Memahami IGC dan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963

Masih terdapat kekeliruan di kalangan ahli akademik dan penyelidik profesional terutamanya mereka yang berasal dari Malaya ketika membuat kajian terhadap perspektif sejarah dan pembentukan Malaysia.  Ini jelas melibatkan tajuk yang luas dan tidak adil untuk kertas ini dapat menerangkan setiap perkara yang terlibat.  Oleh itu kertas ini akan cuba untuk menerangkan isu-isu asas yang berkaitan dan bertujuan mengurangkan kekeliruan diantara ahli akademik dan penyelidik khususnya yang datang dari Malaya.  Kertas kerja ini di harapkan dapat dijadikan asas perbincangan kepada pembentukan Malaysia.

Untuk memahami pembentukan Malaysia dengan lebih baik, Dokumen British di Akhir Empire, Siri B Jilid 8 – MALAYSIA disunting oleh AJ Stockwell adalah buku yang wajib dibaca untuk setiap penyelidik yang serius.  Selain buku ini laporan, rang undang-undang dan enakmen berikut juga mesti menjadi sebahagian daripada bahan-bahan penyelidikan.

1. The Cobbold Commission Report 1962
2. The Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC) 1963
3. The Malaysia Agreement 1963
4. The Malaysia Constitution both as a Bill in the Annex A of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the original version approved by Parliament.

Laporan Suruhanjaya Reid adalah bahan bacaan perlu untuk memahami asas penggubalan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaya.  Di sini wujud salah faham ketara para ahli akademik penyelidikan Perlembagaan khususnya penyelidik dari Malaya.  Ini di sebabkan tidak ada perlembagaan baru digubal bagi Malaysia, Perlembagaan Malaysia dibuat berdasarkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaya namun diubah dengan menambah perlindungan dan kaveat terutamanya bagi Sabah, Sarawak dan Singapura sebagai pra-syarat bagi pembentukan Malaysia.

Salah faham oleh para ahli akademik dan penyelidik seperti ini, kini merebak ke domain awam dan ia perlu di perbetukan, sekiranya tidak, ini akan mewujudkan kekeliruan kepada para serjana Perlembagaan, Pengamal undang undang dan para pelajar undang undang di masa hadapan.

Dua pakar akademik dan penyelidik terkemuka di Malaysia ia itu bekas Profesor dari Universiti Islam Antarabangsa, Dr Abdul Aziz Bari yang juga Pakar Perlembagaan dan Dr Wong Chin Huat, felo di Institut Pulau Pinang dan pemikir kepada Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang membuat tuntutan bahawa Sabah dan Sarawak tidak boleh menarik diri dari Malaysia berdasarkan Artikel 2 Perlembagaan Malaysia.  Kenyataan mereka ini salah dan tidak berasas, ini kerana Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Malaysia menyatakan bahawa:

Perkara 2. Penerimaan masuk wilayah-wilayah baru ke dalam Persekutuan.

 Parlimen boleh melalui undang-undang—

(a) menerima masuk Negeri-negeri lain ke dalam Persekutuan;

(b) mengubah sempadan mana-mana Negeri, tetapi undang-undang yang mengubah sempadan sesuatu Negeri tidak boleh diluluskan tanpa persetujuan Negeri itu (yang dinyatakan melalui undang-undang yang dibuat oleh Badan Perundangan Negeri itu) dan Majlis Raja-Raja.

Ekstrak diatas dari Perlembagaan Malaysia merupakan peruntukan untuk kemasukan negara/negeri ke dalam Persekutuan dan peruntukan untuk mengubah persempadanan.  Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Malaysia tidak pun menyebut tentang pemisahan atau perkara untuk meninggalkan Persekutuan.  Perlembagaan Malaysia tidak ada peruntukan tersurat atau tersirat untuk pemisahan mau pun meninggalkan Persekutuan.  Bagaimana boleh pakar akademik dan penyelidik membuat rumusan seperti di atas?

Satu-satunya penjelasan yang munasabah kenapa Perlembagaan Malaysia tidak mempunyai fasal pemisahan telah diberikan oleh Lord Lansdowne Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Antara Kerajaan (Inter-Government Committee (IGC)) yang mempunyai tugas “untuk menyediakan perkiraan perlembagaan akan datang, termasuk perlindungan untuk kepentingan khas Borneo Utara dan Sarawak untuk menampung perkara-perkara seperti kebebasan beragama, pendidikan, perwakilan di Parlimen Persekutuan, kedudukan penduduk asli, kawalan imigresen, kewarganegaraan dan Perlembagaan Negeri”

Terdapat 2 perkara yang kita perlu sedar di sepanjang hayat kerja IGC ini.

Pertama, pada masa ini lah terdapat 5 parti-parti politik dari Sabah yang mengemukakan memorandum mereka pada 29 Ogos 1962 kepada Lord Lansdowne.  Sekarang memorandum ini dikenali sebagai 20 Perkara.  Terdapat salah faham diantara orang Sabah sendiri yang mengiktiraf 20 Perkara ini sebagai satu “perjanjian” atau asas Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.  Dokumen ini bukan perjanjian atau asas perjanjian ia hanya satu memorandum yang diserahkan kepada Lord Lansdowne untuk pertimbangan beliau tidak lebih, tidak kurang.  Sesiapa yang menyatakan Perkara 20 ini sebagai satu perjanjian atau asas perjanjian, mereka hanya bertujuan untuk mengelirukan orang ramai.

Kedua, peruntukan pemisahan tidak dimasukkan dalam laporan IGC atau pun Perlembagaan Malaysia, walaupun ia adalah salah satu perkara yang tersenarai dalam Perkara 20.  Perkara 7 menyatakan:

Perkara 7: Tidak ada hak untuk menarik diri daripada Persekutuan

Perkara ini adalah bertentangan dengan semangat pembentukan Malaysia oleh kerana mengikut Perkara 20, Sabah dan Sarawak tidak boleh berpisah langsung daripada Persekutuan walaupun mereka diskriminasi dan ditindas.

Lord Lansdowne memberi alasan tidak memasukkan peruntukan pemisahan di dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia oleh kerana “mana-mana Negeri secara sukarela memasuki persekutuan mempunyai hak intrinsik untuk menarik diri, oleh itu tidak perlu untuk memasukkannya ke dalam Perlembagaan”.  Apa yang dimaksudkan oleh Lord Lansdowne bahawa Sabah dan Sarawak adalah bebas apabila membentuk Malaysia oleh itu mereka juga bebas untuk meninggalkan Persekutuan.

Sabah dan Sarawak tidak memerlukan Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Malaysia untuk meninggalkan Persekutuan Malaysia; Sabah dan Sarawak tidak perlu mendapat persetujuan daripada setiap negeri-negeri di Persekutuan Malaya untuk keluar; Sabah dan Sarawak tidak perlu persetujuan Majlis Raja-Raja untuk meninggalkan Malaysia.  Apa yang Sabah dan Sarawak perlu lakukan ialah untuk meluluskan satu resolusi dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri masing masing untuk meninggalkan Malaysia, Sabah dan Sarawak secara serta merta boleh menjadi sebuah negara merdeka dan berdaulat.  Ini lah langkah yang telah di ambil oleh Singapura dalam tahun 1965.

