Invitation to Walk with the Indigenous People

On 13 September 2008, the world will celebrate the first year anniversary of the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP). Over 370 million indigenous people in 70 countries are affected by this declaration which recognises our right to our distinct social, cultural, economic and political identities.

On Nov. 7, 2007, less than two months after the UN adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, Bolivia became the first country in the world to adopt the declaration as law when Morales announced the passage of National Law 3760, or the Rights of Indigenous peoples, legislation that is an exact copy of the UN declaration. The Peru congress has repealed two legislative declarations that were in conflict with the rights contained in the DRIP.
In Malaysia, our struggles for recognition of land rights continue. Nonrecognition and uncertainty over our land contributes to our continuing poverty and inability to develop our lands. The government’s development policies are making decisions for our future without our free, prior and informed consent. Though our situations may differ in each state, we are united in our common struggle for recognition of our land, our rights and our identity.
So, for the first time, we as indigenous peoples are gathering together to present to the Supreme Authority of Malaysia, DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agung, a memorandum to urge the government to locally implement the DRIP and recognise our rights to land and to control, develop, and protect it for the benefit of our community and this nation.

On behalf of JOAS, we would like to invite our fellow indigenous peoples — Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia, Anak Negeri of Sabah and Dayaks and Orang Ulu of Sarawak to come with us on our walk to the Royal Palace. We also invite friends and supporters from civil society, environmental and human rights advocates and those who believe that our place as indigenous peoples within Malaysia needs to be recognised and reaffirmed by the Government and authorities to come with us on a Saturday morning walk and observe this historic event.
We will be gathering at Central Market on 13 September, Saturday and start walking toward the Royal Palace by 10am. For more information, please contact http://us.mc527.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=joasmalaysia@gmail.com, http://us.mc527.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=seanrubis@hotmail.com or call Sean at 0128837937

From Haris Ibrahim's Blog . I will be there!

DNA 2008 bill rushed through Parliament when it is not ready

Haha .. who wrote this bill?

Image from http://www.crimedramatv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/csi-miami-tv-52.jpg

Reflecting on the article "Spotlight: CSI Malaysian style" , I share the reservation about this DNA bill 2008 and deemed more discussion is needed to plug the existing loopholes. Looking at the bill as a common citizen and an ardent fan of CSI, there are a few areas that I am not comfortable about. Firstly, it seemed to give excessive power to the police ("Authorised officer" means any police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police) with a lack of clear check and balance. Already, the bill does not specify the type of 'offences' that is included. If an offence's was perpetrated, the police could compel as many people as "reasonably" suspected of having committed these 'offences". The 'reasonable" argument should not be subjective but qualified and balanced by the judiciary to protect the rights of individuals.

In CSI, it seemed that DNA can be obtained through the oral swabs although we can argue that it is just a TV show. In this bill, there is a cluster of method available inclusive of blood, 'liquid' and pubic hair. What is not clear to me is to what extend should the public comply? Some may be adverse to the needle and may reject having their blood taken. I for one am not looking forward for my pubic hair sample being taken. Would the 'accused' then run foul of law if this person allowed all sampling method to be taken except one? Can the authority come back again and again to collect samples?

A recent case in Australia where "Bungled DNA case forces review of 7,000 convictions in Australia" (AFP) shows that it is possible that mistakes happen. "Civil liberty groups said the bungled case was a warning over the use of DNA as conclusive evidence, while some lawyers have suggested that it would lead to challenges to such evidence in future cases". It is pertinent to be more thorough & methodical in the preparation of the bill that will significantly impact the public. It is important that the necessary tool be given to our law enforces yet it need to be regimented enough to uphold the rights of citizens.