What can we do for the rising temperature?
We in Sabah had been tested and challenged daily by the worsening climate even in land once below the wind for a few decades already since the 1990s, but all the effort to address the climate change or better temperature rise had fallen on deaf ears of most residents.
Now we are told “Urban heat making KK real hot” (Daily Express May 3, 2015). In that report by Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Climatologist Dr. Ramzah Dambul said “From 1995 to 2004 the average temperature ranged from 26 degrees Celsius to 28 degree Celsius. But over the last few months, it has peaked at 33 degree Celsius around 33 degree Celsius around 2 pm”
I think what had prompted the Climatologist to come to the press is that in the first few months in Sabah little rainfall had been observed with rising temperature especially in the midday.
I asked God why not much rain the last few months and the reply is that God would only rain selectively because the majority would not change even is He brought us much rain. So we can go on praying for rain and then reflect ourselves in the prevailing environment.
What is God speaking to us now? What is wrong with our lives? What have we treated with his Creation of a majestic rainforest in Sabah and also in Borneo? Is it a pay back time by all of us being passive when the rainforest had been overrun by some most greedy people on earth everywhere where once rainforests prevailed.
After the much destruction of the rainforest since 1970s till 1990s, illegal logging is still ongoing.
Would oil palm being the replaced trees in such hot and dry seasons be productive at the level expected?
Our immediate challenge around us in our own home environment is do we plant more trees in our residential areas or maintain those trees with regular watering to keep them alive despite some trees around the city are also drying up with fire hazard risks?
We know our present scenario of hot urban heat can be due to several other factors namely more concrete jungles are replacing empty land once covered with trees.
I think we have no solution to bring back the lower temperature in Kota Kinabalu.
We are losing to the global climate change or rising temperature.
I had done some simple research on the temperatures as recorded in the Kota Kinabalu International Airport (1961-2003) with several revealing facts.
The day time high was already 33 degree Celsius in 1961 rising slowly and surely to 36 degree Celsius in 2000 and over the same period we were experiencing longer hours of high temperature daily and today even at 8am, the heat is already very hot comparatively with previous decades.. The other observation is that the gap of high and low extreme temperatures has been widening over the forty years. These observations are published in my book “Water” (2005).
There had been some small measures by certain quarters including some NGOs to mitigate on the impact of the rising temperature. So today the high temperature for longer hours daily with little rainfall in KK and elsewhere in Sabah is indeed very worrying.
We can pretend that the high temperature would just go away if the rain comes back to us soon. What happen if the rain in abundant quality and regularly pattern would not come? There would be plenty of consequences and how would we address those consequences some likely to be unthinkable?
None of us are in control of the rain even with clouds seeding and the heat and what do the majority need to do in the context of God?
Joshua Y. C. Kong 8th May, 2015
Sunday, May 29, 2016
EAC
Why should “Bring Your Own Bag” (BYOB) campaign be in “tatters”?
It was reported that the Sabah Environmental Action Committee (EAC) collected about RM217,000 from the sale of plastic bags in 2010 during the 'No Plastic Bag' campaign day. How much was collected in 2011 to 2014 especially when the “No plastic Bag” days were increased by the Kota Kinabalu City Hall or KKCH in 2011 and subsequent years.
So where has so much money gone to for 2010-2014 when a Police Report was lodged by The Sabah Environmental Protection Association (SEPA)as reported in the local press on Friday 24 of April, 2015 titled “SEPA wants probe into ‘missing money’(BP) and “Poser over whereabouts of plastic bag money” (DE) ?
What was reported in the Police Report appears to be very undesirable and very disturbing that EAC given the responsibility for an important keg in the Environmental challenge to do away with the use of plastic bags in Sabah had sort of gone into disarray. The money that was collected by various shopping outlets was supposed to be expended for various environmental projects to bring to bear on the consumers to reduce the usage of plastic bags and the like possibly with the intention to do away with such environmentally damaging bags always found floating in the sea and end up rotting over a long period in the rubbish dumping ground with endless environmental damage.
As it was public money collected from “BYOB” project, SEPA considered it a responsibility as the urging at the recent AGM to make it public by lodging a Police Report to put the questioned project and the revenue thereof to a proper focus.
Of course, a few critical issues were raised in the Police Report like availability of the documents and records, the presentation of the annual reports together with the financial statement of the EAC for a few years. I would urge the relevant authorities concerned including genuine independent auditors would resolve the pressing matters promptly so that SEPA together with EAC would make concerted effort to tackle the big problems of environmental challenge faced by the State in several key areas.
In the meantime, would “BYOB” ongoing campaign be suspended given the current scenario of EAC? Also the smart partnership EAC under SEPA should be strengthened in all aspects.
Joshua Y. C. Kong
Founder SEPA member and ordinary member. 25 April, 2015
“Examing Substance, the Spirit of Malaysia” Daily Express dated 27 September, 2015
to be updated---
The substance of the Spirit of Malaysia says it all with clarity
Since Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nancy Shukri wants to see the evidence on any non-compliance with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and intergovernmental committee (IGC) report.[ Provide proof of breach first DE 19 September, 2015], I would like to respond as these long standing issues of 52 years need to be resolved promptly as this has impacted everyone in Malaysia especially Sabah and Sarawak as we need to re-make Malaysia from 16 September 2015 or otherwise following the Prime Minister signing the Malaysia Commemorative Book in Kota Kinabalu’s Merdeka Padang witnessed by the TYT of Sabah followed by the raising of the Jalur Gemilang signifying a fresh start of promises affirmed or otherwise.
It was in the same place that the Proclamation of Malaysia was done 52 years ago.
Was the Spirit of Malaysia seriously bruised or dented so much so that an affirmative action (possibly questioned) was done symbolically by the signing of the Commemorative Book after 52 years?
What was the intention from August 1961, when it was first announcement by the founding Father Tunku Abdul Rahman when it was meant to be five in the proposed family of Malaysia and then the action was first pursued by the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC). Going through the various ideas and comments floating in recent years, it is likely that “Malaysia” is a red herring confirming all the breaches done ab initio.
The Spirit of Malaysia at the formative years namely 1961- early1963 was at grave variance as soon as the Proclamation of Malaysia was declared on 16 September, 1963. Then we had the Malaysia Agreement 1963 where Emeritius Professor Datuk Dr. Salem Shad Faruqi said Malaysia Agreement is not an internal arrangement but international one and he said at the presentation of paper entitled “Constitutional Issues in Federal-State Relations’ at the Malaysia Federalism and the Way Forward closed door discussion organised by the Society Empowerment and Economic Development Sabah (SEEDS).
It was to note that in the Proclamation of Malaysia on 16 September, 1963, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were still British colonies and not nations/parties to commit in International agreement. Was this a serious legal breach as null and void and no effect? If you study the Proclamation of Malaysia carefully, the first paragraph started with four partners(states)/nations and then ended with sort of vagueness to include other 11 states in the Federation of Malaya. Quote: “MALAYSIA comprising the States of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang,[1] Malacca, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak shall by the Grace of God, ….”
Was that the true Spirit of Malaysia from the start? Can we treat the Proclamation of Malaysia as sort of sabotage of the movement? We could see the form and substance in conflict precipitating great injustice as soon as Malaysia came into existence. This article would illustrate some of items of injustice or even a scam of sort. While another headline titled “ Now the moment for Sabah” by Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat at the same forum of SEEDS could encourage Sabahans to proceed further except to face the possibility of Sedition Act 1948 as amended or the section in penal code of 124 in the context of Parliament democracy.
So to avoid such untenable and undesirable scenario occurring it is best that Cabinet bring this malaise of Malaysia as too many breaches right from the beginning to the Parliament’s next sitting after 52 years and forthwith go forward promptly to do the needfuls. Now after 52 years, it is likened that we need to call up those early leaders (some still living) and the spirits of those who had passed on to re-create the substance of the Spirit of Malaysia. Nevertheless, their spirits may not be visible amongst us but the spirit of the words in the formation of Malaysia and the implementation of Malaysia are very much with us as we can now see more books to be published to state the strong case of the Spirit of Malaysia.
Dr. Salem went to say that “Even the words used by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak such as devolution and empowerment are inaccurate.” So in this context, we really need the appropriate action and performance accordingly to the original concept of Malaysia. So is this substance and its spirit emerging to clear all the doubts of 52 years? The other intention for Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore was the de-colonisation of the British Empire after the World War 2 which was possibly good but premature for Sabah and Sarawak as it was Brunei still a colony till 1984.
So was this process of true independence followed through by the British and Malaya? Was United Nations Resolution No. 1541 principle 1X complied with? Was this a breach of sort in the international context?
Was there a hidden agenda of sort wounding the Spirit of Malaysia as UN was also sort of helplessness or party to sort of “scam” emerging? Would UN now assess its own failing in the formation of Malaysia? There was the Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed on 9th July, 1963 but like all Agreements subject to breaches when the parties signing that Agreement could be influenced by whatever persuasions especially we were told by some of those who were involved then.
This MA63 was obviously breached or even null and void and ineffective or unenforceable since the beginning with the Proclamation of Malaysia especially with the forced departure of Singapore on 7th August, 1965, and on 9th August, 1965, Singapore became a new nation. As we all known it is difficult to enforce any Agreement if there is a dominant party or parties. So likewise MA 63 was supported by a Malaysia Act 1963 passed in the UK Parliament.
Was a similar Malaysia Act 1963 passed in the Malaya Parliament? Would it be any difference if an Act of the parliament is violated unlike an agreement? I leave this to learned legal scholars to tell us now. Another ongoing argument is that every thing done in all powerful Parliament would over write others such as the 20/18 points being the basis of the negotiation for the Spirit of Malaysia to be in place and possible the InterGovernmental Committee (IGC) report.
