Latest Post


Melbourne, 15 September 2024 – Satu demonstrasi aman telah diadakan hari ini di luar Parlimen Victoria, dengan para penunjuk perasaan menyeru perhatian antarabangsa terhadap penjajahan negara-negara Borneo—Sabah dan Sarawak—oleh Malaya (kini dikenali sebagai Malaysia) sejak 16 September 1963. Demonstrasi ini dianjurkan oleh beberapa NGO dan salah satunya ialah Mosses PA Ampang, Presiden Republik Sabah North Borneo, sebuah NGO yang berdaftar di Victoria, Australia, dan bertujuan untuk mendapatkan sokongan global dalam menangani rungutan politik dan wilayah yang telah lama dihadapi oleh rakyat Borneo.

Protes ini memperingati ulang tahun hari di mana pada tahun 1963, Malaya, atas alasan membentuk "Malaysia," meluaskan sempadan politiknya untuk memasukkan Sabah dan Sarawak. Para penunjuk perasaan berhujah bahawa tiada negara baru yang dibentuk pada hari tersebut; sebaliknya, ia merupakan peluasan strategik kawalan Malaya ke atas Borneo. Dalam ucapannya, Ampang menyatakan, “Pembentukan Malaysia yang kononnya berlaku adalah satu muslihat politik yang dilakukan melalui paksaan, penipuan, dan tanpa persetujuan rakyat Borneo. Tiada referendum yang pernah diadakan, menjadikan ia satu penjajahan yang tidak sah ke atas tanah kami.”

Menurut Ampang dan para penunjuk perasaan, Perjanjian Malaysia 1963, yang membenarkan penjajahan ini, adalah batal dan tidak sah sejak awal (ab initio). Pandangan ini disokong oleh preseden antarabangsa seperti kes Kepulauan Chagos, yang memutuskan bahawa koloni tidak mempunyai kapasiti untuk menandatangani perjanjian antarabangsa atas nama mereka sendiri. Ampang turut menekankan bahawa North Borneo dan Sarawak tidak pernah menjadi pihak dalam Perjanjian Malaysia, dengan Peguam Kerajaan British di Sarawak ketika itu turut mengakui bahawa penyertaan Borneo dalam Malaysia hanya untuk tujuan persembahan. "Perjanjian Malaysia hanyalah perjanjian dua hala antara Britain dan Malaya, yang mengenepikan hak rakyat Borneo untuk menentukan masa depan mereka sendiri," kata Ampang.

Demonstrasi ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan kesedaran di kalangan rakyat Australia dan masyarakat antarabangsa mengenai tuntutan keadilan oleh rakyat Borneo. "Rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak berhak untuk mendapatkan kemerdekaan, dan mereka perlu diberi peluang untuk meluahkan hak demokratik mereka," kata Ampang, sambil menyeru penamatan apa yang beliau anggap sebagai “penjajahan Malaya” ke atas negara-negara Borneo. Beliau menambah, "Demonstrasi aman ini adalah satu seruan untuk mendapatkan sokongan antarabangsa bagi mendesak Malaysia supaya menghormati hak-hak rakyat Borneo. Sudah tiba masanya untuk keadilan, dan dunia perlu berdiri bersama kami."

Acara ini menggariskan usaha berterusan oleh NGO Republik Sabah North Borneo dan kumpulan-kumpulan kemerdekaan Borneo lain untuk menimbulkan kesedaran tentang konteks sejarah dan politik seputar Perjanjian Malaysia. Ampang dan para penunjuk perasaan menegaskan semula tuntutan mereka agar komuniti antarabangsa mengakui ketidaksahan perjanjian tersebut dan mencari penyelesaian aman yang menghormati hak rakyat Borneo untuk menentukan nasib mereka sendiri.

Ketika demonstrasi berakhir, para penganjur menegaskan komitmen mereka untuk terus memperjuangkan kemerdekaan Sabah dan Sarawak, sambil menggesa badan-badan antarabangsa untuk campur tangan dan memberi sokongan yang diperlukan bagi menamatkan apa yang mereka anggap sebagai penjajahan yang tidak adil.


Melbourne, September 14, 2024
– Three prominent advocacy organizations, Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ), Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB), and Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM), will unite to stage a peaceful demonstration in front of the Victorian Parliamentary building. The event is scheduled to coincide with the 61st anniversary of what these groups refer to as "Malaysia's occupation" of Sabah and Sarawak since September 16, 1963.

This date, celebrated in Malaysia as Malaysia Day, is viewed by the organizers as a reminder of the historical grievances experienced by the people of Sabah (formerly North Borneo) and Sarawak. These two Borneo states were originally led to believe that they were part of the formation of a new country, but, according to the organizers, this promise was never fulfilled. Instead, they claim that the reality was an expansion of the Malayan Federation into Borneo, later renamed Malaysia, resulting in what the NGOs argue is an ongoing occupation by Peninsular Malaysia.

A Peaceful Call for Awareness and Justice

The demonstration aims to raise international awareness about the ongoing situation in Sabah and Sarawak, which the NGOs argue is one of systematic suppression, injustice, and exploitation by the central government in Kuala Lumpur. According to the organizers, this is an opportunity to educate the international community on what they perceive as a 61-year-long oppression and to correct misconceptions surrounding the creation of Malaysia.

The demonstration will also highlight:

  1. Injustice and Misrepresentation: The organizers will address what they call the "betrayal" of Sabah and Sarawak, emphasizing that the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 (MA63) misled the people of both states into believing they would be equal partners in a new federation. Instead, they argue, the agreement enabled Malaya to consolidate control over their territories.
  2. Harassment and Intimidation: The NGOs will present instances of alleged harassment, intimidation, and political suppression of individuals and groups advocating for Sabah and Sarawak's rights. This includes accusations of legal threats, arrests, and a lack of autonomy for local political leaders, all of which contribute to what they describe as a stifling of free expression in the Borneo states.
  3. Cultural and Economic Exploitation: Another focus will be on the alleged economic exploitation of Sabah and Sarawak, particularly in terms of natural resources like oil and gas. The groups argue that the wealth generated from these resources has not been equitably distributed to the people of Borneo, leaving both states impoverished while contributing significantly to Malaysia's overall economy.

A Broader Movement for Independence

The peaceful demonstration is part of a larger movement led by these NGOs advocating for the independence of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia. The Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB) has been at the forefront of these efforts, with its president, Mosses PA Ampang, calling for international support for the right to self-determination. The Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia & New Zealand (SSRANZ) organization lead by Robert Pei, founded in July 2017, has also been actively organizing forums, live talks, and public meetings to strengthen the push for independence.

Advocates point to historical grievances dating back to the signing of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, which they argue was neither fully understood by the people of Borneo nor implemented in the way it was initially promised. Calls to revisit or even nullify the agreement have been mounting, especially in light of a growing sense of disenfranchisement among the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak.

Voices of Resistance Amidst Threats

Despite the peaceful nature of their demonstrations and outreach efforts, activists involved in the independence movement have faced numerous challenges. RSNB, SSRANZ, and SSKM have all reported receiving threats, including warnings that members could face imprisonment if they return to Malaysia. However, the growing international presence of these organizations, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, has allowed them to continue their advocacy while highlighting the plight of Sabah and Sarawak on the global stage.

Mosses PA Ampang, president of RSNB, has repeatedly emphasized the importance of these demonstrations in giving a voice to the people of Borneo who, he says, have been silenced for far too long. "We are not seeking conflict, but we are seeking justice. The world needs to know the truth about what happened in 1963 and how it continues to affect us today," Ampang stated in a recent interview.

Rallying for Global Attention

As the peaceful demonstration approaches, organizers are hopeful that it will not only shed light on the issues faced by the Borneo states but also garner international support for their cause. The event, they hope, will serve as a platform for the people of Sabah and Sarawak to share their stories and push for a resolution to what they perceive as a long-standing injustice.

With the upcoming demonstration on September 15, 2024, the voices of Sabah and Sarawak are growing louder, calling for an end to what they describe as six decades of occupation and a new chapter of independence and self-determination.

The crucial feature of a fully independent Parliamentary Democratic Country is that, it MUST have its own fully functional and fully independent Parliament, aka, Legislature, aka State Legislative Assembly.

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


SSRANZ President Robert Pei said the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui Keong may not have carefully considered the full implications of what he said as reported on 25 March 2019, quote: “Besides that, the government will not agree to any suggestion and issue raised in relation to the dissolution of MA63 and self-determination,” he said in reply to an oral question by Jeffrey Kitingan (Star-Keningau).


He said the Minister may not have been aware that the International Court of Justice had made a decision on 29 Feb 2019 which in re-affirming the right of peoples to self-determination (UN Resolution 1514XV), re-stated the international law rule on treaty making that only sovereign states can make treaties and colonies (non-self-governing territories) are not sovereign independent states with the power to make such treaties with independent states.

The case related to issues on the decolonization of Mauritius in 1968 which challenged the validity of 1965 Mauritius "agreement" with the United Kingdom to "detach" the Chagos Islands from Mauritius territory to form a new colony in 1965. It was referred to the ICJ, which hears legal submissions over international boundary disputes, after an overwhelming vote in 2017 in the UN assembly in the face of fierce opposition from a largely isolated UK.

For the first time on record, it appears that an eminent court of law has reopened a "decolonization” case and questioned the validity of a treaty made by a ruling colonial power with its colony and whether decolonization had been lawfully completed in accordance with the right of peoples to self-determination.

