Pada 18 Januari - 6 Februari
1956, Tunku Abdul Rahman
mengetuai rombongan
merundingkan kemerdekaan
Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
Rombongan tersebut turut
disertai oleh beberapa
pemimpin Parti Perikatan;
Dato' Abdul Razak Hussein, Dr.
Ismail Abdul Rahman, Kolonel
H.S. Lee, Tuan T.H. Tan dan
Encik Bahaman Shamsudin
dan wakil Raja-Raja Melayu;
Dato' Panglima Bukit Gantang,
Dato' Nik Ahmad Kamil, Encik
Abdul Aziz Majid dan Dato
Mohd. Seth. Pada 8 Februari
1956, Perjanjian Merdeka telah
dimetrai dengan menetapkan
tarikh 31 Ogos 1957 sebagai
tarikh kemerdekaan
Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
Sekembali dari London, Tunku
Abdul Rahman telah membuat
Pengisytiharan Kemerdekaan
di Padang Pahlawan, Bandar
Hilir, Melaka pada 20 Februari
1956 dan disambut dengan
penuh kesyukuran dan
kegembiraan oleh seluruh
rakyat.
Selaras dengan persediaan
menyambut kelahiran sebuah
NEGARA yang baru merdeka,
sebuah suruhanjaya bebas
yang dikenali sebagai
Suruhanjaya Perlembagaan
Reid telah dibentuk pada 21
Mac 1956 untuk mengkaji dan
menggubal Perlembagaan
Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
Pada 12.00 tengah malam 30
Ogos 1957, bendera Union
Jack diturunkan di depan
Bangunan Sultan Abdul
Samad, Kuala Lumpur lantas
bendera Persekutuan Tanah
Melayu mengambl alih dan
terus berkibar megah.
Pada keesokan harinya, gema
merdeka sebanyak tujuh kali
memenuhi segenap pelosok
Stadium Merdeka, Kuala
Lumpur apabila upacara
pengisytiharan kemerdekaan
dibuat oleh Tunku Abdul
Rahman. Hasil perjuangan
seluruh orang Melayu dan
gabungan beberapa kaum
lain, akhirnya pada 31 Ogos
1957, Tanah Melayu berjaya
merungkai rantai penjajahan
yang sekian lama
membelenggu peribuminya.
ertinya,malaya dengan 11 negeri didalam sudah lengkap sebagai sebuah negara!
Beberapa tahun kemudian....
Singapura dekat saja dengan malaya.hubungan sejarah mereka pun cukup jelas.tapi ketika dijajah british,singapura
dianggap jajahan yang berasingan.
Sudah banyak kali singapura mencadangkan gabungan malaya dengan singapura.sudah banyak kali juga malaya cuba mengelak dengan berbagai alasan.tiba-tiba,suatu hari,malaya buang tabiat pulak setuju.rupa-rupanya,malaya nak buat sesuatu.
Dan dengan tamak sekali,malaya melirik kearah borneo.....
"Saya melihat perkara yang penting mengenai dengan Malaysia sebenarnya, adalah untuk membolehkan wilayah Borneo memerintah sendiri sekaligus merdeka dalam Malaysia. Hari Penjajahan sudah berakhir dan bukan hasrat Malaya untuk meneruskan penjajahan, apabila wilayah Borneo menjadi sebahagian Malaysia. Ia bukan dijajah lagi tetapi menjadi rakan kongsi yang sama taraf tidak lebih dan tidak kurang dengan negeri lain. Negeri lain yang dimaksudkan iaitu Sarawak, Singapore dan Malaya" Petikan ucapan Tuanku Abdul Rahman Al-Haj, Perdana Menteri Malaya. Sumber: Strait Times, October 2, 1962
Menurut bancian 1960 di Malaya: Melayu 3.460 juta; Cina 2.552 juta; India 700 ribu.singapura pula: Melayu 232 ribu; Cina 1.253 juta; India 140 ribu. Malaya campur Singapura: Melayu 3.6 juta, Cina 3.8 juta.sebab tu melayu malaya takut!
Tapi dengan liciknya,malaya pandang ke Borneo dan mahu melibatkan Borneo dengan agenda politik mereka.sambil menyeimbangkan bumiputra dengan cina,malaya boleh songlap kekayaan bumi borneo.pandai kan? pada mulanya,Borneo langsung tak berminat untuk terlibat.tapi dengan licik,pujuk rayu mereka termakan juga oleh british.lalu british pun mencadangkan kepada borneo yang polos dan belum tahu percaturan politik dunia.
Kepada orang yang di semenanjung malaya,Jangan pernah menyangka malaya hanya adalah nama lama!malaya hanya ahli dalam malaysia! Persekutuan malaysia 1963 sepatutnya bertujuan meniru United Kingdom.United Kingdom terdiri dari negara British,Wales,Schotland dan Ireland Utara.masing-masing mempunyai kedaulatan sendiri sebagai negara.borneo pun rasa ia baik untuk borneo.tapi borneo masih was-was.suruhanjaya cobold pun melakukan tinjauan akan pandangan penduduk borneo dan hasilnya:
33% setuju
33% tidak setuju
Yang selebihnya langsung tak diberitahu!
tapi dengan liciknya,malaya mempengaruhi para pemimpin di borneo ketika itu untuk bersetuju konon demi kebaikan rakyat borneo.walaupun masih ragu,akhirnya pemimpin borneo bersetuju tapi dengan syarat tertentu.di sinilah lahirnya 20 point agreement Sabah dan 18 point agreement Sarawak.Brunei pun nyaris nak ikut tapi rakyatnya membantah,lalu tak jadi ikut.
Lalu,sebelum pembentukan malaysia,untuk menjamin kedaulatan borneo,2 NEGARA itu harus merdeka terlebih dahulu.lalu Sarawak merdeka pada 22 julai 1963 manakala Sabah merdeka pada 31 ogos 1963.kemudian barulah malaysia wujud pada 16 september 1963!
Kemudian selepas 2 tahun penubuhan malaysia.selepas 2 tahun menahan nafsu,malaya pun mengeluarkan singapura dari malaysia ikut suka mereka saja tanpa berbincang dengan borneo.11 negeri malaya yang undi.majoriti konon? bila singapura sudah dikeluarkan,mulalah malaya bermaharajalela mengubah fakta secara beransur-ansur.
Kini,49 tahun selepas pembentukan malaysia,Sabah dan Sarawak turun taraf jadi negeri.bahkan negeri termiskin di malaysia yang mana konsepnya sudah rosak!kekayaan hasil bumi dikaut ke malaya,dan borneo hanya diberi 5% dari apa yang sepatutnya milik borneo sendiri!malaya yang dulu pernah dijajah,bila merdeka menjajah borneo pula!janji 20/18 perkara bagaikan tidak wujud!bangkitlah Borneo!kita tuntut kemerdekaan yang sepatutnya menjadi hak kita!sign petition (klik logo kuning disebelah kanan blog ini) dan kita bawa kes ini ke UN!
Wednesday 25 January 2012
Tuesday 24 January 2012
About point 7
SHOULD vs SHALL ~ A
Consideration for Point 7:
Right of Secession
=====================
Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to
secede from the Federation.
======================
We should take a positive
view of the "no right to
secede" initiative, which is
worth considering despite its
affirmation in Point 7 which
speaks of the Sabahan and
Sarawakian rights to secede
from the Federation of
Malaysia This is so because
“the use [by Point 7] of the
word ‘’should’ (as
opposed to the word
‘shall,’ for example) turns
the option of "NO RIGHT TO
SECEDE" into a mere
recommendation.”
You see.. Diplomatic
documents often demand
close linguistic analysis.
Would that Point 7 have
meant something else, had it
said that “There SHALL be
no right to secede from the
Federation.”?
