Call for Sabah Sarawak Rights

• Nov 13 2011
• Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia
• 68993 Signatures
• 602739 Views

#Justice

Target:

United Nations, UK Queen, Malaysia Federal Goverment, Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC),

Region:

Malaysia

Website:

sabahsarawakmerdeka.blogspot.com

Thank you for viewing our petition.

This Petition was established by Sabah Sarawak people.  This petition is an outcry for injustice towards Sabah and Sarawak because for 51 years, the two States was sidelined compared with Malaya and Federal itself.

For more video, please view in Youtube under 'SSKM' tag...

18/20 Point Agreement :-

The 20 point agreement / 18 point agreement is between made between TWO countries ( Malaya and Sabah / Malaya and Sarawak). The point was stated in Malaysia Agreement 1963.

Read the original Malaysian Agreement 1963.

Such being the case, no changes can be made on the agreement without the consent of the other. In the case, they seemed to be effort by the Federal Government to put aside this agreement or even ignore this agreement as it gets their way of integrating Sabah and sarawak according to West Malaysia UMNO point of views and political agenda.

Sabah and sarawak must NEVER give up on this agreement as it provides us with more autonomy. The founding fathers has the foresight to see the greed of West Malaysian and sadly for Sabah since UMNO has come in and rule Sabah it has lost most of its autonomy. sarawak should continue to fight to uphold the 18 points agreement. Those leaders from Sabah & Sarawak MUST insist that any Government SHALL respect and enforce the 18/20 point agreement when they do come into power.



Monitor and review the implementation of the agreement the government of Sarawak may like to consider setting a monitoring and reviewing committee to consolidate the implementation status and audit the program that has been set to comply with the agreement that will help Sarawak Malaysian to understand how much has been done in respect to the 18 point agreement.

Probably it would be good initiative to trace this document back in the UK to find more detail on the intent, spirit, process and even minutes of discussion leading to the signing of these agreement.



A memorandum for House of Lords in UK

Where is the Cobbold commission report now – probably in UK too. Malaya would never want to show it because the result is 33% want Malaysia, 33% do not want Malaysia and 33% undecided. How they concluded that Sabah and Sarawak should join Malaysia based on the statistics only “Allah” know. The British has some explaining to do to both Sarawak and sabah. Maybe a memorandum should be sent to the House of Lord to ask for explanation on the matter. What is the agreement all about?



The 20-point agreement, or the 20-point memorandum, is an agreement made between the state of Sabah (then North Borneo) with what would be the federal government of Malaysia prior to the formation of Malaysia in September 16, 1963. A similar agreement was made between the state of Sarawak and the federal government but with certain differences in their 18-point agreement.

The agreement:



Point 1: Religion

While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be no State religion in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah), and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to Borneo.

Point 2: Language

* a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation

* b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day

* c. English should be an official language of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.

Point 3: Constitution

Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) was of course essential.

Point 4: Head of Federation

The Head of State in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.

Point 5: Name of Federation

“Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”

Point 6: Immigration

Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah).

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation

Point 8: Borneanisation

Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.

Point 9: British Officers

Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)

Point 10: Citizenship

The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) subject to the following amendments:

* a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence

* b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read “7 out of 10 years” instead of “8 out of 10 years”

* c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) after Malaysia must be federal citizen.

Point 11: Tariffs and Finance

Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.

Point 12: Special position of indigenous races

In principle, the indigenous races of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malays’ formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in Borneo(Sarawak & Sabah).

Point 13: State Government

* a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council

* b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah).

Point 14: Transitional period

This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government.

Point 15: Education

The existing educational system of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control.

Point 16: Constitutional safeguards

No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo

The power of amending the Constitution of the State of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should belong exclusively to the people in the state. (Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourth majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient).

Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament

This should take account not only of the population of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) but also of its seize and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore.

Point 18: Name of Head of State

Yang di-Pertua Negara.

Point 19: Name of State

Sarawak or Sabah.

Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.

The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah). Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah).

*Merger

In 1961, when the Malayan government began discussing a possible merger with neighboring Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei, problems of ethnic power relations arose again. The “Malaysia” proposal sans Sabah and Sarawak went back more than a decade; earlier negotiations had proved fruitless. The Singaporeans themselves were not anxious to be ruled by what they considered a Malay government. By 1961, however, Singapore had grown receptive to the idea of joining Malaysia, largely because of the prevailing idea at the time that industrial Singapore could not survive without access to Malayan markets.

Singapore Chinese population is a threat to Malaya

The Malayan government was not keen on having the Chinese Singaporean population push the Malays into a minority position in the new Malaysia. Many Malays felt that upsetting the Malay-dominated nature of the armed forces and police might place them in a dangerous situation. It was also argued that the inferior economic position of the Malays would be emphasized by the entry of even more rich Chinese, setting the stage for major discontent.

Malaya get Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia to make use of their native population numbers. The Malayans decided to resolve this by merging with Sabah and Sarawak; both British colonies had large native populations whom the government considered “Malay”. Under Article 160 of the Constitution, most of them were not Malay; the natives were mainly animists or Christians instead of Muslims as required. To resolve this issue, the government expanded its informal definition of “Malay” to include these people.

*The natives of Sarawak and Sabah are to be considered ‘Malays’ by the Malayan Union to solve their problems.. the Ibans, the Kenyahs, the Bidayuh, and etcs…

Our question?

Is this true today or we from Sabah and Sarawak being cheated by UMNO Malaya and the Federal Government of Malaysia?



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

TARGET: Claiming back the 18/20 conditions for Sabah and Sarawak.

DISCLAIMER'S NOTICE : NO PAYMENT IF SIGNING THE PETITION

We, the undersigned want our rights as mentioned in the 18 and 20 conditions be given back to the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

More than 50 years being part of Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak have seen these rights being stripped.

We feel that the current partnership NO LONGER BENEFITS Sabah and Sarawak.

By the way, we want to implemented our NEGARA term and stand with our Borneonisation (thats mean, pulling out Malayan, pulling in Sabahan and Sarawakian)

We want at least 300,000 signatures of Sabah Sarawak People.

We also want our Rights to be respected and implement according to 18/20Points Agreement by the Government

Call for support from international concern. Support us for a better future.

SSKM™ Copyright 2011-2013

Hornbill Unleashed

March 11, 2014

‘Sabah, Sarawak free to leave federation’

Filed under: Politics — Hornbill Unleashed @ 12:00 AM
Tags: Anak Sarawak Bangsa Malaysia, Save Malaysia, Save Sabah, Save Sarawak

Zainal Ajamain

The issue of secession was not included in the IGC report because “any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will”.

The view put forth by  a constitution expert and a former Law professor from the International Islamic University recently is arguable.

The professor claimed that Sabah and Sarawak cannot leave Malaysia because of Article 2 of the Malaysia Constitution.

Well this Article was never amended ever since it was written into the Constitution which means that this Article was there when Singapore was “expelled” as he claimed from Malaysia in 1965.

The same Article 2 is still present today in the Constitution, not amended what-so-ever.

The Kota Belud MP and federal minister asserted that talking about seceding from Malaysia is seditious under the Malaysia law and that Sabah and Sarawak cannot secede from Malaysia.

Let me state that anyone who wants to talk about the Malaysia Agreement 1963 without showing their own stupidity must at least read the following primer:

• The Cobbold Commission Report 1962

• The Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC) 1963

• The Malaysia Agreement 1963

There are two things that everyone must learn from the IGC.  Firstly, the IGC is where five political parties from Sabah submitted their memorandum on the 29th August 1962.

Today this memorandum is commonly known as the 20 points.  The 20 points is a memorandum and NOT an agreement as asserted by the Minister.

As a memorandum the 20 point document was submitted to the IGC for consideration by the committee members.

The IGC was headed by Lord Lansdowne the British Minister of State for Colonial Affairs.

Its tasks was “to work out the future constitutional arrangements, including safeguards for the special interest of North Borneo and Sarawak to cover such matters as religious freedom, education, representation in the Federal Parliament, the position of the indigenous races, control of immigration, citizenship and the State Constitution”.

Therefore, the 20 points memorandum was incorporated into the IGC report.  The IGC report has 37 points and NOT just 20 points.

Secession is not seditious
Based on the above, the IGC report is the framework to formulate the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The IGC is NOT the Malaysia Agreement 1963. It is just a report and accepted by the governments.

The IGC has similar function to the Reid Commission which drafted the Constitution for the Federation of Malaya.  The IGC report was accepted and signed on Feb 27, 1963 by the United Kingdom, North Borneo, Federation of Malaya and Sarawak

Secondly, the 20 point memorandum submitted by the five political parties contain a secession clause which is point No. 7.

In this clause it was specified that there shall be no secession which means that Sabah cannot secede from Malaysia.

However, the issue of secession was not included in the IGC report.
The reason given by Lord Lansdowne was that “any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will, and that it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Constitution”.

Basically what it means here is that Sabah and Sarawak is free to form Malaysia, it is also therefore free to leave.

Sabah and Sarawak does not need the approval of each of the states to leave.  Sabah and Sarawak does not need the support of the Rulers Council to leave.

All Sabah and Sarawak need to do is to pass a resolution in their respective Dewan Undangan Negeri to leave and Sabah and Sarawak will become a sovereign nation.

I hope the above explanation is sufficient to clear any confusion about the content and usage of terms pertaining to the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
It is an embarrassment and shameful to see, read and hear Ministers, Professors and ordinary man in the street talking about the formation of Malaysia without them really knowing what the subjects is all about.

There is also nothing seditious about talks on secession. These are real issues based on the IGC, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and after five decades of forming Malaysia.

These are options available to the people in Sabah and Sarawak and to avoid these discussions  all the government needs to do is simply fulfill its obligations as per the agreement “nothing more, and nothing less”.

名家  2016年05月04日 | 作者：谢诗坚 | 专栏：直掛云帆

722与砂拉越选举

不论1963年7月22日砂拉越是否已真正独立，但它在50年后被摆上政治舞台，也算是「绝招之一」。至于能有多大的发酵，就看5月7日投票的结果了。

1963年7月22日究竟是什么日子？竟在50年后成为砂拉越人推动「捍卫主权」的纪念日；更甚的是，砂拉越首席部长阿德南在4月23日（2016年）宣佈今后722是砂拉越的公假，被称之为「砂拉越日」。

由于情势的变化让人在不明究里下接受这样的节日也引起不少爭议，究竟什么是722呢？

根据史料显示，砂拉越位于婆罗洲內，与北婆罗（沙巴）及汶莱毗邻，下端就是印尼的领土。砂拉越的面积共有12万4千余平方公里（比马来半岛小一些，但比沙巴领土大），早年是汶莱王国所管辖。

在1830年时，汶莱王国委任马来人拿督巴丁宜阿里（Datu Patinggi Ali）为古晋的开埠者；而班根丁·马哥达（Pangeren Mahkota）代表苏丹掌管砂拉越，后者强制性要求前者每年要向苏丹进贡，人民也要赋税，结果引起不满。在巴丁宜阿里领导下反抗苏丹，要求脱离汶莱。

苏丹镇压不住后，请求英国人詹姆斯·布鲁克介入其中，在1840年被委为砂拉越总督。翌年，即1841年，布鲁克建立了砂拉越王朝。自此之后，布鲁 克王朝也扩大了版图，巩固了政权，但在1888年后，这个王朝接受英国的保护（他是在海峡殖民地总督文咸委託下敉平砂拉越动乱。他原本就是东印度公司一份 子）。

成英国殖民地
1941年，日本军阀入侵砂拉越，直到1945年投降为止。战后的第二年（1946年），砂王国第三任白人拉惹查尔斯·维纳·温特·布鲁克（布鲁克家族）將整个砂拉越的主权移交英国，也放弃了王朝之名號。

几乎是在同一个时候，北婆罗洲（沙巴）及汶莱成了英国统治的领土。换句话说，自1888年起，这三邦已归英国所有，且在战后確定了为英国的殖民地。

由于婆罗洲北部全为英国的殖民地，当地人民的命运也任由英国摆佈。虽然后来有通过所谓「民意调查」，得到的答案是大多数人支持加入马来西亚，可是真正拍板的是英国。

英国决心在60年代將马来亚联合邦（这个国家在1957年8月31日独立），北婆（沙巴）、砂拉越及新加坡合组成马来西亚联邦。

因为涉及复杂问题和引起国际爭执，马来西亚的组成也因內外交困而延迟了成立的日期。原本英国与马来亚已推算好，在1963年8月31日宣佈马来西亚 诞生，如果这个日期没有改变，也就不会在后来引起东马人的不满。因为马来西亚成立后它的国庆日依然是8月31日，而不是9月16日，造成东马人在心有不甘 下接受独立日。

马来西亚成立的日期所以有变化是因为印尼和菲律宾与马来亚抗衡，反对成立马来西亚。结果三方同意交由联合国鉴定东马人是否愿意加入马来西亚。

在时间紧迫下，联合国秘书长宇丹只能快马加鞭赶工在9月16日之前公佈调查结果，因为新加坡、砂拉越及沙巴已等不及了（汶莱基于条件不合，没有加入马来西亚，在1984年取得独立）。

根据李光耀的回忆录，他是最担心马来西亚联邦被一拖再拖的，但既然从8月31日展延到9月16日才成立马来西亚，在此过渡时期就有节外生枝的事件发生了。

李光耀回忆录也提到，新加坡在8月31日已宣佈「独立」（即指暂时被委託管制新加坡），而沙巴也同样在那一天「独立」；同样的砂拉越也没有例外，但 他没有披露砂拉越是何时「独立」的。不论这三邦是否「真正独立」，它们都一致同意加入马来西亚，但又不得不向英国和马来亚政府施加压力。

如今经过50年后，我们又恍然大悟地知道砂拉越其实有过「独立」，日期就在1963年7月22日。为什么早前没有人提及1963年7月22日有个仪 式，即由英国总督阿歷山大·华尔德（Alexander Waddell）將「主权」移交给砂第一任州元首哈芝奥本（Tuan Haji Openg）。

根据姆雷·汉德（Murray Hunter）所撰写的《砂拉越「独立日」》一文中说许多人不知道砂拉越有过短暂的独立（7月22日至9月16日，一共57天）（写于2013年7月27日）。

另一方面，熟悉砂歷史的于东则凭记忆说，当日是英总督回返伦敦，没有政权移交仪式，更没有宣佈砂拉越独立，仅在前一天（7月21日）宣佈由国民党的党魁加隆寧甘出任砂第一任首席部长，主权还是在英
总督手中。

对战略有所研究的蓝中华则解读成不是主权与政权的移交，只能说在7月22日英总督委任加隆寧甘为砂拉越首任首席部长，而在8月31日委任唐纳史蒂芬 （后皈依回教改名为福尔）为沙巴首任首席部长。这说明了沙砂主权仍在英国手里，因此由总督委任首席部长，权当是过渡时期的安排，也可以解读成拥有「自治地 位」（可以筹划组织州政府）。

不论怎样解读722的含义，我们还需要瞭解为何泰益玛目仍是砂拉越首席部长时，竟突然在2013年7月22日在古晋市对面江旧总督府上演了一幕50年前英殖民地移交「主权」于砂拉越的史实。

有人说泰益玛目行將移交政权，在此时搞这玩意儿根本不是鼓动砂拉越独立，而是有所为而来，因为在这个纪念「独立日」的仪式中，打出了「砂拉越是砂拉 越人的」或砂拉越人的砂拉越（Sarawak for Sarawakians）（S4S）口號，庄严地宣示这块土地是砂拉越人的。

独立日列公假
即使泰益玛目在翌年已转任砂拉越州元首，但他起用阿迪南也是苦心的培养，希望接班人能按其理想推动计划，最重要的是让阿迪南明白砂拉越之所以有今日 仍由「本土政权」掌权是因为打从一开始就发挥「砂拉越人的砂拉越」的精神。基于敏感，有一个长时期未公开提此口號，担心被误会搞「分离」，这就是为什么西 马的国阵成员党至今都没有打进砂拉越（1994年沙巴的慕斯打化（前首长）大开方便之门，引进西马政党，结果尾大不掉）。

现在事过境迁，重提这口號对国阵有利，以加强自主权。而阿迪南则需要用一年有余的时间来消化泰益玛目的良苦用心。虽然在2014年没有庆祝「722 独立日」，但在2015年又有人发动了「热爱砂拉越运动」，並向阿迪南传达讯息要他宣佈722为公假。果不其然，阿迪南在提名前夕答应了，这意味著阿迪南 接受泰益玛目的政治战略，也让人联党拿来作为党宣言的一部分。

另一方面，因为去年的活动有民间个人及团体做出响应和鼓励情绪，也引发行动党的注意。它反对执政党及独立人士（尤明庆和房保德）利用这口號来排斥反 对党，毕竟反对党也是由本地人上阵，同样热爱砂拉越。因此他反对执政党和独立人士借题发挥；更不能利用30万人维护自主权的签名当成是政治筹码。

姑不论1963年7月22日砂拉越是否已真正独立，但它在50年后被摆上政治舞台，也算是「绝招之一」。至于能有多大的发酵，就看5月7日投票的结果了。

Mycomments：
这是学术味道超重，巫统-民政味也很重的论述砂拉越。  507的选举并不能就论定砂国未来的走向。 砂拉越如果不是[国] 被压制成[州]。 1976年8月27 为何会有[内阁]通过硬硬把[砂国]压制成[州]。 完全把1963的契约当成[废约]。  砂拉越和沙巴跟马来亚半岛的关系是相对3分1。 如果砂拉越不是[国]，怎么可能会是联邦关系呢？

哼哼哼。。。。。。。。。。。是的51年都没有人提起S4S，现在突然搬上[政治舞台，也算是「绝招之一」。 这是巫统-民政人员的观感。 20年前，很多才30多岁。 那时肯定是巫统-民政天下。 只可惜，这美景威风无法维持到今天，可惜，可惜，真的很可惜。 

 拿督谢诗坚博士的评语是很符合主流的思维。  中央集权，我们砂是[合该]。。。。霸权下。 

尤明庆：享有自决权 让砂人决定未来

2016年5月4日 中砂, 砂州选专题

（本报诗巫4日讯）巴旺阿山选区独立候选人尤明庆希望人民觉醒，认识自己的“自决权”；且他准备在未来的5年里，带动更多人民参与选举，以人民的力量要求议会三份之二多数席位通过“脱马”动议，让政党不敢做的，由人民自己来决定，自己去完成。

尤明庆是于今早所召开的记者招待会上，如是指出。
他说，他本身是砂拉越人的砂拉越（S4S)的发言人之一，亦是S4S人民醒觉运动的发起人，平时非常的活跃，而他投入这项砂沙人民醒觉运动的工作上，至今已3年。

他表示，自主权其实就是我们砂拉越在马来西亚协议里面的权利，而这项权利自签约时就已存在，所以我们根本就无需去争取，只要去实行就可以了。

他说，阿迪南身为一名砂拉越的首席部长，不应该拿砂拉越自主权来当做一种选举时的伎俩，来获得更多的选票。

他 表示，每个政党目前都喊着要捍卫砂州的自主权，然后又提到消费会（GST)，把这两件事当成课题在选举时都拿出来讲，但是否他们有想过，依据马来西亚契约 里赋予我们的自主权里，我们是有权利拒绝不要消费税的。所以他促请那些政党领袖，别再使用这样的伎俩来蒙骗选民，因此这是非常不负责任的。

他称，“自主权”是在砂拉越在马来西亚里面的权利，而“自决权”则是人民的基本人权权益之一，记载在联合国宪章里面，这亦是“自主权”和“自决权”之间的分别。

自己决定权利
他 希望人民明白，砂拉越的自主权在马来西亚，其实是可以不存在的，因为我们砂拉越人民，只要懂得应用自决权来决定通过，是否要离开马来西亚，那我们就可以不 需要马来西亚的自主权。而我们人民的自决权，是永远的，就如你一出生，在达到一定的年龄可以投票，你就可享有这项权利。

他称，他本身此次之所以会出来参选，主要原因之一，是为了要唤起年轻人的觉醒，在达到一定的年龄后，有更多的年轻人注册成为选民，以自决权去决定公投，同时亦决定自己的未来。

他说，他们今天只是一个先锋，开启了这条路让大家选着，但未来还是需要依靠年轻人自己去决定，去思考，为自己的下一代，为砂拉越的未来去决定。

他表示，如果人民委托他进入砂拉越议会，那他会以“老板”的身份，在议会里把执政党或反对党当成员工，监督他们为人民工作，而不会把自己列为是反对党。

尤明庆说，他此次出战的竞选标志是把钥匙，而这把钥匙代表了要开启了砂拉越的自由之门。而砂独联盟此次共派出了两名代表出战，其中一人是他本身，将在巴旺阿山选区出战，另人则是房保德，而他将会在埔奕选区下战。

他说，这时砂独联盟踏出的第一步，未来将派出更多的候选人下战其他的选区。

Tweets 552016

Tweets 552016
“东山小学后方碎石路 刘文惠安排铺沥青（诗华日报 ）文惠协助联络市会  建兴中路提升； 刘文惠承诺 幸福堂建2 围墙“ 我真的不知道我们Sibu人是否对这种需要靠个部长才能推动市议会去做的事是很病态。 如果我们人民还是如此愚昧的。 那么我认为愚昧的事永远是缠上人民。 人民永远是这些官员们的奴才。 民主不是要听人民的吗？ 市议会 是否只听官爷的话呢？ 这民主在这里是否一点价值都没了？

净选盟促选委会 接违法举报立刻取缔

2016年5月4日 中砂, 砂州选专题

（诗巫4日讯）净选盟促请选举委员会立即对于违反选举罪行及行为采取行动。

砂拉越净选盟的诗巫选举监督团队在今日向选举委员会提呈选举监督团队的自愿工作人员在观察工作范围内进行监督及查证违反选举条例的报告书。

挪用政府资金竞选
选 举监督团队在这几天都与所有在巴旺阿山选区竞选的候选人随行及出席周围选区的竞选活动。今日，监督团队列出都东、巴旺阿山、柏拉旺，丹绒拿督区的国阵候选 人及巴旺阿山区的行动党候选人所触犯十项选举条例。这些罪行包括挪用政府资金和资产供个人使用于竞选、直接贿赂选民及在投票站的50米内挂竞选海报。

该委员会促请选举委员会根据选举条例法令调查违规行为及马来西亚反贪委员会调查滥用公共资金及资产的案件。

选举监督团队发现选举委员会的执法团队只有一次出现在竞选活动。净选盟要求执法团队在竞选期内出席并监督所有候选人的竞选活动。为了这次选举，政府拨出马币百万于选举委员会进行选举工作，所以净选盟的自愿工作人员不应该为选举委员会进行工作。

此外，委员会要求选举委员会解释国阵的丹绒拿督候选人阿迪南对于本身影响选区划分的言论。阿迪南是在瑟冷布的国阵候选人声称选区划分是国阵政府给予比达友族的一份馈赠后发表本身的言论。

这是违反宪法内的第十三条文及影响选举委员会的独立性。选举委员会是在不受政治影响及种族政治的考虑下完成选区划分的任务。净选盟谴责候选人企图以种族的角度去解读选区划分程序。

国阵在这次选举分配国家资金，使用政府机器及选区划分在国阵的影响下已凸显出砂劳越州选举不是由选民决定，而是已经被确定的结果。

My comments：
我说Adenan的好是做了应该做的事和undo TaibMahmud所干数算不清的邪恶的事和Adenan，after all, 是BN利益集团的一份子。所以是被重重巫统气味。  请大家清醒清醒。 民主到底是什么？ Adenan坐上首长那座位，那些利民良策，难道不是理所当然的吗？  大家怎么好像要跪下感恩的承担。

巫竞选盟监委会 11违法事件呈选委会

2016年5月4日 中砂, 砂州选专题

(本报诗巫4日讯)诗巫竞选盟选举监督委员会今天将所收集到疑违反选举犯罪法的事件呈予选委会。
该委员会协调员黄孟祚表示，11项违反选举犯罪法的事件，其中10项涉及国阵，1项涉及行动党。

他说，这项违反选举犯罪法的事件是在巴旺阿山、柏拉旺及都东区收集所得。

未提名前公开拉票
他举例说，其中一个违反选举犯罪法的事件是发生在都东区的一个社区晚宴上，这项晚宴是在4月16日未提名前举行，有关的晚宴公开为国阵候选人拉票。

他称，其他的案件包括颁发奖学金及在人民集会上支持反对党没有发展金的误导性言论。

黄孟祚说，其他违反选举犯罪法的事件有在公共场所，包括政府部门挂宣传布条，个人支持某候选人的布条等。

他指出，该委会也发现一项有关行动党违法选举法的事件，即在选举期间为宋溪都杜地区的蓄水桶的食水供应计划主持推展。

他称，这有贿选的嫌疑。

官车到场出席活动
他指出，该委会也发现在大群小学的一个场合里，首席部长及部长使用官车到场。

对于该委会的后继行动，他说，该委会将会就此呈报告予选委会，同时，会把一些案件带到反贪会及警方，同时，呈报告予全国净选盟。
他说，该委会还没有决定是否要采取法律行动。
他称，该委会所收集的案件，都有人证与物证。

黄孟祚表示，该委员会在诗巫有20多名观察员，而在全砂则有150名观察员观察这次的州选。

My comments:
BN队伍的作业很少不犯法。  这种知法犯法的文化是很根生蒂固。 BN的作业，大家没品尝过吗？  Adenan是很好因为他发出了53 项利民政策。 TaibMahmud没做一样的利民的事。 他把所有的好处都扒给自己和朋党。  Adenan是undo这个TaibMahmud无限贪官所干的恶事：掠夺和剥削人民自肥。  这个人是遗臭万万年永远被诅咒。