Stay strong Sri Lanka

I have been there three times for different purposes: free medical service, cultural trip and disaster relief.

Always touched by their religious piety, the beauty of nature and the harmonious relationship among people and animals.

Stay strong Sri Lanka, bless you Sri Lankan!

(left) A devoted woman holding newly picked Lotus for offering outside the Buddhist temple.
(right) Another woman prayed faithfully with joss ticks.

A young man with his “pet” inside the touristic hotspot Galle Dutch Fort, which survived the 2004 tsunami.

回到1976年

问：砂拉越和沙巴1976年自己降格成州，现在又不赞成恢复地位。是东马自己害自己。

回应黄进发的Sabah and Sarawak downgraded by their MPs in 1976

答：

成为边缘，即是整体的一部分，却被排除在主体之外。
To be in the margin is to be part of the whole but outside the main body——Bell Hooks, 2000

把砂拉越或沙巴简化成一个单一的个体，是典型核心看待边缘的盲点。把少数的边缘看成单一的、没有内部复杂性的、没有时间和空间差异的单位，是最需要反省，且透露了提倡所谓“平等地位”的人，态度上仍是“马来亚本位”。

1976年是43年前的事了，当时的议员当然不是现在的议员。同一个选区的议员即使是同个阵营的系谱，也不代表他们必须有一致的看法。我想，大家应该也很清楚，包括同一个党内同一个选区的前后议员之想法也不一定一样。问这些问题，好比希盟问国阵当时为什么不这样，然后国阵现在问回老马和安华，你们当时又不为什么这样，这样的循环逻辑很杀时间。

MA63 and Malaysia Day are NOT defined in Constitution since 1963

For those who claim the conspiracy of GPS to abstain their votes, please include to the 2015 book “The Queen’s Obligation” as part of the “story”. To make the story complete, please claim that GPS has predicted about the return of Mahathir and the change of federal regime in 509 (so they can form GPS).

Otherwise, we might need to listen to the other side of story. Zainnal Ajamain from Sabah pointed out the Malaysia constitution from very beginning has very weak link to Malaysia Agreement 1963. There is NO mention of the term “Malaysia Agreement 1963” in the whole constitution. (This was raised up by the GPS MP during 9 April debate.) However, the term “Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957” and “Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948” appear in article 160.

Second, the term “Malaysia Day” appeared in 44 instances to commence the execution of MA63 and IGCR. However, the term “Malaysia Day” is NOT defined properly, it appeared as a footnote. In contrast, the term “Merdeka Day” is well defined as “31 August 1957” in 160(2). Why can’t we well defined “Malaysia Day” from the very beginning?

The first draft of “partnership” constitutional amendment

If this issue is not something that I familiar with or that important, I should not comment too much. However, I feel that constitutional amendment is too important (as the highest law in “the Federation”). Based on the information I collected during the past few years from the major libraries/archives in Singapore, Taipei and Kota Kinabalu, I feel that this constitutional amendment is too hasty and contains implicit political agenda from PH.

Tomorrow (9 April) will be the day for the second and third readings of RUU (and it may last until mid-night). If PH and its alliance receive nine more support, I perceive that it is difficult to propose another constitutional amendment on this issue in the next 20 years (if Malaysia is still there).

Although many politicians and NGOs have requested for the amendment draft since the end of March, the draft was only publicly presented during the first reading on April 4, and the people has only five days to discuss and react before the voting.

Since the PM announcement in last September, all the public discourse was centered on the term “Wilayah/Territory”, which made people mistakenly think that the term “Wilayah/Territory” would appear in the draft. Subsequently, many people questioned the real meaning of the term, but there was no official reply. The SS government even mistakenly believed and announced their readiness to drop off the usage of “State/Negeri” in all official documents after the amendment. Now I know that “Wilayah/Territory” is just an illusion to shifts the public focus. The 2019 draft does not contain the term “Wilayah/Territory”, afterwards many PH politicians argue hardly to prove that the term “States/Negeri” functions as “Wilayah/Territory”. Wao! We do not believe in the explanation that are not written on the draft.

Moreover, whether the draft proves “three territories” or “two territories”, their explanation are still self-contradictory. By turning the 1976 version from one into two lines, does it actually mean “three territories”? Then why not three lines? If all PH politicians agree that it is “two territories”, then at least I can understand that there is a consensus from their point of views! But in fact, no consensus among them! (Please check their statements from internet)

Then they claim that this draft is equivalent to 1963 version. If so, why do they delete “the States of Malaya” and “the Borneo States”? Minister LVK’s own explanation is that the two words are simply “out of date”. He claimed that “the Borneo States” could refer to Brunei and Kalimantan as well. Is it logic for Brunei and Kalimantan to appear in the Malaysia’s highest law? Moreover, isn’t the line, “namely, Sabah and Sarawak” explain further on what are “the Borneo States”?
Furthermore, if “Malaya” is out of date, why PH politicians back up the definition of “the Federation” in the 160(2) articles, “the Federation established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957” ? Why is the “Malaya” of the 1(2) article out of date, and then the 160(2) article still relevant? They claimed that the 160(2) articles have nothing to do with the 1(2) article, but there is no further explanation given. In my opinion, the distinction that makes the 1(2) and 160(2) article irrelevant is to emphasize and restore “the States of Malaya” and “the Borneo States” in the 1(2) article, in order to veto the general definition of “the Federation” in the Constitution. Another more thorough approach is of course to modify the definition of 160(2) “the Federation” into “the Federation established under the Federation of Malaysia Agreement 1963”.

Do remember, the 160(5) article clearly states that “the Federation” has nothing to do with the definition of “the Federation” under “the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948”. Then why can’t we repeat the same in the Constitution by adding similar line to void “the Federation established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957”?

The confusion about the definition of “the Federation” has been raised up by scholars since 2015 (maybe earlier). We cannot accuse that the East Malaysian MP are making trouble this time. As long as the definition of 160(2) “the Federation” remained, “the Federation of Malaya” still exists in De Jure. In fact, I am very happy to see the status restoration of the lost “Federation of Malaya” in De facto.

After 4th April, the comments of the PH MP were directed to show “the unreasonableness” of localism MP, saying that they advocated the status restoration and now they oppose the act, that they are dominated by Umno. PH MP are trying to imply that if this amendment succeeds, localism parties will have nothing to attract votes. If PH MP really want them to lose local support, my suggestion is to return the oil and gas tax to 20%; it will be much more effective.

Some of the PH MP and scholars have pointed their fingers to 1976 scenario, showing that SS MP themselves support the amendment with the reasons to integrate more into Malaysia. Please, analyze the 1976 amendment in the politic-social context! Weeks before the constitutional amendment, the chief minister of Sabah and half of his cabinet that insisted on oil and gas tax and autonomy “were exploded”. In addition, in 1976, SS have not fully experienced the hardship for being Malayized and being Islamized.

The most important point, both the BN and PH have pledged to restore the status of 1963 before the election, rather than the status of 1976. Why focus on 1976? The people were dissatisfied with the 1976 amendment and that is the reason they propose to restore the status of 1963, isn’t it? Unless PH manifesto does not mention 1963, it is at least understandable from their perspective.

If you have watched the live broadcast of the 4th April Parliament, the localists did not completely oppose to the purpose of amendment, but they doubt the practical significance after the amendment. They hope that there will be more time and room for discussion. They request the establishment of special committee to analyze the wordings carefully and then pass the amendment in both Sarawak and Sabah legislative assemblies before passing in the parliament. These are their feedbacks that willing to communicate, and to reduce future disputes. If so, why PH is so rushed?

I sincerely hope that everyone can help me find that a non-contradictory interpretation or clear answers from PH MP in their past few days (4-9 April) statements. Thank you!

written on 8 April, a day before the amendment date
followed by Chinese version

Bukan suka-suka

如果說印尼有Dangdut，那沙巴的代表音樂應是Rentak Sumazau。這種Rentak Sumazau受到卡達山杜順群的傳統音樂、英國流行樂，後來受到馬來流行樂的影響。特點是節奏性很強，然後融入一些銅制敲擊樂。早期從卡達山杜順語變成馬來語居多（也因為越來越多被馬來化，不會自己的母語了）。

這種沙巴歌曲越來越受到馬來亞半島的馬來朋友喜愛。他們通常都會用syiok來形容（即使聽不懂）。這首去年發表的歌也有小知名度。個人覺得這首的歌詞寫得很好。有一些段落善用馬來語的發音特色，『Tapi aku juga manusia biasa』的sia和bia，或『Walau awan datang menghalang』的datang和halang，或『Tiada insan lain selain dirimu』的lain和selain。

歌詞用了最日常生活的方式來表達心裡的感受，釀越久越有滋味。

About the real partnership

No one in the history knew better than Lord Lansdowne, the UK Minister of State for Colonial Affairs as well as the chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee in 1963.

The IGC is formed to ascertain the views and autonomy rights of North Borneo and Sarawak people and the IGC report is signed by the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and United Kingdom representatives (all together 27).

This is how he interpret the “real partnership” during the debate of “The Malaysia Bill 1963” in the UK house, 26 July 1963, 17 days after MA63 is signed in London.

When both PH and BN manifestos are to restore the autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak back to 1963, those leaders should have the least focus on the changes of those rights afterwards, especially after Singapore separation. Have a nice read, if you really care ^^

---

非復邦，仍州也

希盟很傻，復邦一案，若是不想處理可以反悔，或是慢慢商議。如今被認為是騙局一場，只會加速沙砂的獨派聲音。

三個月前，希盟透過各大媒體宣傳『邦』（Wilayah）字眼；宣傳『沙巴、砂拉越和馬來亞，三個同等地位』，但是建議法案竟是，沒有『邦』，也把1976年版本的13聯邦州屬拆成11+2的公式，明顯和宣傳的有差，但是很多網民依然認為是東馬議員鬧事，沒有事先做功課（事前已強烈要求提早公佈草案卻不果）等，令人傻眼。

我們首先看看聯邦憲法第1（2）條文（1963年版本=《馬來西亞聯邦協定》版本）：

聯邦的成員州屬為：
（a）馬來亞州屬，即柔佛、吉打、吉蘭丹、馬六甲、森美蘭、彭亨、檳城、霹靂、玻璃市、雪蘭莪與登嘉樓；（b）婆羅洲州屬，即沙巴與砂拉越；及
（c）新加坡州屬。

1965年新加坡退出，（c）項被刪除。

1976年所謂的沙砂降級修憲：

聯邦的成員州屬為柔佛、吉打、吉蘭丹、馬六甲、森美蘭、彭亨、檳城、霹靂、玻璃市、沙巴、砂拉越、雪蘭莪與登嘉樓。

注意：『馬來亞州屬』和『婆羅洲州屬』兩個字眼不見了。2019年的修案美其名是恢復《馬來西亞協議》版本，但結果和1963年相差很遠。

2019年草案版本：

聯邦的成員州屬為：
（a）柔佛、吉打、吉蘭丹、馬六甲、森美蘭、彭亨、霹靂、玻璃市、檳城、雪蘭莪與登嘉樓；及
（b）沙巴與砂拉越。

外加解釋，不在憲法：//若修正案通過，將牽涉政府的額外財政預算，但金額目前尚未能敲定。//（沒有敲定細節，那就當作沒有說過^^）

注意：『馬來亞州屬』和『婆羅洲州屬』兩個字眼依然不存在。

再看外加解釋的最後一句話：

此修正，在任何形式，不會改變聯邦政府和州政府在聯邦概念下的功能。（Pindaan ini, dalam apa-apa cara, tidak mengubah fungsi Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Kerajaan-Kerajaan Negeri di bawah konsep federalism.）

州屬和聯邦的地位沒有改變，這只是形式上的不同，（現在或未來）都體現不出『恢復平等地位的意義』。