DAP strategy to remain relevant in Sarawak

11 Responses to “DAP strategy to remain relevant in Sarawak”

1. Iban rumah panjai on February 10th, 2012 5:58 am

   I qoute ” The BN government through James Masing responded by saying that DAP has no locus standi to speak on behalf of Dayak.”

   Does Masing mean that UMNO, MCA, and SUPP are also have no locus standi to speak on behalf of Dayak?

   I know that PRS is not fighting for Dayak judging from what James Masing said, and I quote ” We thought of only Dayak, Dayak and Dayak. I was born in that atmosphere; I grew up in that culture. I was very convinced that the Dayak must fight for the Dayak. If we don`t do that nobody else will. I was wrong.” (The Borneo Post Special Supplement dated 23.1.2005)

2. engkerawai on February 10th, 2012 7:14 am

   Affrimative…
   We must stay relevant at all times, things change, pepole will change with time, getting clever and smarter. Unless we are COWS fed by those corrupt leaders just follow instructions and unwilling to accept their wrongdoings.

   Dayak politicians are already rusted and on the dead end pf their political endeavors. They have exhausted their agenda….NO MORE TARING!!!

   ITS CHANGE TIME….for the better!!!
   Any problem with that????

3. ciribut on February 10th, 2012 9:05 am

   This is the first time that Dr JBA give somes hints on SOCIAlISM as the DAP POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.

   Dulu ari tu ciribut udah bisi nulis pasal ‘guna’ leka jako ‘ideology’ enggau ‘isms’ ke tau di pilih kitai Dayak kena kitai ‘NGUBAH’ society kitai Dayak-’NGUBAH’ mensia ke dikumbai Dayak (renovate the Dayak) ka nguan idup di menoa Sarawak,Borneo.

   Semua ‘ideology’ enggau ‘isms’ enggau ni bansa system perintah (government) di dunya tu nya nadai manah siti. Tang mensia enggai diau kediri,lebih agi kitai Iban betampong rumah sampai kediatu laban bisi pengutong bebala maioh ari ke diau kediri baka cerita UGING. Nya alai bepun ari kitai begulai maioh ADAT di pun di tusun di gaga ngambi ke kitai enda bebunoh enggau sama mensia-TANG ADAT ke di pegai Tuai Rumah udah di titih turun menurun di kena ngadu ke penyarut ti bisi nuntong kitai diri serumah.

   Bepun ari nya tadi maioh rumah panjai bukai,maioh kampong orang ke enda berumah panjai(tang di Borneo bansa ni enda berumah panjai-Melanau berumah panjai lebih tinggi ari bukai) mensia beranak betelesak,lalu pindah jauh sejauh ari pangan diri.Laban genturong menoa nyau jauh semua enda ulih sampal datai enti bisi AUM utai deka di perunding.Kena mutar kenya kita milih pengari 3 empat iko ari siti rumah ari siti kampong nyadi PENGARI kitai datai ba AUM ke udah di tetap ba endor siti.Betumboh ari tu nya alai bisi PERINTAH-ada adat bisi perintah-ba rumah panjai kitai nya pen PERINTAH-nya kitai nyebut ‘nitih ke perintah Tuai Rumah enggau kommitee iya.’ Kitai mensia enggai nyadi idup nadai perintah nadai UNDANG-UNDANG ke menyana.Enti nadai perintah lalu nadai undand-undang mensia enda ngetu bebunoh!

   TANG kitai milih ‘ideology’,'isms’ enggau ‘bansa perintah’ (system of government) ke pengambis manah ari IYA ti pengambis jai.Sama enggau mensia,semua mensia di sagam kitai aja manah tauke ke jai! nadai manah siko kelimpah ari kitai empu,bini kitai empu kadang jai.

   Dulu ari tu mega aku ka nerang bida PENGAYA enggau MERINSA.Nyadi dalam runding aku,enti kitai bala maioh (tai nyumboh tai badak),lalu bedau enda nemu enggau terang bida antara orang KAYA enggau orang MERINSA,lalu kitai enda nemu berati ke bisi orang ti nekan,nyekak,ngalah lalu ngayah ka kitai lalu ngulih serta ngambi penguntong ka semina ke iya empu,iya empu diri sabilek,kaban belayan suku juru tauke bansa iya empu,KITAI nya baka orang tesat dalam babas enda nemu ili enda nemu ulu.TANG ba kitai Dayak kitai IBan kelebih agi endang NYATA kitai Iban TESAT dalam babas betarit kerutan ke di jual,betinso ke macam kayu ngapa laban kayu ke manah udah abis-di ambi sapa?,nguntong ke sapa?

   Kitai Iban amat TESAT di babas-tesat ngiga kulat ngiga paku,ngiga kemiding,narit rutan,ngupa macam upa,ngumpul buah macam buah,ngiga ikan macam ikan.ngiga jelu macam jelu-semua di babas!

   Anang saru kita ninga,ukai bejai ukai nganu TANG nyebut PEKARA ke AMAT! (ukai nyebut ‘utai’ tang ‘Pekara’,selalu di dinga maia orang bisi bejako-’utai’- siti ari leka jako kitai saru ngena,anang kelalu ngena enggai ke nyadi sebarang utai)

   Sampai ni maia kitai Dayak kitai Iban ulih tan idup bakanya? Tambah agi menoa udah kusi nadai maioh kampong nadai maioh jelu,nadai maioh rutan,nadai maioh kayu ke manah semak kaki tangga kitai.Hutan agi bisi tang jauh.

   Politik Pemansang ngemansang ka tanah NCR,ngemansang ke pemisi kitai MIMIT tang ngemansang ke pemisi orang kaya ke empu kompeni nanam sawit beribu lipat ganda.’Penguntong baka ba jalai sawit ti ulih kena kitai datai ke rumah panjai,penguntong rega buah sawit ko YB bejako kerah-kerah. Gaga meh bisi jalai,ngenyadik ke jalai nya meh perintah enda ngaga Yb enda tepinta.

   Tang penanggul ‘ideology’ enggau ‘isms’ tu bakani kitai ke nerang ngagai bansa kitai Dayak ngagai bansa kitai Iban-deka ngalih ke jako nya ngagai bansa kitai pen nadai jakonya.Nya alai kitai Dayak belajar ke leka jako ti baru datai baru di dinga kitai di rumah panjai.Leka jako tu di atas nya udah beratus taun di menoa ili din di ai England,di Europe (Europa ko kita nembiak skul baru),ke tau nyadi ke teladan kena kitai,TANG,semua penemu nya ukai ulih guna magang tang kitai milih ka pengambis manah ari pengambis jai serta mega merati ka guna iya ba bansa kitai NGAM enggau pendiau adat kitai iya nya our Dayak condition. ‘Ideology’ and ‘isms’ and our Dayak conditions.Baka kitai namam padi, ka padi nya galak beserira ba tanah nya,padi sempama ‘ideology’ tau ke ‘isms’,tanah nya ‘condition’.Enti tanah nya manah,padi tentu tebal, maioh padi/beras ulih di empa kitai nya pungka manah.Bakanya gak ‘ideology’ enggau ‘isms’ nyadi ke siti penemu di guna kitai Dayak.

   Nya alai arap ke kitai semua nemu bida orang kaya enggau orang merinsa ngambi kita enda tesat.Ngambi bisi lebas orang merinsa tu orang ke ka IDUP tang KUSIL PENGIDUP.Nyadi kebuah-kebuah Dayak maioh merinsa, kebuah nya patut di reasearch nembiak baru ke bisi sekula nyadi ke thesis sida kini?(tu tajok lain).Orang merinsa ke di sebut tu ukai nyengkaum orang ti ambis duit kena ngirop,kena ngepub,kena bejudi kena nyabong-nya jako merinsa bisi lebas.

   Terima Kasih

4. Dayak Voice on February 10th, 2012 9:52 am

   You are absolutely right Iban Rumah Panjai. Dr James Masing has been sitting there for umpteen years. What blue-print has he proposed for upgrading the “socio-economy” of the Dayaks? If Dr James Masing claims to speak for Dayaks, let him answer these questions:

   1. Where is his brain trust plan for the Dayaks? Does he set up any office monitoring the development of Dayaks in “Modal Insan” as proposed by Prime Minister said in the last 2012 budget? What are his plans to upgrade the examination results of Dayak students in Form 3, 5 and 6? What is his proposal on financial aids to needy but bright Dayaks students in Primary and Secondary schools? Where is the plan for the development of Dayaks in technical schools?
   2. Why is PRS representatives NEVER present whenever land disputes arise between NCR land owners and Timber Tycoon robbers? Why are police reports made against land intrusions; isn’t there an elected representative in that area? Why are stories of Land Grab appearing again and again?
   3. What plan has PRS on the imbalance within the civil service?

   Repeating these makes me like a broken record. Dayak professional started asking for answers openly since 2008. ALL the Dayak Ministers treated us as instigators, ungrateful and even as enemies. If Dr James is sincere in his words, tell us when he had engaged the SDGA committee or professionals on these issues?

   Dr James has sidestepped his own race. Now he is attacking DAP. It is rather unfortunate that the electorates in his constituency are appeased by broken promises and cheap “miring” projects. Had these electorates been more aware, Dr James would be political history after the next election.

5. Julaw on February 10th, 2012 12:55 pm

   Bala Kaban DBs.

   Umbas chukup meh bala kitai Iban nepan model ‘Kapal Pulau Kijang’ tinggal ke meh ulih kitai kelebih agi Iban NEPAN perau Kapal Pulau Kijang. Udah lama kitai Iban semina nimba bertimba ke perau aja aja, orang bukai mutar ke steering, orang bukai ngeluan.., kitai semina nyadi anak kuli…

   Umbas meh kitai ke lebih agi Iban NGUNA POLITIC, NITIH AJA AJA, POLITIC AU…AU belama lama….Ngetu meh kitai dulu ENGKILON ke orang belama lama. Nama salah kitai Iban empu NGERINDANG ngepun ke jalai…

   Udah 49 taun kitai begulai enggau jaboo, masin, manok, manan…etc…pelitik beend…Uji perening kiba kanan bansa kitai, anak anak kitai, kini ke penungga….???

   Nadai chara bukai kaban. CWM.

   Mupok kaban. Idup Iban Idup Dayak. OOOhhaa…..

6. spaohnet on February 10th, 2012 2:25 pm

   Semua kitai bajako ka kitai Ibans meri undi ngaggai PKR, DAP PAS SNAP & STAR.

   Bagi ko progress team DAP bejalai ka rumah panjai ba ka bisi di bantai ka ba website cerita bala wakil DAP pejalai ka rumah panjai

   Kati utai tu masih di pelalai tauka perkara tu patut di kongsi ka kitai niteh ka konsep transparency perintah PKR?

   2: Tauka sida tu bedau bejalai semina perambu aja.

   3: Ia ke-temu aku ba rumah kulu ka kili tauka ba politik kedai kopi nadai aku nemu sida wakil DAP tu udah bejalai ka menua rumah panjai Iban nerang ka pangawa perintah DAP.

7. engkerawai on February 10th, 2012 3:17 pm

   Kaban Dbs…

   Field reports,

   Setakat ka diatu DAP benong giat bekempen ba Balai Ringin,Serian,Tebakang, Bau, padawan Lundu. Hampir tiap ujung minggu ceramah ba kampung. Sambutan ngagai ceremah amat mengalakkan, udah bisi kesedaran ngagai bala kitai di pelusuk kampung laban issue TANAH menoa kitai.

   Ngarapka kawasan bukai tau mantai ka report ngagai bala semua. Pia mega DJB patut bisi mantai ka penerang/gerah/program sereta ceramah ke bisi diatur ba dini-dini endor di menoa Sarawak ngambi ke kitai sentiasa up-to-date… asalkan bukan BN (ABBN)

   FYI

8. gerinang on February 10th, 2012 3:35 pm

   Spaohnet @ amai ko nuan ngal, alu bedau meda sida DAP bejalai ngagai ulu sungai, meda pendiau kitai din…Rauh Rauh ka berdiri sitak pendalaman ko jako, tapi bedau meda sida bejalai kin…

   KENI KA PERCHAYA KA SIDA???
   No Action, Talk Only… these guys juz wanna use us for their POLITICAL MILEAGE…

9. Dayak Mudah Lupa on February 10th, 2012 4:11 pm

   Let’s not forget just how DAP non-Dayak party always fight for Dayak rights better than all BN Dayak goons combined.

   It took non-Dayak DAP party to fight for Dayak? Shame on you BN Dayak goons!
   ________________

   Debate on the Land Custody and Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2011
   by YB Wong Ho Leng – DUN Diary, July 15th, 2011
   holeng.dapsarawak.com/?p=1547

   In the recently concluded state election, the Sarawak natives had given the BN unstinting support, helping the BN to form the state Government with more than 2/3 majority.

   The BN has not been thankful. Nor had it deemed it fit to reward the natives positively.

   On the other hand, this Bill is introduced to punish the natives, because, less than 2 months before the state election, on 18.2.2011, the Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA) and the state Government had lost a legal battle in a case involving NCR land development.

   Clearly this Bill is introduced to plug the gap that was so profoundly shown in the judgment of Justice Linton Albert in Kuching High Court Suit No.22-1-2005-I, more popularly known as the Pantu land case, where the learned Judge ruled against LCDA and the State Government.

   (1) Development by Consent Only

   In order for the LCDA to develop the land in a development area it is paramount that the consent of the native landowners be first obtained.

   The consent must be that which was genuine and sincere, not the Ali-Baba type of consent.

   The question is how to secure genuine consent from the landowners. Land titles may be issued to the Tuai Rumah. But the land is enjoyed by all the longhouse folks. Will a Development Agreement between the LCDA and the Tuai Rumah be sufficient to bind the majority or all the longhouse folks? The question hinges on the extent of authority of the Tuai Rumah.

   I had received many complaints from Selangau, where the Penghulu and Tuai Rumah had signed agreements for oil palm plantation. But the Penghulu and Tuai Rumah had signed the agreements without prior consultation with the longhouse folks. Under the Bill, the Development Agreement can’t be revoked, for the only requirement is that the agreement was signed by the LCDA with the owner, even if the majority of the longhouse folks do not know of the agreement or even object to it. In the example that I had given, a Tuai Rumah holding land title, or occupying native customary land, can be persuaded or even bought in order to sign the Development Agreement. His longhouse folks have no say or right to consultation. Seen in that light, this Bill is unjust.

   Conversely, suppose the Tuai Rumah is not convinced that a Development Agreement is viable or beneficial to the longhouse folks, the Bill clearly provides a way out in favour of the LCDA. This is done by forcing a Development Agreement to be signed by “any other party”. This is shown in Clause 6(b) of the Bill which provides a new subsection (3)(a) which states that an agreement or trust deed will be signed by the LCDA with the owners of the land or “any other parties”.

   It clearly shows that someone without authority from the community can sign the Development Agreement with the LCDA.

   We cannot allow a stranger who has no right to sign a Development Agreement to bind the Tuai Rumah and the lawful occupiers of the land.

   We can expect conflict to develop in the native community. There may even be bloodshed.

   We should ensure peace and harmony in a longhouse or native community. Do not be high handed so as to bring about a Development Agreement to be signed at the expense of peace and serenity.

   We should ensure full and proper consultation between the LCDA and the longhouse or native community. Consultation with the Penghulu, or Tuai Rumah, is not sufficient. They receive allowance from the Government. In order to continue receive allowance, they must continue obedience to the Government. They are at the mercy of the Government. Consultation should be with the whole community.

   (2) Involvement of 3rd party company

   If consent is obtained, the landowners will enter into the Development Agreement with the LCDA.

   We are talking about a direct relationship between the LCDA and the landowners. Hence, the LCDA should not assign the benefits and obligations of the Development Agreement to another company, even if it is its associates or subsidiary company. I can expect a lot of assignment to cronies of LCDA.

   The sanctity of the contract must be maintained. The original understanding must not be breached. The natives initially recognize the LCDA, not a crony or a different company. They are not a party to the original contract.

   Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend s.3 of the Principal Ordinance. The effect of this amendment is that the landowners cannot revoke a Development Agreement even if the development is to be carried out not by LCDA but by a company incorporated by LCDA, so long as the controlling shares are held by or registered in the name of the LCDA. This amendment is objectionable for at least 3 reasons:

   One, it is repugnant to common sense and the original intention of the natives. It violates the principles of trust. Clause 4 of the Bill clearly states that the LCDA is “to act as trustee or managing agent” for the landowners within a development area. A trustee does not have power of the principal who are the landowners. A trustee cannot pass responsibility to a third party, no matter how closely it is related to the LCDA. We do not allow a trustee or managing agent to pass obligations to someone whom we have not met or a company which we do not trust.

   Secondly, it is trite law that even if the controlling shares are held by LCDA, the LCDA and this third party company are distinct separate legal entities. We cannot force the natives to recognize this 3rd party.

   Thirdly, since it involves oil palm plantation, the Development Agreement may bind the natives for 60 years. No one can guarantee that all will run smoothly and well for so long. The LCDA may be in control of the majority of the shares, but there are still the rights of the minority which the law recognizes. These minority shareholders are entitled to have legal action which may cause the development to be thwarted causing the natives to receive no benefits from their land.

   The bottom line is simple. If you want to develop the native customary land, make sure that there must be sincerity and honesty. Do not sign the agreement using the LCDA’s name and then give it to a crony or subsidiary company. That is cheating. LCDA is a Government agency. Do not cheat on the natives.

   (3) Resolution of Dispute

   Nobody wants to go to the Court. Nobody wants disputes either. Often if disputes surface, we try to resolve them, or to minimize them. I am sure that all communities in Sarawak adopt the attitude of “????,????”.

   The Dayaks are the poorest people in Sarawak. They are a friendly community and will try every means to avoid trouble. But history has shown that they will fight to their last breadth in order to protect their land, for land is life to them.

   With a Development Agreement which may last 60 years, it is unavoidable that there may be disputes. It is unavoidable that the disputes landed in court.

   In the Pantu land case, landowners had been occupying the NCR land since 1880’s, that is to say, for 6 to 7 generations. Yet, their land had been taken for oil palm plantation under the New Concept of NCR Land Development. The development did not benefit the natives. The High Court shot down the Development Agreement, saying that it is illegal and contrary to the federal constitution. Instead of being humbled, the State Government can’t swallow this bitter pill, and now quickly takes step to amend the principal Ordinance to say that the natives should not go to Court. Even in Development Agreements which do not contain a mediation or arbitration clause, it is deemed that the clause has been incorporated into and form an integral part of the Development Agreement.

   It is also provided that all suits in court shall be stayed.

   How can you, the BN Government, be so heartless as to slam the door of the Court on their face? They are already in court, they have their rights to resort to legal remedies. You are not allowed to shut them. Clearly, this violates a person’s fundamental right to seek redress in a court of law. Clearly, the State Government under the BN is showing that they do not trust the court.

