为了更自由、更幸福的婆罗洲
非政府组织表示James Chin教授的“十点协议”反映了联邦政府未能兑现MA63
James Chin教授提出了“十点协议”。
非政府组织认为沙巴和砂拉越没有任何未来留在马来西亚
2023 年 12 月 3 日
这是沙巴、砂拉越非政府组织——即马来西亚婆罗洲困境基金会（Bopimafo）、澳大利亚新西兰沙巴砂拉越权利组织（SSRANZ）、我砂拉越儿女组织（SAS）和肯雅兰土著党（PBK）的联合声明：
三个非政府组织主席 Daniel John Jambun、Robert Pei 和 Peter John Jaban 以及 PBK 主席温利山发表联合声明，评论JamesChin教授呼吁“重新肯定”沙砂的“十点协议”以及在摇摇欲坠的联邦成立60周年之际，根据1963年马来西亚协议（MA63），沙砂的世俗和多元化权利。
“JChin的十点协议（一）要求立即实现马来西亚联邦对沙巴和砂拉越人民的梦想和承诺；（二）重申沙巴和砂拉越在组建马来西亚联邦时与马来亚是平等伙伴；并重申婆罗洲州属在联邦宪法第1（2）条下的独特地位，有别于1963年马来西亚协议所载的马来西亚半岛11个州属。
它还（三）寻求重申沙巴和砂拉越各自对其领土范围内的资源拥有专属领土权；（四）重申沙巴和砂拉越的每个社区都有权拥有其独特的文化和仪式表达、身份和语言；（五）重申沙巴和砂拉越是世俗国家、多元宗教社会，正如我们的祖先所承诺的那样；（六）并重申所有沙巴人和砂拉越人都是平等公民，并拒绝一切形式的种族主义、宗教不容忍和至上主义意识形态。” （引用：婆罗洲邮报 23 年 11 月 30 日）
他们指出，教授总结了人民对马来西亚联邦政府 60 年来多次持续侵犯其基本 MA63 权利的普遍不满。这些仍然是未实现的“梦想”和幻想。
其中包括非法改变MA63马来西亚的世俗、多元化和多元文化概念、婆罗洲化、自治、宗教自由、剥夺公民身份以及未能按照协议发展和推进沙巴和砂拉越。经济发展不平衡，尤其是马来亚凭借沙巴和砂拉越的资源，特别是石油和天然气而发展起来，而SS却落后和贫困，甚至在基本结构和便利设施方面也没有取得什么进展。
最近，砂拉越电视台的圣诞颂歌节目引发了不满，该节目拒绝了砂拉越教会协会（ACA）将歌曲《O Holy Night》纳入节目的要求，因为官方政策排除了“宗教元素”。 ACA拒绝参加庆祝活动，并发表声明强烈批评审查制度，并维护砂拉越社会的宗教自由和世俗本质。这得到了整个砂拉越的广泛支持，电视台管理层很快就接纳了这首歌。
在沙巴，也存在类似的不满，因为未能履行 MA63 的创始条款，例如 MA63 规定支付（第 121D 条）每年税收收入 40% 的权利，以及许多其他问题，特别是缺乏发展、贫困和“非法”问题。
然而，非政府组织和PBK主席表示，重新确认是否会对马来亚人产生任何影响值得怀疑，因为马来亚人60年来一直逃避遵守MA63，否认沙巴MA63 40％的税收回扣权利就是例证。
他们表示，世俗、多元和多元文化政治制度的概念是沙巴和砂拉越放弃马来西亚真正独立的几个关键基本或基础术语之一。然而，自1971年新经济政策实施以来，这一概念已被改变，并被制度化的种族宗教至上主义（Ketuanan Melayu）种族隔离所取代。
此外，即使联合政府同意这10点，它也不太可能获得反对党的任何支持，反对党由坚定的种族宗教原教旨主义者组成，发誓要废除世俗概念并取代马来西亚作为伊朗或阿富汗风格的伊斯兰教统治者和宪法。这些人还宣称“马来西亚属于马来人”。
他说，教授提出的重新确认沙巴砂拉越权利的10点呼吁实际上证实了马来西亚是在创建时做出的承诺从未兑现或已被删除，因此具有误导性和欺诈性。
Borneo Herald
For a Freer and Happier Borneo
NGOs say Prof James Chin's "10-Point Agreement" Reflects Failure of the Federation to Honour MA63
Prof James Chin proposed a "10-Point Agreement".
NGOs do not see any future for Sabah & Sarawak to remain in Malaysia
3rd December 2023
This is a joint statement by Sabah, Sarawak NGOs - namely Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopimafo), Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ), Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS) and Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK):
Mssrs Daniel John Jambun, Robert Pei and Peter John Jaban, the respective presidents of the 3 NGOs and PBK President Voon Lee Shan have issued a joint statement commenting on Professor James Chin’s “10-point Agreement” calling for “re-affirmation” of Sabah and Sarawak secular and pluralist rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) on the occasion of the 60 anniversary of the shaky federation.
“Chin’s 10-point agreement calls for the dream and promise of the Federation of Malaysia for the people of Sabah and Sarawak to be fulfilled without delay; reaffirm Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners with Malaya in the formation of the Federation of Malaysia; and reaffirm the unique status of the Borneo states under Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution, distinct from the 11 states in Peninsular Malaysia, as enshrined in the Malaysia Agreement of 1963.
It also seeks to reaffirm that Sabah and Sarawak each possess exclusive territorial rights over the resources that are within their own territorial boundaries; reaffirm that every community in Sabah and Sarawak has the right to their distinct unique cultures and ceremonial expression, identity and language; reaffirm that Sabah and Sarawak as secular states, multi-religious society as promised by our forefathers; and reaffirm that all Sabahans and Sarawakians are equal citizens, and reject all forms of racism, religious intolerance, and supremacist ideology.” (quote: Borneo Post 30/11/23)
They noted that the Professor had summed up the widespread dissatisfaction of the people with the multiple and continuing violations of their fundamental MA63 rights by the Malaysian Federal government over 60 years. These have remained unfulfilled “dreams” and illusions.
They include the illegal alteration of the MA63 secular, pluralist and multicultural concept of Malaysia, Borneonisation, autonomous self-government, religious freedom, denial of citizenship and failure to develop and advance Sabah and Sarawak as agreed. This is starkly heightened by the lopsided economic development whereby Malaya has been developed with Sabah and Sarawak resources particularly oil and gas, while they have been left backward and impoverished with little progress even in basic structures and amenities.
The unhappiness recently flared up over the TV Sarawak’s Christmas Carol programme which rejected the Association of Churches in Sarawak’s (ACA) request to include the song “O Holy Night” in the programme because of official policy excluding “religious elements”. The ACA declined to join the celebration and issued a statement strongly criticising the censorship and asserting the religious freedom and secular nature of Sarawak society. This received popular support throughout Sarawak and the TV station management quickly backed down on the exclusion of the song.
In Sabah, there is a similar dissatisfaction over the failure to honour MA63 founding terms such as the MA63 stipulated payment of (Art 121D) 40% entitlement to annual tax revenue among many other issues especially lack of development, poverty and the “illegals” issue.
The NGOs and PBK presidents said, however, that it is doubtful that the re-affirmation would have any impact on the Malayans who have evaded honouring the MA63 for 60 years as exemplified by the denial of Sabah’s MA63 40% entitlement.
They said that the concept of a secular, pluralist and multicultural political system was one of several key basic or foundational terms for Sabah and Sarawak to give up real independence for Malaysia. However, this concept has since the implementation of the New Economic Policy in 1971 been altered and replaced with an institutionalised race religion supremacist (Ketuanan Melayu) apartheid.
Further, it is unlikely that even if the Unity government agreed with the 10 Points, it would be able to gain any support from the Opposition which is made up of committed race religion fundamentalists sworn to dismantle the secular concept and replace Malaysia as an Iranian or Afghanistan style Islamic Caliphate and Constitution. The same people have declared that “Malaysia belonged to the Malays”.
Mr Voon the PBK president said that it was ironic the Professor had previously criticised PBK for seeking legal advice from a foreign lawyer who declared that Malaysia was a fraud.
He said that the professor's 10-point call for re-affirmation of Sabah Sarawak rights in reality confirmed that Malaysia was created with promises which never fulfilled or have been removed and therefore were misleading and a fraud.
He cited the British colonial office as having commented with concern in 1963 that the Malayans' promise that SS would have "accelerated development" in Malaysia was a "false prospectus".
Mr Voon who filed a suit in the High Court of Borneo in 2021 to declare MA63 invalid, said the process of making MA63 was riddled with illegalities and deceit.
Legal analysis of the making of MA63 has proven that it was, in fact, a null and void agreement from the beginning. This was because Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak were still British-controlled colonies and not sovereign states with the legal capacity or competence to make international agreements. This view is supported by the International Court of Justice decision in the Chagos case 2019 and affirmed by the Mauritius vs. Maldives case iin 2021.
If MA63 was a validly made international treaty, it would have been terminated under International law, by the multiple violations of foundational and basic terms of the agreement and rendered it no longer binding. Either way, Sabah and Sarawak have the opportunity to seek independence which would free them to determine their own political destiny and social and economic development without foreign control.
The joint statement pointed out that the 20 and 18 Points were not binding agreements but just an expression of the people's desired terms for the federation. They said that there is no evidence of the agreements being signed with the UK or Malayan governments. According to the British colonial officials, the Sarawak 18 Points were never provided to them. They noted some of Sabah's Points like the "No State religion" stipulation was included in the Federal Constitution.
They questioned whether it was realistic to re-affirm the unfulfilled promises and prolong a union without meaning and benefit when it is so obvious that the agreed objectives of MA63 were never fulfilled but in fact, abandoned for 60 years. They said Sabah and Sarawak should look at the alternative solution of seeking an exit from the failed union.
They called on the respective Sabah and Sarawak state governments to seek a review of SS's position in Malaysia after the PAS party repeatedly rejected the concept of Malaysia as a secular country and the federation's failure to honour what was promised. It is widely anticipated that the PAS fundamentalist party will implement its Islamic Caliphate when it wins power and controls the Malaysian Parliament in a couple of elections time. The NGOs said the review of MA63 (if valid) would be timely and it was essential since it has already long been terminated by multiple breaches of fundamental terms for federation.
Sabah and Sarawak must seek lawful and peaceful means to Decolonise itself and work towards sovereign Independent nations.
End of Statement
Signed by
Daniel John Jambun Bopimafo President
Robert Pei SSRANZ President
Peter John Jaban SAS founder
Voon Lee Shan PBK President
3 December 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment