Monday, December 11, 2017

Some Sabahans with secession on their minds

MM Online - DPM: Any calls for secession punishable by law (extracts):

Parties trying push for the secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia can be punished “severely” for promoting anarchy, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said today.

The acting Umno deputy president warned any parties promoting slogans like “Sabah for Sabah” and “Sarawak for Sarawakians” as it runs counter to the Federal Constitution and is punishable by law.

“The action of some who seditiously incite the people with the slogans ‘Sabah for Sabah’ and ‘Sarawak for Sarawak’ is against the spirit of the Federal Constitution.

“It is this playing with fire that may lead to anarchy and national instability. Let us not reach the point where we suffer due to the intervention of foreign ploys and incitement,” Zahid said during his speech addressing Umno delegates tonight.

My several Uncles and their mateys would be very sad to learn that some Sabahans want to secede from Malaysia when many Peninsular Malaysians had sacrificed so much to protect them from an aggressive hungry Indonesia and a rapacious Philippines in the early 60's. Some Peninsular Malaysians even made the ultimate sacrifice.

Many younger Malaysians whether from Sabah or Peninsular do not know the pain and sacrifices of their nation's historical formation when we had to face an ugly Sukarno and his Konfrontasi, and Macapagal and his claim on North Borneo, thus we shouldn't be surprised by their (younger Malaysians') lack of allegiance to Malaysia.

I have a choice Penang Hokkien word to describe them but more importantly, can Sabah secede?

In the 20-point Agreement which Sabah (then as North Borneo) proposed for its incorporation into the then-new Constitution of Malaysia, some of those points were included to varying degrees while others others were merely accepted orally, thus not having any legal status.

In other words, not all 20 points were legally legislated or incorporated into the Constitution.

However, Point 7 of the 20-point Agreement states there should be no right to secede from the Federation.

Because fo Point 7, Dr Jeniri Amir from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) stated that Sarawak and Sabah has no right to secede from the federation.

However, a separatist group led by Doris Jones (of Sabah) argued that the meaning of the word "should" as in "There should be no right to secede from the Federation" is only a recommendation as opposed to "shall" which implies a command.

Thus Sabah has a right to ignore a recommendation, wakakaka.

Borneo rights activist Doris Jones, 48, heads the Sabah Sarawak Union UK, and was of course UK-based. Like Waythamoorthy, when one was UK-based, one could be more daring and politically assertive, like suing the UK government for trillions of sterling pounds, wakakaka again.

Doris posed a rather silly question to BBC News Radio Northampton, to wit, that she didn't understand why Malaysia doesn’t want to allow Sabah and Sarawak to go from the list of states in the Federation, so that they can stand on their own two feet.

Anyway, her question was of course rhetorical only as she already had an answer. Penangites would say Doris 'gau ch'an' (pandai berkeluh-kesah, good at moaning), wakakaka.

Jones said she was about ten years old when she realised that something was not right about Sabah and Sarawak being in a Federation with the peninsula. “We were not allowed to say anything,” she said. “Racism, discrimination. There’s no democracy.”

Naturally being ten years old when she obtained that impression, she might not have been aware of Peninsular soldiers, sailors and airmen defending the sovereignty of Sabah and Sarawak from very aggressive avaricious neighbours.

Yes, how the f**k would she know, and now why the f**k would she care, that without Peninsular and Commonwealth forces spilling their blood and some giving up their lives, she would probably be speaking Tagalog today, hailing President Rodigro Duterte and singing Dahil Sa'yo with him.

Incidentally, rather than ponder over the legal meaning of the verb 'should', she may wish to know that Article 2 of the Constitution of Malaysia states:

Article 2: Admission of new territories into the Federation 
2. Parliament may by law— 
(a) admit other States to the Federation; 
(b) alter the boundaries of any State, 
but a law altering the boundaries of a State shall not be passed without the consent of that State (expressed by a law made by the Legislature of that State) and of the Conference of Rulers.

In other words, as per explained by our DAP man Dr Abdul Aziz Bari sometime ago, Article 2 of the Constitution implies that the Malaysian Parliament has the final say on the secession of a state from the federation, as it did to Singapore in 1965 (which BTW did not secede as Singaporeans like to believe, but was kicked out by Tunku, wakakaka).

 PKR does not like him 

Then secessionists-wannabe would also have to contend with agreement and approval by the Conference of Rulers.

And according to good old Prof Bari, any suggestions about secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia would be punishable under the Sedition Act.

It seems that the DPM has been right despite his notoriety of frequently putting his foot in his mouth, wakakaka.


  1. Wakakakaka....

    Then secessionists-wannabe would also have to contend with agreement and approval by the Conference of Rulers.

    ??????? syiok-sendiri ke??

