Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB

Pei said the detentions were “unlawful as the question of ‘secession from Malaysia’ is not specifically prohibited in MA63, the Federal Constitution or international law.”  - Bernama pic for illustration only

The group also urged the Federal Government to withdraw the arrest warrant for Doris Jones who they claimed was legally demanding self-determination for Sabah and the warrant was unlawful.

The group comprised Sabah Sarawak Rights, Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ Australian NGO) President Robert Pei, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) President Daniel John Jambun, PBK President Voon Lee Shan, Sapa Publicity Chief Peter John Jaban, DRAF Information Chief Robert Saweng, Republic Sabah North Borneo (RSNB) President Mosses Anap and Emily Elvera Edward, President of Sabah Sarawak Borneo Natives Organisation Inc. SSRANZ Australian NGO President Robert Pei, who represented the group, in the a joint-statement said: 

“The NGO leaders expressed their sympathies and solidarity with Dr Jeffrey Kitingan and the six Sabahans who, in standing up for Sabah and Sarawak rights, lost their freedom and suffered the injustice and indignity of being detained for long periods without charge or trial in open court.”

Pei said the detentions were “unlawful as the question of ‘secession from Malaysia’ is not specifically prohibited in MA63, the Federal Constitution or international law.” 

He said many people have freely and openly discussed this the past 10 years after the abolition of the Internal Security Act 1960 in 2011. 

Pei also said while more draconian laws have replaced the Internal Security Act 1960 after its abolition in 2011, the official approach has been one of restraint rather than outright suppression of free speech on the topic. 

“This strategy aims to prevent escalation of public debate and awareness that would likely result from official suppression,” he claimed.

He also alleged that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was riddled with illegalities and had not been concluded properly as an international treaty. 

Source:Daily Express Malaysia

Are Sabah and Sarawak colonies of Malaya?

The small secession movement in Sabah and Sarawak has been getting louder over the past 9 months. This is the case, even with an East Malaysian deputy prime minister in the federal government, and the recent constitutional amendments proclaiming Sabah and Sarawak as regions and not states. The perception of peninsula politics under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim is giving Sabahans and Sarawakians cause to think about the divisive identity politics, racism, and rise of political Islamization, very different to what East Malaysian Muslims are practising.

There is a major population differential between the peninsula with 27 million people, and Sabah and Sarawak with a little over 6 million people. Many Sabahans regret the over-running of the region with Muslim illegal immigrants from Indonesia and the Philippines under project IC for the purpose of assisting UMNO enter Sabah politics and takeover the state government. This destroyed Kadazan/Dusun dominance of government before the flood of illegals. Such strategies were resisted in Sarawak, which has managed to keep its ethnic balance intact. 

Many East Malaysians want much more autonomy and less interference from Putra Jaya. The growth of the small secession movement had traditionally been kept in check by the use of the Internal Security Act (ISA) – now defunct, which allowed detention without trial and the Sedition Act. 

The changing political dynamics in federal politics has allowed much more free speech on issues of autonomy and secession in East Malaysia. In Kuching, there are often small demonstrations by the SAREXIT NGO bringing the issue into open public view.

Credits to Beamstart.com

Those who claim Malaya took advantage of Sabah and Sarawak, see Malaya acquiring Sabah and Sarawak from the British Empire, rather than a merger of equals. Malaya became the new caretaker of the two former British colonial states. Sarawak politician Voon Lee Shan claimed United Nations records show Malaya acquired Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak from Great Britain. Thus, according to Voon “this made Sabah and Sarawak colonies of the Federation of Malaya”.

Voon justifies his view from the “Queen of England’s message to Tunku Abdul Rahman’ on the inauguration of Malaysia on September 18, 1963;

“I have the pleasure in presenting to you this gift from the British Government to the government of Malaysia. This piece of modern silver, especially designed by British craftsmen for the occasion, brings the greetings of the people of Britain.”

Tunku’s reply of acceptance of Britain’s gift to the Commonwealth Secretary on September 19, 1963 was;

“I am grateful for the confidence of Her Majesty’s Government in passing the rights over the territories (Singapore, Sarawak, and Sabah) to us. We shall do everything possible to justify the trust you have placed in us.”

One of the biggest grievances is there was no plebiscite of the people of Sabah and Sarawak agreeing to any merger with Malaya and Singapore at the time. Some are angered by the process of decolonization pursued by Britain that led to the formation of Malaysia. The British wanted an anti-communist government in its former colonies, as it left the Far East. Britain had cultivated the leaders of Sarawak and Sabah (then North Borneo) to agree to joining Malaysia. 

Another issue that makes Sarawakians and Sabahans feel like they are colonialized is embedded into the constitution. According to Article 32 and the Third Schedule, only the nine Malay rulers in the peninsula can ever become Malaysia’s head of state. The constitution explicitly excludes the possibility that any person from Sabah or Sarawak could ever become the head of state. 

The failure of the federal government to honour the Malaysia Agreement 1963 has left many with mixed feelings. Both Sabah and Sarawak have not been given the high levels of autonomy they were promised. They are disenchanted with the seemingly continuous erosion of power taken by the centralist federal government. 

The massive development of the peninsula in contrast to the scant development in East Malaysia is well noticed giving some a feel of being cheated. Sabah has a poverty rate of 19.5 percent, Sarawak is 9 percent, where the national average is 5.6 percent. Sabahan and Sarawakian feel the peninsula has prospered at their expense. This is what makes the 5 percent oil and gas royalty a major issue of contention. 

NGOs changing their strategy

There has always been a small group talking about secession. The secessionist movement is made up mostly of professional middleclass people cantered in Kuching and to a lessor extend in Kota Kinabalu. Most of secession sentiment can be seen through social media today. 

A group supporting secession, Parti Aspirasi Rakyat Sarawak ran in the last Sarawak state election, but couldn’t raise more than 2,972 votes across half a dozen seats, where each candidate lost their deposit. Inspired by the Catalonia and Scotland movements, the strategy has changed to educating more people about the issues around secession until it becomes a major issue. NGO leaders are now resigned to the idea it may take a generation to educate people about the history of federation with Malaya, and the injustices involved. 

There is slowly growing sentiment in Sabah and Sarawak advocating secession from the federation. Politicians in both Sabah and Sarawak are now talking about keeping “Malaya out”.  

The Sarawak government has already gone a long way down the path in seeking more autonomy. Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) support of the Anwar government has given Sarawak a lot more leverage to takeover responsibilities from the federal government in areas like education. The strength of Sabah and Sarawak to bargain with Putra Jaya is greatly weakened with little, if any collaboration between politicians of Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak have not been able to present any united front towards Putra Jaya. 

The growing political Islamization in the peninsula is creating a reactionary nationalism in both Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak, both ethnically diverse, with high rates of intermarriage, rejects the political Islam that advocates exclusion of the peninsula. Many Sabahans and Sarawakians cherish the idea of a secular state. 

Politicians are not under the threat of ISA or charges of sedition they once were. Therefore, more nationalistic talk should be expected in the future. How much of this will be politicians pandering to their constituents, and how much will be sincere will be another matter. One more factor hindering a stronger move towards secession is the self-interests of the political elites in Kota Kinabalu and Kuching. They have their own agendas. 

One final dynamic will be the establishment of Nusantara, the new Indonesian national capital in Kalimantan. Nusantara is closer to Sabah and Sarawak than Putra Jaya, and the people of Kalimantan are culturally closer than those in the peninsula. This could also have great influence upon the future political directions of Sabah and Sarawak, and may bring new dimensions. 

A major factor is how much autonomy Putra Jaya will allow Sabah and Sarawak in the near future.

Source: Eurasia Review

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