STAR Sabah chief Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan in making the call stressed that this is necessary, citing that ever since the formation of Malaysia in 1963, and the pulling out of Singapore from the Federation in 1965, the position of Sabah and Sarawak has been eroded and rights taken away.
He said through a series of subtle and not-so-subtle manipulation by the Federation of Malaya and their political leaders in Kuala Lumpur, the position of Sabah and Sarawak had become weakened.
“The list of wrong-doings is long and ever-growing,” Jeffrey (photo) claimed.
Among them are the Malaysia Agreement was not implemented and thrown down the drain; The 20-Points have not been complied with;
- The Head of State has been downgraded from “Yang DiPertua Negara to “Yang DiPertua Negeri” in 1975”;
- Sabah’s oil and gas resources had been unjustly and unlawfully vested to Petronas in 1975; Sabah’s federal taxes and other revenues are siphoned wholly by the Federal government to the tune of a whopping RM38 billion in 2012 and another RM40 billion is targeted to be collected in 2013;
- Sabah’s population demographics and political franchise are changed forever with the unwarranted issuance of dubious MyKads and ICs to unqualified foreigners born outside Sabah;
- Sabah’s security has been totally ignored as can be seen in the recent Lahad Datu intrusion by armed foreigners, many alleged to be holding ICs and Umno memberships;
- From the second richest State in 1970s, it is now the poorest in the country.
“Even the history of the formation of Malaysia is twisted and the false re-written history is taught to our young in schools.
“Malaysia never existed before 1963 and never gained independence. Yet we have been made to celebrate Malaya’s independence since 1963 instead of Malaysia Day and Sabah’s Independence is cast aside and not even confined to the history books as if it never happened,” he charged.
The Bingkor Assemblyman was responding to the various opinions on opposition unity in Sabah.
He continued that the Umno/BN propaganda machinery and brainwashing have been so complete that the young generations have lost their thought that Sabah and Sarawak are not supposed to be subservient States to Malaya/Malaysia but equal partners with special rights equal to Malaya.
“As can be seen from the results of the recent GE-13, the voters in Sabah and Sarawak were taken in by the concept of a “2-Party System” contest between BN and PR when in reality and in practicality, a “2-Party System” and Malayan-based political parties cannot best fight for the rights and autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak,” he cited.
He went on to caution that if the “2-Party System” is entrenched in Sabah and Sarawak in GE-14, the special rights and autonomy of the Borneo States will be lost forever and Sabah and Sarawak will be downgraded to and remain as the 12th and 13th states of Malaya/Malaysia forever.
“It is therefore imperative for Sabahans and Sarawakians to stand united under a single Borneo umbrella, both at state-level and jointly, which can champion and safeguard their rights and autonomy.
“We cannot rely on Malayan political parties, which sometimes have conflicting agendas, and their local proxies and stooges to safeguard Sabah and Sarawak rights and interests,” he stressed.
Dr Jeffrey reminded that the common platform for “Borneo unity” is already available under the United Borneo Alliance (UBA), and that it is a matter of getting the relevant parties to work together and forging ahead to re-claim Sabah and Sarawak rights and autonomy.
He further noted that the strength of Borneo unity and role of Sabah and Sarawak as “Kingmakers” cannot be more emphasized than the position of the MPs from Sabah and Sarawak after GE-14, which has contributed a record 11 Ministers and 10 Deputy Ministers and with their own ministries unlike being “Menteri Jalan-Jalan” without portfolios under the PM’s Department in the past.
“Even the 25 non-Umno BN MPs from Sarawak and 8 from Sabah could have toppled the BN federal government by switching camp to PR and in the process could have demanded the restoration of the rights of Sabah and Sarawak. That is the strength of Sabah and Sarawak in the current political equation in Malaysia,” he said.
He nonetheless regretted that instead of fighting for the rights of Sabah and Sarawak, the MPs and local BN components have settled for personal ministerial positions when they could have created history by restoring the rights of Sabah and Sarawak and at the same time maintain their ministerial positions in the new coalition/federal government.
“Not only are the rights and autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak are at stake. The future of all Sabahans and Sarawakians are at stake. These rights, autonomy and future can be secured by a united opposition under UBA, both at state and joint Sabah/Sarawak levels, and there is no better alternative at the moment,” he lamented.
By Matthias Hermes
Problem is, everyone ones to be the BIG BOSS
ReplyDelete"The future of all Sabahans and Sarawakians are at stake."
ReplyDelete50 years gone. That was part of our "future" sold to foreign Malayan domination and plunder!
We gave up our independence to form Malaysia....unbelievable!
Yes unite and take back our country!
About Oil & Gas rights in Sabah.......
ReplyDeleteThe starting point is somehow misleading but it began with the dawn of emergency by redefining the territorial waters (of Sabah to be less than 3 nautical miles) under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance, No. 7, 1969, as amended in 1969 (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/MYS_1969_Ordinance.pdf)
In particular, Sec 4 (2) says “For the purposes of the Continental Shelf Act, 1966, the Petroleum Mining Act, 1966, the National Land Code and any written law relating to land in force in Sabah and Sarawak, any reference to territorial waters therein shall in relation to any territory be construed as a reference to such part of the sea adjacent to the coast thereof not exceeding three nautical miles measured from the low-water mark.”
One would ask why redefine during an emergency ? There were no riots around the continental shelf at that time, but is convenient and no one would dare to challenge a government with emergency power in 1969. Not even Sabahans dare to raise a protest but if the the continental shelf is still under Sabah’s control under the Order in Council 1958 (See http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/Lawnet/SabahLaws/Treaties/viewdoc.aspx?document=NorthBorneo%28DefinitionOfBoundaries%29OrderInCouncil1958.pdf) then how could the Executive’s Ordinance limits an existing Order which defines Sabah’s rights to continental shelf varying from 7.5 to even 20 Nautical Miles from shore. This is a question of law whether an Emergency Ordinance could redefine the rights of Sabah without the latter’s consent and the effect of lifting such an emergency as surely an emergency could not be permanent. It is submitted that such Ordinance is ineffective as it refers to “any written law relating to land in force.......any reference to territorial waters therein” whereas the Order in Council 1958 is not such law relating to land, said Order is a separate Order dealing in territorial waters.
Moreover under Art 162 of Federal Constitution “..the existing laws shall, until repealed by the authority having power to do so under this Constitution, continue in force on and after Merdeka Day, with such modifications as may be made therein under this Article and subject to any amendments made by federal or State law.” As far as I am aware this Order was never repeal or modify.
ReplyDeleteTo further ensure that oil and gas remain so under Federal’s control the States have assigned their ownership, rights, powers, liberties and privileges to Petronas by Petroleum Development Act 1974 (“Act” – see sec 2) which includes onshore and offshore.
2. Ownership.
(1) The entire ownership in, and the exclusive rights, powers, liberties and privileges of exploring, exploiting, winning and obtaining petroleum whether onshore or offshore of Malaysia shall be vested in a Corporation to be incorporated under the Companies Act 1965, or under the law relating to incorporation of companies.
(2) The vesting of the ownership, rights, powers, liberties and privileges referred to in subsection (l) shall take effect on the execution of an instrument in the form contained in the Schedule to this Act.
(3) The ownership and the exclusive rights, powers, liberties and privileges so vested shall be irrevocable and shall enure for the benefit of the Corporation and its successor.
The “power” mentioned above is not the same as power to make laws, the power is limited to exploring, exploiting, winning and obtaining petroleum. Despite redefining the territorial waters to within 3 Nautical miles and with the Act in force, rightfully Sabah still has legislative power to make laws to control the unsustainable exploitation by Petronas which is only accountable to the PM by itself is a clear abuse of due process. Power to make laws are not limited to boundaries but subject matter. Petroleum is undefined in any list under the Federal Constitution which means Art 77 of Federal Constitution is applicable.
77. the Legislature of a State shall have power to make laws
with respect to any matter not enumerated in any of the Lists
set out in the ninth Schedule, not being a matter in respect of
which parliament has power to make laws.
So why is it the Sabah Government (BN) is not making any laws to control this precious resources. There are many ways to do this even if the ownership and the exclusive rights, powers, liberties and privileges of exploring, exploiting, winning and obtaining petroleum has been vested such as a Clean Up Fund/Emergency Fund worth 10 % of total output or insisting on a carbon tax as compensation etc (combining with environmental law which is also under the State’s power).
ReplyDeleteAt sec 7 of the Act, it also says that 7. Power to make regulations.
The Prime Minister may make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such regulations may, in particular, provide for -
Clearly, this is in contrary to Art 77 of the Federal Constitution as the subject matter of Petroleum should be the purview of the State’s power including the making of regulation instead of the PM. Even if I am mistaken, this is an executive function to make regulation and under Art 39, it says
39. The executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the
yang di-pertuan Agong and exercisable, subject to the provisions
of any federal law and of the Second Schedule, by him or by the
Cabinet or any Minister authorized by the Cabinet, but parliament
may by law confer executive functions on other persons.
Clearly the Act had overstepped its power as the position of PM is not like any Minister authorized by the Cabinet which means regulation may only be made by Cabinet or other Minister or other persons only. The reasoning is obvious as the Minister is accountable to Cabinet and Cabinet is accountable to Parliament. The damning question is whether the PM presiding over the Cabinet can constructively appoint himself as the “Minister” over a matter not enumerated in Ninth Schedule (first and third list) ? Remember the role of PM is to preside over Cabinet. (see Art 43(2)(a) of Federal Constitution)
While the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance is still in effect for whatever excuse (think Lahad Datu), preferably the entire Act should be repealed as it is unfair and inequitable transfer, as there was no consideration for the irrevocable assignment or vesting which begs the question why did Sabah so willing assignors and without any consultation with the public by referendum. Why not just lease those rights ? The Act deals with cash payment but is subject to agreement with individual State (“…and the Government of any relevant State such cash payment as may be agreed between the parties concerned..Section 4) So what if Sabah is not agreeable ? Does that mean the Act is suspended ? The answer is no as while the payment is contractual, an Act of Parliament is still in force until modified, amended or repealed. In short Petronas can still take as it pleases even when there is no agreement.