Wednesday, 10 September 2014
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Australia , Exposing the Truth , Fact , History , North Borneo , Sabah , Tragedy Double Six No comments
According to the National Archives of Australia record series B5535:
Title of report: G. Bennett - Sabah Air Nomad - Report by Government Aircraft Factories (GAF) investigation team on a crash of Nomad aircraft in Malaysia 9M - ATZ on 6 June 1976.
Reason for decision (not to make public the findings):
Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation requires that a participating state in an investigation not release details of the investigation without the permission of the main investigating state.
Malaysia has not as yet publicly released their final and full report of the investigation.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau undertakes investigation of aircraft accidents under Annex 13. The public disclosure of this information would lessen the confidence of foreign governments in Australia's commitment to meeting the requirement of Annex 13 and compromise the future activities of the ATSB and impair its ability to carry out its statutory function.
Release of the information could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the international relation of the Commonwealth.
Annexure 1 S33 (1) (b)
The information was of an inherently confidential nature when communicated to the Australian government.
The information is still afforded security protection by the foreign government and it has asked that the information not be disclosed to the public.
The disclosure of this information would therefore constitute a breach of confidence owed of that foreign government.
Images from the National Archives of Australia's website:
Front of sealed envelope
Back of sealed envelope
A letter from J.H Dolphin
The plane which crashed was an Australian manufactured GAF Nomad N-22B type twin engine turboprop passenger aircraft operated by Sabah Air, which looks similar to this:
Crew: 1-2 pilots
Capacity: 12 passengers
Length: 12.56 m (41 ft 2⅜ in)
Wingspan: 16.52 m (54 ft 2¼ in)
Height: 5.52 m (18 ft 1½ in)
Wing area: 31.10 m² (324.0 sq ft)
Airfoil: NACA 23018 (modified)
Empty weight: 2,150 kg (4,730 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 3,855 kg (8,480 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Allison 250-B17C turboprop engines, 313 kW (420 shp) each
Cruise speed: 311 km/h (168 knots, 193 mph)
Stall speed: 88 km/h (47 knots, 55 mph) (power off, flaps down)
Range: 1,074 km (580 nm, 668 miles)
Service ceiling: 6,400 m (21,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 7.4 m/s (1,460 ft/min)
Government Aircraft Factories (GAF) was the name of an aircraft manufacturer owned by the Government of Australia based at Fishermans Bend, a suburb of Melbourne in Victoria. In 1987, GAF was reorganised and renamed as Aerospace Technologies of Australia (ASTA) then privatised. ASTA subsequently formed the nucleus of Boeing Australia.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Agreement of Malaysia , Exposing the Truth , Fact , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , Nationalist , North Borneo , Sabah No comments
TINDAKAN MANIPULASI POLITIK PEMIMPIN PERSEKUTUAN TANAH MELAYU (MALAYA) TERHADAP SABAH SEJAK TAHUN 1963.
Akar kepada segala permasalahan yang dihadapi di Sabah sekarang ini, seperti kebanjiran pendatang tanpa izin, pemberian kewarganegaraan kepada orang asing, penyerahan kekuasaan kepada Kuala Lumpur, tanah adat tidak dihormati, penyerahan sebilangan besar kawasan tanah kepada agensi dan syarikat-syarikat dari Semenanjung yang turut melibatkan kawasan tanah adat, kemiskinan di Sabah dan sebagainya disebabkan oleh dua perkara;
1. Anak Negeri Sabah tidak memahami hak asasi sebagai rakyat dalam sebuah Negara merdeka.
Apabila Anak Sabah tidak memahami hak asasi ini, mereka mudah dimanipulasikan. Mereka juga mudah ditakut-takutkan dan dalam keadaan ini, pihak yang lebih superior begitu mudah meneruskan manipulasi mereka. Di antara contoh yang biasa berlaku adalah, apabila Pejuang Politik sejati Sabah menyuarakan tentang isu-isu hak Sabah, mereka dilabelkan sebagai memainkan sentimen kenegerian. Apabila Pejuang Politik sejati Sabah menegur isu-isu berkenaan dominasi Semenanjung terhadap jawatan-jawatan perkhidmatan awam dan peluang-peluang di Sabah, mereka dilabelkan sebagai anti-Semenanjung dan anti-Nasional. Apabila Pejuang Politik sejati Sabah menegur cara pengislaman kepada penduduk Sabah dengan cara yang tidak teratur ( seperti kes 1980an dan pengislaman pelajar sekolah di bawah umur tanpa pengetahuan ibu bapa ), mereka dilabelkan sebagai anti-Islam.
Kemudiannya mereka ini dituduh bermain dengan isu sensitif dan anti kerajaan. Tohmahan demi tohmahan dan kutukan demi kutukan mereka lemparkan kepada Pejuang Politik sejati Sabah ini. Rakyat Sabah pula begitu mudah dipengaruhi dan menyebalahi pemimpin-pemimpin dari semenanjung ini. Di sinilah berlaku pertelingkahan sesama pemimpin Sabah. Pejuang Politik sejati Sabah pula terus lemas kerana kurangnya sokongan dari rakyat Sabah sendiri. Inilah akibatnya bila rakyat Sabah tidak memahami hak mereka sebagai sebuah Negara merdeka. Selagi Anak Negeri Sabah tidak memahami hak asasi mereka sebagai rakyat sebuah Negara merdeka dan selagi Anak Negeri Sabah melihat pemimpin Semenanjung itu sebagai superior, selagi itu Anak Negeri Sabah terus dihantui oleh ketakutan dan tidak dapat keluar dari kekuasaan kepenjajahan.
Sabah dan Sarawak sudah dimerdekakan oleh Kerajaan British sejak 22hb Julai 1963 dan 31hb Ogos 1963. Anak Negeri Sabah harus menghayati sejarah pembentukan
Malaysia yang meletakkan Sabah dan Sarawak sebagai salah satu dari 13 buah negeri di bawah Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Bermula dari penghayatan ini, Anak Negeri Sabah harus mampu memahami dengan jelas hak asasi sebagai rakyat dalam sebuah Negara merdeka. Dengan pemahaman ini, Anak Negeri Sabah sepatutnya tidak leka dan tidak mudah dimanipulasikan oleh mana-mana kuasa luar yang terus mengambil kesempatan terhadap kelekaan Anak Negeri Sabah.
2. Cita-cita dan sikap pemimpin Kuala Lumpur terhadap Sabah sejak dari awal rancangan Pembentukan Malaysia lebih tertumpu kepada mengambil kesempatan terhadap kekayaan sumber warisan Sabah.
Cita-cita dan sikap ini dimanifestasikan dengan tindakan-tindakan mereka terhadap Sabah sejak 1963 yang ditunjukkan dalam usaha berterusan mereka untuk memastikan mereka terus menguasai Sabah. Mereka sanggup melakukan apa sahaja untuk memastikan penguasaan mereka terhadap akan berterusan dan semakin dimantapkan. Donald Stephens, ketua Menteri Sabah pertama yang menandatangani Perjanjian Malaysia tidak diberi peluang untuk memastikan aspirasi pemimpin Sabah yang dinyatakan dalam Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold dan Jawatankuasa Antara Kerajaan (IGC) kerana bertentangan dengan cita-cita dan sikap pemimpin Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya) ini.
Mereka juga memperkenalkan dasar-dasar baru yang halus untuk menguasai minda Anak Negeri Sabah. Bermula dengan Dasar Integrasi Nasional sehinggalah ke Dasar Satu Malaysia, semuanya tanpa disedari oleh Anak Negeri Sabah telah melunturkan semangat patriotisma mereka terhadap hak-hak sebagai rakyat Sabah sehingga sumber kekayaan Sabah terus mengalir keluar ke Semenanjung. Semangat patriotisma ini dilabelkan pemimpin Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya) sebagai sentimen kenegerian dan anti Semenanjung. Setiap ungkapan patriotisma Pejuang Sejati Sabah dituduh sebagai bermain dengan isu sensitif dan menentang kerajaan. Mereka berselindung di sebalik istilah “sensitif” dan istilah “kerajaan” untuk meneruskan agenda mereka mencapai cita-cita ini.
Dengan taraf pendidikan pemimpin Sabah ketika Pembentukan Malaysia, yang jauh lebih rendah daripada pemimpin Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya) dan Singapura, dan Sabah dikatakan memerlukan masa 20 tahun untuk mencapai keupayaan untuk berdikari oleh Pesuruhjaya British di Singapura, pemimpin Sabah telah bergantung kepada Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya).
Di antara tindakan kebergantungan pemimpin Sabah kepada Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya) adalah dengan menerima Syed Kechik, Setiausaha Politik kepada Menteri Penerangan dan Penyiaraan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, Senu Abdul Rahman yang dilantik oleh Tun Razak untuk ‘campur tangan’ dalam politik Sabah dengan bertindak sebagai penasihat. Syed Kechik juga telah dilantik sebagai Pengarah Yayasan Sabah yang pertama. Ketika Sabah masih bergantung kepada kepimpinan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya), manipulasi politik oleh Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya) terhadap Sabah telah berlaku secara berleluasa untuk mencapai cita-cita mereka;
1. Singapura disingkir dari Malaysia tanpa rundingan dengan Sabah dan Sarawak.
2. Konsep asal Malaysia telah diubah – dari ‘equal partner’ kepada satu dari 13
3. Kerusi Parlimen diubah berat sebelah menyebabkan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaya) mendapat lebih 2/3.
4. Ketua Menteri Sabah yang tidak akur kepada kehendak Kuala Lumpur digulingkan.
5. Penguasaan minyak diambil dengan tekanan.
6. Hasil dan cukai dipungut oleh Kuala Lumpur.
7. Konsep Perkongsian Kuasa Diubah - dari sama taraf kepada ‘internal colonization’
8. Manipulasi kependudukan – memberi Kad Pengenalan kepada pendatang asing
9. UMNO memasuki Sabah dengan memperdayakan USNO dan merampas kuasa.
10. Persempadanan Kerusi Parlimen dan DUN diubah berat sebelah.
11. Membawa Agensi Pertanian Persekutuan masuk ke Sabah tetapi “Borneosasi” tidak dilaksanakan.
12. Memeperkenalkan Dasar Perkapalan yang merugikan Sabah.
13. Rakyat Sabah dinafikan untuk mengetahui hak asasinya
14. Sistem Pecah dan Perintah diperhebatkan di Sabah.
Mari selamatkan Sabah dari terus dimanipulasikan oleh Kekuasaan Agenda Malaya sama ada Barisan Nasional atau Pakatan Rakyat. Pihak-pihak yang berada dalam penguasaan Malaya sama ada PBS, UPKO, PBRS, LDP atau APS dan PPS tidak mampu mengeluarkan Sabah dari manipulasi ini kerana mereka lemas dalam Penguasaan Agenda Malaya. Ini kalilah orang Sabah perlu bersatu.
Namun kita perlu jelas tujuan untuk bersatu; Bersatu kerana apa? Bersatu untuk apa? Bersatu untuk siapa? Bersatu untuk ke mana? Anak Negeri Sabah perlu bersatu kerana sekian lama kita diperlagakan oleh tangan-tangan ghaib pemimpin Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Anak Negeri Sabah perlu bersatu untuk Memartabatkan Maruah Sabah Dengan Menuntut Kuasa Kemerdekaan dan Mempertahankan Hak-Hak Negeri Sabah.
Orang Sabah perlu bersatu demi untuk generasi kita, memastikan mereka tidak akan menjadi pengemis dalam bumi Sabah. Anak Negeri Sabah harus bersatu sehingga kuasa autonomi politik dinikmati oleh Anak Negeri Sabah sepenuhnya. Anak Negeri Sabah harus bersatu untuk memastikan sumber dan kekayaan bumi Sabah dinikmati sepenuhnya oleh Anak Negeri Sabah. Anak Negeri Sabah harus bersatu untuk Agenda Borneo.
***Artikel ini ditulis oleh En.Nestor Joannes agar boleh dikongsikan kepada semua warga Negara Sabah terutama sekali Generasi Muda Negara Sabah***
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Brunei , Exposing the Truth , Fact , History , malaya , Sabah , Sarawak No comments
Borneo Airways Limited adalah Syarikat Penerbangan bagi Wilayah Koloni British Borneo (merangkumi Sarawak, Borneo Utara (Sabah) dan Brunei Darussalam). Operasi Syarikat tersebut telah diambil-alih oleh Syarikat Penerbangan Malaysia (Malaysian Airways Limited) pada 1965, dan membawa kepada penubuhan Penerbangan Malaysia-Singapura (MSA;Malaysia-Singapore Airlines).
Namun, pada 1997, Nama 'Borneo Airways' muncul kembali, apabila Royal Brunei Airlines membuat keputusan untuk menubuhkan sebuah syarikat penerbangan dengan Corporate Centre Sdn. Bhd, sebuah syarikat yang beroperasi di Miri, Sarawak. Sebelum itu, Royal Brunei telah menamatkan kerjasama mereka dengan Hornbill Skyways. Pada awal penubuhan Borneo Airways, mereka mengoperasikan sebuah pesawat Dornier Do-228, dengan pendaftaran Malaysia (9M-BOR). Namun begitu, Syarikat tersebut hanya bertahan selama setahun sahaja, apabila Royal Brunei mengambil keputusan menggantung semua penerbangan syarikat tersebut ke Miri,Labuan dan Mulu. Pada 31 Ogos 1999, nama Borneo Airways terus terkubur dan hilang dari lipatan sejarah penerbangan Malaysia.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Azroy , Exposing the Truth , Fact , History , Nationalist , North Borneo , Sabah No comments
Oleh Hasmin Azroy Abdullah
Definisi Melayu dalam konteks Melayu mengikut Perlembagaan Malaysia, Perkara 160 (2) mestilah beragama Islam, mengamalkan adat budaya Melayu juga bertutur menggunakan bahasa Melayu
Beberapa minggu kebelakangan ini, Sabah riuh dengan cakap-cakap berkenaan soal entiti Melayu khususnya dari ahli Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu (UMNO) di Sabah.
Masidi Manjun mengeluarkan kenyataan untuk menjustifikasikan definisi Melayu dengan bertegas bahawa semua bangsa di Sabah layak menjadi ahli UMNO kerana berada dalam rumpun Melayu.
Pada zaman Kesultanan Melaka, dikatakan bahawa Bahasa Melayu itu pernah menjadi ‘lingua franca’ iaitu bahasa perhubungan utama di Kepulauan Melayu.
Oleh itu, umumnya bolehlah dikatakan bahawa Melayu itu sebenarnya ialah BAHASA dan BUKAN BANGSA.
Daripada sedikit sejarah asal usul Melayu ini, saya ingin bertanya kepada Masidi Manjun, bahawa rumpun Melayu yang beliau rujuk ini berdasarkan definisi yang mana?
Saya yakin bahawa definisi Melayu yang beliau sebutkan itu tentulah dalam konteks Melayu mengikut Perlembagaan Malaysia, Perkara 160 (2), orang Melayu itu mestilah beragama Islam, mengamalkan adat budaya Melayu, bertutur menggunakan bahasa Melayu dan lahir sebelum hari merdeka sama ada di Persekutuan atau Singapaura, atau pada hari merdeka telah bermastautin di Persekutuan atau Singapura.
Namun jika mengambilkira definisi ini, sudah tentu ahli UMNO di Sabah tidak layak menjadi ahli apatah lagi bagi mereka yang bukan beragama Islam.
Walau bagaimanapun, dalam Perlembagaan UMNO Fasal 4 (4.2) Ahli Biasa ialah warganegara Malaysia berbangsa Melayu atau Bumiputera yang berumur 18 tahun ke atas.
Justeru golongan Bumiputera di Sabah ini boleh menjadi ahli UMNO.
Maka adalah tidak wajar untuk mengklasifikasikannya sebagai Melayu secara rambang.
Satu persoalan pula yang ingin saya sentuh ialah definisi Bumiputera.
Jika kita merujuk Perjanjian Malaysia 1963, Akta Malaysia dan Perlembagaan Sabah, tidak wujud perkataan BUMIPUTERA.
Bagi maksud definisi pribumi atau orang asal, istilah yang digunakan ialah NATIVE iaitu sebutan dalam bahasa Inggeris. Menurut Kamus Inggeris-Melayu Dewan terbitan Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, terjemahan NATIVE ialah anak kelahiran atau orang asal.
Apabila menyentuh tentang ORANG ASAL, ada baiknya kita merujuk Report on the Census of Population,North Borneo yang diambil pada 10.08.1960 yang dikeluarkan dalam Report of The Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962 iaitu data kependudukan Sabah sebelum pembentukan Malaysia pada 1963.
Bangsa utama ketika itu ialah Dusun, Murut dan Bajau termasuk Illanun.
Manakala orang asal terdiri daripada Brunei, Kedayan, Orang Sunge, Bisayah, Sulu, Tidong dan Sino-Native.
Lantaran itu, bagaimanakah istilah BUMIPUTERA ini boleh wujud dan atas justifikasi apa BUMIPUTERA ini diwujudkan?
Siapakah pula yang tergolong dalam BUMIPUTERA ini sekiranya ia tidak mengambilkira makna NATIVE?
Sebagai menteri yang turut bertanggungjawab dalam soal kebudayaan Sabah, saya menggesa Masidi Manjun agar tidak mengelirukan rakyat Sabah dengan definisi yang kabur semata-mata untuk menjustifikasikan keberadaan UMNO di Sabah.
Beliau berhak mempertahankan parti yang diwakilinya tetapi jangan sampai mengikis identiti orang Sabah khususnya NATIVE dari segi kebanggaan bangsa dan kebudayaan.
Hasmin Azroy Abdullah adalah Presiden Institut Pemikir Muda Sabah (IPMS) merangkap Ketua 1 Gerakan Solidariti Belia Borneo (GSBB)
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Agreement of Malaysia , Exposing the Truth , Fact , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , malaya , Sabah , Sarawak No comments
By Waytha Moorthy
I make this statement in my personal capacity as advisor to various groups in Borneo seeking for their rights to review the Malaysia Agreement 1963. This applies to all my previous statements.
I refer to the statement by PBS Secretary General Johnny Mositun calling the reinstatement of the draconian Internal Security Act to deal with extremists and instigators who are calling for the true democratic rights of Borneo people. I further refer to the statement by Sabah Chief Minister Dato Musa Aman who is threatening the alleged secession movement in Sabah.
The Cobbold Commission published its findings in Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak in August 1962.
Among the observation noted by Lord Cobbold was
“It is a necessary condition that, from the outset, Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interests to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities. If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a ‘take-over’ of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not, in my judgement, be generally acceptable or successful.”
The above appears to reflect the current state of the nation as advocated by the civil societies and civil leaders of Sabah and Sarawak.
It appears the Borneo ruling component parties in Sabah and Sarawak are moving in an offensive mode with the recent rise in momentum calling for self-determination of the above states in light of the loss of confidence in Putrajaya administration as a result of a perpetual short change by the Federal government towards the rights & liberty of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak. The call to reinstate the Internal Security Act is nothing but a desperate act to maintain the “Malaya hegemony” (as perceived by people of Borneo).
Of late various human rights advocates, NGO’s and political parties in the 2 Borneo states have worked in unity to raise their communities rights to invoke their inherent rights to self-determination due to continues neglect of their grievances, woes and deteriorating state of its community . They have started various campaigns, road shows and signature campaign to the United Nations as no positive response or likelihood of any resolution has been brought forward by the current administration instead only threats & coercion seems to be the agenda to suppress their frustration.
The human rights advocates are raising valid question on the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the subsequent abrogation of the agreement with Singapore’s independence in 1965 coupled with the blatant ignorant of the Federal government, whether the Agreement is still valid, and if not whether they have a right to determine their own future. Further the MA 1963 was entered into on equal footing as a federation of independent nations that consists of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak & Singapore, therefore there is no issue of secession but mere separation as it was done with Singapore.
The “Malaya Powerhouse” should realize that when these 2 states joined the Federation, it was on an understanding of good faith that they as well as Singapore which was the 3rd block would form a partnership and that the composition of Parliamentary seats would be such that the 3 states would have at least 1/3 of the total Malaysia Parliament seats hence denying the “Malaya power” the opportunity alter or amend the Federal constitution without basis.
However the equation changed after Singapore left the Federation and this has caused the 2 Borneo states to lose their Political Franchise to protect the interest of their community. Factors such as the alleged orchestrated change in demographic by the influx of immigrants from Philippines and Indonesia who are given IC’s caused further dilution of the Sabah population causing the loss of their political franchise. Further the land grab by Malaya powers and their crony companies, the loop sided oil deal and taxation have caused great hardship and the feeling that the people of these states have now been re-colonized by the “Malaya power”.
It is time the Government stop the culture of threatening, fear and the use of sedition and security laws to curb legitimate voices of democracy and engage these people who have valid concerns. The lifespan of politically engineered demographic position such as in Sabah where UMNO rules through proxy is numbered as the people no longer fear repression and threat of arrest as the voices of democracy can never be suppressed forever.
I call upon the BN leaders in Sabah and Sarawak to urge the “Malaya power” to engage the voices of dissent and reinstate their legitimate rights rather than urging repressive actions by the Federal Government.
* P. Waytha Moorthy is the Hindraf chairman and the Independent adviser for Borneo Rights Group.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 18 Points , 20 Points , Agreement of Malaysia , Exposing the Truth , Fact , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , North Borneo , Sabah , Sarawak , Secession , Separation No comments
U.N. APPROVAL: The Cobbold Commission ascertained views of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak on the proposal to join Malaysia
THE catalyst for the United Kingdom's agreement to grant independence to its colonies, including Malaya and later Sabah (and Sarawak), lies in the establishment of the United Nations.
With its establishment in 1945, the international community showed growing concern with regard to the position of territories of all kinds which had not attained independence and the condition of their inhabitants.
Self-determination, usually leading to independence, accordingly became the standard proclaimed by the international community.
The UN Charter in Chapter XI contains the "Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories" in which member states of the UN administering territories "whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost ... the wellbeing of the inhabitants of these territories".
That obligation includes in particular the duty enshrined in Article 73(b) of the UN Charter "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement".
The principle of self-determination has gradually transformed from a mere acknowledged principle in Article 1(2) of the UN Charter into a legal right recognised in international legal instruments under the auspices of the UN.
In 1970, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, the principles of which are declared to "constitute basic principles of international law, elaborated the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples".
An important element in the principle of self-determination recognised in UN instruments is that self-determination must respect the freely expressed wishes of the people in question.
Article 73 of the UN Charter lays down that the interests of the inhabitants are "para-mount"; and the International Court of Justice has emphasised the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned.
These wishes are normally to be established by the usual political processes of the territory (for example, elections), but in some circumstances it may be necessary to make special arrangements, for example by holding a referendum or arranging for a UN mission to verify the expression of the peoples' views.
In fact, further visiting missions may be ordered by the UN to satisfy itself of the will of the people. Based on the UN practice in ascertaining the valid exercise of self-determination, it appears that requiring a referendum or a UN mission is considered only when necessary. Otherwise the UN will not intervene in the self-determination process.
The integration of Sabah (and Sarawak) into Malaysia was unconditionally accepted by the UN as a valid exercise of self-determination by its peoples, firstly through the findings of the UN Malaysia Mission and subsequently by the removal of North Borneo (and Sarawak) from the list of non-self-governing territories maintained by the UN.
In April 1962, the Cobbold Commission was formed to ascertain the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak on the agreement of the governments of the United Kingdom and the Federation of Malaya to include North Borneo and Sarawak (together with other territories) in the proposed Federation of Malaysia and to make recommendations in the light of their assessment of these views.
The Cobbold Commission spent a total of about four weeks in North Borneo and managed to complete all its sessions with the people before concluding its enquiry on April 18, 1962.
The commission unanimously agreed, in the light of their assessment of the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak, that a Federation of Malaysia was in the best interests of North Borneo and Sarawak.
On June 21, 1962, the Report of the Cobbold Commission and its findings were completed and submitted to the prime ministers of Britain and Malaya.
The report was considered in detail in a series of meetings between British and Malayan ministers in London in July 1962.
The final report was published on Aug 1, 1962. The Cobbold Commission determined from the enquiry that two-thirds of the peoples of North Borneo were agreeable to the proposal for Sabah to join Malaysia while less than 20 per cent of the people disagreed with the proposal.
The Manila Accord of July 31, 1963, between the Federation of Malaya, the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of the Philippines, entrusted the United Nations Secretary-General with the task of ascertaining the wishes of the people of North Borneo.
He reported that the majority of the peoples of North Borneo had given serious and thoughtful consideration to their future and to the implications for them of participation in a Federation of Malaysia.
He believed that the majority of the peoples of Sabah (North Borneo) and of Sarawak "have concluded that they wish to bring their dependent status to an end and to realise their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region".
He further added that the "fundamental agreement of the three participating governments in the Manila meetings, and the statements by the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of Philippines that they would welcome the formation of Malaysia provided that the support of the people of the territories by me and that, in my opinion, complete compliance with the principle of self-determination within the requirements of General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) Principal IX of the Annex was ensured; my conclusion based on the findings of the mission is that on both these counts there is no doubt about the wishes of a sizeable majority of the peoples of these territories to join in the Federation of Malaysia".
In fact, in the 2001 Application by the Philippines for Permission to Intervene in the Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/ Malaysia), the International Court of Justice per Ad Hoc Judge Franck discussed the impact of the principle of self-determination on historic titles and emphasised that it is basic to the international rule of law that historic titles cannot, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, prevail in law over the rights of non-self-governing people to claim independence and establish their sovereignty through the exercise of bona fide self-determination.
The independence of North Borneo was brought about as the result of the expressed wish of the majority of the people of the territory in a 1963 election.
It is established fact that the state of Sabah has been, is and remains a legitimate and integral part of Malaysia since Sept 16, 1963, Sabah having joined the Federation of Malaysia as a newly independent state following its decolonisation by the United Kingdom, based on the wishes of the people of Sabah.
The independence of Sabah before it joined Malaysia having been gained and established through the legitimate exercise of the right of self-determination, as expounded under the UN Charter and international law, its status as part of Malaysia today is firmly established under international law and beyond dispute.
Therefore, any purported claim put forward by the self-styled sultan of Sulu on behalf of the self-proclaimed sultanate of Sulu today to the territory of Sabah or any part of it has no legitimacy or merit.
Source: Self-determination is the standard - Columnist - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/self-determination-is-the-standard-1.248523#ixzz2yey8D7Dy
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Jeffrey G.Kitingan , News , Sabah , Secession , Separation , STAR No comments
Kota Kinabalu: The best and the only way to deal with the incessant calls for secession or separation is to take the bull by the horns and address them, said Star Sabah Chief Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan.
Welcoming the statement by Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar that Putrajaya wanted to meet with the "separatists", he said it was time for the Federal Government to address the unhappiness behind the calls for secession/separation/Sabah Sarawak rights.
Dr Jeffrey's name was singled out in the Deputy Home Minister's statement.
"The issues are all the same but the calls become louder and more intense the longer these frustrations are ignored over time, said Jeffrey, who was detained under the ISA (Internal Security Act) in the 1990s for raising the rights of Sabah under the 20- Point pre-conditions for Malaysia.
At that time, Dr Jeffrey was questioning the reason the Federal government was treating the democratically elected PBS government so badly.
For that call, he said, he was labelled a "secessionist".
Today, he said, calls for "separation" were gaining momentum inside and outside Malaysia only because the Government has ignored the cries for justice for the last 50 years.
"In fact, the situation has got worse as actions and decisions by Kuala Lumpur towards the Borneo States have tended to reinforce concerns that the intention of Kuala Lumpur all along was to take over Sabah/Sarawak, re-colonise and subjugate them and exploit their oil resources," he said.
He cited actions like pressuring the States to surrender their oil, imposing the rotation of chief ministers, changing the demography of Sabah through the Project IC; the downgrading of Sabah and Sarawak to become the 12th and 13th Malayan states; the jailing of activists and direct rule of Kuala Lumpur through Umno.
"Discussing and querying the federal and Sabah governments on these unhappiness have not only met with negative responses but their loyalty to Malaysia questioned. Now those expressing unhappiness are simply called "secessionists/separatists," he said.
So, it is time for the powers that be to come down from their high horses and listen. Yes, listen and address these frustrations before it is too late," he said, while urging the Prime Minister to be serious on this.
"Diffuse the situation, the rhetoric and quickly establish a national mechanism to address these unhappiness. Please don't continue to ignore and sweep these problems under the carpet.
"The calls for the review of the Malaysia Agreement should be respected and accepted in good faith," he said.
"Please don't say 'apa mau review review...' as was the response I received when I raised the matter in the Sabah Legislative Assembly recently," he said.
Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar had said he wanted to meet with the "separatists" and listen instead of arresting them.
"As long as they don't break the law, we are not going to arrest them," he had said, warning them against overstepping the boundaries in exercising their freedom of speech.
"The Government is even willing to bend backwards to give them time and space to come around," he said. "We are monitoring and watching themÉto see how serious the whole thing develops."
Wan Junaidi, who is a Sarawakian, said that in Sarawak they are all over the state and involved a few persons who were mostly disgruntled politicians.
He said that in Sabah the situation was under control as it merely involved disgruntled politicians using the social media to express their views.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Agreement of Malaysia , British , Commonwealth Countries , Exposing the Truth , Fact , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , North Borneo , Sabah , Sarawak No comments
My fellow friends from Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak... Did you know that Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak were the former members of the Commonwealth Games and Asian Games (Commonwealth members)? I bet you don't know about it. That's why I'm here to share with you about the fact that "YES, We were the former member of this prestigious Games ".
What would that suppose to mean? Well, it mean that... We are a Country. Even though during that time we were under British Colonization. One thing that you MUST REMEMBER AND PUT IT IN MIND that WE ARE NOT A STATE (NEGERI) AS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE MALAYA GOVERNMENT DURING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL. Even today, they still keep on their lying towards the Sovereign and Independence Nations of Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak by saying that we are just an equal states like the other states in Malaya. THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! By giving such a statement, they are not showing respect towards us, Bornean!
We've been joining this games since 1958-1962 (North Borneo and Sarawak). For Asian Games, North Borneo have been joining it since 1954 and 1962 while Sarawak joined it in 1962. For Commonwealth Games, both Countries joined it since 1958-1962.
Asian Games in 1954
Asian Games in 1962
|Asian Games in 1954|
|Asian Games 1962|
So guys... If you look more closely again and again, you will see that we, North Borneo (Sabah) together with Sarawak did join the Asian Games back in 1962 (North Borneo 1954 & 1962) and Commonwealth Games from 1958-1962... Don't you feel proud of it? YES! And we will make it happen soon... So, let us help each other by spreading this petition and get more people to sign it... Your cooperation are much appreciated... Thank you.
If you guys still don't believe it, click the link that I provided above.
Sign Petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sabah-sarawak-rights.html
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Brunei , Exposing the Truth , Fact , History , malaya , Sabah , Sarawak , Singapore No comments
Ini bukan bermakna hari ini Sarawak dan Borneo Utara turun taraf kepada "negeri" dalam Persekutuan Malaysia yang mana negeri itu menjadi setaraf Negeri dalam Persekutuan Malaya sebelum 1963. Kerajaan Persekutuan Malaysia telah MENGHINA KEDAULATAN NEGARA SARAWAK DAN NEGARA BORNEO UTARA dengan merendahkan taraf kedua-dua negara setelah penyingkiran Negara Singapura yang telah bersama-sama membentuk PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA.
Penghinaan melalui pelbagai polisi pusat seperti MEDIA (serangan politik ke atas stesen NTV7 sebagai contoh..), Undang-undang serta Polisi Pendidikan, Hasil bumi dan seterusnya...
Dum Spiro Spero | Pergo Et Perago
Source: Abdul Halim Hamdian
You don't have to say anything... By looking at this budget, you will understand everything... Before and after Sabah and Sarawak achieve their real Independence day...
***This budget does not represent the exact number. But we can assume that the budget is around or more than stated in the figure***
Please sign the petition to support this cause... SABAH SARAWAK KELUAR MALAYSIA'S ONLINE PETITION
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 20 Points , Agreement of Malaysia , bopim , Exposing the Truth , Fact , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , malaya , North Borneo , Sabah No comments
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Agreement of Malaysia , Exposing the Truth , Fact , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , malaya , Singapore No comments
The Online Citizen speaks with Dr. Thum Ping Tjin, a historian on the merger of Singapore and Malaya along with Operation Coldstore which can be said to be a period of white terror of our country. He has researched extensively and have been documenting the unclassified documents that have been recently released by the British Government on the two topics.
in one of his talks and one of many slides of the unclassified documents.
Q: What is “Merger”?
A: On 16 September 1963, the Federation of Malaya, and the British colonies of Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak merged to form Malaysia.
Q: Why did merger happen?
A: Before 1945, there was only one Malaya, which included twelve states: the four Federated Malay states (Selangor, Perak, Pahang, and Negri Sembilan), the five Unfederated Malay states (Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, and Terengganu), and the three Straits Settlements (Penang, Malacca, and Singapore). People moved freely up and down the country from the northern tip of Perlis to the southern tip of Singapore. Singapore to Malaya was like New York to the USA: the commercial, artistic, and cultural capital. From the late 19th to the mid 20th century, people seeking their fortune moved to Singapore.
In 1945, Singapore was divided from the rest of Malaya. People on both sides of the causeway viewed the division of Malaya into two as highly artificial. Families were divided. Malayans on both sides of the new border thus hoped for reunification.
Reflecting this, every political party in post-war Singapore was committed to the eventual reunification of Singapore with the rest of Malaya. In both the 1955 and 1959 general elections, all parties publicly committed themselves to merger. Merger was the genuine democratic wish of the overwhelming majority of Singapore’s people.
The British also deeply desired merger as it would mean that their commercial and strategic interests in Singapore, including the critical naval base, would be placed under the control of a reliably friendly, pro-British UMNO government. A democratic Singapore with a representative government was likely to move away from Britain and pursue a much more independent path.
Q: Why was Singapore separated to begin with?
A: Colonial Politics. Before World War II, Malaya at the time was roughly 43% Malay and 43% Chinese. After the war, the British were resolved to leave their colonies, but they needed to leave friendly governments behind to ensure their strategic and economic interests would be protected. In Malaya, to guarantee the cooperation of the conservative Malay politicians, as well as to protect their military bases in Singapore, the British split off the Chinese-dominated Singapore from the rest of Malaya, while continuing to rule Singapore as a crown colony. This left the rest of Malaya as around 60% Malay, allowing conservative Malay politicians to comfortably dominate the country. In return, they protected and supported British interests in the Federation.
Q: So why would the Federation politicians change their minds and reunify with Singapore in 1963?
A: Again, politics, this time that of the Malay leadership in the Federation. They actually didn’t want to reunify. From independence in 1957, Federation Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman grew less and less enthusiastic about Singapore. Bringing Singapore back in would have jeopardized UMNO’s political dominance. Thus, until 1961, everyone in the Federation and Singapore referred to merger as a vague aspiration that was “five to ten years away”.
Q: What happened in 1961 that made the Tunku change his mind so quickly?
A: Yet again: politics, this time, in Singapore. Singapore’s PAP won the 1959 elections and formed the government. But the leadership’s inexperience showed, and they made a lot of mistakes in their first year. They moved away from the progressive platform on which they had been elected, failing to fulfil a number of election promises. To compound this, they refused to admit their mistakes, and acted in a very arrogant and smug manner. Thus, the British and the PAP’s backbenchers grew very frustrated with the government, and the popularity of the PAP government declined heavily from 1959-60.
As a result of this, the PAP began to fracture from internal arguments. The PAP leadership sought to remove the highest source of dissent, Minister for National Development Ong Eng Guan, but the dismissal of such a popular politician only added to the PAP’s woes.
Meanwhile, the PAP backbenchers, grassroots, and trade union leaders, who were much more progressive and liberal than the more conservative PAP leadership, were unhappy with the leadership’s mistakes and arrogance. The biggest issue, however, was over the continued detention of political prisoners. The PAP’s progressive left wing kept reminding Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee that they had promised to work for the release of the political prisoners who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock government in 1956 and 1957. This promise was a major plank of the PAP election platform, and had also been personally promised by Lee to the trade union leaders in 1959. Naturally, this group – the PAP’s progressive left – grew increasingly upset when Lee refused to commit himself to working for the release of the remaining political prisoners.
Q: Wait a moment. Why was the continued detention of political prisoners such a big issue to the PAP’s progressive wing?
A: The PAP’s progressive left all grew up faced with systematic discrimination, violence, and repression from the state. First the colonial government from the 1930s, then the Japanese occupation from 1942-45, then again the British from 1945 onwards. Singapore in this period was an extremely discriminatory place, and the use of violence and terror against the people of Singapore by the state was routine. If you were not English-educated and wealthy in Singapore, you were a second-class citizen in your own country. The colonial state could come and throw you out of your home and destroy your life at any time, without proof, if they were convinced that you were an enemy of the government.
In 1956, the colonial government easily stopped Singapore’s incipient civil rights movement by simply arresting and detaining all of its leaders without trial. As a result, the progressive left realized that simply winning elections was not enough. In order for Singapore to have self-determination, a democratically elected, fully representative government of Singapore must control the internal security laws. It’s important to note here that they did not call for the abolition of the laws, only that they were controlled by a democratically elected, fully representative government of Singapore.
Q: So you’re saying what happened is that by 1961, Lee and the PAP government were growing more unpopular and were not confident of maintaining their electoral base. How does this relate to merger?
A:Since his own party’s base was not supporting him, Lee secretly turned to the Malayan Communist Party for support. However, despite their promised support, Lee lost two by-elections in Hong Lim and Anson. Lee realised that the MCP was either unwilling or unable to command popular support. He also turned to the British for support. The British did not want to see a truly progressive left wing party win the next election, but felt that they could not openly intervene in the political process without opening themselves to accusations of attempting to rig the democratic process.
To win the next election, Lee needed an achievement he could campaign on. The only popular desire he could deliver quickly was the achievement of merger. The British already wanted merger, but the Tunku didn’t. Thus, to get the Tunku on board, they told the Tunku that the PAP’s unpopularity was a sign that the island would soon be taken over by communists, and only the Tunku could save the island by taking it over. The British also urged the Tunku to accept merger, and offered the inclusion of North Borneo and Sarawak. This would dilute the influence of Singapore’s Chinese in Federation politics, as well as give the Federation access to Borneo’s vast natural resources. Eventually, after much persuading, pleading, and bargaining, the Tunku agreed to merge.
Q: Finally, we have merger. How did everyone react?
A: They didn’t know. Merger negotiations were originally done in secret. Then, in late June 1961, news leaked that Lee and Goh had been secretly negotiating merger with the Federation and British. Singapore erupted in shock, and PAP’s backbenchers and members demanded to know what was going on. They suspected that Singapore was simply trading one colonial master (the British) for another (the Federation). Rather than answer to his party, Lee chose to purge the PAP of the progressive left. The progressive left went on to form the Barisan Sosialis in August 1961.
Q: Okay. What does this have to do with Operation Coldstore?
A: The Tunku was openly worried about the impact of the Barisan Sosialis in a unified Malaysia. He feared their organisational skills and the inspired, “talismanic” leadership of Lim Chin Siong. He thus demanded that Singapore’s political opposition be arrested as a condition of merger.
The British didn’t want to conduct arrests because they already had a poor reputation around the world for colonial abuses. Reports out of Kenya and Nyasaland (Malawi) in 1959 had embarrassed them. Such acts would also have been very unpopular in the UK, jeopardising the government in the next election.
Lee wanted the arrests to be launched after merger, so that the federal government in Kuala Lumpur would take the responsibility. He feared that arresting such popular politicians would severely damage his popularity in Singapore.
Q: Hold on. Lee did not want to use detentions against the political opposition?
A: To be precise, he did not want to take responsibility for the arrests. By launching them after merger, the federal government would take responsibility. However, the Tunku told him that it was a condition of merger that the arrests take place before merger, so that the Internal Security Council comprising the British, Singapore and Federation governments would share joint responsibility. Lee was thus forced to agree.
Q: But this was August 1961. What happened between then and Operation Coldstore in January 1963?
A: The British did not want the arrests, so they stalled and played for time. They repeatedly pointed out there was no evidence of any violent communist subversion in Singapore. If they arrested people without evidence, their international and domestic reputation would suffer.
Q: So the British were happy to use detention without trial in Singapore in the 1940s and 50s, but the moment it might affect their international reputation and make them lose an election in the UK, they baulked?
Q: Also, hadn’t the British told the Tunku that Singapore was on the verge of being taken over by communists? So how could they justify not taking action?
A: They were in a tricky situation. They had to insist there were communists in Singapore, while simultaneously saying there was no evidence to arrest them. Also, they pointed out that it was not illegal to be communist in Singapore.
Q: It wasn’t?
A: No. Just as in Britain, in Singapore you couldn’t arrest someone just on the basis of what they believed. You had to show they were breaking the law, for example by planning violence.
In response, the Tunku and Lee worked hard to find some evidence on which the arrests could be conducted. But when this evidence was given to MI5 in April 1962, MI5 rejected it and basically said that it was entirely ‘surmise’ – that is, speculation, not real evidence.
Q: MI5? As in, James Bond?
A: Not quite. Bond is MI6, the foreign arm of Her Majesty’s Secret Service. MI5 is the domestic arm. Remember, Singapore was still part of the British Empire.
Q: Right. So how did Coldstore eventually happen?
A: The Brunei rebellion broke out on 8 December 1962. The Barisan issued a statement the next day declaring ‘a popular uprising against British colonialism and must command the support of all genuine anticolonialists’.
The British, Federation, and PAP seized upon this as an excuse to arrest the Barisan leadership. By endorsing the rebellion, the British could plausibly argue that the Barisan were endorsing violent subversion in Singapore, and thus the arrests had to be made for security and safety.
Ironically, the evidence that MI5 had said was speculation in April 1962 was now quickly recycled to use as a legal basis for the arrests.
Q: Why on earth would the Barisan issue this statement?
A: Several reasons. Firstly, they had issued similar statements before – most recently in January 1962 when they had supported the nationalist freedom movement of West Irian. When this was moved in the Legislative Assembly, it was supported unanimously, including by the PAP. Thus, they had consistently supported violent anti-colonial resistance, and did not see this as any different. They had issued statements supporting revolution in Aden, Cyprus, Algeria, and other colonies.
Second, it was a matter of principle. Lim Chin Siong argued that you can’t be anti-colonial, then stop being anti-colonial when it means you’ll get arrested. That just makes you a hypocrite.
Finally, I think the Barisan were simply politically inexperienced and naïve. Remember, their leadership was composed of trade unionists and doctors, unlike the PAP’s leadership, which was full of lawyers and civil servants. The Barisan saw the world much more in terms of right and wrong, rather than in terms of rules and institutions.
Of course, the British, Federation, and PAP leaders had already decided the arrests would happen, so it didn’t really matter what the Barisan chose to do. For example, the Sarawak United People’s Party condemned the rebellion, but the British colonial government still arrested many of them.
Q: So this led to Operation Coldstore?
A: Yes, Operation Coldstore was scheduled for 16 December 1962.
Q: Wait, Operation Coldstore happened on 2 February 1963!?
A: The original Operation Coldstore collapsed when, at the last minute, Lee Kuan Yew inserted fifteen extra names of his political opponents into the arrest list. When the Tunku found out, he furiously accused Lee of manipulating the arrests for his own political gain and refused to allow the arrests to go ahead. Neither man would back down, so the arrests collapsed.
Q: Why did Lee do that?
A: Remember, he was worried about the political consequences of the detentions. So he inserted the names to ensure that even if his own popularity collapsed after the arrests, there would be no real alternative to the PAP at the next election.
Q: So how did Operation Coldstore get resurrected?
A: It took two months of shuttle diplomacy by the British. Finally, Lee was given two major concessions. The first is that the post-arrest press release would refer to Malaysia, allowing Lee to argue that merger depended on the arrests, and thus his hands were tied. The second, and much more controversial concession, is that Lee was allowed to insert three names (out of the fifteen) into the arrest list.
Operation Coldstore then went ahead in the early morning of 2 February 1963. The first day, 111 people were arrested; by April, 133 people had been arrested.
Q: Okay. So let me get this straight. The primary purpose of merger was for political gain, not to reunify a divided nation?
A: Lee Kuan Yew’s and the PAP’s unpopularity provided the opportunity and drove the timing of merger. Without it, merger might not have ever happened – it certainly was growing more and more unlikely in the immediate future as the Tunku and other UMNO leaders grew more and more opposed to it. For Lee and the PAP, merger was an issue on which he could campaign and win the 1963 elections, and for the British, merger guaranteed the protection of their commercial and strategic interests, including their naval base. They convinced the Tunku and Federation leaders to agree by giving them the Borneo states and arguing that merger would allow them to reduce political instability that might arise from Singapore electing a progressive left government. But the condition the Federation imposed was the arrest of Singapore’s political opposition. Thus, throughout all this, the calculations were chiefly political.
Q: And I guess this helps explain why Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965?
A: Well, here’s a question for you: if the Federation’s and PAP’s rationale for merger and the creation of Malaysia was to neutralise Singapore’s political opposition, then once the opposition was gone, what was the rationale for both parties to stay together?
Dr. PJ Thum is a Singaporean academic who teaches history at the University of Oxford. A Harvard graduate in East Asian Studies. And for trivia, did you know PJ swam for Singapore at every level including the 1996 Atlanta Olympics? He is also the first Oxford graduate and first Singaporean to swim across the English Channel in August 2005, completing the journey despite inclement weather in 12 hours and 24 minutes.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 18 Points , 20 Points , Agreement of Malaysia , Exposing the Truth , Fact , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , Jeffrey G.Kitingan , North Borneo , Sabah , Sarawak No comments
KOTA KINABALU - “The recent events in the Peninsula with the rise of religious bigots and extremists and now violence with the non-appearance of the PM and the federal government on the Allah issue and the Bible raid proves that the federation of Malaysia is breaking up and will soon reach the point of no-return” said Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan, STAR Sabah Chief, commenting on the call by the senior Sarawak Minister for a re-look of the Malaysia Agreement.
The rising tension in recent weeks have now taken a turn for the worse with the Umno-led mob turning everything into racial and religious intolerance. Even the sanctity of the Malay Rulers are being manipulated by the politicians to fuel further intolerance and to influence the outcome of pending court proceedings.
The founding fathers from Sabah and Sarawak were visionary and clear in their thoughts on the basis of the formation of Malaysia in 1963. While they acknowledge that Islam would be the official religion, there would be freedom to practice other religions.
This was also the vision of the first PM of Malaysia when he delivered his speech in the Malayan Parliament on 16 October 1961. Tunku Abdul Rahman said: “One reaction in the Borneo Territories was that the Malaysia concept was an attempt to colonise the Borneon Territories. The answer to this was, as I said before, it is legally impossible for the federation to colonise because we desire that they should join us in the federation in equal partnership, enjoying the same status between one another, so there is no fear that Malaysia will mean that there will be an imposition of Islam on Borneo … Everybody is free to practise whatever religion”.
Freedom of religion was of utmost importance and was made to be the first item on the 20-Points/18-Points that led to the Borneo States agreeing to the formation of Malaysia.
The sickening strategy of Umno in playing with the race and religion card to pull in the rural Malays support so as to maintain their dwindling electoral support is pushing the nation to the brink of self-destruction in the Peninsula.
It has even reached the stage where the federal government ignores its own decision on the 10-Points and the numerous promises of the PM to the people of Sabah and Sarawak on freedom of religion. The 1-Malaysia slogan is a hollow political gimmick and the PM is no longer the prime minister for all Malaysians as he should be.
Up until now, the people in Sabah and Sarawak had enjoyed peace and harmony amongst the various religions. This very peace and harmony is threatened by the events in the Peninsula which appears to be condoned by the Umno-led federal government and participated by Umno leaders and members.
With this latest episode on curbing the freedom of religion particularly for the non-Muslims in Sabah and Sarawak, the very basis of the formation of Malaysia is torn apart.
Prior to this, the fundamental reasons, promises of security and development, that Sabah and Sarawak were pushed to join in the merger to form Malaysia were proven to be illusory and not fulfilled. Instead of preventing the twin threats of the Philippines and Indonesia, Sabah is now over-run by Filipino and Indonesian immigrants, illegally given ICs by the federal government, out-numbering local natives and other races.
The federal government aided and funded the Muslim insurgency in Southern Philippines, even providing them with arms and weapons with training held in Sabah. In an ironic twist, these insurgents, many with ICs and Umno memberships, invaded Lahad Datu in early 2013. In a further twist, many of the insurgents that were killed were secretly buried by the authorities in various places in Sabah including in Keningau accordingly to their purported place of birth according to their dubious ICs.
After 50 years in Malaysia, development has not reach many parts of Sabah and Sarawak. In many places, there is not even clean treated water, electricity or good sealed roads.
Of course, the grandeur of development was more than clean treated water and electricity. A Tan Sri Umno politician and former federal Minister was even thinking of flush toilets for Sabah and Sarawak after encountering flush toilets on his first visit to Malaya in 1962. Electricity is now under the federal-controlled GLC yet last week there was a state-wide blackout in Sabah.
To make matters worse, the riches of Sabah and Sarawak oil and gas resources are “stolen” and used to develop Malaya and making Sabah and Sarawak the poorest and second poorest States. To further rub salt into the wound, in 2014 Sabah and Sarawak will be contributing RM26.6 billion and RM45 billion to Petronas and the federal government coffers.
To add further injury, a water-treatment project in Keningau costing RM235 million will be funded by a loan from the federal government. What a rip-off making Sabah pay the RM235 million loan after RM26.6 billion is stolen from Sabah in oil revenue alone? Yet, not a squeak, not a whimper from Umno Sabah or the other BN components in Sabah.
Worse still, Sabahans and Sarawakians were treated shabbily as second or third class citizens by the federal government when they were denied federal flood aid while those in the Peninsula were given aid after aid, many hand-delivered by the PM himself, in addition to television sets, refrigerators, mattresses as well as more cash and gift vouchers from Petronas.
It is as clear as daylight that the basis for the formation of Malaysia has totally failed. Malaysia is now a sad tale of broken promises and shattered dreams. What is next for Sabah and Sarawak – continue in Malaysia or go the way of Singapore and Brunei which have fared much much better without Malaysia?
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Agreement of Malaysia , bopim , Exposing the Truth , Fact , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , malaya , North Borneo , Sabah , Sarawak No comments
We can't say Malaysia is a failure. It does not exist.
In future, we in Sabah and Sarawak should simply refer to Malaysia as the Federation and not Malaysia since the Federal Constitution defines Federation as that set up by the 1957 Federation of Malaya Agreement.
We should also refer to Peninsular Malaysia as Malaya, and Putrajaya as the Malayan Government in Putrajaya.
Again, the Federation set up by the 1957. Federation of Malaya Agreement is Malaya, not Malaysia which in effect does not exist as the Malayan Government is in non-compliance on the 1963 Malaysia Agreement.
The state governments of Sabah and Sarawak should be known as the Government of Sabah and Government of Sarawak.
Sabah and Sarawak are Nations in the Federation just as Scotland, for example, is a Nation in the United Kingdom.
I remember that before 1963, Singaporeans used to refer to Malaya simply as the Federation.
At that time, they considered themselves Malayans just like the people of Malaya. So, they didn't want to refer to only Malaya as Malaya since they considered both Malaya and Singapore as Malaya.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 18 Points , 20 Points , Agreement of Malaysia , Exposing the Truth , Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963 , History , North Borneo , Sabah , Sarawak , Sharing No comments
By Joe Fernandez
It was not for nothing that I was one of the top two students in English and History at St John’s Institution, Bukit Nanas, Kuala Lumpur. The other student was Kenneth Surin whose mother used to teach at St John’s Primary School. English and History are a good foundation for law.
For starters, it’s not surprising why Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has declared that the formation of Malaysia cannot be questioned since the Constitution makes no provision for it. The Constitution need not make provisions for questioning it and cannot ban any such discussions.
There's an obvious mistake in Article 160 of the Federal Constitution on the definition of Federation. It states on Page 200 that the Federation referred to was that set up under the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1957.
In fact, there was no such Agreement in 1957.
The Federation of Malaya Agreement was signed in London on 21 Jan, 1948 and announced on 1 Feb, 1948. The Federation of Malaya Independence Act was passed on 31 July, 1957. Malaya joined the Commonwealth on 31 Aug, 1957.
Obviously, the Malayan Federation was renamed the Malaysian Federation on 16 Sept, 1963 or 916.
On 11 September 1963, just 4 days before the new Federation of Malaysia was to come into being, the Government of the State of Kelantan sought a declaration that the Malaysia Agreement and Malaysia Act were null and void, or alternatively, that even if they were valid, they did not bind the State of Kelantan. The Kelantan Government argued that both the Malaysia Agreement and the Malaysia Act were not binding on Kelantan on the following grounds that the Malaysia Act in effect abolished the Federation of Malaya and this was contrary to the 1957 Federation of Malaya Agreement that the proposed changes required the consent of each of the constituent states of the Federation of Malaya – including Kelantan – and this had not been obtained. (Source: wikipedia)
Another question to consider: why are Sabah and Sarawak referred to as the 12th and 13th states in the Fede
ration (i.e. obviously the Malayan Federation as per Article 160 which was renamed Malaysian Federation on 16 Sept, 1963). This is what the people of Sabah and Sarawak want to know since they can't believe that their Founding Fathers bargained for membership in the Malayan Federation.
This is an issue which must be settled just like the issue of independence anniversary year.
Next year both the peninsula and Sabah will celebrate Aug 31 as Independence Day without mentioning how long they have been independent. Sarawak, which also obtained its independence in 1963 like Sabah but a little earlier on July 22, is being persuaded to delay the celebration of its Independence Day to Aug 31.
Also, Sabah and Sarawak observe Malaysia Day on Sept 16 every year thinking that it heralds the birth of a new Federation in 1963 bringing together Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya in equal partnership. Brunei decided at the last minute not to join in. Singapore was kicked out two years later.
Do Sabahans and Sarawakians know what they are celebrating on Sept 16?
Why don't the states in the peninsula observe Malaysia Day, a day when the Malayan Federation changed its name to Malaysian Federation?
Why are Sabahans and Sarawakians celebrating Sept 16 if it doesn’t herald the birth of a new Federation in 1963 bringing together Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya (minus Singapore) in equal partnership?
Alternatively, Sabahans and Sarawakians can observe Sept 16 as Malaysian Constitution Day.
The Malaysian Constitution can be considered an unwritten/uncodified Constitution made up of various constitutional documents including the Malayan Constitution 1963/Federal Constitution, the Sabah Constitution 1963, Sarawak Constitution 1963, Cobbold Commission Report, Inter Governmental Committee Report, UN Survey Report, Malaysia Bill, Malaysia Act, Malaysia Agreement 1963, 20 Points, 18 Points, Adat, and any other constitutional document – oral, verbal, expressed or implied – which serves the purpose of making up the unwritten/uncodified Malays
The radicals among rights activists see Sept 16 or 916 as Occupation Day when Malayan troops marched into Borneo as British troops left.
The DPM’s statement is a contradiction in terms since Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar has publicly invited rights activists in Borneo; he referred to them as separatists, to meet with him. He wants to listen to them.
Obviously, they will be raising the issue of the formation of Malaysia when they meet with the Deputy Home Minister. Many of these people were still in school when 916 happened. Obviously, they want answers!
We do know from declassified colonial documents (A.J. Stockwell), that the British, after World War II, wanted to shed their defence burden in Borneo and Singapore, and this meant merging Singapore with Malaya, the merger being facilitated for demographic reasons by Sabah and Sarawak, and also they wanted their commercial interests and empire in Borneo, Malaya and Singapore under one administrative framework.
It was the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle of ending the British Empire in southeast Asia.
The British got what they wanted.
Singapore probably did not want to get kicked out of Malaysia but it turned out to be a blessing in disguise.
The peninsula has forged ahead since 1957.
What about Sabah and Sarawak?
Who asked them what they wanted?
What have they got to show for the last 51 years?
This is the question to ponder on this Sept 16!