Archive for the ‘September 16’ Category


For immediate release:

I laud Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed’s assurance on restoring the status of Sabah and Sarawak in accordance with Malaysia Agreement 1963.

It is indeed a timely announcement made on Malaysia Day, reflecting the true historical meaning of the date itself.

The restoration of the status of Sabah and Sarawak in accordance with MA63 is something that Sabah leaders have been striving for.

It is also one of the ideals that the previous administration pursued in the spirit of cordial Federal-State relations.

The announcement by the Prime Minister shows that he understands the sentiments of the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

I believe the support to restore the rights under MA63 comes from both sides of the political divide.

Hence, it is our hope that the proposal to restore Sabah and Sarawak’s status in line with MA63 will be hastened.

Such a move will strengthen the Federation of Malaysia, reduce the development gap between East and Peninsula Malaysia and improve the welfare of the people in Sabah and Sarawak.

Tan Sri Musa Haji Aman
September 17, 2018



Sabah has never recognized or acknowledged any claim by the Philippines or any other quarter on the state, said Chief Minister Musa Aman today.

He said Sabah has never recognised or acknowledged any such claim and will continue to be a part of the Malaysian federation.

“Let me clearly state that Sabah is in Malaysia and has chosen to be and will continue to be a part of this sovereign nation since its formation,” he said in response to Philippines incoming President Rodrigo Duterte’s intention to pursue the Sabah claim.

Musa added that the people of Sabah are enjoying peace, stability and economic prosperity within Malaysia.

“Our allegiance is to the Malaysian flag. The claim is irrelevant,” he added.

Earlier, Duterte was quoted by the Philippine Star as saying that he will pursue the Philippines’ claim on Sabah.

Duterte also said he will recognise the claim of the Sulu sultanate as “what has been the policy will always be the policy of the government, especially those for the interests of the country”.


By Joe Fernandez
Guest Columnist

COMMENT State Reform Party (Star) chairman Jeffrey Kitingan is once again in the news for the wrong reasons. He has stirred a hornet’s nest in Sabah by claiming that all politicians in Sabah, including his brother Joseph Pairin Kitingan, are frogs.

He thinks that this will explain him being discredited time and again by Sabahans as the King of Frogs. Jeffrey has, by most counts, moved through as many as six political parties but all this is water under the bridge and for the most part irrelevant.

His considered opinion is that other politicians continued their political frogging until they secured a comfort zone for themselves, albeit “at the expense of the people”.

In his case, according to him, he continued frogging until he could find a political vehicle which could accept his “struggle for the people”.

Of course, there’s the little matter of him not finding any political vehicle for his struggle until he set up Star. This begs the question of why he didn’t make such a move earlier.

Jeffrey’s comments on other political frogs have been dismissed by them as completely untrue. They claim to be struggling for the people too – by “bringing development to them” – instead of focusing on whatever Jeffrey is preaching all the time.

So far, it has all been needless indulgence in the politics of distraction and disruption from the real issues of the day. No doubt politicians in Sabah love the sound of their own voices.

The Star chairman obviously feels that “man does not live by bread alone”.

“What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but suffers the loss of his own soul?” asks Star deputy chairman Daniel John Jambun rhetorically. “This is the thrust of our struggle.”

Daniel may have a point about struggling for the soul of Sabah — i.e. to save it and obviously from the clutches of Peninsular Malaysia and their local proxies and their stooges — but that’s about as far as it goes.

His boss seems to be squatting so far on the so-called struggle for the people.

He has blown hot and cold on Daniel John and Co internationalizing the struggle for Borneo in Malaysia.

Therein lies an emerging split in Star which will either see Jeffrey being ousted from his own party or many Supreme Council members leaving for the Parti Cinta Sabah (PCS) which has been approved in principle in recent weeks. The party is awaiting its registration certificate. PCS plans to join the Star-initiated, formed and led United Borneo Alliance (UBA).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Jeffrey has confined himself thus far in his ceramah to explaining the history of Sabah before and in Malaysia. No one can fault him here since not many people, especially the younger generation, are conversant with the historical facts.

But the movement for Sabah does not seem to be moving from rhetoric to action.

To digress a little, the younger generation doesn’t seem to be too bothered by Sabah’s history in Malaysia.

Instead, they have cut the Gordian knot and are asking why Sabah should be in Malaysia at all.

Their logic is simple: Peninsular Malaysia is so far away, we can’t even breathe without their permission, and “why are we in Federation with them especially since we can be on our own?”

Others ask: “How did we get into this situation and how do we get out?”

Jeffrey has no answers and it would be foolhardy for anyone, judging from his politics since 1984, to look to him.

True, he did lead a rowdy Star crowd to greet Prime Minister Mohd Najib Abdul Razak on his recent visit to Keningau where he (Najib) announced a quarter billion ringgit loan to Sabah for a water treatment plant.

They had placards reading “Sabah’s independence” and castigating Putrajaya for behaving like an Ah Long (loan shark) with Sabah after seizing almost all its revenue for itself.

This is the first time that Jeffrey has been associated with “Sabah’s independence”. No one is sure what it means. So, the excitement was lacking.

It would have been different had Jeffrey stated in no uncertain terms that Malaysia has ceased to exist following the Federal Government’s non-compliance on the five constitutional documents and/or constitutional conventions on Malaysia i.e. the 1963 Malaysia Agreement (MA63), the Three-Point Oath Stone (Batu Sumpah) witnessed and solemnized by the Federal Government in Keningau, the 20/18 Points, the Inter Governmental Committee Report and the Cobbold Commission Report.

Non-compliance ipso facto meant that Sabah’s self-determination of 31 Aug 1963 (Sarawak 22 July 1963) remains undiminished.

Jeffrey lost a golden opportunity in Keningau to say what he meant and mean what he said.

In any case, he appears to be no messiah for his flock.

The thrust of his complaints thus far has been that the Federal Government has been in non-compliance on MA63. He wants Putrajaya to set up a compliance mechanism.

This is unlikely to happen as MA63 has ceased to exist by virtue of non-compliance but Jeffrey refuses to accept this and continues to flog the proverbial dead horse on a compliance mechanism.

Not surprising he has been accused by no less than former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh of seriously misleading the people with his propaganda barrage on a compliance mechanism. Harris claims that MA63 – and the four other constitutional documents and/or constitutional conventions – “has been overtaken by events”. This is euphemism for non-compliance. However, Harris dreads and avoids the term non-compliance.

Jeffrey’s politics also glosses over the fact that Sabahans are by no means united on being out of Malaysia or even in Malaysia.

Putrajaya has done a very successful job since 1963 of pitting the people in the state against each other, introducing polarisation a la Peninsular Malaysia, and ensuring proxy control of the politics of the state.

The political situation has been further compounded by the influx of illegal immigrants who have over the years allegedly found their way into the electoral rolls.

These illegals see Putrajaya and Malaysia as the best guarantee of their continued existence in Sabah.

Local Muslims see the illegals as being in the state particularly at their expense, further marginalizing and disenfranchising them as the opportunities that should go to them dwindle even further.

Jeffrey is yet to bridge the non-Muslim-local Muslim disconnect created by Putrajaya over nearly five decades. So far, only some of the Dusuns including Muslims and Muruts are with him. The same goes for the Suluks, Brunei Muslims and Chinese. He has hardly any support among the Bajau and Irranun.

The Chinese appear caught between the Orang Asal (Natives) – the Murut and the Dusuns including the Kadazan or urban Dusun – the local Muslims and the illegals.

Jeffrey will be no game-changer unless he can get his act together and help forge total unity among Sabahans i.e. Orang Asal and the others alike to take on the illegals allegedly on the electoral rolls.

Charity begins at home.

Getting his act together would first mean setting his own house in order.

There are growing complaints that Star is a one-man show with little evidence of democracy in action, unrepresentative, and no empowerment of the leadership and members.

Jeffrey’s aides seem to be more powerful than even the party’s three deputy chairmen. The aides have since prevailed on their boss to issue a gag order on anyone other than Jeffrey issuing press statements. These statements are invariably written by the aides.

The party has also yet to reveal its vision, mission, objectives, goals and activities although there’s a draft prepared by several Supreme Council members. The draft has reportedly been dismissed by Jeffrey’s aides as “spin and bullshit”.

The oft-cited party Manifesto, again provided by several Supreme Council members in draft form, has been allowed to gather dust on the shelf by Jeffrey’s aides on the grounds that it was not written by their boss, “it was just spin and bullshit”, and that “Star (meaning Jeffrey’s aides) has its own way of doing things”.

It appears to be clear to many that if the two respective drafts can be “rejected”, then Jeffrey is clearly no game-changer and can be discounted from the emerging political equation in Sabah and Malaysia.


KOTA KINABALU: The polemics on Putrajaya’s internal colonization policies in Sabah and Sarawak appears to be getting increasingly shrill and out of hand and needs to be brought to a swift end and buried for good. Instead, it’s felt that it’s best to let bygones be bygones and “focus on regaining self-determination along the lines of 31 Aug 1963” for Sabah and Sarawak.

Self-determination in this form for Sabah and Sarawak would be “the best way forward and out from internal colonization”. Self-determination, in international law, “has come to mean the free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion”.

This is the growing consensus within the State Reform Party (Star), a Borneo-based national party which initiated, formed and leads the United Borneo Alliance (UBA) to work towards a 3rd Force in the Malaysian Parliament.

“We feel it’s pointless, indeed counter-productive, to engage in further polemics on the issue of internal colonization in Sabah and Sarawak,” said Star deputy chairman Daniel John Jambun in a press statement. “We should stop participating in further polemics on the issue. It serves little purpose to debate anyone on internal colonization.”

He was commenting on a statement on Wed this week in the local media by the Yayasan Islam Sabah (YIS) virtually denying the basis on which Sabah and Sarawak formed Malaysia. The welfare body also claimed, “in defiance of international law”, that Sabah does not have the right to leave Malaysia.

Former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh heads the YIS and recently challenged Star chairman Jeffrey Kitingan to a public debate on internal colonization. Jeffrey accepted the dare subject to Harris proving locus standi and “something more than hot air coming out of the debate”. Harris, in turn, called Jeffrey “chicken”, a label which the latter threw back at the former.

Daniel explained that UBA had hoped that a public debate on internal colonization would not be about scoring points or turning heroes into zeros or vice versa but instead facilitate the process of reversing the phenomenon in the two Borneo states in Malaysia.

“We feel that this – reversing internal colonization — is not going to happen now given denials and counter denials being issued daily by Putrajaya’s proxies in Sabah and Sarawak,” said Daniel. “These proxies have any number of stooges with them who are willing to sell their souls to the devil himself.”

Asked for the basis on which the party is in consensus on regaining self-determination, he replied that “it would facilitate us getting out of the quicksand being created by others on the issue of internal colonization”.

“International law is clear,” he said. “We have the right to get back our self-determination of 31 Aug 1963 and any number of traitors among us is not going to derail the process.”

Again, he reiterated that Sabah and Sarawak exercised the right of self-determination and won independence on 31 Aug 1963. Self-determination, explained Daniel, is the principle in international law that “nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion – think Malayan, British — or external interference”.

However, this freedom was taken away 16 days later by “a bad British idea called Malaysia”, he added. “We were blackmailed into Malaysia by claims that Indonesia and the Philippines are like crocodiles waiting to swallow us once the British leave. No one swallowed Brunei.”

“Sabah and Sarawak should go back to 31 Aug 1963 and reclaim the independence that we won that day,” said Daniel. “That’s our right to self-determination.”

Malaysia, according to Daniel, is not working out at all for Sabah and Sarawak just as it did not work out for Singapore and was a non-starter for Brunei.

“Brunei stayed out from Malaysia at the 11th hour and Singapore left two years later,” noted Daniel. “Look, where they are now! Meanwhile, Sabah and Sarawak are the poorest states in Malaysia. This is not what we bargained for when we were literally blackmailed by Malaya and Britain into Malaysia.”

Malaysia, claimed Daniel, had in retrospect nothing to do with the welfare of the people of Sabah and Sarawak and was mooted purely to protect the British commercial empire in the wake of decolonization. It was a time of the Cold War and communism terrorism raging in the region, he noted.

He lamented that the security promised Sabah by Malaysia did not materialize and instead it had been seriously compromised by the influx of illegal immigrants continuing to enter the electoral rolls, the changing demographic make-up and character and the increasing disenfranchisement and marginalisation of the local people.

“We can’t continue to live in a state of denial,” said Daniel. “It’s time to call a spade and spade so that we can move into the future that we all want for our children and grandchildren.”

Sabah, reiterated Daniel, needs to forge its own destiny in the community of nations instead of being tied to an unhappy relationship with Peninsular Malaysia on the other side of the South China Sea, several thousand kilometers away.

The Star deputy chief conceded that his state chapter had yet to discuss re-gaining self-determination with the Sarawak chapter of the party and their allies in UBA.

Besides Star, UBA includes the Sarawak National Party (Snap), the Borneo Heritage Foundation, Borneo Forum, Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMA), KoKaKoBa, the Oil For Future Foundation and various NGOs who are on the verge of signing up with the alliance.

“We will first finalize the consensus within Star Sabah before reaching out to Star Sabah and our other allies in UBA,” disclosed Daniel. “We can only make an official announcement once we are ready.”

It’s crystal clear, said Daniel in citing various reactions so far, that Putrajaya will not play ball on the issue of complying with the four constitutional documents and/or conventions on Malaysia.

He cited the four documents/conventions as the 1963 Malaysia Agreement (MA63); the 20/18 Points (20/18 P); the Inter Governmental Committee Report (IGCR); and the Cobbold Commission Report (CCR).

Putrajaya’s non-compliance of the four constitutional documents/conventions, claimed Daniel, rendered the Malaysian Constitution and Malaysia inoperable to the extent of the non-compliance and placed Sabah and Sarawak’s participation in the Federation as “non-existent”.

“The issue of whether we are in or out of Malaysia no longer arises,” said Daniel. “We are out and have been out since Putrajaya has been in non-compliance. This means we have gone back to the status we had on 31 Aug 1963.”

Constitutional lawyers familiar with the issue of compliance are in broad agreement that there’s no law on compliance and no mechanisms on compliance and therefore the Federal Government cannot be said to be acting unlawfully by being in non-compliance.

The other side of the coin is that the Federal Government can be said to be acting unconstitutionally by being in non-compliance, and by extrapolation and logical deduction, not acting lawfully on the issue of the participation of Sabah and Sarawak in the Federation of Malaysia.

The bottomline, it’s acknowledged, is that it’s difficult to argue with the consensus that non-compliance has meant that Sabah and Sarawak are not in Malaysia, and therefore, the two countries have the same status that they had on 31 Aug 1963 i.e. before Malaysia on 16 Sept 1963. In short, Putrajaya’s non-compliance has meant that the status of 31 Aug 1963 has never been taken away from Sabah and Sarawak or ceased to exist and has continued and continues to this day.

Daniel John Jambun
Deputy Chairman, State Reform Party (Star)
Contact: 012-834 0972

Wed 30 May, 2012


by Joe Fernandez
Guest Columnist

COMMENT The United Nations Security Council, acting through its previous 24-nation Decolonization Committee, would be the right body to resolve the renewed controversy in Sabah on whether it and Sarawak, the neighbouring sister state in Borneo, have been effectively colonised by the Federal Government in Putrajaya and/or Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) since Malaysia on 16 Sept 1963.

The controversy reached its zenith when former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh, a one-time blue-eyed boy of the Federal Government, challenged United Borneo Alliance (UBA) chairman Jeffrey Kitingan in recent days to a public debate on the issue.

Harris feels compelled to come forward “to defend the state and Federal governments on the issue of colonization” and feels that Jeffrey should not “chicken out” by laying down impossible conditions for the proposed debate to take place.

Jeffrey thinks that it’s not a question of being a chicken, as alleged by Harris, or a hero.

He wants something more than hot air to come out of the debate. He feels the debate should not be about scoring points on the issue or turning heroes into zeros or vice versa.

He wants the state and Federal governments to formally appoint Harris to represent them in the proposed debate.

Otherwise, Jeffrey & Co see the long retired Harris, “with due respects to him as a former Sabah Chief Minister”, getting involved unilaterally in the proposed debate for no rhyme or reason on behalf of the said parties and without proving locus standi.  Jeffrey & Co, however, are more than gratified that Harris has taken a keen interest in the issue and would prefer him to be on their side as a moral supporter  with a clear conscience but only after studying it (the issue) in depth on his own based on the various statements emanating from UBA in the local and alternative media.

Therein the matter lies. Jeffrey has since proposed June 17 for the debate to take place in Kota Kinabalu. This was after Harris said anytime, any place.

Enter the UN idea from Jeffrey’s camp, according to State Reform Party (Star) deputy chairman Daniel John Jambun. Harris agreed as well, in a statement on Tues 29 May in the local media, that the issue of colonization “is a UN case if true (Jeffrey’s allegations)”.

The starting point for the UN intervention, if any, on a point of history, ethics, morality, law, constitution, justice, diplomacy and politics could be why Sabah and Sarawak were not allowed self-determination as free states and were instead rushed into Federation with Malaya and Singapore on 16 Sept, 1963 after enjoying just 16 days of independence i.e. from Aug 31, 1963 to 16 Sept 1963.

History books were sanctioned by the Federal Government, and glossing over the 31 Aug 1963 date, even disingenuously claim that “Sabah and Sarawak became independent through Malaysia on 16 Sept 1963”.

Indonesia objected to the renewed loss of independence by Sabah and Sarawak.

The Philippines objected as well but for different reasons. It pointed out that its Sulu Archipelago was at one time together as one with the eastern and northern parts of Sabah, under the defunct non-territorial Sulu Sultanate, for the purpose of toll collection along the waterways. Hence, Manila raised its claim to Sabah.

No one paid any heed to them. Those were the days of the Cold War and the threat of communism terrorism raging in the region. The United Nations Security Council was firmly in the pockets of China (Taiwan), the United States, Britain and France with the USSR being the lone ranger among the five permanent members.

Hence, the sneaking suspicion that Sabah and Sarawak were re-colonised after 16 days of freedom and this time by the London-backed Malaya which went on to dominate and monopolize the Federal Government of Malaysia.

Britain had to give up its colonies in Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Singapore in line with the dictates, demands and recommendations of the then 24-nation UN Decolonization Committee in which India under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru played a sterling role.

Any UN intervention should also cover why Brunei stayed out from Malaysia at the 11th hour, why Singapore was expelled from the Federation two years later, and more importantly, why Sabah and Sarawak were not allowed to review their position in the Federation of Malaysia in the wake of the city state’s departure.

They had even demanded this right. In retaliation, Kuala Lumpur ousted Sabah Chief Minister Donald Stephens from power and dispatched into political exile as High Commissioner to Australia, a favourite dumping ground along with New Zealand for politicians in the two Borneo states who incurred the wrath of the Federal Government.

This Stephens was the same man, now as Chief Minister Muhamad Fuad Stephens, who died inconveniently – conveniently for Kuala Lumpur — in a tragic air crash in mid-1976 shortly after he refused to sign over Sabah’s oil and gas resources in perpetuity to the Federal Government-owned Petronas, or Petroliam Nasional, the National Oil Corporation.

Harris coincidentally, Stephens’s deputy, succeeded him as Chief Minister and appeared to have dutifully done what the Federal Government demanded.

Jeffrey’s elder brother Joseph Pairin Kitingan – currently demoted to Deputy Chief Minister — was the witness.

It’s this same Harris who’s now eager for a debate with Jeffrey probably because the latter keeps harping on the loss of the oil and gas resources – and recently Oil Blocks L & M to Brunei — as a major evidence of internal colonization.  So, partially at least, Harris has locus standi to debate Jeffrey.

Jeffrey has plenty of other evidence as well on internal colonization, besides oil and gas and Stephen’s untimely death, all of which Harris appears keen to “demolish” when presented at a debate.

Harris could have chosen to demolish them as and when they appeared in the local media from time to time. So far, he has chosen to keep a discreet silence on Jeffrey’s allegations in the local media on Sabah and Sarawak being internally colonised by Putrajaya. It’s difficult for Harris for anyone else sometimes to know whether Jeffrey is coming or going and hence some confusion for everyone.

If and when the Debate does take place, it will allow a re-visitation of several major aspects of the internal colonization allegations.

For starters, besides the mystery over the 16 days, Brunei, Singapore, Stephens, oil and gas, the Debate can hear evidence on the Federal Government being in non-compliance on four key constitutional documents and /or conventions which govern the participation of Sabah and Sarawak in the Federation of Malaysia.

The documents/conventions: the 1963 Malaysia Agreement; the 20/18 Points; the Inter Governmental Committee Report; and the Cobbold Commission report.

UBA has been making the case public that the Federal Government’s “non-compliance has rendered the Federation of Malaysia inoperable to the extent of the non-compliance” and thereby the question that arises is whether Sabah and Sarawak are in the Federation of Malaysia or out like Singapore in 1965.

If out, why is the Federal Government carrying on as if the two states are still in Malaysia? This means, the argument goes, that they are effectively colonies of Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia).

If the two states are still in Malaysia, why is the Federal Government in non-compliance? It (non-compliance) cannot be reconciled with the continued participation of Sabah and Sarawak in the Federation.

If the case can be made that the Federal Government has not been acting unlawfully on compliance – there being no mechanism on compliance and no law – it’s seems to be a kamikaze argument on the surface, as it cannot be said that it has not been acting unconstitutionally, and if so, it has not been acting lawfully at all by being in non-compliance.

UBA also points out that Malaysia is not functioning as an equal partnership of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak – for example the Prime Minister of Sabah is not allowed to call himself Prime Minister; Malaya is not sharing the Federal Government with Sabah and Sarawak; Malaysia is not functioning as a two-tier Federation i.e. one at a lower level among the states in Malaya, and another at the higher level as a Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.

UBA also alleges that Malaysia has been getting away from the concept of being a Federation and more towards a unitary state.

It’s alleged that the grinding poverty of Sabah and Sarawak, the poorest and second poorest in the country, is a direct result of internal colonization which includes taking away most or all of the revenue of the two states to Putrajaya and returning only a pittance to them “to keep them perpetually poor and unable to forge their own destiny in the community of nations”.

Other issues on internal colonization: statelessness; the Federal imposition of proxy state governments in Sabah and Sarawak; illegal immigration and disenfranchisement and as reflected in the electoral rolls, among other.

Last, but not least, UBA points out that Sabah and Sarawak were promised autonomy in Malaysia with the two states – unlike the states in Malaya — surrendering only defence, foreign affairs and national economic planning to the Federal Government.

The bottomline on internal colonization appears to be that Sabah and Sarawak see no need or reason to be in the Federation of Malaysia, tied to a peninsula on the other side of the South China Sea and virtually unable to even breathe without permission from their political masters, when they can quite easily make and pay their own way like Brunei, Singapore, South Sudan and Timor Leste, among others, as independent member states of the United Nations.


KOTA KINABALU: The State Reform Party (Star) is taking the position that there’s no Malaysia without four important constitutional documents and/or conventions viz. the 1963 Malaysia Agreement (MA63), the 20/18 Points, the Inter Governmental Committee Report (IGCR) and the Cobbold Commission Report (CCR).

It’s not possible to ever ignore, drop, do away, annul and/or amend these documents or claim that they have already been incorporated in the Malaysian Constitution and/or alternatively overtaken by events, whatever that means, said the party in a statement.

“Whether or not the contents of the four constitutional documents and/or conventions have been incorporated in the Malaysian Constitution, the said documents/conventions continue to exist,” said Star deputy chairman Daniel John Jambun in the statement after emergency consultations via telephone with party chairman Jeffrey Kitingan who’s away in Kuching for a party function in the Mas Gading parliamentary constituency.

Incorporation, reiterated Daniel, cannot do away with the four documents/conventions and advised those genuinely interested in the issue to research and study the development of the “unwritten” British Constitution.

“The aforesaid four are important historical, political and constitutional documents which supplement/complement the Constitution and must be read together with it,” he added. “Half-truths distort the true picture and does a grave disservice and injustice to our people.”

He was commenting on a statement by Sabah state assembly speaker Salleh Keruak in the local media on Sun on the 20 Points of Sabah.

Salleh claimed that the 20 Points are no longer valid as they have been incorporated in the Malaysian Constitution.

The same Salleh report in the local media went on to claim that many of the 20 Points were “annulled” under the Usno Government.

Daniel urged Salleh not to create a “constitutional crisis” by suggesting things which were not only untrue but not in the interest of the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

He asked how it would benefit the people of Sabah and Sarawak by denying the existence and/or validity of constitutional documents and/or conventions which provide the very basis for Malaysia to come into being in the transition from independence on 31 Aug 1963 to Federation just 16 days later.

The transition, he reminded, was “without so much as providing a decent breathing spell for self-determination to at least work for some time and the people enjoy the fruits of that very independence”.

“We know that Salleh is trying to please his political masters in Malaya,” said Daniel. “But he should remember that these are the very people who have been squatting on us since Malaysia and claiming that we obtained independence through Malaysia.”

If the suggestion is that we should be grateful for Malaysia, continued Daniel, “it’s certainly not true”.

Sabah and Sarawak, he stressed, were independent 16 days before Malaysia was rushed into being “and thereafter left in a limbo for us on this side of the South China Sea”.

The Star deputy chairman advised Salleh and other members of the parti parti Malaya operating in Sabah and Sarawak to leave the unresolved status of the two states in Malaysia to local parties and hold their peace on the issue.

“The vested interests in Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) only want to pit us local people against each other so that they can continue to divide and rule us forever,” said Daniel. We must be careful not to continue swallowing the bait set by them for us or we will get nowhere.”

He warned that it would be counter-productive to accept that something that exists doesn’t exist as “that would mean that we are back to square one before the formation of Malaysia”.

Taking up the cudgels again on the issue, Daniel belaboured the point that the Federal Government’s non-compliance with the four constitutional documents and/or conventions makes Malaysia inoperable to the extent of the non-compliance “and merely further facilitates the internal colonization that we are experiencing”.

“Non-compliance cannot be half-hearted or a cherry-picking exercise,” said Daniel. “Either there’s compliance or there’s non-compliance.”

Asked whether his party was suggesting that the Federal Government has been in non-compliance on the said four documents/conventions, Daniel replied that “the evidence of non-compliance is all around us in internal colonization”.

For starters, he claimed that the proof of non-compliance lies in the fact that Malaysia was not functioning as a two-tier Federation i.e. one at a lower level among the states in Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) and another at the higher level as a Federation of three equal partners viz. Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.

“Singapore was also a partner but was kicked out in 1965 when it complained that Malaysia was not functioning as a Federation of equal partners,” said Daniel. “For example, Kuala Lumpur kept insisting that the Prime Minister of Singapore should call himself Chief Minister as in Sabah, Sarawak, Penang and Malacca and that there can be only one Prime Minister i.e. in Kuala Lumpur.”

The Star deputy chief, on a point of clarification, ventured that the head of government in Sabah should also be Prime Minister as in Singapore and the Australian states “but we were not allowed to follow this provision”.

He vowed that a Sabah state government initiated, formed and led by Star would refer to the head of government as Prime Minister and not Chief Minister as at present and, likewise, “there would other re-visitations on Malaysia in Sabah”.

“Non-compliance is a very long list and not related to just one or two matters,” said Daniel. “We are duty-bound to bring these matters to the attention of the people, the younger generation in particular, as they have been kept in the dark so long by the ruling party’s control of the media.”

Touching on Salleh’s suggestion that non-compliance, if any, be put on the back-burner while focusing more on bringing development to the people, Daniel said his party begs to disagree.

“This is a self-serving suggesting by leaders who are more interested in their pockets,” said Daniel. “Compliance should come first to ensure justice, democracy, self-determination and thereby bring about genuine development in the process.”

Daniel was also at a loss to understand what the ruling party means by development when the World Bank labelled Sabah in Dec 2010 in Kota Kinabalu as the poorest state in Malaysia, and Sarawak the second poorest.

“Putrajaya and its proxies in Sabah have been talking themselves hoarse about development since 1963 but we are still poor despite the wealth of our natural resources,” said Daniel. “So, that’s why we are harping on the theme that non-compliance and internal colonization go together. This is reflected in our grinding poverty brought about by chronic under-development as a result of internal colonization.”

Daniel John Jambun
Deputy Chairman, the State Reform Party (Star)
Contact No: 012-834 0972

Sun 27 May, 2012


It pretty much the same! Dr Jeffrey Kitingan my good friend never cease to amaze me. We all have our own particular strengths. And while Dr Jeffrey Kitingan undoubtedly has SEVERAL, the one talent he has which never fails to impress me is his ability to succinctly summarize how Sabah was “shortchanged” by joining the Federation in September 16th 1963 exactly 48 years ago today.

In other words, WHATEVER is happening in Sabah, or with Sabahans, or with its economies or politics; Dr Jeffrey is my own favorite person for me to start to understand PRECISELY what the “mood” and (for lack of a better word) “thinking” is currently among the Sabahans.

Not only does he have a tremendous amount of personal experience/expertise here, but of all the truly expert “Sabahan Historians” in this sector, I see Dr Jeffrey as having the BEST grasp of North Borneo/Sabah political history. So with all the Malaysia Day hype today, it seemed like a good time to post Dr Jeffrey’s thoughts here – since I haven’t done so for a while…

By Jeffrey Kitingan

Celebrating Malaysia Day on Sept 16 would be meaningless, hollow and empty unless the special rights and autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak as agreed, promised and assured by the Founding Fathers of Malaysia are fulfilled.

The Founding Fathers of Malaysia from the Borneo states took great risks to agree and to be pushed and rushed into the merger with Malaya and Singapore to the extent of denying themselves (the Borneo States) the opportunity to attain political maturity first and to enjoy the freedom and practice of self-rule as what is now enjoyed by Brunei.

This is despite the fact that opinions and assessments from various quarters involved in the negotiations gave a clear and mature signal to the merger.

For example, according to British documents released recently, Sir William Goode (last Governor of British North Borneo) and Waddle (British Representative in Singapore) insisted “that Borneo
is not ready for self-government, which they fear would turn out to be an unequal partnership between the Borneo Horse and the Malayan Rider.

They warned of dangers of “shotgun marriage.” “None of the territories (Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei) would be ready for self-government earlier than 1970” and “All territories, Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak were ‘unfitted’ to enter Malaysia on the basis of popular representation”.

Sel Kirk (British High Commissioner based in Singapore) gave Sarawak about 10 years, and North Borneo at least 20 years before a clear cut electoral opinion would be given on this subject.

Lord Cobbold, Chairman of the Cobbold Commission, even warned that “It is necessary condition, from the outset, that Malaysia shall be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners combining in the common interest to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities.”

Even the United Nation (UN) Team sent to ascertain the feelings of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak also came back with an inconclusive report saying 2/3 are not convinced to the formation of Malaysia.

Tun Fuad Stephens (Donald Stephens) himself expressed his concerns in a letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman (before the formation of Malaysia) – “If we had been asked to join Malaysia at the time Malaya achieved independence and Britain made it possible for us, the story would have been a different one”.

“Now that ‘Merdeka’ has been Malaya’s for some years, and we are still struggling towards it, Malaya’s proposal that we join as the 12th, 13th and 14th states savours of imperialism, of a drive to turn us into Malayan colonies…. to join Malaya, while we are still colonies… the implication is to hand (ourselves) over to your control.”

Then, to the Straits Times, Tun Fuad wrote: “We are against joining Malaysia as individual states, and want the Borneo territories to get together, so that when we talk with Malaya, it will be as equal partners and not as vassals…, and if we join Malaya now, the people who will come and take most of the top jobs will be Malayan… the new expatriates…”

Tunku’s assurances

Doubts and concerns expressed by the Borneo leaders to the status of Sabah and Sarawak in the Federation were subsequently addressed by Tunku Abdul Rahman and his team when they agreed to take into consideration the 20-Points conditions.

Tunku Abdul Rahman assured that “The granting of self-government too would enable Sabah to stand on its own feet as equal with Malaya, Sarawak and Singapore”.

“The important aspects of the Malaysia Ideal, as I see it, is that it will enable the Borneo territories to transform their present colonial status to ‘self-government’ for themselves and absolute independence in Malaysia simultaneously..”

“The days of imperialism are gone and it is not the intention of Malaya to perpetuate or revive them. When the Borneo territories become part of Malaysia, they will cease to be colonies, they will be partners of equal status, no more or less than the other states.” (the ‘other states’ refer to the other states’ entities of Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak).

Thus what eventually convinced the Borneo states leaders to form Malaysia beside the question of security, were the assurances that the merger would be that of equal partnership of the signatory states (Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak) to the Malaysia Agreement, the autonomy and special rights accorded to Sabah and Sarawak under the 20-Points, Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report and the Malaysia Agreement itself.

Have all these Agreement, promises and assurances been fulfilled? Is Sabah now secure and enjoying “absolute independence” in Malaysia? Are we now in control of our economic resources, our political franchise and our future? If the answer is “NO” then what are we celebrating on the Sept 16?

We might as well regard Sept 16 as a ‘Sad Day’ to remember when we ended freedom and independence to be taken over and re-colonized by Malaya.

Ironically, on Aug 31, 1963 (two weeks before the formation of Malaysia), Sabah was granted independence from the British to which Sir William Goode declared – “Today is a historic day for Sabah. It marks the beginning of self-government and independence and the end of colonialism”.

If anything at all, let Sept 16 be an occasion to reflect and review our position in the Federation of Malaysia and find a solution to save a potentially fragile nation from breaking apart.

Our state political leaders should use this occasion to rise above partisan political interest, fighting for self-interest in the name of development to one committed to the larger interst of Sabah and Sarawak and for the future well-being of Sabahans and Sarawakians.

The time to do this is right and most appropriate as Sabah and Sarawak are not merely “fixed deposits” States but they are actually the “Kingmakers” the “Penentu” as to who goes to Putrajaya and who will fulfill the promises of Sept 16, 1963.


L-R, Dr, Nicholas Bawin of Sarawak, P. Waythayamoorty, Chairman Hindraf movement, Labour party MP, Virenda Sharma, and Daniel John Jambun of Sabah.

This is the story of Sabah since joining in the formation of Malaysia, September 16, 1963, from being one of the richest territory with plenty of natural resources has become the poorest state in the Federation.

Sabah is in a real mess. There are close to 1 million illegal immigrants in Sabah. Over 600,000 thousand with false documents have been given genuine Malaysian identity cards and some have even become voters. The acquisition of citizenship by these illegal immigrants was never in accordance to our country`s federal constitution. To me this is Treason.

Politicians link with the Barisan National are helping illegals to become Malaysian citizens and this act is prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of this country and it seems as though these UMNO fellows who are the culprits are immune to the laws of our country.

Anyway, many thanks to Waythamoorty the Chairman of Hindraf for taking the initiative in London in the British Parliament to help Sabah and Sarawak highlight the issues haunting these 2 states since formation of Malaysia, at least some one who is not from East Malaysia, understands the problems and is making effort to help. Also congratulate my good friend Dr Jeffrey Kitingan for taking the trouble to go all the way to Singapore to meet up with Waythamoorty and to personally request for support from Hindraf.

Read below the Memorandum delivered by Daniel John at the House of Commons London.

SHATTERED HOPES
AND
BROKEN DREAMS
—————————————————————————————-
A Memorandum on the Fate of Sabah
in the Malaysian Federation
—————————————————————————————-

Presented by DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN, Esq.
At the House of Commons, London, the United Kingdom
March 9, 2010

Good afternoon all Honourable Members of the House, ladies and gentlemen.
First of all, I would like to record our most sincere gratitude having been given this honour of presenting this memorandum before this esteemed House. Today, marks a moment of honour for the people of Sabah, the former North Borneo, for having been accorded this rare opportunity to present a Memorandum a matter of grave significance, a matter which affect our fate as the people of the Federation of Malaysia. We see this as a historical event, a moment granted by God’s grace, in which we can communicate under this honourable roof, to reminisce a milestone of history half a century ago which was followed by sad events that in too many instances happened with numerous misgivings.
For decades now, we the people of Sabah, have been haunted by ghosts of history dating back to August 31, 1963, the day we gained independence from Great Britain. Malaysia was conceptualised and constituted with the best of promises, endearing in us hopes and dreams for a greater future. It is with sadness that I stand here to witness that what had transpired since September 16, 1963 had been a series of events that had led us to the present situation in which we can justly proclaim to be a situation of shattered hopes and broken dreams!

We therefore stand before this House, in good faith, to seek redress and to appeal for an inclusive dialogue, which we hope will lead to a clearer and brighter tomorrow to all parties concerned. I seek the indulgence of this House to hear our side of the story and adjudge the events of the past with a clear conscience and a sympathetic eye, and to lend us a hand in seeking a just and righteous solution to our problem.
I would like to present three pertinent issues, which may or may not have direct concern of the present British government. Firstly, we need to take a critical review of the rationales and instruments for the formation of Malaysia. There is the nagging question of justice in the drafting of the critical Malaysia Agreement, the efficiency and integrity off the Cobbold Commission, the reliability of the promises of the Twenty Points, the Inter governmental Committee Report and the Malaysian Act, historical documents which must be familiar to the knowledge of the Honourable Lawmakers in this House. Secondly, is the perennial issue of security which now affect the sovereignty of Sabah within Malaysia. And thirdly is the case of the spiraling deterioration in the economic wellbeing of the people of Sabah.

Sabah’s Expectations of Malaysia vs Reality and the Malaysian Agreement
The facts of history is that Sabah, a former British colony, achieved its independence on August 31st, 1963. On September 16, 1963, it merged with Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak to form the Federation of Malaysia on terms agreed by all parties. The concept of merger and equal partnership was introduced by Tunku Abdul Rahman to allay fears in Sabah and Sarawak of the possibility of Malaya recolonizing them upon the departure of the British masters.
The terms of this Federation are contained in various documents such as the Twenty Points, the IGC report and of course the Malaysia Agreement, which on paper protected the interests of Sabah and Sarawak within this new Federation so that they do not lose their autonomy in certain areas of governance which gave meanings and substances to their independence.
Without doubt, this was the expressed hope of the founding fathers, principally Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia; Lee Kuan Yew, the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Donald Stephens and Mustapha Harun of Sabah, Stephen Kalong Ningkan of Sarawak, etc. Independent speeches were delivered by various leaders including Razak, Tun Mustapha, Donald Stephens and Sir William Goode to during the historic celebration of Sabah’s nationhood. I present several quotes from them below:

Today, is a historic day for Sabah. It marks the beginning of self-government and independence and the end of colonialism.

* Sir William Goode, outgoing Governor of North Borneo

(Sabah Times, Jesselton, August 1, 1963)

The Tunku naturally uttered several historic statements on the matter:

“The granting of self-government too would enable Sabah to stand on its own feet as equal with Malaya, Sarawak and Singapore.”

(Sabah Times, Jesselton, August 30th, 1963)

“The important aspects of the Malaysia Ideal, as I see it, is that it will enable the Borneo territories to transform their present colonial status to ‘self government’ for themselves and absolute independence in Malaysia simultaneously…”

“The days of imperialism are gone and it is not the intention of Malaya to perpetuate or revive them. When the Borneo territories become part of Malaysia, they will cease to be a colony of Malaya, they will be partners of equal status, no more or less than the other States.”

(Strait Times, October 2nd 1962) The “other States” refer to the other States entities of Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak.”

Today, more than forty six years after independence, the people of Sabah are asking what happened to these rosy pronouncements and assurances. In fact the Sabahans have always been seriously clarification as to why Sabah is now functioning as if it is only a colony of Kuala Lumpur. Many still remember the warnings given by former Indonesian president Sukarno, who said that Malaysia will not change colonialism but will only shift its headquarters from London to Kuala lumpur. Has Sukarno’s prophecy come true today?
Tunku Abdul Rahman kept assuring us that Sabah was now independent; that it was no longer a colony and that Sabah will have its” absolute independence” in Malaysia. What Tunku Abdul Rahman said was exactly what we expected Sabah to gain and benefit from being part of the Federation, i.e. being a fully autonomous state within the Federation. But contrary to that promise, the reality today is that Sabah has become the 12th state of Malaya. Federal government leaders, dominated by Malayans, today can arbitrarily change, at their whims and fancies, whatever they wish to suit their needs and convenience. They even ignored the Twenty Points and the Malaysia Agreement and made it sensitive to even talk about them.
The Problem of the Illegal and Legalised Immigrants in Sabah
About half of Sabah’s population of 3.25 million today are foreigners. Out of this number, 750,000 are undocumented or without travel documents or work passes. Dr Chong Eng Leong paper, “Human Rights and Citizenship: Its impact on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights,” presented at the SUHAKAM Roundtable Discussion on July 31, 2006 refers.
Of these, 60,000 are categorized as refugees and about 153,000 to 418,000 are those supposedly given work passes. In addition there are those with false documents but over and above these numbers are the 600,000 who have been given genuine Malaysian identity cards or MyKads by higher authority under “Projek IC Mahathir” (Dr. Chong Eng Leong, Ibid.)
The most serious and obvious injustices inflicted upon Sabah is the deployment of non-citizen to become voters, thereby depriving citizens of the right to democracy and self-determination. The main category of foreign voters comprise the 600,000 who have been given Mykads, under “Projek IC Mahathir.” This project was widely debated in the local papers in 2006. A witness to a trial on an election dispute confessed in court to possessing a dubious identity card, telling the magistrate that he obtained his IC through “Projek President Mahathir.” This evidence was never contested, and nor has there been any denial form the former Prime Minister.
Security and Sovereignty
Most of these foreigners come from a neighbouring country (the Philippines) which, incidently, has yet to drop its territorial claim over Sabah. By the sheer number of the illegals from the Philippines alone, with their settlements surrounding all the major cities and towns, this claim could be easily legitimized. Sabah is now a haven for escaping terrorists, rebels and kidnappers. JI or Jemaah islamiyah, a terror network, has been identified as having its presence in Sabah. So is Darul Islam Sabah. Hence, with the presence of armed foreigners on our soil, Sabah is no longer a secure state.
This begs the question: Where is the security that the founding fathers of Malaysia had promised us? With the explicit support of Great Britain, we had been hard-pressed to join in the formation of Malaysia, in the name of security from Indonesia’s Confrontation and Phillippines’ claim. But as it turned out, today Brunei, which opted out following a rebellion, and Singapore which was later expelled, are doing so much better. There is therefore no denying that Brunei had been far-sighted, and Singapore had been ironically blessed by its expulsion.
Reverse Take Over
As the number of non-citizens are now rapidly outnumbering the local population in some areas (Dr Jeffery Kitingan, Justice for Sabah, Table 4.1), it is merely a matter of time for this foreign population to spread and overwhelm the whole of Sabah. SUHAKAM’s former Commissioner, Prof. Hamdan Adnan, once said that a foreigner reverse takeover is imminent if the trend continues unabated.
Poverty
Sabah is a rich state endowed with much natural resources such as oil and gas, timber, fertile agricultural land and tourism potentials. With a population of just about three million, Sabah offers abundant promises for vibrant economic development and enviable prosperity. Unfortunately, Sabah today is the poorest state in Malaysia (according to the government’s Malaysia Plan Report). Most of Sabah’s timber has already been harvested without any heed to sustainable supply management, and over eighty percent of the agricultural land develop for oil palm belong to corporate giants owned by west Malaysian companies. Ironically, Sabah is Malaysia’s largest oil palm producer with 60% of the nation’s palm oil being produced in Sabah. Sabah is also one of three Malaysia’s oil producing states, producing more than 73,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day. Why then is Sabah poor and financially dependent on the federal government? The answer is simple: It is either that Sabah is not getting its fair share of its own wealth or is the victim of mismanagement, or both. UNDP (United Nation Development Program) put the State poverty rate at 24.3% of the population.

Poorest State
Sabah, once the richest state in Malaysia, is now the poorest. Most of the poor are Natives in the rural areas, including paddy farmers, fishermen and smallholders. The state government of Sabah has one of the highest budget deficit in the country amounting RM252.89 million (2006). With a population of 3.25 million, its per capita income currently stands at RM9,536 compared to RM18,040 for Malaysia. This show a huge disparity with Sabah’s per capita income way, way below the national standard. Where do our riches go to? To be exact: to the Federal Government. Sabah can never be rich as long as our State cake” is continuously divided into thirteen.
Oil Revenue
Oil and gas belong to the state but in 1976 the federal government made the state surrender this state resource to a central government agency, PETRONAS. It is said that that the “Double Six” Tragedy (airplane crash at Sembulan which killed senior Sabah cabinet members, including the then Chief Minister Tun Fuad Stephens, the former Donald Stephens) was the result of the refusal by Stephens to sign away Sabah’s oil right in Labuan then. Soon after Tun Fuad’s funeral, Harris Salleh signed the agreement. In return the state gets only 5% of the oil revenue. Why? Why do we get only 5% of the revenue from oil, when in the first place, it is a state resource? Who gets the other 95%? How much revenue earnings have been generated from Sabah’s oil and gas, including their by-products?
Felda and Felcra
Land given out to Felda and Felcra by the State Government for the purpose of development assistance to the landless local was never implemented. According to the former Chief Minister, Harris Salleh, 300,000 hectares have been given to Felda/Felcra for this purpose. We know of no one Sabahan having benefited, although perhaps there may be a few. So who are the rest of the beneficiaries? Who is reaping the oil palm harvest from our land? Obviously, justice must be served. And these lands must revert back to the State Government and their utilisation reviewed as part of our economic revival and poverty eradication programmes.

Political
The enormous political implications of the non-citizens currently holding citizens’ identity cards are mind boggling. It is frightening to contemplate the ramifications of the fact that they can vote, as they have been recruited and mobilised by certain political leaders in the BN (the Barisan Nasional or National Front) ruling coalition. In fact most of these “voters for hire” have been recruited as members of UMNO (the United Malay National Organisation), the backbone of the BN.
Even a fellow BN member had openly admitted that illegals could be in BN parties. Chin Su Ling, Youth Chief of the Liberal Democratic Party, a component of the BN said there is a possibility that many illegal immigrants have become members of various BN component Sabah. (Borneo Post, Tuesday, September 19th, 2006). These foreigners may just be “voters for hire” at present but once they can organize themselves, they could be in a position to control Sabah UMNO and elect their own representatives into the State Assembly and Parliament. Once this is achieved they could take over the government and change the rules of the game in their favour. This is not impossible.
How did Sabah’s population grow so fast? Are we more fertile than Sarawak or the peninsular? NO! The high growth in Sabah’s population is explained by the high arrivals of foreigners, many of whom were later exploited to become voters through the “Project IC.” Worse, these foreigners who obtained MyKads through the backdoor also claim to be Bumiputeras (sons of the soil). They are in fact The New Bumiputeras! These new “natives” are now the same number as the natives!
Source of Socio-economic Problems
This large foreign population in Sabah also presents a heavy drain on the economy and social services fund. One estimate puts this cost to the State between RM271 million to RM811 million a year. They also take away from the local quota for education in schools and institutions of higher learning. They use a lot of medical facilities and health care services and encroach onto natives lands, producing squatter colonies. They also rely on low cost housing schemes provided by the government. They are also involved in drugs. According to the police, 90% of drugs are from the Philippines. They steal water and electricity through illegal connections and pollute the environment. Employment wise, many illegals are now running taxis, mini buses as drivers.
“The illegal immigrants are the mother of all problems in Sabah” – Dato Bakri Zinin . High ranking Police Officer, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur

Conclusion
The root cause of Sabah’s dilemma is the fact that the Inter-Governmental Committee Report had failed to ensure Malaysian Government compliance with the Malaysia Agreement on a continuous basis. Various ‘modification’ and ‘adjustments’ had been surreptitiously inserted into the national governance mechanism which had trapped us into subservience and compliance and in the process eroding much of our rights and privileges.

The IGC must be revived and the United Kingdom, along with Singapore, Sarawak, Sabah and Malaya (the Federal Government), must play an active role as sympathetic and just former master to institute effective and enduring rectifications. This is the least that we can ask for. This is also the way forward. The United Kingdom is the first stop in our mission to revive the IGC. Efforts are also being made at this material time in Kuala Lumpur by Dr Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan, the chairman of the Common Interest Group Malaysia (Cigma) to seek the same redress and review of the terms of independence And formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Likewise we are mobilising a similar mission to Singapore prior to seeking a dialogue with the Sabah and Sarawak State Governments on the same issue.
With respect and reverence we lay our hopes and desires before this honourable House for a redirection of the negative trends that beset us in Borneo, in the full confidence that a vehicle to the future can be chartered for justice and truth, to pick up the pieces of the shattered hopes and broken dreams.

Thank you.


The problem with Anwar Ibrahim is that he is not empowering the PKR local chaps in Sabah.  Why cant he get the Sabah boys to lead Sabahans? Why cannot? What is so wrong with Dr Jeffrey Kitingan to lead? Why so peninsular-centric even after 46 years of independence. Come on lah Anwar you can do better than this.

Appointing Azmin Ali to look after PKR Sabah is a real mistake.

This Azmin Ali fellow  is suppose to organise and help facilitate for Anwar Ibrahim in Sabah, but he is not. He is trying to micro-manage PKR Sabah big time. Who is Azmin Ali a junior in politics, a greenhorn to Sabah politics compared with Dr Jeffrey Kitingan?

All the good people left PKR because of Azmin Ali’s stupid attitude and tendency of dominating and monopolising Anwar. See how he undermine Tan Sri Khalid in Selangor, even in Penang he try to undermine my goodfriend Dr Mansor the Deputy Chief Minister of Penang. Now Datuk Zaid Ibrahim seem destined to become yet another casualty.

Maybe Anwar and PKR should go and learn some management skills from Kit Siang and Karpal. See how the DAP does in Sabah and Sarawak. DAP does not put a West Malaysian guy to look after their operations in Sabah and Sarawak.  Go learn from DAP and maybe this will help PKR run their operations in Sabah better.

I don’t know what is with this KL. It seems politicians both opposition and ruling seem to manifest  how peninsula-centric they can be. Even the federal govt officers in Sabah are full of ego and superiority complex and some so BIG head, arrogant and living in a world of their own. How to promote national unity and integration like this eh? A Penangite, I have been  in Sabah long to know of this kind of mentality and its even more disgusting when my kids both Sabahans tell it to me on my face.

Now Najib our PM talks in great deal about this 1Malaysia thingy, this sugar-coated slogan of his.  For me, this 1Malaysia is an empty-shell slogan with no real substance and intentions. As long as we have corruption, injustice, discrimination, inequality and particularly the “Ketuanan Melayu”, no way we can achieve 1Malaysia. Can Najib do it? I doubt it but we shall see as time will tell. Maybe Najib should come stay in Sabah and Sarawak to learn about 1Malaysia which has been existing long before Malaysia was formed in 1963.

The issue is colonization in the 21st century. East Malaysia is getting the same treatment as East Timor under Indonesia, becoming a second class minority in their own country, with no history of being part of Malaya until Malaysia was formed.


In case you guys forgot, Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963 and Malaysia is only 46 years old today and not 52 years old as told. What a shame, they NEVER told us this in school. Our ‘official’ history is riddled with prejudice, inconsistencies and huge knowledge gaps, so much so that there was a time when school textbooks made no mention of September 16th as Malaysia Day.

I would love Malaysia to be independent as per the wishes or vision of Lee Kuan Yue @ Uncle Harry Lee…..but somehow still I am not convinced about the Independence Day…….and celebration.

See here our Harris Ibrahim’s initiative on Anak Bangsa Malaysia, which is long overdue. Also see here.

Happy Malaysia Day to all my comrades and fellow citizens in Malaysia.

Happy Birthday, Malaysia!!!