Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB

ICJ CHAGOS CASE DECISION VINDICATES ASSERTION THAT MA63 WAS VOID AB INITIO

The United Kingdom has accepted the ICJ’s 2019 advisory opinion (decision) and UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/73/295, which directed it to decolonise and return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. On 22 May 2019, the UN General Assembly endorsed the ICJ's advisory opinion, calling on the UK to end its administration of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which includes the Chagos Archipelago, within six months. In October 2024, the British government announced its intention to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, subject to the finalisation of a treaty. However, rather than an outright handover, the UK has negotiated a 99-year lease agreement with Mauritius at £90 million per year.

Implications for MA63

The Chagos Case decision supports the assertion made by SSRANZ President Robert Pei in 2013, that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was void ab initio. He argued that North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak were still British colonies on 9 July 1963, when MA63 was signed, and therefore lacked the legal capacity to enter into a binding international agreement.

Despite this, Malaysian authorities, academics, and legal professionals have largely avoided scrutinising the validity of MA63, as doing so would raise a fundamental issue: if MA63 were invalid, Malaysia was “formed” without a legal basis. This would imply that Malaya has been exercising de facto control over Sabah and Sarawak without their freely given consent since 1963.

Misinterpretation of the Chagos Case

Some proponents of Malaysia’s legitimacy attempt to distinguish the Chagos Case from MA63 by arguing that the former concerned territorial separation, while MA63 involved territorial unification. 

However, this is a misreading of the case’s core legal principles.

The Chagos decision was not merely about territorial division but rather about the principles of self-determination and treaty-making under international law.

Both the Chagos Case and MA63 share a critical legal issue: the unlawful transfer of sovereignty without the free and informed consent of the affected people, in breach of international law.

Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Chagos Case. The ICJ reaffirmed fundamental legal principles regarding self-determination and treaty-making :

    1. Right to Self-Determination

        ◦ UNGA Resolution 1514 grants all peoples the legal right to determine their own destiny free from external interference.

    2. Colonial Powers Cannot Make Binding Treaties with Their Colonies

        ◦ The ICJ ruled that as a crown colony under UK control, Mauritius lacked the legal capacity to enter into an agreement transferring sovereignty to the UK.

        ◦ International treaties must be signed between independent states, meaning a colony cannot validly sign a binding international agreement.

    3. Failure to Obtain Proper Consent

        ◦ The UK failed to hold a referendum, as required by UNGA Resolution 1541, to confirm whether the people of Chagos consented to separation from Mauritius.

    4. Coercion Invalidates a Treaty

        ◦ The ICJ found that the Mauritian government was coerced into agreeing to the transfer, rendering the agreement invalid under international law.

Parallels with MA63: Lack of Legal Capacity and Coercion

Like Mauritius, North Borneo and Sarawak were crown colonies under direct British rule from 1946 to 16 September 1963. Although Singapore received "internal self-rule" in 1959, it remained a British colony without sovereignty.

Pro-Malaysia advocates argue that the UK had the authority to make treaties on behalf of its colonies. However, this argument ignores a fundamental shift in international law:

    • UNGA Resolutions 1514 and 1541 override any colonial authority to make treaties for their territories.

    • These resolutions, part of the UN Decolonization Declaration (1960), mandate that colonial powers must allow their colonies to freely determine their future without coercion.

Under the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, British colonies had no independent legal authority. This was reaffirmed by the Statute of Westminster 1931, which granted treaty-making powers only to British Dominions (Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland), explicitly excluding crown colonies.

Thus, North Borneo and Sarawak lacked the legal capacity to be parties to MA63, a view also supported by P.E.H. Pike, Sarawak’s Colonial Attorney General, who helped draft MA63.

British Legal Position on Colonial Treaties

Professor Anthony Aust, a long-serving British Foreign Affairs legal adviser, reinforces this point in his book Modern Treaty Law and Practice (2013, p.70, Cambridge Press):

“As between a parent state and one of its territories, or between its overseas territories, there can be no international relations, since only the parent is sovereign; and any agreement between them will not be legally binding in law. When there is need for an agreement, it may be convenient — and will avoid any mistaken implication that it is legally binding — to draft it as if it were an MOU or ‘administrative agreement’.”

This aligns with the British legal drafters’ initial discussions on MA63, where Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak were originally not intended to be included as parties to the agreement.

The Case for MA63’s Invalidity

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was void from the outset because:

    1. Lack of Legal Capacity

        ◦ North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore were British colonies with no independent sovereignty in 1963, making them ineligible to enter into a binding international treaty.

    2. Absence of Free and Informed Consent

        ◦ The UK and Malaya failed to hold a referendum in compliance with UNGA Resolution 1541 to confirm the people’s consent.

        ◦ The UK instead pressured North Borneo and Sarawak into joining Malaysia under emergency conditions and political coercion.

    3. Unlawful External Interference

        ◦ UNGA Resolution 1514 explicitly forbids colonial powers from interfering in the self-determination of their colonies.

        ◦ The UK-Malayan "Malaysia Plan" interfered with the Borneo territories’ ability to freely determine their future, violating international law.

The Chagos Case confirms that the transfer of sovereignty from the UK to Malaya under MA63 was unlawful, as it lacked legal capacity, proper consent, and was carried out under coercion. The UK’s failure to properly decolonise North Borneo and Sarawak means that their incorporation into Malaysia did not comply with international law.

Malaysia was not formed through a legally valid agreement, but rather through a forced political arrangement that disregarded the right to self-determination.

Source: Mr.Robert Pei, President of SSRANZ

1. Borneo Utara - W.K.H. Jones

• Jawatan: W.K.H. Jones berkhidmat sebagai Peguam Negara Borneo Utara pada masa penandatanganan.
• Kapasiti Undang-Undang: Sebagai Peguam Negara, Jones adalah pegawai undang-undang utama Borneo Utara dan mewakili kepentingan undang-undang kerajaan kolonial British di wilayah tersebut. Kedudukannya memberinya kuasa untuk bertindak bagi pihak Borneo Utara dalam urusan undang-undang, menjadikannya individu yang paling layak untuk menandatangani MA63 dengan kapasiti undang-undang. Peranannya sebagai Peguam Negara memberinya mandat untuk terlibat dalam perjanjian antarabangsa bagi pihak wilayah tersebut.
• Rasional: Jones dilantik oleh pentadbiran kolonial British, yang mentadbir Borneo Utara sebelum MA63. Oleh kerana Borneo Utara masih di bawah kedaulatan British pada masa itu, peranannya selaras dengan kepentingan British dan memastikan representasi undang-undang dalam perjanjian tersebut. Namun, kapasitinya adalah terutamanya sebagai wakil kepentingan undang-undang British, bukan semestinya kepentingan penduduk tempatan.

2. Sarawak - P.E.H. Pike

• Jawatan: P.E.H. Pike adalah Peguam Negara Sarawak.
• Kapasiti Undang-Undang: Sama seperti Jones, kedudukan Pike sebagai Peguam Negara memberinya kapasiti undang-undang sebagai wakil undang-undang utama Sarawak. Pelantikannya oleh kerajaan kolonial British meletakkannya sebagai pegawai undang-undang yang sah untuk terlibat dalam penandatanganan perjanjian antarabangsa, termasuk MA63, bagi pihak Sarawak.
• Rasional: Peranan Pike, seperti Jones, adalah untuk mewakili kepentingan undang-undang kerajaan kolonial British di Sarawak. Memandangkan Sarawak berada di bawah bidang kuasa British pada masa itu, tandatangan Pike membawa kuasa undang-undang pentadbiran British. Namun, seperti Jones, peranannya lebih kepada mewakili kepentingan British dan bukannya mandat daripada rakyat Sarawak.

Analisis dan Implikasi

• Representasi Kolonial: Kedua-dua Jones dan Pike adalah pegawai kolonial yang dilantik oleh British, yang mewakili kuasa British dan bukan pemimpin tempatan yang dipilih atau pemimpin pribumi. Ini menghadkan representasi mereka terhadap kehendak sebenar rakyat Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, kerana mandat mereka selaras dengan kepentingan kolonial British.
• Ketiadaan Mandat Demokratik: Penandatangan lain dari Borneo Utara dan Sarawak adalah pemimpin tempatan, tetapi mereka tidak memegang jawatan undang-undang rasmi yang memberikan mereka kuasa untuk memasuki perjanjian antarabangsa yang mengikat. Jones dan Pike, sebagai Peguam Negara, adalah satu-satunya yang mempunyai kuasa undang-undang untuk menandatangani, tetapi peranan mereka menimbulkan persoalan mengenai kesahihan MA63 dari perspektif rakyat Borneo Utara dan Sarawak.

Kesimpulan

Sebagai kesimpulan, W.K.H. Jones (Peguam Negara Borneo Utara) dan P.E.H. Pike (Peguam Negara Sarawak) mempunyai kapasiti undang-undang untuk menandatangani Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 kerana peranan mereka sebagai pegawai undang-undang utama yang dilantik oleh kerajaan kolonial British. Namun, kapasiti undang-undang mereka terutamanya mewakili kepentingan British dan bukannya aspirasi penduduk tempatan. Ini menonjolkan kritikan utama terhadap MA63: bahawa perjanjian itu ditandatangani tanpa representasi yang sebenar dan demokratik dari Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, sekaligus menimbulkan persoalan mengenai kesahihan dan keadilan persekutuan dari perspektif wilayah-wilayah ini.

Dengan pertimbangan ini, perjuangan berterusan Sabah untuk memisahkan diri dari Malaysia dan menubuhkan sebuah Republik Sabah North Borneo mendapat asas yang kukuh dalam konteks sejarah dan undang-undang. Laluan Sabah untuk disertakan dalam Malaysia penuh dengan ketidakteraturan prosedur dan representasi yang dipersoalkan, yang mendorong pergerakan untuk penentuan nasib sendiri dan kemerdekaan pada zaman moden ini.

Kapasiti Undang-Undang dan Representasi: Pengaruh Kolonial British

Kekurangan mandat demokratik tempatan ini amat ketara dalam konteks undang-undang antarabangsa. Resolusi 1514 dan 1541 Perhimpunan Agung PBB, yang diluluskan pada tahun 1960, menetapkan hak semua wilayah kolonial untuk menentukan nasib sendiri, dengan menekankan bahawa keputusan seperti itu mesti mencerminkan kehendak sebenar rakyat. Walau bagaimanapun, dengan melantik pegawai kolonial British sebagai penandatangan, Britain telah memintas prinsip ini, dan pada hakikatnya mengecualikan penduduk Borneo Utara dan Sarawak daripada suara yang bermakna dalam masa depan politik mereka.

Undang-Undang Antarabangsa dan Resolusi PBB Mengenai Penentuan Nasib Sendiri

Resolusi 1514 Perhimpunan Agung PBB (1960)—Deklarasi Mengenai Pemberian Kemerdekaan kepada Negara dan Rakyat Kolonial—menyatakan bahawa proses dekolonisasi mesti menghormati hak semua rakyat untuk menentukan nasib sendiri, bebas daripada "penaklukan asing, dominasi, dan eksploitasi." Resolusi ini bertujuan untuk menghalang jenis pemaksaan dari atas ke bawah yang berlaku dalam MA63 bagi Borneo Utara dan Sarawak.

Resolusi 1541 Perhimpunan Agung PBB (1960) menguatkan lagi hal ini dengan menghendaki adanya "ungkapan kehendak rakyat yang tulen" dalam hal-hal status politik. Menurut Prinsip IX resolusi ini, pilihan masa depan politik bagi wilayah bukan pemerintahan sendiri sepatutnya dibuat oleh wakil yang dipilih secara bebas oleh rakyat atau melalui mekanisme demokrasi seperti referendum. Dalam kes MA63, prinsip ini tidak dipenuhi; pegawai kolonial yang dilantik menjadi penandatangan bagi pihak Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, bukannya wakil yang dipilih rakyat. Penduduk wilayah ini diketepikan, dengan keputusan mengenai masa depan politik mereka dibuat oleh pegawai British dan bukannya mereka sendiri.

Kegagalan untuk memastikan representasi yang autentik dan mematuhi prinsip penentuan nasib sendiri telah memberikan kesan mendalam terhadap kesahan MA63, dan telah mencetuskan rasa tidak puas hati dan ketidakadilan dalam kalangan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak.

Persekutuan Sekadar Nama: Kelanjutan Dinamika Kolonial

Terma MA63 nampaknya memihak kepada Tanah Melayu, meletakkannya di pusat persekutuan baru sambil mengehadkan autonomi Borneo Utara dan Sarawak. Walaupun terdapat janji untuk melindungi hak dan autonomi wilayah-wilayah ini, MA63 menumpukan kuasa di dalam kerajaan persekutuan, dengan pengaruh yang besar dari Tanah Melayu. Daripada pertahanan kepada pengaturan kewangan dan dasar imigresen, perjanjian itu mencipta struktur yang membolehkan Tanah Melayu menguasai bidang utama di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Kekurangan perundingan bermakna dan penyertaan demokratik dalam perjanjian ini menguatkan persepsi bahawa MA63 hanya memudahkan perpindahan kuasa kolonial, meletakkan Sabah dan Sarawak di bawah kuasa Malaya dan bukannya membentuk persekutuan rakan sekutu yang sama rata. Bagi ramai di Sabah, persepsi ini selaras dengan konsep “penjajahan dalaman,” di mana kawalan beralih dari British ke Malaya tanpa memberikan Sabah kebebasan sebenar atau representasi yang sah.

Justifikasi untuk Pergerakan Kemerdekaan: Penubuhan Republik Sabah North Borneo

Dalam konteks kelemahan prosedur dan representasi ini, pergerakan kemerdekaan Sabah, termasuk usaha untuk menubuhkan Republik Sabah North Borneo, muncul sebagai satu tindak balas yang wajar. Rakyat Sabah telah lama mempersoalkan kesahan MA63, dengan menekankan bahawa kekurangan representasi tempatan dan penumpuan kuasa di Kuala Lumpur adalah bukti bahawa hak mereka untuk menentukan nasib sendiri telah dikompromi sejak dari awal.

Pergerakan Republik Sabah North Borneo bertujuan untuk membetulkan ketidakadilan sejarah ini, dengan berhujah bahawa penyertaan Sabah dalam Malaysia tidak mengikut piawaian penentuan nasib sendiri yang ditetapkan oleh undang-undang antarabangsa. Hasrat untuk menubuhkan sebuah republik merdeka bukan sekadar aspirasi politik semasa; ia berakar pada ketidakadilan sejarah bahawa MA63 tidak dirunding atau dilaksanakan dengan cara yang benar-benar menghormati kehendak rakyat Sabah.

Resolusi PBB Sebagai Asas untuk Penentuan Nasib Sendiri

Seruan untuk kemerdekaan Sabah juga disokong oleh Resolusi 1514 dan 1541 PBB, yang menekankan bahawa hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri tidak boleh dikompromi atau diatasi demi kesenangan pentadbiran. Memandangkan MA63 ditandatangani oleh pegawai kolonial tanpa input langsung daripada rakyat Sabah, ia melanggar prinsip-prinsip yang ditetapkan dalam resolusi ini. Pergerakan kemerdekaan Sabah, oleh itu, dibingkai bukan sahaja sebagai pilihan politik tetapi sebagai usaha untuk menunaikan hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri yang asalnya dinafikan di bawah MA63.

Tambahan pula, penerapan undang-undang antarabangsa menyokong kedudukan Sabah bahawa ia mempunyai asas yang sah untuk menilai semula dan mentakrifkan status politiknya. Oleh kerana persekutuan asal diasaskan atas representasi yang dipersoalkan, Sabah mempunyai asas yang munasabah untuk menuntut mandat baharu—kali ini benar-benar mencerminkan kehendak rakyat melalui cara demokratik.

Langkah Ke Hadapan: Legasi MA63 dan Perjuangan untuk Penentuan Nasib Sendiri

Legasi MA63 kekal sebagai isu yang memecahbelahkan di Sabah dan Sarawak. Walaupun perjanjian itu seolah-olah mewujudkan sebuah Malaysia bersatu, kekurangan penyertaan demokratik dan representasi yang sama rata telah meninggalkan kesan yang mendalam kepada rakyat di wilayah-wilayah ini. Bagi ramai rakyat Sabah, MA63 mewakili peluang yang terlepas untuk penentuan nasib sendiri, sekaligus menimbulkan keraguan terhadap kesahihan Malaysia sebagai persekutuan yang sama rata.

Pergerakan untuk Republik Sabah North Borneo, yang berakar dalam konteks sejarah ini, bertujuan untuk akhirnya memenuhi janji penentuan nasib sendiri yang dinafikan oleh MA63. Ia adalah satu pernyataan bahawa masa depan politik Sabah harus diputuskan oleh rakyatnya sendiri, bebas daripada batasan sejarah yang dikenakan oleh kuasa kolonial dan kawalan berpusat kerajaan persekutuan. Dalam perjuangan ini, rakyat Sabah merujuk kepada prinsip penentuan nasib sendiri yang ditetapkan oleh undang-undang antarabangsa, dengan berhujah bahawa perjanjian asal gagal menghormati prinsip-prinsip ini dan bahawa sudah tiba masanya untuk menubuhkan sebuah Sabah yang berdaulat dan merdeka.

Kesimpulan

Perjanjian Malaysia 1963, dengan ketidakteraturan prosedur dan kekurangan representasi yang tulen bagi Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, menimbulkan persoalan yang ketara mengenai kesahihannya di bawah undang-undang antarabangsa. Dengan mengetepikan mandat demokratik penduduk tempatan, MA63 melanggar prinsip-prinsip yang ditetapkan oleh Resolusi 1514 dan 1541 PBB, yang menekankan penentuan nasib sendiri sebagai hak asas bagi semua rakyat kolonial.

Pergerakan untuk Republik Sabah North Borneo, oleh itu, bukan sekadar aspirasi politik tetapi satu perjuangan sah yang berakar pada hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri. Dengan mencabar terma dan syarat asal MA63, rakyat Sabah berusaha untuk membetulkan ketidakadilan sejarah dan membentuk masa depan yang benar-benar mencerminkan aspirasi mereka. Dalam konteks undang-undang antarabangsa dan preseden sejarah, perjuangan Sabah untuk kemerdekaan berdiri sebagai tindak balas yang wajar terhadap legasi kawalan kolonial dan neo-kolonial yang diwakili oleh MA63.

With these considerations, Sabah’s ongoing struggle to separate from Malaysia and establish an independent Republic of Sabah North Borneo finds a strong basis in the historical and legal context. The path to Sabah’s inclusion in Malaysia was fraught with procedural irregularities and questionable representation, fueling the movement for self-determination and independence in modern times.

Legal Capacity and Representation: The British Colonial Influence

The signatories of MA63 for North Borneo and Sarawak were W.K.H. Jones, Attorney General of North Borneo, and P.E.H. Pike, Attorney General of Sarawak. As chief legal officers, both were British-appointed officials, representing British colonial interests rather than the indigenous aspirations of the people of these territories. Their positions granted them the authority to sign the agreement, but only within the context of British administrative oversight—not as representatives of the will of the local population.

This lack of local democratic mandate is particularly significant in the light of international law. UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 and 1541, passed in 1960, establish the right of all colonial territories to self-determination, emphasizing that such decisions must reflect the genuine will of the people. However, by appointing British colonial officials as signatories, Britain bypassed this principle, effectively excluding North Borneo and Sarawak’s residents from a meaningful voice in their political future.

International Law and UN Resolutions on Self-Determination

UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960)—the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples—stipulates that the process of decolonization must honor the right of all peoples to self-determination, free from “alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation.” This resolution was designed to prevent precisely the kind of top-down imposition that characterized MA63 for North Borneo and Sarawak.

UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (1960) further reinforces this by requiring a “genuine expression of the will of the people” in matters of political status. According to Principle IX of the resolution, the choice of political future for non-self-governing territories should be made by freely elected representatives or through democratic referendums. In the case of MA63, this principle was not upheld; instead of elected representatives, colonial appointees signed on behalf of North Borneo and Sarawak. The people of these territories were effectively sidelined, with decisions about their political future made by British officials rather than by themselves.

The failure to ensure authentic representation and adherence to the principles of self-determination has cast a long shadow over the legitimacy of MA63, giving rise to a sense of disenfranchisement and disillusionment among the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

A Federation in Name Only: The Continuation of Colonial Dynamics

Justification for the Independence Movement: Establishing the Republic of Sabah North Borneo

In the context of these procedural and representational flaws, the movement for Sabah’s independence, including efforts to establish the Republic of Sabah North Borneo, emerges as a justified response. The people of Sabah have long questioned the legitimacy of MA63, pointing to the lack of local representation and the centralization of power in Kuala Lumpur as evidence that their right to self-determination was compromised from the start.

The Republic of Sabah North Borneo movement seeks to rectify this historical injustice, arguing that Sabah’s inclusion in Malaysia did not follow the standards of self-determination set by international law. The desire to establish an independent republic is not simply a contemporary political aspiration; it is rooted in a historical grievance that MA63 was neither negotiated nor executed in a manner that genuinely respected the will of Sabah’s people.

UN Resolutions as a Foundation for Self-Determination

The calls for Sabah’s independence are further bolstered by UN Resolutions 1514 and 1541, which emphasize that the right to self-determination cannot be compromised or overridden by administrative convenience. Given that MA63 was signed by colonial officials without direct input from Sabahans, it stands in violation of these resolutions’ principles. Sabah’s movement for independence is therefore framed not only as a political choice but as an attempt to fulfill the right to self-determination that was originally denied under MA63.

Furthermore, the application of international law supports Sabah’s position that it has a legitimate claim to reassess and redefine its political status. Since the original federation was founded on questionable representation, Sabah has a reasonable basis to argue for a fresh mandate—this time genuinely reflecting the will of the people through democratic means.

Moving Forward: The Legacy of MA63 and the Struggle for Self-Determination

The movement for the Republic of Sabah North Borneo, rooted in this historical context, seeks to finally fulfill the promise of self-determination denied by MA63. It is an assertion that Sabah’s political future should be decided by its own people, free from the historical constraints imposed by colonial powers and the centralized control of the federal government. In this struggle, Sabahans draw on international principles of self-determination, arguing that the original agreement failed to honor these principles and that the time has come to establish a sovereign, independent Sabah.

Conclusion

The Malaysia Agreement 1963, with its procedural irregularities and lack of genuine representation for North Borneo and Sarawak, raises significant questions about its legitimacy under international law. In bypassing the democratic mandate of the local population, MA63 contravened the principles set forth by UN Resolutions 1514 and 1541, which emphasize self-determination as a fundamental right of all colonial peoples.

The movement for the Republic of Sabah North Borneo, therefore, is not merely a political aspiration but a legitimate struggle rooted in the right to self-determination. By challenging the original terms and conditions of MA63, Sabahans are seeking to correct a historical injustice and establish a future that truly reflects the aspirations of their people. In the context of international law and historical precedent, Sabah’s quest for independence stands as a justified response to the legacy of colonial and neo-colonial control that MA63 represents.

The Pivotal Players and Unequal Representation

This lack of elected representation for North Borneo and Sarawak raises questions about whether the people of these territories had any true say in the process. The involvement of colonial appointees, rather than locally elected representatives, hints at a paternalistic approach by Britain, which prioritized a quick handover to Malaya over genuine consultation with the people. This dynamic has led many to question the democratic legitimacy of MA63, suggesting that it may have served British and Malayan interests more than those of Sabah and Sarawak.

A Bilateral Agreement in All but Name

An excerpt from Deals, Dayaks & Datus by Michael Leigh highlights a critical perspective: MA63 was, in essence, a bilateral agreement between Britain and Malaya. As per the notes of the Sarawak Attorney General, Sarawak and North Borneo were “not parties to the formal agreement,” but were included largely for “presentational purposes.” This distinction is crucial. Although the agreement was presented as a pact among equals, it appears that Britain’s primary objective was to transfer its colonial authority over North Borneo and Sarawak to Malaya, ensuring continuity of control in the region.

This arrangement gave Malaya significant control over the new federation, a structure that some view as “neo-colonialism.” By formally transferring power to Malaya, Britain effectively ensured that its former territories would remain under the influence of a friendly and aligned government, rather than granting true autonomy to the people of Sabah and Sarawak. This arrangement challenges the narrative of a genuine federation and suggests that MA63 was designed with the continuation of colonial power structures in mind.

The Cobbold Commission and the Inter-Governmental Committee

The Cobbold Commission, established in 1962, was tasked with gauging public opinion in North Borneo and Sarawak regarding the proposed formation of Malaysia. While the commission reported a mixed reception—some in favor, others opposed—it ultimately recommended moving forward with the formation, provided that specific safeguards were implemented to protect the rights and autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak within the federation.

Following this, the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC), chaired by Lord Lansdowne, outlined these safeguards, which were meant to ensure that Sabah and Sarawak retained control over key areas, including immigration, religion, and land. However, the actual text of MA63, signed on July 9, 1963, was strikingly brief, covering just four pages and 11 annexes. The promised safeguards were minimal, leading many in Sabah and Sarawak to feel that they were not granted the protections and autonomy they were assured.

The involvement of high-level British and Malayan officials in the IGC, including future Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Razak, further underscores the power dynamics at play. The voices of local leaders were minimal, and the final recommendations reflect a top-down approach, one that arguably prioritized stability and British-Malayan interests over a truly representative federal structure.

Continuation of Colonial Dynamics under a New Name?

Critics of MA63 argue that rather than establishing a new federation, the agreement simply replaced British colonial rule with Malayan dominance. In this view, “Malaysia” was not a fresh start, but a rebranding of Malaya to incorporate new territories without granting them equal status. The central role played by Tunku Abdul Rahman and Malayan officials in negotiating and implementing MA63 reinforces the impression that the federation was Malaya-led, with Sabah and Sarawak treated as junior partners.

This perception is supported by the use of the Malayan flag as the new Malaysian flag, as well as the adoption of Malayan laws, systems, and policies across the new federation. While MA63 included provisions to protect Sabah and Sarawak’s unique identities, many argue that these safeguards were subsequently eroded, leading to a sense of marginalization and disenfranchisement among Sabahans and Sarawakians.

The Legacy of MA63 and Calls for Reassessment

Today, MA63 remains a contentious issue. Many in Sabah and Sarawak believe that the agreement failed to deliver on its promises of autonomy and equal partnership. Over the years, calls for greater autonomy, and in some cases, independence, have grown louder, fueled by a sense that the rights and identities of Sabah and Sarawak have been overshadowed by a Malaya-centric federal structure.

The inclusion of colonial officials as signatories, rather than democratically elected representatives, continues to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the agreement. Nationalist groups in Sabah and Sarawak argue that MA63 was an instrument of neo-colonialism, designed to maintain control over the territories rather than grant them genuine self-determination.

Conclusion: A Federation in Name, or a Colonial Legacy?

As Sabah and Sarawak continue to reassess their roles within Malaysia, the legacy of MA63 remains a focal point. For many, it is a reminder of promises unfulfilled and autonomy undermined—a colonial legacy that persists under a new flag. The questions surrounding MA63 are unlikely to disappear, as Sabahans and Sarawakians seek a future that honors their rights, identities, and aspirations in ways the original agreement failed to deliver.

Many critics argue that the Cobbold Commission was, if not an outright scam, certainly a flawed process that lacked transparency and failed to capture the genuine aspirations of the people of these territories. Here are a few key points that support this critical perspective:

1. Bias in Composition

The Cobbold Commission was largely made up of individuals selected by the British and Malayan governments, who were British and Malayans (including Lord Cobbold), which led many to argue that the Commission was biased in flavor of forming Malaysia, as it reflected the British and Malayan interests. 

2. Pre-Determined Outcome

The formation of Malaysia was already part of a grand design by the British and Malayan governments even before the Commission began its work. Many historians argue that the creation of Malaysia was intended as a way for Britain to quickly decolonize while ensuring the protection of its strategic and economic interests in Southeast Asia. The Commission was seen as a way to legitimize a decision that had already been made, rather than genuinely assessing whether Sabah and Sarawak wished to join the federation.

3. Manipulation of Public Opinion

The public consultations conducted by the Commission have been widely criticized as insufficient and poorly representative of the views of the indigenous populations in Sabah and Sarawak. The Commission claimed to have interviewed around 4,000 people, but only one-third of those interviewed actually supported the formation of Malaysia. Another third expressed conditional support, provided certain safeguards were implemented, and the remaining third were either against Malaysia or preferred independence. Despite these findings, the Commission extrapolated this limited sample to claim that a majority of the people of Sabah and Sarawak supported Malaysia. This interpretation has been criticized as misleading, as significant opposition existed, particularly from rural and indigenous communities, which were often underrepresented in the consultations.

4. Absence of a Proper Referendum 

The use of the Cobbold Commission begs the question as to why the British and Malayans were leading the inquiry on Malaysia when it was an issue that should have been decided by the people in referendum. 

Unlike in other decolonization processes, where the populations of the territories were given the opportunity to decide through a referendum or plebiscite, the people of Sabah and Sarawak were never given a clear choice. The Commission's consultations were not a substitute for a full referendum, leaving the process open to accusations of manipulation.

5. The Role of Britain and Malaya’s Interests

The British and Malayan governments had a strong incentive to ensure the success of Malaysia's formation. Britain wanted to offload its colonies while maintaining some control over regional security and economic interests, especially with the rise of communism in the region. Malaya, under Tunku Abdul Rahman, saw the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak as a way to strengthen the new federation politically, economically, and demographically.

Conclusion: Was it a Scam?

From a legal standpoint, the Cobbold Commission was a necessary procedural step to legitimize the formation of Malaysia under international law. Without it, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) would likely not have been possible. However, given the political pressures, lack of genuine representation, and the absence of a true democratic process, the Commission can be seen as a flawed and manipulated process designed to rubber-stamp a predetermined outcome. Some activists and historians would go as far as calling it a "scam" due to its apparent role in facilitating an unjust political arrangement under the guise of consultation.

Without the Cobbold Commission, the MA63 likely would not have materialized in its current form. However, the validity and fairness of the Commission's findings remain deeply contested, particularly by those who feel that Sabah and Sarawak were not given a fair say in their future.

Robert Pei 

SSRANZ 

28/09/24

Without the Cobbold Commission, there is no Cobbold Commission Report. Without the Cobbold Commission Report, there is no Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Without the Malaysia Agreement 1963, there is no Malaysia. However, the issue is Whether the Cobbold Commission was a scam – a scam to deceive the people of the British Borneo Territories to agree to the Malaysia Plan. 

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 is to allow or to have all colonies in the world to be decolonized and achieve independence from their colonial masters.  This Resolution was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960. 

But, the Malaysia Plan by the British was not motivated by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It has to be noted that the Malaysia Plan was motivated by the need by United Kingdom, to release their colonies from their burden in maintaining their colonies. Records show that the British planned Malaysia since 1953 and therefore, I repeat, it has nothing to do with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It was the plan of the British in 1953 that their colonies in South East Asia has to join together to form a federation or a country. Hence, came the Malaysian Plan.

In order to ensure that the Malaysia Plan be executed smoothly and in compliance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 and international protocols, the British constituted the Cobbold Commission in 1962 headed by Lord Cobbold. Lord Cobbold was a former Bank Governor of Bank of England. 

In the Cobbold Commission, there were three British and two Malayans. The two Malayans were Dato’ Wong Pow Nee from Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and Chief Minister of Penang and Ghazali Shafie, Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaya. 

There is no evidence that members of the Cobbold Commission could speak the local or native languages of the Borneo People. Without able to speak native language of Borneo people how could the members of the Cobbold Commission came to the conclusion that the people of Sarawak and Sabah wanted Malaysia to be formed? It could not be denied that this Cobbold Commission was to also to overcome the need for a referendum to determine the wishes of the people of Borneo Territories as required by UNGAR 1514.

The Cobbold Commission published its report on 1 August 1962 concluded that roughly only one-third of Sarawak’ population enthusiastically supported forming Malaysia, another one-third vehemently opposed, and the crucial remaining third of the population, though open to the idea, was yet to be convinced of the merits of independence through merger.  The published report seems not correct because from available records, only 4,000 odd people were interviewed by the Cobbold Commission.  Commonsense tells us that this is devoid of democracy! How could these people who were only about 4,000 odds were able to represent the voice of over a million people of North Borneo and Sarawak at that time to decide the fate or destiny of their countries?

From records and books by a several researchers, it is difficult to convince the people of Sarawak and Sabah not to come to the conclusion that the Cobbold Commission was not a scam that took away the intrinsic rights of peoples of Sarawak and Sabah to determine the fate of their countries and to gain independence.  

Besides two books by Professor Michael Leigh, The Rising Moon and the other ones Deals, Datus And Dayaks, there are two other books that we all in Sarawak, need to read concerning the creation of Malaysia. These two books are one, by Dr Matthew Jones  “Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia 1961-1965, Britain, the United States and the Creation of Malaysia (2001) and the other ones is by Dr Stanley S. Bedlington’s Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States (1978). 

Of course, the research work of AJ Stockwell and The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia 1945-1965 by Dr Greg Poulgrain are “goldmines” that we all Sarawakians should read to find out the secrets on how  Malaysia was created.

Dr. Bedlington mentioned that “local leaders in Sabah and Sarawak reacted strongly and adversely” to the Malaysia Plan.

Dr. Bedlington also mentioned that the Cobbold Commission as a “British contrivance activated and organized by British officials.” He said that the “Commission was an Anglo-Malayan exercise was immediately obvious from the fact that it did not include a single Bornean representative.”

The Cobbold Commission did not conduct any referendum in either British North Borneo or Sarawak to measure objectively the wishes and inclinations of the people on the issue of the “Malaysia” merger to assist in its enquiry. Bedlington added that the population of the two States was subjected to “sustained pressure” by British colonial officials to accept the merger. Records showed that those who opposed the Malaysia Plan were considered “subversives” and were arrested, assaulted and battered and many for fear of arrest and physical injuries had to run away and hid in the forests and took arms to resist their arrests. Many were branded as communists and terrorists and were  shot dead.  Those who are still alive said that they were forced by circumstances to join the clandestine organisation in their struggles to fight against Malaysia Plan.

Matthew Jones in his book noted that the Governors of the two crown colonies were sceptical of the Commission, with Governor Goode of British North Borneo calling the exercise “a farce’.

Therefore, it is clear that the true wishes of the majority of the populations of the two Borneo territories were seriously subverted, if not deliberately misconstrued and ignored. The voices of opposition to the merger were traduced. 

Surprising facts that have been censored or hidden from the public all these years, were revealed by Dr Greg Poulgrain, and, in the process, cast the whole project of Malaysia itself in a fundamentally different light.  Poulgrain was able to combine archival research at the Colonial Office, U.K. with interviews of surviving protagonists of the formative era of Malaysia who had played various roles in that period, thereby challenging the conventional version of the formation of Malaysia. 

Poulgrain referred to a classified Colonial Office paper, “Political Objectives in British Territories of South East Asia” of 10th March, 1953, reveals that the British government (Her Majesty’s Government, or HMG) was “engaging in deliberate deception” for, while paying lip service to the Third Rajah’s aspiration for self-government for Sarawak which is embodied in the preamble to the 1941 Sarawak Constitution, Her Majesty’s Government was already planning for “some form of constitutional association” for the Borneo Territories and the Malaya/Singapore bloc coming together as a “British South-East Asia Dominion” in the early fifties. 

Commissioner-General Malcolm MacDonald On April 2, 1955, informed the British Secretary for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, that “the Bornean leaders are perhaps less aware than those in Malaya of our grand design.” 

Despite that, Alan Lennox-Boyd on November 29, 1956, informed the Governor of North Borneo, Sir Roland Turnbull, “The possibility of a federation of North Borneo and Sarawak and indeed of all three Borneo territories ... is a matter for the people of the territories themselves to decide.” It was noted by Poulgrain that, at no time did Her Majesty’s Government envisage self-government by the people of Sarawak. 

However, it must be noted that the colonial officers in the two territories were initially adverse to the idea of a merger of the Borneo states with Malaya and Singapore which they considered premature. 

More concerned with their populations of different ethnicities living in harmony, they had in mind a more gradual move towards independence with the possibility of first forming a Borneon federation before a merger with their more politically savvy neighbours across the South China Sea, Malaya and Singapore.  The “Borneo Proposal” was put forward in 1958, but, as Poulgrain notes, it was already foreshadowed by the 1953 paper. The Borneon proposal was in fact disparaged by the noted historian on South East Asian history, K.J. Tregonning as “a disguised MI5 exercise”. 

Despite that, it is still widely believed and propagated that the proposal for the “Malaysia” merger with the Borneo territories was made by then Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on May 27, 1961, to the Foreign Correspondents’ Association Club in Singapore. The British allowed Tunku take the credit for what was in fact the British brainchild, given the potential of the material benefits at stake for Britain. 

It may be noted here that after the war, British interests in Malaya in the form of investments exceeded those that they had in India and the revenue from rubber and tin was sorely needed for post-war debt payment and reconstruction. The financial stake in having a peaceful merger of the Borneo territories and Singapore with Malaya was, therefore, huge. 

Lee Kuan Yew, having been elected the Prime Minister of Singapore, then assisted the British to push forward the idea of Malaysia, while at the same time, consolidating his own party’s position against that of the Barisan Socialis [Socialist Front] whom he characterised, together with the Chinese opposition in Sarawak, as having been directed to oppose the Malaysia plan by outside powers, namely, Indonesia and China. Lee between September 13 and October 9, 1961, made twelve radio broadcasts (published as The Battle for Merger) in favour of the merger. It seemed that Lee Kuan Yew had his own political agenda to have Malaysia formed.

The research work by Poulgrain, however, pointed to that the primary purpose for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity, even though much was made in the press then and in the mainstream books since of the Tunku’s insistence in having the Borneo colonies aboard in order to balance out the large Chinese population in Singapore with the indigenous populations in the Borneo territories. 

The interviews by Poulgrain’s in 1991 with both Captain D.R. Gribble, and Captain Albert Young confirmed that the huge oilfield was known to the authorities in 1958, years before its “official discovery” in 1963. 

The British at that time were prepared to surrender the oil in Sarawak territory to the new federation under control of Malaya. Sir Anthony Abell, then Governor of Sarawak, in April 1956 observed in a communication to the Colonial Office that “the politicians in both Malaya and Singapore were showing considerable interest in the Borneo territories “including its empty spaces, its potential wealth, and its oil”. 

Poulgrain inexplicably added that it is “noteworthy” that the Governor could admit that Malaya had “imperialistic design” on the Borneo territories, and then to treat this as a reason for merger. 

It is also noted that Tunku Abdul Rahman in a series of conversations with Abdullah Ahmad, which was later published in 2016 in a book entitled, Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman candidly admitted thus: 

“Yes and they [the British] gave us Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore and so many other things in 1963 [with the formation of Malaysia]. The British could have given Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak independence, but they did not. Instead, they handed them to us”.

That’s how Cobbold Commission was used by the British to deny Sarawak the right to independence and to allow, in the words of, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to be handed to Malaya. From the words of Tunku Abdul Rahman, it should be clear to Sarawakians that 22 July is not Sarawak Independence Day as Sarawak had never been granted independence but was given to Malaya  by the British.  

It was all because of empty spaces, potential wealth and oil that made Sarawak now be part or an enlarged Federation of Malaya, renamed the Federation of Malaysia. Therefore, the Federation of Malaysia is not a new federation or country. This new name was conveyed to the United Nations Secretariat by Dato’ Ong Yoke Lin of Malaya after Malaysia Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak became part of the federation of Malaya effective 16 September, 1963 by way of Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The people of Sarawak needs to know the Truth because it is the Truty that sets us free. May God Bless this Land of Sarawak and her people. 

VOON LEE SHAN

President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang

26 September, 2024

If it had, then it was capable of enacting or passing its own laws, legislations, statutes or enactments / ordinances. In other words, it was capable of making its own decisions on self determination.

If it did not have, then who passed those major constitutional laws? Which legislature or DECISION MAKING BODY enacted or passed them?

Note that even if the Cobbold Commission Referendum was 100% in favour of joining Malaysia, it still needed to be tabled and debated in the North Borneo Legislature.

But was the Cobbold Commission results tabled in the North Borneo Legislature aka State Legislative Assembly?

No. It was tabled and debated in the BRITISH PARLIAMENT and subsequently given the force of law through the MALAYSIA ACT 1963 enacted and passed by the British Parliament.

Why? North Borneo did not have its own DECISION MAKING BODY aka Parliament aka Legislature aka State Legislative Assembly then. It only had such a legislature much later on the 25.09.1963 when the Sabah State Legislative Assembly was established.

So once again, who decided for and on behalf of North Borneo to join Malaysia? The answer is, GREAT BRITAIN, not the Government of North Borneo or the People of North Borneo as it had not yet gained full independence at that time. 

This means, North Borneo or Sabah was effectively ceded to Malaya by the British to be recolonised as it simply did not have the locus standi or capacity to sign the MALAYSIA AGREEMENT on the 09.07.1963 (MA63), let alone join Malaysia in its own right as an independent nation on the 16.09.1963.

Source: Jack Situn II

En.Robert Pei, Peguam

Pertama, kita mesti mengakui secara jujur bahawa MA63 adalah undang-undang tertinggi dan Piagam penubuhan yang mengawal penggubalan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Malaysia.  Sebagai perjanjian antarabangsa yang didaftarkan dengan PBB, ia dikawal oleh undang-undang antarabangsa.

 Tiada MA63 Tiada Malaysia.  (Adakah kita percaya pada konsepsi yang sempurna?).

Di bawah undang-undang antarabangsa, MA63 (jika dibuat secara sah) sepatutnya telah ditamatkan oleh pelbagai pelanggaran undang-undang antarabangsa mengenai pembuatan perjanjian seperti yang disenaraikan dalam artikel yang disebut ini.

Sebagai contoh, peraturan paling asas sama ada MA63 telah dibuat secara sah dan dimuktamadkan dengan mematuhi peraturan membuat perjanjian tidak ditangani sama sekali oleh mereka yang mempunyai kedudukan untuk berbuat demikian.

Peguam secara automatik mengesahkan sama ada kontrak atau perjanjian adalah sah sebelum meneruskan untuk melaksanakan terma dan syaratnya dengan menyemak terlebih dahulu jika peraturan penting undang-undang kontrak telah dipatuhi.

MA63 tidak terkecuali.  Adakah ia mematuhi keperluan penting kapasiti undang-undang, objek dan persetujuan?

Jika MA63 sah maka adakah pelaksanaan MA63 telah mematuhi peraturan asas bahawa semua perjanjian mesti dipelihara atau dihormati dengan setia?

 Kegagalan berbuat demikian akan menamatkan perjanjian.  Belum lagi peraturan pematuhan yang lain.

Senarai pelanggaran asas syarat asas MA63 tidak berkesudahan.  Jadi bagaimana sesiapa boleh melompat ke atas semua ini dan membenarkan "pembetulan" retrospektif perjanjian yang tidak sah atau terbatal selama 60 tahun??

"Rundingan" yang sedang berlangsung hanya menunjukkan bahawa MA63 telah rosak dan mustahil untuk diperbaiki.

 Terma-terma Perjanjian telah diubah oleh Malaya dan orang-orang tempatannya sehingga niat asalnya adalah mustahil untuk dilaksanakan dan tidak dapat dilaksanakan.  Ini hanyalah satu daripada beberapa alasan yang membatalkan perjanjian itu.

 Alasan lain ialah pelanggaran Doktrin Struktur Asas yang dianuti oleh sistem perundangan Malaysia.

Perubahan syarat asas MA63 mesti bermakna ini telah memusnahkan perjanjian.  Contoh pertama ialah pintu keluar Singapura yang memusnahkan komposisi persekutuan yang dipersetujui.

Ia telah ditegaskan oleh banyak pihak pada tahun 1965, bahawa objek utama seperti yang ditegaskan oleh UK untuk memasukkan pangkalan tentera Singapura dan asas untuk mewujudkan Malaysia telah dihapuskan.  Ini bermakna justifikasi untuk Malaysia juga dihapuskan termasuk hujah "keseimbangan kaum" yang tidak masuk akal oleh penetapan agama kaum Malaya.  Tiada sebab untuk mengekalkan Malaysia.

Contoh paling penting selepas S'pore Exit ialah konsep asal Malaysia majmuk dan pelbagai budaya sekular telah diubah tanpa dapat diperbaiki oleh apartheid agama kaum DEB sejak 1971.

AKTA 354 seperti yang kita sedia maklum telah menghapuskan semua hak asasi yang dijamin seperti peruntukan kerusi dan kebebasan beragama.  dan lain-lain. CSA 1966, TSA 2012 dan PDA74 juga mengubah sempadan negara anggota yang dipersetujui dengan melanggar larangan undang-undang antarabangsa terhadap mengubah sempadan pra-dekolonisasi.

 Memandangkan semua ini telah dikeluarkan, bagaimanakah MA63 yang asal boleh dihormati??

Jika federalis ingin memelihara Malaysia tercinta, mereka mesti cukup jujur untuk mengembalikan MA63 kepada kedudukan asalnya dengan menghapuskan semua perundangan haram yang menyinggung yang disebutkan di atas.

Akhir sekali, Malaysia telah dan dipegang oleh federalis dan penyokong mereka, sebagai sebuah persatuan bebas dan sukarela, itulah sebabnya desakan orang Malaya supaya "Tiada hak berpisah" tidak dimasukkan dalam Perlembagaan.  Malah ada yang mendakwa bahawa Perlembagaan melarang pemisahan diri.

Apabila orang Malaya mempunyai majoriti 2/3 mereka tidak meminda Perlembagaan mereka untuk mengharamkan pemisahan.  Itu berkata banyak.

Jika ini dilakukan ia hanya bermakna Sabah dan Sarawak akan dikurung secara tidak sengaja ke dalam persekutuan dan tiada orang yang waras akan bersetuju dengan itu.  Malah Tunku Abdul Rahman dilaporkan pada Julai 1963 sebagai berkata bahawa jika Sabah dan Sarawak tidak gembira di Malaysia, mereka sentiasa boleh pergi.

 Sebab itu kita mahukan kemerdekaan, bukan Malaysia sejak 1963.

Sarawak activist Zulfaqar Sa’adi told FMT the document had exposed the real story of what happened in 1969 when Sarawak lost its territorial waters and with it, rich natural resources to the federal government.

The five-page document was believed to have been written in the weeks leading up to the day when the Continental Shelf Act 1966 was extended to the Bornean states.

It noted that Kuala Lumpur was seen to be trying to stamp its power in order to exploit resources beyond the three-mile limit.

Zulfaqar pointed out that even though Malaya had achieved independence in 1957, the federal government only found it necessary to enact the Continental Shelf Act in 1966 after the formation of Malaysia and immediately after the secession of Singapore.

“Reading through the CIA document, it makes one wonder whether the Federation of Malaya, acting as the federal government of Malaysia, engineered the political situation from the beginning to ensure it could exploit the rich natural resources of the Bornean territories.”

He also recalled the words of Malaysia’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who openly said he wanted Sabah and Sarawak, and at the time, Brunei, to be in the new country because the territories were resource-rich, having stated earlier “it would be good financially, they have oil”.

Based on his research, Zulfaqar said the Malayan government at the time made use of the British desperation to keep its obligations to the Bornean states and safeguard its interests in Singapore to force a merger that would include all three territories.

“I am not saying it was deliberate, but without Singapore in the picture, Malaya was free to exploit Sabah and Sarawak resources.

“Singapore would have objected vehemently to any attempt by Malaya to extend the Continental Shelf Act to the three territories.

“So after Singapore seceded, the federal government put its plan into action almost immediately.”

Nevertheless, Zulfaqar told FMT that the most poignant aspect of the document was the fact that Sarawak leaders at the time knew that Malaya’s attempt was against the agreement.

The Sarawak government, at the time under a caretaker government after Kuala Lumpur ousted Stephen Kalong Ningkan, stood firm against the attempt to extend the Act to Sabah and Sarawak.

However, Kuala Lumpur told Sarawak that it would be a democratic and wise decision to accept because Sabah had assented to it.

“The federal government also used the same excuse when they approached the Sabah government later, saying that Sabah should accept because Sarawak had already agreed to it,” he said.

The CIA document revealed that using the Malaysia Agreement, acting state attorney-general Jemuri Serjan outlined the rights of Sarawak on territorial waters, which was decreed in 1954 through an Order In Council and further established by the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958.

“He argued that Article 1 of the Malaysia Constitution, which at that time was based on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (amended in 1976), provides the definition of the territory of Sarawak and that includes the continental shelf.

“This is new information because until today we never knew that the Sarawak government was already aware and even employed this entire legal instrument when they dealt with the federal government,” he said.

The document also noted that the Sarawak government could actually stand against Kuala Lumpur on the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and against the exploitation of the “Emergency” power to take over Sarawak’s territorial waters.

Instead, he said the Sarawak government accepted the Kuala Lumpur proposition in return for minor concessions, which a few years later was sealed through the Petroleum Development Act 1976, giving a cash payment, named “5% royalty”, to the state.

“In the end, Kuala Lumpur was able to establish its authority over the exploitation of resources beyond the three-mile limit and shamefully exploited its ‘Emergency’ powers and the weak ‘caretaker’ government of Sarawak to achieve its objective,” he said.

Zulfaqar, however, believed that with new information and declassified documents suddenly surfacing everywhere now, there was renewed enthusiasm to revisit the history of the formation of Malaysia and to make things right again.

“I am hoping that our Sarawak lawyers, who went to London recently, will uncover more information that could give us a clearer picture of the formation of Malaysia and thus help safeguard Sarawak’s rights,” he concluded.

Source: Malaysia Today

These entities are the hallmarks of such a government. Take away one or two or all, and it is no longer a Parliamentary Democratic Country as *together* they form the basis of the *"Doctrine of Separation of Powers" of Government.*

From *31.08.1963 to 24.09.1963* , North Borneo or Sabah was *NOT ABLE to legislate its own laws* because it only had its own Parliament or Legislative Assembly on the 25.09.1963.

That is why prior that date, North Borneo could only pass laws by *Decrees* ("Fatwas") called *ORDINANCES* , such as the Labour Ordinance, Advocates Ordinance, etc., proving that its *decision making* Legislature or Legislative Assembly or Parliament was not fully independent. It only had a unicameral (Single House/Dewan) *Legislative Council* at that point of time.

After that date, Sabah was able to legislate or enact its own laws though its Legislative Assembly and called them *ENACTMENTS* .

Due to the above, North Borneo *had to depend on the British Parliament* to legislate the Malaysia Act 1963 to endorse the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Cobbold Commission Referendum *for and on behalf of North Borneo.*

And the above also proves that prior to 25.09.1963 North Borneo or Sabah or to be precise, *its decision making entity was still controlled by the British Government*

Jack Situn
Lawyer

Source: Jack Situn Facebook