    Sila baca baik2 satu kali:

    Article 2: Admission of new territories into the Federation

    2. Parliament may by law—

    (a) admit other States to the Federation;

    (b) alter the boundaries of any State,

    but a law altering the boundaries of a State shall not be passed without the consent of that State (expressed by a law made by the Legislature of that State) and of the Conference of Rulers.


    Article 2a deals ONLY with admission of new states into the federation. The Conference of Rulers has no say here. Parliament is the ultimate decision maker.

    2b likewise concerned with alter the boundaries of any State. This act needs both consent of that State (expressed by a law made by the Legislature of that State) and of the Conference of Rulers after the Parliament passes the resolution.

    Faham kuat2 ke?

    About RedDot, here's something for yr bedtime reading:

    ....that Singapore’s expulsion in 1965, just two years after Malaysia was formed, meant that the topic of member states separating from the federation was undefined.

    Singapore was ejected by an Act of Parliament after 126 Malaysian lawmakers voted unanimously in favour of its removal from the federation.

    The decision to expel Singapore stands as a curious counterpoint to the idea that the Federation of Malaysia is indissoluble.

    Yr farcical secession rant (Sabah & S'pore) IS full of one-sided air & devoid of complete & fair application of the FedConst le!

  2. Mmg syiok sendiri. Singapore expulsion guna article 2b, cuba jelaskan part mana state legislature expressed law mana satu?

  3. Our constitution only addresses admission of new states to the Federation not their leaving it. Thus, the expulsion of Singapore
    may be controversial, but no, there isn't any part of our constitution that specifically says that the parliament can't do so.

    If any state wants to secede peacefully then the constitution will first have to be amended to allow for a legal process of secession. So what that MPs must do is to convince other MPs to vote for a secession amendment. Just like RUU 355 lah!

    Otherwise, the Federal Government cannot not recognize secession as a state power or right, and therefore, it can use whatsoever force against any state which tries to leave the federation.

    Accordingly, secession is illegal and potentially racist, and of course yelling it loudly is considered seditious. Yes, let me tell you this, the government should bring back the ISA to lock-up sine die those illegal 'freedom fighters'.

    1. 2(b) alter the boundaries of any State

      Alteration of the boundaries COULD imply addition &/or removal of the originally enclosed territory, RIGHT?

      So, think carefully about yr blind reading of the article lah!

      RedDot was 'allowed' to secess from the federation by the Parliament then, could very well based on this understanding.

      BTW, S'pore secession was not 'accepted' gracefully in the state legislation (remember; expressed by a law made by the Legislature of that State).

      Tunku's Parliament forced 'it' down her throat. & RedDot's had no hereditary sultan hence the conference of rulers played no role!

      Know the history, then read with a clear mind & understanding lah. Don't just jerk to prove yr 'manliness'. It has opposite effect le!

    2. The last Sultan of Singapore was (should be) Tengku Abdul Aziz. He stayed at Istana Kampung Glam (Gelam). After his death, the government converted his Istana into a muzium, and his descendants have to live in Singapore HDB flats with a meagre yearly allowance. This yearly allowance shall expire soon. Tengku Abdul Aziz's wife, Tengku Hanim is still alive and is now living in Johore. If you allow secession that's what the Nons shall do the Sultans and the Malays. Yes, DAP Penang wants to replicate Singapore? No?

    3. The last sultan of Sing was Sultan Hussein, who ruled Singapore and parts of neighbouring Malaysia before ceding them to the British in 1824. He died in 1835. Don't blame the post-Brit Sing government. When Sultan Hussein died, Britain appropriated about 56 acres of his land

      Penang is Penang and we are NOT Sing. Even LKY could not win a seat in Penang during his PAP heydays

    4. The ketuanan freaks don't seem to understand that S'PORE is a republic!

      Tau APA tu republic ke?

    5. Guess how much LKY paid for that 56 acres of land? Wakakaka... Actually, it was a force aquisition, because the descendants were given notice to develope the land and failing which... habis tanah kepunyaan Melayu?

    6. Hello hasan...sudah salah in facts, tetapi enggan even to say one word sorry...apa ni ? Such arrogance la...even dare to attempt immediately after such boo boo to smear LKY about 'forced aquisition'. Is this bangsat behavior or not ?

    7. Hello JJ.. are you a Singaporean? Have you been to Istana Kampung Glam? Have you met the descendants of Tengku Abdul Aziz?. For your info, I have met the late Tengku Abdul Aziz and his spouse Tengku Hanim. I even had lunch at Istana Kampung Glam. What have you got?

    8. Bro Hasan, of course it was a force acquisition just as the authorities in our kl forcefully acquired land in the Jalan Sultan and Petaling St area. When land are scarce as it is in Sing and when needed for MRT as in kl, forceful acquisition might be necessary so as not to impede developments of facilities such as mrt, roads etc for the people

    9. JJ, can you plse scroll up and can you read the words (should be). Got my drift? Aziz is the descendant  of Hussien, and Aziz was the last who lived at Istana Kampung Glam before they all moved to HDB flats.

    10. The point is the regime of sultan hussien over RedDot ended when he ceded them (Singapore and parts of neighbouring Malaysia) to the British in 1824!

      He gave that authority over the region covering Singapore and parts of neighbouring Malaysia UP long long time ago. His descendants, hence forth, lose all rights & claims to that region, period.

      By the grace of the Singgie government, his descendants were/r allowed to stay in Istana Kampung Glam (Gelam).

      Istana Kampung Glam (Gelam) CAN only be considered as a historical relic of a past regal institute of no relevancy to the current power play.

      Only ketuanan freaks can think of such ridiculous linkage to showcase a wet dream long gone!

    11. The legality of secession cannot be simply debated without looking at both the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (whose custodian is UN, not Malaysian Parliament) and the UN Charter. When it comes to secession, the Malaysian Parliament cannot simply ignore the UN Charter and the original parties to the Malaysian Agreement.

      Moreover, stop reminiscing about the Malayan sacrifice in Borneo because we even had white caucasian soldiers and other foreign nationals who sacrificed for us. So if white caucasians and other foreigners do not exhibit an overly sentimental attitude about their past sacrifices to us, I see no reason why Malayans should be too sentimentel and 'mengungkit' too much what they did. We have our fair share of warriors and soldiers who fought for our own soil AND for Malayan soil (Kanang ak Langkau was one of them).

      The ownership of our soil belongs to our people, not Malayan people. If we wish to cease to be brothers and sisters to the ever-discriminating Malayans, the UN will be compelled to investigate and heed us. Don't downplay our sovereignty over our own soil.

    12. It was a gunboat jingoism. Raffles was a bastard diplomat. He had the state of the art gunboats then, and of course gold and money.

      It was a daylight robbery of the Malay land and states. What the Brits did was treaty here treaty there everywhere treaty treaty, and suddenly the whole country was colonised by them.

      By the by Indonesia has recently proclaimed that Sultan Mahmud as a National Hero. I had visited his grave. He was buried behind the Daik mosque. Daik is in Lingga, Riau. Ketuanan freaks or zombies whatsoever you may like to label us, I shall always be proud that I am a Malay who know his real roots. Are you not proud of your own roots too? Nah.. you ain't got any?

    13. Moron who is questioning yr root???

      The topic under discussion here is the sovereignty of RedDot!

      Bila u dak belajar the dog-vis-a-vis-dog-collar trick of mom?

      The founder of Spore, Raffles, was a bastard diplomat. He had the state of the art gunboats then, and of course gold and money. Thus , easily captured, conned the sultan into 'ceding' those land.

      Apa salah tu?

      Didn't the ancestor of the sultan claimed those lands equally with bloods on their hands?

      AND please don't let me start with my family &/or root. Suffice to say it's longer than when yr ancestor ever setting foot in The Golden Chersonese!!!

    14. Please please tell us your asal usul. Are you a descendant of Shih Huang Ti?

    15. Wakakakaka...How about 黄帝!

    16. Seam,

      KT has an induced superiority complex over Sabahan/Sarawakian.

      Thus, one ALWAYS find his overblown rants about how his uncles & other peninsula M'sians died fighting for Sabah/Sarawak!

      He doesn't understand that we have our fair share of warriors and soldiers who fought for our own soil AND for Malayan soil (Kanang ak Langkau was one of them).

      He conveniently forget too that it was the presence of the Sabahan/Sarawakian military troopers in peninsula M'sia that prevent many more unwarranted deaths of the Nons during May13!

      He is an ungraceful troll!!

  4. Lock her up !Lock her up ! Lock him up too ! Mcm ni, senang selesai semua, wakakaka

  5. Sabah and Sarawak are the most Fixed of all the Ruling Party's Fixed Deposits, with just a very few exceptions in urban areas.
    Even the Rural Malay vote in the Peninsular is less reliable.

    The result is....when you are known to be completely , unconditionally, slavishly loyal, you get completely taken for granted. A Doormat, as Americans say.

    There is no doubt Sabah and Sarawak get the very short end of the economic draw for Malaysia.
    Conditions in rural communities can make you cry.
    Forget about computers in schools...there is no electricity and no running water.

    4th world living conditions which Banglas wouldn't put up with.

    I'm afraid, one day when the Sabahans and Sarawakians wake up, they will be so angry, the push for secession may be unstoppable.

    1. only because teh state governments, especially sarawak, are jealously guarding their domains to deny entries from peninsular which could have help them enormously - I personally saw how labuan from being a part of sabah was transformed overnight into a busy alive island when it became FT. even the nightlife was increased 1000% over with influx of hawkers and entertainment troupes from peninsular

    2. oh labuan, another great effort n good thing from mahathir.

    3. poor in history in class, i bet. labuan was unilaterally endowed to the federal government by harris salleh who caught mahathir by surprise

    4. Poor in history in class...

      Harris said "he agreed to the proposal to turn Labuan into a federal territory".... 'twas a proposal from the Federal Government in 1984...

    5. Is Labuan the way u described NOW??

      Slumbering DownUnder makes u forgetting reality le!

    6. haris salleh ADMITTED ceding labuan to the federal govt - that's undeniable so stop the bull about the federal govt soliciting the territory from sabah. Mahathir had labuan dropped into his lap unexpectedly

      Harris was also asked for the reason why he surrendered Labuan to the Federal Government while he was the Chief Minister.

      Using the grandfather, father and son terminology, Harris said a father (State Government) would not hesitate to give his son (Labuan) under the care of the grandfather (Federal Government).

      He said the father was confident that the son would be taken good care because the grandfather has everything.

      "But we never knew that the grandfather would give the son ikan masin (salted fish) and ask him to walk to school, " Harris said.

      that's the truth, Harris thinking he was clever in forcing labuan into the caring and richer hands of the federal govt. it was ok while i was there wakakaka but what happened after I don't know

    7. Harris said "he agreed to the proposal to turn Labuan into a federal territory".... ergo he was not the initiator of the proposal , unless he is lying.

      Under the Malaysian Constitution, land is under the jurisdiction of the State list.

      So in a matter of ceding land from the State to the Federal Government to form a Federal Territory, the letter of the Constitution and law is always to be the State ceding the territory to Federal Government.

      But the spirit of the transaction is a different matter.

      Whether Haris was tricked on the benefits of the Federal Territory proposal or otherwise is a totally different matter.

      The actual spirit of a transaction is separate different thing from the letter of the law.

      It is the same as with the sale of an asset or goods. Nobody has the power to legally "force" you to sell something, unless you are bankrupt or you fail to keep up instalment payments.

      If you sell something, the letter of the law is that you have to be a Willing Seller.

      Now in the real world, people DO sell property or goods under Duress, or the alternative of refusing to make the sale may be very unpleasant or they may have been tricked into misunderstanding the terms of the sale.

    8. I know harris salleh ceded it to federal government catching mahathir by surprise - he may twist and turn now but that's a historical actuality

  6. our consti oso very sharia compliant, boleh masuk tak bolih keluar. n supported by those australia based.

    1. only from 1983 when mahathir was panicked by the case of Abdul Rahim, a teacher, who challenged the syariah court’s power to prosecute him, because he said he was no longer a Muslim as he was practising the teachings of Qadiani, a Muslim sect in Punjab, India, founded by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

      The teachings of this sect had been declared as deviant by the Malaysian Fatwa Council, therefore Abdul Rahim argued in court that if he was following a deviant religion, surely he must no longer be a Muslim and not under the jurisdiction of the syariah court.

      Justice Mustapha Hussain held “This Application is made to the High Court under s.25(2) of the Courts of
      Judicature Act 1964 where the High Court in its exercise of the powers of issuing prerogative writs can, in suitable cases and in particular for the protection of fundamental liberties enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution, issue orders against any person or authority.

      The Kedah State Administration of Muslim Law Enactment 9 of 1962, section 41(3)(a) and (b) conferred a jurisdiction to the Kadi's or the Syariah Court only to Muslims. This means that non-Muslims, (and the Applicant is a non-Muslim as declared by the Majlis itself,) are outside the jurisdiction of the Majlis and its Syariah Courts.

      This being so, the Application is therefore allowed.”14 [Emphasis added].

      Justice Mustapha Hussain protected and defended the Constitution. His Lordship recognised that to impose Muslim law on a person declared not to be a Muslim would directly affect that person’s constitutional rights; he would not
      be able to profess, practise and propagate his religion, guaranteed by article

      A relief from the High Court was therefore necessary.

      Your hero mahathir panicked because it meant that any Malaysian Muslim could just leave Islam by following a sect pronounced as deviant by the Malaysian Fatwa Council. Thus the government had the Constitution amended to include Article 121(1)(A) which states that the civil court has no jurisdiction on syariah matters.

      Thanks to Mahathir today malays and honorary malays like HY, once born or converted a muslim, has to be confined to islam

    2. hy is not only poor in history but also in legal-religious issues - that's why he hates dap

    3. dun spin, the amendment merely excludes the jurisdiction of the high court in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah court. in may cases, the judges r the culprit due to politicking by umno/pas eg mo1 n his pas no1 dedak eater. n please show me evidence the confining to islam is result of mahathir deed, not just a general comment on the a121 1a amendment.