HUDUD: Helah Untuk Dapat Undi DAP (Updated)

They look like the ordinary Joe you and I would walk past without even batting an eyelid.  They look like your insignificant neighbour whose name you never bothered to find out, let alone what he does for a living, and if his family is okay.

After tonight, they are no longer insignificant to me. Not especially if a large number of the insignificant have turned their back on Islam, and embraced by the Evangelists.

I once touched briefly on this subject (While The Malays Sleep) but I guess the recent statement by Karpal Singh calling the nation secular, challenging opponents and Pakatan partners alike to prove him wrong, has not gone unnoticed to this blogger. I will touch on the subject of Karpal’s statement shortly.

I was invited to a media conference hosted by JATI President, Dato Dr Hasan Ali.  What interested me was the fact that some 120 former proselytized Muslims were there to attend the berbuka puasa and Terawih with Hasan Ali.  We had the opportunity to interview some of them and were shocked by what was revealed.

Dato Dr Hasan Ali at the media conference

When the proselytization issue surfaced exactly a year ago today, we all learnt that around 13 people were interviewed by JAIS for attending a berbuka puasa event at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church.  What we did not know until tonight was the fact that there were in fact more than 100 Muslims/former Muslims who managed to get away from the church when the raid commenced.  Of the 13, 11 are said to have gone overseas and will only return to vote – and I bet they will not be voting for the Barisan Nasional.

During one of the interviews, an interviewee revealed that the Evangelists prey on those Muslims and non-Muslims in need – single mothers, pregnant factory workers, families in debt, terminally ill patients in hospitals, LGBTs who are shunned by their family and so on.  A transgender also revealed how he was showered with assistance, be they in kind or cash, and finally opened up to the Evangelists and became a Christian for more than two years.  One of the proselytized admitted the churches had helped them for over 10 years. Another was a person with medical complications who cannot afford the treatment and had to face lots of bureaucratic bullshit when applying for assistance.  In the end, it was the Evangelists who courted her and won.  She was a Christian for more than six years.  In her group, which represents one part of Kelana Jaya, proselytized Muslims numbers around 400.  If her group has 400, I wonder how many other groups that have similar numbers.

These are people who had no one to turn to.  Pregnant but single Malay women and transgenders who are shunned by their family and community; people with complex health issues with no means to afford treatment.  HIV shelters insist that those seeking help from them undergo Christian programs.  What have we, as Muslims, done to help them?  Hasan Ali commented that the administration of the Zakat is too bureaucratic while the churches give out assistance, including cash, quickly and seamlessly.

Ask a Muslim for help, more often than not you won’t get one, or will not get what you want.  A simple comparison would be this:  on a Sunday, some churches in Petaling Jaya can collect at least three-quarters of a million Ringgit through donations from the members of their respective congregation.  Whereas in a mosque, on a Friday, when that little box trolley is pushed around for people to stuff money inside, you often see people push the trolley past them onto the next person without putting even a single sen.  Therefore, the difference is the Christians donate with conviction in return for salvation, whilst the Muslims think that the government has to provide all for the mosque.  So, why should they donate?

Hasan Ali was the former Exco for Islamic Religious Affairs of Selangor, until he was ousted because of the DUMC raid.  And despite His Highness the Sultan of Selangor’s decree that the event actually took place, but lacked evidence for any court action to be taken, other PAS assemblymen in Selangor seem to be in denial about proselytization efforts taking place in churches especially in Selangor.

This brings me to the constant attack on Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, on any government-linked institution, including the military, police and the religious authorities; and Karpal Singh’s statement in the Sun Daily.  Karpal said:

PAS must accept the Federal Constitution for PR to win in the coming general election.

He said it is a matter of law that Malaysia is constitutionally a secular state, which is a basic structure of the Constitution and this cannot be amended even with a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

“In law, the basic structure of the Constitution is beyond amendment.”

In short, Karpal is saying that no matter what, if Pakatan Rakyat wins, Hudud will never be implemented.  He is also implying that Islam is only an official religion, and not the religion of the Federation.  He goes on to mention about the basic structure of the Constitution.