   Clause 7 of the Bill tries to say that the dispute ought to be referred to mediation undertaken by one person appointed by the State Attorney-General.

   Goodness gracious. In almost all cases involving NCR land dispute, the state Government is cited as a party. The LCDA too, as a state agency. In almost all these cases, the cases are defended by legal officers from the Attorney-General Chambers.

   Yet, the Bill says that the dispute arising from the Development Agreement shall be resolved by mediation to be undertaken by a person appointed by the State Attorney-General. Who would you expect the State Attorney-General to appoint? Someone who has the guts to rule against the State Government? Under the mediation scenario, the natives may as well throw up both arms and surrender.

   Then, the Bill provides that if the mediator cannot resolve the dispute, then it is referred to the arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Director of the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration, and the Arbitrator’s decision shall be final and binding upon the parties.

   Again, goodness gracious. This procedure is heartless. The state Government is well greased with tax payers’ money. You have a bottomless pit to proceed with arbitration. Can the natives afford the arbitrator’s fees? They are not cheap. They need to be paid an upfront fees too to the tune of tens of thousands, from both sides. There will be no dispute if the natives are paid their rightful dividends as promised. Now that they do not get dividends, and yet they have to come up with an upfront sum to pay the arbitrators. Where would the natives find the money?

   The arbitration procedure is a cunningly designed resolution mechanism to freeze the natives of their desire to fight with Big Brother the BN Government of Sarawak! No law in Sarawak is more cunning than this. No law in Sarawak is more tyrannical than this.

   (4) The Right to Revoke Development Agreement

   It is surreal to imagine that landowners whose land had been taken away from them for oil palm plantation for 60 years cannot go to court to apply for injunction to stop violation of their rights.

   The State BN Government must have been so hurt by the judgment of Linton Albert that it now decides to amend section 12 of the principal Ordinance. After the amendment, LCDA is deemed to be an agent of the Government and the provisions of s.29(2) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 shall apply to the Authority.

   Effectively this amendment cuts off the remedies of injunction and orders of possession which the landowners in the Pandu land case had managed to obtain in Court against LCDA and the State Government.

   Meaningful development must entail benefit to the landowners. Remember this, the natives provide the land for this joint venture development. They must therefore be entitled to benefits such as employment and dividends.

   But how many natives are now employed in oil palm plantations on their own land? There are several oil palm plantations in Bawang Assan. Everywhere, I see Indonesian workers. The natives who are owners are not employed to work on their own land! Those who are employed receive a pay of RM12 to RM14 per day. The number of Indonesian workers in Bawan Assan far exceeds local native workers. Is this the best that the BN Government can do?

   Yet, if local natives are not employed to work on their own land, the Development Agreement cannot be revoked. Nor can the local natives go to the court.

   There is another area where we must consider to decide whether it is fair that the natives be not allowed to revoke the Development Agreement. It has to do with dividends.

   Many natives had entered into Development Agreement because the Government promised them that they will be getting undreamed-of wealth. According to the Handbook which is “the official communication guide on NCR development matters”, the natives would receive an annual dividend of up to RM40,000 calculated on the basis of crude palm oil at RM1400 per tonne. The price has since tripled. In the Pantu land case, no dividend has been distributed to the natives although 6 years had passed since the commencement of oil palm plantation and although the oil palm fruits had been harvested for 3 years.

   It is justified for the NCR owners to cancel the Development Agreement since there is no benefit to them. With land taken from them, they had no other income.

   On 13th May 2009, the Land Development Minister said in this august House as follows:

   “for the information of the Ahli Yang Berhormat for Bukit Assek, since the New Concept of Development was first implemented in 1996, a total gross area of approximately 406,425 hectares of NCR land had been agreed to for development on the joint ventures arrangement. …

   On the issue of dividends, the Minister said:

   “only four out of the existing 26 joint ventures managed to pay out dividends amounting to RM2,301,116.86”

   If we do a quick calculation, for 13 years since 1996 till 2009, the dividends paid out is a mere RM2,301,116.86. Divide that by 406,425 hectares, it means that the dividends paid out to the natives is less than 17 sen per acre per year. It is not even enough to buy a cigarette.

   Is there anything wrong with the accounts? Are the natives on the Board of Directors of LCDA to keep an eye on the accounts? Clearly, the natives in Sarawak have been given a raw deal. Has other dividends been paid out? Please update this august house. But the amount of dividend paid out is a far cry from the RM40,000 per year that was promised under the Handbook.

   If so little dividend is paid out, it means that the fundamental purpose of the joint venture has collapsed. Yet, the natives are left with no remedy.

   By Clause 4 of the Bill, the LCDA is required to assist the landowners to facilitate or enhance development toward achieving better economic usage so as to realize their economic potentials.

   Whether the development in question has achieved better economic usage, there is no better indicia than the dividends received by the natives. If dividends received is so low it simply means that the legitimate expectation of mutual benefit under the joint venture is destroyed. In that situation, to insist that the natives continue to starve under the joint venture is clearly oppressive.

   Let me assure this august House that contrary to the lies of the Deputy Chief Minister uttered so many times in this august House, DAP never oppressed or suppressed the opportunities of the Dayaks in NCR land development. We are only too happy to see them deriving the most from their land.

   DAP is never against development of the NCR land, so long as the development is meaningful and for the general good of the natives.

   This Bill is draconian in the topmost degree. It is unfair to stop the natives from going to Court, even when they receive no dividends or benefits from the joint venture. It is a draconian law which only the BN has the audacity to introduce. You are depriving the natives of their legal rights to their land.
   _______________________

   Land Bill aimed at ‘punishing natives’
   by Joseph Tawie, FMT, 23 Jun 2011

   The proposed Land Custody and Development Authority Bill currently being debated clearly shows that the BN government does ‘not trust’ its courts, says DAP.

   KUCHING: The bill to bar Sarawak natives from seeking legal redress for grievances involving their native customary rights (NCR) to land is draconian, says Sarawak DAP.

   State chairman Wong Ho Leng said the move clearly showed that the government of Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud was bent on depriving the natives of their legal rights to their land.

   “This bill is draconian in the topmost degree. It is unfair to stop the natives from going to court, even when they receive no dividends or benefits from joint ventures (to develop the land).

