Sabah dan Sarawak adalah BERSTATUS NEGARA dan bukannya Negeri.

Sabah dan Sarawak adalah sebuah Negara yang MERDEKA DAN BERDAULAT yang mana kedua - dua NEGARA ini telah bersama-sama dengan Singapura dan Malaya untuk membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia pada 16 September 1963.

Happy Sabah (North Borneo) Independence Day 51 Years

Sabah or previously known as North Borneo was gained Independence Day from British on August 31, 1963. To all Sabahan, do celebrate Sabah Merdeka Day with all of your heart!

Sarawak For Sarawakian!

Sarawak stand for Sarawak! Sarawakian First. Second malaysian!

The Unity of Sabah and Sarawak

Sabah dan Sarawak adalah Negara yang Merdeka dan Berdaulat. Negara Sabah telah mencapai kemerdekaan pada 31 Ogos 1963 manakala Negara Sarawak pada 22 Julai 1963. Sabah dan Sarawak BUKAN negeri dalam Malaysia! Dan Malaysia bukan Malaya tapi adalah Persekutuan oleh tiga buah negara setelah Singapura dikeluarkan daripada persekutuan Malaysia.

Sign Petition to collect 300,000 signatures

To all Sabahan and Sarawakian... We urge you to sign the petition so that we can bring this petition to United Nations to claim our rights back as an Independence and Sovereign Country for we are the Nations that live with DIGNITY!

Decedent of Rajah Charles Brooke

Jason Desmond Anthony Brooke. The Grandson of Rajah Muda Anthony Brooke, and Great Great Grandson of Rajah Charles Brooke

A true Independence is a MUST in Borneo For Sabah and Sarawak.

Sabah (formerly known as North Borneo) and Sarawak MUST gain back its Freedom through a REAL Independence.

Monday, 6 July 2015

Professor: Sabah demands reasonable

KOTA KINABALU: The talks about secession by certain non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and politicians should not be viewed as a security threat by the government, said Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Head of International Relations programme, Professor Dr Kamarulzaman Askandar.

He opined that the authorities should instead put more efforts into finding the root cause of the problem from which the ideas to secede arose.

“When trying to diagnose an illness, for instance, the key is to inspect internally rather than to simply rely on surface analysis. Hence, rather than consuming efforts on searching for and apprehending individuals promoting secession, more efforts should instead be put into understanding the core on which such demand was built.

“These people (involved in secession issue) based their demand for secession on points such as where Sabah and Sarawak stood at the time of Malaysia’s formation, division of power, distribution of development priorities, and so on.

“For me, this is not merely a security issue but rather, we need to work on finding what it is that caused for such demand to arise and why,” he opined.

Kamarulzaman was speaking on a topic entitled, “Conflicts, Peace and Nation Building”. He was one of the four speakers who presented papers related to Sabah in the context of security, during the Nation Building Seminar at the YTL Auditorium, UMS, here yesterday.

Answering a question from the floor during the question and answer session after his talk yesterday, on whether the demands made by Sabah were reasonable, Kamarulzaman replied in the affirmative.
“In the case where an inch is given and a yard is taken, then there is a need to determine whether or not the demands are reasonable.

“When there are things formally promised through an agreement, like the 20-Point agreement in Sabah’s case, for example, it could mean that demands were made because there was something lacking in the process of implementing those promises.

“And while it’s not my place to say whether or not the demands made by Sabah are reasonable, I think it’s reasonable to expect consistent supply of electricity for instance, or for roads to be in good condition, for remote villages to get the basic necessities, or for all children to get quality education,” said Kamarulzaman.

The professor believed that in finding the solutions for peace among all the races in Malaysia, balance is the answer, whereby when there is imbalance in dividing priorities and a certain race gets the bigger slice of the cake, dissatisfaction is bound to surface.

“Each ethnic group has its own identity and while we talk about finding balance and peace, questions such as ‘Why are the Malays or the Muslims more dominant? Why are other ethnics or religion not given as much ‘airtime’ as the Malays and Muslims?’ arise.

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

Concluding his talk, he said while Malaysia was way past its infancy, the concept of nation in this country was still vague.

“We are still working on finding the meaning of a Malaysian nation and still looking for the proper balance. If we cannot find the answer in my lifetime, I apologise on behalf of my generation and it will be up to the future generation to keep on it.

“But never be afraid of variety because that is where our strength instead of weakness lies, so long as we find the proper balance.”

The last of the White Rajahs: The extraordinary story of the Victorian adventurer who subjugated a vast swathe of Borneo

Jungle kingdom: Borneo's Dayak warriors had a fierce reputation
Few things frightened the Dayak warriors of Borneo, who were infamous for the gruesome custom of head-hunting. But on a December day in 1912, a series of thunderous booms reverberated across the island’s misty swamps and sent them racing towards the shelter of their huts.

Many feared they were about to endure the wrath of the gods or at least a severe storm. But it was in fact a man-made cacophony, a 21-gun salute to announce the birth of a male heir to the throne of Sarawak, the small jungle kingdom on Borneo’s western coast.

The baby whose arrival was so celebrated that day was not, as might have been expected, one of the Dayaks, Malays or Chinese who made up Sarawak’s population of half a million.

Indeed, Anthony Brooke could hardly have been more British. Born thousands of miles away in England, he would later be educated at Eton and Oxford. Yet as far as the people of Sarawak were concerned, he was royalty.

Since 1841, his father’s family had taken it upon themselves to rule this remote region as their private empire. The White Rajahs, as they became known, had the power of life and death over their subjects, not to mention their own constabulary, flag and postage stamps.

Anthony, too, would go on to govern Sarawak. In fact, this bizarre and extraordinary dynasty — known as much for its eccentricity as for its benevolent rule — only came to an end this month when he died at the age of 98.

The family had come to power thanks to Anthony’s great-great-uncle James Brooke — a man so swashbucklingly adventurous that Errol Flynn once proposed to play him in a film about his life.

The family had come to power thanks to Anthony’s great-great-uncle James Brooke — a man so swashbucklingly adventurous that Errol Flynn once proposed to play him in a film about his life.

Born in Benares in 1803, he was the son of an English judge who worked for the East India Company.

As a young man he joined the Bengal Army, waging war against Burma as the British Empire sought to expand, but his dreams of glory ended abruptly when in 1825 he was shot in the most intimate part of the male anatomy.

During an understandably long convalescence, aided in true Empire fashion by daily cold baths, he began reading books about the Far East.

This later inspired him to lead the crew of a vast 142-ton sailing ship on a voyage to challenge Dutch control of southern Borneo.

His arrival in Sarawak in 1839 was timely. The region was controlled by the Sultan of neighbouring Brunei who was then facing a rag-tag uprising by local Malays.

He offered Brooke sovereignty over Sarawak if he could lead the Sultan’s army to victory against the rebels and the Englishman with a taste for lunatic danger quickly obliged.

As the newly-appointed Rajah, Brooke took charge of what amounted to 3,000 square miles of swamp, jungle and river, much of it populated by the Dayaks.

They marked important events in their lives by taking the heads of other people in the community. If a Dayak husband failed to present a human skull to his wife after the birth of a child then it was feared that the newborn would meet with illness or even death.

Likewise, no young Dayak warrior ever went courting without first donning an animal mask and skins and ambushing a fellow Dayak, often a woman or child from his own community.

He then made his intended a present of his victim’s skull.

Such acts were outlawed under the many new laws which James Brooke introduced to civilise Sarawak.

As self-appointed judge, he presided over court sessions in the front room of his own house, a hastily assembled plank-and-thatch affair in the capital Kuching.

With his pet orangutan, Betsy, scampering around in the background, the legal proceedings attracted much interest in Sarawak, although not for the reasons Brooke had intended.

For many, the main draw was the opportunity to place bets on the fate of those on trial including, in one most bizarre case, a man-eating crocodile.

This creature stood accused of killing a court translator who had toppled drunkenly into the river one night and, after much weighing of the arguments for and against its punishment, Brooke solemnly recorded the verdict in his journal.

‘I decided that he should be instantly killed without honours and he was dispatched accordingly; his head severed from his trunk and the body left exposed as a warning to all the other crocodiles that may inhabit these waters.’

Perhaps because of his delicate war injury, Brooke never married. Before his death in 1868, he nominated as heir his sister’s son Charles Johnson, a former sailor who changed his surname to Brooke upon becoming Rajah.

A beneficent and much-loved ruler who was 39 when he came to power, Charles extended the boundaries of the land under his control into the interior until it was the size of England, abolished slavery and built roads, waterworks and a even — in the style of a true Victorian — a railway.

He also encouraged his British officers to take native women as lovers in the hope that they would become ‘sleeping dictionaries’ who could teach them the local language. But at home he was somewhat less easy-going.

'Charles was something of a queer fish,’ his British wife, Margaret, once said. This was a somewhat understated description of a man who had lost his eye in a hunting accident and replaced it with a glass one, taken out of a stuffed albatross.

Charles forbade his sons to eat jam because he deemed it effeminate and his marriage became strained after he killed his wife’s pet doves and served them in a pie for her supper one night.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, she spent much of his 50-year period of rule back home in England. Seldom seen without a green parrot perched on her wrist, she lived in a house near Ascot called Greyfriars and became obsessed with finding wives for their three sons.

She did so by inviting eligible young women to join them in forming a musical ensemble known as the Greyfriars Orchestra. Among those attending the first rehearsal in 1902 was the Honourable Sylvia Brett — daughter of the 2nd Viscount Esher — later to become known by newspapers of the day as Sylvia, Queen of the Headhunters.

Although she had no musical skills, Sylvia’s contribution to the Greyfriars Orchestra was as a percussionist.

She obviously performed with beguiling effect, because one day the Brookes’ eldest son Vyner, then 28, made his move, asking if he might tune her drum.

A subsequent courtship resulted in their marriage in February 1911, after which they set sail for Sarawak.

By then, the Rajah’s Palace was an imposing affair, perched on a hill overlooking the river and comprising three airy bungalows with wide verandahs.

The couple would sleep through the afternoon, then have tea and play tennis or golf in the cool of the evening. It might have been an idyllic existence had Sylvia produced a son to ensure the succession after Charles and Vyner.

She became pregnant almost immediately, but the child she gave birth to in November 1911 was a girl — to Rajah Charles’s disappointment.

The following year, however, he received news from England that filled him with joy.

His second son Bertram had married Gladys Palmer, an heiress to the Huntley & Palmers biscuit fortune, and she’d had a boy called Anthony who would serve as an heir if Sylvia failed to produce a son of her own.

In jubilation, the Rajah ordered the firing of the 21-gun salute, which so alarmed the Dayak warriors.
Sylvia, who went on to have two more daughters but no sons, never forgave little Anthony for his much-heralded arrival in the world.

Sylvia would divide the rest of her life between battling to ensure that her daughters succeeded to the throne instead of Anthony and bestowing her sexual favours upon anyone she happened to find attractive.

She would divide the rest of her life between battling to ensure that her daughters succeeded to the throne instead of Anthony and bestowing her sexual favours upon anyone she happened to find attractive.

In this she was no worse than her husband, Vyner, who made no effort to conceal his liaisons with various Sarawakian mistresses. But in a European woman — and a Viscount’s daughter to boot — such behaviour was regarded as shocking. Not that this was likely to bother Sylvia.

By the time her father-in-law Rajah Charles Brooke died, in 1917, she was back in England, flaunting her exotic royal status. Sallying forth into London society in a Malay dress and yellow sarong, she topped her outfit off with a snakeskin headband and a tasselled red lacquer cane.

On her journey back to Sarawak to witness her husband Vyner’s oath of succession, she stopped in Cape Town for a few weeks. There she could not resist often disastrous dalliances with a series of South African men.

One came to her hotel room late at night and she discovered too late that, like her father-in-law, he had a glass eye. 

‘He carefully took it out and placed it on the mantelpiece while I watched the performance quite speechless,’ she wrote in her memoirs. ‘Even had I been the most passionate woman in the world I could not have sinned before that baleful, glittering orb.’

She spent the night sleeping upright in a chair, while her intended paramour snored in her bed.

Perhaps her wantonness ran in her genes, because as her daughters reached an age where they were interested in men, she encouraged amorous escapades with young Government officers in Sarawak.

The antics of Princesses Gold, Pearl and Baba, as they were nicknamed by locals, fascinated the press in both Britain and America — and by the Thirties Sarawak had become something of a music-hall joke.

As he grew older, Vyner appeared to lose interest in the day-to-day business of government and considered abdicating. Since his brother Bertram had suffered a nervous breakdown and was incapable of rule, his natural successor was his nephew, Anthony.

In 1939, during one of Vyner’s annual pilgrimages to England for the flat-racing season, the 23-year-old heir apparent was left in charge of the country for six months.

He made a good impression on the British Colonial Office, despite his aunt Ranee Sylvia accusing him of inflated self-importance. She reported, among other things, that he had attached a gold cardboard crown to his car and ordered ox-carts and rickshaws to draw aside as he passed.

He denied these charges, but he was never allowed to inherit the rule of Sarawak because in 1946 Vyner agreed to cede it to the British Crown in return for a substantial financial settlement for him and his family. So it became Britain’s last colonial acquisition. 

After failing in a long legal battle to have the sale of Sarawak reversed, Anthony began a second career as a self-styled ‘ambassador-at-large for the people of the world’, travelling the globe and campaigning for peace.

This put an increasing strain on his marriage to Kathleen Hudden, the sister of a Sarawak government official. They had three children but eventually separated, not least because of his increasingly bizarre beliefs.

At one point, he joined a New Age Commune in North-Eastern Scotland and adopted their belief that flying saucers would one day bring ‘peace on earth and to the brotherhood of man’.

He and Kathleen finally divorced in 1973 when he told her he was about to be contacted by extra-terrestrials and did not want her caught up in whatever dramas ensued.

He went on to marry a peace campaigner from Sweden who was 18 years his junior. Together they travelled the world, producing a newsletter which focused on issues, including environmental protection and the rights of indigenous people, before finally settling in New Zealand, 5,000 miles from the land he once dreamed of ruling.

We will never know how Sarawak would have fared if he had ruled for longer than those brief six months, but these details of his later life suggest one thing.

When it came to continuing his family’s tradition of idiosyncratic government, history would not have been disappointed in Anthony Brooke, the last of the White Rajahs.

Singapore Separates From Malaysia And Becomes Independent on August 9th, 1965


On 9 August 1965, Singapore separated from Malaysia to become an independent and sovereign state.[1] The separation was the result of deep political and economic differences between the ruling parties of Singapore and Malaysia,[2] which created communal tensions that resulted in racial riots in July and September 1964.[3] At a press conference announcing the separation, then Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was overcome by emotions and broke down. Singapore’s union with Malaysia had lasted for less than 23 months.[4]

Singapore in Malaysia

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew signed the Malaysia Agreement in London on 9 July 1963.[5] The agreement spelt out the terms for the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah), which was to take place on 31 August 1963.[6] The terms for Singapore’s entry into Malaysia, which were agreed upon by both the Singapore and federal governments, were published in a White Paper in November 1961.[7] This White Paper documented the outcome of talks between Lee and then Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman on Singapore’s inclusion into Malaysia. The terms included the margins of Singapore's autonomy, Singapore's political representation in the federal government, the status of Singapore citizens and Singapore’s revenue contribution to the federal government.[8] Prior to the signing of the Malaysia Agreement in London, there was a week of “arduous and gruelling negotiations” over the more thorny issues of a common market between Singapore and Malaya, and the portion of Singapore’s revenue and taxes that would go to the federal government.[9] With these issues settled, Singapore began its journey as part of Malaysia.

