Sarawak's lone opposition assemblyman Chiew Chin Sing criticised the state government for seeking to 'criminalise' the natives by making it an offence to take forest produce from state and communal land for even domestic use without written permission.

Chiew said the problem of requiring the natives to obtain prior permission from the authorities in taking forest produce is associated with "the long-term dispute between the government and the natives to whom those lands were always their lands, and being their lands, why do they need to obtain any permission at all?"

"The whole problem is a land rights problem, but this bill when passed is going to criminalise the natives who had thought they have always been taking timber from their own land," said Chiew during the debate on the Forests (Amendment) Bill 2001 in the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly on Wednesday.

Among others, the amendments which the House later approved - after three assemblymen, including Chiew, spoke - sought to make it an offence for any native to take forest produce out of state and communal land for commercial purposes, or even for domestic use, without any written permit.

The DAP assemblyman, making his debut in the 62-member state assembly after being elected to the Kidurong state constituency in the Sept elections, said: "The situation of native community taking forest produce for sale or other commercial purposes stems from the very reason that our state government is exploiting timber resources as a commodity where there is big money to be made.

"The native community is only learning from the government to make money in the same way."

Chiew added: "But, unfortunately, our state government seldom give the native community any licence for the extraction of timber for commercial purposes.

"Timber resources in the state should be for everybody in Sarawak, and licences for the harvesting of timber should be open tender to anybody in the state whether he be a native or non-native, big or small timber companies."

Double standards

Referring to the amendment to section 47 of the Sarawak Forest Ordinance, which states that "a member of the community shall be presumed to be taking forest produce for sale, exchange or direct profit unless he can prove (otherwise) to the satisfaction of a court of the director (of forest)," Chiew described this law as "most inappropriate and against the very basis of our system of law where one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty."

"This clause should be abolished as this will free the person in charge of the arrest of any worry of making any false arrest... In the end who will suffer? Only the poor rural folks," he lamented.

Touching on what he described as an ambiguous section of the Amendment Bill on protected trees or species of trees with medicinal values, the DAP assemblyman said: "It also states, at the same time, that no person shall cultivate, propagate or germinate, etc., etc., and it continues to say that any person who contravenes (the new law) shall be guilty of an offence for which the penalty is a fine not exceeding RM30,000 or imprisonment, etc., etc."

Chiew added: "What I cannot understand is this: Why is it that when the species of trees is valuable but the people cannot even cultivate, propagate or germinate, and would be fined a hefty sum of RM30,000 while in clause 7, new section 54b, it says that when one is wrong in hiring of untrained workmen, he is fined a sum of not exceeding RM5,000 or imprisonment?"

He continued: "So what I want to know is this: Why is it that when one is trying to do good to cultivate, propagate or germinate a species of trees of value he is punished with RM30,000 fine when a wrong like the hiring of an untrained workmen (in the logging industry) is only fined RM5,000?

"This to me is like saying, 'You try to do good and you are fined more than if you do wrong.' I really cannot understand the reasoning and justification for this."

Better protection for workers

The Amendment Bill also provided for what a government minister has described as better protection and safety for timber workers.

Referring to clause 7, new section 54b, covering the employment of trained workmen, Chiew asked the government to explain the kind of institution for training workmen.

"If it is a learning institution why is it not under the Ministry of Education but under the approval of the director of forests in consultation with the minister (in charge of forestry matters)? What kind of guidelines are there to ensure that there is no abuse of power and prejudices in the said institution?"

The assemblyman wanted to know how the 'employment of trained workmen' was going to be enforced.

"From what I know, the Forest Department is already short-handed and as it is already mentioned in this bill that it will not involve the government in any extra financial expenditure, how will the whole thing then be enforced without more money?"