He continued: "Regarded as "unclean hands" was the fact that the Plaintiffs disagreed as to the meaning of "development" which Mr. Tan had argued as meaning economic and job opportunities. Counsel had submitted that the Plaintiffs did not want to work and did not contract to plant and maintain trees. But the question then is at what wage?"

He added: "They are asked to be labourers of the 2^nd Defendants which cannot be better than the Plaintiffs farming their own temuda or getting a job for the same pay without the strenuous toil or doing their own business like selling gas. If they have refused, they have the right to do so and I do not see how such conduct of the Plaintiffs can be regarded as reprehensible as to debar them from obtaining any relief from the court."

The judge stressed that the Plaintiffs cannot also be faulted for demanding RM23,000 per acre in respect of the trees that had been felled from the disputed area... "(for) it is not only this generation of the Plaintiffs that stand to lose the benefits that could be derived from the forests but the generations yet to come and preservation of these forests become even more important when after 1958 no new native customary rights can be created."

According to Justice Chin, it remains to be seen whether the bond of the Ibans with the land, the jungles and the rivers can survive or be broken by the eventual crowding as a result of the growth of the population of a longhouse because there cannot be any more expansion of the pemakai menoa though the families of the longhouse may increase. "When you take this factor into consideration the RM100,000 plus demanded is just peanuts," he emphasised.

The judge showed utmost compassion and understanding for the Iban and their predicament: "The way of the Ibans is that the forest produce is to be exploited for their own use and not for sale. This situation can easily be exploited by merchants bribing them to accept what can be considered as token sums to give up the timber in the forest.

"It is illegal but then again in the face of licences being granted to timber concessionaires over areas which the Ibans claim native customary rights, what option do the Ibans have than to reap as much as possible from their capitulation."

"The Ibans can easily be persuaded to give up their rights in the face of licences issued to fell timber and titles to land being issued to farm the land. From what I have learned from this case tuai rumah can easily be tackled by the merchants to let logging be done for what is comparatively a pittance. When money is paid or demanded as a result, I do not see how I can condemn the Plaintiffs."

The counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants had also contended that since the younger Ibans usually work in town "the purpose of preserving the pulau galau for future generations would be redundant since these young people and their offspring are unlikely to go back to reside at their longhouse as they would have their own house in their place of work."

Justice Chin's response was: "Learned counsel, with all due respect, has very little knowledge of life in Sarawak. Go to any place where menial work has to be performed and you will find natives doing them. They form the majority of the very low income group. One cannot fail to see that after a short stay in Sarawak. How in the world such workers can afford to own a house is beyond my comprehension. With their wages, they cannot even afford to rent a room unless in a squatter colony."

The judge advised that it was very important when things fall apart there is still the longhouse to go back to and which is home. One development which the natives living in longhouse require is that education be easily accessible to them so that they can attain a level of education that enable them to earn an income higher than learned counsel's expectation of them, which is that of an uneducated labourer."

Justice Chin then went on to Mr. Tan's clients unfinished startling outlook on the life of an Iban", when they had contended that "the Ibans would have earned money by working, they could buy whatever they can get from the forests and there is no need for access to the forests for that purpose."

The judge dwelt at length as to why he disagreed with such an argument: "Learned counsel is wrongly assuming one thing for this contention and that is the superposition that all Ibans would be able to earn enough money to buy whatever necessities that they can obtain from the forests."

"The Iban society like all others have different stratum, from the very poor to the very rich. If learned counsel is referring to the rich or very Iban, then perhaps he is correct in saying that the Ibans do need to maintain forests to gather those produce since they can buy them easily."

"Can that be true of the poorer Ibans? Let us take an example of an Iban in Kuching earning RM500 a month, which is a figure I learned from the many divorce cases I have heard that a person can earn when his level of education is low."

"Let us say the wife has no job because she has to look after two school-going children. That family would be living below the 1997 Sarawak poverty level of RM543 (RM584 for 1999) (see table 3.2, page 58, of the Eight Malaysia plan 2001-2005)."

"Even a hundred or two more would still be close to the poverty line. Life is a struggle for them with insufficient money for the purchase of necessities. Worst of all, they would not have a home. Therefore, they still need the Ionghouse to go home to and the native customary rights to farm, fish, hunt and gather forest produce."

"Without the longhouse and its pemakai menoa, the economically poor Iban living in the urban area would be destitute. For the economically poor lbans, they will greatly need the galau or pulau galau for the forest produce and animals, the river for the fish and the temuda for farming and fallow if they are not to be vagabonds in their own land."

"As for the rich Iban, Mr Tan appears to suggest that they should forget about their heritage but that is against what everyone knows is the accepted practice of "going home" (commonly known to Malaysians under the Malay term "balik kempong'). Going home means going back to our root and Ibans are no different."

"Though they are rich, they will still go home to the longhouse and when you have a longhouse along with it, comes the native customary rights exercisable In its pemakai menoa. Therefore, it matters not the slightest that there are Ibans who are rich because wealth does not take away their native customary rights unless they chose to by pindah or abandonment."