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
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS