 Okay, so welcome to tonight's Sowei Centre of Taiwan Studies lecture. Tonight is the start of the second year of our Taiwan Contemporary Indigenous People's Project. This is a two-year project that's sponsored by Taiwan's Shunyi Museum. And what we're doing is bringing in speakers to speak about a range of topics, we're a range of disciplines, so we've talked about music, for example, in previous sessions or social movements. When we were first designing this project, one of the first people on our list was Daya, Professor Guadalu. But it's taken us over a year to actually finally bring him to Sowei's because he has a very, very busy schedule. But we're really delighted that in the after a couple of weeks of term, he's willing to kind of sneak away and come to London. Daya did his PhD at the University of Hawaii in Geography. And almost as soon as he graduated, he came back to Taiwan and started teaching the Department of Ethnology in National Genji University. I should also say that one of the things I discovered this afternoon was that that wasn't his original plan. He's someone who's kind of changed fields multiple times. He started studying as a doctor. He also did civil engineering. But he finally found what his passion, which was in topics related to Indigenous geography, land planning, Indigenous community mapping. So these are going to be topics that he's going to be talking about in his two talks, both today and on Friday. In his work, he's also tried to bring Taiwan Indigenous issues out into the international scene. So for example, he's been involved in a number of collaborative projects with Austronesian groups in Asia and in the Pacific region. Another reason why we're particularly excited about Daya's visit to London is the fact that beyond his academic work, he's also been involved in some policy issues and issues that I think are very relevant both to his talk and to our project as a whole. In recent talks, we've heard a lot about issues of land justice in Taiwan's Indigenous communities. This is a topic that he's going to talk about academically, but he's also been involved in policy making on these kind of issues. So for example, he's a member of the Committee for the Promotion of the Indigenous People's Basic Law, one area. But he's also been involved as a consultant in a couple of transitional justice committees, including the land claims, subcommittee on land claims of the Indigenous Historical Justice Committee and the Transitional Justice Committee. These committees have been subject to a lot of controversy in Taiwan, so I think it's also a chance for us to kind of engage. I'm pretty sure that in the Q&A part, as with some of our other speakers, you'll receive some tough and informed questions. Okay, on that note, let's give Dio a very, very big so as Taiwan Studies welcome. Yes, thank you very much. I think it's really a great honor for me to be here and share my experience, including my study and some social practice. So this is my background. As just introduced, I do my PhD study of geography. I do study Indigenous land issue and participate in some community mapping work. I come from the Indigenous group in the central mountain part of Taiwan called Dayan. So I'm a member of Dayan people. And the issue I'm going to talk to you is highly relevant to not just my own experience or my connection to my community, but also, as David just pointed out, something very controversial in Taiwan recently. So this is the outline of my talk. I thought it's a two-hour talk, so I prepared a lot of slides. But I will try to shorten it so we have more time for our conversation and Q&A. I would like to start with introducing you, the historical person. I'm doing this because one of the reasons is that this guy, O Xinhua Dan, comes from the same Indigenous group with me. And also, every time I look at the picture, I feel it's a historical guess that I look at it and it looks back. It is important to know these two persons. They were born in different years, 1898, 1908, but they both died in 1955. They were educated in the late Japanese colonial era. And like this one, Yu Yongmu, from Zou group, he was educated as a teacher. So after he finished his study, he went back to Arishan as a teacher in the late Japanese colonial era. And Lin Rui Chang Luo Xinhua Dan was educated as a doctor. So after he finished his study, she went back to the mountain Indigenous area to work there. And they were both recruited after World War II by the KMT government as a very important politician to serve in the government. Like Yu Yongmu, he was recruited as the township governor in Arishan. It was called Wu Feng Xiang Lian. And Luo Xinhua Dan and Lin Rui Chang was recruited as a representative in the provincial council. And during the period he served as a representative in the provincial council, he issued a petition to the government. They are both important persons in the history because I found that they are the first wave of Indigenous people, Indigenous intellectuals trying to dialogue with the state. Before that, you see a lot of conflict between Indigenous people in the state, in different Chinese dynasty or Japanese colonial era, even Wuse Shijian in 1933, very late in the Japanese colonial era. But these two people, they are the first group of Indigenous intellectuals trying to dialogue with the government. So like Wu Yongmu, he proposed that Indigenous people need to have self autonomy in the mountain area. He called it Gao Shan Zu Zhi Zhi. And Luo Xinhua Dan sent an issue of petition to the government saying that this is the later he wrote. It says that his parent and including himself was previously living in the village, but the village was occupied by the Japanese colonizer. So they were kind of driven away from their original place. But since the colonizer in Taiwan has kind of reunited to the mother country, China, then the land was taken away by the colonizer should be returned to us. That's what he said in the petition. Otherwise, he said, why should we be happy for the reunion, right? And you can image that both Wu Yongmu and Luo Xinhua Dan were not very welcome by the government back to that time. The government didn't agree with the petition, and both of them were put into jail and executed in 1955 with other Indigenous intellectuals who proposed their political proposal to the government. And this is the President's apology that I think maybe many of you already know that. The President Tsai Ing-wen apologized to Indigenous people in 2016. And in the speech, she especially mentioned that Indigenous people used to live here before the coming of the modern state, right? So we used to have our own connection with the land, but all the connections were taken away by the newcomer, the modern state. So people become displaced, foreign, non-mainstream and marginalized. That's the reason the government needed to apologize to Indigenous people. But soon after her apology in 2017 when the Council of Indigenous People made the statement, announcement of the regulation for the denunciation of Indigenous traditional territory, Indigenous people very quickly protested to the regulation. So Indigenous people, Indigenous groups gathered on the street in front of the President's office. They set camp there and stayed there day after day until the 100 days the police driven people away. But people still didn't give up. They gathered again in front of the MRT station until now they are still there. I was there, talked with people, met some streets with two people in the street in front of the President's office. And I was also in the MRT station, talked to people, met speech people there. So I know it's not just, it was just not a political show. These people are really disappointed by the regulation announced by the government regarding to the Indigenous land issue, to the denunciation of traditional territory. And I'm disappointed too. But what I really want to share with you is a question. Why people are disappointed? And what's the fundamental reason why Indigenous people are disappointed? It's not just because Tsai Ing-wen is a liar or the government tries to cheat Indigenous people. But there's something deeper than this. And this is something I'm going to share with you today. So if we look back to the history, we can see the geography of the status of colonialism in Taiwan. You know there are different colonizers in the history. Dutch, Zeng Cheng-gong, Qing Dynasty, Japan, and then the coming of ROC. There is a book called How Taiwan Becomes Chinese. And the author pointed out an idea. It's called colonization. During the Dutch colonization, there are very few people, just officers or some governor in Taiwan. That's how Zeng Cheng-gong can kind of defeat Dutch people because there are more than 10,000, 20,000 soldiers from China. But there are only like 1,000, 2,000 Dutch soldiers in Taiwan at that time. So there are very few people. The colonizer is few. But in the late era of Dutch colonization, they tried to introduce Han Chinese as a farmer to cultivate the land, especially the land in Tainan, where the government is. So the trade between Dutch people and the indigenous community was mediated by many Han Chinese settlers, the traders. And also the farm was cultivated by the Chinese settlers. So the author of this book called colonization. There was Dutch colonizer, but also Han Chinese settlers is important for the establishment of the system for colonization. And that's the beginning of the coming of Han Chinese settlers to Taiwan. And then Zeng Cheng-gong brought a lot of soldiers and their family to Taiwan. In Qing Dynasty, a lot of settlers come to Taiwan to make their living, right? So there are growing waves and waves of settlers come to Taiwan. It formed a regime of settled colonization, which means there was not just the colonizer themselves, but a lot of settlers come to here. And the feature of settled colonization is there is highly pressure to get the land from indigenous people to satisfy the need of the new coming settlers, the increasing population of the incoming Han Chinese settlers. And this is the pattern I used to use in my class to show my students the pattern of how plain indigenous people lose their land during the Qing Dynasty. But I have to make it very quickly. So to make it a short story, Han Chinese settlers used to live in the plain area. And the Qing Dynasty, the government, they set up the boundary so that Han Chinese settlers cannot go across. In the very beginning, they tried to divide Han Chinese settlers and indigenous communities. So the Han Chinese settlers can only be allowed to cultivate the so-called wilderness. And indigenous people can have their land. But very quickly, because of the increasing population, Han Chinese settlers start to purchase land from indigenous people. Even though there is a prohibition by the government, but they can have under-table trade with indigenous people. So indigenous people gradually lose their land. And after 1795, the government started to relocate indigenous people closer to the mountain region. But even the plain indigenous people were removed to the region that is closer to the mountain. Han Chinese settlers kept coming to this region. Again, they purchased land from indigenous people due to the increasing need for cultivation and housing. So the so-called Cook Barbarian means those indigenous people who live in the plain area lose their land again. So they have to be removed. And the region became the Han Chinese settler region. So the government have to set up the new Barbarian boundary and remove the plain indigenous people. And if we look at the mountain area or east coast area, there is another but similar story. Indigenous people in the mountain area live relatively autonomously in the mountain region. But the Japanese camp, they invaded with their military force and start to control the mountain area. And they did survey over the forest and wilderness. So they set up new regulation. They basically nationalize all the mountain region, the forest. And within these national lands, only very limited parcel will live to indigenous people for housing and cultivation. And for the eastern Taiwan, the coast and the plain area in eastern Taiwan, there are some other policies. The Japanese also did land survey in this region. And then they entitled the land, they reorganized the region. They entitled a certain piece of land to indigenous people in the plain area in eastern Taiwan like Benan Zu, Fuyuma or Ami Zu. So they get the land title. But the rest of the land was just again nationalized by the government and given to Japanese company to grow sugarcane. So that's the situation in the eastern Taiwan. So the indigenous people like Benan or Ami's people, they gained their private land title much earlier than indigenous people in the mountain area. So the map on the left-hand side is the barbarian area in Qing Dynasty. And the central one is the barbarian land denigrated by the Japanese government. And as I mentioned, only very limited parcel was left by actual indigenous people. And this policy was continued by the KMT government, ROC government. And it is co-indigenous reserve land now. So when you put all the map together, you see the brown area, that's where indigenous people lose their land. Because they gradually sold to Han Chinese settlers. And then the purple area, the land of Ami's people and Fuyuma people were largely taken away by the government and given to the Japanese company, for example, the sugarcane company. But the rest of them, even they were entitled to Ami's people or Fuyuma people, they were gradually sold to Han Chinese settlers. And now in the central part, the green part, where mountain indigenous people like my group live in, we only have the title over the limited parcel called indigenous reserve land. It is also facing the crisis of then grabbing from Han Chinese settlers. What I'm going to say, I want to tell you here is that the colonization in Taiwan is not just the occupation of the military force, but the colonizer. But also a story about the rule of the settlers. It's about the land transition from the indigenous people to the settlers. And this photo I took when I was doing a field study with my student. My student, she is doing his research regarding to the relation between the government and Dian people after World War II. So he is doing a story, a real story about a young man in this region. What you see here is the cabinet, right? It's a cabinet to dried mushroom. So there are abandoned machines and cabinets, barns that were used to dry the mushroom. Because motion was a very important economic income for indigenous people in the mountain area. When the road condition was still bad, it's difficult for you to grow cabbage or fruit and transport that to the plain area, right? But mushroom is easy to dry and you can keep it, carry it to the plain area. You can work for one week to the plain area and sell that, right? So it's very important economic income, a source for economic income for indigenous people in the mountain area. And for indigenous people, when we go to the forest, we might lock some food to grow the mushroom. Because that's the place where our ancestor used to have, right? But for the government, there's another perspective. For the government, it's still in the wood from the government, right? Because most of the land and the forest are nationalized since Japanese colonial era. So my student, she is doing a story of a young man whose name is Gomindana. In the 1950s, Gomindana was a young man served in the military force in the Marine, a very strong young man. And one day he escaped from the military. He went back to the mountain to his village because he heard that it happened very often that when the ranger of the Forest Bureau, when they went patrol the forest and found the cabinet like this, it means indigenous people grow mushroom and lock the wood from the national forest, right? So they will just destroy the cabinet, destroy everything, pull the wood truck into the river. So when this young man, Gomindana, his mother, were growing mushroom in the forest. Some rangers from the Forest Bureau came and found this. So he just destroyed the cabinet and his mother tried to fight. Eventually the ranger destroyed everything and his mother felt kind of insulted by the ranger. And when this young man heard this, he was very angry so he escaped from the military, went back to the mountain trying to find the ranger and he actually found the ranger. They fought and he killed that ranger. Of course, the soldiers came to the mountain trying to track this young man, but this young man just escaped into the mountain. No one could go find him. But months later the police tried to cheat him. They asked his cousin to find him and cheat him that some of his important relatives was very sick. So he came down to the medical station, tried to visit these relatives, but he got ambushed. The policeman and the soldier just shoot him when he appeared and he died immediately. From my perspective, the rangers in Komitana are both victims of history. And it is a historical structure that leads to this tragedy. If you look at the forest management in Japan, less than 60% of the forests are owned by our national property, owned by the central government. The rest of them are either owned by local government, individual person, company, or even communal forest. It shows that in the multiple types of forest property, you can manage the forest very well. But here in Taiwan, more than 90% were owned by the government. National rights, why? Because it's colonization. But the succeeding Kemti government also continued that. So the colonial region has never been changed. And I'd say that's the strategy, the structure leads to the strategy. And we found that the legal frontier is still there, which means the situation makes the Han Chinese settler can purchase the land from ninja's people, even though there is legal prohibition. The situation is very similar. If you look back to the Qing Dynasty, you'll see that even those in the government prohibit Han Chinese settler to purchase land from the ninja's people. But after a while, when the government found, if they can get the Han Chinese settler to register to report to the government about the rail situation of the land ownership, then the government can collect more tax from Han Chinese settler. So they changed their policy. They let this Han Chinese settler who used to purchase land on the table to report to the government, and the government recognized their land title. And the situation is very similar now. Even though there is prohibition for the regulation of the ninja's reserve land in Taiwan, but here is just an example. Luo Wenqiang was a very famous politician in Taiwan, right? He's kind of retired from the political affair. Just a few months ago, there was a news that he got land from the ninja's people in Fuxingxiang, that's Taiya Zhu Dayan's ninja's people area. He got the land from the ninja's people, the ninja's reserve land. He built a school there. But Luo Wenqiang replied to the media that everything is legal. I think he might be true, because even though you cannot purchase land from the ninja's people, but the law didn't prohibit you to lend money to the ninja's people, right? And if you were the ninja's people, and you borrowed money from Han Chinese, and you set up a mortgage, you get along, and you set the land as a mortgage, okay? Then that comes to a relation. I am still the land owner. Legally I'm still the land owner. But I owe you money, right? I set up the land as a mortgage. And I let you use the land. If I want to take the land back, I have to pay, right? Pay you the money, right? I have to return you the money. And the situation or the trick they make the deal is you set up a very, very high amount of mortgage, even though I didn't borrow that money from you, right? I set up south a million of mortgage, which means if I really want to get the land back, I have to give you that amount of money. So that's come to the situation that you can use the land until the day I want to take it back. But if I want to take it back, I have to return you the money, the amount I set up the mortgage. That could never happen, right? So you can continually use the land. So you come to the situation, legally I'm still the land owner, but practically you are keeping using the land. That's a photo I took a few years ago when I just finished my master's study. I saw this on the road connect a neighboring town to my town. I took this picture because I was kind of astonished. That's the very first time in my life I saw they could have advertisement on the road saying they want to sell the indigenous land. So I took picture. About 10 years after that, when I came back from my study in Hawaii, I asked my student to do a minor study, a little research. That's the shop they have, the real estate shop they have, nearby my home village. And I saw a lot of advertisements like this. So I had my student to locate the site of the advertisements with GPS. And every spot on the map was just like this. So that's 100 times than what I saw 10 years ago. So you know there's a situation that indigenous people are facing the crisis of losing our land, right? So that's the reason I say the pressure from so-called settler colonialism is still there. And I would like to share you more information about indigenous movement in Taiwan. If we look back to the history of indigenous movement, you can roughly cut right then into three different periods. And indigenous land movement came out in 1988, 1989, and 1993. For the first two, it's more about the asking for the return of land property. For example, some piece of forest were occupied by Forest Bureau or Taiwan Dashi, maybe. So we want the government to return the land to us. But in 1993, the statement of the movement were quite different. It is requiring of the recognition of indigenous sovereignty. It requires the government to recognize indigenous people do have our sovereignty over our traditional territory. So it's not just about the returning of individual pieces of land. It's requiring for the overall examination of the relation between the government and indigenous people over the land issue. And that's the treaty signed by the representative from indigenous community, and Chen Shui-bian, the president, back to that time. That's the settlement. And that's how it's saved the new partnership. There