Sarawak O&G not bound by MA63 -- PBK president

Sarawak’s O&G claims not bound by MA63 — PBK president 

 https://dayakdaily.com/sarawaks-og-claims-not-bound-by-ma63-pbk-president/

Hydrogen Bus 4 only

4. Hydrogen Bus

Tuan Speaker,

A couple of weeks ago, Sarawak Metro Sdn Bhd awarded a RM122 million contract to a joint venture company comprising SKS Coachbuilders Sdn Bhd and Sun Credit Sdn Bhd for the supply of 55 units of hydrogen powered feeder buses. That means each hydrogen bus costs RM2.2 million. What a great deal!

SKS Coachbuilders Sdn Bhd a West Malaysia company has teamed up with Sun Credit Sdn Bhd a local company to meet the tender requirements set by Sarawak Metro.

What’s truly shocking is that this RM122 million contract could be awarded to Sun Credit Sdn Bhd, a company whose main business is general trading and has a paid-up capital of only RM100. Can you imagine how a company valued at just RM100 managed to secure a contract worth RM122 million from Sarawak Metro.

Tuan Speaker,

After conducting a company search on both SKS Coachbuilders and Sun Credit Sdn Bhd, I found that, for the past three financial years (2020, 2021, and 2022), both companies reported negative profits. For SKS Coachbuilders, they had a loss after tax of RM4,550,553.00 in 2020, RM4,845,794.00 in 2021, and a bigger loss of RM6,631,874.00 in 2022.   

As for Sun Credit, the losses were RM3,916,000.00 in 2020, RM2,880,000.00 in 2021 and RM3,207,000.00 in 2022.

I have gone through the tender conditions published by Sarawak Metro, and in Paragraph 4(g), it clearly states: “Average net profit for the last three financial years—2020, 2021, and 2022—must be positive, and for a joint venture, a minimum of two partners, including the lead partner, must show positive net profit.”

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that these two companies failed to meet the requirements stated in of Paragraph 4(g) of the tender conditions. My question is how then did the Tender Panel Board approve and award a contract worth hundreds of millions for hydrogen buses to these companies that are financially struggling? This raises serious concern about the competency of Sarawak Metro’ Tender Evaluation Panel. Something is very wrong here. 

Moreover, under Paragraph 4(h) of the tender it states that “the tender shall have at least one working hydrogen bus Protopype and /a working hydrogen bus developed and/or manufactured and/or supplied/sold within the year 2016-2023”. Sun Credit being a general trading company, does not meet this requirement. As for SKS Coachbuilders, their company profile shows they only deal with electric and conventional buses. So, how did they qualify under Paragraph 4(h)? The entire process seems deeply flawed and raises serious doubts about transparency and accountability of Sarawak Metro.

In any government tender process, if a bidder fails to meet the conditions outlined in the tender documents, their bid should be rejected outright. What is strange here is that despite both companies failing to meet the requirements, they were still able to be awarded with the contract by Sarawak Metro. Any reasonable person would question the integrity of this tender process. 

I urge MACC to act swiftly and launch a thorough investigation into this case along with all other contracts awarded by Sarawak Metro to uncover any misconduct or corruption. Public funds are involved here and MACC has the authority to investigate without needing the official report. This RM122 million hydrogen bus contract and all other contracts awarded by Sarawak Metro must be scrutinized.  

Tuan Speaker,

If Sarawak government truly upholds good governance and transparency, it must intervene to correct the wrong of Sarawak Metro. The state government should cancel this contract immediately and initiate a new tender process especially since it was reported that six other companies participated in the bidding. Otherwise, it may apprear that the State government is endorsing this joint venture as a way to profit from the purchase of 55 units China-made hydrogen buses.

Why hasn’t the State Integrity and Ombudsman Unit (UNION) initiated an investigation into this case? Is UNION aware of the situation, or have they been kept in the dark as well? Or perhaps UNION knows what’s happening but is unable to act due to interference from powerful individuals? These are the questions Sarawakians deserve answer to.

Let me bring to the attention of this August House some information about Sun Credit Sdn Bhd. The company search reveals that one of its shareholders and directors happens to be the Chairman of Sibu Rural District Council and the Chairman of PRS Dudong division. This raises the question: was this contract awarded based on political connections? It now seems that holding a chairman’s position in SRDC and PRS can lead to highly favourable ‘kantau deal’!

This issue certainly deserves further scrutiny to ensure that the contract was awarded fairly, with proper due diligence and competence. 

On another note, what has happened to the three hydrogen buses that were introduced for Kuching City and Damai loops back in 2021. Why are they kept suspended from service? It’s a real embarrassment for Sarawak. 

If Sarawak Metro is already struggling to manage just three hydrogen buses, I can’t imagine how they will handle a fleet of 55 or more.

What the Law graduate said

This is the response from Sarawakian, University of London, Law graduate.

"Hi Everyone,

I believe that the Act supercedes the Order even if we argue that the Order was agreed ahead. This is by the *Principle of Implied Repeal.*

Implied Repeal is when a newer Act is inconsistent with an older Act. The older Act impliedly repealed and the newer Act comes into force.

Further under the Malaysian Federal system. The Federal government has supremacy on matters in the Federal list which includes mining of resources.

My suggestion is that Sarawak Government should seek an amendment to the PDA or better yet ask the Federal Government to amend our system to follow a system similar USA & Australia. Where the States have more significant power.

I believe this should be done while the current government is in power as their political position is weaker. We should also not accept political promises. Which is not binding and is enforced arbitrarily by whoever is in power.

While this is not what people want to hear. But it is important we understand the law as it is. Not as we want it to be.

We should definitely push the Federal govt feet to the fire and truly see if they will just give us unstable political promises or make actual legal amendments.

Also I think it is high time that Sarawak & Sabah MP's create a bloc where no matter their party affiliation they will vote the same way in Parliament just like they practice in the American Congress."

Who owns O&G off Sarawak?

砂拉越海岸大陆架的石油和天然气之争

FMT 记者

-

2024 年 11 月 12 日，上午 7:30

FMT 探讨了砂拉越对其领海边缘 200 海里范围内能源资源的独家权利主张的有效性。

八打灵再也：马来西亚国家石油公司和砂拉越之间已经就谁拥有马来西亚东部沿海大陆架上的石油和天然气 (O&G) 资源的权利展开了一场争斗。

1974 年《石油开发法》(PDA) 第 2 条规定，马来西亚国家石油公司拥有所有陆上和海上石油资源的全部所有权和专有权。

另一方面，砂拉越声称，根据该州的《1958 年石油和采矿条例》(OMO)，它拥有这些资源。它辩称，OMO 仍然具有法律效力，并且与 PDA“共存”。

砂拉越表示，该大陆架自 1954 年以来一直位于其边界内。砂拉越表示，九年后加入马来西亚时，这些边界仍然完好无损。

这场争端意义重大，因为它挑战了马来西亚国家石油公司在南海资源丰富地区（包括卢科尼亚浅滩附近）开采的权利。

 据估计，该地区蕴藏着马来西亚 60% 的石油和天然气资源，生产出马来西亚大部分的液化天然气 (LNG)，足以满足马来西亚国家石油公司 90% 的液化天然气出口。

砂拉越不再满足于只获得根据 PDA 达成的协议中规定的 5% 的石油特许权使用费，最近要求获得更大份额的石油和天然气收入。

为了支持其主张，婆罗洲州辩称，它拥有其海岸所有资源的唯一合法权利。

东姑拉沙里 (Tengku Razaleigh) 说，这不是他们的石油

前财政部长东姑拉沙里 (Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah) 坚称，与马来西亚国家石油公司相比，砂拉越对这些资源的所有权并不更高。

“这不是他们的石油。当时（1963 年马来西亚协议起草时）甚至没有讨论过这个问题，”他告诉 FMT。

他说，砂拉越应该继续履行其在之前签订的特许权协议下的义务。

“你不能来来回回，你知道。协议就是协议，”国家石油公司的第一任主席 Tengku Razaleigh 说。

那么，砂拉越有合法的主张吗？ FMT 探讨了该州提出的法律论点。

Let the Federal Court decide

 

My comments:

The battle for O&G in the continental shelf off Sarawak’s shores FMT Reporters  -12 Nov 2024, 07:30 AM

 

Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak signed MA63 (Malaysia Agreement in 1963) to form the federation of Malaysia.  When Singapore seceded in 1965, I wonder if MA63 is still valid?

 

When Sabah and Sarawak were still colonies of the British government, did they have the legal capacity to sign the international treaty on 9 July, 1963 in London? 

 

I guess that most of you must have the information of the case of the Chagos Islands in the tribunal in the International Court of Justice and the return of the said islands to Mauritius eventually. 

 

If said, it is valid; now let’s see whether Malaysia@Malaya in the Petronas’s claim of the full ownership of all petroleum resources up to 200 nautical miles off the coast of Sarawak to be theirs or not in the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) passed in the parliament so off-balanced as it was not in agreement to 35% the federal seats allocated to Sabah and Sarawak accordingly. 

 

Did the parliament have the power to pass the law to alter the international treaty at will single-handedly though Sarawak had the representatives in the parliament without the consent of Dun of Sarawak? 

 

Do the parliamentary members from Sarawak have the power to decide the changes in the international treaty that can affect the interests and rights of Sarawak adversely in the parliament?

 

There are three entities in the federation of Malaysia@Malaya.  Malaya in the name of Malaysia wants everything for itself like a snake wanting to swallow a big elephant as said in the Chinese idiom.

(人心不足，蛇吞象)；always wants to take 9 out of 10.  It is a neo-colonialist in every aspect.

Sarawak is a nation, not yet independent and an entity having our own sets of law to protect the interests and rights of Sarawak in agreement to MA63.

 

In Sarawak, we have the Oil and Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958 having the force of law in our own territory, of course, extending up to 200 nautical miles of our sea border.

 

Regarding Malaysia signing of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) in 1982 on behalf of Sarawak and Sabah and formally adopting as part of Malaysian law in Territorial Sea Act 2012, again they acted against MA63 without seeking the consent of the DUNs of Sarawak and Sabah to take-over.

 

Did you know that the United States of America has not signed the Unclos so far?  In other words, Malaysia, does not need to sign it at all.

 

All in all, I strongly believe that Sarawak should go to the Federal court to claim our ownership of our territorial waters up to 200 nautical miles and be prepared to go to the International Court of Justice to fix the mess.

回应冯振豪的豪言壮语： 冯振豪：东马国会代表三分一是空谈 （东方Online）

 回应冯振豪的豪言壮语：

冯振豪：东马国会代表三分一是空谈 （东方Online）

(发布于 2024年11月07日 07时30分 • 最后更新 2天前 • 豪言壮语 • 评论: 冯振豪)

冯振豪先生的思维很博士黄进发Projek Sama，豪言壮言说沙

砂是不可以拥有35%联邦议席，否则，可能引发“毁宪乱政的政治危机”。这是多么以马来亚自我为中心和重心想法，根本没有考量沙砂以平等伙伴地位。根本，不理会这事实：没有沙巴和砂拉越，就没有马来西亚联邦。

 

马来西亚就是马来亚，所以，理所当然的马来亚A登记的人的这么认为马来西亚是他们的国家；马来西亚@马来亚。哪一面马来西亚国旗也就是马来亚国旗；一体两面相。所以，以马来亚立场谈沙砂要求35%“国会”席位，总是有那种很不是知味。

 

对沙巴H登记的人和砂拉越K登记的人来讲，马来西亚就是一个联邦组织。对马来西亚@马来亚把“联邦身份” 强硬以“国家身份”道德绑架沙砂/HK，种种行径已经离谱到不行。今天冯振豪先生和博士黄进发Projek Sama却否定【宪法规章】自以为是的倡议另类作法，完全不顾沙砂两邦国的权益和感受。

 

“如果我们使用今天的标准和规范来改变历史，我们不妨质疑整个1963年马来西亚协议。他们《马来西亚非政府组织》愿意谈论MA63是否有效？”Professor James Chin质问.

 

以砂拉越人K登记的人的立场，要求35%联邦立法议席，已经对沙砂以平等伙伴关系组成马来西亚是很大的偏差。所谓平等伙伴关系怎么在数据上有如此的偏差。按照数学原理应该是A:33+1%；H: 33%；K：33%才合理，不是吗？法和理何在？

 

再说，当时，沙砂先贤答应组成马来西亚联邦是有考虑到沙砂人口相对马来亚人口的差距的问题，因此，才要求考虑幅员及其潜能。在各方同意下才签这份协议，不是吗？

 

冯先生说沙砂一旦拥有35%联邦席位更恶化“票票不等值的问题”。嗯。。嗯，那么马来亚/A实体：最多人数的选区P102万宜有17万8790; 最少人数的选区P55霹雳州玲珑2万9752.  马来亚11州各州票值差距大，有造成任何“毁宪乱政的政治危机”吗？

 

马来亚A，沙巴H和砂拉越K三国联邦平等伙伴关系。A人口占总人数大概83%；相对HK人口只有17%差距非常大，怎么能一人一票来划分选区呢？ 这不就是致沙砂于死地吗？

 

从1976年以来，沙砂就是面对极端不公平对待。向沙砂两国税收后， 85%以上的发展拨款都在A国发展；沙砂只有区区14%多。沙砂有超级丰富的资源，然而基建却非常落后，难道跟对马来西亚@马来亚无关吗？

 

A实体11州，各州票值都不一；都无法做到票票等值，凭什么要求两邦国跟马来亚11州实践票票等值？

 

今天，马来亚的种族宗教的乱相，很多人尤其是华人惶恐伊斯党/PAS做大。持着Projek Sama相同思维的人都认为拒绝沙砂35%议席，就可以防止PAS执政中央。这想法跟那些认为沙砂拥有35%议席可以阻止PAS执政中央不都一样荒谬吗？

 

冯就凭着假设和想象伊党东渡沙砂失败后，会在A国更极端和偏激为了捕获马来票“继续采取偏锋路线”。 他相信伊党一旦在A国坐拥第一大党的优势，就有机会跟HK两国谈判而顺利执政中央。他很搞笑的假设一切都保持不变，想象就像2022年联邦投票结束后，HK力挺慕尤丁组织的政府的事会发生。

 

冯也假设和想象提高HK35%联邦代表会触动到“马来王室的权力”和影响力。这根本就是冯莫须有的想法。按照民主进程，联邦议会的决定一切才是主轴。马来王室应该很清楚他们的定位和立命。

 

说分配HK35%是项大型立法工程势“将触及联邦宪法的根本性，从技术面延伸出来的不公平，可能引发毁宪乱政的政治危机。”故意制造耸人听闻的语境。可悲也!

 

冯指责沙砂领袖对马半岛有着棘手问题时总是给出“一副事不关己的模样”；对资源分配的事，沙砂总是嫌联邦预算拨款不足。是啊！发展拨款 85%多是给马半岛，对比之下，HK获得联邦预算拨款足够吗？HK今天至少落后A将近20年，为什么？

 

HK资源超级丰富，如果联邦税收有合理归还，HK的资金是绰绰有余，需要跟联邦讨价还价吗？譬如，2023年，砂旅游收入是300 million, 联邦归还30 million 10%而已。如果合情理法，沙巴何必要向联邦对薄公堂呢？

 

冯说：“东马政党和政治人物若想获得更充分的政治代表权，向联邦政府争取更多资源分配，那么请你们先把马来西亚当成是你们的国家。” 这是多么自相矛盾，蛮不讲理的说法。

 

沙砂要求35%联邦议席是按照Cobbold Commission Report, 还有IGC Report 和 MA63协议，是合情理法的。资源沙砂超级多，不被联邦掠夺去，哪有讨价还价那种事？

 

沙砂，难听一点说，就是马来西亚@马来亚殖民地。

 

要求35%是留马派的诉求；独立派的诉求是脱离联邦独立自主一切。      

正如婆罗洲邮报(Borneo Post 10/11/24) Dunstan Chan 所言，砂人开始在他们的脑海中哼唱Andrea Bocelli’s song, ‘Con Te Partiro’ (Time to say Goodbye!)想象切断联系Malaya的绳索。

 

10/11/24

 

冯振豪：东马国会代表三分一是空谈 （东方Online）

(发布于 2024年11月07日 07时30分 • 最后更新 2天前 • 豪言壮语 • 评论: 冯振豪)

冯振豪先生的思维很博士黄进发Projek Sama，豪言壮言说沙

砂是不可以拥有35%联邦议席，否则，可能引发“毁宪乱政的政治危机”。这是多么以马来亚自我为中心和重心想法，根本没有考量沙砂以平等伙伴地位。根本，不理会这事实：没有沙巴和砂拉越，就没有马来西亚联邦。

 

马来西亚就是马来亚，所以，理所当然的马来亚A登记的人的这么认为马来西亚是他们的国家；马来西亚@马来亚。哪一面马来西亚国旗也就是马来亚国旗；一体两面相。所以，以马来亚立场谈沙砂要求35%“国会”席位，总是有那种很不是知味。

 

对沙巴H登记的人和砂拉越K登记的人来讲，马来西亚就是一个联邦组织。对马来西亚@马来亚把“联邦身份” 强硬以“国家身份”道德绑架沙砂/HK，种种行径已经离谱到不行。今天冯振豪先生和博士黄进发Projek Sama却否定【宪法规章】自以为是的倡议另类作法，完全不顾沙砂两邦国的权益和感受。

 

“如果我们使用今天的标准和规范来改变历史，我们不妨质疑整个1963年马来西亚协议。他们《马来西亚非政府组织》愿意谈论MA63是否有效？”Professor James Chin质问.

 

以砂拉越人K登记的人的立场，要求35%联邦立法议席，已经对沙砂以平等伙伴关系组成马来西亚是很大的偏差。所谓平等伙伴关系怎么在数据上有如此的偏差。按照数学原理应该是A:33+1%；H: 33%；K：33%才合理，不是吗？法和理何在？

 

再说，当时，沙砂先贤答应组成马来西亚联邦是有考虑到沙砂人口相对马来亚人口的差距的问题，因此，才要求考虑幅员及其潜能。在各方同意下才签这份协议，不是吗？

 

冯先生说沙砂一旦拥有35%联邦席位更恶化“票票不等值的问题”。嗯。。嗯，那么马来亚/A实体：最多人数的选区P102万宜有17万8790; 最少人数的选区P55霹雳州玲珑2万9752.  马来亚11州各州票值差距大，有造成任何“毁宪乱政的政治危机”吗？

 

马来亚A，沙巴H和砂拉越K三国联邦平等伙伴关系。A人口占总人数大概83%；相对HK人口只有17%差距非常大，怎么能一人一票来划分选区呢？ 这不就是致沙砂于死地吗？

 

从1976年以来，沙砂就是面对极端不公平对待。向沙砂两国税收后， 85%以上的发展拨款都在A国发展；沙砂只有区区14%多。沙砂有超级丰富的资源，然而基建却非常落后，难道跟对马来西亚@马来亚无关吗？

 

A实体11州，各州票值都不一；都无法做到票票等值，凭什么要求两邦国跟马来亚11州实践票票等值？

 

今天，马来亚的种族宗教的乱相，很多人尤其是华人惶恐伊斯党/PAS做大。持着Projek Sama相同思维的人都认为拒绝沙砂35%议席，就可以防止PAS执政中央。这想法跟那些认为沙砂拥有35%议席可以阻止PAS执政中央不都一样荒谬吗？

 

冯就凭着假设和想象伊党东渡沙砂失败后，会在A国更极端和偏激为了捕获马来票“继续采取偏锋路线”。 他相信伊党一旦在A国坐拥第一大党的优势，就有机会跟HK两国谈判而顺利执政中央。他很搞笑的假设一切都保持不变，想象就像2022年联邦投票结束后，HK力挺慕尤丁组织的政府的事会发生。

 

冯也假设和想象提高HK35%联邦代表会触动到“马来王室的权力”和影响力。这根本就是冯莫须有的想法。按照民主进程，联邦议会的决定一切才是主轴。马来王室应该很清楚他们的定位和立命。

 

说分配HK35%是项大型立法工程势“将触及联邦宪法的根本性，从技术面延伸出来的不公平，可能引发毁宪乱政的政治危机。”故意制造耸人听闻的语境。可悲也!

 

冯指责沙砂领袖对马半岛有着棘手问题时总是给出“一副事不关己的模样”；对资源分配的事，沙砂总是嫌联邦预算拨款不足。是啊！发展拨款 85%多是给马半岛，对比之下，HK获得联邦预算拨款足够吗？HK今天至少落后A将近20年，为什么？

 

HK资源超级丰富，如果联邦税收有合理归还，HK的资金是绰绰有余，需要跟联邦讨价还价吗？譬如，2023年，砂旅游收入是300 million, 联邦归还30 million 10%而已。如果合情理法，沙巴何必要向联邦对薄公堂呢？

 

冯说：“东马政党和政治人物若想获得更充分的政治代表权，向联邦政府争取更多资源分配，那么请你们先把马来西亚当成是你们的国家。” 这是多么自相矛盾，蛮不讲理的说法。

 

沙砂要求35%联邦议席是按照Cobbold Commission Report, 还有IGC Report 和 MA63协议，是合情理法的。资源沙砂超级多，不被联邦掠夺去，哪有讨价还价那种事？

 

沙砂，难听一点说，就是马来西亚@马来亚殖民地。

 

要求35%是留马派的诉求；独立派的诉求是脱离联邦独立自主一切。      

正如婆罗洲邮报(Borneo Post 10/11/24) Dunstan Chan 所言，砂人开始在他们的脑海中哼唱Andrea Bocelli’s song, ‘Con Te Partiro’ (Time to say Goodbye!)想象切断联系Malaya的绳索。

 

10/11/24

 

如果SS独立了

*如果砂拉越和沙巴都自由和獨立了*

（Robert Pei 04-11-2024）

 *想像一下，如果砂拉越和沙巴都自由和獨立，可以從馬來亞的種族隔離治理和外國統治中解放出來，獲得豐富的資源和機會！

 砂拉越和沙巴從馬來亞獨立後的經濟和社會優勢列表，透過控製石油和天然氣資源來體現財務實力：

 ### 經濟優勢

 **砂拉越和沙巴獨立的經濟和社會優勢**

 1. **主權資源控制**：獨立後，砂拉越和沙巴將對其豐富的石油和天然氣儲備擁有完全的權力，使他們能夠在當地管理這些資產並直接為國家發展最大化收入。 我們不再貢獻我們所有的資源來發展馬來亞並豐富其精英。

 2. **財政自治**：對石油和天然氣生產及其他資源的控制將產生大量收入，為強大的公共服務、基礎設施項目和經濟舉措提供資金，而無需聯邦再分配。

 3. **多樣化的經濟成長**：獨立將使砂拉越和沙巴能夠將資源利潤再投資到旅遊業、農業和技術等領域，減少對資源開採的依賴並提高整體經濟彈性。

 4. **量身定制的貿易關係**：不受聯邦限制，獨立的砂拉越或沙巴可以製定貿易協定，更好地反映當地需求，並為出口和經濟夥伴關係創造更有利的條件。

 5. **增加投資**：獨立可以吸引外國和本地實體的有針對性的投資，重點關注砂拉越和沙巴獨特的經濟機會，推動可持續增長。

 6. **在地化發展**：加強經濟控制將支持注重當地具體需求的發展舉措，推動包容性成長和區域賦權。

 ### 社會優勢

 1. **文化復興**：獨立可以讓砂拉越和沙巴保護和慶祝其多元化的文化遺產，培育一個尊重土著傳統、不受占主導地位的種族或宗教敘事壓力的社會。

 2. **社區賦權**：獨立治理將有助於制定支持地方社區自治、擴大基層參與和加強地方決策的政策。

 3. **教育改革**：砂拉越和沙巴可以創造一個符合當地價值觀的教育體系，滿足獨特的地區需求並確保所有種族群體的公平入學機會。

 4. **社會公平和正義**：獨立提供了解決歷史恩怨並保證邊緣化社區公平代表性的機會，從而建立一個更具包容性的社會。

 5. **強化身份**：自治將使砂拉越和沙巴能夠培養更強大、統一的身份，促進社會凝聚力和不同人群的自豪感。

 獨立可以釋放砂拉越和沙巴的全部潛力，創造一個自力更生、文化充滿活力和繁榮的社會，不受外部種族宗教的統治。

 羅伯特·貝

 沙巴 砂勞越 權利 澳洲 紐西蘭

 04/011/2024

*SARAWAK AND SABAH AS FREE AND INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES*

*Imagine the wealth of resources and opportunities that could be liberated from Malaya's apartheid-like governance and foreign domination if both Sarawak and Sabah were free and independent!*

List of the economic and social advantages for Sarawak & Sabah gaining independence from Malaya, incorporating the aspect of financial strength through control of oil and gas resources:

### Economic Advantages

**Economic and Social Advantages of Independence for Sarawak and Sabah**

1. **Sovereign Resource Control**: With independence, Sarawak and Sabah would have complete authority over their rich oil and gas reserves, allowing them to manage these assets locally and maximise revenue directly for state development. We no longer contribute all our resources to develop Malaya and enrich its elites.

2. **Financial Autonomy**: Control over oil and gas production and other resources would generate significant revenue, funding robust public services, infrastructure projects, and economic initiatives, free from federal redistribution.

3. **Diverse Economic Growth**: Independence would allow Sarawak and Sabah to reinvest resource profits into sectors like tourism, agriculture, and technology, reducing dependency on resource extraction and boosting overall economic resilience.

4. **Tailored Trade Relations**: Free from federal constraints, an independent Sarawak or Sabah could form trade agreements that better reflect local needs and create more favourable conditions for exports and economic partnerships.

5. **Increased Investment**: Independence could attract targeted investments from foreign and local entities, focusing on the unique economic opportunities of Sarawak and Sabah, fuelling sustainable growth.

6. **Localised Development**: Greater economic control would support development initiatives focused on specific local needs, driving inclusive growth and regional empowerment.

### Social Advantages

1. **Cultural Revival**: Independence could allow Sarawak and Sabah to protect and celebrate their diverse cultural heritage, fostering a society that honours indigenous traditions free from the pressures of a dominant racial or religious narrative.

2. **Community Empowerment**: Independent governance would enable policies that support local community autonomy, amplifying grassroots participation and enhancing local decision-making.

3. **Education Reform**: Sarawak and Sabah could create an education system that aligns with local values, addressing unique regional needs and ensuring equitable access for all ethnic groups.

4. **Social Equity and Justice**: Independence offers an opportunity to address historical grievances and guarantee fair representation for marginalised communities, building a more inclusive society.

5. **Strengthened Identity**: Self-governance would enable Sarawak and Sabah to cultivate a stronger, unified identity, fostering social cohesion and pride among diverse populations.

Independence could unleash Sarawak and Sabah’s full potential, creating a self-reliant, culturally vibrant, and prosperous society free from external race-religion domination.

Robert Pei

Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand

04/011/2024