Penan Community Member Urgently Calls Sarawak Premier To Halt Destructive Logging In Upper Baram
(Ba Data Bila, Sarawak) Today, a member of the Ba Data Bila community sent a letter to Premier Abang Johari, highlighting the urgency of the situation in the village due to threats by the logging company. Borneoland Timber Resources Sdn ('Borneoland') is currently clearing some of the last remaining primary forests inside the Suling-Selaan Protected Forest.
Facing ongoing deforestation and intensification of conflicts, community members who oppose logging have been forced to leave their homes and camp on their paddy fields, where they continue to resist the destruction of their lands. 'To protect our paddy fields and our last remaining forest, we have repeatedly set up a peaceful blockade along the logging road, including placing very clear signs asking for our land to be respected', states the letter. Despite these efforts, the logging operations persist, blockades have been dismantled, and community demands bluntly ignored.
In August 2024, over 500 Penan signed a petition urging authorities to intervene. However, their pleas have gone unanswered, and large-scale logging has continued unabated, with no regard for Indigenous rights or the environmental devastation being caused.
In the letter to SUHAKAM, the Penan states: 'Our community continues to strive to protect whatever remains of our customary forest. We are working to uphold our rights safely. We urgently need your support to uphold justice, human rights, and our right to live with dignity in our own territory.'
The letters call for immediate action to stop the destruction of the forest in Ba Data Bila caused by Borneoland. Further, it urges SUHAKAM and the Premier to immediately assess the environmental and social damage inflicted on the Penan territories and to launch a full investigation into potential human rights violations in the area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Te Pāti Māori Acknowledges 60 Years Of Self Government In Rarotonga
Te Pāti Māori wishes to acknowledge and celebrate our tuakana in Rarotonga today as they mark 60 years of self-government, a powerful milestone in their ongoing assertion of mana motuhake. We state unequivocally: we support Rarotonga's right to self-governance, their autonomy to lead themselves, and their commitment to shaping their own future while maintaining their whakapapa-based connection with Aotearoa. 'Our relationship with Rarotonga transcends politics' said Te Pāti Māori co leaders, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi. 'We are bound by whakapapa, a shared history carved across ocean waves, carried by our tīpuna who navigated the seas to unite our peoples.' Today, the Cook Islands is not only a sovereign nation upholding its own mana motuhake, it is a vital part of Aotearoa's economy and the wider Pacific diaspora. Our whakapapa, our labour, and our futures are deeply entwined. We share Prime Minister Brown's belief that our relationship is a living one, grounded in centuries old ancestral connection, stronger than any government. We stand in admiration of Rarotonga's determination to uphold their identity and sovereignty. Their unapologetic pursuit of self-governance is a testament to their strength and a powerful reminder of what is possible when Indigenous peoples are free to chart their own course. 'We have much to learn from our Cook Islands whanau' the co-leaders added. 'Their journey reinforces our own commitment to mana motuhake here in Aotearoa, to a future where Maori lead ourselves, make decisions for ourselves, and stand in full expression of who we are.' Te Pāti Māori proudly celebrates the people of Rarotonga today, past, present, and future, who have never wavered in their mission to remain true to themselves.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Empire In The Antipodes: Why The FBI's Wellington Office Is A Threat ToAotearoa
On 31 July 2025, the FBI officially opened its first standalone office in Aotearoa New Zealand, based in Wellington's U.S. Embassy. For most of the mainstream media, this development was reported with a mixture of bureaucratic neutrality and mild curiosity. For politicians, it was framed as a logical step in enhancing cooperation on 'transnational crime.' But for those of us grounded in anti-authoritarian, anti-imperialist traditions of resistance, the meaning is far clearer – this is a dangerous expansion of American imperial policing into the Pacific, an alarming deepening of New Zealand's entanglement with the global surveillance state, and a stark reminder that in the eyes of empire, no land is truly sovereign. This move is not about safety or justice but about extending the reach of capital and control through surveillance and soft occupation. The narratives of 'cybercrime' and 'child exploitation' are being used to justify foreign policing on Indigenous land, while drawing historical and contemporary connections to colonialism, Five Eyes hegemony, and capitalist control. Policing Beyond Borders The Federal Bureau of Investigation is, by legal definition, a domestic agency. It exists to enforce U.S. federal law on U.S. soil. Yet the FBI now operates over 60 Legal Attaché offices around the world, and the new Wellington branch has been upgraded to become one of them, tasked with responsibility not only for Aotearoa but also for Niue, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Tonga, and even Antarctica. This is a global policing project masquerading as international cooperation. The FBI has been present in New Zealand since 2017, managed through its Canberra office. What has changed is that now, the FBI is no longer a guest, it is a tenant with its own office, its own staff, and its own extraterritorial power. FBI Director Kash Patel's visit to New Zealand was not just administrative, it was ideological. At a press conference, he made clear that the new office was about 'countering the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in the Indo-Pacific.' While New Zealand ministers such as Winston Peters and Judith Collins quickly distanced themselves from this overt geopolitical framing, the cat was already out of the bag. The FBI is not just here to stop online paedophiles or drug traffickers. It is here to enforce the strategic goals of the American empire. The backlash was immediate. Beijing condemned the comments as provocative and destabilising. Thousands of Kiwis expressed their anger online. Some posted furious responses on social media. This is not a fringe reaction. It is the instinct of people who know, whether consciously or intuitively, that what is being done in their name is not for their protection but for their submission. Five Eyes, Many Lies To understand the danger of this moment, one must understand the Five Eyes. Formed as a post-war intelligence alliance between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the Five Eyes has become a sprawling surveillance machine. It is a central pillar of what Edward Snowden exposed as the modern panopticon, a world where the internet is weaponised to track, manipulate, and suppress populations in the name of 'national security.' In this context, the FBI's expansion is not a bureaucratic upgrade, it is an insertion of another gear in the machine. It deepens the convergence of policing, intelligence, and military strategy across the Anglosphere. It makes Aotearoa even more complicit in the surveillance of its own people and of Pacific nations long exploited by Western colonial powers. It also deepens our vulnerability. New Zealand has tried to maintain a strategic balance in its foreign relations – reliant on China as its biggest trading partner, aligned with the U.S. and UK through Five Eyes. This tightrope walk has always been fraught, but the FBI's presence risks turning it into a fall. Patel's anti-China statements not only escalated diplomatic tension, they forced New Zealand to pick a side in the increasingly dangerous theatre of U.S.- China competition. And that choice is being made without democratic consent. The FBI was not invited by the people of Aotearoa. It was welcomed in by a political class eager to please its imperial friends while hiding behind the language of public safety. The Carceral Smokescreen The official justification for the FBI's expansion rests on the pillars of 'transnational crime' – cyber intrusions, child exploitation, organised crime, and drug trafficking. These are serious issues. But serious problems do not justify authoritarian solutions. What we are witnessing is the use of moral panic to expand surveillance infrastructure and carceral logic. The FBI has a long and brutal history, not just of policing crime, but of repressing dissent. From the COINTELPRO operations that targeted civil rights leaders, Black radicals, and Indigenous activists, to the post-9/11 entrenchment of racial profiling and entrapment, the FBI has always served the preservation of white supremacist, capitalist, and imperial power. Its arrival in Aotearoa is not neutral. It is not humanitarian. It is not apolitical. It is the expansion of a violent institution that answers to a violent empire. Moreover, the notion that transnational crime is best tackled through foreign intelligence agencies ignores the real roots of harm. Why is organised crime flourishing? Because economic systems create desperation, exclusion, and inequality. Why are children exploited? Because patriarchal capitalism commodifies bodies and thrives on secrecy and silence. Why is cybercrime rampant? Because capitalism digitised the economy without care for consent, justice, or digital sovereignty. To address these harms, we do not need more spies. We need more justice, real, transformative, community-rooted justice. The FBI is not the answer. It is part of the problem. Pacific Subjugation, Again That the FBI's jurisdiction includes Niue, Tonga, Samoa, and the Cook Islands is not a coincidence, it is a strategy. The Pacific is being recolonised under the guise of security. With China increasing its presence in the region through economic partnerships and infrastructure projects, the U.S. is rushing to reassert dominance, not through aid or diplomacy, but through militarisation and surveillance. The FBI in Wellington will act as a regional hub, not just for information gathering, but for soft coercion. These nations, many still grappling with the legacies of colonisation and neo-colonial governance, are now being brought into the orbit of American law enforcement without meaningful consent or reciprocal benefit. This is not security. This is soft occupation. And it must be opposed. The People Say No One of the few hopeful elements in this bleak development has been the public response. Aotearoa is not asleep. Many see this for what it is, imperial overreach dressed in bureaucratic clothing. The protests, online and offline, speak to a population that still values sovereignty, autonomy, and transparency. As anarcho-communists, we believe in people power. We believe that real security comes not from surveillance but from solidarity. We believe that no foreign agency should operate on these lands without the consent of the people who live here, and that even then, true justice is built from the ground up, not imposed from above. The anger is growing, and it is righteous. But we must go beyond protest. We must organise. A Call to Resistance This moment is a call to action. The FBI's presence is only the most visible layer of a deeper system that treats Aotearoa and the Pacific as pawns in a geopolitical chess game. To resist this system, we must connect the dots. We must link the FBI to the NZ Police, to the SIS, to the Five Eyes, to the prison-industrial complex, to colonial land theft, to capitalism's extraction and surveillance economies. We must say not just 'No FBI', but also 'No prisons. No cops. No empires. No bosses.' We must demand an end to foreign policing and a beginning to something else, something rooted in mana motuhake, tino rangatiratanga, and collective liberation. The opening of an FBI office in Wellington is not an isolated event. It is a sign of a system expanding, a machine tightening its grip. But every expansion carries the seeds of its own opposition. The future we want will not be built by diplomats or directors. It will be built by us, together, from below, in defiance of the states and empires that seek to divide and dominate us. Let this be our line in the sand. We were not born to be watched. We were born to be free. AOTEAROA WORKERS SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT aotearoa_anarchism@
Newsroom
6 days ago
- Newsroom
What NZ's industrial policy can learn from the Aussies
Opinion: I recently spent a few days at the Institute of Australian Geographers' annual conference in Newcastle. In these straitened times, academics are increasingly (and quite rightly) asked to justify such travel, but I learned a lot from four days listening to Australian academics. Though thinking like an Australian is not something I have ever considered, save maybe as a curse endured by Aussies, it turns out there might be more to it than meets the eye. Edgy Aussie scholarship New Zealand's small contingent of academic and student geographers held their own in Newcastle, but in a shrinking number of fields and often with a less edgy scholarliness than their Australian counterparts. New Zealanders addressed some of the changes in our places and brought matters of care, concern, and Indigenous rights and perspectives to bear on local and national political debates. Many explored initiatives to strengthen participatory management and collaborative governance within and beyond the state. Australia's geographers introduced similar research to do with changing places and environments in Australia, and some also asked sharply critical questions about worlds near and far. There were papers, for example, on climate-driven economic and social collapse, detailed analyses of the geography of industrial and labour market change, the intergenerational trauma of warfare, and the border-bending effects of airborne policing of migrant boats in the Mediterranean. What all this told me is that I should harden my resolve to struggle against initiatives within and beyond my own university that I believe put universities' scholarly traditions at risk. These must be safeguarded as we pursue ways of weaving scholarship more effectively into public service. We owe this to the scholars, intellectuals, artists, discoverers, global diplomats, prophets of peace and so on – the products of our universities whose intellectual achievements we all celebrate as core to our nation. As they do in Australia. Economic powerhouse Just being in Australia was a reminder that we live 3.5 hours away from a global economic powerhouse. Our size, resource base, history, and distance from other places limits our capacity to be more like Australia. Nor can we model ourselves on Denmark, Singapore, Israel, Ireland, or Finland (the Government's comparator-du-jour). However, thinking more deeply as a geographer, making more of our proximity to Australia is a no-brainer. Despite celebrating and reaffirming our ties to Australia every 10 years on the anniversary of the Closer Economic Relations agreement, there is little evidence between those celebrations of us making any strategic leveraging of our closeness to Australia. It rarely surfaces in either mundane political debates or longer-term strategic policy. Being in Australia brought that home to me. Futures made in Australia I attended a session at the conference in which economic geographers debated the 'Future Made in Australia' policy, a 10-year, A$23 billion green transitions programme. The session celebrated a return to industrial policy in Australia after 35 years of neoliberalism, but it also asked some serious questions about contradictory objectives. For instance, panellists asked whether in its implementation the policy's transitions objectives were already being compromised by infrastructural investment to underpin a new round of resource industries. They asked how big infrastructural projects would boost an industrial ecosystem dominated by small to medium-sized firms. They asked how the policy would deal with the problems of transitioning regional workforces to the skills required of digital industries, and whether the policy would arrest the drift of regional populations to the cities, and even whether this was a desirable or appropriate goal. Australia's geographers plotted the research-led investigations necessary to address these questions – before the futures to be made turn into the mistakes of a past relived. These are precisely the questions that animated economic geography as a sub-discipline before economic policy was captured by the failed imaginaries of decades of neoliberal globalisation. Don't worry, people are mobile labour units, and their lives will be resolved and their potential maximised by competitive markets. Wrong and wrong – as geographers knew then and the Trumpian moment illustrates now, in so many ways. One long-term collaborator asked me what the debate was like across the Tasman. 'We don't have these debates,' I said with some embarrassment. 'The best we have in terms of industrial policy is 'Grow, baby, grow'.' In the interest of national pride, I omitted to add, 'as for a transitions agenda, regions, or labour-force skills, the current policy appears to be replacing regional government with a squadron of space police'. Universities as infrastructure In another session, urban geographer Kristian Ruming laid out a framework for assessing the crucial part played by universities in urban and national economy and society. He described universities as crucial resources of urban and national infrastructure – physical and cultural hubs that shape, provide, and deliver diverse social, cultural, economic, informational, educational, and knowledge foundations for cities and nations. As with other infrastructure, universities facilitate flows of, and access to, utilities, goods, people, and ideas. They are essential to sustaining contemporary social life, and they create opportunities to imagine, produce and enjoy better futures. Ruming also argued that universities were rarely understood in these terms. Instead, universities were being reinterpreted as solvers of state problems, as unnecessarily expensive government-funded industry training establishments, or centres for the cultivation of privileged discontent that must be squashed. Universities deliver so much more. Governments are right to demand public accountability from universities, but this demand should begin by recognising the full breadth of universities' infrastructural value. What I learned in Newcastle will enhance my teaching, research and institutional service. I'm confident it will yield more than the cost of a few hours' advice from a Big Four consultant on what to do with our universities or our country. The point is not that we must be like Australia, but that there is value in thinking like Australia, at least for a moment. We cannot be big, brash, and part of crucial global circuits of finance, resources, and geopolitical concern. But we can support our universities to debate and confront who we are and who we are not, how we should build our economy, and how we might imagine ourselves into creative and self-assured economic, cultural and political subjects. Our policy suite is more constrained than Australia's, but it ought to build on remembering who we have been and what we have done and celebrating what we have become, to imagine and invest in unfolding futures. This need not mean rejecting growth or embracing without question global tech entrepreneurs, but it should mean some thinking and must mean something more than 'growth' for its own sake, exporting resources, or scrambling for spittle from the slavering jaws of the tech bros. Matariki is the season for this kind of thinking. A time to task our universities with leading us on a journey of 'Future Made in Aotearoa'.