are several articles here in this treaty. And the returning or the recovery of traditional territory of indigenous community and people is one of the important articles. And actually, we got some progress in Taiwan that after the 10th Amendment of Constitution in 1993, the indigenous people's best glow has been enacted in 2005. The government have to recognize the right of indigenous people over indigenous traditional territory, not just the indigenous reserve land anymore. So beginning in 2002, the government launched a series of land survey projects, which I will talk more on Friday. That's that example of the outcome of the survey. And we also had a inhibition of the outcome of the traditional territory survey. In the very beginning, the very first project of the survey, I participated as a graduate student. And after I got my PhD, I became a PI in the project. So I kind of participated in the whole process of the survey. That's something I would really like to show you later on Friday. But here, I want to let you know that it actually comes out with some good results that in 2006, there was an event happened in Smangou's village. Basically, some young men pick up the tree truck that was fallen by typhoon. And it's the tree, according to the Forest Bureau, in the national forest, and belong to the national property. So these young men were stealing the national property from the government. So they were sent to the court. I mean, it happened very often that when indigenous people were sent to the court, like when you pond in the forest or you pick up something in the forest, you were sent to the court, you just commit your crime, and then you got penalty, you go home very quickly. That's the most easy way for you. But these young men in Smangou's community refused to recognize or to commit that they are guilty. The elder says, it was the government that stole land from us. We are not safe over our ancestral land. So they refused to commit a guilty. They went to court. They had a long process of legal suit with the government. And they eventually won the case. That's a very remarkable one, the very first time. The court in Taiwan recognized indigenous people's right over our traditional territory. One of the important reasons is the survey we did and the ability of indigenous people, or the road scholar played in the process to make interpretation of the knowledge of traditional territory of the young people. That's the table I met to record different conflicts between indigenous people and the government in the past few years. It happened everywhere. What I'm trying to show you is not every community, blocky as Smangou's. For example, number 10, in Taichung City, Kadadi Bu Benan people, the Taichung City government tried to build a park over their cemetery. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the cemetery over there. The Benan people, they claim that it is their traditional territory. And according to indigenous basketball, the government had to consult and get consent from indigenous people. Very similar in the Rui-Ai-Tan, some without people. The Bureau of Tourism in Samun Lake, they also tried to build a hotel over the cemetery of South people and sisters. Some people say that is our traditional territory. And according to indigenous basketball, you have to get our consent. Both of Taidong City government and Bureau of Tourism in Samun Lake replied to indigenous people with the same answer. Oh yes, the indigenous basketball recognized your right over your traditional territory. But we don't know where your traditional territory is. Okay, according to the indigenous basketball, before the amendment in 2015, it said the restoration, acquisition, disposed of, a plan and blah blah blah, it need to be regulated by law, which means the government have to pass another law, enact another law to set up the procedure to delineate traditional territory or to figure out what way the traditional territory of indigenous people is. That's the reason in 2015, some indigenous legislator made the amendment of this act. They authorized, according to the new amendment, it authorized the council of indigenous people to set up regulation by themselves. They don't have to pass or enact another law anymore. They have to for some other reason, but for the deniation of traditional territory of indigenous people, they don't have to because they are already authorized by the indigenous basketball that is amendment in 2015. But later, when the council of indigenous people issued the regulation for delineating the area of indigenous land, tribe and their joint land, which owned by the government, in the articles of this regulation, it gave the definition of indigenous traditional territory. And according to the definition, it said only the land owned by the government can be defined as traditional territory of indigenous people. That's why indigenous people, when camped in the street in front of the prison office, because the category of public or private land were actually set up after the coming of modern state. But the history of our activity over our ancestral land, there was no such category of private or public land owned by the government. So it's putting the cart before the horse if you exclude private land from the definition. But those who support this decision, mostly the government, the government officer, they say once private land is delineated as indigenous traditional territory, then its development will need to obtain consent from these indigenous people according to indigenous basketball. And that will violate the individual property right that was protected by the constitution. For those who oppose to the decision, it says that some of the private land were obtained in a very injustice process in history. If you excluded this private land from the definition, then you are reinforcing the injustice again. And it is not violating the individual property right when your private land is limited to certain use of public interest, right? So if you are restoring or fixing the injustice in history, you are kind of enhancing the public interest in Taiwan. How can you say that's violating the individual right that is protected by the constitution? There are some further discussion in detail or further debate in detail. That's the main reason of the debate. And actually if you look back to the history, like the example in eastern Taiwan like Amis people or Yuma people, I mentioned to you earlier, there are a lot of decision-making like this. The sugar can form or sugar can factor, right? They were given to the Japanese company and after World War II, the ROC government just established the state-owned property, I mean state-owned company like Taitang, Taiwan's sugar company, to take over the Japanese property, right? So now the land was also part of the company property and is not owned by the government. And according to the regulation, it's not religious people's traditional territory. Okay, so you see it's now a tourism side. Okay, a lot of Japanese-style dormitory that were transformed to tourism business, but it's not religious traditional territory according to the regulation. Similar situation also happened in Taitang. There are a lot of land were given to Taiwan land development company during the Japanese colonial era. And after World War II, the 2D Bank took over. It's a national bank, but in the history, during the 1950s, some of the land were given to Han Chinese settlers, sold to Han Chinese settlers. So that become private land. So the land taken away by the Japanese government were given to Japanese company and that were taken over by the state-owned company, then sold to individual, now become private land and that's not traditional territory according to the regulation. Okay, this is another example. This is actually the land of Loxinwa Dance Home Village. So if we look back to the history, the Japanese military force occupied the village of Loxinwa Dance Home Village, which is a Loxinwa Dance Home Village. And in 1923, the land was given to a Japanese company to build a tea factory there. And in 1946, the ROC government established a state-owned business called Taiwan Agriculture and Forestry Company to take over the Japanese-owned property. So you can see in 1947, when Loxinwa Dan submitted his petition to the government, it will never work because one year before that, the government already established a company to take over the property, right? So it was 1952 when Loxinwa Dan and Uyonguo were sent into the jail. And in the same year, Taiwan Agriculture and Forestry Company were privatized because of the land reform policy in the plain rural area. It was the policy that the government tried to ask the big landlord to give the land to the business, which is a good policy in a certain sense, right? And to make compensation to the landlord who gave away the land to the tenant, the patient. The government gave a lot of stock from the state-owned property to the landlord. That's a way for you to make compensation, right? Because the land, I mean, the Taiwan Agriculture and Forestry Company were privatized. And later, in 1970s, the tea factory was transformed to a theme park and because the tea industry was not very good in 1970s, so they transformed that into a theme park. And because it's already a privatized company, they decide to sew the land to another company in 1997. So the land is now transformed to a hotel. They built a hotel there. So it's kind of ironic. The land that Luo Xinhua died for is now a private hotel. And if you look back to the whole process, it seems reasonable in every section, right? Because the company didn't manage the land very well, so they sewed that to another company. And because the tea industry was not very well, so they transformed that to a theme park. And you look back further because the government want to, you know, give the land to the little pizzt. So they gave the stock of the state-owned company to the landlord. That makes sense, too, right? And you look back further, the government established a state-owned company to take over the Japanese property. That kind of makes sense, too, right? If you check every section, what's wrong there? That's the very beginning. The very beginning was wrong. The very beginning when the Japanese colonizer took away from the religious people. It has never been compensated, right? You see that in 1952, the government, they want to, you know, implement their land reform in the rural area. So they give the stock of the Taiwan Agriculture and Forestry Company to the landlord to make compensation. But the loss of religious people in the very beginning has never been compensated. That's the problem. That's the issue. We are also facing the situation that the Han Chinese set the protest to the reserve land policy, which prohibits the transition of land title to Han Chinese set. But they've been there, generation and second generation, or maybe third generation. So they have more and more connection with the land, even though in the very beginning they kind of have been on the table illegal contract with the religious people. And when the government tried to make an announcement of the traditional territory of South people in the summer late, some Han Chinese resident protested that. You can see the fear from Han Chinese set. You know something wrong in the history. But what if we recognize the right of religious people over the traditional territory? Will we kind of being forced to, according to their language, to jump into the Pacific Ocean? We have nowhere to go. If we want to give the land back, when we come to here, we didn't bring any land to this island, right? If we want to return the land to religious people, we have to jump into the Pacific Ocean. How can we do that? Here I was, I want to say, that's the last section of my talk. There are some key for the reconciliation. I think one of the most important things is we need to clarify the meaning of indigenous land rights. There are different labels or different bundles of rights over land. Some are collective, some are individual. When we say we want to return the land right or recognize the land right of indigenous people, is that collective right or individual? We have to clarify that. And also we need to make more diverse possibilities. I mean, land rights are diverse. It can be diverse, right? But ownership, it could be this post-disposition right, that can be used right or beneficial right, right? You can have different imagination to the right or to the indigenous land right. That can be collective land right or ownership. That can be collective land right over the land use, right? Of course, you can also have some design for the individual land right. And if we can diverse the possibility, then we can have some more tool to solve the conflict. For example, the collective use rights. I just talked to that I teach a course in Zhendang International Master Program of Asia Pacific Studies. So every year. And I take them to the indigenous mountain village every year. There is a village called Zhen Xi Bao, Zhen Xi Bao in my home village. A settlement for Zhen Xi Bao in my home village. And there is a cypress forest nearby the Zhen Xi Bao settlement, which is very, you know, tremendous and beautiful. So every year we walk from the settlement, hike from the settlement to the forest. It took about two hours. And the man wearing the white jacket is a local tour guide. So every year we took students there, have our indigenous community member educated our students. So on a way hike to the forest, he explained the ethnobotanical knowledge of the Dian people and the history of Dian people. And if you look at the photo, you see a cypress tree there, right? And if you look closer, there is a tree hole. And it's black. It was burned once. About eight years ago, there was a group of high school students. They went hiking in the forest. And it rained. So they decided to hide in the tree hole. And they built fire to cook instant noodles. And you know that cypress tree is very full of oil inside, right? So very quickly the tree burned. Luckily they escaped from that tree hole. Nobody got hurt. But the tree was burnt there. So an indigenous hunter from Jinxinville settlement just came back from his hunting in the forest. And he saw that. So he ran back to the settlement, recruited a group of young men. They carried a pump back to the forest. According to this man, I know him very well, his name is Inno, according to Inno. He said they spent like 40 minutes from the settlement to the forest with the pump. So they dig a hole in front of the tree. They carry the water from the creek. And they collect the water in the hole. They pump the water and extinguish the fire. It happened in the afternoon. And when they extinguish the fire, it's already evening. There was a second wave of indigenous teenagers from the village. They carry food for these young men. So they built camp there. They stayed one night over there to make sure the temperature decreased. And make sure everything is okay. They leave in the next morning. So I asked my student there, what will happen if we leave the tree burned and have the ranger of Forest Bureau to find it? That will be totally another story, right? The tree will be gone, just as what you think, right? They get the same answer. And I told them that's the reason we need indigenous people here, right? Indigenous people live just nearby or just in the forest. We can take care of the forest very well. If we can have our right to properly use or utilize the forest, and also pay our responsibility to take care of it, that will benefit not just indigenous people, but the whole Taiwan society. And that's the collective use right I mean. I also talked to Benan people who live nearby the Churu Mu Chang that some of the land were sold to Han Chinese settlers. He told me that I know that's my ancestors' land. That's our traditional territory. But I also know my neighbor very well because a lot of his neighbors are Han Chinese settlers there. They are second or third generation. We have good relations. But I know that's our traditional territory. And I want our right back. But the way we take back the right can be different, right? For example, he said, if the land owner nowadays have to pay tax to the government, let's say $100. If we take $20 as the budget for indigenous self-determination or our community development, then we are taking the benefit from the land, right? So we are holding a beneficiary right over our traditional territory. So our right over our traditional territory will be realized. And the land owner will not be hurt because he is always paying $100, right? Just $20 were given to indigenous people and he is still paying $100. So if you do a simple mathematics, the government will lose $20. So the government used to collect $100. Now the government can only collect $80. But if you were the government, would you like to spend $20 and solve to make reconciliation for the unsolved historical injustice? I think that's what the government should do, right? It's the function of the government. That's the value of the government, right? If you can spend $20, then you will not leave the Dian or Benan or Amis or any indigenous individual to fight with their Chinese neighbors, right? You are doing something just it. You are doing something right, valuable for the society. Then that's valuable to spend $20. But who will make the decision that we would like to spend $20 and resolve the conflict? It's the people, right? If most of the people in Taiwan agree with that, then we can ask our government to do that. That's the challenge we are facing nowadays. We are lacking of social dialogue. If we can have sufficient social dialogue, make the society agree with the solution, then we can require the government to spend $20 and make the solution. So that's a word from a psychologist from America. He said, if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail, right? We just want to punch it. Every problem you just punch it because what you have, the tool, the only tool you have is a hammer. But if you have different tools, then you can propose different solutions. Then you don't have to harm everything. So here's my conclusion. Before the coming of modern states, we do have our interaction with the land, interact with the land. We have our way or our norm of land use. What happened very similarly in every settler country or the country with the people there, the state took over. So the state has its own way to interact with the land. And it is just way or it is just norm of land use that we ignore, marginalize, or not recognize by the government. So the state took over. But we know there is a new paradigm, right? There's a new paradigm that we can realize indigenous or keep some space in the state low to have indigenous people practice our traditional territory, practice our culture to realize our norm of land use. And what we need to do, I think, there are two important steps. One is we need to approach indigenous knowledge of land, right? To understand what indigenous knowledge of land is. And based on this knowledge, we can develop this state and propose better solution, better institutional solution to reconcile the conflict and leave some space for indigenous people to realize our culture, our way into that with the land. So what I'm talking today is this part. But what I'm going to elaborate about this part will happen on Friday. So that's basically my talk about less work. So if we can have different tools, then we can propose, institutionally propose better solutions. And I think that's the dumbest way to just ignore the history, to kind of exclude the private land from the definition of indigenous traditional territory, right? We can include that in the definition and try to make different, propose for different solutions regarding to the historical process and the current land property condition. So again, the only tool you have is this hammer. You will try to hammer everything. But what I'm trying to say here is if we can have different tools, then we can try to propose a diverse solution and make a reconciliation. Thank you very much. Okay, that was fantastic. The way you kind of linked the current series of social movement protests over land justice to broad historical trends. I think that was really useful. Although you do end on a relatively optimistic note. I had a couple of questions, I'm sure, the audience have a lot. The first one was about the resistance to including private land in traditional indigenous into that classification. Where exactly is this coming from? You talked about local hand land owners, but to what extent is this actually political? Is it coming from legislators? What is the source? In theory, the DDP has a majority. In theory, they can do whatever they want. If they really have the will to, how do you see this? That's a very good question. In detail, in the very beginning, when Council of Indigenous People tried to draft the regulation for the denunciation of indigenous traditional territory, they didn't exclude private land from the definition. But then they have some discussion in the cabinet. And some member in the cabinet object to that. So eventually, after the discussion, the final decision in the cabinet decided to take the private land from the definition. So you can say that's from the cabinet member who is pro-economic development. Because he don't want this kind of policy to make the development more difficult. If you have some development project, then you need to consult with indigenous people that will increase the difficulty for development. So that's the basic idea. And that's also his theory that you will violate the individual property rights if you do that. So it's out of the decision in the cabinet. But why the cabinet made the decision? I will say DPP, their supporter, is highly rural-based. And in like Taichung, Tainan, I'm sorry, Taichung, Nantou, in Taichung, He Pingxiang Township, in Nantou, Ren'ai Township, in Jia'i, Arlissan Township. We found that the population in this township, I mean the Han Chinese population is over, is more than an indigenous population. Because the migration came in during the 1950s when the government built the road to the central mountain range. They brought the veterans, they also brought the farmers. Okay, go ahead. I'm not going to say anything, and I study them all the time. You hear me? Okay, sorry. I'm from the Middle East studies, so I have lack of knowledge in Taiwan history. I would like to know if the relations between the government and the indigenous is different by tribes. They're like a different tribe that get better relations, better treatment, or is just about zones, like zones that are more touristy. You give more treatment to the hotels because you want to increase your payment. I would like to know about that. Yeah, I think that's a very important question. Yes, there are different relations between the indigenous people, and the government. If you look back to the history in the Japanese era, they sent the military force to the north part of Taiwan. They think the Dian people were headhunters. They were violet, but very need to be conquered. But the way they deal with indigenous people in the south part of Taiwan, like Paiwan people, because Paiwan society is a ranked society. They have their chieftain. So once the colonizer can get agreement with the chief, they can kind of control the whole society. So the way they did in the south is to have more gentle policy and deal with the chief in the Paiwan community. That's the overall condition. Of course nowadays we also see this kind of different relations between indigenous people and the government. But the reasons are different. For example, in Dian group, we live in the mountain area. We have very close relations with the forest. So we still collect material from the forest. We still hunt a lot in the forest. That's why we have a lot of conflict with the forest bureau. But if you compare with the people living in the plain area, like Amis people or Benan people, they don't have this kind of conflict with the forest bureau or national park where they are in the plain area. So you can see this difference between communities or tribe or group. Just a follow-up question is about the relationship with local government. Does that also vary? In some of your cases you raised for example, some of the development cases in, let's say, Taidong for example, where we have the impression that there's less interest in the environment and the relationship between the indigenous community and local government I think is highly decided by the population of the indigenous people. Like in Ziyuetan, Samen Lake, it's in Yuchi Xiang. And the majority of the population is Chinese. So the South people in Yuchi Xiang, they are very powerless. And the township government of Yuchi, they kind of ignore to the right of South people. And the county government of Nantou, they took a lot of blame from South people. But if you compare with the situation like for example in Luukai, their township government kind of cooperate with the activist who proposed the council for Luukai tribe. So they are using the resources of township government to support this kind of tribal council, which has no legal status at this moment. So because there are the majority in the township, so they kind of hold the machine of the local government. Thank you very much. It's fascinating. We are going to cover some of this part next week. So it is really good. Next week? For Friday. For BA? Oh, you can't ask me. Sorry. Sorry. Because based on what you are saying, it feels like it's really to do with which area should be included as traditional territory. So you place quite a lot of emphasis on the privately owned property, and that part at the moment is not included. So my question to this is to what period you need to go back to? Because if we think about traditional territory, is it a Qing period? Is it a Dutch period? Is it a Japanese period? Which period? Of course you can base on historical maps. That's academically possible. But I wonder whether the government's reason for not including it purely for practical reason. Because no matter what, it's the fundamental for capitalist economy is the privately owned property. And the ownership of a property is very important and almost like a core spirit of capitalism. So if that's the case, which area, which period you think the territory should we go back to? And also, if that's the case, do you think how difficult it is to really practically make it possible for the government to carry out? Yeah. If we check the map, I show that I overlap the map in three different areas. You can find the central part, the green part, which is now legally the indigenous township, San Dixiang. So in the administrative category, that's the indigenous township, and the township governor has to be indigenous people. So practically, I think that's the minima or most practical that we can set up as indigenous traditional territory. But again, I have been asked this question for many, many times. And my answer is always, it requires a social dialogue because it's not a historical study or academic question. It's a political question. We need a political solution. So if the public don't want to recognize any piece of land as an indigenous traditional territory, then there will be no indigenous traditional territory. And if the public would like to recognize the whole Taiwan as indigenous traditional territory, then that would be the traditional territory of indigenous people. Yes. Now we need to negotiate. But my point is not what is the area. Of course, we can do a lot of historical study over our history and try to figure out the history. And then you will see it's feasible. And my point is it's not just about the line or the boundary. It's about the property or the right over the property. What kind of right you want to claim or what kind of right you want to recognize. If we take whole Taiwan as indigenous traditional territory, I'm not saying the whole territory will have only one kind of right. So we can have different right over traditional territory. Even the right, just the right to name it. It's also part of the right. Historically, we've been here, but we know that we leave the location of this place for a long time. But we still spiritually feel connected to this region. And as a late comer, would you like to respect our memory of history? If you do, can you respect our right to name it? In many places like in Hawaii, they name a lot of places with Hawaiian language. It's also part of the right. And I don't think that hurts anybody. So even though you take whole Taiwan as indigenous traditional territory, we can find some proper institutional design to satisfy as much people as possible. That's what I try to elaborate here. Great. So I wanted to ask, it's a bit of a historical as compared to a contemporary query, but I wanted to ask about the term the cooked versus the raw barbarians as regards the indigenous peoples of Taiwan. I wanted to ask, because I've encountered that term before, and is that solely a geographical classification, or does it also refer to lifestyle practices and how the various indigenous communities organize themselves and how they form their communities and practice their lifestyles? The basic difference between so-called cooked barbarians and raw barbarians is their relation with the government. So if they pay tax to the government, then they were kind of governed by the government. Then the government named them as cooked barbarians. And for those who had never been governed by the Qing dynasty, they were raw barbarians. So it's very possible in some places, even genetically or genealogically, we are similar, but because some group or some community or some settlement, they didn't pay the tax to the government, then they are raw. And maybe your cousin in other settlements, they pay, then they were cooked. Is it also to do with the other, they are more remote and in another area? In general, yes, but there are some exceptions. Like Zou people in Alishan, they've been trading with Dutch people since Dutch colonial era. So they were categorized as hua fan, civilized barbarians. So they are not raw. So even in a very remote Alishan, but because their relation with the government or the colonizer, they were given different categories. Okay, great. So we've got two questions, Yvonne and Yvonne. Okay, I'm only asking questions because you seem to be looking for a problem. But of course... Max is handing you over. Protect what I can't do. Do I need it? Okay, so of course Taiwan isn't the only place where there's a history of land dispossession. All of the earth, in fact. And Siberia seems to me, there's even greater issues of land dispossession there. But I'm from Scotland, and it's much smaller than Siberia. But there is an enormous land issue, and an issue of dispossession, historical dispossession that we have. Now, up until in the last two decades, one way of addressing this has been community violence. So when an island comes up for sale, the community buys it. So nobody owes it, but the community determines land usage. And many of us in the independence movement discuss... well, not... discuss, increasingly are discussing the idea of expanding this idea that nobody can own land and that communities determine its usage. It doesn't mean to say that anybody is going to be kicked off their land, but it's the underlying principle. So I wonder if you think, of course we're not independent yet, but after independence this is going to become a major issue. And I wonder if you can see any use of this idea in Taiwan. Yeah, I think it's important. Privatization might be a core of capitalism that is important for how the society runs itself. But it's very often unfair. I mean, if your parent or your grandparent own a piece of land in the center of the town, then generation to generation you can just collect money and you don't have to do any work, right? And if you don't have any property, if your ancestors don't have any property, then you will, you know, have to work as a labor force from generation to generation that's got difficult and difficult to get a piece of land. So I totally agree. We need to have diverse type of land property. And in indigenous history they are different type of property. But I won't say that just only one type like communal property or public ones. There are also some private owned property. But because of its diversity and changeable, so it's maintained kind of flexibility. And I think the existence of collective property is important to balance the show coming of private property. And what happened in indigenous society in Taiwan nowadays is that even though we don't have many or concept or we don't have the idea to privatize most of the land as individual property, but actually we accept this concept in past 50 years. So what I see the best solution is to create some possibility for the private land to be collected. Again, land trust for example. The land trust in the indigenous community is a possibility for individual owned land to be managed collectively. The land owner will be still the land owner, but the land can be collectively planned and used and share the benefit to the community, part of the benefit to the community. Great. We're kind of running out of time. So we're going to take two final questions. So Chihua and Craig. Okay, we'll take three then. Okay, go ahead. Thank you for your very insightful talk. I think it should be rearranged into like historical curriculum in a video high school of Taiwan. So the social dialogue can start here. But yeah, I've got two questions specifically. One is about when it comes to negotiating the return of this Aboriginal traditional land, do you think that we should also like make a distinction between within the Han settlers in regard to the class because some are like rural farmers. They really have to like make subsistence or farm these land, but some are like a big landlord before. And so like your example of like taxing this company might be really sounds really sounds adhere to social justice. And the second question is that if it can you name any successful case of Aboriginal group claiming their traditional less you know in successful terms and after they claim that how do they manage the land return like we think like in different societies because there is a variety within Aboriginal tribes. Some are Patronelism and Patronelism are like Gerontocratic society. So how does the social system cope with the return of the land? Yes, thank you. Are you okay to take three together? Yeah, okay, yeah, okay, then Craig. Same question. Oh, same question. Okay, then that's great. You've got the last question. Thank you very much for the very informative speech. My question is about the land mapping. I'm from the law department at SOS. In the year 2016 I had an internship in Cambodia. So I know a little bit about their land issues there. They also have indigenous groups in Cambodia. They also did some land mapping by some local NGOs and international NGOs as well. They kind of have some difficulties in the issue because land mapping is about history and also about the current usage and situations of land ownership. I want to ask if in your case may you have the same difficulties or some other particular issues? Thank you very much. Yeah, so that's three. Yeah, three and two and one. Okay, so yes. For the issue of the question of land mapping please allow me to explain that in my talk on Friday because there's no history. But actually a quick answer is yes. We encounter in different diverse challenges including the resource distribution or the incoming team is changing the power of balance in the community. How do you define traditional knowledge? Culture is something changing. How do you apply traditional knowledge for a contemporary land issue or resource management issue? Yes, we are facing this very similar challenge. I got some experience to share in that talk. And regarding to the class issue I totally agree. That's why I say if we have a group of people, religious people just on the land and that will make Han Chinese suffer. I don't agree with the situation. So what I'm trying to propose is not to take the land away from Han Chinese settler and I don't think that will kind of compensate the injustice what happened in this history. Class is important. And religious people would like to share. I mentioned the example of the Benan Puyo Ma's elder. What he is trying to do is not to get the land property or the ownership back from his neighbor. What he wants is to have some resources that can help his group to rebuild themselves. So yes, I agree with you that the class issue is important. And when we are proposing the solution we are not trying to take away the land from every Han Chinese settler. We are trying to propose some solution that will rectify the hurt or cure the hurt that happened in the history but will not make new hurt or new damage to the people living nowadays. Okay, we're going to have to finish there but we can continue our discussion. We have wine today? Brilliant. We can informally continue our discussions of wine and of course, Daya will be back speaking on Friday about community mapping and of course tomorrow we also have a talk on Taiwan's railway history which will also be in the KLT. But for now, let's give Daya a very big psoas. Thanks.