在联邦内可以独立吗？

如果在联邦内可以独立，那么新加坡也不必脱马独立去了。

看看人家新加坡独立的模型，再看看自己60年在马联邦的模样是否差了10万8000里。我看还不只。

全世界有197独立国，砂拉越跟哪一国的主权国家模型？

如果在联邦内可以独立，新加坡何必想尽办法离去。

别再搞笑了！

英殖民政府无视11万人反对声

英殖民政府无视11万人反对声 强制合并大马计划！

2023年7月22日

现在流行说法，“砂拉越‘合组’马来西亚”、或说“参组”。“参组”、“合组”关键词是指参与、参加商量、协商组织。“合组”是联合组织。

殊不知，这样说法者会了解当年马来西亚产生历史背景，筹备成立过程吗？评说、记述历史，要站在当年历史现况来看，来分析；不能主观的用今天想像、感觉和“现况”而言。

依据砂拉越历史学者黄昭发的看法是不赞同使用这个“合组”字眼，因为马来西亚成立是违背多数民意的，强制性，从英殖民主义者利益出发的，完全都是英殖民政府一手包办的，成立了马来西亚联邦。

所谓的《马来西亚咨询委员会》(Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee）参与者（委员会成员）；《政府级报告书》（Report of Malaya-Britain- Sabah -Sarawak Intergovernmental Committee）制定和签署者；《马来西亚协定》（Malaysia Agreement）签署者等，这些人都是谁委派的，都是民意代表吗？

人民未能参与讨论

历史事实是，所有参与和签署上述文件者皆是英殖民者代理人，砂拉越代表的人，他们包括英国高官D. Jekeway、P.E.H.Pike、B.A. St. Hepburn；马来贵族就有Abang Hj. Mustapha、Awak Barieng和Bernard Montegral；华族寡头则有林鹏寿、杨清和及谢晋新。当中这些人都没有一个可以反映人民的心声。人民何来有参与权讨论？

就以葛波特调查团，5名成员就有前英国银行总裁葛波待（Cobbold）、砂拉越第三任总督安东尼艾贝尔（Antong Abell）、前马来西亚辅政司大卫华德斯顿（D.Waltherston）、马华部长王保尼，以及马来亚外交部秘书阿查里（Mohd Ghazali）。由这些人组成的调查团，其“调查”结果不言而喻。

忽视11万人反对声

由砂人联党所发动的签名运动，在短短不到两个星期中就有11万4000名成年民众的签名，占当时人口74万中的成年人不及40%，说只有33%人反对马来西亚计划，可成立乎？ （当时全砂人口约74万，成年人仅占约20至30万，当中半数人深居在河流上游地带，且是文盲，11万人签名反对，“调查团”视而不见）。

英国政府当时就做了“假民主”，成立了一个马来西亚委员会，或者政府工作委员会。这个组织，也开了好几次会议，就以英国人为首，接着里面就有马来亚、砂拉越、北婆，汶莱（参加几次最后也不参加了，因为苏丹不愿意加入）等的代表。

单单说砂拉越的代表，不知道里面的人谁是代表？有没有通过人民来推选，或是当时的政党选出来的。虽然当时1962年有几个政党已经出现了，那时也没有派出代表，民间团体没有代表，其实是都没有人民的代表。

他认为，“合组”字眼不合适，更像是当时英国人一手“强制合并”的马来西亚计划，强制把四邦拉了绑在一起。

综合特稿

英殖民政府无视11万人反对声 强制合并大马计划！

2023年7月22日

葛波特调查团成员在提出成立“马来西亚计划”后访问砂拉越。（档案照）

现在流行说法，“砂拉越‘合组’马来西亚”、或说“参组”。“参组”、“合组”关键词是指参与、参加商量、协商组织。“合组”是联合组织。

殊不知，这样说法者会了解当年马来西亚产生历史背景，筹备成立过程吗？评说、记述历史，要站在当年历史现况来看，来分析；不能主观的用今天想像、感觉和“现况”而言。

依据砂拉越历史学者黄昭发的看法是不赞同使用这个“合组”字眼，因为马来西亚成立是违背多数民意的，强制性，从英殖民主义者利益出发的，完全都是英殖民政府一手包办的，成立了马来西亚联邦。

所谓的《马来西亚咨询委员会》(Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee）参与者（委员会成员）；《政府级报告书》（Report of Malaya-Britain- Sabah -Sarawak Intergovernmental Committee）制定和签署者；《马来西亚协定》（Malaysia Agreement）签署者等，这些人都是谁委派的，都是民意代表吗？

人民未能参与讨论

历史事实是，所有参与和签署上述文件者皆是英殖民者代理人，砂拉越代表的人，他们包括英国高官D. Jekeway、P.E.H.Pike、B.A. St. Hepburn；马来贵族就有Abang Hj. Mustapha、Awak Barieng和Bernard Montegral；华族寡头则有林鹏寿、杨清和及谢晋新。当中这些人都没有一个可以反映人民的心声。人民何来有参与权讨论？

就以葛波特调查团，5名成员就有前英国银行总裁葛波待（Cobbold）、砂拉越第三任总督安东尼艾贝尔（Antong Abell）、前马来西亚辅政司大卫华德斯顿（D.Waltherston）、马华部长王保尼，以及马来亚外交部秘书阿查里（Mohd Ghazali）。由这些人组成的调查团，其“调查”结果不言而喻。

忽视11万人反对声

由砂人联党所发动的签名运动，在短短不到两个星期中就有11万4000名成年民众的签名，占当时人口74万中的成年人不及40%，说只有33%人反对马来西亚计划，可成立乎？ （当时全砂人口约74万，成年人仅占约20至30万，当中半数人深居在河流上游地带，且是文盲，11万人签名反对，“调查团”视而不见）。

英国政府当时就做了“假民主”，成立了一个马来西亚委员会，或者政府工作委员会。这个组织，也开了好几次会议，就以英国人为首，接着里面就有马来亚、砂拉越、北婆，汶莱（参加几次最后也不参加了，因为苏丹不愿意加入）等的代表。

单单说砂拉越的代表，不知道里面的人谁是代表？有没有通过人民来推选，或是当时的政党选出来的。虽然当时1962年有几个政党已经出现了，那时也没有派出代表，民间团体没有代表，其实是都没有人民的代表。

他认为，“合组”字眼不合适，更像是当时英国人一手“强制合并”的马来西亚计划，强制把四邦拉了绑在一起。

国庆日定8月31日

“马来西亚计划”从一开始就按英国人的时间表来运作，要在1963年8月31日马来亚独立日成立。但是，计划出来后，遭遇到五邦人民，尤其是北婆三邦人民强烈的反对。

在1963年7月8日，东姑在英国人安排下就在伦敦签署“马来西亚协定”，接着7月9日，就是砂拉越、北婆、汶莱（当时汶莱苏丹为了捍卫和独享石油资源临时决定不参与签署）代表来签署，这样就意味着马来西亚联邦就是按计划8月31日成立。

由于联合国调查团结果直到8月31日迟迟未公布，原定的马来西亚成立计划不得已延后。有关调查报告于9月14日公布，仅隔一天，16日迫不及待宣布马来西亚成立。成立后，马来西亚建国日，即国庆日却定于马来亚联合邦独立日8月31日。

Press Statement by Dominique Ng on 23/7/23

🚩🚩🚩

Press Statement by Dominique Ng President of SAPA dd 23 July 23 

Yesterday the *original 722 series* team of SAPA, and fellow like-minded nationalist NGOs, proudly organized our annual 722 Sarawak Independence Day, at Kpg Simpok, Padawan. 

Present to grace this special edition of the 60th anniversary of 722 of SAPA was none other than YAB Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, the Deputy Chief Minister of Sabah! 

YAB Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Jeffrey Kitingan's presence at this edition of our 722 is of special significance for it was exactly 10 years ago at our very first 722 in 2013, that he had brought along 5 panglimas from Sabah to Sarawak and together with our fellow Sarawak Nationalists initiated the first commemoration of our Sarawak Independence Day!

At that time the historic date of 722 was not yet recognized by the Sarawak Govt, and we can therefore proudly claim that we together with Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, were the pioneers in celebrating, recognising and promoting this most important day of Sarawak! 

And in persuading the Sarawak govt to finally give due recognition to 722, which it finally did so in 2016, when our then CM, the late Tok Nan gazetted 722 as our own Sarawak Independence Day!

The 722 celebrations at Kpg Simpok this year was attended by thousands of proudly and traditionally attired Sarawakians. 

At my keynote speech to mark 722, I made the call to the Govts of Malaysia and Sarawak to resolutely move forward onto the next phase in the implementation of the spirit of MA63, by *elevating all of Sarawak's divisions as states within the Nation of Sarawak!*

This would finally give the fullest of meaning to MA63, which was signed in July 1963 and which had resulted in the Federation of Malaya together with Sarawak and Sabah coming together to form the new entity now known as Malaysia. 

Many in Sarawak (and Sabah) still feel strongly that ever since the formation of Malaysia, we have not be given what was promised in MA63 and that we have actually lagged far behind in our development, when compared to that in Malaya.

Such a recognition and elevation of all divisions as states in Sarawak would enable the allocation of the requisite funds to expedite the process of development in all regions of Sarawak. 

Dominique Ng

🚩🚩🚩

砂拉越是一个独立国家吗？

砂拉越是一个独立国家吗？

（ 温利山 19-07-2023 ）

 

 最近火爆的一段视频中，大家能看到发言者的矛盾言论吗？ 他们不知道自己在做什么！ 这可不是什么好玩的事情。

 你说你正在庆祝砂拉越独立，然后又继续希望看到真正的独立。 这是什么意思？

 法律上不存在虚假或真正的独立。 独立就意味着独立。 这不是你可以说它是真的、假的或假的东西。

 砂拉越政府在宪报第722号定为砂拉越独立日，这误导了砂拉越同胞。 如果砂拉越于1963年7月22日独立，那么从法律上来说，它不应该属于马来西亚，因为这是在MA63签署后宣布的，因此，如果该条约于1963年7月有效缔结，则该条约无效！

 英国人明确表示，任何英国领土的独立只能通过英国议会通过的给予独立的法案来实现。

 从政治上讲，这样的声明不应该被接受，因为你对自己和那个世界感到困惑和误导。

 黑衣人说我们已经独立于英国人的统治。 根本不应该使用这样的声明。 以这种方式主张独立在政治上是错误的，在法律上也是错误的。 当我们的主权可以由我们的殖民统治者交给马来亚时，我们如何能够独立于英国呢？ 苏加诺说这是马来亚的新殖民主义。

 当我们说我们独立的时候，应该是我们不应该有任何联系，也不应该受外国势力的控制。 这里是在马来亚的控制之下。 马来亚其实就是马来西亚，马来西亚就是马来亚！

部长张庆信对KLIA 的大动作

部长张庆信大动作后

新联邦政府会不会在各部门来个大整顿大改革？

1. 改革重中之重就是修正法令实施良善政策阐明条规，办事透明公开。这就可以消除黑箱作业。

看完周本兴律师的［权力的傲慢］我相信大家更清楚怎么一回事了。

（一）根据刑事诉讼法，羈押最长期限是7-14天。

可是，移民法对外国人可以连续扣留14天。甚至可以无此尽的扣留，所以，就制造了无限可能---敲诈勒索。

（二）移民法令没有阐明扣留者的权力：（i）通知家人或朋友；（ii）接触法律顾问

2. 读者来稿，作者邱汉民写张庆信［英雄救美”］之后。

以下是邱先生的论述：

在安华到该机场巡逻发现7架扫描器6架已损坏！

砂副部长。。陈超耀建议设立独立调查委员会彻查，我完全认同。

全权管辖移民局的内政部长Saifuddin 在谈话中有意掩盖丑事。

我对这内政部长印象本来就不太好。从我360度视察他对Sosma 只想原封不动，不愿修正。上位后，另一种张嘴脸，留不得。

移民局官员野蛮的没收该中国女游客的手机，而她的答案尽在手机中。

对于语言障碍，为什么不请翻译官帮忙说明。简而言之，这些官员意图心太强烈了。

3. ［张庆信突击机场当天，移民局发41拒绝入境书］

游客购买回返机票和饮食费用都由中介公司处理。

被禁止入境的游客，每月“只有”50人。

中介公司靠50人被禁入境，肯定赚得盆满钵满。

以我看，官员禁止游客入境是制造生意给中介公司。这种系统化一条龙作业肯定参者皆有份。

4. 郑荣信先生写［机场得失 揭露腐败机会与挑战］

在29/6/23,张部长大动作，我认同只不过是揭露马联邦严重贪腐冰山一角。那就是典型的一条龙作业。

我认同他的看法，张部长确实树立好榜样。

我也认同有主流媒体大事报道揭露会产生阻吓作用。

要阻止类似的滥权重复发生，全民，官家和媒体一起把关看管好政府各部门。一起推动改革修正法令和政策。

不过，我不认为这场机场风波会造成内部分裂，大家肯定要归依正义。

张部长的大动作是可以阻止马联邦贪腐形象更深广恶化。

前提是联合政府必须有打贪决心。用心认真努力修正法令和政策。各政府部门必须以透明，友善，以民为中心办好事。

任何暗势力在明或正或政势力的强大而崩塌。

Citizenship given to Ragad Taib and her son

PRESS STATEMENT

6/7/2023

https://focusmalaysia.my/cops-macc-must-probe-how-taib-mahmuds-2nd-wife-ragad-is-granted-ic-native-title-lands/

6/7/23

POLICE REPORT AGAINST RAGAD MUST BE INVESTIGATED

Social Activist Panglima Peter John Jaban is among several Sarawak citizens who have filed police reports against Ragad Kurdi Taib and her son Nizar for causing affront to the genuine natives of Sarawak by their disregard and open contempt for the undeserved honour bestowed on them by their host country. He renews his call for an investigation into how Ragad received her IC and Native title lands, when so many genuine natives still await documentation and are forced to apply for native status, despite having both or at least one native parent.

Sarawak Report bertarikh 18.6.2023

https://www.sarawakreport.org/2023/06/ragads-next-move-is-a-landgrab-exclusive/

Peter said: “We have seen this far too often. Some of our civil servants will bow to wealth and privilege, no matter how that is gained, and others are forced into it by their superiors. They bend the rules to accommodate people in power, while genuine natives are ignored or told to come back later. I have personally seen many examples in government offices of rural people pushed aside or simply placed at the bottom of the pile, waiting years while their children go without education or healthcare and worst still they are entitle to cast their vote. So, to see this wealthy woman using her status to grab even more land and her son flaunting his Sarawak riches on social media is simply too much.”

He went on to say: “No ordinary person in Sarawak could have received Sarawak citizenship at that speed, let alone native status. The government must investigate the circumstances in which it was granted and indeed whether the decision followed proper procedure regarding language and links to a community. Civil servants must be shown that the rules are there to protect this most important privilege, the birth right of Sarawakian natives. If Ragad and her son had undergone the proper process, like everyone else, perhaps they would be a bit more respectful of the honour now, instead of acting like money can buy everything.”

“More importantly, the rules must be applied equally to all applicants. That is the only way that people can rely on the civil service and enjoy their rights as a citizen of this nation. If mixed race natives cannot inherit, despite having both parents as Sarawakian citizens, then why should Ragad, who is already awash with riches? Why should genuine natives see this boy flaunting his wealth and life of leisure when their children go without education and they have to pay for healthcare out of their own pocket from their pepper harvest?”

Peter also claims that their actions could amount to sedition as such action can clearly lead to a misunderstanding among the people and civil unrest. He believes that both Ragad and her sons also pose a threat to the stability and security of the nation. This is the second report filed against the family and more will follow if the matter is not addressed openly. 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kZJFYgxBQ7c&feature=share7

He would like the Police, MACC and the National Registration Department (JPN) to conduct a transparent investigation. He said: “It is sad to hear Sarawakians speculating on how Ragad was successful, given the double standard towards other local applicants. The vast majority of our civil service work hard to provide the people with services, only to find themselves tainted by the actions of a few who prefer the wealthy and connected over ordinary people. This cannot continue. Did Toh Puan Ragad Kurdi really pass the Melanau Customs Council Test? If Ragad really did pass her test, we challenge her to deliver a speech in the Melanau or Malay language.”

https://youtu.be/oyuRBalzgEU

Robert Saweng another social activist is a Native from Kapit who accompanied Peter to the Police Station said he was confident that the Polis, MACC, National Registration and Home Minister, YB Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail would take serious proactive measures in this matter with pararell to the PMX Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim's policy that he is very serious when come to the Abuse of Power and Corruption. We are seeing a new era for our government services. This issue first came up some years ago but should not be allowed to stand given recent developments. But if this is allowed to continue, they should not be surprised if those people without any citizenship come out from the village to pursue equal rights for all.

https://www.theborneopost.com/2018/08/16/statelessness-a-long-standing-issue-in-states/

Peter John Jaban

016 860 5272

Deputy President of Global Human Rights Federation.

Should Sabah and Sarawak still be federated with Malaya?

*Should SABAH and SARAWAK still be federated with Malaya?*

We had in the past been debating on the problems in Malaya and how we were affected by their wrong and evil deeds there. For 60 years, we had not been able to have a good double carriageway from Sematan to Lawas. What we have now which we have misled ourselves as Pan Borneo Highway could not be categorised as highway. It is in fact a double carriageway because the quality of this so called Pan Borneo Highway is wanting and much below the standard or quality of highways in Malaya.

We lost control of government departments, which now are flooded by too many government servants from Malaya.We lost our oil and gas and almost all taxes collected from Sabah and Sarawak to the federal government which mostly are used to develop Malaya. We do not have proper school facilities, especially, in rural areas etc.

For their wrong doings, we in Sabah and Sarawak are also to shoulder the problems caused by people in Malaya. The "hate & misinformation campaign" in connection with race, royalty and religion, mismanagement of government agencies, corruptions and debts etc were created mostly by Malayan politicians but, we're made to suffer under the rule of "equal partnership and responsibility" where all parties are to shoulder problems and benefits together.

But despite all debates and about the unequal treatment and misfortunes, we in Sabah and Sarawak faced for the past 60 years, we have not as I humbly observed made any stand at all, whether it is still wise to be federated with Malaya.

Under democracy and international law, we had been deprived of our right to independence by the British and by the politicians in Malaya who misled our political leaders and our people of our right by a stroke of a pen by Malaysia Agreement 1963 to handover our countries, Sabah and Sarawak to enlarge the federation of Malaya on 16 September 1963. 

Be it known as appeared in UN record, Malaya then took a new name, Malaysia thereafter.

Voon Lee Shan

[09/07, 10:25 am] yuchinliik: *沙巴和砂拉越还应该与马来亚结盟吗？*

（温利山 08-07-2023）

 我们过去一直在争论马来亚的问题以及他们在那里的错误和邪恶行为如何影响我们。 60年来，我们一直无法拥有从三马丹到老越的良好双车道。 我们现在所拥有的，我们被误导为泛婆罗洲高速公路的东西，不能归类为高速公路。 它实际上是一条双车道，因为这条所谓的泛婆罗洲高速公路的质量很差，远低于马来亚高速公路的标准或质量。

 我们失去了对政府部门的控制，这些部门现在被太多来自马来亚的政府公务员淹没。我们失去了石油和天然气，以及几乎所有从沙巴和砂拉越征收的税收而被联邦拿去，这些税收主要用于发展马来亚。 我们没有适当的学校设施，特别是在农村地区等。

 对于他们的错误行为，我们沙巴和砂拉越也被要承担马来亚自己造成的问题。 与种族、皇室和宗教、政府机构管理不善、腐败和债务等有关的“仇恨和错误信息运动”主要由马来亚政客制造的，但我们却在“平等伙伴关系和责任”的规则下遭受痛苦，其中 各方要共同承担问题、共担利益受损。

 但是，尽管我们沙巴和砂拉越在过去60年里面临着各种争论以及不平等待遇和不幸，但正如我谦虚地观察到的那样，我们根本没有表明任何立场，无论与马来亚结盟是否仍然是明智的。

 在民主和国际法下，我们被英国人和马来亚政客剥夺了独立权利，他们通过1963年马来西亚协议移交我们的国家，误导了我们的政治领导人和人民，剥夺了我们的权利， 1963 年 9 月 16 日，沙巴和砂拉越被纳入成为了扩大的_马来亚联邦。

 正如联合国记录中所显示的那样，马来亚随后采用了新名称，即马来西亚。