‘There was no Sabah referendum’

Any talks between Malaysia and the Philippines must include Sabah because only the people of Sabah can decide what they want, says Jeffrey Kitingan.

KOTA KINABALU: United Borneo Front (UBF) chairman Jeffrey Kitingan has disputed the context of the 1962 referendum which academics and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak claim confirmed Sabahans’ desire to be part of Malaysia.

“There has never been a referendum on Sabah as stated by some academics.

“In fact, the so-called referendum in 1962-63 was actually only a sampling survey of less than four percent of the Sabah population,” he said in response to Najib’s comments on Sabah yesterday.

Najib said there was no question of Sabah not being within Malaysia.

Said Najib: “On the question of polemics of whether Sabah is a part of Malaysia, I want to stress that the issue had been finalised in 1978 and Sabah is a valid region in Malaysia,” he said.

He said the Cobbold Commission had held a referendum and two-thirds of the people in Sabah agreed to the state being a part of Malaysia. The commission also obtained the recognition of the United Nations.

(The Cobbold Commission was set up to find out whether the people of Sabah and Sarawak were agreeable to the proposal to create Malaysia, made up of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak.)

But Jeffrey, who also heads the Sabah chapter of the State Reform Party (STAR), said the Malaysia Agreement which incorporated terms of the Cobbold Commission “is yet to be implemented”.

“Najib must realise that Sabah belongs to the people of Sabah.

“Malaysia does not own Sabah as the Malaysia Agreement is yet to be implemented. Sabah is not a piece of lifeless property to be fought over between the Philippines [Sulu claim] and Malaya.

“Therefore, any talks between Malaysia/Malaya and the Philippines must include Sabah because only the people of Sabah can decide what they want.

“The [Sulu's] Sabah claim, whether valid or not, must be resolved once and fo all by bringing all the relevant parties to the table within the ambitof Britain and the United Nations and find a peaceful solution,” he said.

PMs have failed Sabah

He added that “the time has come to review the implementation of the Malaysia Agreement and ensure its viability and survival by addressing the unhappiness of the other remaining partners – Sabah and Sarawak”.

Jeffrey also pointed out that it was vital that the federal government clean up the mess created by (former prime minister) Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno in Sabah which had put Sabah and its citizens at perpetual risk.

“They made Sabah insecure by supporting Muslim rebellion in the Philippines and supplying them weapons, giving them refuge and training facilities in Sabah and, worst still, by deploying them as voters in Sabah through the ‘Project IC Mahathir’, despite knowing full well that the same group of people from the Philippines have unsettled claims over Sabah.

“To restore confidence, the federal government must clean up the mess. Umno should leave Sabah politics to Sabahans and local political parties.”

Jeffrey said the Sulu invasion was proof that Malaysia and successive prime ministers, including Najib, had failed miserably to secure the safety and security of Sabahans.

“Now that the fear felt by Sabahans has become a reality, Najib, as the current premier, must not only guarantee the security of Sabahans but he must also restore their confidence because security was the number one reason why Sabahans agreed to be part of Malaysia in 1963,” said Jeffrey.

He said Najib “has a moral duty to put things right” in Sabah.

“That is why we Sabahans supported the RCI [Royal Commission of Inquiry] as part of a necessary action to put things right.

“But that is not enough. A lot more needs to be done to regain the confidence of the people of Sabah who feel cheated by the federal government,” Jeffrey said.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/03/08/there-was-no-sabah-referendum/

Read More

The Case of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan [and the Sabah claim] at the International Court of Justice

INTRODUCTION

In 1996, for the first time in the history of Southeast Asia, two neighbouring countries mutually agreed to peacefully resolve an emotive territorial dispute between them through the involvement of a third party, on the basis of international law. In that year, Malaysia and Indonesia agreed to submit their respective claims for sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan for adjudication by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

The first case from Southeast Asia which came before the Court in 1959 was not by mutual agreement. Cambodia had then unilaterally applied to the Court to declare the Temple of Preah Vihear — which was situated on the border between the two countries — as belonging to Cambodia instead of Thailand. In 1962, the Court did rule in favor of Cambodia. The case of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan acquired even greater

significance, although unintended, when the issue of the Philippine claim to Sabah came before the Court at the same time — and the ICJ pronounced its verdict, albeit indirectly, that the Philippines had no case to make.

HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA

The status of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan had become an issue in 1969 when Indonesia disputed Malaysia’s sovereignty over the two islands during negotiations on the delimitation of the continental shelf boundaries between the two countries.

Between 1992 and 1994, three rounds of informal talks were held between officials of both countries to resolve the issue but without any success.

In September 1994, Dr. (Tun) Mahathir Mohamad and President Soeharto agreed, since the talks at the level of officials could not make any progress, to let the discussions continue at the level of their personal representatives. To undertake this task, Prime Minister Mahathir appointed Anwar Ibrahim, then Deputy Prime Minister, while President Soeharto appointed Moerdiono, then Minister/ State Secretary.

Anwar and Moerdiono met four times; July 1995 (Jakarta), September 1995 (Kuala Lumpur), September 1995 (Jakarta) and June 1996 (Kuala Lumpur). 

At the conclusion of the fourth round of their meetings, DPM Anwar and Minister Moerdiono, based on suggestions made to them by officials involved in the informal round of talks, recommended to Prime Minister Mahathir and President Soeharto, for the two Heads of Government to consider and agree, that Malaysia and Indonesia request the ICJ to determine the question of sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan. They also agreed to recommend that any decision of the ICJ on the matter should be accepted by the Government of Malaysia and the Government of Indonesia as final and binding.

AGREEMENT TO REFER THE DISPUTE TO THE ICJ

In October 1996, when they met in Kuala Lumpur, Dr. (Tun) Mahathir Mohamad and President Soeharto agreed that the issue of sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan be referred to the ICJ.

For non-signatories to the Statutes of the ICJ (both Malaysia and Indonesia were non-signatories), a Special Agreement between the parties was required if the parties desired the ICJ to adjudicate their dispute. Two rounds of meetings of officials were held to negotiate the text of the Special Agreement for submission to the

ICJ the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan.

The first round was held in Kuala Lumpur (January 1997) and the second round in Bandung (April 1997). During the second round, the two sides reached consensus on the text of the Agreement. In his closing remarks at the meeting, the Leader of the Malaysian Delegation paid tribute to President Soeharto who played a big part in facilitating a peaceful resolution of the dispute, having spoken about the importance of resolving the issue of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan in order not to burden future generations with an unresolved issue which could exacerbate in the future if it was not settled by peaceful means at this time. 

On 31 May 1997, the Special Agreement was signed by the Foreign Ministers of Malaysia (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) and Indonesia (Ali Alatas)[1].

Following that, and as provided for in the Special Agreement, Malaysia and Indonesia simultaneously submitted to the ICJ three rounds of written pleadings regarding their respective cases: Memorial (2 November 1999), Counter Memorial (2 August 2000) and Reply (2 March 2001).

The ICJ held the Oral Hearings for the Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/ Malaysia) from 3 to 12 June 2002, in The Hague.

[1]Special Agreement for Submission to the International Court of Justice of the Dispute Between Malaysia and Indonesia Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, 31 May 1997.

THE BASIS OF INDONESIA’S CASE

Indonesia contended that it had acquired the treaty title to Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan through the 1891 Anglo-Dutch Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands, a Treaty which described the boundary separating the Dutch and British possessions on the island of Borneo. Indonesia argued that the meaning of Article IV of the 1891 Convention extended the land boundary at 4°10’ north latitude eastward into the sea, and the Islands of Ligitan and Sipadan were located to the south of that line, thus lying on the Indonesian side.

Article IV reads as follows:

“From 4°10’ north latitude on the east coast the boundary line shall be continued eastward along that parallel, across the island of Sebittik; that portion of the island situated to the north of that parallel shall belong unreservedly to the British North Borneo Company, and the portion south of that parallel to the Netherlands”.[2]

Malaysia disputed Indonesia’s interpretation of Article IV of the 1891 Convention, and argued that the land boundary terminated on the eastern coast of Sebatik Island. The Treaty itself referred to no map, and no map was attached to it. Malaysia based its argument on the meaning of the words actually used in the Treaty.

[2] Memorial of Malaysia, Volume 1, paragraph 8.4.

And the words meant that the boundary did not extend far eastward into the sea as to show the Islands of Ligitan and Sipadan south of any line as theorized by Indonesia.

MALAYSIA’S CASE WAS BASED ON TWO ARGUMENTS

Malaysia’s case as based on a chain of title Firstly, Malaysia argued that it and its predecessor states had acquired a good title to Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan through a series of treaties with other states with interests in the area. These treaties included the 1878 cession and grant by the Sultan of Sulu to Alfred Dent and Baron von Overback, as representatives of a British company, of certain parts of his territories and lands in the Island of Borneo. Then followed the recognition of British rights to North Borneo by Spain in 1885, by the Netherlands in 1891 and by the United States in 1930. Sabah, including Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, finally became part of Malaysia under the Malaysia Agreement of 1963.

Malaysia’s case as based on effectivités Secondly, Malaysia had also submitted, in the written pleadings and during the oral proceedings, various evidence that Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan had in fact been in the possession and subject to the actual administration of Malaysia and its predecessors in title from 1878 while it was impossible for Indonesia to assert the same.

INDONESIA’S ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT

On the last day of its turn to speak in the Court, Indonesia stated, as an alternative and subsidiary argument, that if the ICJ were to find the 1891 Convention incapable of conferring sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan to the Netherlands/ Indonesia, their sovereignty over the two islands could equally be established as successor in title from the Sultan of Bulongan.

Malaysia counter argued that there was no evidence whatsoever that the Sultan of Bulongan had any authority over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan which were respectively some 42 and 55 nautical miles way from the land-based Sultanate of Bulongan. Malaysia produced expert historical evidence on this point which identified Bulongan as a small coastal Sultanate with limited territorial reach.

THE COURT DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF MALAYSIA

The Court did not give weight to Malaysia’s arguments based on the chain of title. However, Malaysia’s effective possession and administration of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan was duly recognized by the ICJ.

The Court stated that the measures taken by Malaysia including the regulation and control of the collection of turtle eggs on Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan and the establishment of a bird reserve on Sipadan must be seen as regulatory and administrative assertions of authority (effectivités) over the territory which is specified by name.

The Court concluded that these and some other activities undertaken by Malaysia, although modest in number, covered a considerable period of time and showed a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context that the effectivités relied upon by Indonesia lacked the requisite intention and will to act in a sovereign capacity.

In its Judgment delivered on 17 December 2002, the Court decided, by a majority vote of 16 to 1, that sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belonged to Malaysia.[3]

The case was thus won by Malaysia on the basis of its effectivités, rather than its arguments based on the chain of title.

INTERVENTION BY THE PHILIPPINES

At this point, this account back-tracks in time to narrate the action taken by the Philippines to intervene in this case between Malaysia and Indonesia.

It all began on 22 February 2001, just before the completion of the written phase of the proceedings, when the Philippines applied to the ICJ to obtain copies of the pleadings of Malaysia and Indonesia concerning the case. Both Malaysia and Indonesia objected to the request from the Philippines. This request was accordingly denied by the Court.

After failing to obtain copies of the documents exchanged between Malaysia and Indonesia, the Philippines took the next step to become fully involved as an interested party in the case. For this purpose, on 13 May 2001, the Philippines filed an application to intervene in the proceedings before the Court.

The application was made under the provisions of Article 62 of the statutes of the ICJ which reads as follows:

• Should a state consider that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case, it may submit a request to the Court to be permitted to intervene.

• It shall be for the Court to decide upon this request.

[3] Judgment, 17 December 2002, paragraph 150.

Both Malaysia and Indonesia registered their objections to the Philippine application. Accordingly, the ICJ held special Oral Hearings to consider the Philippine application for intervention. This took place in the Court in The Hague from 25 to 29 June 2001.

During the Oral Hearings, the Philippines made explicit that its request to intervene was intended to serve two purposes: first, to preserve its claim to dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo and second, to inform the Court how its claim to Sabah might be affected by the Court’s decision in the present case between Malaysia and Indonesia.

The Philippines also informed the Court that it was not making any claim to Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan. It merely wanted to protect its interests when the Court would finally decide on the sovereignty over the two islands in dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia.

HISTORY OF THE PHILIPPINE CLAIM TO SABAH

In 1962, the Philippines took certain actions to exert its claim to Sabah, in the context of a campaign of opposition to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.

In 1962, one Mohammad Esmail Kiram, claiming to be the Sultan of Sulu and acting with the advice and consent of a dubiously convened Ruma Bechara, signed together with Emmanuel Pelaez, then Vice President and Secretary of Foreign Affairs, an Instrument of Cession of the Territory of North Borneo to the Republic of the Philippines. This act, according to the Philippine argument, effected a transfer of sovereignty over Sabah to the Republic of the Philippines.

In 1968, Malaysian and Philippine officials met in Bangkok to discuss ways for the Philippines to drop its claim amicably and honourably. However, the talks broke down upon the insistence of the Philippine Delegation that the way forward was to take the matter to the International Court of Justice for a decision. 

By courtesy of Article 62 of the Statutes of the ICJ, the Philippines finally had its day in court in 2001, albeit via the rear entrance. 

It quickly became obvious to all present in the Court during the Oral Hearings that their legal grounds for requesting to intervene in the case were very weak indeed. But the Philippines succeeded, nevertheless, in using their appearance in the Court to expound, and placed on the Court’s record, the details surrounding the Philippine claim to Sabah.

MALAYSIA’S REBUTTAL OF THE PHILIPPINE CLAIM TO SABAH

Although the Court hearings were meant to debate only the issue of the Philippine request for intervention in the case between Malaysia and Indonesia, the Malaysian Delegation had no choice but to challenge the extraneous exposition made by the Philippine Delegation regarding the Philippine claim to Sabah. The Malaysian Delegation explained why Malaysia rejected the Philippine claim to Sabah, absolutely and unconditionally. Malaysia asked the Court to take note that the arguments advanced by the Philippine Delegation were substantively flawed and the object of their claim was territorially imprecise. Malaysia informed the Court that, as an international entity, the Sultanate of Sulu disappeared in September 1878 when Spain at last succeeded in conquering the Sultanate. It disappeared as an entity of any kind whatsoever when the United States abolished the Sultanate entirely in 1936 upon the death of the last Sultan of Sulu in that year. Thereafter the private law heirs of the private property of the Sultan accepted money which had previously been paid to the Sultan. They did so pursuant to a judgment of the High Court of the State of North Borneo in 1938, which dealt with the legal situation following the final abolition of the Sultanate. That

judgment made it clear that the right to the money had nothing whatever to do with any question of sovereignty.

Malaysia explained to the Court the sovereign status of British North Borneo before and up to 1962. Great Britain and Germany recognized the sovereignty of Spain over the Sulu Archipelago and the limits of Spanish influence in the region in the Madrid Protocol of 1885. Under the same agreement, Spain had relinquished all claims to Borneo. Subsequently, the United States expressly recognized the Madrid transactions in its capacity as sovereign over the Philippines and as successor to Spain. The United States did so twice; in the 1907 Exchange of Notes and in the 1930 Boundary Convention, between the United States and Great Britain.

Malaysia emphasized to the Court that each of the treaties of 1885, 1907 and 1930 explicitly accepted that North Borneo was British territory, not Spanish, not American, and not Filipino. Therefore nothing that private citizens did in 1962 could possibly have changed that. Malaysia pointed out to the Court that it would be very odd indeed to suggest that the private law heirs of the last Sultan of Sulu could retain — in their collective possession, as it were — the late Sultan’s sovereignty over territory which they could transfer to the Philippines in a private law deed in 1962. Yet that was the proposition which the Philippine Delegation apeared to be making before the Court.

Malaysia further informed the Court that in the same year 1962, an election was held in North Borneo (and Sarawak) in which joining Malaysia was the key issue. The people decided by a substantial majority in favour of the pro-Malaysia party. A Commission [4] established by the then administering authority, Great Britain, reached the same conclusion. The Secretary-General of the United Nations confirmed it in 1963 [5] when he stated that there was no doubt about the wishes of a sizeable majority of the peoples of these territories to join the Federation of Malaysia.

Thus, in 1963 Great Britain relinquished its sovereignty over Sabah, and in that year Sabah became part of the new Federation of Malaysia.

THE COURT REJECTED THE PHILIPPINE APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION

On 23 October 2001, the ICJ rendered its Judgment regarding the Philippine request to intervene in the case between Malaysia and Indonesia. The Court disallowed the request, stating that the Philippines had failed to demonstrate an interest of a legal nature that would entitle them to intervene in the case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan and Ligitan between Malaysia and Indonesia. 

The result of the secret voting by the Court was 16 in favor of the majority opinion and 1 against. 

The sole negative vote came from Judge Oda, who wrote a Dissenting Opinion [6] which included the following: Quote: I voted against the operative part of the Judgment, as I firmly believe that the Philippine request for permission to intervene in the case between Indonesia and Malaysia should have been granted. That vote has led me to express this dissenting opinion. I wish, however, to emphasize that my disagreement with the Court is limited at this time strictly to the issue decided in this Judgment, namely the Philippines right to intervene in these proceeding, and is not in any way indicative of my views in respect of the validity of any

claim the Philippines might have to North Borneo or in respect of the merits in the principal case between Indonesia and Malaysia. Unquote

[4] Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak (The Cobbold Commission Report).

[5] United Nations Malaysia Mission Report, 1963. 

[6] Dissenting Opinion by Judge Oda, 23 October 2001, paragraph 1.

Another Separate Opinion entered by Judge ad hoc Franck who voted with the majority, which was recorded as forming part of the written Judgment, was most noteworthy. In one part of his separate opinion, Judge ad hoc Franck said that the Philippine claim to Sabah had become a purely historical matter because,

whatever the basis, it had been overtaken by the exercise of self-determination by the people of Sabah in 1963. [7]

[7] Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Franck, 23 October 2001, paragraph 15.

THE DIPLOMATIC AND LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ICJ DECISIONS

The peaceful resolution of the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia on the basis of international law was not only unprecedented for Southeast Asia but it also established a good model for the pacific settlement of disputes. The best solutions for problems between nations are normally secured through friendly negotiations. However, under the circumstances prevailing at that time, reference to the ICJ for adjudication proved to be the best option for both Malaysia and Indonesia.

The request for intervention by the Philippines produced an unexpected turn of events. For the first time, the so-called Philippine claim to Sabah came to be subjected to judicial scrutiny, albeit in an indirect manner. And it exposed the fact that the Philippine claim lacked clarity and its presentation in the Court involved serious unexplained discrepancies. The decision of the ICJ, in disallowing the request for intervention by the Philippines, including the independent observations made by two Judges, showed clearly that the attempt to interest the Court in the matter of the Philippine claim to Sabah had simply failed to prosper.

Malaysia objected to the Philippine request to intervene, and succeeded in preventing the Philippines from using Article 62 of the Statutes of the ICJ as a platform to advance its claim. Malaysia was satisfied with the opportunity it had to explain to the Court that not merely had the Philippines no right to intervene before

the Court in the case concerning Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan; it had no claim to make against Malaysia regarding Sabah. Malaysia amply demonstrated to the Court that in fact and in law, the Philippine claim to Sabah was totally lacking in foundation.

The intervention by the Philippines began as an irritant and a distraction to the proceedings in the Court between the two actual parties to the dispute — Malaysia and Indonesia. In the end, the Philippines not only failed in its bid to intervene but lost substantial ground — diplomatically and legally — in its attempt to resurrect the so-called Philippine claim to Sabah.

CONCLUSION

Malaysia won at the International Court of Justice — in both the intervention phase (Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines) and the merits phase (Indonesia/Malaysia) — because Malaysia had a good case, and argued it fully and thoroughly. This was made possible by good teamwork including many years of researching thousands of documents and maps spanning several centuries, in archives and depositories, in Sabah, Peninsular Malaysia, the United Kingdom, the United States, India and The Netherlands. This research was conducted by officers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs including Malaysian Embassies in the aforementioned countries, the Department of National Archives, the Department of Survey and Mapping, the Ministry of Land and Cooperative Development, the Navy, other Agencies of Government as well as several scholars and historians from universities in Malaysia and abroad.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Wisma Putra) functioned as the lead agency in preparing and bringing this case to the ICJ. The Leader of the Malaysian Team at the Oral Hearings before the 17 Judges of the World Court in December 2002, in his capacity as Agent of Malaysia at the ICJ, was Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Ambassador-at-Large in the Ministry. Noor Farida Ariffin, Ambassador of Malaysia to the Netherlands, was the Co-Agent.

The international component of the Malaysian Team consisted of: (i) Sir Elihu Lautherpacht CBE, QC, Honorary Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, (ii) Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot, Professor Emeritus, University of Paris, (iii) Professor James Crawford S.C, F.B.A, Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, and (iv) Professor Nicholas Schrijver, Professor of International Law, Free University of Amsterdam and Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.

Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad had also been Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1996-2001), after which he was appointed Ambassador-at- Large in 2001. However, the opinions expressed in this article are entirely his own and they do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Government of Malaysia.

Note:

Readers who wish to read the details about the Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/ Malaysia), including the Application for Permission to Intervene by the Government of the Philippines, can do so by accessing the website of the International Court of Justice at the Peace Palace in The Hague: http://www.icj.cij.org

REFERENCES

ICJ DOCUMENTS

The hard copies of the ICJ documents listed below are available in the Library of the Court in the Peace Palace in The Hague, while their soft versions are easily accessible on the Court’s website: http://www.icj-cig.org, or in the enclosed CDs.

Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia)

Special Agreement for Submission to the International Court of Justice of the Dispute Between Malaysia and Indonesia Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan signed on 31 May 1997, and jointly notified to the Court on 2 November 1998

Written Proceedings

Memorial of Malaysia, 2 November 1999

Memorial of the Republic of Indonesia, 2 November 1999

Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, 2 August 2000

Counter- Memorial of the Republic of Indonesia, 2 August 2000

Reply of Malaysia, 2 March 2001

Reply of the Republic of Indonesia, 2 March 2001

Oral Proceedings

(A) APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE BY THE PHILIPPINES

Verbatim records of the oral submissions made by the parties

during the public sittings of the Court

CR 2001/1, Monday 25 June 2001 (Philippines)

CR 2001/2, Tuesday 26 June 2001 (Indonesia/Malaysia)

CR 2001/3, Thursday 28 June 2001(Philippines)

CR 2001/4, Friday 29 June 2001 (Indonesia/Malaysia)

Judgment, 23 October 2001, inclusive of

Dissenting opinion of Judge Oda

Separate opinion of Judge Koroma

Declaration of Judge Parra-Aranguren

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Weeramantry

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Franck

Summary of the Judgment,

Summary No. 2001/3, 23 October 2001

Press Release

No. 2001/28 of 23 October 2001

The Court finds that the Application of the Philippines for

permission to intervene cannot be granted

(B) MERITS OF THE CASE (INDONESIA/MALAYSIA)

Verbatim records of the oral submissions made by the parties

during the public sittings of the Court

CR 2002/27, Monday 3 June 2002 AM (Indonesia)

CR 2002/28, Monday 3 June 2002 PM (Indonesia)

CR 2002/29, Tuesday 4 June 2002 AM (Indonesia)

CR 2002/30, Thursday 6 June 2002 PM (Malaysia)

CR 2002/31, Friday 7 June 2002 AM (Malaysia)

CR 2002/32, Friday 7 June 2002 PM (Malaysia)

CR 2002/33, Monday 10 June 2002 AM (Indonesia)

54

CR 2002/34, Monday 10 June 2002 PM (Indonesia)

CR 2002/35, Wednesday 12 June 2002 AM (Malaysia)

Judgment, 17 December 2002, inclusive of:

Declaration of Judge Oda

Dissenting opinion of Judge Franck

Summary of the Judgment

Summary No: 2002/2, 17 December 2002

Press Release

No: 2002/39 of 17 December 2002

The Court finds that sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and

Sipadan belongs to Malaysia

PUBLICATIONS

Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak

(The Cobbold Commission Report)

Knebworth House, Hertfordshire, 21 June 1962

Printed by the Government Printers, Federation of Malaya, 1962

United Nations Malaysia Mission Report, 1963

Official Records of the United Nations Organization, New York

Source: http://www.idfr.gov.my/images/stories/publication/2009/inside_pbp.pdf

Malaysia's Territorial Disputes – Two Cases at the Icj

Source: http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/mys_re_phl_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf

Philippine's Claim to North Borneo Clearly Has No Basis Under International Law

Read More

"Penghasut Baik VS Penghasut Jahat'

Ramai yang tergamam, terkejut, terkilan, hairan dan hampir tidak percaya, malah ada orang yang memaksa dirinya untuk tidak mahu mempercayai fakta-fakta yang didedahkan oleh SSKM berkaitan dengan sejarah Negara Borneo (Sabah & Sarawak). Hal-hal yang selama ini kita tidak pernah tahu, tidak pernah diajar dan tidak jujur diceritakan di alam persekolahan dalam pendidikan Malaysia, SSKM bertindak berani mendedahkan kebenaran itu kepada rakyat agar rakyat Borneo sendiri menilai dan membuka ruang untuk mereka membuat penyelidikan secara peribadi. Sama ada sebaran fakta dan data yang SSKM lakukan "cakap kosong atau suatu penipuan". Siapa sebenarnya yang melakukan penipuan? Siapa sebenarnya yang memulakan penipuan dan menghasut rakyat secara terancang untuk menghilangkan sejarah yang benar?

Bila SSKM dedahkan bahawa North Borneo dan Sarawak PERNAH MERDEKA (walaupun sangat singkat kerana dipengaruhi oleh pemimpin Malaya untuk membentuk 'Malaysia'), ramai yang masih tidak dapat menerima kenyataan tersebut walaupun disertakan dengan fakta dan data yang sahih.    Bila SSKM membantah dan memboikot tarikh 31 Ogos 1957 yang selama ini ditafsirkan sebagai "Tarikh Kemerdekaan Malaysia" adalah SATU PENIPUAN, tetap saja segolongan rakyat menolak hal tersebut. Malah pertanyaan yang tidak terjawab bila SSKM mengutarakan soalan adalah, "Pernahkah MALAYSIA dijajah? Siapa yang menjajah? 

Apa sejarah KEMERDEKAAN MALAYSIA?". Sebab dalam gabungan "Persekutuan Malaysia", ada Negara Singapura, Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak serta Tanah Malaya - semuanya bekas jajahan British. Negara-negara ini bergabung untuk "membentuk" Malaysia. Dengan demikian, sejak Malaysia dibentuk, pernahkah Malaysia diserang dan dijajah?? (Orang Malaya katakan - kita dijajah oleh 'budaya Kuning') Bila SSKM dedahkan bahawa tragedi "Double Six" itu suatu hal yang dirancang secara jahat dan sabotaj oleh Pemimpin Malaya, ramai yang tidak dapat menerima kenyataan tersebut. Jika para pemimpin Sabah sejak dari dulu jujur berjuang bersama dengan Tun Fuad Stephen, maka pemimpin-pemimpin Sabah boleh membuka 'Forensic Files' mengenai nahas kapal Nomad yang dinaiki ketika itu dan sampai sekarang fail tersebut masih dalam simpanan Kerajaan Australia. Dengan izin dan kesepakatan pemerintah Sabah saja melalui keputusan mesyuarat ADUN boleh membukanya. Tapi kenapa sampai sekarang hal itu dibekukan? (TAKUT!!?? Sebab dihasut dan diberi amaran keras oleh pemimpin Malaya??)

Bila SSKM dedahkan bahawa, gelombang kebangkitan rakyat yang terjadi sekarang yang lebih sinonim dengan panggilan "Puak-puak pemisah" sudah pernah berlaku beberapa kali, malah pada era Tun Mustapha dan Tun Fuad pun sudah pernah berlaku dan juga ketika era pemerintahan Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) tetapi tetap saja golongan tertentu tidak percaya. Lebih percaya dengan dalil dan ugutan pemimpin Malaya yang sentiasa menggunakan taktik lapuk, iaitu perkataan "Serangan Filipina (Sultan Sulu)", yang sebenarnya tiada hak dan kuasa langsung terhadap tanah Sabah.

Bila SSKM dedahkan bahawa semasa era pembentukan "Malaysia" sebahagian besar rakyat Sarawak, di mana lebih dari 110,000 ribu rakyat yang membantah dan tidak setuju dengan penyatuan itu, tetapi tetap saja hal ini tidak mau diakui - sedangkan fakta dan data jelas ada, rakaman video demonstrasi bantahan tersebut pun masih ada sampai sekarang.

SEJARAH GELAP SARAWAK - RUSUHAN ANTI-MALAYSIA DI SARAWAK 1961-1963    Bila SSKM dedahkan dan tegaskan bahawa 'kembalikan status' Sabah sebagai sebuah NEGARA dan bukan "Negeri" seperti sekarang (sejak 1976), tetapi orang tertentu malah mencibir bibir mendengar tuntutan tersebut. Sedangkan data dan faktanya jelas ada dan tindakan menurunkan status tersebut jelas tidak berpandukan kepada konsep "Pembentukan Malaysia" yang sebenarnya.

SSKM tidak akan berdiam! Kami akan terus mendedahkan apa yang sepatutnya perlu diketahui oleh rakyat Borneo untuk dinilai bersama, sama ada selama 51 tahun ini kita TELAH dilayan dan diperlakukan secara baik dan adil oleh kepemimpinan Malaya atau tidak?    Kumpulan NGO SSKM bukanlah golongan peribadi yang mempunyai capaian peribadi dalam politik Malaysia, sebab SSKM BUKAN membawa agenda parti politik, BUKAN mewakili parti-parti politik dan BUKAN menyokong mana-mana ideologi parti politik tempatan untuk diketengahkan. Golongan SSKM BUKAN orang-orang yang berprofail dan berstatus tinggi, BUKAN lahir dari acuan politik, BUKAN orang-orang kaya, BUKAN bekas-bekas banduan atau pesalah undang-undang, BUKAN berasal dari hutan belantara yang tidak tahu dan tidak mengenal huruf serta nombor. TETAPI YANG JELAS; Mereka ini sangat "Mengerti apa yang DIBACA dan FAHAM apa yang dilihat, dan dapat mencernakan mana buruk dan mana baiknya".

SSKM bukanlah penghasut/puak pemisah, tetapi membantu rakyat memberikan informasi berkenaan dengan Sejarah, Ekonomi, Pendidikan dan Pentadbiran Negara Sabah & Sarawak selama 51 tahun berada di dalam gabungan Persekutuan Malaysia yang telah dibentuk pada 16 September 1963. 

Source: Awis Are-Wish

Read More

Read my lips, we want equality

OUTSPOKEN: There is no telling how many Sarawakians out there truly want to see the state leave Malaysia.

It could be many. Or it could be just a few. But what is certain is in this age of Information Technology, people get informed with so much ease and those with a common cause or goal to fight for, coordinate their actions and efforts better.

The Internet has indeed helped to amplify the voice of this group of Sarawakians to a level loud enough to attract attention and raise some concerns.

The Sarawak state government is rather circumspect about the matter, probably because it knows that independence is not what the majority of Sarawakians want. It probably feels that the call to pull out of Malaysia is made out of frustration at not being able to get from Putrajaya what people thought they deserved.

Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem’s administration probably think that it is not independence that the people really want but a Sarawak that is an equal partner in a Malaysia made up of Sarawak, Sabah and Malaya.

It is really not difficult to understand this line of thinking because there is no questioning Sarawakians’ pride for Malaysia and in being Malaysian. If it isn’t for this pride, Sarawakians, like the nation’s most decorated war hero Datuk Temenggong Kanang Langkau and George Cross Medal recipient Awang Raweng, would not have bothered to step on Malayan soil in defence of the country.

No, independence is not what Sarawakians want because it would render meaningless all the sacrifices of those who gave their lives to create this nation we call Malaysia. What we have created with cost that is immeasurable, that cannot be translated into ringgit and sen, and that no one can ever compensate enough, we cannot destroy.

“We have made the decision to form the federation 50 years ago and nothing is going to change that. We will stay forever in this nation,” Adenan declared at a state-level National Patriotism Convention at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) last Oct 19.

He went on to warn that secession from the Malaysia Federation would only lead to unimaginable and dire consequences that would disadvantage Sarawak.

Adenan, however, did not warn pro-secession Sarawakians of arrests; neither did he threaten them with the Sedition Act because there is really no need for that when Sarawakians in general only clamour for better treatment from this nation, not to break it up.

This is the part that the federal government must try harder to understand. Putrajaya and Umno have a lot to learn. They have a lot of accepting to do. And most of all, whenever it concerns Sarawak and Sarawakians, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak cannot act without consulting Adenan and his government because they are the true voice and aspirations of Sarawakians. The state government understands Sarawak and Sarawakians better.

“They (Malayans) have a lot to learn from us and that is also why I will not allow any racist or bigot to enter the state,” Adenan was quoted as saying.

Adenan went on to say that only Sarawakians understand each other and it takes a Sarawakian party to know the people who are made up of a vast number of races, religions and cultures.

He said Sarawakians had never fought or argued on racial and religious issues and Malayans who raised and blew issues – like the use of the word ‘Allah’ in the Malay Bibles – out of proportion must take note of this.

The prime minister must take note as well. He must know. He should have known, otherwise he would not have warned those pushing for secession of Sarawak and Sabah from Malaysia “to be prepared to face the full force of the law”, on Malaysia Day in Miri.

His warning was misplaced. There is no need for that warning because if he had known, the actual demand is, like I said earlier, not independence, but for Putrajaya to live up to the terms of the Malaysia Agreement.

For Sarawak this means satisfying 18 matters, among which are issues that Putrajaya continues to ignore, sidestep, procrastinate on, and at times, reject with impudence.

PRS president Tan Sri Dr James Masing echoes every Sarawakian’s sentiment when he slammed The New Straits Times’ columnist Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli for writing that “Sabah is also blessed to have joined Malaysia”.

“Hazmi got his history on Malaysia all wrong when he wrote Sabah is blessed to have joined Malaysia. It is this type of error which has caused uneasiness among Sarawakians and Sabahans.

“Historian purists would say it is a mistake in historical facts, while politicians interpret it as a reflection of Orang Malaya mindset.

“Many a time orang Malaya claimed that Sarawak and Sabah joined Malaysia. This is wrong. Sarawak and Sabah did not join Malaysia. These two states, along with Malaya and Singapore, formed Malaysia on September 16, 1963.”

By no coincidence, this point is basic to the Malaysia Agreement, yet even an educated and knowledgeable Malayan has refused to accept a historical fact; let alone lesser Malayans.

When Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom told parliament that Malaysia is not a secular state as the country was historically set up based on an Islamic Malay sultanate government, Masing was quick to respond, saying the four signatories agreed to sign the Malaysia Agreement on the basis that Malaysia was understood to be a secular state.

“Over the years, interpretations have changed, which have resulted in misunderstandings. Perhaps the ‘men of law’ should clarify the situation once and for all,” Masing said.

In Sabah, State Reform Party (Star) Sabah chief Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan was less diplomatic: “There is freedom of religion in the federation. In fact, Sarawak and Sabah agreed to be part of the Malaysia project on condition that there shall be no official religion in the Borneo states and this is clearly stated in Article 1 of the 18/20 points conditions in the Malaysia Agreement.”

He said any move to shift Malaysia from being a secular federation would automatically question the entire basis of the country’s formation as secularism was one of the pre-conditions offered by the country’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman when Sabah and Sarawak signed for the federation in 1963.

He said if Malaysia were to become an Islamic state and no longer a secular state, then the basis for the two states as part of the federation would cease to exist.

“This may also be the reason that religion is a state matter. So what and why is the federal minister making such a remark?” asked Jeffrey.

Jamil has yet to answer, much like Putrajaya, which has continued to keep Sarawakians guessing on so many unanswered questions.

Frustrations have certainly built up, and if historical facts can be lost in interpretations, it is not a wonder if Sarawakians’ frustration is interpreted as wanting to pull out of Malaysia.

The fact is, Sarawak wants to be treated as Malaya’s equal.

JIMMY ADIT is a by-product of journalism’s school of hard knocks. A has-been politikus, today he relishes life in the fringes of politics.

Source: http://www.theantdaily.com/Main/Read-my-lips-we-want-equality#sthash.PZmqULdL.dpuf

Read More

Fakta Mengenai Negara Sarawak

Negara Sarawak merupakan sebuah Negara yang Merdeka dan Berdaulat dibawah Pemerintahan Keluarga DiRajah James Brooke. Ia bukanlah seperti yang dinyatakan dalam buku teks sejarah sekolah buatan sejarawan malaya yang mengatakan bahawa "James Brooke" merupakan Penjajah di Sarawak.

Fakta dalam buku teks sejarah sekolah adalah fakta songsang kerana ia tidak berlandaskan kepada kebenaran fakta daripada pelbagai sumber tetapi hanya berdasarkan kepada tanggapan golongan "bijak pandai" orang malaya yang cuba menghilangkan persepsi positif dan sebaliknya cuba menanamkan dan menimbulkan kebencian terhadap Keluarga DiRajah James Brooke.

James Brooke merupakan seorang Pelayar British yang telah merantau ke Asia Tenggara 

***Sedikit sebanyak maklumat mengenai Rajah James Brooke serta keturunannya akan dikongikan. Artikel ini akan diedit berulang kali untuk mengemaskini maklumat mengenai fakta mengenai Negara Sarawak.***

Read More

Sulu tiada hak ke atas Sabah berdasarkan keputusan tuntutan di ICJ, kata Majlis Peguam

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 Mac — Kesultanan Sulu tidak mempunyai hak untuk menuntut Sabah kerana keputusan dari Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di The Hague, Belanda memihak kepada Putrajaya apabila berlaku pertindihan tuntutan Pulau Sipadan dan Ligitan dengan Jakarta yang diputuskan pada tahun 2002.

Menurut naib presiden Majlis Peguam Christopher Leong, keputusan itu sekaligus mengiktiraf Sabah dan pulau-pulau disekitarnya sebagai sebahagian dari Malaysia.

"Jika kita merujuk perkara sebelum ini, Kesultanan Sulu, dalam tindakannya dari 19 April 1851 hingga 26 Jun 1946 telah melepaskan hak, kepentingan dan penguasaannya terhadap Borneo Utara, atau kini dikenali sebagai Sabah," kata Leong dalam sidang media yang ditulis di laman web Majlis Peguam hari ini.

Menurut Leong, terdapat banyak perjanjian, di antaranya perjanjian antara Kesultanan Sulu dan Sepanyol pada 19 April 1851, dan disahkan oleh Protokol pada 22 Julai 1878 sebagai menjadi sebahagian dari jajahan Sepanyol.

Kemudian, British, Sepanyol dan Jerman telah menandatangani satu perjanjian menentukan sempadan masing-masing 7 Mac 1885, di mana Madrid melepaskan semua jajahannya di Borneo kepada London, yang bagaimanapun ditadbir Syarikat Borneo Utara British (SBUB).

Borneo Utara, yang kini sebagai Sabah merupakan sebahagian dari Kesultanan Sulu, yang kemudiannya dipajakkan kepada Baron von Overback dan Alfred Dent, yang membentuk SBUB, sehingga 26 Jun 1946, setahun selepas tamat perang dunia kedua, di mana syarikat tidak mampu untuk membangunkan semua prasarana dan diserahkan kepada kerajaan British.

British, pada 9 Julai 1963 menandatangani perjanjian dengan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu untuk menyerahkan Borneo Utara, Sarawak serta Singapura untuk menyertai Malaysia, selepas Suruhanjaya Cobbold mendapati penduduk di kawasan tersebut mahu menyertai Malaysia, yang kemudiannya dibentuk pada 16 September 1963.

Pulau Sipadan dan Ligitan adalah dua pulau bertindih di timur laut Sabah, di Laut Celebes yang hampir dengan sempadan Indonesia-Malaysia.

Dalam masa sama Leong juga mahu anggota keselamatan negara untuk menguruskan keselamatan di samping terus komited dengan hak asasi manusia dalam situasi di Lahad Datu.

Majlis Peguam juga mengucapkan takziah kepada keluarga anggota polis yang terkorban dalam menangani penceroboh di Lahad Datu.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/sulu-tiada-hak-ke-atas-sabah-berdasarkan-keputusan-tuntutan-di-icj-kata-majlis-peguam#sthash.RLio5VKT.dpuf

Read More

malaysia TIDAK pernah merdeka!

MALAYSIA tidak pernah merdeka. Mengapa? Pernahkah Malaysia dijajah? TIDAK! Apa yang perlu disambut ialah Hari Malaysia (Malaysia Day) pada 16 September setiap tahun.

Bukankah dengan mengatakan Malaysia Merdeka, ia membawa erti seolah-olah Malaysia pernah dijajah oleh kuasa asing? Kalau betul Malaysia dijajah, siapakah yang telah menjajah Malaysia?

Setahu saya, hanya North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, Singapore dan Malaya sahaja yang pernah dijajah oleh kuasa asing iaitu British. Pada 31 Ogos 1957 adalah hari kemerdekaan Malaya yang bebas daripada kuasa asing manakala Sabah merdeka pada 31 Ogos 1963 dan Sarawak pada 22 Julai 1963.

Maka, jangan keliru akan perkara ini yang telah diputar belitkan oleh kerajaan Malaya kerana 'Malaysia' adalah nama yang dipersetujui oleh empat buah negara yang ingin membentuk negara bersekutu.

Walaupun sebelum itu, Malaya ingin mengunakan nama Melayu Raya dalam persekutuan ini (konsep yang dicuri daripada Indonesia yang berkeinginan untuk mewujudkan negara Indonesia Raya) tetapi tidak diterima oleh 3 buah negara kerana ia lebih mengambarkan Kemelayuan.

Maka, sedarlah akan hal ini. Kibarkan bendera Negara Sabah / bendera Negara Sarawak dan bukan bendera Jalur Gemilang kerana jikalau anda sedari, itu adalah bendera penjajah!

Oleh itu, saya menyeru anda sekalian yang menggelarkan diri mereka 'Anak Sabah', Anak Sarawak, 'Bangsa Negara Sabah', 'Bangsa Negara Sarawak', 'Bangsa yang Merdeka dan Berdaulat' dan 'Bangsa yang Berani' untuk bersama-sama kibarkan bendera Negara Sabah, bendera Negara Sarawak sebanyak yang mungkin di halaman rumah, kampung atau sekitar tempat tinggal anda untuk menghidupkan semangat Kemerdekaan yang telah diberikan kepada kita oleh pihak British pada 31 Ogos 1963 (Sabah)/ 22 Julai 1963 (Sarawak).

Tarikh inilah yang mesti kita pertahankan walau apa cara sekalipun. Jangan cuba menafikan kenyataan ini kerana ini adalah fakta! Maka, mari kita bersama-sama menyambut hari Kemerdekaan kita. Kemerdekaan Negara Sabah (North Borneo) / Negara Sarawak kerana kita sekali Merdeka, selamanya MERDEKA!

Sebarkan...

Read More

KABINET TERAKHIR ARWAH TUN MUSTAPHA 1975

TUN MUSTAPHA MANGSA KONOTASI MAHU JADI SULTAN SABAH

SESUNGGUHNYA perangai busuk gerombolan songkok tinggi melayu UMNO dalam merompak 95% hasil kekayaan Sabah begitu sadis dan kotor.

Bahkan, gerombolan songkok tinggi melayu UMNO tergamak mencipta konotasi keparat yang kononnya Tun Datu Mustapha seorang pemimpin yang tidak bertanggungjawab dan bercadang hendak menabalkan dirinya menjadi Sultan Sabah pada tahun 1975.

Pada hal, Tun Datu Mustapha hanya tidak bersetuju dengan ketamakan, kerakusan dan keserakahan gerombolan songkok tinggi melayu UMNO yang hendak memunggah, mengaut dan merompak 95% hasil kekayaan Sabah ke Malaya atas nama Malaysia.

Yang demikian, Tun Datu Mustapha dijatuhkan oleh perangkap politik konotasi keparat gerombolan songkok tinggi melayu UMNO, dan rentetan darinya tidak diberi penghormatan sebagai antara negarawan yang membentuk Malaysia pada 16 September 1963 di hari kemangkatan arwah pada tahun 1995 akhirnya.

SUSUNAN KABINET TERAKHIR ARWAH TUN MUSTAPHA 1975

TUN DATU HAJI MUSTAPHA

Ketua Menteri Sabah

1. Dewan Undangan Negeri Sabah

2. Jabatan Tanah Dan Ukur

3. Jabatan Hutan

4. Jabatan Kajibumi

5. Jabatan Cetak Kerajaan

6. Pusat Pembangunan Masyarakat

7. Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Negeri Sabah

8. Jabatan Pendaftaran

9. Jabatan Imigresen

10. Jabatan Pelajaran

11. Jabatan Perangkaan

12. Perkhidmatan Perubatan Dan Kesihatan

13. Jabatan Kastam

14. Pasukan Polis Komponen Sabah

15. Pejabat Penilaian Kawasan

16. Perkhidmatan Kajicuaca

17. Jabatan Penerangan

18. Jabatan Penyiaran

19. Yayasan Sabah

20. Biro Bahasa Malaysia.

TAN SRI HAJI SAID KERUAK

Menteri Pertanian Dan Perikanan

1. Jabatan Pertanian

2. Jabatan Perikanan

3. Jabatan Parit Dan Taliair

4. Jabatan Kemajuan Kerjasama

5. Lembaga Padi Sabah

6. Lembaga Tabung Getah Sabah.

DATUK PANG TET TSHUNG

Menteri Perhubungan Dan Kerjaraya

1. Jabatan Kerjaraya

2. Keretaapi Negeri Sabah

3. Jabatan Kenderaan Jalanraya

4. Jabatan Laut

5. Jabatan Pernerbangan Awam

6. Jabatan Perkhidmatan Pos

7. Jabatan Talikom

8. Lembaga Pelabuhan-Pelabuhan Sabah

9. Lembaga Letrik Sabah.

DATUK HARRIS SALLEH

Menteri Pembangunan Perusahaan

1. Pembangunan Perusahaan Sabah.

DATUK HAJI HABIB ABD. RAHMAN

Menteri Kewangan

1. Kemajuan Ekonomi Negeri Sabah

2. Jabatan Hasil Dalam Negeri.

 TUAN SALLEH SULONG

Menteri Kerajaan Tempatan.

1. Suruhanjaya Perumahan Negeri Sabah

2. Perkhidmatan Bomba.

TUAN PAYAR JUMAN

Menteri Kebajikan Masyarakat

1. Jabatan Perkhidmatan Masyarakat

2. Perpustakaan Kerajaan

3. Muzium Sabah

4. Jabatan Penjara.

DATUK HAJI YASSIN HAJI HASHIM

Menteri Penyelarasan.

TUAN HAJI SAKARAN DANDAI

Menteri Kebudayaan Belia dan Sukan.

Moralnya ialah, tiada satu pun ‘Jabatan Kerajaan Sabah & Lembaga Kerajaan Sabah’ yang diserahkan oleh Arwah Tun Datu Mustapha kepada negara Malaya. Dengan kata lain, Sabah masih berstatus negara di zaman USNO.

Apakah hak Sabah yang tinggal? Ke mana hak kedaulatan Sabah bernegara?

SABAHAN BANGUNLAH MERDEKA SEMULA 100%!

- Naspazi

Source: https://www.facebook.com/notes/naspazis-channel/kabinet-terakhir-arwah-tun-mustapha-1975/733637976686183?pnref=story

Read More

SSKM-SSU(UK) OFFICIAL STATEMENT AGAINST RECENT WILD ACCUSATION FROM TEO CHEE KANG (LDP)

Greetings to all of the Independent people of the sovereign States of Sabah and Sarawak. I, Doris Jones, on behalf of the Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia Group (SSKM), a movement under the patronage of Sabah Sarawak Union-UK (SSU-UK), LEGALLY registered under the Legislation of The United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), would like to make a formal statement against a recent remark made by a Minister of Sabah, Datuk Teo Chee Kang of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which states "Masterminds behind secession identified". Datuk Teo Chee Kang is also a BN component party member of Tanjong Kapor, Kudat and is holding the portfolio as Minister of State Special Function.

Here, I will highlight his statement which was published in Borneo Post newspaper on the 14th of November 2014;

The minister said in a statement dated 13 November 2014 when he was in the State Legal Council (DUN) said that SSKM has caused problems and disrupted social harmony in this state (Sabah) [1]. Teo has stated that the issues in SSKM were raised by a small number of irresponsible groups of individuals [2]. Next, is pertaining to his statement that SSKM have also organized forums and a walk during the celebration of Independence Day [3].

This LDP member have also stated that "Although this (movement) is only provoked by a small member of the community, but it is seditious in nature and also provocative [4]. If it is not addressed, we are worried that this issue will deteriorate the harmony between the regions (in Malaysia) and challenge the Constitution of the country as well as threatening the country’s security” [5]. Lastly, he has stated in his statement that “Issues pertaining to SSKM merely involving a small number (of people) as the ‘silent majority’ don’t like what is happening now” [6].

Firstly [1], I beg this LDP member to explain in the deepest extent, supported with factual evidence, as well as listing down the types of problems and social disorders caused by SSKM all these while? Is it because of the exposure of the so-called ‘historical facts’ which are actually distorted, filled with irregularities, abuse, fraud, and conspiracies made by Barisan National (BN) and UMNO - which have been hidden from the awareness of the people of Negara Sabah – have caused problems and disorders towards social harmony? Or is it actually because it is threatening the position of government leaders and the cronies of BN-UMNO?

Secondly [2], I would like for a professional and mature clarification about the statement “SSKM issues were triggered by some irresponsible people”. Have I not been stating, since over two months ago that I am the person who takes full responsibility pertaining to all movement and activities of SSKM in Negara Sabah and Negara Sarawak. For that reason, I have also challenged the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Minister of Internal Affair and the Police Commissioner of Sabah to sue me in the United Kingdom Court, in which I have presented this challenge and message via my personal Facebook page. Why? Because I am a responsible person.

Thirdly [3], the accusation made by the LDP member is nothing more than a MALICIOUS DEFAMATION by trying to link the activity organized by Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) in conjunction with the celebration of the 51st Independence Day of Sabah with SSKM. I would like to state formally here that the activity is NOT directly nor indirectly related with SSKM. No collaboration in any form was made between these two groups along the period of the event. On the other hand, the forum was organized by Progressive Institute Public Policy (PIPPA). However, I do not deny that I personally support both of the events by my personal capacity as a citizen of the Nation of Sabah, as the objectives of the events were to raise public awareness of the true history of Sabah, on top of promoting a sense of love towards Negara Sabah, Negara Sarawak and the Federation of Malaysia. It is clear that this accusation is a mere attempt to persuade the people of Sabah to go against any other programs such as these in the future. Do you realize that you yourself have just made a demagoguery and deception with malicious intention?

Fourth [4], if by education the people of Negara Sabah and Negara Sarawak about the true history, without the addition of misleading ‘facts’, based on proven facts, supported by unaltered documents stored in London, is  considered as “sedition” and “provocation”, therefore I will admit that I have indeed made a “sedition” and “provocation”. Yes, I have made “sedition” and “provocation” towards the people of Negara Sabah and Negara Sarawak, so that they will rise and be awaken from their sleep that all these while, they have been deceived, day and night, in life and death, without a hitch. However, if “not a sedition” is considered as a definition for the dissemination of slender, deception, manipulation of historical fact and so on, therefore I will decide to be categorized as being “seditious” and a “provocateur”  for the sake of awareness among the people of Negara Sabah and Negara Sarawak.

Fifth [5], I would like for you to answer with full honesty, as citizen of Negara Sabah. All these while, who are the ones who actually have been posing a threat against Regional Harmony and National Constitution as well as against National Security? If you are true to yourself, then you should know better. Let me explain briefly. The Malayan leaders are the ones who are responsible all these while to threaten the harmony, constitution and security since the beginning of the formation of Malaysian Federation. The leaders of Negara Sabah and Negara Sarawak have been toppled down by dirty, cunning and malicious political game of the Malayan leaders, who have incited local leaders to overthrow the Sabah and Sarawak government back then, while they were governing based on the original concept of the federation enshrined in the Malaysian Agreement.

The Malayan leaders have also altered the Constitution aggressively, as soon as Singapore quit the federation. The security of Negara Sabah has always been under threat while we are under the government of Barisan Nasional and UMNO. Why? Because they are inducing fear among the Sabahan people so that they will win the people’s vote to keep their power over Sabah. The Silent Riot in 1986 in Kota Kinabalu and the Tanduo Intrusion were actually orchestrated by UMNO-BN. Have things like these ever happen to Negara Sarawak? No. Why? Because there are no UMNO or any coalition parties from Malaya in Negara Sarawak. Sarawak is governed by BN component party which consists of local nationalist parties.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that you would refer to an exposure based on a research made by Mr. Zainnal Ajaimain, who has unraveled all the questions that have been lingering in the minds of the people in Negara Sabah and Negara Sarawak. The research is a successful one and must be honoured in order to give understanding on the question “Is Malaya Masquerading as Malaysia?” The answer is YES. Click here to read the article (http://sabahsarawakmerdeka.blogspot.com/2014/11/defining-malaysia-is-malaya.html). I would suggest Mr. Zainnal Ajamain to produce a Malay version of the article intended for the non-English speaking audiences.

Sixth and the final one [6], I leave the matter in the hands of the people of Sabah and Sarawak nationals. Whether they struggle against this, it is their right. Similarly, those who support this struggle, it is their inalienable right. Nobody have the right to force anyone to support it or against it. This is because the history of Negara Sabah have proven that a government who are oppressing the people will come to an end in an instance once the people starts to rise. I do not deny that there are those who would go against this cause, however based on my personal observation, majority of the people are supporting it. “Silent Majority” is a monster much feared by any government. Are you absolutely sure that the “Silent Majority” is in your (the government) side? We shall see in PRU-14.

I do not deny that harassment from leaders and supporters of BN-UMNO is booming, however the support from the people of Negara Sabah and Negara Sarawak have also continues to intensify to the extent that they are not afraid to give statement in the police station. If arrested, for them, life and death is only once. If they shall die, they shall die as a National Warrior and never as a traitor who ruined the Nation.

Thank you.

Read More

No Asian nation has emerged by itself, says don

KOTA KINABALU: The Federation of Malaysia exists by virtue of the people's cooperation and dependency on one another in keeping with the historical traditions of South East Asia.

"There has never been an Asian country that has emerged by itself and been entirely independent on its own according to history," said Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Associate Professor Dr. Farish A. Noor.

He made these assertions during the 4th Kinabalu Lecture Series held at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).

Farish was commenting on the 'Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia' (SSKM) movement that of late has been propagating the secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia.

"It's sad that you have such sentiments because the federation of Malaysia is precisely that, it's a federation, and I think why local sentiments might emerge sometimes is perhaps due to frustration.

"We have always needed each other and depended upon each other, which is somehow encapsulated in the spirit of the federation, therefore, showing its importance.

"I still place value on the idea of the federation because the notion of the federation immediately reminds us that even as nation, even as states, we are never entirely self-reliant in the way we have the Asean community which tells us that that there is no single country that could survive alone.

"Singapore cannot survive alone, Indonesia cannot survive alone, Malaysia cannot survive alone," he added.

Towards this end he stated that the Asian identity has always been a construct that has been developed historically.

"In the past, what made Asia so rich economically, culturally, was our ability to accept and meet with diversity and pluralism," he explained. Given that Asia is a constructed idea Asians must therefore understand that they have a role to play, define themselves and search for their identities.

"And so as we talk about the coming of the Asian century and the age of Asian integration, as Asians ourselves living in Asia, we must feel our own history, our personalities, our lives are part of this bigger picture and that we should play our part in appreciating our historical role as Asians."

Asia, according to Farish is about to enter a new era of unprecedented development and integration on a scale people would not have imagined about ten years ago.

The programme which was organised by the Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Heritage was attended by about 200 lecturers and students.

Source: http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=93409

Read More