新加坡独立是一场政变？

*新加坡独立是一場政变？*

李光耀已计划好為新加坡引退。此計划当他还在英国与 EW Baker 一起学习法律时，就开始了,还有其他一些新加坡人也和他在一起。在他的回忆录中，他确实提到了其对新加坡如何获得自由和独立的想法。

对我来说，李光耀知道英国人希望马来西亚成立但不会让新加坡独立。大卫·马歇尔与他一起率队前往英国要求独立，但未获准。大卫马歇尔信守诺言，如果他未能说服英国给予独立，就辞去新加坡总理职务。马歇尔很有信心，因为他是东姑派往英国寻求马来亚独立的团队的顾问。如果我能记得我读过的话，那时候马歇尔是吉打州的一名律师。

新加坡未获独立后，李光耀执行 B 计划

 他来到这里并与东姑一起出售马来西亚计划。他们成功了。在我看来，李光耀描绘了一幅画面，说马来西亚对新加坡来说是正确的举动，但在他的内心深处，他想要独立。当时在新加坡存在共产主义威胁，如果马来西亚成立，李光耀也感到安全。

马来西亚成立后，他所倡议的马来西亚人之马来西亚议程造成了严重破坏，致使东姑落入其陷阱。

在一篇文章中，我读到新加坡方面所说的这是一场和平政变；他们成功地让新加坡脱离联邦并宣布独立。

李光耀在东姑向马来西亚议会提交新加坡退出提案之前就宣布新加坡独立了。

在李光耀的指示下，EW Baker 匆忙提出分离法案。从我读到的，李光耀 似乎非常渴望离开马来西亚。

 EW Baker 是当时的新加坡总檢長。为什么是新加坡起草并提出了分离法案，而不是马来亚？

因此，无论出于何种目的，李光耀都按计划行事并打好他的牌。他当时是喜極而泣，並不是因新加坡退出他所表达的遗憾而流泪。

在他的独立宣言演讲中，他谈到了自决权。如果这不是他离开马来西亚的策略，为什么李光耀要谈论自决？如果新加坡被踢出局，他可以在演讲中这么说，但他没有。

虽然新加坡退出是双方达成的协议，但我的看法不同。这是李光耀的政治操弄手段，不是通过相互退出而是通过单方面宣布独立（UDI）退出。分离协议仅供展示之用。

所以，读政客的思想时我们需要看字里含意因為他们一般不会直言不諱。在任何情况下，这都是真正的政变和打东姑脸的耳光。

温利山

2023年5月14日

*SINGAPORE INDEPENDENCE-A COUP DE TAT?*

LKY planned Singapore Exit well. It started when he was still in UK studying law with EW Baker. A few other Singaporeans were with him and in his memoire he did mention of his thoughts on how Singapore need to be set free and independent.

To me, LKY knew British wanted Malaysia formed and would not allow Singapore gained independent. David Marshall together with him led a team to UK to ask independence but was not granted. David Marshall kept his words, resigned as Singapore CM if he failed to persuade UK to grant independence. Marshall was confident because he was the counsel in Tunku's team to UK to seek Malaya Independence. At that time Marshall was a lawyer in Kedah if I could recall what I read

Lee Kuan Yew executed planned B after Singapore was not granted independence 

 He came here and sold Malaysia Plan with Tunku. They succeeded. To my thinking, LKY painted a picture that Malaysia was the right move for Singapore but deep in his heart he wanted independence. At that time there was a communist threat in Singapore and LKY also feel safe if Malaysia was formed. 

After Malaysia was formed he then created havoc by his Malaysian Malaysia agenda and Tunku fell into the trap. 

In an article I read Singapore side said it was a peaceful coup de tat and they succeeded to get Singapore out of the federation and declared independent. 

LKY declared Singapore independent before Tunku tabled Singapore Exit in Malaysia Parliament. 

The Separation Bill was rushed into by EW Baker, as directed by LKY. From what I read it seems that LKY was very eager to leave Malaysia. 

 EW Baker was the Singapore AG at that time. Why it was Singapore that drafted and presented the Separation Bill, not Malaya? 

Therefore, for all purposes LKY could have planned and played his card well. His tears was tears of joy not of regret as expressed by him when Singapore exited. 

In his Declaration of Independence speech he was talking of the right of self-determination. Why was LKY talking about self-determination if this was not his strategies to get out of Malaysia? If Singapore was kicked out he could in his speech said so but he didn’t. 

Although it was a mutual agreement for Singapore to exit but I look it differently. It was a political maneuvering by LKY for exit not by mutual exit but by unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). The Separation Agreement was only for presentational purpose only. 

Therefore, reading a politician's thought, politicians normally don't talk straight and we need to read between the lines. In all circumstances, it was truly a coup and a slap on the face of Tunku.

Voon Lee Shan 

14 May 2023

How democracy works to control our society

*How democracy works to control our society*

Democracy is a tool used by politicians and wealthy entrepreneurs to control the behaviour of people. Democracy is also a tool to rob the resources of the country. The wealthy entrepreneurs will work with the politicians to win elections and to ensure that politicians they support will form the government. 

The wealthy entrepreneurs are willing to pump in any amount of money as long as they can make sure that the politicians whom they support will form the government after elections 

These politicians in gratitude normally will repay these wealthy entrepreneurs with land and licences to rob the resources and wealth of the country. 

But again there is no free lunch 

These wealthy entrepreneurs have to 'buy" the licence, land and mines of the state from the politicians or ministers in power. Here corruption creeps into the system of government.  

The politicians in power and entrepreneurs may also destroy the environment and land of indigenous people of the land. Land alienated to wealthy entrepreneurs may encroach into land of indigenous people. Indigenous people found themselves to become squatters in own land because politicians may pass law to dissolve their rights to the land. The court is also controlled by the politicians and the wealthy entrepreneurs. Therefore indigenous people will find it difficult to fight them in court. 

Indigenous people who are less educated are easily taken to believe that the politicians are sincere to help them when politicians come with sweet words and some honey supplied by the wealthy entrepreneurs during elections. 

The system of democracy is also to ensure the indigenous people remain poor and uneducated so that they could not understand what is happening in the world and so that they become subservient and dependent to their ruling government. 

To non indigenous people, you work for the entrepreneurs from morning until evening and are their "slaves". While you are working these wealthy entrepreneurs could be on holiday or playing golf with the politicians and ministers. You make money for them and they are laughing to the bank. They give your salaries according to their perceived value about you and they keep you comfortable. When you feel comfortable you never wish to come out from your comfort zone. 

Salaried people never be rich because salaries are like drugs which is to keep you happy and you forgot to pursue your financial freedom but just keep on working for the entrepreneurs. 

When you get older or about to retire you then realise you do not have enough saving for your retirement.

Voon Lee Shan 

President Parti Bumi Kenyalang 

17 May 2023

Singapore independence --a coup de

*SINGAPORE INDEPENDENCE-A COUP DE TAT?*

LKY planned Singapore Exit well. It started when he was still in UK studying law with EW Baker. A few other Singaporeans were with him and in his memoire he did mention of his thoughts on how Singapore need to be set free and independent.

To me, LKY knew British wanted Malaysia formed and would not allow Singapore gained independent. David Marshall together with him led a team to UK to ask independence but was not granted. David Marshall kept his words, resigned as Singapore CM if he failed to persuade UK to grant independence. Marshall was confident because he was the counsel in Tunku's team to UK to seek Malaya Independence. At that time Marshall was a lawyer in Kedah if I could recall what I read

Lee Kuan Yew executed planned B after Singapore was not granted independence 

 He came here and sold Malaysia Plan with Tunku. They succeeded. To my thinking, LKY painted a picture that Malaysia was the right move for Singapore but deep in his heart he wanted independence. At that time there was a communist threat in Singapore and LKY also feel safe if Malaysia was formed. 

After Malaysia was formed he then created havoc by his Malaysian Malaysia agenda and Tunku fell into the trap. 

In an article I read Singapore side said it was a peaceful coup de tat and they succeeded to get Singapore out of the federation and declared independent. 

LKY declared Singapore independent before Tunku tabled Singapore Exit in Malaysia Parliament. 

The Separation Bill was rushed into by EW Baker, as directed by LKY. From what I read it seems that LKY was very eager to leave Malaysia. 

 EW Baker was the Singapore AG at that time. Why it was Singapore that drafted and presented the Separation Bill, not Malaya? 

Therefore, for all purposes LKY could have planned and played his card well. His tears was tears of joy not of regret as expressed by him when Singapore exited. 

In his Declaration of Independence speech he was talking of the right of self-determination. Why was LKY talking about self-determination if this was not his strategies to get out of Malaysia? If Singapore was kicked out he could in his speech said so but he didn’t. 

Although it was a mutual agreement for Singapore to exit but I look it differently. It was a political maneuvering by LKY for exit not by mutual exit but by unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). The Separation Agreement was only for presentational purpose only. 

Therefore, reading a politician's thought, politicians normally don't talk straight and we need to read between the lines. In all circumstances, it was truly a coup and a slap on the face of Tunku.

Voon Lee Shan 

14 May 2023

虚假独立--值得庆祝吗？

虚假独立 有什么值得庆祝的？

(16-05-2023) 转载

 砂拉越统治精英在延续“独立”的幻觉

 砂拉越从未实现真正的独立，而是成为马来亚的附庸州，更名为“马来西亚”

 砂拉越统治精英继续其 60 年的欺骗和迷惑人民，说砂拉越获得“独立”，甚至不清楚砂拉越是否曾被英国人合法地自治过。

 当一个国家摆脱外国控制，其人民重新控制国家的主权、领土和资源时，一个独立的国家就形成了。

 在大英殖民帝国存在期间，任何英国殖民地的独立都必须由伦敦的英国议会通过一项法案。 但这从来没有做过。

 有 3 个不同的日期，不同的人声称是 1963 年砂拉越独立的日期。

 一个团体声称是在 1963 年 7 月 22 日，当时英国殖民地总督任命斯蒂芬卡隆宁甘为砂拉越第一任首席部长，并有一些砂拉越人担任内阁成员。

 它不可能是独立的，因为英国人一直控制着该殖民地，直到 1963 年 9 月 16 日。

 第二组声称 1963 年 8 月 31 日是砂拉越获得独立的日期。 由于上述原因，这也不准确。

 最后一组声称，当英国最终放弃对砂拉越的控制并离开时，砂拉越于 9 月 16 日获得独立。 但在同一天，英国人并没有根据 MA63 将砂拉越主权移交给人民，而是移交给马来亚。

 很明显，英国政府从未在 1963 年 9 月 16 日正式授予砂拉越独立。

 根据 MA63 第 1 条和第 4 条，砂拉越只是与北婆罗洲和新加坡一起作为 3 个额外的“州属”转移到马来亚，更名为“马来西亚”。 这正如马来亚联合国代表拿督翁育林在1963年9月16日致联合国秘书长的信中所说。

 面子书页面上的一个表扬简洁地解决了这个问题：

 “永远不要相信马来亚人所说的话，也永远不要相信法迪拉会做什么。没有蓝图，没有时间表，最重要的是，永远不要咨询人民。”

 GPS 仍然想尊重“受辱”的 MA63，因为他们没有勇气退出。

 最近有一场辩论，出席的大部分是高中生，辩论结果是中立：7.4%

 对于联邦制：11.8%

 支持砂拉越民族主义：80.7%

 结果没有发表在论文中。”

致给记者们：有关MA63诉讼

致给记者们*

亲爱的记者好朋友们，

鉴于：1963 年马来西亚协议 (MA63) 诉讼。

法官 Alexander Siew 将于明天 2023 年 5 月 5 日 0900 时在古晋高等法院就 MA63 诉讼作出裁决。

这是由 11 名砂拉越人提起的诉讼，其中包括寻求法院宣布 MA63 无效。即使有效但由于根本性违约历时或約超过 50 年，马来西亚协议也是等于无效的。

我们的论点含括尤其是沙巴砂拉越和新加坡 (SSS) 仍然英国是殖民地，在签署协议时没有法律定位与英国签署协议。我们的论点基于国际法院于 2019 年 2 月 25 日提交的查戈斯群岛案。殖民地总检察长 PEH Pike 也持相同与附和此观点。

我们也争辩说，高等法院有权审理此案，理由是该法院甚至在马来西亚成立之前就已经存在。它以前称为婆罗洲高等法院，现在最近才更名为沙巴和砂拉越高等法院。

我们还认为Cobbold(科博尔德)委员会报告被用来克服閃避联合国大会第 1514 号决议是一种欺诈行为。 Cobbold 委员会当中,沒有一位成员能深諳和拥有理解砂拉越人民的当地方言或语言。他们是被精心挑选出来提供有利的报告，以确保马来西亚的成立。没有 Cobbold 委员会的报告，就不可能起草提供各方签署的马来西亚协议。

菲律宾和印度尼西亚反对马来西亚成立，因为它不遵守国际规则; 包括没有实施国际法之要求沙巴和砂拉越人民决定他们和国家命运的公民投票。

 1963年至1965年印尼的婆罗洲对峙，是因为印尼反对非法成立马来西亚。这导致了称为马尼拉协议的和平谈判，其中东姑承诺为婆罗洲人民举行公民投票来决定他们的命运，但这直到今天还沒完成。基于这几个理由和法律要点，法学教授和一些外国律师告诉我，马来西亚协议是一个骗局。

11名原告知道马来西亚的成立是沒有根据国际法成立的，之后所以提起诉讼起诉砂拉越和联邦政府。英国政府已通过英国驻吉隆坡高级专员收到法庭文件，但英国政府没有回应或出庭。

數名原告在抗击非法成立大马时遭到当局骚扰。迫于骚扰，他们只好躲进丛林。我们知道许多民族主义者不得不离开砂拉越，自我流放海外。 Ubong Anak Nuing 是为数不多的人之一，他是砂拉越恢复独立国家的伟大战士。当他被当局追捕时，他拿起武器自卫。我被告知根据国际法，为保卫国家而被追捕的人有权拿起武器自卫。这是在保护生命的规则下。 《刑法》还允许在受到拥有强大武器的人的攻击时进行自卫。那些躲藏起来的人武装配备很差，无法保护自己。双方火力非常不均。

Ubong Anak Nuing Wen Ming Qiun 和 Bong Kee Chok (黃紀作)被打上共产主义者或恐怖分子的烙印，因为他们拿起武器为其认为是他们的权利而战——挑战马来西亚成立的权利。他们与 SUPP(砂拉越人民联合党) 中的许多其他人并不希望马来西亚成立。

但历史是由胜利者书写的。

您们可能希望出席博学多才的法官宣读判决的过程。

您诚挚而恭敬的

原告辯護律師

温利山

4 May, 2023

*Sent to Reporters*

Dear Good Friend Reporters, 

Re: Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) Suit.

Justice Alexander Siew will deliver decision on MA63 Suit tomorrow 5 May 2023 at 0900hrs in High Court Kuching. 

This is a Suit filed by 11 Sarawakians seeking inter alia the court to declare MA63 as null and void. Even if valid but due to fundamental breaches or past over 50 years, the Malaysia Agreement is void. 

Our arguments inter alia was that Sabah Sarawak and Singapore (SSS) being still colonies had no legal capacity to sign the Agreement with UK as at the time of signing the Agreement, SSS being still colonies of UK had no legal capacity to sign the Agreement. We based our argument on the Chagos Islands case delivered by INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE on 25 February 2019. The colonial Attorney General PEH Pike also opined/echoed the same. 

We also argued that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit on the grounds that this court existed even before Malaysia was formed .It was previously called High Court of Borneo which is now renamed High Court of Sabah and Sarawak only recently. 

We also argued that Cobbold Commission Report was use to overcome United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 was a fraud. None of the members in the Cobbold Commission were able to understand the local dialects or languages of peoples of Sarawak. They were handpicked to give favourable Report to ensure Malaysia be formed. Without the Cobbold Commission Report there could not be a Malaysia Agreement being drafted to be signed by the parties.

The Philippines and Indonesia were against the formation of Malaysia because it didn't follow international rules. There was no referendum as required by international law for peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to decide their fate and the fate of their countries. The Borneo confrontation in 1963 - 1965 from Indonesia was because Indonesia was against Malaysia being formed illegally. This led to peace talk called Manila Accord in which Tunku promised to hold a referendum for Borneo people to decide their fate but this was not done until today. On these few grounds and legal points I was advised by law professors and some foreign lawyers that Malaysia was a fraud. 

The 11 plaintiffs were aware of the formation of Malaysia was not constituted in accordance with international law then took up the Suit to sue the Sarawak and federal governments 

The UK government had been served the court documents through the British High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur but UK government did no response or appeared in court. 

A few of the plaintiffs were harassed by the authorities when they fought against the unlawful formation of Malaysia. Being harassed they had no choice but went into hiding in the jungle. We know many nationalists had to leave Sarawak and self exiled themselves overseas. Ubong Anak Nuing among the few, was a great fighter for Sarawak be restored as an independent Nation. He took arms to defend himself as he was hunted by the authorities. I was advised under international law, a person who is hunted in defence of his country has a right to defend himself by taking up arms. This is under the rule to preservation of life. The Penal Code also allows self defence when under attack by persons with superior arms. Those who went into hiding were very poorly armed to protect themselves. There was unequally of fire power. 

Ubong Anak Nuing Wen Ming Qiun and Bong Kee Chok were branded as communists or terrorists because they took arms to fight for what they believe was their rights - the right to challenge the formation of Malaysia. They didn't with many others in SUPP want Malaysia be formed. 

But history is written by the victors.

You may wish to attend the delivery of the decision by the learned Justice. 

Yours sincerely & respectfully 

Voon Lee Shan

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

4 May, 2023

MA63 Suit, Whether Court Has Jurisdiction to Hear

*MA63 SUIT, WHETHER COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR?*

Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was signed before Malaysia was formed The Malaysian Court was not in existence at that time although there was a High Court of Borneo and High Court of Malaya existing at that time 

We had filed a Suit against the two retired Judges who were not Sarawakians to practise as Lawyers in Sarawak but we lost. Under MA63 no lawyer who is a Sarawakian could practise law in Sarawak. Therefore MA63 gave protection against Lawyers outside Sarawak to practise here. But the federal constitution and the Advocates Ordinance gave certain leeway for floodgates to be opened. There was no full protection by the constitution and Advocates Ordinance which in spirit to my opinion is against MA63. 

The suit against the two retired judges were filed because we want to know how the court would decide on matters protected by MA63.

We lost the case but the court did not touch on issue of court's JURISDICTION to hear cases protected under MA63. With that, it is not sure how the court will rule on issue of jurisdiction in our MA63 SUIT.

If the court rules it has no jurisdiction to hear matters touching on MA63 then the MA63 Suit filed by us under 11 plaintiffs would be struck out on this ground alone. 

If the court decides that it has jurisdiction the court will look into other grounds if the court decides to strike our case out. 

Voon Lee Shan 

President 

14 May 2023

重拳出击（三）James Chin Podcast 5

重拳出击（三）：James Chin Podcast 5

1. JC Fong认为MA63或许不完美，但这世间没有完美的事。这就激发我无限的思考。我认为MA63契约是完全违反国际法而失效。这是一个有极度缺陷不完美协议。

总而言之，我认为事实证明这是从英国殖民沙砂转移到马来亚殖民沙砂，马来亚以马来西亚联邦的名义不间断的掠夺，剥削，打压，抢劫和霸凌沙砂。这种不合情，不合理和合法的不完美，天底下，谁能接受？

合情，合理和合法的不完美是小瑕疵，谁不能接受？

台湾，澳门和香港是中国的领土，可是，中国从来没向他们征收一分税金。再看看马来亚政府这些海盗如何殖民咱们沙砂两国和在SS干什么违法的事？记得，沙砂完全不是马来亚的领土。

2. James Chin也完全认同沙砂人民对马联邦不满是有根据的，因为马联邦否决SS/沙砂自主权和剥夺他们的权益。马联邦完全不尊重和遵守MA63协定。 我认为这种不满已经达到愤怒不已水平。

他认为暂时，国际补救措施是无法采用。所以，他问在联邦法院是否可采用的补救措施。

3. JC Fong 认为在马联邦法院是有机会进行补救的。针对MA63协定中，沙砂拥有特殊权益保障，不受尊重时，可以提交诉讼上法院。 于是，他就提起（A）Robert Linggi (前警察)对沙巴拥有委任沙巴大法官的权力被剥夺时提交诉讼上沙巴高等法院。David Wong（法官）说他有法定资格，所以，法庭判他胜诉。但是，联邦政府上诉，他在上诉庭被否决，而且还不允许他上诉，说他没有法定资格。

有法定资格的沙砂政府，却袖手旁观，没有争取到底SS的特殊权益。这就是马联邦政府敢在SS横行霸道，完全不尊重MA63的协定。

B）.. Ting Check Sii 和.. Tofail Mahmud 即使在Putrajaya法院审理，他们有权力要求砂律师处理他们的法律案件。凡是源自砂拉越的案件在KL审理，沙砂人就是有这种权力。沙砂的法律案件不管在SS或KL，我们就是有这种权力要求沙砂律师审理。

C） 另一宗是有关Sugumar Balakrisnan被禁止入境沙巴而提交诉讼上沙巴高等法庭，败诉后，他上诉到联邦法庭。联邦法庭的判决是尊重SS拥有特殊移民权。最后，沙移民庭强势禁止Sugumar入境沙巴。

D）旅游业原本是属于沙砂立法名单的项目。但是，就在1994年被马联邦野蛮的列入联邦名单内。这大大的打击沙巴人更大发展旅游的兴趣，也影响砂拉越要开始发展的旅游业。

E）马联邦宪法有提供条文注明当行政权从联邦转移到SS时，联邦资金提供不足，SS政府是可以提交诉讼上大法官提供的仲裁庭。

4. James认为SS政府从来未用过。

JC Fong辩护说在砂前首长Adenan 时代开始一直有诉求。譬如，联邦教育和医疗服务非常不到位。教育系统不良，砂有无数残校，破坏不堪，没钱重建。医疗服务和设备在Covid-19的肆虐下，更是暴露无遗。所以，Fong认为马联邦一定要权力下放。 

我认为必须全权下放教育和医疗服务权力。

5. James述说在Najib任相时有设立处理MA63课题的委员会。到希盟时也有窜联级别的委员会。 他质疑以法律处理是否会让人觉得法律超越政治呢？ 这些委员会所探讨的超过一半是权力下放而非MA63课题。

两个行政单位都在探讨如何处理SS人民对马联邦剥夺SS的权益和自主权感到不满。两届政府都希望看到好的决议实现。

Fong本身参与其中多年完全看不到联邦政府的政治意愿。

是的，从这次2023年财政预算案中，联邦发展拨款990亿令吉：

马来亚 ----------------》869亿令吉

沙巴--------------------》 65亿令吉

砂拉越------------------》 56亿令吉

三国联邦说是平等伙伴关系，实际上是完全不平等，所以才有这么大的拨款差距。

真的是光说不做。对SS都一直采取侵略的策略以达到拼吞的目的。

马联邦胆大包天竟然敢将砂保留地交给私人代理机构私有化这些土地。