原则7：决策

原则 7：决策 

决策是决定成败的主因之一。 

在生活中取得巨大成功的人总是做出勇敢的决定。 Napolean Hill 在采访了数百万人后得出了这一个结论。

Hill指出，成功者的一个共同特征是迅速做出决定，并缓慢地做出改变或调整以取得进步，例如著名汽车制造Mr Henry Ford。

因此，拥有足够的知识和观点立场做出正确而明确的决定至关重要。

做出正确决定的另一个永久遗产是 1776 年美国的独立。 如何开始的：

• 主要原因是大英帝国的压迫和镇压 统治美国 56 个州。

 

• 触发点是 1770 年的Boston冲突，当时武装殖民士兵用枪指着手无寸

   铁对Boston事件不满的示威者。李将军再也无法容忍。 

 

• 1774 年，独立运动被提出。 

 

• Thomas Jefferson因此 加入了三位勇敢者General Robert E. Lee, Samuel Adams, John Hancock的行列。他独自撰写了《共和党宣言》，其中他阐明了独立运动的目的和意义。 

 

• 随后的另一项重大决定是任命一个来自各州的代表。 很快，它就变成 

   了全民运动。

• 此后，1776年7月4日在费城召开了由56个州代表组成的第一次全国代表大会，批准并签署了Thomas Jefferson起草的新宪法。

在1774 年首次开始的勇敢决定是勇敢无畏的最佳缩影。这一里程碑式的决定导致了两个重大后果：美国人获得自由，或让 56 州的代表因叛国罪而被绞死。最后，他们赢了。

 一个新的国家——美利坚共和国诞生了。这个新成立的、年轻的国家充满朝气活力、勤奋并且发展得非常繁荣。它还是帮助欧洲赢得二战的生力军。这是一个勇敢无畏的决定成为世间永久的遗产。

 

这就引出了原则 9——坚持。任何有组织的计划，无论大小，都需要坚持不懈的精力来实现其预期目标。 做出的任何决定都需要全身心的投入和执行的意志力。

Principle 7: Decision 

Individuals achieving great success in life always make brave and courageous decisions. Napolean Hill concluded this fact after interviewing millions of people.

Hill states one common characteristic feature of the successful ones is Reaching Decisions PROMPTLY and making changes or adjustments for betterment slowly, for example Mr Henry Ford, a famous car maker.

Thus, having enough knowledge and one’s strong viewpoint as against others’ is vital to make a correct and definite decision.

Another a lasting legacy of making a good decision was the independence of America in 1776. This is how it began:

• The major reason was the oppression and suppression of the 

    powerful British Empire upon 56 American states.

 

• The trigger point was the Boston’s conflict in 1770, when the armed 

colonist soldiers pointed guns at an unarmed civilians demonstrating 

iagainst injustice. General Lee could no longer tolerate. 

 

• In 1774, the independent movement was mooted. 

 

• The 3 brave ones: General Robert E. Lee, Samuel Adams and John 

Hancock were joined by Thomas Jefferson, who had independently 

written the Republican Manifesto, which defined the purpose and the 

meaning of the independent movement. 

 

• Another major decision followed suit was the appointment of a 

   representative from each state. Soon, it was transformed into a 

   national movement.

• Thereafter, there was the convening of its first national congressof 56 

   state representatives to approve and sign the new constitution prepared 

   by Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.  

It was the epitome of that brave and courageous decision, first started in 1774. This landmark decision resulted in two major consequences: freedom to America OR death of the 56 states representatives for treason. They won.

A new nation, The American Republic, was born. This newly created, young nation, was full of energy, hardworking, and grew very prosperous. It became a new world force helping Europe to win the WWII. This is the ultimate global legacy of a courageous and a brave decision.

 

This brings us to Principle 9-Persistence. Any organised planning, big or small, requires persistent energy to achieve its intended goal. 

 

Any decision made involves total commitment and will-power to implement.

(Adapted from the summerised version by Tommy Entry Akoi, Sydney)

Matriculation

All SPM 10As Students Guaranteed Matrics Slot – The Gimmick Formula & Trick The Government Doesn’t Want You To Know

July 3rd, 2024 by financetwitter

Since Anwar Ibrahim became the PMX (10th Prime Minister) on Nov 24, 2022, he has done three incredible things. First, he has splashed tens of billions of Ringgit to appease fellow ethnic Malays, 80% of whom did not vote for him. Second, his government has donated RM100 million to the Palestinians, and openly promotes Hamas terrorists as his best friends.

 

Third, PM Anwar has consistently kept quiet whenever ethnic Chinese, 95% of whom had voted for him, were being bullied by enemy-turned-ally United Malays National Organization (UMNO). Now, nearly 20 months into power, the increasingly unpopular premier started to take note of unhappy Chinese voters, especially when his own party – PKR (People’s Justice Party) – is set to face Sungai Bakap polls on July 6.

 

Hence, it appears to be a design rather than a coincidence when Mr Anwar announced that all Form-5 students – regardless of race and religion – who score 10 A’s in SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) examination will be guaranteed a place at government matriculation centre. The matriculation, popularly known as “matrics” or “matrix”, is a pre-university programme aimed at preparing students for entry into public universities.

Unlike the much harder STPM (Form 6 examination equivalent to A-Level, but is more difficult than A-Level even though both are pre-university courses), the matrics programme, which provides students with the option to choose subjects in Science, Accounting or Technical, is the easiest way to pursue first-degree tertiary education at government universities.

 

Malaysian Matriculation Programme claims its pre-university course can be used to gain entrance into overseas universities. In truth, it is only recognized by a handful of foreign universities. In general, the matrics is “not recognized” by university overseas. Worse, although taking matriculation assures you a place at a public university, it does not guarantee you a course of your choice. 

 

From the beginning, the local matriculation was designed as a shortcut for Bumiputera or Malay students graduating from SPM (O-Level equivalent) to prepare them for their degree in local universities, avoiding STPM (Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia, which is known as the killer pre-university programme attended by mostly non-Malays who have no other choice due to discrimination policies).    

As such, the “apartheid” matrics programme is highly discriminating and racist – 90% places are allocated for Bumiputera students whilst 10% for non-Bumiputeras. The 10% quota for non-Bumiputeras is further divided into 5.5% for Chinese students, 3.5% for Indian students, and 1% for others. This explains why every year, non-Bumiputeras, especially the Indian community complains about insufficient places.

 

Adding salt to injury, the minimum requirement for the matriculation programme’s science stream is laughable – just need to score “D” in Additional Mathematics and “C” each in Bahasa Melayu, English, Mathematics, Chemistry and another “C” in either Physics or Biology in your SPM. But this is only for Malay or Bumiputera. For Chinese, even straight A’s might not get them a place or course of choice.

 

So, how did the genius premier invent the magical formula of allowing every single SPM top scorer to enter matrics, but still maintains the 90% quota for Malays or Bumiputeras? After all, for over 60 years, not a single prime minister dares to do what he did for fear of losing the Malay votes, who have been indoctrinated with “Ketuanan Melayu”, the ideology of Malay supremacy espoused by UMNO.

It’s actually very easy. Before Anwar even dared open his mouth, a detailed analysis had already been done based on past year’s SPM data. And it’s not rocket science that not many non-Malay students scored 10 A’s simply because most SPM students took only maximum nine subjects. It was like offering a free BMW to any Proton owner who can achieve 0-100 km/h under 5 seconds.

 

Therefore, non-Malay SPM top students with 10 A’s were already accepted to matriculation colleges, assuming they were interested in a programme which isn’t worldwide recognized to begin with. Even prior to 2019, seats for matrics have been increased from 25,000 to 40,000. Based on the quota system, about 2,200 (5.5%) are for Chinese students whilst Indian get 1,400 places (3.5%).

 

Last year’s SPM results saw a total 11,713 candidates scored straight A’s. But scoring straight A’s does not necessarily mean getting 10 A’s. Clearly, the condition of 10 A’s is already a roadblock to disqualify many Chinese and Indian students, who were more interested in fields like medicine or securing JPA (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam or public services department) scholarships to study overseas.

Besides, non-Bumiputera students who scored 10 A’s (especially full A+) most likely will get a scholarship at private colleges or more prestigious universities – even in Singapore or United Kingdom. These outstanding students are not really interested in local matriculation programme, let alone competing with “special privilege students” of certain race and skin colour who secured places despite scoring only “C’s” in SPM.

 

It’s worth noting that most Malay students in matriculation programme aren’t the “crème de la crème”. The cleverest Malay or Bumiputera students would have been “forced” to go to overseas university already under JPA scholarships. Arguably, non-Malay top students could see their standard being dragged down by joining matrics, not to mention they may not get the course of choice.

 

In the same breath, there is always the debate whether non-Bumiputera students with excellent SPM results should proceed to STPM or A-Level instead of taking the easier route of matrics. Unlike in the 1980s or 1990s, when tertiary education was limited to a handful of public universities with quota system, there are now dozens of private universities as well as foreign university branch campuses.

Unless facing financial constraints, or don’t like the risk of STPM, or not thinking about becoming a doctor (chances are slim), non-Malay students normally won’t consider matrics. Opting for A-Level or STPM – even UEC – provides wider recognition and choices. Don’t even fantasize about applying to Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford or MIT with Malaysia Matriculation Programme, lest you want to be laughed at.

 

Non-Malay students who are in the programme today may not possessed 10 A’s, but you can bet they have 8 A’s or 9 A’s, close enough to 10 A’s to qualify for a place, else the racist policy would have happily rejected all of them. As such, the government’s offer for 10 A’s students has raised another question – what about those with 9 A’s who took 9 subjects?

 

Let’s assume more SPM students, inspired by the automatic places in matriculation, overload themselves with 10 subjects and score 10 A’s. Based on 2023 SPM results, where 11,713 candidates scored straight A’s, it’s estimated that around 30% of these high achievers could be Chinese students. This means approximately 3,514 non-Malay students must be offered a place.

Again, let’s also assume all of them were interested in the matriculation programme. Does that mean the education ministry has to sacrifice Malay’s quota to accommodate the 3,514 Chinese students alone, breaching the quota of 2,200 (5.5%) slots for the Chinese minority? To solve this, the government just needs to increase more seats for the Malays to maintain the 90:10 quota system.

 

Essentially, for every new non-Malay student with 10 A’s who exceed the 10% quota intake, an additional 9 slots to cater for Malay students would be created. It’s a win-win solution, and finding 9 Malay low scorers isn’t that difficult. The odds of Chinese and Indian SPM students who scored 10 A’s and want to do matriculation is extremely low. But what if there’s a sudden flood of non-Malay students?

 

That’s even easier to solve. The education ministry has a magic wand, and it’s called “fail the non-Malay students” on purpose, especially on Bahasa Melayu paper. In fact, it has been done for decades. Those born in the 1970s still remembered how Anwar, as Education Minister (1986-1991), had destroyed the future of many SPM students when Bahasa Melayu paper was made a compulsory subject.

Yes, there were many true stories about non-Malay students deliberately denied education to Form-6 because they mysteriously failed to get a credit for the Malay language paper, even though they had done incredibly well in the school exams. Astonishingly, some parents who paid to get their children’s exam paper rechecked were left speechless when the same Bahasa Melayu paper suddenly got a credit.

 

So, when Anwar Ibrahim said the government’s decision to admit all top SPM scorers, regardless of race, into matriculation programmes is to reduce tensions within the education system, he should be ashamed to claim such credit when he was part of the racist and corrupted system, if not the man directly responsible for the tensions in the first place.

 

He talked about meritocracy, justice and fairness. There’s no meritocracy when non-Malay students with 7 A’s, 8 A’s or 9 A’s cannot get a place in matriculation, but Malay students with lots of B’s or C’s can. There’s no justice when the rotten system still maintains 90:10 quota system despite the demographics show 60% Bumiputera (50.1% Malay), 22% Chinese and 7% Indian.

And it definitely isn’t fair that the Chinese students were only allocated 5.5% places in matriculation when the minority ethnic group pays 90% of taxes. Education is a basic human right, yet Malaysia is the only country on the planet that restricts its own citizens from tertiary education based on skin colour.

砂拉越有权力独立吗？（三语）

各位砂拉越的同胞们，大家好。

SLM：脱马无罪 独立有理

砂拉越有权力独立吗？有或没有

大家知道马来西亚联邦是由砂拉越，沙巴，新加坡和马来亚签署一份国际协议叫马来西亚协议/MA63。 马来亚是一个独立国家然而砂拉越，沙巴和新加坡是还没独立的国家。 因此这砂拉越，沙巴和新加坡根本没有法定资格签署国际协议。 （1） 

在1965年，新加坡退出而独立去了。 （2）

马来西亚就是马来亚的更名。MA63协议延迟到1970年才在联合国登记这是违反联合国宪法。（3）

砂沙参组马联邦60多年，可是马来亚以马联邦的名义不间断的掠夺，剥削，打压，镇压，抢劫，霸凌和殖民咱们。

他们完全不按照MA63条约执行对砂沙任务。所以，今天，咱们看到的实相是马半岛不断的进步和繁荣，但是他们的进步和繁荣是建立在砂沙的贫穷上。 就这一重点已经足够让这协议无效。（4）

更不用说他们把MA63修改了600多次。这是国际协议，哪里可以由马来亚为主的政府如此任意修改。这是另一个因素让这协议无效。（5）

MA63完全是英国政府以马来亚为中心的策划根本就违法联合国在1960年12月14日大会通过【去殖民化宣言】1514号决议的自决权和1541号决议的集体决定权的国际法。

完全不给砂沙人民公投下，把这两家殖民地强硬的加入马来亚来扩展该国的土地，完全违反联合国【去殖民化宣言】的宪章。 （6）

在MA63条款中，没有限定砂沙退出马联邦。因此，砂沙人民有1514和1541或1441决定权退出。 （7）

Does Sarawak have the right to be independent? Yes or No

As we all know that the Malaysia Agreement/MA63 is an international agreement signed by Sarawak, Sabah, Singapore (SSS) and Malaya when Malaya was an independent country whereas SSS were not yet independent to have the locus standi to sign the treaty. (1)

In 1965, when Singapore withdrew, it also rendered MA63 void. （2）

MA63 was only registered with the United Nations in 1970 and thus they violated the United Nations Constitution. (3)

For over 60 years in the Malaysia Federation (Malaya in disguise), Sarawak and Sabah have continuously been plundered, exploited, oppressed, suppressed, robbed, bullied and colonised.

The Federal government did not act in accordance with the MA63 treaty at all. Thus, we only see the progress and prosperity of Malaya at the expense of the poverty of Sarawak and Sabah, which is enough to invalidate the agreement. (4)

The modification of MA63 over 600 times by the Malayan-dominated government is another factor rendering this agreement invalid. (5)

MA63 is a Malaya-centred plan by the British government and fundamentally violates the international law of the right to self-determination 1514 and the right to collective determination 1541 of the [Declaration of Decolonisation] adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14/12/1960.

Without giving Sabahans and Sarawakians a referendum, the two colonies were forcefully added to Malaya to expand its territory as against the Charter of Declaration of Decolonization of the United Nations (6)

In the terms of MA63, there is no restriction on Sabah and Sarawak withdrawing from the Malaysia Federation. Therefore, Sabahans and Sarawakians have the 1514 and 1541 or 1441 decision to withdraw. (7)

Adakah Sarawak mempunyai hak untuk merdeka? Ya atau tidak

Seperti yang kita sedia maklum bahawa Perjanjian Malaysia/MA63 adalah perjanjian antarabangsa yang ditandatangani oleh Sarawak, Sabah, Singapura (SSS) dan Malaya semasa Malaya adalah sebuah negara merdeka sedangkan SSS belum lagi merdeka untuk mempunyai locus standi untuk menandatangani perjanjian tersebut. (1)

Pada tahun 1965, apabila Singapura menarik diri, ia juga menjadikan MA63 tidak sah. （2）

MA63 hanya didaftarkan dengan UN sehingga 1970 dan dengan itu mereka melanggar Perlembagaan UN. (3)

Selama lebih 60 tahun dalam Malaysia (Malaya berselindung), Sarawak sentiasa dirompak, dieksploitasi, ditindas, dirompak, dibuli dan dijajah.

Kerajaan Federal sama sekali tidak bertindak mengikut perjanjian MA63. Justeru secara realitinya, kita hanya melihat kemajuan dan kemakmuran Malaya dengan mengorbankan kemiskinan Sarawak dan Sabah, yang sudah cukup untuk membatalkan perjanjian itu. (4)

Pengubahsuaian MA63 lebih 600 kali oleh kerajaan yang dikuasai Malaya merupakan satu lagi faktor yang menyebabkan perjanjian ini tidak sah. (5)

MA63 ialah rancangan berpusatkan Malaya oleh kerajaan British dan secara asasnya melanggar undang-undang antarabangsa hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri 1514 dan hak untuk penentuan kolektif dalam Resolusi 1541 [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi] yang diterima pakai oleh UN pada 14/12/1960.

Tanpa memberikan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak referendum, kedua-dua jajahan itu telah ditambah secara paksa ke Tanah Melayu untuk meluaskan wilayahnya bertentangan dengan Piagam Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu/UN [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi]. (6)

Dalam terma MA63, tiada sekatan ke atas Sabah dan Sarawak menarik diri daripada Persekutuan Malaysia. Oleh itu, rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak mempunyai keputusan 1514 dan 1541 atau 1441 untuk menarik diri. (7)

Adakah Sarawak menpunyai hak Untuk Merdeka?

Adakah Sarawak mempunyai hak untuk merdeka? Ya atau tidak

Seperti yang kita sedia maklum bahawa Perjanjian Malaysia/MA63 adalah perjanjian antarabangsa yang ditandatangani oleh Sarawak, Sabah, Singapura (SSS) dan Malaya semasa Malaya adalah sebuah negara merdeka sedangkan SSS belum lagi merdeka untuk mempunyai locus standi untuk menandatangani perjanjian tersebut. (1)

Pada tahun 1965, apabila Singapura menarik diri, ia juga menjadikan MA63 tidak sah. （2）

MA63 hanya didaftarkan dengan UN sehingga 1970 dan dengan itu mereka melanggar Perlembagaan UN. (3)

Selama lebih 60 tahun dalam Malaysia (Malaya berselindung), Sarawak sentiasa dirompak, dieksploitasi, ditindas, dirompak, dibuli dan dijajah.

Kerajaan Federal sama sekali tidak bertindak mengikut perjanjian MA63. Justeru secara realitinya, kita hanya melihat kemajuan dan kemakmuran Malaya dengan mengorbankan kemiskinan Sarawak dan Sabah, yang sudah cukup untuk membatalkan perjanjian itu. (4)

Pengubahsuaian MA63 lebih 600 kali oleh kerajaan yang dikuasai Malaya merupakan satu lagi faktor yang menyebabkan perjanjian ini tidak sah. (5)

MA63 ialah rancangan berpusatkan Malaya oleh kerajaan British dan secara asasnya melanggar undang-undang antarabangsa hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri 1514 dan hak untuk penentuan kolektif dalam Resolusi 1541 [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi] yang diterima pakai oleh UN pada 14/12/1960.

Tanpa memberikan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak referendum, kedua-dua jajahan itu telah ditambah secara paksa ke Tanah Melayu untuk meluaskan wilayahnya bertentangan dengan Piagam Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu/UN [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi]. (6)

Dalam terma MA63, tiada sekatan ke atas Sabah dan Sarawak menarik diri daripada Persekutuan Malaysia. Oleh itu, rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak mempunyai keputusan 1514 dan 1541 atau 1441 untuk menarik diri. (7)

Abang Open is proving to be his own man-Kudos

BY ANONYMOUS  

Abang Openg is proving to be his own man - Kudos!

I like the fact that Sarawak is now being seen as an autonomous nation whereby Singapore wants to set up a Consulate office in Kuching - this is what the MA 63 agreement envisaged.

Why Sarawak, which is 120 x the size of Singapore and which had endless resources, a tiny population of less than 1 million in 1960 - (70% indigenous Iban and other tribes and 30% Chinese ) - which was majority Christian and separated 1000 km by the South China Sea could allow itself to operate like a vassal state of Malaya with its Muslim Malay monarchial system is something which defies logic.

The formation of Malaysia in 1963 in retrospect, proved to be so disadvantageous for Sarawak which has seen the grand scale exploitation and virtual colonisation of the soul of Sarawak by a foreign Malay nation.

All of this was due to the machinations of the British who did not want Sarawak to be an independent country. They played psychological warfare on the ruling elites of Sarawak saying it needed “protection’ from the threats of Indonesian invasion and the best way was to be part of Malaya.

2 years after the formation of Malaysia, Singapore pulled out in 1965 because Lee Kwan Yew was disgusted with the “Ketuanan Melayu dan Islam” ideology which was gaining a foothold which he saw as discriminatory and a betrayal of the promises made during Merdeka. At the time the Chinese population of Malaysia was larger than the Malay. It suited UMNOs quest for hegemony to see Singapore out of the picture. Singapore was unceremoniously ‘kicked’ out of the Federation by Tunku.

UMNO felt Singapore without any resources would be a destitute Island nation dependent on Malaysia but this suited the desires of LKY who had a vision for a Singapore as a secular, democratic republic. This rest is history, suffice to say that Singapore is the one of the richest country in the world with standards of education, health, transport and public infrastructure amongst the best the world not to mention the Singapore dollar is more than 3 x the value of the ringgit.

Sarawak can easily become a “Singapore" if it adopts a non-racial, secular and meritocratic and republican mode of governance. Unfortunately, the UMNO leadership colonised Sarawak for so long but since the recent implosion of UMNO, we are seeing the seeds of Sarawakian autonomy taking shape.

The British colonial engineered experiment with Sarawak joining Malaysia 60 years ago, has seen the grand scale exploitation of forests, oil, gas and land for the benefit of Malaya and British commercial interests in a vastly disproportionate manner. The indigenous tribes of Sarawak have their own languages and comprised 70% of the population in the 1960s, with the Chinese comprising 30%. Christianity was and still is the majority religion.

The standards of education were deliberately dumbed down with standards of English being allowed to erode to be eventually replaced by ‘foreign’ Malay. In the eyes of the UMNO hegemon, Sarawak was ’theirs’ to exploit to the hilt. This is the typical 'coloniser settler’ mindset - the indigenous population, their lands and history had to be air brushed out of the picture.

Let it be known and put into perspective, that the Ibans have pushed out of their lands many times the land mass of Palestine. The Ibans and Penans were bulldozed out of their ancestral lands by “settlers” who grew oil palm, logged their forests, mined their lands and polluted their rivers, flooded their lands to build dams which do not serve their purpose. They do not live in lands which have Western historical significance, they are not inspired by religious injunctions, they do not have weapon or are inclined to use them which is why thy are not on the ‘radar’ of world conscience.

Abang Openg is gradually asserting Sarawak's autonomous status and is looking to rekindle the spirit of the MA 63 agreement. I am hoping the interest in forging closer relations with Singapore will be beneficial to the development of Sarawak and rightfully see a vast improvement in the well being of the indigenous people there who have been exploited with the collusion of local corrupt elites for far too long.

Maybe one day Sarawak will see the benefit of being an independent country just like Singapore.

ANONYMOUS

Fresh referendum

https://focusmalaysia.my/conduct-fresh-referendum-to-determine-if-sabahans-sarawakians-wish-to-remain-part-of-malaysia/ 06 July 2024

A JOINT Sabah/Sarawak NGO grouping has warned that the Philippines could approach the United Nations’ (UN) Decolonisation Committee to resurrect the Manila Accord 1963 by asserting that the then Malayan and British governments had breached the pre-Malaysia formation accord agreed to by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines on July 31, 1963.

Sabah/Sarawak NGOs

Peter John Jaban

Publicity and information Chief 

Sarawak Association for peoples Aspirations ( SAPA )

Robert Pei President Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)

Daniel John Jambun

President, Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Jovilis Majami President Persatuan pembangunan sosial komunity Sabah (BANGUN)

Timothy Jagak

 Gabongan Orang Asal Sarawak/Sabah (GOASS)

Moses Anap President Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

Emily Elvera Edward President of Sabah Sarawak Borneo Native Organisation Inc 

Cleftus Stephen Mojingol President Pertubuhan kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah 

Voon Lee Shan President party Bumi Kenyalang Sarawak (PBK)

Apun Achong 

Deputy President 

Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak ( PEDAS )

Kanul Gindol Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo

MA63实施的问题和答案

关于 MA63 实施的问题和答案

(Robert Pei 03-07-2024)

澳大利亚新西兰沙巴砂拉越权利协会 (SSRANZ) 主席 Robert Pei 回答了关于 MA63 实施的问题。

1. ）您现在如何看待联邦政府在为砂拉越实施 MA63 的全部内容方面取得的进展？

联邦政府在全面实施 1963 年马来西亚协议 (MA63) 方面面临重大挑战，因为许多违宪的修改已经将商定的马来西亚概念从一个世俗的多元文化国家转变为一个由种族和宗教主导的国家。这些变化已经侵蚀了 MA63 的原始条款和条件，即使废除违宪的法律，也无法完全恢复砂拉越（和沙巴）的“失去的权利”。

联邦政府既没有能力，也不愿意补偿砂拉越和沙巴在过去 60 年遭受的巨大经济和发展损失。自 2015 年就恢复 MA63 权利开始谈判以来，谈判一直拖延很久，沙巴 40% 收入权利等问题仍未解决。

此外，对 MA63 有效性的彻底法律审查至关重要，因为它的合法性将影响马来西亚的基础。大量违反基础条款的行为表明该协议可能会被有效终止，这让人质疑联邦的约束性。

2 . ）您认为砂拉越自治（资金等）的一些最关键方面是什么，您希望尽快引入这些方面？

在 MA63 有效的情况下，应优先考虑完全自治或婆罗洲化，正如 1963 年最初达成的协议。这包括砂拉越政府机构去马来亚化，恢复对内政、教育、财政和资源的全面控制，并废除所有侵犯砂拉越 MA63 权利的联邦法律。实现真正的自治需要消除马来亚强加的殖民式控制，并确保砂拉越真正有权独立管理自己的事务。

3. ）您对砂拉越政府在这方面与联邦政府的打交道感到满意吗？

不，尽管砂拉越政府声称是“平等的伙伴”，但仍然屈从于马来亚联邦政府。政府尚未采取重大措施重新夺回对砂拉越石油和天然气资源、行政和教育的控制权。砂拉越政府在 2018 年马来西亚国家石油公司 PDA74 案的处理中接受了“商业和解”，而不是伸张其优越的法律主张，这说明了他们采取了屈从。虽然砂拉越政府正在开展各种发展项目，但它尚未解决 MA63 的基本条款，例如婆罗洲化和废除许多影响砂拉越权利的违宪法律。

4. ）您是否认为自安瓦尔总理上任以来，这种自治推动力有所增强？为什么/为什么不？

自治推动力似乎有所增强，部分原因是民众对贫困、教育和发展问题的潜在不满，以及对为马来亚利益而开发资源的不满。砂拉越政府的自信也是对民族主义运动和社会不满情绪复苏的回应。经过数十年的一党统治后，国阵垮台，让砂拉越权力精英得以更加大胆地维护自己的权利，从 PBB 更名为 GPS，并声称要为砂拉越人的权利而战。然而，仍然存在严重违反 MA63 的行为，这对联邦政府和砂拉越政府在恢复砂拉越权利方面的可信度提出了挑战。这与一系列违宪立法有关，这些立法从 1965 年到 2021 年取消了 SS MA63 权利，尤其是 1965 年新加坡分离法案、CSA1966、ACT 354、PDA74 和 TSA2012。

要完全恢复这些权利，必须废除所有这些法律。联邦政府和砂拉越政府都不愿意这样做，因为这将给马来亚的马来人至上 (KM) 霸权带来巨大危机，并可能结束马丹尼政府的执政，以及挑战砂拉越 GPS 不平衡的马来人至上统治。

5. ）为什么您认为联邦政府在全面实施 MA63 方面仍然缺乏某些方面？

联邦政府不愿全面实施 MA63 和砂拉越去殖民化，是因为他们希望保持对砂拉越和沙巴的控制以及这种控制带来的好处。废除违宪法律并全面恢复 MA63 权利将威胁马来西亚的政治合法性，而马来西亚的政治合法性是基于种族和宗教至上的意识形态。联邦政府不愿意做出必要的改变来破坏这种霸权。

6. ）一个充分自治的砂拉越在你眼中是什么样子的？你设想它会是什么样子？

一个充分自治的砂拉越将拥有自治权，不受马来亚对其内部事务、资源和财政的控制，并废除影响 MA63 权利的法律。自治是联邦的基本条件，旨在用地方治理取代后殖民时期的行政管理。然而，婆罗洲化已被马来亚化取代，实际上将砂拉越变成了马来亚控制下的殖民地。实现自治意味着扭转这些趋势，废除违宪的法律，并允许砂拉越独立治理，类似于 MA63 的初衷。

7. ）有些人还呼吁给予砂拉越走向独立。你对此有何看法？

鉴于未能实现“马来西亚独立”的好处，退出和独立似乎是砂拉越实现真正自决的唯一途径。国际法并不禁止分裂，如果愿意，砂拉越有脱离联邦的固有权利。

1963 年，砂拉越-沙巴要求在 MA63 讨论中加入退出条款，但 IGC 主席兰斯顿勋爵 (Lord Lansdowne) 驳回了这一要求，他表示“任何自愿加入联邦的州都有固有权利随意脱离联邦，因此没有必要将其纳入宪法”。联邦主义者总是声称马来西亚是一个自由联合体，但与此同时，他们又认为沙巴 20 点中的第 7 点禁止“分裂”。沙巴的 20 点备忘录不是具有法律约束力的协议，甚至没有得到坚持第 7 点的马来亚的签署。这被排除在 1957 年修订的联邦宪法之外，该宪法被采纳为马来西亚宪法。

如果联合国国际法庭证明 MA63 无效，马来西亚将被证明是在没有法律依据的情况下“成立”的。然后必须寻求联合国的援助以和平获得独立。马来亚必须立即将主权和领土归还给砂拉越和沙巴。

以寻求独立的承诺而当选的政党将有权采取适当行动，包括宣布单方面独立宣言 (UDI) 或进行全民公投。GPS 党团不应阻碍追求独立，因为真正的自决是砂拉越人民的最终目标。

评论结束

Robert Pei

SSRANZ 总裁，2024 年 7 月 3 日。

SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy

By DayakDaily Team

KUCHING, July 4: Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) president Robert Pei has emphasised that prioritising Borneanisation is essential to reclaim Sarawak’s rights and achieving true autonomy.

 Robert Pei  7/8/24, 3:25 PM SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy | DayakDaily https://dayakdaily.com/ssranz-president-advocates-borneanisation-to-reclaim-sarawaks-rights-achieve-true-autonomy/ 2/4

He asserted that achieving true autonomy involves undoing the colonial-like control imposed by Malaya, ensuring that Sarawak can govern its own affairs independently.

 “Subject to Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) being valid, full autonomy or Borneanisation should be prioritised as was originally agreed in 1963.

“This includes de-Malayanisation of Sarawak’s government machinery, restoring full control over internal affairs, education, finances, and resources, and repealing all federal laws that infringe upon Sarawak’s MA63 rights,” he said in a press statement today. 

Despite the Sarawak government’s efforts to address various development projects, Pei highlighted that it has yet to address fundamental MA63 terms such as Borneanisation and the repeal of unconstitutional laws affecting Sarawak’s rights.

 “The push for autonomy appears to have grown stronger, partly due to underlying popular discontent over poverty, education, and development issues, and resentment over the exploitation of resources for Malaya’s benefit.

 “The Sarawak government’s assertiveness is also a response to the revival of nationalist movements and social discontent,” he said. 

Pei pointed out that there are still significant breaches of MA63 that challenge the credibility of both the federal and Sarawak governments in restoring Sarawak’s rights, in referring to a series of unconstitutional legislation that removed Sarawak-Sabah MA63 rights from 1965 to 2021, particularly the 1965 Singapore Separation Act, CSA1966, ACT 354, PDA74, and TSA2012. 

“To fully restore those rights, all these laws must be repealed. Neither the federal government nor the Sarawak government are willing to do this, as it will create a huge crisis in Ketuanan Melayu (KM) hegemony of Malaya and possibly end the Madani government’s stay in power, and as well as challenging Gabungan Parti Sarawak’s (GPS) lopsided KM rule of Sarawak,” he said.

Envisioning a sufficiently autonomous Sarawak, Pei described a self-ruled state free from Malayan control of its internal affairs, resources, and finances, as well as the repeal of laws affecting MA63 rights.

“Autonomy was a foundational condition for the federation, meant to replace post-colonial administration with local governance.  7/8/24, 3:25 PM SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy | DayakDaily

https://dayakdaily.com/ssranz-president-advocates-borneanisation-to-reclaim-sarawaks-rights-achieve-true-autonomy/ 3/4 “However, Borneanisation has been replaced by Malayanisation, effectively turning Sarawak into a colony under Malayan control.

“Achieving autonomy would mean reversing these trends, repealing unconstitutional laws, and allowing Sarawak to govern itself independently, similar to the original intent of MA63,” Pei remarked. He further asserted that exit and independence might be the only routes for true self-determination for Sarawak, emphasising that international law does not prohibit secession and that Sarawak has the intrinsic right to leave the federation if desired.