Top posts

Featured Posts

Aktivis veteran Borneo jawab hasrat NGO Melayu mahu tubuh kerajaan mutlak Melayu-Islam di Malaysia


Kenyataan Bersama Aktivis Borneo

17 Ogos 2023

Daniel John Jambun 
Presiden 
Yayasan Cabaran Borneo di Malaysia (BoPiMaFo)

Peter John Jaban 
Timbalan Presiden 
Persekutuan Hak Asasi Manusia Global Malaysia (GHRF)
            Kanul Gindol          Daniel John Jambun


Kanul Gindol 
Pengerusi 
Inisiatif Gindol utk Masyarakat Madani Borneo 

*Tidak ada perbezaan kaum, agama, dan parti politik di Parlimen, hanya wakil rakyat*
                         Peter John Jaban

Prinsip perundangan tetap menjadi asas Perlembagaan di Malaysia. Ia buta warna, sekular, dan menjamin kebebasan hati nurani, ucapan, pertubuhan, dan perhimpunan.

Usul yang "syiok sendiri" yang dicadangkan oleh beberapa NGO Muslim untuk menubuhkan kerajaan Melayu-Muslim tanpa kepelbagaian DAP, nampaknya terasing daripada realiti politik dan mungkin tidak akan berlaku.

Jika berlaku, terpulanglah. 

Apabila politik masuk melalui pintu, ekonomi akan terbang keluar tingkap. Rakyat di kampung akan menderita yang paling teruk.

Tidak ada perbezaan kaum, agama, dan parti politik di Parlimen, hanya wakil rakyat. Wakil rakyat dipilih oleh semua, dan berjanji dengan sumpah, mesti melayani semua.

Rakyat patut menghindari pengkultusan personaliti politik seperti wabak, parti politik, politik parti, dan keahlian dalam parti politik di bawah bentuk-bentuk baru kabilah dan feudalisme di bawah jubah demokrasi sebagai pengudah.

Mereka yang digerakkan oleh naluri asal menyokong kabilah dan feudalisme di bawah jubah demokrasi.

Demokrasi bukanlah hanya tentang mengundi sekali dalam lima tahun dan pulang ke rumah serta tidur sehingga pilihan raya seterusnya.

Demokrasi hanya berjalan jika rakyat turut serta.

Rakyat perlu membentuk gerakan atas isu-isu dan turun ke jalan selepas media sosial jika kerajaan menutup pintu perbincangan dan/atau mahkamah menolak untuk mendengar kes.

Negara Islam tidak akan berlaku di Malaysia kerana Islam, yang berdasarkan konsep dosa, menafikan prinsip perundangan.

Negara Islam mungkin berlaku di sebahagian Malaya jika berlaku Revolusi seperti di Iran yang bersifat Syiah. Malaysia adalah Sunni.

Fokus patut diberikan kepada pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan untuk pergerakan berasaskan demokrasi.

Kerajaan tempatan akan membantu membawa perubahan yang lebih baik. Pengurusan cukai akan lebih baik, memberi tumpuan kepada pembangunan tempatan, dan pembahagian kek oleh syarikat dengan kerajaan dan komuniti tempatan.

Walaupun begitu, tidak semuanya hilang. Bagi usulan oleh NGO Muslim untuk menubuhkan kerajaan Melayu-Muslim tanpa DAP berlaku di Malaya, MA63 mesti berakhir secara rasmi, Sabah dan Sarawak perlu keluar dan meninggalkan persekutuan Malaysia dan membiarkan rakyat Malaya melakukan apa yang terbaik untuk diri mereka sendiri.

Sebagai fakta, pemisahan yang disepakati bersama adalah penyelesaian yang adil bagi kedua-dua Malaya dan Wilayah Borneo kerana kedua-dua pihak mendapat apa yang diingini - Malaya mendapat kerajaan Melayu-Muslim dan Wilayah Borneo mendapat kerajaan sekular yang buta warna.

https://focusmalaysia.my/ngo-muslim-cadangkan-penubuhan-kerajaan-melayu-muslim-tanpa-dap/

Daniel John Jambun 
010 878 6993 

Peter John Jaban 
0168605272

Kanul Gindol 
0128856465

Diluluskan oleh,

1. Robert Pei
Presiden 
Hak Sabah Sarawak Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)

2. Ricky Ganang Penasihat Persatuan Kebudayaan orang darat Sabah.

3. Jovilis Majami Presiden Persatuan pembangunan sosial komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)

4. Cleftus Stephen Mojingol 
Presiden Pertubuhan kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah

5. Wainin Setimin Presiden Pertubuhan Prihatin Mualaf Sabah

6. Bill Jugah, Pengasas Industrious Council of Natives, ICON Sarawak

7. Domnique Ng
Presiden SAPA, Persatuan Aspirasi Rakyat Sarawak

8. Luke Jabing
Setiausaha Agung 
Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak

9. Paul Rajah 
Presiden Kongres Kebangsaan Dayak.

Perang propaganda Warisan lwn GRS semakin memanas

Jayden Lisando, 17-7-2023
Kota Kinabalu : Perang propaganda menggunakan media sosial kini meletus antara Warisan dan GRS di Sabah.

Media sosial seperti grup-grup WhatsApp dan juga facebook menjadi medan mereka berbalas tuduhan dan komen bagi menjatuhkan satu sama lain.
Perang ini tercetus sejak beberapa minggu lalu sebaik PGRS/GRS mengarahkan jentera parti itu digerakkan bagi menghadapi pilihanraya negeri yang dikatakan mungkin diadakan awal dari 2025.

Seperti biasa Warisan diserang kononnya mesra pendatang haram (PTI) manakala pihak GRS diserang sebagai lembab dan tidak mempunyai keberanian serta halatuju.
Para pemimpin GRS digambarkan gagal menegakkan hak Sabah termasuk isu tuntutan 40% hasil cukai yang dikutip atau dicuri Kerajaan Persekutuan.

Kerajaan GRS juga dituduh pelbagai kegagalan mengurus infrastruktur utama iaitu bekalan air, jalanraya yang tidak terselenggara, dan bekalan elektrik.
Kebetulan juga buat pertama kali dalam sejarah Sabah, seluruh jalanrayanya berlubang-lubang rosak teruk sebaik GRS mengambil alih pemerintahan, dan lebih teruk lagi, tiada usaha mengatasi masalah itu dari awal.

Pihak dipercayai dari penyokong Warisan juga menuduh GRS cuba mengambil kredit terhadap kesinambungan program diusahakan Warisan ketika sempat memerintah 20 bulan sebelum GRS mengambil-alih selepas PRN Sabah pada 2020.
Perseteruan propaganda antara dua pihak ini dijangka berterusan dengan lebih deras dan keras sehingga hujung tahun ini sebelum memuncak menjelang pembubaran DUN yang dijangka ramai pemerhati bakal diumum tahun depan, 2024.

Adalah dijangka pihak yang dapat membawa mesej serta kupasan yang meyakinkan dan memberikan gambaran sebenar, akan menerima sokongan baru terutama sekali dari golongan pengundi pertama kali atau yang berumur 18 hingga 25 tahun, dan secara amnya mereka yang berumur 45 tahun ke bawah.  

Kebanyakan mesej p&"':  by,: la m, gex *-" ropaganda yang ada pada masa ini berupa memburuk-burukkan pihak lawan, dan membanding-bandingkan antara dua pihak. Dijangka pada masa pilihanraya sebenar barulah gabungan-gabungan ini akan membuat mesej yang lebih positif termasuk menggariskan dasar dan program yang hendak mereka buat jika mereka diberi mandat memerintah.#


my, we, 

 see

Aktivis sokong lebih banyak saman difailkan untuk tuntut hak Sabah


Kenyataan Bersama Media

Sdra Daniel John Jambun
Presiden
Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) 

&
Sdra Kanul Gindol
Pengerusi
Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo
Kota Kinabalu
25hb Julai, 2023


*MENYOKONG SAMAN SLS, MUNGKIN LEBIH BANYAK SAMAN PERLU DIFAILKAN DI MAHKAMAH, KATA AKTIVIS SABAH*


1. Selepas beberapa masa menemui rakan aktivis dan pemimpin masyarakat, kami boleh membuat kesimpulan bahawa usaha SLS (Sabah Law Society) memfail saman terhadap Kerajaan Pusat dan Kerajaan Negeri bagi mendapatkan komitmen 40% hasil cukai Sabah mesti dikembalikan setiap tahun kepada Sabah, telah mendapat sokongan 99% rakyat Sabah.

2. Oleh yang demikian kita menyeru pimpinan kerajaan GRS di Sabah mestilah benar-benar secara terbuka memberi sokongan kepada usaha SLS kerana ini untuk masa depan rakyat Sabah, dan tidak menentang saman ini.

3. Kenyataan lisan Ketua Menteri dan Timbalan Ketua Menteri I bahawa Kerajaan Sabah memberi jaminan tidak akan berhenti menuntut hak Sabah terhadap 40% cukainya, walaupun ia bersetuju menerima geran tahunan RM300 juta sebagai ganti sementara hak 40% cukai, masih kurang meyakinkan.

4. Kami berpendapat Kerajaan Sabah, seperti Sarawak juga, patut lebih bertegas dan cukup menegaskan berhubung hak Sabah, ini termasuklah bersuara dalam kabinet, membuat usul melalui DUN, mengambil tindakan pentadbiran dan perundangan serta tidak menjadi penghalang kepada mana-mana usaha SLS dan pihak lain dalam meneruskan tuntutan berperlembagaan Sabah.

5. Kami juga berpendapat lebih banyak tindakan mahkamah dalam negara bahkan di mahkamah antarabangsa perlu terus dibuat bagi membela Sabah dan Sarawak dari dibuli Kerajaan Pusat yang sentiasa didominasi ahli dan parti politik dari Malaya.

6. Kami juga sedia menyokong dan menjadi sebahagian dalam saman pada masa depan.

Sekian.

A 3am arrest of Sanusi dents Anwar Ibrahim's leadership

Voon Lee Shan writes, 20-7-2023
POLITICIANS and people of high places should not directly or indirectly be seen to be involved in law enforcement or how law enforcement officers should conduct their work. They should be extra careful with their comments as any comments they made especially on arrest of a rival politician can be twisted and become a weapon against them. It could be a silly mistake if the government will fall because of the arrest.

The recent arrest of MB Kedah had dented the image of the government under the leadership of Dato Sri Anwar Ibrahim. I never came across with such degree of efficiency of the police who could complete the investigation within a few days only in any criminal case. This gives an impression of possible interference or influence by powerful people in this investigation. At the same time, this could give the impression from public that law enforcement officers are weak and could easily be influenced by politicians and powerful people.

If we want to respect the law and the dignity of law enforcement officers, let law enforcement officers do their job without pressure from any quarters. 

To search and arrest any person during late night or early morning should not be encouraged because we're dealing with ordinary citizens, not terrorists. People could be put to unnecessary fear of the police especially if police officers came in huge numbers, heavily armed with their special blue lights from their vehicles switched on. This can unnecessarily attract the attention of people and embarrass not only the family of the suspect but the people of the neighborhood who could be the suspect's friends and acquaintances. It also can give the impression that their neighbourhood is not safe.

Search and arrest made that way can interrupt the peace of the neighborhood and interrupt people, especially children and babies who are sleeping. 

People may just be woken up during the night to find out what went on and may stay awake for the whole night and be deprived of their sleep after that. Some people just couldn't sleep after being interrupted because of fear, distress and anxiety of police presence. 

Some sick people will find it disturbing and this can aggravate their health. 

The right to sleep is closely interwined to the right to life and right to life is protected by the federal constitution. 

There is an Supreme Court of India decision on the right to a peaceful sleep. Although the decision of the Supreme Court of India is not binding on us, I think we should be more civilized in dealing with our own citizens.

Voon Lee Shan is a lawyer and the President of Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)

PBS dan Star perlu bergabung sekarang sebelum terlambat dan merugikan, kata aktivis

                             Maslan Maginda

NGO URGES STAR AND PBS TO START NEGOTIATION TO MERGE

KOTA BELUD: A Momogun NGO is urging for Star and PBS to expedite the negotiation between them towards a merger as soon as possible.

The president of the East Malaysia’s Original Peoples Organisation or Pertubuhan Orang Asal Malaysia Timur (POAMAT), Maslan Maginda, made this appeal in a statement here as something urgent that is critical for the socioeconomic and political future of the Momoguns in Sabah.

“The merger will go a long way towards uniting and thus strengthening the community in the fields of socioeconomy and politics of Sabah,” Maslan said. “If the two parties really believe in unity and wanting to empower their own people for the future, they should prove it by uniting and working together as one now.

“The Momoguns as a community are facing a lot of challenges today, especially with the threats they face in economics and demographics. Just because Star and PBS are both in the ruling government they shouldn’t forget that the community is in danger of losing in various fields because we are still broken up into many political parties including UPKO, PBRS and Anak Negeri. These have not yet included our people who are members of other non-Momogun parties.”

Maslan said that in fact all the Momogun-based parties should now sit down and combine into one, by considering seriously the proposal for unity and merger by Star president Datik Seri Panglima Dr Jeffrey Kitingan’s proposal for merger.

“We have failed in past attempts to merge but we shouldn’t give up. The main considerations are not the personal positions and interests but the collective future of the Momogun community,” Maslan urged. “In fact such a merger will also strengthen the GRS government. We must act now before it’s too late. The day may come when we have lost so much that there will be no way to reverse the social, economic and political damages to the Momogun people.”

…………………………….

NGO MENDESAK STAR DAN PBS MULAKAN PERUNDINGAN UNTUK BERGABUNG

KOTA BELUD: Sebuah NGO Momogun menggesa Star dan PBS menyegerakan rundingan antara mereka ke arah penggabungan secepat mungkin.

Presiden Pertubuhan Orang Asal Malaysia Timur (POAMAT), Maslan Maginda, membuat rayuan ini dalam satu kenyataan di sini sebagai sesuatu yang mendesak yang kritikal untuk masa depan sosioekonomi dan politik komuniti Momogun di Sabah.

“Penggabungan itu akan membawa banyak kebaikan demi penyatuan dan sekali gus mengukuhkan masyarakat Momogun di bidang sosioekonomi dan politik Sabah,” kata Maslan. “Jika kedua-dua parti benar-benar percaya kepada perpaduan dan mahu memperkasakan kaum mereka sendiri demi masa depan bersama, mereka sekarang harus membuktikannya dengan bersatu dan bekerjasama sebagai satu badan.

“Momoguns sebagai sebuah komuniti menghadapi banyak cabaran hari ini, terutamanya dengan ancaman yang mereka hadapi dalam ekonomi dan demografi. Hanya kerana Star dan PBS kedua-duanya berada dalam kerajaan yang memerintah, mereka tidak sepatutnya lupa bahawa masyarakat Momogun sedang diancam akan tewas dalam pelbagai bidang kerana kita masih berpecah kepada banyak parti politik termasuk UPKO, PBRS dan Anak Negeri. Ini belum dikira lagi orang-orang kita yang menjadi ahli parti-parti lain yang bukan berasas Momogun.”

Maslan berkata, sebenarnya semua parti yang berasas Momogun kini harus duduk dan bergabung menjadi satu, dengan mempertimbangkan secara serius cadangan perpaduan melalui penggabungan oleh presiden Star Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Jeffrey Kitingan.

“Kita pernah gagal dalam percubaan untuk bergabung di masa lalu tetapi kita tidak harus berputus asa. Pertimbangan utama bukanlah kedudukan dan kepentingan peribadi tetapi masa depan kolektif masyarakat orang-orang kita,” gesa Maslan. “Malah, pengggabungan sedemikian akan juga memperkuatkan kerajaan Gabungan Rakyat Sabah. Kita mesti bertindak sekarang sebelum terlambat. Harinya mungkin akan tiba di mana kita telah banyak kerugian sehingga tidak ada cara lagi untuk memulihkan kerosakan sosial, ekonomi dan politik kepada orang Momogun.”

FULL TEXT of Did Sabah Exercise Self-determination in 1963? by Top Borneo Activists


KOTA KINABALU: In a joint statement issued recently, the Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) international NGO and the Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopimafo) NGO, along with other political parties, NGOs and individuals, commended Tan Sri Wan Junaidi for his speech at the Sabah Colloquium on 4 July 2023, where he asserted that the Sabah people’s right to self-determination in relation to the Sulu sovereignty claim on Sabah. The NGOs also raised questions about the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the process through which Sabah and Sarawak joined the federation of Malaysia.
They however disagreed with the notion relied on by the former law minster that the Cobbold Commission of Enquiry's findings, indicating two-thirds of the people supported integration into Malaysia, constituted a valid exercise of self-determination.
https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/95750/sabahans-self-determination-trumps-any-treaty-wan-junaidi




SSRANZ President Robert Pei and Bopimafo President Daniel John Jambun said that self-determination is an inalienable legal right recognized by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR) 1514, which allows colonies to determine their destiny and political independence without foreign interference. This principle of international law was reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Chagos Islands Case in 2019.

On the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Malaysia Agreement (MA63) and establishment of Malaysia, the NGO leaders raised concerns about whether the people of Sabah and Sarawak have truly achieved self-determination and the promised development progress and prosperity.

The NGO Presidents said they differed with the former law minister’s elated opinion that the North Borneo (Sabah) people had effectively and freely exercised self-determination and this had defeated the Sulu/Philippine’s Claim by virtue of the 1962 Cobbold Commission of Enquiry findings that two-third of the people supported integration of Sabah and Sarawak into the Malayan Federation (renamed Malaysia) and making of MA63. This unverified and erroneous assumption has been frequently used to justify the British government’s hasty implementation of the Malaysia federation plan in 1963.

The NGO leaders pointed out that the 1962 Cobbold Commission's findings were based on a selective survey of opinions rather than a referendum under UNGAR 1541. They stressed that the commission's report was misleading and not legally binding and did not fulfil the requirements for a free choice or self-determination by the people in accordance with UNGAR 1541. The commission was merely an inquiry and not a proper referendum, which was necessary for the people to express their wishes on the federation question.

Therefore, it must be made clear that there was no act of free choice or self-determination by the people voting on the Malaysia Question, in compliance with UNGAR 1541 in 1963 nor was MA63 a validly made international agreement. (See attached Appendix on MA63 validity issues).


The Cobbold Commission of Enquiry as its name and terms of reference stated was just an inquiry, and no more than an investigation of the people’s views on a matter of public importance being the Malaysia federation proposal, and to make recommendations. It could not be assumed that this was the process of legally obtaining the people’s consent or mandate by voting on the federation question as should have been done by a referendum.

The Cobbold Commission was devised by the British government to avoid compliance with the strict requirements of UNGAR 1541. Professor Michael Leigh who has been researching Sarawak’s political development since 1962 and a witness to Malaysia formation concluded in his 1974 book “The Rising Moon” said that “In retrospect the Cobbold Commission can be said to have functioned as an important ‘cover’ to legitimize the British decision to withdraw from Sarawak without having first granted self-government, as promised at the time of Cession and as ‘embodied in the nine Cardinal Principles. There was pathos in the Dayak who answered a question from Lord Cobbold with the reply, ‘Whatever you advise, Sir”

UNGAR 1541 provided that in situations involving “non-self-governing territories” such as Sabah and Sarawak, the controlling colonial power had an obligation to unconditionally allow the people to freely express their wishes on the question of the federation of their respective countries with an independent state in a referendum. This Resolution is linked to UNGAR 1514 which was part of the 1960 UN Decolonisation Declaration which put great political pressure on many colonial powers especially Great Britain to decolonise their colonies for independence. If the people had exercised self-determination under this resolution, Sabah and Sarawak would have chosen independence and become prosperous and high-income states after 60 years.

 


They noted that Tan Sri Wan Junaidi was very careful to qualify his statement by saying that the Cobbold Commission report was only an “indicator” of the Sabah people’s views. By saying this he contradicted himself and appeared to acknowledge that the Cobbold Commission was only an inquiry not a referendum allowing the people to freely exercise self-determination.

Sir William Goode, the last British Governor of the North Borneo colony in 1963 said (according to declassified British documents) the Cobbold findings should be confirmed by a referendum. In other words, it was not a legally binding conclusion. The Singapore government which had greater experience in internal self-government since it was granted by Britain in 1959, took the precaution to get public consent and endorsement of the Malaysia Plan in a referendum on 1 September 1962.

Borneo nationalists and the Indonesian and Philippines governments had called for a referendum in rejecting the Cobbold Commission Report when it was released on 1 August 1962, on the ground that Malaysia would not have a legal basis without the people’s informed consent freely given in a referendum. A distinguished Malayan lawyer Karam Singh and a member of Parliament, said that MA63 was not made with people’s democratic assent nor concluded by an independent government (Malayan Hansard report 20/08/62).

It is noted that a day before the Report was released, the British and Malayan governments had sealed their deal to form Malaysia by signing a secret “Agreement to Set up the Federation of Malaysia” by 31 August 1963. The Malaysia federation proposal was therefore a pre-determined British Malayan Plan which did not directly involve the Borneo people in the negotiations from the beginning. The 2 governments had begun discussions in 1958 following Malayan independence in 1957 and they had decided before 1961 that Malaysia was “in the interests” of the Borneo people. (See Daily Express article on “Britain secretly planned M’sia since 1953.

https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/3534/britain-secretly-planned-m-sia-since-1953/ )

The British and Malayan governments attempted to ignore the criticisms of the Cobbold Report. However, the strong local and international opposition led to the Malayan Government (without a Borneo mandate) signing the Manila Accord with Indonesian and the Philippines governments on 31 July 1963 (22 days after MA63 was signed) agreeing to a UN assessment of the people’s wishes on Malaysia and resolution of the Philippines’ Sabah claim.

By conceding to the Accord terms for a UN assessment of the people’s wishes on Malaysia, the British and Malayan governments in effect acknowledged the people’s consent had not been properly and legally obtained by a referendum.

In fact the Accord questioned the authoritativeness of the Cobbold Report and put in question the credibility and validity of its findings. At the same time, this confirmed that MA63 was defective since Sabah and Sarawak being crown colonies were non-self-governing territories and therefore not sovereign independent states with power or legal capacity to make as an international agreement or treaty with the UK and Malaya on 9 July 1963.

The NGO leaders said the Cobbold report was not a legally binding document. It was just an unverified misleading assumption that there was two-third support from those interviewed and could not be used to substitute the process of a proper referendum. They said the Commission was merely part of the whole process (which was tainted with illegalities), used to legitimise Malaysia leading to the making of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and proclamation of Malaysia.

They take issue with the report for the following reasons:

The purpose of the Commission was to facilitate implementation of the Malaysia concept which unlawfully denied the North Borneo and Sarawak people’s of their inalienable right to self-determination and real independence.

The Commission was formed after the 2 foreign British and Malayan governments had decided that “Malaysia” was “in the interest of the people” of North Borneo and Sarawak, following secret negotiations from 1958 to 1961 on the federation plan. The plan was therefore a violation of international law and UNGAR 1514 which stated that the people must freely and unconditionally exercise self-determination without outside interference. Malaya was a foreign power which has been secretly colluded with the UK government to seek a takeover of the Borneo colonies.

The Cobbold Commission of Enquiry terms of reference were just to ascertain the views of the people on Malaysia (but avoided asking the people if they preferred independence) and make recommendations on its findings which were not legally binding.

The composition of the Commission of 3 British officials and 2 Malayan officials was a conflict of interest as it was not an independent body but appointed by the proposers of Malaysia to conduct the inquiry. They had a bias towards producing a finding favourable towards Malaysia as seen in how release of the Commission Report was delayed and amended to claim that two-third of the people supported Malaysia.

The Report was never independently verified and was based on divided views on the Malaysia federation plan.

Many people are not aware of the long held British “Grand Design” to consolidate its South East Asian territories under a unified colonial administration. This was a strategic move which was finally decided during WW2 and put into effect after the war and Cold War period, by forming the Malayan Union. The British government’s plan to include the then independent Sarawak in the Union was however rejected by the Brooke Government. But the British went ahead to annex North Borneo and Sarawak as crown colonies in July 1946 as part of the final move to implement their long term plan.
As Prof Michael Leigh stated in his book “The Rising Moon”, the Cobbold Commission was in reality used to deny independence to Sarawak (and Sabah). However, he did not explain that this was done so that the British could accomplish their objective of securing all their South East Asian regional interest under a single political entity controlled by a friendly UMNO race religion supremacist regime.
The Cobbold Commission report referred to the 1946 “cession” terms but the British government did not see this as breach of their 1946 undertaking to restore Sarawak independence and raises the question of MA63 validity since it was made in breach of a prior international undertaking.
When the Malaysia Plan was publicly announced by Malayan PM Tunku Abdul Rahman on 27 May 1961, the general reaction of the north Borneo and Sarawak people was one of shock and immediate opposition to the plan as they were expecting the British to keep their promise of independence. The opposition was then diluted by a process of public relations exercises to sell the federation concept which included setting up the Cobbold Commission.
The unverified Cobbold Commission was not a “referendum” as has been wrongly claimed by even the Sarawak government and many commentators when it was no more than an opinion poll of apparently 4000 people in Sarawak & North Borneo.  

The views of 4000 people could not be taken to be representative of entire Sabah and Sarawak populations which was based on an unverified assumption of support. Further it is unclear how the mythical 4000 people interviewed were split up for Sabah and Sarawak. The records of the interviews were never disclosed to the   public.


The Cobbold report originally stated that it found that one-third of the people polled unconditionally supported Malaysia, one-third were unsure but would consider supporting the plan if there were adequate safeguards in place and one-third were totally against Malaysia and wanted independence.


The “unsure one-third” could not be included or extrapolated as part of the two-third supporting Malaysia or considered as a “definite” support as at the time of the poll there were no safeguards agreed to until later on. It was misleading to assume this as full support and include this uncommitted one-third.


One might wonder if this 3 part split was a “set up” to convert this into claim that there was a two-third support for Malaysia. Further the split look suspiciously like a division of views based on the major racial groupings in Sabah and Sarawak. The Malay community had leaned towards supporting the concept whereas the Dayaks or Kadazans were less informed and unsure of what they wanted. The then Chinese population in both colonies formed a third or more of the population and were inclined to opposed the British Malayan plan.


The Cobbold Commission was presented with a SUPP petition with over 112,000 signatures which was one seventh of the Sarawak population in 1963. This was not considered as weighing against the so-called two-third “support for Malaysia” and rejected as unreliable.


It is also noted when the UN Assessment team travelled around Sarawak there were anti-Malaysia demonstrations which exceeded 4000 people but their views were never considered as credible and taken into serious consideration but were brusquely dismissed as “rioters”.


The result was extrapolated to falsely claim that the majority of Borneo people supported Malaysia in the 1963 House of Lord’s Malaysia Bill debate. This disinformation is still being used by pro-Malaya people to claim that the Borneo had people freely & voluntarily agreed to support the federation plan.


This view of support was challenged by the Indonesian and Philippines Governments which pointed out that there was no legal basis for Malaysia formation unless a referendum was held on the Malaysia Question clearly showing that the majority of the Borneo people favoured it (in compliance with Principle 9 of UN GAR 1541 requiring universal adult suffrage).

This requirement was the main term of the Manila Accord 1963 which the Malayan government had made with Indonesia and the Philippines (& repeated in the peace agreement to end Konfrontasi in 1966). This amounted to an acknowledgement that a referendum was never held in 1963 and that MA63 was not legally binding without obtaining the people’s informed consent. However, Malaya reneged on its prior agreement to hold a referendum. The British government diverted this into an “assessment” which was not the legal process set out in the UN resolution 1541.


The SSRANZ and Bopimafo Presidents said in conclusion, there was no real self-determination for Sabah or Sarawak is highlighted by the fact that Sulu claim is still alive and continues to be asserted by the claimants. The resolution of the claim could have been achieved in a proper referendum in 1963 whereby the Sabah people were seen to have cast a vote to choose Malaysia, Philippines or independence.


The late Philippines Diosdado Macapagal said in 1982: “In laying claim to North Borneo in pursuance of the legal and historic rights and the security interests of the Philippines, we recognize the cardinal principle of self-determination of which the Philippines has been a steadfast adherent. 

 


In the prosecution, of our valid claim, it is agreeable to us that at an appropriate time, the people of North Borneo should be given an opportunity to determine whether they would wish to be independent or whether they would wish to be a part of the Philippines or be placed under another state.


 

Such re­ferendum, however, should be authentic and bona fide by holding it under conditions, preferably supervised by the United Na­tions that would insure effective freedom to the people of North Borneo to express their true and enlightened will.”



Robert Pei

President SSRANZ


 

Daniel Jambun President of the Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia

Foundation (Bopimafo).



Mosses Paul Anap

President of NGO- Republic of Sabah North Borneo



Emily Elvera Edward.

Woman Council Office & Secretariat.

Sabah Sarawak Borneo Natives Organisation Incorporated of Australia.



Endorsed by: NGOS & individuals



Doris Jones Sabah Sarawak Union – SSU

Kanul Gindol Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo

Ricky Ganang Penasihat Persatuan Kebudayaan Orang Darat Sabah

Jovilis Majami President Persatuan pembangunan sosial komunity Sabah (BANGUN)

Wainin Setimin President Pertubuhan Prihatin Mualaf Sabah

Cleftus Stephen Mojingol President Pertubuhan Kebudayaan Rumpun Dayak Sabah.

PBK Life President- Yu Chin Lik

PBK President- Voon Lee Shan

Lina Soo - ASPIRASI President

Peter John Jaban-Deputy President for Global Human Rights Federation Borneo.

Alim Ga Mideh for Bulang Birieh Dayak

Lawrance Clement Ahsay for Bulang Dayak Bukit Kelingkang

Buln Ribos- Sarawak Rights activist





Appendix on MA63 validity issues.



The British authorities were well aware this legal problem which confronted the British MA63 drafts-men. The first draft of MA63 only included the UK, Malaya and Brunei as signatory parties and Singapore, North Borneo an Sarawak were excluded although they were the subject matter of the international treaty. The then Sarawak Attorney General Mr. Philip Pike said: “It ts true that Sarawak and North Borneo are not parties to the formal agreement and . . .the undertakings etc. would be given to Britain rather than Sarawak and North Borneo. Logically and Legally therefore it would be right to exclude them from the formal agreement but from a presentational point of view I think it important that if the form of undertaking is to be general rather than specific as to each assurance etc. it should go into the formal agreement.”

This issue was only highlighted at the last minute. Prof AJ Stockwell wrote that “Neither sovereign, nor even self-governing, strictly speaking North Borneo and Sarawak were not of a status to be parties to the formal agreement. It would have been injudicious, however, to have stuck to the letter of the law in this matter. In fact, the British recognised the presentational importance of ensuring that leaders of indigenous peoples of Borneo participated in the signing ceremony alongside representatives of the British, Malayan and Singapore governments” (178). Source A.J. Stockwell introduction p. XXIX “Malaysia”]



The British government claimed that Sabah and Sarawak were being decolonised under UNGAR 1541 but had in fact worked behind the scenes to deny the people their legal right. It actively circumvented the resolution’s requirement for a referendum, by undermining it with an “assessment” in collusion with UN Secretary-General U Thant whose officials had given assurance that the UN assessment team would be handpicked to produce a result favourable to the Malaysia plan.

UNGAR 1541 resolution laid down the required steps that must be taken for the “integration” of non-self-governing colonial territories (North Borneo and Sarawak) with an existing independent state by freely and unconditionally exercise real self-determination in a referendum. Principle IX (9) of the resolution in particular stressed that this must be done by “universal suffrage” with informed consent that is by adults voting in a referendum to agree or disagree on the federation question.

Principle IX

Integration should have come about in the following circum­stances :

(a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions, so that its peoples would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;

(b) The integration should be the result of the freely ex­pressed wishes of the territory's peoples acting with full knowl­edge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, im­partially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. The United Nations could, when it deems it necessary, supervise these processes.]

Protect Malaysia in order to protect Sabah, Sarawak, says Sabah MP

Wilfred Madius Tangau, MP, 15-7-2023

FORMER ambassador and insightful political commentator Datuk Dennis Ignatius is correct in saying that Sabah and Sarawak “have tended to take a more detached view of the culture wars raging in Semenanjung”.

Most of us from Malaysian Borneo, to different degrees, tend to look at the madness in Malayan politics with both contempt and relief that we are not them and we are not there. We often forget that a sizable number of Sabahans and Sarawakians are living in Malaya, whether because of employment, education or family ties. They are part of us and they are there.
Out of pride and frustration, we often sink into the self-inflicted delusion of Sabah and Sarawak’s exceptionalism and isolationism.

Yes, we may be the best Malaysians if you need examples of inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony. We have families and friends from different faiths. We celebrate each other’s festival and we eat together on the same table, the common traits in most parts of Southeast Asia but fast disappearing in Malaya.

However, are we Borneans really so strong to stay on as an exception, withstanding all the
efforts to convert and assimilate us into Malaya’s rigidity and segregation? Is the South China Sea wide enough to protect our paradise from missionaries of supremacy and bigotry?
Let us be bold and honest to face the reality.

Borneo exceptionalism and isolationism are not based on realistic assessment. They are more psychological defense mechanisms in our 50 years of frustrations and pain.

Some of us fantasise that if Malaya deteriorates too much, Sabah and Sarawak can just leave as if Malaya would let us go like it did Singapore. Some of us place their hope on some international courts or foreign governments to defy geopolitical realism and declare Sabah and Sarawak free countries based on some archival records. Neither is true. Both are political fantasies.

A Prime Minister resentful of his country’s name

In the eyes of Malayan colonialists and imperialists like Dr Mahathir, Malaysia is just an expansion of Tanah Melayu, and Sabah and Sarawak were just colonial possessions to be
transferred from London to Kuala Lumpur.

For all condemnation Dr Mahathir has for European colonialists, we the Borneo peoples and our homelands in his eyes are perhaps no different from the Native Americans and their homelands in the eyes of European colonialists in the 15th-19th centuries.

As a long-reigning prime minister first for 22 years and then for 22 months, Mahathir is even
resentful of the name of Malaysia. How sick can that be? Does he expect us to just become part of Malaya in 1963 like how Hawaii (conquered) and Alaska (purchased) got absorbed by the United States of America without even a name change?

Sadly, there are many other Malayan extremists besides Dr Mahathir.

Reverting Malaysia to Pre-colonial Tanah Melayu

One of them is PAS president Hadi Awang.
In 1981, Hadi called upon Muslims had to oppose BN because the ruling coalition “preserves the colonialist Constitution, preserves the infidel laws and preserves the jahiliah (barbaric, pre-Islamic) rules”. That’s the Amanat Hadi that divided the Malay-Muslims by calling the UMNO-voting majority infidels.

Hadi did not just attack UMNO and BN. He attacked the fundamental idea of Malaysia. Without the 1957 Constitution that provides for a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy and a common law system, there would not be Malaysia. In 1963 or 2023, Sabah and Sarawak would never sign up to a theocracy based on Hadi’s understanding of Islam.

The other extremist is PAS Kedah Chief Minister Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor. Why does Sanusi repeatedly claim Penang to be part of Kedah while conveniently leaving out Perlis, Northern Perak and the southern province of Thailand? Sanusi is attacking the interstate
border between Kedah and Penang because this is a colonial legacy.

Malaysia is a multiethnic postcolonial country.

The single most important commonality between Sabah and Perlis, or Sarawak and Kelantan, is our colonial legacy. We were ruled by the British and we inherited their political and legal systems.

Independence, for most Malaysians, is that we now live as the master of our destiny in this land.

Maintaining those British colonial legacies we consider positive – from constitutional monarchy, a liberal constitution, parliamentary democracy, common law, bureaucracy, to English literacy – for our own benefits does not make us colonised. This is where Mr Hadi and Mr Sanusi disagree with us. They want to revert Malaysia to a pre-colonial Tanah Melayu which has no modern Constitution, no common laws, and no Penang as a state. Guess how would they see Sabah and Sarawak which were once colonies of Sulu and Brunei?

Malaysia as a multiethnic post-colonial state
We must stare into the stark reality that the deepest political divide in Malaysia today is not one of Malay-Muslims versus non-Muslims, neither one of Malaya versus Borneo, but between two 'nations of intent' (to quote Distinguished Professor Shamsul AB): a multiethnic, multifaith post-colonial Malaysia versus a monoethnic, mono religious pre-colonial Tanah Melayu.

The multiethnic and multifaith Malaysia has been here since 1963 but also constantly eroded since 1963. The monoethnic and mono faith Tanah Melayu Dr Mahathir, Mr Hadi and Mr Sanusi aspires to is still a political aspiration but will be a reality if enough of us give up on Malaysia.

Many Sabahans and Sarawakians would be very happy if the pre-colonial Tanah Melayu would exclude Sabah and Sarawak because we were never ruled by Malacca or Johor-Riau. Our only common ruler was the British.

Unfortunately, Dr Mahathir, Mr Hadi and Mr Sanusi are not separatists just wanting to take
Tanah Melayu out of Malaysia. Like other colonialists, they want to milk resource-rich Sabah and Sarawak and they would try to divide and rule us again as Dr Mahathir successfully did for two decades.

This is why Sabahans and Sarawakians must not be divided over religious differences. We
Borneoans must love each other as brothers and sisters, regardless of religion and ethnicity.
We must love as brothers and sisters too those Malayans who love us as equals. We must love
Malaysia with a sense of ownership. We cannot look at madness in Malaya as bystanders.

We must ally with most Malaysians who do not want Malaysia to be reverted into a monoethnic, monofaith pre-colonial Tanah Melayu. Together, all of us are still the majority that can keep Malaysia inclusive and moderate.

While they and we may not agree on everything, we have the common interest in protecting a Malaysia that appreciates its Nusantara origin, its cosmopolitan heritage and its British liberal legacies. 

We must no longer fool ourselves to think that the Malayan colonialists would leave us alone or let us go independent or join Indonesia after they revert Malaya into pre-colonial Tanah
Melayu. To protect Sabah and Sarawak, we must protect the original Malaysia that was
promised to be secular, free and fair. To keep Kota Kinabalu and Kuching free, we must keep
Putrajaya out of reach from Malayan colonialists and imperialists like Dr Mahathir, Mr Hadi and Mr Sanusi.

We Borneans must bury Borneo exceptionalism and isolationism. Instead, we must actively and
passionately protect and reshape Malaysia, to bring to life the original multiethnic, multifaith and liberal federation our foreparents signed up to in 1963.

If the past 50 years have been disappointments, then we must seize the next 50 years for fulfilments.

Here are three strategies Malaysians, especially those in or from Borneo, can adopt.

Strategy 1: Borneo parties to reject Malayan colonialists:
First, Borneo political parties and politicians must take a clear stand against Malayan
colonialism and imperialism. Commendably, Sarawak state youth, sports and entrepreneur
development minister Dato Seri Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah declared that "it was impossible for Gabungan Parti Sarawak to work with Dr Mahathir after the latter stated that promoting a multi-ethnic country went against the Federal Constitution".

Such a principled stand should be emulated by all Borneo parties that still remain quiet. Such
rejection of Malayan extremists can be extended beyond Dr Mahathir to all parties and
politicians that attack Malaysia’s multicultural and Westminster heritage.

I hope my former colleagues, Datuk Seri Ronald Kiandee (MP of Beluran, Sabah) and Datuk Ali
Biju (MP of Saratok, Sarawak), will also be the firm voice of Borneo for Malaysia in their party
and coalition.

Strategy 2: Defend Malaysia with a bold anti-colonialism narrative:
Second, we must defend Malaysia as a multiethnic and multifaith federation with
Commonwealth heritage by developing a bold and sharp anti-colonial narrative against attempts to capture the post-colonial state of Malaysia and establish internal colonialisation. This message should go through media, social media, school textbooks, academic research, and awareness campaigns in public agencies, starting from Sabah and Sarawak. Just like how South African white colonialists morally and intellectually demeaned the blacks and coloured peoples as justification of Apartheid, Mr Sanusi and -- earlier in last August, Mr
Hadi https://www.theborneopost.com/2022/08/24/sarawak-politicians-back-call-for-hadi-to-be-
barred-f rom-entering-state/ -- are blaming the non-Muslims for bribe-giving to sell their 
colonialist supremacy to ordinary Muslims. We -- all Malaysians who love Malaysia -- must 
fight back but never ever mistake that Dr Mahathir represents the 'budiman' (gentle) people of Malays or Mr Hadi and Mr Sanusi represent the anti-racist region of Islam.

On July 11, 61 NGOS started a campaign of Unity Wave to stand up for patriotism and unity.

Led by veteran group Patriot president Brig Jen (R) Dato’ Mohamed Arshad Raji, these groups
include the multiethnic Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia, Sinar Harian-backed movement Rasuah Busters and muslim democrat group Ikram. More Malaysians including Borneo groups must join in.

This anti-colonialist narrative must also promote decentralisation of power to all 13 regions and states, to prevent re-emergence of excessive concentration of power at Putrajaya.
Strategy 3: Vote down Malayan colonialist parties:
Lastly, we must use our vote in every election to vote down all Malayan colonialist and
imperialist parties. Diasporic Sabahans and Sarawakians who are registered voters in the six states, please come out to vote on August 12 to say “No” loud and clear to parties promoting Malayan colonialism, imperialism and bigotry.

Only ballots can teach extremists like Mr Sanusi and Mr Hadi to stop dividing Malaysians and demonising non-Muslims.
To encourage turnout, the Election Commission must also swiftly introduce distanced early voting for voters out of their region/state before the Sabah state election due in 2025 and the Malacca and Sarawak ones due in 2026.

Refusal to introduce distanced voting is an injustice against diasporic Sabahans and
Sarawakians who left their homelands because of regional imbalance. This injustice to the
Madani Government must end.
May Allah bless Malaysia.#

DATUK SERI PANGLIMA WILFRED MADIUS TANGAU
Member of Parliament for Tuaran
Honorary President of UPKO

Islam bukanlah undang-undang, kata aktivis Sabah

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2023/07/10/malaysia-sebagai-negara-sekular-tak-boleh-diterima-kata-pm/


KENYATAAN AKHBAR
11 Julai 2023

*ISLAM, AGAMA SULTAN, BERDASARKAN KONSEP DOSA, IA BUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG.*

Merujuk kepada kenyataan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bahawa Malaysia tidak boleh jadi sekular total di Malaysiakini pada 10hb Julai 2023.

Artikel 3, satu kelainan dalam undang-undang, tidak bermaksud agama tertanam dalam Perlembagaan.

Islam, agama Sultan, berdasarkan konsep dosa. Ia bukan undang-undang.

Syariah bukan undang-undang tetapi bergantung pada keinginan individu untuk menerimanya. Adalah tidak berperlembagaan untuk memaksa syariah ke atas sesiapa.

Undang-undang rendah adalah batal dan tidak berkuasa dalam ukuran yang tidak konsisten dengan undang-undang tinggi. Mahkamah syariah bukanlah mahkamah undang-undang tetapi Tribunal.

Mahkamah undang-undang tidak boleh masuk ke dalam teologi.

Dalam jurisprudens, Tuhan bukan sumber undang-undang. Undang-undang harus mempunyai sumber untuk mempunyai bidang kuasa, kuasa dan kekuatan.

Undang-undang wujud, dan sentiasa wujud, berdasarkan akal sehat, nilai universal dan prinsip keadilan semula jadi.

Daniel John Jambun
Presiden Yayasan Borneo's Plight in Malaysia (BoPiMaFo)

PBS dingin terhadap cadangan Jeffrey untuk gabungkan StarSabah dan PBS


                      Dr Joachim Gunsalam

Luke Rintod, 7-7-2023
CADANGAN Presiden StarSabah, Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, mengenai usaha penggabungan partinya dengan PBS, nampaknya menerima sambutan dingin, sekurang-kurangnya dari salah seorang Timbalan Presiden PBS sendiri.

Datuk Dr Joachim Gunsalam membayangkan cadangan itu bukan keutamaan partinya masa ini. "Ia cuma cadangan Dr Jeffrey. Belum ada apa-apa jawatankuasa ditubuhkan dan oleh itu terlalu awal untuk bercakap mengenainya," tegas Dr Joachim.

Katanya PBS tidak mahu tergesa-gesa membincang perkara itu, sebaliknya PBS akan meneruskan kerjasama sedia ada dengan StarSabah di bawah panji-panji GRS sehinggalah pilihanraya umum negeri Sabah yang bakal diadakan selewat-lewatnya tahun 2025.

Beliau dilaporkan berkata demikian dalam media The Star hari ini.

Namun sebelum ini Ketua Penerangan PBS, Datuk Joniston Bangkuai, dilaporkan cadangan penggabungan dua parti bertunjangkan masyarakat Kadazandusun itu adalah baik dan perlu dibincangkan majlis tertinggi kedua-dua parti.

Presiden PBS, Datuk Dr Maximus Ongkili, yang tidak berapa sihat sejak tahun lalu, pula masih berdiam diri mengenai cadangan tersebut, walaupun dikatakan kedua-dua pihak sudah bertemu sebelum ini untuk membuka cerita usaha penggabungan PBS dan StarSabah.

Pada pemilihan Timbalan Presiden PBS tahun 2021, Dr Joachim, menewaskan Joniston.

Pada masa-masa lalu, berlaku juga perbincangan untuk menggabungkan semua parti utama Kadazandusun termasuk PBRS dan Upko tapi tiada apa-apa kemajuan mengenai itu, dan cadangan dibiar hilang begitu saja oleh pemimpin-pemimpin parti tersebut.

Pemerhati berpendapat, Dr Jeffrey menimbulkan kembali cadangan itu bagi melahirkan sebuah parti baru yang lebih kuat dari StarSabah dan PBS berasingan, serta membuka ruang baginya memimpin parti baru itu, bagi melebarkan penguasaannya terhadap naratif politik kumpulan etnik Kadazandusun dan Murut.

Oleh itu ada cadangan supaya abangnya, pengasas PBS, Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan dicadang kembali menerajui buat sementara waktu PBS dan juga parti baru itu sebelum Jeffrey mengambil-alih. Ini bagi menyenangkan hati beberapa golongan dalam PBS yang sangsi dengan kehilangan PBS menjadi parti gabungan dengan StarSabah yang mungkin akan didominasi Dr Jeffrey.

Ramai juga ragu penggabungan itu boleh menjadi realiti, sama juga dengan usaha menggabung PBS, PBRS dan Upko pada masa lampau. Ini kerana para pemimpin / presiden parti-parti Kadazandusun sangat mementingkan kedudukan mereka sendiri masing-masing, bersikap degil sesama dan tidak berani.

"Jika mereka berani, tidak degil dan tidak mementingkan diri sendiri saja, sudah lama mereka bergabung. Hari ini 'players' masih orang yang sama, apa yang baru boleh diharapkan dari mereka?," kata seorang pemerhati.

PBS dan StarSabah, pada pilihanraya umum negeri pada 2020 baru lalu, walaupun dalam satu kesatuan GRS, bertembung juga di beberapa kerusi. PBS menang tujuh manakala StarSabah enam.#



Ramdi Indang writes to Adrian Lasimbang, to defend Dr Jeffrey's initiative on carbon credit project...


                               Ramdi Indang


Dear Mr. Adrian Lasimbang, 
Kg. Nampasan, Penampang, Sabah Malaysia. 
I am writing to you as a Sabahan, a member of the Sabah KDMR community. 

I am reaching out to you because I am familiar with you and your family, as well as 
the admirable work you have done to uplift impoverished KDMR communities in 
Sabah. 

I feel compelled to inform you that the poverty situation in Sabah, particularly among 
the KDMR community, remains distressing. If not adequately addressed, this 
situation will only worsen. 

It is disheartening to note that 8 out of the 10 poorest districts in Malaysia are 
located in Sabah, all of which are inhabited by the KDMR community. This is indeed a 
tragedy. 

To provide you with some statistics, the average per capita GDP of Sabah is around 
US$6,000.00, compared to the national average of US$12,000.00. Singapore has an 
average per capita GDP of approximately US$76,000.00, making it the second highest 
in the world. 

Furthermore, Sabah faces the highest rates of illness and illiteracy, as well as serious 
challenges with water supply, electricity, and recurrent flooding. Sabah also faces a 
very high youth unemployment. 

This is highly disappointing given that Sabah had the 3rd highest average per capita 
GDP when Malaysia was formed 59 years ago! 

Most Sabahans know that the annual budget allocation of approximately RM5 billion 
from Kuala Lumpur, combined with the local income generated in Sabah, is grossly 
insufficient to tackle the aforementioned problems.

Therefore, Sabah must explore innovative ways to secure additional funds in order to 
grow its economy (GDP), raise the average per capita GDP of Sabahans, and 
ultimately eradicate poverty in the state. 
I would like to emphasize that I have spent several months reviewing and analyzing 
the Nature Conservation Agreement (NCA) and its potential transformative impact on 
Sabah's economy. 

This involves obtaining direct and extensive briefings from the 
local NC Staffs of HS based in KK. 
I have also conducted thorough due diligence on Dr. Ho Choon Hou, as well as the 
Service Providers and Project Developers associated with Hoch Standard Pte Ltd (HS), 
which is a party to the NCA. 

I can confidently confirm, in writing, that Dr. Ho, the Service Providers, and the 
Project Developers behind HS have impeccable credentials. Their track records can 
be independently and externally verified. 

I must also add that I have consulted some members of the Sabah Law Association 
about the NCA, and they have all confirmed that the NCA is valid and enforceable. 
Please note that one of the retired Chief Justices of Msia sits as a member of HS’ 
Global Advisory Board. 

Hence, based on my comprehensive review of the NCA, subject to the DATA Room of 
the 2 million hectares under the NCA to be provided by the Forest Department, as 
well as Carbon Credit price trends, the NCA has the potential to generate a minimum 
of RM2.8 billion per year for Sabah. It will also provide sustainable long-term 
employment opportunities for Sabahans, with the recruitment of 3,000-5,000 Carbon 
Rangers. 

The implementation of the NCA will also attract multi-billion foreign capital 
inflows, creating positive economic impacts throughout the Sabah economy. 
Furthermore, the implementation of the NCA will involve the deployment of cutting-
edge technologies such as Satellite imaging, Drone Technology, AI, ML, Blockchain, 
and Cloud Banking. This will result in technology transfer benefits to all Sabahans. 
It is important to note that the entire forest operation in Sabah generated 
approximately RM180 million in 2022 through extensive logging activities. 

The NCA,  however, does not involve the felling of a single tree. Instead, it focuses on perpetual 
forest conservation. The NCA also does not require the Sabah Government to inject 
any form of capital, expose itself to losses or liabilities, or permit mineral prospecting. 
In essence, it provides a means to unlock the currently "lazy" Natural Capital assets of 
Sabah.

As reported in the Borneo Lines Newspaper on July 3, 2023, premised on the signed 
NCA, Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan has proposed to the Prime Minister the relocation of the 
Carbon Exchange from Kuala Lumpur to Sabah. It appears that the PM has given his 
blessing in principle. This proposed move has the potential to transform Sabah's 
natural capital assets and create high-quality, long-term employment opportunities 
for all Sabahans and digitally connect Sabah to the carbon credit industry globally. 

Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan, a passionate advocate for Sabahan rights, is genuinely concerned 
about addressing the serious poverty issues faced by Sabah, particularly within the 
KDMR community. 

As the Chairman of the NCA Steering and Management Committee, established and 
approved by the Sabah Cabinet, it would be wise for you to personally meet and have 
an honest conversation with Dr. Jeffrey and address your concerns directly to him in 
an objective and professional manner. I am confident that both of you will prioritize 
the best interests of Sabah. 
                         Adrian Lasimbang 

Since the NCA is currently being implemented, it would be unhelpful and unwise to 
continue airing grievances in the media, as it could damage Sabah's reputation as a 
stable location for foreign investors. 
Adrian, it is crucial to remember that we are all indigenous Sabahans first. The KDMR 
community, in particular, is facing severe poverty issues, and we must come together 
as Sabahans to address them. 

I regret to inform you that the BAU (Business As Usual) approach will not effectively 
solve the poverty problems in Sabah. 
I strongly believe that the NCA presents a practical solution not only to address 
poverty but also to foster economic growth and transform the Sabah economy into a 
Green Circular Economy, aligning with the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. 
Sabah must avoid perpetuating extractive economic policies that destroy the 
environment and jeopardize the livelihoods of future generations.

Lastly, through Dr Jeffrey’s initiative, I have been advised that a credible foreign 
funder has formally proposed RM17 billion to the Sabah government to fund flood 
mitigation problems. Combined with the multi-billion foreign capital inflow and 
carbon credit income generated by the NCA, this RM17 billion flood mitigation 
funding will have a significant multiplier effect on the Sabah economy. 

I also wish to inform you that KDCA has given its full support for the implementation 
of the signed NCA. 
Sincerely, 
……………………………………………….. 
Ramdi Indang JP
President, Sakag Talantang 
CC: 
Chief Minister 
Deputy Chief Minister 
State Secretary 
Attorney General 
Forest Conservator 
President KDCA

Search This Blog