Nation at a crossroad of NSC

Nation at a crossroad of NSC


Can we accept what the PM Najib said recently : “National Security Council Act 2016 for national security, not personal design” (Aug 27, 2016) ?

 Can this defence be true and justified if we go through the NSC and the “junta” of 5 persons especially the PM who is also the Chairman can control everything socalled “National Security” bypassing the YDP Agong, a Ruler or Yang diPertua Negeri according to the NSC section 23 (2)a.

 Before I go further on the check and balance of any public act and the absence thereof, it is important a brief introduction of the NSC act is available. The National Security Council Act 2016 (Malay: Akta Majlis Keselamatan Negara 2016) is "to provide for the establishment of the National Security Council, the declaration of security areas, the special powers of the Security Forces in the security areas and other related matters". This Act is intended to strengthen the government's ability to address increasing threats to the nation's security, including threats of violent extremism.[2][3] The Bill was introduced into parliament by Shahidan Kassim on 1 December 2015.[4] It passed the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) on 3 December 2015,[5] and the Dewan Negara (Senate) on 22 December 2015 without amendment.[3]


The Act received Royal Assent on 18 February 2016 in pursuant to Clause 4A of Article 66 of the Federal Constitution.

 The National Security Council Act 2016, in its current form (7 June 2016), consists of 7 Parts containing 44 sections and no schedule (including no amendment). • Part I: Preliminary • Part II: National Security Council • Part III: Duties of the Director General of National Security and Government Entities • Part IV: Declaration of Security Area • Part V: Special Powers of the Director of Operations and Security Forces Deployed to the Security Area • Part VI: General • Part VII: Savings.

 The common allegations of the NSC are largely in these aspects namely:- • Clause 18 (1): PM has full discretion to decide where 'security area' is • Clause 18 (3) and (4): Initial declaration of ‘security area’ lasts for 6 months but may be renewed by PM indefinitely • Clause 22–30: security forces can arrest without warrant; stop and search; enter and search premise; take possession of any land, building or movable property. • Clause 37: All NSC’s affairs are done is absolute secrecy • Clause 38: No action or lawsuit can be brought against the NSC (source: Wikipedia) To me there are much more than that if the NSC is grievously applied or misapplied in any circumstances beyond what the public desire. First, NSC does not have any definition of National Security and scenarios thereof except it is found in a section such as Functions of the Council 4.

 The Council shall have the following functions: (a) to formulate policies and strategic measures on national security, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, defence, socio-political stability, economic stability, strategic resources, national unity and other interests relating to national security; (b) to monitor the implementation of the policies and strategic measures on national security; (c) to advise on the declaration of security areas; and (d) to perform any other functions relating to national security for the proper implementation of this Act. So based on the functions of the Council, sky is the limit not to mention some of the activities already dealt with by other existing Acts. So NSC would appear to be over riding in all circumstances and cannot be challenged in the Judiciary. I leave this to the public court to decide but aggressive protests on NSC would be disallowed too.

 If we deliberate on the various items in the Function above-mentioned, it would appear the present Government has brought the nation very edgy and at breaking points like it or not and so does the present socalled “failed” leaders need NSC to continue to perform which can lead to more disasters in the making at advanced and critical status.

 Readers and concerned citizens would agree with me that certain scenarios are already so ugly and yet not properly addressed even after some decades, and yet do we need NSC to do that?

 Critical more specific areas are race/religions of the dominant one against the minorities; climate change and environment – manmade or acts of God – being ignored or regularly sidelined, massive official corruption so far without action or denied according to the scale thereof, prevailing illicit drugs menace.

 All these degraded circumstances in the four areas can easily threaten our sovereignty or our existence whether we like it or not. Second, Maybe we leave the religion and climate change to God for His justice or ultimate justice, but environment, corruption, illegal and ‘project IC’ immigrants and illicit drugs must be addressed by everyone of us.

 Seriously hardly much had been done for the menace of environment by the appropriate allocation of adequate funding except that in Kota Kinabalu, the Judiciary together with DBKK took a tough stance on the local pollution and thrash in Sembulan – the black dot so near the city within. So for Sabah with so much national security in terms of national resources dwindling fast, we need to expose all our mishandling or cannot-be-bothered attitude in environment, it is important and urgent to have a blueprint on environment at an environment expo which I had proposed as Sabah Environment Expo or SEE Sabah 2016.

 Once our depleted natural resources are gone in Sabah, our total losses would be in areas such as global tourism, food sources, climate change, general health, economy, and general well beings of the people.

 Maybe, we have seen some fresh air with the latest appointed MACC Chairman Datuk Dzulkifli Ahmad as he seems to be tough in his position with zero corruption in the civil service. Maybe, he would go on to the business communities who work hands in gloves with the civil servants and then the politicians later. Also recently, the relevant authorities have also arrested hundreds of thousands in the illicit drugs sector. It is known that illegal and project IC immgrants can be detained in detention centres and the prisons.


 Third, I hope such pro-active action would be pursued and finally there are enough spaces in prisons for millions of inmates after due but long process in the Courts also over stretched. Given the complexity and complicity of illegalities in the environment, corruption official or otherwise, illegal and project IC immigrants, illicit drugs, would NSC be applied to shorten all the usual stretched legal processes to resolve millions of cases? If not done that way, these critical issues would be with us forever in a failed nation.


 A neighbouring country is shooting drugs suspects on sight. In Turkey, the Government even adopted the policy of freeing many thousands of convicted criminals to be back to the streets for the coup suspects to be detained in over stretched prisons. So that is tough decision indeed with or without NSC. Fourth, Now let me come back to a finer point in NSC as it is not obvious to the common mind. Why should there be public indifference or disquiet over NSC fearing themselves that the undesirable actions could happen to the Whistleblowers even with the existing Whistleblowers Act 711 of 2010 which in reality is a red herring when the present Government is challenged. So is NSC really as alleged that NSC can be used against whistleblowers acting in public interest when PM said no personal agenda?


So let look at this again. NSC has a director of operation as in section 20 namely 20. (1) The Council shall appoint a Director of Operations to be the person in charge of the operations in a security area. (2) The Director of Operations shall be responsible to the Council. Does the NSC act disallow the PM cum Chairman to be appointed Director of Operations which is accredited so much power beyond belief in NSC activities. So what is there to stop the NSC to appoint the Chairman as the Director of Operations as five persons or a single person decide on that. We can now imagine how a “junta” in any emergency behave. Who actually appointed Tun Abdul Razak in 1969 as Director of Operations?


Was he appointed by the YDP Agong or the Rulers’ Conference? Was there an internal sort of coup within UMNO? Was he self appointed with new found faction power within UMNO? Wikipedia is also silent on this drastic change of leadership. He was so powerful that he could change the course of the nation in its nation building (NEP/ Barisan National) or nation’s gradual destruction as far as MA63 was concerned and there go our independence and our precious resources. Now the YDP Agong and Rulers, Yang Dipertua Negeri are out of the picture in NSC 2016 Section 23 (2a). Is there any chance of check and balance when NSC 2016 is the legitimate document to implement whatever as sky is the limit in anything or everything, bad, good or evil? This is especially so when 5 persons or a single person in NSC are ‘untouchable’ be it personal or official matters.

So before the Director of Operations get hold of that NSC power as it was in 1969 (no NSC then), we are now in totally different scenario and the YDP Agong and the ruler conference having failed to have the NSC 2016 ‘refined’, install an Interim Good Governance Government (IGGG M) totally independent from the political divide to bring the nation forward without all the entanglements of more than 5 decades. Please appreciate this articles as the 2016 national message of IGGG M.

 Joshua Y. C. Kong 30 August, 2016

Meaningless Betrayal in action over illegal immigrants in Sabah

Meaningless betrayal in action over illegal immigrants in Sabah 23 August, 2016


 Are we any concern about certain headlines in press and mass media of late? There are amongst several as “We’ll defend every inch of Sabah, vows Najib” (DE may 29, 2016), “Better not to marry illegals” DE 3 July,2016, “50% of complaints over documents (BP August 18, 2016), Threat to Sabah security no longer contained to its east coast (New Strait Times 5th March, 2016), “A case of false patriotism?” (Daily Express, August 19, 2016), and another prominent one from the ex Premier “Mahathir Mohamad on corruption and 'saving Malaysia' “ 24 Jun 2016 So what is the nation now when we have such frightening or threatening messages? These are really clarion call that we are in a mess due to the fundamental abuses in our national identity cards and the socalled Project IC to hundreds of thousands and now reaching millions considering all those children born in Sabah and Malaysia for decades.


 Many have written much about the massive abuses and I have also done my part in several publications on the extra people Identity cards (EPIC of Sabah). Are we not in perilous security environment which has obvious getting out of hand even after the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCI IIS) 2012 till now? We do not have any solution from the RCIIIS although so much was told over the hearings. It would appear we are really stuck with the millions of illegal with dubious documents or otherwise.

 The ugly manifestations are now conveyed in the headlines “50% of complaints over documents” where many are totally not qualified to get the genuine documents as human rights are not borderless as far as citizenship is concerned and “A case of false patriotism” where the illegals are just bidding their time, and “Better not to marry illegals” when many are entangled in relationship with illegals. 

From the RCIIIS hearings, we know the confirmed leaders near and far involved with Project IC albeit much denials. God knows them in treasonous activities so much so that we are still in much dilemma over the presence of illegals with or without whatever questioned documents despite much expectation of the RCIIIS since 2012.

 Wasn’t Megat Junid the deputy Home Minister in Mahathir’s cabinet for 11 years so often mentioned the front man for the alleged Project IC?

 Could Mahathir be the chief director of Project IC? Dr Chong Eng Leong mentioned Chief Minister Musa Aman as involved with Project IC in the RCIIIS and CM intervened in the hearing session but silence therefrom. Why? Prime Minister Najib who ordered the RCIIIS appears to have forgotten about that as his mired involvement with 1MDB and yet he dared to say that “as “We’ll defend every inch of Sabah, vows Najib” when their actions and omissions and deliberate forgetfulness have sort of hand over Sabah and the sovereignty of the nation to the neighbouring nation or nations slowly but surely when the local genuine people is outnumbered by the “outsiders”.

 Mahathir should also search his conscience as how he can save Malaysia with his declaration thereof supported by sort of a million of signatures when it is getting nearer to hand over Sabah to outsiders as a scenario of “Trojan horse” well established in his 22 years of leadership. Joshua Y. C. Kong 23 August, 2016

Federalism in Malaysia..

