 And today my topic of the talk is on the indigenous subjectivity law and its formations. The idea I mentioned a little bit from my yesterday's talk. Before I start my presentation I would like to say that this is an ongoing project because this is going to contribute to the book, possibly will be published by the source here. So this is truly an ongoing project so it's not finished version yet. So this is I would like to clarify in the beginning. And the rest of myself I think I already introduced myself to yesterday. I'll start my talk on these issues. The reason I started this topic, of course there are some legislative backgrounds. Like I said yesterday, the legislature in Taiwan enacted an amendment to the best law to add article 2-1 saying that the tribal community could be recognized as the public juristic persons. So that is the legislative background. But there are some other social issues which brings my attention to this topic. If you notice the news in Taiwan you might also notice this one here. So let's give that just a short clip. Every face is the head of the tribal community. And you can see it from the head of the tribal community. There are many parts of the head of the tribal community. Not only the head of the tribal community, but also the head of the tribal community. In 1932, after the founding of the state of Taiwan, the state of Taiwan was studied by the public. 20 years ago, the state of Taiwan was established. In March of this year, the state of Taiwan became the first state of the tribal community in the country. It has been more than 80 years since the founding of the state of Taiwan. So only because of the elderly, 90 years old, he said that only when he was young, he had seen the state of Taiwan in that house. The people of Taiwan supported the state of Taiwan very much. But the people of Taiwan were still very happy. In the end, they would have the national treasure of the tribal community. And the national treasure of the state of Taiwan will continue to be studied by the state of Taiwan. And the state of Taiwan will be the first state of the tribal community. So this event has a lot of things we can think about and talk about. But I will only focus on the issue related to my talk. I would just express one of my criticism shared by other friends saying that this so-called ceremony is not truly voluntary. So we've been forced to marry to NTU. So this is one of the aspects of the tribal community. Because the totem, the totem port is already intermittent. So it's kind of like they give us a wedding ceremony to kind of pay back the fault they have been down for the past years. So that is one other thing I would like to share with you. But this is kind of a short explanation on this so-called wedding. So the topic is on the giant wooden totem, housing the ancestral spirit of indigenous community has been formally re-housed at the National Taiwan University through a traditional Taiwan wedding. And the totem first appeared on record in 1932 when it entered the collection of the Daikoku Imperial University. So that's the predecessor of NTU. And members of each tribe did not regain access to the totem until 2015. So for all this past a long time, none of the members from the community can have access to this totem. So from the Minister of Culture, so they host, they support this Taiwan totem wedding with NTU. And you can see from this the news things that Reddick received as a national treasure earlier this year, which means 2015 in March. And members of each tribal community agreed to entrust care of the totem to NTU's Museum of Anthropology. They also requested the museum to hold a wedding ceremony that would welcome ancestral spirit Moukai as a bride. With the original totem now housed safely in the Taipei Museum, the Paiwan Elders hopes to construct an identical pillar or a little village in Pingdong in the hope of drawing Moukai back to their community. So this is the official statement issued by the Ministry of Culture, not the statement made by the tribal communities. But the thing is, I would like to compare another example, which is Amis Taparang Katatian Totem Po. And this actually has been filmed by a director, professor in Thailand, also from National Taiwan University. And the topic is under returning souls. It's just kind of trailer and very short. Let's see what they think. Don't call me. We've been to the church. I didn't want to go to Japan. Don't call me the time to go home. I don't want to go to the church. I don't want to go to the church. From then on, I didn't go to the church. So you can see the different characteristics from different nations in Taiwan, the Taiwan people and the Amis people. But this is not my main talk today. So let's focus. In this case, we'll compare to the first one. The Taiwan people agree as the tribal community to marry the Peter to the NTU. But in this case, the Amis people, they refuse. They say they want the Peter back to the tribal communities. But when this happened, this actually became the issue or the conflict inside the tribal community. Even this conflict became a legal suit, which has been decided by the Supreme Administrative Court in Taiwan, the judgement. So the conflict is that because the Gakitan is the traditional belief from the one of the tribal community. So they want to welcome, they want to take their Peter back to the community. So also you can see the Shaman laid down on the floor saying that the Gakitan should be built on this land here. But the land has already been belongs to other private owners. So it becomes an issue, also controversial issue inside the tribal community. And in the end, the court saying that it is a private land. So you have to find another place to put your traditional belief, Gakitan. So two different cases represent what is the tribal communities. How can a village or tribal community can do about their public affairs. And this is kind of the transition of the tribes locations in Taiwan. The left on your left hand side is from the 1930s. And until the year 2000, so you can see the population, the density is spread out all over Taiwan. So it's not like the 1930s. So which also tells us the original idea of the tribal community may not be the same as the 1930s. So how can we use a law to justify a tribal community as a public juristic person? Or how can we use the law to make the tribal community be a juristic person on what structure? So in 1997, just like I also explained to you yesterday, Taiwan's constitutional law was amended to demand the state show safeguard status and political participation of the indigenous peoples. However, the details of the indigenous rights still need to be established by law and a number of different audiences. So which means if we want to develop indigenous rights through legal constructions, it needs three main strengths of the indigenous rights. We need to identify the subject and the contents of the rights and also the scope of the rights. And in 2015, the Taiwan's indigenous people's basic law has been modified and the article 2-1 defined the original tribes could be recognized as public juristic person. And this amendment would be taken as a progressive step for the recognition of the subject of the indigenous rights. So this article is the first legislative construction which gives us an idea that indigenous peoples could be a rights order as a legal subject. So this brings me to the question also I explained to you, what is the definition