   “It is a draconian law which only the Barisan Nasional (BN) has the audacity to introduce,” he said when debating the Land Custody and Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2011 at the 10th State Legislative Assembly sitting.

   The bill was introduced by State Land Development Minister James Masing.

   Wong said DAP never opposed the development of NCR land so long as it is “meaningful and for the general good of the natives”.

   “Let me assure this House that contrary to the lies of Deputy Chief Minister (Alfred Jabu Anak Numpang) uttered so many times in this House, DAP never oppressed or suppressed the opportunities of the Dayaks in NCR land development.”

   Earlier, Wong, who is also the Bukit Assek assemblyman, said that while Sarawak natives had helped BN secure a more than two-thirds majority in the recent state election, the BN state government did not deem it fit to reward them positively.

   “This bill is introduced to punish the natives.

   “Less than two months before the state election, on Feb 18, the Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA) and the state government had lost a legal battle in a case involving the development of NCR land.

   “Clearly, this bill is introduced to plug what was so profoundly shown in the judgment of Justice Linton Albert in Kuching High Court in the popularly known Pantu Land case, where the learned judge ruled against the LCDA and the state government,” he said.

   Wong said that for the LCDA to develop the land, it is paramount to obtain the consent of the native landowners first, adding that the consent must be “genuine and sincere” and not the Ali-Baba type of agreement.

   Development agreement

   Wong said the question is how to secure “genuine consent” from the landowners.

   “Land titles may be issued to the tuai rumah (longhouse chief). But the land is enjoyed by all the longhouse folk.

   “Will a development agreement between the LCDA and the tuai rumah be sufficient to bind the majority or all the longhouse folk?

   “The question hinges on the extent of the authority of the tuai rumah,” he said.

   Wong said he had received many complaints from Selangau, where the penghulu and tuai rumah had signed agreements for oil palm plantations.

   But the penghulu and the tuai rumah had signed the agreements without prior consultation with the longhouse folk.

   “Under the bill, the development agreement cannot be revoked, for the only requirement is that the agreement is signed by the LCDA with the owner, even if the majority of the longhouse folk do not know of the agreement or even object to it.

   “In the example that I had given, a tuai rumah holding the land title, or occupying native customary land, can be persuaded or even bought in order to sign the development agreement.

   “His longhouse folk have no say or right to consultation. Seen in this light, the bill is unjust.

   “Conversely, suppose the tuai rumah is not convinced that a development agreement is viable or beneficial to the longhouse folk, the bill clearly provides a way out in favour of the LCDA.

   “This is done by forcing a development agreement to be signed by ‘any other party.’

   “Under clause 6(b) of the bill, it clearly shows that someone without authority from the community can sign the development agreement with the LCDA.

   “We cannot allow a stranger who has no right to sign a development agreement to bind the tuai rumah and the lawful occupiers of the land,” he said.

   ‘Don’t cheat’

   Wong warned the government that it can expect conflict to arise in the native community and that there may even be bloodshed.

   “If you want to develop the NCR land, make sure that there must be sincerity and honesty.

   “Do not sign the agreement using the LCDA’s name and then give it to a crony or subsidiary company. That is plain cheating.

   “LCDA is a government agency. Do not cheat on the natives,” he said.

   Pointing out that the Dayaks are the poorest people in Sarawak, Wong said that they are a friendly community and will try every means to avoid trouble.

   “But history has shown that they will fight to their last breath in order to protect their land, for land is life to them,” he said.

   Wong said with development agreements which may last 60 years, it is unavoidable that there may be disputes that will land in court.

   “How can you, the BN government, be so heartless as to slam the door of the court on their face?

   “They are already in court; they have their rights to resort to legal remedies.

   “You are not allowed to shut them out. Clearly this violates a person’s fundamental right to seek redress in a court of law.

   “Clearly, the state BN government is showing that it does not trust the court,” he said.

   Undreamed-of wealth

   Wong said that many natives had entered into development agreements with the government believing that they would be receiving undreamed-of wealth.

   According to the handbook which is “the official communication guide on NCR development matters”, the natives would receive an annual dividend of up to RM40,000 calculated on the basis of crude palm oil at RM1,400 per tonne.

   He said the price has since been tripled.

   In the Pantu land case, no dividend was paid to the natives although six years had passed since the commencement of the oil palm plantation and fruits having been harvested for three years.

   “It is justified for the NCR landowners to cancel the development agreement since there is no benefit to them.

   “With land taken from them, they have no other income,” he said.

   On the issue of dividends paid to landowners, Wong said that for 13 years – from 1996 to 2009 – the dividends paid out was a mere RM2,301,116.86.

   “Divide that by 406,425 hectares, it means that the dividends paid out to the natives is less than 17 sen per year. It is not even enough to buy a cigarette.

   “Is there anything wrong with the accounts? Are there no natives on the board of directors of LCDA to keep an eye on the accounts?

   “Clearly, the natives in Sarawak have been given a raw deal, ” Wong said.

   He urged the government to come clean with the current status of payouts to natives.

   “Have the other dividends been paid out?

   “Please update this House. The amount of dividend paid out (thus far in the Pantu case) is a far cry from the RM40,000 per year that was promised under the handbook.

   “If so little dividend is paid out, it means that the fundamental purpose of the joint venture has collapsed.

   “Yet, the natives are left with no remedy,” he said.

   Wong added that if natives were receiving such low dividends, it simply meant that their legitimate expectations of mutual benefit under the joint venture is destroyed.

   “In such a situation, to insist that the natives continue to starve under the joint venture is clearly oppressive,” he said.
   ________________________

   Dayaks find grass greener ‘on the other side’
   Borneo Post, Friday 22 July 2011

   KUCHING – About 120,000 Dayaks from throughout the state are currently employed in Peninsular Malaysia as they strive to secure ‘a brighter future’ abroad.

   Pointing this out yesterday was state DAP secretary Chong Chieng Jen, who was told that many of these Sarawakians earned a living in Johor Bahru (JB) and Klang Valley.

   “These are all young and middle-aged Dayaks, who are very productive and can contribute towards Sarawak’s economy. But they are forced to leave the state,” he told the press here yesterday.

   Chong, who is Bandar Kuching MP and Kota Sentosa assemblyman, in a recent DAP forum held in Selangor revealed that a Dayak from Bawang Assan, Sibu split up with wife after months of working away from home.

   “Our Dayak friend was claimed to have neglected his family as he worked in JB. In the end, his wife divorced him and left with the children.

