國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
of territory and involuntary incorporation into the global capitalist system. The paper, written in a decolonisation framework had inherent sovereignty as a central concept.
However, even though it discussed indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, the main problem was reduced to Taiwan's independence from China. The Taiwanese nation envisioned in the White Paper was made up of a wished-for alliance of
indigenous peoples and “New Taiwanese”. The DPP's definition of “New Taiwanese”
differed from that of Lee Teng-hui and Ma Ying-jeou which was inclusive of post-1945 Chinese arrivals on Taiwan. Instead it defined it as meaning Taiwanese who were the descendants of indigenous women and male immigrants from China (ibid.:
230-232). In essence this is the Hoklo-speaking mainstream in Taiwan that makes up the majority of the DPP's electoral base. Although these people may have indigenous ancestry they do not explicitly identify themselves as indigenous. Hence, Simon concludes, the DPP tried to incorporate indigenous peoples into a national imagination not of their own making. Indigenous peoples were being used as part of a political discourse to construct a non-Chinese identity for Taiwan (ibid.: 232).
A number of pieces of legislation concerning indigenous peoples were passed while the DPP controlled the executive from 2000 to 2008. The most important of these being the Indigenous Peoples' Basic Law (IPBL) passed in 2005. This will be discussed further in Chapter Four of the thesis.
2.5 Some examples in Taiwan
The final part of this chapter looks at some important cases which highlight the ongoing struggle of Taiwan's indigenous peoples for rights to land and resources.
Although the focus of this thesis is the Smangus community, similar cases have occurred elsewhere in Taiwan. Together these cases reflect an ongoing struggle by indigenous peoples to assert their rights and autonomy in the face of state intervention and control. The cases detailed here are all quite recent, but they need to be seen in a broader context of colonisation and settlement that dates back to the Dutch arrival on Formosa in 1624. More detail of the historical conflict between the Atayal and the state is given in Chapters Three and Four.
Since the 1990s indigenous peoples have gained some rights and recognition from the government. However, the pattern of conflict between indigenous peoples and the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
demands of capital and the state to gain control over lands and resources continues.
Chi (2001) looks at the position of Taiwan's indigenous peoples from the perspective of environmental justice. Taiwan's political and economic system makes indigenous communities vulnerable to exploitation by the dominant Chinese-speaking
mainstream. This directly attacks the rights of indigenous peoples to land and resources.
A case that provides an example of how Taiwan's indigenous peoples suffer as a result of their economic marginalisation is the nuclear waste dump on Orchid Island2. The Yami (Tao) people of Orchid Island are somewhat isolated from the Taiwan mainland.
They have experienced the least interference from outsiders of any of Taiwan's indigenous groups. The Japanese kept Orchid Island as a living anthropological museum. It was not until the 1960s that the Taiwan government began to implement significant changes on the island. In 1980 Taipower Company began constructing what they told the locals was a fish cannery on the island. However, in 1982 it was discovered the site was a storage facility for nuclear waste (Arrigo, 2002).
In 1987 after martial law was lifted the Yami began actively protesting against the presence of nuclear waste on their island. In 1994 the Taipower Company agreed to stop shipping nuclear waste to the island, although the storage facility was at full capacity by that time anyway. The payment of compensation to the residents of the island created further problems with inappropriate infrastructure developments (ibid.).
The nuclear waste still remains on Orchid Island although the government is currently seeking an alternative storage site.
The Truku people in Hualien traditionally occupied the mountain areas that now make up the Taroko National Park. They were pushed out into the foothills during the Japanese era and then to the base of the mountains by the ROC. In 1968 the ROC government began a system of registering Aboriginal Reserve Land. Loopholes in the law were exploited to allow non-indigenous Taiwanese to rent the land. Asia Cement took advantage of these loopholes to rent land from the Truku people in Hsiulin Township with the promise that it would be returned in 20 years. When the people
2 Orchid Island, or Lan Yu as it is known in Chinese, is currently the most commonly used name for the island. In the language of the Yami people it is Pongso no Tao. The island is also known as Botel Tobago.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
tried to reclaim their land after 20 years they found their property rights had
disappeared. The Truku people began a long political and legal struggle to win back their land rights. In August 2000 they won a court case recognising their right to cultivate the land (Simon, 2002).