Here, Karpal is making a reference to the Kesavananda Bharati case in India where seven of thirteen judges in the case, including Chief Justice Sikri, declared that the Parliament’s constituent power was subject to inherent limitations.  Parliament could not use its amending powers to damage, emasculate, destroy, abrogate change or alter the basic structure of framework of the Constitution.  The concept of basic structure of the Constitution included the supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of the government, secular character of the Constitution, separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary, and the federal character of the Constitution.

Interesting to note, however, that there has never been an attempt, in legal terms, to define the basic structure of the Malaysian Federal Constitution.  Karpal has, on at least one occasion during a trial, brought it up; but the court thought there was no need then to deliberate on the issue. Perhaps, the institution of the Malay Rulers are included within the basic structure.  But whether the rights stipulated under Article 153 and/or Islam as the Religion of the Federation (and not merely an official religion) will be considered, remains to be seen.

In my opinion, this has to be addressed soon.  Or else, we will see more of the insignificant Joes and DUMC issues happening should Pakatan win the next general election.
Added at 1.19pm 14th August 2012:

This is a video interview courtesy of KL Pos of one of the victims of proselytization:

Mangsa Kristianisasi Menceritakan Pengalaman Beliau

Re-Produced: The Road To Merdeka – Persekutuan Tanah China

As a build-up to Merdeka Day, I will reproduce my “The Road to Merdeka” series that was published last year. The re-publishing of the series is inspired by a recent statement by DAP’s strongman, Karpal Singh, on the issue of Hudud and the Federal Constitution, which I shall address at the end of this series.

The first of this series is called “Persekutuan Tanah China:”

I know it is an odd title. When I say China, I do not mean the Chinese. I mean the country, China. This posting contains facts that many, including those from UMNO, do not know.

Before I go on, I want you to remember this important fact throughout this posting:

The Alliance won 51 of 52 seats in the 1955 General Election.

For a brief period during the Second World War, Sumatera was taken away from the control of Java and was placed under the Japanese Administration in Malaya. However, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, the Japanese mooted an idea to Sukarno for Malaya to be included in a declaration of independence by Indonesia BEFORE the Allies could retake both Malaya and Indonesia.

On 13th August 1945, Sukarno and Drs Hatta went to Taiping on their way back to Jakarta from Saigon and met up with Ibrahim Yaakob and Burhanuddin Helmi to discuss on the idea of Malaya joining Indonesia Raya. This idea was not new to Ibrahim Yaakob. A Bugis by descent and an idolizer of Sukarno, Ibrahim was a member of the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM), a radical nationalist group formed in 1938 to overthrow the British by force and unite Malaya with Indonesia under the banner of Melayu Raya. This meeting in Taiping was also attended by one Major General Hirokichi Umezu of the Imperial Japanese Army. The Imperial Japanese government at the time recognised the leaders of Indonesia. Ibrahim was also a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Japanese Giyuugun (Volunteer Army) that was formed in Java. Before the Indonesia Raya idea could be pushed forward, the Japanese government surrendered to the Allies two days later.

Sukarno however continued to push for the Indonesia Raya concept but told that the inclusion of Malaya would not be easy as they would have to fight against two major powers of the day: the British and the Dutch; and asked Ibrahim to continue his fight for the inclusion of Malaya from Java. On 19th August 1945, together with Hassan Manan (a graduate from the Sultan Idris Teachers College, and fellow KMM member), Ibrahim, his wife and brother-in-law were flown to Jakarta in a Japanese military aircraft to escape the British.

Together with Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Burhanuddin Helmi then formed the Persatuan Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), a republican association, on 17th October 1945, taking over where Ibrahim’s KMM had left. This got PKMM at loggerheads with the British. PKMM was then joined by other Jakarta-leaning members such as Shamsiah Fakeh, who led PKMM’s women wing, AWAS (Angkatan Wanita Sedar); and Ahmad Boestamam who led the youth wing, API (Angkatan Pemuda Insaf). Onn Jaafar, who was then a District Officer in Batu Pahat, was against Melayu Raya/Indonesia Raya as he did not want Malaya to be subsumed by a Javanese master. It was during this period too that Kiai Salleh, a respected religious leader from Batu Pahat, rose to fight the Communist Party of Malaya’s Bintang Tiga menace.

When the British formed the Malayan Union in 1946, PKMM together with its fraternal organisations API, AWAS and BATAS; and the non-Malay organisation, Malayan Democratic Union (MDU), quickly supported the move by the British. PKMM, being republican in nature, supported the Malayan Union because it was opposed to the idea of a Malaya ruled by the Malay rulers while MDU supported the idea of an immediate citizenship for all immigrants. As history has proven, intense pressure by UMNO caused the British to abandon the Malayan Union. The Malayan Union was then replaced by the Federated Malay States in 1948.

It was also at this juncture that the British offered independence, but was rejected by UMNO. The reasons for rejecting this offer were that the Malays were at that time a minority in Malaya; the Malays lacked education (they were given elementary education until Standard Six); the Malays were also not involved in the mainstream economic activities. It was not until later, when General Sir Gerald Templer objected to the British offer to Malayans for a self-rule Malaya for its assistance in fighting the communist, that UMNO declined that offer and went instead for the independence of Malaya.

Where was PAS during this time? PAS was embedded within UMNO. There was no PAS. PAS came about when none of the supporters of the founder of PAS was appointed to the respective state’s legislative council, following the formation of the Federated Malay States. They left UMNO probably in 1951, and then formed the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party (PMIP) in 1955 to contest in the first General Elections where they won one seat.

Despite having seen that UMNO and MCA could set aside differences and work together in the first Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council Elections in 1952, Templer was quoted by the Straits Times on the 19th May 1953 to have said the following:

“It would be a tragedy, not only for Malaya, but for South-East Asia, if power was handed over so precipitately that the remarkable progress now being made in all direction is thrown out of gear, to say the least of it, quite apart from the communal difficulties which might, or would arise.”

In November 1955, after the victory of the Alliance inthe first General Elections, Tunku Abdul Rahman who was the Federation of Malaya’s first Chief Minister, went to Jakarta to call upon President Sukarno. The Tunku put forth Malaya’s idea to pursue an independence from the British. Enter our long-lost character Ibrahim Yaakob, who went to meet Tunku there, pushing forward his ambition to have Malaya’s independence within the framework of Indonesia Raya.

Let us fast forward a bit to the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Although the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia gained the consent of the Yang DiPertuan Agong on 29th August 1963, objections by Indonesia and the Philippines over the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak, and the conduct of referendums in the two states by the United Nations pushed the date further to 16th September 1963. It was also a coincidence that 16th September is the birthday of Lee Kuan Yew, the then-Chief Minister of Singapore.

Indonesia, already opposed to the independence of Malaya in 1957, was further aflamed by the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak into Malaysia. Sukarno was influenced to teach Malaysia a lesson by D.N Aidid, Leader of the Indonesian Communist Party, and by the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Subandrio, who went to China to meet its Premier, Zhou En-Lai. Subandrio, an alleged communist, was very close to Premier Zhou, and discussed the possibility of lynching and splitting Malaysia, and requested for support from China. The plan was for an Indonesia Raya and a greater China where all Malay island nations (that possibly include the Philippines as well) would be under Indonesia Raya, while all mainland nations including the Peninsula of Malaysia would come under China.

Indonesia at the time was supported by the communists in the Soviet Union. This episode saw the withdrawal of Soviet support (the Soviet was against the confrontation with Malaysia) and a cautioned-support from China. Supporting the Indonesians then would be a positive move for China as Indonesia had the second largest communist party outside of the Soviet Union. Chinese arms started trickling into Indonesia by 1964. Had it not been for the help from the Commonwealth Forces, Peninsula Malaysia would probably be a province of China now. Chin Peng, who was residing in China then, also ordered the CPM members to assist the Indonesian armed forces against Malaysia and the Commonwealth.

The rest, I would say, is history. Ibrahim Yaakob resumed the name Iskandar Kamel and was made a Minister under Sukarno rule. After the attempted coup by the communists in Indonesia failed, he withdrew from his post and died in Jakarta in 1979, aged 78. He was listed on his tombstone as Iskandar Kamel Agastya (IBHY), Leftenan-Kolonel Purnawirawan NRP 26217. In 1973, the late Tun Razak allowed him to return briefly to Malaysia. In an interview during that visit, Ibrahim Yaakob admitted to being a double-agent for both the British and the Japanese.

Chin Peng, in an interview in Singapore, had said that the CPM, as a fraternal organisation of the Communist Party of China, enjoyed full support from China for the establishment of a satellite-communist state in our country. He was given the task to fulfill three levels of achievements in the 1950s, namely the:

1) Support on the local level,
2) Support on the national level, and,
3) Support on the international level.

He achieved the support on two of these levels: Local – he had strong support from the Chinese community. He had support on the International level – the support from China. What he did not have in the 1950s was the support on the National level – there was no support from the general Malay population. Hence, the only way for the CPM to remain relevant was to incite the non-Malay population to work against the Malays, who were portrayed as being the political masters of Malaya. Does this ring a bell? It is deja vu all over again in present day Malaysia.

If you remember at the beginning of this posting, I asked you to remember this important fact:

The Alliance won 51 of 52 seats in the 1955 General Election.

In 1955, the Alliance won the first General Elections of the Federation of Malaya. Then, the non-Malays were still in the process of being naturalised (provided they could speak Bahasa Melayu and met the number of years criteria) hence most did not make it into the electoral roll. Therefore, it could be said that the voice of the Malays were in support of the Alliance – not PAS, not Parti Negara (that was formed by Dato’ Onn after leaving UMNO), not PPP, not PKMM, not CPM (the latter two of course were illegal organisations then and were not elligible to contest).

So, what does that say about people like Mat Indera, Abdullah CD, Rashid Maidin, Shamsiah Fakeh et al., the so-called nationalists who fought on the side of the communists? A simple malay term to describe them would be none other than “TALI BARUT KOMUNIS” or the communists’ lackeys, who lost all clout fighting for independence when the Federation of Malaya achieved independence in 1957. The elections results also prove that the malays disapproved of them fighting for the communists from the onset of the Malayan Emergency in 1948, and definitely disapproved of Mat Indera’s slaughter of the men, women and children of the Bukit Kepong Police Station.

None of those mentioned in the previous paragraph own any right whatsoever to be called “Freedom Fighters.”


In ending this posting, I can safely say that I have done six postings on several chapters of the history of our nation versus none from the Ministry of Information. There seems to be no check and balance by the Ministry of Education to provide a full course in the nation’s history: all that the children read are watered-down versions of the nation’s history, structured so they could perform in the history examinations without understanding the spirit behind each and every event. There also seems to be inaction from the Home Ministry on seditious remarks made by certain quarters, even to the extent of belittling the institution of the Yang DiPertuan Agong and the Raja-Raja Melayu, as well as the glorifying of an illegal organisation – an act that is covered extensively in several legal Acts.

If we forget our history, we will become a nation without a soul – and this is now all too evident in a weary 54-year old Malaysia.

(The original article can be found here.

Rape If You Must If You Have A Bright Future

Read This Without Wanting To Throw Up

I read with disgust the decision by the Court of Appeal’s three-man panel led by Tan Sri Raus Sharif to substitute a rapist’s 5-year jail term with a bound over for good behaviour for five years. All because the appellant has a “bright future.”. The Appellant, Noor Afizal Azizan, 21, is a bowler whom had represented Negeri Sembilan and Malaysia in the National Youth Category for five years between 2004-2008, and is expected to represent Kedah in several up-coming tournaments. He was previously sentenced to five years jail by the High Court for raping a 13-year old girl in 2009.

Prior to the High Court sentence, the Sessions Court had bounded him over after considering several factors, including that there was a consensual sexual relationship between him and the girl. The Public Prosecutor successfully appealed to the High Court last year and obtained the five-year jail sentence.

Section 375(f) of the Malaysian Penal Code is clear on this matter:

A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the following descriptions: with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age

Therefore, I do not, and can never understand the logic behind the decision of both the Sessions Court (in the first hearing) and the Court of Appeal. As a matter of fact, under the explanation for Section 376B of the same Act, it is specifically mentioned that a person under sixteen years of age, if female, or under thirteen years of age, if male shall be deemed to be incapable of giving consent.

In fact, I would have thrown Section 377E at the Appellant for inciting a child to an act of gross indecency. The Section says that any person who incites a child under the age of fourteen years to any act of gross indecency with him or another person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to whipping.

What sickens me more is that the Appellate Judges agreed with counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik that public interest would not be served if the latter’s client was given a custodial sentence when he had a bright future.

If I recall correctly, Jamie Waylett, who played school,bully Vincent Crabbe in six of the Harry Potter films was jailed for two years for being part of a violent mob during the UK Riots of 2011. Jamal Abdillah, Ameng Spring, Saleem, all with bright future, yet jailed. Muhammad Ali, as Cassius Clay, was a heavyweight boxing champ when he was jailed for draft evasion. Tell me if his future wasn’t bright then.

In all honesty, I opine that the Appellate judges have made an erroneous judgment of public interest, and justice has definitely NOT been served.


Oil Royalty – A Right?

Dulang-D Drilling platform
The Dulang-D Drilling Platform with a Tender Rig attached

Question One: what oil is being produced in Kelantan waters?

Answer: None.

No, I am not sorry for my answer because the truth is just that: there is no oil produced within Kelantan waters.

Firstly, let us revisit the Petroleum Mining Act, 1966.  Section 4(3) of that Act states the following:

(3) The Petroleum Authority shall –

(a) in relation to an application in respect of an area of on-shore land, be the Ruler or the Yang DiPertua Negeri of the State in which the area of on-shore land is situated;


(b) in relation to an application in respect of an area of off-shore land, be the Yang DiPertuan Agong.

Bear with me, this can be technical.

The section above clearly defines that any matters pertaining to on-shore land comes under the jurisdiction of the respective State, while anything to do with off-shore land, comes under Federal purview.  But what are on-shore and off-shore lands?  In the Interpretation section (Section 2), the following is said:

“off-shore land” means the area of the continental shelf; “on-shore land” includes foreshores and submarine areas beneath the territorial waters of the States. “Land”, in relation to the States of Peninsular Malaysia, means any area of on-shore land and includes off-shore land adjacent to and contiguous with on-shore land and, in relation to the States of Sabah and Sarawak, means area of off-shore land only.

What does the above mean?  It means that the States of Sabah and Sarawak has an autonomous say about the development of on-shore oil fields, independent of the Petroleum Authority.  This is because Sabah and Sarawak were given the rights via the Colonial Government Orders in Council, 1954, that honoured the agreements signed between Sabah and Sarawak with SHELL way before the Independence and the formation of Malaysia.  What is then the off-shore land?  Isn’t that included in the territorial waters of Kelantan?

The Section 2 of the Continental Shelf Act of 1966 states:

“continental shelf” means the sea-bed and subsoil of submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Malaysia but beyond the limits of the territorial waters of the States…”

Now, we have something new here.  The term “territorial waters of the States” does not equal “territorial waters of Malaysia” as prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS).  UNCLOS states that “every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention” (Article 3, UNCLOS).

The Emergency Ordinance (Essential Powers) No. 7, 1969 also mentions this in Section 3(1) and (2) with some remedies pertaining to the Strait of Malacca and the Sulu and Celebes seas.  But it also goes on to say that “For the purpose of the Continental Shelf Act 1966, Petroleum Mining Act 1966, the National Land Code, and any written law relating to land in force in Sabah and Sarawak, any reference to territorial waters therein in relation to any territory be construed as a reference to such part of the sea adjacent to the coast thereof not exceeding three nautical miles measured from the low water mark.” (Section 4(2) of the Emergency Ordinance (Essential Powers) No. 7, 1969).

Therefore, any State forming the Peninsular of Malaysia, that has any drilling platform at sea not exceeding three nautical miles (5.46km) has the right to claim oil royalty from the Federal Government.  Look at the map below and tell me which field is within three nautical miles of any land in Kelantan?

JDA Location Map
Map of the Joint-Development Area oil fields that the Kelantan Government claims to be within the State’s territorial waters, and the distance the fields are from land

But UNCLOS mentioned the word “State”, some may cry.  In Article 1, para 2 (1) of the UNCLOS, “State Parties” means States that have consented to be bound by this Convention and for which this Convention is in force.  Historically, Kelantan was a vassal state belonging to the Kingdom of Siam until the Anglo-Siamese treaty of 1909, that saw Kelantan becoming part of the Unfederated Malay States under a British adviser for a while until the Japanese invasion in December 1941.  By 1st February of 1948, Kelantan became part of the Federation of Malaya and together with the other Peninsular states, attained independence on 31st August 1957.

The first of the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea was held only in 1958 in Geneva (Geneva Convention of Continental Shelf, 1958), and no way could have Kelantan, as an independent and sovereign state, consented to the UNCLOS.  Therefore, UNCLOS applies collectively to Malaysia as a recognised State.  Of course, the Petroleum Development Act, 1974 never mentions anything on territorial waters; but in Section 2(1) of the Act, it is stated that “the entire ownership in, and the exclusive rights, powers, liberties and privileges of exploring, exploiting, winning, and obtaining petroleum whether onshore and offshore of Malaysia shall be vested in a Corporation to be incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 or under the law relating to incorporation of companies.” Refer to the definition of onshore and offshore in Section 2 of the Petroleum Mining Act, 1966.

The Act defines the Corporation in Section 3(1): “Notwithstanding Section 22 of the Companies Act 1965, relating to the names of companies, the Corporation shall be styled as the Petroleum Nasional Berhad or in short form PETRONAS.”  Therefore, PETRONAS has the right to all the activities described in Section 2(1) of the Petroleum Development Act.

As a government-owned Corporation, it is only right that PETRONAS pays the Federal Government and the Government of any relevant State as may be agreed between the Corporation and the relevant State’s Government in return for the ownership and rights, powers, liberties and privileges vested in it by the Act.  This is stated in Section 4 of the same Act.

Petroleum Blocks in Malaysia
Malaysian Petroleum Blocks

Terengganu and Kelantan are not the only Peninsular states that are gifted with petroleum blocks.  As a matter of fact, all states are, including those on the West coast.  Terengganu entered an agreement with PETRONAS on the 22nd March, 1975.  In fact, oil was first discovered offshore Terengganu by Esso Exploration Inc in 1973.  Had PETRONAS not entered an agreement with Terengganu, the latter would still be backwards in economic nature, as Esso had only entered a production-sharing contract (PSC) with PETRONAS for winning oil beyond Terengganu’s territorial waters.  This agreement, said the then-Terengganu’s PAS Government Exco member, Mustafa Ali in November 2000, “did not specifically refer to the payments as oil royalty.”  However, the then-PAS-led State Government claimed that a letter in 1987 confirmed the agreement of a “royalty” of some sort.  This is the same basis that the PAS-led Kelantan state government is claiming the “royalty” payment based on an agreement the State also signed with PETRONAS in 1975.  The only difference between Kelantan and Terengganu is that, PETRONAS uses the latter as its production and storage base, while there isn’t a single refinery built in the former. The 1975 agreement between PETRONAS and Terengganu states:

Petronas shall make to the government cash payment in the form of yearly sum amounting to the equivalent of five percent of the value of the petroleum won and saved in Terengganu and sold by Petronas or its agents or contractors during the period provided in Clause 2.

Therefore, Terengganu has a better locus standi than Kelantan does in asking for some form of payment.

The act of PETRONAS giving payment to any state for oil won beyond the state’s territorial waters can therefore be seen as a token rather than a royalty, bearing in mind that anything beyond the three-nautical mile limit belongs to the Federal Government.  Logically, if the oil belongs to the Federal Government, then the state has no right to ask for the payment for transferring to PETRONAS something that does not belong to it.  Not unless the state is either Sabah or Sarawak.

There is also no guiding principle anywhere within the Petroleum Development Act that the number must be five percent of the value of petroleum won and SAVED IN ANY STATE as mentioned in the agreement between PETRONAS and Terengganu and Kelantan.  The oil won beyond the territorial waters of these states were never, and will never be the States’ God-given oil and gas as claimed by some.