telang Usan besides solving many of the people’s problems.

But the constituents may suffer a major setback: if they vote for Dennis, they are also keeping Taib in power and allowing him to wipe out NCR lands to build the dam and re-settle the Orang Ulu near the Sarawak-Kalimantan boarder.

In the run-up to the polls on April 16, Dennis will have to deal with native opposition to the dam.

He will also have to explain the government’s seeming inability to deal with resettling their kinsmen in Sungai Assap who were affected by the construction of the Bakun Dam more than a decade ago.

Bakun luggage

The native issue in Bakun is still unsettled. Protests after protests have been carried out by the natives, but nobody listens to them.

A signature campaign containing some 20,000 signatures has been carried out in the past two years.

The signatures will be attached to a memorandum which is to be submitted soon to the relevant authorities including the Prime Minister’s Department.

Meanwhile, the two independents – Ding and Belawing – have been dismissed as “irrelevant” in the fight to wrest Telang Usan from BN and end Taib’s rule.

Telang Usan has 13,000 voters who would prefer a candidate who is god-fearing (read bible issue), patriotic, courageous (to stand up against NCR grabs), educated and with good morality and leadership ability.

A longhouse chief in Telang Usan, when contacted after nomination yesterday, said: “We are looking into the qualities of the candidate, someone who dares to defend our rights and speaks for our interests.

“Ultimately, we the voters need to judge and analyse each of the candidates seriously. We must look at their achievements and, most importantly, how each one of them can live up to serving the people of Telang Usan,” he said.

Land issues overshadow sex video

2011-04-08T15:30:00.000+08:00

Though hotly debated in the peninsula, the sex video allegedly involving PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim, part of which has been leaked online, only got lukewarm response from Sarawakians who will elect their next state government on April 16.

Random interviews with voters by Malaysiakini revealed that despite some of them believing that Anwar is the 'actor' in the footage, the sex video is not their major concern.

"Here we only have three TV stations - TV1, TV2 and TV3. People believe what they have twisted," said voter Ibrahim Ahmad when met at Debak, Saribas.

The 40-year-old businessman estimated that the sex video issue, including BN's attacks on Anwar, would only affect 10 percent of the total 979,796 voters in the state.

Voters interviewed by Malaysiakini in two rural seats - Saribas (Malay-majority) and Krian (Iban-majority), are clear about the real issue of the people - the release of individual land titles for NCR land.

"The villagers' demands for land titles are not addressed, although the lands belong to our ancestors," Ibrahim added.

Nevertheless, Malaysiakini discovered that personal attacks on Anwar have also crept into the election campaign in the Sri Aman area.

Leaflets carrying a Malay translation of excerpts related to Anwar's alleged homosexuality from former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad 's memoir, Doctor in the House, have been distributed on the streets.

However, a private sector employee, Laga Biju, told Malaysiakini that people in the interior area are not too bothered with such national issues.

"People will not believe. They know this is politics. It is nothing, It is up to the court to decide on such matters.

"The court is like God," said the 40-year-old Iban, who just came back from Kuala Lumpur to be in his state constituency of Krian to vote.

Besides demanding a solution to the NCR land issue, Laga hoped issues affecting local communities, such as agricultural problems, would be solved ahead of the state polls.

"For instance, the planting of pepper... it is bought from farmers at RM15 a kilo now, but the price of fertiliser sometimes rises to RM100 a bag. The farmer can only get RM5 a day," he explained.

Another officer in the civil service shared the same view.
'Sarawakians want their rights back'

"This is all politics. Everyone knows what is the purpose," said the man who was only willing to be known as Jemali, saying he feared his identity being known to the government led by Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud.

According to Jemali, Sarawakians want to take the opportunity of the state election to get their rights back, such as land titles, which have long been overdue.

"If we only ask for it after the election, they (the winners) will surely ignore us," he told Malaysiakini when met at Saratok.

Senior citizen Abang Hamzah Abang Seman said he did not closely follow the sex video issue and when asked whether he believed the man in video was Anwar, he replied, "that's why he was sacked".

The farmer said he liked Anwar because he had learnt about Anwar's ability to govern through a PKR candidate who happened to be his relative.

According to several political observers Malaysiakini spoke to, national issues will not attract the attention of voters in every state election. For Sarawakians at least, especially the rural folk, the land issue is their biggest concern.

DAP’s permit to hold public speeches cancelled due to karaoke function

2011-04-08T14:04:00.001+08:00

DAP’s permit to hold public speeches cancelled due to karaoke function
Posted on April 8, 2011, Friday

PERMIT CANCELLED: (From centre) Fong, Loke and Ling display the police permit at Pelita Commercial Centre witnessed by (from left) Wu, Kok, Chua and Leong.

MIRI: The issue over last-minute cancellations of police permits issued to opposition parties has cropped up again.

The Democratic Action Party (DAP) is upset over last-minute cancellation of a permit issued by the police to hold their speeches in Boulevard Commercial Centre on the first night of the 10-day Sarawak election campaign period.

“We would like to remind the police that they are bound by professional ethics to be impartial, now that the campaigning period has started,” said DAP Miri branch chairman and Pujut candidate, Fong Pau Teck in a press conference held at Pelita Commercial Centre yesterday morning.

Fong pointed out that with the dissolution of the Sarawak State Assembly (DUN) on March 21, local authorities like the police are in charge during the transition period without a state government.

“The police called up our election agent yesterday to tell us our permit to speak in public had been cancelled,” said Fong standing for the second time against Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) incumbent Andy Chia Chu Fatt.

The DAP was fuming when police said their function would disturb a nearby karaoke function planned by their rival, Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) which has three incumbents defending their seats in Piasau, Pujut and Senadin.

“We set up our stage with proper lighting at the approved venue to speak to diners, but the last-minute cancellation forced us to find another place nearby so as not to disappoint people who turned up,” he added.

He called upon the police to discharge their duty without fear or favour, in accordance with a call by Transparency International Malaysia on March 30 for relevant parties including the police to ensure all political parties get equal and free access to the public media.

Also present were DAP members Anthony Loke, Teresa Kok and Vincent Wu; Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) MP Tian Chua and Perak assemblywoman Leong Mee Meng.

Fong and fellow DAP candidate Alan Ling Sie Kiong went around introducing themselves to the public after the media briefing.

PKR pits shy underdog against S'wak strongman

2011-04-08T13:26:00.000+08:00

The story of the David and Goliath has never been as personified in Sarawak elections as the current contest in Balingian, which sees the meek PKR candidate Suriati Abdullah pitting herself against long-time chief minister Abdul Taib Mahmud on his own turf.
At least physically, the word "meek" is not an overstatement to describe Suriati. Standing at a diminutive five feet, she is dwarfed by her numerous PKR minders flanking her.

Not too far from her is her husband, keeping a close eye on his wife, who is on her first foray into politics.

Though it will be an almost impossible task for her to defeat the man who just celebrated his 30th anniversary as head of government in March, she is banking on her personal contacts to throw support her way.

In fact, she even claims to have had first-hand experience with what she called “Taib's oppressive regime” back in 2005.

She was then a foodstall operator, owning and managing a warung called 'Suriati's Cafe' in Selangau - an hour's drive away from Balingian - when the state government unceremoniously tore her stall down.

"They said that it was state land, despite me holding a land title.

"They didn't care anyway, and bulldozed my stall. They told me they wanted to build a park or some lake garden but to this day, nothing was built on that land.

"They didn't pay me a single sen and I lost my source of income,” she lamented to Malaysiakini on the sidelines of the nominations yesterday.

Since then, Suriati - known as 'Su' to her friends - now runs a sundry shop, while her husband deals in antiques.

But Suriati knows the daunting task that lies ahead of her.

'If I was scared, I might as well stay home'

In fact, her demeanour during nominations before this reporter approached her may not even inspire confidence as she frequently shied away from the press and speaks only demurely when her handlers were not around.

This is of course, in contrast with the flamboyant Taib.

Though himself barely a few inches taller than Suriati, the chief minister of 30 years would have learnt not a little about charisma in his longtime stint as a politician. It is said that his second marriage to a Lebanese 44 years his junior has invigorated him even more.

"Of course, I cannot compare myself with Taib. He is one of the richest men in the world," said Suriati.

"But I have a strong will and support from the people I know," she added.

Apart from Taib, Suriati also faces former deputy education minister and independent candidate Salleh Jafaruddin.

In the last state election in 2006, Taib won with a whopping 5,726 majority while his opponent from PKR only garnered 667 votes.

With 11,792 voters, the state seat has about 70% of Melanau voters, 17% Iban voters and 13.2% Chinese voters.

The state of Sarawak will go to the polls on April 16 after 10-day campaigning period.

Suriati said that her family was initially against the idea of her contesting, with them worried about their daughter's safety.

"But they later came around and now I have their full support," she said.

Though shy at first, she later confidently said that she was not afraid of the contest.

"If I'm scared, I might as well stay at home and not contest.

"Sarawakians are now very fed up of Taib and what he is doing to them. I just hope to be their voice," she said softly.

And facing two heavyweights for the seat, she may very well have to speak louder now.

Fear tactics may no longer work for Jabu

2011-04-08T13:17:00.000+08:00

Diambi ari: Barubian.net
Fear tactics may no longer work for Jabu
'Jabu is a man in desperation after 1,000 people came out to hear Anwar talk in Betong. For the first time in history, the people have overcome their fears.'

DCM Jabu warns campaigners from peninsula
Jungle Son: This is the voice of Alfred Jabu Numpang, a man in panic and in desperation after 1,000 people came out to hear Anwar Ibrahim at a ceramah three days ago in Betong. For the first time in history, the people of Betong have overcome their fears.

Jabu, there is no need to threaten our Peninsular Malaysian brothers and sisters. We Sarawakians welcome them to help open the eyes of the Betong and Sarawak Ibans to Taib Mahmud's and your wrongdoings. Your days are numbered.

You, Taib and George Chan are in your 70s. Give a chance to the younger generations. Your 'miring' will not help you a bit. Instead, God will intervene and you will be shown your rightful place after this election.

BigBens_KL This is a voice of a man who is afraid of challenges. You can use this tactic 100 years ago but not now. Jabu, be a man and face it like a warrior. Have a fair fight like a real Iban warrior (if you are one). Agi Idup Agi Ngalaban!

Atan-Toyol: Why do you think the peninsula people are troublemakers, Jabu? Shame on you for having such a low opinion of your countrymen across the South China Sea. You said the BN brought prosperity to your people. The only prosperity brought to Sarawak mostly went to Taib Mahmud, his family, relatives and yourself.

The people in the rural areas have not benefited much development. Their lives have not changed much since 1963. Please don't fool the people. How long more will you want to plunder your state's wealth?

Sarawakian_3ff9: Like Taib Mahmud, Alfred Jabu likes to threaten others with his hocus-pocus nonsense. He's trying to turn a traditional treatment for illness into some sort of black magic.

Anonymous_3ea4: Again the BN's fear tactic is showing holes. Most, if not all, Sarawakians know that their politicians have been screwing them for years. An oil- and timber-rich state with so little development for the people, yet being plundered and screwed more by the BN political morons who head the state.

Sarawakians, claim what is rightfully yours. Reclaim your state from the 'Barisan Nonsense' and give your people a good education to rise up and bring prosperity to the state. Vote out the donkeys and nonsensical morons like Jabu.

Ronin: Jabu, you prayed for peace and harmony but instill hate among Ibans against West Malaysians even before the campaign has started.

Junky: Jabu is advising Peninsular Malaysians to behave themselves. The way Jabu put it, it sounds like he is warning them to stay away from the Sarawak elections so that they can easily win the state election and continue skim off the wealth of Sarawak to the last drop.

FatLOM: Many of you may not know what Jabu is doing with the 'miring' ceremony. In short, he is asking for blessing from the 'petara', in the same way you would pray to your god for victory in battle.

However, there is more to this than meets the eye. By inviting the tuai rumah (longhouse chiefs) to participate in the ceremony, he is basically reminding them of their obligation to ensure his victory in the election.

A parallel would be when you are invited to be someone's godparent. Whether you hate or love your godchild, you will feel somewhat compelled to help the child through thick or thin. This is the true meaning of this ceremony.

Pakatan Rakyat would do better to bypass the tuai rumah if Pakatan are to win their vote. A good way is to remind the tuai rumah that they are not a true "leader" in the sense of the word but rather a keeper of the adat for the rumah panjai.

Technically, in the Iban comunity, there is no such thing as a "leader" since everyone are entitled to his opinion and have freedom to do what he want.

Note: Nya meh kebuah Dayak tusah ka maju laban tegal ti ngembuan tuai ti buyan,mako,isu serta aguk tambah mega enda nemu bejako.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paid subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda.

‘Securing two-thirds majority not a problem’

2011-04-08T13:12:00.000+08:00

Diambi ari: Borneo Post Onlines

SIBU: Chief Minister Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud is confident that the Barisan Nasional will be able to secure at least a two-thirds majority in the 10th state election.

This is despite the record number of independent and opposition candidates contesting in the April 16 polls.

Taib said his confidence stemmed from the fact that the BN had an established pool of core supporters who would not gyrate to the beat of the opposition.

In fact, Taib pointed out, the huge number of candidates would make the opposition weak as their votes would be split.

“It is those floating voters that will normally try different candidates,” he told reporters when met after a meet-the-people session at Rumah Jelani Daud in Nanga Lesih of Bukong-Jagoi Road in Kanowit yesterday.

Taib admitted that he was a bit puzzled and surprised that 213 candidates had joined the fray for the 71 state seats.

“Anyway, this is a free country,” he said.

On PKR and SNAP resorting to using outsiders or “parachute” candidates, Taib replied that he would not be surprised “if they end up in the bush.”

“On the part of the BN, if we want to use quality outside candidate, we
will do so with the consent and full support of the locals.”

Earlier in his speech, Taib said the state BN’s brand of politics was all about bringing development and progress to the people.

“We do not believe in spreading lies and slanders and making personal attacks like what the opposition leaders are doing.”

For example, he said, allegations of land grab were all baseless because the government always compensate the landowners if their property were acquired for development purposes.

Taking a swipe at opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, he said he was not fit to be a leader because of his personal behaviour.

Meanwhile, the BN candidate for Machan, Datuk Gramong Juna, who spoke earlier, said RM32 million had been set aside for a water treatment project for the area.

“At the moment the consultants are still on the ground conducting various surveys. We expect this project to begin in May,” he said.

On another matter, Gramong ridiculed the opposition for resorting to use foreign plantation workers to carry their party flags during nomination on Wednesday.

Also present at the function were Taib’s wife Puan Sri Ragad Kurdi Taib, his daughter Hanifah Taib and Gramong’s wife Datin Catherine Gramong.

Note: Ila kitai sama meda amat ke enda project ke nelan belanja RM32 millions nya nyadi.

Pemansang Di Menua Machan Bai BN - Utusan Borneo

2011-03-24T12:59:00.000+08:00

Tabi bala temuai ke bisi sangkai dalam blog aku "Anembiak Latong Rebak Baru".
Nyadi pagi tadi nyau ke puas duduk di kedai kopi di Machan datai siko kaban mai surat khabar "UTUSAN BORNEO" ke bisi ngelansa senentang pemansang di Menua Machan. Lama aku berunding nama tuju YB Gramong Juna ngenatai ke buah penemu ke bakatu madah ke bisi pemansang di Menua Machan.

Enda salah madah ke pemansang ti iya amat bisi tang anang kelalu ngumbai bai perintah BN. Ti jalai, agi pegai parti Dayak suba sigi udah meh bisi jalai. Enda patut orang BN aja mayar road tax kereta orang pembangkang enda.Ti nadai jalai enda ga orang Machan meli kereta kurang ga siti area kena nambah ke dagang BN (proton).Pia mega iya bisi ngelansa pemansang ba tali kangau @ handphone. Kati ko telefon ke dikemisi orang di Machan beri BN? Kredit telefon BN top up? Tower telefon kebisi di Machan nya siti ari dagang, kati ko enda pia deh sari berapa orang ke ngena line telefon, berapa juta untung telekom?

Ke amat-amat ti ka meda pemansang serta meda rakyat menua Machan mansang bantu sida ari segi utai ke tau ngenatai ke hasil @ sumber pendapatan ngagai dayak. Bantu sida nubuh ke ladang ba tanah NCR @ NCL anang meri tanah nya ngagai bala company besai, company cina. Nyadi bangsa dayak ulih bulih income tetap tiap bulan, ulih untung maioh. Ari bisi duit nya meh iban tauka dayak ulih mansang sebaka enggau bangsa bukai. Ukai ari project atap zink, project anak manuk, project beras serta macam-macam ago project ti ngasuh iban maju @ mansang.

Nyadi pesan aku ngagai anembiak rebak baru, berunding meh kitai ke nama utai tau ngasuh kitai mansang enda tinggal ari bangsa bukai. Anang ngiga pengari ke bago, iya ke iso giga pengari ke nemu bejako.

Nya aja.

Thank & Regards,
ALRB

Sarawak National Party (SNAP)

2011-03-21T11:15:00.001+08:00

Sarawak National Party (SNAP)

Diatu meh Maia kitai dayak pulai ngagai Parti Asal Bansa Sarawak.

Arevered "elder" in Sarawak politics has made a clarion call to the Dayak community to return to the Sarawak National Party (SNAP) fold and help the party reclaim its right.
In making the call, lawyer and former diplomat Dato Seri Daniel Tajem urged Dayaks "not to wait" until their "individual right whittle to nothingness".
Tajem, who was also the former president of the now defunct Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (PBDS), urged all Dayaks, especially the ex-PBDS members in Sarawak, to join SNAP which is now undergoing a rebranding exercise.

"the policy, principle and the objective of SNAP are similar to those of the defunct PBDS.

So what are you waiting for? Are you waiting for all our native customary right (NCR) land to be taken away to be made as estates of certain Barisan National leaders and their cronies and family members with little pittance given to the landowner?
Do you wait until your individual rights whittle down to nothingness? Tajem asked.

Tajem, who was also former deputy chief minister, said that SNAP was the right avenue for the people to support.
"We want to play an important part in the machine of politics that will churn the wheel and I can see that with the death of PBDS, we have no alternative but support SNAP," he said.

BRUNO MANSER FUND, BASEL / SWITZERLAND – For immediate release

2011-03-10T19:43:00.002+08:00

EXCLUSIVE: Report slams Malaysian timber tycoons' global culture of corruption and abuse
BRUNO MANSER FUND, BASEL / SWITZERLAND – For immediate release

A new report by the Bruno Manser Fund sheds light on the Sarawak timber sector's corruption and abuses, its close links with the Taib government and its leading role in the destruction of the world's forest environments

BASEL (SWITZERLAND). A new report released today by the Swiss Bruno Manser Fund exposes the Sarawak timber industry’s complex structure and its intimate links to Abdul Taib Mahmud (“Taib”) who has been Chief Minister (head of government) of the Malaysian state on Borneo since 26 March 1981. The study entitled “Development of global timber tycoons in Sarawak, East Malaysia – History and company profiles” examines the Sarawak tropical timber industry’s development during the past three decades and shows its leading role in the cutting down of the world’s forests, and particularly the tropical rainforests in South East Asia. The report is authored by researcher Daniel Faeh of the University of Bern’s Economic Geography Group.

Sarawak’s timber industry a cause of global concern

Sarawak and its timber industry became a key focus of environmental groups and human rights groups in the late 1980s when the Malaysian state of Sarawak experienced one of the most rapid log clearances in the South East Asia region. Thanks to windfall profits accumulated from destructive logging on their home turf, timber groups from Sarawak such as Samling, Rimbunan Hijau, WTK, KTS, Shin Yang and Ta Ann accumulated capital which allowed them to expand their business operations all over the globe. They are now operating not only in South East Asia but also in Australia, Africa, Central and South America, Russia and the Pacific. “Their track records of diversification and internationalization, however, go hand in hand with the violation of human rights, political patronage and the destruction of the environment in their home country and many other parts of the world”, the study states.

Regulatory body abused to form a politician-controlled timber conglomerate

“When it comes to land allocation, land tenure and native customary rights, the state of Sarawak still lacks a great deal of transparency and legitimacy”, the author says. The study identifies “the specific politico-economic situation in Sarawak” as the main driver behind the state’s rapid deforestation, particularly the fact that Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud (who is also Minister of Planning and Resource Management) “has absolute control over the allocation of timber licences and logging concessions to himself, his allies, friends and family. As a result, it is not surprising that the land claims of local indigenous groups have been systematically neglected.”

Surprisingly, the report identifies the Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation (STIDC), an official body headed by the top-political elites of the state, as “Sarawak’s seventh major timber group” which makes STIDC unable to exercise its regulatory role. “The independent controlling functions of STIDC (e.g. illegal logging, import and export duties) can be very much questioned on account of its conflicting business interests (timber concessions, logging and manufacturing activities).”
Sarawak’s six logging giants

In terms of their size, the report ranks the Sarawak timber groups according to the size of their timber concessions in their home state. Samling (over 1.3 million hectares) and Rimbunan Hijau (over 1 million hectares) rank first, followed by WTK group (850,000 hectares) and the Ta Ann group (over 557,000 hectares) Two other major players, the KTS group and the Shin Yang group cannot be ranked due to insufficient transparency with regard to the concessions held by them. All these timber groups also hold major oil palm plantation land banks. At least four timber tycoons rank among Malaysia’s top thirty richest people. Tiong Hiew King of Rimbunan Hijau, Yaw Teck Seng and Yaw Chee Ming of Samling Group, as well as Ta Ann’s chairman Abdul Hamed Sepawi, who happens to be the first cousin of Sarawak’s Chief Minister Abndul Taib Mahmud.

Logging giants closely linked to politicians and the Taib family

A closer look at the individual companies shows that the Samling group, which has recently been blacklisted by the Norwegian Government, has a long track record of illegal logging and severe environmental damage in Cambodia, Guyana, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Sarawak. Samling is controlled by the Malaysian Yaw family. Other significant shareholders of Samling are Ahmad Bin Su’ut, who is the spiritual healer ("bomoh") of Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud, as well as Hamed Sepawi, Taib’s first cousin and chairman of the Ta Ann group.

Rimbunan Hijau group is notorious for human rights abuse, the violation of indigenous peoples’ rights and severe environmental damage in a number of countries, including Malaysia (Sarawak), Papua New Guinea and Russia. Its controlling owner, Tiong Hiew King, and his family members have diversified from timber into the media sector, banking, property development and shipping. Tiong controls four Chinese newspapers in Malaysia with a combined circulation of approximately 2.6 million, as well as newspapers in Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Canada and the US. Rimbunan Hijau’s board of directors comprises the former chief of the Malaysian army, Abdul Rahman Bin Abdul Ahmid, and the former Sarawak Commissioner of Police, Talib Bin Haji Jamal.

The WTK group, which is controlled by the Wong brothers, is involved in large-scale forestry operations in Malaysia, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. It was also formerly active in the Republic of Central Africa and Brazil where it was accused of illegally logging indigenous peoples’ lands in the Amazon. WTK has become a key player in the Sarawak oil palm industry and has diversified into land devlopment, trading, manufacturing and the food industry. One of its directors, Abdul Manap bin Ibrahim, is the former Deputy Chief of Army of the Malaysian Armed Forces.

The Ta Ann group is controlled by Hamed Sepawi, Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud’s first cousin, and Wahab bin Haji Dolah, a member of the Malaysian parliament who represents Taib’s party PBB in Kuala Lumpur. Besides its logging and plantations operations in Sarawak, Ta Ann is also involved in the highly controversial logging of old-growth temperate rainforests in the Australian state of Tasmania.

The Lau-family owned KTS timber and plantation group has invested extensively in the media sector and owns The Borneo Post, Sarawak’s main English-speaking newspaper that successfully distorts and suppresses local concerns over the Sarawak timber and plantation industry in a Pravda-like manner. Abdillah bin Wan Hamid, the former General Manager of the Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation, holds 20 % of KTS’ shares.

The Shin Yang group is run and owned by the Ling family, whereby Pelita Holdings, an official body controlled by Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud, holds 26% of its shares. Gerald Rentap Jabu, son of Sarawak Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu, is a member of Shin Yang’s board of directors. Shin Yang is strongly involved in logging and shipping and is also aggressively venturing into the oil palm sector. The group holds a 30% share in the Malaysian stock exchange listed Sarawak Oil Palms (SOP). In 2009, Shin Yang was strongly criticized by Malaysia’s Human Rights Commission SUHAKAM for its dealings with Sarawak’s native communities.

The outcome of a patronage-based development model

The report concludes that Sarawak’s patronage-based development model has resulted in severe environmental destruction and a very unequal distribution of wealth and economic opportunities. “Right up to the present, the system of political patronage is still fueling the destruction of the rainforest in Sarawak, and local indigenous groups like the Penan are still fighting for nothing more than their legitimate rights to their land. The outcome of these past decades of timber industry development is huge timber tycoons, who now not only dominate the timber industry in Malaysia but also control many other important industries in Sarawak, including oilm palm, construction, property development, shipping, trade, tourism and media.”

The report underlines the fact that Sarawak is one of the resource-richest states in Malaysia and earns billions of US dollars a year from timber and timber products plus the same amount again from crude oil, natural gas and palm oil. “However, the government and the political elites have not only ignored the rights of local indigenous groups, they have also failed to distribute the timber wealth and revenues equally to the people of Sarawak.”

After 30 years, Taib's rule of corruption and environmental destruction must end

By publishing this report, the Bruno Manser Fund wishes to internationally highlight the fact that there is something seriously rotten in the state of Sarawak. Two weeks ahead of Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud’s 30th anniversary in power, the international public needs to be alerted to the negative effects of Taib’s rule not only for Sarawak but for the international community as a whole. Taib’s culture of corruption and environmental destruction has not only undermined the economy and political culture of this resource-rich Malaysian state but is also spreading its tentacles to other countries across the globe. After 30 years of Taib rule, Sarawak is ready for change, and the international community should carefully monitor Sarawak’s upcoming state elections and support the civil-society calls for political change, the return to the rule of law and the formation of a new, legitimate government.

The full report can be downloaded at www.stop-timber-corruption.org/resources

NCR land: Court sets historic precedent

2011-03-01T19:40:00.000+08:00

NCR land: Court sets historic precedent
-Patrick Lee
Federal Court grants leave to challenge Sarawak government over its 'usurping' of native customary rights land

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court today set a momentous precedent when it granted leave to lawyers to challenge the Sarawak state government’s aquisition of Native Customary Rights (NCR) land.

Human rights lawyers Sulaiman Abdullah and Baru Bian argued that native customary rights were akin to ‘the right of life’ under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution and that methods employed by the Sarawak state government to acquire NCR land were unconstitutional.

They named the Sarawak state government as the respondents.

Chief Justice Zaki Azmi and Justices Zulkifli Ahmad Makinudin and Raus Sharif presided over the hearing.

Bian said that the leave granted was a historic precedent. “The power of the state government to extinguish NCR over land in Sarawak is challenged,” he said.

Bian said that Sarawak Land Code Section 5(3) and 5(4) allowed the state government to usurp NCR land after paying compensation.

Bian, who claimed he was currently handling over 100 NCR cases, said that the state government was guilty of taking indigenous land without informing Sarawakian natives first.

The state government was also accused of paying these natives a pittance for their ancestral land, before selling it off to private companies.

JC Fong, the Sarawak government’s legal counsel, argued that Native Customary Rights over land could be “extinguished” so long as compensation to affected natives were paid.

Unreasonable offer

Bintulu resident, Jaili Sulaiman said that his father-in-law’s 122-hectare land in Tatau was seized by the Sarawak government, only to be given to a paper-making company.

Jaili said the government had offered to compensate him for RM4,000 a hectare. He turned it down, calling it an unreasonable offer.

“The government took our land and sold it to a company called Borneo Pulp and Paper,” said Jalili, adding that gangsters were hired by the government to chase out residents staying in the area.

“When we make a police report, they pretend not to hear. But when the gangsters make a report, there’s an investigation in 24 hours!” added Jaili.

Another Sarawakian native, Bato Bagi, 74, told FMT that his own village was affected by the construction of the Bakun hydroelectric dam.

In return, the Sarawak government offered his family three acres of land and a place at the Sungai Asap resettlement housing scheme.

Bato flatly refused but was forced to move upstream to other NCR areas after his village was flooded by the dam.

He was also angry with Sarawak legal counsel JC Fong for claiming that Bato and his kin had been resettled by the state government.

“I never went to the resettlement,” said an angry Bato after the hearing. “He (JC Fong) doesn’t know what he’s saying. He only hears what other people say. When did we go to Sungai Asap?”

The case will resume on April 28, 9am at the Putrajaya Federal Court.

London Protesters

2011-03-01T19:36:00.001+08:00

London protesters want Taib's assets frozen
Some 20 protesters comprising Malaysians and foreigners have staged a 'Stop Timber Corruption' demonstration in the British capital to highlight alleged abuses of long-serving Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud.

The demonstration, organised yesterday by NGO Bruno Manser Fund (BMF), was held outside a property company controlled by the Taib family, Ridgeford Properties Ltd, in central London.

It was led by Clare Rewcastle Brown, the sister-in-law of former British premier Gordon Brown, and Sarawak native Peter John Jaban.

Rewcastle Brown is the founder of the critical website Sarawak Report, which has been exposing Taib's alleged corruption and global business empire.

Peter is the DJ of Radio Free Sarawak, an independent short-wave radio station broadcasting from London. It focuses on Sarawak activists and communities defending their land rights and opposing abuses by Taib.

Protesters unfurled posters with Taib's portrait that said 'Stop timber corruption in Sarawak' and 'Freeze Taib assets'.

Other posters read 'Chief Minister of Sawarak - 30 years is enough!', 'Stop illegal logging on native lands' and 'Respect natives' rights'.

A similar demonstration organised by BMF was held in downtown Ottawa, Canada, outside another property company controlled by Taib's family - Sakto Corporation.

Last week, BMF released a list of 49 companies located across four continents around the globe, which it claims are linked to Taib and his family.

The intention of the blacklist is to help anti-corruption and anti-money-laundering authorities in the countries listed, to identify and freeze allegedly illicit assets accumulated by Taib and his family, the Swiss-based BMF said.

Following the release of the list, BMF launched an online petition on its website, calling on the authorities in the respective countries to investigate Taib and his family's financial dealings and freeze their assets for subsequent restitution to the people of Sarawak.

Taken from Malaysiakini

James Jemut Masing Statement in Borneo Post Onlines

2011-03-01T19:01:00.000+08:00

Masing: Settle Niah land dispute out of court
by Churchill Edward. Posted on March 1, 2011, Tuesday

KUCHING: The protracted land dispute between land developers and residents of Rumah Ranggong and Belilie in Ulu Niah should be settled out of court.

To determine land ownership would be tedious and long, Land Development Minister Dato Sri Dr James Masing said yesterday when responding to a public query on whether the court is the best venue to settle issues.

Masing, also Baleh assemblyman and Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) president, said he was not against the court or judiciary system resolving disputes.

“Justice is blind. That is why I have faith in our judiciary to impart justice. But it takes time (if through the court). So, wherever possible, settle problems outside the court,” he advised.

The issues in the present Ulu Niah case is such that what was originally thought NCR land by the parties concerned — developers (having 60 per cent equity), residents of the two longhouses (30 per cent) and trustee State Land Development Board (10 per cent) in 2001 — was later found to be state land by the State Land and Survey Department in 2002.

In 2008, the Land Development Ministry declared it state land and this ruling invalidated the joint venture agreement among the three parties, resulting in the longhouse folks losing their stakes in the venture since they never owned the land they used as their injection into it.

On top of that, the developers had already paid the residents upfront money totalling about RM1.2 million in two stages in 2001.

The payment was made in cash to SLDB for the residents of the two longhouses.

Yesterday, Masing said he hoped parties involved in the cases were really willing to solve the issue.

Anembiak Latong Rebak Baru: I don't understand what is JJM try to tell about.Why he said "Justice is blind" ? And why he prefer Ulu Niah resident to settle this case out of the court?

Baru Bian Cabar Taib Mahmud Berdebat (NCR Land Isu)

2011-03-01T02:40:00.002+08:00

KENYATAAN AKHBAR UNTUK DIEDARKAN SERTA MERTA.
Oleh Baru Bian.

Pada hari Sabtu 26 Februari yang lalu, Pengerusi Pimpinan Negeri PKR Baru Bian mencabar Ketua Menteri Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud untuk berdebat mengenai isu NCR yang telah dikatakan “isu lapuk” oleh Datuk Amar Awang Tengah Ali Hassan, Menteri Kedua Perancangan dan Pengurusan Sumber dan Menteri Kemudahan Awam.

Pada hari Isnin, 28 Februari, Ketua Menteri, seperti yang dilaporkan oleh akhbar Borneo Post, telah bersetuju untuk menyahut cabaran itu tetapi dengan syarat bukti-bukti perlu dikemukakan terlebih dahulu.

“Kami mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Ketua Menteri kerana menyahut cabaran kami untuk berdebat. Kami berharap kebenaran akan diketahui oleh umum menerusi debat seperti itu nanti,” kata Bian.

“Mengenai permintaan Ketua Menteri akan bukti-bukti, kami ingin memberitahu beliau bahawa segala-galanya sudah kami sediakan. Bukti-bukti itu tidak akan kami kemukakan sekarang kerana ianya akan menghambarkan tujuan sebenar berdebat. Namun, kami ingin menarik perhatiannya bahawa bukti-bukti yang amat banyak yang telah kami kemukakan ke mahkamah untuk lebih 200 kes NCR yang belum lagi didengar yang mana Attorney-General juga menyedarinya. Kami juga akan mengemukakan bukti-bukti tambahan kepada bukti-bukti yang ada di mahkamah, ke debat untuk menyokong kes kaum asli yang kehilangan tanah-tanah NCR mereka, dan isu ini bukanlah isu lapuk,” kata Bian.

“Kami berharap Ketua Menteri tidak akan berpura-pura jahil akan bukti-bukti itu sebagai alasan untuk mengelakkan debat itu,” kata Bian.

“Dengan kesanggupan Ketua Menteri untuk berdebat, kami ingin mencadangkan beberapa tarikh padanya: Sabtu 5 Mac, Ahad 6 Mac atau Khamis 10 Mac. Masa dan tempat adalah pilihan beliau. Ketua Menteri, sila pilih satu tarikh,” kata Bian.

“Kami juga ingin mencadangkan para akademik Sains Sosial UNIMAS yang begitu arif dan faham akan isu-isu NCR untuk mempengerusikan debat itu nanti. Kami seterusnya mencadangkan agar debat itu diadakan di tempat awam yang luas seperti Borneo Convention Center Kuching atau di Stadium Perpaduan di Petrajaya bagi memudahkan orang awam datang dan mendengar pandangan dan pendapat Ketua Menteri dan saya sendiri,” kata Bian.

Ketua Menteri juga dipetik sebagai berkata “Kita akan akur dengan sebarang keputusan mahkamah walaupun tidak memihak kepada kerajaan” semasa menghadiri Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan SPDP pada hari Ahad 27 Februari di Bintulu sebagaimana dilaporkan dalam portal Sarawak Update (Jumpa saya Atau ke Mahkamah).

“Sahutan kami adalah terang dan jelas: tarik balik semua rayuan semula Kerajaan ke atas kes-kes NCR yang telah dimenangi oleh orang-orang asal. Keputusan-keputusan mahkamah telah memihak kepada orang-orang asli itu, tetapi kerajaan tetap berdegil merayu untuk menentang kes-kes itu. Adakah Ketua Menteri akan mengarahkan Attorney-General untuk menarik balik semua rayuan itu serta-merta dan berpegang kepada kata-katanya itu, atau adakah kenyataannya sempena Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan SPDP itu bersifat retorik semata-mata untuk mengelirukan rakyat lagi?” tanya Bian.

Baru Bian says he is ready to debate with Taib
By Adib Zalkapli

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 28 — Sarawak PKR chairman Baru Bian (pic) said today he was prepared to present evidence of Native Customary Rights (NCR) land grabs by the state government during a public debate.

Bian said he thanked the Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud for his willingness to accept the debate challenge and asked for it to be held as early as next week.

“As for the Chief Minister’s request for proof and evidence, we would like to inform him that our evidence is ready. The evidence cannot be revealed now or else there would not be a need for a debate,” said Bian in a statement.

“However, we are happy to draw his attention to the overwhelming mountain of evidence already submitted in court for over 200 NCR cases still pending to date which the Attorney-General is fully aware of.

“We will also be bringing additional supplementary evidence on top of the evidence already submitted in court to the debate to further support our case about natives’ loss of NCR lands and that this is not an old issue,” he added.

Bian had originally issued the challenge last Saturday for a debate with the government on NCR land seizure allegations.

Taib who has been in power for 30 years, however, said yesterday that he was only willing to debate if Bian could offer evidence of the land grabs.

His willingness to debate on NCR land comes just five months before government’s mandate expires.

“We hope the Chief Minister is not pretending to be ignorant of the evidence as an excuse to avoid or evade the debate,” said Bian.

He also repeated the party’s stand for the state government to withdraw all its cases against the natives over the NCR land grab.

“Our response is loud and clear; withdraw all government appeals against NCR cases won by the natives immediately,” said Bian.

“The courts have decided in favour of NCR landowners but the government still insists on appealing against these cases,” he added.

A lawyer by profession, Bian has been representing Sarawak natives in their attempt to stop the state government from acquiring their NCR land.

In September last year, the Kuching High Court ruled in favour of residents in seven longhouses in rural Sarawak who were about to be evicted from their land to accommodate the government’s plans to declare some 27,500 hectares of land in Ulu Sebuyau as a national park.

Early this month, the Court of Appeal ruled against a timber company, the Forestry Department and the Sarawak government for encroaching into land classified as the Penans’ NCR.

The NCR was enshrined in the Sarawak Land Code 1958, which recognises the natives’ collective ownership of land around their settlements for agriculture and hunting purposes.

From The Malaysian Insider

Another Leaf Turn In NCR Case

2011-02-26T18:13:00.000+08:00

Another Leaf turn In NCR Case

The ongoing native land case has taken another turn with one of those sued naming the lawyer responsible for preparing and witnessing a so-called “Deed of Settlement and Undertaking” between the claimants and the contractor.

The legal battle is between logging contractor Loyal Billion, representing timber licensee Quality Concrete and co-defendant Penghulu Merum Babu in the heated Native Customary Rights (NCR) land case. Loyal Billion named the counsel as Arthur Lee Cheng Chuan.

The ‘deed’, dated last Aug 30, states that local Iban NCR landowners had sold off their land rights for only RM250 per family. Iban villagers from 15 longhouses have denied knowledge of this ‘deed’.

They had lodged 23 police reports on Feb 19, claiming fraud, misrepresentation and cheating in the signing of the Deed.

Another 37 villagers lodged similar police reports in Simunjan on Feb 23 and 24, with more expected when remote villagers reach downriver Simunjan.

These villagers have been blockading the timber access road against Loyal Billion, logging contractor for Quality Concrete Holdings, the holder of the logging licence. Quality Concrete’s significant shareholders include the Sarawak Chief Minister’s family members, his sister Raziah and cousin Hamed Sepawi, among others.

They have moved from the blockade in the hills to the courtroom, claiming the loggers had encroached on their ancestral land. They filed a suit last November in the Kuching High Court, naming Quality Concrete and Loyal Billion as defendants, as well as an Iban Penghulu Merum Babu, another Iban individual, and the Sarawak government.

The communities’ legal action followed unsuccessful appeals to the authorities to protect their land against the loggers.

Numpang Suntai, the lead plaintiff in the civil suit, was later charged with criminal intimidation of Loyal Billion, following the villagers’ blockade of the logging road.

The High Court had granted an interim injunction against the companies on Jan 27, restraining them from logging or working on the contested land.

“Publicity campaign” charge

Tang and Partners Advocates, the legal firm representing the first, second and third defendants – Quality Concrete, Loyal Billion and Penghulu Merum Babu respectively – first presented the contentious ‘Deed of Settlement’ as a court document on Feb 16, arguing the natives had willingly signed away their NCR land.

Loyal Billion director Lau Pong Hui and Pengulu Merum Babu in new affidavits on Feb 21 affirmed that, as advised by their lawyers, they “verily believe that the Deed of Settlement and Undertaking dated 30 August 2010… which was prepared by Mr Arthur Lee Cheng Chuan, an advocate of Messrs Arthur Lee Lin & Co Advocates, is good, proper, lawful and valid in law.”

They also “aver that Mr Arthur Lee Cheng Chuan was a witness to the signatures of the directors of the second Defendant and to the signature of Penghulu of Sungai Sebangan, i.e. Penghulu Merum Babu.”

In the same affidavits by Lau and Penghulu Merum, they argued that “the lodging of police reports by this handful…of 24 persons at this eleventh hour which received a great deal of and widespread media coverage is a publicity campaign to capitalise (on) the NCR issues before the upcoming state election.” Lau’s affidavit included news clipping of three local Chinese Newspapers.

Lau’s and Penghulu Merum’s insinuation of the police reports being a “publicity campaign” appears to have been directed at counsel for the plaintiffs, See Chee How of Messrs Baru Bian Advocates and Solicitors.

Both Baru Bian (right) and See are state PKR leaders, and have been practising as renowned NCR land rights lawyers for over a decade, regardless of any elections.

The villagers said that the first they had heard of the so-called Deed was when the defendants’ lawyer tendered the documents in court on Feb 16, the date when Numpang and the plaintiffs’ counsel were attending to the start of the ‘criminal intimidation’ trial at Simunjan, some two hours’ drive away from Kuching.

The villagers then lodged their police reports on Feb 19, as soon as they had discovered that they were supposed to have signed a deed that sold off their NCR land for only RM250 per family.

“The company’s affidavit claims the lawsuit was politically motivated,” said Numpang, lead plaintiff in the High Court suit.

“Let’s look at this logic. Let’s say you are a victim of cheating, misrepresentation and fraud, and you are supposed to have given up land rights inherited through generations for a measly RM250 per family.

“Does this mean you must not fight for your rights when there is an election around the corner? There is nothing for us to apologise in defending our rights.” concluded Numpang.

The Kuching High Court had set today, Feb 25 for filing of all affidavits, with final submissions by all parties on March 2 for the court’s final decision on March 4 whether the interim injunction will be extended until the conclusion of the NCR land case.

Ulu Niah - Bala Samseng (Apek Bayat) ke dianjung BLD Company Resources

2011-02-26T17:57:00.002+08:00

Anembiak Latong Rebak Baru

Ulu Niah- 100iko bala apek bayat ke dianjung siti ari kompeni kelapa sawit (BLD) ka bisi penanggol enggau dua buah rumah panjai, Rh. Ranggong enggau Rumah Belilie datai ngagai letan tanah NCR sida menuanya bebai ka senjata, enggau bom (explosive) dikena sida ngenakut ke bala dua buah rumah panjai nya.
Tuai Apek Bayat Ditangkap Polis

Apek Bayat bangsa iban ke mina nerima bayar RM100 ari company

Bom (Explosive) ke dibai

Beduduk ari tu diak kitai dayak sama nemu pemendar-mendar company serta orang bukai ka ngambi tanah adat kitai baka ke nyadi di Niah tu. Nyau sampai bebai ke senjata kena bebunuh.

Pia mega bala apek bayat tu ngaga langkau (Khemah) ba semak enggau tanah NCR dua buah rumah panjai tu,serta tuju sida tu endang sigi deka nyerang sida dua buah rumah panjai tu.

Khemah alai bala apek bayat

Kompeni BLD tu patut diukum berat ari segi undang-undang, laban ti beguna ke samseng ngeremba orang rumah panjai pia mega bebai ke senjata ti ulih ngenatai ke penusah (Bom/Explosive. Tang nama kebuah mina ketuai samseng aja ti ditangkap tang bala iya bukai diasuh pulai pia aja?
Bakatu meh gaya company, laban ngasai diri kaya bisi duit sepeneka ati deka ngereja tanah adat kitai dayak. Pia mega sida kebisi kaul enggau orang pemesai.
Endang sigi disadang ti sema sida majak beguna ka bala apek bayat mejal bangsa dayak nyerah ke tanah, bisi maia iya ila utai kenyadi di Ulu niah taun 1999 tau nyadi baru. Pia mega ngagai bala apek bayat iban, pikir-pikir meh dulu sebedau nulung bangsa bukai ngerompak tanah dayak.

Ngagai bala sida Rumah Ranggong & Rumah Belilie terus ke ngelaban sida ke deka ngerampas tanah kita. Anang kiruh takut ke apek bayat, takut ke keremba sida. All the best, no pain,no gain....

Anembiak Latong Rebak Baru

Native accuse newspaper of telling Lies

2011-02-25T17:38:00.002+08:00

Natives accuse newspaper of telling lies

Anembiak Latong rebak Baru

Increasing cases of armed gangster attacks on natives over land disputes is worrying Sarawak PKR.

KUCHING: Angry residents of Rumah Ranggong in Ulu Niah, who were harassed by armed thugs last week over their native customary rights (NCR) land, have accused a local newspaper of “spinning lies” and portraying them as the “aggressors” in the incident.

The newspaper report headlined “Police finally move to diffuse standoff” allegedly stated that it was the natives who had threatened oil palm company BLD Resources with the use of force.

The report also claimed that the longhouse residents were taking over the BLD estate, illegally harvesting oil palm fruits along the roadside and had seized three tractors in order to harvest more fruits.

The report also claimed that the villagers had allegedly threatened the workers of the company with bodily harm if the company continued to lodge police reports.

Longhouse Security and Development Committee (JKKK) chairman Changgai Anak Dali in a statement condemned the report, calling it a “blatant lie”.

“We want to put the story right. We never seized any tractor… we did not threaten the company.

“It is the company that brought along gangsters who were fully armed with machetes and explosives to intimidate and threaten our people,” Changgai said.

Both BLD Resources and the newspaper are allegedly owned by one Henry Lau.

Land dispute

Changgai said the newspaper report also lied when it said that the longhouse residents, through their trustees, had signed an indemnity with the company for 30% equity in July 2009 when the joint-venture (JV) agreement between BLD, Sarawak Land Development Board (SLDB) and the native landowners of Rumah Ranggong and Rumah Belilie was signed in February 2001.

Explaining the history behind the dispute, Changgai said: “In October 2008, a deed of rescission was signed between SLDB and BLD without our knowledge to rescind the JV agreement because the state government made a mistake in declaring our NCR land as state land.

“Because of this, I was sued by BLD for trespassing on my own land and this triggered our land dispute. We filed a counter suit which is now being heard at the Kuching High Court.

“Last year, we wrote a letter to BLD to demand our land back and also to settle our long overdue dividends from the project, but we received no response. This is when we decided to erect our blockade in January this year.”

He said that the neighbouring residents of Rumah Belilie also erected a blockade to protect against BLD.

Last Friday, about 100 armed gangsters reportedly went to the outskirts of Rumah Ranggong’s NCR boundary and made camps there in an attempt to intimidate the villagers.

A gang leader was arrested and the rest were asked to leave the place by the police.

Increasing cases

Meanwhile, Sarawak PKR chairman Baru Bian has expressed concern over the use of gangsters by certain companies to harass and intimidate natives.

“There were two very disturbing incidents last week – one in Meluan where a father and son were battered by gangsters in the area and the second one about Rumah Ranggong and Rumah Belilie last Saturday.

“In the second incident, it is disturbing to note that dangerous explosives were used. These were left on the ground by the gangsters. Police arrested the leader.

“But in the Meluan incident, so far no gangsters have been arrested and ironically the father and son who were battered were arrested,” said Bian, a prominent NCR lawyer.

Bian urged the police to take the cases seriously.

“We plead with the police to take these cases seriously and to carry out their investigations promptly.

“I urge the police to be neutral in carrying out their duties as they are the guardians of the people,” he said.

He added that there had been cases where police had been against the natives.

“Two months ago, we won a case in Kapit against wrongful arrest. There are a few more cases including one pending in Miri against unlawful arrest,” he said.

Taken from Free Malaysia Today.

Bashed by Logger, Remanded by Police

2011-02-25T17:28:00.001+08:00

Bashed by loggers, remanded by police.

A routine check for illegal logging by a Sarawak NCR landowner landed him in police custody.

SARIKEI: Minggat anak Nyakin, who has a parcel of NCR land at Sungai Rotan and Sungai Penyaru Kuba (Kiba) Sarikei, found out the hard and painful way that standing up for his rights is no easy task and could cost him his life.

Lying in Sarekei Hospital after being viciously attacked while checking on alleged illegal logging activity on his NCR land, Mingat has to now deal with being under police remand for trespassing.

Said Ngumbang Anak Barau of the Tahabas (native landowners Network): “Not only was he (Mingat) badly beaten up, he was also arrested by the police.

“Mingat and his son Juan went to their land to check on illegal logging. When they found out there was still logging going on, they tried to talk to the manager but instead were attacked.”

According to Ngumbang, the incident occurred on Feb 14.

In December 2010, Mingat reported alleged illegal logging over his land to the police, the Land and Survey Department as well as the Public Works Department and called for an investigation.

On the day of the incident, Mingat and Juan had decided to check on the situation. Upon finding continued logging activity, they decided to drop in at the log-pond and tried negotiating for compensation with its manager.

The negotiation went sour and before Minggat and his son could leave the office building, they were attacked viciously at its footsteps.

“Although badly hurt, his son managed to escape in the darkness towards a nearby oil palm plantation, while his father was left in an unconscious state at the footsteps of the log-pond manager’s office.

“Regardless of any wrongdoings or crimes that Minggat or his son may have committed, the source of the problem has yet to be investigated satisfactorily by the authorities.

“Minggat’s family agrees that Minggat should be fairly investigated, and so does the timber company that has been operating for many years on NCR lands allegedly without a relevant or valid licence.

“The alleged illegal logging seems to be proceeding unhindered thus far.

“A police report has been lodged by Minggat’s wife on Feb 16 regarding the attack. The attackers have not been arrested,” he said.

“The name of the timber company which owns the log-pond remains unknown to the rest of us, while there is no telling when investigations will be made on Minggat and his son’s attackers.

“What is certain is that Minggat and Juan will remain hospitalised for a few more days or even weeks.

“Today, their pains are too debilitating for them to even ponder what they will do next.” Ngumbang added.

Tanah Adat Bansa Dayak (NCR)

2011-02-18T16:46:00.001+08:00

Pengawa Besukat Ketanah Adat enggau Penanggul

Kena 19th Dec 2011, tu kemari Borneo Post Online bisi ngayan ke berita bekaul enggau pekara besukat ke tanah Adat Bansa Asal (NCR).Ti bisi nyebut dikembuan kurang lebih 3,329 iko bansa Kayan,Kenyah (Dayak)di Long Aton,Tinjar enggau pemesai 1,207 hektar.Pemesai tanah enggau survey (JTS) madah deka besukat ke tanah Adat Bansa Dayak ngena cara Inisiatif Baru NCR.

Nemunya bakani ko gaya iya diatu, sekali ke udah di sukat tauka agi benung dalam "proses"? Sama-sama meh kitai ninga,serta berati ke bakani ko pengujung pengawa tu ila. Arap-arap ke mujur meh.

Tang bakani ko enggi bala kami di menua Kanowit, kelebih agi area Machan?
Puas endar ga bala sida ketuai,pia mega bala ke nemu senentang pekara tu nganjung "proposal" tauka peminta nyukat tanah tang lalu apin bisi saut jauh ke disukat. KDC nyau ka tiap taun ga minta bayar cukai pintu,cukai rumah. Kapa ga nya ukai nya maioh ga cukai dipinta sida, tang aku agi enda entu nemu nama tuju cukai enti sema rumah kitai agi beduduk ba tanah ke empai bisi permit taja pan nya tanah kitai empu, tau dikumbai tanah haram.
Ribu iya hektar sema jako tanah pelilih Machan, nama kebuah mina tanah cina aja bisi geran,bisi pala?? Tanah cina tengah-tengah tanah iban tau bisi pala,bisi permit tang belabuh ari kanowit ke Machan nyau ka semua tanah iban, maioh agi ke nadai permit,nadai pala.? Ukai nyalah cina, anang saru. Tang meh alit ati enggau utai ke nyadi,enggau permit ke dikeluar ka Land & survey.

Pia mega taun nyin kemari,maioh bala tekenyit ati. Laban bisi raban ari Kuching/semenanjung minta anjung meresa tanah sida tungga ke menua Ulu Latong nengah jala Camp Batang Ng. Machan. Kati ko sida tu tau ngumbai diri bisi tanah ke ulu Latong, nyau empega/seredah tang meh anang saru laban utai tu amat nyadi. Enda nemu kemaia tang sigi datai serta mai penanggul ngagai bala kaban belaian ke bisi dunya menua di Ulu Latong. Kati ko Titanium serta bisi dua tiga iti company tau bisi area ke Ulu Latong (ditemu dalam Map). Kemaia aki ine sida enggau berimba dunya menua kin? Ari ni sida tu bulih pemendar?

Ngelamatu Tanah Adat Bansa Dayak Mina di tanda ka ngena sungai,munggu, tinting. Tang diatu, kemanah agi ti ulih baum meh kitai nganjung peminta bebala maioh minta nyukat tanah adat kitai ngambi ke bisi bukti nya endang enggi kitai serta enda mudah dirompak,dirampas orang ngapa.

"Nothing can be done by talk,unless we effort to do it with find out the solution and then plan how we sorted this such of thing.We're not cheat anybody,we're not rob anybody,we're not grab land those belong to somebody but we're try to protect our own land."

Nya alai ngagai bala kaban belaian ari Latong ke bisi Macha artikel aku ditu arap ke kita tau ngadang-ngadang meh. Kada ke empai laun,kada ke empai nyadi manah agi kitai sedia dulu.

By: Anembiak Latong Rebak Baru.

Native Customary Rights (NCR) Over Land In Sarawak

2011-02-18T01:02:00.001+08:00

Let share this:
1
NATIVE CUSTOMARY RIGHST (NCR) OVER LAND IN SARAWAK, MALAYSIA
By Baru Bian
Advocate & Solicitor
High Court, of Sarawak & Sabah
MALAYSIA
1. Native Customary Right (NCR), legal definition and recognition.
Native Customary Right (NCR) is not defined in the present Land Code (Cap. 81) 1958,Sarawak, (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) but Native Customary Land is. Section 2 of the Code defines Native Customary Land (NCL) to mean:
(a) land in which native customary rights, whether communal or otherwise,
have lawfully been created prior to the 1st day of January 1958 and still
subsist as such;
(b) land from time to time comprised in a reserve to which section 6 applies;
and
(c) Interior Area Land upon which native customary rights have been
lawfully created pursuant to a permit under section 10.

The definition under (b) and (c) is not an issue and will not be elaborated in this paper. Suffice it is to state that under (b) above, it is an area of land gazetted by the Minister under section 6 of the
Code as Native Communal Reserves for a specific native community with certain guidelines as how the said community would exercise their rights therein. Once created, it will not be disputed as it has been gazetetd accordingly. Under (c) above, the Natives could only occupy Interior Area
Land upon the issuance to him of a valid permit by the Superintendent of Lands and Surveys pursuant to section 10 of the Code. This is not an issue because once a permit is granted; no one can dispute the occupation of such land by a native. What had become a hotly debated issue
through the years is the definition under (a) above i.e. “land in which native customary rights,whether communal or otherwise, have lawfully been created prior to the 1st day of January 1958 and still subsist as such”.

The definition (a) expressly provides two main criteria:

i. That it states a cut-off point by which a native has to prove the creation of NCR; i.e.before the 1st day of January 1958. (If a native creates NCR over land after 1958, itmust be with a permit under section 10, as provided for under section 5 of the Code).
ii. That the said NCR Land can be created and therefore claimed by a community or an individual.
iii. That it subsists as such until today.

Section 5, of the Code states six methods by which NCR can be created after 1st January 1958:
(a) the felling of virgin jungle and the occupation of the land thereby created;
(b) the planting of land with fruit trees;
(c) the occupation or cultivation of land;
(d) the use of land for a burial ground or shrine;
(e) the use of land of any class for rights of way; or
(f) any other lawful method.

Under definition (a) above, the area of land claimed as NCL usually has no title. But a native can apply for a title from the Lands and Surveys under section 18(1) of the Code if he can satisfy the Superintendent that he has occupied the said land in accordance with rights acquired by customary tenure amounting to ownership of the land for residential or agricultural purposes. A grant in perpetuity will normally be issued out to the applicant native. Section 18 states as
follows:
“18. (1) Where the Superintendent is satisfied that a native has occupied and used any area of unalienated State land in accordance with rights acquired by customary tenure amounting to ownership of the land for residential or agricultural purposes, he may, subject to section 18A, issue to the native a grant in perpetuity of that area of land free of premium rent and other charges.”

If a title is not issued out yet to a native in such a case, he is still deemed in law having the right but his position is referred to in law as a “licensee”. This is provided for under the proviso (i) to section 5 of the Code which states:

“(i) until a document of title has been issued in respect thereof, such land shall continue to be State land and any native lawfully in occupation thereof shall be deemed to hold by licence from the Government and shall not be required to pay any rent in respect thereof unless and until a document of title is issued to him.”

It must be noted here that, although a native is deemed holding on licence, his status is not as a bare licensee but his right is equivalent to having a title. He has legal rights which cannot be
taken away summarily without express provision of the law and that compensation must first be paid in the event his NCR is taken away or extinguished. The express provision of the Code pertaining to this matter is section 5(3) which states that “Any native customary rights may be
extinguished by direction issued by the Minister”. The said extinguishment shall be published in the Government gazette and one newspaper circulating in Sarawak; and exhibited at the notice board of the District Office for the area where the land, over which such rights are to be
extinguished, is situated. Within 60 days of such publication, any native having claim of NCR may filed his claim which will be determined by the Superintendent for the purpose of compensation. Any native unsatisfied with the decision of the Superintendent may request for the
matter to be referred to an arbitrator under section 212 of the Code.

Secondly, section 15 of the Code expressly provides too that “Without prejudice to sections 18 and 18A, State land shall not be alienated until all customary rights therein have been surrendered or extinguished or provision has been made for compensating the persons entitled
to such rights.” From this section, it is also to be noted that NCR can exist on an area designated as “State Land”. This is one of the areas of great contention and misunderstanding. It is the view
of some people in the relevant authority that once an area is State Land, no NCR could exist. State Land is defined simply under section 2 of the Code as “…all land for which no document of title has been issued and all land which subsequent to the issue of a document of title may have been or may be forfeited or surrendered to or resumed by the Government,..”

The second proviso to section 5 of the Code further added that “the question whether any such right (NCR) has been acquired or has been lost or extinguished shall, save in so far as this Code
makes contrary provision, be determined by the law in force immediately prior to the 1st day of January 1958.” Although the methods of creating NCR is stated expressly under section 5 (2) of the Code as referred to earlier, those methods are not the method stated in the law in force
immediately prior to the 1st day of January 1958. Reading closely section 5(1) of the Code, those six methods appear to refer to the creation of NCR after 1st day of January 1958. The law applicable before 1st January 1958 is section 66 of the Land Settlement Ordinance 1933, where NCR is recognized in respect of:

(a) land planted with fruit trees, when the number of fruit trees amounts to twenty
and upwards to each acre;
(b) land that is in continuous occupation or has been cultivated or built on within three years;
(c) burial grounds or shrines;
(d) usual rights of way for men and animals from rivers, roads or houses to any or all of the above.

The important phrases in the above section are “land that is planted with fruit trees”, “land that is in continuous occupation” or “has been cultivated” or “built on” or “burial grounds” because these are the evidences that one must prove in NCR claim.

2. Problems Related to NCR claims

i. Although the law recognizes NCR claim by customary tenure, it throws the onus or burden on the natives to prove their claim. This can be difficult but not impossible. The difficulty arises because bulks of the NCL in Sarawak are not issued with titles. One of the main reasons given by the Government for not able to issue titles is lack of fund to survey these lands. Government publicly acknowledges that there are 1.6 million hectares of land under NCL in Sarawak, but these areas are not identified. Therefore, when loggers and planters of oil palm or trees are issued with licence or provisional leases, the Natives are at a disadvantage when faced with these loggers and planters as the natives have no
document to prove their claim of NCR.

ii. The Government’s definition and/or understanding of NCR claim is only
restricted to cultivated area or farmed area locally referred to as “temuda” which must have been cultivated or farmed before 1st January 1958. On the other hand, the natives believe that their NCR claim goes beyond their “temuda”. It includes their communal lands or territorial domain locally referred to as “pemakai menua” and the “reserved virgin forests” within their “pemakai menua” locally referred to as “pulau”. “Pulau” is preserved or reserved specifically to meet the domestic needs of the natives. Normally this is an area abundant with timber for boats, house, different kinds of fruit trees, jungle produce with medicinal value, a hunting ground, fishing ground etc to cater to their daily needs. (But see the landmark decision in Nor Nyawai’s Case discussed below 4 where “pemakai menua” and “pulau” had been declared and recognized as (NCL).

iii. Because of such different in understanding of what constitutes NCL or NCR, logging licenses and provisional leases are issued out covering “pemakai menua” and “pulau” of the natives in Sarawak. Because of this differing views, the matter always end up in Court for determination. (Since 1988 my legal firm had taken up 123 cases of NCR claims, majority of which are still pending in the High Court of Sarawak).

3 Case Laws on NCR
Nor anak Nyawai & Ors v. Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 769.
• Facts of the case

This is a representative action on behalf of an Iban longhouse in Sarawak, Malaysia who took legal action against the Defendants which includes the State Government of Sarawak over their Native Customary Land (pulau) having been included in a provisional lease (PL) granted to the 1st defendant for the planting of trees (acacia). The plaintiffs complained that their said Native Customary Land (NCL) was included in the area under the PL. The plaintiffs claimed that such inclusion of their said NCL was unlawful and illegal because no extinguishment of their NCR in
accordance with the Land Code, Sarawak was ever done. They pray for the exclusion of their said NCL from the said PL. In the trial the Court has to examine the rights (NCR) of an indigenous
Iban in relation to the lands and its resources to which they had no documentary title (NCL), and the recognition of the common law for the pre-existing righst under native or custom. The dispute
also called for a consideration of whether the various legislation throughout the period traversing the reign of the Sultan of Brunei before 1841 through to the time when Sarawak joined with the
other states to form Malaysia in 1963 had extinguished those native rights and whether those rights were ever exercised in the disputed area. Amongst other things, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ NCR (if any) had been eroded and/or extinguished by legislation.

• Findings of the Court
The High Court held amongst other things the followings:

i. The Ibans have a body of customs referred to as customary rights and the plaintiffs’ ancestors must have practiced the same customs as the present-day Ibans. Evidence adduced indicated that the plaintiffs’ ancestors had accessed the land for hunting,fishing, farming and collection of forest produce-all in the exercise of NCR. The
rights of an Iban arise by virtue of being a member of a community that occupies a longhouse and these rights, unless lost, pass down through the generations. The plaintiffs therefore were rightfully in possession of these rights.
ii. The very presence of a longhouse and its proximity to the disputed area, compounded by the fact that the disputed area fell within the boundaries of the longhouse, together with other evidence of communal existence render it probable and support the assertion that the plaintiffs and their ancestors had indeed accessed the disputed area
until they were prevented from doing so by the total destruction of the trees by the defendants.
iii. Customary law is a practice by habit of the people and not the dictate of the written law. All orders dating from the era of Rajah Brooke to current legislation declare in no uncertain terms the right of a native to clear virgin jungle, access the land surrounding the longhouse for cultivation, fishing, hunting and collection of jungle produce. Legislation has neither abolished nor extinguished NCR. On the contrary,
legislation has consistently recognized and honoured NCR even though it was not in written form.

The Defendants appealed against the decision of the High Court and the Court of Appeal allowed their appeal on one ground i.e that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim of occupation over the pulau area, but affirmed the legal position as stated by the Learned trial Judge. The Plaintiffs had appealed against that decision of the Appeal Court on the finding of facts but interestingly the State Government of Sarawak did not appeal on the finding of law as stated above. As such it is submitted that what was held by the High Court Judge is the true and legal position of NCR in Sarawak today.

A month after the decision of the Court of Appeal in Nor anak Nyawai’s case supra, another decision came out from the Court appeal which followed the High Court’s Judge in Nor Nyawai’s case on the legal status of NCR and its definition in Sarawak . This is referred to as the
Madelli’s case.
The Madelli’s case was in fact a case involving a Malay person who is referred to as a native under the Constitution of Sarawak. Nevertheless the decision of Nor anak Nyawai applies. This is also true to the rest of the natives tribes in Sarawak.

• What about the Nomadic Penans?
Many people believes that, since the nomadic Penans do not farm and cultivate for a living, it is argued that they cannot claim NCR under the Land Code. It is my submission that the nomadic Penans can claim NCR under the laws of Sarawak if they can prove “occupation” of an area,
since time immemorial. At the moment there is no direct decision on this matter for the Penans, but two cases are now pending in the High Court of Sarawak, pertaining to this very issue.

4. Definition of Legality
“Timber harvested by licensed person from approved areas and timber
products exported in accordance with the laws, regulations and procedures
pertaining to forestry, timber industry and trade of Malaysia.”

The above definition of legality had been proposed by the Malaysian Government through the Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities, at its “Consultations with Stakeholder Groups
Related to the EU FLEGT VPA Negotiations in Malaysia” meeting in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia on the 22nd June 2007. At this meting I proposed to include the following amendment after the word “areas”-“free from any NCR claim”. So the definition should read:

“Timber harvested by licensed person from approved areas free from any
NCR claim, and timber products exported in accordance with the laws,
regulations and procedures pertaining to forestry, timber industry and trade of Malaysia.”

My proposal was meant to high light the fact that NCR claim must be dealt with and must expressly be stated in the definition legality. Because NCR over land in Sarawak is recognized under the laws of the country and confirmed by the Courts in Malaysia, areas which become a
dispute because of NCR claim cannot in law be regarded as legal. Its legality is being questioned until a final decision is made by a competent authority no less then the High Court. This should
be the case for Sarawak, Malaysia.

Tanah Dayak Menua Pesisir

2011-02-18T00:24:00.002+08:00
Nama Kebuah Utai Kebakatu Tau nyadi?

Dini-dini menua ke bisi alai sangkai dimenua Sarawak enda nemu nadai ga berita bekaul enggau tanah adat kitai bangsa (NCL). Pansut ba blog pasal tanah ke diambi dikena nuduk ke "Pemansang" kenu ko berita. Pia mega baka rumah Nor Anak Nyawai, nyau dirarak. Tang meh aku bisi berasai iran mimit,nama kebuah berita tu nadai nyengala pansut dalam tv? TV1,TV2 & TV3?

Mina ba dalam blog ke bisi nerang utai kenyadi bakatu. Pia mega aku alit ati, bakani ko company ti sebali ari enda temu penatai nyau tau beempu tanah serta bisi hak nuduk ke bisness ke dikumbai "PEMANSANG" ba tanah adat kitai dayak. Patut ke enda kompeni tu disalah? Tang ba penemu aku tentu iya bisi orang ngeluar ke geran tauka lisen ke sida tu, mai sida berani ngambu, berani nujah tanah bangsa kitai. Bah sapa orang tu deh?

Ti dilaban sida lalu nujuk ke surat ti ngesah ke area nya udah dibeli sida, endang milik sida. Makin ari nyau maioh amat kes ke bansa tu nyadi, kitai dayak nyau belaya enggau tanah diri empu, bechara enggau tanah diri empu ngelaban orang ke sebubu ari enda temu penatai.

Ti kitai nganjung peminta nyukat tanah, maioh amat ke dalih sida Jabatan Ukur/Land and survey. Enda ulih sukat setegal nya tanah adat, enda ulih beri permit laban tanah adat. Tang kati ko company tau bulih permit?? Nama beza sida iya enggau bangsa dayak??

Ka ngaga "PEMANSANG" ba siti-siti menua nadai salah. Endang disampi ke "PEMANSANG" datai, tang meh enggau patut. Anang kelalu enda bebasa ke bangsa dayak,anang kelalu kurang ajar enggau bangsa dayak. Ditu ukai ka be jai perintah, tang meh enda setuju enggau utai ti dikereja sida pemesai ti bekereja ba perintah. Enda besangkut paut enggau sapa-sapa ke makai suap ba dini-dini alai, tang meh anang ngambi tanah dayak sepeneka ati.Laban setegal land code ti salah guna tuai menua kitai nya meh kebendar amat ngenusah bangsa kitai dayak. Land code kena ngambi tanah kitai, udah nya diberi ngagai tauke-tauke besai,ngagai bala-bala ti bisi kaul dikena bejalai ke bisness. Tang meh kitai dayak ke be empu tanah mina pesap-pesap,mina dibayar pampas "BELAS KASIHAN" tauka "KENA NGUDAH".

Nya alai ngagai kaban bangsa dayak, berunding meh bala kitai semua bakani cara kitai deka ngetan ke tanah adat kitai ari ti diambi orang,kelebih agi bala company kaya ti deka bebuka ke ladang. Anang enda angkun ke tanah serta menua diri, anang alah laban keremba serta jako sebubu ngapa sebelah kaki lima. Kasih ke anak,uchu kitai jemah enggai ke nyadi kampar dimenua diri empu laban ti nadai setempap tanah alai beridup.
Anang nganti pagila, anang nganti ila. Mupuk meh kitai bela berunding,badu agi ngembuan ati bingking. Ngagai sida ke bisi pemandai serta bisi nemu bekaul enggau tanah NCL kitai dayak nadai salah meri penemu,lalau serta jalai ulih mutar ke penanggul ke udah lama nuntung bangsa kitai.

"Conclusion"
I’m a Dayak Iban and I have the right to vote. My vote count:-

1)My vote nominates
2)My vote pay good services;
3)My vote create opportunities and growth
4)My vote safeguard my Native Rights;
5)My vote preserved justice;
6)My vote is my future generation benefits;
7)My vote is my bond (Voice, Opportunity, Trust & Equity).

By: Anembiak Latong Rebak Baru

Native Customary Laws And Native Rights Over Land In Sarawak

2011-02-17T21:03:00.000+08:00
NATIVE CUSTOMARY LAWS AND NATIVE RIGHTS OVER LAND IN SARAWAK

Prepared by the State Attorney-General's Chambers, Sarawak for Human Rights Commission in 2004.
Updated on 15 January, 2007
1. PREAMBLE
1.1. Native Customary law system prevailing in Sarawak is peculiar to our State. What is "native customary law" must be determined with reference to the laws of the State, and what constitutes "native customary rights" over land must also be determined with reference to the relevant State laws.
1.2 Native Customary Rights to land is also a system which recognises the rights of the native community to occupy and use land which by law belongs in the old days to the Crown, but nowadays by reason of Section 12 of the Land Code, belongs to the State.

1.3 The system of native customary rights over land had evolved over near one and half centuries; since 1841 when the Rajah James Brooke decided to make his first pronouncement pertaining to Land. Through this process of evolution, native rights to land were recognised, under certain conditions spelt out in the various Proclamations and Orders made by the Rajahs and subsequently, in various legislations passed by the Council Negeri (now Dewan Undangan Negeri of Sarawak).

1.4 As such, land occupied by natives under native customary tenure, are untitled i.e. there is no document of title to show ownership. Whether a native has rights to such land would depend on whether he or his forefathers fulfilled certain requirements under the laws prevailing at the time which rights to the land were said to have been created.
1.5 Native customs which could create rights over land had been modified in Sarawak by laws made by the Rajahs and subsequently by the Council Negeri. At this juncture, it ought to be pointed out that in all legal systems, indigenous rights may be modified or extinguished by legislative or executive action. Professor Douglas Sanders in his Paper on "Indigenous And Tribal Peoples: The Right To Live On Their Own Land" (presented at the 12th Commonwealth Law Conference held in Kuala Lumpur in September, 1999) stated;
"A leading Australian constitutional text summarises the basic rule from the Mabo decision as follows:
The indigenous population had a pre-existing system of law, which along with the rights subsisting thereunder, would remain in force under the new sovereign except where specifically modified or extinguished by legislative or executive action."

1.6 It must be emphasised that the evolution of our laws on native customary rights over land over more than 11/2 centuries was a peaceful and orderly process, without any serious discord amongst the various communities in Sarawak or between them and the Government, and has enabled the Government of the day to improve the social and economic position of these communities and bring about overall development and progress to the rural areas.

2. NATIVE CUSTOMS AND NATIVE CUSTOMARY LAW
2.1 It is pertinent to observe there is a significant difference between native customs (Adat) and native customary law.
2.2 AJN Richards (a former Resident and acknowledged authority on this subject) in his book Land Law and Adat at page 9, stated:
"As was pointed out by Mooney, as Crown Counsel and Hickling, the law does not, in fact, gives effect to any customs whatsoever except the codified law of delicts, ..."
2.3 The Land Code and its predecessor defines "customary law" to mean "a custom or body of customs to which the law of Sarawak gives effect".
2.4 The natives of Sarawak may have and in fact do have many customs, but for these customs to have effect as "customary laws", they must have the sanction of the Law. This is what characterised the difference between native customs and the customary laws; and this differentiation is acknowledged by the definition of "Adat" in the Majlis Adat Istiadat Sarawak Ordinance, Ord. No. 5 of 1977 where "Adat" is defined as "native custom or body of native customs to which lawful effect has not been given thereto".
2.5 Thus, in relation to land, the practice of native custom does not necessarily give rise to rights over land. It is only the practice of those customs which are part of the customary law of Sarawak, which can create rights to land and this is evident by the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Land Code which provides, inter alia, that native customary rights over land may be created "in accordance with native customary law". "Native customary rights" to land, however, received its first statutory definition in the Land Settlement Ordinance (also known as Rajah Order L-7 of 1933), enacted on 22.6.1933. It is defined by Section 66 of that Ordinance as follows:

3. PRE-1933 LEGAL POSITION ON NATIVE RIGHTS TO LAND
3.1 Although the Land Settlement Ordinance provides the first statutory recognition to native customary rights over land, the exercise of rights by natives over land were regulated by various pronouncements and orders made by the Rajahs prior to 1933,
3.2 In fact, the exercise by the natives of customary rights over land had been recognised since the days of the first Rajah. Writing in his journal In 1840, the first Rajah stated:
"The fruit trees about the Kampong, and as far as the jungle round, are private property, and all other trees which are in any way useful, such as bamboo, various kinds for making bark-cloth, the bitter kony ... and many others. Land, likewise, is Individual property, and descends from father to son; so, likewise, is the fishing of particular rivers, and indeed most other things ...".
3.3 Legislation was subsequently introduced to deal with specific aspect of customary law. In 1899,' the second Rajah issued the Fruit Trees Order, Section 1 reads:
"Such fruit trees which have chiefly sprung up from seeds thrown out of and about houses, and have become common property of the inhabitants of a long house or village, are in no cases to be sold or in any way transferred or claimed by individuals leaving such houses or villages."
And section 2 reads:
"Any Dyak removing from a river or district may not claim, sell, or transfer any farming ground in such river or district, nor may he prevent others farming thereon, unless he holds such land under a grant."
3.4 The significance of this Order is that It sets out the manner in which claims to native customary tenure may be made by a native community through the cultivation of fruit trees on land which was deemed to belong to the State. Another important characteristic of native customary tenure was apparent, i.e. rights so created through native customary tenure may be lost if a native moved from one river system to another.
3.5 The next development occurred in 1920 when the Rajah's Order No. VIII, 1920 was published on 21,10.1922, the relevant parts of which reads as follows;
"22,(I) Under this part lands may be occupied by Natives free of all charges for the cultivation of fruit trees, padi, vegetables, pineapples, sugar cane, bananas, yams and similar cultures in accordance with the customary laws provided that where possible claims to fruit groves and farming lands shall be registered. Records of such claims shall be kept by all Native Headmen and also in the Land Office In each district.
(ii) A certificate in the form of Schedule A of Notification No...... of 1920 may be issued to registered land holders under this part." {emphasis added}
A supplement to the Order reads:
"2.(I) Native land reserves shall be made in suitable situations and these shall be divided into lots of three acres and any native born subject of His Highness the Rajah shall be permitted to occupy one such lot free of all charges (excepting fees for demarcation) provided that no person not being a native of the Country shall occupy land in such reserves and further that no one person shall occupy more than one lot at one and the same time.
(ii) A record of the names of those occupying land under this section shall be kept by all Tuah Kampong and also in the Land Office in each district.
(iii) A certificate in the form of Schedule A may be granted to each native land holder on application," (emphasis added)
3.6 From these Orders and the Land Settlement Ordinance (formerly known as Rajah Order L-7 of 1933), it is obvious that the only recognition, given by written laws as pronounced by the Rajahs, requires physical occupation of an area before a native can establish his rights over the same. As AJN Richards noted in Land Law and Adat at page 8 - "Occupation under custom appears to have been generally regarded as 'lawful occupation' and 'lawful ownership'". The 1920 Order and the 1933 Ordinance even required some form of registration of such rights to accord natives protection of their claims over land. Additionally, it is to be observed that the Rajah did place a limitation on the amount of land that a native could occupy by the exercise of rights under his Adat. At that point in time, the Rajah only allowed each native to occupy one lot of three (3) acres. Also, under the 1933 Ordinance, land claimed on the basis of cultivation by a native must be in continuous occupation or had been cultivated on "within three years".
3.7 In 1939, the Rajah realised a need to prevent some communities from moving into territories occupied by other native communities. Hence, the Prohibited Areas Ordinance was passed to prevent some communities from moving into areas already occupied by others. In other words, native communities do not have absolute licence to move Into any area, clear virgin jungles and settle thereon. The Restricted Areas Notification (see: Vol. VII of the Revised Edition of the
Laws of Sarawak page 153) prohibits Sea Dayaks (Ibans) from remaining in the then Baram Administrative District for an aggregate period of more than 60 days in any calendar day without the permission in writing of the District Officer, Baram or District Officer, Limbang.
3.8 After the 1933 Land Settlement Ordinance, rules and administrative circulars were introduced to reinforce the requirement for natives to occupy and clear their land'before they could have rights over the same. This Is illustrated by the Appendix made to the Tusun Tunggu (Third Division) Order, published in Vol. VII of the Revised Edition of the Laws of Sarawak 1958, as a "guide to Judges, Magistrates and others on adoption, divorce, the acquisition and disposition of property as practised amongst Sea Dayaks of the Third Division, ratified at the Penghulus' Conference, held at Sibu on 15 July 1952". The relevant portions thereof read:-
"7. Theoretically all untitled land whether jungle or cleared for padi farming (Temuda) is the property of the Crown. The fact that Dayaks do clear a portion of virgin land for the site of their pad! farms confers on them a restricted right of proprietorship over the land thus cleared. Once the jungle has been cleared it becomes temuda. It is a recognised custom that temuda is for the use of the original worker, his heirs and descendants. This is the only way Dayaks can acquire land other than by gift or inheritance.

In former days there were no restrictions on anyone felling jungle provided that he did not destroy valuable commercial trees such as gutta, jelutong and engkabang. But it is not so now. Since the introduction of the Forest and Erosion Ordinance no one is allowed to fell jungle without permission from the proper authority.
No Dayak is allowed to sell, purchase or lease (by way of demanding rent either in kind or in cash) untitled land. It would be an infringement of the right of the Crown if they did so, and they may be prosecuted in view of the fact that selling of untitled land is prevalent in this division, and Dayaks seem to forget this custom.
There are no other ways in which Dayaks can part with possession of untitled land other than by gift or on death. When a Dayak abandons his land temuda and moves to another district he loses all his rights to it. The land that has been farmed by him reverts to the Crown (as legally it is Crown land) and it is usually set aside for the benefit of the general community or to help those who are otherwise lacking in land. In such a case the original owner has no right to prevent others from making use of the land and the user acquires the right." (emphasis added)
3.9 It ought to be pointed out that what is set out above has been made an Appendix to the Tusun Tunggu (Third Division) Order and was also adopted by the Tusun Tunggu (Fourth Division) Order and Tusun Tunggu (Fifth Division) Order. It therefore has the effect and authority and constitutes the customary laws of the Sea Dayak (Iban) in Sarawak.
3.10 What Is contained in this Appendix is also consistent with what was contained in Secretariat Circular No. 12/1939 which briefly outlined the creation of rights over land through native customary tenure as follows:-
(i) The right to cultivate cleared land vests in the community with priority to the heirs of the original faller of .the big jungle. This right must be exercised in accordance with a cycle compatible with the preservation of the maximum fertility of the land (and no longer) by methods of cultivation within the reach of the community. The cycle is, in their eyes,
not a matter for rule of thumb but for expert native opinion.
(ii) Where not inconsistent with the above, the existence of permanent cultivation of a reasonable density is evidence of customary ownership as opposed to customary rights of user.
(iii) Individual ownership is limited by the customary right of the community to a say in the matter of disposal to anyone outside the community.
(iv) No community or individual may hold up land in excess of requirements and, the extreme case, removal to another district automatically extinguished all rights of user. The old Order (a) dated 10.8.89 is an excellent exposition of this principle.
3.11 In summary, the creation and exercise of native rights over land, prior to the present Land Code which came into force on 1st January 1958, were regulated by laws or Orders made by the Rajah or Council Negeri and not just by the customs and traditions of the natives. These laws or Orders have the effect of modifying or overriding customs or traditions practised by the natives, and they set out the customary laws for creation or exercise of rights to land. They laid down the conditions and restrictions for the creation of native rights to land and limited the size of the land, without title, which natives may occupy and claim "ownership".
3.12 Subsequent to 1958, native customary rights may be cleared over

Interior Area Land upon these 2 conditions, viz:
(a) a permit is obtained' under section 10(3) of the Land Code from the Superintendent; and
(b) by deploying any of these methods -
(a) felling of virgin jungle and occupation of land thereby cleared;
(b) planting of land with fruit trees;
(c) occupation or cultivation of land;
(d) use of land for burial ground or shrine;
(e) use of land of any class for rights of way; or
(f) any other lawful method.
3.13 Other lawful methods must refer to the Appendix to the Tusun Tunggu - see paragraph 3.8 above i.e. by gift or inheritance. It is necessary to note that fishing or collection of jungle produce do not create rights over land.
4, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATIVE CUSTOMARY LAW AND OTHER STATE LAWS
4.1 As the definition of customary law implies, the written laws of the State must take precedence over native customs. This is because for native customs to have the status of customary laws, they must be those which the laws of Sarawak gives effect. This is further reinforced by the provisions of Section 9 of the Native Customs (Declaration) Ordinance 1996, which reads:-
"If any provision of a code is found to be repugnant to or is inconsistent with a provision of any written law, the latter shall prevail."
4.2 This is further reinforced by Section 10(4) of the Land Code which reenacted Section 8(4) of the Land (Classification) Ordinance 1948. Section 10(4) reads :-
"The occupation of Interior Area Land by a native or native community without a permit in writing from a Superintendent shall not, notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary, confer any right or privilege on such native or native community and, in any such case, such native or native community shall be deemed to be in unlawful occupation of State land and section 209 shall apply thereto." {emphasis added)
4.3 The legal position taken by the State with regard to the relationship between customs and written law is no different from that adopted in any other common law jurisdiction; that is, customs may be overridden by statutes.
5. COLLECTION OF FOREST PRODUCE, FISHING AND HUNTING BY NATIVES
5.1 Although natives have been collecting timber and other jungle produce from forests for their domestic or personal use, such as for firewood, building of houses and boats, the exercise of such rights by natives have been regulated by law since the end of the 19th century. The following are the relevant legislations governing the taking of timber or forest produce:-
(a) The Rajah's Order dated 22.6.1899 states, inter alia, that "any person wishing to work and collect timber for whatever purpose shall first obtain a permit at the Resident's Office.
………….
Any person working timber without a license on and after the 1st day of August, 1899 will render himself liable to a fine not exceeding $25."
(b) Order No. 1, 1912 states that, inter alia, "it is hereby ordered that the felling of Enkabang and Ketio trees is strictly forbidden".
(c) Order No. IX, 1912 provides, inter alia, that –
"Whenever any person or persons are desirous of planting plots of marsh land which have been cleared within three years previously or hill land which has been cleared within seven years previously, such person or persons will be permitted to destroy all kinds of Enkabang, Ketio and Jelutong trees found on such lands when necessary without penalty, but when a person or persons desire to clear marsh land covered with jungle of a growth of more than three years old or hill land covered with a growth of more than seven years old where such trees are growing, permission must be first obtained of the Officer in Charge of the district; otherwise the penalty will be enforced." (emphasis added)
(d) Similarly, Order XIV, 1921 provides, inter alia, as follows:-
"2.(i) Except as provided in rules 9 and 10 below no person shall -
(a) cut, saw, convert or remove any tree, timber or firewood on' or from State land; or
……
(c) cut, collect or remove on or from State land any of the kinds of forest produce mentioned in Schedule I, except under and in accordance with the
conditions of a license in Form 1 under the hand of a Forest Officer or other Officer duly authorised in that behalf.
9(i) With the written permission of the Conservator permits in Form 17 may be issued under the hand of a Forest Officer to cut, collect and remove on or from State land any forest produce therein specified.
ll(i). Notwithstanding anything In this Order contained It shall be lawful for any subject of H.H. the Rajah of Sarawak to cut and remove from State land any timber or forest produce required by him for his own use and not for sale, exchange or profit." (emphasis added)
(e) Section 108 of the land Ordinance (Cap. 27) provides inter alia, that any person who shall be found unlawfully occupying any Crown land either by cultivating any part thereof or cutting timber or produce thereon shall be guilty of an offence against the Ordinance.
(f) The Forests Ordinance (Cap. 31) of 1934 and Forests Rules, 1947
Collection of forest produce from State land forests or communal forests were also regulated by the Forests Ordinance of 1934 which has been superseded by the Forests Ordinance (Cap. 126) of 1953 which came into force on 1.1.1954. Section 37 of the Forests Ordinance of 1934 provides that when the Resident is satisfied that it is the desire of a majority of the members of a community that a communal forest shall be constituted he shall, with the approval of the Chief Secretary, publish a proclamation in the requisite form.

Once a communal forest has been duly gazetted, section 43(1) of the Forests Ordinance of 1934 provides that subject to any conditions imposed in writing by the District Officer under section 42, any member of the community may remove free of royalty or fee any forest produce for his own use and not for sale, exchange or direct profit. Section 43(2) provides that no other person shall remove forest produce for whatever purposes.
(g) The Forests Ordinance (Cap. 126) of 1953
This Ordinance came into force on 1.1.1954 and further regulates the taking of timber or forest produce, even by natives. For instance, section 65 allows any inhabitant of Sarawak to remove, from State land which is not a forest reserve, timber produce exclusively for his own use and not for trade or barter or profit.
5.2. (a) It is to be noted that under both the Forests Ordinance 1934 and the current Forests Ordinance 1953, the Government has the right to constitute Protected Forests, Forest Reserves and Communal Forests. In constituting Protected Forests, the Government would acknowledge and concede certain rights or privileges to the affected native communities. For instance, when the Lemiting Protected Forest (216,800 acres) was constituted on 15 September 1951, the Government acknowledged the rights of the communities expressly named therein "to farm their secondary forest {temuda) but it shall be an offence to clear high forest except with the authority of the Conservator of Forests. The persons named shall have the right to cultivate the rubber and fruit gardens named with the provisos that no tree may be felled and no more trees may be
planted" (emphasis added),
(b) Thus the rights of the natives within a particular protected forest are strictly regulated by the Notification constituting the same e.g. G.N.S. 881/1951 constituting the Lemiting Protected Forest.
5.3 (a) In the case of forest reserves, the amount of jungle produce that could be taken therefrom are controlled. For instance, in constituting the Binatang Forest Reserve (vide L.N. 791 dated 3.7.1951), it is stated, inter alia, that:
"The Forest Reserve is constituted for the benefit of the following longhouses and kampongs who shall have the right to take jungle produce for their own use and not for sale or barter. Provided that the quantity that may be taken annually shall be subject to the control of the Conservator of Forests,"
(b) Not only the taking of jungle produce but also fishing and hunting would be regulated when, for instance. National Parks are constituted. A typical example is the Gunong Mulu National Park Proclamations (G.N, 2852 and 2853 of 3.10.1974) which confined fishing and hunting by the communities named therein to certain specified areas of the Gunong Mulu National Park.
5.4 Where there is a .need to maintain a forest area for the benefit of a local community, the Government could declare an area as Communal Forest, see for instance, the Kabong Communal Forest (2,500 acres) (G.N.S 96/61) which is for the benefit of the inhabitants of Kampongs Kabong and Paloh.
5.5 All these show that the right of the natives to take timber and jungle produce have been regulated, even before Malaysia Day, by laws and are controlled by the Conservator (now Director) of Forests. Although the natives may have their own customs, such as, pemakai menoa and pulau galau, these customs are not part of the Tusun Tunggu or the Adat Iban or any other Codes produced by the Majlis Adat Istiadat Sarawak. Hunting, fishing and collection of jungle produce, therefore, do not create rights over land (see: Appendix to the Tusun Tunggu and Section 5 of the Land Code and Section 66 of the Land Settlement Ordinance). The natives unfortunately have a wrong perception that It is their customs, though not part of native customary law, which gives them rights to land, the jungles and in some cases, the streams and rivers near their longhouses. But, the written laws which have evolved over 160 years do not recognise certain of their customs as customary laws upon which they could create rights over untitled State land,
5.6 It must be noted that the natives do not have proprietary interests over forest areas where they go to collect jungle produce, fishing etc. In the Nor ak Nyawai case, the Court of Appeal approved the following passage of a Judgment of the Selangor High Court in Saqong bin Tasi v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, viz:
"Therefore, in keeping with the worldwide recognition now being given to aboriginal rights, I conclude that the proprietary interest of the orang asli in their customary and ancestral lands is an interest in and to the land. However, this conclusion is limited only to the area that forms their settlement, but not to the jungle at large where they used to roam to forage for their livelihood in accordance with their tradition. As to the area of the settlement and its size, it is a question of fact in each case. In this case, as the land Is clearly within their settlement, I hold that the plaintiffs' proprietary interest in It is an Interest in and to the land. (emphasis added),
6. GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES REGARDING RECOGNITION OF NATIVE RIGHTS TO LAND
6.1 When the Government introduced the Land Code (Amendment) Bill 2000, the Government's firm intention is to recognise native rights lawfully created over land. That is still the objective of the Government.
6.2 This means that the Government can only recognise those rights of natives which have been lawfully created. In other words, these rights must have been created in accordance with the native customary law i.e. law that gives force to native customs.
6.3 All land belongs to the State. In the case of native customary land, with no titles, natives, with legitimate customary rights to the land, (i.e. created in accordance with the law), occupy the land as licencees of the Government- Sections 5(2) & 44 of Land Code.
6.4.1 The Government intends to survey the land, settle or confirm their rights to the land and have their interests or rights registered and ultimately, grant them titles to the land. This process is bound to take time. Additionally, in the meantime, the Government wants the NCR land to be developed into plantation estates. In this regard, the Government has started the NCR land bank concept whereby the native NCR claimant can "pool" their land together into a large estate and enter into joint ventures with established plantation companies for the development thereof into oil palm plantations or the large scale cultivation of other cash crops. Under this scheme, the natives will have shares in the joint venture companies which would be granted leases over the NCR land for a term of 60 years. Upon expiry thereof, the land will either be reverted back to the natives or their heirs or if the natives agree, the lease to the joint venture companies can be extended. In this manner, the Government intends to facilitate the development of the NCR land and to bring better economic returns or value for such land to the natives,
6.4.2 Up to December 2006 the State Task Force on NCR Land Development had approved 58 NCR land areas for development under the New Concept. Thirty-one (31) of these areas that have been verified by the Department of Land & Survey comprise of approximately 292,247 hectares of NCR Land.
6.4.3 Currently, field developments are taking place in 23 of these projects, which cover a total gross area of 188,347 hectares. By 31 October 2006 picket survey of 57,413 hectares had been completed out of which 41,916 hectares had been cleared for field development. Of the area already cleared 33,193 hectares had been planted out of which 21,082 hectares were in production.
6.4.4To-date there are 11,952 landowners participating in the 23 projects where field development is on-going.
6.5 The objective mentioned in paragraph 6.4 is difficult to achieve if the native communities make claims which are not consistent with the laws governing the creation of native customary rights over land or where there are disputes between the natives themselves as to the size or boundaries of their respective holding.
6.6 As regards claims to forests (pulau), the Government will maintain the stand that the pulaus are not "temuda" (farming land) as they are never brought under cultivation. The natives have no proprietary rights to the pulaus and no legal rights to the land therein. If there is a need by any community for jungle produce etc. from a forest area for their own subsistence or use, the Government could declare such a forest area as a communal forests. The native community ought
not to claim jungles which they have never brought under cultivation as their NCR land.
6.7 The Government maintains that what a native could claim as his NCR land must be for his own farming requirement and must be limited to what he needs or is capable of cultivating based upon traditional farming methods. In other words, the size of his NCR land must not exceed what he needs for himself and his family, and using the conventional or traditional method of farming, able to bring under cultivation.
6.8 What a native claims as rights under native customary law must be restricted to what the laws over the last IVs centuries permit. If he requires more land than what he could obtain through the native customary law system, he may apply, like any other Sarawakian, to the Government to alienate him land. He should not attempt to increase the size or area of his land by pleading that he is entitled to have more land because of certain customs which are not recognised as, or not part of, the customary law of the State. The law on NCR which has evolved more than a century must be respected. For instance, the principle that NCR land is .temuda land (i.e. land cleared of virgin jungles for cultivation) and occupied by the natives or used as burial ground or right of way, has been part of the native customary law since 1933 and reinforced by the Secretariat Circular of 1939 and declared as part of the Tusun Tunggu of the Ibans and restated in section 5 of the Land Code. The Government cannot agree to any change in this fundamental concept which has governed land utilisation, planning and development for nearly a century.
6.9 NCR land like titled or alienated land may be required for public purpose. Under the Land Code, if NCR land Is needed for public purposes, the lawful holder of such land will be paid compensation. NCR land claimants will not be treated differently from registered proprietors of land; consistent with the relevant provisions in the federal Constitution for the protection of property and against discrimination.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The Government will always respect all native rights to land, lawfully acquired in accordance with the native customary laws of the State. Likewise, the Government expects the natives to respect such laws evolved in a peaceful and orderly manner over more than IVz centuries.
7.2 The Government will continue to facilitate the development of NCR land with a view to enabling the natives who lawfully have rights over such land, to enjoy better economic returns and value for the land; and in the process, also to enhance development of the rural areas and to improve the living standards of the rural communities.
7.3 The Government will respect and honour the constitutional protections accorded to the natives by awarding recognition of their legitimate rights to their NCR land and if such land are required for public purposes, to pay the due compensation.
7.4 The Government recognises the need of the natives to maintain their traditional way of life and farming and the need to take timber and jungle produce from, and to hunt and fish, in our forests. Where there is a need for the natives to take timber or timber products from a forest area, the Government will declare that area as'a communal forest. In cases where a particular native community needs to be settled In a specified area which suit their traditional way of life and farming, the Government would, pursuant to section 6 of the land Code, declare that area as a Native Communal Reserve. Examples of Native Communal Reserves declared recently are:
(a) The Native Communal (Agriculture) Reserve Order, 2001 (Swk. L.N. 77/2001);
(b) The Native Communal (Kampung) Reserve Order, 2001 (Swk. L.N. 65/2001);
(c) The Native Communal (Community Hall) Reserve Order, 2001 (Swk. L.N, 28/2001);
(d) The Native Communal (Surau) Reserve Order, 2001 (Swk. L.N. 93/2001); and
(e) The Native Communal (Agriculture) Reserve Order, 1992 (Swk, L.N. 21 (1992)).
7.5 But the natives must at the same time understand and respect the rights of the Government to realise, for the benefit of the country, the full economic potentials of the resources of our forests and land which are not part of our national parks, natural reserves and wildlife sanctuaries.
7.6 In a democratic society where the Rule of Law must be upheld, the interests and rights of any individual should be exercised or advanced without any disregard for the Law and the interest of the State and Nation. No one should not take the law into their own" hands by setting up blockades or intimidating those undertaking development projects in their areas. Their rights, if any, to land can always be enforced by proceedings either before the Civil Court or the Native Courts which are set up, amongst other reasons, to adjudicate on disputes or claims to NCR land. All non-Government bodies should encourage the people to uphold and respect the Law and help to explain the Law to those who are supposed to observe and abide by the Law.

Difining Native Customary Right To Land

2011-02-17T20:47:00.000+08:00
Defining Native Customary Rights to Land
Sarawak has an anomalous and unique history as a British colony. A British protectorate in 1888, it was only annexed to British dominion in 1946 and became independent when it joined Malaysia in 1963. From 1841 to 1946[1] it was ruled by the Brooke family, whose members were themselves British subjects. This historical legacy has shaped, and continues to influence, the development of the law and policies relating to native customary land.
Prior to James Brooke’s arrival in Sarawak there was in existence a system of land tenure based on adat (native customary laws). That system remained virtually the same over the following century. Native customary rights to land consisted of rights to cultivate the land, rights to the produce of the jungle, hunting and fishing rights, rights to use the land for burial and ceremonial purposes, and rights of inheritance and transfer. According to native ideas, the clearing and cultivation of virgin land confers permanent rights on the original clearer (Geddes 1954; Freeman 1955; Richards 1961).

As the term implies, native customary rights may only be claimed by a native, or a person who has become identified with and has become subject to native personal law, and is therefore deemed to be a native.[2] ‘Native’ refers to the indigenous groups who inhabit the state, as listed in the schedule to the Sarawak Interpretation Ordinance and Article 161A, Clause 6 of the Federal Constitution. Despite the existence of numerous groups, the term ‘Dayak’ is colloquially used to refer to all the non-Muslim natives, differentiating them from the Malays, who by legal definition are Muslims (Bulan 1999; Hooker 2000). However, it is notable that the constitutional definition of natives in Sarawak includes the Malays. While the Malay-Melanau groups are coastal dwellers, the Dayaks are typically longhouse dwellers whose livelihood depends on the jungle and on swidden farming. Occupying the intermediate zones and the interior areas of Sarawak, their geographical locations and dependence on the land clearly determine the way that land administration affects them.
The Brookes did not interfere with the customary land rights of the Dayaks and Malays, allowing them a degree of self-governance. No scheme of alienation or land development was introduced except with respect to land where no rights or claims, whether documentary or otherwise, existed. There was a need to regulate the administration of land,[3] and at every phase, there was an awareness of the existence of native customary rights. As the authorities discovered, the regulation of customary tenure and land use touched on a social consciousness in which land has economic, social and religious significance (Porter 1967: 11). After a number of regulatory orders, a memorandum on native land tenure was published by means of the Secretarial Circular No. 12 of 1939.[4]

Cultivated land and any land on which a fruit grove had been planted is heritable. Communities may also demarcate certain areas of primary jungle as pulau (reserved forest land) for communal use, within which rights over different resources may be established. Although judicial decisions have held these rights to have been lost upon personal abandonment, migration, or transfer, these losses must be seen in the light of the customary practices of each individual community.

Legislation on Land
English law was formally applied by the Brookes through Order L-4 (Laws of Sarawak Ordinance) 1928. This introduced English law subject to modifications by the Rajah, and was applicable to native customs and local conditions.

After the Brookes, the most significant period for Sarawak’s land law was that which followed the cession of Sarawak to the British Crown in 1946. The Instrument of Cession transferred the rights of the Rajah, the Rajah in Council, and the State and Government of Sarawak in all lands to His Britannic Majesty ‘but subject to existing private rights and native customary rights’. The Application of Law Ordinance 1949 provided for the reception (afresh) of English common law and doctrines of equity together with statutes of general application. These applied only ‘so far as the circumstances of Sarawak and of its inhabitants permit and subject to such qualifications as local circumstances and native customs render necessary’.
One of the first pieces of legislation passed by the colonial government was the Land (Classification) Ordinance 1948. This instituted the system of land classification by which all land was divided into:
• Mixed Zone Land (land which may be held by any citizen without restriction);
• Native Area Land (land with a registered document of title but to be held by natives only);
• Native Communal Reserve (declared by Order of the Governor in Council for use by any native community, regulated by the customary law of the community);
• Reserved Land (reserved for public purposes);
• Interior Area Land (land that does not fall within the Mixed Zone); and
• Native Customary Land (land in which customary rights, whether communal or otherwise, have been created).
The effect of the classification was that the non-natives could acquire rights only in the Mixed Zone Lands. The natives were restricted in their dealings with non-natives, as well as among themselves, in line with the government policy of preventing the natives ‘from impoverishing themselves by disposing lightly of their rights to others, whether alien or natives’. Native Customary Land was preserved wherever it was already created, irrespective of the zone. Any transfer or dealing contrary to the code was subject to a penalty (Porter 1967: 77).

A significant provision of the 1948 Ordinance was that natives were entitled to occupy Interior Area Land for the purpose of creating customary rights but they were to be licensees of the Crown. Since by definition a licensee holds land at the discretion of the owner, in one stroke that ordinance removed proprietary rights to land from people who for generations had occupied and depended on that land.
The reduction of native rights to a mere licence advanced the presumption that natives had only a usufructuary right with no kind of ownership, and underpinned the colonial ‘tendency, operating often at times unconsciously, to render that title conceptually in terms which are appropriate only to systems which have grown up under English law’.[5] To deny the existence of a valid native perspective on land ownership, based on an elaborate system of rules and customs, was ‘characteristic of the self-serving ethnocentricity upon which colonialism is based’ (McNeil 1990: 92). The fact was that Sarawak was already inhabited by native groups who were not mere wanderers but were people in occupation of the land.

Amendments made through the Land (Classification) (Amendment) Ordinance 1955 precluded the creation of customary rights over Interior Area Land from 16 April 1955 unless a permit was obtained from the District officer. This continued to form the basis of the Land Code that came into force in January 1958, and remained an integral part of the land law system even after Sarawak joined Malaysia in 1963.[6] However, the issue of permits was effectively halted in 1964 by means of a government directive (Zainie 1994).

The Sarawak Land Code 1958
The Sarawak Land Code 1958 is based on a Torrens registration system which only recognises registered interests in land. The person claiming ownership or interest must have a document of title in the form of a grant, lease or other document as evidence of title or interests. There is, however, a provision for the creation of Native Customary Land under Section 5(2) which is limited to six specific methods; namely:
• the felling of virgin jungle and the occupation of the land thereby cleared;
• the planting of land with fruits;
• the occupation of cultivated land;
• the use of land for a burial ground or shrine;
• the use of land for rights of way; and
• by any lawful method (deleted in 2000).
Numerous amendments have been made to the Land Code. For instance, in 1994 amendments were passed to empower the minister in charge of land matters to extinguish native customary rights to land. In 1996, the onus was placed on a native claimant to prove that he has customary rights to any land against a presumption that the land belongs to the State. In 1998, to pave the way for extinguishment or compulsory acquisition of land, the mechanisms for assessment and payment of compensation were put in place.
The most comprehensive set of amendments were those set out in the Land Code (Amendment) Ordinance 2000. This included a definition of ‘native rights’ which was curiously missing in earlier legislation. Section 7A(1) streamlines ‘native rights’ into three categories; namely:
• rights lawfully created pursuant to Section 5(1) or (2);
• rights and privileges over any Native Communal Reserve under Section 6(1); and
• rights within a kampung reserve (Section 7).
The 2000 amendment harmonised the processes and procedures relating to Native Customary Land with those relating to other types of alienated land in respect of the resumption of land and the adjudication of payable compensation for termination of rights. It also provided for the creation of a Registry of Native Rights. Finally (and notably), the amendment deleted ‘any lawful methods’ under Section 5(2)(f), for what Fong (2000) described as the sake of legal certainty and clarity.
Some lawyers have argued that the implicit intention of the legislature in 1958 would have been to make a provision for certain customs and practices not covered by the Land Code (Bian 2000), but which were observed by different groups under their customary laws. The practice of customary land tenure certainly did not cease in 1958 and, as Bian argues, some lands had been acquired through barter exchange or ‘sale’ within communities, or as marriage dowries, which were subsumed under the ‘other lawful methods’. Given the inherent flexibility of adat (Cramb 1989; Sather 1990), and its ability to adapt to demographic and economic changes, Bian’s argument is reasonable.

The restricted concept of native customary rights under Section 5 made it difficult to assert rights under the Land Code after 1958 (Bulan 2000). The line of restriction is not a new phenomenon (Majid Cooke 2002). As Porter commented on the inception of the code, it ‘virtually prohibit[s] the creation of new customary rights’ and the ‘extremely detailed and rigid’ provisions ‘dictated government policy’ (Porter 1967: 83, 99).[7] Fong (2000) argues that the intention of the subsequent amendments was to restrict the methods of creating native customary rights to those stipulated under Section 5.

It is significant, therefore, that in a recent court case, Ian Chin recognised the existence of the Iban pemakai menoa — the area from which its members ‘eat’ (makai) — within which are found their temuda (secondary forest) and the pulau galau (land reserved for communal use).[8] The concept of pemakai menoa goes beyond mere agricultural use and extends to hunting, fishing and living off the produce of the jungle. Ian Chin held that those customary rights had not been expressly abolished by earlier orders or other legislation.
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision on 9 July 2005,[9] holding that there was insufficient proof of occupation by the (Iban) respondents in the disputed area, although they had satisfied the test for native customary rights in the adjacent area. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal did not disturb the High Court’s finding that the Iban concept of pemakai menoa exists. This is a milestone for native customary rights in Sarawak.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the exposition of the law by the learned judge of the High Court when he argued that the common law respects the pre-existence of rights under native laws or customs and that these rights do not owe their existence to statutes. Legislation is only relevant to determine how many of those native customary rights have been extinguished. It affirmed that the Land Code does not abrogate native customary rights that existed before the passing of that legislation, but held that natives are no longer able to claim new territory without a permit from the Superintendent of Lands and Surveys under Section 10 of the code. It also agreed with the High Court that the rights held under a licence ‘cannot be terminable at will’, for they can only be extinguished in accordance with laws subject to payment of compensation. Any discussion of the development of native customary rights must therefore bear in mind that, despite the provision of Section 5, the native concept of land is broader than the restrictive statutory provisions.
As the state seeks to accelerate land development under its broader ‘politics of development’ (Jitab and Ritchie 1991), the medium that is felt best suited to bring ‘development and progress’ to the natives is estate development. This involves lands which some native groups claim to be their communal lands.
Agricultural Policies and Land Development Schemes
To encourage native smallholders to participate in commercial land development, a series of land development schemes were undertaken from the 1960s to the 1980s. These have been documented by many writers such as Hong (1987), King (1988), Cleary and Eaton (1996), Ngidang (1998) and Majid Cooke (2002).

From 1964 to 1974, land resettlement schemes modeled after the integrated style of development adopted by the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) of Peninsular Malaysia were introduced and implemented — initially through the Agriculture Department and later (1972–80) through the Sarawak Land Development Board (SLDB). This involved clearing of new land and relocation of natives into resettlement schemes dedicated to the planting of cash crops (Ngidang 1997). Unlike the FELDA schemes, where landless workers were settled on state land, participants in Sarawak were relocated to areas where the local communities were established traditional landowners. The farmers were given loans that they had to repay out of incomes which were crucially dependent on the fluctuations of world commodity prices, and as a result, most were unable to make the repayments. The schemes also lacked the pool of workers and expertise required for their successful implementation (King 1988: 280) and all were eventually abandoned due to management problems (Ngidang 2001).
In 1976, the Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (SALCRA) was established with the object of developing agricultural land in situ (Hong 1987; King 1988: 283). This was a joint venture between the SALCRA and native farmers in which the participating households retained their ownership (Munan 1980; Humen 1981: 95–106). Subject to payment of costs by the owner, large consolidated blocks of land have been planted with cash crops. The SALCRA’s function includes consolidation and rehabilitation of land, and provision of advisers and training facilities in various aspects of farming and land management. When it appears that the participants have acquired the know-how to manage the schemes, the estate should be divided among the households, thus enabling them to obtain a demarcated piece of land to which they will be given a grant in perpetuity. Although there has not been any rationalisation and distribution exercise yet,[10] the eventual obtaining of titles for landowners through their participation appears to be an ideal solution to the problem of modernising agriculture in many native areas. Substantial alienation of land to non-native private companies with commercial interests has been avoided. To some extent, rural–urban migration has also been arrested. However, the success of the scheme is dependent on continued government funding.

Parallel to the SALCRA, the Land Consolidation and Development Authority (LCDA) was set up in 1981 to promote the development of both agricultural and non-agricultural projects. The LCDA has powers to acquire both state-controlled land and Native Customary Land for private estate development. It has powers to act as an intermediary between landowners and corporations so that private investors can be invited to participate in land development subject to allocation of shares in the relevant companies. The Land Code was amended in 1988 and 1990 to allow corporations, including foreign companies, to purchase land, including Native Customary Land, for this kind of development.
The formation of the LCDA was a further step in government involvement in large-scale land development as it became an agency and a conduit to ‘harness private capital for developing the land as estates’ (Sarawak Government 1997). This paved the way for the introduction of the joint venture company (JVC).

The New Model: Joint Venture Companies
The concept of the joint venture is premised on the assumption that Native Customary Land, which is now unorganised and fragmented, can be turned into an economic asset through the creation of a Native Customary Land Bank. Once pooled, it is assumed that large-scale plantation development and optimum returns can be realised. It is also assumed that large areas of Native Customary Land are attractive and viable for private investment.
As a prerequisite, there should be contiguous blocks of land of not less than 5000 hectares, which may cover land spanning the territorial domain of several longhouse communities. To date, the SLDB and the LCDA have been appointed as managing agents. Every landowner has to sign a trust deed to assign to the government agency all their respective rights, interests, shares and estate in the land. The government agency will then enter into the joint venture with the private corporation. When an area is marked for commercial development, the Minister may declare that area of land as a Development Area under Section 11 of the Land Consolidation and Development Authority Ordinance 1981, and the land will be classified as Native Area Land under Section 9(c) of the Land Code.[11] A perimeter survey using the global positioning system is carried out by the JVC to determine the size of the area. One title will be issued to the JVC for a period of 60 years (two plantation cycles) for an agreed value. The owners have to agree amongst themselves to determine the approximate sizes of their landholdings, and their names are then to be listed in the appendix of the trust deed. Under Section 18 of the Land Code,[12] the Superintendent of Lands and Survey may issue a lease over any land within a Development Area[13] for a term of not more than 60 years to a body corporate approved by the Minister. All adjoining land may be amalgamated.
In consideration for the use (or lease) of Native Customary Land, the JVC will issue to the trustee shares in the JVC credited as fully paid, equivalent to 60 per cent of the value of the said land, representing 30 per cent of the issued and paid up capital of the JVC. The value has been pegged at RM1200.00 per hectare. The JVC will pay to the trustee the equivalent balance of 40 per cent of the said land value. Out of that sum, 30 per cent will be invested in government-approved unit trusts and 10 per cent will be paid to the landowners.

In terms of equity ratio, the trustee will pay cash for 10 per cent of the issued share capital and the private company developer will pay cash for its 60 per cent share, while the landowners’ equity of 30 per cent in the JVC will be paid through the land value. The said land may only be used for agricultural purposes, and the JVC cannot deal with or charge the land as security for loans to implement the project without the prior approval of the Minister.

