沙巴20点

沙巴20点最低要求备忘录

1962 年 8 月 13 日至 14 日     唐納德·斯蒂芬斯 (Donald Stephens) 召集了一次沙巴政治領導人會議（ The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party, UNKO and USNO )，他們起草了一份 14 點（後來是 20 點）的最低要求備忘錄。這得到了砂拉越的支持。 

第一点：宗教

虽然伊斯兰教被列为马来西亚官方宗教而没有做出任何反对，然而伊斯兰教不应该在北婆罗洲实行。且所有在马来亚联合邦宪法中有关伊斯兰教的法规应当不许在北婆罗洲实行。

第二点：语文

马来文应该被列为马来西亚国语。

英文必须持续使用至到十年后的马来西亚日。

无论在何时、何地点或对洲与直辖区执行的目的，英文必须列为北婆罗洲的官方语言。

第三点：宪法

虽然北婆罗洲接受马来亚宪法作为马来西亚宪法的基础，马来西亚宪法需要是一份新的草拟文件，并需得到各州的同意。北婆罗洲的新宪法亦应受到重视。

第四点：联邦最高元首

北婆罗洲元首无权角逐马来西亚最高元首。

第五点：联邦名称

是“马来西亚”，而不是“大马来亚”。

第六点：入境事务

应与中央（联邦政府）联合管理，但中央政府对北婆罗洲的一切移民事务应先得到北婆罗洲政府的首肯。除安全理由外，中央政府对人员入境北婆罗洲并没有否决权。北婆罗洲在入境与出境事务中有保留权。

第七点：退出权力

北婆罗洲不应有权从联邦脱离。

第八点：婆罗洲化

指定当地人成为北婆罗洲公务员的过程应尽快实行。

第九点：英国官员

尽量鼓励英籍官员留任直到有适当北婆罗洲人选可以取代时为止。

第十点：国籍

根据科博德委员会报告的第148(k)段，北婆罗洲下列居民持有马来西亚国籍：

在北婆罗洲居住满五年

十年内有七年在北婆罗洲居住

出生于北婆罗洲，父母为北婆罗洲居民

第十一点：税收和金融

北婆罗洲负责自己的财务、发展及税收，并有权自行征税及借贷。

第十二点：原住民或土著人的特殊地位

北婆罗洲土著应享有类似于马来亚联合邦马来人的特权，但现有马来亚模式对北婆罗洲未必完全适用。

第十三点：政府

北婆罗洲总理由立法会非官守议员选出。

北婆罗洲实行部长制。

第十四点：转型时期

在加入马来西亚的七年过渡期内，北婆罗洲之立法权力将由北婆罗洲宪法赋予，联邦政府暂无权力插手

。

第十五点：教育

北婆罗洲的教育系统会被保留，并由北婆罗洲政府控制。

第十六点：保护宪法

在未获得北婆罗洲政府的同意之下，联邦政府没有权利修订或废除保护北婆罗洲权益的条文。

北婆罗洲的修宪权归北婆罗洲人民所有。

第十七点：联邦议会的代表

联邦国会的代表不仅仅应取决于北婆罗洲人口但也必须取决于州的面积，国会代表的人数亦不可少过新加坡代表的数量。

第十八点：首长名称

国家元首。

第十九点：国家名称

沙巴。

第二十点：土地、森林、当地政府和其他

联邦宪法规定之国家土地局权力并不适用于北婆罗洲。同样地，北婆罗洲亦不属地方政府委员会的权力范围内。

The 20 points

Point 1: Religion

While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.

Point 2: Language

a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation

b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day

c. English should be an official language of North Borneo for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.

Point 3: Constitution

Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo was of course essential.

Point 4: Head of Federation

The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.

Point 5: Name of Federation

"Malaysia" but not "Melayu Raya".

Point 6: Immigration

Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation

Point 8: Borneanisation

Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.

Point 9: British Officers

Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo.

Point 10: Citizenship

The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments:

a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence

b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read "7 out of 10 years" instead of "8 out of 10 years"

c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must be federal citizen.

Point 11: Tariffs and Finance

North Borneo should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.

Point 12: Special position of indigenous races

In principle the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malaya formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo.

Point 13: State Government

a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council

b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo.

Point 14: Transitional period

This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government.

Point 15: Education

The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control.

Point 16: Constitutional safeguards

No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo

The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the state.

(Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourths majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient.)

Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament

This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its size and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore.

Point 18: Name of Head of State

Yang di-Pertua Negara.

Point 19: Name of State

Sabah.

Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.

The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.

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。

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.

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

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。

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.”