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.
KETIDAKTAHUAN AKAN HAK DIRI AKAN MENJERUMUSKAN DIRI SENDIRI KE ARAH MENJADI MANGSA KERAKUSAN MUSUH YANG PASTI MENGAMBIL PELUANG KE ATAS KETIDAKTAHUAN ITU.
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
SELEPAS DIALOG BERSAMA JABATAN HUTAN SARAWAK
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)