Upon expiry of the term of the title, the customary landowners shall decide either to renew the title in favour of the JVC or request for the land to be alienated to themselves or to another company or another entity nominated by them in writing. In the event that the customary landowners are desirous to have the land subdivided and alienated to them individually, the JVC is empowered to undertake a survey of the land and to determine the most equitable and fair manner of subdivision, having due regard to the extent of each of the landowners’ interest in the land. This is the stage at which the distribution and allotment of shares may be problematic because of uncertainty about the size of people’s shares in the land.

Two pioneer schemes have been developed as pilot projects in the Baram and Kanowit districts (Ngidang 1997: 75; Songan and Sindang 2000: 251) with varying responses from the participants. Many people participated in the projects without a full understanding of what such alien concepts as the trust, a joint venture, or shares in a company entailed.[14] This could give rise to the question of whether there has been effective consultation and informed consent on the part of the participants.
The next section discusses traditional rules relating to trusts and trustees, considers how those principles are applied in the JVC arrangement for development of Native Customary Land, and looks at possible remedies for landowners in the event of any breach.

The Trust and Protection of Property
The trust has tremendous utility because it is flexible and easy to create. It is usually set up for the purpose of ‘the management of wealth’, where property may be put on trust for an individual, an infant, a person of unsound mind or a group (Hayton 1998).

The modern trust evolved as a response of equity to the shortcomings and the rigid formalities of the common law. The trust was originally used to protect landowners who had transferred their land to another on the understanding that the transferee was to hold and administer the affairs relating to the land for the benefit of the transferor’s family.
There would be no problem where the transferee kept his word, but when the transferee broke his promise, misused or administered the land for his own benefit, the question of rights and remedies would arise. Common law only recognises the ownership of the legal owner. In case of a breach, there would be no legal redress for the transferor and his family. The concept of the trust was a developed as a way of requiring the friend to fulfill his promise, on the basis that it was unconscionable for him to claim the land for himself. In other words, equity imposed a trust on the transferee, called the trustee, to hold the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
The reliance placed on the transferee to deal with the property for the benefit of the beneficiary gave rise to a relationship of confidence or a fiduciary relationship. The transferee could not deal with the property in a way that would conflict with the interest of the transferor or the equitable owner.

Today the trust has become a valuable device in commercial and financial dealings where the fundamental principles of equity that were originally formulated apply as much to commercial trusts as they do to the traditional trusts.

The Nature of the Trust
The significant feature of the trust is the dual ownership of the trustee (legal ownership) and the beneficiary (equitable ownership). There are four essential elements of a trust under ordinary principles of law:
1. There must be a trustee or somebody who holds the trust property.
2. There must be property, whether land or money, that is capable of being held on trust.
3. There must be an ascertained beneficiary or beneficiaries who could enforce their rights.
4. The trustee is under a personal (equitable) obligation to deal with the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
In 1840, Lord Langdale laid down three certainties in the creation of a trust, namely: the person establishing the trust (the settlor) must demonstrate a clear intention to create a trust; the subject matter (the beneficial interest) is clearly identified; and the beneficiaries as well as the quantum of entitlement must be certain.

Uncertainty of intention will cause the trust to fail, and the person on whom the gift is bestowed will take the gift absolutely unhampered by the trust. If the subject matter is not certain, no trust is created. It may be, however, that the property itself is certain but the beneficial shares are not. Unless the trustees have discretion to determine the amounts, the trust will fail and the property springs back to the settlor on a resulting trust (Martin 1997: 93). The beneficiaries of the trust must also be ascertainable, otherwise a trust would fail for uncertainty and the property reverts to the settlor (Hayton 1998: 82).

Apart from these three certainties, no rigid formalities are required. In Peninsular Malaysia, a trust concerning any property, including land and equitable interest in land, need not be in writing provided the words used in the transaction show a clear and unequivocal intention to create a trust.[15] In Sarawak, however, a declaration of trust in respect of any interest in land, whether legal or equitable, must be in writing signed by a person who is able to declare the trust or by his will.[16]

The Trust and Native Customary Land Development
This ‘new model’ JVC is a type of development trust which is a ‘facilitative commercial trust’ (Bryan 2001). Creating a trust circumvents the requirements for a person or persons to be a party to the contract in order to enforce it. A third party cannot enforce the contract but he may enforce a trust even though he was not party to it. The beneficiaries include persons whose names appear in the appendix of the trust deed, their respective heirs, successors in titles, executors, administrators, personal representatives, trustees and any other person claiming title or interest in the name or on behalf of the native customary owners.

The trust also does away with the need to get into a partnership that will require the parties to contribute equally in order to share equally in the profits (Ladbury 1987). Most native landowners do not have the financial means to develop the land, so vesting the land in trustees is arguably one of the most appropriate mechanisms that can be used. Be that as it may, the intrinsic nature of native customary rights could give rise to problems peculiar to this kind of trust.

The JVC and the Nature of the Beneficiaries’ Interests
The terms of the trust deed presume that the native customary owners have acquired the rights through one of the means prescribed under Sections 5(2), 7A, 7B or 7C, or had obtained a permit under Section 10, of the Land Code , or that there is evidence or records kept by the Land Office pertaining to the land, so that a registrable document of title may be issued in favour of the company.

This arrangement is different from some property development ventures which are financed through the marketing of shares in land trusts where the shares have clear proportions. In this case, while the beneficiaries may be entitled to the land as set out in the appendix of the trust deed, their respective interests, rights, and shares are undivided. With one master title, the owners cannot apply for subdivision for as long as the company is the registered proprietor.

Applying the traditional requirements of certainty, there is no exhaustive listing of all beneficiaries entitled under customary law. The question in this case is: could the trust be challenged as void for uncertainty of objects? If so, who is responsible to ensure that the land reverts to the owners? And finally, what are the powers of the trustees?

General Powers and Duties of Trustees
The trustee’s powers are provided for by the trust deed, although general statutory powers are also provided by the Trustee Act 1949. The powers of a trustee are facilitative, enabling a trustee to act in a certain way but leaving the discretion to him as to whether to so act. Duties, on the other hand, are imperative. They compel or prohibit a trustee from acting in a certain way, failing which he may be liable for breach of duty.
The general powers of trustees under the Trustee Act include the powers to compound liabilities, to settle claims and to give receipts, to fix the value of trust property, to concur with co-owners of land in disposing of trust property, and to insure trust property.

The trustee cannot put himself in a position where there is a conflict of interest, nor can he profit from his position without authorisation by the trust deed or consent of the beneficiaries. It is his duty to administer the trust honestly and impartially for the benefit of the beneficiaries, to account to the beneficiaries and to distribute the income to those entitled to it.

A breach of duty may result in a claim by the beneficiaries. Any loss caused by the trustee or trustees wrongfully disposing of the assets or any diminution in the value of the trust fund may have to be borne by the trustees. The same liability may be imposed on a trust corporation, although the standard of care and business prudence expected of a trust corporation is higher than that of an ordinary trustee, particularly where it holds itself out as capable of providing certain expertise which cannot be provided by an ordinary prudent man. The reasonable standard of care is one for the courts to decide based on the facts of the case.
Underlying these powers and duties is the fiduciary obligation of the trustee to the beneficiary.

The Fiduciary Relationship and its Ramifications
The word 'fiduciary' comes from the Latin fiducia meaning ‘trust’. Inherent in the nature of the fiduciary relationship is one party’s position of disadvantage or vulnerability which causes him to place reliance upon another and requires the protection of equity in acting upon the conscience of that other. It is important to determine whether a fiduciary relationship exists and, if so, whether any remedy is available in case of any breach of that fiduciary obligation.
The relationship between a trustee and the beneficiaries has been called the ‘archetypal’ fiduciary relationship.[17] It is an established principle that the trustee must not use his position to make a gain for himself. This has been extended to apply generally to all cases where one person stands in a position of influence over another, enabling the court to intervene in circumstances where the person occupying a position of trust or confidence took improper advantage of that position. The question is: would these principles of fiduciary duty apply to a government and its agencies?

Dal Pont and Chalmers (1996: 118) argue that the government, like a trustee, is concerned with the control and distribution of wealth. Having been sourced from the people, the exercise of a government’s power to affect the interests of its people is subject to an obligation to deal with this wealth for the benefit of its people. In this respect, the people can be characterised as ‘beneficiaries’ of the trust established by the conferral of their authority on the government to act on its behalf (Finn 1994: 45). The fiduciary duty that binds the Crown is similar to the duty that a constructive trustee owes to a beneficiary, which entails a duty not to compromise the beneficiary’s interest in transactions with third parties.

The highest courts in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and, to some extent, Australia have recognised the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the government and aboriginal persons. The issue of fiduciary obligation towards aboriginal people has also arisen in Malaysia. In one recent case,[18] the federal and state governments were both said to have owed a fiduciary duty to the Orang Asli (aborigines) of Peninsula Malaysia to protect them from unscrupulous exploitation and to safeguard their tribal organisation and way of life. That duty emanates from Article 8(5) of the Federal Constitution. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2005.

In the case of natives in Sarawak, Article 153 of the Federal Constitution also imposes a fiduciary obligation on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King) to protect the interests of the natives of Sarawak and Sabah. Further preferential treatment as regards alienation of land by the state is contained in Article 161A(5), while protection of native law and custom is also enshrined under Article 150(6A), Clause 5.[19] Clearly, there is legal recognition that natives are especially vulnerable to the power of government, and this justifies their preferential treatment. For natives in Sarawak, this is a reflection of the Brooke government’s belief that Sarawak ‘is the heritage’ of its people and that land is their ‘lifeblood’. In the ‘Nine Cardinal Principles of the Rule of the English Rajahs’, the government held itself as ‘trustee’ of the people and policies for protection of native interests against outside exploitation were put in place.[20]

The state’s fiduciary duty also arises because of the inalienability of the property. The state’s power to impair native customary rights by way of alienation, and the fact that such rights are inalienable except to another native or by surrender to the state, gives rise to a fiduciary obligation on the state. The fiduciary obligation protects those rights so that they cannot be terminated without involving, informing, consulting and negotiating with the customary right holders in good faith, minimising the impact and detriment on the affected parties. It is imperative for the government to deal with the property surrendered to it with utmost good faith.

This means that, when native customary landowners surrender their rights to the LCDA as trustees, there is a clear fiduciary duty to protect the rights of the vulnerable right holders. A government agency that takes on the duties of a trustee under a commercial arrangement becomes a ‘trustees twice over’ (Finn 1992: 243), particularly where the vulnerable landowners depend on it to negotiate the best terms on their behalf (Lehane 1985: 98).
In the present JVC model, the relationship between the corporate developer and government agency (trustee) is contractual. Does a fiduciary relationship exist between them? It is suggested that the mutual confidence between the JVC and the LCDA (or its agents), in appropriate circumstances, does not exclude the possibility of a fiduciary relationship.

The Malaysian Federal Court has already held that the relationship between parties in a joint venture agreement is a fiduciary relationship.[21] Thus, if a right is not sustainable in breach of contract, there may be an avenue in equity where there is a breach of the fiduciary obligation.[22]
Breach of Trust and Remedies of Beneficiaries
What remedies are available to beneficiaries should there be any unauthorised act or in case of a breach?
At the core of the trust concept is also a right of the beneficiaries to make the trustees accountable to the trust and to ensure that they act within the terms of the trust deed. The remedy for the breach of a fiduciary duty includes declaration of rights or a claim in damages and compensation.

Beneficiaries have a right to have the trust property invested in a way that will keep a balance between them. They have a ‘policing’ right, to see the trust accounts from time to time, and to require the trustees to make good any breach of trust. While trustees are not bound to give reasons in exercising their discretion, the absence of reasons could create a presumptive case that a trustee’s discretion has been miscarried or was not exercised upon real, sound and genuine consideration. Beneficiaries may also apply for an injunction to restrain a fiduciary from acting in a way that is detrimental to the trust.

The issue takes on a different angle where the trustee is a government agency. Section 29(1) and (2) of the Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956 debars an injunction being granted against a government or an officer of the state. An order for the preservation of property may be made if the plaintiff can show that irreparable damage not compensatable by damages would be caused. Despite the nomenclature, if the effect is the same as that of an injunction, it will not be granted. Thus, while it is open for claimants to take legal action to prove their claims, very few natives have the means to sustain such actions.

Questions of Proof and Reversion of Land
A fundamental aspect of the JVC is that native customary ‘owners’ become joint venture partners without having to provide financial capital. This means that ‘their equity in the joint ventures would be based on the area of their land; and the irresistible part of it all is that their land would be returned to them when the government has no more use for it’ (Jitab with Ritchie 1991: 66). To what extent can the beneficiaries be assured of the reversion of the Native Customary Land? The issue is not that ‘the government will not cheat its own people’; rather, the problem lies in the discharging of the onerous burden of proof that is on the claimant.

Since Native Customary Lands are not individually surveyed, there are latent uncertainties in terms of the specific shares in the land. At the expiration of 60 years, persons who have surrendered their rights may no longer be alive. This could cause problems for the successors unless they can work out a clear system of partition and inheritance of the land. If the native claimants are not able to settle their claims among themselves, there is a possibility and danger of them losing their rights to the legal owner who has a registered (master) title to the land.
The new Section 7A of the Land Code provides for registration of Native Customary Land but does not provide indefeasibility of title. In Fong’s words, it is treated merely as an acknowledgement of a claim to the land until the contrary is proved,[23] a certification to a right, and not a ‘proprietary right in land’. The onus of proving an interest remains on a native claimant.[24] The problem reverts to the question of the restrictive provisions under Section 5 and the clash between statute and native concepts of land.[25]

The commonly deployed method of determining the existence of native customary rights over a parcel of land is aerial photographs taken prior to 1 January 1958. However, these may not be available, and the claimant then has to show alternative physical evidence of occupation before 1958, or else show records of permits, which are virtually non-existent. Thus, upon amalgamation of all the contiguous lands by the Director of Lands and Surveys, land that is vested in the trustee becomes the legal property of the agency with no compensation paid to the claimant. With no payment of compensation at the point of amalgamation, is the amalgamation tantamount to summary taking of land without compensation?

One possible way to avoid this problem may be to survey the land and grant individual titles to the owners at the point of their joining the scheme. This would ensure that persons who join the scheme know their specific share and are able to stake a claim at the expiration of the 60-year provisional lease period. Before such a survey can be carried out, such rights must be fully investigated, demarcated and recorded before titles can be issued to replace the customary tenure (Goh 1969: 4). It has been argued that a full-scale statewide registration of native interests over land would be a time-consuming, tedious and costly operation (Fong 2000). However, in specific projects such as this, the advantages of a proper survey being done prior to implementation cannot be understated.
A prior grant of title to claimants would best serve the interest of the vulnerable owners and the sense of security would be an incentive for participation. It would go a long way in improving the implementation of Native Customary Land development (Songan and Sindang 2000: 251). With the passing of the Land Surveyors Ordinance 2002, the combined effect of Sections 20 and 23 entail that a person who is not a licensed surveyor cannot make, authorise or sign any cadastral map. Since map making by the communities themselves could be an offence, it is imperative that the authorities take steps to survey the land for the natives.

Concluding Remarks
The caution in commercial joint ventures is that, all too often, when there is no more money in the venture, it is easy for parties to forget their contractual obligations and the vulnerable parties often suffer. As an active sponsor of these schemes, it is all the more pertinent for the government to provide some kind of a guarantee that Native Customary Land will revert to the owners at the end of the venture. Similarly, in the event that a JVC withdraws without completing its job, is there some form of a guarantee the native customary owners will be adequately compensated?
Arguably the government’s fiduciary obligation may be said to go beyond a mere commercial arrangement to become ‘trustees twice over’, based as it is on the customary owners’ trust and confidence in the government. Perhaps there is scope here for application of Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s (1995) caution ‘that equity principles must follow developments in commercial law for commercial expediency, but such application has to be both thoughtful and sensitive’. What has been developed as an instrument to defeat unconscionable conduct should not ironically become the very instrument that defeats the rights of those that it purports to protect.