PBK questions legality of appointment of Sarawak new Governor

                           Wan Junaidi in 2023

PRESS STATEMENT

28 January, 2024

Re: Is the appointment of Tun Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar's Appointment as 8th  Governor (TYT) constitutional?

 A question is now posed by many is that whether the appointment of Tun Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar as the 8th Governor to replace Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud, constitutional? 

Another issue of much talk now is that did Tun Pehin Patinggi Taib Mahmud resigned or been removed as governor by the DYMM Agong? If he was removed, was the power to remove him by DYMM Agong been correctly exercised in accordance with the Sarawak Constitution?

The press mentioned that Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud resigned as governor ahead of the appointment of Tun Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar as the 8th Governor to replace him but, there seems no official announcement of this by the state and federal governments or by Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud himself. 

In the absence of any official announcement, it was not sure whether Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud did or not resigned as governor. The people of Sarawak are kept in the dark. They have a right to know.

If Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud had not resigned and Tun Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar had received the Letter of Appointment or Watiqah from DYMM Agong, then, a constitutional issue arises. That is, whether the appointment, in the absence of official resignation by Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud addressed to DYMM Agong, made the appointment of Tun Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar by DYMM Agong, constitutional?

Under Article 1 (2) Sarawak Constitution, the Governor is appointed by DYMM Agong for a period of four years and the Governor can choose to resign before his term is over by tendering a letter to DYMM Agong. Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud's term as governor shall only expire at the end of February, 2024.

Was Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud removed as governor by the DYMM Agong? Under Article 1(2) of the Sarawak Constitution, the removal of governor from office before his term expires could be made by DYMM Agong in pursuance of an address by the Dewan Undangan Negri supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the members thereof. Therefore, DYMM Agong could not simply remove Tun Patinggi Taib Mahmud as governor without first pursuant to a vote taken by members of the SARAWAK Legislature before DYMM Agong could remove him before the expiry of his term of office. It seems that DYMM Agong could not bypass the Sarawak Legislature to remove the Governor.

  

The process of appointment of the governor is mentioned in Article 1(1) of the Sarawak Constitution. Although DYMM Agong has the power to appoint but the appointment could only be done with the consultation with the Chief Minister (Premier). 

It is noted that the Sarawak Constitution does not provide for any room for the prime minister to know or to interfere in the selection and appointment of the governor.

While premier and cabinet ministers were dumb concerning the replacement of Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud as governor, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said that the appointment process was presented by the Sarawak Premier and the prime minister confirmed that he had submitted Tan Sri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar's name to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the successor to incumbent governor Tun Abdul Taib Mahmud– see MalayMail January 22, 2024.

The issue now is that why and how the prime minister came to know about the change of governor and was there interference by the prime minister leading to the appointment of Tun Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar as governor? Was there, as required by Article 1(1) of the Sarawak Constitution, any communication about this matter between the premier and DYMM Agong over the appointment of Tun Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Hj Jafaar as governor?

Talks are around that Premier and prime minister took to themselves in deciding all things leading to the appointment of Tun Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar as 8th governor as the Sarawak Legislature had not debate on the matter. 

Law and procedures have to be followed and respected else, failure to do so can lead to a dangerous political game, given the fact that the Dayaks had been waiting to be appointed to this post even before Malaysia was formed. 

This is a potential "political time bomb" that can pile up unhappiness on the ground to spark unrests in Sarawak at any time. There are growing numbers of people who  simply are not happy now over this matter.

 

VOON LEE SHAN

President Parti Bumi Kenyalang

Why not a Dayak TYT for Sarawak?, top activist Peter John Jaban suggests

Here is a full

Press Statement by activist Peter John Jaban

Review political appointment of Sarawak Governor

23 January 2024

SAPA (Sarawak Association for People’s Aspirations) Publicity Chief Peter John Jaban is calling for a review in the context for appointing the Sarawak Governor after the chaos that has surrounded this round of nominations and the ongoing debate among citizens and netizens alike over the system in place.

Peter John said: “Sarawak, Penang, Melaka and Sabah are the only four states in Malaysia without a Sultan. We remain unrepresented in the Council of Rulers. Of these four, only Sarawak and Sabah were constituent partners of the Malaysia Agreement 1963. Already, we begin to see various issues emerge. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong does not appoint the Sultans of other states. These take their position according to the history and context of each individual state. Sarawak, as a signatory to the founding document of the nation, should have no less control over its Governor. In fact, it should have more.”

“The appointment of Taib Mahmud in the last cycle caused widespread consternation as he transitioned directly from the Chief Minister’s position, currently in control of the nomination process, into the Governor’s post. In this round, we see another political figure taken directly from a position in the house into this vital balancing role. Not only does this now precipitate a search for his replacement, removing a Sarawakian from his position as Dewan Negara President, but also it risks entrenching a dangerous precedent for who should be under consideration.”

“Furthermore, in this round, we have witnessed the leaking of private correspondence to the press exposing the name of the nominee in question before an official announcement can be made. Then, after the Premier of Sarawak, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Tourism, Creative Industry and Performing Arts all declined to comment on the appointment, the Prime Minister decides to confirm the nominee in the same breath as he asks us to expect an official announcement.” 

“Either the Yang di-Pertuan Agong decides this or the Premier of Sarawak. One thing is certain, the Prime Minister does not have a constitutional role in this process. At best, he is an intermediary between our Premier and the Agong. He certainly should not be releasing information that the Premier has seen fit to withhold.”

“Finally, we come to the context of the decision in question. Now we see the current appointment blatantly ignoring the convention that dates back to the formation of Malaysia in which the Governor is chosen from among illustrious Dayak candidates when the sitting Premier is a Malay and vice versa.” 

“Citizens of Sarawak are now hotly debating the missed opportunity to show a different attitude to representation in Malaysia after a year which has seen Lim Kit Siang hauled up by police to answer his all-too-correct description of the current constitution and calls for a ‘Malay-only PM’ as a result, threatening to disenfranchise all the other Bumiputera communities in Malaysia.”

Malaysia should be upholding its principles of Malaysia Madani under its unity government. Sarawak should be leading the way in its race relations. This is one of the bases for its continuing calls for greater autonomy. This is why we need to set a better example in transparency and in our representative processes. This was the context for the Malaysia Agreement and should be the context for the future of Sarawak.

Peter John Jaban

016 860 5272

Bukan duit atok kamu.. Wang rakyat milik rakyat, jangan paksa ikut parti kamu baru bantu.. ulas dua aktivis ada YB bantu ahli partinya saja

            Aktivis Kanul Gindol dari Kota Belud

Berikut Kenyataan penuh dua aktivis berkenaan..

22 Januari 2024

Kanul Gindol

Pengerusi

Inisiatif Gindol untuk Masyarakat Madani Borneo 

&

Daniel John Jambun

Presiden

Yayasan Penderitaan Borneo di Malaysia (BoPiMaFo)

         Aktivis Daniel John Jambun dari Inanam

*PERLAKUKAN SEMUA SAMA APABILA BERURUSAN DENGAN DANA AWAM, INI BUKAN DUIT DATUK ATAU NENEK ANDA, AKTIVIS BERITAHU YBS SABAH YANG INSIST MENGGANTI ALLEGIANS SEBAGAI SYARAT BANTUAN*

1. Kami telah menerima laporan lisan dan juga melihat pelbagai aduan di media sosial bahawa beberapa pemimpin Sabah masih mengamalkan taktik victimisasi lama yang sudah ketinggalan zaman di mana hanya mereka dari parti politiknya akan mendapat bantuan tertentu daripadanya.

2. Mereka memaksa orang untuk menyertai parti mereka terlebih dahulu agar lebih mudah mendapatkan bantuan atau dana dari pejabat mereka sebagai wakil rakyat terpilih atau tokoh penting dengan peranan dalam kerajaan semasa.

3. Lelaki dan wanita mereka bergerak "memberi nasihat" kepada rakyat jika mereka ingin mendapatkan bantuan dari YBs, mereka harus menukar kesetiaan kepada parti politik semasa YBs tersebut.

4. Ini sepatutnya tidak berlaku. Pertama, YBs atau menteri ini ada di sana untuk membantu setiap rakyat tanpa mengira perbezaan politik, bangsa atau agama. Kedua, dana awam yang didistribusikan oleh menteri atau YBs ini milik rakyat pada umumnya, bukan duit datuk atau nenek YBs.

5. Taktik-taktik tidak etika ini adalah penyalahgunaan kuasa, bersifat diktatorial, kurang pengetahuan dan hormat terhadap sistem demokrasi, mentaliti feudal, dan meletakkan rakyat dalam risiko.

6. Kami ingin tahu pendirian kerajaan negeri semasa terhadap tren ini, yang dilaporkan kuat di bahagian utara Sabah, tetapi kami percaya berdasarkan laporan, ia juga meluas di tempat-tempat lain di Sabah.

7. Ini juga merupakan bentuk rasuah, dan oleh itu, SPRM/MACC boleh dan sepatutnya menyiasat di mana-mana laporan sedemikian ditekankan.

8. Kami tahu bahawa kerajaan boleh melakukan apa sahaja yang diinginkan, walaupun di atas kertas, kecuali dibatasi oleh mahkamah. Mantera Sabah Sarawak, "Siapa Menang, Kami Sokong" (Siapa pun menang di Putrajaya, kami sokong) adalah berkaitan.

Terima kasih.

Ditandatangani

KANUL GINDOL

012 885 6465

DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN

010 878 6934

Sabah and Sarawak can exit Malaysia with or without Independence Act, claim two activists

JOINT STATEMENT By Sabah Sarawak NGOs Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) and Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) BoPiMaFo & SSRANZ Presidents Mssrs Daniel John Jambun and Robert Pei on the right to seek independence.

BOPIMAFO & SSRANZ Presidents referring to a press statement by Bukit Semuja assemblyman and GPS Youth Chief Miro Simuh (reported on 03/01/2024), pointed out that contrary to his claim, the Federal Constitution does not prohibit the right for Sarawak or Sabah to exit the federation nor is it constitutional for any law such as the Sedition Act 1948, to prohibit this right. If so, this would only confirm that Malaysia was not a free and voluntary association of four countries created in 1963.

(see https://www.theborneopost.com/2024/01/03/miro-calls-voons-dubai-move-claim-of-pms-post-promise-for-gps-a-publicity-stunt/ )

  

They said it was unfair to criticise Mr Voon Lee Shan President of the Bumi Kenyalang Party (PBK), who was just performing his duty as a loyal Sarawakian to fight for Sarawak rights, especially the inalienable legal right to independence under international law recognised by the United Nations’ Resolution 1514. In fact, other than the PBK, no Sarawak or Sabah party has consistently called for independence from Malaysia owing to 60 years failure of the federation. There should be no limitation on this discourse in an association claimed by federalists to be a freely formed democratic federation.

They noted that the PBK President had also assisted 12 Plaintiffs to file a writ in the High Court of Borneo, seeking declarations on the validity of MA63 in 2021 and right to exit for independence. 

The fact that the former British colonies of Sarawak and Sabah were incorporated by the United Kingdom and Malayan governments as new members of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 does not extinguish this right for several reasons.

The Federation of Malaysia was created by an international treaty the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) registered with the United Nations in 1970 and therefore governed by international law. International law does no prohibit secession from a federation. It is the intrinsic right of any member in a free association to unconditionally and freely exit at any time. 

This issue was raised in the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) discussions before MA63 was signed on 9 July 1963 when both the Sarawak and Sabah sides demanded the right to exit be included in the constitution. Lord Lansdowne, the IGC Chairman who described Malaysia as a “buttress of freedom in Asia”, dissuaded them by stating that “any state voluntarily entering a federation had the intrinsic right to secede at will and therefore it was unnecessary to include it in the constitution”. 

This was again clarified by the then Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman 9 days after the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was signed, who was reported on 18 July 1963, as saying that “the regions that join Malaysia have freedom to exit the federation if the new nation will not bring any benefit to them”.

However, this was not the original position of the then Malayan Government which insisted that “there be no right to secede” from the federation.  This was at odds with the fact that the Malayans went through the motion of consulting Sarawak and Sabah to demonstrate that the union was the free and voluntary wish of the people but in reality, it was just to entrap them in their proposed union. 

Typically Malaysia federalists assert that “Point 7 of the Sabah 20 Points” agreement” prohibited secession. The NGO presidents pointed out that the “20 Points” was only a memorandum of terms and conditions provided to the IGC, not a legally binding agreement signed by the MA63 signatories nor incorporated as the law in MA63 or the federal constitution. 

In 1962, the British colonial secretary revealed their entrapment strategy by stressing to the Malayan government the political advantages which might accrue both to “H.M.G. and to the Government of the Federation of Malaya if Malaysia was seen as voluntary merger rather than transfer, merger rather than absorption”. (Para 142 Stockwell “The Making of Malaysia). 

Thus the world and Borneo people were led to believe that the admission of new members to the federation was a free and voluntary act. 

The NGO presidents said those opposing Sabah and Sarawak independence also erroneously claim that the Sedition Act 1948 was amended to prohibit “secession”. However, they pointed out that there is no such prohibition in the ACT 1485 amendment of the Sedition Act in 2015 or any other Acts.

They pointed out that the failure to resolve MA63 issues of State Autonomy, seat allocation, loss of control of the civil service and education, resources and revenue from oil and gas, lack of development and infrastructures and poverty, Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement, Ketuanan Melayu race and religion concept replacing MA63 concept of secularism, pluralism and multiculturalism, and illegal migrants have led to the widespread sentiment for independence. The recent call to amend the Constitution for a Malay/Muslim government and a Malay PM only, has aroused more calls for independence.

The NGO Presidents considered that MA63 was void ab initio and not legally binding from the date it was signed as Sarawak and Sabah were still colonies and not sovereign states with the legal capacity to make binding international treaties. This meant that Malaysia was not legitimately constituted and decolonisation was in fact replaced by Malayan recolonisation. The MA63 negotiations since 2016 cannot have any legally binding effect since MA63 was null and void from the beginning. 

However, even if MA63 was valid, the multiple breaches of fundamental and foundational terms of the agreement since 1965 would have terminated the treaty and legally entitle Sarawak and Sabah to exit as free independent nations. 

They called on both the Sarawak and Sabah government to seek a proper resolution of the question of MA63 validity especially in view of the International Court of Justice’s decision in the Chagos Case 2019 that colonies have no legal capacity to make binding international agreements and hold a referendum to let the people freely decide on the value or benefit for the 2 states to continue as members of the federation. A referendum should only be held after a period of at least two years to allow all parties to inform the people of the pros and cons of exit and independence.

Signed by

Daniel John Jambun President BoPiMaFo

Robert Pei President SSRANZ.

End allocation for religion in Sabah and Sarawak

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2023/12/20/bigger-rm110mil-allocation-for-sarawak039s-unit-for-other-religions-says-abang-jo

JOINT PRESS STATEMENT 

23rd December 2023.

Sabah and Sarawak , under Malaysia Agreement  1963 (MA'63), has no religion. 

End Allocations for religion in Sabah and Sarawak . . . 

In Sabah, the most democratic state in Malaysia, the people want allocations for religion to stop. 

It's a form of rotten politics, in going against the Constitution, and being based on illegalities viz. pitting people against each other, bribery and corruption, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust.

The Church, for example, has always stood on its own two feet. There's community support.

The gov't, if we recall, took over mission schools. These schools are now in very bad shape. There's no discipline.

Sarawak funding for religion should stop unless there is transparency and fairness over the matter.  Over the years since Unit for Other Religions (UNIFOR) had been set-up, the Sarawak government under GPS had annual allocations to other religions. People of other religions, especially, the Buddhists or Christians seemed happy about it and for 2024 Premier had announced that he had allocated RM110 million for Sarawak’s Unit for Other Religions. 

Deputy Premier, Datuk Amar Douglas Uggah had disclosed that since 2017 the government had approved total allocations of RM341.8 million for various house of worship. 

Over the years, the GPS government was telling about allocations to UNIFOR but how about allocations to Islam or for the propagation of Islam? Was Islam not funded? If not funded, then this is against fairness and a discrimination against the muslims. If been funded, the GPS government is to disclose to the public how much allocations been given to Islam.

If been funded, it is here that I demand transparency and fairness from the GPS government to disclose how much had been allocated to religion of Islam since 2017. I demand transparency and fairness over this matter because the muslims may not feel happy if allocations were only meant for prayer houses under UNIFOR. Non-transparency and fairness in allocations of funds can create racial and religious tensions between the muslims and non-muslims in the state. I hope premier takes this seriously for the peace of the people of Sarawak.  

I also demand transparency in this area of allocations because taxpayers have a right to know where or how their money is spent. This is a legal demand. People should not be made to pay taxes unless they know how their money is spent. It should be legal not to pay taxes to the government when the government refused, failed or could not disclose to public where their money is spent. 

Again, such allocations, if any, to Islam or for projects for Islamic cause should not be more than that was allocated to Churches or to Christian because Christians are the majority in the state. If allocated, it should be more or less the same as received by the Buddhists because Buddhists and Muslims in Sarawak are more or less of the same numbers. If allocations for Islam are more than what Christians can get, this can also cause disharmony among the various races in the state.  

VOON LEE SHAN

PRESIDENT,  

PARTI BUMI KENYALANG 

Daniel John Jambun President Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Don't deny our right to be PM

                        Peter John Jaban

18-12-2023

KUCHING, SARAWAK : At a time when there are open calls for Sarawak to have its own currency and its own Foreign Ministry, Global Human Rights Federation Malaysia has issued a warning to Malaysian legislators:” If you can’t be a representative to all Malaysians, then step out…or lose Sarawak’s vote.”

From clothes patrolling to an alleged ban on Christmas greetings on cakes to calls for a Constitutional change to ensure a Malay PM for eternity, the increasing intolerance,  relentless fear-mongering and insane rhetoric on race and religion in Peninsula Malaysia has left people in Borneo stumped, disgusted and wary.

In a press release issued here, GHRFM has questioned whether Malay leaders and their community (in the peninsula) realize that the indigenous people of Sarawak and Sabah are the reason that there is a unity government in place in Putrajaya today.

“We the indigenous people of Borneo share the same special position as  the Malays under the Constitution. We cannot be barred from ever holding the top office. There would be no Malaysia without the Borneo states and their non-Muslim majority populations.

“Right now, there would be no unity government without the Sabah and Sarawak MP and without the vital partnership of the Chinese and Indian MPs,” said GHRFM deputy president Peter John Jaban. 

The majority of Borneo citizens are non-Muslims.

Jaban was commenting on Bersatu Youth Chief Wan Ahmad Faysal Wan Ahmad Kamal’s suggestion that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim table a move to amend the constitution to allow only Malays to hold the post of PM in Malaysia.

Wan Faysal’ call for the constitutional change was backed by Bersatu chairman Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yasin who claimed that the current unity government would enable a non-Malay to become PM because it was reportedly subservient to DAP.

Following Muhyiddin’s allegations, Anwar had on Dec 15 reportedly said that there was no need for an amendment to the constitution and that “either from the government or opposition block the (PM) candidate will be Malay.”

The volley of comments was triggered by a Nov 29 talk by DAP veteran Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang who has told a group of students in the United Kingdom that “there is no restriction in the Constitution for non-Malays to become Prime Minister.”  He said this right was also upheld in the amended 1963 constitution.

Calling the relentless fear-mongering as “shameful”, Jaban said: “I think it is inevitable that one day Malaysia’s democracy will mature to such an extent that we will stop   electing on the basis of race and start selecting our leaders for their skills and contribution.

“The Constitution, our guiding principle under the Rukun Negara, is clear. The Prime Minister is the person who, in the judgement of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, is ‘likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

“If that is a non-Malay, then so be it. If that is where the confidence of a democratically elected and representative house lies, then so be it,“ Jaban said.#

Jangan lupa tonton filem pendek "Oyo" yang setakat ini sudah rangkul dua anugerah

FILEM pendek "Oyo" dari Sabah bukan kaleng-kaleng tau.. Ia sedang hot trending selepas merangkul dua anugerah iaitu Best People's Film Award dan Best Cinematographer selain  turut tercalon untuk Best Director dan Best Actress.

Filem "Oyo" mengisahkan kehidupan susah Oyo dan seekor kucing Gitom. Rutin harian hidup Oyo di kampung seperti perjalanan dari rumah ketika subuh lagi untuk ke sekolah menggamit jiwa kita.

Cabaran seperti Oyo terpaksa menyeberangi sungai besar dan berjalan atas batu-batu sungai serta kehidupannya selepas balik sekolah digarap dengan baik sekali dalam penggambaran.

Filem berdurasi lapan minit ini dibarisi pelakon cilik Philbertha Yoora dan Roger Jino Sibin serta sekor kucing bernama Gitom. 

Pengarah ialah Pulina Keritek dengan Bryn Casey Kouju selaku pengarah sinematograpfi. Roger juga adalah penerbit Oyo.

Oyo boleh ditonton pada page Facebook KKFVA. #

Rombakan Kabinet: Kempunan Star dan PBS oleh Anwar

Oleh Luke Rintod, 13-12-2023

KOTA KINABALU: Rombakan kabinet Kerajaan Persekutuan kelmarin sekali lagi tamparan hebat kepada dua parti Sabah, PBS dan Star, apabila tiada langsung wakil dari parti itu dipilih oleh Perdana Menteri, Anwar Ibrahim.

Umno dan DAP mendapat tambahan seorang lagi menteri penuh, masing-masing ada lima menteri sekarang, dan ramai mereka adalah juga timbalan menteri di sana sini.

Seorang timbalan menteri dari Sabah, MP Beaufort, Siti Aminah Aching, juga digugurkan tapi tiada juga dilantik dari PBS dan Star, dua parti dominan Kadazandusun dan Murut, mahupun dari Sabah.

PBS dan Star hanya mempunyai masing-masing seorang MP pada masa ini. Pada masa lalu, seorang pemimpin Star, mendiang Guande Kohoi, dilantik senator dan timbalan menteri pelancongan tapi apabila beliau meninggal, tiada penggantinya dari Star.

Demikian nasib Star dan PBS di bawah Anwar.

Syukur, Upko yang ada dua MP, dan PBRS yang hanya ada satu MP, masih berjaya disisipkan masing-masing seorang menteri dan seorang timbalan menteri.

Warisan yang ada tiga MP juga hanya ada seorang timbalan menteri.

Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) yang dipimpin Hajiji Noor dan dianggotai oleh Star dan PBS ada seorang menteri dan seorang lagi timbalan menteri, kedua-duanya pemimpin muda berketurunan India/Pakistan.

Antara timbalan menteri dari Sabah termasuk seorang yang digugur iaitu Aminah, Arthur, Mustapha Sakmud dan Chan Foong Hin.

Sebagai rekod, pada masa ini dua lagi timbalan menteri dari Sabah adalah mewakili Umno, satu PKR dan satu DAP.

MP Star ~ Dr Jeffrey Kitingan (Keningau)

MP PBS ~ Lo Su Fui yang mengalahkan ketua PKR Sabah Christina Liew di Tawau

MP Upko ~ Ewon Benedik (Penampang) dan Madius Tangau (Tuaran)

MP PBRS ~ Arthur Kurup (Pensiangan)#

Anwar to revamp his year-old cabinet, ministers to take oath before King later today

After decades waiting, Anwar took power about a year ago.

THE list that has been going round since this morning. Borneo Herald has no avenue to ascertain it :

1. *Finance Minister II - Datuk Seri Amir Hamzah Azizan*, chief executive officer of the Employees Provident Fund (EPF). Amir Hamzah joined the EPF in March 2021.

2. *Gobind Singh Deo*, Minister for a portion of the Communications and Digital Ministry to be split from Fahmi Fadzil's portfolio. 

3. *Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Health Minister* replacing Dr Zaliha Mustafa.

4. *Steven Sim, Human Resources Minister* replacing V. Sivakumar.

5. *Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani* - full minister, portfolio unknown

6. *Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali*, current Minister in PMO, will continue to helm the *Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry*.

*PORTFOLIO CHANGES*

1. *DR ZALIHA MUSTAFA* - From Health Minister to the new *Federal Territories Minister*.

2. *DATUK SERI FADHILAH YUSOF* - From Plantation and Commodities Minister to a portion of Nik Nadzmi's Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change Ministry split into two. 

3. *DATUK SERI MOHAMAD HASAN* From Defence Minister to *Foreign Minister*. 

4. *DATUK SERI ZAMBRY ABD KADIR* - From Foreign Minister to *Higher Education Minister*.

5. *DATUK SERI MOHAMED KHALED NORDIN) - From 

Higher Education Minister to *Defence Minister.* 

6. *FAHMI FADZIL* - His original Communications and Digital Ministry, will be split into two ministries. Fahmi is expected to helm one half that's focused on digital aspects while Gobind will likely take the communications aspect.

Malaysia fails to uphold the cores of universal human rights, says human rights group

By Peter John Jaban, 10-12-2023

HUMAN Rights Day which falls on, 10 December 2023, commemorates the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. For 75 years, the core thrust of the Declaration has been to infuse societies with principles of equality, fundamental freedoms and justice. The theme for Human Rights Day 2023 is “Freedom, Equality and Justice for All”.

Malaysia being a part of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for the term of 2022 – 2024, was elected on Oct 15, 2021. Unfortunately, Malaysia has failed to uphold the core Articles as enshrined under UDHR 1948, namely:

Article 1 - All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Article 2 - Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 7 - All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 18 - Everyone has the right to freedom of thoughts, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 – Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Truthfully, where is Malaysia heading?

It has been a year now since the present ‘Unity Government’ under the stewardship of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was formed and the people of Malaysia are increasingly growing impatient, dissatisfied and perplexed over the uncertain roadmap of the government in leading the nation. Promises of ‘Reformation’ made during the GE15 campaign trails have yet to be delivered to the people and remain merely as yet another political speech. 

The recent announcement by the Prime Minister that an economic congress on Bumiputera would be held in January 2024 to establish a new direction and approach for a Bumiputera agenda empowerment. This is not the first time such congress was being held and not the kind of reformation we expected. This raised a question, isn't Anwar supposed to be the Prime Minister of a multiracial, multireligious nation? Isn't the economic improvement should be beneficial for all Malaysians without being bias. During GE15, campaign, Anwar claimed that the Indians and Orang Asli are among country's poorest. Hence isn’t it supposedly an economic congress for Malaysians.

 

Statistics reveals that the majority of non-Muslims voted and supported Pakatan Harapan, the coalition led by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, due to the simmering turmoil and unhappiness in the nation and hoped for a meaningful reformation of fundamental rights, economy, education, health and social welfare development.

However, till today, on this 75th commemorative day of World Human Rights Day, we Malaysians are still fighting an unresolved battle against racism, fanaticism, extremism, discriminations and double standard policies targeting the minorities in this nation. 

Take for instance the more recent incidents that impact and relate to religious persecution:

1. At the National Tamil Language Carnival on Nov 23 2023, participants were barred from reciting Tamil hymns to mark the start of the programme. Indian participants were not allowed to sing Kadavul Valthu (Praises to God) and Tamil Valthu (Praises to the Tamil Language) during the event which was held in a hotel in Kepala Batas. The carnival was a Tamil programme, that was organized to celebrate the advent and flourishing of the Tamil language over generations and restricting the two Tamil hymns was a gross and brazen infringement of participants' rights.

2. The refusal by TV Sarawak and the state’s UNIFOR (Unit for Other Religions in Premier Department) to play O Holy Night heralding the birth of Jesus Christ in a Christmas programme on Dec 3, 2023 at Padang Merdeka has shocked many non-Muslims (and even right minded moderate Muslims) throughout the country. It seems this rejection was due to religious elements as well as owing to the protocol from the Film Censorship Board. It is yet another case which is utterly ludicrous and discriminating. The matter was raised vigorously by the Association of Churches in Sarawak (ACS) and only after the Premier Tan Sri Abang Johari Openg intervened and ordered that the hymn O Holy Night should be allowed did the matter get resolved.

3.  The controversial dismissal of a non-Muslim, non-Malay restaurant worker in the federal capital city, Bukit Bintang, simply because he wore a chain with a small crucifix pendant – an artifact that is commonly worn by Christians.

4. Cases related to unilateral, unethical and unlawful religious conversions can be heard almost every month, endlessly year after year. It has caused family members, spouses and children to become victims as many families are broken up in the process. Some of these cases are still actively on-going in courts waiting indefinitely for a just, fair closure.

The time for Human Rights to anchor is now or never.

For the past three years GHRF (Global Human Rights Foundation) has been voicing out on matters concerning the violation of human rights especially towards those affecting the non-Muslims and the minorities in this nation. Police reports and memorandums were also handed over to the relevant ministries and authorities for redress but over hopes and efforts were in vain.

NGOs and human rights activists are condemned and criticized and even branded as a security threat by politicians, whenever matters of public concern are raised involving the violation of rights and injustices inflicted owing to policies, statements and actions. 

GHRF registers its greatest disappointment towards the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM). Being a legitimate body established under the Malaysian Parliament in 1999, SUHAKAM has painfully failed to address all the critical issues pertaining to human rights and violations towards the minorities. Public opinion holds SUHAKAM as totally inefficient and inactive in speaking up for the minorities and the injustice shown as well as the double standard policies impacting non-Muslims and non-Malays in the country. For years over decades now, they were merely being a puppet to the government given the fact that they are politically appointed representatives.

Today NGOs and netizens are deeply concerned and increasingly disturbed over the level of racial and religious intolerance in the country, which is morphing into a threat to national unity and harmony. It is a widely held perception that the racial divisions in the Malaysian society is drifting further and faster and it cannot continue to be ignored if we regard patriotism as a vital ingredient for national peace and progress.  

  

GHRF currently has three active cases pending in the courts with regards to inflammatory speeches and postings in the public domain insulting and deriding non-Islamic religions in the country. It has always been either, the NGOs or the public who have to individually or privately seek justice as the law enforcement agencies and authorities who are supposed to act on the matter without prejudice or bias seem to be operating on double standards.

GHRF has called on the Government of Malaysia to table a Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in Parliament, which would ensure that those making any statements deemed as hate speech directed at a particular race or religion will be prosecuted. GHRF has also requested for the Government to set in place an independent body to oversee conversions into Islam, and for strict laws and guidelines to be drafted and enforced to avoid such conversions being done covertly, coercively and in a partial manner favoring the converted against the unconverted. 

GHRF’s objective is to uphold the Malaysian Constitution, the Principles of Rukun Negara, Parliamentary Democracy, Rule of Law and equality without discriminations or hints of apartheid. Towards this end GHRF deems that the enforcing and abiding by the 30 Articles as enshrined in UDHR 1948 is non-negotiable.#

Peter John Jaban is Deputy President of

Global Human Rights Federation (GHRF)

016860527