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.

 http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/06/07/sabah-ngo-wants-double-six-air-crash-report-made-public/

Monday, May 16, 2016

Unconstitutional Petroleum Acts in Sabah and Sarawak

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=109690


'Oil remark prevented clean sweep'
Published on: Friday, May 13, 2016
Kota Kinabalu: Sarawak BN's failure to make a clean sweep during the state election may have been due to the Prime Minister stating negotiations for oil and gas royalties would only resume once the global price of the commodity recovered. "Such statement could have easily killed off Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem's initiative for greater autonomy based on the Malaysia Agreement 1963. This statement was the single factor which contributed greatly to DAP retaining the seven urban seats in Sarawak," claimed political activist Zainnal Ajamain.
He said because of this statement, urban Chinese may have had reservations whether Adenan could deliver on what he had promised to Sarawakians for greater autonomy based on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 or that it would be the Prime Minister who would be calling the shots.
"Someone should advise the Prime Minister that the Federal Government is no longer the owner of Sabah and Sarawak oil and gas reserves; they belong to the respective states.
"There is a legal maxim Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet meaning 'no one gives what he doesn't have'.
The Continental Shelf which contains the oil and gas reserves ceased to be owned by the Federal Government the minute the state of Emergency was lifted in 2011," he said.
Zainnal further explained that with the lifting of the state of Emergency, both the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and the Petroleum Mining Act 1966 are no longer enforceable in Sabah and Sarawak and therefore the Continental Shelf was no longer the Federal Government's to transfer to Petronas.
Without the state of Emergency, he said the Petroleum Development Act 1974 automatically becomes unconstitutional because Article 112C(4)(b) of the Constitution clearly states that Parliament cannot be used to restrict Sabah and Sarawak from imposing royalty.
"Section 4 of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 provides that the corporation (Petronas) can only make 'Cash Payments' which also means it cannot pay 'Royalty'.
"Therefore, it is very clear Parliament was used to pass the Petroleum Development Act 1974 to restrict Sabah and Sarawak from imposing royalty on its own oil and gas and as a result, the Petroleum Development Act 1974 is unconstitutional," he said.
A usual counter-argument from the Federal Government may be that in 2012, Parliament passed the Malaysia Territorial Sea Act 2012. However, that Act is also unconstitutional, he said.
Zainnal said this is because both the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and Petroleum Mining Act 1966 are no longer enforceable in Sabah and Sarawak and secondly, in Section 3(3) of the Malaysia Territorial Sea Act 2012, the Federal Government encroached into State land laws without the consent of the respective State government.
Parliament, he said, is not supreme in Malaysia as only the Constitution is supreme and under the Constitution, it is very clear that land is a State matter and therefore Parliament cannot simply pass any law that they please.
"Perhaps Adenan is such a gentleman that he prefers to discuss such delicate matters in confidence with the Prime Minister privately.
"Unfortunately, I have no such restrictions. After more than five decades, Sabahans and Sarawakians are awakening to their rights and their birth rights and the result of this election clearly shows the people's trust in Adenan's leadership and what he wanted to do for Sarawak within five years.
"Time is not on our side. It is also time for redemption, we should no longer have any reason to compromise.
It is time to call a spade, a spade," he said.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

How can you Malaysia exist without it being formed first?

How can you Malaysia exist without it being formed first?
Sabah and Sarawak formed Malaysia and later federated with the other States. Nothing special about that.


 http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=104268

Kota Kinabalu: A Kota Kinabalu-based legal consultant-cum- economist claims both Sabah and Sarawak did not form Malaysia – as propagated by politicians from both the Borneo states – but actually joined.
Jeremiah Yee said the proof of his argument is "conspicuous by the wordings in Article 1 of the Malaysia Agreement" which states: "… shall be federated with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya … and the Federation shall thereafter be called Malaysia"
"In Section 1 of the Malaysia Act that was passed by the British parliament on 31 July 1963, it was also undisguised: "… to federate with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as the Federation), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia …"
"In a nutshell, it is crystal clear that there was no new Federation but an old one called Malaya which was later renamed Malaysia," Yee said.
He also said Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan should advise the Sabah and Sarawak governments to jointly sue the British and Malaysian governments in a London court, instead of blaming the British.
"If Pairin thinks the British government should be held accountable for the deterioration in Sabah including seeking interpretation of the safeguards in the Malaysia Agreement, he should sue in a London court, since the Malaysia Agreement was inked by their predecessors there in 1963," he said.
He was commenting on Pairin's blaming of the British Government when debating the National Budget 2016 in Parliament, recently. Among the perennial issues which continue to plague Sabah today include the interpretation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, and the 40pc revenue entitled to Sabah, under the 48th Schedule in Inter-Governmental Committee Report that has not been reviewed since 2004.
The Malaysia Agreement was signed in London on 9 July 1963 and is a legitimate document in spite of overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise, he said.
To substantiate this, he pointed out that when the governments of Britain, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement in London on 9 July 1963, the governments of Sabah and Sarawak were actually still at that material time British colonial governments.
On another matter that crops up every year in August that Sabah gained independence on 31 August 1963, Jeremiah opined that this is also not true, citing that "self-government" is not independence as the British flag "Union Jack" was only lowered for the final time in Jesselton at midnight of 16 September 1963.
The departure of the last British Governor from Sabah took place in the morning after the Proclamation of Malaysia was announced in the town padang (now Padang Merdeka).
"Succinctly, there was never any formal declaration of independence on 31 August 1963 for Sabah even though there were shouts of "Merdeka" in the town padang on 16 September 1963, but "Merdeka" from what when only Malaysia was proclaimed?" he contended.
As much as he concurred with Pairin's lamentation that the formation of Malaysia was done in a hurry, Jeremiah nonetheless pointed out that after the Second World War ended, the British economy both in the United Kingdom and the colonial empire was so drained to an extent that it could barely sustain existing commitments then, let alone meet new ones.
"The only justifiable and viable thing for Whitehall to do at that time was to let go of their colonies to new masters or local actors under the guise of 'Merdeka' so that they could dispose of their assets and businesses which include among others mines and estates and bring the money back to mother England.
Jeremiah further opined that the Malaysia Project of the British government was short-sighted, carelessly co-ordinated, inadequately designed, and poorly executed, to say the least.
"For one among many indicators, look no further than the controversial 20-Points which have remained a unilateral list of political demands largely unmet after 52 years," he cited.
On the 40pc entitlement from the net collection of federal revenue from Sabah by the Federal government which has not been paid for decades, a large portion of the claim, save for only a few years back, Jeremiah opined that there's nothing much the State government could do as, it is actually statutorily-barred.
"For this fiasco alone, who is to be blamed – the British government or the government of Sabah? To me the answer is the latter because out of ignorance it did not pursue the matter with the Federal government which also conveniently kept quiet.
"For so many administrations under numerous chief ministers of which some held the stewardship for 9 years or more and even set up think-tank and paid high salary to its members for advising the Sabah government, what happened?" he asked.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

More Discriminatory Budget for Sabah and Sarawak

29 billion RM out of 267 billion RM for the 2016 Malaysian budget.\
That is only 11% for both Sabah and Sarawak which has a population of 20% of Malaysia and around 50% of the total area.

This is the standard practise of distirbuting money in Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak together, always given around 10%, even for welfare fund. This is despite Sabah, alone, has 40% of the poor people in Malaysia. No wonder, with such discriminatory budgeting, Sabah will become even poorer.

 http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/budget-2016-goes-down-well-with-sabah-sarawak



October 23, 2015. — Picture by Yusof Mat IsaKUCHING, Oct 23 — Consumer Voice Association of Sarawak (Covas) vice president Philip Ng said Covas was relieved by the measures taken in Budget 2016 to address the rising cost of living.
Citing an example, he said the 1Harga 1Sarawak and 1Harga 1Sabah iniative would ensure uniformity of prices for selected goods throughout the country besides the exemption on the Goods and Tax for several types of medicine. 
He also lauded the minimum wage hike from RM900 to RM1,000 a month for Peninsular Malaysia and from RM800 to RM920 for Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan from July next year.
In Kota Kinabalu, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Faculty of Economics, Business and Accounting senior lecturer Dr Sarmah Aranas said the RM260 million allocation to implement the 1Harga 1Sabah and 1Harga 1Sarawak programme would do justice to consumers in the two states as they would get to enjoy fair prices. 
“It could be the difference in prices is due to transportation costs. So the allocation will act as an incentive to the companies involved to streamline prices,” she during a “live” cross-over from the RTM studio here.
Describing the 2016 Budget as an excellent budget as far as Sabah and Sarawak were concerned, activist Kanul Gindol said the RM29.2 billion allocated for the two states would help spread more development projects. 
“It would spur development, businesses and wealth-creating activities, more so if local contractors are engaged in all the development projects in Sabah and Sarawak, something the two states’ leadership have been fighting for for years,” he said In Sibu, Engkilili assemblyman Johnical Rayong Ngipa said the RM70 million allocation to provide interest-free loans to build longhouses for the Dayak community would go a long in helping members of the community. 
Under the scheme, a maximum of RM50,000 will be made avalaible per longhouse.
Meanwhile, Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) president Senator Datuk Dr Sim Kui Hian said he was glad to see the continued refinement of the GST with more GST zero rating for medicine and food items introduced, apart from various improvements in salaries and pensions of civil servants specifically to address the issue of rising cost of living.
Describing the 2016 Budget as “a challenging budget” in the context of slump in oil prices internationally, he said Sarawak received many advantages in the budget such as interest-free loans for the longhouses construction, commitment to the toll-free Pan Borneo highway and the 1Harga 1Sarawak dan 1Harga 1Sabah programme.
He also lauded the move to exempt Goods and Service Tax (GST) for flight tickets involving Rural Air Services (RAS). — Bernama

KUCHING, Oct 23 — Consumer Voice Association of Sarawak (Covas) vice president Philip Ng said Covas was relieved by the measures taken in Budget 2016 to address the rising cost of living.
Citing an example, he said the 1Harga 1Sarawak and 1Harga 1Sabah iniative would ensure uniformity of prices for selected goods throughout the country besides the exemption on the Goods and Tax for several types of medicine.
He also lauded the minimum wage hike from RM900 to RM1,000 a month for Peninsular Malaysia and from RM800 to RM920 for Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan from July next year.
In Kota Kinabalu, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Faculty of Economics, Business and Accounting senior lecturer Dr Sarmah Aranas said the RM260 million allocation to implement the 1Harga 1Sabah and 1Harga 1Sarawak programme would do justice to consumers in the two states as they would get to enjoy fair prices.
“It could be the difference in prices is due to transportation costs. So the allocation will act as an incentive to the companies involved to streamline prices,” she during a “live” cross-over from the RTM studio here.
Describing the 2016 Budget as an excellent budget as far as Sabah and Sarawak were concerned, activist Kanul Gindol said the RM29.2 billion allocated for the two states would help spread more development projects.
“It would spur development, businesses and wealth-creating activities, more so if local contractors are engaged in all the development projects in Sabah and Sarawak, something the two states’ leadership have been fighting for for years,” he said In Sibu, Engkilili assemblyman Johnical Rayong Ngipa said the RM70 million allocation to provide interest-free loans to build longhouses for the Dayak community would go a long in helping members of the community.
Under the scheme, a maximum of RM50,000 will be made avalaible per longhouse.
Meanwhile, Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) president Senator Datuk Dr Sim Kui Hian said he was glad to see the continued refinement of the GST with more GST zero rating for medicine and food items introduced, apart from various improvements in salaries and pensions of civil servants specifically to address the issue of rising cost of living.
Describing the 2016 Budget as “a challenging budget” in the context of slump in oil prices internationally, he said Sarawak received many advantages in the budget such as interest-free loans for the longhouses construction, commitment to the toll-free Pan Borneo highway and the 1Harga 1Sarawak dan 1Harga 1Sabah programme.
He also lauded the move to exempt Goods and Service Tax (GST) for flight tickets involving Rural Air Services (RAS). — Bernama
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/budget-2016-goes-down-well-with-sabah-sarawak#sthash.bBI8t514.dpuf
KUCHING, Oct 23 — Consumer Voice Association of Sarawak (Covas) vice president Philip Ng said Covas was relieved by the measures taken in Budget 2016 to address the rising cost of living.
Citing an example, he said the 1Harga 1Sarawak and 1Harga 1Sabah iniative would ensure uniformity of prices for selected goods throughout the country besides the exemption on the Goods and Tax for several types of medicine.
He also lauded the minimum wage hike from RM900 to RM1,000 a month for Peninsular Malaysia and from RM800 to RM920 for Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan from July next year.
In Kota Kinabalu, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Faculty of Economics, Business and Accounting senior lecturer Dr Sarmah Aranas said the RM260 million allocation to implement the 1Harga 1Sabah and 1Harga 1Sarawak programme would do justice to consumers in the two states as they would get to enjoy fair prices.
“It could be the difference in prices is due to transportation costs. So the allocation will act as an incentive to the companies involved to streamline prices,” she during a “live” cross-over from the RTM studio here.
Describing the 2016 Budget as an excellent budget as far as Sabah and Sarawak were concerned, activist Kanul Gindol said the RM29.2 billion allocated for the two states would help spread more development projects.
“It would spur development, businesses and wealth-creating activities, more so if local contractors are engaged in all the development projects in Sabah and Sarawak, something the two states’ leadership have been fighting for for years,” he said In Sibu, Engkilili assemblyman Johnical Rayong Ngipa said the RM70 million allocation to provide interest-free loans to build longhouses for the Dayak community would go a long in helping members of the community.
Under the scheme, a maximum of RM50,000 will be made avalaible per longhouse.
Meanwhile, Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) president Senator Datuk Dr Sim Kui Hian said he was glad to see the continued refinement of the GST with more GST zero rating for medicine and food items introduced, apart from various improvements in salaries and pensions of civil servants specifically to address the issue of rising cost of living.
Describing the 2016 Budget as “a challenging budget” in the context of slump in oil prices internationally, he said Sarawak received many advantages in the budget such as interest-free loans for the longhouses construction, commitment to the toll-free Pan Borneo highway and the 1Harga 1Sarawak dan 1Harga 1Sabah programme.
He also lauded the move to exempt Goods and Service Tax (GST) for flight tickets involving Rural Air Services (RAS). — Bernama

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/budget-2016-goes-down-well-with-sabah-sarawak#sthash.bBI8t514.dpuf

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.
 
 
http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=102581
 
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

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/sabah-sarawak-not-colonised-by-malaya-dr-arnold-puyok

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.
COMMENT
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?
Conclusion
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 http://legalandprudent.blogspot.com giving no quarters to anyone.

Comments

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.

Introduction

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: