Pages

Powered By Blogger

Tuesday, 13 June 2023

当前这一代要实现MA63---安华

当前这一代要事实MA63---安华
马来亚以马来西亚联邦名义殖民沙砂两国从国阵巫统从1963年开始到今天,对MA63完全不尊重。

联邦政府换手了,希盟联邦政府还是想方设法掌控,耍赖,玩表面功夫。

60年后的今天,马联邦政府多少都被沙砂掐脖子,所以,下放一些。还是一样在言语上大作功夫。

就2023年财政预算案,总共资金是马币3881亿:
行政用途:2891亿
发展用途:990亿

三邦分配:
马来亚:869亿
沙巴: 65亿
砂拉越: 56亿

完全没有把沙砂当一回事。

只有特别拨款有从新启动拨马币3亿。这特别拨款在1970开始就停止了。好像只拨过一次。这笔账,有一天,还是要清算一下。

砂拉越31代表在前线完全对砂没有作用。连吭一声都没有。

砂政府活像傀儡,任由马联邦斩割。

今天,大家都很清楚马联邦是处处违宪,实际上是狐假虎威。根本不堪一击。

马联邦还是马联邦不间断掠夺,剥削,打压,抢劫和霸凌沙砂两国后来送一点点礼。以前,更野蛮到还要沙砂两国感恩呢!

60年后的今天,有Chagos islands 提供参考和国际法的参照,沙砂政府其实有法定可以告联邦政府上国际法庭。

现在,球是在沙砂政府的脚下。沙砂人民必须团结一致向沙砂政府施压要回MA63协议的自主权权益。

只有除掉没作为的政府,改朝换代,尤其是砂政府,坐镇60年垄断政经。

现在,是时候沙砂人民要发挥自决权,去殖民化打救沙砂。

Monday, 12 June 2023

JCFong MA63 is not legally binding under Malaysia laws

1. According to State Legal Advisor, JC Fong, the effect of the FC not recognising MA63 would mean that MA63 was not legally binding under Malaysian law.

2. The UN legal opinion (19/09/63) referred to Malayan UN Representative Dato Ong Yoke Lin's letter to the UN (16/09/63) as stating that there was no new federation created just a name change to Malaysia. The letter did not mention that 3 new members were admitted on 16/09/63.  

It was the British legal strategy to amend the FC to admit new SSS members to the Malayan federation to avoid having to apply for a new UN membership under a new entity "Malaysia". Thus the British gov't sough the UN Legal opinion on this point. The Opinion stated that the name change was not legally forming a new international legal entity and therefore did not require a fresh application to the UN to be a new member. 

This was done to avoid international opposition to Malaysia and hence it might not be admitted as a member.  

The second leg of the strategy was to avoid scrutiny of the Decolonisation "Committee of 24" which would require legal compliance with Principle IX (9) UN Resolution 1541 to hold a real referendum for a non-independent colonial territory to join an independent federation. This avoided holding a referendum on Malaysia. (As explained in declassified docx and the UK Colonial Secretary, Duncan Sandys' UN telegram to his London office on 09/08/63). 

Following the Manila Accord (signed 31 July 1963 after MA63 was signed). The British again avoided a referendum (publicly opposed by Malayan PM & Permanent Sec. Ghazali Shafie after prompting by Sandys) but instructed the UN secretary to carry out an assessment of the people's wishes on Malaysia (similar to the Cobbold Commission), not a referendum.        

Thus, the UN Secretary without need to put the matter to a Gen Assembly vote, endorsed the change of name.

3. MA63 as an international agreement and bound by international law, was not registered till 1970, 7 years after signing. 

What is the legal effect?

UN Charter Art 102 (a) & (b) require that all UN members must register their agreement immediately on signing & ratification. Failure to do so will incur the penalty of not being able to invoke the teary (MA63) by the signatory parties on any issue relating to the treaty. 

After 7 years, arguably MA63 (if valid) would in effect have lapsed for non-compliance with the UN Charter and MA63 Art 8 which required all parties to do all things necessary to implement the agreement. 

In other words, for 7 years MA63 neither Malaya, S'pore, Sabah nor Sarawak would not have been able to invoke MA63 in any domestic or international issue or dispute. 

Arguably from this point of view, MA63 was rendered not binding because it was not concluded according to international law rules and requirements. 

4. Was MA63 a legally signed document? The Borneo High Court avoided dealing with this issue recently. According to the international legal principle stated by the ICJ in the Chago case, a colonial power cannot make a binding agreement with colonies under its control, as they did not have the power to do so.   

It has been asserted since 2013, that MA63 was void ab initio and not legally binding from the beginning, The reason given was that SSS were colonies not sovereign states with power or legal capacity to make binding international agreements. The 2019 Chagos case confirmed this conclusion. 

The second part of your comment will be answered later.

Saturday, 10 June 2023

安华:布城也不及

安华:布城也不及(诗华日报8/6/2023)

这是多么令人厌恶的客套话。首先他把砂拉越纳入马联邦13之一。布城到底拥有怎样的地位?这分明是要矮化砂拉越以满足霸权海盗盗匪自卑没自信的心理。

他说沙巴和砂拉越在1963年参组马联邦时是最贫穷的州。这简直是安华说,安华道,胡说8道。如果是,马来亚会想方设法逼迫沙砂参组马联邦吗?

砂天然资源无限丰富,怎么可能最贫穷呢?想骗谁?

当时,马来亚经济状况是频临破产,如果不是靠掠夺沙砂两地资源是随时必须宣布破产告终。

马来亚以马来西亚名义不间断在沙砂两地非法的掠夺其资源。这是全天下都见证的事实。

如果沙砂两国今天退出马联邦,马联邦下场就是马上马下破产。要不要试试看?

砂今天在绿色能源和氢气领域领先马来亚,那是真的。

天然资源无限丰富大大超越马来亚,也是真的。

除此之外,基本设施那一样比得上马来亚?

1. 道路交通系统简直是天差地别。
2. 卫生医疗服务和设备差距太大。医护人员总是不足,都是以马来亚医护人员为先。处处打压砂发展。
3. 常年发展拨款不足导致水电供应很不到位。
4. 残校砂是最最多。
5. 网络服务设备落后到,学子要爬树寻找讯号。
6. 砂教师缺3000不等。跟文莱和新加坡比一比,人家有面对如此不堪的情况吗?
7. 火车服务,60年,还见不到踪影。
8. 砂拉越,据报道是马联邦,排进13州之一是第三贫穷州。资源无限丰富,怎么这么贫穷?

尽灌砂政客鱼汤说他们有担当。砂拉越今天沦陷到这么不堪的地步是哪一种类的担当呢?

政客就是政客可以随意应景需求,颠倒是非,不分青红皂白,是非对错赞到底。

我还是我,老话一句:砂不脱马独立,永远落后贫穷。

The Sarawak Initiatives

Dear Sir/Mdm,

Catch us LIVE on The Sarawak Initiatives YouTube channel:-
"Sarawak: Self-determination and the Colonial Overlay" by Dr. Greg Poulgrain and moderated by Prof. Dr. James Chin on 21/6/2023 (Wednesday) at 8:00 pm.

Youtube Live_Infographic.jpg

The Speaker:
Greg Poulgrain is Adjunct Professor of History at the State University of Malang (UM, Indonesia) and Adjunct Fellow Law and Society at the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC Australia). He is the author of The Genesis of Konfrontasi - Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia 1945-65 (SIRD, Kuala Lumpur, 2014)

Topic Summary:
Concerned that the truth “would have a bad effect on public opinion in Sarawak”, the Colonial Office (in the 1950s) resorted to Newspeak saying “the people of Sarawak shall be entrusted in due course with the governance of themselves.” The template for Malaysia was taking shape a decade before it was formed in 1963. Even though different political priorities emerged in the intervening decade – unrest in Singapore, the influence of Indonesia - they did not threaten the original plan but were used to embellish it. The deception culminated in Malaysian Confrontation. This presentation looks at how this was achieved, the benefits accrued and the problems that ensued.

How to watch the YouTube LIVE:
Click the link here to watch the LIVE stream: http://rb.gy/2lgbr 

Get notified for the LIVE by subscribing to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/channel/UCnhTONL31Ksn0Vd9cBQT17w

Do not miss out! Feel free to share the opportunity with your colleagues and friends. 

Thank you and best regards,

Filominna Richard
TSI Executive Secretary
Tel: +6019-876 7928

Friday, 9 June 2023

回应砂总理。。6/6/2022的声明

新闻公告
肯雅兰全民党主席温利山
2022 年 6 月 9 日

有鉴于:回应砂拉越总理在 FMT(今日自由大馬) 2022 年 6 月 6 日的声明。

在此謹告知总理丹斯里阿邦佐哈里;如果砂拉越决定离开馬來西亞联邦,联邦和砂拉越宪法中没有规定禁止后者這么做。同时,砂拉越宪法并没有赋予总理权力来决定砂拉越和其人民之命运与是否应该永远留在马来西亚联邦。

总理的职務是根据宪法规定或法律授权管理砂拉越。总理必须明白,砂拉越并不只属于他个人的而是属于砂拉越全体人民的。即使联邦和砂拉越宪法禁止退出,但是如果人民选择退出并且满足某些情况,那么砂拉越退出马来西亚是无法被阻止的。如果新加坡可以退出马来西亚,同样的,如果砂拉越和沙巴人民选择这样做,那他们就没有理由不能退出。

愿总理获悉,肯雅兰全民党 采访的大多数人都想离开马来西亚。

总理需要提醒的是,1962 年有成千上万的砂拉越人在街头游行反对马来西亚计划。东姑阿都拉曼希望马来西亚在 1963 年 8 月 31 日马来亚独立日同时成立,但由于某些方面的反对而被迫成立将这个日期改为 1963 年 9 月 16 日。

沒有人应该否认砂拉越与马来亚联邦的合并是英国人“强加”于砂拉越人民的事实。解密文件显示,英国和东姑阿都拉曼之间曾秘密会面或计划将沙巴和砂拉越合并为马来亚的领土。许多反对马来西亚计划的人被捕并不得不逃往丛林并被贴上恐怖分子的烙印。他们在维护自己的权力和国家的权力时,怎么可能被贴上恐怖分子的标签?英国当时正在利用人民对本身权力的无知而进行操作。

人们反抗是因为马来西亚计划是强加给他们的。砂拉越政府,亚历山大·瓦德尔爵士(Sir Alexander Waddell)发出警告并说:“任何在 1963 年之前或过早地强制合并的企图很可能会导致砂拉越的种族冲突和彻底的叛乱”——见第 5 页 Michael Leigh 的Deals、Datus and Dayaks .

让所有砂拉越人民和总理知道;联合国大会第 1514 号决议具有宣言性质並根据国际法赋予殖民地自决的合法权利。既然是合法的权力,殖民霸主就无权阻止去殖民化。即使联邦和砂拉越宪法禁止退出,你也不能简单地忽视国际法规定的这项合法权力。自联合国大会于 1960 年 12 月 14 日通过联合国大会第 1514 号决议以来,联合国是希望看到所有殖民地能安全的脫离其殖民霸主而独立。

 英国尚未完成沙巴和砂拉越去殖民化的义务;将它们交给马来亚联邦并不意味着英国可以轻松脫手。

提醒马来西亚政府,当时菲律宾和印度尼西亚反对馬來亚联邦与沙巴和砂拉越合併之计划。菲律宾和印度尼西亚认为它违反了国际法之联合国大会第 1514 号决议规定的自决权。政治家、沙巴和砂拉越人民视东姑阿都拉曼精心策划合併沙巴和砂拉越以扩大马来亚的领土之计划是“政变”。


马来亚通过在 1963 年 7 月 9 日签署马来西亚协议和 1963 年 8 月 1 日发布科博德委员会报告意圖合併沙巴和砂拉越而导致边界对抗和马尼拉协议的签署。马尼拉对沙巴东部拥有主权索取之事尚未解决。

Thursday, 8 June 2023

OMO Sarawak

Only Sarawak State government can repeal Oil Mining Ordinance, says Assistant Minister

KUALA LUMPUR (June 26): A Sarawak State Assistant Minister said today that only the Sarawak State government can repeal the Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958 because it was passed by its State Legislative Assembly.

As such, national oil company Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) is bound by the OMO, said Sarawak State government’s Assistant Minister for Law, state-federal relations and project monitoring Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali in her Facebook post today.

“[The OMO] is a valid law and will remain valid unless repealed by our State Legislative Assembly,” said Sharifah.


To recap, Petronas failed in its motion seeking leave for a declaration from the Federal Court that the formation of PDA 1974 implied that the OMO was repealed.

It also filed an application for leave to commence proceedings under Article 4 (4) of the Federal Constitution, seeking a declaration that the PDA 1974 applied with regard to the regulatory control of upstream activities in Sarawak.

In an earlier statement, Petronas said that the application was declined solely based on technical grounds and that the matter falls outside of the Federal Court’s jurisdiction.

“The Federal Court did not in any way determine or endorse the merits of the legal position taken by the Government of Sarawak to regulate upstream petroleum activity under its OMO 1958," said Petronas.

Sharifah however disagreed, noting that since the motion has been dismissed, the Sarawak State government can enforce the OMO against Petronas, pointing to how the State government can gain revenues from licences, leases or permits imposed on all players including Petronas.

The provisions under the OMO “are not inconsistent with the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974”, she said.

“Section 3 of OMO makes it an offence for any person who is found to be exploring, prospecting or mining petroleum or natural gas upon any land in Sarawak without any lawful authority to do so under any provisions of the OMO.

“Section 4 of OMO sets out types of licences or lease that a person may apply,” she said, adding that therefore Petronas is bound by the OMO and has to comply with the provisions in carrying out any oil and gas (O&G) exploration, prospecting and mining activities both on- and offshore Sarawak.

“Also by virtue of our Sarawak Land Code, State Land is defined to include the bed of any river, stream, lake or watercourse and also the foreshore and beds of the sea within the boundaries of Sarawak,” Sharifah added.

That, she said, means that any person occupying Sarawak State land for upstream activities is “required to have the authority under the Land Code” or by a license issued under OMO.

“The State Government has decided to enforce our laws to the full extent,” Sharifah added. “Petronas can still bring the matter to the High Court, but let us be mindful that no laws can be declared so simply as invalid. If I were Petronas, I would not do that.”

Petronas goes to court.... Sarawak's oil and gas claim

Petronas goes to court over Sarawak’s O&G authority claim

This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily on June 5, 2018

KUALA LUMPUR: Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) is challenging the Sarawak government’s claim to regulatory authority in the upstream oil and gas (O&G) sector. The national oil company is taking the question to the Federal Court via an application filed yesterday.

At the heart of the matter is whether the extraction of petroleum resources requires mining leases from the state government

While the state had repeatedly said it has regulatory authority over such activities, Petronas is now asserting it does not need such approvals from the state to undertake upstream O&G activities in Sarawak.

In a statement yesterday, Petronas said it is seeking a declaration from the apex court that the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA) is the law applicable for the nation’s petroleum industry. The company is also seeking a declaration that it is the exclusive owner of petroleum resources in the country as well as the only regulator of upstream activities nationwide, including in Sarawak.

“The court filing is done to seek and clarify Petronas’ role as the custodian of the nation’s oil and gas resources and not an act of suing the Sarawak state government,” said Petronas. “We remain committed to support Sarawak’s aspiration to participate in the oil and gas industry in the state, for as long as it is within the framework of the PDA.”

The application names the Sarawak government as the respondent. The state’s Attorney-General’s Chambers confirmed that it has been served with a notice from the Federal Court Registry.

“At the moment, the state has yet to receive the motion filed by Petronas related to the application,” State Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department for Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali said in a statement.

“The state government will do everything within its powers, in accordance with the rule of law, to defend our rights in this matter,” she added.

In April, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Abang Openg said companies operating in the upstream O&G sector in Sarawak must obtain the necessary licences and leases from the state beginning July 1.

Malaysia. That interpretation would mean the Sarawak state government could no longer consider itself the authority under the ordinance, Petronas wrote.

Petronas asserted that the PDA had, in any case, superseded the ordinance. Petronas’ application to the Federal Court includes a declaration that the Oil Mining Ordinance was impliedly repealed by the PDA.

Petronas in its application also expressed concerns that the state government may interfere with the operations of its subsidiaries and contractors. The concerns include its worry that production sharing contractors may face uncertainty as to whom to deal with in respect of regulatory approval.

Additionally, Petronas raised the worry that the state government may revoke work permits of non-Sarawakian workers in upstream activities or refuse to renew the permits upon expiry.

Petros was incorporated in July 2017. In August 2017, Abang Johari reportedly said Petros will enable Sarawak to actively participate in O&G extraction activities in the state while actively pursuing its quest for a 20% royalty from Petronas.

At present, the federal and state governments are entitled to a 5% royalty each as stipulated in the PDA. Increasing the rate to 20% would entail amending the PDA via Parliament.

The state’s quest for a higher royalty began with Abang Johari’s predecessor Tan Sri Adenan Satem back in 2014. Adenan had taken over as chief minister in 2014 and oversaw a landmark motion to ask for a 20% oil royalty passed in the state assembly later that year.

The motion had been mooted by state opposition. Adenan passed away in January 2017.