砂中区燕窝沦陷了！！！

东马中区燕窝沦陷了！！！

     从以前燕窝因为受中国的青睐，所以才有很多平民百姓花重金去建燕屋养燕子，一个四四方方的三层楼燕屋建筑成本高达40-80万100万不等看大小。花了重金还得细心和耐心的引燕，花的可不止是时间和精力，有时发现设计不理想的时候可能已经过了3-5年不等，还要再花几万块去装修和改善然后再花两三年时间等待燕屋成长。回头看，做一间燕屋花了不止是重本，还牺牲了自己的青春！重点是还不一定成功！！燕屋的成功率其实只有30%不到，也就是说10间里面只有两三间是7年里面回本，而其他的15年可能还没回本，这些都还没算进我们的时间价值，精力，付出呢！

     一直以来，我们都为了配合正规燕窝出口商去注册了兽医部燕屋准证来合法化我们的燕窝，所以市场上有一部分的燕农会自行注册此准证。但近年来有个叫”森林部”的部门出新的条规，规定只要在砂劳越的燕屋都得得到它的燕屋准证，事后民众有去申请，不但手续复杂，需要通过6个部门，准证申请的时间还无厘头的久。准证批准是由古晋总部批，所以在诗巫申请的文件也是全寄给古晋，曾经有燕农交文件给诗巫申请，一个半月后打电话询问，那份文件竟然还在诗巫，理由是公务员忘记了。然后再等半个月后文件才发到古晋开始处理。有个燕农甚至持续追问了8个月，得来的只是”sedang process”。大部分的燕农执照根本申请不到，理由也不清不楚。大众不是不配合森林部，而是内部的管理存在着极大的问题！整个砂劳越燕屋超过20000间，而自古以来准的只有区区的200间！这意味着剩下的2万间在森林部眼中都是非法燕屋，上门破门充公只是迟或早罢了！！

     不知从何开始，就一直听到森林部充公燕屋器材，採光燕窝，自行拍卖，然后找下一间，充公，自己採，拍卖，充公，採，拍卖。简直是有执照的燕窝大盗啊！无法无天的抓燕屋，打压燕农，规定市中心15公里以外才可以养燕子，然后下令你们把现有的燕屋搬迁到离市中心15公里以外，这简直是荒谬之谈！今天就算你有本事搬迁燕屋，试问如何搬迁燕子？曾经有人尝试过搬迁燕子，最终导致燕子全部死光。后来民众在和森林部对话中要求森林部分享搬迁燕子的理想方法，对方竟然在再三的追问下还是依然假装没听见，可见他们本身也深知这是不可能的事。在森林部和民众对话中表示，做燕窝贸易商（燕窝收购/加工厂）必须申请买卖执照，而燕屋燕农需要申请森林部燕屋执照。

     但昨日5月3号下午两点左右，森林部带着警察，冲上诗巫美丹商业中心的4家有买卖执照的平民燕窝贸易商，强行破门二话不说就秤燕窝，充公燕窝，然后把公司的文件通通拿走。给的理由是一条从未听过的新口述法律，”燕农的燕窝没有森林部买卖执照就算是贼赃来充公！” 

     天啊，这个事情轰动了整个马来西亚燕窝界，根本没有人或相关当局发布任何条规说明养燕的燕农必须要持有森林部买卖执照才能卖燕窝，也就是说一直以来市场上哪怕你卖一粒燕窝给朋友，只要你没有森林部买卖执照你就是犯人！森林部可以充公你所有燕窝，然后再在警局报你案！这简直是打枪人民啊！据了解，当时这4家都出示了买卖执照，3家都还valid ，只有一家是过期但森林部领头Azlan一直不当一回事，一心就想把眼前全部的燕窝拿走就是了，甚至连燕农带有ic的正规买货单都提供了还是不被当一回事。这根本就是打枪！充公了200多万马币的燕窝啊……这可是人民血汗钱，真金白银买回来的货，这些公司合计一年缴超过100千的所得税，都是持有合法经营，燕窝买卖执照的平民啊……

     燕窝是天然资源，是一个地方的福气，它不但带来了外资，就业机会，带给辛苦燕农的回报，还带给当地人享用燕窝的口福。但今天！这个森林部却把整个局面沦落为燕农和燕商都是罪犯。给的理由是从所未有，无中生有的！明明说好燕商需买卖执照，燕农需燕屋执照，结果抓的时候却说成是燕农需要买卖执照！而且在当局指出的Wildlife protection Ordinance 里面section 34，写的很清楚，罚款2千块。没了。结果森林部的出发点根本不在于执行该给的处罚，而是想尽办法篇故事充公民众的资产，下午几个小时就以扭曲的法律剥夺了你两百多万！！试问这如果不是抢劫，是什么？真正的燕屋进贼又从来没见过一次森林部协助警方捕获燕窝贼？！反而把目标指向平民手里合法的燕窝！

     呼吁砂劳越有养燕的民众，好之为之，只要一天你们的燕屋没给森林部批准，你的燕窝是不可以採下来的，採了就是犯罪！就算有了燕屋执照，你还要申请买卖执照，不然奉劝你还是把燕窝丢了吧或者藏紧紧，它分分钟是你的犯罪证据！如果只有几粒或许森林部不会充公只会罚款2000-10000不一定。如果量多的话，他们一定会想尽办法充工。

     其实整件事情不是没风就起浪的，据当局内幕消息透露，事发当天有人联系了森林部总部问关于这次的行动起因，森林部局长竟然回答说是诗巫这个领头的想要创造业绩，没案子就自己创造案子。试问天理何在……

     早起在90年代开始森林部主要是抓水木为生，主要工作就是靠抓了水木，跟物主讨kopi o 然后再把水木归还。一直以来都是一门黑吃黑的肥肉生意。近年来水木已经少之又少了，所以把目光转移到你们华人的燕屋，其做法类似，想尽办法编故事把你货扣留，然后强行充公，然后进行拍卖，其利润又上面分配。

     燕窝本身是好的，但被这种政府部门管理，小篇认为，养燕和犯毒。或许选择犯毒轻松点，又不用时常驾远途，晒太阳，扫鸟粪，爬上爬下不小心又摔断手脚，重本起鸟屋，十年本钱还不一定拿回来，鸟多贼更多，等等烦恼。

     砂劳越燕农朋友们，保重吧！希望有高见者可以在下留言如何取缔这无法无天的部门！

重权出击（四）James Chin Podcast 5

重拳出击（四）：James Chin Podcast 5

James 问既然，马联邦有提供法院补救任何联邦政府的缺失或犯规。法院有提供这些方便，沙砂政府为什么不用呢？

Fong辩护说在2018年，砂政府有入禀法庭寻求公道（我说有史以来，第一次），当希盟联邦政府拒绝付费MA63规定的可以抽10%的石油天然气的销售税而砂只要求5%。

Petronas当时要妨止砂政府使用砂拉越的法律来调节石油天然气工业，但砂政府坚持立场。

让我补充一下这点，在2/2020, 希盟倒台了。在阴差阳错下，也在马联邦元首的操作下，和砂政府的支持下，慕尤丁便任相。之后，他允许砂抽5%的石油天然气的销售税。这5%是相等于30亿令吉。

2018年之前，砂政府从来没有向Petronas 征收石油和天然气的销售。这之前，Petronas 和其他石油公司从来没有申请开采准证等等。

在2013年之前，砂国阵是完全受控于马联邦国阵的淫威，跟这政治集团是狼狈为奸，吃里扒外和理应外合。当马联邦做出种种违规违宪的行为时，砂政府完全没有采取任何行动。

James认为有很多社会活跃分子都认为PDA违宪，因为砂首长个人未经砂议会通过，签署石油归属权力给Petronas。

Fong讲解说数十年来PDA74的合法性和合宪性一直引起争端。

联邦政府在联邦议会里通过PDA74成立Petronas。但是，Petronas在砂境内的权力只限于开采权是受限于联邦宪法A32在足够补偿下才能生效。

在1975，PDA74签署文件中，并没有书写规定给5% 现金补偿。过去，Petronas完全没有准证在沙砂开采石油和天然气的一切活动是违宪的，完全不符合MA63规定。

从2018年7月1日开始，Petronas必须受限于砂石油开采条例/OMO。按照马联邦宪法73条，OMO在马联邦成立后，还是可以继续使用。因此，Petronas必须遵守砂OMO，申请准证在砂及其大陆架采矿

其实，对于PDA74争议不断，Fong前后有书写给联邦两个总检察长Tan Sri Affendi Ali 和Tan Sri Tommy Thomas. 他建议马联邦和砂政府就联邦宪法A1281（B）上法联邦法院求判决以一劳永逸解决PDA74引起的争端。

他也有建议联邦总检察长就A130法令，上联邦法院咨询意见，可是，他的建议全被否决。

我猜马联邦心中有鬼，他们知道PDA74，压根儿对马联邦完全不利，所以，不愿意入禀法院一次过搞定它。

Fong认为如果有司法裁决，未来政治领导才能决定该做什么。

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