Support for smangus:Rogelio Rodriguez's letter

To whom it may concern:

I find it a true atrocity that innocent people are being incarcerated for a crime that does not exist in my eyes. The Tayal people in Smangus are being found guilty with out all the facts being looked at. The fact that the Taiwanese Government is taking such harsh actions over the removal of a tree that was actually taken down by the typhoon that hit he island is mockery of the laws that are in place.

The Smangus people have a long history in the island and have always relied on the resources that the land offers them. The Smangus people are full of traditions and beliefs that make up the history of Taiwan. The Smangus actually have the right to use the resources of the forest for their traditional practices; these rights are allowed under Section 4, Article 15 of the Forestry Act. I plead the Taiwanese Government to enforce the laws that are in place. The Smangus should be protected from being pursued by the local government over rights that they have.

I seriously hope that these letters of support will not fall on deaf ears. Please take the time to look into this situation and look into the laws that were created. The Smangus are a part of Taiwan and this makes me feel that they are being treated unfairly. If the Taiwanese Government treats its own people in this way, I can only imagine how bad a tourist my have it. These actions most then likely have already changed tourist decisions to visit such a great place like Taiwan. I hope that this issue will have a positive outcome for the Smangus and the people of Taiwan as a whole.

Thank you for your time

Rogelio Rodriguez

Support for smangus:Rebecca Thorp's letter

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to show my support for the Smangus people in their fight against the wrongful guilty conviction in the event involving the fallen beech tree. Section 4 Article 15 of the Forestry Act gives the rights to the resources in the traditional territories of the Smangus to the Smangus people. The beech tree that fell from typhoon Haitang was within their traditional territory and, in accordance with Section 4 Article 15 of the Forestry Act, lawfully allowed to be collected by the Smangus people. Convicting the members of the Smangus people of larceny for harvesting what was rightfully theirs is wrong. The Smangus are only asking for the Taiwanese government to follow the same laws they abide by and to enforce them properly. Instead of acknowledging the resource as legally obtained by the Smangus, your government has concluded that they are in violation of Article 52.

Please reconsider the judgment you have made against the members of the Smangus people. The fallen beech tree was a resource rightfully theirs and they have committed no act of larceny.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Thorp

Student
San Jose State University

How Taipei is breaking promises to Aborigines

Quote from http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/05/14/2003360824

By Huang Yi-yuan (黃驛淵)

Monday, May 14, 2007, Page 8The Chinese-language newspaper China Times reported that the Smanguscommunity of the Atayal Aboriginal tribe in Hsinchu County's Chien-shihTownship (尖石) refused to allow Forestry Bureau officials to observe atraditional ceremony expressing the tribe's sovereignty on May 7.

The refusal was sparked by an event two years earlier, in which tribemembers had taken dead logs from trees blown over during a typhoonback to their community for decorative purposes.

The bureau sued them for violating the Forestry Law (森林法) and theHsinchu District Court ruled that the removal of the logs constituted"larceny."

This astounding verdict has made citizens doubt whether the spirit of"multiculturalism" that the government professes is actually possible.

The residents of Smangus have always decided tribal matters byconsensus and through traditional tribal law.

For example, when the tribe made the decision to take the fallen logsback to the community, this action was seen as no different fromtaking food out of one's own refrigerator to cook.

If we closely analyze this issue in light of Taiwan's policy towardAborigines, their laws and similar policies in other countries, itbecomes clear that the government's handling of this incident did notconform to the spirit of multicultralism.

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) signed an agreement called "A NewPartnership Between the Indigenous peoples and the Government ofTaiwan" with Aboriginal representatives on Orchid Island in 1999 whenhe was running for president.

He again acknowledged the agreement as president in 2002. Theannouncement of the Aboriginal Basic Law (原住民族基本法) in 2005 furtherconfirmed, in practical legal terms, that Aborigines have the right toself-governance.

The law clearly acknowledges that Aborigines have authority over theirland and natural resources. The articles within the law clearlystipulate that Aborigines may legally engage in non-profit activitieswithin their areas, including collecting wild vegetation, minerals,stone and other resources.

The Forestry Law also says that "If the forest is located in thetraditional territory of Aboriginal people, the Aboriginal people maytake forest products for their traditional living needs."

However, beginning with the Forestry Bureau's lawsuit over the logsall the way through to the court's ruling, the entire process hasrepeatedly highlighted the government's arrogance and ignorance inAboriginal matters. Moreover, the government has clearly ignoredAboriginal rights to self-governance and the spirit ofmulticulturalism.

How do other countries handle controversies between native land rightsand natural resources? The US has given native American tribes theright to manage natural resources on their reservations, includinglumber, water, fishing, hunting and minerals.

In Canada, beginning with the 1973 case of Calder vs. the Attorney-General of British Columbia and extending through the Delgamuukw vs.British Columbia case in 1997, the courts have repeatedly affirmedAborigine rights to self-governance and land use.

On the surface, the government has acknowledged the autonomy of thenation's Aborigines through laws and partnership agreements. So howcan it flip-flop and ignore the promises it has made?

And most of all, why should our Aboriginal friends trust thegovernment when it misuses its public authority in such an obviousmanner?

Huang Yi-yuan is a student at the Graduate Institute of Journalism atNational Taiwan University.

Translated by Marc Langer

Save the Smangus People

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in regards to the wind-fall beech event that had occurred at Smangus and would like to extend my support for the Smangus community. Based on the information made available to me, the Forestry Bureau staff had cut the tree into pieces and removed of them, which was in village boundaries. When the village people tried to take the wood back to the village after it was transported, they were accused of burglary. How can it possibly make sense to charge these traditional people with burglary on something that originally was located in their territory? These people were only taking back what was originally theirs, which was taken away by the Forestry staff. Since that were the case, perhaps it could be considered the Forestry staff committed the burglary first. Had they not removed the tree, the village people would not have been able to take the pieces away.

The Smangus people who have been charged with this unthinkable crime should not only deny these charges, but defend their beliefs as well. These people have broken no laws, because they are being charged with a law that doesn't even apply to them to say the least. They were only taking back what was rightfully theirs. It plays a major role in sustaining their tourism they have. Furthermore, these people are charged with a crime, when Section 4 of Article 15 clearly states that aboriginal people may take forest products which promote their traditional living needs.

It is my hope that these charges can be reviewed and overturned. The Smangus people have resided there for many generations and many are outraged that this situation has come to this.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Lau

Student of San Jose State University , San Jose, California

Interview with Elder Masay

Reprinted from Coolcould Forum: Who’s the Executioner? Smangus or the Forestry Bureau?
Written by Tzuyaya (Stringer journalist of the Coolcloud website)
Translated by Chie-Yu Hong

“We are far more qualified to protect the forest than the Forestry Bureau!” claimed former director-general of The Association for the Development of Atayal Smangus, Masay Sulong.

Masay stated that Taiwan's aerial images could reveal how those thick forests in Alishan and Cilan mountain areas have turned from green to bare due to over exploitation under the Forestry Bureau's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Smangus still embraces dense forests, limpid creeks and towering giant trees, which demonstrate well the villagers' environmental sense.

Smangus has devoted to forest conservation for the practical concern of living with the environment. Though the people have protected not only the environment but also their homelands through forestation, their concerns come to serious conflicts with government departments. To illustrate, three villagers were charged with stealing by the Forestry Bureau for violating the Forestry Act; they were sentenced to six months in prison with two years of probation and fined NT$160,000 dollars each. However, they had only found a wind-fall beech from typhoon in the year before, while rushing to repair the damaged road, and attempted to carry the tree back to their village for reuse.

Masay sigh, saying that our government had been blind to the indigene's efforts for the environment. “Rather, our government values wind-fall and withered trees above all” he retorted.

“We've been thinking about how to preserve our mountains and our lands” said Masay. He remarked that the ancestors of indigenes had indeed ample environmental sense. They would, for example, build a retaining wall by laying stones after logging. They could understand the values of planting trees because they knew that Nature could run short of supply and trees could hold back mudflows. They left the animals for propagation in summer and did not hunt until celebrations in winter. They protected their rivers for clean water to drink.

Masay expressed his hope that our government could listen in patience to Smangus voices and work out an agreement through equal consultations to let the Smangus care for their own mountains and keep their cultural traditions. “Isn't it nice to respect each other?” said Maysay.

Maysay sighed gently and led me to the square in the village.

“This is my production named ‘La qi klokah.’ The term ‘La qi’ means a child, while ‘klokah’ means way to go. In other words, this name implies ‘Way to go, my child!” Masay pointed for me.

Taking a careful look, I discovered a path of foot prints carved quite neatly on the front right of this woodcarving. Masay addressed that they symbolized Smangus ancestors' tracks. At that time there was no outside force from our government to disturb the indigene lives; hence, though their ancestors had difficult days, they still stuck to their lives, nurtured offspring and survived with Nature.

“Right after then, here came the Japanese geta” said Masay. When the Japanese Government came to Taiwan, they banned facial tattooing and other traditions, for they did not understand indigenous cultural backgrounds. Masay pointed at the footprints between the geta and said to me, “Tayal people lost their pace, and culture began to break down.”

Masay continued, “Later, leather shoes and high heels ensued.” He described that after the government of the Republic of China settled down in Taiwan, domestic economy started to thrive and Tayal people sold their lands and children to improve their living standards. They drew big businesses to their villages all for their own good, not treasuring the lands from ancestors.

Masay went on to explain that he did not mean to accuse big businesses, but oftentimes they did not mind aboriginal way of living while exploiting and making profits vigorously; unfortunately, villagers could do nothing with these big businesses' coercion and bribery but selling lands one after another.

“If we do not appreciate the land that grows us, what else shall our culture depend upon?” said Masay. He hoped that Smangus children could strive hard to keep protecting the lands they inherited from ancestors, and walked in measured steps, just like the small feet on the left of the woodcarving.

“La qi klokah!”