Pages

Friday, September 19, 2014

20-POINTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN SABAH AND MALAYA

Point 1: Religion 
While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo. 

Point 2: Language 
a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation. 
b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day. 
c. English should be an official language of North Borneo for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time. 

Point 3: Constitution 
Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo (Sabah) was of course essential. 

Point 4: Head of Federation
The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation

Point 5: Name of Federation 
"Malaysia" but not "Melayu Raya". 

Point 6: Immigration 
Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo. 

Point 7: Right of Secession 
There should be no right to secede from the Federation. 

Point 8: Borneanisation 
Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible. 

Point 9: British Officers 
Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo. 

Point 10: Citizenship 
The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments: 
a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence. 
b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read "7 out of 10 years" instead of "8 out of 10 years". 
c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must be federal citizen. 

Point 11: Tariffs and Finance 
North Borneo should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit. 

Point 12: Special position of indigenous races 
In principle, the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malays' formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo. 

Point 13: State Government 
a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council. 
b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo. 

Point 14: Transitional period 
This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government. 

Point 15: Education 
The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control.

Point 16: Constitutional safeguards 
No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo. 
The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the state.

(Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourth majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient). 

Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament 
This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its seize and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore. 

Point 18: Name of Head of State 
Yang di-Pertua Negara. 

Point 19: Name of State 
Sabah. 

Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc
The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.


*** You may have a copy of this document by download it through this link. ClickHERE.***

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MEMORANDUM 20 PERKARA

PERKARA 1: AGAMA
Walaupun tiada bantahan terhadap Islam menjadi agama rasmi Malaysia, agama rasmi tidak ada di Borneo Utara dan peruntukan berhubung dengan Islam mengikut Perlembagaan Malaysia hendaklah tidak merangkumi Borneo Utara.

PERKARA 2: BAHASA
(a) Bahasa Melayu hendaklah menjadi Bahasa Kebangsaan Persekutuan;
(b) Bahasa Inggeris akan terus digunakan untuk tempoh sepuluh tahun selepas Hari Malaysia.
(c) Bahasa Inggeris hendaklah menjadi bahasa rasmi Borneo Utara untuk semua tujuan baik pada peringkat Negeri mahupun Persekutuan tanpa had tempoh.

PERKARA 3: PERLEMBAGAAN
Walaupun Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaya diterima sebagai asas Perlembagaan Malaysia, Perlembagaan Malaysia hendaklah menjadi dokumen antara negeri dan bukan berbentuk beberapa siri pindaan terhadap Perlembagaan yang dipersetujui dalam keadaan yang berlainan sama sekali. Perlembagaan baru untuk Borneo Utara sudah tentu perlu.

PERKARA 4: KETUA PERSEKUTUAN
Ketua Negara Borneo Utara tidak boleh menjadi Ketua Negara Persekutuan.

PERKARA 5: NAMA PERSEKUTUAN
“ Malaysia” bukannya “Melayu Raya”

PERKARA 6: IMIGRESEN
Kawalan kemasukan orang ke mana-mana kawasan di Malaysia dari luar adalah terletak di bawah kuasa Kerajaan Pusat tetapi kemasukan ke Borneo Utara perlu mendapat kelulusan Kerajaan Negeri. Kerajaan Persekutuan tidak boleh menghalang kemasukan orang ke Borneo Utara untuk tujuan Kerajaan Negeri kecuali atas sebab keselamatan.
Borneo Utara hendaklah mempunyai kuasa yang tidak terbatas bagi mengawal pergerakan orang-orang dari kawasan-kawasan lain di Malaysia ke dalam Borneo Utara selain daripada yang bekerja dengan Kerajaan Persekutuan di Borneo Utara.

PERKARA 7: HAK PEMISAH
Tidak harus ada sebarang hak untuk berpisah daripada Persekutuan.

PERKARA 8: PEMBORNEONISASI
Pengambilalihan perkhidmatan awam oleh rakyat Borneo Utara hendaklah dilaksanakan dengan secepat mungkin.

PERKARA 9: PEGAWAI BRITISH
Segala usaha hendaklah dibuat untuk menggalakkan para pegawai British kekal dalam perkhidmatan awam sehingga tempat mereka boleh diambil oleh orang-orang yang layak dari Borneo Utara.

PERKARA 10: KEWARGANEGARAAN
Saranan-saranan dalam perenggan 148(k) Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold hendaklah merangkumi hak-hak kewarganegaraan rakyat Borneo Utara dalam Persekutuan, tertakluk kepada pindaan-pindaan berikut:
(a) Perenggan kecil (I) tidak harus mengandungi peruntukan menetap selama lima tahun;
(b) Demi menyelaraskannya kepada undang-undang kita, perenggan kecil (ii) (a) hendaklah berbunyi tujuh daripada sepuluh tahun bukannya lapan daripada dua belas tahun; dan
(c) Perenggan kecil (iii) seharusnya tidak mengandungi sekatan berhubung dengan kewarganegaraan ibubapa – seseorang yang lahir di Borneo Utara selepas Malaysia mestilah menjadi warganegara Persekutuan.

PERKARA 11 : TARIF DAN KEWANGAN
Borneo Utara hendaklah berhak mengawal kewangan tabung, pembangunan dan tarifnya sendiri.

PERKARA 12 : KEDUDUKAN ISTIMEWA KAUM BUMIPUTERA
Pada prinsipnya suku kaum Anak Negeri di Borneo Utara hendaklah menikmati hak-hak istimewa seperti yang dinikmati oleh kaum Melayu di Malaya tetapi formula Malaya yang digunakan di Malaya ketika ini tidak semestinya boleh digunakan untuk Borneo Utara.

PERKARA 13: KERAJAAN NEGERI
(a) Ketua Menteri hendaklah dipilih oleh anggota-anggota Majlis Perundangan tidak rasmi;
(b) Sistem berkementerian yang sempurna hendaklah diwujudkan di Borneo Utara.

PERKARA 14: TEMPOH PERALIHAN
Tempoh peralihan hendaklah diserahkan pada Negeri Borneo Utara oleh Perlembagaan dan tidak sekadar diamanahkan kepada Kerajaan Negeri oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan.

PERKARA 15: PELAJARAN
Sistem pendidikan yang ada di Borneo Utara sekarang hendaklah dikekalkan dan diletakkan di bawah bidang kuasa Kerajaan Negeri.

PERKARA 16: PERLINDUNGAN PERLEMBAGAAN
Kerajaan Pusat tidak boleh membuat sebarang pindaan, mengubahsuai atau menarik balik mana-mana perlindungan khas yang telah diberikan kepada Borneo Utara tanpa persetujuan Kerajaan Borneo Utara. Kuasa meminda Perlembagaan Negeri Borneo Utara adalah hak mutlak rakyat negeri itu.

PERKARA 17 : PERWAILAN DALAM PARLIMEN PERSEKUTUAN
Ini hendaklah mengambil kira bukan sahaja jumlah penduduk Borneo Utara tetapi juga saiz dan potensinya dan dalam apa keadaan pun tidak harus kurang daripada Singapura.

PERKARA 18: GELARAN KETUA NEGARA
Yang Di Pertua Negara

PERKARA 19 : NAMA NEGERI
Sabah

PERKARA 20 : TANAH, HUTAN, KERAJAAN TEMPATAN DAN LAIN-LAIN
Peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan berhubung dengan kuasa Majlis Tanah Negara tidak harus merangkumi Borneo Utara. Majlis Kebangsaan bagi Kerajaan Tempatan juga tidak harus merangkumi Borneo Utara.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=====================
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, whereaswill 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.”



======================
HARUS vs AKAN Sebuah Pertimbangan untuk Point 7:
Hak SuksesiTitik 7: Hak SuksesiSeharusnya tidak ada hak untuk memisahkan diri dari Federasi.
======================
Kita harus mengambil pandangan yang positif dari "tidak berhak untuk memisahkan diri" inisiatif, yang bernilai mempertimbangkan penegasan meskipun di Titik 7 yang berbicara tentang hak-hak Sabahan dan Sarawak untuk memisahkan diri dari Federasi Malaysia Hal ini terjadi karena "menggunakan [oleh Titik 7] dari kata''harus '(sebagai lawan kata' wajib, 'misalnya) ternyata pilihan "TIDAK BERHAK untuk memisahkan diri" ke dalam rekomendasi belaka. "

Anda lihat .. Dokumen diplomatik sering menuntut analisis linguistik dekat. Apakah itu berarti 7 Titik sesuatu yang lain, telah dikatakan bahwa "tidak akan ada hak untuk memisahkan diri dari Federasi."?

Kerana kata kerja bantu "harus" dan "tidak akan" memiliki semua tapi menghilang dari bahasa Inggris Amerika, di sebagian besar Inggris mereka masih umum digunakan. Fakta bahwa Perjanjian Poin 18/20 adalah Perjanjian yang berkaitan dengan Malaysia antara Inggris Raya dan Irlandia Utara, Federasi Malaya, Borneo Utara, Sarawak dan Singapura, itu penggunaan yang penting Inggris - dan ketika datang untuk itu, apa yang otoritas yang lebih besar yang kita miliki daripada saudara patut dihargai Fowler, FG dan HW, yang "Bahasa Inggris Raja" (edisi pertama diterbitkan oleh Oxford University Press, 1906) menjabat generasi penutur bahasa Inggris bingung sebagai panduan dihormati. 

Inilah yang "Bahasa Inggris Raja" (tradisional dikenal sebagai "Fowler") telah mengatakan tentang "wajib," "seharusnya," "akan" dan "akan" dalam sebuah diskusi yang adalah 20 halaman .

Sangat disayangkan bahwa penggunaan idiom [kata-kata ini], sementara itu datang oleh alam untuk selatan Inggris (yang akan menemukan sebagian dari bagian yang berlebihan), begitu rumit bahwa mereka yang tidak cara lahir tidak dapat memperolehnya; dan bagi mereka bagian [ini] adalah dalam bahaya yang tidak berguna. Dalam permintaan maaf atas pernyataan panjang harus dikatakan bahwa arah yang singkat dan sederhana sering diberikan lebih buruk daripada tidak berguna. Pembaca yang jeli akan segera kehilangan iman di dalam mereka ... dan tidak peduli, adalah korban dari rasa aman yang palsu. .....

Source : Here

No comments:

Post a Comment