theborneopost.com

Longhouse folks complain of poor road condition

WB Ongie, reporters@theborneopost.com

June 8, 2018, Friday

The muddy and slippery stretch of the road to Linei longhouses.

MARUDI: More than 500 residents of five longhouses in Linei area have expressed their disappointment at the poor road condition to their longhouses.
They said the 7km timber track standard road from their longhouses to Marudi town had become very muddy and slippery, and posed great danger for those travelling on it.
One of the residents, Edward Louis Jampi, called on Sarawak government to look into the matter and act fast before the situation gets worse.
He also appealed to Mulu assemblyman Dato Gerawat Gala, who is Deputy Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly, to help repair the road through his Minor Rural Project (MRP) fund.
Edward is the chairman of Pemansang Dayak Baram.
“As we know, the said area gave full support to the Barisan Nasional during the last parliamentary election. At the very least, the Deputy Speaker should give some allocation to repair the road,” he said.
Edward was met on the road after coming back from a Gawai Dayak celebration.
It was observed that many big vehicles were stranded at some muddy stretches of the road.
Linei is an Iban area under Mulu state constituency and Baram parliamentary constituency.

theborneopost.com

United we stand in safeguarding our rights

The Borneo Post Team, reporters@theborneopost.com

File photo

       SARAWAK welcomes the appointment of Tommy Thomas as the new Attorney-General with mixed feelings amidst heightened expectations for institutional reforms against corruption and abuse of power in high places to ensure moral, ethical and clean practices at all levels of government.
     While the appointment was predicated by a sense of constitutional vindication – that Thomas’ elevation to the eminent position of chief legal adviser to the government was based on merit and in accordance with the Federal Constitution – uncertainties reign over the upcoming suit brought by Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) to challenge the constitutionality and legality of the Petroleum  Development Act 1974 (PDA 1974).
      On June 4, the national oil and gas company resorted to court action to seek legal redress to its oil and gas rights in Sarawak.
Petronas, in a statement, said it had filed an application before the Federal Court, seeking a declaration on PDA 1974 being the law applicable to the petroleum industry in Malaysia.
      It is seeking to clarify that under the law, Petronas is the exclusive owner of the petroleum resources as well as the regulator of the upstream industry throughout Malaysia, including in Sarawak.
The suit comes two months after the Sarawak government announced that a new regulatory framework over the oil and gas industry would come into force, effective July 1.
      Under the regulation, all companies, operating mining and oil and gas activities in Sarawak need to apply for licence, failing which actions and penalties will be taken against them.
      Many quarters are apportioning blame of gross negligence and erroneous judgement on the Sarawak government for not challenging the constitutionality of the Territorial Sea Act 2012 (TSA) and the lapse and nullity of PDA 1974.
      With a legal battle looming, Sarawakians have, so far, not heard from the Sarawak government on its take of the matter at hand – how ready it is to face the battle and whether it has, indeed, put its trust in the former prime minister that all autonomous rights, stipulated in MA63, would be devolved to Sarawak – hence, no action allegedly had been taken to challenge the legality of both PDA 1974 and TSA 2012.
      If we are putting our hopes on the newly-minted Attorney-General who had appeared for PAS in Kelantan and Terengganu on oil royalty cases against Petronas and the federal government, to do the same for Sarawak, it is only fair to examine the inner thoughts of Tommy Thomas on PDA 1974.
Thomas had appeared for the Terengganu government against the federal government and Petronas for ceasing cash payments to the state after paying it for 22 years.
      In the Feb 5 – Feb 11 issues of The Edge, Thomas wrote a piece “Time to review the Petroleum Development Act” under the Letter to the Editor column (Page 55).
He said he was prompted to make some observations in the light of an article “Why Sarawak questions the PDA” (Jan 29 – Feb 3 issue, The Edge).
His first observation is that PDA is a valid Act of Parliament.
“Merely because the 1969 Emergency was in force in 1974 when Parliament enacted the PDA does not render it unconstitutional,” he asserted.
As such, in his opinion, PDA is a valid Act of Parliament whose legality cannot be challenged – and more crucially, the Orders in Council that give Sarawak its territorial rights are just of “historical interest.”
      This is a big setback for Sarawak’s claim to its oil and gas rights.
Thomas said parliament did not sit immediately after the 1969 general election. The May 13, 1969, riots led to the proclamation of Emergency on May 15 and the establishment of the National Operations Council which governed the nation. Parliament only sat for the first time after the 1969 general election on Feb 20, 1971.
PDA was passed by Parliament in 1974 and came into force on Oct 1 the same year.
        Thomas argued that out of its 60 years as an independent nation (he counted from the year Malaya gained independence in 1957), Malaysia has been under emergency rule for over 50 years and sometimes under more than one emergency.
      “During this lengthy period, successive Parliaments enacted hundreds of Acts, none of which is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge on the grounds that when Parliament passed it, it was under a cloud of emergency rule. If that were so, the result would be legal anarchy,” he noted.
       What Sarawakians can take from the views expressed by Thomas is that he holds the view PDA 1974 should be amended.
Thomas had interviewed the late Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub who signed the grant and agreement as Chief Minister of Sarawak in March 1975, as he (Thomas) prepared to represent the Terengganu government in its civil suit instituted against  the federal government and Petronas.
“    We asked him (Tun Yakub) why Sarawak had agreed to reduce the cash payment from 10 per cent which Shell had been paying it for decades, to five per cent under the PDA. Tun Rahman, unfortunately, had neither recollection nor explanation why five per cent was agreed to but accepted that it was simply too little.
     “Hence, a cogent case can be made for a federal government, taking power after the 14th general election, to have a comprehensive review of the entire PDA and particularly, the inadequacy of the cash payments to the states concerned.
     “The 90:5:5 oil royalty formula is patently unfair and must be reviewed,” he said.
      On his first day at office, Thomas has stated that he shall always promote genuine constitutionalism, separation of power, rule of law and due process.
We can prepare for the Petronas suit, knowing the thoughts of Thomas, but in the final analysis, as Sarawakians, we should still depend on ourselves and be proactive in claiming our rights and not put all our hopes on the new AG just because he holds the view that PDA 1974 should be reviewed and amended.
      A point to note is Tommy did not mention that any law affecting the territory and resources of Sarawak need the consent of the State Legislative Assembly for it to be tabled.
      Records show that this was not adhered to in the passing of PDA 1974.
This is the main contention of the state government in challenging the validity of PDA 1974.
      After chairing the Federal Cabinet meeting yesterday, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was asked whether the PH government would honour the devolution of power to Sarawak that was agreed by the previous BN administration and he assured the present government “will honour all that they have committed to.”
      While we can take heart from the assurance given by the prime minister, it’s also disturbing that the prime minister said he would be leaving it to Petronas and court to decide on the matter.
      Sarawakians should ask what’s going to happen to the rights under Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the devolution of powers besides the oil and gas rights.
It is not wrong to say that PH Sarawak has increased its parliamentary seats from 6 to 12 as Sarawakians have vested their trust on the PH leaders who have been vocal to assure Sarawakians the return of rights.
      Is it a valid question to ask – why can’t the devolution of powers be given back by PH just as how the GST is being zero-rated within 100 days?
     It’s time for all Sarawakians not to play politics but be fully committed to maintaining our solidarity and stand united in the demand the return of our rights.

theborneopost.com

‘PDA enacted under emergency law, never endorsed by DUN’

Jacob Achoi, reporters@theborneopost.com

Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah

KUCHING: Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Youth and Sports Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah said Petronas should seek clarification whether the company can still operate under the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974 which was enacted under an emergency law.
Besides that, the PDA 1974 had never been endorsed by the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly (DUN) or the cabinet, he added.
  “The PDA 1974 was enacted under an emergency law and it has never got endorsement and approval from DUN or cabinet…with emergency laws already lifted in 2011, Petronas should also seek clarification on whether they could still operate or not,” he said in a WhatsApp message yesterday.
     He was asked to comment on the move by Petronas on Monday to file application before the Federal Court seeking for a declaration on the PDA 1974 being the law applicable for petroleum industry in Malaysia.
     The oil and gas company is seeking to clarify that under the law, it is the exclusive owner of the petroleum resources as well as the regulator for the upstream industry throughout the country.
Abdul Karim pointed out that it was the legal right of Petronas to file the court action to seek clarity on its right under the PDA 1974.
However, he stressed that Sarawak’s stand has always been that any resources found within the territory of Sarawak, including its continental shelf, belong to Sarawak.
“This has been so even before Malaysia was formed in 1963 and nobody, more so a company like Petronas, can take it away. Sarawak Mining Act 1958 and other State Ordinances on land and resources clearly stipulate that,” he asserted.
     Meanwhile, Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) youth central said the court case will be a legal battle that determines whether the company can continue to exploit oil in the state and a “fight for oil sovereignty” between Petronas and all Sarawakians.
     Its secretary general Milton Foo said the action by Petronas was a sign of disrespect to the state government that has made clear proclamation on its ownership, control and right over oil in the state.
     He regretted that just less than a month after Pakatan Harapan came to power, Petronas, as a government-linked company (GLC), chose to take such tough and intense measures to further plunder the oil resources that originally belonged to the people of Sarawak.
   “The decision of the wholly state-owned company to bring this issue to Federal Court has gone totally against the promise of Pakatan Harapan to the Sarawakians in so-called ‘Buku Harapan’ before GE14 to give back all rights originally belonged to Sarawak as stated in Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), including oil, to the government of Sarawak.
    “Take our land together with our lives, but not our concession nor humiliation. In this fighting over our oil sovereignty, we Sarawakians, with our perseverance and resoluteness, will never pull back even one single step!
    “When necessary, the Sarawak government, which was one of the components in the formation of Malaysia, shall have the option of judicial proceeding by bringing the legal issues concerning the sovereignty of the MA63 and Oil  Sovereignty of Sarawak, which are subordinated to the international compact, to International Court of Justice for judicial identification and corroboration,” he added.
        Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was quoted as saying that he is leaving it to the court to decide on the suit brought by Petronas.
“I will leave it to Petronas whether they can succeed or not in the court action they have taken,” Dr Mahathir was quoted as saying

theborneopost.com

Petronas suit: Stop finger-pointing, strive to protect Sarawak’s sovereignty, politicians urged

Soo, flanked by Buln (right) and Voon, shows the book on Federal Constitution to the camera.

KUCHING: All politicians in Sarawak need to stop ‘politicking’ and pointing fingers in relation to Petronas suit over rights of petroleum resources in the country, because Sarawak is in danger of losing claim to its territorial boundaries and petroleum resources.
In stating this, Sarawak Reform Party (STAR) president Lina Soo viewed the court filing by Petronas as ‘the ultimate litmus test’ for the internal sovereignty of a partner within a federation, as Sarawak’s authority and powers within its own territory are being ‘severely put to the test’.
“Sarawak has internal sovereignty, namely legal ownership, economic rights and property rights of its oil, gas and minerals in its continental shelf – protected under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the Federal Constitution.
   “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to take over ownership and economic rights of Sarawak’s resources by shifting its boundary and sea, in legislating the Territorial Sea Act (TSA) 2012,” she said in a press conference yesterday.
According to her, now is the most opportune time to restore Sarawak’s internal sovereignty to put right its political boundary, and as the exclusive owner with economic and property rights to its petroleum assets – onshore and offshore.
Soo also called upon the Sarawak government that in the next State Legislative Assembly (DUN) sitting, it should reject the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974, the TSA 2012 and Constitutional Amendment A354 Section 2, as these three Acts have never been moved for adoption in the House as required under Article 2(b) of the Federal Constitution.
She also expressed support to Sarawak government to respond valiantly to the Petronas suit with fervour and determination, resisting the corporation’s attempt to take over Sarawak’s petroleum resources.
“The Sarawak government should also engage a British QC (Queen’s Counsel) in constitutional and international law to assist, in the event that the court case proceeds,” she said.
STAR, Soo added, had also planned to set up an alternative team of lawyers to hold a watching brief over the case – as a way of it defending Sarawak’s territorial rights and sea under MA63.
“A Sarawak-born lawyer who is currently practising in Australia, Robert Pei shall assist the legal team on pro bono basis.
“So we will establish the Sarawak MA63 Fund to pay for legal opinions from an Australian expert on ‘Constitutional Law, International Law and Federalism’,” she said.
Soo said should the Petronas court case proceeds, the MA63 Fund would also be facilitated to proceed to the British Court if necessary, to raise the matter of MA63 to be determined by the British Court – seeing that both PDA and TSA are in breach of MA63.
“Should that materialise on a need basis, I hope Sarawakians would come forward to contribute to the cause for the future of Sarawak’s sovereignty.”
STAR chairman Buln Ribos and assistant treasurer Albert Voon were also present.

theborneopost.com

SPG views Sarawak O&G issues with concern

KUCHING: The Suarah Petroleum Group (SPG) views the current oil and gas (O&G) issues involving Sarawak, ‘with great concern’.
Being an active contributor to the journey of redressing O&G equity and revenue for Sarawak, the group calls for ‘clear heads to prevail’.
It also calls for ‘reduced political upmanship’ between the Sarawak and federal governments.
“We reiterate our mission of providing professional advice and services to maximise Sarawak’s socio-economic benefits and safeguard its rights in the O&G industry for present and future generations.
“In our initial engagement with Sarawak’s Ministry of Industrial Resources in 2015, we had put across that Petronas would be a formidable organisation in the event that Sarawak might decide to engage or put into a confrontational situation, as it finds itself now,” SPG said in a press statement issued yesterday.
It said it submitted the papers to the then-chief minister Pehin Sri Adenan Satem and had also shared it with the present Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg.
Adenan passed away on Jan 11 last year.
Adding on, SPG also stressed about the need for sustainability and ‘robust economic multiplier’ effects of national O&G exploitation policies and strategies in relation to Sarawak.
In this respect, the group believed that Sarawak would need a holistic approach to redress imbalance of inequitable sharing and distribution, as well as poor value creation for Sarawak. This, it added, would require adjustments to legal, policy and eco-system synergy – in other words, more equitable participation amongst federal and state level entities.
“Rather than focusing overwhelmingly on the legal perspective, Sarawak needs to develop its own ‘in-country value creation model’ and endeavour to apply it for a more generative formula to create healthier participation by Sarawak companies; not all business opportunities being channelled to peninsula-based companies by way of huge ‘umbrella contracts’ currently awarded by Petronas.
“Without doubt, there must also be a ‘felt factor’ at ground level in terms of employment opportunities for Sarawakians. Such a model already exists in the UK, i.e. Scotland approach, which is to develop it as a O&G hub, instead of the current Petronas model of ‘federalising’ the economic perspective towards maximising revenue collection for federal coffers.
“This approach has proven to impoverish the states with the resources and no coherent master plan in place to ensure growth of a healthy state O&G sector.”
According to SPG, in the Scotland approach, the employment opportunities are very much felt by ‘the common man’.
“This is not at all the case for Sarawak, with Sarawakian economic interests being sidelined and Petronas playing the role of an ‘exploiter’ rather than a sustaining ‘value-creator’. It’s sad to note that the recent move by Petronas hardly seems to indicate any different thinking or change to this stance.”
SPG said while the action by Petronas in seeking clarity of its role under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 could be seen as condescending towards the recent efforts by Sarawak, it respected that the oil corporation ‘had the guts’ to fire the first salvo.
“It is unfortunate that Sarawak might be seen as being caught flatfooted by the turn of events. One could say now rather simplistically that the matter rests with the (Federal) court to decide.
“Unfortunately in SPG’s prognosis, whichever way the decision goes, it could result in a ‘lose-lose’ scenario for all parties. Time will tell.”
In this regard, SPG urged all parties to seek for a ‘win-win’ solution that would address the ownership issues of Sarawak’s O&G resources and redress the economic parity in the distribution and sharing of revenues derived from these resources within the ambit of Malaysia, in the true spirit of MA63.
“It would not be far-fetched at all to consider breaking up Petronas into smaller commercial entities – that is via the creation of ‘Petros-Petronas Sarawak Bhd’ (and ‘Petronas Sabah Bhd’, for example) with Sarawak and Sabah taking majority participation.
“This will enable greater focus within the geographies concerned as opposed to the current perceived lopsided and centrist-model, and can only be initiated by the PH-led federal government as a new policy direction. “
SPG viewed this as ‘direly needed’, in that it regarded the current leadership in Petronas as neither having the imagination nor the gumption to ‘reinvent’ its business model, which had gone way past its shelf-life.
“Instead it is replete with festering issues and concerns which are simply ‘swept under the carpet’ or hammered down using the instrument of PDA 1974. Does this country deserve such a throwback to the past era as we seek a brighter future for all?
“While the ownership issues have now taken the route of being argued through constitutional and legal avenues, we believe that there should be still room for discussions and negotiations on redressing of the distribution and sharing of revenues derived from the O&G resources for a fresher solution moving ahead.
“It is in this context that we call upon all parties at Sarawak and federal levels to work harder in seeking a ‘win-win’ solution for the sake of our future generations,” stressed SPG.

Officials must declare assets

---

If an asset declaration system was in place, accusations of personal enrichment and unjustifiably lavish lifestyles can be fended off.
       LET me start by expressing my condolences to Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, fondly known as Ku Li, on the demise of his wife, Puan Sri Noor Yvonne Abdullah last Friday evening.   I sincerely hope that Ku Li will persevere during this trying time.
Ku Li is no stranger to public life. He is a veteran in Malaysian politics and he is seen as an institution by himself. His speeches are always full of wisdom.
Just a few months ago Ku Li made an important statement on the eradication of corruption.
       He suggested that, among the various steps that should be taken to root out corruption in the country.  One step that should be taken immediately is for members of the Cabinet and Members of Parliament to declare their assets.
Chairman of Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club Tan Sri Shahrir Abdul Samad joined in to support Ku Li’s suggestion.  And my friends at Transparency International Malaysia, led by their president Datuk Akhbar Sattar, too have declared their support.
       Asset declaration is not a new idea.   Civil society organisations, politicians and anti-corruption enforcement officers have repeatedly mooted this idea.
      At Ideas, our senior researcher Shaza Onn analysed the issue of asset declaration and just two weeks ago we published her findings on our website.
      Currently, there is no legal requirement for parliamentarians or Cabinet members to declare their assets.
      And even if they do make a declaration, there is no independent mechanism to verify what they put in the forms.
Only Penang and Selangor enable public access to the information declared by politicians.
       No other states or federal agencies have such public disclosure mechanism.
Not even Kelantan, where the government is led by the supposedly pious and godly ulama.
       An effective asset declaration system is a powerful tool to help combat corruption in the public sector.
      Those in the Government have immediate control over public assets and funds, and they manage the award of government contracts. Asset declarations curb abuses of power by preventing conflicts of interest and detecting misappropriation of these funds for illicit enrichment.
      Politically, those in power can also build trust by clarifying the origins of their personal wealth.
       If an asset declaration system was in place today, accusations of personal enrichment and unjustifiably lavish lifestyles could be fended off.
       So it is not just about governance but it does have positive political impact, too.
Malaysia actually does have an asset declaration system in place.  But it is not consistent and there are systemic weaknesses.
       For example, there are government circulars outlining mechanisms for civil servants to declare their assets.  But these declarations are not available for public scrutiny so we do not know if the rules are properly enforced or not.
Cabinet members too are required to declare their assets.
       But they do it only to the Prime Minister and the information is kept by the Prime Minister alone.
       This raises some questions. Does that not make Cabinet members beholden to the Prime Minister?  What can the Prime Minister do if he finds problems with the declaration?   And, to whom does the Prime Minister himself declare to?
       Clearly our current practice is not comprehensive as it lacks transparency and does not have a strong verification mechanism to ascertain the accuracy of what is being declared.
      In our study, we found that globally there is not one uniform system.  But we identified some clear best practices that are shared by effective systems.
      In countries where the asset declaration system is found to be effective, usually the overarching objective is twofold: to detect conflict of interest and to detect illicit enrichment.
     The system is then supported by a clear legal framework that requires officials in all branches of government to declare their assets on an annual basis.
     There should also be an effective and independent monitoring and verification mechanism to assure truthfulness of the declarations and detect irregularities. Non-compliance must be dealt with stern sanctions.
       And on top of all that, there must be public access to the declarations. Hiding them as secrets beats the purpose of making the declaration in the first place.
       With all the attention given to the fight against corruption these days, it is important that we strengthen and improve our asset declaration mechanism, too. Ministers, MPs and senators must lead by taking the first step and parliament should form a special committee to handle the process.
       In our Parliament, Rafizi Ramli (PKR-Pandan) recently became one of the first opposition MPs to declare his assets and he deserves credit for that.
       The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has an important role to play. It must be given the power to verify and monitor asset declarations as well as to cross check the information with other agencies like the Inland Revenue Board and Financial Intelligence Unit at Bank Negara.
       Our review found that having an effective asset declaration system can help lower the level of corruption when this is coupled with public access and a solid verification mechanism.
       In an environment where public trust in politicians is low, initiating a better asset declaration system can help improve the situation.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Tags / Keywords: Wan Saiful Wan Jan , columnist

image: https://www.thestar.com.my/~/media/online/2013/09/09/04/04/col_wansaiful.ashx?h=140&la=en&w=140

Wan Saiful Wan Jan

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/thinking-liberally/2015/06/09/officials-must-declare-assets-if-an-asset-declaration-system-was-in-place-accusations-of-personal-en/#FQdj6MlcFd0dFWmC.99

My comments:

Yes, to whom should our PM declare his assets to?  This is the big question that we should not let go.  Corruption and collusion take place when the assets of the PM, Chief ministers, ministers, government officers at all levels....are kept to PM.  What would happen PM himself were so corrupt himself?  Our history has told and proved to us a lot of cases in which PM was deeply involved in the amass of ill-gotten wealth.  We bear witness how the late Marcos and his wife hoarded a house of hidden treasure.  

 Officials must declare assets to the public.
 

Blog and Tweet 8/6/2018Crafting for better deal in illegitimate business

Blog and Tweet     8/6/2018  Crafting for better deal in illegitimate business

Patronas suit to claim their rights over the development of oil and gas resources in Sarawak is like crafting for a better deal in illegitimate business but will turn out to be like a person carrying a big stone to crush his own feet.  It is self-defeating and ugly.  The company, no doubt, has the blessings from Dr. M who used to be so crafty in the business of domination and monopoly.  Is he not acting against the PH manifestoes of decentralisation and devolution of power to Sarawak and Sabah?  Didn’t Dr M have a meeting with ….from Patronas?   In the year of 2018 and the age of internet, Dr M and Patronas can no longer act so indulgently, aggressively and haughtily than ever before.   In Chinese, we have a saying, [弄巧反拙] crafting for a better illegitimate deal to turn so ugly and self-defeating. 

        Where is the integrity of the PH government?  The main reason for the downfall of the exited-BN government is due to the lack of integrity which they never cared to practice.  Is the PH government to follow suit?  It is quite out of many expectation that the PH government would craft with Patronas who is only answerable to Prime minister.  Is it still true?  Did Patronas know the consequences of losing the suit if our Federal Court of Justice stands for Justice?  Did they ever calculate what course the Sarawak government with the backing of all the Sarawakians would take even if we lost the suit?  Had they ever thought that we would file the suit in the International Court of Justice and at the same time we would seek for secession for good. 

        For the past 54+ years, we have been oppressed and suppressed.  The whole world should have seen how domineering the Malaya government has been to plunder, exploit and raid Sarawak and Sabah to enrich themselves.

        People in Peninsular Malaya should allow Patronas to continue monopolising which is the main cause of abuses.  I hope the oil-producing states in Peninsular Malaya will stand up against the practice.  Is it not the right time to review the Petroleum Development Act imposed on them? 

        Patronas, I guess, must have thought that they could extend this unconstitutional ruling to Sarawak and Sabah.  In the past our weak ministers were bound and gagged to protest.  But now, with the awareness of Sarawakians on our rights, no representatives can afford to behave so lamely anymore.