Sabah dan Sarawak adalah BERSTATUS NEGARA dan bukannya Negeri.

Sabah dan Sarawak adalah sebuah Negara yang MERDEKA DAN BERDAULAT yang mana kedua - dua NEGARA ini telah bersama-sama dengan Singapura dan Malaya untuk membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia pada 16 September 1963.

Happy Sabah (North Borneo) Independence Day 51 Years

Sabah or previously known as North Borneo was gained Independence Day from British on August 31, 1963. To all Sabahan, do celebrate Sabah Merdeka Day with all of your heart!

Sarawak For Sarawakian!

Sarawak stand for Sarawak! Sarawakian First. Second malaysian!

The Unity of Sabah and Sarawak

Sabah dan Sarawak adalah Negara yang Merdeka dan Berdaulat. Negara Sabah telah mencapai kemerdekaan pada 31 Ogos 1963 manakala Negara Sarawak pada 22 Julai 1963. Sabah dan Sarawak BUKAN negeri dalam Malaysia! Dan Malaysia bukan Malaya tapi adalah Persekutuan oleh tiga buah negara setelah Singapura dikeluarkan daripada persekutuan Malaysia.

Sign Petition to collect 300,000 signatures

To all Sabahan and Sarawakian... We urge you to sign the petition so that we can bring this petition to United Nations to claim our rights back as an Independence and Sovereign Country for we are the Nations that live with DIGNITY!

Decedent of Rajah Charles Brooke

Jason Desmond Anthony Brooke. The Grandson of Rajah Muda Anthony Brooke, and Great Great Grandson of Rajah Charles Brooke

A true Independence is a MUST in Borneo For Sabah and Sarawak.

Sabah (formerly known as North Borneo) and Sarawak MUST gain back its Freedom through a REAL Independence.

Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts

Wednesday, 18 September 2024

Demonstrasi Aman di Parlimen Victoria Australia Menuntut Penamatan Penjajahan Malaya terhadap Borneo


Melbourne, 15 September 2024
 – Satu demonstrasi aman telah diadakan hari ini di luar Parlimen Victoria, dengan para penunjuk perasaan menyeru perhatian antarabangsa terhadap penjajahan negara-negara Borneo—Sabah dan Sarawak—oleh Malaya (kini dikenali sebagai Malaysia) sejak 16 September 1963. Demonstrasi ini dianjurkan oleh beberapa NGO dan salah satunya ialah Mosses PA Ampang, Presiden Republik Sabah North Borneo, sebuah NGO yang berdaftar di Victoria, Australia, dan bertujuan untuk mendapatkan sokongan global dalam menangani rungutan politik dan wilayah yang telah lama dihadapi oleh rakyat Borneo.

Protes ini memperingati ulang tahun hari di mana pada tahun 1963, Malaya, atas alasan membentuk "Malaysia," meluaskan sempadan politiknya untuk memasukkan Sabah dan Sarawak. Para penunjuk perasaan berhujah bahawa tiada negara baru yang dibentuk pada hari tersebut; sebaliknya, ia merupakan peluasan strategik kawalan Malaya ke atas Borneo. Dalam ucapannya, Ampang menyatakan, “Pembentukan Malaysia yang kononnya berlaku adalah satu muslihat politik yang dilakukan melalui paksaan, penipuan, dan tanpa persetujuan rakyat Borneo. Tiada referendum yang pernah diadakan, menjadikan ia satu penjajahan yang tidak sah ke atas tanah kami.”

Menurut Ampang dan para penunjuk perasaan, Perjanjian Malaysia 1963, yang membenarkan penjajahan ini, adalah batal dan tidak sah sejak awal (ab initio). Pandangan ini disokong oleh preseden antarabangsa seperti kes Kepulauan Chagos, yang memutuskan bahawa koloni tidak mempunyai kapasiti untuk menandatangani perjanjian antarabangsa atas nama mereka sendiri. Ampang turut menekankan bahawa North Borneo dan Sarawak tidak pernah menjadi pihak dalam Perjanjian Malaysia, dengan Peguam Kerajaan British di Sarawak ketika itu turut mengakui bahawa penyertaan Borneo dalam Malaysia hanya untuk tujuan persembahan. "Perjanjian Malaysia hanyalah perjanjian dua hala antara Britain dan Malaya, yang mengenepikan hak rakyat Borneo untuk menentukan masa depan mereka sendiri," kata Ampang.

Demonstrasi ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan kesedaran di kalangan rakyat Australia dan masyarakat antarabangsa mengenai tuntutan keadilan oleh rakyat Borneo. "Rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak berhak untuk mendapatkan kemerdekaan, dan mereka perlu diberi peluang untuk meluahkan hak demokratik mereka," kata Ampang, sambil menyeru penamatan apa yang beliau anggap sebagai “penjajahan Malaya” ke atas negara-negara Borneo. Beliau menambah, "Demonstrasi aman ini adalah satu seruan untuk mendapatkan sokongan antarabangsa bagi mendesak Malaysia supaya menghormati hak-hak rakyat Borneo. Sudah tiba masanya untuk keadilan, dan dunia perlu berdiri bersama kami."

Acara ini menggariskan usaha berterusan oleh NGO Republik Sabah North Borneo dan kumpulan-kumpulan kemerdekaan Borneo lain untuk menimbulkan kesedaran tentang konteks sejarah dan politik seputar Perjanjian Malaysia. Ampang dan para penunjuk perasaan menegaskan semula tuntutan mereka agar komuniti antarabangsa mengakui ketidaksahan perjanjian tersebut dan mencari penyelesaian aman yang menghormati hak rakyat Borneo untuk menentukan nasib mereka sendiri.

Ketika demonstrasi berakhir, para penganjur menegaskan komitmen mereka untuk terus memperjuangkan kemerdekaan Sabah dan Sarawak, sambil menggesa badan-badan antarabangsa untuk campur tangan dan memberi sokongan yang diperlukan bagi menamatkan apa yang mereka anggap sebagai penjajahan yang tidak adil.

Monday, 10 July 2023

Sabah Self-Determination and Validity of Malaysia Agreement 1963 Questioned by NGOs

KOTA KINABALU: In a joint statement issued today, the Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) international NGO and the Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopimafo) NGO, along with other political parties, NGOs and individuals, expressed their support for former law minister Tan Sri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar's assertion of the right of the Sabah people to self-determination. They also raised questions about the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the process through which Sabah and Sarawak joined the federation of Malaysia.

SSRANZ President Robert Pei and Bopimafo President Daniel John Jambun commended Tan Sri Wan Junaidi for his speech at the Sabah Colloquium on 4 July 2023, where he emphasized the right of nations to self-determination. They highlighted that self-determination is an inalienable legal right recognized by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR) 1514, which allows colonies to determine their destiny and political independence without foreign interference.

On the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Malaysia Agreement (MA63), the NGO leaders raised concerns about whether the people of Sabah and Sarawak have truly achieved self-determination and the promised development progress and prosperity. They disagreed with the notion that the Cobbold Commission of Enquiry's findings, indicating two-thirds of the people supported integration into Malaysia, constituted a valid exercise of self-determination.

The NGO leaders pointed out that the Cobbold Commission's findings were based on a selective survey of opinions rather than a referendum under UNGAR 1541. They stressed that the commission's report was not legally binding and did not fulfill the requirements for a free choice or self-determination by the people in accordance with UNGAR 1541. The commission was merely an inquiry and not a proper referendum, which was necessary for the people to express their wishes on the federation question.

They further criticized the composition of the Cobbold Commission, consisting of British and Malayan officials, which they considered a conflict of interest. The NGO leaders argued that the commission's purpose was to facilitate the implementation of the Malaysia concept, denying the people of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak their right to genuine self-determination and independence.

The NGO leaders also highlighted the Manila Accord signed between the Malayan, Indonesian, and Philippine governments, which called for a United Nations assessment of the people's wishes on Malaysia and the resolution of the Sulu Claim on Sabah. By accepting the terms of the Accord, the British and Malayan governments indirectly acknowledged that the people's consent had not been properly obtained through a referendum.

The statement by SSRANZ and Bopimafo emphasized that the Cobbold Commission's report was not a legally binding document and should not be considered a substitute for a proper referendum. They contended that the report, along with the entire process leading to the Malaysia Agreement 1963, was tainted with illegalities and used to legitimize Malaysia's formation.

The NGO leaders concluded that the lack of real self-determination for Sabah and Sarawak was evident by the ongoing Sulu Claim, which still challenges Sabah's sovereignty. They argued that a proper referendum in 1963, as advocated by the Philippines, could have resolved the claim and allowed the people of Sabah to choose between Malaysia, independence, or another state.

The statement by SSRANZ and Bopimafo, raises significant concerns about the historical context and legal basis of Sabah's integration into Malaysia. As the debate on Sabah's self-determination continues, it remains to be seen how the Malaysian government and relevant stakeholders will address these issues and ensure the rightful representation of the Sabah people's aspirations and interests.

The SSRANZ and Bopimafo Presidents said in conclusion, there was no real self-determination for Sabah or Sarawak is highlighted by the fact that Sulu claim is still alive and continues to be asserted by the claimants. The resolution of the claim could have been achieved in a proper referendum in 1963 whereby the Sabah people were seen to have cast a vote to choose Malaysia, Philippines or independence. 

The late Philippines Diosdado Macapagal said in 1982: “In laying claim to North Borneo in pursuance of the legal and historic rights and the security interests of the Philippines, we recognize the cardinal principle of self-determination of which the Philippines has been a steadfast adherent. 

In the prosecution, of our valid claim, it is agreeable to us that at an appropriate time, the people of North Borneo should be given an opportunity to determine whether they would wish to be independent or whether they would wish to be a part of the Philippines or be placed under another state. 

Such referendum, however, should be authentic and bona fide by holding it under conditions, preferably supervised by the United Nations that would insure effective freedom to the people of North Borneo to express their true and enlightened will.”

The joint statement received endorsements from various political parties, NGOs and individuals, including Doris Jones of the Sabah Sarawak Union, Lina Soo, President of ASPIRASI, Voon Lee Shan, President of Parti Bumi Kenyalang and Mosses Paul Anap, President of the Republic of Sabah North Borneo NGO. The signatories collectively questioned the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and called for a reevaluation of the process through which Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia.

Robert Pei

President SSRANZ 

Daniel Jambun
President of the Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopimafo).

Mosses Paul Anap
President of NGO- Republic of Sabah North Borneo

Emily Elvera Edward
Woman Council Office & Secretariat.
Sabah Sarawak Borneo Natives Organisation Incorporated of Australia.

Endorsed by: NGOS & individuals

1. Doris Jones Sabah Sarawak Union – SSU

2. Kanul Gindol Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society

3. Ricky Ganang Penasihat Persatuan Kebudayaan Orang Darat Sabah 

4. Jovilis Majami President Persatuan  pembangunan sosial komunity Sabah (BANGUN)

5. Wainin Setimin President Pertubuhan Prihatin Mualaf Sabah 

6. Cleftus Stephen Mojingol President Pertubuhan Kebudayaan Rumpun Dayak Sabah.

8. PBK Life President- Yu Chin Lik

9. PBK President- Voon Lee Shan

10. Lina Soo - ASPIRASI President

11. Peter John Jaban-Deputy President for Global Human Rights Federation Borneo.

12. Alim Ga Mideh for Bulang Birieh Dayak

13. Lawrance Clement Ahsay for Bulang Dayak Bukit Kelingkang

14. Buln Ribos- Sarawak Rights activist


Reference:

The Vibes: Sabahans Self-Determination Trumps Any Treaty_Wan Junaidi

Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Exit Malaysia, GPS urged after data on Sarawak oil and gas reserves denied

KUCHING: Petronas has no right to keep the Sarawak government in the dark about the amount of oil and gas reserves in Sarawak, Parti Bumi Kenyalang president Voon Lee Shan said.

He said this following Sarawak Chief Minister Abang Johari Openg’s claim that Petronas had refused to disclose any data or information on the state’s oil and gas reserve to the state government.

“Petronas also has no right to keep the Sarawak government in the dark about the amount of oil and gas pumped or extracted each day.

“Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) should take this as a legitimate excuse to seek exit or declare Sarawak independent from the federation of Malaysia,” Voon said at a press conference here today.
He said the GPS government should know that with “economic suppression and political differences”, international law could allow Sarawak to break away from the federation.

“Sarawak can do this by a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), similar to Kosovo from Serbia in 2008,” he said.

Voon said the exploitation of the state’s oil and gas resources by the federal government through Petronas had “cut” into the hearts of every Sarawakian.

He urged the GPS government to not negotiate, discuss or raise this matter with Putrajaya any longer but to call for an emergency state assembly sitting to declare Sarawak independent with immediate effect.

Voon, a practicing lawyer, said all laws passed by Parliament to shift the continental shelf or coastlines of Sarawak for the purpose of allowing Petronas to take Sarawak’s oil and gas were against international law.

“Any territorial shift is an infringement of the international law which states that an existing boundary of a colony or country merging with another cannot be changed.

“The passing of the Sea Territorial Act 2012 and the Continental Shelf Act 1966, including the Petroleum Development Act 1974, not being ratified by the state legislature is also unconstitutional,” he said.

Voon said the spirit and purpose of Malaysia, which was supposed to be founded on equal rights, equal status, an equal partnership, were not present.

“Malaysia is not a new nation but is, according to the records in the United Nations, a country called Malaya which on Sept 16, 1963, took a new name after Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak became part of the territory of Malaya.

“Malaysia’s first premier Tunku Abdul Rahman had mentioned in a book titled ‘Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman’ written by Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad that Sabah and Sarawak were ‘gifts’ by Britain to Malaya,” he said.

Voon said it was not the Borneo founding fathers’ intention on the formation of Malaysia to see Sabah and Sarawak become “Malaya’s colony”.

Monday, 12 August 2019

Dr M: We’ll take action under Sedition Act if call for Sarawak’s secession threatens public order

KUCHING: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has told Parliament that action will only be taken under the Sedition Act against those who call for Sarawak’s secession from Malaysia if they jeopardised public order and security.

The prime minister said this was in line with the government’s policy to promote freedom of speech, Malaysiakini reported today.

“In line with the government’s policy to promote freedom of speech as per Item 1 of Article 10 in the Federal Constitution, the use of provisions under the Sedition Act will only be utilised in cases where an act of sedition creates a situation that is beyond control that it jeopardises the security and public order,” he said.

Dr Mahathir was reported to have said this in a written reply to DAP’s Lanang MP Alice Lau, which was released in Parliament yesterday.

Lau had asked what action the government could take against those who call for Sarawak’s secession and if such secession is allowed by the Federal Constitution and Malaysia Agreement 1963.

Dr Mahathir also said several other laws under the Penal Code, including Section 121 for waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, could be used if it involved an act or the preparation for an act of violence, such as the use of firearms.

According to the written reply, there was also no provision under the Federal Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 or the Inter-Governmental Committee Report that touched on any rights by Sabah and Sarawak to secede from Malaysia.

Dr Mahathir pointed out that the right to secede from Malaysia was also not suggested for the terms in Malaysia’s formation, as could be seen in the Cobbold Commission Report.

Source: Borneo Post

Monday, 22 July 2019

Independence an option if Putrajaya fails to return Sarawak’s rights, says NGO

KUCHING: Independence is always an option if Putrajaya refuses to return Sarawak’s rights, Sarawak Association for Peoples’ Aspiration (Sapa) president Dominique Ng said.

“We are not just talking about the 20% oil royalty. We are talking about taking back everything that is rightfully ours,” he said after the Sarawak’s independence day celebration at Kuching’s Central Padang today.

Ng said many Sarawakians, including the youths, have started to realise the importance for Sarawak to have its say in running its affairs.

“We are not trying to be seditious. We are talking about gaining our freedom, which is supported by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples).

“Sarawak was guaranteed self governance under article 8 of the 9th Cardinal Principles by the last Rajah Sarawak in 1946.

“This is a constitutional right granted by our last Rajah,” he said, adding that Sarawak has been known to be a sovereign country for 100 years.

However, Ng said Sabah and Sarawak have been “downgraded” to the 12th and 13th states in Malaysia.

He said the “colonial masters were changed on Sept 16 from Great Britain to the Federation of Malaya”.

“This is a sad reality which many people had failed to understand,” he said.

Earlier, Ng thanked the Sarawak government for approving its application to hold the event at the Central Padang.

“This is the first time that they have granted Sapa a permit to organise Sarawak’s independence day.

“Today’s event has been a tremendous success even though it was raining since early morning,” he said.

The event, attended by hundreds of supporters, was jointly organised by Sapa, the Dayak National Congress, Solidariti Anak Sarawak and Sarawak for Sarawakians.

The activities included the singing of Sarawak’s anthem, “Fairland Sarawak”, followed by the raising of the Sarawak flag.

There were also a tug-of-war contest, poem recital and release of balloons.

Thursday, 31 August 2017

Sarawak will announce Petros concessions as soon as GE14 is called, says analyst

Professor James Chin delivers the lecture 'The Malaysian Federation: Views from East Malaysia", yesterday evening. – The Malaysian Insight pic, August 29, 2017.
SARAWAK is expected to publicise oil concessions, having settled a legal question over ownership of a continental shelf off its shores, as soon as the general election is called, said a prominent political analyst.

Professor James Chin, director at the Asia Institute at the University of Tasmania, was speaking on newly-formed state oil company  Petroleum Sarawak Bhd (Petros), whose board members were announced by the state government last Friday.

"Sarawak recently set up Petros because it is preparing for the day the federal government will recognise that the continental shelf belongs to Sarawak, so there's a commercial entity ready to take over immediately.

"But the reason why all this is not announced because the election is not yet announced. Once the election is announced, all these concessions will be announced to the public," he said. 


Chin spoke at a lecture, "The Malaysian Federation: Views from East Malaysia", organised by the Jeffery Cheah Institute on Southeast Asia at Sunway University yesterday evening.

On the recently publicised Sarawak-sponsored trip to London to obtain documents regarding the Malaysia Agreement 1963, Chin said it would yield little else aside from clarity on ownership of the continental shelf.

"The important thing to remember is that the only legal document is the Malaysia Act. What they actually went to London for was to look at background papers. They were trying to understand the process of how all the reports were drafted. Who said what and all that sort of thing. 

"But legally speaking, the background papers have no meaning... What's important is the actual agreement signed. They're looking for the background papers and what they discovered was that; yes, there was a decision taken by the British government that says that the continental shelf belongs to the states of Sarawak and Sabah."

Last year, the Bornean states each set up a technical committee on the devolution of authority. At the federal level, a parallel committee is headed by foreign minister Anifah Aman, brother of Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman. 

"So the (technical committees) are actually a good start. But the thing is that they have yet to hold any public hearing and I feel that public hearings are very important to get the pulse of the people, what they think of this issue," Chin said. 

He added that there were three groups of people with varying opinions on autonomy in East Malaysia.  

"The first one is very simple to understand. It has got a huge Facebook presence. It's called Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia. We are fed up, nothing is happening. No point to negotiations. Bye-bye. 

"The second group is the other polarity, which is we've not done too badly. It's a question of tweaking the Federation to get a better deal. 

"And of course, the third group are the fence sitters, who, depending on the issue, will fall either way. But there is also a unique political class in Sabah and Sarawak. The elites there. They've basically not changed since independence. They also, themselves, must come to a consensus. 

Chin said the political class should return to the 20- and 18-point agreements submitted by the Cobbold Commission to "maybe come to sort of a bare minimum... in terms of moving forward."

He added that East Malaysians should not hope for constitutional amendments.

"The federal government, or basically Umno, is not willing to make any constitutional changes. When they talk about devolution of power, they're talking administrative power given to the capitals of Kuching and Kota Kinabalu to decide. An example of that is the selection of teachers. 

"The federal government is willing to negotiate everything except secession. They do not actually mind passing back some of the powers. Because Umno is not in Sarawak and in Sabah, Umno is sort of in name only. They require the MPs from both sides in order to stay in power. So they're quite willing to negotiate. It doesn't cost them a lot, in terms of regulation and internal administrative matters, to push these powers back to Sabah and Sarawak," he said.

Chin said autonomy is a highly "emotive issue" for East Malaysians. 

"But we should not allow history to hold us back. Although we should learn to understand the MSCC (Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee) process, the Cobbold Commission process, the IGC (Inter-Governmental Committee process report), they should actually be used as a historical starting point. But they should not be used as the final point to negotiate. 

"What Sabah and Sarawak would get largely would depend on the political consensus in the individual states of Sabah and Sarawak and only if they come to a clear agreement, like what Sarawak is doing now. A clear agreement, that they must assert themselves. They will get a better deal from Putrajaya," Chin said. 

Chin said East Malaysians seeking autonomy did not have the luxury of time.  

"A final point that I want to make is that the window of opportunity for Sabah and Sarawak to do something about the state of the Federation, as they understand it, is limited to five-year cycles. 

"In other words, in the next election, if Umno does very well on this side (Peninsular Malaysia) and it doesn't really need Sabah and Sarawak to stay in power, then they're back to square one. So the window of opportunity is actually very, very limited," he said. 

Chin added that Barisan Nasional will pick up "a minimum 31 to 32" seats out of a total of 57 seats in East Malaysia, including Labuan. 

"If they fall below that, please SMS me quickly," he said. – August 29, 2017.

Sabah DAP’s No. 2 quits

KEPAYAN assemblyman Dr Edwin Bosi has quit from DAP and resigned as Sabah DAP deputy chairman due to differences with state party chairman Stephen Wong.

In a statement today, Edwin said he had submitted his resignation letter to Sabah DAP secretary on August 24.

“After consulting with leaders of Penampang DAP branch, I decided to tender my resignation as a member of DAP and also as Sabah DAP deputy chairman effective August 31.

“As deputy chairman, my difference with chairman Stephen Wong is miles apart. It is only fair that as reconciliation is not possible, I have to withdraw to allow the harmony within DAP Sabah to persist. The failed 'Shanghai handshake' is the cornerstone of my decision to leave.


“Indeed, the Sabah DAP Committee under Stephen Wong had at first wanted to sack me. Then, I was referred to the DAP National Disciplinary Committee which handed down a three-month suspension (ends tomorrow) on me without even calling me to defend myself before the said committee,” he added.

However, Edwin said he bore no grudges against DAP and the national leaders.

“For now I will remain as an independent lawmaker until I decide on a local political party that will fight and struggle for the indigenous people and the people of Sabah,” he said. – Bernama, August 30, 2017.

Source: The Malaysian Insight

Thursday, 20 October 2016

Jeffrey: CM ignoring requests for help from Opposition reps

He says the people are fully aware that development of infrastructure in Sabah is the responsibility of the government of the day.

KOTA KINABALU: A longtime Borneo rights advocate has charged that the Sabah Government, in particular Chief Minister Musa Aman, has not responded to requests from Opposition lawmakers for development aid.

“In the Sabah Legislative Assembly, Opposition members have repeatedly spoken up on the need for development, improvements, repairs and maintenance,” Bingkor Assemblyman Jeffrey Kitingan said in a statement.

“The BN, as the current government, has a moral and legal duty to respond,” the Parti Solidariti Tanah Airku (Star) president said.

Unfortunately, Jeffrey said the suggestions and appeals had not been acted upon by the BN Government.

He warned that the writing is on the wall for BN.

“Its days as the state government are numbered.

“The government should respect the demands of the rakyat, made through their elected representatives.”

Jeffrey said it was “sad” BN leaders continued with their “lies and deception” to fool the people.

The BN claims the Opposition is unable to bring development.”

He said it was fortunate that the rakyat were “no longer fools to be duped time and again” by BN leaders.

“They are fully aware that development is the responsibility of the government of the day.”

If one were to traverse the whole of Sabah, it is obvious the BN Government has failed to properly develop Sabah, he continued.

“There’s a lack of clean treated water, electricity and good roads. Sealed roads are not properly maintained.”

He cited the Sepulut-Kalabakan highway as an example. “It is in a bad state even though it was just completed a few years ago.”

The rights advocate pointed out that the chief minister had to go to Pagalungan in Pensiangan, by helicopter to attend a function earlier this week.

“If he had travelled by road, it would have taken him at least two hours to reach Pergalungan. If it had rained, he would have difficulty getting there on the gravel road.”

The BN Government has failed to properly develop Sabah, he summed up.

“It’s the poorest state in Malaysia with 40 per cent of the poor in the country.”

Even Sabah rights, written in the Federal Constitution, have been totally ignored for the past 50 years, he said.

“This includes Sabah’s revenue rights for the past 47 years.”

Jambun pushes for forum on 1976 amendment

Human rights advocate says constitutional experts like Shad Faruqi, Tommy Thomas, Azmi Sharom and Gurdial Singh should be a part of the forum.

KOTA KINABALU: A human rights advocate in Borneo has suggested that constitutional experts in the country participate in a forum to discuss the status of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia.

Daniel John Jambun made this call after expressing surprise that a constitutional expert stated the obvious on Article 1 in the Federal Constitution (FC) instead of offering novel insights on law.

“Everyone knows how Article 1 has read since 1976,” said Jambun in a telephone interview. “The issue, as raised by Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem, was to restore Article 1 to its pre-1976 status.”

Jambun, who heads the UK-based Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopim), said that he has also been left wondering why Aziz Bari thinks that getting a two-thirds majority in Parliament to amend Article 1 would be difficult.

“If MPs want to deny Sabah and Sarawak their rights, the Federal Court can sit on the matter,” he said. “The Federal Court should also visit the definition of Federation in Article 160.”

The human rights advocate elsewhere begs to differ with the constitutional lawyer implying the 1976 amendment could only have been challenged then.

“There’s no time limit when it’s a continuing breach,” he said. “Besides, the Malaysian Parliament cannot violate the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).”

Jambun, in disagreeing with Aziz, suggested he get together with other constitutional experts on the status of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia. “It’s in their professional interest as well to explore this issue.”

“Bopim can work on bringing together sponsors for a public forum on the issue,” he assured. “We can invite some international experts like Andrew Harding and Anthony Lester, among others.”

Offhand, he can recall several local constitutional experts, namely Shad Faruqi, Tommy Thomas, Azmi Sharom and Gurdial Singh.

“There might be others out there Aziz can invite,” said Jambun.

Briefly, he said, the 1976 amendment is inherently null and void as if there had been no amendment. “The original Article 1 still stands as the amendment violates MA63.”

The sovereignty of Parliament, he stressed, was confined to its five year term. “No Parliament can be bound by a previous Parliament or bind a future Parliament.”

MA63 is an international agreement and treaty signed by five governments – the UK, Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya – and lodged with the United Nations Secretary-General, reminded the Bopim chief. “It’s virtually a trust deed and above the Malaysian Parliament.”

Under the Malaysian system, he pointed out, the Federal Constitution is supreme, not Parliament. “The Federal Constitution cannot be seen as going against itself.”

MA63 is a constitutional document and should be read together with the other constitutional documents on Malaysia and the Federal Constitution , said Jambun. “The Federal Constitution cannot be read in isolation. 

That’s what Aziz did on Article 1 post-1976.”

Star President Jeffrey Kitingan supports Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem's call for Putrajaya to rectify 'past mistakes'.

KOTA KINABALU: The time has come for “past mistakes” to be rectified if the Federation was to survive and move forward, Sabah opposition politician Jeffrey Kitingan said in a statement today.

Calling the 1976 constitutional amendment a mistake, and which should be reversed, he said: “The original basis for the formation of Malaysia should be restored.”

Jeffrey also pointed out that the original status was reflected in the 1963 Federal Constitution.

If the Federation of Malaya and Putrajaya does not do so, he cautioned, it’s only appropriate and fair that Sabah and Sarawak should be given the option.

“Obviously, it (Federal government) does not wish to honour the basis for the formation of Malaysia,” he lamented.

Jeffrey, who is Bingkor Assemblyman and Star President, was commenting on a statement by Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem on the 1976 constitutional amendment.

Adenan dismissed the amendment, which had reduced the status of Sabah and Sarawak to that of the 12th and 13th states in Malaysia, saying it was “null and void” as it had contravened the original Malaysia Agreement 1963.

“The Federation of Malaya (the peninsula) was now masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia.

“The Federal Government had no business amending the Constitution in 1976.

“It smells of a vicious and sinister plot to colonize Sabah and Sarawak and ‘steal’ their resources and wealth,” Jeffrey said.

Referring to the Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak that was establised in 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia, Jeffrey said the chairman of the Commission, Lord Cameron Cobbold, was generally against the idea.

“He had stated in 1962 that Malaysia would not, in his judgement, be generally acceptable or successful.

“He also forewarned that Malaysia would involve firstly the takeover of the Borneo Territories by the Federation of Malaya, and secondly, the submersion of the individualities of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak,” Jeffrey said.

The other four members of the Cobbold Commission were then chief minister of Penang, Wong Pow Nee; then permanent secretary to the ministry of foreign affairs Malaya, Mohammed Ghazali Shafie; former governor of Sarawak, Anthony Abell; and former chief secretary of Malaya, David Watherston.

“If the founding fathers in Borneo knew in 1963 that Sabah and Sarawak would join the Federation of Malaya as the 12th and 13th states, there would have been no Malaysia today,” Jeffrey said.

He also suggested that if Sabah and Sarawak were independent and not been a part of Malaysia, they could even have been as wealthy as Singapore and Brunei, which he called the 3rd and 5th richest nations in the world.

“Sarawak is contributing RM55 billion and Sabah another RM20 billion annually to the Federal Government from their oil and gas reserves,” said Jeffrey.

Instead, he said, Sabah and Sarawak are languishing as the poorest and second poorest states in Malaysia.

“Almost all our wealth is being siphoned off to develop Malaya (the peninsula).”

Leiking: Let Sabah decide its own educational direction

Penampang MP says there is no reason why Sabah cannot emulate Singapore in developing an innovative and excellent education system.

PETALING JAYA: Penampang MP Darell Leiking has outlined his vision for a Sabahan education policy where children of the state are nurtured through a fair and progressive education system.
Speaking to FMT about the proposed Sabahan education policy, which he and Semporna MP Shafie Apdal are pushing through their new Sabah-based multiracial party, Leiking said it was high time the Land Below the Wind decided its own education matters.
“Sabahans know the local terrain and culture far better than those outside of Sabah,” he said, adding he believed Putrajaya had not given Sabah its due entitlement in terms of education funds.
“In Sabah, we have so many schools which are in a dilapidated condition.
“Perhaps, even more damaging, is the lack of East Malaysian history in our textbooks, including the terms of the formation of Malaysia and the role of our forefathers in Malaysia’s formation.”
Leiking said he and Shafie had a plan to develop a generation of Sabahans who not only excelled in academic and vocational education, but were also trained to think “outside the box”.
He added that the moulding of students under such an education policy would begin from preschool.
“Just look at how Singapore has built its education system and how many other nations have designed their education to create a hardworking and innovative culture.
“Have you ever wondered why hundreds, if not thousands of Malaysians, travel from all over the country, especially Johor, to Singapore to send their kids to school in Singapore?
“There must be something that Singapore has done to make travelling there worthwhile.”
Leiking said with the talent and experience Sabah had, the state could also do what Singapore did.
He added that he and Shafie envisioned a total revamp of how children could be educated.
Earlier this month, Leiking told FMT that his new party was pushing for a new education policy for Sabah, among others, as part of a “new deal” the party wanted to offer Sabahans.
Leiking said the party was working with a team of technocrats, academics, professionals and businessmen to formulate a new deal for Sabah.

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

Spectre of secession emerges in Malaysia

Andrew Harding – Devolution may not be enough.

FIFTY years on, the Royal Princes of Johor have raised the spectre of recession – as the resource-rich States of Sarawak and Sabah increase pressure for devolution of Federal powers, and demand a greater share of royalties . . .


THE PICTURE 
of relative stability presented to the world by Malaysia for most of the 50 years since its independence appears to be shattering. With a Central Government embroiled in corruption scandals, coupled with terrorism threats from Jihadists returning from fighting in Syria, Kuala Lumpur is having to contend with threats of secession and devolution from three States.

Devolution itself is not an issue. After all, Indonesia devolved power from Jakarta to the regions many years ago.

But what could be an issue is the inevitable question: Will devolution lead to secession?

The two East Malaysian States of Sarawak and Sabah are seeking to have more authority and funding in the running of their own affairs.

But more surprising is the fact that the Royal Princes of Johor, the southern-most State of peninsula Malaysia, have recently raised the spectre of secession.

The process of devolution of power to Sarawak is well under way. In late 2015, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Najib Razak, told Sarawakians that he supported the idea.

British academic, Andrew Harding, who is attached to the Centre of Asian Legal Studies at the National University of Singapore, believes Sarawak will get some form of devolution in the near future.

“But,” Harding says, “whether such devolution will be enough to appease a growing sense of disquiet in regard to Federalism as practised in Malaysia and Sarawak over the last half century remains to be seen.”

The ball has started rolling in Sarawak, and the next question is when neighbouring Sabah might also push for devolution from Kuala Lumpur. Some aggrieved citizens in Sarawak and Sabah are demanding secession, but officials do not take this position, says Harding.

He has doubts that the States calling for devolution are strong enough economically to stand on their own.

And he points out that discussion around devolution comes at a time of unusual weakness for the Federal Government, beset as it is by unprecedented corruption scandals.

A unique window of opportunity has also been presented in Sarawak following a change of leadership there, with long-time Chief Minister, Abdul Taib Mahmud, handing the reins to Adenan Satem — after 33 years in office.

Sarawak is sometimes referred to as the Land of the White Rajahs because it was run by James Brooke, an English adventurer, and his descendants for more than a century. Situated in the northern part of Borneo, it has a diverse but small population of around 2.6 million.

 Significantly, Sarawak is rich in resources – timber, oil and gas. Sabah and Sarawak account for 60 per cent of Malaysia’s total land area, and a vast proportion of its natural resources.

“The prevailing view among politicians of all stripes, officials, and community leaders in Sarawak is that the State is dominated by Federal power,” writes Harding. “In short, many Sarawakians consider the State is treated virtually as a Colony rather than an equal partner in a Federation.”

As is the case in many countries, smaller resource-rich States often chafe with resentment in the belief that they are not being treated fairly when it comes to sharing the spoils of mineral exploitation.

So it is that Sarawak feels it is not getting its fair share of revenue from oil and gas exports.

Malaysia in 1974 introduced its Petroleum Development Act, under which oil and gas rights available to the States were vested in the Federation through Petronas, the national oil company. In return, the States get cash payments as compensation.

In 1975, the payment was agreed at five per cent of the price of oil and gas found and sold by Petronas.

Currently, says Harding, Sarawak is demanding a royalty hike to 20 per cent — and more development funding. The yearly average in State royalties paid between 2005 and 2014 was RM2.2 billion out of the RM75.5 billion delivered to the national coffers.

Today, Sarawak is under-developed and has a high level of poverty as it continues to lag behind peninsula Malaysia in economic development and growth.

Sarawak’s annual GDP slowed in 1991-2013 to 4.4 per cent, compared with the national average of 5.9 per cent. Household income in Sarawak is 14.1 per cent lower than in the rest of Malaysia, notes Harding.

On other indicators such as treated water and electricity supply, Sarawakians are also badly off. Only 77 per cent have access to water, compared to almost 98 per cent in peninsula Malaysia, while 88 per cent have access to power against almost 100 per cent in peninsula Malaysia.

Against this backdrop of perceived inequality, unhappy Sarawakians have started to agitate for a greater share of the Federal budget and greater autonomy in managing their own affairs.

Similarly, in Sabah, simmering discontentment and unhappiness just below the surface is beginning to boil over with calls for secession and for Kuala Lumpur to respect the basis of the formation of the Malaysia Federation.

Under what is known as the Malaysia Agreement of 1963, an international treaty, four former British colonies — Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah — were brought together to form the Federation of Malaysia.  But Singapore broke away from Malaysia in 1965.

One of Sabah’s most outspoken politicians, Jeffrey Kitingan, says the ball is now in the court of Najib and at the feet of the Chief Secretary to the Federal Government.

Failure to implement full autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak will bring dire consequences to the Federal Government, warns the Harvard-educated Kitingan who has been lobbying for devolution through the media. He believes a Cabinet paper should be prepared for approval by the Cabinet and later presentation to the respective State legislative assemblies for debate and endorsement. Otherwise, he says, devolution will be seen as another of Najib’s broken promises.

Local media reports say the Najib Government’s Budget 2016 again “blatantly disregarded and failed to comply with constitutional provisions” on revenues payable to the States.

“Sabah clearly establishes that, as time passes, it is obvious that the UMNO Malayan leaders and the Federal Government have no intention of honouring the basis of the formation of Malaysia,” says Kitingan,

”With warnings by the Sultan and the Crown Prince of Johor that Johor can opt to secede if the terms of its agreement in forming the Federation are not honoured, the Prime Minister and the Federal Government need to quickly ensure that they look into and comply with the terms and conditions that Sabah and Sarawak agreed to in forming Malaysia if they do not wish Malaysia to break-up.”

Kitingan cites the failure of Malaysia’s Budget 2016 to provide for the return to Sabah of 40 per cent of net revenue (derived from Sabah),which exceeds RM20 billion annually.

There are also arrears of more than RM100 billion, while the 10 per cent export duty on petroleum will contribute an additional RM2 billion a year, he claims.

The expected drop in oil revenue of RM30.3 billion from Petronas in 2016 is no excuse to not provide sufficient allocations for Sabah and Sarawak because the revenue drop is more than offset by the RM39 billion expected from GST collections, he adds.

As it is, the two East Malaysian states lag 30 years behind Malaya (in development) but contribute some RM100 billion annually to Federal coffers, says Kitingan.

Sarawak’s Chief Minister, Adenan Satem, says the State Government does not want to secede from Malaysia.

Source: Asia Today

Thursday, 29 September 2016

​Sedition Charge Against Sabah Secessionists Dropped

KOTA KINABALU: The Sessions Court has dropped sedition charges against four Sabah secessionists for having the Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) pamphlets.

According to the Malay Mail Online, the prosecution has applied for a discharge not amounting to acquittal in the case.

The four — Jemmy Liku Markus Ratu, Erick Jack William, Joseph Kolis, and Azrie Situ were charged under Section 4 (2) of the Sedition Act 1948 for allegedly being in possession of pamphlets propagating Sabah’s secession from Malaysia

The pamphlets claimed that the Federal government has breached Sabah’s rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 had been breached by the Federal government.

If convicted, the four accused could have been sentenced to a maximum of 18 months or a fine of RM2,000, or both.

Judge Abu Bakar Abdul Manat ordered the four be discharged not amounting to an acquittal. He also said that bail deposits are to be refunded.

