Hanya Persepsi atau Kenyataan???

"Persepsi Semenanjung menjajah Sabah dan Sarawak perlu dihapuskan dengan seberapa segera kerana selagi ia terus wujud, potensi untuk Borneo menjadi Balkan di timur jauh terus ada"

Badrul A Bakar, Pensyarah, UiTM Kedah

________________________________________________________________

Hanya persepsi atau Kenyataan?

1) Persepsi kah itu kalau Malaya menggangkut 95% kekayaan minyak dan gas negara Sabah dan Sarawak?

2) Persepsi kah itu kalau dari Budget keseluruhan Malaysia RM 264 billion yg di berikan kpd kedua-dua negara Sabah dan Sarawak adalah kurang dari 1%?

3) Persepsi kah itu kalau negara Sabah dan Sarawak dulu rakan kongsi sama taraf dengan Malaya dlm pembentukkan Persekutuan Malaysia, sekarang adalah negeri2 ke 12 dan ke 13 Malayasia?

4) Persepsi kah itu jika kedua negara Sabah dan Sarawak kedua negara yg tersangat kaya dengan khazanah buminya adalah yg termundur dan termiskin di Malaysia?

5) Persepsi kah itu 2 negara yg tidak menjadi bahagian Persekutuan Malaysia iaitu Singapura dan Brunei adalah negara yg terkaya bukan sahaja di rantau Asia tetapi juga di dunia?

Lourance Liwin Kicie, Generasi Muda Negara Sabah

Badrul A Bakar yang merupakan seorang pensyarah di sebuah Universiti awam di UiTM Kedah telah membuat satu artikel yang bertajuk Borneo Balkan di Timur yang membawa maksud "Borneo" merujuk kepada Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak dalam konteks artikel ini dan "Balkan" pula merupakan nama yang digunakan untuk satu kawasan yang bersejarah dan secara geografinya ia terletak di rantau Tenggara Eropah. Apabila disimpulkan, ia membawa maksud "Borneo Kawasan yang bersejarah di Timur".

Dalam artikel pensyarah tersebut, ia telah mengupas sedikit sebanyak mengenai isu-isu yang telah berlaku di negara luar mempunyai persamaan dengan apa yag sedang berlaku di asia tenggara dan ini memungkinkan perkara yang sama akan bakal berlaku di asia iaitu di "Negara Persekutuan Malaysia". 

Terdapat kebenaran akan kata-katanya walau bagaimanapun terdapat perkara yang diketengahkan olehnya itu dapat dibidas. Perkara yang dimaksudkan adalah seperti petikan diatas yang mana beliau telah mengatakan bahawa;

"Persepsi Semenanjung menjajah Sabah dan Sarawak perlu DIHAPUSKAN dengan seberapa segera kerana selagi ia terus wujud, potensi untuk Borneo menjadi Balkan di timur jauh terus ada"  

Anak muda Negara Sabah dengan lantasnya menangkis kenyataan tersebut dengan persoalan-persoalan yang membuatkan lidah pensyarah tersebut kelu dan akan berusaha sedaya upaya untuk berdolak-dalik akan kebenaran ini.

Untuk itu, semua para pembaca blog ini dimohon untuk membaca artikel dibawah ini yang mana ini merupakan pandangan daripada seorang pensyarah malaya yang sedang mengajar di universiti awam, UiTM Kedah, malaya.

Pada pandangan UVSB, inilah realiti yang berlaku. Pihak seberang akan berusaha untuk menangkis kebenaran yang telah berlaku dan cuba untuk menutupi kudis dan nana yang sudah berbau busuk. Perkara ini BUKAN berlaku pertama kali tetapi sejak diawal pembentukkan "Persekutuan Malaya" lagi mereka sentiasa berdolak dalik, berjanji terang bulan bak kata pepatah mengatakan "Lidah tidak bertulang" untuk memperbodohkan minda dan pemikiran Bangsa Borneo iaitu Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak. Kenyataan ini bukan berupa hasutan tetapi adalah lebih untuk mempertahankan kebenaran yang sentiasa dinafikan dan dilabelkan sebagai "Menghasut!" 

Menghasutkah itu kalau mengatakan KEBENARAN?

Menghasutkah kalau mendidik bangsa akan Penipuan yang kerajaan malaya/malaysia telah lakukan?

Menghasutkah kalau ingin memimpin Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak untuk menuntut Hak Mutlak sebagai sebuah Negara yang Merdeka dan Berdaulat seperti yang terkandung dalam Perjanjian Malaysia yang telah ditandatangani di London pada 9 Julai 1963?

Fahami maksud "PENJAJAHAN"

 Sila fikirkan...

Dibawah ini merupakan artikel Borneo Balkan di Timur 

Luke Rintod menulis sebuah artikel berjudul "Taib dikagumi kerana berani bersuara" yang disiarkan di akhbar internet Free Malaysia Today pada 13 November 2013.

Tajuk artikel ini memang sangat mengujakan. Di waktu populariti Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud yang semakin merudum, artikel sebegini dengan mudah meraih perhatian.

Artikel tersebut ditemui di dinding salah seorang teman Facebook yang berasal dari Sarawak. Media sosial sesungguhnya memang mengubah gaya hidup kita secara luar biasa dan luar jangka. Yang jauh menjadi dekat, yang luas menjadi sempit. Ia merevolusi cara kita berkongsi maklumat. Nah, maklumat tidak perlu lagi dicari, ia tiba dengan sendiri. Itulah magis yang dibawakan oleh teknologi internet Web 2.0 yang menyediakan tapak kepada media sosial yang didakwa telah menjadi perkakas terpenting kepada kemunculan pelbagai fenomena besar dunia akhir-akhir ini seperti Arab Spring.

Apa yang menjadi fokus esei pendek ini bukan tentang media sosial, tetapi menyentuh sedikit tentang polemik nasional yang tidak berkesudahan di Malaysia iaitu kalimah Allah. Ingin digunakan istilah perdebatan, tetapi kerana ia masih jauh daripada membudaya, maka istilah wacana menjadi pilihan. Wacana dasar ialah sama ada istilah Allah perlu jadi eksklusif atau inklusif. Walaupun tanpa sebarang perdebatan, topik ini berterusan disosekkan di sana sini terutamanya di media sosial, maka tidak mampu dinafikan ia adalah isu nasional.

Sedar atau tidak isu ini menjadi gugatan kepada keutuhan amalan federalisme di Malaysia. Ramai khayalak yang mendakwa diri sebagai pakar ilmu politik dan pentadbiran awam menyatakan Malaysia mengamalkan federalisme terpusat (centralized federation). Walaupun kerajaan persekutuan dan 13 lagi kerajaan negeri sama-sama berdaulat tetapi autoriti keterlaluan menumpu di Putrajaya. Kerana itu dalam konteks persaingan politik kepartian, setiap gabungan parti dikenalpasti berusaha sama ada merampas atau mempertahankan sedaya mungkin Putrajaya.

13 September 1963, Sabah, Sarawak dan 11 negeri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (bersama-sama Singapura) membentuk negara baru yang dinamakan sebagai Malaysia.  Sejak itu, Semenanjung dan dua lagi anggota baru persekutuan cuba diintegrasikan. Pelbagai cara dilakukan agar masyarakat yang didakwa terpolarisasi dapat mengintegrasi bagi tujuan mengkonstruksi sebuah bangsa baru bernama Malaysia. Sebagaimana hujah Hobsbawm, negara boleh melahirkan bangsa. Tidak semestinya bangsa mewujudkan negara.

Secara peribadi, negara Malaysia masih belum berupaya melahirkan sebuah bangsa Malaysia. Tidak keterlaluan jika Malaysia dikatakan sebagai negara pelbagai bangsa (multinational) dan bukannya negara pelbagai kaum (multiracial) atau negara pelbagai etnik (multiethnic). Jari boleh dituding kepada kepada amalan media dan pihak berautoriti yang masih menggunakan istilah bangsa apabila merujuk kepada kaum atau ras di Malaysia. Sesungguhnya, khalayak ini perlu diperjelaskan atau "dikursuskan" tentang definisi istilah seperti bangsa (nation), negara (state), negara-bangsa (nation-state), ras/kaum (race), etnik (ethnic). Khalayak perlu faham tentang konsep negara-bangsa yang berpegang kepada kerangka satu negara, dan satu bangsa. Maksudnya, dalam sebuah negara hanya ada satu bangsa. Namun, sebuah bangsa di dalamnya boleh ada pelbagai kaum, pelbagai ras, dan pelbagai agama.

Sebagai sebuah bangsa yang masih dalam proses konstruksi. Iaitu masih dalam peringkat menanam cerucuk, maka polemik kalimah Allah adalah sesuatu yang boleh menyebabkan projek pembinaan bangsa ini tergendala. Lebih ironi jika projek konstruksi ini ditinggalkan dan terbengkalai begitu sahaja. Ia adalah isu yang sangat menjengkelkan. Justeru, isu tersebut bukan hanya perlu diurusi dengan bijak, bahkan dengan jiwa yang besar.

Sejarah membuktikan kegagalan mengurusi isu agama dan atau sebarang isu yang boleh mencetuskan etno-nasionalisme boleh membawa kepada dekonstruksi bangsa. Terpecahnya Kesatuan Soviet kepada 15 buah republik merdeka pada 1991 membuktikan kegagalan konstruksi "Soviet Man". Selain kegagalan sistem komunisme/sosialisme, isu agama dan budaya mendasari hasrat setiap republik untuk merdeka dari Kesatuan Soviet. Begitu juga dengan perpecahan Persekutuan Yugoslavia. Tinggalan tragedi kegagalan pembentukan bangsa Slav Selatan tersebut berterusan impaknya sehingga kini. Terkini, usaha Kosovo yang bermajoriti etnik Albania yang Muslim untuk berpisah dari Serbia (Kristian Ortodoks) yang merupakan salah sebuah bekas republik Persekutuan Yugoslavia.

Tragedi kegagalan pembentukan bangsa sangat sinonim dengan rantau Balkan di tenggara Eropah. Persoalannya, adakah Borneo bakal mengikuti jejak rantau Balkan? Kemunculan negara baru di Eropah (terutama di Balkan) menjadi tren sejak kegagalan komunisme/sosialisme. Rantau Asia Tenggara tidak ketinggalan terutama selepas Krisis Kewangan Asia 1997.

Walaupun hanya Timor Leste satu-satunya negara baru yang muncul, potensi kemunculan negara baru di rantau sebelah sini tidak boleh dipandang sepi. Etno-nasionalisme Acheh tergencat kerana tsunami 2005 dan polisi desentralisasi Indonesia menerusi reformasi. Desentralisasi terbukti ampuh dalam mengekang cita-cita kemunculan negara baru oleh propinsi dalam Indonesia seperti Papua Barat (dahulu Irian Jaya), Maluku. Hasilnya Indonesia muncul sebagai sebuah negara unitari yang sarat elemen federalisme. Manakala agenda pembentukan Moroland yang merdeka di selatan Filipina juga dapat dikekang kerana pemberian autonomi oleh Manila dan usaha membaikpulih ekonomi yang berterusan. Patani yang merdeka di selatan Thai pula ada pasang surutnya.

Selepas Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-12 (PRU-12) pada 3 Mac, 2008, status Sabah dan Sarawak dalam Malaysia semakin dipersoalkan. Kedua-duanya menjadi simpanan tetap satu-satunya parti pemerintah di peringkat federal (sejak merdeka sehingga kini) iaitu Barisan Nasional (BN). Para pengundi di Sabah dan Sarawak memastikan sistem satu parti atau sistem parti hegemonik dalam politik Malaysia terus lestari. Parti pembangkang yang membentuk Pakatan Rakyat (PR) pula menjanjikan Sabah dan Sarawak yang lebih bebas berautonomi dan tatakelola yang baik. Dalam masa 5 tahun dari 2008 ke 2013, kedua-dua negeri ini diasak oleh parti dari Semenanjung sama ada kalangan koalisi pemerintah mahupun pembangkang.

Ternyata apa yang tidak disedari oleh khalayak di Semenanjung ialah budaya di Sabah dan Sarawak berbeza walaupun sudah 50 tahun kedua-duanya berada dalam Malaysia. Tanyakan pakar politik Sabah seperti Datuk Profesor Madya Mohammad Agus Yusoff dan pakar politik Sarawak Profesor Madya Dr Nidzam Sulaiman tentang uniknya politik dan budaya mereka. Toleransi dalam amalan beragama di kedua-dua negeri tersebut jauh berbeza berbanding di Semenanjung. Justeru, polemik kalimah Allah menjarakkan lagi Semenanjung dengan Sabah dan Sarawak sudah sedia ada dipisahkan secara fizikal oleh Laut China Selatan.

Kini, perkara 20 sentiasa menjadi begitu sensitif kepada penduduk kedua-dua negeri ini. Polemik kalimah Allah pula menjadikan Perkara 20 semakin diperhatikan berikutan butiran pertama dalam 20 perkara tersebut menyebut tentang agama rasmi, iaitu walaupun Islam agama rasmi Malaysia, ia bukan agama rasmi di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Kegagalan ahli politik dan parti politik dari Semenanjung sama ada dari kalangan pemerintah mahupun pembangkang untuk menguruskan isu ini dengan tekad politik dan jiwa besar, hanya akan mengundang padah.

Menurut tesis Kebenturan Peradaban oleh Samuel P Huntington, kerana perbezaan agama, sebuah bangsa yang sama warna kulit, sama bahasa, sama budaya, dan menempuhi sejarah yang sama, mampu untuk berkonflik dan berpecah. Serbia yang Ortodoks, Croatia yang Katolik, dan Bosnia yang Islam membawa kepada konflik dan selanjutnya menjadikan Yugoslavia hanya wujud dalam buku sejarah dan peta lama.

Kalimah Allah mengundang dilema besar kepada semua aktor politik Malaysia. Dua parti utama yang dilihat paling berdilema ialah Umno dan PAS. Umno perlu menjaga hati parti komponen lain dalam BN. Terutamanya dari Sabah dan Sarawak. Umno perlu akur tentang realiti Sabah dan Sarawak sebagai simpanan tetap di kala pilihan raya umum. Namun, Umno perlu juga memikirkan pengundi tegar di kalangan orang Melayu di Semenanjung. Ketidaktegasan Umno boleh menyebabkan kaum ini berpaling tadah kepada PAS.

PAS yang menyedari hilang banyak undi Melayu semasa Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 pada 5 Mei 2013 berada dalam dilema dalam menguruskan isu ini. Pendirian kalimah Allah itu eksklusif boleh menyebabkan PAS menjadi semakin terpencil dalam gabungan PR. Adakah parti ini sanggup membelakangkan pengundi bukan Islam dan pengundi Melayu urban yang kebanyakannya agak liberal?

Tetapi yang paling utama ialah memastikan keutuhan Malaysia sebagai sebuah persekutuan itu lebih penting. Memastikan Sabah dan Sarawak terus menjadi sebahagian daripada Malaysia perlu menjadi agenda setiap parti yang berjiwa besar dan berpolitik matang. Tanpa mengira sama ada parti tersebut sedang memerintah atau bakal menjadi sebahagian dariapada koalisi pemerintah. Ternyata pemenang kepada polemik ini ialah Taib Mahmud. Beliau dilihat vokal dan ikhlas mempertahankan tentang kebebasan beragama dan kebebasan menggunakan kalimah Allah di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Adakah Borneo bakal menjadi Balkan timur? Tragedi Sampit pada 1999 di Kalimantan Barat tidak dapat dijadikan hujah bahawa masyarakat Borneo adalah masyarakat di garis gelincirin atau fault line (Huntington). Yang bermaksud masyarakat yang tidak stabil kerana kepelbagaian terutama daripada sudut agama. Lagipun Kalimantan Barat tidak seperti Sabah dan Sarawak yang berada dalam Malaysia dan mempunyai budaya toleransi beragama yang luar biasa.

Maka, Semenanjung perlu berhati-hati dalam menguruskan isu yang terlalu sensitif ini. Persepsi Semenanjung menjajah Sabah dan Sarawak perlu dihapuskan dengan seberapa segera kerana selagi ia terus wujud, potensi untuk Borneo menjadi Balkan di timur jauh terus ada. – 15 November, 2013.

* Penulis ialah Pensyarah Sains Politik Fakulti Sains Pentadbiran & Pengajian Polisi, UiTM Kedah.

Source: http://uvsb.blogspot.com/2013/11/hanya-persepsi-atau-kenyataan.html

Read More

Salleh PROKSI malaya yang melaksanakan agenda malaya di Negara Sabah melalui parti umno-bn

Sebagai anak muda Sabah saya berasa terpanggil untuk memberikan sedikit respon mengenai kecaman dan amukan beberapa pemimpin UMNO Sabah berkaitan kenyataan YB Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan mengenai 16 September iaitu Hari Malaysia.

Menurut terjemahan Bahasa Melayu daripada artikel Dr Jeffrey dalam Bahasa Inggeris, Occupation Day dimaksudkan sebagai Hari Penjajahan. Saya yakin dan percaya bahawa maksud daripada istilah Occupation tidak membawa maksud secara langsung sebagai penjajahan. Ia lebih merujuk kepada makna pengambialihan.

Walau bagaimanapun, terjemahan media berbahasa Melayu menyebutkan secara jelas sebagai Hari Penjajahan yang menyebabkan Datuk Salleh Said melenting sehingga mengeluarkan perkataan biadap yang pada saya sangat keterlaluan untuk diucapkan oleh seorang pemimpin lama seperti beliau. Seorang pemimpin haruslah sentiasa tenang dan berhemah dalam mengeluarkan ucapan.

Saya memberi respon kali ini bukan kerana saya ahli STAR pimpinan Dr Jeffrey. Namun saya ingin menyatakan pandangan sebagai anak jati Sabah. Beberapa tahun sebelum ini, 16 September hanya disambut sebagai Harijadi TYT. Bahkan pada zaman penggiliran Ketua Menteri yang sepatutnya tidak boleh dilaksanakan kerana ia tidak selari dengan konsep demokrasi, malah di luar batas Perlembagaan Malaysia mahupun Perlembagaan Sabah. Anehnya salah satu Ketua Menteri dalam sistem penggiliran ini ialah Datuk Salleh Said sendiri. Sedarkah beliau semasa pimpinan beliau, Hari Malaysia tidak pernah diraikan? Jadi saya tidak fikir beliau layak memberi komen berkaitan Hari Malaysia kerana sebagai pemimpin nombor satu Sabah ketika itu, tiada apa yang beliau perjuangkan untuk Sabah.

Saya juga tidak memahami alur pemikiran Datuk Salleh yang mengatakan bahawa 31 Ogos 1957 ialah permulaan Kemerdekaan Malaysia sedangkan pada waktu itu, Malaysia belum pun wujud. Bahkan lebih tepat lagi Malaysia tidak pernah pun merdeka kerana Malaysia tidak pernah dijajah. Hanya Malaya, Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak sebagai negara-negara yang akhirnya membentuk Malaysia sahaja yang pernah dijajah dan sudah tentunya pernah merdeka. Agak lucu juga saya membaca kenyataan beliau yang mengambil contoh Amerika Syarikat. Sedangkan keadaannya jauh berbeza. Ketika Hawaii menyertai Amerika Syarikat, nama Amerika Syarikat sebagai sebuah negara merdeka sudah pun wujud dan diterimapakai secara kukuh. Jika Hawaii tidak menyertai Amerika Syarikat, Amerika Syarikat tetap berdiri sebagai sebuah negara. Sedangkan pada 31 Ogos 1957, jelas merupakan Hari Kemerdekaan Tanah Melayu dan bukannya Malaysia. Malaysia hanya wujud ketika persetujuan penggabungan. Jika Sabah, Sarawak dan Singapura tidak menandatangani Perjanjian Malaysia sudah pasti nama Malaysia tidak akan pernah wujud di peta dunia sehingga kini.

Saya ingin mengajak Datuk Salleh dan semua pemimpin serta penyokong UMNO yang berada di Sabah. Mari kita renungkan sejenak dan buatlah perbandingan secara ilmiah dan bukannya emosi semata-mata. Jika kita marah apabila disebutkan perkataan penjajahan, cuba kita nilaikan kedudukan Sabah ketika ini apakah dengan bergabung dalam Malaysia kita menjadi semakin baik atau sebaliknya. Sebagai perbandingan pertama, pada tahun 2010, Bank Dunia mengeluarkan senarai 10 negara terkaya dunia yang mana dua daripada negara tersebut adalah negara-negara yang bersama atau hampir bersama-sama membentuk Malaysia iaitu Singapura pada kedudukan ketiga dan Brunei pada kedudukan kelima. Ironinya, pada tahun yang sama Sabah diiktiraf pula oleh badan dunia yang sama sebagai negeri termiskin di Malaysia. Bayangkan betapa miskinnya Sabah kerana Malaysia pun tidak tersenarai langsung sebagai 10 negara terkaya dunia. Bermakna Malaysia antara negara yang tidak kaya atau bahasa mudahnya negara miskin. Lebih menyedihkan dalam negara miskin itu terdapat pula negeri yang lebih miskin iaitu Sabah. Di mana silapnya penggabungan ini? Penggabungan yang sepatutnya memberi harapan baru kepada rakyat Sabah.

Sedangkan Sabah antara negeri pengeluar minyak yang terbesar di Malaysia. Sejak kewujudan Petronas, Malaysia telah mengaut RM431 Bilion dan lebih kurang 35% hasil itu datangnya daripada sumber minyak Sabah. Sayangnya kerana penggabungan Malaysia Sabah cuma mendapat 5% bayaran tunai daripada keseluruhan hasil minyak Sabah. Pemimpin menjustifikasikan keadaan ini dengan mengatakan bahawa Sabah diberikan pelbagai bentuk bantuan lain berupa peruntukan daripada kerajaan persekutuan. Jika ini benar, mengapa Sabah jadi negeri termiskin? Mengapa jurang pembangunan amat jauh ketara antara Sabah dan Semenanjung Malaysia? Ketika rakyat Malaysia di Semenanjung bermegah dengan LRT, Komuter, Monorel dan sebagainya, anak Malaysia di Sabah masih dengan keretapi zaman penjajahan British. Ketika anak Malaysia di Semenanjung bergembira dengan keindahan dan keluasan lebuhraya, anak Malaysia di Sabah masih bergelumang lumpur di jalanan, bahkan dengan jalan utama bertar juga berlubang di sana sini. Ketika anak Malaysia di Semenanjung Malaysia bergembira di taman-taman tema yang canggih dan indah, anak Malaysia di Sabah masih ternanti-nanti kehadiran FUN FAIR. Inikah Malaysia yang pemimpin Sabah terdahulu impikan?

Selain itu, Sabah dengan keluasan 71,613 km persegi yang dilimpahi nikmat kesuburan tanah dan cuaca yang baik, agak menghairankan kita tidak berjaya meningkatkan kekayaan anak Sabah yang hanya 3.2 juta populasi. Ataukah kerana dengan Malaysia, memberi justifikasi kepada FELDA untuk menguruskan 590,824 ekar tanah Sabah dan hanya memberikan sewaan kepada Kerajaan Sabah sedangkan Kerajaan Sabah kehilangan hak untuk menguruskan tanah itu agar hasilnya, 100% untuk rakyat Sabah agar rakyat Sabah khusunya anak-anak muda tidak perlu lagi menjadi kuli di Singapura, Brunei bahkan di Tanah Melayu sendiri?

Sehingga hari ini, kuasa Ketua Menteri Sabah juga kita ragui kerana sebagai ahli parti yang memerintah Kerajaan Persekutuan, pastinya Ketua Menteri Sabah tidak boleh lari daripada konsep konflik kepentingan antara menjaga hak Sabah dan menjaga jawatan dan kedudukan dalam parti dan kerusi pentadbiran. Adakah ini juga antara impian pemimpin terdahulu untuk melihat pemimpin utama Sabah sekadar boneka? Ketua Menteri juga bersetuju bahawa Malaya antara entiti yang membentuk Malaysia. Di manakah sudah Malaya kini?

Nah, kepada Datuk Abdul Rahim Ismail, jangan tanya siapa Dr Jeffrey tetapi tanyalah kepada semua anak Sabah yang memahami hakikat keadaan Sabah kini, jauh di lubuk hati mereka, apakah Sabah megah dan hebat dalam Malaysia? 

Semoga beberapa contoh perbandingan yang saya sebutkan di atas mampu membuka minda dan pemikiran kita. Saya boleh berikan lebih banyak contoh lain tetapi lebih baik sekiranya Datuk Salleh Said dan Datuk Abdul Rahim tentukan tempat pertemuan, jika lebih baik disebutkan sebagai dialog terbuka, saya pasti tidak akan ragu-ragu untuk hadir. Saya mungkin sangat muda dan kelihatan enteng, tetapi zaman ini anak muda bukan lagi anak muda pak turut yang hanya mengangguk atau menggeleng. Tetapi zaman ini zaman teknologi maklumat. Banyak perkara didominasi oleh kuasa maklumat. Tidak semudah itu untuk membohongi kita lagi seperti waktu-waktu yang sudah.

Selepas perbandingan yang saya buat ini, jika perkataan Hari Penjajahan itu kedengaran amat ekstrim, kita ertikanlah Occupation Day itu sebagai Hari Pengambilalihan hak Sabah. Sama-sama kita mencari jawapan, apakah Malaysia ini sekadar untuk menjustifikasikan pengambilalihan sumber minyak Sabah? Apakah Malaysia ini sekadar untuk memberikan ruang kepada Persekutuan membuka tanah-tanah di Sabah? Atau melalui kebenaran khas Datuk Harris Salleh maka Sabah kehilangan hak terhadap Labuan yang juga dilimpahi sumber kekayaan minyak? Jika begitu walau apa pun istilah yang kita gunakan ia sebenanrnya membawa makna yang hampir sama. Mungkin juga menghampiri kebenaran kata-kata Bung Karno yang pernah mengatakan pentadbiran kolonial ini hanya dipindahkan dari London ke Kuala Lumpur. 

Namun begitu, sebagai rakyat Malaysia kita tentunya sayangkan Malaysia yang sudah pun berusia setengah kurun. Jika ada pemimpin yang tidak senang dengan istilah penjajahan, maka kembalikan hak Sabah yang sepatutnya, khusunya kuasa pemerintahan dengan autoriti nyata tanpa konflik kepentingan dan juga kuasa mengurus hasil bumi serta kewangan sendiri. Hanya inilah kunci untuk kita selamatkan Malaysia kerana Malaysia hari ini tentunya bukan Malaysia yang diimpikan pemimpin terdahulu khusunya pemimpin yang terlibat dalam Tragedi Double Six. Apa sahaja sistem yang kelihatan lebih kepada proses pengambilalihan, maka itulah punca kepada wujudnya perkataan penjajahan ini. Jadi jangan salahkan penggunaan istilah ini tetapi sama-sama kita fikirkan mengapa istilah ini terluah akhirnya.

Source: Hasmin Azroy Abdullah

Source: http://uvsb.blogspot.com/2014/08/salleh-proksi-malaya-yang-melaksanakan.html

Read More

S’pore’s exit nullified Malaysia Agreement

The Malaysia Agreement, signed in 1963, has lost its legitimacy among its entities.

By Joseph Wilfred Lakai

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 is a binding treaty that was signed by several representatives from the five parties, namely United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore.

The main objective of this agreement relates to the formation of Malaysia.

This involved the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore.

The entry of the United Kingdom as a signatory to the treaty was to ensure, especially for Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, that their sovereignty and jurisdictions were in force in the agreement.

It can also be said that the United Kingdom was one of the main observers of the agreement .

The British role was to see the last delivery of the sovereignty and jurisdiction of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in the formation of Malaysia.

The British were also to see that the states’ main requirements, such as the “20-point” Sabah protection rights, were incorporated, implemented and respected when they agreed to join the Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia.

The Malaysia Agreement combined with the various related documents including the Bill of Malaysia, is now called the Malaysia Act 1963.

All these documents also included entry requirements and the constitutional reference to Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia.

Agreement illegal

The Malaysia Agreement also required all partners to be signatories before a final decision was made.

The intention of including all four signatories was to ensure they were in full knowledge of the agreement between the Federation of Malaya and the sovereign states of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore when forming Malaysia.

Therefore, Malaysia has been described by various parties as a coalition of partners coming together to form a unified new country and with many of its respective sovereign features included.

When Singapore was removed from the Malaysian Federation in 1965, questions arose and continued to persist as to what had happened to the Malaysia Agreement signed by all parties in 1963.

The absence of Singapore has directly resulted in the constitutional treaty, which included the constitutions of Sabah and Sarawak in the Federation of Malaysia, being invalid.

The Malaysia Agreement is now neither valid nor legal in that the Federation of Malaysia is now an illegal entity because of the removal of Singapore which was one of the signatories to the agreement, which led to the origin of the federation itself.

Neither the Malaysia Agreement nor the Malaysian Federal Constitution provides for the removal of any partner in the Federation of Malaysia.

In which case, does the Prime Minister or Parliament of Malaysia have the power to state that Singapore should not be based on the resolution of the Parliament of Malaysia?

Partners have the same rights

Do they have the power to allow all 104 Members of Parliament from the 11 states of Malaya to determine – which is contrary to the minority of the 36 MPs from Sabah and Sarawak – their future?

It is disappointing that while Sabah and Sarawak had disagreed with the dismissal of Singapore, the Malayan states could still get a two-thirds majority or more to decide on the destiny of the Borneo states.

The 11 states, which form the starting line-up of the Federation of Malaya, should not have the rights to decide whether Singapore could or could not be removed from the Federation of Malaysia.

This is because Malaysia was not formed by the federated states alone.

Through the Malaysia Agreement, each state that signed the agreement are assumed as a couple (partners) who have the same rights.

They have formed Malaysia with Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak.

One vote per partner

Because the four signatory states have signed the Malaysia Agreement as private partners and independent of other members (spouse-free), it is appropriate that each signatory has the same ballot (that is, one vote per state) to determine whether a sovereign state (Singapore) should be removed from the Federation of Malaysia.

In this case, each state of Malaya should not have rights or power to determine the destiny (expulsion) of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia. This is because they are only entitled to one vote only as determined by the Federation of Malaysia. Sabah and Sarawak also have one vote each.

This view is consistent with their status as Malaysia’s free and private partners to the agreement.

Thus, the decision to remove Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia should be made by the three signatories to the agreement.

Issue of consent

Singapore’s removal also brings up an important core issue – consent.

Thus, the failure to seek consent from Sabah and Sarawak as to the removal of Singapore from Malaysia has had an impact on their representation in Parliament.

For example, to make amendments, especially on the 20-Point Agreement, relating to special privileges given to Sabah, Parliament must get the votes of two-thirds of its members.

In fact, before the removal of Singapore, all the MPs in the Peninsula could not make up the required two-thirds majority unless they were supported by Sabah, Sarawak or Singapore.

However, after Singapore’s expulsion, this was seen as unnecessary for Peninsular Malaysia.

The Peninsula no longer needs to gain support from Sabah and Sarawak as it is now able to secure the two-thirds majority or more in Parliament.

This means that Peninsular MPs can easily make amendments to the Federal Constitution any time they like.

To quote author Shafruddin Hashim’s “Reflection on the Malaysian Constitution” (1986): “With the removal of the monopoly of Singapore then returned to the composition of the ethnic Malay Peninsula.

“This episode is a clear proof of the failure of the federal system and national unity.”

Kuan Yew convinced Borneo states

For this reason, there should be a revision of or research into the conditions of admission of Sabah and Sarawak to Malaysia.

Sabah was not told when Singapore was removed from the Federation of Malaysia. The failure to obtain consent or notify Sabah of Singapore’s removal, is in itself a breach of the terms in the Malaysia Agreement.

Sabah, which is an equal partner in Malaysia, was ignored in this decision (to expel Singapore).

Discussion on the expulsion of Singapore was very important for Sabah as Lee Kuan Yew had worked hard to please the leaders of Borneo to convince them to participate in the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.

At the Association of Commonwealth Members of Parliament meeting in Singapore in July, 1961, the leaders of Borneo (the British were not present) had met with Lee who was then a strong supporter of the idea of Malaysia.

Lee used his genius to persuade the leaders of Borneo to join Tunku Abdul Rahman and support the proposal (reference: Interview of Ong Kee Hui by JP Ongkili in his book, “Nation-building in Malaysia, 1946-1974”).

‘Similar policy’ to Australia, New Zealand

The Federation of Malaya and Singapore favoured incorporating Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia.

For example, in a speech at The Foreign Correspondents’ Association of South-East Asia in Singapore on May 27, 1961, Tunku said that Malaya would not be willing to go on its own.

He had suggested that Malaya would soon be having an understanding with Britain and Singapore , Sabah (North Borneo), Brunei and Sarawak (Nation-building in Malaysia, 1946-1974).

Also in 1961, Lee said: “The combination will occur not due to the requirements of the People’s Action Party or because of the requirements of the federal coalition government.

“But the matter cannot be avoided… (Nation-building in Malaysia, 1946-1974).”

The formation of Malaysia was also a British requirement.

The Times newspaper reported on July 28, 1961 that “the desire of the British… in this area is also desired by Australia and New Zealand which will also form the same policy” (Nation-building in Malaysia, 1946-1974).

The term “area” referred to Southeast Asia and the purpose of enforcing “the same policy” in Malaysia was perhaps to enable them (British) to maintain their influence despite the effects of nationalism.

Gradual erosion

The chairman of the Cobbold Commission also made an important point.

He said: “From the start, Malaysia should be considered by all concerned as an equal member of the coalition, combined to accelerate the common goal to establish a sovereign but retains its own characteristics of those states.

“In the event of any attempt by Malaysia to ‘take over’ the boundaries of the Federation of Malaysia and Borneo… then I think Malaysia is mostly not acceptable or successful” (Nation-building in Malaysia 1946-1974).

In reality, the gradual “erosion” in the protection of the Borneo states by the Federal Government, was an act that destroyed its own states.

Therefore, if the agreement is not valid in Malaysia, then Malaysia as a nation is not valid. It has lost its legitimacy among its entities.

Malaysia has been and is still in operation for 48 years after the expulsion of Singapore.

As has been disputed, political developments during that time did not allow the parties to the Malaysia Agreement to study the matter or question the issues.

Today, the situation is different. The political circumstances have turned towards evil. It is now important and urgent that the terms of the Malaysia Agreement be reviewed.

Going back to study the validity of the agreement is very important.

Capt Joseph Wilfred Lakai is mechanical engineer of native Murut descent. He engineered the formation of United Borneo Front (UBF), an NGO committed to the terms of the Malaysia Agreement.

Source: http://www.borneoherald.com/2011/09/spores-exit-nullified-malaysia.html?

Read More

The Root Causes of Poverty in Sabah & Sarawak, Exposed (Stories from the East)

The United Borneo Front recently organised an Inter-Party Dialogue & Leadership Seminar in Kota Kinabalu on 5 March 2011. Below is the text of the speech delivered by Daniel John Jambun on behalf of the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMa), one of many organisations that attended in support of the Borneo Agenda.

Greetings,

Without much further ado, I will delve immediately into the subject proper of my talk today. Please bear with me. I will keep my address as brief as possible so that we may all ponder on the essential points that I am trying to make.

I have 11 major aspects to put before you today as Food for Thought and you may want to deliberate on them later among yourselves or ask me some questions at the end of my address.

As you all know, the World Bank confirmed late last year that Sabah and Sarawak had achieved the dubious distinction of being the poorest and second poorest states in Malaysia. This is a figure derived at using the figures of the Economic Planning Units of the Sabah and Sarawak Governments and the Economic Planning Unit in Putrajaya.

Forty per cent of Malaysia’s poor, according to the World Bank, are in Sabah. This means that almost half of the poor people in Malaysia are in Sabah.

The poverty figures should come as no surprise since both Sabah and Sarawak are actually colonies of Peninsular Malaysia. More on that shortly.

