Top posts

Featured Posts

Sabah, Sarawak NGOs reject suggestion to give 1/3 of Dewan Negara seats to Borneo, it should be Dewan Rakyat seats they say

A Joint Statement by Sabah, Sarawak NGOs

WE note the strong push by NGOs such as ROSE, BERSIH, ENGAGE and Tindak Malaysia to push for the Borneo states to be given more than one-third of Senatorial seats.

After strong pushback from Sabah and Sarawak, they have now issued a statement dated 21 September giving a set of reasons. 

This was published in: https://www.sarawakrose.org/?p=117We reject the reasons given in the statement because they do not address the fundamental issue. 

The fundamental issues are the following: 

1. We are requesting a historical correction to the mistake made in 1965. When the federation of Malaysia was established in 1963, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore received more than 34% of the seats in the Dewan Rakyat. This was an important "safeguard" requested by North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore. When Singapore left the federation in 1965, Malayan officials should have followed the original ratio and redistributed the Singapore seats to Sabah and Sarawak. As a result, we are requesting a correction for a historical error. This correction is similar to the constitutional amendment made in 2021 when the original wordings was put back in Article 1 (2) of the Federal Constitution. It was to “right” a historical “wrong” in 1976. 

2. All agree that Dewan Negara lacks political legitimacy. Their members are appointed by the Agong and DUN rather than being directly chosen by the rakyat. You cannot expect a non-elected chamber to have the authority to speak out for Sabah and Sarawak with legitimacy. If the Dewan Negara was powerful, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak leaders would have requested a third of the Dewan Negara seats back in 1963. The fact that they wanted one-third of the seats in Dewan Rakyat indicates that they knew where power lay.

In summary, using today’s lens and half-truths to push for the 1/3 criteria to be met by Dewan Negara is disingenuous and an insult to Sabahans and Sarawakians. 

The Malayan NGOs may want to reform the electoral system in Malaya but they should do so without harming the interests of Sabah and Sarawak. 

Their push for more equalization of the vote in Malaya should not include Sabah and Sarawak  as it is a political  problem in Malaya between the Malays and non-Malays. 

It has  nothing to do with Sabah and Sarawak. We urge all Sarawakians and Sabahans to unite on this issue and reject the suggestions by ROSE, BERSIH, ENGAGE and Tindak Malaysia. They do not have the best interest of Sabah and Sarawak. 


Statement endorsed by : 

1. Sarawak Association For Peoples' Aspiration (SAPA)
2. Dayak International Organisation (DIO)
3. MOPOT - Moningolig Pogun Tokou (Defenders of Ancestral LandsSabah)
4. Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo
5. Pertubuhan Kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah (PKRDS)
6. Gabungan orang Asal Sarawak (GOASS)
7. Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak (PEDAS )
8. Sarawak Institute of International Affairs (SIPA)
9. Sabah Action Body Advocating Rights (SABAR)
10. Sabah Entitlement & Equity Now (SEEN)
11. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)#

Stop the amendment on citizenship, Sabah NGOs and activists call on Sabah MPs

Borneo Herald publishes the full statement herewith :


PRESS STATEMENT

SABAHANS: CITIZENSHIP BILL WILL EXACERBATE STATELESSNESS
CRISIS IN SABAH

28 September 2024

WE, civil society organisations, activists and individuals in Sabah, are deeply concerned with some of the amendments in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2024. We understand that the Bill will be debated and voted on between the 14th and 15th October.

To date, the government has not consulted us as stakeholders with extensive knowledge and experience from direct engagement with individuals and families who will be negatively affected by these amendments. It is widely acknowledged that a high number of children born in Sabah do not have proper documentation – even when at least one parent is Malaysian. As a result, these children are frequently denied Malaysian citizenship. Their lack of legal status criminalises their existence, and they struggle to access even the most basic rights such as education, healthcare and subsequently employment.

Because the number of Sabahans without proper documentation is high, it is our firm belief that two amendments in particular will severely exacerbate the challenges of statelessness in Sabah. 

An amendment to Section 1(a) will remove the constitutional right of children born to individuals who are permanently residing in Malaysia to access automatic citizenship. This is a problem for Sabah because over the years, many Sabahans – individuals who have born and lived all their lives in Sabah – have been granted permanent resident status (red IC) instead of Malaysian citizenship (blue IC). Despite their PR status, they are stateless and have no country of origin. If the amendment to Section 1(a) passes, these individuals – when they have children – will be unable to pass on any no citizenship, thus leading to intergenerational statelessness. This will increase the number of individuals who will need to apply for citizenship, instead of being granted it automatically. 

Secondly, the government is also proposing to reduce the age limit that a child can apply for citizenship from 21 to 18. This amendment will shorten the amount of time a child has to apply for Malaysian citizenship by three years. It is well known that the approval process of citizenship applications is long, and marked by a lack of transparency. After the age of 21, there is no clear pathway to citizenship unless special approval is granted by the Home Minister. 

Together, both amendments will increase the number of people who will need to apply for citizenship, while simultaneously reducing the amount of time they are able to do so, without fixing the application process itself. These amendments do not bode well for Sabah, and threaten to only worsen statelessness in a state that is already grappling with the largest number of undocumented Malaysians in the country.

We urge the Government to engage with MPs, ADUNs, CSOs in Sabah, and other key stakeholders to understand the situation in Sabah. We strongly believe that Sabah MPs must vote against amending sections 1(a) and provisions to reduce the age limit. 

The amendment granting Malaysian women the automatic right to confer citizenship to their children born overseas, however, must proceed without delay, while the harmful regressive amendments should be halted and removed entirely. Passing the bill in its current form will worsen the statelessness crisis in Sabah, particularly among vulnerable, long-neglected communities.

The government must recognise the unique challenges faced by Sabah and move away from policies that reflect a form of modern colonisation — by imposing measures that worsen local conditions without understanding or addressing the realities on the ground. We call for better solutions that tackle the root causes of statelessness in Sabah by disclosing the number of statelessness among Malaysian families and provide solutions based on the evidence at hand, rather than quick fixes that ultimately fail the very people they are meant to help.


ENDORSED BY 66 SABAH CSOS, ACTIVISTS AND INDIVIDUALS

SABAH CSOs:
Advocates for Non-discrimination and Access to Knowledge (ANAK)
Borneo Komrad
Borneo Speaks
Cahaya Society
Child Safeguarding Initiative Sabah
ETANIA Schools Sabah
Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo
Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur
Green Semporna
HUSH Collective 
Iskul Sama diLaut Omadal
Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS)
Justice for Sisters
Light Brigade (LB)
Mandiri Borneo
PACOS Trust
Persatuan Tadika Sabah
Pertubuhan Minda Anak Sabah (MINDA)
Pertubuhan Permuafakatan Dan Perpaduan Peranakan Suluk Bajau Sabah
PLUHO, People Like Us Hang Out!
Sabah AIDS Support Services Association (KASIH)
Sabah Human Rights Centre (SHRC)
Sabah Women's Action Resource Group (SAWO) 
Society for Equality, Respect And Trust for All (SERATA)
Stairway to Hope
Tarbiyatun Nisa' 
The Tiada.Guru Campaign
Undi Sabah
Sabahans (Activists & Individuals):
Abigail Jubilee
Adzmin Fatta
Alanis Mah Siao Yen
Ana Jonessy
Andi Suraidah
Ann Cerill Ivon Michael
Anne Baltazar
Beverly Joeman
Calvina Angayung
Cherlanne Patrick
Daphne M Iking (Humarap)
David Ong
Dr Kanul Gindol
Edna Salumbi
Elizabeth Chin-Sikayun
Fazar Arif
Fiqah Roslan
Gavin Chow
Hanaa Wong Abdullah 
Irwan Idris
Jacqueline Lingham
Jason Hoo Kim Thoe 
Liyana Khalisa binti Kula
Mashithah binti Abdul Halim
Megan Steven
Michael Liman
Mohd Nasir Alizaman
Noah Raj
Nurul Rafeeqa
Patty Pang
Prudence Lingham
⁠Qalista S. Dohny
Rachel Giling
Ruth Yap
Sherzali Herza Asli
Siti Maryam binti Dawalih
Sonia Chin
Wong Kueng Hui 
Marshela binti Foh
Addy Samsudin

Contact Persons: 
Anne Baltazar | 014 3701317
Beverly Joeman | 011 59826297#

Dr Kanul says apt name for the sea fronting Borneo island is Borneo Sea



There should be Borneo Sea from now on, says activist Dr Kanul Gindol from Sabah.

Luke Rintod, 28-9-2024
KOTA BELUD : A well-known Sabah activist has suggested that the vast sea on the west side of the Borneo Island should be named the Borneo Sea.

"I suggest Malaysia consider to rename the large part of sea fronting the island of Borneo as the Borneo Sea," he said in a statement issued from Kota Belud today.

He was commenting on suggestions by various observers lately to rename the South China Sea, partly to counterbalance communist China asserting claim to the whole of South China Sea.

Dr Kanul, who worked as journalist before, said for that matter the three Borneo's states of Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak must be in agreement to name such sea as the Borneo Sea.

"If we have Sulu Sea, Celebes Sea and Java Sea, there is no reason a sea-surrounded large island of Borneo can't have a Borneo Sea, at least the vast sea on its western frontage.

"This part of the sea was used to be known in old scripts as Sea of Puni or Poni or Poli, perhaps the Poni referred to Borneo or Brunei," he pointed out.

He further said that this does not discount others from naming the vast sea fronting the Cambodia and Vietnam lands as the Champa Sea.

Dr Kanul is currently a chairman of an NGO, the 
Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo. He is also the Coordinator for North Zone for Parti Kerjasama Anak Negeri.#


Was the Cobbold Commission a scam?


              Voon Lee Shan, a Sarawak lawyer

By Voon Lee Shan, 28-9-2024
WITHOUT the Cobbold Commission, there is no Cobbold Commission Report. Without the Cobbold Commission Report, there is no Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Without the Malaysia Agreement 1963, there is no Malaysia. However, the issue is Whether the Cobbold Commission was a scam – a scam to deceive the people of the British Borneo Territories to agree to the Malaysia Plan. 
Members of the Cobbold Commission which was set up in January 1962.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 is to allow or to have all colonies in the world to be decolonized and achieve independence from their colonial masters.  This Resolution was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960. 

But, the Malaysia Plan by the British was not motivated by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It has to be noted that the Malaysia Plan was motivated by the need by United Kingdom, to release their colonies from their burden in maintaining their colonies. Records show that the British planned Malaysia since 1953 and therefore, I repeat, it has nothing to do with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It was the plan of the British in 1953 that their colonies in South East Asia has to join together to form a federation or a country. Hence, came the Malaysian Plan.
In order to ensure that the Malaysia Plan be executed smoothly and in compliance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 and international protocols, the British constituted the Cobbold Commission in 1962 headed by Lord Cobbold. Lord Cobbold was a former Bank Governor of Bank of England. 

In the Cobbold Commission, there were three British and two Malayans. The two Malayans were Dato’ Wong Pow Nee from Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and Chief Minister of Penang and Ghazali Shafie, Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaya. 

There is no evidence that members of the Cobbold Commission could speak the local or native languages of the Borneo People. Without able to speak native language of Borneo people how could the members of the Cobbold Commission came to the conclusion that the people of Sarawak and Sabah wanted Malaysia to be formed? It could not be denied that this Cobbold Commission was to also to overcome the need for a referendum to determine the wishes of the people of Borneo Territories as required by UNGAR 1514.

The Cobbold Commission published its report on 1 August 1962 concluded that roughly only one-third of Sarawak’ population enthusiastically supported forming Malaysia, another one-third vehemently opposed, and the crucial remaining third of the population, though open to the idea, was yet to be convinced of the merits of independence through merger.  The published report seems not correct because from available records, only 4,000 odd people were interviewed by the Cobbold Commission.  Commonsense tells us that this is devoid of democracy! How could these people who were only about 4,000 odds were able to represent the voice of over a million people of North Borneo and Sarawak at that time to decide the fate or destiny of their countries?

From records and books by a several researchers, it is difficult to convince the people of Sarawak and Sabah not to come to the conclusion that the Cobbold Commission was not a scam that took away the intrinsic rights of peoples of Sarawak and Sabah to determine the fate of their countries and to gain independence.  

Besides two books by Professor Michael Leigh, The Rising Moon and the other ones Deals, Datus And Dayaks, there are two other books that we all in Sarawak, need to read concerning the creation of Malaysia. These two books are one, by Dr Matthew Jones  “Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia 1961-1965, Britain, the United States and the Creation of Malaysia (2001) and the other ones is by Dr Stanley S. Bedlington’s Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States (1978). 

Of course, the research work of AJ Stockwell and The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia 1945-1965 by Dr Greg Poulgrain are “goldmines” that we all Sarawakians should read to find out the secrets on how  Malaysia was created.

Dr. Bedlington mentioned that “local leaders in Sabah and Sarawak reacted strongly and adversely” to the Malaysia Plan.

Dr. Bedlington also mentioned that the Cobbold Commission as a “British contrivance activated and organized by British officials.” He said that the “Commission was an Anglo-Malayan exercise was immediately obvious from the fact that it did not include a single Bornean representative.”

The Cobbold Commission did not conduct any referendum in either British North Borneo or Sarawak to measure objectively the wishes and inclinations of the people on the issue of the “Malaysia” merger to assist in its enquiry. Bedlington added that the population of the two States was subjected to “sustained pressure” by British colonial officials to accept the merger. Records showed that those who opposed the Malaysia Plan were considered “subversives” and were arrested, assaulted and battered and many for fear of arrest and physical injuries had to run away and hid in the forests and took arms to resist their arrests. Many were branded as communists and terrorists and were  shot dead.  Those who are still alive said that they were forced by circumstances to join the clandestine organisation in their struggles to fight against Malaysia Plan.

Matthew Jones in his book noted that the Governors of the two crown colonies were sceptical of the Commission, with Governor Goode of British North Borneo calling the exercise “a farce’.

Therefore, it is clear that the true wishes of the majority of the populations of the two Borneo territories were seriously subverted, if not deliberately misconstrued and ignored. The voices of opposition to the merger were traduced. 

Surprising facts that have been censored or hidden from the public all these years, were revealed by Dr Greg Poulgrain, and, in the process, cast the whole project of Malaysia itself in a fundamentally different light.  Poulgrain was able to combine archival research at the Colonial Office, U.K. with interviews of surviving protagonists of the formative era of Malaysia who had played various roles in that period, thereby challenging the conventional version of the formation of Malaysia. 

Poulgrain referred to a classified Colonial Office paper, “Political Objectives in British Territories of South East Asia” of 10th March, 1953, reveals that the British government (Her Majesty’s Government, or HMG) was “engaging in deliberate deception” for, while paying lip service to the Third Rajah’s aspiration for self-government for Sarawak which is embodied in the preamble to the 1941 Sarawak Constitution, Her Majesty’s Government was already planning for “some form of constitutional association” for the Borneo Territories and the Malaya/Singapore bloc coming together as a “British South-East Asia Dominion” in the early fifties. 

Commissioner-General Malcolm MacDonald On April 2, 1955, informed the British Secretary for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, that “the Bornean leaders are perhaps less aware than those in Malaya of our grand design.” 


Despite that, Alan Lennox-Boyd on November 29, 1956, informed the Governor of North Borneo, Sir Roland Turnbull, “The possibility of a federation of North Borneo and Sarawak and indeed of all three Borneo territories ... is a matter for the people of the territories themselves to decide.” It was noted by Poulgrain that, at no time did Her Majesty’s Government envisage self-government by the people of Sarawak. 

However, it must be noted that the colonial officers in the two territories were initially adverse to the idea of a merger of the Borneo states with Malaya and Singapore which they considered premature. 

More concerned with their populations of different ethnicities living in harmony, they had in mind a more gradual move towards independence with the possibility of first forming a Borneon federation before a merger with their more politically savvy neighbours across the South China Sea, Malaya and Singapore.  The “Borneo Proposal” was put forward in 1958, but, as Poulgrain notes, it was already foreshadowed by the 1953 paper. The Borneon proposal was in fact disparaged by the noted historian on South East Asian history, K.J. Tregonning as “a disguised MI5 exercise”. 

Despite that, it is still widely believed and propagated that the proposal for the “Malaysia” merger with the Borneo territories was made by then Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on May 27, 1961, to the Foreign Correspondents’ Association Club in Singapore. The British allowed Tunku take the credit for what was in fact the British brainchild, given the potential of the material benefits at stake for Britain. 

It may be noted here that after the war, British interests in Malaya in the form of investments exceeded those that they had in India and the revenue from rubber and tin was sorely needed for post-war debt payment and reconstruction. The financial stake in having a peaceful merger of the Borneo territories and Singapore with Malaya was, therefore, huge. 

Lee Kuan Yew, having been elected the Prime Minister of Singapore, then assisted the British to push forward the idea of Malaysia, while at the same time, consolidating his own party’s position against that of the Barisan Socialis [Socialist Front] whom he characterised, together with the Chinese opposition in Sarawak, as having been directed to oppose the Malaysia plan by outside powers, namely, Indonesia and China. Lee between September 13 and October 9, 1961, made twelve radio broadcasts (published as The Battle for Merger) in favour of the merger. It seemed that Lee Kuan Yew had his own political agenda to have Malaysia formed.

The research work by Poulgrain, however, pointed to that the primary purpose for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity, even though much was made in the press then and in the mainstream books since of the Tunku’s insistence in having the Borneo colonies aboard in order to balance out the large Chinese population in Singapore with the indigenous populations in the Borneo territories. 

The interviews by Poulgrain’s in 1991 with both Captain D.R. Gribble, and Captain Albert Young confirmed that the huge oilfield was known to the authorities in 1958, years before its “official discovery” in 1963. 


The British at that time were prepared to surrender the oil in Sarawak territory to the new federation under control of Malaya. Sir Anthony Abell, then Governor of Sarawak, in April 1956 observed in a communication to the Colonial Office that “the politicians in both Malaya and Singapore were showing considerable interest in the Borneo territories “including its empty spaces, its potential wealth, and its oil”. 

Poulgrain inexplicably added that it is “noteworthy” that the Governor could admit that Malaya had “imperialistic design” on the Borneo territories, and then to treat this as a reason for merger. 

It is also noted that Tunku Abdul Rahman in a series of conversations with Abdullah Ahmad, which was later published in 2016 in a book entitled, Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman candidly admitted thus: 


“Yes and they [the British] gave us Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore and so many other things in 1963 [with the formation of Malaysia]. The British could have given Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak independence, but they did not. Instead, they handed them to us”.

That’s how Cobbold Commission was used by the British to deny Sarawak the right to independence and to allow, in the words of, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to be handed to Malaya. From the words of Tunku Abdul Rahman, it should be clear to Sarawakians that 22 July is not Sarawak Independence Day as Sarawak had never been granted independence but was given to Malaya  by the British.  

It was all because of empty spaces, potential wealth and oil that made Sarawak now be part or an enlarged Federation of Malaya, renamed the Federation of Malaysia. Therefore, the Federation of Malaysia is not a new federation or country. This new name was conveyed to the United Nations Secretariat by Dato’ Ong Yoke Lin of Malaya after Malaysia Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak became part of the federation of Malaya effective 16 September, 1963 by way of Malaysia Agreement 1963.
The people of Sarawak needs to know the Truth because it is the Truth that sets us free. May God Bless this Land of Sarawak and her people. 


Voon Lee Shan is President of Parti Bumi Kenyalang of Sarawak

Umno perlu hormati MA63 dan kebebasan bersuara mengenainya

Oleh Daniel John Jambun, 26-9-2024
KOTA KINABALU : Kenyataan terbaru Ketua Penerangan UMNO Sabah, Datuk Suhaimi Nasir, yang menggesa pihak berkuasa mengambil tindakan terhadap individu yang menyokong pemisahan Sabah dari Malaysia dan melabelkan perbincangan tersebut sebagai hasutan, memerlukan respons yang berasaskan prinsip demokrasi dan menghormati kebebasan bersuara.

Pengibaran bendera Sabah dan Sarawak bukanlah seruan untuk pemisahan tetapi demonstrasi aman untuk meningkatkan kesedaran tentang penentuan nasib sendiri, hak yang wujud bagi negeri-negeri Borneo di bawah Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63).

Perjanjian bersejarah ini, yang menjadi asas pembentukan Malaysia, menjamin hak dan autonomi Sabah dan Sarawak serta mencerminkan prinsip kebebasan pilihan, asas utama mana-mana demokrasi.

Selama lebih lima dekad, rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak telah menghadapi pengabaian sistemik dan eksploitasi sumber, yang membawa kepada kemiskinan yang meluas.

Situasi ini diperburuk oleh pengeluaran kewarganegaraan yang kontroversial kepada pendatang haram dan kemasukan mereka dalam daftar pemilih, tindakan yang telah merosakkan fabrik demokrasi negeri. Amalan ini, yang banyak dikaitkan dengan pemerintahan UMNO, telah mengubah landskap demografi dan melanggar hak-hak penduduk MOMOGUN di Sabah.

Sebagai seorang pejuang demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia yang komited kepada keadilan sosial, saya menyeru pelaksanaan penuh dan setia MA63.

Perjanjian ini bukan sekadar dokumen sejarah tetapi bukti hidup kepada janji kesaksamaan, autonomi, dan hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri. Prinsip-prinsip demokrasi yang digariskan dalam MA63 mesti ditegakkan untuk memastikan layanan adil dan kemakmuran semua rakyat Malaysia, terutamanya rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak.

NGO dan aktivis Wilayah Borneo akan terus memperjuangkan hak-hak ini melalui cara yang aman, mempromosikan dialog dan pemahaman, dengan harapan semua peruntukan MA63 dapat direalisasikan.

Hanya dengan menghormati proses demokrasi dan menghormati perjanjian yang membentuk negara kita, kita dapat membina Malaysia yang benar-benar inklusif dan bersatu.

Daniel John Jambun ialah Presiden Yayasan Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia

Editor: Kenyataan beliau merujuk kepada satu majlis aktivis Sabah di Australia baru-baru ini yang menurunkan bendera Persekutuan Malaysia dan menaikkan bendera Sabah dan Sarawak.




The English version :

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/09/24/probe-seditious-talk-of-sabah-leaving-malaysia-says-umno-man


Press Statement
25th September 2024

Democracy and Freedom of Choice: Upholding the Spirit of MA63...

Kota Kinabalu: The recent statement by Sabah UMNO Information Chief, Datuk Suhaimi Nasir, urging authorities to take action against individuals advocating for Sabah’s exit from Malaysia, and labeling such discussions as seditious, requires a thoughtful response rooted in democratic principles and respect for freedom of expression.

The raising of Sabah and Sarawak flags is not a call for secession but a peaceful demonstration to raise awareness on self-determination,  an inherent right of the Borneo states under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). 

This landmark agreement, which laid the foundation for the formation of Malaysia, enshrines the rights and autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak and reflects the principle of freedom of choice—a cornerstone of any democracy

For over five decades, the people of Sabah and Sarawak have faced systemic neglect and resource exploitation, leading to widespread impoverishment.

This situation is exacerbated by the controversial issuance of citizenships to illegal immigrants and their inclusion in the electoral rolls, actions that have undermined the democratic fabric of the state. Such practices, widely attributed to UMNO’s rule, have distorted the demographic landscape and infringed on the rights of the MOMOGUN population in Sabah 

As a democracy and human rights advocate committed to social justice, I call for the full and faithful implementation of MA63. 

This agreement is not merely a historical document but a living testament to the promise of equality, autonomy, and the right to self-determination. The democratic principles outlined in MA63 must be upheld to ensure the fair treatment and prosperity of all Malaysians, particularly the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

The Borneo Territory NGOs and activists will continue to champion these rights through peaceful means, promoting dialogue and understanding, in the hope that all provisions of MA63 are realized. 

It is only through respecting the democratic process and honouring the agreements that formed our nation that we can build a truly inclusive and united Malaysia.

Daniel John Jambun
President, Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation

World Cleanup Day di Kanul Point, stesen joging komuniti

20-9-2024
KOTA BELUD : World Cleanup Day yang mula disambut sebagai hari rasmi Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) setiap 20hb September tahun ini turut diadakan di Kota Belud.

Kanul Point, stesen joging komuniti di Kelawat dekat sini hari ini menjadi hos kepada kumpulan kecil lapan orang sekeluarga Gindol yang menjalankan pengutipan sisa sampah sekitar laluan joging terbabit.

Program ringkas namun cukup berimpak itu diketuai aktivis Sabah, Dr Kanul Gindol, yang turut mengutip sampah di kiri kanan jalan lama Kelawat yang kini menjadi laluan joging, berbasikal dan berjalan oleh para pencinta alam.

"Tahun ini kita hanya lapan orang, tapi pada masa hadapan World Cleanup Day pasti akan melibatkan lebih ramai orang dan disambut di banyak tempat," katanya selepas program 45 minit itu tamat.

Berikut gambar-gambar di program ringkas itu yang membawa maksudnya tersendiri :#

Kaum wanita tubuhkan Persatuan Kebajikan Semangat Kasih Kota Belud


20-9-2024
KOTA BELUD: Ketika dunia semakin dilanda perang dan pelbagai krisis kebencian, sekumpulan wanita Kota Belud menerajui penubuhan Persatuan Kebajikan Semangat Kasih Kota Belud (PKSKKB) yang komited memperkukuh kesejahteraan sesama insan.

PKSKKB yang masa ini dianggotai 45 orang ahli, akan melaksana program-program kebajikan yang memfokus kepada penanaman semangat kasih sayang, keprihatinan dan kepedulian terhadap kesejahteraan masyarakat setempat.

"Persatuan ini juga berhasrat untuk membangunkan komuniti melalui usaha kolektif yang mengutamakan kesepaduan antara ahli persatuan dan masyarakat umum," kata jurucakap persatuan itu, Priskila Akwila Senin.
      Peguam muda Priskila Akwila Senin

Mesyuarat Agung Kali Pertama PKSKKB Tahun 2024 diadakan pada Khamis (19-9-2024) di Dewan Skyblue, Pejabat ADUN Kadamaian dekat sini.

Pemimpin Pembangunan Masyarakat (PPM) Kadamaian, Saikom Watis, yang juga merupakan Penaung Persatuan merasmikan mesyuarat agung itu.

Antara yang hadir ialah Pengerusi PKSKKB, Caroline Carol Doruan, Ketua Pemuda Pertubuhan Kinabalu Progresif Bersatu (UPKO) Kota Belud, Jolyhame Saran, Pengerusi Kelab Permotoran Siou Otolikudan Borneo, Mujin Soborong, Penasihat PKSKKB, Lelyvia Mavid, Penolong Pengerusi PKSKKB, Priskila Akwila Senim, dan Justina Satimooi dari Unit Pemimpin Pembangunan Masyarakat (UPPM) DUN Moyog.

Dalam mesyuarat tersebut, matlamat persatuan telah diperincikan kepada semua ahli, yang antara lainnya adalah untuk menjaga kebajikan ahli, memperkukuhkan jaringan kerjasama dengan pelbagai agensi kerajaan, badan bukan kerajaan (NGO), serta individu-individu yang berpengaruh dalam usaha memperkasa masyarakat.

PKSKKB juga bertekad untuk menganjurkan pelbagai program pembangunan yang memberi manfaat kepada masyarakat. Ini termasuk penyaluran bantuan dalam pelbagai bentuk dan mewujudkan jaringan persatuan yang lebih erat dengan masyarakat, sekaligus memupuk budaya saling membantu dan prihatin.

Pengisian program mesyuarat termasuk ucapan alu-aluan oleh Pengerusi Persatuan, Caroline Carol Doruan, selain ucapan perasmian oleh Saikom. Sesi soal jawab yang dikendalikan Penolong Pengerusi, Priskila turut memberikan peluang kepada ahli untuk memberikan cadangan dan pandangan terhadap arah tuju persatuan.

Penasihat PKSKKB, Lelyvia Mavid, turut menyuarakan harapan beliau agar persatuan ini akan menjadi platform yang berdaya maju dalam membawa perubahan positif kepada masyarakat.

“Saya melihat PKSKKB sebagai sebuah NGO yang berpotensi besar untuk membawa kebaikan dan manfaat kepada masyarakat. Harapan saya adalah agar semua ahli dapat memberikan komitmen sepenuhnya dalam setiap aktiviti yang dianjurkan, demi mengangkat nilai-nilai kemanusiaan yang murni,” kata Lelyvia.

Berkenaan dengan perancangan masa hadapan PKSKKB, Lelyvia berkata persatuan akan terus menganjurkan program-program ilmu yang bertujuan meningkatkan sosioekonomi masyarakat.

"PKSKKB merancang untuk menganjurkan program-program ilmu yang mampu meningkatkan taraf ekonomi masyarakat setempat serta mengenal pasti individu-individu yang memerlukan bantuan khusus. 

"Kami juga merancang untuk mengadakan majlis makan amal pertama persatuan, bagi mengumpul dana untuk melaksanakan program-program kebajikan pada masa akan datang," katanya lagi.

Dengan visi yang jelas dan usaha gigih semua ahli, PKSKKB berhasrat untuk terus memainkan peranan yang signifikan dalam membawa perubahan dan meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat khususnya di daerah Kota Belud.#

End 61 Years of Humiliation in Malaysia, says Robert Pei

Malaysia was born in conflict, not consensus
[Full text of the speech by Robert Pei, President SSRANZ, Melbourne Rally, 15 Sept 2024]



FELLOW Citizens of Sabah and Sarawak,

Today, we gather to mark 61 years since a very dark chapter began in our history—the British-aided Malayan takeover of our lands through the invalid Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) on 16 September 1963. This moment calls for the end of six decades of humiliation in Malaysia.

What was promised as a partnership of equals—based on autonomy, equality, prosperity, and respect—has instead become a vehicle for racial, religious oppression and exploitation. For 61 years, Sabah and Sarawak have been subjected to relentless marginalisation. From the premature proclamation of Malaysia in 1963 to 2011, our lands were ruled under emergency laws, which enabled the federation to impose repressive policies, betraying the interests of our people. This was all while Sabah and Sarawak’s vast resources were plundered to enrich their ruling elites and develop the peninsula, leaving us the poorest parts of the federation.

The Struggle for Independence Revived
In the past 13 years, the independence movements in Sabah and Sarawak have gained renewed momentum, challenging the legitimacy of Malaysia's rule over our territories. The ruling elites in Peninsula Malaysia or Malaya, along with local leaders, have been forced to react to our demands. But their reluctant and grudging attempts to address our grievances by selectively implementing parts of the MA63—after 50 years of neglect—are not enough. The most recent examples are the federal government stalling over the Sabah claim to its MA63 entitlement to 40% revenue collected from Sabah and the Sarawak claim on petroleum rights.

The following points are made on how Malaysia was created on 16 Sept 1963 as a de facto federation under a state of emergency and an invalid international agreement. 

Malaysia: Born in Conflict, Not Consensus

1. Malaysia Was a Neo-Colonial Creation
Malaysia was not formed through genuine self-determination or informed consent. Instead, it was a “neo-colonial creation,” designed by Britain to preserve its strategic interests and maintain control over the S.E Asian region during the Cold War. On 27 May 1961, Tunku Abdul Rahman the Malayan Prime Minister announced the British-Malayan proposal to merge Singapore, Brunei, North Borneo (Sabah), and Sarawak with Malaya and to be renamed Malaysia. The 2 governments had negotiated secretly since 1958 without the prior consultation of the people of Sabah and Sarawak, who were still under British rule.

The urgency to form Malaysia intensified in 1960, with the United Nations call for the decolonization of all colonies. The British colonial government reneged on its promise to give Sabah and Sarawak independence when it annexed them as crown colonies in 1946. They replaced this with the Malaysia federation plan with so-called guaranteed rights to induce the people to give up real independence. Thus our people were denied true independence. The Malaysia Agreement, signed on 9 July 1963 by persons handpicked by the British, was never valid under international law. Colonies cannot make binding agreements with their colonial rulers, and both Sabah and Sarawak were still under colonial rule until 16 Sept 1963.

Malaysia was created without our free and voluntary consent, denying us the right to self-determination. This invalid agreement, like the one imposed on the Chagos Islands, was a violation of international legal principles. Yet, it was forced upon us by Britain and Malaya.

2. Proclaimed Under a State of Emergency
The formation of Malaysia was accomplished hastily under coercive conditions. Following the Brunei Uprising against Malaysia on 8 December 1962, the Malayan Prime Minister declared that Malaysia would be formed, despite a state of emergency. 

From 1961 to 1963, widespread opposition in Brunei and Sarawak was brutally suppressed. The Brunei Uprising was a clear sign that the people of this region did not support the federation. Thousands of voices were silenced or imprisoned. In Singapore, opposition leaders were arrested and detained in collusion with the British and Malayan governments. Brunei wisely outright rejected Malaysia and refused to sign MA63 at the last minute opting to choose independence.

Owing to local and international opposition to Malaysia, the Malayan government made the Manila Accord with the Indonesian and Philippines governments on 31 July 1963 22 days after MA63 was signed, agreeing to the UN assessment of the people's will and resolution of the Philippines claim of a part of Sabah. This agreement effectively acknowledged that the process in making MA63 including the Cobbold Commission to survey the people’s views on Malaysia was flawed and questionable.

On 28 August, 1963 the 2 governments fixed the 16 September 1963 to formally proclaim Malaysia pre-empting the UN assessment of the people’s wishes was complete, and failure to resolve the Philippines claim on a part of Sabah violating terms of the Manila Accord. The British and Malayan governments denied us a proper referendum, just as they had done with the flawed Cobbold Commission process. This premature formation of Malaysia has left lasting instability, as shown by the Philippines' unresolved territorial claim over Sabah, which led to the 2013 armed invasion by men from Sulu.

The Exploitation of Sabah and Sarawak

3. Exploitation and Oppression  
The first Malaysian Prime Minister claimed that one of Malaysia’s main goal was to develop Sabah and Sarawak. Yet, since the formation, our lands have been stripped of their wealth—oil, gas, and timber extracted to benefit Malaya, while we remain underdeveloped. Sabah and Sarawak have been treated as colonies, with our resources exploited to enrich elites in Kuala Lumpur and their local collaborators.

4. Failure of a Secular and Pluralistic Federation
Malaysia was supposed to be a secular, pluralistic federation, as promised under MA63. However, these promises were broken. What we now see is a system of racial and religious supremacy—an oppressive apartheid-like structure in place of the equality that was once guaranteed. The diversity of Sabah, Sarawak, and Malaya is marginalised, and most of the rights promised under MA63 have been systematically eroded.

The Right to Independence

5. Our Right to Exit  
After 61 years of exploitation and oppression, the time has come to assert our right to exit this failed federation. Under international law, we are not bound by an agreement that was invalid from the start, repeatedly violated, and imposed upon us through coercion. This was the principle of legal capacity, affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the 2019 Chagos Island case. At the same time the ICJ confirmed that the right to self-determination was a legal recognised by UN Resolution 1514. 

Sabah and Sarawak have the inalienable right to self-determination. We deserve true independence, the right to control our own resources, and a future where our rights are fully respected.

Fellow citizens, we cannot continue to accept this humiliation. Let today be the day we reclaim our right to independence and demand justice, freedom, and the end of 61 years of betrayal.

Thank you.  

Robert Pei
President Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand
15 September 2024#

Memaksakan agama bakal undang perpecahan, pergaduhan, kata aktivis Borneo

Kenyataan Bersama lima aktivis Borneo, 16-9-2024
DALAM beberapa waktu kebelakangan ini, media sosial dibanjiri dengan perbincangan mengenai sijil halal, hijab, dan peranan JAKIM (Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia). Perdebatan ini sering memecah belah pendapat masyarakat, mencipta perpecahan daripada pemahaman. Adalah penting untuk diakui bahawa kebenaran sering terletak di tengah-tengah, di mana dialog dan penghormatan terhadap kepercayaan individu dapat berkembang.

1. Rangka Kerja Undang-Undang dan Pilihan Peribadi

Sistem perundangan, khususnya mahkamah, tidak seharusnya menuntut bidang kuasa terhadap isu halal, haram, hijab, atau JAKIM melainkan terdapat bukti yang jelas mengenai penyalahgunaan kuasa. Isu-isu ini berakar dalam budi bicara dan kepercayaan peribadi, bukan undang-undang yang tertulis. Memaksakan peraturan tanpa asas undang-undang melemahkan konsep kuasa budi bicara dan mencabul kebebasan individu.

2. Ruang Peribadi vs Ruang Awam: Satu Perbezaan Asas

Di tengah-tengah perdebatan ini terletak perbezaan penting antara ruang peribadi dan ruang awam. Kerajaan tidak mempunyai hak untuk mengawal urusan peribadi yang berada dalam ruang kehidupan individu. Menggunakan kuasa budi bicara dan prerogatif ke atas pilihan individu merupakan satu bentuk penyalahgunaan kuasa. Walaupun ada preseden undang-undang di negara Komanwel mengenai isu ini, terdapat jurang yang ketara (lacuna) dalam undang-undang Malaysia, menyebabkan banyak isu yang tidak diselesaikan.

Contoh penting ialah kes Allah, di mana keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia untuk mengehadkan penggunaan perkataan "Allah" dalam cetakan bahasa Melayu oleh orang Kristian didasarkan pada salah tafsir terhadap undang-undang India. Nasihat seterusnya untuk penyelesaian di luar mahkamah dalam kes Jill Ireland diabaikan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri, walaupun Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan memihak kepada beliau. Kes-kes seperti ini menunjukkan bahawa banyak isu di Malaysia bukan semata-mata tentang agama; sebaliknya ia telah diselewengkan oleh agenda politik. Apabila hal agama dipolitikkan, ia memerlukan penyelesaian politik, bukan pertempuran undang-undang.

3. Sabah dan Sarawak: Contoh Perpaduan

Di negeri Borneo, Sabah dan Sarawak, masyarakat berbilang agama hidup dalam harmoni, sering berkongsi makanan dan meraikan perbezaan budaya. Fikiran bahawa perniagaan bukan Muslim yang tidak menyajikan daging babi perlu memohon sijil halal adalah tidak masuk akal di negeri-negeri ini. Penglibatan Jakim dalam pelbagai jabatan kerajaan untuk pengawasan agama kelihatan tidak diperlukan dan melanggar batasan antara ruang awam dan ruang peribadi.

4. Mempertahankan Kebebasan Peribadi dan Pilihan Agama

Isu seperti sijil halal, hijab, dan orientasi seksual adalah mengenai pilihan peribadi. Isu-isu ini tidak sepatutnya dikawal oleh kerajaan, Parlimen, atau institusi agama. Sama seperti tiada undang-undang yang mewajibkan pemakaian hijab atau kod berpakaian dalam ruang peribadi, individu juga bebas untuk membuat pilihan peribadi tentang apa yang ingin dimakan dan bagaimana mengekspresikan kepercayaan mereka.

Percubaan untuk memaksakan peraturan ke atas hal peribadi melanggar kebebasan individu. Sebagai contoh, figura awam seperti Teresa Kok telah menghadapi gangguan yang tidak wajar mengenai sijil halal untuk restoran yang tidak menyajikan daging babi atau alkohol. Begitu juga, orientasi seksual adalah perkara peribadi yang harus kekal bebas dari campur tangan kerajaan.

5. Agama sebagai Pemangkin Keamanan

Apabila pertikaian timbul antara pihak yang bertentangan, menggunakan agama sering kali hanya memburukkan keadaan. Islam, seperti semua agama, secara asasnya mempromosikan keamanan, penghormatan, dan kasih sayang, bukannya kawalan atau penindasan. Kedaulatan undang-undang, yang berasaskan Perlembagaan, mesti diutamakan dalam mengatur hubungan manusia dan menyelesaikan konflik. Banyak isu boleh diselesaikan melalui dialog atau cara politik yang lain, bukannya melalui konfrontasi undang-undang.

6. Menjelaskan Sifat Undang-Undang Islam

Adalah penting untuk dijelaskan bahawa Islam bukan sinonim dengan undang-undang. Syariah, seperti amalan agama lain, berdasarkan pilihan peribadi dan kesediaan untuk menerima prinsipnya. Ia akan menjadi tidak berperlembagaan untuk memaksakan undang-undang Syariah ke atas individu yang tidak mengikutinya. Dalam masyarakat sekular dan majmuk, undang-undang mesti berasaskan akal budi, nilai-nilai sejagat, dan prinsip keadilan semula jadi, bukan semata-mata doktrin agama.

Di Malaysia, terdapat keperluan mendesak untuk Tafsir (penafsiran) terhadap teks agama untuk mempromosikan pemikiran progresif. Allahyarham Kassim Ahmad, seorang pemikir Islam yang terkenal, telah memperjuangkan kajian semula terhadap Al-Quran tetapi menerima tentangan hebat terhadap ideanya. Visi beliau tentang pemikiran Islam yang progresif masih belum direalisasikan, menunjukkan cabaran dalam mentafsirkan semula agama dalam zaman kontemporari.

7. Tujuan Sebenar Agama

Agama, dalam erti kata sebenar, bertujuan untuk memupuk kasih sayang, keamanan, dan keharmonian dalam kalangan manusia. Agama sepatutnya menjadi panduan untuk membantu individu menghormati satu sama lain, tanpa mengira perbezaan kepercayaan dan budaya. Apabila digunakan sebagai senjata politik, agama mencipta kekacauan, perpecahan, dan ketidakadilan. Ajaran semua agama menekankan belas kasihan, toleransi, dan persefahaman. Semangat inilah yang seharusnya memandu masyarakat kita dan tadbir urus, bukannya menggunakan agama untuk menindas atau memajukan agenda politik.

Marilah kita bersama-sama memastikan bahawa agama kekal sebagai sumber perpaduan dan penghormatan, bukan alat untuk kawalan dan perpecahan.

Daniel John Jambun
Presiden, Yayasan Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia

Peter John Jaban 
Ketua Publisiti dan Maklumat, Persatuan Aspirasi Rakyat Sarawak (SAPA)

Dr Kanul Gindol
Pengerusi, Inisiatif Gindol untuk Masyarakat Madani Borneo

Moses Anap  
Presiden, Republik Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

Jovilis Majami
Presiden, Persatuan Pembangunan Sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)



The english version :

https://www.cpiasia.org/index.php/268-e-media/2688-take-heed-of-borneo-region-concerns-and-voices-on-state-and-religion


PRESS STATEMENT
16th September 2024


The Role of Religion in Creating Peace, Not Political Chaos...


In recent times, social media has been inundated with discussions surrounding halal certification, hijab, and the role of JAKIM (the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia). These debates have often polarized public opinion, leading to division rather than understanding. It is essential to recognize that the truth often lies in the middle ground, where dialogue and respect for personal beliefs can flourish.

1. The Legal Framework and Personal Choice

The legal system, particularly the courts, should not claim jurisdiction over matters of halal, haram, hijab, or JAKIM unless there is clear evidence of abuse of power. These issues are deeply rooted in personal discretion and belief, rather than codified laws. Imposing regulations without a legal basis undermines the concept of discretionary power and infringes upon individual freedoms.

2. Private vs. Public Space: A Fundamental Distinction

At the heart of this debate lies the crucial distinction between private and public spaces. The government has no place in regulating personal matters that belong to private lives. Exercising prerogative and discretionary powers over individual choices constitutes an abuse of authority. While legal precedents exist in Commonwealth countries regarding these matters, a significant gap (lacuna) in Malaysian law leaves many issues unresolved.

A notable example is the Allah case, where the Malaysian Federal Court's decision to restrict the use of the word "Allah" among Christians in Malay print was based on a misinterpretation of Indian case law. The subsequent advice for an out-of-court settlement in the Jill Ireland case was ignored by the Home Ministry, despite the High Court ruling in her favor. Such cases illustrate that many issues in Malaysia are not purely about religion; they have become entangled with political agendas. When religious matters are politicized, they require political solutions, not legal battles.

3. A Model of Unity: Sabah and Sarawak

In the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak, people of diverse religious backgrounds coexist harmoniously, often sharing meals and celebrating cultural differences. The notion that non-Muslim businesses serving no pork should require halal certification is unthinkable in these regions. Jakim's involvement in various government departments for religious oversight appears unnecessary and encroaches upon the boundaries between public and private spheres.

4. Upholding Personal Freedom and Religious Choice

Issues such as halal certification, hijab, and sexual orientation belong to the realm of personal choices. These matters should not be regulated by the government, Parliament, or religious institutions. Just as there is no law mandating hijab or dress codes in private spaces, individuals should be free to make personal choices regarding what to eat and how to express their beliefs.

Attempts to impose such regulations on private matters infringe upon personal freedom. For instance, public figures like Teresa Kok have faced undue harassment over halal certification for restaurants that do not serve pork or alcohol. Similarly, sexual orientation is a personal matter that should remain private and free from governmental interference.

5. Religion as a Catalyst for Peace

When disputes arise between conflicting parties, invoking religion often complicates matters further. Islam, like all faiths, fundamentally promotes peace, respect, and love rather than control or suppression. The rule of law, grounded in the Constitution, must prevail in regulating human relationships and resolving conflicts. Many issues can often be settled through dialogue or other political means, rather than through legal confrontation.

6. Clarifying the Nature of Islamic Law

It is essential to clarify that Islam is not synonymous with law. **Shariah**, like other religious practices, is based on personal choice and the willingness to accept its principles. It would be unconstitutional to impose Shariah law on individuals who do not subscribe to it. In a secular and pluralistic society, law must be based on common sense, universal values, and the principles of natural justice, rather than religious doctrine alone.

In Malaysia, there is a pressing need for Tafsir (interpretation) of religious texts to promote progressive thought. The late Kassim Ahmad, a prominent Islamic thinker, advocated for revisiting the Quran in this manner but faced severe backlash for his ideas. His vision of progressive Islamic thought remains unrealized, highlighting the challenges of reinterpreting religion in contemporary times.

7. The True Purpose of Religion!

Religion, in its true essence, is meant to foster love, peace, and harmony among people. It should serve as a guide to help individuals respect one another, regardless of differing beliefs and cultures. When wielded as a political weapon, religion creates chaos, division, and injustice. The teachings of all religions emphasize compassion, tolerance, and understanding. It is this spirit that should guide our society and governance, rather than using religion to suppress others or advance political agendas.

Let us work together to ensure that religion remains a source of unity and respect, not a tool for control and division.

Daniel John Jambun
President, Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation

Peter John Jaban Publicity and information Chief Sarawak Association for People's Aspirations (SAPA)

Dr Kanul Gindol Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo 

Moses Anap President Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

Jovilis Majami President Persatuan Pembangunan Sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)

Festival Momogun cadangan OAS disokong USLA



 Richard Libun Adou (kiri) bersama Stephen Nogiris pada pertemuan Sabtu lalu di Wisma Kinsabina, Penampang.

KOTA KINABALU: Persatuan Lotud Sabah Bersatu (USLA) memberikan sokongan penuh untuk penganjuran sambutan perayaan baru bagi masyarakat Momogun, yang akan dikenali sebagai Festival Momogun (Momogun Festival).

Timbalan Presiden USLA, Richard Libun Adou, dalam satu kenyataan d sini bahawa sambutan tahunan baharu ini merupakan tambahan yang sangat baik kepada Pesta Kaamatan yang dibiayai kerajaan pada masa kini.

"Dengan penganjuran Festival Momogun, orang Momogun akan dapat meningkatkan lagi identiti kolektif mereka," kata Adou. "Kami juga akan dapat mempunyai lebih kebebasan dalam menyusun format festival itu mengikut citarasa budaya asli tulen setiap daerah d mana festival itu akan dianjurkan.

Festival ini sebenarnya hasil idea Pertubuhan Orang Asal Momogun Sabah (OAS). Dalam mengumumkan sambutan budaya baharu ini pada "Perbincangan Agenda Pembangunan Momogun" yang dianjurkan oleh Kongres Kebangsaan Momogun (MNC) dan diadakan di bangunan Kinsabina di Penampang pada Sabtu lepas, Presiden OAS, Stephen Nogiris, berkata festival itu tidak bertujuan untuk bersaing dengan Pesta Kaamatan yang telah lama bertapak tetapi untuk melengkapkannya dengan ciri sosiobudaya tambahan sejajar dengan visi OAS untuk "melindungi, memelihara, mempertahan dan menyempurnakan warisan dari nenek moyang, kebudayaan (termasuk adat dan tradisi, seni, kraftangan, pakaian tradisional, dan bahasa ibunda orang Momogun)."

Nogiris berkata sambutan sulung festival ini akan dilangsungkan oleh OAS di Kota Marudu pada 26 Oktober, yang akan dirasmikan oleh seorang menteri kanan negeri. "Semua yang hadir dijemput dengan ikhlas ke pelancaran sejarah Momogun Festival ini." katanya.

Sementara itu, Presiden MNC, Tan Sri Wences Angang menyokong idea festival itu, dan berkata ia akan dibawa untuk perbincangan dalam mesyuarat majlis tertinggi MNC. "Saya rasa mulai tahun depan adalah terbaik diadakan sempena sambutan Hari Orang Asal Sedunia yang diadakan setiap tahun pada 9 Ogos. Ini kerana sambutan hari orang asal juga akan dianjurkan di Sabah oleh MNC."

Adou berkata USLA juga akan membincangkan perkara ini dalam mesyuarat majlis tertingginya dengan harapan untuk meraikannya juga.

"Kami faham bahawa Momogun Festival tidak ada kaitan dengan menuai hasil padi tetapi ia semata-mata sambutan meraihkan warisan budaya Momogun," katanya. "Oleh itu tidak harus ada sebarang isu konflik, tetapi harus menyokongnya sebagai satu usaha mempelbagai   dan untuk meningkatkan lagi ekspresi warisan budaya kita yang begitu kaya."#




The english version :

KOTA KINABALU:  The United Sabah Lotud Association (USLA) is giving full support for the creation of a new statewide native celebration, to be called Momogun Festival.

USLAs deputy president, Richard Libun Adou, said in a statement that the new annual celebration is an excellent addition to our current government-funded Pesta Kaamatan (Harvest Festival).

“With the institution of the Momogun Festival, the Momoguns will be able to further enhance the Momogun collective identity,” Adou said. “We will also be able to have more freedom in creating the festival’s format in accordance to the pure native culture of the respective districts they will be organized.”

The festival is actually the brainchild of the Sabah Original People Momogun Organization (Pertubuhan Orang Asal Momogun Sabah) or OAS. In announcing the new cultural celebration at the “Momogun Development Agenda Discussion” organized by the Momogun National Congress (MNC) and held at the Kinsabina building in Penampang last Saturday, OAS’ President, Stephen Nogiris, said that the festivsal is not intended to compete with the long-established Pesta Kaamatan but to complement it with additional sociocultural features in line with OAS’ vision to “protect, preserve, defend and to refine our cultural heritages, culture (including customs and tradition, art, handicrafts, costumes, and mother tongues of the Momogun people.”

Nogiris said that the inaugural celebration will be organized by OAS in Kota Marudu on October 26, to be officiated by a senior state minister. “All are cordially invited to this history launch of the Momogun Festival,” he said.

Meanwhile the President of the MNC, Tan Sri Wences Angang is supportive of the festival’s idea, and said it will be brought for discussion in the MNC’s supreme council meeting. “I feel that starting next year it is best held in conjunction with the World’s Indigenous Peoples Day celebration, annually held on the 9th August. This is because the indigenous day celebration will also be organized in Sabah by MNC.”

Adou said that USLA will also discuss the matter in its supreme council meeting with the hope to celebrate it as well. 

“We understand that the Momogun Festival has no connection with harvesting yields but purely a celebration of the Momogun’s collective cultural heritage,” he said. “As such there shouldn’t be any issue of conflict, but rather a diversification and to further enhance the expression of our rich cultural heritage.”#

Search This Blog