STAR Sabah’s announce stand
against the BN State Government’s intention to abolish native rights. The
native customary rights of indigenous people are recognized and are to be
protected and have been universally adopted of late by many countries under the
United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People.
The recent statement by the
Lands and Surveys Director that NCR does not exist after the enforcement of the
Sabah Land Ordinance, 1930 is not unexpected as the present government has
failed to resolve NCR problems in the State.
The Director cannot be
blamed for being used as the mouthpiece of the BN government and merely echoed
the previous statement of the State Attorney General.
As can be seen from Pitas to
Pensiangan and from Sukau and Kalabakan to Sindumin, the State government has
caused widespread misery and injustice to the local natives. It is well documented that many lands have
been alienated to companies in the tens of thousands of hectares while land
applications of natives of 10 or 15 acres are not processed for many, many
years.
The natives have not only
lost their NCR and land rights but also their livelihood to these unscrupulous
companies and their inhumane owners. And
in many instances, many of these companies even engaged illegal immigrants and
foreign workers to demolish the homes and destroy the crops of these natives
and to chase them from their very own land, very often, in full view of and
sometimes tacit support of the police and enforcement agencies.
Despite the many warnings
and incidents of violence by these foreigners, it is a matter of time before
the real bloodshed will happen. Yet, the
State government has done little to assist the poor and suffering natives.
In hindsight, it is not
surprising considering that the top 4 officers in land administration, from the
chief executive to the forestry, the lands department and the top legal officer
in the State are helmed by non-natives.
In a recent posting, the
latter 3 were even called the 3 stooges of the power that be. One wonders what will happen in such a
meeting to discuss NCR matters, where is the voice and conscience of the local
natives?
To rub salt into the wound,
a KDM is only deemed fit to look after animals and wildlife. And add on the rumours of people of a certain
race waiting in the late afternoons to attend to their land applications in the
Lands Department.
We leave it to the people to
judge on the matter.
On a more sombre mood,
drastic reforms in the land and NCR laws and administration are urgently needed
to protect the natives, who were the original settlers since time immemorial
and long before Sabah formed MALAYSIA with Malaya in 1963.
The British colonial masters
have always respected the native customary rights and their right to life
depending on their land for their livelihood.
This legacy can be seen in the administration of land law and the Sabah
Land Ordinance (Cap. 68) that was passed in 1930.
The British not only deemed
it fit to respect NCR but also made numerous provisions to protect such native
rights as can be seen throughout the Land Ordinance.
For instance, in the
definition of “State land” in Section 4, it is expressly provided that “State
land” excludes lands which “are not and may not hereafter be lawfully occupied
by any person…”.
The word “hereafter” clearly
refers to after the enforcement of the Land Ordinance. Clearly excluded from “State land” are lands
lawfully occupied after the Land Ordinance.
Only natives with a lawful
claim to NCR can lawfully occupy and obtain legitimate ownership of the
land. NCR is clearly defined in Section
15. Obviously, a non-native cannot claim
for NCR no matter how long he or she is in occupation as such occupation is not
lawful.
The definition of “State
land” clearly contradicts the statement of the Lands and Surveys Director that
NCR did not exist after the Land Ordinance in 1930. The Director is clearly wrong and
ill-advised.
If the Director’s statement
is correct, there is no necessity for the numerous provisions on native rights,
NCR and procedures to protect such rights.
For instance, in Section 13, upon the receipt of any land application, it
is the duty of the government to publish a notice calling upon any claimant to
NCR in such land and an enquiry is required to establish that no NCR exists on
the said land.
Judging from the numerous
overlapping claims of NCR and claims of companies that have been alienated land
occupied by natives, it is obvious that the government has failed to comply
with Section 13.
The Director is also wrong
to state that the natives be made to rely on land applications for their claims
to land and that one of the consideration of natives’ land applications is the
basis of NCR such as in Section 15.
In Section 14, there is no
need for any native to submit a land application as what is required is a claim
to NCR which shall be taken down by the headman or the Collector and shall be
decided by the Collector. This is
reiterated in Sections 81 and 82.
It is wrong for the Director
to impose such onerous procedure and conditions before a native can obtain a
native land right. Judging from the
Land Ordinance, it is more of a verification and identification of the NCR
rather than a formal land application.
A NCR is a birth right of the natives.
A land application by any
native to any land which is not occupied or claimed by him as NCR is a separate
issue as any native like any other non-native or company is entitled to apply
for land and be alienated such land.
Such a native is not obliged to prove his NCR rights before his land
application to land which is not occupied by him to be approved and alienated.
To overcome the furore of
the Director’s statement and to calm the anxieties of the natives, STAR Sabah
calls upon the government to respect and restore the rights of natives to NCR
and native lands and prioritize land for all Sabahans based on STAR’s policy
and vision “NCR First, Sabah Land For Sabahans First”.
In addition, the government
must also carry out administrative reforms in land administration in the
State.
The claims of the natives to
NCR must be de-centralized to the Collector of Land Revenue (and by extension
to the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue as defined in Section 4 of the Land
Ordinance) as provided in Sections 14 and 82. The government and the Director
must obey the Land Ordinance and comply with it fully.
The State government should
also establish a LAND AND NCR COMMISSION to safeguard the rights of the natives
on NCR and their land rights and to protect the integrity of the current
holders of public office. If not, the
government must replace the land and forestry directors with natives until such
time meritocracy is fully implemented and any Sabahan is able to hold such
positions with any adverse inference.
A SABAH NATIVE LAND
FOUNDATION should also be established to safeguard and protect native lands and
the rights of the natives to their native lands.
If the government is truly
concerned and wished to safeguard the land rights of the natives, the
government should declare areas to be designated as “native reserves” under
Section 78 of the Land Ordinance. If
the governments in the Peninsular can designate lands to be Malay Reserves,
this can be replicated in Sabah to safeguard future generations of natives to
native lands.
The integrity and sincerity
of the present government including the BN components and their native leaders
is highly questionable considering that lands can be set aside for grazing
reserves but are not set aside as native reserves. Section 79 clearly provides for land to be
set aside as native reserves for the purpose of providing land for future
cultivation by natives. This provides
security for future generations of natives.
By their actions, the government is treating the natives worse than
cattle, cows and goats.
The next question that
begged to be answered is whether the government is on a “Ketuanan Melayu” or
“Malaya” agenda on behalf of their political masters.
When Sabah’s founding
fathers agreed to the merger with Malaya, it was clearly spelt out that the
indigenous natives of Sabah and Sarawak would be equal to the Malays in the
Peninsular. This is clearly entrenched in
Article 153 of the Federal Constitution and land rights were clearly reserved
for state control as seen in the Federal Constitution, the Batu Sumpah in
Keningau and the separate Land Ordinance in Sabah and Sarawak.
Why is it now that the
government is adopting a policy similar to the National Land Code, 1965 in
Peninsular where native customary rights are not recognized unlike the Sabah
Land Ordinance? In Peninsular, the poor
Orang Asli, the indigenous natives are deprived of their lands and very often
the lands grabs are by the Umno/BN politicians and their cronies.
In the present system, the
authority and decision of the Director in alienating lands to anyone under
Section 9 of the Land Ordinance cannot even be appealed as provided in Section
41.
In Sabah, we must stop the
deterioration immediately. If the
government feels that there is any doubt or ambiguity in the Land Ordinance as
to the existence of NCR of the natives, steps must be taken immediately to pass
the necessary amendments to the Land Ordinance and the Sabah State Constitution
to specifically recognize and implement NCR and native rights. This can be done quite easily as the BN
controls 57 of the 60 state seats and for certain the other 3 opposition
members are likely to support such an amendment.
If STAR Sabah is part of the
government, it will certainly propose such measures to clearly and
unequivocally recognize native land rights and NCR and to prioritize Sabah’s
lands for Sabahans as spelt out in its Land Reforms Masterplan.
It is wrong for the
Government not to give priority to natives and Sabahans in land
alienation. The Director of Land in
January 2012 disclosed that out of 2.1 million hectares of land available for
alienation, the State had already alienated about 1.9 million hectares of which
only 31% was alienated to natives and the other 69% to others.
From the State economical
point of view, it does not make sense for lands to be alienated to outsiders
who do not invest their profits derived from Sabah’s lands and such profits are
then taken to the Peninsular and utilized there to generate further economic
growth.
For instance, FELDA was
alienated some 306,000 acres of land in Sabah but very little benefit has been
given to local Sabahans let alone natives.
The government-linked Sime Darby owns a 54,278 hectares plantation land
in Sabah while 2 other public-listed companies from the Peninsular owned
107,000 hectares and 40,359 hectares in Sabah respectively. These 3 companies owned a total 201,637
hectares excluding Felda’s holding.
The profits per hectare for
the plantations declared by the public companies for 2011 were RM11,075 and
RM9,783. Even assuming the lower of the
profits declared, a total profits of RM1.972 billion were derived from Sabah
for the 201,637 hectares and this did not even include profits from processing
activities.
If the 201,637 hectares were
to be distributed 5 hectares to each family, a total of 40,000 families will
each enjoy a profit of RM49,300 per family each year which excludes labour
costs. Imagine what economic spin-offs
and multiplier effects the profits can generate for the Sabah economy, let
alone the eradication of poverty.
A SABAH LAND TRIBUNAL should
also be established to look into, adjudicate and resolve the numerous land
problems and disputes. The natives
should not be made to wait and spend unnecessarily to litigate their claims for
NCR in the civil courts where at the appeal stages, the judges from outside
Sabah, who are not familiar with native land rights and more familiar with the
Peninsular National Land Code, outnumber the local judges.
STAR Sabah proposed that
Land Administration in Sabah be reformed and be administered as in the Chart
below:-
Diagram 1: An Overview of Land Organizational Reform
As for communal titles, the
government should not rush and give out communal titles as though it is done
for political campaigning in view of the forthcoming general elections.
They appear nothing more
than to appease the anger of the local natives who will vote against the BN
government and their leaders who have alienated their NCR lands to outside
companies who in turn have destroyed their crops, plants, homes and evicted
them from their own land.
Communal titles should only
be given additionally as native reserves where they are occupied. In the communal titles given, the government
has failed to consider the legitimate claims of NCR by the natives some of whom
have been there for several generations and pending approval of their NCR
claims for years, some even decades.
With these communal titles
are issued, the legitimate claims and NCR ownership of these natives are not
only ignored but also extinguished and cancelled. It is not the right thing to do against the
natives and you can expect the government to be punished at the next general
elections.
In conclusion, it is clear
that the native customary rights and native land rights need to be clearly
recognized and protected. The reference
to Section 88 is misconceived as Section 88 merely reinforces the fact that
after the coming of the Land Ordinance, the system of registration is to be put
in place and it does not extinguish NCR per se but require new title and new
dealings to be on the basis of registration for any land except land under NCR
without documentary title as at the time of the dealing or registration.
If the intention of the
legislators of the Land Ordinance was to extinguish or abolish NCR and native
land rights, the wordings of the Land Ordinance would have been very different
in form and it would have clearly left out native customary rights totally.
In view of the erroneous and
misleading statements of the Director of Lands and Surveys and by the State
Attorney General previously, the onus is now on the State government and its
local BN components to prove that it is not planning to abolish the native land
rights and NCR.
Apparently, from the
numerous land alienations to companies overriding the NCR claims of the natives
all over the State, it appears to be the policy of the government to abolish
the native land rights and NCR and not an erroneous mistake by the
Director.
The BN government needs to
change the policy which is clearly contrary to the Land Ordinance.
And if the BN government
does not make the necessary reforms and changes in the land policy, then it is
only right for Sabahans especially the natives to unite and vote out the
Umno/BN government in the coming general elections since the government is
unable to implement and protect the land rights of the natives.
A tribunal or commission is needed to resolve disputes involving native land in Sabah instead of these matters ending up in the courts, Chief Judge for Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum said Monday.
ReplyDeleteWhat we know that State Govt try the best to solve this problem. So state govt need to plan what should to do to resolve this NCR problem.
DeleteThe Sabah government's move to issue communal land titles is to ensure that the state's indigenous communities do not end up landless, said CM.
ReplyDeleteSabah's move to issue communal land titles to resolve ownership woes among the indigenous people has paid off.
DeleteIt has ensured that they receive the land they had cultivated or lived in for generations
He said the issuance of communal land titles was aimed at ensuring that land allocated to the indigenous communities could not be sold and later would be inherited by future generations.
ReplyDeleteThe state government had issued communal titles to villagers in Nabawan, Tonggod and Tenom over the last two years.
ReplyDeletebagaimana dengan pelaksanaan geran komunal setakat ni?
DeleteGiving out communal land titles will help moderate the selling of native land and safeguard the inheritance of future generations, said CM.
ReplyDeletediharap kaedah in i akan berkesan dalam mengelakkan tanah penduduk untuk mudah dirampas oleh orang luar.
DeleteCommunal land titles is good to protect the natives land.
DeleteThe “Sabah Land Ordinance” (Land Ordinance (Sabah Cap 68)) of 1930 is the principal statutory instrument regulating occupation of land and its alienation within the State of Sabah
ReplyDeleteSabah Land Ordinance another facet of the importance of the Sabah Land Ordinance is that it provides the framework for land policy in the State.
DeleteDefinition of customary rights in Sabah Land Ordinance. Native customary rights shall be held to be –
Delete(a) land possessed by customary tenure
(b) land planted with fruit trees, when the number of fruit trees amounts to fifty and upwards to each hectare;
(c) isolated fruit trees, and sago, rotan, or other plants of economic value, that the claimant can prove to the satisfaction of the Collector were planted or upkept and regularly enjoyed by him as his personal property;
(d) grazing land that the claimant agrees to keep stocked with a sufficient number of cattle or horses to keep down the undergrowth;
(e) land that has been cultivated or built on within three years;
(f burial grounds or shrines;
(g)usual rights of way for men or animals from rivers, roads, or houses to any or all of the above.