Just contrast the economic development of Sabah and Sarawak with the status of neighbouring Brunei which stayed out from the Malaysian Federation at the last minute in 1963 and Singapore which left after two years in 1965.

By the end of last year, the Singapore economy at US$ 210 billion GDP was bigger than the entire Malaysian economy by US$ 5 billion. This is indeed a shameful state of affairs and one that calls for the leadership in Putrajaya to admit that they are an incompetent and corrupt lot and beyond any redemption in this life or the next. They should head for the nearest toilet bowl to collectively dip their faces. It would no longer do for Putrajaya to continue in a state of denial. Most of the much smaller Malaysian economy vis-a-vis Singapore is concentrated in Peninsular Malaysia.

Did Sabah and Sarawak agree to federate together with Malaya and Singapore in 1963 to end up at the bottom of the dung heap along with the marginalized and disenfranchised elements of the Third Force in Peninsular Malaysia?

Patently, it’s clear the something went seriously wrong for Sabah and Sarawak in the Malaysian Federation somewhere between 1963 and 2011. Most of the damage to the interests of the two Malaysian Borneo states in fact took place in the early years of independence.

The populations of Sabah and Sarawak may be much smaller than that of Peninsular Malaysia but the fact remains that this is compensated by the larger territorial area of Malaysian Borneo comparatively, its huge economic resources including vast acres of fertile land and consequently much bigger economic potential.

This is not however reflected in the Malaysian Parliament where the number of seats allotted to Malaysian Borneo at present stands at 57 including the one held by the Federal Territory of Labuan. Peninsular Malaysia meanwhile has 165 seats in Parliament i.e. more than two-thirds – 148 seats – and thereby depriving Sabah and Sarawak of veto power in legislation. It is clear that 18 of the seats held by Peninsular Malaysia in fact belong to Sabah and Sarawak. That would leave Peninsular Malaysia with 147 seats i.e. one short of the two-thirds majority.

The rot set in when Singapore’s exit from Malaysia saw Peninsular Malaysia taking half the 15 seats held by the island in Parliament. This altered the previous balance in Parliament between Peninsular Malaysia on the one hand and, on the other hand, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak in the collective.

Peninsular Malaysian politicians like to make much of the issue that their much larger population must be reflected in the number of seats held in Parliament. If that’s the case, why is that Sabah with a much larger population of 3.2 million than Sarawak’s 2.5 million has to make do with 25 seats in Parliament compared with the latter’s 31 seats. If Sarawak’s much larger territory vis-a-vis Sabah’s and the latter’s much larger population vis-avis the former’s are both taken into consideration, both states should have the same number of seats in Parliament.

In any case, there’s no dispute between Sabah and Sarawak on the allocation of seats in Parliament. It’s immaterial whether Sabah or Sarawak, in comparison with each other, has a much larger number of parliamentary seats. The pertinent point is that Sabah and Sarawak, collectively, must have at least one seat more than one-third in Parliament. The veto power of Sabah and Sarawak in the Malaysian Parliament must be restored.

Peninsular Malaysian politicians routinely also claim that rural seats must be given a certain weightage to compensate for their relative under-development vis-avis urban seats. This is supposed to account for rural seats having a smaller number of voters compared to those in the urban areas.

If that’s the case, why is this formula not being applied in Sabah and Sarawak, which are largely rural, along the lines in Peninsular Malaysia?

The gross under-representation of Sabah and Sarawak in the Malaysian Parliament, and the deprival of their veto power in the process, has a direct co-relation to the grinding poverty levels in Malaysian Parliament.

It is recommended that no new Parliamentary seats be allocated to Peninsular Malaysia in future increases. If a moratorium is placed on their current 165 seats – to be taken as two-thirds minus one in a new equation – some semblance of balance can be restored in the Malaysian Parliament.

Sabah and Sarawak’s collective 57 seats, including Labuan one, must be increased to one plus 82 i.e. 83 seats. If the present 57 seats are deducted from the new proposed total, this gives us additional and new seats totaling 26 which can be shared equally between Sabah and Sarawak.

This will be reflected in the Malaysian Parliament as follows: Sabah 26 + 13 for 39 seats; Sarawak 31 + 13 for 44 seats; and Peninsular Malaysia 164 seats.

The composition of seats in the Malaysian Parliament must be considered together with the question of revenue sharing between the federal and state governments in general and in particular with the so-called autonomous status of Sabah and Sarawak.

At present, the federal government takes all revenue from Sabah and Sarawak, leaving little for the states and leaving them with very little, if at all, revenue-raising powers. In return, very little of the federal revenue from Sabah and Sarawak comes back to the two states. This is thesecond major reason for the grinding poverty in Malaysia Borneo apart from unfair representation in the Parliament i.e. the first major reason.

The third major reason for our poverty is the fact that the federal government through Petronas leaves only 5 per cent of the oil and gas revenue in Sabah and Sarawak. Contrast this with the 70 per cent that the provinces are allowed to keep in neighbouring Indonesia. The central government in Jakarta takes only 30 per cent.

The fourth major reason for poverty is the fact that there’s very little oil and gas infrastructure in Sabah and Sarawak. No attempts have been made to diversify the oil and gas sector through downstream activities and as well facilitate backward-and-forward integration.

The fifth major reason is that Borneonisation of the federal service in Sabah and Sarawak have been non-starters and where implemented, non-Muslim natives and the Chinese and others have been deliberately left out in line with the vile racist master race policy of ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy and dominance).

The sixth major reason for the grinding poverty levels in Sabah and Sarawak has been the refusal of the federal government and their stooge governments in Sabah and Sarawak to respect the Adat.

Among others, this has seen the wholesale confiscation – with the active connivance of the police and Land Office – of native customary rights (NCR) land and their alienation to the respective state government (by way of extension of forest reserves and the like), to state agencies, GLCs, federal agencies and private companies run by cronies of the ruling party. The phenomenon has been well-documented in numerous cases in court and in thousands of complaints lodged with the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) and at the respective Land Offices themselves in Sabah and Sarawak.

This is a deliberate and systematic attempt to reduce the native communities of Sabah and Sarawak to the same status of the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia and the Indian underclass displaced and dispossessed by the fragmentation of the estates and or their conversion for the purposes of urban development.

Stranded in urban shanty-towns with no personal documents, little marketable skills, often only a rudimentary education in Tamil, poor command of English and Bahasa Malaysia and without any social safety network, suicide is the only option for the Indian underclass given the reality of no upward social mobility. These are the people represented by Hindraf Makkal Sakthi. These are the people taking to the streets ever so often these days and engaged in running battles with the police and authorities as they walk the path of urban guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

Likewise, the future of the natives companies in Sabah and Sarawak will indeed be very bleak without the social safety network afforded by NCR land. Therein lies the seeds of a bloody revolution in Borneo especially when our people start committing suicide, like the Indian underclass in Peninsular Malaysia, to opt out of a hopeless situation.

The native communities in Sabah and Sarawak are being pushed in the same direction as the Indian underclass in Peninsular Malaysia which is a whole lot worse than that of the Orang Asli who still have a little land with them. But for the Orang Asli, how much more time do they still have before they too start committing suicide on the scale of the Indian underclass. Poverty, as Mahatma Gandhi once observed, is the worst form of violence against a people.

The seventh major reason for the grinding poverty in Borneo is the fact that Sabah and Sarawak are being treated as two of the states in Malaysia. This certainly should not be the case if one reads the Malaysia Agreement carefully, the 20/18 Points and other relevant documents including declassified ones available in the United Kingdom.

Sabah and Sarawak came together with Singapore and Malaya in 1963 to form the Federation of Malaysia as equal partners. This means that Malaysia is a two-tier federation i.e. a federation of states in Peninsular Malaysia which are part of a greater federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.

Hence, the federal government of Malaysia should be shared equally between Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak i.e. leaving out Singapore which has since quit the federation.

The departure of Singapore from Malaysia begs the question of whether the original federation in 1963 still exists or whether Sabah and Sarawak have been quietly incorporated as two of the states in the 1957 Federation of Malaya (now masquerading as Malaysia). This appears to be the case and must be considered seriously by our legal fraternity, the governments of Sabah, Sarawak, the federal government, the government of the United Kingdom and the United Nations.

Moving forward, it must be clear by now that after nearly 50 years of Malaysia, it cannot continue to be business as usual in Sabah and Sarawak.

Eighth major reason. Already, the federal government has been in non-compliance with the Malaysia Agreement.

Non-compliance raises the question of whether a compliance mechanism must be set up or whether both Sabah and Sarawak should appeal to the international community and the United Nations to facilitate the departure of the two states from the Malaysian Federation. Singapore has been a precedent.

It’s unlikely that the Umno federal Government, obsessed with ketuanan Melayu, will ever consider any compliance mechanism for the Malaysia Agreement or give justice, belated as it may be, to Sabah and Sarawak. This must be borne in mind by those who are currently flogging the Borneo Agenda with the hope that federal government will come to its senses. It’s a case of too little, too late.

The departure of the British colonialists in 1963 in fact saw the handover of our two states to new colonialists in Peninsular Malaysia i.e. those who believe in the vile and racist master race policy of ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy and dominance).

Ninth major reason. The Ketuanan Melayu policy in Sabah and Sarawak is kept going by local proxies of the ruling elite in Putrajaya. These stooges of Putrajaya are traitors who have participated in the colonial divide-and-rule policy of keeping the Chinese and majority non-Muslim natives out of the political mainstream and from the leverages of power.

To add insult to injury, they have willingly participated in the marginalization and disenfranchisement of their fellow countrymen through the placement of illegal immigrants on the local electoral rolls and the grant of MyKads through the backdoor by Putrajaya. What happened to the security promised us by Federation in 1963? This is the tenth major reasonfor the grinding poverty levels in Sabah and Sarawak.

Even more than the Chinese and non-Muslim natives communities, it’s now the local Muslim native communities that are feeling the brunt of marginalization and disenfranchisement. They see their already small stake under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution being shared with the instant natives created from among the illegal immigrants.

In Sabah, local proxies of Putrajaya have now been dispensed with and Umno itself has struck roots to take half the seats in the state assembly and half the Sabah parliamentary seats. To mask their true intention, they invited MCA, MIC, Gerakan and the PPP along for company and recently came up with the so-called 1Malaysia policy. This further ensures the continued enslavement of Sabah.

In Sarawak, Umno is poised to enter state the manner that they have done in Sabah. This is to ensure that the majority Dayak community will never be able to rule their own state.

The 11th major reason for the grinding poverty levels in Sabah and Sarawak is the National Cabotage Policy (NPL) which decrees that all imports must go through Port Kelang as the National Load Centre. This ruthless policy has been responsible for the higher prices in Malaysian Borneo vis-a-vis Peninsular Malaysia in the face of lower wages. The NPL has held back the economic development and industrialization of Sabah and Sarawak since the advent of Malaysia.

It’s time for the international community and the United Nations to enter the picture and rescue Sabah and Sarawak from the gross violations of human rights taking place and restore our sovereignty and territorial integrity and guarantee our security.

There’s no longer any hope for us in Sabah and Sarawak.

Something must be done, and done quickly, before the situation further degenerates into an even greater vicious cycle of poverty, ignorance, disease and violence.

Daniel John Jambun is the President of CigMa (Common Interest Group Malaysia), an ad hoc apolitical human rights movement in Sabah.

Source: http://despiritofsabahan.blogspot.com/2011/09/root-causes-of-poverty-in-sabah-sarawak.html

Read More

‘Talk to Sabahans and Sarawakians’

KOTA KINABALU: The best way to stop talk on social media about secession is for the Federal Government to discuss and hear out the grouses of the people in Sabah and Sarawak, said state Opposition parties.

They also said they were against any such calls for secession.

Opposition State Reform Party (STAR) Sabah chapter chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan said the best way to stop all the chatter on social media was for the Federal Government to talk and listen to the people.

“It is a good step for the Government to listen to the unhappiness among the people in the two states because it will help towards resolving their problems,” he pointed out.

State Opposition leader Datuk Lajim Ukin said Pakatan Rakyat had made the unanimous decision to be against secession as there was still a lot of room for discussion on the needs of Sabahans within the federation.

“Our decision is that we stay in Malaysia as there is still a lot of room for us to discuss state rights and needs under the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and 20-point safeguards,” Lajim told reporters here yesterday.

However, Lajim, who is also the Sabah Pakatan chief, urged the Federal Government to look into the resolutions of various political parties in the state seeking greater autonomy.

There was still a lot more to be done to meet the expectations of the people, he said.

Lajim said he believed that the people starting secession pages on social media like Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia, which is currently under police probe, were just venting their frustration online.

“It’s not a case of people seriously wanting to leave Malaysia. After 51 years, the people today are educated and know their rights.

“The Federal Government must listen to their expectations,” he said.

Source: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/09/10/Govt-urged-to-hear-them-out-Talk-to-Sabahans-and-Sarawakians/

Read More

Secession talk by people venting their frustrations, says Sabah Pakatan Rakyat

KOTA KINABALU: Sabah Pakatan Rakyat is against any move for Sabah to secede from Malaysia but said the Federal government should re-look at the autonomous rights for the state.

Its chief, Datuk Lajim Ukin, who is state Opposition leader, said the three party coalition had made a unanimous decision to go against any secession move as there were still a lot of room to discuss the needs of Sabahans within the federation.

"Our decision is that we stay in Malaysia as there is still a lot of room for us to discuss about state rights and needs under the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and 20-point safeguards," Lajim told a press conference.

He said the Federal government should look at the various resolutions of political parties in Sabah seeking greater autonomy.

Lajim said he believed that those who have set up "secession" pages on social media such as Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) (which is currently under police probe) were just venting their frustrations.

"It’s not a case of people seriously wanting to leave Malaysia.

"After 51 years, the people today are educated and know their rights. The Federal government must listen to their expectations," he said adding many Sabahans still find basic amenities and infrastructure such as schools, health facilities and others lacking.

The opposition State Reform Party (STAR) Sabah chapter chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan said the best way to stop all the social media talk about secession was for Putrajaya to talk and listen to Sabahans and Sarawakians.

He said he agreed with Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar for Putrajaya to talk to the people of both states to hear their grouses.

"This is a good step for the Federal government to listen to the unhappiness of the people as it would help to resolve their problems," he added.

Source: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/09/09/sabah-secession-talk-by-people-venting-their-frustrations/

Read More

Cops still trying to contact owner of seditious FB page

KOTA KINABALU: Police are still trying to contact the administrator of the Facebook page ‘Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia’, said Sabah Police Commissioner Datuk Jalaluddin Abdul Rahman on Thursday.

The page, which is managed by a Sabahan who goes by the name Doris Jones, is also being investigated by the Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC).

“So far we are still not able to contact this person Doris,” he said, adding that they will use all methods to get the woman to facilitate investigations on the various reports lodged against the Facebook page for being seditious.

Secession sentiments emerging among Sabahans must be doused as it could have long-term implications on the nation said Jalaluddin.

He said these sentiments, which are still emerging after 51 years of the country’s formation was like a cancer and has to be curtailed as Malaysia was already a nation and Sabah and Sarawak are part of the states in Malaysia.

Source: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/09/11/Sabah-Cops-seditious-FB-page/

Read More

Police yet to reach lawyer behind alleged secession drive – CP

KOTA KINABALU: A Sabahan cum UK-based lawyer, who goes by the name of Doris Jones, has been identified as behind the controversial page dubbed ‘Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia’ (SSKM) which propagates the secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia.

Sabah Police Commissioner Datuk Jalaluddin Abdul Rahman said that although they were not able to extradite her, they are confident of getting Jones for sedition investigation.

“We have tried our best to interview and contact her, but we are unable to reach her,” he said at a press conference after attending the Sabah police monthly gathering at the state police headquarters in Kepayan, here yesterday.

On September 2, a police report was lodged by Solidariti Masyarakat Sabah against SSKM following an alleged hate campaign using social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter with the heading ‘Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia’ to incite the people of Sabah and Sarawak to secede from Malaysia.

So far, 12 police reports had been lodged regarding the SSKM group, with some reporting against, some in support of it, and others denying allegations.

A special task force has been set up to investigate the group’s movements.

Jones is a UK-based lawyer, and is believed to be suffering from paroxysmal dystonia and is wheelchair-bound.

According to the Malay Mail Online, Jones said she had not received any contacts from the police here, and that she would not hide from them.

She said there was no reason for her to be avoiding the authorities here, adding that: “It is their right to do so and I am waiting for them here in the UK, if they dare.”

Jones’ controversial postings over secession and campaigns via social media pages and YouTube have claimed support and haters alike, and the followers of the SSKM page now have shot to over 5,300 in the last 10 days, from just about 900.

The SSKM ‘closed group’ has over 16,000 members, including a state minister, a former chief minister and journalists.

Following the report, Jones as the spokesperson for the group said they were ready to defend themselves in court and stressed that they were not using any form of violence and aimed to achieve their goals through legal means.

Source: http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/09/12/police-yet-to-reach-lawyer-behind-alleged-secession-drive-cp/#ixzz3D4LYyJ51

Read More

Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 perlu disemak semula

Joseph Wilfred Lakai

Perjanjian Malaysia adalah satu perjanjian yang terikat yang telah ditandatangani oleh beberapa perwakilan daripada lima pihak iaitu United kingdom of Great Britain, dan Ireland Utara, Persekutuan Malaya, Borneo Utara (Sabah), Sarawak dan Singapura. Objektif utama perjanjian tersebut adalah berhubung dengan pembentukan Persekutuan Malaysia di antara Malaya, Borneo Utara (Sabah), Sarawak dan Singapura sebagai rakan kongsi yang sama.

Kemasukan United Kingdom sebagai satu gabungan dan penandatangan terhadap perjanjian tersebut adalah sebagai bapa penjaga terutama bagi Negeri-negeri Borneo Sabah dan Sarawak dan juga Negeri Singapura dimana kedaulatan dan bidang kuasa masih berkuat kuasa. Ia juga boleh dikatakan bahawa United Kingdom adalah satu-satunya pemerhati utama terhadap perjanjian tersebut untuk melihat apabila penyerahan terakhir kedaulatan dan bidang kuasa terhadap Sabah, Sarawak dan Negeri Singapura supaya syarat utama, seperti hak perlindungan Sabah yang mana dipersetujui untuk disekutukan dengan Malaya bagi membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia dapat diperhatikan, digabungkan, dilaksanakan dan dihormati.