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read.cfm?NewsID=2190 What’s needed on MA63 breaches is a Restoration Committee Published on: Saturday, August 27, 2016 WHAT do we expect to be resolved with what some call “Devolution of Powers” with the 8-point Term of Reference (ToR) established in the State Legislative Assembly on 9th august, 2016? We may have to define “Devolution of Powers” and “autonomy” if there are any differences in the context of independence from UK with Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). One source defines Devolution as the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level. It is a strong form of decentralisation. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area. Autonomy can be given such as independence, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, self-government, self-rule, self-sufficiency, home rule, etc, in that context. So is it right to think that devolution of powers as proposed is to return to Sabah and Sarawak after 53 years the socalled “autonomy” under MA63? There is so much already known of the misplaced MA63 with regards to IGC report and the 18/20 Points but the Devolution of powers ToR is silent on the 18/20 points ? Are 18/20 points included in the “other related documents” in the ToR? Despite the much flawed MA63 and the absence of MA63 in a Malaysia Act in the Federal Constitution except there is one such, a Parliamentary Act in UK, are we able to rely on such challenged MA63 in this devolution of power in nation building. So the newly established Main Committee at the Federal level and a Technical Committee at the state level may be a “red herring” as we do not know how effective this set up would be as this is long overdue for resolution of MA63 and the maladies thereof. Why not a Parliament Select Committee or a Royal Commission of Inquiry as such bodies would be more open? Would these main /steering and technical committees hold open townhall meetings and fully publicised properly? What is really self defeating is that the ToR 5 as “All of the proposals and decisions by the Steering Committee and Technical Committee will be classified as confidential”? Is it to be OSA? So if such condition is applied the people would be stopped to talk about MA63 in the context of OSA. Why should this be? We may smell a rat if this is OSA materials and some people are just buying time to delay this dispute for decades more especially so much money in hundreds of billions of ringgit is concerned if repayment, damages, short changes are some of the solutions to be certain over MA63. It is also very disappointing when the Federal Minister from Sabah Wilfred Tangau said “If you resolved this Malaysia Agreement, it is not an Aladdin lamp, once it’s resolved, and everything is fine.” That statement was made under the heading “Bigger Things Than M’sia Agreement, says UPKO” (DE 14 August, 2016). Going by the way the Federal government had performed for 53 years, it is very likely that nothing would come out of this effort prior to GE14 as firstly the nation owes at least RM1 trillion debts where money is concerned. Secondly, the Federalism policy seems to be to exploit Sabah and Sarawak to the maximum as we have already witnessed. Thirdly the issues – many of those – already known are complex issues and entangled by the authorities financially and otherwise and how to re-start whatever promised in MA63. We have also seen so many denials over the decades and even the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCI IIS) has yet to see any fruit at all after years since 2012. What we really need to be in place is the resolution or restoration committee to implement progressively whatever already known and get on to build/rebuild the nation albeit 53 years too late. There is already so much pressure from various corners including international bodies that justice be done and not only talking about that. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Federalism in Malaysia must be addressed accordingly based on MA63 18/Aug 2016 What do we expect to be resolved with what some call “Devolution of Powers” with the 8-point Term of Reference (ToR) established in the State Legislative Assembly on 9th august, 2016? We may have to define “Devolution of Powers” and “autonomy” if there are any differences in the context of independence from UK with Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). One source defines Devolution is the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level. It is a strong form of decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area. Autonomy can be given such as independence, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, self-government, self-rule, self-sufficiency, home rule etc in that context. So is it right to think that devolution of powers as proposed is to return to Sabah and Sarawak after 53 years the socalled “autonomy” under MA63? There are so much already known of the misplaced MA63 with regards to IGC report and the 18/20 points but the Devolution of powers ToR is silent on the 18/20 points ? Are 18/20 points included in the “other related documents” in the ToR? Despite the much flawed MA63 and the absence of MA63 in a Malaysia Act in the Federal constitution except there is one such a parliamentary act in UK, are we able to rely on such challenged MA63 in this devolution of power in nation building. So the newly established Main Committee at the Federal level and a Technical Committee at the state level maybe a “red herring” as we do not know how effective this set up would be as this is long overdue for resolution of MA63 and the maladies thereof. Why not a Parliament Select Committee or a Royal Commission of Inquiry as such bodies would be more open? Would these main /steering and technical committees hold open townhall meetings and fully publicised properly? What is really self defeating is that the ToR 5 as “All of the proposals and decisions by the Steering Committee and Technical Committee will be classified as confidential”? Is it to be OSA? So if such condition is applied the people would be stopped to talk about MA63 in the context of OSA. Why should this be? Whose idea is this? We may smell a rat if this is OSA materials and some people are just buying time to delay this dispute for decades more especially so much money in hundreds of billions of ringgit is concerned if repayment, damages, short changes are some of the solutions to be certain over MA63. It is also very disappointing when the Federal Minister from Sabah Wilfred Tangau said “"If you resolved this Malaysia Agreement, it is not an Aladdin lamp, once it's resolved, and everything is fine.” That statement was made under the heading “Bigger things than M’sia Agreement, says UPKO” (DE 14 August, 2016). Going by the way the Federal government had performed for 53 years, it is very likely that nothing would come out of this effort prior to GE14 as firstly the nation owes at least RM1 trillion debts when money is concerned. Secondly, the Federalism policy is to exploit Sabah and Sarawak to the maximum as we have already witnessed. Thirdly the issues – many of those – already known are complex issues and entangled by the authorities financially and otherwise and how to re-start whatever promised in MA63 without destabilising the “evil” approaches of the Central Government? We have also seen so many denials over the decades and even the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCI IIS) has yet to see any fruit at all after years since 2012. I will see how I can respond to this special committee if at all it is justified at all. Even without this committee, the restoration of past deeds deemed illegal and ultra vires MA63 can be in place immediately so that the violation of our rights can be mitigated with simply going back to the basic principle of MA63 as illustrated in IGC Report and 18/20 points etc.of 3 partners in the formation of Malaysia instead of 13 or 14 states. What we really need to be in place is the resolution or restoration committee to implement progressively whatever already known and get on to build/rebuild the nation albeit 53 years too late. There are already so much pressure from various corners including international bodies that justice be done and not only talking about that. If the present Government and the oppoosition already too entangled with so much resistance in all aspects cannot do it now, the time is now for others such as Interim Good Governance Government to takeover as national interest is of paramount importance. Joshua Y. C. Kong 18 August, 2016

Malaysia was a scam ab initio.

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read.cfm?NewsID=2171


 How long more to address the MA 63 shortcomings? Published on: Saturday, August 13, 2016



 A few days ago the Deputy Prime Minister in the National Day celebrations in Tawau stated that “Sabah and Sarawak are not marginalised”, while Chief Minister of Sabah said there is “No point “shouting and demanding” for Sabah rights, autonomy.” Many other similar statements have revived the focus on the Malaysia Agreement 63 embracing 20/18 points (Sabah & Sarawak) and the Cobbold Commission and the Inter Governmental Committee Report. Since the Proclamation of Malaysia on 16 September, 1963, there has been a departure from what had been observed and done when Malaysia was announced by Tunku Abdul Rahman . The 18/20 points of Sarawak and Sabah are in the “dustbin”.


 We had the Cobbold Commission and IGC Report which had been sidelined .

 What we may have is the Malaysia Agreement 1963, which to some have been overshadowed by the various Parliamentary amendments with or without the consent of Sabah and Sarawak.

 What some “leaders” are saying is that Parliament can change the MA63 and the original intention thereof by amending whatever could be amended with or without consent.

 Malaysia does not have a Parliamentary Malaysia Act 1963.

 The International Agreement aka Malaysia Agreement 1963 was signed by 5 parties on 9th July, 1963 and the 5 parties were UK, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak especially when Sabah and Sarawak lacked the legal standing to sign the said agreement as British colonies.

 The reality as diluted is Malaysia is 5, 4 or 13 or 14, 15 partners expanded by fanciful desires.

 Look at how any Agreement is made especially MA63 when 5 parties were fully involved. Did Tunku represent Malaya as a solitary body or did he represent 11 other states of Malaya? Was he empowered to negotiate for 11 states of Malaya? Where is the consent document from all the 11 States? Why did Kelantan object to Malaysia on 11 September, 1963? Did that objection divert the mind of Tunku in his original intention of Malaysia of 5, 4 or 3?

 What did Tunku actually say in 1962? So the reality of any Agreement in any partnership is that all the partners should come together in any meeting but no so in Malaysia Agreement 63 where only 5 parties signed and not signed the states of Malaya then.

 So after Singapore left in August, 1965, it is Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya or 3 equal partners and not as distorted 13 states as partners. Any Agreement made by the parties concerned must be fulfilled by the partners concerned and not otherwise.

 Whatever documents including Parliament amendments especially in 1976 are all after–thoughts.

 So what are before us when Nancy Shukri pledged that MA63 and its shortcomings would be resolved with the Federal Government last August, but till today nothing is happening in that direction. Has her recent change of portfolio in the Najb’s cabinet taking charge of Justice/Judiciary impacted that intention to resolve MA63?