In the absence of Malaysia Act 1963 in Malaya, the Parliament of Malaysia would amend anything as time passed by. So the Argument goes on unabated about Malaysia as 4 parties (Singapore included) or Malaysia of 13 units ranging from very big Sarawak and smallest Perlis. If the dispute had started with the Proclamation of Malaysia, it was sort of confirmed by an amendment in the Parliament on 27 August, 1976 so soon after the Double six plane tragedy over Sembulan, Sabah making Sabah and Sarawak as the 12 and 13 states of great diminished status in every respects and aspects within Malaysia.
Why amend 13 years later in 1976? Another anomaly with Malaysia if we go the way of thinking of USA (Federal versus States), every states would have a state Government but Malaya from the outset did not maintain its own Government except what we see a Malaysian Government (Federal) overshadowing the Government of Singapore, Government of Sabah, and Government of Sarawak.
So what does that tell us? Let the learned legal fraternity in Constitution law tell us of this anomaly of missing Malaya’s Government in term of Spirit of Malaysia. So much from me on the legal framework of the Spirit of Malaysia in the various documents as being exposed by some parties.
Now I would go into the reality in the implementation of the true Spirit of Malaysia in the context of power and money as the actual direction of Malaysia in 4 or 3 partners rather than 13 states to share the spoilt. If we give prominence to the Federal Cabinet of Ministers as this connects to power, we would see this a pittance in terms of the number of Sabahans and Sarawakians holding cabinet posts then at the beginning and now. If Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak are 3 in 1, then each partner should have 12 Cabinet ministers each but how much do we have then and now?
Search this spirit of power in the right number of clean hands. Also give the quantum of allocation of funds to the various ministries in the “clean” hands of Cabinet members of Sabah and Sarawak as compared with those of Malaya. I hope Nancy can provide such data for the 52 years. So I come to the financial aspect as in all Agreement, there is the financial consideration and implications of contributions and then the sharing of financial responsibilities – give or take or givers or takers? It was great impression at the preliminary negotiation that great help was forthcoming to Sabah and Sarawak being the much less developed partners and would like to remind our people what is recorded in the formative years namely:- Kuala Lumpur and London Talks on Malaysia- Agreement on Establishment of Federation by Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, and Sabah The financial question s previously in dispute between Singapore and Malaya were settled in the following manner: (1) 60 per cent of the Federal revenue collected in Singapore would be paid to the Singapore Government and 40 per cent to the Federal Government: (2) to assist development in the Borneo territories, Singapore would make available to the Federal Government a 15-year loan of 100,000,000 Malayan dollars, free of interest for the first five years, and a 15-year loan of 50,000,000 Malayan dollars at current market rates in the Federation (i.e. 150,000,000 Malaya dollars in all or about £17,500,000). (Source: Keesing's Contemporary Archives- November 2-9, 1963)
So some of my questions would be as follows:- Was the Sabah's portion fulfilled? Why the sharing proportion as with Singapore not applied to Sabah? Was Article 8, on the Intergovernmental Committee recommendations fully complied? Was Singapore expelled over Lee Kwan Yee retained as Prime Minister of Singapore holding much power to resources and Malaya unable to fulfil the promise of 60% of gross revenue after two years of trials?
As a nation, revenue would go to the Central Government as was this case in Singapore vis-à-vis Malaya? Suddenly, Malaya is awaken by the Spirit of the 40% of net revenue (federal portion) arising in Sabah and Sarawak goes to both partners.
Had the Federal Government considered this factor in its accounting system which is likely almost fully consolidated centrally since much earlier years? If that is the case how would the two partners get their shares hence financial breaches is of paramount importance as we will see later. Also a lot of federal revenues come from Sabah and Sarawak sources but not segregated for such basic accounting for 52 years. In response to the 40% net revenue to Sabah, MP of Kota Belud Rahman also Federal Cabinet Minister said Federal Government spends a lot of money in Sabah. I want Rahman to come up with a back up detailed paper on that statement and NOT talk to cheat others. I want to see a detailed balance sheet of Sabah revenue going to KL less the amount Sabah is getting from KL for as long as 52 years.
In the balance sheet, please show the fund separately showing the Capital portion mainly for the development and Revenue expenditure to collect all the Federal revenue back to the KL coffers. For most development fund coming to finance Sabah projects, please indicate how much of that had been awarded to the companies in KL where a certain percentage already deducted before the fund come to Sabah for the target project.
Your detailed paper would clear all the doubt when all Federal Allocation had been one of thirteen rather than one of three. If he knows history, he should learn that Singapore and Malaya owe Sabah in their pledges a lot of fund prior to 16th September, 1963. With accrued statutory interests of 8%, such promised fund could be tens of billions Ringgit. Would Singapore and Malaya make good such debts made in good faith then. Looking back Sabah had been cheated ab initio. So with some hindsight, I had done much research on private funding or sacrifice and came up with a revealing book “Sabah Wealth – image of wood power” in 2004 where I republished my article published in Daily Express titled “Sabah a case for review in the Msia Plans” 4th July 1999.
For 30 years, from 1971 to 2000 in 6 Malaysia Plans, the equal partners of Sabah and Sarawak only got allocations of 5.58% and 6.11% respectively when Malaya got 88.3% out of a total of RM229billion. So the financial allocations without the return of 40% net revenue really spells out the real intention of Malaya side lining the Queen’s Obligations that partnership was fake.
So it was an evil intention that an amendment was done in 1976 to confirm the question of Spirit of Malaysia. The financial allocations for Sabah in annual budget and the recent Malaysia Plans namely 8, 9 and 10 from 2001-2015 were clearly inadequate per capita when Federal Conspiracy had brought in one to two millions project IC holders in Sabah evident in the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCIIIS) 2012-2014 with a sort of “fake” Royal Report.
The is clearly a breach of the partnership by a demographic felony or misdemeanour of Malaya as the well being of Sabah had been very much challenged and allegation of Genocide (ethnic cleansing & “apartheid”) is not unfounded when illegal given project IC become bumiputra overnight. Wither RCIIIS in 2015?
The other major financial debacle is the Petroleum Development Act (Act 144) in 1974 could be construed as breach of MA63 as it was not there in 1963, and what followed with the oil agreement in 1976 of 5 % Royalty after the skyline “broken” over Sembulan and blood in the shallow water, we cannot accept that equal partners have to lose so much more to the dominant player.
All these happened before the Parliament amended the Constitution to 12 and 13 states in 1976 and see how this conspiracy developed to cover up something which the Spirit of Malaysia did not expect to have happened when the expressive hope of much help for Sabah and Sarawak from Malaya and Singapore was dashed.
Is there any silver lining now that PM had affirmed the Commemorative booklet after 52 years? Would Nancy be in the real position to handle the so many breaches of the Spirit of Malaysia in various context?
Can we set up an Interim Good Governance Government Malaysia (IGGG M) to resolve or dissolve Malaysia in amicable atmosphere without any shouting and boasting.
Was it the founder Tunku Abdul Rahman’s intention alone that Malaysia had turned out this way? He was still around in 1973-1976. Did he voice out anything?
Now it would appear that Malaya had done it Malaya’s Way wounding the Spirit of Malaysia incredibly and not repayable or irreparable? So what is the way forward, Nancy?
Obviously, there are a few options open in an Agreement even without going to Court as she urged. The options of various dimensions could be worked out like any breach of Agreement. What happen if the Constitution and the Acts of Parliament are breached?
Is there really a Malaysia or the Spirit thereof? One thing is for sure there is no stopping now after 52 years and possible to exert pressure for a reverse takeover to empower Sabah and Sarawak for the execution of MA63 to the letters and the Spirit thereof albeit 52 years later no matter the cost thereof. Joshua Y. C. Kong 23 September, 2015
It was in the same place that the Proclamation of Malaysia was done 52 years ago.
Was the Spirit of Malaysia seriously bruised or dented so much so that an affirmative action (possibly questioned) was done symbolically by the signing of the Commemorative Book after 52 years?
What was the intention from August 1961, when it was first announcement by the founding Father Tunku Abdul Rahman when it was meant to be five in the proposed family of Malaysia and then the action was first pursued by the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC). Going through the various ideas and comments floating in recent years, it is likely that “Malaysia” is a red herring confirming all the breaches done ab initio.
The Spirit of Malaysia at the formative years namely 1961- early1963 was at grave variance as soon as the Proclamation of Malaysia was declared on 16 September, 1963. Then we had the Malaysia Agreement 1963 where Emeritius Professor Datuk Dr. Salem Shad Faruqi said Malaysia Agreement is not an internal arrangement but international one and he said at the presentation of paper entitled “Constitutional Issues in Federal-State Relations’ at the Malaysia Federalism and the Way Forward closed door discussion organised by the Society Empowerment and Economic Development Sabah (SEEDS).
It was to note that in the Proclamation of Malaysia on 16 September, 1963, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were still British colonies and not nations/parties to commit in International agreement. Was this a serious legal breach as null and void and no effect? If you study the Proclamation of Malaysia carefully, the first paragraph started with four partners(states)/nations and then ended with sort of vagueness to include other 11 states in the Federation of Malaya. Quote: “MALAYSIA comprising the States of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang,[1] Malacca, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak shall by the Grace of God, ….”
Was that the true Spirit of Malaysia from the start? Can we treat the Proclamation of Malaysia as sort of sabotage of the movement? We could see the form and substance in conflict precipitating great injustice as soon as Malaysia came into existence. This article would illustrate some of items of injustice or even a scam of sort. While another headline titled “ Now the moment for Sabah” by Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat at the same forum of SEEDS could encourage Sabahans to proceed further except to face the possibility of Sedition Act 1948 as amended or the section in penal code of 124 in the context of Parliament democracy.
So to avoid such untenable and undesirable scenario occurring it is best that Cabinet bring this malaise of Malaysia as too many breaches right from the beginning to the Parliament’s next sitting after 52 years and forthwith go forward promptly to do the needfuls. Now after 52 years, it is likened that we need to call up those early leaders (some still living) and the spirits of those who had passed on to re-create the substance of the Spirit of Malaysia. Nevertheless, their spirits may not be visible amongst us but the spirit of the words in the formation of Malaysia and the implementation of Malaysia are very much with us as we can now see more books to be published to state the strong case of the Spirit of Malaysia.
Dr. Salem went to say that “Even the words used by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak such as devolution and empowerment are inaccurate.” So in this context, we really need the appropriate action and performance accordingly to the original concept of Malaysia. So is this substance and its spirit emerging to clear all the doubts of 52 years? The other intention for Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore was the de-colonisation of the British Empire after the World War 2 which was possibly good but premature for Sabah and Sarawak as it was Brunei still a colony till 1984.
So was this process of true independence followed through by the British and Malaya? Was United Nations Resolution No. 1541 principle 1X complied with? Was this a breach of sort in the international context?
Was there a hidden agenda of sort wounding the Spirit of Malaysia as UN was also sort of helplessness or party to sort of “scam” emerging? Would UN now assess its own failing in the formation of Malaysia? There was the Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed on 9th July, 1963 but like all Agreements subject to breaches when the parties signing that Agreement could be influenced by whatever persuasions especially we were told by some of those who were involved then.
This MA63 was obviously breached or even null and void and ineffective or unenforceable since the beginning with the Proclamation of Malaysia especially with the forced departure of Singapore on 7th August, 1965, and on 9th August, 1965, Singapore became a new nation. As we all known it is difficult to enforce any Agreement if there is a dominant party or parties. So likewise MA 63 was supported by a Malaysia Act 1963 passed in the UK Parliament.
Was a similar Malaysia Act 1963 passed in the Malaya Parliament? Would it be any difference if an Act of the parliament is violated unlike an agreement? I leave this to learned legal scholars to tell us now. Another ongoing argument is that every thing done in all powerful Parliament would over write others such as the 20/18 points being the basis of the negotiation for the Spirit of Malaysia to be in place and possible the InterGovernmental Committee (IGC) report.
In the absence of Malaysia Act 1963 in Malaya, the Parliament of Malaysia would amend anything as time passed by. So the Argument goes on unabated about Malaysia as 4 parties (Singapore included) or Malaysia of 13 units ranging from very big Sarawak and smallest Perlis. If the dispute had started with the Proclamation of Malaysia, it was sort of confirmed by an amendment in the Parliament on 27 August, 1976 so soon after the Double six plane tragedy over Sembulan, Sabah making Sabah and Sarawak as the 12 and 13 states of great diminished status in every respects and aspects within Malaysia.
Why amend 13 years later in 1976? Another anomaly with Malaysia if we go the way of thinking of USA (Federal versus States), every states would have a state Government but Malaya from the outset did not maintain its own Government except what we see a Malaysian Government (Federal) overshadowing the Government of Singapore, Government of Sabah, and Government of Sarawak.
So what does that tell us? Let the learned legal fraternity in Constitution law tell us of this anomaly of missing Malaya’s Government in term of Spirit of Malaysia. So much from me on the legal framework of the Spirit of Malaysia in the various documents as being exposed by some parties.
Now I would go into the reality in the implementation of the true Spirit of Malaysia in the context of power and money as the actual direction of Malaysia in 4 or 3 partners rather than 13 states to share the spoilt. If we give prominence to the Federal Cabinet of Ministers as this connects to power, we would see this a pittance in terms of the number of Sabahans and Sarawakians holding cabinet posts then at the beginning and now. If Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak are 3 in 1, then each partner should have 12 Cabinet ministers each but how much do we have then and now?
Search this spirit of power in the right number of clean hands. Also give the quantum of allocation of funds to the various ministries in the “clean” hands of Cabinet members of Sabah and Sarawak as compared with those of Malaya. I hope Nancy can provide such data for the 52 years. So I come to the financial aspect as in all Agreement, there is the financial consideration and implications of contributions and then the sharing of financial responsibilities – give or take or givers or takers? It was great impression at the preliminary negotiation that great help was forthcoming to Sabah and Sarawak being the much less developed partners and would like to remind our people what is recorded in the formative years namely:- Kuala Lumpur and London Talks on Malaysia- Agreement on Establishment of Federation by Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, and Sabah The financial question s previously in dispute between Singapore and Malaya were settled in the following manner: (1) 60 per cent of the Federal revenue collected in Singapore would be paid to the Singapore Government and 40 per cent to the Federal Government: (2) to assist development in the Borneo territories, Singapore would make available to the Federal Government a 15-year loan of 100,000,000 Malayan dollars, free of interest for the first five years, and a 15-year loan of 50,000,000 Malayan dollars at current market rates in the Federation (i.e. 150,000,000 Malaya dollars in all or about £17,500,000). (Source: Keesing's Contemporary Archives- November 2-9, 1963)
So some of my questions would be as follows:- Was the Sabah's portion fulfilled? Why the sharing proportion as with Singapore not applied to Sabah? Was Article 8, on the Intergovernmental Committee recommendations fully complied? Was Singapore expelled over Lee Kwan Yee retained as Prime Minister of Singapore holding much power to resources and Malaya unable to fulfil the promise of 60% of gross revenue after two years of trials?
As a nation, revenue would go to the Central Government as was this case in Singapore vis-à-vis Malaya? Suddenly, Malaya is awaken by the Spirit of the 40% of net revenue (federal portion) arising in Sabah and Sarawak goes to both partners.
Had the Federal Government considered this factor in its accounting system which is likely almost fully consolidated centrally since much earlier years? If that is the case how would the two partners get their shares hence financial breaches is of paramount importance as we will see later. Also a lot of federal revenues come from Sabah and Sarawak sources but not segregated for such basic accounting for 52 years. In response to the 40% net revenue to Sabah, MP of Kota Belud Rahman also Federal Cabinet Minister said Federal Government spends a lot of money in Sabah. I want Rahman to come up with a back up detailed paper on that statement and NOT talk to cheat others. I want to see a detailed balance sheet of Sabah revenue going to KL less the amount Sabah is getting from KL for as long as 52 years.
In the balance sheet, please show the fund separately showing the Capital portion mainly for the development and Revenue expenditure to collect all the Federal revenue back to the KL coffers. For most development fund coming to finance Sabah projects, please indicate how much of that had been awarded to the companies in KL where a certain percentage already deducted before the fund come to Sabah for the target project.
Your detailed paper would clear all the doubt when all Federal Allocation had been one of thirteen rather than one of three. If he knows history, he should learn that Singapore and Malaya owe Sabah in their pledges a lot of fund prior to 16th September, 1963. With accrued statutory interests of 8%, such promised fund could be tens of billions Ringgit. Would Singapore and Malaya make good such debts made in good faith then. Looking back Sabah had been cheated ab initio. So with some hindsight, I had done much research on private funding or sacrifice and came up with a revealing book “Sabah Wealth – image of wood power” in 2004 where I republished my article published in Daily Express titled “Sabah a case for review in the Msia Plans” 4th July 1999.
For 30 years, from 1971 to 2000 in 6 Malaysia Plans, the equal partners of Sabah and Sarawak only got allocations of 5.58% and 6.11% respectively when Malaya got 88.3% out of a total of RM229billion. So the financial allocations without the return of 40% net revenue really spells out the real intention of Malaya side lining the Queen’s Obligations that partnership was fake.
So it was an evil intention that an amendment was done in 1976 to confirm the question of Spirit of Malaysia. The financial allocations for Sabah in annual budget and the recent Malaysia Plans namely 8, 9 and 10 from 2001-2015 were clearly inadequate per capita when Federal Conspiracy had brought in one to two millions project IC holders in Sabah evident in the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCIIIS) 2012-2014 with a sort of “fake” Royal Report.
The is clearly a breach of the partnership by a demographic felony or misdemeanour of Malaya as the well being of Sabah had been very much challenged and allegation of Genocide (ethnic cleansing & “apartheid”) is not unfounded when illegal given project IC become bumiputra overnight. Wither RCIIIS in 2015?
The other major financial debacle is the Petroleum Development Act (Act 144) in 1974 could be construed as breach of MA63 as it was not there in 1963, and what followed with the oil agreement in 1976 of 5 % Royalty after the skyline “broken” over Sembulan and blood in the shallow water, we cannot accept that equal partners have to lose so much more to the dominant player.
All these happened before the Parliament amended the Constitution to 12 and 13 states in 1976 and see how this conspiracy developed to cover up something which the Spirit of Malaysia did not expect to have happened when the expressive hope of much help for Sabah and Sarawak from Malaya and Singapore was dashed.
Is there any silver lining now that PM had affirmed the Commemorative booklet after 52 years? Would Nancy be in the real position to handle the so many breaches of the Spirit of Malaysia in various context?
Can we set up an Interim Good Governance Government Malaysia (IGGG M) to resolve or dissolve Malaysia in amicable atmosphere without any shouting and boasting.
Was it the founder Tunku Abdul Rahman’s intention alone that Malaysia had turned out this way? He was still around in 1973-1976. Did he voice out anything?
Now it would appear that Malaya had done it Malaya’s Way wounding the Spirit of Malaysia incredibly and not repayable or irreparable? So what is the way forward, Nancy?
Obviously, there are a few options open in an Agreement even without going to Court as she urged. The options of various dimensions could be worked out like any breach of Agreement. What happen if the Constitution and the Acts of Parliament are breached?
Is there really a Malaysia or the Spirit thereof? One thing is for sure there is no stopping now after 52 years and possible to exert pressure for a reverse takeover to empower Sabah and Sarawak for the execution of MA63 to the letters and the Spirit thereof albeit 52 years later no matter the cost thereof. Joshua Y. C. Kong 23 September, 2015
Daily Express's forum of 29 May, 2016
Daily Express – Whistleblowers to the rescue for better health services
I refer to the news item – “Ministry failed Sabahans: NGO” published in Daily Express on Thursday 26/5/2016 where the Sabah People's Right Association alleged that the Health Ministry has failed the people of Sabah by not improving the conditions in Queen Elizabeth Hospital I (QEH I), beside also highlighted several outstanding grouses.
While it may be true with those specific allegations but it is not totally “helpless” for the health authorities in Sabah especially for QEH1 and QEH2 in Kota Kinabalu. Let the patients and the public judge the performance of the clinic in Kota Kinabalu especially The Luyang outpatient clinic and the hospitals in Kota Kinabalu and elsewhere in Sabah. Despite what Mr Lee Pun Yee, President of Sabah People’s Right Association has claimed, there are thousands of patients daily being treated by the doctors in the Luyang’s clinic and the two other hospitals in Kota Kinabalu.
We should hear from them too. Of course nobody is perfect but they are trying their best daily in long hours for many of the staff in the clinic and the hospitals to attend to the thousands of patients especially in recent years of tough economic circumstances. I have seen even some millionaires going as patients to the hospital facilities. Since when we do not have grouses about our hospitals in recent decades, and I had written some letters before in daily express about grouses by doctors, staff, and patients and even if you go to private hospitals in Singapore or elsewhere, you do encounter all sorts of complaints too.
What Mr Lee wrote albeit can be true experiences, but it is not all black dots for them as such expressive statements could send a general “demoralising” feeling to the staff of the various establishments under the Health Ministry.
We have to consider other factors together to give some credit to some good development and good services by the medical facilities generally. From what I understand QEH1 and QEH2 were seeing referred patients from Luyang Health Clinic (LHC) and patients for emergencies and not all patients are referred to the two hospitals.
I had seen a very young doctor who appeared to me to have been very much overworked in the Health Clinic so much so that he was waiting to resign upon his completion of housemanship. Do we have any sympathy with him? I have also seen a lady doctor who could not speak good English? I think both these doctors are no longer in the LHC. So what do we propose for improvement in such examples for us to ponder?
Yes, I am always passing almost daily QEH1 and there are always plenty of illegal parking on the roads when the open space parking is usually full even until late in the morning. Traffic Police always there to place tickets, illegal parking continues unabated. Where would we expect the patients and caretakers park their vehicles if not on the roads pavement or dividers? We as the public really have no say in what the Ministry of Health does if any improvements have yet to be done by the authorities.
We can only make suggestions or even protests for better services and better facilities. This brings me back to the days when the old hospital block of QEH was dilapidated and beyond repair and various suggestions like building QEH in faraway place in Putatan but somehow all proposed plans were thwarted and now we see a new hospital building in the same locality. Having said that I think it may be timely that the pathology unit on an old building should be replaced by a multi storeyed/basement carpark.
Also QEH1, QEH2 and LHC also have critical parking problems and how would these be sorted out quickly although LHC has an open space/ children playground converted to carparks? So the Health Ministry/authorities surely fully aware of these must address such issues promptly. Patients would increase by several folds given the current depressed economy and lack of public transport is not helping.
I would like to end this article with a compliment for the QEH1, QEH 2 and LHC even LHC on sort of sinking ground. We have to appreciate much pressure are piling up on some quarters of the health and medical facilities especially on the qualified and semi qualified dedicated staff. If you go to some of the specialists units early in the morning in both QEHs, there is little spaces to move about or simply congested. Similar scenario in LHC. Then the long wait to be attended to prevail inevitably and just patiently wait for the turn.
No doubt, there is improvement in the orderly queues system if compared with the older days. One thing is that congested atmosphere for patients is likely unhealthy and for me I got the worst headache for the first time waiting for an hour or more in the congested blood tests waiting room.
Even babies were subject to such severe atmosphere. How does the staff feel when there are so many patients almost daily? Tough days ahead? Do we have any easy solution when we are told shortage of suitably qualified doctors in QEH1, QEH2 and LHC?
Is it business for the Health Ministry as usual despite the increasing number of patients? I am here also to share an experience at QEH1 which I treasure much as it is about my wife with one good eye and the doctors and staff at the eye specialist clinic had sorted out my wife’s medical problems very well and a timely surgery for cataract coupled with glaucoma had given her a new life of good sight.
She was warded for a week post surgery and well taken care of especially by the top eye surgeon in Sabah and possibly Malaysia.
The result after almost a year is still considered very well.
My wife also had to go to the Orthopaedic clinic in QEH2 where she is also well attended to.
So we hope that all round improvement can be rendered by the Health Ministry and that more whistleblowers can come forward and put our heads together to address whatever failings that may have arisen in some ways and the people’s expectation would be fulfilled at the time when needs of patients are gravest and greatest.
Joshua Y. C. Kong
While it may be true with those specific allegations but it is not totally “helpless” for the health authorities in Sabah especially for QEH1 and QEH2 in Kota Kinabalu. Let the patients and the public judge the performance of the clinic in Kota Kinabalu especially The Luyang outpatient clinic and the hospitals in Kota Kinabalu and elsewhere in Sabah. Despite what Mr Lee Pun Yee, President of Sabah People’s Right Association has claimed, there are thousands of patients daily being treated by the doctors in the Luyang’s clinic and the two other hospitals in Kota Kinabalu.
We should hear from them too. Of course nobody is perfect but they are trying their best daily in long hours for many of the staff in the clinic and the hospitals to attend to the thousands of patients especially in recent years of tough economic circumstances. I have seen even some millionaires going as patients to the hospital facilities. Since when we do not have grouses about our hospitals in recent decades, and I had written some letters before in daily express about grouses by doctors, staff, and patients and even if you go to private hospitals in Singapore or elsewhere, you do encounter all sorts of complaints too.
What Mr Lee wrote albeit can be true experiences, but it is not all black dots for them as such expressive statements could send a general “demoralising” feeling to the staff of the various establishments under the Health Ministry.
We have to consider other factors together to give some credit to some good development and good services by the medical facilities generally. From what I understand QEH1 and QEH2 were seeing referred patients from Luyang Health Clinic (LHC) and patients for emergencies and not all patients are referred to the two hospitals.
I had seen a very young doctor who appeared to me to have been very much overworked in the Health Clinic so much so that he was waiting to resign upon his completion of housemanship. Do we have any sympathy with him? I have also seen a lady doctor who could not speak good English? I think both these doctors are no longer in the LHC. So what do we propose for improvement in such examples for us to ponder?
Yes, I am always passing almost daily QEH1 and there are always plenty of illegal parking on the roads when the open space parking is usually full even until late in the morning. Traffic Police always there to place tickets, illegal parking continues unabated. Where would we expect the patients and caretakers park their vehicles if not on the roads pavement or dividers? We as the public really have no say in what the Ministry of Health does if any improvements have yet to be done by the authorities.
We can only make suggestions or even protests for better services and better facilities. This brings me back to the days when the old hospital block of QEH was dilapidated and beyond repair and various suggestions like building QEH in faraway place in Putatan but somehow all proposed plans were thwarted and now we see a new hospital building in the same locality. Having said that I think it may be timely that the pathology unit on an old building should be replaced by a multi storeyed/basement carpark.
Also QEH1, QEH2 and LHC also have critical parking problems and how would these be sorted out quickly although LHC has an open space/ children playground converted to carparks? So the Health Ministry/authorities surely fully aware of these must address such issues promptly. Patients would increase by several folds given the current depressed economy and lack of public transport is not helping.
I would like to end this article with a compliment for the QEH1, QEH 2 and LHC even LHC on sort of sinking ground. We have to appreciate much pressure are piling up on some quarters of the health and medical facilities especially on the qualified and semi qualified dedicated staff. If you go to some of the specialists units early in the morning in both QEHs, there is little spaces to move about or simply congested. Similar scenario in LHC. Then the long wait to be attended to prevail inevitably and just patiently wait for the turn.
No doubt, there is improvement in the orderly queues system if compared with the older days. One thing is that congested atmosphere for patients is likely unhealthy and for me I got the worst headache for the first time waiting for an hour or more in the congested blood tests waiting room.
Even babies were subject to such severe atmosphere. How does the staff feel when there are so many patients almost daily? Tough days ahead? Do we have any easy solution when we are told shortage of suitably qualified doctors in QEH1, QEH2 and LHC?
Is it business for the Health Ministry as usual despite the increasing number of patients? I am here also to share an experience at QEH1 which I treasure much as it is about my wife with one good eye and the doctors and staff at the eye specialist clinic had sorted out my wife’s medical problems very well and a timely surgery for cataract coupled with glaucoma had given her a new life of good sight.
She was warded for a week post surgery and well taken care of especially by the top eye surgeon in Sabah and possibly Malaysia.
The result after almost a year is still considered very well.
My wife also had to go to the Orthopaedic clinic in QEH2 where she is also well attended to.
So we hope that all round improvement can be rendered by the Health Ministry and that more whistleblowers can come forward and put our heads together to address whatever failings that may have arisen in some ways and the people’s expectation would be fulfilled at the time when needs of patients are gravest and greatest.
Joshua Y. C. Kong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)