November 2015

19:50
“Saya bukanlah mahu mencari kedudukan tetapi hanya mahu melihat kamu bebas, aman, gembira dan maju. Masa telah sampai bagi rakyat untuk menentukan sendiri masa depan tanahair ini, supaya hasil kesemua sumbangan, kerja, persaingan dan kerjasama dinikmati bersama, tanpa mengira tempat asal dan kepercayaan masing-masing. Inilah destinasi kita. Marilah kita bergerak bersama kearah itu.”

Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan
4 Mac 1991

Teman-teman dan rakyat Sabah yang dikasihi.

Kamu mungkin telah mendengar ataupun membaca ucapan Mahathir yang tidak ditapis di dalam suratkhabar pada 21 Februari 1991. Saya baru saja mengetahuinya. Kenyataan Mahathir bahawa Sabah adalah tanah jajahannya bukanlah sesuatu yang memeranjatkan. Dia sendiri telah membawa UMNO ke Sabah untuk memastikan penguasaan sepenuhnya ke atas rakyat Sabah. Dia tidak mahu menghormati pemimpin yang kita pilih. Dia hendak melantik pemimpinnya sendiri dan menentukan sendiri haluan untuk mereka. Dia berpendapat bahawa Sabah adalah naungannya dan dia boleh berbuat apa saja yang dia suka. Dia juga berfikir yang tiada siapa yang dapat menghalangnya mahupun pemimpin dari Kuala Lumpur – malah mereka juga mengancam dengan menggunakan tentera, polis dan Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR).

Tujuan sebenar Kuala Lumpur akhirnya diketahui. Mahathir bertujuan manghapuskan 20 Perkara yang menjadi asas utama persetujuan Sabah untuk menjadi salah satu ahli Persekutuan Malaysia. Rancangan tersebut adalah sengaja dibuat untuk mengurangkan status rakan kongsi (partner) menjadi tanah jajahan Malaya sahaja.

Kenyataan bekas Presiden Sukarno dari Indonesia adalah tepat apabila beliau memberi amaran semasa pembentukan Malaysia, bahawa status Sabah sebagai tanah jajahan tidak akan berubah melalui penubuhan Malaysia, beliau mengatakan bahawa apa yang berubah hanyalah pertukaran pejabat penjajah dari London ke Kuala Lumpur. Kejadian-kejadian dan tindakan-tindakan Kuala Lumpur sejak 1963 telah membuktikan bahawa pendapat itu adalah benar.

Rakyat Sabah telah diajak secara tergesa-gesa dan pemimpin-pemimpin kita telah ditipu membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia. Bacalah semua buku-buku dan fakta-fakta tentang pembentukan Persekutuan Malaysia dan peristiwa-peristiwa yang terjadi selepasnya dan anda semua akan dapat memahami.

Pemimpin-pemimpin kita walaupun berat hati tapi akhirnya bersetuju menjadi sebahagian daripada ahli persekutuan yang baru, dengan jaminan beberapa syarat haruslah dipersetujui. Selepas beberapa siri rundingan, pemimpin-pemimpin Sabah termasuk Tun Mustapha, Tun Fuad Stephens, Khoo Siak Siew, pemimpin-pemimpin dari Malaya dan wakil British telah bersetuju tentang apa yang dipanggil sebagai Syarat-Syarat DUA PULUH PERKARA. Syarat-syarat ini adalah SANGAT-SANGAT PENTING kerana ianya bermakna bahawa Sabah sebenarnya telah memperolehi kemerdekaan melalui Malaysia. Ini adalah tujuannya dan dipersetujui oleh kesemua pihak yang terlibat pada waktu itu. Kita semua menyokong ini.

Walau bagaimanapun segala-galanya telah berubah. Sebaik sahaja kita menumpukan perhatian ke dalam bidang politik, social dan pembangunan ekonomi, kebanyakan daripada bekas pemimpin kita semakin mementingkan status dan kepentingan mereka sendiri dan tidak lagi mengambil berat tentang apa yang berlaku ke atas negeri secara keseluruhan.

Apabila para pemimpin ini mabuk kuasa, kekayaan dan pembangunan, para pemimpin Kuala Lumpur telah mengambil peluang ini untuk mengubah status Sabah daripada sebuah negeri merdeka yang bersekutu dengan Malaya dan Sarawak (serta Singapura) kepada apa yang kita sedang alami sekarang – kembali kepada jajahan. Lebih buruk lagi, dalam proses ini pula, pemimpin-pemimpin Kuala Lumpur juga telah menyebabkan rakyat Sabah menyerahkan hak minyak mereka, tanah dan hutan – kesemua ini dibuat dengan secara halus dan teratur supaya rakyat Sabah tidak menyedari bahawa perkara itu telah berlaku.

Saya adalah salah seorang yang menyedari apa yang sedang berlaku dan sedar ke mana kita akan dibawa. Tanpa mengambilkira apakah yang akan terjadi kepada saya dan keluarga saya dan sebagai seorang yang bernasib baik, berada dalam kedudukan, berpendidikan dan berstatus, saya telah merasakan bahawa adalah menjad tanggungjawab saya sebagai rakyat Malaysia dan rakyat Sabah tulin untuk membetulkan semua ini, dengan membangkitkan isu 20 Perkara dan membongkar sikap Kuala Lumpur yang tidak adil kepada Sabah, terutamanya sejak 1985.

Saya percaya perkara-perkara yang lain anda semua sudah tahu. Sekarang anda semua faham, mengapa Kerajaan Persekutuan tidak pernah berhenti untuk menganggu saya dan pemimpin-pemimpin PBS. Sekarang anda semua tahu apa sebenarnya yang BPR hendakkan dari saya.

Kuala Lumpur tahu dan Mahathir pun tahu bahawa saya adalah BENAR. Mereka lebih suka untuk menghapuskan pemimpin-pemimpin dan cerdik pandai seperti saya kerana mempersoalkan tindakan-tindakan mereka daripada mengakui kebenaran tentang apa yang mereka telah lakukan. Mereka, Mahathir dan sesetengah daripada mereka (bukan semua pemimpin Kuala Lumpur seperti mereka) memang boleh menghapuskan saya dan sesiapa juga yang sependapat dengan saya, kerana mereka mempunyai semua peralatan kuasa yang menyebelahi mereka – polis tentera, BPR, ISA, JHDN, OSA dan lain-lain lagi.

Beritahu saya, adakah salah bagi saya berjuang untuk negeri dan rakyat? Adakah saya salah mempersoalkan Kuala Lumpur? Patut atau tidakkah saya meminta bahagian daripada royalti minyak yang lebih munasabah bagi negeri ini? Adakah salah bagi saya berjuang untuk membebaskan Sabah daripada penjajahan? Adakah salah bagi saya mendidik masyarakat Sabah tentang fakta-fakta yang benar tentang Negara kita dan keadaan kehidupan kita?

Adakah salah bagi saya memperkenalkan idea-idea yang baru dan bercorak revolusinari dalam pembangunan, mengurangkan kemiskinan dan pengangguran dan mengembalikan nilai-nilai dan harga diri kepada rakyat? Jikalau saya salah, maka kita semua adalah salah kerana berada dalam kebenaran.

Adalah lebih mudah bagi saya untuk tidak terlibat di dalam soal-soal rakyat, negeri dan negara. Mungkin ada orang yang bertanya mengapa harus saya mengambil berat tentang semua ini? Benar, jika saya hanya mengabil berat tentang diri saya dan kepentingan keluarga saya sahaja dan jika saya kedekut – adalah lebih baik saya tidak melibatkan diri. Saya boleh mengekalkan kedudukan saya, bersenang-lenang dengan gaji besar dan ketawa tentang apa yang berlaku.

Jika saya mengambil hati para pemimpin persekutuan dan member rasuah kepada pegawai-pegawai penguatkuasa dan sebagainya, saya akan dilindungi dan tidak ada apa-apa yang akan berlaku kepada saya. Adakah ini yang kamu ingin lihat dari saya? Saya fikir tidak. Salah seorang mesti berkorban. Namun, pengorbanan ini akan menjadi sia-sia dan tidak bererti tanpa sokongan dan dorongan anda semua. Anda semua adalah satu-satunya kuasa yang boleh menghentikan Mahathir dan membebaskan kita sekali lagi dari belenggu penjajahan.

Sekiranya kebangkitan Perkara 20 dan mempersoalkan sikap Kuala Lumpur dan tindakannya ke atas Sabah diinteprestasikan oleh Mahathir sebagai hasutan kepada rakyat Sabah untuk membenci rakyat di Semenajung Malaysia, maka dia semestinya samada bodoh atau penipu. Saya mempunyai ramai teman-teman di Semenanjung Malaysia dan telah mengenali saya dan kenal siapakah saya ini. Terdapat juga saudara-mara saya yang berkahwin dengan orang Semenanjung.

Saya menyemai rasa muhibah dan bukan kebencian. Mahathir sendirilah yang memperkenalkan dan mengundang kebencian. Dia telah mencaci pemimpin-pemimpin sabah yang dipilih dan dengan sengaja membohongi dan menipu rakyat Malaysia terutama dan dari segi isu-isu agama dan bangsa. Ingatkah anda dengan kes ‘sigar’ (tanjak) yang melibatkan Tengku Razaleigh?

Sewaktu saya berjumpa dengan Dr Mahathir pada Mei 1990, saya berbincang dengan beliau tentang beberapa isu. Saya memberitahu beliau bahawa saya bukan bertujuan untuk membincangkan masalah peribadi tetapi isu-isu yang berkaitan dengan hubungan persekutuan negeri. Salah satu daripada nasihat yang beliau berikan pada saya tentang 20 Perkara ialah, beliau berkata:

“Jeffrey, orang-orang kampung tidak tahu tentang hak-hak negeri Sabah dan 20 Perkara, kenapa kita harus memberitahu mereka? Laporan dari Special Branch (Polis SB) mengatakan bahawa kamu dan IDS bertanggungjawab memberitahu rakyat…”

Buat seketika saya tidak dapat mempercayai kata-katanya sebab dia adalah Perdana Menteri Negara yang memberitahu saya untuk menipu rakyat yang mana sepatutnya menjadi tugas kita untuk mendidik mereka.
Apabila saya bertanya kepada Mahathir untuk menambah royalty negeri ini daripada pendapatan minyaknya, dia berkata:

“kamu bernasib baik Kerajaan Persekutuan member kamu lima peratus. Ingat bahawa tidak ada minyak di Sabah sehinggalah Malaysia wujud…”

Apa yang diperkatakan oleh Mahathir ialah negeri ini tidak mempunyai hak kepada minyak dan hasil buminya dan bukan Tuhan yang memberikan kita minyak tetapi Malaysia yang memberikannya.

Tentang hal-hal tanah, Dr Mahathir berkata adalah amat susah untuk pihak negeri melepaskan dan meluluskan tanah apabila Agensi Persekutuan memerlukannya. Dia berkata tanah seharusnya dikawal oleh Persekutuan.

Ini memperlihatkan objektif jangka panjang Mahathir – untuk mengawal tanah dan hutan di mana ia masih di bawah kuasa kerajaan negeri seperti mana yang termaktub di bawah 20 Perkara.
Objektif lain Mahathir ialah untuk menjadikan Sabah sebagai tanah jajahan atau sebahagian daripada Malaya. Dia berkata:

“hak-hak negeri adalah sementara. Sabah adalah sepatutnya sama seperti Kedah ataupun Perlis…”

Ini adalah jelas bercanggah dengan apa yang dikatakan oleh Allayaraham Tunku abdul Rahman sewaktu pembentukan Malaysia, bila mana dia berkata:

“Sabah dan Sarawak tidak akan menjadi negeri yang ke-13 atau ke-14 negeri-negeri Malaya kerana mereka akan masuk sebagai rakan yang sama taraf (dengan Malaya) dan mendapat kuasa dan status yang sama…”

Apabila Malaysia ditubuhkan pada September 1963, satu perjanjian yang dipanggil Perjanjian Malaysia telah ditandatangani, di antara Malaya, Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak – terikat dengan syarat-syarat perjanjian tersebut. Syarat-syarat itu adalah seperti perikatan di antara mereka, jadi jika salah satu rakan akan “renege” atau undur diri ia akan memberi kesan kepada syarat-syarat untuk rakan-rakan yang lain dan memerlukan penilaian semula, dan perjanjian baru harus ditandatangani oleh rakan-rakan yang tinggal. Singapura keluar dari Persekutuan pada 1965 dan ini telah membatalkan Perjanjian Malaysia yang mana menjadi asas kepada Persekutuan Malaysia.

Bagi saya, kecuali Malaya, Sabah dan Sarawak berbincang bersama dan mengkaji semula untuk sahkan atau ubah Perjanjian Malaysia yang telah tidak sah, asas perundangan penubuhan Malaysia tidak lagi sah. Mengapa kita tidak melakukannya? Kenapa mereka takut untuk membincangkannya? Sebaliknya, pemimpin-pemimpin Persekutuan, terutama Mahathir, menggunakan ancaman dan tangkapan untuk menghapuskan kita. Inilah masalah yang kita hadapi sekarang.

Maka itu saya sangat-sangat tertekan dan terkejut dengan tindakan yang tidak adil, di mana Perdana Menteri negara kita membuat tuduhan-tuduhan yang liar dan tuduhan tidak benar terhadap saya, IDS dan kerajaan negeri PBS yang telah dipilih secara demokratik.

Berdasarkan dari kenyataan-kenyataan akhbar yang dibuat oleh Mahathir dan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO yang lain semasa lawatan mereka ke Kota Kinabalu minggu lepas, rakyat Sabah dan dunia keseluruhannya melihat bahawa “kuasa adalah benar”.

Perdana Menteri dan pemimpin-pemimpin kebangsaan yang lain datang ke Sabah untuk memperlihatkan kuasa dan kekuatan mereka. Mereka datang untuk menunjukkan bahawa selagi mereka mempunyai kuasa persekutuan, polis dan tentera serta orang-orang di Sabah yang sanggup mengutamakan cita-cita mereka untuk melaksanakan kehendak UMNO di negeri ini dan rakyatnya. Pemimpin-pemimpin tersebut bersedia untuk menutup mata mereka terhadap hak-hak sah kerajaan negeri PBS untuk memerintah dengan aman tanpa penindasan.

Ini merupakan hari yang sedih untuk rakyat Sabah, Malaysia dan generasi akan datang. Sekarang saya dapat memahami sepenuhnya dan bersimpati dengan mereka yang berada di dalam perhimpunan USNO yang mana secara terbuka tanpa malu-malu mengeluarkan airmata. Mereka ini bersetuju dengan kami yang cintakan negeri ini dan ingin mengekalkan hak-hak asasi kita, mereka betul-betul kecewa melihat pemimpin-pemimpin kita di Sabah yang bersedia untuk menyerahkan kuasa politik dan negeri kepada Mahathir.

Mahathir telah membuat tuduhan yang serius terhadap saya. Dia berkata bahawa saya terlibat dengan komplot mengeluarkan Sabah dari Malaysia dan kononnya saya bercita-cita menjadi Presiden kepada negeri Sabah yang merdeka. Tuduhan-tuduhan ini dibuat dengan tujuan untuk mendapatkan sorakan yang kuat dari wakil-wakil USNO dan para pemerhati. Apakah yang terjadi dengan hak-hak saya sebagai warganegara Malaysia? Siapa yang memberikan hak-hak kepada Perdana Menteri untuk menganiaya seseorang rakyat Malaysia di hadapan orang ramai dan TV serta melalui media massa ke seluruh dunia? Adakah Perdana Menteri kita berdiri di atas undang-undang? Adakah undang-undang Malayisa hanya untuk keluarga Kitingan sahaja? Pemimpin-pemimpin PBS dan para pegawai negeri dan kepada sesiapa sahaja yang tidak menurut perintah Barisan Nasional?

Bagi saya, kelelakuan seperti ini adalah yang paling keji dan tidak mempunyai tempat di Negara ini yang kononnya Negara yang berprinsipkan demokrasi. Saya telahpun berbincang dengan peguam saya, apakah tindakan undang-undang yang boleh diambil terhadap Perdana Menteri dan yang lain-lain yang telah menghina dan menuduh saya.

Sekiranya, saya terlibat dengan semua yang dikatakan tersebut, Perdana Menteri sepatutnya menggunakan kuasa-kuasanya untuk menahan saya dan membawa saya ke muka pengadilan di mahkamah. Kenapa dia membuat banyak kenyataan-kenyataan yang dramatic semasa berpolitik? Sekiranya ia adalah berkaitan dengan keselamatan Negara, maka ia seharusnya diselesaikan menurut apa yang sepatutnya.

Kenapa dibangkitkan hanya sewaktu kongres USNO berlangsung? Dan ia masih mengatakan bahawa semua tindakan ini tidak ada kena mengena dengan campur tangan politik. Ini adalah hipokrit. Kenapa Jeffrey Kitingan dihukum oleh Mahathir setiap kali adanya perhimpunan USNO? Bagi saya, ianya adalah satu penganiayaan politik yang teruk dan kejam sekali.

Kita di Malaysia tidaklah buta. Mereka dapat melihat sekarang bahawa kerajaan negeri PBS adalah di bawah kuasa pusat melalui politik (UMNO), ancaman secara fizikal (penambahan tentera), penahanan ISA, BPR dan tindakan-tindakan JHDN sehinggalah adanya orang-orang yang dapat menerima kehendak mereka tanpa mempertikaikan mereka.

Adakah ini yang kita telah runding semasa kita bersetuju membentuk Malaysia pada tahun 1963? Tidak. Semestinya tidak. Kita tidak setuju untuk diperkecilkan seperti ini dan tidak bersetuju untuk dijajah oleh KL atau sesiapa pun.

Saya menyeru kepada kerajaan negeri PBS yang bertanggungjawab untuk mempertahankan hak-hak rakyat Sabah secara serius, untuk mempersoalkan tentang kedudukan Sabah di Malaysia bersama-sama dengan kerajaan persekutuan melalui saluran perundangan yang sah.

Apa gunanya menjadi kerajaan negeri apabila Ketua Menterinya dan pemimpin-pemimpinnya diketepikan dan tidak dipelawa untuk menyambut kedatangan Perdana Menteri yang dating ke tanah Sabah? Siapakah sebenarnya yang memperkenalkan sentiment anti-Malaysia dan terlibat dengan tindakan-tindakan anti-Malaysia? Perdana Menteri dan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO lah yang terlibat.

Saya tidak akan tunduk kepada komplot ancaman persekutuan terhadap saya dan kepentingan negeri Sabah. Saya akan berdiri dengan apa yang saya telah katakan di dalam 20 Perkara, hak-hak negeri, keperluan keadilan dan kesaksamaan layanan oleh kuasa persekutuan kepada Sabah sepertimana yang terkandung di dalam kenyataan-kenyataan saya dahulu.

UNTUK SEMUA RAKYAT SABAH: JANGAN PUTUS ASA, JANGANLAH SEKALI-KALI PUTUS HARAPAN, KERANA TUHAN AKAN MENOLONG KEPADA SESIAPA SAHAJA YANG BERJUANG UNTUK KEBEBASAN DAN KEADILAN.
Kepada kakitangan kerajaan, kepada kakitangan saya di YS, IDS dan ICSB – teruskan dan buatlah kerja anda semua dengan tenang, cekap dan dedikasi. Buatlah kerja kamu dengan sepenuh hati dan bertanggungjawab. Misi saya adalah untuk melihat supaya kita hidup di dalam keamanan dan bebas dari penindasan, tekanan dan ketidakadilan. Misi anda adalah untuk membebaskan rakyat dari cengkaman kemiskinan dan kesakitan. Marilah bersama-sama membina satu negara yang progresif dari segi ekonomi, supaya kita semua boleh menjadi alat-alat TUHAN yang berkesan untuk melayani dan mencintai yang lain.

Kepada pelajar-pelajar, saya berseru kepada kamu untuk memberikan sepenuh perhatian kepada pelajaran kamu kerana kamulah pemimpin generasi akan dating. Gunakanlah masa dan fikiran kamu untuk memahami dan mencari kebenaran sejarah dan pembangunan kita. Janganlah bataskan diri kamu dengan apa yang diajar di sekolah atau di kolej, kerana mereka hanya memberikan satu pandangan sahaja kepada cerita tersebut. Teruskan dan carilah kebenaran. Fahami tentang apa dia kehidupan, dan apa dia kebebasan dan keadilan.

Baca 20 Perkara dan buku “Sabah Commemorative Book – Sabah 25 Years Later” dan lain-lain. Janganlah kamu mengambil keputusan selagi kamu belum tahu kebenarannya. Apabila kamu mengetahui kebenaran, kamu akan tahu apa yang hendak dibuat.

Kepada semua ibubapa, kamu adalah juru kemudi di lautan yang bergelora. Bimbinglah anak-anak kamu menuju kebenaran dan kedestinasi hidup yang betul. Beri tahu mereka apa yang berlaku kepada negara kita supaya mereka boleh mencorakkan satu masa depan yang cerah. Displin adalah perlu dipupuk tetapi selain daripada itu, kita juga perlu menanamkan sikap yang betul kepada anak-anak kita yang sentiasa belajar daripada ibubapa.

Kepada suami-suami, hormati dan jagalah isteri-isteri anda semua. Isteri adalah sebahagian daripada diri kamu. Dia adalah rakan dan pasangan. Dia mengetahui banyak perkara dan dia boleh membantu kamu untuk mengetahui perbezaan apa yang benar dan palsu – antara keputusan yang baik dan tidak baik. Jangan abaikan isteri kamu.

Kepada isteri-isteri, cintailah suami-suami kamu dan jagalah mereka dengan baik. Dia adalah pasangan kamu, rakan dan penasihat. Dia juga adalah penegur bilamana kamu membuat kesilapan. Tetapi suami-suami kamu juga memerlukan bimbingan kamu untuk mencari kebenaran dan memahami situasi kita di Sabah.

Kepada rakyat di Semenanjung Malaysia, kamu adalah saudara-saudara kami. Kami memerlukan kamu untuk memahami keadaan kami di Sabah. Kami tidak membenci kamu sepertimana yang diberitahu oleh pemimpin-pemimpin kamu. Pemimpin-pemimpin kamu hanya menanamkan bibit-bibit kebencian di antara kita semata-mata untuk kepentingan politik peribadi mereka. Kami ini adalah ditindas, diganggu, dan dilayan dengan tidak adil. Kami ini dijajah dan dikawal, sehinggakan kami kehilangan kebebasan demokrasi dan juga maruah.

Kami telah diberitahu bahawa kami telah mencapai kemerdekaan pada tahun 1963 tetapi kami kini tidak lagi mengundi masa depan politik kami sendiri. Pemimpin-pemimpin dari Semenanjung Malaysia lah yang melakukannya. Tidak perlu bersimpati kepada perjuangan kami tetapi cubalah untuk memahami diri kami dan situasi yang kami hadapi. Hanya melalui ini, kamu dapat member sumbangan kepada kami. Dan hanya dngan begini sahajalah maka kamu akan mengetahui bagaimana pemimpin-pemimpin Kuala Lumpur membohongi rakyat di Semananjung Malaysia.

Kepada peniaga-peniaga, pelabur-pelabur kamu yang sentiasa menggerakkan ekonomi, yang mana seterusnya membantu member nafkah kepada keluarga kami semua. Jangan hentikan pelaburan kamu. Bantulah supaya ekonomi berkembang, supaya tanah air ini menjadi makmur dan sesuai kepada perkembangan pelaburan-pelaburan. Bantulah supaya perjuangan rakyat Sabah Berjaya supaya kamu pun akan turut Berjaya.

Kepada pemimpin-pemimpin politik di Sabah, kamulah pemimpin-pemimpin jati. Pimpinlah rakyat menuju destinasi mereka. Berjuanglah untuk kebebasan dan keadilan mereka. Bebaskan tanahair ini dari ketidakadilan. Berpegang teguhlah kepada prinsip-prinsipmu. Jangan mudah tergoda untuk meninggalkan perjuangan mu semata-mata untuk beberapa ringgit sahaja. Jangan menganiayai rakyat kerana kepentingan peribadi, kekayaan dan kedudukan supaya tidak diganggu oleh musuh-musuh. Bezakanlah antara kepentingan-kepentingan peribadi dan kepentingan-kepentingan rakyat.

Kita semua akan mati pada suatu hari nanti dan semua tindakan kita akan tercacat dalam sejarah. Berapa banyakkah kekayaan dan pangkat yang kamu boleh bawa mati? Adakah anak-anak kamu nanti akan bangga dengan kamu? Tanyalah diri sendiri – “Apa misi saya? Apakah yang saya perjuangkan? Adakah untuk mendapatkan pangkat dan kedudukan-kedudukan lain, ataupun adakah untuk membebaskan tanahair ini dari penindasan penjajah dan ketidakadilan supaya kita semua boleh hidup dengan aman dan dapat menentukan masa depan sendiri? Adakah saya berjuang untuk diri sendiri ataupun rakyat saya?”

Kamu dalah pemimpin. Jangan gadaikan tanahair dan rakyat kamu. Jika kamu keliru, cubalah bertenang, berfikir dan buat renungan. Tuhan akan membimbing kamu ke jalan yang benar. Jangan malu untuk memperbaiki kesilapan-kesilapan. Mas belum terlewat. Ingatlah bahawa kita semua adalah manusia biasa sahaja.

Sebagai pemimpin, pengikut-pengikut mahukan panduan, maklumat dan nasihat. Mereka menaruh harapan kepada kamu, dan mereka menjangkakan kamu kuat. Apabila saja kamu tahu apa yang hendak dibuat, jangan menoleh ke belakang lagi. Kerana jika kamu begitu, kamu bukan lagi pemimpin. Jika Kuala Lumpur sudah mengawal kehidupan, dasar-dasar, sumber-sumber kita, kehidupan kita di Sabah bukan lagi seperti sediakala. Jadi, pesanan saya kepada kamu ialah BERSATUPADULAH , berganding bahu dan MEMIMPINLAH sebagaimana kamu diundi. Inilah tanahair mu dan politik adalah darah daging mu.

Kepada pemimpin-pemimpin lain di Kuala Lumpur, ada di antara kamu yang memahami kami. Kamu tahu bahawa beberapa rakan politik kamu bertindak keterlaluan, tidak adil dan bersikap kepenjajahan dalam tindakan dan semasa membuat keputusan-keputusan. Kenapa kamu hanya berdiam diri dan membiarkan ketidakadilan dilakukan? Kamu mempunyai fikiran yang waras, kenapa kamu tidak berusaha menyedarkan yang lain?

Apa yang dibuat oleh Mahathir, Ghafar Baba, Mohammad Rahmat, Najib Razak dan Megat Junid tidak lagi boleh diterima. Mereka mengancam, memenjara, menipu dan membohongi semua rakyat Malaysia. Adakah mereka sudah mabuk kuasa? Adakah mereka sudah gila? Kamu adalah berada pada kedudukan yang baik untuk mempengaruhi mereka untuk mengembalikan mereka kepada cara pemikiran yang betul. Bagi kami di Sabah, kami terpaksa bertindak dan membalas. Kami telah terpaksa. Kami berharap kamu semua akan faham.

Kepada pegawai-pegawai dan kakitangan-kakitangan agensi-agensi penguatkuasa undang-undang, polis, askar, SPR dan sebagainya, kamu adalah penjaga rakyat. Saya menyeru supaya kamu melindungi rakyat yang tidak berdosa dan mereka yang memperjuangkan kebebasan. Jangan mematuhi arahan-arahan secara membabi buta.

Saya bukan satu ancaman kepada rakyat tetapi saya mungkin merupakan ancaman kepada Mahathir. Saya adalah suara rakyat. Dan saya juga adalah suara kamu. Jadikanlah diri kamu alat untuk mencapai keamanan dan menjadi pelindung rakyat, bukannya penindas. Pergi dan ambil tindakan ke atas penindas-penindas yang sebenar dan serahkan mereka kepada pengadilan rakyat.

Kepada kawan-kawan saya dan semua orang yang waras, kamu adalah harapan rakyat dan generasi kita. Ini bukanlah perjuangan saya seorang. Ini adalah perjuangan semua manusia yang berperikemanusiaan. Perjuangan untuk kebebasan daripada penindasan, ketidakstabilan dan penjajahan adalah perjuangan hak asasi. Adalah menjadi tugas saya untuk memikul beban ini kea rah destinasi bersama. Jika saya gagal, kamu mesti bersedia untuk meneruskan perjuangan ini. Apabila kita berjaya sampai ke destinasi kita, semua faedah adalah milik kamu.

"Saya bukanlah mahu mencari kedudukan tetapi hanya mahu melihat kamu bebas, aman, gembira dan maju. Masa telah sampai bagi rakyat untuk menentukan sendiri masa depan tanahair ini, supaya hasil kesemua sumbangan, kerja, persaingan dan kerjasama dinikmati bersama, tanpa mengira tempat asal dan kepercayaan masing-masing. Inilah destinasi kita. Marilah kita bergerak bersama kearah itu."

Read more »

19:41 1
 As already stated, the Twenty Points Memorandum came into being when five political parties representing the people of Sabah presented a united stand on the minimum safeguards considered by the Sabahan leaders as crucial, the acceptance of which would pave the way for the formation of the new Federation. This document is truly important because it embodies the needs and aspirations of the people of Sabah.

The views expressed in the Twenty Points were the basis of Sabah’s acceptance to be part of the Federation of Malaysia. Most of the Twenty Points were incorporated upon deliberation, into the Inter-Governmental Committee Report and the Malaysia Agreement.


It should be stressed here that while much energies and time were expended in deliberations on the constitutional safeguards, the mechanism for their implementation and protection from change, amendment or deviation was conveniently disregarded. Hence, with a powerful and all-embracing Malayan Government, insufficient attention was paid by the Sabah negotiating team as to how the assurances, undertaking and promises could be implemented once Sabah became a component of the Federation of Malaysia. Little attention was also paid to the subject of recourse which Sabah might take against the Federal government in the event of breach of the constitutional safeguards and assurances. The safeguards were negotiated in the spirit of a gentlemen’s agreement. It can be inferred that the absence of any provision in the 20 Points for a possible recourse which Sabah could take against the Federal government in the event of a breach of the constitutional safeguards and conditions was indicative more of the faith of Sabah’s leaders in former Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Federal government’s assurances rather than the lack of foresight. To them a gentlemen’s agreement was sufficient guarantee, although later events have proven Sabah’s leaders wrong.

The Twenty Points are presented below together with a statement of their status in the context of the IGC, Malaysia Agreement and Federal Constitution. Comments pertaining to deviations in implementation, where appropriate, are outlined after the presentation of each point.

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 provision relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply in North Borneo.

Comments:
In the IGC Report this point was taken up in the form of the provision that “Islam is the religion of the Federation” which essentially reaffirmed Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

A contravention of this point occurred when the former Chief Minister of Sabah, Tun Mustapha enabled the passage of a constitutional amendment in the State Constitution thereby making Islam the State religion in 1973. It is well-known that Tun Mustapha actively discriminated against the promotion of other religions by expelling their missionaries. By this act, religious freedom which was intended by this point was abrogated in favour of Islam. His successor, Datuk Harris Salleh, also actively engaged in proselytization by using Islam as an instrument to grant favours to new converts. It was widely perceived by the general public that the actions of both Tun Mustapha and Datuk Harris were motivated by their need to strengthen their own political position vis-à-vis Kuala Lumpur.

In the case of the present Government, it tries to restore religious freedom by dealing with all religions equally but this is perceived as being anti-Islam. This is despite the fact that the State Legislative Assembly in 1986 inserted a new Article 5B “to confer on the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong the position of the Head of Islam in Sabah.”

Today, the status of Islam as the State religion has made it an instrument of political bigotry and provides a justification for religious polarisation and discrimination.

One may, of course, argue that the deviation that has occurred with respect to this particular point was caused by the State and not by the Federal authorities. This is too simplistic a view. As will be shown in Section V of the Memo, an examination of the Federal Government’s dealings with the State during the reign of the previous Chief Ministers shows numerous subtle interferences in Sabah’s political and administrative affairs by Kuala Lumpur, some of which are manifested in the form of administrative measures and decision making by Federal agencies. As a consequence, many constitutional amendments made at the State level which led to the dilution and surrender of several safeguards, were initiated and influenced by Federal Government. (e.g. Federalisation of Labuan).

Point 2: Language

(a)   Malay should be the national language of the Federation;

(b)   English should continue to be used for a period of time of ten years after Malaysia Day;

(c)   English should be the official language of North Borneo, for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.

Comments:
Tun Mustapha’s administration changed the status of  English by passing a bill, introducing a new clause 11A into the State Constitution, making Bahasa Malaysia the official language of the State Cabinet and State Legislative Assembly. At the same time, the National Language (Application) Enactment 1973 was passed purporting to approve the extension of an Act of parliament terminating or restricting the use of English language for other official purposes in Sabah.  This is putting the cart before the horse, because the National Language Act 1963/67 was only amended in 1983 to allow it to be extended to Sabah by State Enactment. But, no such State Enactment has been passed. Therefore, the National Language Act 1963/67 is still not in force in Sabah. Nevertheless, the above amendments have brought about the following consequences:

(a)   Many civil servants who were schooled in English are now employed as temporary or contract officers because of their inability to pass the Bahasa Malaysia examination.

(b)   The change in the medium of instruction in schools affected the standard of teaching due to lack of qualified Bahasa Malaysia teachers.

(c)   The teaching of other native languages has been relegated to the background.

Many Sabahans believe that the Constitutional Bill passed in 1973 to erode this safeguard was probably made on the advise and influence of syed Kechik, who was regarded as the KL’s man in Sabah. (See Ross-Larson(1980)).

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 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 was, of course, essential.

Comments:
It is obvious that the Sabah and Sarawak negotiating teams were of the opinion that they were joining in the Federation of Malaysia as equal partners, namely Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. However, the request for a completely new Constitution was not granted thereby deviating from the basic agreement. The reasons offered were:

(a)   Due to time constraint. The drafting of a completely new Constitution would take a long time to complete.

(b)   The Sabah negotiating team recognised the amount of time and energy required to draft a new Constitution.

From the foregoing, it is clear that during the negotiation, the State leaders had shown complete trust and confidence in the capabilities of the Malayan leadership in honouring the assurances and promises given them. As a result, minimum fuss was made of the necessity of casting those promises and assurances in enforceable terms to be duly incorporated into official documents, complete with legal and constitutional recourse in the event of breaches. Furthermore, the readiness with which the State leaders consented to the use of Federal Constitution of Malaya as a basis on which new amendments were to be incorporated also illustrates the trusting nature of the State leaders then. However, the speed with which the formation of the Federation of Malaysia was hurriedly implemented, at a time when the people of Sabah were still constitutionally backward, leaves many present-day better educated Sabahans to question the extent of participation of the Sabahan leaders in the entire negotiation process. For such an important undertaking which affects the future of the people of Sabah, certainly more time should been given.

An important agreement reached by the Inter-Governmental Committee was that in certain aspects, the requirement of Sabah and Sarawak could appropriately be met by undertaking or assurances to be given by the government of the Federation of Malaya rather than by constitutional provision. Still, this was a clear deviation from what was requested in the Twenty Points.

Points 4: Head of the Federation

The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.

Comments:
Since only a Ruler is eligible to be elected as the Head of the Federation in the Malayan Constitution, there was no necessity to make specific provision for the exclusion of the Head of the State of Sabah from election as Head of the Federation.

Point 5: Name of Federation

“Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”

Comments:
This point was incorporated into the IGC Report and subsequently into the Federal Constitution.

Point 6: Immigration

Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Federal 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 movement of persons, other than those in Federal government employ, from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.

Comments:
While it was agreed in the IGC Report that the Immigration department should be a Federal department, the State should have absolute control of immigration to Sabah from within Malaysia.

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation.

Comments:
There was absolutely no reason or need for this point to be listed since it is not a safeguard for the State but for the Federal government. Nevertheless, the amazing readiness of the five political parties to include this as one of the Twenty Points reflected their firm belief that the ‘marriage’ would be a permanent one. Their decision to concede the right to secession was no doubt motivated by the promise of improved economic well-being that the new Federation would bring and the respect with which the Federal government would place on agreed safeguards and assurances.

Point 8: Borneonisation

Borneonisation (Sabahanisation) of the public services should proceed as quickly as possible.

Comments:
As a consequence of Federal’s control on pensions (Article 112 of the Federal Constitution and Para 24 of the IGC Report), all promotions in the Federal department and creation of new posts in the State require Federal approval due to the “pension factor.”

An examination of existing records shows that the number of federalised departments or agencies in Sabah has increased 4 times since Independence. By 1985 there were 62 Federal departments and agencies in Sabah, of which more than 90 per cent is currently headed by Semenanjung officers. According to employment record, there are more than 21,000 Semenanjung officers working in government offices in Sabah. This is a clear deviation of the Twenty Points and IGC safeguards.

The usual justification used by the Federal Government to engage officers from Semenanjung to fill the federalised government positions is the lack of qualified Sabahans. However, it is found that even officers in the C and D categories are still being imported into the State from Kuala Lumpur. Furthermore, there has been no conscious plan to train prospective Sabahans to take over senior posts from these Semananjung officers.

At a time when some 800 graduates and thousands of school leavers in Sabah are unemployed, the existence of a large number of civil servants from Semenanjung serving in government departments gives many Sabahans the feeling that they have been deprived of employment opportunities which, in the context of the Twenty Points, are rightfully theirs.

Point 9: British Officers

Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public services until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo.

Comments:
This point was taken up and discussed extensively in the IGC Report.

Point 10: Citizenship

The recommendations in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights of persons in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments:

(a)   Subparagraph (I) should not contain the provision as to five years residence;

(b)   In order to tie up with our law, subparagraph (II)(a) should read “seven out of ten years” instead of “eight out of twelve years”;

(c)   Subparagraph (III) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must be a Federal Citizen.

Comments:
It is public knowledge that there is a significant number of Sabahans who were born before Malaysia Day is still having problems acquiring citizenship. Furthermore, many natives in the interior regions of the State are still holder of red I.C. because of the problems of verifying their birth.

It is also common knowledge that certain categories of refugees and illegal immigrants in Sabah have been issued with blue I.C. thus conferring upon them citizenship status and enabling them to vote in elections. This occurred particularly during the tenure of the previous State governments. A reliable source indicates that some 198,000 of these refugees have been issued with blue I.C.

According to a newspaper report, which was subsequently confirmed, police forces acting on public complaint raided Peting Bin Ali’s house in Sandakan on 16 November, 1979 and discovered that he was in possession of facilities to issue blue ICs. It is believed that the operators were collaborating with certain registration personnel in Kuala Lumpur. Most surprisingly the culprit was not prosecuted for committing such a grave crime against all the citizens of the country.

The process by which these illegals are registered by the Federal agencies for subsequent issuance of blue ICs, without due reference to the State, is considered by Sabahans as usurpation of the State’s immigration authority. This is a clear deviation from the safeguard on immigration and control of its franchise rights. Furthermore, the use of Labuan as an entry point to Sabah without immigration check, effectively removes immigration control from the State government.

Point 11: Tariff and Finance

North Borneo should have control of its own finance, development funds and tariffs.

Comments:
This illustrates the true feeling of the Sabah leaders concerning Malaysia. They saw Sabah as equal partner in Malaysia. With its vast natural resources not yet fully tapped and the promise of rich oil discoveries, the Sabah leaders foresaw that the State would have adequate financial resources to cater for its socio-economic development. Today, all proceeds of revenue other than those listed in Part III of the Ten Schedule are accrued to the Federal government. These include personal income tax, corporate tax, export and import duties, petroleum royalty, etc. The State government derives its incomes primarily from timber exploitation, copper mining, and since 1974, from the 5.0% petroleum royalty accorded to it.

A study conducted by Institute of Development Studies (Sabah) concludes that since 1976 there was a net transfer of financial resources out of Sabah in favour of the Federal government. It should also be borne in mind that much of the Federal government’s financial flow to Sabah has actually been in the form of operating expenditures to service the large numbers of federalised agencies in Sabah. Although, during the First and Second Malaysia Plan period the Federal government had spent more in Sabah than collected from it, however, since 1976 there has been a net outflow of funds from Sabah to the Federal government amounting to M$2,633.18 million in the Third Malaysia Plan period and M$4,871.46 million during the Fourth Malaysia Plan period. During the First, Second, Third and Fourth Malaysia Plan period, some 80.5%, 72.1%, 66.8% and 68.3% of the financial allocation to Sabah were for operating expenditures of Federal departments and agencies as shown below:

The substantial net outflow of funds from Sabah to Kuala Lumpur is perceived by Sabahans as siphoning off of Sabah’s development funds which is tantamount to financial exploitation of the State.

The understanding of the leaders in joining Malaysia was to achieve an accelerated pace of economic development. However, it appears that the bulk of the Federal funds currently spent in Sabah are for operating expenditures rather than for development purposes.

The overall level of financial allocation to Sabah by the Federal government can be considered as minimal relative to its socio-economic development needs. These allocations are indeed meagre when compared with the amount of financial resources derived by the Federal government from the State as shown by the table above.

It is further felt that the State’s share of its oil revenue (5%) is too small. The sequence of events which led Sabah to sign away its oil rights to the Federal government has continued to puzzle the minds of the Sabahans. Previous Chief Minister, Tun Mustapha and Tun Stephens had consistently refused to sign the Petroleum Sharing Agreement indicating their unwillingness to give up the State’s oil rights. It is interesting to note, however, that in the ensuing political crisis following immediately after the June 6, 1976 plane crash resulting in the death of most of the key BERJAYA leaders, Datuk Harris Salleh dramatically reversed the position of the State government by signing away the State’s oil rights.

To many Sabahans the signing away of Sabah’s oil rights is equivalent to Constitutional amendment. Many believe that unless approved by the State Assembly with a two-third majority, the Chief Minister’s signature alone does not constitute approval of the people of Sabah.



Point 12: Special Position of Indigenous Races

In principle, the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malay in Malaya, but the present Malaya formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo.

Comments:
While in principle the special privileges of Sabahan natives are recognised legally, the implementation of the policy has been somewhat dubious. For instance, when job vacancies in Semenanjung are advertised in national newspapers to the effect that “preference shall be given to bumiputera”, what it in effect implies is bumiputera of Malay origin and, inevitably the Malay in Semenanjung. This legacy was exported to Sabah during the reign of the government of Tun Mustapha and Datuk Harris. It is well-known that during those periods, the treatment accorded to indigenous people in the State depended on their religious faith. This gave rise to two categories of indigenous people – Muslim indigenous and non-Muslim indigenous. These actions always done in the name of ‘integration’ with the aim of presenting Kuala Lumpur the impression that the Muslim population in the State had grown rapidly. There were numerous cases during the reign of the previous governments where non-Muslim bumiputeras especially the Kadazans and Muruts, were bypassed for promotion or recruitment into the civil service unless they became Muslim.

Point 13: State Government

(a)   The Chief Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council;

(b)   There should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo.

Comments:
The incorporation of this point in the IGC Report and Federal Constitution was consistent with the original intentions of the Sabah leaders.

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 merely delegated to the State government by the Federal government.

Comments:
This point was not addressed in the Malaysia Agreement nor dealt with in the Federal Constitution, even though the Cobbold Commission studied the point and recommended that the transitional period should be five years, or alternatively, minimum three years and maximum seven years. The ‘Transitional Period’ is actually discussed in Para 34 of the IGC Report and partly in Annex A to the Report.

It was clear that the purpose of introducing the transitional period was to provide the much needed time for the growth of political consciousness among the people of Sabah so that they would be able to understand their roles and responsibilities as political leaders. Both Malaya and Singapore had experienced a period of self-rule before Independence. Since neither Sabah nor Sarawak had any form of political relationship with Malaya and Singapore before the formation of Malaysia, a trial period would have significantly improved the Federal-State relationship right from the beginning. Had the transitional period been effected, it is generally believed that the erosion  of constitutional safeguards may not have occurred so easily and rapidly.

Point 15: Education

The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under State Control.

Comments:
The existing educational system referred to primary and secondary schools and teachers training colleges, but not university and post-graduate education. The Sabah delegation wanted to teach English at all levels of schools in the State as the medium of instruction. Malay and other vernacular languages, such as Kadazan and Chinese, were also to be taught and used as the media of instruction in lower level primary schools in some primary schools in some voluntary agency schools. It was the intention that the education policy and its development will be subject to constant adaption and would move towards a national concept but it should not merely be an extension of existing Federal policy.

In the IGC Report education was a federal subject although specific conditions were spelt out for its administration. The IGC Report also specified important conditions pertaining to education development in general including the use of English and implementation of indigenous education.

In 1965, the Sabah Education Ordinance No.9 of 1961 was declared a federal law. During Tun Mustapha’s reign, the State Constitution was amended to make way for the use of Malay as the sole official language by 1973. When the Peninsular introduced Malay as the medium of instruction in Primary One in 1970, Tun Mustapha’s Administration adopted the same policy in Sabah.

Since the Education Act, 1961, was extended to Sabah only in 1976, the introduction of the national Educational Policy to Sabah in late 60s and early 70s with the tacit consent of the then State government under Tun Mustapha was carried out without the proper legal authorities. However, this has been rectified by the extension of the Education Act, 1961.

It is also important to note that the IGC Report made specific references to the responsibilities of the Federal government in developing educational infrastructure in Malaysia, “the requirement of the Borneo States should be given special consideration and the desirability  of locating some of the institutions in the Borneo States should be borne in mind.” By and large, the Federal government has done little for Sabah in the development of higher education facilities, aside from the setting up of a YS-ITM campus and a makeshift UKM branch campus. Even a donation by the State government of 364 hectares of land in 1980 to be developed into a permanent campus of the UKM together with a $5.0 million contribution from Yayasan Sabah failed to elicit the “special consideration” responsibility of the Federal government on the development of education infrastructure in Sabah as contained in the IGC Report.

Yet in Kedah, Universiti Utara Malaysia which was only established in 1984 enjoys the full financing and other support of the Federal government as compared to the Sabah branch of UKM which was established in 1974, or then years earlier.

Such a phenomenon does not only violate the “special consideration” clause supposedly accorded to Sabah but it also speaks of the inequity in the distribution of funds for educational purposes among components parts of the Federation of Malaysia.

Point 16: Constitutional Safeguard

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.

Comments:
Most of the safeguards contained in the IGC Report were incorporated into the Malaysia Agreement and subsequently into the Federal Constitution, although a number of these have since been repealed. In addition to the provision in the Constitution, Article VIII of the Malaysia Agreement provides that the governments of the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak will take such legislative, executive or other action as may be required to implement the assurances, undertakings and recommendations contained in Chapter 3 of, and Annexes A and B to, the Report of the IGC signed on 27th February, 1963, in so far as they are not implemented by expressed provision of the Constitution of Malaysia.

An additional important agreement reached by the IGC was that certain aspects of the requirements of Sabah could appropriately be met by undertakings or assurances to be given by the government of the Federation of Malaya rather than by Constitutional provision. The Committee further agreed that these undertakings and assurances could be included in formal agreement or could be dealt with in exchanges of letters between the governments concerned.

In the minds of the people of Sabah (and Sarawak), the inclusion of the safeguards in the Constitution was reassuring in that they were as good as guaranteed by the British government. There is, however, an oversight by those responsible for drafting the Constitution to ensure that these safeguards are to be really effective. An amendment to the Federal Constitution must be passed by a two-third majority by the Parliament (which in today’s composition of Parliament is a non-issue) and, where State rights are involved, it must have the consent of the State government concerned (i.e. the Executive). It does not have to be approved by the State Assembly (the representatives of the people of the State) by also a two-third majority. Under the present Constitutional arrangements, the safeguards are therefore as good only as the strength or personality of the State government of the day.

In essence, most of the safeguards can be abrogated by the mere ‘consent’ of the State government of the day, even for the sake of wanting to ‘please’ the Federal government. There is a general belief that this had been the case for previous governments in Sabah.

Para 30 of the IGC Report and Article 161E of the Federal Constitution provide the constitutional safeguards on some specific matters. While, Article 161E is not exhaustive, these are safeguards found in other constitutional provisions. Amendment to Article 3(3) (making the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong the Head of Islamic religion in Sabah) and repealed og Article 161A(1)(2)&(3) (relating to the special position of the Natives of Sabah) and Article 161D (relating to freedom of religion in the State) if made without the concurrence of the Yang Di-Pertuan Negeri contravenes Article 161E.

It should be pointed out that there are also cases where the Federal government failed to seek the concurrence of the State government in making amendments relating to matters under State control.

As regards Fisheries Act, 1985, marine and estuarine fishing and fisheries are in the Concurrent List whereas riverine and inland fishing and fisheries and turtles are in the State List. Therefore, both the State and Federal Legislatures can pass law on the former but only the State Legislature can pass law on the latter (except for the purpose of uniformity; but in such cases the law only come into force in the State if adopted by the State Legislature). In the event of conflict between State and Federal laws, the Federal Law will prevail. However, Sabah has its own Fishing Ordinance, 1963, but this was repealed by PUA 274/72 under section 74 of the Malaysia Act, 1963 apparently without the consent of the Head of State (Yang Di-Pertuan Negeri)

Similarly, when the Federal government put fishery matters as a supplement to the Concurrent List taken away from the State in 1976, concurrence was not sought from the State government. And when the Federal government repealed the Fishery Ordinance in 1978, again the State government was ignored. The Fisheries Department in Sabah is now in danger of being sued by the public because it is enforcing law upon which it has no power to it.

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.

Comments:
This point was taken up in the IGC Report and Malaysia Agreement. However, it is important to stress the fact that when considering representation in the Federal Parliament, the potentialities of Sabah should be taken into account and that the mention of the size of Singapore’s representation was only the minimum requirement. There are now 20 members from Sabah in the lower house of the Parliament. This particular point therefore remains ‘unbroken’. But since the signatories of the Malaysia Agreement consisted of the four governments of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, there is a strong case for arguing that the matter should have been reviewed when Singapore pulled out from the Federation of Malaysia.

Indeed in view of Singapore’s departure from the Federation this safeguards must be reviewed along with other assurances in order to give the Malaysia Agreement validity. This review should be made immediately if Malaysia, as a federation, is to continue to be valid.

Point 18: Name of Head of State

Yang DiPertua Negara

Comments:
The name of the Head of State is Yang DiPertuan Negeri, as opposed to Yang DiPertua Negara as contained in both the Twenty Points and IGC Report. The use of the word ‘Negara’ by the Sabah leaders seems to convey the point that in their minds, independence was to bring with it a certain level of political autonomy for Sabah. It may therefore be argued that Sabah upon joining the Federation was a ‘negara’ or a nation. This clause was amended in 1976 in the Federal Constitution. Hence, the fact that this provision is not followed is a clear deviation.

Point 19: Name of State
Sabah

Comments:
This point was taken up in both the IGC Report and Malaysia Agreement.

Point 20: Land, Forest, Local Government etc.

The provision in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the power of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.

Comments:

While the State continue to exercise control over land, agriculture and forestry, the Federal government has established a National Land Council whose intention is yet to be determined. Should the National Land Council extend its jurisdiction over Sabah then it will contravene this particular provision.


In conclusion, it is shown that there are a number of critical areas in which the Federal government has deviated from the original spirit  and meaning of the constitutional safeguards and assurances granted to Sabah at the formation of Malaysia. The basic conditions were contained in the memorandum called the “Twenty Points”, the contents of which were subsequently incorporated into the IGC Report, the Malaysia Agreement and Federal Constitution. The principle areas in which there have been clear deviations with respect to implementation are those which relate to matters pertaining to Immigration, Religious freedom, Borneonisation, Citizenship, Education, Finance, and Tariff Arrangements and Constitutional safeguards.

Deviations in implementation with respect to these matters have been largely responsible for strained Federal-State relations, thereby presenting barriers for territorial integration. It must nevertheless be stressed that problems pertaining to Federal-State relations do not originate merely from deviations as described above. Equally important is the problem of political interference by Kuala Lumpur in State affairs.

As a result of the deviations and political interferences, an idea is now slowly taking root that there is going to be a ‘take-over’ of the Borneo Territories by Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of Sabah and Sarawak.

Source: http://uvsb.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-20-points-basis-for-federal-state.html
Read more »

05:50
“When it comes to reclaiming Sabah Rights, political parties should set aside and leaders should work together for the common interest of the people and the State they represent” said Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan, STAR Sabah Chief and Bingkor State Assemblyman, in responding to Datuk Lajim’s insinuation that he was being used by Umno and Barisan Nasional.

“On Sabah rights including the 40% net revenue entitlement of Sabah, in what way am I being used by BN when I am the one who raised it up and argued for it at almost every State Assembly sitting since elected in 2013”

“I have used every opportunity to raise up Sabah rights issues to get both the federal and Sabah governments’ attention and when PM Najib wants to listen through one of his Cabinet Ministers, why wouldn’t I take a chance and cooperate for the common good of Sabah and Sabahans?” added Dr. Jeffrey.

Lajim never showed any or little interest directly or indirectly even during in the DUN debates when it comes to Sabah rights or MA63 so I am not surprised that he was not part of the delegation invited to present the Sabah Memorandum on the special grant and additional revenues assigned to Sabah under the Federal Constitution.

Whether the Umno controlled federal government is sincere or not or merely playing politics, it is up to the people to judge.

We may not trust their words but they are the government of the day.    By presenting the Memorandum, the federal government is given an opportunity to prove their words and sincerity in this particular case.

If Lajim wants to fight for Sabah’s rights, he is most welcomed to work within the United Sabah Alliance instead of being a tool of a Malayan party.    The chances of restoring of Sabah rights will certainly be enhanced with a stronger and more united front in demanding the restoration from the federal government.   

At the same time, if his party is sincere on restoring Sabah rights, Lajim should get his colleagues in Parliament to table the necessary motions in Parliament to get the federal government to pay the 40% entitlement and push the burden to BN MPs especially those from Sabah to vote on the motions.
Read more »

22:31

Rejected in Sarawak, Umno has been given the boot in Sabah too due to its "race and religion" politics and the Project IC controversy.

Sabah State Reform Party (STAR) said today that Umno was not wanted in Sabah because the party had "meddled, manipulated and damaged" the state.

Its chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan said this, echoing Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem who said on Saturday that there was no place for Umno in Sarawak politics.

Kitingan said Umno should not have a place in Sabah, where many "non-fixed deposit voters" had rejected the party.

"Similarly, the race and religion politics of Umno with its own version of Islam is not suitable for Sabah.

"(The party) has caused disharmony and its divide and rule politics have fragmented Sabah society," he said in a statement.

Kitingan praised former Sarawak menteri besar Tun Abdul Taib Mahmud, who is currently governor of Sarawak, for advising his successor to keep Umno and its brand of racially divisive politics out of Sarawak and to stand tough in defending state's interests.

He said Adenan was doing a fine job of this, and praised Sarawak BN leaders for articulating correctly the basis of the formation of Malaysia and the rights of Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners in the Federation of Malaysia.

He said that on the other hand, Sabah Umno leaders had been unable to defend the rights and interests of Sabah and its citizens, and accused them of following their Umno masters in Putrajaya.

"For its own political game and to remain in power, Umno has irreparably damaged Sabah with Project IC and the dubious issuance of ICs and MyKads to foreigners and entering them into the electoral rolls," he said.

Under Project IC, foreigners who entered the state illegally were allegedly given MyKads and made voters over the years.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into illegal immigrants in Sabah came up with a 368-page report in December last year which declared Project IC had “more likely than not” existed through syndicates and corrupt officials.

The RCI report said government and political parties were not involved in the mass issuance of citizenship to migrants in Sabah, blaming it on "syndicates", which included civil servants from the National Registration Department as culprits.

No names were mentioned but the RCI concluded that 68,703 ineligible people were issued citizenship between 1963 and August 31, 2013.

Kitingan said Umno was now trying to make the people of Borneo “rumpun Melayu” while playing the race and religion game with Umno's version of Islam.

"In reality, a 'Borneo Melayu' will not be treated equally as a Malayan Malay, much less a Borneo non-Muslim bumiputera," he said.

He said Sabah and Sarawak were as different from peninsular Malaysia as the South China Sea that geographically separates them, and that culturally and ethnically, East Malaysians were not connected with the people of West Malaysia.

Like its neighbour Sarawak, Kitingan said Sabah should be left to Sabahans "who understand it best”, and not Sabahans under the control of Malayan leaders.

He said Umno in Sabah only understood issues of interest to the party, the Malays, and its version of Islam.

He added that Umno "does not bother about the feelings of the other (Barisan Nasional) component parties much less the ordinary Sabahans."

He also commented on BN's power-sharing agreement, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's “1Malaysia” slogan, and the khalimah Allah issue.

"The power-sharing agreed in Sabah BN is a good point, where all decisions and positions are dominated if not decided by Umno.

"There is no better example of Najib’s own '1Malaysia' slogan than Sabah and Sarawak, where many families have members of different races and religions. Yet, they are being attacked and bombarded daily by racial and religious extremism imported from Malaya.

"It is ridiculous and incomprehensible that Sarawakians and Sabahans are allowed to use the word 'Allah' when they are in East Malaysia but are barred from doing so the minute they step on Malayan soil," he said.

Kitingan also hit out at the BN federal government for leaving Sabah behind in development.

He said development in the state was backward and 50 years behind that of the peninsula.

"If the neglect in the yearly budgets continue for the next 50 years, it will lag behind 100 years with no clean treated water, no sealed roads, no electrification and other basic amenities and no proper Pan Borneo Highway, at least until 2022," he said.

Kitingan said in Sarawak, the BN government insisted that the Sarawak portion of the Pan Borneo Highway was to be awarded to a Sarawak consortium and built by Sarawak contractors.

In Sabah, the Umno-led BN government has done nothing for its local contractors and the Sabah portion of the highway will be given to a Malayan and Umno-linked group, leaving Sabah contractors to fight for "sub-sub-contracts and crumbs", he said.

"The same goes for Petronas contracts in Sabah... local Umno leaders follow their masters in Putrajaya that Sabah is one of the 13 states in Malaya and that the oil and gas that comes from the soil of Sabah belong to Malays, Malaya and the federal government.

"These Sabah Umno leaders dare not even voice the rights and interests of Sabah let alone defend them.

"Is it a wonder that Sabah is the poorest state in Malaysia? Is it a wonder that many Sabahans do not want Umno in Sabah too?" he said. – February 16, 2015.

SOURCE:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/no-umno-in-sabah-either-says-jeffrey-kitingan
Read more »
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Nipuhawang Blogspot © 2015. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Blogger

Author Name

are-wish

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Theme images by merrymoonmary. Powered by Blogger.