Pelita – crony Businessmen and Dayak

20 Responses to “Pelita – crony Businessmen and Dayak”

1. Dayak Undead on June 23rd, 2009 3:44 pm

   How about those politicians and direct family members act as shareholders of the plantation JVs and all those suppliers and contractors? Not a conflict of interest? Not cronism, nepotism?

   What make it no difference than just another common thief?

   Take the JV percentage aside, a very clear group of robbers and victims in a very unbalanced number of people involved. A very few cronies against thousands of Dayak landowners plus their family members.

   1) Now, take that 30 percent of Dayak landowners plus their family members with their total dividends payout.
   2) Then, take the very few cronies on top of 60 percent plus 10 percent (Pelita LCDA, private firms are all the same gang) and their total combined dividends payout.
   3) Now who is taking the easy money???

   To all of you Dayaks with brains and logics: if not a daylight robbery then what is it?

2. CharcoalArt on June 23rd, 2009 4:48 pm

   I was curious to know what and who this Pelita ass is, so I googled at it and stumbled upon ….. no wonder bah:

   ++++++++

   http://www.sarawak.com.my/info/rakansarawak/2000/1998/111998/02-03.shtml

   Equipped with the state-of-the-art IT equipment, Wisma Pelita, a stone’s throw away from Wiska Bapa Malaysia in Petra Jaya is now ready for occupation. Costing RM120 million an ddeveloped by Lembaga Pembangunan Lindungan Tanah or PELITA (LCDA), Wisma Pelita will house the following departmets and agencies: The Chief Minister, YAB Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri (Dr) Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud, chairman of LCDA will have an office on the top floor; Land and Survey Department will occupy 6 floors; State Treasury Department will occupy 5 floors; Agriculture Department will occupy 5 floors and the Natural Resources and Environment Board will occupy 2 floors

   +++++++

   Sarawak To Keep Enhancing NCR Land Development Programmes

   KANOWIT, May 25 (Bernama) — The Sarawak state government is to constantly look for ways to enhance Native Customary Rights (NCR) land development programmes.

   Assistant Land Development Minister Datuk Gramong Juna said the state Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA or Pelita) and the taskforce on NCR land development had been entrusted to “tighten the loose ends” to give the maximum returns to the owners and to encourage more new participants.

   He spoke to the media after officiating at a ceremony to pay cash incentives and dividends to landowners involved in the Boustead Pelita and the Teamplete Pelita oil palm plantations here today.

   A group of 174 people from 22 longhouses who participated in the Teamplete Pelita plantation received incentives totalling RM70,180, just in time for their shopping in conjunction with the Gawai Dayak festival next Monday.

   They also received letters of confirmation of ownership of their individual plots in the plantation, issued by LCDA.

   Another group of 1,701 people from 126 longhouses, who are co-participants in the Boustead Pelita Kanowit plantation covering some 14,000 hectares, received a total of RM1.678 million in dividends.

   Gramong said that from last year the government had decided that all participants of NCR land development statewide would receive RM150 per hectare as incentive every year.

   “They will enjoy this until they get the dividend payments. It will take quite a while for the company to start paying the dividends as it has to wait for the oil palms to mature and bear fruit and for the harvesting,” he said.

   On the Kanowit commercial oil palm industry, which is a pilot project to develop idle NCR land in the state, he said it was now a success despite the many initial doubts, fears and other obstacles.

   “We plan to open up more land here soon. The country’s second largest oil palm producer, the IOI Group, for instance, is developing 7,000 hectares in Melipis.

   “Soon, two other companies are coming to respectively develop 8,000 and 17,000 hectares in two places here,” he said.

   – BERNAMA

3. Panjai Runding Panjai Ruai on June 23rd, 2009 7:33 pm

   Just look at how PELITA had acquired all town lands,Batu Lintang area from Rock Road to Simpang Tiga,those area around the 2 1/2 mile traffic light,Third mile area where government quarters were in 70s.There could be more.!!

