Agong 拥有摆免砂拉越元首的特权

新聞聲明

 2024 年 1 月 29 日

 回应：國王擁有罷免砂拉越總督的特權

 憲法可以廢除、限制和中止特權。 因此，國王手中的特權必須依照憲法行使。 憲法是至高無上的，任何人都不能凌駕於憲法之上。 法院作為法律的守護者，必須只從字面上解釋憲法的規定，而不能引入無關的法律規則、慣例或慣例。 然而，根據現代慣例，國王在行使特權之前，會根據大臣們的建議行事。

 至於砂拉越總督的任命和罷免，均受砂拉越憲法第1（1）和（2）條管轄，國王將根據砂拉越政府負責部長或砂拉越的建議採取相應行動內閣。

 因此，公民應該知道，行使罷免總督的權力必須遵守憲法，而砂拉越政府應適當告知國王，國王在行使《憲法》第 1（2）條下的權力時，應充分了解其權力。砂拉越憲法。 法律意見認為，砂拉越憲法第1（2）條文規定，在罷免總督之前必須先滿足一個先決條件，即必須由支持砂拉越的議員在砂拉越下議院進行投票。在建議國王罷免總督之前罷免總督。

 法律專家的拙見認為，法院有權詢問國王在行使砂拉越憲法第1（2）條文下的酌情權時是否忽略了該條款所要求的先決條件。 因此，國王擁有一定的自由裁量權並不意味著法院的管轄權事實上就被剝奪了。

 內閣部長宣誓就職時必須保護憲法，並應相應地就憲法向國王提出建議，以便國王不會做出違反憲法的道德行為，儘管法律上並沒有錯誤。

 據觀察，在英國，特權的行使在Laker Airways ltd v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643 案中得到了檢驗，其中Denning 勳爵表示「如果[在特權下] 自由裁量權，法律可以(..) 進行干預」行使不當或錯誤」。

 1966年6月砂拉越總督罷免拿督史蒂芬·卡隆·寧坎首席部長一職，以及1966年9月上旬高等法院恢復寧坎的職務，這件事對大多數砂拉越人來說仍然記憶猶新。 這個案件清楚地表明，特權的行使必須依法進行，請大家不要忽視這一點，因為像寧坎案件一樣可能會導致憲法危機。

     

 人們普遍認為，寧坎的下台是馬來西亞聯邦政府干預的結果，因為他強烈主張更大的國家自治。

 温利山

 肯雅兰全民黨主席

How cruel Dr M was

Dr Patrick Liew

How cruel was Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad during this previous 22 years in office as the Prime Minister of Malaysia and the leader of Barisan Nasional?

Dr. Mahathir has been aggressive and ruthless in pursuing his nemesis to the point where he would put them out of action, even if it affects their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families.

He was alleged to have played a part in putting Anwar Ibrahim behind bars at various points, totaling 123 months.

However, having said that, Mahathir would gladly put enmity and animosity aside and work with some of his competitors and even enemies if he personally benefits from aligning with them.

In the final analysis, his cruelty or degrees of cruelty depends on the motives, means, and ends behind the dealings with different parties.

For Mahathir, personal and political benefits take priority and they prevail over socioeconomic benefits for his country and its people.

He is driven by "I, Me, and Myself," including his family’s interests.

His primary consideration is, "What's in it for me?" before he thinks about Malaysia and Malaysians.

Mahathir's main motive is to solidify his political and social power and influence.

To achieve this, he needs to win more votes or support and have more activists and participants fighting for his interests and better future.

He requires politically motivated leaders and emotionally charged Malays who have been brainwashed to believe that he is the champion and defender of their culture, communities, interests, and destinies.

Mahathir is willing to do anything as long as he is not caught red-handed and with his pants down.

He aims to come out on top, gain more power, become wealthier, and escape any consequences for his actions, regardless of any wrongdoings he may have committed.

For instance, Mahathir would make promises during the election campaign that he knew he could not fulfill in order to gain support.

As part of his political playbook, he distracts people from his failures and wrongdoings by cleverly sweeping them under the carpet or engaging in a blame game and witch hunt.

Mahathir is not ashamed to divide the country and polarize the people, including the Malays, and create power struggles and infighting within his party and alliance to stand out and lead.

Moreover, he does not hesitate to further deepen cracks and rifts along the fault lines of race, language, or religion to influence key players and be in the driver's seat.

Mahathir's "Malay Dilemma" curse has reinforced the undue dominance of racial and religious politics.

It has caused an almost apartheid-like malaise and deeply divided the people of Malaysia.

Politicians from PAS and other Malay-dominated parties are learning from Mahathir’s playbook and improving his strategies and tactics.

As long as racial and religious politicking prevails, the Malays will generally have an entitlement mentality.

They will lack the strongest desire and drive to improve their capacity and capability to achieve success.

To make matters worse, there will be an elite and well-connected class of Malays that will enjoy the most benefits from government handouts.

The rich will become richer, and the poor will struggle harder to improve their lot.

There will always be a social divide in the Malay community, and income inequality will continue to exist or even widen.

Many non-Malays will feel like second-class citizens and be less committed to contributing to society.

Some of the best talents who are dissatisfied with religious and racial politics will leave the country, resulting in a brain drain that affects economic growth.

To appease his political colleagues and counterparts, Mahathir helped to entrench the culture of corruption, cronyism, nepotism, and kleptocracy in every sphere of society.

By sharing the economic pie among them and keeping it out of the public eye, he is in a better position to manipulate them.

Furthermore, he can dominate the political players, parties, and alliances by keeping a file on their wrongdoings so as to hold them hostage for his benefit.

As a result of these issues, the Malaysian economy did not grow optimally, and the value of the ringgit continues to weaken.

Mahathir understands better than any other national leader that these cancerous issues are gradually but surely destroying the country.

Instead of educating the people and addressing the negative aspects of religious and racial issues, he chose to do the opposite because it puts him in the spotlight and solidifies his power and interests in the long term.

It is not difficult to envision a future where Malaysia becomes a country that exports cheap labor and domestic helpers if current and future politicians continue the political gamesmanship that Mahathir has fine-tuned to both an art and a science.

In short, Mahathir can be cruel to a point that he’s willing to invoke the worst pain to his enemies as well as to an entire nation.

He uses cruelty and other inhuman initiatives to advance his political and social interests and shape his destiny.

History will remember Mahathir as a leader who had the potential to develop Malaysia, a nation with great people and tremendous potential, into an admired andrespected country.

Unfortunately, that did not happen.

对Taib Mahmud 的评价

从历史进程看敦泰益 肯雅兰党：贬褒皆有

2024年1月29日

（诗巫29日讯）肯雅兰全民党永久主席余清禄表示，敦泰益玛目下台，贬褒皆有，角度不一自然结论各异，只要是事实都应予以尊重。

“我在这里，从历史发展过程角度回顾与观察，供大家参考。上世纪六十年代，泰益伙同雅谷串通吉隆坡，推倒了强势捍卫砂拉越主权的宁甘，又在上世纪七十年代初遵照吉隆坡的指示行事，导致雅谷签署丧权的石油法令。这些都有损于砂拉越利益。”

他说，1981年，泰益取代雅谷出任砂拉越首席部长。

他说，从历史进程角度看，泰益在位期间拒绝交出移民自主权给联邦，多次拒绝马来亚其他政党来砂拉越（注: 民主行动党是雅谷于1976年开门允许进入）和沙巴的情况大相径庭。

他说，1990年，泰益以砂拉越首席部长兼砂拉越保安行动理事会主席身份见证了砂拉越政府代表和联邦军警首长一起与坚持反殖民争取独立被逼以武装长期抗争的北加人民军签署《1990年和平协议》，使砂拉越全面进入和平发展建设的新阶段。

他说，尤其在泰益执政后期，为唤醒砂拉越意识，抗拒马来亚化方面，他开启绿灯，更公然违拗吉隆坡意旨，抢在吉隆坡之前，安排给敢于公开宣称要索回砂拉越主权的阿迪南上台接任砂拉越首席部长。

他称，简言之，客观地说，半世纪的执政当局强行压制反殖民争取独立人民运动的白色恐怖，因泰益而重新有了新契机。

他是于今天发表一篇名为“从历史进程看泰益”的文告时说，敦泰益玛目在担任砂拉越元首还有一个月的时刻，宣布由旺朱乃迪律师接任砂拉越元首，许多论政者认为这是对泰益实质上的“罢黜”。

Daim 家财万贯

3辆奔驰 + 1辆劳斯莱斯 + 1辆捷豹 +++

38家企业 + 25个房地产

据知还不包括海外的资产呢……有钱就是爽！

达因财富不下数百亿

BERIKUT ADALAH HARTA DAIM

银行户口

1. Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad (ASB) dan Amanah Saham Nasional (ASN)

汽车

1. Mercedes Benz 600 SEL

2. Jaguar XJS HE

3. Mercedes Benz 450SEL

4. Mercedes Benz 450 SLC

5. Rolls Royce Royce 2 Axle Rigid Body

6. Austin Morris Austin

7. Ford Prefect

公司

1. Ibu Kota Developments Sdn Bhd 

2. Maya Seni Holdings Sdn Bhd

3. Menara Ampang Sdn Bhd 

4. Dream Cruiser Sdn Bhd 

5. Landbelt Corporation Sdn Bhd

6. Kenari Teliti Sdn Bhd

7. Fnq Advanced Materials Sdn Bhd

8. Kota Tandop Development Sendirian Berhad

9. Alun-Alun Resort (M) Sdn Bh

10. Dasar Seroja Sdn Bhd

11. Gigantic Promotions Sdn Bhd

12. Jupiter Alliance Sdn Bhd

13. Inayat Realty Sdn Bhd

14. Suasa Urus Sdn Bhd

15. Avillion Berhad

16. Meridian Haven Sdn Bhd

17. Avillion Vista Hotel Sdn Bhd

18. Vast Access Sdn Bhd

19. Fortune Valley Sdn Bhd

20. Reliance E-Com Sdn Bhd 

21. Admiral Marina Berhad

22. Golden Envoy (M) Sdn Bhd 

23. Mela Lifestyle Sdn Bhd 

24. AVI SPA Sdn Bhd

25. Avillion Hotel Group Sdn Bhd 

26. RPB Capital Holdings Sdn Bhd 

27. Genius Field Sdn Bhd

28. Festive Place Sdn Bhd

29. Avillion Suite Hotel (PD) Sdn Bhd 

30. Taman Unik Sdn Bhd 

31. Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd

32. Nesline Sdn Bhd

33. RPB Development Sdn Bhd 

34. OS Resources Sdn Bhd 

35. Avillion Hotel (Kl) Sdn Bhd

36. Avillion Hotels International Sdn Bhd 

37. Admiral Hill Hotel Sdn Bhd 

38. Reliance Shipping & Travel Agencies (Perak) Sdn Berhad 

房产与土地产

1. Lot 265, Seksyen 89, No. 325 Ritchie Condo, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

2. Lot 12, Seksyen 89, No. 327 Persiaran Ritchie, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

3. Unit 1D, NO 16, Jalan Taman U-Thant, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

4. PT 2533 Mukim Ampang beralamat di No. 10 Jalan Wirawati, Taman Maluri, 55100 Kuala Lumpur

5. Lot 2490 Mukim Teras,Raub beralamat di Rompin House, Bukit Fraser, 49000 Fraser's Hill, Pahang

6. Lot 157, Lot 158, Lot 159 di Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di Lot 63-67 (1-3) Jalan Kampung Pandan, Kampung Pandan, 55100 Kuala Lumpur

7. PT4061, No. 333, Jalan Kolam Air, Taman Melawati, 53100 Kuala Lumpur

8. 316 Seksyen 63, Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di No.204 Desa Kuda Lari, TK 1-A150 3, 50450 Kuala Lumpur

9. Lot 13, No. 333, Persiaran Ritchie, Desa Pahlawan, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

10. Lot 20001 di Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di No. 333 (Socfin House-White Palace Kuala Lumpur)

11. PT 377, PT 379, PT 380, PT 384, PT 1095, PT 1096 di Mukim Ampang beralamat di No.57 & 59, Taman Maluri, 55100 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur

12. Lot 215 Seksyen 89, Lot 216 Seksyen 89 dan Lot 84 Seksyen 89 di Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di Cinta Condominium, Jalan Madge Off Jalan U-Thant, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

13. Lot 14001, Lot 14002, Lot 14003 di Mukim Bentong beralamat di Lot 12 & 13 Puncak Dani & Dani Lodge Gohtong Jaya Genting Highlands, 69000, Pahang

14. Lot 3989, Lot 3975 Di Mukim Ulu Kelang beralamat di Unit No. W4DC-075 & 061, Phase 4D, Wangsa Melawati 53300 Kuala Lumpur

15. PT 371, PT 372 dan 16015 PT 373 di Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di Wisma Dani, 1, Jalan Jejaka 4, Maluri, 55100 Kuala Lumpur

16. PT 15752, Mukim Ampang beralamat, beralamat di AG-01, A1-01, A-2-01, A2-01, A3-01, A3-02, A4-01, A4-02 Taman Dagang Ampang, 68000 Ampang, Selangor

17. Lot 129 Seksyen 58, Menara Ampang, No. 149, Jalan Ampang, Selangor

18.Lot No 1680 dan 1681, Mukim Bujang Daerah Kuala Muda, Negeri Kedah

19. PT 35082, Double Storey Semi D, Phase 5B, Bukit Saujana, Ijok, Selangor

20. Suite # 8-13-6, Menara Mutiara Bangsar 8, Jalan Liku Off Jalan Bangsar, 59100, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

21. Avillion Port Dickson, 3rd Mile, Jalan Pantai, 71000 Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan

22. Avillion Admiral Cove, 51⁄2 Mile, Jalan Pantai, Port Dickson, 71050 Negeri Sembilan

23. Avillion Cameron Highlands, C-3-1 Jalan Camelia, Tanah Rata, Cameron Highlands, Pahang

24. Admiral Marina & Leisure Club, 5 1/2 Miles Jalan Pantai, 71050, Si Rusa, 71050 Negeri Sembilan

25. AVI Pangkor Beach Resort, PT1130, Jalan Pasir Bogak, 32300 Pangkor, Perak

装病的国家大蛀虫

他的身家怎么可能没在马来西亚富豪榜里？

头手家产已经让人民血压飙高20度…

看来要吃点药才敢看老马的家产了…

解读Rajah 的9项治国原则

解读Rajah 的9项治理原则

1. 砂拉越是砂拉越人的。

2. 透过教育和经济发展改善砂民的生活水平。

3. 砂民人人平等，绝不允许特权剥削砂人或受保护的人。

4. 保障正义和有规范合理的自由。

5. 文笔言论表达和宗教自由。

6. 完全依赖人民善意合作的公务员就是公仆。

7. 公共服务是以公务员的品德绩效做考核。

8. 自治是砂民的终极目标；透过教育让砂民实践政治管理的义务，责任和特权。

9. 以往和现在的统治者都期待砂各种族和谐幸福生活在一起。未来继承者以及所有公仆都必须遵守这9项治国原则。

1962 年谈论砂应该先自治与独立

1962年陈宗明: 砂拉越应该先自治与独立

杨清河: 在所有保障中，最重要是有权通过全民公投来脱离大马联邦

（2024-01-16）

历史回顾

1962年9月26日    砂拉越立法议会通过参组大马联邦的动议，同时批准成立政府级委员会。在当天的动议辩论时，有多位立法议员提出异议或担心的问题，他们的建议是:

① 德拉仁达夫人最先提出，脱离联邦的课题纳入建议。

② 达科蓝登提议：不要采用Malaysia, 而采用 BORBRUSIMA （按：BOR 是Borneo,，BRU是Brunei，SI是Singapore，MA是Malaya.）他还建议，要列入脱离联邦的条文。

③ 陈宗明提出，砂拉越应该先自治与独立，则人民的权益才能够获得充分的代表。因此，他提议进行全民公投，以取得人民的真正意见。

④ 黄金明认为，虽然应该有一个强大的中央政府，邦的自主权，也不应该被联邦漠视。他要保障中的保障，来保障砂拉越的权益（the safeguard to safeguard the safeguards），而非简单的保障。

⑤ 天猛公欧阳认为，如果联邦成立后的5到10年间，被发现是不合实际的，则砂拉越应该有权脱离大马联邦。

⑥ 杨清河认为，在所有保障中，最重要是有权通过全民公投来脱离大马联邦。

⑦ 钱惠光提议修改动议，取消“8月31日”字眼，以便有更长时间来考虑保障的课题。陈高明和律政司反对这项提议。最后钱惠光收回这项动议。

⑧ 最后发言的是王其辉，他说，很多人和他一样，接受马来西亚概念，却还不准备接受马来西亚计划。他要砂拉越人民的权益获得保障。

财政司约翰派克说，在马来西亚协议下，砂拉越可以在未来5年中，获得5亿元的拨款，供进行发展用途。

1962 Tan Chong Ming: Sarawak should gain autonomy and independence first

 Yang Qinghe: Of all the guarantees, the most important is the right to secede from the Federation of Malaysia through a referendum.

 (2024-01-16)

 Recap history

 On September 26, 1962, the Sarawak Legislative Assembly passed a motion to participate in the formation of the Federation of Malaysia and also approved the establishment of a government-level committee. During the motion debate that day, many legislators raised objections or concerns. Their suggestions were:

 ① Mrs. Drajenda was the first to propose the inclusion of the issue of secession from the Federation.

 ② Colandon suggested: Instead of using Malaysia, use BORBRUSIMA (Note: BOR is Borneo, BRU is Brunei, SI is Singapore, MA is Malaya.) He also suggested that provisions for secession from the federation should be included.

 ③ Tan Chong Ming proposed that Sarawak should gain autonomy and independence first, so that the people's rights and interests can be fully represented. Therefore, he proposed a referendum to obtain the real opinions of the people.

 ④ Wong King Ming believes that although there should be a strong central government, the autonomy of the states should not be ignored by the federation. He wants the safeguard to safeguard the safeguards, not just a simple safeguard.

 ⑤ Temenggong Ouyang believes that if the federation is found to be unrealistic within 5 to 10 years after its establishment, Sarawak should have the right to secede from the Federation of Malaysia.

 ⑥ Yang Qinghe believes that among all guarantees, the most important is the right to secede from the Federation of Malaysia through a referendum.

 ⑦ Qian Huiguang proposed to amend the motion to remove the word "August 31" so that more time can be given to consider the issue of protection. Chen Gaoming and the Department of Justice opposed this proposal. In the end, Qian Huiguang withdrew the motion.

 ⑧ The last speaker was Ong Kee Hui. He said that many people, like him, accept the concept of Malaysia but are not ready to accept the Malaysia Plan. He wants the rights and interests of the people of Sarawak to be protected.

 Financial Secretary John Pike said that under the Malaysia Agreement, Sarawak can receive an allocation of 500 million Dollars for development purposes in the next five years.

YB Miro Simuh on Sarawak independence

Press Statement

Re: In response to press statement of GPS Youth Chief, YB Miro Simuh on Sarawak Independence

YB Miro Simuh erred when he claimed that the federal constitution prohibit all member states of the federation of Malaysia including Sarawak to leave the federation. YB Miro Simuh has to be corrected and if not corrected the wrong would become the truth. Sarawakians and Sabahans have to be informed that there is no prohibition at all in the federal constitution if Sarawak chose to leave Malaysia peacefully and by legal means. Many international law lawyers and professors including an eminent law professor in Canada was consulted by me advised me the same too. 

If there is such a prohibition, YB Miro Simuh could have pointed the relevant portion of the federal constitution for public knowledge but he could not.

YB Miro Simuh and to those who are still ignorant of the right to secede from colonialism, I wish to say that there is no law at the moment, domestic and/or international law to prohibit secession or exit from the federation.

Sarawakians have to be reminded that Sarawak and Sabah were once colonies of the United Kingdom but the United Kingdom never granted us independence. Therefore, to say Sarawak had been granted independence by the United Kingdom was wrong. There was no Independence Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament to grant Sarawak independence. United Kingdom had made it clear that for British colonies to be independent, it has to be by an Act of Independence passed by parliament of the United Kingdom 

Instead, Sabah and Sarawak were given as a gift by the United Kingdom to Malaya. The making of Sabah and Sarawak including Singapore as gift to Malaya could be read from declassified colonial documents. 

 It was free.

 

In fact, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV) (“UNGAR 1514) gives right of peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation to self-determination. This right gives rights to colonies to decide for themselves to seek independence from foreign control of their countries. 

Malaysia being a member state of the United Nations, has to respect this UNGAR 1514 if Sabah and Sarawak seeks independence by peaceful and legal means.

I wish to mention what Thomas Franck, a law professor and an international law expert from New York, said when consulted on the case of Quebec seceding from Canada, and what Lord Lansdowne, the Inter-Governmental Committee(IGC) said to support my opinion of the right to seek independence. Thomas Franck, said “It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession.” 

Before Malaysia was formed, Lord Lansdowne, the Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee in response in a call for an “exit-clause” the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (“MA63”) and in the federal constitution, said it was not necessary for this because, “…any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will”.

Therefore, it is clear that an “exit clause” is not necessary in the Federal Constitution to allow exit from the Federation of Malaysia by Sabah and Sarawak.

Even if there is a provision to say that Sabah and Sarawak could not secede from the federation, I was advised by many legal experts that the fundamental breaches to the MA63 signed by the Federation of Malaya with Sabah and Sarawak (Singapore was a signatory but left Malaysia in 1965) had caused the Federation of Malaysia to become no more a sensible political union, and this should give Sabah and Sarawak the right to secede from Malaysia.

The breaches in MA63 are irreparable and it was breached soon after Malaysia was formed on 16 September, 1963. There is no provision for reform when the terms and conditions are breached because MA63 does not provide for this.

MA63 is an international agreement (Treaty) and therefore, any part in the Federal Constitution, if there is, that disallows secession should be void as the MA63, being an international agreement, is a superior document to the Constitution.

Therefore, there is an intrinsic right to exit as there is nothing to prevent Sabah and Sarawak to seek and exit from the federation of Malaysia by peaceful and legal means.

It is noted that Singapore exited from the federation of Malaysia after social, economic and political difference between Singapore and Malaysia or Malaya could not be resolved.

Legal experts also are of the opinion that Malaysia is not a new nation but a change of name by Malaya to Malaysia effective 16 September, 1963 after a letter was sent by Dato Ong Yoke Lin of Malaya to the United Nations Secretariat. Therefore, the name of Malaysia refers to Malaya and Malaya refers to Malaysia. The change of name by Malaya to Malaysia could be read from the United Nations Juridical Year Book 1963

Many legal experts had advised that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 was a void an inito Treaty because Sabah Sarawak and Singapore at the time of signing being still colonies of United kingdom had no legal capacity to sign any treaty with parent countries. The recent Chagos Islands case decided by the United Nations International Court of Justice which was delivered on February 2019 is clear on this point of law.

Little knowledge is very dangerous because we can mislead people. It is a great sin to mislead people because what we said when it is not true is a lie 

At that time Malaya was already an independent country too.

VOON LEE SHAN

PRESIDENT PARTI BUMI KENYALANG

5 JANUARY 2024