1/16(一)兩公約第二次國際報告審查第一天上午，LIMA台灣原住民青年團、原住民族青年陣線、沒有名字的人、台灣原住民族政策協會發表了共同聲明。以下是極憲焦點編輯團隊的轉錄，並且附上超連結供閱讀參考。

2017國際人權兩公約國家報告審查。16號上午，原團針對原住民族權利議題提出共同聲明。（圖片來源：原住民族電視台新聞畫面，goo.gl/OnrcJp）

全文（刊載於台灣原住民國際訊息平台）：

【兩公約中華民國第二次國家報告國際審查會議】

原住民族團體共同聲明　

場次：兩委員會與立法院及非政府組織會議（2017.01.16 10:10-12:00)

共同聲明團體：LIMA台灣原住民青年團、原住民族青年陣線、沒有名字的人、台灣原住民族政策協會

主席，各位委員，大家好，以下所提出的聲明，是由此次參與審查的LIMA台灣原住民青年團、原住民族青年陣線、沒有名字的人、以及台灣原住民族政策協會等四個團體共同提出。

我們想指出當前台灣最重要的八個原住民族權利議題，提供給這次兩公約國際審查的委員們參考。

第一段 呼應人約盟的共同聲明 

首先，我們要呼應人權公約施行監督聯盟的共同聲明，蔡英文總統在就任前，曾多次宣示將致力恢復和落實原住民族權利，也在就任後，於2016年的8月1日「原住民族日」當天，代表政府正式向原住民族道歉，並且宣布展開原住民族的轉型正義工作。

我們肯定蔡英文總統兌現了選前向原住民族道歉的承諾，但道歉的內涵、以及道歉後的改革方向，在「議題設定」和「公信、公正的程序」兩個面向，顯然都面臨爭議和不足。

以下我們將從蔡英文總統的道歉文裡，所明確提出的八項承諾，一一點出在落實過程中，已經浮現的問題，也作為前述「議題設定」和「程序」爭議及不足的具體說明。

第二段 蔡英文八項承諾背後的問題

第一，為了面對原住民族被殖民的歷史，總統承諾要在總統府設置「原住民族歷史正義與轉型正義委員會」，和各族族人推派出的代表，一起追求歷史的正義。

不過，原轉會的運作過程，在參與程序上仍然不夠公開、公正，部分族別的委員推舉，是原民會與地方政府草率辦理，多數族人甚至是在推舉會議結束、選出所謂「族群代表」後才知道。此外，原轉會缺乏明確的法律授權、也沒有額外的組織編制，到底能發揮多少實質影響力，我們仍有疑慮。

第二，為了落實原住民族基本法，總統承諾將由行政院固定召開「原住民族基本法推動會」。

不過，在2016年11月重新召開會議後，往後每四個月一次行禮如儀的會議，究竟該怎麼具體落實原基法？目前，我們並沒有看到清楚的規劃。甚至，在「傳統領域劃設辦法」等爭議法規的擬定程序中，也完全沒有經過原基法推動會來討論，這樣該會議要如何發揮功能呢？

第三，總統承諾將成立原住民族法律服務中心，來緩和國家法律和原住民族傳統慣習之間的衝突。

我們樂見原住民族法律服務中心將在今年成立，也期待看到中心有穩定的經費以永續運作。同時，中心不受政治等外力干預的獨立性，也必須要被保障。就長遠的目標而言，我們期盼除了個案扶助之外，中心更應該發揮研究功能，針對國家法律和原住民族傳統慣習衝突之處，提出符合原住民族現況和需求的法律修正建議。

第四，總統承諾，要解決原住民族人因為傳統習俗而狩獵，卻被判刑的問題。

不過，一直到最近，仍不斷有族人因為狩獵遭到逮捕、起訴、甚至是判刑。執法人員在漫長的偵訟程序中經常出現瑕疵，導致族人遭受巨大的身心壓力，尊嚴也被踐踏。就制度面而言，修法工作上不僅進度緩慢，還將狩獵文化和保育當成互相矛盾的概念，造成社會輿論的對立。另外，對槍枝的規範，強迫族人使用不合時宜、也較不安全的槍具，威脅到生命安全。

我們要強調，「文化」並非侷限在單一時空裡的僵固想像，而是有多元樣貌，並且會與時俱進。聯合國對生物多樣性的探討中早已肯認，文化多樣性的保存，有助於生物多樣性的延續，然而我們的政府對此從未有過整體的思考。

第五，總統就核廢料存放在蘭嶼的歷史，向達悟族人道歉，也承諾進行調查、給予補償。

然而，上周立法院三讀通過電業法的大幅度修法，雖然明定核電設備要在2025年前停止運轉，但最後仍然沒有訂出蘭嶼核廢料遷出的具體期限，更有執政黨的立法委員直接表示「做不到的事情不能說謊」。對於過去政府以魚罐頭工廠之名欺騙達悟族人，將核廢料放置蘭嶼的不公義，新政府除了道歉之外，完全沒有提出遷出的實質進度規畫，我們實在不能接受。

第六，總統承諾要推動平埔族群的正名，讓平埔各族的族人恢復應有的身分與權利。

截至目前為止，行政院雖已承諾修法將「平埔原住民族」納入法定原住民族當中，然而不僅政策方向制定前後缺乏族人充分的參與，而且，族人最為關心的個人／部落／族群等不同層次的認定規範，至今連基本的規劃也沒有。

事實上，即使納入平埔族群，台灣的原住民族仍依照毫不必要、也不合時宜的山地／平地／平埔原住民等三種分類被治理，忽視了原住民族各族群的社會現實與意願，甚至造成各族群在參政、土地利用等權利實行的差異、侵害了各族群的主體性。

第七，為了回應原住民族對土地權利的主張，總統承諾政府將正式公告原住民族的傳統領域。

不過，大部分的政府單位，在不理解原住民族文化與社群結構的情況之下，就逕自以「土地私有化」的概念來理解原住民族與土地的關係。根據目前可知的「傳統領域劃設辦法」最新草案版本，更是忽視、曲解原住民族傳統領域先於國家法規而存在的自然主權，將私有土地排除在傳統領域的定義之外，讓原住民族的傳統領域變得支離破碎。更讓我們不能接受的是，傳統領域的劃設，還要經過土地管理機關來同意，如此不但否決了原住民族自我決定的機制，更可能造成傳統領域上不當開發的合理化，嚴重侵害各該族群的生存權。

第八，總統也承諾，將加快速度推動土地、自治、語言等重要原民法案。

不過，相關法案的訂定過程，仍然明顯侷限在行政官僚與少數專家學者之間的討論。法案往往是在擬定之後，多數族人到最後才被動地被知會，根本沒有機會參與到法案制訂的討論過程。原住民族的自由、事先、知情同意權，以及完全而有效的參與權，都因為官僚便宜行事的慣性，而被嚴重地侵犯。

第三段 我們的訴求

所謂原住民族的轉型正義，是要從原住民族權利的觀點，來修正中華民國既存的法規、政策中長期存在的問題，更要是未來所有法規、政策制訂時的基礎。原住民族的轉型正義，絕對不是繼續用優勢族群、或行政官僚既有的思維，來面對原住民族議題。

因此，對於以上八項重大議題，我們有共同的要求：

首先，對於議題的思考，應回歸兩公約、聯合國原住民族權利宣言、以及原住民族基本法的基本精神，以人權為本，用「原住民族權利」的架構來確認問題的癥結。不重視人權思維的轉型正義工作，將不可能真正解決爭議。

其次，各項法案、政策的制定過程，都需要尊重各族群、各部落的主體性，做到確實的資訊揭露、以及有公信力的參與程序，落實自由、事先、知情同意權以及完全且有效的參與權。若缺乏族人的有效參與，國家與原住民族之間，恐怕很難互相信賴、進而走向和解。

最重要的是，原住民族議題是整個台灣社會共同的課題，如同轉型正義的進程，不只是國家政府跟原住民族之間要和解，而是整體社會，都要共同理解、參與，才有可能達到真正的和解、共生。當前許多原住民族權利的無法落實，以及政策上的偏頗扭曲，往往來自於整體社會對於原住民族世界觀、文化與慣習的不理解，所以，無論是原住民族、國家政府、還是整體社會之間，都必須致力於相互的對話與理解。

最後，我們必須嚴正呼籲，原住民族權利的實質落實，不只是特定政黨或是政治人物的政績，更不該被當成政府部門交差了事的業務，甚至成為政黨之間鬥爭、攻防的籌碼。政府應有開闊的心胸、以及足夠的耐心，細緻展開族群間的對話。

以上就是四個原民團體的共同聲明，期待在接下來的審查過程中，能就此再與審查委員、以及政府部門的代表，有進一步的對話。謝謝。

Joint Statement of Indigenous Peoples Organization 

for the Review Meeting of the ROC’s Second Report under the ICCPR and ICESCR

Session: Joint public meeting with Parliamentary Cross Party Group and NGOs (2017.01.16 10:10-12:00)

Submitted by: LIMA Taiwan Indigenous Youth Working Group, Indigenous Youth Front, Nameless Indigenous, Association for Taiwan Indigenous Peoples’ Policies

Good morning, Chair, members of the Review Committee, ladies and gentlemen, the following statement is submitted by the four Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations taking part in this year’s Review Meeting, namely LIMA Taiwan Indigenous Youth Working Group, Indigenous Youth Front, Nameless Indigenous, and Association for Taiwan Indigenous Peoples’ Policies.

