JS,
To answer your questions in the email below:
(1) Malaysia did not exist before 16 Sept, 1963. So, the question of Sabah and Sarawak joining Malaysia does not arise;
(2) Again, Malaysia came into being on 16 Sept, 1963. This Extraordinary Event (in history, law and Constitution) was not the result of independence but of Occupation of Sabah and Sarawak by Malaya on the heels of the British departure (In fact, the thinking in Malaya -- especially among the Malays -- is that the British gave them Sabah and Sarawak. That's why they behave likewise and why Mahathir Mohamad, who needs no introduction, handed out MyKads meant for citizens by operation of law to illegal immigrants and other foreigners and their children in Sabah without batting an eyelid and remains unrepentant, unapologetic and combative on the issue. Had Malaysia been set up properly, Mahathir would have been hanged for Treason.);
(3) 9 July 1963 refers to the date of the Malaysia Agreement; 31 Aug, 1957 refers to the independence of Malaya or the handover of the Administration to Malayans. There's some dispute on whether the British presence in Malaya was colonial rule. This was raised by history dons not so long ago at Universiti Malaya;
(4) What do you mean by asking whether Sabah and Sarawak signed any agreement with Malaya after their independence on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963? What Agreements are you referring to?
(5) Again, 9 July 1963 was the date of the Malaysia Agreement. There's no such thing as independence for Sabah and Sarawak through Malaysia. If that was the case, Sabah and Sarawak would not have become independent on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively. It was Singapore which obtained its independence through merger with Malaya via Malaysia which was supposed to have been facilitated by Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei. This issue was put to the Singaporeans in a Yes or No Vote.
Note:
There was no Referendum in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Malaya on Malaysia. The Cobbold Commission in Sabah and Sarawak was not a Referendum. It was open British and Malayan defiance of the UN's Protocols on decolonization.
Dr Jeffrey Kitingan was still in school when Malaysia happened. Now, he has realized that his forefathers were conned into it and wants to do something about it so that future generations will not urinate on his grave too.
However, he's barking up the wrong tree by harping on compliance of the Malaysia Agreement. That will never happen in a million years. What's there to comply with when there was no Referendum on Malaysia? The fact that Dr Jeffrey is calling for compliance shows that there's no Constitution on Malaysia as demanded by an "Extraordinary Event". Had there been a Constitution, whether codified (written in one document) or uncodified (in separate documents), the Malaysia Agreement would have been one of the constitutional documents incorporated in a codified Constitution of Malaysia or one of the constitutional documents making up the uncodified Constitution of Malaysia. Now, we have the Federation of Malaya masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia and the codified Constitution of Malaya being passed off as the codified Constitution of Malaysia.
If Dr Jeffrey wants to contribute to the Debate, he should call for Malaya -- masquerading as Malaysia -- to end its colonial occupation of Sabah and Sarawak. We are not talking here about internal colonization, as in the case of the Indian Nation in Malaya, but colonial occupation.
I don't think that compliance is Dr Jeffrey's idea. Someone probably planted the idea in his head and he has been harping on it ever since without thinking too much about it. Did he sit down with a battery of lawyers and constitutional experts and historians before harping on non-compliance? Did he conduct any research on declassified documents in London and at the UN before harping on compliance? That's why the Malaysian Government doesn't take him seriously. Where they have commented, they claimed various things. Examples: the Malaysia Agreement is only a political agreement (meaning no need to follow); the 20/18 Points is a political guideline, is out of date, has been amended, has been incorporated in the Constitution etc. During GE13, the Sabah BN Manifesto claimed that it would comply with the "Spirit" of the 20 Points. This was an afterthought in response to Star.
A Constitution is not so much about law but politics. It's politicization of issues to gather the people's support which results in an Extraordinary Event -- war (victory or defeat), independence, merger, Revolution -- and the birth of a Constitution.
A Constitution is the ultimate Political Document. So, how can it be said that the Malaysia Agreement, had there been a Referendum and Malaysia set up properly, is "only a political agreement" (meaning no need to follow/comply). Then, what's the basis for this so-called Malaysia?
Putrajaya is equating a political agreement with an election manifesto. They are not one and the same thing.
I hope that you understand now why I wanted to be in the main organizing committee for the International Conference on Malaysia Agreement and to record the minutes of the committee meetings and make discussion notes on the meetings. You cannot have clowns running amok -- like a chicken running around with its head cut off -- with an issue like this. The Borneo Heritage Foundation is plagued by uneconomic and unproductive activities because there are too many headless chickens ruling the roost while Dr Jeffrey is torn between being the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand. the three monkeys in the collective: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil; and the three blind men in the collective and the elephant. When asked to describe the elephant, one described the tail, another ears and the third the trunk. WTF is C.K. Low to decide on anything? It's because of people like him that many people want to quit Star and the reason while Nila Krisna James and Zainal Ajamain left the United Borneo Front.
Anyway, I have changed my mind.
I no longer wish to be in the main organizing committee, nor do I want to record the minutes. Besides, you have already appointed another to do the minutes and there has been no indication from you on whether Dato James Ligunjang and I will be invited to join the main organizing committee. It was not necessary for you to say that you would have to ask Daniel John Jambun first. Daniel told me that he has nothing to do with who attends or does not attend the main organizing committee meetings. Rosalind Bion too said the same thing.
I will also not be attending the said Conference. Ini bukan pasal merajuk. I see no point.
I want to have nothing to do with Dr Jeffrey's "Comply with Malaysia Agreement" movement. He will run into a dead end and end up banging his head on a brick wall. Then, he will have a third PhD to add to the one from Harvard and the other (Permanent Head Damage) from Kamunting. He must not think that he can secure a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on the Malaysia Agreement (Compliance Mechanism) in the same way that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman P. Waythamoorthy secured an MOU for the Indian Nation in Malaya to end their internal colonization. The issues are different. Colonization and Internal Colonization are not one and the same thing.
Dr Jeffrey won't secure an MOU even if he fasts to death.
The people of Sabah and Sarawak are not interested in compliance. That's the main reason why Star's campaign fell apart during GE13.
The people would only take an interest in local politics if the issue of the restoration of the sovereignty of Sabah and Sarawak is raised. Otherwise, they have no alternative but go along with Barisan Nasional's bullshit on development and Pakatan Rakyat's plea that the people must decide between the two Malaya-based national coalitions only in line with the idea of a so-called two-party/coalition system with no place for a 3rd Force in Parliament.
In reality, the Umno-dominated BN has no political ideology and is bogged down by the ruling elite's `"Cina ini, Cina itu" mindset based on "jealousy of the Chinese, in particular those in business".
Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) is driven by greed, jealousy and revenge against Umno.
Pas is into political Islam and obsessed with hudud and an Islamic state.
Dap is for secular politics free of race.
Sabah and Sarawak would of course be much better off if they are on their own like Singapore, Brunei and so many other countries including South Sudan, Kosovo and Timor Leste to cite recent examples. Kurdistan is in the making. Besides, the Orang Asal would lose their countries if the Malayan colonial occupation of Sabah and Sarawak continues. Sabah being free of Malaya in Malaysia is the only way to resolve the problem of illegal immigrants and other foreigners and their children having MyKads meant for citizens by operation of law and entering the electoral rolls.
Singapore's progress, as observed by Mahathir Mohamad, can only be at the expense of Malaysia.
To answer your questions in the email below:
(1) Malaysia did not exist before 16 Sept, 1963. So, the question of Sabah and Sarawak joining Malaysia does not arise;
(2) Again, Malaysia came into being on 16 Sept, 1963. This Extraordinary Event (in history, law and Constitution) was not the result of independence but of Occupation of Sabah and Sarawak by Malaya on the heels of the British departure (In fact, the thinking in Malaya -- especially among the Malays -- is that the British gave them Sabah and Sarawak. That's why they behave likewise and why Mahathir Mohamad, who needs no introduction, handed out MyKads meant for citizens by operation of law to illegal immigrants and other foreigners and their children in Sabah without batting an eyelid and remains unrepentant, unapologetic and combative on the issue. Had Malaysia been set up properly, Mahathir would have been hanged for Treason.);
(3) 9 July 1963 refers to the date of the Malaysia Agreement; 31 Aug, 1957 refers to the independence of Malaya or the handover of the Administration to Malayans. There's some dispute on whether the British presence in Malaya was colonial rule. This was raised by history dons not so long ago at Universiti Malaya;
(4) What do you mean by asking whether Sabah and Sarawak signed any agreement with Malaya after their independence on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963? What Agreements are you referring to?
(5) Again, 9 July 1963 was the date of the Malaysia Agreement. There's no such thing as independence for Sabah and Sarawak through Malaysia. If that was the case, Sabah and Sarawak would not have become independent on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively. It was Singapore which obtained its independence through merger with Malaya via Malaysia which was supposed to have been facilitated by Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei. This issue was put to the Singaporeans in a Yes or No Vote.
Note:
There was no Referendum in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Malaya on Malaysia. The Cobbold Commission in Sabah and Sarawak was not a Referendum. It was open British and Malayan defiance of the UN's Protocols on decolonization.
Dr Jeffrey Kitingan was still in school when Malaysia happened. Now, he has realized that his forefathers were conned into it and wants to do something about it so that future generations will not urinate on his grave too.
However, he's barking up the wrong tree by harping on compliance of the Malaysia Agreement. That will never happen in a million years. What's there to comply with when there was no Referendum on Malaysia? The fact that Dr Jeffrey is calling for compliance shows that there's no Constitution on Malaysia as demanded by an "Extraordinary Event". Had there been a Constitution, whether codified (written in one document) or uncodified (in separate documents), the Malaysia Agreement would have been one of the constitutional documents incorporated in a codified Constitution of Malaysia or one of the constitutional documents making up the uncodified Constitution of Malaysia. Now, we have the Federation of Malaya masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia and the codified Constitution of Malaya being passed off as the codified Constitution of Malaysia.
If Dr Jeffrey wants to contribute to the Debate, he should call for Malaya -- masquerading as Malaysia -- to end its colonial occupation of Sabah and Sarawak. We are not talking here about internal colonization, as in the case of the Indian Nation in Malaya, but colonial occupation.
I don't think that compliance is Dr Jeffrey's idea. Someone probably planted the idea in his head and he has been harping on it ever since without thinking too much about it. Did he sit down with a battery of lawyers and constitutional experts and historians before harping on non-compliance? Did he conduct any research on declassified documents in London and at the UN before harping on compliance? That's why the Malaysian Government doesn't take him seriously. Where they have commented, they claimed various things. Examples: the Malaysia Agreement is only a political agreement (meaning no need to follow); the 20/18 Points is a political guideline, is out of date, has been amended, has been incorporated in the Constitution etc. During GE13, the Sabah BN Manifesto claimed that it would comply with the "Spirit" of the 20 Points. This was an afterthought in response to Star.
A Constitution is not so much about law but politics. It's politicization of issues to gather the people's support which results in an Extraordinary Event -- war (victory or defeat), independence, merger, Revolution -- and the birth of a Constitution.
A Constitution is the ultimate Political Document. So, how can it be said that the Malaysia Agreement, had there been a Referendum and Malaysia set up properly, is "only a political agreement" (meaning no need to follow/comply). Then, what's the basis for this so-called Malaysia?
Putrajaya is equating a political agreement with an election manifesto. They are not one and the same thing.
I hope that you understand now why I wanted to be in the main organizing committee for the International Conference on Malaysia Agreement and to record the minutes of the committee meetings and make discussion notes on the meetings. You cannot have clowns running amok -- like a chicken running around with its head cut off -- with an issue like this. The Borneo Heritage Foundation is plagued by uneconomic and unproductive activities because there are too many headless chickens ruling the roost while Dr Jeffrey is torn between being the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand. the three monkeys in the collective: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil; and the three blind men in the collective and the elephant. When asked to describe the elephant, one described the tail, another ears and the third the trunk. WTF is C.K. Low to decide on anything? It's because of people like him that many people want to quit Star and the reason while Nila Krisna James and Zainal Ajamain left the United Borneo Front.
Anyway, I have changed my mind.
I no longer wish to be in the main organizing committee, nor do I want to record the minutes. Besides, you have already appointed another to do the minutes and there has been no indication from you on whether Dato James Ligunjang and I will be invited to join the main organizing committee. It was not necessary for you to say that you would have to ask Daniel John Jambun first. Daniel told me that he has nothing to do with who attends or does not attend the main organizing committee meetings. Rosalind Bion too said the same thing.
I will also not be attending the said Conference. Ini bukan pasal merajuk. I see no point.
I want to have nothing to do with Dr Jeffrey's "Comply with Malaysia Agreement" movement. He will run into a dead end and end up banging his head on a brick wall. Then, he will have a third PhD to add to the one from Harvard and the other (Permanent Head Damage) from Kamunting. He must not think that he can secure a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on the Malaysia Agreement (Compliance Mechanism) in the same way that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman P. Waythamoorthy secured an MOU for the Indian Nation in Malaya to end their internal colonization. The issues are different. Colonization and Internal Colonization are not one and the same thing.
Dr Jeffrey won't secure an MOU even if he fasts to death.
The people of Sabah and Sarawak are not interested in compliance. That's the main reason why Star's campaign fell apart during GE13.
The people would only take an interest in local politics if the issue of the restoration of the sovereignty of Sabah and Sarawak is raised. Otherwise, they have no alternative but go along with Barisan Nasional's bullshit on development and Pakatan Rakyat's plea that the people must decide between the two Malaya-based national coalitions only in line with the idea of a so-called two-party/coalition system with no place for a 3rd Force in Parliament.
In reality, the Umno-dominated BN has no political ideology and is bogged down by the ruling elite's `"Cina ini, Cina itu" mindset based on "jealousy of the Chinese, in particular those in business".
Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) is driven by greed, jealousy and revenge against Umno.
Pas is into political Islam and obsessed with hudud and an Islamic state.
Dap is for secular politics free of race.
Sabah and Sarawak would of course be much better off if they are on their own like Singapore, Brunei and so many other countries including South Sudan, Kosovo and Timor Leste to cite recent examples. Kurdistan is in the making. Besides, the Orang Asal would lose their countries if the Malayan colonial occupation of Sabah and Sarawak continues. Sabah being free of Malaya in Malaysia is the only way to resolve the problem of illegal immigrants and other foreigners and their children having MyKads meant for citizens by operation of law and entering the electoral rolls.
Singapore's progress, as observed by Mahathir Mohamad, can only be at the expense of Malaysia.
If Singapore has done well for itself, it's entirely due to the extreme stupidity of people like Mahathir and his Umno bunch of clowns. The Malays are more taken up by fairy tales and myths.
By right, Malaysia should have a much larger GDP
than Singapore.
Singapore should at best be to Malaysia what California is to the US.
Instead, having failed to squat on Singapore, Malaysia is
squatting on Sabah and Sarawak. Consider the fact that the World Bank declared in Dec 2010 in Kota Kinabalu that the two Nations in Borneo were the poorest in Malaysia. Sabah is the poorest. Earlier, the World Bank also warned that Sabah was chasing its tail on poverty eradication because of the continuing influx of illegal immigrants.
Elsewhere, I hope to see a free Tibet, New Delhi freeing Sikkim one day and the rest of India emerging along the lines of the European Union instead of continuing to remain as an ungovernable unitary state masquerading as a federation. Why must New Delhi decide on everything? That's why the Sikhs in Punjab went on the warpath not so long ago and demanded Khalistan. Mrs. Indira Gandhi stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar and killed all the Khalistani militants instead of entering into a dialogue with the people. She paid with her life. Today, the Khalistanis are restive again and being aided by Pakistan as before Amritsar. I hope that Kerala, for example, will push for status as a sovereign nation in an Indian Union instead of being a state in India. Small is better. Big is evil. Less Government is better. More Government is evil.
J
From: Juliana S <jsvoutique@gmail.com>
To: Joe Fernandez <jfernandez14@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 3:00
Subject: Re: Three Nations
Dear Fernz the Great,
Elsewhere, I hope to see a free Tibet, New Delhi freeing Sikkim one day and the rest of India emerging along the lines of the European Union instead of continuing to remain as an ungovernable unitary state masquerading as a federation. Why must New Delhi decide on everything? That's why the Sikhs in Punjab went on the warpath not so long ago and demanded Khalistan. Mrs. Indira Gandhi stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar and killed all the Khalistani militants instead of entering into a dialogue with the people. She paid with her life. Today, the Khalistanis are restive again and being aided by Pakistan as before Amritsar. I hope that Kerala, for example, will push for status as a sovereign nation in an Indian Union instead of being a state in India. Small is better. Big is evil. Less Government is better. More Government is evil.
J
From: Juliana S <jsvoutique@gmail.com>
To: Joe Fernandez <jfernandez14@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 3:00
Subject: Re: Three Nations
Dear Fernz the Great,
1. Sabah and Sarawak never joined the Federation of
Malaysia?
2. Malaysia as it stands today has no Independence
Day / date?
3. Malaysia came into being on 9.7.63 but gained '
independence ' on 31.8.1957?
4. Sabah and Sarawak gained Independence from the
British on 31.8.63 and 22.7.63 respectively and thereafter did not sign any
agreement with Malaya?
5. 9.7.63 was the signing of MA 63 not Independence
'through' Malaysia for Sabah and Sarawak?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Joe Fernandez <jfernandez14@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Joe Fernandez <jfernandez14@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Sabah and Sarawak's pre-Malaysia self-determination status of 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively remains undiminished for two reasons:
(1) there was no Referendum on Malaysia in Sabah and Sarawak and none in Brunei and Malaya;
(2) the idea of Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei being in Malaysia was to facilitate the independence of Singapore through merger with Malaya in the new Federation.
Brunei stayed out of Malaysia at the 11th hour and Singapore was expelled from the Federation two years later in Aug, 1965.
The oft-cited theory of security for Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia is an afterthought. Sabah and Sarawak did not get the security promised them.
Sabah, like Sarawak, continues to be overrun by illegal immigrants who continue to enter the electoral rolls and marginalize and disenfranchise the locals, especially the Orang Asal.
Posted by Fernz the Great to Fernz the Great . . . a matter of public record at 2 June 2013 09:54
Sent by DiGi from my BlackBerry® Smartphone
2 comments:
MALAYSIA IS NOT THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT
Malaysia as it is today is not the original concept the KL snake oil salesmen sold to our grandparents- being 5 countries as equal partners in a confederation which looked after defence and foreign affairs!
The original concept was a recycled 1942 British war time forward planning idea to consolidate the 3 British Borneo Protectorates (from 1888) Brunei North Borneo & Sarawak with Malaya and Singapore under one colonial admin. and military command.
After WW2 this idea was not feasible as Britain feared being bogged down fighting money draining independence wars it was facing where ever the sunset in its Empire.
UN De-colonization Committee had announced that all colonies should be de-colonised and UK wanted to be a seen as a good world citizen.
So the next best solution was to flog the same idea on its chosen successor the Malayan UMNO regime to transfer the 3 Borneo colonies to UMNO rule under the sandiwara of forming Malaysia.
The 18 & 20 Points Agreement support the confederation concept by preserving all aspects of self-government (the illusory "autonomy") for Sabah and Sarawak respectively except defence and foreign affairs.
This concept broke down before it even got started. 5 countries became 4 when Brunei most wisely stayed out of this ponzi scheme and then became 3 when Singapore left in 1965. The concept was dead and should have been re-negotiated or Malaysia dismantled.
But they pushed ahead with the MA63. It was signed on 9 July 1963 by UK, Malaya and S'pore with North Borneo and Sarawak as colonies.
1. The issue of S'pore "expulsion" should have been discussed by all the signatories and Malaya had no power to kick out S'pore.
Further there was no clause governing such a situation in the M'sia Agreement. So the matter would have to go to the British courts. But they played dirty and ignored SS's rights.
FYI the Tunku & his protection gang fiercely opposed the Lansdowne committee which was drafting the 18 & 20 Points Agreement from including an exit clause. Recently Najib declared that SS are forever part of Malaysia. One blogger said if SS left the Malayans would bring guns.
Now we know the reason why UMNO insisted no exist clause in the Points Agreement. They imprinted their colonising intentions by insisting on a clause which "prohibits secession".
Now this is against the rules of free association. Lord Lansdowne who did not want an exit clausae said on this point that Malaysia was a free association and North Borneo (then) and Sarawak had an "INTRINSIC RIGHT to secede at will"!
But for both SS and S'pore the situation was deemed a fait accompli and S'pore is happy and lucky to be out of the nasty abusive relationship!
SS are not happy!
2. Sabah and Sarawak were described as colonies in the MA63 and who signed the doc for them?
SS became independence after 9 July 1963 before Proclamation on Malaysia & everyone- SS SOVEREIGNTY WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO MALAYA AT THIS MOMENT!
Question: does the MA63 bind Sabah Sarawak when they became independent? Did the act of independence invalidated the MA63? Especially when Malaya had not sunk its crocodile jaws on the 2 colonies?
This issue caused a major uproar between UK and UMNO. The Tunku even threatened to call of "Malaysia" - WISH HE DID!
Malaysia Day had to be changed to 16 September because of this oversight by UK in not getting an Order in Council to formally transfer sovereignty to Malaya. This upset the Tunku, Razak and Ghazali big time and they were abusive and tearing their hair.
In soon to be reveal Colonial Papers, it will be exposed to the world that Britain and Malaya conspired to annexed the 3 colonies into Malaysia with S'pore as a willing partner.
But do bear in mind the Malaysia concept had changed 3 times. The first 2 are mentioned above.
The third change is when Sabah and Sarawak were converted to Malayan colonies.
Dear Joe Fernandez,
Did you know that your Hindu nationalist India, now offers visas for Hindus who are being persecuted in other countries, to get residency status in India and eventually the path to become citizens of India?
You may please apply for this and return to India. Oops, you would need to do a 'ghar wapasi" back to Hinduism, as you seem to be a rice bag convert, as per Hindu nationalists.
Please, India is calling. Have some dignity and stop begging Malaysia.
Post a Comment