BLOG - BLOG WAKIL RAKYAT: 09/15/12

Sabtu, 15 September 2012

N45 Dr Halimah Ali

Pencapaian UTAMA EXCO Pendidikan Selangor

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 09:26 AM PDT

Dr Shafie Abu Bakar

Berhariraya Dari SRA Ke Kompleks Pendidikan Islam Dan Pasti

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 04:44 PM PDT

Ahli Parlimen Kota Belud

Anak Sabah, Jiwa Malaysia
Being Sabahan, Feeling Malaysian (Part Three)
Being Sabahan, Feeling Malaysian (Part Two)
Being Sabahan, feeling Malaysian (Part One)

Anak Sabah, Jiwa Malaysia

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 11:41 AM PDT

Di sebalik beberapa lukisan yang menghiasi dinding kediaman saya, ada satu yang kerap mencuri perhatian. Lukisan hitam putih itu menampilkan imej detik bersejarah 16 September 1963. Bintangnya adalah tiga bapa kemerdekaan – Tun Fuad Stephens, Tun Datu Mustapha Harun dan Tun Abdul Razak Hussein – berdiri seiring di podium di Kota Kinabalu bagi menyambut kelahiran negara dinamakan Malaysia.

Pada tarikh keramat itu, ribuan rakyat Sabah asyik mendengar Tun Fuad Stephens (ketika itu dikenali sebagai Donald Stephens) membacakan skrol Pengisytiharan Malaysia.

Bagaimanapun, ada sedikit suntikan elemen luar realiti atau surreal di lukisan itu. Imej seorang remaja lelaki berpakaian `hip hop' berwarna-warni dan melakukan aksi tarian `breakdance' diselit bersebelahan ketiga-tiga tokoh itu.

Jika diteliti, anda boleh melihat pandangan penuh kecurigaan di wajah tiga Tun itu terhadap remaja lelaki berkenaan – bimbangkan generasi masa depan Malaysia mungkin tidak memahami pengertian sebenar kemerdekaan negara.

Hari ini, terjemahan remaja lelaki itu mungkin boleh dikaitkan dengan sesiapa saja di kalangan kita hari ini. Sebagai contoh, ada golongan tertentu di Sabah mendakwa Sabah sepatutnya menjadi satu daripada empat bahagian (bukan satu daripada 14 negeri) dalam Persekutuan Malaysia. Mereka mendakwa Sabah ditipu sejak 49 tahun lalu dan tuduhan ini adalah sangat serius.

Benarkah begitu? Kita mulakan dengan mengkaji dokumen sejarah berkaitan pembentukan Malaysia yang merangkumi:

.
* Dokumen 20 Perkara
* Laporan Jawatankuasa Perundingan Perpaduan Malaysia
* Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold
* Laporan Jawatankuasa Antara Kerajaan
* Laporan Hansard (berhubung perbahasan Malaysia di Parlimen Malaya dan British)
* Perjanjian Malaysia 1963; dan
* Dokumen Pengisytiharan Malaysia.

Semua dokumen ini dan autobiografi Tunku Abdul Rahman serta Lee Kuan Yew memberi kita gambaran lebih jelas terhadap keadaan yang membawa kepada pembentukan Malaysia pada 1963. Semuanya menceritakan suasana di Asia Tenggara sekitar tahun 1950-an dan 1960-an, terutama dari segi keselamatan dan ketidaktentuan masa depan dihadapi pemimpin waktu itu.

Saya sertakan petikan dokumen dan perjanjian berkenaan. Nilaikan sendiri setakat mana kebenaran hujah kononnya Sabah patut menjadi satu daripada ahli empat entiti Persekutuan Malaysia.

Perjanjian Malaysia

Artikel I perjanjian mengesahkan kedudukan Sabah dalam Malaysia. Ia menyebut (terjemahan):,

"Koloni Borneo Utara dan Sarawak dan Singapura akan bersatu dengan Negeri-Negeri Persekutuan Malaya ... akan dikenali sebagai "Malaysia" selepas ini.

Pengisytiharan Malaysia

Perenggan terakhir Pengisytiharan Malaysia (yang dibaca Donald Stephens pada pagi 16 September 1963) menyebut (terjemahan):

"... bahawa Malaysia merangkumi Negeri Pahang, Terengganu, Kedah, Johor, Negeri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Pulau Pinang, Melaka, Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak akan selama-lamanya menjadi Negara bebas dan berdaulat selepas dibentuk atas dasar kebebasan dan keadilan, dengan izin Tuhan Pencipta Seluruh Alam,"

Laporan Jawatankuasa Antara Kerajaan

Laporan Jawatankuasa Antara Kerajaan yang ditubuhkan bagi merangka aturan Perlembagaan Malaysia, jelas menyatakan kedudukan Sabah sebagai sebahagian daripada Persekutuan menerusi perincian 10 Bab II (Pembentukan Persekutuan Malaysia) (terjemahan):

"Persekutuan ini merangkumi Negeri sedia ada dalam Persekutuan Malaya, Sabah (ketika ini dikenali sebagai Borneo Utara), Sarawak dan Singapura. Persekutuan ini akan dikenali sebagai Malaysia."

Perjanjian Malaysia 1963

Seksyen 4, Bahagian II (Negeri-Negeri Persekutuan) menyebut (terjemahan):

"… bahawa Persekutuan ini akan dikenali dengan nama Malaysia, dalam bahasa Melayu dan Inggeris. Negeri-Negeri Persekutuan ialah - (a) negeri-negeri dalam Malaya, iaitu Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Pulau Pinang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor dan Terengganu; dan (b) Negeri-Negeri Borneo iaitu Sabah dan Sarawak; dan (c) Singapura.

Sebagai Ahli Parlimen dari Sabah, saya bersetuju jika Sabah menjadi satu daripada empat bahagian Malaysia tetapi dokumen di atas menyatakan sebaliknya. Kita tidak boleh menafikan sejarah yang dibincang, dirangka dan ditandatangani bersama oleh pemimpin Sabah waktu itu.

Dari segi keahlian, kedudukan Sabah sama seperti negeri lain di Semenanjung. Bagaimanapun, Sabah memiliki kedudukan khusus atau autonomi sendiri seperti dinyatakan dalam Perlembangaan dan tidak dimiliki negeri lain kecuali Sarawak. Imigresen berada di bawah kuasa Kerajaan Negeri dan Sabah dibenar meneruskan sistem Kabinet yang antara lain berkuasa terhadap sesetengah percukaian dan tanah. Malah, beberapa undang-undang yang diluluskan Parlimen Malaysia tidak boleh dilaksanakan di Sabah tanpa persetujuan kerajaan negeri.

Saya gusar apabila ada pihak Sabah memberi gambaran seolah-olah pemimpin Sabah dipaksa menerima cadangan pembentukan Malaysia walaupun mempunyai pandangan berbeza. Mereka mendakwa, wujud bukti cadangan mewujudkan Malaysia berdepan masalah sejak awal.

Saya akui memang wujud pertelingkahan di kalangan pemimpin Sabah ketika Tunku Abdul Rahman mula melontar idea penubuhan Malaysia. Sebagai contoh, Tun Fuad awalnya agak ragu-ragu dengan idea itu.

Ini boleh difahami memandangkan pemimpin Sabah bakal `menyerahkan' negeri itu menyertai penyatuan agak rumit dan besar kesannya ke atas rakyat Sabah. Bagaimanapun, perbezaan pandangan di kalangan pemimpin Sabah secara perlahan-lahan berubah selepas pelbagai perbincangan, mesyuarat tertutup, lawatan dan rundingan diadakan antara pemimpin utama Malaya, Singapura, Sarawak dan Sabah. Sebagai contoh, Tun Fuad hampir pasti menerima pembentukan Malaysia. Penerimaan mereka dapat dilihat menerusi beberapa siri perjanjian yang dilaksanakan bagi membentuk Malaysia. Dalam aspek sejarah, itu adalah pengikat paling utama.

Apakah keadaan Sabah akan lebih baik jika bersendirian tanpa menyertai pembentukan Malaysia? Kita mesti adil kepada pemimpin terdahulu sebelum menjawab soalan itu. Bagaimana rasanya berada dalam kedudukan mereka ketika bersama bergerak ke arah pembentukan Malaysia? Soalan ini perlu dijawab berdasarkan apa yang sebenarna berlaku pada 1960-an dan bukannya melihat sejarah daripada perpesktif 2012 ketika negeri dan negara sudah mengecap kemajuan.

Wujud isu ancaman keselamatan sebelum British memberi keizinan bagi Sabah mengecap kemerdekaan. Kerajaan British khuatir aspek keselamatan Sabah bakal tergugat jika Sabah menjadi negara merdeka. Berpaksikan sejarah sebagai penyuluh kebenaran, kebimbangan mereka itu mempunyai asasnya.

Jika dilihat wilayah di sekeliling Sabah, kita perlu mengakui hakikat wujud ketidakstabilan politik di rantau ini manakala keamanan adalah sesuatu yang rapuh pada waktu itu. Kebangkitan komunis di Indo-China berada di kemuncaknya dan keadaan itu nyata membuatkan penduduk Thailand, Malaya dan Singapura dilingkari keresahan. Di timur Sabah, Presiden Filipina, Presiden Macapagal bersungguh-sungguh mempertahankan "tuntutan ke atas Sabah". Filipina turut mengeluarkan ancaman dan secara bersembunyi memberi keizinan bagi tenteranya menceroboh Sabah selepas itu menerusi insiden Pulau Corregidor yang membawa kepada kutukan keras oleh Parlimen Malaysia.

Di selatan Sabah, Presiden Indonesia, Presiden Sukarno turut membangkitkan kemarahannya terhadap rakyat Sabah dan kerajaan Malaya. Berlatarbelakangkan pelbagai ancaman itu, Tun Fuad dan Tun Mustapha menyedari pilihan yang dimiliki amat terhad. Di akhirnya, mereka memilih langkah terbaik iaitu bersatu bagi membentuk entiti lebih besar bergelar Malaysia.

Bagi mereka, alasannya jelas - persamaan dan kefahaman terhadap sistem pentadbiran British, proses kehakiman, undang-undang dan perkhidmatan awam di Malaya, Singapura, Sarawak dan Sabah. Dengan menjadi sebahagian daripada entiti lebih besar, Sabah akan memiliki kelebihan ekonomi dalam aspek menarik pelaburan, mengurangkan kos pembangunan, berkongsi perbelanjaan pertahanan dan dengan sendirinya meniti laluan lebih singkat kea rah mencapai pembinaan bangsa.
Masa Depan

Harus diakui, Persekutuan atau Federalisme bukanlah penyelesaian sempurna buat semua negara. Sampai ke satu tahap, kita pasti berdepan pertikaian terutama dari segi pengagihan pendapatan, dana pembangunan dan dakwaan wujudnya ketidakadilan. Perdebatan ini wujud di semua negara di dunia yang mengamalkan konsep Persekutuan. Bagaimanapun, isu ini boleh dibincang dan didebat bersama secara tertib tanpa perlu mewujudkan polemik yang boleh merosakkan jati diri bangsa.

Ada pihak mendakwa banyak masalah dihadapi sekarang disebabkan oleh konsep Persekutuan. Mereka melonggokkan soal kemiskinan, kekurangan infrastruktur dan pendatang tanpa izin di bahu konsep Persekutuan.

Saya akui rakyat Sabah berhak menyuarakan kebimbangan ini. Bagaimanapun,segala isu ini lebih menjurus kepada dasar dan keutamaan kerajaan. Justeru, kita tidak wajar membiarkan debat penuh emosi mengisi ruang semata-mata untuk menentukan wajarkah Sabah berada dalam Malaysia atau sebaliknya. Dasar dan keutamaan boleh dicabar, didebat dan diperbetulkan mengikut keperluan.

Sebagai rakyat Sabah, pandangan kita perlu melangkaui debat `Sabah untuk Rakyat Sabah' Konsep `Kerajaan Malaya di Putrajaya' hanyalah imaginasi liar pembangkang. Malaysia hanya memiliki satu kerajaan manakala suara setiap kaum dan negeri didengar serta diwakili dengan adil. Perlu diingat, Kabinet Malaysia mempunyai 4 Menteri dan 5 Timbalan Menteri dari Sabah.

Saya lihat, rakyat Sarawak dan Singapura sudah lama melangkah ke depan, enggan bercakaran dalam aspek politik yang memecah-belah walaupun mereka adalah sebahagian daripada Perjanjian Malaysia.

Di Sarawak, persoalan sama ada kemerdekaan disambut pada 31 Ogos atau 16 September bukan isu yang terlalu diperkatakan rakyatnya. Ironinya, Sarawak menyambut kemerdekaan pada 22 Julai 1963.

Sama juga di Singapura. Rakyatnya tidak lagi merungut mengenai Hari Singapura (nama Akta yang diluluskan Parlimen Malaysia untuk menyingkir Singapura dari Malaysia pada 1965). Seperti Sarawak, mereka terus melangkah dan memberi tumpuan untuk membangunkan negara seperti sekarang.

Perdebatan kemerdekaan 49 atau 55 tahun mesti dihentikan segera. Walaupun benar Sabah merdeka 49 tahun lalu, kita tidak boleh menafikan rakyat Malaysia di Semenanjung mengecap kemerdekaan55 tahun lalu.

Mengubah angka kemerdekaan kepada 1963 berbanding 1957 akan membuatkan tiga juta rakyat Sabah gembira tetapi ia akan mengguris perasaan lebih 20 juta rakyat Semenanjung Malaysia yang merdeka sejak 55 tahun lalu. Kita mungkin menyelesaikan satu masalah tetapi masalah lain pula timbul. Itu sebabnya kerajaan mengambil keputusan untuk bersikap diplomatik dalam menyelesaikan perkara ini.

Sebagai contoh, logo rasmi Merdeka 55 tidak mempunyai perkataan `Malaysia'. Bagi saya, itu adalah permulaan yang baik. Mungkin ada eloknya jika Kementerian Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan menggugurkan terus angkanya untuk menggunakan `Hari Merdeka'. Ini akan membuatkan 28 juta rakyat Malaysia gembira!

Sempena sambutan Hari Malaysia, saya harap setiap rakyat Malaysia – khususnya rakyat Sabah – untuk meneruskan kehidupan. Kita perlu terus memelihara hak perlembagaan Sabah tetapi pada masa sama kita perlu yakin bahawa masa depan Sabah berada di tangan Malaysia, seperti mana masa depan Malaysia kemas dalam genggaman Sabah.

Saya bangga menjadi anak Sabah berjiwa Malaysia. Anda juga sepatutnya begitu.

Selamat Hari Malaysia!

Oleh:
Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan
Ahli Parlimen Kota Belud, Sabah
14 September 2012

Being Sabahan, Feeling Malaysian (Part Three)

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 10:57 AM PDT

Although in terms of membership, Sabah is equal to the other states in the peninsular, Sabah does have its own autonomy as stipulated in the constitution which other states (except Sarawak) do not have. Immigration is under the control of the state government.

Sabah is allowed to continue its cabinet system while some taxation and land matters are still within the state's prerogative. Even certain laws passed in the Malaysian parliament cannot be implemented in Sabah without express consent from the state.

It bothers me when some quarters in Sabah love to give an impression that Malaysia was thrust upon the Sabahan leaders despite their dissenting views. According to them, that was cogent evidence that the idea of Malaysia federation was faulty from the get-go.

I admit there was earlier dissention among Sabah leaders at the point when Tunku Abdul Rahman first announced the idea of Malaysia. Tun Fuad, for intance, was initially suspicious of it.

This is understandably so since Sabah leaders were about to commit the state into a complicated collaboration of great consequence upon the people of Sabah. But the dissenting views of Sabah leaders slowly changed after extensive consultation, private meetings and intense negotiation were held between the founding fathers of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah.

Tun Fuad, for example, was clearly inching toward the approval of federation of Malaysia. Their approval was evident in series of agreements, which had been executed to form Malaysia. In so far as history is concerned, the signed agreements what matter the most.

Would Sabah be better off on her own instead of joining Malaysia? In answering that question, we must be fair to our founding fathers. What was it like to be in their shoes at the time when they were pushing for Malaysia? The question must be answered in the context of what actually transpired in the 1960s instead of our penchant of looking at history from our 2012 perspective when the state and the nation are doing fine.

There was the issue of security concern prior to the British consenting to grant Sabah her independence. The British were worried that being independent on her own would seriously undermine Sabah's security. And if history were to be the torch of truth, their fears were not completely unfounded.

If we look at the regions around Sabah back then, we know that this part of the world, at the time, was quite unstable politically and that peace was very fragile commodity. The communist insurgency in Indo-China was gaining momentum and that made the Thais, Malayans and Singaporeans genuinely nervous. To the east of Sabah, President Macapagal of the Philippines was pursuing the "Sabah claim" rather aggressively. The Philippines issued threats and later had secretly sanctioned covert military plans to invade Sabah in the infamous incident of Corregidor island which elicited condemnation by unanimous Malaysian Parliament.

To the south of Sabah, President Soekarno of Indonesia was also increasing his vitriol against Sabahan and Malayan governments. Against this backdrop of threats, Tun Fuad and Tun Mustapha knew they had very little choice. In the end they chose the most sensible thing to do: to merge into a bigger entity called Malaysia which would provide similarities and familiarities in terms of British administration system, judicial process, laws and civil service in Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah. They knew that being part of a bigger entity would give Sabah the advantage of economies of scale in terms of attracting investment, lowering cost of development, sharing the prohibitively expensive defense spending and dramatically cutting short the learning curve of nation building.

The Future

Admittedly, federalism is not some foolproof or completely perfect solution for every nation. There is bound to be points of contention especially on distribution of revenue, development funds and claims of unfair relationship. These debates occur wherever federalism is practiced in any part of the world. But these issues can be debated with decorum without going through such destructive polemic, which along the way inflicting severe damage to the very fiber of our nation's being.

Some go to the extent of to misguidedly attribute current day problems on the concept of federalism. They shift every issue from poverty, lack of infrastructures to illegal immigrants onto the shoulders of federalism.

I do admit that Sabahans have every right to raise these legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, these issues have more to do with policies and priorities of the government. The same should not be allowed to spill over into emotional debate of whether or not Sabah should be a part of Malaysia. Policies and priorities can always be contested, debated and adjusted accordingly.

We Sabahans must look beyond the futile debate of "Sabah for Sabahans" and "Sabah vs. Malaya". The concept of 'Malayan government in Putrajaya' is but a flicker of the opposition's imagination. There is only one Malaysian government where the voices of each race and state are being simultaneously heard and represented. Needless to say, out of the entire current federal cabinet, 4 Ministers and 5 Deputy Ministers are from Sabah.

From my perspective, the Sarawakians and Singaporeans have decided to move on, refusing to split hairs over the polemic of divisive politics even though they were very much part of the Malaysia Agreement before.

In Sarawak, for instance, the question of whether to celebrate independence day on 31st August or 16th September is not something the Sarawakians would dwell much upon. And ironically, Sarawak celebrated her independence on 22nd July 1963.

Similarly, over in Singapore, the people have stopped whining about the fateful day in history called Singapore Day (that is the name of the Act passed by Malaysian Parliament to expel Singapore from Malaysia in 1965). Like Sarawak, they have moved on and concentrated on making Singapore of what it is today.

The debate of 49th vs. 55th year of independence must cease with immediate effect. While it is true that Sabah gained her independence 49 years ago, we cannot deny that our fellow Malaysians in the peninsular had their independence 55 years ago.

Shifting the year of independence to 1963 rather than 1957 would make 3million Sabahans happy, but may in turn slight the feeling of more than 20millions Peninsular Malaysians who gained independence 55 years ago.

We may solve one problem but create another! That is why the government decided to be diplomatic in solving this conundrum. But things have taken a positive turn, for instance, the official logo of 55th Merdeka does not bear the word 'Malaysia'. To me, that is a good start. Perhaps in the future, the Information, Communications and Culture Ministry will drop the contentious reference of base year altogether and instead just use the plain "Hari Merdeka" in its official promotion material. This will make 28 million Malaysians happy!

Lastly, in conjunction with the auspicious Hari Malaysia, I urge all Malaysians -- especially my fellow Sabahans -- to move on. It is undeniable that we must at all times preserve Sabah's constitutional rights, but let us not be clouded by any shadow of doubt that Sabah's future lies firmly with Malaysia, as much as the future of Malaysia is with Sabah.

If you ask me, I have always been a proud Sabahan yet feeling like a true Malaysian. So can you.

*End*

Being Sabahan, Feeling Malaysian (Part Two)

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 10:53 AM PDT

The federation of Malaysia was to be formed on 31 August 1963, which was the same date British would grant Sabah her independence. Despite great challenges, everything went according to the plan until the Philippines and Indonesia decided to throw a spanner into the works.

At the eleventh hour, President Macapagal and President Soekarno demanded the United Nations to form a special team to ascertain the support or rejection thereof of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak in so far as the new federation was concerned.

Tunku Abdul Rahman objected to the formation of the special team since the deadline for Malaysia Day was fast approaching. He also argued that the demand was redundant since British had earlier commissioned Lord Cobbold team to do the exact same thing.

But by sheer twist of fate, Tunku Abdul Rahman and the leaders of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore relented to the request since they were adamant in proving the two Presidents wrong. Hence, the formation of Malaysia was delayed for two weeks to pave way for the United Nations team to report its findings.

Interestingly enough, the findings of the team reaffirmed the earlier conclusion by Lord Cobbold's Commission that majority of Sabahans agreed to be under Malaysia.

When the date 31st August 1963 came, British decided to proceed with earlier plans to give Sabah her independence, with an understanding that, in two week's time, she would be forming Malaysia together with the states in Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak on the 16th September 1963.

Historians are of the view that Sabah independence was basically a paper declaration because the executive power to administer Sabah - even after 31st August 1963 - largely remained in the hands of the last British Governor, Sir William Goode. Sabah did not have her own Chief Minister and Head of State until the 16th September 1963 when Fuad and Mustapha were sworn in to fill the respective posts.

For all intents and purposes, Sabah was still very much administered by the British in the span of two weeks between 31st August and 16th September 1963 even though Sabah was supposedly accorded self-government in that short nationhood of two weeks.

*Continue to part three in the next posting

Being Sabahan, feeling Malaysian (Part One)

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 09:53 AM PDT

Of all the paintings on the walls of my house, there is one that always steals my attention away. It is the historic image of 16 September 1963, captured in a quaint black and white style. It is the one where the nation's fathers of independence -- Tun Fuad Stephens, Tun Datu Mustapha Harun and Tun Abdul Razak Hussein -- stood together on a podium in downtown Kota Kinabalu to usher in the birth of a new nation called, Malaysia.

History was made that day when thousands of joyous Sabahans listened attentively as Tun Fuad Stephens (then known as 'Donald Stephens') held up a scroll and recited the Proclamation of Malaysia.

However, to infuse a dash of surrealism to the image, there is a colored superimposed image of a boy in hip-hop clothing, pulling a breakdance move next to where the founding fathers stood.

If you look closely, you can see the weary eyes of the three Tuns fixed on the boy. Their facial expressions locked in disbelief and trepidation that one day, the future generation of Malaysians – as represented by the boy's image – will not understand the significance of our independence.

That imaginary boy in the painting could very well be anyone of us today. Take for example the claim by certain people that Sabah is supposed to be one of four (not just one of the fourteen states) in the federation of Malaysia. They claim that Sabah had been cheated out of this position for the last 49 years. It is a very serious allegation, one which questions the very need of our nation's existence.

Is this claim true? Let's find the truth by examining historical documents relevant to the formation of Malaysia. These included, among others,

the 20-Points Document
the Malaysian Solidarity and Consultative Committee Report
the Cobbold Commission Report
the Inter-Governmental Committee Report
Hansard reports (on the Malaysia debate both in the Malayan and British Parliaments)
the Malaysia Agreement 1963
and Proclamation Malaysia document.

These documents together with Tunku Abdul Rahman's and Lee Kuan Yew's autobiographies give us a better perspective of the circumstances which led to the formation of Malaysia in the 1963. They narrate the state of affairs in South East Asia in the 50s and 60s, especially in terms of security and uncertain future that our leaders had to deal with at the time.

Firstly let's look at some excerpts of the documents and agreements. Judge for yourself if the argument that Sabah was meant to be one of four member states of the newly formed Malaysia Federation, holds any water.

Malaysia Agreement

Article I of the agreement crystalized Sabah status within Malaysia. It reads,

"The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement and the Federation shall thereafter be called "Malaysia".

Malaysia Agreement clearly states that Sabah was to be one of the fourteen states within Malaysia.

Proclamation of Malaysia

Similarly, the final paragraph of the Proclamation of Malaysia (which was read out by Donald Stephens on the morning of 16th of September 1963 in Kota Kinabalu) reads,

"... that Malaysia comprising the States of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang, Malacca, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak shall by the Grace of God, the Lord of the Universe, forever be an independent and sovereign democratic State founded upon liberty and justice."

The Inter-Governmental Committee Report

The Inter-Governmental Committee Report, partly set up to work out the constitutional arrangements of Malaysia, remains steadfast on Sabah being one of the 14 states of the Federation via point 10 of Chapter II (Establishment Of The Federation Of Malaysia)

"The Federation will consist of the States of the existing Federation of Malaya, Sabah (at present known as North Borneo), Sarawak and Singapore... The name of the Federation shall be Malaysia."

Malaysia Act 1963

In Section 4, Part II (The States of the Federation) it states

"…that the Federation shall be known, in Malay and English, by the name Malaysia. The States of the Federation shall be - (a) the states of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu; and (b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak; and (c) the State of Singapore."

The Malaysia Act 1963 is also unequivocal on this point.

As an MP from Sabah, I would glady and readily agree if Sabah was to be one out of four parts of Malaysia. Unfortunately, the documents above clearly stated otherwise. We cannot ignore those facts as they are part of history which were extensively argued and subsequently agreed upon, drafted and jointly signed by Sabah leaders of the time.

*Continue to Part Two in the next posting

Suara Sri Andalas

Perutusan YB Dr Xavier Jayakumar Sempena Hari Malaysia

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 05:45 AM PDT

Salam sejahtera,

Empat puluh sembilan tahun yang lepas, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu telah bergabung dengan Sabah dan Sarawak demi mencapai sebuah impian yang sama demi berkongsi kejayaan dari segi pengagihan hak sama rata kepada semua rakyatnya yang berada samada di semenanjung ataupun di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Pada hari ini kita dapat lihat, impian dan harapan empat puluh sembilan tahun yang lepas masih belum dicapai. Diskriminasi dan pemusatan kuasa yang tidak adil hasil daripada politik sempit terus berlaku. Rakyat Malaysia walaupun telah bebas daripada penjajahan kuasa luar namun masih belum bebas sepenuhnya daripada penjajahan minda. Rakyat terutamanya di Sabah yang kaya dengan hasil semula jadinya masih lagi tidak mencapai taraf hidup yang sepatutnya.

Bersempena sambutan Hari Malaysia pada 16 September ini, saya mengajak rakyat Malaysia tidak kira samada yang berada di semenanjung ataupun Sabah dan Sarawak supaya beriltizam dan bertekad untuk membawa perubahan kepada negara yang kita cintai ini. Marilah kita menghidupkan kembali impian empat puluh sembilan tahun yang lepas dengan menjadikan negara ini bebas daripada diskriminasi, dapat menikmati sumber kekayaan serta kuasa di negara sendiri secara pengagihan yang lebih adil dan bebas daripada sebarang bentuk penjajahan. Perubahan terletak pada tangan anda, ayuh rakyat Malaysia kita jadikan Malaysia ini sebuah negara yang lebih baik.

Selamat menyambut Hari Malaysia.

YB DR XAVIER JAYAKUMAR

EXCO Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

ADUN Seri Andalas

Lim Guan Eng

Malaysia Day Message 2012(en/cn)

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 01:03 AM PDT

DAP Malaysia Day Message By DAP Secretary-General And Member Of Parliament For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu On 15.9.2012.

Reclaiming Sabah And Sarawak's Status In The Federal Constitution As Equal Partners With Peninsular Malaysia With Emphasis On 5 Critical Areas Of Political And Socio-Economic Development.

On 16.9.1963, both Sabah and Sarawak joined Peninsular Malaysia as equal partners to form Malaysia under the Federal Constitution. 49 years later, Sabah and Sarawak has emerged as unequal partners as compared with Peninsular Malaysia. This has caused widespread resentment and even disillusionment that Sabahans and Sarawakians have gone backwards and lost out in almost every aspect as compared to Peninsular Malaysia.

Despite huge natural resources, Sabah remains the poorest state in Malaysia and both states' roads and infrastructure are nothing compared to Peninsular Malaysia. If PR wins power, PR will reclaim Sabah and Sarawak's status in the Federal Constitution as equal partners with Peninsular Malaysia with emphasis on 6 critIcal areas of political and socio-economic development.

The choice for Sabah is clear whether they wish to remain as the poorest state in Malaysia or change and aspire to be the richest state in Malaysia with these 6 fundamental changes.

1. Equitable share of oil and natural gas by increasing from 5% to 20% to resolve long-standing problems relating to economy, education and poverty eradication;
2. Improve the disgraceful state of road infrastructure as well as upgrade existing ports and airports.
3. Ensure adequate and uninterrupted supply of water and electricity. Install free wifi in public places to provide internet access and connectivity for all.
4. Establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to take action against those responsible and resolve the crisis of illegal citizens;
5. Appoint wherever possible Sabahans for the government positions in Federal and state departments; and
6. A people-centric land policy by ensuring that those holding public political posts are not qualified to apply for state land; no removal or degradation of 999 year land titles to 99 years; and automatic renewal of land leases upon expiry with payment of only 10% of land premium(90% discount)

—
民主行动党秘书长兼峇眼区国会议员林冠英于2012年9月15日在吉隆坡、古晋、亚庇发表马来西亚日献词：

恢复沙巴、砂劳越两州在联邦宪法中与马来半岛一样的平等伙伴地位，强调五个领域的政治、社会经济发展。

1963年9月16日，沙巴与砂劳越加入马来半岛成为平等伙伴，在联邦宪法下成立马来西亚。49年后，沙、砂两州却成为相较马来半岛的不平等伙伴。这引发许多不满及失望的情绪，因为沙巴、砂劳越正在退步，几乎在许多方面都落后马来半岛。

尽管两州拥有丰富的天然资源，沙巴也是马来西亚最穷的州属，而两个州属的道路及基建根本无法与马来半岛相比。如果民联执政，民联会恢复沙巴、砂劳越两州在联邦宪法中与马来半岛一样的平等伙伴地位，强调五个领域的政治、社会经济发展。

沙巴的选择是很明显的，他们是否要继续成为全马最穷的州属，还是要看到六大改变，成为马来西亚最富有的州属。
1. 平等分配石油与天然气的利润，将石油税从5%提高至20%，以解决长久以来的经济、教育及贫穷问题
2. 改善不堪入目的道路设施，同时提升现有的港口及机场
3. 确保足够的水供及电供。在公共场合安装免费无线Wifi，让全部人可以上网
4. 成立皇家调查委员会，采取行动对付那些导致非法移民问题的祸首。
5. 委任沙巴人担任联邦及州政府的职位
6. 推行以民为本政策，确保有官职在身者不能申请州属土地，不把999年地契降级为99年地契；每年地契自动更新，只需缴付10%地价（90%折扣）

林冠英

Hishamudin Tun Hussein Onn’s Refusal To Guarantee Security For PR As Akin To A Refusal To Warn Those Resorting To Criminal Acts Of Violence Against The Personal Safety And Property Of Pakatan Rakyat Leaders And Members.(en/bm/cn)

Posted: 15 Sep 2012 01:05 AM PDT

DAP is shocked by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishamudin Tun Hussein Onn's refusal to guarantee security for PR in the Home Ministry's Hari Raya Aidilfitri Open House at Putrajaya yesterday. Such refusal by the Home Minister is akin to a refusal to warn of stern action against those resorting to criminal acts of violence against the personal safety and property of PR leaders and members. Is Hishamudin providing not only just legal immunity from prosecution but also sanctioning such wrongful acts?

By refusing to either guarantee PR leaders' security, Hishamuddin is sending a wrong message against those involved in violent attacks on the PKR's nationwide Merdeka Rakyat bus tour. Will we see more of such violent attacks not just against PKR but also PR? This question of public security is critical following the systematic and organised attacks against DAP in Penang yesterday where the DAP Penang headquarters and 3 DAP State Assemblymen service centers, Datuk Keramat ADUN Jagdeep Singh, Pulau Tikus ADUN Koay Teng Hai and mine, were attacked with red paint.

This is the first time in Malaysian history that a Chief Minister's service center has been attacked, a dangerous escalation of the political culture of hatred and violence against PR and DAP leaders. The latest attacks are clearly part of a systematic and organised effort to threaten, subvert and undermine the PR Penang state government as this is the 3rd such attack in 13 months.

On Aug 14, 2011, the DAP Penang headquarters and the service center of Komtar ADUN Ng Wei Aik was splashed with orange and red paint. 4 days later there was an attempt to burn the DAP Penang headquarters' building. To date the culprits involved were neither apprehended nor identified by the police.

I do not know whether there will be more of such attacks against the DAP in Penang. However, DAP will not be intimidated by such acts of violence but will continue with the mandate given by the people in Penang to implement people-centric policies and a clean government. I urge our members and supporters to remain calm in the face of such provocations and remain steadfast with democratic culture of non-violence. PR and DAP will ultimately prevail and win by rejecting the politics of hate, lies and violence.

Hishamudin should immediately restore some of his personal credibility and uphold the rule of law by withdrawing such irresponsible remarks and issue a directive to the police to take stern action behind the perpetrators of such illegal and criminal acts of violence against PR to prove that there are no double standards nor selective prosecution.

LIM GUAN ENG

Kenyataan Akhbar oleh Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang dan Setiausaha Agung DAP Lim Guan Eng di Komtar, George Town pada 15.9.2012

Keengganan Hishamuddin Tun Hussein Untuk Menjamin Keselamatan PR Seumpama Keengganan Untuk Memberi Amaran Kepada Mereka Yang Bertindak Ganas Terhadap Keselamatan Peribadi Dan Harta Pemimpin-Pemimpin Dan Ahli-Ahli Pakatan Rakyat.

DAP terkejut dengan keengganan Menteri Dalam Negeri Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Tun Hussein Onn untuk menjamin keselamatan PR dalam majlis rumah terbuka Hari Raya Kementerian Dalam Negeri di Putrajaya semalam. Keengganan ini seumpama keengganan untuk memberi amaran kepada mereka yang bertindak ganas terhadap keselamatan peribadi dan harta pemimpin-pemimpin dan ahli-ahli PR. Adakah Hishamuddin memberi bukan sahaja kekebalan undang-undang tetapi juga menyetujui tindakan-tindakan yang salah ini?

Dengan keengganan untuk menjamin keselamatan pemimpin-pemimpin PR ini, Hishamuddin memberi gambaran yang salah kepada mereka yang menyerang bas jelajah Merdeka Rakyat PKR? Adakah kita akan melihat lagi tindakan ganas bukan sahaja terhadap PKR tetapi juga terhadap PR? Persoalan keselamatan awam ini adalah isu yang kritikal ekoran serangan sistematik dan terancang terhadap DAP semalam di mana ibu pejabat DAP Pulau Pinang dan pusat khidmat 3 ADUN DAP iaitu ADUN Datuk Keramat Jagdeep Singh, ADUN Pulau Tikus Koay Teng Hai dan saya sendiri, telah disimbah dengan cat merah.

Inilah kali pertama dalam sejarah Malaysia di mana pusat khidmat seorang Ketua Menteri telah diserang, dan menunjukkan betapa bertambah buruknya budaya politik kebencian dan keganasan terhadap PR dan pemimpin-pemimpin DAP. Serangan terbaru ini jelas merupakan sebahagian daripada usaha sistematik dan terancang untuk mengancam, menjatuhkan dan melemahkan kerajaan negeri PR Pulau Pinang kerana ini merupakan serangan yang ketiga dalam tempoh 13 bulan.

Pada Ogos 14 2011, ibu pejabat DAP Pulau Pinang dan pusat khidmat ADUN Komtar Ng Wei Aik telah disimbah cat jingga dan merah. 4 hari kemudian berlaku cubaan untuk membakar bangunan ibu pejabat DAP Pulau Pinang. Sampai hari ini pelakunya belum lagi dikenal pasti atau ditangkap oleh pihak polis.

Saya tidak tahu sama ada akan berlaku lagi serangan sedemikian terhadap DAP di Pulau Pinang. Namun begitu, DAP tidak akan ditakutkan oleh tindakan ganas ini tetapi akan terus berusaha dengan mandat yang diberi oleh rakyat Pulau Pinang untuk melaksanakan dasar-dasar berjiwa rakyat dan pentadbiran bersih. Saya menyeru agar ahli-ahli dan para penyokong akan bertenang dalam menghadapi provokasi dan menunjukkan kesabaran dengan budaya demokratik dan tanpa keganasan. Akhirnya, PR dan DAP akan berjaya kelak dengan menolak politik kebencian, penipuan dan keganasan.

Hishamuddin harus memulihkan kredibiti peribadi beliau dan menegakkan undang-undang dengan menarik baik kenyataannya yang tidak bertanggungjawab dan mengeluarkan arahan kepada pihak polis supaya mengambil tindakan tegas terhadap mereka yang bertindak ganas terhadap PR demi membuktikan bahawa tiada dwi-standard atau pendakwaan secara selektif.

LIM GUAN ENG

槟州首席部长兼民主行动党秘书长林冠英于2012年9月15日在槟城乔治市光大发表的声明：

内政部长希山慕丁拒绝保障民联领袖的人身安全，等同于拒绝警告那些以暴力对待民联领袖人身及财物安全的政治暴徒。

民主行动党对内政部长拿督斯里希山慕丁昨天在其布城举行的开斋节开放日上，拒绝保障民联领袖人身安全的言论感到震惊。堂堂一个内政部长，却拒绝保障民联领袖安全论，等同于拒绝警告那些以暴力对待民联领袖人身及财物安全的政治暴徒。难道希山慕丁不只是给予这些政治暴徒免控权，也认同这些人的做法吗？

透过拒绝保障民联领袖的人身安全，希山慕丁似乎正在传达一个错误的讯息给那些在全国性攻击公正党国庆巴士的罪犯者。我们会否因此而预见更多不只是冲着公正党，但冲着民联而来的暴力袭击事件呢？随着昨天发生在槟州行动党身上的系统化袭击，公众安全问题显得非常关键的。昨天，槟州行动党总部及三名行动党议员的服务中心皆遭到红漆的袭击，这包括柑仔园区州议员佳日星的服务中心、浮罗池滑州议员郭庭恺的服务中心及我的亚逸布爹州议员服务中心。

这是马来西亚史上首次有一名首席部长的服务中心被袭击，证明了这些冲着民联及行动党领袖而来的仇恨及暴力政治文化已经升级。这连串的最新袭击，明显是经过策划、系统化来威胁、推翻及破坏槟州民联政府的努力，因为这已是近13个月以来第三宗类似的个案。

在2011年8月14日，槟州行动党总部及光大区州议员黄伟益的服务中心遭到红漆及橙漆的袭击。4天后，有人企图焚烧槟州行动党总部的建筑。截至目前为止，这些涉案者皆没有被警方确认或逮捕。

我不知道是否还会有更多针对行动党而来的袭击。不管怎样，行动党决不向这些恶势力低头，反之，我们会继续秉持着人民给我们的委托，实践一个干净及以民为本的政府。我在此呼吁所有的党员及行动党支持者在面对这些挑衅时保持冷静，坚定地、万勿以暴治暴，以展现我们的耐性及非暴力的民主文化。民联及行动党最终将会以拒绝仇恨、谎言和暴力政治占上风及胜出。

希山慕丁必需立刻恢复他的个人信誉，并遵从法治，撤回这些不负责任的言论，立刻指示警方采取严厉的行动，对付那些以暴力及违法行为侵害民联领袖的肇事者，以证明没有双重标准或选择提控。

林冠英