Pages

Powered By Blogger

Sunday 28 July 2024

Social Contract not applicable in SS

Yusuf Abdul Rahman : "Social Contract" Does Not Apply To Sabah and Sarawak
(Yusuf Abdul Rahman:"社會契約", 不適用於沙巴和砂勞越)

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/qG5RDKzprtHScEZi/?mibextid=TrneLp
Social contract or social shackles?

Why UK herself don't even implement this so called social contract, yet want to implement it in Malaysia, and now somebody is calling this injustice policy to be implemented in Sabah and Sarawak?

What was their plan? Or evil plan?

社会契约还是社会枷锁?

为什么英国自己都不去实行这个所谓的"社会契约",却要在马来西亚实行,现在又有人说要在沙巴和砂拉越实行这个不公的政策?

他们到底有什么计划?还是邪恶的计划?

Thursday 25 July 2024

砂通过MA63争取权益

实话实说
总理: 作为主权实体 》》》砂通过MA63 争取权益

1963年7月22日,砂拉越获得自治权。作为一个主权实体砂拉越可以通过MA63,争取所赋予的权益。

是的,自2016年,砂政府就注重722这具有历史性的日子。经过高达17年英国统治(1946 -1963),砂终于获得自治主权。

我认为每年的722正是机会教导新生代砂历史(1841 -1963)。

哦,没说大小都不知道早在1941年,原来砂拉越就制定宪法,已经有自家宪法咯。马来亚那时在哪儿? 

哦,原来是因为第二次世界大战的爆发,所以Vyner Brooke无法实践他的承诺归还砂民权柄,成为一个自主和有主权的国家。

嗯,在1963年之前,所定制的法律规章都是有效的。 参组马来西亚联邦后,所有砂权力继续生效。就是说没有获得砂立法议会批准,任何在联邦议会修订的都是违法无效的。

譬如,1954年Queen Elizabeth的议会决议有关砂拉越的领海边界是包括海域至海底权限。这些权利都不容商谈或不可以谈判的事项。

还有是1958年《砂拉越土地法典》砂拉越有全权管理土地和海底上下资源。2012年,联邦通过的《领海法令》是无法在沙砂通行。 

同年,1958年,《砂拉越石油和矿业条例》下,砂拉越有全权管理和开发其石油和天然气。 砂拉越有石油开采100%的主权。Petros在马鲁帝南部钻探项目就是首个管理的展现。

1974年《石油发展法令》根本没有权力剥夺砂拉越在其海岸外的石油和天然资源的权力。Petronas2019年在砂一切活动算是非法的。这笔账目迟早都要算。

砂政府通过修改2016年《煤气销售法》,在2024年2月1日生效明显了展示了主权

哦哦。。原来砂拉越是有领土主权。砂有自家的政府立法制度,领导团队
,明确的领土边界和清晰的人口。嗯嗯。。肯定咱们可以1441裁定砂未来。

Vyner Brooke

3. Charles Vyner Brooke (24/5/1917 --- 1/4/1942)
      
是第三位也是最后一位“白王”(1917-1946)。他于 1897 年加入砂拉越政府。第一次世界大战后,橡胶和石油的繁荣使砂拉越进一步融入世界经济. 因此,国家开始逐步对其机构进行现代化。公共服务得到发展,1924 年仿照英属印度的刑法出台了砂拉越刑法,教育机会也得到了一定程度的扩展。

1927 年,Vyner Brooke被封为爵士。1941 年 9 月,在布鲁克统治一百周年之际,他颁布了建立砂拉越自治政府的宪法。 1941年12月,布洛克/Brooke王朝属地遭到日军侵占。Vyner Brooke 却潜逃到澳洲。

1945年日军投降后,砂拉越当时的状况惨不忍睹,Vyner Brooke完全失去能耐和信心重新复原砂拉越。因此在1946年,决定将砂主权以100万英镑成交予英国。

即使Anthony Brooke深受马来人和达雅人的拥载即将成为下一任拉惹强烈反对让渡,却无效。因此,砂拉越变成为英国殖民地高达17年。

在1960年12月14日,联合国大会通过【去殖民化宣言】后,英国便策划马来西亚联邦。

在1963年7月9日,沙巴和砂拉越(未有民选政府)和新家坡在伦敦跟马来亚和英国签署了MA63。在完全不符合联合国的宪章赋予殖民地人民公投决定是要(一)独立;跟一个独立国(二)联邦;(三)合并》》 三选一。

1963年7月22日就归还砂拉越自治,并在1963年9月16日砂拉越以邦之地位与马来亚、沙巴及新加坡共组马来西亚联邦。

Charles Brooke

2. Charles Johnson Brooke (3/8/1868 -- 17/5/1917 = 49 年)
在1868年Charles Johnson Brooke 其侄儿继承他的王位。他在位期间在1888年,砂拉越成为英国保护国。在Charles Brooke 在位49年期间,砂拉越版图是在不断的扩展中。

1883年砂拉越延伸至巴南河(美里附近)。林梦于 1890 年并入砂拉越。砂拉越的最终扩张发生在 1905 年,当时老越被割让给布鲁克

进入Charles Brooke年代,白惹统治在政经文教方面便进入平稳进展。有行政系统和法律规章,社会和经济便有遵循轨道进行一切活动。人民民间各团体都可以各司其职,发挥所能,激发前进和发展的火花。

Brooke政府在古晋周围兴建炮台,以巩固拉惹的权力,其中便包括1879年建成的玛格烈达堡。1891年,Charles成立婆罗洲岛历史最悠久的博物馆砂拉越博物馆 . 

Charles Brooke政府被描述为仁慈的独裁政府。Charles本人在砂拉越深入民间大部分时间的是和伊班人同在,了解他们的语言,并尊重他们的信仰和习俗。

他采用分而治理策略:他广泛聘用下游的马来酋长作为行政长官,鼓励华人从事农耕,而占主导地位的土著群体伊班人则受雇服兵役。 布鲁克斯家族作为“白拉惹”统治砂拉越一百年。 布鲁克斯家族采取了家长式的政策来保护土著居民的利益及其整体福利。

1899 年,Charles结束了Marudi的部落间战争。第一口油井于 1910 年钻探。两年后,布鲁克造船厂开业。同年Anthony Brooke出生,并于 1939 年成为 Rajah Muda。

James Brooke

砂拉越历史 (1841 – 1963)
1. James Brooke (1842-1868 = 26)
砂拉越在19至20世纪是君主制国家,原本是文莱的属地。砂拉越王国于1850年被美国承认,1864英国也承认砂王国地位。

布洛克王朝由英国探险家James Brooke在1841年创建的。因他支持文莱苏丹平定叛乱,逐渐获得原属文莱的大量土地。在统治期间,詹姆斯建立并巩固砂拉越的统治支配权,并重整行政架构、制定法律并与海盗抗争。

James Brooke原本是一位军人。在第一次英缅战争中他受了重伤,于是在1825年返回英国疗养。不过,没多久,他就试图再返印度。1830年,在他扬帆前往中国时,他发现了马来群岛。

在1835年他继承他父亲的遗产。然后,他购买了一艘设备良好的船取名为“保皇号”。在1838年便出发前往远东。 1839年7月,詹姆斯来到了新加坡地区。在那里,他机遇到了文莱苏丹的叔叔哈欣,并在他的帮助下找到了一名遇难的英国水手。

詹姆斯原本计划航行至婆罗洲岛西北部的马鲁杜湾(Marudu Bay),但是在英国驻新加坡总督要求下,他便到婆罗洲岛西南部去向他们感谢哈欣。并在1839年8月14日会见到了哈欣,并传达了谢意。

哈欣告诉他皇室面对民众对政策不满的反叛,因此向詹姆斯求助。詹姆斯响应了哈欣的请求,并领军平定叛乱。并获得砂拉越河畔的矿山中出产的锑矿奖赏。之后,他离开砂国。兜兜转转后,在1840年8月29日又返回。

在詹姆斯走后,反文莱统治的叛乱死灰复燃。重返砂拉越后,他再次领军平息叛乱,并赦免那些叛乱的人民,让他们加入自己的阵营,有效的管制和分配权力,James在这次镇压叛军中发挥自己到及至。

1841年9月14日,哈欣别无选择,只好将砂拉越全境地区授予詹姆斯。得到砂拉越后,立即废止了砂拉越地区的奴隶制、猎头及海盗,并颁布新法律。1842年7月,他在砂拉越的统治权得到了文莱苏丹的确认。

在James Brooke统治期间(1841-1868),他所制定的行政体系和法律提供人民有规范生存空间和累计财富之道;严禁海盗、奴隶制度和猎首活动,平定各种叛乱。在1856年,婆罗洲岛有限公司成立,并在砂拉越从事各种业务,包括贸易、银行、农业、采矿及发展等行业 制造就业机会。

Sunday 21 July 2024

发扬722精神

发扬7.22精神,坚决为完成独立程序,而团结奋斗到底!
(21-07-2024)

现在是晚上10点半,明天就是61年前的7.22,宁甘宣布砂拉越独立的日子。

让我们大家来回顾历史。

1941年,拉者维纳.布律克在砂拉越王国100周年庆典时,承诺要让砂拉越人民自己来管理国家。由于日寇在1941年底,侵略践踏砂拉越,英军(砂拉越每年都缴交保护费给英国)却不战而溃逃,拉者也早就跑到澳洲去了。

1945年日寇投降后,英国逼迫拉者把砂拉越交给英国做殖民地。
1946年7月1日,拉者把我们原本具独立主权国家的砂拉越,以100万英镑卖给英国,砂拉越从此变成英国殖民地。

1946年在砂拉越被割让给英国的同时,英国也承诺,将来若英国退出砂拉越时,会给砂拉越人自己管理自己,而不会将砂拉越交给马来亚。

17年后,江河日下的日不末帝国,在亚非拉反殖反帝大潮冲击下,在《1960年联合国1514暨1541决议案》压力下,本来应该践行其在1946年所承诺给砂拉越的独立才对。但是,英国却违背承诺,私底下和东姑、李光耀密谋设计、欺骗和安排下,把沙巴和砂拉越强行併入其代理人马来亚主导的马来西亚陷阱之中,以保障其在远东的殖民利益。

於是,沙巴和砂拉越从英国的殖民地,在1963年9月16日,变成了马来亚的殖民地(第12州,第13州),变成了地位更低下的次殖民地。

这就是沙巴和砂拉越被英国人用胡萝卜和大棒子,欺骗、镇压,和锁进“马来西亚”牢笼的因由历史过程。

61年前的先辈们为了反对这个坑害沙巴和砂拉越的“马来西亚计划”,进行过从和平到武装的抛头颅洒热血斗争,但是没能取得胜利。

61年后的今天,许多新一代的各族爱砂拉越母亲国的英勇儿女们已经挺身而出了。他们高举着早已存在百年的砂拉越国旗(皇冠旗),唱着当年的国歌《Fair Land Sarawak》,高喊着: 英雄仁达的“Agi Idup Agi Ngelabang!“ 昂首挺胸走上街头,宣示7.22精神,誓要完成1963年7月22日那天,宁甘宣布砂拉越独立,但是尚未完成程序的伟大崇高目标!

亲爱的砂拉越同胞们,7.22活动,就是我们纪念这7.22独立精神和认识它的重要时代意义。

同胞们,让我们发扬7.22精神,坚决为完成独立程序,而团结奋斗到底!余清禄

Friday 19 July 2024

Flying Sarawak Colonial Flag 22/7

PRESS STATEMENT 
By VOON LEE SHAN 
President Parti Bumi Kenyalang 

19 July 2024.

Re: Flying Sarawak Colonial Flag 22 July 

Someone need to tell Karim that the old flag as a matter of fact reminds Sarawakians of Sarawak history and who we were before Malaysia was born.

It's a reminder that Sarawakians won't let go off the good old days, the secular multi-racial Sarawak rather than now being controlled by the Federal imperialism with the Ketuanan policy.

The flag also symbolize the aspiration of Sarawakians wanting self governance or independence. Perhaps it also serves to remind Sarawakians and Malaysians at large that Sarawak is a secular Christian majority State that upholds the very foundation of our Federation which is the Malaysian Agreement 1963. Most of all the flags serve as a reminder to Sarawakians that MA63 has not been fully honored and complied with for 61 years til this day 22/7/2024.

I don't think those who raised up the flags are ignorant of Sarawak history despite the fact that this part of Sarawak history is purposely not taught in our schools. 

Karim need to realize the many meanings of the flags from the people of Sarawak's angle of view.

Wednesday 17 July 2024

Sarawak's oil and gas -- lost forever?

SARAWAK’S OIL & GAS – LOST FOREVER? 

By Yusuf Abdul Rahman  

It is important for Sarawakians to realise that the main reason behind the proposal for the formation of Malaysia was in fact the Oil & Gas resources and wealth that was greedily coveted by the UMNo Malayans, who under Tunku Abdul Rahman had realised that Malaya’s economy after Independence would remain precarious without a new source of wealth, especially since most of the tin mines and rubber estates were still under British and Chinese control. 

Greg Poulgrain, a historian has noted from his study of previously classified British government documents that the primary impetus for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity. 

This is why the Malayans were never really bothered about implementing the terms of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) as fully as they should have, especially once they had gotten their dirty hands on Sarawak’s Oil & Gas (Sabah’s as well, of course) – mission accomplished. 

MA63 was in fact silent about Sarawak’s Oil & Gas resources, which rightfully are inalienable assets of the state and not the federation, like all other natural resources such as forests and other minerals. 

It all started while the negotiations for independence were proceeding between Malaya and the British. The British since as early as 1953 had also started plans in motion for its “grand design” to merge all of their five colonial possessions in South East Asia into some form of “British SouthEast Asia Dominion”. Malaya was aware of this “grand design”, but the Borneo territories were not. 

According to an opinion article in the Daily Express dated 16th February 2020, "...As for the oil in Sarawak territory, the British were prepared to surrender that to the new federation under control of Malaya. Sir Anthony Abell, then Governor of Sarawak, in April 1956 observed in a communication to the Colonial Office that “the politicians in both Malaya and Singapore were showing considerable interest in the Borneo territories “including its empty spaces, its potential wealth, and its oil”.

This was even before Malayan independence. 

The British kept Sarawakians & Sabahans blissfully unaware of this considerable interest by the Malayans and the Singaporeans.   

While the Sarawak delegation may not have been aware of the negotiations going on behind the scenes between Malaya and Brunei prior to MA63, it is clear from historical records that the Malayans insisted from the start that Brunei’s oil revenues would pass to the federal government after 10 years. 

Negotiations failed when the Bruneians (the Sultan of Brunei in particular) did not want to give away their oil revenues, the main source of Brunei’s wealth.  

The Malayans therefore kept completely silent about Oil & Gas in their negotiations with Sarawak & Sabah, fully intending to take Sarawak & Sabah by surprise, which they did, since the “Development of mineral resources, mines, mining, minerals and mineral ores, oils and oilfields; purchase, sale, import and export of minerals and mineral ores; petroleum products; regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields;” was already provided in the Item 8 (j) of the Federal List, 9th Schedule of the Constitution of the Federation Malaya 1957. 

Sarawak & Sabah unfortunately did not give any importance to this nor even raise any query, since the entire negotiations were stage-managed by the British and the Malayans. To the deceptive British & Malayans, of course, silence meant consent. 

This is partly why MA63 is actually null and void, being signed by Britain & Malaya & purported Sarawak “representatives” while Sarawak was still a colony, following the Chagos case opinion by the ICJ. 

By 1966, the Malayans had enacted the Petroleum Mining Act 1966, which under section 1 (2) “shall apply throughout Malaysia but in its application to Sabah and Sarawak it shall have effect only with respect to off- shore land”. This Act was supposed to come into operation on 8th November 1969 with regard to Sarawak and Sabah. 