of the public juristic person? Both in common law and civil law countries, I think in Taiwan, maybe in other countries too, there is no regulatory definition of the public juristic person. But academically, public juristic persons are those who are incorporated in accordance with public law and are recognized as having legal rights and obligations, such as having the ability to make administrative actions to suit and to be sued, right? But right now according to the ROC legal system, there were four different types of public juristic persons. I missed one yesterday. The one I missed is the irrigation association and actually right now Taiwan is under discussion whether or not to change the irrigation association to become a private juristic person, not public juristic persons. So if you are interested, you can follow the discussions in Taiwan. So right now four different types, state, local self-governing parties, irrigation association and non-departmental public bodies. Those four types are the legal public juristic persons right now we have in Taiwan. But when we compare to the law, the content, saying that actually it says nothing, okay? It says nothing about the content because if we look at article 2-1 saying that in order to promote independent development of indigenous tribe at its will, the tribe should establish tribal council and the tribe which ratified by the central authority in charge of indigenous affairs shall be considered as public juristic persons. So does it tell us what is public juristic person as indigenous tribe? Nothing. So like I said yesterday, we might choose from four of these but definitely we could not possibly be irrigation association because that's very specific type. But can we be the rest of stream? That's open for discussion. So from the definition of the public juristic person then come to the functions because every public juristic person has its rights and obligation which means what kind of function it has. Although different public juristic person have different purposes of establish, they all have certain legal obligation to achieve and have specific public power to perform their tax. So a public juristic person has artificial personality which we will all agree the so called public juristic person is artificial, has artificial personality and allows that energy to be considered under law separately from its individual members. So the function must show this public juristic person their legal applications. What kind of legal application they have to achieve through their authority, through their administrative power. Again from this article you cannot see anything. So if a tribe is ratified by the central authority in charge of indigenous affairs and considered as public juristic person then this tribal public juristic person show carry out indigenous public affairs in its own name by his organization even by his own money. However after the long colonial history what public affairs left for the tribe and in which land where come from the income for a tribe if we follow this module to understand what is public juristic person. Especially I show you 1930 through 2000 the social organization structure in the tribal community has been destructured a lot. But other than this although the article 2-1 did not say anything about a function about a content but if we look at the rest of the indigenous people's basic law we might still see something that could be the applications and administrative powers for the tribal communities. So let's see from article 2 here. So what is tribe? The tribe refers to a group of indigenous persons who form a community by living together in specific areas of the indigenous people's regions and following the traditional norms with the approval of the central indigenous authority. This brings me to think we might start to think of tribal public juristic person should have this kind of characteristics follow traditional norm. We have our own central indigenous authority but the real content we can develop later. And article 20 says that the government recognize indigenous people's rights to land and natural resources. So this article is also open for discussion. If the government recognize indigenous people's rights to land and natural resources which means we have land base and this land base can also bring us income because we have natural resources. This can support a public juristic person to run on our own. And also article 21 paragraph 2 saying that the state in a show version should stipulate the regulation for delimiting the area of indigenous land. So under article 21 paragraph 4 the state should delimit the indigenous land. So which means once the land has been delimited then we might have a very identical or specific area. But of the record article 21 is a very controversial article right now in Taiwan. If you notice the news we have a protest. It's over one year and still carry on before the presidential office. So even we have this lot existing but still has some other contents. I don't think they can do this. They have done this. They have not told us about this. They have not told us about this. So they have done this wrong. I am with the President of the Republic of Shao Tzu. We have received a few stories from the President of the Republic of Shao Tzu. The two of us have received a notice from the President of the Republic of Shao Tzu to help the issue to be solved. But to resolve this problem, many people of the Republic of Shao Tzu are also forced to connote their traditional traditions and to form an alliance with the previous administration. So it's now the last evening. Once again, the National Association of the Republic of Shao Tzu meets this The painting work is always in place. After the report of the Young Master, when we reached the field, everyone was happy. When everyone was nervous, I think this is a good thing. First, to raise the discussion of the painting, we think that with this foundation, we can turn the painting into a movement of our own painting. The painting is a good way of making the painting. Because in our country, we have three villages, Zhongzheng, and another one, which is far away, we have four villages to work together to make the painting better. Because the old people are all together to make it bigger. The traditional painting has been called for many years, but it is still alive. But the influence of the traditional painting and the influence of the traditional painting must be developed in order to keep the traditional painting in place. That's another one. And I'll explain later. This guy here is the county mayor of the Nantou County. Okay. So these two cases, sorry, thanks. Okay. Yeah. So the laws, like I explained, we have the right to our land and natural resources. And the state should help us to delimit the area, but the controversy arrives. Both inside the indigenous peoples and also outside the non-indigenous peoples. So this also allows me to think about how does the tribal community as a public Jewish person can do about it. And also, in the best law also says that indigenous peoples have the right to free private informed consent. It's stated in article 21, paragraph 1, says that when governments or private parties engage in land development, resource utilization, ecology conservation, and academic research in indigenous land, try to join language owned by governments. They should consult and obtain consent by indigenous peoples or tribes. Even their participation and shared benefit with their indigenous peoples. So this is very the most general article stating about indigenous rights to free private informed consent. And not only stated in this law. Also if we see the Spatial Planning Act, article 11, paragraph 2, this is the most important about zoning laws in Taiwan. In this article 11, paragraph 2 says that, like, see the underlying. In the specific area, in the national spatial plan and say they include the land or sea area that belongs to indigenous peoples, then what they have to do? They have to do with the article 21 of the indigenous peoples' basic law. So if the state wants to do according to this national spatial plan and is involved in indigenous land, then you have to follow article 21. Also in costal management act, also has the same statement. Article 16, paragraph 2 says that where the costal conservation plan involves restricting indigenous peoples from using their land, natural resources, and a joint land, the agency show comes out the local indigenous site and acquire its consent before the plan enters the deliberation processes. Also in article 21 of basic law says that, if the scholar want to do the research on indigenous land, you have to consult indigenous peoples. Human subject research at article 15 says that where the research purposes involves indigenous people, then besides the requirements of article 12 through 14 subprime, there should additionally be required consultations to obtain the consent of their indigenous group. Any publication of research results show required consent. So having said all this, the first problem writes you will see different usage has been used in different laws, right? So how could we identify who has the right to claim their right for the 3.4 consent? What is the subject here? How can we identify the subject? Because even different law actually all these laws same the same thing. This thing is about right to 3.4 consent but in basic law it says indigenous peoples or tribes. In special planning act it says nothing just follow the basic law. In coastal zone management act says that you have to consult the local indigenous tribe. So what's the difference between the local indigenous tribe and indigenous tribe? Human subject research act says you have to obtain the consent of their indigenous group. So is there any differences? Or how can we identify? Which refers to whom? Right? So this is the issue we are facing right now. Even the article 2-1 says that the indigenous tribe could be considered as public juristic person. But this brings me to the question about what kind of rights of 3.4 consent? It may be we can say in the most broad way it is a human rights. But that's the right the right I mean I would say the right has a positive understanding and passive understanding which means if the right is a positive and you can claim and you can even sue to make it happen. But the right it is a passive and then it is only happen when the right has been harmed by others. So what kind of the nature of right how can we identify what kind of rights of 3.4 consent should belong to. That is a positive or passive or even it is just a legal interest shared by everyone. So there are two different issues we have to deal with. The first is the subject how can we identify a tribe and the second question is what kind of right which can be prejudiced in the so called tribe. So maybe we can define the right to 3.4 consent as a public affairs. So those rights might be prejudiced as a public juristic person. But we have other legislations called Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creation of Indigenous People which I also mentioned very, very little just a bit. So in article 3 says that the intellectual creations refer to this act show mean traditional religious ceremonies, music, dance, songs, sculptures, weaving, patterns, clothing folk crafts or any other expression of the cultural achievement of Indigenous peoples. Issues here related to my talk today. The article 6 paragraph 2 says that the African is limited to Aboriginal groups or tribes. So they use another term here. But if you can understand Mandarin they all the same. Identical says so in Mandarin version says that Indigenous people are limited to Indigenous peoples but in this act they use Aboriginal groups or tribes. And article 7 says that exclusive rights holders once the applicant is confirmed to be the owner and then he owns the exclusive rights. And if an intellectual creation is confirmed to belong to the group of tribes and they share these rights could be the co-exclusive rights holders. And the third version is that if an intellectual creation cannot be confirmed to belong to any specific Aboriginal group or tribe and the exclusive rights holder is under the entire Indigenous peoples. So examining this legislation we can certain things that this right is a private right is not a public law. But the rights holders are the same as Bu Luo. So if the article 2-1 says that Bu Luo could be a public jurisdiction person and then can it or is that appropriate for a public jurisdiction person to be a private exclusive rights holder? Is that appropriate? It could be because legally speaking a public jurisdiction person can hold a private right. But is that appropriate? Okay. But still the question arise how can we identify what is Bu Luo? So under this legislation we can see Bu Luo refers to tribal community and Yuan Zhu Ming Zhu used in this legislation. But it seems legislation this legislation left out a number of different indigenous social organizations inside the community like subgroups clan family lineage and other cultural groups like hunting group ceremonial groups those are specific social organizations running inside the tribal community and they actually let's take example this legislation saying that ceremony could be an intellectual creation exclusively owned by the applicant which means a Bu Luo Bu Luo is bigger than ceremonial group. So is that appropriate? We assign this right to Bu Luo rather than the ceremonial groups. That's one example. Also the hunting practices in tribal community all these specific person can be a hunting group. But once the hunting practices being recognized as an intellectual creation then it can be only identified to be Bu Luo as an exclusive holder. So is that appropriate? So the core issue here from all what I explained to you the idea is indigenous peoples and also tribal community in my language we call Arang. So tribal community Arang is the center of indigenous lives and cultures. Also it is the traditional governance unit and it's actually just the definition in Article 2 of the best law I just show you. So our definition is okay. But it doesn't go fit or go straight with all other articles. And also none of the existing and implementing laws and regulations has clear definition which agreeable to tribal community. Even we have Article 2-1 just like I show you. Nothing says about the content and scope and even the structure of the subject. So research question of this presentation is how to position and construct indigenous subjectivity laws and its formation will soon be an important legal issue and the nature and content of indigenous subjectivity laws need to be clarified. This is a very broad question. So the argument one of the argument is that whether the existing laws on judicial subject can embrace tribal subjectivity or a new subjectivity law is needed. Cultural conceptualization of traditional tribal governance in conformity with constitutional interest value of cultural diversity. So I think we need a new indigenous subjectivity which can echo through the constitutional value of cultural diversity for multiculturalism. Because one of these things I later on will be to a comparative study will be of the New Zealand Maori. Because the New Zealand Maori their social organization is from the Kiwi, Harpu and Kui. So that is three different organizations is running by their running by their own traditional practices and other regulations. So let's take an example here. This is the Ato Lan Amis age how they naming these structures. Maybe you might not get the whole idea. I just want to tell you they divided their tribal organization through the age system. So under age 37 to 41 is called GABA use another way to say it is the labor of the tribal communities. Labor work is their main job, their main responsibility. And for the 62 to 66 under is the people to do their decision making. And for the elders for the elders upper level they are the thinkers. So they use this age group to develop structure their social community to run their daily affairs public affairs. And the young they do whatever elders tell him to do. They do whatever the the elders do. So this is the if you go to Duran Bulu you will see this. You are not going to see this structure. When you see the people or you join a public event you can see someone doing some things. And then they are just belong to each different structures. So this is the one I say we have to find a way to create the organization the structures. So the holistic whenever we talk about indigenous people especially the development of traditional norms we have to capture the holistic view and this holistic view from some I think there are three aspects we have to emphasize. The indigenous cultural practices we have to focus on they have a specific way of representation and this representation has a close relationship with ecological interactions and there are huge very intimate social relations in boundaries so even one of the practices let's say the hunting practices ceremonial practices just like the I show you why the Shaman has a specific area to build up those because that's the way they represent that's the way they interact with ecology and that's the way they build up their social relations. So the holistic view of indigenous law we have to cover all these three that's why I argue that the indigenous whether it is public, juristic person or the private, juristic person has to cover these three areas and the one I say the social relations imagine is in the traditional indigenous worldview system the age group system is the example from the Amis people and I take my people as an example to explain to you what is the social relations in badness in our own indigenous worldview system. The central idea the call we call is Gaia that's anything. Gaia means anything it means our culture it means our law it means whenever we say Gaia it is a wheel of self-determination so the Gaia covers three different aspects the social aspect here the social aspect which consists of our education which means our languages so our language is pass through our languages from our elders and if we complete the social if we complete the education which pass on to generation to generation and then within all this education content we build up our social organizations and then under the social organizations we are a group of co-sheers so our social value shows that we are a co-sheering community and on the other side it says our interaction with the ecology it's the spatial relationship so we have to understand the landscape we have to understand our knowledge system so if you know everything around you and then you can build up your knowledge system based on your interaction with the ecology with the environment and then that brings us to the property system is the co-management of property system because I think everyone probably heard about indigenous people is also very ecology or conservative about the natural resources interactions so which brings us to our worldview is equality even between the human and the environment and animals so the central part is once we finish our social and spatial and then that brings us to be a static ballet and the static ballet means that we can all back to our haka udus to be back with our ancestors so all these three concrete we are the static ballet and there is a social organization to run according to these structures so different nations have different structures so like I say in the beginning it is an ongoing project you might not get the whole picture or you might not understand some of the my saying here but I want to conclude saying that in Taiwan society people are used to override indigenous rights by using Han Chinese concept and even the indigenous people may be forget or give up our traditional culture and regulations customary laws so if the concept and the role of the public juristic person could call back the spirit of indigenous traditional culture with the tribes own ability the goal of the establishment of indigenous people so government would be success through the public juristic person or the jurist person but I am still trying to finish this by one idea I want to construct the indigenous law without the idea of law so this is I conclude my talk today and hope to have more communication with you guys thank you when we are trying to deal with those customary law or indigenous law one of the problem we have is to identify the sources of those law so they have got very little what we have discovered is they have got very little written record and they are filled with contradictions now the approach we take in Hong Kong is a very common law approach we don't deal with it unless there is a conflict but what about in Taiwan has the government been encouraging each tribe for instance to produce a very comprehensive list of what they consider to be their exclusive right or intellectual creation or have they been taking it on a case by case basis and deal with it okay so I think the the core question is about the source of indigenous law in Taiwan and actually starting from 2013 generally our core system started to set up the indigenous ad hoc tribunal and we also developed a certain allocation of the cases which should be deal with by this tribunal and this court by the question of the rights what kind of law they should apply to so this also has been discussed so in the early years of this tribunal they always call up the elders as the expertise or the witness to give the definition to prove or to give their to give their views for the judges to decide on the cases but this cannot be this cannot be among practice for several countries especially in Taiwan so actually I myself along with a number of different colleagues we started to study the customary laws collected by the Japanese government during the Japanese occupation time so we kind of do a modern version on the indigenous customary laws existing and practicing in the modern area and it has been published so right now another call will take into consideration to deal with the indigenous issues right now but still you can see even from the presentation I share with you all this law still needs the actual content of the indigenous rights yeah has the government been trying to make a headway into creating those comprehensive lists for instance or is it just you guys still watching so actually there's two different two different views on this from the the traditional legal training academia they says that since we are civil law countries we need and we should to make the customary law into the statutory law for people like me I say no to the common law experiences yeah people are case by case yeah because once a customary law become a statutory law which means it will be frozen once it's written into the statutory and then we will not see what's gonna transform because the cultural is not frozen into it's not frozen in the certain times if this practices is agreed and followed by this specific group and they wish you respect its practices yeah I would say as someone who is training common law I agree with you entirely so let's open this up to the audiences here in terms of any aspect of the indigenous law how about the ladies it's interesting that I mentioned the two most famous case of prostitution that refers to my study in undergraduate luckily I had an interview with someone who was involved inside including the Kaikaran villagers they live inside and give them a review about the the restitution views about the case and I was quite doubting with the law there because as you said it was taken as a case specific but I was questioning about the government they decided to make a replica and keep the real color in the museum instead of keeping the replica inside the museum and I was really really eager to know how you as an indigenous people how you view in this way because as I know in the case people they're thinking like yeah I bring back the soul and that is what I want for this and that is the happy ending in this case but is it true for you? I'm not a person to believe in fairy tales so that is a fairy tales okay that's my position and also they build a replica for the community bring back to the community and they keep the original one inside the museum right so like I said but it's only for my opinion they have been forced to marry it that's my opinion but some people might not think that way because if you respect or if you treasure is heritage worse if you treasure it is a heritage even the state say that it is a national treasure then why not you build up the conservation sourcing back to the community instead of still keeping the museum if it is a national treasure right so that's my thinking about this case I'm not sure about yours in my view in this case I was also agree with you strongly agree with you even I studied museum because based on the attic even not law just the attic moral standard museums supposed to stick with the truth instead of giving something untrue within the context so this is a totally agree with you again I'm learning a lot I was very interested in the this gets back to your comment actually about culture not being frozen in time that the definition of being indigenous in basic law article 2 was following traditional norms that seems to be very key line that implies that there does come a time when you will stop being indigenous in other words if you have to do this to be indigenous then the state is also saying if you don't do that you're not indigenous anymore it's a category that you can sort of in and out and in terms of subjectivity a few things that have questions about one presumably a basic following of traditional norms would include speaking the language right another thing is that large percentages of these populations perhaps the majority no longer follow that traditional norm right how does that affect their eligibility for a subject legal subjectivity another thing that didn't come this that comes up in US the United States is extraordinarily indigenous matters is a whole question of biology you know I'm assuming from the last speaker that there's clearly demographic crisis if most of these communities are populated by elders and children that means that pretty much everybody else right is elsewhere and I would assume many many of them if they get married and produce children are not marrying people from their same tribal background right so then their children are they eligible to what extent does the state take into account right the whole sort of biology thing because the traditional norms is strictly it's not a dissent argument it's a consent argument right sort of that's where that's what I'm interested in even the circle diagram of social organization I need to emphasize that language was a very fundamental part of not just a medium for expressing the world view but is the world view to a certain extent right it's an organic part of it are you eligible for legal subjectivity as an indigenous person if you don't speak the language and let's say you move to the city and you do not follow traditional norms and your children are from somebody else it's not from that background all of this who's eligible for what so that's kind of what I'm interested in when does the state say you stop being indigenous and therefore you're not eligible for any version of public jurist person yesterday you are brutal just so that's the question for indigenous peoples in Taiwan regularly have two faces who are indigenous peoples and everyday the people are people are discussing that a lot of benefits the social benefit attached if you are indigenous peoples and then to what standard to what requirement you can maintain these status but first of all I would like to say that I would like to say is indigenous peoples is a political term it's never be a cultural term for my view anyone here might belong to specific cultural group so everyone can define by culture but not everyone can define in so the reason I say that is because if we look back to history why we have indigenous peoples it's because the colonialism it's because other people come to indigenous land occupy, dispossess take out all of their rights and then starting from that point we started to negotiate different status but over time the status changes situation changes everything changes so we have to reconsider who are indigenous peoples or we can still be very clear on the requirement of indigenous peoples but we have to consider what kind of content should attach to indigenous peoples that's why in Taiwan right now language ability is a very important requirement but that does not affect whether or not you are indigenous peoples so which means within our own communities we have to make clear in indigenous community relationship with the state we only have to very clear on this line whether you are indigenous people or not and then if you are indigenous people and then you are in this group and within this group we are self-government body and then we run by our own ideally and that's the way we are we are advancing right now but if anything related to states and then the states can add up requirements like the language ability like other things that's when we deal with the states so under the public person if you want to be a part of this group and then the first thing we only have to care about is if you are eligible to be the member of this group and then the rest just follow this area but if you choose not to be a group and then you are on the states side so I think right now in Taiwan we also follow the like biological not a test I mean the blood contents actually in Taiwan this blood content is I can say is the most most restricted requirement to maintain you are indigenous peoples I think is the the hardest way to becoming indigenous peoples because even in the states you can only have 164 or 132 you are still an Indian in some Indian nations but in Taiwan it is very easy for you to lose the status as indigenous peoples so these are controversial issues the eligibility because we always have to be challenging especially we have more than 50% of population living in urban area and most of them the young people are born and grow up in the cities they know nothing about their people frankly speaking they know nothing about it but they the most of it the most of it so it is a controversial issue that's why we are starting to considering to add a certain obligations for the people if you want to maintain your status I think that's one way of thinking but for for the self-government issues I think for my opinion once we set up our jurisdiction we are in some way separated from the states so the only thing we have to consider is whether or not you are eligible to be the member of the community and then the rest of will be followed by the communities so it is not about whether or not you fulfill the outsiders expectations hi thanks for another wonderful and informative talk my question is about research ethics and getting consent for research because we are all doing research projects for a volume for Shun Yi do we all have to get permission from any informants indigenous informants or from the villages the village communities to which they belong because in my research on Saig-e-Balay the translation of the feature film Saig-e-Balay there were five translators so I can get permission for them but this involves also the village communities to which they belong so that's five different village communities so I'm just wondering what the logistics of this will be do they sign something sign a release the individuals will sign a release but then they can't give their consent as individuals because we also need the consent of the village communities so I'm just wondering if there are cases come up where researchers have done research and then been challenged for not getting the required consent not just from the individual people that they're interviewing but also from the village communities thank you okay this article Human Subject Research Act which means it is mainly focused on the human subject research not really to social sciences that first thing so social science research is not regulated by the Human Subject Research Act but the basic law only says academic research right so even you are not covered by the Human Subject Research Act you are still under the basic law article 21 okay so the second thing is it's not that effective unless there could be a suit low suit no but the reason for that is if you are an independent researcher you are not regulated by anyone I mean if that's your interest you can just go to a tribal community you can go anywhere to do your research no one can force you to do anything or not to do anything unless the interviewee refutes you or they form a group to expel you out that's the private individual actions so the law is only applicable for the public so right now in Taiwan the Ministry of MOST if the scholar want to apply for funding as that is related to indigenous peoples if you want to get funding you need to get a approval I actually did this it was 500 American 500 American dollars and a very complicated process just so I could get permission which I had already gotten from five individuals at the time I found this very irritating I also see the need for it because I'm doing this research for me certainly for my academic career but also it should be for the people that are helping me with the research and for their community so I see the point but the point is once we have our juristic juristic person in place those so called what I said the committee to review the ASIC IRB once we have our juristic person in place the IRB will be replaced yeah but only for indigenous consent but if you still have to follow academia ASIC you have to follow the IRB yeah but right now because we don't have our own tribal IRB in place so they are doing this the existing IRB but eventually we will have our own 100 is very if you want to use the public funding to do the indigenous research then every public authority will we ask you to get the approval first otherwise they won't grant the funding someone else can have the question okay my father had a friend about 10 years ago who had printed Raven they live in Victoria Canada so Raven is a mythological figure for the Haida people who live on Vekodra Island in the mainland north of Vancouver and so he's not a native Canadian but he was printing t-shirts and mugs and other kind of merchandise with indigenous symbolism and I asked him why are you doing this he said well just to make some money and I asked him what does it mean can you explain Raven in their belief system he had no idea he's not interested and I think you mentioned last time this is covered by freedom of expression you can't stop him from doing this but it seems to me it's not expression he's not trying to express himself he doesn't care he's not interested so is there any legal way to stop stop this from happening stop this kind of thing from happening you mean in Canada in Taiwan in Taiwan just like the protection act but if you want to do if you want to bring a lawsuit then first you have to make this patent or totem be recognized as a right it's not a copyright because copyright has certain requirements and indigenous intellectual creation existed for 100 years if you follow the copyright standard it will not become a copyright it will become a public domain that everyone can use it that's why we want to protect indigenous people's totems or patterns or symbols anything because people miss appropriately to use it so in Taiwan right now we have already this legislation in place once we get recognized and to get to certificate as a legal rights and anyone want to use it we can sue it the legislation you can defy the most is like 20 20,000 US dollars it's not that huge though no it just depends on how much you use it depends on the cases it's not that you bring one you have to pay normal amount nothing like that I have two brief comments and two very simple questions the first comment relates to the preceding question Scots have invented many things we invented the defeat of the Roman Empire we invented the steam engine we invented continuous electric current and algorithms without which there would be no computers we also invented anaesthetics and television more or less the same thing in my opinion but we also invented of course scotch whiskey now at the present time scotch whiskey is protected by European Union law now don't sell a product anywhere in the world and label it scotch whiskey unless it was actually distilled in Scotland now a great fear we have a woman in Scotland is that if brexit takes place I personally don't think it will it will be engulfed but if they do manage to take us out against our will there is a great fear in rogue countries like the United States or India and certainly cheap spirits using the name scotch now at the same time those of you who are keep up with fashion will have noticed in the last few years in Paris, I shouldn't show this but I'm not just in Paris but elsewhere there has been increased use of indigenous ethnic designs in contemporary fashion I'm a little bit unhappy about I'm not against the interaction of different cultures actually very well cultures don't even think after all but it should be done with respect and that respect includes economic respect and recognition of the origins of a piece of creative art and the other comment is on language I personally think language is very important in culture it underpins all forms of culture including visual culture because we read an image differently depending upon which language we are thinking in for a start many languages many peoples under all kinds of pressures they have to endure do lose a large percentage of the population lose that language this has happened with the Sami many Sami wear the loss and they try to sanitize their lives in many ways but they continue to express their lives in Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Russian for me that's not enough ok my question is this two questions is this a word that exists in all the indigenous languages in Taiwan or is it a word that comes from one language and is spread to the others and and I noticed when you showed the table and ages most of the age sections were four year differences and the next largest was five year differences is there a reason for that those two pages so the first one is Gaya is my own languages it's aesthetic peoples from my peoples but is it a word that belongs to all the indigenous no, it's just used by our people just used by our people but this kind of idea has different words or terms in other indigenous peoples so different languages and the four years or five years the age group differences I think an expert and an army's people but it's based on the not like expectancy is all the mental cycle of mental and mental capacity for those individuals it's nothing to do with counting systems counting well some languages count in the five no nothing to do with that thank you Arwee it's always such a pleasure to listen to it because in the past I think legal background must be quite boring it's fascinating and actually it's not really about the law it's more or less for me it's about philosophical issues for me it's more about cultural issues because coming from a low background you sort of lay it bare than people like us from humanity backgrounds dress up certain issues they're trying to make it sound you know it's fantastic can I ask you because some question are being asked by Adam so I can't compete with that so I can ask basic questions for example because you are evolving in policy makings and now you're actually in the center of the future indigenous policy making process so could you tell us as a practitioner as well as a theorist what can you offer coming from an academic background and doing something for your own people what's your aim and what's your goal to make up this new law for yourself another question is if I may Adam did ask about the fundamental question who are indigenous people but I'm asking you again because of your legal background could you give us your take and also legally possible how are you going to frame this category and make it possible and workable for future policy making thank you I'll start with the second one so to define indigenous people like I said I always think it came from politics it came from yesterday colonialism imperialism and cultural imperialism not in that period so in Taiwan a lot of people don't understand and even if anyone want to explain what happened in the past for indigenous people they will confuse them even worse because they don't care people don't care and yeah I do think so and we just said it becomes such a hot topic about indigenous issues and studies yeah the indigenous study is a hot issue but not what indigenous people happened in the past what happened to us is not an issue ok so that's why I think I borrowed yesterday's presentation more in the end most populations in Taiwan see indigenous people is just disadvantage groups they just see this aspect because they only see the present time but they don't and they won't understand unless we have a big picture to let them understand the present situation has a lot of has a lot to do with what happened in the past but we have to find a way a very simple way to make them understand otherwise that will confuse them just like even right now under the presidential office we have this community one of our main task is to communicate with the public saying that why we want to build up this community and why the president want to deliver this national apology we still spending time doing this basic work unless this has been understood we cannot move forward yeah yeah of course yeah so to define indigenous people I think the historical injustice is the first thing we have to emphasize but we also have to come to the present time if we support the idea or the constitutional value of multiculturalism and then first thing we have to do is to revitalize the indigenous culture so indigenous people I think if we define or if we want to make people understand for me I will take this to approach the historical injustice which result in the present situation and in a positive way if we support the constitutional value and then first we have to revitalize indigenous cultures to revitalize indigenous culture doesn't mean that other culture is not important yeah so I think I'm not sure whether is this enough thank you and the first one is how can I do I think I have done enough you know but it's this my personal story not a story I'm still young this is my 10th year when I graduated when I got my PhD this is my 10th year teaching in the past this is 11 for the past years I have transferred 4 different institutions so every institution so far I always stay for 3 years so people always say they can't find a job but every 3 years I change a job so I started from Taitung and Hualien and to Taipei and now back to Hualien yeah but I think there are still a lot for me to do just like you say I am lucky right now in the you might say in the center of the boss making yeah so my way is that I think if I always say it's a common thing if you want to defeat your enemy you have to understand your enemy and you want to defeat your enemy just use his regulation and rules and you can defeat it so my way is I use I first I will use the state law and then to some extent to some point then I use the indigenous law because I use the state law to ask my their fundamentals and those fundamentals are solid and then I use the indigenous law yeah so you for me I think I will not complete what I want to do by disregarding the state law it's not going to happen yeah but we have to start from the state law and then use the indigenous law and find a way to incorporate yeah so the a lot of this legislation thinking we have a group of people so we don't use the new term we use the original term but without the actual content so the actual content is the later on we will put into it I think there's an interesting point to be raised about how to define the indigenous people and I think you are absolutely correct it's a political construct and you were saying just a moment ago that you were using state law to try to defend your clients or to deal with cases before you appeal to the indigenous law but what would happen if there's an inconsistency between the state law as opposed to indigenous law how has the court been very sympathetic when they're dealing with those issues or have they been very adamant in applying the state law that the state law should have precedent over the indigenous law what has the situation been like because I would imagine some of those indigenous customs or regulations have been deemed inconsistent with your constitution in some sense so how has the court been dealing with this and what has the public mood been has the public mood been very pro-indigenous law has they been saying hold on why are these people getting all the rights so how has the public been like in Taiwan as well specifically specifically if we deal with these legal issues focus on the individual then the state law always trumps the indigenous law so what we were doing and what we have been doing is we always make it collective make the issue even if it's an individual issue we make it like it's a whole people's issue whole nations whole communities because every time if you just make it like individual and then individual right is protected under constitution you have nothing to say about it but the thing is we make it like it is a collective issues under indigenous rights and then we start from a collective collectivities and that way when we talk about and actually we are still in the individual discussion but once you level up to indigenous nations and then the indigenous law will come in yeah so like the divorce issues or now marriage issues how there have been a lot of cases about the the legality of the marriage so both sides on one side they don't recognize the legality of the marriage on the other side we are already married but on the other side the defendant always are already married based on our customary riches customary laws but on the other side the respondent respondent and the applicant and applicant will say under the state's law we are not married and then go to the court and then you cannot say it is an individual issue we have to say this is a static people's marriage so we are not following state's law and then we level up to state we level up to it is a static cases and then the judge will call out the elders is this your customs and we build up a number of cases based on the customary rules to make the decisions sorry we are just talking about creative art of the front village so I just check the website from 2015 till now there is only 11 pieces on the list so it is followed as already 3 years but only 11 pieces and most of them are songs not really no great one thing I know some of them are judged not by department of culture it is judged by department of technology by Keqi Bu not by Wenhua Bu it is a big discussion between because it used to be the concept of copyright used to be from manufacturing like some cell phone design so it used to be judged by department of technology not department of culture so like these kinds of creative work they judge also by department of technology or judged by someone because it will bring some misunderstanding to make a decision is it worth to be of this village ok first thing is intellectual creations and the full term is indigenous intellectual creations and it is not culture or technology it is council of indigenous peoples so it is a parallel system to the intellectual property so it is not it works it is a work existed for hundred hundred years that's why this work cannot be protected under the IPR because IPR is the new one even your copyright or patent or trademark they are all new but under the cultural expressions existed already for hundred hundred years the reason why we have this law that like I said before because a lot of people misappropriate use indigenous cultural expressions in an unappropriate way so we are not protected for its economic values we are protected for its cultural values and the second thing is you are right it is only 11 objects has been recognized and even worse this legislation has been in place since 2007 so it is already more than a decade only 11 why there is one of the reason I must the other thing is because they don't want to take the responsibility like the academia people you be the examiner I don't want to make decision I call a lot of scholars please take a look whether or not it is fulfilled this cultural expression for indigenous people this is very very funny used to participate in some of the meetings there is one time we are discussing a specific art music how to say it ancient melodies we are discussing whether it is a specific indigenous melodies and then there is one scholar from the music background says that the African she asked the question can you put your melody in a musical rotation if you can't then this is not melody because under the academia standard you have to put on those and that is really the case that is really the case even you are the totem patterns and they call out the scholar who has studied for his life her life in business patterns she or he sits there and indigenous people present their patterns and they examine they are saying that this is not the original one because based on other scholars book is different so you have to find so it is very funny our own people they present our own patterns which is different from past research book and then you are now recognized so this is the kind of situation right now under this legislation that's why we only have such less object has been recognized so we are still finding a way to let these scholars know about I think we have time for one more question or perhaps a few short questions which we will do there just together just one so any more questions to our partners to keep it short I am sorry what is the possibility to create we are doing this we are not alone thank you thank you I would like to try my best to make it short I think first of all I would like to thank you for your presentation I particularly facilitated by the conception of jurisdiction indigenous jurisdiction and personally I agree that the necessity of contracting indigenous jurisprudence which will have a unique concept law, legal epistemology and ethics of law and my question is by suggesting indigenous jurisprudence do we occasionally have to confront with some universal documents such as democracy and human rights it seems to me that democracy cannot equate with state of governance considering the social structure of Dulan for instance we just mentioned and I suppose equal fault is not may not be a supreme values in that community also similarly I think indigenous rights is not necessarily to individual rights such as or equality so personally I was really fine with this kind of plurality as it is but I don't really mind to the notion of democratic deficit of such things but I'd like to hear more from you, thank you but the thing is if we look into the detail of the organization running inside the tribal community I would say it is all about distribution of powers so if the community agree to the distribution of powers or distribution of authority and then I think it is there's some kind of democracy I don't know but I mean the social organization is followed by its members if the distribution of powers are all agree upon and indigenous rights actually in a lot of ways is in conflict with human rights especially in the issue of gender in a human rights standard but what is the universal standard because even the democracy the United States always use the democracy to others use the idea of democracy but it is truly another issue we have to face for indigenous rights and at least for gender issues also in Taiwan so right well I would say on this very very good question thank you doctor again for this very informative talk and some very frank very good answers as well thank you so much