He said for the same reason, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was void ab initio (invalid from the beginning) and there is nothing to be “dissolved” contrary to what the Minister was saying. MA63 was made in violation of the said legal principle when North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak were still colonies. The formation of Malaysia under MA63 was intended by the UK as part of its decolonization of Sabah and Sarawak by “integration with an independent state” (Malaya under UN Resolution 1541XV). If MA63 was invalid and not binding, there is no “Federation of Malaysia” to speak of and Sabah and Sarawak should indeed be talking about self-determination.

Robert a Sarawak born Australian lawyer and activist pointed out that the recent International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) decision on the Chagos Archipelago Case (Mauritius, delivered 29 Feb 2019) has confirmed his assertion since 2014 that MA63 was void ab initio. He first raised this issue in his paper “Is MA63 a valid international Agreement?” in a Kota Kinabalu forum on MA63 in 2014.

He said the ICJ decision, therefore, has an immediate impact on the validity of MA63 and he queried whether the current inter-state/federal government MA63 talks have any legitimacy.

He said the ICJ findings on the cited case was that Mauritius as a colony under the authority of the United Kingdom, its administering Power in 1965, could not make a binding an international agreement with the UK as this was not free and genuine expression of the will of the people.

Para 172 of the ICJ decision stated that: “The Court observes that when the Council of Ministers agreed in principle to the detachment from Mauritius of the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius was, as a colony, under the authority of the United Kingdom. As noted at the time by the Committee of Twenty-Four: “the present Constitution of Mauritius . . . do[es] not allow the representatives of the people to exercise - 41 - real legislative or executive powers, and that authority is nearly all concentrated in the hands of the United Kingdom Government and its representatives” (UN doc. A/ 5800/Rev.1 (1964-1965), p. 352, para. 154). In the Court’s view, it is not possible to talk of an international agreement, when one of the parties to it, Mauritius, which is said to have ceded the territory to the United Kingdom, was under the authority of the latter.”

Robert said there are many similarities in the making of the UK-Mauritius Agreement of 1965 and the Malaysia Agreement of 1963.

From 9 July 1963 to 16 Sept. 1963, both Sarawak and Sabah were still colonies (as stated by Article 1 of MA63 and the Malaysia Act 1963) administered by the UK when they purportedly signed an international agreement with the UK, Malaya, and Singapore agreeing to transfer British sovereignty over the Borneo territories and Singapore to the Federation of Malaya, without independence first or consent and mandate freely given in a referendum on the Malaysia question. The UK had claimed that this was one way to decolonize Sabah and Sarawak by integration in the Malayan Federation in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution 1541XV.

Robert pointed out that on the date MA63 was signed neither North Borneo nor Sarawak had self-rule. Nominal self-rule was only “granted” to Sarawak for 55 days from 22 July 1963 and Sabah was granted 14 days of self-rule on 31 August before they were incorporated in the Malayan Federation renamed “Malaysia” on 16 Sept 1963. This did not even in any way complied with requirements of UN Resolution 1541XV which included the gaining of governing experience and political maturity to consider the federation proposal.

On 31 August 1963, the British Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys (in rejecting S’pore Unilateral Declaration of Independence UDI) stated that Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak were at all times territories under the authority and full control of the UK till 16 September 1963, the Malaysia formation date.

In view of this confirmation of Sabah Sarawak pre-MA63 status and applying the Chagos ruling on MA63, neither North Borneo, Sarawak nor Singapore could make a binding international agreement with the UK when it still had direct control over them on 9 July 1963.

The ICJ ruling, therefore, affirms Robert’s assertion that MA63 was void ab initio (invalid from the beginning) for this reason. This means that the British decolonization of Sabah and Sarawak had not been lawfully complied with in accordance with the people’s right to self-determination, especially the failure to obtain a mandate or consent freely given in a referendum on the Malaysia Question.

He said as far as Minister Liew’s statement goes, there was no MA63 to be dissolved. He said this immediately raises the question “Has the Federation been illegally controlling Sabah and Sarawak sovereignty since MA63 and is Malaysia just a de facto state which expanded its territories by absorbing the Borneo countries?”.

Further, according to the announced amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution, the removal of Sabah and Sarawak status as “states” means that they would revert to their pre-Malaysia status as “colonies” as stated in Article 1 MA63 and in the Malaysia Act 1963 ratifying MA63.

Therefore the Minister was wrong to state that the Federal government would not consider dissolving MA63 or “self-determination” for Sabah and Sarawak.

In fact, if MA63 does not exist, the Federation is under a duty placed on it by the UN Charter and Resolution 1514 to immediately decolonize the 2 colonies.

In conclusion, he called on the Sarawak and Sabah governments to seriously look at the Chagos Islands decision and review their respective states’ position in the Federation. They have a number of options but the first thing to do is to assert and claim their people’s right to self-determination.

End of comments.

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

KOTA KINABALU: A group of NGOs called on the Federal Government to apologise and make appropriate reparations for the loss of freedom to seven Sabahans, including Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, who were arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) 33 years ago.

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

By Murray Hunter

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
Sabah and Sarawak colonies of Malaya?

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

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.