Pages

Powered By Blogger

Friday, 6 May 2016

Tota and his friend caught up with two Sarawakians who were in town and shares with their scathing views.

The powers that be have destroyed independent institutions in the country and made them into tools to serve the ruling party.

Against this backdrop, the teh tarik stall and the kopitiam have become unique ‘institutions’ which offer much scope for comment, humour, sarcasm and satire about so much of the nonsense going on in Bolehland.

My friend and I had the good luck to meet two Sarawak bumiputras who were in town to attend some NGO programmes. We were eager to learn about the forthcoming Sarawak elections. The Sarawakians generously shared information and even allowed us to extract information from their files.

Below is a summary of our conversation:
(SB1, SB2 = Sarawak bumiputras; F = friend and I)

I: Can you tell us something about the Sarawak elections?

SB1: Why don’t you ask the questions and we will answer them to the best of our ability.

F: Both the print and electronic media are constantly extolling Adenan’s virtues and singing his praises. What’s your opinion?

SB1: The print and electronic media are government-controlled and always spin tall tales. The media are the dullest and emptiest in the world. They can make saints out of sinners and sinners out of saints. Adenan portrays himself as someone always fighting for the interests of Sarawak.

SB2: Adenan is the fifth CM, and he entered politics in 1976 as legal adviser for PBB.  From 1979, he won the Tuang seat and then he won the Tajung Datu seat. On 1 March 2014, he became CM. He is a die-hard Umno supporter and speaks the language of Umno leaders.

SB1: Sarawak, Sabah, Singapore are three separate countries that together with the Federation of Malaya formed Malaysia. Right from the beginning, Sarawak’s 18-Point Agreement granted by the Cobbold Commission slowly but surely was eroded by the Alliance/BN central government.

Adenan, who now claims to be a champion of Sarawak, never opened his mouth to protest. By remaining silent, he connived and colluded with the Umno-dominated government to erode many of the provisions in the 18-Point Agreement.

I: What were the provisions in the 18-Point Agreement that were trampled upon?

SB1: While accepting Islam as the religion of Malaysia, “there should be no state religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaysia should not apply to North Borneo” (quote from the 18-Point Agreement). This provision has clearly been violated.

SB2: With regard to language, “English should be an official language of North Borneo for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time” (from the 18-Point Agreement). This provision does not exist at present!

F: Isn’t Adenan abusing the provision in the immigration law to bar all opposition members to prevent them from campaigning for DAP and PKR?

SB1: Well, as I told you the mass media have portrayed all opposition members as sinners. Adenan is supposedly their saint who doesn’t realise that the extremists and religious bigots are aplenty in Umno.

SB2: Adenan is a star-dust dictator. He doesn’t have an iota of knowledge about democracy, fairness, fair-play and a level playing field in the conduct of elections.  That’s why he is barring opposition members from Sarawak.

SB1: He cannot be that daft or stupid [to not know that] many political extremists and religious bigots come from Umno, whom he welcomes and embraces because they apparently come with cash [or goodies]. That’s how ethical and moral he is.

I: What other provisions in the 18-Point Agreement have been eroded?

SB1: The provision for North Borneo to control its own finance, tariffs and the right to work out its own taxation and raise loans on its own credit is non-existent. It is all BIG government, and Putrajaya controls [almost] everything.

SB2: According to the 18-Point Agreement, the existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained, and for this reason it should be under state control.  Sarawak surrendered this provision, and now education is under federal control.

SB1: The so-called leaders of Sarawak aligned with Umno-dominated BN have betrayed Sarawakians. They never raised any objections when the BN government was ruthlessly eroding the 18-Point Agreement.

I: There have been allegations that politicians and cronies from the ruling party aided by corrupt Sarawakians have indulged in large-scale timber extraction, legal and illegal. Is it true?

SB1: This has been happening without let for years. Now Petronas extracts petroleum without state control.  The state gets a pittance – five per cent of petroleum income.

Global Witness provided unassailable evidence of massive corruption in Sarawak. The CM then, Taib, refused to cooperate with MACC, whom he called “naughty”. He was later elevated as governor. That’s how Malaysia and Sarawak fight corruption in high places.

F: Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore came as separate countries to form Malaysia in 1963. Now Sarawak is treated as merely a state within Malaysia. It is significant that the head of state was originally called Yang di-Pertua Negara – which confirms that Sarawak from a Negara (country) has become a Negeri (state)!

I: The Muslim population of Sarawak is only 25 per cent, yet the CM and the governor come from this minority community – something that would not be permitted in West Malaysia.

SB1: Adenan, it would seem, is a firm believer in Malay hegemony, Ketuanan Melayu and Malay supremacy. The people of Sarawak are asleep. They never realised or cared as the sacrosant 18-Point Agreement was slowly but surely eroded by the Umno-dominated government. In 12 general elections, they have given the Alliance/BN a clear two-thirds majority in the state assembly. This proves their naivety.

Just see what Najib and Zahid are doing – shamelessly promising to build schools, repair churches, build roads, bridges, etc and even MRSM [Maktab Rendah Science Mara or Mara Science Junior College] for Sarawak bumiputras.

All these promises are coming 53 long years late. When or whether these promises will in fact materialise is anybody’s guess.

I: Adenan is well liked by Umno leaders. Any comment?

SB1: Najib is on record as having said that he likes loyal and obedient leaders (aka yes-men or boot-lickers) rather than intelligent ones! That answers your question.

I: Malaysia is the only country in the world where a citizen needs a passport to travel from west to east! Isn’t Adenan behaving like a dictator, barring opposition and NGO leaders from entering to Sarawak to campaign?

SB1: Umno-dominated BN and Adenan are crazy for power. Shameless gerrymandering is not enough. Prevent a fair electoral environment and win the election by hook or by crook…

I: Is it true that some headmen of longhouses do not allow opposition politicians to campaign in their longhouses?

SB2: The grinding poverty in Sarawak is unbelievable. There is talk that if you give RM10 to a rural Sarawakian, he [might be willing to] lend you his MyKad on election day. [Some of the] headmen are no different. Umno leaders armed with RM2.6bn have plenty to offer.

F: What is your advice to Sarawakians?

SB1:  Wake up Sarawakians. Don’t believe that 1MDB debt of RM50bn does not affect you. As always your taxes, your petroleum money, your GST contribution will be used when the bailout comes. You have a golden opportunity to start the ball rolling for Ubah. Do not be content with consuming the crumbs that fall off the Umnoputras banquet table.

F, I: It has indeed been enlightening to talk to you. Thank you for sharing so much information with us. We wish you and Sarawak all the best.

SB1, SB2: Nice talking to you. Bye
(Visited 879 times, 391 visits today)
Download PDF

Thursday, 5 May 2016

郑自勉:时间有限 砂争自主权仅剩7年

(本报古晋4日讯)从解密的文件看到,砂拉越和沙巴是交给西马托管,若60年后,没有异议和争议,有关的托管就是永久性。因此时间所剩不多,只剩7年。在这有限的时间里,需有赖于大家的努力。
托管期限60年

林连玉教育基金古晋联委会主席郑自勉昨晚出席砂拉政府承认统考文凭的进展和影响汇报会上,谈到砂拉越的主权时,如是表示。
他说,根据1963年大马契约,清楚阐明赋予砂拉越的自主权,其中包括税务、教育、婆罗洲高等法院的权力等,因此,西马若要实施任何政策,必须得到砂拉越的批准。而在教育自主权方面,可以促使砂拉越政府兴建符合人民需要的学校,包括政府资助的私立学校(独中或宗教学校)。

他续说,华裔子弟如果口口声声强调以华裔为单位,前途是茫茫的,必须从跨种族角度出发及探讨,以便华族将后能有尊严的在大马立足,同时,才能确保独中教育及各族文化获得维护。

他也举例说,钓鱼台日本说没有争议,中国说有,若被日本实际管理,根据国际公约,60年后没有争议﹐该岛就是日本的。

“当砂拉越能挣回这些主权,才能确保比较开明和多元化的气氛能够维持,作为华裔子弟与其它种族都爱护自己的文化及互相尊重各族的文化,因此,不论谁领导,只要贤明的﹐不论其肤色都应该给予支持。”

不过,从整个世界大局的宏观角度来看,尤其是中国的发展及一带一路的成功推行,郑自勉有信心,世界要走向大同是不远了,最重要的是,统考、独中必须不断去给予扶持。

另一方面,他也提出质疑为何马来西亚政府不能承认独中统考文凭,事实上全世界有数百多所大学都承认。

他 续说,若政府维持现状,不承认统考的危机是来自于修改后的1996年的教育法令,新法令强化了教育总监的权力,而在修改后的19年来,董总所提出的申请至 今仍未获得批准,亦即全国60间独中合法性仍然是受到质疑的,目前只有一间关丹中学是合法的,主要该中学的批文是有报考政府的考试。

较早 时,郑自勉说,自马来西亚成立后,华校沦为政治的产物,这是因为当权者为了巩固政权和延长它们的统治寿命而采取一种分而治之的手段,而更早前在英国殖民统 治时代,砂拉越的华校是受到当时英殖民政府的资助及承认华校的文凭。惟,自从加入大马后,资助和承认华校文凭的地位就失去了。甚至在最近还有部长发表承认 独中统考文凭是威胁国家主权的论调,简直是荒谬。
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: , , ,
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

(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?