Whose land? 誰的土地？

黑暗從眼睛
滑落心頭，
令人害怕的
失去光明的窒息，
圍繞四周。

燃燒。莫那能（排灣族詩人）作。

Darkness slides from my eyes
into my heart.
Scaring
suffocation without light
surrounds me.

'Burning' by Mo-Na-Neng (a Paiwan poet)].

司馬庫斯風倒木事件，針對不公平審判，捍衛司馬庫斯行動聯盟新聞指出，在2005年十月：

Smangus's battle for the unfair trail about the wind-fall beech, based on Smangus & Smangus Action Alliance News, can be traced back to October, 2005:

Terry the typhoon caused the damage to the only road that communicated the neighboring areas. Smangus people cleaned the road alone and put the windfall beech on the side. One month later, the staff of the Forestry Bureau chopped the wood into pieces and took them away secretly. Three of the Smangus youth transported the remains on behalf of the Tribal Committee for the purpose of community design. Consequently they were reported of stealing national woods. The accused became the accuser!

因為無法接受竊盜風倒櫸木的起訴，司馬庫斯人不願認罪，案件繼續審判：

Because the stigmatization was unacceptable to Smangus people, they did not want to admit crime and let the case go.

(Feb 24, 2007) The judge of the first instance ignored the Article 15 of the Forestry Act and the Aboriginal Basic Law which protect the indigenous rights, but instead, he convicted them by Articlee 52 of the Forestry Act. The penalty was 6 months of imprisonment, the fine of NT$160, 000 for each person, and suspension of punishment for two years. Smangus people cried, “Why don’t you put all of us in jail?” Therefore, the whole village went on the road to Not Guilty Plea.

在風倒櫸木事件中，「土地屬於誰」是一個重要的議題。司馬庫斯人認為風倒櫸木所在的位置是他們的領域，而林務局並不這麼認為。到底要如何決定土地屬於誰？

The main issue in this battle is 'whose land is it?' Smangus people thought the wind-fall beech is in their territory, but the Forestry Bureau thought it is not. How do we decide who is the owner of the land?

在2007年5/20-21，因為泰雅族人認為司馬庫斯風倒櫸木事件是對其嚴重的威脅，所以召開Pinhaban傳統會議，各部落結盟一起保護其領土。在部落會議上（根據Pinhaban會議的聲明），馬里光群的長老說：

In May 20-21, 2007, because Tayal people considered the wind-fall beech case is a serious threats to the Tayal tribes, Pinhaban, a traditional cultural ceremony, was held to make alliance among the villages to protect their territories. In the conference (based on The statements and declaration, from the conference of Pinhaban Alliance, the chief of the village of Mrqwang said:

We indigenous peoples are knowledgeable of our own traditional territories. We can accurately describe the landscapes of the mountains and the rivers in them. We name those natural objects and connect our own lives so closely with the surroundings. The staff of the Forestry Bureau does not understand our lives. When we heard the staff say that the traditional territory of Smangus is only about 12 acres, we regarded the notion absurd. The territory is absolutely larger than this measure.

In Munch's article:

誰的山林？一直存在爭議。
從日本人強收山林，國民政府承繼遵行，原住民的傳統領域，始終成為被擱置的話題，在不斷族群正名以示尊重的心態下，就像掛上好看門牌，家園卻永遠不屬於自己的，林務局是山林裡的大地主，原住民每個人都清楚

Whose land? This is always a controversial question.
Both Japan government and this government confiscated the mountains, and the ownership of the traditional land of the aboriginal people is always an ignored problem. Although there are many name-rectification actions that showed the respect to the aboriginal people, these actions only put on a beautiful doorplate while their homeland is not belong to them. All the aboriginal people know that the Forest Bureau is the largest landlord of the mountain.

對原住民而言，司馬庫斯櫸木事件，不是刑罰輕重，而是對於原住民領域及文化的尊重，他們堅持的是無罪判決，沒有人可以否定他們對於山林家園的權力。

To aboriginal people, the seriousness of the penalty is not the point. They care about the respect toward their territory and their culture. They insist for not guilty plea, because no one can deny their right on their land.

In September 28, 2007, ignoring the Smangus people's claim and the Forestry Act and the Aboriginal Basic Law, the judge of the second instance decided to keep the original conviction but decrease the punishment.

In Judie's blog, Wild at heart, Legal Defense Association said,

今天的判決是一個醜陋的妥協。因為，如果法院認定三人有罪，那麼根據《森林法》，結夥並使用搬運設備竊取林產物，應加重判刑，為何法官卻做出減輕刑責的判決？如果法官已體認到原住民族價值系統中人對自然的善待、和諧、永續與責任，為何沒有勇氣做出無罪判決？

Today's conviction is an ugly compromise. If the judge decided the three people committed crime based on the Forestry Act because they stole the nature resource in the forestry, the judge should enhance the punishment. On the other hand, if the judge recognized the way the aboriginal people treat the nature: kindness, harmony, sustainability, and responsibility, why did the judge not have the courage to agree with the no guilty plea?