   “This is a sad story indeed. Many of young and productive Dayaks left the state and that is why our economy is stagnant,” he added.

   Hence, the DAP announced to set up a Dayak Consultation Council (DCC) during the forum.

   According to Chong, Dr John Brian Anthony was named to lead the council, which was set up to fight for the rights of Dayaks and those who cared for the development of Sarawak.

   The council would be expected to give advice to the DAP on issues affecting the Dayak community as well as to propose recommendations on policies that would augur well for their development.

   “We are very concerned about Dayaks working in Semenanjung Malaysia. Dr John will be tasked with doing more for our Dayaks,” said Chong.

   During the last State Legislative Assembly sitting, he recalled to have brought up the issue with regards to young Dayaks working outside Sarawak due to poor management of native customary right (NCR) land.

   “During the Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA) ammendment bill, I talked about how the government was developing NCR land to benefit only its cronies but not the natives.

   “And that this is a reason why our young Dayaks left the state to earn a living but the Barisan Nasional members shouted and jeered at me,” he said.

   Chong added that this was the fact no quarters could deny or hide.

   At Dr John’s website DayakBaru.com, he enlightened that DAP had stated it was interested to go into some Dayak areas in Sarawak.

   Therefore, Dayak Consultation Council, initially named Dayak Brain Trust, was set up and announced by state DAP chairman Wong Ho Leng during the forum themed ‘Dayak Reawakening’.

   While Dr John is to lead the council, the other appointed member is Duwen Babat.

   The council is expected to have 10 members. The rest of the council members will be announced in due course.
   __________________

   Taib changes definition of ‘native’ after NCR defeat
   Malaysia Kini, Friday, 24 June 2011

   The Sarawak assembly passed the Land Custody and Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2011 yesterday.

   Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud has responded to humiliating setbacks in Native Customary Rights (NCR) lawsuits by forcing through a motion in the state assembly to change the definition of ‘native’.

   Yesterday, the first sitting of the state legislature passed the Land Custody and Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2011, despite resistance from Pakatan Rakyat members, in order to lubricate joint-venture deals to take over NCR land.

   According to the amended law, any party entering a joint-venture plantation deal with the state-owned LCDA will be designated a ‘native’.

   Land minister James Masing (right) had admitted the amendment was in response to an embarrassing NCR court case defeat to natives in Pantu.

   On February 21, presiding High Court judge Linton Albert found in favour of 12 Iban landowners from Pantu district, in their NCR claim against the authorities.

   The native plaintiffs had sued the state government and the LCDA, for entering a joint venture oil palm enterprise on 7,000 hectares of land with Tetangga, a private company, sidelining the local NCR landowners.

   In a forthright condemnation of the joint venture, Justice Linton Albert stated “the sum total of the rights of the landowners, to put it crudely, and for want of a better word, is zero.”

   Taib’s government has now passed an amendment stipulating that any company entering into a joint-venture with the LCDA will be declared a ‘native’, in an attempt to overcome this legal hurdle.

   Justice Albert foresaw such legislation in his judgment. He made a somewhat acerbic statement that any executive declaration that the LCDA’s partner, Tetangga, could obtain ‘native’ status retrospectively, by the wave of a legislative wand, would be irrelevant. Invalid arrangements from the beginning, he pointed out, could not be made valid by a subsequent act.

   The new amendment to the LCDA Bill will certainly face further challenges in court. The ‘legislative bulldozer’ approach reflects the uneasiness of Taib’s government, faced with a series of high profile losses in NCR court cases.

   Pakatan reps defend NCR landowners

   Pakatan state assembly representatives made a forceful defence of NCR during the Sarawak state assembly sitting. But the 15 Pakatan representatives were greatly outnumbered by the BN’s 55 members.

   Twelve DAP and three PKR representatives had joined the state legislature, on the back of an unprecedented 45 percent opposition share of the popular vote, in April’s state election. NCR issues and alleged corruption and cronyism were highlighted during the election campaign.

   Land issues fall under state jurisdiction, under Malaysia’s federation. Taib, the longest-serving state leader in Malaysia’s history, has been besieged by lawsuits over NCR claims. He is struggling to rebut well-documented allegations of parceling out large tracts of land to political allies in the logging, mining, plantation and dam construction industries.

   These lucrative contracts have sparked conflicts with impoverished native landowners, mainly in rural areas. NCR land rights are guaranteed under the federal constitution and the state Land Code, but Taib and his ministers have passed numerous amendments to state land legislation to quash landowners’ claims.

   Anger on the ground over the seizure of NCR land has translated into over 200 NCR lawsuits against Taib’s government, a sizeable swing in Dayak votes towards Pakatan, and two rural seats for PKR in Ba’Kelalan and Krian.

   Two leading NCR lawyers, partners in the same legal firm handling over 100 of the NCR cases, were elected as PKR state assembly representatives: Baru Bian in Ba’Kelalan and See Chee How in Batu Lintang, a seat in Kuching.

   Baru (right), head of Sarawak PKR, agreed with Malaysiakini’s view that the amendment indicated Taib had not heeded rural voters’ anger over NCR disputes.

   “Yes, you could say that. But it also means that the government is taking no chances when it comes to development of NCR lands, especially when LCDA engaged agents as their contractors or joint-venture partners in ‘developing’ NCR lands. These agents can easily be deemed a ‘native’ to legalise all transactions between the natives and the LCDA’s agents or partners under the Land Code.

   “(Under) normal circumstances, this would not be possible. This is because to obtain the status of a native is a difficult process.” He pointed out that historically, the status of native customary reserve land under the colonial Brooke administration had to be granted under the authority of the Governor in Council, and was subject to traditional customary law or adat.

   Impartial Native Land Commission sought

   The PKR leader called for an impartial Native Land Commission, similar to an existing commission in the Philippines, to recognise NCR land and to issue communal titles.

   State DAP leader Wong Ho Leng (left) spoke out against the LCDA legislation. “The LCDA Amendment Bill was introduced in the Sarawak state assembly to disallow natives from revoking (an LCDA joint venture) agreement to develop NCR land. I said it is a most draconian law introduced by BN,” he tweeted.

   State Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu argued instead that the “DAP suppresses and oppresses the opportunity of NCR landowners from participating in the Sarawak state BN poverty eradication programme.”

   PKR assembly representative for Krian, Ali Biju, pointed out NCR land disputes and animosity had been created by logging and plantations. He named four such provisional plantation leases and six timber licences in Krian, awarded to companies working on land claimed under NCR.

   “The companies that have been given provisional leases have encroached illegally into NCR lands of the native communities,” he said in his maiden speech.

   PKR human rights lawyer See (right) also listed ten separate timber concessions granted throughout the state, some impinging on environmentally protected water catchment zones. “It is blatant contravention of our laws to issue timber concession licences over water catchment areas and known NCR lands,” he emphasised.

   See argued, during the sitting, that the people’s votes had been diluted.

   “Had the democratic principle of ‘one constituent, one vote’ been practised, the opposition should have won 31 seats in this honourable Dewan…(but) the two-coalition system has now taken shape, and Sarawak has certainly progressed in our democratic process,” he said.

   Native landowners can only hope this will, one day, lead to progress in land security.
   ___________________

   Sarawak govt handling NCR issues the wrong way
   by Tony Thien, Malaysia Kini, 17 June 2005

   The large number of legal cases brought by native customary rights (NCR) claimants against Sarawak state authorities and companies issued either with logging permits or oil-palm land leases shows clearly that ‘something, somewhere is gravely wrong with the way the state government is handling the NCR land issue’, an opposition elected representative told the state legislative assembly.

   There are about 130 such litigation cases before the courts, Chiew Chin Sing (DAP-Kidurong) said, adding that the seriousness of the issue following growing conflicts on the ground and causing hardships to both natives and investors concerned should be addressed and resolved quickly.

   He said the state government had already lost two important cases – the Rumah Noh case at Sekabai, Bintulu and the Kampung Nyalau, Bintulu case where the government had been ordered to pay damages likely to be in the tune of RM70 million when it is assessed by the court eventually.

   “Where will the state government find this kind of money to pay? There are over one hundred more cases filed in the court pending hearing and judgment,” he added.

   According to the DAP legislator, many of the native lands had their boundaries marked according to the decree of the Rajah via Order No 12 where they were told to identify their boundaries according to the rivers.

   “The Land and Survey Department has thus done the composite plan showing distribution of native land 1954. But why is it then that today the department is still issuing provisional leases over these lands to plantation companies and others?’

   “I wonder whether corruption is an issue here,” Chiew said, adding that “I am not saying this (corruption) in jest, for I bear in mind that according to the ACA, local councils and the Land and Survey Department are the most corrupt departments.’

   Many disputes had arisen following violations of native laws, cultures and traditions.

   In order to reduce the problem, he said the government should survey all native lands and issue NCR lands with official documents certifying the natives’ rights over their lands.

   He also said compensation of NCR land acquired by the government should be paid according to current market rate and not limited to available crops and properties on the land.

   Greenpeace’s statement

   On a new law passed in the state assembly several years to survey and register NCR land, Chiew said little had been heard of its progress and the status of the work.

   “I have not even heard that a NCR land registry has been put in place. I hope I am wrong in this,” he added.

   Chiew believed that if native lands had already been surveyed and issued with titles, conflicts like the Penan bringing the government and timber conglomerate Samling Group to court over logging operations in the Sela’an Linau area could have been avoided.

   The case, he added, had caused Greenpeace to release a statement on May17, 2005 in Amsterdam, raising its concerns over the serious gaps in the certification standards of the Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC) among which is the protest by the indigenous people, including the Penan tribe.

   “This kind of issue brought up by Greenpeace is not good at all for our timber and timber products overseas and is bad for our state economy,” Chiew warned.
   ______________

   Natives should be given chance to develop NCR land
   by Tony Thien, Malaysia Kini, 28 May 2005

   DAP state assemblyperson Chiew Chin Sing said today that there would be many rich native oil-palm small-holders today if the Sarawak Government had directly assisted the natives to develop their customary rights (NCR) lands a decade ago.

   Developing NCR land, he asserted, should not be left only to government agencies and private companies.

   “There are many ways to develop NCR land, and (natives) working with government agencies is only one of them,” the sole opposition member in the 62-member state assembly told malaysiakini.

   He was responding to recent comments by the Barisan Nasional state assemblyperson for Kemena Dr Stephen Rundi, who said the Dayaks should change their mindset if they wanted to progress and work together with the authorities to develop their NCR land instead of leaving the land idle.

   “The government can also help the natives develop their NCR land, including land claimed by them as NCR after 1958, by providing roads, financing and seedlings,” Chiew added.

   The DAP leader lamented that his motion in the state assembly two years ago calling on the government to carry out a perimeter survey of all NCR lands and issue ownership titles, was thrown out as there was no seconder.

   He said the natives were actually keen to develop their NCR land. “But this is just not happening,” he said, adding that if the government had helped 10 years ago “today you’ll see so many rich oil-palm small-holder natives.”

   “Why has it not been done?,” he asked, pointing out that the government might be suspected of having ‘some ulterior motives’ in failing to do so.

   Chiew said he was aware there were some natives in Miri Division who had started their own small-holdings on NCR land and are doing well.

   He stressed that the natives were more than willing to work together with the government to develop idle land.

   “As I’ve said, there are many ways to go around it. The government should have more alternatives to offer, so that the natives can participate through many other channels.”

   He called on the government “to listen to the natives, help them and not to be prejudiced towards them, thinking they are backward and (therefore) do not know very much.”

   Chiew said he felt there was a lack of genuine efforts to help the natives in the first place to resolve their NCR land issues.

   If there had been any genuine efforts to help the natives tackle the land problems, the “government should have sent a committed person like a Peace Corps member to go in and live with the natives, look at their problems and help solve them, even if settlement has taken place after 1958 and the land planted with whatever.”

   The government should talk to the natives about the land it wanted to develop and arrive at a win-win solution for the good of everyone, he added.

   Many disputes

   According to Chiew, there are as many disputes as there are plantation companies in Bintulu, which he said is between 10 and 20 with average of 10,000 acres each.

   “Iban NCR land-owners are largely involved in the land disputes, although in the Tubau area, Kayan land is also involved.”

   At Kampung Jepak, Melanau lands were being acquired for a new township on the other side of Kemena River, Chiew said.

   In Bintulu town area new Sibiew River, Chinese lands of between 30 and 40 acres were acquired for oxidation plants.

   One million acres of NCR land in Tubau are being planted with fast-growing species known commercially as acasia under a Bintulu-based pulp and paper project.

   “Hundreds of longhouses are affected (by this commercial tree-planting project),” according to Chiew.

