Report of the National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples 93 6.69 In case KM49, Mr Jeffrey Makap representing 13 villages with the SAFODA reforestation project in Pitas said that acquisition of land through the Bengkoka Resettlement Scheme 32 years ago had several noble objectives but were never realised. Only 200 families out of the 2,000 original inhabitants were included in the scheme. In response, Mr Asan b Beluar (W47) of SAFODA and the Pitas District Officer, Mr Sapdin Ibrahim (W103) said that 32,000 ha out of 60,000 ha originally gazetted to SAFODA were excised in 2005 to be returned to the community. However, land that has been excised but not developed by the individuals will be taken back by SAFODA. Communal Titles 6.70 The Inquiry was told by the Deputy Director of the LSD, Mr Lee Chun Khiong (W3) that the issuance of Communal Titles (CTs) is a new strategy of the Government after seeing that past policies of approving Native Titles (NTs) to natives have only ended in sale of NTs. Approvals of CTs are also part of a poverty eradication policy, and thus the LSD also considers it important to facilitate land development for the CTs that have been issued (see witness statements Summaries on “Laws & Policies”). 6.71 The rapid issuance of CTs that started after the amendment of section 77 of the SLO was immediately followed by conversion of the land into oil palm plantations. From the start, communities were divided by this new strategy of land development since the divisions of lots do not follow traditional ownership boundaries and do not maintain crops that have been planted by NCR land claimant. With the merging of NCR lands to form one large plantation, conflicts regarding traditional village administration also ensued. The thirteen cases that were recorded through the Inquiry involved these issues and the dissatisfaction with the introduction of the CT concept by the Government without considering the peoples’ concerns. 6.72 In case SD4, Mr Kani Delian (W86) of Kg. Mangkawago, Tongod said that they disagreed with the new CT concept as they would be mere “beneficiaries” and not the owners of their NCR land. Furthermore, land under a CT cannot be passed down to family members. Mr Thomas Logijin (W110), the Tongod District Officer, said the matter of issuing a CT was brought before the Land Utilisation Committee in May 2011 and discussed with JKKK Chairman and village head who have both agreed as the processing of CT is faster compared to individual applications. The process is now at the level of the Natural Resource Office. 6.73 In case T1, the Tenom District Officer (W107) informed the Inquiry that four villages – namely Kg Mangkalias, Kg Kabintaluan and Kg Pongolobon 1 & 2 had been issued CTs. However, Mr Rainus Sagulau (W76) claimed that the four communities in Kg Ponglobon, Kg Abingkoi, Kerolok and Ahuron in Mukim Rundum, Kemabong, Tenom who had been living in the area for generations wanted to manage the area themselves and rejected the issuance of CTs. 6.74 The Inquiry finds the Special Terms (see box below) attached to the issuance of CTs to have violated the rights of natives, and may not necessarily serve the interests of those who already have NCR over that area. These Special Terms escaped the scrutiny of “beneficiaries” because they were lured with payments of RM300-500 upon signing of a document, which they later found was a joint-venture agreement to develop their land. 6.75 Mr Galus Ahtoi (W10) gave the example during the signing ceremony of the Lalampas Communal Title in Entilibon, Tongod. The beneficiaries were given RM500 immediately after they had signed the agreement, and because it was a formal ceremony where all the beneficiaries were present, they did not have the opportunity to read the agreement. Neither chapter 6_a4.indd 93 7/5/13 6:47 PM