Since the auxiliary verbs
“shall” and “shan’t”
have all but disappeared from
American English, in much of
Great Britain they are still in
common use. The facts that
the 18/20 Points Agreement
was an Agreement relating to
Malaysia between United
Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, Federation
of Malaya, North Borneo,
Sarawak and Singapore, it’s
British usage that counts —
and when it comes to that,
what greater authorities do
we have than the estimable
Fowler brothers, F.G. and
H.W., whose “The King’s
English” (first edition
published by Oxford
University Press, 1906) served
generations of perplexed
English speakers as a revered
guide. Here’s what “The
King’s
English” (traditionally
known as “Fowler”) has to
say about “shall,”
“should,” “will” and
“would” in a discussion
that is 20(!) pages long:
“It is unfortunate that the
idiomatic use [of these
words], while it comes by
nature to southern
Englishmen (who will find
most of this section
superfluous), is so
complicated that those who
are not to the manner born
can hardly acquire it; and for
them [this] section is in
danger of being useless. In
apology for the length of the
remarks it must be said that
the short and simple
directions often given are
worse than useless. The
observant reader soon loses
faith in them… and the
unobservant is the victim of
false security."
Needless to say, this is highly
reassuring! Fowler then
opens its discussion with the
following short and simple
directions: “Roughly
speaking, should follows the
same rules as shall, and
would as will.”
In their pure form, Fowler
continues, "shall" and
"should" express command
or obligation, whereaswill
and would express intention
or prediction, the difference
between the two members of
each pair being that the
second is the conditional
form of the first. Hence,
“There SHALL be no right to
secede from the
Federation.” would indicate
that Sabah & Sarawak is
commanded NOT TO SECEDE
FROM THE FEDERATION
unconditionally, whereas
“There SHOULD be no right
to secede from the
Federation.” indicates that
this command is SUBJECT TO A
CONDITION (or CONDITIONS)
— in this case, presumably,
that SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN
wish “to continue being
part of the Federation”
Would such a reading of my
argument, if it is the correct
one, turn POINT 7 into a
“mere recommendation”
that SABAH & SARAWAK
continue to be part of the
Federation of Malaysia when
there is no reasons/causes to
trigger their need to SECEDE
FROM THE FEDERATION?? If
POINT 7 intends to say that
SABAH & SARAWAK need not
secede from the Federation
unless it wants to, then it
also intends to say that
SABAH & SARAWAK need not
continue to be part of the
Federation of Malaysia unless
it wants to — a construction
of POINT 7 that would be
rather bizarre, to say the
least.
True, in practice, as opposed
to theory, the difference
between “shall” and
“should” in British English
is somewhat different:
“shall” often expressing a
COMMAND on the speaker’s
part, and “should” merely
a DESIRE, as in “You shall go
to the doctor” vs. “You
should go to the doctor.”
And yet if we paraphrase
POINT 7 as saying, “The
Point 7 of the Agreement of
Malaysia desires that Sabah &
Sarawak not to secede from
the Federation,” is this
significantly better for Sabah
& Sarawak? How big an
improvement over flouting
the POINT 7’s command
would be flouting the POINT
7’s desire??
In short, if we take
consideration of the above
arguments on the reading of
POINT 7, the FEDERATION OF
MALAYSIA should politely be
told in the king’s English,
“No, thank you.. we
SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN wish
to SECEDE from the
Federation.”
Consideration for Point 7:
Right of Secession
=====================
Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to
secede from the Federation.
======================
We should take a positive
view of the "no right to
secede" initiative, which is
worth considering despite its
affirmation in Point 7 which
speaks of the Sabahan and
Sarawakian rights to secede
from the Federation of
Malaysia This is so because
“the use [by Point 7] of the
word ‘’should’ (as
opposed to the word
‘shall,’ for example) turns
the option of "NO RIGHT TO
SECEDE" into a mere
recommendation.”
You see.. Diplomatic
documents often demand
close linguistic analysis.
Would that Point 7 have
meant something else, had it
said that “There SHALL be
no right to secede from the
Federation.”?
Since the auxiliary verbs
“shall” and “shan’t”
have all but disappeared from
American English, in much of
Great Britain they are still in
common use. The facts that
the 18/20 Points Agreement
was an Agreement relating to
Malaysia between United
Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, Federation
of Malaya, North Borneo,
Sarawak and Singapore, it’s
British usage that counts —
and when it comes to that,
what greater authorities do
we have than the estimable
Fowler brothers, F.G. and
H.W., whose “The King’s
English” (first edition
published by Oxford
University Press, 1906) served
generations of perplexed
English speakers as a revered
guide. Here’s what “The
King’s
English” (traditionally
known as “Fowler”) has to
say about “shall,”
“should,” “will” and
“would” in a discussion
that is 20(!) pages long:
“It is unfortunate that the
idiomatic use [of these
words], while it comes by
nature to southern
Englishmen (who will find
most of this section
superfluous), is so
complicated that those who
are not to the manner born
can hardly acquire it; and for
them [this] section is in
danger of being useless. In
apology for the length of the
remarks it must be said that
the short and simple
directions often given are
worse than useless. The
observant reader soon loses
faith in them… and the
unobservant is the victim of
false security."
Needless to say, this is highly
reassuring! Fowler then
opens its discussion with the
following short and simple
directions: “Roughly
speaking, should follows the
same rules as shall, and
would as will.”
In their pure form, Fowler
continues, "shall" and
"should" express command
or obligation, whereaswill
and would express intention
or prediction, the difference
between the two members of
each pair being that the
second is the conditional
form of the first. Hence,
“There SHALL be no right to
secede from the
Federation.” would indicate
that Sabah & Sarawak is
commanded NOT TO SECEDE
FROM THE FEDERATION
unconditionally, whereas
“There SHOULD be no right
to secede from the
Federation.” indicates that
this command is SUBJECT TO A
CONDITION (or CONDITIONS)
— in this case, presumably,
that SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN
wish “to continue being
part of the Federation”
Would such a reading of my
argument, if it is the correct
one, turn POINT 7 into a
“mere recommendation”
that SABAH & SARAWAK
continue to be part of the
Federation of Malaysia when
there is no reasons/causes to
trigger their need to SECEDE
FROM THE FEDERATION?? If
POINT 7 intends to say that
SABAH & SARAWAK need not
secede from the Federation
unless it wants to, then it
also intends to say that
SABAH & SARAWAK need not
continue to be part of the
Federation of Malaysia unless
it wants to — a construction
of POINT 7 that would be
rather bizarre, to say the
least.
True, in practice, as opposed
to theory, the difference
between “shall” and
“should” in British English
is somewhat different:
“shall” often expressing a
COMMAND on the speaker’s
part, and “should” merely
a DESIRE, as in “You shall go
to the doctor” vs. “You
should go to the doctor.”
And yet if we paraphrase
POINT 7 as saying, “The
Point 7 of the Agreement of
Malaysia desires that Sabah &
Sarawak not to secede from
the Federation,” is this
significantly better for Sabah
& Sarawak? How big an
improvement over flouting
the POINT 7’s command
would be flouting the POINT
7’s desire??
In short, if we take
consideration of the above
arguments on the reading of
POINT 7, the FEDERATION OF
MALAYSIA should politely be
told in the king’s English,
“No, thank you.. we
SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN wish
to SECEDE from the
Federation.”
Monday 16 January 2012
20 POINT AGREEMENT
Point 1: Religion
While there was no objection to
Islam being the national religion
of Malaysia there should be no
State religion in Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah), and the
provisions relating to Islam in
the present Constitution of
Malaya should not apply to
Borneo.
Point 2: Language
* a. Malay should be the national
language of the Federation
* b. English should continue to
be used for a period of 10 years
after Malaysia Day
* c. English should be an official
language of Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah) for all purposes, State or
Federal, without limitation of
time.
Point 3: Constitution
Whilst accepting that the
present Constitution of the
Federation of Malaya should
form the basis of the
Constitution of Malaysia, the
Constitution of Malaysia should
be a completely new document
drafted and agreed in the light
of a free association of states
and should not be a series of
amendments to a Constitution
drafted and agreed by different
states in totally different
circumstances. A new
Constitution for Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah) was of
course essential.
Point 4: Head of Federation
The Head of State in Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah) should not
be eligible for election as Head
of the Federation.
Point 5: Name of Federation
“Malaysia” but not “Melayu
Raya”
Point 6: Immigration
Control over immigration into
any part of Malaysia from
outside should rest with the
Central Government but entry
into Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
should also require the approval
of the State Government. The
Federal Government should not
be able to veto the entry of
persons into Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah) for State Government
purposes except on strictly
security grounds. Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah) should have
unfettered control over the
movements of persons other
than those in Federal
Government employ from other
parts of Malaysia Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah).
Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to
secede from the Federation
Point 8: Borneanisation
Borneanisation of the public
service should proceed as
quickly as possible.
Point 9: British Officers
Every effort should be made to
encourage British Officers to
remain in the public service until
their places can be taken by
suitably qualified people from
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
Point 10: Citizenship
The recommendation in
paragraph 148(k) of the Report
of the Cobbold Commission
should govern the citizenship
rights in the Federation of
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
subject to the following
amendments:
* a) sub-paragraph (i) should
not contain the proviso as to
five years residence
* b) in order to tie up with our
law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a)
should read “7 out of 10
years” instead of “8 out of
10 years”
* c) sub-paragraph (iii) should
not contain any restriction tied
to the citizenship of parents – a
person born in Borneo (Sarawak
& Sabah) after Malaysia must be
federal citizen.
Point 11: Tariffs and Finance
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
should retain control of its own
finance, development and tariff,
and should have the right to
work up its own taxation and to
raise loans on its own credit.
Point 12: Special position of
indigenous races
In principle, the indigenous
races of Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah) should enjoy special
rights analogous to those
enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but
the present Malays’ formula in
this regard is not necessarily
applicable in Borneo(Sarawak &
Sabah).
Point 13: State Government
* a) the Prime Minister should
be elected by unofficial
members of Legislative Council
* b) There should be a proper
Ministerial system in Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah).
Point 14: Transitional period
This should be seven years and
during such period legislative
power must be left with the
State of Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah) by the Constitution and
not be merely delegated to the
State Government by the Federal
Government.
Point 15: Education
The existing educational system
of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
should be maintained and for
this reason it should be under
state control.
Point 16: Constitutional
safeguards
No amendment modification or
withdrawal of any special
safeguard granted to Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah) should be
made by the Central
Government without the
positive concurrence of the
Government of the State of
North Borneo
The power of amending the
Constitution of the State of
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
should belong exclusively to the
people in the state. (Note: The
United Party, The Democratic
Party and the Pasok Momogun
Party considered that a three-
fourth majority would be
required in order to effect any
amendment to the Federal and
State Constitutions whereas the
UNKO and USNO considered a
two-thirds majority would be
sufficient).
Point 17: Representation in
Federal Parliament
This should take account not
only of the population of
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) but
also of its seize and
potentialities and in any case
should not be less than that of
Singapore.
Point 18: Name of Head of State
Yang di-Pertua Negara.
Point 19: Name of State
Sarawak or Sabah.
Point 20: Land, Forests, Local
Government, etc.
The provisions in the
Constitution of the Federation in
respect of the powers of the
National Land Council should not
apply in Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah). Likewise, the National
Council for Local Government
should not apply in Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah).
While there was no objection to
Islam being the national religion
of Malaysia there should be no
State religion in Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah), and the
provisions relating to Islam in
the present Constitution of
Malaya should not apply to
Borneo.
Point 2: Language
* a. Malay should be the national
language of the Federation
* b. English should continue to
be used for a period of 10 years
after Malaysia Day
* c. English should be an official
language of Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah) for all purposes, State or
Federal, without limitation of
time.
Point 3: Constitution
Whilst accepting that the
present Constitution of the
Federation of Malaya should
form the basis of the
Constitution of Malaysia, the
Constitution of Malaysia should
be a completely new document
drafted and agreed in the light
of a free association of states
and should not be a series of
amendments to a Constitution
drafted and agreed by different
states in totally different
circumstances. A new
Constitution for Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah) was of
course essential.
Point 4: Head of Federation
The Head of State in Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah) should not
be eligible for election as Head
of the Federation.
Point 5: Name of Federation
“Malaysia” but not “Melayu
Raya”
Point 6: Immigration
Control over immigration into
any part of Malaysia from
outside should rest with the
Central Government but entry
into Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
should also require the approval
of the State Government. The
Federal Government should not
be able to veto the entry of
persons into Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah) for State Government
purposes except on strictly
security grounds. Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah) should have
unfettered control over the
movements of persons other
than those in Federal
Government employ from other
parts of Malaysia Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah).
Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to
secede from the Federation
Point 8: Borneanisation
Borneanisation of the public
service should proceed as
quickly as possible.
Point 9: British Officers
Every effort should be made to
encourage British Officers to
remain in the public service until
their places can be taken by
suitably qualified people from
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
Point 10: Citizenship
The recommendation in
paragraph 148(k) of the Report
of the Cobbold Commission
should govern the citizenship
rights in the Federation of
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
subject to the following
amendments:
* a) sub-paragraph (i) should
not contain the proviso as to
five years residence
* b) in order to tie up with our
law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a)
should read “7 out of 10
years” instead of “8 out of
10 years”
* c) sub-paragraph (iii) should
not contain any restriction tied
to the citizenship of parents – a
person born in Borneo (Sarawak
& Sabah) after Malaysia must be
federal citizen.
Point 11: Tariffs and Finance
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
should retain control of its own
finance, development and tariff,
and should have the right to
work up its own taxation and to
raise loans on its own credit.
Point 12: Special position of
indigenous races
In principle, the indigenous
races of Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah) should enjoy special
rights analogous to those
enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but
the present Malays’ formula in
this regard is not necessarily
applicable in Borneo(Sarawak &
Sabah).
Point 13: State Government
* a) the Prime Minister should
be elected by unofficial
members of Legislative Council
* b) There should be a proper
Ministerial system in Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah).
Point 14: Transitional period
This should be seven years and
during such period legislative
power must be left with the
State of Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah) by the Constitution and
not be merely delegated to the
State Government by the Federal
Government.
Point 15: Education
The existing educational system
of Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
should be maintained and for
this reason it should be under
state control.
Point 16: Constitutional
safeguards
No amendment modification or
withdrawal of any special
safeguard granted to Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah) should be
made by the Central
Government without the
positive concurrence of the
Government of the State of
North Borneo
The power of amending the
Constitution of the State of
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah)
should belong exclusively to the
people in the state. (Note: The
United Party, The Democratic
Party and the Pasok Momogun
Party considered that a three-
fourth majority would be
required in order to effect any
amendment to the Federal and
State Constitutions whereas the
UNKO and USNO considered a
two-thirds majority would be
sufficient).
Point 17: Representation in
Federal Parliament
This should take account not
only of the population of
Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah) but
also of its seize and
potentialities and in any case
should not be less than that of
Singapore.
Point 18: Name of Head of State
Yang di-Pertua Negara.
Point 19: Name of State
Sarawak or Sabah.
Point 20: Land, Forests, Local
Government, etc.
The provisions in the
Constitution of the Federation in
respect of the powers of the
National Land Council should not
apply in Borneo (Sarawak &
Sabah). Likewise, the National
Council for Local Government
should not apply in Borneo
(Sarawak & Sabah).
Join us on facebook!
join us at
http://www.facebook.com/groups/214674018659603?m_sess=soztbTWT-SBtePUfj&ref=pb
old SSKM group has been hacked by some bastard person.lets continue our strugle in new SSKM group!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/214674018659603?m_sess=soztbTWT-SBtePUfj&ref=pb
old SSKM group has been hacked by some bastard person.lets continue our strugle in new SSKM group!
Wednesday 4 January 2012
This Is Not A Joke!
Rakan - rakan semua.
Sokongan pro malaysia ini
timbul kerana tidak faham
apakah yg rasional SSKM ini.
Sini saya terangkan:
Bukan sbb kita tidak dpt hasil
sepatutnya kita marah dan
mahu keluar, Jika ini
persoalannya maka kita
tuntut dimahkamah.
Bukan sbb kerajaan tempatan
yg lemah dan
memperbodohkan dan
menindas kita kita mahu
keluar, Jika ini persoalannya
kita boleh kempen
dipilihanraya
Tapi bila KEDAULATAN negara
kita Sabah dan Sarawak
dinodai dan kita merelakan
maka itu menunjukkan kalian
buta sejarah, Kalian tahu apa
yg kalian telah buat?
YA negeri sarawak telah
berdaulat 170 tahun. Miliki
rajah yg berdaulat, dijajah 20
tahun dan merdeka 22 julai
1963.
Ya negeri sabah berdaulat
123 tahun, Dijajah jepun 4
tahun dan merdeka 31 ogos
1963.
JanGaN buta sejarah, JanGaN buta
mata dgn apa yg dilihat dan
dipertontonkan. JanGaN leka dgn
apa yg kalian nikmati.
Dgn mengatakan sudah
terlambat kita merdeka,
kalian telah mengatakan ...
yang perjuangan Rosli Dhobi itu
satu jenaka,
perjuangan ranger sarawak
itu satu jenaka,
wasiat rajah brooke itu satu
jenaka.
Perlantikan Koroh bin
Santulan itu satu jenaka,
kematian CM tan sri fuad
stephen itu satu jenaka.
perjuangan rakyat sabah
tentang jepun itu satu jenaka.
Demonstrasi anti cesssion itu
satu jenaka.
Tanah adat itu satu jenaka.
Sabah dan sarawak itu satu
jenaka.
Perjuangan SSKM ini bukan
omongan kosong. Bukan
perkara enteng yg boleh
kalian dijadikan permainan
lidah dan bola pencaturan
politik.
SSKM berjuang demi
kedaulatan NEGARA yg sudah
merdeka dan tiba-tiba tanpa
referendum kita
diasimilasikan jadi negeri
malaya. Kata putus kita
dipegang Putrajaya. ITU
TIDAK ADIL! ITU DIJAJAH
NAMANYA. HARTA KITA
DIRAMPAS DAN ANAK NEGERI
KATA ITU ADIL UTK SEMUA
NEGERI? Itu baru saya kata
satu jenaka!
Sokongan pro malaysia ini
timbul kerana tidak faham
apakah yg rasional SSKM ini.
Sini saya terangkan:
Bukan sbb kita tidak dpt hasil
sepatutnya kita marah dan
mahu keluar, Jika ini
persoalannya maka kita
tuntut dimahkamah.
Bukan sbb kerajaan tempatan
yg lemah dan
memperbodohkan dan
menindas kita kita mahu
keluar, Jika ini persoalannya
kita boleh kempen
dipilihanraya
Tapi bila KEDAULATAN negara
kita Sabah dan Sarawak
dinodai dan kita merelakan
maka itu menunjukkan kalian
buta sejarah, Kalian tahu apa
yg kalian telah buat?
YA negeri sarawak telah
berdaulat 170 tahun. Miliki
rajah yg berdaulat, dijajah 20
tahun dan merdeka 22 julai
1963.
Ya negeri sabah berdaulat
123 tahun, Dijajah jepun 4
tahun dan merdeka 31 ogos
1963.
JanGaN buta sejarah, JanGaN buta
mata dgn apa yg dilihat dan
dipertontonkan. JanGaN leka dgn
apa yg kalian nikmati.
Dgn mengatakan sudah
terlambat kita merdeka,
kalian telah mengatakan ...
yang perjuangan Rosli Dhobi itu
satu jenaka,
perjuangan ranger sarawak
itu satu jenaka,
wasiat rajah brooke itu satu
jenaka.
Perlantikan Koroh bin
Santulan itu satu jenaka,
kematian CM tan sri fuad
stephen itu satu jenaka.
perjuangan rakyat sabah
tentang jepun itu satu jenaka.
Demonstrasi anti cesssion itu
satu jenaka.
Tanah adat itu satu jenaka.
Sabah dan sarawak itu satu
jenaka.
Perjuangan SSKM ini bukan
omongan kosong. Bukan
perkara enteng yg boleh
kalian dijadikan permainan
lidah dan bola pencaturan
politik.
SSKM berjuang demi
kedaulatan NEGARA yg sudah
merdeka dan tiba-tiba tanpa
referendum kita
diasimilasikan jadi negeri
malaya. Kata putus kita
dipegang Putrajaya. ITU
TIDAK ADIL! ITU DIJAJAH
NAMANYA. HARTA KITA
DIRAMPAS DAN ANAK NEGERI
KATA ITU ADIL UTK SEMUA
NEGERI? Itu baru saya kata
satu jenaka!
Why we are here
Sabah and Sarawak has been
governed under the current
Administration since 1963.
That was the year Malaysia
was born and sadly, that
was a new begining of
political slavery that took
place in these two promising
lands. Sabah and Sarawak
were seen and mentioned by
the current Administration
as their deposits which they
gain in terms of political
"interest" during Election
time has taken their natives,
people and produce for
granted.
Such blessed soil that
produces crops such as Palm
Oil and Rubber should have
converted into massive
developments for the locals
in both States especially
when the commodity prices
escalates over the years.
However, the sad and
horrible Truth is that the
People were left and
abandon from further
developments. Education
systems that continue to
supress the creativity minds
of the people in fear that
the future generations
might wake up one day to
fight for what was theirs in
the very FIRST PLACE.
The
SALCRA programs for both
States were designed to
keep generations of natives
and locals as their working
horse while they cash in by
making millions individually.
Individuals gain immesurable
wealth at the expense of
these ignorant and innocent
people. The current NEP
system and policies have
given birth to a crippled
nation in these two States.
This blog is to share and provide
timely information on why
Sabah and Sarawak should
have its Independence. Their
imclusion into Malaya in
1963, were due to the
generosity by the British
Government. (The Brookes
family secceded Sarawak to
British in 1948). By right,
these two States were not
for anyone to give it to
Malaya. Let us criticize or
suggest constructively on
how and why these two
deserving States should have
its own Government.
governed under the current
Administration since 1963.
That was the year Malaysia
was born and sadly, that
was a new begining of
political slavery that took
place in these two promising
lands. Sabah and Sarawak
were seen and mentioned by
the current Administration
as their deposits which they
gain in terms of political
"interest" during Election
time has taken their natives,
people and produce for
granted.
Such blessed soil that
produces crops such as Palm
Oil and Rubber should have
converted into massive
developments for the locals
in both States especially
when the commodity prices
escalates over the years.
However, the sad and
horrible Truth is that the
People were left and
abandon from further
developments. Education
systems that continue to
supress the creativity minds
of the people in fear that
the future generations
might wake up one day to
fight for what was theirs in
the very FIRST PLACE.
The
SALCRA programs for both
States were designed to
keep generations of natives
and locals as their working
horse while they cash in by
making millions individually.
Individuals gain immesurable
wealth at the expense of
these ignorant and innocent
people. The current NEP
system and policies have
given birth to a crippled
nation in these two States.
This blog is to share and provide
timely information on why
Sabah and Sarawak should
have its Independence. Their
imclusion into Malaya in
1963, were due to the
generosity by the British
Government. (The Brookes
family secceded Sarawak to
British in 1948). By right,
these two States were not
for anyone to give it to
Malaya. Let us criticize or
suggest constructively on
how and why these two
deserving States should have
its own Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)