"I would hope that they do not have a pre-conceived idea that developing countries do not allow our judges to be independent," Dr Mahathir told a news conference after opening the 12th Commonwealth Law Conference at the Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre here today.

A typical Mahathir attack: set up a straw-man and proceed to demolish it.

In point of fact, of course, no right-thinking person believes that ALL developing countries have judiciaries which are not independent. Equally, any right-thinking person can see that judiciaries in some developing countries are less than independent; and many in attendance at the Commonwealth Law Conference will look askance at some decisions handed down by courts in the developed commonwealth countries. A famous instance would be the decision handed down in the ‘Spycatcher’ case during the premiership of one of Dr Mahathir’s admirers, Lady Thatcher.

Specifically, many, if not all, attending the Commonwealth Law Conference will hold the Indian judiciary in the highest regard.

Unfortunately, Dr Mahathir would be most uncomfortable with a judiciary like the Indian judiciary, given his well-known statements about the exercise of judicial interpretation and judicial activism.

As proof of this: look at the numerous laws and amendments that have been introduced that specifically exclude judicial review, leaving everything to the discretion of the minister in question. This means one can’t even refer to the courts for a judgment once a minister has made up his mind according to his wisdom.

People in glass houses

In fine form, Dr Mahathir suggested that Canada should be condemned for its treatment of, in his words, “Red Indians”. Marina Mahathir would have been most embarassed by the use of a term reflective of the most primitive of colonial attitudes. Canadians, today, wouldn’t be caught dead using such a derogatory term; or rather, the only Canadians who might use such a term would be unreconstructed racists, or children who have been watching too many old TV ‘westerns’.

Moreover, one should watch one’s backside before proceeding to fire volleys at others.

Unfortunately for Dr Mahathir, only this year, the Canadian government, to the resistance of some of the population, returned a vast tract of land covering one-fifth of Canada to the native Inuit (previously called by the colonial name, Eskimo). Of course, it is still possible to suggest that this is barren country and so on -- but one should always get one’s facts right.

More embarassing is the fact that our own Orang Asli still do not have title to the land they occupy. They can, have been, and are moved out at will -- allegedly to make way for development, such as the new airport, or the Sg Selangor dam, when often such development brings little or no benefit to them and indeed often makes them more resource poor than previously.

Incidentally, while still unsatisfactory, perhaps the most enlightened land policy with respect to the Orang Asli is to be found in Kelantan.

The rights of natives

Barely two weeks before Dr Mahathir blasted the Canadians, a little noticed ‘incident’ occured in Ulu Niah, near Miri, Sarawak. It was reported that four persons were killed, while fifteen persons from two Iban longhouses had been detained for further investigations. The authorities characterised this as a small matter, and that plans for taking over and developing native land will continue -- against their wishes, so it would seem.

Perhaps this is why Dr Mahathir is so opposed to the idea of human rights for dissenters?

This was the second incident in twenty months involving loss of life.

In December 1997, in another little noted ‘incident’, one person was killed by police who had gone to an Iban longhouse to arrest some persons. This occured in the same general area, in Ulu Bakong, near Miri, Sarawak.

Both incidents derived from the same root cause -- conflict over land rights between natives and oil palm companies backed by the government.

The government, in these cases, the Sarawak state government, had decided that native land should be given over to oil palm companies for development into oil palm estates. In return, the natives are supposed to receive RM1,500 per hectare of which 60 per cent, or RM900, will be used to purchase a 30 per cent share in the oil palm company; presumably the remaining RM600 is to tide them over till the estate comes into bearing.

This 30 per cent share entitles them to a 30 per cent share in the declared dividends of the company. In view of the fact that the bulk of their land will be taken up by the company for a period of 60 years, the natives will have to depend on these dividends as a major income source. Those natives who are landless will have neither dividend nor land to depend on; previously, they could borrow land from neighbours and family, but since the land of neighbours and family will be taken up, they won’t be able to do so.

Some communities have resisted such a venture. Evidently, it is being made clear to them that resistance is futile, or costly.

The human right to development, in Dr Mahathir’s version of it, appears to mean no rights to oppose or question unwanted development, or even merely to question the terms, such as of compensation. Native rights, it appears, means the right -- or rather, the power -- of the government to decide what to do with them, even if it is not in accordance with their wishes and even if it points to a reduced quality of life for large numbers of them who may have as little as five hectares or less. Imagine trying to live on 30 per cent of the dividends on five hectares of oil palm -- Felda settlers, with 4 hectares per family, are finding it tough going at today’s prices.

In the recent events in Ulu Niah, the company in question is Sarawak Oil Palm, a company jointly held by the state government through its corporatised agency, Pelita, and one of the Sarawak ‘giants’, Shin Yang. Shin Yang made its fortune through logging, in which it continues to have major interests all over Sarawak; as primary forest runs out, Shin Yang, as well as other logging companies, have diversified, including into plantation agriculture. The cynical suggest that this is their contribution to re-afforestation, having de-forested or degraded vast areas in the first place.

It is rumoured that some of Sarawak’s ‘notables’ also have shares in the company, through nominee companies.

The chairman of the board of directors of Sarawak Oil Palm is the state secretary, Tan Sri Datuk Amar Haji Hamid Bugo.

According to local sources, the source of the conflict that led to the deaths of the four persons, all non-Iban, was disagreement over the inclusion of some land in the oil palm development. This included land under cultivation; some of it had been planted with pepper which currently fetches a bumper price. There was also disagreement over the compensation to be paid for land to be included.

The matter had been dragging on for some time and despite urgent representation by the longhouse people to the authorities their grievances were not addressed.

To cut a long story short, finally, according to local sources, the company sent along some gangsters to put pressure on them to agree. This led to a fight in which the intruders were killed.

The state claims that the land on which these people live is state land. According to state law, what is called native customary rights simply confers use rights, but not ownership. For years now, the natives have been asking for proper survey and titling of their land but, to borrow Dr Mahathir’s words, “their demands had been ignored”.

Were you saying native rights, Dr Mahathir?