 What other items still in the works of MA63 and related issues are state rights taken over by the Federal Government namely our oil and gas, the promise of 40pc revenue not returned to the two states for more than 40 or 50 years (now meaningless and diluted with a 8 points TOR on the latest committee to be treated as confidential) and just like Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCI).

 Fishery rights, distribution of development funds in 11 Malaysia Plans of 13 states instead of 3, not to mention the annual fiscal budgets, etc. All these would add up to hundreds of billions Ringgit that need to be returned to the two Borneo States to be placed as sovereign funds of each state not to be abused by any existing state Governments.

 31 August 2016 and 16 September, 2016 are just around the corner and these dates are not meaningful for Sabahans and Sarawakians if the national tempo and development had been lopsided for decades. {}


 Malaysia was a scam ab initio. By Joshua Y. C. Kong 10/August/2016

 A few days ago the Deputy Prime Minister in the National Day celebrations in Tawau stated that “Sabah and Sarawak are not marginalised”, while Chief Minister of Sabah said “No point ‘shouting and demanding’ for Sabah rights, autonomy.”.

 Many other similar statements have revived the focus on Malaysia Agreement 63 embracing 20/18 points (Sabah & Sarawak) and the Cobbold Commission and the Inter Governmental Committee Report. So what is Malaysia really is when it may seem Malaysia was a scam ab initio as per Proclamation of Malaysia. (see below).

That is the reality since the Proclamation of Malaysia on 16 September, 1963, a departure from what had been observed and done since Malaysia was announced by Tunku Abdul Rahman since early 1962. We had the 18/20 points of Sarawak and Sabah now likely in the “dustbin” of the conqueror not equal partners.

We had the Cobbold Commission and IGC Report which had been sidelined by the conqueror.

So what we may have is Malaysia Agreement 1963, which to some have been overshadowed by the various Parliamentary amendments with or without the consent of Sabah and Sarawak. What some “leaders” are saying is that Parliament can change the MA63 and the original intention thereof by amending whatever abuses of the conqueror could do like now rapists are marrying the very young victims after raping with or without consent.

 Malaysia does not have a Parliamentary Malaysia Act 1963. The International Agreement aka Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed by 5 parties on 9th July, 1963 and the 5 parties were UK, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak especially when Sabah and Sarawak lacks legal standing to sign the said agreement as British Colonies. What are the views of the legally uneven yoked partners? The reality as diluted is Malaysia is 5, 4 or 13 or 14, 15 partners expanded by fanciful desires of the conqueror? Look at how any Agreement is made especially MA63 when 5 parties were fully involved. Did Tunku represent Malaya as a solitary body or did he represent 11 other states of Malaya?


 Was he empowered to negotiate for 11 states of Malaya? Where is the consent document from all the 11 States? Why Kelantan objected to Malaysia on 11 September, 1963? Did that objection divert the mind of Tunku in his original intention of Malaysia of 5, 4 or 3?

 What did Tunku actually say in 1962? So the reality of any Agreement in any partnership is that all the partners should come together in any meeting but no so in Malaysia Agreement 63 where only 5 parties signed and not signed the states of Malaya then. So after Singapore left in August, 1965, it is Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya or 3 equal partners and not as distorted 13 states as partners.

Any Agreement made by the parties concerned must be fulfilled by the partners concerned and not otherwise. Whatever documents including Parliament amendments especially in 1976 are all after thoughts of the conqueror making Malaysia a scam ab initio.

 Lets re-examine the Proclamation of Malaysia--- (start of PoM) WHEREAS by an Agreement made on the Ninth day of July in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three between the Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore it was agreed that there shall be federated the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore with the Federation of Malaya comprising the states of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang[1] and Malacca, and that the Federation shall thereafter be called "MALAYSIA": (end of PoM) 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, the Lord of the Universe, forever be an independent and sovereign democratic State founded upon liberty and justice, ever seeking to defend and uphold peace and harmony among its people and to perpetuate peace among nations.

 Is this Proclamation questioned or questionable even after 53 years as to its reality?

 I hope the Civil Court or Constitutional Court or the Public Court can decide on the substance over form / form over substance in the context of sizes of various states in Malaysia when Sabah and Sarawak together is bigger than Malaya and in the same rank of the much smaller states Perlis and Malacca. So we must now deal with this deformity of Malaysia and resolve or dissolve it in the most appropriate manner without fail.

 So what are before us when Nancy Shukri pledged that MA63 and its shortcomings would be resolved with the Federal government last August, but till today nothing is happening in that direction. Is her recent change of portfolio in the Najb’s cabinet taking charge of Justice/Judiciary impacted that intention to resolve MA63? Now the Sabah state Government is talking of devolution of power rather than independence references within Malaysia in MA63.

What other items still in the works of MA63 and related issues are state rights taken over by the Federal Government namely our oil and gas (even killed to get its way or release the OSA on the investigation report on the Sembulan crash after 40 years), the promised of 40% revenue not returned to the two states for more than 40 or 50 years (now meaningless and diluted with a 8 points TOR on the latest committee to be treated as confidential) and just like Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah –RCI IIS as directionless), the fishery rights, the distributions of development funds in 11 Malaysian Plans of 13 states instead of 3 not to mention the annual fiscal budgets and the dubious project IC holders in Sabah and elsewhere.

 All these would add up to lots of hundreds of billions Ringgit that need to be returned to the two Borneo States to be placed as sovereign funds of each state not to be abused by any existing state Governments.


 I will write another article on the 8 points TOR on Devolution of Power. 31 August 2016 and 16 September, 2016 are just around the corner and these dates are not meaningful for Sabahans and Sarawakians if the national tempo and development had been lopsided for decades.


 Such adverse lopsidedness would likely continue into infinity under the existing setup

. I have suggested Interim Good Governance Government Malaysia (IGGG M) since 2004 for the beginning of the fresh effort of fresh air in this national tragedy to resolve or dissolve Malaysia. Joshua Y. C. Kong. 10/8/2016

Open letter to PM Najib

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/351375 Najib: Who says Malaysia a failed nation under me? Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/351375#ixzz4GYBIgvOB [sorry -the paragraphs deleted by the blog]



 Open letter to the PM Datuk Sri Najib by Joshua Y. C. Kong 4th August, 2016

 This is an open letter to you in response to the demand that no foreign intervention in Malaysia as he told the 12th WIEF and I quote: “Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said today the Muslim world should reject foreign intervention, as it clearly leads to devastating results, as seen in many countries.”

 Was he referring at this special juncture of the Kleptocracy Assets Recovery Initiates (KARI) of US Department of Justice (DoJ)? If that is so he has to search his conscience if any, on the “Malaysian Official 1” or MO1.

 He has to accept that certain international laws had been abused and no exception for any action to be exempted from appropriate legal enforcement by foreign countries.

 The Muslim world is also part of the United Nations framework hence “foreign intervention” is inevitable unless Najib wants to have a new protocol and new definition in the international arena against public interest.

 Needless to relate to the importance of inter-related activities in the global context in various parameters especially in the economic sector especially Malaysia now in sort of horizon of the worst economic indicators in recent years when the foreign debts (registered or unregistered) rising from RM90b in 1998 to nearly RM1trillion (subject to review) in 2016.


 PM, you have to tell us how you would resolve the massive foreign debts largely accumulated by your Government since 2009 as we are at the edge of massive economic collapse as we cannot be isolated from global economy as we have seen in many countries around the world. Just to name a few nations in three continents in great distress like Greece in Europe where the people have to queue at ATMs for a week when banks were closed only limited to E60 per day while Greece was awaiting for financial bail out by EU.

 The other country is in Africa under one man rule of 34 years where the unemployment hit 90 percent, while more than 80 percent of the population was living on just US$2 per day.

In Venezuala of South America a very rich country in oil but the recent low prices resulted in the impact of the country's problems are all too obvious to most Venezuelans such as:-. • Shortages of food and home staples like milk, flour and toilet paper • Shortages of medicine • Rolling blackouts • Rising unemployment • Soaring violent crime • Even malaria, once almost eradicated, is back on the rise.

