Friday, August 21, 2015

International Agreement is only fairly enforceable overseas: Bid on Borneonisation ruling thrown out

However, we must take the case to the highest court in Malaysia first before we can take to international courts, as shown by German Telekom vs Celcom.
Malaysia agreement is an International Agreement. We can make money out of it.
Sabahans only. We can extract compensation from both State and Federal governments.
Bid on Borneonisation ruling thrown out
Published on: Friday, August 21, 2015

Kota Kinabalu: An attempt by two former civil servants to get a ruling on the Borneonisation policy failed when the apex court threw their case out. They failed to get leave from the Federal Court to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision to overturn the High Court's ruling in relation to the Borneonisation policy in the civil service.
Chief Justice of Malaya Justice Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin together with Justices Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar, Tan Sri Ahmad Haji Maarop dismissed Bernard Fung's and Mohd Nazib Maidan Dally's application for leave to appeal, Thursday, after hearing arguments from their counsel and the respondents.
Former policeman Fung, 72, of Inanam and former teacher Nazib, aged 37, of Sipitang had sought to obtain leave from the Federal Court following a Court of Appeal decision to overturn a High Court ruling that they have the locus standi to take the Federal and Sabah governments to court to implement the Borneonisation of the civil service as promised in the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
Fung and Nazib had named both the State Government and Federal Government as defendants in their suit at the High Court for failure to fulfil the promise of Borneonisation.
The High Court had on May 26, 2012 ruled that the claim by Fung and Nazib was justiciable and that they have the constitutional rights as Sabahans to do so and have the locus standi to bring the suit against the Federal and State government.
On Feb. 1, 2013 the Court of Appeal in a majority 2-1 decision overruled the High Court in Kota Kinabalu and held that the people of Sabah do not have the locus standi to sue the Federal and Sabah governments in a court of law.
The Appellate Court in its majority judgement said it agreed with the appellant (government) that the Borneonisation of the Federal public services in Sabah concerns a matter of policy within the purview of the executive arm of the government and in which only the Government of Malaysia had the exclusive information and knowledge.
Hence, the Appellate Court ruled that the Borneonisation policy was a non-justiciable matter and viewed that the duo did not have any cause of action against the Government of Malaysia and, therefore, their originating summons was unmaintainable, vexatious and an abuse of the judicial process.
The apex court on Thursday among others held that the applicants (Fung and Nazib) have used the wrong method and should have either filed a judicial review or get the consent of the Attorney General.
The court also questioned the status of the applicants and held that they have no grievance since they had left the service years before filing the suit.
The court said the two applicants would have grievance if they had filed for relief but they abandoned it and continued with their life and only years later filed the suit to impose their right.
The applicants' counsel Ken Yong had earlier submitted that the consent of the Attorney General was irrelevant because the present case was not a class action and that Sabahans or natives of Sabah can anytime go to the court if they see anything wrong with the State in respect of the Malaysia Agreement.
He agreed with the court that the applicants voluntarily left their job but submitted that they were seeking assurance on the undertaking in the Malaysia Agreement which had not been implemented and that they were seeking orders from the High Court.
On the locus standi, Ken submitted that the law was not settled yet and that it was an eminent place for the court to grant so that the issue of locus standi can be argued further and for the court to determine who really has locus standi.
Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan representing the Federal Government submitted the applicants lack locus standi in this case, saying even if they were representing the people of Sabah, they should take up a class action, with the go-ahead of the Attorney General.
He further submitted that the present issue is academic as the applicants had left the service voluntarily in 1980 and 2005, respectively, adding that if any action is to be taken, they should do so via judicial review. He applied for the leave application to be dismissed.
State counsel Mohd Ikhwan Ramlan who appeared together with Senior State Counsel DgKu Fazidah Pg Bagul in representing the State government adopted the SFC's submissions.
SAPP President Datuk Yong Teck Lee and several of the party's top officials were in court to support the Borneonisation case.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Dr. Puyok's View About Malaya Existed Since 1963, making Sabah Poorest

This view had existed since 1963, but it has brought only poverty to Sabah, from the richest in Malaysia to the poorest, and still the poorest to this day. May have improved from 24% to 8% using crooked  methods, but using the same measure, Sabah is still the poorest, a long way after Perlis.

This is the undeniable fact.

The definition of colonisation is very clear, the interest is only in exploiting resources from Sabah, but not its development. This policy is clearly stated by Malayan pilicy makers, and still proceeded, unchallenged by people like this Dr. Puyuk.

The solution is very simple. Respect the Malaysia Agreement. If you don't know what it is, refer to DorisYapp of SSKM.

 Another very clear proof is that Sabah has never been considered as Malaysia, to this day. And I don't talk to uneducated Malayans. All graduates, even with PhD. One, my boss, with a Sabahan wife, even mentioned Sabah as not Malaysia.

Even openly and publicly. 31st of August has nothing to do with Malaysia and Sabah. Only Malaya. If any idiot still thinks that Sabah got its independence on the 31st, better read the real declaration of Malaysia, and see the pictures of the Governor at Jesselton point.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Can Sabah and S’wak secede?

Can Sabah and S’wak secede?

 | April 14, 2014
This article is intended for those who think Malaysia or rather Malaya owns Sabah and Sarawak.
Sabah SarawakOnce again I am writing about Abdul Rahman Dahlan, the Kota Belud MP who was reported on Feb 17, 2014 in the mainstream media to have cited the 20-Points and said the following:
(1) It is seditious and treasonous to suggest that both Sabah and Sarawak secede from the Federation of Malaysia;
(2) Sabah and Sarawak cannot secede from Malaysia;
(3) Secession is not a solution to the woes of Sabah and Sarawak.
If readers have accessed my previous pieces about the man, they would conclude that Abdul Rahman really does not actually know what he is saying all of the time.
Before that I would remind readers that:
Official deceit which is one part of Machiavellian politics has always been the religion of colonizers and one classic lie that has never fail to be used is “you need us to protect you from yourself” has been said to the naive and brainwashed colonized population throughout the ages until today.
We do not need to look far, actually; the present political drama unfolding in Malaysia that is shaking right-thinking citizens reveals the unprecedented thievery and pretense perpetrated by mendacious opportunists from both sides of the political divide is ample indications itself.
Half past six champions of the void ab initio Malaysia Agreement of July 9, 1963 that saw the formation of the Federation of Malaysia are asserting that the rights of Sabah (20-Points) and Sarawak (18-Points) are safeguarded in a document identified as the Inter-Governmental Committee Report of 1962 or in short, the IGC Report; today, we shall see how foolishly wrong they are.
Before we proceed, it is necessary to recapitulate that the Malaysia Agreement is absolutely void from the very beginning because Britain at all material times never had sovereignty over the whole of Sabah to give away and the government of Malaysia like its predecessor the British government is still paying annual rentals to the Sulu Sultanate in the Philippines until today.
The latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” is a legal principle that says you cannot confer property you do not own on another person except with the authority of the true owner or simply put – you cannot give what you do not have.
For further reading, go to the Manila Accord which was signed on July 31, 1963 between Abdul Rahman Putra, Soekarno, and Diosdado Macapagal; it is clearly and unambiguously understood that the formation of Malaysia is subject to the claim of the Philippines on Sabah being adjudicated in the International Court of Justice which Putrajaya is scared of going there for fear of losing.
And worst, the more than 1.1 million people of Sabah and Sarawak at that point of time were never consulted in a referendum whether they wanted Malaysia – only about 4,000 were reportedly interviewed by the Cobbold Commission.
Backward society
We cannot really blame Sabahans and Sarawakians who suffer from collective issues of ignorance because like the rest of Malaya today, for more than 50 long years, they have been indoctrinated with falsified historical facts and fed with substandard education that taught them “what to think” instead of “how to think” and living their entire lives on assumptions peddled by cheats and liars.
Do readers know why are things becoming so complicated and bad here in Sabah now?
Because the people of Sabah are so gullible to the extent that they cannot even be trusted to honorably do the right thing on their own volition during elections for their own good and that of their descendants.
Suffice to say, the Sabah of today has remained a feudal and backward society since the British left.
The fine example of Brunei not becoming a colony of Malaya, look at how they can do what they want with their oil and gas wealth – poverty practically does not exists there; the success story of tiny and resource-less Singapore who left Malaysia in 1965 being transformed into a First World nation today profoundly confirms that both Sabah and Sarawak are incurable failures of epic proportions.
Now, we go to the circus to showcase our clown of the day.
Question 1
The 1962 IGC Report by its name alone is only a report; and the pertinent confusion is this – since when can a mere report containing proposed recommendations or demands, as some people put it, evolve into a legally binding international Treaty, Agreement, Contract, or Convention?
In the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, were the 20-Points and 18-Points, or alternatively how many of both were clearly spelt out in the same?
Find out too exactly how many of the individual 20-Points and 18-Points were actually incorporated into the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the latter of which is evidently masqueraded by the Constitution of Malaya.
By all international standards, is the IGC Report not at best only a Memorandum of Understanding with no legal force of law?
Question 2
If the IGC Report has no legality or statutory effectiveness, of what legitimacy do the Sabah 20-Points and the Sarawak 18-Points contained therein have?
Question 3
Ask yourselves this: if the clause “there should be no right to secede from the Federation” are in the Points that have no legitimacy nor legality, can Sabah and Sarawak still secede from the Federation of Malaysia?
Question 4
Do readers know that Malaysia is not a country but a federation of independent nations that consists of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (left in 1965)?
Question 5
Do readers know the meaning of the word “treason”? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as the crime of betraying one’s country.
Say for example the democratically elected government of the independent country of Scotland has decided that a referendum will be held onSept 18, 2014 to let their Scottish citizens decide whether they want to secede from the United Kingdom after more than three hundred years in the union since 1707; what treason is there?
Therefore, to the people of Sabah and Sarawak who harbor the wish of secession: you must first elect educated and competent patriots and nationalists to run your Sabah and Sarawak governments – not bootlickers who are remotely-controlled by Malayan political parties like what is happening now!
Question 6
Now, Malaysia is a federation while Sabah (an independent nation) is our country or NEGARA in the Malay language; we have always been a negara when Malaysia was formed until 1976 when Parliament downgraded our status to negeri without consulting the Sabah Legislative Assembly after former Sabah Chief Minister Donald Stephens and many other leaders were mysteriously killed in an air disaster upon flying back from Labuan island without signing the petroleum agreement that robs Sabah to the tune of 95% of our oil and gas wealth.
The subsequent signing of the same by former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh and witnessed by Joseph Pairin Kitingan is also illegal because the Sabah Legislative Assembly was also not consulted on the matter.
How can anyone who calls for the secession of our country Sabah from the Federation of Malaysia be committing treason?
Question 7
The Macmillan Dictionary best defines “state” as a nation or country and the government of a country.
Take note that the State of Sabah like the State of Sarawak is an independent nation or country with a government where cabinet members are called ministers unlike say Penang or Johore where their local governments do not have cabinets and members are only executive councillors.
Sabah and/or Sarawak are equal in status with the entire Malaya combined and not with any individual states in Peninsular.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “seditious” as inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
As has been mentioned in question 4 supra, Malaysia is a federation of independent nations and Sabah is our nation or country (NEGARA in Malay) where we have our own government and in lieu of a monarch we have our own Head of State (originally called Yang diPertuan Negara and later changed to Yang diPertua Negeri by Parliament without consultation with the Sabah Legislative Assembly in 1976).
As far as we know, nationalists in Sabah and Sarawak are not instigating rebellions against the Sabah or Sarawak governments or respective Heads of State; for every citizen from the independent nations of Sabah and Sarawak, how can we when we call for the secession of our respective countries from a failed Federation of Malaysia be seditious, then?
Question 8
In every suit that we handled or lecture delivered in the past, we always provide simple and easy to understand analogies when we submit and today we give you the following:
If in a failed marriage (Federation of Malaysia), the lazy and incompetent husband (Malaya) not only neglect his conjugal duties (development) to his wives (Sabah and Sarawak) but also took away 95% of their wealth (taxes and natural resources) for his own extravagant spending, what should the wives do if not divorce and leave him?
If ever Sabah and Sarawak are to be bankrupted, let it not be done by Malaya for the benefit of Malaya.
Question 9
When the Federation of Malaysia was illegally formed in 1963 (as per our reasoning above), there were the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (left in 1965); do you realize that the government of Malaya has ceased to exist altogether unlike Sabah, Sarawak, and even Singapore?
If Malaya was not masquerading as Malaysia to colonize Sabah and Sarawak today, we really do not know what is…!
Question 10
In the year 1963 when Malaysia was formed, the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement; an advocate and solicitor recently drew our attention to the following:
When Singapore left Malaysia in 1965, an agreement was executed on Aug 7, 1965 for the separation between the government of Singapore and the government of Malaysia without consultation with the governments of Sabah and Sarawak as original partners in the Malaysia Agreement.
Is the Singapore Separation Agreement of 1965 valid without the signatories from Sabah and Sarawak; if the answer is in the negative, is Singapore still technically and legally a part of Malaysia; further and in the alternative, is the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 voided as a result of the 1965 Separation Agreement?
The 1963 Malaysia Agreement is void ab initio; can the 1965 Singapore Separation Agreement further invalidate something that is clearly invalid in the first instance; or in laymen’s term, would blowing up a corpse which died years earlier with C4 explosives kill it again?
On June 18, 1984 former President Diosdado Macapagal who laid the Philippines claim on Sabah in 1962 said “unless Sabah becomes an independent state by itself, it shall be the continuing duty of our posterity to carry on the endeavor to return Sabah to the Philippines”.
In plain and uncomplicated language, it means that if Sabah truly becomes free, the Philippines claim will be dropped.
Our final question to readers from Sabah and Sarawak is this:
Is it not our nationalistic, patriotic, and holy duty to free our countries of an evil colonizer who is striving on racism and religious persecution, a greedy subjugator who commit continuous economic genocide on the people of Sabah and Sarawak by siphoning our wealth in the billions to sustain their lifestyle and leaving us with pittance?
To those of you who now understand but think and decide otherwise, where then have you hidden your conscience – in the sewage pond…?
The author is a retiree in Kota Kinabalu and depending on health, time, and interest, do blog occasionally at giving no quarters to anyone.


Readers are required to have a valid Facebook account to comment on this story. We welcome your opinions to allow a healthy debate. We want our readers to be responsible while commenting and to consider how their views could be received by others. Please be polite and do not use swear words or crude or sexual language or defamatory words. FMT also holds the right to remove comments that violate the letter or spirit of the general commenting rules.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

Friday, February 28, 2014

Malaysia Agreement the real defender for Sabah?

Will defiant Taib ‘conform’ and kiss Agong’s hand?

 | February 28, 2014
The author says the act of Sabah and Sarawak Governors kissing the Agong's hand is strictly taboo and the highest insult to the people of these states.
Taib Istana NegaraThe Barisan Nasional-Umno government has been involved in mind control experiments since Malaysia was formed.
Aside from distorting history and imposing this version via schools, they are also using other less obvious ways such as  the “subliminal stimuli” technique.
The scientifcally proven technique  uses any sensory stimuli below individual threshold for conscious perception.
The technique was used extensively after World War 1  especially in the United States and Europe.   For a more detailed review of these ideas please read Gustav La Bon, Edward Barney and Walter Lippmann.
These techniques have since been adopted by the Malaysian authority to indoctrinate the population compelling them to conform to certain ideas.
A good example of the use of ‘subliminal stimuli’ is the general acceptance that Malaysia was established in 1957.
Take a good look at the design of the Malaysia Ringgit note.
Many people have not noticed that the portrait of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong on the ringgit is that of the first Yang Di Pertuan Agong of the Federation of Malaya – not Malaysia.
Malaysia came into being in September 16, 1963
Brainwashing Borneo
The first Yang Di Pertuan Agong of Malaysia is actually Tunku Syed Putra – the Raja of Perlis and not Tunku Abdul Rahman of Negeri Sembilan.
The basic reason for this to delude the people into unconsciously believing that Malaysia was established in 1957.
The other reason is to lull the minds of Sabah and Sarawak citizens into accepting that they “joined” Malaysia.  In actual fact Sabah and Sarawak were independent nations who came together to “form” Malaysia.
No one in Malaysia questions this issue until today.
There are many phrases and symbols which pepper our everyday environment to indirectly reinforce the idea of ‘conforming’ to 1957. These  include the Malaysia crest, placement of Sabah and Sarawak flags, seating arrangements.
The act of Sabah and Sarawak’s TYT kissing the Agong’s hand is strictly taboo and the highest insult to the people of Sabah and Sarawak.
This is critically important especially in the case of Sabah and Sarawak.
Kuala Lumpur may want Sabah and Sarawak to conform to the country’s base point which is 1957 instead of 1963.
We believe this is a concerted effort by Kuala Lumpur to subdue the population in Borneo.
It is a subtle work in progress to manipulate the minds of the Sabah and Sarawak state governments into conforming to the directives of the nerve centre.
These cognitive corruptions is not limited to phrases and symbols, it also permeates into efforts to change the Malaysia Constitution and the respective enactments in Borneo.
Changing title of Governor  
This was especially important after the Kalong Ningkan case in Sarawak – where he won the court case which ceased his tenure as the Chief Minister. The victory while landmarked failed in a state of emergency being declared in Sarawak.
The first neutering of the people’s mind in Sabah and Sarawak was done by changing the title of the head of state – from TYT Yang DiPertua Negara to just Tuan Yang Terutama (TYT).
This change was done in the Sabah Legislative Assembly sitting in 1976 right after the first state election.
The reason then was to standardize the title to that from Malacca and Penang.
The second stage is to create the perception that the Malaysia Constitution is supreme and unquestionable.
It is interesting to note that nothing was mentioned of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 which actually created the Malaysia Constitution – refer to Annex A of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
No one explained that the Malaysia Constitution remains Supreme as long as it is consistent with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC).
Kuala Lumpur may be able to deceive some of the people of Sabah and Sarawak but certainly they cannot by-pass the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
This is the legal bulwark that has been protecting ignorant Sabahans and Sarawakians all this while.
Kuala Lumpur knows fully well the strength of these defensive walls.
Sarawak defiance
This is perhaps the reason why since 1963 the Malaysia Parliament made about 600 amendments to the Malaysia Constitution. But they still could not circumvent the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
I strongly believe, all their failure in “managing” the country today can be attributed to the strength of this defence.
It is highly likely that the 20 points is part and parcel of this scheme which was extensively raised in 1987 when PBS government was in the opposition.
The purpose was to divert the people’s attention from studying the Malaysia Agreement 1963. Instead  Kuala Lumpur made the 20 points as the base of Sabah’s struggle for their rights.
In this aspect, they were helped by ignorant Sabah leaders.
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 raised the spectra of secession and a possible dis-integrating as a federation whilst the 20 points allowed Sabahans to vent out their anger yet remain docile within the Federation.
To unravel these issues after 50 years is not that simple and easy.  Each step taken may uncover hidden minefields that must be defused before proceeding.
This is the reason the Sarawak defiance led by Taib Mahmud is a historical landmark in the federal – state relations for Sarawak and Sabah.

Zainnal Ajamain is a British-trained economist. He has held several senior positions in the government and government think tanks and has worked as a university lecturer, researcher, stockbroker, economist and has published several papers in international media journals. He helped found non-governmental organisation, the United Borneo Front (UBF), and remains active in politics.
Visit for extensive coverage on Sabah and Sarawak


Readers are required to have a valid Facebook account to comment on this story. We welcome your opinions to allow a healthy debate. We want our readers to be responsible while commenting and to consider how their views could be received by others. Please be polite and do not use swear words or crude or sexual language or defamatory words. FMT also holds the right to remove comments that violate the letter or spirit of the general commenting rules.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Petronas, Felda ignoring cry for help in Sabah

Petronas, Felda ignoring cry for help in Sabah

 | January 22, 2014
Petronas and Felda are in the crosshairs of critics in Sabah who are demanding how they could be so callous as not to prioritise the state for aid distribution.
LAHAD DATU: Petronas and Felda, two of the country’s biggest corporate organisations which reap billions of ringgit from the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak, have again come under fire over their biased aid distribution..
The stark discrimination was on display recently when the two corporate giants trumpeted their generosity to flood victims in the peninsula in the media.
“If Petronas can contribute RM50 million to flood victims in peninsula why can’t they assist us too?” asked Abdul Wahid Jainal, a political leader here whose office has been swamped by appeals for help.
The PKR Silam division chairman said it was shameful that neither the oil and gas giant nor Felda whose land in Tungku is the largest oil palm plantation in the country had come forward to assist flood victims in Silam which encompasses Tungku.
Both the peninsula-headquartered companies are in the crosshairs of critics in Sabah who are demanding to know how they could behave so callously when they had been operating in Sabah for  decades and accumulating profits amounting to hundreds of billions of ringgit.
“What has Felda contributed to Silam? Nothing,” said an outraged Abdul Wahid.
He said the giant, self-contained agro-based enterprise was cut off from reality having created their own township and businesses which get their supplies directly from the peninsula thereby by-passing Sabah-based businesses.
“They even have their own port in Sahabat 16 and have opened up sundry shops, airline ticketing and other services in town here to compete with small local businesses.
“Sadly these big federal companies only came here to rip off big profits and ignore the suffering of those hit by the flooding which happens every year and is getting worse,” said Abdul Wahid.
Also in his line of fire were the local government authorities for not only ignoring the plight of the flood victims but also failing to implement a flood mitigation programme to bring an end to the annual floods that makes roads impassable, isolating plantations, refineries, mills and factories for days or even weeks.
“I was made to understand that many houses, vehicles and even heavy vehicles in plantations were submerged under flood water.
“Many businesses have suffered huge losses particularly small plantations holders,” said Abdul Wahid.
While the flooding problem has been know for years, the government has gone ahead with costly beautification programmes with an eye to upgrading the district to municipality by 2015.


Readers are required to have a valid Facebook account to comment on this story. We welcome your opinions to allow a healthy debate. We want our readers to be responsible while commenting and to consider how their views could be received by others. Please be polite and do not use swear words or crude or sexual language or defamatory words. FMT also holds the right to remove comments that violate the letter or spirit of the general commenting rules.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.
Share this story

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Errors about Tawau

 There are so many errors about Tawau in this article which explains the sorry state of development for Sabah on the whole.

Tawau was not upgraded to a district. It was downgraded from a Residency under the British before Malaysia. Under the British, Tawau was equivalent to Perak or Pahang.

Even under Malaysia, upgrading to a district is nothing much. Tawau was a town even under the British. It should have been upgraded to a city already. It is an insult to say that Tawau was downgraded to a district in the 80s.

In fact, Tawau had been the third largest town in Sabah, behind Sandakan. Recently, the population in Tawau has matched up with Sandakan but built-up area is still much less compared to Sandakan. Sandakan is built-up to more than 10 miles now, with daily traffic jams.

To west malaysian, Tawau appear bigger because of the towns. Tawau town is bigger because of the closeness of the suburban areas to the city centre. In city area size, Tawau is even bigger than Kota Kinabalu. Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan are limited by the hills at their backs.

What Tawau lacks is the number of high class hotels. Kota Kinabalu has the most followed by Sandakan. Tawau needs  4 star hotels. Kota Kinabalu was well developed when the State Government invested in the Hyatt Hotel followed by Tanjung Aru Shangrila Hotel.
Tawau set to benefit from Palmex
Published on: Sunday, May 26, 2013
Labuan: Tawau is set to benefit from the Palmex International Exhibition and Conference 2013 (Palmex Malaysia 2013), which it will host from June 11-13.
The event, touted as Malaysia's biggest palm oil exhibition, has succeeded in attracting 100 exhibitors.
Sabah's second largest town, Tawau, has never hosted any international event since its elevation into a district in the 80s, due to assumptions of logistics and geographical factors.
"Tawau has been the State's main palm oil producer for decades, with thousands of acres planted with oil palm.
"It has the potential to be on par with other developing districts, but needs continuous support from both the government and business community.
"It is a matter of pride that the district has been chosen as the preferred venue for an international event," Fireworks Asia Sdn Bhd Managing Director, Jerel Soo said.
The company is the organiser of the Palmex Malaysia 2013.
He said the international exhibition will drive Tawau to be known regionally, giving a boost to its business activities and economic development.
"Palmex Malaysia 2013 is expected to create a platform for both upstream and downstream palm oil companies to explore wider business opportunities.
"It will bring about 5,000 industry professionals to visit the strategic, operational and technological aspects of Sabah's oil palm industry, which is Malaysia's biggest, and that of Asean as a whole," he added.
Palmex Malaysia 2013 is endorsed by the Sabah State Government, the Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (Matrade) and the Association of Small Medium Enterprises Singapore.
Among the participants are those from Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Thailand, China and the United Kingdom.
The exhibition will feature the latest heavy machinery and technology being used in the downstream and upstream activities of the oil palm sector.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Bishop says Election watchddogs are LIARS

This bishop is more Islamic than most Muslims, even Hadi the leader of PAS.

Bishop: Polls anything but free and fair

RK Anand | May 17, 2013
Bishop Paul Tan explains that while he abstains from partisan politics, he supports electoral watchdog Bersih in its cause for free and fair polls.
PETALING JAYA: An outspoken Catholic cleric has cast aspersion on the 13th general election with regard to the battle for Putrajaya being clean and fair.
Bishop Paul Tan said this in reference to the report of the Institute of Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) and Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS).
“IDEAS and CPPS have done an interim report. In it, there is this conclusion: ‘GE13 was only partially free and not fair’. I find it difficult to believe that the report could conclude this…
“But when it concluded ‘only partially free’ for the three reasons given that are fraught with irregularities as reported in the said report, the people involved are not objective,” he said.
“From the multiple examples of irregularities arrived in the report, permit me to use a stronger phrase than that of IDEAS and CPPS: GE13 is anything but transparently ‘free and fair’,” he added.
Tan, who heads the Malacca and Johor diocese, conceded that he could be wrong but stressed that he was morally obliged to speak out at this time because of the immorality practiced before and during GE13.
“If I didn’t speak up, I would have to answer to my God and my Church,” he said.
Tan said while he obeyed the Catholic Church’s teaching that clerics must not take sides in partisan politics, he noted that the church also taught that clerics must speak out against immoralities and against all that go against human rights.
“As a religious person in my role as bishop, I am in a dilemma vis-a-vis to what extent should I allow a certain degree of immorality or infringement against human rights to go on unpunished before denouncing them publicly,” he added.
For a long time, Tan said, there had not been sufficient action taken against immorality in its widest sense, especially corruption.
“Some attempts have been made by related government departments to deal with the matter. In ‘grosso modo’, it has not been effective. Only a few small fish have been caught, the big fish was left untouched.
“The consequence of this ‘laissez faire’ lifestyle is that it has produced massive corruption, cheating and immoral manipulation of the people to garner votes for one’s political party.
“Unfortunately, this cuts across the boundaries of all parties. The degree lies in the extent of corruption,” he added.
‘Are we not ashamed?’
The bishop also noted that the most obvious example was the lavish manner in which the Najib administration threw cash to get votes.
“Where is our country going? Are cheating and corruption condoned as part of our Malaysian culture? Are we not ashamed of our country being an immoral society?
“We must all reflect and examine our consciences. What sort of nation do we want our country to be, moral or immoral? Undoubtedly, all will want a ‘moral country’.
“But what sort of morality do we want? It is here that the degree of permissiveness comes into play. To what extent can we tolerate it before stringent action is taken to punish the unscrupulous?” he added.
Condemning money politics, Tan said even if it was considered “legalised corruption”, it does not exonerate the guilt of the ones involved.
“Corruption is corruption, even if one was to dress it up like a queen. A toilet remains a toilet, even if one gives it the beautiful terms of ‘comfort room’ or ‘powder room’,” he added.
The bishop explained that while he abstained from partisan politics, he supported electoral watchdog Bersih in its cause for free and fair polls.
“Any rational and moral person will support it,” he said.


This blogspot is filled with Adsense links. These google advertising links can be useful but their uses are strictly governed. I earn cash if any of you click these links but if I or my close acquaintances click them, google is very harsh in permanently banning me. Please do not click these adverts unnecessarily.

Learn how to earn money by clicking the button below: