Monday, February 12, 2018

Copying constitutions does not make the same nation

Professor A. Harding who wrote that "...Malaysia came into being on 16 September 1963...not by a new Federal Constitution, but simply by the admission of new States to the existing but renamed Federation under Article 1 of the Constitution..." See Harding (2012)

Prof. Harding has made a grave error.
Just because an entity uses the same constituion does not mean that it is the same entity. Just like UMNO baru versus the original UMNO. It may use almost a copy of the old UMNO consitution, as most other standard political associations in Malaysia, does not mean that they are the same entity or renamed entities or associations.

Legal requirements are for entitities, not similarities of names or constitutions or laws governing their formations.

Constitutions are written laws but are subject to legality requirements. If an entity, e.g. Malaysia decides to disband itself, the entity does not exist any more, as far as legality is concerned. It is the wishes of the authorities in the entity that determines the existence of the entity. Not the existence of the constitution or laws governing the entity.

If a new entity decides to adopt the same constituion, modifed and renamed, for a new entity that are made of of basically the same members but are now extended, legally, there is a new entity. There are many other documents in support of the new entity, instead of the enlarged entity. During the declaration of the new entity, Malaysia, using basically the constitution of the old entity, Malaya, new entities, North Borneo and Sarawak were deemed as having joined into a new entity, called Malaysia. It is the declaration that matters. Not the mechanisms at which this is achieved.

If similarity of constitutions is the basis to determine the state of an entity, then there are many associations in Malaysia that are the same entities then, just renamed, because that is the easiest way to register a club or association. The Registrar of Societies give booklets of samples constitutions for various types of associations. It will approve those that adopt these contitutions readily, rather than make major modifications to them. This is preposterous indeed.

As to recognition by the UN of the new entity taking over the place of the old entity, Malaya. UN is not the authority to care about the status of entities. As long as members agree that the characteristics of entities as a nation are the same, it will be accepted as the same member but with different names or even systems of governments, such as Russia, or China.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Forex losses real, while 1MDB’s are on paper? Annuar lies.

This is  a stupid comment and a blatant lie by UMNO.
A capital gain or loss on foreign currency is incurred, however, only when an actual transaction has occurred or is realized, a paper gain or loss on paper does not count. The loss is normally realized when US funds are converted to Canadian dollars or another foreign currency.
That is why foreign currency loss is just considered as paper loss.
As to Forex loss being audited, completely false again. Government bodies and sole proprieterships are never audited.  Only self audited. Completely different. Self auditing is just a rough audit to verify our state of health and never trusted to be reliable.

In the case of the Malaysia Forex loss in the 1990's, I supported Mahathir in defending the ringgit. It is a loss to the government, but a gain to the public. Which is more important, the government or the public? It should be the public. The government spends its reserves to give to the people. That is a good deed. That was why I disliked DAP but I never supported Dr. Mahathir during his government but his intentions were to help the people of Malaysia. His methods were wrong and had led to the formation of people like Najib.

In fact, I supported the strenthening of the ringgit versus devaluing it. If you love the people, you will defend our currency, just like Singapore. Defending your currency does not lead to under development. Just look at Singapore and Germany. Among the most developed nations. Japan and now China had been accused of devaluing in order to support their industries, but they realised their mistakes, and now try to defend the values of their currency.

Malaysia, under Najib, had gone to the opposite way of devaluing the ringgit. We should spend all the reserves to defend the ringgit, no matter what the forex losses should be. It is for the good of the people and proven in so many cases, in the end, good for the nation as well.


Forex losses real, while 1MDB’s are on paper, says Annuar

Forex losses real, while 1MDB’s are on paper, says Annuar
Umno information chief Annuar Musa says 1MDB is still generating profits but Bank Negara's losses can never be recovered. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, August 25, 2017.

THE billions Bank Negara Malaysia lost in the foreign exchange (forex) scandal are real, while 1Malaysia Development Bhd’s losses are just on paper, said Umno information chief Annuar Musa.
He said the forex losses could never be recovered but 1MDB was still a running business that could generate profit.
"The RM30 billion losses in the forex trading scandal in 1993 has been confirmed by the ongoing RCI (royal commission of inquiry). That is a real loss that the country can never recover. It is not a loss on paper but a real loss that is forever.
"It is not like 1MDB, where the losses are on paper. The business is still running, capable of generating profit and can undergo a rationalisation to overcome the losses.
"But the opposition is making it look like the 1MDB debts cannot be paid and the people bore the debts. That is false information. The losses are only on paper and business-wise, 1MDB has not folded and is still operating," he was quoted as saying on Umno Online today.
Annuar reportedly made the comparison between the two scandals at a press conference after an Umno Supreme Council meeting at the Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur today.
The Pakatan Harapan opposition pact has been claiming in its 1MDB roadshows that the losses incurred by controversial sovereign fund were in the region of RM42 billion.
While the government has formed an RCI to look into the forex scandal, which happened when PH chairman Dr Mahathir Mohamad was prime minister and PH de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim was finance minister, no RCI has been set up to probe into the 1MDB scandal.
Annuar also reportedly “credited” DAP and its veteran leader Lim Kit Siang for the forex losses RCI, saying that the inquiry into the scandal had been set up because DAP had pushed for it.
He denied that the RCI was a retaliatory move against any individual, including Dr Mahathir, who had become the administration and Prime Minister Najib Razak's biggest critic.
"RCIs are usually formed out of the people's requests. To form an RCI, the government must study the sentiments of the people and the need over an issue that can sometimes change.
"On the forex RCI, Lim brought up the issue at parliament in 1994 and demanded for an RCI to be formed. He again called for an RCI to be formed 12 years later, in 2006 at parliament. He even gave detailed facts related to the losses," he said.
"Lim was the first person who gave a picture of the government's losses in the forex scandal that amounted to half the national reserves, which were at RM60 billion at the time.
"So, the forex RCI is done at the demand and initiative of DAP that had been pushing for an investigation. The government sees the pressure by DAP as relevant in the interest of the people," he added. – August 25, 2017.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Classified documents to the 66 Tragedy in Sabah

When will it ever be declassified?

Sunday, July 31, 2016

More Arguments that Malaya violated the Malaysia Agreement

 KOTA KINABALU: The UK-based Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopim), dedicated to Borneo rights, wants Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem to release the two Memorandums on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) handed to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in Putrajaya last Monday.

“The people have a right to take part in the process. They must be consulted. There must be transparency.”

At the same time, Bopim Chief Daniel John Jambun urged Adenan to push for Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution to revert to the pre-1976 definition where Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya were Equal Partners in the 1963 Federation. “There must be substance, not just form.”

“It’s pointless harping in public on whether Sabah and Sarawak were states or nations in the Federation.”

The Sabah and Sarawak Assemblies for one, he added, were not consulted and/or were not in the know on Article 1(2) being amended to reduce the status of the two Borneo nations to the 12th and 13th states in the Federation of States set up in 1948 under the Federation of Malaya Agreement, signed in London nine years before Merdeka in the peninsula.

MA63, continued Jambun, is an International Treaty signed by five governments Sabah, Sarawak, Malaya, Singapore and the United Kingdom and lodged with the UN Secretary-General. “It’s also virtually a Trust Deed although perhaps not registered as one with the UN Sec-Gen.”

The Intention of the framers of MA63, he cautioned, cannot be amended by the Malaysian Parliament or ignored by the Federal Constitution. “It was not the Intention of the Founding Fathers in Borneo for Sabah and Sarawak to federate with the states in Malaya.”

Sabah and Sarawak’s Federation in 1963 was with Malaya — not with the states in Malaya — and with Singapore as a merged entity with Malaya. “Singapore ended its merger with Malaya in 1965 and exited the Federation of 1963.”

The Malaysian Government, previously the Malayan Goverment, subsequently went into non-compliance on MA63, lamented Jambun, and incorporated Sabah and Sarawak unilaterally, under the 1976 Amendment, as the 12th and 13th states in the Malayan Federation. “The jury, in the wake of Singapore’s exit, may no longer be out on MA63.”

“However, no Court has deliberated on the matter (MA63). Until one does, in whichever direction, MA63 continues and all concerned are bound by it.”

Resuming his take on the two Memorandums, Jambun believes that they were pre-emptive moves on the part of the Sarawak Government to determine and dictate the agenda. “Adenan sensed, and rightly, that ‘negotiations and discussions’ — if the matter arises at all — with Putrajaya were likely to be long and protracted, probably even an exercise in futility and may turn out to be fruitless.”

“Anything can happen between now and then.”

The fact that Sabah under an Umno Government was not joining Sarawak in “negotiations and discussions” with the Federal Government in Putrajaya on MA63, speculated Jambun, “deepens suspicions.”

“Perhaps, Sabah knows something that Sarawak doesn’t.”

Hence, he stressed, the Memorandums set the stage for the “negotiations and discussions” on MA63. Again, reiterated Jambun, “form cannot be allowed to take precedence over substance”.

He urged the Federal Government in Putrajaya to demonstrate good faith on Article 1(2) and concede that the 1976 Amendment was null and void, ultra vires MA63 and ultra vires the Federal Constitution read in conjunction with MA63 and the related constitutional documents on Malaysia.

A very detailed analysis of the Budget Allocation for Sabah

Rosalam Sarbatly

BAJET KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN: Apakah Sabah mendapat agihan yang Saksama?
Hari ini saya akan membincangkan asas agihan kekayaan berdasarkan budget tahunan Negara dan sumber utama pendapatan negara. Perbincangan ini penting kerana salah satu perkara utama yang terkandung dalam pembentukan Malaysia pada tahun 1963 adalah tanggung jawab kerajaan persekutuan dalam pembangunan ekonomi selain isu keselamatan. Perbincangan agihan peruntukan menjadi lebih penting bagi meletakkan asas agihan peruntukan kekayaan negara.
1. Bajet dan Pendapatan Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Kerajaan Negeri Sabah.
Seperti sedia maklum, bajet negara yang diagihkan kepada kementerian-kementerian persekutuan berjumlah RM251.6 billion untuk tahun 2013. Sejumlah RM201.9 billion (80.2%) digunakan untuk perbelanjaan operasi manakala RM49.7 billion (19.8%) diperuntukan untuk pembangunan (Ucapan PM dalam budget 2013).
Bajet Malaysia dijana oleh dua sumber utama. PETRONAS yang meyumbang ~45% atau ~RM110 billion manakala kutipan cukai sebanyak RM124.69 billion (2012). Malaysia sebenarnya mengalami perbelanjaan defisit. Berapakah jumlah tunai sebenar kutipan negera? Apakah RM124.69 billion daripada kutipan cukai, manakala RM110 billion sumbangan PETRONAS terdiri daripada RM30 billion tunai dan selebihnya dalam bentuk susidi? Berapa pula sumbangan sumber minyak kelapa sawit, dan getah kepada ekonomi negara?
Kita mungkin boleh berbangga dengan budget RM4.088 billion tahun 2013 yang diumumkan oleh Kerajaan Negeri Sabah. Budget yang tertinggi sejak Sabah bersama-sama dalam Malaysia, tahniah diucapkan kepada Datuk Seri Panglima Musa Aman. Budget ini perlu diagihkan kepada tanah seluas 74,500 kilometer persegi dengan jumlah penduduk melebihi 3.5 juta orang.
Perolehan bajet negeri Sabah, RM941.25 juta disumbangkan oleh royalti minyak dan gas, manakala hampir RM1 billion lagi disumbang oleh kutipan cukai minyak kelapa sawit untuk tujuan pembangunan (2012). Jumlah budget Kerajaan Negeri Sabah sebanyak RM4.08 billion terlalu kecil berbanding budget Negara sebanyak RM251.6 billion (Budget 2013). Budget kerajaan Negeri Sabah juga adalah budget defisit, atau perbelanjaan melebihi pendapatan.
2. Berapakan anggaran sumbangan negeri Sabah kepada bajet Negara?
PETRONAS merupakan penyumbang terbesar kepada pendapatan kerajaan persekutuan dan kerajaan negeri Sabah. Perolehan PETRONAS dibahagikan kepada dua kategori utama, pendapatan dalam dan luar negara. Pendapatan dalam negara menyumbang ~60% pendapatan manakala selebihnya pendapatan aktiviti perniagaan luar negara.
Daripada 60% pendapatan dalam negara, Sabah menyumbang dalam ~30% minyak dan ~14% gas asli (rizap 2009). Secara kasar, jumlah pendapatan PETRONAS bagi aktiviti di Sabah menyumbang sebanyak 15-20%. Oleh itu, anggaran sumbangan negeri Sabah kepada budget negara melalui sumbangan dividen PETRONAS adalah dalam lingkungan RM9.9-RM13.2 billion. Petronas melabor dalam operasi pertengahan bagi membina terminal minyak di Kimanis sebanyak kos RM3.8 billion dan operasi hiliran kilang ammonia-urea di Sipitang dengan kos sebanyak RM3 billion bermula tahun 2008. selain itu, Petronas juga telah memberikan kometment untuk melabor di Kota Belud. Jumlah pelaboran sekitar RM68 billion di Sabah masih terlalu kecil jika dibandingkan perolehan dan tempoh kewujudan mereka sejak tahun 1976 di Sabah.
Mengikut kenyataan Jabatan Akauntan, cukai pendapatan yang dikutip di Sabah sebanyak RM4.42 billion pada tahun 2012 (dilaporkan semasa sidang dewan Negri Sabah). Mengikut Pengarah IRB Sabah, jumlah kutipan cukai adalah sebanyak RM3.67 billion untuk tahun 2012. Selain itu, sebahagian besar syarikat-syarikat besar khususnya yang berkaitan dengan kelapa sawit dan petroleum yang beroperasi di Sabah didaftarkan di Semenanjung Malaysia. Ini bermakna jumlah kutipan cukai sebenar bagi aktiviti perniagaan di Sabah boleh melepasi angka RM10 billion. Contoh paling mudah adalah cukai pendapatan PETRONAS, Maybank, dan syarikat-syarikat besar yang beroperasi di Sabah semuanya dilaporkan di Kuala Lumpur.
3. Kemana budget Negara di gunakan?
Mengikut ucapan budget Datuk Seri Najib untuk budget 2013, sebanyak RM201.9 billion digunakan untuk perbelanjaan operasi manakala RM49.7 billion bagi perbelanjaan pembangunan.
Menurut laporan daripada Ketua Menteri Sabah dalam persidangan dewan negeri lepas, RM9.08 billion telah diperuntukkan untuk pengurusan dan pembangunan di Sabah oleh kerajaan persekutuan. Berbanding dengan peratusan budget negara jumlah ini hanyalah sebanyak 3.62% daripada jumlah keseluruhan budget negara pada tahun 2013. Apakah peratusan ini mengambarkan pengagihan kekayaan secara saksama?
4. Kenapa jumlah perbelanjaan operasi di Sabah kecil?
Sejak pembentukan Malaysia, Sabah diperuntukan dengan budget pembangunan yang lebih bersifat “one-off”. Sabah jauh ketinggalan dalam agihan peruntukan operasi Negara yang merangkumi 80.2% daripada keseluruhan budget Negara. Kenapa Sabah tidak turut serta atau ketinggalan jauh dalam peruntukan operasi yang berjumlah RM201,9 billion?
Jika kita lihat perbelanjaan operasi secara lebih terperinci, daripada 1.42 juta kakitangan awam dengan jumlah emolumen sebanyak RM58.6 billion (2013), jumlah kakitangan awam yang berada dan berasal daripada Sabah berbanding di Semanjung Malaysia adalah kurang daipada 5% daripada jumlah keseluruhan kakitangan awam Negara. Sebanyak 85, 494 orang kakitangan awam persekutuan dan badan berkanun di Sabah termasuk 15,390 orang daripada Semanjung Malaysia (Persidangan DUN, Jul 2012). Selain jumlah kekitangan awam yang kecil, jumlah gaji juga jauh lebih rendah kerana kebanyakan jawatan tertinggi berada di Semanjung Malaysia. Mengambil kira jumlah pekerja sektor awam dan gaji rendah yang diperolehi, daripadaRM58.6 billion peruntukan, di anggarkan Sabah hanya menerima kurang daripada 3% atau kurang daripada RM1.7 billion.
Kita lihat sebagai contohnya Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Terdapat 20 buah universiti awam tempatan di Malaysia. Hanya sebuah sahaja universiti tempatan di Sabah (UMS) berbanding jumlah penduduk melebihi 3.5 juta orang. Di Semanjung Malaysia, sebanyak 18 buah Universiti dengan purata 1.2 juta penduduk bagi setiap universiti. Pengiraan ini tidak termasuk cawangan-cawangan universiti-universiti awam dan swasta menjadikan kadar penduduk bagi setiap universiti di Semanjung Malaysia jauh lebih baik berbanding dengan di Sabah. Dianggarkan sebanyak RM5-6 billion diperlukan untuk menampung kos operasi bagi 20 universiti tempatan. Daripada jumlah tersebut, UMS diperuntukan dalam lingkungan RM300 juta setahun, kurang daripada 5% daripada jumlah keseluruhan budget operasi universiti-universiti tempatan. Agihan ini belum lagi mengambil kira peruntukan penyelidikan dimana UMS menerima kurang daripada 3% daripada keseluruhan budget penyelidikan. Begitu juga dengan pendidikan menengah dan rendah.
5. Apakah asas agihan Dana Persekutuan?
Secara amnya, Semanjung Malaysia telah diperuntukan hampir 90% daripada budget operasi Negara sejak zaman-berzaman dan agihan ini tidak mempunyai asas selain mengikut sistem yang sedia ada.
Jika agihan peruntukan negara bersandarkan peratusan penduduk, Sabah sepatutnya memperolehi 12.5% atau RM32.7 billion setahun. Jika bersandarkan keluasan tanah, dan hasil, Sabah sepatutnya menerima lebih dari RM50 billion setahun.
Oleh itu, asas agihan dana persekutuan yang dipraktikkan sehingga kini yang bersandarkan kepada sistem sedia tidak mempunyai asas kukuh tetapi lebih kepada bersandarkan kekuatan politik. Kelemahan asas ini perlu diubah segera.
6. Apa perlu kita lakukan?
Agihan perbelanjaan operasi kerajaan persekutuan perlu dikaji semula disemua kementerian-kementerian di Malaysia. Dasar-dasar perlu digobal agar perlaksanaan agihan peruntukan operasi lebih adil dan saksama tanpa bersandarkan kepada sistem sedia ada yang akan mengekalkan status Sabah terus ketinggalan dalam arus pembangunan.
Polisi pengigahan dana diperingkat pembuat dasar perlu memperuntukan sekurang-kurangnya 10% sebagai KPI (Key Performance Index) dari jumlah keseluruhan bajet di setiap kementerian berbanding 3-4% pada masa sekarang. Dengan pertambahan peruntukan tersebut, sistem penyampaian boleh ditingkatkan selain dapat meningkatkan usaha membantu masyarakat Sabah yang telah lama ketinggalan.
Selaku penyumbang terbesar ekonomi Negara, Sabah berhak dan perlu memperolehi tambahan peruntukan operasi di kesemua kementerian persekutuan di Sabah bagi meningkatkan peluang-peluang pekerjaan dan seterusnya dapat melonjakkan ekonomi negeri seiring dengan negeri-negeri lain di Malaysia.
Ir. Dr. Rosalam Sarbatly,
(Beaufort, Sabah. 03 Julai 2013)

Thursday, July 14, 2016

FELDA broke its contract with the Sabah State Government

Sabah supposed to be excluded
Published on: Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Kota Kinabalu: Parti Cinta Sabah (PCS) on Monday supported the call by former Chief Minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh to ask the Sabah Government to take back the 300,000-acre Felda scheme in Lahad Datu over breach of agreement. "The settlement scheme developed by Felda is tantamount to a giveaway of critical lands which were initially meant for landless Sabahans," said its President Datuk Seri Wilfred Bumburing (pic) in a press statement.
"The bottom line is the eventual issuance of land titles to the settlers after the full payment of the portion of the development expenditure by way of deduction from the proceeds of FFB from their individual lots.
"The plantation is now being replanted indicating that the oil palm trees had been about 25 years and the loan definitely been fully paid and the individual titles should have been issued to the settlers," he said.
Bumburing said when he was in the then PBS State Government, he was involved in the recruitment of settlers in the Felda scheme where he chaired the committee who travelled around the State interviewing potential settlers.
He also represented the State Government in the National Land Council chaired by then Deputy Prime Minister Tun Ghafar Baba (during Tun Dr Mahathir's premiership).
"In one of the meetings, he announced the corporatisation of Felda land and instead of getting individual titles, the settlers would be shareholders of the new company. I protested and reminded Ghafar that this cannot be applied to Sabah because there is an agreement between the State Government and Felda and the settlers had to be given their titles.
"Ghafar assured the Council that the corporatisation exercise would not apply to Sabah.
So I was shocked to read Harris' statement (in the Daily Express) that the Sabah scheme had now been corporatised," he said.
He said he later learned that among the reasons for the corporatisation exercise was the political leaning of the settlers in Malaya towards the opposition, particularly PAS, and the only way to control them was by making them only shareholders of the scheme (instead of eventual landowners).
The question that arose, he said, is whether the agreement had been revoked and did the Sabah Government agree to it.
There is also unverified information that Felda had developed more acreage than what had been stipulated in the agreement which is about 250,000 acres in the Sahabat scheme.
"If this is true, then Felda needs to explain the issue on the income earned from this 'free' area.
It is also a known fact that many non-citizens have been hired to work on the plantation and some are rumoured to have occupied lands around the scheme," he said.
On Felda's contribution to Sabah's development, Bumburing said it cannot be denied that there is no visible development project that Felda had undertaken in Sabah. The State is in dire need of good infrastructure and the State Government should demand that Felda plough back some of the big profits they earned into the development.
"There, is however, talk about some contribution by Felda to Sabah through a Federal Ministry but the people are not duly informed as to how the contribution was utilised. "If Felda had breached the agreement, I agree with Harris that the land be taken back by the State Government and the lots given to the Sabahan settlers," he said.
Harris had said that the State Government should demand at least RM21 billion from the over RM30b that the Federal agency reaped from Sabah over the last 30 years, comprising 70pc share being the landowner and 30pc for Felda's management.
If Felda disagrees, then the next course of action should be claiming back the 300,000 acres it acquired from Sabah and redistribute it to the many landless Sabahans for flouting the agreement that it (Felda) signed with the then Berjaya Government that he (Harris) headed. Harris said that under the agreement Felda was obliged to cultivate the land with oil palm and hand them over to the settlers at 15 acres each, as was the vision of Felda's initiator, late Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak.
Harris said Felda only respected the agreement while Berjaya was in power, suggesting that it took advantage of the fall of Berjaya in 1985 to drastically change the agreement by making the settlers not the eventual landowners but mere employees, thus causing many settlers to feel cheated and leave. They were then replaced by foreign workers from a neighbouring country.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Emergency Rule was used to violate Malaysia Agreement to Rob Sabah

After the death of Tun Fuad, Malaysia Agreement was violated in the open by the imposition of the Emergency Rule which can be disputed. How can an emergency be used to violate an International Agreement? Now that the forever emergency rule was officially lifted, all these amendments to the constitution should be invalidated.

Sabah NGO wants Double Six air crash report made public

 | June 7, 2016
Perpaduan Anak Negeri Sabah (PAN Sabah) sees no closure on the Stephens air crash as long as the investigation report is kept under wraps and the people of Sabah and the families of the victims are denied the truth.
Perpaduan Anak Negeri Sabah (PAN Sabah)
KOTA KINABALU: Perpaduan Anak Negeri Sabah (PAN Sabah), an Orang Asal NGO, has urged the Sabah Government to demand that the Federal Government make public the classified report on the 40-year-old crash, Double Six or 66, which took the lives of then Sabah Chief Minister Fuad Stephens and his Cabinet on 6 June 1976.
PAN, in the same statement, also said that it’s still waiting for the Sabah Government to take a stand on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) just as the Sarawak Government has done. “We commend the Sarawak Government for its declared commitment to seek for the restoration of MA63,” said Esther Golingi who signed the statement on behalf of PAN Sabah in conjunction with the Double Six anniversary day.
“Our sovereignty and wealth must be restored.”
The NGO cannot understand why the investigation report on the air crash was still classified 40 years after 6 June 1976. Stephens and the others with him perished in the air crash just as they were about to land in Kota Kinabalu after a short hop from Labuan. “The people of Sabah and the families of the victims have the right to know why the crash happened,” said Golingi. “We need to bring closure to this tragedy.”
The NGO sees no closure on Double Six as long as the investigation report was kept under wraps and the people of Sabah and the families of the victims are denied the truth.
PAN Sabah, in recalling the events since 1976, said the state has been on a downward spiral ever since Stephens and several top leaders perished in the “mysterious” air crash.
The statement went on to cite various instances of the worst to come for Sabah.
Firstly, just eight days after the crash, the new Chief Minister signed the Oil Agreement with Petronas, agreeing to accept only 5 per cent cash payment per annum, and waiving oil royalties due under Section 24 of the Sabah Land Ordinance.
Secondly, the Federal Parliament amended Article 1(1) of the Federal Constitution on 13 July 1976 and downgraded Sabah and Sarawak from their status as equal nations with Malaya to being the 12th and 13th states in the Malayan Federation, now known as Malaysia.
Thirdly, the status of the Sabah Governor as Head of Nation (Yang Di Pertua Negara) was downgraded by the Sabah Assembly on 16 August 1976, in violation of the 20 Points, to Yang Di Pertua Negeri (head of a constituent state).
“Since the lifting of the state of emergency on 24 November 2011, three Acts have ceased to have effect and the oil and gas resources of Sabah and Sarawak return to the Governments of the two Borneo nations,” said Golingi. “The Federal Government and Petronas no longer have any rights in our territorial waters.”
“The North Borneo (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council 1954 reverts back to Sabah. The ownership of the territorial waters extend to 180 km as provided for under the 1954 Order in Council.”
She referred to the three Acts as the Territorial Sea Act 2012, the Continental Shelf Act 1966, and the Petroleum Mining Act 1966.


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: