Taiwan: Whose land?
出自Taipedia
Whose land?
黑暗從眼睛 滑落心頭， 令人害怕的 失去光明的窒息， 圍繞四周。
Darkness slides from my eyes into my heart. Scaring suffocation without light surrounds me.
'Burning' by Mo-Na-Neng (a Paiwan poet)].
司馬庫斯風倒木事件，針對不公平審判，捍衛司馬庫斯行動聯盟新聞指出，在2005年十月：
Smangus's battle for the unfair trail about the wind-fall beech, based on Smangus & Smangus Action Alliance News, can be traced back to October, 2005:
Terry the typhoon caused the damage to the only road that communicated the neighboring areas. Smangus people cleaned the road alone and put the windfall beech on the side. One month later, the staff of the Forestry Bureau chopped the wood into pieces and took them away secretly. Three of the Smangus youth transported the remains on behalf of the Tribal Committee for the purpose of community design. Consequently they were reported of stealing national woods. The accused became the accuser!
因為無法接受竊盜風倒櫸木的起訴，司馬庫斯人不願認罪，案件繼續審判：
Because the stigmatization was unacceptable to Smangus people, they did not want to admit crime and let the case go.
(Feb 24, 2007) The judge of the first instance ignored the Article 15 of the Forestry Act and the Aboriginal Basic Law which protect the indigenous rights, but instead, he convicted them by Articlee 52 of the Forestry Act. The penalty was 6 months of imprisonment, the fine of NT$160, 000 for each person, and suspension of punishment for two years. Smangus people cried, “Why don’t you put all of us in jail?” Therefore, the whole village went on the road to Not Guilty Plea.
在風倒櫸木事件中，「土地屬於誰」是一個重要的議題。司馬庫斯人認為風倒櫸木所在的位置是他們的領域，而林務局並不這麼認為。到底要如何決定土地屬於誰？
The main issue in this battle is 'whose land is it?' Smangus people thought the wind-fall beech is in their territory, but the Forestry Bureau thought it is not. How do we decide who is the owner of the land?
在2007年5/20-21，因為泰雅族人認為司馬庫斯風倒櫸木事件是對其嚴重的威脅，所以召開Pinhaban傳統會議，各部落結盟一起保護其領土。在部落會議上（根據Pinhaban會議的聲明），馬里光群的長老說：
In May 20-21, 2007, because Tayal people considered the wind-fall beech case is a serious threats to the Tayal tribes, Pinhaban, a traditional cultural ceremony, was held to make alliance among the villages to protect their territories. In the conference (based on The statements and declaration, from the conference of Pinhaban Alliance, the chief of the village of Mrqwang said:
We indigenous peoples are knowledgeable of our own traditional territories. We can accurately describe the landscapes of the mountains and the rivers in them. We name those natural objects and connect our own lives so closely with the surroundings. The staff of the Forestry Bureau does not understand our lives. When we heard the staff say that the traditional territory of Smangus is only about 12 acres, we regarded the notion absurd. The territory is absolutely larger than this measure.
In Munch's article:
誰的山林？一直存在爭議。 從日本人強收山林，國民政府承繼遵行，原住民的傳統領域，始終成為被擱置的話題，在不斷族群正名以示尊重的心態下，就像掛上好看門牌，家園卻永遠不屬於自己的，林務局是山林裡的大地主，原住民每個人都清楚
Whose land? This is always a controversial question. Both Japan government and this government confiscated the mountains, and the ownership of the traditional land of the aboriginal people is always an ignored problem. Although there are many name-rectification actions that showed the respect to the aboriginal people, these actions only put on a beautiful doorplate while their homeland is always not belong to them. All the aboriginal people know that the Forest Bureau is the largest landlord of the mountain.
對原住民而言，司馬庫斯櫸木事件，不是刑罰輕重，而是對於原住民領域及文化的尊重，他們堅持的是無罪判決，沒有人可以否定他們對於山林家園的權力。
To aboriginal people, the seriousness of the penalty is not the point. They care about the respect to their territory and their culture. They insist for not guilty plea, because no one can deny their right on their land.
In September 28, 2007, ignoring the Smangus people's claim and the Forestry Act and the Aboriginal Basic Law, the judge of the second instance decided to keep the original conviction but decrease the punishment.
In Judie's blog, Wild at heart, Legal Defense Association said,
今天的判決是一個醜陋的妥協。因為，如果法院認定三人有罪，那麼根據《森林法》，結夥並使用搬運設備竊取林產物，應加重判刑，為何法官卻做出減輕刑責的判決？如果法官已體認到原住民族價值系統中人對自然的善待、和諧、永續與責任，為何沒有勇氣做出無罪判決？
Today's conviction is an ugly compromise. If the judge decided the three people committed crime based on the Forestry Act because they stole the nature resource in the forestry, the judge should enhance the punishment. On the other hand, if the judge recognized the way the aboriginal people treat the nature: kindness, harmony, sustainability, and responsibility, why did the judge not have the courage to agree with the no guilty plea?
在一個生態解說員的告白，老梧桐說：
山胡椒(Lindera angustifolia Cheng)...果實有類似胡椒和薑的味道，原住民稱山胡椒為『Maqaw』，中文譯音：『馬告』...在原住民的眼中，它是一種特有的調味食材...『長在霧林裡的山胡椒，有泰雅人的味道，請收起猖狂的電鋸，請澆熄偏執的狼煙，請把耳朵貼近土地，霧林裡的巨木樹幹，沉靜的心跳是山脈的告白，只有霧林庇護的山胡椒，才能吃出泰雅人的味道‧‧‧』，這是司馬庫斯部落詩抄的一小段
In an announcement from a ecological narrator, an old phoenix tree said: Lindera angustifolia Cheng, its fruit tastes like pepper and ginger. Native Taiwanese call it 'Maqaw.' From Native Taiwanese' eyes, it is a special seasoning. 'The Maqaw in the mist is the taste of Ataya. Please put away the crazy electric sew and extinguish intolerant beacon fire. Please put your ears close to the earth. The divine trees in the mist, the silent heart beats, are the whispers from the mountains. Only with the Maqaw that is guarded by the mist, you will know what's Ataya's taste.' (from Poems from Smangus tribe by Hsiu-Lan Yeh)
唐朝演繹說明1998-2003年在部落、環保人士、以及政府之間的爭論： 1998年，有環保人士發現退輔會利用整理棲蘭山枯立倒木為由，砍伐生立檜木，民間各路保育團體於是發起「全國搶救棲蘭檜木林聯盟」，這個運動彼此對壘的 兩大陣營，是以退輔會及若干森林學者為首的「伐木派」，與環保人士陳玉峰等人為首的「保存派」。這是運動初期，選項很簡單。兩年後，由於民間環保人士持續 不懈地努力以及陳水扁總統的第一次勝選，棲蘭檜木林在2000年終於取得政府承諾，將全面朝「馬告國家公園」的方向推展。到此為止，馬告的運動不能不說是 取得階段性的重大勝利。然而，也在政府承諾將朝國家公園方向規劃的同時，原本立場與保存派相同的泰雅族原住民，卻反而站出來反對漢人設立國家公園，稱是枉顧他們的傳統文化與生存權利，這個聲音，也促使環保人士反省長期以來的國家公園體系，並試圖規劃出一個「與原住民共管」的國家公園。然而，這個看似美好的 計畫，後來卻仍舊得不到在地原住民及原運人士的信任，2002年夏天，原運人士發起的「誓死反馬告」運動得到支持，緊接著2003年，馬告公園籌備處的預算在立法院遭到凍結，並且附帶決議國家公園法修法通過、週遭自然資源重新調查、以及與部落充分溝通之後始得動支
Nayatang talked about a conflict among the tribes, environmentalists, and the government from 1998 to 2003: In 1998, some environmentalists found that Veteran Affairs Commission claimed that they needed to clean out the dead woods in Chi-Lan mountain, but their major goal was logging Cypress. As a result, nature conservation groups founded 'national alliance for protecting Chi-Lan Cypress.' In the beginning, the conflict was between the 'logging group' (Veteran Affairs Commission and some forestrists) and the 'conservation group' (environmentalists led by Yu-Feng Chen), and the choice was simple. Two years later, after environmentalists' continuous efforts and Shui-Bian Chen becoming president successfully, in 2000, the government promised that Chi-Lan Cypress would be conserved as Maqaw National Park. At that time, it was a big success in Maqaw activists' side. However, while the government promoted the national park, the Ataya aborigines, who stood at the same side as the environmentalists in the beginning, opposed the idea of a national park. They claimed that the national park would ignore the their traditional culture and human right. Their claim pushed the environmentalists to reflect the so-called national park system and think about a national park managed with the aboriginal people. However, the Aboriginal people did not support their project and launched the 'Opposing Maqaw (national park)' activity. In the summer of 2003, the 'Opposing Maqaw' activity was supported by many people, and the budget for Maqaw National Park was frozen in the Legislative Yuan, and the legislators decided that the budget could pass only if the amendment law for national park is passed, the nature resource is studied, and the aboriginal communities are communicated.
在這場原住民部落、專家、與政府的爭論之後兩年，2005年，另一個原住民部落展開與政府的另一場爭論。
Two years after the conflict among the aboriginal communities, the experts, and the government, in 2005, another aboriginal community had conflict with the government again.
Lahuy Icyeh講述司馬庫斯風倒櫸木事件：
20050903，強颱泰利過境後的第二天，部落族人即自力救濟進行多處塌方聯外道路搶修...一棵胸徑約60cm的風倒櫸木隨土石崩落在路上，在搶修的過程中，部落居民將櫸木移在路旁。 20051014...部落族人例行性聚集進行部落會議...其中三位青年分配要負責搬運「Tgbil（風倒櫸木）」...黃少華警員盤問「風倒木」搬動事宜，部落三位向黃警員說明：「這是在我們Smagnus及整 個mrqwang的傳統領域，我們部落的人派我們來載，要載回部落美化雕刻的。」...而在搬運之前，林務局新竹林管處已派 人先行將樹身的部份截成數段載運下山，只留下樹根在現場。 20051014晚上協調會議...參與人員：（部落人 員）Icyh、Batu、Yuraw、Amin、Kowang、Sakay、Kumay、Saka；林務局人員、秀巒派出所所長、森林警察二名，在部落進 行的會議結束後，兩名部落青年又被帶至泰崗派出所進行筆錄。 ...2006 九月前，整個事件在「新竹地方法院（檢察署）簡易庭」進行前後共計四次次偵辦調查庭後，最終檢查官「起訴」內容為「認定部落三位居民是盜採國有森林產物， 要族人認罪即可結束這整個事件，並科罰金10,000元」...這樣的結論部落族人堅決反對，並要求訴訟，進行「無罪抗辯」。 ..20070214 是櫸木事件正式出庭日，部落三位居民「Sangas、Kokwang、Amin」，因為櫸木事宜，被林務局林新竹林管處（原告單位）認定違反森林法第52 條第四款「第五十二條 （加重竊取森林主、副產物罪）：竊取森林主、副產物而有左列情形之一者，處六月以上五年以下有期徒刑，併科贓額二倍以上五倍以下罰金： 四、結夥二人以上或僱使他人犯之者。 」 但部落依循Tayal Gaga的精神，在對傳統領域內森林產物的使用上是有其正當性的，而且部落三位居民，是經過部落會議決議（經由集體討論形成集體意願），賦予執行搬運「風倒櫸木」的工作，在Tayal Gaga裡，在上帝、祖靈及族人的觀點裡，我們理直氣壯勇敢向中華民國的法律制度說「我們沒有犯罪，搬運櫸木的行為是部落集體的意思，而不是三個人的行 為，我們是遵從Gaga na Tayal來面對這樣的事情」。
Lahuy Icyeh talked about the fallen Zelkova formosana Hay issue in Smangus community:
On 2005/9/3, two days after Typhoon Terry, the residents in Smangus community started re-build the roads to other communities. A Zelkova (chest radius about 60cm) was blown down with rocks in the middle of one road. The residents removed that Zelkova aside. On 2005/10/14, in a routine community meeting, three young men were assigned to move the residual of that Zelkova (Tgbil in Atayal language). A policeman, Shao-Hua Huang, asked them, and they told the policeman 'the Tgbil would be removed to the community for sculpture, and this decision was made by Smagnus and Mrqwang people because this is our traditional territory.' Before they removed the residual of that Zelkova, the Forestry Bureau already cut and took away most of the tree. In that evening, there was a meeting between the resident in the community, officers in the Forestry Bureau, the head of the local police station, and two forest policemen. After the meeting, two young men in the community was brought to Tai-Kang police station and were taken down for writing. Before 2006 September, there were four investigation meetings in Hsin-Chu local court. At last, the prosecutor attorney brought this case to court and claimed: 'the three residents stole the state's property, and they should pay the penalty NTD 10000 if they admit their guilty.' The people in Smangus community refused this accusation and asked for not-guilty trial. On 2007/2/14, Sangas,Kokwang, and Amin, three residents in the community, were sued for larceny based on violating the Forest Law. On the other hand, the residents in the community claimed that based on the spirit of Tayal Gaga (Gaga, 'community rules' in Atayal language), the usage of the nature resource in their traditional territory is legal. These three residents were followed the decision made by the whole community, and their action represented the whole community's will. Based on Tayal Gaga, the God, the ancestors' spirits, and the community's perspective, we claim 'we did not violate the law. This action is based on the whole community's will instead of these three individuals. We will deal this problem based on Gaga na Tayal.'
在法律的部分，黃驛淵宣稱司馬庫斯人並沒有違反法律。在原住民基本法中，原住民對他們的土地以及土地上的自然資源擁有主權。森林法亦說，對於在原住民傳統領域的森林，原住民可以依生活需要使用其中的森林資源。
About the legal issues, Yi-yuan Huang claimed that the residents in Smangus community did not violate the law: The Aboriginal Basic Law acknowledges that Aborigines have authority over their land and natural resources, and the Forestry Law also says that 'If the forest is located in the traditional territory of Aboriginal people, the Aboriginal people may take forest products for their traditional living needs.'
掛上電話，心裡有點沈重。 一直迴響著傳光長老的感嘆，「我們的土地，為何說我們偷竊！」
In Munch's article: I hang on the phone in a heavy mood. I can still hear Chuan-Kuang the elder's sign, 'This is our land. Why accuse us for stealing?'
誰的山林？一直存在爭議。 從日本人強收山林，國民政府承繼遵行，原住民的傳統領域，始終成為被擱置的話題，在不斷族群正名以示尊重的心態下，就像掛上好看門牌，家園卻永遠不屬於自己的，林務局是山林裡的大地主，原住民每個人都清楚
Whose land? This is always a controversial question. Both Japan government and this government confiscated the mountains, and the ownership of the traditional land of the aboriginal people is always an ignored problem. Although there are many name-rectification actions that showed the respect to the aboriginal people, these actions only put on a beautiful doorplate, but their homeland is always not belong to them. All the aboriginal people know that the Forest Bureau is the largest landlord of the mountain.
擔任理事長的阿敏長老，也在判刑之列，我始終記得他在推動部落發展，那種純潔又堅毅的言語，這樣的一位奉教虔誠的人物，竟然揹上盜採的污名，讓人難以聯想，包括其他二位部落族人，也是落入不堪的境遇。
AMin the elder was also sentenced as larceny. I remember how he promoted community development with the candid and firm words. It is difficult to imagine that a religious person like him was accused for larceny. The other two men are also in this unbearable condition.
對原住民而言，司馬庫斯櫸木事件，不是刑罰輕重，而是對於原住民領域及文化的尊重，他們堅持的是無罪判決，沒有人可以否定他們對於山林家園的權力。
To aboriginal people, the seriousness of the penalty is not the focus. They care about the respect to their territory and their culture. They insist for not-guilty trial, because no one can deny their right in their land.
西雅圖酋長說：「所以，華盛頓的大酋長稍來訊息，他們想要買我們的地，他們要求的實在太多。大酋長說他們會幫我們保留一塊地讓我們舒服地居住，他會成為我們的父親，而我們是他的小孩。」
Chief Seattle said, 'So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children.'
「國家」是一個想像的主體。政府、官員、以及警察認為他們能代表這個想像的主體來決定其中公民的命運。即使在一個民主國家，總是有一些政府會覺得他們是我們的父親，而我們是他們的子民。在世界的許多地方，因為過去原住民被殖民者打敗，他們失去他們土地的所有權。然而，假如我們討論人權以及轉型正義，我們必須認真思考這些土地權的問題。這到底是誰的土地？這不是政客在選舉時開的支票，而是每一個公民需要思考的問題，因為這裡沒有「父親」，我們必須行使我們平等的公民權。
The state is an imagined object. The government, the officers, and the policemen think they represent for the imagined object and have the power to decide the civilians' fate. Even in a democratic country, there is always the possibility that the government thinks it is 'our father' and 'we are his children.' In many areas on earth, the aboriginal people lost the ownership of their land because they were defeated by the colonizers. However, when we talk about human right and when we talk about transitional justice, we need to take the land ownership problem seriously. This is not a political check signed by the politicians in elections. Whose land is it? This is a question the civilians in this state should think about, because there is no 'father,' and we should exercise our equal civilian right.