   Ask yourselves who owns those property now ???

4. Akiq Unsoi on June 24th, 2009 8:51 am

   Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……deh tuai! Kumbai kitai enda baka ikan empelasik ga sida ke ngemudika PELITA nya ko dek Igat. Ginti ke enda bumpan, ke empai sempat terengkah ba ai pen ditagop, nyau baka ikan empelasik. Besai agi dandang sawit, mayuh agi ga utai ulih.

5. semugah on June 26th, 2009 2:40 am

   Kanowit NCR project becomes the spotlight because its failed to give dividend to landowners despite 12 years of its implementation.

   Starting from May 2009, this issue will be a history. The JV will pay to landowners a minimum of RM150/ha every year as interim dividend.

   Only 40 landowners with a land size of 348ha did a blockade out of 1,701 landowners and 14,000ha planted area. How many percent is that? This 40 landowners also received their dividend on 25th May 2009 and info on the ground said that most of them are going stop the blockade.

   What about other benefits?

   Now the land which was surrendered for the project has been confirmed the size, boundry,location and ownerships with the issuance of landowner confirmation letter complete with the map and cordinate. This is a record to be kept by landowners for their children and granchildren.Now they can sleep soundly as their NCR land is already confirm theirs.

   A reps from NCR owners is now being appointed by the landowners to represent them in the JV Board o Director.

   A copy of JVC yearly audited account will be distributed to the ADC for landowners information.

   The landowners are now not only having 30% share in the plantation but also 30% in the mill. In other word they are now can expect some return from the sale of CPO not like before, only on sale of FFB.

   What about the amount of millions of ringgit paid to project participants all these years through their cash upfront(RM120/ha), Unit trust investment(RM360/ha + 5 years interest),wages for those who work in the plantation? Who will bring and how this millions of ringgit could comes to Kanowit if not through this NCR project? What other better alternative could help generate this amount of money for Kanowit populace?

   This is to clarify further w.r.t Kanowit NCR project for those who might be fed with wrong info.

   Another JV will be sign on July 9 2009 with Sime Darby for Julau NCR (37,000 ha)

   Not all who work for pelita is ikan emplasik.Some how or rather, they did eased some poor dayak/iban in the state. At least some money for families to assist their daily needs and dayak/iban children education.

   Now..what have some of us do to help our poor dayak/iban?

   Thank you!

6. CharcoalArt on June 26th, 2009 12:50 pm

   Refer to: semugah on June 26th, 2009 2:40 am

   I read one of the FAQs on NCR land development for Oil Palm stated that a land owner will have an annual dividend of between RM500 to RM800 per hectare for Oil Palm price of RM1,000 to RM1,400. Considering the CPO price had been very high for the past many years, it is safe to assume that annual dividend for the 30% equity should be much higher than RM1,000/hectare.

   So how is this RM150/hectare/year equitable to the expected RM1,000/hectare?

   RM150/year is RM12.50/month per hectare of return. Is this something to be proud about that you could issue a statement like:

   ” Who will bring and how this millions of ringgit could comes to Kanowit if not through this NCR project? What other better alternative could help generate this amount of money for Kanowit populace?”

   I think poor or not, I would rather throw such money into Sungai Kenowit or better to have my land idle. May be I should plant durian trees or some pepper & vegetables on my land. I could also a couple of oil palm trees. I bet I still can earn more than RM12.50 per month per hectare.

   Audited account or not – it is a game of manipulation. The plantation company will definitely enjoy huge returns while the NCR owner get RM12.50/hectate per month. I don’t know about you – but I cannot accept this.

   It is a matter of simple promise or an expectation being short changed, don’t you think so??

7. Meramat Tajak on June 26th, 2009 9:53 pm

   semugah on June 26th, 2009 2:40 am wrote:

   ________________________________________________
   Another JV will be sign on July 9 2009 with Sime Darby for Julau NCR (37,000 ha)
   ————————————————

   With whom is the JV going to be signed ? Were the NCR land owners informed through letters, of the proposed JV – including all its Terms and Conditions ? How was it decided that Sime Darby got the rights to the 37K hectare of land ? Heck, how many NCR land owners are affected ?

   In the first instance, since the NCR land owners were prevented by State Land Law to survey and obtain land title, the signee to the so-call JV will be the chosen few, supporters of BN including Tuai Rumahs, Councillors, Penghulu and regular crooks looking for kantau – who will be feted by Pelita and Sime Darby officers.

   How can there be a contract between Sime Darby and Pelita,and the NCR land owners, if the law does not explicitly recognised the NCR land owners as rightful and legal owner of the property, as a priori ?

   So,the expression -daylight robbery- is most appropriate given:-

   1) The law prevented the true NCR land owners from obtaining their land title

   2) Instead, land title is promised, if the land owners surrender the land for NCR land development

   3) Whoever sign the JV on behalf of each of the NCR land owner, is misrepresenting themselves

   4) No informed consent had been obtained from each and every NCR land owner – instead, coercion were used

   5) The property were arbitrarily assigned to a 3rd party to developed, without the true owner participation in the selection process

   semugah on June 26th, 2009 2:40 am wrote:

   ————————————————
   Only 40 landowners with a land size of 348ha did a blockade out of 1,701 landowners and 14,000ha planted area. How many percent is that? This 40 landowners also received their dividend on 25th May 2009 and info on the ground said that most of them are going stop the blockade.
   ————————————————

   The relatively few opposition to the ill gotten contract, does not represent the truth. The poor and many uneducated rural NCR land owners, often resign to their fate since they can’t afford to obtain legal counsel.Very few lawyers would be willing to take up NCR Land cases, perhaps the payout is minimal, but most likely – because of fear of reprisals.

   Even who do agree wholeheartedly, often does not know the true terms of the contract – but because of acute poverty – will happily accept whatever the JV is willing to pay out. Does this make the NCR development scheme right ? No, I call that – taking advantage: predatory government.

   Pelita supposedly looked after the interest of the NCR land owners, but since the holding company is not strictly a government agency, its not clear if its mission is as kosher/halal.

   semugah on June 26th, 2009 2:40 am wrote
   ————————————————
   What about the amount of millions of ringgit paid to project participants all these years through their cash upfront(RM120/ha), Unit trust investment(RM360/ha + 5 years interest),wages for those who work in the plantation? Who will bring and how this millions of ringgit could comes to Kanowit if not through this NCR project? What other better alternative could help generate this amount of money for Kanowit populace?
   ————————————————

   CharcoalArt has said it best. But I also want to know how was the payout derived from the JV business plan ? Why was the payout appear to be released at the sole discretion of Pelita and the company. Whats the basis for the amount ? Is the business plan, and the scheduled payout consistent for all “Konsep Baru” JVs ?

   Semugah, your posting is good – better than typical rants of BN cheerleaders. But the deep chasm between my views and yours – remain. In my view it is simple : NCR Land titles must be issued first before any JV proposal and commercial negotiation. Remove/repeal/amend the State Land code thatrefuse to allow land owner to survey their own land and obtain land title. Subsequently, the JV startup has to be conducted with full transparency (because the 60 year contract is a matter of pubic interest) and with due protection of the law provided to the NCR Land owners. Informed consent, no coercion, transparent contract/agreement, fully audited account,issuance of dividends following rules like any public-listed companies,competitive bid for blocks of NCR land … is not too much to ask for especially from the “benevolent” BN ?

8. semugah on June 27th, 2009 2:29 am

   CA,
   Since u prefer your NCR be left idle…let it be idle! U chose to plant your land…go ahead! But bro..imagine how many dayak/iban wiliing to throw the RM12.50 every month…to the river?

   MT,
   Yes…starting 2009 the RM150/ha also applies to all NCR JVs in the state.

   Point to note.
   The approved areas for any NCR development is a gross figure. There will be a dialogue to every landowners, longhouses to longhouses to explain the concept. The l/owners is given a choice whether they are willing to surrender their land for the project, only then they will be given a Memorandum of Consent form for them to fill if they agree to join the project. GPS individual survey will be done to the surrendered parcel before it could be developed.

   Dont worry about the approved gross area as the developer only allowed to bulldoze the surrendered land. If not even a piece of land being surrendered for the project by the l/owners..then nothing will be develop by the investor. There is no such thing as the Pengulu,Tuai Rumah selling others NCR land as mentioned in Kepayang/Semelatong issue. That is what the New Concept of NCR is…!!

   If anyone could fight for the changes of the land code for a better benefit of the Dayaks/Iban…WHY NOT? This is what I have told Mr. BB personally!

9. Keruak Tau Tepang on June 27th, 2009 7:43 am

   Eik! Ka nurun nginti aku tu. Tusah amai ga ka ngiga belut, umpan ginti. Nadai ga nya ka beleman. Din ba anak sungai Sekamau mayuh amat ikan empelasik. Enda bumpan, bisi meh bulih umbas ke lauh tengahari lagi.

   Semua projek baka baka mata ginti enda bumpan. Ikan empelasik aja ka nagop.

10. CharcoalArt on June 27th, 2009 8:02 am

    Semugah

    Thanks for your response, but my point was not really about throwing RM12.50 per month to the river – my point is really about the dividend amount is too small – really feel sorry for the NCR landowners. The landowners should be given the share of the actual profit or what they had expected i.e at least RM1000/hectare every year and not the crump of RM12.50 per month.

    I think it is wrong for you to openly endorsing that JV could cheat NCR landowners like that. If you are working for the JV or supporting the JV, you should at least speak up for the landowners who are not treated fairly? Just stick to this discussion on returns and dividend, forget about other rhetoric.

    CA

11. Dayak Undead on June 27th, 2009 9:58 am

    semugah wrote–The landowners are now not only having 30% share in the plantation but also 30% in the mill. In other word they are now can expect some return from the sale of CPO not like before, only on sale of FFB. What about the amount of millions of ringgit paid to project participants all these years through their cash upfront(RM120/ha), Unit trust investment(RM360/ha + 5 years interest),wages for those who work in the plantation?

    –Why land ownership, titles must be done after or during and not before the project started? Are you trying to say by using big plantation projects only and only then NCR landowners can receive the titles otherwise just leave it dead?

    Again, read my earlier question. You are talking millions of RM worth of benefits but in that case 1700 landowners (if using 30-60-10 concept) with 30 percent stake against what, FEW cronies sitting somewhere beneath on top of 60+10 percent stake. Don’t try to bring the figures if it is clearly someone making easy money as a smooth sly common thief, one way or another. Or you think conflict of interest is not a crime but some form of legit swindling scheme? In the end, 1700 landowners plus their family members per head benefits dollar and cent WORTH the FEW cronies per head dollar and cent easy money benefits? Why should the crooks always getting the easy money?

    The concept can be much better propositions if the crooks are weed out completely and run it purely on business concept. Dollar for dollar. Land for land. The cost of feeding the crooks sucking for free meals should instead go to the landowners benefit and probably much higher returns of what you quoted combined ever imagined. The fact that one of the main ploy of any scam is giving returns promises upfront when almost the entire funds are already being fixed to be siphoned off elsewhere from the actual beneficiaries. The same principal of get-rich-quick scheme also applicable to plantation scheme, only on different form and scope. What you robbed in big bulk is nothing compared to what you can offer for those small returns earlier. Why talk about the benefits to the Dayak when the crooks already cash out the big money?

    The way the govt stated all NCR lands are state lands would mean the upperhand for govt as sole dictator on top of land titles issuance is concerned. No plantation, no land titles issued for as long the day may ends. Very convenient. Perhaps here is the cheapest land cost to operate plantation in the world since the cost to acquire lands almost zero and truly perfect when the lands are mostly no-man’s land. For BN propaganda, it is easy to tell to develop idle NCR lands whose Dayak landowners are poorly advised and represented legally while the crony private firms view totally on opportunistic basis that is where on earth elsewhere you can operate plantation business with near-zero land cost?

    As good as the crops require no lands at all and produce instantaneous cash. Invisible hydroponics? With NCR lands are yet to determine the legit owners, poorly advised landowners, bulldozed in the plantation projects, upfront benefits propaganda, this is worth considered as the next wonder of the world.

    You may wonder exactly why thousands of Dayaks can really worth that slap-on 30 percent value. And it is worth to feed the few crooks of 60+10 percent easy money?

12. Meramat Tajak on June 27th, 2009 1:18 pm

    Dayak Undead,

    Fully agreed with you. If PKR/DAP/PAS wants my vote, make it a campaign manifesto to revoke the State Land Code that prevent (mostly) Dayak from conducting community survey and acquire land title to their NCR land except by participating in NCR land scheme, of still dubious business model and legal safeguards. Even the provisional letter from Pelita acknowledging ownership remains a poor substitute to true and legally recognised ownership.The letter can be construed as part and parcel of the JV agreement,hence it will terminate naturally when the JV agreement expire. As such the owner will also be held ransom from exercising a typical right (granted in any commercial JV) to exit the JV agreement; and how the land title will be issued, if at all later – remains foggy, since nothing is stated in the law, that the state will automatically transfer the land to the participant of the NCR scheme.With massive legal resource,and support by the state government, I won’ be surprised if the owners will be duped yet again at the end of the 60th year term.

    The business model remains a major concern.If I got the right to such massive land resource,for a period of 60 years, it would be rather easy to get low interest loan and long term investment against the forecast earnings, and hold the total amount in an escrow account. I would then release small amounts to the partners, especially to the so-called 30% partners (who doesn’t know much about inner workings of the deal)as overheads.Yes,now that I think about it: I could also maintain separate account for the JV and for my company such that I can claim operating cost from other division of my company from the JV – and write it off as JV overheads. I should also maintain sufficient money to take care of dissent from the likes of possible idealist Pelita officers,and smart Tuai Rumahs-who may get ideas from the opposition.Some of my young accountant would be worried about calls in DayakBaru for audited account: being the seasoned “businessman” that I am, won’t difficult for me to appoint a CPA to publicly validate my account but with some added incentive: after all, even the towering Arthur Andersen has been implicated to have “helped” clients with their account.This JV is not public listed,so I will also be provided sufficient cover – to do what ever I want; even when the JV is not performing as promise, no one can really touch me.If the worst happen,the oil palm cease to print money for me (low price, Indon got smart-and demand high salary), I will file for bankruptcy and need not pay any of the partners a cent.My 30% Dayak partners may or may not get their land title in that event; I’m quite sure Pelita will look for another company to take over – and as incentive for the take over – naturally, land title cannot be issued (will increase the liability). And as for my company, hey I got my escrow to cash out ! My 30% Dayak partners won’t feel anything anyway since they have been getting their paltry RM 150/ha/yr – and I’m assure by the state govt that Dayak politician will calm their nerves and even promise to look at alternative -er, a return lucrative padi crops (which can be eaten when prices falls below operating cost)! Some of my very own Dayak employees who themselves participated in the scheme would cry and ask why the government did not guarantee the JV return for the Dayaks – and I would say, but you already sign the Memorandum of Consent,with full knowledge that the govt is not in the JV to bail you out – they want their 10% for developing ,er -the land, without any capital contribution !

    Nice dream ! Would I actually do that if the opportunity exist ? Never. Its a recurring nightmare that many of our vulnerable Dayak do not wake up, or if they do know what hit them, is often so ravage by poverty,to take a stand and will take the deal even at RM 1 /ha/yr.

    Konsep Baru or not, I for one, still have strong reservation about NCR land development scheme and even more so, about the State Land Code. The deal (until further disclosure) remains a grab for cheap land at the expense of either too trusting or too poor Dayak, and the particular land code – is evil incarnate.

13. Cikgu Iban on June 27th, 2009 3:08 pm

    DU,
    May I try to assit Semugah on these issues.
    ——————————
    “–Why land ownership, titles must be done after or during and not before the project started? ”
    ——————————

    This is the issue can only be answered by those in the state government and its agencies. In the first place, they are the ones who formulate the policies.Our Dayak YBs definitely know the reasons for issuing land titles after the project has started. But surprisingly no Dyak Ybs have ever talked clearly on his policy. Why?. They are scared of their Boss.

    DU, when the titles are issued to the NCR landowners now or during the implemetation of the project, the collection of the land premium could become a central issue. on’t forget land premium on the NCR land could come to millions of Ringgit. And land premium is the soure of government funds. Therefore, who should be paying for it?. Is it to be borned by the landowners holding the titles or the JV company?.Obviously, the NCR landowners would not have the means to do so. So, the state government go on the look out for potential big companies with interest in land development.Initially, there werenot many local companies keen on Oil palm JV. Nowadays, however, there are quite a few local companies show some interest. They pay Millions of RM in land premium fr the next 60 years. I don’t think NCR landowners could do the same. That’s why the titles are NOT isued NOW.

    ——————————
    “Are you trying to say by using big plantation projects only and only then NCR landowners can receive the titles otherwise just leave it dead? ”
    ——————————

    Unfortunately, I have to say yes. For it is the current government policy on land development. Therefore, If you like this policy because of its potential benefits, support the governent. Please continue to vote present Dayak YBs. If you don’t agree,you know what to do in this coming election.

    On the whole, the development of NCR land
    is to the disadvantages of the onwers. It seems to me that the policy is abusing the presence of millions of areas of NCR lands.The success of JV in Kanowit is not without problems.Much needed to be done, especially in respect of its returns on their shares.

14. MERAMAT TAJAK on June 28th, 2009 2:43 pm

    Cikgu Iban,

    Welcome back after some hiatus from Dayakbaru !

    ________________________________________________
    “–Why land ownership, titles must be done after or during, and not before the project started? ”
    ————————————————

    I still go with DU supposition that the policy is to obtain cheap land. Titled land will appreciate in value. If JV split is derived from projected capital,including monetise land value after title, the investment company will need to raise more capital to own up to 60% equity, or increase the NCR land owner share of the JV.

    The land premium i.e annual payment for the land title, is absolutely not an issue. First, the amount per hectare is neglible. Second,typical NCR land owners have many different parcel of land.In the worst case scenario, the owner can mortgage a parcel,to cross-subsidise development activity on other parcels,including to pay premium as you said.

    If the government were to make an announcement that a particular block of land is ear-marked for Palm Oil scheme, and the NCR land owners are allowed to survey the land and obtain land title to protect their rights: I’m absolutely confident they will do it – even if they have to bedurok to do it.

    What happens now, what the land title before any proposal to develop the NCR land, the land owners will have limited legal recourse, even if they want to contest against the might of the JV.

    How is it that when NCR land owners contest JV claim to a parcel of land, the burden of proof is shifted to the land owner : but the law appear to be lax if the land owners capitulate and willing to participate in the scheme ?

    As you said, use the power of the vote, to right the wrongs. Well, I suggest not to stop there: there’s much that can be done, in addition to voting.The YBs may actually listen when they realise their folly. Nansien recent remarks to allow NCR land owners to get title for land which have easy access to road, is commendable (but of course, the establishment remains muted).

    This NCR issue was discussed at length sometimes in May. In Bintulu seminar (you attended) Marjais reputedly to have flatly said NO to DCCI suggestion (serve to show how weak Dayak political capital is), so maybe Broken Shield is right – too much vested interest and greed for cheap Dayak land remains the big elephant in the room ! Lets be thankful for those who remains steadfast and unwavering on this issue.Plse don’t patronise them to vote correctly ! I salute people who make a stand, and not afraid to be the last man/woman standing to champion what is right, if it comes to that.

15. MERAMAT TAJAK on June 28th, 2009 3:01 pm

    Cikgu Iban,

    Welcome back after some hiatus from Dayakbaru !

    ________________________________________________
    “–Why land ownership, titles must be done after or during, and not before the project started? ”
    ————————————————

    I still go with DU supposition that the policy is to obtain cheap land. Titled land will appreciate in value. If JV split is derived from projected capital,including monetise land value after issue of title, the investment company will need to raise more capital to own up to 60% equity, or increase the NCR land owner share of the JV.

    The land premium i.e annual payment for the land title, is absolutely not an issue. First, the amount per hectare is neglible. Second,typical NCR land owners have many different parcel of land.In the worst case scenario, the owner can mortgage a parcel,to cross-subsidise development activity on other parcels,including to pay premium as you said.

    If the government were to make an announcement that a particular block of land is ear-marked for Palm Oil scheme, and the NCR land owners are allowed to survey the land and obtain land title to protect their rights: I’m absolutely confident they will do it – even if they have to bedurok to do it.

    What happens now, the NCR land owners (without title) will have limited legal recourse, even if they want to contest against the might of the JV.

    Since land is very important to Iban, I’m not surprise if some even agree to participate, just to get their NCR land issued with title proper.Therein lie further injustices against our Dayak people.

    How is it that when NCR land owners contest JV claim to a parcel of land, the burden of proof is shifted to the land owner : but the law appear to be lax if the land owners “capitulate” and willing to participate in the scheme ?

    As you said, use the power of the vote, to right the wrongs. Well, I suggest not to stop there: there’s much that can be done, in addition to voting.The YBs may actually listen when they realise their folly. Nansien recent remarks to allow NCR land owners to get title for land which have easy access to road, is commendable (but of course, the establishment remains muted).

    This NCR issue was discussed at length sometimes in May. In Bintulu seminar (you attended) Marjais reputedly to have flatly said NO to DCCI suggestion (serve to show how weak Dayak political capital is), so maybe Broken Shield is right – too much vested interest and greed for cheap Dayak land remains the big elephant in the room ! Lets be thankful for those who remains steadfast and unwavering on this issue.Plse don’t patronise them to vote correctly ! I salute people who make a stand, and not afraid to be the last man/woman standing to champion what is right, if it comes down to that.

    Have a nice Sunday afternoon !

16. MERAMAT TAJAK on June 28th, 2009 3:05 pm

    3rd attemp to submit comment ..ghost in the machine

    Cikgu Iban,

    Welcome back after some hiatus from Dayakbaru !

    ________________________________________________
    “–Why land ownership, titles must be done after or during, and not before the project started? ”
    ————————————————

    I still go with DU supposition that the policy is to obtain cheap land. Titled land will appreciate in value. If JV split is derived from projected capital,including monetise land value after issue of title, the investment company will need to raise more capital to own up to 60% equity, or increase the NCR land owner share of the JV.

    The land premium i.e annual payment for the land title, is absolutely not an issue. First, the amount per hectare is neglible. Second,typical NCR land owners have many different parcel of land.In the worst case scenario, the owner can mortgage a parcel,to cross-subsidise development activity on other parcels,including to pay premium as you said.

    If the government were to make an announcement that a particular block of land is ear-marked for Palm Oil scheme, and the NCR land owners are allowed to survey the land and obtain land title to protect their rights: I’m absolutely confident they will do it – even if they have to bedurok to do it.

    What happens now, the NCR land owners (without title) will have limited legal recourse, even if they want to contest against the might of the JV.

    Since land is very important to Iban, I’m not surprise if some even agree to participate, just to get their NCR land issued with title proper.Therein lie further injustices against our Dayak people.

    How is it that when NCR land owners contest JV claim to a parcel of land, the burden of proof is shifted to the land owner : but the law appear to be lax if the land owners “capitulate” and willing to participate in the scheme ?

    As you said, use the power of the vote, to right the wrongs. Well, I suggest not to stop there: there’s much that can be done, in addition to voting.The YBs may actually listen when they realise their folly. Nansien recent remarks to allow NCR land owners to get title for land which have easy access to road, is commendable (but of course, the establishment remains muted).

    This NCR issue was discussed at length sometimes in May. In Bintulu seminar (you attended) Marjais reputedly to have flatly said NO to DCCI suggestion (serve to show how weak Dayak political capital is), so maybe Broken Shield is right – too much vested interest and greed for cheap Dayak land remains the big elephant in the room ! Lets be thankful for those who remains steadfast and unwavering on this issue.Plse don’t patronise them to vote correctly ! I salute people who make a stand, and not afraid to be the last man/woman standing to champion what is right, if it comes down to that.

    Have a nice Sunday afternoon !

17. Keruak Tau Tepang on June 28th, 2009 10:24 pm

    Kitai mesti temil enti ka ngulihka duit mayuh ari pengawa besawit.

18. Lemambang Tinggi on June 29th, 2009 7:18 am

    MT,

    “The land premium i.e annual payment for the land title, is absolutely not an issue. First, the amount per hectare is neglible”.
    ——————————————

    The signifance of Land premium derived from both state and NCR lands towards the government coffer shall never be overlooked.It is a CENTRAL issue and key to government decisions. I don’t agree with you who regards land premium as negligible.The government has made arrangments with the PLs holders to pay land premium in advance for the next 60 years. As I said earlier, the NCR land owners ould definitely be unable to do the same. If the issue the land titles to NCR lands, will you think the NCR lands owners be able to come up with such amount and are also willing to pay in advance?.

    In short, our leaders could get the money now insteads of 60 years later, by which time we are all gone……

19. Keruak Tau Tepang on June 29th, 2009 7:50 am

    Unggal MT, nama nya balat endar nuan ngepos nyau dataika 3 kali deh? Kada enda bisi kena chulik urang enggau virus rengga babi kini?

20. Meramat Tajak on June 29th, 2009 9:29 am

    LT,

    1) I beg to differ on …. “payment in advance for the next 60 years”

    – there’s no precedent where citizens would pay govt in advance for anything. As u said, the citizen who paid in advance of 60 years, may die before the term expire.

    2)Will the NCR land owners be able to come up with such amount ?

    I think I have addressed that issue sufficiently.

    3)Government coffers from land premium

    I meant to say the land premium of NCR land, is comparatively low compare to land parcels near the city.

    At any rate,the government policy formulation should not presume “NCR lands owners – to not be -able to come up with such amount” for land premium.

    In the same manner that Tax is collected, through campaigns and public education, I believe Land and Survey can collect land premium more efficiently.

    PLs has proven very damaging to NCR land owners when it gets subcontracted, and the profit motive bulldoze Dayak rights. Good thing, if I can believe Cikgu Iban, that no more PLs will be issued.

    Land Productivity – when compared between private development versus large scale commercial agriculture, that is a different issue.

    In many other countries,best practise is to implement strict EIA and Social Impact assessment.Through such analysis, the hidden value to the state, of developing agribusiness skills among local citizens can be quantified, which will offset the lower productivity when the land asset is mostly kept in the hands of private ownership.

    Again, I think you will agree, no amount of $ to the state coffers can justify injustices against NCR land owners.Their right to be issue title in the first instance, can’t be rationalized through economics imperative.

Leave a Reply