Pages

Powered By Blogger

Tuesday, 18 March 2025

S’wak’s O&G rights: Anwar should use absolute powers under PDA to correct imbalances as OMO 1958 still valid, MP tells Parliament

 

Facts and Truths

My comments on:

S’wak’s O&G rights: Anwar should use absolute powers under PDA to correct imbalances as OMO 1958 still valid, MP tells Parliament

To keep away the predators from the forest, we need guns and fences.  To demand the political pirates’ hands off our natural resources, we need to enforce laws and sue them in court.

Does anybody think that Anwar would use his absolute powers in terms of control and direction under PDA to correct imbalances in regard to Sarawak’s on oil and gas (O&G) rights? 

Justice is the hallmark of PKR.  Does he care to uphold this principle for the good of himself, the party and the Federation to do this correction?

That Sarawak’s pre-Malaysia Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958 is still valid and applicable is beyond any doubt.

Whether Anwar cares to use his absolute powers under PDA to correct imbalances is not within our control.

What matters most is the Sarawak GPS government having the absolute power to sue Petronas in courts for refusing to comply to the laws in Sarawak as no federal laws can supercede the clauses as stated in MA63 (List 2 – State List 2(c) Vs List 1 – Federal List 8(j)).  

List 2 – State List

2(c) Permits and licenses for prospecting for mines, mining leases   

       and certifications;

List 1 – Federal List

8(j) Subject to items (2)(c) in the State List: Development of mineral resources, mines, mining, minerals and mineral ores; oils and oilfields; purchase, sale, import and export of minerals and mineral ores; petroleum products; regulations of labour and safety in mines and oilfields;

It is no doubt that O&G activities in Sarawak are state rights and Petronas,@ Malaya, well, should face the reality to comply to the Sarawak laws or get out as PDA can never override MA63.

PDA 1974 was implemented while the EO 1969 was still in force, validating it in Sarawak without being formally adopted.

Most Sarawakians and Sabahans know that  the repeal of the EO 1969 in 2011 led to the auto annulment of the PDA 1974 in SS.

Let the court presides the legal basis of Sarawak constitutional authority in regard to gas distribution.  It is pointless to ask colonial-minded federal pirates for fairness and justice.  Be more mature, MP!

These colonialists have never believed in the win-win situation for mutual prosperity.

No Sarawakians can tolerate the imbalance gas distribution in Malaysia with “94% of the total 4.5 billion standard cubic feet per day of natural gas production in Sarawak is exported abroad by Petronas while only six billion standard cubic feet is used for the energy, industrial, and domestic sectors in Sarawak”.


The amount produces is 4.5 billion X 365 days = 1,642.5 billion standard cubic feet a year.  But Sarawak only gets 6 billion standard cubic feet per year.

According to Willie Malaya produces the two billion standard cubic feet per day of natural gas which is entirely for domestic use.

Based on Sections 6 (1) and (3) of PDA 1974, requiring businesses engaged in gas marketing and distribution to obtain approval from the Prime Minister, but it is not applicable to Sarawak.

An Exemption Order (Amendment) Notification in 2019 confirms that the law governing gas distribution in Sarawak is the DGO, not the PDA.    (19/3/25)

Thursday, 13 March 2025

国会议员待遇丰厚

首相办公厅力证 国会议员待遇丰厚
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EFVUQAxBG/ #

(吉隆坡12日讯)首相办公厅公布国会议员所享有的福利津贴,以驳斥反对党议员指他们收入太低,无法维持开销而陷入潦倒的指控。

首相办公厅周二发表文告力证,每名国会议员除了享有每月2万5700令吉固定津贴,还可根据资格获得其他津贴和报销。

文告称,国会议员出席国会会议,每天可获400令吉津贴;出席公账会或特别遴选委员会会议,在非国会会议期间,一天津贴300令吉,国会会议期间则是一天250令吉。以及出席官方汇报会一天300令吉。

因公务到32公里以外地区,每天可获100令吉生活津贴支出。

另外,国会议员在出国公务,也可以申报膳食津贴、交通报销、住宿报销、生活津贴和汇率差额报销等福利。其中,膳食津贴一晚340令吉;生活津贴一天170令吉。

文告称,若将所有津贴和报销相加,一名国会议员的月收入往往可达3万至4万令吉,这与首相拿督斯里安华先前提到的一致。

首相早前指出,如果国会议员面对债务,那肯定是本身的理财问题。

他昨天出席活动时才再次指出,所有国会议员包括反对党议员,每月收入可达4万令吉,当中包括约2万5700令吉的固定津贴及其他津贴如会议津贴、国会委员会会议津贴及出差津贴。

“很多反对党议员说生活多艰难,试问你们之间有多少人月入4万?”

【 有诗为评;
 月入4万 还喊穷 ,
贪心不足蛇吞象 ;
心中无民 只为己 ,
此等歪屁 留何用 ? 】

Tuesday, 4 March 2025

 

实事&真相

张庆信:卫长高度关注 》》巫医师短缺将获解决

 

不好意思,问诗巫3位联邦部长们为什么允许联邦卫生部无限拖延到这么危急要崩溃的水平,才获得卫长高度关注?

 

得罪了,YB张,你大人在所谓的“国会”三番两次诉求联邦政府拨款改善提升诗巫医院。可是,他们都把你大人的话当着耳边风, 你怎么也没辙呢?结果和成果,所以不知在哪儿?

 

今天,诗巫医院的状况跟YB林财耀和YB刘强燕已经做三届的砂联邦议员无能无脑无用脱不了关系。

 

YB张吗?是Bintulu联邦议员,砂DUS议员,很多诗巫人都很看好他。做砂DUS都东区议员也有三年了。在这危急和危机时刻站出来要求联邦卫生部长来,他不忘提醒大家是他的功劳能邀请来这么“尊贵“卫生部长亲临来咱们诗巫医院和各别诊所视察。恶心!

 

心理有病才会有这么设想和想像假像敌。不难猜他心中最大的敌人是谁:人联党或脱马党?

 

多少领袖和人民已经对联邦政府每年在砂拉越从各种税收掠夺至少RM3,000亿后,对于砂邦各种基本设施不足要求足够拨款,一直拖延。

 

每次,看到,政客们要求平民百姓捐赠和捐助医疗设备和仪器,我真的感到很不屑。这次到处水灾,多少无能的政客们还是向老百姓要求捐助。

 

就诗巫医院严缺的器材,YB张,像以往,一贯作风,请求人民捐款。看,他又打人民的主意“寻求私企合作买器材“。医疗的大事绝对是联邦政府的大事,他无法向联邦卫生部要求更大的数的拨款。所以,来这一招。同胞们,别再被骗了。                                                       

对不负责任的联邦拨那一点点小款R910万,何必如此感恩不尽?这些拨款,还不是每年向砂拉越刮走RM3,000亿中的小鼻屎。还要替他们怠慢不良的行为擦屁股。

 

对不起,这是够贱的,所以, 联邦马来亚官爷们才敢如此野蛮傲慢对待咱们和大胆违反联合国规章殖民砂拉越。就是咱们这些砂政客养出来的。这是我长久下来的观察,觉察和洞察的结论。

 

自己不断的捞政治成本,深怕他人,尤其是人联党邀功,威胁到他的官途和在人们心目中的地位。谁心中有鬼?所以总是见鬼!

5//25

Saturday, 22 February 2025

An open Letter to Premier AbangJo

*An Open Letter to Premier Abang Zohari and the Sarawak GPS Government: A Betrayal of Trust, A Failure of Leadership*  

Dear Premier Abang Zohari Openg and the Sarawak GPS State Government,  

Trust you are keeping well and safe.

We, the people of Sarawak, write to you not with malice, but with profound disappointment and anger. 

For decades, Sarawakians have been fed promises of *"restoring, defending, and protecting Sarawak’s rights"* under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). 

Yet, the recent capitulation to Putrajaya over the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) and the ownership of Sarawak’s oil and gas resources reveals a truth we can no longer ignore: *your words ring hollow, and your actions betray Sarawak*.  

*Broken Promises, Broken Trust*  
You pledged to continue the legacy of the late Chief Minister Adenan Satem (“Tok Nan”), who declared that *"Sarawak’s relationship with the Federal Government must be “constitutionally correct.”* 

Tok Nan’s defiance against federal overreach inspired hope that Sarawak would finally reclaim what is rightfully ours under MA63: *autonomy over our resources*.  

Yet, today, we witness the opposite. 

By conceding to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s assertion that PDA74 remains unchallenged and “business as usual,” you have surrendered Sarawak’s constitutional leverage. 

Law Minister Azalina Othman’s revelation—that Sarawak *“acknowledged and recognized”* PDA74 during closed-door talks—confirms this betrayal. 

How can you reconcile this with your own legal advisors’ stance that PDA74 was enacted *“in secrecy,”* *“unconstitutionally,”* and in violation of MA63?  

*The Petros Mirage: A Symbol of Surrender* 
The creation of Petros was hailed as a breakthrough, a vehicle for Sarawak to reclaim control of its oil and gas. 

Instead, it has become a fig leaf, masking Sarawak’s subservience to Petronas. 

*PM Anwar’s statement—that Petros is merely a “gas aggregator” (excluding LNG, Sarawak’s most lucrative resource)—exposes the grim reality: Sarawak remains a spectator rather than a gladiator in its own house*.  

*You claim PDA74 and the Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 (OMO58) can “co-exist,” but this legal ambiguity serves only Petronas and Kuala Lumpur.*

*By refusing to pursue a definitive judicial resolution or parliamentary repeal of PDA74, you have chosen political convenience over constitutional justice*.  

*NATO Leadership: No Action, Talk Only*  
Your partners/colleagues' defense—that opposition figures like Chong Chieng Jen “did nothing”—is a red herring. 

Sarawakians entrusted *you* with an overwhelming mandate. GPS dominates the state assembly and holds pivotal federal influence. Yet, when leverage mattered most, you folded.  

Worse, you dismissed critics as “politicizing the issue,” while offering no substantive rebuttal to Azalina’s damning admission. 

If PDA74 is unconstitutional, why not challenge it in court? 

If MA63 guarantees our resource rights, why concede ownership to Petronas? 

*Silence is complicity.*  

*A Legacy of Failure*  
Tok Nan warned: *“Do not underestimate the people’s intelligence.”* 

Sarawakians are not fools. We see through the theatrics. 

The late Chief Minister fought to delist Sarawak as a “state” in federal documents, asserting our equal partnership. Today, you have reduced Sarawak to a supplicant, begging for crumbs from Petronas’ table.  

Your predecessors traded Sarawak’s resources for “thirty pieces of silver.” You, however, have done worse: *legitimizing theft by validating PDA74*. This is not leadership—it is submission.  

*Our Demands: Action, Not Apologies* 
Sarawakians do not seek hollow slogans or blame games. We demand:  
1. *Immediate legal action* to challenge PDA74’s constitutionality in court, as your own legal advisors insist it violates MA63.  
2. *Parliamentary motion* to repeal or amend PDA74, leveraging GPS’s influence in the unity government.  
3. *Transparency* in all negotiations with Putrajaya—no more secret deals that sell out Sarawak.  

Premier Abang Zohari, you once vowed that GPS would *“fight to the death”* for Sarawak’s rights. Today, your words are ashes. If you will not act, please graciously step aside for leaders who will.  

*Sarawak’s oil and gas belong to Sarawakians. This is non-negotiable.* 

*We will not forget the betrayals of Fairland Sarawak*  
 
*Fairland Sarawak*  
*On behalf of Sarawakians Who Believe in Justice as 'an equal founding partner in the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia'.*

*If not now, when ?*
*If not us Sarawakians, who else ?*

*WE ❤️ SARAWAK !!!*
*Jaga Sarawak bait-bait*

*Anak-Anak Sarawak*
*LAK-SA63*
*21/2/2025*

*Note: This letter is a collective expression of frustration from Sarawakians who expected their leaders to prioritize the state’s constitutional rights over political expediency.* 

*The fight for MA63 is not partisan—it is existential.*
In our political arena 🐍are everywhere.

Thursday, 13 February 2025

Legal issues whether PDA74 can be extended to Sarawak

Here are pertinent legal issues
 
Whether PDA1974 extended to Sarawak?

Emergency proclamation was declared by YDPA for the whole of Malaysia in 1969 including SS (EO 1969).

At all material times, Sarawak has its own laws to regulate mining, including oil & gas activities in Sarawak, which is Oil & Mining Ordinance 1958.
 
Then came Petroleum Development Act, a statute, passed by Parliament in 1974 (PDA1974) to vest all oil & gas activities in Malaysia exclusively to Petronas.

Since, the establishment of PDA1974 by Parliment done while EO1969 still in force in Malaysia, it was too extended Sarawak by virtue of Article 150 of the Federal Constitutuon (FC) without the need for it to be adopted by Sarawak bypassing the requirement of Article 76 FC. 

However, the position was changed in 2011 when the Fed Govt under Najib's administration was under pressure to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA). In 2011, the Fed Govt agreed to abolish ISA, and in doing so, the EO1969 was also revoked.

Blessing to Sarawak, Federal Govt at that time did not realise the detrimental big effect of revoking the EO1969 to the application of PDA1974 to Sarawak.

What is the effect of that revocation of EO1969 to PDA1974?

It simply means the "special pass" given to PDA1974 by virtue of EO1969 to extend its application to Sarawak bypassing Sarawak DUN as required by Article 76 of FC was no longer exist or valid.

It follows, for PDA1974 now to extend its application to Sarawak, it would need to be adopted by Sarawak DUN as required by Article 76 of FC. DUN Sarawak has not adopted the application of PDA1974. As it stands now, PDA1974 has no application to Sarawak.

The argument that the then Chief Minister Tun Rahman had consented and surrendered such oil & gas rights to Petronas exclusively must fail for reason that it was not resolved or passed by DUN Sarawak as required by the Constitution. It is plainly unconstitutional for a person, be it a Chief Minister, to unilaterally surrender Sarawak's rights without being resolved or passed by Sarawak DUN. 

Further, to support Sarawak's stand, Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance, 1958 (OMO1958) a pre-Malaysia law has never been repealed and it shall continue to be valid and effective as State law on equal standing with Federal law under the provisions of Malaysia Act.

OMO1958 established Sarawak's authorities over oil & gas activities in Sarawak. All mining, including oil & gas activities, are under the State List and subject to OMO1958 that regulate the issuance of permits and licenses for such activities.

Sea Territorial Act 2012 ia another statute passed by Parliament to supressed Sarawak's rights. It has the effect of reducing the Sarawak's sea territorial boundaries to only 3 nautical miles from the original 200 nautical miles from the coast.

Since this STA2012 affects the right of Sarawak and for it to be applicable to Sarawak, it must be adopted and passed by Sarawak DUN as required by Aritcle 76 of FC. Sarawak DUN never adopts and does not recognise STA2012.

To conclude, oil & gas activities in Sarawak are under Sarawak's authorities, and this is not open to negotiation with Federal Govt or Petronas.

Hope this will clarify.

Tq.

Sunday, 9 February 2025

砂政府接受PDA74被质疑为错误理由

*砂拉越政府接受1974年PDA《石油发展法令* *》被质疑为错误的理由* 
( *深度探索* 09-02-2025)

砂拉越政府接受1974年《石油发展法令》(PDA)的争议主要涉及法律效力、州权与资源分配的复杂博弈。以下是这一决策被质疑为“错误”的核心原因:

 1. **法律效力存疑:PDA的制定背景与合法性争议**
   1974年PDA通过时,马来西亚仍处于1969年“513事件”后延续的紧急状态(直到2011年才解除)。砂拉越政府认为,PDA在紧急状态下制定,其合法性可能因紧急状态的结束而受到挑战。砂首席部长阿邦佐哈里明确表示,紧急状态解除后,PDA是否仍然有效需重新讨论。此外,砂拉越主张其1958年《石油开采条例》(OMO)在PDA颁布前已赋予其资源管理权,而PDA作为联邦法律并未完全取代州法律,两者应“并存”。

 2. **经济利益受损:资源控制权与收入分配不公**
   - **液化天然气(LNG)控制权丧失**:尽管2025年砂拉越与联邦达成协议,承认砂石油公司(Petros)为天然气聚合商,但液化天然气的管辖权仍归国油(Petronas)。由于LNG是砂拉越油气收入的主要来源(占出口的90%),砂拉越仅能控制液化石油气(LPG),这被视为对经济主权的重大让步。
   - **石油税比例过低**:砂拉越长期仅获得5%的石油开采税,远低于其要求的20%。尽管砂拉越贡献了全国大部分的石油和52.7%的天然气储量,但PDA框架下资源收益大部分流向马来亚联邦,加剧了经济不平等。

 3. **砂拉越领土领海权与联邦宪法争议:领海边界与资源主权**
   - **领海边界争议**:砂拉越依据1954年《砂拉越(边界调整)枢密令》主张其领海范围包括大陆架(延伸至200海里),而联邦政府通过2012年《领海法案》将砂领海限制为3海里。PDA赋予国油对大陆架资源的专有权,直接削弱了砂拉越的宪法权利(联邦宪法规定州边界变更需州议会同意)。
   - **联邦与砂拉越权益冲突**:砂拉越认为PDA违反了联邦宪法中“州对土地和资源拥有立法权”的原则,尤其是颁发勘探许可的权力。砂盟领袖多次强调,砂拉越加入马来西亚时的权益在联邦化过程中被逐步侵蚀。

 4. **政治妥协与民意反弹**
   2025年砂拉越与联邦达成的协议中,砂政府承认PDA的有效性,并同意国油在砂作业无需额外准证。这一妥协被反对党批评为“第二次出卖权益”(第一次为1974年PDA通过)。砂拉越民间舆论指出,协议未解决核心问题,反而巩固了国油的垄断地位,引发民众对政府“政治交易”的质疑。

5. **历史权利与国际法的挑战**
   砂拉越主张其大陆架资源主权基于殖民时期的法律文件,而联邦政府则以国际法(如1982年《联合国海洋法公约》)为据,强调资源归属国家整体。法律专家指出,砂拉越的诉求需通过法院裁决明确,但联邦政府倾向于谈判而非司法途径,导致争议悬而未决。

 *总结* 
砂拉越接受PDA的争议本质是联邦与砂拉越在资源控制、法律解释及历史权利上的深层矛盾。批评者认为,接受PDA不仅损害了砂拉越的经济利益和宪法权利,也未能解决其作为马来西亚成立时的“平等伙伴”地位被削弱的根本问题。未来,这一争议可能继续通过法律诉讼或政治谈判寻求平衡。

Monday, 3 February 2025

Was the Cobbold Commission a scam?


Borneo Herald
For a Freer and Happier Borneo

Was the Cobbold Commission a scam?


              Voon Lee Shan, a Sarawak lawyer

By Voon Lee Shan, 28-9-2024
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. 

Members of the Cobbold Commission which was set up in January 1962.

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 Truth that sets us free. May God Bless this Land of Sarawak and her people. 


Voon Lee Shan is President of Parti Bumi Kenyalang of Sarawak