LETTER: It’s a principle in law that it (law) ceases to exist if it cannot be enforced, is not enforced and is unenforceable.
The Orang Asal will not and/or cannot comply with the Federal Court ruling on pemakai menoa and pulau galau. Anyone can make any law on anything, but that doesn’t mean there will be compliance. There’s such a thing as bad law.
The Orang Asal are already occupying the land in their thousands. They are not going to make way so that a few companies can get Provisional Leases (PL) to the land. The Federal Court should have kept this in mind.
Instead, it opened the floodgates, something not allowed by law.
This proves that we cannot have the judiciary dominated by people who live in fear of going to hell and/or are ignorant about Sabah and Sarawak and the Orang Asal.
Politics will come into the picture.
I remember reading a court ruling where it was held that even if the government declares NCR land as state land, beneficial ownership resides with the Orang Asal.
I doubt very much the Federal Court can overturn the “beneficial ownership” principle. Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, superior to all those cited from Sarawak by the Federal Court, states “Right to Life”.
The Federal Constitution protects property rights.
What is the point of law? Incidental? What does Melayu know about Dayak culture?
By right, when the Federal Court gave its ruling, it should have released its written grounds as well.
The parties involved want to apply to review the decision.
If Baru Bian knew he was going to lose, he wouldn’t have gone to court.
Those who think they must stick to court rulings are missing the point. The Federal Constitution and democracy are about rule of law, not rule by law.
Law is based on common sense, universal values and the principles of natural justice. Law exists, and has always existed, beyond statutes and case law.
Of course, in extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but it will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent. This is where the principle on “beneficial ownership” comes in.
Borneo rights advocate