Perjanjian Malaysia digabungkan dengan berbagai-bagai dokumen (seperti yang terkandung) termasuklah Rang Undang-Undang Malaysia, kini ialah Akta Malaysia 1963. Gabungan dokumen-dokumen ini termasuklah syarat penyertaan dan peraturan perlembagaan terhadap Sabah dan Sarawak dirujuk untuk membentuk Malaysia.

Perjanjian Malaysia juga mesti tertakluk kepada kemahuan penandatangan sebelum keputusan muktamad dipersetujui. Hasrat tersebut termasuklah pengetahuan keempat-empat penandatangan perjanjian tersebut iaitu Persekutuan Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak dan Singapura sewaktu membentuk Malaysia sebagai rakan kongsi yang sama. Oleh itu, Malaysia telah disifatkan oleh berbagai pihak sebagai satu gabungan bagi rakan-rakan kongsi bersama-sama bersatu padu untuk membentuk sebuah Negara baru tetapi dengan ciri-ciri masing-masing.

Apabila Singapura telah dikeluarkan daripada Persekutuan Malaysia pada tahun 1965, persoalan yang terus bangkit ialah apa telah terjadi dengan Perjanjian Malaysia yang telah ditandatangani oleh semua pihak. Ketiadaan Singapura secara langsung telah mengakibatkan perjanjian perlembagaan tersebut termasuklah kedudukan Perlembagaan Sabah dan Sarawak di dalam Persekutuan Malaysia.

Perjanjian Malaysia adalah tidak sah lagi dan dari segi undang-undang Persekutuan Malaysia adalah tidak sah kerana pembuangan Singapura iaitu salah satu penandatangan terhadap perjanjian di atas yang mana telah mengakibatkan asal-usul Persekutuan itu sendiri. Samada Perjanjian Malaysia atau Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia tidak menyediakan terhadap pembuangan mana-mana rakan kongsi di dalam Persekutuan Malaysia.

Adakah Perdana Menteri atau Parlimen Malaysia mempunyai kuasa untuk mengeluarkan Singapura tidak seharusnya berdasarkan kepada resolusi dalam Parlimen Malaysia di mana membenarkan (sepatutnya tidak) kesemua 104 Ahli-ahli Parlimen dari kesebelasan (11) Negeri-negeri Malaya untuk menentukan, yang mana ini adalah bertentangan dengan kumpulan minority iaitu 36 Ahli-ahli Parlimen dari Sabah dan Sarawak.

Walaupun Sabah dan Sarawak tidak bersetuju dengan pembuangan tersebut (yang mana diragui sama ada mereka diberi peluang sedemikian) Negeri-negeri Malaya masih dapat memperolehi 2/3 majoriti atau lebih bagi membuat keputusan terhadap Sabah dan Sarawak yang tidak bersetuju tentang pembuangan adalah satu kehampaan.

Kesebelasan buah negeri-negeri Malaya tidak harus mempunyai hak samada Singapura boleh atau tidak dikeluarkan daripada Persekutuan Malaysia. Ini disebabkan Negara Malaysia tidak dibentuk oleh negeri-negeri tersebut sahaja. Melalui Perjanjian Malaysia, setiap negeri yang menandatangani Perjanjian tersebut adalah sebagai pasangan (partner) yang mempunyai hak-hak yang sama.

Mereka telah membentuk Malaysia bersama-sama dengan Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak. Oleh sebab keempat-empat buah negeri penandatangan Perjanjian Malaysia telah menandatangani perjanjian itu sebagai pasangan persendirian dan bebas daripada ahli yang lain (pasangan bebas) maka adalah sesuai, bahawa setiap penandatangan itu mempunyai undi yang sama (iaitu satu undi setiap negeri) untuk menentukan samada sesebuah negeri itu harus dikeluarkan daripada Persekutuan Malaysia.

Penyertaan itu boleh dibuat melalui ketua pemimpin negeri masing-masing. Dalam hal ini, setiap negeri Malaya tidak seharusnya mempunyai hak atau kuasa untuk menentukan nasib Singapura dalam Persekutuan Malaysia. Kerana mereka hanya mempunyai hak satu undi sahaja sepertimana yang telah ditentukan oleh Persekutuan Malaysia, Sabah dan Sarawak juga mempunyai satu undi tiap-tiap satu.

Pandangan ini selaras dengan status mereka sebagai penandatangan Perjanjian Malaysia yang bebas dan sebagai persendirian. Dengan itu, keputusan untuk mengeluarkan Singapura daripada Persekutuan Malaysia, seharusnya terletak kepada ketiga-tiga penandatangan Perjanjian tersebut, iaitu setiap satu pasangan penandatangan mempunyai hak atau kuasa mengundi yang sama.

Penyingkiran Singapura telah memberikan kesan kepada satu perkara yang mustahak dimana Sabah dan Sarawak telah benar-benar merundingkannya sebelum mereka bersetuju untuk membentuk Malaysia. Oleh itu, kegagalan untuk meminta persetujuan daripada Sabah dan Sarawak telah memberikan kesan kepada perwakilan mereka dalam Dewan Parlimen. Misalnya, untuk membuat pindaan terhadap apa sahaja keistimewaan khas yang diberikan kepada Sabah sepertimana yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Parlimen hendaklah mendapat sokongan undi dua pertiga daripada ahli-ahli Parlimen.

Sebenarnya, sebelum penyingkiran Singapura, kesemua ahli dari Semenanjung Malaysia tidak boleh membentuk dua pertiga majoriti, kecuali mendapat sokongan daripada Sabah, Sarawak atau Singapura. Walaubagaimanapun, setelah Singapura disingkir, tidak lagi perlu bagi Semenanjung Malaysia untuk mendapat sokongan daripada Sabah dan Sarawak sebab mereka sekarang boleh mendapat sokongan dua pertiga atau lebih di Dewan Parlimen.

Ini bermakna, mereka dengan mudah membuat pindaan atau penggubalan Perlembagaan bila-bila masa mereka suka. “Dengan penyingkiran SIngapura maka kembalilah komposisi monopoli etnik Melayu Semenanjung. Episode ini adalah satu bukti yang jelas kegagalan Sistem Persekutuan dan perpaduan Negara.” (rujukan: “Reflection on the Malaysia Constitution” oleh Shafruddin Hashim dalam ALIRAN 1986. Oleh Sebab inilah seharusnya terdapat penyemakan atau penelitian syarat-syarat kemasukan Sabah dan Sarawak ke Malaysia. Namun, sabah telah tidak diberitahu semasa Singapura telah dikeluarkan dari Persekutuan Malaysia.

Kegagalan untuk mendapat persetujuan atau memberitahu Sabah itu dengan sendirinya telah melanggar Perjanjian Malaysia, dimana Sabah telah diketepikan untuk mengambil bahagian dalam Malaysia dimana ia sendiri adalah rakan kongsi yang sama. Perbincangan mengenai penyingkiran Singapura adalah sangat mustahak bagi Sabah kerana Lee Kuan Yew lah yang telah bertungkus lumus untuk mengambil hati pemimpin-pemimpin Borneo dengan tujuan supaya mereka akan menyertai pembentukan Persekutuan Malaysia.

Pada waktu perhimpunan Persatuan Ahli-ahli Parlimen Komanwealth di Singapura pada Julai, 1961, pemimpin Borneo (Tidak ada British yang hadir) telah menemui Lee Kuan Yew, Seorang penyokong kuat idea Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew telah menggunakan kebijaksanaannya untuk mendesak pemimpin-pemimpin Borneo supaya mereka menyokong cadangan Tunku (rujukan: Interview of Datuk Ong Kee HUi oleh J.P Ongkili dalam bukunya, Nation-building in Malaysia, 1946-1974). Tentu sekali, Persekutuan Malaya dan Singapura lebih memihak kewujudan Malaysia daripada Sabah dan Sarawak.

Misalnya dalam satu ucapanya dalam ‘Foreign Correspondents’ Association of South-East Asia’ di Singapura pada 27hb May, 1961, Tunku telah mengatakan bahawa, Malaya tidak akan sanggup bersendirian dan telah mencadangkan bahawa tidak lama kemudian Malaya seharusnya akan mengadakan persefahaman dengan British dan Singapura, Sabah (Borneo Utara), Brunei dan Sarawak (Ongkili, 1985).

Lee Kuan Yew, telah membuat satu kenyataan pada tahun 1961 bahwa “gabungan akan berlaku bukan atas sebab kehendak Parti Tindakan Rakyat atau disebabkan kehendak Kerajaan Perikatan Persekutuan. Tetapi perkara itu tidak dapat dielakkan seolah-olah seperti matahari yang terbit dan terbenam” (Ongkili, 1985) Sebanyak sedikit, pembentukan Malaysia adalah juga kehendak British.

