Young Sabahans, new face pushing Putrajaya to honour Malaysia Agreement

They do not belong to any political party and aged between 25 and 32. The four men who were charged with sedition in Kota Kinabalu last Monday are now the face of young Sabahans who are taking the mantle of fighting for what they believe to be the state's lost rights in the Malaysia Agreement.

The four are now contesting the charge that they were in possession of materials urging Sabah and Sarawak to leave Malaysia when arrested at the Tuaran Sunday market on February 1.

They are Azrie Situ, 25 and Jemmy Liku Markus Situ, 32, unemployed; Erick Jack William, 29, a mechanic; and Joseph Kolis, 29, a tour guide.

“That's the trend in Sabah now,” Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) president Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee told The Malaysian Insider.

“Young people of different backgrounds and who are apolitical are now taking up an issue that used to be the domain of the opposition.”

The former Sabah chief minister attributed the trend to a growing awareness among young Sabahans of their state's history.

“The history they are beginning to learn now is not found in our school textbooks. What they have found is a continued and flagrant disregard by the (federal) government of the Malaysia Agreement,” Yong said recently.

He said it was this awareness that had turned into anger and resentment and the need to fight for what should rightfully be theirs.

“While in the past, the government could feed the people with what only information they want to give because they control the TV and radio, they find it increasingly difficult now in the age of the Internet.

“It is from the Internet that these young Sabahans learn of the injustices Sabah is getting.”

Barisan Nasional MP for Kalabakan Datuk Seri Abdul Ghapur Salleh when warning Putrajaya to take care of Sabahans in Parliament on Monday, lent credence to Yong's claim when he said Sabah youth, including his children, do not read mainstream newspapers because it was perceived as pro-government, and so turned to the online news reports instead.

“People accuse the Internet of being full of liars. But these youth are educated people. They can tell lies from the truth.”

The four were among nine people – dubbed the "Tuaran 9" by local media – rounded up by the police at the market.

While four were charged and released on RM20,000 bail in one surety each, the other five were released on police bail, uncertain if they, too, would be charged.

Reportedly, there were “many more” young people who had gone to the market to what they claimed was a “signature collection campaign” to force Putrajaya to honour the Malaysia Agreement.

“Is it seditious to solicit signatures to demand the federal government review the Malaysia Agreement?” asked Joseph.

“The police are claiming that we are members of SSKM (Sabah, Sarawak Keluar Malaysia or Sabah, Sarawak to secede from Malaysia in English).

“How can that be when SSKM is a Facebook page? How can we be members of a Facebook page? It is not even an NGO,” Joseph said.

He said their arrest and subsequent charge in court was “police harassment” against those who clamour for a review of the agreement, a claim that is supported by a former BN assemblyman Datuk James Ligunjang (pic).

“We are not secessionists and have never fought for secession,” Joseph said.

“All we want is for Putrajaya to honour the Malaysia Agreement and give us the autonomy as an equal partner state in the federation.

“We are fighting for autonomy, full autonomy. Not secession.

“It is the police who are trying to link us to secession via the Facebook page.”

 Joseph said if police had not harassed them, “we could easily get 300,000 people” to sign the petition for a review.

“Easily, among young people in Sabah,” he said.

Ligunjang, who has since given up on BN politics and has gone full time as a social activist drumming support to press Putrajaya to honour the Malaysia Agreement, said he, too, had been harassed by the police over his work to get Putrajaya honour the agreement.

He claimed police last month seized and confiscated about 31 T-shirts with the words “Hormati Perjanjian Malaysia” (honour the Malaysia Agreement) from him in the town of Lahad Datu.

The manner the police charged the four in court was also questioned.

Yong, a lawyer, is questioning why the charge sheet was on that of “Mahkamah Tanah Melayu” when it should be on the Mahkamah Borneo form since Sabah and Sarawak courts come under the Borneo court.

At the same time, the four asked why the police informed them of their court appearance by handing them a scribbled note.

“Don't they have proper notice?” Jemmy, the oldest of the four, asked. – March 22, 2015.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/young-sabahans-new-face-pushing-putrajaya-to-honour-malaysia-agreement#sthash.MDDTSFDz.dpuf

Read More

Sarawak Isytihar 'Perang' Terhadap PATI

KUCHING, 21 Mac (Bernama) -- Selepas 'perang' terhadap kegiatan pembalakan haram membuahkan hasil, kerajaan negeri Sarawak kini mengisytiharkan 'perang' terhadap pendatang asing tanpa izin (PATI).

Ketua Menteri Tan Sri Adenan Satem semasa mengumumkan perkara itu berkata langkah itu perlu diambil sebelum masalah PATI di negeri ini menjadi besar dan sukar untuk diatasi.

Beliau berkata kini terdapat ramai PATI terutama orang Suluk dan Bajau dari Filipina khususnya di Miri.

"Mereka ini perlu segera ditangkap dan dihantar pulang ke negara asal mereka sebelum menimbulkan masalah besar yang sukar diselesaikan di kemudian hari," katanya ketika berucap merasmikan Hari Perhutanan Antarabangsa peringkat negeri di sini, Sabtu.

Adenan berkata Jabatan Imigresen telah dimaklumkan tentang masalah PATI dari Filipina itu sejak setahun lalu tetapi tidak mengambil tindakan penguatkuasaan tegas dan sehubungan itu beliau telah mengarahkan jabatan segera bertindak tegas untuk menahan PATI terbabit.

Beliau bagaimanapun mahu supaya PATI yang ditahan dilayan baik, sesuai dengan layanan yang sepatutnya diberi kepada manusia terutama dalam kalangan kanak-kanak dan ibu mereka.

Sementara itu, Adenan berkata operasi antipembalakan haram, yang dilancarkan sejak beliau menjadi ketua menteri kini mulai membuahkan hasil.

Katanya, setiap hari pasukan penguat kuasa Jabatan Hutan melancarkan serbuan dan rampasan kayu balak yang ditebang secara haram.

Beliau turut mengingatkan pegawai dan kakitangan Jabatan Hutan Sarawak dan Perbadanan Perhutanan Sarawak (SFC) bahawa tindakan tegas termasuk pendakwaan di mahkamah akan diambil terhadap mereka sekiranya didapati bersekongkol dengan syarikat terbabit dalam kegiatan pembalakan haram.

Dalam pada itu, Ketua Menteri berkata kerajaan negeri juga merancang untuk memperluaskan taman negara dan kawasan hutan simpan di negeri ini.

"Kita berharap pada suatu hari nanti kita menebang dan menjual kayu balak dari kawasan hutan yang ditanam, manakala hutan semula jadi kita dikekalkan.

"Bagaimanapun buat masa ini kita tidak boleh berbuat demikian kerana kawasan hutan tanam kita masih tidak mencukupi untuk menghasilkan kayu balak yang mencukupi," katanya.

Adenan berkata semua itu perlu dilaksanakan bagi memulihara hutan tropika untuk generasi akan datang.

Sementara itu, Pengarah Jabatan Hutan negeri Sapuan Ahmad berkata penguat kuasa jabatan berkenaan akan memperluaskan lagi operasi pembanterasan pembalakan haram.

Source:http://www.sarawakiana.net/2015/03/sarawak-isytihar-perang-terhadap-pati.html

Read More

#idefend – Making sure civil society has its voice

An initiative of the Delegation of the European Union to the UN in Geneva in partnership with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Permanent Missions of Brazil, the Republic of Korea and Tunisia to the UN in Geneva.

Every day in every part of the world, NGOs, human rights defenders and other civil society representatives contribute to the promotion, protection and advancement of human rights. They are also an integral part of the UN Human Rights Council, where it is their voices and stories that provide States with essential information on human rights violations. Yet, civil society advocates across the globe, including those who attend the Human Rights Council, are too often exposed to harassment and intimidation.

The #idefend campaign takes a firm public stance to support the voices of civil society. #idefend aims at expressing solidarity with all those human rights defenders and civil society actors, whose dedication and everyday work improve the human rights of people in every corner of the world. Join the campaign and help empower those who speak up for human rights!

“Human rights defenders are not violent seditionists, criminals, nor bloody revolutionaries, as so many governments like to portray them. They are the best of us, all of us. And they have a message. To all governments, we say: focus on their message. Listen to what they are saying. Understand the message, talk to them about it, be persuaded or persuade, without violence, instead of silencing them, punishing them, their families, and their communities.”

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

“Sadly, over the past years, we have observed a worrying trend at the Human Rights Council: Human Rights Defenders and civil society representatives are hampered from speaking at the Council, sometimes they are harassed upon their arrival to Geneva, or subject to reprisals in their home country upon their return. This is not acceptable.”

Peter Sørensen, Head of the EU Delegation to the United Nations Office and other international organisations in Geneva.

Please visit this link for more pictures https://www.flickr.com/photos/130597812@N03/sets/72157648807386284/

Source: http://idefend-campaign.net/

Read More

Gaji Minimum Tidak Boleh Lebih RM800 di Sabah, Sarawak

KUALA LUMPUR 21 Jun - Gaji minimum tidak boleh ditetapkan terlalu tinggi bagi Sabah dan Sarawak melainkan pada tahap RM800 sebulan.

Timbalan Menteri Sumber Manusia, Datuk Maznah Mazlan berkata, penetapan pada tahap itu dibuat memandangkan gaji penengah di dua negeri berkenaan pada masa ini sangat rendah iaitu masing-masing RM577 dan RM738 sebulan.

“Gaji penengah yang rendah memberi indikator bahawa majikan tidak mempunyai keupayaan untuk membayar gaji yang tinggi.

“Sekiranya gaji minimum ditetapkan terlalu tinggi ia berkemungkinan terpaksa mengurangkan jumlah pekerja.

“Jika keadaan ini berlaku, ia akan merugikan pekerja kerana mereka kehilangan pekerjaan dan ini akan menimbulkan masalah pengangguran," katanya dalam sesi soal jawab pada persidangan Dewan Rakyat, hari ini.

Source: http://www.mohr.gov.my/index.php/ms/archives/92-archive-news/294-gaji-minimum-tidak-boleh-lebih-rm800-di-sabah-sarawak

Read More

Borneo rights talk not ‘threat’ to Federation

It could mean that demands are being made because there was something lacking in the process of implementing promises.

KOTA KINABALU: The view from academia in Borneo is that any discussion on the rights issue should not be viewed by the Federal Government as a security threat to the Federation. These discussions have been hogging the limelight in the media, social media and public forums especially since 2013, the 50th year since the word Malaysia was officially used to include the Sabah and Sarawak parts of Borneo as well.

Any discussion on these rights, said Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Professor Dr. Kamarulzaman Askandar, is within the context of the circumstances surrounding 1963 when Sabah, along with Sarawak and Singapore found itself in a Federation with the peninsula. “It should not be viewed by the Federal Government as a security threat,” reiterated Kamarulzaman who heads the International relations Programme at UMS. “It’s not a security issue but rather we need to work on finding what it is that caused for such demands (within the context of the rights issues) to arise and why.”

He was elaborating on his academic paper presented on the topic, “Conflicts, Peace and Nation Building” at the Nation Building Seminar at the YTL Auditorium, UMS, on Wednesday.

“When trying to diagnose an illness, for instance, the key was to inspect internally rather than to simply rely on surface analysis,” said Kamarulzaman.”

Hence, he added, rather than consuming efforts on searching for and apprehending individuals promoting secession, more efforts should instead be put into understanding the core areas on which such demands were built. “The people involved in the secession issue based their movement on points such as where Sabah and Sarawak stood at the time of Malaysia’s formation, division of power, distribution of development priorities, and so on,” he pointed out.

The concept of nation in this country, he conceded, was still vague. “But never be afraid of variety because that is where our strength instead of weakness lies, so long as we find the proper balance.”

Earlier, in answering questions from the floor during the question and answer session after his talk, on whether the demands made by Sabah were reasonable, Kamarulzaman said: “There’s a need to determine whether or not the demands are reasonable.”

“When there are things formally promised through an agreement, like the 20-Point Agreement in Sabah’s case, for example, it could mean that demands are being made because there was something lacking in the process of implementing promises,” said the don. “I think it’s reasonable to expect consistent supply of electricity for instance, or for roads to be in good condition, for remote villages to get the basic necessities, or for all children to get quality education.”

Finding the right balance is the answer, said Kamarulzaman, in finding solutions for peace among all communities in Malaysia. “If there’s imbalance in priorities and a certain group gets a bigger slice of the cake, dissatisfaction is bound to surface.”

And in the context where a certain group of people receive more benefits and more opportunities than the rest, he cautioned, there will come a time when the oppressed – those who are not getting what they want and need, or simply not getting what they were promised – will revolt or at least voice their cry for their rights and values to be upheld.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/03/20/borneo-rights-talk-not-threat-to-federation/

Read More

Secession group says willing to go to jail to uphold Sabah rights

KOTA KINABALU, March 20 ― Frustrated and tired of being denied rights in their own land, the four volunteers of the outlawed Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) movement now say they are willing to go to jail in order for their views to be heard.

Jemmy Liku Markus Ratu, 32, Erick Jack William, 28, Joseph Kolis, 29 and Azrie Situ, 24, were charged last week under the Sedition Act for being in possession of pamphlets allegedly propagating Sabah’s secession from the federation.

“If fighting for our rights will land us in jail, then so be it. We have to do what it takes to be heard. This is the sacrifices we have to make for the cause we believe in,” said Azrie, the youngest of the four.

“People get the wrong impression that we are pushing for secession, because of the Facebook group name (SSKM, or Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia), but it is just a name to attract attention.

“What we are really aiming to do is to spread awareness of the formation of Malaysia and the breach of the Malaysia Agreement 1963,” Erick told Malay Mail Online.

According to Erick, all SSKM wants to is a thorough review of the agreement, and whether its conditions were being adhered to.

“How is expressing ourselves and fighting for our rights seditious?” he asked.

Despite facing the possibility of being thrown in jail for a maximum of 18 months or a fine of RM2,000 or both, the four remain committed to SSKM’s goals.

Jemmy, a half-Kadazan, half-Timorese said that they knew the risks getting into the movement, which they claimed were under a UK-based NGO, Sabah-Sarawak Union, founded by Doris Jones, the woman wanted by police here for allegedly masterminding the SSKM movement online.

“Someone has to do it, and we are tired of relying on our leaders who do not seem to understand what we are going through, and the struggles we face,” he said.

The litany of grievances cited by the four are not new ― land grabs, the influx of illegal immigrants, comparative lack of infrastructure and development, distortion of historical facts regarding Malaysia’s formation as well as oil royalty rights.

According to them, the SSKM movement on Facebook has attracted like-minded Sabahans of all races and religions and age groups.

The SSKM group page itself has garnered over 32,000 “Likes” while more supporters “follow” their leader Doris Jones’s profile for motivation and support.

“Everyone does things on their own willing. During the recent incident in Tuaran, there were many of us, up to 50, and everyone came on their own.

“We didn’t even know who else was part of the group,” said Azrie, adding that the bail amount of RM10,000 each for court was raised entirely from volunteer’s donations.

The four were also part of the “Tuaran 9” who were arrested for allegedly possessing seditious pamphlets last February in the Tuaran tamu grounds.

Their lawyer, Tengku Fuad Ahmad, said that the four were clearly very dedicated to their cause and were ready to go to jail for it.

“I have never met such  people who are so very sincerely committed to the issue of Sabah's rights within Malaysia. 

“My duty is strictly limited to defending them but one cannot help but respect the four because at heart they are idealists; persons committed to the protection and promotion of Sabah rights,” he said when contacted by Malay Mail Online.

All four had pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 4 (2) of the Sedition Act 1948. The hearing is on May 18 to 22.

Source: http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/secession-group-says-willing-to-go-to-jail-to-uphold-sabah-rights#sthash.uUfua5Z1.5PgHoUFX.dpuf

Read More

4 lelaki ditahan hasut rakyat Sabah, Sarawak keluar Malaysia

Empat lelaki didakwa mengikut Akta Hasutan 1948 di Kota Kinabalu hari ini kerana membuat pungutan suara mengajak penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak meninggalkan Malaysia, lapor The Star Online.

Pungutan suara itu dikatakan mempunyai kaitan dengan laman web Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia yang menggalakkan kedua-dua negeri Borneo itu meninggalkan persekutuan Malaysia, menurut portal berita berkenaan.

Empat tertuduh itu ialah Azrie Situ, 25, Suleiman Liku Markus Situ, 32, Erick Jack William, 29, dan Joseph Kolis, 29, yang mengaku bersalah di Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu selepas pertuduhan dibacakan di depan Hakim Dean Wayne Dally.

Mereka didakwa mengikut Seksyen 4(2) Akta Hasutan 1948.

Keempat-empat tertuduh dibebaskan dengan ikat jamin RM20,000 dan seorang penjamin serta perlu menyerahkan passport masing-masing.

Menurut portal itu empat tertuduh berkenaan adalah antara 9 yang ditahan pada 1 Februari lalu kerana memiliki bahan menghasut. Mereka dilaporkan mengedarkan risalah mengenai hak Sabah dan petisyen untuk menyokong hak mereka.

Laman Facebook Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia dikendalikan seorang aktivis Sabah, Doris Jones yang kini menetap di London. Laman sosial berkenaan kini mempunyai lebih 32,000 “likes”.

Polis Sabah sudah mengeluarkan waran untuk menahannya tetapi Jones memberitahu media tempatan dia tidak mendengar daripada mana-mana pihak berkuasa atau polis antarabangsa (Interpol) mengenai waran itu.

Pada 13 Mac, polis berkata, mereka sudah menghubungi Jones.

Pungutan suara berkenaan boleh ditakrifkan sebagai menghasut mengikut Akta Hasutan selepas Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak berkata bahawa undang-undang itu akan dikekal dan diperkukuhkan.

Perbuatan itu ketika ini memberikan lingkungan luas kepada pihak berkuasa untuk memutuskan takrifan hasutan.

Keempat-empat tertuduh diwakili peguam Arthur Chin.

Sementara itu, sekumpulan kira-kira 100 penyokong  dilapor hadir di depan mahkamah hari ini sebagai tanda sokongan.

Antaranya individu yang hadir ialah bekas Ketua Menteri Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee, yang kini menyertai pembangkang.

Pungutan suara di kalangan nasionalis Sabah semakin meningkat sejak kebelakangan ini terhadap kesedaran orang ramai mengenai soal kemiskinan, imigresen dan isu politik seperti "Projek IC", satu langkah untuk mengubah demografi dan daftar pemilih di negeri ini dengan mengeluarkan kad pengenalan kepada pendatang. – 16 Mac, 2015.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/4-lelaki-ditahan-hasut-rakyat-sabah-sarawak-keluar-malaysia#sthash.rjfHGpZO.dpuf

Read More

Abusing the Private Member’s Bill – Chan Foong Hin

This is an open letter to Parliament Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin.

The Shariah Criminal Code Enactment II 1993 amendments tabling by PAS-led Kelantan state government in the state assembly sitting today in Kota Baru, symbolises a no U-turn as far as the hudud debate is concerned. It marks the very first step towards implementation of the theocratic law in Kelantan.

No one can predict what would happen to Malaysia in future, if the next step – Private Member’s Bill is tabled and then passed in the Parliament, allowing Kelantan to implement its hudud law.

It is wrong for PAS to justify their move by saying that “the situation in Kelantan is so unique that even Umno is supporting these amendments” (Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad)  and “please respect the democratic proses in Kelantan” (PAS information chief Datuk Mahfuz Omar).

It is not about uniqueness of Kelantan and respecting the people’s will. I respect every right and will of Kelantan state to implement hudud there. But it can’t be done in the expense of equal partnership spirit of Malaysia Agreement 1963.

As I have argued in my previous article that, hudud is not about a personal religious practice involving Muslims only, but it is a matter of political system involving all Malaysians.

The Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution categorically places “Civil and criminal law and procedure and the administration of justice” under Federal List. If any state-level hudud is allowed, it is a blow to Federal Constitution, as it places the particular state (Kelantan) to be more superior then other states as the power on criminal justice under Federal List transferred to State List, without consultation by the other states.

The argument that hudud will be confined to Kelantan is inaccurate as once the amendments are approved and passed, all other states might also proceed to make similar changes.

As the honourable speaker is from Sabah, I think you have no dispute that it is a consensus for every Sabah politician across the political divide that:

1. The rights and freedom of Sabahans must be defended and never compromised, not only in Sabah, but in other parts of Malaysia;

2. The rights and privileges of Sabah as one of the three nations forming Malaysia in 1963 must be defended and not compromised.

We from Sabah never signed up for a theocratic federation – in full or in part – in 1963. Criminal justice is categorically a Federal power under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. If it was made clear then Sabahans will face the shariah criminal law in Kelantan by forming Malaysia, I think Sabah would have surely chosen to stay under British or go independent in other ways over the option of Malaysia.

The implementation of Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code 1993 will land those from Sabah staying in or traveling to Kelantan in a legal system that the founding fathers of Sabah did not sign up for in 1963, with the following consequences:

(a) If he or she – regardless of faith – fell prey to thefts, robberies, bodily harms included attempted murder and manslaughter in Kelantan committed by Muslims, their cases will be tried in the shariah court, and not common law court.

(b) Sabah crime victims cannot be the witness in court for their own case if they are non-Muslim, women, underage Muslims or Muslims with questionable religious conducts (Section 41 of the Code).

(c) If Sabahan Muslims are accused of stealing or robbing of anything worth more than 4.45g of gold (about RM 610 at current price), they will be tried in shariah court and may face the punishment of amputation.

(d) All Sabahan Muslims who are convicted of adultery or sodomy in Kelantan may face death penalty by way of stoning [Sections 10, 11(1) and 16].

(e) All Sabahan Muslims who are convicted of drinking in Kelantan may face 40 to 80 lashes [Section 22].

(f) All Sabahan Muslims who are convicted of undermining or opposing the Islamic faith (menjejaskan atau berlawanan dengan aqidah agama Islam) through actions or expression may face death and his/her property may be confiscated.

Any changes to this effect must only happen with the consent of both Sabah and Sarawak. Article 161A of the Federal Constitution stipulates that any constitutional amendment involving division of power between federal and state governments must not only be passed by a two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat, but also requiring the concurrence of the governors of Sabah and Sarawak.

If Sabah were to agree to grant Kelantan additional power in criminal justice, we from Sabah would like more power to Sabah including citizenship, education, medical, policing and military, trade and commerce, etc.

The collusion by the Federal Government and Kelantan government to make possible of expanding Kelantan's power to cover criminal justice system under Article 76A, which denies the power of both the 57 parliamentarians from Sabah (including Labuan) and Sarawak and the governors of Sabah and Sarawak to have any say, is a constitutional coup against Sabah and Sarawak.

If Kelantan – which unsuccessfully opposed the formation of Malaysia through a constitutional challenge in 1963 –  insists that the state can do anything it likes with the consent of Putrajaya and makes itself higher than other states especially Sabah and Sarawak which are on par with the entire Malaya, it should consider leaving Malaysia.

Instead of Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia, Kelantan Keluar Malaysia will be more apt.

The Parliamentary Speaker has every duty to prevent any private member's bill that is tantamount to nullifying the Malaysia Agreement and tearing Malaysia apart from being tabled. Honourable Speaker, you hold the key to save Federation of Malaysia from tearing apart. Please reject the PAS private member bill to safeguard the aspirations of the people of Sabah and Malaysian interests. – March 18, 2015.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/parliament-speaker-should-not-allow-abuse-of-private-members-bill-chan-foon

Read More

Countries that aren't quite.

This map shows all the states in the world that have some kind of independence movement, but that independence hasn't been declared, or not recognised by other states.

***Can you see Sabah (formerly known as North Borneo) and Sarawak Flag???***

Source: http://blacksamcashinterestingthigs.blogspot.com/2010/09/countries-that-arent-quite.html

Read More

Koleksi Video SSKM-SSU(UK)

Sila luangkan masa anda untuk menonton video-video SSKM-SSU(UK) melalui link ini;

>>>Koleksi Video SSKM-SSU(UK)<<<

Selain video SSKM-SSU(UK), pihak kami juga ada menyelitkan video-video yang berkaitan dengan Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak. Pendedahan tentang sejarah sebenar dan penipuan turut juga diselitkan dalam blog Koleksi Video SSKM-SSU(UK). Kini, anda tidak perlu bersusah-payah untuk mencarinya didalam youtube kerana semuanya boleh didapati dalam blog tersebut. Sila sebarkan kepada rakan-rakan anda tentang kewujudan blog Koleksi Video SSKM-SSU(UK) ini.

Semoga anda semua dapat menonton video-video tersebut dan mendapat mesej yang jelas bahawa Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak MESTI BERPISAH daripada persekutuan malaysia ini kerana kewujudannya kini bukan lagi untuk memberikan kebaikan kepada Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Bangsa Negara Sarwak sebaliknya ia telah menindas selama 53 tahun ini sejah 16 September 1963.

Sebarkan...

Read More

Pengasas SABAH SARAWAK UNION (SSU-UK)

Mungkin anda tertanya-tanya tentang siapakah pengasas kepada Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU-UK). Maka, persoalan anda kini sudah terjawab melalui perkongsian info ini. Ya, SSU(UK) telah ditubuhkan oleh Dua orang Nationalist Borneo daripada Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak di United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).

SSU(UK) berhak bercakap bagi pihak Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak kerana NGO ini adalah NGO Borneo yang memfokuskan kepada Kemerdekaan Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak. Ia telah ditubuhkan pada pada Tahun 2013.

Sebarkan info ini kepada semua rakyat Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak bahawa NGO ini adalah milik bersama...

Read More

What next for independence movements in Europe?

The EU – and its member-states – should not rest on their laurels: these independence movements are only going to get stronger.

One can imagine that the European Commission breathed a collective sigh of relief when the results of the Scottish independence referendum were announced on 19 September 2014.

The independence referendum had created a headache - if not a chronic migraine - for officials in Brussels, in trying to figure out whether Scotland would have to leave the EU and then reapply for membership (under Treaty 49, which was the official preference of former President Barroso and the Better Together campaign) or if it would allow Scotland to remain in by amending the EU treaties (under Treaty 48, the preferred choice of Yes campaigners and some dissident Commission officials).

If the process was seen as too easy, there were fears amongst the anti-independence camp (and parallel hopes amongst pro-secessionists) that this would cause a domino-effect across the continent as other stateless nations with aspirations towards independence in Europe would jump onto the indyref bandwagon.

But was this sigh of relief premature? For one thing, Scotland hasn’t been the only territory with an independence referendum on the cards this year. All eyes turned to Catalonia last weekend, where a non-binding vote on independence was held on Sunday 9 November. The Catalan authorities had previously planned to hold an official referendum on Catalan’s future, but this was suspended by the Spanish Constitutional Court. Judges and politicians in Madrid have viewed the referendum as illegal and an egregious affront the notion of indissoluble Spanish sovereignty.

Madrid’s stern views scuppered a similar proposal in the Basque Country in 2008, whereby proposals to hold an independence referendum, which were passed by the Basque regional assembly, were ruled down by Madrid as unconstitutional.

These stern warnings did not stop the Catalan authorities this time, however. The unofficial poll was a success for Catalan independence-seeking parties: 80% of those who participated (about 2 million people) voted in favour of independence. While it is difficult to argue that the vote in favour of independence is binding with a turnout of 37%, it is an undeniably strong indication that Catalans want constitutional change.

The poll, however, has amplified the Commission’s migraine. Unlike the Scotland-UK case, whereby the UK Government agreed to holding the independence referendum in Scotland and promised to abide by the outcome (in the ground-breaking ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ of 2012), the ‘democratic will’ of the Catalan people has been slapped down by Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy, who has forbidden any future referendums and has attacked the recent poll as ‘political propaganda’.

What should the EU do? At the moment, the official position is to keep its head down and say nothing about the internal affairs of one of its valued member-states. But will this strategy work when more independence referendums – official or unofficial – add more cracks in the sovereignty of the EU’s currency member-states?

For Scotland and Catalonia are not the only cases of independence aspirations in the EU. The next country to watch, without a doubt, is Italy, whereby a poll released last month by Demos showed that 31% of Italians wanted their region to become independent, a figure that was significantly higher in several autonomist regions.

The highest was Veneto, a wealthy northern region of Italy with a strong identity, where 53% of survey participants preferred secession. This reflects the success of the nationalist parties in Veneto – most notably the governing Liga Veneta-Lega Nord (LV-LN) – in agitating for independence. The regional assembly passed a bill in June this year to hold a referendum on independence, and President of the Region Luca Zaia of the LNV promised that he would see this through.

These events follow an unofficial referendum in Veneto earlier this year in March, supported by several nationalist parties, whereby 89% of participants voted to leave Italy. While the legitimacy of the poll is questionable (as many Latin Americans of Venetian descent voted), another survey by La Repubblica has confirmed the Demos poll, showing that about 55% of Venetians want independence. And if and when the plebiscite is held, given these high numbers in favour of secession, there may be a greater possibility of success than in Catalonia or Scotland. However, everything will ultimately down to the Italian Constitutional Court which, like its Spanish counterpart, views consultative referenda on the fragmentation of the Italian state as illegal.

An unofficial referendum was also held in the German-speaking province of South Tyrol in 2013, which lies on the northern periphery of Italy and which was previously annexed from Austria. Here, over 90% of participants expressed their support for self-determination, and the pro-independence Sud-Tiroler Freiheit went on to win its highest share of the vote in the subsequent regional elections. The issue of secession from Italy is unlikely to go away, not least because it is the ultimate goal of the South Tyrol People’s Party, which has ruled the province throughout the post-war period.

Next up is Sardinia, an island in the Mediterranean, which contains the oldest nationalist party in Italy and one of the oldest in Europe. The Partito Sardo d’Azione, whose electoral fortunes has risen and fallen over the past century, failed by one vote to pass an independence referendum bill in the Sardinian regional assembly in 2012. It would also appear that there is some public support for the Partito Sardo’s position, even if the party itself is lagging behind in the polls. In a collaborative project with the University of Cagliari that for the first time surveyed the attitudes of Sardinians on issues of identity and constitutional change, we found that 41% of Sards wanted independence, and a whopping 87% were in favour for greater devolved powers for the island.

These findings were confirmed in the Demos poll last month, which revealed that 45% of Sardinian participants were in favour of independence. The regional government is currently working on re-writing Sardinia’s special statute (constitutional law) to enhance the island’s fiscal, social and cultural powers. If these powers are not forthcoming, it is likely that the Psd’Az and other nationalist parties will succeed in their next motion to have an independence referendum, raising more questions for the Italian Constitutional Court on how to proceed.

And finally, few people now believe that the question of independence has been put to bed in Scotland. With a recent poll showing majority support for independence, the SNP’s surge in new members, and the self-implosion of the SNP’s main competitor – the Scottish Labour Party - it may only be a matter of time before Scots vote again.

The EU – and its member-states – should not rest on their laurels: these movements are not going to go away. Ironically, the EU appeared to have undercut independence demands in the 1990s by giving sustenance to the idea of a ‘Europe of the Regions’ whereby substate regions could sit alongside – or even replace – the states in the governance of Europe. However, when these hopes were dashed with the state-reifying bias of the Lisbon Treaty, nationalist movements across Europe radicalised their demands in favour of independence in a Europe of the States, as this now seemed to be the only way to get a seat on the top table of the Council of the EU.

The onus is now on the EU to figure out how internal secession within its borders might actually work – because there are now several wannabe states knocking on its doors. If the citizenry of these ‘stateless nations’ believe that their future is best secured with the trappings of statehood, the resulting configuration would be a ‘Europe’ fractured into a number of smaller territorial entities.

Ironically, this map of Europe may be very familiar to historians. Once upon a time, before the rise of the modern nation-state in the nineteenth century, Europe was a patchwork of city-states and small self-governing regions. ‘Small is beautiful’ was the mantra then; with the spread of independence referenda, are we seeing the natural return to this model?

Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/eve-hepburn/what-next-for-independence-movements-in-europe

Read More

Cobbold Commission

Introduction

The Cobbold Commission, was a Commission of Enquiry set up to determine whether the people of North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak supported the proposal to create the Malaysia consisting of Malaya, Brunei, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak. It was also responsible for the subsequent drafting of the Constitution of Malaysia prior to the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963. The Commission was headed by former Bank of England governor, Lord Cobbold.

Members

Members of the Commission were:

1. Lord Cobbold, former Governor of the Bank of England, chairman of the Commission
2. Wong Pow Nee, Chief Minister of Penang,
3. Ghazali Shafie, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
4. Anthony Abell, former Governor of Sarawak
5. David Watherston, former Chief Secretary of Malaya.

Report

The Commission released its findings, report and recommendations on 1 August 1962. It concluded that the formation of Malaysia should be implemented. However, Lord Cobbold also stressed that all parties enter the federation as equal partners. The findings were summarised by Lord Cobbold as follows:

"About one-third of the population of each territory strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern about terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards varying in nature and extent: the warmth of support among this category would be markedly influenced by a firm expression of opinion by Governments that the detailed arrangements eventually agreed upon are in the best interests of the territories. The remaining third is divided between those who insist on independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come. If the conditions and reservations which they have put forward could be substantially met, the second category referred to above would generally support the proposals. Moreover once a firm decision was taken quite a number of the third category would be likely to abandon their opposition and decide to make the best of a doubtful job. There will remain a hard core, vocal and politically active, which will oppose Malaysia on any terms unless it is preceded by independence and self-government: this hard core might amount to near 20 per cent of the population of Sarawak and somewhat less in North Borneo."

Lord Cobbold, Cobbold Commission

Table of Content

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

TERM OF REFERENCE

INTRODUCTION

1. 1. ENQUIRY IN SARAWAK
2. ENQUIRY IN NORTH BORNEO
3. ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
   A-Recommendations on certain general matters
   B-Recommendations by Sir Anthony Abell and Sir David Watherston
   C-Recommendations by Dato Wong Pow Nee and Enche Mohammed Ghazali bin Shafie
   D-Summary of Recommendations in Sections B and C, and Comments, by the Chairman
5. OTHER MATTERS
6. THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appendices

   A. Itinerary

   B. Census Abstract

   C. Cardinal Principles of the rule of the English Rajah

   D. Legal Meaning of the Term "Native"

   E. North Borneo and Sarawak Governments Papers on Malaysia

   F. "Memorandum on Malaysia" Submitted by the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee

   Map of the Borneo Territories

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobbold_Commission

Download Document:

• Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962 also known as the Cobbold Commission

Read More

What if Sarawak and Sabah had united with Singapore in 1963?

COMMENT: In September last year figures derived from the e-Kasih government programme (to combat poverty) revealed that Sarawak had overtaken Sabah as the state with the largest number of poor people in Malaysia – more than 100,000 had registered under the programme that month alone!

This also meant that Sabah was the second poorest in a nation of 14 states.

This effectively meant that after 52 long years within the federation of the Malaystates, when once as British Protectorates, both our states had enjoyed relatively abundant wealth, relative independence and a form of self-rule within the limits of the Commonwealth, we have now been relegated to a state of almost bare survival impoverishment and just short of being beggars living with all the wealth surrounding us, but none to our name.

What if during that fateful time in 1963, both the Bornean states of Sarawak and Sabah had decided to unite with Singapore instead?

Singapore had struck out on its own – a small tiny dot of an island, with a population of 1.8 million; Sarawak’s 900,000 and Sabah’s 600,000 would only have added a mere 1.5 million to give it a total of 3.3 million, with an overall slight majority of Chinese balanced by Dayaks, Kadazans and Malays.

At the time Singapore had virtually nothing to speak of, no natural resources, a small island with no basic infrastructure nor industry and no land for agriculture. The Bornean states had all the arable and fertile land, with a small population and no human nor monetary capital to speak of.

With great foresight and planning and a hard working labour force at his command, Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP managed to lead and guide and forge that little red dot of an island republic into the world’s third richest country today – without all those natural resources, without having to ingratiate itself to any world power be it the USA, Russia or China. It had branded itself as “a friend to all, an enemy of none”. A virtual Switzerland in the Far East! 

Today, the population figures have boomed with Singapore having 5.47 million people, Sarawak (1.43 million) and Sabah (2.48 million).

Here’s a comparison of the 2013 GNI per capita out of 199 countries – Singapore was No. 4 with US$76,860 (RM279,885) and Malaysia, No. 53 with  US$22,530 (RM82,042).

In hindsight and retrospectively reviewing the current situation, what had happened?

Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s first prime minister, had been troubled by a groundswell of dissatisfaction among his Umno ranks that the number of Chinese in Singapore plus those in Sarawak and Sabah, could have easily tipped the balance of power between the Malays and Chinese if and when it came to the general elections; and eventually the power balance may lie in the votes coming in from a third force, a combination of the Peninsular Indians and Bornean natives of Ibans, Bidayuhs and Kadazans.

This was something that the early Umno politicos could not accept.

So, between having to take this risk or nipping it in the bud, the Tunku did the latter and had decided to “sack Singapore” from the Federation. The rest as they say is history.

If only our forefathers in Sarawak and Sabah had then taken a longer and more insightful look into what the future could have held ... that the Tunku would not be in power forever, that the new Umnocrats in the West would behave more and more chauvinistic and become more racial and more ultra-religious ... and that eventually there will be discord and bad management ... but all these were then only “what ifs”.

Our leaders then – the likes of Stephen Kalong Ningkan, Ong Kee Hui and Donald Stephens – would have had to sit down and negotiate with the likes of a young and tempestuous Lee Kuan Yew and a seasoned politician Goh Chin Chye – but they could, if they would, they might well have negotiated a union ... but again that’s all in the past – the “what ifs and whereforths”.

But if they had and they did and managed to form a Federation of Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah – whatever they might have named it – it would most likely have survived and prospered and done more, much more ... with the later years of discovery, exploration and export of oil, natural gas, some (controlled) timber extraction and immense agricultural exports.

Ah ... yes ... dream on ... yes indeed ... if only!  We can only dream.

Source: http://www.theantdaily.com/Main/What-if-Sarawak-and-Sabah-had-united-with-Singapore-in-1963#sthash.x73JstEG.dpuf

Read More

NATIONALISM VS LIBERALISM?

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & COMMON DUTIES: NATIONALISM VS LIBERALISM?

At the core of liberal values the protection of individual rights are paramount.

‘Classical liberalism’ therefore seeks to support the rights of individuals within, and sometimes even against, the state. It believes that individual liberty and the right to organise for social change through the free will of individual citizens, is essential for progress. The State on the other hand is most usually viewed as seeking to impose duties in its favour upon individual citizens, thus minimising change in favour of stability.

A liberal, outside the organs of the state apparatus, will therefore seek to maximise individual rights as a goal in itself and be, as such, in competition with the state’s perceived goals. The balance of the rights and duties of individuals within a nation (in practice the state) is in perpetual flux as the two sides jockey for influence.

A ‘Traditional Nationalist’ will on the other hand willingly accept the surrender of some individual rights in the interests of the nation, usually the state, for the ‘common good’. In periods of tension, such as war, civil strife or the threat of ‘terror’ the Nationalist sacrifice of citizens’ rights in the interests of all, in order to deal with the immediate ‘common’ threat, often becomes predominant.

The impact on the balance of rights and duties is today of particular pertinence as we enter the age of the so-called ‘War on Terror’. In order to increase the security of its citizens, Western Governments (including those that might call themselves ‘liberal’ in the loose sense of the word), have already begun to erode individual rights of association and privacy. Ironically the increasing diminution of these rights is creating an ordered society quite alien to a Classical Liberal (and a National Liberal).

When the personal security of a nation’s individuals is seen as paramount, individual’s exercising their right to ‘pull in a different direction’ to the orthodoxy are viewed as a luxury at best or as ‘potential fifth-columnists’ at worst. For liberals however this curtailment of individual rights disrupts the natural process of political change and renewal and the ‘authoritarian impulse’ is hard (for the state apparatus) to shed even after the perceived ‘threat to the nation’ has passed.

If we view then the classical/traditional versions of Liberalism and Nationalism as in direct conflict over rights and duties, is it possible for these opposing views to be reconciled?

INDIVIDUALS DO NOT EXIST IN ISOLATION

Liberalism does not see individuals as acting in isolation, for people interact. In modern society it is almost impossible to be independent of others; work and services make this unfeasible. Individuals therefore have to interact with others and in doing so often follow the moral codes and cultural mores of their immediate ‘locality’, ranging from their neighbourhood, community and through to the nation. Even if an individual rejects the state in which they live, it can usually only be in principle rather than practice.

We are therefore rooted as individuals within our culture and the type of society it has developed and created over the centuries. Indeed the sacrifice individuals make through taxation or service is only acceptable because they see themselves as part of a greater whole and perceive fellow citizens as partners in a shared way of life.

Society so organised is also necessary to prevent the ‘strong’ individual from abusing the ‘weak’.

A National Liberal recognises therefore that any viable nation-state requires social cohesion and that rests upon communal and patriotic i.e. national ‘unity’.

A MEANINGFUL NATION-STATE

Whilst pursued more often through the endeavours of the State, Nationalism actually stems from a love of (own) kind and the desire for self-determination. This includes the right to organise as a (national) group and as free individuals*2.

For a nation, as apart from a state, to be meaningful it must be a reflection of the values of its constituent parts i.e. its members, its individual citizens. A meaningful nation state therefore can only exist when its members can as individuals organise for social and political change (individual rights) through democratic means*3.

A National Liberal also recognises that there is a common culture within any nation and that this culture evolves from the choices and behaviour of its citizens and must be reflected in the outlook of the state. In the United Kingdom this culture is liberal in character and therefore the state’s values should be liberal.

We can see therefore that individual rights, such as the right to organise for political or social ends, are essential elements to any meaningful nation state and in turn such a state is required to ensure the order and cohesion necessary to protect individuals from one another.

AGAINST OMNIPOTENCE

National Liberalism represents the philosophy underpinning the idea of the liberal nation state whilst National Liberals are those who seek to find and maintain the necessary yet practical balance between the contradictions that will sometimes emerge between individual rights and communal duties. Failure to do so inevitably condemns societies to the abuses of omnipotent individuals or an omnipotent state. Some believe we already suffer from too much of both.

*1 “Classical Liberalism’ in its original form should not be confused with support for free-market economics or the more popular use of the term which might be titled ‘liberal affection’, which is often seen as opposing patriotic endeavour and cultural sentiment.

*2 When the state becomes a self-fulfilling entity seeking to perpetuate its own interests (usually of a political elite) rather than that of the citizen, we are observing Statism not Nationalism.

*3 We should also distinguish between the selfishness of a traditional nationalist who pursues the nation’s interests without regard to the interests of others and the liberal nationalist who pursues their interests on the same terms as others i.e. ‘what is right for me is right for you’.

Copyright to: NLP, PO Box 4217, Hornchurch, Essex RM12 4PJ – 2008

Source: http://nationalliberal.org/national-liberalism/nationalism-vs-liberalism

Read More

Police will not hesitate to take action against seditious acts

Federal constitution guarantees freedom of speech, however it has its limits, deputy IGP says

KOTA KINABALU: The Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Noor Rashid Ibrahim has stressed that the police will not compromise on acting decisively against anyone who tries to incite the public on seditious issues.

Noor Rashid said decisive action must be taken by the police to ensure that the people and country remained prosperous and secure.

“If we refer to the definition of Section 2 in the Sedition Act, (it is) called “seditious tendency”.

“Anyone who disputes the position of the (Malay) rulers, anyone who disputes the integrity of the courts that exist in our country, anyone who incites racial tension, we define (these acts) under Section 2 of the Sedition Act (1948),” he said.

Noor Rashid said this to reporters after closing the Police Station Heads Integrity Seminar (Sabah contingent) here today. Noor Rashid was commenting on police investigations against Doris Jones, who is associated with the Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) movement.

According to Noor Rashid anyone who disputed articles under Section 2 of the Sedition Act would be subject to police investigations and appropriate action would be taken against them including being charged in court.

Noor Rashid said that although the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in the country, the freedom does, however, have its limits. ”It means if we want to talk, we need to know the limits. If you cross the limits, then as police officers, with a view to maintain peace and order in the country, we will take action accordingly,” he said.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/03/13/police-will-not-hesitate-to-act-against-seditious-acts/

Read More

Sabah, Sarawak can be ‘rags to riches’ story

Jeffrey Kitingan joins the “war of words” between two former Sabah Chief Ministers on “Sabah rights”.

KOTA KINABALU: Sabah and Sarawak, relegated now to the dubious distinction of being the poorest states in the Federation, can rise once again and become the richest states in the country in a “rags to riches” story, a reversal of the “riches to rags” story which began in 1976.

Bingkor assemblyman Jeffrey Kitingan expressed confidence that this could happen once, for starters, Sabah and Sarawak “regain their position as Equal Partners of the peninsula in the Federation”.

At present, he pointed out that “the two Borneo states had been relegated to being the 12th and 13th states in the Federation” in the wake of Singapore ending, in 1965, its merger with the peninsula and its exit from Malaysia.

The emergence of Sabah and Sarawak as the richest states in the Federation, added Jeffrey who is also Star Sabah Chief, hinges on the Federal Government complying with the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land, on the return of revenues collected in the Borneo states.

The arrears of the 40 per cent due to Sabah alone from 1963 until now would definitely be more than RM50 billion, estimates Jeffrey. “This will not only make Sabah the richest State in the nation but one of the very few nations in the world with a positive reserve.”

He was referring to calls in the local media and the social media for two-fifths, or 40 per cent of the net revenue collected by the Federal Government in the Borneo states, to be returned to them in line with the Federal Constitution, and regaining oil and gas rights, among other rights issues.

He was also commenting on the continuing war of words in the local media between former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh and Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the Huguan Siou and a former Sabah Chief Minister, on “the loss of Sabah (and Sarawak) rights”.

Jeffrey warned that the financial position of Sabah and Sarawak would worsen come April 1, “when the people are taken for a ride once again as fools”, with a double whammy i.e. the imposition of 6 per cent Goods and Services Tax (GST), and the abolishment of the Sales and Service Tax (SST) retained by the Sabah and Sarawak Governments, even as the crippling National Cabotage Policy (NCP) continues.

Under the NCP, Sabah and Sarawak cannot import or export goods directly even from nearby places like Hong Kong and China, but must do so through Port Klang, the designed National Load and Transshipment Centre. Carriage in Malaysian waters has to be via locally-registered ships, generally owned by shippers in the peninsula.

“Already, as a result of the NCP among others, the cost of living in Sabah and Sarawak is much higher than that in the peninsula while the standard of living is lower,” fumed Jeffrey. “At the same time, the minimum wage at RM800 per month in Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan is much lower than the RM900 per month for the peninsula.”

Gambling companies, all based in the peninsula, are also siphoning away millions from Sabah and Sarawak.

Jeffrey, returning to his main theme, pointed out that under Part IV Item 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule in the Federal Constitution, Sabah and Sarawak are entitled to two-fifths (40 per cent) of the net revenue collected in the two Borneo states.

Sabah can be an advanced economy bringing prosperity to its people.

Why is the federal government ignoring the Federal Constitution and not returning the 40 per cent net revenue collected from Sabah and Sarawak?

”If the Umno Sabah and Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders genuinely care for the welfare and interests of Sabahans, they should claim for the return of the 40 per cent net revenue collected from Sabah from 1963 until now,” demanded Jeffrey. “The tens of billions will propel Sabah into an advanced economy and prosperity for Sabahans.”

Petronas is making billions of ringgit from Sabah’s oil and gas, he noted. “Between 2012 and 2015, Petronas was expected to receive more than RM85 billion. Sabah only gets a measly 5 per cent share which is only about RM4.25 billion.”

”Major oil companies producing oil and gas from Sabah are paying billions in taxes each year.”

So are big plantation companies based in the peninsula but with huge acreages in Sabah and paying billions each year, he continued. “Billions more are collected as Federal taxes and other government revenue from Sabah businesses and ordinary Sabahans each year.”

“The Customs Department in Sabah alone collects more than RM830 million with another RM1.2 billion in GST for the remaining nine months this year.”

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/03/17/sabah-sarawak-can-be-rags-to-riches-story/

Read More

'Let Sabah, Sarawak have a say in their own destiny'

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 28, 2015: Sabah and Sarawak would like some independence when it comes to decision making, a former Sabah Chief Minister said.

Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak wrote in his blog that currently the federal government not only decides on the development expenditure but also controls how, what and when it is implemented.

This, the Sabah speaker explained, causes delays, wastage and overlapping of functions between the state and federal agencies.

Many times, he claimed, the states are left out entirely in the decision-making process.

“The present system of the federal government practically running the states does not go down well with states that are supposed to enjoy a certain level of autonomy.”

By giving Sabah and Sarawak a little autonomy, Salleh said it would be a “good first step” by the Barisan Nasional to prove to the Sabah and Sarawak voters that it honoured the spirit of the Malaysian agreement and the 20/18 Point Memorandum.

Sarawak, he said, will be facing its state elections in about a year, followed by Sabah and this, he added, was a crucial matter to be considered in the not too distant future.

Sabahans and Sarawakians, Salleh stressed, must be made to feel they are partners in Malaysia and not servants of West Malaysian colonialists.

He said that whether this was the correct perception or not was another matter but one must not deny that this is how many Sabahans and Sarawakians feel.

Partial autonomy, Salleh said was a fair request.

“It can only strengthen Barisan Nasional in Sabah and Sarawak when Sabahans and Sarawakians are made to feel that they do have some say in their own destiny.”

Source: http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2015/02/28/let-sabah-sarawak-have-a-say-in-their-own-destiny/#ixzz3UeHBEFPH

Read More