A Difficult Union

Even before the proclamation of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963, Singapore and Malayan leaders were mindful that the differences in the political approach and economic conditions between the two countries “cannot be wiped out overnight”.[10] This, however, did not prevent sharp exchanges between the leaders of both countries throughout the period of the union. The slow progress of the creation of a common market and the difficulty in getting pioneer status from Kula Lumpur for Singapore industries frustrated Singapore leaders, while Kuala Lumpur was dissatisfied with Singapore's dogged response to the federal government’s clamour for increased revenue contribution to combat the Indonesian Confrontation, and for an agreed loan to develop Sabah and Sarawak.[11]

At the political front, the grossly imbalanced Malay-Chinese population in both countries made each vulnerable to communal prejudices which were played up by political leaders. The two major political parties in Malaysia, the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), were soon accusing one another of communalism. The accusations escalated into tensions until they erupted into racial violence in Singapore on 21 July and 2 September 1964.[12] Despite agreeing to a two-year truce in September 1964, the acrimony between UMNO and PAP soon flared up again. At the heart of the rift was Lee’s multi-racial slogan, “Malaysian Malaysia”, which sowed deep distrust among UMNO leaders, especially the “ultras”, who viewed his vision of a non-communal Malaysia as a challenge to their party’s raison d'être of undisputed Malay dominance.[13]

Separation

By the second half of 1965, the stormy political climate in Malaysia showed no signs of easing. Tunku Abdul Rahman, who had become the Malaysian Prime Minister, was pressed to intervene to avoid a repeat of the communal clashes that had taken place in 1964. During his London trip to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in June 1965, the Tunku decided that severing Singapore from the federation was the only course and communicated this to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, who was instructed to sound out the senior Malaysian ministers and lay the groundwork for separation.[14] By the time the Tunku returned to Kuala Lumpur on 5 August, Singapore’s days in the federation were numbered.[15]

The week leading to 9 August 1965 was a busy time for the leaders of both countries as by this time, separation had become a certainty.[16] Negotiations were, however, done in complete secrecy. In Singapore, not only were civil servants and permanent secretaries kept in the dark, but some senior PAP cabinet members, most notably Deputy Prime Minister Toh Chin Chye and Culture Minister Rajaratnam, were also clueless. Leading the negotiations for Singapore was then Finance Minister Goh Keng Swee, and for Malaysia, Tun Razak.[17] Razak was aiming to convene a federal parliament sitting on 9 August and was pushing for the legal paperwork for the release of Singapore to be tabled at that session.[18] In Singapore, Lee had asked then Law Minister E. W. Barker to draft the separation agreement at the end of July, along with other legal documents such as the Proclamation of Independence.[19]

As the deadline of 9 August neared, Goh and Barker made arrangements to travel to Kuala Lumpur to finalise the separation, arriving quietly in the capital on 6 August. Lee, who was in Cameron Highlands at that time, left for Kuala Lumpur and also arrived on 6 August to study and approve the separation documents. Thereafter, the separation draft prepared by Barker occupied the attention of five men – Razak, Malaysian Attorney-General Kadir Yusof, Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Ismail bin Dato Abdul Rahman, Barker and Goh. The final version, which included a few amendments and insertions, were typed late that night and signed by Goh, Barker, Razak, Ismail, Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin and Malaysian Minister for Works V. T. Sambanthan well after midnight.[20]

After Lee was shown the final signed separation documents by Barker, he called Toh and Rajaratnam in Singapore to meet him the following morning. Arriving in Kuala Lumpur separately on 7 August, both Toh and Rajaratnam were particularly distraught when Lee told them of the news, and were not willing to sign the agreement.[21] However, a letter written by the Tunku to Toh stressing the former’s irrevocable decision – that there was “absolutely no other way out” – left them with no choice.[22] Realising that their persistence to pursue the status quo could well mean bloodshed, both Toh and Rajaratnam reluctantly signed.[23]

Lee then flew back to Singapore on 8 August on a Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) jet so that he could get the separation agreement signed by the rest of his cabinet members. Two other individuals were called upon to assist with the task to meet the 9 August deadline: John Le Cain, the Police Commissioner, to ensure law and order, and Stanley Stewart, head of the Singapore Civil Service, to prepare and print the special gazette and proclamation of independence notices.[24] The Government Printing Office (GPO) had to recall its staff overnight, and to keep the lid on the separation, Stewart locked the GPO.[25] Encoded messages on the separation were also dispatched to the British, Australian and New Zealand prime ministers in the wee hours.[26]

Similarly in Kuala Lumpur on 8 August, things also moved swiftly as Razak had to ensure that everything was ready for the Tunku’s address to the federal parliament the following day, where he would move a bill to amend the constitution that would provide for Singapore’s departure from the Federation. Razak was also waiting for the fully signed separation agreement from Singapore to allay possible suggestions that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia. Only when the RMAF craft sent to Singapore to collect the document bearing the signatures of the entire Singapore cabinet arrived in Kuala Lumpur did he share the purpose of the 9 August parliament session with the chief ministers, mentri besars and state rulers in the Federation.[27]

The Birth of Singapore

The proclamation declaring Singapore’s independence was announced on Radio Singapore at 10:00 am on 9 August 1965.[28] Simultaneously in Kuala Lumpur, the Tunku announced the separation to the federal parliament. He then moved a resolution to enact the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Bill, 1965, that would allow Singapore to leave Malaysia and become an independent and sovereign state. The bill was passed with a 126-0 vote and given the royal assent by the end of the day.[29] Singapore TV also aired the press conference called by Lee at 4:30 p.m.[30] During the press conference, Lee explained why the separation was inevitable despite his long-standing belief in the merger, and called on the people to remain firm and calm. Filled with emotions and his eyes brimming with tears, Lee had given Singaporeans a glimpse of their leader’s “moment of anguish”.[31]

Many rallied behind the news of the separation with relief although the manner of its announcement came as a shock and was initially greeted with disappointment and regret.[32] It was slightly less than two years ago that the people of Singapore had backed Lee’s merger through their votes in the September 1962 referendum.[33] However when merger came, the greater share of it was marked by constant differences and bitter political wrangling between leaders of the two nations.[34] Although all signs were pointing to trouble, very few were prepared for the dramatic end to Singapore’s union with Malaysia.

Anthony Brooke

Anthony Brooke, who died on March 2 aged 98, was heir to the throne of Sarawak and briefly ruled the romantic jungle kingdom on Borneo with the powers of the last White Rajah.

Brooke's English family had been the absolute rulers of Sarawak for three generations. Popularly known as the White Rajahs, they had their own money, stamps, flag and constabulary, and the power of life and death over their various subjects – Malays, Chinese and Dyak tribesmen, a few of whom still indulged in the grisly custom of headhunting.

The founder of the Brooke Raj was Anthony's great-great-uncle, James, who in 1839 sailed to the East with dreams of extending British influence throughout the Malay Archipelago. At Singapore, the Governor asked him to take a present to the ruler of Sarawak, then under the suzerainty of the Sultan of Brunei, to thank him for saving some shipwrecked British sailors.

When he got there, Brooke found Sarawak's Dyak tribesmen in revolt against an unfair system of taxation, and by 1841 the desperate ruler was prepared to give him the government and revenues of Sarawak if he could suppress the uprising, which he did.

On his return to London, Brooke was presented to Queen Victoria as Rajah of Sarawak, and knighted. In Sarawak, meanwhile, he won a devoted following with his integrity and frank exuberance. Each day he would stroll about the Malay kampungs, Chinese shophouses and Dyak longhouses, chatting to his subjects, and he was always open to visits at his bungalow. He introduced a just code of laws and enlisted the help of his friend Admiral Henry Keppel to clear up the piracy along Sarawak's coastline.

Among those serving in Keppel's ship, Dido, was James Brooke's nephew, Charles Johnson, who soon entered his bachelor uncle's service and eventually succeeded him as Rajah in 1868, whereupon he took the name of Brooke. A austere character – he deemed jam "effeminate" and replaced his lost eye with a glass one from a stuffed albatross – Rajah Charles nevertheless proved a notably effective and benevolent ruler. He extended Sarawak into the interior (it was eventually the size of England), abolished slavery, rebuilt the capital Kuching and constructed roads, waterworks and even a short railway.

Charles's first three legitimate children all died within a week from cholera while sailing up the Red Sea on their way back to England on leave, but his wife subsequently bore him three more sons, the eldest of whom, Charles Vyner Brooke, known as Vyner, was destined to become the third Rajah of Sarawak. The couple's second son, Bertram, was Anthony's father.

Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke, always known in his family as Peter, was born on December 10 1912, the fourth child and only son of Bertram and his wife Gladys, the only daughter of Sir Walter Palmer, first and last Baronet – and thus heiress to a sizeable slice of the Huntley & Palmer biscuit fortune.

Anthony's mother was a restless exhibitionist who went through a number of religious conversions. In 1932 she converted to Islam while on a flight from Croydon to Paris, after which she went by the name of Khair-ul-Nissa (Fairest of Women).

She separated from her more retiring husband when Anthony was four but, having produced the longed-for son, remained in favour with her father-in-law, who ordered a 21-gun salute at Kuching when Anthony was born. The old Rajah was far less well disposed towards Vyner's equally flamboyant wife, Sylvia, who managed only daughters.

In the Rajah's political will he bequeathed sovereignty to Vyner but made no secret of his preference for Bertram, who would have to be consulted on any "material developments", and stand in for his brother whenever Vyner was away from the country. After Charles's death in 191, Vyner and Bertram effectively shared power, each spending half the year acting as Rajah in Sarawak.

As for Anthony, he grew up in England, where he was educated at Eton. After a year at Trinity, Cambridge, he studied Malay language and Muslim law at the School of Oriental Studies in London, before travelling for the first time to Borneo in June 1934.

Anthony was seconded to the Malayan Civil Service, serving as an acting resident and magistrate, before returning to Sarawak in 1936. After spells at the outstations of Nanga Meluan and Marudi, and at the Kuching Secretariat, he returned to England in 1938 to study colonial administration at Oxford and complete his grooming as his uncle's heir.

The following year Anthony returned to Sarawak to become district officer at Mukah. Bertram, meanwhile, had become incapable, after a nervous breakdown, of discharging his responsibilities in the power-sharing arrangement with Vyner, and so in April 1939 Vyner appointed Anthony as Rajah Muda (Heir Apparent) and Officer Administering the Government during his annual periods of leave in England.

During his six months in charge of Sarawak, Anthony enacted various education reforms and amended the penal code on whipping, the protection of women and girls and the punishment of mutiny; he also issued a proclamation supporting Britain's declaration of war against Germany and Italy.

Overall he made a favourable impression on the Governor of Straits Settlements, Sir Shenton Thomas, who noted that he seemed enthusiastic to make Sarawak a model state. The Colonial Office, too, felt that here was a man with whom it could do business, unlike the increasingly eccentric Rajah Vyner.

When Vyner returned to Sarawak in 1939 on outbreak of war in Europe, however, he was told by senior members of the Sarawak Service that his nephew had been supercilious, reluctant to take advice and had displayed a tendency to judge officers according to their horoscopes. Anthony had by then left Sarawak to get married and it was on his way back from honeymoon in Sumatra that he heard his uncle had deprived him of the title of Rajah Muda, saying he was "not yet fitted to exercise the responsibilities of this high position".

Ranee Sylvia inferred that part of the problem had been Anthony's marriage to Kathleen Hudden, the "commoner" sister of a Sarawak government official. "I don't like to be snobbish," she told reporters, "but the natives are very particular about these things." The unreliable Ranee later alleged that Anthony had been guilty of folie de grandeur, having cardboard crowns pinned to his car and ordering traffic to draw aside as he approached. Anthony denied this.

The furore eventually subsided, a peace was brokered, and Anthony returned to Sarawak as a district officer in early 1941, and was due to be reinstated as Rajah Muda. However, in September he was again expelled from the country by Vyner, this time for objecting to various aspects of a proposed new constitution. Three months later, in December 1941, Sarawak fell to the Japanese.

By this time, Anthony was back in England, enrolled as a private soldier in the British Army. In 1944, by which time he was on Lord Louis Mountbatten's staff in Ceylon, the British government approached Rajah Vyner suggesting they discuss how Sarawak and Britain might be "marched together in the future".

Reluctant to involve himself in such discussions, Vyner once again turned to his nephew, restoring him again as Rajah Muda, and appointing him head of a Provisional Government of Sarawak in London to explore what the British government had in mind. The talks quickly broke down when it emerged that Britain intended that Sarawak join the Empire, an outcome to which Anthony was vehemently opposed.

Not to be frustrated, the British government made a direct approach after the war ended to the Rajah, and he agreed to cede Sarawak to the British Crown in return for a financial settlement for him and his family. He then wrote to Anthony once again abolishing his title of Rajah Muda.

The cession was put to a vote of the State Council in Kuching, where the majority of the indigenous members voted against it, but it was carried by white government officials loyal to the Rajah. Hence, on July 1 1946, Sarawak became Britain's last colonial acquisition.

There followed a five-year campaign in Sarawak aimed at revoking its new colonial status, which Anthony Brooke helped direct from his house in Singapore. He urged that it be non-violent, but in 1949, after the second Governor, Duncan Stewart, was assassinated by a young Malay, he came under the scrutiny of MI5, who wanted to "get wind of any other plots he and his associates might be hatching". But they turned up no evidence that he had known of the assassination plot.

For his own part, Anthony Brooke was quick to distance himself from the extremists, and when his legal challenge to the cession was finally dismissed by the Privy Council in 1951, he renounced once and for all his claim to the throne of Sarawak and sent a cable to Kuching appealing to the anti-cessionists to cease their agitation and accept His Majesty's Government.

The anti-cessionists instead continued their resistance to colonial rule until 1963, when Sarawak was included in the newly independent federation of Malaysia. Two years later, Anthony Brooke was welcomed back by the new Sarawak Government for a nostalgic visit.

By this time he had embarked on a second career as a self-styled "travelling salesman" for world peace. In the late 1950s, he led a campaign to put morality back into British politics, and in the 1960s he toured the world on a "peace pilgrimage", meeting Nehru, Zhou En-lai and U Nu of Burma, and walking across the Punjab with the Indian saint Vinoba Bhave. He lived with the New Age commune at Findhorn, in the northeast of Scotland, adopting their belief that flying saucers would bring "peace on earth and the brotherhood of man".

After divorcing his first wife in 1973, he married Gita Keiller, from Sweden, 18 years his junior, and together they founded Operation Peace Through Unity, which produced a quarterly newsletter, Many to Many, with "news items, strategies, poems and letters from around the world, for use in the cause of peace, environmental protection and the rights of indigenous peoples".

They continued their globe-trotting campaign until the late 1980s, when they came to roost in a wooden villa on a hill above the town of Wanganui on the north island of New Zealand. Towards the end of his life, Anthony Brooke remained saint-like in his good nature, and remarkably forgiving about those members of his family who had conspired to deprive him of his singular inheritance.

He is survived by his second wife and by a son and a daughter from his previous marriage; another daughter predeceased him.

Friday, 3 July 2015

Jeffrey ‘proven right’ on ‘enemy in the state’

The Navy and EssCom echo Jeffrey’s stand on the “enemy within” but warn the problem has become complex.

KOTA KINABALU: Bingkor assemblyman Jeffrey Kitingan has taken heart from recent statements by the Eastern Sabah Security Command (EssCom) and the Navy conceding that “the enemy was within the state”. “However, the illegal immigrants from the Philippines are not the only enemy within.”

Coastguard Officer First Admiral M. Karunanithi, for one, has warned that the problem of illegal immigrants in the Eastern Sabah Security Zone (EssZone) has become “complex” and would require careful planning and the participation of all stakeholders over a period of time, more than two years, to see some results.

EssCom Chief of Staff (Special Investigation and Technical) SAC Rosli Mohd Isa has warned that “the enemy is within the state”, specifically in EssZone which was declared after the intrusion in Lahad Datu two years ago by Sulu terrorists.

These enemies, which Rosli referred to as “moles”, were everywhere among the illegal immigrants especially in the EssZone. He didn’t provide any figures but it has been estimated in the past, in 2010, that there are some 1.7 million foreigners in Sabah including illegal immigrants as against 1.5 million locals.

One statement by EssCom, noted Jeffrey, has it calling for the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission’s (MACC) involvement in the Eastern Sabah Security Zone (EssZone) to “check on corruption and the lack of integrity among civil servants and security forces”.

Jeffrey noted that EssCom has set a target of deporting 200,000 illegal immigrants from EssZone. “This may be a start, although the number of foreigners including illegal immigrants is in the region of 1.7 million people. There are also indications that the security problems elsewhere have become more serious.”

“The seriousness of the security situation can be gauged from internal and external developments.”

Internally, added Jeffrey, the authorities have increased the number of security personnel by another battalion. “The continuing incidents of cross-border kidnappings including that of security personnel for ransom, and the thwarting of at least six kidnapping attempts, and EssCom issuing regular statements calling for co-operation and feedback are other indications of increased security threats.”

Externally, continued Jeffrey, Sabah was suffering from three threats viz. the export of Umno’s brand of race and religion-driven politics, for one, which threaten the peace and harmony in a state of many multis – race, religion, and culture.

Secondly, the issuance of dubious ICs to illegal immigrants in Sabah, masterminded from Putrajaya. “This is a time bomb as confirmed by EssCom.”

Thirdly, the Federal Government having realised that the Filipino illegal immigrants in Sabah have become a time-bomb, has chosen to create another time-bomb as a balance of terror i.e. the issuance of ICs to Indonesians, especially Bugis.

“The Filipinos in Sabah are becoming increasingly restive over their perception that the Federal Government was favouring the Indonesians at their expense,” said Jeffrey. “It’s anybody’s guess what will happen in the future if the Filipinos and Indonesians go for each other’s throats.”

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/07/03/jeffrey-proven-right-on-enemy-in-the-state/

Putrajaya’s ‘time bombs’ bigger threat than separatists, says Jeffrey Kitingan

The security of Sabah looks bleak in the long term as the current threats from “outside and within” are supplanted by “three additional time bombs planted by Putrajaya and Umno”, says Sabah State Reform Party (STAR) chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan.

He said the “time bombs” that Putrajaya and Umno “knowingly, unknowingly or unwittingly” planted, pose a far greater threat to the security of the state than that posed by the separatists from the nationalist group Sabah-Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM).

He said it could even trigger the break-up of Malaysia.

“The export of Umno’s brand of race and religion and religious extremism and fanaticism is fanning Islamic militarism as seen from arrests of Isis (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) militants including from Sabah,” Kitingan said in response to the statement by Eastern Sabah Security Command's (Esscom) deputy director of intelligence ACP Hashim Justin on the two new threats faced by the command.
Kitingan said the export of Umno's brand of religion not only threatened the peace and harmony of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Sabah but was also fanning Isis fanaticism.

He said recent events in the peninsula showed “a growing talibanisation or misconceived arabisation as former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad puts it”.

“Now, it may be a sarong dress code and objections to music concerts.

“In time to come, the dress code for women will not be tudung or veil but mandatory burqa and the banning of all non-Islamic music and barring of women to travel unaccompanied by another male relative.”

With the demographic landscape of the state doctored to turn Sabah into a Muslim-majority state, the number of Muslim lawmakers in the state legislative assembly and growing support from hardline PAS, there is no guarantee that hudud will not be implemented in Sabah, Kitingan said.

The “second time-bomb”, he said, was planted “decades ago with the issuance of dubious ICs and MyKads to foreigners, especially from southern Philippines”.

“This time-bomb is confirmed by the recent Esscom statements and actions.

“It is now deadly and going to explode at any time aided by corruption and lack of integrity of civil servants and security personnel,” said Kitingan.

He said with the Malaysia-sponsored Bangsamoro Peace Framework in Mindanao, southern Philippines, “there is no stopping Malaysians of Filipino descent agreeing in the longer term to team up and take Sabah out to form part of the Bangsamoro homeland”.

He described the third time bomb as Putrajaya’s issuance of citizenships to Indonesians, especially the Bugis, to counter the numbers of Filipino descent population.

“With the growing regional nationalism, there is no guarantee that the Bugis, both imported into Sabah and in Indonesia, will not carve out part of Sabah to join up with their brethren in Sulawesi.

“This can be seen by our own prime minister, who despite being generations as Malaysians had openly acknowledged his Bugis warrior bloodline,”

Kitingan said the favouritism shown by Putrajaya for Indonesians over the Filipinos made the latter uneasy.

“How will things turn out in Sabah and Malaysia is as good as anyone’s guess,” he said.

With Sabah being the golden goose to Putrajaya given the huge reserve in oil and gas, the state, he added, is a prize worth fighting for. – July 1, 2015.

Wednesday, 1 July 2015

BREAK FREE FROM MALAYAN MENTAL COLONISATION!

Some Sarawakian remain too attached to anything Malayan that they prefer to be reliant to Malaya/Malaysia, both politically and psychologically

THE MALAYANS ARE ALMOST DONE WITH THE COLONISATION OF SARAWAK!

And not only politically and physically, but also mentally, and the bad news is, some Sarawakians seem to be letting themselves to be colonised volunterily.

The figures are still high now, but it is very fortunate a lartge number of Sarawakians had became aware about this, and chose to break free from Malayan 'chains'.

There are so many Sarawakians who still prefer to be subordinates to Malaya, even considering themselves hardcore and loyal Malaysians, when Sarawak had been treated unfairly over the last half a century, and the Sarawak rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), without which 'Malaysia' would never existed, had been breached and broken.

It seems they are very much ready to be 'slaves' owned by Malaysia, not as an equal partners as stipulated in MA63. The Malayans had somehow succeded to make them (the Sarawakians) to believe that to survive, they would have to continue to be dependent on the Malayans.

But as fellow Sarawakians, we cannot blame them, as the Malayan propaganda machine had worked wonders over them to make those poor Sarawakians believing that the Malayans want them to believe and not the truth, and even to make things worse, the Malayans had ruled with a cruel fist (ISA, Sedition Act 1948) to force them to believe.

All we can do now is, to help convince these fellow Sarawakians to break free from the Malayan mental colonisation, no longer be dependent on Malaya/Malaysia, and to think about independence for Sarawak.

How are we going to do that? Firsthandly, we need to understand why some Sarawakians are very dependent on Malaya/Malaysia, and how those Sarawakians are somehow 'addicted' to Malaya.

After more than half  a century being a part of the Federation of Malaysia, some Sarawakians had in some way absorbed 'Malaysia' and 'Malaya' as part of their lives, despite of the apparent unfair treatments given to Sarawak, until they may not be able to be dependent from Malaya, and from there on, able to make decisions on their own.

Those Sarawakians are being very dependent on Malaysia and Malaya, and most preferring to keep on to live inside their 'comfort zones', and will not want to bother for a massive change, that is ultimate independence. But how will Sarawak be independent if the greater part of Sarawakians are being very dependent on both Malaya and Malaysia? 

In a sense, those Sarawakians are 'addicted' to Malaya and Malaysia, and they are one way or another not free in making decisions, in fear of losing so much should they become liberated from Malaya. 

Usually, Sarawakians can be reliant economically, culturally, socially and personally to Malaya, and the reliance can only be overcame once the dependent individuals break free by being prepared to make sacrifices, as Malaya may have been making sure us Sarawakians to be dependent on it all through the years, and will go on to do so to keep us submitting to them.

How are Sarawakians being reliant on Malaya economically? Malayan jobs, either with Malayan companies or the Federal departments, make available livelihoods for a great number of Sarawakians. And sadly, due to his dependence, those Sarawakians may be indifferent to see Sarawak separated from Malaya.

Another characteristic that shows the dependency of some Sarawakians on Malaya is when it comes to goods and services. Those Sarawakians generally are too dependent on Malayan goods and services, even though there are in reality superior and cheaper local Sarawakian alternatives. Malayan propaganda over the years had represented Sarawakian goods as 'of poor qualities' and even 'hazardous'.

 Isn't there is a likelihood that there were hands during the last fifty years, in making sure we Sarawakians will continue to be dependent on Malaya? Isn't there a probability there were efforts to make certain the considerable economic disparities between Malaya and Sarawak?

Besides, the majority of Sarawakians are dependent on Malaya culturally. Sarawakians over half a century, had accepted Malayan/Malaysian cultures - Malayan literature, films, TV shows, songs, and sports events (for example, Malaysia Cup football) - as a part of their lives, and may not want to give them up simply.

While it is tolerable for a people to assume cultures from outside their territories, it must be very incorrect for the people to be passionate to those cultures and even being dependent on them, even to the degree of overlooking their own.

This is what Malaya may have been doing to Sarawak all this while. While peoples had acknowledged foreign cultures elsewhere, it is surely not natural for peoples to deem some foreign cultures as their own, and even being too reliant on them.

Socially, Sarawakians also can be very dependent on Malaya, particularly in education, health, administration, legal practices and event politics. THis we cannot avoid as Sarawak is still lacking in term of social development and educational, health and legal facilities. Nevertheless, that does not mean we should carry on being reliant on Malaya.

"If Sarawakians want to start think seriously about independence, they must see Malaya/Malaysia as a foreign land, and Kuala Lumpur is not a place we should idolise, so that we can be free from the Malayan mental colonisation"

Source: The Sarawakian Sarawak Freedom Magazine July 2015

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Rakyat Tahu Siapa Penjajah, Agen Penjajah dan Pengkhianat!

Rakyat sebenarnya tahu dan nampak, siapa "Penjajah", "Agen penjajah" dan “Pengkhianat” sebenar! Dan rakyat juga tahu siapa rakyat atau pemimpin yang benar-benar berjuang memelihara dan melindungi kedaulatan dan keselamatan Negara Bangsa Sabah!

Sejarah membuktikan, sifat "Agen Penjajah" kadangkala lebih jahat, hina dan keji daripada "Penjajah"! Kerana "Agen Penjajah" mengkhianati negara dan bangsa sendiri semata-mata kerana agenda, motif dan muslihat untuk mendapatkan suaka politik, kedudukan jawatan atau kepentingan periuk nasi sendiri! Mereka bukan membela kedaulatan, keselamatan, maruah dan nasionalisme Negara Bangsa Sabah, tetapi mereka hanya mahu membela diri sendiri untuk kepentingan sendiri!

Bagi mencapai agenda, motif dan muslihat mereka, “Agen Penjajah” terpaksa memutar belit fakta, menipu, berbohong, berpura-pura, bermuka-muka, memeras ugut, menindas, bertindak zalim, menganiaya, memecat, membunuh, memenjara atau menyeksa rakyat Negara dan Bangsa Sabah! Atas pengaruh, tekanan dan kerjasama pihak “Penjajah”, “Agen Penjajah” bertindak sebagai boneka atau proksi, menjadi Pak Angguk, Pak Turut, Pak Unta dan Pak Hamba kepada “Penjajah”! Mereka mewujudkan dan berselindung di sebalik pelbagai sistem dan peraturan yang mengikat dan menindas hak dan kuasa rakyat! Mereka menggubal pelbagai sistem untuk menutup kebangkitan kesedaran kebangsaan, menutup pemikiran dan suara rakyat!

Sedangkan “Penjajah” menjajah untuk tujuan meluaskan empayar atau jajahan takluk, meluaskan kuasa dan pengaruh, mendapatkan sumber ekonomi/ bahan mentah, mendapatkan kawasan pasaran baru, mendapatkan kekuatan dalam aspek keselamatan, dan menyebarkan agama atau tamadun mereka dengan menjajah negara-negara atau wilayah-wilayah lain yang mereka anggap lebih lemah.

“Agen Penjajah” merujuk kepada seorang rakyat, atau sekumpulan individu rakyat, atau pemimpin, atau pertubuhan dalam sesebuah negara yang dipergunakan atau diperalat oleh “Penjajah” untuk mencapai agenda penjajahan pihak “Penjajah”! Justeru, “Agen Penjajah” bersubahat dengan “Penjajah", dan mereka mempunyai hubungan terancang dan sulit untuk mencapai agenda bersama! “Agen Penjajah”, mereka licik dan pandai bermuka-muka, berpura-pura bagi menunjukkan mereka baik dan betul, mencanangkan sesuatu isu bagi mengaburi atau mengalihkan minda rakyat, menghulurkan bantuan-bantuan bersifat sementara, tetapi hakikatnya mereka adalah petualang, pengkhianat, duri dalam daging, gunting dalam lipatan, musuh dalam selimut, api dalam sekam, kanser dalam daging sebenar! Sifat-sifat buruk, jijik dan keji yang dimiliki oleh “Agen Penjajah” inilah yang menyebabkan mereka dianggap sebagai “Pengkhianat”!

Dalam konteks Negara Sabah, "Penjajah" bermaksud pihak yang telah menyebabkan Sabah kehilangan kuasa kemerdekaan dan kedaulatan sebagai sebuah "Negara". “Penjajah” ini telah memungkiri dan mengkhianati Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia. “Penjajah” inilah yang telah menyebabkan Sabah kehilangan kuasa politik, kuasa ekonomi dan sumber-sumber kekayaan! “Penjajah” inilah yang telah menjajah minda rakyat Negara Sabah melalui penipuan dan manipulasi sejarah kenegaraan. “Penjajah” dan “Agen Penjajah” inilah yang telah bersama-sama bersubahat menurunkan taraf “Negara Sabah” kepada “Negeri Sabah”!

“Penjajah” inilah yang telah membawa seribu satu macam penyakit dan masalah ke Sabah melalui kerjasama “Agen Penjajahan” yang telah menjadi “Pengkhianat”! “Penjajah”, “Agen Penjajah” dan “Pengkhianat” ini telah bersama-sama mewujudkan “Projek IC”, “Projek Kewarganegaraan Songsang”, “Projek Pengundi Hantu”, “Projek Pengundi Disewa Beli”, “Projek Membeli ADUN”, “Projek Memindahkan Pengundi”, “Projek Menggugurkan Senarai Nama Pengundi”, “Projek Sijil Lahir”, “Projek Menambahkan Kawasan ADUN/Parlimen”, “Projek Merampas Tanah Sabah”, “Projek Merampas Tanah NCR Masyarakat Native”, “Projek Dasar Kabotaj (Carbotage Policy), “Projek GST”, “Projek Merampas Minyak dan Gas Sabah”, “Projek Merampas Cukai Sabah”, dan seribu satu macam lagi projek yang telah membawa penyakit kronik ke Sabah!

Justeru, rakyat tahu dan nampak, “Siapa Penjajah, Agen Penjajah dan Pengkhianat” yang sebenar yang telah merosakkan Negara Bangsa Sabah! Jika rakyat sudah tahu dan nampak, adakah rakyat faham, sedar dan insaf? Apa tindakan yang patut mereka buat sekarang? Fikir-fikirkan..!

Sumber: Borneo Nationalist

Sunday, 28 June 2015

PERJANJIAN MALAYSIA 1963 SEPERTI YANG DITAFSIRKAN DI BAWAH UNDANG-UNDANG CONTRACT MALAYSIA 1950

MALAYSIAN AGREEMENT 1963 AS INTERPRETED BY THE MALAYSIAN CONTRACTS ACT 1950

Section 52:

When a contract consists of reciprocal promises to be simultaneously performed, no promisor need perform his promise unless the promisee is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise.

(Apabila sesuatu [perjanjian] kontrak itu mengandungi janji-janji bersaling yang mana perlu dilaksanakan serentak, PEMBUAT JANJI TIDAK PAYAH (diulangi, Tidak Payah) MELAKSANAKAN JANJINYA kecuali PENERIMA JANJI PUN BERSEDIA DAN INGIN MELAKSANAKAN JANJINYA JUGA)

Section 38:

The parties to a contract [agreement] must either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless the performance is dispensed with or excused under this Act, or of any other law.

(Semua pihak [perjanjian[ kontrak mesti melaksanakan, atau, menawarkan untuk melaksanakan, janji-janji mereka masing-masing, kecuali perlaksanaan itu tidak diperlukan atau abaikan di bawah Akta tersebut, atau undang-undang lain)

Source: https://www.facebook.com/notes/doris-jones/malaysian-agreement-1963-as-interpreted-by-the-malaysian-contracts-act-1950/615012215265210

Why should you support the independence of Catalonia?

In the last 200 years, the world has seen lots of new countries being born. Most of them became independent after a civil war, others as a result of WW1 or WW2. Very few, like Iceland, can be proud to have achieved independence through a democratic process. Thus, if we preserve a bit of historical perspective, we must admit we have been experiencing an adjustment of the frontiers to cultural and regional borders for over 200 years. Just remember that as a result of WW1 Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Estonia were formed, and Poland had been previously a kingdom on its own before being part of the German Prussian empire.

Decolonization and civil wars also produced countries like Canada and USA, South Africa, Brazil or Mexico. But after WW2 the list of countries gaining independence became even bigger: over 25 countries, including China, Tunisia, Iceland, Philippines or Ireland. And during the last part of the XX century we saw Czech Republic and Slovakia becoming two separate countries, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kazakhstan and even the island of Palau became independent from the USA in 1994. Therefore, we must comprehend that this is an ongoing tendency, being Kosovo the last one in 2008.

However there is one state in the European Union with a government unwilling to free up their last colonies: Spain. I am not going to explain again how Catalonia or the Basque country became part of the Spanish empire hundreds of years ago. Let me just remind you it was against the will of the people. Now Catalans we found ourselves looking at history and not understanding why some educated people from Brazil may not understand why Catalan people want their independence, did they not get it themselves? Why the Dutch people do not support Catalonia efforts, when their nation was submitted to the Spanish kings once and they were freed, supported by the British, as they were freed from Nazis just last century? Why a French person, whose family fought for freedom, equality and fraternity, are obtuse to see the reasons why we Catalans are doing what we are doing lately to get out of the Spanish false democracy and form a new true democratic state within the European Union?

As explained through this blog, there are several reasons, some cultural, some historical, and others socioeconomic. But there is a very important reason I would like to point out here: we Catalans do not live in a democratic state. Our rights as citizens in this world are diminished every day, our historical memory is silenced, our taxes used for corrupted politicians to spend their vacations in Fiji, our cultural heritage damaged and insulted, our freedom to choose our political representatives is diminished through censorship and demagogy, our rights as workers and employers plundered, favoring nepotism and corruption to all levels. Spanish politicians have tried to slander our process towards independence by saying we are doing apology of fascism, while they are precisely Franco’s heirs, the ones willing to forbid again Catalan in schools or overruling our right to vote, like they did for 40 years of dictatorship last century.

We would like to become a free new state with improved laws and tax system. With the 22,000 millions of Euros the Spanish government never returns to Catalan people, though they should according to their own laws, we could get so many people out of poverty. So many families would have their present and future improved in all areas: public health, education, social care…

So, it does not matter where you live or where you are from, if you are out there in the world and believe in democracy, please give support to the Catalan process. If you believe in the principles described in the letter of human rights, if you believe all nations have their right to self-determination and all people should be free and have right to vote to decide; if you believe in freedom of thought and expression and if you believe your country improved after gaining independence, please support Catalonia’s right to independence.

Sabah and Sarawak's right to say 'Sorry, no entry'

QUICK TAKE: The power to say, “Sorry, no entry” to anyone, including Malaysian citizens, into Sabah or Sarawak rests entirely in the hands of the director of immigration of these Borneo states who is to comply with the direction of the “State authority” which in effect means the chief minister.

The latest victim of this special immigration power, granted to the two states since the formation of Malaysia in September 1963, happens to be Seputeh Member of Parliament Teresa Kok who was denied entry when she landed at the Sandakan airport after a flight from Kuala Lumpur on Feb 4.

As usual and expected, there are protests over the incident but to no avail, because the state concerned does not even have to give a reason or explain such an action.

For, under Section 65(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1959/63, the state authority in Sabah or Sarawak has the right to restrict or cancel a permit, pass or certificate of anyone wishing to gain enter into that state.

This is a law applicable only to the East Malaysian states in recognition of the fact that immigration control was one of the top safeguards requested by Sabah and Sarawak leaders and this point was duly incorporated into the Immigration Act 1959 that was accordingly amended by Parliament in 1963.

In the months prior to the formation of Malaysia, there were genuine fears of people in Sarawak and Sabah that Malayans who were more advanced in education, commerce and industry, would flock into their states in large numbers and take away employment and other opportunities from the locals, considered as unfair competition then.

Over half a century down the line, this law is still firmly in place and from time to time the chief minister concerned would use it to bar the entry of individuals considered by him to be undesirable to the state, including leaders of opposition parties, like Teresa Kok.

And no one could do anything about it, not even the prime minister.

Last November when Negara-Ku Patron Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan was denied entry into Sabah she described the ban as ridiculous saying, “I don't know what they are paranoid about in this day and age. These types of restrictions are meaningless, when there are other ways to go about it.”

She had suffered a similar restriction in April 2011 when disallowed to enter Kuching and put on the next flight back to Kuala Lumpur, her port of origin. She took the matter to the High Court in the nation's capital and was told by the court there that it had no jurisdiction to hear a Borneo case and dismissed her application.

Another who had a similar experience was PKR vice-president Tian Chua, who was denied entry into Sabah by the immigration authority in April 2013 and forced to take the next flight back to Kuala Lumpur the same day.

The display of this special power by the state authority of these two states is not confined only to social activists and opposition personalities, but to academicians as well. In late December last year, controversial academician Ridhuan Tee Abdullah was barred from entering Sarawak upon arrival at the Kuching International Airport.

Sarawak Immigration Department deputy director Hamfatullah Syawal Hamdan confirmed to Bernama in a report that his department had received instructions from the Chief Minister’s Office to stop Mohd Ridhuan from entering the state.

Mohd Ridhuan was scheduled to deliver a religious talk at the Lundu District Mosque. A source told Bernama that Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem was not in favour of Ridhuan's presence in Lundu and had instructed that the event be cancelled.

Two years ago, PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar was denied entry into Sabah because she was heading for an event in conjunction with the state level Kaamatan (harvest) festival in Penampang, near the state capital.

State Secretary Tan Sri Sukarti Wakiman explained in early June 2013 that the ban on Nurul Izzah was only for a single occasion, which was on the eve of the closing ceremony of the state level Kaamatan celebrations on May 30. He said the decision to bar her entry was done for security reason.

“There is no permanent ban on her or any other opposition leader coming into Sabah as long as they do not pose a security threat,” he was reported to have said then.

According to Sandakan Member of Parliament Stephen Wong, who was at the airport to receive Teresa Kok on Wednesday, the latter was scheduled to attend and witness the installation of DAP Sandakan Wanita wing that night.

In what way could the Seputeh MP be a security threat then?

Apakah Peluang Filipina Untuk Menuntut Sabah?

Sekiranya Kes Ini Dibawa Ke Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ)? Tidak ada.

Pertama, undang-undang antarabangsa yang ditadbir oleh ICJ menolak tuntutan kedaulatan berdasarkan semata-mata kepada hak milik bersejarah (historic title), selepas referendum atau pungutan suara dilakukan.

"Modern international law does not recognize the survival of a right of sovereignty based solely on historic title; not, in any event, after an exercise of self-determination conducted in accordance with the requisites of international law, the bona fides of which has received international recognition by the political organs of the United Nations"

Undang-undang antarabangsa moden tidak mengiktiraf kemandirian hak kedaulatan yang berdasarkan semata-mata kepada hak milik bersejarah; tidak, dalam apa juga peristiwa, selepas penggunaan hak penentuan diri (self-determination) dilakukan mengikut keperluan undang-undang antarabangsa, bona fide yang mendapat pengiktirafan antarabangsa oleh badan-badan politik Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu.

Kedua, kerana waris Sultan Sulu telah menerima ‘cession money‘ sehingga ke hari ini. Ini bermakna waris Sultan Sulu mengakui bahawa Sabah telah diserah (ceded), dan bukannya dipajak (leased), kepada British North Borneo Company. 

Ketiga, kerana Kerajaan Filipina telah berhenti mengiktiraf Sultan Sulu sejak kemangkatan Sultan Mohd. Mahakuttah A. Kiram pada tahun 1986.Geran yang dijadikan sumber konflik telah ditandatangani oleh Sultan Sulu, Sultan Jamalul A’lam dengan Gustavus Baron de Overbeck serta Alfred Dent, yang mewakili British North Borneo Company, pada 22 Januari 1878.

Keempat, geran yang ditandatangani antara British North Borneo Company dan Kesultanan Sulu itu telah diatasi oleh Protokol Madrid 1885. Sepanyol, yang menguasai wilayah-wilayah Kesultanan Sulu ketika itu, telah menandatangani perjanjian dengan Jerman dan Great Britain pada 7 Mac 1885 untuk melepaskan segala tuntutan terhadap kedaulatan Sabah. Article 3 The Spanish Government relinquishes as far as regards the British Government, all claim of sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo which belong, or which have belonged in the past, to the Sultan of Sulu (Jolo), including therein the neighboring islands of Balambangan, Banguey and Malawali, as well as all those islands lying within a zone of three marine leagues along the coasts and which form part of the territories administered by the Company styled the ‘British North Borneo Company’. 

(Kerajaan Sepanyol melepaskan kepada Kerajaan British, semua tuntutan kedaulatan ke atas wilayah-wilayah benua Borneo yang dimiliki, atau yang telah dimiliki pada masa lampau, oleh Sultan Sulu (Jolo), termasuk pulau-pulau Balambangan, Banguey dan Malawali yang berhampiran, dan semua pulau-pulau yang berada di dalam zon tiga liga marin di sepanjang pesisir pantai dan membentuk sebahagian wilayah yang ditadbir oleh Syarikat yang digelar ‘British North Borneo Company‘.)

Kelima, Kesultanan Sulu dianggap telah tamat sebaik sahaja Sultan Jamalul Kiram II menandatangani Perjanjian Carpenter pada 22 Mac 1915, yang menyerahkan segala kuasa politik beliau kepada Amerika Syarikat. Keenam, kerajaan Malaysia telah mengambil tanggungjawab untuk membangunkan prasarana bagi kemudahan para penduduk Sabah sejak 1963 tanpa bantahan Kesultanan Sulu mahupun kerajaan Filipina. Ini membuktikan pemilikan dan pentadbiran yang aman secara berterusan oleh kerajaan Malaysia ke atas Sabah. Mengikut dasar effectivites yang diambil kira oleh Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ – International Court of Justice), Malaysia boleh dianugerahkan hak ke atas Sabah, sepertimana yang pernah diberikan kepada kerajaan Malaysia dalam kes Ligitan-Sipadan.

Keenam, laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold yang dikeluarkan pada 1 Ogos 1962 mendapati bahawa 1/3 penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak menyokong kuat pembentukan Malaysia, 1/3 lagi menyokong projek Malaysia dengan syarat hak mereka dilindungi, manakala kumpulan 1/3 yang terakhir terbahagi antara mereka yang mahukan kemerdekaan dan mereka yang mahukan pentadbiran British diteruskan.

Ketujuh, Setiausaha Agung PBB, U Thant, telah melaporkan pada 1963 bahawa penduduk Sabah “ingin menamatkan status kebergantungan mereka dan merealisasikan kemerdekaan mereka melalui penyekutuan yang dipilih secara bebas dengan bangsa lain dalam rantau mereka” (“wish to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region”).

Kelapan, jika Kesultanan Sulu mendakwa bahawa Sabah adalah milik mereka, maka adalah konsisten bagi Kesultanan Sulu untuk tidak sahaja membuat tuntutan terhadap Sabah semata-mata, malah juga menuntut dan menguasai pusat pentadbiran mereka sendiri di Jolo, selain wilayah Palawan, Semenanjung Zamboanga, Basilan dan Tawi-Tawi di Filipina yang juga mereka dakwa merupakan milik mereka.


***Secara keseluruhan, penerangan ini telah memberikan kefahaman yang sebenarnya. Inilah perkara yang perlu difahami walaupun terdapat perkara yang kurang tepat iaitu pada Poin yang Keenam, tetapi ia akan diulaskan pada artikel yang berlainan***

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...