Not Development But Theft (PDF)

Page

Page

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 - 329695Email: [email protected]

Printer:

Soft Print51, Jalan Tuanku Osman, 1 Jalan Sukan, 96000 Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia

ISBN 983-40225-2-2

�Not Development, but Theft�

The testimony of Penan communities in Sarawak

This Report is based on a Fact-Finding Mission andcommunity survey.

Page

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

Table of Contents

PreambleAcknowledgements

Page

Page

Preamble

Preface

This report is mainly the result of a Fact Finding Mission which went to UluBaram, Sarawak in 1995. All of us have heard about the Penan. We may know thatthey are one of the many groups of indigenous people in Sarawak (indeed, inMalaysia as a whole) whose lives and cultures have been utterly transformed bythe advent of logging and other �land development� that has occurred, especiallysince the 1980s. We may be aware also of the apparently contradictory informa-tion 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 welllooked after, that a number of initiatives have been taken on their behalf andthat there is no problem.

On the other hand, there have been, and continue to be, reports of continuedblockades, violence, arrests, human rights abuses and general unhappiness fromPenan themselves. Claims have been made that their land rights are being tram-pled on, their culture denigrated and lost, and their efforts to clarify, nego-tiate 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. Thisreport contains the evidence of that visit.

Dedication

This report is dedicated to all Penan who have been struggling so long andagainst such odds, in an effort to uphold their rights and future. They need oursupport.

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 tohelp 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 RainforestMovement, 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 thenorthwest of the island of Borneo. Some 43% of the state�s population are madeup of indigenous communities. Collectively, these indigenous people are known asDayaks, 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 be-tween Eastern and Western Penan. They inhabit some of the remotest areas ofSarawak. 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 havereceived a certain amount of local and international attention because of thefact 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 amongstindigenous groups in Malaysia. Whether nomadic or (semi-)settled, their strug-gle to preserve their culture and way of life has been a constant one, and hasbeen particularly marked over the last fifteen years, as loggers and other landdevelopers have been given concessions over the forest and other areas in whichthe Penan have long resided and which they consider under their protection andguardianship.

The situation faced by the Penan is similar to that faced by the other indig-enous communities in Sarawak. There has been considerable documentation on thevarious aspects of this situation and the struggles and responses that haveensued. Not least has been the description of how the culture practised by theindigenous groups is viewed with askance by the Malaysian federal and stategovernments, who seem hell-bent on �modernising� both the cultures and the agri-cultural practices maintained by the indigenous groups.

This conflict centres on land. For most indigenous communities, native customaryland (including forest areas) is essential for them to hunt, gather and practicetheir cultivation. It is central to their culture, which sees �guardianship� ofsuch 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, whoare especially dependent on it for hunting and gathering (including for medi-cines, building materials and resources for utensils).

The �guardianship� of the forest and its resources expresses itself throughPenan terms such as tana pengurip and molong. Tana pengurip is the conceptwhereby Penan claim customary land, and carries with it the implication thatsuch land will be held under stewardship for future generations. Tana penguripdefines areas claimed by each community and these areas are mutually recognisedand respected. It is also important to note that the Penan do not clear theforest to establish their claim to it. The practice whereby a community or indi-vidual can claim a particular resource is expressed through molong, again withthe implication that this resource will not be over-harvested but will be keptsustainable to serve the needs of the present and the future. It is important tonote that these concepts, similar to practices of other indigenous groups inSarawak, reject the concept of private ownership, locating the main responsibil-ity of �ownership� not just with the community but also across generations. Thisis in direct contrast to the practice of �modern� Malaysia, where land is boughtand sold as a commodity and exploited by an individual or a company without muchregard for issues of sustainability.

But whereas the communities will know the extent and boundaries of the nativecustomary land, the legal recognition of such by the state has become more andmore ambiguous and circumvented, so that the present situation is that the state

1

Page

authorities have little sympathy with such recognition and are content to sup-port loggers and other land �developers� access to such land. Indeed, as onerecent publication argues, there has been a consistent trend not only to changelegislation to allow the state more access and control over the land, but har-assment, victimisation and marginalisation of those in indigenous communities(and anyone else) protesting for native customary rights has been constant andeven intensified. In this, the mobilisation of state institutions, including thepolice and the judiciary, has been a feature.

At the same time, there has been something of a propaganda war, in whichMalaysian federal and state authorities have attempted to paint a rosy pictureof the �development� being made available to Penan and other indigenous groups,and blame any resistance on foreign agitators1. There is little balance in thecoverage of the actual situation in the local Malaysian media, which often makesit 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 fromMalaysian and Sarawak authorities, there were many reports reaching us that thePenan were facing serious difficulties and were not at all happy with the stategovernment�s treatment of them. The evidence we found in the Penan communitiesis presented here.

Background events

It may be helpful just to recap a little on the background events to which muchof the evidence in this report refers.

It needs to be remembered, for example, that it was by the mid-1980s that log-ging in particular had gathered pace in Sarawak. As admitted by the politicalparties themselves, logging concessions being given out as part of the politicalpatronage system. No environmental or social impact assessments were done oflogging impacts. Land rights issues were ignored and legislation amended to makeit easier for the government and logging companies to log the land. There waslittle or no consultation with indigenous communities and little or no priorwarning given to them directly, that their land was about to be invaded andtheir forests threatened or destroyed. These included the Penan, including thePenan in Ulu Baram.

The impact on the communities was, as might have been expected, traumatic. Notonly was there considerable confusion about why the government was allowing�outsiders� to log land on which their culture and livelihoods depended, but theway in which the loggers destroyed forest areas, farming areas and graveyardsand polluted vital streams and rivers made many in the communities extremelyangry. However, when they tried to claim land rights, or negotiate with thelogging companies and/or the police or bring their complaints to the relevantauthorities, nothing was done and their lands continued to be ravaged.

By the late-1980s, many in many communities were desperate. Petitions and pleasfor help had fallen on deaf ears. As a final resort, attempts were made toblockade logging roads, to stop the destruction of the land. Penan communitieswere no exception.

For example, by February 1987, Penan in Ulu Baram were issuing a series of ap-peals to the Government to halt the logging of their lands. The mood may beindicated through such statements as

�Stop destroying the forest or we will be forced to protect it. The forest isour livelihood. We have lived here before any of you outsiders came. We fishedin clean rivers and hunted in the jungle. We made our sago meat [starch] and atefruit of the trees. Our life was not easy, but we lived it in content. Now thelogging companies turn rivers into muddy steams and the jungle into devastation.

2

Page

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 barricadesacross the logging roads and again called on the Government to halt the fellingof their forest. The action escalated so that, within a couple of months, otherDayak groups, including the Kenyah, Kayan, Lunbawang and Kelabit, joined theprotest.

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 theirconcerns to the Federal Government. However, during their meetings with severalministers 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 toKuala Lumpur, generated massive press coverage world-wide and helped developwhat became a sustained international campaign of protest directed at Malaysianand Sarawak State Governments. These protests highlighted the excessive loggingof 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 initiativeswere taken to �look into� the situation and certain monies or publicity given toparticular projects or initiatives to �help� the indigenous peoples, especiallythe 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 forthe Penan and the amount of money given for Penan projects3.

For example, the state government announced a million dollar programme of aidfor Penan forest dwellers to be launched early in 1989. In May 1990, the ChiefMinister of Sarawak, Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud, adopted twoPenan children on his 54th birthday and called for other rich people to do thesame. In late 1990, the Chair of the Penan Affairs Committee, Datuk Abang Joharibin Tun Openg, revealed that the government had spent RM 4.4 million to providebasic facilities to the Penan in Baram, Belaga and Limbang. He announced thatsince 1988, nineteen Penan had been trained as volunteers to help others.

Certainly there had been efforts to improve basic facilities for Penan communi-ties, with the added difficulty of the remoteness of many of the settlements andthe unwillingness of Penan communities to be relocated. Health and educationalfacilities were expanded and the use of the Penan Volunteer Force was an effortto reach Penan through training their own children. The overall aim was to teachPenan basic literacy skills, more settled agricultural methods and to equip themfor participation in the more modern, cash economy. In addition, there wereseveral programmes where �hand-outs�, for example of building materials orseeds, 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 andhave some effect, although exactly what needs some detailed evaluation. Other ofthese initiatives never got off the ground - the biosphere proposal being onesuch example. Many in the Penan community, as we will see, saw little result ofany of these initiatives or promises, and have become somewhat sceptical ofgovernment claims that the Penan are being helped. What is for certain is thatnone of these proposals or initiatives addressed what for many was (and is) thebasic grievance: that their land and cultural rights should be recognised.

What many Penan saw instead was what was happening on the other hand. Here, amuch tougher stance was being taken by the authorities. Legislation was changedand other machinery mobilised to ensure logging and other state-led �develop-

3

Page

ment� schemes continued without question. For example, in the late-1980s, secu-rity forces were moved into areas where resistance was most rife, especiallywhere 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 ar-rested and changed with burning some bridges belonging to a timber company.

In October, as part of the Malaysian government�s crackdown against oppositionelements, Harrison Ngau, who ran the Sarawak office of SAM, was detained underthe Internal Security Act, which allows for arbitrary detention without trial.This was followed by a mass arrest of 42 Kenyah and Kayan natives from UmaBawang, Baram. They were charged in November under the Penal Code with �ob-structing the police�, �wrongful restraint� and �the unlawful occupation ofstate land�.

In the same month, at the November Sarawak state assembly sitting, the memberspassed a Forest Amendment bill which made those interfering with logging opera-tions liable to a heavy fine (maximum six thousand Malaysian dollars) and im-prisonment (up to two years).

But the protests continued. In late October, 1988, the number of barricades hadincreased 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 block-ades. 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 weare trying to defend ourselves because we don�t 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. Theirblockade was dismantled and twelve of them were charged under the Forest Ordi-nance. Between 12th and 16th January 1989, 105 Penans were arrested on thesuspicion of involvement in mounting blockade at two roads in logging areas andin September a total of 117 Penan and Kelabit were arrested for allegedly set-ting 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 tothe experience at blockades. Two of the most persistent and well-supportedblockades 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, mainlyfrom the south of Ulu Tutoh in the upper reaches of the Baram rivers. The largelogging company, Samling, had been given a concession to log and the Penan wereblockading the logging road as a final effort to ask the company to please leavetheir land alone.

By July, the number of Penan participating in the blockade had grown to some530. In mid-July, the people heard from a radio broadcast that the state govern-ment would cut basic facilities from communities involved in the blockade. Fur-thermore, it was said that those involved would be imprisoned for 2 months witha maximum jail sentence of 10 years for any subsequent offence. Six truckloadsof armed forces personnel from Miri were stationed at Samling company�s basecamp.

On 24th July, the first blockade was dismantled by the timber company. But asecond blockade was immediately put up about half a mile away from the firstone. In mid-August, the Police Commissioner, Datuk Mohd. Ghazali Yacob, visitedthe blockade site and told the people that the forest belongs to the governmentand that they must dismantle the blockade. In the same month, the villagers

4

Page

filed a formal complaint to the Police that a Penan man and woman had been mur-dered. However, there was apparently no investigation or inquiry, one of severalreports of serious incidents that seem to have been ignored, as we shall see.

In October, the company organised a meeting where they promised the communitiesrice mills, chain saws, garden tools, compensation for their land and even aproposed salary of RM 600.00/month for each headman, provided the logging wasallowed to continue. A deadline was set by the company for the removal of theblockade 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 visitthe 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 SvendRobinson visited the Pelutan blockade. Inevitably, his visit provoked a storm ofprotest from the Malaysian authorities, who later accused him of inciting thePenan to use violence to defend the blockade.

On 29th January, the people participating in the blockade were served with threeMagistrate Court Orders to dismantle the blockade within 14 days. However, thepeople 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 readverbatim stories of this incident later in this report: it can be noted thatmost at the site at this time were children and elderly, because the adults hadbeen persuaded by the National Registry Office to return to their respectivevillages to make/register their identity cards. The destruction of the blockadewas violent. You can read about it below. But no enquiry has ever been held andno official report ever presented on the incidents and abuses that may have beenperpetrated on this day.

Another major blockade of the Penan was put out at Sebatu near Long Muboi, fur-ther inland from the previous blockade at Ulu Segah, on 24th February 1993. By3rd March, there were some 200 people at the blockade site. The District PoliceOfficer of Marudi and the Penan Liaison Officer, Hassan Sui, arrived to conducta dialogue with the people. Officials of the Forestry Department dismantled theblockade.

On 30th March, about 300 Penan, mostly those who had participated the earlierblockade, erected another blockade at the same site. On 29th May, a dialogue washeld between the Penan, Government officials and the timber company representa-tives. No agreement was reached on the matters.

On 16th June, another meeting took place. The timber company promised to build aroad to Long Muboi, provide piped water supply and outboard engines. In addi-tion, the timber company would give annual goodwill (money) to the Penan in thearea. But the Penan wanted their land respected and their rights secured. Nodeal.

Finally, on 28th September, some seven months after it was erected, the blockadeat Sebatu was dismantled by Forest Department personnel after a huge operationwas mounted, involving Police Field Force and other state personnel. Tear gaswas used and again, you can read reports of the violence and consequences of thestate-authorised action against its own people. Eleven Penans were arrested andproduced in the Marudi District Court. They were later released without charge.

Why our Mission?

This recent history seems contradictory. The government claims, that programmesare in place to help the Penan and that their needs are being catered to, stands

5

Page

at odds with the fact that so many communities and so many people within thesecommunities have been involved in petitioning the state government on basicgrievances and have even gone as far as blockading. The erection and maintenanceof blockades is no small matter. To keep a blockade going for several months, ashas happened in the case of some Penan blockades, represents a major sacrificeof time and money by the communities involved. Instead of pursuing their normallifestyle - hunting, gathering and farming (the latter where the Penan are semi-settled or settled) - these activities are pretty much stopped so that theblockades can be protected. This causes further impoverishment and difficultiesfor the community, never mind the consequences of opposing the companies and thepolice. It clearly is not something that has been undertaken lightly, and repre-sents an anger and a frustration that obviously has its basis in the situationin which the Penan have found themselves.

Why would they need to resort to such action if their interests really are beinglooked after by the government?

Further, there were at this time several reports of violence and injuries (in-cluding fatalities) arising from dismantling of blockades and/or from harassmentof certain indigenous leaders and communities. The use of tear gas againstMalaysians (resulting in death), murder, rape, beatings and intimidation werementioned. These are highly serious crimes and certainly do not concur with anyrosy picture that �all is okay for the Penan�.

Given the contradictory nature of reports, it was decided to send a fact-findingMission 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, particu-larly with regard to possible problems faced by the Penan inthe 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 mayhave resulted in a police report, and to attempt to follow-upwith 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 wellas any alleged victims or their relatives or other witnesses;

• To compile and analyse the information gathered to establishany persistence of certain violations and/or to establishtrends and patterns;

• To find out from the communities what kind of redress they wantfor the violations they have suffered, and what kind of mecha-nism they propose for the negotiation and settlement of theirgrievances 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 halfwaythrough. At Long Palai, the boat capsized and one of the team members, JustinLouis, drowned. We will always cherish his memory and salute his sacrifice.

The second trip took place from March 5th -17th (field) and 18th - 22nd 1995in 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 or-ganisations.

6

Page

The second mission visited a number of communities, including Long Suit, LongSepigen, Long Kerong, Long Sait, Lio Matu, Sunggai Selaan, Long Ajeng and LongMuboi. Face to face interviews with members of the community, together withgroup meetings (often attended by over 40 people), resulted in a mass of testi-mony and evidence about the conditions faced by the Penan. As well as interview-ing, the team members also inspected sites, dispensed medicine and helped Penanfollow-up on various complaints with the authorities. A visit to Marudi was partof 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 surveyform 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, whoseculture and way of life is being extinguished. Their rights as Malaysians and asindigenous people have been ignored. In the same breath that the Sarawak au-thorities are promoting the Cultural Village near Kuching as a major touristattraction, revealing the rich cultural diversity of the state, they are de-stroying the land and rights of exactly those indigenous groups, including thePenan, they claim to promote.

It needs to stop. The Penan and other groups need to be given the room, thespace, the right to determine for themselves the future they want. Recognitionof their land rights would be a start to this process. Read and listen to theirtestimonies 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 (andSarawakian) authorities. Scape-goating foreigners as a way to avoid confrontingthe real problems that face the indigenous communities is not an answer, in ouropinion. But, for example, in 1993, the Malaysian Government announced the for-mation of a task force (funded by the Malaysian Timber Industry DevelopmentCouncil) with a budget of over RM 10 million to counter anti-logging campaignsand the �lies� of Western environmentalists. Quite what these lies were wasnever told to the Malaysian people. The facts about how much forests werelogged, the environmental destruction caused, and the anger and fate of theindigenous 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, re-vealed that 52,000 hectares of Gunung Mulu National Park and 12,000 hectares ofthe Ulu Melana Protected Forests, as well as the proposed 160,000 hectares ofPulong Tau National Park, had been identified as biosphere reserves for thenomadic Penan. A map of the area of special forest for Penan can even be foundin the local Malaysian newspaper, the New Straits Times, 19/10/1993. Until to-day, nothing has happened to this scheme.

7

Page

Chapter Two: Penan Testimonies

Introduction

During the Fact-Finding Mission, a number of communities were visited and anumber of testimonies recorded. These came from individual interviews and fromgroup meetings. The following are records of testimonies from these communities,and indicate the many, very serious problems which the Penan face acrossSarawak. Action clearly needs to be taken by the appropriate authorities, notleast in changing the basis on which the authorities �respond� to indigenouscommunities like the Penan. Instead of telling them what is good for them, andsupporting the destruction of their land and culture, the authorities need toput the Penan themselves back at the centre of decisions about the future. Ifthis does not happen, the special culture and unique history of these peoplewill be destroyed forever.

A: The Testimony from LONG BENALIH

Interviewees (interviewed on 10.03.1995):

1. Tua Kampong Sound Bujang (41), married, 7 children, farmer2. Rocky Bujang (40), married, 6 children, farmer3. 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 ofGunung Murud. The villagers in Long Benalih are mainly farmers.

The community of Long Benalih and Ba Pengaran share a communal forest, as thetwo settlements are situated close to each other.

Samling began their logging operation near the communal forest of Ba Pengaranand Long Benalih in 1992. Shin Yang, another logging company, started its opera-tion 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 thetree trunks as identifications.

Back in August 1992, when the logging operation was about three miles from theboundary of this communal forest, a group of villagers, led by the village head-man, went to the logging camp of Samling at Camp Kelesa, to tell them of theboundary and warned them that they should first consult the whole village commu-nity before they thought of entering and logging in the forests of Long Benalihand Ba Pengaran. At that meeting, the villagers met Corporal Peter Balang (aKelabit) and the camp manager, known as Ah Kee and also Sia (a Chinese).

The camp manager promised that they would inform the villagers and negotiatefirst 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 hispromises. The village representatives trusted him because of the presence ofpolice personnel.

However, two weeks after the meeting, villagers of Long Benalih heard the noiseof the bulldozers coming from the mountain, and the noise of chainsaws and treesbeing felled. Immediately, the Headman and a group of villagers went to inspect

8

Page

the forest. They found that the company�s concession was already about a mileinto the communal forest.

The villagers confronted the camp workers but the camp workers claimed that theydid not know about the boundary and the promise of the camp manager. These work-ers apologized and turned back.

After two days, villagers who were sent out to monitor reported that the loggingin the communal forest had resumed. For the next two days, a village meeting wascalled to discuss the matter.

After the meeting, which concluded that they would not allow any logging activi-ties in the communal forest, a group went to check on the operation again. Itwas found that the company had entered the communal land up to about threemiles, close to Sg. Benalih. A road was found to have been bulldozed through thecommunity�s forest reserve and the trees that previously had stood on it hadbeen taken out.

Sg. Benalih was now polluted because mud caused by the logging had been washeddown into the river.

When the villagers reached the site it was almost dark and the timber workershad returned to their camp. The villagers then walked up the road to the bound-ary and tied a rattan across the road and put up a sign to point out the bound-ary. The purpose of putting up this sign was to inform the timber company andworkers 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 thathe must come to Long Benalih to consult the people if the company wanted to login the communal forest. A date and time was proposed. This letter was put on theside of the road. A few days later, TK Abeng of Long Mobui came to deliver aletter from the logging company, asking for a meeting with the villagers on theroad 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 LongBenalih and Ba Pengaran went to the site. The villagers waited a full day but noone from the timber company turned up. That night, a small hut was erected andall the villagers stayed the night there. The next morning, a land cruiser ofthe timber company came. The driver and another passenger saw us but, withoutsaying anything, they turned back.

At about noon, another pick-up truck that was carrying four persons came. Theywere timber camp workers and told the villagers that the meeting would now beheld in the camp site. However, they also said that it was not permissible forsuch a big group to go since the truck could only take a limited number of thevillage representatives.

The villagers insisted that the meeting be held where the boundary is so thatboth sides are clear where the boundary is. The community also insisted that allmust take part in the meeting, instead of sending a few representatives for themeeting.

The pick-up truck went back to the camp and returned with two other trucks atabout two in the afternoon, wanting to ferry all villagers to the meeting at thecamp. They company�s spokesperson also promised that monetary compensation wereready for all villagers, while food and drinks are ready at the camp. The vil-lagers 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. Therewere about 50 people from the logging company, 50 police field force personnel,

9

Page

forestry officers and a SAO (State Administration Officer), Metaib bin Sayu.

Henry Kong, a policeman who said that he represented the police force and theforestry officers, told the villagers that he was the leader of the group. Heasked why the villagers erected the marking on the boundary and if they wereaware that what was done was illegal.

The villagers explained what had happened earlier and the camp manager himselfconfessed that he had earlier promised to negotiate before entering the communalforest. The SAO then said that the company has broken the promise. There was nonegotiation after that. The timber camp workers removed the nine units of bull-dozers from the site and they did not return after that.

At the end of 1993, when Interhill�s logging operation near the other part ofthe communal forest was about a mile out, the company�s surveyors marked thetrees up to the villagers� boundary. The villagers sent a team to meet the com-pany�s supervisor, Thomas Ling, and his surveyors on the logging road. The vil-lagers asked to meet the camp manager and a meeting was scheduled at Shin Yang�slogging road, on the other side of Sg. Akar.

The manager, only known as Mr. Su, came to meet the villagers and he promisedthat he would not enter the communal forest to log before he had obtained priorconsent 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 destroyour land and forest.�

B. The testimony from LONG KEPANG


1. Tua Kampong Sakun Parong (69), married to wife Nyabung Apat, 6 children,farmer

2. Nyabung Apat (65), wife of TK, farmer3. Robert Sakun (45), married, 3 children, farmer

Long Kepang has 10 families and a total population of 46. The settlement is nearthe mouth of Sg. Kepang and at the foot of Gunung Murud. All the villagers arefarmers.

Locals have heard that Samling�s logging operation will come in from LongBenalih but the operation has been stopped at the moment because of a disputewith 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 thetrees that are at the border of the communal forest.

Since last year, delegations that were made up by appointed villagers went to BaKerameu a few times to talk to the Manager of Shin Yang, asking the company notto log in Long Kepang. On the last meeting on 7th January this year, the Compa-ny�s manager, only known as Chia, told the villagers that the company will notlog in Long Kepang�s forest unless the villagers have agreed.

The TK has wanted to go to Marudi and Miri to meet the government officials to

10

Page

ask for recognition of the rights of locals over the communal forest but he wasunable to do so because of his health. However, for the past three years, afterlogging near to Long Kepang started, the TK has sent letters to the DistrictOffice demanding written recognition of land rights over the communal forest. Asketch map has also been sent to the authorities.

Villagers of Long Kepang have met earlier and it is a collective decision toreject logging operations in forests belonging to Long Kepang.

C: The testimony from LONG LAMAI


1. Tua Kampong Belare Jabu (60), married to Kaseh Jengan, 3 children, farmer2. Lukas Nyato (40), married, 1 child, farmer3. Mawa Abeng (40), married, 3 children, farmer4. Robert Jengan (28), married, 3 children, farmer5. Jau Bollo (29), married, 4 children, farmer6. Wilson Bian Belare (23), married, 1 child, farmer7. Isai Ujang (25), married, 1 child, farmer8. Ravi Lilin (28), married, 4 children, farmer9. Noh Bollo (27), married, farmer10. Lian Adan (40), married, 8 children, farmer11. Roland Adan (38), married, 3 children, farmer12. Moni Lian (12), student

Long Lamai has 93 families and a total population of 390. All the villagersresiding here are farmers.

The settlement is situated along Sg. Malong and is at the foot of Gunung TokongSalip.

On 16.10.1994, Lukas went hunting in the forest that belongs to the community ofLong Lamai. On the way, he met a group of strangers who claimed that they weresurveying the forests in this region. Lukas immediately went back to inform theTK.

TK called for a village meeting that night and led a group of representativesappointed at the meeting to meet this team of surveyors, wanting to know theirpurposes of entering this communal forest without asking for permission.

12 villagers went on the trip the next day. Setting out in three teams, theywere TK Belare Jabu, Lukas Nyato, Nyato Engan, Hossien Geng, Baya Asen, MawaAbeng, Richard Jengan, Robert Jengan, Jaeng Jengalah, Jau Bollo, Killa Taee andLim 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 companymanager because the workers refused to tell them why they were surveying theforest.

The villagers were brought to the Base Camp of Samling and they met the Chinesecamp manager who the workers called Manager Beruang (Loud voice). The CampManager 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 theirsurvey work.

11

Page

The villagers had earlier put paint on the trees as a means of identifying thevillagers� forest reserves. But the timber camp workers encroached into the landanyway and continued to do clearing work for a road.

On 9.11.1994, villagers went into the forest again. This time, a rope was tiedacross 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 LongLamai saying that they are investigating a reported case of stolen canned foodfrom a Samling logging camp in Long Metapa. They were:

1. Ketua Inspektor (Chief Inspector) Narizan B. Jusoh;2. Kpl. 43535 Savan Teging; and3. C. Kpl. 34585 Emang, all of BN Ke-12, PPH Miri.

They said that the timber camp reported that villagers from Long Lamai had sto-len canned food belonging to the camp. All the villagers denied any responsibil-ity 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 backthe rope with a sign on the road to inform any timber camp workers of the bound-ary to the land belonging to Long Lamai. At that time, the road was about 10feet 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 meet-ing with the company. The villagers told him that the timber camp manager wasunlikely to be sincere (he had not bothered to turn up at the previous meetingand had accused Long Lamai villagers of stealing from his camp) and so the com-munity was not interested in meeting him at the camp. Singan told the villagersthat putting up a rope across the boundary was useless since it would only betaken down by the policemen and the field force personnel. He left after sendingthis message. Some villagers went to the site to find that the rope had againbeen removed.

On 17.01.1995 and with the agreement of a village meeting, an open letter waswritten on a board which was erected on the road. The content of this letterread: �A warning that the company should not enter without consultation andpermission 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 washand-delivered by a villager named Jau to the District Officer in Marudi andHassan Sui in Miri, to inform them of illegal logging in the villagers� communalforest. They accepted the letter but did not make any comment. The road wasabout 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 theforest 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 timbercamp workers removing the board that had been erected earlier. Villagers toldthem to stop removing the board and informed them that the community had writtento 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)

12

Page

agreed that they should stop the work.The work on the forest has stopped sincethen.

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 theforest has been cleared.

They have consistently said that no compensation will be enough for the forestbecause 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 dutyto 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 Lamaisettlement. During the colonial times, a British mission came to look for themand advised them to settle down. He was one of the first batch of Penan studentswho had formal education provided by the British in 1953.

He pointed out that life was easy at that time. All the villagers farmed andwent into the forest to look for food. Most children went to school. Elderslearnt to farm. People were told to farm so as not to be so dependent on theforest alone, and to have food more permanently.

�They were good in teaching us to farm. I am not saying that the Malaysian gov-ernment is bad. Because we see our forest being destroyed, we are sad.�

�We believe that the government will consider and give us the forest reservethat is ours and stop logging in our area. Otherwise we will have to act todefend 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, amission led by Morgan and Lithem Griffin visited the area and brought people toLio Matoh, where they were given education and were taught to farm. After half ayear, some Penan left to settle down in Long Kerong, some in Long Sait whileothers returned to Long Spigen.

In 1972, the District Officer, Edwin Dundang, visited the locals in Long Spigenand gave them permission to stay permanently in Long Spigen. He also agreed onthe boundary of their land and communal forest.

Interviews were conducted on the farmland of Long Spigen. The farmland is abouthalf an hour�s walk from the village. Here, the locals get their supply of rat-tan, �Sega Sarawak�, mainly growing wild but over which the villagers take greatcare to ensure their sustainability. Many fruit trees are also grown here. Mostof the forest has been kept intact, for provisions and supplies, for example ofmedicinal herbs. Only small patches have been cleared, most recently for ricefields.Ngedau Idah was asked by villagers to give an account of the history and why thelocals claim this land as theirs. He said that during the period of Japaneseoccupation, groups of foreigners came to investigate the livelihood of the

13

Page

Penan. During that time, the people were mainly nomadic, later settling down inLong Spigen. There were no people from other indigenous communities staying inthe same area.

Singin Lawin, a woman who owns a plot of land here which has been destroyed bylogging operation, said that the locals had cultivated and tended the land longbefore the company ever entered. She said that she had also met the workers ofthe company and the police field force personnel to tell them that the land ishers and other villagers. �When we put up resistance, they brought in more fieldforce personnel�, she said. She also recalled one instance when a field forcepersonnel pointed a gun at her when she insisted that the land is hers. �Even ifwe 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 ofthe group of field force that came, warned the locals not to confront the fieldforce personnel. And Pelutan Tiun , the village head, a farmer with 7 childrendescribed the following situation:

In April this year, families came to prepare their land for planting padi. InMay, the logging company (Keresa) entered this area. Before they started workingin the area that belongs to Long Spigen, we met them at the logging road near toour farm. At that time, we were told that they were only surveying the land. Wetold them that this is our area and they should not enter without our permis-sion.

We met the manager of the logging company and his supervisor on the logging roadthree times. There were no negotiations. They insisted that they have the rightsto log the forest. At the fourth meeting, the manager and his supervisor camewith his workers and a group of about 30 field force personnel. The workers aremainly Iban and they were more sympathetic. They refused to bulldoze our landeven though the manager ordered them to do so.

The field force personnel then stood in a line between us and the timber campworkers. The Manager himself got on to one of the bulldozer and started destroy-ing our farmland. We could not do anything because the field force personnelwere all carrying guns and they ignored our protests. We had to return back tothe kampong that day.

The next day onwards, the field force personnel came with the camp workers. Theystood near the bulldozers while the camp workers bulldozed through our land tomake 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 nego-tiate for compensation because we want to save our land. We do not want to sellour land to the company. We want to find the means to stop the logging operationhere to preserve our forest. From here, we get our supply of rattan, medicineand 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 of-ficer, Jebat (as written on his name tag), Iban, about 35, was always seen withthe camp manager. He was very rude to the local villagers and claimed to speakfor both the company and the government. He said: �This is the government�s planto develop the area. You should not stop the company�s operation. If you want tostop this, go to Miri and Kuching to talk to the government. If you continue, wewill send in more field force. We will arrest those who protest against log-ging.�

14

Page

At a meeting in Ulu Sega, Tua Kampong and a group of villagers went to seeBalang Seling (former Senator and President of the Orang Ulu Association),Hassan Sui, Resident Miri (a Malay) and District Officer Achee (a Kelabit) totell them about the problems faced because of logging in the area. They advisedthe villagers to go to Miri to negotiate for compensation from the logging com-pany. The local villagers have no money to go to Miri.

It was heard that the company is trying to get local villagers who are workingin town to have a meeting and sign an agreement allowing the company to log thearea. The locals were also told that all their names will be written down butsigned for by those in town, in the agreement.

�How can these people sign for us? They can not represent us because they arenot staying in the settlement here. How do they know what do we want? How canthey negotiate on our behalf?�

E: The testimony from PA TIK

Interviewees (interviewed on 09. 03.1995) :

1. Simon Laing (30), married, 2 children, farmer2. Catherine Tungang (20), wife of Simon Laing, farmer3. 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 theriver bank of Sg. Ngela, at the foot of Gunung Batu Tengah, which is part of theTama Abu Range.

KTS, WTK and another logging company called Roud are logging in and around thearea of Pa Tik. Their logging operations started six years ago and they haveentered the communal forest of Pa Tik for the past five years. A lot of thevillagers� farmland and fruit trees planted in the forest have been destroyed bythe logging activities.

The water catchment has also been destroyed and the drinking water of villagersin 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 havebeen removed and mud has washed down into the river.

None of the three logging companies consulted or negotiated with us before theyentered our communal forest.

Over the years, villagers have protested and asked the companies to stop theirlogging operations but without any success.

Early last year, the community applied for a communal reserve for all the vil-lagers and the semi-settled groups. TK Melai Nah himself went to Marudi to seethe District Officer and he was supportive. Then he went to see Manager Sih ofKTS but the latter disagreed.

After the meetings, a group of timber camp workers from KTS came to deliver arice-grinding engine and an electricity generator. The workers also built achurch and a small house for the flying doctor to provide medical services whenthey come in (once a month).

15

Page

In April 1994, five villagers were asked to sign and acknowledge receipt ofthese gifts from the logging company. The five persons who signed are TK MelaiNah, Noh Lah, Simon Laing, Langup Koya and La Ngau.

However, after the signing, Manager Sih told the five villagers that these itemswere given to us as compensation for the timber that they had extracted from ourcommunal forest and the land of villagers destroyed. And that the paper that wassigned was an agreement allowing the company to log in the area.

The paper was written in English. None of the five signatories from the commu-nity knew what was written on it. No copy of the agreement was given to thevillagers.

�If we have understood the content of this agreement, we would not have signedas what was given was definitely not enough to compensate us for the land andforest destroyed.�

In February this year, the five villagers were asked to meet the representativesof 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 inEnglish, to receive �gifts� from them. However, the villagers refused to signedas 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 todefend our land and forest.�

A community meeting will be held to discuss on the meeting after the group havetravelled and talked with others in the different communities.

�We will ask the three companies to stop their operations and save the remainingparts of our communal forest. We will also write to the government again torequest that the remaining part of the small forest not logged be given to us asour 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 theSchool Committee

2. Tua Kampong Bilong Oyoi (40), married, 5 children, farmer3. Yacub Bato (50), married, 8 children, farmer, Member of the School

Committee4. 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

Committee6. Joseph Panai Pulut (34), married, 3 children, farmer, Member of the School

Committee7. Nyagang Oyoi (35), married, 6 children, farmer8. 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 has4 teachers including a Headmaster. In the school, there are classes from Primary1 to 6. However, it has only three classes each year; Primary 1, 3 and 5 in one

16

Page

year and Primary 2, 4, 6 in another. This year, 27 of the students are from LongSait, 2 from Long Spigen and 1 from Long Kerong.

The Headmaster of the school, Jerad Tajang, is a Kenyah from Long Palai. Theteachers are Jumat Akim, an Iban from Sibu, Peter, a Kenyah from Long Atap, andAndy, a Kelabit from Long Seridan.

The main roles of the School Committee, made up of Long Sait villagers and theteaching 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 childrenand repairing the hostel where the children stay;

- to oversee the supply and distribution of food rations for the children toensure that the children have sufficient food;

- every month, members of the School Committee visit the school to advise thestudents and the teachers;

- members of the School Committee voluntarily take care of the school�s com-pound, cut the grass regularly and maintain and repair the foot-paths in theschool.

Food supply has been a major problem in the school. The government is supposedto take care of the food for the students and teachers in this school but thecontractors 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 dis-tance from Long Jeh to Long Sait is a day�s boat journey but the contractorcomes only once in two or three months. There are no proper storage facilitiesin 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 writesto the contractors to request that they send the food over, the school will beclosed and the children sent home.

When the villagers have just harvested their padi, the villagers will give riceand 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, theschool teachers and the students suffer.

It was agreed earlier, with the teachers and the contractors, that if there isno food supply from the contractor, the villagers will supply the rice and otherfood items needed, the headmaster will issue receipts for the item and the con-tractor will pay for them. Unfortunately, over the years, the contractors havenever honoured this promise to reimburse the villagers. Today, many villagersstill 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 isno supply from the local villagers, the school children will be given holidaysand they will be sent home. Over the past years, the school has been closed onnumerous occasions because of shortage of food. The school has to open lateafter official holidays because the suppliers have yet to supply the food ra-tions; unscheduled holidays are common.

17

Page

Because of these irregularities, attendance at the school has been poor. Whenparents send their children to school, they have to walk a long distance backbecause there is no food and the school is closed. When they return later, thechildren may have missed some classes if the school has reopened. It is diffi-cult to inform the students because of lack of transportation and the distancesinvolved.

Last year, the School Committee and the teachers wrote a letter to the EducationDepartment, 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 supervisethe examination of the students. Villagers, who are also in the School Commit-tee, requested for an official dialogue. However, there was no dialogue andthere 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 whofall ill have to be sent to Rio Matoh, which is a day�s walking distance for ahealthy person. The flying doctor service is not regular and the supply of medi-cine is always insufficient. There is also no back-up service. There is no boatengine to enable the villagers to send sick students to Rio Matoh by boat.

Previously, the government provided radio call services at Long Sait. Five yearsago, the service broke down and it was sent for repair. Until today, the servicehas 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 begiven 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 student�s stomach turned blue-blackafter allegedly being pinched by a teacher. The same student reported that theteachers used the dusters to throw at him and his friends.

Many students have also complained that they were not given education. Theycomplained that when they were sitting in their classes, the teachers were talk-ing 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 LongSait, Long Kerong and Long Spigen, many parents are eager to send their childrento this School. The children are willing to attend the classes too, but theSchool has rejected many of them.

A common reason given by the teachers is that the rejected children are morethan nine years of age or that they are under-aged.

But most of the children here do not have birth registration certificates andthere is no way to establish their age. The teachers used their physical size toestimate 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 isno chance for them to receive education anymore.

The Headmaster said that it is the policy of the government and the Ministry notto accept students who are above nine years old. He said that these childrenmust go to the Education Department in Marudi to get a letter from it for their

18

Page

admission into the School. The parents have never tried this because they can�tafford to send their children to Marudi.

For some students, after attending Primary One for less than six months, theywere sent to the Primary Three class. The teachers said that they are too oldfor Primary One. It is suspected that the teachers want to rush our childrenthrough the primary school and this has caused the students to leave schoolbecause they cannot catch up with his or her classmates.

The teachers have also cited the problem of food supply shortage as a reason toclose the registration of our children as students. Last year, there were about60 students in this school. This year, 30 were sent home as it was said that thefood supply is only sufficient for 30 students.

Lately, when the children have finished their primary education and have wantedto continue their secondary education in Marudi or Bareo, their application foradmission has been rejected when the schools were told that they are from SRKLong Sait. It was said that students from this primary school are not goodenough to for secondary education.

19

Page

Chapter Three: Blockade Witnesses

Introduction

The Penan have been trying for many, many years to bring their grievances to theattention of the authorities, through peaceful means. They have approached localDistrict Officers, police and other government officials, they have approachedthe various logging companies who invade their land, they have petitioned theirrepresentatives, they have sent delegations to Kuching to talk to Ministers andthe Chief Minister, they have sent delegations to Kuala Lumpur to visit Federalgovernment officials - in short, they have done everything within their means.But there has been little response to any of their grievances, as the testimo-nies tell us.

What are called �blockades� then become the last-ditch resort of Penan communi-ties, to stop the invasion and destruction of their land by (usually, logging)companies. The �blockades� are usually a bamboo structure erected across a log-ging road, to stop access of people and machinery. It needs to be guarded bylocal Penan, and this means that those guarding it have to give up other activi-ties (like farming, hunting or other work). Where the blockade lasts for anylength of time (and some have lasted seven months and more), the strain on thelocal Penan community is obviously severe. It is a huge step for the Penan toerect a blockade, since they know what sacrifice is involved for the communityand also know that they face (violent) retribution from the company, backed bythe police.

The following testimonies present compelling evidence about the blockades. Theyshow the efforts made by the Penan to bring their grievances to the attention ofthe authorities, and how they have been consistently ignored. They show how theblockade is a last-resort, put up at a time when the company is about to, oralready has, started to log land the Penan claim as theirs. They also show thereaction of the police, the authorities and the company: a reaction that is alltoo often violent in nature, and which, if we follow these testimonies, hasresulted 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 theblockade, a meeting was held in Long Mobui with Samling. Samling�s manager, Mr.Say, told us to mark our boundary. The manager also said that if any of hisworkers went beyond that boundary, permission was given to kill them.

About 200 representatives from all over Ulu Baram came for the meeting which washeld in the Ketua Kampung�s (village head) house. The other people who also cameon behalf of the company were Pengulu Langiau from Long San and Mapeng Apui, aKenyah, also from Long San. At that time no Police Field Force (PFF) or policepersonnel came. The company also had not yet reached their area.

Later the company reached their area and passed their boundary. Before puttingup the blockade, we told them about the boundary but they would not listen. Wereminded them about Manager Say�s words. When they told Mr. Say about this, heaccused us of lying. When we reminded him that there were many witnesses at thattime, he fell silent.

20

Page

After that we erected the blockade. It was about a half hour walk from LongMobui. A forestry official, a Kelabit, prepared a summons and sent it through aMalay - Awang Mushidin bin Meng Mohammad. He wanted to give Aijeck the summonbut Aijeck refused to take it so he just stuck it to the blockade. The forestryofficial said that we can be fined two thousand Malaysian Ringgit plus two yearsjail for putting up the blockade. He added that we will have to pay five hundredringgit per day for the duration the blockade is up. We told them that theirlaws do not apply in this area. After that they went back.

Two days later, seven police personnel came. They said �If you do not dismantlethis blockade, we will arrest you�. We replied �If you arrest us, we will alsoarrest you and bring you to the jungle�. (We were not sure who was theirleader). They could not arrest us because we also had rattan �handcuffs�.

After another two days, 12 trucks with PFF and police personnel came. Landcruisers belonging to the logging company also came. The team was headed byGhazali Yaakob. They accused us of �fighting� (lawan) the government. We toldthem that if we were fighting the government, we would not bring our wives andchildren 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 daywithout making any arrests.

After that, they came everyday. More than eight hundred Penan from all over UluBaram and Upper Tutoh were present at one time or other at the blockade. Theblockade was made from logs. The company could not carry out logging beyond thatarea for nine months, which was the duration the blockade was up (June 1991 toFebruary 1992).

They also brought the District Officer Asi, a Kelabit, a State Administrativeofficer, David Kala, a Minister, Balang Seling, Counsellor Gabriel Keling,Pengulu James Keso from Long Lamai and Hassan Sui. They all tried to persuadethe people to follow the government line but we refused because we would notknow where else to find our livelihood. We said we welcome projects but notthose that destroy or trespass on our area.

They said we should discard our traditional way of life. We said �We do not wantto do that because this been our way of life from the beginning. The reason whywe reject logging is because the forest is like our bank and supermarket, aplace to get money and to gather food�.

One and a half weeks after that visit, the logging company and the PFF held ameeting in Long Selaan. It was by then the end of January. As a result of thatmeeting they wrote a letter to us saying that the company will burn the blockadeand send fire engines to spray people at the blockade site. We replied to theletter and passed it to Mandur Jayan. (The letter from the company was lostduring the dismantling of the Sebatu blockade). Their meeting was not attendedby any villager but a Kenyah man married to a Penan attended it. He later cameto 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 withintwo days. At that time, only Hassan Sui and David Kala came to the blockade. Inthe 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. ManyPolice and PFF personnel came as well as a towkay from Miri. Police CommissionerGhazali Yaakob had also come and wrote a letter promising to look into the landproblems of Penan. Notwithstanding this, the blockade was dismantled.

21

Page

During the dismantling, riot squads (FRU) lined up in their red helmets withwhite stripes, with similar coloured uniform and shields. The PFF, Forestrypersonnel, and company workers readied their chain-saws and parang. As theystarted their chain-saws, they let out a war cry and proceeded to cut the block-ade. About 5,000 personnel came that day.

Prior to this, a visit by the Registration Department was fixed for the 27/2/92to make identity cards in Long Mobui. Most of the people went to register andonly about 50 Penans, mostly old people and children, were left at the blockadesite that day.

In fact, the company and PFF had promised to negotiate with us after those of uswho had gone returned from the IC registration exercise, but instead they cameearlier, with arms. We could only stand and watch. Some Penans tried to hold onto the blockade but when the dismantlers came with parangs, we asked them to letgo.

After the blockade was dismantled, they left without a word. The company thenentered the area and many farmlands were destroyed. After the blockade was tornapart, people went back home.

A meeting was then held on 11/2/93. During that meeting, we decided to set upanother 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 wasrude 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 broughtwith 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 werenot clear about the orders to dismantle the blockade.After the blockade was dismantled, the people asked the police and company work-ers: �You have dismantled the blockade and discarded the logs, it is only rightthat we sit down and negotiate�. However, they would not listen and insteadasked them to go the logging camp. We refused.

A Forest Department official, a tall Chinese guy of slight build aged about 50years old (Sonny can recognise him on sight), pointed at five people and orderedthe 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 wasarrested because the other police personnel did not act.

There were about 200 Penans that day. A convoy of 12 vehicle belonging to thecompany and the PFF were used. The police came in separate vehicle. Sonny alsomet a Kelabit man from Barrio who made threats and told him that they do notstand a chance against government forces.

After the Long Sega blockade was dismantled, we went back. Another meeting washeld on February 26th 1993. On February 28th 1993, another blockade was set upin Sebatu, about a kilometre from Long Repo.

The next day, March 1st, the company workers came. One of them, an Iban, askedwhy we had put up this blockade, when we knew it was wrong to do so. We told himthat 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 makethe blockade more sturdy and helped them to pull two logs to block the road!There were about 500 Penans at the blockade site.

22

Page

The next day, March 2nd, two policemen came. They told us that it is against thelaw to put up a blockade. We told them that in Ulu Sega, the police have told usthat we can put up a blockade if the company reaches our area. Now the companyhas already entered the Long Mobui area. The police went back without any otherincident.

On March 3rd, a police inspector from Miri, Narijan bin Jusoh, arrived with acountless number of police. They told us that if we do not dismantle the block-ade, they will bomb us. The police pointed/aimed their guns at us and warned usthat if we do not leave the area, they will shoot us. That time we were a littleworried but we told our supporters to keep their stand and be firm. They kepttheir stand and nothing happened. Later the police went back.

The next day, a large convoy of vehicles bearing a large number of police cameagain, together with Hassan Sui and David Kala. They signed a summons letter andwarned us to dismantle the blockade in five minutes. The police divided into twogroups. 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, goahead)� but at the same time he took out his blowpipe. The police decided not toshoot. At that time, some police personnel were ready to shoot them but SergeantUsat Kajan stopped them.

The police tried to dismantle the blockade but could not get near the blockadebecause there were a lot of people. But many people were injured because theyhad formed a human shield against the police and there was a lot of pushing andshoving. However, in the end the blockade was dismantled and a girl, ElizabethParen 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 threwtear gas under the house, many people could not run away. About five cans oftear gas canisters were aimed at the house.

The PFF surrounded them so they could not do anything. After the incident, somefamilies went back to their kampung, others stayed in the village for a whilethen moved to Long Kerong. Everyone was scattered and I and some others had totake 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 ourfarmlands. When they bulldozed the lamin, all our things went missing. Our dogswere also killed.

The next day, the PFF came again in a private helicopter. They said they arelooking for the blockade leader and that if they see him, they will either shootor arrest him and throw him in the Pulau. Till now that person is not free tomove.

I believe the police, company and government are serious about arresting peopleor inflicting pain on us. I fear that the youths and the rakyat may retaliate ifthey do that to the leaders. According to the company and the police, if thecompany enters our land, we can put up a blockade but now they have gone beyondthe 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 newsthat we Penan have progressed but that is not true. We do not want people tocome and make politics only. They have to do their work well: for example, inLong Mobui, the five government projects promised did not benefit the people.

23

Page

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 namedElisa.

Thoughts on the incidents

Our purpose in setting up blockades is to ask the government not to allow thismatter 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 notsolving them but are actually increasing the problems of villagers.

In all the logging company�s work, the soldiers do not help us but walk in frontof the company. They treat us as communists. They cannot do that to us becausewe are citizens of Sarawak too. In the past, from British rule, the police havepreserved peace among the people in all problems. When we think of the presentsituation, that they don�t help but instead make problems, peace is shattered.

They say we oppose the government. We are not opposing the government. If wewere opposing, we would bring weapons. The blockades are a sign that we want tonegotiate with the government. As a proof that we are not opposing, we bring thewomen and children to the blockade. It�s a proof to ask for peace for our futuregenerations. In all this, we speak frankly. The Penan are not only in Baramarea, and all of us are united to defend our basic rights.

They say we are bad people. That�s why the people who work to put up the block-ade, work together and think together in the blockade action. As a sign of sup-port, every village gives RM10 each person to support.

That is how we started to ask for help to solve our problems. It came from adecision from each of the 16 villages. Those of us who are present are repre-sentatives to give information to be disseminated to others. Each time we makean appeal, the authorities say we are lying to people overseas. They accuse usof taking pictures of one village only which are used to represent all ofSarawak.

All my life, I have walked in Upper Tutoh, Baram, but I have only seen grindingstones for parang. What the government has done has been to give a developmentthat has allowed companies to destroy our land. The land is our bank. If theforest is destroyed, where will our bank be? The worst thing is, if it is de-stroyed, then every person is at risk. If no one helps or pays attention, wewill die.

Even if at times only one person is present, or talking, or visible, do notforget 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 cheatother friends for our own interests. In the matter of the blockades, we can showthe signatures of those who support the blockades. Those who have been cheatedby 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 thearea is too big. They said we should ask for land like in town, only a smallarea. 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 ofmedicine, it is not just in one place. In one area, there is one type, in an-other area, something else. That�s why it is important to defend this area.

One question many ask us is: �Why do you follow the customary way of life of

24

Page

your ancestors? It is the modern age now, why do you want to look back?� Oneanswer is: �You yourself think of your ancestry, what more we old people, we donot 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 block-ade. �If you dismantle it, you will be given two cars, RM90,000 and anythingelse you want.�

I was not influenced by all these bribes, because if I take, I get everythingfor myself and none for others. That is why, even though during several block-ades many were arrested, we were of one heart. Because we think of the old, thewidows, and others who will have no land. We are not afraid even if they accuseus of opposing, but we will continue our actions because we think of all ourancestors. We don�t think just of the immediate problems, but also of all otherproblems 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. That�s why we madean appeal before the company and outsiders entered our villages.

But in fact we had had an earlier bad experience in Marudi. The Penghulu of LongLamai had gone to make a report about women from their area who had been rapedand made pregnant. The logging company had shown no interest so it was decidedto go to the police. But the police instead accused the Penghulu of being in-volved, an accusation which greatly upset his wife.

Even though he is a police officer, the Sergeant accused us because the policeare friends of the logging company. That�s what makes us so worried, because wedon�t know where else to go. We hoped the police and soldiers would help us. Butthey don�t care about our problems. When we want to see them, they say we opposethe government.

In everything we do, we are not opposing the government. They accuse us of thisbecause they work with the logging company. On this we can�t listen to thembecause our future will be destroyed. During colonial times, we do whatever wecan. 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 usOrang Ulu.

They say we have no rights over our land, only the government has rights overthe land. The government appointed the Ketua Kampung but what�s the use if theyare not allowed to solve our land claim. We need to work together to defend ourarea and territory. From before, the Ketua Kampung had rights, and were giventhe power to do something, but now they say they have no power.

They accuse us of being bad - but we�ve been here since God created us. We arenot from Indonesia. People from around here say we�ve no rights but the names ofthe rivers and mountains were given by our ancestors. We can relate their his-tory and the history of their coming here, but when we ask them to tell aboutour history they cannot do so. That�s the evidence that we�ve been here a longtime.

Another thing - making farms. Of course we only started recently to make farmsbut we�ve always been here. If they want us to tell the names of the rivers andmountains, we know them all because we�ve always been here.

We talked to a lawyer in Kuching about land laws. He said, �If it�s true thatyour ancestors were from there, where are the documents?� Another lawyer said�Don�t worry. They have no schooling, they farm. If they want to find the docu-ments, they will look for them in the museum.�

25

Page

We appeal to you: Don�t worry, help us. We do our work but we don�t know whereelse to turn to. We need friends who know the laws and will inform the ChiefMinister. We want the authorities to come and visit us and tell us where thedevelopment 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 seethe Chief Minister. We asked whether he could see us. His men answered �yes�. Wewent 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 - ishis action proper? Why doesn�t he want to see us? Did we kill someone or dosomething bad? We had put some hope on him because he is the leader in Sarawakwho can solve our problems. He should not hide. If he doesn�t want to see us, itis better to say it at the beginning - don�t say he can see us and then disap-pear. Even though we don�t know the law, he should know and should not hide.That�s 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 company�s politics. Yet eventhough they are working for the company, they will want to come out to defendthe land.

We don�t know where to go anymore. We�ve tried all means but they say we have norights. I myself have no schooling. That�s 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 wantto continue demanding. How is it that other ethnic groups are given assistancebut we are not? We are not selective in asking assistance, whether it is fromthe 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 thecolonisers before, if they proclaim a law, we follow it because it is just. WePenan, 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 weare on our own. Because of this, we hope outsiders will help us. From the begin-ning of our actions, and with the blockades, we have never hurt the police. Evenif our breath is no more and we are destroyed, we have never retaliated. Helpus.

People may accuse us of doing wrong, but we have done nothing wrong. We Penanwill be here to witness what we have done. We don�t only look after our owninterest but that of all Penans. We are strong in telling what all the problemsare 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 wehave we share with people who come to us.

Even though we have nothing much to give, we urge friends to help us, we urgeyou to help us. We want to ask you to let others know our situation and thereason we are so desperate. You can talk to other Ketua Kampung, they will tellyou the same thing. The government doesn�t even support our appeals for help inschooling and health services.

It is very hard.

Even though I have a serious illness I am not able to go anywhere for medicaltreatment 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.

26

Page

That�s why we want others and the government to understand our situation, sothat nothing like this will happen again in future, so that they will change thelaws.

Even if they want to bomb us, we will continue our struggle for the land andforest. 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 whenthey come to our place, they continue to implement such an unjust law. Eventhough they say that we are wrong to say that, and that we are wrong to defendour land, we will continue to fight. Like our blockade action before, our diffi-culty 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 ForestDepartment pulled his right hand until his shirt was torn. Till now, when hemoves 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 somerice. At about 11am on September 28, while I was on my way back to the blockadetogether with my wife and children, I met some police personnel about 3 milesfrom the site. I was immediately arrested by them. My wife and children had toreturn to the blockade on their own.

Five other Penans were also arrested and we were left under the hot sun for 5hours. Two PFF stood guard over us. The handcuffs were tight but they furthertightened 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 myrelatives was also hurt when a Forest Department staff used his knees to kickhis 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 othersix who were arrested, until later.

When we left the place, it was raining heavily. We stopped for a while at theLong 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 ahouse. But they opened our handcuffs.

At 6am on September 29, we left Kem Pulutan for Km 10. All along the way, wewere handcuffed. At KM 10, we were given some drinks. After that, we werebrought 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 sincethe arrest, we had not been told the reason for our arrest.

27

Page

While in Marudi, I was questioned. They wanted to find out where I was arrestedand the name of the blockade leader. They never once told us why we were ar-rested. While in prison, Edwin from Long Sait came to see us but they only al-lowed 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 werealso brought to court three times. When all 11 of us were brought to court thefirst time, we were completely naked. Lawrence Lawai from Long San acted astranslator from Penan to BM. They kept asking for the name of the leader and inwhom we place our hope.

During detention, I was forced to sign a statement (he did not get a copy of thestatement). The police also wanted to know whether our house was near the block-ade. 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 sometimesit was bad. One Sapok Jawa from Long Ajeng was sick while in prison, but thepolice did not attend to him.

I am appealing to anyone who could help stop the logging and avoid incidentssuch as that which happened on September 28th.

The Malaysian government says we Penans have progressed but the meaning of theirprogress 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 alog. 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 thehouse. The lamin was located near the Sebatu River. We went down to the river tonegotiate with the authorities but the police gave a letter and immediatelyarrested and handcuffed six of us. It was about 2pm and the sun was hot but thepolice threatened to shoot us.

From where we were, we could not hear anything besides the sound of chain-sawsand bulldozers. I thought many people must have been killed.

At about 4pm, we were brought to a vehicle. We were never given any food ordrink, 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 thattime, I was interrogated and the police asked me where I was arrested and why Iwas arrested. I answered that we wanted to defend our forest. They also askedwhich government do we put our hope in. I told them we do not do what we dobecause of hope for another, but to protect the forest and land for our childrenand grandchildren. I was interrogated for about 20 minutes, twice, during mydetention.

28

Page

The lock-up was about 10 feet by 15 feet and all eleven of us were kept togetherin it. There was a toilet but they gave no blankets and we had to sleep on coldcement floors. I was sick many times, but they only brought me to hospital whenI complained of severe headaches and fever.

My son and wife are also strong. Because they are like tigers, we can bear ourpain and still look after our land, but it is an uphill struggle. We only askthat our rights and our culture be respected.

The PFF are still present in Long Mobui. There are about 6-7 personnel stationedthere, 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 aschool and clinic but all they do is fish (pancing)and eat. We do not have thepower to chase them out. This will happen in the whole Baram area. If the gov-ernment wants to give us the clinic and school, just give it to us. Don�t takeaway our forests in exchange.

Fourth Testimony

Lipang Ake (Juman�s 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 block-ade.

Before setting up the blockade at Long Belingan, a soldier came. I held on to mychild who was only 4 years old at that time. The soldier told us that if we putup the blockade, they will shoot to kill.

My husband (Juman) answered that if that is what the government says, they cango ahead and shoot.

They retracted and said that they do not want to kill. He said that if that isso, 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 5pm, on a Friday, the PFF came and immediately arrested all the men. The wivesand children tried to follow those arrested.

During that time, a Forest Department staff tried to stop me from boarding atruck used to transport those arrested, but I pushed him aside and boarded thetruck where my husband was.

All the people�s belongings and dogs were also in the truck. Many peoplevomitted while inside the truck.

When we reached Long Banyuh, we were asked to get down while those arrested werebrought elsewhere. We were told that next day someone will pick us up. The nextday, 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 jour-ney 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 goingback together to Long Kerong.

29

Page

While my husband was detained in Miri, I did not manage to visit him because Idid not have money.

Ulu Sega Blockade

We had to walk over five hills to reach Ulu Sega. On our journey to Ulu Sega, mychild fell sick but I could not pay proper attention to this because of theproblem of logging we were facing.

When we reached Ulu Sega, the logging company workers and PFF personnel alsocame but we still put up the blockade.Then the PFF and company people came in twelve trucks. We all negotiated withthem. Atasan (from Miri), David Kala and the PFF were there at that time. Noagreement was reached and they left, promising to come the next day. But theynever came.

Next we heard about a meeting between the company people and the PFF and theirplans to burn the blockade. I was not there during the dismantling of the block-ade.

Long Sega Blockade

A day after reaching Long Sega, we set up the blockade. The company workerscame the next day but we told them not to go through yet because we wanted tonegotiate first. At that time, a man from Long Sait/Mobui called Suhau came - hewas a spy for the company. After that Usat Kajan and Mandur Malang came to dis-mantle the blockade. At the time of the dismantling, people asked me and myhusband to hide.

Opinions on the problem

To see anyone from the company or the PFF makes me very unhappy: it is better ifthey go back. It makes me angry every time I hear that they are looking for myhusband to murder him. They say if they meet him anywhere, they will cut him up.There is a reward for his death. That�s what make me worry and sick. If I knowhow 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 wasPhilip, a Kenyah.

We set up blockades because we want to protect our rattan and crops, not tofight. We do not do anything bad because we are doing this in our own area andterritory and we support ourselves and travel on our own.

We are not fighting or opposing the government. All we have are rattan and what-ever we get from the forest, unlike the logging company which can get incomefrom elsewhere.

I always bring my child along wherever I go and that is why I am angry with thelogging company.

30

Page

Fifth Testimony

Jawa Ipa,from Long Ajeng, Sungai Selaan, Ulu Baram45 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 suffi-cient food. There was plenty of fruits, medicines and sago from the forest andgaharu, rattan were available nearby.

People were seldom sick. Life was good and it was easy for villagers to movearound and farm. Fish and wild animals were abundant and could even be seen fromthe 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 foodand sago. From that time, farms were destroyed and the water became polluted.Many children and adults started complaining of stomach pain after drinking thedirty 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 thekampung, the problems increased.

From then, it was difficult to get wild boar or fish. We also had to walk far totalk 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 thesituation did not improve because the water was still dirty and the dust wasstill there. That is why our life is now difficult. Many people are sick frommany 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 themnot disturb the land because this is our traditional land on which we depend forour livelihood.

After the two left, Mr. Say came. He wanted all the Penans to sign an agreementto 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 thecompany�s intrusion.

We went to meet the surveyor again and asked them to leave because we did notwant them to enter our area. Then we saw them building the road on the hills andas they came nearer we got worried.

We went to the hills and put up signboards �Do not enter this area because we donot want our area to be destroyed�. We also showed a map of our area and itsboundaries. 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 headsheld their own meetings in their area and then they for an inter-village meetingin Long Ajeng. We in Long Ajeng appealed to the other villages to support theblockade. All agreed to put up a blockade. We went to Ulu Sega and together webuilt the blockade. (James Barclay among the first foreigners to support theblockade, came to the area with supplies).

31

Page

After that the company came, and we told them that we do not want them to comein 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 govern-ment)�. That was the first time we talked to the company.

Sebatu Blockade

After the blockade was dismantled, some people went back to their kampung. Theybrought the sick with them; some of them had to be carried home. Five familiesfrom Long Ajeng went to Long Kerong. Some also went to Long Kerong after theincident but they only stayed for a while. The rest came back to Long Ajeng. Formonths, 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 ar-rested. 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 oftrespassing is like killing wives and children. The forest is like our parentswho look after us. The area has been the source of livelihood for our ancestorsas well as our own generation. I would not like such an incident to happen inthe kampung again. Our farmlands were destroyed when the company came but theydo not care; they can�t be bothered. Graveyards were also destroyed. For exam-ple, in Long Sega, the land was also bulldozed and Ulu Pejelai was polluted. Inall the areas where logging has come in, the rivers from which we have beengetting drinking water are already polluted. These are the problems since thecompany came and it is getting worse.

It is now difficult to live. It is not just us, but also all Penans who areexperiencing hardship. That is why I am telling you this very clearly. The gov-ernment says we are already well off and developed. Millions have been allocatedbut in fact we were arrested. Those are their projects.

The government says that the standard of living of Penans is better but in factour problems are increasing. We have heard in the news that there is progress inall Penan areas but instead we face many problems because the forests are almostall gone.

These are the names of some of the farms wrecked by logging companies:

1. Iyai Baran 2. Tui Bayan3. Yusup Gut (In Long Sega & Ulu Pejelai)4. Simon Tui (Ulu Pejelai) 5. Laing Ajeh6. Yaya Tui 7. Balang Tui (Already surveyed)

These are some of the graves which have been desecrated :

1. Yusup Gut�s younger sibling (in Long Sega);2. Yusup Gut�s father (Sungai Tap);3. Abun Potong�s son or daughter (at the boundary between Sungai Benuang and Sungai Bolokon);4. Yaya Tui�s son or daughter (as in no.3);5. Iyoi Laa�s son or daughter (as in no.3);6. Abun Potong�s mother (surveyed).

In September 1994, Luhat Tek saw them cut the trees and subsequently push theearth at the gravesite. No remains can be found anymore.

32

Page

Sixth testimony

Panai Irang (M)35 years old, married with four childrenKetua 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 wereworried and told people from the other kampung. We all felt that if we did notstop 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 fromLong Ajeng and Upper Tutoh came to join us. The logging road to Sepatai, UluPatah was already built so we went there to erect the blockade. When we reachedthe place that night, we put up the blockade.

The next day, on September 15, 1989, the police came and by evening they haddismantled the blockade. At that blockade, 26 people were arrested. Women andchildren were initially allowed to accompany those detained, but, at SungaiMelanah Apo, they were asked to go back. The sumpit, parang and darts of thosearrested were confiscated. A list of the things taken was not given to any ofthe villagers. It was difficult for those sent back to go home because they hadno 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 gangsterswere always there to stop us. Their continued presence frightens the people.

They entered our area and logged the area regardless of the crops. Many cropswere destroyed, including our padi and fruit trees. The companies involved areWoodman S/B (Manager Lau) and Rimex as contractor (Manager Su Ping). The coupefor Woodman has ended but another company wants to come in. We do not want themto come and log the area a second time. The villagers are still firm in fightingfor the area. A meeting has already been held.

Seventh testimony

Thomas Keliap (M)35 years old, married with one childLong 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 block-ade here because this is government land�. We told them that even though thatparticular land may belong to the government we were not in the wrong becausethe company came and logged our area.

After a short exchange, they immediately arrested 26 people. They brought us toKem Melanah then to Marudi. The next day they brought us to Miri and we weredetained in Lambir for two months. There we were put together with the otherpeople who were arrested in Belingan. The house where we were detained was small

33

Page

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 tookweeks before they gave any to us. We also asked to be brought to the hospitalbut this seldom happened.

During the two month period, we sat, slept and prayed. They also questioned usabout who asked us to blockade. When we answered that it was our own decisionbecause 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 askedto appear at a sessions court in Miri on July 6, 1992. They said we were wrongto set up the blockade and asked for RM6,000 each but since we could not affordto 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 astructure, to wit a wooden structure from jungle poles, across Mile 23 of thelogging road, thereby causing destruction to the passage of that road and thesaid logging road was maintained by PPES Resort s/ b holder of forest timberlicence 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 wilfullyobstructed Assistant Forest Officer, Abu Saman bin Yusuf, in the execution ofhis duties, to wit: the removal of the wooden structure at Mile 23 of the log-ging road, thereby contravened section 90B(1)(b) of the Forest Ordinance andpunishable under the same section of the same ordinance.

People from Ulu Patah/Akah Area who were asked to appear at the sessions courtson April 13, 1992:-

1. Jeluang Ayat 2. John Liban 3. Suda Loi 4. Pek Lom5. Malang Ari 6. Ricky Lirau 7. Tupai Libau 8. Lanyau Sibin9. Yakup Pun 10. Bario Pay 11. Aki Ting 12. Andreas Ujang13. Taga Ujan 14. Lasau Loh 15. Awih Kayau 16. Dee Jutuy

Eighth Testimony

Apeng Along (Gisa�s 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 seri-ous 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 wasdifferent. 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 wentinto the jungle. I wanted to go and see my husband and to chase them away, butmy children wouldn�t let me go.

34

Page

On that day, I thought I would die, all the men were taken. All the women feltvery bad then. We also thought the soldiers might shoot us. We had to sleep onthe ground.

The following day, soldiers came again and there were helicopters too. Afterthat we walked back here. I came back here and thought the soldiers would followus.

I felt her body and skin aching and hurting, my breath smelt bad and I did nothave appetite to eat. Now I am thin, before I was fat. There are times when Ifeel faint, and sometimes I can�t 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 fightas much as I can.

I don�t want to see their faces. In my heart, I feel if I were a man, I woulddefinitely go here and there contacting them. I am not like other women, I don�tfool around, I�m really angry at the company.

At first in Ulu Sega, I did not run away because I wanted to defend the land. Ihope 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. Pulutanis married with two children. They are our friends. That�s why we must defendthe 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. Wemust inform others. Pressure the company to stop. Inform the Chief Minister.

We tell the children to defend the land. If we don�t tell them, they will notknow our problems.

In the future, when the whole area is destroyed, the children will not have alivelihood.

The company destroys the source of life. That�s why we must inform others.

At the blockade, we just wait; live or die, we wait.

Ninth testimony

Lilit Turai (TK�s wife)from Ba Lai, 45+, married with seven children, Farmer

Thank you for listening to us. It is definitely difficult now because the com-pany has reached here. In the past, before the company reached here, it was easyto move around. Now it is very difficult to move around.

Before the company reached here, women and children would walk on their own tolook for firewood, rattan and vegetables. Now they are not free because thereare people frightening them.

Before, women and children didn�t use the blowpipe like the men. Now we have touse it because we are afraid.

35

Page

When people from the camp came to our home, we received them even though theydidn�t look good. Now we are sad when we think of our land. If the land is de-stroyed, there will be problems because we use this also for the future genera-tions.

Even if they say that those who set up blockades will be arrested, we will con-tinue to put up blockades. We made an agreement at a meeting with the company on30th 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 willdemand with all our hearts to ask the company to stop, to go back.

I don�t know what will happen. We have been to talk with them many times butthey still continue work. We now have to rely on others to tell about our prob-lems.

Even when we go to Long Banga hospital, we do not get served because of theaction.

When we pass the end of the road, they say �These are bad because they won�t letus work.� Even though they say this, we still won�t allow them to work.

36

Page

Chapter Four: Police Cases

Introduction

There were many complaints made by the Penan that the authorities had not justapparently sided with those who were taking away the Penan land and livelihoods,but were also apparently slow in investigating complaints by Penan about crimescommitted 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, farmer2. Henneson Bujang (Long Benalih) (39), married, 6 children, farmer3. Gisa Paren (Long Kerong) (30), married, 1 child, farmer

Abung Ipui was a vocal leader in Ba Kerameu. He strongly opposed the encroach-ment of logging companies into the communal forest of Ba Kerameu, and was activein organising the villagers to defend their land. He had taken part in theSebatu blockade earlier. He was found dead in the river after he had left on ahunting trip. Villagers suspected that he was murdered, judging by the wounds hehad when his body was found.

TK Sakur and Henneson were told of the incident by Daud Abung (Abung Ipui�sson), when they met him in Long Lellang in October 1994. At that time, Abung hadbeen 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 Abung�sloss, Lawai was sent by the community of Long Kepang to go to Ba Kerameu fordetails.

Gisa was born in Ba Kerameu. His parents are still living in Ba Kerameu. Thoughhe is now staying in Long Kerong, Gisa returns to Ba Kerameu at least threetimes a year. He first heard about the death of Abung when he met Daud. He hadalso returned to Ba Kerameu to learn more about the incident. Abung was veryclose to him, just like father and son, according to Gisa. They went to theblockade 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 tosell 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 thenext morning.

The next morning, it was drizzling but Abung went on his hunting trip. He wasseen by other villagers when he was at the pengkalan of Ba Kerameu. The watercurrent was not strong at that time. People could have walked across the rivereasily.

At about noon, a Kelabit known as Ngetawai (who lived in Kampung Kerameu, aKelabit settlement, about half a mile from Ba Kerameu) came to Ba Kerameu toinform villagers that he had found a gun in the river a little while earlier.

Villagers recognised that the gun was Abung�s. Immediately, groups were organ-ised and set out to look for Abung. They were worried that he might have had anaccident.

37

Page

Some villagers went to Long Lellang and other nearby communities to inform thepeople about this incident.

They could not find Abung that day. Next morning, many people from the othersettlements came and joined the search teams. After looking in the jungle for awhole day, they weren�t able to find Abung either. The search continued for awhole 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 sawhis body, a foot of his had come to the surface while the rest of his body wasstill 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 towhere the body was. Dayang Oho and another villager called Semeion Malong liftedhis body from the river.

It was found that there was an opening on his stomach and some of the internalorgans came out.

The villagers helped to wrap the body for burial. Unga Paren (from LongBangang), 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 hishead, face and the body was reddish. The cut on his stomach was about 5 inchesin 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 campworkers have claimed that all the farmland of the villagers in Ba Kerameu werelocated in the concession area of the logging company.

The timber camp workers hated Abung. When they tried to extract timber from theforest near to Ba Kerameu, Abung led the protest of the villagers and the log-ging 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 inLong Lellang) and Balang Muput (a Kelabit from Long Lellang) had always threat-ened the villagers of Ba Kerameu that the company workers will �potong perutkalau 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 manwho had never quarrelled with other villagers.

He was a trained pastor in Ba Kerameu. He resigned a year before his death whenhe started to play an active role in organizing the villagers to defend theirland and forest. He was the leader (Ba Kerameu is an old settlement of sevenfamilies) and spokesperson for the settlement in asking the company to stop itslogging operation in the area.

Abung has five children. Daud has left the kampong and is working in Miri, Kalipis also working in Miri, Samson stays in Ba Abang; and Eta and Erud are stayingwith their mother in Ba Kerameu.

38

Page

Because the people are still angry with the company, the logging operation inthe communal forest of Ba Kerameu has stopped. It is believed that the companywill 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?


1. Gilin Ten (65), single, farmer, brother of Geran2. 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 disman-tling 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 allthe activities at the blockade site with all others).

When the police force started firing tear-gas at the people, Gilin saw somebeing thrown below the hut where Geran was resting. He then saw Geran come outof 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 whichserved 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 ingreat difficulties: he appeared very weak as he leaned on the staircase and wasvomiting continuously.

Nobody was seen coming to help Geran. They were either prevented from getting tothe 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 thesmoke, 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 wasraining very heavily. The huts were completely destroyed and he could not findGeran.The people started returning to the site and about 30 temporary sheds were putup. It was getting dark and the rain was still very heavy. Geran returned atthat 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.

39

Page

The next morning, a helicopter flew over the blockade site and a group of armedsoldiers 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 hadleft, people started leaving the site.

Gilin and Geran left together. After walking for only half a mile, Geran com-plained that he was too weak to walk. Gilin then erected a small shed and bothof them stayed there for the night.

Geran was coughing badly. He complained of stomach-ache. There was white stuffcoming out from his mouth when he coughed. He began to have a lot of blisters onhis 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 shedfor him to rest and sleep after walking a short distance each day. They spentten days in the jungle before they reached Long Kerong. Normally, it takes lessthan two days to walk from Long Mobui to Long Kerong.

When they first arrived in Long Kerong, they stayed in a good friend (BalaKadir)�s house. Geran�s wife also came to Long Kerong, following another group.She stayed with her mother, also from Long Ajeng, in a hut erected across theriver from Long Kerong community.

After staying with Bala for two weeks, Geran told his brother that it was toohot. Gilin then erected a hut below a big tree and moved Geran into it. Geran�swife came to look after him and tried to feed him with food. However, Geran�shealth had deteriorated. He could not eat anything at all. When he ate some-thing, he vomited. He had some panadol as this was the only medicine that thelocal villagers could get for him.

When the flying doctors came to Long Kerong, they refused to walk the shortdistance (about 40 meters away) to see him. Some villagers had tried to carryGeran to see the doctor (flying doctors who visited) but any small movement ofhis body caused him so much pain that they didn�t persist.

Two days before he passed away, Geran was unconscious. The villagers helped tomove him into Bala�s house because a lot of the villagers came and wanted topray 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 awayafter midnight. Before he died, he told his brother to keep his parang and hisgun, and not to throw them away.

Gilin is feeling very sad because the government has done nothing to investigatethe death of his brother. He is still angry with the flying doctors who refusedto attend to Geran, even though they were been informed of Geran�s criticalcondition.

Geoffery was away when Geran arrived in Long Kerong. When he returned, Geran hadalready been moved to the house below a big tree. He immediately went to see himwhen the villagers told him that Geran was very sick.

At first, Geran could still sit up. But he was coughing and vomiting all thetime. 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 laterdays, he was too weak even to speak.

40

Page

During the time when Geran was in Long Kerong, the flying doctor came to thecommunity three times. Geoffery tried to persuade the doctors to visit Geran bydescribing how much pain he had when villagers tried to lift him and send himover. The doctors were not sympathetic. They just asked about his health condi-tion and left some medicine.

Everybody was concerned and sad. They tried to prepare food for Geran eventhough 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 thevictim 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 yearsof 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 ourdwelling in Long Kerong after having gone to the forest to gather sago. We foundthat our daughter M, together with some other people from Long Kerong, had re-turned from Long Ajeng a few days earlier.

2. M had gone to Long Ajeng at about the end of October 1993 to fetch rice forthe family. She had travelled on foot to Long Ajeng together with Gembala (pas-tor) 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 andquiet. She has a lisp in her speech and does not speak much. My wife and I have10 children still living, including M.

4. About 2 or 3 days after we returned from the forest, M told my wife and Ithat she had been raped in Long Mobui while en route to Long Ajeng from LongKerong. She was sad and depressed and cried while relating her experience. Shehad been afraid to tell us what had happened to her for fear that my wife and Iwould be angry.

5. M said that she had been raped at night by 2 men in the house of Datu akAbeng, the son of the Ketua Kampung (Abeng Jek) of Long Mobui. She said one ofthe rapists was of big build and had a big stomach. She said that she hadstruggled, screamed and cried while she was being raped but nobody came to helpher. 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 shehad 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 ofthe house, when she got up the morning after the rape. I took the bullet andkept it in a safe place (see photos).

8. My wife and I did not tell anybody about the rape until August 1994. We didnot know what to do about the matter, or to whom we should report. We finallytold Balang Tui (of Long Ajeng) when we heard that some Penan leaders were goingto Kuching to make a police report on problems faced by our community in our

41

Page

area. A police report (CPS (K) 8037/94) was made on 30th September 1994 at theKuching Central Police Station.

9. On 22nd March 1995, M made a police report (Report No. 2234/95, Miri CentralPolice Station) and gave a statement to the police in Miri regarding her rape inLong Mobui. I also gave a statement to the police.

and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be trueand 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 thestate 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 solemnlyand sincerely declare that:

1. I am married to Laot Kayan of Long Mobui, Baram. We are currently living inLong Kerong, Baram. We have six (6) children now living. Five (5) of my childrenhave died, including Sonny Laot who was my youngest child. Sonny was 4 years oldwhen 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. Herecovered 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 ingeneral good health.

3. On the second day of our arrival at Sebatu, the tear-gassing and dismantlingof the blockade took place. At about 10.00 am that day, a large number of PoliceField Force (PFF) personnel and other police personnel wearing red helmets withvisors and carrying shields whom I believe to be from the Federal Reserve Unit(FRU), were seen advancing towards the blockade. They were accompanying someofficers from the Forest Department and some workers from the logging companythat operates in the area. I believe there were more than 300 police personnelpresent. Some men at the blockade went some distance down the road with theintention of negotiating with the police. But they were immediately arrestedupon coming into contact with the Police.

4. The PFF personnel continued their advance and the large group of men who hadfollowed close behind their representatives retreated towards the blockade. Whenthe PFF were about 100 metres from the blockade, they started arresting peoplein the group.

5. My husband was among this group of men. I saw him being arrested. His armswere forcibly held behind his back by four (4) PFF personnel. I heard him shout-ing as if he was in pain. I ran towards my husband to help him. At that momentthe PFF started throwing tear-gas cannisters at the group without any warningand without any provocation from the group. At the same time those PFF personnel

42

Page

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-walledtemporary hut, raised about 6 feet above the ground) located about 100 metresfrom the blockade. In our lamin were Sonny (4 years), Rose (7-8 years) andStella (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 canisterstowards the lamins of the people. Some of them landed near our lamin. The gasdrifted 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 otherpeople 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 in-side. 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 fromthe gas. Sonny was vomitting badly. I tried giving him some water but he drankonly a little.

10. That night, I sheltered with Sonny and the rest of the family in a lamin inthe forest. Sonny was constantly coughing and vomitting and could hardly eat ordrink.

11. The next day we set off on foot for Long Kerong with the other families fromthe blockade as we were extremely fearful of the Police. On the journey Sonny�scondition deteriorated. We only had some Panadol for medication. We travelledfor 5 days in the forest and reached Long Sait where we stayed with some rela-tives.

12. At Long Sait, Sonny�s condition continued to worsen. He eventually died onthe third day after we arrived in Long Sait (viz. 6-10-93). We buried Sonny inLong Sait.

43

Page

Chapter Five: Community Updates

Introduction

The testimonies of the Penan contained in the two previous chapters should beenough to convince us that there are real and major problems facing the communi-ties 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 andrights of the Penan. It is the same for other indigenous communities in Sarawakand elsewhere in Malaysia.

The �development� pushed by the state authorities is one based on money. Land isto be used for the profit it generates. Long-term sustainability and awarenessof environmental and social impacts have little place in this �vision� of �de-velopment�. The Penan, who have practised a communal and guardianship approachto land for centuries, have little place in this �vision�. They are rapidlybeing displaced. They are rapidly being displaced not least by the logging.

We returned to the communities in 1999. Questions related to the situation beingfaced by the communities resulted in further confirmation of the appalling con-sequences 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 ofthe 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, LongPengaran, Long Sabai, Long Sait, and Long Sepigen. Population, household andinterview details can be found in Table 1. Most of the people were farmers, foodgatherers 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 LongAjeng claimed customary rights over their housing areas and the surroundingareas. The only exception was the community at Long Sepigen, which did not ex-plicitly claim customary rights over their comparatively smaller area of farm-land.

All the communities interviewed expressed strong reliance on the forest fortheir livelihood.

Dependency on Forest Resources

For the communities interviewed, forest is the centre of their universe. In thissurvey, they have indicated forest as a source of food such as vegetables, meatand fish. Most importantly, it provides water. The communities also get variousmedicines from the forest. They obtain timber for building, while rotan anddamar collected from the forest were sold for cash. Rotan is also used for mak-ing handicrafts for sale.

The communities also realised the environmental role of the forest. They de-scribed the forest as providing �space� and �fresh air�. The forest was said tokeep the environment cool and provide shade from the sun.

44

Page

Effects of Logging

The effects of logging on the communities continues to be traumatic. All areashad been, or were about to be, affected.

In those communal areas where logging activities have been carried out, thedestruction 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 envi-ronmental fabric of the communities is torn apart.

The general adverse effects of logging on the environment was commented on bythe communities. To the communities, �nature had been destroyed�, �burnt� and�it was warm�. This general deterioration of the environment has social andphysical repercussions.

One of the results is that food becomes scarce and the hardship is felt by allaffected communities. Animals are now difficult to find and hunting for meatbecomes onerous. In Long Sait, for example, the community reported that they hadto travel further into the forest from their village in order to hunt. This istypical for other communities as well. Farming also is affected, as farmlandsmay be destroyed, or the soil composition changes because of the logging. In BaTik, Long Benali, Long Mubui, Long Sait and Long Sepigen, it was noted by thecommunities that the soil of logged-over areas is too dry and hard for cultiva-tion.

In many communities, it was also pointed out that fish had died because thewaterways dried up.

Logging has also adversely affected the supply of clean water for consumption bythe communities interviewed. The communities at Ba Tik, Long Benali, Long Lamai,Long Mubui, Long Sait and Long Sepigen reported that the river/water catchmentarea 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 �dryand dirty�. The source of water at Long Kerong was sometimes dirty. Only in LongKepang, Long Pengaran and Long Sabai, where logging companies have yet to en-croach into their water catchment areas, was the water still clean and safe forconsumption. This is one major consequence of logging activities, and one whichthe state authorities should control. Protection of water catchment areas isessential for both short-term and longer-term sustainability. The fact thatthese are destroyed with impunity by logging companies is testament to theirlack of environmental concern. It is also testament to the lack of politicalwill within the state government, who have failed to ensure that a basic, essen-tial and communal resource is not destroyed for the sake of quick and privateprofit.

Further, the logging companies destroy the vital sources for the communities ofmaterials for building, handicraft and products like rotan. This in turn affectstheir own ability to earn cash, since these are activities they have depended onto earn some cash income. Employment is also affected. Yet the state governmentdoes little.

Not just that, when the country was facing intense haze problems, numerous com-munities interviewed reported that forest fires were rampant in this part of UluBaram. These communities said that the forest fires occurred on logged-overforest areas or began from these areas. In Long Kerong, it was reported thathalf the forest was burnt and a quarter of the forest was �destroyed by thelogging company�, further increasing their hardship. In Long Lamai, it was al-leged that half their forested area had been burnt and the burning made it dif-ficult to farm. The community at Long Sait and Long Sepigen also reported forest

45

Page

fires destroying the forest. Given the terrible consequences of the haze itselfon Sarawak state and the region as a whole (costing our economy millions ofringgit and inestimable health consequences on all of us), and the further envi-ronmental and social degradation caused by such burning on the communities liv-ing in the forests, it is highly neglectful that the authorities have not actedagainst errant companies and withdrawn their licenses.

One of the claims that the state government makes is that logging provides em-ployment. But the evidence from these communities is the opposite. The destruc-tion 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, LongLamai, Long Mubui and Long Sepigen blamed the company and logging for the de-struction of the forest, their sources of food and other necessities, as well asincome and employment. In Long Ajeng, there is no land for farming and the com-pany stopped the community from entering the forest to look for food. The commu-nities at Ba Tik, Long Benali and Long Mubui further added that the loggingcompany failed to offer them employment opportunity.

The communities at Long Kepang and Long Pengaran, which have not been affectedby logging at the time this survey was carried out, still had the view that theywould be able to make a living as long as the forest is available to them. Itprobably won�t 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 theirlivelihood would worsen if the situation persists and there is no external as-sistance. And to further intensify the negative consequences, all the affectedcommunities reported that poor health plagued the communities during and afterlogging 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 log-ging companies into their areas would have bad effects too: �Sure to have prob-lems 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 tothe communities, nine of the twelve communities are of the opinion that privatecompanies should consult them before logging their areas. Furthermore, two ofthese communities added that logging should only proceed after they have con-veyed their decisions to both the private companies as well as the government.

Whilst three of the twelve demurred that the companies had been issued licencesand so the communities could not stop them logging, all twelve communitiesshared the same view that the government had continue to ignore their plight andfailed to gazette forest reserves for the communities, despite the fact that theimportance of forests in their livelihood have persistently being highlighted tothe various authorities.

This gave rise to a strong feeling of injustice. Some of the responses on thelegal 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!�

46

Page

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, butalso the presence of the Police Field Force (PFF). The latter are stationed atLong Meletap, Sungai Anan, Sungai Selebu and Long Mubui. The communities feltthat the PFF were there to protect the logging companies� interest. This wasborne by the fact that the companies enlisted the assistance of the PFF tothreaten the communities� protest against the companies logging in their areas.They felt that the PFF was oppressive towards the communities. Four of the com-munities felt that the attitude and behaviour of the PFF had remained as unsat-isfactory as when they had complained to the authorities in 1996. All the commu-nities felt that the presence of PFF was unnecessary.

The presence of outsiders has security implications. Amongst the responses tothis issue were:

�Afraid.�,�The women and children are worried.�, �No assurance.�, �Threatened.�,�Insecure.�

Community Anger

While no answer was recorded for one community�s opinion on logging in theircommunal land, the others expressed their disappproval over the encroachment oflogging companies into their communal land. Three of the communities were angryand another three stated that they are �dissatisfied and angry�. For the threecommunities 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 compensa-tion. All the communities were either disagreed with or were opposed to loggingactivities over their communal land. Four of the communities stated that theyhave took various actions in protest against these logging activities.

All the communities except one, for which no answer was recorded, protestedagainst logging companies approaching their areas. Of these, one communityclaims that it will protest �whether there is provision of compensation�. Twoothers stated that �no amount of compensation can be sufficient�.

The community at Long Kerong reported that they have written numerous letters ofprotest and had held talks with representatives of the logging companies intheir effort to protect their communal forest from logging activities. In LongBenali, 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 testimoniesin the last two chapters show how the Penan tried so hard to inform, negotiateand talk to the companies and the authorities about their plight. But theseefforts were not reciprocated.

Two companies still logging in communal forest were allegedly assisted by thegovernment machinery - the Police Field Force, Forest Officers and the DistrictOffice - to cower the communities. This could explain the communities� percep-tion of injustice, as alleged earlier. In other instances, the logging companieswere reported to have either ignored the communities or continued logging while�negotiating�.

47

Page

Public Health and Medical Facilities

Public health and medical facilities for the Penan communities in this regionremains poor. Despite the fact that the communities have highlighted the inad-equacies and shortcomings of this public service to the Medical Department andthe Health Ministry in 1995 and 1996, there has been little improvement. Exceptfor the increase in health personnel reported in Long Benali, no new clinic/hospital has been established near the communities. Medical supplies, number ofhealth personnel and the skills of health personnel remain unsatisfactory.

The frequency of the flying doctor service visiting the communities in thisregion remains largely inadequate, even though it was reported that there wereoccasional 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 them-selves, when they could have been sent by government helicopters or the flyingdoctor service. There is still no response from the Medical Department on thecollective request of the Penan communities in this region for transport to sendpatients to the clinic/hospital.

Except for Ba Tik, Long Benali, Long Pengaran and Long Sabai, medical officersfailed to visit communities since 1995. The medical officers who visited thosecommunities failed to examine the sources of water, except in Long Sabai, orprovide medical training and health knowledge to the villagers

Education

In 1995, the communities had also formally requested for building more schoolsand better facilities at existing schools for their children�s education. How-ever, facilities have remained insufficient and poor.The complaints about Sekolah Rendah Kerajaan (Government Primary School) LongSait has seemingly been ignored. Facilities at the school remain inadequate,with the frequency and consistency of classes still unsatisfactory. So was thesupply of rations to this primary school.

Except for Long Benali, Long Sabai and Long Sait, where such complaints were notrecorded, it was noted from the other communities that admission of their chil-dren who are more than 8 years old were refused. Except for Long Benali, LongLai and Long Sait, the primary school authorities failed to assist Penan pupilsto get into secondary schools.

Conclusion

There are clearly still a multitude of problems and issues facing the Penancommunities. This survey took in a wide range of people and a wide range ofplaces. But opinion and experience was widespread and shared, that little hadbeen done to help the communities and little had been done to stop the destruc-tion of their rights, land and culture.

The basic principle should be to allow the Penan (and other indigenouscommunites) to be allowed to decide for themselves how to cope with and adaptthe many changes that �modernisation� is inevitably bringing.

Instead, they are being told what is best for them (change your whole culture soas to participate in the modern (= individualised, monetary economy). They are

48

Page

being left to shoulder the hugely traumatic consequences of wholesale logging oftheir land. They are not being supported by being provided with infrastructuralor other facilities (health and education being two important ones). It is as ifthe state authorities are content to allow them to disintegrate, the communitiesto break up, and the culture lost. Maybe this will reduce the protests againstthe logging and allow the private companies to reap their ill-gained profitsunhindered.

The state government has claimed that they are spending money on the Penan, aswe described in the first chapter. But the result of this survey, and the testi-monies 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 rightswould be a first and immediate step that would then allow them some security andcontinuity 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 facili-ties and proper health and educational support needs to follow. The recommenda-tions set out in the next pages detail these, and should be supported by allMalaysians who care about what is happening to their country and people.

49

Page

Table One: Community profiles

Community Population No. of Households No. in group interview

Ba Tik 25 10 12Long Ajeng 872 100 300Long Benali 90 16 26Long Kepang 43 10 12Long Kerong 42 42 20Long Lai 103 27 30Long Lamai 98 96 50Long Mubui 104 28 31Long Pengaran 27 9 34Long Sabai 50 23 15Long Sait 200 35 2Long Sepigen 71 17 10

50

Page

Table 2 (contd.): The Effects of Logging on the Communities

Effect Forest Wood RotanLong Kepang Still goodLong Pengaran OKLong Sabai Some are destroyed OKBa Tik Destroyed because of the companyLong Benali Destroyed, All destroyedLong Mubui Company logged allLong Sait DestroyedLong Kerong ¼ left, ½ burnt, ¼ destroyed by company, Those near village are burntLong Lai Little left No moreLong Lamai Half gone Burnt, taken by company No more, burntLong Sipigen No more because of logging & burning, destroyed by companyLong Ajeng Destroyed

Effects Fruits VegetablesLong Kepang Still OKLong Pengaran Still OKLong SabaiBa Tik Destroyed Difficult to findLong Benali Destroyed Difficult to findLong Mubui Destroyed Difficult to findLong Sait Burnt Difficult to findLong Kerong Still fruits in the jungle Can still be found &

plantedLong Lai Not muchLong Lamai Burnt, No moreLong Sipigen Burnt, None, unless plantedLong Ajeng Destroyed, No more

Effects Nature Social EffectLong Kepang Still good Adverse effect, company getting nearerLong Pengaran Still good Adverse effect, company getting nearerLong Sabai Sure to have problems with company nearerBa Tik Destroyed, warm Many problemsLong Benali Destroyed, warm Many problemsLong Mubui Destroyed, warm Many problemsLong Sait Destroyed Always bad external effectsLong Kerong Destroyed cos of burning Many problemsLong Lai Still some left Always problemsLong Lamai Half destroyed Many problemsLong Sipigen Destroyed, burnt Bad external effects, many problemsLong Ajeng No more, forest destroyed More problems

51

Page

Table 2 (contd.): The Effects of Logging on the Communities

Effects Fish Meat/Animal Water FarmLong Kepang Still OK Sometimes difficult to find Still clean Still OKLong Pengaran Still OK Sometimes difficult to find Still clean Still OKLong SabaiBa Tik All dead, the river dries up Difficult to find Dry Soil is dry & hard, cannot plantLong Benali All dead, the river dries up Difficult to find Dry Soil is dry & hard, cannot plantLong Mubui All dead, the river dries up Difficult to find Dry Soil is dry & hard, cannot plantLong Sait Die because the river dries up Cannot be found near villageLong Kerong Still fish in river but difficult to find Still in jungle but difficult to find Still clean, sometimes dirty Still goodLong Lai Difficult to find Difficult to find/Difficult to hunt Dry & dirtyLong Lamai River dries up, difficult to find fish Difficult to find/Difficult to hunt Dry Difficult because of burningLong Sipigen Many dead because river dries up Difficult to find/Difficult to hunt Small area, land is hard, plant dieLong Ajeng Die because river dries up Difficult to find/Difficult to hunt Dirty, cannot drink Cannot plant, nowhere to farm

52

Page 53

Page

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 lawLong Sabai Always sick UnfairBa Tik Many diseases/Many are sick Unfair/Company, & PFF do not respect our customary lawLong Benali Many diseases/Many are sick Unfair/Company, & PFF do not respect our customary lawLong Mubui Many diseases/Many are sick Unfair/Company, & PFF do not respect our customary lawLong Sait Many are sick No respect for customary lawLong Kerong More diseases UnfairLong Lai Many are sickLong Lamai Bad UnfairLong Sipigen More diseases UnfairLong Ajeng Worsening We don�t 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 AjengLong Kepang Long BenaliLong Lai Long MubuiLong Kerong*Long Lamai*Long PengaranLong SabaiLong SaitLong Sepigen

* These communities stated that it �depends on the community�s decision as conveyed to the government andthe company�.

Table 4: Opinion of community on logging on communal land

Dissatisfied* Angry Dissafied & Angry No Opinion

Long Ajeng Long Kerong Ba Tik Long SaitLong Benali Long Lai Long KepangLong Mubui Long Lamai Long SabaiLong PengaranLong Sipegen

* Angry with approaching logging company

No consultation with to the communities before loggingNo compensation to the communities for the logging

The community should determine the amount of compensation

54

Page

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 LamaiLong MubuiLong PengaranLong SaitLong 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 community�s protests

Company got assistance of PPF, Company ignored Company continued logging whileForest Officers & DO the community negotiating with communityto 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 TikLong Kerong Long AjengLong Lai Long BenaliLong Lamai Long PengaranLong MubuiLong SabaiLong SaitLong Sepigen

Table 8: PFF�s Attitude towards the community compared to 1996

No change OppressiveBa Tik* Ba Tik*Long Ajeng Long BenaliLong Lamai* Long KepangLong Pengaran* Long Kerong

Long LaiLong Lamai*Long Pengaran*Long SabaiLong SaitLong Sepigen

55

Page

Table 9: Clinic In/Near Kampong?

No No new clinic No improvement in No increase in No improvementsince 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 insince 1995 medical supplies since 1995 skill of personnels since 1995

Except Long Lamai and Except Long SaitLong Sepigen

Serious cases of patients sent to Marudi & Miri by helicopter or flying doctor? NoInformed of transport by Medical Dept. for sending patients to clinic/hospital? NoMedical 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? NoIf 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 �95Except 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

56

Page

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 seri-ous attention.

Firstly, it is clear that the state government�s response to the Penan�s griev-ances has been, basically, to ignore them. The agenda of the state government,which is not contradicted by anything coming out of the federal government, isto back the companies who have been given concessions over the land and forest,ignore native customary claims, ignore protests that communities suffer as aresult and that lives are impoverished, and show the indigenous culture a com-plete lack of respect.

This agenda is driven by the state�s 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 themarginalised communities) and to hail the Ômodern�, monetary economy as settingTHE 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, ForestDepartment and other officials and institutions, to force its agenda on to dis-senting communities. Arrests, harassment, the use of physical force includingtear gas, and the imprisonment of indigenous people trying to get their voiceheard are all a part of this enforcement. The message coming continually fromgovernment 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 alsodealt with inadequately. Allegations of murder and rape, for example, have re-ceived little action from the police, or, if they have, there has been littleinformation about the progress and follow-up of the investigation. It is ex-tremely sad that Malaysian citizens cannot get redress for these heinous crimesfrom the very people who are given the responsibility to safeguard all our in-terests.

It should be noted that there are a variety of national and international decla-rations which can act as a reference point for principles and standards to beevaluated 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 refer-ences 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 bythe participants of the NGOs National Indigenous People�s Forum inconjunction 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 stategovernment and the Malaysian Federal government to the issues faced by Penan(and other indigenous) communities, and the principles and practices espoused bythese 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 shouldbe the people in these communities themselves who decide as far as possible how

57

Page

they want their future to unfold,the lack of investigation into complaints andreported incidents, indeed the lack of incorporation of Penan wishes (or anyindigenous peoples) into any development model - all of these are testament tothe fact that the Sarawak state government and the federal government have anagenda which does not give any centrality to the Penan or to other indigenouscommunities.

They are excluded from any decision made about their future. They are told whatdevelopment model they must follow. They are instructed to allow outsiders tram-ple over their land, destroy their forests and pollute the rivers, because thisis Ôdevelopment�. The forests and rivers are what the Penan call home, they area heritage which the Penan guard carefully and have nursed holistically, to besafe 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 con-cern, 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 ofthe 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 consultedand their grievances listed and answered;

Order with immediate effect a full investigation into the abuses detailed inthis report , including the murder of Abung Ipui and the death of Geran Tan,such an investigation to be conducted speedily and with a publicly availablereport 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 beaccepted and acted upon, and the process and results of investigations madeavailable to the complainants;

The role of the PFF to be investigated by an Independent Enquiry, open to thepublic and able to address any complaints the Penan may have about thebehaviourof PFF members;

Urgent investigation into the activities of logging and other companies, payingparticular regard to destruction of farmlands, graveyards and other land theyhave not been licenced to log, and to the probability that many of them havebeen involved in illegal clearing (possibly through burning). Culprits must bebrought to court, and proper compensation payments ordered and paid;

All logging and other land development licences must be made subject to an inde-pendent social and environmental impact assessment, such an assessment to have apublic component, whereby the public can view and comment on the assessmentprior to its approval or rejection;

Health, educational and other basic facilities must be upgraded to a decentstandard, as this is a right of any Malaysian.

This needs doing now. We call on all Malaysians to support these actions.

58

Not Development But Theft (PDF)

Technology

penan groups

eastern penan

penan testimonieschapter

western penan

indigenous communities

indigenous groups

sarawak malaysia

west ern penan