Pages

Powered By Blogger

Friday, 27 September 2024

Was the Cobbold Commission a scam?

Was the Cobbold Commission a scam?
By Voon Lee Shan

Without the Cobbold Commission, there is no Cobbold Commission Report. Without the Cobbold Commission Report, there is no Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Without the Malaysia Agreement 1963, there is no Malaysia. However, the issue is Whether the Cobbold Commission was a scam – a scam to deceive the people of the British Borneo Territories to agree to the Malaysia Plan. 

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 is to allow or to have all colonies in the world to be decolonized and achieve independence from their colonial masters. This Resolution was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960. 

But, the Malaysia Plan by the British was not motivated by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It has to be noted that the Malaysia Plan was motivated by the need by United Kingdom, to release their colonies from their burden in maintaining their colonies. Records show that the British planned Malaysia since 1953 and therefore, I repeat, it has nothing to do with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It was the plan of the British in 1953 that their colonies in South East Asia has to join together to form a federation or a country. Hence, came the Malaysian Plan.

In order to ensure that the Malaysia Plan be executed smoothly and in compliance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 and international protocols, the British constituted the Cobbold Commission in 1962 headed by Lord Cobbold. Lord Cobbold was a former Bank Governor of Bank of England. 

In the Cobbold Commission, there were three British and two Malayans. The two Malayans were Dato’ Wong Pow Nee from Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and Chief Minister of Penang and Ghazali Shafie, Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaya. 

There is no evidence that members of the Cobbold Commission could speak the local or native languages of the Borneo People. Without able to speak native language of Borneo people how could the members of the Cobbold Commission came to the conclusion that the people of Sarawak and Sabah wanted Malaysia to be formed? It could not be denied that this Cobbold Commission was to also to overcome the need for a referendum to determine the wishes of the people of Borneo Territories as required by UNGAR 1514.

The Cobbold Commission published its report on 1 August 1962 concluded that roughly only one-third of Sarawak’ population enthusiastically supported forming Malaysia, another one-third vehemently opposed, and the crucial remaining third of the population, though open to the idea, was yet to be convinced of the merits of independence through merger. The published report seems not correct because from available records, only 4,000 odd people were interviewed by the Cobbold Commission. Commonsense tells us that this is devoid of democracy! How could these people who were only about 4,000 odds were able to represent the voice of over a million people of North Borneo and Sarawak at that time to decide the fate or destiny of their countries?

From records and books by a several researchers, it is difficult to convince the people of Sarawak and Sabah not to come to the conclusion that the Cobbold Commission was not a scam that took away the intrinsic rights of peoples of Sarawak and Sabah to determine the fate of their countries and to gain independence.  

Besides two books by Professor Michael Leigh, The Rising Moon and the other ones Deals, Datus And Dayaks, there are two other books that we all in Sarawak, need to read concerning the creation of Malaysia. These two books are one, by Dr Matthew Jones “Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia 1961-1965, Britain, the United States and the Creation of Malaysia (2001) and the other ones is by Dr Stanley S. Bedlington’s Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States (1978). 

Of course, the research work of AJ Stockwell and The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia 1945-1965 by Dr Greg Poulgrain are “goldmines” that we all Sarawakians should read to find out the secrets on how Malaysia was created.

Dr. Bedlington mentioned that “local leaders in Sabah and Sarawak reacted strongly and adversely” to the Malaysia Plan.

Dr. Bedlington also mentioned that the Cobbold Commission as a “British contrivance activated and organized by British officials.” He said that the “Commission was an Anglo-Malayan exercise was immediately obvious from the fact that it did not include a single Bornean representative.”

The Cobbold Commission did not conduct any referendum in either British North Borneo or Sarawak to measure objectively the wishes and inclinations of the people on the issue of the “Malaysia” merger to assist in its enquiry. Bedlington added that the population of the two States was subjected to “sustained pressure” by British colonial officials to accept the merger. Records showed that those who opposed the Malaysia Plan were considered “subversives” and were arrested, assaulted and battered and many for fear of arrest and physical injuries had to run away and hid in the forests and took arms to resist their arrests. Many were branded as communists and terrorists and were shot dead. Those who are still alive said that they were forced by circumstances to join the clandestine organisation in their struggles to fight against Malaysia Plan.

Matthew Jones in his book noted that the Governors of the two crown colonies were sceptical of the Commission, with Governor Goode of British North Borneo calling the exercise “a farce’.

Therefore, it is clear that the true wishes of the majority of the populations of the two Borneo territories were seriously subverted, if not deliberately misconstrued and ignored. The voices of opposition to the merger were traduced. 

Surprising facts that have been censored or hidden from the public all these years, were revealed by Dr Greg Poulgrain, and, in the process, cast the whole project of Malaysia itself in a fundamentally different light. Poulgrain was able to combine archival research at the Colonial Office, U.K. with interviews of surviving protagonists of the formative era of Malaysia who had played various roles in that period, thereby challenging the conventional version of the formation of Malaysia. 

Poulgrain referred to a classified Colonial Office paper, “Political Objectives in British Territories of South East Asia” of 10th March, 1953, reveals that the British government (Her Majesty’s Government, or HMG) was “engaging in deliberate deception” for, while paying lip service to the Third Rajah’s aspiration for self-government for Sarawak which is embodied in the preamble to the 1941 Sarawak Constitution, Her Majesty’s Government was already planning for “some form of constitutional association” for the Borneo Territories and the Malaya/Singapore bloc coming together as a “British South-East Asia Dominion” in the early fifties. 

Commissioner-General Malcolm MacDonald On April 2, 1955, informed the British Secretary for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, that “the Bornean leaders are perhaps less aware than those in Malaya of our grand design.” 


Despite that, Alan Lennox-Boyd on November 29, 1956, informed the Governor of North Borneo, Sir Roland Turnbull, “The possibility of a federation of North Borneo and Sarawak and indeed of all three Borneo territories ... is a matter for the people of the territories themselves to decide.” It was noted by Poulgrain that, at no time did Her Majesty’s Government envisage self-government by the people of Sarawak. 

However, it must be noted that the colonial officers in the two territories were initially adverse to the idea of a merger of the Borneo states with Malaya and Singapore which they considered premature. 

More concerned with their populations of different ethnicities living in harmony, they had in mind a more gradual move towards independence with the possibility of first forming a Borneon federation before a merger with their more politically savvy neighbours across the South China Sea, Malaya and Singapore. The “Borneo Proposal” was put forward in 1958, but, as Poulgrain notes, it was already foreshadowed by the 1953 paper. The Borneon proposal was in fact disparaged by the noted historian on South East Asian history, K.J. Tregonning as “a disguised MI5 exercise”. 

Despite that, it is still widely believed and propagated that the proposal for the “Malaysia” merger with the Borneo territories was made by then Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on May 27, 1961, to the Foreign Correspondents’ Association Club in Singapore. The British allowed Tunku take the credit for what was in fact the British brainchild, given the potential of the material benefits at stake for Britain. 

It may be noted here that after the war, British interests in Malaya in the form of investments exceeded those that they had in India and the revenue from rubber and tin was sorely needed for post-war debt payment and reconstruction. The financial stake in having a peaceful merger of the Borneo territories and Singapore with Malaya was, therefore, huge. 

Lee Kuan Yew, having been elected the Prime Minister of Singapore, then assisted the British to push forward the idea of Malaysia, while at the same time, consolidating his own party’s position against that of the Barisan Socialis [Socialist Front] whom he characterised, together with the Chinese opposition in Sarawak, as having been directed to oppose the Malaysia plan by outside powers, namely, Indonesia and China. Lee between September 13 and October 9, 1961, made twelve radio broadcasts (published as The Battle for Merger) in favour of the merger. It seemed that Lee Kuan Yew had his own political agenda to have Malaysia formed.

The research work by Poulgrain, however, pointed to that the primary purpose for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity, even though much was made in the press then and in the mainstream books since of the Tunku’s insistence in having the Borneo colonies aboard in order to balance out the large Chinese population in Singapore with the indigenous populations in the Borneo territories. 

The interviews by Poulgrain’s in 1991 with both Captain D.R. Gribble, and Captain Albert Young confirmed that the huge oilfield was known to the authorities in 1958, years before its “official discovery” in 1963. 


The British at that time were prepared to surrender the oil in Sarawak territory to the new federation under control of Malaya. Sir Anthony Abell, then Governor of Sarawak, in April 1956 observed in a communication to the Colonial Office that “the politicians in both Malaya and Singapore were showing considerable interest in the Borneo territories “including its empty spaces, its potential wealth, and its oil”. 

Poulgrain inexplicably added that it is “noteworthy” that the Governor could admit that Malaya had “imperialistic design” on the Borneo territories, and then to treat this as a reason for merger. 

It is also noted that Tunku Abdul Rahman in a series of conversations with Abdullah Ahmad, which was later published in 2016 in a book entitled, Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman candidly admitted thus: 


“Yes and they [the British] gave us Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore and so many other things in 1963 [with the formation of Malaysia]. The British could have given Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak independence, but they did not. Instead, they handed them to us”.

That’s how Cobbold Commission was used by the British to deny Sarawak the right to independence and to allow, in the words of, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to be handed to Malaya. From the words of Tunku Abdul Rahman, it should be clear to Sarawakians that 22 July is not Sarawak Independence Day as Sarawak had never been granted independence but was given to Malaya by the British.  

It was all because of empty spaces, potential wealth and oil that made Sarawak now be part or an enlarged Federation of Malaya, renamed the Federation of Malaysia. Therefore, the Federation of Malaysia is not a new federation or country. This new name was conveyed to the United Nations Secretariat by Dato’ Ong Yoke Lin of Malaya after Malaysia Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak became part of the federation of Malaya effective 16 September, 1963 by way of Malaysia Agreement 1963.
The people of Sarawak needs to know the Truth because it is the Truty that sets us free. May God Bless this Land of Sarawak and her people. 


VOON LEE SHAN
President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang
26 September, 2024

Tuesday, 24 September 2024

Demand for 45%of federal seats allocation or secede for good

No, Dewan Negara has no veto power, No! 

Sarawak and Sabah should demand 45% federal seats allocation or secede for good.

It is meaningless to stay in the federation of Malaysia @Malaya when Sarawak and Sabah are at the mercy of the colonial masters.

Malaysia @Malaya is a federation with 3 nations. Thus,it is blatantly irrational to take it as an entity to practise one person one vote in the election.

The present parliament has been meant for Malaya, not the right place for Sarawak and Sabah.

Bear in mind that Sarawak and Sabah joined the federation with Malaya, not with the 11 states.

The present parliament is over populated with the representatives from the 11 states of Malaya as against the principle of equal partnership.

No, SS should not be in this parliament meant for the federation of Malaya.

No, it is not appropriate for SS to be in this parliament, No!

SS really looks awkward in this parliament.

If you think this arrangement of federal seats allocation is not fair, Malaya @Malaysia can also opt for secession for good, why not?

Friday, 20 September 2024

Prof James Chin rejects NGO suggestion that Sabah and Sarawak be given 1/3 of the seats in Dewan Negara September 16, 2024

 

 KOTA KINABAlU: James Chin have rejected Project SAMA’s and other Malayan- based NGOs’ suggestion that Sabah and Sarawak should be allocated 35% of the seats in Dewan Negara rather than Dewan Rayat.

 

He said this proposition is yet another evidence of Malaya-based organisations’ lack of understanding of the Borneo states’ historical grievances and claim to one-third of parliament seats in both Houses.

 

According to Prof James Chin, the leading scholar of contemporary Sabah and Sarawak, there are numerous reasons why Sabah and Sarawak should reject the Dewan Negara proposal, which he describes as a “trick” to maintain the status quo. He provided five key reasons why the Borneo states must reject the suggestions and insist on 1/3 seats in both House of Parliament.

 

First, the Dewan Negara has minimal political legitimacy in Malaysian politics because it is a totally appointed House.  Its members are not directly elected by the populace.

 

That is why, for many years, debates in the Dewan Negara have received less attention than those in the Dewan Rakyat. Furthermore, many of individuals nominated to Dewan Negara are viewed as ‘reward’ for post-political service.

Hence the significant number of retired politicians in the Dewan Negara.

 

Second, all major legislations are introduced in the Dewan Rakyat, where the actual discussion occurs. The Dewan Negara only debates laws enacted by the Dewan Rakyat and hence lacks the legislative authority to block significant bills.

 

Third, all major political players, including the prime minister, his deputies, and the majority of ministries, are from the Dewan Rakyat. Ministers from Dewan Negara are commonly regarded as “backdoor” ministers because they are appointed to the Dewan Negara in order to serve as ministers. This alone demonstrates that the political establishment views the Dewan Rakyat as more significant than the Dewan Negara.

 

Fourth, in practice, the Dewan Negara has no real power to block laws other than to delay them. The one-third seats are designed to restore Sabah and Sarawak’s ability to block constitutional amendments if they disagree with Malaya.

 

Fifth, it is clear that the original intention of the framers of the Constitution wanted Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak to hold a veto over Malaya. This is to ensure that Malaya cannot alter the Federal constitution at will.

 

Under para 19 of the IGC report it states:

Federal Legislature
(1) Two members of the Senate should be elected for each Borneo State in accordance with Article 45 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Article 45 (1) (b) of the Constitution should be amended to increase the number of appointed members of the Senate by six in respect of the accession of North Borneo and Sarawak to Malaysia.

 

 An assurance should be given that, on the occasion of the first appointments of these additional members after Malaysia Day, at least two would be appointed from North Borneo and at least two from Sarawak after consultation with the Chief Minister of the State concerned.

 

(2) Article 46 (1) should be amended to increase the number of elected members of the House of Representatives from one hundred and four to one hundred and fifty-nine (including the fifteen proposed for Singapore). Of the additional members sixteen should be elected in North Borneo and twenty-four in Sarawak.

 

The proportion that the number of seats allocated respectively to Sarawak and to North Borneo bears to the total number of seats in the House should not be reduced (except by reason of the granting of seats to any other new State) during a period of seven years after Malaysia Day without the concurrence of the Government of the State concerned, and thereafter (except as aforesaid) shall be subject to Article 159 (3) of the existing Federal Constitution (which requires Bills making amendments to the Constitution to be supported in each House of Parliament by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of that House).

Under The Malaysia Agreement 1963, Chapter 3 para 9, it states:

(i) The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty-nine elected members.
(2) There shall be—
(a) one hundred and four member from the States of Malaya ;

(b) sixteen members from Sabah ;
(c) twenty-four members from Sarawak ;
(d) fifteen members from Singapore.

 

It was clear that Singapore, (Sabah) North Borneo and Sarawak did not want Malaya to dominate Parliament in respect of Constitutional amendments. In the MSCC notes and Cobbold Report, it was made clear that the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak was of the view that Malaya should not dominate the new federation.

Thus, under the formula, the parliamentary seats in the proposed Malaysian Federation was distributed to ensure that Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak had veto power by ensuring that they had slightly more than one third of the seats in Parliament.
Malaya: 104; Sabah: 16; Sarawak: 24 and Singapore: 15

104 : 55 ------à  65% : 35%

 

When Singapore left the Federation in 1965, its 15 Parliamentary seats out of the 159 were not redistributed to Sarawak or Sabah. This was a historical error that needs to be rectified. As time went by, the number of Parliamentary seats of Malaya grew to more than two third of the total Malaysia Parliament seats.

Prof Chin hopes that the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak understands the proper context of asking for 1/3 of the seats in Parliament and not be fooled by NGOs in Malaya who have their own agenda.

Prof James Chin is the leading authority of political developments in Sabah and Sarawak and the most cited-scholar on East Malaysian politics. A Sarawakian, he is currently a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia.

 

Thursday, 19 September 2024

去年2023年砂石油天然气的收入是100亿令吉

去年2023,砂就从石油天然气的销售税,开采税和股息来自Petronas在砂拉越的经济活动中获得100亿令吉。

总理AbangJo就高兴到不得了。

如果,砂独立了,这些资源全留在砂发展,那会是怎样情形?在这失败的联邦内,咱们永远是面对超级大的亏本,何苦呢?

同胞们咱们一起勇敢的,全心全意支持独立派吧!

我好期待砂人都转向支持独立,一起创造砂拉越独立的奇迹和奇景。

Last year, Sarawak secured RM10 billion from oil and gas sales tax, royalties and dividends from Petronas’ economic activities in Sarawak.

Prime Minister AbangJo was extremely happy.

What would happen if Sarawak became independent and all these resources remained in Sarawak for development? In this failed federation, we will always face huge losses, so why bother?

Fellow compatriots, together let us be brave and support the independence faction wholeheartedly!

I really hope that Sarawakians will turn to support independence and work together to create the miracle and wonder of Sarawak’s independence.

Wednesday, 18 September 2024

Politics and laws

*Politics & Law*

Politics and law are like a web. They entangled with each other and not separable.

We need to be more sensitive about bad things politics can cause to society and we should not lost focus about the damage politics can cause to society and to Sarawak.

We cannot look at the law without understanding how politics can influence law to destroy our society. 

PDA74 is a product of politics to rob, steal and kill the wellbeing of Sabah and Sarawak.

 Since it is politics that caused PDA74 being passed by the federal Parliament, we should not think PDA74 could no more be valid just because the emergency has been lifted. 

This is because Parliament under the control of Malaya may not wish to remove or repeal PDA74 

Our argument that PDA74 is automatically repealed when emergency is lifted is a sound argument but could not buy the court. This is because the judiciary is controlled by Malaya and Malaya has to ensure they are in control of the judiciary and the judges.

Therefore, if PETRONAS is to bring a suit to court, the suit can seal that fate of Sarawak and Sabah in the coffin about the taking back of the oil and gas resources if the court rules that PDA74 is valid and MA63 is also valid. It is very likely that the court may rule in favour of PETRONAS because it is unthinkable that the court would wish to see Malaya to become a bankrupt. This is because most if not all people know that Malaya can be in financial problems without the money from oil and gas resources of Sabah and Sarawak. This can be politics involving the judiciary where law can be disregarded and court come with policy decisions to save Malaysia or Malaya from bankruptcy.

It can be politics at work in court too and it was for this reason we decided not to appeal against the decision of the High Court in our PBK suit because to appeal can destroy our mission to gain independence. 

But the judgment of the high court gave us the strategies on how we can fight for independence from Malaysia in the future. 

The court hinted that only the state government has the locus standi or stand to bring suits including declaring MA63 invalid and to seek Sarawak independence through the court, but we will not pursue this line of strategy to exit by using the court because we know we cannot get what we want through the court.

 If Sarawak wants exit, PBK has to be the state government. Once PBK is the state government, PBK has to follow Singapore's strategy to exit. That is, to use politics to create problems to federal government by demanding certain terms to be fulfilled within a time frame. We need to give terms that could not be fulfilled by Malaya and once terms could not be fulfilled, Sarawak under PBK should declare exit from Malaysia. This should be a legal and peaceful exit by avoiding bloodshed but by way of politics and political strategies like how Singapore did.


Voon Lee Shan 
10 September 2024
Revised 2010 hrs 11/09

*為什麼我們有合法權利為砂拉越尋求獨立* ?

 自 1974 年起,魔術就開始了! 馬來亚人利用他們的政治技巧克服所有法律障礙,吞併砂拉越和沙巴作為他們的領土。

 我們必須指出,馬來亞是自 1962 年起進入緊急狀態,這違反了聯合國非殖民化法律,並一直保持額外的緊急狀態聲明,直到 2011 年全部解除。

 換句話說,1963年後在砂勞越和沙巴實施的整個法律和結構都是非法的。 

 *也就是說,馬來西亞是一個國家,在事实上由馬來亞軍事佔領沙巴和砂拉越並從 1963 年開始鎮壓獨立運動。

 這不需要法庭來確認。 緊急状态是事實,馬來亞巫統政府承認某些法律不符合憲法和約束力,但它們方便地排除了 1966 年大陸架法案(CSA66)、1974 年石油發展法案(PDA74)和新經濟政策(新經濟政策)結構。 

 僅此一點就使馬來亞根據馬來西亞計劃進行的接管是非法的,因為顯然人民從未同意這樣做。 

 這也是MA63無效的三大法律原因之一。 另外兩個問題是新加坡、沙巴和砂勞越(SSS)缺乏簽署MA63的法定地位,以及作為英國冷戰軍事戰略的一部分而將新加坡留在馬來西亞的非法目標。 

 國際法院 (lCJ) 在 2019 年查戈斯群島案中也處理了這 3 點。

 PBK將繼續為砂拉越獨立而戰,因為我們現在都知道馬來西亞不是根據既定的國際法和協議成立的,並且將砂拉越收購為馬來亞的一部分是非法的,因為它違背了人民的意願由於欺騙、恐嚇、騷擾、脅迫、賄賂、欺騙、扭曲事實和許多不正當手段。

 PBK 將繼續以合法和和平的方式爭取砂拉越脫離馬來西亞。

 第一步將是成為砂拉越政府,我們需要告訴我們的人民這個過程,然後我們才能執行其他策略來獲得獨立。

 上苍拯救 PBK,上苍拯救砂拉越!

 *温利山* 
 *肯雅蘭全民黨* 
 2024 年 9 月 11 日

Tuesday, 17 September 2024

评黄进发的“不能给东马35%议席论”

评黄进发的“不能给东马35%议席论”
(18-09-2024)

近日时事报导说,
黄进发不同意给让东马有35%,因为那将会留下后患。

黄进发认为,最近东马要求在国会下议院要有35%的国会议席,会造成;只有1/6选民的东马,再加上16%的西马,他们就能以少数人组成多数政府的局面,使政府出现动荡。他还引用某些例子以证明他是对的。

黄进发先生闭口不谈英国伙同马来亚炮制“大马”时的『平等伙伴』承诺,及和《MA63》一起的,包含35%国会议席保障协议。

然而,61年来,某联邦执政当局不断修改宪法,侵蚀沙巴砂拉越权益,而国会议席也从第一次国会的占35%,递减到现在的25%。这期间,沙巴砂拉越许许多多重大权益被剥夺,连原本100%拥有的油气资源收益,变成只有5%。甚至,通过修改宪法,把沙巴砂拉越降格成第12、第13州。

君不见?昌明政府首相安華於 2023 年 10 月 13 日公佈的 《2024 年國家預算案》,僅將國家發展支出的 6.4% 分配給砂拉越,將 7.3% 分配給沙巴。

而馬來亞,却獲得86.3%。

众所周知,马来亚面积130590平方公里,砂勞越和沙巴的土地面積合計200213平方公里,佔馬來西亞(330803平方公里)的>60%,但它們的撥款僅佔國家發展開支的13.7%。

 馬來亞的土地面積僅佔馬來西亞的<40%,卻分配了國家86.3%的發展開支。

还有许许多多......,一言难尽,馨竹难书。

如今,沙巴砂拉越朝野一致强烈要求恢复拥有35%国会议席的目的就是为了纠正和防止历史悲哀的延续,这有错吗?

姑且不论充满争议的《MA63》的签署是否有效,仅是坚决要求恢复保障权益规定的35%国会议席,相关方面为何迟迟不答应?

当前的时局发展已经是到了要求联邦当局纠正错误,恢复沙巴和砂拉越35%国会议席的时候了,是爱护沙巴和砂拉越人们践行历史责任的时候了,让我们大家都一起继续努力!余清禄

Thursday, 12 September 2024

Secure revenue with laws

Malaysia

Secure revenue with laws, Sarawak lawyer tells Sabah ahead of MA63 meeting
Legal counsel says state should not get caught up in negotiations over unfulfilled rights.

Updated 9 hours ago · Published on 12 Sep 2024 7:00AM

SABAH should not get caught up in negotiations over the return of eroded and unfulfilled rights, but instead, focus on utilising the existing legal framework to claim what is rightfully theirs, said Sarawak government's special legal counsel, J.C. Fong.




Malaysia

Secure revenue with laws, Sarawak lawyer tells Sabah ahead of MA63 meeting
Legal counsel says state should not get caught up in negotiations over unfulfilled rights.

Updated 9 hours ago · Published on 12 Sep 2024 7:00AM

19
Shares
facebook sharing buttontwitter sharing buttonemail sharing buttonwhatsapp sharing buttonwechat sharing buttonprint sharing button
Secure revenue with laws, Sarawak lawyer tells Sabah ahead of MA63 meeting
The Sarawak government's special legal counsel J.C. Fong says Sabah should explore ways to secure its revenue within the existing legal framework. - Bintulu Port website pic, September 12, 2024.

by Desmond Davidson
SABAH should not get caught up in negotiations over the return of eroded and unfulfilled rights, but instead, focus on utilising the existing legal framework to claim what is rightfully theirs, said Sarawak government's special legal counsel, J.C. Fong.


Speaking at a recent symposium, Fong highlighted that both Sabah and Sarawak have been engaged in negotiations with Putrajaya for years, with many issues still unresolved.

"Don't be dragged down by negotiations. While discussions may continue, it is essential to explore ways to secure your revenue within the existing legal framework," he advised.

How much of Fong’s advice will influence Sabah’s approach may be revealed at today’s Malaysia Agreement 1963 Implementation Action Council (MTPMA63) meeting in Kota Kinabalu.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim arrived in the Sabah capital yesterday ahead of Malaysia Day and is expected to bring notable progress on MA63. He will chair the MTPMA63 meeting today, where Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor and Sarawak Premier Tan Sri Abang Johari Openg will be in attendance.

Both states are advocating for greater autonomy and financial entitlements from Putrajaya. While some aspects of the agreement have been fulfilled under Anwar’s administration, MA63 remains a key issue for Sabahans and Sarawakians in their dealings with the federal government.

A major concern for Sabah, which is expected to be raised during negotiations, is the state’s entitlement to 40% of the revenue collected by the federal government within Sabah. Under MA63 and Article 112C and Part IV of the Tenth Schedule of the federal constitution, the federal government is supposed to return 40% of the revenue it collects in the state.

This provision was intended to ensure a fair distribution of resources, allowing Sabah to benefit from its wealth and support its development.

Fong, who advises the Sarawak government on constitutional, administrative, and legal matters related to Sarawak's rights and autonomy within Malaysia, encouraged Sabah to seek ways to compel the federal government to comply with state laws and the constitution.

"They (the federal government) cannot stop you if you're demanding compliance with the law or the constitution," he said, referencing Sarawak’s success in asserting its rights over oil and gas resources. For example, in January 2019, Sarawak imposed a 5% state sales tax (SST) on petroleum products, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), crude oil, and condensates.

This measure allowed Sarawak to claim a larger share of the revenue from oil and gas extraction and export.

Fong also pointed out the importance of financial autonomy, stating that without sufficient funds, states remain dependent on Putrajaya.

“If you have no money, you are nothing. You will still be under some form of colonisation. To build a road or a bridge, you have to go to Putrajaya to ask for money, and they might refuse or give you less than what you need.”

Fong suggested that Sabah explore the Labuan Act 1990 to determine if there is any special provision regarding oil and gas. "Since Sabah’s oil and gas industry is centred around Labuan, there may be legal grounds to argue that the island should be considered part of Sabah under the Petroleum Development Act 1974."

In Sarawak's case, the state asserted its rights under the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958, a law specific to Sarawak that regulates the exploration and extraction of oil and gas within the state’s boundaries. This ordinance requires companies, including Petronas, to obtain licences from the Sarawak government to operate.

“We told them (Petronas and Putrajaya) we are taking back onshore mining and must be allowed to farm in offshore oil fields,” Fong explained. He added that the continental shelf off Sarawak, a disputed area, is considered state land under Article 95D of the federal constitution.

The Territorial Sea Act 2012, which limits the authority of Sabah and Sarawak to a mere three nautical miles from the coast, violates the pre-Malaysia 1954 Order in Council by Queen Elizabeth, which extended the boundaries of Sabah and Sarawak to cover the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf.

Fong argued that Petronas and the federal government cannot apply the Petroleum Development Act on the continental shelf, as it is within state territory.

In Section 2 of the Petroleum Development Act, Fong noted, only the rights to petroleum are vested in Petronas, not the land itself.

“That is how Sarawak asserted its rights and curtailed Petronas’ activities. Now, we are involved in both offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration, and they cannot stop us.” – September 12, 2024.