※前言：5/9中國時報時論廣場《多元文化精神何在》一文刊出後，即接到Taipei Times的來電，希望能獲得授權並將該文翻譯後刊出，於是今日（5/14）便有了這篇英文版的櫸木事件投書。但翻譯有些失去原味，如：訴求對象由政府變成了"Taipei"、"Aborigines"則不如使用"Indigenous Peoples"來得適切等等。
Published on Taipei Times
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/05/14/2003360824
How Taipei is breaking promises to Aborigines
By Huang Yi-yuan 黃驛淵
Monday, May 14, 2007, Page 8
The Chinese-language newspaper China Times reported that the Smangus community of the Atayal Aboriginal tribe in Hsinchu County's Chienshih Township (尖石) refused to allow Forestry Bureau officials to observe a traditional ceremony expressing the tribe's sovereignty on May 7.
The refusal was sparked by an event two years earlier, in which tribe members had taken dead logs from trees blown over during a typhoon back to their community for decorative purposes.
The bureau sued them for violating the Forestry Law (森林法) and the Hsinchu 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 by consensus and through traditional tribal law.
For example, when the tribe made the decision to take the fallen logs back to the community, this action was seen as no different from taking food out of one's own refrigerator to cook.
If we closely analyze this issue in light of Taiwan's policy toward Aborigines, their laws and similar policies in other countries, it becomes clear that the government's handling of this incident did not conform to the spirit of multicultralism.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) signed an agreement called "A New Partnership Between the Indigenous peoples and the Government of Taiwan" with Aboriginal representatives on Orchid Island in 1999 when he was running for president.
He again acknowledged the agreement as president in 2002. The announcement of the Aboriginal Basic Law (原住民族基本法) in 2005 further confirmed, in practical legal terms, that Aborigines have the right to self-governance.
The law clearly acknowledges that Aborigines have authority over their land and natural resources. The articles within the law clearly stipulate that Aborigines may legally engage in non-profit activities within their areas, including collecting wild vegetation, minerals, stone and other resources.
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."
However, beginning with the Forestry Bureau's lawsuit over the logs all the way through to the court's ruling, the entire process has repeatedly highlighted the government's arrogance and ignorance in Aboriginal matters. Moreover, the government has clearly ignored Aboriginal rights to self-governance and the spirit of multiculturalism.
How do other countries handle controversies between native land rights and natural resources? The US has given native American tribes the right to manage natural resources on their reservations, including lumber, 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 affirmed Aborigine rights to self-governance and land use.
On the surface, the government has acknowledged the autonomy of the nation's Aborigines through laws and partnership agreements. So how can it flip-flop and ignore the promises it has made?
And most of all, why should our Aboriginal friends trust the government when it misuses its public authority in such an obvious manner?
Huang Yi-yuan is a student at the Graduate Institute of Journalism at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Marc Langer
