Request for a better internet connection2/4/22

Hi，Senator Lau, on behalf of my nephew's daughter who faces poor internet connection to complete her assignments in Sungai Dassan in Bawang Assan, I plead you to help improve the internet connection in the said area. I guess that she is not the only one suffering from this inconvenience. Look, she has to take 45 minutes' car ride to go to the Sibu town to access the internet connection to complete her assignments. 

看新闻说说看：席位分配不公5/4/22

MA63协议从一开始就是充满着争议性。这是英国政府一手操作。原本按照联合国1960年12月14日去殖民化规章，世界列强就要放手让殖民地独立去。可是，英国列强的企图心把咱们在千里之外的砂拉越硬跟马来亚拼合。这完全违反了砂拉越人民意愿和人权，这也是违反联合国规定。

四国联邦组成马来西亚（其实是马来亚的更名）在1963年9月16日正式成立。当时联邦议会席位的分配是砂拉越，沙巴和新加坡是分到34.6%。这也是不公平的分配。其实应该是50%对50%。但是，当时砂沙两邦国处于弱势，只有任由霸权摆布。在1965年8月9日，新加坡正式退出马来亚/马来西亚后，砂沙两邦国便失去34.6%的否决权。从此，马来亚政府便为所欲为，永远占上风，所以通过的宪法涉及砂沙两邦国的权益统统违宪。

看新闻说说看6/4/22

看新闻说说看6/4/22

联邦222议席的分配，按照前火箭黄庆伟马来亚：砂沙应该6：4分配。是按人口比率区域大小计算。从56议席增加到112议席，就是沙巴50议席和砂拉越62议席。

 

我很不明白他怎么会这么把4国联邦看成三国联邦。新加坡退出后，只看成东西马两邦。他说“严格来说，如果要完全遵守MA63协议，任何东西包挂资源，拨款，国会议席等都必须平等分配。” 我真的不知道他是按照MA63那一条文有这么说法。 

 

砂拉越所有天然资源和税收全归砂拉越管理就好。不用联邦政府拨任何款项。所谓的国会取消就好了，因为没有什么意义。

 

按照MA63，马来西亚联邦只掌管国防和外交，根本不能动用咱们砂拉越的资源和税收。现在，马来西亚联邦在咱们砂沙联邦国所做的一切都是非法和犯法的行为。他们是在掠夺和剥削砂沙联邦国。

 

蔡文铎说要加强立法地位，砂沙需拥三分一国席或74议席。 这种分配对砂沙绝对不是好事。领袖这样的思维，砂拉越永远是踩在马来亚的脚下。三国联邦平等伙伴关系怎么解释？不是等边三角形吗？ 要就是马来亚74：砂拉越74和沙巴74，不然，一切免谈了。 咱们准备独立吧！

 

程明智和符祥威要的都是34.6%的议席分配。砂拉越是不能靠这些领袖的复原的。砂拉越需要更积极，更有魄力的领袖以求得突破。我相信寻求砂拉越独立才是正道。  

 

砂拉越人就应该拥有砂拉越人的心向，想法和精神。一切都是以砂拉越为中心和为先考量。   BL

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？

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。

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

 KUCHING, Oct 18: All the oil and oil fields within Sarawak’s continental shelf belongs to Sarawak and not the federal government.

 Sarawak Legislative Assembly (DUN) Speaker Datuk Amar Mohd Asfia Awang Nassar emphasised today that Sarawak has right over the oil and oil fields because the acquisition of Sarawak’s continental shelf was unconstitutional and against the 1958 United Nations Convention.

“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.

  “It must be the entire length and breadth of the continental shelf together with the petroleum beneath the continental shelf,” he added.

 The oil and oil fields belong to Sarawak, he reiterated, because the oil is found beneath the state’s continental shelf, sea-bed and subsoil, all of which are within the territory of Sarawak.

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