SABAH DAN SARAWAK

Lord Lansdowne

Tuan, -Apabila Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia sedang digubal peruntukan khas tertentu telah dimasukkan untuk melindungi kepentingan Sarawak dan Sabah berbanding dengan negeri-negeri Kerajaan Persekutuan di Kuala Lumpur.

Antaranya ialah; bahawa kawalan imigresen seharusnya berada di dalam tangan Kerajaan Borneo, dan bahasa Melayu, yang ditetapkan sebagai bahasa kebangsaan Malaysia, tidak seharusnya dibuat bahasa rasmi kedua-dua wilayah di mana orang Melayu membentuk minoriti kecil penduduk. 

Ia adalah membimbangkan untuk melihat, dari laporan Koresponden Khas anda dari Jesselton pada 23 Ogos, kedua-dua hak istimewa ini telah dimansuhkan; dan kita tertanya-tanya berapa banyak lagi penggunaan "batang besar", yang disebut oleh wartawan anda telah hilang. 

Saya ingin menambah bahawa sebagai perlindungan tambahan terhadap apa-apa tindakan cadangan telah dibuat bahawa hak untuk menarik diri dari Persekutuan hendaklah ditulis ke dalam Perlembagaan. Cadangan ini tidak diterima oleh Tuan Lansdowne, Pengerusi Suruhanjaya, atas sebab bahawa mana-mana Negara yang menyertai persekutuan secara sukarela mempunyai hak intrinsik untuk menarik diri mengikut kemahuan mereka bila-bila masa, dan oleh itu tidak perlu untuk memasukkannya ke dalam Perlembagaan.

Dengan latar belakang ini, ia adalah mengejutkan untuk mendengar cadangan merest penentuan sendiri mungkin dengan salah satu daripada wilayah-wilayah Borneo disambut dengan laungan "pengkhianatan" dan ancaman tindakan balas. 

Kerajaan pusat di Kuala Lumpur mesti belajar untuk melayan Sarawak dan Sabah sebagai rakan kongsi dan bukan sebagai orang suruhan. Perubahan sikap yang munasabah akan pergi jauh untuk memelihara Persekutuan dan juga membolehkan Singapura untuk menyertai semula. 

Yang benar, 

C.W.DAWSON. 

Old Forge, Heyshott, Midhurst, Sussex

Read More

SARAWAK AND SABAH

Sir,-When the Constitution of Federation of Malaysia was being drafted certain special provision were included to safeguard the interests of Sarawak and Sabah vis-a-vis the Federal Government in Kuala Lumpur

Among these were; that the control of immigration should be in the hands of the Bornean Governments, and that the Malay language, prescribed as the national language of Malaysia, should not be made the official language of these two territories where the Malays form a small minority of the population.

It is disturbing to see, from the report of your Special Correspondent from Jesselton on August 23, that both these privileges have already been abolished; and one wonders how much further the use of the "big stick", mentioned by your correspondent has gone.

I may add that as an added safeguard against such action a suggestion was made that the right to secede from the Federation should be written into the Constitution. This suggestion was not accepted by Lord Lansdowne, the Chairman of the Commission concerned, on the ground that any State Voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic rights to secede at will, and that it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Constitution.

Against this background it is startling to hear the merest suggestion of possible secession by one of the Borneo territories greeted with cries of "treachery" and threat of retaliation.

The central government in Kuala Lumpur must learn to treat Sarawak and Sabah as partners not as Vassals. A reasonable change of attitude would go far to preserve the Federation and even make it possible for Singapore to rejoin it.

Yours faithfully,

C.W.DAWSON.

Old Forge, Heyshott, Midhurst, Sussex

Read More

Removal of Key Words Show Government Can't be Trusted – Dr. Jeffrey

Thursday, 18 September 2014

Kota Kinabalu: “The removal of the key words “Kerajaan Malaysia Jamin” meaning “The Malaysian Government Guarantees” from the “Batu Sumpah” Oath Stone in Keningau shows that the Malaysian government cannot be trusted because they can change anything they want including the history of Malaysia and the rights of Sabah and Sarawak” said Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan, STAR Sabah Chief.

What is the meaning and intention for the removal of the key words in the “Batu Sumpah”?

By removing the key words, the government of Malaysia can now say that they do not guarantee that religious freedom; forest and that natural resources belongs to Sabah and the safeguarding of native customs, adat and traditions. It reflects the insincere and bad intention of the government.

The celebration by Tan Sri Kurup, Minister in the PM’s Department on 15 September, shows another example of dishonouring the actual date of Malaysia Day.

If the government can simply remove the key words in the “Batu Sumpah”, they can change anything and change the facts of history as and when they like including not honouring the Malaysia Agreement and the terms of the formation of Malaysia.

The police action on Malaysia Day in preventing the people from honouring Batu Sumpah is already another step of the government dishonouring and disregarding the terms of the formation of Malaysia.

“The matter has been referred to our panel of lawyers for consideration of action to be taken against the police and government” added Dr. Jeffrey.

The announcement by PM Najib that from next year, there will be no indication of how many years of “Merdeka” and that “Merdeka” will be celebrated on 31 August are blatant distortions and disregard of the formation of Malaysia.

There can be no denial that Malaysia did not exist before 1963 and that it was never colonized and never granted independence by Britain.

Why then celebrate Malaysia’s independence?

issue if the independence of Malaya is to be celebrated but be truthful and say so, it is the independence of Malaya not Malaysia.

There can be no denial, it is history, that Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963. It is the most important event in the history of Malaysia. So why is it an issue that there is no necessity to declare how many years Malaysia has been formed?

And “Why is it that there are no celebrations of Malaysia Day in the Peninsula? “Is Malaysia Day only for Sabah and Sarawak?”

“Is it because the powers that be want some people to think that Malaysia was formed or gained independence in 1957?

“Whatever the reasons and excuses, the actions of the current government only show that it can no longer be trusted?”

Read More

Agenda peribadi di sebalik idea keluar Malaysia

Pihak yang cuba bawa Sabah dan Sarawak keluar Malaysia ada kepentingan, kecewa dalam politik

KUCHING: Pihak yang cuba membawa Sabah dan Sarawak keluar Malaysia adalah mereka yang mempunyai kepentingan sendiri selain kecewa dalam karier politik mereka.

Malahan tindakan sedemikian bukan sahaja merupakan kesilapan besar kepada negeri ini tetapi disifatkan sebagai ‘tindakan bodoh’ seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Ketua Menteri Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Adenan Satem pada Majlis Sambutan Hari Malaysia malam kelmarin yang turut mendapat sokongan khasnya daripada ahli Barisan Nasional (BN).

Ketua Pemuda Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) Datuk Fadillah Yusof yang menyokong kenyataan itu menjelaskan,  pihak tersebut ada agenda peribadi untuk kepentingan sendiri.

Kata Menteri Kerja Raya itu dari segi sejarah dan fakta terbukti Sarawak membangun bersama Malaysia dalam semua aspek.

“Ya kita akui masih ba-nyak yang perlu kita lakukan namun jurang antara wilayah sudah semakin rapat.

“Kalau dulu kita tiada sekolah asrama penuh di Sarawak, kini sudah ada malah ada universiti.

“Banyak kemudahan dan infrastruktur sudah dipertingkatkan malah diperhebatkan.

“Jika kita bandingkan dengan negara yang sama-sama sudah mencapai kemerdekaan dengan Malaysia, di mana mereka sekarang berban-ding negara kita?,” katanya kepada Utusan Borneo di sini, semalam.

Sehubungan itu kata Ahli Parlimen Petra Jaya itu, beliau amat menyokong kenyataan Ketua Menteri itu dan apa yang penting kini adalah memberi tumpuan untuk menyatukan semua rakyat.

Ia agar negeri ini terus bergerak maju, makmur dan hidup dalam keadaan sejahtera serta aman damai atas semangat 1Malaysia, ujarnya.

Turut menyokong ke-nyataan Adenan, Menteri Muda Belia (Bandar) Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, yang menjelaskan bahawa kumpulan yang cuba membawa keluar Sabah dan Sarawak adalah mereka yang kecewa dalam politik.

“Bukan semudah kerana kecewa dalam politik, terus mahu Sarawak dan Sabah keluar dari Malaysia.

“Kumpulan ini adalah kumpulan yang kecewa dalam politik dan kehidupan.

“Mereka menyalahkan kerajaan dan semua orang atas kegagalan mereka.

“Kalau diselidiki secara mendalam adakah Sarawak akan menjadi lebih makmur kalau keluar dari Malaysia?,” katanya.

Tegasnya, jika Sabah dan Sarawak keluar dari Malaysia, kemungkinan besar lebih banyak masalah akan menghujani negeri ini.

Beliau menegaskan sebelum membuat satu-satu perancangan, kumpulan ini perlu menyelidik sejarah, kenapa dan bagaimana Malaysia ditubuhkan.

Abdul Karim berkata, bukan itu sahaja kumpulan berkenaan juga seharusnya menilai dan  melihat sama ada selepas Malaysia ditubuhkan adakah Sarawak dan Sabah langsung tersisih daripada arus pembangunan.

“Kepada kumpulan ini, nasihat saya adalah untuk tahu bersyukur dengan kenikmatan dan kekurangan yang ada.

“Kita perlu berusaha dengan lebih kuat, membangunkan negeri dan rakyat dengan lebih kuat agar anak cucu kita dapat hidup dalam suasana selesa dan aman.

“Bukan dengan mengharap kepada bintang dan bulan yang tidak mungkin akan jatuh ke riba,” katanya.

Source: http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/09/18/agenda-peribadi-di-sebalik-idea-keluar-malaysia/#ixzz3DfWKNE79

Read More

Agus ‘cetek’ perlembagaan

'Negara Sarawak' dan 'Negara Sabah' membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia 

KUCHING: Komen terbuka Professor Mohammad Agus Yusoff untuk menghentikan kenyataan keluar Malaysia ternyata menimbulkan ketidakpuashatian kepada penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak terutama sekali para pejuang nasionalis Borneo.

Aktivis Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM), Abdul Halim Hamdian berkata kenyataan Agus baru-baru ini menunjukkan bahawa beliau begitu cetek pengetahuannya berkenaan perlembagaan dan asas sesebuah perlembagaan.

“Persekutuan Malaysia sebenar telah lama pupus kerana perbuatan Kerajaan Persekutuan yang membuang Singapura pada 9 Ogos 1965 tanpa kebenaran daripada kerajaan Sabah dan Sarawak.

Jika perlembagaan Malaysia yang dilanggar, adakah ia versi 1963 atau versi 1976?” soal Halim.

“Yang Dipertua Negeri Sarawak ketujuh, Tun Abdul Taib Mahmud telah mengangkat sumpah menggunakan teks 1963 dan bukan teks pasca 1976.

“Ini kerana hak perlembagaan menunjukkan ‘Negara Sarawak’ dan ‘Negara Sabah’ membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia tanpa menghilangkan taraf kenegaraan mereka tetapi diturun taraf pada tahun 1976 yang setaraf negeri Melaka yang lebih kecil daripada bahagian Mukah dari sudut hak dan kuasa perlembagaannya,” tambah Halim.

Sementara itu, Presiden Persatuan Aspirasi Rakyat Sarawak (SAPA), Lina Soo berkata semangat nasionalisme Sabah dan Sarawak pada tahap yang tertinggi dan momentum ini perlu diteruskan.

Dalam masa yang berasingan, Presiden Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BOPIM), Daniel John Jambun, berkata semangat nasionalisme Malaysia ‘tidak diperlukan’.

“Bagi saya, tiada perasaan nasionalisme terhadap Malaysia. Jadi persoalan mengenai menjadi patriotik tidak perlu dibangkitkan beliau (Agus), “Bagaimanapun, tidak ada asas yang kukuh lagi bagi Sabah dan Sarawak untuk berada dengan Persekutuan termasuk Tanah Melayu.” tambah beliau.

Sarawak dan Sabah tetap kekal identiti kenegaraannya 

Halim turut menuntut Prof. Agus membuktikan bahawa Kelantan telah menandatangani Perjanjian Malaysia pada 1963 kerana beliau menyamakan Kelantan setaraf Sabah dan Sarawak.

“Andaikata pihak Persekutuan Malaya pula mengatakan bahawa mereka mewakili negeri-negeri di Malaya, maka mereka hendaklah mendedahkan surat rasmi dari setiap kerajaan negeri di Malaya mengenai pembentukan Malaysia.

Jika ada sekalipun, ia tidak akan menggugat fakta bahawa Sarawak dan Sabah tetap kekal identiti kenegaraannya, maka membentuk Malaysia atas dasar bersama dengan penuh ikhlas.

Tidak menjadi kesalahan juga untuk Negara Sarawak dan Negara Sabah memisahkan diri setelah mereka memutuskan bahawa keikhlasan mereka telah dikhianati oleh Persekutuan Malaya yang menguasai Persekutuan Malaysia melalui Perlembagaan Malaysia versi pasca 1976,” tegas beliau.

Tinjauan FMT juga mendapati gerakan-gerakan nasionalisme Sabah Sarawak bergerak sangat aktif di laman sosial yang membincangkan isu-isu berkaitan sejarah dan kenegaraan.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/06/21/agus-cetek-perlembagaan/

Read More

‘Quit Malaysia’ talk must stop

Sabah and Sarawak are not the only states with grievances but secession is not the answer says a local university professor.

KUCHING: A local university professor has urged activists in Sabah and Sarawak to be patriotic and to stop their call for the Borneo states to pull out from the Federation of Malaysia.

Political analyst Professor Mohammad Agus Yusoff from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) said the activists could ask for anything else but not separation.

“The call for another two deputy prime ministers from Sabah and Sarawak or a 20% oil royalty is acceptable but not secession,” he said in a statement today.

“We have to safeguard the integrity (territorial) of the country.”

He was commenting on Star Sabah Chief Jeffrey Kitingan’s speech during a Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) public forum held in Kuala Lumpur last Sunday, whereby Kitingan denied harbouring secessionist tendencies but said that he “saw no way out if local grievances are not addressed”.

The don said that he could understand the feeling of discontent in Sabah and Sarawak but pointed out that there was dissatisfaction in other states too, citing the state of Kelantan as an example.

“They (the Kelantanese) are also unhappy over not being paid royalties for oil mined from their waters,” said Agus.

“But Kelantan doesn’t threaten to leave Malaysia if their demands are not met.”

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/06/18/quit-malaysia-talk-must-stop/

Related article: Agus Cetek Perlembagaan

Read More

Scottish Independence Vote Balances Politics and Economics

On Thursday, Scotland will vote on a referendum that could establish a Scottish state separate from Britain for the first time since 1707. If it passes, the Scottish and British economic and political landscape will change drastically.

THE VOTE

On Thursday

Registered voters in Scotland can vote on the referendum at their neighborhood polling station from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Votes will be counted immediately after the polls close; results are expected to be announced early Friday morning. The ballot is straightforward:

On Friday

If the outcome is “yes,” the Scottish government will start an 18-month process to final independence, scheduled to take effect in March 2016. This will allow time to legally transfer power to the Scottish Parliament and reach agreement with the rest of Britain, the European Union and other international partners. An independent Scotland would then hold its first parliamentary election on May 5, 2016.

ECONOMY

Budget: taxes and public spending

Scotland and Britain have run a deficit for the last five years, but Scotland’s has been smaller. Tax revenue has been higher in Scotland over the same period of time. In 2011-12, the most recent year available, tax receipts per person were £10,700, while in Britain they were £9,000.

Scotland’s largest budget expenses are for social protection, which include health spending, welfare and state pensions. Scotland is currently operating under Britain’s Welfare Reform Act 2012, which includes allowances for the unemployed, the disabled and the poor. The Scottish government has expressed concern that independence from Britain could disrupt welfare services.

Oil and gas revenues

An independent Scotland would gain control of the oil and gas revenues within its boundaries. These revenues, which now go to the British Treasury, have made up 12 percent to 21 percent of Scotland's total public sector revenue in the last 10 years. The British government argues that revenue from North Sea oil and gas has fallen in recent years due to declining production — and by staying with Britain, Scotland would be protected from the industry's unpredictability.

Currency

Scotland has three options: continue using the British pound sterling, establish its own currency or join the euro. The Fiscal Commission set up by the Scottish government proposed that retaining the pound would be the best option because of the close economic ties with Britain. However, Britain would have to agree.

POLITICS

Politics

Scotland has 59 seats out of 650 in the Westminster Parliament. Though Scotland has elected more liberal candidates, they are often overshadowed by a Conservative majority in Parliament.

By separating from Britain, Scots would be able to elect their own Parliament to decide all national matters. Even though Scotland created a limited Parliament in 1998, certain issues, like benefits, social security, defense, employment and the oil and gas industry, can be decided only by the British Parliament.

The British government suggests that Scotland could push for further devolution without separation, similar to the 2012 Scotland Act that gave more power to the Scottish Parliament.

Scotland’s role in the E.U.

The Scottish government has outlined a plan to negotiate for membership in the European Union if the referendum passes. As an independent member, Scotland would be able to make its own industries and finances a priority in European Union negotiations. But by staying with Britain, Scotland would continue to benefit from being one of the union's powerful “big four” nations.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/16/world/europe/scotland-independence-vote-balances-politics-and-economics.html?_r=0

Read More

Scottish independence: Voters answer referendum question

People in Scotland will vote later on whether the country should stay in the UK or become an independent nation.

Voters will answer "Yes" or "No" to the referendum question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

With 4,285,323 people - 97% of the electorate - registered to vote, a historically high turnout is expected.

Votes will be cast at 2,608 polling places across the country between 07:00 and 22:00 on Thursday. The result is expected early on Friday morning.

Votes will be counted in each of Scotland's 32 local authority areas.

These will include votes cast from the 789,024 postal vote applications, which was the largest volume of registration for postal votes ever in Scotland.

Result declaration

After votes have been tallied, the counting officer in each area will communicate the result to the chief counting officer Mary Pitcaithly in Edinburgh.

With her approval they will then make a declaration of the result.

Once the results from all 32 local authority areas are known, Ms Pitcaithly will declare the result of the referendum at the Royal Highland Centre outside Edinburgh.

Ms Pitcaithly has said she will announce the result at "breakfast time" on Friday.

The result is most likely to be between 06:30 and 07:30, according to Elections Scotland.

That is because the final Scottish declarations in the 2010 UK parliamentary elections and the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections declaration were made at those times respectively.

However, running totals - which can be made from the first declaration onwards - may indicate a result earlier in the morning.

The bulk of these are expected to come in between 03:00 and 06:00.

Local recounts

Because of the expected high turnout, counting officers have put measures in place to reduce the risk of queuing at polling stations.

The remote nature of some Scottish regions also means bad weather could delay the receipt of ballot boxes at counting centres, in turn delaying the national result.

Helicopters and boats are being used to transport ballot boxes to counts in areas such as Argyll and Bute.

Elections Scotland said recounts will only be allowed at a local level on the basis of concerns about process, not the closeness of a result.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29238890

Read More

What Singapore can learn from Scotland’s referendum – Tan Wu Meng

Today, September 18, 2014, Scotland will hold a referendum on independence from the rest of the United Kingdom.

A year ago, the pro-independence “Yes” campaign was lagging behind. This has since narrowed to a dead heat, with a “Yes” majority being a very real possibility.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the opposition Ed Miliband and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have vigorously campaigned in a cross-party effort to keep the UK together.

Even the prime minister’s questions (PMQs) session, an important part of UK political culture, has been affected – Cameron and Miliband have skipped PMQs to campaign in Scotland.

Scottish independence would have deep implications for Scotland and the rest of the UK.

For some time, the UK’s international standing has surpassed its tangible military and economic reach. Through a combination of international partnerships, cultural soft power and afterglow from the post-Empire and Cold War years, the UK has been able to punch above its weight.

This stature will be much diminished if Scotland separates, the sum of sundered parts adding up to less than what was whole. The UK-America trans-Atlantic relationship will be affected as well.

Separation would be traumatic. Custody of natural resources and strategic assets could be disputed for many years.

An independent Scotland’s fiscal and defence situation would pose problems on both sides of the border. For instance, what would become of the submarine-based Trident, the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent, which is based in Scotland? The choice of Scotland’s currency would also have implications for investments there and London’s status as a financial centre could also be hurt.

But independence can bring opportunity, too. Self-government would help the Scottish people’s policy preferences find clearer expression, without the overriding influence of the wider UK.

Small countries have started with even less and succeeded amid stiffer odds – as Singapore did, despite independence being thrust upon us in 1965.

A close call

Whatever the merits, why would so many in Scotland countenance the drastic step of independence? Each voter will have his or her own views and sentiments, each campaign its issues, but broader themes emerge, too.

The referendum question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, is loaded language. The word “independence” carries a positive connotation, but it leaves aside complexities of “how” and “what happens next”. In this context, a simple word such as “yes” adds momentum, due to its subconscious psychological cachet. Even the pro-unity campaigners have recognised this – hence their use of catchy slogans such as BetterTogether.

Scotland’s referendum will not have compulsory voting. This introduces an additional hurdle for campaigners. When voting is optional, it is not enough to win support – one’s supporters must find motivation and the will to show up at the ballot box.

Voters with strong views and deep-seated feelings are more likely to turn up. In a close contest under such conditions, emotion can overrule reason – the angry vote against a bitter yesterday, the passionate vote of beliefs made manifest or the inspired vote in the hope of a better tomorrow.

Identity also plays a key role, especially when it fuels emotions. The separate Scottish identity has deep-seated origins, but more could have been done by successive UK governments to minimise divisiveness.

Lessons for Singapore

Although the country is halfway around the world, Scotland’s experience has relevance for Singapore.

By playing to strong emotions, hot-button issues and identity, it is possible for an astute political competitor to whittle down a significant incumbent lead over a few months. The pro-unity campaign in Scotland enjoyed a 60-40 lead barely a year ago. Analysts are now seriously considering the possibility of a loss.

In Scotland, the pro-unity platform, citing track records, policy logic and long-term thinking, has found limited traction. Successful campaigns will be those able to connect with emotion as well as reason: inspiring people to give of their best, while feeling deeply the gravity of what is at stake.

In a political campaign, the crafting of words is crucial, whatever the language. Words have cadence and rhythm. They carry the weight of context and history. Language frames a discussion for speakers, respondents and observers, for better or for worse.

Identity matters, too – how people see themselves and the lenses through which they see others. Communal and ideological forces have not gone away in the era of globalisation.

It will be more important for public- and private-sector leaders to engage individuals with diverse identities, while drawing together to find common ground and higher purpose.

Amid diversity, our Singaporean society must remain inclusive. Each of us has a unique identity: who we are, what we do, how we became ourselves. But whatever our race, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ability, personal beliefs or socio-economic station in life, we must still see ourselves as Singaporeans in shared humanity.

We are too small a country for individuals to declare themselves islands and be set apart from the rest of society. We can be great enough a nation to accommodate diversity while having a shared purpose. – Today Online, September 18, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/what-singapore-can-learn-from-scotlands-referendum-tan-wu-meng#sthash.5DMGNybb.dpuf

Read More

Why Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom – Billy Wong

On September 18, the Scottish referendum will decide whether Scotland should break off from the UK and become independent. It is not just a question of independence for a separation of Scotland from the rest of the UK would mean the end of the United Kingdom (if you look at the "Act of the Union").

If Scots have any pride, they should vote NO THANKS (and stick with the UK), and I’ll tell you why:

1) Scotland has been very much a part of the UK for over 300 years. It is not a "colony" of the UK; it is seen as a full member of the “family". Breaking up any family is always painful and hurtful.

2) Unlike Malaysia where different races are discriminated against by the government, Scots are given full equal rights in the UK, including in the UK parliament. At least half the number of past British prime ministers were Scots. Scots take high places as chief execs of big British corporations. Scots punch above their weight in the UK. Some even say that it is not the English that ruled Scotland, but the other way around! But the English did not mind – for most of them, Scots are British and therefore they are part of them.

3) There have been thousands, if not millions, of Brits outside Scotland who have some Scottish blood. Intermarriage between Scots and the English, Welsh, Irish and others is seen as "natural", not discouraged. So, in Britain, most Scots have relatives who are not Scots. Currently there are also 800,000 Scots living in the UK outside Scotland, which is substantial considering Scotland's population is only 5.29 million.

Incidentally, those Scots not residing in Scotland are not eligible to vote, but non-Scots living in Scotland are able to do so (including many East Europeans) in this "democratic" referendum!

4) The reason the Scots have been given a referendum is because the UK believes in democracy and it tries to uphold that. However, democracy, if not handled properly, can also have downfalls and can be taken advantage of. The Scottish

National Party, the group leading the "Yes" to breaking up the UK campaign, has been stirring up nationalist sentiments to win people to their side. They also went to the poor and unemployed and sold the idea that they are so downtrodden because of the UK government in Westminster.

5) The SNP even makes the BN/Umno government look like the king of high morals, so you can imagine their standard of moralism!

6) From my close observation in the UK and from visiting friends in Scotland, it appears some supporters of the SNP are behaving like thugs and bullies. They would try to silence anyone who has a view different from theirs. When the "No Thanks" campaigners tried to do their campaigns, they sent "bully boys" and thugs to mess up things for them. “No thanks” posters were defaced. (Does that not remind you guys in Malaysia of the behaviour of a certain political party during the last GE13?) What is more, the SNP then accused their opposite number of being bullies when they themselves were the real bullies.

When the BBC was fair in its coverage, the SNP sent crowds to protest at the BBC because it asked its leader "awkward" questions. Because of that, they claimed the BBC was unfair. It is ironic that the SNP talks of “freedom" for Scots when it is they who are suppressing “freedom" (of expression and speech).

7) Promotion of “patriotism" is good. But promotion of "nationalism" is totally different – nationalism, if handled badly can become ugly and dangerous. Take for example (until a few years ago) Northern Ireland and Nazi Germany (yes, the Nazis started as a "nationalist" movement for the Germans). It appears that the Scottish Nationalist Party is promoting nationalism rather than just patriotism.

8) If the anti-English rhetoric given out by the SNP (“Yes campaigners”) were changed to "Asians", "Indians", "Africans" or "Chinese", they would be termed racists. Would anyone like a country controlled by neo-racists?

9) The leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, allegedly ruled his party with an "iron fist”, so much so that the opposition "No" campaign leader cheekily gave him the name "Kim Jong-Il", the much hated and feared leader of North Korea! Many Scots fear that if Scotland becomes independent, they will end up having an authoritarian government under him as their leader. To date, Alex Salmond has succeeded in dividing the people of Scotland – brother against brother, friend against friend. In my humble opinion, a good leader should UNITE the country, not divide it!

10) If the SNP and Alex Salmond had proposed an independent Scotland with lots of solid plans and alternatives backed with facts, at least there would be some hope for Scotland to be independent. The SNP was unreliable about the claim of oil in a "rich" Scotland, from the price estimate to the amount in the oil fields. However, major questions to their leaders about important matters were ducked, avoided, brushed aside – or worse,they accused the journalist(s) of being unfair and biased.

Salmond's plans seem only to be hopes and he just asks people to "believe me" as if he were some kind of messiah, which of course he is not. Even to this day, two days from the referendum, we do not know what the Scots would use as currency. The UK government refused point blank that there would be a currency union with an iScotland (i=independent) to use the pound, and if an iScotland insists on using the pound, the Bank of England would refuse to underwrite the banks in Scotland.

The Scottish government is too poor to set up the reserves to create its own central bank. The SNP leader then even threatened that Scotland would renegade its share of UK debt. Who in the financial markets would be confident lending money to a country that defaults its own debt?

11) There are many other economic uncertainties. Prices of almost everything are predicted to go up – the only thing that will probably come down in an iScotland is house prices! Due to uncertainty about the future of an iScotland, people will not spend. This is likely to lead to a slow-down in economy (so how can Scotland be “rich”, then? Lies or what?).

In any case, financial experts claim that if the separation goes ahead on September 18, the pound sterling could fall by as much as 10% in a basket of world currencies. So all of UK would be affected. Also, there would be huge problems for Scotland to rejoin the European Union, a key market. Scottish farmers may also suffer because 90% of the population in the UK is outside Scotland   and if Scotland leaves, the Brits who want to "Buy British" foods in supermarkets will not buy from Scottish farms because an iScotland would be a foreign country!

12) Many companies, including Marks and Spencer, Walmart-owned Asda supermarkets and B&Q stores indicated that prices of goods in shops in Scotland, including for food, would go up simply because of logistics in dealing with a smaller country – a much smaller population and larger land area, plus costs of starting up a new company in a new country.

All the banks have said they would move their HQs to the UK. Telecom companies said prices of power would go up. Insurance Aviva also indicated their prices would go up. Whenever the companies raised concerns, all the SNP did was to claim they were “scaremongering". They wanted their followers to be like ostriches and put their heads in the sand. Then, one SNP campaign leader even warned that if Scotland becomes independent, (inferring that  SNP would be all powerful), there would be a “day of reckoning" to those companies that expressed concern about independence. Is that the SNP/“Yes Campaigners” idea of "democracy" and free speech?

13) The SNP leader Alex Salmond seems to claim that everything in an independent Scotland will be milk and honey, and there will be no problems! As most sane people would know, the world does not work like that. As it seems to work for the SNP leader, just what planet is he on? (Does he not make your average BN/Umno MP look smart now?) Now, can you see why sensible Scots are VERY VERY SCARED that they will have to separate from the UK and be replaced by that sort of authority?

14) World leaders have also indicated that it would be preferable and better that the United Kingdom remain united and that Scotland should not be separated from the UK – that starts from the president of the United States to leaders in Canada, Australia, China and even the Pope! Only the SNP seems to think that breaking up Scotland is "better".

15) Around 50% of Scots are against separation from the UK – they feel that they can be PROUD SCOTS as well as PROUD BRITISH.

What is more, even if Scotland chooses to stay within the United Kingdom, all the political parties in Westminster, including the ruling UK coalition parties, have agreed to give more power to Scotland, including income tax. They feel they have the best of both worlds if they vote “No thanks” to separating from the UK in the referendum – they will be certain to have MORE POWERS, and STABILITY within the UK. The other option will be more risk, uncertainty and unknown by going all alone, against the advice of world leaders.

So, because of the above, I do hope that on September 18, Scots will see sense and vote for “No thanks” in the Scottish referendum and to remain as a "family member" within the United Kingdom. To remain with the UK, dear Scotland, the world is behind you! – September 16, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/why-scotland-should-remain-in-the-united-kingdom-billy-wong#sthash.XQGnRjJc.dpuf

Read More

Scotland, Catalonia, Sabah & Sarawak: 4 negeri mengharapkan perubahan – Ali Firdaus

Hanya tinggal beberapa hari sahaja lagi, kesatuan selama 300 tahun Scotland bersama United Kingdom bakal ditentukan nasibnya seluruh rakyat Scotland.

Pengundian  sama  ada  untuk  kekal  bersama  menjadi  sebahagian daripada United Kingdom ataupun menjadi sebuah negara yang bebas merdeka bakal  dilakukan kira-kira 4.28 juta rakyat  Scotland pada hari  Khamis ini.

Menurut  Alex  Salmond  yang  merupakan  ketua  kepada  Parti  Kebangsaan Scotland, peluang keemasan ini hanya datang sekali sahaja dalam seumur hidup dan ianya tidak mungkin akan berulang lagi.

Kempen  ‘Yes  Scotland’  dimulakan  dengan  mengemukakan  Bil  Referendum Kemerdekaan Scotland pada 21 Mac 2013 dan seterusnya mendapat kelulusan Perlembagaan Diraja Britain pada Disember 2013.

empoh masa selama 9 bulan diberikan kepada semua pihak bagi  berkempen sama ada ‘Yes’ ataupun ‘No’ kepada kemerdekaann Scotland.

Dalam pada masa yang sama, parti-parti utama di United Kingdom iaitu Parti Konservatif, Parti Liberal Demokratik dan juga Parti Buruh yang selama ini  mempunyai  perbezaan politik, bekerjasama menggerakkan  kempen ‘No’ kepada  kemerdekaan Scotland.

Perdana Menteri David  Cameron, Nick Clegg dan juga Ed Miliband dilihat  bekerjasama dalam memastikan agar Scotland terus kekal bersama United Kingdom.

Ketiga-tiga parti ini juga dilihat bersetuju menjanjikan Scotland lebih kuasa mentadbir jika mereka mengundi ‘No’ dalam pengundian yang bakal dilakukan ini nanti.

Dalam pada itu, segala perkembangan yang sedang berlaku di Scotland kini menyuntik semangat kepada warga  Catalonia yang pro kepada kemerdekaan Catalonia daripada Sepanyol, untuk meneruskan pengundian Referendum Kemerdekaan pada 9 November 2014.

Pada 11 September 2014 yang lalu, dianggarkan seramai 1.8 juta daripada 4 juta penduduk Catalonia keluar  berhimpun di jalan-jalan utama di Barcelona bagi menyambut Hari Kebangsaan Catalonia.

Tarikh tersebut yang disambut sempena memperingati ulang tahun ke-300 kejatuhan Catalonia kepada Kerajaan Sepanyol dilihat lebih sensitif dan signifikan pada tahun ini kerana bakal melangsungkan pengundian terhadap referendum bagi menentukan status Catalonia pada masa akan datang.

Perhimpunan tersebut turut disertai ikon utama pasukan  bolasepak Barcelona iaitu Luis Enrique, Xavi dan Gerard Pique yang dilihat bersama-samamem bentuk simbol ‘V’ gergasi bagi menandakan sokongan terhadap pengundian referendum.

Walaupun, Kerajaan Sepanyol  menyatakan usaha  untuk  mengadakan referendum tersebut tidak sah, namun Parlimen Catalonia tetap berhasrat untuk meneruskannya.

Sementara itu, negara-negara seperti United Kingdom, German dan France menyatakan sokongan kepada Kerajaan Sepanyol yang tidak membenarkan referendum tersebut daripada dilakukan.

Organisasi antarabangsa seperti  Pertubuhan  Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (UN), Kesatuan Eropah (EU) dan NATO turut dilihat untuk tidak memberikan sebarang sokongan atau pengiktirafan terhadap usaha Parlimen Catalonia tersebut.

Namun begitu, Negeri Basque (Basque Country) yang merupakan salah sebuah negeri di Sepanyol serta mempunyai  sejarah yang hampir serupa dengan Catalonia, secara terbuka menyokong usaha Catalonia tersebut.

Dalam perlawanan Liga Sepanyol di antara Barcelona menentang Athletic Bilbao pada hari Sabtu yang lalu, kedua-dua pasukan tersebut dilihat mengenakan jersi pasukan berdasarkan kepada warna bendera negeri masing-masing.

Barcelona memakai jersi berwarna merah-kuning manakala Athletic Bilbao memakai  jersi  berwarna hijau.

Tindakan tersebut dilakukan setelah mendapat persetujuan dan kebenaran daripada semua pihak yang terlibat  termasuk Kesatuan Bolasepak Sepanyol (Spanish FA).

Namun usaha ini tidak terlepas daripada kritikan sesetengah pihak yang menilai tindakan tersebut sebagai mencampurkan urusan sukan dan juga politik.

Walau apapun kritikan dan halangan yang dikenakan, yang pastinya penduduk Catalonia ingin menentukan nasib mereka sendiri.

Dalam pada itu, situasi yang sedang berlaku jauh di Eropah sebenarnya turut berlaku di Malaysia.

Organisasi seperti Borneo Plight In Malaysia (BoPIM) yang berpangkalan di United Kingdom dan juga Sarawak Sovereign Malaysia (SSM) turut menggerakkan usaha yang hampir serupa dengan Scotland dan Catalonia.

Usaha para aktivis ini pada asalnya menuntut agar Kerajaan Persekutuan Malaysia untuk memberikan kuasa  pentadbiran autonomi kepada dua buah negeri ini, ataupun sekurang-kurangnya mengagihkan hak yang adil kepada penduduk  di  negeri  masing-masing.

Namun, usaha tersebut seperti tidak diberikan perhatian yang sewajarnya.

Sehinggalah akhirnya, para aktivis berusaha mengkaji semula perlembagaan serta perjanjian diantara Sabah-Sarawak semasa penyertaan mereka dalam membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia.

Melihat kepada perkembangan bagi keempat-empat negeri yang terlibat ini, satu kesimpulan mudah dapat diberikan;  iaitu hak ekonomi yang adil terhadap mereka tidak  diberikan.

Bagi situasi di Malaysia, umum mengetahui negeri Sabah dan Sarawak adalah merupakan negeri yang kaya dengan pelbagai hasil bumi. Sarawak umpamanya adalah merupakan negeri pengeluar petroleum yang utama di Malaysia.

Selain itu, kedua-dua buah negeri ini juga begitu kaya dengan hasil balak.

Namun malangnya, kekayaan hasil bumi ini tidak dinikmati dengan adil masyarakat Sabah dan Sarawak.

Dengan perkembangan situasi semasa, persaingan diantara kumpulan kempen ‘Yes’ dan ‘No’ di Scotland dilihat begitu sengit dimana perbezaan pungutan suara hanyalah sebanyak 4 poin sahaja.

Bagitu juga dengan situasi di Catalonia, keadaan ekonomi Sepanyol yang tenat serta kemajuan yang ditunjukkan kumpulan kempen ‘Yes Scotland’ memberikan suntikan dan keyakinan yang baru terhadap kumpulan pro-kemerdekaan Catalonia.

Walaubagaimanapun, sebagai rakyat Malaysia, saya sangat berharap agar situasi yang berlaku di Eropah tidak berlaku di Malaysia.

Sebagai rakyat prihatin, saya boleh memahami perspektif pemikiran serta rasional tindakan para aktivis di Sabah-Sarawak. Hal ini berkaitrapat dengan situasi yang dialami kedua-dua buah negeri tersebut.

Namun, saya berharap agar penyelesaian yang terbaik dapat dipersetujui dan diraih semua pihak yang terlibat. Malahan hak bagi negeri-negeri lain seperti Kelantan dan juga Terengganu seharusnya diberikan secara adil.

Bukan itu sahaja, seluruh rakyat Malaysia berhak untuk mendapatkan jaminan keadilan dan kesejahteraan yang sebenarnya.

Bersempena dengan sambutan ulangtahun Hari Malaysia pada 16 September ini, marilah kita bersama-sama berfikir  sejenak dan seterusnya berusaha untuk memainkan peranan dalam melakukan perubahan yang lebih positif kepada Malaysia secara keseluruhannya. – 17 September, 2014

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/rencana/article/scotland-catalonia-sabah-sarawak-4-negeri-mengharapkan-perubahan-ali-firdau#sthash.0SpHVzdQ.dpuf

***Pihak SSKM akan memberi respon terhadap artikel ini. Harap semua pihak bersabar.***

Read More

Perjuangan Gerakan SSKM dan pembangunan pendidikan di Sabah dan Sarawak – Firdani As-Sandakani

Genap 51 tahun penubuhan Malaysia yang melibatkan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan dua buah negeri di Borneo iaitu Sarawak dan Borneo Utara atau dikenali sebagai Sabah sejak tahun 1963.

Bermula pada tahun itu, pelbagai ancaman dan ugutan termasuklah konfrontasi diberikan dua buah negara jiran yang mempunyai agenda tersendiri, iaitu Indonesia dan Filipina.

Sejarah melakarkan segalanya. Walau bagaimanapun, ancaman tersebut berjaya ditepis pemimpin Malaysia dengan bijak dan cermat di bawah kepimpinan Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, perdana menteri Malaysia yang pertama.

Kemakmuran akhirnya berjaya dikecapi semua rakyat Malaysia setelah tamat zaman-zaman cemas dahulu.

Namun demikian, sejak akhir-akhir ini, wujud sebuah gerakan yang menuntut supaya dua buah negeri di Borneo, Sabah dan Sarawak berpisah daripada Malaysia yang dikenali sebagai gerakan Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM).

Antara matlamat utama gerakan ini ialah menuntut supaya Perkara 20/18 dipatuhi dan Sabah dan Sarawak dikembalikan statusnya sebagai sebuah ‘Negara’ seperti sebelumnya tetapi hakikatnya dua buah negeri tersebut tidak pernah diberikan kemerdekaan melainkan setelah menyertai gagasan Malaysia sepertimana yang dikehendaki British ketika itu.

SSKM cuba membawa isu ini ke Mahkamah Antarabangsa (ICJ) tetapi, seperti yang diketahui, perkara ini tidak membawa kejayaan kerana kerajaan Malaysia sebagai pihak yang terlibat tidak mengambil peduli akan perkara tersebut.

Tambahan pula, jika diperhatikan, gerakan ini tidak disertai sebilangan besar rakyat di Sabah dan Sarawak melainkan bolehdikatakan hanya segelintir sahaja yang berminat dengan gerakan ini dan turut disokong beberapa parti politik yang baru sahaja ditubuhkan.

Bahkan, jika diperhalusi kebanyakan mereka yang menyertai atau menyokong gerakan ini bukanlah kerana kefahaman yang jelas tentang perjuangan tersebut tetapi lebih terpengaruh dengan sentimen kenegerian dan emosi semata-mata.

Propaganda semangat kenegerian dan anti-Malaya begitu rancak dimainkan tanpa memikirkan kesan yang bakal dihadapi masyarakat majmuk di Malaysia ini.

Hakikatnya, jika ditelusuri semula sejarah penubuhan Malaysia, British merupakan kuasa besar yang menjadi tulang belakang yang mengetengahkan gagasan Malaysia kerana ingin menjaga kepentingan mereka di Borneo dan yang paling penting, untuk menyekat penyebaran fahaman Komunis yang pada ketika itu daripada semakin berkembang di kepulauan Melayu.

Lalu persoalannya, bagaimana pula gerakan tersebut meminta supaya negara kuasa besar iaitu British untuk campur tangan sedangkan penubuhan Malaysia merupakan agenda British suatu ketika dahulu?

Rata-rata rakyat Malaysia berpendapat usaha yang paling utama untuk membangunkan negeri Sabah dan Sarawak yang dianggap masih mundur, terutamanya di kawasan pedalaman adalah dengan memberikan pendidikan yang sepatutnya kepada penduduk di kedua-dua buah negeri tersebut.

Melalui pendidikan yang sempurna, rakyat di Sabah dan Sarawak dapat membangunkan negeri masing-masing dengan ilmu dan kemahiran yang dimiliki.

Dari segi politiknya pula, cara terbaik untuk memperbaiki keadaan di negeri Sabah dan Sarawak adalah dengan menggantikan parti yang menjadi kerajaan di negeri tersebut melalui pilihanraya umum.

Pendidikan yang sempurna akan melahirkan kefahaman dan melalui kefahaman yang benar sahajalah yang dapat membantu rakyat untuk memilih parti yang selayaknya diberi mandat untuk menerajui kerajaan negeri.

Persoalan utama yang perlu diketengahkan dalam isu Sabah Sarawak keluar daripada Malaysia ialah persediaan untuk mendirikan sebuah negara yang merdeka dalam segala aspek termasuklah politik dan sosial.

Sedangkan isu keselamatan negeri Sabah pun masih belum dapat diselesaikan apatah lagi nanti sekiranya Sabah menjadi sebuah negara merdeka.

Hakikatnya, bukan mudah untuk mendirikan sebuah negara yang berdaulat apatah lagi dalam konteks Sabah dan Sarawak.

Sebagai kesimpulan, usaha memberi kesedaran politik kepada masyarakat tempatan adalah amat perlu tetapi daripada menggerakkan perjuangan menuntut sebuah ‘Negara’, kenapa tidak perjuangan tersebut digantikan dengan memberikan peluang pendidikan kepada rakyat negeri sendiri? Ini adalah masa untuk memperkasakan negara yang sedia ada, bukan masa untuk memecahbelahkan kesatuan dengan menyemarakkan sentimen bangsa.

Goerge Santayana pernah berkata, “seseorang yang melupakan sejarah pasti akan mengulanginya”. Lalu, perlukah sejarah lalu diulangi kembali sebagaimana suatu ketika dahulu yang melibatkan pengorbanan nyawa yang tidak terhitung? – 17 September, 2014

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/rencana/article/perjuangan-gerakan-sskm-dan-pembangunan-pendidikan-di-sabah-dan-sarawak-fir#sthash.sezsRVjN.dpuf

***Pihak SSKM akan memberi respon terhadap artikel ini. Harap semua pihak bersabar***

Read More