Report of the National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples 89 6.43 Most communities also often channel their complaints to their respective members of the legislative assembly or to parliament. But in most cases, the response was slow or complainants were instead influenced to accept a project and drop their complaints. In case KM24, the ex-legislative assembly member for the area, YB Jornah Mohizim, wrote to the MRD that the communities had accepted the conditions of the MESEJ project in Kg Minikodong, which was contrary to the statement by W34. 6.44 Many communities also complained about the legalistic and administrative approach taken by the ACLR and the Director of LSD, especially with regard to the recognition of NCR to land. On a suggestion from the Inquiry about making proposals for legislative changes, the LSD and other departments responded that they would just abide by the policies of the Government and instructions from policy-makers. 6.45 There were numerous complaints regarding the use of force in evicting communities, including arresting community members for encroachment. Expert witness, Mr Ram Singh (W42) said natives often do not know their rights when they are arrested by the police or forestry enforcement officers. These include the right to a lawyer, the right to know the charges for the arrest, and the right not to be forced or threatened to give statements. ii. Plantations 6.46 The Plantations category, in which 51 statements were recorded, refers to allegations that commercial plantations had encroached on, or were introduced into, land claimed as NCR, without the community’s knowledge or without complying the principles of free, prior and informed consent. This category also looks into the regulations on Social and Environmental Impact Assessments (SIA and EIA) and the responsibilities of a company if it is found that any part of the licensed area is being claimed by natives. 6.47 A specific concern under this category are the roles of the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD), Government agencies and Government-linked companies (GLCs) in recognising NCR land and in excising NCR land before titles or permits to open up plantations are given. As such, there are more than the 51 cases under this category involving complaints of encroachment by plantations as many more have also been categorised under “Administration”. 6.48 While the witnesses from companies highlighted their policy of respecting indigenous rights, their position was simply that the land at issue had been alienated or leased to them legally and that any excision of NCR land would have been done by the land offices concerned. Most of these companies testified that there were no expressed conditions in their titles to exclude NCR land. However, the Sabah Natural Resource Office confirmed that such conditions were stated on the titles. 6.49 Mr Deny Vitus (W97), the FELDA Land Planning Officer, said that FELDA only entered an area if it had already been legally alienated to them and would not encroach on settlement areas. In case no. TW43, he received confirmation from the LSD that 916 acres of land were already surveyed for the community. Accordingly, FELDA subsequently released that area to the community. However, according to Mr Batulatong bin Bagkang (W66), a Dusun Begahak representing Kg Ulu Taburi, in Tungku, Lahad Datu, the actual area applied for was 1,260 acres. W97 said the claim for additional land came too late and in any case, the LSD should be the right avenue for such claims. chapter 6_a4.indd 89 7/5/13 6:47 PM