Substance in the form

My comments:

It is idiotic to think that to focus on the substance without caring for the form as the form is the foundation of the substance or it will fall apart and continue to mix up and mess up and lose everything on the onslaught of the supreme power of the Malayan government.  What has happened to Sarawak?  Is it not the result of not knowing the form to know the substance.   

For the past 52+ years, there have been a great mix-up and mess-up.  Is it not the time to sort out and pull Sarawak out of the mire?

Sarawak is by virtue a nation.  Hence the Federal Departments should phase out as soon as possible.  It is sensible to allow the Federal Departments to continue the work of plundering and exploitation here.  Besides, I hope all those who are holding the so called Parliamentary posts should be prepared to relinquish to assert our stance/stand as an independent entity in the Federation of Malaysia.

Let there be dateline and deadline to establish our autonomy and our status as a country/ nation.  Is the signing of agreement to turn Sarawak into a state on 27^th August, 1976 valid or legal? 

Why are our Sarawak leaders be they from the ruling  or opposition pact so concerned of complying to the laws when the premise or the ground is invalid in every sense?

Stop taking part in 2018 so called National election.  Please stop being indulgent in the foul-plays and make-believes anymore.

If the form is not important, then does he mean that the status "the master and the servant; maid and madam, father, brother, husband and son, mother, sister, wife and daughter................."  are the same?

 

‘Focus on substance, not form’

July 12, 2016, Tuesday Churchill Edward and Geryl Ogilvy Ruekeith, reporters@theborneopost.com

Attention should be on Sarawak’s claims within the fundamental provisions of Malaysia Agreement, Constitution — Abdullah Saidol

Abdullah Saidol

KUCHING: State Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) chairman Abdullah Saidol said the argument whether Sarawak is a state or region is merely a question of “form”.
“What is more significant is the question of substance on Sarawak’s claims from the federal government within the fundamental provisions or philosophy of the Malaysia Agreement at first instance and within the ambit of the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less,” he said yesterday.

“It is not going to be an easy task, but if the objectives or rationale behind the various claims are mutually understood and principally agreed, then all necessary efforts between the parties to pursue the administrative devolution should be moving forward without too much bureaucratic encumbrances.”
Abdullah, who is also Semop assemblyman and chief political secretary to the Chief Minister, was commenting on an issue on whether Sarawak should now be treated as a ‘state’ or ‘region’ or if the term ‘state’ should be dropped.

On Saturday, Local Government Minister Datuk Dr Sim Kui Hian urged Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Adenan Satem to refer to Sarawak as a region in Malaysia and not a state within the federation when negotiating with the federal government on the devolution of power and autonomy.

Dr Sim, who is also SUPP president, argued that if 
Sarawak was serious about fighting for its autonomy and reclaiming its status as a region in the nation as written in the MA63, Adenan should take the lead in making such stand. To stress this point, he also called for the word ‘state’ to be dropped when referring to Sarawak’s legislative assembly or government.

Abdullah said the matter was closely observed by all Sarawakians in view of the common desire to urgently fulfill and to narrow the development gap between Sarawak and states in the peninsula.

“Our chief minister’s sincere mission on this initiative is not a rhetorical secondary effort. He means business and all Sarawakians are behind him,” Abdullah said.
“As I have said before, negotiations on these claims must not be taken for granted and must gradually produce positive results.

“Otherwise, it is going to be tough in the coming general election.”

Meanwhile, state BN secretary-general Datuk Dr Stephen Rundi Utom said Adenan did not need any reminder from his cabinet members or lawmakers on what is the best term to refer to Sarawak when negotiating with Putrajaya on the devolution of power and autonomy.

He assured that Adenan knew the proper word to address the state with regards to the Malaysia Agreement, 1963 (MA63). He pointed out that the state government had never referred to Sarawak as one of the states in Malaysia, but an equal partner in the country’s formation in 1963.

“We never referred to Sarawak as one of the states in Malaysia, but a partner of the Federation of Malaya and Sabah to form Malaysia as stipulated in the Malaysia Agreement. That is exactly what the chief minister has been doing, and I don’t think he needs any reminder from anyone of us,” Dr Rundi, who is also the Public Utilities Minister, said when contacted yesterday.

Meanwhile, state PKR vice chairman See Chee How was reported yesterday as saying that Sarawak was referred to as a ‘state’ in the Malaysia Agreement that was concluded and signed on July 19, 1963.

The Batu Lintang assemblyman explained that Article 1 of the Malaysia Agreement had provided that the states of Sarawak, Sabah and the state of Singapore (irrelevant now) shall be federated with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya and the Federation shall thereafter be called ‘Malaysia’.

See argued that there was no basis to refer to Sarawak as a region and not a state within the federation, considering how the word ‘State’ is being used and provided under the Federal Constitution.

He pointed out that the word ‘State’ was not only an expression of the Federal Constitution, but in the “constructions and formulation of the provisions in the Malaysia Agreement, Sarawak and Sabah being expressed and termed as ‘States’ does not in any way derogate Sarawak and Sabah”.