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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS