Joseph Tawie
A Sarawak PKR leader has welcomed Deputy Chief Minister George Chan’s assurance that the state government was against the erosion of Sarawak’s “special rights” as detailed in the 18-point agreement.
“I welcome the sudden realisation of state Barisan Nasional leaders on Sarawak’s rights which we in Pakatan Rakyat or PKR have been voicing all the while. But I am wondering what, after 30 years as Sarawak leaders, did they do to preserve and protect such rights,’ said state PKR chairman Baru Bian.
Bian was responding to comments by Chan during a dinner with the Christian community in Miri on Monday.
Chan had said that of particular concern to the state were the rights on religious freedom and practices.
He said all top leaders of the state BN had pledged to defend those special rights in the interests of Sarawakians.
He also said that all the leaders had agreed to speak with “one voice” especially on the special rights under the 18-point agreement which were given to Sarawak in 1963 on her joining Sabah, Singapore and Malaya to form the federation of Malaysia.
Sabah was accorded a 20-point agreement.
The 18-point agreement includes the issue of religious practices, civil rights of non-Muslims, use of local languages, immigration, labour laws, Borneanisation, and the control of natural resources and land administration, among others.
Not being confrontational
Chan said that by bringing up the special rights issue, the people in Sarawak were not being confrontational.
“We do not want to go against any authority, but we must ensure that the freedom to practise our religion and our culture will not erode. It has to be preserved at all costs for the sake of harmony and peace,” he had said.
Reacting to the comments, Bian said: “I believe that now they have realised what we have been saying is true and of great concern for Sarawakians.
“If for the last 30 years the state BN didn’t succeed in enforcing these 18 points, what makes the people of Sarawak believe now they can defend those rights?
“For PKR and Pakatan those rights are already signed into our manifesto on Dec 19, 2009 to respect the 1963 Malaysian agreement.
“It is funny the issues that we highlight like NCR land seems to be a concern to BN so suddenly, but for the last 30 years they were not bothered.
“Sarawakians should give Pakatan the opportunity in this (coming state) election to enforce all these issues and we promise Sarawakians we will not disappoint them,” said Bian. — FMT
also read : – Sarawak : Protect our ‘special rights’
Hornbill Unleashed 
Whenever there was an objection raised over a proposal by her members themselves in the Opposition Front it showed and indicated there was an openness, a total transparency, in the party objective tactics and opinions prior an acceptance. O Georgie you got to learn how to shut up now. Do try to practise more of the Oppositions democratic etiquette. Your words, “We do want to go against any authority ….” You’re just telling and showing us that you are a real coward. You are just loyal blind. You are a mere two-legged horse, yunno good for what then. Your sympathy on the crying over the spilt milk will carry no weight at all unless you daringly and unceasingly raise the matter up in the House. You don’t need an X-power Viagra surely. Common do give it a try to make yourself an ever first superior attempt in accompishing your climax. In politics eh.
Why the NCR issue was not raised the last 30 years …….. as a medical doctor he should know how to analyse the age of a baby that was born 30 years ago. These 30 years group are now already mature and surely have reached the stage to better understanding and captivate the truth and facts of survival. It is a beauty that many our youngsters have gone abroad in search of a green pasture. They thrived and brought handsomely some money to make a 2nd headstart on living in their very own homeland. In the foreign soil that’s how they have broadened and sharpened their thinking skill. Though foreign opportunities are good and aplenty we have to admit there is no other place than our very own homeland. Moreover parents’ hairs are getting greyer and are no more of an optimal horsepower house as in their hey days. Such old engines do broke down often and they need their children care and closer attention. This is where the turning point begins, …. are we satisfy with how our State being runned. Surely no one would like to see our rights over our ancestry land been extinguished, shortchanged and got into the hands of the political cronies and elites. Que Sera Sera. Nope. Vote For a Change and Let’s Begin making our Homeland a Better Place to live in.
Comment by Miaowkia — December 31, 2010 @ 3:53 AM |
PETALING JAYA: The government will launch a nationwide “My Daftar” campaign from Feb 19 to 26 next year in an effort to resolve the problems faced by Malaysian Indians who do not have relevant documents pertaining to their birth, identification and citizenship.
The campaign, organised by the Special Implementation Taskforce on the Indian Community in collaboration with the Home Ministry, would, among others, seek to identify individuals who possess a birth certificate but have not applied for a MyKad, and those who do not possess a birth certificate and therefore unable to secure a MyKad.
Human Resources Minister Dr S Subramaniam said the campaign will also target children who do not possess a birth certificate and therefore unable to go to school as well as children and young people in residential homes run by the Social Welfare Department and voluntary organisations who do not possess sufficient documentation.
WHAT ABOUT THE DAYAKS IN SARAWAK WHO FACED THE SAME PREDICAMENT AND HAD BEEN DENIED MYCARD BY THE GOVERNMENT OF BN?
WHY ARE ALL THE DAYAK YBS KEEPING DEAD SILENT ON THE SAME ISSUE INVOLVING THEIR OWN COMMUNITY?
Comment by Irene Kana — December 30, 2010 @ 8:15 PM |
It has been estimated that about 79,000 Dayaks are without Mycard. Dayak leaders in UMNO led BN Sarawak are totally useless. Tme to kick them all out in the coming election.
Comment by Anak Jabu — December 30, 2010 @ 8:19 PM |
BN dont care about the dayaks lah…. if Indonesian or Filipinos like in Sabah….sure they will issue MyKad….with full pre-bumi privaleges! Where else a 4 or 5 generation Chinese or Indian are considered NON BUMI??
Why no action from the fcuking big mouth Hisap lu dick Home minister….even with a 100 pages memo sent to him?
Comment by Headhunter4million — December 31, 2010 @ 4:10 AM |
Mr.George Chan has been sleeping for so long time.The issue “rights” has been raise for so long years and BNs don’t even bother about it.Just go back to sleep George Chan.Let PAKATAN DO THE JOBS.VOTE FOR CHANGE!
Comment by babai — December 30, 2010 @ 5:09 PM |
George Chan has the face of a pervert. His main job is the official carrier of Taib Mahmud. I don’t understand why this fellow can stand in power for so long. It is time to let go or the voters will vote him out and charge him of treason by collabrate with Taib Mahmud to steal from the state.
Comment by William — December 30, 2010 @ 7:47 PM |
I agree with you guy.
Comment by New Generation — December 30, 2010 @ 9:35 PM |
SABAH & SARAWAK- 18/20 POINTS RIGHTS “GUARANTEED” IN JOINING “MALAYSIA” HAUNTS MALAYAN COLONIAL REGIME
Readers, Baru Bian has further raised the question of the “18/20 Points agreement” with Malaya as our conditions for “joining Malaysia”.
As readers know by now this writer and many others are strongly opposed to the “formation of Malaysia” in 1963 as no more than the colonial annexation by Malaya of Sabah and Sarawak and advocate real National Independence for Sarawak (and Sabah).
The “18/20 Points” constantly come back to haunt the Malayan and local ruling elites because these points represent the corner stone rights of the people of Sabah and Sarawak. These were insisted on by the then leaders as a safeguard of the people’s rights. They are being raised again and again because they have not been fully applied or observed/respected by the Federal (i.e. colonial) Government.
The Points are extremely useful reference points to examine how they have been breached, eroded or ignored over the last 47 years.
When Singapore left as a partner of “Malaysia” the Kuala Lumpur government immediately legislated to make it a law that Sabah and Sarawak could not “secede” from Malaysia. This confirmed that Malaya had the intention to colonise the two territories from the beginning.
“Malaysia” was supposed to be a voluntary union. This means that we had the freedom to leave the union as Singapore did. Now Malaya will never let us do that. But it does not mean we are bound forever by their laws and cannot take steps to break free from Malaya’s colonial grip! We are not bound their anti-secession law.
Before the year end we should refresh our thoughts on our position in “Malaysia” – whether we are equal partners or just colonies?
Two opinions made on the iNet are posted here with thanks to the authors. These represent the authors’ opinion. Each has her or his own “take” on the Points:
The first one was made on 16 September 2009 by Ms. Lin Soo and the second by Dr. Brian Anthony in 2010. Their sentiments are clear on where they stand.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reposted from the Centre for Policy Initiatives
Home Guest Columnists Contributors Malaysia Day, 16 September
Malaysia Day, 16 September
Contributors
Written by Linasoo
Wednesday, 16 September 2009 07:06
Greetings from Sarawak!
It is fitting to debut my blog linasoosarawak.com on 916, 2009.
Today, 16 September 2009, is the 46th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia.
On 31 August 2009, Malaysia celebrated its 52nd National Day. It is mathematical wizardry that between 16 September 1963 to 31 August 2009, Malaysia celebrates its 52nd year of independence, when 52 years ago, no such nation as Malaysia exists.
I contemplate Malaysia’s 46th birthday with a heavy heart.
Malaysia was conceived from a political merger of four political entities in its entirety as the federation of equal partnership: the independent Federation of Malaya and the British Crown colonies of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore.
Quote, ‘The days of imperialism are gone and it is not the intention of Malaya to perpetuate or revive them. When the Borneo territories become part of Malaysia, they will cease to be a colony of Malaya, they will be partners of equal status, no more and no less than the other States’, unquote, (Straits Times, 2nd October 1962). Note: The “other States” refer to the entities of Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak.
In 1965 Singapore beat a hasty retreat and seceded from Malaysia. The federal government immediately moved to amend the Federal Constitution to prevent future secession. Then the original formula of parliamentary representation of Malaya holding 53 seats (51%), Sabah 16, Sarawak 20 and Singapore 15 (jointly holding 49%) was recalibrated to dilute the voting powers of Sarawak and Sabah with the creation of more than 70 new parliamentary seats solely for the benefit of Malaya. Today out of 222 parliamentary seats, Sarawak holds 31 and Sabah 25, with 166 seats held by Semenanjung. Yes, from 31 out of 104 to 56 out of 222. There are 70 appointed senatorial positions of which Sarawak and Sabah have the right to appoint only two each. Yes again, that makes four out of 70 appointments in the Senate.
Sarawakians and Sabahans have been indoctrinated not to know of the 18-Points and 20-Points memoranda, agreements Sarawak and Sabah had with Malaya, which were fundamental to the conception of Malaysia. Yet these agreements which should be treated as sacrosanct, have instead been made a hyper-sensitive subject, worthy of ISA attention! The fact is, these points were deliberated and included in the InterGovernmental Committee as pre-conditions to the formation of Malaysia. These terms were accepted by the founding fathers of Malaysia as a safeguard for the present and future generations of both Sarawak and Sabah by being included in the InterGovernmental Committee, Malaysia Agreement and the Federal Constitution. Certain terms which were not incorporated were upon the understanding that these specific points would be implemented subsequently by way of legislation and undertaking.
The 20-Points Memorandum Revisited
Point 1: Religion
While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.
Point 2: Language
a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation
b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day
c. English should be an official language of North Borneo for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.
Point 3: Constitution
Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo (Sabah) was of course essential.
Point 4: Head of Federation
The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.
Point 5: Name of Federation
“Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”.
Point 6: Immigration
Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.
Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to secede from the Federation.
Point 8: Borneanisation
Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.
Point 9: British Officers
Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo.
Point 10: Citizenship
The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments:
a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence
b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read “7 out of 10 years” instead of “8 out of 10 years”
c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must be federal citizen.
Point 11: Tariffs and Finance
North Borneo should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.
Point 12: Special Position of Indigenous Races
In principle, the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malays’ formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo.
Point 13: State Government
a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council
b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo.
Point 14: Transitional Period
This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government.
Point 15: Education
The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control.
Point 16: Constitutional Safeguards
No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo
The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the state.
Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament
This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its size and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore.
Point 18: Name of Head of State
Yang di-Pertua Negara.
Point 19: Name of State
Sabah.
Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.
The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.
Retrospection
In 1963 Sarawak and Sabah agreed to the formation of the federation of Malaysia on condition the interests, rights and autonomy of its peoples are protected and honoured, as enshrined in the 20 Points. The Malaysia Agreement was intended to be brought up for review on a periodic basis. This was never honoured and there was only one review in 1973 in respect of financial arrangements.
Instead, subtly but systematically, many constitutional amendments have been put in place to erode the political rights specific to Sarawak and Sabah. This diminutive chipping away, whittling down, nibbling away, is a series of master strokes by the federal government, like the metaphorical boiling frog syndrome, a Sorites paradox, with Sarawakians and Sabahans unaware of gradual change to eventual undesirable consequences … until too late.
Undefendingly with heads down, Sarawak and Sabah have been relegated to the status of being two of 13 states.
Can Sarawak and Sabah ever be in position again to chart our own destiny? The answer seems to be NO! Have we been shortchanged? YES!
Sarawak and Sabah, the poorest rich states, after 45 years of ‘independence’ and ‘development’, remain the cinderella. Opulently blessed by Mother Nature with oil, natural gas, rich agricultural land, mineral resources, yet its peoples wallow pitifully in poverty without the basic amenities of clean water, housing, healthcare, dental care, electricity, education and sanitation. Even the unique and precious blessing of racial harmony Sarawak and Sabah have known for centuries has been contaminated with the element of racial politics imported from across the South China Sea. Whilst our natural resources and wealth are being ripped off and looted by our politicians and their cronies, we remain third-world-status-with-first-class-assets, in terms of standard of living and quality of life.
Sarawak and Sabah must defend the true meaning of independence through the political platform of the federation of Malaysia, which is not and cannot be, a unitary state. Further desecration of the 20 Points must be prevented, and the rights of Sarawakians and Sabahans reinstated, deservedly accorded as contained in the IGC, Malaysia Act and the Federal Constitution. Native rights must be respected, and the poor regardless of race, religion and creed, must be empowered through the economic allocation of resources and due democratic process.
STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, SARAWAK AND SABAH!
end of 1st Article
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sabah 20 points / Sarawak 18 points agreement
Written by Dr. John Brian Anthony
For further information in regards to the related article, kindly refer to Wikipedia.
Dayakbaru:
The 20 point agreement / 18 point agreement is between made between TWO countries ( Malaya and Sabah / Malaya and Sarawak).
Such being the case, no changes can be made on the agreement without the consent of the other. In the case, they seemed to be effort by the Federal Government to put aside this agreement or even ignore this agreement as it gets their way of integrating Sabah and Sarawak according to West Malaysia UMNO point of views and political agenda.
Sabah and Sarawak must NEVER give up on this agreement as it provides us with more autonomy. The founding fathers has the foresight to see the greed of West Malaysian and sadly for Sabah since UMNO has come in and rule Sabah it has lost most of its autonomy. Sarawak should continue to fight to uphold the 18 points agreement. While working with PKR those leaders from sarawak MUST insist that Pakatan Rakyat respect and enforce the 18 point agreement when they do come into power.
Monitor and review the implementation of the agreement
The government of Sarawak may like to consider setting a monitoring and reviewing committee to consolidate the implementation status and audit the programme that has been set to comply with the agreement. That will help Sarawak Malaysian to understand how much has been done in respect to the 18 point agreement.
Probably it would be good initiative to trace this document back in the UK to find more detail on the intent, spirit, process and even minutes of discussion leading to the signing of these agreement.
A memorandum for House of Lord in UK
Where is the Cobbold commission report now – probably in UK too. Malaya would never want to show it because the result is 33% want Malaysia, 33% do not want Malaysia and 33% undecided. How they concluded that Sabah and Sarawak should join Malaysia based on the statistics only “Allah” know. The British has some explaining to do to both Sarawak and Sabah. Maybe a memorandum should be sent to the House of Lord to ask for explanation on the matter.
What is the agreement all about?
The 20-point agreement, or the 20-point memorandum, is an agreement made between the state of Sabah (then North Borneo) with what would be the federal government of Malaysia prior to the formation of Malaysia in September 16, 1963. A similar agreement was made between the state of Sarawak and the federal government but with certain differences in their 18-point agreement
The agreement
Point 1: Religion
While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be no State religion in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah), and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to Borneo
Point 2: Language
* a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation
* b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day
* c. English should be an official language of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.
Point 3: Constitution
Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) was of course essential.
Point 4: Head of Federation
The Head of State in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation
Point 5: Name of Federation
“Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”
Point 6: Immigration
Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah).
Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to secede from the Federation
Point 8: Borneanisation
Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.
Point 9: British Officers
Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
Point 10: Citizenship
The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) subject to the following amendments:
* a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence
* b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read “7 out of 10 years” instead of “8 out of 10 years”
* c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) after Malaysia must be federal citizen.
Point 11: Tariffs and Finance
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.
Point 12: Special position of indigenous races
In principle, the indigenous races of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malays’ formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in Borneo(Sarawak & Sabah)
Point 13: State Government
* a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council
* b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
Point 14: Transitional period
This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government
Point 15: Education
The existing educational system of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control
Point 16: Constitutional safeguards
No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo
The power of amending the Constitution of the State of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) should belong exclusively to the people in the state. (Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourth majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient)
Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament
This should take account not only of the population of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) but also of its seize and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore
Point 18: Name of Head of State
Yang di-Pertua Negara
Point 19: Name of State
Sarawak or Sabah
Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.
The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah). Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah).
*Merger
In 1961, when the Malayan government began discussing a possible merger with neighbouring Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei, problems of ethnic power relations arose again. The “Malaysia” proposal sans Sabah and Sarawak went back more than a decade; earlier negotiations had proved fruitless. The Singaporeans themselves were not anxious to be ruled by what they considered a Malay government. By 1961, however, Singapore had grown receptive to the idea of joining Malaysia, largely because of the prevailing idea at the time that industrial Singapore could not survive without access to Malayan markets.
Singapore Chinese population is a threat to Malaya
The Malayan government was not keen on having the Chinese Singaporean population push the Malays into a minority position in the new Malaysia. Many Malays felt that upsetting the Malay-dominated nature of the armed forces and police might place them in a dangerous situation. It was also argued that the inferior economic position of the Malays would be emphasised by the entry of even more rich Chinese, setting the stage for major discontent.
Malaya get Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia to make use of their native population numbers
The Malayans decided to resolve this by merging with Sabah and Sarawak; both British colonies had large native populations whom the government considered “Malay”. Under Article 160 of the Constitution, most of them were not Malay; the natives were mainly animists or Christians instead of Muslims as required. To resolve this issue, the government expanded its informal definition of “Malay” to include these people.
*The natives of Sarawak and Sabah are to be considered ‘Malays’ by the Malayan union to solve their problems.. the Ibans, the Kenyahs, the Bidayus, and etcs… My question is – is this true today or we from Sabah and Sarawak are being con / cheated by UMNO Malaya?
Change WE Must
end of second article
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Readers may pick up that under Point 5: Name of Federation “Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”.
In recent time we have seen how UMNO and PERKASA have flagrantly abuse this condition by trying to redefine “Malaysia” into “Melayu Raya”.
The points are posted just to stimulate readers to think about what is their “country” more deeply- is it “Malaysia” or just “Sabah” and “Sarawak” respectively.
New Year – New Thoughts!
Comment by Abang — December 30, 2010 @ 4:41 PM |
It’s supposed to be 18 for Sarawak and 20 for Sabah.
Which is which? 19 is for the names Sabah or Sarawak.
The British archives on this period could be in the public domain by now. Can someone help us with the actual “document”?
Are there any more secrets on this? Or has someone rewritten history?
Comment by Wayang Street — December 30, 2010 @ 5:32 PM |
Wayang Street you are correct. Both writers were using the same version referring to Sabah with 2 extra “Points”.
Please note that the commentaries were posted as they were from the respective authors. The 20 Points are also set out in full in Wikipedia with a comment.
I checked different Internet sources and all of them were the same version as shown provided by the 2 commentators. The 18 Points are similar to the 20 Points – so both commentators used the Sabah Version.
Sabahans have always been more courageous and active than Sarawakians in moving to break from Malaysia. People who were not pliable like Tuan Faud Donald Stephens died mysteriously in plane explosion. This mystery has never been solved although there are rumours of skulduggery.
I have commented that Kuala Lumpur will never allow “secession” to happen as it would represents the loss of vast territories and rich oil and other resources. It would mean an end to their expansionist dream of “Greater Malaysia”.
On this matter readers are directed to read the 1991 Human Rights Watch Report of called “Abdication of Responsibility” on page 33. The link is provided the footnote in the Wiki article. (unable to copy and post here)
The HRW reported that 7 Sabahans connected with the Parti Bersatu Sabah (united Sabah Party) were arrested under the ISA for “plotting” to take Sabah out of Malaysia. The 7 included Jeffery Kitingan who recently formed the Borneo United Front again pressing the issues of Sabah and Sarawak rights.
There has been some allegations and remarks made about J Kitingan and we should not be distracted by this from the main issues of Sabah and Sarawak rights. He is still strongly pursuing Sabah rights more than any Sarawak politician.
We must also remember that he is only one person out of 500 who attended the Sabah or Borneo Agenda Forum at the beginning of 2010. The large gathering reflects a strong interest among Sabah and Sarawak people to re-examine their status in Malaysia. There was a strong expression of views that the 2 former British Colonies were merely transferred to Malaya as new colonies. It was just as change of masters.
Many readers were probably born within the last 47 years and are not conversant with the Malaysia issues. They can overcome this searching by the internet on the subject.
Perhaps a a bit of spoon feeding might help the cause and a reading list be compiled. This is the part of our history the learned Bunga Pakma left out. He did refer to Dr. Ooi Jin Keat’s article on the Formation of Malaysia presented at the Borneo Forum.
Over the holidays I hope to do more research on the “Points” and write up on how they have been breached.
From my point of view we should not waste too much time to go into that as it is obvious most of the “rights” have been neglected. It would be better to just scrub the “Malaysia Agreement” and work on our Declaration of Independence.
Once again it is emphasised here that the internet provides the only free forum for discussion of the independence issue.
The authorities have already been making noises about some minority group on the internet causing them sleepless nights. The clamp down is being planned. This would include all the critics from all spectrum of politics.
That is why when we can, we must seriously spread the independence message as widely as possible.
Kuala Lumpur may follow PKR and make some pre-election noises about permitting us more “autonomy”. But it does not change the colonial master and subject relationship in any way.
Listen to this signals:
Comment by Abang — December 31, 2010 @ 12:16 AM |
I don’t understand the message!
Comment by Pippit — January 2, 2011 @ 1:02 PM |
WRITING OUR WARSAW CONCERTO- A NEW BEGINNING
Yah, at first I did not understand either – love for a woman and love for your country.
The story is about the hero who goes back to fight for his country Poland occupied by the Nazis during WW2, sadly leaving his beloved wife in the US. She supports his return to fight the Nazis.
The comments are made by a son/daughter of a real life heroes who fought. He parachutes back in the moonlight- on a dangerous mission. Unclear if this related to the film itself or just the inspiring music.
Our country calls for all of us to stand up and join in the fight for independence.
You may not feel like parachuting in the moonlight but everything involved in the struggle for independence demands courage and risk taking and putting your cause in front of your own well being.
Will it be something to tell your grandchildren…? Dangerous Moonlight. Everyone can write his or her own Warsaw Concerto!
Be loyal and patriotic to your country!
Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban!
____________________________________________________________________________________
[Synopsis of the 1940 movie: Dangerous Moon light- available on DVD.
November 1940, Stefan Radetzky (Anton Walbrook) a Polish pilot and famous concert pianist, is hospitalized in England from injuries sustained while in combat. In the hopes of curing his amnesia the doctors provide him with a piano and as he begins to play the story moves back in time to war-torn Warsaw. During an air-raid, Radetzky meets American journalist Carole (Sally Gray) and there is a mutual attraction. Six months later, after the fall of Poland, Radetzky and his best friend Irish pilot Mike (Derrick De Marney) escape to Romania and then on to America where he meets Carole again and the two are married. For a while they are happy as Radetzky tours the US playing to packed music halls and rallying support for his oppressed homeland but he longs to be back up in the air fighting against the Germans and when he hears the English are recruiting pilots he is keen to sign up, despite Carole’s protests……..
First ever DVD release of this lost British classic. Directed by Brian Desmond Hurst, a British filmmaker that worked steadily from the 1930′s through to the 1960′s and will most fondly be remembered perhaps for his 1951 adaptation of Dicken’s Scrooge starring Alastair Sim and his 1939 WWII propaganda film The Lion Has Wings. Written by Terence Young, who later went on to direct and of course will be forever remembered for giving us the first few Bond films in Dr No, From Russia With Love and Thunderball.
Dangerous Moonlight is a love-story-cum-war-film, highly melodramatic in it’s depiction of fighter pilot/pianist Radetzky’s emotional journey through duty, love, honor and redemption.
The dialog, when not bogged down in sentimentality, has the characteristic zing of 40′s back and forth witty one-liners that is all but gone from today’s cinema, more’s the pity. At it’s heart it’s essentially a character study of Radetzky and to a lesser extent Carole; both actors are very watchable, despite Walbrook’s somewhat stiff delivery and odd eurotrash mannerisms, Sally Gray in particular is excellent here with a distinct character arc and natural on screen presence that helps invest the viewer in her story.
In other respects; being filmed in 1940, this also works quite well as a piece of Allied propaganda, reinforcing the contribution made to the war effort by Poland, boosting British morale and at the same time helping to influence public opinion in what was a still-neutral America.
With Radetzky’s music symbolizing the ‘European culture’ that was in danger of being destroyed by the Nazis. Carole, the American wife, doesn’t want her husband to go back to the war but by the end of the film she has come to understand why he must return and supports him.
It should also be noted that the movie’s excellent main musical theme; The Warsaw Concerto, composed by Richard Addinsell is still performed today to much critical acclaim while the film it was created for has been somewhat forgotten.
Comment by Abang — January 2, 2011 @ 1:35 PM |
Ai-ya!, why waste our energy on all this cronies. All they worry is taking care of number1 (themselves) the rest is not important . Do our part by getting rid all this useless,greedy,self-centre,hypocrite, etc… politicians in the next coming elections. let’s start singing sayonara song, na,na,na hey, hey, goodbye..
Comment by sam — December 30, 2010 @ 3:37 PM |