Pages

Powered By Blogger

Sunday 27 November 2016


Why the petroleum development Act 1974 is in breach of the Malaysia agreement 1963 and the federal constitution and is null and void


(Advertorial)
logo
(fig.1)
(fig.1)

(a) Introduction: ‘Partners of Equal Status’
SARAWAK came together with Sabah, Singapore, and Malaya, supposedly partners of equal status, to form Malaysia pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), with its territory, including its own Continental Shelf and all attached resources, intact.
The assurances of this fact and intent in the new federation were stated clearly by the new Prime Minister himself (fig.1), to allay any doubt as to the nature of the union between the parties concerned (quote)
“…When the Borneo territories become part of Malaysia, they will cease to be a colony of Britain, and they will not be a colony of Malaya – I thought I made it clear – they will be partners of equal status”
(fig. 2)
(fig. 2)
(b) The Malaysia Agreement 1963
NOTHING at all was mentioned about Sarawak’s petroleum resources in Inter-GovernmentalCommittee Report or the subsequent Malaysia Agreement 1963. These naturally, legally and constitutionally came under the State just like land and other matters such as minerals that were included within that land.

As J.C. Fong, former Sarawak State Attorney General stated in his book (fig. 2), “the two states continued to exercise rights over petroleum found within its (sic)territories, including those found offshore”.

Those rights were to be taken away via the device of the Petroleum Development Act 1974, a device that although passed by Parliament, however did not follow a substantive provision of the Federal Constitution, and was therefore unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect.
(fig.3
(fig.3

(c) Extent of Sarawak’s Boundaries
WHAT are the boundaries of Sarawak’s territory then, including its territorial waters, even before the formation of Malaysia?  In 1954, Great Britain passed the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council that applied to Sarawak, which emphatically defined Sarawak’s boundaries to include the continental shelf, being the seabed and its subsoil (fig.3).
Needless to say, all mineral and other resources within that subsoil also belong to Sarawak.
(fig.4)
(fig.4)

(d) Sarawak Interpretation Ordinance
THE SARAWAK Interpretation Ordinance 2005 further clarified the expressions and words of the law to encompass the meaning of “Sarawak” as the State of Sarawak, including its territorial waters as deemed by international law (fig.4).

The Sarawak Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (which repealed and replaced the Interpretation Ordinance 1958) is also clearly supported by Article 1 (3) of the Federal Constitution itself.
(fig.5)
(fig.5)

(e) The Federal Constitution
UNDER Article 2 (b) of the Federal Constitution, while Parliament may by law alter the boundaries of any State, it is expressly provided that such a law shall not be passed without the consent of the State (expressed by a law made by the Legislature of that State, in this case, Sarawak (and also the Council of Rulers).

Any such law passed by Parliament purporting to alter the boundaries of Sarawak is therefore clearly unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

This includes laws such as the Territorial Sea Act 2012 and the Petroleum Development Act 1974, neither of which were consented to by the State in the manner provided for under the said Article 2 (b) of the Federal Constitution. (fig.5)
(fig. 6)
(fig. 6)

(f) Sarawak’s Petroleum Resources & Petroleum Development Act 1974
THE DEFINED territorial boundaries of Sarawak also apply to all resources, including petroleum, within those boundaries. As such no purported vesting of those resources in Petronas can have any validity without the consent of the State Legislature.

No such consenting law was ever passed by the Sarawak Legislature. Sarawak is therefore fully within its constitutional rights to take back its petroleum resources and manage the same on its own. The executive decision taken by the Sarawak Government at that time and the entire Petroleum Development Act 1974 law passed in Parliament can have no constitutional or legal effect without the consent of Sarawak’s Legislative Assembly.

All of Petronas operations in Sarawak therefore are arguably unconstitutional and illegal. The Federal Government must stop pretending that it or Petronas has any legal right or power over Sarawak’s petroleum resources, with regard to which there has been poor value creation as far as Sarawak is concerned.

Under the present Federal and Petronas regime Sarawak has been transformed from a territory with one of Malaysia’s richest oil and gas reserves into one of the poorest states in Malaysia. This was acknowledged by no less than YAB Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak himself in a Parliamentary reply on 12th June, 2012. (fig. 6)
pda74-unconsasdadadtitutional-fina
(g) Economic Parity is Essential for Sarawak’s Future Generations
THE GLARING economic disparities and unabated massive development in Peninsular, mandates that Sarawak redirect more of its economic resources to develop itself for the sake of its future generations.

The unfair distribution of returns under Malaysia’s Petroleum production sharing regime whereby the Federal Government takes the biggest chunks of revenue from Petroleum in the form of Petroleum Income Tax, royalty, dividends, corporate tax, export duty and recently, GST is but one example of the unfair distribution of wealth for State development.

This situation was largely caused by the erosion of its rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) at the expense of Sarawak’s own valid interests and the welfare of its peoples.

Therefore the reinstatement of Sarawak’s right under MA63 is a primary remedy and in no way should be spun as a move for secession by politicians from the peninsular or their agents.

After more than 42 years of its precious petroleum resources being poorly managed by Petronas, it is time for Sarawak to set right the wrongful ‘vesting’ of its inalienable ownership rights to its petroleum resources. In line with its avowed intentions to seek economic parity for future generations of Sarawakians, the Suarah Petroleum Group (SPG) therefore wholeheartedly supports the Sarawak State Government, under the leadership of  YAB Tan Sri Datuk Patinggi Haji Adenan Satem in its efforts at the upcoming State Legislative Assembly sitting to restore the autonomy and resources of Sarawak that were usurped.

SPG calls upon all Sarawakians irrespective of their political beliefs or affliations to support the State Government’s efforts in this regard, for the sake of future generations of Sarawakians.
Media Communications and Legal Unit Suarah Petroleum Group
Issued by: Media Communications and Legal Unit Suarah Petroleum Group

Saturday 26 November 2016

Tweets 27/11/2016



Tweets 27/11/2016
4种模型S4S
一种是以BN为中心和重心的S4S。以个人权益硬摆中间的S4S 这些人嘴巴喊S4S,骨子里4MO—For myself only.  rotten ones

一种以反对党为中心和重心的S4S,相信改朝换代后,砂拉越明天会更好。  (还好)

一种以砂拉越权益为出发点的S4S 全心全意只要实践拿回砂拉越在MA63契约的权益。不管你是朝野那方,能禁止马来亚霸权继续霸凌掠夺和剥削砂拉越,就可以获得这一群的人的全面支持。

一种S4S是相信完全脱离,切割后重建砂拉越国。以SingagporeBrunei为楷模槊造全新的砂拉越。 我是属于这一组别。 为了避免被马来亚UMNO-BN霸权[托下水] 我始终认为砂沙两国人民准备好脱离马来西亚联邦。 早日恢复自由身。 别做大象被一条小绳子捆绑着而不能自己。 这是时候了。

肯雅兰党非常不满 国阵独霸议会

(本报诗巫26日讯)肯雅兰党今天发文告指立法议会民主殿堂已沦为国阵独霸的一言堂。

该党称,本次州议会,首长屈服于巫统的压力而U转,不敢动议之前高调声称的索回主权议案,其他国阵成员党也全部噤声,反之,由在野党议员提的索回砂主权动议却被无理否定,令砂人非常失望。

“更令人气愤的是立法议长挡住所有反对党的动议,甚至某些部长经不起财政质疑而禁足反对党议员。”
不顾人民诉求
.
该党称,这说明国阵所有立法议员完全不顾大多数人民的诉求,完全站在马来亚国阵主子的立场上,深怕有一点违背,再看,选前口口声声维护维护砂主权的政党在州议会上却闭口不提主权,完全暴露了他们仅此捞取选票的目的。

该党表示,本次州议会2017州财政预算总额为59亿2千8百万令吉,联邦拨款只有2.8亿,这使人民完全失去了对联邦财政的依赖,这2.8亿令吉,砂前十大财团个个都有本事出这个钱。

该党指出,“如果联邦持续如此对待砂垃越的发展拨款,我们对联邦财政还有什么指望呢?”

该党表示,砂拉越每年对联邦财政贡献了近百亿令吉,而联邦给回的发展拨款只有2.8亿令吉,其余56亿多令吉要靠砂拉越自己,这是否要迫砂走上财政自主权的路?

该党表示,联邦财政管理的贪腐和浪费已严重地牺牲了砂拉越的发展,沦为愈发落后的地方,造成年青人才严重外流,国家愈加落后的恶性发展的地步。

必须与联邦谈判
肯雅兰党强烈要求即组成跨党派跨政府的专家团,公开与联邦谈判,拿回财政自主权,拿回资源、教育、交通、医疗和行政自主权。

该党称,动议通过提高至20%的油气开采税已两年,要求放权力有多年,仍未见有利于大众的实质进展,使人民深感失望。

该党表示,堵住人民的怨气,挡住议会的问政管道,镇压人民的反抗,只能加剧 社会矛盾的激化,局势更加动荡,望所有执政者深思。

政府与人民关係

这看似一场辩论赛的题目,其实是一场培训营分享会的主题。我和陈亚才兄在27日(今天)应一华团生活营之邀,出席和年轻人谈谈我们的看法。虽然我们都是学歷史的,但他的身份比我超然。我的火箭烙印很深,即使退了党,「超人」的发言难免会被视为民主行动党的立场。
如果我说政府和人民的关係应该是「角力」,则国阵(尤其华基政客)的舆论机关將伺机说成「连超人也承认,檳城人民需要和檳城政府进行角力」,进而推导出结论:「林冠英政府和檳城人民不能共贏」,「一定要让火箭或公正党输掉一些议席,以壮大檳城国阵」。

如果我说政府和人民的关係应当是「共贏」的话,那么国阵文宣也会宣称「人民无需和纳吉角力,应该充和分和国阵政府合作,尤其通过马华、民政和人联党去协商,来爭取权益,达致共贏」。

为了避免我的演讲內容被断章取义,首先,我要设定好討论的「条件」,不能光从命题出发来泛谈。好比你问小朋友,「下雨好吗?」,他很难答覆。但若设定好条件,「请问在旱季,下雨好吗?」或者「海啸过后,下雨好吗?」,则小朋友的回答就简单得多。

所以,只要我们將「条件」设定好,將討论的时空范围界定清楚,则不仅有助於大家判断问题,我的见解亦不容易被有心人曲解。

巫统主导的马来西亚国阵政府到底是一个什么性质的政权?海內外搞「大马研究」的政治学者、社会学者、歷史学者累积的文献很多,有曰:威权政府、种族威权主义、协和式民主、选举式威权、威权性发展主义、温和穆斯林国家、超稳定种族霸权政体、掠夺型威权国家……林林总总的名堂、概念和定义。

然上述的概念和定义,都能综合出若干特徵:
1.大马是介於民主和专制之间的威权政体(Authoritarian Regime);
2.国阵是由马来种族支配的权力分配模式;
3.国阵执政的合法性(legitimacy)备受质疑,皆因不公正的选举制度(gerrymandering)使然;
4.隨著伊斯兰化政策(islamization policy)的进逼,大马宪政世俗的基础正逐步受到蚕食;
5.英国西敏寺的三权分立民主制衡机制没有获得充分尊重和实践,尤其干预司法的大案成为詬病;
 6.国阵推崇的是「依法治国」(rule by law)而非「法治国家」(rule of law);所以它在国会可以制定诸多「恶法」来「维持社会秩序」,不惜践踏公民自由权;
7.大马虽然不是共產国家,但国阵执行的经济政策也並非自由的市场经济,而是由单一种族垄断的朋党资本主义(crony capitalism)。巫统「干预市场的手」无所不在,但偏偏「要自由竞爭的它却干预,要干预的它却自由放任」,是为马来党国资本主义(Malay party state capitalism);
8.国阵(尤其巫统)有一套奴役百姓思想的软势力,从敦拉萨的「马来人至上」(Ketuanan Melayu),马哈迪的「亚洲价值」(Asian Values)发展到当今纳吉和伊党共治的「伊斯兰化政策」,作为消解马来社会反抗势力的「文化霸权」(Cultural Hegemony);
9.社会福利的分配不是建立在民间的实际需求,而是以肤色为判断基础,国民被划分为土著和非土著,各民族的权利和义务不对等,是为「单一种族福利国」,又称社会沙文主义(Social Chauvinism);
10.西马半岛的现代化建设远远超越东马两邦,资源长年被执政精英所瓜分,近年本土主义崛起,沙砂分离主义將是大马未来的一大挑战。
就以上十点特徵来作为我们討论问题的「条件」和「范围」,你认为,大马人民和国阵政府的关係,应当是「角力」还是「共贏」?

我不准备提供標准答案,因为我不赞成给年轻人「餵食」,接下来我给大家介绍一些西方哲人对「政府」的见解,作为大家独立思考的参照系。

首先,我们探討为何人类这一物种,需要组织政府和国家(state)?简单地说,人类是群居的动物,要通过结社、互助、集体和情感生活,来应付自然界、猛兽和外族的挑战,目的为保障个体安全(霍布斯Thomas Hobbes的观点)和繁衍后代。

所以人不论在参加部落、归入民族、组织国家或选举政府,都应当是以促进自身的福祉(自由、安全和繁衍,也包括財富)为宗旨,而非被集体(可以是部落、宗教、民族、国家或政府)所奴役或侵犯。

我认同卢梭(Jean Jacques Rousseau)谓「政府的目的是自由」,史宾诺莎(Baruch Spinoza)也认为,「自由应摆在安全之前」。洛克(John Locke)则说,「政府没有权力剥夺任何人的自然权利(Natural Rights)」。故此,人类最宝贵的价值是自由,自由不应该因结社而受到侵犯。人民组织政府,是將自己管理公共事务的权利,按社会契约(social contract)「度让」给政府,並且约定每四年或五年一次举行选举,確保「度让」的权力可以依时收回,或重新委託给另一执政集团。若发现「社会契约」的內容没有被政府所遵照,人民有权力可以用暴力推翻之(卢梭的观点),这就是「主权在民」的精粹。

社会契约的內容,简单地说,就是人民和国家/政府(英文都是翻译作State)的基本约定,比如维持一个「政教分离的世俗政体」、「宪法至上的治理模式」、「个人自由、安全和平等获得保障的社会制度」等等。宪法则可谓社会契约最集中的体现,我借用中国当代思想家已故严家其先生的「两个凡是」来说明之:「凡是宪法没有规定政府可以做的,政府都不可以做;凡是宪法没有阻止人民去做的,人民都可以去做」。这个要义就是为了保障人民「度让」给政府管理公共事务的权利,不会被滥用来遏制或侵犯公民自由权(civil liberties)。所以,对於政府权力,要从严规范;对於人民权利,要从宽解释。政府敢越其权限一步,就是违宪;人民反抗,则是护宪。故此,净选盟(Bersih)號召人民上街,和平示威,不是推翻国会民主,而是捍卫人民有反对专制政府的自然权利。

我不是无政府主义者(Anarchist),我同意作为一个有效进行「治理」的政府,它需要透过「社会契约」赋予它合法使用暴力(警察、军队、监狱)、公共资源(財政税收)和司法系统,这是为確保促进一个大多数人福祉的社会制度得以有序运作。但是,政府/政党和政客,往往会滥用公权力,来维护统治集团的狭隘利益,甚至侵害人民的福祉和破坏"社会契约",大家从近期国阵援引「国安法」(SOSMA)逮捕净选盟主席玛丽亚陈一案就能判断之。

再则,大歷史学家艾克顿爵士(Load Acton)认为,「权力会导致腐败,绝对权力导致绝对腐败」。古有西方孟德斯鳩(Montesquieu)主张三权分立,近有东方孙中山的五权宪法,出发点均是对人性的不信任,故要將权力分散,並用权力来制衡权力。有人形容说「寧要两只互相制衡的魔鬼,也不要一只拥有绝对权力的天使」,如李敖就提出「壮大乌龟打王八」的主张。大家不妨思考纳吉在被揭发一马丑闻案后,从其个人到政府机构,权力是更集中还是被分散?

我期待大家能从我的分享中结合大马的「具体国情」来做独立思考。你作为一个独立的个体,从1957年到今天,你认为,我国的政治是否更加自由?社会是否更加开放?民族是否更加平等?经济是否更加进步?政府是否更加廉洁?宗教是否更加宽容?

最后,你的个人权利是否受到尊重?你会和纳吉政权「角力」还是「共贏」?答案还需要我说出口吗?


Friday 25 November 2016

Tweets 26112016



Tweets  26112016
我真的认为AdenanSatem引领的砂拉越政府,有那么重臭UMNO-BN味道如何能不[傀儡]和不[狼狈为奸] 所以,我真的深深的相信,只有完全去除任何UMNO-BN联系,砂沙两国的自主权才有可能从新朔造。有自己的品牌,自己的立场,自己权威,自己,。。。。。。,砂沙两国才可以真正独立自主自治自理,自。。。。。。 拒绝处处[联邦],处处任霸权[掠夺剥削][掠夺剥削]后,还要[感恩霸权]的不良行为和动作。 这跟脸被霸凌[刮了刮],还要不停的说[道谢]。怎么这么做人做事那么低贱。

我真的希望,有第三势力的崛起。大家敢敢的甩掉臭旧没作为政府。 不要把希望建在肮脏贪污舞弊腐败滥权的机制上。 UMNO-BN-PBB等等等等的结构一定要瓦解,砂才有希望,砂拉越计划才可能进行无阻。[从心和从新]出发,创造真正砂拉越的威权和尊严。  AdenanSatem引领的政府太过重UMNO-BN口味能不[反复无常]

明明说好21/11/2016堂堂正正大大方方向全世界宣布[砂拉越]的是马来西亚联邦国中国。 却临时,[莫名其妙][狗熊]的退缩。 AdenanSatem有意建立起的[英雄]形象,霎那尽失无影。 换来的是[英雄变狗熊]。为了迎合霸权味口[自我摧残]。这互联网的时代,大家都是部分的历史论述者。 Adenan5年任期能做什么,就只好等着瞧了。

Tweets 24/11/2016



Tweets 24/11/2016
       加帛福南小学董事长 孙伟 。。。翼公众捐助  新校舍建费差40 
网上找不到全文下载。 在这里,因时间有限,只好长话短说。重点提示
     他说, 3层楼共14间课室。动工至今有11个月。工程已完成60%
建。。。工程和内部装潢需用RM150万。 2011年筹集RM50 万,动工兴建校舍建筹获RM625000  目前尚差RM40万的经费。
     
      他希望学生家长, 商家和热心人士支持,捐助新校舍经费

     教育部拨款没下文
     今年,砂拉越选举之前,有消息指教育部会拨款RM100万充作建校经费。  选举后至今没有下文。

My comments
     53年,砂各源流学校的问题,53[始终如一]。这问题, 我很清楚看到是领袖们的问题。除了,在报章上述说以外,他们有做多少追踪/follow-up的动作,[追讨到底]。诚如福南小学急需 教育厅拨款建校,可是董事部并没有积极采取必要步骤要求拨款。 每次,这些领袖们,都是采用最方便,最不负责任的方式:*他希望学生家长, 商家和热心人士支持,捐助新校舍经费*
     这种行为和方式已经变成一中文化。 无知的阿狗和阿猫就这样承当政府的责任。 [猪仔],还税后,还被人骗去一再缴税后税,还不知道。让部长先生,小姐 ,女士们乐逍遥。 税收后,这些钱。。。。没到场的,最后是。。。。?  政府税收后的税金最后进入[盗贼官爷]的口袋。 这个结果,我相信有思考的人,现在都知道都是人民无知惹的祸。被自己的领袖耍弄。
   还是一句话:[华社有向学校课税吗?]  还有领袖们请好好做事吧!