Not Development But Theft (PDF)

Not Development, but Theft The testimony of Penan communities in Sarawak This Report is based on a Fact-Finding Mission and community survey. C IDEAL (Institute for Development and Alternative Lifestyle) Publisher: IDEAL TIME Sdn Bhd, No 14, 3rd Floor, Lorong Keranji 4, 96000 Sibu, Sarawak Malaysia. Postal Address: P.O. Box 8, 96007 Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia Tel: +(6) 084 - 320411 Fax: +(6) 084 - 329695 Email: wongmc@tm.net.my Printer: Soft Print 51, Jalan Tuanku Osman, 1 Jalan Sukan, 96000 Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia ISBN 983-40225-2-2 Page

Table of Contents Preamble Acknowledgements Chapter One : Background to the Report Chapter Two : Penan Testimonies Chapter Three : Blockade Witnesses Chapter Four : Police Cases Chapter Five : Community Updates Chapter Six : Recommendations and Action Page

Preamble Preface This report is mainly the result of a Fact Finding Mission which went to Ulu Baram, Sarawak in 1995. All of us have heard about the Penan. We may know that they are one of the many groups of indigenous people in Sarawak (indeed, in Malaysia as a whole) whose lives and cultures have been utterly transformed by the advent of logging and other land development that has occurred, especially since the 1980s. We may be aware also of the apparently contradictory information coming out of Sarawak with regard to the indigenous, including the Penan, communities. On the one hand, the government has been saying that the Penan are being well looked after, that a number of initiatives have been taken on their behalf and that there is no problem. On the other hand, there have been, and continue to be, reports of continued blockades, violence, arrests, human rights abuses and general unhappiness from Penan themselves. Claims have been made that their land rights are being tram- pled on, their culture denigrated and lost, and their efforts to clarify, negotiate or report serious incidents simply ignored. It was deemed appropriate to send a team of people to investigate the situation, concentrating on Ulu Baram, where many Penan communities are to be found. This report contains the evidence of that visit. Dedication This report is dedicated to all Penan who have been struggling so long and against such odds, in an effort to uphold their rights and future. They need our support. It is also dedicated to Justin. Justin was a member of the first Mission team, and tragically lost his life when the boat in which he was travelling over- turned. His memory is long cherished, and his work, commitment and motivation to help those less fortunate than himself shines as an example to us all. Acknowledgements This report is a joint effort of members of the Fact Finding Mission. The photo- graphs were also taken by the Mission. The following organisations made finan- cial contributions to the mission: Aliran, AWAM, Suaram, Komas, World Rainforest Movement, Bruno Manser Fund, Rainforest Action Network and Pro Regenwald. Copyright. June 2000 Page

Chapter One: Background The Penan in Ulu Baram Sarawak is the largest of the thirteen states of Malaysia. It is situated on the northwest of the island of Borneo. Some 43% of the states population are made up of indigenous communities. Collectively, these indigenous people are known as Dayaks, but within them are many, distinct ethnic groups. They include the Iban, Kelabit, Kayan, Bidayuh, Kenyah and Penan groups. The Penan constitute some 10,000 people, often described as being divided between Eastern and Western Penan. They inhabit some of the remotest areas of Sarawak. The Eastern Penan inhabit areas of Limbang and Baram, whilst the West- ern Penan are to be found in the Upper Rejang region. They may be said to have received a certain amount of local and international attention because of the fact that some of them (around 400, in Baram and Limbang) still attempt to prac- tise a nomadic lifestyle, living in and off the forest. This is unique amongst indigenous groups in Malaysia. Whether nomadic or (semi-)settled, their struggle to preserve their culture and way of life has been a constant one, and has been particularly marked over the last fifteen years, as loggers and other land developers have been given concessions over the forest and other areas in which the Penan have long resided and which they consider under their protection and guardianship. The situation faced by the Penan is similar to that faced by the other indigenous communities in Sarawak. There has been considerable documentation on the various aspects of this situation and the struggles and responses that have ensued. Not least has been the description of how the culture practised by the indigenous groups is viewed with askance by the Malaysian federal and state governments, who seem hell-bent on modernising both the cultures and the agricultural practices maintained by the indigenous groups. This conflict centres on land. For most indigenous communities, native customary land (including forest areas) is essential for them to hunt, gather and practice their cultivation. It is central to their culture, which sees guardianship of such land as pre-requisite for the survival of the communities and their be- liefs. The essentiality of the forest is particularly true for the Penan, who are especially dependent on it for hunting and gathering (including for medicines, building materials and resources for utensils). The guardianship of the forest and its resources expresses itself through Penan terms such as tana pengurip and molong. Tana pengurip is the concept whereby Penan claim customary land, and carries with it the implication that such land will be held under stewardship for future generations. Tana pengurip defines areas claimed by each community and these areas are mutually recognised and respected. It is also important to note that the Penan do not clear the forest to establish their claim to it. The practice whereby a community or individual can claim a particular resource is expressed through molong, again with the implication that this resource will not be over-harvested but will be kept sustainable to serve the needs of the present and the future. It is important to note that these concepts, similar to practices of other indigenous groups in Sarawak, reject the concept of private ownership, locating the main responsibility of ownership not just with the community but also across generations. This is in direct contrast to the practice of modern Malaysia, where land is bought and sold as a commodity and exploited by an individual or a company without much regard for issues of sustainability. But whereas the communities will know the extent and boundaries of the native customary land, the legal recognition of such by the state has become more and more ambiguous and circumvented, so that the present situation is that the state Page 1

authorities have little sympathy with such recognition and are content to support loggers and other land developers access to such land. Indeed, as one recent publication argues, there has been a consistent trend not only to change legislation to allow the state more access and control over the land, but harassment, victimisation and marginalisation of those in indigenous communities (and anyone else) protesting for native customary rights has been constant and even intensified. In this, the mobilisation of state institutions, including the police and the judiciary, has been a feature. At the same time, there has been something of a propaganda war, in which Malaysian federal and state authorities have attempted to paint a rosy picture of the development being made available to Penan and other indigenous groups, and blame any resistance on foreign agitators1. There is little balance in the coverage of the actual situation in the local Malaysian media, which often makes it difficult to know exactly what is happening and why. This is one of the rea- sons that this report is now appearing: despite protestations of innocence from Malaysian and Sarawak authorities, there were many reports reaching us that the Penan were facing serious difficulties and were not at all happy with the state governments treatment of them. The evidence we found in the Penan communities is presented here. Background events It may be helpful just to recap a little on the background events to which much of the evidence in this report refers. It needs to be remembered, for example, that it was by the mid-1980s that logging in particular had gathered pace in Sarawak. As admitted by the political parties themselves, logging concessions being given out as part of the political patronage system. No environmental or social impact assessments were done of logging impacts. Land rights issues were ignored and legislation amended to make it easier for the government and logging companies to log the land. There was little or no consultation with indigenous communities and little or no prior warning given to them directly, that their land was about to be invaded and their forests threatened or destroyed. These included the Penan, including the Penan in Ulu Baram. The impact on the communities was, as might have been expected, traumatic. Not only was there considerable confusion about why the government was allowing outsiders to log land on which their culture and livelihoods depended, but the way in which the loggers destroyed forest areas, farming areas and graveyards and polluted vital streams and rivers made many in the communities extremely angry. However, when they tried to claim land rights, or negotiate with the logging companies and/or the police or bring their complaints to the relevant authorities, nothing was done and their lands continued to be ravaged. By the late-1980s, many in many communities were desperate. Petitions and pleas for help had fallen on deaf ears. As a final resort, attempts were made to blockade logging roads, to stop the destruction of the land. Penan communities were no exception. For example, by February 1987, Penan in Ulu Baram were issuing a series of appeals to the Government to halt the logging of their lands. The mood may be indicated through such statements as Stop destroying the forest or we will be forced to protect it. The forest is our livelihood. We have lived here before any of you outsiders came. We fished in clean rivers and hunted in the jungle. We made our sago meat [starch] and ate fruit of the trees. Our life was not easy, but we lived it in content. Now the logging companies turn rivers into muddy steams and the jungle into devastation. Page 2

The fish cannot survive in dirty rivers and wild animals will not live in devas- tated forest. (2) In March, the Penan of the Tutoh river of the upper Baram set up barricades across the logging roads and again called on the Government to halt the felling of their forest. The action escalated so that, within a couple of months, other Dayak groups, including the Kenyah, Kayan, Lunbawang and Kelabit, joined the protest. In June 1987, a tour of a number of indigenous leaders to Kuala Lumpur was ar- ranged by Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), during which they were able to put their concerns to the Federal Government. However, during their meetings with several ministers and with the acting Prime Minister, they received only vague assur- ances that the matter would be taken up with the State officials. The blockades set up by the Penan and others, and initiatives like the visit to Kuala Lumpur, generated massive press coverage world-wide and helped develop what became a sustained international campaign of protest directed at Malaysian and Sarawak State Governments. These protests highlighted the excessive logging of the Sarawak (and Malaysian) forests and the impact on indigenous communities, cultures and land and human rights. The response at Sarawak level was two-fold. On the one hand, certain initiatives were taken to look into the situation and certain monies or publicity given to particular projects or initiatives to help the indigenous peoples, especially the Penan. For example, in July 1987 the Chief Minister of Sarawak set up a Penan Affairs Committee with responsibility to report on their situation. Later, extensive publicity was given to proposals for a biosphere reserve for the Penan and the amount of money given for Penan projects3. For example, the state government announced a million dollar programme of aid for Penan forest dwellers to be launched early in 1989. In May 1990, the Chief Minister of Sarawak, Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud, adopted two Penan children on his 54th birthday and called for other rich people to do the same. In late 1990, the Chair of the Penan Affairs Committee, Datuk Abang Johari bin Tun Openg, revealed that the government had spent RM 4.4 million to provide basic facilities to the Penan in Baram, Belaga and Limbang. He announced that since 1988, nineteen Penan had been trained as volunteers to help others. Certainly there had been efforts to improve basic facilities for Penan communities, with the added difficulty of the remoteness of many of the settlements and the unwillingness of Penan communities to be relocated. Health and educational facilities were expanded and the use of the Penan Volunteer Force was an effort to reach Penan through training their own children. The overall aim was to teach Penan basic literacy skills, more settled agricultural methods and to equip them for participation in the more modern, cash economy. In addition, there were several programmes where hand-outs, for example of building materials or seeds, were provided on a one-off basis to some of the communities. It can be noted that some of these initiatives did reach some communities and have some effect, although exactly what needs some detailed evaluation. Other of these initiatives never got off the ground - the biosphere proposal being one such example. Many in the Penan community, as we will see, saw little result of any of these initiatives or promises, and have become somewhat sceptical of government claims that the Penan are being helped. What is for certain is that none of these proposals or initiatives addressed what for many was (and is) the basic grievance: that their land and cultural rights should be recognised. What many Penan saw instead was what was happening on the other hand. Here, a much tougher stance was being taken by the authorities. Legislation was changed and other machinery mobilised to ensure logging and other state-led develop- Page 3

ment schemes continued without question. For example, in the late-1980s, security forces were moved into areas where resistance was most rife, especially where blockades were being set up or had been maintained over a period of time. The law was used. In 1987, seven Penan (including an 11 year old boy) were arrested and changed with burning some bridges belonging to a timber company. In October, as part of the Malaysian governments crackdown against opposition elements, Harrison Ngau, who ran the Sarawak office of SAM, was detained under the Internal Security Act, which allows for arbitrary detention without trial. This was followed by a mass arrest of 42 Kenyah and Kayan natives from Uma Bawang, Baram. They were charged in November under the Penal Code with ob- structing the police, wrongful restraint and the unlawful occupation of state land. In the same month, at the November Sarawak state assembly sitting, the members passed a Forest Amendment bill which made those interfering with logging operations liable to a heavy fine (maximum six thousand Malaysian dollars) and imprisonment (up to two years). But the protests continued. In late October, 1988, the number of barricades had increased to five in the Upper Limbang and Lawas areas. Three Penan communities, namely Long Kawi, Long Itam and Long Abang, were involved in these new blockades. A spokesperson from Long Abang said, We have seen the problems and expe- riences of the other communities affected by the logging activities, and so we are trying to defend ourselves because we dont want to suffer the same fate. The logging was slowed down at the blockade areas. And so the arrests continued. Five Kelabit and six Penan were charged under the amended Forest Ordinance. Another twenty-one Penans were arrested, ironically on World Human Rights Day, on 10th December, for blockading a timber road at Long Late, Apoh, Baram. Their blockade was dismantled and twelve of them were charged under the Forest Ordi- nance. Between 12th and 16th January 1989, 105 Penans were arrested on the suspicion of involvement in mounting blockade at two roads in logging areas and in September a total of 117 Penan and Kelabit were arrested for allegedly setting up blockades on roads leading to logging areas in Marudi. Blockade examples: Pelutan and Sebatu Some of the testimonies to be found in the next Sections of this report refer to the experience at blockades. Two of the most persistent and well-supported blockades were at Pelutan and Sebatu. The one at Pelutan (in Ulu Segah, Baram) started on 25th June 1991, with 200 Penan people from 18 settlements, mainly from the south of Ulu Tutoh in the upper reaches of the Baram rivers. The large logging company, Samling, had been given a concession to log and the Penan were blockading the logging road as a final effort to ask the company to please leave their land alone. By July, the number of Penan participating in the blockade had grown to some 530. In mid-July, the people heard from a radio broadcast that the state government would cut basic facilities from communities involved in the blockade. Fur- thermore, it was said that those involved would be imprisoned for 2 months with a maximum jail sentence of 10 years for any subsequent offence. Six truckloads of armed forces personnel from Miri were stationed at Samling companys base camp. On 24th July, the first blockade was dismantled by the timber company. But a second blockade was immediately put up about half a mile away from the first one. In mid-August, the Police Commissioner, Datuk Mohd. Ghazali Yacob, visited the blockade site and told the people that the forest belongs to the government and that they must dismantle the blockade. In the same month, the villagers Page 4

filed a formal complaint to the Police that a Penan man and woman had been murdered. However, there was apparently no investigation or inquiry, one of several reports of serious incidents that seem to have been ignored, as we shall see. In October, the company organised a meeting where they promised the communities rice mills, chain saws, garden tools, compensation for their land and even a proposed salary of RM 600.00/month for each headman, provided the logging was allowed to continue. A deadline was set by the company for the removal of the blockade but nothing happened. On 17th December, the company erected a barricade further down the logging road. Locals are not allowed to pass through to collect forest products or to visit the blockade without a permit from the general manager. Between 10th -16th Janu- ary 1992, as part of his Human Rights Mission to Asia, Canadian MP Svend Robinson visited the Pelutan blockade. Inevitably, his visit provoked a storm of protest from the Malaysian authorities, who later accused him of inciting the Penan to use violence to defend the blockade. On 29th January, the people participating in the blockade were served with three Magistrate Court Orders to dismantle the blockade within 14 days. However, the people remained at the site. On 28th February, over 1,000 Riot Police, armed with machine guns and tear gas, confronted and threatened the lives of the Penan at the blockade. You will read verbatim stories of this incident later in this report: it can be noted that most at the site at this time were children and elderly, because the adults had been persuaded by the National Registry Office to return to their respective villages to make/register their identity cards. The destruction of the blockade was violent. You can read about it below. But no enquiry has ever been held and no official report ever presented on the incidents and abuses that may have been perpetrated on this day. Another major blockade of the Penan was put out at Sebatu near Long Muboi, further inland from the previous blockade at Ulu Segah, on 24th February 1993. By 3rd March, there were some 200 people at the blockade site. The District Police Officer of Marudi and the Penan Liaison Officer, Hassan Sui, arrived to conduct a dialogue with the people. Officials of the Forestry Department dismantled the blockade. On 30th March, about 300 Penan, mostly those who had participated the earlier blockade, erected another blockade at the same site. On 29th May, a dialogue was held between the Penan, Government officials and the timber company representatives. No agreement was reached on the matters. On 16th June, another meeting took place. The timber company promised to build a road to Long Muboi, provide piped water supply and outboard engines. In addition, the timber company would give annual goodwill (money) to the Penan in the area. But the Penan wanted their land respected and their rights secured. No deal. Finally, on 28th September, some seven months after it was erected, the blockade at Sebatu was dismantled by Forest Department personnel after a huge operation was mounted, involving Police Field Force and other state personnel. Tear gas was used and again, you can read reports of the violence and consequences of the state-authorised action against its own people. Eleven Penans were arrested and produced in the Marudi District Court. They were later released without charge. Why our Mission? This recent history seems contradictory. The government claims, that programmes are in place to help the Penan and that their needs are being catered to, stands Page 5

at odds with the fact that so many communities and so many people within these communities have been involved in petitioning the state government on basic grievances and have even gone as far as blockading. The erection and maintenance of blockades is no small matter. To keep a blockade going for several months, as has happened in the case of some Penan blockades, represents a major sacrifice of time and money by the communities involved. Instead of pursuing their normal lifestyle - hunting, gathering and farming (the latter where the Penan are semi- settled or settled) - these activities are pretty much stopped so that the blockades can be protected. This causes further impoverishment and difficulties for the community, never mind the consequences of opposing the companies and the police. It clearly is not something that has been undertaken lightly, and represents an anger and a frustration that obviously has its basis in the situation in which the Penan have found themselves. Why would they need to resort to such action if their interests really are being looked after by the government? Further, there were at this time several reports of violence and injuries (including fatalities) arising from dismantling of blockades and/or from harassment of certain indigenous leaders and communities. The use of tear gas against Malaysians (resulting in death), murder, rape, beatings and intimidation were mentioned. These are highly serious crimes and certainly do not concur with any rosy picture that all is okay for the Penan. Given the contradictory nature of reports, it was decided to send a fact-finding Mission to Ulu Baram to see first-hand what the situation really was. The aims of this fact-finding Mission were simply • To investigate the situation in the Ulu Baram area, particularly with regard to possible problems faced by the Penan in the area; • To find out any comments of communities with regard to their development and, for example, their ancestral land rights; • To verify and /or collect information on any event that may have resulted in a police report, and to attempt to follow-up with the police or other authorities on any such report; • To verify or collect information by directly visiting and in- terviewing people in the communities, including headmen as well as any alleged victims or their relatives or other witnesses; • To compile and analyse the information gathered to establish any persistence of certain violations and/or to establish trends and patterns; • To find out from the communities what kind of redress they want for the violations they have suffered, and what kind of mecha- nism they propose for the negotiation and settlement of their grievances and demands. The first Mission was scheduled to visit the area between 14th -27th November, 1994. However, the team met with a tragedy after the itinerary was only halfway through. At Long Palai, the boat capsized and one of the team members, Justin Louis, drowned. We will always cherish his memory and salute his sacrifice. The second trip took place from March 5th -17th (field) and 18th - 22nd 1995 in Miri and Marudi town for making the police report. Organisations represented in the first mission were Centre for Orang Asli Con- cerns (COAC), IPK, PACOS, SACCESS, the Selangor Graduates Society (SGS), Suaram, KOMAS and BASDA. The second team comprised of members from the first five organisations. Page 6

The second mission visited a number of communities, including Long Suit, Long Sepigen, Long Kerong, Long Sait, Lio Matu, Sunggai Selaan, Long Ajeng and Long Muboi. Face to face interviews with members of the community, together with group meetings (often attended by over 40 people), resulted in a mass of testimony and evidence about the conditions faced by the Penan. As well as interview- ing, the team members also inspected sites, dispensed medicine and helped Penan follow-up on various complaints with the authorities. A visit to Marudi was part of this. The testimonies gathered during this Mission are presented in Chapters Two, Three and Four. A follow-up survey was conducted two years later. The results of this survey form Chapter Five. Recommendations are given in Chapter Six. The seriousness of the situation facing the Penan and other indigesnous groups, which has shown no signs of improvement over the years (in fact, the reverse), should be of concern to all Malaysians. These are Malaysian citizens, whose culture and way of life is being extinguished. Their rights as Malaysians and as indigenous people have been ignored. In the same breath that the Sarawak authorities are promoting the Cultural Village near Kuching as a major tourist attraction, revealing the rich cultural diversity of the state, they are destroying the land and rights of exactly those indigenous groups, including the Penan, they claim to promote. It needs to stop. The Penan and other groups need to be given the room, the space, the right to determine for themselves the future they want. Recognition of their land rights would be a start to this process. Read and listen to their testimonies in the following pages, and please help support them in this. Footnotes: 1 This was, and continues to be, a favourite tactic of the Malaysian (and Sarawakian) authorities. Scape-goating foreigners as a way to avoid confronting the real problems that face the indigenous communities is not an answer, in our opinion. But, for example, in 1993, the Malaysian Government announced the for- mation of a task force (funded by the Malaysian Timber Industry Development Council) with a budget of over RM 10 million to counter anti-logging campaigns and the lies of Western environmentalists. Quite what these lies were was never told to the Malaysian people. The facts about how much forests were logged, the environmental destruction caused, and the anger and fate of the indigenous communities are plain for all to see, if interested. 2 Pirates, Squatters and Poachers, Survival International, 1989, p.42 3 On April 26th 1993, Sarawak Forest Department director, Datuk Leo Chai, revealed that 52,000 hectares of Gunung Mulu National Park and 12,000 hectares of the Ulu Melana Protected Forests, as well as the proposed 160,000 hectares of Pulong Tau National Park, had been identified as biosphere reserves for the nomadic Penan. A map of the area of special forest for Penan can even be found in the local Malaysian newspaper, the New Straits Times, 19/10/1993. Until today, nothing has happened to this scheme. Page 7

Chapter Two: Penan Testimonies Introduction During the Fact-Finding Mission, a number of communities were visited and a number of testimonies recorded. These came from individual interviews and from group meetings. The following are records of testimonies from these communities, and indicate the many, very serious problems which the Penan face across Sarawak. Action clearly needs to be taken by the appropriate authorities, not least in changing the basis on which the authorities respond to indigenous communities like the Penan. Instead of telling them what is good for them, and supporting the destruction of their land and culture, the authorities need to put the Penan themselves back at the centre of decisions about the future. If this does not happen, the special culture and unique history of these people will be destroyed forever. A: The Testimony from LONG BENALIH Interviewees (interviewed on 10.03.1995): 1. Tua Kampong Sound Bujang (41), married, 7 children, farmer 2. Rocky Bujang (40), married, 6 children, farmer 3. Henneson Bujang (39), married, 6 children, farmer Long Benalih is a settlement of 16 families, with a population of 82 villagers. The community is situated near the river mouth of Sg. Benalih, at the foot of Gunung Murud. The villagers in Long Benalih are mainly farmers. The community of Long Benalih and Ba Pengaran share a communal forest, as the two settlements are situated close to each other. Samling began their logging operation near the communal forest of Ba Pengaran and Long Benalih in 1992. Shin Yang, another logging company, started its operation on the other part of the forest near the communal reserve in the same year. In June 1993, Interhill started its operation too. The marking of the trees at the boundary of the communal forest had been com- pleted by the villagers in 1989. White paint and zinc plates were put on the tree trunks as identifications. Back in August 1992, when the logging operation was about three miles from the boundary of this communal forest, a group of villagers, led by the village headman, went to the logging camp of Samling at Camp Kelesa, to tell them of the boundary and warned them that they should first consult the whole village community before they thought of entering and logging in the forests of Long Benalih and Ba Pengaran. At that meeting, the villagers met Corporal Peter Balang (a Kelabit) and the camp manager, known as Ah Kee and also Sia (a Chinese). The camp manager promised that they would inform the villagers and negotiate first before the company started any logging operation in the area. A note meas- uring two inches by three inches was given by the camp manager, stating his promises. The village representatives trusted him because of the presence of police personnel. However, two weeks after the meeting, villagers of Long Benalih heard the noise of the bulldozers coming from the mountain, and the noise of chainsaws and trees being felled. Immediately, the Headman and a group of villagers went to inspect Page 8

the forest. They found that the companys concession was already about a mile into the communal forest. The villagers confronted the camp workers but the camp workers claimed that they did not know about the boundary and the promise of the camp manager. These workers apologized and turned back. After two days, villagers who were sent out to monitor reported that the logging in the communal forest had resumed. For the next two days, a village meeting was called to discuss the matter. After the meeting, which concluded that they would not allow any logging activities in the communal forest, a group went to check on the operation again. It was found that the company had entered the communal land up to about three miles, close to Sg. Benalih. A road was found to have been bulldozed through the communitys forest reserve and the trees that previously had stood on it had been taken out. Sg. Benalih was now polluted because mud caused by the logging had been washed down into the river. When the villagers reached the site it was almost dark and the timber workers had returned to their camp. The villagers then walked up the road to the boundary and tied a rattan across the road and put up a sign to point out the boundary. The purpose of putting up this sign was to inform the timber company and workers of the boundary so that they could not plead ignorance of it. At the site, TK Sound Bujang wrote a letter to the camp manager telling him that he must come to Long Benalih to consult the people if the company wanted to log in the communal forest. A date and time was proposed. This letter was put on the side of the road. A few days later, TK Abeng of Long Mobui came to deliver a letter from the logging company, asking for a meeting with the villagers on the road where the boundary was but requesting to postpone the meeting for a week. At the date proposed, which was in October that year, 63 villagers from Long Benalih and Ba Pengaran went to the site. The villagers waited a full day but no one from the timber company turned up. That night, a small hut was erected and all the villagers stayed the night there. The next morning, a land cruiser of the timber company came. The driver and another passenger saw us but, without saying anything, they turned back. At about noon, another pick-up truck that was carrying four persons came. They were timber camp workers and told the villagers that the meeting would now be held in the camp site. However, they also said that it was not permissible for such a big group to go since the truck could only take a limited number of the village representatives. The villagers insisted that the meeting be held where the boundary is so that both sides are clear where the boundary is. The community also insisted that all must take part in the meeting, instead of sending a few representatives for the meeting. The pick-up truck went back to the camp and returned with two other trucks at about two in the afternoon, wanting to ferry all villagers to the meeting at the camp. They companys spokesperson also promised that monetary compensation were ready for all villagers, while food and drinks are ready at the camp. The villagers refused to go to the camp and the trucks went back. About half an hour later, at least six pick-up trucks arrived at the site. There were about 50 people from the logging company, 50 police field force personnel, Page 9

forestry officers and a SAO (State Administration Officer), Metaib bin Sayu. Henry Kong, a policeman who said that he represented the police force and the forestry officers, told the villagers that he was the leader of the group. He asked why the villagers erected the marking on the boundary and if they were aware that what was done was illegal. The villagers explained what had happened earlier and the camp manager himself confessed that he had earlier promised to negotiate before entering the communal forest. The SAO then said that the company has broken the promise. There was no negotiation after that. The timber camp workers removed the nine units of bulldozers from the site and they did not return after that. At the end of 1993, when Interhills logging operation near the other part of the communal forest was about a mile out, the companys surveyors marked the trees up to the villagers boundary. The villagers sent a team to meet the companys supervisor, Thomas Ling, and his surveyors on the logging road. The villagers asked to meet the camp manager and a meeting was scheduled at Shin Yangs logging road, on the other side of Sg. Akar. The manager, only known as Mr. Su, came to meet the villagers and he promised that he would not enter the communal forest to log before he had obtained prior consent from the community. Shin Yang is logging on the other side of Sg. Akar, in the communal forest that belongs to the Kelabit people. We will defend our land, not allowing the logging company to enter and destroy our land and forest. B. The testimony from LONG KEPANG Interviewees (interviewed on 10.03.1995): 1. Tua Kampong Sakun Parong (69), married to wife Nyabung Apat, 6 children, farmer 2. Nyabung Apat (65), wife of TK, farmer 3. Robert Sakun (45), married, 3 children, farmer Long Kepang has 10 families and a total population of 46. The settlement is near the mouth of Sg. Kepang and at the foot of Gunung Murud. All the villagers are farmers. Locals have heard that Samlings logging operation will come in from Long Benalih but the operation has been stopped at the moment because of a dispute with the villagers of Long Benalih. The boundary of the communal forest for Long Kepang has already been marked. Last year, all the villagers took part in the work to put a zinc plate on the trees that are at the border of the communal forest. Since last year, delegations that were made up by appointed villagers went to Ba Kerameu a few times to talk to the Manager of Shin Yang, asking the company not to log in Long Kepang. On the last meeting on 7th January this year, the Compa- nys manager, only known as Chia, told the villagers that the company will not log in Long Kepangs forest unless the villagers have agreed. The TK has wanted to go to Marudi and Miri to meet the government officials to Page 10

ask for recognition of the rights of locals over the communal forest but he was unable to do so because of his health. However, for the past three years, after logging near to Long Kepang started, the TK has sent letters to the District Office demanding written recognition of land rights over the communal forest. A sketch map has also been sent to the authorities. Villagers of Long Kepang have met earlier and it is a collective decision to reject logging operations in forests belonging to Long Kepang. C: The testimony from LONG LAMAI Interviewees (interviewed on 10.03.1995): 1. Tua Kampong Belare Jabu (60), married to Kaseh Jengan, 3 children, farmer 2. Lukas Nyato (40), married, 1 child, farmer 3. Mawa Abeng (40), married, 3 children, farmer 4. Robert Jengan (28), married, 3 children, farmer 5. Jau Bollo (29), married, 4 children, farmer 6. Wilson Bian Belare (23), married, 1 child, farmer 7. Isai Ujang (25), married, 1 child, farmer 8. Ravi Lilin (28), married, 4 children, farmer 9. Noh Bollo (27), married, farmer 10. Lian Adan (40), married, 8 children, farmer 11. Roland Adan (38), married, 3 children, farmer 12. Moni Lian (12), student Long Lamai has 93 families and a total population of 390. All the villagers residing here are farmers. The settlement is situated along Sg. Malong and is at the foot of Gunung Tokong Salip. On 16.10.1994, Lukas went hunting in the forest that belongs to the community of Long Lamai. On the way, he met a group of strangers who claimed that they were surveying the forests in this region. Lukas immediately went back to inform the TK. TK called for a village meeting that night and led a group of representatives appointed at the meeting to meet this team of surveyors, wanting to know their purposes of entering this communal forest without asking for permission. 12 villagers went on the trip the next day. Setting out in three teams, they were TK Belare Jabu, Lukas Nyato, Nyato Engan, Hossien Geng, Baya Asen, Mawa Abeng, Richard Jengan, Robert Jengan, Jaeng Jengalah, Jau Bollo, Killa Taee and Lim Linga. On that morning, they met the 22 workers of Samling company. The villagers in- terrupted their work and asked these workers to take them to see their company manager because the workers refused to tell them why they were surveying the forest. The villagers were brought to the Base Camp of Samling and they met the Chinese camp manager who the workers called Manager Beruang (Loud voice). The Camp Manager agreed to meet the villagers in Long Lamai on 3.11.1994. The manager did not turn up at the meeting and the workers continued with their survey work. Page 11

The villagers had earlier put paint on the trees as a means of identifying the villagers forest reserves. But the timber camp workers encroached into the land anyway and continued to do clearing work for a road. On 9.11.1994, villagers went into the forest again. This time, a rope was tied across the path inside the boundary. The rope was found to be cut when villagers went in to monitor. On 27.11.1994, 3 police field force personnel said to be from Miri came to Long Lamai saying that they are investigating a reported case of stolen canned food from a Samling logging camp in Long Metapa. They were: 1. Ketua Inspektor (Chief Inspector) Narizan B. Jusoh; 2. Kpl. 43535 Savan Teging; and 3. C. Kpl. 34585 Emang, all of BN Ke-12, PPH Miri. They said that the timber camp reported that villagers from Long Lamai had stolen canned food belonging to the camp. All the villagers denied any responsibility and said that it may have been the villagers from Ba Lai who stole the food. They left immediately. On the same day, a group of villagers were asked by the community to put back the rope with a sign on the road to inform any timber camp workers of the boundary to the land belonging to Long Lamai. At that time, the road was about 10 feet in width. At the beginning of December, around the 4th, 1994, the Headman of Long Puak, named Singan, of the Sabai tribe, came to Long Lamai asking us to go to a meeting with the company. The villagers told him that the timber camp manager was unlikely to be sincere (he had not bothered to turn up at the previous meeting and had accused Long Lamai villagers of stealing from his camp) and so the community was not interested in meeting him at the camp. Singan told the villagers that putting up a rope across the boundary was useless since it would only be taken down by the policemen and the field force personnel. He left after sending this message. Some villagers went to the site to find that the rope had again been removed. On 17.01.1995 and with the agreement of a village meeting, an open letter was written on a board which was erected on the road. The content of this letter read: A warning that the company should not enter without consultation and permission from the villagers. This letter was signed by the Village Committee. At the same time, a letter signed by TK Belare Jabu and Penghulu James Keso was hand-delivered by a villager named Jau to the District Officer in Marudi and Hassan Sui in Miri, to inform them of illegal logging in the villagers communal forest. They accepted the letter but did not make any comment. The road was about 3 km into the forest then. A second letter (dated 15.02.1995) was then sent to the government authorities (Director of Forestry, Hassan Sui, the Residence Office, Miri Police Headquar- ters, Medical Department and the Chief Minister) asking for recognition of the forest reserves and calling on the government to stop logging in this area. On 16.02.1995, a group of eight villagers went to the site and saw six timber camp workers removing the board that had been erected earlier. Villagers told them to stop removing the board and informed them that the community had written to consult the government and was waiting for an official reply. The driver of a bulldozer called Pandeng (said to be an Iban from Kanowit, Sibu) Page 12

agreed that they should stop the work.The work on the forest has stopped since then. Villagers insist that they want to defend their communal land and forest, claim- ing that it will be hard to maintain the livelihood of the community if the forest has been cleared. They have consistently said that no compensation will be enough for the forest because any amount of money would simply be spent. We originate from here and for many generations, we have lived well. This is our land and forest, passed down to us by our ancestors. It is our duty to keep this land and forest for our future generations. The Headman, Belare Jabu, said that he was with his parents, who were nomadic, when he was young, wandering in the forests in and around the present Long Lamai settlement. During the colonial times, a British mission came to look for them and advised them to settle down. He was one of the first batch of Penan students who had formal education provided by the British in 1953. He pointed out that life was easy at that time. All the villagers farmed and went into the forest to look for food. Most children went to school. Elders learnt to farm. People were told to farm so as not to be so dependent on the forest alone, and to have food more permanently. They were good in teaching us to farm. I am not saying that the Malaysian government is bad. Because we see our forest being destroyed, we are sad. We believe that the government will consider and give us the forest reserve that is ours and stop logging in our area. Otherwise we will have to act to defend our land and forest ourselves. D. The Testimony from LONG SPIGEN (interviews conducted on 6.3.95) People started to settle down in the present Long Spigen in 1970. Before that, some locals were nomads wandering in the vicinity of this settlement. In 1968, a mission led by Morgan and Lithem Griffin visited the area and brought people to Lio Matoh, where they were given education and were taught to farm. After half a year, some Penan left to settle down in Long Kerong, some in Long Sait while others returned to Long Spigen. In 1972, the District Officer, Edwin Dundang, visited the locals in Long Spigen and gave them permission to stay permanently in Long Spigen. He also agreed on the boundary of their land and communal forest. Interviews were conducted on the farmland of Long Spigen. The farmland is about half an hours walk from the village. Here, the locals get their supply of rattan, Sega Sarawak, mainly growing wild but over which the villagers take great care to ensure their sustainability. Many fruit trees are also grown here. Most of the forest has been kept intact, for provisions and supplies, for example of medicinal herbs. Only small patches have been cleared, most recently for rice fields. Ngedau Idah was asked by villagers to give an account of the history and why the locals claim this land as theirs. He said that during the period of Japanese occupation, groups of foreigners came to investigate the livelihood of the Page 13

Penan. During that time, the people were mainly nomadic, later settling down in Long Spigen. There were no people from other indigenous communities staying in the same area. Singin Lawin, a woman who owns a plot of land here which has been destroyed by logging operation, said that the locals had cultivated and tended the land long before the company ever entered. She said that she had also met the workers of the company and the police field force personnel to tell them that the land is hers and other villagers. When we put up resistance, they brought in more field force personnel, she said. She also recalled one instance when a field force personnel pointed a gun at her when she insisted that the land is hers. Even if we are to die here, we will not give this land to the company. Perlit Kuda said that one Ngelio Bala, a Kelabit who appeared to be the head of the group of field force that came, warned the locals not to confront the field force personnel. And Pelutan Tiun , the village head, a farmer with 7 children described the following situation: In April this year, families came to prepare their land for planting padi. In May, the logging company (Keresa) entered this area. Before they started working in the area that belongs to Long Spigen, we met them at the logging road near to our farm. At that time, we were told that they were only surveying the land. We told them that this is our area and they should not enter without our permission. We met the manager of the logging company and his supervisor on the logging road three times. There were no negotiations. They insisted that they have the rights to log the forest. At the fourth meeting, the manager and his supervisor came with his workers and a group of about 30 field force personnel. The workers are mainly Iban and they were more sympathetic. They refused to bulldoze our land even though the manager ordered them to do so. The field force personnel then stood in a line between us and the timber camp workers. The Manager himself got on to one of the bulldozer and started destroying our farmland. We could not do anything because the field force personnel were all carrying guns and they ignored our protests. We had to return back to the kampong that day. The next day onwards, the field force personnel came with the camp workers. They stood near the bulldozers while the camp workers bulldozed through our land to make their logging track. Until today, the company did not pay any compensation for the land destroyed. The manager has also refused to meet and have dialogue with us. We did not negotiate for compensation because we want to save our land. We do not want to sell our land to the company. We want to find the means to stop the logging operation here to preserve our forest. From here, we get our supply of rattan, medicine and wild boars. This is important to us. Now, the water is polluted, many fruit trees are lost. The animals have left. The camp manager of Samling is known as Beruang because he has a loud voice. He is a Chinese, about 40 years old, thin and tall. A senior field force officer, Jebat (as written on his name tag), Iban, about 35, was always seen with the camp manager. He was very rude to the local villagers and claimed to speak for both the company and the government. He said: This is the governments plan to develop the area. You should not stop the companys operation. If you want to stop this, go to Miri and Kuching to talk to the government. If you continue, we will send in more field force. We will arrest those who protest against logging. Page 14

At a meeting in Ulu Sega, Tua Kampong and a group of villagers went to see Balang Seling (former Senator and President of the Orang Ulu Association), Hassan Sui, Resident Miri (a Malay) and District Officer Achee (a Kelabit) to tell them about the problems faced because of logging in the area. They advised the villagers to go to Miri to negotiate for compensation from the logging company. The local villagers have no money to go to Miri. It was heard that the company is trying to get local villagers who are working in town to have a meeting and sign an agreement allowing the company to log the area. The locals were also told that all their names will be written down but signed for by those in town, in the agreement. How can these people sign for us? They can not represent us because they are not staying in the settlement here. How do they know what do we want? How can they negotiate on our behalf? E: The testimony from PA TIK Interviewees (interviewed on 09. 03.1995) : 1. Simon Laing (30), married, 2 children, farmer 2. Catherine Tungang (20), wife of Simon Laing, farmer 3. Na Nah (59), single, farmer, brother of TK Melai Nak There are 30 settled families in Pa Tik and there are many more that are semi- settled. Usually, the total population is around 200. The settlement is on the river bank of Sg. Ngela, at the foot of Gunung Batu Tengah, which is part of the Tama Abu Range. KTS, WTK and another logging company called Roud are logging in and around the area of Pa Tik. Their logging operations started six years ago and they have entered the communal forest of Pa Tik for the past five years. A lot of the villagers farmland and fruit trees planted in the forest have been destroyed by the logging activities. The water catchment has also been destroyed and the drinking water of villagers in Pa Tik polluted. Seven years ago, a water pipe was laid by the Medical De- partment to tap water from the catchment area but it is useless now. Sg. Ngela has also been polluted because trees on both sides of the river have been removed and mud has washed down into the river. None of the three logging companies consulted or negotiated with us before they entered our communal forest. Over the years, villagers have protested and asked the companies to stop their logging operations but without any success. Early last year, the community applied for a communal reserve for all the villagers and the semi-settled groups. TK Melai Nah himself went to Marudi to see the District Officer and he was supportive. Then he went to see Manager Sih of KTS but the latter disagreed. After the meetings, a group of timber camp workers from KTS came to deliver a rice-grinding engine and an electricity generator. The workers also built a church and a small house for the flying doctor to provide medical services when they come in (once a month). Page 15

In April 1994, five villagers were asked to sign and acknowledge receipt of these gifts from the logging company. The five persons who signed are TK Melai Nah, Noh Lah, Simon Laing, Langup Koya and La Ngau. However, after the signing, Manager Sih told the five villagers that these items were given to us as compensation for the timber that they had extracted from our communal forest and the land of villagers destroyed. And that the paper that was signed was an agreement allowing the company to log in the area. The paper was written in English. None of the five signatories from the community knew what was written on it. No copy of the agreement was given to the villagers. If we have understood the content of this agreement, we would not have signed as what was given was definitely not enough to compensate us for the land and forest destroyed. In February this year, the five villagers were asked to meet the representatives of the company on the logging road and each one was given RM80.00. WTK and Roud have also wanted the villagers to sign an agreement written in English, to receive gifts from them. However, the villagers refused to signed as all have learnt the lesson in the KTS case. We do not know what to do. We want to meet the others and learn the methods to defend our land and forest. A community meeting will be held to discuss on the meeting after the group have travelled and talked with others in the different communities. We will ask the three companies to stop their operations and save the remaining parts of our communal forest. We will also write to the government again to request that the remaining part of the small forest not logged be given to us as our communal forest. F: The testimony concerning SRK LONG SAIT Interviewees (all residents of Kg. Long Sait, interviewed on 11.03.1995): 1. Edwin Danyu Unut (32), married, 1 child, farmer, Vice-Chairman of the School Committee 2. Tua Kampong Bilong Oyoi (40), married, 5 children, farmer 3. Yacub Bato (50), married, 8 children, farmer, Member of the School Committee 4. Aya Luding (48), married, 3 children, farmer, Wakil TK (Representative of the Tua Kampong) 5. Joseph Erang (30), married, 3 children, farmer, Member of the School Committee 6. Joseph Panai Pulut (34), married, 3 children, farmer, Member of the School Committee 7. Nyagang Oyoi (35), married, 6 children, farmer 8. Liwih Bato (32), married, 2 children, farmer The primary school of Long Sait was established in 1977. At present, 30 students (all Penan) are studying in this boarding school. It has 4 teachers including a Headmaster. In the school, there are classes from Primary 1 to 6. However, it has only three classes each year; Primary 1, 3 and 5 in one Page 16

year and Primary 2, 4, 6 in another. This year, 27 of the students are from Long Sait, 2 from Long Spigen and 1 from Long Kerong. The Headmaster of the school, Jerad Tajang, is a Kenyah from Long Palai. The teachers are Jumat Akim, an Iban from Sibu, Peter, a Kenyah from Long Atap, and Andy, a Kelabit from Long Seridan. The main roles of the School Committee, made up of Long Sait villagers and the teaching staff, are said to be: - to take care of the students welfare in co-operation with the teachers. Com- monly, they have responsibility for things such as caring for the sick children and repairing the hostel where the children stay; - to oversee the supply and distribution of food rations for the children to ensure that the children have sufficient food; - every month, members of the School Committee visit the school to advise the students and the teachers; - members of the School Committee voluntarily take care of the schools com- pound, cut the grass regularly and maintain and repair the foot-paths in the school. Food supply has been a major problem in the school. The government is supposed to take care of the food for the students and teachers in this school but the contractors for supplying the food have done a poor job through the years. A Kenyah from Long Jeh known only as Jalong is the present contractor. The distance from Long Jeh to Long Sait is a days boat journey but the contractor comes only once in two or three months. There are no proper storage facilities in the school so the meat and vegetable go bad after a few days. When there is insufficient or no food in the school, members of the School Com- mittee have to act and try to find food. But this is a poor solution. When the school is faced with this problem, the School Committee usually writes to the contractors to request that they send the food over, the school will be closed and the children sent home. When the villagers have just harvested their padi, the villagers will give rice and will have more time for hunting and farming to supply food to the school. But at other times, when food is also a problem for the local families, the school teachers and the students suffer. It was agreed earlier, with the teachers and the contractors, that if there is no food supply from the contractor, the villagers will supply the rice and other food items needed, the headmaster will issue receipts for the item and the contractor will pay for them. Unfortunately, over the years, the contractors have never honoured this promise to reimburse the villagers. Today, many villagers still have the receipts issued in 1993 (some receipts are with the headmaster) which remain unpaid. When the contractor for food supply does not come for a long time and there is no supply from the local villagers, the school children will be given holidays and they will be sent home. Over the past years, the school has been closed on numerous occasions because of shortage of food. The school has to open late after official holidays because the suppliers have yet to supply the food rations; unscheduled holidays are common. Page 17

Because of these irregularities, attendance at the school has been poor. When parents send their children to school, they have to walk a long distance back because there is no food and the school is closed. When they return later, the children may have missed some classes if the school has reopened. It is difficult to inform the students because of lack of transportation and the distances involved. Last year, the School Committee and the teachers wrote a letter to the Education Department, addressing the letter to Mr. Robin Udau in Marudi. The School Com- mittee did not receive any reply from the Ministry. In January this year, an officer of the Education Department came to supervise the examination of the students. Villagers, who are also in the School Commit- tee, requested for an official dialogue. However, there was no dialogue and there was no chance for us to tell him our problems faced in this school. Medical provision for sick children is also a major problem here. Students who fall ill have to be sent to Rio Matoh, which is a days walking distance for a healthy person. The flying doctor service is not regular and the supply of medicine is always insufficient. There is also no back-up service. There is no boat engine to enable the villagers to send sick students to Rio Matoh by boat. Previously, the government provided radio call services at Long Sait. Five years ago, the service broke down and it was sent for repair. Until today, the service has not been re-installed. There are a lot of other problems too. When a teacher is sent for a short term training course, his classes will be given breaks because the other teachers will not sit in for these classes. Some- times, a teacher will come in to take attendance and then dismiss the class. Students have always complained that they have been ill-treated (physical pun- ishments) by their teachers. For example, a students stomach turned blue-black after allegedly being pinched by a teacher. The same student reported that the teachers used the dusters to throw at him and his friends. Many students have also complained that they were not given education. They complained that when they were sitting in their classes, the teachers were talking outside or did not attend to them. Lately, situation has worsened as there are new problems faced. As this is the only school in the region serving the Penan settlement of Long Sait, Long Kerong and Long Spigen, many parents are eager to send their children to this School. The children are willing to attend the classes too, but the School has rejected many of them. A common reason given by the teachers is that the rejected children are more than nine years of age or that they are under-aged. But most of the children here do not have birth registration certificates and there is no way to establish their age. The teachers used their physical size to estimate and determine their age and this has been most unfair to the children, especially for those who were told that they are too old for admission. There is no chance for them to receive education anymore. The Headmaster said that it is the policy of the government and the Ministry not to accept students who are above nine years old. He said that these children must go to the Education Department in Marudi to get a letter from it for their Page 18

admission into the School. The parents have never tried this because they cant afford to send their children to Marudi. For some students, after attending Primary One for less than six months, they were sent to the Primary Three class. The teachers said that they are too old for Primary One. It is suspected that the teachers want to rush our children through the primary school and this has caused the students to leave school because they cannot catch up with his or her classmates. The teachers have also cited the problem of food supply shortage as a reason to close the registration of our children as students. Last year, there were about 60 students in this school. This year, 30 were sent home as it was said that the food supply is only sufficient for 30 students. Lately, when the children have finished their primary education and have wanted to continue their secondary education in Marudi or Bareo, their application for admission has been rejected when the schools were told that they are from SRK Long Sait. It was said that students from this primary school are not good enough to for secondary education. Page 19

Chapter Three: Blockade Witnesses Introduction The Penan have been trying for many, many years to bring their grievances to the attention of the authorities, through peaceful means. They have approached local District Officers, police and other government officials, they have approached the various logging companies who invade their land, they have petitioned their representatives, they have sent delegations to Kuching to talk to Ministers and the Chief Minister, they have sent delegations to Kuala Lumpur to visit Federal government officials - in short, they have done everything within their means. But there has been little response to any of their grievances, as the testimonies tell us. What are called blockades then become the last-ditch resort of Penan communities, to stop the invasion and destruction of their land by (usually, logging) companies. The blockades are usually a bamboo structure erected across a logging road, to stop access of people and machinery. It needs to be guarded by local Penan, and this means that those guarding it have to give up other activities (like farming, hunting or other work). Where the blockade lasts for any length of time (and some have lasted seven months and more), the strain on the local Penan community is obviously severe. It is a huge step for the Penan to erect a blockade, since they know what sacrifice is involved for the community and also know that they face (violent) retribution from the company, backed by the police. The following testimonies present compelling evidence about the blockades. They show the efforts made by the Penan to bring their grievances to the attention of the authorities, and how they have been consistently ignored. They show how the blockade is a last-resort, put up at a time when the company is about to, or already has, started to log land the Penan claim as theirs. They also show the reaction of the police, the authorities and the company: a reaction that is all too often violent in nature, and which, if we follow these testimonies, has resulted in injury and even death to local people. No one has been charged. First testimony Juman Giong (M), originally from Long Lamai (now in Long Kerong) 45 years old, married with 1 child, Farmer The first blockade was in Ulu Sega which was put up on 11-6-1991. Before the blockade, a meeting was held in Long Mobui with Samling. Samlings manager, Mr. Say, told us to mark our boundary. The manager also said that if any of his workers went beyond that boundary, permission was given to kill them. About 200 representatives from all over Ulu Baram came for the meeting which was held in the Ketua Kampungs (village head) house. The other people who also came on behalf of the company were Pengulu Langiau from Long San and Mapeng Apui, a Kenyah, also from Long San. At that time no Police Field Force (PFF) or police personnel came. The company also had not yet reached their area. Later the company reached their area and passed their boundary. Before putting up the blockade, we told them about the boundary but they would not listen. We reminded them about Manager Says words. When they told Mr. Say about this, he accused us of lying. When we reminded him that there were many witnesses at that time, he fell silent. Page 20

After that we erected the blockade. It was about a half hour walk from Long Mobui. A forestry official, a Kelabit, prepared a summons and sent it through a Malay - Awang Mushidin bin Meng Mohammad. He wanted to give Aijeck the summon but Aijeck refused to take it so he just stuck it to the blockade. The forestry official said that we can be fined two thousand Malaysian Ringgit plus two years jail for putting up the blockade. He added that we will have to pay five hundred ringgit per day for the duration the blockade is up. We told them that their laws do not apply in this area. After that they went back. Two days later, seven police personnel came. They said If you do not dismantle this blockade, we will arrest you. We replied If you arrest us, we will also arrest you and bring you to the jungle. (We were not sure who was their leader). They could not arrest us because we also had rattan handcuffs. After another two days, 12 trucks with PFF and police personnel came. Land cruisers belonging to the logging company also came. The team was headed by Ghazali Yaakob. They accused us of fighting (lawan) the government. We told them that if we were fighting the government, we would not bring our wives and children with us. The police said that if we do not listen, they will arrest us. We said that if they do that, we will also arrest them. They went back that day without making any arrests. After that, they came everyday. More than eight hundred Penan from all over Ulu Baram and Upper Tutoh were present at one time or other at the blockade. The blockade was made from logs. The company could not carry out logging beyond that area for nine months, which was the duration the blockade was up (June 1991 to February 1992). They also brought the District Officer Asi, a Kelabit, a State Administrative officer, David Kala, a Minister, Balang Seling, Counsellor Gabriel Keling, Pengulu James Keso from Long Lamai and Hassan Sui. They all tried to persuade the people to follow the government line but we refused because we would not know where else to find our livelihood. We said we welcome projects but not those that destroy or trespass on our area. They said we should discard our traditional way of life. We said We do not want to do that because this been our way of life from the beginning. The reason why we reject logging is because the forest is like our bank and supermarket, a place to get money and to gather food. One and a half weeks after that visit, the logging company and the PFF held a meeting in Long Selaan. It was by then the end of January. As a result of that meeting they wrote a letter to us saying that the company will burn the blockade and send fire engines to spray people at the blockade site. We replied to the letter and passed it to Mandur Jayan. (The letter from the company was lost during the dismantling of the Sebatu blockade). Their meeting was not attended by any villager but a Kenyah man married to a Penan attended it. He later came to tell us about it and try and get his family to go home with him. SAO David Kala brought a letter (court order) to dismantle the blockade within two days. At that time, only Hassan Sui and David Kala came to the blockade. In the letter, written in English (which was read by David Kala, Anderson Mutang, James Barclay and Raymond Linggai), it also said that the PFF boleh bunuh orang (can kill people). About two or three weeks after that, the blockade was forcibly dismantled. Many Police and PFF personnel came as well as a towkay from Miri. Police Commissioner Ghazali Yaakob had also come and wrote a letter promising to look into the land problems of Penan. Notwithstanding this, the blockade was dismantled. Page 21

During the dismantling, riot squads (FRU) lined up in their red helmets with white stripes, with similar coloured uniform and shields. The PFF, Forestry personnel, and company workers readied their chain-saws and parang. As they started their chain-saws, they let out a war cry and proceeded to cut the blockade. About 5,000 personnel came that day. Prior to this, a visit by the Registration Department was fixed for the 27/2/92 to make identity cards in Long Mobui. Most of the people went to register and only about 50 Penans, mostly old people and children, were left at the blockade site that day. In fact, the company and PFF had promised to negotiate with us after those of us who had gone returned from the IC registration exercise, but instead they came earlier, with arms. We could only stand and watch. Some Penans tried to hold on to the blockade but when the dismantlers came with parangs, we asked them to let go. After the blockade was dismantled, they left without a word. The company then entered the area and many farmlands were destroyed. After the blockade was torn apart, people went back home. A meeting was then held on 11/2/93. During that meeting, we decided to set up another blockade in Long Sega on 12/2/93. That blockade was up for only 4 days. On the 4th day, Sergeant Usat Kajan, a Kenyah from Long Semiang, came with (Gembala) Sonny to the blockade. Sonny acted as a translator. Usat Kajan was rude to us. Usat Kajan came back in the evening with a summons and stuck it on the blockade. Immediately after that, he cut up the blockade with parangs. He also brought with him the company mandur, Malang Ajang Wan, a Kenyah from Long Wat. The police were confused because those from the camp and from other places were not clear about the orders to dismantle the blockade. After the blockade was dismantled, the people asked the police and company workers: You have dismantled the blockade and discarded the logs, it is only right that we sit down and negotiate. However, they would not listen and instead asked them to go the logging camp. We refused. A Forest Department official, a tall Chinese guy of slight build aged about 50 years old (Sonny can recognise him on sight), pointed at five people and ordered the police to arrest them. They pulled Sonny but people tried to pull him back. They also held the Police Chief. There was a struggle, but in the end nobody was arrested because the other police personnel did not act. There were about 200 Penans that day. A convoy of 12 vehicle belonging to the company and the PFF were used. The police came in separate vehicle. Sonny also met a Kelabit man from Barrio who made threats and told him that they do not stand a chance against government forces. After the Long Sega blockade was dismantled, we went back. Another meeting was held on February 26th 1993. On February 28th 1993, another blockade was set up in Sebatu, about a kilometre from Long Repo. The next day, March 1st, the company workers came. One of them, an Iban, asked why we had put up this blockade, when we knew it was wrong to do so. We told him that the Ibans in Bintulu have also done the same thing to protect their land. He conceded that and said he would resign from his work. He advised us to make the blockade more sturdy and helped them to pull two logs to block the road! There were about 500 Penans at the blockade site. Page 22

The next day, March 2nd, two policemen came. They told us that it is against the law to put up a blockade. We told them that in Ulu Sega, the police have told us that we can put up a blockade if the company reaches our area. Now the company has already entered the Long Mobui area. The police went back without any other incident. On March 3rd, a police inspector from Miri, Narijan bin Jusoh, arrived with a countless number of police. They told us that if we do not dismantle the blockade, they will bomb us. The police pointed/aimed their guns at us and warned us that if we do not leave the area, they will shoot us. That time we were a little worried but we told our supporters to keep their stand and be firm. They kept their stand and nothing happened. Later the police went back. The next day, a large convoy of vehicles bearing a large number of police came again, together with Hassan Sui and David Kala. They signed a summons letter and warned us to dismantle the blockade in five minutes. The police divided into two groups. One group approached the blockade while the other went to the sulap/ pondok. A policeman pointed his gun at Malang Ten from Long Ajeng. Malang said Kalau kau berani tembak saya, boleh (if you are brave enough to shoot me, go ahead) but at the same time he took out his blowpipe. The police decided not to shoot. At that time, some police personnel were ready to shoot them but Sergeant Usat Kajan stopped them. The police tried to dismantle the blockade but could not get near the blockade because there were a lot of people. But many people were injured because they had formed a human shield against the police and there was a lot of pushing and shoving. However, in the end the blockade was dismantled and a girl, Elizabeth Paren from Ba Kerameu, was hurt when a log fell on her leg. In the lamin were old and sick people as well as children. When the police threw tear gas under the house, many people could not run away. About five cans of tear gas canisters were aimed at the house. The PFF surrounded them so they could not do anything. After the incident, some families went back to their kampung, others stayed in the village for a while then moved to Long Kerong. Everyone was scattered and I and some others had to take refuge in the jungle for three months. The PFF immediately set their camp in the blockade site. They took our tapioca, chickens and other food crops. They flattened the area and further destroyed our farmlands. When they bulldozed the lamin, all our things went missing. Our dogs were also killed. The next day, the PFF came again in a private helicopter. They said they are looking for the blockade leader and that if they see him, they will either shoot or arrest him and throw him in the Pulau. Till now that person is not free to move. I believe the police, company and government are serious about arresting people or inflicting pain on us. I fear that the youths and the rakyat may retaliate if they do that to the leaders. According to the company and the police, if the company enters our land, we can put up a blockade but now they have gone beyond the village. Now the company and the police say that whether people die or not, the company will continue to log the area. For us, we want the government to grant us our forest area, our source of life. We do not want them to repeat what has happened in the past. I heard in the news that we Penan have progressed but that is not true. We do not want people to come and make politics only. They have to do their work well: for example, in Long Mobui, the five government projects promised did not benefit the people. Page 23

The police chief who came during the tear-gassing incident was Luis Sin Sii (Chinese). Also there was Kepala Desa of Long Miri and a Kelabit policeman named Elisa. Thoughts on the incidents Our purpose in setting up blockades is to ask the government not to allow this matter to be repeated. We are worried about the government action and response; they have the power to solve the problem, but in reality they are not only not solving them but are actually increasing the problems of villagers. In all the logging companys work, the soldiers do not help us but walk in front of the company. They treat us as communists. They cannot do that to us because we are citizens of Sarawak too. In the past, from British rule, the police have preserved peace among the people in all problems. When we think of the present situation, that they dont help but instead make problems, peace is shattered. They say we oppose the government. We are not opposing the government. If we were opposing, we would bring weapons. The blockades are a sign that we want to negotiate with the government. As a proof that we are not opposing, we bring the women and children to the blockade. Its a proof to ask for peace for our future generations. In all this, we speak frankly. The Penan are not only in Baram area, and all of us are united to defend our basic rights. They say we are bad people. Thats why the people who work to put up the blockade, work together and think together in the blockade action. As a sign of support, every village gives RM10 each person to support. That is how we started to ask for help to solve our problems. It came from a decision from each of the 16 villages. Those of us who are present are representatives to give information to be disseminated to others. Each time we make an appeal, the authorities say we are lying to people overseas. They accuse us of taking pictures of one village only which are used to represent all of Sarawak. All my life, I have walked in Upper Tutoh, Baram, but I have only seen grinding stones for parang. What the government has done has been to give a development that has allowed companies to destroy our land. The land is our bank. If the forest is destroyed, where will our bank be? The worst thing is, if it is destroyed, then every person is at risk. If no one helps or pays attention, we will die. Even if at times only one person is present, or talking, or visible, do not forget that s/he represents the whole area of Baram Ulu Tutoh. We work together, we support each other, we represent each other. The government says we cheat other friends for our own interests. In the matter of the blockades, we can show the signatures of those who support the blockades. Those who have been cheated by villagers, can remove their signatures. In all this, we can give evidence. This is evidence that we do not cheat. We have applied to the government for recognition of our land, but they said the area is too big. They said we should ask for land like in town, only a small area. We said, we need wood to make boats and houses. We need a larger area, there are many important traditional medicines. If you think of one type of medicine, it is not just in one place. In one area, there is one type, in another area, something else. Thats why it is important to defend this area. One question many ask us is: Why do you follow the customary way of life of Page 24

your ancestors? It is the modern age now, why do you want to look back? One answer is: You yourself think of your ancestry, what more we old people, we do not forget our ancestry. In our culture, we place importance on our old people, the past generations, and the continuity for our future generations. During the Ulu Segah blockade, the authorities asked me to dismantle the blockade. If you dismantle it, you will be given two cars, RM90,000 and anything else you want. I was not influenced by all these bribes, because if I take, I get everything for myself and none for others. That is why, even though during several blockades many were arrested, we were of one heart. Because we think of the old, the widows, and others who will have no land. We are not afraid even if they accuse us of opposing, but we will continue our actions because we think of all our ancestors. We dont think just of the immediate problems, but also of all other problems related to logging. While in Upper Tutoh, we also discussed the problems with the Ketua Kampung. When the logging company came, our daughters were harassed. Thats why we made an appeal before the company and outsiders entered our villages. But in fact we had had an earlier bad experience in Marudi. The Penghulu of Long Lamai had gone to make a report about women from their area who had been raped and made pregnant. The logging company had shown no interest so it was decided to go to the police. But the police instead accused the Penghulu of being involved, an accusation which greatly upset his wife. Even though he is a police officer, the Sergeant accused us because the police are friends of the logging company. Thats what makes us so worried, because we dont know where else to go. We hoped the police and soldiers would help us. But they dont care about our problems. When we want to see them, they say we oppose the government. In everything we do, we are not opposing the government. They accuse us of this because they work with the logging company. On this we cant listen to them because our future will be destroyed. During colonial times, we do whatever we can. Now, the government cannot solve our problems like before. Now, logging (the destruction of our land) is the only thing that the government gives to us Orang Ulu. They say we have no rights over our land, only the government has rights over the land. The government appointed the Ketua Kampung but whats the use if they are not allowed to solve our land claim. We need to work together to defend our area and territory. From before, the Ketua Kampung had rights, and were given the power to do something, but now they say they have no power. They accuse us of being bad - but weve been here since God created us. We are not from Indonesia. People from around here say weve no rights but the names of the rivers and mountains were given by our ancestors. We can relate their history and the history of their coming here, but when we ask them to tell about our history they cannot do so. Thats the evidence that weve been here a long time. Another thing - making farms. Of course we only started recently to make farms but weve always been here. If they want us to tell the names of the rivers and mountains, we know them all because weve always been here. We talked to a lawyer in Kuching about land laws. He said, If its true that your ancestors were from there, where are the documents? Another lawyer said Dont worry. They have no schooling, they farm. If they want to find the documents, they will look for them in the museum. Page 25

We appeal to you: Dont worry, help us. We do our work but we dont know where else to turn to. We need friends who know the laws and will inform the Chief Minister. We want the authorities to come and visit us and tell us where the development they talk about is. It is not a development we can see or want. After our experience with the logging companies and the police, we went to see the Chief Minister. We asked whether he could see us. His men answered yes. We went up and saw him from the window. He asked us to go out and have a good time; when we came back, he had already gone out. We ask those who know the law - is his action proper? Why doesnt he want to see us? Did we kill someone or do something bad? We had put some hope on him because he is the leader in Sarawak who can solve our problems. He should not hide. If he doesnt want to see us, it is better to say it at the beginning - dont say he can see us and then disap- pear. Even though we dont know the law, he should know and should not hide. Thats why we want to talk about our problems here upriver. The Penan who work for logging companies do not do so because of their own will. They need the jobs and then become part of the companys politics. Yet even though they are working for the company, they will want to come out to defend the land. We dont know where to go anymore. Weve tried all means but they say we have no rights. I myself have no schooling. Thats why we hope someone will help us now. Not after we are dead. Like the time we went to see the Chief Minister, it was fruitless, but we want to continue demanding. How is it that other ethnic groups are given assistance but we are not? We are not selective in asking assistance, whether it is from the Malaysian government or others, we do not selectively ask help from others. We inform people about our problems so that all may know. If we look at the colonisers before, if they proclaim a law, we follow it because it is just. We Penan, we are not stupid - as the government has done to us, we will do to them. But we want the government to change their policies so that there will be jus- tice. In the past, there was assistance for children who went to school, but now we are on our own. Because of this, we hope outsiders will help us. From the beginning of our actions, and with the blockades, we have never hurt the police. Even if our breath is no more and we are destroyed, we have never retaliated. Help us. People may accuse us of doing wrong, but we have done nothing wrong. We Penan will be here to witness what we have done. We dont only look after our own interest but that of all Penans. We are strong in telling what all the problems are that have happened to us. You can see with your own eyes. The jungle and everything else is for all, not just for us. Whatever food we have we share with people who come to us. Even though we have nothing much to give, we urge friends to help us, we urge you to help us. We want to ask you to let others know our situation and the reason we are so desperate. You can talk to other Ketua Kampung, they will tell you the same thing. The government doesnt even support our appeals for help in schooling and health services. It is very hard. Even though I have a serious illness I am not able to go anywhere for medical treatment because they want to arrest us. This applies to my friends too. Never- theless we will not give up hope but will continue to fight for our rights. Page 26

Thats why we want others and the government to understand our situation, so that nothing like this will happen again in future, so that they will change the laws. Even if they want to bomb us, we will continue our struggle for the land and forest. This is our strongest appeal for help so that our rights are upheld. As I have expressed before, the law is wrong - even the police know it. But when they come to our place, they continue to implement such an unjust law. Even though they say that we are wrong to say that, and that we are wrong to defend our land, we will continue to fight. Like our blockade action before, our difficulty was extreme, especially for our children and our wives. Second testimony Jackson Gut (M) from Long Ajeng, Sungai Selaan, Ulu Baram. 30 years old, married with four children. Farmer. During the dismantling of the Long Sega blockade, two people from the Forest Department pulled his right hand until his shirt was torn. Till now, when he moves around too much, his whole body still aches. At the Sebatu blockade Prior to the dismantling of the blockade, I went back to Long Ajeng to get some rice. At about 11am on September 28, while I was on my way back to the blockade together with my wife and children, I met some police personnel about 3 miles from the site. I was immediately arrested by them. My wife and children had to return to the blockade on their own. Five other Penans were also arrested and we were left under the hot sun for 5 hours. Two PFF stood guard over us. The handcuffs were tight but they further tightened them so that until now I cannot grasp a parang or other tools prop- erly. I did not see the tear-gassing incident. About four days before going back to Long Ajeng to get supplies, a Forest De- partment staff elbowed me on my chest and till now it still hurts. One of my relatives was also hurt when a Forest Department staff used his knees to kick his abdomen. After being left under the sun for 5 hours, the PFF brought us to a police car. The others were transported in a company vehicle. I never knew about the other six who were arrested, until later. When we left the place, it was raining heavily. We stopped for a while at the Long Sega logging camp, then proceeded to Kem Pulutan (another logging camp), where we spent the night. We were not given any food and were confined to a house. But they opened our handcuffs. At 6am on September 29, we left Kem Pulutan for Km 10. All along the way, we were handcuffed. At KM 10, we were given some drinks. After that, we were brought directly to Miri where we were given a little food. After lunch, we left for Marudi. We reached Marudi at 4 pm. All this time since the arrest, we had not been told the reason for our arrest. Page 27

While in Marudi, I was questioned. They wanted to find out where I was arrested and the name of the blockade leader. They never once told us why we were arrested. While in prison, Edwin from Long Sait came to see us but they only allowed him a few minutes and would not let him bring in food. We spent a total of 14 days in prison. Each one of us was interrogated. We were also brought to court three times. When all 11 of us were brought to court the first time, we were completely naked. Lawrence Lawai from Long San acted as translator from Penan to BM. They kept asking for the name of the leader and in whom we place our hope. During detention, I was forced to sign a statement (he did not get a copy of the statement). The police also wanted to know whether our house was near the blockade. I told him that even before the blockade, our house was already there. Thomas Jalong of Sahabat Alam bailed us out. Each person needed 3 local sure- ties. The police did not use violence but gave us very little food and sometimes it was bad. One Sapok Jawa from Long Ajeng was sick while in prison, but the police did not attend to him. I am appealing to anyone who could help stop the logging and avoid incidents such as that which happened on September 28th. The Malaysian government says we Penans have progressed but the meaning of their progress are bombs and guns, to arrest and to box people. They may say we are lying but you can see it with your own eyes. Third Testimony Deng Laing (M) originally from Long Mobui, Long Selaan, Ulu Baram (now in Long Kerong) 50 years old, married with twelve children, Farmer and Wakil Ketua Kampung (As- sistance Head) of Long Mobui On the Sebatu Blockade I was not far from the blockade. The PFF were pushing people. I was poked by a log. The PFF pointed their guns at the people while shouting at them to dis- perse. I held on to the walls of the lamin. Many women and children were in the house. The lamin was located near the Sebatu River. We went down to the river to negotiate with the authorities but the police gave a letter and immediately arrested and handcuffed six of us. It was about 2pm and the sun was hot but the police threatened to shoot us. From where we were, we could not hear anything besides the sound of chain-saws and bulldozers. I thought many people must have been killed. At about 4pm, we were brought to a vehicle. We were never given any food or drink, and I had almost died by the time we reached Miri. We were sent to the Marudi jail where we were detained for 14 days. During that time, I was interrogated and the police asked me where I was arrested and why I was arrested. I answered that we wanted to defend our forest. They also asked which government do we put our hope in. I told them we do not do what we do because of hope for another, but to protect the forest and land for our children and grandchildren. I was interrogated for about 20 minutes, twice, during my detention. Page 28

The lock-up was about 10 feet by 15 feet and all eleven of us were kept together in it. There was a toilet but they gave no blankets and we had to sleep on cold cement floors. I was sick many times, but they only brought me to hospital when I complained of severe headaches and fever. My son and wife are also strong. Because they are like tigers, we can bear our pain and still look after our land, but it is an uphill struggle. We only ask that our rights and our culture be respected. The PFF are still present in Long Mobui. There are about 6-7 personnel stationed there, the majority with the logging company workers at the end of the road. They say they are looking after the forest which they can use for building a school and clinic but all they do is fish (pancing)and eat. We do not have the power to chase them out. This will happen in the whole Baram area. If the government wants to give us the clinic and school, just give it to us. Dont take away our forests in exchange. Fourth Testimony Lipang Ake (Jumans wife), originally from Long Lamai (now in Long Kerong for last 2 years). 40 years old, married with one child. Farmer He was present at the Belingan, Ulu Sega, Long Sega and also the Sebatu blockade. Before setting up the blockade at Long Belingan, a soldier came. I held on to my child who was only 4 years old at that time. The soldier told us that if we put up the blockade, they will shoot to kill. My husband (Juman) answered that if that is what the government says, they can go ahead and shoot. They retracted and said that they do not want to kill. He said that if that is so, why did they say they want to shoot us. After that they went back. After two or three days, they came to tell us that they want to arrest us. At 5 pm, on a Friday, the PFF came and immediately arrested all the men. The wives and children tried to follow those arrested. During that time, a Forest Department staff tried to stop me from boarding a truck used to transport those arrested, but I pushed him aside and boarded the truck where my husband was. All the peoples belongings and dogs were also in the truck. Many people vomitted while inside the truck. When we reached Long Banyuh, we were asked to get down while those arrested were brought elsewhere. We were told that next day someone will pick us up. The next day, the company workers brought us back to the blockade site. The next day, we went back to Long Kerong. We did not have any food on our journey and were very hungry. When we reached Ba Kerameu, a family member gave us food. Only then did we re- gain some strength. After that we waited for our husbands to be released from detention before going back together to Long Kerong. Page 29

While my husband was detained in Miri, I did not manage to visit him because I did not have money. Ulu Sega Blockade We had to walk over five hills to reach Ulu Sega. On our journey to Ulu Sega, my child fell sick but I could not pay proper attention to this because of the problem of logging we were facing. When we reached Ulu Sega, the logging company workers and PFF personnel also came but we still put up the blockade. Then the PFF and company people came in twelve trucks. We all negotiated with them. Atasan (from Miri), David Kala and the PFF were there at that time. No agreement was reached and they left, promising to come the next day. But they never came. Next we heard about a meeting between the company people and the PFF and their plans to burn the blockade. I was not there during the dismantling of the blockade. Long Sega Blockade A day after reaching Long Sega, we set up the blockade. The company workers came the next day but we told them not to go through yet because we wanted to negotiate first. At that time, a man from Long Sait/Mobui called Suhau came - he was a spy for the company. After that Usat Kajan and Mandur Malang came to dismantle the blockade. At the time of the dismantling, people asked me and my husband to hide. Opinions on the problem To see anyone from the company or the PFF makes me very unhappy: it is better if they go back. It makes me angry every time I hear that they are looking for my husband to murder him. They say if they meet him anywhere, they will cut him up. There is a reward for his death. Thats what make me worry and sick. If I know how to kill, I will kill - but that is not allowed. They even tried to look for me. The person who looked for me to arrest me was Philip, a Kenyah. We set up blockades because we want to protect our rattan and crops, not to fight. We do not do anything bad because we are doing this in our own area and territory and we support ourselves and travel on our own. We are not fighting or opposing the government. All we have are rattan and whatever we get from the forest, unlike the logging company which can get income from elsewhere. I always bring my child along wherever I go and that is why I am angry with the logging company. Page 30

Fifth Testimony Jawa Ipa, from Long Ajeng, Sungai Selaan, Ulu Baram 45 years old, married with one child, Ketua Kampung (Village Head) of Long Ajeng History/Background When they first came to settle in the area, life was good and there was sufficient food. There was plenty of fruits, medicines and sago from the forest and gaharu, rattan were available nearby. People were seldom sick. Life was good and it was easy for villagers to move around and farm. Fish and wild animals were abundant and could even be seen from the houses. It was a good and rich life before the company came. When the company came in 1991, we began to feel difficulty in looking for food and sago. From that time, farms were destroyed and the water became polluted. Many children and adults started complaining of stomach pain after drinking the dirty water and body itches after taking a bath. A lot of sores (ulcers) developed after walking along the dusty logging roads. From then on, life became more difficult and as the company came nearer to the kampung, the problems increased. From then, it was difficult to get wild boar or fish. We also had to walk far to talk to the company. The doctor who comes to our village (and saw our ailments) asked us to clean our surroundings. We even had to cut our fruit trees but the situation did not improve because the water was still dirty and the dust was still there. That is why our life is now difficult. Many people are sick from many diseases. People did get sick before but not like this. The company who first came to survey our area came from upriver from Long Mobui. We went to meet the Chief Surveyor, Tawkay Lau, and his companion. We told them not disturb the land because this is our traditional land on which we depend for our livelihood. After the two left, Mr. Say came. He wanted all the Penans to sign an agreement to allow the company to log their area but we refused. After this, we went back. Upriver, they continued to survey the whole area - that was the beginning of the companys intrusion. We went to meet the surveyor again and asked them to leave because we did not want them to enter our area. Then we saw them building the road on the hills and as they came nearer we got worried. We went to the hills and put up signboards Do not enter this area because we do not want our area to be destroyed. We also showed a map of our area and its boundaries. But they just threw away all the signboards. Ulu Sega Blockade That was when we decided to put up a blockade in Ulu Sega. All the village heads held their own meetings in their area and then they for an inter-village meeting in Long Ajeng. We in Long Ajeng appealed to the other villages to support the blockade. All agreed to put up a blockade. We went to Ulu Sega and together we built the blockade. (James Barclay among the first foreigners to support the blockade, came to the area with supplies). Page 31

After that the company came, and we told them that we do not want them to come in because this was our traditional land and we do not want it to be destroyed. The company replied Kami di suruh oleh kerajaan (we were asked by the government). That was the first time we talked to the company. Sebatu Blockade After the blockade was dismantled, some people went back to their kampung. They brought the sick with them; some of them had to be carried home. Five families from Long Ajeng went to Long Kerong. Some also went to Long Kerong after the incident but they only stayed for a while. The rest came back to Long Ajeng. For months, I had to stay in the jungle to be with Juman. We went to Long Kerong because we had to wait for the people who had been arrested. After those from Long Ajeng were released, they came back here. Opinion on the incidents Everything they (the company and authorities) did was indeed wrong. Their act of trespassing is like killing wives and children. The forest is like our parents who look after us. The area has been the source of livelihood for our ancestors as well as our own generation. I would not like such an incident to happen in the kampung again. Our farmlands were destroyed when the company came but they do not care; they cant be bothered. Graveyards were also destroyed. For example, in Long Sega, the land was also bulldozed and Ulu Pejelai was polluted. In all the areas where logging has come in, the rivers from which we have been getting drinking water are already polluted. These are the problems since the company came and it is getting worse. It is now difficult to live. It is not just us, but also all Penans who are experiencing hardship. That is why I am telling you this very clearly. The government says we are already well off and developed. Millions have been allocated but in fact we were arrested. Those are their projects. The government says that the standard of living of Penans is better but in fact our problems are increasing. We have heard in the news that there is progress in all Penan areas but instead we face many problems because the forests are almost all gone. These are the names of some of the farms wrecked by logging companies: 1. Iyai Baran 2. Tui Bayan 3. Yusup Gut (In Long Sega & Ulu Pejelai) 4. Simon Tui (Ulu Pejelai) 5. Laing Ajeh 6. Yaya Tui 7. Balang Tui (Already surveyed) These are some of the graves which have been desecrated : 1. Yusup Guts younger sibling (in Long Sega); 2. Yusup Guts father (Sungai Tap); 3. Abun Potongs son or daughter (at the boundary between Sungai Benuang and Sungai Bolokon); 4. Yaya Tuis son or daughter (as in no.3); 5. Iyoi Laas son or daughter (as in no.3); 6. Abun Potongs mother (surveyed). In September 1994, Luhat Tek saw them cut the trees and subsequently push the earth at the gravesite. No remains can be found anymore. Page 32

Sixth testimony Panai Irang (M) 35 years old, married with four children Ketua Kampung of Long Sepatai (a tributary of Sungai Akah). On Ba Abang Blockade (near Long Akah) In the beginning, workers came to survey the area without telling us. We were worried and told people from the other kampung. We all felt that if we did not stop them, they would enter our area. So we called on people up-river and down- river to join in the blockade. During that time, another blockade in Belingan was put up so some people from Long Ajeng and Upper Tutoh came to join us. The logging road to Sepatai, Ulu Patah was already built so we went there to erect the blockade. When we reached the place that night, we put up the blockade. The next day, on September 15, 1989, the police came and by evening they had dismantled the blockade. At that blockade, 26 people were arrested. Women and children were initially allowed to accompany those detained, but, at Sungai Melanah Apo, they were asked to go back. The sumpit, parang and darts of those arrested were confiscated. A list of the things taken was not given to any of the villagers. It was difficult for those sent back to go home because they had no tools. The company continued their work and they brought the PFF to guard the workers. They also hired gangsters (their leader has a tattoo of a dragon on his body). We did not get a chance to meet with company people again because the gangsters were always there to stop us. Their continued presence frightens the people. They entered our area and logged the area regardless of the crops. Many crops were destroyed, including our padi and fruit trees. The companies involved are Woodman S/B (Manager Lau) and Rimex as contractor (Manager Su Ping). The coupe for Woodman has ended but another company wants to come in. We do not want them to come and log the area a second time. The villagers are still firm in fighting for the area. A meeting has already been held. Seventh testimony Thomas Keliap (M) 35 years old, married with one child Long Ajeng, Sungai Selaan, Ulu Baram, Farmer. Ba Abang Blockade I participated in the Ba Abang blockade near Long Sepatai. The Police, PFF, Forest officials and company workers came and told us You cannot erect a blockade here because this is government land. We told them that even though that particular land may belong to the government we were not in the wrong because the company came and logged our area. After a short exchange, they immediately arrested 26 people. They brought us to Kem Melanah then to Marudi. The next day they brought us to Miri and we were detained in Lambir for two months. There we were put together with the other people who were arrested in Belingan. The house where we were detained was small Page 33

and was very crowded. There was not enough food for all of us. Some fell sick, mostly stomach-aches and headaches but when we asked for medicines, it took weeks before they gave any to us. We also asked to be brought to the hospital but this seldom happened. During the two month period, we sat, slept and prayed. They also questioned us about who asked us to blockade. When we answered that it was our own decision because of our concern for the forest, they would not believe us. The interroga- tors were very fierce. We were brought to the Marudi court twice before we were released. We were asked to appear at a sessions court in Miri on July 6, 1992. They said we were wrong to set up the blockade and asked for RM6,000 each but since we could not afford to pay, we were detained again in Miri. The charges were as follows: Charge 1: That you jointly on or about 16 September, 1989 at about 1400 hours erected a structure, to wit a wooden structure from jungle poles, across Mile 23 of the logging road, thereby causing destruction to the passage of that road and the said logging road was maintained by PPES Resort s/ b holder of forest timber licence T/0339, thereby contravened Section 90B (1)(a) of the Forest Ordinance ( Cap 126) and punishable under the same section of the same Ordinance. Charge 2: That you jointly on or about 16 September, 1989, at about 1400 hours wilfully obstructed Assistant Forest Officer, Abu Saman bin Yusuf, in the execution of his duties, to wit: the removal of the wooden structure at Mile 23 of the logging road, thereby contravened section 90B(1)(b) of the Forest Ordinance and punishable under the same section of the same ordinance. People from Ulu Patah/Akah Area who were asked to appear at the sessions courts on April 13, 1992:- 1. Jeluang Ayat 2. John Liban 3. Suda Loi 4. Pek Lom 5. Malang Ari 6. Ricky Lirau 7. Tupai Libau 8. Lanyau Sibin 9. Yakup Pun 10. Bario Pay 11. Aki Ting 12. Andreas Ujang 13. Taga Ujan 14. Lasau Loh 15. Awih Kayau 16. Dee Jutuy Eighth Testimony Apeng Along (Gisas wife) 52 years old, married with four children; 2 have passed away, Farmer Apeng Along was there at L.Belingan, Ulu Sega, L. Sega and Sebatu. Nothing serious happened to her, except deprivation and hunger. Every time vehicles passed, she informed people what the situation was. Sebatu Blockade At the Ulu Sega blockade, I did not suffer any injuries. But at Sebatu, it was different. When the authorities started coming, I wanted to go and meet them, but they threw tear gas. I could not see because my eyes were hurting and I took my children and went into the jungle. I wanted to go and see my husband and to chase them away, but my children wouldnt let me go. Page 34

On that day, I thought I would die, all the men were taken. All the women felt very bad then. We also thought the soldiers might shoot us. We had to sleep on the ground. The following day, soldiers came again and there were helicopters too. After that we walked back here. I came back here and thought the soldiers would follow us. I felt her body and skin aching and hurting, my breath smelt bad and I did not have appetite to eat. Now I am thin, before I was fat. There are times when I feel faint, and sometimes I cant breathe. Many people became thin after that. I noticed Geran and Uku became thin. For me, I will fight till I die, I do not care that I am a woman, I will fight as much as I can. I dont want to see their faces. In my heart, I feel if I were a man, I would definitely go here and there contacting them. I am not like other women, I dont fool around, Im really angry at the company. At first in Ulu Sega, I did not run away because I wanted to defend the land. I hope you will tell this to others, to the whole world, about this our suffering. Freda Gisa has a sick child who has gastritis. She has three children. Pulutan is married with two children. They are our friends. Thats why we must defend the land because we have to think of all of us, our future. Even though there is blockade, if we cannot defend it they will dismantle it. We must inform others. Pressure the company to stop. Inform the Chief Minister. We tell the children to defend the land. If we dont tell them, they will not know our problems. In the future, when the whole area is destroyed, the children will not have a livelihood. The company destroys the source of life. Thats why we must inform others. At the blockade, we just wait; live or die, we wait. Ninth testimony Lilit Turai (TKs wife) from Ba Lai, 45+, married with seven children, Farmer Thank you for listening to us. It is definitely difficult now because the company has reached here. In the past, before the company reached here, it was easy to move around. Now it is very difficult to move around. Before the company reached here, women and children would walk on their own to look for firewood, rattan and vegetables. Now they are not free because there are people frightening them. Before, women and children didnt use the blowpipe like the men. Now we have to use it because we are afraid. Page 35

When people from the camp came to our home, we received them even though they didnt look good. Now we are sad when we think of our land. If the land is destroyed, there will be problems because we use this also for the future generations. Even if they say that those who set up blockades will be arrested, we will continue to put up blockades. We made an agreement at a meeting with the company on 30th March, but even though there is an agreement, they still continue to log. If there are others who can help with our problems, we will tell them. We will demand with all our hearts to ask the company to stop, to go back. I dont know what will happen. We have been to talk with them many times but they still continue work. We now have to rely on others to tell about our problems. Even when we go to Long Banga hospital, we do not get served because of the action. When we pass the end of the road, they say These are bad because they wont let us work. Even though they say this, we still wont allow them to work. Page 36

Chapter Four: Police Cases Introduction There were many complaints made by the Penan that the authorities had not just apparently sided with those who were taking away the Penan land and livelihoods, but were also apparently slow in investigating complaints by Penan about crimes committed against them. Four cases are presented here, involving death and rape, but unfortunately nothing has yet been done to bring the perpetrators to jus- tice. A. The Case of Abung Ipui - murdered? Interviewees: (interviewed on 07.03.1995) 1. Tua Kampong Sakur Parong (Long Kepang) (69), married, 6 children, farmer 2. Henneson Bujang (Long Benalih) (39), married, 6 children, farmer 3. Gisa Paren (Long Kerong) (30), married, 1 child, farmer Abung Ipui was a vocal leader in Ba Kerameu. He strongly opposed the encroachment of logging companies into the communal forest of Ba Kerameu, and was active in organising the villagers to defend their land. He had taken part in the Sebatu blockade earlier. He was found dead in the river after he had left on a hunting trip. Villagers suspected that he was murdered, judging by the wounds he had when his body was found. TK Sakur and Henneson were told of the incident by Daud Abung (Abung Ipuis son), when they met him in Long Lellang in October 1994. At that time, Abung had been buried for two weeks. TK Sakur had also heard from his son-in-law Lawai Tulai, also of Long Kepang, after he returned from Ba Kerameu. When Long Kepang was informed about Abungs loss, Lawai was sent by the community of Long Kepang to go to Ba Kerameu for details. Gisa was born in Ba Kerameu. His parents are still living in Ba Kerameu. Though he is now staying in Long Kerong, Gisa returns to Ba Kerameu at least three times a year. He first heard about the death of Abung when he met Daud. He had also returned to Ba Kerameu to learn more about the incident. Abung was very close to him, just like father and son, according to Gisa. They went to the blockade together. Gisa said that he had learnt a lot from Abung. On the Sunday before his death, Abung went from Ba Kerameu to Long Lellang to sell the wild boar that he had hunted. He returned that night and told his wife (Dayang Oho, now staying in Ba Kerameu) that he would go hunting again early the next morning. The next morning, it was drizzling but Abung went on his hunting trip. He was seen by other villagers when he was at the pengkalan of Ba Kerameu. The water current was not strong at that time. People could have walked across the river easily. At about noon, a Kelabit known as Ngetawai (who lived in Kampung Kerameu, a Kelabit settlement, about half a mile from Ba Kerameu) came to Ba Kerameu to inform villagers that he had found a gun in the river a little while earlier. Villagers recognised that the gun was Abungs. Immediately, groups were organised and set out to look for Abung. They were worried that he might have had an accident. Page 37

Some villagers went to Long Lellang and other nearby communities to inform the people about this incident. They could not find Abung that day. Next morning, many people from the other settlements came and joined the search teams. After looking in the jungle for a whole day, they werent able to find Abung either. The search continued for a whole week. At noon the next Tuesday, Daud Abung and a Kelabit found his body in Sg. Akar (after Kuala Sg. Kerameu), about a mile from Ba Kerameu. At the time they saw his body, a foot of his had come to the surface while the rest of his body was still under the water. At this point in the river, the water was shallow. They went back to inform the villagers of Ba Kerameu and a lot of people came to where the body was. Dayang Oho and another villager called Semeion Malong lifted his body from the river. It was found that there was an opening on his stomach and some of the internal organs came out. The villagers helped to wrap the body for burial. Unga Paren (from Long Bangang), a cousin of Abung, helped to recover the internal body organs to re- store to his body before Abung was buried. His parang was also recovered later. When the villagers examined his body, they noted that Abung had injuries on his head, face and the body was reddish. The cut on his stomach was about 5 inches in length. The Kelabit also came to help in the burial. No police report was lodged. A timber camp was located about one mile away from Ba Kerameu. The timber camp workers have claimed that all the farmland of the villagers in Ba Kerameu were located in the concession area of the logging company. The timber camp workers hated Abung. When they tried to extract timber from the forest near to Ba Kerameu, Abung led the protest of the villagers and the logging stopped. The company was said to have employed foreigners to fight the local villagers. Two men named Francis (an Indonesian Kenyah, married to a Kelabit and living in Long Lellang) and Balang Muput (a Kelabit from Long Lellang) had always threatened the villagers of Ba Kerameu that the company workers will potong perut kalau kamu pergi benteng (cut open your stomach if you go for a blockade). According to the people who knew Abung, he was a very friendly and helpful man who had never quarrelled with other villagers. He was a trained pastor in Ba Kerameu. He resigned a year before his death when he started to play an active role in organizing the villagers to defend their land and forest. He was the leader (Ba Kerameu is an old settlement of seven families) and spokesperson for the settlement in asking the company to stop its logging operation in the area. Abung has five children. Daud has left the kampong and is working in Miri, Kalip is also working in Miri, Samson stays in Ba Abang; and Eta and Erud are staying with their mother in Ba Kerameu. Page 38

Because the people are still angry with the company, the logging operation in the communal forest of Ba Kerameu has stopped. It is believed that the company will return later. Sg. Kerameu is now polluted because of the logging operation. B. The Case of Geran Ten: killed as a result of tear-gas? Interviewees (interviewed on 09.03.1995): 1. Gilin Ten (65), single, farmer, brother of Geran 2. Geoffery Upai Lagui (33), married to Munah Tirong, 3 children, farmer and pastor in Long Kerong Geran Ten passed away on 8.9.1994, in Long Kerong. Geran was born in Long Kerong, part of a family of four brothers and sisters: Gilin, Nee (now in Long Mobui), Geran and Lawai (died of sickness in Sg. Sengayan when he was about 10 years old). Geran was married. He had no children. Before the blockade in Lg. Mobui, Geran had stayed in Long Ajeng for some time. His land is in Long Kerong. It is suspected that the tear-gas thrown by the field force personnel in dismantling the blockade at Long Mobui was the main cause of his death. When the police force charged at the blockading people, Gilin was with Geran. Gilin was about 100 meters from the hut where Geran was resting. At that time, Geran was a little sick with a fever but it was not serious. He took part in all the activities at the blockade site with all others). When the police force started firing tear-gas at the people, Gilin saw some being thrown below the hut where Geran was resting. He then saw Geran come out of the hut and start vomiting as he came down the staircase. Gilin tried to rush to help him but he could only get to a temporary hut which served as a place of worship, and still about 50 meters from Geran. He was re- strained by the police from getting to Geran. Gilin could see that Geran was in great difficulties: he appeared very weak as he leaned on the staircase and was vomiting continuously. Nobody was seen coming to help Geran. They were either prevented from getting to the huts or were running away from the smoke that was proving extremely irritat- ing. When the smoke got thicker, he could not see Geran anymore. Irritated by the smoke, Gilin rushed out to the stream nearby to wash his face. When he returned about half an hour later, the police force had left and it was raining very heavily. The huts were completely destroyed and he could not find Geran. The people started returning to the site and about 30 temporary sheds were put up. It was getting dark and the rain was still very heavy. Geran returned at that time and he was coughing badly. Gilin boiled some water for Geran to drink, hoping that it would help stop his coughing. This did not help. Page 39

The next morning, a helicopter flew over the blockade site and a group of armed soldiers came to the sheds. They searched to find if anything was being hidden. They did not destroy the sheds this time. That evening, when the soldiers had left, people started leaving the site. Gilin and Geran left together. After walking for only half a mile, Geran complained that he was too weak to walk. Gilin then erected a small shed and both of them stayed there for the night. Geran was coughing badly. He complained of stomach-ache. There was white stuff coming out from his mouth when he coughed. He began to have a lot of blisters on his lips and he could not eat. He felt weak and was visibly losing weight. Because Geran was too weak to walk a long distance, Gilin had to erect a shed for him to rest and sleep after walking a short distance each day. They spent ten days in the jungle before they reached Long Kerong. Normally, it takes less than two days to walk from Long Mobui to Long Kerong. When they first arrived in Long Kerong, they stayed in a good friend (Bala Kadir)s house. Gerans wife also came to Long Kerong, following another group. She stayed with her mother, also from Long Ajeng, in a hut erected across the river from Long Kerong community. After staying with Bala for two weeks, Geran told his brother that it was too hot. Gilin then erected a hut below a big tree and moved Geran into it. Gerans wife came to look after him and tried to feed him with food. However, Gerans health had deteriorated. He could not eat anything at all. When he ate something, he vomited. He had some panadol as this was the only medicine that the local villagers could get for him. When the flying doctors came to Long Kerong, they refused to walk the short distance (about 40 meters away) to see him. Some villagers had tried to carry Geran to see the doctor (flying doctors who visited) but any small movement of his body caused him so much pain that they didnt persist. Two days before he passed away, Geran was unconscious. The villagers helped to move him into Balas house because a lot of the villagers came and wanted to pray for his recovery. The hut where he stayed was too small for the group. He was still alive the next day but he was too weak to speak. He passed away after midnight. Before he died, he told his brother to keep his parang and his gun, and not to throw them away. Gilin is feeling very sad because the government has done nothing to investigate the death of his brother. He is still angry with the flying doctors who refused to attend to Geran, even though they were been informed of Gerans critical condition. Geoffery was away when Geran arrived in Long Kerong. When he returned, Geran had already been moved to the house below a big tree. He immediately went to see him when the villagers told him that Geran was very sick. At first, Geran could still sit up. But he was coughing and vomiting all the time. He also complained of stomach-ache. Geoffery visited him quite regularly, giving him ORS (Oral Rehydration Salt), a pill called Trisilox (for gastric) and panadol, all on the advice of the flying doctors. He could not have solid food as there were blisters on his lips and tongue. Whatever he took, he vomited out. He got thinner every day and during his later days, he was too weak even to speak. Page 40

During the time when Geran was in Long Kerong, the flying doctor came to the community three times. Geoffery tried to persuade the doctors to visit Geran by describing how much pain he had when villagers tried to lift him and send him over. The doctors were not sympathetic. They just asked about his health condition and left some medicine. Everybody was concerned and sad. They tried to prepare food for Geran even though he could hardly eat and would vomit whatever that was taken in. C. The Case of M: raped? This testimony comes in the form of a signed, statutory declaration. Because the victim was a minor when the rape took place, her name cannot appear. STATUTORY DECLARATION I, Buet Kayan, of Long Ajeng, Ulu Baram, a Malaysian citizen of about 40 years of age (born in the vicinity of Long Ajeng, Ulu Baram without birth certificate) do solemnly and sincerely declare that: 1. Sometime in early November 1993, my wife Leren Bajau and I returned to our dwelling in Long Kerong after having gone to the forest to gather sago. We found that our daughter M, together with some other people from Long Kerong, had returned from Long Ajeng a few days earlier. 2. M had gone to Long Ajeng at about the end of October 1993 to fetch rice for the family. She had travelled on foot to Long Ajeng together with Gembala (pastor) John and his wife, both of Long Kerong, and another girl named Martha (a.k.a. Merita) from Long Ajeng. 3. M is my third child and was born in April 1981. She is generally reserved and quiet. She has a lisp in her speech and does not speak much. My wife and I have 10 children still living, including M. 4. About 2 or 3 days after we returned from the forest, M told my wife and I that she had been raped in Long Mobui while en route to Long Ajeng from Long Kerong. She was sad and depressed and cried while relating her experience. She had been afraid to tell us what had happened to her for fear that my wife and I would be angry. 5. M said that she had been raped at night by 2 men in the house of Datu ak Abeng, the son of the Ketua Kampung (Abeng Jek) of Long Mobui. She said one of the rapists was of big build and had a big stomach. She said that she had struggled, screamed and cried while she was being raped but nobody came to help her. She said she had not told anyone about the rape. 6. My wife and I were shocked. We consoled her and told her we were grateful she had not been injured or killed by the rapists. 7. M then gave me a live bullet. She said she found it near her, on the floor of the house, when she got up the morning after the rape. I took the bullet and kept it in a safe place (see photos). 8. My wife and I did not tell anybody about the rape until August 1994. We did not know what to do about the matter, or to whom we should report. We finally told Balang Tui (of Long Ajeng) when we heard that some Penan leaders were going to Kuching to make a police report on problems faced by our community in our Page 41

area. A police report (CPS (K) 8037/94) was made on 30th September 1994 at the Kuching Central Police Station. 9. On 22nd March 1995, M made a police report (Report No. 2234/95, Miri Central Police Station) and gave a statement to the police in Miri regarding her rape in Long Mobui. I also gave a statement to the police. and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960. Sub- scribed and solemnly declared by the above named Buet Kayan, at Miri in the state of Sarawak on this day of March 1995 Before me, ...... ..................... Commissioner for Oaths D. The Case of Sonny Laot: killed by tear-gas? Again, this testimony comes in the form of a signed, statutory declaration. STATUTORY DECLARATION I, Bulan Yoh (Birth Certificate No. P1592/86) of Long Mobui, Baram do solemnly and sincerely declare that: 1. I am married to Laot Kayan of Long Mobui, Baram. We are currently living in Long Kerong, Baram. We have six (6) children now living. Five (5) of my children have died, including Sonny Laot who was my youngest child. Sonny was 4 years old when he died on the 6th day of October 1993. 2. Sonny was hospitalised in Marudi hospital for about a month in August/Septem- ber 1993. He was operated on for a swelling on his neck below his left ear. He recovered fully and my husband and I took him back to the Sebatu blockade site. There he actively played with the other children and was eating normally and in general good health. 3. On the second day of our arrival at Sebatu, the tear-gassing and dismantling of the blockade took place. At about 10.00 am that day, a large number of Police Field Force (PFF) personnel and other police personnel wearing red helmets with visors and carrying shields whom I believe to be from the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU), were seen advancing towards the blockade. They were accompanying some officers from the Forest Department and some workers from the logging company that operates in the area. I believe there were more than 300 police personnel present. Some men at the blockade went some distance down the road with the intention of negotiating with the police. But they were immediately arrested upon coming into contact with the Police. 4. The PFF personnel continued their advance and the large group of men who had followed close behind their representatives retreated towards the blockade. When the PFF were about 100 metres from the blockade, they started arresting people in the group. 5. My husband was among this group of men. I saw him being arrested. His arms were forcibly held behind his back by four (4) PFF personnel. I heard him shouting as if he was in pain. I ran towards my husband to help him. At that moment the PFF started throwing tear-gas cannisters at the group without any warning and without any provocation from the group. At the same time those PFF personnel Page 42

that were armed with M-16 rifles surrounded the area around the blockade 6. I was afraid for my children whom I had left in our lamin (an open-walled temporary hut, raised about 6 feet above the ground) located about 100 metres from the blockade. In our lamin were Sonny (4 years), Rose (7-8 years) and Stella (6-7 years). My grandchild Joit Abut (5-6 years) was also in the hut. 7. As I made my way towards our lamin, I saw the PFF throw tear-gas canisters towards the lamins of the people. Some of them landed near our lamin. The gas drifted towards the lamin and enveloped the area. People ran away from the gas. As I tried to get back to our lamin the PFF tried to prevent me and the other people from getting to the lamin. It took me a long time to reach our lamin. 8. When I finally arrived at our lamin, there was tear-gas all around and inside. I was choking from the gas. I rushed inside and found only Sonny there. He was crying, coughing and vomitting from the effects of the tear gas. 9. I took him out of the lamin and went into the nearby forest, to get away from the gas. Sonny was vomitting badly. I tried giving him some water but he drank only a little. 10. That night, I sheltered with Sonny and the rest of the family in a lamin in the forest. Sonny was constantly coughing and vomitting and could hardly eat or drink. 11. The next day we set off on foot for Long Kerong with the other families from the blockade as we were extremely fearful of the Police. On the journey Sonnys condition deteriorated. We only had some Panadol for medication. We travelled for 5 days in the forest and reached Long Sait where we stayed with some relatives. 12. At Long Sait, Sonnys condition continued to worsen. He eventually died on the third day after we arrived in Long Sait (viz. 6-10-93). We buried Sonny in Long Sait. Page 43

Chapter Five: Community Updates Introduction The testimonies of the Penan contained in the two previous chapters should be enough to convince us that there are real and major problems facing the communities in which they live. The problems come from the way in which development (as defined by the state authorities) has taken preference over the culture and rights of the Penan. It is the same for other indigenous communities in Sarawak and elsewhere in Malaysia. The development pushed by the state authorities is one based on money. Land is to be used for the profit it generates. Long-term sustainability and awareness of environmental and social impacts have little place in this vision of development. The Penan, who have practised a communal and guardianship approach to land for centuries, have little place in this vision. They are rapidly being displaced. They are rapidly being displaced not least by the logging. We returned to the communities in 1999. Questions related to the situation being faced by the communities resulted in further confirmation of the appalling consequences of logging, the lack of respect for rights and culture of the Penan, and the struggle which the Penan now face in their daily lives. The results of the survey are presented here. The Communities Twelve communities were visited and interviewed. These were Ba Tik, Long Ajeng, Long Benali, Long Kepang, Long Kerong, Long Lai, Long Lamai, Long Mubui, Long Pengaran, Long Sabai, Long Sait, and Long Sepigen. Population, household and interview details can be found in Table 1. Most of the people were farmers, food gatherers and hunters. Customary Rights All the communities claimed customary rights over farmland, rivers, forest, water catchment areas and burial grounds. In addition, the community at Long Ajeng claimed customary rights over their housing areas and the surrounding areas. The only exception was the community at Long Sepigen, which did not ex- plicitly claim customary rights over their comparatively smaller area of farmland. All the communities interviewed expressed strong reliance on the forest for their livelihood. Dependency on Forest Resources For the communities interviewed, forest is the centre of their universe. In this survey, they have indicated forest as a source of food such as vegetables, meat and fish. Most importantly, it provides water. The communities also get various medicines from the forest. They obtain timber for building, while rotan and damar collected from the forest were sold for cash. Rotan is also used for making handicrafts for sale. The communities also realised the environmental role of the forest. They described the forest as providing space and fresh air. The forest was said to keep the environment cool and provide shade from the sun. Page 44

Effects of Logging The effects of logging on the communities continues to be traumatic. All areas had been, or were about to be, affected. In those communal areas where logging activities have been carried out, the destruction of the forest has deprived the communities of their sources of food (including fruits and vegetables), materials, hunting, fishing, clean water, employment, security and cohesiveness. To put it succintly, the social and environmental fabric of the communities is torn apart. The general adverse effects of logging on the environment was commented on by the communities. To the communities, nature had been destroyed, burnt and it was warm. This general deterioration of the environment has social and physical repercussions. One of the results is that food becomes scarce and the hardship is felt by all affected communities. Animals are now difficult to find and hunting for meat becomes onerous. In Long Sait, for example, the community reported that they had to travel further into the forest from their village in order to hunt. This is typical for other communities as well. Farming also is affected, as farmlands may be destroyed, or the soil composition changes because of the logging. In Ba Tik, Long Benali, Long Mubui, Long Sait and Long Sepigen, it was noted by the communities that the soil of logged-over areas is too dry and hard for cultivation. In many communities, it was also pointed out that fish had died because the waterways dried up. Logging has also adversely affected the supply of clean water for consumption by the communities interviewed. The communities at Ba Tik, Long Benali, Long Lamai, Long Mubui, Long Sait and Long Sepigen reported that the river/water catchment area had dried up. The community at Long Ajeng reported that the water was dirty and undrinkable. The community at Long Lai said that the river was dry and dirty. The source of water at Long Kerong was sometimes dirty. Only in Long Kepang, Long Pengaran and Long Sabai, where logging companies have yet to encroach into their water catchment areas, was the water still clean and safe for consumption. This is one major consequence of logging activities, and one which the state authorities should control. Protection of water catchment areas is essential for both short-term and longer-term sustainability. The fact that these are destroyed with impunity by logging companies is testament to their lack of environmental concern. It is also testament to the lack of political will within the state government, who have failed to ensure that a basic, essential and communal resource is not destroyed for the sake of quick and private profit. Further, the logging companies destroy the vital sources for the communities of materials for building, handicraft and products like rotan. This in turn affects their own ability to earn cash, since these are activities they have depended on to earn some cash income. Employment is also affected. Yet the state government does little. Not just that, when the country was facing intense haze problems, numerous communities interviewed reported that forest fires were rampant in this part of Ulu Baram. These communities said that the forest fires occurred on logged-over forest areas or began from these areas. In Long Kerong, it was reported that half the forest was burnt and a quarter of the forest was destroyed by the logging company, further increasing their hardship. In Long Lamai, it was alleged that half their forested area had been burnt and the burning made it difficult to farm. The community at Long Sait and Long Sepigen also reported forest Page 45

fires destroying the forest. Given the terrible consequences of the haze itself on Sarawak state and the region as a whole (costing our economy millions of ringgit and inestimable health consequences on all of us), and the further environmental and social degradation caused by such burning on the communities living in the forests, it is highly neglectful that the authorities have not acted against errant companies and withdrawn their licenses. One of the claims that the state government makes is that logging provides employment. But the evidence from these communities is the opposite. The destruction of the forest had not just adversely affected income, it leads to unemploy- ment. The communities at Ba Tik, Long Ajeng, Long Benali, Long Kerong, Long Lamai, Long Mubui and Long Sepigen blamed the company and logging for the destruction of the forest, their sources of food and other necessities, as well as income and employment. In Long Ajeng, there is no land for farming and the company stopped the community from entering the forest to look for food. The communities at Ba Tik, Long Benali and Long Mubui further added that the logging company failed to offer them employment opportunity. The communities at Long Kepang and Long Pengaran, which have not been affected by logging at the time this survey was carried out, still had the view that they would be able to make a living as long as the forest is available to them. It probably wont be for long. The communities felt that it would have been better if the company did not come, if the forest were left intact. In Long Lamai, it was anticipated that their livelihood would worsen if the situation persists and there is no external assistance. And to further intensify the negative consequences, all the affected communities reported that poor health plagued the communities during and after logging was carried out in their vicinity. Nine communities stated that logging has caused social ills, with three others (Long Kepang, Long Pengaran and Long Sabai) expecting that the approach of logging companies into their areas would have bad effects too: Sure to have problems if the company gets nearer. The details of community responses can be found in the extensive Table 2. Rights, Injustice and Insecurity Because of the claim to customary rights and the importance of the forests to the communities, nine of the twelve communities are of the opinion that private companies should consult them before logging their areas. Furthermore, two of these communities added that logging should only proceed after they have conveyed their decisions to both the private companies as well as the government. Whilst three of the twelve demurred that the companies had been issued licences and so the communities could not stop them logging, all twelve communities shared the same view that the government had continue to ignore their plight and failed to gazette forest reserves for the communities, despite the fact that the importance of forests in their livelihood have persistently being highlighted to the various authorities. This gave rise to a strong feeling of injustice. Some of the responses on the legal aspects include:- Unfair because the logging company does not obey the law. Unfair. The company and the Police Field Force do not respect customary law. No respect for customary practice! Page 46

The community at Long Ajeng expressed their despair in telling us that they had ceased to care about the situation. There were also consequences because of the role and presence of outsiders. This not only includes the presence of the workers of the logging companies, but also the presence of the Police Field Force (PFF). The latter are stationed at Long Meletap, Sungai Anan, Sungai Selebu and Long Mubui. The communities felt that the PFF were there to protect the logging companies interest. This was borne by the fact that the companies enlisted the assistance of the PFF to threaten the communities protest against the companies logging in their areas. They felt that the PFF was oppressive towards the communities. Four of the communities felt that the attitude and behaviour of the PFF had remained as unsatisfactory as when they had complained to the authorities in 1996. All the communities felt that the presence of PFF was unnecessary. The presence of outsiders has security implications. Amongst the responses to this issue were: Afraid.,The women and children are worried., No assurance., Threatened., Insecure. Community Anger While no answer was recorded for one communitys opinion on logging in their communal land, the others expressed their disappproval over the encroachment of logging companies into their communal land. Three of the communities were angry and another three stated that they are dissatisfied and angry. For the three communities where logging companies are approaching their communal forest areas, their feeling of anguish was more intense. The companies had logged the communities land without consultation or compensation. All the communities were either disagreed with or were opposed to logging activities over their communal land. Four of the communities stated that they have took various actions in protest against these logging activities. All the communities except one, for which no answer was recorded, protested against logging companies approaching their areas. Of these, one community claims that it will protest whether there is provision of compensation. Two others stated that no amount of compensation can be sufficient. The community at Long Kerong reported that they have written numerous letters of protest and had held talks with representatives of the logging companies in their effort to protect their communal forest from logging activities. In Long Benali, the protest actions have reportedly stopped logging in certain areas. Logging Companies Response towards Communities Protests Questions were asked about how the logging companies responded. The testimonies in the last two chapters show how the Penan tried so hard to inform, negotiate and talk to the companies and the authorities about their plight. But these efforts were not reciprocated. Two companies still logging in communal forest were allegedly assisted by the government machinery - the Police Field Force, Forest Officers and the District Office - to cower the communities. This could explain the communities percep- tion of injustice, as alleged earlier. In other instances, the logging companies were reported to have either ignored the communities or continued logging while negotiating. Page 47

Public Health and Medical Facilities Public health and medical facilities for the Penan communities in this region remains poor. Despite the fact that the communities have highlighted the inad- equacies and shortcomings of this public service to the Medical Department and the Health Ministry in 1995 and 1996, there has been little improvement. Except for the increase in health personnel reported in Long Benali, no new clinic/ hospital has been established near the communities. Medical supplies, number of health personnel and the skills of health personnel remain unsatisfactory. The frequency of the flying doctor service visiting the communities in this region remains largely inadequate, even though it was reported that there were occasional increase in frequencies of visits to Long Lamai and Long Sepigen. Medical supplies of the flying doctor service remained poor and insufficient. The skills of health personnel of the flying doctor service was also the same, though improvement was reported in Long Sait. Patients who needed treatments at Marudi or Miri hospital had to go there themselves, when they could have been sent by government helicopters or the flying doctor service. There is still no response from the Medical Department on the collective request of the Penan communities in this region for transport to send patients to the clinic/hospital. Except for Ba Tik, Long Benali, Long Pengaran and Long Sabai, medical officers failed to visit communities since 1995. The medical officers who visited those communities failed to examine the sources of water, except in Long Sabai, or provide medical training and health knowledge to the villagers Education In 1995, the communities had also formally requested for building more schools and better facilities at existing schools for their childrens education. How- ever, facilities have remained insufficient and poor. The complaints about Sekolah Rendah Kerajaan (Government Primary School) Long Sait has seemingly been ignored. Facilities at the school remain inadequate, with the frequency and consistency of classes still unsatisfactory. So was the supply of rations to this primary school. Except for Long Benali, Long Sabai and Long Sait, where such complaints were not recorded, it was noted from the other communities that admission of their children who are more than 8 years old were refused. Except for Long Benali, Long Lai and Long Sait, the primary school authorities failed to assist Penan pupils to get into secondary schools. Conclusion There are clearly still a multitude of problems and issues facing the Penan communities. This survey took in a wide range of people and a wide range of places. But opinion and experience was widespread and shared, that little had been done to help the communities and little had been done to stop the destruction of their rights, land and culture. The basic principle should be to allow the Penan (and other indigenous communites) to be allowed to decide for themselves how to cope with and adapt the many changes that modernisation is inevitably bringing. Instead, they are being told what is best for them (change your whole culture so as to participate in the modern (= individualised, monetary economy). They are Page 48

being left to shoulder the hugely traumatic consequences of wholesale logging of their land. They are not being supported by being provided with infrastructural or other facilities (health and education being two important ones). It is as if the state authorities are content to allow them to disintegrate, the communities to break up, and the culture lost. Maybe this will reduce the protests against the logging and allow the private companies to reap their ill-gained profits unhindered. The state government has claimed that they are spending money on the Penan, as we described in the first chapter. But the result of this survey, and the testimonies given earlier, would indicate that little has been seen on the ground. Rhetoric offers little to the lives of these people. If we are serious about helping the Penan, the securement of their land rights would be a first and immediate step that would then allow them some security and continuity as to allow them to cope with the changes and adapt to new influ- ences in a more controlled, less disastrous manner. Provision of basic facilities and proper health and educational support needs to follow. The recommendations set out in the next pages detail these, and should be supported by all Malaysians who care about what is happening to their country and people. Page 49

Table One: Community profiles Community Population No. of Households No. in group interview Ba Tik 25 10 12 Long Ajeng 872 100 300 Long Benali 90 16 26 Long Kepang 43 10 12 Long Kerong 42 42 20 Long Lai 103 27 30 Long Lamai 98 96 50 Long Mubui 104 28 31 Long Pengaran 27 9 34 Long Sabai 50 23 15 Long Sait 200 35 2 Long Sepigen 71 17 10 Page 50

Table 2 (contd.): The Effects of Logging on the Communities Effect Forest Wood Rotan Long Kepang Still good Long Pengaran OK Long Sabai Some are destroyed OK Ba Tik Destroyed because of the company Long Benali Destroyed, All destroyed Long Mubui Company logged all Long Sait Destroyed Long Kerong ¼ left, ½ burnt, ¼ destroyed by company, Those near village are burnt Long Lai Little left No more Long Lamai Half gone Burnt, taken by company No more, burnt Long Sipigen No more because of logging & burning, destroyed by company Long Ajeng Destroyed Effects Fruits Vegetables Long Kepang Still OK Long Pengaran Still OK Long Sabai Ba Tik Destroyed Difficult to find Long Benali Destroyed Difficult to find Long Mubui Destroyed Difficult to find Long Sait Burnt Difficult to find Long Kerong Still fruits in the jungle Can still be found & planted Long Lai Not much Long Lamai Burnt, No more Long Sipigen Burnt, None, unless planted Long Ajeng Destroyed, No more Effects Nature Social Effect Long Kepang Still good Adverse effect, company getting nearer Long Pengaran Still good Adverse effect, company getting nearer Long Sabai Sure to have problems with company nearer Ba Tik Destroyed, warm Many problems Long Benali Destroyed, warm Many problems Long Mubui Destroyed, warm Many problems Long Sait Destroyed Always bad external effects Long Kerong Destroyed cos of burning Many problems Long Lai Still some left Always problems Long Lamai Half destroyed Many problems Long Sipigen Destroyed, burnt Bad external effects, many problems Long Ajeng No more, forest destroyed More problems Page 51

Table 2 (contd.): The Effects of Logging on the Communities Effects Fish Meat/Animal Water Farm Long Kepang Still OK Sometimes difficult to find Still clean Still OK Long Pengaran Still OK Sometimes difficult to find Still clean Still OK Long Sabai Ba Tik All dead, the river dries up Difficult to find Dry Soil is dry & hard, cannot plant Long Benali All dead, the river dries up Difficult to find Dry Soil is dry & hard, cannot plant Page 52 Long Mubui All dead, the river dries up Difficult to find Dry Soil is dry & hard, cannot plant Long Sait Die because the river dries up Cannot be found near village Long Kerong Still fish in river but difficult to find Still in jungle but difficult to find Still clean, sometimes dirty Still good Long Lai Difficult to find Difficult to find/Difficult to hunt Dry & dirty Long Lamai River dries up, difficult to find fish Difficult to find/Difficult to hunt Dry Difficult because of burning Long Sipigen Many dead because river dries up Difficult to find/Difficult to hunt Small area, land is hard, plant die Long Ajeng Die because river dries up Difficult to find/Difficult to hunt Dirty, cannot drink Cannot plant, nowhere to farm

Table 2 (contd.): The Effects of Logging on the communities Effects Health Legal Long Kepang Diseases sometimes Unfair/ Long Pengaran Diseases sometimes The company does not follow law Long Sabai Always sick Unfair Ba Tik Many diseases/Many are sick Unfair/Company, & PFF do not respect our customary law Long Benali Many diseases/Many are sick Unfair/Company, & PFF do not respect our customary law Long Mubui Many diseases/Many are sick Unfair/Company, & PFF do not respect our customary law Long Sait Many are sick No respect for customary law Long Kerong More diseases Unfair Long Lai Many are sick Long Lamai Bad Unfair Long Sipigen More diseases Unfair Long Ajeng Worsening We dont care Table 3: Should companies log the areas after consultation with the communitiy? Yes, Reason: the forest belongs to us No, Reason: the companies have been issued licences Ba Tik Long Ajeng Long Kepang Long Benali Long Lai Long Mubui Long Kerong* Long Lamai* Long Pengaran Long Sabai Long Sait Long Sepigen * These communities stated that it depends on the communitys decision as conveyed to the government and the company. Table 4: Opinion of community on logging on communal land Dissatisfied* Angry Dissafied & Angry No Opinion Long Ajeng Long Kerong Ba Tik Long Sait Long Benali Long Lai Long Kepang Long Mubui Long Lamai Long Sabai Long Pengaran Long Sipegen * Angry with approaching logging company No consultation with to the communities before logging No compensation to the communities for the logging The community should determine the amount of compensation Page 54

Table 5: Any opposition to logging from the community? Yes No No Answer Ba Tik Long Ajeng* Long Kepang* Long Kerong Long Benali* Long Lai Long Sabai* Long Lamai Long Mubui Long Pengaran Long Sait Long Sipegen * Protest where logging is being carried out * All protest against approaching logging company except for Long Pengaran no answer. They felt that the community should be consulted. Long Lamai will protest with or without compensation, while no amount of compensation is sufficient for Long Sait & Long Sepigen. Table 6: Response of the Company towards communitys protests Company got assistance of PPF, Company ignored Company continued logging while Forest Officers & DO the community negotiating with community to threaten community All communities All except Long Sipengen All except Long Mubui, Long Sait, Long Sipengen Table 7: Are there Police Field Force in/near the Area? Yes No Long Kepang Ba Tik Long Kerong Long Ajeng Long Lai Long Benali Long Lamai Long Pengaran Long Mubui Long Sabai Long Sait Long Sepigen Table 8: PFFs Attitude towards the community compared to 1996 No change Oppressive Ba Tik* Ba Tik* Long Ajeng Long Benali Long Lamai* Long Kepang Long Pengaran* Long Kerong Long Lai Long Lamai* Long Pengaran* Long Sabai Long Sait Long Sepigen Page 55

Table 9: Clinic In/Near Kampong? No No new clinic No improvement in No increase in No improvement since 1995 medical supplies health personnels in skills of personnels since 1995 since 1995 since 1995 Except Long Benali Table 10: The Flying Doctor Service No Increase in frequency No Imrpovement in No improvement in since 1995 medical supplies since 1995 skill of personnels since 1995 Except Long Lamai and Except Long Sait Long Sepigen Serious cases of patients sent to Marudi & Miri by helicopter or flying doctor? No Informed of transport by Medical Dept. for sending patients to clinic/hospital? No Medical personnels visit your area since 1995? Long Ajeng, Long Kepang, Long Kerong, Long Lai, Long Lamai, Long Mubui, Long Sait, Long Sepigen If yes, do they give training/seminar/workshop? No If yes, do they examine the water supply? No • Long Sabai Yes for all questions above except examination of water supply Table 11: School provision No school No new school since 95 Except Long Kepang, Long Kerong, Long Lamai, Long Sait All No improvement in school facilities for all communities - Children >8yrs old not allowed Except Long Benali, Long Sabai, Long Sait (teacher did not in school in your area want to accept children) - Primary school there did not help Except Long Benali, Long Lai, Long Sepigen, Lng Sait pupils to get into secondary school - No development in SRK Long Sait since 1995 All communities - No improvement in SRK Long Sait in terms - do - of frequency and consistency of classes compared to 1995 - No improvement in food supplies in - do - SRK Long Sait compared to 1995 Page 56

Chapter Six: Recommendations for Action Standards of human rights practice and indigenous communities Clearly from the testimonies above, there are a number of issues that need serious attention. Firstly, it is clear that the state governments response to the Penans grievances has been, basically, to ignore them. The agenda of the state government, which is not contradicted by anything coming out of the federal government, is to back the companies who have been given concessions over the land and forest, ignore native customary claims, ignore protests that communities suffer as a result and that lives are impoverished, and show the indigenous culture a com- plete lack of respect. This agenda is driven by the states desire to open up land to commercial ex- ploitation (which includes logging, plantation development, tourist development, and other such projects), to reward corporate endeavour (at the expense of the marginalised communities) and to hail the Ômodern, monetary economy as setting THE standards and norms to which every other culture must kow-tow. Where neces- sary, the state has not been slow to mobilise the police, special forces, Forest Department and other officials and institutions, to force its agenda on to dis- senting communities. Arrests, harassment, the use of physical force including tear gas, and the imprisonment of indigenous people trying to get their voice heard are all a part of this enforcement. The message coming continually from government spokespeople is that indigencous communities, including the Penan, are an obtacle to development. They are treated as such. Additionally, specific incidents, even where reported to the police, are also dealt with inadequately. Allegations of murder and rape, for example, have received little action from the police, or, if they have, there has been little information about the progress and follow-up of the investigation. It is extremely sad that Malaysian citizens cannot get redress for these heinous crimes from the very people who are given the responsibility to safeguard all our interests. It should be noted that there are a variety of national and international declarations which can act as a reference point for principles and standards to be evaluated against, in terms of how the Penan have been, and are being, treated. These include the general standards of human rights, as well as specific references to indigenous peoples rights, set out by, for example, • The Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Sarawak, Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia, adopted in Sibu on 30 April 1993 by the participants of the NGOs National Indigenous Peoples Forum in conjunction with the UN Year of Indigenous Peoples. • The Malaysian Human Rights Charter. • The Federal Constitution of Malaysia. • The Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, • The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. • Agenda 21, which has a number of references to indigenous peoples. There are major gaps between the practice and response of the Sarawak state government and the Malaysian Federal government to the issues faced by Penan (and other indigenous) communities, and the principles and practices espoused by these documents. The lack of regard for cultural integrity, the lack of regard for land claims, the lack of regard for any consultation process or ackowledgement that it should be the people in these communities themselves who decide as far as possible how Page 57

they want their future to unfold,the lack of investigation into complaints and reported incidents, indeed the lack of incorporation of Penan wishes (or any indigenous peoples) into any development model - all of these are testament to the fact that the Sarawak state government and the federal government have an agenda which does not give any centrality to the Penan or to other indigenous communities. They are excluded from any decision made about their future. They are told what development model they must follow. They are instructed to allow outsiders tram- ple over their land, destroy their forests and pollute the rivers, because this is Ôdevelopment. The forests and rivers are what the Penan call home, they are a heritage which the Penan guard carefully and have nursed holistically, to be safe for future generations. Now it is all being destroyed. It is a strange definition of development. As a Penan representative once said: This is not development, but theft. Recommendations Given the dire situation that faces Penan communities, and their obvious concern, the federal and state governments are called upon to: Recognise the right of the communities to be at the centre of, and controlling, any decision-making process about their future and what development they want; As an essential part of this, recognise immediately the native customary land of the Penan (and other indigenous communities) and give legal entitlement to it; Suspend all logging and any other licences which infringe on indigenous land, until a Public Enquiry is held, whereby all the Penan communities are consulted and their grievances listed and answered; Order with immediate effect a full investigation into the abuses detailed in this report , including the murder of Abung Ipui and the death of Geran Tan, such an investigation to be conducted speedily and with a publicly available report at the end of it. The police must follow the principles of impartiality, accountability and trans- parency in their dealing with the Penan, meaning that any police report must be accepted and acted upon, and the process and results of investigations made available to the complainants; The role of the PFF to be investigated by an Independent Enquiry, open to the public and able to address any complaints the Penan may have about thebehaviour of PFF members; Urgent investigation into the activities of logging and other companies, paying particular regard to destruction of farmlands, graveyards and other land they have not been licenced to log, and to the probability that many of them have been involved in illegal clearing (possibly through burning). Culprits must be brought to court, and proper compensation payments ordered and paid; All logging and other land development licences must be made subject to an independent social and environmental impact assessment, such an assessment to have a public component, whereby the public can view and comment on the assessment prior to its approval or rejection; Health, educational and other basic facilities must be upgraded to a decent standard, as this is a right of any Malaysian. This needs doing now. We call on all Malaysians to support these actions. Page 58

Not Development But Theft (PDF)

by Sarawak Headhunter on Aug 08, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Not Development But Theft (PDF) — Document Transcript