Najib Razak, PM Malaysia adalah Bajau diSulawesi

JANGAN MANIPULASI BANGSA BAJAU!

Written by Admin

Monday, 28 February 2011 02:46

0 Komen and 0 Reaksi Oleh : PP SEMPORNA MEMBACA Laporan Blog Sembiraiku mengenai penggunaan Istilah sebutan ‘Melayu Bajau’ yang hendak diperkenalkan oleh Pertubuhan NGO USBO, kami dari Komuniti Bajau Lcf-TSMP (Local Forum Komuniti Tun Sakaran Marine Park) amat terkilan dan tidak bersetuju semasa sekali penggunaan Istilah tersebut kerana ia akan menghilangkan Identiti dan Hak Bajau itu sendiri sebagai bangsa yang bertamaddun dan mempunyai Identiti sendiri yang wajar dikekalkan dengan Identiti Borneonisasi. Bagi menyahut kekhuatiran masyarakat FB terhadap perkara ini, kami memohon supaya USBO jangan meneruskan rancangan asimilisasi atau adaptasi Bajau ke arah Melayu, hanya kerana kurang faham apa itu bangsa dan apa itu Identiti. Sepatutnya Presiden USBO (United Sabah Bajau Organisation) mengkaji sedalam-dalamnya konsep penggunaan istilah itu sebelum menyeru dan meminta masyarakat Bajau di Negeri ini menggunakanya. Bajau adalah bangsa yang bertamadun sejak ratusan tahun dahulu, bahkan mendahului ketamadunan suku-suku lain di rantau ini sebelum Kerajaan Melayu Melaka. Ketamaddunan Bajau Boleh Ditemui Di Filipina Sekitar tahun 1380 masyarakat Bajau di Filipina Selatan sudah menerima kedatangan Islam ke situ yang dibawa oleh Syeikh Karimul Makhdum dan seterusnya kewujudan Masjid ertama bangsa Bajau di Pulau Simunul, Tawi Tawi itu di sana masih boleh dilihat sehingga ke hari ini sebagai bukti bahawa masyarakat Bajau menerima ketamadduan lebil awal berbanding bangsa lain. Sanggupkah kita padamkan sejarah Islam dan hubungannya dengan Bajau? Perjuangan Bajau Boleh Ditemui Di Sabah Malaysia Perjuangan Bangsa Bajau di Sabah yang dipimpin oleh para Ulama dan ahli sufi sejak era Magindora sebelum kedatangan British 1881 yang pernah direkodkan oleh penjajah British. Bangsa Bajau adalah bangsa yang pertama pernah mengistiharkan perang menentang British kerana tidak mengiktirap ‘Perjanjian Pajak Gadai’ antara BNBC dan Sultan Sulu 1881, seterus menyerang penempatan British di Silam, Lahad Datu sekitar 1884 dan 1885 dari Kominiti Bajau Omadal, Semporna Sabah. Era ini membuktikan mereka adalah bangsa yang berjuang demi mempertahankan tanah air. Seterusnya seorang anak Bajau campuran Suluk, Paduka Mat Salleh meneruskan pemberontakan terhadap British dengan menyerang Wilayah Pantai Barat Sabah. Sanggupkah kita memadamkan sejarah perjuangan Bangsa kita hanya kerana tujuan menyesuaikan diri mengejar pangkat dan projek?. Kerajaan Bajau/Wajo Boleh Ditemui Di Indonesia Kerajaan-kerajaan Bajau sebenarnya telah wujud sekian lama di rantau ini se awal 1300 sebelum Kesultanan Sulu sehinggalah kepada Kerajaan Bajau di Makassar, Kesultanan Gowa, Luwu, Bima dari Sulawesi dan Kerajaan Islam Asia Tenggara yang ada di Borneom Kalimantan seperti Kesultanan Kutai, Kesultanan Bulungan, Kesultanan Banjar termasuk Kesultanan Brunei yang pernah didominasi oleh Bangsa Bajau. Saya ingin mengambil contoh Kerajaan Gowa di Makassar Sulawesi Selatan yang berasal dari Kerajaan suku Wajo/Bajo Pimpinan Arong Mattoa adalah salah satu bukti bahawa Ketamaddunan Bajau telah wujud sekian lama. Bahkan Perdana Menteri kita hari ini Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak adalah keturunan langsung ke 19 Kesultanan Gowa, Makassar dari suku Wajo/Bajo Keturunan Sultan Hassanuddin yang telah merantau ke Pahang. Karaeng Aji yang terpaksa meninggalkan tempat asalnya untuk belayar Pahang dengan bantuan pelayar-pelayar Bajau Balangingi kerana tidak setuju dengan perjanjian Bungaya di antara Kesultanan Gowa dan Aru Palaka, Raja Bugis Bone yang bersekongkol dengan belanda. Sanggupkah kita padamkan Sejarah Bajau yang pernah membantu keturunan PM kita? Perdana Menteri Malaysia Anak Gowa Suku Bajo. ”Saya adalah Anak Gowa, Saya keturunan langsung Raja Gowa dan Hari ini saya balik ke Gowa Bukan untuk Merampas Takhta Raja Gowa, melainkan untuk menjalin semangat kekeluargaan yang sebenarnya tidak putus. Saya adalah Anak Gowa yang merantau 11 (sebelas) Generasi,” kata Perdana Menteri Malaysia, Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak semasa melawat Gowa, Sulawesi Selatan pada 15 Mei 2009. Najib, sebagai anak Bajau Pertama rakyat Malaysia yang menjadi Perdana Menteri negara ini, mungkin terpaksa mengkaji semula salsilah keturunannya dari Bugis Makasar suku Wajo. Proses asimilisasilah yang menyebabkan beliau mungkin kurang memahami susurgalur keturunan Bugisnya tetapi hakikatnya sejarah mengatakan bahawa beliau waris tulen Kerajaan Gowa dari Suku Wajo yang diasimilisasikan kepada Bugis. Anak Gorontola Juga Mungkin Menjadi Presiden Indonesia Ke 3 Di Indonesia, Bacharuddin Jusuf atau lebih dikenali sebagai BJ Habibie yang lahir di Pare Pare, Makasar; ayahnya berasal dari Gorontola, Sulawesi Utara adalah dari kawasan wilayah Bao atau Wajo yang telah diasimilisasikan menjadi Bugis kerana proses yang sama. Kehebatan pemimpin Bajau, seperti Tun Razak, BJ Habibie yang mencipta nama dalam arena politik antarabangsa telah diadaptasi oleh proses asimilasi kepada bangsa lain seperti Melayu dan Bugislah yang menyebabkan Bajau kehilangan identiti secara berterusan. Bersediakah kita menulis sejarah baru nanti bahawa Tun Mustapha, Tun Sakaran, Tun Said Keruak, Datuk Salleh, Usu Sukam yang pernah menjadi Gabenor atau TYT serta Ketua Menteri Sabah ini adalah Keturuan Melayu suku Wajo?. Martabat Bajau Terbela Di Sabah Malaysia Satu-satunya negara yang menjadi peninggalan Bangsa bajau dan warisan Bangsa di atas muka bumi yang masih boleh kita banggakan adalah Sabah, Malaysia. Sabah adalah negeri merdeka yang telah menjadi peninggalan warisan nenek moyang kita yang boleh menerima kita sebagai bangsa yang bermartabat dan mendapat kemerdekaan secara mutlak. Di negara lain kita telah mengalami proses asimilasi sehingga bangsa kita menjadi bangsa yang tidak mempunyai identiti tulen terpaksa menumpang kasih kepada bangsa lain. Di Filipina, Bajau telah diadaptasi dengan budaya Suluk dan lebih teruk lagi generasi ini telah banyak murtad meninggalkan agamanya kerana tidak sanggup menjadi bangsa yang tiada identiti. Di Indonesia khasnya, Sulawesi, kita sedia maklum Masyarakat Bugis hanya tertumpu di Selatan iaitu Kerajaan Bugis Bone Sulawesi Tenggara, sementara yang lain mempunyai kerajaan masing-masing yang terdiri dari pelbagai suku dan bangsa. Namun adaptasi dan asimilasi semua kerajaan Islam Sulawesi dan Kalimantan maka mereka telah menjadi kerajaan Bugis, walaupun hakikatnya mereka bukan suku Bugis. Makasar, Luwu, Soppeng, Gowa telah menjadi Bugis Makasar, Bugis Luwu, Bugis Soppeng, Bugis Penderang, Bugis Banjar, Bugis Pontianak, Bugis Kutai, Bugis Tidong dan sebagainya. Walhal semua tempat ini sebenarnya bukan suku Bugis dan mempunyai bangsa sendiri, ketamaddunan sendiri dan kerajaan sendiri serta mempunyai martabat masing- masing. Bolehkah kita terima apa yang berlaku di Kalimantan dan Sulawesi itu? Perjuangan Masyarakat Bajau di Sabah adalah adalah titik tolak kepada kemerdekaan kita yang sebenar, perjuangan dan kebebasan idiologi kita yang harus kita pelihara dengan baik supaya dapat diwarisi oleh anak cucu kita pada masa akan datang. Jesteru itu adalah wajar perjuangan USBO di Sabah memberikan penumpuan perjuangannya terhadap sejarah, budaya, sosial dan politik di negeri ini tanpa mengdaptasikannya kepada proses asimilasi ke dalam dunia Melayu. Jika tidak sanggup berjuang untuk bangsa Bajau, bubarkan saja nama Bajau dari Pertubuhan USBO atau adakah kita akan menulis sejarah kita dan memberitahu generasi kita bahawa pada satu ketika Pemimpin Melayu Bajau dan Melayu Dusun, Melayu Brunei, Melayu Kadazan, Melayu Dayak, Melayu Iban, Melayu Tidung, Melayu Suluk dan lain lain adalah suku yang memperjuangkan kemerdekaan kita. Alam Bajau amat indah dan cantik. Janganlah ia dicemari oleh konsep dan istilah yang bakal menghilangkan identitinya serta sejarah kemaddunannya. Peliharalah Bajau dan abadikanlah Bajau di tempat yang wajar dan bukan menumpang tuah dari bangsa lain. Berpeganglah kita kepada Peribahasa Bajau yang pernah menjadi ungkapan nenek moyang kita, “Bang Alam Bissalah Alam Na Bangsa.” Janganlah kita menjadi Bajau yang hiprokrit, pentingkan diri sendiri sehingga sanggup menjual maruah bangsa sendiri kepada orang lain kerana kepentingan serta agenda terbunyi kita sendiri seperti mana peribahasa Bajau : “Kayu Kayu Langkau Nyana Nganjaga Nyana Nangkau” Mohon jasa baik Presiden USBO, Datuk Seri Panglima Mohd Salleh Tun Said Keruak agar menghentikan ideologi yang kurang bijak dan bakal melenyapkan identiti bangsa Sabah dan teruskanlah perjuangan USBO untuk Bajau atau Datuk Seri wajar melepaskan jawatan Presiden Bajau itu untuk diamanahkan kepada pemimpin Bajau yang sayang kepada bangsanya. Tulisan ini tidak membawa maksud dan memandang prejudis kepada Bangsa Melayu tetapi adalah sekadar mengingatkan Pemimpin Bajau supaya lebih bertanggungjawab terhadap bangsa.  http://sabahkini.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6342:jangan-manipulasi-bangsa-bajau&catid=35:berita-sabah&Itemid=27 The author appears to know a lot but we need better references. I am very interested because I am also a Simunul, a branch among the Bajau tribes, originally from Simunul island. The correct term is bajau from Simunul island. I don't understand why my ancestors don't call our race as bajau but prefer to name it from its islands, but judging from the language, these bajaus are all related, distinguished only from their islands.

Bugis is Bajau in Javanese

p131, Thallassocracy, Bilcher Bala, quoting from
Makassar, J. Villiers, in J. Kathirithamby-Wells & J. Villiers, the south east asian port and polity, rise and demise, p. 145

...they were greater thieves than any in the world, and they are powerful and have many paraos [sic. Boat] ... They have fairs where they dispose of the merchandise they steal and sell the slaves they capture... The Javanese call them Bugis (Bujuus) [i.e. Bajau], and the Malays call them this and Celates.

PTPTN solution: BN vs PR

http://youtu.be/XHvTFYOQtWY


Please note that the educational loan, called the PTPTN, is proven to be a problem to the nation. Both sides agree on this.

Solution proposed:

BN via Khairi:
Continue as it is. Hoping that the transformation initiatives made by BN will increase the purchasing power of graduates so that they can repay their loans.

What are the transformation initiatives?
Increase the productivity of villages? Build mega projects? Already been done before but had made Malaysia worse in terms of income of graduates and even in terms of per capita income growth. Malaysia's per capita income has not grown significantly compared to our neighbours Singapore and Brunei, that used to share the same economic parameters because they share currency and government administration styles.

The new things done was the giving of cash and other incentives to those earning less than RM3000, but these do not benefit graduates. Salary scale increases do help graduates in the government sector. However these probabaly contribute to the sudden increase in the per capita income of Malaysians from US7,000 in 2009 to US10,000 in 2012. These salary scale increases are policies that had been done before Mahathir and still being done by Singapore and Brunei.

It has proven to be effective in making Singapore the richest nation on earth by 2013 despite having no natural resources at all. By not continuing with the salary increases for government servants, Malaysian per capita income has stagnated. Tun Dr. Mahathir's method of giving economic stimulus by building mega projects had proven to be not effective in increasing the living standard of most Malaysians, and in fact had increased the income gap between the rich and poor.

Will the salaries of graduates in the commercial sector also increase? So far there is little evidence of it happening in Malaysia but in Singapore, the salaries of graduates had increased significantly compared to Malaysia. The commercial sectors must increase salaries in order to recruit the best graduates. It is still too early in Malaysia for us to see significant increases but if it can happen in Singapore, i.e. increase in salary of graduates in other non-government sectors, it can happen in Malaysia sooner or later.

Datuk Najib had implemented the salary increased just before the election. Will he continue with these salary increases even after the election? There is no indication that salary increases of government servants are part of the transformation strategy for a high-income economy. It was implemented just to please voters. Hopefully Datuk Najib will continue with this policy above that of mega projects, or even housing projects. Giving soft loans to buy houses as an economic incentive has led to the increase in the price of houses to the point that it is beyond the income ability of graduates, let alone the ability to repay their loans, but this is still on-going and will continue to bleed the Malaysian economy.

Khairi also proposed to support of private education for dropouts, but this will increase the financial burden of the nation. In summary, BN likes to commercialise education. Controlling the quality of education is more difficult as profiteering is more prominent.

PR via Rafizi:
Innovation is implementing the seemingly impossible. If it is so obvious, then it is not an innovation, just a development.

PR solution to the PTPTN problem is to provide free education up to the university level, by abolishing PTPTN. It shows that PR is innovative. I can't even imagine such a solution. It is against the normal flow of thinking but we should study its proposals first, before we reject it completely. After all, we are already in trouble, created by the PTPTN. It may be a political gimmick but it is done in good faith, similar to PTPTN. It is what voters want although it may not be good to the nation at first impression. Hopefully we will not become as bankrupt as Greece because we don't have anyone to bail us out, unlike Greece.

PR also proposes to build more universities instead of encouraging private enterprises to provide the education, although it allows high quality private universities to be given subsidies equivalent to the subsidy given to public universities.

Summary:
The difference is only in varius shades of public versus private education system. BN favours private education, whereas PR prefers public education. right versus left. BN is right, PR is left. Similar to the USA. Republican is right. Democrat is left.

Either way, it is alright. It is only in the implementation. No matter how good the idea is, if not implemented properly, it will lead to a disaster. The problem with BN is that it is riddled with cronyism and corruption that makes capitalism fail. PR is not yet proven to be similarly afflicted.

My opinion on this issue is that we should opt for th PR solution. Abolish PTPTN before it is too late. It will lead to less graduates but it is better than having disillusioned graduates that will not have jobs but burderned with debts. PR solution will actually lead to less graduates, but those graduates who are rejected should try to look for other professions or careers instead of becoming useless graduates. We may lose a few potential good graduates but our economy may not be able to accommodate them all at the moment. It is all a matter of timing.

Crazy but true claims of the Filipinos

 http://www.mindanews.com/top-stories/2013/03/18/lawyer-of-sulu-sultans-heirs-malaysia-should-turn-over-sabah-but-adds-final-say-will-be-from-philippine-govt-body/

 By paying the cess money even when it is no longer required, we encouraged this unreasonable behaviour of the Filipinos. Sabah may have been under the administration of the Sulu Sultanate, but this Sultanate no longer exists so there is no need to pay any more. The heirs may inherit them but since there is no official Sultanate, there is no more heir.

 What is even more bizarre is that the Filipino labourers already allocate the buildings in Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan as belonging to them. This is confirmed by 2 people already. I never hear them personally but just now I manage to hear from the person who was told by these Filipinos. This is a very dangerous precedence.

 I also hear that many Filipinos also receive SMS to kill policemen only, but not the army. All UMS students are no longer allowed to wear any army or police uniforms outside the campus. 

 

Lawyer of Sulu Sultan’s heirs on Sabah: ‘final say’ from Philippine gov’t body

By Carolyn O. Arguillas on March 18 2013 12:05 am

JOLO, Sulu (MindaNews/17 March) –  Claiming Malaysia acted in bad faith, the lawyer of the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu said Malaysia “must immediately turn over” Sabah to the heirs and the Philippine government and pay them “no less than 50% of its income from 1963 to the present.”
“In my considered opinion, since the Malaysia acted in bad faith in the occupation of British North Borneo-Sabah, Malaysia must immediately turn over its possession of the Sabah territory (to) the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and the Philippine government,” lawyer Ulka Ulama said in a three-page letter addressed to Malaysian Ambassador to the Philippines, Dato Mohd Zamri Mohd Kassim, dated and mailed via a commercial courier on Friday, March 15.
“Malaysia will have to wake up,” Ulama told MindaNews in his office here on Saturday, as he took out folders of his files on Sabah and pointed to a filing cabinet filled with Sabah-related documents.

Atty. Ulka Ulama leafs through the annexes to the March 15 letter he sent to the Malaysian Ambassador to Manila. MindaNews photo by Carolyn O. Arguillas

But Ulama, who has been receiving since 1975  the 5,000 Malaysian ringgit “annual customary payment”  of Malaysia on behalf of  the heirs,  acknowledged in his letter that the “final say” on Sabah will come from the Bipartisan Executive-Legislative Advisory Council on Sabah Issues (BELACS), a body first created 20 years ago under the Ramos administration and reconstituted under the Estrada and Arroyo administrations.

Ulama said President Benigno Simeon Aquino III should now appoint members of the BELACS “to solve the current Sabah issue.”
Ulama recommended that the private sector membership in BELACS will include former Senator Santanina Rasul,  himself “and Kiram.” The letter did not say which Kiram he was referring to. Asked which Kiram he was referring to, Ulama replied “We will get the approval from the Kiram after the BELACS approval to avoid any misunderstanding.”
Copies of the March 15 letter to Kassim were also mailed to President Aquino, Vice President Jejomar Binay, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., and Loretta Ann Rosales, chair of the Commission on Human Rights.
Ulama ended his letter with a prayer “that the Sabah crisis will be resolved as soon  as possible without bloodshed.”.
“61 terrorists shot dead”
In Sabah, Police Commissioner Datuk Hamza Taib announced on Saturday that Operasi Daulat (Operation Uphold Sovereignty), launched with aerial and ground attacks on March 5 to flush out the “Royal Security Forces” of  Sultan Jamalul Kiram III from Lahad Datu where they had holed up since February 12 until violence broke out on March 1, “will continue until all areas in the district are rid of the intruders from southern Philippines.”
Taib was quoted by the state-owned news agency, Bernama, as saying, “We will finish it (operation) as soon as possible” even as he “stressed that the security forces did not have a deadline for the operation.”
Bernama’s report said that from March 5 to 16,  “61 terrorists were shot dead, with 27 of their bodies removed from the red zone, while 104 were detained on suspicion of having links with the terrorists. An additional 232 were detained for being in forbidden areas.”
The “Royal Security Forces,” numbering about 200, led by Raja Muda Agbimuddin Kiram, holed up in Lahad Datu last month to assert the Kirams’ proprietary rights over  “The Land Below the Wind,” as Sabah is popularly known for.
Resource-rich Sabah, the second largest state in Malaysia, has, according to its official website, has an area of 72,500 sq. kilometers, almost thrice the size of the 26,974 sq. kilometre Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
Ulama in his letter cited Sabah’s income in 1998 at “more than US $45.98 billion.”
 Less than a million pesos in a decade
In his March 15, 2013 letter, Ulama, who has been receiving payment for the heirs from the Malaysian Embassy since 1975,  said he wrote Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak through the OIC of the Malaysian Embassy on September 17, 2012, inquiring if Malaysia is still paying the “Annual Customary Payment Rental” to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu because he had not received payment after 2010.
“If the answer is yes, to whom did Malaysia tender the payment? Is the person (to) whom payment (was) made, cloth(ed) with authority?” Ulama asked.
Ulama attached several annexes to his letter, including copies of the letters and cheques from sent to him by the Embassy of Malaysia in Philippines from 2001 to 2010, totalling less than  million pesos for 10 years:  P724,845.04.
The cheques from the Malaysian Embassy were in Philippine pesos, apparently based on the prevailing exchange rate and the Embassy’s accompanying letters indicated these were for “payment of ‘cession money’ to heirs of Sultan of Sulu for the year….”
Ulama’s letter showed only two columns: the year and amount paid. MindaNews added a third column to indicate the date the payments were made.  As can be gleaned from the third column, there is no fixed date for the payment of what the Malaysian Embassy refers to as “cession money.”
Year                Amount                      Date paid
2001                P68,888.44                  March 6, 2002
2002                P73,940.77                  April 16, 2003
2003                P77,442.36                  March 18, 2004
2004                P78,212.62                  Oct. 5, 2005
2005                P72,000.11                  Oct. 9, 2006
2006                P70,444.06                  July 5, 2007
2007                P71,242.30                  July 16, 2009
2008                P69,504.55                  Feb. 24, 2009
2009                P69,770.81                  May 7, 2009
2010                P73,399.02                  June 22, 2010
No “cession money” was paid in 2008 for the year 2007. But three payments were made in 2009: for 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Payment for 2008 was made on February 24, 2009;  for 2009 on May 7, 2009 and the late payment for 2007 was paid only on July 16, 2009.
Ulama said Malaysia “has defaulted in its payment for 2011, 2012 and 2013.”
$749 million
Ulama said that through the years, he had written to the Prime Minister of Malaysia through the Malaysian Embassy in the Philipines and the Philippine President through the Department of Foreign Affairs “countless times to increase the Annual Customary payment rentals to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu” but received no answer except during the time of President Joseph Estrada.
On April 16, 1999, then  Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo L. Siazon, Jr. wrote a memorandum for Executive Secretary Ronald Zamora on the “request of the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu” for the Philippine government to “submit their request to the Malaysian government… for an incremental increase in the ‘cession monies’ or annual rental paid by the Malaysian Government to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu in the amount of US $749 million covering from 1962 and taking into account the money/land values and improvement of Sabah.”
Siazon said that upon payment of the full amount, “the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu are willing to waive their proprietary rights over Sabah (North Borneo).”
“Unique”
Siazon referred to the Philippines’ claim over Sabah as “unique” in that it has two distinct and separate aspects – the proprietary rights of the Sultanate of Sulu as represented by the heirs and the Philippines’ sovereignty right which was ceded by the Sultanate of Sulu through the Sultan of Sulu in favor of the Philippine government in 1962.
He noted that under the principle of parens patriae, the Philippine government should help the heirs in pursuing their proprietary claims. “The question, however, is whether Malaysia would be willing to pay the amount demanded by the heirs as full settlement of their claim without any condition. Chances are Malaysia would not be agreeable to a full settlement unless the Philippines drops its sovereign claim to Sabah,” Siazon wrote.
Siazon recommended that the Estrada administration reconstitutes the Legislative-Executive Advisory Council on Sabah “in view of the last election and empower it to deliberate on the request of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and its consequent effect on the sovereignty claim of the Philippines over Sabah, the issue of multiple claimants to the title of  ‘heir of the Sultan of Sulu,’ as well as the over-all bilateral relations between the Philippines and Malaysia.
EO 46 was issued by President Ramos on January 11, 1993, days before making his first state visit to Malaysia.
The Council was to be composed of eight representatives from the Executive Branch to be designated by the President, eight members of the Senate including a member of the minority party, to be designated by the Senate President and eight members of the House of Representatives including a member of the minority party, to be designated by the Speaker of the House.
Under the EO, the Council is to “serve as an advisory body to the President with respect to the Philippine claim on Sabah” and shall “formulate and recommend alternative modes of pursuing the Sabah claim in the appropriate international and regional fora; advise the President on the manner in which the Philippine claim on Sabah may be successfully pursued taking into consideration the requirements of regional harmony and cooperation;  and advise the President on the attendant complications and ramifications regarding the Sabah issue.”
President Joseph Estrada issued EO 117 reconstituting the Council on July 5, 1999  with the same number of members and the same functions but added a feature to the third function: “advise the President on the attendant complications and ramifications as well as other issues related to the Sabah claim, including the request of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu for an increase in cession monies.”
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, whose administration got Malaysia to facilitate the peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front issued EO 121 on September  6, 2002 but reduced the number of members to five each for the executive, the Senate and the House and added three seats for private sector representation.
Arroyo also summed up the Council’s function in only one sentence: “The Council shall serve as an advisory body to the President with respect to the broad range of issues concerning Sabah.”
The Aquino administration has yet to issue an EO on the BELACS.
On February 21, he announced the creation of a study group to review the country’s options on Sabah.
“I am not an expert. I have tasked the experts to study all of this and to find out precisely all of our standings. Where do we stand? And from where we stand where do we move forward?”  Aquino said in an interview in Iloilo.  (Carolyn O. Arguillas/MindaNews)

patents

via RSS TECHRADAR: ALL LATEST FEEDS 10 February 2013

In Depth: The world of patents explained: how they affect what you buy

Shashank Sharma

The world of men is broken. They file and get patents for unimaginably trivial things in the name of driving innovation. The time of the Elves is ending. Or so we imagine Lord Elrond might react to the way things are now.

The recent billion-dollar Apple vs Samsung suit was a to and fro farce. It's not easy to understand the absurdity of some of the patents that have been granted to tech compa‐nies in recent times, not when we're constant‐ly being told that the point of patents is to drive innovation.

To most mere mortals, patents may seem as strange as Elvish spells, and they are mostly written as such, but this guide will help you to decipher the complexities of patent law. We'll also discuss how the patent laws in the EU dif‐fer from those in the US.

We won't go fully into the history of patents and trace their origins in 15th-century Italy and England, for that's not what we're here to discuss. Instead, let's focus on how patents were introduced to the European Union.

While this may seem irrelevant, it's important to understand how the different EU nations, and indeed the rest of the world, treat patents.

It all started in Europe Our story starts in 1973, when Belgium, West Germany, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, and the UK agreed to a multilat‐eral treaty called the European Patent Con‐vention (EPC), to form a unified patent system in Europe. The EPC eventually led to the for‐mation of the European Patents Office (EPO).

Patents in Europe can be obtained on a national level, or via the EPO. EPC and the EU, however, are not synonymous, as some EPC states, such as Croatia, Iceland, Turkey, etc, are not part of the EU. So, a patentee can file an application for a patent under the preva‐lent patent laws of the country, or under the EPO, if the country is one of the EPC states. As a result, the European Patent granted under the EPC, despite the name, is still only enforce‐able nationally, or under the specified mem‐ber states of the EPC as specified in the appli‐cation, and not the entire EU.

So, if a patent is granted under the EPC it is enforceable only in the EPC states as specified by the applicant in his or her patent applica‐tion. There is no provision as yet for an EU-wide patent.

Understanding patents

Patents involve the granting of exclusive rights by a state to the inventor for a specific period of time. In return for these exclusive rights, the patentee agrees to a public disclo‐sure of the invention. The exclusive right refers to the right to exclude all others from using, making, selling or distributing the patented invention without prior permission.

The exact process of filing or granting of a patent, the term for which it's granted and the extent of the exclusive rights depends on the patent and other national laws, and can thus vary from country to country.

Before a patent is granted, each application is subjected to the test of patentability. That is, the invention must satisfy a number of crite‐ria before it is deemed patentable. At the very least, the invention must be new and original and non-obvious, and the subject matter must be patentable.

The patent laws of various countries explicitly provide subject matters which cannot be patented. For example, the EPC considers dis‐coveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods not to be inventions, and so these can't be patented.

'Non-obvious' is a term often used in US patent law. The equivalent term in European patent law is 'inventive step'. The idea is to ensure that patents are not granted for obvi‐ous and natural use of the design. So, a saw will not be granted a patent for use in cutting wood. But if someone were to use a saw, with some modifications, to create swimwear for deep sea exploration, that is a non-obvious invention, or an invention involving 'inven‐tive step', and so it will be afforded protection under patent law.

'Novelty' is another requirement for patentability. This is where the often-heard term 'prior art' comes in. If an invention has been disclosed to the public, prior to the filing of the patent application, this is proof that the invention is not new or original. Such inven‐tions are not granted protection. All publica‐tions amount to disclosure, so prior art search involves only proof of publication of the invention prior to the filing of the patent.

A patent can be enforced against anyone who uses the patented technology, regardless of whether or not there is any wilful infringe‐ment or copying of the patented technology. Independent development of an infringing device is not a recognised defence.

The length of a patent A patent in the UK is granted for 20 years, so long as one pays the renewal fees each year. A period of 18-20 years is standard for almost all countries, depending on when the time period starts - date of filing for the patent, or date of grant of the patent.

Patentability requirements are nearly uni‐form across Europe, so if something is unpatentable in the UK because of the subject matter, it most likely will be unpatentable in other European countries.

Let's quickly discuss utility and design patents, which are at the heart of Apple's suit against Samsung. All patents that cover inven‐tions that produce some useful result are known as utility patents. When you hear the term patent, what is usually being referred to is a utility patent, as utility patents cover the most common categories of innovation.

To qualify for a utility patent, the invention must be covered by one of the following cate‐gories of subject matters: machines, compris‐ing moving parts manufactured objects com‐position of matter, such as chemical com‐pounds and pharmaceutical drugs processes which describe a stepwise method (this covers software).

Just about everything that is invented by an application of the mind can be granted protec‐tion as a utility patent, the only criteria being that it must produce some useful result. The patent application for a utility patent must include a detailed description of how the invention was created, along with drawings.

What do patents actually cover? Design patents cover strictly unique ornamen‐tal design of an article or object. The unique‐ness of the shape or design must be purely for aesthetic reasons. If the shape is for aesthetic and also functional purpose, then it's consid‐ered a utility patent. If the novel feature is incorporated solely for the purpose of orna‐mentation and its removal doesn't impair the functioning of the device, it's a design patent.

Design patents refer to shape or design that enhances the aesthetic appeal of an object. At the core of the Apple suit against Samsung are the design patents it holds in regards to the iPhone and iPad.

Under UK laws, you won't find any mention of the term design patents. The equivalent term in the UK is 'registered design'. While there isn't any symbol to denote a registered patent, as there is for copyright and trademark, the term 'registered design' is used if the shape or design of an object is registered in the UK.

The purpose of 'trade dress' is to help one cre‐ate a unique identity that helps the object stand apart from other similar objects. You should be able, by looking at an object, to immediately identify it, without necessarily reading the label. Thus, any combination of colour, font, packaging and labelling that helps one immediately recognise the source of the object qualifies as trade dress.

In most jurisdictions, trade dress is consid‐ered part of the trademark laws, as the pur‐pose of both is to create recognition and help customers easily identify the source of the product.

US and EU patents Patents are territorial in nature, effected under the national laws of the country, but there is a growing focus towards conformity of the patent laws across different countries.

The TRIPs Agreement, administered by the World Trade Organisation, describes the mini‐mum standard for many different forms of intellectual properties. It requires that mem‐ber nations of the WTO enact uniform laws for copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc, and provides for remedies, enforcement and dis‐pute resolution procedures.

Membership of the WTO now requires a strict implementation of the intellectual property laws, as per the TRIPS agreement. Despite this, there are a few fundamental differences between the patent laws of some countries, eg, the US and EU states.

The biggest difference is 'first-to-file' versus 'first-to-invent'. In the EU, the filing date is most important, as the person who files for the patent first is awarded the patent, even if the second applicant was the first to invent. On the other hand, the first party to invent is awarded the patent in the US, irrespective of the filing date.

In this, the US stands in contrast to almost all other countries. The patent, in case of several applications for the same invention, is award‐ed to the party that can prove decisively it invented it first.

Another difference between the EU and US is in regard to the publication of the invention. In the UK, if the invention is publicly available in any form before the filing of the patent application, the patent is not granted. The publication in this case includes articles in a magazine or newspaper, a lecture about the invention, sharing the invention with an investor without first signing a non-disclosure agreement, etc. To constitute publication, it is irrelevant who makes the invention publicly available: the inventor, one of the inventors or an independent third party.

In contrast, inventors in the US have a grace period of one year from the date of publica‐tion to file for a patent. The US also provides for the granting of provisional patents. An inventor can file for a patent before the invention is production-ready, just to be able to prove a prior filing date.

The provisional patent doesn't automatically mature into a regular patent. For that, the inventor has a period of one year, within which to file for a proper non-provisional patent.

Finally, software patents are not granted in the EU, unless a technical problem is solved. In the US, however, patent protection is grant‐ed to all software.

A registered patent grants the inventor the right to exclude all others from making, sell‐ing, using and distributing the subject matter covered by the patent. The exact nature of what is covered by the patent is described as 'claims'. Each patent application thus includes claims which define the exact scope of the patent, and a single patent can have many claims.

Excluding others from selling products A patent claim shows that the owner has the right to exclude others from using, selling or making the things that are described by the claims. Claims are a relatively new addition to patent laws, especially in European countries, where there was no mention of claims in patent applications until the mid 20th Centu‐ry.

In contrast, the enactment of the Patents Act of 1836 made claims a strict requirement for all patent applications in the US. A typical US patent application lists all the claims at the end of the application. For example, Apple's 7,469,381 utility patent has 20 claims, and Samsung was found to infringe claim 19, which states: "A device comprising; a touch screen display; one or more processors; mem‐ory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the mem‐ory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors..."

We've included only a brief portion of claim 19. While claims comprise a single sentence, it's not uncommon to find claims that are spread over half a page, or more. To make reading them easier, such lengthy claims are often written in outline form.

Design patents have only a single claim. As the design is described by way of drawings in the patent application, the claim for a design patent usually reads "we claim the design as shown," or some variation thereof. The claim for Apple's '889 design patent, which describes an electronic device, states: "We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."

The patents are referred to by the last three digits, so patent '889 is, in fact, the USD504889 patent.

The root of Apple Vs Samsung

Since 2011, Apple has filed dozens of suits against Samsung and other device manufac‐turers, such as HTC, alleging infringements of its patents and trademarks, among other things. Samsung, in turn, countersued Apple, and both have since won decisions in their favour in different countries.

In its first complaint in the US, Apple alleged that Samsung had infringed on a number of its utility and design patents and various trademarks:

"Samsung's Galaxy family of mobile products, introduced in 2010, is exemplary. The copying is so pervasive, that the Samsung Galaxy products appear to be actual Apple products -with the same rectangular shape with round‐ed corners, silver edging, a flat surface face with substantial top and bottom black bor‐ders, gently curving edges on the back, and a display of colourful square icons with round‐ed corners. When a Samsung Galaxy phone is used in public, there can be little doubt that it would be viewed as an Apple product based upon the design alone."

The infringement in the above quoted para‐graph refers to various 'trade dress' elements that Apple had registered in regards to the iPhone: "U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983 is for the overall design of the product, including the rectangular shape, the rounded corners, the silver edges, the black face, and the dis‐play of sixteen colourful icons.

"U.S. Registration No. 3,457,218 is for the con‐figuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded cor‐ners.

"U.S. Registration No. 3,475,327 is for a rectan‐gular handheld mobile digital electronic device with a gray rectangular portion in the center, a black band above and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners, and a silver outer border and side. "

The original complaint, despite alleging that Samsung had infringed seven utility and three design patents, didn't include the complete list of infringed patents. Patent '889, for instance, which describes the design of the iPad, was included in the final verdict form. The jury returned with a verdict in favour of Apple, awarding it more than $2 billion in damages, declaring Samsung had wilfully infringed on a number of Apple's patents, and registered trade dress.

The fact that the jury delivered the verdict after just three days of deliberation seems monumental when you consider the verdict form spanned 20 pages and covered many dif‐ferent areas of law - patent, trademark, trade dress, etc. The 20 pages of the verdict form included several tables for each of the infring‐ing devices, with more than 500 YES/NO ques‐tions in all.

What's more, District Judge Lucy Koh provid‐ed the jury with more than 100 pages of instructions, detailing what was expected of the jurors, what constituted evidence, what was proof, the patents in question and many other things - which highlights the magnitude of care and responsibility that was expected from the jury.

The jury was required to decide uniformly on all the questions, and many lawyers and other legal experts have since declared the near impossibility of reaching a uniform decision on the 500 questions in a matter of a few days, while legitimately discussing the entirety of the case - the evidence, the arguments and defences.

Fearing that the jury might make mistakes on the verdict form, Samsung had filed a motion for time to study the verdict as turned in by the jury to ensure there weren't any glaring mistakes in it. The Judge saw sense in this request and granted it.

As it turned out, the jury did indeed goof up, awarding $2 million to Apple for inducement by a device it concluded didn't infringe on Apple's patents. The jury was asked to redo the maths and deliberate again on these issues.

The jury members, including the foreman, have since given several interviews, at times contradicting each other, and constantly pro‐viding evidence that might help Samsung get the decision overturned. For instance, instruc‐tion number 35 in the mammoth 109-page instruction set reads:

"The amount of those damages must be ade‐quate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the finan‐cial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a rea‐sonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compen‐sate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer."

Despite this, the foreman has since been quot‐ed as saying: "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," and: "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

This blatant deviation from the judge's instruction is just one of the reasons why Samsung is seeking a fresh trial.

The proxy war against Google Apple's tactic of going after manufacturers that create and sell devices powered by Android, the Google product Apple contends violates many of its patent, has been termed as a proxy war against Google. In fact, Steve Jobs believed firmly that Android was a stolen product, which copied blatantly the innova‐tions made by Apple.

So why is Apple suing Samsung repeatedly instead of going after Google? Here are a few facts to set the record straight:

Google freely licenses Android to device man‐ufacturers and generates revenue through its advertising model. The device manufacturers, such as Samsung, make money by selling Android-powered devices. In its suits against the device manufacturers, Apple has claimed loss of revenues due to their competing devices. However, in this case, contrary to Apple's original claim of more than $2 billion, the jury awarded only $1 billion in damages.

Another aspect of the case is that Apple had sought injunctions against various Samsung products which it contends infringe upon Apple's registered patents. This leads us to the second reason for the proxy war. Once a ver‐dict is announced in favour of Apple, it can get the International Trade Commission to halt permanently the sales of infringing prod‐ucts in the US.

Since the infringing products run on Android, Apple can effectively bar the sale of Android products in the US! Or so Apple hopes. With Samsung seeking a fresh trial, we're far from such an outcome. And it probably won't ever happen.

Shashank Sharma

View Original Article View Original Article

Analysia of tactics used by MNLF, MILF, ASG

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Excellent article on the Filipino claim over Sabah

The Sulu Sultanate Quarrel and Wider Implications

Written by the Asia Sentinel Staff

Tuesday, 05 March 2013

The Sulu Sultan Could it become a regional flashpoint? If it weren't for many so unnecessary deaths - and the apparent Malaysian need to act tough in advance of its pending national election - the confrontation in Sabah between Malaysian authorities and supporters of the pretender to the Sultanate of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram III, might have seemed comic. It was hardly comic this morning when Malaysia fighter jets and ground forces including seven army battalions responded with overwhelming force against the 200-odd men of the Royal Sulu Sultanate Army, routing them from a kampung on the eastern Sabah shore at Lahad Datu. It is questionable whether the force unleashed by the Royal Malaysian Army was necessary, or whether it was more a message to the Barisan Nasional's voting public of government decisiveness and military prowess. So far, President Benigno S. Aquino in Manila has been quiescent about the Sulu sultan's claims. But the sight of warplanes bombing a ragtag bunch of their countrymen is not going to sit well with the Filipino public. Beyond that, the situation is very much a reminder that what were thought permanent national boundaries established at the end of World War II and the 20 years of decolonization which followed may not be so, and that there remains the risk of a wider confrontation that has troublesome potential for the region. For instance the tragic events at Lahad Datu coincide with two other issues involving Sabah and its immediate Borneo neighbors, Sarawak and independent Brunei. One is the Chinese claim to waters stretching almost to the northern coast of Borneo and thus to waters within the Exclusive Economic Zones of Malaysia and Brunei. Malaysia has so far kept a low profile during the confrontations between China and Vietnam and the Philippines. But the Chinese claim to Malaysia-held islands and waters will not go away, however far Malaysia buries its head in the sand. Indeed, there are some in the East Malaysian states who feel that Kuala Lumpur's low profile on an issue so important to them reflects an attitude that the two states are only important so long as they provide resources and votes for the Barisan Nasional, or national ruling coalition led by the United Malays National Organization, the country's biggest ethnic political party. That now brings the two states to the forefront of another issue: the upcoming federal election. Loss of support for the Barisan there could see it booted out of office for the first time since independence. That the Barisan has so long done well in the two states is more the result of their complex ethnic and religious configurations, plus the power of money, than any great love for UMNO. The two states have both retained a higher degree of autonomy than those of the peninsula but have also seen their resources over-exploited by the alliance between local and peninsular elites to extract wealth for themselves, often to the great disadvantage of the indigenous people who are classed as bumiputeras, or natives, but, especially they are not also Muslims and do not in practice enjoy the same privileges as Malays. While no one is expecting the Malaysian federation assembled by the departing British in 1963 to fall apart in the foreseeable future, suddenly the region is looking a little less stable, and cracks covered up by regional cooperation within ASEAN and bilaterally since the end of Indonesian konfrontasi with Malaysia in 1966 and the Philippines de facto decision after 1968 not to pursue its Sabah claim, still exist. The Kiram move has also resurrected in some minds the broader Philippine claim to Sabah. Idiocy in Manila often seems to know no bounds. Independent observers would have thought that the nation had a poor-enough record in governing Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago than to sustain, at least on paper, a claim which has no justification in historical terms of being the successor of Spanish and US imperialism. The US never accepted the Sultan's claims in the Philippines let alone to the Borneo territory then under British control. The Philippine claim can only be pursued through a Sultan who could then also claim most of Mindanao as his own as an independent state. At a time when the Philippines should be strengthening ties with Malaysia and making common cause to defend their seas from Chinese expansionism, morons in Manila seem set on keeping the claim alive, damaging relations with Malaysia, undermining its position on the South China Sea, and making less likely peace for Mindanao and Sulu. The timing of the Kiram incursion suggests it may have been intended to create a diversion which would torpedo the still tentative peace deal between Manila and the MILF which Malaysia helped to broker. That remains to be seen but if the Philippines is not careful Malaysia could go back to an earlier de facto posture of allowing Muslim rebels in Sulu and Mindanao sanctuary and covert support. Take old Sultanate claims one step further and Brunei will start to claim all of east Malaysia, taken from it partly by the British, the Sulu archipelago and part of Mindanao lost by rebellion by the ancestors of the current Sultan (assuming he is the rightful heir). Events at this end of Malaysia could also have reverberations at the other end, where the Malaysian federation meets the rump of a once larger Thai kingdom to which the sultans of Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Perlis once gave fealty. The Thais only conceded this in a 1909 treaty with the British, who accepted Thai sovereignty over Pattani, the ancient sultanate comprising the troubled southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, taken under direct Thai rule in 1902. Its Sultan had sought British help in fending off Thai demands but the British did not want to press the Thais too hard so it stayed part of Thailand. The British changed their minds after 1945 with a plan, backed by Pattani leaders feeling oppressed by Bangkok, to join to Malaya partly as punishment for Thai cooperation with Japan. But the US opposed it and the idea was dropped. But in the minds of many of the provinces' inhabitants it will not go away, at least until the Malays get the degree of autonomy they demand and which a centralized Thai state is unwilling to concede. Leaders of both countries have been making an effort to address the issue with Malaysia enabling talks with one of the many separatist groups to end the rising level of violence. However, there remains a huge problem reconciling Bangkok's view of the Thai state with a Malay population enjoying the sympathy, and more, of Malays across the border who may not always listen to leaders in Kuala Lumpur more interested in regional cooperation than ethnic solidarity.  http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5226&Itemid=178