Pages

Powered By Blogger

Friday, 24 May 2024

40%税收回馈诉讼

繼上週四的上訴聽證會後,上訴法院法官決定今天通知雙方上議院裁決的發佈時間。 今天,在透過 Zoom 進行的案件管理中,法院副書記官長 Puan Norhamizah 告知,裁決將於 2024 年 6 月 18 日做出。

 副書記官長也告知雙方,已提請尊敬的法官注意國家總檢察長 (SAG) 2024 年 5 月 23 日致法院的信函。 SAG 在信中告知,她的分庭將代表沙巴州政府接手此案的審理。 信中也明確告知了州政府的立場,即:

 1. 由於州政府沒有對高等法院 2022 年 11 月 11 日的許可決定提出上訴,因此它接受了該決定,以便在本次司法審查的實質性聽證會上闡明案情;

 2. 州政府在上訴法院聽證會上撤回了關於 SLS 地位問題的意見,因為州政府沒有就此問題向高等法院提交意見; 和

 3. 州政府也撤回了有關聯邦憲法第112C和112D條的意見,認為這是“願望”,而不是強制性或絕對權利。

 據稱,如果法院要求,SAG 可以親自確認這一立場。

 在今天的案件管理中,聯邦總檢察長由克里希納·普里亞·維納戈帕爾 (Krishna Priya Veenagopal) 代表。 SLS 的代表為 David Fung、Jeyan Marimuttu 和 Janice Junie Lim。 沙巴州政府由 Datuk Nor Asiah Mohd Yusof、Datuk Brenndon Keith Soh 和 Devina Teo 負責。

 這項備受期待的決定將決定SLS是否可以繼續追求沙巴人在失去的歲月(1974年至2021年)獲得40%的權利。 從該法律的角度來看,它將表明馬來西亞法院致力於透過公共利益訴訟為公眾走上正義之路。

 SLS 對這一最新進展表示歡迎,並支持這一最新立場,該立場與 YAB 首席部長最近的聲明一致。 SLS 感謝許多參與這項事業的公眾。 他們這樣做是為了了解沙巴在組建馬來西亞的過程中所扮演的角色。 MA63,以及 40% 權益作為沙巴權利寫入聯邦憲法的原因。 他們上週也和平地出席了法庭聽證會,以追蹤訴訟程序。

Monday, 6 May 2024

*砂拉越共和國!* 

 聯合新聞聲明
 2024 年 5 月 8 日

 肯雅蘭全民黨和澳大利亞新西蘭沙巴砂拉越權利組織(SSRANZ)是一家總部位於澳大利亞的國際非政府組織,發表聯合聲明,呼籲總理阿邦佐哈里將砂拉越更名為“ *砂拉越共和國* ”

 PBK主席Voon Lee Shan和SSRANZ主席Robert Pei表示,砂拉越人對砂拉越在馬來西亞的地位不明確感到困惑。

 他們說,當英國在1963年9月16日將未獨立的沙巴和砂拉越主權移交給馬來亞時,聯合國甚至沒有記錄他們的地位變化。 所注意到的只是他們改變了身分。

 *REPUBLIC OF SARAWAK!* 

JOINT PRESS STATEMENT 
8th May 2024

The Parti Bumi Kenyalang and Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) an international NGO based in Australia issued a joint statement calling on Premier Abang Johari to rename Sarawak as the *“Republic of Sarawak”* 

PBK President Voon Lee Shan and SSRANZ President Robert Pei said that Sarawakians are being confused by the unclear status of Sarawak in Malaysia. 

They said that when the British handed sovereignty over Sabah and Sarawak without independence to Malaya on 16 September 1963, their change of status was not even recorded by the United Nations. All that was noted was that they changed their status.

Friday, 3 May 2024

The same old question

The old questions never answered but sweeping under the carpet. Malaysia Agreement 1963 never honoured and it's contents never implemented,. Petroleum Development Act 1974 and Territorial Seas Act 2012 passed during Malaysia Emergency period and they are no longer valid since Najib removed emergency during his time as Prime Minister of Malaysia making all laws and Acts passed during emergency null and void.

Who Owns The Continental Shelf in Sarawak?

Sarawak OR Malaya. 

Prime Minister Anwar's Office said the Territorial Sea Act 2012(TSA2012) is still valid and applicable throughout Malaysia. 

BUT

The Sarawak govt said the Territorial Sea Act 2012(TSA2012) is inconsequential and Sarawak's continental shelf rights is maintained at 200 nautical miles from the coast. 

In fact it should be 350 nautical miles(648.2km) under Article 76 of UNCLOS 1982.

On April 25, 2024, the Terengganu State Assembly unanimously passed a motion to reject TSA2012. Will Negara Sarawak's Legislative Assembly do the same?

With this statement by PM Anwar, the Sarawak Government MUST clarify Sarawak's position once and for all. What is Fadillah Yusof doing?

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2022/05/19/sarawak-will-not-compromise-on-its-rights-says-abang-jo/

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/04/27/territorial-seas-act-still-valid-in-force-nationwide-including-t039ganu-says-pmo

Tuesday, 30 April 2024

SSSNeither form nor join Malaysia

NEITHER FORM NOR JOIN MALAYSIA!

Hello my Brother Datuk, I respectfully say Sabah and Sarawak never joined Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak also did not form Malaysia. 

Sabah and Sarawak together with Singapore were acquired or annexed by Malaya by way of fraud or by a stroke of a pen by having been misled to sign the Malaysia Agreement 1963(MA63).

 I agree with many experts that there was a collusion between the United Kingdom with Malaya to make Sabah and Sarawak together with Singapore at that time, to become territories of Malaya. 

The Greater Malaya or Malaysia Plan was the most despicable act by the British and Malaya working with hands in gloves to deprive Sabah and Sarawak their rights to seek independence by taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the people of Sabah and Sarawak at that time of their right to seek independence by way of self-determination under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514(UNGAR 1514).

I would humbly say the Cobbold Commission Report was a fraud and was tailored to ensure it could be used as an instrument to draft the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). 

Members of the Cobbold Commission were from interested parties to see the Malaysia Plan would be realised. None of the members of the Cobbold Commission were from Sabah and Sarawak. How could a voice of just 4000 odd people could represent the people of Borneo Territories of over a million people at that time to say the people of Sabah and Sarawak 
agreed to Malaysia? 

None of the members of the Cobbold Commission were able to speak any native language and none could understand Sarawak Malay dialect. Who amongst the natives could speak and understand English at that time when called by the Cobbold Commission? If I could read correctly from materials I had, Tunku rubbed his hands on what should be mentioned or written in the Cobbold Commission Report - please see books written by Prof Michael Leigh.

The British government's commissioned study on "The Making of Malaysia by AJ Stockwell" disclosed colonial documents showing that the so-called formation of Malaysia was a pre-determined political arrangement by the UK and Malaya. I humbly repeat it was all in breach of UN laws on the right to self-determination under Resolution 1514 and 1541. 

Neither North Borneo nor Sarawak had any role in the "forming of Malaysia" nor was Malaysia formed or created as a new state as claimed! 

We should not continue to fool our own people because all of us will be answerable to God later. We should be sad that we have lost our country and we should grief to see our people perished because of ignorance or lack of knowledge. Our people perished because their lives and livelihoods had been affected by neo-colonialism.  

The people of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak were not represented by their own elected representatives from the beginning but by the British governor representing the British Crown in negotiating the MA63 terms.  

This was because both Sabah and Sarawak were still colonies and non-self-governing territories as defined by UNGAR 1541. They were not represented and participated as states in equal standing with the UK and Malaya in the negotiations. 

If so, why is it claimed that Sarawak became independent on 22 July 1963 not 09 July 1963 when MA63 was signed?

Further, if they were independent, then the UK would absolutely have no role to play in the making of Malaysia! Thus for this reason MA63 was null and void ab initio. In the Chagos Islands case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in February 2019 advised that colonies have no legal capacity to make treaties with parent countries.

On its face, MA63 had the legal absurdity of the UK government negotiating with its colonial office to transfer Sabah and Sarawak to Malaya. 

What actually happened was that the UK government secretly agreed with Malaya that the Malaysia Plan was to transfer Sabah and Sarawak to Malaya (according to MA63) without giving self-government or independence to the two colonies. This was publicly confirmed by The British Colonial secretary on 31 Aug 1963. 

Further, on 16 Sept 1963, Malayan UN representative Dato Ong Yoke Lin stated in a letter to the UN Secretary that no new nation was created, just the renaming of the Malayan federation as Malaysia with the addition of three new territories (under MA63). International legal experts had advised that Malaysia was not formed in accordance with international law. The current political situation is that people are not happy because the consider Sabah and Sarawak are colonies of Malaya or at least been treated as colonies of Malaya. It is a rule of colonialism that colonial masters are entitled to take the resources of their colonies. Therefore, there are increasing numbers of Sabahans and Sarawakians are not happy of the loss of marine wealth, sea territories and oil and gas resources taken by or to develop Malaya

Even if MA63 was valid at the time it was signed, we all know that fundamental breaches of the Treaty had caused the Treaty itself to collapse. Furthermore, when Singapore exited from the federation, the Treaty itself collapsed.

I also wish to respectfully say what the statement "form Malaysia" implies, was that this was a mutual and voluntary association. 

However, I respectfully say this was far from the truth, as MA63 was signed under coercive emergency conditions with ongoing fighting against nationalist forces. 

This meant the conditions were not such that the people were free to agree or disagree with MA63. In fact, thousands of people were arrested in Sarawak and detained for allegedly opposing Malaysia. They have a legal right to defend their lives.

I wish to say that under international law, it is legitimate to fight back when the people are denied real independence. It is also part of the international law that citizens of a country is entitled to defend their country against foreign aggressions and interference in the internal affairs of their country.

The British-Malayan Malaysia Plan constituted an outside interference with their inalienable right to freely decide their future. The British in reality assisted the Malayans to occupy or invade Sabah and Sarawak.

A treaty made under such conditions and without even a referendum cannot be said to be valid.

The public especially DUN Members should educate themselves on the incontrovertible historic factors.

Yours sincerely and respectfully, 

Voon Lee Shan
29 April 2024

Monday, 29 April 2024

Concentration Camp in Sarawak from 1962

MALAYSIA A BUTTRESS OF FREEDOM
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE IMPRISONED IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS FOR ALLEGED OPPOSITION TO MALAYSIA FROM 1962 

The first video entitled "Detention Camp Kuching 1966" shows Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Head of the Special Branch and later the Malayan Home Minister inspecting the detention camp at the 6th Mile Rock Road, Kuching Sarawak. 

The detention or concentration camp is a symbol of Malayan colonialism and suppression of the Sarawak people's right to independence from foreign rule.

The arrest and detention of thousands of people suspected of opposing Malaysia was often arbitrary and those arrested were never tried in open court, so the new colonial rulers did not have to prove they were guilty. Some were detained for over 25 years.

The video by Mariam Mokhtar sums up the fraud of Malaysia as expressed by the ordinary Sabah and Sarawak people.

The video "Reasons Why Sabah and Sarawak are not keen to be part of Malaysia anymore" expresses the people's anger over the Federal violations and removal of their rights and entitlements guaranteed by the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The new colonial rulers of Sabah and Sarawak know that one day like all other colonised people, the Sabah and Sarawak people wil one day free themselves from Malayan foreign rule.

The photo shows speakers of the Melbourne Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia forum on "Is Malaysia the Buttress of Freedom in Asia?" in 2017.

https://www.facebook.com/conan.drum.56/posts/pfbid0CrHD1cCVJiS8Kg3uVqCfKZ49aax8UHpPKfPbiGGUBpP6WAkDnivmm6XQ4qwz1j8ml

邱宏友:拿回主权自己掌控

借题发挥

邱宏友:非靠争取索求,砂拿回主权自己掌控

我完全认同邱氏的看法,马来亚违宪的在1976把砂降格为州。是的,从此明目张胆的掠夺,剥削,打压,抢劫,霸凌和殖民砂拉越。

是的,砂也因此经济及基本设施远远落后马来亚和其他国家。砂甚至沦落成马来西亚赤贫州属之一。我很肯定的说这一切跟马来西亚联邦脱不了关系。

1963年9月16日,砂拉越,沙巴和新加坡在英国霸权主义和主意的强硬安排下跟已经独立的马来亚签署MA63而成立马来西亚联邦。

据我所知,马来亚就更名为马来西亚。连向联合国申请一个新联邦国成立都掩盖了。

1965年8月9日,新加坡退出宣布独立。这已足够盖定MA63无效。

是的,MA63前后被修改600多次,面目全非。MA63还算合法吗?

我完全同意砂人民权益砂政府应该全权掌控管理。

砂政府决定去州正名砂拉越立法议会是好事。

是啊!接下来,砂政府是否会调正砂旗及歌?

还有砂政府如何处理砂人民身份证的13?还有,还有砂是否用自家的护照?还有,还有,还有,所有砂权益,咱们自主吗? 真的伤脑筋!

对,我们都有注意到砂权益是有逐步复原 

如论如何,SLM 民运会到砂各个角落,向各阶层做醒觉运动让人民知道砂的立场和未来方向。

Saturday, 27 April 2024

我的和我的国家

*我和我的國家:1963 年馬來西亞協議*
( *温利山* 25-04-2024)

 洗腦是一種非常強大的技術,可以讓人們相信謊言是真理。

 我們需要明白,我們的人民因無知而滅亡。 他們傾向於相信不時重複的宣傳。 他們對真理的無知導致他們失去了生命和國家。

 這是聯邦黨人的論壇。 他們相信馬來西亞聯邦,無論如何、無論發生什麼,聯邦都應該完好無損。

 他們會告訴您 1963 年馬來西亞協議(MA63)是有效的,或者好像 MA63 是有效的並且必須遵守。 你會很高興聽到這個,並且你認為一切對沙巴和砂拉越都有好處。

 到目前為止,除了 PBK 以及沙巴和澳洲的一些民族主義者和律師之外,沒有人敢說 MA63 是一項無效的初始條約。 即使在條約簽署時有效,一旦違反條約的基本條款,條約也將失效。 根據條約的基本原則,一旦作為該條約締約國的新加坡退出馬來西亞聯邦,MA63條約就會自動失效。

 我被 MACC 和警方傳喚要求陳述,事實上,我因 MA63 事件而被捕,我赤身裸體地躺在他們面前。 如果我所說的不是事實或不正確,我早就陷入麻煩並因我們的立場而在法庭上受到指控。

  這些聯邦黨人都不會告訴沙巴人和砂勞越人,MA63確實是一個無效的條約,或者不再是一個可以根據法律得到遵守的條約。

 在對他們所說的內容妄下結論之前,請務必謹慎思考。 他們是院士、學識淵博的律師、資深政治家和公眾人物,但這並不意味著他們是對的。

 請記住,沙巴和砂勞越為了加入馬來西亞聯邦而失去了太多。 自1974年石油發展法令通過以抽走我們的石油和天然氣以來,估計沙巴每年損失不少於900億令吉,而砂拉越因國家石油公司開採的石油資源而損失不少於1100億令吉。 沙巴和砂勞越過去每年回饋的發展基金總是少於50億令吉。

 這樣公平嗎? 我們是傻子嗎?

 除此之外,我們政府部門徵收的大部分收入或稅收都被帶到布城,其中大部分是用於發展馬來亞。

 我們不是馬來亞的政治奴隸嗎?

 請注意,根據聯合國秘書處的說法,馬來西亞並不是一個新國家。 馬來西亞是馬來亞的新名稱。

 一些馬來亞政客甚至稱我們為「Tanah Melayu」。

 他們的動機是什麼?
 

 温利山
 肯雅蘭全民黨主席
 2024 年 4 月 25 日