Jabu and Masing - how truthful are they?

Alfred Jabu Numpang and James Masing must reveal the truth about the failures of the the NCR land development on joint ventures. Otherwise, they will be condemned as political bunkums, meaning they speak about the benefits of developing NCR land on joint ventures. In reality, the benefits do not go to the NCR land owners. One wonders into whose pockets does that the benefits go to? And who actually reap the benefits?

Certainly not the NCR land owners. There is no need to talk about oil palm as the golden crop if it does not benefit the land owners.

The court's judgment in the Kanowit NCR land case does not hold much truth in describing oil palm as the golden crop for the natives.

Kanowit NCR land case – Judgment of Justice Datuk Yew Jen Kie

1. KADAM ANAK EMBUYANG [WNKP 490412-13-5281]

2. GENTA ANAK SAKA [WNKP 460218-13-5299]

3. BARTHOLOMEW AJI LANYAU [WNKP 510814-13-5255]

4. RIMONG ANAK JANTAN [WNKP 490801-13-5365]

5. LAJA @ MERIS AK AUGUSTINE IGOH [WNKP 670512-13-5535]

[Suing on behalf of themselves and 163 other proprietors, occupiers, holders and claimants of Native Customary Rights (NCR) land situated at Sg. Kelimut, Kanowit District also known as Block D1 in Kanowit District].

… Plaintiffs

AND

1. PELITA HOLDINGS SDN BHD [Co. No. 182028-W]

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF LANDS & SURVEYS,

Sibu, Sarawak.

3. STATE GOVERNMENT OF SARAWAK

4. BOUSTEAD PLANTATIONS BERHAD [Co. No. 1245-M]

5. BOUSTEAD PELITA KANOWIT SDN. BHD.

[Co. No. 364761-H]

… Defendants

99. It was submitted that given the clear and unchallenged evidence pointing to the financial contribution of the 4th Defendant (Boustead Plantations Berhad) in order to develop the NCR Lands, in exchange for the 60% benefits and profits in the joint-venture for the oil palm plantation, on the principals as enunciated above, there is a clear basis for the grant of restitution in favour of the 4th Defendant in the event that the Plaintiffs be successful in their claim in the main suit (which is denied). 

The question to be asked is this: Did the Plaintiffs benefit from the oil palm plantation project? The planting of the oil palm started in 1997 and the NCR landowners received their first divided of RM1.393 million in 2008, RM1.678 million in 2009, followed by RM1.699 million in 2010 and RM3.4 million for 2011.

101. The breakdowns of the dividends are:

Year 2008, RM100 per hectare for all estates, except for Kelimut estate, which is RM250 per hectare.

Year 2009, RM150.00 per hectare.

Year 2010, RM150 per hectare.

Year 2011, RM300 per hectare.

102. The Plaintiffs (including PW1- Kadam anak Embuyang) accepted the dividends.

103. A divided of RM150 per hectare after almost 14 years (from the time the 5th Defendant (Boustead Pelita Kanowit Sdn Bhd ) started planting on the native  customary land in 1997) or almost 7 years from the execution of the Principal Deed, is, by any standard a pittance.

104. In Masa Nangkai, supra, Linton Albert J. remarked , “It matters not that the landowners have been paid some dubious “up front” money of RM120.00 per hectare a miserly sum considering the fact that oil palm planted on their land had been harvested for more than three years.”

105. In our case, the NCR Landowners only received a misery sum of RM100-RM250 per hectare since 1997.

The 5th Defendant tried to paint a picture that the yield improved and profit improved, hence the 5th Defendant was able to give divided from 2009-2000.

107. It is curious as to how the 5th Defendant who could not make enough profit to give out divided in previous years was able to make profit and give out dividend at the period where there was blockades disrupting the operation and productivity of the oil palm.

108. DW3 Chin Sup Chien, the Chief Financial Officer of Boustead Estate Agency Sdn. Bhd., told the court under cross-examination that the 4th and 5th Defendants were not in the financial position to pay divided in September 2009 or any time before 2009. According to him, for the company to pay dividend, it must achieve profit. If it does not achieve profit, it cannot pay divided. [Q & A 281-285 of the notes of proceedings]. According to DW3, the 4th and 5th Defendants would be able to break even in 2024.

I believe PW1 (Kadam) who testified that he attended a meeting during which the 4th and 5th Defendants’ agent informed that the joint venture with the 1st defendant (Pelita Holdings Sdn Bhd) had until then not achieved any profit. It had in fact made a loss of more than RM100 million.

110. I believe PW1 who said that the Plaintiffs received their first dividend because there was blockades and complaints. I also believe that but for these complaints the NCR Landowners might not even received any dividend.

111. So, it is not true that the Plaintiffs have enriched themselves through the giving up of their native customary land for development into the oil palm plantation project.

In alleging unjust enrichment, the 4th and 5th Defendants have forgotten that they have enjoyed the rights and privileges over the native customary land over all these years without paying anything to the Plaintiffs until 2009. Just think, they have been using the Plaintiffs’ NCR Land all the while from 1997 until 2007 without paying a single cent for the use of the lands.

113. For the reasons stated aforesaid, I find no merits in the contention of unjust enrichment.