DAP Piasau - David Balan.
Supported by the idealogy of Dr.John Brian.
What Jabu Says about development in the rural area? Jabu comment on, the Opposition resist the government effort to develop rural Sarawak. The Opposition is the main stumbling block and that jabu will be the champion to fight for rural Sarawak. But is this true that opposition opposed the government to develop rural Sarawak. Is this true? I say it is simply cause by the government uncaring attitude towards rural Sarawak. I provide the line of thinking below to prove the answer i provide is objective.
Firsly, we talk on timber Indusry.
Time to time again, the BN government promised to develop the rural area. First they said that logging is good for Dayak as it provides jobs. Today, forestry is not practices is not sustainable. Large tract of land are given to timer tycoon for planting and this also have failed to live up to expectation. There are simply too many excuses given by the non performance on tree planting but no one speak about releasing the land back to government on the areas that fail to be replanted. Just by keeping land, the company would be able to derive income from it as that would act as important collateral and asset for the company. From timber logging did the rural area get to be develop? The answer is NO. Sawmill and veneer factory or timber based industry sprout up in some Sarawak town but then the main EMPLOYEE are foreign worker and NOT local population.
Second, we talk on oil Palm Plantation.Then some of these deforested timber areas are given to investor in plantation. The designated ares is develop with unfold destruction to rivers, streams, fresh water feed stock, general agriculture, soil erosion, chemical contamination of water etc. Did this plantation company benefit the rural people? These companies do not practice sustainable practice.They look for profit but then where is the schools and health clinic to support he thousand of plantation workers? Mind you, the workers are also mostly foreign workers. How did the rural people benefit and increase their income?
Third, Dam Construction. These dams are constructed in rural ares. Large track of land are used and as we already know, it wipe out large track of NCR land and the Dayak heritage. The Dayak were forced to change their life. Did these development brought extra income to rural people? Most of the workers are foreigners and in the actual running of the dam it is not labor intensive. James Jemut Masing advise the people of Bakun to take apportunities from eco- tourism is Bakun and leave it at that.m Can the rural people grrasp this concept of eco -tourism business and the required knowledge and skill to do it, I doubt that very much.
Back to the story of timber industry. Did the government provide QUOTA to the rural people like 30 percent of the transportation of timber should be using Dayak barge? Where will the Dayak get the barge? Did the government insist that timber operator worker together with the care taker of the forest the Dayak and help them to earn decent income? Why can't the government stipulated a certain QUOT for Dayak busniness with Government and timber company support. Now this is history but because we never spoke of it the government never learn. Let us move to oil Palm Plantation.
The Plantation. There is so much work in infrastructure development in the plantation. The bridges, the irrigation drain, roads, etc are all business. Did the government state that business QUOTA must be given to local and that agency that encourage bumiputera must provide business capital assistance and expertise for Dayak to be involved in business.Non that i know off an the government do not have an idea on how to help rural Sarawak.
The Dams. Now we are battling the Baram dams. Why? We have seen poor management in Batang Ai and Bakun for resettled population. The Government offer is so minimal and it has no long term objective for the affected population. Promised of land remain EMPTY promises and still the population did not enjoy the electricity generated from the Dam. Did the road infra-structure improve and did the government help the Dayak to improve their income? The answer to all the above question is NO. The government cannot think of giving business opportunity to rural Dayak. The YB upon the advise of business men grab SOME opportunities and the rest is lost. Tourism need ingra-structure like good road, service industry training, capitals, skills, knowledge, marketing and promotion and a strong and continuous government involvement. Do you seriously think that the government is prepared to put in all these infra-structure to help the rural Dayak to increase their income?
The above three example is enough to highlight what the government did not do to help Dayak business and what are the possible thing that is totally within the government framework to prosper the Dayak that BN government did not do.Talking about new development so that it can help rural people is empty talk when the government has no specific plan om what course of action they must follow in order to help Dayak. All these speak volume of what BN never thought off to help the Dayak to develop in business. What is the use of NEP and Article 153 without the hand of BN government helping the people to achieve the intention of our country's independence?
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Monday, 12 September 2011
TEMINATION OF TUAI RUMAH ( LONGHOUSES CHIEFS )
April 16- State election affected the Tuai Rumah.
There are several elected tuai rumah have been dismissed and replaced by pro-BN. The state polls saw the opposition win an unprecedented 15 seats lending credence to the widespread belief that the regime is losing its support base. The BN government has also accused of appointing its own longhouse Chiefs disregarding the communities having their own elected tuai rumah.The pro- government is disregarding the tuai rumah by the people, who are knowledgeable about the adat and customs and by appointing their own tuai rumah and ignoring the elected by the people, the BN governmant is breaking up the longhouse and causing disunity. The caused of the long house split is because of two headmen. The government should let the villagers choice their own headmen so that the long houses would not splited. The vice Chairman See Chee How, who is Batu Lintang assemblymen was commenting on the sacking of six tuai rumah from machan in Kanowit. The six headmen have not received their monthly allowance of Rm 450 since August 2011, up till now no reason has been given for the termination of their appointments. The six's uncertain status is believed to be linked to the April state election in which a majority of voters from the six long houses in Ukong, Jagoi and Lipus voted for opposition.
The government must explain dimissals of the longhouses chiefs. Another long house chief, Sandah Ak. Tabau, has also received an official letter from the director of human resources Unite in the chief Minister's office, informing him that his service as a long house headmen has been terminated. The headmen Sandah's dismissal was connected with a suit invoving a native Customary Right ( NCR ) land in which he was one of the plaintiffs and a witness. The native landowners won the case against the government.Sandah's is a leader who fight for his own people right. He is the tuai rumah who was elected by the people of the long house and not appointed by the state assembly of the Contituency. What is the point of having an official tuai rumah if he does not represent the people other than to disunite and threaten the people. Another Ten tuai rumah have been dimissed because they were closed to hte Batang Sadong MP Nacy Shukri and Nancy is a very hard working women as an MP and treats everyone equal, no business bases in Simunjan and does not take away NCR land from the people. If they were dismissed based upholding true justice then we the people as all should too realise the spirit and cause they are fighting for. For all we know the fight in Sarawak is a real tough one. Most of the tuai rumah in the state of Sarawak( longhouses ) scare of being dismiss by the government but they never think of their future generation.
There are several elected tuai rumah have been dismissed and replaced by pro-BN. The state polls saw the opposition win an unprecedented 15 seats lending credence to the widespread belief that the regime is losing its support base. The BN government has also accused of appointing its own longhouse Chiefs disregarding the communities having their own elected tuai rumah.The pro- government is disregarding the tuai rumah by the people, who are knowledgeable about the adat and customs and by appointing their own tuai rumah and ignoring the elected by the people, the BN governmant is breaking up the longhouse and causing disunity. The caused of the long house split is because of two headmen. The government should let the villagers choice their own headmen so that the long houses would not splited. The vice Chairman See Chee How, who is Batu Lintang assemblymen was commenting on the sacking of six tuai rumah from machan in Kanowit. The six headmen have not received their monthly allowance of Rm 450 since August 2011, up till now no reason has been given for the termination of their appointments. The six's uncertain status is believed to be linked to the April state election in which a majority of voters from the six long houses in Ukong, Jagoi and Lipus voted for opposition.
The government must explain dimissals of the longhouses chiefs. Another long house chief, Sandah Ak. Tabau, has also received an official letter from the director of human resources Unite in the chief Minister's office, informing him that his service as a long house headmen has been terminated. The headmen Sandah's dismissal was connected with a suit invoving a native Customary Right ( NCR ) land in which he was one of the plaintiffs and a witness. The native landowners won the case against the government.Sandah's is a leader who fight for his own people right. He is the tuai rumah who was elected by the people of the long house and not appointed by the state assembly of the Contituency. What is the point of having an official tuai rumah if he does not represent the people other than to disunite and threaten the people. Another Ten tuai rumah have been dimissed because they were closed to hte Batang Sadong MP Nacy Shukri and Nancy is a very hard working women as an MP and treats everyone equal, no business bases in Simunjan and does not take away NCR land from the people. If they were dismissed based upholding true justice then we the people as all should too realise the spirit and cause they are fighting for. For all we know the fight in Sarawak is a real tough one. Most of the tuai rumah in the state of Sarawak( longhouses ) scare of being dismiss by the government but they never think of their future generation.
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
RAKYAT HARUS DI DAHULUKAN, Jangan curi Bini orang lain
DAP Miri- David.
MEREDEKAREVIEW: 7 Sept 2011- 04.36pm.
NGO- SAM: Penduduk di Pandan, Bintulu diberi notis untuk mengosongkan Tanah NCR.
Mengapa??- masih ada penindasan terhadap Rakyat yang miskin?
Semenjak dua tahun yang lalu, pihak Sam telah dimaklumkan tentang perkembangan yang sangat membimbangkan berkenaan dengan pembukaan ladang kayu kertas di Bintulu di bawah lesen LPF 1 yang dipegang oleh pihak Jabatan Perhutaan Sarawak sendiri. LPF 1 meliputi kawasan sebesar 480, 600 hektar dan diuruskan oleh Sarawak Planted Forest Sdn. Bhd, sebuah anak syarikat Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak.1500,00 hektar daripada kawasan konsesi ini telah diperuntukkan untuk pembukaan ladang kayu kertas acacia mangium dan kerja- kerja pembangunannya dikontrakkan kepada sebuah konsoritium swasta.
Pada Ogao 17, pihak Jabatan Tanah dan Survei Bahagian Bintulu telah memberi notis kepada dua orang penduduk iban dari kampung Rumah Sengok di Sungai Binyo. Pandan untuk mengosongkan dan meninggalkan tanah ladang mereka dalam tempoh tujuh hari. Notis tersebut menyatakan bahawa penduduk tersebut telah memerobohi Tanah Kerajaan yang diperuntukkan bagi projek ini tanpa sebarang kebenaran yang sah dengan meneanam pokok kelapa sawit.
Sebenarnya semenjak bulan Jun 2009 lagi, pihak Jabatan Tanah dan Survei Bahagian Bintulu telah mengeluarkan notis yang sama kepada sekumpulan penduduk yang lain, di Sungai Satai, Pandan. Kami telah dimaklumkan bahawa penduduk Satai dan Binyo tidak pernah memberikan sebarang perdetujuan untuk membenarkan tanah adat diambil bagi tujuan projek perladangan tersebut..Kami berpendapat bahawa kenyataan tentang penduduk di Binyo dan Satai menduduki Tanah Kerajaan tanpa lesen adalah tidak berkenaan di dalam kes ini oleh kerana kami difahamkan bahawa memiliki rekod sejarah tentang hak tanah adat mereka semenjak dari zaman Brooke lagi.
Menurut Mahkamah, hak NCR ini turut meliputi kepentingan pemilikkan harta ( proprietary interest ). Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa prinsip-prinsip " common law " sememangnya menghormati kewujudan asal hak-hak ini di bawah adat-istiadat Orang Asal- kewujudan hak tanah adat tidak bergantung kepada undang-undang tergubal ( statute ) kerana ia diperolehi daripada adat dan bukannya dari geran hakmilik atau pengumuman pihak eksekutif, legislatif atau kehakiman. Oleh itu, walaupun penduduk tiada memiliki geran hakmilik, mereka dianggap sebagai pemegang yang sah di atas Tanah Kerajaan.
NGO- Sam berasa amat gusar tentang cara pihak Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak menangani pengurusan projek ini tanpa ketelusan penuh dan perundingan terbuka dengan kampung- kampung terlibat. Kami menentang sekeras-kerasnya arahan mengosongkan tanah ladang mereka tanpa mereka di beri peluang untuk perbincangan terbuka. Kami menggesa Jabatan tersebut untuk menarikbalik notis mengosongkan tanah kepada para penduduk berkenaan. Kami juga menyokong tuntutan para penduduk supaya tanah adat kampung- kampung mereka dikeluarkan daripada projek ini. Apa telah terjadi dengan kerajaan Sarawak sekarang.
MEREDEKAREVIEW: 7 Sept 2011- 04.36pm.
NGO- SAM: Penduduk di Pandan, Bintulu diberi notis untuk mengosongkan Tanah NCR.
Mengapa??- masih ada penindasan terhadap Rakyat yang miskin?
Semenjak dua tahun yang lalu, pihak Sam telah dimaklumkan tentang perkembangan yang sangat membimbangkan berkenaan dengan pembukaan ladang kayu kertas di Bintulu di bawah lesen LPF 1 yang dipegang oleh pihak Jabatan Perhutaan Sarawak sendiri. LPF 1 meliputi kawasan sebesar 480, 600 hektar dan diuruskan oleh Sarawak Planted Forest Sdn. Bhd, sebuah anak syarikat Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak.1500,00 hektar daripada kawasan konsesi ini telah diperuntukkan untuk pembukaan ladang kayu kertas acacia mangium dan kerja- kerja pembangunannya dikontrakkan kepada sebuah konsoritium swasta.
Pada Ogao 17, pihak Jabatan Tanah dan Survei Bahagian Bintulu telah memberi notis kepada dua orang penduduk iban dari kampung Rumah Sengok di Sungai Binyo. Pandan untuk mengosongkan dan meninggalkan tanah ladang mereka dalam tempoh tujuh hari. Notis tersebut menyatakan bahawa penduduk tersebut telah memerobohi Tanah Kerajaan yang diperuntukkan bagi projek ini tanpa sebarang kebenaran yang sah dengan meneanam pokok kelapa sawit.
Sebenarnya semenjak bulan Jun 2009 lagi, pihak Jabatan Tanah dan Survei Bahagian Bintulu telah mengeluarkan notis yang sama kepada sekumpulan penduduk yang lain, di Sungai Satai, Pandan. Kami telah dimaklumkan bahawa penduduk Satai dan Binyo tidak pernah memberikan sebarang perdetujuan untuk membenarkan tanah adat diambil bagi tujuan projek perladangan tersebut..Kami berpendapat bahawa kenyataan tentang penduduk di Binyo dan Satai menduduki Tanah Kerajaan tanpa lesen adalah tidak berkenaan di dalam kes ini oleh kerana kami difahamkan bahawa memiliki rekod sejarah tentang hak tanah adat mereka semenjak dari zaman Brooke lagi.
Menurut Mahkamah, hak NCR ini turut meliputi kepentingan pemilikkan harta ( proprietary interest ). Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa prinsip-prinsip " common law " sememangnya menghormati kewujudan asal hak-hak ini di bawah adat-istiadat Orang Asal- kewujudan hak tanah adat tidak bergantung kepada undang-undang tergubal ( statute ) kerana ia diperolehi daripada adat dan bukannya dari geran hakmilik atau pengumuman pihak eksekutif, legislatif atau kehakiman. Oleh itu, walaupun penduduk tiada memiliki geran hakmilik, mereka dianggap sebagai pemegang yang sah di atas Tanah Kerajaan.
NGO- Sam berasa amat gusar tentang cara pihak Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak menangani pengurusan projek ini tanpa ketelusan penuh dan perundingan terbuka dengan kampung- kampung terlibat. Kami menentang sekeras-kerasnya arahan mengosongkan tanah ladang mereka tanpa mereka di beri peluang untuk perbincangan terbuka. Kami menggesa Jabatan tersebut untuk menarikbalik notis mengosongkan tanah kepada para penduduk berkenaan. Kami juga menyokong tuntutan para penduduk supaya tanah adat kampung- kampung mereka dikeluarkan daripada projek ini. Apa telah terjadi dengan kerajaan Sarawak sekarang.
BARAM DAM WILL DAMAGE ENVIRONMENT AND DESTROY SOCIAL HARMONY.
DAP, Piasau, David.
OUNA- Orang Ulu National Association Miri.
The Press- The Borneo Post- 30.8.2011.
The construction of the Baram Dam will not bring development but permanently demage the environment and people in Baram especially those affected by the proposed project claimed OUNA. When making the claim, if the development carried out must be for the immediate and long term good of all the people with a minimal damage to the environment.
The decision for major projects like the construction of these massive dams should be made by the people. It must be a collective decision which is made based on well informed decision. The people affectd must know the pros and cons of the dam. The information must be made available freely to them and only after that can they decide on the proposal, something which OUNA claims have not been available to the people in Baram.
Stressing that the Baram dam is not required to bring development to Baram, OUNA said at least 90 per cent of the land mass to be flooded by the proposed dam's reservoir would be native customary right ( NCR ) land. For the Orang Ulu, their very survival from generation to generation has been based on the land. They are basically farmers and gathers. To disregard this fact would be to purposely disorientate the people and thus destroy a harmonious way of life. The relocation of the people to make way for Baram dam will definitely result in permanent social damage of the Kenyah and Kayan people who have traditionally lived in long house.
OUNA- Orang Ulu National Association Miri.
The Press- The Borneo Post- 30.8.2011.
The construction of the Baram Dam will not bring development but permanently demage the environment and people in Baram especially those affected by the proposed project claimed OUNA. When making the claim, if the development carried out must be for the immediate and long term good of all the people with a minimal damage to the environment.
The decision for major projects like the construction of these massive dams should be made by the people. It must be a collective decision which is made based on well informed decision. The people affectd must know the pros and cons of the dam. The information must be made available freely to them and only after that can they decide on the proposal, something which OUNA claims have not been available to the people in Baram.
Stressing that the Baram dam is not required to bring development to Baram, OUNA said at least 90 per cent of the land mass to be flooded by the proposed dam's reservoir would be native customary right ( NCR ) land. For the Orang Ulu, their very survival from generation to generation has been based on the land. They are basically farmers and gathers. To disregard this fact would be to purposely disorientate the people and thus destroy a harmonious way of life. The relocation of the people to make way for Baram dam will definitely result in permanent social damage of the Kenyah and Kayan people who have traditionally lived in long house.
Monday, 22 August 2011
Friday, 19 August 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)