对违反FC和联邦法案的行为进行必要的修改

对违反 FC 和联邦法案的行为进行必要的修改

By Alex Ling, MA LLB (CANTAB) on February 10, 2019, Sunday at 12:01 AMSarawak

 

在过去的 45 年里，MA1963 的精神和五层根深蒂固的宪法条款一直被“设计或其他方式”故意违反。

但在特许权使用费制度下，不存在任何懈怠、默许或禁止反悔的情况。 PDA1974、EEZ Act 1974、TSA 2012 和 Act 354 从未得到沙巴砂拉越议会明示或默示的批准。

7FC 是国家清单第九附表第 2、4(1)、80(3)、95D、76(4)、162 条以及第 2(a)、(c) 和 (d) 项。 在市议会层面上，砂拉越的七项保护性市政法律（7PM）是《2018年石油开采条例（修订）条例》（OMAO2018）第3A、4、15至18、34条，根据《2018年石油开采条例（修订）条例》第162（2）条更新1954 年理事会（OIC 1954），关于所有租约的第 32(1)(g)、36(2) 和 209(1) 条，以及 1958 年砂拉越土地法典 (SLC) 第 112 条，使所有租约登记有效且可执行，马来西亚批准的 1956 年补充契约（SD 1956）、2005 年砂拉越解释条例（SIO 2005）第 3 条和《联合国海洋法公约》（UNCLOS 1982）第 76 条，以及 1963 年 MA 第 VIII 条下的保证，多边条约和宪法协议“保证、承诺……只要马来西亚宪法没有明确规定实施”。

在FC中，联合会应该是马来西亚而不是马来亚。这是正确的吗？

正确的。 FC（联邦宪法）第 160 条关于解释 “联邦”应修改为“马来西亚联邦” 

根据1963年马来西亚协议，而不是“1957年马来亚联邦协议”，这并不能反映马来西亚的宪法地位和现实。

作为 MA63 附件 A 所附的马来西亚法案 (MB) 的序言中规定了“马来西亚联邦”，这在其第 4(1) 条以及 FC 最初的第 I(1) 条中重复出现。

对联邦立法和宪法其他部分进行必要的修改

首先，必须废除违宪、无效和非法的1976年第354号议会颁布的法案。 因此，现有的FC第I条必须被废除，恢复原来的FC第1条或马来西亚法案第4条，但删除新加坡除外，以符合FC第161E（3）条。

其次，根据《框架公约》第2条，沙巴和砂拉越的领海范围应明确界定为“从根据《公约》第3条第2部分确定的基线测量，不超过12海里的限度。 1982 年《联合国海洋法公约》(UNCLOS)。”

第三，对于PDA1974，应插入新的第1（2）条，内容为“本法案不适用于沙巴和砂拉越沿海国家”，这应同样适用于TSA2012，废除关于O&G和砂拉越的第4条和第5条。其他自然资源，见《1984 年专属经济区法》和《1985 年渔业法》。

砂拉越和沙巴沿海州的自然资源，包括联邦清单第九附表第 9(d) 项下的渔业，应根据 1982 年《联合国海洋法公约》第五部分专属经济区第 55、56(1) 和 57 条废除。

根据 1982 年《联合国海洋法公约》，专属经济区地图应正确地重新标记为“砂拉越”而不是“砂拉越附近”。

根据功能界别，马来亚各州和联邦直辖区的议会不得执行三分之二规则。这是正确的吗？

正确的。无效的 FC 第 46 条必须重新修改，以根据马来西亚法案 (MB) 第 9 条，按比例维持马来亚各州和联邦直辖区的*无三分之二规则，作为第二层宪法规定- 即现在要发行32个新的国会席位，必须以31：25的比例分配给砂拉越和沙巴，以建立议会民主和法治的宪政政府。为什么？

（1）如果没有三分之二规则，新加坡总理李光耀领导下的新加坡将永远不会加入马来西亚，并建议砂拉越和沙巴领导人将其作为保障第46条下议会立法橡皮图章的至关重要和基本条款。 

马来亚州后来将联邦直辖区纳入，按照原来的联邦委员会第46条和MB第9条的规定，所占席位不得超过65.4%，即159个国会议席中的104个。 65.4% 的宪法条款必须在法治、宪政议会民主和 MA63 的框架下得到尊重和执行，MA63 也作为国际法下的多边条约。

（2）MB第9条是保护婆罗洲领土的强制性无二三分规则的第二层宪法条款，必须在修改第46条之前首先进行修改，不受联邦控制，但必须得到婆罗洲领土的同意平等伙伴将始终坚持让这 65.4% 得到尊重和保障。

新加坡于 1965 年 8 月 9 日签署的分离协议是刻意执行的，其明示和暗示的条件是分离协议只有在执行后才会披露，而对婆罗洲领土领袖们却一无所知，这严重违反了《MB》第 9 条和三个基本原则。敦拉萨作为平等伙伴的保证。 李光耀总理后来确实对婆罗洲领土被故意排除在分离协议之外感到后悔。

你相信马来西亚仍然在国际法下生存吗？

是的。更好的国际法律观点是，马来西亚仍然在宪法和法律上存在，因为新加坡和英国对婆罗洲领土没有财务或其他义务。如果马来亚各州退出马来西亚，情况将大不相同。其余三个平等伙伴可以先修改MB，然后再相应修改FC。

多边条约往往会保留、然后破坏其生存和发挥作用的初衷。终止和退出假设所有各方的协议不再是良法，《麦克奈尔勋爵论条约法》，第 494-7 页以及自 1871 年著名的《伦敦宣言》以来。

其余三个缔约方的权利和义务完整且不受损害，但根据 MA1963 得到保留，其权利和义务也受独立于多边条约的国际法的约束。

砂拉越的退出能否像英国脱欧和加拿大几乎分裂的情况一样合法和符合宪法？

根据国际法，“任何自愿加入联邦的国家都拥有随意退出联邦的固有权利，”IGC 主席 Lansdowne 勋爵在 MA1963 上解释道。

我们现任首相的论调其资格是“自治”而不是“独立”，以拯救马来西亚，这也是婆罗洲领土的创始人意愿想要用法治来拯救马来西亚，尽管更多的主权，独立和砂拉越退出的呼应从城镇到婆罗洲的中心的山谷

是否存在根据 FC 第 150 条宣布紧急状态的担忧？

联邦内阁将遵循法治、MA1963 作为宪法协议、国际条约以及公共法、国际法和国际习俗法。

最后，MA1963 中没有撤销或终止条款。因此，《维也纳条约法公约》（VCLT）第 56 条第（1）款（a）项可以解释为暗示退出权或退出不会自动导致条约终止，以及蓝铅笔测试的分离原则：没有因为新加坡的退出而摧毁MA63。

关于第 46 条，FC 的原始第一条和 MB 的第 4 条和第 9 条，麦克奈尔勋爵和剑桥大学的詹宁斯对于婆罗洲领土的宪法根深蒂固的保障的实际方法持相同的观点，甚至新加坡已退出马来西亚。

无三分之二规则是为了阻止马来亚各州和联邦直辖区，后来在MA1963的MB第9条中明确规定，在修改FC第46条之前必须先修改该规则，作为根深蒂固的宪法前提和保护。

为什么以及如何必须对回教法庭进行附带条件的修改？

由于不遵守第4（1）条、第162（1）条，《FC》第121（1A）条必须“经砂拉越和沙巴立法委员会批准”修改，以建立伊斯兰法院的平行法院管辖权。 ）和附表九州名单II以及第5A条的缺失仅在沙巴进行了修改，但砂拉越并未接受以前宣布为沙巴宗教的伊斯兰教。

这种“民事和宗教法庭的司法纠纷以及地盘之争”并不是由于“法官缺乏道德勇气”。无论法官多么善良和公正，一国的两种法律制度总会发生冲突。

在砂拉越，为了维持最高的宗教和种族团结指数，此类联邦立法也是破坏砂拉越和沙巴文化遗产的最大威胁，如果执行得太过严厉，涉及在美里为了一名穆斯林举行宗教仪式后立即抢走尸体。

安东尼（2005）、卡玛利亚（2004）、沙玛拉（2005）和莉娜·乔伊（2006）的案例给穆斯林和非穆斯林离婚后的家庭留下了无法愈合的伤痕和痛苦。

联邦当局建议，由于母亲拥有伊斯兰法庭的监护权，而父亲则拥有民事法庭的监护权，因此将一名五岁的孩子突然送往孤儿院，这对马来西亚人来说是不人道、不公平和不符合马来西亚人的行为。无辜的孩子。下面第四章有进一步的评论。

为什么剩余权力必须在婆罗洲领土同意的情况下修改？

为了完整起见，FC 第 77 条规定的剩余权力，例如在许多主题上保持沉默，例如未来的干细胞研究，如果认为合适，应修订如下：“国家立法机关有权制定法律对于附表九所列出的任何清单中未列举的任何事项，以及议会有权制定法律的任何事项，未经沙巴和砂拉越通过其制定的法律表示同意，不得通过各自的立法机关。”

这是为了防止像旅游税不幸案例中那样的误解；并防止联邦政府在未经婆罗洲领土立法委员会同意的情况下单方面将干细胞研究等新项目指定为联邦清单I，就像旅游业一样。

为什么必须对砂拉越大陆架上的外国海洋结构实施照会？

这份外交照会，最好是根据国际公约在联合国登记的协议，必须以正式和适当的方式完成，以防止外国在几十年或几个世纪后根据国际法对油气、海藻、矿产和渔业“获取领土” 。这类似于英格兰的擅自占地者头衔。即使是一座灯塔也能改变一切。

许多联邦指令、婆罗洲化和逐步下放自治权等都需要迅速修改和实施。

您希望现任联邦政府做什么？

我们相信明智的首相将接受O＆G的20％特许权使用费，并根据马来西亚法案第9条分配32个新国会议员席位，并根据FC第46条的规则或法律重新修改宪法，其中254个席位来自他的强势心去做正确、公正和最好的事情，这将触动婆罗洲人的心灵和灵魂，随着法治的实施，人民最终将找到新的声音、新的信任和新的信仰。对婆罗洲领土的创始人和开拓者做出的梦想和承诺将在 MA63 下得到恢复。

让我们的总理和他的继任者增加更多的特许权使用费，同时在我们的石油和天然气耗尽之前改革MA1963，同时实施国家救援计划以堵塞巨大的财务漏洞，不是作为马来西亚的交易性改革，而是结构性改革。

这难道不是婆罗洲和马来西亚政治、社会、经济、文化遗产的宏伟遗产吗！

The necessary amendments of breaches of FC and Federal Acts

The necessary amendments of breaches of FC and Federal Acts  by Alex Ling

FOR the last 45 years, the spirit and five tiers of entrenched constitutional provisions of MA1963 have been deliberately breached by “design or otherwise.”

But there was no laches, acquiescence nor estoppel applicable under the royalty system. The PDA1974, EEZ Act 1974, TSA 2012 and Act 354 were never approved by the Council Negeri expressly or impliedly.

The 7FCs are Articles 2, 4(1), 80(3), 95D, 76(4), 162 and Items 2(a), (c) and (d) of the State List Ninth Schedule. On the municipal level, the seven protective municipal laws of Sarawak (7PMs) are Sections 3A, 4, 15 to 18, 34 of the Oil Mining Ordinance (Amendment) Ordinance 2018 (OMAO2018), updated under Article 162(2), Order in Council 1954 (OIC 1954), Sections 32(1)(g), 36(2) and 209(1) on all leases and 112 of the Sarawak Land Code (SLC) 1958 for registration of all leases to be valid and enforceable, Supplementary Deed 1956 (SD 1956), Section 3 of Sarawak Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (SIO 2005) and Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982), ratified by Malaysia and Assurances under Article VIII of MA 1963, a multi-lateral treaty and constitutional agreement for “Assurance, undertaking …… insofar as they are not implemented by express provision of the constitution of Malaysia.”

In the FC, the federation should be Malaysia not Malaya. Is that correct?

Right. Article 160 of FC (Federal Constitution) on the interpretation of “The Federation” shall be amended to read “The Federation of Malaysia” under Malaysia Agreement 1963 instead of the “Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957” which does not reflect the constitutional status and reality of Malaysia.

The preamble of Malaysia Bill (MB) attached as Annex A to MA63, states “Federation of Malaysia,” repeated in its Article 4(1) as well as in the original Article I(1) of the FC.

Necessary amendments of some other parts of the federal legislations and constitution

Firstly, the unconstitutional, void and illegal parliamentary enactment Act 354 of 1976 must be repealed. So the present Article I of the FC must be repealed by reinstating the original Article 1 of the FC or Article 4 of Malaysia Bill except deleting Singapore as well to conform to Article 161E(3) of the FC.

Secondly, under Article 2 of the FC, the breath of the territorial sea of Sabah and Sarawak shall be defined clearly up “to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baseline determined in accordance with Article 3 Part II of Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982.”

Thirdly, for PDA1974, a new Article 1(2) should be inserted to read “This act shall not be applicable to the coastal states of Sabah and Sarawak” which should be equally applicable to TSA2012, the void Articles 4 and 5 on O&G and other natural resources, in the Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1984 and the Fisheries Act 1985.

The natural resources of the coastal states of Sarawak and Sabah, including fisheries under Item 9(d) of the Federal List Ninth Schedule, should be repealed under Sections 55, 56(1) and 57 of the Part V Exclusive Economic Zone, UNCLOS 1982.

The map of EEZ should be correctly re-labelled as “of Sarawak” not “off Sarawak” accordingly under UNCLOS 1982.

No Two-Third rule in parliament for States of Malaya and Federal Territories must be implemented according to the FCs. Is that correct?

Correct. The void Article 46 of the FC must be re-amended to maintain the no Two-Third Rule proportionately for the States of Malaya and the Federal Territories in accordance to Article 9 of the Malaysia Bill (MB) as the second tier of constitutional entrenched provision — namely now to issue 32 new parliamentary seats which must be allocated to Sarawak and Sabah in the ratio of 31:25 for the constitutional government with parliamentary democracy and under the Rule of Law. Why?

(1)Without the Two-Third rule, Singapore under Premier Lee KY, would never have joined Malaysia and had advised the Sarawak and Sabah leaders as a critically important and the fundamental provision to safeguard rubber stamping of parliamentary legislations under Article 46. The States of Malaya later included the Federal Territories should not have more than 65.4 per cent as stipulated in the original Article 46 of the FC and Article 9 of MB — namely 104 out of 159 parliamentary seats. That 65.4 per cent constitutional proviso must be honoured and enforced under the Rule of Law, constitutional parliamentary democracy and MA63 as a multi-lateral treaty under international law too.

(2) Article 9 of MB is the second tier constitutional proviso safeguarding the Borneo Territories on the mandatory no Two-Third Rule which must be amended first before any amendment of Article 46, without the federal domination but must be agreed by the Borneo Territories as equal partners which will always insist for that 65.4 per cent to be honoured and safeguarded.

The Separation Agreement of Singapore on 9th August 1965 was executed deliberately with the express and implied conditions that the Separation Agreement would be only disclosed after its execution while keeping the Borneo Territories in the dark was in gross breach of Article 9 of MB and the three fundamental assurances of Tun Razak as equal partners. Premier Lee KY did feel remorseful later that the Borneo Territories were deliberately left out for that Separation Agreement.

Do you believe that Malaysia still subsists under international law?

Yes. The better international legal view would be that Malaysia still subsists constitutionally and legally as Singapore and the UK have no obligations, financial or otherwise, to the Borneo Territories. It would be quite different if the States of Malaya were to exit Malaysia. The three remaining equal partners can amend MB first and then the FC accordingly.

Multi-lateral treaties would tend to preserve, then destroy their original intentions to subsist and make them work. Termination and withdrawal suppose the agreement of all parties is no longer good law, Lord Mcnair on the Law of Treaties, p 494-7 and since the famous Declaration of London 1871.

The rights and obligations of the three remaining parties are intact and not prejudiced but preserved under MA1963 with the rights and obligations also subject under international law independently of the multi-lateral treaty.

Can Sarawak-exit be legal and constitutional as in the case of Brexit and the almost secession in Canada?

Under international law, “any state voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will,” explained Lord Lansdowne, IGC Chairman on MA1963.

Our present PM has qualified as “autonomy” not “independence” to save Malaysia intended by the founders in the Borneo Territories now with the Rule of Law despite the echoes of more royalty, independence and Sarawak-exit from the towns to the valleys of the heart of Borneo.

Is there a fear of emergency declared under Article 150 of the FC? The Federal Cabinet will follow the Rule of Law, MA1963 as Constitutional Agreement, International Treaty and the public, international and customary international laws.

Lastly, there is no withdrawal nor termination clause in MA1963. Therefore Article 56(1)(a) of Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties (VCLT) can interpret to imply a right to withdraw or a withdrawal does not automatically result in its termination, in addition to severance principle with the blue pencil test that did not destroy MA63 due to the exit of Singapore.

On this Article 46, the original Article I of the FC and Articles 4 and 9 of MB, Lord McNair and Jennings of Cambridge University were of the same view on the practical approach on the subsistence of the constitutional entrenched safeguards for the Borneo Territories, even Singapore had exited Malaysia.

The no Two-Third Rule is to prevent the States of Malaya and the federal territories, later clearly stipulated under MA1963 in Article 9 of MB which must be amended first before amending Article 46 of the FC as an entrenched constitutional precondition and protection.

Why and how Syariah Court must be amended with a proviso?

Article 121(1A) of the FC must be amended “subject to the approvals of the legislative councils of Sarawak and Sabah”

on the creation of parallel court jurisdiction of Syariah court due to non-compliance to Articles 4(1), 162(1) and the Ninth Schedule State List II and absence of Article 5A amended only in Sabah but not in Sarawak accepting Islam formerly declared as the religion of Sabah.

This “juridical imbroglio of civil and religion courts and turf war,” was not due to “lack of moral courage of judges.” One country two legal systems will always clash however good and fair are the judges.

In Sarawak, to maintain the highest religious and racial unity index, such federal legislation is the greatest threat to disrupt that cultural heritage of Sarawak and Sabah too, when enforced too vigorously, involving a dead body being snatched right after one religious ceremony for another Muslim burial in Miri.

The cases of Anthony (2005) Kamaria (2004), Shamala (2005) and Lina Joy (2006) have left unhealable scars and grievous pains for families after divorces between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Putting a child of five years old suddenly in an orphanage as suggested by a federal authority due to the mother having the custody from the Syariah court while the father with the custody from the civil court, would be inhuman, unfair and un-Malaysian to the innocent child. There are further comments below in Chapter IV below.

Why residual Powers must be amended with consents of the Borneo Territories?

For completeness, the Residual Powers under Article 77 of the FC, eg silent in many subjects, eg such as Stem Cell Research in future shall be amended, if thought fit, as follows : “The Legislature of a State shall have power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in any of the Lists set out in the Ninth Schedule, and any matter in respect of which Parliament has power to make laws shall not be passed without the consents of Sabah and Sarawak expressed by a law made by their respective legislature.”

This is to prevent misunderstanding as seen in the unfortunate case of tourism tax; and to prevent new item such as Stem Cell Research to be unilaterally designated under Federal List I by the federal government without the consents of the legislative councils of the Borneo Territories as in the case of tourism.

Why diplomatic notes on foreign marine structure in Sarawak’s continental shelf

must be implemented?

This diplomatic note, better an agreement registered in the UN under international convention, must be done officially and properly to prevent future claim of “acquisition of territories” on O&G, seaweeds, minerals and fisheries by the foreign country decades or centuries later under international laws. It is akin to squatter title in England. Even a lighthouse can make all the difference.

Numerous federal directives, Borneonization and devolution of autonomy in steps and others would need to be expeditiously amended and implemented.

What do you hope the present federal government will do?

We trust the wise premier will accept the 20 per cent royalty of O&G and allocations of 32 new MPs seats under Article 9 of the Malaysia Bill by re-amending constitutionally under the Rule or Law on Article 46 of the FC with 254 seats from his strong heart to do what is right, just and best that will touch the hearts and souls in the heart of Borneo where the people will find a new voice, a new trust and a new faith at last with the implementation of the Rule of Law, the dreams and promises made to the founders and pioneers of the Borneo Territories will be restored under MA63.

Let our premier and his successors increase more royalty while reforming MA1963 before our O&G ran dry while carrying out the national rescue packages to plug the big financial hole, not as a transactional but a structural reformation of Malaysia.

Wouldn’t that be a magnificent legacy of a politico-socio-economic-cultural heritage of Borneo and Malaysia!

Was the Cobbold Commission a scam?

Was the Cobbold Commission a scam?

By Voon Lee Shan

Without the Cobbold Commission, there is no Cobbold Commission Report. Without the Cobbold Commission Report, there is no Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Without the Malaysia Agreement 1963, there is no Malaysia. However, the issue is Whether the Cobbold Commission was a scam – a scam to deceive the people of the British Borneo Territories to agree to the Malaysia Plan. 

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 is to allow or to have all colonies in the world to be decolonized and achieve independence from their colonial masters. This Resolution was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960. 

But, the Malaysia Plan by the British was not motivated by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It has to be noted that the Malaysia Plan was motivated by the need by United Kingdom, to release their colonies from their burden in maintaining their colonies. Records show that the British planned Malaysia since 1953 and therefore, I repeat, it has nothing to do with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It was the plan of the British in 1953 that their colonies in South East Asia has to join together to form a federation or a country. Hence, came the Malaysian Plan.

In order to ensure that the Malaysia Plan be executed smoothly and in compliance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 and international protocols, the British constituted the Cobbold Commission in 1962 headed by Lord Cobbold. Lord Cobbold was a former Bank Governor of Bank of England. 

In the Cobbold Commission, there were three British and two Malayans. The two Malayans were Dato’ Wong Pow Nee from Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and Chief Minister of Penang and Ghazali Shafie, Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaya. 

There is no evidence that members of the Cobbold Commission could speak the local or native languages of the Borneo People. Without able to speak native language of Borneo people how could the members of the Cobbold Commission came to the conclusion that the people of Sarawak and Sabah wanted Malaysia to be formed? It could not be denied that this Cobbold Commission was to also to overcome the need for a referendum to determine the wishes of the people of Borneo Territories as required by UNGAR 1514.

The Cobbold Commission published its report on 1 August 1962 concluded that roughly only one-third of Sarawak’ population enthusiastically supported forming Malaysia, another one-third vehemently opposed, and the crucial remaining third of the population, though open to the idea, was yet to be convinced of the merits of independence through merger. The published report seems not correct because from available records, only 4,000 odd people were interviewed by the Cobbold Commission. Commonsense tells us that this is devoid of democracy! How could these people who were only about 4,000 odds were able to represent the voice of over a million people of North Borneo and Sarawak at that time to decide the fate or destiny of their countries?

From records and books by a several researchers, it is difficult to convince the people of Sarawak and Sabah not to come to the conclusion that the Cobbold Commission was not a scam that took away the intrinsic rights of peoples of Sarawak and Sabah to determine the fate of their countries and to gain independence.  

Besides two books by Professor Michael Leigh, The Rising Moon and the other ones Deals, Datus And Dayaks, there are two other books that we all in Sarawak, need to read concerning the creation of Malaysia. These two books are one, by Dr Matthew Jones “Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia 1961-1965, Britain, the United States and the Creation of Malaysia (2001) and the other ones is by Dr Stanley S. Bedlington’s Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States (1978). 

Of course, the research work of AJ Stockwell and The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia 1945-1965 by Dr Greg Poulgrain are “goldmines” that we all Sarawakians should read to find out the secrets on how Malaysia was created.

Dr. Bedlington mentioned that “local leaders in Sabah and Sarawak reacted strongly and adversely” to the Malaysia Plan.

Dr. Bedlington also mentioned that the Cobbold Commission as a “British contrivance activated and organized by British officials.” He said that the “Commission was an Anglo-Malayan exercise was immediately obvious from the fact that it did not include a single Bornean representative.”

The Cobbold Commission did not conduct any referendum in either British North Borneo or Sarawak to measure objectively the wishes and inclinations of the people on the issue of the “Malaysia” merger to assist in its enquiry. Bedlington added that the population of the two States was subjected to “sustained pressure” by British colonial officials to accept the merger. Records showed that those who opposed the Malaysia Plan were considered “subversives” and were arrested, assaulted and battered and many for fear of arrest and physical injuries had to run away and hid in the forests and took arms to resist their arrests. Many were branded as communists and terrorists and were shot dead. Those who are still alive said that they were forced by circumstances to join the clandestine organisation in their struggles to fight against Malaysia Plan.

Matthew Jones in his book noted that the Governors of the two crown colonies were sceptical of the Commission, with Governor Goode of British North Borneo calling the exercise “a farce’.

Therefore, it is clear that the true wishes of the majority of the populations of the two Borneo territories were seriously subverted, if not deliberately misconstrued and ignored. The voices of opposition to the merger were traduced. 

Surprising facts that have been censored or hidden from the public all these years, were revealed by Dr Greg Poulgrain, and, in the process, cast the whole project of Malaysia itself in a fundamentally different light. Poulgrain was able to combine archival research at the Colonial Office, U.K. with interviews of surviving protagonists of the formative era of Malaysia who had played various roles in that period, thereby challenging the conventional version of the formation of Malaysia. 

Poulgrain referred to a classified Colonial Office paper, “Political Objectives in British Territories of South East Asia” of 10th March, 1953, reveals that the British government (Her Majesty’s Government, or HMG) was “engaging in deliberate deception” for, while paying lip service to the Third Rajah’s aspiration for self-government for Sarawak which is embodied in the preamble to the 1941 Sarawak Constitution, Her Majesty’s Government was already planning for “some form of constitutional association” for the Borneo Territories and the Malaya/Singapore bloc coming together as a “British South-East Asia Dominion” in the early fifties. 

Commissioner-General Malcolm MacDonald On April 2, 1955, informed the British Secretary for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, that “the Bornean leaders are perhaps less aware than those in Malaya of our grand design.” 

Despite that, Alan Lennox-Boyd on November 29, 1956, informed the Governor of North Borneo, Sir Roland Turnbull, “The possibility of a federation of North Borneo and Sarawak and indeed of all three Borneo territories ... is a matter for the people of the territories themselves to decide.” It was noted by Poulgrain that, at no time did Her Majesty’s Government envisage self-government by the people of Sarawak. 

However, it must be noted that the colonial officers in the two territories were initially adverse to the idea of a merger of the Borneo states with Malaya and Singapore which they considered premature. 

More concerned with their populations of different ethnicities living in harmony, they had in mind a more gradual move towards independence with the possibility of first forming a Borneon federation before a merger with their more politically savvy neighbours across the South China Sea, Malaya and Singapore. The “Borneo Proposal” was put forward in 1958, but, as Poulgrain notes, it was already foreshadowed by the 1953 paper. The Borneon proposal was in fact disparaged by the noted historian on South East Asian history, K.J. Tregonning as “a disguised MI5 exercise”. 

Despite that, it is still widely believed and propagated that the proposal for the “Malaysia” merger with the Borneo territories was made by then Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on May 27, 1961, to the Foreign Correspondents’ Association Club in Singapore. The British allowed Tunku take the credit for what was in fact the British brainchild, given the potential of the material benefits at stake for Britain. 

It may be noted here that after the war, British interests in Malaya in the form of investments exceeded those that they had in India and the revenue from rubber and tin was sorely needed for post-war debt payment and reconstruction. The financial stake in having a peaceful merger of the Borneo territories and Singapore with Malaya was, therefore, huge. 

Lee Kuan Yew, having been elected the Prime Minister of Singapore, then assisted the British to push forward the idea of Malaysia, while at the same time, consolidating his own party’s position against that of the Barisan Socialis [Socialist Front] whom he characterised, together with the Chinese opposition in Sarawak, as having been directed to oppose the Malaysia plan by outside powers, namely, Indonesia and China. Lee between September 13 and October 9, 1961, made twelve radio broadcasts (published as The Battle for Merger) in favour of the merger. It seemed that Lee Kuan Yew had his own political agenda to have Malaysia formed.

The research work by Poulgrain, however, pointed to that the primary purpose for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity, even though much was made in the press then and in the mainstream books since of the Tunku’s insistence in having the Borneo colonies aboard in order to balance out the large Chinese population in Singapore with the indigenous populations in the Borneo territories. 

The interviews by Poulgrain’s in 1991 with both Captain D.R. Gribble, and Captain Albert Young confirmed that the huge oilfield was known to the authorities in 1958, years before its “official discovery” in 1963. 

The British at that time were prepared to surrender the oil in Sarawak territory 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”. 

Poulgrain inexplicably added that it is “noteworthy” that the Governor could admit that Malaya had “imperialistic design” on the Borneo territories, and then to treat this as a reason for merger. 

It is also noted that Tunku Abdul Rahman in a series of conversations with Abdullah Ahmad, which was later published in 2016 in a book entitled, Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman candidly admitted thus: 

“Yes and they [the British] gave us Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore and so many other things in 1963 [with the formation of Malaysia]. The British could have given Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak independence, but they did not. Instead, they handed them to us”.

That’s how Cobbold Commission was used by the British to deny Sarawak the right to independence and to allow, in the words of, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to be handed to Malaya. From the words of Tunku Abdul Rahman, it should be clear to Sarawakians that 22 July is not Sarawak Independence Day as Sarawak had never been granted independence but was given to Malaya by the British.  

It was all because of empty spaces, potential wealth and oil that made Sarawak now be part or an enlarged Federation of Malaya, renamed the Federation of Malaysia. Therefore, the Federation of Malaysia is not a new federation or country. This new name was conveyed to the United Nations Secretariat by Dato’ Ong Yoke Lin of Malaya after Malaysia Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak became part of the federation of Malaya effective 16 September, 1963 by way of Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The people of Sarawak needs to know the Truth because it is the Truty that sets us free. May God Bless this Land of Sarawak and her people. 

VOON LEE SHAN

President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang

26 September, 2024

Demand for 45%of federal seats allocation or secede for good

No, Dewan Negara has no veto power, No! 

Sarawak and Sabah should demand 45% federal seats allocation or secede for good.

It is meaningless to stay in the federation of Malaysia @Malaya when Sarawak and Sabah are at the mercy of the colonial masters.

Malaysia @Malaya is a federation with 3 nations. Thus,it is blatantly irrational to take it as an entity to practise one person one vote in the election.

The present parliament has been meant for Malaya, not the right place for Sarawak and Sabah.

Bear in mind that Sarawak and Sabah joined the federation with Malaya, not with the 11 states.

The present parliament is over populated with the representatives from the 11 states of Malaya as against the principle of equal partnership.

No, SS should not be in this parliament meant for the federation of Malaya.

No, it is not appropriate for SS to be in this parliament, No!

SS really looks awkward in this parliament.

If you think this arrangement of federal seats allocation is not fair, Malaya @Malaysia can also opt for secession for good, why not?

Prof James Chin rejects NGO suggestion that Sabah and Sarawak be given 1/3 of the seats in Dewan Negara September 16, 2024

 

 KOTA KINABAlU: James Chin have rejected Project SAMA’s and other Malayan- based NGOs’ suggestion that Sabah and Sarawak should be allocated 35% of the seats in Dewan Negara rather than Dewan Rayat.

 

He said this proposition is yet another evidence of Malaya-based organisations’ lack of understanding of the Borneo states’ historical grievances and claim to one-third of parliament seats in both Houses.

 

According to Prof James Chin, the leading scholar of contemporary Sabah and Sarawak, there are numerous reasons why Sabah and Sarawak should reject the Dewan Negara proposal, which he describes as a “trick” to maintain the status quo. He provided five key reasons why the Borneo states must reject the suggestions and insist on 1/3 seats in both House of Parliament.

 

First, the Dewan Negara has minimal political legitimacy in Malaysian politics because it is a totally appointed House.  Its members are not directly elected by the populace.

 

That is why, for many years, debates in the Dewan Negara have received less attention than those in the Dewan Rakyat. Furthermore, many of individuals nominated to Dewan Negara are viewed as ‘reward’ for post-political service.

Hence the significant number of retired politicians in the Dewan Negara.

 

Second, all major legislations are introduced in the Dewan Rakyat, where the actual discussion occurs. The Dewan Negara only debates laws enacted by the Dewan Rakyat and hence lacks the legislative authority to block significant bills.

 

Third, all major political players, including the prime minister, his deputies, and the majority of ministries, are from the Dewan Rakyat. Ministers from Dewan Negara are commonly regarded as “backdoor” ministers because they are appointed to the Dewan Negara in order to serve as ministers. This alone demonstrates that the political establishment views the Dewan Rakyat as more significant than the Dewan Negara.

 

Fourth, in practice, the Dewan Negara has no real power to block laws other than to delay them. The one-third seats are designed to restore Sabah and Sarawak’s ability to block constitutional amendments if they disagree with Malaya.

 

Fifth, it is clear that the original intention of the framers of the Constitution wanted Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak to hold a veto over Malaya. This is to ensure that Malaya cannot alter the Federal constitution at will.

 

Under para 19 of the IGC report it states:

Federal Legislature
(1) Two members of the Senate should be elected for each Borneo State in accordance with Article 45 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Article 45 (1) (b) of the Constitution should be amended to increase the number of appointed members of the Senate by six in respect of the accession of North Borneo and Sarawak to Malaysia.

 

 An assurance should be given that, on the occasion of the first appointments of these additional members after Malaysia Day, at least two would be appointed from North Borneo and at least two from Sarawak after consultation with the Chief Minister of the State concerned.

 

(2) Article 46 (1) should be amended to increase the number of elected members of the House of Representatives from one hundred and four to one hundred and fifty-nine (including the fifteen proposed for Singapore). Of the additional members sixteen should be elected in North Borneo and twenty-four in Sarawak.

 

The proportion that the number of seats allocated respectively to Sarawak and to North Borneo bears to the total number of seats in the House should not be reduced (except by reason of the granting of seats to any other new State) during a period of seven years after Malaysia Day without the concurrence of the Government of the State concerned, and thereafter (except as aforesaid) shall be subject to Article 159 (3) of the existing Federal Constitution (which requires Bills making amendments to the Constitution to be supported in each House of Parliament by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of that House).

Under The Malaysia Agreement 1963, Chapter 3 para 9, it states:

(i) The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty-nine elected members.
(2) There shall be—
(a) one hundred and four member from the States of Malaya ;

(b) sixteen members from Sabah ;
(c) twenty-four members from Sarawak ;
(d) fifteen members from Singapore.

 

It was clear that Singapore, (Sabah) North Borneo and Sarawak did not want Malaya to dominate Parliament in respect of Constitutional amendments. In the MSCC notes and Cobbold Report, it was made clear that the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak was of the view that Malaya should not dominate the new federation.

Thus, under the formula, the parliamentary seats in the proposed Malaysian Federation was distributed to ensure that Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak had veto power by ensuring that they had slightly more than one third of the seats in Parliament.
Malaya: 104; Sabah: 16; Sarawak: 24 and Singapore: 15

104 : 55 ------à  65% : 35%

 

When Singapore left the Federation in 1965, its 15 Parliamentary seats out of the 159 were not redistributed to Sarawak or Sabah. This was a historical error that needs to be rectified. As time went by, the number of Parliamentary seats of Malaya grew to more than two third of the total Malaysia Parliament seats.

Prof Chin hopes that the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak understands the proper context of asking for 1/3 of the seats in Parliament and not be fooled by NGOs in Malaya who have their own agenda.

Prof James Chin is the leading authority of political developments in Sabah and Sarawak and the most cited-scholar on East Malaysian politics. A Sarawakian, he is currently a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia.

 

去年2023年砂石油天然气的收入是100亿令吉

去年2023,砂就从石油天然气的销售税，开采税和股息来自Petronas在砂拉越的经济活动中获得100亿令吉。

总理AbangJo就高兴到不得了。

如果，砂独立了，这些资源全留在砂发展，那会是怎样情形？在这失败的联邦内，咱们永远是面对超级大的亏本，何苦呢？

同胞们咱们一起勇敢的，全心全意支持独立派吧！

我好期待砂人都转向支持独立，一起创造砂拉越独立的奇迹和奇景。

Last year, Sarawak secured RM10 billion from oil and gas sales tax, royalties and dividends from Petronas’ economic activities in Sarawak.

Prime Minister AbangJo was extremely happy.

What would happen if Sarawak became independent and all these resources remained in Sarawak for development? In this failed federation, we will always face huge losses, so why bother?

Fellow compatriots, together let us be brave and support the independence faction wholeheartedly!

I really hope that Sarawakians will turn to support independence and work together to create the miracle and wonder of Sarawak’s independence.

Politics and laws

*Politics & Law*

Politics and law are like a web. They entangled with each other and not separable.

We need to be more sensitive about bad things politics can cause to society and we should not lost focus about the damage politics can cause to society and to Sarawak.

We cannot look at the law without understanding how politics can influence law to destroy our society. 

PDA74 is a product of politics to rob, steal and kill the wellbeing of Sabah and Sarawak.

 Since it is politics that caused PDA74 being passed by the federal Parliament, we should not think PDA74 could no more be valid just because the emergency has been lifted. 

This is because Parliament under the control of Malaya may not wish to remove or repeal PDA74 

Our argument that PDA74 is automatically repealed when emergency is lifted is a sound argument but could not buy the court. This is because the judiciary is controlled by Malaya and Malaya has to ensure they are in control of the judiciary and the judges.

Therefore, if PETRONAS is to bring a suit to court, the suit can seal that fate of Sarawak and Sabah in the coffin about the taking back of the oil and gas resources if the court rules that PDA74 is valid and MA63 is also valid. It is very likely that the court may rule in favour of PETRONAS because it is unthinkable that the court would wish to see Malaya to become a bankrupt. This is because most if not all people know that Malaya can be in financial problems without the money from oil and gas resources of Sabah and Sarawak. This can be politics involving the judiciary where law can be disregarded and court come with policy decisions to save Malaysia or Malaya from bankruptcy.

It can be politics at work in court too and it was for this reason we decided not to appeal against the decision of the High Court in our PBK suit because to appeal can destroy our mission to gain independence. 

But the judgment of the high court gave us the strategies on how we can fight for independence from Malaysia in the future. 

The court hinted that only the state government has the locus standi or stand to bring suits including declaring MA63 invalid and to seek Sarawak independence through the court, but we will not pursue this line of strategy to exit by using the court because we know we cannot get what we want through the court.

 If Sarawak wants exit, PBK has to be the state government. Once PBK is the state government, PBK has to follow Singapore's strategy to exit. That is, to use politics to create problems to federal government by demanding certain terms to be fulfilled within a time frame. We need to give terms that could not be fulfilled by Malaya and once terms could not be fulfilled, Sarawak under PBK should declare exit from Malaysia. This should be a legal and peaceful exit by avoiding bloodshed but by way of politics and political strategies like how Singapore did.

Voon Lee Shan 

10 September 2024

Revised 2010 hrs 11/09

*為什麼我們有合法權利為砂拉越尋求獨立* ？

 自 1974 年起，魔術就開始了！ 馬來亚人利用他們的政治技巧克服所有法律障礙，吞併砂拉越和沙巴作為他們的領土。

 我們必須指出，馬來亞是自 1962 年起進入緊急狀態，這違反了聯合國非殖民化法律，並一直保持額外的緊急狀態聲明，直到 2011 年全部解除。

 換句話說，1963年後在砂勞越和沙巴實施的整個法律和結構都是非法的。 

 *也就是說，馬來西亞是一個國家，在事实上由馬來亞軍事佔領沙巴和砂拉越並從 1963 年開始鎮壓獨立運動。

 這不需要法庭來確認。 緊急状态是事實，馬來亞巫統政府承認某些法律不符合憲法和約束力，但它們方便地排除了 1966 年大陸架法案（CSA66）、1974 年石油發展法案（PDA74）和新經濟政策（新經濟政策）結構。 

 僅此一點就使馬來亞根據馬來西亞計劃進行的接管是非法的，因為顯然人民從未同意這樣做。 

 這也是MA63無效的三大法律原因之一。 另外兩個問題是新加坡、沙巴和砂勞越（SSS）缺乏簽署MA63的法定地位，以及作為英國冷戰軍事戰略的一部分而將新加坡留在馬來西亞的非法目標。 

 國際法院 (lCJ) 在 2019 年查戈斯群島案中也處理了這 3 點。

 PBK將繼續為砂拉越獨立而戰，因為我們現在都知道馬來西亞不是根據既定的國際法和協議成立的，並且將砂拉越收購為馬來亞的一部分是非法的，因為它違背了人民的意願由於欺騙、恐嚇、騷擾、脅迫、賄賂、欺騙、扭曲事實和許多不正當手段。

 PBK 將繼續以合法和和平的方式爭取砂拉越脫離馬來西亞。

 第一步將是成為砂拉越政府，我們需要告訴我們的人民這個過程，然後我們才能執行其他策略來獲得獨立。

 上苍拯救 PBK，上苍拯救砂拉越！

 *温利山* 

 *肯雅蘭全民黨* 

 2024 年 9 月 11 日

评黄进发的“不能给东马35%议席论”

评黄进发的“不能给东马35%议席论”

（18-09-2024）

近日时事报导说，

黄进发不同意给让东马有35%，因为那将会留下后患。

黄进发认为，最近东马要求在国会下议院要有35%的国会议席，会造成；只有1/6选民的东马，再加上16%的西马，他们就能以少数人组成多数政府的局面，使政府出现动荡。他还引用某些例子以证明他是对的。

黄进发先生闭口不谈英国伙同马来亚炮制“大马”时的『平等伙伴』承诺，及和《MA63》一起的，包含35%国会议席保障协议。

然而，61年来，某联邦执政当局不断修改宪法，侵蚀沙巴砂拉越权益，而国会议席也从第一次国会的占35%，递减到现在的25%。这期间，沙巴砂拉越许许多多重大权益被剥夺，连原本100%拥有的油气资源收益，变成只有5%。甚至，通过修改宪法，把沙巴砂拉越降格成第12、第13州。

君不见？昌明政府首相安華於 2023 年 10 月 13 日公佈的 《2024 年國家預算案》，僅將國家發展支出的 6.4% 分配給砂拉越，將 7.3% 分配給沙巴。

而馬來亞，却獲得86.3%。

众所周知，马来亚面积130590平方公里，砂勞越和沙巴的土地面積合計200213平方公里，佔馬來西亞（330803平方公里）的>60%，但它們的撥款僅佔國家發展開支的13.7%。

 馬來亞的土地面積僅佔馬來西亞的<40%，卻分配了國家86.3%的發展開支。

还有许许多多......，一言难尽，馨竹难书。

如今，沙巴砂拉越朝野一致强烈要求恢复拥有35%国会议席的目的就是为了纠正和防止历史悲哀的延续，这有错吗？

姑且不论充满争议的《MA63》的签署是否有效，仅是坚决要求恢复保障权益规定的35%国会议席，相关方面为何迟迟不答应？

当前的时局发展已经是到了要求联邦当局纠正错误，恢复沙巴和砂拉越35%国会议席的时候了，是爱护沙巴和砂拉越人们践行历史责任的时候了，让我们大家都一起继续努力！余清禄

Secure revenue with laws

Malaysia

Secure revenue with laws, Sarawak lawyer tells Sabah ahead of MA63 meeting

Legal counsel says state should not get caught up in negotiations over unfulfilled rights.

Updated 9 hours ago · Published on 12 Sep 2024 7:00AM

SABAH should not get caught up in negotiations over the return of eroded and unfulfilled rights, but instead, focus on utilising the existing legal framework to claim what is rightfully theirs, said Sarawak government's special legal counsel, J.C. Fong.

Malaysia

Secure revenue with laws, Sarawak lawyer tells Sabah ahead of MA63 meeting

Legal counsel says state should not get caught up in negotiations over unfulfilled rights.

Updated 9 hours ago · Published on 12 Sep 2024 7:00AM

19

Shares

facebook sharing buttontwitter sharing buttonemail sharing buttonwhatsapp sharing buttonwechat sharing buttonprint sharing button

Secure revenue with laws, Sarawak lawyer tells Sabah ahead of MA63 meeting

The Sarawak government's special legal counsel J.C. Fong says Sabah should explore ways to secure its revenue within the existing legal framework. - Bintulu Port website pic, September 12, 2024.

by Desmond Davidson

SABAH should not get caught up in negotiations over the return of eroded and unfulfilled rights, but instead, focus on utilising the existing legal framework to claim what is rightfully theirs, said Sarawak government's special legal counsel, J.C. Fong.

Speaking at a recent symposium, Fong highlighted that both Sabah and Sarawak have been engaged in negotiations with Putrajaya for years, with many issues still unresolved.

"Don't be dragged down by negotiations. While discussions may continue, it is essential to explore ways to secure your revenue within the existing legal framework," he advised.

How much of Fong’s advice will influence Sabah’s approach may be revealed at today’s Malaysia Agreement 1963 Implementation Action Council (MTPMA63) meeting in Kota Kinabalu.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim arrived in the Sabah capital yesterday ahead of Malaysia Day and is expected to bring notable progress on MA63. He will chair the MTPMA63 meeting today, where Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor and Sarawak Premier Tan Sri Abang Johari Openg will be in attendance.

Both states are advocating for greater autonomy and financial entitlements from Putrajaya. While some aspects of the agreement have been fulfilled under Anwar’s administration, MA63 remains a key issue for Sabahans and Sarawakians in their dealings with the federal government.

A major concern for Sabah, which is expected to be raised during negotiations, is the state’s entitlement to 40% of the revenue collected by the federal government within Sabah. Under MA63 and Article 112C and Part IV of the Tenth Schedule of the federal constitution, the federal government is supposed to return 40% of the revenue it collects in the state.

This provision was intended to ensure a fair distribution of resources, allowing Sabah to benefit from its wealth and support its development.

Fong, who advises the Sarawak government on constitutional, administrative, and legal matters related to Sarawak's rights and autonomy within Malaysia, encouraged Sabah to seek ways to compel the federal government to comply with state laws and the constitution.

"They (the federal government) cannot stop you if you're demanding compliance with the law or the constitution," he said, referencing Sarawak’s success in asserting its rights over oil and gas resources. For example, in January 2019, Sarawak imposed a 5% state sales tax (SST) on petroleum products, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), crude oil, and condensates.

This measure allowed Sarawak to claim a larger share of the revenue from oil and gas extraction and export.

Fong also pointed out the importance of financial autonomy, stating that without sufficient funds, states remain dependent on Putrajaya.

“If you have no money, you are nothing. You will still be under some form of colonisation. To build a road or a bridge, you have to go to Putrajaya to ask for money, and they might refuse or give you less than what you need.”

Fong suggested that Sabah explore the Labuan Act 1990 to determine if there is any special provision regarding oil and gas. "Since Sabah’s oil and gas industry is centred around Labuan, there may be legal grounds to argue that the island should be considered part of Sabah under the Petroleum Development Act 1974."

In Sarawak's case, the state asserted its rights under the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958, a law specific to Sarawak that regulates the exploration and extraction of oil and gas within the state’s boundaries. This ordinance requires companies, including Petronas, to obtain licences from the Sarawak government to operate.

“We told them (Petronas and Putrajaya) we are taking back onshore mining and must be allowed to farm in offshore oil fields,” Fong explained. He added that the continental shelf off Sarawak, a disputed area, is considered state land under Article 95D of the federal constitution.

The Territorial Sea Act 2012, which limits the authority of Sabah and Sarawak to a mere three nautical miles from the coast, violates the pre-Malaysia 1954 Order in Council by Queen Elizabeth, which extended the boundaries of Sabah and Sarawak to cover the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf.

Fong argued that Petronas and the federal government cannot apply the Petroleum Development Act on the continental shelf, as it is within state territory.

In Section 2 of the Petroleum Development Act, Fong noted, only the rights to petroleum are vested in Petronas, not the land itself.

“That is how Sarawak asserted its rights and curtailed Petronas’ activities. Now, we are involved in both offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration, and they cannot stop us.” – September 12, 2024.

End 61 years of humiliation in Malaysia

END 61 YEARS OF HUMILIATION IN MALAYSIA

Upholding Secularism and Justice: A Call for the Protection of Sabah and Sarawak’s Rights or the Pursuit of Independence.

Sep 5

 

Joint Press Statement 5th September 2024

We, as activists from the Borneo Territories, are compelled to express our deep concerns over the current direction of the Federation of Malaysia. The democratic principles and the concept of a secular and multicultural union of four equal partners—Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak—which were held up as the founding terms of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63 if valid), have been systematically violated and destroyed. It began before and after Singapore left the union in 1965, leading to what is now seen as 61 years of humiliation under the euphemism of “independence in Malaysia” with Malayan central control. This has raised questions on the legitimacy of Malaysia formation and MA63 validity and unresolved issue of the Philippines’ claim on a part of Sabah..

We assert that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the international treaty that purportedly established Malaysia, was invalid from its inception. North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak were, at the time, still British crown colonies and not sovereign, independent states with the legal capacity to enter into binding international agreements. Thus, they were effectively ceded by the United Kingdom to the Malayan Federation on 16 September 1963.

It is a historical fact that Malaysia was prematurely proclaimed as a de facto federation under a state of emergency, without the informed consent of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak and in breach of the Manila Accord 1963 to resolve the Philippines claim on Sabah. This process was inconsistent with their right to exercise self-determination freely. The federation was pushed through amidst mass arrests of thousands who were allegedly opposed to the plan in the context of ongoing warfare and civil unrest.

61 years after the event, the Federation has floundered and failed in its goal for a peaceful and progressive democratic union by alteration of its fundamental and foundational concept and principles, corroded by deep corruption and the plunder and impoverishment of the Borneo territories.

We therefore assert that even if MA63 was not invalid, it has been terminated and no longer binding on the remaining 3 component members by the following violations:

1. Betrayal of MA63’s Founding Principles

The Malaysia Agreement, which promised a Malaysia grounded in secularism and multiculturalism and development for Sabah and Sarawak, has been corroded by increasingly exclusionary and Malay-centric policies. These violations betray the promises of MA63 and guaranteed special rights which were used by the British and Malayan governments to induce the Borneo people of the diverse communities to give up real independence for “independence in Malaysia”. This deviation from foundational values is not just a breach of the MA63 covenant but a profound injustice against the Sabah and Sarawak people.

2. Systematic Marginalization and Alienation

The apartheid-like policies emanating from the federal government since institutionalisation of the New Economic Policy (NEP) have fostered a deep sense of estrangement among the people of Sabah and Sarawak This growing alienation is a reality echoed by political leaders who see their communities being marginalized and their voices silenced. The disregard for the rights and dignity of these communities is a stark reminder of the injustices perpetuated under the guise of national unity.

3. Cultural Dominance and Suppression

The Peninsula’s imposition of a narrow, ideology-driven cultural hegemony threatens to suffocate the rich multiculturalism that Project Malaysia was supposed to celebrate. The federal government’s relentless push for Malay-centric policies, including Bumiputera initiatives and a civil service aligned with the "Malay agenda," is a form of cultural suppression that stifles the diverse identities that is supposed to make up Malaysia. This cultural domination is an affront to the principles of freedom and justice enshrined by the 1945 UN Charter of Human Rights.

4. Ideological Overreach and Religious Imposition

The people of Sabah and Sarawak view that the Federation of Malaya increasingly resembles an ideological state intent on imposing its version of religion and social order. This imposition is a severe violation of their human rights. It unjustly infringes upon their right to live in accordance with their own values and beliefs, and it undermines the commitment to a secular state that was originally promised.

5. Ignoring Local Voices and Rights

The dominance of peninsula-based political parties has consistently sidelined the unique needs and voices of Sabah and Sarawak. Historical grievances, such as the manipulation of Sabah's demographics and the undermining of local political agreements, have only deepened the sense of injustice felt by these communities. The systematic disregard for their autonomy and rights is a clear violation of the principles of justice and fairness.

6. Erosion of Constitutional Safeguards

Despite recent attempts to realign the constitutional status of Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak, the centralist tendencies of Putrajaya continue to weaken the original agreement, putting the integrity of the federation at risk. This erosion of constitutional safeguards is not just a political issue but a grave injustice that threatens the rights and freedoms of the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

7. Exploitation of Resources for Oppression

The wealth generated from Sabah and Sarawak’s oil and gas resources has been expropriated to develop Malaya and fuel the Putrajaya race-religion agenda, making the injustice even more painful and bitter to endure. This exploitation is a clear violation of the economic rights of the people of Sabah and Sarawak, contributing to their deep-seated resentment and desire for change.

8. Rejection of JAKIM’s Overreach

We unequivocally reject the imposition of JAKIM’s influence in the former British Borneo Territories. This intrusion represents an unconstitutional and egregious assault on the secular values and cultural autonomy cherished by the indigenous ethnic tribes of Borneo. The imposition of extreme interpretations of religion under the guise of governance is a direct attack on the freedom and rights of the people of Sabah and Sarawak, which we, as activists, cannot and will not tolerate.

A Call to Action: END 61 YEARS OF HUMILIATION!

We call for an end to 61 years of humiliation in Malaysia. The ongoing and abusive violations of the principles enshrined in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), coupled with the rise of the Ketuanan Melayu ideology, have irreparably fractured the concept of Malaysia. The federal government continued to disregard the autonomy and rights of Sabah and Sarawak has compelled us to call for peaceful negotiations for separation from the federation and independence.

This is not a decision we make lightly, but the preservation of secularism, multiculturalism, and the rule of law is non-negotiable. The manner in which Malaysia has been governed has proven that it is a federation that fails to respect the rights and freedoms of all its people, without exception.

It is with a profound sense of the loss of control over our destiny that we arrive at this critical juncture. The pursuit of justice, freedom, and dignity for the people of Sabah and Sarawak leaves us with no other viable path. Independence is now our only option to secure the future our people deserve. Independence is our inalienable right!

Relevant information 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/malaysia-sabah-sarawak-ma63-safeguards-demands-anwar-4571486

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

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

Peter John Jaban -Publicity and information Chief Sarawak Association for People's Aspirations (SAPA)

Dr Kanul Gindol - Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo 

Ricky Ganang - Penasihat Forum Adat Dataran Tanah Tinggi Borneo (FORMADAT)

Jovilis Majami - President Persatuan pembangunan sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)

Moses Anap - President Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

CLEFTUS STEPHEN MOJINGOL - PRESIDENT PERTUBUHAN KEBAJIKAN RUMPUN DAYAK SABAH

Why we have the legal right to pursue independence for Sarawak

*Why we have the legal right to pursue independence for Sarawak?*

Magic was done since 1974! Malayans use their political skills to overcome all legal obstacles to annex Sarawak and Sabah as their territories.

We must note that Malaysia was set up under the State of Emergency (from 1962) in contravention of UN decolonisation laws and maintained with additional emergency declarations till all were lifted in 2011.

In other words, the entire set-up with its post-1963 laws and structures enforced in Sarawak and Sabah was illegal. 

*That is Malaysia is a de facto state enforced by the Malayan military occupation of Sarawak and suppression of the independence movement from 1963.*

This does not need a court of law to confirm. The emergency was a fact and it was acknowledged by the Malayan UMNO gov't that certain laws were not constitutional and binding but they have conveniently excluded the Continental Shelf Act 1966(CSA66), Petroleum Development Act 1974(PDA74) and the New Economic Policy (NEP) structures. 

This alone renders the Malayan takeover under the Malaysia Plan as illegal as clearly the people never gave consent to this. 

It is also one of the three legal reasons for MA63 invalidity. The other two are the lack of Singapore ,Sabah and Sarawak (SSS) legal capacity to sign MA63 and the illegal objective of maintaining S'pore in Malaysia as part of the British Cold War military strategy. 

All 3 points were also dealt with by the International Court of Justice (lCJ) in the Chagos Islands case 2019.

PBK on its part shall continue to fight for Sarawak independence as we all now know that Malaysia was not formed in accordance with established international law and protocols and that the acquisition of Sarawak as part of Malaya was illegal as it was against the will of the people due to deception, intimidation, harassment, duress, bribery, cheating, misrepresentation and many under hand tactics.

PBK will fight on with legal and with peaceful means to get Sarawak out of Malaysia.

The first step will be to be the government of Sarawak and we need to tell our people of this process before we can be able to execute other strategies to gain independence.

God saves PBK, God saves Sarawak!

VOON LEE SHAN 

Parti Bumi Kenyalang 

11 September 2024

Necessary amendments on the Territorial Sea,EEZ and Continental Shelf of SS

Necessary amendments on the Territorial Sea, EEZ and Continental Shelf of Sarawak and Sabah

By Alex Ling on April 7, 2019, Sunday 

WHY did the federal government want to reduce the 12 nautical miles of the Territorial Seas of Sarawak and Sabah to 3 nautical miles even though protected by 7FCs, 7PMs and UNCLOS 1982?

The federal government wanted desperately the O&G, minerals and fisheries even from 3 to 12 nautical miles, not satisfied with the 200 nautical miles of erroneous imposition of its purported rights of the Exclusive Economic Zones (“EEZ”) under the federal imperium which has only sovereignty between nations, administrative control and duty to protect the Territorial Seas of the Coastal Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak (“CSOSS”). On grounds of national interest, even knowing the void and illegal PDA1974 and similar status for the vesting instrument and Oil Agreement dated 27th March 1975, PM Tun Razak still needed and wanted the sole licensing rights and 80 per cent of the O&G of Sarawak and Sabah to fulfil his vision of the Rostov-take-off of Malaysia’s economy, to transform the rustic Peninsula Malaysia to a modern Third World Country and the financial obligations of MA1963 for the Borneo States by Petronas. But unfortunately, it was at the expense of the Borneo States, as explained in Part III already with oil rocketed 3 folds due to OPEC and projected 18 folds later.

The Territorial Sea, EEZ and the Continental Shelf of the CSOSS have to be redefined, incorporated or amended similar to some countries with international boundaries in the FC, as shown in the map attached with different and delineated colours. The CSOSS would have a definite meaning under the International Conventions, eg under the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea 1982, (UNCLOS).

Articles 1 and 2 of the FC with the EEZ Act 1984, Fisheries Act 1985 passed right after UNCLOS 1982 and Territorial Sea Act 2012 (“TSA 2012”) must be amended together. (A) Territorial Sea

So, the Territorial Seas of the CSOSS have to be defined and incorporated in the new Article 2 A(I) of the Federal Constitution (“FC”), if thought fit, as follows :

“The breath of the territorial sea of the CSOSS shall be to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with Article 3 Section 2 Part II of the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea 1982, III ratified by Malaysia and entered into force on 14th November, 1996.” (“UNCLOS 1982”).

Thus, the Territorial Sea Act 2012 (“TSA 2012”) shall be amended by incorporating the new Article I(3), if thought fit, to read as follows :

I(3) This Act shall not be applicable to the Coastal Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak.” TSA2012 was in breach of that Article 3 of UNCLOS 1982, Sarawak Land Code 1958, Sabah Land Ordinance and Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 now the OM(A)O 2018 amended under Article 162(2) of the FC, 7FCs, 7PMs and UNCLOS 1982. The 3 nautical miles of territorial sea is applicable only to the states of Malaya.

Under international law, the federal government of Malaysia with imperium has the sovereign right and equally the duty between nations to control the navigation and to protect the safety and security, environmental control and export of O&G under Item 8(j) of the Federal List I, subject to Item 2(c) in the State List of Sarawak and Sabah with the exclusive dominions and rights to issue PSCs or licences under their respective oil and gas stretching from onland to 350 nautical miles offshore in their respective continental shelf reinforced by Items 2(a) on land and 2(d) with no compulsory acquisition by the federal government, fortified by Articles 76(4) and 95(d) of the FCs.

But the federal imperium which cannot be superimposed on the protective municipal laws of the CSOSS does not confer any right on the O&G and minerals within that 9 nautical mile nor the 12 nautical miles from the baselines of Sabah and Sarawak nor within their 200 nautical miles of their respective EEZ nor within their respective continental shelf of 360 nautical miles which would cover their respective Territorial Seas of 12 nautical meters miles, the contiguous zone and 200 nautical miles of EEZ already.

The dominions of CSOSS are further safeguarded by the 7FCs and 7PMs while Article 13 of the FC on compulsory acquisition of O&G would only be applicable to the states of Malaya.

Act 354 must be repealed. The original Article I of the FC can only be restored or amended by amending Article 4 of the Malaysia Bill first by the legislative councils of the Borneo States under the second-tier of entrenched FC’s provisions, explained in Part I(A), except on Article 1(2)(b) it shall be “Sabah and Sarawak, the Borneo States or Territories.” On Article 1(2)(c), Singapore must be deleted. To restore only Article 1 is inadequate and incomplete. Still, the Borneo States cannot be equal partners with or of the federal government. Please see Part V.

(B) O&G under the respective continental shelf of Sabah and Sarawak are under their dominions

A new Article 2A(2) of the FC on the continental shelf, if thought fit, shall be incorporated to prevent confusion on the dominions of the CSOSS on their O&G within their 350 nautical miles while the federal imperium only has the supervisory and administrative control under Item 8(j) mentioned above, but no powers to acquire rights, to license and own the oil and gas before and after Malaysia Day. PDA1974 is still unconstitutional, void and has illegally usurped and breached the 7PMs and 7FCs of the CSOSS and UNCLOS 1982.

The purported vesting instrument based on the void and illegal PDA1974 by YAB Tun Rahman on 27th April 1975, Sarawak’s Oil Agreement of the same date have been demonstrated to be void and illegal under the void Section 2(2) of PDA1974 with the Schedule used for the purported vested instrument annexed. There was also a fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment that would allow also recission of that vesting instrument. Tun Razak implored Tun Rahman to execute the purported vested instrument only to show to Tun Mustapha and Tun Fuad to convince them to amend Section 48 of the Sabah Land Ordinance from 99 years to perpetuity to be the same as Section 13(1)(a) of the Sarawak Land Code and no more. Both leaders of Sabah had refused to do so, as amplified in Part VI.

So, the new Article 2A(2) on the continental shelf of the CSOSS shall be incorporated, if thought fit, as follows :

“The continental shelf of the Coastal Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond their territorial seas throughout the natural prolongation of their respective land territories to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance. The fixed points comprising the line of the outer limits of the continental shelf on the seabed, either shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured or shall not exceed 100 nautical miles from the 2,500 metre isobaths which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 metres, as defined in Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea 1982.”

(C) Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1984 (Act 311) (“EEZA 1984”)

The 200 nautical miles of EEZ belongs to Sarawak and Sabah. Is that correct?

Yes. The EEZs of Sabah and Sarawak including their exclusive dominions and rights to issue licences on their oil and gas under Articles 4 and 5 of EEZ Act 1984 shall be amended and incorporated as the new Article 2A(3), if thought fit, as follows :

“The Exclusive Economic Zones of the Coastal Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak are areas of 200 nautical miles from the baselines beyond and adjacent to their respective territorial seas of the contiguous zone, subject to the specific legal regime established in Part V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 under which the rights and jurisdiction of these Coastal Borneo States are governed by the relevant provisions of the said convention.”

As the EEZ Act 1984 was deliberately passed after UNCLOS 1982, therefore the federal government would have to amend it with the following proviso in Article I(1) of the EEZ Act 1984, if thought fit, as follows :

“This Act may be cited as the Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1984 and shall apply only to the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the states of Malaya, but not to the Coastal Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak.”

A new Article I(2) of the PDA1974 shall be inserted similarly, already done in Part II.

Article I(2) of EEZ Act 1984 needs to be deleted with reference to the repealed Continental Shelf Act 1966 in 2011.

The map showing the EEZ areas with 200 nautical miles of the Coastal Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak should be corrected in the EEZ map attached to the Fisheries Report of the federal government, namely the EEZ is respectively “of” not “off” Sabah and Sarawak, as shown in the map attached.

(D) Fisheries Act 1985 (AC 317)

Should Fisheries Act 1985 be amended? Yes, because they belong to the CSOSS. In line with the amendment and returning the rights on fisheries in the 200 nautical miles of EEZ of the CSOSS under Part V of the UNCLOS 1982 which was passed after MA1963, so the new definition needs to be incorporated in Article 1(1) of the Fisheries Act (FA 1985), if thought fit, to read as follows:

“This Act may be cited as the Fisheries Act 1985 and shall only be applicable to the fisheries in the Economic Exclusive Zone of the states of Malaya but not to the Exclusive Economic Zones of the Coastal Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak.” That should be amended along with the restoration, revision and reformation of MA1963 overdue since 1973.

Besides, Item 9(d) of the Federal List I should be amended, if thought fit, to read as follows:

“Maritime, fishing and fisheries, including turtles shall not be applicable to the Coastal Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak.”

Non-Negotiable Rights

What are the four non-negotiable rights of Sarawak under MA1963 stated by the Sarawak’s Chief Minister?

They are namely as follows:

Immigration, autonomy, “land” resources under Sarawak Land Code including oil, gas, minerals and fisheries and protection of misconceived territorial sea of the 12 nautical miles which was unconstitutionally reduced by federal imperium to 3 nautical miles under the Emergency Legislations No 7, 10, 11, Act 354, EEZ Act 1984 and TSA2012 related to the Territorial Sea and the untouchable dominion of the O&G of Sarawak from onland to its 350 nautical miles of continental shelf protected by the 7FCs, 7PMs and UNCLOS 1982. These were amplified in my previous articles of 21, 22 and 23 September 2018.

For the practical, legal and political solutions on grounds of national interests and service, if I may suggest, or our YAB Chief Minster would have considered this approach to overcome a more political than a legal impasse to resolve the real issues at hand with a degree of Sarawak’s magnanimity.

i. The federal government will have to honour their PH’s assurances under Article VIII of MA1963 to be implemented outside the constitution, not as mere political manifesto on the “20 per cent affordable royalty or equivalent state sale tax” on O&G and their by-products now and over the next few years under Item 7 Part V 10th Schedule expounded in my article of 11/11/18, Part I.

That would include the special grants due since the one payment of RM16 million (Escalation) in 1973. Hopefully, subsections (5) and (6) of Section 112D will not have to be triggered between the needs of Sarawak under MA1963 and the health of the Federal Treasury, requiring a final binding decision of an independent assessor.

ii. The federal government would have to honour and accept the dominions of the CSOSS on their O&G, minerals since the repeals of the Continental Shelf Act 1966, Petroleum Mining Act, Emergency Ordinance (No 7, 10, 11) and now on stipulating that the PDA1974, EEZ Act 1984, Fisheries Act 1985 and TSA2012 would not be applicable to the CSOSS.

iii. The reason for the additional 5 per cent oral and unofficial royalty for the development grant assured under Article VIII of MA1963 by Tun Razak was for Sarawak aborting the declaratory judgment on PDA1974 in the Privy Council, London as the quid pro quo, amplified in my article of Part III of 13th November 2018. That 5 per cent was paid out of the 10 per cent cash payment under Article 4 of PDA1974. That is enforceable also under Article 3(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties apart from the Customary International Law. Sarawak should have received double the royalty up to date. Only some small part payments of that unofficial 5 per cent royalty traceable have been made by the federal government out of the 10 per cent cash payment.

But because of the huge national debt of less than Rm1 trillion, this unofficial 5 per cent additional development grant/royalty shall be hugely discounted for federal’s benefit and replaced by new terms in this Settlement Agreement, namely after 20 per cent royalty state sale tax being imposed and received by Sarawak, 2.5 per cent more of the same state sale tax shall be imposed 3 years thereafter, with another 2.5 per cent after another 3 years later, totalling 25 per cent.

Twelve years from the receipts of payments of 20 per cent royalty or equivalent Sarawak shall only impose another 5 per cent, totalling 30 per cent of royalty or state sale tax with the final 5 per cent totalling 35 per cent for Sarawak 5 years thereafter before the O&G run dry earlier than expected with recovery of only 29 per cent for oil and 40 per cent for gas (boe) unknown to the public for reserves from P1 to P3.

iv.On the other hand, the Sarawak government/Petros shall irrevocably assign to the federal government the balance of all the revenues from the share profit of O&G or split barrels thereof from Sarawak/Petros to be accepted by the federal government and Petronas as the sole regulator and right to issue PSCs and other licences under 2(c) of the Ninth Schedule with the result that the federal and Petronas will still have 50 per cent to 55 per cent of the revenues from the 22 per cent tax with deductions, Petronas’s profits and the balance of the share profit or split barrels of O&G. Naturally, the federal government will need to fulfil the financial obligations overdue under MA1963 and restore autonomy too for CSOSS.

v. Petronas should assign all the carried interests between 10 per cent to 25 per cent in all, not many, the older generations of PSCs to Petros plus 2 per cent state equity cash flow as well in each of the PSC to Petros/Sarawak government. Petronas’s subsidiaries, Cari Karli and Vestigo Petroluem would be good partners and contractors, apart from local qualified companies with professional expertise, experience and capital, working transparently at all levels to prevent leakages and wastages.

So ultimately, the federal and Petronas will still be guaranteed to receive 50 per cent to 55 per cent of the revenues, while Petros will receive only 35 per cent royalty when amended or state sale tax equivalent in the legal and political settlement with a win-win formula. The final details can be ironed out. vi.No doubt, Petronas would also have to undertake to furnish all the financial accounts related to Sarawak’s operations, geological reserves, logging data with 3D interpretations, status of each PSC and expiring dates, sums and parts, all sales of O&G in real times and all data from the Data Room and setting up digital monitoring devices with CCTV on the pumps, AIS of the FPSO and others to prevent leakages and confirm the correct production records or sales in real times between Petronas and Petros and the contractors for DUN. Even the top management of Petronas similar to other “Seven Sisters” is never certain on all the offshore activities by remote control at present. Transparency encourages efficiency and corporate governance, always with room for refinements. “Oil” is always a greasy business, according to Jonathan Black.

We hope the present federal government under Tun Mahathir would be fair-minded, with a far-sighted vision to accomplish these legal and political settlements of the Sarawak and Sabah’s O&G and to restore, revise and reform MA1963 as his last momentous parting legacy to be remembered for generations in the annals of our Malaysian, Sarawak and Sabah history.

章节50 16/9/23 Khairy访谈 Wan Junaidi

章节50 16/9/23 (6) Khairy 访谈Wan Junaidi 

MA63协议于2021年才被重视，并于2022年宪报才公布。 所以这个协议里承诺的事情还有很多没有履行。 这就是为什么人们听到MA63时会产生误解。 

他认为协议只有两个方面，但IGC报告内容本身有很多协议尚未实现 这是第一；第二是 1969 年紧急状态发生时。   

联邦政府利用紧急状态来侵犯沙砂，并从我们手中夺走的砂拉越和沙巴的权利。 因此，这是砂拉越人不满的首要原因，因为承诺的东西没有得到兑现。第二个原因是关于已给出但被撤回。  

此后，还有很多被撤回。 不仅如此，协议中还有一些条款尚未落实，因此引起砂拉越人民普遍的不满。  

第112D条文的目的是砂拉越应获得特别补助金。 然而，1965年，砂拉越获得了400万令吉； 1966年，800万令吉，双倍； 1969年，捐赠了1600万令吉。 之后就停止了，直到希盟讨价还价给我们3200万令吉。

我在下议院讲过这件事，并问这是怎么一回事。我们没有公式以及如何给予。他们就是随意发送这数目给砂拉越人。 马联邦就是这样对待我们。 我们只是要求我们的权利。  

例如，砂拉越幅员辽阔；沙巴比半岛上任何其他州都大。 但是在 基础设施方面，没有水；也没有道路；我们从联邦获得的唯一大项目是纳吉时期的泛婆罗洲高速公路。 实际上没有任何东西可以满足 11D 的要求。

Episode 50 16/9/23 (6) Khairy interviewed Wan Junaidi

Agreement MA63 was only entered in 2021 and gazetted in 2022 to start its implementation. So there are still many things promised in this agreement not being carried out. That is why people misunderstand when they hear MA63. 

He thinks the agreement only has two sides but in the IGC Report the content itself there are many agreements that have not yet been realized. That's one, the second when the 1969 Emergency happened.   

The Federal Administration used the Emergency to encroach into the rights of Sarawak and Sabah which were taken from us. So this is number one reason for the dissatisfaction of Sarawakians that what was promised was not given; the number two reason is about what was given but withdrawn.  

After that, there are many more that have been withdrawn. Not only that, there are some that in the agreement have not been implemented yet, so all these cause the dissatisfaction to Sarawakians.  

The purpos of article 112D is that Sarawak should be given the special grant. However, in 1965 Sarawak was given RM4 million; in 1966, RM8 million, double; in 1969, RM16 million was given. After that it stopped until Pakatan Harapan came into bargain to give us RM32 million.

I spoke about this in the dewan and asked what is this thing. We don't have the formula and how you give. Just pluck from the one and send it to Sarawakians. This is how we are treated. We are only asking for our rights.  

Sarawak is vast for example; Sabah is larger than any other state in the peninsula. For the infrastructure, it does not have water; nor road; the only big one we get from the federation is the Pan-Borneo Highway only during Najib time. There is practically nothing that fulfills the requirements under 11D.