We would like to point out eight critical issues in terms of Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Taiwan for the members of the Review Committee to take into consideration.

Section One: Responding to Covenants Watch’s Joint Statement

First, we would like to respond to and echo the joint statement presented by the Covenants Watch. President Tsai Ing-wen has promised to restore and implement the rights of Indigenous Peoples several times both before and after her inauguration. After she took office, on Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples’ Day (August 1, 2016), on behalf of the R.O.C. government, President Tsai made an official apology to the Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan, and announced to start the process of Indigenous Peoples’ transitional justice.

We acknowledge that President Tsai has honored her commitments made during her election campaign. However, in terms of the actual content of the apology and the reforming policies after the apology, there are obvious disputes and insufficiencies regarding issue framing and trustworthy and just procedure.

Based on the eight critical promises made by President Tsai in her apology, we are now going to point out the problems and issues already emerged in the process of implementation so far, also to illustrate what we meant in the previous paragraph with obvious disputes and insufficiencies regarding issue framing and trustworthy and just procedure.

Section Two: Issues Emerged Regarding the Eight Promises Made in President Tsai’s Apology

First, to address Indigenous Peoples’ history of colonization, President Tsai promised to establish an Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Commission under the Presidential Office (refer as Indigenous Justice Committee hereafter), and with the representatives elected by Indigenous Peoples to pursue for the implementation of historical justice.

However, the actual operation of the Indigenous Justice Committee still lacks of transparency and justice. Some of the Indigenous representatives were elected by a perfunctory process rushed by the Council of Indigenous Peoples and the local governments. Many Indigenous persons only got to know about the election after the so-called “representatives of Indigenous Peoples/Nation” were elected. Moreover, the Indigenous Justice Committee is with no clear legal authorization, and there is no additional working force specifically responsible for the work of the Indigenous Justice Committee. We are very concerned about what substantial effect can this Committee actually make?

Second, for the implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law, President Tsai promised to request the Executive Yuan to convene the meeting of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law Promotion Committee in a regular base.

However, after the resumed meeting held in November, 2016, how can the Promotion Committee substantially implement the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law
with the meeting held every four months? So far, there is yet any clear plan in this regard. Furthermore, in the process of drafting some disputed legislations, such as the draft of Traditional Territories Delineation Act, the Promotion Committee was not even invited to take part in the discussion. How can we expect this Committee and its meetings can be of any concrete function?

Third, President Tsai promised to establish an Indigenous Legal Service Center to moderate the conflict between the state legal system and Indigenous Peoples’ traditional custom. 

We are glad to see that the Indigenous Legal Service Center is scheduled to be established this year. We are also expect to see that there is stable funding to support the Center to operate sustainably. Meanwhile, it shall be guaranteed that the Center is with the absolute independency to be free from any kind of interference, including political interferences. As to the long-term goals, we anticipate that besides providing legal aid and assistance to individual law cases, the Center shall be with research function to address on the conflict between state legal system and Indigenous Peoples’ traditional custom and make recommendations on law amendments accordingly.

Fourth, President Tsai promised to address on the issue of Indigenous hunters being sentenced because of hunting. 

However, until recently, there are continuously many cases of hunters being arrested, charged and even sentenced because of hunting. The law enforcement is often with defects in the long investigation proceedings. The involved Indigenous persons are thus imposed with great physical and mental pressures and their dignities are severely trampled. As to the system reform, the law amendment process is long delayed. The concepts of hunting culture and of animal protection are manipulated as conflicting against each other and thus opposition in public opinions is provoked. In addition, the current regulation on guns used for hunting requires the Indigenous hunters to use out of date and less safe guns that impose threat to the lives of safety of the hunters.

We would like to emphasize that, “culture” is not a stiff concept restricted to a set and fixed time period or space. “Culture” is with great diversity and evolves with time. In the discussion made in the UN system regarding biodiversity, it is already recognized that the preservation of cultural diversity is beneficial for the sustainability of biodiversity. However, the R.O.C. government has never taken this fact into consideration.

Fifth, President Tsai apologized to the Tao Peoples for restoring the nuclear waste on the Orchid Island and promised to investigate the decision making process, as well as compensating the Peoples.

However, although the amendments to the Electricity Act were adopted last week, and it is clear provided in the articles of the Electricity Act that the nuclear power plants will stop operation by 2025, the Legislative Yuan still failed to set up a date when the nuclear waste will be removed from the Orchid Island. Moreover, there was a legislator from the ruling party stated directly that “we can not lie about the thing impossible to fulfil.” We definitely can not accept that the Tsai administration only made an apology regarding how the previous government set up the nuclear waste storage plant in the Orchid Island by cheating the Tao Peoples, but with no actual plan and time schedule proposed to remove the nuclear waste.

Sixth, President Tsai promised to advance the name restoration of the Pinpu Indigenous Peoples and resume the status and rights of the various ethnic groups of the Pinpu Indigenous Peoples.

Up to now, although the Executive Yuan has promised to amend the relevant laws to include the Pinpu Indigenous Peoples into the officially recognized Indigenous Peoples, the decision making process was lack of the full and effective participation of the members of the Pinpu Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, there is no even a draft plan on how to identify individual members, communities, and Peoples/nations within various groups of the Pinpu Indigenous Peoples.

In fact, even after the inclusion of the Pinpu Indigenous Peoples, the Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan are still divided into three categories by the government, namely the Mountain Indigenous Peoples, the Plain-land Indigenous Peoples and the Pinpu Indigenous Peoples. These categories ignore the social realities and will of the various Indigenous Peoples/nations, and further lead to the differences and gap regarding rights implementation, for example, the right to political participation and right to land use. Indigenous Peoples’ subjectivity is thus violated as well.

Seventh, to respond to Indigenous Peoples’ claims on land rights, President Tsai promised to begin to delineate and announce Indigenous traditional territories and lands.

However, since most of the government departments are lack of the understanding on Indigenous Peoples’ cultures and social structures, they tend to identify the relation between Indigenous Peoples and lands as the concept of property or privatization. According to the draft Traditional Territories Delineation Act we can obtained so far, the articles ignore and misunderstand the fact that Indigenous Peoples traditional territories exist before the establishment of the state legal system and Indigenous Peoples thus are entitled with natural sovereignty. The Act therefore excludes private lands from the definition of traditional territories. Accordingly, Indigenous Peoples traditional territories are fragmented. What even more unacceptable is that the delineation of the traditional territories has to be approved by the land management department of the government. With these provisions, the mechanism of Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination is severely violated. What even worse is that it is possible to legitimate the improper and unjust development on Indigenous traditional territories and thus violated Indigenous Peoples’ right to survival.

Eighth, President Tsai promised to advance the process of several important legislations regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including lands, self-governance and languages. 

However, the process of drafting the legislations is still limited to the closed meeting of the administrative bureaucracy and selected experts and scholars. The members of the Indigenous Peoples only get to know about the legislations after the drafts were finalized. There is no possibility for the Indigenous persons to take part in the law drafting discussion. Indigenous Peoples’ Free, Prior and Informed Consent and right to full and effective participation are thus seriously violated.

Section Three: Our Demands

When it comes to Indigenous Peoples’ transitional Justice, it should be based on the concept of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to amend the existing laws and policies and to make the new laws and policies. Indigenous Peoples’ transitional justice would not be fulfilled with the mindset of superior majority and/or administrative bureaucracy.

Thus, regarding the abovementioned eight critical issues, we have the following joint demands,

First, when it comes to issue framing, the principles and spirits of the Two Covenants, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law shall be upheld. The obstacles and problems shall be identified with human rights-based approach and understood in accordance with Indigenous Peoples’ rights framework. The transitional justice process with no human rights concept has no possibility to truly resolve all the disputes and conflicts.

Second, all stages of the decision making and drafting process of legislations and policies shall respect the subjectivity of the Indigenous Peoples/nations and communities. Information distribution and trustworthy participation procedure shall be ensured. Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and right to full and effective participation shall be fulfilled. If Indigenous Peoples cannot effectively take part, there would hard to be with trust between the State and Indigenous Peoples, and accordingly, with no such trust, it would be difficult to achieve reconciliation.

Most importantly, the issues faced by Indigenous Peoples are actually the common challenges faced by the whole society in Taiwan. Just like the process of transitional justice, reconciliation is not only between the State and Indigenous Peoples, but the whole society shall understand and take part. Only so, it is possible to achieve reconciliation and coexistence. Currently, the reason why Indigenous Peoples’ rights cannot be implemented in many perspectives and there are many false policies made is that the major society failed to understand Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews, cultures and customs. Therefore, Indigenous Peoples, State government and the whole society shall all devote themselves into mutual dialogue and understanding.

Last but not least, we have to make a solemn appeal that the substantive implementation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights shall not be treated as the political achievement of a certain political party or any politician, neither as merely a task to be done carelessly like daily or routine chores by the administrative bureaucracy, nor as the bargaining chip used by political parties to battle, attack and defense against each other. The government shall be more open-minded and patient to carefully start the dialogue with Indigenous Peoples.

The joint statement of the four Indigenous Peoples’ Organization will end here. We are looking forward to the further dialogue and direct communication with the members of Review Committee, as well as the government representatives in the following days’ review sessions. Thank you very much.