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
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS