Police Reports (2) on double six

Police Report by Joshua Y C Kong against Rakimin Nawin  (RN) on  6 November, 2019

Supervisor Rakimin Nawin had on 19 August 2019 (DE 21/8/2019) lodged a Police Report against Joshua Y C Kong and he alleged matters and urge the authorities to take criminal action against me in criminal matters under Penal code 202 which states that in Act 574 -202 of the Penal code as “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.”

I have written two letters “ Only RCI can provide closure to mystery” (DE 23 June, 2019)  and “RCI still the best means of knowing what happened” (DE 7 July, 2019), both for Royal Commission of Inquiry with good intention.

The few facts revealed by me is for the RCI to dwell in to find closure so that the souls living or dead can be set free. They can be information untouched in the socalled investigation in 1976 with the report soon classified as official secret while RCI report must be made public. So it is never too late to expose what had been missing in 1976. Crimes committed has no time limit after so much soul searching within me.

I would like to have those Police Reports lodged against me on Double Six.

I urge the authorities investigate supervisor Rakimin Nawin for his interest in the Double Six.  Has a statement of his being recorded by Police?

If penal code 202 is applied on me, then I had lodged more than 30 Police Reports and extended these reports to MACC, Suhakam and Biro Pengaduan Awam. Are these bodies (PDRM, MACC, Suhakam and BPA ) withholding such criminal activities given by me also be subject to PC 202?  The lists of Police reports are attached.

       Joshua Y C Kong

Laporan Police oleh Joshua Y C Kong atas Rakimin Nawin (RN) pada    6hb November, 2019

Pengelia Rakimin Nawin pada 19hb Ogos,2019 (DE 21 Aug., 2019) buat laporan Polis atas Joshua YC Kong dan dia tuduh perkara-perkara dan gesa perentah ambil tindakan pada saya kaitan jenayah di bawah Kod Jenayah 202 yang di sebut dalam akta 574 “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.

Saya ada tulis dua puchok surat “ Only RCI can provide closure to mystery” (DE 23 June, 2019)  dan “RCI still the best means of knowing what happened” (DE 7 July, 2019), kedua minta bagi Suruhanjaya Di Raja  dengan perhatian yang jujur.

Beberapa kenyataan yang didedahkan oleh saya ialah kea rah Suruhanjaya Di Raja (SDR) supaya dapat penutupan case itu jadi orang-orang bekenaan yang hidup atau mati boleh di bebaskan.  Perkara perkarayang mungkin belum di sentokkan dalam siasatan di tahun 1976 laporannya di tutup sebagai rahsia resmi apabila laporan SDR terus di papankan selepas di seleisaikan.  Jadi nya tidak terlambat dedahkan apa-apa yang belum di nampak pada tahun 1976.  Jenayah dilaku dah ada had masa selepas beberapa lama semangat saya cari dalam sendiri (soul searching).

Saya mahu dapat Laporan Police dan penyataan  pada saya berkaitan Double Six.

Saya gesa pihak yang berkuasa siasat penyelia Rakimin Nawin atas minat nya dalam Doube Six. Adakah penyataan RN di buat oleh Polis?

Kalau Kod Jenayah 202 di gunakan atas saya, saya sudah buat laporan Police sebanyak 30 dan laporan itu ada di hantarkan ke SPRM, Suhakam dan Biro Pengaduan Awam. Adakah badan –badan ini ( PDRM, SPRM, Suhakam dan BPA) yang ambil dan dah buat apa-apa atas laporan itu juga di salahkan di bawah Kod Jenayah 202?  Senarai Laporan Polis adalah di sertai.

Joshua Y C Kong      NB: English version is more accurate

Police Report by Joshua Y C Kong against Awang Jambul believed to be a staff of Tan Sri Harris Salleh, the exCM of Sabah 1976-1985     6 November, 2019

Awang Jambul (AJ)– a real name – wrote a letter in Daily Express on 30 June, 2019 titled “Double Six: Acknowledge facts, reality” and in that letter he mentioned three important issues namely 1.  The letter by Joshua Y C Kong in forum last Sunday for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry……….is RUBBISH, FALSE AND NONSENCE; 2. Much trouble with previous government (USNO) what trouble?  Absolute nonsence – Anti Malaysia ? 3. Harris Mohd Salleh (HMS) to sue me apart from other minor inaccurate issues.

The matters before us is (1) that AJ is anti Royalty and great insult to the Monarchy and greatly disparage and disgrace the YDP DYMM Agong as RCI is the prerogative of Agong. (2)  AJ charged that Joshua Kong is Anti Malaysia which is a criminal defamation as he has no proof of that and that it is a false allegation to downgrade me in the nation I love so much as I served sincerely and very well in the Sabah Civil Service with millions of recovered revenue. (3) Why AJ urged HMS to act against me when HMS always claimed that he alone would sue on Double Six (DE 14 June 2019)?

AJ did not bring up Penal Code 202 but unknown supervisor Rakimin Nawin raised this in a Police Report on 19 August, 2019, two month later.

With this report, I urge that Awang Jambul and any others connected with him be taken to task accordingly for what he had done with evil intent in the said letter.

  Joshua Y C Kong

Laporan Polis oleh Joshua Y C Kong ke – atas Awang Jambul disangka kakitangan Harris M. Salleh (HMS) mantan Ketua Menteri 1976-1985  pada 6hb November, 2019

Awang Jambu (AJ) – nama asal- telah tulis surat di Daily Express pada 30 June, 2019 bertajuk forum Ahad lalu supaya buat Suruhanjaya Di-Raja (SDR) sebagai “RUBBISH, FALSE AND NONSENCE (sampah, palsu, merapik)”; (2) saya Anti Malaysia atau bantah Malaysia (3) HMS ambil tindakan Mahkamah dan lain lain..

Perkara didepan kita adalah (1) AJ adalah seorang anti-raja-raja, jatuhkan meruah institusi raja-raja (monarchi), merendah-rendah YDP DYMM Agung apabila adalah kuasa-kuasa Agong berkaitan tugasnya yang dah boleh dikecilkan  (2) AJ katakan saya anti Malaysia tanpa bukti dan inilah criminal defamation /pencemaran jenayah kerana tuduhan palsu itu turun status saya sebagai orang ta’at negara yang saya cintai dan berkhidmat dengan jujur dalam perkidmatan negeri Sabah dengan mempungut banyak hasil berjuta-juta ringgit.  (3)Kenapa AJ gesa HMS ambil tinakan Mahkamah pada saya apabila HMS selalu dakwa sendirinya bertindak atas Double Six (DE 14hb June, 2019)?

AJ dak bawa perkara Kod Jenayah 202 tetapi orang biasa Rakimin Nawin bongkar perkara hal ini dalam Laporan Polis pada 19 Ogos, 2019 dua bulan kemudian.

Dengan laporan ini, saya gesa bahawa tindakan perentah yang semestinya diambil atas Awang Jambul dan orang lain berkaitan nya kerana apa yang jahat/dosa di buat oleh AJ dalam suratnya

Joshua Y C Kong       NB: English vyersion is more accurate.

 

The defining movement of PDA 1974 and Government of Malaya is now exposed

The defining movement of PDA 1974 and Government of Malaya is now exposed

In Petroleum Development Act 1974 Act 144, and stated in Definition 10. For the purpose of this Act, the expression “petroleum” means any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition and casing head petroleum spirit including bituminous shales and other stratified deposits from which oil can be extracted

Definition of petroleum (Merriam-webster) since 1828 : an oily flammable bituminous liquid that may vary from almost colorless to black, occurs in many places in the upper strata of the earth, is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons with small amounts of other substances, and is prepared for use as gasoline, naphtha, or other products by various refining processes

Definiition of Petroleum (the Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of current English) London Oxford  University Press 1963 is mineral oil. Definition is defining and defining is explain the meaning of (e.g. words) and/or state or show clearly

Definition of Petroleum  (Chambers Encyclopedic English Dictionary 1994)  noun a naturally occurring oil consisting of a thick black, brown, or greenish liquid mixture of hydrocarbon and definition is “a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase and the quality of  having clear, precise limits or form.

So the issues before us are that the questioned clear meaning of the words “ definition” and “petroleum” used in the said Act of Parliament in the context of natural gas .

As the word “definition” is used in substantive error based on the dictionaries in the Act, the Act is an illegality null and void ab initio in the extraction of petroleum and natural gas in Sabah.

Petroleum is the substance that can be extracted if PDA 1974 Act 144 valid and in this case as the said Act is faulty hence illegal and extraction of natural gas is also illegal.

So do we need to go to Malaysian Judiciary to settle the PDA 1974 in terms such as financial, legal, power and nation building?

Or is it for the Parliament to decide on this Act and act accordingly to handle the illegal act of extracting massive amount of petroleum (liquid) and natural gas illegally since 1976 in Sarawak and Sabah or any other states in Malaysia?   

A top practising lawyer who is now retired from Judiciary recently had told me once that he could win court cases by finding faults with a word or two. Here we have grave dispute with definition, petroleum and natural gas.

In the same veins of illegalities aplenty if properly scrutinised in Malaysia, isn’t it an illegal act for the Government of Malaya to be “defunct” by design after signing the Malaysia Agreement 1963 on 9^th July, 1963? How can a signatory to a very important agreement MA63 go missing without notice for so long after signing the said Agreement? Isn’t it MA63 like any partnership agreement that can have litigation subsequently?

Lets say now MA63 is in grave and great dispute and the partners in Borneo decides to file a legal case in Court against Malaya, and who can be the defendant? If the defendant is Malaysia, isn’t it an irony that Sabah and Sarawak as part of the Government of Malaysia with parliamentarians suing itself in any internal disputes? What would be the stand of the Judiciary in wrong party?  Again if the decision of such legal case be decided in favour of the states in Borneo, any such financial compensation and damages would be shared by the three states/entities Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak making a mockery of justice.

Would these cases especially PDA 1974 be settled amicably or otherwise?

Joshua Y C Kong 27/10/2019

Copyrights reserved.