 Mr. PM, would you really be in the position of keeping Malaysia away from those economic crisis as experienced by many countries around the world? Malaysians do not want any such economic dilemma to come to our shores under your continued leadership of directionless. One thing is for sure that Malaysia is a small trading nation that is dependent of the development of the global trade and economy. It is in the air that USA may face an emerging bubble in derivatives investment market after two previous bubbles on stock/shares (2000) and subprime properties (2008) on and around two previous US elections on changing presidents.

The bubble on derivatives market worth USD553trillions could have a massive devastation globally if this market crashes as the banks concerned cannot support such value in a collapse.

So Mr. PM, what would you do if there is an impending bubble which would affect the Malaysia economy adversely? Would you go to some foreign countries for help or “intervention”?

 Even currently, you are selling some prime assets of 1MDB to foreigners to get cash to pay off debts. Malaysia does not have any reliable sovereign fund to bail out the nation when global economic crisis bites into the domestic economy which is very much dependent on exports or trade.

 Now according to data of Bank Negara Malaysia, various indicators of the balance of payment for the quarter 1 of 2016 were all down from the previous quarter. You remain indifferent to the decline. 


From all your attitudes and known behaviour since 2009 as PM, all the chances to keep Malaysia afloat economically is gone as demonstrated by recent denials in 1MDB vis-à-vis D o J in KARI and yet you have stated that you can save Malaysia and how would you do it based on entanglements in so many questioned involvements over 40 years in the political arena.

 How would you free yourself from excessive indulgence which is harmful to the society at large? Your deemed failure is not your own doings alone but the whole illegitimate Government has been disabled by measures you had initiated in recent years bias to race and religions.


I have challenged the legitimacy of your Government as most General Elections were rigged by the Election Commission especially I had lodged Police Reports on GE2004, GE2008 and even brought the rigged GEs to the High Court where cheating had occurred and the timeless challenge to the rigged GE2013 is still available due to the EC’s publication of two Gazettes on the results of the Elections.

 Details of the rigged GEs are available in the blogs and social media. Tun Dr. Mahathir had come up with a Save Malaysia Declaration (SMD) but how would this effort be meaningful when UMNO/exUMNO had its chances for more than 53 years of Malaysia and to arrive in today’s economic and financial decadence?


 Mr PM, you had instituted the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal immigrants Sabah (RCIIIS) in 2012 and then the distorted/manipulated Royal Report only came out on 4th December, 2014. Until today more than 18 months, nothing has been resolved in particular the disputed “Project IC” for a few decades already.

 Why have you allowed so many foreigners (dubious legal / illegal) in Sabah to result in GENOCIDE in Sabah embracing prevailing apartheid and ethnic cleansing as the definition and parameters of genocide? Are not these foreigners interfere with our natural life in Sabah also affecting adversely the nation? You told us to reject foreign intervention. So are you sound to remain the Prime Minister?

I would like to hear from the Chief Minister of Sabah if he agrees with the PM to reject foreign intervention?

 So Mr PM, why are you staying on power just like a failed person and failed leader with all sorts of denials? Are you trying to save yourself by wriggling by whatever means still available including further abuses of power?

 Since 2004, I have offer my determined effort to Save Malaysia with clean hands in what I call Interim Good Governance Government, Malaysia (IGGG M) which I consider as the most appropriate solution in a disintegrating community. IGGG (M) is also considered as ‘people power’ as the people has lost much faith in the prevailing political framework when the many opposition leaders can be from the bn/umno which had harmed the nation beyond recognition since 1963.

 Mr PM, please don’t delay to hand back your appointment to the YDP Agung for a peaceful and much appreciated transfer of power so that the Agung can install the IGGG M promptly to save Malaysia based on good governance. I am only asking for an interim of two years to resolve the key issues faced by the nation under the long and sole questioned Government of BN/UMNO lacking in check and balance. Joshua Y. C. Kong 4th August, 2016