Abun Sui Anyit bersama masyarakat Ulu Bakun

Abun Sui Anyit bersama masyarakat Ulu Bakun
Bukti Resolusi yang telah dihantar secara serahan tangan kepada Penguasa Jabatan Tanah dan Servei Kapit.

MENCARI PENYELESAIAN MASALAH TANAH NCR BAGI PENDUDUK LEBU KULIT

MENCARI PENYELESAIAN MASALAH TANAH NCR BAGI PENDUDUK LEBU KULIT
SELEPAS DIALOG BERSAMA JABATAN HUTAN SARAWAK

Thursday, December 31, 2009

From Malaya to Malaysia

REFLECTING ON THE LAW
By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI
Sabah and Sarawak brought much land and natural resources with them when joining then Malaya and Singapore to form Malaysia, thus the special privileges they are entitled to.
SEPTEMBER 16 was hardly noticed by Malaysians in the peninsula. It was Malaysia Day – the day in 1963 when the Federation of Malaya joined destinies with North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore to constitute the enlarged Federation of Malaysia.
Evolution: The process of conversion from Malaya to Malaysia was by no means trouble-free. The general election held in North Borneo in 1962 and in Sarawak in 1963, pointed to the desire of the people of the Borneo states to join Malaysia on the condition that their special interests were safeguarded in the new federation.
The governments of the Phili-ppines and Indonesia were vehemently opposed to Malaya’s reconstitution.
They rejected the legitimacy of the above self determination processes. A Tripartite Summit was, therefore, held in Manila which invited the UN Secretary-General to ascertain the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak.
The Secretary-General’s mission spent three weeks in Borneo to conduct a survey and released its finding on Sept 15, 1963, that the Malaysia proposal had the wide backing of the peoples of the Borneo states.
Still, the Indonesian and Philippines governments were not appeased. Indonesia resorted to an undeclared war dubbed “the Confrontation”. The Philippines laid an international law claim to Sabah.
Within the country, Kelantan commenced proceedings in the High Court to declare the Malaysia Agreement null and void. A few days before Malaysia Day, it laid two arguments before the court.
First, it argued that it was a founding member of the Federation of Malaya and as such its consent must be obtained before any changes are made that alter drastically the character of the Federation.
The court rejected this argument. Kelantan had agreed to the 1957 Constitution and in that basic charter, the power to amend the Constitution to bring new states into the Federation was a federal power that did not require the consent of the states.
Kelantan’s second contention was that there was a binding constitutional custom that any major amendment requires the consent of the states. The Court ruled that customs are not laws and are not enforceable in the courts.
Basis for special treatment: In 1963 the Inter-Governmental Com-mittee headed by Lord Lansdowne with then prime minister Tun Abdul Razak as the deputy chairman worked out several constitutional arrangements to guarantee the special position of the Borneo states.
This was deemed justifiable due to a number of socio-political, economic, geographical and legal factors.
> Sabah and Sarawak were culturally and religiously distinct from peninsular Malaysia.
> They were bringing huge territories into the federation. Their combined area of 198,069 sq km exceeded peninsular Malaysia’s 131,681 sq km. Their combined coastline was 2,607 km compared with the Peninsula’s 2,068km.
> They had massive potential resources in fisheries, ports, forests, timber, petroleum, river waters, hydroelectric power and tourism.
> Despite these resources they had serious problems of poverty, illiteracy, lack of infrastructure and under-development.
> The 1963 pact between the Federation of Malaya, the UK, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore was not merely an internal arrangement but an international treaty.
More autonomy: Malaysia’s federal model provides for a heavy central bias. But in relation to Sabah and Sarawak the Federal Government’s powers are not so pronounced.
For example, Sabah and Sarawak are excluded from Parliament’s power to pass uniform laws about land and local government: Article 95D. Sabah and Sarawak are also excluded from national plans for land utilisation, local government and development: Article 95E.
There are special rules about audits in Sabah and Sarawak (Article 112A).
The power of amending the Constitution which belongs to the federal Parliament is not as extensive in relation to Sabah and Sarawak as it is in relation to the peninsular states.
Under Article 161E constitutional amendments affecting the specified rights of the East Malaysian states cannot become law without the consent of the governors of these states.
The legislative competence of the various states is elaborated in the Federal Constitution’s Schedule 9 Lists II and III. Sabah and Sarawak have a Supplementary State List and a Supplementary Concurrent List conferring on them many legislative powers not allocated to the peninsular states.
Financial powers: The Federal Government’s stranglehold over most of the lucrative sources of revenue is not as strong in relation to Sabah and Sarawak as it is in relation to other states.
In three areas Sabah and Sarawak enjoy fiscal privileges that are not available to the peninsular states:
> Under Article 112B, these states are allowed to raise loans for their purposes with the consent of Bank Negara.
> These states are allocated special grants to meet their needs above and beyond what other states receive: Article 112C and 112D.
> Sabah and Sarawak are assigned eight sources of revenue not permitted to other states. These include import and excise duty on petroleum products, export duty on timber and forest produce and, subject to a ceiling, export duty on minerals.
> Sabah and Sarawak are also entitled to earnings from ports and harbours and state sales tax: Article 112C & Schedule 10, Pt. V.
Other privileges: The Federal Constitution is replete with many other provisions for the special position of Sabah and Sarawak.
> Under Article 153, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak enjoy a special position similar to that of the Malays.
> Customary courts and native law are given special protection.
> The High Court has a special wing for Sabah and Sarawak presided over by a Chief Judge for the region.
> In the Dewan Rakyat there are 28 MPs from Sarawak and 20 from Sabah. On a population basis this is very favourable.
> These states enjoy special protection in relation to the use of English and native languages: Article 161.
> The law on Malay Reserve Land does not apply to these states: Article 161A(5).
> The Borneo states have a special right to regulate immigration.
> Sabah and Sarawak lawyers have exclusive right to practise law in these states and in relation to cases originating there.
Forty-six years down the road, not all is well with the Borneo states’ relationship with the centre.
The influx of illegal immigrants and the alleged “naturalisation” of thousands of them are being regarded as violations of Sabah and Sarawak’s rights over immigration.
There are murmurs of discontent about Barisan Nasional’s choice of MBs and governors. Labuan’s federalisation is a sore point.
In the peninsula, there are concerns that integration is being hindered because of restrictions on freedom of movement and the requirement of work permits in one’s own land.
These are legitimate concerns. But one must also remember that in 1963 some concessions were awarded. They must be honoured.
Unity and integration, while laudable goals, must not be forced. They must be achieved within, and not outside, the solemn pact of 1963.
> Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM.



For further reading kindly klick here

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

SELAMAT TAHUN BARU 2010



Kepada pengunjung sekalian, salam hormat dan salam “lambaian” bye bye bagi tahun 2009.

Sempena kedatangan tahun baru 2010, saya ingin mengambil kesempatan ini untuk mengucapkan SELAMAT TAHUN BARU 2010 kepada kalian semua.

Semoga di tahun baru ini anda sekalian menyediakan diri dengan azam dan komitmen baru. Saya doakan setiap pembaca blog saya ini akan dilindungi dan diberkati oleh Tuhan yang maha mengasihi.

Apa pun pendapat, pandangan dan azam anda yang mungkin berbeza dengan orang lain, laksanakannya dan asal bukan pelaksanaan yang tidak diperkenan oleh Tuhan. Pendek kata, usahlah melakukan rancangan dan tindakan yang berdosa, merugikan dan menindas sesama umat manusia ciptaan Tuhan.

Sekian, wasalam SELAMAT MAJU JAYA DAN SELAMAT TAHUN BARU 2010.

ABUN SUI ANYIT

Friday, December 11, 2009

MAJU BELAGA NAU ME ECAH -VS- BELAGA PEKAN MATI -VS- BRS ASAP KOYAN


HEP BAKUN TERKINI


TUMPUAN HANYA UNTUK MEMAJUKAN ASAP KOYAN



PEKAN BELAGA KINI DIKATAKAN MENUJU STATUS PEKAN MATI.





BELAGA OH BELAGA:

Suatu ketika dulu saya pernah berenang - renang di sungai ini (Balui yang utama dan Batang Belaga - cabang kecil). Kini saya tak sanggup nak terjun. Kecuali terdesak atau karam. Saya pernah karam di Batang Belaga (Giam Talang) bersama kumpulan perkelahan kami tahun 1995. Puji Tuhan, Dia masih memberi saya umur panjang.

Suatu ketika dulu sungai ini sangat jernih. Paling tidak terdapat dua warna sungai pada satu ketika - Batang Belaga berwarna jernih manakala Batang Balui berwarna coklat (seperti gambar ini). Saat kanak - kanak ku sempat ku ingat kami bermain - sorok - sorok batu putih di sungai Balui ini. Kumpulan atau kawan lain akan mencari batu putih sebesar genggaman. Kalau jumpa di dalam sungai Balui yang jernih itu - mereka dapat markah dan sebaliknya kalau tak jumpa.

Kini semua itu tinggal kenangan yang akan kuceritakan untuk anak cucuku angkara ditelan "kemajuan" dan HEP Bakun MEGA.

Adakah mungkin air sungai ini akan jernih lagi? Air sudah keruh, tetapi mana harganya? Mana pembangunan yang dikatakan penyebab kekeruhan sungai ini?

Mungkinkah harga pembangunan itu adalah air yang keruh? Mungkinkah harga pembangunan itu balak yang habis? Tapi ke mana wangnya pergi? Mungkinkah harga pembangunan itu Tanah Adat yang semakin "hilang"? Mungkinkah harga pembangunan itu jalan yang becak dan penuh lopak? Atau mungkinkah harga pembangunan itu berdirinya Hidro Elektrik MEGA Bakun kebanggaan pihak tertentu, yang kita hanya mampu "perhatikan dan lihat dari jauh" sahaja tanpa menikmati hasilnya?

Mungkinkah pembangunan itu bermakna kita kena beli segala makanan kita seperti ikan, binatang buruan, sayur paku dan sebagainya dari pasar? Mungkinkah harga pembangunan itu kita sudah kenal erti BIL elektrik dan BIL Air di rumah panjang? Adakah sumber kewangan di rumah panjang? Kalau ada, aku orang pertama mahu pulang!

Juga, tanah luas Belaga seluas negeri Pahang seolah - olah tidak cukup untuk penduduknya yang cuma mungkin kira kira 20 ribu sahaja. Ada yang terpaksa berhijrah beramai-ramai ke luar daerah demi mencari tanah untuk bercucuk tanam. Mengapa?

Belaga oh Belaga - mengapa engkau "usir" penghuni asalmu keluar dari naunganmu?? Mengapa? Mereka yang "terusir" tidak akan berbuat begitu kalau engkau menahan mereka. Kalau engkau adil kepada mereka.

Hujan emas di daerah orang baiklah di daerah sendiri. Belaga aku mahu berbakti kepadamu!!

Kini, kedua-dua sungai ini sama sahaja warnanya di pertemuan sungai itu. Ini semua angkara yang kita panggil "pembangunan".

Belaga !! Belum terlambat untuk engkau diuruskan dengan betul. Berilah mereka peluang!

Sambungan :
Kini Orang Asal Balui Belaga telah dipindahkan ke Bakun Resettlement Scheme (BRS) di Asap Koyan. Bahagiakah mereka di sana? Boleh kah mereka pergi "kuman bahe" @ Nyenang" di anak-anak sungai - sungai jernih seperti di Ulu Balui dulu?

Bolehkah orang yang dikatakan "JUTAWAN" Orang Ulu hasil limpahan pampasan HEP Bakun bebas untuk pergi buat luma' @ oma lagi? Setakat maklumat yang saya ada, apabila Orang Ulu, sama ada Kenyah atau Kayan atau Ukit mahu pergi lebih jauh melangkaui dari 3 ekar yang diperuntukan kepada mereka untuk membuat ladang, mereka akan ditahan atau dihalang oleh Company atau Syarikat.

Di sana sini ada GATE atau PAGAR milik company. Ya Tuhan!!! mana Orang Ulu Belaga hendak pergi buat ladang lagi? Ke mana sudah pergi tanah NCR yang luas yang telah diperjuangkan oleh nenek moyang kita dengan darah mereka kira-kira beratus tahun dulu???? Mana??

Akibat kononnya kemajuan di Asap hasil limpahan "pembangunan" dari pembinaan HEP Bakun, Orang Ulu Belaga di Asap telah kenal erti bil air dan bil elektrik di rumah panjang. Kata makcik@aunti saya, dia dan suami tidak mampu membayar bill elektrik dan air sebab tak ada sumber wang untuk bayar bil tersebut. Apa lagi wang untuk menyekolahkan anak mereka yang menuntut di Universiti Malaya (UM). Dengar khabarnya dia telah berhenti dari UM.

Dimaklumkan juga hutang makcik saya bersama ratusan keluarga di Asap mencecah 2 juta ringgit (RM2Juta). Rumah yang diduduki juga kena dibayar berjumlah RM52,000.00. Ingatkan free kata makcik saya!

Inikah kemajuan yang dijanjikan itu? Rumah perlu bayar RM52ribu, bill elektrik, tambang kenderaan, beli petrol. Pendek kata, keluar sahaja dari rumah PERLUKAN WANG. Kalau di sungai balui dulu, kita boleh jalan free, YA BENAR-BENAR FREE - sebab guna perahu dan kayuh sahaja. Lagipun sungai Balui yang mengalir pun ada. Cuma kena kayuh kalau melawan arus. Tapi itu SANGAT BAIK UNTUK KESIHATAN! Pengangkutan yang benar-benar FREE pemberian Tuhan itu sangat kurindui kini. Akan kembalikah realiti itu lagi?? So, pendek kata - orang "miskin di Balui" pasti tidak akan mati kelaparan!!

Kalau lah boleh diulang atau diputarkan balik masa, saya pasti tidak akan membenarkan BAKUN dibina di Sungai Balui. Apakan daya Tuhan tidak mengizinkan perkara itu terjadi. Kita hanya mampu berdoa agar tidak terus diperlakukan tidak adil oleh pihak TERBABIT!!.

Tanah yang kita miliki dulu di ulu Sungai Balui adalah ratusan ribu hektar. Kita mengharapkan gantian Tanah NCR ratusan ribu hektar juga. TETAPI harapan ku tinggal harapan. Tanah yang diberi hanya 3 EKAR SAHAJA. OH Tuhan inikah keadilan dunia?

Ratusan ribu hektar tanah yang kuharapkan itu bukan miliki ku dan Orang Ulu Balui tetapi milik Syarikat-syarikat. Orang Belaga pasti kenal syarikat-syarikat ini. Kerajaan yang ku "PANGKAH" itu jugalah yang memberikan tanah seluas itu kepada syarikat-syarikat tersebut. Aku berputih mata lagi.

Lalu aku bertekad untuk tidak lagi memberi UNDI ku kepada yang memberi lesen kepada perampas tanah NCR kita Orang Ulu Balui. Tanah NCR kita juga bakal ditenggelami air Bakun seluas pulau Singapura. Tetapi takungan seluas itu "TIDAK DAPAT MENANDINGI LUASNYA TAKUNGAN AIR MATA ORANG ULU BALUI, BELAGA" yang kesedihan menangisi ratusan ribu hektar tanah NCR yang diberikan kepada Syarikat dan bakal ditenggelam si "kemajuan HEP BAKUN".

Tidak cukup dengan Hidro Bakun, kini Hidro Murum turut dibina TANPA SEDIKITPUN meminta pandangan orang Belaga. Apa lagi orang Penan yang bakal ditenggelamkan di sana. Dimaklumkan Murum dibina TANPA PENGETAHUAN DAN KEBENARAN MAJORITI ORANG BELAGA. Sangat bodohkah Orang Belaga untuk memberi pandangan?? Sangat jijikkah orang Belaga untuk diambil pendapat mereka?? Kenapa Murum dibina secara BULDOZ sahaja. KENAPA?? Terlalu lemahkah orang Belaga untuk melawan?? AkuPUN SEOLAH-OLAH kehabisan kata-kata untuk membayangkan kenapa Orang Belaga TIDAK DIHORMATI?? DIAMBIL PENDAPAT MEREKA!!

ANAK PENAN MURUM MERENUNG JAUH AKAN NASIB MASA DEPAN MEREKA! AKAN SERUPAKAH DENGAN NASIB ORANG ULU BALUI?

Kawasan tanah NCR penduduk sepanjang sungai Rejang di hilir Pekan Belaga sampai ke Punan Bah juga turut dilesenkan oleh Kerajaan kepada Syarikat-syarikat. Ini bermakna tanah NCR yang produktif, sebahagian besarnya telah "dilesenkan" kepada syarikat-syarikat walaupun ada Orang Punan mendakwa "tiang keriling" di kawasan NCR mereka, ada yang beratus tahun. Kalau semua tanah diambil dan tanpa pengetahuan orang Belaga teramai, di manakah letaknya maruah Orang Belaga?

KITA Orang Belaga tiada maruahkah!! Wakil rakyat kami pun di"periksa" MYKADnya oleh Security bangsa asing (bukan warganegara)untuk berjalan di kawasan sendiri!! Saya percaya untuk menjalankan tugas yang diamanahkan oleh rakyat Belaga. (Harap begitulah).

Tak dapat rasanya aku menahan sebak meneruskan coretan kesedihan penganiayaan ini.... baik ku hentikan ketikan jari jemari ini ... dan kepasrahkan saki baki perjuangan ini di tangan Orang Belaga yang ku kasihi. Belum terlambat untuk kita berjuang bersama walaupun kita miskin wang dan kini ditambah dengan MISKIN TANAH... cuma yang kuminta .. BERILAH PELUANG BAGI MEREKA YANG BERJUANG DEMI MEMPERTAHANKAN TANAH NCR KITA DI BELAGA UNTUK GENERASI KINI DAN AKAN DATANG..

Sanggupkah kita orang Belaga MEREMPAT DI DAERAH SENDIRI??

Cukuplah sokongan kita terhadap mereka yang kita harapkan selama ini ... rupa-rupanya HARAPKAN PAGAR.. PAGAR MAKAN PADI.

Salam perjuangan untuk semua rakyat Belaga. SELAMAT MENYAMBUT KARI KRISMAS DAN TAHUN BARU 2010.

RINGKASAN PERMINTAAN RAKYAT BELAGA KEPADA KERAJAAN SEJAK 2003

Kepada sesiapa rakyat dari Belaga yang mengetahui tentang perkembangan permintaan rakyat Belaga kepada Kerajaan, anda diminta untuk memberi respon terhadap status ini - sama ada sudah dilaksanakan atau tidak berserta dengan bukti pelaksanaannya.

STATUS PERMINTAAN RAKYAT ASAP BELAGA SEJAK TAHUN 2003 DARI KERAJAAN
MELALUI KETUA SETIAUSAHA NEGARA

1. Tuntutan Bayaran Pampasan
- Pemberian Rumah Percuma
- Ditubuhkan Tribunal Khas

2. Tanah untuk pembangunan dan reserve communal (Ekonomi)

3. Pembinaan bilik baru menggantikan yang telah terbakar

4. Menaiktarafkan Daerah Kecil Asap kepada Daerah Penuh atau Bandar Baru

5. Bakun Development Committee

6. Pegangan 30% Syer dalam Syarikat Ladang Kelapa Sawit

7. Peluang Perniagaan dan pekerjaan

8. Tabung Amanah Bakun

9. Prasarana Sekolah Rendah

10. Sekolah Menengah

11. Kolej Komuniti

12. Kemudahan – kemudahan kesihatan

13. Kemudahan – Kemudahan Awam

14. Kompleks dan Padang Sukan

15. Mewujudkan Agensi-agensi dan Jabatan-Jabatan Kerajaan

16. Kemudahan Beribadat

Selain daripada senarai di atas, jika ada perkara lain yang kerajaan patut selesaikan di Pusat Penempatan Semula Bakun di Asap, sila kemukakan melalui alamat email tertera di blog ini.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

LAWATAN KE LONG BEMANG


TEKUN MENDENGAR PENGAJARAN PRA-UNDANG-UNDANG


SUNGAI DI KAMPUNG LONG BEMANG


JALAN LAPOK BERDEKATAN PEKAN LAPOK YANG TIDAK PERNAH SIAP WALAUPUN SARAWAK MERDEKA 45 TAHUN SUDAH (FOTO PADA 2/12/2009)


MENJAMU SELERA BERSAMA TR DENG ANYIE (KETUA KAMPUNG LONG BEMANG)


KAMPUNG KAYAN LONG BEMANG

LAWATAN KE LONG BUSANG BELAGA (SENTRAL ULU BALUI 09)


SAMBUTAN PENUH KASIH OLEH JEMAAT DI LONG BUSANG



Kampung Long busang dari Gunung Doa SIB Long Busang




Bergambar Kenangan Selepas Berdoa Di Gungung Doa SIB Long Busang

Thursday, November 19, 2009

NCR landowners being exploited - DAP

Joseph Tawie
Tuesday, 17 November 2009 02:01

KUCHING – An Opposition assemblywoman has charged that the BN state government’s native customary right (NCR) land development schemes have resulted in great injustice for the land owners whose quality of life has been jeopardised.

“The government takes pride in telling us that since 1996, only four out of 26 joint ventures were able to pay out pittance dividends amounting to a miserly sum of RM2.3mil that is merely two sen per hectare per year.

Lopsided deals

“What about the other 22 joint venture schemes? They have failed dismally, and as such not even one sen of dividend was ever paid to the NCR land owners,” said Ting Tze Fui (DAP-Meradong) said when debating the 2010 Supply Bill.

“The figures showed that the present NCR land development policy is deprivation and exploitation of the NCR land owners. Hence the Government has failed miserably,” she said.

She said the government claimed that the NCR land development schemes would provide more job opportunities for the Dayaks.

But Land Development Minister James Masing had on May 13 informed the state assembly that there were only 823 NCR landowners employed as workers in the joint venture schemes as against 1,215 foreign workers.

“Why? Because the natives could not accept the low salaries offered."

Land was also becoming increasingly scarce as the state has sliced up and granted titles to land-hungry companies and the well-connected elite for oil palm plantations, she said.

Self-reliance the key

On her Meradong constituency, she claimed that the state was trying to persuade NCR landowners in lower Julau and Ulu Binatang to take party in joint venture schemes with Sime Darby, covering some 37,000ha that would be used to grow oil palms.

Ting said NCR landowners are being promised dividends that may not materialise.

She said DAP proposed that the state survey all NCR land to determine land boundaries and issue individual titles to rightful landowners with conditions imposed so that they would always be protected.

She said the landowners should also receive technical and financial support for growing crops of their choice on their land so that they would eventually be independent.

The Broken Shield: Taib challenges NGOs to form political parties

The Broken Shield: Taib challenges NGOs to form political parties

A Historian’s View of Sarawak helping to form Malaysia

By Dr Ooi Keat Gin

Dr Ooi Keat Gin is author of Japanese Empire in the Tropics Vol 1 and 2 (Ohio University Press, 1998) and Rising Sun Over Borneo (Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, 1999). He is a lecturer in Universiti Sains Malaysia’s School of Humanities and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society of Britain.

First Visit to Kuching

WHEN I first arrived at Kuching airport in May 1983, I was ushered into the row for foreigners at the immigration checkpoint where my Malaysian passport was examined and stamped “Social Visit”, with an expiry date. I felt like an “alien” despite knowing full well that Sarawak was part of the Federation of Malaysia. My feelings of alienness were, however, short-lived, quickly overcome by the friendliness and warmth of the locals I encountered.

Sarawak Safeguards

Control over immigration was one of the numerous safeguards incorporated into the constitutional arrangements made when Sarawak, together with Sabah (then called North Borneo) and Singapore, joined the wider federation of Malaysia in 1963.

Sarawak Helps to Form Malaysia

Again, here we have the unfortunate concept that Sarawak joined “the wider federation of Malaysia” instead of helping to form Malaysia. It was not Sarawak’s idea of course, but if Sarawak had not been conned into supporting or supposedly supporting it, there would have not been a “Malaysia” and Sarawak would have become an independent nation.

Interference with Sarawak Affairs

Unfortunately these safeguards have proven to be ineffective against Malayan interference with Sarawak affairs and control over its oil and gas resources to its detriment. The Malayans (especially the ruling elite Malays) couldn’t be bothered whether Sarawak remains poor and underdeveloped as long as they get what they want and whatever development supports what they want out of Sarawak.

A burden to Sarawak

The fact is that Malaya, together with its local bully boy, Taib Mahmud and the state BN, has become a burden upon Sarawak and an impediment to its continuing proper economic progress.

The only real safeguard that remains is Sarawak’s control over immigration, but even then any attempt by the state to use it to really stop Malayan exploitation would probably invite a violent response from the federal authorities in the form of a declaration of emergency or other hegemonic response.

The question now is whether under such circumstances Sarawak can break free of the Malayan yoke?

The Malaysia Agreement

On July 9, 1963,

Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng, Datu Bandar Abang Haji Mustapha, and Ling Beng Siew, as Sarawak’s representatives, penned their signature to the Malaysia Agreement in London.

Did they realise what they were signing and did they really represent Sarawak? Jugah in particular did not know how to read or write (according to a fairly authentic rumour he could sign his name by following a tattoo of it on the inside of his left forearm), Abang Mustapha was a representative of the Kuching Malays – seen by many Sarawakians as collaborators with the British colonial regime and Ling Beng Siew of the rich Sibu Foochow Chinese – who had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Malaysia was proclaimed on 16th September 1963

The Federation of Malaysia was proclaimed on Sept 16 that year comprising the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak. The last three territories had been British Colonies until they gained their independence through participation in the wider Federation of Malaysia. Sarawak is poised to celebrate its 38th anniversary of independence on Sept 16.

White Rajahs rule

Sarawak’s entry into Malaysia was a momentous event and a turning point in its historical development. A century of paternalistic governance by an English dynasty of White Rajahs (or kings, from 1841 to 1941), three years and eight months under Imperial Japanese military rule (1941 to 1945), and 17 years as a British colony did little to prepare the multi-ethnic population of Sarawak to face the challenges posed by the concept of “Malaysia”.

Concept of Malaysia

From the start there was no real concept of “Malaysia”, but a very real Malayan hegemonic control and interference over the states of Sarawak and Sabah. Singapore rebelled and was rewarded by being kicked out of the federation, which turned out to be a much better thing for it. Sarawak and Sabah opted to remain under Malayan dominance and were rewarded by the crumbs of their own resources – the main bulk of which fueled the modern development of Malaya and the greed and power of the Malayan elites.

UMNO’s do as they will with the two States

UMNO dealt at will with these two states – which each supposedly had equal status with the Malayan states (as a whole) – until ultimately UMNO established direct rule over Sabah by using foreign illegal immigrants who had been illegally given citizenship and thus outnumbered the local Sabahan natives.

They did not have to do this in Sarawak since Taib Mahmud and the Sarawak BN kept the local populace in check through a feudal mixture of divide and rule, threat, coercion and intimidation and plain money politics.

Nonetheless, through the farsightedness of Sarawak’s leaders, the decisive decision was taken during those critical months between the announcement of the formation of Malaysia in May 1961 and its declaration in September 1963.

Farsightedness? Far from it! They didn’t really know what they were doing and were outfoxed by the cunning Malayans.

Why Malaysia?

But what motivated the federation’s first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, to propose in 1961 that “it is inevitable that we should look ahead to this objective and think of a plan whereby these (five) territories can be brought closer together in political and economic co-operation’’?

Malaysia was Singapore’s Idea

The initiative apparently came from the wishes of Singapore’s leaders. David Marshall, Chief Minister of Singapore during the mid-1950s, was keen for a merger but the Tunku then was reluctant. Then in 1959, when Lee Kuan Yew of the People’s Action Party assumed the chief ministership, he too proposed a Malaya-Singapore merger for economic and political reasons. The Tunku’s initial reaction was at best lukewarm. As the political Left in Singapore gained momentum, however, the Tunku began to warm up to Lee’s persuasive arguments of merger.

Racial Arithmetic

Although the Tunku and his Malay colleagues in the United Malay National Organisation (Umno) did not want to have a Left-leaning Singapore as their neighbour, neither did they wish for a merger with Chinese-dominated Singapore that would mean upsetting the racial arithmetic in favour of the Chinese.

Sabah and Sarawak indigenous People population used as counter balance

The Borneo territories then became imperative components in the wider federation scheme. Nearly 70% of the nearly 1.3 million inhabitants (1960 census) of North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak comprised Malay-Muslims and non-Muslim indigenous peoples, the Borneo territories were viewed favourably as a counterweight to Singapore’s Chinese majority. The racial factor, however, was not then publicly emphasised.

Assumption?

This racial arithmetic, however, hinged on an assumption: “that in extreme racial issues the indigenous population of Borneo might choose to align themselves with the Malays (of Malaya), to whom they were racially akin, rather than to the Chinese”. But there was no guarantee that the Borneo indigenous would swing to the Malays in times of crisis.

Being politically less-sophisticated and naive, they could of course be manipulated and coerced or intimidated into aligning themselves with the Malayans.

Awakening political awareness

But what was the response from the peoples of Sarawak to Tunku’s Malaysia scheme?

Post-war British governments were partial to the policy of disengagement from the colonies; if possible in an amicable and least traumatic manner. Against this background, the Tunku’s statement was received positively. In June 1961 Sir Alexander Waddell, Governor of Sarawak (1960-1963), and his counterpart in North Borneo, Sir William Goode (1960-1963), and D. C. White, High Commissioner for Brunei (1959-1963) were summoned for talks in Singapore with Lord Selkirk, Britain’s Commissioner General in South-East Asia (1959-1963).

Two-steps process

Aware of the metropolitan government’s stance on de-colonisation, the British Borneo leaders did not oppose Malaysia, but they did suggest a two-step process: Borneo Federation (North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak) prior to entry to the Malaysia confederation. In spite of Brunei’s suspicions, serious consideration was given to the Borneo Federation, if necessary between North Borneo and Sarawak alone.

Sarawak was taken by surprised by Tunku’s announcement – without first forming the Borneo Federation

Local Sarawak leaders like Datu Bandar Abang Haji Mustapha and Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng were also partial to a Borneo Federation. Therefore Tunku’s announcement took them by surprise. While others were in a state of bewilderment, Ong Kee Hui, Chairman of the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) displayed forceful opposition towards Malaysia.

Ong, together with A.M. Azahari, leader of the Parti Rakyat Brunei (PRB), and Donald A. Stephens, later leader of the United National Kadazan Organisation (UNKO) formed a United Front to denounce Tunku’s proposal as “totally unacceptable to the people of the three territories”.

Stephen Kalong Ningkan – opposed subjection to foreign power

SUPP’s uncompromising stance received initial support from the Sarawak National Party (SNAP) led by Stephen Kalong Ningkan who maintained that, “Any attempt to put Sarawak under the influence and subjection of any foreign power would be strongly opposed.”

That foreign power was and still is Malaya.

But following the digestion of further explanations from Tunku, who paid brief visits to Sarawak in July-August 1961, those who initially were skeptical or had reservations were won over. Moreover, urged by Mustapha, Tunku invited leaders from Sarawak and North Borneo to visit Malaya on a fact-finding mission.

Con-game

This was all part of the con-game, but Sarawakian leaders and most Sarawakians themselves didn’t realise it then.

The Borneo visitors were awed by Kuala Lumpur and were especially impressed with the Malayan Government’s achievements in rural development. Many returned convinced that entry into Malaysia was a good idea. Meanwhile, Waddell had sent local Sarawak leaders (members of Council Negri) to participate in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Singapore in July 1961. At this forum the Sarawak leaders had the opportunity to discuss the Malaysia proposal face-to-face with their Malayan and Singaporean counterparts.

Malaya need a new pool of resources – that is what they wanted to get from Sabah and Sarawak.

Little did they realise that Malaya had then reached the limit of its economic resources and required a new pool of resources upon which to further develop itself, and which was to be provided by Sarawak and Sabah at their own expense and to their own detriment.

It was here that Sarawak leaders began to emphasise the need for conditions in the form of safeguards to protect the rights and interests of the peoples of Sarawak. Consequently, it dawned on the Sarawak leaders that they were directly involved in the deliberation of the fate of the territory – Sarawak – that they had long called their home. This awakening of political consciousness was further developed in the follow-up discussions at the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee which held meetings between August 1961 and February 1962.

Petroleum Resources

One of the main safeguards which they forgot was to keep their petroleum resources for themselves. The Malayans were glad to be silent on this, since they knew that under international law, offshore petroleum resources belonged to the federal government.

Political Parties in Sarawak

The growth of political awareness among the leaders of Sarawak accelerated the formation of political parties and the development of party politics. Prior to Tunku’s announcement in May 1961, only two political parties existed: the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) established in June 1959, and Party Negara Sarawak (Panas) in April 1960.

By the time local council elections were held in June 1963, four more parties were established, namely Sarawak National Party (SNAP, April 1961), Barisan Raayat Jati Sarawak (Barjasa, December 1961), Sarawak Chinese Association (SCA, July 1962), and Party Pesaka Anak Sarawak (Pesaka, August 1962).

The political parties, despite claims by some to be multi-ethnic, were established on communal and geographical lines. All political parties adopted a pro-Malaysia stance except SUPP, which preferred self-government, Borneo Federation, and only then Malaysia.

And so, the political parties took the pros and cons of the Malaysia proposal to the kampungs and longhouses.

The Malay-Muslim communities (Malays and Muslim Melanaus) although split into two camps – Panas led by the traditional Kuching elite and Barjasa by the intelligentsia of the Sibu area – in general supported Malaysia. However, Malay-Muslim groups in Miri, Limbang and Lawas, together with the Kedayans, rejected Malaysia; instead they shared Azahari’s and the PRB’s aspirations.

Iban leaders were divided from the beginning

Traditional Iban leaders of the Rejang led by Jugah (Pesaka’s leader) were partial to Malaysia.

Stephen Kalong Ningkan and his better-educated colleagues from Simanggang and the Saribas area stressed safeguards and conditions in considering Malaysia.

The Kayans and Kenyahs opposed Malaysia.

They were apprehensive of being dominated by their traditional enemies, the Ibans.

The Sarawak Chinese forcefully rejected Malaysia

The Chinese in SUPP that were influenced by Leftist elements forcefully rejected the Malaysia proposal as a neo-colonial scheme designed to perpetuate British hegemony in South-East Asia. Malay, Iban and Bidayuh members of SUPP also towed the party line.

A scheme cooked by Malayans

In reality it was a scheme cooked up by the Malayans to replace British hegemony with Malayan hegemony.

The SCA was a refuge for those Chinese who thought Malaysia was advantageous to Sarawak’s economy. But among the large majority of Sarawak’s multi-ethnic inhabitants, in particular those in the rural districts, there was little understanding of the Malaysia proposal and its implications.

This being the case, could there be any real acceptance by the majority of Sarawakians of the so-called Malaysia proposal?

Of communism and predatory neighbours

By the later half of 1961 British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan (1957-1963) had given full support to the Malaysia proposal. The two-step process (Borneo Federation then Malaysia) was discarded.

The “White Tuan advised”

In January 1962 a White Paper was published and European District Officers were instructed to emphasise to the local inhabitants the advantages of entry into Malaysia as against the uncertainties of the future, the dangers of communism, and the perils of predatory alien neighbours (Sukarno’s Indonesia). In a nutshell, the White Tuan “advised” the people that Malaysia “is good for you”.

Cobbold Commission

A Commission of Enquiry chaired by Lord Cobbold was entrusted with the task of ascertaining the opinion of the general population in North Borneo and Sarawak on the Malaysia proposal.

The Cobbold Commission could not be said to represent a neutral body – three of its five members, including the chairman, were nominees of the British Government and the remaining two were nominated by the Malayan Government. (emphasis added)

Again, that being the case, its findings must be suspect.

Barang ko” nuan Tuan

The commission held hearings in camera (in order that the people shall speak openly) between Feb 19 and April 17, 1962. Members of the commission also attended to some 1,600 letters and memoranda submitted by individuals, organisations, and political parties.

“Barang ko’ nuan, Tuan” (Whatever you say, sir) was the reply of a Dayak to a question posed by Lord Cobbold. This response singularly represented the perplexed state of mind for the majority of Sarawak’s indigenous inhabitants when asked of the Malaysia proposal.

As pointed out by Puan Tra Zahnder, a member of Council Negri, most of the native population, “appear to know nothing or little about (the) Malaysia (proposal) but agree to it because they have been told that Malaysia is good for them.”

Ignorance was bliss, but certainly not any more.

The verdict

The Cobbold Commission published its findings in Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak in August 1962. The report did acknowledge that “there are large sections of the population in the interior who have no real appreciation of the Malaysia proposals”.

Overall, the results of the commission were summarised as follows:

“About one-third of the population … strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern about terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards varying in nature and extent … The remaining third is divided between those who insist on independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come.

There was no real referendum, in fact no referendum at all, and these figures are too vague upon which to have drawn any conclusions.

Cobbold expressed a cautionary note:

“It is a necessary condition that, from the outset, Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interests to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities. If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a ‘take-over’ of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not, in my judgement, be generally acceptable or successful.” (emphasis added)

Unfortunately that is what has come about and that is the situation we are at right now.

An Inter-Governmental Committee, as recommended by the Cobbold Commission, was set-up. It was in the committee that the details of constitutional arrangements incorporating the conditions and safeguards for North Borneo and Sarawak – as negotiated by their leaders – were worked out. Jugah and Mustapha played pivotal roles as representatives of Sarawak.

How could an uneducated Iban and a Malay collaborator with the British negotiate anything on behalf of Sarawak?

The pertinent safeguards include: religious freedom, status of the English language, immigration, land, representations in the federal House of Representatives and Senate, special status and privileges of indigenes, and disbursement of development grants.

Local council elections were held in June 1963. The elections, to all intents and purposes, were a referendum on the issue of Sarawak’s entry into Malaysia.

The Sarawak Alliance

The Sarawak Alliance formed in August 1962 comprising of Panas, Barjasa, Pesaka, SCA, and SNAP won on a pro-Malaysia stance. But despite standing on an anti-Malaysia platform and facing allegations of being infiltrated by Leftist elements, SUPP managed a commendable showing.

Owing to pressure from the Philippines and Indonesia, another assessment of public opinion and a verification of the electoral results of December 1962 in North Borneo and of June 1963 in Sarawak were undertaken by the United Nations Malaysia Mission headed by Laurence Michelmore. The mission conducted its duties from Aug 16 to Sept 5, 1963. Once again the opinions of the general population of Sarawak were consulted on the issue of Malaysia.

The United Nation Mission Report

The United Nations Malaysia Mission Report made public on Sept 13, 1963, confirmed that the entry in the proposed Federation of Malaysia was “… the ‘result’ of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage”.

Conclusion

Nonsense! There was no such thing in those days and even today the electoral process is dubious and fraught with fraud and unethical practices committed by Taib Mahmud and the BN government. A truly independent referendum held today completely uninfluenced by the Malayans or the BN regime and their corrupt practices would show an overwhelming majority of Sarawakians wanting out of Malaysia.

Therefore, on Sept 16, 1963, Sarawak achieved its independence through Malaysia – and a new chapter in its history began.

Friday, November 13, 2009

BUANG YANG KERUH AMBIL YANG JERNIH

Malaysia boleh belajar dari Singapura bagaimana mentadbir negara yang mempunyai pelbagai kaum, agama dan budaya, malah pelbagai ideologi.

Satu kaum tidak boleh memaksa satu kaum lain untuk menerima ideologi mereka. Begitu juga sesuatu kepercayaan tidak boleh dipaksa ke atas orang dalam kepercayaan lain.

Pengecualian boleh diberikan jika terdapat permintaan terhadap kepercayan kita oleh seseorang atau kumpulan.

Begitu juga dengan sesuatu penganut lain tidak boleh "mengatur" bagaimana penganut agama yang lain harus menganut dan memanggil nama Tuhan mereka.

Dasar kebebasan dan hak asasi setiap rakyat Malaysia telah termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Mungkin juga ucapan Perdana Menteri Singapura boleh diambil sebagai panduan bagaimana untuk mentadbir Negara Malaysia yang mana rakyatnya adalah multi-etnik.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

PENGHULU MENUMBUK RAKYAT

MIRI, SARAWAK: 10.11.2009, Hanya kerana bertanya soalan untuk mengetahui perkembangan berkaitan dengan hasil – hasil kayu balak miliknya di kawasan rumah panjang, Ipoi Jau secara tiba – tiba ditumbuk oleh seorang Penghulu di sini. Penghulu tersebut yang dikenali sebagai Penghulu Herbert Lawai telah menumbuk mangsa di dahi menyebabkan mangsa mengalami kecederaan. Mangsa yang berumur 66 tahun telah ke klinik untuk membuat pemeriksaan perubatan dan merawat bahagian yang telah cedera ditumbuk oleh Penghulu tersebut. Laporan juga telah dibuat untuk tindakan pihak polis.
Kejadian tersebut berlaku pada awal pagi 08.11.2009, dipercayai disebabkan oleh keinginan mangsa mengetahui di mana pergi hasil – hasil kayu balak di kawasan hutan rumah panjang Long Terawan Baram, Sarawak. Biasanya syarikat – syarikat pembalakan akan membalak di kawasan hutan rumah panjang dan sebahagian dari hasil balak diserahkan kepada penduduk rumah panjang melalui Jawatan Kuasa Kemajuan Kampung (JKKK) yang akan membahagikannya kepada penduduk.
Peristiwa ini adalah sesuatu yang tidak sepatutnya dilakukan oleh seorang pemimpin lebih – lebih lagi pemimpin bertaraf Penghulu yang sepatutnya melindungi rakyat. Mangsa juga merupakan seorang yang kurang upaya akibat kecederaan lama di bahagian tulang paha dan sudah tentu tidak mampu mempertahankan diri.
Lebih menyedihkan lagi, menurut sumber, kejadian ini berlaku di rumah salah seorang penduduk kampung yang kematian saudara di bandar Miri. Sudah tentu kejadian telah disaksikan oleh orang – orang yang datang untuk memberi penhormatan terakhir kepada keluarga si mati.

Untuk keterangan lanjut sila hubungi Encik Willie Kajan 0128729159

Thursday, November 5, 2009

TANAH PENDUDUK BELAGA TERUS DIRAMPAS OLEH SYARIKAT

BELAGA, SARAWAK : 05-11-2009 Penduduk Rumah Tuai Rumah Long Koyan berjaya menghalang Syarikat Samling Plantation dari terus menceroboh kawasan Tanah NCR mereka kelmarin (04-11-2009).

Walau bagaimanapun, hari ini pekerja Syarikat bersama dengan serombongan Polis Diraja Malaysia dari Belaga telah pergi ke tempat Kampung Long Koyan untuk menggertak penduduk rumah panjang agar tidak menghalang pencerobohan tersebut.

Polis juga dipercayai berkawal bersama "security" Samling semasa proses penccerobohan tersebut berlaku.

Menurut sumber dari rumah panjang tersebut, mereka telah membuat Laporan Polis terhadap pencerobohan tersebut, tetapi tiada tindakan lanjut dari pihak polis.

Apa yang menghairankan di sini, pihak polis seolah-olah berpihak dalam menjalankan tugas kerana tidak menghiraukan Laporan dan rintihan penduduk kampung.

Polis pergi ke rumah panjang Long Koyan apabila dibawa oleh wakil Syarikat.

Menurut sumber tertentu, pencerobohan tersebut dilakukan kerana Syarikat tersebut telah diberikan lesen (Provisional Lease) oleh Kerajaan.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Cemerlang tapi gagal ke IPTA

Cemerlang tapi gagal ke IPTA
Oleh Edwin Raoh

Alasannya Kementerian Pelajaran mengkategorikan pelajar terbabit bukan Bumiputera

SRI AMAN: Seorang bapa, Undau@Unau Liap melahirkan rasa kecewanya kerana anaknya Marina, pelajar lepasan Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) tahun lalu, yang mendapat keputusan cemerlang tidak diterima melanjutkan pengajian ke peringkat matrikulasi atau institusi pengajian tinggi awam (IPTA).Menurut Unau, alasan yang diberikan oleh Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia berpusat di Putrajaya ialah kerana Marina dikategorikan sebagai rakyat Malaysia bukan Bumiputera (bapa berketurunan Iban manakala ibunya Cina).

Katanya, semakan status anaknya dijalankan oleh sistem komputer berdasarkan definisi yang juga diguna pakai Bahagian Pengurusan Kemasukan Pelajar, Jabatan Pengajian Tinggi dan Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi, iaitu:

Jika bapa dan ibu adalah seorang peribumi Sarawak seperti mana yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 161A (6) (b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan’ maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera.

Tetapi berbeza dengan di Semananjung Malaysia yang menyatakan, jika salah seorang ibu atau bapa calon adalah seorang Melayu yang beragama Islam/ Orang Asli sepertimana yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 160 (2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera.

Begitu juga dengan di Sabah, jika bapa calon adalah seorang Melayu yang beragama Islam/peribumi Sabah seperti mana yang ditakrifkan dalam Perkara 161A (6)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan: maka anaknya adalah dianggap seorang Bumiputera.

Berdasarkan senario itu Marina seorang pelajar cemerlang yang berusia 18 tahun, hasil perkongsian hidup Undau dan isterinya, Wong Pick Sing telah dinafikan peluang dan tempat untuk menyambung pelajaran ke peringkat matrikulasi ataupun di IPTA.

Pelajar aliran sains Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) Simanggang itu memperoleh keputusan 9A, 1B dalam peperiksaan SPM 2008

“Apakah ini yang dinamakan konsep 1Malaysia dan kenapa ada perbezaan seperti itu dalam pengambilan pelajar yang ingin melanjutkan pelajaran ke peringkat lebih tinggi?” Soal Unau.

“Saya bukan mempertikaikan perlembagaan, tetapi apa maknanya konsep 1Malaysia itu sekiraya perkara seperti ini berlaku,” katanya ketika ditemui di rumahnya di Pasir Panas di sini, semalam.

Menurut Unau, apa yang lebih menghairankan tentang pengambilan pelajar ke IPTA ialah kenapa pula anak sulungnya Christina diterima melanjutkan pengajiannya ke Universiti Sains Malaysia yang kini menuntut dalam tahun dua.

“Banyak perkara yang menghairankan saya dalam isu ini kerana setahu saya, jika bapa merupakan seorang Bumiputera secara automotik anaknya juga diiktirafkan seorang Bumiputera,” jelasnya.

Lantaran itu, buat masa ini gadis cerdik itu terpaksa menyambung pelajarannya ke tingkatan enam di SMK Simanggang setelah rayuan dengan menggunakan sistem e-Rayuan dengan harapan agar dapat melanjutkan pengajian ke IPT ditolak.

Sehubungan itu, Unau berharap agar kerajaan memberi perhatian serius terhadap isu pendidikan yang melibatkan soal status Bumiputera dan bukan Bumiputera bagi seseorang individu di negara ini.

Sementara itu, Marina yang turut bersama bapanya ketika pertemuan itu turut mengharapkan pihak Kementerian Pelajaran meneliti kembali kesnya kerana bapanya adalah kaum Iban yang bertaraf Bumiputera.

“Apa yang membimbangkan saya ialah apabila isu yang sama akan berulang kembali sekiranya saya lulus cemerlang dalam peperiksaan Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) pada tahun depan,” katanya dengan nada sedih.

Utusan Borneo turut menghubungi Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) Cawangan Sarawak untuk mendapatkan penjelasan tentang status Marina itu.

Pihak JPN Sarawak menjelaskan bahawa sekiranya bapa seseorang anak itu Iban manakala ibu seorang Cina maka anaknya adalah berstatus penduduk Bumiputera.

Manakala Mahkamah Bumiputera Sarawak menyatakan sekiranya seorang bapa berstatus Bumiputera berkahwin dengan bukan Bumiputera maka anaknya pula adalah berstatus Bumiputera (peribumi).

Sehubungan itu, Pendaftar Mahkamah Bumiputera Sarawak, Ronnie Edward mencadangkan agar Perkara 161A (6) (b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan digubal semula supaya isu seperti itu tidak akan timbul lagi pada masa akan datang.

KOMEN:
1. PERLEMBAGAAN PERSEKUTUAN ADALAH JELAS BAGI SABAH DI MANA TARAF BUMIPUTERA DIBERIKAN KEPADA ANAK YANG IBU ATAU BAPANYA ADALAH BUMIPUTERA.

2. DI SEMENANJUNG ATAU MELAYU ISLAM PUN SAMA DI MANA ANAK ADALAH BUMIPUTERA KALAU MANA-MANA IBU ATAU BAPANYA ADALAH MELAYU.

3. BAGI SARAWAK : KEDUA -DUA IBU "DAN" BAPA MESTI BUMIPUTRA BAGI MEMBOLEHKAN ANAK TARAF BUMIPUTERA. INI TIDAK MENCERMINKAN 1MALAYSIA YANG NAJIB LAUNG-LAUNGKAN. 1MALAYSIA KATANYA TELAH DIAMALKAN SEJAK DULU????

4. MINTA PARLIMEN SEGERA BETULKAN ISU INI DENGAN MEMINDA PERLEMBAGAAN BERKAITAN AGAR IANYA MENCERMINKAN APA ITU 1MALAYSIA.

5. KESAN TARAF BUMIPTERA INI BUKAN SAHAJA PADA PENDIDIKAN TETAPI SEMUA ASPEK KEISTIMEWAAN DI BAWAH ARTIKEL 153 PERLEMBAGAAN PERSEKUTUAN.

Monday, October 12, 2009

PERLEMBAGAANKU



Sebarang pertanyaan sila hubungi webmaster.

Focus on what Penans need, says Rais

Sunday, October 11th, 2009
By Lim How Pim

KUCHING: Penans should be provided with what they need, not what we want them to be, in view of their unique nature.

Minister of Information, Communications, and Culture Datuk Seri Utama Dr Rais Yatim said this.

Rais suggested that minister-in-charge of Penan affairs Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Alfred Jabu take proactive approaches in reaching out to the Penan community so they would not feel left out.

“I know that Penans are a nomadic group therefore I urge my colleague from Sarawak, Tan Sri Alfred Jabu, to come up with some practical programmes for them,” he said during a meet-the-media session here yesterday.

Rais said his ministry would initiate discussions with the state cabinet to look into feasible programmes to assist the Penan community.

He was hopeful that by the end of this year, some initiatives could be launched to begin a series of concerted efforts to improve their welfare.

In Peninsular Malaysia, the government had implemented several programmes for ‘orang asli’ to enhance their standard of living, he cited as an example.

In Sarawak, rainforest music could be a key factor to get the Penans closer to others, he added.

Issues pertaining to the Penans have been getting attention from international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media.

Last month, a report was released by the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry on the alleged rape and molesting of Penan girls by logging workers in Baram.

Asked to comment on it, Jabu, who is also a deputy chief minister denied the allegation as he believed that NGOs had a hand in the report. He, however, said investigations must be launched if the allegation was true.

On an unrelated development, Rais said the ministry together with state agencies Danawa and Sacofa as well as Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (SKMM) would give due attention to ICT infrastructure in rural areas.

Sarawak has a 15.5 per cent coverage of Internet facilities with the majority in urban towns, he revealed.

With advanced technology taking place, parents should be watching closely their children’s online activities to prevent them falling prey to cyber predators, he added.

“Parents must be prepared and be aware of what their children are browsing on the Internet, the pictures and video clips they watch and download. In five years’ time, our values of life will change,” he predicted.

COMMENT:
FOR PENANS, PRESERVATION OF THEIR ANCESTRAL LAND IS THEIR ULTIMATE PRIORITY TO THEM. THIS SHALL INCLUDE VIRGIN JUNGLES.

MUSIC IS LESS IMPORTANT TO THEM.EVEN THOUGH RAIS SAID IT IS IMPORTANT. NO HARM SAYING SO.

THEY WANT THEIR RIGHT OVER LAND NEED TO BE RESPECTED BY GOVERNMENT BY A MEANINGFUL MEAN EG. ISSUE THEM LAND TITLE.

THIS WHAT THEY WANT. OTHERS ARE JUST COMPLIMENTARY "DEVELOPMENT" WHICH THEY NOT REALLY NEED ACCORDING TO THEM.

DON'T FORCE THEM TO ACCEPT "DEVELOPMENT".

BELOW ARE WHAT PENANS IN MURUM WANT:

1. The Penan should be the one to decide where they should be resettled. For Murum case, they want to be resettled in Ulu Peliran;
2. The government must ensure that basic amenities are readily available before the communities are resettled. Such amenities should include concrete house, water, electricity, clinic, school and others. The amenities should be given for free;
3. Land must be provided and given to the affected families for cultivation. They should be suitable in quality and sufficient size;
4. Each affected family should be compensated with RM500,000.00.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Bakun dam to be much worse than PKFZ scandal


Kua Kia Soong | Sep 22, 09 8:41am


Nearly 50 years after independence for Sarawak, we see a comparison with the ‘Highland Clearances’ in Scotland during the 18th century when the highlanders were driven off their lands for capitalistic sheep farming.
MCPX
The English did it with brutality and thoroughness through “butcher” Lord Cumberland and even obliterated the ‘wild’ Celtic mode of life.

What we have seen in Sarawak recently has the same capitalist logic, namely, to drive the indigenous peoples out of their native customary lands so that these lands can be exploited for their commercial value and the indigenous people can be “freed” to become wage labourers.

Thus, even though the accursed Bakun dam had been suspended in 1997 due to the financial crisis, the government still went ahead to displace 10,000 indigenous peoples to the Sungai Asap resettlement camp in 1998.

Well, there is a reason for this - the contract for the Sungai Asap camp had already been given out to a multinational company. After all, the whole Bakun area, which is the size of the island of Singapore and home to the indigenous peoples, had already been thoroughly logged...

All this happened while Dr Mahathir Mahathir was the prime minister. Wasn’t he a liability to the BN government then?

I was part of the fact-finding mission to Sungai Asap in 1999 and even then we could see the destruction of so many unique indigenous communities and their cultures, including the Ukit tribe.

There was only one word to describe what had been done to these indigenous peoples and their centuries-old cultures... wicked!
Banned from my own country

As a result of my concern for the indigenous peoples and the natural resources of Sarawak, I was told at Kuching airport in August 2007 that I could not enter Sarawak. So much for 1Malaysia! So much for national integration! So much for nearly 50 years of independence! I was not even welcome in my own country.

But the contracts for the resettlement scheme and the logging are chicken feed compared to the mega-bucks to be reaped from the mega-dams. Even before the Bakun dam ever got started, Malaysian taxpayers had to compensate dam builder Ekran Bhd and the other “stakeholders” close to RM1 billion in 1997.

How much does it cost to pay our ‘mata-mata’ (police) to investigate the alleged scandalous rape of our Penan women?

The contracts from building the Bakun dam and the undersea cable run in excess of RM20 billion. Malaysian taxpayers won’t know the final cost until they are told the cost overruns when the projects have been completed.

But if the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal is anything to go by, the leaks and non-accountability all along the line will result in Malaysian taxpayers paying billions for the same kind of daylight robbery.

In the early 90s, when the government was trying to assure us that there would be no irresponsible logging in Sarawak, I pointed out in Parliament that if the government could not monitor the Bukit Sungai Putih permanent forest and wildlife reserve just 10 minutes from Kuala Lumpur, how did they expect us to believe they could monitor the forests in Bakun?

Likewise today, if the government cannot monitor a project in Port Klang just half an hour from Kuala Lumpur, how can they assure us that they can monitor a project deep in upriver Sarawak and through 650km of the South China Sea?

How can we be assured that we will get to the bottom of politically-linked scandals when the Sarawak police tell us they don’t have the resources to investigate the rape of Penan women and girls?

How can we be assured that the Sarawak state government cares about its indigenous peoples and its natural resources when NGO activists are banned from entering Sarawak to investigate a part of their own country?

It makes no economic sense

In 1980, the Bakun dam was proposed with a power generating capacity of 2,400MW even though the projected energy needs for the whole of Sarawak was only 200MW for 1990.

The project was thus coupled with the proposal to build the world’s longest (650km) undersea cable to transmit electricity to the peninsula. An aluminum smelter at Sarawak’s coastal town of Bintulu was also proposed to take up the surplus energy.

In 1986, the project was abandoned because of the economic recession although the then PM Mahathir announced just before the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil that this was “proof of Malaysia’s commitment to the environment”.

So what happened to that commitment, Mahathir?

In 1993, with the upturn in the Malaysian economy, the government once again announced the revival of the Bakun dam project. To cushion the expected protests, then Energy Minister S Samy Vellu gave Parliament a poetic description of a “series of cascading dams” and not one large dam as had been originally proposed.

Before long, it was announced that the Bakun dam would be a massive 205-metre high concrete face rockfill dam - one of the highest dams of its kind in the world - and it would flood an area the size of Singapore island.

The undersea cable was again part of the project. There was also a plan for an aluminum plant, a pulp and paper plant, the world’s biggest steel plant and a high-tension and high-voltage wire industry.

Have feasibility studies been done to see if there will be adequate local, regional and international demand for all these products?

Six years later, after the economy was battered by the Asian Financial Crisis, the government again announced that the project would be resumed albeit on a smaller scale of 500MW capacity.

Before long in 2001, the 2,400MW scale was once again proposed although the submarine cable had been shelved. Today we read reports about the government and companies still contemplating this hare-brained undersea scheme which is now estimated to cost a whopping RM21 billion!

More mega-dams to be built

The recent announcement that the Sarawak government intends to build two more mega-dams in Sarawak apart from the ill-fated Bakun dam is cause for grave concern.


Malaysian taxpayers, Malaysian forests and Malaysian indigenous peoples will again be the main victims of this misconceived plan. We have been told that some 1,000 more indigenous peoples will have to be displaced from their ancestral lands to make way for these two dams.
Apart from the human cost, ultimately it will be the Malaysian consumers who pay for this expensive figment of Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud’s wild imagination. Indeed, enough taxpayers’ money has been wasted - Sarawak Hidro has already spent some RM1.5 billion on the Bakun dam project.

Right now, the country is being fed conflicting reports about energy demand. There is supposed to be a 43 percent oversupply of electricity capacity in peninsula Malaysia. Experienced Bakun dam watchers will tell you such conflicting and mutually contradictory assertions have been used by the dam proponents to justify every flip flop of this misconceived project.

Apart from the economic cost and the wastage, how are investors supposed to plan for the long-term and medium term? What is the long-term plan for Bakun? Can Bakun compete with the rest of the world or for that matter, Indonesia?

The suggestion for aluminum smelters to take up the bulk of Bakun electricity have been mentioned ever since the conception of the Bakun dam project because they are such a voracious consumer of energy. Even so, has there ever been any proper assessment of the market viability of such a project with the cheaper operating costs in China?

Does it matter that the co-owner of one of the smelters is none other than Cahaya Mata Sarawak (CMS) Bhd Group, a conglomerate controlled by Taib’s family business interest?

Sarawak’s tin-pot government

Clearly, Bakun energy and Sarawak’s tin-pot governance do not give confidence to investors. First it was Alcoa, and then Rio Tinto - both giant mining multinationals - had expressed second thoughts about investing in Sarawak.

Concerned NGOs have all along called for the abandonment of this monstrous Bakun dam project because it is economically ill-conceived, socially disruptive and environmentally disastrous.

The environmental destruction is evident many miles downstream since the whole Bakun area has been logged by those who have already been paid by Sarawak Hidro.

The social atrophy among the 10,000 displaced indigenous peoples at Sungai Asap resettlement scheme remains the wicked testimony of the Mahathir/Taib era. The empty promises and damned lives of the displaced peoples as forewarned by NGOs in 1999 have now been borne out.

The economic viability of the Bakun dam project has been in doubt from the beginning and the announcement to build two more dams merely reflects a cavalier disregard for the indigenous peoples, more desecration of Sarawak’s natural resources and a blatant affront to sustainable development.

When will Malaysians ever learn?
Dr KUA KIA SOONG is director of Suaram. He was member of parliament for Petaling Jaya from 1990 to 1995.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

CABARAN HAPUS ISU PERKAUMAN


Wednesday, 02 September 2009 08:01am

Utusan oleh Mohd. Khuzairi Ismail

SANGAT menyedihkan selepas 52 tahun kemerdekaan negara, kita masih lagi perlu diingatkan untuk meruntuhkan tembok perkauman. Dalam usia separuh abad terbinanya negara Malaysia hasil kesepakatan dan toleransi pemimpin pelbagai kaum terdahulu, semangat itu seharusnya sudah menjadi intipati dan sebati di dalam jiwa segenap lapisan masyarakat.

Malangnya, kita hari ini lebih mengenali diri dan jati diri berdasarkan siapa kita mengikut latar belakang kaum, ras, etnik atau asal-usul. Melayu, Cina dan India akan selamanya dipisahkan sebagai kaum yang berbeza dan bukannya satu bangsa Malaysia. Barangkali disebabkan jurang itu juga, banyak tuntutan dan polemik yang melangkaui sempadan agama dan kaum berlaku dalam masyarakat hari ini.

Jika inilah yang menjadi amalan, maka percayalah soal perpaduan akan terus menghambat negara waima selepas berabad negara mengecapi kemerdekaan sekalipun.

Bukan rahsia lagi cabaran kepada perpaduan itu bermula pada era penjajahan British yang memisahkan masyarakat Tanah Melayu menerusi dasar pecah dan perintah.

Dasar ini telah menyebabkan kita berpecah-belah mengikut pola kependudukan dan penempatan, jenis pekerjaan dan sistem pendidikan mengikut garis kaum. Namun itu bukanlah alasan untuk kita terus-menerus meletakkan kesalahan tersebut kepada penjajah. Ini kerana kesilapan itu boleh diperbaiki apatah lagi negara sudah lama mengecapi nikmat kemerdekaan.

Yang penting ialah sejauh mana dalam persekitaran hari ini, wujud sifat toleransi, hormat dan faham beralaskan kejujuran. Bagaimana elemen ini diterima berdasarkan kepada kekuatan Perlembagaan?

Adakah setiap individu bersedia untuk membelakangkan amalan budaya dan kepercayaan dan memberi keutamaan kepada nilai kemanusiaan?

Ini memandangkan nilai-nilai itu merupakan asas penting untuk meruntuhkan dinding yang memecah-belahkan masyarakat. Perkara ini turut ditekankan oleh Timbalan Dekan Pusat Pengajian Sains Kemasyarakatan, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Dr. Sivamurugan Pandian.

Lebih jauh, beliau melemparkan pertanyaan sejauh mana setiap daripada kita meletakkan diri dalam sebuah keluarga besar yang ada nilai 'pengorbanan' serta 'kompromi' yang ditinggalkan oleh warisan lepas?

Namun, tambah beliau, timbul dilema siapa yang harus berkorban dan siapa pula harus berkompromi. Kemuafakatan dan keharmonian memberi penghormatan kepada nilai kemanusiaan yang tidak melihat siapakah yang memberi lebih, dan siapa pula yang kurang memberi dan lebih merasa.

''Jika wujud perasaan seperti itu, maka ia boleh berakhir dengan perasaan prasangka antara satu sama lain. Stereotaip akan menebal dan sifat etnosentrik akan mendominasi pemikiran seseorang individu," ujar beliau.

Sejajar dengan proses pemodenan dan pembangunan juga, masyarakat hari ini seolah-olah semakin luntur nilai 'kemasyarakatan'. Yang muncul adalah sifat materialistik dan individualistik yang menyaksikan semakin luntur dan pupusnya sifat kejujuran kerana persaingan ini.

Ada yang berebut kekayaan untuk diri sendiri dan lupa ada masyarakat sekeliling. Ada yang menyoal 'hak' dan 'tanggungjawab' serta 'Perlembagaan' yang hanya dirujuk mengikut keselesaan masing-masing.

Ini menyebabkan lahir ikatan longgar bukan sahaja dalam sesuatu kumpulan etnik tetapi juga hubungan antara etnik. Kerana itu juga tambah Sivamurugan, seiring dengan proses modenisasi, kita semua harus mempunyai rasa bertanggungjawab.

Keluarga harus menanam nilai ini di rumah supaya anak mereka menjadi 'idola' di mana sahaja kerana perpaduan sebenar bermula dari rumah. Ia mencerminkan kesungguhan kita bersama dalam apa sahaja keadaan.

''Kesemua etnik ada sifat etnosentrik untuk menanam semangat kekitaan tetapi lebih daripada itu, jika mereka memiliki perwatakan boleh hormat, faham dan bertolak ansur dengan kumpulan etnik lain, maka perpaduan akan subur dengan sendirinya," tambah beliau.

Dalam masa yang sama, pemimpin juga perlu tampil sebagai individu contoh yang boleh diteladani oleh setiap lapisan masyarakat. Dalam suasana politik yang tidak menentu ketika ini, pemimpin sewajarnya memiliki nilai 'kepimpinan' yang tinggi. Paling utama, ia perlu berasaskan kepada toleransi dan semangat kerjasama yang tinggi seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh pejuang kemerdekaan lampau.

Seperti yang dijelaskan oleh Sivamurugan, politik etnik telah mendominasi sejarah politik tanah air sejak sekian lamanya. Walaupun ramai menyatakan bahawa selepas 8 Mac 2008, pola pengundian menunjukkan bahawa kita sudah melangkaui garis keetnikan, namun sedar atau tidak, hakikatnya kita mempunyai kesedaran yang lebih tinggi ke atas persoalan keetnikan selepas 8 Mac 2008.

''Demokrasi negara akan matang dengan sendirinya jika watak yang terlibat juga matang," tegasnya.

Persoalannya, adakah watak utama dalam politik mengetahui bahawa kita masih terikat dengan sentimen emosi dan bukan rasional dalam hal-hal tertentu walaupun ada ketikanya kita mahukan kebebasan Barat dipraktis di negara ini.

Ada kekangan tertentu yang memberi limitasi ke atas kebebasan dalam sebuah negara yang terdiri dari masyarakat pelbagai etnik. Pemimpin harus berwaspada dalam memainkan sentimen perkauman kerana masyarakat hari ini lebih celik dari sudut ilmu, informasi dan pendekatan yang digunakan untuk mendapatkan maklumat.

Pemimpin ada pengikut dan pengikut yang memberi kesetiaan tidak berbelah bahagi kepada pemimpin dan parti akan taksub dengan pemimpinnya sehingga bersedia untuk melakukan apa sahaja untuk pemimpin tersebut.

Kerana itu juga tambah Sivamurugan, pemimpin perlu lebih bertanggungjawab dan memastikan bahawa walaupun berbeza ideologi politik, itu tidak bermakna kemuafakatan harus dikorbankan untuk mencapai matlamat akhir mereka iaitu mendapatkan kedudukan dan pangkat.

''Paling utama perpaduan tidak boleh dikompromi untuk apa sahaja walau untuk sesiapa sekalipun. Dalam menyoal hak dan tanggungjawab, kita mesti bertekad mempertahan apa yang sedang terbina sekian lamanya," ujar beliau.

Pandangan yang serupa turut dikongsi oleh pensyarah Jabatan Antropologi dan Sosiologi Universiti Malaya (UM), Dr. Noor Sulastry Yurni Ahmad.

Beliau turut melihat permainan politik di Malaysia tidak dapat lari daripada perjuangan berunsurkan kaum yang turut melebarkan jurang kemajmukan rakyat di negara ini.

Justeru bagaimana perpaduan dalam erti kata sebenar boleh dicapai dan masalah integrasi kaum dapat diselesaikan jika parti berbaur perkauman itu masih dikekalkan?

Kerana itu langkah terbaik ujar beliau ialah memansuhkan parti berasaskan perkauman dan mewujudkan satu parti tunggal dengan perjuangan 1Malaysia. Persoalannya mampukah ia dicapai secara aman?

Sesuatu yang pasti ia bukanlah sesuatu yang mudah untuk dicapai kerana jika tidak, parti Barisan Nasional yang tidak pernah gagal memerintah negara sudah melakukannya sejak negara merdeka 52 tahun lalu. Ini kerana masyarakat Malaysia sudah terpisah dengan jurang perbezaan kaum yang sangat nyata.

''Apa yang boleh dilakukan adalah melalui perjuangan ideologi bagi mengaburi perjuangan yang berorientasikan kaum seperti bangsa Malaysia, Wawasan 2020, Satu Malaysia," ujar Noor Sulastry.

Namun, itu bukanlah halangan untuk kita merealisasikan ideologi perjuangan kaum menjadi kenyataan pada satu hari nanti.

Atas semangat perpaduan dan persaudaraan yang tinggi untuk membina satu wajah bangsa Malaysia sebenar, perbezaan itu boleh menjadi persamaan yang mengikat kita menjadi lebih bersaudara.

RESPON :
MENGHAPUS ISU PERKAUMAN SANGAT HAMPIR MUSTAHIL JIKA SETIAP KITA HANYA MENGUTAMAKAN KAUMNYA SENDIRI. APA YANG DIMAKSUDKAN DENGAN MENGUTAMAKAN KAUM SENDIRI?

ASAS KEPADA MEMENTINGKAN "KAUM" SENDIRI INILAH YANG MENUMBUHKAN ISU PERKAUMAN.

KITA LIHAT DI SEKITAR KITA PADA HARI INI, PARTI YANG MEMERINTAH NEGARA ADALAH BERASASKAN "KAUM" YANG DOMINAN IAITU UMNO-MELAYU, MCA-CINA DAN MIC-INDIA. INILAH YANG MENJADIKAN ISU PERKAUMAN INI SUKAR DIHAPUSKAN.

TIDAK GUNA RASANYA KITA MEMINTA ORANG LAIN JANGAN MENGGUNAKAN ISU PERKAUMAN SEDANGKAN PARTI KITA "MENGGUNAKAN DAN MENGAMALKAN PERKAUMAN". IANYA TERSURAT PADA NAMA PARTI SEPERTI UMNO, MCA DAN MIC.

SANGGUPKAH PARTI - PARTI "PERKAUMAN" INI DIBUBARKAN? KALAU TAK SANGGUP, MAKA MUSTAHILLAH ISU PERKAUMAN INI DIHAPUSKAN. KATA-KATA NASIHAT DARI PARTI BERASASKAN PERKAUMAN INI UMPAMA "KETAM MENGAJAR ANAK BERJALAN LURUS"

KALAU PARTI INI DIBUBARKAN MAKA AKAN LEBIH SENANGLAH KITA BERCAKAP SOAL MENGHAPUSKAN ISU PERKAUMAN KERANA PEMERINTAH DAN PIHAK BERKUASA BUKAN LAGI "PERKAUMAN". MAKA SENANGLAH PEMERINTAH MENASIHAT RAKYAT AGAR TIDAK BANGKITKAN ISU PERKAUMAN. TERMASUK MENASIHATKAN PERSATUAN-PERSATUAN YANG BERASASKAN PERKAUMAN. JUSTERU TIDAK AKAN ADA LAGI "KETAM MENGAJAR ANAK BERJALAN LURUS".

CABARAN HAPUS ISU PERKAUMAN BUKANLAH MASALAH BESAR KALAU SEMUA PIHAK TERUTAMANYA PARTI PEMERINTAH TIDAK LAGI MENGGUNAKAN NAMA YANG BERORIENTASIKAN "PERKAUMAN".

KITA HARAP SUATU HARI NANTI ISU PERKAUMAN INI AKAN TERHAPUS APABILA PAKATAN RAKYAT MEMERINTAH DENGAN LEBIH 2/3 DAN MENGHAPUSKAN UNDANG-UNDANG YANG MEMBENARKAN PARTI-PARTI POLITIK YANG BERASASKAN KAUM YANG DIKATAKAN "MENGANCAM KESELAMATAN NEGARA" SEPERTI ALASAN TIDAK MENDAFTAR MALAYSIAN DAYAK CONGRES(MDC). UMNO, MCA DAN MCA BOLEH PULAK DITERUSKAN.

DENGAN ADANYA PIHAK BERKUASA YANG BUKAN BEERASASKAN PERKAUMAN MAKA ADA KUASA DAN WIBAWA DALAM ARAHAN DAN PERINTAH YANG DIKELUARKAN. KERANA SENARIO "KETAM MENGAJAR ANAK BERJALAN LURUS " TIDAK WUJUD LAGI.

FIKIR-FIKIRKANLAH. APAKAH PENDAPAT ANDA?

SENATOR DATUK SERI IDRIS JALA SWORN IN AS MINISTER



KUALA LUMPUR: 2 September 2009, Senator Datuk Seri Idris Jala had sworn in as Minister in the Prime Ministers' Department today. His appointment as minister considered the highest recognition ever given to native Orang Ulu people of Sarawak towards nation building.

His appointment to the government according to him is as "national service" for the nation. This is because he accepted the offer not for higher pay. He even could earn more in private/corporate sector compare to government post or even compare to his earning in MAS.

The "national service" is something very noble example shown by an Orang Ulu and a good Christian. There are certain quarters who "fight" for ministerial post just to enriched themselves. His "national service" concept should be emulate by all including politicians.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Land dispute: Longhouse vs plantation

Joseph Tawie
Saturday, 22 August 2009 11:35

BELAGA (Sarawak) - A storm is brewing over a native land in Long Koyan, near here, following an alleged encroachment by a plantation company.
A longhouse headman defending the land has also been summoned to the magistrate's court here to face a charge of theft involving an excavator belonging to the company. He has denied the charge.
The case arose from a police report made by a resident of the Long Koyan longhouse on May 13 acccusing Samling Plantations of encroaching into their native customary rights (NCR) land earlier that month.
Headman stopped an excavator
According to the report, longhouse head TK Nyalang Tahe' stopped an excavator from bulldozing their farm lands and gardens in the NCR land. The report also mentioned that the residents took the excavator keys to stop the workers from further encroachment.
However, unknown to TK Nyalang and his supporters, the plantation also lodged a police report complaining that one of its excavators was stolen and the longhouse head was named the prime suspect.
On July 21 a warrant of arrest was issued to TK Nyalang and he was summoned by the police to surrender himself at the Sungai Asap police station. A large number of his longhouse residentsaccompanied him to the station.
Police bond and the court
They argued that the excavator was not stolen and is still under the care of the plantation workers. They also claimed the keys in their possession were passed to them by the workers. They said this was stated in their police report.
Giving in to the crowd's anger, the police decided not to arrest TK Nyalang. But he was required to sign a police bond and ordered to appear at the Belaga magistrate's court on Aug 21 to answer to a charges of stealing the company’s excavator.
The longhouse head dutifully went to the court at 9am on Friday, to answer the charge under Section 379 of the Penal Code for the alleged crime of theft.
However, when he and his supporters arrived there, court officials told them there was no hearing on that day. The police had apparently not registered the case with the court.
Swift action in favour of company
They then went back to th Sungai Asap police station, a two hours drive from here, to seek a clarfication. The headman has now to wait for the court to call him.
TK Nyalang said he and fellow settlers had made numerous police reports against Samling Plantations but no action was ever taken.
Yet, he added, the police were swift to take action when the company made a police report, which resulted in the charges against him.
'Be neutral and unbiased'
Abun Sui Anyit, advisor of the Sarawak Native Customary Land Rights Network (TAHABAS) said the matter is clearly a dispute of rights to the land.
"The police should have carried out a thorough investigation based on the reports lodged by the two parties in the dispute.
"The police should be neutral and without bias in handling the case. But this was not so, as the police hastily framed TK Nyalang as a criminal by instituting charges against him.
http://www.malaysianmirror.com/sabahsarawakdetail/12-sabahsarawak/9480

Sunday, August 30, 2009

ORANG ASAL (DAYAK) UMPAMA PENDATANG DAN MENUMPANG DI NEGERI SENDIRI?



Inilah contoh satu pagar yang didirikan oleh satu syarikat untuk kita masuk ke tanah NCR kita. Kalaulah dari mula syarikat nak masuk dulu, Orang Asal (Dayak - Iban, Bidayuh dan Orang Ulu), buat begini (mendirikan pagar melarang orang luar masuk tanah NCR kita) mungkinkah masalah NCR yang banyak dirampas dan dicuri tidak akan wujud seperti sekarang?

Dengan adanya pagar seperti ini di seluruh Sarawak, seolah-olah kita orang Asal "berkunjung" ke negeri orang atau menumpang di negeri sendiri. Ini angkara polisi siapa?

Beri komen anda?

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Datuk Seri Idris Jala Appointed As Minister In Prime Minister's Department



Last time while in MAS, some quarters of politicians especially the YBs in Parliament had asked Idris Jala (aboved picture) to step down because of petty reason being MAS delay flight.

Now Idris will face those quarters directly. Now, those YBs who asked him to step down before, have to perform when they remember and think about Idris Jala, failing which they have to give every explanation to Prime Minister.

This new tasks is different from previous job who were not politicians. I believe he had made his homework before accepted the offer.

That is in federal level. In state level, please don't forget our ancestral NCR Land that gone (include Idris' long house may be) which is now GIVEN to Companies through licenses for plantation, timber industry and forest plantation.

Idris appointment is on his merit NOT on political ground as said by PM Najib. Might be under Orang Ulu ethnic group quota that long vacant after senator George Adam Talik from Belaga.

So his appointment is totally for the sake of Nation that will benefit all. We hope every body is happy with his appointment. May be not for those "lions and tigers'" out there. His appointment therefore cannot be politicised and for own political mileage. If certain quarters start to claim that the appointment is for their political mileage, then it will be sad to say Idris is just their "GOLDEN HORSE".

Our brother Idris had informed us during our Dinner in KL last year (2008) saying that his calling is not in politics. Now he is going to be appointed as Senator and then Minister in Prime Ministers' Department without portfolio. He will be facing politicians around him. We still waiting how our Prime Minister going to explain this to the rakyat of Malaysia in accordance to Idris' principle saying that he is not interested in politics.

What our PM said so far is : "There is no one else is better than Idris Jala in government and in the country in turn around companies from loss to profitable one. Idris had good tract record...."

Wait and see what is going to happen. With the current turmoil in our political arena either BN or PR, we do hope that God gives Idris wisdom to face all these mess according to one of his principle that allow God's Intervention in his job.

Let us pray together for God's protection over him. Amen.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

TANA TAM URIP TAM

For all concerned KK (Kayan Kenyah)info :

The Highest Court of Malaysia, Federal Court had ruled that the Dayaks have Native Customary Rights over
(a) Temuda' (bekan, juway, kaharah, @ talun)
(b) Tembawai
(c) Pemakai Menoa (Daleh, tana' kasu, tana' pengurip) - include virgin jungle within borders among longhouses all over Sarawak
(d) Pendam

These facts in Court's Decision CANNOT BE DENIED!!

But Taib/BN is REFUSE to recognize and respect the Court's Decision that's why more than 200 NCR Court Cases still pending. If Taib and Land & Survey respect and abide by the Court Decision, the 200 or more cases should settle.

If Taib refuse to respect the Court's Decision meaning he(Taib)/BN is NOT RESPECT our Orang Ulu/Dayaks Custom/Adat. Including those SUPPORTING Taib/BN party DOESN'T respect our Custom/Adat.

Therefore judge by yourself. KK and Dayaks, don't be CHEATED/trapped again by TAIB/BN policy! They had stolen Rakyats' NCR Land and its sources through companies.

Don't blindly support Taib/BN.

I Agree with our fellow Orang Ulu known as "Bekulu" : JANGAN KASI CHAN SAMA TAIB/BN DAN KONCO-KONCONYA LAGI!

Make sure our KK/Orang Ulu Constituencies like Ba' Kelalan, Marudi, Belaga and Telang Usan doesn't fall to Taib's/BN again.

The sentiment ALL OVER SARAWAK is that the RAKYAT want to CHANGE BN Government. Don't miss the new Boat.
Be part of the CHANGE!

Do your part by informing and explaining to your parents that your NCR Land has gone under BN.
Our NCR Land in our Orang Ulu areas had been given by Taib/BN to Companies!!

TANA TAM URIP TAM (KAYAN) = TANA' ILU UDIP ILU (KENYAH) = TANA' LU URIP LU (PENAN) = CALON TAM URIP TAM!

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

NGOs chided for belittling Salcra’s role

NGOs chided for belittling Salcra’s role
By Yunus Yussop

BINTULU: Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Alfred Jabu chided certain Dayak non-governmental organisations for criticising the roles of Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (Salcra) in developing Native Customary Rights (NCR) land.

He said their criticism was based on ignorance and plain disrespect for the truth. The truth, he added, was that the land development was aimed at improving the income level of the rural community.

Jabu, who is also Salcra chairman and Minister of Rural Development, meanwhile urged the rural folk with plenty of idle land to continue the joint-venture collaboration with Salcra to develop their land.

Apart from the monetary benefit from the deal the local people would be able to enjoy infrastructure facilities like roads, bridges and water supply that come along with the project.

“Salcra has so far paid out about RM295 million in dividends to more than 16,000 landowners in the state,” Jabu said at a dinner of PBB Kemena branch after the conclusion of its triennial general meeting at Li Hua Hotel last Saturday.

At the dinner, Jabu also handed over appreciation medals to 15 PBB members in Bintulu Division.

Also present at the function were Kemena assemblyman Dr Stephen Rundi, its women chairperson Catherine Lanyau, and its youth chief Tuai Rh Limin Anai.


SIMPLE COMMENT FOR THIS STATEMENT BY JABU:
Assume Salcra operated for 10 years (because Jabu don't dare enough to mention about the time period of the Dividend given)
1. RM295 million Divide by 10 years = RM29,500,000.00 per Year
2. RM29,500,000.00 Divide by 12 Months = RM2,458,333.33 per Month
3. or RM29,500,000.00 Divide by 365 days = RM80,821.918 per day
4. RM80,821.918 divide by 16,000 land owners (participants) = RM5.05 Sen per day

Meaning Dividend given by Jabu per day is RM5.05 ONLY
or RM5.05 x 30 working days = RM151.54 (Salary per month)
Miskin tegar in Malaysia is those income under RM500.00 per month!

Foreigners salary in Oil Palm estimated around RM12.00 per day.

The important thing here is where is the NCR Land goes? Its given to Company for 60 years and renewable for another 60 years.

Where is justice for Rakyat??

NCR Land ? GONE!

Monday, August 24, 2009

HELIKOPTER UNTUK BELI BUAH DURIAN DI PEKAN BELAGA




Melihat kepada helicopter yang datang mendarat di pekan Belaga sementara kami menikmati juadah tengahari di salah satu kedai kopi, kami meneka sama ada heli itu untuk membawa pesakit atau doktor udara atau seorang menteri untuk suatu acara di Pekan Belaga.

Kalau Menteri, kenapa Pekan Belaga lengang sahaja?

Selepas mendarat kami nampak beberapa orang keluar dari helikopter. Berbaju T biasa sahaja.

Selepas kira-kira 20 minit kami lihat mereka membawa bersama mereka plastik yang berisi buah durian.

So apa yang menarik tentang kehadiran heli tersebut dan digunakan hanya untuk datang membeli buah durian di Pekan Belaga.

Dipercayai mereka yang menggunakan heli tersebut adalah dari Syarikat Shin Yang.

Apa pendapat anda?