   He added that logging taking place near the border with Indonesia had also led to numerous disputes and clearing on lands the natives claimed as under NCR because of destruction to fruit trees and farms.
   _____________

   DAP rep raises housing woes in Sarawak
   by Tony Thien, Malaysia Kini, 11 Dec 2004

   The opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) has warned that unless urgent action is taken to address housing and other needs of the growing influx of rural migrants, the city and towns in Sarawak would be in a messy situation.

   Debating on the state budget 2005 in the state legislative assembly, the sole opposition state assemblyperson Chiew Chin Sing (DAP-Kidurong) said yesterday that urban population increased from 15.5 per cent in 1970 to nearly 50 per cent of the total state population by 2000.

   The trend is likely to continue in the future, and it is predicted that 75 per cent of the state’s population will reside in the urban centres by 2010, he added.

   “Are we ready for it? Will there be enough jobs, housing, the infrastructure support for transportation?

   “Apparently, we still have a long way to go,” Chiew said, adding that one immediate problem is housing for rural migrants.

   “We have to understand that these rural folks are first-timers in coming to live in towns. It is almost like the old days, when the Chinese came to Sarawak with nothing to their names, but only their two hands to work and make a living.

   “From the very day of their arrival, they had to face the question of survival, live or die, and whether they can make it here.

   “Our rural folks who have moved to the urban areas have to use all their rural skills and to re-invent themselves, pushing the boundary lines, just so that they can survive in the foreign and new urban environment.

   Survival instinct

   According to Chiew, “the natural rural survival instinct tells them that they must find a piece of land, best near a stream and build a langkow, (a reference to squatter hut) and start from there.

   “The man would then go out looking for work and the woman plant vegetables in the nearby woods in preparation for the next meal.

   “The news of survival gets back to the rural areas and so more come and that is how our lankow colony come to be, with quite a number of them at Tg Kidurong in Bintulu”, he said

   Chiew said the government should allocate plots of land but only to those really in need of them.

   “I believe this is the right way for us to lend a helping hand to those who try to make a living in the towns,” he said;

   The DAP leader said that one of the factors for rural-to-urban migration is that it is hard nowadays to find a living in the rural areas.

   “Though there are about 25,000 sq km of native customary rights (NCR) land constituting about one fifth of the Sarawak land area, the problem is that most of these lands are agriculture land and with no titles.

   Land titles wanted

   There have been calls that these land holdings near the urban areas be converted into mixed zone land and issued with titles.

   “The land owners should then be able to decide what to do with the land themselves,.They could use the titles for mortgage to the bank for business or to develop their own mini estates or even sell some of the land for cash to help with their children’s education.

   “In this way not all of them would not be coming to town to look for a living or find cash,’ he added.

   “But because these lands have not been issued with titles there has been a lot of conflicts between the natives who claim that these lands are theirs and the palm oil plantation company or timber company.

   “This is happening not only in Bintulu, near the outskirt of the town area, but also all over Sarawak,” Chiew added.
   _______________

   Call to elect community leaders and headmen in Sarawak
   by Tony Thien, Malaysia Kini, 7 Dec 2004

   The proposal comes in the usual tone – it’s better to elect than to appoint.

   When such a proposal or suggestion comes from the opposition, the government is not likely to sit up and take notice, let alone gets down to implementing it. Nonetheless, that does not stop opposition leaders from making their point.

   Yesterday, Sarawak DAP deputy chairperson Chiew Chin Sing continued to register a pointer – that it is better to have elected than appointed community chiefs and headmen.

   Why?

   So that they would strive to improve the quality of their services and be more accountable to the people.

   Chiew, the sole opposition state assemblyperson in Sarawak’s 62-member legislative assembly, said, “community leaders must understand their role in society, and that they are to serve both the government and opposition”.

   “As such, they must have the genuine desire to be community leaders, knowing what they are required to do and then apply for the post, instead of being appointed like in the old days of the colonial government.”

   Sole opposition voice

   Chiew was the only dissenting voice when the Community Chiefs and Headmen Bill 2004 was debated at the state assembly yesterday to regulate the appointment and tenure of office and to specify the duties of community chiefs and headmen.

   Community chiefs cover temenggong, pemanca and penghulu and headmen cover ketua kaum or ketua kampung or tuan kampung or tuai rumah or tuai uma or kapitan covering all communities in the state.

   Chiew said it would be better if aspiring community chiefs and headmen could come out to the open and stand to be elected to the posts.

   “Once elected, they must know how to champion the people’s rights and must know, at the same time, how to address their needs.”

   Chiew (DAP-Kidurong) said, “When a community leader is elected by the people, he will have to win votes and that means meeting up with the people extensively, understanding their problems and needs thoroughly and be always available and accountable to the people.”

   “Naturally his quality of service will improve as he strives to do better and better as he is aware that he will be voted out if he is not doing his job.”

   “At the end of the term, he will have to stand in front of the people again and submit his report card for re-consideration for re-election by the people if he wants to continue.”

   Serve both sides

   Chiew said his interpretation of “an elected community leader is one who is good for both the ruling and the opposition party because he will need them both if he wants to continue on with his leadership position.”

   He said “the appointment of a community chief or a headman in the past has always been political; so and so is appointed because he is a committee member of the supreme council or the central working committee of a political party.”

   “And this has to change because more often than not the appointed chief or headman is only there to safeguard the political interest of the ruling party responsible for his appointment.”

   The DAP leader claimed that “some community leaders are even afraid to associate with the opposition or anybody seen close to the opposition.”

   “The whole thing then become too political, especially during election time until the whole meaning and role of being a community leader in our society is forgotten and all they can remember is the Barisan National,” he added.

10. malong on February 11th, 2012 8:02 am

    lama…dah BNipu……………………..org kapit enda ibuh gaga ka jalai laban sida diak baka jelu enda nemu ngena jalai alun….nyak alai ngundi pbb belama menang enda betanding.Enda ibuh ngundi alik belama meh kitak kaya udah ia duit apai/menantu ujang jilan juta duit ….hehehehe.sapa engai dikumbai org jelu belelang ari kapit ke johor,btu,miri,kl ngiga kerja laban kayu batang udah abis…….tu jaku beri ngagai org enda nemu reti undi.

11. js@kbn on February 25th, 2012 3:47 am

    Who are Dayak potential candidates for DAP Swak?

Leave a Reply