theborneopost.com

Soon Koh urges CM to clear ambiguity over Sarawak’s agreement with Petronas

4-5 minutes

---

Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh

KUCHING: Parti Sarawak Bersatu (PSB) president Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh has urged Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg to disclose the exact amount on sales tax payable by Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas).
        Referring to a local Chinese daily’s front page yesterday, Wong said the Chinese daily quoted a Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) leader, after the coalition supreme council meeting on Friday,  that the amount owed by Petronas was more than RM2 billion and the figure cited in a recent joint statement between the state government and Petronas was only a ‘rough figure’.
        “Why is there discrepancy between the joint statement signed by the Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali representing Sarawak government and Petronas chairman Datuk Ahmad Nizam Salleh and news report carried by a Chinese daily newspaper yesterday?” asked Wong.
Based on the joint statement (between state government and Petronas) on May 8, Wong said it was clearly stated that ‘Petronas via its subsidiary companies will pay in full to the Sarawak government the 5 per cent sales tax (SST) on petroleum products amounting to RM2 billion for the year 2019.’
        “And now, it was reported that there will be more (money) and Petronas would need more time to calculate. Which is which? We would like the chief minister to clarify.”
        Wong added the joint statement also indicated all previous agreements between the two parties (Sarawak government and Petronas) made under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (Act 144) are still valid and enforceable and Petronas is still recognised as having full ownership and control over national oil and gas development, in line with the federal constitution.
        He questioned why the GPS government had to give up on state rights to challenge the validity of Petroleum Development Act (PDA 1974).
        “Why did GPS find it necessary to forgo Sarawak rights to challenge the PDA 1974? Why do we have to let go so easily when the court had already ruled in our favour.”
         Wong felt that the matter should have been deliberated by the State Consultative Committee, headed by the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) speaker Datuk Amar Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar, particularly matters pertaining to the negotiation, dealing and arrangement between the Sarawak Government and Petronas.
        “When it comes to such a big issue of safeguarding the state’s sovereign rights and interests in oil and gas within the territory of Sarawak which affects not just the present state government of Sarawak, but also the future generations of the people of Sarawak, GPS government should not have settled this issue so perfunctorily.”
        Wong said the State Consultative Committee was responsible for safeguarding the special interests, rights and the position of Sarawak as enshrined in Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the Federal Constitution and for meeting the expectation of the Sarawakians for greater autonomy and devolution of power to the state.
       “It is not proper and regrettable that the negotiations, arrangement and agreement reached between the Sarawak government and Petronas had proceeded and concluded without prior notice, deliberation and sanction on the State Consultative Committee on MA63.”
        Wong said Abang Johari on May 14 had said a ‘new arrangement’ regarding the state’s oil and gas resources that was being negotiated will have to go through the State Legislative Assembly Consultative Committee but ‘what is done cannot be undone’.
        Moreover, Wong said he agreed with a joint statement by Tanjong Batu assemblyman Chiew Chiu Sing, Bukit Assek assemblywoman Irene Mary Chang Oi Ling and Batu Lintang assemblyman See Chee How on May 16 expressing concerns over the agreement reached between the state government and Petronas.
        “We were most concerned that the agreement reached between the Sarawak government and Petronas would have detrimental and dire financial consequences on the state and any concession made by the Sarawak government in their arrangement and agreement might contravened the desires, demands and expectations of Sarawakians,” the three assemblypersons said in their joint statement on May 16.
Wong urged the GPS-led state government to heed such advice and exhortation.

Mycomments:
Abang Johari, this idiotic cannot act abusively and indulgently  like his predecessors late Tunku Rahman Ya'kub and Taib Mahmud.  Every misconduct of him will be well-exposed to every Sarawakian and the whole-wide world in a wink of their eyes.   He is now seen as a rolling clown down the cliff and will fall like a humpty-dumpty into pieces which can never be fixed in any manners.

The ending is bad 13/5/2020

The ending is bad     13/5/2020

          Abang Johari lacks the blessing of the ignorance of Sarawakians that Abdul Rahman Ya’kub, the third Chief Minister of Sarawak (1970 -1981) enjoyed fully. 

          Abang Johari lacks the bessings of the helplessness and frustrations of Sarawakians that Taib Mahmud had at his disposal.  Thus he ruled Sarawak 33+ years absolutely to his likings and fully to his indulgences.

He has eaten all the bessings meant for his successors. 

           Abang Johari also lacks the blessings of Adenan Satem who quickly undid a number of abuses Taib Mahmud practised at will.  So, he was applaused for being people-centric, caring and mindful.  He won the hearts of most Sarawakians who saw how he made their life easier.

          Abang Johari was lucky to take the lofty seat left by Adenan Satem, the fourth Chief Minister of Sarawak when he died untimely.  Abang Johari has not been tested on how widely he will be accepted in the election yet though he tries very hard to copy Adenan Satem to win the hearts of Sarawakians.  He gives financial aids in one way or another though often these aids are too blurred to benefit the targeted people.  We saw all the shortcomings in the distribution of food aids when the curfew started for Covid 19. 

          One of his fatalities is his settlement of dispute with Petronas outside the court and accepted the payment of RM2 billion for the 5% sales tax imposed on oil and gas which by proper calculation for the year 2019 is supposed to be so much higher than RM 2 billion.  Everything is blurred being a blurred and muddle-headed person.   He has been condemned by activists, leaders and members of the public being so idiotic, cowardice and incapable. 

          In PRN12 election, I believe that he has to face his enemies from all sides – Parti Bumi Kenyalang, Parti Sarawak Bersatu, PH Sarawak, Aspirasi and so on.  It is just not easy for him to survive, that’s it.

          Worst of all is his recognition of PDA74 which he used to claim it to be illegal, void and null as it was passed without the approval of Sarawak Assembly.  But now he has acknowledged Petronas to have the full rights  to operate in Sarawak so much to the shock of every watchful and mindful Sarawakians.  Yes, like his father Tun Haji Openg, he has every DNA to betray Sarawakians for his self-interest and official position. 

          Unfortunately, in the age of internet, he is doomed for his misbehaviors as the Chief Minister of Sarawak as he has failed to protect the rights of Sarawak all for the benefits of the rakyat whom he is supposed to take care of.  Now, the question is why Sarawakians should keep the government which has failed to protect the rights of Sarawak?           by Belinda Ling Moi Hung

Failing Forward by John C Maxwell (AudioBook)

FranklinCovey's The 7 Habits Video Preview: Mauritius

FranklinCovey's The 7 Habits Video Preview: Mauritius

Malaysia Agreement (MA63) Podcast No 13: Datuk Seri Panglima Teo Chee Kang

THE MALAYSIA AGREEMENT (MA63) PODCAST NO 8: Mr Robert Lau

“There Are Remedies For MA63 Breaches But No Political Will To Seek Redress”

DATO SRI FONG JOO CHONG ON MA63

Comments on the interview of former Sarawak Attorney General DatoSri Fong Joo Chong by Professor James Chin posted on YouTube on 14 May 2020.

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (Ma63) was an international made by the United Kingdom and Malaya with 3 colonies Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak. Since 2012 the issue of MA63 validity has been raised and created a widespread discussion on the legitimacy of Malaysia.

In the interview with Dato Sri JC Fong, he was asked if MA63 was a valid agreement and he argued that it was. However, the reasons he offered were not convincing when examined under international law rules on treaty-making.

Some major points on the process of forming Malaysia were inaccurate or not fully put in the context of the historic facts and international law. Unfortunately, although the Chagos Islands case was raised it was not dealt with in a substantive manner other than dismissing it as that the “circumstances were different”. Here are the counter-arguments to his comments.

1. The British plan to create Malaysia was agreed to by the UK and Malayan governments following secret talks in 1960/1961 before they announced it on 27 May 1961. This “plan” was sealed in the secret "Agreement to Set up the federation of Malaysia" signed on 31 July 1962, agreeing to transfer Sarawak & North Borneo and Singapore sovereignty to Malaya,. Article 3 of the Agreement stated that “In addition, the two Governments will, by an unpublished exchange of letters, agree:-

a. that, if for any reason it appeared desirable, the new Federation of Malaysia could, by agreement between the two Governments, be brought into being on a date earlier than 31st August 1963;”

The only conclusion one could draw from the Agreement is that the Borneo people affected were not consulted from the beginning at all as their destiny was arbitrarily decided beforehand by the UK and Malayan governments! The formation process and Malaysia Agreement 1963 was just a formality to legitimize Malaysia which often glossed over the fact that all this was done in gross violation of international law and human rights of the Borneo people.

2. The idea to create Malaysia was part of the British strategic plan mooted before WW2 & seriously proposed as the Malayan Union in mid-1942 to consolidate Malaya with Singapore and Brunei, North Borneo, and Sarawak as one political entity to defend its S. E. Asia colonial territories and resources especially Brunei oil. The need to do so was emphasised by the speed of the Japanese invasion and takeover of its colonies territories in 1941.

3. The Malayan Union plan was rejected by the then independent Sarawak Gov't in 1942 but the British went ahead by forming the Malayan Union in 1946 and at the same time annexed Sarawak & North Borneo a British Crown Colonies. The UK in annexing Sarawak promised that it would not be included in the Malayan Union and would restore its independence. However, the British plan to re-take their lost territories after the war came under pressure with the worldwide rise of independence struggles and the 1960 UN Declaration calling for the decolonization of colonies. The UK went about creating friendly “independent” states to defend its former colonial territories and resources as it did by relying on a pro-British Malayan government to take over the Borneo colonies instead of granting them independence.

4. The process of creating Malaysia was fatally flawed as the British twice denied (and opposed) the people a “pre-Malaysia” referendum so that they could exercise their free and genuine will on the choice of federation with Malaya or independence in compliance with UN resolutions and international law.
5. The Cobbold Commission and April 1963 local council elections in Sarawak and UN assessment were not a referendum on "Malaysia" representing the free expression of the people’s will as should have been done in a free vote under independent supervision. These events were argued as popular support legitimising Malaysia. However, it is noted that the UK held independence referendums in its other colonies before and after 1962. It even agreed to the Scottish referendum in 2019 and held its own BREXIT referendum in 2017.

6. The making of Malaysia was accomplished under emergency law conditions before and after the Brunei anti-Malaysia Uprising on 8 December 1962, in which the people were put under intense and sustained pressure to consider Malaysia as the only choice instead of independence. Such undue pressure and coercive conditions questioned the validity of MA63 since it was clear that the process was not completed in peaceful and congenial conditions where the people could freely decide their destiny according to international law.

7. Before the release of the Cobbold Commission Report on its "fact-finding mission" on 1 Aug 1962 the British and Malayan governments had already agreed and publicly declared it was “good” for the Borneo people in 1960 and they signed a secret "Agreement to Set up the Federation of Malaysia" on 31 July 1962.

8. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed on 9 July 1963 was invalid as it has done in breach of international law rules on treaty-making. MA63 was negotiated by the British colonial representatives in secrecy and not by elected representatives of Sarawak or North Borneo which were still colonies not sovereign states with the capacity to make treaties. An administering colonial power cannot make a binding international agreement with its colony under its full control a legal principle affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Chagos Case 25 Feb 2019.

a. The circumstances of the Chagos were similar to that of MA63. In both cases, the colonies were under the full control of the UK when the respective agreements were signed. The ICJ found that Mauritius had no executive or legislative powers to make the agreement with the UK to separate the Chagos Island from its territory. The UK has sought to justify its action by claiming consent from a Mauritian delegation at a Lancaster House meeting in 1965, but this seems to have been extracted by an ultimatum (“either you give up Chagos or we will not give you independence”) and in any event that delegation- had no legal or practical mandate to surrender Mauritian territory. Thus the ICJ held the agreement made by the UK and Mauritius was not a binding international agreement.

b. In the case of MA63, Sarawak and North Borneo were not sovereign or even self-governing but were under full British colonial control when their sovereignty was signed away under MA63.

c. The agreement was made under emergency law conditions. In Sarawak, there was a climate of fear as the British whipped up the fear of the Indonesian invasion and the communist threat in the lead up to the Malaysia Agreement, 6 months after the Brunei Uprising against Malaysia. This amounted to duress, undue pressure, and coercion on the people to accept the British plan without the alternative choice of independence.

d. On top of this, the British government knowingly made an illegal agreement as it was legally advised that neither N Borneo nor Sarawak were sovereign or even self-governing and therefore could not be a party to MA63. But they decided to include the 2 colonies as parties for “presentational purposes” and also importantly they realised that if the colonies were not parties it would confirm opposition to the Malaysia Plan and MA63 on the ground that it was “a neo-colonial operation” done without the concurrence of the people.

9. THE MANILA ACCORD HAD THE EFFECT OF INVALIDATING MA63.

The MA63 was superseded by Manila Accord signed by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines on 31 July 1963, 22 days after MA63 was signed. The Accord stipulated 2 pre-Malaysia conditions: that the people’s wishes on federation must be independently assessed by the UN and that the Philippine's claim on Sabah must be resolved.

a. The Manila Accord challenged (overturned) the authoritativeness of MA63 & Cobbold Commission and meaning MA63 had failed to comply with the UN Resolution 1514, and preceded MA63 and invalidated it! The UN Resolution required that the people should be allowed to freely to determine their destiny without outside interference which Malayan involvement was.

b. By agreeing to implement the Accord, Malaya & UK acknowledged that MA63 did not comply with the UN decolonization requirements. If MA63 was validly done the Malayan and UK government would have rejected the Accord conditions. (The Malayan Prime Minister said he had used the Manila talks to deflect Indonesian & Philippines opposition to Malaysia. If so he was clearly doing it in bad faith).

10. THE UN ASSESSMENT WAS UNSOUND & BIASED

a. The UN assessment was flawed by collusion between the UK & UN to “handpick” the UN team to assure the outcome favoured the UK plan.

b. The UK and Malaya changed the date to declare Malaysia Day to 16 Sept 1963 before the UN assessment was completed thus assuming that they knew the outcome and treated the assessment as irrelevant.

c. The UN Sec General endorsed M'sia on 14/16 Sept 1963 even before the UN legal opinion was given on 19 Sept 1963.

d. The UN legal opinion failed to examine the validity of MA63 when it was apparent on its face that 3 colonies were party to the treaty.

11.  CONCLUSION: Malaysia was not created with a legal basis under international law and is therefore no more than a de facto union imposed on the Sarawak and Sabah people. The UK government still has a moral and political responsibility to seek the proper and full decolonization of the 2 colonies with the United Nations if Malaya does not voluntarily decolonize Sarawak and Sabah.

中砂 筹建化验室 未雨绸缪 张庆信：翼有能力者解囊

---

中砂     筹建化验室 未雨绸缪 张庆信：翼有能力者解囊

（民都鲁15日讯）“策群力，挺前线”抗疫基金所筹募的第三波前线物资今日运抵民都鲁，此次随皇家空军军机运载而来的物资还包括令人振奋的实时聚合酶链反应（n-PCR）检测机器，除了可用于检测2019冠状病毒病以及其他40种病毒！
有关化验室所需的器材今日共同由华总总秘书拿督黄益隆、华总名誉会长拿督贝建安、中华二校董事长许道雄少校、主要赞助商兼民都鲁区国会议员拿督斯里张庆信代表港业集团（Harbour-link Group Berhad）号东拿督杨阜顺、拿督斯里谢惠福代表翁荣华以及民都鲁国会议员人民服务中心代表江玘宸移交予民都鲁医院。
张庆信披露，随着化验室如火如荼设立，日后民省内所采集的冠病病毒化验检测样本有望在数小时内获得准确结果，加快了医疗团队为确诊病患提供有效治疗的速度，解决此前民都鲁的化验样本需要送往诗巫医院检验才能得知最终结果而有所延误的问题。
“若（n-PCR）检测机器可以让民市等待化验报告的人数归零，抗疫团队得以争取更短的时间来鉴定潜在感染源、锁定追踪确诊患者的亲属和紧密接触人士等等的高风险群，继而进行适当的隔离措施，竭止各社区内的病菌扩散。”
张庆信有感民都鲁在地医疗设备与检测仪器必须顺应人口增长而有所提升，其服务中心近日启动了“安民鼎埠”化验室建设基金，筹款目标为135万令吉，希望社会上有能力之士热烈响应、慷慨解囊。
“所筹募的款项将用来购置各种病菌疫苗的化验器材，建立一所民都鲁人民专属的化验室，有关化验室预计在2周后可开始启用。”

文章来源 ： 星洲日报 2020-05-15

Mycomments：

建冠病化验室到底是谁的职责？ 砂拉越政府的责任到底在那里？ 为什么 这么重要 化验室 都没有设立一个 ？  张庆信应该向所谓的联邦政府紧急申请建立冠病化验室或向砂政府要求建立这关系人民生死的基本措施。不是这样数十年如一日一直向人民开刀。税收不是拿来建设方便 人民的基本措施，拿给谁用呢？  这种人民代表推动这种税收后还要人民负责种种公共开销文化是时候停止了吧。 当 我一看到 人民代表这种做法不负责的行为，我非常的愤怒 。 这分明是代表无能在 所谓的国会或砂议会诉求以获得拨款改善人民的基本措施。我希望砂民拒绝再傻下去，被政客耍的团团转。
        如果，我们让政客们都这么玩的话，我们为什么要付税呢？ 

theborneopost.com

Why give up S’wak oil and gas rights in settlement with Petronas, PSB asks GPS

3-4 minutes

---

Parti Sarawak Bersatu logo

KUCHING: Parti Sarawak Bersatu (PSB) is demanding an answer from the Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) government for allegedly sacrificing Sarawak’s oil and gas rights with its settlement with Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) recently on the State Sales Tax (SST).
Pointing out that his party was shocked by the sacrifice of Sarawak’s ownership of its oil and gas, Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh said he had called for an explanation from the Chief Minister on accepting the validity of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA) and acknowledging that Petronas had full authority over the state’s oil and gas.
In reply to his call two days ago, the PSB president said the state’s de facto law minister, Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali, had alluded to “Sarawak rights protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962.”
He added that Sharifah Hasidah, who is Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department (Law, State-Federal Relationship and Project Monitoring), also said: “The GPS State Government remains firmly committed to defend the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of the State.”
In this respect, Wong said: “This then begs the question why the GPS government capitulated and gave up our State rights to challenge the validity of the Petroleum Development Act 1974?”
Wong said this question was expressly and specifically raised by him in a press statement which Sharifah Hasidah purported to reply to.
“Why did the GPS government and the Chief Minister avoid answering my question? Did not GPS continuously shout that the PDA 1974 was invalid as far as Sarawak is concerned? Were there not cries of sovereignty over our petroleum rights which the PDA 1974 was supposed to have eroded illegally?” Wong asked.
“Yet, in this so-called ‘settlement’ with Petronas for which Petronas paid a fraction of what is rightly due to Sarawak, why did GPS find it necessary to sacrifice Sarawak rights to challenge the PDA 1974?”
Wong, who is the former second finance minister, said Sarawakians were entitled to an answer from the GPS government.
The state government had Petronas had issued a joint statement last Friday to announced that they had reached the settlement in which the national oil corporation had agreed to pay the RM2 billion SST owed to the state.
It said they were dropping their legal suits against each other and in addition, Sarawak had agreed to reduce the SST rate imposed on the corporation from the current five per cent in phases.
The statement was signed by Sharifah Hasidah and Petronas chairman Datuk Ahmad Nizam Salleh.
To ensure that the commercial solution was implemented smoothly, the Federal Minister of Works and Minister of Finance has been tasked to chair a working committee overseeing the matter, said the statement.

theborneopost.com

Willie: Sarawak doesn't lose any rights to Putrajaya following agreement with Petronas

5-6 minutes

---

Willie Mongin

        KUCHING: Sarawak loses none of her rights to the federal government following an agreement with Petronas on the management of the state’s oil and gas assets as well as the sales tax on petroleum products, says Plantation and Commodities Deputy Minister Willie Mongin.
         Willie, who is Puncak Borneo MP, said the RM2 billion payment to the state was a commercial settlement outside the court and as such, the relevant points of law were not the prime concern as much as expediency.
He said because expediency was the main determinant, court room arguments over points of law from the Petroleum Development Act (PDA 1974), the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 (OMO 1958) and the States Sales Tax Ordinance 1998 (SST 1998) did not take place and consequently, there was no court judgment on which party won or lost.
      “What it means in simple language is the three legislation commonly thought to be crucial in Sarawak’s efforts to enforce her rights remain status quo and by extension, Sarawak rights as enshrined in those legislation too remained undiminished.
     “One of those rights that remain untouched is Petronas cannot operate in Sarawak until they applied for and is given a license by Petros to operate in Sarawak’s territory,” he said in a statement in respond to DAP’s Dr Ting Tiong Choon and Sarawak People’s Aspiration Party (Aspirasi) president Lina Soo’s statement against the Sarawak government.
        Willie reminded Ting and Soo that Sarawak’s land mass of 124,450 square kilometres is just 80,947 square kilometres smaller than the entire Peninsular Malaysia, but is lagging far behind in terms of all aspects.
        He said the rural population of Sarawak cannot be sufficiently empowered to lift themselves up from poverty unless and until they have good infrastructural access to the urban areas.
        He believed that for that to happen, a huge amount of money is needed by the Sarawak government.
    “Empty bravado and political rhetoric most definitely will not change the fate of the rural people or the urban poor.
     “A protracted legal battle in courts will only serve to prolong the sufferings of the rural people who are still in dire need of connectivity and basic utilities,” he said.
       He said as a Sarawakian MP, he would never allow Sarawak’s rights to be eroded and he would work for the mutual benefit of all Malaysians under the Perikatan Nasional federal government.
      Willie commended Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg and his team for their wisdom shown in accepting the out-of-court settlement of RM2 billion.
    “I sincerely hope that they will have the same wisdom as they negotiate the payment mechanism so that Sarawak can have the funds soonest possible,” he said.
Both Ting and Soo’s statements were issued in reaction to the Sarawak government’s decision to accept a commercial settlement of their claim for SST on petroleum products transactions instead of continuing to pursue their claims in court were published by The Borneo Post on May 10.
       The Sarawak government and Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) had on May 8, announced that they had reached an agreement on the State Sales Tax (SST) with the national oil corporation agreeing to pay RM2 billion owed to the state.
Ting was quoted on May 10 as having said that the agreement by Sarawak GPS government to accept Petronas’ RM2 billion as the full payment for the five 2019 bill for the SST is the “biggest traitorous decision since PDA 1974”.
      Assistant Minister for Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring Assistant Minister Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali when clarifying on the matter yesterday said the settlement itself was reached after Petronas failed in its application to have proceedings to enforce payment of the SST as assessed for year 2019, deferred or suspended until the disposal of its Appeal, scheduled to be on June 17, 2020.

      She said that Petronas has agreed to pay in full the SST due for Year 2019 and to withdraw its Appeal, must be deemed to be its unequivocal acknowledgment or admission of the State’s constitutional right to impose SST on petroleum products and its acceptance of the High Court Judgment which declared the State has such constitutional authority to impose SST.
She noted that by withdrawing the Appeal, Petronas agreed to be bound by the decisions of the High Court wherein the High Court decided that Sarawak’s rights are protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962.
It must be made clear that by withdrawing their appeal, Petronas recognises our Constitutional right and they are bounds by the Laws of Sarawak and the decisions of the Court which, prior to this, Petronas refused to acknowledge our rights under the Constitution, MA63 and IGC Report, she added.



My comments:
What does this mean?  Why does the GPS government accept this illegal act PDA74 to be applied to Sarawak?  What sovereign rights do we have when a Malayan oil company has so much power over the oil and gas resources in Sarawak when they take 95% of the profit?  What is MA63 when the Malayan government breaks every agreement of it?  Why does the GPS government endure this inequality in the share of profit?  Why does the GPS accept invalid MA63?  Why does the GPS government refuse to have MA63 to be settled in the International Court of Justice?

theborneopost.com

Petronas now recognises Sarawak’s right to impose SST, says Sharifah Hasidah

4-5 minutes

---

By withdrawing their appeal, Petronas recognises Sarawak’s Constitutional rights and that they are bound by the state’s laws and decisions of the Court which, prior to this, the corporation refused to acknowledge.

        KUCHING: Sarawak government has agreed to a settlement with Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) on the State Sales Tax (SST) not because the state has a weak case and cannot take its chance in the appellate courts, said the state’s de facto law minister Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali.
        Responding to questions raised by Parti Sarawak Bersatu president Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh on the settlement, she said it was reached after Petronas failed in its application to have proceedings to defer or suspend payment of the SST for 2019 until the disposal of its Appeal on June 17, 2020.
     “That Petronas has agreed to pay in full the SST due for Year 2019 and to withdraw its Appeal, must be deemed to be its unequivocal acknowledgement or admission of the State’s constitutional right to impose SST on petroleum products and its acceptance of the High Court Judgment which declared the state has such constitutional authority to impose SST,” said Sharifah Hasidah, who is the Assistant Minister of Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring.
     “By withdrawing the Appeal, Petronas agreed to be bound by the decisions of the High Court wherein the High Court decided that Sarawak rights are protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962,” she said in a statement.
Hasidah stressed that by withdrawing their appeal, Petronas recognised Sarawak’s Constitutional rights, including under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Inter-Governmental Committee Report, and that they are bound by the state’s laws and the decisions of the Court which, prior to this, the corporation refused to acknowledge.
        Sharifah Hasidah added that under the terms of the settlement, Petronas would pay in full to the Sarawak government SST due for the year 2019.
        She said this amounted to around RM2 billion, excluding statutory late payment penalties and interest accruing on the amount assessed from the date of Notice of Assessment till full settlement.
     “The SST for year 2020 remains at five per cent of the sale value of the petroleum products. Only Notices of Assessment for the Q1 2020 have been issued. There is no agreement yet for the reduction of SST for the current Year 2020,” she explained.
        She said Wong’s claim that “the anticipated O & G tax for two years (for 2019 and 2020” totalled RM 6.775 billion” was settled for a vastly reduced sum of RM2 billion was completely untrue and misleading.
     “The RM2 billion paid by Petronas is only SST for Year 2019 and excluded SST paid by other oil companies like Shell, Murphy Oil, Pertamina, and others operating in the state. The amount of SST to be collected in 2020 have yet to be ascertained.
       “Whether there would be a reduction in rate of SST in future years would depend on the outcome of the “commercial settlement” to be reached, to be reached with the resumption of negotiations between the state government, Petros and Petronas,” she said.
       She further pointed out that such a commercial settlement would entail greater state participation in the upstream operation (both offshore and onshore), as well as investments in downstream business and industries, so as to enable the state to have a more equitable share of the returns from oil and gas produced within the boundaries of Sarawak.
    “The GPS state government remains firmly committed to defend the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of the State. It has amply demonstrated this by taking Petronas to court over the SST issues,” said Sharifah Hasidah.
    “The state government will resolve all other issues through the ongoing negotiations with the federal government and Petronas. The outcome of these negotiations will ultimately bring in more investments in the oil and gas sectors to sustain the growth of related industries, and enable the state, through Petros, to enhance its involvement in the upstream and downstream areas of the petroleum industry,” she said.

My comments:
        How can the GPS Sarawak government protect the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of Sarawak when it has recognised PDA74 when  MA63 is invalid from the very beginning.  I believe that Abang Johari and his team know very well that MA63 is a fraud from the very beginning with all the classified documents declassified now.  It is open to all to view.  I wonder why Abang Johari can accept PDA 74 which was not consented in the DUN Sarawak.  I wonder why Abang Johari sways and wobbles all the time.  I wonder what huge benefits he and his team have reaped to bow to Petronas' decision to settle the amount at RM 2 million.  The amount should be much higher based on the calculations which the GPS government never bothers to go to the very end to demand for the accounts.  When every account is blurred, every opportunity for corruption and collusion among them is so created.
        Hence, I strongly believe that we should flush out the GPS Sarawak  government for good to save Sarawak from being plundered, exploited, oppressed, suppressed, robbed and bullied all the time 

1974年石油发展法(Petroleum Development Act 1974)是欺诈吗？

英国从1953年就秘密计划成立马来西亚

dailyexpress.com.my    15^th April, 2020

英国从1953年就秘密计划成立马来西亚

正当希望联盟政府试图修改联邦宪法以撤消1976年修宪案让婆罗洲国家复原到1963马来西亚协议当儿崩盘瓦解了。 沙砂两邦国要求赋行MA63协议在过去几年声量是越来越强大响亮。这种情绪被有些人看成只不过是本土主义，其实这是国家主义的开端，早已经在婆罗洲领土扎根。这种国家主义缺乏适当发展机会是因为在一九，五，六十年代的后殖民地区域政治和利益主义强制性被合并所造成的。

          夹在美国和英国大国的竞争利益以及较小的地区像印尼和菲律宾国的利益之间，婆罗洲领土的人民的合法权益显得不重要，即使有的话。

这两本书着眼于马来亚和新加坡与婆罗洲殖民地合并幕后的这一“动机”，其中有明确的权威性细节：Dr Stanley S. Bedlington的《马来西亚和新加坡：新国家的建设》（1978年）和Dr. Mathew Jones于 1961-1965年东南亚的冲突与对抗，英国，美国和马来西亚的成立（2001）。

公平地说，Bedlington确实提到，“沙巴和砂拉越的当地领导人对Tunku的提议做出了强烈和不利的反应”。他的评估同样准确地将Cobbold Commission委员会描述为“由英国官员发起的组织确实是英国计划的”。 “这一事实立即显而易见因为委员会连包括一个婆罗洲代表也没有。”

          此外，它没有在英属北婆罗洲或砂拉越进行任何公投，以客观地衡量人民对“马来西亚”合并问题的意愿和倾向，以协助进行调查。Bedlington补充说，英国殖民官员甚至对两国人口施加“压力”以逼使他们接受合并。

马修·琼斯（Matthew Jones）在他的书中指出，两个王室殖民地的州长对委员会持怀疑态度，英属北婆罗洲的州长Goode称该做法为“闹剧”。因而，他指出，“不允许该地殖民地的异议干扰伦敦和吉隆坡早就已经决定好的事项”。

对于沙砂两国跟马来亚合并，这本书的内容重新审视详细研究了合并提案背后的真正力量，还有婆罗洲两个领土上大多数居民的真实意愿和倾向如何被严重颠覆了，忽略，故意曲解，反对的声音完全不加以理会。

澳大利亚历史学家Dr Greg Poulgrain所著的《 Konfrontasi的起源：1945-1965年的马来西亚，文莱和印度尼西亚》（八打灵再也：战略信息与研究发展中心，2014年）一书揭发了被隐藏无数年令人惊讶的事实，这过程中也揭发了截然不同于一般描述马来西亚如何形成的事实。

          Poulgrain将他在英国殖民地官方档案的研究与他在马来西亚形成期间曾扮演过各种角色幸存者的多层面采访结合，从而挑战一般对马来西亚形成认知的常规版本。        

          未来的历史学家将深深感激Dr. Poulgrain，对于这些宝贵的信息来源和对砂拉越历史的深刻见解. 以下是他对上尉Capt. Albert Young关于砂拉越近海发现石油的典型采访（上图）。其实Dr，Poulgrain的专业兴趣领域是印尼，而不是马来西亚，因此，他的著作不仅涵盖了马来西亚的成立，还涵盖了更多的领域，而且值得注意的是，其中包含了许多与砂拉越有关的新材料。             

                                                                                                 1.     

        Poulgrain坚决将“大设计” 中的五个由英国控制的马来亚，新加坡，北婆罗洲，砂拉越和文莱的领土合并在一起的起源归于白厅（Whitehall），这与它的传统说法背道而驰。 Poulgrain引用了1953年3月10日的一份殖民地机密文件中英国在 “东南亚英属领土的政治目标”，他揭发了英国政府（英女皇政府，简称“ HMG”）是在“蓄意欺骗”的。同时随口答应Rajah Vyner Brooke意愿给与砂拉越自治权以体现在1941年《砂拉越宪法》的序言中的。 事实上，早在50年代，HMG已经在规划将婆罗洲领土和马来亚/新加坡集团以“某种形式的宪法协合”，做为“英国东南亚统治权”的形式联合起来。

1955年4月2日，Commissioner-General Malcolm MacDonald通知英国殖民地大臣艾伦·伦诺克斯·博伊德（Alan Lennox-Boyd）：“婆罗洲领导人可能不像马来亚领导人那样了解我们的宏伟设计。”        

          尽管如此，艾伦·伦诺克斯·博伊德（Alan Lennox-Boyd）在1956年11月通知北婆罗洲州长罗兰·特恩布尔爵士(Sir Roland-Boyd)：“北婆罗洲和砂拉越以及所有三个婆罗洲领土联合的可能性……是……领土人民自行决定。”但是，正如波格兰（Poulgrain）所指出的那样，[HMG]从未设想过让砂拉越人民自治。

           但是，必须指出的是，这两个领土上的殖民地官员最初对婆罗洲与马来亚和新加坡合并的想法不利，他们认为时机未成熟。

          他们更关心是沙砂两国不同种族的人民如何和睦相处，他们想到的是逐步让它们走向独立的可能性，有可能先组建一个婆罗洲联盟，然后才与南中国 海那一边政治上较熟的马来亚和新加坡的邻国合并。 “婆罗洲提案”于1958年提出，但正如Poulgrain所指出的那样，1958年的提案提出了正式批准的文件，其实，早在1953文件中“早有了替代方案”进行中。 实际上，有关东南亚历史的著名历史学家K.J.Tengonning贬低1958 Borneon的提议，看为“一种伪装的MI5（英国第五司令部）演习”。

                    虽然，普遍上大家都认为，还有传播说，“马来西亚”与婆罗洲领土合并的提议是由当时的马来亚首相Tunku Abdul Rahman于1961年5月27日提出的。当时，Tunku是这样回应新加坡“外国记者协会。考虑到英国潜在的物质利益，英国人有充分的理由对合并的大事归功于Tunku，其实这一切实际上是英国的主意。

   在这里应该指出，战后，英国在马来亚的投资利益远远超过了他们在印度的回收利益。战后英国迫切需要橡胶和锡的收入偿还债务和重建。因此，英国看到婆罗洲领土，新加坡与马来亚的和平合并所产生巨大的经济利益。

李光耀当选新加坡自治殖民地首相后，协助英国推进了合并这一想法，同时巩固了自己的党派来反抗他所认为的社会主义阵线是与砂拉越华裔反对派，他们都是被印尼和中国等外国指示反对马来西亚的计划。

      Lee于1961年9月13日至10月9日之间进行了12档广播（发行为《合并之战》）以支持合并。                                                      2.

          然而，对Poulgrain波尔格兰而言，组建马来西亚的主要动力是石油，而不是种族平衡。尽管当时Tunku坚持将婆罗洲殖民地带进来，在当时的新闻界和主流书籍中都美其名坚持是为了使新加坡的华裔人口与婆罗洲地区的土著人口可以维持种族平衡。

 实际上，正如Poulgrain所指出的那样，根据1962年的人口普查，到1963年马来西亚成立之时，华人是砂拉越最大的族裔。英国政府真正在意的焦点是要保住文莱作为 “英镑地区最大的美元单一来源”。

石油工业是由文莱苏丹所独占，但是英国马来亚石油（BMP）是很大的得益者，现今文莱Shell石油公司是（BSP）的前身以及跨国荷兰皇家Shell集团的子公司，英国政府继续进行一对一的安排以保持其垄断地位。

       早在1956年3月，文莱苏丹对合并后将成为强制分享其石油财富的手段表示警惕，并发表了一份新闻声明，拒绝文莱与马来亚合并的构想。

        随后，英国于1958年9月以女王（议会令）规定海洋边界，重新将文莱的近海地区与北婆罗洲和砂拉越的地区分开。

        Poulgrain波尔格莱恩指出，为文莱划定新的边界与更紧密的婆罗洲合并的意图互相矛盾，从苏丹的角度来看，及时重新定义文莱的边界只能被解释为支持他意望，苏丹国（以及与之相关的油田）仍然与任何合并或紧密合作计划有区分的。

        Poulgrain继续说道，“文莱和砂拉越之间的分界线明显偏向文莱，将文莱西南安帕大油田包括在内归向给文莱。即使还没有解决婆罗洲领土去殖民化的解决方案，但这项安排为万一发生的情况做好了准备，文莱及其丰富的离岸前景仍将在英国的垄断之下并在英国的国防条约之下。             

        1991年Poulgrain对D.R. Gribble/格里布尔上尉和阿尔伯特·扬（Albert Young）上尉访谈时证实，这个巨大的油田于1958年为当局所知，与其在1963年“正式宣布发现”的年代还更早。至于砂拉越领土上的石油，英国人准备将其交还给受到英国控制的新联邦马来亚。 1956年4月，时任砂拉越总督Sir Anthoy Abell/安东尼·阿贝尔爵士在向殖民地官方来往文件中指出，“马来亚和新加坡的政界人士都对婆罗洲领土表现出极大的兴趣”，包括其空地，潜在财富和石油。 ”。

         Poulgrain难以言语，并补充说，这是“值得注意”的事是总督Abell承认马来亚以婆罗洲领土具有“帝国主义设计”和野心作为合并理由。

        但是他观察到，那些对历史有足够认知的人担心马来人统治砂拉越（和沙巴）当然不会欢迎将现有的殖民主人换成另一位主人的前景。实际上，到1949年，在“马来亚，制造反华情绪与反共主义已经互相融合”。公共记录官方的文件显示，最大的骚乱-称为1956年10月的共产主义阵线骚乱-是由新加坡当局故意引起的，例如，以致逮捕一些著名的反英激进分子。

         此外，Poulgrain通过吸引人们注意英国建制局的深层组织在塑造联邦的最终格局方面，做出了很大的贡献。面对战后对去殖民化的需求，英国“必须确保婆罗洲领土，特别是文莱，在政治和军事上得到保障”的动机下，在即将撤离的地区为她的政治继任者做准备。”                  3。

      为了确保（政治控制）得到满足，“借调了英国第五军司令部的第二把手，任期一年，以改组和扩大特别部队。”从那时起，白厅（Whitehall）迅速采取行动，保护了其在该地区的大部分（即使不是全部）利益。

        殖民当局最担心的是在婆罗洲三个领土上的地方政治人物们在合并前要求自我统治的情绪激增，以及要通过组建婆罗洲领土联盟来抢占合并先机。三个区域的代表在Jesselton/杰西尔顿举行了一次会议。来自砂拉越的王其辉（Ong Kee Hui）文莱的阿扎哈里（Azahari）和来自北婆罗洲的唐纳德·斯蒂芬斯（Donald Stephens），以及于1961年8月共同发表支持婆罗洲联合会的声明。

         Azahari文莱国家主义者，在参加印尼独立运动之后返回文莱时坚持认为婆罗洲领土的自决必须先于联邦，“基于人民的同意，而不是基于殖民统治者命令人民。”  这要求引起在伦敦的英国当局愤怒。

         Poulgrain指出：“在英国马来亚石油（BMP）公司情报网络故意提供有关Azahari错误的信息，英国情报局就将Azahari形容为反英国人，是“不负责任的机会主义者”，并且是颠覆分子受到印尼政府的支持。关于BMP向英国当局提供情报的作用，Poulgrain这样说：“由于[BMP]情报来源有权限制将信息转发给Anthony Abell爵士，这表明Seria油田而不是Kuching油田，已经成为真正的政治权力中心。”

          Poulgrain对这个问题进行深入研究的一个例子是，他提到了Kee Tuan Chye在他的《 Old Doctors Never Fade Away》（1988年）一书中提到的事件。自1959年1月在文莱举行的第三次PRB大会前夕，因急性盲肠炎病倒，阿扎哈里/Azahari必须送进文莱大医院接受手术，但是当时主治医师Dr. Joseph Wolf受英国当局高层严格命令阻止给Azahari应有的治疗。

         因此，阿扎哈里（Azahari）马上出院并飞往新加坡后，再飞往印度接受手术。就在新加坡时，印尼大使馆便提出仁慈的使命，将他送往雅加达进行手术。

        然后，他花了四十五天在印尼养病，可是[英国建立组织]便乘机深度叙述诬蔑Azahhari与当时的印尼执政党有同谋嫌疑。。Poulgrain/普尔格兰以 他在1990-91年对流亡的Azahari的采访而说，英国当局故意将Azahari描述为与印尼有政治关系，这样的挑拨离间使苏丹疏远Azahari，尽管Azahari跟苏丹与文莱王室关系密切。

        在Poulgrain进行研究时，Azahari的“文件”尚未从档案中解密，这些文件当成机密处置了五十年。同时，砂拉越的殖民当局目睹了政治意识的觉醒，这无疑是由英国首相哈罗德·麦克米伦（Harold Macmillan）的“改革之风”演说以及1960年初伦敦与吉隆坡之间的会谈所引起的

       所有这些以及为筹备新的市议会和区议会的选举，导致了各族裔社区之间政党的形成。第一个是砂拉越联合人民党（SUPP），于1959年6月注册，口号为“Sa’ati”和“砂拉越为砂拉越人”，希望砂拉越各族群团结起来争取独立，以便砂拉越人可以享受自己的丰富自然资源，而不必被殖民势力剥削。

                                                                                                 4.

        但是，这些最初注入砂拉越国家主义精神的指标被英国殖民政府解释为朝着可能危及英国“宏伟设计”的方向发展。当时英国政府在中非和西印度群岛的殖民地已经在面对管制殖民地人的困难。         

        1960年7月，新任砂拉越总督Sir Alexander Waddell/亚历山大·瓦德尔爵士发表了题为《颠覆砂拉越》的白皮书，预告华人的知识分子中有人参与共产党活动。

        SUPP意识到殖民地政府企图疏远广大民众，特别是当地人及其领导人，警告党员：“反对SUPP的人总是试图把它涂成红色”，并建议“那些反对SUPP的人”具有艺术倾向和才华的人不要将这罐油漆带入聚会场所。         

       同年八月，一家中文报纸的编辑被遣送回中国，尽管他出生在砂拉越，因此在当时，在技术上是英国子民。时任砂拉越特别处副处长的蒂姆·哈迪（Tim Hardy）在他的《勉强的帝国主义者》（2009）一书中叙述了以下内容：[当“共产主义组织”（CCO）的消息被过滤掉]时，只“提供时任政府想要的信息。

        马来亚和澳大利亚内阁部长，以及新加坡的大官员和大人物，来到古晋寻找现场新闻。 ...美国人在敦促伦敦-您对婆罗洲的左翼分子怎么处理？伦敦催吉隆坡和新加坡，最后是古晋遭殃。”

        Poulgrain/波尔格莱恩的书证实，当局不仅仅是孤立SUPP这首开先河政党在其在土著团体中扩大成员范围之外，还试图破坏该党。        

        总部位于新加坡的英美情报组织，远东安全情报局（SIFE）介入，作为特工挑衅者以“政治工程”手段装置陷阱。William Andeas Brown威廉·安地斯·布朗（CIA）在Frank C. Starr弗兰克·C·斯塔尔（CIA）和 John Slimming/约翰·斯利明（MI6）的协助下，于1962年进行了秘密的军备行动，向所谓的砂拉越地下华人年青人提供步枪，这些砂拉越年轻人与印尼婆罗洲的边界印尼华人有着深厚的历史渊源。Sir Alexander Waddell/亚历山大·瓦德尔爵士在1991年接受作者采访时证实，中央情报局于1962年参与为党中的“左派”分子提供步枪，以煽动他们。

          因此，除了[建立机构]在政治上设计这些联系之外，没有其他任何东西可以将北部的文莱马来人与位于砂拉越南端的砂拉越华人联系起来。Hardy/哈迪证实了这一点，不怎么担心这种反殖民主义和无产阶级的革命对受过教育的华裔有着马克思主义思想者。按照他所说：“他们所支持的不是少数人能理解或渴望毛泽东主义的倡导，而是其对马来西亚联邦制的坚定不移的反对，这一前景使大多数华裔对马来亚统治感到恐惧。

        在马来西亚成立前夕，这位英国殖民官员对砂拉越局势的分析最能说明这问题：“就其本身而言，马来亚政府或多或少公开承诺向任何愿意在砂拉越竞选的政党提供资金。五家崭新的政党迅速相继注册，每个政党都声称代表着各种族利益，但每个政党反过来都只是在提供掩护，机会主义者希望借此掩盖他们贪念想获得吉隆坡的金钱和影响力。吉隆坡将他们全都打造成亲马来西亚的“联盟”，该联盟通过“赢得” 1963年的选举，清除障碍铺路给吉隆坡和伦敦宣称确认为大多数砂拉越人选择吸纳入马来西亚联邦中。”

                                                                                                     5.

       实际上，Azahari的Partai Rakyat Brunei（PRB）受到包括Zulkifli和H.M. Salleh在执行层的渗透。这种渗透后来让特别处（Special Branch）处长罗伊·亨利（Roy Henry）策划了一场“虚假旗标”行动，以煽动1962年底的文莱叛乱。

        考虑到英国在马来亚的特勤局甚至招募了马来亚共产党秘书长赖德作为英国的双重代理人，这种渗透也许并不奇怪。 1939年4月至1947年3月，他担任CPM秘书长，当时他把党的资金卷走潜逃。当时，文莱国家情报委员会与砂拉越和文莱特别处(Special Branch)联系在一起。

        英国马来亚石油公司（BMP）的伦敦总部也与殖民地办公室保持着密切联系。 1950年代初，BMP建立了自己的石油情报网络，该网络与特别处(Special Branch)密切合作以照顾自己的利益，毫无疑问，其中包括发现西安帕大油田(Ampa oilfield)的机密信息。

        这个秘密需要政治上的自由衡量权，以确保英国的利益仍然至上，其次，政治上的操纵，以确保实施而获得这些利益。

        砂拉越和文莱特别处(Special Branch)处长的罗伊·亨利（Roy Henry）于1991年向波格兰（Poulgrain）公开承认其在发动文莱叛乱中的角色，为Seria“叛乱”的“自然爆发”提供了这关键。并确认“ 冲突(Konfrontasi) ...是英国和美国情报局制定的联合计划”

        1962年12月8日凌晨，当H.M. PRB执行官Salleh在PRB领导人A.M.Azahari 缺席时，在文莱发起了一场准备不足，时机不佳的武装叛乱，当时，那些在第一省偏远郊区华裔青年就想方设法逃脱特别部门所设的天罗地网似的逮捕，越境逃到婆罗洲印尼边界避难。

        在1963年2月2日在新加坡举行“冷库行动”之后，在1963年2月13日在马来亚举行了相似的行动，在还未形成马来西亚之前，“砂拉越，新加坡和马来亚左翼政党的主要人物统统被拘留。”现在，那些可能重组和领导任何基层抵抗运动的政治活跃分子都一一被逮捕，一次过扫空清除，为了实践形成“马来西亚” 铺路。

        从英国档案中Poulgrain/波尔格兰揭开的证据，以及他从英国政府和安全部门官员所进行的口头访谈中收集到的更多支撑的证据。现在可以清楚地看出，这些组织部门协调一致的举动都共同归咎叛乱是“共产主义者”所造成的，是“政治上的阴谋”。文莱叛乱“确实牢固了英国石油利益集团与文莱苏丹之间的关系；它所导致的冲突/Konfrontasi，迫使砂拉越的决定加入了拟议的马来西亚联邦”，并为英国争取了文莱石油。

        Poulgrain的这些研究发现得到了马来西亚人类学家和民族志学家Yong Kee Howe博士的独立研究的证实和支持，他的著作《砂拉越的客家人：马来西亚冷战时代的献礼》（2003年）。在90年代，Yong 在砂拉越的实地考察中记录了那些反对殖民当局反对合并的人的悲惨经历。

        Yong为幸存的州/政府暴力受害人发出了声音，这些人至今在官方档案中保存的书面记录中乃然保持安静沉默和无表示。                             6。

       撇开政治上的正确性，Yong直率地描述了“在冷战军事，经济礼物的背景下，将砂拉越并入[大马计划]” 得到了两个令人惊讶，但常规的消息的证实。首先，历史学家Dr. Tan Tai Yong在他的著作《创造大马来西亚》（2008）中进行了以下评估：

         因此，东姑显然对拥有新加坡不感兴趣。他追求的真正奖赏是婆罗洲领地，而新加坡则是他必须付出的代价。 ……显然，国家(马来亚和沙砂两国)没有文化或社会基础；马来西亚严格来说是政治权宜的产物。

        第二个资料来源是当时马来亚首相Tunku Abdul Rahman本人，他在1980年代初期与Abdullah Ahmad进行了一系列对话，后来Abdullah于2016年出版在《与TunkuAbdulRahman对话》一书中记载东姑坦率地承认：    

     “是的，他们（英国人）在1963年（随着马来西亚的成立）给了我们砂拉越，沙巴和新加坡以及许多其他东西。英国本可以给予新加坡，沙巴和砂拉越独立，但他们却没有。相反，他们将它们交给了我们。”

        这本书着重于印尼的冲突政策因应婆罗洲领土与马来亚和新加坡合并为联邦的提议。(The Genesis of Konfrontasi)详细介绍了该提议所导致的区域政治动荡，特别是幕后大国故意设计的举动。相比之下，本评论仅侧重于本书中涉及砂拉越的那部分，特别是隐性议程所驱动的操纵和策略，将砂拉越非自愿地“推入”联邦。

        在这方面，所有砂拉越人都应该读这本书，是的，值得研究，因为这是一本有启发性的信息宝库，到目前为止，这些信息仍然是隐藏着的，或者是故意不向大众公开/查禁的。    

(借助Google翻译。林梅芳整理)  27/4/2020