It is idiotic to obey the rulings that serves
little or no purpose to the need of the
majority but the folly of the mischiefs who are obsessed with authority and
position and who cannot see beyong their noses.Yes, I wonder why we Sarawakians should
obey the unconstitutional laws blindly and slavishly?Our
leaders in power in Sarawak should stomp and act to tell the imperialist of our
refusal.Never and never and never……. behave
so sheepishly and slavishly when our rights or autonomy being 末molested.It is
the time to hit back with the backup of Sarawakians in Sejiwa-sehati.
To establish our autonomy now is to act or do
it.To promote any division to town;
town to city; ……… it is our rights to do o.You don’t to seek for “Green” light from the Imperialist.Always treat Sarawak as a nation in the
Federation of Malaysia or secede without fear.If you care for the betterment of Sarawak, do what is good for the
advancement and civilisation of Sarawak.
Say, “No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
to any terms and conditions that are distrimental to the general well-being and
welfare of Sarawak.Saying “Yes to GST”
only brings curses to you.As leaders in
power avoid being obsessed with your interests and positions too much or you
will be cursed some day in the Timeline of History.In the age of internet, the literate ones
with the capacity to tell and relate will have the written record of your acts
and behaviours.
Besides, if you really believe in Allah /
God / the Lord of this Universe, He has the every detail record of your acts
and behaviours on earth here.I believe
in retribution, blessings (福报) and reincarnation.What you
have in your disposal is after all your blessings.But whether these blessings will be depleted
or added more depends on your acts on earth here.Beware of your acts and behaviours!
Sarawak Reform Party refutes Azalina’s speech on formation of Malaysia
Lina Soo
KUCHING: Sarawak Reform Party has disputed Law Minister Datuk Seri
Azalina Othman’s recent speech in Parliament on the political status of
Sarawak and Sabah in the Federation of Malaysia.
Its president Lina Soo, in a press statement, said they took
exception that Azalina’s definition that the concept of Malaysia was a
federation where all the states of Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah were of
equal status.
“Quoting para 237 of the Cobbold Commission Report, the minister
stated that there was no historical document supporting the contention
that the formation of Malaysia was based upon equal partnership between
the Malayan states, Sarawak, Sabah (and Singapore),” Soo said.
She asked one simple question: If indeed the concept of the political
association is of a federation where all states are of equal status,
then why did none of the 11 Malayan states sign the Malaysia Agreement
1963 (MA63), together with Sarawak, North Borneo (and Singapore)?
”If indeed, Malaysia is a federation where all states are of equal
status, each and every state should also be the signatory to the
Malaysia Agreement.
Instead, the Malaysia Agreement was signed between five governments –
United Kingdom and Ireland, Federation of Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo
(Sabah) and Singapore which opted out in 1965.”
Soo added that since the 11 states of the Federation of Malaya did
not sign the MA63, it was obvious the Federation of Malaysia was a
political association of equal standing between the Federation of
Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo (Sabah) and Singapore (which left the
federation in 1965).
”Why were the 11 states of Malaya left out and not made signatories to the Malaysia Agreement,” questioned Soo.
She said that Sarawak signed the international treaty with the
Federation of Malaya as equal component and not with each of the 11
Malayan states.
”As the Malaysia Agreement is an International Treaty, it is not the
done thing to introduce extrinsic elements, here meaning the 11 Malayan
states, into the agreement after the treaty had been signed, sealed and
delivered.”
She further said the conception that we had to refer to the Cobbold Commission Report was erroneous.
She claimed that based on her research and on the two books she had
written on the formation of Malaysia ‘Sarawak Real Deal and Sarawak
Chronicle’ which were based on declassified colonial documents sourced
from the British Archives, the Cobbold Commission Report was a sham and a
farce,and should not be treated as a constitutional document for the
definition of the Federation, nor appropriate to refer to it for State
rights.
My comments:
This stupid woman thinks that she still can bluff at will thinking that we Sarawakians still as foolish as ever before. It is idiotic, aggressive and haughty of the people from Peninsula Malaysia to think that Sarawak is just a state of the 13 states of Malaysia.
Why the petroleum development Act 1974 is in breach of the
Malaysia agreement 1963 and the federal constitution and is null and
void
(Advertorial)
(fig.1)
(a) Introduction: ‘Partners of Equal Status’
SARAWAK came together with Sabah, Singapore, and Malaya, supposedly
partners of equal status, to form Malaysia pursuant to the Malaysia
Agreement 1963 (MA63), with its territory, including its own Continental
Shelf and all attached resources, intact.
The assurances of this fact and intent in the new federation were
stated clearly by the new Prime Minister himself (fig.1), to allay any
doubt as to the nature of the union between the parties concerned
(quote)
“…When the Borneo territories become part of Malaysia, they will
cease to be a colony of Britain, and they will not be a colony of Malaya
– I thought I made it clear – they will be partners of equal status”
(fig. 2)
(b) The Malaysia Agreement 1963
NOTHING at all was mentioned about Sarawak’s petroleum resources in
Inter-GovernmentalCommittee Report or the subsequent Malaysia Agreement
1963. These naturally, legally and constitutionally came under the State
just like land and other matters such as minerals that were included
within that land.
As J.C. Fong, former Sarawak State Attorney General stated in his
book (fig. 2), “the two states continued to exercise rights over
petroleum found within its (sic)territories, including those found
offshore”.
Those rights were to be taken away via the device of the Petroleum
Development Act 1974, a device that although passed by Parliament,
however did not follow a substantive provision of the Federal
Constitution, and was therefore unconstitutional, null and void and of
no legal effect.
(fig.3
(c) Extent of Sarawak’s Boundaries
WHAT are the boundaries of Sarawak’s territory then, including its
territorial waters, even before the formation of Malaysia? In 1954,
Great Britain passed the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in
Council that applied to Sarawak, which emphatically defined Sarawak’s
boundaries to include the continental shelf, being the seabed and its
subsoil (fig.3).
Needless to say, all mineral and other resources within that subsoil also belong to Sarawak.
(fig.4)
(d) Sarawak Interpretation Ordinance
THE SARAWAK Interpretation Ordinance 2005 further clarified the
expressions and words of the law to encompass the meaning of “Sarawak”
as the State of Sarawak, including its territorial waters as deemed by
international law (fig.4).
The Sarawak Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (which repealed and
replaced the Interpretation Ordinance 1958) is also clearly supported by
Article 1 (3) of the Federal Constitution itself.
(fig.5)
(e) The Federal Constitution
UNDER Article 2 (b) of the Federal Constitution, while Parliament may
by law alter the boundaries of any State, it is expressly provided that
such a law shall not be passed without the consent of the State
(expressed by a law made by the Legislature of that State, in this case,
Sarawak (and also the Council of Rulers).
Any such law passed by Parliament purporting to alter the boundaries
of Sarawak is therefore clearly unconstitutional and therefore null and
void.
This includes laws such as the Territorial Sea Act 2012 and the
Petroleum Development Act 1974, neither of which were consented to by
the State in the manner provided for under the said Article 2 (b) of the
Federal Constitution. (fig.5)
(fig. 6)
(f) Sarawak’s Petroleum Resources & Petroleum Development Act 1974
THE DEFINED territorial boundaries of Sarawak also apply to all
resources, including petroleum, within those boundaries. As such no
purported vesting of those resources in Petronas can have any validity
without the consent of the State Legislature.
No such consenting law was ever passed by the Sarawak Legislature.
Sarawak is therefore fully within its constitutional rights to take back
its petroleum resources and manage the same on its own. The executive
decision taken by the Sarawak Government at that time and the entire
Petroleum Development Act 1974 law passed in Parliament can have no
constitutional or legal effect without the consent of Sarawak’s
Legislative Assembly.
All of Petronas operations in Sarawak therefore are arguably
unconstitutional and illegal. The Federal Government must stop
pretending that it or Petronas has any legal right or power over
Sarawak’s petroleum resources, with regard to which there has been poor
value creation as far as Sarawak is concerned.
Under the present Federal and Petronas regime Sarawak has been
transformed from a territory with one of Malaysia’s richest oil and gas
reserves into one of the poorest states in Malaysia. This was
acknowledged by no less than YAB Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun
Razak himself in a Parliamentary reply on 12th June, 2012. (fig. 6) (g) Economic Parity is Essential for Sarawak’s Future Generations
THE GLARING economic disparities and unabated massive development in
Peninsular, mandates that Sarawak redirect more of its economic
resources to develop itself for the sake of its future generations.
The unfair distribution of returns under Malaysia’s Petroleum
production sharing regime whereby the Federal Government takes the
biggest chunks of revenue from Petroleum in the form of Petroleum Income
Tax, royalty, dividends, corporate tax, export duty and recently, GST
is but one example of the unfair distribution of wealth for State
development.
This situation was largely caused by the erosion of its rights under
the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) at the expense of Sarawak’s own valid
interests and the welfare of its peoples.
Therefore the reinstatement of Sarawak’s right under MA63 is a
primary remedy and in no way should be spun as a move for secession by
politicians from the peninsular or their agents.
After more than 42 years of its precious petroleum resources being
poorly managed by Petronas, it is time for Sarawak to set right the
wrongful ‘vesting’ of its inalienable ownership rights to its petroleum
resources. In line with its avowed intentions to seek economic parity
for future generations of Sarawakians, the Suarah Petroleum Group (SPG)
therefore wholeheartedly supports the Sarawak State Government, under
the leadership of YAB Tan Sri Datuk Patinggi Haji Adenan Satem in its
efforts at the upcoming State Legislative Assembly sitting to restore
the autonomy and resources of Sarawak that were usurped.
SPG calls upon all Sarawakians irrespective of their political
beliefs or affliations to support the State Government’s efforts in this
regard, for the sake of future generations of Sarawakians.
Issued by: Media Communications and Legal Unit Suarah Petroleum Group
