Pages

Powered By Blogger

Saturday, 15 June 2024

砂反殖民和帝国主义

我们需要承認布魯克家族反對英國吞併也是反殖民、反帝國主義的
(Robert Pei 15-06-2024)

我思考過這樣一句話:「缘起:砂拉越各族人民反帝反殖民鬥爭的第一階段是從1841年到1949年開始_」。

 我們需要承認,在此期間,布魯克斯創建了一個獨立的主權國家砂拉越,並於1850年和1863年分別得到美國和英國的承認  

 1839年,汶萊蘇丹國擁有對砂拉越的主權,但將其轉讓給布魯克斯家族,布魯克斯家族透過征服擴大了領土。 

 他們透過血腥征服和克服當地抵抗,建立了一個具有「英國殖民特色」的獨立主權半封建國家。   但這並不意味著它成為一個殖民地。  *作為比較,秦帝國也征服了周圍的众多中國王國,創造了大一统中國。

 *但是,由於其獨立的國際實體,必須與殖民地區分開來*。 它不受英國汶萊或其他任何人統治,而是由布魯克家族王朝獨立統治。

 關於反割讓問題,事實上,布魯克政府最初在1942年拒絕英國吞併,但由於我們所討論的原因,拉惹被迫將砂拉越主權交給英國,並獲得一些個人利益。

 1945年,穆達王安東尼·布魯克領導反抗英國統治,為此遭到英國人的禁止和排斥,甚至被指責暗殺了第二任英國總督。 

 在被禁止進入砂拉越25年後,他做出了許多個人犧牲。 他去世後,骨灰安葬在古晉。 他是一位真正的砂勞越民族主義者。 

 基於這些原因,我認為我們需要修正我們的反帝觀點,承認布魯克家族反對英國吞併也是反殖民、反帝國主義的。

 砂拉越的歷史有許多獨特之處,使其與一向壓抑、順從的沙巴截然不同。


I have thought about the statement: " _Origin: The first stage of the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggle of the people of all ethnic groups in Sarawak started from 1841 to 1949_ ."

We need to acknowledge that during this period, the Brookes created an independent sovereign state Sarawak recognised by the USA on 1850 and Britain in 1863  

In 1839 the Sultanate of Brunei had sovereignty over Sarawak but transferred it to the Brookes who expanded the territory by conquest. 

By bloody conquest and overcoming local resistance, they established an independent sovereign semi-feudal state administered with "British colonial features".  But this does not make it a colony. *For comparison, the Qin Empire also subdued surrounding Chinese Kingdoms to create China.*

*However, it must be distinguished from being a colony because of its independent international entity*. It was not ruled by the UK Brunei or anyone else but independently by the Brooke Family Dynasty.

Concerning the anti-cession issue, in fact, the Brooke government at first rejected British annexation in 1942 but for reasons we discussed the Rajah was forced to surrender Sarawak sovereignty to the British with some personal gains.

In 1945, the Rajah Muda Anthony Brooke led the resistance to British rule, For this he was condemned banned and ostracised by the British and even blamed for the assassination of the second British Governor. 

He made many personal sacrifices after he was banned from entering Sarawak for 25 years. When he died his ashes were interred in Kuching. He was a real Sarawak nationlaist. 

For these reasons, I believe we need to modify our anti-imperialist views and acknowledge that the Brookes were also anti-colonial and anti-imperialist by opposing the British annexation.

Sarawak history has many unique features which make it very different from Sabah which has always been subdued and submissive.

Tuesday, 11 June 2024

砂权益保障在哪儿?

若没获应得的权益 砂政党联盟或撤回对团结政府支持
(2022年12月18日)

(古晋18日讯)
砂总理署首席政治秘书兼杜邦区州议员法兹鲁丁表示,在任何时候,当砂拉越权益受到挑战、或砂拉越的地位受到质疑、或砂拉越未获得其应得的权益的话,砂政党联盟有权力收回其对团结联邦政府的支持。

“如果类似情况发生,砂政党联盟不会失去国会议员资格,因为其国会议员之前是在砂政党联盟的旗帜下出战。如果它退出团结政府的话,那有关决定将是由一个阵营做出,而不是个别国会议员所做出,所以它不会违反反跳槽法令。”

法兹鲁丁是以文告方式,针对砂政党联盟昨日签署《组建团结政府合作协议》一事,如是表示。

另一方面,他提及,首相在1963年马来西亚立国契约之未决事项中,对砂拉越与沙巴表示的支持,也应该获得认可。

“拿督斯里安华全力授权予副首相拿督斯里法迪拉尤索,以尽快解决该些悬而未决的索权事宜,而我们期待看见砂拉越权益得以尽快获得恢复。”

他称,团结联邦政府是由来自砂拉越与沙巴的政党所共组。

“我们相信,透过沙盟、民兴党、砂政党联盟的加入,那将反映出现任政府的包容性。”

他续称,有关事项也将利于砂拉越与沙巴在基本设施、设备、经济、繁荣与主权方面的发展。

Wednesday, 5 June 2024

来自黄国华脸书转摘

来自黄国华脸书转摘~
两条新闻带耒了震憾!

本星期一的报章报导:
1,沙芭首席部长说:联邦须归还4O%淨税收。

2,民兴党:被剥夺权利6O多年,安华不理解沙人感受。两条新闻聚焦在沙人民对马耒亜当局的不满,这是否标誌沙人民有了新觉醒?

1961年5月27日,时任马首相东姑在新加坡的一次午餐会上 ,首次向媒体宣佈“大马耒西亚计划”时,就遭到五邦人民的强烈反对。一致认为“马来西亚计划”是英殖民主义者的新殖民主义计划,特别是要剥夺砂北婆人民神圣自决权。与此同时也招致了印.菲两国的反对。此后国际形势发生了很大的变化,但几十年耒“马耒西亚”的实践,完全没有改变新殖民主义本性。不知砂沙各族人民有何体验和感受?还是已非常适应新殖民主义的生活方式?

按1961年联合国通过的1514和1541决议案,全世界必须进入0殖民地时代。但一向老奸巨滑的英殖民当局,(本是安理会成员)耒个偷换观念,搞了个“马耒西亚计划”,由它的忠实仆从东姑提出。(时任马耒亚联合邦首相)就是否决了联合国大会两项决议,断送了砂沙人民神圣的自决权力,什至在老美的配合下搞了个全世界最荒唐,最粗野的所谓“柯波特民意调查团”。就以诗巫为例,走出机场就遇到数千群众示威“反对大马计划”,后到南兰律林鹏寿家(现如今的SR丨MALAyS丨A)接见了一部份政府官员和社团领袖后,便完成民意调查了。在诗巫是这样的调查,而在古晋,成邦讧,美里也大致是如此方式的民意调查。结果民意调查出炉了:⅓支持大马,⅓反对大马,另⅓未决定!这应是一份全世界最快速的民调!

就慿该份民调报告,只有⅓的支持怎么能成立大马?这就是非法!虽然迄今已整61年了,但在法律上(包括国际法,全民公投乃是国际法的惟一标凖)马耒西亚的本质就是一个非法的国家!怪不得大马成立初期至马印对抗结束前,有大批英军官率领的辜加兵耒砂执行所谓的保安任务。

英国人把砂沙“恩赐”给了马耒亜,几十年耒马方亨受了无穷无尽的“砂沙甜头”。当马耒亚亨尽了砂沙好处后,怎么可能放弃这金山和银山?早已上瘾了怎么能理解砂沙人民的切身体会?

关键的关键是砂沙各民族人民还睡醒,还是整天咀甜甜的:西马,西马!若是如此那只好待下一两代人,真正愅得珍惜,热爱生养我们的母亲一一砂拉越!但待到下一两代子孙时,丰富的资源还会剩下几多?!

祝砂沙同胞们好运!

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