The Chinese-language newspaper China Times reported that the Smangus community of the Atayal Aboriginal tribe in Hsinchu County's Chienshih Township (尖石) refused to allow Forestry Bureau officials to observe a traditional ceremony expressing the tribe's sovereignty on May 7.
The refusal was sparked by an event two years earlier, in which tribe members had taken dead logs from trees blown over during a typhoon back to their community for decorative purposes.
The bureau sued them for violating the Forestry Law (森林法) and the Hsinchu District Court ruled that the removal of the logs constituted "larceny."
This astounding verdict has made citizens doubt whether the spirit of "multiculturalism" that the government professes is actually possible.
The residents of Smangus have always decided tribal matters by consensus and through traditional tribal law.
For example, when the tribe made the decision to take the fallen logs back to the community, this action was seen as no different from taking food out of one's own refrigerator to cook.
If we closely analyze this issue in light of Taiwan's policy toward Aborigines, their laws and similar policies in other countries, it becomes clear that the government's handling of this incident did not conform to the spirit of multicultralism.
President Chen Shui-bian (
He again acknowledged the agreement as president in 2002. The announcement of the Aboriginal Basic Law (原住民族基本法) in 2005 further confirmed, in practical legal terms, that Aborigines have the right to self-governance.
The law clearly acknowledges that Aborigines have authority over their land and natural resources. The articles within the law clearly stipulate that Aborigines may legally engage in non-profit activities within their areas, including collecting wild vegetation, minerals, stone and other resources.
The Forestry Law also says that "If the forest is located in the traditional territory of Aboriginal people, the Aboriginal people may take forest products for their traditional living needs."
However, beginning with the Forestry Bureau's lawsuit over the logs all the way through to the court's ruling, the entire process has repeatedly highlighted the government's arrogance and ignorance in Aboriginal matters. Moreover, the government has clearly ignored Aboriginal rights to self-governance and the spirit of multiculturalism.
How do other countries handle controversies between native land rights and natural resources? The US has given native American tribes the right to manage natural resources on their reservations, including lumber, water, fishing, hunting and minerals.
In Canada, beginning with the 1973 case of Calder vs. the Attorney-General of British Columbia and extending through the Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia case in 1997, the courts have repeatedly affirmed Aborigine rights to self-governance and land use.
On the surface, the government has acknowledged the autonomy of the nation's Aborigines through laws and partnership agreements. So how can it flip-flop and ignore the promises it has made?
And most of all, why should our Aboriginal friends trust the government when it misuses its public authority in such an obvious manner?
Huang Yi-yuan is a student at the Graduate Institute of Journalism at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Marc Langer
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS