Monday, 10 August 2015
Mt Kinabalu guides honoured on Singapore National Day
Ricky Masirin, Valerian Joannes get posthumous Commendation medals for “devotion to duty” during Sabah quake; four other Malaysians recognised as well.
SINGAPORE: Mountain guides Ricky Masirin and Valerian Joannes who died trying to bring to safety several Singapore primary schoolchildren from the earthquake-stricken Mt Kinabalu in June were honoured by the Singapore government yesterday.
The two guides were posthumously awarded Commendation Medals during Singapore’s National Day Awards for their efforts in trying to guide Tanjong Katong Primary School pupils to safety.
The citation for the guides read: “(for their) Devotion to duty and exemplary conduct during the Sabah earthquake,” The Straits Times and Asia News Network reported.
Muhammad Danish Amran, another Sabah guide who brought several pupils down the mountain to safety, was also honoured together with Malaysian Mountain Torq trainers Hajiris Sulomin, Hilary Hendry Augustinus and James Maikol.
The Malaysians were among 16 others who were honoured.
Among the Singaporeans given the medal were Tanjong Katong School teachers Mohamed Faizal, Joshua Tan, Nur Uzaimah Fadzali, Lee Hui Jun, Carolyn De Souza and Roushan Amir Hussain.
Faizal, who teaches English and physical education, said modestly: “We weren’t doing anything extra. We were doing what is required of us as teachers, which is taking care of the kids under our charge.”
Sapp to educate Gen-Y on Sabah’s true history
Putrajaya should start counting the Federation with Sabah and Sarawak from 1963 and not from 1957 or from 1948.
KOTA KINABALU: The Sabah Progressive Party (Sapp) wants to educate the Gen-Y in particular that Sabah was once a country on its own before 16 Sept 1963 when it came together in a Federation with Sarawak, Singapore and the peninsula. “Brunei stayed out at the 11th hour,” noted Sapp Vice- Youth Chief Yong Yit Yoong.
“Now, Sabah like Sarawak is a nation within the Federation. Full Autonomy is our Constitutional right. The Federal Government has also reneged on the Borneonisation of the civil service.”
He was explaining the purpose of the Black Sunday 2.0 Gathering on Sunday along Gaya Street, the venue of the packed weekly Sunday Market, in Kota Kinabalu, during which the participants held blank papers. “Friends in the police warned us that we can’t speak up on certain things. So, that’s why we held black papers in protest against such restrictions.”
“We have the right to speak up on Sabah rights. If we don’t have the right to speak up, even in the social media, the Ministry of Communications and Multimedia Commission should close down.”
The Sabah Independence Day celebrations on August 31 to be held in Kundasang this year by the party, added Yong, would stress that independence began in 1963 and not 1957. “In the case of Sarawak, independence came on 22 July 1963 and they observed the anniversary last month for the second time since 1963.”
“The Federal Government should start counting the Federation with Sabah and Sarawak as beginning from 1963 and not from 1957, the Independence Day for the peninsula, or even from 1948 when the Federation of Malaya Agreement was signed in London.”
The history of the Federation in 1963, charged Yong, was being ignored or down-played by the Federal Government as evident in school text books. “We cannot forget out history. We need to educate the Gen-Y so that they will know their true history, not the one put out by Putrajaya.”
Yong, delving into the history since 1963, lamented that the status of Sabah and Sarawak had diminished since Singapore’s departure in 1965 from being equal partners of Malaya incorporating Singapore, to the 12th and 13th states in the Federation. “There has been very little public education on Sabah and Sarawak’s real status in the Federation.”
Monday, August 10, 2015
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Jeffrey G.Kitingan
,
News
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
,
Sharing
No comments
Jeffrey: S’pore abandoned Sabah and Sarawak
The two Borneo nations need to wake up from their trance-like state induced by Umno and the Barisan Nasional (BN).
KOTA KINABALU: Bingkor assemblyman and longtime rights activist Jeffrey Kitingan has mixed feelings on the 50th Anniversary of Singapore ending its merger with Malaya and exiting the Federation with the peninsula, Sabah and Sarawak. “When I asked the late Lee Kuan Yew once what his greatest regret was in relation to Sabah and Sarawak, he hung his head, and tears rolled down his face. He was so choked with emotion and regret that he could not speak.”
“Sabahans and Sarawakians need to wake up from their trance-like state induced by Umno and the Barisan Nasional (BN) and their links with the peninsula where the Federal Government has refused to comply with the Malaysia Agreement 1963.”
While extending greetings on the Golden Anniversary joy for Singapore, he can’t at the same time resist pointing out that the city state abandoned Sabah and Sarawak which facilitated its merger with Malaya through their Federation with the peninsula and the island. “Otherwise, multiracial Malaya refused to have Chinese-majority Singapore merge with it.”
“What might be the status of Sabah and Sarawak today had the two Borneo nations left the Federation in 1965 at the same time as Singapore?” asked Jeffrey on the road not taken. “Just as Lee Kuan Yew fought hard to persuade Sabah and Sarawak leaders to agree to Federation in 1963, Singapore should have fought equally hard for the two Borneo nations to leave the Federation at the same time as it left.”
Moving forward, said Jeffrey, it was clear that Sabah and Sarawak could no longer rely on Umno and Malaya and pointed out that Singapore’s success illustrated Malaysia’s failure. “If Singapore can do it, and Brunei can do well on its own by keeping out of the Federation at the 11th hour, Sabah and Sarawak can also do well if they stand on their own two feet.”
“The Singapore economy in GDP terms is larger than that of Malaysia, the currency almost RM3 to S$1, and it has the world’s third highest per capita income. All these were achieved in a tiny land area, without water or natural resources and without Umno and BN.”
The only thing going for Singapore was its strategic location, human resources, and its commitment to the brightest and best leading the way for all, added Jeffrey. “Sarawak today is better off than Sabah because it has no Umno.”
Black Sunday 2.0
KOTA KINABALU, 10 Ogos 2015: Satu program aman yang bertemakan Black Sunday 2.0 telah dilakukan oleh Pemuda SAPP bagi tujuan kesedaran awal tentang Hari Kemerdekaan Sabah di Gaya Street pada hari Ahad.
Program ini memfokuskan kepada penyebaran kebenaran sejarah yang selama ini tidak diketahui oleh orang ramai khususnya bangsa Sabah.
Dengan berbekalkan bendera lama kerajaan Sabah yang dikibarkan pada tahun 1963 sehingga tahun 1982, poster yang berlakarkan gambar wajah Ketua Menteri Sabah yang Pertama, Tun Fuad Stephens dan Yang Di-Pertua Negara Sabah, Tun Mustapha telah digunakan untuk tujuan program kesedaran ini.
Menurut En.Dexter Chin yang merupakan setiausaha Penganjur Exco Pemuda SAPP, beliau mengatakan bahawa adalah sangat penting bagi orang ramai untuk memperingati sejarah bahawa Sabah adalah berstatus negara pada 31 Ogos 1963 sebelum membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia pada 16 September 1963.
Pembentukkan Persekutuan Malaysia adalah berdasarkan kepada konsep Rakan Kongsi Empat Negara yang terdiri daripada Negara Sabah (dahulu dikenali sebagai North Borneo), Negara Sarawak, Negara Singapura dan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya). Namun, pada 9 Ogos 1965, Singapura telah keluar daripada Persekutuan dan meninggalkan dua negara Borneo ini bersendirian dengan Malaya. Lantas itu, konsep Persekutuan telah diubah dengan penurunan status Sabah sebagai sebuah negara dan rakan kongsi telah diturunkan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan Malaysia pada 27 Ogos 1976.
Beliau mengulas dengan lebih lanjut lagi dengan menambahkan bahawa apapun yang telah terjadi, Sabah dan Sarawak masih mempunyai kuasa autonomi dalam mengendalikan hal-ehwal kerajaan tempatan. Semuanya in telah termaktub didalam Perjanjian Malaysia dan ia mesti dihormati oleh kerajaan persekutuan. Autonomi penuh perlu diberikan kepada Sabah agar kelancaran didalam pentadbiran dapat dicapai bagi kepentingan kerajaan tempatan dan rakyat Sabah.
Kenyataan Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi yang merupakan Menteri Kementerian Dalam Negeri (kini Timbalan Perdana Menteri) tentang larangannya kepada rakyat Sabah untuk tidak mempersoalkan isu pendatang asing merupakan satu penghinaan kepada rakyat Sabah. Ini kerana kuasa imigresen sebenarnya merupakan kuasa kerajaan Sabah dan ia telah termaktub didalam 20 Perkara. Selain Imigresen, kuasa mengurus Pendidikan dan Ekonomi Sabah juga adalah antara kuasa yang dimiliki oleh Kerajaan Sabah. Namun, kesemua ini tidak dihormati oleh kerajaan persekutuan, tegas En.Dexter Chin.
Justeru, adalah sangat penting untuk setiap rakyat Sabah untuk bersama-sama berjuang untuk menuntut hak Sabah seperti yang telah termaktub didalam Perjanjian Malaysia.
Sepanjang program dijalankan, terdapat sedikit kekecohan dan ketegangan yang telah berlaku. Pihak polis telah mengganggu program tersebut dan ingin merampas bendera Sabah yang dipegang oleh peserta program sehinggakan peserta program tersebut jatuh kerana ditolak oleh pihak polis dengan kasar.
Salah seorang peserta program telah membawa dan mengibarkan bendera Sarawak yang telah dikibarkan pada tahun 1963 sehingga tahun 1973.
Seramai 30 orang peserta telah menjayakan program aman dan dua NGO telah memberikan sokongan kepada program tersebut. NGO yang terlibat ialah Sabah Solidariti dan Sabah Sarawak Union - United Kingdom (SSU-UK).
Turut hadir bersama dalam program tersebut adalah Ketua Pemuda Exco SAPP Jamain Shamarudin, Naib Ketua Pemuda SAPP Stephan Gaimin, Naib Ketua Pemuda SAPP Yong Yit Yoong.
Source: Bobohizan Press
Turut hadir bersama dalam program tersebut adalah Ketua Pemuda Exco SAPP Jamain Shamarudin, Naib Ketua Pemuda SAPP Stephan Gaimin, Naib Ketua Pemuda SAPP Yong Yit Yoong.
Source: Bobohizan Press
Monday, August 10, 2015
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
Singapore
No comments
The Proclamation of Singapore as Independence Country in 1965
The Proclamation of Singapore that announced Singapore's separation from Malaysia on 9 August 1965 was drafted by Mr E W Barker, then Minister for Law. He was also responsible for drafting two other related documents, namely: an Amendment relating to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia as an independent and sovereign state, and an Act to amend the Constitution of Malaysia and the Malaysia Act to give Singapore independence.
PM Lee Kuan Yew entrusted Mr E W Barker with the job of drafting the documents in mid-July 1965 after he received news that the Federal Cabinet had agreed with Tunku Abdul Rahman that Singapore should separate from Malaysia. After several rounds of negotiations between the Singapore government represented by Mr Lee and Dr Goh Keng Swee, Minister of Finance, and the Malaysian government represented by Tunku, Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister, Dato Ismail bin Dato Abdul Rahman, Home Affairs Minister and Tun Tan Siew Sin, Finance Minister, the abovementioned documents were eventually finalised on 7 August.
"Every time I look at these Agreements, I'm happy, I have a sense of pride, having contributed to a major change - the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. I was able to draft these documents then in a short time because I had just left the Bar, in fact, nine months before that. I had been in practice for 14 years and had a lot of experience. Hence, I was able to do it."
Extract of oral history interview with Mr E W Barker, 1982.
Information extracted from the oral history interview of Mr E W Barker, Accession No: 000193
Proclamation of Singapore that Mr E W Barker
drafted was signed by Mr Lee on 9 August 1965.
- Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Times Editions Pte Ltd and Singapore Press Holdings, 1998), pp. 631-632.
- Leslie Fong, "The Week Before Separation", in Singapore 25 Years: A Straits Times Special, National Day, 9 Aug 1990, ed. Leslie Fong (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 1990), pp. 5-10 and Lee, The Singapore Story, pp. 628-647.
Saturday, 8 August 2015
Konspirasi Pengkhianatan dan Pembunuhan
Mungkin ada yang takut untuk membuka mulut dan untuk sebab itu, biar pihak kami yang berbicara. Sila lihat gambar ini. Keempat-empat mereka merupakan sahabat baik dan dikatakan sebagai abang dan adik. Mereka juga pejuang Kebangsaan Negara Sabah. malaya tidak mampu mengganggu bangsa Negara Sabah secara langsung. Apatah lagi minyak dan gas. Walaupun mereka digunakan untuk menumbangkan Tun Mustapha kerana keengganannya untuk menyerahkan minyak, apabila mereka memegang kerajaan, mereka juga sedar sebab-sebab apa Tun Mustapha tidak mahu menyerahkan minyak tersebut.
Komplot untuk menghapuskan Pejuang-pejuang ini telah dilakukan atas kesepakatan malaya dan barua (pengkhianat) bangsa negara Sabah iaitu harris salleh.
Selepas misi konspirasi pembunuhan berjaya dilakukan dengan cara "semula jadi (konon)" tetapi yang sebenarnya, bom telah dipasang dan meletup diudara sebelum mendarat (BUKAN terhempas), harris salleh telah menjadi Ketua Menteri, dia telah menyerahkan hak minyak & gas 2 minggu selepas kejadian tersebut tanpa membawa hal ini kepada perbincangan kabinet menteri Sabah. Selepas itu, dia juga telah bersetuju menurunkan status "Negara" kepada "negeri". Dia juga dalang perlaksanaan Dasar Kabotaj yang menyebabkan peningkatan harga kos hidup di Negara Sabah sehingga membantutkan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang jelas hanya menguntungkan pelabuhan malaya. Dan orang ini juga dalang disebalik projek IC.
"Harris later admitted that he found himself being pushed around by the federal government and he was too young to stand up against the its demands. However, if Tun Fuad was still alive, he may be able to stand up against it because he was more senior and had the respect of the federal government."
"Harris later admitted that he found himself being pushed around by the federal government and he was too young to stand up against the its demands. However, if Tun Fuad was still alive, he may be able to stand up against it because he was more senior and had the respect of the federal government."
Mengapa orang ini masih hidup sehingga sekarang? Sebab ada sesuatu yang bakal disaksikannya nanti iaitu penghukuman terhadapnya. Keadilan akan dilakukan terhadap mangsa tragedi Double Six.
Sebarkan info ini.
Zahid warns ‘disruptive elements’ from breaking Putrajaya-Sarawak ties
Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has warned what he described as "disruptive elements" from attempting to split the good relationship Putrajaya has with Sarawak and the relationship the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has with Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem.
The deputy prime minister, on his first official visit to the state since his ministerial elevation 10 days ago, did not name who the disruptive elements are.
Zahid, who is also home minister, said he would use all his powers as the home minister to thwart all attempts at creating a division.
"If there are any groups or individuals who try to divide us, the home ministry will use its full might to break up the attempts," he said at the Hari Raya gathering at the Stadium Perpaduan in Kuching, organised by Rela.
"We won't let anyone come between Kuala Lumpur (Putrajaya) and Sarawak."
The prime minister enjoys a good relationship with Adenan after the Sarawak chief minister gave his undivided support to the embattled prime minister in his two visits to the state in June.
Najib, then under pressure from former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to step down, said he could now better sleep at night with such support.
Zahid said he would also emulate the prime minister by making frequent visits to the state, particularly to the rural areas.
"I was a village boy who used to play in the mud and grew up in a house without electricity.
"I will come to Sarawak more often and I will not come empty-handed," he said.
"There will be something for the rural people." – August 7, 2015.
Friday, 7 August 2015
Friday, August 07, 2015
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
Jeffrey G.Kitingan
,
News
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
,
Sharing
No comments
Secession a right of any state that joined Malaysia voluntarily, says Sabah politician
It is not seditious for Sabah and Sarawak nationalists to call for secession from Malaysia if the agreements that formed the country in 1963 are not honoured, Sabah opposition politician, Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan said.
The Bingkor assemblyman, who is chairman of the Sabah STAR party, said the people of these two Borneo states which formed Malaysia with Malaya had been "taken for a ride and cheated outright" despite the Malaysia Agreement as the peninsula depended on these two states for political support and oil wealth.
"If the federal leaders care to listen, Sabah and Sarawak nationalists and activists are not seeking secession but restoration of the legitimate rights, privileges and autonomy of the Borneo states that were taken away or eroded since 1963.
"There was a basis that led to the formation of Malaysia and if that basis is not honoured, one of the lawful and legal recourse would be a de-merger or dissolution. In such an event, it is not secession," Kitingan said in a statement today.
The opposition politician has long campaigned against the Barisan Nasional federal government over issues of oil royalty, freedom of religion, alleged Islamisation of Sabah institutions and the local people as well as immigration which have change the demographic of the state's population.
Kitingan said secession was a legal right of a state if it had voluntarily entered a federation, citing Lord Landsdowne who had chaired the Inter Governmental Committee which had studied the proposed formation of Malaysia in 1962.
Because a state had this "intrinsic" right, it was "unnecessary to include it in the constitution", Landsdowne had said, quoted Kitingan.
"If secession is seditious and against the constitution, why was Singapore allowed secession in 1965? Shouldn't the Singapore leaders then be charged for sedition?" Kitingan added, noting that the federal government then had even signed a departure agreement with Singapore.
Kitingan also noted that "nowhere is it stated in the Federal Constitution that Sabah and Sarawak are not allowed to secede".
The federal government's decision to retain the Sedition Act and plans to make calling for Sabah and Sarawak's secession a criminal offence was a "huge mistake", he added.
But he welcomed threats to arrest and charge Sabah or Sarawak activists for sedition for making such calls, as prosecution would reveal "dark secrets and wrongdoings" against the people of both states.
Criminalising calls for Sabah and Sarawak to leave Malaysia, Kitingan said, would "mark the beginning of the end and break-up of the Malaysian federation". – February 1, 2015.
Thursday, 6 August 2015
Flashlight: Jessie and Billance Duet.
KOTA KINABALU, 6 Ogos 2015: Seorang anak kelahiran bangsa Negara Sabah yang berasal daripada Kota Kinabalu yang bernama Billance Fung Chee Von dan merupakan etnik Sino Kadazan telah menarik perhatian warga Facebook setelah rakaman videonya yang berduet dengan seorang penyanyi terkenal yang bernama Jessie J dengan lagu Flashlight dikongsikan kepada umum melalui profil akaun "Facebook" peribadinya.
Video tersebut telah mendapat sambutan yang hangat setelah dikongsikan disebuah Page Facebook yang bernama The Future of Sabah/Sarawak and the Federation of Malaysia" dan telah mencatat jumlah "share" yang telah mencecah 2,136 dan "Like" sebanyak 1,654. Manakala, jumlah rekod "share" di akaun peribadinya mencatat sebanyak 680 dan "Like" dalam 1,272.
Menurut beliau, "rakaman tersebut dilakukan secara "duet" bersama dengan penyanyi Jessie J tetapi bukan secara live. Ia menggunakan aplikasi "Sing! Karaoke by Smule" dan sesiapa juga boleh melakukannya."
"Tiada sebarang latihan khusus. Saya hanya menyanyikannya "for fun" sahaja. Terdapat banyak pilihan lagu sama ada "single, duet or group" yang tersedia dalam aplikasi tersebut. Apa yang perlu dilakukan adalah dengan hanya perlu memilih salah satu lagu berkenaan untuk dinyanyikan", ujarnya.
Respon daripada warga Facebook yang rata-ratanya berasal daripada negara Sabah dan negara Sarawak memberikan pujian dan pengiktirafan terhadap kemerduan suara beliau. Malah ada sejumlah ramai wanita dan juga lelaki telah terpikat dan jatuh hati dengannya setelah mendengar lagu duet beliau itu. Ini ditambahkan lagi dengan kekacakannya telah menjadi faktor kepada minat terhadapnya.
Difahamkan bahawa beliau adalah seorang Jurutera Proses (Process Engineer) yang bekerja di Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Doris
,
Nationalist
,
News
,
Sabah
,
Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU)
,
SSKM
No comments
Seven months on, Sabah cops admit Doris Jones arrest warrant only enforceable in Malaysia
KOTA KINABALU, Aug 5 – Sabah police conceded today that the arrest warrant for UK-based Sabah secessionist Doris Jones obtained nearly seven months ago can only be enforced should she choose to return to Malaysia.
State police commissioner Datuk Jalaluddin Abdul Rahman said that the warrant of arrest, issued on January 16 this year, put Jones on the police’s wanted list for sedition but its powers was limited within the country.
“The warrant of arrest still stands. But in Malaysia. We can take action as soon as she comes here,” said Jalaluddin.
In February, Jalaluddin announced that police had issued the warrant for Doris Yapp Kim Young, 45, with a last known address in Labuan for offences under the Sedition Act.
Jones is believed to be behind a Facebook page “Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia” which aims to promote awareness of Sabah and Sarawak rights within Malaysia and controversially also promotes discourse on secession.
Jalaluddin was previously reported as saying the local police would seek Interpol’s help in locating her but in Britain, where she is believed to be residing, the crime she is alleged to have committed is not recognised.
Jones has repeatedly denied being contacted by authorities or Interpol in the UK and yesterday, wrote on her Facebook account that she “has been waiting since last year” to be served.
Yesterday, a warrant of arrest was issued to founder and editor of whistleblower site Sarawak Report, Clare Rewcastle-Brown for activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy.
The Sarawak Report website was blocked in Malaysia last month for posing a “threat to national stability” after posting reports that Najib had up to RM2.6 billion deposited into his personal accounts.
Lawyers have dubbed the warrant of arrest on Rewcastle-Brown as futile because of its limitations within Malaysia.
Wednesday, 5 August 2015
Tolak Najib atau Tolak UMNO?
Saya memang tolak Najib dan tolak UMNO. Ini pandangan dan tindakan saya. Jelas seperti kristal jernih.
Ada pandangan yang kata kita tukar Najib untuk kebaikan negara. Tetapi UMNO harus kekal memerintah demi Melayu dan Islam. Saya kata pandangan ini salah. Buktinya?
1. Tun M letak jawatan kerana tekanan yang mengatakan beliau sudah terlalu lama dan bakal rosakkan negara dan tidak Islamik. Beliau akur.
2. Tun A ganti malah lebih teruk ekonomi negara. Banyak perkara tidak terkawal. Orang kata Tun A terlalu lembik walaupun agak Islamik. Beliau akur dan letak jawatan.
3. DSN ganti, juga masih teruk. Ekonomi merundum, banyak isu tanpa jawapan jelas. Digesa letak jawatan malah memecat orang lain.
Kalau sudah tiga kali ganti masih tidak ngam, maka apa masalah sebenar? Kepimpinan? Bukan. Masalahnya ialah UMNO yang sudah berakar umbi dan melahirkan jenis kepimpinan ini. Gantilah bagaimana, masih tetap sama. Selain itu ialah masalah sistem pentadbiran negara yang banyak dikuasai rangkaian pemimpin UMNO. Selagi rangkaian ini tidak diputuskan, penjawat awam tidak akan dapat buat kerja dengan baik. Ada peluang untuk dipecat jika tidak ikut arahan.
Jadi mau tolak Najib atau UMNO? Jawapan saya tolak UMNO maka Najib dan pemimpin yang sejenisnya ditolak secara langsung. Rangkaian busuk dalam sistem pentadbiran bakal diperbaharui dengan rangkaian baru. Mereka yang baru ini sudah tentu lebih berhati2 dan ini baik utk negara.
Masih ada persoalan lagi. Katanya kalau UMNO kalah, Melayu dan Islam hancur.
Cuba kaji sejak lebih 50 tahun ini UMNO buat apa dengan Melayu dan Islam?
1. Peratusan ekonomi utk Melayu/Bumiputera tidak pernah capai sasaran. Sebab apa? Rasuah dan kroni, akhirnya projek alibaba.
2. Ruang dakwah begitu terbuka luas, tetapi Islam masih takut rosak aqidah hanya kerana lihat perkataan Allah diguna agama lain dan lambang salib. Ketika di negara barat, Islamnya berkembang walau dikelilingi rumah ibadat agama lain. Sebab apa? Sebab Islam di negara ini hanya topeng untuk raih sokongan. Ini menyebabkan bukan Islam memandang serong terhadap Islam.
Jadi siapa rosakkan Melayu dan Islam? Jawapan saya UMNO. Walaupun demikian, masih ada alim ulama dalam UMNO termasuk yang sudah jadi YB. Saya yakin mereka ini tetap diterima rakyat walaupun tanpa lambang keris itu lagi.
Jadi masih mahu tolak Najib? Janganlah. Tolak UMNO terus. Baru Ngam.
Hasmin Azroy Abdullah.
IS SARAWAK A NEGARA?
I noted that Peter John and Mujah were grilled incessantly on the words 'negara' and 'referendum' at the balai polis. now, i will reserve my comments on the word referendum, but i cannot keep my silence on the negara status of Sarawak.
Now, look at this book, Malaysia Agreement. it is the mother of all documents on the formation of Malaysia. Without MA63, there is no Malaysia. Without Malaysia there is no Perlembagaan. One senior minister James Masing even noted, if MA63 is breached, then it becomes null and void. meaning there can be no Malaysia then.
MA63 is an international treaty lodged with United Nations. Why the UN accepted it for registration when submitted by Britain in 1970, after Singapore had departed to become an independent nation is beyond my comprehension but that is not my contention here.
What I want to say is, if Sarawak was not a negara at the time MA63 was inked then the Agreement cannot be valid becos in international law only sovereign nations can enter into an international agreement.
If Sarawak is a negara at the time of signing the Agreement, then why must the federal govt be unhappy if we want to re-affirm that Sarawak negara status. why must we be questioned if we say Sarawak is a negara?
and why must the federal government be alarmed if we talk about MA63? it is the Agreement that forms Malaysia, and this book is obtainable from the govt printing offices. Why is it wrong to talk abt MA63 then?
Why must the Sedition Act be used to threaten those who question our negara status and our rights, why must even a legitimate NGO be declared haram and considered as a threat to public order and national security?
Will Sarawakians and Sabahans bow down to intimidation and threats?
Source: Lina Soo
Catalonia calls early elections in new independence push
The leader of Catalonia has signed a decree calling for early parliamentary elections on September 27 which will serve as a proxy vote for the northeastern region’s potential secession in a fresh attempt at gaining independence from the rest of Spain.
Catalan president Artur Mas announced on Monday that if pro-independence parties secure the majority of votes in parliament then the region, which accounts for a fifth of Spain’s economic output, will aim for independence within 18 months.
While the Spanish general elections are due in 2015, the early Catalonian vote puts pressure on Madrid. The Catalan nationalist leaders have recently signed an agreement on what they call “a road map” to secession which aims to implement the plan by 2017.
The region’s three pro-independence parties are predicted to win 68 to 72 seats in Catalonia’s 135-seat parliament, according to last month’s La Vanguardia poll.
The Catalan coalition called “Together for Yes” comprises the ruling CDC party, the Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) in addition to associations responsible for pro-independence rallies in the region. By last week the coalition had already presented plans to create a Catalan tax agency and agreed to establish a public credit institution which could later could be transformed into a Catalan central bank.
Spain’s central government in Madrid furiously rejects the notion that elections in Barcelona should be viewed as a referendum on independence.
“In a regional election one chooses lawmakers for the regional parliament, who in turn elect a president of the region. This is what citizens are deciding with this vote and nothing else,” Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria, said on Monday.
Last year a symbolic vote on independence showed that some 80 percent of the 2.2 million people supported separation from Madrid. Prior to the November 9 referendum, Madrid blocked the vote through the Spanish Constitutional Court.
In the fallout stemming from a symbolic independence vote which was conducted despite a court injunction, Spanish state prosecutors filed charges against referendum supporters including Mas.
In the meantime, the Spanish general election is expected to take place in late November. As Catalonia braces for its new attempt to gain independence, popular support for regional secessionist groups in the region has dropped due to internal politics and the emergence of popular nationalist parties.
Spain’s regional elections in May showed big gains for upstart leftist and center-right parties with conservatives losing their majority: The results have been the worst for Mariano Rajoy’s People’s Party in more than 20 years. Voters have punished the Prime Minister for four years of severe spending cuts and a string of corruption scandals.
Rajoy now faces stiff opposition by relative new-comers, the Podemos and Ciudadanos parties which have appealed to voters by calling for more transparency and accountability in politics.
Alleged S4S promoter charged in court
SIBU: A 47-year-old purported promoter of Sarawak for Sarawakians (S4S) was yesterday produced in a Magistrate’s Court here to face a charge under Communication and Multi-media Act 1998.
When the nature of charge was read and explained to Yeu Bang Keng, 47, from Tiong Hua Road, through an interpreter in Mandarin, he said he understood the charge but denied it.
The offence framed under Section 249 of the Communication and Multi-media Act 1998, and punishable under Section 242 of the same Act carries a maximum penalty of RM100,000-fine or two years’ jail or both on conviction.
Yeu is charged for refusal to provide his Facebook username and password to the police in their investigation into a commentary in his FB posting at Sibu Central Police Station at 4.30pm on May 15.
Clad in a black S4S T-shirt when he appeared in court yesterday afternoon, Yeu was granted bail of RM15,000 with two sureties.
As bail condition, magistrate Saiful Sayoti ordered that he deposit RM10,000 in the form of fixed deposit certificate with the court.
State Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohd Azrul Faidz preferred the charge against the accused who was not represented.
The case comes up for further mention on Sept 2 and for trial on Oct 8.
Source: http://www.theborneopost.com/2015/08/05/alleged-s4s-promoter-charged-in-court/#ixzz3htfQw7nJ
Monday, 3 August 2015
Apabila Jenayah Berselindung Disebalik Undang-Undang
1.Tidak pernah ada pun menteri yang lantang bercakap akan berusaha menghapuskan salah laku dan pecah amanah dalam kalangan menteri-menteri dan ahli politik. Yang kita selalu dengar berulang ulang adalah nasihat kepada rakyat, harapan dan janji-janji palsu iaitu memberi kesejahteraan kepada rakyat dan memperbaiki taraf ekonomi rakyat.
2. Undang-undang yang pernah ada di Malaysia, hanya disediakan khas untuk menteri-menteri dan ahli politik. Ahli politik beserta dengan undang-undang mereka sahaja. Sistem perundangan yang hanya berkesan kepada rakyat biasa tetapi kebal kepada empunya kuasa perundangan iaitu dalam kalangan pengamal undang-undang dan barisan menteri-menteri dan sekutunya.
3. Undang-undang dalam Malaysia telah mematikan dan membekukan hak-hak dan kuasa rakyat bawahan. Ianya digunapakai ke atas rakyat biasa, iaitu pekerja bawahan.
4. Kesalahan jenayah terbesar dalam sebuah negara itu bukanlah jenayah sosial yang hanya melibatkan kesalahan jenayah yang dilakukan oleh rakyat. Mahkamah, polis, pendakwa raya, perundangan dan perlembagaan semuanya sengaja direka dan diwujudkan untuk rakyat. Berlakunya penyalah gunaan kuasa. Lalu rakyat dikawal seketat ketatnya dengan alasan untuk menjaga kesejahteraan negara dan mengawal keamanan dalam Malaysia. Orang awam atau rakyat biasa dijadikan simbol utama kepada permasalahan jenayah sosial yang akan memudaratkan negara.
5. Hakikatnya, jenayah serius dan hal yang bakal memudaratkan sesebuah negara itu ialah krisis yang ditimbulkan sendiri dalam kalangan menteri-menteri barisan hadapan negara dan ahli politik itu sendiri. Skandal korupsi dan penyelewangan yang dilakukan oleh menteri-menteri merupakan jenayah terburuk dan keji yang sepatutnya bakal mengugat kesejahteraan dan keselamatan dalam negara.
6. Mengapa ketua hakim atau ketua peguam, pendakwa raya negara, pasukan keselamatan negara iaitu polis dan tentera hanya dikerahkan untuk menangani permasalahan rakyat biasa. Bagaimana dengan pasukan pendakwaan khas, pasukan perisikan khas, akta-akta dan undang-undang dalam negara yang disediakan khas jika berlakunya salah laku dan pecah amanah dalam kalangan menteri-menteri?
7. Adakah salah laku yang hanya dilakukan oleh rakyat biasa seperti mencuri, memfitnah, membunuh, dan sebagainya diyakini tidak pernah langsung dilakukan oleh menteri-menteri kita pada hari ini? Menteri-menteri yang dilantik menjadi pemimpin negara pada hari ini merupakan seorang rakyat biasa yang dipilih untuk menjadi menteri. Jika seorang menteri itu dahulunya pernah menjadi rakyat biasa sebelum dipilih menjadi pemimpin, maka pada hari ini atas apakah alasan atau undang-undang dunia manakah yang menyatakan bahawa mereka tidak harus dikenakan tindakan atau hukuman atas salah laku mereka.
8. Pecah amanah yang dilakukan oleh mereka kerana tanggapan bahawa jawatan yang disandang dilihat sebagai harta dan kekayaan semata mata.
Tanpa kita sedari bahawa kita diperbodohkan melalui persetujuan untuk akur dan tunduk dan sembah kepada kuasa atau sistem perundangan dan perlembagaan yang dianggap mampu menstabilkan keadaan negara dan mewujudkan sebuah negara yang aman dan harmoni dan bebas daripada kuasa penjajahan oleh negara luar. Ciptaan undang-undang buatan manusia yang cuba mengaburkan mata rakyat bagi menutup rahsia dan penyelewangan yang dilakukan oleh pemimpin negara.
9. Jikalau rakyat sudah kehilangan kepercayaan kepada perundangan negara, maka tidak perlulah wujudkan pekerjaan sebagai peguam, kerana pada hakikatnya wang ringgit, masa dan tenaga yang dibazirkan juga tidak pernah berpihak dan menyebelahi nasib rakyat.
Source: G.M
Saturday, 1 August 2015
Saturday, August 01, 2015
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
No comments
Ramai Tak Tahu: Kelantan Pernah Cabar Penubuhan Malaysia Pada 1963 di Mahkamah
On July 9, 1963, the governments of the Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom, Sarawak, North Borneo and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement that brought Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak into the federation.
The federal parliament then passed the Malaysia Act to amend the federal constitution to include the three new states and to provide for matters in connection with the admission.
On Sept 10 , six days before Malaysia was to be declared, the government of Kelantan began an action against the federal government for declarations that the Malaysia Agreement and the Malaysia Act were null and void or were not binding on the state.
In the case of The Government of the State of Kelantan v The Government of the Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj ("the Kelantan case"), Kelantan argued that:
- The Malaysia Act would violate the Federation of Malaya agreement 1957 by abolishing the "Federation of Malaya".
- The proposed changes needed the consent of each of the constituent states including Kelantan, and this had not been obtained.
- The Sultan of Kelantan should have been made a party to the Malaysia Agreement.
- Constitutional convention dictated that consultation with rulers of individual states was required before substantial changes could be made to the constitution.
- The federal parliament had no power to legislate for Kelantan in matters that the state could legislate for on its own.
Chief justice James Thomson delivered his decision 30 hours before Malaysia was to be declared, saying: "Never, I think, has a judge had to pronounce on an issue of such magnitude on so little notice and with so little time for consideration."
He added that "a clearer expression of opinion than would be customary is clearly required in a matter which relates to the interests of political stability in this part of Asia and the interests of 10 million people, about half a million of them being inhabitants of the state of Kelantan".
Thomson responded to the five different arguments forwarded by the Kelantan government by framing the issues into one general question of "whether parliament or the executive government has trespassed in any way the limits placed on their powers by the constitution".
In this way, he bypassed addressing some fundamental questions relating to the supremacy of the constitution raised by the Kelantan government. Nevertheless, he still managed to make several important constitutional pronouncements. The court said that even if Kelantan was a sovereign state prior to the 1957 Federation of Malaya Agreement, the effect of that agreement was that a large proportion of the powers that make up sovereignty passed from the Kelantan government to that of the federation.
These powers are thus limited to and subject to the 1957 Federal Constitution that formed part of the agreement. The court also found that the Malaysia Act in amending the constitution to admit the new states and changing the name to "Malaysia" did not contravene the requirements of the constitution, which were found to be liberal in such matters.
And if the steps that had been taken were in all respects lawful, the nature of the results they had produced could not make them unlawful.
What is now known as the "basic structure doctrine" stipulates that a constitutional amendment can be declared by the courts to be invalid on the grounds that it destroys the basic structure of the constitution.
The courts, therefore, must play a vital role in ensuring that the basic structure is not dismantled. It is within their function to interpret the constitution and determine what the basic features are.
With respect, the court in the Kelantan case missed the opportunity to make a pronouncement on this. There was certainly merit in the argument that theinclusion of the three new states with their different status and privileges as compared with the original 11 states created a fundamental change to the structure of the federation, at least in the eyes of Kelantan and the 10 other original members.
The Kelantan case, besides being a political challenge to the fundamental principle of equality found in the 1957 agreement, manifested into a legal pronouncement of the state of constitutionalism in the new federation.
It revealed that Kelantan and the other original states were placed together in a class of component states distinct and of a different status from the other three new states. This was the basis of the new federation.
The Kelantan government also, through this challenge, succeeded in opening a door upon a new sphere of constitutional interpretation. The chief justice gave approval to the possibility of there being implied limitations in the power of constitutional amendments.
Although subsequent judicial decisions in Malaysia did not show approval for this doctrine, they did not completely close the door that was opened by the Kelantan case. The future of constitutionalism and the supremacy of the constitution rest significantly on the continuous deliberation of the basic structure doctrine by our courts.
The Kelantan challenge was thus a significant chapter in Malaysian constitutional history. It resulted in establishing the constitutional relations between the component states of the federation, defining the path along which federalism in Malaysia will go.
In particular, this episode appears to have been a precursor of things to come for the constitutional and political relations between Kelantan and the federal government.
Thursday, 30 July 2015
FORM OF FEDERAL (MALAYA) INTERFERENCE IN STATE (SABAH) AFFAIRS
Although much publicity was given to the status that Sabah would enjoy in the proposed Federation and the range of safeguards that would be granted to the State, the interference of the Federal government in State affairs actually commenced within months of the birth of the Malaysia nation. The saga began with the tussle for control of the State government between Tun Fuad and Tun Mustapha, the outcome of which was dictated by Kuala Lumpur. Paul Raffaele in his book Harris Salleh of Sabah gives an accurate assessment of the event:
“… Although the early leaders of Sabah had hoped that Malaysia would be a true Federation and not a unitary state, post-independence history has shown that when the interests of Sabah and Kuala Lumpur clash, the Federal government will step in unhesistantly and bring its younger partner to heel. Tunku Abdul Rahman saw the Kadazan Chief Minister as less than totally committed to Malaysia, unlike his friend Mustapha who saw the new Federation as giving power support to his claim of Malay and Muslim political primacy in Sabah” (Raffaele, 1986, p.30)
The details of the events surrounding the Mustapha-Fuad crisis are well documented in history books. Suffice it to say that the difference between the two leaders lie in the fact that while Tun Fuad Stephens was jealously guarding the State’s rights in pursuance of the original safeguards and promises, Tun Mustapha was more interested in strengthening Islam and developing Malay dominance in Sabah, regardless of its effects on state affairs. Numerous clashes between the two leaders can be traced to these fundamental differences in outlook and orientation. For instance, Tun Mustapha refused to approve the appointment of John Dusing as State Secretary, in contravention of the behaviour of a constitutional Head of State. However, all this was done with the help of the Federal Secretary in the person of Mr. Yeap Kee Aik whose major role was to strengthen Kuala Lumpur’s hold on the frontier State, by ensuring that “any party favouring Malaysia should prosper while being unfavourably disposed to any party that seem to have doubts about the Federation” (Raffaele, 1986,pp. 142-144)
This has led some scholars to describe the 20 Points safeguard as follows:
“The intent of the safeguards was to give State leaders the illusion of having greater control than they in fact possessed, but illusions which they were to take very seriously.” (Ross-Larson, 1980).
The Mustapha-Stephens crisis can be aptly described as follows:
“The two (referring to Tun Mustapha and Tun Fuad Stephens) were unwitting actors in a drama written by the Federal government, and both felt compelled to play out their roles, however reluctantly.” (Ross-Larson, 1980)
The hands of the Federal government in shaping the political development and accelerating the erosion of State’s constitutional safeguards, can be clearly seen in the selection, encouragement and support for a state leader who reflected the Federal cause, who in the immediate years after Independence was none other than Tun Mustapha. In order to further ensure that the new State government would not be too independent-minded and thereby jeopardise federal’s interests in the State, Syed Kechik, a strong UMNO supporter and the political secretary to the Minister of Information, was assigned to assist Tun Mustapha. Syed Kechik’s contributions included the introduction of various constitutional amendments and new laws to shift the power from the State to the Federal government. It is believed that he was also instrumental in the resignation of top civil servants who were thought to be pro-state and their replacement by Federal sympathizers.
Whenever the question of who should bear the responsibilities for the erosion of the constitutional safeguards is raised, the standard answer is that it was the doings of the Sabah leaders themselves. However, history has shown that during the USNO’s rule the erosion of constitutional safeguards on education, language and religion can be directly traced to machinations of Kuala Lumpur’s appointees including Syed Kechik, the then Attorney General of Sabah and other Federal officers who were unsympathetic and unmindful of their far-reaching consequences on the State.
For the sake of harmonious and enduring Federal-State relationship in the future, the Federal government has as much obligation as the State government in upholding the constitutional safeguards.
In instances where erosion of constitutional safeguards has occurred either unwittingly or erroneously, the parties involved should take steps to restore such rights, otherwise inaction would be interpreted as a deliberate scheme to weaken the power of the other party.
In the final years before the rise of BERJAYA in 1976, Tun Mustapha began to lose favour with the Federal government. This was primarily because of the misuse of his draconian powers, bestowed on him originally by the Federal government, which eventually made him a political liability to Kuala Lumpur. His plan to break away from the Federation by proposing the formation of Borneosia and establish his sultanate was also an important factor which contributed to his fall from the grace of the Federal government. But by then, Tun Mustapha had paved the way for the erosion of the safeguards on Education, Language and Religion. Throughout his regime, the Federal government essentially abandoned the people of Sabah to his abuse of their democratic rights and his squandering of the State’s natural resources. When political intervention would have been justified, and indeed was most needed, Kuala Lumpur opted to assume a spectator’s role to the great disappointment of the people of Sabah.
The emergence of BERJAYA and the success it had in deposing the regime of Tun Mustapha occurred with the support of the Tun Razak government. In its early stage of development, the party sought earnestly to reverse the excesses of Tun Mustapha. However, when its leaders were assured of deriving support from the Federal government, it committed the same excesses as its predecessor. As with Tun Mustapha’s Administration, the Harris’ Administration became increasingly more autocratic and intolerant to well-intended public criticisms. It distanced itself from the Rakyat by pursuing policy objectives contrary to the wishes and aspirations of the people. It had even gone to the extent of changing the district status of Tambunan just to punish the voters who defied his order to support him. His abuse of power included the liberal use of Federal and State machineries in the 1985 general elections campaigns.
In the ensuing years Datuk Harris’ Government committed other political excesses similar to those of his predecessor. The problem of illegal entrants obtaining blue IC became increasingly more acute without his government doing something about the problem. Datuk Harris’ Government promoted massive conversion to Islam among indigenous Sabahans by granting favours to prospective converts. His government’s desire to keep the Federal happy culminated in the signing away of Labuan, free of charge, without the consent of the people of Sabah, although on the surface the federalisation of Labuan appeared to have been properly executed by subtly forcing an enactment through the State assembly. The act was also a breach to the Twenty Points safeguards.
When the PBS came into power, the Federal government could not accept the defeat of the party that had been so accommodating to Kuala Lumpur’s drive towards a unitary state. Amidst the events that followed the power grab at the Istana until the next general State elections in 1986, when the people of Sabah were forced to give their verdict on the legality of the government of the day, traces of Kuala Lumpur’s involvement were obvious. The fact that those involved in the power grab were let loose caused many Malaysians to take a dim view of the rule of Law as there was a clear case of miscarriage of justice. Between April 21, 1985 and May 5, 1986, two State general elections were held in close succession because of the reluctance of certain Federal leaders in endorsing the results of the 1985 general elections which saw the defeat of the Federal-anointed party. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohammed when interviewed about the unsettled political climate in Sabah, was widely reported to have said that he himself was not sure as to which government, the ruling PBS Government or the contending USNO-BERJAYA coalition Government, would the Court uphold as the duly elected government of the people of Sabah.
It is amazing that the vanquished parties even had the audacity to hail the victor to court and demanded that they be installed to replace the rightfully elected government by claiming to represent the wishes of the majority of the people. While the people of Sabah were fearing for their lives, no decisive action was taken by Federal Government until the tense situation escalated into outbreak of lawlessness causing losses of property and lives. When those responsible were finally brought before the courts the charges handed out were viewed by Sabahans as a mockery vis-Ã -vis the extent of damages, human tragedy and economic losses caused by the rioters. Indeed, there were broad hints that some quarters were using the March 1986 riots to justify the imposition of Emergency rule in sabah by the Federal government, as a way to replace the democratically elected government.
Finally, many Sabahans consider the proposed entry of the UMNO into Sabah as not entirely unrelated to the issue of political interference. While the move has been cast in the name of championing Muslim cause and so-called bumiputera rights, the timing of the exercise and the past records of Kuala Lumpur’s interference in State affairs leave many nationalistic Malaysians of local origin unconvinced that the move will lead to any enhancement of Federal-State relations. Indeed Sabahans take the view that the whole exercise will be detrimental to national unity because the promotion of communal politics in Sabah will bring about racial and religious polarisation and split the already well-integrated people of Sabah. In the long term, communal politics go against the spirit of multiracialism which the Sabah leaders have so tirelessly championed. The proposed move of UMNO into Sabah also indicates the lack of understanding by the Federal leadership on the socio-cultural and psychological makeup of the people of Sabah. Unlike the people in Peninsular Malaysia, where people can be conveniently classified into Malays, Chinese and Indians, in Sabah, the racial and religious differences are unimportant as they are already well integrated.
It is to be noted that Malaysians in Sabah as represented by their leaders and political parties, have proven their ability to govern Sabah themselves for the past 23 years since the formation of Malaysia, without the presence of any Peninsular party or parties.
There is no need for UMNO, PAS, DAP or any other Peninsular parties to come to Sabah. It would be redundant. The important thing is for Kuala Lumpur to be able to foster and work with the ruling group in Sabah and Sarawak.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
No comments
THE MALAYSIA PROJECT AND THE STATUS OF SABAH IN THE FEDERATION
On 27 May, 1961, Y.T.M Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, the Prime Minister, Federation of Malaya, at a press luncheon in Singapore made the proposal that a Federation of Malaysia should be created, comprising the eleven States of Malaya, Singapore, the three Borneo territories of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei. The regularly quoted words of the Tunku were as follows:
“… Sooner or later she (Malaya) should have an understanding with the peoples of Singapore, North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak… these territories can be brought closer together in a political and economic cooperation” (speech made by Tunku Abdul Rahman on 27 May, 1961 to the Foreign Correspondents of Southeast Asia in Singapore).
Later, on 16 October, 1961, the Tunku explained to the Malayan Parliament the motivation and framework for the formation of the Federation of Malaysia as follows.
“… When considering the concept of Malaysia it is necessary to keep in mind that the independent Federation of Malaya has to take note of three separate elements and the special interests of each. These three elements are the State of Singapore, which is almost completely self-governing, the three Borneo territories which are still colonies, and the United Kingdom which has special obligations or duties in relation to the people of these areas.”
“… I will turn now to the problem of the Borneo territories in relation to the concept of Malaysia. These territories do not present the same complexity in the implementation of the concept as Singapore does. In a broad sense, it could be stated that the question is much simpler there, in fact so much simpler that they present a special difficulty of their own. The three Borneo territories have two political factors in common. First… vestiges for British colonialism. Second… their constitutional development has been very slow” (speech by Tunku Abdul Rahman, Prime Minister, the Federation of Malaya, in the Federal Parliament on 16 October, 1961).
Amidst all the rhetoric which accompanied the campaign for an enlarged Federation, the plan to include the States of North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei was, however, somewhat coincidental, for what the Tunku really wanted was Singapore. Nevertheless, the Tunku had one genuine aim for the Borneo territories – independence from the British colonialism. As he put it then:
“… it is our duty to help bring about an end to any form of colonialism. The very concept of Malaysia Plan is an effort to end colonialism in this region of the world, in a peaceful and constructive manner. We in Malaya won our independence by peaceful means and we are sure that the people of the Borneo territories would like to end their colonial status and obtain independence in the same way."
“… the important aspect of the Malaysia ideal as I see it, is that it will enable the Borneo territories to transform their present colonial status to self-government for themselves and absolute independence in Malaysia simultaneously.”
On the British Government’s side, it was not an issue to grant independence to the Borneo States (North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei), since the British Government had decided to allow these territories to attain their own independence ultimately. The question was one of timing and the form it should take. As one document puts it:
“… The declared aim of the British Government is to grant independence to all its colonial territories as soon as they are ready for it. Hitherto this has been thought of simply as independence fo North Borneo standing by itself or, more recently, in association with Sarawak.”
“… It is the view of the British Government that provided satisfactory terms of merger can be worked out, the plan for Malaysia offers the best chance of fulfilling its responsibility to guide the Borneo territories to self-government in conditions that will secure them against dangers from any quarters.”
“… Malaysia offers for them all the prospect of sharing in the destiny of what the British Government believes will be a great, prosperous and stable Independent State within the Commonwealth” (Extract from “North Borneo and Malaysia” published by Authority of the Government of North Borneo, Jesselton, February 1962)
Even at the point in time, there was considerable concern that the notion of ‘independence through Malaysia’ might not be the sort of independence that the Borneo States were looking for. There were those who were concerned about neo-colonialism. On this issue the Tunku had the following to say:
“… One reaction in the Borneo territories was that the Malaysia concept was an attempt to colonise the Borneo territories. The answer to this was, as I said before, it is legally impossible for the Federation to colonise because we desire that they should join us in the Federation in equal partnership, enjoying the same status between one another, so there is no fear that Malaysia will mean that there will be an imposition of Islam on Borneo… everybody is free to practise whatever religion.” (Extract of speech by Tunku Abdul Rahman, Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, in the Federal Parliament on 16 October 1961)
In addition, the colonial government of North Borneo had cautioned that:
“… It is necessary, therefore, for the people of North Borneo to consider what powers they are prepared to concede in order to bring Malaysia into being. It is understood that there should be widespread apprehension lest, in practice, Malaysia would mean that the people of North Borneo would have far less control over their own affairs than they exercise already, and that North Borneo would be relegated to the position of a relatively powerless province of a strong Federal Government situated 1,000 miles away” (Extract from ‘North Borneo and Malaysia’)
For this reason, in the same speech the Tunku raised the issue of constitutional safeguards:
“… Moreover in our future constitutional arrangement the Borneo people can have a big say in matters on which they feel very strongly, matters such as immigration, customs, Borneonisation, and control of their State franchise rights.” (Speech by Tunku Abdul Rahman in the Federal Parliament on 16 October 1961)
The need for consultation and non-interference in the normal affairs of the Borneo State was highlighted by the Tunku.
“… One very strong feeling was that they must be consulted on the future of their people and the future of the country. I have said on more than one occasion that Malaya can only accept Borneo people from an expression of their own free will to join us.”
Other observers noted that:
“… In conversation with members of the North Borneo delegation to the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee he (the Tunku) has made it abundantly clear that he has no wish to interfere in the internal affairs of North Borneo and is willing to consider sympathetically any proposal for the management by the people of this country of their own internal affairs.” (IGC Report)
Even the Colonial Government of North Borneo cautioned strongly that:
“… It would, indeed, be against the long-term interest of the Malayan Government to insist on excessive control against the wishes of the people of the Borneo territories, which would over the course of the years build up resentment and discontent leading to a repetition within Malaysia of the internal stresses and strains which, in recent years, have become apparent within the framework of Indonesia, and, more recently still, have culminated in the secession of Syria from the United Arab Republic." (‘North Borneo and Malaysia’)
Arising from the various public statements on the need for safeguards and conditions, formal steps were undertaken to identify these safeguards and to present them for discussion by political leaders and officials of all the parties involves. A strong starting point for these discussions was the submission of a Memorandum containing the ‘Twenty Points’ on 29th August, 1962 by the leaders of five newly formed political parties (The United Kadazan Organisation, The United Sabah National Organisation, The United Party, The Democratic Party and The National Pasok Momogun organisation). The Memorandum was a joint declaration setting out the basis on which Malaysia would be acceptable in North Borneo and embodying minimal safeguards in the form of Twenty Points which the parties considered necessary for North Borneo in its entry into Malaysia. The signatories to the 20 Points Memorandum were as follows:
The principles of the 20 Points were accepted in total. The implementation of the Twenty Points was discussed at length by the IGC and most of them were subsequently taken up and incorporated in the Malaysia Agreement.
Discussion of the details of the various safeguards and conditions is the subject of the next section of this Memo. Suffice it to emphasize here that security consideration and economic development were important motivations for support for the proposed Federation, which was identified with independence in the mind of the People. Certainly, there existed as expectation that the new Federation will be conducive to harmony among ethnic groups and economic advancement in the rural areas.
The process of bringing the Malaysia Project to fruition was of course a lengthy and arduous task. It involved, among others, the Cobbold Commission of Inquiry, IGC and UN Malaysia Mission. While these bodies all came to the conclusion that the leaders and people of Sabah generally “expressed strong support for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia” it is crucial to note that their views were by no means unanimous. The main finding of the Commission of Inquiry deserves to be mentioned here:
“… In accessing the opinion of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak we have only been able to arrive at an approximation. We do not wish to make any guarantee that it may not change in one direction or the other in the future.”
“… About one third of the population in 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, asked 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 arrangement 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…"
"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; the hard core might amount to near 20 per cent of the population of Sarawak and somewhat less in North Borneo.” (Extract of the Commission of Inquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962 – HMSO SMND, 1974).
The reservation exhibited by the people of Sabah (about two-thirds) as regards the proposed Federation served to emphasise the importance they attached to the provision of specific safeguards and conditions because of the uncertainty of their future in the enlarged Federation. The issue of safeguards and their fulfilment by the Federal government was very basic to their decision to form the Federation. Any violation of the safeguards would constitute a violation of the conditions upon which the State agreed to be a party to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.
In retrospect, the vision of the Tunku, the aspirations of the Sabahan leaders and the consent of the Colonial Government as regards the formation of the Federation of Malaysia all converged on the important conclusion that:
(a) Sabah would participate in the formation of the Federation in equal partnership with Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak;
(b) The Federal government would not interfere in the internal affairs of Sabah, which would also be consulted on the future of her people and the future of Malaysia;
(c) There would be autonomy in specific areas of government;
(d) The new Federation promised an independence state and an improved economic well-being to the people of Sabah.




















