Why didn't they do so?

Tun Jugah and Ningkan could have pulled out not to be in Malaysia but why they didn't? Had both of them decided not to have Sarawak formed Malaysia, Sarawak is now an independent nation and could be like Dubai. Now with oil and gas taken by Malaya and revenues taken from Sarawak to develop MALAYA instead of Sarawak and dayak land, why should Dayaks complain? You know this land belong to you but if you don't want it others will take it. 

 SUPP was fighting hard not wanting MALAYSIA be formed. They even petitioned to UN. Many of them about 6, 000 were harassed, arrested and jailed without trial for years. 

 Many went into the jungle, took arms to become terrorists. Of course some dayaks also were with them. Dayaks hated them because they were terrorists. This was the game played by foreigners and victors.

CM Ningkan was trapped and when he fought back the foreigners kicked him out!

Jugah wanted to be Governor and it was part of the negotiations before Malaysia. 

For this reason he supported Malaysia. Sarawak nearly got a Governor from UMNO but Jugah outwitted by foreigners had to settle as a federal minister yet with no office in KL. Jugah led YBs in DUN to have Ningkan sacked. We could not blame them because both didn't have good advisers at their side and were played out by foreigners. 

 Please see books by Prof Michael Leigh. 

After Malaysia was formed SUPP preferred to play kingmaker. This is natural 

because they struggled but they could not get what they wanted.    

I would see SUPP, a party dominated by Chinese will not ever support and dayak to fight PBB or pull down PBB led government. They're comfortable with PBB Bumiputera Wing and PBB Pesaka Wing. There are many dayak tycoons in GPS and they live comfortably in towns and cities. I wonder how often they went back to their longhouses to see for themselves the conditions of own people in the longhouses. Despite being filthy rich, I have yet heard any of them have built a kindergarten in longhouses to help children in longhouses with their studies.

A sad thing is that dayaks also threw away PBDS in last elections. We had strategized all things with Bobby William and other dayak leaders who believe enough is enough. But PBK led by me was branded as party cina. We were destroyed when people played race card and all our dayak in PBDS and PBK candidates lost badly. PBDS was blamed for bergaul with Cina during campaign. 

PBDS under Bobby knew we have to work together. We have to be realistic because race politics is bad for Sarawak. Race politics was engineered to sow discontent and we want peace in Sarawak. 

We hope to get at least a few seats for local opposition parties but just for a few ringgit beer and merry making people put BN/GPS in the government again. Don't complain because they are elected by people and the dayaks supported them. 

 Dayak seats are many and combined with Malay seats, GPS found it very easy to be returned to power for some chicken wings and beer to make people happy in rural areas. 

In towns, some donations for Chinese schools and associations were enough to get them back into power. 

Why should Chinese be bothered with people in the rural areas? After all they don't use the muddy roads and dangerous rivers that the rural folks felt "comfortable"  

Sarawak people wanted BN/GPS to lead Sarawak for another five years and dayaks and Chinese should be please with them by allowing the current condition to persist. 

 

Don't complain if the NCR land be taken by Malayan companies or by the Chinese tycoons because we asked for it. We have lost our oil and gas too. Why complain? 

Chinese tycoons cari makan and were willing to give people with a few tins of beers to help dayak candidates from PBB and GPS be elected to allow PBB led GPS to rule Sarawak for another five years. Lawyers also love NCR land be taken by Chinese tycoons and companies from Malaya because Lawyers whether they're politicians or not make money out of the disputes about NCR land. Worse still if they were allowed to negotiate behind the back by NCR landowners. Dayaks NCR land owners get peanuts from the settlement while Lawyers make money and laugh to the bank.

 Dayaks should wake up and turn the tables! Tell your people we need to change the government or even find ways to peacefully exit from the federation like Singapore did.

Discrimination

Demi ugama, bangsa dan negara... 🤗 6 decades of oppression, suppression and discrimination has got to stop in order to build a new Malaysia. Read with a clear mind and a forgiving heart. 

Impressive HISTORICAL record of the corruption in Malaysia!

Dato Shahruddin Ali: 

I am 60 years old, I have seen during Tungku Abdul Rahman times, we had one of the best Government servant, one of the best police officers, one of the best military officers, its because we had multi racial workforce in all Government sector. Why is it BN government remove non muslim and "Operasi isi Penuh"( Fill in full) muslim population in all government Departments ? During Tunku Abdul Rahman we didnt come across a single mosque or surau in all government department or military or police department, we didnt come across any corruptions. WHY WITH ALL MOSQUE, SURAU, UNIVERSITY ISLAM AND UITM , we are facing one of the worse corruption scandals in the world today.  

LIST OF CORRUPTION IN MALAYSIA :

1. PKFZ RM12 billion

2. Submarine Commission RM500 million

3. Sime Darby RM964 million

4. Paya Indah Westland RM88 million

5. Pos Malaysia (Transmile) RM230 million lost

6. Eurocopter deal RM1 billion wasted

7. Terengganu Stadium collapse RM292 million

8. MRR2 repair cost RM70 million

9. Maybank overpaid BII RM4 billion

10. Tourism - NYY kickback RM10 million

11. 3 paintings bought by MAS RM1.5 million

12. Overpayment by Sport Ministry RM8.4 million

13. London’s white elephant sports complex RM70 million

14. MATRADE repairs RM120 million

15. Cost of new plane used by PM RM200 million

16. InventQ irrecoverable debt RM228 million

17. Compensation for killing crooked bridge RM257 million

18. Loss in selling Augusta RM 510 million

19. Worth of APs given out in a year RM1.8 billion

20. Submarines (future Muzium Negara artifacts) RM4.1 billion

21. PSC Naval dockyard RM6.75 billion

22. The Bank Bumiputra twin scandals in the early 1980s saw US$1 billion losses (RM3.2 billion in 2008)

23. The Maminco attempt to corner the World Tin Market in the 1980s is believed to have cost some US$500 million (RM1.6 billion)

24. Betting in foreign exchange futures cost Bank Negara Malaysia RM30 billion in the 1990s

25. Perwaja Steel’s US$800 million (RM2.56 billion) losses

26. Use of RM10 billion public funds in the Valuecap Sdn Bhd operation to shore up the stock market

27. Banking scandal of RM700 million losses in Bank Islam

28. The sale of M.V. Agusta by Proton for one Euro making a loss of €75.99 million (RM348 million) Same as No.20?

29. Wang Ehsan from oil royalty on Terengganu RM7.4 billion from 2004 – 2007

30. For the past 10 years since Philharmonic Orchestra

was established, this orchestra has swallowed a total of RM500 million. Hiring a Kwai-Lo CEO with a salary of more than RM1 million per annum!

31. In Advisors Fees, Mahathir was paid RM180,000, Shahrizat Abdul RM404,726 and Abdul Hamid Othman (religious) RM549,675 per annum

32. The government has spent a total of RM3.2 billion in teaching Maths and Science in English over the past five years. Of the amount, the government paid a whopping RM2.21 billion for the purchase of information and computer technology (ICT) equipment which it is unable to give a breakdown. Government paid more than RM6,000 per notebook vs per market price of less than RM3,000 through some new consortiums that was setup just to transact the notebook deal. There was no Maths & Science Content for the teachers and the notebooks are all with the teachers' children now.

33. The commission paid for purchase of jets and submarines to two private companies - Perimeker Sdn Bhd and IMT Defence Sdn Bhd amounted to RM910 million. Expanding on No. 2?

37. RM300 million to compensate Gerbang Perdana for the RM1.1 billion "Crooked Scenic Half-Bridge"

38. RM1.3 billion has been wasted building the white elephant Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities on cancellation of the Malaysia-Singapore Scenic Bridge

39. RM100 million on renovation of Parliament building which leaks

40. National Astronaut (actually tourist) Programme – RM40 million

41. National Service Training Programme – yearly an estimate of RM 500 million

42. Eye of Malaysia - RM30 million and another RM5.7 million of free tickets

43. RM2.4 million on indelible ink

44. Samy Vellu announced in September 2006 that the government paid compensation amounting to RM38.5 billion to 20 highway companies. RM380 million windfalls for 9 toll concessionaires earned solely from the toll hike in 2008 alone

45. RM32 million timber export kickbacks involving companies connected to Sarawak Chief Minister and his family.

46. Two bailouts of Malaysia Airline System RM7.9 billion. At a time when MAS is incurring losses every year, RM1.55 million used to buy three paintings to decorate its Chairman’s (Munir) office. Expanding on No.11

47. Putra transport system bailout which cost RM4.486 billion.

48. STAR-LRT bailout costing RM3.256 billion.

49. National Sewerage System bailout costing RM192.54 million.

50. Seremban-Port Dickson Highway bailout costing RM142 million

51. Kuching Prison bailout costing RM135 million

52. Kajian Makanan dan Gunaan Orang Islam bailout costing RM8.3 million

53. Le Tour de Langkawi bailout costing RM3.5 Million

54. Wholesale distribution of tens of millions of shares in Bursa Malaysia under the guise of NEP to cronies, children and relatives of BN leaders and ministers worth billions of ringgit.

55. Alienation of tens of thousands of hectares of commercial lands and forestry concessions to children and relatives of BN leaders and Ministers worth tens of billions of ringgits.

56. Since 1997, Petronas has handed out a staggering RM30 billion in natural gas subsidies to IPPs who were reaping huge profits. In addition, there were much wastages and forward trading of Petronas oil in the 1990s based on the low price of oil then. Since the accounts of Petronas are for the eyes of the Prime Minister only, we have absolutely no idea of the amount.

57. RM5,700 for a car jack worth only RM50

58. Government-owned vehicle consumed a tank of petrol worth RM113 within a few minutes

59 A pole platform that cost RM990 was bought for RM30,000

60. A thumb drive that cost RM90 was bought for RM480

61. A cabinet that cost RM1,500 was bought for RM13,500

62. A flashlight that cost RM35 was bought for RM143

63. Expenses for 1Malaysia campaign paid to APCO?

64. RM17 billion subsidy to IPP

65. US$24 million Diamond Ring for Ro$mah - Cancellation of Order - how much compensation ?

66. CowGate . . . RM250 Million

67. Monsoon Cup . . . RM800 million per year

68. Illicit Fund Transfers out of Malaysia ( 2000 - 2009) : RM 1,077,000,000,000!

69. Tajudin-Danaharta settlement to cover up for Dr M and Daim

70. Billions of ringgit toll concessions that disadvantage the government and taxpayers”

71. With 1MDB 42 billion dollars missing .

72. MAIKA SHARE 120,000,000 SHARES IN TELEKOM

73. ABU SYAYAP TERRORIST 12 MILLION DOLLARS.

I am 60 years old. NEP suppose to end in 1999. Now NEP being use as an excuse to implement Islamic values in all over schools, Universities, Police Departments, Government Departments. WHY INDIANS TREATED LIKE GANGSTERS BY PM AND DEPUTY PM? WHY ITS ALWAYS NON MUSLIMS ARE BRANDED AS KAIFR( JAHIL - LOW CLASS HUMANS) Malaysia is possibly the most racist country in the world with the following segregation. Have a look and judge for yourself.

List of racial discrimination in Malaysia:

(1) Of the five major banks, only one is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by Malays.

(2) 99% of Petronas directors are Malays.

(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese.

(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by Malays.

(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be of Bumis status.

(6) 0% of non-Malay staff are legally required in Malay companies. But there must be 30% Malay staffs in Chinese companies.

(7) 5% of all new intake for government police, nurses, army, are non-Malays.

(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), a drop from 40% in 1960.

(9) 2% is the percentage of non-Malay government servants in Putrajaya, but Malays make up 98%.

(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the entire government (in 2004); a drop from 30% in 1960.

(11) 95% of government contracts are given to Malays.

(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by Malay government, e.g. Taxi permits, Approved permits, etc.

(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to Malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is made difficult for Chinese rice millers.

(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by Malays since 1970s, e.g. UTC, UMBC, MISC, etc.

(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia in the past 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other Malay transport companies due to rejection by Malay authorities to Chinese applications for bus routes and rejection for their applications for new buses.

(16) Two Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and three were Chinese in Oct. 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given.

(17) 0 non-Malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (Nov. 2004).

(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to Malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatization of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over a 34 years period.

(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down from 1968 - 2000.

(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down from 1968 - 2000.

(21) 2637 Malay primary schools built from 1968 - 2000.

(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, Malay schools got 96.5%.

(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school textbook loan, a Malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible.

(24) All 10 public university vice chancellors are Malays.

(25) 5% of the government universities' lecturers are of non-Malay origins. This percentage has been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004.

(26) Only 5% has been given to non-Malays for government scholarships in over 40 years.

(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under the "Look East Policy."

(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course to which they aspired, i.e. Medicine (in 2004).

(29) 10% quotas are in place for non-Bumi students for MARA science schools beginning in 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% Malays.

(30) 50 cases in which Chinese and Indian Malaysians are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003.

(31) 25% of the Malaysian population was Chinese in 2004, a drop from 45% in 1957.

(32) 7% of the Malaysian population is Indian (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957.

(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians have emigrated in the past 40 years.

(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians have emigrated overseas.

(35) 3 millions Indonesians have migrated to Malaysia and become Malaysian citizens with Bumis status.

(36) 600,000 Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship in the past 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism, based on how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compared with the Chinese and Indians.

(37) 5% - 15% discount for a Malay to buy a house. I AM 60 YEARS OLD, I LOST MY TRUST IN ALL OUR MUSLIM LEADERS

[21/01, 14:49] Dato Shahruddin Ali

👍✌I have seen these details previously which is very painful for non malays to read and digest To me these details are truthful and I am proud of the persons who complled all these facts.Hopefully more malays should read this contents to realise it is their own kind who is cheating them the most

我们在MA63上的立场

*我们在 MA63 上的立场* 

亲爱的同胞们：

 我在 2019 年 6 月概述了我党的方向，并多次重申，PBK 将寻求通过法律途径让砂拉越从马来西亚联邦手中获得自由和独立，因为这是二战后联合国想要的。 英国是联合国第1514号决议的签署国，应受其约束。 就法律和政治意义而言，现在，砂拉越确实是马来亚的殖民地。 在我接受调查时向警方的陈述中，我也向他们提到了我的立场以及我对法律的了解。 至今，联邦政府悄无声息。

 在沙巴、砂拉越和新加坡 (SSS) 被诱使成立马来西亚后，马来亚改名为马来西亚。 这记录在联合国记录中。 马来西亚唱着马来亚的 Negaraku，飞着马来亚的 Jalur Gemilang，只有额外加多的条纹。 我们的州长必须由阿贡任命。 我们不是马来亚的殖民地吗？

 

 根据国际法，宁甘在马来西亚日宣布砂拉越独立是不正确的。 Ningkan 不是律师，宣布砂拉越在马来西亚内独立是不明智的。 那都是英国人和马来亚人策划的。 根据国际法，任何国家都不能在另一个国家内独立。 东姑阿都拉曼在一本书《与东姑阿都拉曼的对话》中承认，砂拉越、沙巴和新加坡是英国人送给马来亚的礼物。 宁甘希望马来西亚成立，因为他想成为首席部长。 Jugah 也是如此，因为他认为他可以成为砂拉越州长，但当他没有被任命为州长，他当了在吉隆坡没有办公室的联邦不管部长。 他怎么可能在吉隆坡没有任何职位？ 贪婪和背叛是我对他们两个的回答。 宁甘被封为首席部长后，意识到不对劲而造反。 然后他被解雇了。

 

 说PBK会让人们相信砂拉越是马来西亚联邦中的一个独立州属，这是错误的。 在我的领导下，PBK 永远不会放弃砂拉越确实是一个殖民地的立场，或者至少没有被英国授予独立。 要获得独立，必须由英国议会通过议会法案。 这是英国殖民地大臣说的，马来亚就是这样独立的。 我已经向警察清楚地解释了这一点。

说PBK不应该声称MA63无效也不是我们可以妥协的。 这是因为根据国际法，MA63确实是无效的。 我在被捕时也向警方表达了我对这件事的看法。

 国际法律对我来说很清楚，MA63 是无效的，因为殖民地没有法律能力与任何母国达成协议，因为它是一项条约。 国际法院2019年2月25日宣判的查戈斯群岛案就说明了这一点。 全世界有不少于 150 名著名的法律专家和法学家在查戈斯群岛案中工作。 联邦政府和砂拉越政府现在承受着巨大的压力，他们试图履行 MA63 中的所有条款和条件，就好像 MA63 是一项有效条约一样。

 PBK 让他们看起来很愚蠢。

 他们试图把脱脂棉拉到我们眼前。 只要马来亚掌权，MA63 就无法保障砂拉越的权利。 联邦政府可以随时收回、废除或撤销承诺给我们的任何东西。 马来亚控制着联邦内阁和议会，他们没有可能让既得位给它的殖民地。

 过去几年有太多关于恢复 MA63 条款的政治声明，但在我于 2019 年 6 月介入，并明确表示 PBK 正在推动砂拉越独立之前，没有实质性的行动。

 722 不是砂拉越独立日。 同意722是独立日，这一点会使我们成为傻瓜，因为这在法律上是错误的。 722 是一部政治骗剧，迫使已故的阿德南同意。 阿德南（Adenan）聪明地利用这一点，因而他的政治里程赢得了选举。 7 月 22 日是英国国旗降下的日子，但英国总督仍然在这里，并仍在控制之中。 这是英国人精心策划的，目的是给砂拉越人和世界留下砂拉越获得独立的印象。 英国驻砂拉越总督于1963年9月16日下午才乘游艇启航前往新加坡。 Tun Openg 于下午 4 点左右才进入阿斯塔纳。 如果我记得的话没错，这是总理阿邦佐哈里所说的。

 正如我在上面所说，要给予独立，英国议会必须通过给予砂拉越独立的法案，但直到现在，英国议会从未通过任何砂拉越独立法案。

 

 Ningkan 是由英国总督任命为 CM，而 Ningkan 并非由砂拉越人民选举为 CM。 如果当时英国总督愿意，他有权任命任何人担任总督，不一定是宁甘。 因此，这表明英国人仍处于控制之中。 如果我还记得我读过的内容，英国总督主持了第一次最高理事会会议（第一届砂拉越内阁），那是一个星期六。 总督在会上表达了他对谁将接替他的位置的担忧。 事实上，砂拉越差点让一名来自柔佛州的巫统人出任砂拉越州长。 后来妥协了。 然后，Tun Openg 取代了 Jugah，成为了州长。

PBK 的信息尚未传达给所有人民。 这是因为该政权正在尽其所能确保人民不会听到 PBK 的声音。 目前，我可以说不超过百分之一的砂拉越人知道自决权、海洋生物的损失以及我们的石油和天然气资源的损失，据推测每年约有 1000 亿令吉被联邦政府拿去用。 我们得到的回报总是少少的那么一点。 我们不是殖民地吗？

 1963 年 9 月 16 日马来西亚日之后出生的人，很少有人知道马来西亚是如何形成的，也不知道砂拉越是在此之前的一个国家，并被马来亚吞并，扩大马来亚领土，改名为马来西亚。

 由于害怕当权者骚扰，PBK 可能会失去支持者，但他们能让我们闭嘴多久？ 现在更多人知道马来西亚砂拉越的情况。 事情会爆发为一场和平革命，将砂拉越赶出马来西亚，这只是时间问题。 国内和国际法允许和平革命，当砂拉越人知道他们的权利并站在一起反对马来亚和现任砂拉越政府的统治时，和平革命就会发生。

 和平革命意味着走上街头，以和平抗议的方式寻求政权和世界的关注。

 BERSIH 做到了这一点，这导致马来西亚国阵政府在统治马来西亚 50 多年后发生了变化。

 温利山

 2023 年 2 月 25 日

Why was there a confrontation with Indonesia?

*温利山： Why there was* *a confrontation with Indonesia?* 

（ 2022-09-22 ）

 *为什么与印度尼西亚发生冲突？* 

 大多数砂拉越人不明白近六十年前，为什么与印度尼西亚发生对抗，这导致担心如果砂拉越独立，会与邻国发生另一场战争。

 印度尼西亚-马来西亚对抗或婆罗洲对抗（也以其印度尼西亚/马来语名称 Konfrontasi 着称）是 1963 年至 1966 年的武装冲突，源于印度尼西亚反对建立马来西亚联邦。

 1966 年印度尼西亚总统苏加诺被罢免后，争端和平结束，马来西亚成立。 之所以发生对抗，是因为苏加诺说马来西亚的形成是马来亚对婆罗洲领土的新殖民主义，因为马来西亚的形成不符合国际法。

 国际法要求举行全民公决，以寻求人民的愿望，无论婆罗洲领土的人民是否想与马来亚联合或想成为自己的独立国家。

 砂拉越和沙巴的婆罗洲领土是英国人赠送给马来亚的礼物，以扩大马来亚的领土。 马来亚联邦于 1963 年 9 月 16 日成立后改名为马来西亚。

 马来西亚的成立违反国际法和联合国大会第 1514 号决议

 许多法律专家认为，Cobbold 委员会的报告是欺诈的产物。 许多反对成立马来西亚的人被贴上了恐怖分子或叛乱分子的标签。 由于害怕骚扰和逮捕，许多人跑进丛林和印度尼西亚边境。 他们被武装部队追捕，被迫拿起武器自卫。 根据国际法，使用武器自卫是允许的。

  根据联合国大会第 1514 号决议的要求，英国人试图克服公投的需要和非殖民化的需要，成立了科博德委员会。 Cobbold委员会的任何成员都没有来自沙巴和砂拉越的代表。 马来亚由 Ghazali Shafie 和 Dato Ong Yoke Lin 代表。 许多人认为委员会是有偏见的，而且报告似乎必须表明砂拉越和沙巴的人民倾向于成为马来西亚的一部分。 当事情不利于马来西亚的形成时，东姑并不高兴。 请阅读 Michael Leigh 教授的 The Rising Moon & Deals, Datus 和 Dayaks，了解 Cobbold 委员会报告的不当之处。

 *温利山* 

 *肯雅兰全民党 主席* 

 

*Why there was a confrontation with Indonesia?*

*

Most Sarawakians could not understand why there was a confrontation with Indonesia and this led to fear of another war with neighbouring countries if Sarawak is independent.

The Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation or Borneo confrontation (also known by its Indonesian / Malay name, Konfrontasi) was an armed conflict from 1963 to 1966 that stemmed from Indonesia's opposition to the creation of the Federation of Malaysia.

After Indonesian president Sukarno was deposed in 1966, the dispute ended peacefully and the nation of Malaysia was formed. The reason why the confrontation took place because Sukarno said the formation of Malaysia was a neocolonism of the Borneo Territories by Malaya because the formation of Malaysia was not in accordance with international law.

International law requires a referendum be held to seek the desires of the people whether or not the people of the Borneo Territories wanted to be federated with Malaya or wanted to be independent nation of their own. 

The Borneo Territories of Sarawak and Sabah were handed as a gift by the British to Malaya to enlarge the territories of Malaya. The federation of Malaya then took a new name, Malaysia after the federation was formed on 16 September 1963.

The formation of Malaysia was against international law and against the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 

Many legal experts opined that the Cobbold Commission Report was the fruit of a fraud. Many who opposed the formation of Malaysia were branded as terrorists or insurgents. Fear of harassment and arrest, many ran into the jungle and to Indonesian Border. They were hunted by armed forces and they were forced to take arms to defend themselves. Under international law, to defend oneself with arms against arms is allowed. 

 The British tried to overcome the need of a referendum and the need to decolonization as required by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 formed the Cobbold Commission. None of the members of the Cobbold Commission had any representatives from Sabah and Sarawak. Malaya was represented By Ghazali Shafie and Dato Ong Yoke Lin. Many seen the Commission was biaised and it seems the Report must show people of Sarawak and Sabah favoured to be part of Malaysia. Tunku was not happy when things were not in favour of the formation of Malaysia. Please read The Rising Moon & Deals, Datus And Dayaks by Prof. Michael Leigh about the improperity of the Cobbold Commission Report. 

 *Voon Lee Shan* 

 *Parti Bumi Kenyalang*

*Why there was a confrontation with Indonesia?*

Most Sarawakians could not understand why there was a confrontation with Indonesia and this led to fear of another war with neighbouring countries if Sarawak is independent.

The Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation or Borneo confrontation (also known by its Indonesian / Malay name, Konfrontasi) was an armed conflict from 1963 to 1966 that stemmed from Indonesia's opposition to the creation of the Federation of Malaysia.

After Indonesian president Sukarno was deposed in 1966, the dispute ended peacefully and the nation of Malaysia was formed. The reason why the confrontation took place because Sukarno said the formation of Malaysia was a neocolonism of the Borneo Territories by Malaya because the formation of Malaysia was not in accordance with international law.

International law requires a referendum be held to seek the desires of the people whether or not the people of the Borneo Territories wanted to be federated with Malaya or wanted to be independent nation of their own. 

The Borneo Territories of Sarawak and Sabah were handed as a gift by the British to Malaya to enlarge the territories of Malaya. The federation of Malaya then took a new name, Malaysia after the federation was formed on 16 September 1963.

The formation of Malaysia was against international law and against the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 

Many legal experts opined that the Cobbold Commission Report was the fruit of a fraud. Many who opposed the formation of Malaysia were branded as terrorists or insurgents. Fear of harassment and arrest, many ran into the jungle and to Indonesian Border. They were hunted by armed forces and they were forced to take arms to defend themselves. Under international law, to defend oneself with arms against arms is allowed. 

 The British tried to overcome the need of a referendum and the need to decolonization of colonies as required by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514, formed the Cobbold Commission.

None of the members of the Cobbold Commission had any representatives from Sabah and Sarawak. 

Malaya was represented By Ghazali Shafie and Dato Ong Yoke Lin. Many seen the Commission was biaised and it seems the Report must show people of Sarawak and Sabah favoured to be part of Malaysia. Tunku was not happy when things were not in favour of the formation of Malaysia. Please read The Rising Moon & Deals, Datus And Dayaks by Prof. Michael Leigh about the improperity of the Cobbold Commission Report. 

Voon Lee Shan 

Parti Bumi Kenyalang

Autonomy VS Independence

Autonomy Independence

*Autonomy*

Chagos island case, UN International Court of Justice determined on 25-2-2019 that the international law on treaty making provides that only sovereign independent states can make treaties and colonies (who are non self governing territories) are not sovereign independent states with power to make such treaty with independent states. 

Therefore MA63 was not validly entered into because Sabah & Sarawak were not sovereign independent states when MA63 Treaty was signed. At the time that the Treaty was signed, Sabah and Sarawak were still colonies of Britain. 

If MA63 is void then there is no need to talk about autonomy. Sarawak presently has autonomy over her immigration. 

 All other ministries are subjected to the decisions and directives of Federal Government. So if MA63 is void, all authority and power shall revert to Sarawak fully and Sarawak shall have full control of all matters.

*Independence* 

The international right to independence is enshrined in United Nations Resolution 1514 on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples which allows colonies the privilege to decolonize and to become independence countries. This UN Resolution 1514 has a force of law recognised by the international community and Malaysia, being a member nation has to respect this Resolution. Failing to do so can invite serious economic and political consequences against Malaysia. 

Malaya gained independence from Britain in 1957 and according to the Notification filed by Malaya on 16.9.1963, Malaya took a new name Malaysia after Sabah & Sarawak were acquired to enlarge its territory. Sabah and Sarawak were not independent nations when they were handed by Britain as a gift to Malaya. 

When Singapore exited Malaysia, the Singapore Independence Act 1966 was passed in the Malaysian parliament granting Singapore her independence. 

The 1976 Malaysian Constitutional amendment reduces our status from a country to a state.

Further derogation of our dignity by Malaya was the passing of laws by the Malaysian Parliament to take ownership of our oil and gas under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and our waters by passing the Territorial Sea Act 2012 amongst other things. 

If Sarawak is an independent nation, her territory, oil and gas will naturally revert to her under the UN’s Continental Shelf Act 1964. This will mean that all revenues derived from Sarawak seabeds, subsoils and natural resources will belong to Sarawak and collectible by Sarawak alone. 

The UN International Court of Justice in 2008 opined that Kosovo (a non independent state with independent Serbia) had an intrinsic right to independence as provided by the Decolonization Act 1960. Therefore, guided by this international law, our Sarawak Legislature is a powerful body that can unilaterally declare Sarawak’s independence on grounds not only on invalidity of MA63 Treaty but also on grounds of suppression, domination, economic and political differences with Malaya.

安华任相百日，回顾历史

余清禄: 安华任相近百日 回顾当年史

（ 19-02-2023 ）

2月19日联邦教育部长竟然公告天下，“政府没有义务照顾独中！” ，这位人们寄予厚望的公正党部长还公然宣称因为不符合教育体系 *规定* 。

2月28日，安华任相就一百天了。砂拉越同胞们最关心的是，新首相在国会大选前尊严承诺，一旦他任相，无需协商（也有媒体翻译为无需过多协商）,立即全部还给沙巴砂拉越在MA63 里的权益。在2022年11月19日他正式任首相后，还成立了负责此事的特别委员会，甚至在春节还特地到古晋召开这个会议，让犀乡同胞在自己的邦国被英国当作“礼物”送给马来亚六十年后的今天，看到了恢复邦国尊严的希望。然而，遗憾的是，从这些天报章上看来，事关沙巴、砂拉越、马来亚联合邦，三个平等伙伴地位的最重要问题，即拥有联邦国会三份之一席位，拿回原本的领海权，拿回原本100%油气权益及财政金融银行主权、教育主权、卫生主权等等，却都只字没提。甚至连象征我们砂拉越邦国地位的总理头衔都不敢承认，还要抛给统治者决定。

从上述情况来看，让我想起1963年9月16日前的一系列重要历史事实，就豁然理解了导致沙巴、砂拉越陷于如今如斯悲哀困境的由来。

请看下面依据解密文件和报章等的时间表，其所展现的事实，揭示当年英国如何与马来亚无视国际公道法律，肆意剥夺北婆罗洲和砂拉越本应获得独立自由权利的过程：

1946 年 7 月 1 日，英国政府将砂拉越、北婆罗洲和新加坡，吞并为“直辖殖民地”，并公开承诺砂拉越不会被纳入同样于 1946 年成立的马来亚联盟，并最终恢复其（北婆罗洲、砂拉越、新加坡）独立的权利。 这只是英国后来将殖民地纳入 1946 年成立的马来亚联盟所采取的步骤的一部分。该联盟于 1948 年解体，取而代之的是仍在英国殖民统治下的马来亚联合邦。

1957年 马来亚联合邦获得独立。

从1958年开始，英国人开始与马来亚秘密谈判，以在不给予独立的情况下，将砂拉越和北婆罗洲移交给马来亚（实质上就是从英帝国殖民地转给另一个国家为殖民地）。

1960年 英国殖民地副首席秘书AR Snellus先生迫于舆论质询的压力，他承认砂拉越独立不会被推迟。 这是在 14/12/1960 联合国宣布《 *去* 殖民化宣言》之前。

1961 年 5 月 27 日 - 马来亚首相东姑阿都拉曼宣布马来西亚计划接管汶莱、北婆罗洲（现称“沙巴”）和砂拉越。要注意，马来亚与英国政府是在没有事先咨询或征得婆罗洲人民的同意下，进行秘密谈判后， 两国政府宣布，拟议中的“联邦”是为了 “人民的利益”。 婆罗洲人民对英国与马来亚，完全无视他们的自决权感到惊讶，遂将马来西亚计划谴责为“新殖民主义计划”，并要求首先获得独立，在获得独立之后，大家再商量组织联邦事宜。因为，给予独立是英国政府在 1946 年吞并沙巴和砂拉越时所承诺的。这项1946年的吞并，和 之后1963年与马来亚的合并，是英国为巩固其东南亚战略利益和长期计划的大设计的一部分。

1962 年 1 月 17 日 - 无视人民的抗议，马来西亚联邦计划，以“询问人民的意愿”而不是全民投票的方式启动，这违反了联合国《关于非殖民化的第 1514 和 1541 号决议》。 英国政府成立了由前英国官员和马来亚官员（存在利益冲突）组成的科博德委员会进行“调查”。 调查和报告于 1962 年 4 月完成，但没有发布，因为马来亚认为它（《科博德调查团报告》）没有完全支持马来西亚，必须对其进行修改。

1962 年 7 月 31 日 - 英国和马来亚签署了一项秘密的建立马来西亚联邦的《协议》，其中包含一项应急条款，即在“必要”的情况下于 1963 年 8 月 31 日或之前，宣布正式组成“马来西亚”。 

1962 年 8 月 1 日，秘密协议部分公开宣布，声明两国政府同意组建马来西亚，但没有透露内容。 这是在延迟 4 个月后根据马来亚政府的要求对其进行修改后，于同一天发布《科博德调查团报告》。

1962 年 12 月 8 日- 为争取独立，而爆发的反马来西亚计划的汶莱起义（由英国特别部门煽动），英国随之宣布进入紧急状态，并在砂拉越逮捕了数千名所谓的“颠覆分子”（从 1962 年持续到 1980 年代）。

1962年 由汶莱人民党 (PRB) 领导的北婆罗洲（北加里曼丹）独立运动向联合国提出的要独立的诉求，因汶莱 “12.8事件” 而被中止。 这严重削弱了北婆罗洲和砂拉越对马来西亚的反对运动。 马来亚首相东姑阿都拉曼宣布，无论婆罗洲的紧急情况如何，马来西亚计划都将继续进行。

1963 年 2 月 2 日在新加坡进行大逮捕。

1963 年 4 月至 6 月在砂拉越举行的多层次议会选举 前，针对与反马来西亚计划的砂拉越人民联合党的大镇压，大大削弱和破坏了独立运动力量。 正如英国和马来亚预期的那样，亲马来西亚的政党赢得了多层次的选举，这被用来证明支持马来西亚是,“正当的”。 在此期间，马来亚政府与汶莱起义后开始反对马来西亚计划的印尼政府，以及声称拥有沙巴一部分领土的的菲律宾政府，到东京进行谈判。

1963年7月9日前夕，汶莱政府拒绝签署 MA63，因为苏丹担心汶莱最终会成为资助马来亚各州发展的“奶牛”，这反映出汶莱人民对他们的国家成为马来亚殖民地的恐惧。

1963 年 7 月 9 日 - 英国和马来亚、新加坡、北婆罗洲和砂拉越 三个殖民地，在持续武装冲突和镇压的强制紧急情况下，於伦敦签署了马来西亚协议 (MA63)。 这里需要说明的是：殖民地不具有法定地位，不得与具有主权的国家，进行签定具有约束力的国际协定（正如未成年者不具法定地位和成年异性签结婚证书）。 1963年，殖民地沙巴和殖民地砂拉越，由各自的英国总检察长和英国，所提名当地非民选代表，在未经人民授权的情况下到伦敦签署MA63，这违反了联合国第 1514 和 1541号决议案，也违反了国际法里的 订约规则，而使条约无效。

16/07/1963 – 印度尼西亚政府宣布不接受 MA63 作为有效条约，因为它未能遵守联合国决议。

1963 年 7 月 22 日——由英国驻砂拉越总督宣布任命的砂拉越首席部长宁甘和内阁，代表英国控制的殖民地立法机构，而不是一个由砂拉越人控制的独立立法机构，在这一天宣布砂拉越独立，但是英国却没有给予任何体现独立的主权。 这似乎是英国政府的疏忽？抑或是英国政府有意安排？

1963 年 7 月 31 日——马来亚与印度尼西亚和菲律宾签署了《马尼拉协议》，达成马来西亚成立的条件，是联合国对婆罗洲人民对马来西亚计划的意愿进行评估，并解决菲律宾要求。 於是，预定8 月 31 日的成立日期不得不推迟，等待联合国“评估”的结果。

1963 年 8 月 9 日——英国殖民大臣邓肯·桑迪斯 (Duncan Sandys) 通知他的伦敦办公室，联合国官员已保证评估结果，将有利于英国马来亚的计划，并使该问题免受联合国 *去* 殖民化委员会的审查。 在其他秘密通讯中，他还建议马来亚政府反对公投的想法。 马来亚首相及其常务秘书加沙里·沙菲益 (Ghazali Shafie) 是科博德委员会的成员，随后站出来反对印尼要求的公投。

1963 年 8 月 16 日至 9 月 5 日，联合国代表团对 英属婆罗洲 两个领土进行了粗略评估，结论是三分之一支持马来西亚计划，三分之一反对，三分之一有条件支持，结论是大多数支持。（而不是根据联合国第 1541 号决议第 9 条原则进行的全民投票），这是联合国秘书长承认的违反联合国去殖民化议定书的行为。

1963年8月28日，英国和马来亚政府在评估完成之前违反协议，抢先在联合国评估结果公布之前，将原先预定1963年8月31日的“马来西亚日”公布修改为1963年9月16日。 这是将联合国特派团的正式报告，视为无关紧要的表现。 但联合国没有中止任务，而是照预先的计划，向英国政府提供了亲马来西亚的报告。

1963 年 8 月 31 日 - 英国殖民大臣邓肯桑迪斯拒绝 *新加坡* 单方面宣布独立，并公开表示 MA63 和马来西亚不是让 *新加坡* ，沙巴和砂拉越独立，而是将它们转移到 马来亚。

1963 年 9 月 11 日 - 吉兰丹州政府起诉马来亚联邦政府，宣布 MA63 无效，因为它违反了《马来亚联合邦协议》，并在没有征求马来亚统治者和吉兰丹州政府的同意下，修改联邦宪法以接纳 3 名新成员（北婆罗洲、砂拉越、新加坡）。 唯一的主审法官判决 MA63 并非无效，但表示，他是在巨大的政治压力下行事，以促成 1963 年 9 月 16 日马来西亚得以公告。吉兰丹政府原可以对相关的上述决定提出上诉，但结果他们并没有如此做。

1963 年 9 月 14 日 - 联合国秘书长宇丹支持马来西亚，表示尽管其“评估”存在缺陷和妥协。与此同时，英国和马来亚政府无视国际社会对评估的抗议，抢先宣布得出联合国评估的结论，宣布马来西亚成立日期。

1963 年 9 月 16 日 - 英国和马来亚在持续武装冲突的紧急情况下“宣布”马来西亚联邦组成，尽管这项组成违反了《马尼拉协议》和《联合国 *去* 殖民化决议案》的要求和人权。

各位亲爱的砂拉越同胞，在看完了上述任人宰割的无奈的粗略编年史，在六十年后的今天，是否会有什么新的启发？

滚滚鹅江 西逝水，

国土鸠占呜呼 *呀* 

犀乡煎熬哀哉 *也* 

梦娜卷尽英雄 *们* 

一甲子岁月烟消灭

穆禄依旧还存在

峇南水浑片片黄

阿拜伊奈露台上

惊觉丛林尽失踪

又见河里没了鱼

山野猪儿哪里去？

犀鳥翩翩飞入家，

世外桃源今何在？

悲情苦痛诉不完

尽在无言苦笑中

Zainnal Ajamain's misconception on Jurisprudence of Federalism

Zainnal Ajamain’s misconception on Jurisprudence of Federalism

Zainnal Ajamain (‘ZA’), who is advising the Sabah Government, has unfortunately misperceived the intricacies of the analytic juris prudence on federalism and Federal Constitutional Monarchy. He made erroneous interpolations and interpretations on amending several serious violations of the FC under MA63 with ANNEX A, Malaysia ACT 1963 (MACT 63) and IGCR 1962 that would need the holistic approach, the raison d’être for rejecting the mere cosmetic Article 1(2) by our State Government.

Sir Ivor Jennings of Cambridge University, a top constitutional law expert involved in the Reid Committee and FC of 1963, has acknowledged that the entrenched Malaysian Constitution would be different from the uncodified Westminster, except its Parliamentary System instead of a Presidential System. So AZ’s ‘The Queen’s Obligations’ has produced many outlandish misconceptions.

I.1 ZA has fallaciously asserted that if Article 1(2) is not amended, the Borneo States would have to share their O&G with the States of Malaya! That is not syllogistic!

“A government is only the creature of a constitution. The Constitution is not the act of its government, but of the people’s constituting a government”: Thomas Paine

Holistic Amendments Needed

I.2

The void and illegal Act 354 tried to relegate the Borneo States to the same status as the various States of Malaya only for the reduction of 12 nautical miles to 3 in the territorial waters of Borneo States for cheap operations of O&G. But unlike the States of Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah have special entrenched rights on land and local government under the entrenched Articles 2(b), 95D, 76(4) Item 2(a)(c) & (d) of the State List 9th schedule which prohibit the compulsory acquisition of O&G under Article 13. That is applicable only to the States of Malaya. USA, Canada and Australia, called the ‘3 Federations’ would not violate that for O&G targeted for national development as in Malaysia.

I.3 Even article 161E (3) states that “no amendments to the constitution which affects its operation as regards to the quota of members of the House of Representatives allocated to the State of Sabah or Sarawak…. shall be equating or assimilating to the position of the states of Malaya.”

The same provision is also ‘encrypted’ in Section 66(3) of the Malaysian ACT 63 (MACT), the ANNEX A to MA63 and the mother of the FC.

I.4 (i) By amending the present Article 1(2), a constitutional mirage, does not make Sarawak equal to the Federal Government nor States of Malaya nor Sabah which has a rebate of 40 per cent of all the incomes received by the Federal Government from Sabah as grants under Item 2(1) of Part IV 10th Schedule.

(ii) The Federal Government with the power and money makes the rules and decides when to delay grants for school repairs, or cut the special grant of RM5.8 million in 1968 with the typical hallow federal assurance of DPM that all the offshore oil proceeds would go to Sarawak or when to review the grants, except once in 1973, although it should be every five years under Article 112 D(3). The Review of MA 1963 was overdue since 1973.

Our present CM has rightly asked for a specific formula of sharing wealth and time frame. This would include:

(a) Imposing 5 per cent State Sales Tax (item 7) on Petroleum products up to about15 per cent plus the present 5 per centroyaltytotalling 20 per cent royalty in lieu of item 3 Part II 10th Schedule locked on 10 per cent ad valorem basis on O&G (cost at production site only) out of 80 – 85 per cent for the Federal/Petronas, still leaving behind around 72 per cent.

(b) The State has been shortchanged in billions, as at least 35 per cent O&G was not reported in SSM used for calculation of royalty over 44 years; and

(c) The balance of at least RM25 billion of additional royalty of 5 per cent for additional development fund, not grant for Sarawak, for aborting the declaratory judgement on PDA 1974 in the Privy Council, London, was assured by Tun Razak under Article VIII of MA 1963.

Discounts and staggered payments and offsets against federal loans would be expected. Proofs of debts due to shortchanges in (b) and (c) can forensically be established in the court by Court’s Discoveries of accounts, documents and calculations. But that should be avoided to prevent embarrassment and maintain cordial relationship under the spirit of MA 1963.

Proper constitutional procedure for amending the FC

I.5 Constitutionally, MACT 63, ‘Appendix A’ to MA63 must be amended first, namely under Sections 4(2)(b), and (c) for Singapore, before amending constitutionally Article 1(2) of the FC itself which is a superficial political cosmetic and polemic, by way of a Supplementary Agreement to the MA1963 to be executed by the 3 remaining parties, namely the States of Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak, as MA63 is a constitutional agreement and an international multi-lateral treaty under customary international law and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

 

I.6 In fact, this present void and illegal Article 1(2), amended under ACT354 on 27th August 1976 also has violated the Sarawak Constitution, as it was not constitutionally amended first by a Supplementary Agreement of MA63 under Section 4(2)(b) of MACT 63 on the original Article 1(2)(b) nor approved by DUN. The exit of the State of Singapore under Article 1(2)(c) was similarly void, as parliament is prohibited to skirt around with passing of Act 59/66. There is no provision in Article 2 (a) for the exit of Singapore except for admission of States into the Federation of Malaysia.

Why Article 160 on the ‘Federation’ needs amendments?

I.7 Section 5 of MACT 63 on the Interpretation of the Constitutional terms has no definition of section 160 on ‘The Federation’ as in the present FC, thereby confirming that it was fudged without Sarawak and Sabah agreeing under a Supplementary Agreement nor by DUN. Professor Farouki did not know that while ‘lecturing’ in front of lawyers and judges in Kuching. He has yet to fulfil his assured response to the writer’s over 20 articles given to him starting last year.

II.1. MA63 was deliberately omitted in Article 160 due to the void fudging. That is why Sarawak has specifically demanded that ‘The Federation’ of Malaysia ‘established under The Federation of Malaysia Agreement 1963’, but not under Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957.

 

II.2 ‘States of Sarawak, Sabah, and Singapore’ federated or united in an alliance or joined together with the existing States of Malaya to form Malaysia.

However, the 18-year old UN’s General Assembly with representatives of various nations were not familiar with the legal doctrine of State Succession. So the simplest explanation given by Tun Omar Ong Y.L. was erroneous historically, legally, and constitutionally, namely a new blended wine in the same old, relabelled bottle.

II.3. The Recital of Malaysia Bill 1963, (MACT 1963), ‘ANNEX A’ to MA63 has reinforced as follows:

“Where as on behalf of the Federation…agreed, that the British colonies of North Borneo.. Sarawak and State of Singapore shall be federated, (united in an alliance) with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, and that the name of the Federation should there after be Malaysia (established under the Malaysia Agreement 1963), to expressly, if not already impliedly, that would complete the clear meaning of the recital even without those words in the brackets. But it could never be under MA 1957.

II.4. The reference to the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957 in Article 162(3), can be easily amended, namely: “as references to the Federation that is to say, the Federation of Malaysia under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and to the extent applicable under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957…”.

Amending Article 1(2) guarantees no equal partnership

III.1. By amending the cosmetic Article 1(2) only does not make Sarawak and Sabah as equal partners. Sarawak was never treated as an equal partner, as assured by Tun Razak. The entrenched provisions of the FC were fudged and/or breached with void effects on Sarawak’s ‘oil and gas, petroleum products’, including mineral water, namely by blocking the impositions of SST by fudging Article 95B(3) and Item 8(j) of the Federal list, ADAT and Native Laws, ususcapio.

Despite DUN’s powers on legislations and various entrenched rights and Sarawak’s Supremacy of Constitution under Article 27. DUN’s resolutions must declare PDA 1974 void and illegal under the 7 PCs, 7 PMs and UNCLOS 1982, specifically under Articles 2(b), 72(1) and 162(2) for the illegal and unconstitutional alterations of the 4 Sarawak’s boundaries; namely the 350 nautical miles of continental shelf, 200 nautical miles of EEZ, 12 nautical miles of Territorial Waters, and Sarawak’s international boundaries at sea and matters on land and local government

III.2 PH Federal Government has set up the unconstitutional and void MPKKP in Sarawak, but not in Sabah, in serious violations of the 7 entrenched provisions of the FC (7 FES) and illegal under 4 Protective Municipal Ordinances (4 MPOS) , for touching on Sarawak’s land and local government with conflicting and devisive policies, directives and programmes against JKKK, the State’s body for local administration in the rural and around urban areas, amplified in the writer’s articles, namely ‘FC, illegal under State Ordinances against JKKK’ Dec 8th, 2019 and ‘Why MPPKP is void and illegal’ Dec 22nd, 2019, in thesundaypost.

Petronas’s directors liable for fraudulent concealment of about 35 per cent s/p or split/barrel in the annual A/CS filed with SSM

III.3. (i) Unfortunately Petronas, a public company, and its officers are liable for offences under the Companies Act and other laws for prosecutions on fraudulent misrepresentations or concealments in not filing the true accounts by excluding at least 35 per cent share profit/split barrels of O&G production yearly with a huge discrepancy of RM19.298 billion of net profit for example, in the 2017 annual accounts filed with SSM and publicly declared profits.Petronas has failed to clarify this.

Royalties are based on SSM. Sarawak has been short changed for 44 years. Professor Farouki said that the Federal Government should address that.

Even oil at US$45bbl, Federal/Petronas will still get US$25bbl revenues in the shallow O&G fields, with production costs of around US$8bbl.

(ii) The Petronas’s auditors and Auditor General have also to furnish under Court Discoveries for documents and books of accounts. Hope SST and correct royalties can be legally and politically settled to save that embarrassments:

(a) the shortchanges of RM billions of royalties; and

(b) The unofficial royalty of 5 per cent, half of the 10 per cent cash paid to the Federal before cost recovery, would have a balance now our RM25 billion without interest, accruing daily at 853,000 bbl/boe compared to about 300,000 bbl nationally in the 1970s.

So Parliament must protect Petronas’s Officers and amend PDA 1974. Petronas has publicly asked for the repealing of the OMO 1958, therefore all Sarawak’s parties must ensure that that will not happen in the DUN, else the PH Federal controlled government will definitely repeal and white wash PDA 1974 and all the void 7 FCs and illegal 7PMs.

(V) Why Sarawak should not be as one territory with Sabah?

(1) (i) Sarawak and Sabah are not one Territory, as alleged, quite evident in the original article 1(2)(b) and Section 4(2)(b) of MACT63: The Borneo States, namely Sabah and Sarawak; and the territories of each of the States mentioned in Clause 2 the territories ……….before Malaysia Day.”: Section 4(3) of MACT 63 and Article I(3) of the FC.

(ii) Sarawak should never follow Sabah’s political, constitutional and legal as one territory nor history. Why?

Firstly, Sabah has waived its immigration powers under Article V of MA1963; education, religion have been waived; and Labuan was ceded as a Federal Territory(FT), one of the 13, which were void because FTs are not States under Article 2(A) nor under 160 with the unconstitutional amendment of Section 4(2)(C) of MACT 63 nor approved by DUN.

Secondly only Sabah has been plagued by the unfortunate Sulu’s claim. A mere yearly payment of ‘PADJAK’of RM5,300, would be a time bomb from the descendants of Sulu since Dayang vs Dayang (1939), as several thousands of them have been ‘adopted’ and multiplied under ADAT as Sabahans.

 

VI. This critical letter is for ZA’s action at home first.

URGENT

“YB Datuk Liew Vui Keong 20th June 2019

Re: (1) Humbly request to look holistically the critical Articles I, 2(a), 2(b), 45(Senate), 46 (House of Representatives) and no ‘two-third rule’ beyond the present Article 1(2)….

(2) To rectify and ratify the unconstitutional 4 alterations of the Borneo States, namely the Territorial Sea, Continental Shelf, the Exclusive Economic Zone and International Boundaries at sea on Malaysia Day, as shown in map attached under Article 2(b) with its proviso; United Nation’s convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (‘UNCLOS’) ratified by Malaysia WEF on 14th November 1996; The Seven entrenched Constitutional Provisions (‘7FCs’); and The Seven Protective Municipal Laws of Sarawak (‘7PMs’).

DUN should insert an exemption clause in the void, and illegal ‘5 Offending Acts’, namely Act 354, (and Act A354), PDA 1974, EEZ Act 1982, Fisheries Act 1985 and Territorial Sea Act 2012 under the five-tiers of entrenched provisions, namely ‘This Act shall not be applicable to the coastal of Borneo States unless approved by their respective Legislatures expressly first’, under Article 2(b).

(3) To ratify the unconstitutional article 1(4) on the lacunas and limbos on the 13 Federal Territories by amending Article 2(a) and 22 namely, ‘admit other states [or Federal Territories (FTs)]to the federation of Malaysia’ by amending first that Section 4 of MACT 1963, provided that the States of Malaya [and The Federal Territories now]should not exceed 65.4 per cent (No two-third rule) of the total seats in parliament, as stipulated in Section 9 of MACT 1963, which is still valid and unamended as the mother of the FC which is identical with the original Article 46 before the exit of Singapore.

That assurances of NO ‘two third rule’ under Article VIII of MA 1963 by PM Tengku Abdul Rahman and DPM, Tun Razak, were made in front of Premier Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) and the Borneo States’ leaders and stipulated in Section 9 of the MACT 63 which must be amended by a Supplementary Agreement first, before amending the present void Article 46 that was unconstitutionally amended in 1983 – 1984, including the 13 Federal Territories (FTs) in Article 1(4). All of them are void under Marbury vs Madison (1803).

The States of Malaya and [The Federal Territories] were forbidden and must never have more than 65.4 per cent, seats as agreed, stipulated in the still valid Section 9(1) of MACT 63 and original Article 46, namely only 104 parliamentary seats out of 159.

Briefly, the States of Malaya and FTS will still get 166 seats (65.35 per cent) out of 254 instead of 222 seats, increased by 32 seats, while Sarawak will get 49 seats and Sabah 39 seats under the ‘No two-third rule’, as the 15 Singapore seats must go to the Borneo States to always maintain that agreed ‘no two-third rule’.

Yes, share 20 per cent ‘mon san wan’ durians or pay the 20 per cent royalty or 15 per cent state sale more and fulfill all the grants, assurances and restore all the eroded rights, then Putrajaya/Petronas would share around 65 per cent – 72 per cent of O&G or durians as Borneo States’ national services, for our national interest, for our people, for our King and country…

Wish for shared wealth under Vision 2020

Let us hope that ZA and Datuk Liew will convince Professor Farouki and the Federal Government for the holistic amendments of the MACT63 by Supplementary Agreements first to comply with 7 PCs and 7 PMs then the unfudged FC apart from paying SST and two short changed royalties to fulfil the dreams of the Borneo States’ founders of Malaysia under our PM’s shining legacy pursuant to vision 2020 of shared prosperity, with a peaceful but equitable, legal and political settlement.

Malaysia is a nation with Rule of law, Rule by law and Rule with equity, adat and the unfudged FC, bound by the most important federal case of the US Supreme Court of Marbury vs Madison (1803) where PDA 1974 and the vesting instrument to Petronas are repugnant to the FC and void also without DUN’s approval, ‘and the courts, as well as other departments are bound by that instrument (FC)’ under the serious violations of the 7 FCs and 7 PMs.

Violations of rights must be rectified; violations of financial life blood of Sarawak must be settled equitably, if possible outside the court, under MA63, FC Sarawak laws and Constitution.

砂崛起组织太以马来亚为中心

砂崛起组织来自源于马来亚，所以，都是以马来亚优先。以马来亚为中心的思维非常严重。这组织跟行动党应该是息息相关。

对砂拉越要走向独立自主倍感威胁，这是不争的事实。

暂时，我们不说MA63是否合法。

他们以砂选民人数只占马联邦总数六份之一，认为25%联邦议席分配已经是太多了。现今副首相..Fadillah要求沙砂必须要有35%联邦议席分配，是大大破坏公平［民主原则］。

他们必须知道沙砂并非马来亚领土，所以，以选民人数分配联邦议席是不成立的。再问一下，为啥不是以土地大小来决定呢？就是要以选民人数来打压沙沙。

说到分配沙砂25%联邦议席没有历史记录和法律根据。是的，沙砂本来就不应该挤进马来亚国会。

说25%的保障，其实到1970便结束了。这组织应该不知道沙砂其实对不公平公正的政策不满也是可以像新加坡脱离马来西亚联邦的。

我在质疑砂崛起这组织领导者的逻辑思维掉失到那里去了。

是啊，马来西亚联邦只有三个单位：马来亚，沙巴和砂拉越。是三国联邦平等伙伴关系。所以，马来西亚联邦必须从新谈判成立真正属于这三个国家的联邦议会才对。不然，一切面谈。

过去无知被马来亚政客胡搞一番，所以，沙砂权益就会如此被侵犯。

今天，大家终于搞清楚个别的身份地位了。 也是越来越接近分散的时候了。

你这组织还在砂拉越有什么花样要发骚摆弄呢。

Senate having no veto power

Senate to have veto power, would not work for Sabah and Sarawak.

Malaysia’s Parliament is a bicameral legislature constituted by the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat), the Senate (Dewan Negara) and the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. Dewan Rakyat is called the “Lower House” and Dewan Negara is called the “Upper House” of parliament. As the ultimate legislative body in Malaysia, Parliament is responsible for passing, amending and repealing acts of law. For Bills are to become law, they have to be debated and scrutinize by both the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. But most often than not Bills passed to Dewan Negara seldom found serious debate.

 

The proposal to give veto power in the senate for Sabah and Sarawak, will not provide adequate protection. This is because senate could be controlled by the same party that controls the Dewan Rakyat – that is, the government of the day. If a Bill is passed in Dewan Rakyat, then the Bill would likely be passed by the senate too. This is because senators in the senate will have to ensure that that their party who is the government would rule the country through parliament without hitches. 

Policies that are passed by Dewan Rakyat are not required to be approved or be debated by the senators. Therefore, policies adverse to the interest of Sabah and Sarawak could not be controlled by MPs from Sabah and Sarawak if MPs from Malaya with their numbers at present voted for the policy to be implemented nationwide. To ensure policies and laws that would not be passed to the detriment of Sabah and Sarawak, it is advisable that all 222 seats be divided between Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak in equal seats. That is, the seats in Malaya has to be reduced and the seats for Sabah and Sarawak be increased with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to hold the same number of seats in parliament. We care not that a seat be represented by a few thousand voters only if seats are to be increased for Sabah and Sarawak. To protect the interest of Sabah and Sarawak, we need to make sure that no political parties from Malaya come to contest seats reserved for Sabah and Sarawak. 

If their presence could take away seats from Sabah and Sarawak then this would be against the interest of Sabah and Sarawak.

 

VOON LEE SHAN

President

4 February, 2023

Possibility of opposition alliance

PBK chief not ruling out possibility of opposition alliance being formed in Sarawak ahead of GE15

PBK chief not ruling out possibility of opposition alliance being formed in Sarawak ahead of GE15

BY PETER BOON ON JUNE 12, 2022, SUNDAY AT 8:01 AMSARAWAK

SIBU (June 12): Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) president Voon Lee Shan does not rule out the possibility of a political alliance being formed in the future, comprising his party and others from the opposition.

Adding on, he sees PBK’s cooperation with the opposition parties in Sarawak in facing the 15th general election (GE15) as a good sign.

“This is because all the parties respect PBK’s stand – to fight for the ‘independence’ of Sarawak.

“With regard to the development of our discussions with Sarawak People’s Aspiration Party (Aspirasi), Parti Sarawak Bersatu (PSB), Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak Baru (PBDSB) and Parti Sedar Rakyat Sarawak (Sedar), they have gone well – each of them prioritises Sarawak’s ‘independence struggle’ where Sarawak’s rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) have been eroded,” he said during a press conference that was called after the PBK supreme council meeting here yesterday, where PBK life president Yu Chin Liik, its secretary-general Priscilla Lau and treasurer-general Jamie Tiew Yen Houng were also present.

PBK) president Voon Lee Shan does not rule out the possibility of a political alliance being formed in the future, comprising his party and others from the opposition.

He added: “We need a strong voice in Parliament, demanding for the rights of Sarawak that have been eroded.

“Therefore (for) this GE15, we intend to establish a coalition and cooperation.”

Still on GE15, Voon said the PBK had established eight party divisions in the state: Kuching, Samarahan, Betong, Simanggang, Sibu, Kapit, Bintulu and Miri; with the Serian, Sarikei, Mukah and Limbang units to be set up in the near future are.

“The establishment of this divisional-level committee is our strategy and preparation in facing GE15 as well.

“Therefore, we invite those interested in joining PBK to contact the divisional-level committees that have been established. PBK welcomes all who are interested.”

砂政府要收回民都鲁海港

炮佐大言不惭的说要跟马来西亚联邦政府要回民都鲁海港的管理权。这是他在30/1/2023 Samalaju海港私人有限公司10周年晚宴上发言。

他说砂政府要制定砂海港发展大蓝图让各海港各司其职，希望透过船务以衔接国际主要海港交通来推动砂经济。

民都鲁私人有限公司在1993年在民都鲁获得特殊经营权。

砂政府拥有39.7%股份；国油和马国际船运公司30.8%。他们之间组成70.5%的股份在马股交易所称为挂牌公司。

民都鲁海港就在新成立的中央港务局管理，营运和规划发展。

自1993年，20年了，税务收费从来没有检讨过。因此，该海港在砂境内跟其他海港收费有出入，造成分歧性收费。

国油为民都鲁海港最大利益单位，砂政府还是有意跟它持续合作管理，发展民都鲁海港业务。在大家共同合作下，把民都鲁海港发展成亚太海运枢纽目标迈进。

在1978年，联邦议会完全没有依据联邦宪法76（1）（c）条文下，咨询或获得砂议会同意下，就通过联邦海港法案（217法案）把民都鲁海港佔为己有成为联邦海港。

接着1981年，又通过民都鲁港务局法令管制民都鲁海港。

各种行为活像盗匪，所以916马来西亚日,也是砂拉越国殇日。

马来亚以马来西亚联邦名义掠夺，剥削，打压，抢劫和霸凌砂拉越。

当然，咱们砂拉越政客们的无能和贪婪造就了马来亚海盗霸权可以很顺畅在砂沙横行霸道，尽情的干下无法无天的恶行。