Sabah and Sarawak should get out of Malaysia
Written by: Dr. John Brian Anthony
I saw that the above captioned is very prominent in the face book. The followers are gathering steam and I wonder how could this happen to the younger generation of Sabah and Sarawak. What did the Sabah /Sarawak youth see and experience in Malaysia today that make them angry. Doesn’t the BN government try to make them happy?
Colonization of Sabah and Sarawak.
As we all know, the reason are many and these young educated mind can collect information from all sources, analyze it and make their own conclusion that Sabah / Sarawak (S/S) is but a colony of Malaya. S/S form Malaysia with Malaya and Singapore in the hope of a better future. In the end, as of today, Malaysia bring land grab, make illegal immigrant powerful that they can vote the government they want, lost job opportunities to Malayan people, lost their natural resources revenue to Malaya, bullied by officials who run the religious department, deprived of premier education opportunity, made poor and government could not care less, and all in all the future of S / S is not going to be better under the colonial policies (ketuanan melayu) of Malaya.
The above paragraph seemed to sum up the pent up frustration and anger of the youth of S/S. Little wonder then that Pakatan Rakyat is picking up support as the young voters start to reject BN Government.
The Rejection of BN Government
I must say that BN try to bring a lot of improvement to S/S. Unfortunately the current State leaders are CORRUPT to the bone. The whole BN component parties members are longing for fast short term financial gain and left the poor people with little or nothing to enjoy. The “RACIALIST” policy of BN UMNO are bringing disunity instead of a strong a united country. But the leaders of BN refused to acknowledge their folly and that would be their death bed in politics. BN do not know how to listen to the people. BN think that they are all powerful and whatever they say goes. Educated young people do not agree to such approach.
We are building a nation – not a race or to make a religion supreme. Our history and identity are different then how are you going to make that homogenize.
As ciizen of Malaysia we should have equal rights. It seems Malaysia is practicing “Animal Farm politics” as written by George Owell, who wrote that “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal then others”. That statement seemed to describe what is Malaysia today very well.
S/S to get out of Malaysia
This is a very sensitive topics to the Federal BN Government. Many people has been put under Internal security Act detention because they advocate the idea that S/S should get out of Malaysia if they want to progress. S/S is prohibited to get out of Malaysia by LAW. So if you want S/S to get out of Malaysia you have to hold a referendum or get ready to fight a civil war with Malaya as the “colonial master”.
Malaysia was well designed that we do not need to resort to fight to get out of Malaysia if the Federal Government behave fairly. The 18 / 20 points is an agreement to make S/S autonomous in all the elements of the agreement. Some of the point has been incorporated in the federal Constitution BUT subsequent BN leaders either out of greed or simply ignorance if not plain stupidity do not take historical circumstances seriously.
The Federal Government under their “National Integration” policy push for Ketuanan Melayu ideas and by doing so marginalized the people of S/S. This marginalization or deprivation of equal rights and opportunities is seen as the “colonizing” behavior of BN Federal Government. It seems the youth of S/S is taking the fight to resist this colonization policy of the Federal Government.
So the federal Government must take serious view of their own behavior and change it because the S/S youth have decided to change their own self to defend the autonomy principle as inbedded in the 18 / 20 points agreement.
Conclusion
It is BN Federal Government choice to turn their blind eyes and put cotton wool unto their ears so that the voices of the S/S Youth would not be heard. What the youth is promising now is that “SABAH SARAWAK will not be BN Government “fixed deposit” anymore.
The king makers of the Federal Government is Sabah and Sarawak. The youth of Sabah and Sarawak must take this opportunity to play hard ball with the current Federal Government who in itself is weak due to weak moral leadership of the Prime Minister.
We want change and we demand change to take place OR you will be changed.
Change WE Must.
Popularity: 40% [?]
Related posts:
- Sarawak and Sabah is a colony of Malaya. Written by: Dr. John Brian Anthony I would like to...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
114 Responses to “Sabah and Sarawak should get out of Malaysia”
Leave a Reply
Download Sarawak’s Alternative Budget 2012 by PR
-
Total Hits
Hehe…Akih Hawong/Iban Semarahan/CA will never agree with such move of Sabah/Sarawak seperated from Malaya. They surely loose more if Sabah and Sarawak leaves Malaysia…..
So…..Kaban Dr JBA…that can be an impossible dream as many of our dayaks still love to be in Malaysia….
It’s not that we love to be in Msia. Some elements of infairness and injsutice are really in there. The article forgot to mention that a big chunk of federal budget is spent on Malaya. Either Malaya has to correct the problems or some will shout to get of out of Msia. Afterall, some Malays in Malaya call Malaysia is Malaya excluding S/S.
Having said that, do you not think that it’s too early to shout the idea of secession like S’pore. The people cannot even change the BN govt at the moment. What to shout about?
O man, you sound too provocative nowadays after losing the Meluan election. You even left PKR. Isn’t due to grudges? You even left PBB after having joined its Youth wing and Dr. Stephen Rundi selected to replace Ujang.
WE wait to see the fruits of your DCC after you has been appointed its chairman. NOw you are really at the forefront. Haven’t you tasked by DAP to get the Dayaks’ support during next Swak state election and rewarded by appoitment as the CM?
Even in UK whose British govt helped to form Msia, there is intention to break away from UK ie Northern Ireland via IRA.
Dr. JBA
If DCC can deliver some Dayak-majority seats for DAP in next state or parliment elections, it’s a very good achievement! So which and how many seats do you and DCC/DAP aim for?
It’s quite logical to think that Sbh & Swak got independence thru Malaya by forming Msia but Malayan Malys seem to forget that they need seats from SBh & Swak to remain in power. S’pore which acted as a threat to Malays’ power was in fact expelled from Msia.
[...] Read the original post: Sabah and Sarawak should get out of Malaysia : Dr. John Brian … [...]
MALAYA,
You are happy now after being made so complacent and rich through Oil and Gas revenue that you earn by pumping from SARAWAK soil since 1979.
We are the new generation of Sarawak, the land of REMAUNG Dayak. We, totally given up, we have nothing left and never be at par equally like yours. You have been sucking our gas and oil and left behind 5% for Sarawak, that is not pretty enough.
No doubt DAYAK is not unite right now in Sarawak, but do not take for granted, the BN DAYAK strong supporters will slowly disperse and disappear, the young DAYAK blood is slightly different, they live through their history and now we start QUESTIONING the fact and truth written in that history.
The history has been written differently compared to the physical things happen nowadays in this land of DAYAK. Therefore, we realize that we were cheated and treated badly by the Federal which is MALAYA.
Our current DAYAK leaders are very good in encouraging us continuously supporting YOU
MALAYA !!!, never mind slowly all these will be archived in the Museum negara.
Believe that, the current generation of Dayak are the victim of your policy in your effort to materialise or to ensure that MELAYU MALAYA is and always be right now and for the future the SUPREME POWER IN THIS COUNTRY. We were made as 3RD CLASS BUMIPUTERA behind Melayu and Melanau, and we also being treated as the lowers class of citizen and yet you MALAYA so proud of yourself for declaring yourself as a SUPERIOR to us the DAYAK.
We have nothing left for the future, we have nothing to proud of for the next generation, our land and mountain left behind for us by our ancestor has been gone under water, the DAM that was built by you and own by you right in front of our own home here in this land of Sarawak.
According to our agreement, English should be the medium of communication in this land of Sarawak, but that not happen, we were not only colonizing by your policy but we also colonized by your language as well.
We were made only to become your “KULI” but never be the boss in any fields particularly in the gas and oil industries. Most of the jobs and employments available in any government department are also only for your people to monopolized.
Sooner or later, the Dayak generation will realize all these, we will rise up. Whatever the beginning there is always the ending, for us could be very sad ending, this may not happen now, people of Sarawak particularly the DAYAK slowly awake after being gone through all the hard life with lacking of basic infrastructure at home and the poorest among all Malaysian
We were treated just like 3rd class bumiputera at our own soil behind Melayu and Melanau, therefore, Dayak generation must strike now, it is getting late, Malays has been here monitoring, observing, planning and analyzing how to take over our beloved country Sarawak from us.
Shad Salem Farugi a Professor Emeritus at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM writes ” Can Sabah and Sarawak change their mind and seek independence? The answer is simple and blunt. No state has a right to secede from the Federation. Our destinies are inter-twined and any differences must be settled through negotiation and compromise. Singapore did not secede. It was expelled by amendments to the 1957/1963 Constitution. Whatever the political rhetoric may be, the legal answer is clear. Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution states that Malaysia consists of 13 and not three regions.”
Jauh panggang ari api,dini tunu babi deka kamansau. Ia ke pelik amat deka deka Independence ari Malaya tang bangsa diri mpu mpai olih gempong,BN mpai olih tumbangka,bakani deka nyebut meleka ari Malaya. Melalut, Mamau. Teruk agi ga beria-ia ngasuh Cina voice out for Dayak.Dini bulih penemu tu,nama udah kena beli Cina ka? Berapa raga? Nama semoa kita ditu nadai penemu,nadai pemandai? Nama tak pandai amat ga meri koment dlm tu,YB,Menteri, KM pan nda kala didinga aku mansut ke penemu baka ngek kita ditu,tang nama kebuah selalu ngasuh bangsa bukai deh nyampai ke penemu kita tu,nama takut? Nama nda tru semoa kitai ke dlm blog tu deh? Retinya penemu kedipansut ke kita dlm tu bula maganglah tau ngasut Cina?.Peda kita Red Rally mpai lama, dini moa Cina,berapa ratus ribu nurun?.
Nti deka ngeleka ke diri Melaya,deka megai diri,merintah kediri,mujur ke bangsa diri anang ngasoh bangsa bukai,party bukai.Nti nadai parti, sukong “BEBAS”.BEBAS retinya Idependence. Kelimpah ari BEBAS, sukong PKR laban tru PKR kitai bangsa bisi chance nyadi CM,ukai…ukai…ukai…tru DAP.
Uchu lemmambang madah nda olih besuara nti ari Bebas,nama tulong DAP ngagai bangsa dek deh? Nti setakat besemaia,bejanji,nulong madah ke pemerinsa bangsa diri, aku,nuan ngau bala bukai ke dlm tu pan olih ga nti setakat ngaga diri kasih meda pemerinsa bangsa dayak,bangsa laut,melanau tauka bangsa Cina,amat ngau nda janji nya,nti udah tembu bepilih, baru berunding baru.
Berubah,sama deka berubah tang ukai ngasoh bangsa bukai ngubah kitai.Bakanya ga kitai sama deka numbang ke BN,tang ukai ngasoh Cina tau ka laut nyadi tuai,kitai dayak mpu nyadi tuai.
Kaban & Unggal Brangking,
Your statement was very rigid regarding the position of Sarawak being one of the thirteen states of Malaysia.There must have been some ammendments then now that we have the likes of Federal territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan.In the same perspective can there be ‘any possibility’ of having an ammendment for Sabah and Sarawak to secede or TO GET OUT of the COLONIAL GRIP of Kuala Lumpur ??
Branking,
very well, there are 13 states.forget the 20 point agreement,pro rata. why do sarawakians and sabahan , in the millions, cry foul over indifferent treatment compared to the 11 states in malaya?
hahahahaha..finally dr.john wrote this magical lines. I have been fighting for this since the day PBDS was cheated and defeated. My god bless sabah and sarawak. don’t forget lee kuan yew’s statement in his book, he said that when brunei and singapore left malaysia, the agreement should have been invalid. poor the previous weak and naive dayak leaders who failed to act. good luck.
The only way is ….REFERENDUM like what happened in Timur2. If we are not in good terms and felt marginalized, what is the use of joining the Federation. It might be an easy task! But the people’s power will decide the final outcomes. Am I right,kaban? It’s your SAY?
soviet union was so solid in the past, yet it collapsed. so don’t ever say that this is an impossible dream.
errata..
….It might not be an easy task!……
not easy but not impossible
Nadai utai enda olih kaban. Smua tok bpanggai penyrakup kitai bansa(dayak). Contoh Timur Leste
Wow, very smart lah you poor Dayak BN voters made TPK, Taib to enjoy the lootings in fast private jets!
Bijak, Bijak Dayak! Keep on voting BN Dayak Makin Miskin, Kroni BN Enjoy Kaya Raya! Bijak, Bijak Dayak!
—————
Asian operators emerge – Managing a flight department in Malaysia
By Grant McLaren, Professional Pilot Magazine January 1996
“How much do you want for that Falcon?” Tan Sri Ting Pek Khiing asked Dassault representatives during the Langkawi Airshow of December 1993. He was given a list price on the Falcon 900B demonstrator that had brought company executives down to the Malaysian airshow.
“No, you don’t understand — I want your best cash price for taking the airplane with me right now.”
The chairman of Kuala Lumpur-based Ekran Berhad got his Falcon 900B, Serge and Olivier Dassault returned to France by airline and the trijet launched into a 330-day annual travel schedule racking up close to 1000 hours the first year. Managing Capt. James Hanafin together with Captain Pat O’Donahue, who had been operating Ting’s Hawker 800, were dispatched to Falcon school right after the purchase and have scarcely had a day off since.
“Aircraft are our chairman’s basic means of transport. He works all the time, there’s no fixed schedule in his life and we never know where we’ll be flying next,” says Hanafin who has boarded everything on the Falcon from Thai Royal family members to case lots of glass blocks, hinges and bedding required to keep a hotel development on deadline.
Typhoon Ting
Tan Sri Ting, 51, leads a life focused on speed. He’s become famous in Malaysia for building projects in record time and for taking on seemingly impossible tasks. Ting made the Guinness book of records building the 300-room Langkawi Delima resort in just 52 days and the 267-room Sheraton Langkawi in just 100 days. These record times include everything from swimming pool construction right down to landscaping and interior decor details. Ekran’s current projects include a 6000-residence marina development on the Malaysian resort island of Langkawi, a $560 million office plaza in Kuala Lumpur and a $6 billion hydroelectric project in the jungles of Malaysian Borneo slated for completion in just six years. Meanwhile, Ting is busy developing an airport in Bakun Sarawak, complete with a terminal, to support his new regional carrier — Saeaga Airlines — which will operate four Canadair CRJs and four de Havilland Dash 8s by the end of 1996.
“Wasting time is wasting money,” says Ting. “With a private jet I can keep all my projects on time. It gives me a competitive edge and better control over my businesses. I never have to make the excuse that I can’t attend a meeting and I arrive at my construction sites even before the workers do.”
Ting runs a 12,000 employee organization in timber, construction, hydroelectric dam building and hotel development. A hands-on tycoon, Ting holds his diverse business empire together with the benefit of corporate jets. While his current Falcon 900B will make London one stop out of Malaysia its real forte is in handling typical 1.1 hour missions within Southeast Asia from fields as short at 4000 ft. Ting lives in Kuching, East Malaysia while many of his business activities and offices are based 600 miles to the west across the South China Sea in Kuala Lumpur. Business jets fit right into Ting’s management.
“If you’re in charge you must exercise hands-on control,” advises Ting. “Staying away and issuing orders from afar while you disappear for two months at a stretch is no recipe for success.”
Ting uses his Falcon 900B as some might use a car. He’ll usually depart at 6 am and make up to eight or nine stops a day visiting construction sites and attending meetings. Pilots here fly a minimum of 70 hours a month, average at least 15 RONs and typically don’t know their schedule from one day to the next.
“After the last stop in the evening he’ll usually tell us where he wants to go at 6 am the next morning,” says Hanafin. “We carry handphones and pagers and we always pack clothes for at least four days. It’s rare to have an entire day off — we’re always on call.”
New Asian flight departments
Tan Sri Ting is an example of a new breed of Asian business leaders who have come to realize the efficiencies and unique advantages of business aviation. As individual wealth in the region blossoms more and more flight departments are being established. This is particularly true in Southeast Asia where governments generally support corporate aviation. They desire the technology involved in the bizjet industry and want to attract maintenance and support facilities to the region. Airports, and airport improvements, bring in maintenance, support and repair activity and give local people technological training.
The Asian Bizjet market is growing steadily, if not quickly, observes Hanafin. With more and more regional investments in Vietnam, China and the developing economies of Africa business people are beginning to appreciate the flexibility and control advantages of operating their own aircraft. A number of Falcon 900s, GVs and Global Expresses have been sold into the region lately while midsized to light corporate jets continue to move well.
Cash price, please
Ting bought his first aircraft, a Hawker 800, at the Langkawi airshow in 1991 and operated it close to 900 hours a year with Hanafin and O’Donahue at the helm. The Hawker flew to Australia, China and Europe and sold its owner on the benefits of corporate aviation. When the Falcon 900B was acquired two years later it offered not only better performance but a more comfortable cabin. Recently, Ting purchased a second Falcon 900B which he leases to a retired government official. “Tan Sri Ting prefers the 900′s proportions,” says Hanafin who, himself, now has the baggage capacity to carry crew golf clubs. At this year’s Langkawi show, December 5 – 10, Ting is considering an upgrade to either a Falcon 900EX, a Gulfstream V or a Global Express.
“He is a man who buys what he likes and he’s used to taking a purchase away with him,” observes Hanafin. “He prefers to pay cash and until a couple of years ago didn’t even have a credit card.”
When Ting walked into a Rolls-Royce dealership in London recently asking, “How much,” a salesman gave him the list price of a basic model. “No, you don’t understand,” said Ting. “I want a cash price for all the cars in the showroom.” A manager quickly appeared and a take-away price was worked out for all seven showroom models. Ting had the vehicles crated and shipped back home to East Malaysia. “Why should I waste time,” says Ting.
Selecting an aircraft
“Now, all the salesmen come to me,” Ting says. “I’ve been happy with my Falcon 900B over the past two years but now I’ll look at the 900EX, the GV and the Global Express and then I will choose.”
A number of aircraft could meet the majority of his mission requirements. “Although a Falcon 2000 would suit most of our missions we often need 14 seats when carrying VIPs who travel with entourages of secretaries and bodyguards,” says Hanafin. “A 900EX would give us the same capacity we have now with the added benefit of getting to altitude faster. At full gross out of Kuching to either Dubai or Tokyo the EX will go straight to FL410 while the 900B will only make FL370 directly. A 900EX, with new Dash 60 engines, would also be cheaper to operate.”
Before Ting strikes a deal on a new aircraft he depends on input from his professional pilots.
“I serve as a go-between and run around in the background between Ting and the manufacturers — we try to give him all the information, operating data and advice he may need,” says Hanafin. “We look at various aircraft types and advise on performance. He’s generally very definite about the price he will pay and sticks to that price. Typically, he will want the aircraft immediately.”
Setting up an Asian flight department
Hanafin envisions strong corporate aviation growth in Southeast Asia — particularly in the area of smaller two-person operations. “That’s the way people like it down here — low key, low profile and very individual. You just get on with the job and if you need someone or something you just try to contract it out.”
Setting up a two-person flight department will cost you between $70,000 and $80,000 (plus accommodation allowances and transport) per ex-pat captain. However, it can be difficult finding type-rated contract pilots to cover a crew on vacations. Attractions for pilots based in this part of Asia include a pleasant living environment, white sand beaches, cheap golf fees and a low cost of living.
Managing an Asian-based flight department has both its challenges and pleasures according to Hanafin. You don’t have the benefit of a US-style FBO network, training facilities are usually far afield and you’ll wait longer for parts. However, once you get south of the slot-controlled Japanese and Hong Kong airports operations are generally less restricted than in either the US or Europe. Flight departments here are typically less formally organized than their Western counterparts.
“You don’t see the type of big-style flight departments profiled in Pro Pilot down here,” says Hanafin. “It’s more typical to operate from a hotel room or out of the trunk of a car — we generally have to be very flexible and able to adapt to last minute flight schedules. Dealing with the authorities around here can be as much an art as a science — everything is less structured. There are no slots and the only speed control in this region is into Singapore — you can basically do what you like within reason.”
O’Donahue observes that managing and running an aircraft is a more self-service affair in Southeast Asia and you have to develop your own local connections. Both pilots keep digital diaries filled with phone and fax numbers of ATC centers and other local contacts.
“The tower tells you were to park and that’s it — you’re on your own. Instead of having a lounge you’re either sitting in the aircraft or running around the airport doing everything yourself.”
Ting’s flight department is a true two-person operation. The Falcon shares hangar space in Kuching with state-owned aircraft. Maintenance is handled out of Singapore by Hawker Pacific Ltd and Universal Weather & Aviation’s Singapore Station Manager, Dave Richards, takes care of most international handling and permit arrangements.
A rigorous schedule
Hanafin and O’Donahue’s flight duty is far from dull and they seldom languish days on end in hotel rooms between flights. With a wide range of destination possibilities within the region the crew may spend one night in a five star hotel in Singapore and the next in cramped and windowless rooms in a remote corner of Malaysian Borneo. Flying internationally within Asia has it’s own particular challenges. “China can still be difficult to operate into, Indonesia is generally OK and Vietnam is developing a great attitude toward corporate aviation,” observes Hanafin.
One recent day for Hanafin and O’Donahue involved six sectors and 10 hours of flying. The crew departed Kuching at 6 am for Miri (45 min) and then to Singapore ( 1 hr 45 min) followed by a stage to Kota Kinabalu ( 2 hrs) and on to Kuala Lumpur (2 hrs). From Kuala Lumpur the crew flew back to Kota Kinabalu in East Malaysia (2 hrs) and then home to Kuching (1 hr 15 min) for a few hours rest before a 6 am departure the next morning to Bangkok.
“We work hard but our chairman works even harder,” says Hanafin. “His typical workday begins at 4 am and often ends at 11pm when the runway closes at Kuching. He’s able to make use the aircraft to relax and recharge his batteries between meetings.”
Both Hanafin and O’Donahue agree that this is a great job if you like to fly and don’t have a family.
“You get the equivalent of five years experience here in less than two years and it’s on a new type of aircraft,” says Hanafin. “It gives you a great resume and as we average 20 takeoffs a week we’re always current.”
Ting’s crew flew 120 hours the first month the Falcon was in service and this dropped to between 90 and 100 hours the following six months. Over the past year 9M-BAN flew 840 hours with just over 700 sectors. The crew carries local Jeps as well as those for the Pacific and China. Trip kits are ordered for all missions further afield and into Europe.
Aircraft ops
All-up costs on the Falcon 900 are running $1650 an hour, according to Hanafin, with an average fuel burn of 2300 lbs an hour over a typical 1.1 hour sector. Range on the Falcon 900B is 10.5 hours and 4100 nm at MTOW. However, even when operating out of a 4000 ft strip the Falcon still features a 4.5- 5 hour range capability. This short field performance gives the Dassault product an edge over other large cabin offerings allowing tankering of fuel on multihop regional missions. One recent flight out of Kuching into Indonesia involved nine hours of flying an six sectors with no enroute requirement to refuel.
In the maintenance arena the five-year-old 900B has been virtually trouble-free. The trijet is on a progressive maintenance program and whenever it overnights in Singapore a portion of an inspection is often accomplished. In two years of operation Ting’s Falcon has been down only eight days for unscheduled maintenance. Hanafin advises that advance maintenance planning is important in the region.
“You end up changing components early to avoid grounding the aircraft later for a number of days,” says Hanafin. “You’ve got to be able to fly every day and it makes it even more challenging when your maintenance base is 400 miles away from home base.”
Ting and his pilots will have plenty of flying to look forward to over the next several years. Ekran Berhard’s chairman plans to continue trading up corporate aircraft every other year at the Langkawi airshow, which is held in the Ekran-built Langkawi convention center. Ting’s idea of the ultimate business transport is to have the first corporate configured Boeing 777 in Asia.
“At first I was in doubt about buying a private jet,” recalls Ting. “But, now I am able to do much more business and I can do things faster.”
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
—————-
Excerpts Chapter 4 : Unofficial Timber Rent Appropriation in Sarawak (Part 1)
Sarawak politics and forest management
“Although Sarawak is only a state within the Federation of Malaysia and not a country, Sarawak will be considered as a nation for the purposes of this dissertation as it maintains complete control over its timber resources and, in that sense, retains the policy characteristics of national sovereignty.
During the period covered by this study, Sarawak had two chief ministers: Tun Rahman Abdul Yakub, who served from 1971 to 1981, and his nephew, Taib Mahmud, who served from 1981 to the present. As with the recently deposed Suharto, Taib Mahmud’s power is almost absolute. Asiaweek identified nine “political warlords” in Asia: two each were identified in Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan, and India, and one in Malaysia, the chief minister of Sarawak. Taib Mahmud is described: “He has no private army, but he runs the closest thing to a Malaysian political fiefdom. Kuala Lumpur leaves the Sarawak chief minister alone in return for keeping the state sweet at election time. Massively wealthy from timber concessions, he drives around in a Rolls Royce” (Asiaweek 1995b).”
“The Sarawak Forest Department controls the majority of Sarawak’s forests and issues regulations designed to achieve the sustainable harvest of those forests. The autonomy of the department, however, is severely limited due to the fact that it is under the control of the Ministry of Resource Planning. Taib himself has held the position of Minister of Resource Planning since 1985. Therefore, Taib has the final say over the level at which timber revenues will be collected from concessionaires and over the distribution of timber concessions. A source makes the following observation about Taib’s omnipotence in the awarding of timber concessions:
At the top of the hierarchy is the minister of resource planning, who has sole discretion to give out logging concessions. Taib finds the time to hold this portfolio himself, along with that of chief minister. Under the law, he can grant concessions to anyone he wants: relatives, friends, political associates, or nominee shareholders – people who hold concessions on behalf of secret beneficiaries. The concessions are granted free of charge, and the holder isn’t required to know the difference between a live tree and a telephone pole (Sesser 1989: 282).
In Sarawak, as in Indonesia, the head of state has found it to serve his financial and political interests to informally appropriate timber rent. One source estimated that Taib has amassed $4 billion through his connections to the timber industry (Rainforest Action Network 1993). According to an interview with a former Sabah chief minister, Taib personally takes RM30 ($12) from each cubic meter of timber cut in the state (1 and 2 October 1996 interview with Harris Salleh). The chief minister is the state’s third largest timber concession holder (see Table 4.3 below). His appropriation of timber rent is in large measure intended to augment his and his family’s personal wealth.
The use of timber rent to further national and state political objectives is also important. As Chief Minister Taib Mahmud stated succinctly, “‘Sarawak politics is timber politics’” (FEER 1987). Since the early 1970s, Sarawak has unofficially delivered to the national ruling party a share of Sarawak’s timber rent. The rent is used by the national ruling party both for political expenditures at election time and for financing the business objectives of ruling party-linked conglomerates (28 March 2001 interview with Daniel Lev).
At the state level, the use of timber rent for political ends was perhaps best demonstrated in the Ming Court affair of 1987, when Taib fought off a challenge from his uncle and former chief minister, Tun Rahman. Although the seeds of the Ming Court affair were sown long before, the crisis was precipitated by Taib’s cutting off timber rent to a wide range of politicians, especially state assemblymen loyal to his uncle, and by his move to gain full control over the granting of concessions by assuming the additional portfolio of Minister of Resource Planning. Both actions created considerable resentment among politicians who had been tacit supporters of Taib up to that point. As recounted in one publication:
In early May [1985], Taib all but named three principal ‘co-conspirators,’ in a plot to oppose his leadership. . . . But the orchestrator of the machinations, Taib alleged, was his uncle. [The chief minister told this reporter that] the depressed timber market had put concession operators in a tight spot, leading in turn to pressure for relief on some payments to business partners [‘business partners’ here denotes Sarawak politicians]. These partners need more funds, it was suggested, but the current leadership [Taib] balked at their incessant demands. The statutory powers to supervise the granting of concessions, which reside in the minister of forests, obviously command close political attention – especially as the minister potentially has wide powers to revoke
licenses. . . . The Review understands that Taib intends, personally, to assume the portfolio [of minister] . . . in June (FEER 1985f).
Plots by co-conspirators continued during 1986, driven by Taib’s threats to take away their lucrative timber concessions. The Ming Court affair in 1987 was precipitated by the chief minister’s plan to “screen,” in reality to single out for punishment, concessions held by politicians whom Taib chose to no longer favor and to revoke those concessions. As described by a Sarawak-based correspondent who followed the story closely at the time,
The Sarawak political crisis is believed to have been triggered by the move to screen timber licenses in the State – a great portion of which belong to certain politicians and their supporters. To date, about 30 timber licenses of companies linked to an ex-politician [Taib’s predecessor Tun Rahman] have been revoked. According to sources, the State Government’s recent drive forced an ‘underground movement of politicians’ linked to timber concessions to act fast to protect their interests . . . Recently the state government stepped up its drive against Datuk Taib’s detractors and revoked the timber licenses of two businessmen for transferring their concessions without informing the authorities. Following that, the State Government announced that it would screen all timber licensees who ‘abused the timber industries.’ This included licensees who sold or transferred their licenses or sold or transferred shares. Last week’s screening of timber licenses made mandatory the obtaining of approval from the Government even for a change in partnership in a timber company or appointment or change of logging contractors, otherwise the license would be rendered invalid. According to Taib loyalists, the move hurt the pockets of the ‘Old Guards’. . . The sources said the political group opposed to Datuk Taib’s administration was desperate (Sunday Mail 1987).
The revocation of timber licenses on the magnitude of that precipitating the Ming Court affair is unprecedented in Sarawak’s history, as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Natural forest timber concessions granted and revoked by Chief Minister Taib during his first twelve years in office, 1981-1993
Year Number of concessions granted Number of concessions revoked
1981 7 0
1982 3 0
1983 8 0
1984 17 2
1985 35 1
1986 19 10
1987 36 26
1988 13 7
1989 7 4
1990 23 21
1991 4 3
1992 6 4
1993 24 20
Source: Annual Reports of the Sarawak Forest Department (1981-1993)
Once the press reported which politicians would lose their timber concessions, events moved quickly. Threatened politicians flew to the Malaysian capital for a secret summit on unseating Taib. Tun Rahman, who had started a new party called Permas, led the rebels. The rebels also included PBDS, a party that had broken away from the ruling coalition. The rebels planned to bring a vote of no confidence in the state assembly and to obtain a parliamentary majority. Chief Minister Taib responded to this threat by dissolving the state assembly and by calling for elections to be held a month later. The rebels responded by promising cash payments of $500,000 to every state assembly contestant who joined the opposition camp, a sum that would have been paid out of timber rent had the opposition won. However, in the end, Taib maintained his power. These events are summarized in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Dates and key developments during the Ming Court Affair of 1987
Date of event Key development
Friday, 6 March 1987 People’s Mirror carries story of Chief Minister Taib’s intention to put
a “Screen on Timber Licenses” (Ritchie 1987: 18).
Sunday, 8 March 1987 Anti-Taib rebels fly from Kuching (capital of Sarawak) to Kuala Lumpur (capital of Malaysia) to meet and discuss how to unseat Chief Minister Taib
Monday, 9 March 1987 Secret meeting begins at Ming Court hotel in Kuala Lumpur. A journalist monitoring events conjectures that there was “sufficient resentment for with rebellion. Those who would be dissatisfied would include those . . . timber concessions. . .” (Ritchie 1987: 17).
Tuesday, 10 March 1987 Four ministers, three deputy ministers resign from Taib’s cabinet and join the
opposition. Taib announces at press conference that there is a plot forming
against him at the Ming Court Hotel. Mood of opposition politicians said to
be “euphoric” as they decide amongst themselves, “who gets what . . . who
was going to take over the various government statutory bodies and
corporations” (Ritchie 1987: 27)
Friday, 13 March 1987 Taib dissolves the Sarawak state assembly. It is announced that a statewide
vote will follow on 15-16 April 1987. “[W]hen it appeared clear that an
election was imminent, two reliable . . . sources said that value of each rebel
went up to the tune of $500,000 per contestant” (Ritchie 1987: 38).
15-16 April 1987 Statewide elections are held. Pro-Taib forces prevail, maintaining a majority of
seats in Sarawak state assembly. Taib is nominated to a third term as Chief
Minister.
The Ming Court affair is perhaps the most visible instance of the use of the state’s timber resource to achieve political objectives. However, timber rent is used in more direct ways to achieve political objectives, such as buying votes at election time. Elections in Sarawak are expensive.
To illustrate the high cost of buying elections, the ruling party spent about $400 per voter, or $4 million to defeat a candidate for the state assembly, Chiew Chin Sing, who would have represented only about 10,000 voters. During the weeks approaching the election, ten different teams of senior Sarawak Alliance officials, their officeholders and retinues visited all of the 180 longhouses in the district, holding parties each night in ten different longhouses. Chiew explained how these 10,000 voters were wooed:
Expenses were as follows: most members of the traveling parties were paid a salary. For each longhouse party that was held, five pigs and fifty cases of Heineken beer were purchased. In addition to the good times at the parties, where many promises were made, each family was given RM1,200($480) to vote for Chiew’s opponent.
The ruling coalition ensured that a family whose head received a $480 bribe would actually vote for the ruling coalition candidate by paying only $240 per family up front, with the remaining half to be paid only if the ruling coalition candidate carried a large majority in that longhouse.
To pay the second installment, the ruling coalition rented out as campaign headquarters the entire Lee Hua hotel in Sibu, the large city downriver from Chiew’s largely rural district. Chiew said after the election, the headman from each longhouse would travel to stay at the hotel, and collect the second installment of the bribes for the families in his longhouse. In that particular election the ruling coalition candidate defeated Chiew by a vote of 6,938 to 1,457 (19 July 1997 interview with Chiew Chin Sing).
Charges of vote buying in Sarawak were confirmed in a review of Malaysian politics:
[T]he High Court made political history when it declared an election victory by the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition null and void due to vote buying. The judge ruled that “vote buying was so extensive [that] it had affected the election result” in the Bukit Begunan constituency in the September 1996 Sarawak state election. Although vote buying by the BN is widespread in Malaysia, hitherto it has been almost impossible to prove it in court. In this case, however, there was clear evidence including photographs showing cash being handed out by BN campaigners to voters just prior to election day. In the subsequent by-election, the same BN candidate from Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (PBDS) who had won in the voided election easily won the seat again (Asian Survey 1997).
Another source who was in Sarawak for the 1996 state elections said that on the final day before polling, he saw RM660,000 ($264,000) in bribes being given out to voters in a single location. The bribes ranged in size from RM600($240) for each indigenous voter to RM2,200 ($880) for each Malaysian Chinese voter (1 October 1996 interview with a knowledgeable Sabah-based source).
In Sarawak, much of the money to buy votes comes not from timber rent appropriated by the chief minister but from that of his political supporters, who have been given timber concessions for that purpose. Sarawak Alliance party operatives and Sarawak Alliance state assemblymen are awarded timber concessions provided that they make cash available during election time. Similarly, politicians who can secure large majorities for the Sarawak Alliance in their areas can prevail upon the chief minister to award them timber concessions (26 May 1997 interview with Lao Siew Chang).
For timber conglomerates themselves, so long as they are willing to make money available to the ruling party during election time, this will ensure their ongoing ability to gain access to new timber concessions as they exhaust old ones. Some conglomerates control so many concessions because during election time senior politicians come to them for campaign donations. Once the politician has been re-elected the timber conglomerate comes back to the politician and requests his help in obtaining new concessions from the chief minister (26 May 1997 interview with Lao Siew Chang).
When political supporters serve as board members and shareholders in timber concessions, they do not simply serve as a conduit for funds to the ruling party during election time but also gain personal wealth as a payment for their loyalty. At some level, it is a meaningless exercise to try to determine whether a political supporter’s position on the board of a timber company signifies that they are there to get rich and in exchange for that privilege remain loyal to the chief minister, or to finance the political expenses of the chief minister’s party. According to James Chin, board members and major shareholders work both for themselves and their parties, depending on the electoral cycle. If it is not election time, then the board members and major shareholders bank substantial salaries. However, if it is election time, especially during the final months, the political supporter is expected to contribute funds to the ruling party. If they do not perform this latter function or if they have otherwise demonstrated disloyalty, when their concession is up for renewal the “chief minister asks the forestry department to rigorously enforce” its regulations with respect to that disloyal politician’s concession, which provides a pretext to deny the renewal of the concession (30 June 1997 interview with James Chin).
In short, timber wealth is used both to create wealth for the chief minister and his political supporters and to ensure his political longevity. My analysis rests on a review of the managerial and equity profiles of the timber concessions licensed to each of the state’s four largest private timber groups and more general types of information on the state’s fifth through ninth largest private groups. Sarawak’s nine largest private timber groups are ranked by size of concession holdings in Table 4.3 below. The forest areas being logged by the four largest groups are mapped in Figure 4.1.
Table 4.3 Ranking of Sarawak timber groups by concession holdings, 1996
Ranking Name of timber conglomerate Senior figure Total area (hectares) Source(s)
1 Samling group Yaw Teck Sing 1,636,320 Samling Corporation internal document obtained 22 October 1996; written estimates of a Sarawak-based researcher obtained 15 November 1996.
2 Rimbunan Hijau group Tiong Hiew King 1,500,000 Remarks of William Wong, head of investor relations for Jaya Tiasa, Rimbunan Hijau’s publicly listed flagship, during a 29 October 1996 visit to Rimbunan Hijau headquarters.
3 Taib family group Chief Minister Taib Mahmud 998,011 Ritchie 1987: 84-85; Sarawak Tribune, 11 April 1987
4 KTS group Lau Hui Kang 500,000 The Edge 1995d
5 WTK group Wong Tuong Kwang 400,000 The Edge 1995d
5 Shin Yang group Ling Chiong Ho 400,000 Sarawak Securities 1997b: 22
7 Ting Pek Khiing group Ting Pek Khiing 311,239 Business Times 1992a&b; Jardine Fleming 1993; Star 1995b
8 Limbang Trading James Wong 185,490 Asian Wall Street Journal 1994b
9 Ling group Ling Beng Siew 120,000 Sarawak Securities 1996: 4
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
Why Governments Fail to Capture Economic Rent: The Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent by Rulers in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
———————
Excerpts Chapter 4 : Unofficial Timber Rent Appropriation in Sarawak (Part 2 – Samling)
Samling
Sarawak’s and Malaysia’s largest timber concession holding company is the Samling group. As shown in Table 4.4 below, a number of concessions licensed to the Samling group include Chief Minister Taib’s family, proxies and political allies as board members and shareholders. Among the more interesting Taib-linked figures found in the table below are the chief minister’s cousin who serves as a senior business figure in the family, and the chief minister’s bomoh (traditional healer and spiritual medium). Among the more straightforward recipients of political patronage are an assemblyman known by the nickname of “Giant Killer” because he successfully defeated Taib’s uncle and political rival in the 1987 election, and a nominee said to represent Sarawak’s Minister of Finance George Chan in two-thirds of Samling’s timber concessions.
While many believe Sarawak’s and Malaysia’s largest timber group is Rimbunan Hijau, an internal spreadsheet compiled by a Samling employee put the total number of Samling concessions at 18, with four in Lawas, seven on the upper Baram region, and seven near Bintulu (Samling 1996). This total just over 1.6 million hectares, which just edges out the 1.5 million hectares of “official” holdings acknowledged by a Rimbunan Hijau official (26 October 1996 interview with William Wong). Samling is also the world’s largest owner of Caterpillar tractors (22 October 1996 interview with Samling official).
A well-placed and knowledgeable Sarawak source suspects that Samling is owned by the chief minister’s family through nominees (26 May 1997 interview).
Table 4.4 Samling timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Taib Mahmud are board members or shareholders.
Name of Samling-linked timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to current chief minister, source of information.
Adong; Baram Sawmill, 46,134 hectares; Dayalaba, 16,469 hectares; Kelapang; KTM Timor 71,657 hectares;
Majau Timber;
Pelutan, 55,912 hectares; Ravenscourt 136,659 hectares; Samling Plywood Miri, 160,954 hectares; Sertama; Syarikat Reloh;
Tinjar Logging
Yong Nyan Siong
Holder of a single share; Director;
Director and 40 percent shareholder; Director; Director; Director; Director; 30 percent shareholder; Director; Director; Director and 3 percent shareholder;
Director
Nominee on behalf of Sarawak’s current Minister of Finance, George Chan (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Paong Timber,
61,892 hectares
Edmund Ang @ Edmund Lea Ang, Bertram Raymond Regie Adai, Narulhuda Binte Mohd Mortadza, and Mustapha Bin Ismail, Sriemar Sdn Bhd.
1 percent shareholder, 1 percent shareholder, 3 percent shareholder, 1 percent shareholder, 5 percent shareholder.
Bertram Raymond Regie Adai is the former Editor in Chief of the Sarawak Tribune (11 June 1997 interview with former Sarawak Assistant Minister of Finance Patau Ubis). He and three other shareholders, as well as the company Sriemar Sdn Bhd, all give the Chief Ministers palace guest house, Istana Tetemu, as their address (18 August 1997 interview with Raphael Pura).
Pelutan, 55,912 hectares; Sertama, size unknown
Ahmad bin Suut
20 percent shareholder; Director
Chief Minister Taib Mahmud’s bomoh (traditional healer and spiritual medium) who owns between 15 and 17 luxury automobiles (4 June 1997 interview with a Sarawak state assemblyman).
Ravenscourt, 36,659 hectares
Abdul Hamid
bin Sepawi
Director and 24 percent shareholder
First cousin to the chief minister, and an important business figure in the chief minister’s family (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). Abdul Hamid is “holding part of the money” for the chief minister (11 June 1997 interview with former Sarawak Assistant Minister of Finance Patau Ubis).
Table 4.4 (continued) Samling timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Chief Minister Taib Mahmud are board members or shareholders.
Name of Samling-linked timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or % of shares held in company
Relationship to current Chief Minister, source of information.
Ravenscourt, 136,659 hectares
Wahab Dollah, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure Development (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Director
Known as “Giant Killer” because he defeated former Chief Minister Tun Rahman in the elections in the aftermath of the 1987 Ming Court affair. Dollah acted on the chief minister’s behalf in an attempt to obtain editorial control in the Borneo Post, where he is now a shareholder. Together with the chief minister’s first cousin, Hamid Sepawi, Dollah owns 25 percent of the parent company of the Utusan Sarawak newspaper. Dollah serves as political lieutenant of Taib by controlling political activities and seeing to material needs of eight PBB state assemblymen. He is a strong public proponent of continued Melanau leadership in Sarawak. Dollah is said to have been awarded eight timber concessions by Taib (Sayottaib 2001: sulit 6, dokumen 1-4), although my study identified only five. He makes profits from his timber concessions available to the PBB during election time (10 June 1997 interview with Kueh Yong Ann).
Seriku, 85,559 hectares; Sertama
Abang Abdul Karim Tun Abg. Hj. Openg
Director and 0.5 percent shareholder; Director
Older brother of one of the chief minister’s most important ministers, Abang Johari, Minister of Industry (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Seriku, 85,559 hectares
Abang Hj. Mohamed Bin Abang Sharkawi
Director, 0.5 percent shareholder
Former associate of Wahab Dollah. Former official of Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (7 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). A “Taib nominee” (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Wan Abdul Rahman Timber, 28,407 hectares.
Thomas Kana
Director, 3 percent shareholder
Former senior official with the SNAP party (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin). In the Sarawak state cabinet as a minister from about 1967-1969 (26 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). Former state assemblyman (4 June 1994 interview with state assemblyman Aidan Wing). Still active with the PBB (11 June 1997 interview with former Sarawak Assistant Minister of Finance Patau Ubis).
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
Why Governments Fail to Capture Economic Rent: The Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent by Rulers in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999
June 2001
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
——————–
Chapter 4 : Unofficial Timber Rent Appropriation in Sarawak (Part 3 – Samling & Rimbunan Hijau)
Besides using its privately held timber concessions to make the Taib family wealthy and keep it powerful, the Samling group also owns two publicly listed companies whose earnings are used to satisfy similar objectives. Lingui, the larger of the two, is highly penetrated by political elites. One of its subsidiaries, Tamex Timber, is directed by Mirzan Mahathir, a son of Malaysia’s current Prime Minister. According to documents on file with the Malaysia Registry of Companies, Mirzan owns 15 percent of Tamex Timber through his company Falmouth. Also on the board of directors of Tamex Timber is Yong Nyan Siong, a nominee of Sarawak’s current Minister of Finance, George Chan (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Samling has become the timber group most favored by Chief Minister Taib. He has reportedly promised the group that their concessions will be renewed in exchange for their undertaking certain steps to help develop Miri, Sarawak’s second largest city after Kuching. Samling has begun this process by building Miri’s (comparatively) luxurious Holiday Inn. More importantly, Samling has agreed to invest between RM1-2 billion ($400-800 million) and RM6-7 billion ($2.4-2.8 billion) in the Miri Township urban renewal project. Once the Miri project is complete, Samling is committed to undertaking a similar urban renewal project in Bintulu (4 November 1996 interview with James Ritchie; 5 and 7 November 1996 interview with a well-placed and knowledgeable source in Sarawak). One may speculate that the Samling group’s rise to the top timber concession holder in Malaysia is due in part to their agreement to absorb a substantial portion of the expenses associated with these two urban renewal projects in Sarawak.
Rimbunan Hijau
Sarawak’s second largest timber conglomerate is the Rimbunan Hijau group. The group’s relationship with Sarawak’s heads of state highlights the extent to which most timber concessionaires in insular Southeast Asia are completely at the mercy of rulers. Rimbunan Hijau’s head, Tiong Hiew King, understands the political economic balance of power in Sarawak. In the early 1970s he was jailed by then Chief Minister Tun Rahman on charges of being a communist (Lau 1995: chapter 20, page 2). After being released, Tiong went to great lengths to curry favor with Rahman, even making a special trip to Taiwan to serve as his golf umbrella-holder. In an awkwardly translated but amusing passage, S.K. Lau recounts that:
Tiong King went to Taiwan to hold umbrella for [Chief Minister Tun Rahman] Yakub while the latter played golf. This did not matter. [Tiong] even asked Yet Ming Ek, the Bintulu richest man to be the caddie of Yakub. Perhaps Tiong felt so lonely if only he was alone with Yakub. So he had to bring Yet along. Later, it became a laughing stock for the local timber sector and golf players (Lau 1995: chapter 4, page 2).
The material is quoted directly from an unpublished manuscript written by S.K. Lau, a former Sibu-based journalist. The manuscript reportedly first saw the light of day when Lau sent his computer to a repair shop, and the shop took the liberty of printing it off without Lau’s permission. From there, the manuscript was informally xeroxed, and distributed widely throughout Sarawak. As a result of its explosive content, Lau was forced to flee to Australia where he is now said to reside, though others speculate he is dead. Although the manuscript’s title, Immortal – Tiger – Dog, is borrowed from a Chinese comedy of the same name, the title is also believed to carry a double meaning, reflecting the author’s own view of himself as having gone from an ‘immortal’ associating freely with Sarawak’s political and timber elite, to a ‘tiger’ penning uncomplimentary details about them in his secret manuscript, to a ‘dog’ when he was financially marginalized by the (unwitting) subjects of his manuscript (19 July 1997 interview with Chiew Chin Sing).
Rahman continued to abuse his relationship with Tiong. The head of the Sarawak Alliance’s largest and most powerful Chinese party, the SUPP, promised Tiong a federal senatorship in exchange for a substantial bribe. After the SUPP took the bribe, Rahman refused to deliver on the deal:
SUPP Secretary General Wong Soon Kai promised Tiong King appointed as Senator on the condition that he should donate RM1,200,000 [$480,000] to the party. He could pay a deposit of RM700,000 [$280,000] and pay the balance after he was appointed as Senator. However, the then State Governor, Rahman Yakub dislike him and withheld the Senator post for the time being. Tiong was very angry and he asked for a refund of the money paid. Soon, Rahman Yakub stepped down and Tiong King was successfully appointed Senator (Lau 1995: chapter 2, page 3).
Once Taib assumed power, Tiong moved to curry favor with the new chief minister, appointing Taib’s brother, Dato Haji Mohamad Arip bin Mahmud, to the board of Tiong’s publicly listed company Jaya Tiasa. Tiong’s Rimbunan Hijau conglomerate has also awarded over a dozen timber concession directorships and shareholdings to the families, proxies, friends, and political supporters of Chief Minister Taib, according to company records on file with the registry of companies. These are listed in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Rimbunan Hijau timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Chief Minister Taib are board members or shareholders.
Name of Rimbunan Hijau-linked concession
Name and position of board member/ shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to Chief Minister Taib Mahmud, source(s) of information
Bornion Timber, 79,898 hectares
Bok Kok Pheng, Wee Ai Choo
Directors
Nominees for SUPP, one of four parties that makes up the state’s ruling coalition (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Cahaya Upaya, contracting subsidiary;
Mantan, 75,538 hectares
Abdul Hamid Haji Sepawi
Director and 50 percent shareholder ; Director
First cousin to the chief minister, and important business figure in the chief minister’s family (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). Abdul Hamid is “holding part of the money” for the chief minister (11 June 1997 interview with former Sarawak Assistant Minister of Finance Patau Ubis).
Cahaya Upaya, contracting subsidiary
Mohamad Asfia Awang Nasar, from the lower Rejang River
Director and 50 percent shareholder
Deputy speaker of state assembly (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). Instrumental during Ming Court affair in eroding support of Tun Rahman faction. Informer to CM Taib on activities of Sarawak Alliance’s PBDS and SNAP parties. Executive editor of Borneo Post, People’s Mirror, Sarawak Tribune, and Utusan Sarawak. Enforcer of news blackouts on activities of Malay (Abang Johari) and Iban (Alfred Jabu) leaders (Sayottaib 2001: sulit 6, dokumen 5). “Taib nominee” (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Curiah, 65,487 hectares
Sim Kui Hock, son of Sim Kheng Hong, former Deputy Chief Minister
Initial Director
Sim’s position on the board of this concession is a political payback on behalf of his now deceased father (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). At a pivotal moment in the Ming Court affair, Taib’s press conference of 10 March 1987, when he announced the plot against him, Sim’s father was one of two men who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the embattled chief minister (Ritchie 1987: 22).
Dahasil, 9,314 hectares
Abang Carrol Bin Abg. Dris
Director and 24.5 percent shareholder
Relative of Aloysius Dris, a senior civil servant in Ministry of Tourism, and a figure close to the PBB (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Fonlin, size unknown
Abang Haji Ali Bin Abang Sepawi
Director
Probably the brother of Abdul Hamid bin Sepawi, a first cousin to the Chief Minister, and an important business figure in the chief minister’s family (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). Abdul Hamid is “holding part of the money” for the chief minister (11 June 1997 interview with former Sarawak Assistant Minister of Finance Patau Ubis).
Table 4.5 (continued) Rimbunan Hijau timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Chief Minister Taib are board members or shareholders.
Name of Rimbunan Hijau-linked concession
Name and position of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to Chief Minister Taib Mahmud, source(s) of information
Mantan, 75,538 hectares; Maxiwealth,
96,685 hectares
Wahab bin Haji Dollah, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure Development (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Director; Board member
Known as “Giant Killer” because he defeated former Chief Minister Tun Rahman in the state assembly elections in the aftermath of the 1987 Ming Court affair. Dollah acted on the CM’s behalf in an attempt to obtain editorial control of the Borneo Post, where he is now a shareholder. Together with the chief minister’s first cousin, Hamid Sepawi, Dollah owns 25 percent of parent company of the Utusan Sarawak newspaper. He serves as political lieutenant of Taib, controlling the political activities of, and seeing to the material needs of, eight PBB state assemblymen. Dollah is a strong public proponent of continued Melanau leadership in Sarawak. He is said to have been awarded eight timber concessions by Taib (Sayottaib 2001: sulit 6, dokumen 1-4), although my study identifies only five. Dollah makes profits from timber concessions available to PBB during election time (10 June 1997 interview with Kueh Yong Ann).
Maxiwealth,
96,685 hectares
Sharkawi Haji Bohari
Board member
A former associate of Wahab Dollah. A former official of Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (7 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). A “Taib nominee” (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Sarawak Plywood, 105,000 hectares
Datuk Haji Bujang Mohd. Nor
Director, holder of five shares.
Former state secretary under Chief Minister Taib, from the early-to-middle 1980s (26 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). Former state financial secretary. Regarded as a potential candidate for the post of Governor. He is the former chair of Bakun Hydroelectric Electric Corporation (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). Current executive chairman of Harwood. His position on the board of Sarawak Plywood may be a golden handshake reward for having held one or more of the posts discussed above (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Table 4.5 (continued) Rimbunan Hijau timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Chief Minister Taib are board members or shareholders.
Name of Rimbunan Hijau-linked concession
Name and position of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to Chief Minister Taib Mahmud, source(s) of information
Sarawak Plywood, 105,000 hectares
Mohd Amin bin Hj. Satem
Director
Formerly with Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (26 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). Older brother of Sarawak’s current Minister for Social Development. Chairman of BIG, a company specializing in the manufacturing of industrial cases, redi-mix concrete, and quarrying. Chairman of the Sarawak Chamber of Commerce (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). An original director of CMS corporation, the single largest and most important financial entity in the state, and widely regarded as the personal financial vehicle chief minister of Sarawak (29 May 1997 interview with Dominique Ng). A “former PBB nominee” (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Tijok-Nakan,
14,699 hectares
Abang Sulaiman bin Datuk Hakim Abang Hj Mohidin
Director
Brother of the chief minister (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Tijok-Nakan,
14,699 hectares
Taibi bin Ali
Director
Relative of the chief minister (7 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing).
Tijok-Nakan,
14,699 hectares
Dayang Mastura Bte Datuk Hakim Abang Hj Mohidin
Director
Sister of the chief minister (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
In addition to cultivating relationships with Sarawak’s past and present chief ministers, Tiong attempted to do the same with Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir by going into business with two of his sons. In 1991, Tiong activated a dormant shell company, Opcom, in order to go into optical fiber and optical cable manufacturing. In March, 1992, the same month that Mukhriz Mahathir, one of the prime minister’s sons, joined the board, the company was given “pioneer status” by Malaysia’s Industrial Development Authority, entitling it to a five-year corporate tax holiday.
In October, 1992, Tiong split off 15 percent of his company Opcom to Creative Synergy, a company in which Mukhriz and a second Mahathir son, Mukhzani, were sole shareholders and directors. Other share allocations in Opcom went to several politicians in Mahathir’s United Malays National Organization.
Problems emerged, however, when an effort to produce optic fiber using original technology did not succeed. Strains in the shareholder partnership developed over purchases of more than RM40 million ($12 million) in equipment. In December, 1994, Tiong and his brothers resigned from Opcom’s board, ending the family’s representation there (AWSJ 1994b).
After Tiong and his brothers withdrew from the partnership, Mukhriz Mahathir brought a lawsuit against Tiong. In order to try to smooth things over, Tiong asked the head of the Sarawak’s SUPP party, the same man who had bought Tiong his senatorship and an old medical school classmate of Dr. Mahathir’s, to intercede on Tiong’s behalf and to try to arrange a meeting for Tiong with Dr. Mahathir. However, Mahathir refused to meet with Tiong and instead, S.K. Lau alleges, sent federal Inland Revenue Service agents to raid Tiong’s corporate headquarters.
In 1990, in order to curry favor with Dr. Mahathir, Tiong King invited [Mahathir's] son to set up a factory by joint venture. One and a half years later, he withdrew from the partnership. He said that the PM’s son was in [a] power struggle in the firm and he withdrew [from] the partnership for the sake of not offending Dr. Mahathir. However, Tiong King was defeated in the battle this time as he underestimated Dr. Mahathir’s son. [Tiong] thought he could use the same tactic previously applied to other Malay partners. In fact, Dr. Mahathir’s son is a smart businessman and he decided to give up the firm too. He wanted to take legal action against Tiong . . .Tiong was frightened and he immediately asked Wong Soon Kai to discuss [the matter] with Dr. Mahathir to settle the case amicably. . . . Wong Soon Kai had to ask his wife to telephone [the] PM’s wife for discussion. [The] PM’s wife said that since [her] son had grown up, he knew how to look after his own business and that they as his parents did not want to interfere.
A few days before writing this book, a group of Business Criminal Investigation Team accompanied with thirty plus police came to [the] Rimbunan Hijau Building for searching and investigating of accounts in the office. They surrounded the whole building and nobody was allowed to enter the office premises. As learnt . . . Tiong King . . . had removed all the important documents from the office. Thus, there was not many relevant important accounts kept in the office. . . (Lau 1995: chapter 2, pages 3-4).
S.K. Lau goes on to explain that there “were not many relevant important accounts kept in the office” because these important documents had been removed by Tiong’s personal secretary, Margaret Wong. Lau explains, in a humorous passage, how Wong removed Rimbunan Hijau’s books from the company’s headquarters beneath her skirt.
“One year, one day, a batch of personnel from the Inland Revenue Department suddenly stormed into the Rimbunan Hijau office for investigation on taxation. That day, Tiong was away in a foreign country. Tiong’s most helpful assistant Margaret Wong who played an important role in Rimbunan Hijau office would stay calm and took away the computer diskettes to hide inside her skirt before going past those Inland Revenue personnel guarding at the entrance gate . . . [L]ike the other large [timber] enterprises, Rimbunan Hijau group of companies kept two copies of account book. One was a false one which was meant for the declaration of tax. Another one was the actual account of the company for self keeping. Margaret Wong is a spinster with slim build and ugly appearance. People would mistake her as a cleaning maid in Rimbunan Hijau office. This time she could manage to walk past the entrance gate guarded by the Inland Revenue Department personnel. It was because of her ugly appearance that no one would suspect there would be computer diskettes stored with the company’s account hiding in her skirt. After all, none would believe such a ugly woman was an important figure in the Rimbunan Hijau group. [I]f those computer diskettes were discovered, perhaps Rimbunan Hijau Group would face serious trouble. All evidence in connection with the evasion of tax would be exposed. The personnel concerned would then be charged in court. After this incident, this spinster [was even] more highly regarded by her boss. . . . Don’t belittle this spinster Wong. Apart from holding other posts, she is now a member of the board of directors of the Rimbunan Hijau group” (Lau 1995: chapter 3, pages 2-3).
To sum up, the family members and political associates of Chief Minister Taib Mahmud continue unofficially to appropriate timber rent through managerial and equity representation in timber concessions licensed to the Rimbunan Hijau group. The family of Malaysia’s Prime Minister was also for a time engaged in a similar relationship with Rimbunan Hijau.
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
Why Governments Fail to Capture Economic Rent: The Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent by Rulers in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999
June 2001
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
————-
Chapter 4 : Unofficial Timber Rent Appropriation in Sarawak (Part 4 – Taib Mahmud)
Taib Mahmud concessions
It is a commonly thought that 1.6 million hectares in timber concessions are held by Chief Minister Taib Mahmud and his relatives and political allies (New Sunday Times 1987). In my own calculations, I found almost one million hectares in Taib family timber holdings, spread across 20 concessions. This degree of direct corporate control by a state leader over a market share of this size is unique among the cases studied in this dissertation. A search of the articles of incorporation of these 20 concessions show directorships and shareholdings awarded to members of the chief minister’s family, his proxies, and political supporters including the two largest parties in the Sarawak Alliance, the Chinese SUPP and the chief minister’s own party, the PBB.
A tense moment came while I was reviewing the list of managers and equity holders in Taib Mahmud timber concessions with a member of the PBB, State Assemblyman Aidan Wing. Until this interview took place, relations had been quite amicable between Wing and myself. Here we were, three days into a relaxed journey whose highlights included meeting Wing’s lovely family, and then flying to the small coastal town of Mukah, the epicenter of the Melanau. The first two days of the journey, Wing had treated me to dinner with the male elders of Mukah – featuring the delicacy of raw sago worms – and a day-long drive along the coast with Baijuri Kipli (about whom, see the discussion of the KTS group’s Malkita timber concession in Table 4.11). However, when I got around to asking Wing about holders of managerial and equity positions in the Chief Minister’s timber concessions, Wing’s answers, quite precise at first, became fewer and farther between, and increasingly vague. Finally, he stopped answering altogether, and we were left in silence. Wing looked down for quite a long time, and looked up into my eyes and asked, without smiling, “Where did you get his list? These are all PBB companies” (6 June 1997 interview). After this, although our trip together continued for another five days, Wing kept me at arm’s length. Entire days went by without my seeing him once. Relations between us were never the same.
Table 4.6 Timber concessions controlled by Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud in which his family members, friends, proxies or political allies are board members or shareholders.
Name of timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to current chief minister, source of information.
Bumi Hijau,
26,000 hectares
Douglas Sallang
Director
Former Senator (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist, 6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). PBB nominee (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Gayasar, 25,006 hectares
Abang Abdul Karim Tun Abg. Hj. Openg
Director
Elder brother of one of the chief minister’s most important ministers, Abang Johari, the Minister Industry (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Kedasa, 41,000 hectares
Bok Kok Pheng, Wee Ai Choo
Directors
Nominees for SUPP, one of four parties that make up the Sarawak Alliance (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Pasin, size unknown; Rinki, 33,300 hectares
Wahab bin Haji Dollah, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure Development (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Director and 50 percent shareholder
Known as “Giant Killer” because he defeated former Chief Minister Tun Rahman in the state assembly elections in the aftermath of the 1987 Ming Court affair. Acted on the CM’s behalf in an attempt to obtain editorial control of the Borneo Post, where he is now a shareholder. Together with the chief minister’s first cousin, Hamid Sepawi, Dollah owns 25 percent of parent company of Utusan Sarawak newspaper. He serves as political lieutenant of Taib, by controlling the political activities, and seeing to the material needs, of eight PBB state assemblymen. He is a strong public proponent of continued Melanau leadership in Sarawak. Dollah is said to have been awarded eight timber concessions by Taib (Sayottaib 2001: sulit 6, dokumen 1-4), although this study identified only five. Dollah makes profits from his timber concessions available to PBB during election time (10 June 1997 interview with Kueh Yong Ann).
Pasin, size unknown
Dollah Ahmat Usop
Director
A relative of Wahab Dollah (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing).
Pasin, size unknown
Dolek bin Hj Mit
Director
A close friend and associate of Wahab Dollah (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist) and/or Wahab Dollah’s cousin (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing).
Pasin, size unknown
Sharkawi Haji Bohari
Director
Former associate of Wahab Dollah. A former official of Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (7 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). A “Taib nominee” (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Table 4.6 (continued) Timber concessions controlled by Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud in which his family members, friends, proxies or political allies are board members or shareholders.
Name of timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to current chief minister, source of information.
Rajang Wood,
309,575 hectares Raplex, 72,251 hectares
Abdillah Bin Haji Abdul Rahim
Director
A former General Manager of Sarawak Timber Industrial Development Corporation (18 August 1997 interview with Raphael Pura). Federal Senator (4 June 1997 interview with a state assemblyman, and 6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing).
Raplex, 72,251 hectares
Datuk Haji Bujang Mohd. Nor
Director
Former State Secretary of Sarawak under Chief Minister Taib, from the early-to-middle 1980s (26 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). Former State Financial Secretary. Former chair of Bakun Hydroelectric Electric Corporation (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). Current Executive Chairman of Harwood. His position on the board of Raplex may be a golden handshake for having held one or more of the posts discussed above (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Rinki, 33,300 hectares
Abdul Hamid Haji Sepawi
Director and 50 percent shareholder
First cousin to the chief minister, and an important business figure in the CM’s family (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). Abdul Hamid is “holding part of the money” for the chief minister (11 June 1997 interview with former Assistant Minister of Finance Patau Ubis).
Sarako, 36,000 hectares; Sarimas, 32,000 hectares
Bustari Yusof
Director and 55 percent shareholder; Director
Although Bustari denies he is a nominee of the chief minister, one source insists that he is. Those who wish to settle the matter for themselves can go to Bustari’s reported watering hole, the Margarita Lounge at the Kuching Hilton (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Sarako, 36,000 hectares
Dulang Holdings
3 percent shareholder
A company run by Bustari Yusof (13 June 1997 interview with well-placed and knowledgeable source in Sarawak).
Seatex Plantations, 30,000 hectares
Hj. Osman Tan
Sri Marzuki
Director, 17 percent shareholder
Son of a former acting Governor of Sarawak (28 May 1997 interview with Jack Wong).
Table 4.6 (continued) Timber concessions controlled by Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud in which his family members, friends, proxies or political allies are board members or shareholders.
Name of timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to current chief minister, source of information.
Seatex Plantations, 30,000 hectares
Hj Khalid Tan Sri Marzuki
Director, 21 percent shareholder
Not only the son of a former acting Governor of Sarawak, but also a former Political Secretary to Chief Minister Taib (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). The current Political Secretary to Minister of Industry Abang Johari, one of the most powerful members of the current cabinet (9 June 1997 interview with Sim Kwang Yang).
Timplex, 31,500 hectares
Ting Ming Hoi, former Sibu senator, now deceased.
Director
James Chin says that Ting Ming Hoi is a “SUPP nominee” (12 August 1997 interview).
Timplex, 31,500 hectares
Tai Sing Chii
Director
S.K. Lau writes that “when he was having trouble raising political funds in 1970, Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub turned his target to Tai Sing Chii, owner of Pan Sarawak, and hoped that he could ‘borrow’ three units of outboard engine and a few hundred khatis of rice from the latter. Later . . . staff of the company disclosed that Tai Sing Chii had donated about 3,000 dollars to Yakub. So after the latter came to power, he repaid Tai Sing Chii for his donation for more than 3,000 times of the amount donated. As a whole, Tai Sing Chii had made a wise decision. Yakub could still remember him several years after he stepped down from the post of Chief Minister. One day, when we met at Singapore . . . Airport, he still praised . . . Tai Sing Chii. . . . After Yakub lost his power, all of us thought Tai Sing Chii had lost his strong backing also. It seemed that he was finished. But he turned to support Taib. Since then, he got richer and richer” (Lau 1995: chapter 18, page 1).
Timplex, 31,500 hectares
Tuan Haji Abdul Rahim Tai
Director
Brother to deceased SUPP nominee Ting Ming Hoi (19 July 1997 interview with Chiew Chin Sing).
Timplex, 31,500 hectares
Y.M Tunku Zuhri Bin Tunku Zakaria
Director
Member of one of the royal families of Sarawak (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Timplex, 31,500 hectares
Abang Mohd. Bin Abang Sharkawi
Director
Son of a former Resident of Sarawak (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing).
Timplex, 31,500 hectares
Awang Jaya bin Pengiran Tajuddin
Director
Former treasurer of PBB’s Bintulu branch (19 July 1997 interview with Chiew Chin Sing).
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
Why Governments Fail to Capture Economic Rent: The Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent by Rulers in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999
June 2001
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
—————-
Chapter 4 : Unofficial Timber Rent Appropriation in Sarawak (Part 5 – Ibans, divide and conquer)
Chief Minister Taib also uses his timber concessions to buy the loyalty of the leaders of the largest ethnic group in Sarawak, the Iban, who comprise about 30 percent of the population. Taib and his predecessor both belong to the Melanau, a small coastal group. The Melanau, to ensure their political ascendancy, bind themselves to the state’s Malay population, and play a delicate game of divide and rule with the rest of the state’s large groups (see Table 4.7 below). A newsmagazine interviewed a Sarawak Malay politician who described the political arithmetic that makes the Iban a threat to the Melanau.
‘Let’s face it. One day they will rule the state. They have the numbers,’ a Sarawak Malay politician said. To date, Sarawak’s 20% Malays and 5% Melanau have only held power by banding together, while the Iban have scattered their support across three parties (FEER 1989b).
A substantial group of the timber concessions widely regarded as belonging to Taib have been awarded by him to selected Iban leaders, who in turn have been pivotal to Taib’s strategy of keeping the Iban from putting together an electoral majority to defeat him.
Table 4.7 Sarawak’s population, broken down by ethnic groups, as of 1980
Ethnic Group Population Percentage
Non Islamic Natives
Iban 367,508 29.82
Bidayuh 104,914 8.49
Orang Ulu 67,152 5.43
Islamic natives
Malay 248,757 20.13
Melanau 69,813 5.65
Chinese 360,553 29.18
Other 15,856 1.27
Total 1,234,553 100.00
Source: FEER 1985f
Taib must buy the support of the sons of two famous Iban leaders. Their fathers, now dead, led the Iban during most of the twentieth century. The sons are highly visible board members and shareholders in Taib family timber concessions. The most important Iban leader during much of the pre- and post-World War II period was Temonggong Koh who died in the 1940s. His son, Kenneth Kanyan, is a senator in the upper house of the Sarawak State Assembly (27 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic).
After Temonggong Koh’s death, the successor to the position of traditional head of the Iban was Temonggong Jugah. Although he died in the 1970s, Temonggong Jugah’s son Leonard Linggi is now the powerful second-in-command of the Christian wing of the PBB party. The importance of this position is that for all PBB Christians who wish to run as state or federal candidates, including Iban, Bidayuh, and the dozens of groups who make up the Orang Ulu, Leonard Linggi “decides whether you can run or not” (4 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). Linggi is also the General Secretary of the PBB party (26 May 1997 interview with a well-place and knowledgeable source in Sarawak).
Also of political significance is the fact that during the Ming Court affair, the two still-living Iban mentioned above, Kenneth Kanyan, the son of Temonggong Koh and Leonard Linggi, the son of Temonggong Jugah, stood by Chief Minister Taib Mahmud in his hour of need.
Although Sarawakians do not know the specifics about the timber concession holdings of various Iban leaders, they have a general idea of who has come out on top. For example, State
Assemblyman Aidan Wing described Leonard Linggi as “the richest Iban” in Sarawak with “a half million hectares in timber concessions” (4 June 1997 interview).
———————————-
“I asked Wing when he would be awarded a timber concession. He answered, “Perhaps in my second term. Timber concessions are rarely given out to first term state assemblymen. They are not awarded until state assemblymen have proved their political loyalty and staying power” (4 June 1997 interview).
———————————-
In exchange for directorships and equity positions in timber concessions, Iban leaders bring in the vote of their community at election time. Other than election time bribes, timber rent is not redistributed to the larger Iban community (27 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic).
———————————–
The lack of distribution of timber benefits to the grassroots by senior Iban political figures was confirmed by a well-placed and knowledgeable source in Sarawak, who told me that Linggi rarely, if ever, shares timber rent with other Iban (26 May 1997 interview).
————————————
A point worth re-emphasizing is that, with one exception (That exception is Garu, a timber concession is licensed to the Rimbunan Hijau conglomerate.), all timber concessions in which Iban leaders hold managerial or equity positions are those said to be licensed to Chief Minister Taib himself. These concessions are listed in Table 4.8 :
Table 4.8 Taib family timber concessions in which Iban political leaders are board members or shareholders
Name of Taib family timber concession
Name of Iban board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Leadership position within the Iban community, source(s) of information
Balleh Sawmill, 24,673 hectares.
Jugah Anak Bareng
11 percent shareholder
This is Temonggong Jugah, the now-deceased but once-supreme leader of the Iban (4 June 1997 interview with a Sarawak state assemblyman).
Balleh Sawmill, 24,673 hectares
Tiong Anak Anding
11 percent shareholder
Wife of the late Temonggong Jugah (4 June 1997 interview with a Sarawak state assemblyman).
Bumi Hijau,
26,000 hectares;
Garu,
44,847 hectares;
Kerasa,
49,996 hectares; Rajang Wood, 309,575 hectares; Raplex, 72,251 hectares.
Kenneth Kanyan ak Koh
Director; Director & 42 percent shareholder;
Director;
Director;
Director
Son of Temonggong Koh, the most important Iban leader in the pre- and post-World War II period. Kenneth Kanyan is now a Senator in the Sarawak State Assembly. He was a strong loyalist to Taib in the 1987 Ming Court affair.
Bumi Hijau,
26,000 hectares; Sarako, 36,000 hectares
Richard Mullok, nephew to, and proxy for, Alfred Jabu (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing)
Director; Director, 42 percent shareholder
Alfred Jabu is the Deputy Chief Minister, and as such is “the highest ranking non-Malay in Sarawak” (27 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). He was one of two men to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Chief Minister Taib during the critical 10 March 1987 press conference during the Ming Court affair (Ritchie 1987: 22). He is a PBB nominee (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin)
Garu, 44,847 hectares
Temonggong Jinggut Ak Attan
Director and 39 percent shareholder
Traditional head of all Iban in the 7th and 3rd divisions of the Rejang River basin. This is a position that would have otherwise have fallen to Leonard Linggi, except that Linggi spends all his time in Kuching now, and is seldom on the ground in the Rejang River basin, as would befit a Temonggong (7 June 1997 interview with Joseph Jinggut).
Garu, 44,847 hectares
Robert Jarraw Ak Kana
Director, and nine percent shareholder
Son-in-law of Temonggong Jinggut ak Attan, traditional head of all Iban in the 7th and 3rd divisions of the Rejang River basin (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing).
Table 4.8 (continued) Taib family timber concessions in which Iban political leaders are board members or shareholders
Name of Taib family timber concession
Name of Iban board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Leadership position within the Iban community, source(s) of information
Garu, 44,847 hectares
Joseph Jinggut
Director
Holds position of Wakil Kota (head of the local council) in the city of Kapit (7 June 1997 interview with Joseph Jinggut). He and his brother Justine Jinggut were two of four persons placed into leadership positions in the SNAP party in 1987 to replace those sacked or suspended as a result of their disloyalty to Chief Minister Taib during the Ming Court affair (Ritchie 1987: 34). Joseph’s brother Justine is now Secretary General of SNAP (29 May 1997 interview with Dominique Ng). Joseph says his brother Justine was elevated to the position of Secretary General of SNAP because “in the present political climate, the important thing is for SNAP to reach some political accommodation with the PBB, not to be a thorn in their side. My brother has accomplished this” (7 June 1997 interview).
Keresa Timber,
49,996 hectares; Rajang Wood, 309,575 hectares;
Raplex, 72,251 hectares.
Leonard Linggi ak Jugah, son of Temonggong Jugah, traditional head of the Iban from the 1940s to 1970s.
Director, 50 percent shareholder; Director, 50.2 percent of shares through Limar Management Services, Rajang Resources (13 June 1997 interview with well-placed and knowledgeable source in Sarawak), and Silver Wood Company (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin); Director
Leonard Linggi holds no elected position, but is second in command of the “Christian wing” of the PBB party. The importance of Linggi’s position is that for all Iban, Bidayuh, Orang Ulu, or Christian who wish to run as a state or federal candidates representing the PBB, Leonard Linggi “decides whether you can run or not” (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). Linggi is also General Secretary of PBB (26 May 1997 interview with well-placed and knowledgeable source in Sarawak). Linggi is described as a PBB “money man,” meaning the PBB comes to him for funds at campaign time (29 May 1997 interview with Dominique Ng).
Keresa Timber,
49,996
hectares
Edmund Erong ak Jugah
Director
Adopted brother of Leonard Linggi (4 June 1997 interview with a Sarawak state assemblyman). Edmund is mentally challenged (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Table 4.8 (continued) Taib family timber concessions in which Iban political leaders are board members or shareholders
Name of Taib family timber concession
Name of Iban board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Leadership position within the Iban community, source(s) of information
Keresa Timber,
49,996
hectares
Datuk Temonggong Bayang Janting
Director
Father-in-law of Leonard Linggi (4 June 1997 interview with a Sarawak state assemblyman).
Rajang Wood, 309,575 hectares
Douglas Ugah Embas
Director, holder of a single share.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Development (6 June 1997 interview with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing). Member of federal parliament representing Betong district (9 June 1997 interview with former federal parliamentarian Sim Kwang Yang).
Sarimas, 30,000 hectares
Datin Empian Jabu, proxy for and wife to Alfred Jabu
Director
Alfred Jabu is the Deputy Chief Minister, and as such is “the highest ranking non-Malay in Sarawak” (27 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). He was one of two men to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Chief Minister Taib during the critical 10 March 1987 press conference during the Ming Court affair (Ritchie 1987: 22). PBB nominee (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin)
Sarimas, 30,000 hectares
James Jimbun Ak Pungga is a member of the federal parliament from Kapit (9 June 1997 interview with former federal parliamentarian Sim Kwang Yang).
Director
A US-educated former teacher and district officer, he was asked by the PBB to stand for election, and is a loyal PBB member. Federal parliamentarian Chiew Chin Sing reflected aloud about his colleague, “He is very quiet in parliament. He never speaks on the problems of his constituency, the Iban people from rural areas that still lack even the most basic amenities. The PBB must have bought his silence with this timber concession” (19 July 1997 interview).
A final, poignant comment, on the group of Iban compradors in Table 4.8 above, came as I reviewed these names with a Sarawak state assemblyman. Surprised to see the names of Iban leaders from three prominent families appearing over and over again – Jinggut, Linggi, and Kanyan – and himself representing a district that is heavily logged, the assemblyman told me that he had approached all three of these prominent Iban families for campaign contributions when he had run for office. All refused to help and instead supported his opponent. Looking back he said, “No wonder they would not help me. They were already paid off by the government.” He added, “These people take money and resources coming from the lands belonging to the people of my district. Then when I run for office to try to help the people of my district, these downriver Iban use that money, which belongs to the people of my district, against them” (4 June 1997 interview).
The Taib family group of timber companies has provided funds for the chief minister to become vastly wealthy and to reward or buy political loyalty, including that of Iban leaders. However, the sum total of the Taib family’s personal wealth seeking and patronage activities goes far beyond the timber sector. The family runs a well-diversified financial empire with interests in building materials, construction and finance. While timber holdings are important, it is in the context of their allowing the Taib family to multiply its wealth and satisfy patronage objectives that the family’s control of 20 timber concessions should be understood. Detailing the Taib family’s non-timber economic activities is an important undertaking because it demonstrates the extent to which rent from Sarawak’s forests is recycled to meet the financial and political objectives of the Taib clan, rather than being formally captured by the government.
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
Why Governments Fail to Capture Economic Rent: The Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent by Rulers in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999
June 2001
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
—————–
Chapter 4 : Unofficial Timber Rent Appropriation in Sarawak (Part 6 – Cahya Mata Sarawak)
The flagship of the Taib’s financial empire is the largest company in the state, Cahaya Mata Sarawak (CMS). In 1993, the original owners of the company “acquired” on paper a valuable constellation of state-owned companies and a large Taib family holding company, but actually lost control of their company to the Taib family.
The three state-owned companies that CMS purchased were subsidiaries of the Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (SEDC). These companies quarry, manufacture, distribute, market and sell a wide range of steel, metal and aggregate building materials. With the acquisition of these companies, CMS obtained a monopoly over the manufacture and supply of virtually all non-timber building materials used in Sarawak.
At the same time CMS purchased the three SEDC subsidiaries, it also purchased a large Taib family holding company, Syarakusa Corporation. CMS’s purchase of Syarakusa resulted in the Taib family obtaining majority control in CMS. According to Cheong, the financial writer, “At least three prospective substantial shareholders [of CMS] are presently disclosed, and they are the vendors of Syarakusa Corporation” (Cheong 1993: 56-60).
The fact that Syarakusa is a Taib family company is verified by a financial writer who notes that “the vendors of Syarakusa are Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib, Onn bin Mahmud and Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Taib who are related to the Chief Minister of Sarawak” (Cheong 1993: 56-60). These three are, respectively, the eldest son, the brother, and the youngest son of the chief minister.
The CMS deal was put together by the Taib family’s Sarawak Securities, a subsidiary of the family-owned Syrakusa Corporation. Prior to CMS’s acquisition of Syrakusa Corporation, Sarawak Securities used the news of CMS’s forthcoming acquisition of value-laden SEDC subsidiaries to drive up the price of Syrakusa Corporation beyond its actual value, and hence increase Syrakusa Corporation’s level of ownership in CMS in the final instance. A well-placed and knowledgeable source in Sarawak observed that, “The Chief Minister used Sarawak Securities to bid up the value of Syrakusa prior to Syrakusa’s being injected into CMS. The value of the three SEDC companies, drove up the value of Syrakusa Corporation, the Taib-family company” (14 November 1996 interview). The source’s argument, that the value of the SEDC shares drove up the value of the Taib family company, appears to be borne out by looking at the relative sums paid by CMS for the two sets of companies. CMS paid nearly twice as much for the Taib family’s holding company (RM 210 or $84 million) as they did for the three well-functioning SEDC companies (RM117 million or $45 million) according to Cheong (1993: 56-60). When asked to summarize the reason for the existence of CMS in its current form, the source said, “the personal desire for wealth of Sarawak’s Chief Minister” (14 November 1996 interview).
Although the primary purpose of CMS appears to be the creation of wealth for the chief minister and his family, some leadership positions in the company are also reserved for political loyalists. For example, the Managing Directorship of CMS is Mohd. Effendi Norwawi whom Cheong says is,
one of the loyalists who stood by Taib Mahmud during the famous ‘Ming Court Hotel’ affair
in 1987 when an aborted coup was staged to unseat the Chief Minister. Taib Mahmud survived the crisis and came out victorious in both the 1987 and 1991 state elections. As vacancies in powerful places were available after the political dissidents had made their exit, a few people like Effendi were said to be rewarded for standing by the Chief Minister in his hour of crisis (Cheong 1993: 58).
Turning to another important Taib family business, the shipping of all timber exports in Sarawak goes through Archipelago Shipping (Dauvergne 1997: 109), a company almost entirely owned by the Chief Minister’s family.[1] Because shipping a cubic meter of timber to foreign markets costs about $40, and because Sarawak exported an average of ten million cubic meters of timber each year during the 1980s, the company’s cash flow was four billion dollars during the 1980s.[2] Hence, in addition to timber industry holdings, the chief minister and his family are enriched by this shipping monopoly. As Table 4.9 shows, the entire management and 92 percent of the shares in Archipelago Shipping are held by relatives of the chief minister or companies owned by them.
Table 4.9 Taib family ownership of Archipelago Shipping
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to Taib Mahmud, Chief Minister of Sarawak
Onn Bin Mahmud
Director
Chief minister’s brother
Achi Corporation
52 percent shareholder
Company 100 percent owned and controlled by Onn Bin Mahmud, the chief minister’s brother
Fredahanam Bte Mahmud
Director
Chief minister’s sister
Serira
15 percent shareholder
Company 100 owned percent owned by the three sons of the chief minister’s sister, Fredahanam Bte Mahmud.
Mohd. Arip Bin Mahmud
Director and 10 percent shareholder
Chief minister’s brother
Haji Mohd. Tufail Bin Mahmud
Director and 10 percent shareholder
Chief minister’s brother
Grand Shine Trading
8 percent shareholder
No obvious connection to the chief minister
Masba Holdings
5 percent shareholder
Company 100 percent owned by Abdul Aziz Haji Hussain, who is married to the sister of the chief minister, Fredahanam Bte Mahmud.
Source: documents obtained during 28 October 1996 interview with Institut Pekerjaan Komuniti
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
Why Governments Fail to Capture Economic Rent: The Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent by Rulers in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999
June 2001
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
—————
Chapter 4 : Unofficial Timber Rent Appropriation in Sarawak (Part 7 – KTS, WTK & Shin Yang,)
KTS
Lau Hui Kang, the head of the fourth largest timber group KTS, has paid a growing price to Sarawak’s head of state to maintain access to timber concessions, according to S.K. Lau.
Lau Hui Kang, like all others in the timber sector, had pledged his full loyalty to the former Chief Minister and Governor. When Taib gained power, they all turned round to lean on Taib. But Lau said something to me, which gave me much food for thought, “We in fact [thought] it would be easier to serve and attend to Taib. This is why all of us [rallied] together . . . against Yakub. [But] unexpectedly, Taib [turned out to be] even more demanding than Yakub” (Lau 1995: chapter 5, page 3).
In some cases, the price exacted from timber companies by the chief minister includes not just an unofficial stream of timber rent but, in one case, being required to turn against one’s own family. In the case of KTS, Taib asked the head of the group, Lau Hui Kang, to wrest control of the Borneo Post, the state’s second largest newspaper, from his own brother, the paper’s owner. The state’s largest newspaper, the Sarawak Tribune, was already under the control of the chief minister’s party, the PBB, but the Borneo Post, controlled by Lau Hui Kang’s brother, Lau Hui Siong, had a relatively more independent voice. Lau Hui Kang was told that if he did not convince his brother to let PBB interests obtain a controlling stake in the paper, or at least a substantial degree of editorial control, that KTS would lose its timber concessions. Turning against his brother, Lau Hui Kang tried to lead a hostile takeover of his brother’s newspaper on behalf of PBB interests, but failed, resulting in the permanent estrangement of the brothers (5 November 1996 interview with a Sarawak journalist). S.K. Lau’s unpublished manuscript confirms most aspects of this incident:
Many Chinese businessmen would become unscrupulous because of selfish aims and Lau Hui Kang was prominent in this field. During the 90′s, Wahab Dollah, a State Legislative Member and the right hand man of Chief Minister wanted to buy over the Borneo Post English daily. Wahab Dollah contacted Lau Hui Kang who had the intention to sell the [Borneo Post] to the Malays ["Malays" is a shorthand reference to denote Sarawak's Malay- power structure led by Taib Mahmud]. In order to please the Chief Minister, Lau Hui Kang did not care [that his actions would make him a permanent] enemy of his brother Lau Hui Siong. . . . Luckily Lau Hui Siong was clever enough to unite all the small shareholders into a collective share. Thus, Lau Hui Kang lost his say.
Due to the shares of the English daily, the fraternal ties between the brothers . . . [split] up. The family members of Lau Hui Kang all resigned from the Board of Directors of See Hua which was under the control of Lau Hui Siong’s family and Lau Hui Siong’s family members resigned from the posts they held at KTS which was under the control of Lau Hui Kang’s family (Lau 1995: chapter 12, page 4).
While a substantial portion of the timber rent earned by the Lau family, and the unity of the family itself, were taken away by Sarawak’s chief minister, it should not be forgotten that rent appropriated by timber giants such as the KTS group are used to support exorbitant life styles. Having said that, a search of articles of incorporation of the concessions licensed to KTS suggests that the most important recipients of rent from KTS concessions, outside the Lau family, were Taib Mahmud’s family, proxies, friends and political supporters.
Table 4.10 KTS timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Taib Mahmud are board members or shareholders
Name of KTS timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to current chief minister, source of information.
Bigwood; Bintulu Lumber Development,
82,448 hectares
Datuk Haji Bujang Mohd. Nor
Director; Director
Former State Secretary of Sarawak under Chief Minister Taib from the early-to-middle 1980s (26 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). Former state financial secretary. Regarded as a potential candidate for the post of Governor. Former chair of Bakun Hydroelectric Electric Corporation (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). Current executive chairman of Harwood. His position on the boards of these concessions may be a golden handshake for holding one or more of the posts mentioned above (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Bintulu Lumber Development,
82,448 hectares
Mohd Amin bin Hj. Satem
Chairman of the Board
Formerly with Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (26 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). Older brother of Sarawak’s current Minister for Social Development. Chairman of BIG, a company specializing in the manufacturing of industrial cases, redi-mix concrete, and quarrying. Chairman of the Sarawak Chamber of Commerce (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). Original director of CMS, the largest and most important financial entity in the state, and widely regarded as the personal financial vehicle of the chief minister of Sarawak (29 May 1997 interview with Dominique Ng). A “former PBB nominee” (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin ).
Bintulu Lumber Development,
82,448 hectares
Sim Kui Hock, son of Sim Kheng Hong (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Director
Sim’s position on the board of this concession is a political payback to his father, now deceased. At one of the pivotal moments in the Ming Court affair, Chief Minister Taib’s press conference of 10 March 1987, when Taib announced the plot against him, Sim’s father, then the Deputy Chief Minister, was one of two men who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the embattled Taib (Ritchie 1987: 22).
Table 4.10 (continued) KTS timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Taib Mahmud are board members or shareholders
Name of KTS timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position or percentage
of shares held in company
Relationship to current chief minister, source of information.
Bintulu Lumber Development,
82,448 hectares
Ong Guan Tee
Director
Ong Guan Tee is a SUPP nominee (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin). He is also the son of Ong Kee Hui, a leading Malaysian Chinese architect of the handing over of Sarawak to Malaysia. (9 June 1997 interview with Sim Kwang Yang).
Hua Lim Sawmill, 14,568 hectares
Wong Nai Huo
Six percent shareholder
SUPP nominee (12 August 1997 interview with James Chin).
Juta Intelek,
39,753 hectares; Polymore, 41,709 hectares
YB Datuk Amar Hamid Bugo’
Director; Director
Current State Secretary. Most powerful bureaucrat in Sarawak (19 July 1997 interview with Jomo K.S.).
Juta Intelek,
39,753 hectares
Haji Abdul Aziz Haji Hussain
Director
Current Deputy State Secretary. Third in the chain of command of the State Secretariat. Married to Taib’s sister. (4 June 1997 interview with a state assemblyman)
Malkita, 31,435 hectares
Ting Ing Mieng
Managing Director and Secretary, Director of Lee Hua Sawmill, 50 percent shareholder in Malkita.
State Assemblyman representing one of the two Sibu city districts on behalf of the SUPP party, and a member of Chief Minister Taib’s ruling coalition. He was for a long time perceived as someone who could deliver Sibu votes for to the Barisan (5 June 1997 interview with Jason H.I. Wong). He is on the board of this company as a reward from Taib (12 August 1997 interview).
Malkita, 31,435 hectares
Datuk Ting Ming Hoi, former Sibu Senator, now deceased.
Director
James Chin says that Ting Ming Hoi is a “SUPP nominee” (12 August 1997 interview).
Malkita, 31,435 hectares
Abdul Ajis Majid
30 percent shareholder
State assemblyman from Mukah (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
Table 4.10 (continued) KTS timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Chief Minister Taib Mahmud are board members or shareholders
Name of KTS timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to current chief minister, source of information.
Malkita, 31,435 hectares
Mohd Ghazali Kipli
Director and 25 percent shareholder
Ghazali is a proxy for Taib Mahmud (printed research materials obtained from Institut Pekerjaan Komuniti on 28 October 1997). Ghazali is also the brother of Baijuri Kipli, Director of the Sarawak Department of Land and Survey. As such, Baijuri reports directly to the chief minister on all matters of land classification. (Aidan Wing told me that Baijuri is on the phone with the chief minister 3-4 times a week.) On a daylong trip along a seldom visited stretch of Sarawak’s coastline, Baijuri told me that considerable amounts of forest reserve, including a large, already-logged over lowland peat forest that we were driving by, were being re-classified as agricultural land, and would be handed over to plantation companies. At the same time, forest reserves would be re-supplemented by Native Claims Rights (NCR) lands in the interior of the state, thus wiping out the claims on these lands by the state’s indigenous groups. NCR lands provide a sort of perpetual land bank that can be converted to forest reserves as old forest reserves become exhausted (5 June 1997 interview with Baijuri Kipli). Baijuri is also an unofficial political advisor to, and emissary from, Chief Minister Taib. I spent two days in the city of Mukah with State Assemblyman Aidan Wing and Baijuri, during the medical leave of the state assemblyman from that city. Aidan and Baijuri were there to consult with Mukah’s political elders on how to go about electing a new state assemblyman whom the community would find to be more suitable. This discussion took place at a dinner on the night of 4 June. Aidan Wing said of Baijuri, who is tall, thin, has a perpetual smile, is super-friendly, but is also quite disheveled, “Baijuri may look like a crazy man, but people respect his political advice. If he tells you that you can win, then you can win. If he tells you that you will lose, then you will lose. The chief minister respects his views.” It is widely believed that Baijuri reports regularly to the chief minister on all the political developments he observes during his travels around the state.
Table 4.10 (continued) KTS timber concessions in which family members, friends, proxies or political allies of Taib Mahmud are board members or shareholders
Name of KTS timber concession
Name of board member or shareholder
Position in or percentage of shares held in company
Relationship to current chief minister, source of information.
Polymore, 41,709 hectares
Tai Sing Chii
Director
Tai Sing Chii’s position on the board of this KTS timber concession may be a reward for his support for Taib Mahmud. S.K. Lau writes, “when he was having trouble raising political funds in 1970, Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub turned his target to Tai Sing Chii, owner of Pan Sarawak, and hoped that he could ‘borrow’ three units of outboard engine and a few hundred khatis of rice from the latter. Later . . . staff of the company disclosed that Tai Sing Chii had donated about 3,000 dollars to Yakub. So after the latter came to power, he repaid Tai Sing Chii for his donation for more than 3,000 times of the amount donated. As a whole, Tai Sing Chii had made a wise decision. Yakub could still remember him several years after he stepped down from the post of chief minister. One day, when we met at Singapore . . . Airport, he still praised . . . Tai Sing Chii. . . . After Yakub lost his power, all of us thought Tai Sing Chii had lost his strong backing also. It seemed that he was finished. But he turned to support Taib. Since then, he got richer and richer” (Lau 1995: chapter 18, page 1).
WTK
In the 1970s the largest timber concession holder in Sarawak was the WTK group, named for the initials of its owner, Wong Tuong Kwang. WTK is Sarawak’s fifth largest timber concessionaire with an estimated 400,000 hectares under license (The Edge 1995d). As with all of Sarawak’s large timber groups, making substantial payments to the chief minister was necessary for WTK to stay in business. S.K. Lau, half homespun philosopher, half investigative reporter, describes how growing demands for timber rent from Sarawak’s successive chief ministers plagued the WTK group.
Once, I had a chat with Lau Hoi Kang [son-in-law of Wong Tuong Kwang] in his office for quite long. There came his brother-in-law Wong Siew Kwong. Lau then immediately opened the drawer taking out a few thousand dollars [in] new notes to give to Wong Siew Kwong. Lau said to him, “You immediately fly to Kuching to hand this money over to a Malay [the individual is not named in Lau’s account], and then bring back the ‘license’ quickly.”
The great majority of the rich men in Sarawak depend on [the] timber industry/business to amass wealth. The Sarawak state timber concession licenses can only be awarded to the Malays since the national policy is to safeguard the privileges of [the] Bumiputra ["bumiputra" literally translates as "sons of the soil" and is how Malays refer to themselves]. The Chinese can only be the contractors. But the Malays are well known for their laziness. They get the licenses but don’t know how to do business. The Chinese would then offer them a lump sum of money. As such, they would have money to spend without using their brains. Therefore, it would not be necessary for them to learn to do business. However, nowadays they have learnt to become smarter and cleverer. A timber concession license [could] be bought for only one million dollars in the 70s. But when coming to the 80s, [Chinese timber businessmen] needed to pay at least ten times more for a timber concession license. This is the “conspicuous feature” of the Chinese. If one only has money, one would be able to do anything. As the saying goes, “With money you can make the devil turn the millstone.” This is entirely correct. As learnt in the 90′s, Wong Kie Nai paid the price of 10 to 20 million dollars just to secure a contract for a piece of timber forest.
Every time during the Chinese New Year, the Chief Minister would bring along his family to pay new year visits to the rich men in Sibu. This would be a good opportunity for the Chief Minister to make a fortune, since these prominent figures and celebrities would not hesitate to do anything to please the Chief Minister, including giving the giving of big and small “angpau.”
Once I waited for the CM’s arrival at Wong Tuong Kwang’s house. Wong Kie Nai, the 2nd son of Wong Tuong Kwang asked me whether I knew others had given how much “angpau money” to the Chief Minister. I replied, “I learnt Ling Beng Siew had given 300 thousand Singapore dollars [$187,500] to the CM. What about you?” On hearing this, he said, “Only that much!” Though he did not tell me how much he had given, I thought it should be more than that amount” (Lau 1995: chapter 4, pages 1-2).
Aside from helping to enrich the chief minister, the WTK group has begun to strengthen its political standing in other camps. One of Wong’s sons, Wong Kie Yik, is now a federal senator (26 October 1996 interview with John Phua). WTK’s corporate strategy is to tie up with other politically strong timber players. For example, WTK injected eleven of its timber concessions (totaling 254,000 hectares) and five mills into publicly listed Samanda. Completion of the deal was projected to allow the WTK group to emerge as the major shareholder in Samanda with a 32 percent stake (Sarawak Tribune, 1997c). Samanda’s chairman is William Lau, Wong’s son-in-law (Sarawak Securities 1997c: 23). Lau is close to timber baron Ting Pek Khiing and is the director of Ting’s Seaga Airlines (5 November 1996 interview with a well-placed and knowledgeable source in Sarawak). Finally, Sabah timber baron Wee Boon Ping, who is actually a Sarawak resident, is a 9.9 percent shareholder in Samanda Holdings (Sarawak Securities 1997c: 23).
Shin Yang
Shin Yang is the newest timber operator among Sarawak’s big five, and came to prominence in the 1980s. The group, headed by Ling Chiong Ho, has concessions in Sarawak totaling 400,000 hectares (Sarawak Securities 1997b: 22). Like all other major timber groups in the state, Shin Yang’s share of Sarawak’s timber concessions is contingent upon the degree to which it allows the chief minister’s family to unofficially appropriate timber rent. Sanyang, a concession identified by an informant as belonging to the Shin Yang group, has two of the chief minister’s brothers, Mohammad Tufail Bin Mahmud and Mohammad Arip Bin Mahmud, serving on its the board and holding two-thirds of its shares (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist).
In an effort to help promote the patronage objectives of the chief minister, the company in 1995 appointed Hamid Bugo to the position of chairman of the Shin Yang group (Malaysian Business 1995b). Hamid Bugo is Sarawak’s state secretary and, as such, is the most powerful bureaucrat in the state (19 July 1997 interview with Jomo K.S.). Another board member is Mohamad Asfia Bin Awang Nasar, the deputy speaker of the state assembly (28 May 1997 interview with a Sarawak journalist). Asfia was instrumental during Ming Court affair in eroding the support of the Tun Rahman faction. He also serves as an informer to Taib, via his brother Ali, on the activities of the Sarawak Alliance’s PBDS and SNAP parties. Asfia is also the executive editor of Borneo Post, People’s Mirror, Sarawak Tribune, and Utusan Sarawak, in which capacity he serves as the enforcer of news blackouts on the activities of the state’s senior non-Melanau politicians including Abang Johari, a Malay, and Alfred Jabu, an Iban (Sayottaib 2001: sulit 6, dokumen 5).
I agree whole heartedly with you dayak thinker, but I am afraid the charater, the like of unggal Branking/Iban Semarahan/Akih Hawong will never agree with such move and therefore dayaks shall remain in the same ruts for many generation to come, simply because these characters will use their so call “constitutional knowledge” to convince the new generations to stay put in the same rut.
As I said they gain more by in Malaysia so why all the hussle…..correct????
If they don’t benifit so much as compared to most of the dayaks…surely they will support such moves…
On the words “constitution”, just look at the world around us today……how many being changed and amended in accordance to the need of the country and people…so Unggal Branking what say you…is that the constitution is cast into stone that can never be changed?????
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
Why Governments Fail to Capture Economic Rent: The Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent by Rulers in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999
June 2001
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
—————–
Chapter 4 : Unofficial Timber Rent Appropriation in Sarawak (Part 8 -Ting Pek Khiing, Limbang Trading & Ling Group)
Ting Pek Khiing
The group of companies headed by Ting Pek Khiing controls licenses to harvest over 310,000 hectares of timber, making it the sixth largest private concession holding group in the state. Like Sarawak’s other major timber heads, Ting funnels a substantial portion of his timber rent directly to Taib. The critical difference between Ting and Sarawak’s other timber barons (which puts him more or less in the same league as Indonesia’s Prajogo Pangestu and Bob Hasan) are his extensive non-timber business ties with the head of state.
Ting Pek Khiing appeared to start out as an ordinary timber businessman with a company called Woodhouse, but his timber holdings began to grow rapidly once he went into business with the chief minister, starting with Ting’s purchase in 1992 of Pacific Chemical, a 100 percent Taib family-owned company.
When Ting purchased Pacific Chemical in 1992, its sole shareholder was a company called Majahrata, which was owned exclusively by four members of the chief minister’s family, Mahmud Abu-Bekir Taib (managing director and 58 percent shareholder), Sulaiman Abdul Rahman bin Abdul Taib (42 percent shareholder), and their wives Jamilah Hamidah Taib and Hanifah Kajar Taib (printed materials obtained from Institut Pekerjaan Komuniti on 28 October 1997).
After Pacific Chemicals was purchased from the Taib family it still retained a 38.9 percent shareholding in the company (Jardine Fleming 1993: 36). Ting and Taib then injected Pacific Chemicals into their jointly-held timber company, Usama Industries, in which Ting holds 55 percent of the shares, and the Taib family company Majahrata holds 40.5 percent.
At the same time, Ting’s original timber company Woodhouse was injected into Ekran, a timber and construction company concern that was, for a time, one of the most closely-watched companies on the Malaysian stock market. Ekran’s major source of raw material came from the Ting-Taib owned Pacific Chemicals.
Through the early 1990s, Ting became a typical Sarawak timber baron, whose rising fortunes were totally dependent upon his diverting a substantial portion of the economic rent generated from his logging operations to the chief minister. However, Ting traded up and went into business with Daim Zainuddin, Malaysia’s former finance minister, current treasurer of the ruling Malay party UMNO and probably the most important political and economic figure in the country next to Prime Minister Mahathir. Ting is said to have come to the attention of Daim and Mahathir when, in less than 100 days, Ting completed a five star hotel in Langkawi an island offshore from the prime minister’s home state of Kedah. Turning Langkawi into a tourist destination was a keystone of Mahathir’s efforts to remain popular in his geographically and economically marginal state. Mahathir was reportedly so impressed with Ting’s ability to produce results that he put Ting in charge of the construction of the Bakun Dam (Business Times 1992b). The dam was one of Mahathir’s many mega-projects renowned for their size and length such as Kuala Lumpur City Center, the world’s tallest building, Linear City, the world’s longest building and the Malaysian-made Proton automobile, 1,998 of which were lined up to form the world’s longest convoy. The Bakun Dam, had it been built, would have followed suit, requiring the pouring of more concrete than any dam before it and using the world’s longest undersea electrical transmission cable to service its customers.
Mahathir briefly changed directions and awarded the construction contract for the dam to a consortium headed by Chief Minister Taib. But Ting and Daim managed to regain control of the dam construction project.
It had been assumed that Ting Pek Khiing would be awarded control of the project. But then, in a surprise to all, Chief Minister Taib did an end run, obtaining approval for the dam to be built by a joint venture between Multipurpose (the leading company of the Malaysian Chinese Association, the political party representing the loyal-to-Mahathir segment of the Malaysian Chinese community) and the Sarawak Electric Supply Company (or SESCO, a parastatal company from which Taib hoped to profit once it was privatized). The deal was brokered by Sarawak Capital and Sarawak Securities, investment banks owned by the Chief Minister’s family (Insan 1996: 7-10). Ting and Daim had been resting on their laurels, assuming they had the Bakun deal in hand, and were caught by surprise by the Multipurpose-SESCO end run. In an effort to regain control of the project, Daim flew to Sarawak to see Taib. Ting flew to Kuala Lumpur to see Mahathir. Daim and Ting together pressured Taib and Mahathir to abandon the Multipurpose-SESCO deal, and instead have it awarded to Ekran (18 August 1997 interview with Raphael Pura). Mahathir relented, and returned to his original plan to designate Ekran as the sole builder of the dam.
With Ting and Daim in control of the dam project once again, they and their proxies were in a position to profit handsomely, due to the fact that they controlled substantial shares. According to Ekran’s 1995 annual report, Ting was the company’s major shareholder, with a 21 percent stake, and his wife with an additional five percent. Daim/Mahathir associates also appeared among the shareholders and board of directors of Ekran. For example, “Analysts note that Shuaib Lazim, an associate of former finance minister Daim Zainuddin . . . was an Ekran director. . . . Mr. Shuaib has a 3.1 percent stake in Ekran’s increased paid-up capital . . .” (Business Times 1992b). Shuaib Lazim is a former UMNO senator and state assemblyman from Kedah, Mahathir’s home state. Rasip Haron, a one- percent shareholder in Ekran, is reportedly a close associate of both Daim and Ting (Insan 1996: 11-12). On the board of directors, two associates, Dr. Regina Norani binti Nuruddin and Josephine Permala Sivaretnam, represented Daim and were the only board members besides Ting. A well placed and knowledgeable source in Sarawak wrote me, “Dr. Regina and Josephine were shadow directors; mostly deemed . . . nominees for an interested party – you know who.” The informant eventually named the interested party he was referring to: Daim Zainuddin (30 March 1997 interview).
After edging Chief Minister Taib out of control of construction of the Bakun Dam, it appears that Ting sought to make amends by awarding the chief minister and his family shares in Ekran and making them beneficiaries of selected dam construction contracts. For a time Taib’s two sons were the 16th and 17th largest shareholders of Ekran. However, when a case was brought against Taib for conflict of interest, he asked his children to give up their shares in Ekran, although some believe that Taib’s children still retain their holdings through nominees. Taib personally benefited from the Bakun project when his CMS corporation was awarded a RM1.2 billion ($480 million) contract for construction of the Bakun Dam (22 August 1996 interview with Muniandy Thayalan). Another example of the chief minister appropriating rent from the Bakun project involved the clearing of about 69,450 hectares of forest area which was to be flooded upon completion of the dam. Ting’s forestry companies, in which the chief minister owns substantial shares, were awarded the license to log these areas (The Star 1995b).
The Bakun Dam was to have displaced 8,000 indigenous people in 15 longhouse communities (Financial Times 30 May 1994). The contract for relocating the displaced people was to have gone to a company owned by deputy chief minister and Taib loyalist Alfred Jabu (11 November 1996 interview with James Ng).
Ting is also in business with the chief minister in the area of steel fabrication. In a deal brokered by Taib-owned Sarawak Capital, a consortium was put together to link the state’s electrical utility, SESCO, a sister company of Sarawak Capital called Central Paragon, and a Ting Pek Khiing company called Universal Cable. The ties between the chief minister and Ting in this particular venture were not only financial, but also spatial. Universal Cable has a suite adjoining that of Sarawak Capital on the top floor of Wisma Ting Pek Khiing, the tallest office building in Kuching. On the opposite end of Wisma Ting Pek Khiing, in the basement parking garage, three large Rolls Royce sedans can be seen gathering dust. A source indicated that Chief Minister Taib had initially purchased these Rolls Royces to chauffeur heads of state visiting Kuching for a meeting. After the meeting ended, Taib no longer needed the cars and sold three to Ting.
Ting also uses earnings from timber to finance the electoral objectives of the chief minister. An official from the prominent national NGO, the Consumer Association of Penang, told me that Ting had reportedly contributed $27 million to candidates from the chief minister’s Sarawak Alliance during the 1994 elections (23 August 1996 interview with Mary Assunta).
Despite the many joint ventures between Ting and Taib, Ting still manages to defy the chief minister. He is unique in this respect. One example of Ting’s contradicting the chief minister was when he financed the unseating of Taib ally Wong Soon Kai. Ting had agreed to build, and partly subsidize, six bridges across the Rejang River. While these bridges would have eventually aided in the construction of Ting’s Bakun Dam, they also constituted a key infrastructure improvement, and in this sense (rather like the Samling group’s subsidization of urban renewal in Miri and Bintulu) would have served the broader political objectives of the chief minister. But former deputy chief minister and former chairman of the SUPP, Wong Soon Kai, withheld the release of the state’s share of funds for the project.
Because of Wong Soon Kai’s opposition to the bridges, and to Ting’s opening a branch of the MCA-linked Tunku Abdul Rahman College in Sarawak, Ting provided financial backing to Wong Soon Kai’s electoral opponent, Wong Ho Leng, of the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP), thus removing Wong Soon Kai from power. Ting helped Wong by providing financial backing to bookmakers, who in turn placed unrealistically steep odds of 20:1 in favor of Wong Ho Leng’s victory. Many were tempted to bet on such odds, and once they stood to make money from Wong Soon Kai’s loss, they, their friends and families voted for Wong Ho Leng. Betting on elections is common in Sarawak, but subsidizing bookmakers, as Ting did, is not. Some speculate that Ting did not want Wong Ho Leng to win so much as he wanted to “show Wong Soon Kai who was boss.” Ting also provided similar gambling-mediated backing to a relative of his who ran as an independent and successfully defeated a highly unpopular SUPP member in Meradong (8 and 16 November 1996 interviews with Michael Goldman).
Ting, like his fellow timber barons, is compelled to funnel timber rent to Taib, who jointly owns all of Ting’s timber operations, and was given a $480 million contract in Ting’s Bakun dam project. Ting has demonstrated a degree of independence from Taib, as when he won back control of the Bakun contract from Taib. However, Ting has only maintained control of the project through ties to nationally prominent Prime Minister Mahathir and UMNO treasurer Daim Zainuddin.
Limbang Trading
One of the best known and least understood concession holding groups is Limbang Trading. Many erroneously assume, due to the high government positionof its outspoken chairman, James Wong,
Wong serves as the state’s Minister of Environment. He also is the chair of the NREB, the state board that approved the environmental impact assessment for the mammoth Bakun Dam. Taib had served as chair, but when a case was brought against him in a Kuala Lumpur court for conflict of interest, he appointed Wong.
that Limbang’s timber holdings are vast and its political currency strong. Neither is really the case. Wong has been barely tolerated by the state’s leadership for more than half of his public life, resulting in the modest size of his concession holdings.
When I interviewed Wong, he gave a heroic account of his beginnings in the timber trade. He said he started his timber company in 1946 out of desperation to feed his mother and seven brothers and sisters after Japanese soldiers had executed his father. Wong said he started by selling firewood to Hong Kong, but later decided to get into the extracting and selling of commercially valuable timber. The type of logging prevailing at the time was the logging of ramin from peat swamps in coastal areas, but all such areas near his home had already been given out as concessions. Wong said he decided, therefore, to obtain a license to harvest timber from the mountains instead and approached the British colonial administrators of Sarawak. According to Wong, a 234,000 hectare timber concession in the upper Limbang valley was his “for a song” in 1949. He claims that it took him eleven years of arduous work to develop the concession before it produced its first shipment of timber and that he personally pioneered tropical hill logging in Southeast Asia (12 November 1996 interview with James Wong).
A less heroic version of Wong’s beginnings in the timber trade was given by Hugh Peyman, then Managing Director for Asia for the investment bank of Dresdner Kleinwort Benson. Peyman recounted that in 1949, when Wong was purportedly awarded the timber concession, he was only in his early 20s, if not late teens, and would have lacked the connections to acquire such a huge concession. Rather, his father-in-law acquired the concession as payment for many years of loyalty to the British who “drew some lines on a map, and the deal was done.” The land was then passed down to Wong’s brother-in-law, who introduced Wong to the timber business, and cut him in on ownership of the concession. Wong is, in this sense, not entirely the self-made man he claims to be (23 July 1997 interview with Hugh Peyman).
Just as Wong’s history in the timber trade is open to multiple interpretations, so is his role in Sarawak politics. Wong at first appears to have been a pivotal political player in Sarawak. For nearly four decades, he served as head of one of the four parties in the Sarawak Alliance: the Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu (PBB), led by Chief Minister Taib Mahmud; the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP), led until recently by Wong Soon Kai; the Sarawak National Party (SNAP), led by Wong; and the Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (PBDS).
Despite Wong’s position at the head of SNAP, his political career has been difficult. His public life began in 1961, when then-Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Abdul Rahman called for a congress to discuss the entry of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation of Malaysia. Wong attended and was an early supporter of Sarawak’s joining the federation.
Sarawak’s first chief minister under the new arrangement was Stephen Ningkan. Wong, a newly-elected independent from Limbang district, decided to join Ningkan’s SNAP, a multi-racial party with a substantial Chinese element. Wong’s rise was initially meteoric, and he was appointed deputy chief minister after Ningkan’s party won state elections (Wong 1983: 10-11). Said Wong in an interview, “Because I was made deputy chief minister, and I had joined SNAP, I was also made deputy president of SNAP” (12 November 1996 interview). It was Wong’s senior position in SNAP that gave him political staying power.
Wong’s political fortunes changed with Ningkan’s removal from power in 1966. This relegated SNAP to the opposition until 1974, when, after six years, the party was finally readmitted to the Sarawak Alliance. Wong’s political currency should have improved at this point, but instead he was jailed for two years by then-Chief Minister Tun Rahman on the grounds that Wong had been colluding with the nation of Brunei to facilitate the annexation of Wong’s home district, Limbang, into Brunei. Wong, however, maintains that Tun Rahman jailed him because he saw Wong and SNAP as a political threat.
In 1981, five years after his release, Wong ascended from deputy president to president of SNAP (12 November 1996 interview), which coincided with the election of Taib to the chief ministership. With Wong’s higher position in the party and a new chief minister in office, Wong should have been in a position to start afresh with improved relations with the state’s leadership. But in 1983, his leadership of SNAP was vigorously challenged by Leo Moggie, who with his followers left SNAP and formed the PBDS. Wong was held in low esteem by Chief Minister Taib because of PBDS’s breakaway from SNAP. PBDS went on not only to pose an electoral challenge to Taib but also to embarrass him on the timber issue
The misuse of the state’s timber resource by Taib was a pivotal issue for the PBDS. One press account looks back on “the PBDS’s campaign issues of Dayak rights and environmental issues. Had the PBDS gained control of the state government, the timber industry would have been adversely affected as the PBDS would have taken action to curtail logging activities that are rapidly depleting the state’s rain forests where large numbers of Dayaks live” (Economist Intelligence Unit 1991).
As a result of Wong’s inability to rein in the PBDS, he had difficulties with Taib from 1981 to 1985. However, Wong’s explanation for these difficulties was that Governor Tun Rahman’s advisers to Chief Minister Taib had “poisoned his mind” against him (12 November 1996 interview). But a 1984 news report suggests that, if anything, Tun Rahman saved Wong from Taib’s wrath during those difficult years.
The increasingly embarrassing delay in announcing a new Sarawak cabinet after the state’s 28-29 December 1983 election results from severe disagreement between Chief Minister Taib Mahmud and his uncle, state Governor Rahman Yakub. The election was supposed to cement Taib’s ascendancy in Malaysia’s largest and potentially wealthiest state but the result also threw doubt on the future of the Sarawak National Party (SNAP), mauled in the election by a breakaway element. Taib wants to push SNAP right out of the ruling coalition, but ironically Rahman, noted for his acute political sense, insists on keeping a weakened SNAP within the government, where it can be more easily influenced (FEER 1984b).
Finally, however, Wong managed to rehabilitate himself during the Ming Court affair.
With the exception of the years leading up to and including the Ming Court Affair (1985-1987), the year following the 1983 elections marked the second largest handout of timber concessions on record in Sarawak. In an effort to augment his political warchest and/or buy political supporters, Taib awarded 17 new concessions (see Table 4.1 above.) This demonstrates yet again how rent from the harvest of timber is the important form of political currency in Sarawak.
Wong was one of three new ministers appointed by Taib in March, 1987 to replace defectors to Tun Rahman’s camp (Ritchie 1987: 31-32). Nevertheless, Wong’s political importance is marginal because since 1983 SNAP has been electorally insignificant, especially now that the larger PBDS has rejoined the ruling coalition. In Sarawak, SNAP is referred to as a “mosquito party.”
Wong still retains a state assembly seat in Limbang, but lost his (national) parliamentary seat in Bintulu to Sarawak’s only DAP parliamentarian, Chiew Chin Sing. Chiew maintains that as he prepared to challenge Wong for the Bintulu seat, Wong’s intermediary offered Chiew RM3 million($800,000) not to run (19 July 1997 interview with Chiew Chin Sing).
James Chin gives an interesting insight into the purpose of SNAP, which he calls “the vehicle for James Wong’s personal aggrandizement.” Wong, ethnically Chinese, continues to obtain the votes of the Iban because, as Chin put it, “He buys them at election time” (12 August 1997 interview). Over four decades, Wong has merely maintained power by using rent from his family’s modest concession to buy votes. This explains the independent, quirky role he continues to play in the state’s government, where he is tolerated at points but rarely loved.
Ling group
As with Ting Pek Khiing and James Wong, there is occasionally negotiation between heads of state and the heads of timber conglomerates in Southeast Asia, but it is rare. This is illustrated by the rising and falling fortunes of the ninth largest timber concession holder in Sarawak, the Ling group.
In the 1960s, the largest concession holder in Sarawak was the Ling group, headed by Ling Beng Siew. When Tun Rahman came to office in 1971, he arrested Ling Beng Siew and confiscated many of his timber holdings. One source argues this was done to cripple the political and economic power of Ling, who had headed the Pusaka party, an important part of the Chinese-Dayak opposition to Tun Rahman’s rise to power (27 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). Another source speculates Ling’s arrest was a consequence of his declining to help Tun Rahman in his bid for office.
Before 1970, nobody could believe that a short man like Rahman Yakub would one day become Chief Minister of Sarawak. Even Ling Beng Siew, an astute man, had wrongly assessed [Tun Rahman's potential].
In that year, Yakub was rushing here and there collecting election funds. The first person he approached was Ling Beng Siew. . . . Yakub was confident that Ling Beng Siew would give him a helping hand. But to his disappointment, Ling Beng Siew did not donate even a single cent as he really could not believe that Yakub, such a short and thin person would become an astute statesman with boundless prospects . . . Later, Yakub brought him to Singapore under the pretext of playing golf. So once he stepped down from the plane at Subang Airport, he was arrested and sent back to Sarawak. Meanwhile, there was a rumor saying that Ling Beng Siew’s refusal to donate 3,000 dollars had brought him a few months of detention (Lau 1995: chapter 18, page 1).
After the disaster of being jailed, Ling Beng Siew began re-ingratiating himself with Tun Rahman, and rebuilding the family fortune. Ling worked to become the important figure in delivering votes to the chief minister in the Rejang River basin (27 May 1997 interview with a reliable and informed academic). According to S.K. Lau, however, Ling’s efforts to rehabilitate himself with the Chief Minister went just beyond bringing in votes:
On one occasion, while recuperating in hospital in United Kingdom after an operation, [Chief Minister Tun Rahman] was then attended to by the cousins Ling Lee Chung, Ling Beng Siong’s eldest son, and Ling Lee Sung, Ling Beng Siew’s son. They were specially sent by their fathers to serve Yakub. Later Ling Lee Chung, my good friend told me that in London, he and [Ling] Lee Sung had to take turns to scrub Yakub’s body and help change his undershirt (Lau 1995: chapter 5, page 4).
The lengths to which timber businessmen must go to stay in business is further demonstrated by the actions that the Ling family took once Tun Rahman stepped down from the chief ministership and the post was filled by his nephew Taib Mahmud.
When Taib [had] just [taken] over as Chief Minister, Yakub was then the State Governor who still held great power. How to serve these two persons? There should be no problem. As a bright and shrewd businessman, Ling Beng Siew immediately arranged for his eldest son Ling Lee Sung to follow Yakub and his [second] son Dr. [Philip] Ling Lee Kang to closely follow Taib. In this way, no matter who lost power in [the] future, the remaining one was still his man. . . . There would be no loss” (Lau 1995: chapter 5, page 4).
The Ling group also injected five timber concessions totaling 115,000 hectares into the publicly listed company Pan Pacific Asia (Sarawak Securities 1996: 4). The board of directors of Pan Pacific Asia reflects the extent to which timber businessmen must align themselves with politicians to survive. The Ling family now seems to be casting their lot with West Malaysian politicians, rather than those from Sarawak.
It was estimated that Sarawak losing timber revenue as high as RM16 Billion, which otherwise simply enough to build roads highways all over Sarawak only for BN to said not much money for it!
————————
Title Why governments fail to capture economic rent: the unofficial appropriation of rain forest rent by rulers in insular Southeast Asia between 1970 and 1999
Author David W. Brown
Publisher University of Washington, 2001
Original from the University of California
Digitized Jul 26, 2008
Length 724 pages
Why Governments Fail to Capture Economic Rent: The Unofficial Appropriation of Rain Forest Rent by Rulers in Insular Southeast Asia Between 1970 and 1999
June 2001
The dissertation starts from the assumption that natural resources are easy for governments to tax, as they embody high amounts of windfall profit or “economic rent.” According to resource economics, it is optimal for governments to collect as revenues nearly all of the economic rent earned by resource extractors. However, the actual level at which governments collect economic rent from rain forest timber is generally quite small.
The study argues that government agencies fail to collect timber rent at optimum levels because they are prevented from doing so by rulers who use their positions to build and maintain hidden ties to the timber industry through which they appropriate vast amounts of timber rent.
Proving that rulers are appropriating timber rent is accomplished through archival research, primary documents, and five years of fieldwork to identify all forest areas licensed to the largest timber conglomerates in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah. This research is corroborated and supplemented through structured interviews to find out whether rulers, their families, proxies, business partners, and political supporters and financiers run or own these timber concessions.
The study concludes that in Indonesia, Sarawak, and Sabah each head of state has multiple ties to timber concessions. The dissertation estimates that the three governments failed to collect 40 billion dollars in timber revenues over thirty years.
Table 7.1 Timber revenues (in dollars) lost in Indonesia, Sarawak and Sabah from 1970-1999
Year Indonesia Sarawak Sabah
1970 Incomplete data No data Incomplete data
1971 Incomplete data 2,401,592 381,335,065
1972 Incomplete data 1,033,303 366,427,248
1973 Incomplete data 25,681,232 404,458,457
1974 -10,480,715 26,330,765 334,632,914
1975 -97,215,714 10,328,746 253,635,117
1976 -132,560,353 62,502,857 587,342,233
1977 62,966,781 63,667,843 576,518,136
1978 296,459,594 82,727,918 687,980,386
1979 171,940,408 310,682,736 100,408,2700
1980 1,062,454,516 289,029,845 749,863,277
1981 1,067,607,041 246,348,032 731,203,306
1982 380,903,703 379,826,481 445,179,563
1983 190,984,540 307,356,894 377,397,627
1984 173,277,600 368,643,107 447,364,854
1985 143,683,300 344,832,692 316,233,468
1986 33,675,696 215,022,320 403,320,707
1987 107486676 1,031,753,016 533,185,778
1988 364,501,404 786,749,653 303,704,306
1989 550,354,473 939,383,352 224,719,003
1990 562,931,244 1,085,288,284 67,939,295
1991 710,044,569 1,476,200,318 77,587,208
1992 636,839,176 1,595,902,618 108,913,363
1993 717,041,231 1,473,218,702 12,328,814
1994 1,526,340,259 1,202,321,597 0
1995 1,136,963,700 1,152,647,052 0
1996 2,063,806,110 1,087,124,457 0
1997 1,398,731,712 808,219,598 28,052,812
1998 1,120,832,966 421,304,552 19,524,946
1999 545,357,528 455,542,561 69,351,583
Total 14,784,927,444 16,252,072,121 9,512,282,167
Sarawak Total Timber Revenue Lost Estimated RM16 Billion !!!!!!!!!!!
———————
Manyin: Estimated cost of state trunk road upgrading RM16b ?????????????
New Sarawak Tribune, Tuesday, 28 June 2011
KUCHING: The estimated cost for the upgrading of the state trunk road to a two-lane dual carriageway from Kuching (Sematan) to Lawas (Merapok) – covering the distance of 1,080 kilometers – is RM16billion (approximately RM16 million per km) at the current rate, said Minister of Infrastructure Development and Communications Dato Sri Michael Manyin Jawong (picture) yesterday.
“In view of the high cost, the upgrading exercise will be carried out in phases.In the meantime, proposals have been made under the 10MP Rolling Plan 2 (2012- 2013) to provide some stretches of the roads from Sibu to Miri with overtaking lanes.This is to reduce road accidents and to allow drivers, who are being held up by slow heavy vehicles, to overtake,” he told the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) sitting in his replies to questions and comments by some members of august House yesterday afternoon.
Manyin stressed Sarawak is a unique state with a vast land area.
Many of its terrains are unfriendly.
The coastal areas comprise peats as deep as 20m or more.All these pose big challenges in the construction of roads in coastal areas or areas bordering Kalimantan which will be very expensive.
“To construct a road to connect a small settlement in the rural areas could incur costs as high as RM100 million (RM10 million per km for interior areas and coastal areas will cost more).If we look from the economic aspect, this is not viable.
If it is on social considerations, do we have the money? A conservative estimate of RM43 billion is required to provide connectivity to all the villages that are not accessible by road in the state.
“This is the dilemma the government is facing.With limited allocations, all requests by the YBs have to be implemented on a priority basis depending on their merits and approached in a systematic and well-planned manner,” he said.
Nonetheless, the government is serious and determined to construct more roads to provide accessibility and connectivity to all the settlements that are not connected by roads.Similarly, the existing roads will be improved and upgraded from time to time when funds are made available, he assured.
“To construct and improve more roads in the state, my ministry through JKR will make continuous effort to apply for more funds from the Federal government for implementation,” he added.
Manyin also informed the august House that the RM10-million allocation for the infrastructure development at Rantau Panjang, Sibu was partly a contribution to the developer from the government for the provision of infrastructure facilities for the overall development of the Shipbuilding Yard there.
In return, the developer would sell the developed lots to the selected participants at a price of RM250,000 per acre in the first year after completion.
The provision of infrastructure facilities included the construction of a connecting road and extension of utility services to the site, taken from the nearest existing supply points in Sibu.
On the delay in the upgrading of the Biawak Road, he said the project had fallen behind schedule by 46.4 per cent.The present physical progress is 37.3 per cent as against the scheduled 83.7 per cent.
“The delay is attributed to poor management of the project by the contractor.To speed up the implementation, JKR has conducted close monitoring meetings with the contractor at a twice weekly interval basis.At the rate of implementation, the contractor had indicated that the completion date would be early next year.” The Baji Road is currently being used as a temporary detour road for the local people staying in Merudu area while the main route going to the Sarikei Town is closed due to the construction of the Merudu Bridge, he replied to another question.
“The bridge is under construction and expected to be completed by the end of this year.Once the bridge is built, traffic flow on the Jalan Baji would be normalised,” he added.
For the Rajang Bridge at Upper Lanang in Sibu, he said it was built at a contract price of RM180 million under the public-private partnership concept to speed up the development.
“Out of the RM180 million, the payments were RM90 million being made in kinds in the form of state land, and RM10 million was paid in cash.
“This leaves a balance of RM80 million unpaid, which is to be raised through the toll collection.The issue of full settlement or over payment for the Rajang Bridge therefore, does not arise at all,” he said in his reply to the Dudong and Meradong representatives.
On another question by Pelagus State Assemblyman, he replied registration and enforcement activities had been carried out by the Sarawak Rivers Board to ensure all commercial and passenger vessels are in compliance with all traffic safety requirements under the Sarawak Rivers Ordinance.
The Kapit Passenger Terminal was completed recently and has a capacity for 150 passengers which is sufficient for use under normal time.To provide more space especially during the festive seasons, Sarawak Rivers Board will provide temporary tents outside the terminal.
Under the 10MP, an allocation of RM3 million was also approved for the improvement on the landing facilities and a study on the project is currently being carried out, he said.
On politics, he said the opposition must be a responsible and constructive one and their members should play a meaningful and responsible role in maintaining political stability, racial harmony and sustaining economic progress of the country.
Good examples of such oppositions are those in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and England, which play the role of checks and balances, he said.
Manyin also refuted the accusation that the Dayak leaders had not looked after the interests of the Dayak in the state.”If this is true, the rural areas would not be what they are today and we the Dayaks would not be what we are today,” the Minister pointed out.
Tu di kumbai masalah bangsa kitai mpu kaban. Biarlah kitai mpu meh menyelesaikan masalah kitai mpu.Ukai ngasuh bangsa bukai. MIC,UMNO,MCA,PKR,DAP etc sama bisi masalah. Kala kita ninga sida tu minta kita nyaup mujur ke masalah sida. Balik-balik masalah kitai dayak sarawak. Patut kita dayak lah nyadi CM ko sida Cina ngapi kenuan, laban kita majoriti,ninga nya nuan lalu ngamat ke jako nya. To achieve CM post,to achieve Independence for S’wak must tru U,me and the dayaks themselves. Nti tru DAP,kami Cina ke mujur ngubah senario politik S’wak,kami ke mujur mai S’wak Independence ari Malaya, nyadi kami Cina lah ke berhak nentu ka hala tuju S’wak.Dini bisi dayak Iban ko sida. Baka ni asai nuan nti sida tu nyebut munyi nya ila?.Ya taukey,Yes tuan, Yes Sir.
Peda kita chunto Cina MCA ngelabuh ke Chua Soi Lek suba,Vedio Sex.Nama reti nya? KUASA kaban.Cina sangup ngena cara ke pemadu keji bakanya kena ngelabuh ke bangsa sida mpu.Pikir lah vedio nama kena Cina ngelabuh ke kitai dayak tu ila nti sida bekuasa. Silap-silap pansut vedio sanu ngembal ke tumbong babi.
Udah aku meda ambu indai tuai Cina merak Tuai Rumah kami laban bediri ngelindung ia nyual sayur benong berandau ngau orang,bisi nda 2 minit kini. Ngeleput tumbong Tuai rumah nya akih,lalu ngerari kediri malu. Aku laban ke bediri nda jauh ari nya lalu nanya ambu nya tadi nama kebuah. Abu nya tadi nyau seput-seput,mata ga melut,nyuek ke tumbong nyaut aku,itu olang celaka,tidak guna,mau mati bedili saja sini tadak meli sayut,olang iban sana sudah abis nyual,sayat punya masit manyak,saya manyak lugi….pui koia ngeludah.
Nya baru Ini tuai akih,mpai wong ho leng.
** Manah agi kitai dalam M’sia…aman & Damai…
** enti kitai kluar M’sia enda alah Swk di jual JBA ngagai bala raban DAP
** sorry JBA, i felt Pity 4 u…i lost respect 4 u since u left PKR 4 Ur own Interest…
To get Sarawak out of Malaysia? A mere wishful thinking.It should be the “wishful thinkers” out of Sarawak instead of Sarawak out of Malaysia…problem solved.
Lipas ….you deserve no respect by the Dbees community either!! Dont you dare to make such comment in this Blog!
Enti Coalition Malaysia ADIL enggau S/S manah meh nya, tang diatu kitai meda menoa Sarawak dipakai bala Ketuanan. Hasil sumber kitai abis kena ngidup ka BALA NYUMBUH di Malaya, nya ya AKIH! LIPAS!
Meri bonus, meri subsidi, E-Kasih, Meri Kerja ba Prentah, meri Micro-Kredit, MRP, ti nguntung ke….????
Nama penyadi enti kitai Sarawak agi di pegai British nyentuk ka saritu?
Adakah kitai ba negeri Hong Kong ka baru dilengka ka British bedau lama tu tadi sepengudah Hong Kong nyadi sebuah negeri ti Maju taja pan di jajah British?
baka negeri Hongkong… “typing error”
engkerawai,diatu ketuanan Melayu,udah tu ila ketuanan Cina,nya utai ti dikedeka nuan?
Diatu sapa ke patut disalah,suba kitai ngumbai Tun Jugah salah mai masuk begulai ngau Malaya tang diatu bisi ga sekeda mai masuk betuai ke Cina. Kitai anang nguji-nguji ke bangsa bukai akih.Nama kebuah nuan nda mai nguji ke bangsa diri mpu deh akih?
Udah tu ila gerenti ga nuan mantah baru laban nda diberi bonus, diberi subsidi, E-Kasih, diberi Kerja ba Prentah, meri Micro-Kredit, MRP, ti nguntung ke Cina Hokien,cina pucau,cina kek.
eric,ndang udah adat dunya, mensia di dunya tu sigi bakanya meh gaya, pegai memegai, perintah memerintah meh laban maia nya sida tu agi paloi, tang bila sida nya ngeleda ari paloi dia deh sida nya tadi ngiga orang ke lebih agi paloi lalu nyadi perintah sida ke paloi ga. Bakanya ga seterus nya.Pegai British tauka pegai kitai mpu pelaba aku tentu nadai jauh bezaa. Ba aku tentu nyamai agi pegai diri mpu laban diri mpu nda iboh di padah ke nama penusah,penyuntuk,utai ke nadai,utai ke patut di gaga. Nti bangsa bukai lain akih,minta ngaga Jamban pan diasoh ngisi borang maioh2.Salah isi terus batal.
Baka nuan nguji manding Hong Kong ngau menoa kitai,jauh bezaa ia akih.Menoa kitai dini bisi salji,musim sejuk etc. Menoa kita lain musim,musim kemarau, musim ujan.Pelaba aku nda tentu olih banding tua Hong Kong akih. Maju ngau nda nti bangsa kitai megai diri, mpai meh temu laban kitai ngelama tu ngasoh orang aja-aja megai kitai.Melayu megai Melayu maju akih,peda kitai petronas twin tower, ukai main peninggi. Cina megai Cina maju akih,Cina aja-aja kaya.
Kitai mpai kala akih,kada nda baka New York S’wak kini nti kitai mpu megai. Nya ia kaban….
“Uji tua berandau manah unggal Bunyau pasal pemanah enggau pengenyai kitai masuk Malaysia.” Ko Mujap ngepun ka jako.
“Barang iya meh akih Mujap.” Ko Bunyau nyaut.
Ko Mujap. “Pengenyai kitai masuk Malaysia;
1. Enggai ke baka tebu manis ba pun tang tabar ba ujung. Tu udah nyadi. Mula aja Melayu manah enggau kitai, nyau ujung ari tub aka Apai Sengkumang ke nipu Apai Saloi.
2. Nya Sabah-Sarawak masuk Malaysia, nya semina mindah ka jajahan ari London ngagai Kuala Lumpur, nya jako Sukarno. Nyadi tu amat nyadi.
3. Brangking Kilau madah Malaysia semina bisi 13 State ukai 3 Negara baka ke udah diperambu lebuh masuk Malaysia. Perambu kitai masuk Malaysia ukai semina enda ditati ka orang Malaya tang diubah sida nitih peneka ati sida. 3 Negara nyadi 13 States. Undang tanah NCR Dayak ditukar nyadi tanah perintah, undang nipu rakyat ba pilihraya dipajaka kena ngetan ka kuasa.
4. Lebih 500 Billion asil minyak Sarawak diampu orang Malaya lalu kena mansang ka Malaya aja, baka ngaga Petronas Twin Tower, Putrajaya, High Way, KLIA Airport, Jambatan Pulau Pinang enggau maioh utai bukai. Sarawak diberi 1 Billion aja setahun.
5. Semoa kerja enggau business ke manah udah diambi orang Malaya. Siti ari contoh iyanya 99 % post and business in Petronas diempu orang Melayu.
6. Ketuai ke makai suap enda oleh dipechara perintah ke betuai ka orang Malaya, anang ke dipechara disokong sida pungka. Semoa menoa di dunya tu udah madah Taib balat amat makai suap, tang nadai ngawa ko UMNO.
7. Diatu program Malaya ka munas ka Dayak udah nyata berengkah ari sida muai bup Iban, ngerubuh rumah Dayak sampai ngagai muai bangsa Dayak lalu masuk ka Dayak nyadi bansa Melayu ke beagama Islam.
8. Perintah Malaya nadai bisi program ke konkret kena ngadu ka bansa Dayak ke bangat udah merinsa awak ke sama maju enggau Melayu. 68% Dayak Hardcore Poor.
9. Perintah Malaya nadai ngibun perambu ke tau dikarap kena ngemansang ka menoa Sarawak maju baka menoa Malaya. Pemansang menoa Sarawak dilak ka tinggal ari Malaya belama.
Semilan iti leka sampi nya kira ke chukup dulu unggal Bunyau, endor nuan madah ka pemanah kitai masuk Malaysia.
“Oooo maioh pemanah iya, dinga nuan Mujap;
1. Kitai boleh pengelikun ke kukuh agi laban kitai maioh tubuh.
2. Kitai tau kering besai suara ba antara bangsa laban besai menoa serta maioh tubuh.
3. Anak kitai tau nyadi Muslim lalu tau nyadi Perdana Mentri jemah ila. Peda nuan Mohathir, agi mit iya ngena IC bangsa India sebedau iya masuk islam nyadi Melayu. Patut Jugah masuk Islam suba angka udah Linggi nya nyadi Ketua Mentri Sarawak diatu pelaba aku.
4. Iban dipaksa masuk Islam lalu ulih bebini maioh, beranak maioh nambah ka pengundi kitai Dayak. Masuk Kristian, nama, ngasuh tubuh kitai mimit. Beranak dua-tiga iko siti bilik sedangka orang masuk Islam oleh beranak 10 iko.
5. Kitai oleh ngidup ka diri ba Malaya ukai semina ba Sarawak aja, endor kitai ngerembai ka pengawa enggau bansa kitai. Baka gangster ba Sibu rari ke Genting Highland.
6. Ari asil kitai bekungsi enggau orang Malaya dia duit kitai dibai sida ngadu ka pemansang di Malaya, ari nya bisi endor kitai bekuli baka 50 ribu iko anak Dayak ba Johor.
7. Ari kitai masuk Malaysia, kitai bisi peluang jadi enggau anak Sultan lalu dititah nyadi Sultan jemah ila. Enti enda masuk Malaysia dini bisi jalai kitai nyadi Sultan, laban kitai Sarawak nadai Sultan.
8. Enti kitai keluar Malaysia, dia China nyadi dominen bansa enggau atur pemansang ekonomi kitai. Kitai lalu lenyau Hak ba Bumiputra.
9. Enti kitai agi ba Malysia, orang ke ukai Bumiputra sigi nadai jalai tau lebih ari kitai, adat Diraja orang Malaya sentiasa nyaga Hak kitai Bumiputra.
Enggi aku pan piring sembila ga Unggal Mujap. Tang iya ke manah Dayak DCC nya ngaga siti Forum tau ka Debat pasal pemanah enggau pengenyai kitai masuk Malaysia. Udah nya ngaga debat Patut ka enda kitai Sarawak keluar ari Malaysia.” Ko Bunyau murus pala enda tentu nemu nama utai disebut agi.
Minta di perunding:
1. Peda/baca Perlembagaan Malaysia
– maioh per bekait enggau kepentingan bangsa kitai udah kena padam
2. Ba opis perintah
– bala kitai ka megai penentu pemutus majak mimit
3. Ba borang opis perintah
– anang agi magi bangsa ngena bangsa melayu kediri lalu dayak dikumbai lain-lain. Kedua-dua bangsa tu tukar enggau bangsa bumiputera
4. Ba kontraktor ti bejual serta nganjong pemakai ngagai sekula ti lebih 95% dayak enda patut bangsa sida aja ketegal bangsa bumiputra bukai enda halal.
Unggal Pengajar Udah Pencen,
The power of amending the Federal Constitution belongs to the Federal government. In fact, our constitution has been amended several times. Article 159 of the Constitution says that in general, the constitution may be amended if the bill is passed by at least two-thirds of the members of the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara.
However, if an amendment affects the special rights of Sabah and Sarawak, the amendment must be submitted to the Governors of these two states for assent. The Governors are bound by the advice of the State Executives.
Labuan was ceded to the federal government in 1984 through an amendment inspired by the then Sabah government.
At the time of the 1963 merger with Malaya, there was no state religion in Sabah and Sarawak. Due to amendments to their constitutions by their assemblies, Islam is now the official religion of Sarawak by virtue of Article 4 of the State Constitution of Sarawak.
On your second question, I will not answer it as it is very sensitive issue.
Penemu baka Aki Jugah sigi agi ‘shallow’, nya kebuah ia enda ulih bepikir panjai. Diatu sapa ti rugi deh? Diatu kitai patut sedar ari kesilapan aki/ini kitai suba. Kitai ke rebak baru anang ngaga kesilapan, badu agi MAPAP.
Peragam kitai utai ka nyadi taun 2020, …50 taun ti ka datai. Dini kedudukan bansa kitai Dayak deh. Tanah kitai deka punas di pakai tauke Laut, Cina…kitai bansa nama penguntung? AKIH.
Dacin diatu udah singit enda balance agi laban runding rayat udah berubah, lalu semampai berubah. Prentah pun ndai kekal, deka berubah-ubah, ukai di monopoli siti-siti kaum aja. Nyadi kitai Dayak patut maioh agi autonomi ba menoa Sarawak (LAND OF THE DAYAKS!!)
Pio yo??
You mark my words …BAKEH!
Kaban DBs.
Akai dai, lelak amat tu, baru datai bejalai meda menoa Iban belah Sare. Nama nyau majak angat tu kaban, lama enda nemuai tu. Ba aku nadai entu jalai chara ba atas nya, laban kaban kitai Melayu Melanau endang sigi BISI utai ULIH ari Malaya. Kaban kitai Cina nemu ngadu kediri empu, tinggal kitai Iban Dayak aja ke ka ningkir kediri ari Malaya, ketegar kitai tinggal ari bansa bukai.
Kitai Iban Jabu Mawan masin etc pan enggai muai madi sida iya najip kaban kaban. Diatu nadai chara bukai…Anti aja GE13…
Mupok kaban. Idup Iban Idup Dayak. OOOhhaa…
pkr, pas sama aja enggau amno…..seagi laut nyadi tuai seaginya sida ka nyelam ke Dayaks
Aku udah enda arap ke JBA agi. Badu aku muka blok nuan agi laban nuan udah ngeluar ari PKR.Anang rangka kuasa wai.
Akih yesDAP,kediatu aku nadai kala ninga tauka meda laut nyelam ke kitai dayak. Bisi ke temu aku nti kitai kawin ngau indu laut tua mesti masuk selam laban kitai mpu ke minta laut nyadi tuan.Nti kitai dayak nyadi tuan,kawin ngau laut,kawin ngau Cina tak terus asoh miring ga bini kitai nya ila akih kena malas…ha..ha..
Anything good is quite possible but can the majority change bn govt in Swak yet? Build up your strength first!
Deliver some Dayak-majority seats at next election if you want to effect some real change.
Dayak ari PR ke BN?
js@kbn, I agree!
All this BIG talk about pulling from Malaysia, how the heck are you going to accomplish that? We cannot win even majority seats!
I wish some of those folks would start to concentrate on doing the do-able, like talking to the rural folks and winning their hearts and minds, ultimately their votes and WIN the election.
After we win the election, then we will have the clout to talk!
if we chooz to b afraid of telling the HQ gov. of wat they did all this while….my question is this…r sarawakian n sabahan willing to sacrifice the rest of our generation n wat we’ve ‘own’ all this while being taken away frm us… FOREVER???…it may x sound like it…but..its look likes it..orady…read all the constitution right…n again…did HQ gov ever fullfil wat has been written in that 20 points?? …common guys…we can do better than this…
u guys said..malaysia is ‘peaceful’ …well..define wat peaceful means to u guys…4 me…peaceful means…
Brother JBA, You are only an egg when you are with
PKR and grown into tadpole you swim to DAP with the hope that DAP will nominate you as a candidate in this G13 election. If you win (grown with legs)I hope you won’t jump to BN and leave PR for your own personal gain. Do not follow the footstep of Ali Setan (Pakasa Prisdent)
Forgive me if Im wrong.
Hong Kong is not Malaysia. Not relevant to the Malaysian context. Politics is our destiny but, the politicians are the culprits. Bad leadership means bad Governance!!
Injustices, corrupt, wicked…..
Engal Watt & Gerinang,
Bye bye,
Buka meh blog bukai! After all, we cannot stop you. Whether or not you want to read this blog, we have no jurisdiction to prevent you from doing so.
Similarly, we also cannot stop from visiting other blogs.
In my mind, every blog has its own appeal. Some can be much more truthful than the rest. Some could be a complete trash.
I hope your doing is just a reaction to an action which has been taken by Dr John. After some time, it will go back to normal.
I begin to think that if we have failed in our endeavor through one platform,then we should try another methods. Ms Yang, my Add Math Teacher, once mentioned to us that, if you could not get the answer, then try another methods. In life, it should be the same. It is a basic!
Actually, I also feel that the Dayak Ibans are not so sure of what we are trying to do for ourselves. Our Iban community is vague with regards to what we want to do.
We seem to be unsure whether S/S should get out of Malaysia. We have never worked out the answers to the WHEN, HOW, WHEN, WHY and WHICH questions.
Which one is our priority? Are we interested in defeating the State BN government first? Are we going to get rid of our CM from his throne first? Are we get our of Malaysia first with the current State leaders still at the helm. Are we going to maintain the status quo of the current State government?
Or are going to create greater awareness among the Dayak Iban of the importance in achieving decent education?
Well, you know! and I know!. It is for a fact that the Ibans have not been systematic in handling our own affairs.
Cheers…
That Rengan guy is a mean SOB. Also a tad jealous.
We the descendants of Rentap the Warrior have been demoralized in the present politics. Its been too long in the waiting and I can’t predict when will our waiting game ends.
Its just a matter of tactical like playing soccer….when is the right moment to score?
Voting might not be an instant result that we wish to see and gain control PJ, the people’s power shall decide the outcomes in the next transition of power for Sarawak.
I’m optimistic of Winning many MP seats in Sarawak cos it’s a good sign for Us and thereby weakening BN brand of Fixed-deposit account!!
“Wanna Break Free ?”
Aaahh… better forget about getting out of M’sia. Better the TAPAH fish teeth! The same with python teeth. Anything in, sure can’t get out. I think u still remember: S’wak Ranger and Border Scout was abolished after Communist surrender. Why? you know lah.
Now they want to reward and please the ex-Communist Fighter.. another big “WHY?” again for us to think of..
a
KPN hj Musa…
Don’t ask the people WHY? You have the answer already in mind. What a simple minded person like you in this Blog!
Let us be reminded that ;
“if there is a WILL, there is a WAY”
The ‘seed’ has been planted. Let us hope the seedling will grow into a tall tree. A lot of pests will try to destroy it.
Among us ONE will shine, maybe not now……..
But the ‘seed’ HAS been planted!
God Bless Sarawak.
DB,
Diatu manah kitai berunding ngupas pengidup diri, majak ka pengawa enggau politik ke oleh dikena kitai.
Tinggal ka dulu meh runding ti ka keluar ari Malaysia, lak ka pengawa nya ngagai uchu, ichit, wit kitai jemah ila. Besampi ka sida dudi idup tau, anang guai begendang. Enti oleh gaga Working Paper ka sida dudi idup manah agi.
Agi panjai penjalai kitai, bala ngeli lacham agi bekesindau ngelaban kita nanah ke orang Malaya enti kita deka mai unsur keluar Malaysia.
Pengawa Sarawak keluar Malaysia beguna ka rakyat matured ba kadaan politik semasa. Red Rally di Kuching udah puntan baka nasan jalai jelu, nya nanda ka rakyat kitai bedau matured enggau politik semasa.
Pesan aku, manah kita ke anembiak concentrate ba jalai politik tauka salur ke oleh dipechaya serta oleh diguna enda muai masa, enda muai belanja dikena kena kita ngidup ka kitai Dayak ari diperinsa orang.
Pikir panjai meh anak anang kelalu jauh ragam. Idup kitai enda panjai.
Peda kita pemedis Lybia deka bebas ari ketuai ke jai. Enti nadai sokong ari luar negeri ni sida oleh. Nya alai gaga dulu Working Paper enggau kaul International kita. Cara tu manah agi kena kita muka ka jalai ngagai uchu, ichit, wit ke diandal ka kita mai kitai keluar Malaysia.
Sister Christina,
we need some explaination why JBA leave PKR and join
DAP.Will this not leave PKR supporters a big question mark. Sa you have more knowledge on this
please explain to us.
Good day.
Aku paham,aku paham akih rengan….
The spirit of Dayakism is done away with and gone in this blog.What is left are opportunist trying 101 ways to enrich themselve. Sad but undisputing truths.
Kapa enda bakanya ti sida ngai amat kena pegai aya Ajaib nya. Ti aya Akih Hawong ka amat kena pegai aya Ajaib nya belama lama iya, nadai salah ga majakka diri kena pegai iya hahahahahaha……. Baka sida ba menua Libya din nyau ngai amat kena pegai Gadapi. Kati dek agi ka amat kena pegai uban ke nyau ka bulih pengelama Gadapi nya megai menua deh? Sabar amat nuan aya Akih Hawomg, enda piok? Ti baka ba Libya, Ejip din, bisi ari ga uban nya kena diberontak secara paksa. Nya meh, makin tuai, makin lama megai kuasa, degil gik ga nanka penuduk politik diri hehehehe….
Sound like the spirit of Malayism is thick in some of the people here too that they dare to do away with dayakism hehe….and like Akih Hawong is trying 101 way to enrich himself with his idea of Malayism. The truth is Malay race is ever supreme than other in this country, just many share with Akih hehehe….. Enda piok, aya Akih Hawong?
No way, the Malays are lazy people. If not for the gov’t assistance surely they will be poorest of all races in Malaysia. Good for nothing! They only think of ‘masuk syurga’.
Like akih merawong @ gang, they must be well-off because of corrupt money from BN, what an opportunist, with so many lazy people around waiting to be fed!
If during Hitler’s time these are the people who will be doomed to die in the gas chamber or be shot to their grave. What a pity?
Nya meh ko aku ngelama tu akih engkerawai.Bisi masalah,bisi penangul,bisi utai dikengai,bisi utai deka diubah etc bangsa kitai ngai berunding ngau bansa diri lalu terus ngiga bangsa bukai mujur ka.Bakanya ga bangsa kitai tu bepolitik,pama alah ari party nya,pindah ngagai parti bukai lalu terus pindah memindah lah kerja ia.Nda kena pilih nyadi tuai terus ga ngerejat pindah ngagai party bukai.Baka tu gaya kitai deka nyadi ketuai,deka dipebasa tauka olih dikarap?
Anang tekenyit kita ila nti meda Chan Sui Bian bangsa Cina nyadi tuai rumah kitai Iban laban tuai kitai Iban nda nemu ngator cara laya tanah temuda kita ila.
Baka ni sekeda bala kitai ditu berani nyebut deka mai kitai magi diri ari Malaya?.
Ia ke paling nyelai didinga,dipeda,bangsa kitai tu sangup nyual diri ngagai bangsa bukai ketegal deka nyadi YB/Menteri.
Jako sekeda ditu “kitai udah jauh amat tingal ari bangsa bukai ari semua segi”.Abis utai ditemu,di selidik tang nda bepampang nyebut minta tulong bangsa bukai mujur lalu bejako ke kitai.Mimit-mimit nyebut Cina/Laut badas,Cina/Laut pintar,Cina/Laut pandai tang pada masa yang sama kitai ngumbai orang tu ga beduan kitai,nyiping kitai.
Nti diri mpu nadai pemandai,nadai pemintar nadai pemerani anang terus ngumbai bala kitai bukai ga takut baka diri mpu unggal.
Nti kitai tu deka bebas ari pegai orang bukai,bepilih ngari ke bebas bakih. Nya baru BEBAS.Baka nya ga nti nuan mai kitai tu Independent ari Malaya kunon,bepilih ari Independent lah. Nti menang maioh seat nya baru tau di kumbai BEBAS tauka Independence ari Malaya. Nya ia kaban….Bakani jalai deka mutar ke S/S Independence ari Malaya nti tua tu tak nitih ke parti DAP sedangkan DAP ari Malaya.PKR/PAS ari Malaya.Kitai ngumbai Masing & Jabu nyium tumbong Taib, bakani ko sekeda bala ditu tak mai nyium tumbong Cina deh?
Ari ke nyium tumbong orang bukai akih,nyamai agi ga nyium tumbong bini diri.
Idup BEBAS kaban….
If DCC can help to deliver some Dayak-majority seats to DAP, then it’s a great achievement by DCC led by Dr JBA.
Is someone putting up controversial issues for instant popularity here? It is a strategy to do so to attract attention to certain cause.
Enti kitai enda ulih ngadu ka diri, nadai salah kitai bekerjasama enggau sida ti sanggup nulung kitai. Penemu kitai@ halatuju sigi deka berubah nitih ka arus pemansang. Enti utainya mai pemanah ka bansa kitai ti udah lama ditindas Laut BN, nama kebuah tua enda ‘trust’ ke sida deh?
Diatu kitai Dayak baka anak itik ke nadai indai, mudah meh bala menaul nyambar sida laban nadai dijaga enggau betul.
Enti kitai merawong aja ba Blog tu tang nadai take action nadai tentu bisi penguntung Akih, untung ka diri aja meh, tapi maruah kitai bansa tergadai, anakucu kitai jemah ila deka nyadi sampah masyarakat, penagih dadah laban pengidup kitai bansa nyadi merinsa ketegal kesilapan generasi kitai kemaya tu. You mark my words!!!
Kitai enda patut compromise dalam hal bansa kitai empu, enti kitai majak lemah urang lain sigi nyadi opportunist, ngambi peluang makai bansa kitai.
Ask ourselves, what are we going to do about it Akih,,,,nyadi penonton aja, meda dunya beputar baka mentality Bunyau @ Mujap …..???
Tepuk dada, ketuk kepala diri empu!!!
Selamat ari pahlawan
Renjer Rejimen @ icit Libau,
Mija Engkerawai
Bepuluh sarang indu engkerawai udah aku tunu, siko nadai meh kala nyengat aku. Senang aja nyuruh indu penyengat lari ari sarang sida, tepuk aja enggau asap! Udah nya ambi meh sarang anak lalu nyadika lauk kitai.
Kitai ke merawong, ke merong ditu nya awak ke bala ke pandak hunding nya nemu sada ati sida ke ulih bepikir tinggi nyeligi langit meh alu tau berunding panjai ke gik ke penemu bala bloggers ditu. Sida ke hindu deka betuaika bansa bukai baka tudah aya Akih Hawong nya…lak ke iya ga. Angka iya nyau nadai penemu, pandak hunding, pandak penemu ka ngena bansa diri kena ngempong bansa diri alu iya ka majakka sida laut ga ngempong bansa iya empu hahahahaha………… Ba penemu aku siku, malu amat ga kitai nyau betuaika sida china sida laut nya…nyau berupai paloi ga iban tu, tau tak deka betuaika bansa bukai….hai hai hai lengkan dedingai hehehehehehe……….
Unggal engkerawai, nti munyi ko nuan nadai salah kitai bekerjasama enggau sida ti sanggup nulung kitai. Bekerjasama bakani ko nuan? Kitai tau berunding ngau sida tang ukai ngasoh sida nyadi ke tuai kitai.Nama kebuah selalu amat muji sereta nyukong bangsa bukai unggal? Retinya kitai nadai nemu utai unggal.Nadai guna penemu ke dipansut ke kita dalam tu.Bula magang nti baka nya.Pajak ke aja lah semoa kitai tu nulong nyukong Cina unggal.
Kitai nyukong Cina ngena UNDI,Cina nulong kitai ngena JANJI.
Nama kebuah nuan ngai madah ke diri sangup nyadi tuai niri negi ngiring bangsa kitai? Nda berani?
Nama kebuah nuan ngai madah ke diri badas agi ari bangsa bukai nti nuan megai? Nama nuan nda badas?
Nama kebuah nuan nda madah ke diri lebih nemu ari bangsa bukai penusah kitai? Nama nuan nadai nemu?
Ba politik unggal, uji nuan nanya semoa bangsa Laut,Cina,Melanau,Tambi,parti PR,BN etc, semoa sida tu nadai siko bejako madah ke diri ngai nulong bangsa kitai laban deka narit undi,narit sukong nuan ngambi sida menang maya bepilih tu ila.
“Olih nuan nulong bangsa kitai lalu nyadi tuai kitai Unggal Lutor” pia ko nuan nanya DJB.
“Olih tu olih unggal engkerawai tang bisi syarat, Ko lutor nyaut nuan.
Nama syarat deh lutor?
Kitai mesti nyukong Cina DAP dulu,nti sida udah nyadi CM s’wak ila senang aku nulong kita bukai laban aku cukup kamching ngau Lim Kit Siang.Sida tu maioh duit unggal engkerawai,peda nuan logging camp semoa Cina,nda baka Annuar nadai duit.Anang irau nuan.Udah nya ila nyamai aku nulong kita sebilik,bakanya ia kaban,ko lutor.
Deka BEBAS undi BEBAS, Deka Independent undi Independent. Nya baru tau nyebut Independent ari Malaya.Deka pegai Cina undi DAP lah.
Beleve me unggal,seagi-agi bangsa bukai,parti orang bukai megai S’wak seagi-agi nya nuan tu ila nda ngetu mucau kutap-kutap madah ke bangsa diri nyau jauh agi tinggal ari bangsa orang bukai.Udah nya ila anang-anang nuan ga lompat ngagai BN nti Cina nda adil.
Dr. I agree even before I read the detail. God bless Sarawak.
What a disgrace, as one the greatest contribute to national coffer with its abundant resources.
Sawak remains as one of the poorest states in Msia.
What to do? The dayaks are BN fixed deposit. Mark my word come GE13 you shall see!
Uchu Hawong, sigi baka ia lah pama kitai udah dikumbai Akiq. Udah tuai lah nya,nyau lalik lah penemu,tau dikumbai tambab,kumbai tuyuk. Kekadang Akiq selalu nanya utai ke nda masuk akal akih,”Udah makai aku tadi uchu,ko Akiq?
Na dinga nuan tanya ia? Lu pikir la akih.
Badu nuan kiruh ke akiq hawong nuan nya. Begulai meh kitai ti uchu-uchu ohang tu akih. Nda badas didinga ohang belaya ngau akiq dihi.
Kaban DBs.
Bala kaban, maya ke diatu nadai chara bukai pansut ari nyawa BAYA..JUST GET READY & BE PREPARE for GE13….tesau kaban belayan kelebih agi maya CUTI tu… OUR first STEP of RUNNING away from Najip.
Bala kaban, Sarawak is not the POOREST state, BUT WE Ibans are THE POOREST living animals in the state of Sarawak, where as our Melayu Melanau Cina are having their GOOD NASI Manok everyday..
Akih Gerinang & Watt, I don’t think you willing to BE the POOREST living animals in Sarawak of BORNEO. For 2 of U & your fellow friends,..please OPEN your EYES & LOOK around & DO understand the REALITY… You don’t need an additional Math Formula to understand our DBs JAKO RANDAU.
Mupok kaban. Idup Iban Idup Dayak. OOOhhaa….
In life we ??always have to make decision making. IMHO, out of Malaysia is not a solution, but away from the existing solution. Must see, not only of Sarawak and Sabah which produce “gold” for Malaysia, but also Terengganu and the state was categorized as poor. Recently, Kelantan already confirmed there will be natural resources alleged not depleted for seven generations.
If I say miserable, I think the people of Kelantan should complain because of the federal government credits less funds to them. But they never thought to get out of Malaysia, but are still loyal no matter what the pressure given by the government. Development can still be conducted in the state based on the strength of existing state government. As the saying goes, do not blame the floor, if not good at dancing. We must investigate the mis-conduct and mis-management of Sabah and Sarawak state government first before anything second.
I believe a lot of talk about going out as a result of provocation from forumer declare that Sabah and Sarawak spoiler to the Alliance and responsible for the PRU 2008 loss. For people who provoke, the choice was made during the PRU2008, why be questioned if other people do not like us? Now is not the time for recriminations. Just re-evaluate and move forward and use the power we have for PRU 13.
To BN, added the minister from Sabah and Sarawak in the next cabinet based on the composition of Parliamentary seats won in the general election. Study of the Kedah state government providing the DAP exco positions eventhou DAP won ony 1 state assembly seat to appreciative their voters.
Cikgu Iban…
Hello… every BLOG meant to be visited by all internet Users. it’s true u can”t stop them from being here but Thanks anyway for ur advise…
i guess a have a right to give an opinion in this blog, after all its open to everyone…if not then keep it to urself, any comments or criticism that u dont like then suggest to the blogger to delete it…(and pretend that all people’s agree with u coz u dont accept their view & comments)
without criticism u will not getting better coz u will owes think that ur right…nobody PERRFECT cikgu Iban…
Cheers…
It’s best to stop wasting time to blog and just do it. Teach “these” people that Sabah & Sarawak are united. Without unity, the furthest that you can go is…. just blogging about it and nothing else. My dear Sabahans and Sarawakians..hole your hands together and bash “them” down..you are rich in wealth but discriminated now and maybe forever…IF you dont WAKE UP!!! so JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE FOR YOUR NEXT GENERATION.
WAKE UP SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN………
think about what they have done to us……..
think about the IC project(especially SABAHAN)……
think about our generations…….
Huguan,
We are in the process of awakening…so watch out for the steady decline in BN grip for Sarawak in the next GE. We need to bark and bite them, then chase the corrupt BN Dynasty from the face of Malaysia politics.
The new generation of voters knew too well but, the pathetic rural voters might not give the support needed to win big in the next GE.
So, extraordinary efforts needed to put more pressure and win the hearts and minds of the frozen voters, like akih merawong with the Bungau ak Ujap mentality!
My opinion, after reading all. Step by step a do will work. step1-ensure S/S not becoming a fix deposit for BN in the next GE. All the best for those who work very-very hard to achieve step1. TQ
Hi JB
Your article superises me and most Sarawakians particularly Dayak people.
In the last election you were the candidate of West Malaysian’ based party…now you are telling us to get out of Malaysia.
Please, Please and Please come-up of a LOCAL BASED Party as your political platform.
Indeed there was such as thing as Anti Secession of Sarawak to British which changed the status of Sarawak from a protectorate to a colony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cession_movement_of_Sarawak
There was objection to formation fo Msia in Singapreo from the beginning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Agreement
Even Kelantan opposed formation of Msia.
I Agree with Dayak Watchman…look like Swkian politician in PR “cakap tak serupa bikin”…”bikin tak serupa cakap..” what they know is..CAKAP..CAKAP..CAKAP…..i hate BN too…but what choice Swkian hv…BEBAS???..LIKE WHAT sEMUT aPI EXPLAIN and suggest…MAYBE GOOD maybe NO…please build up Swk opposition base party…but do you hv money??? maybe NO..maybe thats why Swkian politician very close to West Malaysian Based political Party to beat Mamud richness $$$…without $$$ how to campaign….as we know West Malaysian political Party are very rich, but how they become rich??? Why only Mamud are rich Politician in Swk?? Where is Swk rich opposition, politician??? NONE…maybe George Lagong, or Sng…and i hate dirty politician too…damm….
Dr Ooi Keat Gin menulis: “Mei 1983, saya tiba di lapangan terbang Kuching buat pertama kalinya. Setibanya di pintu pemeriksaan imigresen saya sebaliknya dikehendaki menunggu giliran di dalam barisan pelawat-pelawat dari luar negara. Di situ saya diminta untuk menunjukkan passport. Buku passport kemudiannya diperiksa oleh seorang pegawai imigresen, dan ditandakan ‘Social Visit’ — juga berserta tarikh luput! Saya merasa seperti orang asing secara tiba-tiba walaupun saya sedia maklum Sarawak adalah sebahagian daripada negeri-negeri dalam Persekutuan Malaysia. Perasaan asing saya segera terlupa apabila berjumpa dengan penduduk tempatan yang ternyata sangat peramah dan mesra, sekaligus melenyapkan tanda-tanya saya tentang prosedur imigresen Sarawak yang sebentar tadi menyebabkan saya merasa terkilan.”
Perlu diketahui, imigresen Sarawak terletak di bawah kawalan Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak, bukan Kerajaan Persekutuan. Perkara ini sudah dipersetujui semenjak tahun 1963 lagi, bilamana Sarawak berserta dengan Sabah dan Singapura bergabung untuk membentuk Negara Malaysia dengan Semenanjung Tanah Melayu.
Kuasa mutlak Kerajaan Negeri ke atas imigresen adalah satu daripada syarat-syarat yang dimasukkan ke dalam perjanjian penubuhan Malaysia. Sarawak hanya bersetuju untuk menyertai penubuhan Malaysia selepas syarat-syarat ini dipersetujui oleh kesemua pihak-pihak yang terlibat.
Realiti semasa: Namun tidak ramai orang Malaysia sendiri yang tahu tentang kejadian bersejarah ini. Pendapat kebanyakkan orang adalah Sarawak hanyalah salah satu negeri-negeri yang masuk Malaysia. Sebenarnya Sarawak berserta Sabah, Singapura dan Malaya yang membentuk Malaysia.
Bukan kehendak Sarawak untuk membentuk Malaysia. Sarawak ditipu untuk membentuk Malaysia. Sarawak kononnya bersetuju untuk membentuk Malaysia. Kalau bukan kerana penipuan ini Sarawak sudah mendapat kemerdekaannya sendiri hari ini.
Harapan terakhir Sarawak ialah syarat-syarat perjanjian penubuhan Malaysia 1963. Malangnya syarat-syarat ini tidak dapat membendung campurtangan Malaya dalam pentadbiran kerajaan Sarawak sehingga akhirnya Sarawak tidak boleh menghalang Malaya dari mengawal sumber minyak dan gas asli yang terletak dalam sempadan Sarawak.
Orang-orang Malaya tidak peduli samada Sarawak akan kekal miskin dan tidak dibangunkan asalkan Malaya dapat apa yang mereka hajatkan. Dalam ertikata lain, kekayaan Sarawak adalah untuk membangunkan Malaya, dan bukan sebaliknya.
Kenyataannya ialah Malaya akan terus menganiaya Sarawak dalam bentuk ini kerana kegiatan mereka tidak dibendung oleh Taib Mahmud dan BN Sarawak. Sebaliknya Taib dan BN Sarawak adalah tali-barut Malaya.
Satu-satunya syarat yang masih tidak terusik oleh Malaya ialah kawalan mutlak ke atas imigresen yang masih terletak di dalam kawalan Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak. Bila diperhalusi, kawalan imigresen ini bagaimanapun tidak akan dapat menghalang usaha-usaha Malaya untuk mengeksploitasikan Sarawak. Sarawak mungkin mahu membantah tetapi bantahan ini boleh mengundang bahaya. Kerajaan Persekutuaan boleh mengistiharkan perintah darurat atau menggunakan pengaruhnya ke atas pihak-pihak yang relevan.
Persoalannya sekarang ialah sekiranya ini terjadi bolehkah Sarawak membebaskan dirinya dari jajahan Malaya.
Perjanjian Malaysia
Pada 9 Julai, 1963, Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng, Datu Bandar Abang Haji Mustapha, dan Ling Beng Siew, sebagai perwakilan dari Sarawak, menurunkan tandatangan masing-masing ke atas Perjanjian Malaysia atau Malaysia Agreement di London, England.
Ekoran itu Persekutuan Malaysia akhirnya terbentuk pada 16 September tahun sama melibatkan Malaya, Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak sebagai empat wilayah-wilayah yang bergabung.
Satu kemusykilan. Tiga perwakilan dari Sarawak — Jugah, Abang Mustapha dan Ling –, adakah mereka layak mewakili Sarawak: Iban Jugah cumalah seorang buta huruf, tidak tahu membaca atau menulis. Dikatakan dia boleh menulis tandatangan hanya dengan meniru corak tatu atas lengan kiri beliau; Abang Mustapha mewakili Melayu Kuching, mudah dianggap sebagai tali-barut British oleh kebanyakkan orang Sarawak; Cina Ling adalah Cina Foochow kaya dari Sibu. Dia tidak akan rugi apa-apa, yang ada cuma keuntungan buat dia.
Kemusykilan lain — Adakah mereka sedar apa yang mereka tandatangani?
Bermula dari detik bersejarah itu berlaku zaman kemelesetan Sarawak. Sarawak pernah dirajai oleh White Rajahs selama 100 tahun sehingga 1941, pernah ditawan Jepun selama tiga tahun lapan bulan, dan 17 tahun sebagai koloni British. Namun pengalaman berada di bawah telunjuk tiga kuasa asing ini tidak seburuk cabaran yang bakal dihadapi Sarawak dalam Konsep Malaysia 1963, sehingga kini.
Seawalnya bermula negara ini tidak ada konsep sebenar ‘Malaysia”. Fungsi sebenar Persekutuan Malaysia hanyalah supaya pengaruh Malaya dapat panjang tangan sehingga ke Sabah. Apabila mereka campurtangan di Sabah dan Sarawak, dengan bertopengkan kepentingan Kerajaan Persekutuan, pengaruh Malaya di kedua-dua negeri ini semakin kukuh.
Singapura membantah campurtangan Malaya. Balasan keengkaran mereka Singapura dikeluarkan dari Persekutuan Malaysia empat-wilayah. Sebaliknya penyingkiran itu memberi rahmat kepada Singapura, seperti yang kita boleh lihat hari ini.
Berbanding dengan Singapura, Sabah dan Sarawak sebaliknya nekad untuk kekal dalam Persekutuan Malaysia tiga-wilayah. Balasan kesetiaan mereka pada Malaysia? Sabah dan Sarawak menjadi semakin miskin kerana mereka hanya dibenarkan menikmati 5 peratus kekayaan hasil semulajadi mereka sendiri. Peratusan yang lain diserahkan kepada Kerajaan Persekutuan untuk membangunkan Malaya atau bagi memperkayakan individu-individu tamak di Malaya.
UMNO adalah kuasa politik paling besar di Malaya. UMNO juga mengawal Kerajaan Persekutuan. Pengaruh UMNO yang hampir tidak terbatas dapat mendesak dengan mudah pengaruh dan keputusan mereka ke atas Sabah dan Sarawak sebagai dua negeri-negeri dalam Persekutuan Malaysia. Syarat-syarat Perjanjian Malaysia semakin terabai. Akhirnya UMNO bertapak di Sabah awal tahun 90-an, sehingga ke hari ini.
Bagaimana UMNO menakluki Sabah? Dengan bantuan pendatang-pendatang asing. Mereka diberi kewarganegaraan Malaysia serta-merta oleh UMNO Malaya, dengan syarat pendatang asing ini mesti menyokong kuasa asing UMNO semasa pilihanraya umum di Sabah. Pengundi dari kalangan pendatang asing, berjumlah lebih separuh juta, dengan mudah mengatasi jumlah undi rakyat jati Sabah. Sabah kini milik UMNO.
Sarawak? UMNO tidak perlu ‘menakluki’ Sarawak selagi Ketua Menteri Sarawak Taib Mahmud dan BN Sarawak masih boleh mengawal penduduk Sarawak demi memenuhi kepentingan-kepentingan UMNO Malaya. Kawalan ini dilakukan dalam pelbagai cara: strategi pecah dan perintah, ugutan, paksaan, dan sogokkan wang.
Merenung kembali keputusan-keputusan yang diambil oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Sarawak sepanjang proses pembentukkan Malaysia dari Mei 1961 sehingga September 1963, tidak dapat dinafikan Sarawak telah diperbodohkan oleh musang berbulu ayam dari tanah Malaya.
Muslihat Malaysia
Apa yang mengamit keinginan Sarawak sehingga mahu bersekutu dengan Malaya dalam Persekutuan Malaysia? Ianya lahir dari hujah bernas Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al Haj, Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang pertama, juga Bapa Kemerdekaan. Beliau berkata, “Tidak dapat dielakkan lagi kita mesti pandang ke hadapan ke arah objektif ini dan mari kita memikirkan satu rancangan dimana lima wilayah dalam rantau ini boleh digabungkan dalam satu kerjasama politik dan ekonomi.”
Usul ini sebenarnya bermula dari permintaan Singapura supaya Temasik dan Semenanjung Tanah Melayu bergabung dalam satu negara. Ketua Menteri Singapura di pertengahan 1950-an, David Marshall, beriya-iya mahu mencantumkan Singapura dan Malaya. Namun Tunku Abdul Rahman masih teragak-agak.
Pada tahun 1959 Lee Kuan Yew dari People’s Action Party mengambil alih jawatan Ketua Menteri Singapura. Beliau juga memberi usul yang sama: Malaya dan Singapura perlu bergabung demi sebab-sebab politik dan ekonomi. Riaksi Tunku Abdul Rahman masih dingin.
Apabila pergerakan berhaluan kiri di Singapura menjadi ancaman besar buat Singapura dan Malaya, Tunku mula menunjukkan kesediaan untuk bergabung. Singapura boleh jatuh ke tangan pihak berhaluan kiri, dan memandangkan Singapura terletak bersebelahan dengan Semenanjung Tanah Melayu, Malaya akan terasa bahang Komunis.
Tetapi pada masa yang sama, Tunku dan UMNO berhadapan dengan satu lagi bahaya. Jumlah penduduk Cina di Singapura bila dicampurkan dengan jumlah penduduk Cina di Malaya akan mengatasi jumlah penduduk Melayu. Sekiranya Malaya dan Singapura bercantum sebagai sebuah negara, etnik Melayu bukan lagi bangsa majoriti di negara baru itu.
Di kacamata Malaya, bergabung dengan Singapura ada baik buruknya.
Bak kata pepatah ditelan mati emak diluah mati bapa. Melayu Malaya dalam dilema.
Di sini terletaknya peranan besar Sabah, Sarawak dan Brunei dalam idea Malaysia 1963. Penyelesaian masalah Malaya terletak di Borneo. Hampir 70 peratus dari 1.3 juta jumlah penduduk di Sabah, Sarawak dan Brunei terdiri daripada Melayu Muslim dan kaum pribumi. Jumlah ini bila dicampurkan dengan jumlah penduduk Melayu di Malaya akan mengatasi jumlah penduduk Cina.
Maka cara paling selamat buat Malaya untuk bergabung dengan Singapura ialah membawa masuk Sabah, Sarawak dan Brunei serentak ke dalam sebuah negara baru. Supaya Cina tidak jadi bangsa majoriti. Bagaimanapun, faktor kaum ini tidak digembar-gemburkan pada ketika itu.
Matematik kaum sebegini, walaubagaimanapun, tertakluk pada andaian: “Sekiranya berlaku isu-isu perkauman melampau, masyarakat pribumi Borneo akan cenderung untuk berpihak kepada Melayu Malaya kerana Melayu dan pribumi Borneo berasal dari rumpun bangsa yang sama sedangkan bangsa Cina adalah bangsa asing.” Itu pendapat Malaya; tidak pasti adakah Borneo juga berpendapat sedemikian.
Tetapi tidak penting apa pendapat Borneo, kerana Borneo yang kurang arif dari segi politik boleh dimanipulasikan atau dipaksa atau diugut supaya berpihak pada Malaya bila keadaan mendesak.
Borneo Federation
Apa pula riaksi Borneo terhadap idea Malaysia? Kerajaan British selepas perang dunia kedua sememangnya mahu mengakhiri zaman kolonisasi mereka di rantau ini, dan lagi baik kalau proses ini boleh berlangsung secara aman. Dalam ertikata lain England sudah bersedia memberi kemerdekaan kepada negara-negara koloninya.
Sebab itu apabila Tunku Abdul Rahman membuat usul koloni-koloni British, termasuk Sabah dan Sarawak, bergabung di dalam satu negara merdeka bernama Malaysia cadangan tersebut disambut dengan positif. Pada bulan Jun 1961 Sabah, Sarawak dan Brunei dipanggil untuk berunding di Singapura di hadapan Lord Selkirk, Pesuruhjaya Agung Britain bagi Asia Tenggara.
Gabenor Sarawak Sir Alexander Waddell, Gabenor Sabah Sir William Goode dan Pesuruhjaya Tinggi British di Brunei D.C White menghadiri mesyuarat tersebut. Borneo sudah maklum kehendak Kerajaan British untuk menarik diri dari wilayah-wilayah jajahan British. Berlandaskan kesedaran ini pemimpin-pemimpin British Borneo tidak membantah pembentukkan Malaysia.
Tetapi mereka turut mencadangkan satu lagi usul: Sabah, Sarawak dan Brunei bergabung terlebih dahulu dalam Borneo Federation sebelum bergabung dalam Malaysia.
Usul ini — Borneo Federation — dipertimbangkan secara serius oleh wakil-wakil dari Borneo. Walaupun Brunei masih ragu-ragu, pilihan seterusnya ialah supaya Sabah dan Sarawak bergabung terlebih dahulu dalam Borneo Federation.
Borneo Federation mendapat sokongan dari pemimpin-pemimpin tempatan Sarawak, umpamanya Datu Bandar Abang Haji Mustapha dan Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng. Oleh itu mereka terkejut bila Tunku Abdul Rahman mencadangkan percantuman Sabah, Sarawak dan Malaya sebaliknya. Sementara pemimpin-pemimpin tempatan Sarawak masih mempertimbangkan pelawaan Tunku Abdul Rahman, Ong Kee Hui, Pengerusi SUPP bangkit membantah sekeras-kerasnya idea Malaysia.
Ong, bersama dengan A.M Azahari, ketua Parti Rakyat Brunei, dan Donald A. Stephens dari Sabah, kemudiannya menubuhkan United Front bagi menentang idea Malaysia. United Front menegaskan “Usul penubuhan Malaysia tidak dapat diterima sama sekali oleh rakyat Sabah, Sarawak dan Brunei.”
SUPP di bawah teraju Ong juga mendapat sokongan dari SNAP. Diketuai oleh Iban Stephen Kalong Ningkan, SNAP menambah “Apa-apa usaha untuk meletakkan Sarawak di bawah pengaruh atau kawalan kuasa asing akan ditentang sekeras-kerasnya.”
Kena sudah
Tunku Abdul Rahman tidak berputus asa. Beliau membuat beberapa kunjungan ke Sarawak antara Julai dan Ogos 1961. Di kesempatan-kesempatan itu Tunku menerangkan secara terperinci rancangan penubuhan Malaysia Usaha Tunku membuahkan hasil. Suara-suara yang membantah idea Malaysia semakin berkurangan. Beliau juga menjemput pemimpin-pemimpin dari Sabah dan Sarawak melawat Semenanjung Tanah Melayu untuk melihat sendiri keserasian Borneo dan Malaya.
Namun ini semua adalah satu sandiwara. Pemimpin-pemimpin Sabah dan Sarawak tidak mencurigai muslihat Malaya.
Pelawat-pelawat dari Borneo terpegun dengan kemajuan Kuala Lumpur. Mereka sangat tertarik dengan pencapaian Kerajaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dalam program-program pembangunan kawasan luar bandar. Sekembalinya mereka ke Borneo mereka yakin penubuhan Malaysia adalah satu idea yang sesuai buat Sabah dan Sarawak.
Melihat kesungguhan mereka, Gabenor Waddell pada bulan Julai 1961 menghantar pemimpin-pemimpin tempatan Sarawak untuk menghadiri Persidangan Commonwealth Parliamentary Association di Singapura untuk berbincang secara bersemuka dengan wakil-wakil dari Malaya dan Singapura berkenaan penubuhan Malaysia.
Sekilas pandang idea Malaysia, yang bermaksud perkongsian aspirasi politik dan ekonomi sesama negara-negara bekas jajahan British, boleh menguntungkan semua pihak. Tetapi Borneo terlalai satu perkara penting tentang Malaya.
Ekonomi Malaya ketika itu sudah mencapai satu tahap optimal dimana had ekonominya tidak akan berkembang lagi… selagi Malaya tidak menemui satu wilayah baru yang kaya dengan sumber ekonomi, yang boleh digunakan oleh Malaya untuk mengembangkan ekonomi Malaya. Sabah dan Sarawak adalah talian hayat ekonomi Malaya yang sudah haus.
Petroleum
Sabah dan Sarawak sempat mengesyaki kepentingan Malaya dalam penubuhan Malaysia. Didorong oleh rasa was-was ini Borneo mengenakan syarat-syarat Perjanjian Malaysia sebelum Sabah dan Sarawak boleh bersetuju untuk bergabung dengan Malaya dan Singapura. Syarat-syarat ini boleh membela nasib rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak sekiranya ada cubaan mahu mengeksploitasikan Borneo.
Tetapi Borneo terlupa satu perkara penting — sumber Petroleum.
Kawalan ke atas hasil dan sumber petroleum oleh Sabah dan Sarawak seharusnya menjadi salah-satu syarat-syarat Perjanjian Malaysia. Malaya hanya berdiam diri tentang ini. Kerana mereka tahu di bawah peruntukan undang-undang antarabangsa sumber petroleum luar pantai adalah kepunyaan kerajaan persekutuan sesebuah negara.
Ledakan politik Sarawak
Kesedaran politik di Sarawak juga amat terasa pada ketika ini. Banyak parti-parti politik yang diwujudkan sejurus selepas Tunku Abdul Rahman mencadangkan idea Malaysia pada Mei 1961. Sebelum itu hanya terdapat dua parti di Sarawak: SUPP (ditubuhkan 1959) dan Parti Negara Sarawak PANAS (1960).
Sehingga Jun 1963, empat lagi parti ditubuhkan di Sarawak: SNAP (Jun 1961), Barjasa (Disember 1961), SCA (Julai 1962) dan Pesaka (Ogos 1962).
Kesemua parti-parti ini menyokong penubuhan Malaysia, kecuali SUPP.
SUPP mahukan kemerdekaan dicapai melalui Borneo Federation — Sabah dan Sarawak — terlebih dahulu sebelum bergabung dengan Malaya dan Singapura.
Maka bermulalah satu aktiviti berkempen yang pesat apabila parti-parti politik memasuki kawasan pendalaman. Masyarakat Melayu-Muslim di Kuching, termasuk Melanau Muslim di Sibu, secara amnya menyokong Malaysia. Melayu-Muslim di Miri, Limbang dan Lawas, termasuk masyarakat Kedayan, menentang penubuhan Malaysia. Mereka bersetuju dengan aspirasi Azahari dari Brunei dan Donald Stephens dari Sabah.
Masyarakat Iban menyokong Malaysia. Iban Stephen Kalong Ningkan dan rakan-rakan beliau yang berpelajaran dari Simanggang dan Saribas meletakkan syarat-syarat sebelum penubuhan Malaysia boleh dipertimbangkan.
Masyarakat Kayan dan Kenyah menentang penubuhan Malaysia, dengan alasan mereka tidak mahu Iban berkuasa di Sarawak. Iban adalah musuh tradisi Kayan dan Kenyah.
Cina SUPP dipengaruhi unsur-unsur berhaluan kiri. Mereka menganggap Malaysia hanyalah muslihat British untuk meneruskan pengaruh mereka di Asia Tenggara secara tidak langsung. Ahli-ahli SUPP dari kaum Melayu, Iban dan Bidayuh berpendapat sama.
Secara realitinya, penubuhan Malaysia adalah satu muslihat Persekutuan Tanah Melayu untuk menggantikan pengaruh British di rantau ini. Dalam ertikata lain, Malaysia hanyalah perintah British yang berwajah Malaya. Bak kata pepatah keluar mulut buaya masuk mulut naga.
Tetapi ini berlaku kerana majoriti masyarakat Sarawak, terutama sekali penduduk luar bandar, tidak memahami sebaik-baiknya cadangan negara Malaysia serta implikasinya. Memandangkan situasi begini telah berlaku semasa penubuhan Malaysia 1963, timbul persoalan adakah Sarawak menyertai Malaysia dengan keputusan majoriti yang ikhlas; dengan fikiran yang luas, dan waras.
British menghasut
Menjelang pertengahan 1961 Perdana Menteri British Harold MacMillan memberi restu ke atas cadangan penubuhan Malaysia. Cadangan untuk membuat Borneo Federation diketepikan.
Dalam bulan Januari 1962 satu kenyataan rasmi tentang posisi Kerajaan British berkenaan Malaysia telah dikeluarkan. Arahan juga diberi kepada pegawai daerah-pegawai daerah British yang berhubung langsung dengan masyarakat tempatan untuk memberi penekanan pada kebaikan-kebaikan Malaysia sebagai cara terbaik menangkis ancaman anasir-anasir komunis dan serangan dari Indonesia, kononnya. Dalam ertikata lain, pihak British memainkan peranan besar membentuk persepsi positif masyarakat tempatan terhadap cadangan pembentukkan Malaysia. Apa yang molek kata orang Inggeris molek juga kata orang Sarawak.
Satu suruhanjaya yang diketuai Lord Cobbold kemudiannya ditubuhkan untuk meninjau pandangan umum masyarakat tempatan Sabah dan Sarawak terhadap cadangan penubuhan Malaysia. Walaubagaimanapun, Suruhanjaya Cobbold tidak boleh dianggap sebagai satu badan berkecuali — tiga daripada lima ahli panelnya, termasuk pengerusi suruhanjaya tersebut, adalah lantikan Kerajaan British manakala dua selebihnya adalah lantikkan Kerajaan Malaya.
Bila perkara ini diambilkira maka keputusan yang diperolehi oleh Suruhanjaya Cobbold boleh diragui kebenarannya.
Antara Februari 19 dan April 17, 1962, Suruhanjaya Cobbold mengadakan sesi temuramah di hadapan kamera, dibuat sedemikian supaya boleh kelihatan peserta-peserta memberi pandangan dengan terbuka. Suruhanjaya Cobbold juga meneliti sejumlah 1,600 surat-surat dan rakaman pengakuan bertulis diterima dari individu-individu, pertubuhan-pertubuhan atau parti-parti politik. Dalam satu sesi temuramah bersama Lord Cobbold, bila ditanya pandangan berkenaan cadangan penubuhan Malaysia, seorang peserta Iban menjawab, “Barang ko nuan, Tuan” (Mana-manalah yang Tuan rasakan baik).
Jawapan sebegini sudah cukup mencerminkan kekeliruan yang dialami kebanyakkan orang tempatan di Sarawak pada ketika itu. Puan Tra Zahndar, ahli Council Negri, pernah menyatakan bahawa kebanyakkan penduduk tempatan “tidak tahu banyak atau tidak tahu langsung tentang cadangan penubuhan Malaysia tetapi mereka memilih untuk menyokong cadangan itu tanpa usul periksa kerana mereka telah diberitahu bahawa Malaysia adalah baik untuk mereka.” Molek kata orang Inggeris molek juga kata orang Sarawak.
Faktor Cobbold
Suruhanjaya Cobbold menerbitkan keputusan temuramah tersebut di dalam ‘Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak in August 1962.’ Laporan itu ada menyebut “terdapat sebilangan besar kelompok masyarakat di pendalaman yang daif tentang cadangan penubuhan Malaysia.”
Secara kesuluruhannya keputusan yang dicapai oleh Suruhanjaya Cobbold boleh diringkaskan seperti berikut:
“Satu pertiga daripada penduduk… menyokong tanpa syarat cadangan penubuhan Malaysia. Sepertiga yang lain menyokong cadangan penubuhan Malaysia tapi dengan syarat… Satu pertiga yang selebihnya terbahagi kepada dua kelompok: Satu pihak mahukan kemerdekaan sendiri terlebih dahulu sebelum menerima idea Malaysia pihak yang satu lagi mahu British terus memerintah selama beberapa tahun lagi.”
Dalam ertikata mudah, tidak ada referendum atau keputusan muktamad dalam hasil temuramah Suruhanjaya Cobbold. Sebenarnya langsung tidak ada referendum, dan perangkaan yang diperolehi adalah terlalu kasar untuk satu-satu keputusan boleh dibuat dari maklumat keputusan Suruhanjaya Cobbold.
Cobbold ada memberi kata-kata peringatan:
“Perlu diambilkira Malaysia adalah satu perikatan beberapa rakan-kongsi, bergabung di bawah satu kepentingan yang sama, untuk mengujudkan satu negara merdeka, tetapi masing-masing mengekalkan sifat-sifat individu mereka.
“Sekiranya terdapat cadangan untuk Persekutuan Tanah Melayu mengambil alih wilayah-wilayah di Borneo dan melenyapkan sifat-sifat individu Sabah dan Sarawak, Malaysia tidak mungkin akan, dalam jangkaan saya, diterima secara amnya atau tidak akan berjaya.”
Realiti hari ini: Malangnya perkara yang dikhuatiri boleh berlaku sudah pun berlaku dan sedang berlaku di Sabah dan Sarawak sekarang.
Satu jawatankuasa Inter-Governmental ditubuhkan, atas saranan Suruhanjaya Cobbold. Jawatankuasa ini lah yang bertanggungjawab memperhalusi butiran-butiran dalam perlembagaan Malaysia dimana syarat-syarat permintaan Sabah dan Sarawak digembelingkan ke dalam Perjanjian Malaysia. Jugah dan Mustapha memainkan peranan penting sebagai perwakilan Sarawak dalam usaha ini. Persoalan: Seorang Iban yang tiada pendidikan dan seorang Melayu yang bersubahat dengan British. Bagaimanakah mereka boleh dianggap layak berunding bagi pihak Sarawak?
Syarat-syarat penting dalam perjanjian tersebut termasuk: kebebasan beragama, status bahasa Inggeris, imigresen, tanah, perwakilan di Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negara, keistimewaan masyarakat pribumi, dan pengagihan geran-geran pembangunan.
Pilihanraya tempatan diadakan pada Jun 1963. Pilihanraya ini menjadi satu referendum yang menimbang kemasukkan Sarawak ke dalam Persekutuan Malaysia. Sarawak Alliance, ditubuhkan pada Ogos 1962, merangkumi Panas, Barjasa, Pesaka, SCA, dan SNAP. Sarawak Alliance menyokong penubuhan Malaysia. Mereka menang dalam pilihanraya tersebut. SUPP yang anti-Malaysia tewas. Tetapi sokongan pengundi-pengundi yang bersimpati dengan perjuangan SUPP tidak boleh dipandang rendah.
Pilihanraya yang sama telah diadakan di Sabah pada Disember 1962.
Ekoran tekanan dari Negara Filipin dan Negara Indonesia, satu lagi penilaian dibuat ke atas pandangan orang awam berkenaan cadangan penubuhan Malaysia dan keputusan pilihanraya disemak semula. Kali ini United Nations Malaysia Mission yang diketuai Laurence Michelmore dipertanggungjawabkan untuk mengesahkan keputusan pilihanraya. Misi tersebut dijalankan bermula dari Ogos 16 sehingga ke September 5, 1963.
United Nations Malaysia Mission mengeluarkan satu laporan pada September 13, 1963, mengesahkan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak menerima secara positif cadangan penubuhan Malaysia; bahawa mereka sedar perubahan status yang boleh berlaku sempena penubuhan Malaysia; bahawa kehendak mereka telah disampaikan melalui satu proses yang demokratik, yang dijalankan secara adil.
Kenyataan ini mengundang banyak kecurigaan. Samada dulu atau sekarang, tiada proses pilihanraya yang bebas dari pemalsuan dan amalan-amalan tidak beretika, lebih-lebih lagi di Malaysia, dulu dan sekarang. Sekiranya satu referendum dibuat hari ini, tanpa campurtangan pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan, majoriti orang SabahSarawak akan memilih untuk keluar dari Malaysia.
Pada 16 September, 1963, Sarawak bergabung dengan Sabah, Singapura dan Malaya untuk membentuk satu negara persekutuan bernama Malaysia. Maka bermulalah satu babak baru dalam sejarah Borneo. Babak yang mengisahkan penyerahan tugas daripada penjajah British kepada penjajah Malaya ke atas wilayah jajahannya SabahSarawak. Babak seterusnya — SabahSarawak keluar Malaysia.
Merdeka!
Original article http://sarawakheadhunter.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-sarawak-was-conned-into-formation.html
Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to secede from the Federation.
======================
We should take a positive view of the “no right to secede” initiative, which is worth considering despite its affirmation in Point 7 which speaks of the Sabahan and Sarawakian rights to secede from the Federation of Malaysia This is so because “the use [by Point 7] of the word ‘’should’ (as opposed to the word ‘shall,’ for example) turns the option of “NO RIGHT TO SECEDE” into a mere recommendation.”
You see.. Diplomatic documents often demand close linguistic analysis. Would that Point 7 have meant something else, had it said that “There SHALL be no right to secede from the Federation.”?
Since the auxiliary verbs “shall” and “shan’t” have all but disappeared from American English, in much of Great Britain they are still in common use. The facts that the 18/20 Points Agreement was an Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore, it’s British usage that counts — and when it comes to that, what greater authorities do we have than the estimable Fowler brothers, F.G. and H.W., whose “The King’s English” (first edition published by Oxford University Press, 1906) served generations of perplexed English speakers as a revered guide. Here’s what “The King’s English” (traditionally known as “Fowler”) has to say about “shall,” “should,” “will” and “would” in a discussion that is 20(!) pages long:
“It is unfortunate that the idiomatic use [of these words], while it comes by nature to southern Englishmen (who will find most of this section superfluous), is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly acquire it; and for them [this] section is in danger of being useless. In apology for the length of the remarks it must be said that the short and simple directions often given are worse than useless. The observant reader soon loses faith in them… and the unobservant is the victim of false security.”
Needless to say, this is highly reassuring! Fowler then opens its discussion with the following short and simple directions: “Roughly speaking, should follows the same rules as shall, and would as will.”
In their pure form, Fowler continues, “shall” and “should” express command or obligation, whereas will and would express intention or prediction, the difference between the two members of each pair being that the second is the conditional form of the first. Hence, “There SHALL be no right to secede from the Federation.” would indicate that Sabah & Sarawak is commanded NOT TO SECEDE FROM THE FEDERATION unconditionally, whereas “There SHOULD be no right to secede from the Federation.” indicates that this command is SUBJECT TO A CONDITION (or CONDITIONS) — in this case, presumably, that SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN wish “to continue being part of the Federation”
Would such a reading of my argument, if it is the correct one, turn POINT 7 into a “mere recommendation” that SABAH & SARAWAK continue to be part of the Federation of Malaysia when there is no reasons/causes to trigger their need to SECEDE FROM THE FEDERATION?? If POINT 7 intends to say that SABAH & SARAWAK need not secede from the Federation unless it wants to, then it also intends to say that SABAH & SARAWAK need not continue to be part of the Federation of Malaysia unless it wants to — a construction of POINT 7 that would be rather bizarre, to say the least.
True, in practice, as opposed to theory, the difference between “shall” and “should” in British English is somewhat different: “shall” often expressing a COMMAND on the speaker’s part, and “should” merely a DESIRE, as in “You shall go to the doctor” vs. “You should go to the doctor.” And yet if we paraphrase POINT 7 as saying, “The Point 7 of the Agreement of Malaysia desires that Sabah & Sarawak not to secede from the Federation,” is this significantly better for Sabah & Sarawak? How big an improvement over flouting the POINT 7’s command would be flouting the POINT 7’s desire??
In short, if we take consideration of the above arguments on the reading of POINT 7, the FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA should politely be told in the king’s English, “No, thank you.. we SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN wish to SECEDE from the Federation.”
Semua utai atas nya di copy paste aku ari page S&S Keluar M’sia
Iban Abroad,how my friend/madi/unggal,that you/we/All should leave the swords and fires to your children and children’s children.
This is against natural law,brother Iban Abroad,to leave your offsprings to face danger whilst you are still healthy,strong and alive.
Give some clear thought to that brother Iban Abroad.
Thank you.
FRIENDS & COMPATRIOTS- DEMAND OUR INDEPENDENCE
INDEPENDENCE NOT SECESSION!
The time has arrived to raise your voices to demand our independence!
On 16 September 1963 we were re-colonized by incorporation of Sarawak & Sabah into “Malaysia” which was creation of Britain and Malayan UMNO.
We in Sarawak & Sabah never achieved “independence”.
So we do not “secede” but want our independence now!
The article mentions the Sarawak (& Sabah) people’s growing desire to get out of “Malaysia” and UMNO colonial rule!
Everywhere in the website populated by Sarawak and Sabahans you read of talk of independence from Kuala Lumpur colonial rule.
Readers should go to the website Dayakbaru.com to read the rising consciousness among Dayaks who are awakening to the rape and plunder of their homeland and the relationship of the root causes of poverty as a dire consequences of being in “Malaysia”. One of the most disastrous impact of “Malaysia” has been the gradual deliberate destruction of the Dayak way of life on by land grabs, oil palm plantations and dam buildings.
From being countries rich in resources, Sarawak and Sabah have been reduced to be the poorest “states” after 48 years of “independence in Malaysia”.
Sarawak independence will be just the beginning of the hard road for every Sarawakian to devote their efforts to rebuild and reconstruct the Sarawak economy and mend the damaged environment brought about by the immense stripping of native timberland.
Sarawakians must now discuss thoroughly and work out a programme for their independence and re-construction of their country.
A programme will be only a guide so that we know where we are going- the type of government, economy society we want.
Without being presumptuous it is suggested that the new government for a new Sarawak should be based on the idea of “government of the People, by the People, for the People” .
The new economic structure should seek to bring greater social justice and equality to the majority poor.
To begin we must first strive for and achieve real national independence.
FLY THE “MALAYSIAN FLAG” UPSIDE DOWN & AT HALF MAST ON 16 SEPTEMBER”!
Comment by Sarawakbaru — September 15, 2011
SARAWAK INDEPENDENCE NOW!
Aku Budak Baram- fully agree with you.
Does UMNO think that one LOUSY sentence can prevent us from getting out of “Malaysia” if we are really determined to go?
Where is there on earth that a shot gun marriage like Malaysia – where you cannot leave a bad relationship which is essentially a colonial and exploitative relationship.
Without being crude we have been raped and robbed by UMNO for 48 years.
Do we Dayaks have to live another day of this MISERABLE slave relationship where we are not even master of our land which has been grabbed by greedy UMNO puppet rulers and cronies?
We must unite and be very determined to get out of Malaysia!
As Dr.John said either they let us decide through a referendum or we get ready to fight the UMNO occupation army!
Then we have to form our own army! But fear not we have thousands of trained soldiers waiting for the call!
Brothers and sisters everyone let us not wait for another day!
Let us unite and fight for our independence!
Malas ka komen panjai2 ba topik tu. Some of us bark at the wrong trees and the chances for swk to achieve independence is 0.001%. Mission impossible, bisi kala disema ke baka pipit ka nelan buah mawang, how it possible?
We swkians are not colonized by Malaya but by our own leaders & tycoons who robbed the state resources to amass their weath. Taib is the leader supported by the rich & famous from all races/ tribes.
As long as BN still in power we never can have a chance to readdress the issues in parliament which is very far from initiate the whole processes thru referendum.
Don’t dream and waste time to think/ talk about it…better concentrate on the efforts to beat BN in the coming GE.
Unggal Iban Militant,
Ko nn 0.001%… t amt ndai jalai, nama enda diengkah nn 0.000% deh ngal???
Ang alu ngangkat bindira putih ngal ti bedau temu kuing urg.
Ingat…. angan-angan meh tau mai kitai maju ke depan. Baka ke nn angan-angan ka meda BN tumbang. Aku ka meh angan-angan ka meda Srwk tu merdeka.
Tu aku “copy paste” d latest post frm admin ngal.
Selamat Pagi & Salam 1 Borneo buat rakan-rakan seperjuangan. Bersyukur kita kerana kita semua masih dapat bersama pada hari ini. Setelah 41 Hari kumpulan ini ditubuhkan atau utk lebih tepat lagi pada Hari Selasa @ 09/08/2011 Jam 3.29 PM, sehingga kini 19/09/2011 @ Jam 9.40 AM, ahli terkumpul seramai 3,738 org.
Saya memohon rakan-rakan seperjuangan ingat lah tarikh & masa keramat ini sebagai antara… …satu lembaran…… baru dlm diri kita. Kita kena kuatkan semangat jatidiri kita dan berusaha bersungguh-sungguh utk mencapai inspirasi kita semua demi Negeri kita yg tercinta. Tanpa sokongan rakan-rakan semua, kemungkinan besar kita akan gagal mencapai matlamat kita.
Saya tidak hairan dlm masa yg terdekat ini, atas sokongan rakan-rakan semua, kita rakyat Sbh & Srwk akan melaungkan perkataan “Merdeka…Merdeka…Merdeka” buat pertama kali nya utk negeri kita yg tercinta.
Sekian, terima kasih. Moga Tuhan memberkati kita semua.
*… Perhatian Saudara-Saudara & Saudari-Saudari seperjuangan ku… Saya akan sentiasa “copy paste” post ini utk bacaan kita setiap hari agar sentiasa mengingati tarikh bermula satu lembaran baru dlm hidup kita. Tarikh keramat tersebut diatas adalah sebagai sejarah tarikh permulaan perjuangan kita semua dan tarikh tersebut akan diingati oleh anak-anak dan cucu-cucu kita serta generasi yg akan datang…..
Enda rindu nn maca “post” nya ngal. Aku enggai bula… lbn ke nyadi member dia… ndai salah tua bisi ngembuan runding deka meda menoa kita merdeka.
Terima kasih. God Bless
Budak Baram,
Give us your kumpulan website/ blog link.
Nadai ayan budak baram tu.
Well I do support the call for Sabah & Sarawak independence from Malaya. The title of this topic is right, sbh & swak should get out of Malaysia federation. But the question is how & when?
I think we never can achieve independence within the next 50yrs, not in the Y generation.
Why?
Just like the katak confined to coconut shell. If it blamed the coconut tree for the confinement, first the katak has to come out from the shell. How? It has to turn it over. Then it can play the trick to cut down the coconut with whatever means it has or thru third party.
Same thing here the rayat must turn over the BN before you can demand for independence thru negotiation, demonstration, street protest, civil war or militancy.
Let’ s see one by one.
1. Thru negotiation (referendum)
This can never happen unless all tribes in sbh & swak fully united. Independence not for dayak only. Judging from the current political scenario, Muslims will never agree to swak independence becos they are the minority. Secondly, why they want to change the status quo when they enjoy/ benefit the most from ketuanan Melayu govt?
Dayak politicians/ leaders are known to be and easily become traitors or betrayers as far as money is concern. Their face value is the cheapest in the world. Malay can buy them with a kilo of belacan. Of course rural folks, when they r poor, one note RM50 is enough to buy their loyalty to ketuanan Melayu.
This is rule out!
Enda nyamai endar ngepos utai lalu asuh nganti ba kaki tangga, awaiting moderation. Nya aku ngai ngepos utai panjai2 kena empang. Pandak mega kena empang. Anti-climax!
Nak keluar dari Malaysia?
1: Jangan Mimpi lah
2: ISA – Sudah menunggu nak tanggap orang yang itu akta-akta mengasut ketenternam awam
3: Mahu masuk penjara kerana perkata itu?
4: Sapa jaga kelurga kita?
5: Pemuda-pemuda party politk dah nak buat laporan polis di selulur Negara
Jadi fikir lah kawan-kawan di dunia Malaysia Boleh land
Spaohnet,
Nadai agi ISA, udah tukar najib ngagai ASI- Anti Sarawak Independence. ha…..ha..ketingalan nuan kaban laban nadai datai jalai gai menua kita ba spaoh.
Bedau offical nya kaban kena kick out nya kaban
Unggal Iban Militant,
Nitih nama ba belakang nama nn nya… takut amt bala mensia…. te militant.
Aku enggai mayuh jaku… join aja group Sabah & Sarawak Keluar Malaysia. Benong hot amt ba FB.
Ang guai mdh nda ulih ti bedau kala nguji. Enggai ke pgla lusa tua lesey2 ngapa.
Tq, ngal. God Bless…
Ka ngericau mimit,
Balat amai komen ditu neh. Asai baka dalam ring WWE enggau J Cena & Randy Orton.
Kaban belugar….dbs’
Dulu kaban diatu ukai kaban…because kaban makai kaban. Nama kebuah kita agi nunduk ka kaban ti nipu kitai deh? Nyadi nama kebuah kitai agi bekaban enggau BN Malaya deh? Because they are all hypocrites and cannot be trusted.
So where does all the money bank goes to,,, all this years??? To feed all those political creeps/stooges/clown.
We get all the leftovers from them!!!
Budak baram,
Go ahead with your gp mission & vission 2030?
I don’t want to touch on the extreme cases where the swakians can make street demonstration to push swak for independence. Even through political maneuver we also dont have the right platform at the moment.
Well, we said thru PR. Who are those people, still orang melaya are the leaders. Do you think DSAI & Lim KS want to let go swak for independence?
Anything outside the negotiation, dayak will be in clash with dayak from the opposite side. First you have to face Jabu, ok mungkin tunggu dia mati, but you couldn’t wait another dayak leaders from BN to die one after another.
Second, you have to face the police force from dayak regiment, then you got the army leaders from malaya sending dayak troops to kill dayak pro-independence/ separatists or militants. Do you have enough dayak to face all the consequences? Munsuh ba kaki tangga ga but@h ngeleput!
Ohh…one thing. Anang ngarap ke JBA…never ever rely on him to fight for you. Mimit meda kemayang munsuh, chengas2 iya rari enda beapai-beindai. You know him and his records isn’t it?
Now he is ready to make another frogging; dua jari, dua kaki bepegai ba perau BN, SNAP, PKR, DAP- ni endur lekat, we will see, and may be end up nyadi kaki ampu BN, back to square 1?
Unggal IM,
Dont jump to the conclusion yet, the struggle is not yet over. Its hard to predict one’s action anyway, just let it be and always be.
Only time will decide on who is a political clown or hypocrites or a big liar. I would say, rojak politics is what its all about; SURVIVAL and opportunities like Tok Uban, arent you jealous of him? Look at his wife!,,,,,just LOOK!!
We must remember..our votes count, and vote we must!! Keep blogging kaban! No ill-feeling!!
FREE MALAYSIA TODAY
QUOTE;
BN won’t want SNAP
But there are some analysts who are a little more optimistic.
They believe that the best option for SNAP now is to transform its leadership, reorganise all its branches and reactivate its youth and women’s wings.
But whether this will be enough is another issue
Some 60 delegates are expected to discuss SNAP’s direction during the TGA beginning tomorrow.
On their minds will also be the question of whether to return to the Barisan Nasional’s fold, stay independent or throw their lot with opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat.
Their ties with Pakatan soured in the run-up to the April 16 state election and going independent will require extremely strong finances.
Returning to BN may seem like an option but Institute of East Asian Studies’ political analyst Dr Awang Azman Awang Pawi thinks that it is an option that does not exist for SNAP.
He is of the view that BN will not want SNAP now that it is clear that the party is weak.
The state polls results were revealing and BN would not want to carry unnecessary baggage.
“Sarawak BN will only want a party that is competitive and stable, with a respected leadership.
“But at the moment, the party does not have that much-needed character,”
And he quote;
KUCHING: Ketua Menteri Sarawak Tan Sri Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud dijangka mengumumkan barisan kabinet negeri yang baru pada minggu hadapan.
Bercakap selepas mempengerusikan Mesyuarat Kabinet di Wisma Bapa Malaysia hari ini, Taib memberitahu tiada perubahan drastik akan berlaku dengan barisan kabinet negeri sedia ada.
Bagaimanapun katanya, terdapat beberapa perubahan besar dalam tugasan Kabinet negeri nanti yang memberi kesan kepada Sarawak dalam jangka panjang.
“Saya akan melakukan pengumuman barisan baru kabinet negeri minggu hadapan…..selepas Ahad ini akan mengetahuinya,” katanya dengan ringkas.
What he’s cooking!!
Good Sunday!
I dont want to vote for PR, because PAS is one of their member. I dont want to vote for DAP and PKR, because DAP and PKR is the reason PAS get more than 1 adun seat to contest last SE. Eventhou PAS doesnt make it (win), but contest in more 1 adun seat is a win for them. PAS just dont suit Swk in the future. Dont let PAS grow and grow. Its really bad. I hate BN too, especially UMNO and I think PAS is better that BN but PAS just doesnt suit Swk. Just keep PAS far away from Swk. And its PKR and DAP fault and because PAKATAN RAKYAT.
Dah 48 tahun S/S dijajah Malaya. Peda ga pemansang S/S dibanding pemansang Malaya. Ka ngumbai Malaya bechiping enggai nyadi ga laban BN ngena dachin menjajah S/S. Tang iya ke terang dipeda mata kitai dachin BN Malaya enda sebaka timbang enggau dachin BN S/S.
S/S enda ulih nyalahka Malaya laban udah disain sida T. Jugah enggau bala iya. Kitai meda Malaya megai kitai baka ke meda bulan di langit.
Aku nyukung S/S keluar ari Malaya. Ngiga asai meh merintah diri. Nyangka kitai ulih ngaga monorail, LRT, keretapi enggau bisi menteri luar negera (foreign ministers) ambassadors S/S.
Ukai semina nembiak rebak baru nemu kitai tu dichiping, kami ketuai lukai tu nemu meh tang nadai daya laban idup miskin begantung ba perintah nyengula ka bala anak. Diri empu makai gaji ba perintah meh ti salah jaku lagi enda berasap ga dapur ha ha. Minta ampun ngaga bala pemacha, nyangka penemu aku bisi enda nyamai ba hati kita.
..its not impossible.. together we can bring our independence..