Sunday, July 31, 2016

More Arguments that Malaya violated the Malaysia Agreement

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/07/13/bopim-wants-sabahswak-pre-1976-status-restored/

 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.

 http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=111237

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

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: