88 Chapter 6 | FINDINGS - SABAH The communities were expected to indicate the location of the land under application on a topographical map. The Inquiry found that such expectations for the communities to be “surveyors” were unreasonable, particularly when topographical maps where community applicants could easily locate their land are restricted. 6.38 Witnesses also raised issues relating to the manner in which land surveys were conducted. The Inquiry was told by the district surveyors that the applicant and the village head were not required to be present during the actual ground inspection. This testimony, however, was in conflict with information from the ACLR that village heads were informed to be present. Community witnesses expressed that it was critical for them to be present during inspection and surveying. Examples of cases quoted earlier involving allegations of fraud and approval of land to others instead of NCR claimants indicated that the presence of the applicants during the survey could have prevented the problem. 6.39 Mr Wilson Kulung (P1) from Kg Rumantai, Ranau disclosed the findings of the LE as follows: “(1) Based on the land inspection report conducted on 12.12.2007, almost all the land area is found to be virgin or secondary jungle. (2) Crops in the area are planted in haphazard manner and far from each other. (3) The plaintiff’s claim does not fulfil the definition under Section 15, and additionally, no protest made within the notification period under Section 13. (4) The defendant agreed to excise 500 acres from the 1000 acres for the residents’ housing area (ie village area)... (5) The effort by the community was not sustained.” The findings of the land inspection are by themselves actually proofs of the community’s existence in the area, yet the decisions of the LE went against the community. These points in the report also indicate that there is lack of understanding by surveyors of community farming lifestyles and the weakness of the interpretation of NCR under section 15 by the surveyor. 6.40 The oft-quoted reasons for delays in deciding on land applications were the lack of human resources and funding for surveys. An important remedial action taken in the past through the formation of survey task forces was unfortunately discontinued, indicating a lack of commitment by the State Government. The current response of clearing backlog of land applications by allowing overtime to surveyors is inadequate to remedy the urgent and serious situation faced by indigenous peoples. Dealing with complaints 6.41 The Inquiry found mechanisms to deal with complaints haphazard and very much on a case-to-case basis. There were no record books of complaints nor were oral complaints systematically recorded by the Land Offices. Robotic responses to queries, and promises, or even threats were indicative of inefficiency and a non-caring attitude of some LSD staff. 6.42 More serious and organised form of complaints from communities were treated with disdain or as being not genuine, and were frequently attributed to instigation by NGOs, instead of recognising that complaints and criticisms were legitimate rights of people, and taking the necessary actions to remedy the situation. In case no KG24, although the Tuaran ACLR expressed full support in resolving NCR land issues, he nevertheless said that communities should go directly to him rather than going to NGOs. The Inquiry pointed out that it is because various communities did not get the response in a timely manner from relevant departments that they had to go to other bodies. The Inquiry also stressed that it is the right of any person or community to seek help wherever they could. chapter 6_a4.indd 88 7/5/13 6:47 PM