Wednesday, 18 March 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Nationalist
,
Sabah
,
Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU)
,
Sarawak
,
SSKM
No comments
4 lelaki ditahan hasut rakyat Sabah, Sarawak keluar Malaysia
Empat lelaki didakwa mengikut Akta Hasutan 1948 di Kota Kinabalu hari ini kerana membuat pungutan suara mengajak penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak meninggalkan Malaysia, lapor The Star Online.
Pungutan suara itu dikatakan mempunyai kaitan dengan laman web Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia yang menggalakkan kedua-dua negeri Borneo itu meninggalkan persekutuan Malaysia, menurut portal berita berkenaan.
Empat tertuduh itu ialah Azrie Situ, 25, Suleiman Liku Markus Situ, 32, Erick Jack William, 29, dan Joseph Kolis, 29, yang mengaku bersalah di Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu selepas pertuduhan dibacakan di depan Hakim Dean Wayne Dally.
Mereka didakwa mengikut Seksyen 4(2) Akta Hasutan 1948.
Keempat-empat tertuduh dibebaskan dengan ikat jamin RM20,000 dan seorang penjamin serta perlu menyerahkan passport masing-masing.
Menurut portal itu empat tertuduh berkenaan adalah antara 9 yang ditahan pada 1 Februari lalu kerana memiliki bahan menghasut. Mereka dilaporkan mengedarkan risalah mengenai hak Sabah dan petisyen untuk menyokong hak mereka.
Laman Facebook Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia dikendalikan seorang aktivis Sabah, Doris Jones yang kini menetap di London. Laman sosial berkenaan kini mempunyai lebih 32,000 “likes”.
Polis Sabah sudah mengeluarkan waran untuk menahannya tetapi Jones memberitahu media tempatan dia tidak mendengar daripada mana-mana pihak berkuasa atau polis antarabangsa (Interpol) mengenai waran itu.
Pada 13 Mac, polis berkata, mereka sudah menghubungi Jones.
Pungutan suara berkenaan boleh ditakrifkan sebagai menghasut mengikut Akta Hasutan selepas Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak berkata bahawa undang-undang itu akan dikekal dan diperkukuhkan.
Perbuatan itu ketika ini memberikan lingkungan luas kepada pihak berkuasa untuk memutuskan takrifan hasutan.
Keempat-empat tertuduh diwakili peguam Arthur Chin.
Sementara itu, sekumpulan kira-kira 100 penyokong dilapor hadir di depan mahkamah hari ini sebagai tanda sokongan.
Antaranya individu yang hadir ialah bekas Ketua Menteri Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee, yang kini menyertai pembangkang.
Pungutan suara di kalangan nasionalis Sabah semakin meningkat sejak kebelakangan ini terhadap kesedaran orang ramai mengenai soal kemiskinan, imigresen dan isu politik seperti "Projek IC", satu langkah untuk mengubah demografi dan daftar pemilih di negeri ini dengan mengeluarkan kad pengenalan kepada pendatang. – 16 Mac, 2015.
Abusing the Private Member’s Bill – Chan Foong Hin
This is an open letter to Parliament Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin.
The Shariah Criminal Code Enactment II 1993 amendments tabling by PAS-led Kelantan state government in the state assembly sitting today in Kota Baru, symbolises a no U-turn as far as the hudud debate is concerned. It marks the very first step towards implementation of the theocratic law in Kelantan.
No one can predict what would happen to Malaysia in future, if the next step – Private Member’s Bill is tabled and then passed in the Parliament, allowing Kelantan to implement its hudud law.
It is wrong for PAS to justify their move by saying that “the situation in Kelantan is so unique that even Umno is supporting these amendments” (Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad) and “please respect the democratic proses in Kelantan” (PAS information chief Datuk Mahfuz Omar).
It is not about uniqueness of Kelantan and respecting the people’s will. I respect every right and will of Kelantan state to implement hudud there. But it can’t be done in the expense of equal partnership spirit of Malaysia Agreement 1963.
As I have argued in my previous article that, hudud is not about a personal religious practice involving Muslims only, but it is a matter of political system involving all Malaysians.
The Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution categorically places “Civil and criminal law and procedure and the administration of justice” under Federal List. If any state-level hudud is allowed, it is a blow to Federal Constitution, as it places the particular state (Kelantan) to be more superior then other states as the power on criminal justice under Federal List transferred to State List, without consultation by the other states.
The argument that hudud will be confined to Kelantan is inaccurate as once the amendments are approved and passed, all other states might also proceed to make similar changes.
As the honourable speaker is from Sabah, I think you have no dispute that it is a consensus for every Sabah politician across the political divide that:
1. The rights and freedom of Sabahans must be defended and never compromised, not only in Sabah, but in other parts of Malaysia;
2. The rights and privileges of Sabah as one of the three nations forming Malaysia in 1963 must be defended and not compromised.
We from Sabah never signed up for a theocratic federation – in full or in part – in 1963. Criminal justice is categorically a Federal power under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. If it was made clear then Sabahans will face the shariah criminal law in Kelantan by forming Malaysia, I think Sabah would have surely chosen to stay under British or go independent in other ways over the option of Malaysia.
The implementation of Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code 1993 will land those from Sabah staying in or traveling to Kelantan in a legal system that the founding fathers of Sabah did not sign up for in 1963, with the following consequences:
(a) If he or she – regardless of faith – fell prey to thefts, robberies, bodily harms included attempted murder and manslaughter in Kelantan committed by Muslims, their cases will be tried in the shariah court, and not common law court.
(b) Sabah crime victims cannot be the witness in court for their own case if they are non-Muslim, women, underage Muslims or Muslims with questionable religious conducts (Section 41 of the Code).
(c) If Sabahan Muslims are accused of stealing or robbing of anything worth more than 4.45g of gold (about RM 610 at current price), they will be tried in shariah court and may face the punishment of amputation.
(d) All Sabahan Muslims who are convicted of adultery or sodomy in Kelantan may face death penalty by way of stoning [Sections 10, 11(1) and 16].
(e) All Sabahan Muslims who are convicted of drinking in Kelantan may face 40 to 80 lashes [Section 22].
(f) All Sabahan Muslims who are convicted of undermining or opposing the Islamic faith (menjejaskan atau berlawanan dengan aqidah agama Islam) through actions or expression may face death and his/her property may be confiscated.
Any changes to this effect must only happen with the consent of both Sabah and Sarawak. Article 161A of the Federal Constitution stipulates that any constitutional amendment involving division of power between federal and state governments must not only be passed by a two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat, but also requiring the concurrence of the governors of Sabah and Sarawak.
If Sabah were to agree to grant Kelantan additional power in criminal justice, we from Sabah would like more power to Sabah including citizenship, education, medical, policing and military, trade and commerce, etc.
The collusion by the Federal Government and Kelantan government to make possible of expanding Kelantan's power to cover criminal justice system under Article 76A, which denies the power of both the 57 parliamentarians from Sabah (including Labuan) and Sarawak and the governors of Sabah and Sarawak to have any say, is a constitutional coup against Sabah and Sarawak.
If Kelantan – which unsuccessfully opposed the formation of Malaysia through a constitutional challenge in 1963 – insists that the state can do anything it likes with the consent of Putrajaya and makes itself higher than other states especially Sabah and Sarawak which are on par with the entire Malaya, it should consider leaving Malaysia.
Instead of Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia, Kelantan Keluar Malaysia will be more apt.
The Parliamentary Speaker has every duty to prevent any private member's bill that is tantamount to nullifying the Malaysia Agreement and tearing Malaysia apart from being tabled. Honourable Speaker, you hold the key to save Federation of Malaysia from tearing apart. Please reject the PAS private member bill to safeguard the aspirations of the people of Sabah and Malaysian interests. – March 18, 2015.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
International
,
Sabah
,
Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU)
,
Sarawak
,
Sharing
,
SSKM
No comments
Countries that aren't quite.
This map shows all the states in the world that have some kind of independence movement, but that independence hasn't been declared, or not recognised by other states.
***Can you see Sabah (formerly known as North Borneo) and Sarawak Flag???***
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
History
,
Sabah
,
Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU)
,
Sarawak
,
SSKM
,
Video
No comments
Koleksi Video SSKM-SSU(UK)
Sila luangkan masa anda untuk menonton video-video SSKM-SSU(UK) melalui link ini;
>>>Koleksi Video SSKM-SSU(UK)<<<
Selain video SSKM-SSU(UK), pihak kami juga ada menyelitkan video-video yang berkaitan dengan Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak. Pendedahan tentang sejarah sebenar dan penipuan turut juga diselitkan dalam blog Koleksi Video SSKM-SSU(UK). Kini, anda tidak perlu bersusah-payah untuk mencarinya didalam youtube kerana semuanya boleh didapati dalam blog tersebut. Sila sebarkan kepada rakan-rakan anda tentang kewujudan blog Koleksi Video SSKM-SSU(UK) ini.
Semoga anda semua dapat menonton video-video tersebut dan mendapat mesej yang jelas bahawa Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak MESTI BERPISAH daripada persekutuan malaysia ini kerana kewujudannya kini bukan lagi untuk memberikan kebaikan kepada Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Bangsa Negara Sarwak sebaliknya ia telah menindas selama 53 tahun ini sejah 16 September 1963.
Sebarkan...
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Borneo
,
Nationalist
,
Sabah
,
Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU)
,
Sarawak
,
SSKM
No comments
Pengasas SABAH SARAWAK UNION (SSU-UK)
Mungkin anda tertanya-tanya tentang siapakah pengasas kepada Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU-UK). Maka, persoalan anda kini sudah terjawab melalui perkongsian info ini. Ya, SSU(UK) telah ditubuhkan oleh Dua orang Nationalist Borneo daripada Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak di United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).
SSU(UK) berhak bercakap bagi pihak Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak kerana NGO ini adalah NGO Borneo yang memfokuskan kepada Kemerdekaan Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak. Ia telah ditubuhkan pada pada Tahun 2013.
Sebarkan info ini kepada semua rakyat Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak bahawa NGO ini adalah milik bersama...
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
What next for independence movements in Europe?
The EU – and its member-states – should not rest on their laurels: these independence movements are only going to get stronger.
One can imagine that the European Commission breathed a collective sigh of relief when the results of the Scottish independence referendum were announced on 19 September 2014.
The independence referendum had created a headache - if not a chronic migraine - for officials in Brussels, in trying to figure out whether Scotland would have to leave the EU and then reapply for membership (under Treaty 49, which was the official preference of former President Barroso and the Better Together campaign) or if it would allow Scotland to remain in by amending the EU treaties (under Treaty 48, the preferred choice of Yes campaigners and some dissident Commission officials).
If the process was seen as too easy, there were fears amongst the anti-independence camp (and parallel hopes amongst pro-secessionists) that this would cause a domino-effect across the continent as other stateless nations with aspirations towards independence in Europe would jump onto the indyref bandwagon.
But was this sigh of relief premature? For one thing, Scotland hasn’t been the only territory with an independence referendum on the cards this year. All eyes turned to Catalonia last weekend, where a non-binding vote on independence was held on Sunday 9 November. The Catalan authorities had previously planned to hold an official referendum on Catalan’s future, but this was suspended by the Spanish Constitutional Court. Judges and politicians in Madrid have viewed the referendum as illegal and an egregious affront the notion of indissoluble Spanish sovereignty.
Madrid’s stern views scuppered a similar proposal in the Basque Country in 2008, whereby proposals to hold an independence referendum, which were passed by the Basque regional assembly, were ruled down by Madrid as unconstitutional.
These stern warnings did not stop the Catalan authorities this time, however. The unofficial poll was a success for Catalan independence-seeking parties: 80% of those who participated (about 2 million people) voted in favour of independence. While it is difficult to argue that the vote in favour of independence is binding with a turnout of 37%, it is an undeniably strong indication that Catalans want constitutional change.
The poll, however, has amplified the Commission’s migraine. Unlike the Scotland-UK case, whereby the UK Government agreed to holding the independence referendum in Scotland and promised to abide by the outcome (in the ground-breaking ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ of 2012), the ‘democratic will’ of the Catalan people has been slapped down by Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy, who has forbidden any future referendums and has attacked the recent poll as ‘political propaganda’.
What should the EU do? At the moment, the official position is to keep its head down and say nothing about the internal affairs of one of its valued member-states. But will this strategy work when more independence referendums – official or unofficial – add more cracks in the sovereignty of the EU’s currency member-states?
For Scotland and Catalonia are not the only cases of independence aspirations in the EU. The next country to watch, without a doubt, is Italy, whereby a poll released last month by Demos showed that 31% of Italians wanted their region to become independent, a figure that was significantly higher in several autonomist regions.
The highest was Veneto, a wealthy northern region of Italy with a strong identity, where 53% of survey participants preferred secession. This reflects the success of the nationalist parties in Veneto – most notably the governing Liga Veneta-Lega Nord (LV-LN) – in agitating for independence. The regional assembly passed a bill in June this year to hold a referendum on independence, and President of the Region Luca Zaia of the LNV promised that he would see this through.
These events follow an unofficial referendum in Veneto earlier this year in March, supported by several nationalist parties, whereby 89% of participants voted to leave Italy. While the legitimacy of the poll is questionable (as many Latin Americans of Venetian descent voted), another survey by La Repubblica has confirmed the Demos poll, showing that about 55% of Venetians want independence. And if and when the plebiscite is held, given these high numbers in favour of secession, there may be a greater possibility of success than in Catalonia or Scotland. However, everything will ultimately down to the Italian Constitutional Court which, like its Spanish counterpart, views consultative referenda on the fragmentation of the Italian state as illegal.
An unofficial referendum was also held in the German-speaking province of South Tyrol in 2013, which lies on the northern periphery of Italy and which was previously annexed from Austria. Here, over 90% of participants expressed their support for self-determination, and the pro-independence Sud-Tiroler Freiheit went on to win its highest share of the vote in the subsequent regional elections. The issue of secession from Italy is unlikely to go away, not least because it is the ultimate goal of the South Tyrol People’s Party, which has ruled the province throughout the post-war period.
Next up is Sardinia, an island in the Mediterranean, which contains the oldest nationalist party in Italy and one of the oldest in Europe. The Partito Sardo d’Azione, whose electoral fortunes has risen and fallen over the past century, failed by one vote to pass an independence referendum bill in the Sardinian regional assembly in 2012. It would also appear that there is some public support for the Partito Sardo’s position, even if the party itself is lagging behind in the polls. In a collaborative project with the University of Cagliari that for the first time surveyed the attitudes of Sardinians on issues of identity and constitutional change, we found that 41% of Sards wanted independence, and a whopping 87% were in favour for greater devolved powers for the island.
These findings were confirmed in the Demos poll last month, which revealed that 45% of Sardinian participants were in favour of independence. The regional government is currently working on re-writing Sardinia’s special statute (constitutional law) to enhance the island’s fiscal, social and cultural powers. If these powers are not forthcoming, it is likely that the Psd’Az and other nationalist parties will succeed in their next motion to have an independence referendum, raising more questions for the Italian Constitutional Court on how to proceed.
And finally, few people now believe that the question of independence has been put to bed in Scotland. With a recent poll showing majority support for independence, the SNP’s surge in new members, and the self-implosion of the SNP’s main competitor – the Scottish Labour Party - it may only be a matter of time before Scots vote again.
The EU – and its member-states – should not rest on their laurels: these movements are not going to go away. Ironically, the EU appeared to have undercut independence demands in the 1990s by giving sustenance to the idea of a ‘Europe of the Regions’ whereby substate regions could sit alongside – or even replace – the states in the governance of Europe. However, when these hopes were dashed with the state-reifying bias of the Lisbon Treaty, nationalist movements across Europe radicalised their demands in favour of independence in a Europe of the States, as this now seemed to be the only way to get a seat on the top table of the Council of the EU.
The onus is now on the EU to figure out how internal secession within its borders might actually work – because there are now several wannabe states knocking on its doors. If the citizenry of these ‘stateless nations’ believe that their future is best secured with the trappings of statehood, the resulting configuration would be a ‘Europe’ fractured into a number of smaller territorial entities.
Ironically, this map of Europe may be very familiar to historians. Once upon a time, before the rise of the modern nation-state in the nineteenth century, Europe was a patchwork of city-states and small self-governing regions. ‘Small is beautiful’ was the mantra then; with the spread of independence referenda, are we seeing the natural return to this model?
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Cobbold Commission
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
Sabah
,
Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU)
,
Sarawak
,
Sharing
No comments
Cobbold Commission
Introduction
The Cobbold Commission, was a Commission of Enquiry set up to determine whether the people of North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak supported the proposal to create the Malaysia consisting of Malaya, Brunei, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak. It was also responsible for the subsequent drafting of the Constitution of Malaysia prior to the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963. The Commission was headed by former Bank of England governor, Lord Cobbold.
Members of the Commission were:
- Lord Cobbold, former Governor of the Bank of England, chairman of the Commission
- Wong Pow Nee, Chief Minister of Penang,
- Ghazali Shafie, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- Anthony Abell, former Governor of Sarawak
- David Watherston, former Chief Secretary of Malaya.
Report
The Commission released its findings, report and recommendations on 1 August 1962. It concluded that the formation of Malaysia should be implemented. However, Lord Cobbold also stressed that all parties enter the federation as equal partners. The findings were summarised by Lord Cobbold as follows:
"About one-third of the population of each territory strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern about terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards varying in nature and extent: the warmth of support among this category would be markedly influenced by a firm expression of opinion by Governments that the detailed arrangements eventually agreed upon are in the best interests of the territories. The remaining third is divided between those who insist on independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come. If the conditions and reservations which they have put forward could be substantially met, the second category referred to above would generally support the proposals. Moreover once a firm decision was taken quite a number of the third category would be likely to abandon their opposition and decide to make the best of a doubtful job. There will remain a hard core, vocal and politically active, which will oppose Malaysia on any terms unless it is preceded by independence and self-government: this hard core might amount to near 20 per cent of the population of Sarawak and somewhat less in North Borneo."
Lord Cobbold, Cobbold Commission
Table of Content
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION
TERM OF REFERENCE
INTRODUCTION
- 1. ENQUIRY IN SARAWAK
- ENQUIRY IN NORTH BORNEO
- ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE
- RECOMMENDATIONS
A-Recommendations on certain general matters
B-Recommendations by Sir Anthony Abell and Sir David Watherston
C-Recommendations by Dato Wong Pow Nee and Enche Mohammed Ghazali bin Shafie
D-Summary of Recommendations in Sections B and C, and Comments, by the Chairman - OTHER MATTERS
- THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appendices
A. Itinerary
B. Census Abstract
C. Cardinal Principles of the rule of the English Rajah
D. Legal Meaning of the Term "Native"
E. North Borneo and Sarawak Governments Papers on Malaysia
F. "Memorandum on Malaysia" Submitted by the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee
Map of the Borneo Territories
Download Document:
What if Sarawak and Sabah had united with Singapore in 1963?
COMMENT: In September last year figures derived from the e-Kasih government programme (to combat poverty) revealed that Sarawak had overtaken Sabah as the state with the largest number of poor people in Malaysia – more than 100,000 had registered under the programme that month alone!
This also meant that Sabah was the second poorest in a nation of 14 states.
This effectively meant that after 52 long years within the federation of the Malaystates, when once as British Protectorates, both our states had enjoyed relatively abundant wealth, relative independence and a form of self-rule within the limits of the Commonwealth, we have now been relegated to a state of almost bare survival impoverishment and just short of being beggars living with all the wealth surrounding us, but none to our name.
What if during that fateful time in 1963, both the Bornean states of Sarawak and Sabah had decided to unite with Singapore instead?
Singapore had struck out on its own – a small tiny dot of an island, with a population of 1.8 million; Sarawak’s 900,000 and Sabah’s 600,000 would only have added a mere 1.5 million to give it a total of 3.3 million, with an overall slight majority of Chinese balanced by Dayaks, Kadazans and Malays.
At the time Singapore had virtually nothing to speak of, no natural resources, a small island with no basic infrastructure nor industry and no land for agriculture. The Bornean states had all the arable and fertile land, with a small population and no human nor monetary capital to speak of.
With great foresight and planning and a hard working labour force at his command, Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP managed to lead and guide and forge that little red dot of an island republic into the world’s third richest country today – without all those natural resources, without having to ingratiate itself to any world power be it the USA, Russia or China. It had branded itself as “a friend to all, an enemy of none”. A virtual Switzerland in the Far East!
Today, the population figures have boomed with Singapore having 5.47 million people, Sarawak (1.43 million) and Sabah (2.48 million).
Here’s a comparison of the 2013 GNI per capita out of 199 countries – Singapore was No. 4 with US$76,860 (RM279,885) and Malaysia, No. 53 with US$22,530 (RM82,042).
In hindsight and retrospectively reviewing the current situation, what had happened?
Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s first prime minister, had been troubled by a groundswell of dissatisfaction among his Umno ranks that the number of Chinese in Singapore plus those in Sarawak and Sabah, could have easily tipped the balance of power between the Malays and Chinese if and when it came to the general elections; and eventually the power balance may lie in the votes coming in from a third force, a combination of the Peninsular Indians and Bornean natives of Ibans, Bidayuhs and Kadazans.
This was something that the early Umno politicos could not accept.
So, between having to take this risk or nipping it in the bud, the Tunku did the latter and had decided to “sack Singapore” from the Federation. The rest as they say is history.
If only our forefathers in Sarawak and Sabah had then taken a longer and more insightful look into what the future could have held ... that the Tunku would not be in power forever, that the new Umnocrats in the West would behave more and more chauvinistic and become more racial and more ultra-religious ... and that eventually there will be discord and bad management ... but all these were then only “what ifs”.
Our leaders then – the likes of Stephen Kalong Ningkan, Ong Kee Hui and Donald Stephens – would have had to sit down and negotiate with the likes of a young and tempestuous Lee Kuan Yew and a seasoned politician Goh Chin Chye – but they could, if they would, they might well have negotiated a union ... but again that’s all in the past – the “what ifs and whereforths”.
But if they had and they did and managed to form a Federation of Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah – whatever they might have named it – it would most likely have survived and prospered and done more, much more ... with the later years of discovery, exploration and export of oil, natural gas, some (controlled) timber extraction and immense agricultural exports.
Ah ... yes ... dream on ... yes indeed ... if only! We can only dream.
NATIONALISM VS LIBERALISM?
At the core of liberal values the protection of individual rights are paramount.
‘Classical liberalism’ therefore seeks to support the rights of individuals within, and sometimes even against, the state. It believes that individual liberty and the right to organise for social change through the free will of individual citizens, is essential for progress. The State on the other hand is most usually viewed as seeking to impose duties in its favour upon individual citizens, thus minimising change in favour of stability.
A liberal, outside the organs of the state apparatus, will therefore seek to maximise individual rights as a goal in itself and be, as such, in competition with the state’s perceived goals. The balance of the rights and duties of individuals within a nation (in practice the state) is in perpetual flux as the two sides jockey for influence.
A ‘Traditional Nationalist’ will on the other hand willingly accept the surrender of some individual rights in the interests of the nation, usually the state, for the ‘common good’. In periods of tension, such as war, civil strife or the threat of ‘terror’ the Nationalist sacrifice of citizens’ rights in the interests of all, in order to deal with the immediate ‘common’ threat, often becomes predominant.
The impact on the balance of rights and duties is today of particular pertinence as we enter the age of the so-called ‘War on Terror’. In order to increase the security of its citizens, Western Governments (including those that might call themselves ‘liberal’ in the loose sense of the word), have already begun to erode individual rights of association and privacy. Ironically the increasing diminution of these rights is creating an ordered society quite alien to a Classical Liberal (and a National Liberal).
When the personal security of a nation’s individuals is seen as paramount, individual’s exercising their right to ‘pull in a different direction’ to the orthodoxy are viewed as a luxury at best or as ‘potential fifth-columnists’ at worst. For liberals however this curtailment of individual rights disrupts the natural process of political change and renewal and the ‘authoritarian impulse’ is hard (for the state apparatus) to shed even after the perceived ‘threat to the nation’ has passed.
If we view then the classical/traditional versions of Liberalism and Nationalism as in direct conflict over rights and duties, is it possible for these opposing views to be reconciled?
INDIVIDUALS DO NOT EXIST IN ISOLATION
Liberalism does not see individuals as acting in isolation, for people interact. In modern society it is almost impossible to be independent of others; work and services make this unfeasible. Individuals therefore have to interact with others and in doing so often follow the moral codes and cultural mores of their immediate ‘locality’, ranging from their neighbourhood, community and through to the nation. Even if an individual rejects the state in which they live, it can usually only be in principle rather than practice.
We are therefore rooted as individuals within our culture and the type of society it has developed and created over the centuries. Indeed the sacrifice individuals make through taxation or service is only acceptable because they see themselves as part of a greater whole and perceive fellow citizens as partners in a shared way of life.
Society so organised is also necessary to prevent the ‘strong’ individual from abusing the ‘weak’.
A National Liberal recognises therefore that any viable nation-state requires social cohesion and that rests upon communal and patriotic i.e. national ‘unity’.
A MEANINGFUL NATION-STATE
Whilst pursued more often through the endeavours of the State, Nationalism actually stems from a love of (own) kind and the desire for self-determination. This includes the right to organise as a (national) group and as free individuals*2.
For a nation, as apart from a state, to be meaningful it must be a reflection of the values of its constituent parts i.e. its members, its individual citizens. A meaningful nation state therefore can only exist when its members can as individuals organise for social and political change (individual rights) through democratic means*3.
A National Liberal also recognises that there is a common culture within any nation and that this culture evolves from the choices and behaviour of its citizens and must be reflected in the outlook of the state. In the United Kingdom this culture is liberal in character and therefore the state’s values should be liberal.
We can see therefore that individual rights, such as the right to organise for political or social ends, are essential elements to any meaningful nation state and in turn such a state is required to ensure the order and cohesion necessary to protect individuals from one another.
AGAINST OMNIPOTENCE
National Liberalism represents the philosophy underpinning the idea of the liberal nation state whilst National Liberals are those who seek to find and maintain the necessary yet practical balance between the contradictions that will sometimes emerge between individual rights and communal duties. Failure to do so inevitably condemns societies to the abuses of omnipotent individuals or an omnipotent state. Some believe we already suffer from too much of both.
*1 “Classical Liberalism’ in its original form should not be confused with support for free-market economics or the more popular use of the term which might be titled ‘liberal affection’, which is often seen as opposing patriotic endeavour and cultural sentiment.
*2 When the state becomes a self-fulfilling entity seeking to perpetuate its own interests (usually of a political elite) rather than that of the citizen, we are observing Statism not Nationalism.
*3 We should also distinguish between the selfishness of a traditional nationalist who pursues the nation’s interests without regard to the interests of others and the liberal nationalist who pursues their interests on the same terms as others i.e. ‘what is right for me is right for you’.
Copyright to: NLP, PO Box 4217, Hornchurch, Essex RM12 4PJ – 2008
Police will not hesitate to take action against seditious acts
Federal constitution guarantees freedom of speech, however it has its limits, deputy IGP says
KOTA KINABALU: The Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Noor Rashid Ibrahim has stressed that the police will not compromise on acting decisively against anyone who tries to incite the public on seditious issues.
Noor Rashid said decisive action must be taken by the police to ensure that the people and country remained prosperous and secure.
“If we refer to the definition of Section 2 in the Sedition Act, (it is) called “seditious tendency”.
“Anyone who disputes the position of the (Malay) rulers, anyone who disputes the integrity of the courts that exist in our country, anyone who incites racial tension, we define (these acts) under Section 2 of the Sedition Act (1948),” he said.
Noor Rashid said this to reporters after closing the Police Station Heads Integrity Seminar (Sabah contingent) here today. Noor Rashid was commenting on police investigations against Doris Jones, who is associated with the Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) movement.
According to Noor Rashid anyone who disputed articles under Section 2 of the Sedition Act would be subject to police investigations and appropriate action would be taken against them including being charged in court.
Noor Rashid said that although the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in the country, the freedom does, however, have its limits. ”It means if we want to talk, we need to know the limits. If you cross the limits, then as police officers, with a view to maintain peace and order in the country, we will take action accordingly,” he said.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
Jeffrey G.Kitingan
,
Nationalist
,
News
No comments
Sabah, Sarawak can be ‘rags to riches’ story
Jeffrey Kitingan joins the “war of words” between two former Sabah Chief Ministers on “Sabah rights”.
KOTA KINABALU: Sabah and Sarawak, relegated now to the dubious distinction of being the poorest states in the Federation, can rise once again and become the richest states in the country in a “rags to riches” story, a reversal of the “riches to rags” story which began in 1976.
Bingkor assemblyman Jeffrey Kitingan expressed confidence that this could happen once, for starters, Sabah and Sarawak “regain their position as Equal Partners of the peninsula in the Federation”.
At present, he pointed out that “the two Borneo states had been relegated to being the 12th and 13th states in the Federation” in the wake of Singapore ending, in 1965, its merger with the peninsula and its exit from Malaysia.
The emergence of Sabah and Sarawak as the richest states in the Federation, added Jeffrey who is also Star Sabah Chief, hinges on the Federal Government complying with the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land, on the return of revenues collected in the Borneo states.
The arrears of the 40 per cent due to Sabah alone from 1963 until now would definitely be more than RM50 billion, estimates Jeffrey. “This will not only make Sabah the richest State in the nation but one of the very few nations in the world with a positive reserve.”
He was referring to calls in the local media and the social media for two-fifths, or 40 per cent of the net revenue collected by the Federal Government in the Borneo states, to be returned to them in line with the Federal Constitution, and regaining oil and gas rights, among other rights issues.
He was also commenting on the continuing war of words in the local media between former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh and Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the Huguan Siou and a former Sabah Chief Minister, on “the loss of Sabah (and Sarawak) rights”.
Jeffrey warned that the financial position of Sabah and Sarawak would worsen come April 1, “when the people are taken for a ride once again as fools”, with a double whammy i.e. the imposition of 6 per cent Goods and Services Tax (GST), and the abolishment of the Sales and Service Tax (SST) retained by the Sabah and Sarawak Governments, even as the crippling National Cabotage Policy (NCP) continues.
Under the NCP, Sabah and Sarawak cannot import or export goods directly even from nearby places like Hong Kong and China, but must do so through Port Klang, the designed National Load and Transshipment Centre. Carriage in Malaysian waters has to be via locally-registered ships, generally owned by shippers in the peninsula.
“Already, as a result of the NCP among others, the cost of living in Sabah and Sarawak is much higher than that in the peninsula while the standard of living is lower,” fumed Jeffrey. “At the same time, the minimum wage at RM800 per month in Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan is much lower than the RM900 per month for the peninsula.”
Gambling companies, all based in the peninsula, are also siphoning away millions from Sabah and Sarawak.
Jeffrey, returning to his main theme, pointed out that under Part IV Item 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule in the Federal Constitution, Sabah and Sarawak are entitled to two-fifths (40 per cent) of the net revenue collected in the two Borneo states.
Sabah can be an advanced economy bringing prosperity to its people.
Why is the federal government ignoring the Federal Constitution and not returning the 40 per cent net revenue collected from Sabah and Sarawak?
”If the Umno Sabah and Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders genuinely care for the welfare and interests of Sabahans, they should claim for the return of the 40 per cent net revenue collected from Sabah from 1963 until now,” demanded Jeffrey. “The tens of billions will propel Sabah into an advanced economy and prosperity for Sabahans.”
Petronas is making billions of ringgit from Sabah’s oil and gas, he noted. “Between 2012 and 2015, Petronas was expected to receive more than RM85 billion. Sabah only gets a measly 5 per cent share which is only about RM4.25 billion.”
”Major oil companies producing oil and gas from Sabah are paying billions in taxes each year.”
So are big plantation companies based in the peninsula but with huge acreages in Sabah and paying billions each year, he continued. “Billions more are collected as Federal taxes and other government revenue from Sabah businesses and ordinary Sabahans each year.”
“The Customs Department in Sabah alone collects more than RM830 million with another RM1.2 billion in GST for the remaining nine months this year.”
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
18 Points
,
20 Points
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
News
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
No comments
'Let Sabah, Sarawak have a say in their own destiny'
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 28, 2015: Sabah and Sarawak would like some independence when it comes to decision making, a former Sabah Chief Minister said.
Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak wrote in his blog that currently the federal government not only decides on the development expenditure but also controls how, what and when it is implemented.
This, the Sabah speaker explained, causes delays, wastage and overlapping of functions between the state and federal agencies.
Many times, he claimed, the states are left out entirely in the decision-making process.
“The present system of the federal government practically running the states does not go down well with states that are supposed to enjoy a certain level of autonomy.”
By giving Sabah and Sarawak a little autonomy, Salleh said it would be a “good first step” by the Barisan Nasional to prove to the Sabah and Sarawak voters that it honoured the spirit of the Malaysian agreement and the 20/18 Point Memorandum.
Sarawak, he said, will be facing its state elections in about a year, followed by Sabah and this, he added, was a crucial matter to be considered in the not too distant future.
Sabahans and Sarawakians, Salleh stressed, must be made to feel they are partners in Malaysia and not servants of West Malaysian colonialists.
He said that whether this was the correct perception or not was another matter but one must not deny that this is how many Sabahans and Sarawakians feel.
Partial autonomy, Salleh said was a fair request.
“It can only strengthen Barisan Nasional in Sabah and Sarawak when Sabahans and Sarawakians are made to feel that they do have some say in their own destiny.”
Monday, 16 March 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
Nationalist
,
News
,
Sabah
,
Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU)
,
Sarawak
,
Sharing
No comments
4 charged with sedition over Sabah, Sarawak secession, report says
Four men were charged with sedition in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, today, for allegedly possessing materials urging Sabah and Sarawak to leave Malaysia, The Star Online reported.
The materials are said to be linked to the Facebook page Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia, which advocates the two Bornean states leave the federation of Malaysia, according to the news portal.
The four are Azrie Situ, 25, Jemmy Liku Markus Situ, 32, Erick Jack William, 29, and Joseph Kolis, 29, who pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court before judge Dean Wayne Dally.
The men were released on RM20,000 bail in one surety each, and also had to surrender their passports.
The portal said the four were among nine people arrested on February 1 for possessing seditious material. They had reportedly distributed pamphlets on Sabah's rights and a petition to support these rights.
The Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia Facebook page is run by a Sabah activist, Doris Jones, who is now based in London. The page currently has more than 32,000 “likes”.
Sabah police have issued a warrant for her arrest, but Jones had told local media that she had not heard from any authority or Interpol about the warrant.
On March 13, police said they had made contact with her.
Secession calls will soon be defined as seditious under the Sedition Act after Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib said last year that the law would be retained and strengthened.
The act in its present form gives wide ambit to the authorities to decide what is seditious.
The four were represented by counsel Arthur Chin.
A crowd of about 100 people reportedly turned up at the courthouse today in a show of support.
Among them was former chief minister Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee, who is now with the opposition.
Talk of secession among Sabah nationalists has increased of late against as awareness grows among people about poverty, immigration and political issues, such as "Project IC", a move to change the demographics and electoral roll of the state by issuing identity cards to migrants. – March 16, 2015.
Four Borneo activists charged with sedition
The activists are being charged for sowing hatred between the people of Sabah and the peninsula.
TUARAN: Four Borneo rights activists have been charged in the Sessions Court following their distribution of leaflets generated by the Sabah Sarawak Union (UK), headed by Doris Jones, 46, who also runs the Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) Facebook Page.
The four who pleaded not guilty before Judge Dean Wayne Dally were named as Azrie Situ, 25; Jemmy Liku Markus Situ, 32; Erick Jack William, 29; and Joseph Kolis, 29.
Bail was set at RM 20,000 each of which RM10,000 had to be deposited in Court. They paid the bail.
The charge, under Section 4(2) of the Sedition Act 1948, carries a maximum fine of RM2,000, 18 months jail term or both.
Over 100 people turned up in Court in a show of support for the four activists.
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopim) chairman, Daniel John Jambun, expressed surprise that the charge sheet read; Tanah Melayu/Malaya di Kota Kinabalu. “Did they print tonnes of these sheets in the peninsula in 1957 and they are still being used?” he asked. “The bail sum set is manifestly high considering the fine is only RM2,000. Clearly, this serves as a warning for others.”
He said that the prosecution’s claim that the four accused are a flight risk does not hold water. “Why should they flee the country because of a RM2,000 fine for a charge which will not hold up in Court anyway?
Daniel said that he understood the lawyer for the four accused, Tengku Fuad Ahmad is in Perth, Australia but will be back this week. “Lawyer Arthur Chin stood in for Fuad.”
Daniel said that specifically the four are being charged for sowing hatred between the people of Sabah and the peninsula.
“There’s no element of incitement or inflammatory statements in their activities,” said former Sabah Chief Minister Yong Teck Lee who turned up in support along with former Berjaya Government Finance Minister Mohd Noor Mansor.
Fuad, in a Whatsapp message from Australia said: “I will be back this Thursday and will go through matters. My focus is on getting an acquittal for the Tuaran four.”
Jones told BBC News Radio Northampton on Friday that she doesn’t understand why Malaysia doesn’t want to allow Sabah and Sarawak to go from the list of states in the Federation, so that they can stand on their own two feet. “It’s a big question.”
BBC claimed that Jones was leading the campaign in the UK for independence back home on behalf of “some people in Sabah and Sarawak”. The station did not elaborate.
“If they don’t let us go, then we have the right to go independent,” said Jones. “We are countries which can be on our own like Singapore and Brunei. We are entitled to stand on our own two feet.”
Sabah secessionist group volunteers charged with sedition
KOTA KINABALU, March 16 — Four volunteers of the outlawed Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) movement were charged under the Sedition Act today for being in possession of pamphlets allegedly propagating Sabah’s secession from the federation.
The four, Jemmy Liku Markus Ratu, 32, Erick Jack William, 28, Joseph Kolis, 29 and Azrie Situ, 24 were accused of distributing the pamphlets at the Tuaran open market at around 10am on February 1 this year.
The pamphlets, which bore SSKM’s unofficial logo, claimed to promote the rights of North Borneo folk, and said the movement hopes to collect 100,000 signatures for a petition to be sent to the United Nations to show that Sabahans are no longer interested in being a part of the Malaysian federation.
All four pleaded not guilty to the charge today under Section 4 (2) of the Sedition Act 194, which carries a maximum fine of RM2,000 or 18 months’ jail or both upon conviction.
The four were represented by counsel Arthur Chin who was standing in for lawyer Tengku Fuad Ahmad who was not present in court today.
Judge Dean Wayne Daly set the hearing dates for May 18 to 22. Bail was set at RM10,000 each plus one surety.
When contacted, Fuad said the bail set was excessive for a charge of this nature.
“The case is also highly academic in nature and will lead to issues pertaining to customary international law, Malaysia’s treaty obligations and the special constitutional right of any Sabahan to question the position of the state in the federation.
“It’s not about the four accused and what they did. It’s about their right to do it in the first place,” said Fuad.
Over 100 people including former chief minister Datuk Yong Teck Lee and former state finance minister Datuk Mohd Noor Mansoor turned up in court today to show support for the four accused.
Supporters also carried the Sabah flag and signs bearing the words “Free Tuaran 9 activist” and calling for freedom of expression and Sabah rights to be restored.
On February 1, nine people were arrested in Tuaran to assist in a sedition probe due to their alleged links to the outlawed secession movement.
The nine who were wearing t-shirts with the words “Semangat Satu Perjuangan Rakyat”, were detained at the Tuaran tamu grounds where they were allegedly approaching people for signatures for the petition seeking Sabah rights.
Aged between 24 and 50, they were released on the same day with RM2,000 police bail.
Ghapur Salleh: Engage pro-secessionist East Malaysians instead of arresting them
KUALA LUMPUR: Authorities have been urged to engage with pro-secession groups such as Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) instead of threatening and arresting its members, said Kalabakan MP Datuk Seri Abdul Ghapur Salleh (pic).
He said the members should be investigated and charged if the allegation was true but some of them were concerned about the security of the state.
Abdul Ghapur cited examples from various news reports where nine people were detained in Tuaran while five others were detained in Lahad Datu, Sabah for allegedly involved in seditious activities.
"This is not a police state but this is an independent and autonomous state via Malaysia.
"Many Sabahan people are unhappy and concerned over the security in the state," he said while debating the motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong royal address, here on Monday.
Abdul Ghapur stressed that he was not supportive of any secession movement for Sabah and Sarawak but authorities should investigate the motives of the group involved in such activities.
"I know this is a sensitive matter but authorities must ask why Sabahan are resorting to such activities.
"Do not resort to threats and meet them instead," he said in reply to Datuk Dr Marcus Mojigoh, who asked whether the latter was afraid of getting arrested under the Internat Security Act for making such remarks.
Abdul Ghapur also urged the federal government to further strengthen its assets under the Eastern Sabah Security Command (Esscom) to help thwart any attacks from outsiders.
"I have met with representatives from the Prime Minister's Department and raise my concern over the security in Sabah.
"Some of the criminals are using pump boats and we need to increase our assets to ensure the security are well protected," he said.
Friday, 13 March 2015
Sabah cops claim in contact with wanted UK-based Sabah secessionist
KOTA KINABALU, March 13 ― Police here insisted today that they have contacted Doris Jones, the alleged mastermind behind the Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) secessionist group, but declined to divulge further detail on their correspondence with the UK-based activist.
Sabah police commissioner Datuk Jalaluddin Abdul Rahman said that contact has been made with Jones, but said the matter cannot be discussed in public.
“Yes we have made contact, but we cannot discuss this publicly,” he said when asked about police efforts to contact Jones, believed to be a UK citizen after having left Sabah for some two decades.
Last month, Jalauluddin told the media that a warrant of arrest has been issued for a 46-year-old Doris Yapp Kim Youn from Labuan, and that the local police will seek help from Interpol to detain the woman, who is also believed to be known as Doris Jones.
When contacted, Jones, however, dismissed any knowledge of an arrest, and said she had not heard from any Malaysian or Interpol authorities.
“She can say whatever she wants,” said Jalaluddin, insisting that the police are working on her arrest.
Jalaluddin was speaking to reporters after the officiating ceremony of an integrity seminar at the state police headquarters here.
Also present was Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Noor Rashid Ibrahim who said police will not hold back against those who are bent on creating disunity in the country.
Yesterday, Sabah state assembly speaker Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak said that the government needs to establish Jones’ identity and dispel the false romantic notion that she was fighting for Sabah and Sarawak to secede from Malaysia.
He said that Jones left Sabah for her marriage and took up her husband’s name and is now based in Northampton, UK, where she became politically active only after she met Bersih’s Ambiga Sreenavasan during a talk held in London.
A BBC news report said the 46-year-old human rights campaigner was being “intimidated” after the Malaysian government claimed it had approached Interpol to track her down.
It quoted her fearing she would be “dragged by police to the court and imprisoned without charge” if she set foot in Malaysia.
The report also said her family members could not contact her as said police had threatened them and taken mobile phones from them.
Wednesday, 11 March 2015
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
News
,
Sabah
No comments
Bosi to move Bill to review position of Sabah in M'sia
Kota Kinabalu: Kapayan Assemblyman Dr Edwin Bosi has submitted a motion to move a Bill under Standing Order 23 and for the establishment of a Select Committee under Standing Order 91 to review the position of Sabah in Malaysia.
"I take leave to move an adjournment of the Assembly under Standing Order 23 for the purpose of discussing a review on the position of Sabah in Malaysia and the setting up of a Select Committee as per Standing Order 91 on this said Bill to be chaired by the Speaker which will be tabled during the Sabah Assembly sitting from April 9 to 16," he said in his letter handed to the State Assembly office on Monday.
Giving his justifications, Bosi said Sabah's position in Malaysia after 52 years of independence was imperative since the people were starting to be aware of its position in Malaysia.
"There is a general feeling that Sabah and Sabahans have been short-changed after 52 years of independence in Malaysia.
"The open and public remarks by Sarawak's new Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem on Sarawak's rights have more or less inspired the same sentiments in Sabah.
"Sabahans know that as long as Umno is dominant in the Sabah government and the Chief Minister is from Umno there is little chance to see open and public remarks from Sabah leaders and in particular from the Chief Minister to assert or to demand Sabah's rights in Malaysia.
"The existence of the Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) movement is in fact the more bold and daring expression of unhappiness of the people of Sabah and Sarawak.
"Doris Jones who resides in the United Kingdom is a Sabahan and heads the SSKM movement.
"SSKM believes that there is no democracy in Sabah. There is no freedom of expression, association and of speech. That Malaya only wants to control and dictate what and how Sabahans should live and behave. SSKM therefore wants to see Sabah being an independent country like Brunei and Singapore," he said.
Bosi said that on Mar 7 2015, a forum on the formation of Malaysia was organised at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and Foreign Minister Datuk Anifah Aman who was the moderator had asked for a detail and in-depth study on the issues raised.
Anifah had called on all State leaders to put aside their political differences and put their heads together to look into the rights of Sabah as enshrined in the 20 Points, Malaysia Agreement and the Federal Constitution.
"I would like to take the cue from Speaker Datuk Seri Salleh Tun Said Keruak who feels that Sabah should be given partial autonomy. Datuk Speaker also said it would be a complete waste of time when entering a negotiation with the knowledge that one's demands will not be accepted by the other side.
"Datuk Speaker also wants politics be set aside and adopt a diplomatic approach to solve these issues meaning Putrajaya needs a clear message that Sabahans and Sarawakians wish to seek a compromise.
"I fully agree that politics should be kept aside when discussing the rights of Sabah in Malaysia. We share the views of the forum on Sabah rights in Malaysia and that of Datuk Speaker," he said.
However, Bosi said they would like the three guarantees on the "Batu Sumpah" the freedom of religion in Sabah, land under Sabah government control and respect and preservation of the tradition and custom of the natives of Sabah by the government to be included in the deliberation.
Hence, the setting up a Select Committee on the position of Sabah in Malaysia under the Chairmanship of the Speaker is timely and most appropriate.
"I would like to recommend that the opposition lawmakers will be well represented in this committee. As per Standing Order 93 (4) non-lawmakers can be admitted to the Select Committee to assist in the deliberation of Sabah's position in Malaysia.
"It is only when the Sabah Assembly discusses and deliberates on Sabah's position in Malaysia vis-Ã -vis the 20 Points, Malaysia Agreement, Federal and Sabah Constitution and the Batu Sumpah that will carry weight and the force when it is submitted and presented to Putrajaya," he said.

















