最近AbangJohari又跟马来亚协商 MA63协议里有关砂拉越种种权益的事。我希望不是原地踏步。敢敢的要求属于咱们砂拉越人的权益。不然，就发挥造王者的本色，放出狠话要他们就范。同时，要准备砂拉越独立的信念和信仰。
Monday, 23 May 2022
看新闻说说看9/4/22
时常断水，新YB程明智认为家家户户必须有蓄水箱来应付。这种建议有点多余。他应该要求税务局或有关单位改善水管时常破裂的问题。这让我看到一个老问题：华小拨款不足，每次向华社要求捐助，不是一样的吗？
MP Baru Bian requested for speedy negotiations. 9/4/22
Baru Bian
KUCHING (April 9): Selangau MP Baru Bian has called for speedy negotiations on the Malaysian Agreement 1963 (MA63) in terms of Sarawak’s autonomy over education matters so as to allow undocumented Sarawakian children attend public schools in the state.
He said with such autonomy, the state government would have the prerogative or discretion to allow undocumented, or ‘stateless’, children attend public schools, subject to some payment of special fees.
“Sarawakians are asking how much longer the negotiations are going to take – in Sarawak, there are many children who are being denied access to education because of various issues mainly to do with citizenship.
“The longer the negotiations take, the longer these stateless children have to wait until they are allowed to return to school without being imposed with high school fees, or worse still, lose out on schooling altogether,” he said in a statement today.
Baru said this in response to the remarks made by Deputy Minister in Premier of Sarawak’s Department (Law, MA63 and State-Federal Relations) Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali, who had said that negotiations between the state government and Putrajaya were ongoing, but the decisions had yet to be made.
Baru regarded such a statement as ‘very disappointing’ for Sarawakians as the negotiations had been going on for a very long time, without any update or conclusion.
“The Pakatan Harapan (PH), in the 22 months they were in the federal government, had managed to resolve 17 out of 21 issues that were put up for negotiations.
“However, the subsequent Perikatan Nasional (PN) and Barisan Nasional (BN)-led governments have made little progress on these outstanding matters,” he pointed out.
On the long-standing issues faced by stateless Sarawakians, Baru said these issues could only be resolved when the state had some autonomous rights over the functions of the Home Ministry.
The task of investigating and deciding on the status of stateless people should rightly fall upon Sarawakians as they would know the problems and the backgrounds of the people, he added.
“The civil servants in Putrajaya are too far removed from the realities faced by our people, especially the rural population, to be able to understand and empathise with them.
“There is, therefore, no sense of urgency to resolve the citizenship issues faced by the stateless folks. Strong cases in point are the stateless and elderly former border scouts in Lawas who have waited a lifetime to be recognised as Malaysians.
“I had proposed previously that four ministries, or parts of the functions of these ministries, be devolved to Sarawak i.e. education, health, infrastructure under the Works Ministry, and parts of the (functions of) Home Ministry.
“With the devolvement, Sarawak would also be able to decide on our own educational policies and the priorities of our infrastructure programme, such as our road infrastructure, which is far behind those in Peninsular Malaysia,” he said.
Adding on, Baru also called for transparency regarding the discussions pertaining to MA63 negotiations, and making these findings public.
In this respect, he said every Sarawakian owned a stake in the outcome of these negotiations and thus, they deserved to be informed about the progress.
“The Deputy Minister (Sharifah Hasidah) has been talking about this MA63 issue for five years.
“A special delegation went to London in 2017 to look into the Agreement and to this day, they are still engaged in negotiations – ‘with too many issues that need to be discussed’.
“The Sarawak government needs to be transparent about these discussions and disclose to the people what transpired during the meetings,” he stressed.
Repeal PDA1974, TSA 2012, CSA 1966
PDA 1974, TSA 2012, CSA 1966 must be
repealed to protect Sarawak’s rights, says PBK president May 23, 2022 @ 14:15
KUCHING, May 23: The Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974, Territorial Sea Act 2012 (TSA 2012), and the Continental Shelf Act (CSA) 1966 are all Acts of Parliament that must be repealed in order to protect Sarawak’s rights, says Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) president Voon Lee Shan.
In a statement issued today, he stated
that Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS), as the kingmaker, should seek Parliament to
repeal the PDA 1974, TSA 2012, and the CSA 1966.
“There is no need to amend the Federal Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority.
“The repeal of these Acts by Parliament will not result in any amendment to any article or provision in the Federal Constitution.
“The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) Dato Sri Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, is from Sarawak and he could just table to withdraw these Acts to have them repealed in Parliament,” Voon said.
He also said that if there is no support in Parliament to repeal these Acts, Sarawak will have a good excuse to seek exit from the Federation of Malaysia.
“There is no need to bring the matter to court to declare the invalidity of these Acts because they may be inconsistent with the protection afforded to Sabah and Sarawak under the Constitution, but when matters go to court, it would be a very tedious process.
“The federal government may challenge the Acts as valid and enforceable laws against Sarawak.
“People with legal training know very well that as long as these Acts are not repealed, they are enforceable and are valid laws,” he added.
Voon said the GPS government could not claim that these Acts have no legal consequences on Sarawak’s rights just because the Sarawak government does not recognise them.
“GPS could say that the State’s rights and sovereignty had not been affected and argued that all things are intact under the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order-in-Council 1954.
“However, we all know that Acts of
Parliament are superior to any law passed by the Sarawak Legislature,” he
asserted. — DayakDaily
All oil and resources within Sarawak’s continental shelf belongs to Sarawak
All oil and
resources within Sarawak’s continental shelf belongs to Sarawak
Oct 18, 2019 @
18:49
“If the contention
of the federal government was that Sarawak’s continental has been
constitutionally and legitimately acquired under Petroleum Development Act
(PDA) 1974, even though it transgressed Article 2 of the Federal Constitution,
then the federal government must pay compensation to the state government at
market price,” he said in a media statement today.
He pointed out that history, the International Law, the Federal Constitution and State Laws are on Sarawak side.
“On June 24, 1954, Her Majesty the Queen of England made an Order in Council at Buckingham Palace, London. The Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council was gazetted on 30th June 1954. The Order states:
“2. The boundaries of the Colony of Sarawak are hereby extended to include the area of the continental shelf being the seabed and its subsoil which lies beneath the high seas contiguous to the territorial waters of Sarawak.”
“3. Nothing in this order shall be deemed to affect the character as high seas of any waters above the said area of the continental shelf.”
Asfia emphasised that this is the territory of Sarawak with its landmass and continental shelf, sea-bed and subsoil at the birth of Malaysia on September 16, 1963.
He went on citing Part II Section 4(3) of the Malaysia Act, 1963, which read: “The territories of each of the States mentioned in Clause (2) are the territories comprised therein immediately before Malaysia Day.”
Pointing out that the PDA, the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and other related Acts of Parliament had the effect of acquiring Sarawak’s Continental Shelf, seabed and subsoil, he however argued that these Acts and related laws flagrantly violate Article 2 of the Federal Constitution.
He cited Article 2(b) of the Federal Constitution which read: “Parliament may by law -(b) alter the boundaries of any State, but a law altering the boundaries of a State shall not be passed without the consent of that State (expressed by a law made by the Legislature of that State) and of the Conference of Rulers.”
Asfia also reminded that neither the Dewan Undangan Negeri of Sarawak has ever passed a law expressing consent to the alteration of its boundaries, nor to our knowledge the Conference of Rulers has consented to the alteration of Sarawak’s boundaries.
“If the boundaries of Sarawak have shrunken, confined only to its land mass depriving the state of its original boundaries at the material time Malaysia was formed, the burden of proof is on the federal government and Petronas that Article 2(3) in the Federal Constitution had been fully complied with,” he said. He added that this was consistent with the article in the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament in 1960 (HC Deb 10 May 1960 vol 623 cc41-2) on continental shelf which states:
“The jurisdiction of the Sarawak Government over the continental shelf for the purposes of exploring and exploiting its mineral resources derives from the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order-in-Council, 1954, which extends the boundaries of Sarawak to include the adjacent continental shelf, and not from the Oil Mining Ordinance, 1958, which merely confers powers on the Government to enable it to regulate exploration and exploitation of certain mineral resources of the shelf.
“The right to such jurisdiction is now embodied in the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Convention defines the shelf as extending to the depth of 200 metres or beyond that limit where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of exploitation, and contains provision as to the boundaries between the respective shelves of neighbouring countries. There is no intention of exercising jurisdiction beyond the boundaries as defined in the Convention or except for the purposes allowed by the Convention.”
Citing Article
83(1) of the Federal Constitution, Asfia highlighted: “If the Federal
Government is satisfied that land in a State, not being alienated land, is
needed for federal purposes, that Government may, after consultation with the
State Government, require the State Government, and it shall then be the duty
of that Government, to cause to be made to the Federation, or to such public
authority as the Federal Government may direct, such grant of the land as the
Federal Government may direct: Provided that the Federal Government shall not require
the grant of any land reserved for a State purpose unless it is satisfied that
it is in the national interest so to do.”
Citing Article 83(2) of the Federal Constitution, Asfia said: “Where in accordance with Clause (1) the Federal Government requires the State Government to cause to be made a grant of land in perpetuity, the grant shall be made without restrictions as to the use of the land but shall be subject to the payment annually of an appropriate quit rent and the Federation shall pay to the State a premium equal to the market value for the grant; and where the Federal Government so requires the State Government to cause to be granted any other interest in land, the Federation shall pay to the State the just annual rent therefore and such premium, if any is required by the State Government, as may be just.” — DayakDaily
砂拉越大陆架内的所有石油和资源都属于砂拉越
2019 年 10 月 18 日 @ 18:49
古晋，10 月 18 日：砂拉越大陆架内的所有油田和油田都属于砂拉越，而不是联邦政府。
砂拉越立法议会（DUN）议长拿督阿斯菲亚Asfia今天强调，砂拉越拥有石油和油田的权力，因为收购砂拉越的大陆架是违宪的，并且违反了 1958 年的联合国公约。
“如果联邦政府的论点是，砂拉越的大陆是根据 1974 年石油开发法（PDA）在宪法和合法地获得的，即使它违反了联邦宪法第 2 条，那么联邦政府必须向州政府支付赔偿金市场价格，”他在今天的媒体声明中说。
“它必须是整个大陆架的长度和宽度以及大陆架下的石油，”他补充说。
他重申，油田和油田属于砂拉越，因为石油是在砂拉越的大陆架、海床和底土下发现的，所有这些都在砂拉越境内。
他指出，历史、国际法、联邦宪法和邦法都站在砂拉越一边。
“1954 年 6 月 24 日，英国女王陛下在伦敦白金汉宫下达议会命令。砂拉越（更改边界）议会命令于 1954 年 6 月 30 日在宪报上公布。命令指出：
“2。砂拉越殖民地的边界特此扩大，包括大陆架区域，即海床及其位于与砂拉越领海相邻的公海之下的底土。”
“3。本命令中的任何内容均不得被视为影响大陆架上述区域上方任何水域的公海性质。”
阿斯菲亚强调，1963 年 9 月 16 日马来西亚诞生时，这是砂拉越的领土，拥有陆地和大陆架、海床和底土。
他继续引用 1963 年马来西亚法令第二部分第 4(3) 条，其中写道：“第 (2) 条中提到的每个州的领土是紧接马来西亚日之前包含在其中的领土。”
他指出 PDA、1966 年大陆架法案和其他相关的议会法案具有收购砂拉越大陆架、海床和底土的效果，但他认为这些法案和相关法律公然违反了联邦宪法第 2 条。
他引用了联邦宪法第 2(b) 条，其中写道：“议会可以通过法律 -(b) 改变任何州的边界，但未经该州同意，不得通过改变州边界的法律（由该州立法机构和统治者会议制定的法律表达。”
Asfia还提醒说，砂拉越的Dewan Undangan Negeri从未通过任何法律表示同意改变其边界，据我们所知，统治者会议也没有同意改变砂拉越的边界。
“如果砂拉越的边界缩小，只限于它的土地，剥夺了马来西亚成立时的原始边界，那么举证责任在联邦政府和马来西亚国家石油公司身上，联邦第 2 条第 3 款宪法完全得到遵守，”他说。他补充说，这与 1960 年英国 (UK) 议会关于大陆架的文章 (HC Deb 10 May 1960 vol 623 cc41-2) 一致，该文章指出：
“砂拉越政府为勘探和开发其矿产资源而对大陆架的管辖权源自 1954 年砂拉越（边界变更）命令，该命令将砂拉越的边界扩展到包括相邻的大陆架，而不是来自 1958 年的《石油开采条例》，该条例仅授予政府权力，使其能够规范对大陆架某些矿产资源的勘探和开采。
“这种管辖权现在体现在 1958 年的《联合国大陆架公约》中。该公约将大陆架定义为延伸至 200 米或超过上覆水域深度允许开发的界限的深度，并包含有关邻国各自大陆架之间边界的规定。无意在公约规定的边界之外或公约允许的目的之外行使管辖权。”
Asfia 援引联邦宪法第 83 条第 1 款强调：“如果联邦政府认为一个州的土地（不是被转让的土地）是联邦目的所需要的，该政府可以在与州政府协商后，要求州政府，然后是该州政府的责任，向联邦政府或联邦政府可能指示的公共当局作出联邦政府可能指示的土地授予：联邦政府不得要求授予为国家目的保留的任何土地，除非它确信这样做符合国家利益。”
Asfia 援引联邦宪法第 83 条第 2 款说：“如果联邦政府根据第 (1) 款要求州政府促使永久授予土地，则授予应不受限制，因为土地使用权，但须每年支付适当的地租，联邦应向国家支付相当于赠款市场价值的溢价；如果联邦政府要求州政府促成授予土地的任何其他权益，则联邦政府应向州支付相应的合理年租金以及州政府要求的溢价，如果有的话，可能是合理的。” — Dayakdaily
Sunday, 22 May 2022
26/4/22莫斯科
4月26日莫斯科
古特雷斯对普京表示，他理解俄对乌问题及欧洲和全球安全领域的主张，但这些主张“需根据《联合国宪章》提出的各种工具来解决”。
普京表示，俄罗斯承认“顿涅茨克、卢甘斯克共和国”，是基于历史上科索沃独立的先例，该先例由联合国支持的海牙国际法院通过。
普京说：“世界上这么多国家，包括我们在西方的对手，在科索沃问题上都这样做了。我们只不过对顿巴斯共和国也做了同样的事情”。
他还说：“我清楚地记得国际法院的裁决，该裁决规定，在行使自决权时，任何国家的领土都没有义务向该国中央当局申请宣布其主权的许可”。
MA63 an international treaty 23/5/22
KUCHING: The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is not a mere agreement but an international treaty.
It is a legal document registered with the United Nations (UN) and governed by international laws and procedures, said Santubong MP Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.
He was responding to a suggestion by Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri James Jemut Masing on Monday for the remaining signatories of MA63 — Sarawak, Sabah and Malaya — to make a new deal.
Masing, who is also Infrastructure Development and Transportation Minister, said the MA63 was rendered null and void after Singapore withdrew from Malaysia in 1965 because no supplementary agreement was signed between Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah to validate the union of the three remaining territories.
Wan Junaidi argued that a new deal was only feasible should the MA63 is ‘void ab initio’ (to be treated as invalid from the outset) or it’s void or voidable after Singapore ceded in 1965, or it may be voidable due to the many breaches
by Malaya.
“Even then, it has to be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, which is either the Federal Court of Malaysia or the ICJ (International Court of Justice).”
He told the New Sarawak Tribune yesterday that Singapore’s withdrawal might not invalidate the agreement as many countries had opted out of international agreements and yet the UN continued to pursue the fulfilment of obligations by the remaining member states.
Wan Junaidi said, “Firstly, if the MA63 was invalid from the start, would the Act of Malaysia 1963 (UK) and the Act of Malaysia (Malaya) be invalid too?
“Consequently, are the amendments to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia based on the two Acts invalid as well? Secondly, what about the legal position of the Federation of Malaysia after Singapore exited the Federation?
“So, our best avenue is to seek for the legal declaration of validity of the documents through
the ICJ.”
The GPS lawmaker said there is no doubt that Sarawak and Sabah were signatories to the MA63, but does that mean that they were valid parties to it? If not, then the question of locus standi to bring the case to the ICJ will arise.
“You see, both were not independent states at the time of the signing. Could the agreement nevertheless be valid after the declaration of independence on September 16, 1963? These need to be answered.”
Wan Junaidi believed that Sarawak might have to persuade Putrajaya to push for a new deal.
“Then we have to petition London to bring up the case on our behalf, but even if London is willing, it has to seek the consent of Putrajaya to refer the case to the ICJ which only assumes jurisdiction after the disputing parties agreed that the case be brought to it.”
The veteran lawyer said if London refused to become a party to the petition, then the only avenue is to go to the Federal Court of Malaysia.
But remember, we are talking about the goose (Sarawak) that lays the golden eggs … in the billions every year. Tun Dr Mahathir now has to refer the matter to his Cabinet for a decision, but will his colleagues support him? We (Sarawak) have only one representative in the Cabinet. Will he be in support of the drastic move to renegotiate the new deal?” he asked.
“Of course, if the PM and the Cabinet agree then any deal could be negotiated. The state government is urging the federal government to honour all its promises … return all our rights eroded since 1963, etc.”
On whether Sarawak needs a new deal to replace MA63, Wan Junaidi said it depended on what a majority of Sarawakians want.
“The people must know the content of the agreement, the Inter-Governmental Report and the Federal Constitution before they ask about what is not in it.
“I think the Sarawak government has already designed its negotiation with the federal government. So, we’ll cross the bridge when we reach it,” he added.
Saturday, 21 May 2022
Reasons why the regime could prolong their stay? 22/5/22
*Reasons why the regime could prolong their stay*
Elected Representatives (YBs) were given, besides elections funds, funds of RM8 million and ministers RM10 million annually for their constituencies. This was disclosed to me in a recent meeting I had with someone who was in the government managing the government fund.
The village headmen and community leaders were appointed and being given allowances to disseminate the regime's propaganda.
They also placed government officers who are aligned to them at key posts in all sections and departments and also in statutory bodies.
We all know all of these led to abuse of the system and an abuse of democracy.
*How could we defeat them?*
Being in a very much disadvantaged position, we need to find ways to dismantle these evils from the root.
We need to destabilise the appointment of village headmen and community leaders. I know many people are not happy with the appointment of village headmen and community leaders because many of those who were appointed had caused miseries in the community. Some led to the breakup of longhouses and the community.
The only way to do this at the moment is to bring the issue of appointment of the village headmen and community leaders to court. My humble opinion is that their appointments are against customs and unconstitutional.
What we need is to get people who are willing to challenge their appointment and persons who are versed in customs to give expert evidence in court of appointment or election of village and community leaders according to customs of community concerned.
Such suits before the court may not incur much costs and people in the community can easily raise the funds needed to get rid of the system.
Another strategy to dismantle the grip of the regime to hold on to power, is nothing more important than to educate the people the evils of the system of giving free lunch to them.
Remember, in politics and in societal influence money and gifts are not free to those who give. They sweat for it and definitely they want to take back what they have invested.
These gifts and free lunch are like baits to catch fish. Once the fish takes the bait, the fish is caught! People who take gifts and money from people in the regime may feel indebted to repay for their "kindness" by putting or retaining them in power. Once they retain or are in power, they use their power to grab what they could of our riches.
Please see what is happening to Sri Lanka now.
I had observed we talked a lot about independence and Sarawak Rights, but, failed to give reasons why independence and freedom are important to us. I can say most Sarawakians are not aware of the loss of marine wealth, oil and gas resources that affected our lives. I asked a very senior politician about these, he was stunned and stuck because he also didn't know!
Some may know but don't feel painful because these losses never came directly from their pocket.
It was disclosed to me we have lost more than RM750 billion of oil and gas but what we only got was about RM45 billion only.
I observe NCR land issues went stale and had lost its effectiveness to stir people's emotions to topple the regime. It went stale because lawyer-politicians who fought NCR cases have their own agenda whose interests are over and above the interests of NCR landowners.
NCR issues only attracts about 42% of Sarawak's population. NCR issues only attracts the dayaks and some malays, but, not the Chinese. Other races could not be bothered about NCR because NCR had nothing to do with them.
Chinese and other races, are Sarawakians but, not natives, have no land in this country but Sarawak is their country.
Sarawakians including the natives should come to their senses that the loss of their country, Sarawak, should be something more painful than losing the NCR land because NCR land which is less than 20% ( which I doubt this much) is only a small portion of the country that we all lost to a foreign country. By losing our country, we lost our NCR land, we also lost our freedom and independence to manage our affairs.
We lost our right to manage our natural wealth and resources including the management of our country and NCR land.
Please help to explain to our people of our rights
Voon Lee Shan
Parti Bumi Kenyalang
22 May 2022
**(温利山 肯雅兰全民党主席
2022年5月22)**
**執政者继須掌权的原因***
当选的议員除了获得競選基金,每年有八百万选区撥款, 部長則有一千万。这是在我最近与一位在政府中管理政府基金的人会面时向我披露的。
村长和社区领袖被任命并获得津贴，以传播政权的宣传。
他们还将与他们结盟的政府官员安置在所有部门和地区以及法定机构的关键职位上。
我们都知道所有这些都导致了制度的滥用和民主的滥用。
*我们怎么能打败他们？*
处于非常不利的地位，我们需要找到从根本上消除这些邪恶的方法。
我们需要动摇村长和社区领袖的任命。我知道很多人对村长和社区领袖的任命不满意，因为许多被任命的人给社区造成了苦难。一些导致长屋和社区的解体。
目前唯一的办法是将鄉村和社区领袖的任命问题提交法庭。我的拙见是，他们的任命是违反习俗和违法
政权可以延长逗留时间的原因*
这是在我最近与一位在政府中管理政府基金的人会面时向我披露的。
村长和社区领袖被任命并获得津贴，以宣传政权的理念。
他们还将与他们结盟的政府官员安置在所有部门和地区以及法定机构的关键职位上。
我们都知道所有这些都导致了制度的滥用和民主的滥权腐败。
*我们怎么能打败他们？*
处于非常不利的地位，我们需要找到从根本上消除这些邪恶的方法。
我们需要动摇村长和社区领袖的任命。我知道很多人对村长和社区领袖的任命不满意，因为许多被任命的人给社区造成了苦难。一些导致长屋和社区的解体。
目前唯一的办法是将鄉村和社区领袖的任命问题提交法庭。我的拙见是，他们的任命是违反习俗和违法的。
我们需要的是让愿意挑战他们的任命的人和通晓习俗的人，按照有关社区的习俗，在法庭上就鄉村和社区干部的任命或选举提供专业证据。
此类在法庭上的诉讼可能不会产生太多费用，社区中的人们可以轻松筹集摆脱该系统所需的资金。
另一种解除政权控制以保住权力的策略，就是教育人民了解免费午餐制度的弊端。
请记住，在政治和社会影响方面，金钱和礼物对给予的人不是免费的。他们为此付出，而且绝对想收回他们的投资。
这些礼物和免费午餐就像钓鱼的诱饵。当鱼一吃诱饵，鱼就上钩了！向政权中的人那里拿走礼物和金钱的人可能会觉得有义务通过让他们掌权或保留他们的权力来报答他们的“善意”。一旦他们保留或掌权，他们就会利用他们的权力从我们的财富中攫取尽可能多的东西。
请看看现在斯里兰卡发生了什么。
我观察到我们谈论了很多关于独立和砂拉越权力的话题，但未能说明独立和自由对我们很重要的原因。我可以说大多数砂拉越人不知道海洋财富、石油和天然气资源的损失影响了我们的生活。
我问了一位非常资深的政治家，他惊呆了，因为他也不知道！
有些人可能知道但不会感到痛苦，因为这些损失从未直接来自他们的口袋。
据透露，我们已经损失了超过 7500 亿令吉的石油和天然气，但我们只得到了大约 450 亿令吉。
我观察到 NCR（土著习俗权） 的土地问题已经过时，并且已经失去了煽动人们情绪推翻政权的效力。它已经过时了，因为与 NCR 案件进行抗争的律师-政治家有自己的议程，其利益高于 NCR 土地所有者的利益。
NCR 问题只吸引了砂拉越约 42% 的人口。 NCR 问题只吸引达雅克人和一些马来人，但不吸引華裔。其他种族不能为 NCR 烦恼，因为 NCR 与他们无关。
华人和其他种族，是砂拉越人，但不是土著，在这个国家没拥有NCR土地，但砂拉越是他们的国家。
砂拉越人包括土著应该意识到失去他们的国家砂拉越应该比失去 NCR 土地更痛苦，因为 NCR 土地不到国土 20%（我对此表示怀疑）；它只是其中的一小部分。当我们失去我们的国家，我们失去了我们的 NCR 土地，我们也失去了管理我们事务的自由和独立。
请帮助向我们的人民解释我们的权力。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)