Why only off-shore land? Because by 1955 Shell had already started marine seismic surveys and in 1957 had relinquished 75% of its land lease. Initial drilling in the Temana field had also hit first oil in 1962. 

Earlier in July 1966, the Malayans had already enacted the Continental Shelf Act 1966, whereby they illegally and unconstitutionally took over the Continental Shelf that rightfully belonged to Sarawak. This gave the Malayans “all rights with respect to the exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resources are hereby vested in Malaysia and shall be exercisable by the Federal Government”. 

To do this, they first had to get rid of Singapore and secondly, Ningkan, who by 1965 was becoming a critic of the Malayanisation policy that had supplanted what was supposed to be Borneonisation. The Malayans never really wanted Singapore in the first place, nor did they really want Sarawak & Sabah either, only Sarawak & Sabah’s Oil & Gas. 

After 1966, the Malayan-controlled federal government started collecting the royalties that were paid by Shell Sarawak, which incidentally, at 10% and later 12.5%, were more than double what Sarawak was to get later from Petronas for more than 56 years. 

This was still not enough for the Malayan-controlled federal government and by the 1970s they started to seriously think about following the Pertamina (Indonesia) production-sharing model, to do which the illegal and unconstitutional Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) was enacted that vested the entire ownership of all petroleum resources within Malaysia with Petronas. 

So finally in 1976, Sarawak and Sabah thus “lost” complete ownership of our Oil & Gas, even if it was done illegally and unconstitutionally. Neither Sarawak nor Sabah have ever challenged PDA74 in court.  

In this way, instead of 10-12.5% as previously, Sarawak received a cash payment of 5% (based on crude oil or raw gas prices). The other 5% went to the federal government, who as the sole shareholder of Petronas, also got additional returns in the form of dividends and corporate tax, petroleum income tax and export duties. Altogether Petronas/the federal government received 92% of total net petroleum revenues, with approximately 6.5-7% going to the petroleum contractors such as Shell, leaving 1-1.5% to Sarawak. 

Has all been lost forever, or is it still possible for Sarawak to claw back the ownership of its own Oil & Gas resources from Malayan control and domination? 

That is a question that can only be answered by the people and the government of Sarawak. 

Clawing back our property from the hands of thieves is not easy and they will of course resist to the bitter end. 

The Sarawak government has made a good start with the formation of Petros and the imposition of SST on petroleum products. Revenue derived from petroleum products alone according to Sarawak Premier has reached RM8.52 billion todate, a significant amount, in view of the fact that the Federal budget still doesn’t give Sarawak a commensurate share based on Sarawak’s contribution to the national economy via our Oil & Gas revenues. 

The Federal government seems to think Petronas is the golden goose, when it is in fact Sarawak (and also Sabah). Yet they don’t feed the golden goose properly while stealing all the eggs. 

The Sarawak govt and Petros have taken the correct step of regaining control of Sarawak’s onshore petroleum assets. Next must be regaining full  
control of Sarawak’s offshore petroleum assets, while Oil & Gas still remain relevant and while we develop new sources of renewable energy. 

We are still talking here of potential revenues to Sarawak amounting not to tens of billions of ringgit but hundreds of billions of ringgit that can raise the living standards of all Sarawakians, especially those that have so far been marginalised and have not had proper access to development and socio-economic opportunities for advancement. 

Between 1976 and 2017, the value of crude Oil and raw Gas production exceeded 660 billion ringgit, out of which Sarawak only saw 33 billion ringgit in royalty, amounting to an average of 805 million ringgit per year. 

By now, the figure should have reached more than 1 trillion ringgit, with value added from processing of about 2 trillion ringgit, just from Sarawak alone. This is what Sarawak has lost over the last 46 years.  

It is largely from Sarawak’s Oil & Gas revenues that the Malayans have managed to siphon off 1.9 trillion ringgit into offshore bank accounts, as revealed by the Pandora Papers. This is another subject that they will not allow to be debated in Parliament. 

In trying to claw back as much Oil & Gas revenue as possible, through value added processing, Sarawak has now embarked on various initiatives involving setting up of various petrochemical and other refining plants to be able to process and utilise our own Oil & Gas resources for value added instead of being sold cheaply for fast cash, as is now being done by Petronas.  

We need to enhance our domestic gas distribution facilities so that Sarawakians can also enjoy cheaper energy that we now supply overseas and subsidise in Malaya. Malaya has more than 2,000 km of natural gas pipelines and Sarawak less than 50 km. Gas subsidy to Malayan power plants, industries and consumers alone has already amounted to more than 200 billion ringgit, while Sarawak gets zero. 

In order to get the full benefit of our own Oil & Gas resources, we need to regain full control and ownership of them from Petronas and Malaya. To do this we need to strengthen our regulatory capabilities and we need the political will to be tough with the Malayans, instead of constantly being pushed around and taken for a ride on our own Oil & Gas resources. 

As we can see, this has been a very expensive ride that has cost us at least a couple of trillion ringgit all this while, if we had developed our own Oil & Gas resources. We just cannot afford to be taken for a ride by the Malayans any more. They have been thinking of themselves all this while, and taken us for granted, even calling us their fixed deposit.  

No more. It is now more than high time for Sarawakians to think about ourselves and our own people. 

Or else, our Oil & Gas will truly be lost forever. 

Yusuf Abdul Rahman Kuching 23rd July 2022

Tuesday 16 July 2024

原则7:决策

原则 7:决策 
决策是决定成败的主因之一。 

在生活中取得巨大成功的人总是做出勇敢的决定。 Napolean Hill 在采访了数百万人后得出了这一个结论。

Hill指出,成功者的一个共同特征是迅速做出决定,并缓慢地做出改变或调整以取得进步,例如著名汽车制造Mr Henry Ford。

因此,拥有足够的知识和观点立场做出正确而明确的决定至关重要。

做出正确决定的另一个永久遗产是 1776 年美国的独立。 如何开始的:

• 主要原因是大英帝国的压迫和镇压 统治美国 56 个州。
 
• 触发点是 1770 年的Boston冲突,当时武装殖民士兵用枪指着手无寸
   铁对Boston事件不满的示威者。李将军再也无法容忍。 
 
• 1774 年,独立运动被提出。 
 
• Thomas Jefferson因此 加入了三位勇敢者General Robert E. Lee, Samuel Adams, John Hancock的行列。他独自撰写了《共和党宣言》,其中他阐明了独立运动的目的和意义。 
 
• 随后的另一项重大决定是任命一个来自各州的代表。 很快,它就变成 
   了全民运动。

• 此后,1776年7月4日在费城召开了由56个州代表组成的第一次全国代表大会,批准并签署了Thomas Jefferson起草的新宪法。

在1774 年首次开始的勇敢决定是勇敢无畏的最佳缩影。这一里程碑式的决定导致了两个重大后果:美国人获得自由,或让 56 州的代表因叛国罪而被绞死。最后,他们赢了。

 一个新的国家——美利坚共和国诞生了。这个新成立的、年轻的国家充满朝气活力、勤奋并且发展得非常繁荣。它还是帮助欧洲赢得二战的生力军。这是一个勇敢无畏的决定成为世间永久的遗产。
 
这就引出了原则 9——坚持。任何有组织的计划,无论大小,都需要坚持不懈的精力来实现其预期目标。 做出的任何决定都需要全身心的投入和执行的意志力。
Principle 7: Decision 
Individuals achieving great success in life always make brave and courageous decisions. Napolean Hill concluded this fact after interviewing millions of people.

Hill states one common characteristic feature of the successful ones is Reaching Decisions PROMPTLY and making changes or adjustments for betterment slowly, for example Mr Henry Ford, a famous car maker.

Thus, having enough knowledge and one’s strong viewpoint as against others’ is vital to make a correct and definite decision.

Another a lasting legacy of making a good decision was the independence of America in 1776. This is how it began:

• The major reason was the oppression and suppression of the 
    powerful British Empire upon 56 American states.
 
• The trigger point was the Boston’s conflict in 1770, when the armed 
colonist soldiers pointed guns at an unarmed civilians demonstrating 
iagainst injustice. General Lee could no longer tolerate. 
 
• In 1774, the independent movement was mooted. 
 
• The 3 brave ones: General Robert E. Lee, Samuel Adams and John 
Hancock were joined by Thomas Jefferson, who had independently 
written the Republican Manifesto, which defined the purpose and the 
meaning of the independent movement. 
 
• Another major decision followed suit was the appointment of a 
   representative from each state. Soon, it was transformed into a 
   national movement.

• Thereafter, there was the convening of its first national congressof 56 
   state representatives to approve and sign the new constitution prepared 
   by Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.  

It was the epitome of that brave and courageous decision, first started in 1774. This landmark decision resulted in two major consequences: freedom to America OR death of the 56 states representatives for treason. They won.

A new nation, The American Republic, was born. This newly created, young nation, was full of energy, hardworking, and grew very prosperous. It became a new world force helping Europe to win the WWII. This is the ultimate global legacy of a courageous and a brave decision.
 
This brings us to Principle 9-Persistence. Any organised planning, big or small, requires persistent energy to achieve its intended goal. 
 
Any decision made involves total commitment and will-power to implement.

(Adapted from the summerised version by Tommy Entry Akoi, Sydney)

Monday 8 July 2024

Matriculation

All SPM 10As Students Guaranteed Matrics Slot – The Gimmick Formula & Trick The Government Doesn’t Want You To Know

July 3rd, 2024 by financetwitter


Since Anwar Ibrahim became the PMX (10th Prime Minister) on Nov 24, 2022, he has done three incredible things. First, he has splashed tens of billions of Ringgit to appease fellow ethnic Malays, 80% of whom did not vote for him. Second, his government has donated RM100 million to the Palestinians, and openly promotes Hamas terrorists as his best friends.

 
Third, PM Anwar has consistently kept quiet whenever ethnic Chinese, 95% of whom had voted for him, were being bullied by enemy-turned-ally United Malays National Organization (UMNO). Now, nearly 20 months into power, the increasingly unpopular premier started to take note of unhappy Chinese voters, especially when his own party – PKR (People’s Justice Party) – is set to face Sungai Bakap polls on July 6.

 
Hence, it appears to be a design rather than a coincidence when Mr Anwar announced that all Form-5 students – regardless of race and religion – who score 10 A’s in SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) examination will be guaranteed a place at government matriculation centre. The matriculation, popularly known as “matrics” or “matrix”, is a pre-university programme aimed at preparing students for entry into public universities.


Unlike the much harder STPM (Form 6 examination equivalent to A-Level, but is more difficult than A-Level even though both are pre-university courses), the matrics programme, which provides students with the option to choose subjects in Science, Accounting or Technical, is the easiest way to pursue first-degree tertiary education at government universities.

 
Malaysian Matriculation Programme claims its pre-university course can be used to gain entrance into overseas universities. In truth, it is only recognized by a handful of foreign universities. In general, the matrics is “not recognized” by university overseas. Worse, although taking matriculation assures you a place at a public university, it does not guarantee you a course of your choice. 

 
From the beginning, the local matriculation was designed as a shortcut for Bumiputera or Malay students graduating from SPM (O-Level equivalent) to prepare them for their degree in local universities, avoiding STPM (Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia, which is known as the killer pre-university programme attended by mostly non-Malays who have no other choice due to discrimination policies).    


As such, the “apartheid” matrics programme is highly discriminating and racist – 90% places are allocated for Bumiputera students whilst 10% for non-Bumiputeras. The 10% quota for non-Bumiputeras is further divided into 5.5% for Chinese students, 3.5% for Indian students, and 1% for others. This explains why every year, non-Bumiputeras, especially the Indian community complains about insufficient places.

 
Adding salt to injury, the minimum requirement for the matriculation programme’s science stream is laughable – just need to score “D” in Additional Mathematics and “C” each in Bahasa Melayu, English, Mathematics, Chemistry and another “C” in either Physics or Biology in your SPM. But this is only for Malay or Bumiputera. For Chinese, even straight A’s might not get them a place or course of choice.

 
So, how did the genius premier invent the magical formula of allowing every single SPM top scorer to enter matrics, but still maintains the 90% quota for Malays or Bumiputeras? After all, for over 60 years, not a single prime minister dares to do what he did for fear of losing the Malay votes, who have been indoctrinated with “Ketuanan Melayu”, the ideology of Malay supremacy espoused by UMNO.


It’s actually very easy. Before Anwar even dared open his mouth, a detailed analysis had already been done based on past year’s SPM data. And it’s not rocket science that not many non-Malay students scored 10 A’s simply because most SPM students took only maximum nine subjects. It was like offering a free BMW to any Proton owner who can achieve 0-100 km/h under 5 seconds.

 
Therefore, non-Malay SPM top students with 10 A’s were already accepted to matriculation colleges, assuming they were interested in a programme which isn’t worldwide recognized to begin with. Even prior to 2019, seats for matrics have been increased from 25,000 to 40,000. Based on the quota system, about 2,200 (5.5%) are for Chinese students whilst Indian get 1,400 places (3.5%).

 
Last year’s SPM results saw a total 11,713 candidates scored straight A’s. But scoring straight A’s does not necessarily mean getting 10 A’s. Clearly, the condition of 10 A’s is already a roadblock to disqualify many Chinese and Indian students, who were more interested in fields like medicine or securing JPA (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam or public services department) scholarships to study overseas.


Besides, non-Bumiputera students who scored 10 A’s (especially full A+) most likely will get a scholarship at private colleges or more prestigious universities – even in Singapore or United Kingdom. These outstanding students are not really interested in local matriculation programme, let alone competing with “special privilege students” of certain race and skin colour who secured places despite scoring only “C’s” in SPM.

 
It’s worth noting that most Malay students in matriculation programme aren’t the “crème de la crème”. The cleverest Malay or Bumiputera students would have been “forced” to go to overseas university already under JPA scholarships. Arguably, non-Malay top students could see their standard being dragged down by joining matrics, not to mention they may not get the course of choice.

 
In the same breath, there is always the debate whether non-Bumiputera students with excellent SPM results should proceed to STPM or A-Level instead of taking the easier route of matrics. Unlike in the 1980s or 1990s, when tertiary education was limited to a handful of public universities with quota system, there are now dozens of private universities as well as foreign university branch campuses.


Unless facing financial constraints, or don’t like the risk of STPM, or not thinking about becoming a doctor (chances are slim), non-Malay students normally won’t consider matrics. Opting for A-Level or STPM – even UEC – provides wider recognition and choices. Don’t even fantasize about applying to Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford or MIT with Malaysia Matriculation Programme, lest you want to be laughed at.

 
Non-Malay students who are in the programme today may not possessed 10 A’s, but you can bet they have 8 A’s or 9 A’s, close enough to 10 A’s to qualify for a place, else the racist policy would have happily rejected all of them. As such, the government’s offer for 10 A’s students has raised another question – what about those with 9 A’s who took 9 subjects?

 
Let’s assume more SPM students, inspired by the automatic places in matriculation, overload themselves with 10 subjects and score 10 A’s. Based on 2023 SPM results, where 11,713 candidates scored straight A’s, it’s estimated that around 30% of these high achievers could be Chinese students. This means approximately 3,514 non-Malay students must be offered a place.


Again, let’s also assume all of them were interested in the matriculation programme. Does that mean the education ministry has to sacrifice Malay’s quota to accommodate the 3,514 Chinese students alone, breaching the quota of 2,200 (5.5%) slots for the Chinese minority? To solve this, the government just needs to increase more seats for the Malays to maintain the 90:10 quota system.

 
Essentially, for every new non-Malay student with 10 A’s who exceed the 10% quota intake, an additional 9 slots to cater for Malay students would be created. It’s a win-win solution, and finding 9 Malay low scorers isn’t that difficult. The odds of Chinese and Indian SPM students who scored 10 A’s and want to do matriculation is extremely low. But what if there’s a sudden flood of non-Malay students?

 
That’s even easier to solve. The education ministry has a magic wand, and it’s called “fail the non-Malay students” on purpose, especially on Bahasa Melayu paper. In fact, it has been done for decades. Those born in the 1970s still remembered how Anwar, as Education Minister (1986-1991), had destroyed the future of many SPM students when Bahasa Melayu paper was made a compulsory subject.


Yes, there were many true stories about non-Malay students deliberately denied education to Form-6 because they mysteriously failed to get a credit for the Malay language paper, even though they had done incredibly well in the school exams. Astonishingly, some parents who paid to get their children’s exam paper rechecked were left speechless when the same Bahasa Melayu paper suddenly got a credit.

 
So, when Anwar Ibrahim said the government’s decision to admit all top SPM scorers, regardless of race, into matriculation programmes is to reduce tensions within the education system, he should be ashamed to claim such credit when he was part of the racist and corrupted system, if not the man directly responsible for the tensions in the first place.

 
He talked about meritocracy, justice and fairness. There’s no meritocracy when non-Malay students with 7 A’s, 8 A’s or 9 A’s cannot get a place in matriculation, but Malay students with lots of B’s or C’s can. There’s no justice when the rotten system still maintains 90:10 quota system despite the demographics show 60% Bumiputera (50.1% Malay), 22% Chinese and 7% Indian.


And it definitely isn’t fair that the Chinese students were only allocated 5.5% places in matriculation when the minority ethnic group pays 90% of taxes. Education is a basic human right, yet Malaysia is the only country on the planet that restricts its own citizens from tertiary education based on skin colour.

Sunday 7 July 2024

砂拉越有权力独立吗?(三语)

各位砂拉越的同胞们,大家好。
SLM:脱马无罪 独立有理
砂拉越有权力独立吗?有或没有

大家知道马来西亚联邦是由砂拉越,沙巴,新加坡和马来亚签署一份国际协议叫马来西亚协议/MA63。 马来亚是一个独立国家然而砂拉越,沙巴和新加坡是还没独立的国家。 因此这砂拉越,沙巴和新加坡根本没有法定资格签署国际协议。 (1) 

在1965年,新加坡退出而独立去了。 (2)

马来西亚就是马来亚的更名。MA63协议延迟到1970年才在联合国登记这是违反联合国宪法。(3)

砂沙参组马联邦60多年,可是马来亚以马联邦的名义不间断的掠夺,剥削,打压,镇压,抢劫,霸凌和殖民咱们。

他们完全不按照MA63条约执行对砂沙任务。所以,今天,咱们看到的实相是马半岛不断的进步和繁荣,但是他们的进步和繁荣是建立在砂沙的贫穷上。 就这一重点已经足够让这协议无效。(4)

更不用说他们把MA63修改了600多次。这是国际协议,哪里可以由马来亚为主的政府如此任意修改。这是另一个因素让这协议无效。(5)

MA63完全是英国政府以马来亚为中心的策划根本就违法联合国在1960年12月14日大会通过【去殖民化宣言】1514号决议的自决权和1541号决议的集体决定权的国际法。

完全不给砂沙人民公投下,把这两家殖民地强硬的加入马来亚来扩展该国的土地,完全违反联合国【去殖民化宣言】的宪章。 (6)

在MA63条款中,没有限定砂沙退出马联邦。因此,砂沙人民有1514和1541或1441决定权退出。 (7)

Does Sarawak have the right to be independent? Yes or No

As we all know that the Malaysia Agreement/MA63 is an international agreement signed by Sarawak, Sabah, Singapore (SSS) and Malaya when Malaya was an independent country whereas SSS were not yet independent to have the locus standi to sign the treaty. (1)

In 1965, when Singapore withdrew, it also rendered MA63 void. (2)

MA63 was only registered with the United Nations in 1970 and thus they violated the United Nations Constitution. (3)

For over 60 years in the Malaysia Federation (Malaya in disguise), Sarawak and Sabah have continuously been plundered, exploited, oppressed, suppressed, robbed, bullied and colonised.

The Federal government did not act in accordance with the MA63 treaty at all. Thus, we only see the progress and prosperity of Malaya at the expense of the poverty of Sarawak and Sabah, which is enough to invalidate the agreement. (4)

The modification of MA63 over 600 times by the Malayan-dominated government is another factor rendering this agreement invalid. (5)

MA63 is a Malaya-centred plan by the British government and fundamentally violates the international law of the right to self-determination 1514 and the right to collective determination 1541 of the [Declaration of Decolonisation] adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14/12/1960.

Without giving Sabahans and Sarawakians a referendum, the two colonies were forcefully added to Malaya to expand its territory as against the Charter of Declaration of Decolonization of the United Nations (6)

In the terms of MA63, there is no restriction on Sabah and Sarawak withdrawing from the Malaysia Federation. Therefore, Sabahans and Sarawakians have the 1514 and 1541 or 1441 decision to withdraw. (7)

Adakah Sarawak mempunyai hak untuk merdeka? Ya atau tidak

Seperti yang kita sedia maklum bahawa Perjanjian Malaysia/MA63 adalah perjanjian antarabangsa yang ditandatangani oleh Sarawak, Sabah, Singapura (SSS) dan Malaya semasa Malaya adalah sebuah negara merdeka sedangkan SSS belum lagi merdeka untuk mempunyai locus standi untuk menandatangani perjanjian tersebut. (1)

Pada tahun 1965, apabila Singapura menarik diri, ia juga menjadikan MA63 tidak sah. (2)

MA63 hanya didaftarkan dengan UN sehingga 1970 dan dengan itu mereka melanggar Perlembagaan UN. (3)

Selama lebih 60 tahun dalam Malaysia (Malaya berselindung), Sarawak sentiasa dirompak, dieksploitasi, ditindas, dirompak, dibuli dan dijajah.

Kerajaan Federal sama sekali tidak bertindak mengikut perjanjian MA63. Justeru secara realitinya, kita hanya melihat kemajuan dan kemakmuran Malaya dengan mengorbankan kemiskinan Sarawak dan Sabah, yang sudah cukup untuk membatalkan perjanjian itu. (4)

Pengubahsuaian MA63 lebih 600 kali oleh kerajaan yang dikuasai Malaya merupakan satu lagi faktor yang menyebabkan perjanjian ini tidak sah. (5)

MA63 ialah rancangan berpusatkan Malaya oleh kerajaan British dan secara asasnya melanggar undang-undang antarabangsa hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri 1514 dan hak untuk penentuan kolektif dalam Resolusi 1541 [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi] yang diterima pakai oleh UN pada 14/12/1960.

Tanpa memberikan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak referendum, kedua-dua jajahan itu telah ditambah secara paksa ke Tanah Melayu untuk meluaskan wilayahnya bertentangan dengan Piagam Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu/UN [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi]. (6)

Dalam terma MA63, tiada sekatan ke atas Sabah dan Sarawak menarik diri daripada Persekutuan Malaysia. Oleh itu, rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak mempunyai keputusan 1514 dan 1541 atau 1441 untuk menarik diri. (7)

Adakah Sarawak menpunyai hak Untuk Merdeka?

Adakah Sarawak mempunyai hak untuk merdeka? Ya atau tidak

Seperti yang kita sedia maklum bahawa Perjanjian Malaysia/MA63 adalah perjanjian antarabangsa yang ditandatangani oleh Sarawak, Sabah, Singapura (SSS) dan Malaya semasa Malaya adalah sebuah negara merdeka sedangkan SSS belum lagi merdeka untuk mempunyai locus standi untuk menandatangani perjanjian tersebut. (1)

Pada tahun 1965, apabila Singapura menarik diri, ia juga menjadikan MA63 tidak sah. (2)

MA63 hanya didaftarkan dengan UN sehingga 1970 dan dengan itu mereka melanggar Perlembagaan UN. (3)

Selama lebih 60 tahun dalam Malaysia (Malaya berselindung), Sarawak sentiasa dirompak, dieksploitasi, ditindas, dirompak, dibuli dan dijajah.

Kerajaan Federal sama sekali tidak bertindak mengikut perjanjian MA63. Justeru secara realitinya, kita hanya melihat kemajuan dan kemakmuran Malaya dengan mengorbankan kemiskinan Sarawak dan Sabah, yang sudah cukup untuk membatalkan perjanjian itu. (4)

Pengubahsuaian MA63 lebih 600 kali oleh kerajaan yang dikuasai Malaya merupakan satu lagi faktor yang menyebabkan perjanjian ini tidak sah. (5)

MA63 ialah rancangan berpusatkan Malaya oleh kerajaan British dan secara asasnya melanggar undang-undang antarabangsa hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri 1514 dan hak untuk penentuan kolektif dalam Resolusi 1541 [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi] yang diterima pakai oleh UN pada 14/12/1960.

Tanpa memberikan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak referendum, kedua-dua jajahan itu telah ditambah secara paksa ke Tanah Melayu untuk meluaskan wilayahnya bertentangan dengan Piagam Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu/UN [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi]. (6)

Dalam terma MA63, tiada sekatan ke atas Sabah dan Sarawak menarik diri daripada Persekutuan Malaysia. Oleh itu, rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak mempunyai keputusan 1514 dan 1541 atau 1441 untuk menarik diri. (7)

Saturday 6 July 2024

Abang Open is proving to be his own man-Kudos

BY ANONYMOUS  
Abang Openg is proving to be his own man - Kudos!

I like the fact that Sarawak is now being seen as an autonomous nation whereby Singapore wants to set up a Consulate office in Kuching - this is what the MA 63 agreement envisaged.

Why Sarawak, which is 120 x the size of Singapore and which had endless resources, a tiny population of less than 1 million in 1960 - (70% indigenous Iban and other tribes and 30% Chinese ) - which was majority Christian and separated 1000 km by the South China Sea could allow itself to operate like a vassal state of Malaya with its Muslim Malay monarchial system is something which defies logic.

The formation of Malaysia in 1963 in retrospect, proved to be so disadvantageous for Sarawak which has seen the grand scale exploitation and virtual colonisation of the soul of Sarawak by a foreign Malay nation.

All of this was due to the machinations of the British who did not want Sarawak to be an independent country. They played psychological warfare on the ruling elites of Sarawak saying it needed “protection’ from the threats of Indonesian invasion and the best way was to be part of Malaya.

2 years after the formation of Malaysia, Singapore pulled out in 1965 because Lee Kwan Yew was disgusted with the “Ketuanan Melayu dan Islam” ideology which was gaining a foothold which he saw as discriminatory and a betrayal of the promises made during Merdeka. At the time the Chinese population of Malaysia was larger than the Malay. It suited UMNOs quest for hegemony to see Singapore out of the picture. Singapore was unceremoniously ‘kicked’ out of the Federation by Tunku.

UMNO felt Singapore without any resources would be a destitute Island nation dependent on Malaysia but this suited the desires of LKY who had a vision for a Singapore as a secular, democratic republic. This rest is history, suffice to say that Singapore is the one of the richest country in the world with standards of education, health, transport and public infrastructure amongst the best the world not to mention the Singapore dollar is more than 3 x the value of the ringgit.

Sarawak can easily become a “Singapore" if it adopts a non-racial, secular and meritocratic and republican mode of governance. Unfortunately, the UMNO leadership colonised Sarawak for so long but since the recent implosion of UMNO, we are seeing the seeds of Sarawakian autonomy taking shape.

The British colonial engineered experiment with Sarawak joining Malaysia 60 years ago, has seen the grand scale exploitation of forests, oil, gas and land for the benefit of Malaya and British commercial interests in a vastly disproportionate manner. The indigenous tribes of Sarawak have their own languages and comprised 70% of the population in the 1960s, with the Chinese comprising 30%. Christianity was and still is the majority religion.

The standards of education were deliberately dumbed down with standards of English being allowed to erode to be eventually replaced by ‘foreign’ Malay. In the eyes of the UMNO hegemon, Sarawak was ’theirs’ to exploit to the hilt. This is the typical 'coloniser settler’ mindset - the indigenous population, their lands and history had to be air brushed out of the picture.

Let it be known and put into perspective, that the Ibans have pushed out of their lands many times the land mass of Palestine. The Ibans and Penans were bulldozed out of their ancestral lands by “settlers” who grew oil palm, logged their forests, mined their lands and polluted their rivers, flooded their lands to build dams which do not serve their purpose. They do not live in lands which have Western historical significance, they are not inspired by religious injunctions, they do not have weapon or are inclined to use them which is why thy are not on the ‘radar’ of world conscience.

Abang Openg is gradually asserting Sarawak's autonomous status and is looking to rekindle the spirit of the MA 63 agreement. I am hoping the interest in forging closer relations with Singapore will be beneficial to the development of Sarawak and rightfully see a vast improvement in the well being of the indigenous people there who have been exploited with the collusion of local corrupt elites for far too long.

Maybe one day Sarawak will see the benefit of being an independent country just like Singapore.

ANONYMOUS

Fresh referendum

https://focusmalaysia.my/conduct-fresh-referendum-to-determine-if-sabahans-sarawakians-wish-to-remain-part-of-malaysia/ 06 July 2024

A JOINT Sabah/Sarawak NGO grouping has warned that the Philippines could approach the United Nations’ (UN) Decolonisation Committee to resurrect the Manila Accord 1963 by asserting that the then Malayan and British governments had breached the pre-Malaysia formation accord agreed to by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines on July 31, 1963.

Sabah/Sarawak NGOs
Peter John Jaban
Publicity and information Chief 
Sarawak Association for peoples Aspirations ( SAPA )

Robert Pei President Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)

Daniel John Jambun
President, Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Jovilis Majami President Persatuan pembangunan sosial komunity Sabah (BANGUN)

Timothy Jagak
 Gabongan Orang Asal Sarawak/Sabah (GOASS)

Moses Anap President Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

Emily Elvera Edward President of Sabah Sarawak Borneo Native Organisation Inc 

Cleftus Stephen Mojingol President Pertubuhan kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah 

Voon Lee Shan President party Bumi Kenyalang Sarawak (PBK)

Apun Achong 
Deputy President 
Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak ( PEDAS )

Kanul Gindol Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo

Friday 5 July 2024

MA63实施的问题和答案

关于 MA63 实施的问题和答案

(Robert Pei 03-07-2024)


澳大利亚新西兰沙巴砂拉越权利协会 (SSRANZ) 主席 Robert Pei 回答了关于 MA63 实施的问题。


1. )您现在如何看待联邦政府在为砂拉越实施 MA63 的全部内容方面取得的进展?


联邦政府在全面实施 1963 年马来西亚协议 (MA63) 方面面临重大挑战,因为许多违宪的修改已经将商定的马来西亚概念从一个世俗的多元文化国家转变为一个由种族和宗教主导的国家。这些变化已经侵蚀了 MA63 的原始条款和条件,即使废除违宪的法律,也无法完全恢复砂拉越(和沙巴)的“失去的权利”。


联邦政府既没有能力,也不愿意补偿砂拉越和沙巴在过去 60 年遭受的巨大经济和发展损失。自 2015 年就恢复 MA63 权利开始谈判以来,谈判一直拖延很久,沙巴 40% 收入权利等问题仍未解决。


此外,对 MA63 有效性的彻底法律审查至关重要,因为它的合法性将影响马来西亚的基础。大量违反基础条款的行为表明该协议可能会被有效终止,这让人质疑联邦的约束性。


2 . )您认为砂拉越自治(资金等)的一些最关键方面是什么,您希望尽快引入这些方面?


在 MA63 有效的情况下,应优先考虑完全自治或婆罗洲化,正如 1963 年最初达成的协议。这包括砂拉越政府机构去马来亚化,恢复对内政、教育、财政和资源的全面控制,并废除所有侵犯砂拉越 MA63 权利的联邦法律。实现真正的自治需要消除马来亚强加的殖民式控制,并确保砂拉越真正有权独立管理自己的事务。


3. )您对砂拉越政府在这方面与联邦政府的打交道感到满意吗?


不,尽管砂拉越政府声称是“平等的伙伴”,但仍然屈从于马来亚联邦政府。政府尚未采取重大措施重新夺回对砂拉越石油和天然气资源、行政和教育的控制权。砂拉越政府在 2018 年马来西亚国家石油公司 PDA74 案的处理中接受了“商业和解”,而不是伸张其优越的法律主张,这说明了他们采取了屈从。虽然砂拉越政府正在开展各种发展项目,但它尚未解决 MA63 的基本条款,例如婆罗洲化和废除许多影响砂拉越权利的违宪法律。


4. )您是否认为自安瓦尔总理上任以来,这种自治推动力有所增强?为什么/为什么不?


自治推动力似乎有所增强,部分原因是民众对贫困、教育和发展问题的潜在不满,以及对为马来亚利益而开发资源的不满。砂拉越政府的自信也是对民族主义运动和社会不满情绪复苏的回应。经过数十年的一党统治后,国阵垮台,让砂拉越权力精英得以更加大胆地维护自己的权利,从 PBB 更名为 GPS,并声称要为砂拉越人的权利而战。然而,仍然存在严重违反 MA63 的行为,这对联邦政府和砂拉越政府在恢复砂拉越权利方面的可信度提出了挑战。这与一系列违宪立法有关,这些立法从 1965 年到 2021 年取消了 SS MA63 权利,尤其是 1965 年新加坡分离法案、CSA1966、ACT 354、PDA74 和 TSA2012。


要完全恢复这些权利,必须废除所有这些法律。联邦政府和砂拉越政府都不愿意这样做,因为这将给马来亚的马来人至上 (KM) 霸权带来巨大危机,并可能结束马丹尼政府的执政,以及挑战砂拉越 GPS 不平衡的马来人至上统治。


5. )为什么您认为联邦政府在全面实施 MA63 方面仍然缺乏某些方面?


联邦政府不愿全面实施 MA63 和砂拉越去殖民化,是因为他们希望保持对砂拉越和沙巴的控制以及这种控制带来的好处。废除违宪法律并全面恢复 MA63 权利将威胁马来西亚的政治合法性,而马来西亚的政治合法性是基于种族和宗教至上的意识形态。联邦政府不愿意做出必要的改变来破坏这种霸权。


6. )一个充分自治的砂拉越在你眼中是什么样子的?你设想它会是什么样子?


一个充分自治的砂拉越将拥有自治权,不受马来亚对其内部事务、资源和财政的控制,并废除影响 MA63 权利的法律。自治是联邦的基本条件,旨在用地方治理取代后殖民时期的行政管理。然而,婆罗洲化已被马来亚化取代,实际上将砂拉越变成了马来亚控制下的殖民地。实现自治意味着扭转这些趋势,废除违宪的法律,并允许砂拉越独立治理,类似于 MA63 的初衷。


7. )有些人还呼吁给予砂拉越走向独立。你对此有何看法?


鉴于未能实现“马来西亚独立”的好处,退出和独立似乎是砂拉越实现真正自决的唯一途径。国际法并不禁止分裂,如果愿意,砂拉越有脱离联邦的固有权利。


1963 年,砂拉越-沙巴要求在 MA63 讨论中加入退出条款,但 IGC 主席兰斯顿勋爵 (Lord Lansdowne) 驳回了这一要求,他表示“任何自愿加入联邦的州都有固有权利随意脱离联邦,因此没有必要将其纳入宪法”。联邦主义者总是声称马来西亚是一个自由联合体,但与此同时,他们又认为沙巴 20 点中的第 7 点禁止“分裂”。沙巴的 20 点备忘录不是具有法律约束力的协议,甚至没有得到坚持第 7 点的马来亚的签署。这被排除在 1957 年修订的联邦宪法之外,该宪法被采纳为马来西亚宪法。


如果联合国国际法庭证明 MA63 无效,马来西亚将被证明是在没有法律依据的情况下“成立”的。然后必须寻求联合国的援助以和平获得独立。马来亚必须立即将主权和领土归还给砂拉越和沙巴。


以寻求独立的承诺而当选的政党将有权采取适当行动,包括宣布单方面独立宣言 (UDI) 或进行全民公投。GPS 党团不应阻碍追求独立,因为真正的自决是砂拉越人民的最终目标。


评论结束


Robert Pei

SSRANZ 总裁,2024 年 7 月 3 日。


SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy

By DayakDaily Team

KUCHING, July 4: Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) president Robert Pei has emphasised that prioritising Borneanisation is essential to reclaim Sarawak’s rights and achieving true autonomy.

 Robert Pei  7/8/24, 3:25 PM SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy | DayakDaily https://dayakdaily.com/ssranz-president-advocates-borneanisation-to-reclaim-sarawaks-rights-achieve-true-autonomy/ 2/4

He asserted that achieving true autonomy involves undoing the colonial-like control imposed by Malaya, ensuring that Sarawak can govern its own affairs independently.

 “Subject to Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) being valid, full autonomy or Borneanisation should be prioritised as was originally agreed in 1963.

“This includes de-Malayanisation of Sarawak’s government machinery, restoring full control over internal affairs, education, finances, and resources, and repealing all federal laws that infringe upon Sarawak’s MA63 rights,” he said in a press statement today. 

Despite the Sarawak government’s efforts to address various development projects, Pei highlighted that it has yet to address fundamental MA63 terms such as Borneanisation and the repeal of unconstitutional laws affecting Sarawak’s rights.

 “The push for autonomy appears to have grown stronger, partly due to underlying popular discontent over poverty, education, and development issues, and resentment over the exploitation of resources for Malaya’s benefit.

 “The Sarawak government’s assertiveness is also a response to the revival of nationalist movements and social discontent,” he said. 

Pei pointed out that there are still significant breaches of MA63 that challenge the credibility of both the federal and Sarawak governments in restoring Sarawak’s rights, in referring to a series of unconstitutional legislation that removed Sarawak-Sabah MA63 rights from 1965 to 2021, particularly the 1965 Singapore Separation Act, CSA1966, ACT 354, PDA74, and TSA2012. 

“To fully restore those rights, all these laws must be repealed. Neither the federal government nor the Sarawak government are willing to do this, as it will create a huge crisis in Ketuanan Melayu (KM) hegemony of Malaya and possibly end the Madani government’s stay in power, and as well as challenging Gabungan Parti Sarawak’s (GPS) lopsided KM rule of Sarawak,” he said.

Envisioning a sufficiently autonomous Sarawak, Pei described a self-ruled state free from Malayan control of its internal affairs, resources, and finances, as well as the repeal of laws affecting MA63 rights.

“Autonomy was a foundational condition for the federation, meant to replace post-colonial administration with local governance.  7/8/24, 3:25 PM SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy | DayakDaily

https://dayakdaily.com/ssranz-president-advocates-borneanisation-to-reclaim-sarawaks-rights-achieve-true-autonomy/ 3/4 “However, Borneanisation has been replaced by Malayanisation, effectively turning Sarawak into a colony under Malayan control.

“Achieving autonomy would mean reversing these trends, repealing unconstitutional laws, and allowing Sarawak to govern itself independently, similar to the original intent of MA63,” Pei remarked. He further asserted that exit and independence might be the only routes for true self-determination for Sarawak, emphasising that international law does not prohibit secession and that Sarawak has the intrinsic right to leave the federation if desired.


Thursday 4 July 2024

Analysis of the Validity of MA63

Analysis of the Validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 Based on Historical Context and International Law

1. At the time our leadership signed the Malaysia Agreement, did we already have a democratic government formed through elections, or were we still under the British Colonial Government of North Borneo/British Colonial Government of Sarawak?

- **North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak** were still under British colonial rule when the Malaysia Agreement was signed in 1963. The first elections in these territories were held after the signing of the agreement.

2. Did we choose our leadership through general elections across North Borneo (Sabah)/Sarawak?

- **No.** The first state elections in Sabah were held in 1967, and similar processes occurred in Sarawak around the same time. Therefore, the leadership that signed the agreement was not chosen through a general election.

3. If yes, how many parliamentary or state assembly seats did we have at that time?

- **Not Applicable.** Since the leadership was not elected through general elections, there were no parliamentary or state assembly seats directly representing the people's will at the time of signing the agreement.

4. Who was our Prime Minister or Chief Minister at that time before the signing of Malaysia Agreement on 9th July 1963?

- **North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak** did not have a Prime Minister or Chief Minister prior to the Malaysia Agreement, as they were under British colonial administration.

5. Who were the members of our cabinet at that time?

- There was **no local cabinet** in North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak before the Malaysia Agreement. The British colonial administration held authority.

6. Did our state assembly or parliament already have the three fundamental democratic powers: Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive?

- **No.** The territories were under British colonial rule, and the British administration held the legislative, judicial, and executive powers.

7. Who was the Head of State at that time?

- The **Governor of North Borneo and the Governor of Sarawak** were the heads of state, representing the British Crown.

8. Were the leaders who signed the Malaysia Agreement in 1963 our legitimate representatives, elected democratically, or were they hand-picked by the British?

- The leaders who signed the Malaysia Agreement were largely **appointed or hand-picked by the British** administration, rather than being democratically elected representatives.

9. Before signing the agreement, did we already have a parliament or state assembly to debate its contents, like Malaya did a year before signing it?

- **No.** There was no established parliament or state assembly in North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak to debate the contents of the Malaysia Agreement prior to its signing.

10. Did our leadership approve the Malaysia Agreement 1963 document in Parliament or the State Assembly?

- **No.** There was no parliament or state assembly in place in North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak to formally approve the Malaysia Agreement.

11. How many supported it, and how many opposed it?

- Since there was no parliament or state assembly to debate the agreement, there are **no official records** of support or opposition among representatives.

12. Was our leadership directly involved in the process of preparing the document?

- The leadership from North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak had **limited involvement** in the actual drafting and preparation of the Malaysia Agreement document. The process was largely driven by the British and Malayan governments.

Conclusion

Based on the historical context and international legal principles, the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 is questionable. The lack of a democratic process, insufficient representation, and absence of local legislative approval undermine the legitimacy of the agreement. These factors provide a strong basis for arguing that the agreement did not fully comply with the standards of genuine consent and self-determination required under international law, thus potentially invalidating the agreement from a legal perspective.

Monday 1 July 2024

部长们的薪水

尊敬的马来西亚公民

请您阅读此信息并将其转发给您的联系人列表中的至少二十个人。依次要求他们每个人也这样做。拜托。

三天后,马来西亚的大多数人都会收到此信息。

马来西亚的每个公民都应该发声:改革“2018 年法案”。

01
a) 应为议员引入年龄限制(从 35 岁到 60 岁)。

b) 议员不应获得养老金,因为这不是就业,而是人民代表法下的选举,它没有退休限制,禁止重新就业,但他们可以再次当选同一职位,等等。(目前,他们在服务 5 年后获得养老金)。

02.
议员的薪酬应根据中央薪酬委员会进行修订。
(目前,他们通过投票任意增加/提高工资)。

03.

议员应放弃其现有的医疗保健制度,与马来西亚普通民众一样参与相同的医疗保健制度。(这是我们改善当前糟糕的公共卫生系统的唯一方法。)

4.

应取消所有优惠,如免费年度旅行、电费、水费、食品杂货费、电话费。

(他们不仅获得这些优惠,而且还定期增加优惠 - 大胆而无耻。)

05.

过去或现在有污点记录、刑事指控和定罪的议员应立即被禁止进入议会并以任何借口或其他理由参选。

6.

因政客执政而造成的经济损失必须从政客、其直系亲属、受益人、提名人和财产中追回。

07
议员应同样遵守他们向普通民众制定的所有法律。附加条款只提供给总理和 4 位重要的部长(例如财政部、国防部等)。没有获得附加条款的部长将理解并改善我们当地的公共道路(如果没有附加条款,他们将被迫提前离开,以便准时出席公开场合和工作)。目前,由于发展、收费出口和车道规划不当,公众不得不忍受道路工程、捷运项目的延误和严重拥堵。

08
所有当选的国会官员都必须申报其以前的财富和收入,这也适用于参议员和反对党。每两年对他们(政客)的财富进行一次独立审计,并在主要当地报纸上报道,审计员网站门户网站提供副本。对退出、辞职或担任公职的政客进行另一次审计。

09
一旦他们当选,他们应该留在同一个政党,否则,他们必须离开政界。

10
他们不应该被允许代表其他政党参选,此外,应该废除跨党派的权利。

记住
为国会服务是一种荣誉,而不是一个掠夺的赚钱职业。

🔴
如果每个人至少联系二十个人,那么马来西亚大多数人只需三天就能收到这条信息。🌸

你不觉得是时候提出这个问题了吗?同意并分享,为了我们的利益和子孙后代。

Fully agree to this suggestion.

👇🏿👇🏿

Dear/Respected Citizens of Malaysia 

You are requested to read this message and try to forward it to a minimum of twenty people in your contact list. In turn ask each of them to do likewise. Please. 

In three days, most people in Malaysia will have this message. 

Every citizen in Malaysia should raise a voice to: REFORM the “Act of 2018”.

*01*
a) Age limits should be introduced to Parliamentarians (from 35 to 60). 
b) Parliamentarians should NOT get Pension since it is NOT employment but Election under People's Representation act, it has no retirement with bar on reemployment but they can get reelected to same position again, .. etc. (Currently, they get pension after 5 years of service) .

*02.* 
Parliamentarians pay should be revised in line with Central Pay Commission.
(Currently, they increase/raise their salary arbitrarily by voting for themselves) . 

*03.* 
Parliamentarians should lose their current health care system and participate in the same health care system as the general public in Malaysia. (This will be the only way we can improve our current poor Public health system.)

*4.* 
All concession like free yearly travel, electricity, water, groceries, phone bill should be abolished.

(They not only get this concessions but they also regularly increase it - Boldly and Shamelessly.)

*05.*
Parliamentarians with tainted records, criminal charges & convictions, past or present should be summarily banned from the parliament and CONTESTING election on any pretext or the other. 

*6.*
Financial Losses incurred due to politicians in office, must be RECOVERED from the Politician , their immediate families' , benomies' , nominees' , properties.

*07*
Parliamentarians should equally ABIDE by ALL laws THEY impose on the general public. Out riders only given to PM and key 4 important ministers (e.g. Finance, Defense and etc.). Of the ministers not given the out riders, they will understand and make our local public roads to improve (without the out riders they will be forced to leave early to arrive on time for their public appearances and work). Currently the public has to suffer the delayed road works, MRT projects and bad jams due to bad planning of development, toll exits and road lanes. 

*08*
All elected Parliament officials must declare their previous wealth and income and this applies to Senators and oppositions as well. An independent Audit be done every two years on their (Politicians) wealth and reported in major local news papers and a copy available by the Auditors web portal. Another audit be done to Politician that quits,resigns or servers his term as public official.

*09*
Once they elected, they SHOULD remain in the same party if not, they have to leave politics. 

*10* 
They should NOT be permitted to contest from another party and in addition, the ability to crossover SHOULD be ABOLISHED. 

                 REMEMBER
*SERVING PARLIAMENT IS AN HONOR, NOT A LUCRATIVE CAREER FOR LOOTING*. 

🔴
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people in Malaysia to receive this message.🌸

_*Don't you think it's time to RAISE this issue?*_ 
_*Agree & Share, for our benefit and for the future generations.*_