Oleh itu apabila kedua-dua profesor tadi berkata bahawa Singapura “dikeluarkan”, “ditendang” atau “disingkirkan” daripada Malaysia, mereka membuat kenyataan salah.  Bukti daripada dokumen-dokumen rasmi menunjukkan bahawa Singapura telah meninggalkan Malaysia pada 7 Julai 1965, 2 hari penuh sebelum Rang Undang-undangPemisahan Singapura dibentangkan di Parlimen Malaysia.  Ini sebabnya semua ahli PAP (Singapura) kecuali MP Bangsar tidak menghadiri didalam sidang Parlimen tersebut kerana mereka bukan lagi rakyat Malaysia.  Rang Undang-undang ini memerlukan tiga bacaan (selalunya hanya dua bacaan) dan telah diluluskan dalam tempoh 4 jam!.  Kepantasan kelulusan ini lebih menunjukkan kepada usaha Malaysia untuk “menutup malu” dan bukan untuk “mengeluarkan”,”menendang” atau”menyinkir” Singapura dari Malaysia.

Sekiranya profesor dan pakar penyelidik ini telah melakukan penyelidikan mereka secara menyeluruh sudah tentu mereka menjumpai kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Lord Lansdowne dan perbincangan dalam Hansard Parlimen Malaysia bertarikh 9hb Ogos 1965.

Persendaan Keadilan (Travesty of Justice)

Usaha untuk menafikan hak-hak Sabah dan Sarawak sudah meresap ke semua peringkat masyarakat di Malaysia khususnya mereka yang datang dari Malaya. Contoh terkini dapat di lihat berdasarkan kepada kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Ketua Hakim Negara Malaysia Tun Arifin bin Zakaria, dalam pelancaran buku, “Hak Perlembagaan Sabah dan Sarawak” yang ditulis oleh seorang peguam yang berkerja di Sabah, Sukumaran Venugopal daripada Persatuan Undang-Undang Sabah beliau berkata “Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold yang telah diterbitkan pada 1 Ogos 1962 mengandungi kesimpulan sebulat suara bahawa Persekutuan Malaysia adalah yang terbaik demi kepentingan Sabah dan Sarawak”.

Kesimpulan sebulat suara yang dinyatakan oleh Ketua Hakim Negara jelas merujuk kepada kesimpulan Lord Cobbold dalam laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold di mana beliau berkata bahawa 1/3 daripada penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak menyokong pembentukan Malaysia, 1/3 daripada penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak memberi sokongan tetapi dengan perlindungan yang dipersetujui, dan 1/3 daripada penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak tidak bersetuju untuk membentuk Malaysia.  Berdasarkan kepada keputusan ini, Kerajaan British dan Persekutuan Malaya memutuskan bahawa 2/3 daripada penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak menyokong idea membentuk Malaysia.  Apa yang mereka tidak mahu orang ramai tahu ialah masa depan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak sebenarnya telah ditipu oleh British dan Persekutuan Malaya.

Jika Ketua Hakim Negara telah membaca Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold beliau sudah tentu tahu bahawa Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold hanyalah satu persendaan terhadap keadilan dan tidak seharusnya mengaitkan dirinya dengan perkara seperti ini, kecuali jika beliau adalah sebahagian daripada persendaan ini.

Ketua Hakim Negara sepatutnya tahu bahawa Suruhanjaya Cobbold telah ditubuhkan untuk mendapatkanpandangan rakyat di Sabah dan Sarawak.  Suruhanjaya Cobbold bertemu dengan 4,000 penduduk dari Sabah dan Sarawak daripada jumlah penduduk negeri Borneo ini seramai 1.2 juta.  Disamping itu, Suruhanjaya Cobbold juga menerima 2,200 memo dan surat daripada rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak.  Suruhanjaya Cobbold telah mengumpul pandangan daripada rakyat, yang bermakna tugas mereka bukan untuk mendapatkan pungutan suara atau satu referendum untuk membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia.

Terdapat dilaporkan didalam berita tempatan bahawa lebih daripada 7,000 orang menunjuk perasaan di hadapan di ibu pejabat SUPP di Kucing yang membantah pembentukan Malaysia.  Bilangan penunjuk perasaan di Kuching sahaja sudah lebih daripada cukup untuk mengatasi 4,000 orang yang di dakwa oleh Lord Cobbold mereka telah bertemu – Bukti yang cukup berasaskan rekod yang lengkap dengan dokumen-dokumen rasmi dan gambar.

Suruhanjaya Cobbold menyiapkan kerja mereka pada 1 Ogos 1962 dan mengemukakan laporan itu melalui – CMND 1794 kepada kerajaan British dan Persekutuan Malaya.  Laporan ini tidak di maklumkan kepada orang ramai sehingga laporan tersebut dituntut secara terbuka oleh Donald Stephen.  Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold merupakan pelopor kepada pembentukan Laporan Jawatankuasa Antara Kerajaan atau IGC.

Ini sudah jelas bahawa laporan ICG adalah asas dalam merangka Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.  Namun, laporan IGC dan Perjanjian Malaysia sahaja tidak boleh meliputi keseluruhan isu menubuhkan Persekutuan yang baru – Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 yang sepatutnya menjadi dokumen hidup.  Sudah tentu terdapat masa dimana isu-isu lain mungkin timbul dan ruang untuk rundingan di kalangan pihak yang yang membentuk Malaysia diperlukan.  Untuk tujuan ini Artikel 8 telah di peruntukan didalam Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 yang berbunyi:

“Perkara VIII

Kerajaan-kerajaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, Borneo Utara dan Sarawak akan mengambil apa-apa tindakan perundangan, eksekutif atau tindakan lain sebagaimana yang diperlukan untuk melaksanakan jaminan, aku janji dan syor yang terkandung dalam Bab 3, dan Annexes A dan B kepada, Laporan Jawatankuasa antara Kerajaan yang ditandatangani pada 27 Februari, 1963, setakat yang ia tidak dilaksanakan oleh peruntukan nyata Perlembagaan Malaysia.”

Perkara ini dalam Perjanjian Malaysia yang memperuntukan ruang untuk rundingan d kalangan rakan-rakan sebaya, yang bermaksud apabila terdapat isu-isu yang timbul dari kesatuan ini, setiap masalah harus diselesaikan oleh kerajaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, Borneo Utara (Sabah) dan Sarawak secara rundingan dan enakmen yang sesuai luluskan sebagai penyelesaian.  Walau bagaimanapun, Malaya tidak pernah membuat apa jua usaha untuk menubuhkan “mekanisme pematuhan” ini (Compliance Mechanism).

