Donald Stephens Respond To Tengku Abdul Rahman's Greater Malaysia Plan

I WAS one of the signatories of the United Front statement issued in Jesselton on July 8 after a meeting of the Sarawak United People Party chairman, the president of Party Rakyat, and myself.

The statement made it clear that as far as the signatories were able to make out the vast majority of people in the thress territories were completely against the idea that any of the Borneo territories should join Malaya as individual states.

I am fully convinced that the statement did voice the opinion of the majority. I have friends among all communities in all three territories and I have yet to hear one voice raised in favour of the idea that we join Malaya as individual states.

The first impression gathered after the Tengku's address to the foreign correspondents was that Tengku had been putting into words what we all had in mind for some time that at some stage in the not distant future when the Borneo territories have achieved self-government and independence, there would be some closer link forged between the Borneo territories and Malaya.

But nearly all leaders in Borneo are agreed that first things must come first and the first thing which needed attention was a getting together of the Borneo territories; that when we talk with Malaya, it will be as equals, not as vassals.

The way the Tengku made known his plan in Brunei and Sarawak has made it appear that he was trying to force the issue.

This was most unfortunate and done less harm to his ideas had he taken better advice about the opinion of the people in the territories. Whoever advised him, gave him wrong advice. 

We have learned much about merdeka from malaya and the flames of our own desire for merdeka have in no small way been stoked by what we have seen in Malaya; because of this, it is hoped that Malaya will and can understand our own desire for independence and will nt take offence when we say that we do not want to join Malaya as colonies which in what we will be if we join Malaya now.

We are trying to Borneanise our civil service; we are trying to see that more and more of the jobs held by expatriates go to our own people.

If we join Malaya now, the people who will come and take most of the top jobs will be form Malay; Malayans who instead of being our brothers and fellow citizens will in fact be viewed as they have been in Brunei as the "New Expatriates".

The plan to get all the countries in Borneo to join Malaya at this stage cannot be acceptable because in Borneo itself the seeds of nationalism have been planted, a pride in their own country by the people of the country.

The Borneo peoples have a legitimate aspiration, that of working towards merdeka themselves.

If the Tengku wants to help us, he can do so by enlarging his Little Colombo Plan, by helping us march faster towards self-government and independence because the sooner we have self-government the sooner will also it be possible for us to think of a merger with Malaya.

The Tengku should urge the Sultan of Brunei to join with the other two Borneo territories in a federation (where in fact the Sultan's chances of becoming Agong of the three territories are much greater than if the join Malaya).

Once the Borneo territories are federated then it will be possible to work on Tengku's CONfederation plan, the federation of two Federations.

The talk about our country being very backward has not gone down very well either; we are not paupers and we have development plans which promise right happy and prosperous future for our people even without outside assistance.

We are naturally worried about outside intrusion into our paradise and we had hoped that Malaya could be a friend and partner in our endeavour once we have gained self-government in fighting intrusion from any quarter. The fact that all the time showed that trust we had in Malaya.

But now we feel that Malaya itself is trying to intrude and make us so dependent on Malaya that we would never really be able to obtain merdeka for ourselves.

Our hope is that the Tengku will let matters rest and will begin showing us the truth of his promise to help us; that he will not be piqued by our refusal to accept, what to him is a big hearted offer, and that the friendship between the Borneo territories and Malaya will remain - and he can best do this by forgetting that he had ever offered the Borneo territories to join Malaya as the 12th, the 13th, and the 14th states of the Federation of Malaya.

Written by Donald Stephens on 18th July 1961

Read More

MENGAPA SEKARANG MINTA PUNGUTAN SUARA?

LONDON: Perdana Menteri, Tengku Abdul Rahman, lagi sekali menolak anjoran pemungutan suara mengenai Malaysia dengan alasan soal itu tidak dikemukakan waktu gagasan itu mula2 diumumkan dahulu. 

"Malaysia bukan sesuatu perkara yang dipaksakan kaatas sasiapa juga. Raayat sendiri bebas memileh. Gagasan itu dihuraikan kepada mereka melalui Parlemen2 melalui pemimpn2 mereka dan melalui ketua2 puak."

"Ketika mengundang raayat wilayah2 Borneo datang ka Malaya, Mereka menyoal dan bertanya. Setahun lamanya mereka tidak putus2 datang"

"Akhirnya mereka puas hati dan memberitahu kita bahawa mereka ingin masok Persekutuan Malaysia".

"Saya sunggoh2 tidak mengerti mengapa sekarang baharu ada tuntutan supaya dilakukan pungutan suara sedangkan perkara itu tidak ditimbulkan ketika gagasan dibentangkan kapada Parlemen".

Tengku membuat uchapan demikian dalam satu majlis kera'jan yang diberikan kerananya oleh masharakat pelajar2 Malaya di-Britain malam semalam.

Tengku berucap dengan naskah uchapan yang sudah disediakan, tetapi kadang2 menyimpang dari naskah itu untuk berjenaka kepada pelajar2 itu, yang menyambutnya dengan gelak ketawa.

Kata Tengku: "Kita tidak harus selalu serious sangat. Kadang2 kita mesti masokkan asam garam supaya makanan menjadi lazat".

Sepanjang2 uchapannya, Tengku kelihatan gembira. Tetapi beliau juga berbichara dengan penoh serious.

Tengku serious bila mengumumkan bahawa wilayah2 yang masok Malaysia adalah bebas untok keluar dari persekutuan itu kiranya negara baharu itu tidak mendatangkan apa2 keuntongan kapada mereka.

Katanya: "Saya selalu berpendirian bahawa satiap orang bebas membuat keputusan sendiri".

PEMBANGUNAN

Tengku berkata melalui Malaysa, raayat akan diberikan keamanan, kekuatan dan kesejahteraan.

Adalah menjadi chita2 kerajaan pusat untok meninggikan taraf hidup raayat diwilayah2 yang memerlukan pembangunan wilayah2 itu dan menjadikan raayatnya maamor.

Nota: Didalam artikel surat khabar tersebut, dia telah menafikan segalanya. Kononnya tiada usaha untuk membuat pungutan suara suara tetapi yang realitinya PENENTANGAN SANGAT HEBAT DI NEGARA SARAWAK DAN NEGARA NORTH BORNEO (kini SABAH) tetapi mereka telah mendiamkan suara Nasionalisme ini. Perbuatan kepura-puraan dan penafian mereka tidak pernah berubah sehingga sekarang.

Read More

RAHSIA KEMATIAN TUN FUAD DALAM SATU NAHAS KAPAL TERBANG

Info ini adalah kebenaran yang cuba disembunyikan malah berusaha untuk dihapuskan namun sehingga kini usaha tersebut menemui jalan buntu. Ia seperti malam dan siang. Mampukah waktu malam bertahan selamanya? Begitu juga waktu siang...

Sila baca dan sebarkan...

Ketua menteri Sabah yang tidak akur kepada kehendak Kuala Lumpur digulingkan.

Sejak Sabah memperoleh kemerdekaan pada 31hb Ogos 1963, Kuala Lumpur telah memastikan supaya mana-mana Ketua Menteri Sabah tidak akan bertahan lama apabila mereka tidak akur kepada kehendak Kuala 

#Donald Stephens (Tun Fuad) terpaksa meletakkan jawatan sebagai Ketua Menteri Sabah pertama kerana dihantar sebagai Pesuruhjaya Tinggi Malaysia di Australia, digantikan oleh Datuk Peter Lo dari SCA pada tahun 1965 dengan penglibatan pemimpin Kuala Lumpur (Syed Kechik sebagai penasihat kepada Tun Mustapha dikatakan telah memainkan peranan penting dalam hal ini). Ini kerana Donald Stephens sebagai Ketua Menteri Sabah pertama telah memperlihatkan kesungguhannya mempertahankan Konsep Asal Pembentukan Malaysia iaitu 'rakan sama rata'. Tun Fuad juga mahu merujuk semula kedudukan Sabah dalam Malaysia setelah Singapura disingkir dari Malaysia. Ini kerana, keputusan Sabah menyertai pembentukan Malaysia adalah disebabkan oleh Singapura dan baginya tidak ada sebab lagi bagi Sabah bersama dengan Malaysia tanpa kehadiran Singapura. Tindakan serupa juga dilakukan oleh Kuala Lumpur untuk menggulingkan Stephen Kalong Ningkan, Ketua Menteri Sarawak pertama. 

#Apabila Kerajaan Berjaya ditumbangkan PBS dalam pilihanraya 1985, Datuk Joseph Pairin (Tan Sri) tidak mendapat sokongan sepenuhnya oleh Kuala Lumpur kerana perjuangan PBS pimpinan Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan (Tan Sri) pada ketika itu dilihat mencabar kepimpinan Persekutuan dengan mengungkit hal berkaitan dengan 20-PERKARA dan Perjanjian Malaysia yang di perkenalkan oleh Datuk Dr Jeffrey dalam perjuangan PBS. Malangnya PBS telah tidak mendalami hal-hal berkaitan dengan 20-Perkara, Suruhanjaya Cobbold, IGC dan Perjanjian Malaysia sebagai tonggak perjuangan, sehingga begitu mudah PBS kembali ke pangkuan Barisan Nasional.

#Agenda Petronas, tidak menyenangkan Kuala Lumpur. Difahamkan bahawa Tun Datu Mustapha menuntut supaya Sabah mendapat 35% daripada hasil minyak petroleum Sabah, sedangkan Kuala Lumpur hanya mahu memberi 5% kepada Sabah. Dengan fitnah bahawa kononnya Tun Datu Mustapha sedang merancang membawa keluar Sabah dari Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur menaja Parti BERJAYA untuk menumbangkan USNO dalam pilihanraya negeri pada tahun 1976. Dalam pilihanraya tersebut, USNO telah tumbang di tangan BERJAYA.

#Keengganan Tun Datu Mustapha, Ketua Menteri Sabah untuk tunduk kepada kehendak Kuala Lumpur pada tahun 1975, menyebabkan Kuala Lumpur tidak selesa dan melihat tindak-tanduk Tun Datu Mustapha sebagai menggagalkan usaha Kuala Lumpur untuk terus menguasai Sabah. Keengganan Tun Datu Mustapha untuk menyerahkan kekuasaan minyak petroleum Sabah kepada Kuala Lumpur melalui perjanjian Petronas

#Selain itu, peristiwa 'Double Six' juga banyak menimbulkan persoalan di kalangan rakyat Sabah. Dalam peristiwa ini, Tun Fuad Stephens, Ketua Menteri di bawah Kerajaan Berjaya yang baru memerintah selama 51 hari bersama 4 ahli kabinet menterinya telah ditimpa nahas kapal terbang dalam penerbangan balik ke Kota Kinabalu dari Labuan. Tun Fuad tidak menandatangani perjanjian penyerahan kuasa petroleum kepada Petronas dalam pertemuannya dengan rombongan Kuala Lumpur di Labuan kerana, baginya perkara itu harus dibawa dalam mesyuarat kabinet dahulu. Datuk Haris Salleh, Ketua Menteri Sabah yang telah menggantikan Tun Fuad Stephens telah mendapat sokongan sepenuhnya oleh Kuala Lumpur dengan kenyataan Mahathir, “berenang dan tenggelam bersama Berjaya”. Datuk Haris Salleh telah menandatangani penyerahan kekuasaan petroleum Sabah kepada Kuala Lumpur melalui Petronas, pada 14hb Jun 1976, iaitu 8 hari selepas nahas kapal terbang yang meragut nyawa Tun Fuad dan rakan- rakannya, tanpa dibawa dalam perbincangan kabinet menterinya.

 #UMNO memasuki Sabah dan merampas kuasa.

UMNO memasuki Sabah selepas memperdayakan USNO untuk menerima UMNO masuk ke Sabah. UMNO memang sudah lama berhasrat memasuki Sabah namun tidak berjaya kerana tidak diberi restu oleh pemimpin- pemimpin USNO. Hanya dengan hasutan UMNO kepada USNO, UMNO telah berjaya memasuki Sabah. “UMNO pernah berhasrat melebarkan sayapnya ke Sabah dengan jemputan dan ditaja oleh Datuk Muhammad Dun Banir bersama rakan-rakannya pada tahun 1980an, namun impian parti itu tidak terlaksana kerana tidak mendapat sokongan dari USNO, akhirnya UMNO menangguhkan niatnya untuk sementara waktu. Perselisihan faham di antara USNO dan kerajaan PBS pada tahun 1985/1986 telah diintai oleh UMNO dan menghasut USNO supaya tidak mempercayai Kerajaan PBS, seterusnya mendesak pemimpin USNO untuk membenarkan mereka masuk ke Sabah dalam keadaan “menangguk air di air keruh (ambil kesempatan)”.- Datu Badarudin Tun Datu Mustapha sempena Deklarasi Semporna dalam Rapat Umum USNO 50 Tahun pada 29hb Januari 2012.

 #Akibat hilang kuasa kemerdekaan:

1. UMNO menjajah Sabah
2. Sistem penggiliran Ketua Menteri, dengan mudah diguna sebagai pancing
3. Kerusi DUN dan Parlimen Sabah dikuasai UMNO
4. Perlantikan Ketua Menteri oleh Kuala Lumpur
5. Kabinet pusat dimonopoli oleh Persekutuan Tanah Melayu
6. Sabah dan Sarawak tidak penting lagi kerana Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya)menguasai lebih 2/3 kerusi parlimen (166 di Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, 25 kerusi di Sabah dan 30 kerusi Sarawak)
7. Masalah PTI semakin bertambah
8. Sabah menjadi negeri termiskin
9. Sabah dan Sarawak menjadi negeri yang ke 12 dan ke 13.
10. Rasuah, politik wang dan salah guna kuasa berleluasa
11. Pemimpin Sabah kehilangan semangat untuk berjuang.
12. Pemimpin Sabah tidak mampu membuat keputusan tanpa restu daripada Kuala Lumpur.
13. Beratus ribu hektar keluasan tanah di Sabah diserahkan kepada pihak Semenanjung melalui FELDA. Tabung Haji, Yayasan Selangor, Yayasan Melaka dan Syarikat-Syarikat Gergasi Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Dengan kehadiran UMNO di Sabah, manipulasi mereka semakin rancak. Manipulasi yang hebat dilakukan UMNO di Sabah adalah dengan merampas kuasa pemerintahan daripada PBS. Walaupun dengan janji Anuar Ibrahim membangun Sabah menjadikan Sabah Baru dalam masa 100 hari, Barisan Nasivonal pimpinan UMNO di Sabah gagal memenangi pilihan raya umum pada tahun 1994. 

Selepas keputusan pilihanraya pada tahun 1994 diumumkan dengan PBS (bersama USNO) memenangi majoriti kerusi DUN, YB Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan dan Tun Mustapha bersama wakil-wakil rakyat PBS (bersama USNO) telah pergi ke istana untuk mengangkat sumpah sebagai barisan menteri kabinet Sabah yang baru. Namun mereka tidak dapat memasuki istana kerana pintu masuk ditutup atas arahan Datuk Megat Junid, Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia ketika itu, menyebabkan semua wakil rakyat termasuk Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan dan Tun Mustapha terpaksa 'berkurung' di rumah kediaman rasmi Presiden PBS, YB Datuk Joseph

Mari sampaikan kebenaran ini kepada diri-sendiri dahulu, keluarga, sahabat handai dan rakan-rakan serta semua orang di kampung dan bandar...

Read More

Ranau earthquake: If Najib truly loves Sabah...

OUTSPOKEN: It takes a natural disaster like the powerful earthquake that literally shook Mout Kinabalu on June 5, to give a real test on the leadership qualities of Malaysia's national and state leaders.

If Prime Minister Najib Razak truly believes in his own slogan of 1Malaysia and considers Sabah as a “fixed deposit” state, then he would have reacted very differently when the 5.9 magnitude earthquake occurred at 7.15am that day with its epicentre about 15km north of Ranau town.

As soon as he was told of the incident and briefed on the seriousness of the situation he, as head of the central government, should have dropped everything else immediately and paid full attention to the crisis and ensured that the government responded to the crisis promptly and appropriately. 

In his capacity as chairman of the National Security Council, he should have realized the gravity and magnitude of the disaster by quickly declaring it as a national disaster zone, so that the full force of top level authority would come into play. 

Once that was done, the state security committee headed by chief minister Musa Aman, who technically is responsible for the officials in charge at the crisis centre on the ground, would have the administrative power to execute all necessary search and rescue (SAR) operations without delay. 

It was truly a case of grave crisis and emergency on a national scale, considering that lives of such a large number of Malaysian citizens as well as nationals from so many foreign countries were at risk that day. 

It was a frightening thought; having 137 climbers, including young children, being stranded close to the top of the mountain that is cold and windy. They must also be in a state of shock and fear, having just experienced the powerful earthquake. There were also 30 or more Malaysian mountain guides with the climbers. 

At times of emergency such as this, top concern must surely be to save lives. 

If given the power from the top national leaders, officials at the crisis centre could have the ability to mobilise helicopters and other support services from the armed forces, police, private aviation companies and other organisations without question and within the first couple of hours. 

A distinct advantage was that it occurred early in the morning, leaving the emergency units about 11 daylight hours to plan and execute their SAR operations. For, in the far east state of Sabah, it gets dark as early as 6.30pm. 

From the national point of view, Mt Kinabalu, the centre of all attention that day, is the nation's icon tourism spot. Many promotional materials of Tourism Malaysia, including its TV commercials prominently feature the mountain. 

This icon, reputed for having the tallest peak (at 4,095m above sea level) in Southeast Asia, is also a Unesco World Heritage Site and the 20th most prominent mountain in the world.

The disaster could not have struck at a worst time. It was during school holidays, one of the peak seasons for local and foreign climbers, including young pupils in their early teens, mostly having their first experience in mountain climbing. 

Did Najib see the situation in these lights and act accordingly? Obviously not, for he went ahead with his travel plans for Saudi Arabia, which according to him, “involving meetings with members the Saudi royal family”. 

Surely the Saudi royal family would be gracious enough to accept and excuse him for having to change travel plans due a state of emergency at home. 

Another error in judgement was when Musa declared June 8 as “a day of mourning” for Sabah calling on the people to fly flags at half-mast in the state. The appropriate mark of remembrance for the four mountain guides and other Malaysians who died as a result of the quake is a national day of mourning.

It was a national affair, not state. Has Najib forgotten that citizens in Sabah are Malaysians, equal to those anywhere in the country? Whither the 1Malaysia concept? 

By contrast, the Singapore government saw it fit to declare a national day of mourning for the two teachers and eight pupils from Tanjong Katong Primary School who died as a result of the earthquake. They did not say that the mourning was for that school alone, but for the whole nation. 

Reflecting further on the dire consequences of disasters that Malaysians in Sabah have to bear resulting from the earthquake, somehow the words of a Czech television host on such disasters spring to mind. 

“We cannot stop natural disasters but we can arm ourselves with knowledge: so many lives wouldn't have to be lost if there was enough disaster preparedness,” said Petra Nemcova, a victim of the Indian Ocean earthquake and subsequent tsunami in 2004. 

In many ways, the Malaysian Government was ill prepared for the Ranau earthquake; not having sufficient knowledge nor enough disaster preparedness to deal promptly and efficiently with the catastrophic situation. 

It is often said that prevention is better than cure. True, but good advice such as this is not always followed. Regrets usually come after the fact. 

A few days after the earthquake came the disclosure that the Minerals and Geoscience Department in Sabah had proposed to the federal government in 2013 to install an earthquake monitoring system that includes the installation of GPS monuments along fault lines in the vicinity of Mt Kinabalu. 

The request for an allocation of RM7 million for implementation of the project was turned down. 

Alexander Yan, former director of the department, told The Borneo Post on June 8 that had the proposal been given the nod, lives could have been saved from the earthquake that claimed 18 lives and caused injury to many climbers and guides.

Now the Malaysian Government has announced an allocation of RM10 million just for rehabilitation works on the mountain. 

Other costs such as relief measures and the rebuilding of public and private infrastructures in and around Kudasang and Ranau that are damaged by the quake and the subsequent mudslides in the past week that caused further havoc would go way beyond that figure. 

As seen in other cases of natural disasters elsewhere in the country, a happy and positive sign that emerged from the Ranau earthquake was the spontaneous response of many individuals, community groups, NGOs and service organisations, in showing unity, love and care through their various acts of charity. 

This Malaysian bond shown in the last two weeks by the ordinary folks in time of need, pain, sorrow and suffering is most admirable. 

Sarawakian Datuk Joseph Leong Sai Ho, who has been living in Sabah since 1966, has his eye on all things Borneo.

Source: http://www.theantdaily.com/Main/Ranau-earthquake-If-Najib-truly-loves-Sabah#sthash.usDXezz5.dpuf

Read More

BRITISH NORTH BORNEO TREATIES: MADRID PROTOCOL 1885

In 1761, The East India Company concluded a treaty with the Sultan of Sulu. The following year, an English Fleet, under Admiral Drake and Sir William Daper captured Manila, the Capital of Spanish colony of the Philippines. They found in confinement there a Sultan of Sulu who, in gratitude for his release, ceded to the company, on the 12th September 1762, the island of Balambangan, and in January of the following year, Mr.Dalrymple was deputed to take possession of it and hoist the British flag.

Towards the close of 1763, the Sultan of Sulu added to his cession the northern portion of Borneo and the Southern half of Palawan, together with all the intermediate islands.

Against all these cession, the Spanish entered their protest. Spanish claimed the suzerainty over the Sulu Archipelago and the Sulu Dependencies in Borneo and the islands. This claim the Spaniards always persisted in, until on the 7th March 1885, a Protocol was entered into by England, Germany and Spain whereby Spanish supremacy over the Sulu Archipelago was recognised on condition of their abandoning all claims to the portions of the Northern Borneo which are now included in the British North Borneo Company's  Concessions.

Source: British Borneo - Brunei, Sarawak, Labuan & British North Borneo

BRITISH NORTH BORNEO TREATIES: Protocol(Madrid) by Doris Jones

Read More

Getting historical facts right

I’m proud that Sabah was one of the countries to form Malaysia, as opposed to joining Malaysia.

ON Twitter, in a tweet in which I was tagged, someone asked the Government to take action against Sabahans wearing black T-shirts as part of a campaign to make known historical facts to Malaysians.

“Tangkap penghasut dengan segera! No Mercy. Kembalikan ISA (Arrest the agitator immediately! No Mercy. Bring back ISA),” said the tweet that included a photograph of the offending T-shirt.

On the back of the T-shirt was written: “We must know. 31 August 1963: Sabah independence. 31 August 1957: Malaya independence. 16 September 1963: formation of Malaysia (Malaysia Day).”

I replied: “Factually correct.”

Historically cornered, the twitterer tweeted, “Kamu dah kibar bendera jalur gemilang ke belum?” (Have you flown the Malaysian flag yet?)

Victorious but magnanimous, I decided not to entertain the historically challenged twitterer.

That twitterer probably got agitated when he saw, “31 August 1963: Sabah independence”. He probably thought that it was seditious to make that claim. He didn’t know that on Aug 31, 1963, the British granted self-government to North Borneo. Two weeks later, on Sept 16, Sabah (North Borneo), Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya formed the Federation of Malaysia.

Tomorrow is Merdeka Day and as usual, many Sabahans and Sarawakians are complaining that there are Malaysians out there who are historically challenged. Malay­sians from Borneo get riled up as for them, Sept 16 is a more important date than Aug 31.

For them, Sept 16 was when Malaysia was born.

I too have a strong feeling towards Sept 16 as I’m proud that my state was one of the countries to form Malaysia as opposed to joining Malaysia (as prior to Sept 16, 1963 there was no Malaysia).

My Twitter exchange with that man, who demanded the immediate arrest of the Sabahans who were spreading historical facts, made me reflect on my parochial mentality towards my state.

I did a quick calculation and I’ve lived in Kuala Lumpur longer than in Sabah.

I lived in Sabah until I completed Form Five. At 18, I travelled to Malaya (lol! I could not resist calling Peninsular Malaysia what some Sabahans call it) by train (which is not possible) to continue my studies.

Except for my four years studying in Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA, and three years working in Bangkok (as The Star’s Thailand correspondent), since 1984 I have been living in KL.

So why am I not more KLite than Sabahan? Why can’t I be like most Peninsular Malaysians and accept that Merdeka Day is more important than Malaysia Day?

If you asked me where home was, I’d say Sabah. In actual fact, home is in Subang Jaya. It seems you can take me out of Sabah but you can’t take Sabah out of me. There’s just something about Sabah that makes me proudly Sabahan. But I can’t quite put my finger on why.

Is it because I grew up singing Sabah Tanah Airku, the state anthem?

Is it because two of the best Malaysian footballers are Hasan Sani and James Wong (and I used to play football with most of the Wong brothers)?

Is it because almost everybody in Sabah, especially if you are from Penampang, is related to each other?

Is it because I love the fact that Sabahans are moderate Malaysians who can drink together in a coffee shop serving non-halal food?

Probably those are the reasons why I’m proudly Sabahan. And probably that’s the reason why I still insist on voting in Moyog, Penampang (where my family is from), and not where I live.

The funny thing is if you asked me where I prefer to live, I would say KL (to be exact, Subang Jaya).

“Why?” Sabahans will ask me. And my answer will make me sound so pompous.

Because I can buy better steaks in KL.

Because the supermarkets are better in KL. (The trolley in most supermarkets in Kota Kinabalu has a mind of its own and the aisles are too narrow.)

Because there is systematic garbage collection in Subang Jaya. (Three times a week compared to once a week in some parts of Kota Kinabalu).

Because of the superior Internet connection in KL.

Because almost every week there’s Earth Day (blackout) in Sabah.

But if someone from KL asked me, I would say I prefer living in Kota Kinabalu.

Because almost all my family members (technically the whole of Penampang) are in Sabah.

Because I own a few acres of kebun (farm) in Sabah. (It is like my own little piece of paradise.)

Because of the Donggongon tamu (open air market, which is an adventure to visit as you can even buy nonsom bakas or pickled wild boar).

Because you hear fewer horror stories about racist teachers in Sabah.

My two kids – unless I suddenly get a can’t-turn-down job offer in Sabah (such as to be Chief Minister of Sabah) – will grow up in Selangor. In fact, my 11-month baby boy was born in Subang Jaya, meaning he is a Selangorian.

I’m already planning on how to make them more Sabahan. Probably I’ll send them back to Penampang during school holidays so that they know their roots. So that they can speak with the Sabah slang (so that they can say “boleh bah kalau kau” just like a Sabahan (which is “buli ba kalau kau).

Anyway, my Merdeka message is whichever state we come from, we all live in the same boat called Malaysia. Sink or swim, we are Malaysians bah.

Source: http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Columnists/One-Mans-Meat/Profile/Articles/2014/08/30/Getting-historical-facts-right/

Read More

"Kepimpinan Kerajaan Negara Sabah Adalah Semata-mata Berlandaskan Kepada Kepentingan Diri dan Wang Ringgit"

"Kemajuan teknologi merubah sikap manusia menjadi seseorang yang suka berkongsi akan segala sesuatu hal atau perkara dengan begitu meluas dan pantas. Tidak tahu samada ianya berlaku atas faktor kemajuan dunia/ teknologi moden itu sendiri, ataupun ketamadunan manusia sudah mulai berkembang maju sehinggakan hampir-hampir saja mencapai zon ‘kemerosotan tamadun’ yang sekaligus memusnahkan kewarasan dan membunuh nilai kemanusiaan.

Setiap kemusnahan dan kerosakkan yang saban hari berlaku di muka bumi dipengaruhi oleh tindakan salah laku daya fikir yang melampaui dan yakini sudah membatasi garisan pemikiran sedia ada sebagai manusia biasa. Pemikiran yang merbahaya dan diikuti dengan tindakan luar kawalan. Bahawa manusia yang bertindak menciptakan undang-undang dunia dan berkuasa ke atasnya.

Seiringan dengan kemajuan dunia dan teknologi yang dimiliki dunia, hakikatnya manusia sudah tidak bernilai,telah jatuh dan mengalami kemerosotan. Manusia hanya memandang kepada nilai wang ringgit yang jatuh susut nilainya, maka bersusah payah mengembalikan nilai wang ringgit namun tidak pernah berusaha untuk memperbaiki nilai dan taraf kemanusiaan.

Total kerosakkan disebabkan sikap cinta akan wang ringgit dan manusia pentingkan diri sendiri."

"Keikhlasan dalam membantu sesama manusia hanya wujud atas faktor kepentingan. Jikalau tiada kepentingan, bantuan itu tidak akan diberikan seikhlas hati. Manusia kini telah diracuni dengan sikap kebendaan/materialistik. Saya percaya kemajuan teknologi adalah selari dengan kemajuan ketamadunan sesebuah bangsa. Walau bagaimanapun, ketamadunan sesebuah bangsa dipengaruhi oleh corak pemerintahan sesebuah kerajaan yang diterajui oleh perwakilan-perwakilan bangsa mereka. Pemerintahan yang adil, saksama serta bijaksana akan membawa kepada kemajuan bangsa seterusnya ketamadunan. Untuk lebih memahami perkara ini, kita ambil contoh keadaan kerajaan dan bangsa di Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak. Bandingkan dengan malaya, Singapura, Hongkong, China, Korea Selatan, Jepun, Russia, UK, USA dan seterusnya...

Dimanakah posisi kita? Mungkin tidak salah jikalau dikatakan bahawa ketamadunan bangsa Negara Sabah khususnya adalah terletak dengan "Cinta akan wang ringgit dan sikap penting diri-sendiri". Ermmm..."

"Dengan kedudukan... Mereka boleh perolehi WANG dengan mudah dan dengan WANG boleh beli maruah atau harga diri dan kesempatan dalam mengukuhkan kedudukan sehingga kalis dari segala sudut undang-undang... Sifat kemanusiaan terbatas, Kritikan hanya anggapan celah gigi sahaja... Yang terbeban akan terus terbeban dan yang membeban akan terus membebankan untuk mengekalkan kedudukan dan kepentingan diri."

"Saya mempunyai kerisauan tentang perkara ini. Jikalau ia dibiarkan terus, generasi Negara Sabah khususnya bakal menerima kesan yang sangat teruk hasil daripada perbuatan yang tidak bertanggungjawab ini yang dilakukan oleh kepimpinan yang wujud pada masa sekarang. Kepada yang mempunyai latar belakang pendidikan sudah tentu mampu untuk melihatnya dengan jelas. Sijil kepada pencapaian pendidikan yang diperolehi seharusnya tidak dilihat dalam satu sudut yang sempit iaitu kononnya dengan memiliki sijil kejuruteraan, perakaunan, ekonomi, undang-undang dan sebagainya, ia sudah memadai untuk terus hidup dalam keluarga yang dibina dan membiarkan segala permasalahan yang berlaku. Dalam erti kata lain, melepaskan tanggungjawab didalam sosial kemasyarakatan. Pendidikan harus dilihat sebagai platform kepada latihan untuk berfikir. Kejayaan didalam memiliki sijil pendidikan harus juga dilihat sebagai satu kejayaan didalam melatih pemikiran secara matang, rasional dan bijaksana. Dengan itu, apabila sesuatu yang tidak betul berlaku, secara automatiknya, akan timbul satu perasaan bertanggungjawab untuk memperbetulkan kesalahan tersebut.

Didalam perkara ini, saya maksudkan dengan keadaan sosial, ekonomi dan politik Negara kita, Sabah... Malangya, ramai yang berpendidikan telah memilih untuk membutakan mata, memekakkan telinga dan membisukan mulut kerana tidak mahu memikul rasa bertanggungjawab tersebut (sense of responsibility). Malah, mereka berusaha menafikan segala kepincangan dengan hujah-hujah yang nampaknya professional dan ilmiah namun penuh dengan alasan-alasan yang mampu diselesaikan dengan mudah. Itulah realiti yang sebenarnya berlaku."

"Setelah sudah banyak hal yang berlaku, masih lagi kita mengagung agungkan dan mengangkat martabat dan dasar ketuanan melayu raya. Mereka-mereka ini yang mengklaim seluruh tanah/wilayah adalah kawasan jajahan mereka. 

Rakyat bawahan ialah hamba abdi yang mengerjakan, menuai hasil bumi lalu dijadikan harta dunia mereka. Bangsa-bangsa di tanah seberanglah yang bertanggungjawab atas segala kutukan dan hinaan yang dilemparkan kepada bangsa-bangsa borneo. 

Pemimpin-pemimpin tempatan yang sedaya upaya ingin meletakkan diri setaraf dengan mereka, namun hakikatnya hanya kelihatan tampak bodoh seperti boneka buruk yang bakal dilemparkan.Telah kehilangan maruah diri sehinggakan semua keturunan darah daging mereka yang kaya raya hasil pengkhianatan nenek moyang mereka bakal dikutuk kutuk dan dipermalukan. 

Berasa malulah pada ketika wakil-wakil rakyat yang berpakaian serba indah tiada cacat penampilan ketika lalu di hadapan rakyatnya yang miskin serba kekurangan. 

Berasa malulah mereka juga bilamana anak keturunan mereka hidup mewah tetapi kelihatan anak-anak kampung berpakaian compang camping ke sekolah berkaki ayam.

Kembalikan harta dan kemewahan yang kamu miliki, itu semua adalah kepunyaan rakyat, jauh sekali itu menjadi hak kamu dan keturunan kamu. Ia dipunyai oleh rakyat, bangsa-bangsa borneo yang kamu rompak hak-hak mereka yang sepatutnya."

"Kopisanangan kosuabon. Saya hanya mampu menumpang diatas komen anda, Semuanya sudah cukup jelas dan nyata. Katakan tidak kepada kumpulan pemimpin-pemimpin bangas/nounos kio..."

"Well Said! That is the truth"

"Saya mendambakan satu perjuangan yang sebenar oleh pemimpin-pemimpin tempatan Negara Sabah kerana saya pernah menjadi saksi kepada kebangkitan semangat perjuangan bangsa Negara Sabah pada sekitar tahun 1990an. Saya juga menjadi saksi kepada pengkhianatan dikalangan pemimpin-pemimpin tempatan Negara Sabah yang telah saling tikam-menikam, saling jatuh-menjatuhkan dan saling berlumba-lumba untuk mengumpul harta untuk kepentingan diri, keluarga, kroni-kroni dan parti politik. Tindakan mereka ini semua langsung tidak pernah menjadikan nasib bangsa sebagai agenda utama mereka tetapi hanya menggunakannya sebagai topeng untuk menjayakan agenda-agenda tersembunyi agar perbuatan mereka tidak kelihatan pada mata kasar dikhalayak umum. Mereka berbangga mengatakan bahawa mereka telah mentadbir kerajaan Negara Sabah untuk satu tempoh yang lama tetapi hakikatnya selama itulah mereka juga telah gagal untuk membangunkan bangsa Negara Sabah secara menyeluruh. 

Apa yang dapat dilihat, harta milik mereka kian bertambah-tambah tanpa titik noktah dan kehidupan rakyat yang tertindas dan sengsara pula menjadi senyuman sinis mereka kerana mereka percaya bahawa dengan keadaan sebegitu, akan menjadi mudah bagi memanipulasikan takdir hidup bangsa. Percaturan politik yang berlandaskan kepada ideologi politik asing diangkat dan diwarnai dengan penuh keharmonian manakala ideologi politik tempatan yang berjuang untuk rakyat dicaci dan dihina sekeji-kejinya.

Adakah kenyataan sebegini menghina pihak kerajaan? Sebelum diberikan jawapan "Ya", sila selidiki rakyat negara bangsa Sabah secara menyeluruh. Jangan dipandang kepada kelompok kawasan yang dipimpin sahaja tetapi perlu melihat kepada seluruh kawasan. Apakah timbul perasaan bangga atau malu pada diri-sendiri? Setelah 52 tahun membentuk persekutuan malaysia, adakah pembangunan sosial, ekonomi dan politik di negara Sabah sewajar dengan masa yang telah berlalu? Jikalau teguran seperti ini ditafsirkan sebagai hasutan, saya tidak akan bertanggungjawab terhadap penafsiran itu kerana kenyataan ini adalah kenyataan pada diri saya sebagai sesuatu yang mesti diluahkan agar menjadi renungan bersama kepada semua pihak."

Read More

Scottish independence: Poll shows that more Scots would vote Yes than at last year's referendum

Support for Scottish independence has increased since last autumn's independence referendum, with all ages groups except pensioners now in favour of secession, a new poll shows.

Of those certain to vote, 47 per cent would vote to break away from the UK - an increase of 2 percentage points compared to September's vote.

A majority - 53 per cent - still oppose independence, down two points on the referendum, according to a poll for Sunday Post newspaper.

The survey, of 1000 Scots, suggests the over-60s are the last remaining bulwark against independence, with every other age group now in favour of Scotland becoming a separate state.

Pensioners are overwhelmingly opposed to independence, by 68pc to 32pc among those certain to vote, according to the poll.

Enthusiasm for Scottish independence seems to have inspired the choice of names given to the country's newest citizens Most under-60s are now in favour of leaving the UK, the poll shows By contrast, the "Yes" camp leads by 54pc to 37pc among 18-24 year-olds, 47pc to 44pc among 25-39 year-olds, and by 50pc to 44pc among 40 to 59 year-olds.

The totals exclude those who said they would not be certain to vote.

Polling carried out after the plebiscite showed that if only under-40s had voted, Scotland would have opted for separation.

An SNP spokesman said told the paper that the Scottish people would have to vote for another referendum at an election before another one would be held.

That could happen at the elections for the Scottish Parliament next year.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-poll-shows-that-more-scots-would-vote-yes-than-at-last-years-referendum-10274406.html

Read More

Younger brother of Johor crown prince talks about secession on Instagram

JOHOR - The younger brother of Johor's crown prince has created a stir on Instagram with his caution that the southern state may secede from Malaysia, it was reported.

The post by Tunku Idris Sultan Ibrahim on the photo-sharing site, uploaded on Sunday, was removed on Thursday, the Malay Mail Online reported.

In the post, the prince reportedly said the Johor government had joined the Malay federation in 1946 on several conditions.

"If any of these conditions are violated, then Johor will secede from Malaysia," Tunku Idris posted on his Instagram account @tunku_idris.

The conditions included making Islam the religion of Johor, the state's absolute right over water and land issues, and the state royal house having its own armed forces, according to the news portal, which added that it was not known what prompted the prince to make the comments.

His post came amid a war of words between Crown Prince Tunku Ismail and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz after the Umno minister reportedly told the crown prince to stay out of politics or Putrajaya will "whack" him.

The Crown Prince had slammed Prime Minister Najib Razak on Facebook on June 5 for not attending an open forum earlier this month to explain the alleged fraudulent deals of the state-owned investment engine 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

The two princes are not the only members in the family who have a bone to pick with the prime minister and his administration.

Their father, Sultan Ibrahim Ibni Sultan Iskandar, is an open critic of the 6 per cent goods and services tax (GST) introduced by the federal government on April 1.

Last month, Johor instructed all its 16 local councils to stop charging GST for its services to the public. The Sultan had said it was illogical to impose the tax on public services as it was a duty to provide free services to taxpayers.

Johor, together with 10 other Malay states, agreed to form the Federation of Tanah Melayu in 1946.

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/younger-johor-prince-talks-about-secession-state-instagram-post-2015#sthash.VsNVfC3G.dpuf

Read More

JOHOR TO SECEDE FROM MALAYSIA? Younger son of Sultan threatens to pull out if 'conditions violated'

KUALA LUMPUR - In a shock move that is bound to roil Prime Minister Najib Razak's already embattled administration, the younger brother of Johor’s crown prince has warned Johor may secede from Malaysia.

In a post on Instagram, Tunku Idris Sultan Ibrahim issued a reminder that the Johor government had joined the Malay federation in 1946 on several conditions.

“If any of these conditions are violated, then Johor will secede from Malaysia,” Tunku Idris posted on his Instagram account @tunku_idris.

Among the conditions listed included making Islam the religion of the state, the state’s absolute right over water and land issues, and the state royal house to have its own armed forces.

According to the Malay Mail and Malaysiakini, the posting was made on Sunday and removed today without explanation.

The Johor royal family has always been known for its proud and independent stance among Malaysia's royal families. The country is a constitutional monarchy where the position of King or Agong is rotated among its Sultans. While the role of the Sultans have been largely ceremonial since the formation of Malaya and their powers further crimped by ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad in 1993, they enjoy the respect of the people, especially the Malays.

Tunku Idris' outburst comes hot on the heels of a cavalier warning from Najib's Tourism Minister, Nazri Aziz, who had publicly threatened to 'whack' Tunku Ismail, after the latter publicly criticized Najib for his no-show at a controversial tell-all 1MDB forum.

Nazri's disrespectful and careless words stirred red-hot anger across the southern state, just a stone's throw away from Singapore.

Indeed, in his reply addressed to all Malaysians, Tunku Ismail - who is first in line to succeed his father as the next Sultan - had hinted at secession:

"There will come a time, when the Johorean people must decide what is best for us and our future generations. Decide and unite we will, as Bangsa Johor, to forge our future. United we stand strong, divided we fall. I stand for my rakyat, not to joust for power, not to topple the government, but to ensure the well-being of my people," wrote Tunku Ismail.

Johor is one of Malaysia's largest and richest state but it is not the only of 13 states, where the desire to secede has been expressed. In Sabah and Sarawak, the move to gain 'independence' from the peninsula-based Umno-led federal government is gaining steam. This despite Najib's government passing new legislation to outlaw any talk of secession by making it punishable under the draconian Sedition Act.

Now with a member of the Johor royal family publicly warning of such a move, Najib and his Cabinet are in a prickly situation. How to punish royalty, especially popular royalty who enjoy the support of the masses while they - Najib and his Umno party - have become increasingly unpopular due to unceasing grand-scale corruption, unfair rule and institutionalized intimidation.

Rise of large-scale corruption & public unhappiness

Technically, the royals are no longer immune from prosecution but such a controversial step may trigger a revolt and Najib's own immediate political demise.

The 60-year-old Najib is arguably Malaysia's worst prime minister. During his tenure which began in 2009, Malaysia has been roiled by major social, economic and political controversies including banning non-Muslims from using the Arabic word Allah to describe God and jailing Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim for alleged sodomy.

But the greatest nightmare is in the economy where a string of financial debacles have been unearther, most notably the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, which many financial experts have blamed for causing the country's currency - the ringgit - to plummet to 1997 Asian Crisis levels and which some fear may force the government to re-implement a 3.80 peg to the US dollar in a bid to stem capital flight.

This has triggered public dissatisfaction with Najib's rule, with ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad leading the calls for his resignation. It would not come as a surprise that Najib's lavish ways have been noted with increasingly alarm by the royals, who may fear their own wealth may eventually be eroded by grave economic mismanagement.

Housing and property bill

There are some in Johor who believe Sultan Ibrahim is enraged with Umno due to dissatisfaction over the state’s Real Property and Housing Board Bill.

“Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar wants the Johor Real Property and Housing Board Bill to be reviewed,” national news agency Bernama had said in a one-line report in early May.

The Johor Housing and Real Property Enactment Board Bill 2014 was amended and passed by the state legislative assembly in June 2014, following uproar over the state’s granting of administrative powers to the Johor Sultan, which critics said goes against the principles of a constitutional monarchy.

The revised housing bill includes a provision for the Sultan is to act on the advice of the mentri besar, The Star reported Johor's Local Government and Housing executive councillor Datuk Abdul Latif Bandi saying in his speech in the assembly.

This would go against the royal family's claim of absolute right over water and land issues. - Malaysia Chronicle

Source: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=534441:younger-son-of-johor-sultan-threatens-secession-from-malaysia&Itemid=2#axzz3dNjhRGhH

Read More

"Mungkin anda masih buta, bisu dan pekak"

Mungkin anda masih buta, bisu dan pekak...

Bumi Sabah tanah tumpah air kita dipijak,dihina dan diragut kekayaannya hingga ia menangis tidak berdaya.

Dulu,kita hidup aman damai tanpa siulan kekerasan tanpa persoalan agama yang memisahkan kebersamaan kita.

Dulu kita punya tanah warisan nenek moyang yang bebas kita usahakan untuk mengais rezeki.

Tapi dengan bangga kita tetap memilih kesengsaraan demi memuaskan nafsu politik buta kita..

Dengan ego dan kebodohan yg meluap kita gadai tanah air ini dengan bangga untuk mendapat kenikmatan sesaat.

Mengapa kita masih bodoh dan buta memilih pemimpin yang bakal menghancurkan masa depan anak cucu kita?

Satu orang tidak akan mampu menghentikan kejahilan dan kerakusan mereka. Namun jika kita menjadi satu, siapa yang dapat menghentikan kita??

Hasil nukilan oleh Daniel Dilliam

Read More

Read facts about "secession"

KOTA KINABALU : What is "secession"? The current trending word "secession" or "seceding" is derived from the Latin term secessio, which describes the act of withdrawing from an organisation, union, or a political entity.

World's history, both in olden days and recent, is astoundingly littered with the act of "seceding". In Americas, Europe, Africa, Indias and even nearby Indonesia the act of seceding has been just too common. Many seceding territories or states did succeed but others were crushed, violently.

While debates seem to be on the rise on suggestions and calls for Sabah and Sarawak states to secede from the Federation of Malaysia (formed in 1963), many, if not all, of those virulently commenting on it online as well as in coffee shops and offices, are actually still ignorant about all things "secession".

This article attempts to enlighten us as to what this word really means and implies to us in Malaysia, in the hope that a politically-enlightened audience would have a healthy discussions and not degenerate the word into a taboo, like some half-baked Malaysian politicians attempted to do.

The majority of the rest of this article is derived from observations records in Wikipedia, now a leading credible online source of reference worldwide.

According to popular observations, the mainstream political philosophy largely ignored theories of secession until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in the early 1990s through secession. 

In his 1991 book Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, philosophy professor Allen Buchanan outlined limited rights to secession under certain circumstances, mostly related to oppression by people of other ethnic or racial groups, and especially those previously conquered by other peoples.

In 1994 the Journal of Libertarian Studies published Robert W. McGee's article "Secession Reconsidered". He writes from a libertarian perspective, but holds that secession is justified only if secessionists can create a viable, if minimal, state on contiguous territory.

In April 1995 the Ludwig Von Mises Institute sponsored a secession conference. Papers from the conference were later published in the book Secession, State and Liberty by David Gordon. Among articles included were: "The Secession Tradition in America" by Donald Livingston; "The Ethics of Secession" by Scott Boykin; “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State” by Murray Rothbard; "Yankee Confederates: New England Secession Movements Prior to the War Between the States" by Thomas DiLorenzo; "Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?" by James Ostrowski.

In July 1998 the Rutgers University journal "Society" published papers from a "Symposium on Secession and Nationalism at the Millennium" including the articles "The Western State as Paradigm" by Hans-Herman Hoppe, "Profit Motives in Secession" by Sabrina P. Ramet, "Rights of Secession" by Daniel Kofman, "The Very Idea of Secession" by Donald Livingston and "Secession, Autonomy, & Modernity" by Edward A. Tiryakian. In 2007 the University of South Carolina sponsored a conference called "Secession As an International Phenomenon" which produced a number of papers on the topic.

Justifications for secession

Some theories of secession emphasize a general right of secession for any reason ("Choice Theory") while others emphasize that secession should be considered only to rectify grave injustices ("Just Cause Theory"). Some theories do both.

A list of justifications may be presented supporting the right to secede, as described by Allen Buchanan, Robert McGee, Anthony Birch, Walter Williams, Jane Jacobs, Frances Kendall and Leon Louw, Leopold Kohr, Kirkpatrick Sale, and various authors in David Gordon's "Secession, State and Liberty", includes:

• United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
• Former President of the United States Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William H. Crawford, Secretary of War under President James Madison, on June 20, 1816: "In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many ; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate'. I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."
• Economic enfranchisement of an economically oppressed class that is regionally concentrated within the scope of a larger national territory.
• The right to liberty, freedom of association and private property
• Consent as important democratic principle; will of majority to secede should be recognized
• Making it easier for states to join with others in an experimental union
• Dissolving such union when goals for which it was constituted are not achieved
• Self-defense when larger group presents lethal threat to minority or the government cannot adequately defend an area
• Self-determination of peoples
• Preserving culture, language, etc. from assimilation or destruction by a larger or more powerful group
• Furthering diversity by allowing diverse cultures to keep their identity
• Rectifying past injustices, especially past conquest by a larger power
• Escaping "discriminatory redistribution", i.e., tax schemes, regulatory policies, economic programs, etc. that distribute resources away to another area, especially in an undemocratic fashion
• Enhanced efficiency when the state or empire becomes too large to administer efficiently
• Preserving "liberal purity" (or "conservative purity") by allowing less (or more) liberal regions to secede
• Providing superior constitutional systems which allow flexibility of secession
• Keeping political entities small and human scale through right to secession

Aleksandar Pavkovic, associate professor at the Department of Politics and International Studies at Macquarie University in Australia and the author of several books on secession describes five justifications for a general right of secession within liberal political theory,

• Anarcho-Capitalism: individual liberty to form political associations and private property rights together justify right to secede and to create a "viable political order" with like-minded individuals.
• Democratic Secessionism: the right of secession, as a variant of the right of self-determination, is vested in a "territorial community" which wishes to secede from "their existing political community"; the group wishing to secede then proceeds to delimit "its" territory by the majority.
• Communitarian Secessionism: any group with a particular "participation-enhancing" identity, concentrated in a particular territory, which desires to improve its members' political participation has a prima facie right to secede.
• Cultural Secessionism: any group which was previously in a minority has a right to protect and develop its own culture and distinct national identity through seceding into an independent state.
• The Secessionism of Threatened Cultures: if a minority culture is threatened within a state that has a majority culture, the minority needs a right to form a state of its own which would protect its culture.

Types of secession
Secession theorists have described a number of ways in which a political entity (city, county, canton, state) can secede from the larger or original state:

• Secession from federation or confederation (political entities with substantial reserved powers which have agreed to join together) versus secession from a unitary state (a state governed as a single unit with few powers reserved to sub-units)
• Colonial aka "wars of independence" from a "mother country" or imperial state
• National (seceding entirely from the national state) versus local (seceding from one entity of the national state into another entity of the same state)
• Central or enclave (seceding entity is completely surrounded by the original state) versus peripheral (along a border of the original state)
• Secession by contiguous units versus secession by non-contiguous units (exclaves)
• Separation or partition (although an entity secedes, the rest of the state retains its structure) versus dissolution (all political entities dissolve their ties and create several new states)
• Irredentism where secession is sought in order to annex the territory to another state because of common ethnicity or prior historical links
• Minority (a minority of the population or territory secedes) versus majority (a majority of the population or territory secedes)
• Secession of better off regions versus secession of worse off regions
• The threat of Secession sometimes is used as a strategy to gain greater autonomy within the original state

Arguments against secession

Allen Buchanan, who supports secession under limited circumstances, lists arguments that might be used against secession

• "Protecting Legitimate Expectations" of those who now occupy territory claimed by secessionists, even in cases where that land was stolen
• "Self Defense" if losing part of the state would make it difficult to defend the rest of it
• "Protecting Majority Rule" and the principle that minorities must abide by them
• "Minimization of Strategic Bargaining" by making it difficult to secede, such as by imposing an exit tax
• "Soft Paternalism" because secession will be bad for secessionists or others
• "Threat of Anarchy" because smaller and smaller entities may choose to secede until there is chaos, although this is not the true meaning of the political and philosophical concept.
• "Preventing Wrongful Taking" such as the state's previous investment in infrastructure
• "Distributive Justice" arguments that wealthier areas cannot secede from poorer ones

Movements that work towards political secession may describe themselves as being autonomy, separatist, independence, self-determination, partition, devolution decentralisation, sovereignty, self-governance or decolonisation movements instead of, or in addition to, being secession movements.

Now let us look at some of the examples of secession movements in as many countries in different continents, just to convince ourselves it is a world's norm to have seen as many secessions, many were successful, some crushed, and yet others just a lingering aspirations or potentialities.

I bet many in Malaysia did not realise that the small enclave nation of now Belgium actually seceded from the Netherlands, and that Portugal seceded from a Kingdom of Spain. Neither do we so realise for sure before that Bangladesh actually seceded from what was formerly East Pakistan, only in the 1970s. Let us read on the list below...

Australia

During the 19th century, the single British colony in eastern mainland Australia, New South Wales (NSW) was progressively divided up by the British government as new settlements were formed and spread. Victoria (Vic) in 1851 and Queensland (Qld) in 1859.

However, settlers agitated to divide the colonies throughout the later part of the century; particularly in central Queensland (centred in Rockhampton) in the 1860s and 1890s, and in North Queensland (with Bowen as a potential colonial capital) in the 1870s. Other secession (or territorial separation) movements arose and these advocated the secession of New England in northern central New South Wales, Deniliquin in the Riverina district also in NSW, and Mount Gambier in the eastern part of South Australia.

Secession movements have surfaced several times in Western Australia (WA), where a 1933 referendum for secession from the Federation of Australia passed with a two-thirds majority. The referendum had to be ratified by the British Parliament, which declined to act, on the grounds that it would contravene the Australian Constitution.

The Principality of Hutt River claims to have seceded from Australia in 1970, although its status is not recognised by Australia or any other country. According to a lexicon on nationalist movements across the world, Macau happened to recognise that Principality.

Austria

Austria successfully seceded from Nazi Germany on April 27, 1945. This took place after seven years of Austria being part of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich due to the Anschluss annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in March 1938.

Belgium and the Netherlands

On August 25, 1830, during the reign of William I, the nationalistic opera La muette de Portici was performed in Brussels. Soon after, the Belgian Revolt occurred, which resulted in the Belgian secession from the Netherlands.

Brazil

Two southern republican states seceded from Brazil in 1835. Defeated in the Ragamuffin War, they returned in 1845. The slightly earlier cabanagem struggle of Grão-Pará was in part a northern secessionist movement.

Canada

Throughout Canada's history, there has been tension between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Under the Constitutional Act of 1791, the Quebec colony (including parts of what is today Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador) was divided in two: Lower Canada (which retained French law and institutions and is now divided between the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador) and Upper Canada (a new colony intended to accommodate the many English-speaking settlers, including the United Empire Loyalists, and now part of Ontario). The intent was to provide each group with its own colony. In 1841, the two Canadas were merged into the Province of Canada. The union proved contentious, however, resulting in a legislative deadlock between English and French legislators. The difficulties of the union led to the adoption of a federal system in Canada, and the Canadian Confederation in 1867. The federal framework did not eliminate all tensions, however, leading to the Quebec sovereignty movement in the latter half of the 20th century.

Other occasional secessionist movements have included anti-Confederation movements in 19th century Atlantic Canada (see Anti-Confederation Party), the North-West Rebellion of 1885, and various small separatism movements in Alberta particularly (see Alberta separatism) and Western Canada generally (see, for example, Western Canada Concept).

Central America

After the 1823 collapse of the First Mexican Empire, the former Captaincy-General of Guatemala was organized into a new Federal Republic of Central America. In 1838 Nicaragua seceded. The Federal Republic was formally dissolved in 1840, all but one of the states having seceded amidst general disorder.

China

The Republic of China (ROC) government, which ruled mainland China from 1911 to 1949, administers Taiwan and a few surrounding islands, while the People's Republic of China (PRC) government administers mainland China. Both sides officially claim sovereignty over both mainland China and Taiwan. There is debate in Taiwan as to whether to create a new Republic of Taiwan to replace the current ROC government. At the Third session of the Tenth National People's Congress (March 14, 2005) the PRC government adopted the Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China. See Taiwan independence.

Within the PRC, the three northwestern regions of Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet, (and its accompanying regions) are also the focus of secessionist calls by the Tibetan Independence Movement and East Turkestan Islamic Movement.

Congo

In 1960 the State of Katanga declared independence from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. United Nations troops crushed it in Operation Grand Slam.

Cyprus

In 1974, the Turkish Army invaded northern Cyprus to protect the interests of the ethnic Turkish minority, who in the following year formed the Turkish Federative State of Cyprus and in 1983 declared independence as the Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey.

East Timor

The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (also known as East Timor) has been described as having "seceded" from Indonesia.[19][20][21] After Portuguese sovereignty was terminated in 1975, East Timor was occupied by Indonesia. However the United Nations and the International Court of Justice refused to recognize this incorporation. Therefore the resulting civil war and eventual 2002 East Timorese vote for complete separation are better described as an independence movement.

Ethiopia

Following the 1993 victory of opposition forces against the communist Derg regime during the Ethiopian Civil War, Eritrea (formerly known as "Bahri Negash" before being renamed to "Eritrea" by Italian colonizers from 1890–1941) seceded in a United Nations referendum with the blessing of the newly formed Ethiopian government.

European Union

Before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009 no provision in the treaties or law of the European Union outlined the ability of a state to voluntarily withdraw from the EU. The European Constitution did propose such a provision and, after the failure to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, that provision was then included in the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty introduces an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. This formalises the procedure by stating that a member state may notify the European Council that it wishes to withdraw, upon which withdrawal negotiations begin; if no other agreement is reached the treaty ceases to apply to the withdrawing state two years after such notification.

Gran Colombia

After a decade of tumultuous federalism, Ecuador and Venezuela seceded from Gran Colombia in 1830, leaving the similarly tumultuous United States of Colombia, now the Republic of Colombia which also lost Panama in 1903.

Republic of India

Pakistan seceded from the British Indian empire in what is known as the so-called the Partition. Today, the Constitution of India does not allow Indian states to secede from the Union. The disputed occupied territory of Indian-administered Kashmir has had a violent nationalist movement against Indian annexation mostly in the Valley of Kashmir since 1989, which continues and is supported by Pakistan. Other violent secessionist movements in Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Punjab (known as the Khalistan movement), Mizoram and Tripura were also formerly active, while Tamil Nadu had a non-violent movement in the 1960s. While a violent Maoist insurgency continues to rage across a wide-swath of eastern rural India, the movement is not considered a secessionist movement because the goal of the Maoists is to overthrow the government of India, although rebel commanders have occasionally called for a Communist republic to be carved out of swaths of India. The Pakistani Armed organizations is a participant in the Kashmir conflict and strives to establish the merger state of Jammu and Kashmir from secular India to Muslim Pakistan.

Italy

The Movement for the Independence of Sicily (Movimento Indipendentista Siciliano, MIS) has its roots in the Sicilian Independentist Movement of the late 1940s. They have been around for 60 years and is the oldest movement in Italy. Lega Nord seeks the independence of Padania which includes lands along the Po Valley in northern Italy. Some organizations separately work for the independence of Venetia or Veneto and the session or reunification of South Tyrol with Austria.

Iran

Active secession movements include: Iranian Azeri, Assyrian independence movement, Bakhtiary lurs movement in 1876, Iranian Kurdistan; Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Khūzestān Province Balochistan indefependence movent for free separated Balochistan, (Arab nationalist); Al-Ahwaz Arab People's Democratic Popular Front, Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz (See Politics of Khūzestān Province: Arab politics and separatism), and Balochistan People's Party (BPP) supporting Baloch Separatism.

Malaysia

When racial and partisan strife erupted, Singapore was expelled from the Malaysian federation in 1965. Agitation for secession has since been sporadic on the culturally distinct large island of Borneo in the states of Sabah and Sarawak although these sentiments has been gaining momentum and supports in the past few years following the proliferation of social medias and failure of the central government to fulfill conditions of the Malaysia Agreement 1963

*Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia - Sabah Sarawak Union (UK), Sarawak Sovereignity Movement (SSM), Sabah Freedom Movement (SFM), Borneo's Plight in Malaysia (BOPIM), Sarawak People's Aspiration (SAPA), Borneo Youth Revolution (BYR), Semangat Satu Perjuangan Rakyat (SSPR), United Borneo Front (UBF)* 

Mexico

Texas seceded from Mexico in 1836 (see Texas Revolution), after animosity between the Mexican government and the American settlers of the Coahuila y Tejas State. It was later annexed by the United States in 1845.

The Republic of the Rio Grande seceded from Mexico on January 17, 1840, it rejoined Mexico on November 6 the same year.

After the federal system was abandoned by President Santa Anna, the Congress of Yucatán approved in 1840 a declaration of independence, establishing the Republic of Yucatán. The Republic rejoined Mexico in 1843.

New Zealand

Secession movements have surfaced several times in the South Island of New Zealand. A Premier of New Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel, was amongst the first people to make this call, which was voted on by the Parliament of New Zealand as early as 1865. The desire for South Island independence was one of the main factors in moving the capital of New Zealand from Auckland to Wellington in the same year.

The NZ South Island Party with a pro-South agenda, fielded only five candidates (4.2% of electoral seats) candidates in the 1999 General Election but only achieved 0.14% (2622 votes) of the general vote. The reality today is that although "South Islanders" are most proud of their geographic region, secession does not carry any real constituency; the party was not able to field any candidates in the 2008 election due to being unable to enlist 500 paying members, a requirement by the New Zealand Electoral commission. The party is treated more as a "joke" party than any real political force.

Nigeria

Between 1967 and 1970, the unrecognised state of Biafra (The Republic of Biafra) seceded from Nigeria, resulting in a civil war that ended with the state returning to Nigeria. Later in 1999 at the beginning of a new democratic regime, other secessionist movements emerged, the movement for the Actualization of a Sovereign state of Biafra was formed as a military wing of the Republic of Biafra.

Norway and Sweden

Sweden, having left the Kalmar Union with Denmark and Norway in the 16th century, entered into a loose personal union with Norway in 1814. Following a constitutional crisis, on June 7, 1905 the Norwegian Parliament declared that King Oscar II had failed to fulfill his constitutional duties. He was therefore no longer King of Norway and because the union depended on the two countries sharing a king, it was thus dissolved. After negotiations Sweden agreed to this on October 26 and on April 14

Pakistan

After the Awami League won the 1970 national elections, negotiations to form a new government floundered, resulting in the Bangladesh Liberation War by which the eastern wing of Pakistan seceded, to become Bangladesh. The Balochistan Liberation Army (also Baloch Liberation Army or Boluchistan Liberation army) (BLA) is a Baloch nationalist militant secessionist organization. The stated goals of the organization include the establishment of an independent state of Balochistan free of Pakistani and Iranian Federations. The name Baloch Liberation Army first became public in summer 2000, after the organization claimed credit for a series of bomb attacks in markets and removal of railways lines.

Papua New Guinea

The island of Bougainville has made several efforts to secede from Papua New Guinea.

Somalia

Somaliland is an autonomous region, which is part of the Federal Republic of Somalia. Those who call the area the Republic of Somaliland consider it to be the successor state of the former British Somaliland protectorate. Having established its own local government in Somalia in 1991, the region's self-declared independence remains unrecognized by any country or international organization.

Soviet Union

In 1990, after free elections, the Lithuanian SSR declared independence. Other SSRs followed leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

South Africa

In 1910, following the British Empire's defeat of the Afrikaner in the Boer Wars, four self-governing colonies in the south of Africa were merged into the Union of South Africa. The four regions were the Cape Colony, Orange Free State, Natal and Transvaal. Three other territories, High Commission Territories of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Basutoland (now Lesotho) and Swaziland later became independent states in the 1960s. Following the election of the Nationalist government in 1948, some English-speaking whites in Natal advocated either secession or a loose federation. There were also calls for secession, with Natal and the eastern part of the Cape Province breaking away. following the referendum in 1960 on establishing a republic, and in 1993, prior to South Africa's first elections under universal suffrage and the end of apartheid, some Zulu leaders in KwaZulu-Natal considered secession as did some politicians in the Cape Province.

In 2008, a political movement calling for the return to independence of the Cape resurged in the shape of the political organisation, the Cape Party. The Cape Party contested their first elections on 22 April 2009.

Spain

Spain (known officially as "the Kingdom of Spain") was assembled in the 15th and 16th centuries from various component kingdoms, from which Portugal seceded in the Portuguese Restoration War while other component kingdoms lost their secession wars. Spain has several secessionist movements, the most notable being in Catalonia and in the Basque Country.

Sri Lanka

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which has been banned in US, UK, EU, Canada, and many other countries as a terrorist group, operated a de facto independent state called Tamil Eelam in eastern and northern Sri Lanka until 2009.

Switzerland

In 1847, seven disaffected Catholic cantons formed a separate alliance because of moves to change the cantons of Switzerland from a confederation to a more centralized government federation. This effort was crushed in the Sonderbund war and a new Swiss Federal Constitution was created.

United Kingdom

Ireland is the only territory that has withdrawn from the United Kingdom proper. Ireland declared independence in 1916 and, as the Irish Free State, gained independence in 1922. Currently the United Kingdom has a number of secession movements:

In Northern Ireland, Irish Republicans and Nationalists in general, have long called for the secession of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom in order to join the Republic of Ireland. This is opposed by Unionists.

In Scotland the Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigns for Scottish independence and direct Scottish membership of the European Union. It has representation at all levels of Scottish politics and now forms the devolved Scottish Government. A number of nascent pro-independence parties have enjoyed only limited electoral success. The Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Enterprise Party are most widely publicised, however all independence movements/parties are opposed by Unionists. A referendum on the independence has been scheduled for 2014, after being agreed by Alex Salmond and David Cameron

In Wales, Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) stands for Welsh independence within the European Union. It is also represented at all levels of Welsh politics and is the third largest party in the National Assembly of Wales.

In Cornwall, supporters of Mebyon Kernow call for the creation of a Cornish Assembly and separation from England, giving the county significant self-government, whilst remaining within the United Kingdom as a fifth home nation.

In England the now-disbanded Free England Party (FEP) campaigned for English independence.

Parts of Southern England like Devon, the Isle of Wight, Minster in Kent, and Wessex, have autonomy movements.[citation needed]

Some of the more radical members of the British direct democracy movement in the Conservative Party (Daniel Hannan for example) – while not actually advocating secession – support the federalization of the UK into states along county boundaries (actually a proposal of 5 or 6 regions of England, 4 or 5 in Scotland and 3 in Wales). There are currently 9 government office regions in England and none in the other Home Nations.

United States

Discussions and threats of secession often surface in American politics, and secession was declared during the Civil War between the States. However in 1869 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was not permitted saying that the union between a state (Texas in the case before the bar) "was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

Yemen

North Yemen and South Yemen merged in 1990; tensions led to a 1994 southern secession which was crushed in a civil war.

Yugoslavia

On June 25, 1991, Croatia and Slovenia seceded from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Also Bosnia and Hercegovina and Macedonia declared independence. Followed, the federation collapsed, Serbia and Montenegro, was renamed to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Several wars ensued between FR Yugoslavia and seceding entitites and among other ethnic groups in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later, Kosovo. Montenegro peacefully separated from its union with Serbia in 2006.

Kosovo declared de facto independence on February 17, 2008, and was recognized by several dozen countries, but officially remains under United Nations administration.

There is a strong tendency for secession of the Republic of Srpska from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Source: http://www.borneoherald.com/2014/02/read-facts-about-secession.html#more

Read More