Meanwhile, counsel for the four, Fuad Tengku Ahmad said that his “clients are regretful and contrite about what they have done and at no time did they intend to stir up civil disobedience. It was their hope that Sabah’s position would be improved by their actions”

He added, “My clients maintain their stand that they love Sabah and are committed to upholding the rights of its people and the state through lawful means. They understand that this must be done within the framework of the Federation of Malaysia"

Source: Ask Legal

Court drops sedition charges against four Sabah secessionists

KOTA KINABALU, Sept 28 — The Sessions Court today dropped sedition charges against four Sabahans for possession of Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) pamphlets.

The four — Jemmy Liku Markus Ratu, Erick Jack William, Joseph Kolis, and Azrie Situ were charged under the Sedition Act last year for possessing and distributing seditious pamphlets at the Tuaran open market.

Today, the prosecution applied for a discharge not amounting to acquittal in the case.

“We did not object to the application by deputy public prosecutor Gan Peng Kun for the discharge,” said counsel for the four, Fuad Tengku Ahmad.

When contacted, Gan said that the application was an instruction from his headquarters.

Judge Abu Bakar Abdul Manat had subsequently ordered that the four be discharged not amounting to an acquittal and that bail deposits are to be refunded.

The four volunteers of the controversial secession group was charged with sedition last year under Section 4 (2) of the Sedition Act 1948 for allegedly being in possession of pamphlets allegedly propagating Sabah’s secession from the federation.

The allegedly seditious pamphlets advocated that Sabah’s rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 had been breached by the Federal government.

“After much discussion, engagement and consultation with senior Sabah political figures and members of the Federal government, the four accused have reflected seriously on their cause, their actions and the choices that they have made.

“My clients are regretful and contrite about what they have done and at no time did they intend to stir up civil disobedience. It was their hope that Sabah’s position would be improved by their actions,” he said.

He said that moving forward, his clients will “follow a more considered and rational path in life.”

Tengku Fuad also thanked the Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali and the deputy public prosecutor for the discharge.

“My clients maintain their stand that they love Sabah and are committed to upholding the rights of its people and the state through lawful means. They understand that this must be done within the framework of the Federation of Malaysia.

The four accused could have been sentenced to a maximum of 18 months or a fine of RM2,000 or both if convicted.

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

Stop celebrating ‘Hari Merdeka Malaysia’

In August every year, the date Malaysia became ‘Merdeka’ will become a debating point. It bothers many as well, when the term ‘Hari Kemerdekaan’ is used to signify Malaysia’s independence.

Some say Aug 31 is the Independence Day, while others argue that it should be Sept 16.

For the record, whether it is Aug 31 or Sept 16, it is factually and historically wrong to say “Malaysia gained independence”.

You cannot receive independence if you were never colonised. And since Malaysia was never colonised, it is impossible for Malaysia to “receive independence”.

Malaysia was never colonised, it was born as a new federation formed by three entities after these three entities received independence separately.

The entities that received independence were Malaya (Aug 31,1957), Sarawak (July 22, 1963) and Sabah (Aug 31, 1963).

Countries like the Philippines or Indonesia who are a single entity have their independence day because when the Spanish and Dutch arrived, they ruled the country as a single entity. When they left, the country remained as it is, until today. There were no changes or mergers with other entities. Philippines is still Philippines and Indonesia remains as Indonesia.

The British meanwhile, did not colonise Malaysia. They colonised Malaya, they colonised Sarawak and they colonised Sabah, separately. And only after these three entities received independence separately, they came together to form Malaysia.

To understand Malaysia in a different perspective, think of Malaysia as the United Kingdom (UK).

UK only happened after sovereign nations namely England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the other Islands came together. Only later on Ireland opted out, and the Northern part of Ireland preferred to stay on as part of the UK, but that is a different story.

Similarly, Malaysia came into existence only after Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah as a sovereign nation came together. Singapore then opted out, leaving Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah as part of the Federation of Malaysia.

So, we should stop using the word ‘Independence Day’ when it comes to Malaysia. The term ‘independence’ is only applicable to the respective regions - specifically Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah.

Malaysia as a whole, can only celebrate Malaysia Day on Sept 16. For the ‘independence’ part, Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah should be celebrating it individually on Aug 31, July 22 and Aug 31.

As a united nation, we should also be more focused on Malaysia Day which falls on Sept 16.

For more than 50 odd years, national scale celebrations fell on Aug 31. This means many Malaysians do not even know the history of the formation of Malaysia.

Errors only recently rectified

It was only as recently as 2010, that these errors were rectified. Even then, it was a hesitant and reluctant one.

In September 2009, Anwar Ibrahim proposed to the five Pakatan Rakyat parties to declare Sept 16 as a public holiday to mark Malaysia Day. It was received with a lukewarm response, and his political rivals even accused him of distorting historical facts. A year later on in 2010, the prime minister announced Sept 16 as a public holiday.

Today, both Aug 31 and Sept 16 are public holidays, but the scale of celebrations on Sept 16 is still very much lesser than celebrations on Aug 31.

While public holidays are a norm to mark an occasion, this should not be the end goal. The significance of patriotism goes beyond a public holiday, and it should be incorporated rightly in the Sejarah textbooks. The weight of emphasis should also be proportionate.

The independence of Malaya and Sabah should be celebrated on Aug 31, the independence of Sarawak should be celebrated on July 22, and most importantly the greatest emphasis should be Malaysia Day on Sept 16.

As of now, greater significance is still given to Aug 31. There are efforts to increase the significance of Sept 16, but unfortunately these are done mostly by the private sectors, or individual groups.

Instead of celebrating independence, we as a nation should actually be celebrating the formation of Malaysia of Sept 16, and not ‘Malaysia’s independence’ on Aug 31.

Source: Malaysia Kini

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...