(1) PLAN FOR___INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AT KEMUYANG SIBU

(2) EARTHFILLING OF LOW LYING AREAS OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN SIBU

(3) IMPLEMENTATION OF MINI MULTIMEDIA SUPER CORRIDOR (MSC)

(4) ECONOMIC DOWNTURN: EFFECT ON TIMBER INDUSTRY

(5) PLANS TO HARNESS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(6) OVERSEAS TRIP DURING HAZE EMERGENCY

Speeches /Debates 

(1)BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1997

(2)LAND CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1997

(3)NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1997

(4)THE 1998 SARAWAK STATE BUDGET
 
 

I rise to take part in the debate pertaining to the Land Code (Amendment) Bill, 1997.

The Bill incorporates several categories with a view to amend the Sarawak Land Code, one of which (Clause 3) is to regulate the acquisition of interests in native area land by those deemed to be a native. The Bill also intends to implement the new concept of "development of NCR Land" (Clauses 5 & 6). It provides that titles for not more than 60 years could be issued to a body corporate approved by the Minister, for the development of NCR land in joint venture with the natives. 

The phraseology "development of NCR land" sounds attractive. As a member of this Dewan, I wish to ask, is it phraseology that we are concerned with, or more so on how the whole new concept of NCR land development is to be implemented?

As intelligent and responsible representatives of the people, I am sure we are not at all concerned with window dressing, with the attractiveness of a term. Rather, we are concerned with how the concept of development is to be implemented.

My Observations are the following:

(1) Land, a sensitive matter:

For a long time in history, land has been a sensitive and crucial issue to the people, for it concerns not only livelihood, but also tradition, culture and heritage. Since historical times people have been prepared to die in order to save their land from being taken.

Sarawak may be blessed with vast areas of land, but those land classified as NCR land have not increased. Rather, the history and activities of the state have shown that NCR land have been dwindling. This is not helped by the active logging activities carried out over and on NCR land amongst others.

The history of the state has shown also that the Ibans and other indigenous people have been lagging behind other races in terms of welfare and share of development. One gratifying thing is that these natives have steadfastly kept their culture, with most of them still staying in one familial unit. 

Behind this unyielding yearn for keeping their tradition and culture alive, the natives of Sarawak have been seeking for a better living. Through their representatives, they have been asking for development. The government has also promised them a better livelihood through development, in the sense of helping them.

I used to read somewhere a statement from our YAB the Chief Minister, NCR land are to be developed if the indigenous people wish a better life. Get rich through development of the NCR Land. The good intentions and spirit must be supported. But the Question is: Are we helping the Indigenous people?

The Ibans and Bidayuhs and others need help, there is no question about that. But are the provisions contained in the present Land Code (Amendment) Bill designed to help these people, with the ultimate aim that these people should come out from their threshold of poverty?

What is help? Before the government should decide to help these people, wouldn't it be more prudent for the government to ask "what sort of help do you need?" Or do we take it for granted that we know exactly what they want? Or is the government telling them, "Let us do it for you, whether you want it or not, because we want to help you?"

In the event that the government should say, "Don't tell me what you want. We know what you want". That would be completely wrong and unacceptable.

In order to meaningfully help these people, they should first be consulted. Correct me if I were wrong, the indigenous people whose lives are intended to be changed have not been meaningfully consulted. Even if per chance they have been sort of consulted, they have not agreed to what they had been consulted.

My understanding has always been that the indigenous people have always disagreed that their land be taken by body corporate for development, or even they have steadfastly maintained a sceptical approach over a joint venture with these companies.

Their scepticism do not come without any basis. They have no answers as to:

(a) How could they be involved actively in the development joint venture? (b) Would their contributions merely be provision of labour? (c) What are the background of these body corporate which may be approved by the Minister? (d) How successful have these corporations been in other development projects? (e) Must these body corporate depend on the influence of powerful political figures for survival?

The Iban sector have a tint of knowledge on the workings and investment adventures or misadventures of corporations like SALCRA, SLDB and LCDA. From these knowledge, these people do not find comfort. I remember when this bill appears for information certain sectors of the Iban community have asked me to request from the government certain pertinent information on the following 3 companies, irrespective whether these are the body corporate that will ultimately be involved in the joint venture in the development of NCR land:

(a) What have been the cumulative losses of SALCRA over their projects? (b) What have been the cumulative losses of LCDA over their projects? (c) What have been the cumulative losses of SLDB over their projects?

(2) Proposal:

I propose that in order that the joint venture between body corporate as approved by the Minister and the natives can be considered safe and meaningful, there must be the following safeguards:

(a) the Chief Executive Officers of all these body corporate should be one of the natives; (d) the natives should be allocated at least 30% of the share/equities in these body corporate; and (c) the shares of these natives should carry full voting and/or participation rights.

Only upon fulfilment of these conditions may the natives have any effective and meaningful say in the running of the companies, including the incorporation of policies and the conduct and running of the joint venture.

(3) Refer to Select Committee:

Public consultation is the cornerstone of a wise and efficient government.

Public accountability is the cornerstone to the survival of a democratic government.

There is no much time for the people claiming rights over NCR land to be consulted. This specks of injustice. Natural justice demands that the people be consulted before any plan is enforced that may directly or indirectly affect their livelihood. 

In our case here, it is not only livelihood that will be affected, but the very culture and heritage of the native communities. In these NCR land they can find most of their needs. They even believe their ancestral spirits stay with the land. Many do not want these balance of nature to be disturbed by the roars of engines, bulldozers and tractors, more so, amidst a cloud of uncertainty whether their joint venture will one day materialise and /or bear fruits.

Our state government can proudly boast to be democratic. The government must tell the people which companies are at the moment involved in projects of similar nature. Is it true SALCRA, SLDB and LCDA all have suffered cumulative losses? What are their cumulative losses? This information is the fundamental of public accountability. I would propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, in order that the natives may be consulted, in accordance with the law of natural justice.

Times and again, the courts in our land have held that a right to be heard is the basic right of a person aggrieved. The law of natural justice has even been labelled as God's law. Let us hope that all of us can steadfastly be seen as a protector of this God's law.

There can be no doubt that the natives of these NCR land are those people who are aggrieved by the acquisition of their land for plantation and other development purpose. Being the people most affected by the policy and new concept of NCR land development, they should be consulted.

Considerable logic and patience must be allowed to prevail before the passing of this Bill, so that the Bill and what are intended may be referred to the people. There is no hurry in passing this bill. The land is always there. They would not run away. They have no legs.

There is no lack of precedent over public consultation before a bill is passed. If I can remember correctly, the federal government had referred the Dangerous Drugs Act to the people before it was passed, because it was controversial, as it dealt with the imposition of the death penalty. The people, after a year or so, saw the necessity to impose the death sentence on drug trafficking because of the inherent threat to society.

But the referral also imposed a system of review whereby the said Act would have to be reviewed every set number of years.

Let us also be patient before seeing it fit to pass this Land Code (Amendment) Bill. Let us be seen to be more fair and democratic than the colonial masters, or the masters from the west. Let us refer the bill to those people who are directly affected, whose living, tradition, culture and heritage are being sentenced in this Court of the people.

Datuk Speaker Sir,

Fear not that this bill may be defeated by the people who are directly affected after the referral. For to continue passing the law after its refusal by those people most affected would be a tyrannical and undemocratic act. 

(4) 60 year lease to Body Corporate:

The Bill makes no provision as to how the joint venture should be undertaken, and what are the safeguards to the natives or their coming generations after the 60 year period.

The Bill provides that titles for not more than 60 years be issued to the body corporate approved by the Minister. There is no indication that the land reverts to NCR land after the said period. It has to be applied, because there is no guarantee for automatic reversion. This is unfair for at least 2 reasons:

(a) There is no provision that the natives will hold any share in the body corporate so that their interest will pass on to the next generation or their estate when the time comes; and

(b) There is no definite or clear demarcation of NCR land. 

Puzzling questions are, when clause 6(3) of the Bill applies after the expiry of the 60 year lease, would the issue of a grant diminish the NCR land? What is the status of this new grant? Would it be for a certain duration, say, 60 years, just like most of the present day leases? Or would the new grant suddenly gives the natives a documented title, so that what was originally a claim is transformed into a legally documented right?

Effectively, by operation of clause 6(3) of the Bill, it seems to mean that upon the expiry of the term of the title, the native concerned will have to apply to the Superintendent of Land & Survey for the issue to him of a grant over his land or any part thereof. Since they are originally the owners of rightful claimants of these NCR land, why should they have to apply? 

Other questions include: What would be the terms and conditions of these new grant? How much premium do they have to pay for the new grant? How much out of the profits from the joint venture, if any, the natives would have to dig out for the purpose of paying for these new grants?

The term of 60 years is awfully long. Most of our modern day leases are of 60 years. Not many people have lives of 60 years from the day they become possessed of independent knowledge. 

(5) Review Mechanism:

Together with the referral to the people, probably a review mechanism will be put in, that the joint venture be reviewed every 5 or 10 years.

(6) Resurrection of Rentap Spirit?:

May I say the natives demand that they be consulted. I am concerned that there would be a lot of dissatisfaction if this august House should see it fit to plough through this Bill by using your brute majority. 

Let us be responsible enough not to incite dissatisfaction in our people, who have been living peacefully since the day we joined to form the proud nation called Malaysia in 1963.

Since the day the white Rajahs came to Sarawak until there was peace by virtue of good governance, there had been battles over land. I am concerned that the Rentap spirit may resurrect if land is forcibly taken away from these indegenous people, even if for a term of years only.

(7) DAP supports Meaningful Development:

No doubt, I wish to emphasise that neither the DAP nor myself is against development. We are supportive of meaningful development, so that the disparity between the rich and the poor can be narrowed. 

On our part, we also wish to see the Ibans, Bidayuhs and other anak anak Sarawak thrive in their business ventures, so that lives can be better off for them as well as their next generation. But the Bill here provides 60 years of occupation by these big corporations of their Land, which will logically be more than 2 generations.

(8) Bangsa Sarawak:

I wish to emphasise also that although I am a Chinese, yet I am speaking as bangsa Sarawak, as an Anak Sarawak. In the spirit and wisdom of Martin Luther King, one nation, one voice.

These Ibans, whose land is the subject of our discussion, are your as well as my brothers and sisters, and I am duty bound to speak on their behalf when their own representatives are constrained by party whip in this Dewan to speak on their behalves.

In the light of my comments above, I must say, the DAP cannot support this Bill. 

I wish to say that there are many times we wish to support YAB the Chief Minister in the many bills that he had introduced or will introduce through his Ministers. I cannot find myself supporting the present Bill, particularly those portions that deal with land. The next few days will see that the DAP supports other bills to be passed in this august house.