这就是我们支持的人，为沙砂的权益讲话，Jeffrey Kitingan 是第一个提起沙砂18/20点条款的人，他进出了几个政党却被西马人扭曲说是”青蛙王子“，某些缺乏思考能力的沙砂人也跟着人云亦云，被西马人拿来当传话工具还沾沾自喜！ Jeffrey Kitingan 所参加过的政党没有一个‘敢’/想支持他的斗争，最后一个就是沙巴公正党 ！我们不支持民联就是因为民联并不想回归沙砂主权，还企图转移视线，愚弄沙砂人来个什么“ 古晋宣言”！ 如果民联能直接承认”1963马来西亚立国契约“并答应实行契约内容，沙砂人民肯定支持民联而达到“改朝换代”，“沙砂自治”的目标！ 下届大选，如果民联还是没有从308。505 学到教训，民联肯定将进一步的败退！ KOTA KINABALU: Sabah’s Bingkor assemblyman Jeffrey Kitingan who has come under fire for suggesting that the Court of Appeal’s Allah ruling leaves a probability of Sabah and Sarawak seceding from federal peninsula, said he was merely expressing the views of the majority. “I am merely voicing out how the majority of Sabahans and Sarawakians are feeling in response to what the federal government is doing. “We are being pushed to the edge.. we must respond.. it’s our right. “When conditions become unbearable for our people then we must act. The principle of self determination provides many avenues and access to the UN (United Nations). “An there is also the issue of non-compliance of the Malaysian Agreement 1963,” said Kitingan who is State Reform Party (Star) Sabah chapter chief. Kitingan was responding to several Umno Barisan Nasional leaders who had chastised him for suggesting a “pullout” following the Court of Appeal ruling to overrule a High Court decision allowing Catholic publication The Herald to use the term ‘Allah’ in its Bahasa Malaysia version. Rubbishing Kitingan’s suggestion, Umno Supreme Council member Saifuddin Abdullah today said the court ruling was specific to the publication and should be seen in that context. He said the court decision was not a blanket ruling against other non-Muslims. Saifuddin had also suggested that the authorities study Kitingan’s statement which he claimed was seditious, provocative and could create chaos in the country. “The word pull out of Malaysia is a very heavy word to use and its is illogical. You have to make a statement in a professional manner and not use your emotions to comment,” he said. Responding to Saifuddin, Kitingan said: “(Well) if situation in Malaysia doesn’t change, especially how the Malaya-controlled federal government treats Sabah and Sarawak, this could happen.” Kitingan went on to point out that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 was specific and the founding fathers of Sabah and Sarawak were promised religious freedom. “If not for these promises, there is no Malaysia today,” he said adding that his comments were not knee jerk reactions to the court ruling. Also read:
Posted on: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 07:33:59 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015