See where MALAYSIA GOES WRONG in UN Congress ?

6 November 2012

GA/SHC/4051

Universal Recognition of Inalienable Right to Self-Determination Most Effective Way of Guaranteeing Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told

General Assembly

Meetings Coverage

Sixty-seventh General Assembly

Third Committee

30th & 31st Meeting (AM & PM)

Hears from Some 35 Speakers in Day-Long Debate,

With Focus on Eliminating Racism, Self-Determination, Human Rights Protections Universal recognition of the inalienable right to self-determination was the most effective way the global community could guarantee protection of fundamental freedoms, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was told today, as it concluded discussion on several human rights issues.

“Whether this right is taken away by military intervention, aggression, occupation, or even exploitation, the world cannot condone its deprivation from any peoples in any region,” the Maldives representative said.

All States facing questions of self-determination must include broader ethnic and linguistic groups in decision-making processes, said delegates, as the Committee heard from some 35 speakers in a day-long debate that concluded its consideration of the elimination of racism, and the right of peoples to self-determination, then moved on to consideration of human rights protections.

The representative from the youngest Member State, South Sudan, said his people’s experiences were “an excellent lesson for the international community” on matters of racism and self-determination, since South Sudanese political parties and personalities had not been consulted in discussions on independence from colonial Britain, which led to distrust and decades of war.

The racial and religious discrimination faced by South Sudan for more than six decades should not have happened, with the Charter and the watchful eyes of the United Nations to guard against such indignities, he said. Nonetheless, despite all the hardship inflicted, South Sudan, which finally became a Republic in 2011, would like to put suffering behind, and seek a good relationship with Sudan.

During the discussion, a number of countries supported realization of self-determination for the Palestinian people, calling on the Security Council to recommend that the General Assembly accept the Palestinian application for United Nations membership and heavily criticizing Israel’s policies.

Malaysia’s representative said he had personally witnessed the suffering of Palestinians under Israel’s military occupation and blockade, which destroyed the economy and minimized employment opportunities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. “The sooner the solution is found, the sooner members of both sides can find themselves living in peace and security,” he said. “The only option is to make the two-State solution, based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine, a reality,” he said.

The Palestinian observer said Israel had violently withheld the inherent right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, but those people remained committed to peace and had not forsaken their legitimate national aspirations. Israel should not be allowed to continue obstructing and dictating the terms of the Palestinian exercise of the right to self-determination, she said.

Speaking in right of reply, Israel’s representative said that it was committed to advancing the self-determination of Palestinians and to a two-State solution. The Palestinian delegate, among others, had neglected to mention that Israel’s Prime Minister had offered to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority President without preconditions but had been rebuffed “time and again”. If the Palestinian delegate cared about self-determination, she would stop berating his country and start working with it, he said.

In the afternoon, the Committee also resumed its discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights, in which most delegates vowed to continue engaging in the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review, a cornerstone of the international human rights architecture.

During the debate, the representative of Nigeria said the most severe human rights problems in the world today were caused by poverty, discrimination, conflicts and diseases. Political instability and conflicts, particularly in Africa, were intrinsically linked to economic development, he said, calling for an increase in development and financial assistance to realize the Millennium Development Goals.

The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), said the work of the international community in promotion and protection of human rights should take into account principles of respect for national sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. “Freedom, progress and national stability are promoted by a balance between the rights of the individual and those of the community, through which many individual rights are realized, as provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he said.

The European Union’s representative said 2012 had been a year in which the long path of transition in many countries continued worldwide. “There may be temptations, once power is gained, to refuse to grant to some the full enjoyment of all human rights. But, democracy can only flourish when it gives its entire people, whatever their gender, religion, disability, language or ethnic identity, an equal say and equal rights, guaranteed in law and practice,” he said.

Also speaking today in the debate on racism and self-determination were the representatives of Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Albania, Malaysia, Bolivia, Norway, Syria, India, Costa Rica, Armenia, Iceland, Egypt and Azerbaijan.

Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of Armenia, Pakistan, Syria, India and Azerbaijan, as well as a representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine.

In the debate on the protection and promotion of human rights the Secretary-General of the Ministry for Human Rights of Burkina Faso spoke, as did the representatives of India, United Republic of Tanzania, Morocco, Viet Nam, Ukraine, Latvia, Barbados (on behalf of Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), Chile (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Brazil (on behalf of Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)), Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Venezuela, United States, Australia, Japan and Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

Exercising the right of reply were the representatives of China, Russian Federation, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba, Bahrain, Viet Nam and Japan.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 7 November, to begin its consideration of refugees and hold a dialogue with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to continue its consideration of elimination of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance as well as the right of peoples to self-determination, and to continue its discussion of promotion and protection of human rights.

Statements on Racism and Self-Determination

NURBEK KASYMOV ( Kyrgyzstan) rejected all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. He also rejected the recent film entitled “The Innocence of Muslims”, saying also it was unacceptable to direct violence against diplomatic staff. There were more than 100 nationalities in Kyrgyzstan, and one third of the population was comprised of ethnic minorities. In 1994, Kyrgyzstan had become party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reaffirming its attachment to equality and non-discrimination. The constitution enshrined equal rights for all. It was pursuing a policy of multicultural education and transparent governance. A council on inter-ethnic development also had been established under the President’s auspices.

Noting that more than 10 years had passed since the adoption of the Durban Declaration, he said implementation of that instrument and its Programme of Action had been unsatisfactory, as racism persisted in all corners of the world. He shared the Secretary-General’s appeal for more political will and stronger measures to reverse the trend of racist and xenophobic violence. Intercultural dialogue and respect for diversity were extremely important in combating such behaviour. Political platforms based on such attitudes should be condemned as incompatible with democratic principles and he urged States to change legislation, guarantee the rule of law and carry out appropriate educational work.

Mr. RAHMAN ( Iran) said the right of Palestinians to self-determination was an inalienable right, yet Palestinians were being deprived the exercise of that right. Flagrant international human rights violations by the occupying Power continued unabated. The international community should not be indifferent to that travesty of justice and humanity. Palestinians deserved liberation and self-determination and international measures had been inadequate. As long as that question remained unresolved, peace could not prevail in the region. The question of Palestine was at the core of the Middle East conflict. The root cause of the problem should be addressed. The final outcome should be an independent, democratic Palestine with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.

Turning to racism, Mr. ANSARI said racism, in different forms and manifestations, was among the root causes of internal and international conflicts, and threatened ethnic and religious minorities. Racial and xenophobic actions had increasingly targeted minorities, especially Muslim communities, indigenous peoples, immigrants, people with African or Asian origins, and Roma. The growing tendency of politicians to stigmatize people on the basis of religion, race, colour, descent and national or ethnic origin was also alarming. The world had seen a recent upsurge of “Islamophobia” in certain parts of the world, a trend manifested in attacks on Muslim places of worship, among other things. He was gravely concerned at the desecration of Muslim sanctuaries, saying such Islamophobic acts only cultivated animosity among different peoples and nations.

ERVIN NINA ( Albania) welcomed the contribution of the Special Rapporteur in his report on the increased use of the Internet to promote, fuel and disseminate racist ideas. Dialogue among different cultures and civilizations should be seen as an ongoing process that required dedication, goodwill and care. “We cannot permit that the reckless sporadic actions of disruptive groups through the Internet obstruct us from a genuine effort to reach a better understanding of each other in a world everyday more globalized,” he said.

Albania shared the view that the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was an issue that concerned all and in which the international community must be united. But, it was also convinced that the fight against intolerance began at the community level, and no society could progress unless every aspect of discrimination was fought vigorously and continuously.

HUSSEIN HANIFF ( Malaysia) said the long struggle for self-determination still eluded Palestinians, and the expansion of Israeli settlements was tantamount to that country’s encouragement of settler violence against Palestinian people and property. Israeli policies and practices of displacement and dispossession only served to worsen the disempowering and vulnerable conditions endured by the Palestinian people. He urged the international community and the Middle East Quartet to take firmer action to stop the illegal Israeli settlements, confiscation of Palestinian land and resources and demolition of Palestinian homes, property and infrastructure. The practices of administrative detention and extrajudicial execution also required a stronger international response.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/freenorthborneo/posts/613722235394208

*********************************************************************************

malayan: Malaysia’s representative said he had personally witnessed the suffering of Palestinians under Israel’s military occupation and blockade, which destroyed the economy and minimized employment opportunities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. “The sooner the solution is found, the sooner members of both sides can find themselves living in peace and security,” he said. “The only option is to make the two-State solution, based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine, a reality,” he said.

Bornean say: WE, personally witnessed the suffering of Sabahans under Malaysia Govenrment's occupation and blockade, which destroyed the economy and minimized employment opportunities in the Occupied North Boreno (SABAH) and Sarawak land. “The sooner the solution is found, the sooner members of both sides can find themselves living in peace and security,“The only option is to make the two-State solution, based on 20 Poinsts which had been agreed in 1963 Malaysia Agreement ! Full stop!

Read More

Benarkah 20 Perkara Itu Tidak Penting???

Pihak SSKM-SSU(UK) tidak pernah terlintas untuk mencalarkan imej perjuangan anda, Zainnal Ajamain dan MP Goviind, namun timbul persoalan-persoalan yang hanya anda berdua sahaja mampu menjawabnya.

Persoalan yang perlu dijawab dengan jujur... Apakah keistimewaan anda yang akan membolehkan pihak kerajaan yang menyamar (malaya) ini akan mendengar permintaan anda untuk menghormati Perjanjian Malaysia 1963?

Mengimbas kembali sejarah tahun lepas 2014, YB.Darell Leiking selaku ahli Dewan Parlimen malaysia telah membawa kes untuk mengkaji semula perjanjian malaysia di peringkat parlimen (untuk dihormati). Apakah hasilnya? Yang Dipertua Dewan Parlimen telah menolaknya dengan alasan bahawa perkara tersebut penting tetapi tidak segera.

Pada peringkat Dewan Undangan Negeri (Negara) pula, YB.Datuk Dr.Jeffrey G.Kitingan selaku ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Sabah juga telah membawanya untuk dikaji (dalam erti kata lain menghormati perjanjian malaysia 1963) tetapi tidak diterima atas alasan yang diberikan untuk menolak usul tersebut kononnya kerana ia telah dihantar lambat dan tidak menyatakan dengan spesifik kategori usul ini dibawah perenggan apa (sebenarnya usul tersebut sudah dihantar 2 minggu sebelum persidangan DUN bermula dan telah dinyatakan bahawa usul tersebut dibawah kategori "PENTING DAN SEGERA").

Jadi, sekali lagi ingin pihak kami tanyakan kepada anda berdua, apakah keistimewaan anda yang akan membuatkan pihak kerajaan malaysia ini akan mendengar permintaan anda agar ia (perjanjian malaysia 1963) dihormati sedangkan baru mahu meminta perjanjian malaysia ini untuk dikaji semula pun tidak dilayan?

Berbalik kepada persoalan-persoalan yang anda kemukakan dalam artikel anda yang bertajuk "Perkara 20 tidak penting", ini adalah jawapannya...

1. Semua perkara didalam 20 Perkara terdapat didalam Laporan Cobbold.
   
   
2. Tidak semua perkara yang terdapat didalam Laporan Cobbold dimasukkan kedalam 20 Perkara.
   
   
3. Laporan Cobbold merupakan satu rekomendasi kepada Kerajaan British dan malaya agar mereka memahami apakah kerisauan bangsa Borneo pada ketika itu apabila gagasan pembentukan persekutuan malaysia ini dicadangkan untuk ditubuhkan yang akan melibatkan Negara North Borneo (kini dikenali sebagai Negara Sabah) dan Negara Sarawak. IGC merupakan satu Committee yang bertanggungjawab dalam merangka Perlembagaan persekutuan malaysia namun mereka memutuskan untuk menggunakan perlembagaan persekutuan tanah melayu (malaya) terlebih dahulu sebagai asas kepada perlembagaan persekutuan malaysia dengan membuat perubahan akta bagi membolehkan kehadiran anggota baru dijustifikasikan dalam perlembagaan tersebut. Dalam perbincangan IGC, seharusnya perlembagaan baru dibuat selepas beberapa tahun kemudian persekutuan malaysia ini dibentuk. 20 Perkara merupakan Perkara-Perkara yang telah dipilih dan diambil daripada Laporan Cobbold oleh lima buah badan parti-parti politik Negara Sabah kerana ia merupakan Perkara-Perkara yang difikirkan MUSTAHAK untuk dimasukkan ke dalam Perjanjian Malaysia. Namun Perkara 7 tidak diterima kerana menurut kebijaksanaan Cobbold (Pengerusi Cobbold Commission) dan Lansdowne (Pengerusi IGC), pembentukkan persekutuan malaysia ini adalah dibentuk atas dasar "SUKARELA". Oleh itu, TIDAK BOLEH ada sebarang halangan ataupun sekatan kepada mana-mana anggota yang membentuk persekutuan ini untuk menarik diri daripada persekutuan malaysia jikalau mereka merasakan persekutuan ini sudah lagi tidak memberikan kebaikan kepada mereka. 
   
   
   Kesimpulannya, Laporan Cobbold dan IGC telah memperincikan segala perkara untuk pertimbangan termasuk dengan 20 Perkara yang telah diketengahkan kepada IGC agar mendapat LEBIH PERHATIAN bagi menjustifikasikan pembentukkan persekutuan malaysia. Walau bagaimanapun, Cobbold dan Lansdowne telah memberikan ruang kepada Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak untuk menarik diri daripada persekutuan malaysia pada bila-bila masa jikalau perlu tanpa sebarang sekatan. Atas sebab itulah mengapa tiada akta dalam perlembagaan malaysia yang melarang mana-mana negara yang bersekutu untuk menarik diri ataupun berpisah daripada persekutuan malaysia. Buktinya, Negara Singapura telah melakukannya pada 8 Ogos 1965 sebelum mendapat kelulusan daripada Dewan Parlimen Persekutuan Malaysia. Ini kerana pada tarikh tersebut, semua ahli undangan dewan Singapura telah mengundi untuk berpisah daripada persekutuan malaysia. Sehari selepas daripada tarikh tersebut iaitu pada 9 Ogos 1965, barulah tunku abdul rahman mengumumkan secara rasmi akan perpisahan tersebut. Itulah realitinya.

Pihak kami berharap segala jawapan yang telah kami berikan ini untuk persoalan-persoalan yang dikemukan oleh Zainnal dan MP Goviind ini terjawab. Tiada istilah penipuan yang dibawakan dalam perjuangan ini. Apa yang jelas ialah perspektif kefahaman anda berdua kepada perjuangan ini adalah berbeza daripada pihak kami. Sila lakukan cara anda dan kami lakukan cara kami. Tiada masalah.

Anda percaya bahawa hanya perlu membawa Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 sahaja barulah perkara ini akan selesai. Namun, berdasarkan kepada kefahaman melalui penerangan yang diberikan, perjuangan anda hanyalah ingin memperbetulkan konsep persekutuan malaysia dan mahu terus kekal dalam persekutuan malaysia. Sila perbetulkan kefahaman ini jikalau kurang tepat.

Manakala pihak kami, SSKM-SSU(UK) berjuang untuk terus membawa Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak berpisah daripada persekutuan malaysia ini. Melalui pandangan dalam sudut perundangan, perjanjian malaysia 1963 telah terbatal. Sila rujuk kepada artikel ini; Perjanjian Malaysia Adalah BATAL dan TIDAK SAH; Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 TIDAK SAH. Jikalau sudah tidak sah, untuk apa perlu dihormati? Sedangkan malaya sendiri tidak pernah ingin menghormatinya.

Keinginan bangsa Negara Sabah dan bangsa Negara Sarawak adalah Kemerdekaan MUTLAK iaitu bebas daripada pemerintahan kerajaan malaya yang telah menyamar menjadi kerajaan persekutuan malaysia. Bebas daripada cengkaman penjajahan malaya yang telah menjadikan Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak miskin hasil daripada sistem yang tidak adil dan direka untuk mengaut segala kekayaan di Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak untuk dibangunkan di malaya. Pada masa yang sama, menindas bangsa Negara Sabah dan Bangsa Negara Sarawak secara halus agar sentiasa bergantung kepada kepimpinan malaya. Ini telah memudahkan manipulasi kehidupan yang berunsurkan politik malah campur tangan politk yang tidak berkesudahan ini telah menjahanamkan bangsa Negara Sabah dan bangsa Negara Sarawak selama ini.

Diatas tangan Generasi Muda Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak yang telah memegang satu jumlah populasi yang majoriti di kedua-dua negara di Borneo ini, Perpisahan dan Kemerdekaan menjadi PILIHAN MUKTAMAD.

Disini, pihak kami berikan hasil daripada 20 Perkara yang telah diketengahkan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin yang lepas...

Siapa yang masih merasakan perkara 20/18 perjanjian malaysia hanyalah dimeja rundingan. Ini adalah bukti semuanya termaktub dalam perjanjian Malaysia 1963. 

Fakta menarik: Perkara 7: hak untuk keluar dari persekutuan malaysia tiada termaktub dalam perjanjian ini dan hanya diungkit dimeja rundingan sahaja.

Join The Fight! 

Sila baca artikel yang berkaitan ini:

• Terima Kasih Nasionalis Negara Sabah
• Hentikan Kekeliruan Anda Mengenai 18 & 20 Perkara Dan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963

Read More

Persamaan dan Perbezaan Perjuangan...

Perbezaan yang perlu difahami dan direnungkan. Selepas itu, hak anda untuk menyokong.

PERSAMAAN 

Berjuang untuk Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Bangsa Negara Sarawak.

Golongan Nasionalis Kebangsaan Borneo.

PERBEZAAN

SSKM-SSU(UK): Menggunakan dokumen kolonial, Cobbold Commission, 18 & 20 Points, IGC Report, Malaysia Agreement 1963 dan Petisyen dalam menyampaikan perjuangan Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Bangsa Negara Sarawak melalui NGO untuk menuntut Self-Determination (Kemerdekaan) sebenar daripada UN dan ICJ. 

Zainnal dan MP Goviind: Berjuang melalui parti politik untuk memperbetulkan konsep persekutuan untuk terus kekal dalam persekutuan malaysia.

***Jika terdapat kesalahan mahupun kesilapan dalam perjuangan Zainnal dan MP Goviind, sila hubungi pihak SSKM-SSU(UK) untuk memperbetulkannya melalui email sskmsabahsarawak@gmail.com***

	SSKM-SSU(UK)	Zainnal dan MP Goviind
Asas Perjuangan	Colonial Documents, Cobbold Commission Report, 18 & 20 Points Memorandum, IGC Report, Malaysia Agreement 1963 dan Petisyen	Malaysia Agreement 1963
Objektif Perjuangan	1. Untuk mendidik rakyat Negara Sabah dan rakyat Negara Sarawak tentang kebenaran di sebalik sejarah PEMBENTUKAN PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA 1963, HAK Negara Sabah dan HAK Negara Sarawak MENGIKUT REFERENDUM 18/20 PERKARA. 2. Untuk meningkatkan kesedaran dan semangat Patriotisme dikalangan rakyat Negara Sabah dan rakyat Negara Sarawak terhadap negara-negara mereka (Sabah dan Sarawak). Justeru, mencetuskan semangat nasionalisme terhadap negara sendiri yang telah lama berada dibawah penindasan dan manipulasi Kerajaan Tanah Melayu (malaya) dan juga pemimpin tempatan yang rosak. 3. Mengumpul 300,000 tandatangan rakyat Negara Sabah dan rakyat Negara Sarawak untuk dikemukakan ke United Kingdom of Great Britain dan Northen Ireland (UK) dan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu (PBB) bahawa Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak sudah tidak lagi berminat untuk terus berada sebahagian daripada Persekutuan Malaysia bersama dengan Malaya.	***kurang pasti***
Misi Perjuangan	Untuk mendapatkan Pengisytiharan Rasmi daripada The United Kingdom Great Britain dan Northen Ireland (UK) dan Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB), bahawa Negara Sabah (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai Borneo Utara) dan Negara Sarawak (dahulu dikenali sebagai Kingdom of Sarawak) sudah tidak lagi berminat untuk terus menjadi sebahagian daripada Persekutuan Malaysia, dan seterusnya menjadi Negara yang benar-benar Merdeka dan Berdaulat di Asia Tenggara yang bakal dikenali dengan nama "Republik Negara Borneo Utara / Republic of North Borneo (Sabah)" dan "Republik Negara Sarawak".	Memperbetulkan konsep asal persekutuan malaysia dengan memaksa kerajaan persekutuan kini untuk menghormati perjanjian malaysia 1963. ***berdasarkan kefahaman terhadap rentak perjuangan mereka***
Visi	Untuk mengaktifkan semula status Kemerdekaan Negara Sabah dan Kemerdekaan Negara Sarawak yang telah diberikan oleh British sebelum pembentukan Malaysia pada tahun 1963. Dengan demikian, akan benar-benar dapat membangunkan negara-negara ini menjadi antara negara-negara yang maju di Asia Tenggara.	***kurang pasti***
Strategi Perjuangan	Menyebarkan kebenaran yang selama ini disembunyikan melalui pendedahan sejarah yang berfakta dengan sokongan dokumen-dokumen penting kolonial. Menggunakan Media Sosial sebagai Agen Penyebaran Utama. Selain itu, memungut petisyen untuk target 300,000 tandatangan bagi menyokong perjuangan.	Memberikan ceramah untuk menerangkan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 dan menyebarkan info melalui melalui media sosial.
Jentera Perjuangan	NGO	Parti Politik
Persamaan	Demi kepentingan Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Bangsa Negara Sarawak.
Perbezaan	Berpegang kepada 5 asas perjuangan sebagai pendirian utama dengan sokongan petisyen.		Berpegang kepada 1 asas perjuangan sebagai pendirian utama.
Target	United Nation (UN) dan International Court of Justice (ICJ)		***kurang pasti***
Kata Putus	Berpisah daripada persekutuan malaysia/malaya untuk menjadi Negara-Negara yang benar-benar Merdeka dan Berdaulat.		Kekal dalam persekutuan malaysia dan menjadi rakan kongsi yang sebenar dengan persekutuan tanah melayu.

Read More

MALAYSIA FACING SECESSION THREAT IN BORNEO

SIMANGGANG (Sarawak), September 27. - The deposed Chief Minister of Sarawak, Dato Stephen Kalong Ningkan, plans to fight an anti-Malaysia campaign in the next general election unless the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur concedes greater powers of local autonomy to Sarawak.

Dato Ningkan will ask the Central Government to hand over to the State Government constitutional control over information and broadcasting and customs. If the Central Government refuses, he will call for Sarawak's secession from Malaysia and fight a "Sarawak for Sarawakians" campaign in the next general election.

Such a tactic is bound to cause embarrassment and anger in Kuala Lumpur. The Malaysian Government is committed, by the terms of its settlement with Indonesian to holding general election in Sarawak to demonstrate the State willingness to remain within the Malaysian Federation.

Most independent observers in Sarawak believe that Dato Ningkan's Sarawak National Party (SNAP) with the support of the predominantly Chinese Sarawak United People's party (SUPP) would now win comfortably a free election in Sarawak.

Belief

Dato Ningkan, a fiery Iban with a taste and talent for political infighting. Is now stumping the rugged Second Division of Sarawak, his tribal home territory, urging his supporters to resist "Domination from Kuala Lumpur."

British forces are now withdrawing from Sarawak, the Malaysian State which "bore" the main brunt of Indonesian confrontation during the past three years. The 4th Batallion, Royal Australian Regiment, which ---- missing note---- have accessed Britain of refusing to honor economic and financial commitments in order to pressure Malaysia into better relation with Singapore. British diplomat and expatriate British civil servants in Sarawak have been accused of "interfering" in the present political crisis in Sarawak.

Shortly after being sworn in as new Chief Minister last Saturday, Penghulu Tawi Sli Gooma, leader of the Alliance Coalition in Sarawak, issued an official statement alleging diplomatic interference.

Consulates

He said: "During the recent crisis some diplomatic personnel seem to have been extraordinarily active, and I have been informed that they take sides in our internal politic affairs. I am writing immediately to the Minister of External Affairs, asking them the particulars of some diplomatic personnel in Sarawak with the idea of finding out whether any of them was involved in the crisis."

Britain and the United States are the only two countries consulates in Kuching. One British consular official was personally named by  an Alliance backbench speaker in last week's debate in Kuala Lumpur on the emergency amendment to the Federal Constitution extending the powers of the Governor of Sarawak.

This correspondent can find no evidence of British interference in local politics. Most consular official and expatriate civil servants have been extremely reticent during the past week. Many have refused to talk to correspondents. Those who have agreed to talk privacy to me have expressed their belief in the continuing stability of Malaysia.

With the installation of the new Alliance Government in Sarawak, the political contest in Sarawak has now moved to the provinces. The new Chief Minister (Penghulu Tawi Bil) plans to tour the Upper Rajang area next week end rallying supports in the Third Division.

The deposed Chief Minister, Dato Ningkan, now touring the Second Division plans to force meeting of the divisional advisory councils - the second was in the indirect electoral system when formed the present parliament.

He claims to control at least four of the five divisional advisory councils and to have the necessary two thirds majorities to force the councils to meet.

His supporters in the divisional councils are now being asked to swear affidavits declaring no confidence in their present Alliance representatives and demanding a general election.

The divisional advisory councils have no constitutional power to force a general election. But an adverse vote for the new State Government in the divisional councils would be a psychological victory for Dato Ningkan.

Here, in the heart of the Second Division, independent observers say that the Dayak longhouses are solid in their support for Dato Ningkan who is now seen by increasing numbers of Ibans and Dayak, as the leader of a patriotic fight for the yet undefined caused of Sarawak nationalism.

27 September 1966

Read More

18-point Memorandum Sarawak

Introduction

The 18-point agreement, or the 18-point memorandum, was a list of 18 points drawn up by Sarawak, proposing terms for its incorporation into Malaysia, during negotiations prior to the creation of the new federation in 1963.

A Commission of Enquiry, headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold, and The Lansdowne Committee, an inter-governmental committee, were appointed to aid in the drafting of the Malaysia Agreement. Lord Lansdowne served for Britain and Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, served for Malaya. 

The 18 points were based on the Nine Cardinal Principles of the rule of the English Rajah. A similar memorandum, known as the 20-point agreement, was prepared and submitted by North Borneo. These memoranda are often cited by those who believe that Sarawak's and Sabah's rights within Malaysia have since been eroded.

Nine Cardinal Principles of the rule of the English Rajah

The Nine Cardinal Principles of the rule of the English Rajah is the Preamble of the Sarawak Constitution 1941, the document setting forth the Sarawak Constitution 1941 opened by enunciating the Cardinal Principle were edict by Charles Vyner Brooke, the White Rajah of Sarawak on 24 September 1941 known as the Nine Cardinal Principles of the rule of the White Rajah later adopted into the Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962 in APPENDIX C as the Nine Cardinal Principles of the rule of the English Rajah,

The Cardinal Principles are set out in the First Schedule to the Sarawak (Constitution) Order in Council, 1956. They originally formed part of the Preamble to Order No. C-21 (Constitution), 1941, enacted by the Rajah of Sarawak. these were;

1. That Sarawak is the heritage of Our Subjects and is held in trust by Ourselves for them.

2. That social and education services shall be developed and improved and the standard of living of the people of Sarawak shall steadily be raised.

3. That never shall any person or persons be granted rights inconsistent with those of the people of this country or be in any way permitted to exploit Our Subjects or those who have sought Our protection and care.

4. That justice shall be freely obtainable and that the Rajah and every public servant shall be easily accessible to the public.

5. That freedom of expression both in speech and in writing shall be permitted and encouraged and that everyone shall be entitled to worship as he pleases.

6. That public servants shall ever remember that they are but the servants of the people on whose goodwill and co-operation they are entirely dependent.

7. That so far as may be Our Subjects of whatever race or creed shall be freely and impartially admitted to offices in Our Service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity duly to discharge.

8. That the goal of self-government shall always be kept in mind, that the people of Sarawak shall be entrusted in due course with the governance of themselves, and that continuous efforts shall be made to hasten the reaching of this goal by educating them in the obligations, the responsibilities, and the privileges of citizenship.

9. That the general policy of Our predecessors and Ourselves whereby the various races of the State have been enabled to live in happiness and harmony together shall be adhered to by Our successors and Our servants and all who may follow them hereafter.

Source: 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18-point_agreement, 
• http://startodaynews.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-cardinals-of-sarawak-1941-constitution.html
• http://sabahsarawakmerdeka.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/20-points-memorandum-sabah-north-borneo.html

• Runciman, Steven (2011). The White Rajah: A History of Sarawak from 1841 to 1946. Cambridge University Press. pp. 248–249. ISBN 9780521128995.

Read More

20-Points Memorandum Sabah (North Borneo)

Introduction

The 20-point agreement, or the 20-point memorandum, is a list of 20 points drawn up by North Borneo, proposing terms for its incorporation into the new federation as the State of Sabah, during negotiations prior to the formation of Malaysia. In the Malaysia Bill of the Malaysia Agreement some of the twenty points were incorporated, to varying degrees, into what became the Constitution of Malaysia; others were merely accepted orally, thus not gaining legal status. The 20-point agreement often serves as a focal point amongst those who argue that Sabah's rights within the Federation have been eroded over time.

Background

Under an agreement signed between Great Britain and the Federation of Malaya the issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak formed a challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. A Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961 announced that before coming to any final decision it was necessary to ascertain the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak. It was decided to set up a Commission to carry out that task and to make recommendations.

The British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. An inter-governmental committee (The Lansdowne Committee) was appointed to work out the final details of the Malaysia Agreement. Lord Lansdowne served for Britain and Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya served for Malaya.

The 20 points were written with a view to safeguarding the interests, rights, and autonomy of the people of North Borneo upon the formation of the federation of Malaysia. A similar proposal, with certain differences in content, was made by Sarawak, and is commonly referred to as the 18-point agreement.

Attention is often drawn to these memoranda by those who believe that their principles were not subsequently adhered to after federation. There have been numerous calls for the 20-point memorandum to be reviewed so as to take into account social, economic, and political changes over time.

Brief timeline of related events

• 17 January 1962: The Commission of Enquiry (Cobbold Commission) was announced to observe the views of the people of Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo.
• 21 March 1962: At a meeting of the Greater Malaysia Committee there was agreement that it would be preferable to wait for the Cobbold Commission, which had been tasked with assessment of support for the proposal in North Borneo and Sarawak, to complete its report, in order to consider its findings before a decision was made on the federation of Malaysia.
• 21 June 1962: The Cobbold Report was completed and submitted to the prime ministers of Britain and Malaya (confidentially). The report concluded that one third fully supported the idea, one third were in favour provided that safeguards were included, and the remaining one third were divided between those who would prefer North Borneo and Sarawak to gain independence prior to the merger and those who rejected the merger outright. The Commission's view was - firm support for a federated Malaysia (with transfer of sovereignty within twelve months), incorporating a transitional arrangement in which the British would remain for the first few years.
• 31 July 1962: The British and Malayan governments decided in principle that the proposed Federation of Malaysia should be brought into being by 31 August 1963. An Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) was to be formed to work on future constitutional arrangements.
• August 1962: The Report was published to all parties. Reportedly, this came as a surprise to North Borneo.
• 13 – 14 August 1962: Donald Stephens convened a meeting of political leaders who drew up a 14-point (later 20-point) memorandum of minimum demands. This gained support from Sarawak.
• 12 & 26 September 1962 (respectively): North Borneo and Sarawak legislative council agreed to the formation of Malaysia on condition that state rights were safeguarded.

The 20 points

Point 1: Religion

While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.

Point 2: Language

a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation

b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day

c. English should be an official language of North Borneo for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.

Point 3: Constitution

Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo was of course essential.

Point 4: Head of Federation

The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.

Point 5: Name of Federation

“Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”

Point 6: Immigration

Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation.

Point 8: Borneanisation

Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.

Point 9: British Officers

Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo.

Point 10: Citizenship

The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments:

a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence

b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read “7 out of 10 years” instead of “8 out of 10 years”

c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must be federal citizen.

Point 11: Tariffs and Finance

North Borneo should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.

Point 12: Special position of indigenous races

In principle the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malaya formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo.

Point 13: State Government

a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council

b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo.

Point 14: Transitional period

This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government.

Point 15: Education

The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control.

Point 16: Constitutional safeguards

No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo. The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the state. (Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourth majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient.)

Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament

This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its size and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore.

Point 18: Name of Head of State

Yang di-Pertua Negara.

Point 19: Name of State

Sabah.

Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.

The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.

Controversies

Point 7: Right of Secession

Article 2 of the Constitution of Malaysia states that the Parliament of Malaysia has the right to change the state boundaries or to admit any new states into the federation. However, there is no provision about the secession of states from the federation. However, former International Islamic University Malaysia (PIHE) academic, Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, said that Article 2 of the Constitution also implies that the Malaysian Parliament has the final say on the secession of a state from the federation, as it did to Singapore in 1965. Besides, any suggestions about secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia would be punishable under Sedition Act.

Dr Jeniri Amir from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) stated that Sarawak and Sabah has no right to secede from the federation according to Point 7. However, a separatist group led by Doris Jones said that the meaning of the word "should" as in "There should be no right to secede from the Federation" is only a recommendation as opposed to "shall" which implies a command.

Point 18: Name of Head of State

In the Malaysia Agreement, the meaning of the term "Governor" included the title of the Head of State of Sabah, which was "Yang di-Pertua Negara". This term was incorporated into the Constitution of Malaysia from 1963 to 1976. However, the Sarawak head of state was named "Yang di-Pertua Negeri" from 1963.

On 27 August 1976, under Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia, the term "Governor" was abolished and replaced with "Yang di-Pertua Negeri". This effectively ended the title of "Yang di-Pertua Negara" of Sabah. The Malay translation of the term "State" of Sabah and Sarawak has been "Negeri" (Federated states) instead of "Negara" (Nation) since 1963.

Nevertherless, some groups argue that Sabah and Sarawak should be called "Negara" (Nation), and the head of state called "Yang di-Pertua Negara", on the basis that Sarawak achieved independence on 22 July 1963 and Sabah achieved independence on 31 August 1963 before forming Malaysia together with Federation of Malaya on 16 September 1963. They believe that the head of state of Sabah being known as "Yang di-Pertua Negara" between 1963 to 1976 supports this view.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20-point_agreement

Read More

Terima Kasih Nasionalis Negara Sabah

Pihak SSKM-SSU(UK) ingin mengucapkan ribuan terima kasih kepada En.Zainnal Ajamain dan En.MP Goviind kerana telah membantu pihak kami untuk memantapkan lagi perjuangan ini melalui isu-isu yang diketengahkan. Pada mulanya, pihak kami berasa isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh mereka berdua terhadap perjuangan SSKM-SSU(UK) ini sebagai satu ancaman. Namun, setelah memikirkannya melalui sudut yang positif, professional dan matang, pihak kami menyedari bahawa isu-isu seperti inilah yang bakal akan digunakan oleh pihak kerajaan persekutuan tanah melayu (malaya) yang telah menyamar menjadi kerajaan persekutuan malaysia dalam usaha untuk mengelirukan rakyat. Dengan itu, adalah lebih baik pihak kami menjawab dengan segera untuk segala isu yang diketengahkan oleh dua orang Nasionalis Negara Sabah ini.

Ingin pihak kami tegaskan dengan jelas bahawa pihak SSKM-SSU(UK) tidak mempunyai sebarang masalah dengan mana-mana pihak termasuk dengan mereka berdua ini. Apa yang timbul kini seperti apa yang anda lihat dan baca hanyalah perbezaan pengertian, pemahaman, pendirian serta perjuangan. Ia juga termasuk dengan parti-parti politk diluar sana khususnya BN-UMNO dan PR.

Untuk menjawab isu yang dibangkitkan oleh En.Zainnal dan En.MP Goviind, pihak kami akan menggunakan dokumen Suruhanjaya Cobbold dan Inter-Governmental Committee agar pengesahan boleh dibuat bagi menyokong hujah yang akan digunakan untuk menjawab dakwaan mereka.

Pertama [1], pihak SSKM-SSU(UK) mengesahkan bahawa dakwaan mereka berdua tentang kenyataan Cobbold adalah benar bahawa beliau tidak bersetuju untuk memasukkan "larangan untuk berpisah" kerana bagi pendapatnya, Persekutuan ini merupakan satu "Persetujuan atas dasar Sukarela". Maka, adalah tidak harus untuk memasukkannya kedalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia. Sila rujuk kepada dokumen "Report of The Commission of Enquiry North Borneo & Sarawak" (sila klik link tersebut untuk mend "download" nya sebagai rujukan anda) dan lihat pada tajuk "Chapter 4: Recommendation; 148 (h): Rights to secede". Anda akan menemukannya.

Kedua [2], seperti yang pihak kami maklumkan, Lord Lansdowne yang merupakan Pengerusi Inter-Governmental Committee, dalam kenyataan akhbarnya juga telah tidak bersetuju untuk memasukkan "Larangan untuk berpisah" kedalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia. Ini kerana, menurut kebijaksanaannya, Persekutuan Malaysia ini merupakan Persekutuan yang dianggotai oleh Negara-Negara yang bersetuju untuk membentuknya atas dasar "SUKARELA". Berikut adalah petikkan kenyataan beliau;

"Saya ingin menambah bahawa sebagai perlindungan tambahan terhadap apa-apa tindakan, cadangan telah dibuat bahawa hak untuk menarik diri dari Persekutuan hendaklah ditulis ke dalam Perlembagaan. Cadangan ini tidak diterima oleh Tuan Lansdowne, Pengerusi Suruhanjaya, atas sebab bahawa mana-mana Negara yang menyertai persekutuan secara sukarela mempunyai hak intrinsik untuk menarik diri mengikut kemahuan mereka bila-bila masa, dan oleh itu tidak perlu untuk memasukkannya ke dalam Perlembagaan."

***Untuk membacanya dengan lebih jelas, sila klik link ini Sabah and Sarawak / Sabah dan Sarawak***

Oleh yang demikian, semoga pencerahan ini dapat menjelaskan segala kekeliruan mahupun salah faham yang timbul. Kepada semua penyokong-penyokong Perjuangan SSKM-SSU(UK) khususnya kepada sukarelawan-sukarelawati diluar sana, janganlah anda terkeliru mahupun kehilangan keyakinan dalam perkara ini. Sila hubungi pihak kami untuk mendapatkan kepastian mahupun pengesahan agar ia boleh dijelaskan. Satu perkara lagi, janganlah anda membenci mahupun memarahi dua orang Nasionalis Negara Sabah ini kerana sumbangan mereka dalam merungkai segala persoalan demi persoalan harus diberikan Pengiktirafan dan Penghormatan. Pihak SSKM-SSU(UK) menyanjung semangat dan aspirasi yang ditonjolkan oleh mereka dan segala perbuatan mereka yang ditunjukkan didalam Media Massa iaitu didalam Facebook mahupun dalam Blog milik mereka itu adalah hak dan kebebasan mereka. Seperti mana pihak SSKM-SSU(UK) mempunyai hak dalam mengeluarkan kenyataan demi kenyataan dalam sesuatu perkara, demikian juga mereka.

Biarlah perbezaan dalam perjuangan ini menjadi satu keisitimewaan yang mewarnai jalan dalam memartabatkan Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Bangsa Negara Sarawak. Pihak SSKM-SSU(UK) ingin mengucapkan sekali lagi ribuan terima kasih kepada En.Zainnal Ajamain dan En.MP Goviind atas segala sumbangan yang telah diberikan kepada rakyat Negara Sabah dan rakyat Negara Sarawak. Teruskanlah perjuangan anda mengikut cara anda. Semoga Berjaya!  

Join The Fight!

Read More