KUCHING - Borneo Researches Institute Malaysia (Brimas) has accused PBB secretary general Stephen Rundi and his party as solely and directly responsible for the loss of the rights of the natives over their land in his own constituency of Kemena
“As secretary general of Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu, a party claiming to represent and protect bumiputra rights and whose president is the Chief Minister and Minister of Planning and Resource Management, Rundi and his party are directly and solely responsible for the said deprivation,” Mark Bujang, Brimas executive director said in a statement.
The voters in Kemena should ask their elected representative to read and digest the official map or plan called the “Composite Plan Showing Distribution of Native Farming Lands in Suai/Niah/Sibuti” which recorded the boundary of the once primary forested land allocated by the Brooke and the British Colonial Governments to each of the native longhouses in early 1930s.
“The present government of which Rundi has been and is still an active part of it has blatantly disregarded the rights of the natives over the land within their respective boundaries by arbitrarily issuing provisional leases thereon to big companies thus depriving the natives of their allocated lands,” Mark said.
He made the statement in response to comments made by Rundi, who is the Assistant Minister of Public Health.
The State Assemblyman for Kemena had said that native customary rights land were lands that were inherited from one generation to the next before 1958, whereas temuda lands were those occupied after 1958.
He blamed the land owners for not knowing the difference between native customary rights land and temuda (farming land).
“While NCR lands are passed from generation to generation before 1958, temuda lands are the lands occupied after the 1958,” Rundi had said.
Mark said: “From his statement, it is obvious that Rundi is confused and has yet to have a full understanding of what NCR is and its concepts according to the customs and practices of the Ibans and also according to the law.”
“NCR is created over land when natives cleared a forested area for the purpose of occupation, farming, hunting, fishing, and searching for forest produce, establishing pendam (gravesites) as well as using the area as a right of way or for other lawful purposes for the community’s livelihood.
“It has no document of title and it can be passed down from one generation to the next according to customs of the community.
“For the Ibans, lands are closely associated with religious beliefs, cultural practices and traditional farming methods,” Mark said, pointing out that NCR land does not confine to temuda (farming) land, tembawai (sites of previous settlements) and gravesites, but it also includes an area known as ‘pemakai menua’ and ‘pulau’ (forested areas) where they can fish, hunt, collect jungle produce and get their drinking water.
From the legal point of view of Sarawak Land code 1958, he said NCR land has been defined as land where native customary rights has been established through communal or otherwise before 1 January 1958.
NCR land can also be created within a reserve land under section 6 or interior area land over which NCR have lawfully been created pursuant to a permit under section 10 of the Land Code.
Mark said that after 1 January 1958, NCR land can still be created if the native communities still occupy or an individual still belongs to his community who are occupying their ‘pemakai menua’.
NCR could also be established, he said, when natives clear virgin jungle, and plant fruit trees, farming, establishing graveyard, occupying cultivated land or using land for rights of way or any other lawful method under Section 5(2) of the Land Code 1958; and when they obtain permit under section 10 of the Code to create their NCR.
Mark said Rundi should read a number of Court decisions especially the ones on Nor Anak Nyawai on the Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd, on Madeli bin Salleh and the recent High Court decision on Agi Anak Bungkong against Land and Survey and the State Government.
“We also call on Rundi to refer to reports by Suhakam entitled Legal Perspectives on Native Customary Land Rights in Sarawak,” he said, expressing the hope that the assistant minister would not make nonsensical comments in the future.
Are they not making a laughing stock of themselves for their stupid statements or as a cat’s-paw by Pelita to grab NCR lands? - The Broken Shield
Source: www.thebrokenshield.blogspot.com
“As secretary general of Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu, a party claiming to represent and protect bumiputra rights and whose president is the Chief Minister and Minister of Planning and Resource Management, Rundi and his party are directly and solely responsible for the said deprivation,” Mark Bujang, Brimas executive director said in a statement.
The voters in Kemena should ask their elected representative to read and digest the official map or plan called the “Composite Plan Showing Distribution of Native Farming Lands in Suai/Niah/Sibuti” which recorded the boundary of the once primary forested land allocated by the Brooke and the British Colonial Governments to each of the native longhouses in early 1930s.
“The present government of which Rundi has been and is still an active part of it has blatantly disregarded the rights of the natives over the land within their respective boundaries by arbitrarily issuing provisional leases thereon to big companies thus depriving the natives of their allocated lands,” Mark said.
He made the statement in response to comments made by Rundi, who is the Assistant Minister of Public Health.
The State Assemblyman for Kemena had said that native customary rights land were lands that were inherited from one generation to the next before 1958, whereas temuda lands were those occupied after 1958.
He blamed the land owners for not knowing the difference between native customary rights land and temuda (farming land).
“While NCR lands are passed from generation to generation before 1958, temuda lands are the lands occupied after the 1958,” Rundi had said.
Mark said: “From his statement, it is obvious that Rundi is confused and has yet to have a full understanding of what NCR is and its concepts according to the customs and practices of the Ibans and also according to the law.”
“NCR is created over land when natives cleared a forested area for the purpose of occupation, farming, hunting, fishing, and searching for forest produce, establishing pendam (gravesites) as well as using the area as a right of way or for other lawful purposes for the community’s livelihood.
“It has no document of title and it can be passed down from one generation to the next according to customs of the community.
“For the Ibans, lands are closely associated with religious beliefs, cultural practices and traditional farming methods,” Mark said, pointing out that NCR land does not confine to temuda (farming) land, tembawai (sites of previous settlements) and gravesites, but it also includes an area known as ‘pemakai menua’ and ‘pulau’ (forested areas) where they can fish, hunt, collect jungle produce and get their drinking water.
From the legal point of view of Sarawak Land code 1958, he said NCR land has been defined as land where native customary rights has been established through communal or otherwise before 1 January 1958.
NCR land can also be created within a reserve land under section 6 or interior area land over which NCR have lawfully been created pursuant to a permit under section 10 of the Land Code.
Mark said that after 1 January 1958, NCR land can still be created if the native communities still occupy or an individual still belongs to his community who are occupying their ‘pemakai menua’.
NCR could also be established, he said, when natives clear virgin jungle, and plant fruit trees, farming, establishing graveyard, occupying cultivated land or using land for rights of way or any other lawful method under Section 5(2) of the Land Code 1958; and when they obtain permit under section 10 of the Code to create their NCR.
Mark said Rundi should read a number of Court decisions especially the ones on Nor Anak Nyawai on the Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd, on Madeli bin Salleh and the recent High Court decision on Agi Anak Bungkong against Land and Survey and the State Government.
“We also call on Rundi to refer to reports by Suhakam entitled Legal Perspectives on Native Customary Land Rights in Sarawak,” he said, expressing the hope that the assistant minister would not make nonsensical comments in the future.
Are they not making a laughing stock of themselves for their stupid statements or as a cat’s-paw by Pelita to grab NCR lands? - The Broken Shield
Source: www.thebrokenshield.blogspot.com
7 comments:
Obviously Rundi does not know what is NCR.
So what are the people doing about this?Probably ooh ahhh and then forget about it!Let's see shall we?
Sorry to say this but apathy is your middle name.
Sad sad
If you are not a lawyer, don`t talk about law.
If you are not a medical doctor, don`t talk about medicine.
You look stupid and people will laugh at you.
All are in the names of professional "ignorant" or probably a scapegoat.
cda tu nembiak bru boss!
Nti cda ia ingat ke pemedis aki ini kitai kelia mrumpang menoa bersirat, empa nyamuk, empa lunggin, lemetak, pantuk ular, belauk ke garam aja, ngena beliong nebang kayu ke dua tiga kali semerap bru cda nemu.
cda tu baka udok - bulih babi bri tulang aja (tang pama nya, neh?). Isi ia orang ke empu-nya. Cda ke bagi maioh agi-nya diau di rumah aja.
Jamal Jarjis
Simply put, this bloody Rundi is in the same company of so-called "Land Grab Unlimted".
dont balme him, not his fault....it the voter choice....so do sumting abt it this coming election...
Post a Comment