Perjanjian Malaysia dan had Perlembagaan Malaysia

Sungguh menyediakan ramai rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak dalam perbincangan mereka di domain awam dan media massa hanya sekadar berdasarkan kepada apa yang mereka baca dan apa yang mereka dengar.  Tidak ramai yang sanggup bekerja keras dan menyaring maklumat yang bergunung untuk lebih memahami isu-isu pembentukan Malaysia.  Walau bagaimanapun untuk rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak yang berpendidikan dan ingin melihat cerita sebenarnya pembentukan Malaysia, mereka boleh melihat bahawa pembentukan Malaysia adalah lakaran British untuk memberi peluang kepada Malaya menjajah negeri negeri Borneo.

Ini mungkkin sebab nya kebanyakan sarjana Perlembagaan Malaysia cenderung untuk mengkaji laporan Suruhanjaya Reid apabila menganalisis Perlembagaan Malaysia dan tidak mengkaji laporan Jawatankuasa Antara Kerajaan (IGC) dan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.  Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 sebenarnya ibu di mana Perlembagaan Malaysia (Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaya yang di pinda) dilampirkan sebagai Annex A.  Kegagalan mereka untuk memahami perlindungan dan kaveat dalam laporan IGC dan dokumen berikutnya Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 mungkin merupakan sebab-sebab ramai dari Malaya tidak memahami bahawa Sabah dan Sarawak adalah TIDAK sama seperti negeri-negeri lain dalam Persekutuan Malaya.

Ramai orang menyangka Perlembagaan Malaysia adalah suratcara Agung (Supreme), namun tidak ramai orang berbincang, menulis atau memahami bahawa Keluhuran Perlembagaan Malaysia adalah terhad oleh Perlindungan dan kaveat yang terkandung dalam laporan IGC dan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 – perkara ini berlarutan kerana ia kurang dicabar – sila lihat Robert Linggi vs Malaysia Government.

Pindaan keatas Perlembagaan Malaysia dan diluluskan oleh 2/3 ahli di Parlimen, tidak akan afektif di Sabah dan Sarawak, selagi pindaan tersebut diluluskan oleh kerajaan negeri negeri Borneo terutamanya perkara yang menyentuh perlindungan dan kaveat seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam laporan IGC.  Tiada Enakmen baru yang menyentuh hak-hak negeri Borneo seperti yang tersenarai didalam Jadual 9 Perlembagaan Malaysia boleh dikuatkuasakan di Sabah dan Sarawak melainkan jika ia diluluskan oleh kerajaan Sabah dan Sarawak.  Ini adalah isu-isu yang sering diabaikan oleh sarjana Perlembagaan Malaysia dan mempunyai implikasi yang meluas.

Ambil sebagai contoh, Akta Imigresen 1959/63.  Akta ini adalah undang-undang Persekutuan digubal untuk mengawal pergerakan penduduk di Malaysia dan kuasa yang diberikan tersenarai dalam Jadual 9 Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia.  Walau bagaimanapun, laporan IGC yang diperincikan untuk melindungi hak-hak orang di negeri negeri Borneo.  Akta Imigresen 1959/63 telah menggabungkan kuasa negeri-negeri Borneo ke dalam Akta dari Seksyen 62 sehingga Seksyen 74. Dalam menguatkuasakan undang-undang ini, Pengarah Imigresen di Sabah dan Sarawak tidak mempunyai rekursa apabila diarahkan oleh “Pihak Berkuasa Negeri” untuk menghentikan orang orang tertentu dari dibenarkan memasuki Sabah dan Sarawak.  Hakikat bahawa Perkara 5 (1) Perlembagaan Malaysia memperuntukkan pergerakan bebas di Persekutuan tiada kaitan dengannya dengan peruntukan Akta. Ini adalah satu contoh yang jelas had yang dikenakan ke atas Perlembagaan Malaysia oleh laporan IGC dan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.

Terdapat banyak contoh lain yang boleh dipetik seperti kuasa negeri negeri Borneo keatas Akta Pembangunan Petroleum 1974 disebabkan  tanah dan sumber mineral ada lah kuasa mutlak Negeri dan bukannya Persekutuan, tetapi ini akan dibincangkan di masa hadapan.

Zainnal Ajamain

Zainnal Ajamain adalah seorang pakar ekonomi, menamatkan pengajian dengan ijazah Sarjana dari University of East Anglia.  Beliau telah memegang beberapa jawatan kanan didalam perkhidmatan awam kerajaan dan ahli fikir kerajaan dan beliau telah bekerja sebagai pensyarah universiti, penyelidik kanan, broker saham, dan ekonomi dan menerbitkan beberapa kertas kerja dalam jurnal media antarabangsa.  Beliau merupakan penulis bersama di belakang wawasan Kerajaan Sabah untuk pembangunan dan kemajuan dalam Koridor Pembangunan Sabah.  Beliau satu satunya penerbit Dana Islam luar pesisir yang pertama di Labuan.  Beliau juga memegang jawatan Felo Penyelidik Kanan di Pusat Remote Sensing dan Sistem Maklumat Geografi di Universiti Malaysia Sabah.  Beliau adalah salah seorang Pengasas United Borneo Front (UBF) dan seorang aktivis ingin menghapuskan Dasar Kabotaj.  Beliau juga merupakan Setiausaha Agung sebuah parti politik yang baru ditubuhkan di Sabah.

Source: http://suarasabah.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/memahami-igc-dan-perjanjian-malaysia-1963/

Read More

Sabah and Sarawak the time-bombs

The more likely scenario is that Sabah and Sarawak, on the other side of the South China Sea, is likely to exit the Malaysian Federation within the next five to 15 years.

The writing is on the wall although Putrajaya has strived to avert or at least delay this inevitability, indefinitely, by not allowing non-Muslims from the Dusun – including Kadazan or urban Dusun and Murut and Dayak communities to be Chief Minister of the respective states.

For added “security”, Putrajaya has turned a blind eye while hordes of impoverished illegal immigrants continue to flood into the two states and enter the electoral rolls by the backdoor.

Different from Penang

Some even postulate that the Umno Government will kick out Penang from Malaysia in the same manner as it did in 1965 with Singapore. This is an unlikely scenario since the number of non-Chinese residents in Penang, especially Malay-speaking communities, equal that of the Chinese. In Singapore, in 1965, the Chinese formed 75 per cent of the island’s population and this figure has relatively changed little since then. It’s a different scenario altogether in Sabah and Sarawak where the demographic make-up doesn’t make a difference.

The increasing possibility that Sabah and Sarawak will quit Malaysia is in fact a continuation of the story of Singapore’s expulsion in 1965 from the Federation and the refusal of Brunei, at the 11th hour, to be a member of the enlarged Federation which emerged from the Federation of Malaya.

Singapore’s exit saw the definition of “Federation” in the Federal Constitution changed to reduce the status of Sabah and Sarawak from being equal partners of the States of Malaya in the collective, as represented by the old Federation of Malaya, to being just one of the many states in the “Federation”.

In short, the Federation of Malaysia ceased to exist in 1965 following Singapore’s exit and the defunct Federation of Malaya re-emerged at the same time to masquerade as the “new” Federation of Malaysia.

The result of this dramatic shift in fortunes has been that the Federal Government refused and/or saw no need to comply with the terms of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement. It was under this Agreement that Sabah and Sarawak agreed, along with Singapore, Brunei (opted out) and Malaya, to form the Federation of Malaysia.

Singapore’s seats were grabbed, so was oil

Singapore’s exit also saw Malaya taking seven of the island’s 15 seats in the Malaysian Parliament instead of all of them going to Sabah and Sarawak.

The arrangement in 1963 was that Malaya should have less than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament in order to ensure that other territories in the Federation – Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei – would have veto power.

Today, Malaya has more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament – 165 vs 57 including Labuan – vis-à-vis Sabah and Sarawak. Hence, the rationale for Sabah and Sarawak to continue to be in the so-called Federation of Malaysia further falls apart.

When push comes to shove the crunch will come when the debate re-opens on the oil royalty for Sabah and Sarawak. A one-sided oil agreement of 1976 sees the Federal Government and Petronas, the national oil corporation, giving only five per cent royalty for oil and gas production from wells in the inner waters – very few and either dry or increasingly drying – and none from the infinitely vast number of wells in the outer waters.

The result has been that Sabah and Sarawak have been reduced over the last nearly 50 years to being the poorest and second poorest states respectively in Malaysia.

Now, even an upward review in the presently measly five per cent will be utterly meaningless if the outer waters are excluded in the calculation.

There also remains the fact that any upward review of the oil royalty would have to be, in all fairness, backdated to 1976 when the virtual theft began, and interest paid on the arrears at the statutory 8 per cent per annum, and compounded yearly.

For how long can they silence Sabah and Sarawak

This is a situation which the Umno-led Federal Government will never accept in a million years since the loot since 1976 has either disappeared into private pockets in Peninsular Malaysia or been squandered away with no thought for tomorrow and future generations.

Malaysia will be bankrupt if Sabah and Sarawak press their legitimate claims on the oil royalty issue. But that doesn’t mean a stalemate on both sides.

The recent examples of Timor Leste, Acheh, and South Sudan – and the continuing issue of Darfur and South Kordofan – all on the oil issue, shows that history and international law is on the side of Sabah and Sarawak.

Timor Leste and South Sudan both became independent through the intervention of the UN Security Council while Acheh gained autonomy. Darfur and South Kordofan are work in progress.

It’s not true that only states can bring applications to the UN Security Council. Any party can do so as illustrated by the application from the Syrian Opposition now under discussion at the UN Security Council.  It’s only a matter of time before Sabah and Sarawak bring up their oil and gas reserves at the UN Security Council. Putrajaya cannot continue to squat on Sabah and Sarawak forever.

Now you know why Taib Mahmud and Musa Aman are so powerful

The inevitable result will be the exit of Sabah and Sarawak, the two poorest states, from the so-called Federation of Malaysia. Only independence from Malaysia under UN supervision will enable Sabah and Sarawak to find their true destiny in the international community of nations.

Is it any wonder now, the likes of Sarawk Chief Minister Taib Mahmud and Sabah’s Musa Aman, have been given a free hand in the running of the states, despite a mountain of complaints and blatant evidence of corruption including land-grabbing, timber abuse and rape of indigenous women by workers of crony firms.

Without them to suppress the Sarawak and Sabah people, the two states would have long fled the Federation, unable to withstand the bullying from Umno.

Source: http://dusunbukit.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/sabah-and-sarawak-the-time-bombs/

Read More

Patuhi Perjanjian Malaysia atau bebaskan Borneo, kata Jeffrey Kitingan

Ahli politik Sabah memberi amaran kepada Putrajaya supaya memenuhi Perjanjian Malaysia pada 1963 atau benarkan Sabah dan Sarawak berpisah daripada semenanjung Malaysia.

Ketua Star Sabah, Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, berkata Sabah dan Sarawak adalah antara negeri yang termiskin dalam negara dan tidak mendapat peruntukan pembangunan yang banyak.

“Pentarafan ke bawah Sabah dan Sarawak sebagai negeri ke-12 dan ke-13 dalam Malaysia bertentangan dengan apa yang dirancang pada 1963 sebagai rakan setaraf.

“Pemerkosaan dan penjarahan berterusan terhadap kekayaan minyak dan sumber Sabah dan Sarawak selain peruntukan pembangunan yang kecil tidak lagi boleh dibiarkan.

“Walaupun pada masa amat diperlukan, rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak dilayan tidak sama adil dengan rakyat Malaysia di semenanjung,” katanya, mengulas tulisan Ketua Hakim Negara, Tun Arifin Zakaria mengenai peranan Sabah dan Sarawak dalam pembentukan Malaysia.

Arifin menulis mengenai perkara itu dalam bukunya yang bertajuk Hak Perlembagaan Sabah dan Sarawak yang dilancarkan baru-baru ini.

“Perjanjian Malaysia perlu dilaksanakan dan dipenuhi.

“Bukan sahaja terma dan syarat pembentukan Malaysia seperti terkandung dalam perjanjian 1963 dan beberapa dokumen serta jaminan lisan dan janji tidak dipenuhi, ada banyak pindaan perlembagaan yang dibuat menghakis hak dan kedudukan Sabah dan Sarawak,” katanya.

Beliau berkata, pemimpin “dua negara perlu fokus dan bercakap dengan satu suara”.

Katanya, pendirian bersama negeri Borneo di Malaysia sepatutnya tidak diletakkan sebarang terma.

“Pendirian lain akan memberikan pemimpin persekutuan Malaya tanggapan yang salah dan andaian bahawa Sabah dan Sarawak tidak serius terhadap tuntutan untuk terma dalam pembentukan Malaysia dipenuhi.

“Mereka akan terus kekal selesa dalam pejabat mereka di Putrajaya dan tidak peduli kepada penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak hingga tiba waktu pilihan raya,” katanya.

Kitingan juga bercakap mengenai janji Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak yang dibuat kepada rakan gabungan Barisan Nasional (BN) di Sarawak bahawa akan ada rombakan Kabinet selepas Perhimpunan Agung Umno pada awal Disember 2013.

Rombakan itu adalah bagi menyelesaikan rasa tidak puas hati ahli Parlimen dari Sarawak terhadap agihan jawatan menteri selepas pilihan raya umum lalu.

“Najib gagal melakukan rombakan Kabinet,” katanya.

Kitingan mencadangkan bahawa mungkin parti BN Sarawak dengan sokongan Yang Dipertua Negeri baharu, Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud di belakangnya patut meninggalkan BN dan lihat apa yang akan berlaku memandangkan perdana menteri tidak melihat desakan untuk mempertimbangkan kepentingan parti BN di Borneo.

Beliau berkata, jika perkara itu berlaku, tidak mengejutkan jika perdana menteri, timbalan perdana menteri dan pemimpin tinggi di Umno termasuk bekas perdana menteri akan beratur ke Kuching untuk memujuk komponen BN di Sarawak dan gabenor jangan membuang BN.

Kitingan berkata, layanan buruk kepada rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak boleh dilihat menerusi bantuan banjir daripada persekutuan, baru-baru ini.

“Di semenanjung, bantuan tunai dan pelbagai lain dicurahkan daripada pelbagai kementerian dan pihak lain sementara Sabah dan Sarawak terima hampir tidak ada apa-apa daripada kerajaan persekutuan.

“Selepas 50 tahun dilihat sebagai tidak penting dan menjadi mangsa, Perjanjian Malaysia dan semua janji serta jaminan perlu dilaksanakan dan dipenuhi,” katanya.

Kitingan berkata, ada peruntukan untuk menyemak perjanjian itu selepas 10 tahun, tetapi selepas 40 tahun berlalu, tiada apa yang dilakukan.

“Usul untuk membincangkan perkara itu di Parlimen juga ditolak kerana ia dikatakan tidak penting dan tidak mendesak.

“Jika selepas 50 tahun, ia masih tidak mendesak, jangan harap rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak akan menunggu 50 tahun lagi untuk ia jadi penting,” katanya.

Kitingan memberi amaran bahawa rasa tidak puas hati di kalangan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak kini berada di penghujungnya dan ramai yang mahu Sabah dan Sarawak memilih keluar daripada Malaysia.

“Sentimen mereka kini dipanaskan lagi dengan mereka yang taksub terhadap ultra Melayu dan agama yang asyik berkeras menyatakan Malaysia adalah tanah untuk Melayu dan bangsa lain dihalau keluar,” katanya.

Kitingan berkata, jika Najib serius dengan rancangkan rekonsiliasi nasional, semakan dan pelaksanaan termas dan syarat pembentukan Malaysia perlu disertakan.

“Jika tidak, seperti Singapura pada 1965, pasti ada perpisahan secara persahabatan untuk negeri di Borneo,” katanya. – 6 Mac, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/penuhi-perjanjian-malaysia-atau-bebaskan-borneo-kata-jeffrey-kitingan#sthash.68KSd400.dpuf

Read More

Sabah dan Sarawak Bebas untuk meninggalkan Persekutuan

Isu pemisahan tidak dimasukkan dalam laporan IGC kerana “mana-mana Negeri secara sukarela memasuki persekutuan mempunyai hak intrinsik untuk menarik diri” Lord Lansdowne Chairman Inter-Government Committee (IGC)

Pandangan yang dikemukakan oleh seorang pakar perlembagaan dan bekas profesor Undang-undang dari Universiti Islam Antarabangsa baru-baru ini adalah boleh diperdebatkan.

Profesor itu mendakwa bahawa Sabah dan Sarawak tidak boleh meninggalkan Malaysia kerana Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Malaysia.

Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Malaysia ini tidak pernah dipinda sejak ia ditulis ke dalam Perlembagaan yang bermaksud bahawa Perkara ini sama dengan apabila Singapura “diusir” dari Malaysia seperti dakwaan beliau pada tahun 1965.

Perkara 2 sama dan masih ada pada hari ini dalam Perlembagaan, tidak dipinda atau diubah apa-apa pun.

Ahli Parlimen Kota Belud dan Menteri Persekutuan menegaskan bahawa bercakap tentang meninggalkan Malaysia adalah berunsur hasutan di bawah undang-undang Malaysia dan Sabah dan Sarawak tidak boleh menarik diri dari Malaysia.

Izinkan saya perjelaskan disini bahawa sesiapa sahaja yang mahu bercakap tentang Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 tanpa membaca buku asas berikut akan menunjukkan kebodohan mereka sendiri:

The Cobbold Commission Report 1962

The Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC) 1963

The Malaysia Agreement 1963

Terdapat dua perkara yang semua orang mesti tahu dari laporan IGC. Pertama, IGC tempat lima parti politik dari Sabah menyerahkan memorandum mereka pada 29 Ogos 1962.

Pada hari ini memorandum ini dikenali sebagai 20 Perkara.  20 Perkara adalah memorandum dan bukan “perjanjian” seperti yang ditegaskan oleh Menteri Persekutuan tadi.

Sebagai memorandum dokumen 20 Perkara ini telah diserahkan kepada IGC untuk dipertimbangkan oleh ahli-ahli jawatankuasa tersebut.

IGC telah diketuai oleh Lord Lansdowne Menteri Negara British bagi Hal Ehwal Tanah Jajahan.

Tugasnya adalah “untuk menyediakan perlembagaan akan datang, termasuk perlindungan untuk kepentingan khas Borneo Utara dan Sarawak untuk menampung perkara-perkara seperti kebebasan beragama, pendidikan, perwakilan di Parlimen Persekutuan, kedudukan penduduk asli, kawalan imigresen, kewarganegaraan dan Perlembagaan Negeri”

Oleh itu, perisian memorandum 20 Perkara telah dimasukkan ke dalam laporan IGC.  Laporan IGC mempunyai 37 Perkara dan TIDAK hanya sekadar 20 Perkara.

Pemisahan bukan hasutan

Berdasarkan maklumat di atas, laporan IGC adalah rangka kerja untuk menggubal Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.

IGC BUKAN Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.  Ia hanya laporan dan diterima oleh kerajaan Great Britian, Persekutuan Malaya, Sabah dan Sarawak.

IGC mempunyai fungsi sama dengan Suruhanjaya Reid yang merangka Perlembagaan bagi Persekutuan Malaya.  Laporan IGC telah diterima dan ditandatangani pada Feb 27, 1963 oleh United Kingdom, Borneo Utara, Persekutuan Malaya dan Sarawak.

Kedua, memorandum 20 Perkara yang dikemukakan oleh lima parti politik Sabah mengandungi fasal pemisahan yang merupakan Perkara No 7.

Dalam fasal ini telah dinyatakan bahawa tidak boleh hak pemisahan yang bermaksud bahawa Sabah tidak boleh menarik diri dari Malaysia.

Walau bagaimanapun, isu pemisahan tidak dimasukkan dalam laporan IGC.

Alasan yang diberikan oleh Lord Lansdowne bahawa “mana-mana Negeri secara sukarela memasuki persekutuan mempunyai hak intrinsik untuk menarik diri pada bila bila masa, oleh itu perkara ini tidak perlu untuk memasukkannya ke dalam Perlembagaan”.

Maksudnya Sabah dan Sarawak adalah bebas membentuk Malaysia, oleh itu ia juga bebas untuk meninggalkan Malaysia.

Sabah dan Sarawak tidak perlu mendapat persetujuan daripada setiap negeri untuk meninggalkan Malaysia.  Sabah dan Sarawak tidak memerlukan sokongan Majlis Raja-Raja untuk meninggalkan Malaysia.

Sabah dan Sarawak hanya perlu meluluskan satu resolusi dalam masing-Dewan Undangan Negeri masing masing untuk mereka meninggalkan Malaysia dan Sabah dan Sarawak akan menjadi sebuah negara yang merdeka dan berdaulat.

Saya harap penjelasan di atas sudah mencukupi untuk membersihkan sebarang kekeliruan tentang kandungan dan penggunaan istilah yang berkaitan dengan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.

Sungguh memalukan untuk melihat, membaca dan mendengar Menteri, Profesor dan orang ramai bercakap tentang pembentukan Malaysia tanpa mereka benar-benar mengetahui apa subjek yang mereka nyatakan

Tiada terdapat apa-apa bentuk hasutan apabila membincangkan mengenai pemisahan.  Ini adalah isu-isu nyata berdasarkan laporan IGC, Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 dan selepas lima dekad membentuk Malaysia.

Ini adalah pilihan rakyat di Sabah dan Sarawak dan untuk mengelakkan mereka dari membincangkan perkara ini, pihak kerajaan hanya perlu memenuhi kewajipan mereka seperti yang telah dijanjikan “tidak lebih, dan tidak kurang.”

Zainnal Ajamain

Zainnal Ajamain adalah seorang pakar ekonomi, menamatkan pengajian dengan ijazah Sarjana dari University of East Anglia.  Beliau telah memegang beberapa jawatan kanan didalam perkhidmatan awam kerajaan dan ahli fikir kerajaan dan beliau telah bekerja sebagai pensyarah universiti, penyelidik kanan, broker saham, dan ekonomi dan menerbitkan beberapa kertas kerja dalam jurnal media antarabangsa.  Beliau merupakan penulis bersama di belakang wawasan Kerajaan Sabah untuk pembangunan dan kemajuan dalam Koridor Pembangunan Sabah.  Beliau satu satunya penerbit Dana Islam luar pesisir yang pertama di Labuan.  Beliau juga memegang jawatan Felo Penyelidik Kanan di Pusat Remote Sensing dan Sistem Maklumat Geografi di Universiti Malaysia Sabah.  Beliau adalah salah seorang Pengasas United Borneo Front (UBF) dan seorang aktivis ingin menghapuskan Dasar Kabotaj.  Beliau juga merupakan Setiausaha Agung sebuah parti politik yang baru ditubuhkan di Sabah

Source: http://suarasabah.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/sabah-dan-sarawak-bebas-untuk-meninggalkan-persekutuan/.

Read More

SECESSION-IT IS NEVER BEEN A TREASON UNDER MALAYSIAN LAW!

We, the SSKM Administrator would like to give respond to Prof.James Chin from Monash University, Kuala Lumpur regarding to the statement made by him about "secession is treason under Malaysian law." 

When we talk about secession, it is NEVER BEEN be a treason under Malaysian Law because there is no ACT or Law to forbid Sabah or Sarawak to leave/separate from the Federation of Malaysia. Therefore, this enable the former member of Federation of Malaysia, Singapore to leave the Federation on their own accord. Or should we say that they has been removed by malaya leaders back in August 9, 1965 without the approval from the Leaders of Sabah and Sarawak?

We, then wish to share and highlight statement made by Mr.Zainal Ajamain regarding the "secession" in order to make our statement more crystal clear.

"The issue of secession was not included in the IGC report because “any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will”.

The view put forth by a constitution expert and a former Law professor from the International Islamic University recently is arguable.

The professor claimed that Sabah and Sarawak cannot leave Malaysia because of Article 2 of the Malaysia Constitution.

Well this Article was never amended ever since it was written into the Constitution which means that this Article was there when Singapore was “expelled” as he claimed from Malaysia in 1965.

The same Article 2 is still present today in the Constitution, not amended what-so-ever.

The Kota Belud MP and federal minister asserted that talking about seceding from Malaysia is seditious under the Malaysia law and that Sabah and Sarawak cannot secede from Malaysia.

Let me state that anyone who wants to talk about the Malaysia Agreement 1963 without showing their own stupidity must at least read the following primer:

The Cobbold Commission Report 1962

The Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC) 1963

The Malaysia Agreement 1963

There are two things that everyone must learn from the IGC. Firstly, the IGC is where five political parties from Sabah submitted their memorandum on the 29th August 1962.

Today this memorandum is commonly known as the 20 points. The 20 points is a memorandum and NOT an agreement as asserted by the Minister.

As a memorandum the 20 point document was submitted to the IGC for consideration by the committee members.

The IGC was headed by Lord Lansdowne the British Minister of State for Colonial Affairs.

Its tasks was “to work out the future constitutional arrangements, including safeguards for the special interest of North Borneo and Sarawak to cover such matters as religious freedom, education, representation in the Federal Parliament, the position of the indigenous races, control of immigration, citizenship and the State Constitution”.

Therefore, the 20 points memorandum was incorporated into the IGC report. The IGC report has 37 points and NOT just 20 points.

Secession is not seditious

Based on the above, the IGC report is the framework to formulate the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The IGC is NOT the Malaysia Agreement 1963. It is just a report and accepted by the governments.

The IGC has similar function to the Reid Commission which drafted the Constitution for the Federation of Malaya. The IGC report was accepted and signed on Feb 27, 1963 by the United Kingdom, North Borneo, Federation of Malaya and Sarawak

Secondly, the 20 point memorandum submitted by the five political parties contain a secession clause which is point No. 7.

In this clause it was specified that there shall be no secession which means that Sabah cannot secede from Malaysia.

However, the issue of secession was not included in the IGC report.

The reason given by Lord Lansdowne was that “any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will, and that it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Constitution”.

Basically what it means here is that Sabah and Sarawak is free to form Malaysia, it is also therefore free to leave.

Sabah and Sarawak does not need the approval of each of the states to leave. Sabah and Sarawak does not need the support of the Rulers Council to leave.

All Sabah and Sarawak need to do is to pass a resolution in their respective Dewan Undangan Negeri to leave and Sabah and Sarawak will become a sovereign nation.

I hope the above explanation is sufficient to clear any confusion about the content and usage of terms pertaining to the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

It is an embarrassment and shameful to see, read and hear Ministers, Professors and ordinary man in the street talking about the formation of Malaysia without them really knowing what the subjects is all about.

There is also nothing seditious about talk son secession. These are real issues based on the IGC, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and after five decades of forming Malaysia.

These are options available to the people in Sabah and Sarawak and to avoid these discussions all the government needs to do is simply fulfill its obligations as per the agreement “nothing more, and nothing less”."

With this article from Mr.Zainal Ajamain, we hope you, the so called Professor will never ever again made such inaccurate statement.

Pergo Et Perago || Dum Spiro Spero

Read More

Sabah, Sarawak rights groups channel secession anger into better methods

The Malaysia Day celebrations in Kuching last year. Younger folk from Sabah and Sarawak are increasingly demanding that Putrajaya honour the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and start treating the two states as equals. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, June 17, 2014. 

At football games  in Kuching's main stadium, fans of the Sarawak team hold up the state's pre-Malaysia red and black flags with a crown in the middle while more and more cars in Kuching have stickers that say: "Sarawak for Sarawakians".

Online, a survey that is making its rounds among Sabah folk supposedly shows 90% of respondents choosing "leaving the Malaysian Federation" as the solution to the state's problems.

If left unchecked, said a Sabah-rights activist, these feelings, especially among the young, could combust and see thousands marching down on Putrajaya a la Bersih 2.0 to press for secession.

It was flare-ups like these, which a group of like-minded associations in Sabah and Sarawak was trying to prevent, said Jalumin Bayogoh (pic) of the Borneo Heritage Foundation.

Unlike rallies on electoral reform, for instance, calls for Sabah and Sarawak to secede from Malaysia are treasonous, which carry severe penalties under the law.

So instead of taking to the street and getting arrested, the group and others like it are attempting to channel their anger into initiatives, such as pressing Putrajaya to honour the 1963 Malaysia Agreement.

“(Demanding secession) is a last option. We want to try other approaches first. Many of us have spouses from the peninsula, so we don’t want to leave Malaysia,” said Jalumin, when met on the sidelines of the groups’ latest public forum on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 in Kuala Lumpur.

“We want only what has been agreed upon in the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and we are willing to work with Putrajaya to fulfil this demand,” said Jalumin.

51 years of colonisation

Even at the forum itself, there were calls, from its younger audience, for Sabah and Sarawak rights groups to stop the tried and old ways of talking to Putrajaya and to just take to the streets.

“Why are still trying to negotiate with the federal government? What’s the point? We should plan to march to Putrajaya,” said one young man in the audience.

The anger was palpable and the calls for secession, at least online, were increasing, said veteran opposition politician Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan.

He said the online poll three months ago was an eye-opener even to him, a staunch critic of the federal government’s treatment of Sabah and Sarawak for more than 30 years.

Having been detained for 2½ years in the early 1990s by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on charges of plotting secession, Kitingan attempted to play down sentiments shown in the poll.

“I don’t believe that the respondents want secession in the real sense. I believe the poll actually reflects a sense of hopelessness they feel and how Putrajaya does not listen to them,” said Kitingan.

Besides frustration at having the highest poverty rate in Malaysia, there is sharp feeling of among Sabah and Sarawak folk of being colonised by the federal government since 1963.

Instead of being treated as equal partners in the federation, many feel that it got the short end of the deal and ended up being treated like a “state” instead of a more autonomous entity.

Some of the complaints about Putrajaya not fulfilling the 1963 agreement are:

* Putrajaya takes a lion share of the oil wealth but Sabah and Sarawak hardly get any money for infrastructure with many still living in abject poverty;

* The civil service is filled with peninsula folk instead of Sabah and Sarawak folk as promised under “Borneonisation”;

* Sabah and Sarawak get to control immigration but Putrajaya has run a mass identity card-giving campaign that has flooded Sabah with foreigners who turned citizens overnight; and,

* Despite the agreement not mentioning an official state religion for Sabah and Sarawak,  Putrajaya runs a stealth Islamisation campaign through government schools.

“The feeling (of wanting to secede) is there, but we have to diffuse it,” said Kitingan.

Better methods

The movement’s key demand is that Putrajaya gives Sabah and Sarawak the right to self-determine how they want to run things in these two territories.

To get this, Jalumin said the group would start drawing up a memorandum after another public forum in Sabah, which will then be submitted to Putrajaya.

But it does not stop there. Taking a page from the Hindu Rights Action Front (Hindraf), the movement is planning to file a suit against the United Kingdom for brokering the 1963 agreement and failing to ensure that its conditions were met.

Hindraf chairman P. Waytha Moorthy says the Sabah and Sarawak rights movement can take a leaf out of Hindraf’s book and start pressuring Putrajaya on problems faced by Sabah and Sarawak folk. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Wan Amirul Asraf Wan Omar, June 17, 2014.

“The aim is to get world attention on the Malaysian government and to pressure it.”

The Sabah and Sarawak rights movement is hoping to replicate Hindraf’s success at jolting the Malaysian government to pay attention to Indian community problems and to address them.

In fact, the Hindraf suit, according to its chairman P. Waytha Moorthy, who was also at the forum, is due to be heard in the UK courts at year-end.

Seeking change through the ballot box was not enough, said Kitingan.

Barisan Nasional, which has had a storied career contesting elections, was able to manipulate the poor to win continuously.

“We also need a civil society approach,” said Kitingan, who is now Bingkor assemblyman and chairman of BHF.

But if Putrajaya still does not listen, they are prepared to escalate their methods, which include going to the streets and finally, campaigning for secession.

“It has not come to that yet. There are still other methods to pursue. As much as possible we want to save Malaysia, not tear it apart,” said Jalumin. – June 17, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/sabah-sarawak-rights-groups-channel-secession-anger-into-better-methods

Read More

Can Sabah and S’wak secede?

This article is intended for those who think Malaysia or rather Malaya owns Sabah and Sarawak.

Once again I am writing about Abdul Rahman Dahlan, the Kota Belud MP who was reported on Feb 17, 2014 in the mainstream media to have cited the 20-Points and said the following:

(1) It is seditious and treasonous to suggest that both Sabah and Sarawak secede from the Federation of Malaysia;

(2) Sabah and Sarawak cannot secede from Malaysia;

(3) Secession is not a solution to the woes of Sabah and Sarawak.

If readers have accessed my previous pieces about the man, they would conclude that Abdul Rahman really does not actually know what he is saying all of the time.

Before that I would remind readers that:

Official deceit which is one part of Machiavellian politics has always been the religion of colonizers and one classic lie that has never fail to be used is “you need us to protect you from yourself” has been said to the naive and brainwashed colonized population throughout the ages until today.

We do not need to look far, actually; the present political drama unfolding in Malaysia that is shaking right-thinking citizens reveals the unprecedented thievery and pretense perpetrated by mendacious opportunists from both sides of the political divide is ample indications itself.

Half past six champions of the void ab initio Malaysia Agreement of July 9, 1963 that saw the formation of the Federation of Malaysia are asserting that the rights of Sabah (20-Points) and Sarawak (18-Points) are safeguarded in a document identified as the Inter-Governmental Committee Report of 1962 or in short, the IGC Report; today, we shall see how foolishly wrong they are.

Before we proceed, it is necessary to recapitulate that the Malaysia Agreement is absolutely void from the very beginning because Britain at all material times never had sovereignty over the whole of Sabah to give away and the government of Malaysia like its predecessor the British government is still paying annual rentals to the Sulu Sultanate in the Philippines until today.

The latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” is a legal principle that says you cannot confer property you do not own on another person except with the authority of the true owner or simply put – you cannot give what you do not have.

For further reading, go to the Manila Accord which was signed on July 31, 1963 between Abdul Rahman Putra, Soekarno, and Diosdado Macapagal; it is clearly and unambiguously understood that the formation of Malaysia is subject to the claim of the Philippines on Sabah being adjudicated in the International Court of Justice which Putrajaya is scared of going there for fear of losing.

And worst, the more than 1.1 million people of Sabah and Sarawak at that point of time were never consulted in a referendum whether they wanted Malaysia – only about 4,000 were reportedly interviewed by the Cobbold Commission.

Backward society

We cannot really blame Sabahans and Sarawakians who suffer from collective issues of ignorance because like the rest of Malaya today, for more than 50 long years, they have been indoctrinated with falsified historical facts and fed with substandard education that taught them “what to think” instead of “how to think” and living their entire lives on assumptions peddled by cheats and liars.

Do readers know why are things becoming so complicated and bad here in Sabah now?

Because the people of Sabah are so gullible to the extent that they cannot even be trusted to honorably do the right thing on their own volition during elections for their own good and that of their descendants.

Suffice to say, the Sabah of today has remained a feudal and backward society since the British left.

The fine example of Brunei not becoming a colony of Malaya, look at how they can do what they want with their oil and gas wealth – poverty practically does not exists there; the success story of tiny and resource-less Singapore who left Malaysia in 1965 being transformed into a First World nation today profoundly confirms that both Sabah and Sarawak are incurable failures of epic proportions.

Now, we go to the circus to showcase our clown of the day.

Question 1

The 1962 IGC Report by its name alone is only a report; and the pertinent confusion is this – since when can a mere report containing proposed recommendations or demands, as some people put it, evolve into a legally binding international Treaty, Agreement, Contract, or Convention?

In the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, were the 20-Points and 18-Points, or alternatively how many of both were clearly spelt out in the same?

Find out too exactly how many of the individual 20-Points and 18-Points were actually incorporated into the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the latter of which is evidently masqueraded by the Constitution of Malaya.

By all international standards, is the IGC Report not at best only a Memorandum of Understanding with no legal force of law?

Question 2

If the IGC Report has no legality or statutory effectiveness, of what legitimacy do the Sabah 20-Points and the Sarawak 18-Points contained therein have?

Question 3

Ask yourselves this: if the clause “there should be no right to secede from the Federation” are in the Points that have no legitimacy nor legality, can Sabah and Sarawak still secede from the Federation of Malaysia?

Question 4

Do readers know that Malaysia is not a country but a federation of independent nations that consists of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (left in 1965)?

Question 5

Do readers know the meaning of the word “treason”? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as the crime of betraying one’s country.

Say for example the democratically elected government of the independent country of Scotland has decided that a referendum will be held onSept 18, 2014 to let their Scottish citizens decide whether they want to secede from the United Kingdom after more than three hundred years in the union since 1707; what treason is there?

Therefore, to the people of Sabah and Sarawak who harbor the wish of secession: you must first elect educated and competent patriots and nationalists to run your Sabah and Sarawak governments – not bootlickers who are remotely-controlled by Malayan political parties like what is happening now!

Question 6

Now, Malaysia is a federation while Sabah (an independent nation) is our country or NEGARA in the Malay language; we have always been a negara when Malaysia was formed until 1976 when Parliament downgraded our status to negeri without consulting the Sabah Legislative Assembly after former Sabah Chief Minister Donald Stephens and many other leaders were mysteriously killed in an air disaster upon flying back from Labuan island without signing the petroleum agreement that robs Sabah to the tune of 95% of our oil and gas wealth.

The subsequent signing of the same by former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh and witnessed by Joseph Pairin Kitingan is also illegal because the Sabah Legislative Assembly was also not consulted on the matter.

How can anyone who calls for the secession of our country Sabah from the Federation of Malaysia be committing treason?

Question 7

The Macmillan Dictionary best defines “state” as a nation or country and the government of a country.

Take note that the State of Sabah like the State of Sarawak is an independent nation or country with a government where cabinet members are called ministers unlike say Penang or Johore where their local governments do not have cabinets and members are only executive councillors.

Sabah and/or Sarawak are equal in status with the entire Malaya combined and not with any individual states in Peninsular.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “seditious” as inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

As has been mentioned in question 4 supra, Malaysia is a federation of independent nations and Sabah is our nation or country (NEGARA in Malay) where we have our own government and in lieu of a monarch we have our own Head of State (originally called Yang diPertuan Negara and later changed to Yang diPertua Negeri by Parliament without consultation with the Sabah Legislative Assembly in 1976).

As far as we know, nationalists in Sabah and Sarawak are not instigating rebellions against the Sabah or Sarawak governments or respective Heads of State; for every citizen from the independent nations of Sabah and Sarawak, how can we when we call for the secession of our respective countries from a failed Federation of Malaysia be seditious, then?

Question 8

In every suit that we handled or lecture delivered in the past, we always provide simple and easy to understand analogies when we submit and today we give you the following:

If in a failed marriage (Federation of Malaysia), the lazy and incompetent husband (Malaya) not only neglect his conjugal duties (development) to his wives (Sabah and Sarawak) but also took away 95% of their wealth (taxes and natural resources) for his own extravagant spending, what should the wives do if not divorce and leave him?

If ever Sabah and Sarawak are to be bankrupted, let it not be done by Malaya for the benefit of Malaya.

Question 9

When the Federation of Malaysia was illegally formed in 1963 (as per our reasoning above), there were the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (left in 1965); do you realize that the government of Malaya has ceased to exist altogether unlike Sabah, Sarawak, and even Singapore?

If Malaya was not masquerading as Malaysia to colonize Sabah and Sarawak today, we really do not know what is…!

Question 10

In the year 1963 when Malaysia was formed, the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement; an advocate and solicitor recently drew our attention to the following:

When Singapore left Malaysia in 1965, an agreement was executed on Aug 7, 1965 for the separation between the government of Singapore and the government of Malaysia without consultation with the governments of Sabah and Sarawak as original partners in the Malaysia Agreement.

Is the Singapore Separation Agreement of 1965 valid without the signatories from Sabah and Sarawak; if the answer is in the negative, is Singapore still technically and legally a part of Malaysia; further and in the alternative, is the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 voided as a result of the 1965 Separation Agreement?

Conclusion

The 1963 Malaysia Agreement is void ab initio; can the 1965 Singapore Separation Agreement further invalidate something that is clearly invalid in the first instance; or in laymen’s term, would blowing up a corpse which died years earlier with C4 explosives kill it again?

On June 18, 1984 former President Diosdado Macapagal who laid the Philippines claim on Sabah in 1962 said “unless Sabah becomes an independent state by itself, it shall be the continuing duty of our posterity to carry on the endeavor to return Sabah to the Philippines”.

In plain and uncomplicated language, it means that if Sabah truly becomes free, the Philippines claim will be dropped.

Our final question to readers from Sabah and Sarawak is this:

Is it not our nationalistic, patriotic, and holy duty to free our countries of an evil colonizer who is striving on racism and religious persecution, a greedy subjugator who commit continuous economic genocide on the people of Sabah and Sarawak by siphoning our wealth in the billions to sustain their lifestyle and leaving us with pittance?

To those of you who now understand but think and decide otherwise, where then have you hidden your conscience – in the sewage pond…?

The author is a retiree in Kota Kinabalu and depending on health, time, and interest, do blog occasionally at http://legalandprudent.blogspot.com giving no quarters to anyone.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2014/04/14/can-sabah-and-swak-secede/

Read More