The creation of the Taroko National Park in 1986 further excluded the Truku people from their traditional territory. Previously considered as part of the Atayal group, the Truku won official recognition as a separate group in January 2004. In 2004 the government put out tenders for commercial development of the Park without
consulting the traditional owners. The response from the Truku caused the government to halt the bidding process. The Truku put forward a proposal for autonomy in 2006 in accordance with their rights under the IPBL. However, this has not been achieved and needs additional legislation, especially the Indigenous Autonomous Area Law which is still to be passed (Tsai, 2006).
Danayigu3 Ecology Park in Chiayi County, provides a successful example of
ecotourism run by an indigenous community which has enabled the people to reclaim control over their traditional territory. The construction of a road into the area in the late 1970s brought more visitors and the exploitation of fish in the river by outsiders.
This led to the collapse of the traditional systems the Tsou had used to manage fishing stocks. This eventually led to a grassroots response by the local community to protect the environment. This effort had two key aspects. The first was implementing local regulations that could be enforced voluntarily by members of the community. The second was economic development in the form of tourism to allow all the community to gain some benefit from the fishing ban (Tang & Tang, 2001).
There are cultural and ecological costs associated with the development of Danayigu.
These are associated mainly with the large numbers of tourists arriving in the area. A romanticised version of Tsou culture is presented to Taiwanese tourists in the form of traditional clothing and dance. This raises the question whether a restrictive model of cultural identity has been imposed on the Tsou or is it a positive reinforcement of cultural traditions that helps them resist the influx of global culture. Traffic from tour buses brings pollution and the roads are susceptible to landslides. These things harm
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
agricultural crops and the harvesting of bamboo also detract from the pristine environment that attracts visitors to the area (Hipwell, 2007).
Although there may be some costs associated with the development of Daniyigu, the overall outcome seems positive. Tang and Tang (2001) say that the Tsou of Danayigu have been able to attain negotiated autonomy based on mutually beneficial
relationships with external stakeholders. Hipwell (2007) says that Danayigu represents a process of geopolitical resistance by the Tsou. Danayigu was devastated by the torrential rains associated with Typhoon Morakot in August 2009 bringing the community's experiment in ecotourism to an end.
The Alishan Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) case provides a recent example of a case where the IPBL has proved to be ineffective. In June 2008 the Forestry Bureau and the Council of Agriculture announced the right to operate the Alishan Forest Railway had been transferred to the Hungtu Construction Company. The BOT project gave the company the right to take over operations of the publicly owned mountain railway and undertake related development projects. These included plans for constructing new hotels and other improvements to the line. Under the terms of the contract the
company would return the railway and associated projects to the government after 30 years. A number of local groups, including the Tsou people, are opposed to the project because of concerns about its safety and impact on the local environment and
communities (Tsai, 2008).
The Tsou people said the project ignored their 30 year struggle for land rights. In 1976 a fire forced the people to relocate from the area near Jhaoping Station and they were never allowed to return. This land has now been allocated to Hungtu Corporation to construct a hotel in the BOT project. This is in contravention of Article 21 of the IPBL which states, “The government or private party shall consult indigenous peoples and obtain their consent or participation, and share with indigenous peoples benefits generated from land development, resource utilization, ecology conservation and academic researches in indigenous people’s regions”(Ministry of Justice, 2005). The Tsou claim neither the government or the Hungtu Corporation consulted with them prior to going ahead with the BOT project. The Tsou demand that the Forestry Bureau and company negotiated with the local people to develop a co-management
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
mechanism (Tsai, 2008). The damage caused by Typhoon Morakot (2009) has created uncertainty over the future of the BOT project.
The Smangus Beech Tree Incident provides a further example of indigenous peoples struggle for rights to land and resources. These rights are in theory protected by Articles 19 and 20 of the IPBL and Article 15 of the Forestry Act. This is examined in more detail in Chapter Four.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學