‘The Times’ telah melaporkan pada 28hb Julai 1961, “Keinginan strategik British di kawasan ini adalah juga diingini oleh Austtralia dan New Zealand yang juga akan membentuk polisi yang sama (Ongkili, 1985). ‘Kawasan’ yang dimaksudkan itu ialah Asia-Tenggara Selatan dan maksud ‘polisi yang sama’ ialah dalam bentuk Malaysia dimana, mungkin, mereka akan dapat mengekalkan pengaruh mereka walaupun terdapatnya kesan-kesan nasionalisme mula timbul di kalangan negeri-negeri di bawah pemerintahan koloni dan desakan daripada pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu untuk memberi kemerdekaan kepada negeri-negeri jajahan koloni tersebut.

Pengerusi Suruhanjaya COBBOLD telah memberi pandangan yang penting. Beliau telah mengatakan bahawa, “daripada mula lagi, Malaysia seharusnya dianggap oleh semua yang berkenaan sebagai satu gabungan ahli yang samarata, bergabung untuk mempercepatkan matlamat yang sama untuk membentuk sebuah Negara tetapi mengekalkan ciri-ciri tersendiri negeri-negeri berkenaan. Jika sekiranya sebarang cubaan oleh Malaysia untuk ‘mengambil alih’ sempadan-sempadan Borneo oleh Persekutuan Malaysia dan menenggelamkan ciri-ciri tersendiri Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, maka pendapat saya, Malaysia secara umunya tidak boleh diterima atau Berjaya.” (Ongkili, 1985, Nation-building in Malaysia 1946-1974).

Dalam keadaan yang sebenar, ‘hakisan’ secara perlahan-perlahan terhadap perlindungan terhadap negeri-negeri Borneo oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan, seolah-olah satu tindakan yang menghapuskan siri-siri tersendiri negeri-negeri tersebut. Oleh sebab itu, jika sekiranya Perjanjian Malaysia tidak sah, maka Malaysia sebagai sebuah Negara juga adalah tidak sah dan kehilangan kesahihan entitinya. Malaysia telah dan masih beroperasi selama 48 tahun selepas penyingkiran Singapura. Sepertimana yang telah dipertikaikan, perkembangan politik sepanjang masa tersebut telah tidak membenarkan pihak-pihak dalam Perjanjian Malaysia itu untuk mengkaji kembali atau mempersoalkan isu-isu tersebut.

Pada hari ini, kedaan politik bertukar kearah keburukan, adalah mustahak sekali dan mendesak untuk mengkaji semula syarat-syarat Perjanjian Malaysia. Yakni memberi kesahihan kembali kepada perjanjian itu adalah sangat mustahak.

*Written by Capt. Joseph Wilfred Lakai is a Murut experienced Test Pilot. He is also a Mechanical Engineer graduated from Caltech USA, He engineered The United Borneo Front (UBF)

Source: http://wikisabah.blogspot.com/2011/09/perjanjian-malaysia-1963-perlu-disemak.html

Read More

Negara, not negeri, status for Sabah

KUALA LUMPUR: Sabah was supposed to  retain its “negara” or national status in a series of arrangements to ensure that the rights of Sabahans would forever be protected during the formation of Malaysia.

This little known fact was revealed at a national conference on marginalised communities, which arrested the attention of the participants.

They were told that the ideals that gave rise to the birth of a new nation in 1963 have, however, been eroded until those rights have all but disappeared.

“Sabah was given the understanding that it was to remain a national entity within the Malaysian Federation, which was to be a partnership of four national units – Sabah, Sarawak,  Singapore  and Malaya,” deputy president of CigMa or Common Interest Group Malaysia, Daniel John Jambun, said in his presentation titled “Lest We Forget”.

Elaborating further, he said: “We were to remain as a ‘negara’ (nation), not to become a ‘negeri’ (state).

“What eventually transpired was a process during which Sabah (like Sarawak) became one of the 13 states in Malaysia, no longer on the same status as Malaya, but just one of the states.”

Later, Jambun said that it was also the reason why Sabah’s head of state was officially called Yang di-Pertua Negara from 1963 till the early 1980s when the title was changed and reduced to Yang di-Pertua Negeri.

Jambun’s paper was based on a book of the same name authored by Dr Chong Eng Leong who agreed to have his book  presented as a conference paper to the 220 delegates.

Chong’s book outlines the major losses Sabahans have suffered since independence due to various national policies following the formation of Malaysia.

Chong’s book focused on the “KL-encouraged” influx of Muslim illegal immigrants from Indonesia and Mindanao in the southern Philippines that served to dilute the once majority Christian native population in Sabah.

Unkept promise of autonomy

Jambun charged that the federal government was being disingenuous by claiming that the state had enjoyed tremendous development and numerous benefits since the formation of Malaysia.

“Under Umno, which took over the Sabah government from Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) in 1994, Sabah has ended up becoming the poorest state in Malaysia despite its vast natural wealth God has given us.

“Other than the economic losses, we also suffered loss of major rights and autonomy, as listed in the book, ‘Lest We Forget’,” Jambun said.

He said that a scrutiny of the 20-point agreement clearly showed that Tunku Abdul Rahman and other Malayan and Singapore leaders had promised autonomy or self-determination for Sabah, including retaining its own revenues.

It was a promise that has not been kept, he said.

“In fact, as a strategic move to ‘Malayanise’ Sabah, the population of the state was increased drastically through dubious means, mainly through the infamous ‘Projek IC’ or ‘Projek Mahathir’, which is to give Malaysian identity cards to Muslim illegal immigrants in Sabah to enable them to register as voters and thus change the political landscape.

“Through this project, the population of Sabah dramatically rose to 3.2 million, of which 1.5 million are bona fide Sabahans and 1.7 million foreigners.

“About 70,000 of these foreigners were registered as phantom voters and distributed throughout the constituencies in Sabah to give greater advantage to the ruling BN candidates to win elections.

“This strategy was then complemented by the infamous decision to implement what is called gerrymandering of constituency boundaries to give greater representation to Muslim-majority seats, thus outnumbering the non-Muslim natives,” he said, adding that the obvious manipulation has resulted in Sabah being dubbed BN’s “fixed deposit”.

Jambun also charged that the increase in Muslim-native seats and the reduction in Christian-native ones was made with the intention of forcefully and permanently changing the state’s demography.

This way, there would be more Muslims, thus depriving others of their rights, he said, adding that the issue of disenfranchisement would be brought to international attention.

Citing the revelation in Chong’s book, he disclosed that in the 1970 census, the mostly Christians and pagan Kadazandusuns numbered 215,811, Muslim Bajau and Iranun numbered 77,271 and Malays 18,362.

However, the 2000 census showed that the Kadazandusuns numbered 564,600, while the Bajau and Iranun 343,200, but the Malay suddenly stood at an astonishing 303,500.

He said that in the 1960 census, there was no Malay registered in Sabah, but just Bajau and Iranun.

‘Project Mahathir’ revealed

Jambun said that four people – Hassnar Ebrahim, Hassan Hamid, Yakup Damsah and Jabarkan Napi – cited in Chong’s book had been involved in recruiting new Malaysians by giving them identity cards.

He said that Hassnar, who is now Batu Sapi PKR head, had even revealed that there was a meeting in January 1986 chaired by the late Megat Junid Megat Ayob, then deputy home minister, detailing the mechanics of how foreigners were issued Malaysian identity documents.

Hassnar claimed that present at the meeting were former chief secretary to the government Ahmad Sarji Abdul Hamid, three top police officers from Bukit Aman, Sabah director of Immigration Dusmi Ibrahim, director-general of Immigration Halim Harun, a deputy director-general of the National Registration Department, a principal private secretary by the name of Azmin, Yahya Lampong and Hassnar himself.

“As Hassnar revealed, when one of them objected to this treacherous act, he was told by Megat Junid that prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had approved it.

“This testimony was also given under oath during a trial to hear the 1999 Likas election petition filed by Chong, and that the testimony was not challenged,” Jambun said.

He added that Jabarkan, an ex-ISA detainee like Hassnar, also disclosed that there was a Sabah Umno special task force formed in 1991 to recruit foreigners who were then issued with Malaysian ICs and registered as Umno members and also included in the electoral rolls.

According to Jabarkan, office-bearers of the special task force for 1991-1993 were Musa Aman (currently Chief Minister) as director, Yahya Hussin as deputy director, Jabarkan himself as secretary and the late Malek Chua as treasurer. The team targeted 30 of the then 48 state constituencies in an attempt to oust PBS from power.

Jambun said that he doubt the current Umno leadership would dare sue those who had revealed the clandestine activities in Projek Mahathir for it would open a can of worms.

The one-day National Human Rights Conference on the Future of Marginalised and Minority Communities in Malaysia was co-organised by CigMa, Sarawak Dayak National Union (SDNU), Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA), Hindu Rights Action force (Hindraf), Borneo Resources Institute (BRI) and London-based Human Rights Foundation.

Also present were Kita president Zaid Ibrahim, CigMa chief Jeffrey Kitingan, who is also leader of United Borneo Front (UBF) and Hindraf adviser, N Ganesan.

Source: http://despiritofsabahan.blogspot.com/2012/03/negara-not-negeri-status-for-sabah.html

Read More