Republic of Sabah North Borneo

TIMING OF MALAYSIA

September 20, 2024 History

Sir William Goode

SPECIAL EDITION - MALAYSIA DAY 2024

By William Goode

Jesselton, North Borneo, 7th April, 1962

1.It can hardly be disputed that North Borneo is not ready for Malaysia. The Proposal came as a shock to people who were occupied with developing their own country and had no wish for change. It must take several years at least to develop political leaders, to introduce elections, and to produce a local civil service. In North Borneo’s interest, a transition period of several years is needed before Malaysia is put into effect.

2. This will give time to prepare North Borneo for the change and will enable Malaysia to be built on firmer foundations. Are there any objections to the delay as far as North Borneo is concerned?

3. The first objection raised is that delay will allow the Communists to gain strength. Hitherto the communists have failed to establish any organisation in North Borneo. This is because there have been no emotional issues for them to exploit and no organisations to penetrate: no burning desire for freedom; no anti-colonial movement; no class struggle; no issue over Chinese schools; no trade unions; and until very recently no political parties. As political parties develop, they will provide opportunities for Communist, penetration but at present, the danger is small. Malaysia itself provides the best cover for Communist penetration since there are strong popular feelings against, Malaysia and it has aroused racial fears which can be exploited. The Communists will certainly exploit Malaysia, but, they will profit more from a Malaysia rushed upon an ill-prepared North Borneo, than from a transition period of careful preparation.

4. A second objection is that delay will allow opposition to Malaysia to gather strength. This objection assumes that further consideration of Malaysia will increase opposition rather than persuade those who are now reluctant or suspicious. On the contrary, more time should make it possible to secure a better understanding of the true worth of Malaysia and to overcome present doubts and fears by explaining how North Borneo's interests will be safeguarded. Delay will also remove the accusation that the people of North Borneo were rushed into Malaysia without, being given time to understand its full implications.

5. Another objection is that North Borneo's political leaders will develop a vested interest against surrendering power to the Federal Government. This can be prevented by not allowing any vested interest against, Malaysia, to grow up during the preparatory period. The principle and the broad outline of Malaysia should be agreed now, and the gradual transfer of authority from the British Government and officials to local leaders can then be made in accordance with the agreed final division of authority between the State and Federal Governments. During the preparatory period, North Borneo leaders should not, be given any powers they will not retain when Malaysia is introduced.

6. As far as North Borneo is concerned, the advantages of delay greatly outweigh the disadvantages. Would delay cause insuperable difficulties outside North Borneo?

Cobbold

7. The immediate urgency over Malaysia arose from the political situation in Singapore. Nine months ago Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's Government appeared to be disintegrating; it, was feared that he would lose his majority in the Assembly and be forced to a general election, which would result, In the Communist dominated Barisan Socialis gaining power. Only merger with Malaya and firm control by the Alliance Government, could prevent, the Communists capturing Singapore and then getting full independence from the British Government. But for internal political reasons, the Alliance Government could not carry out merger of Singapore without, at the same time bringing the Borneo territories into Malaysia. Therefore, Malaysia must be introduced rapidly because only immediate intervention by the Alliance Government will prevent the Communists capturing Singapore.

8. Today the situation in Singapore has improved. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew has beaten off the Barisan Socialis attack and exposed their Communist direction. There is no immediate likelihood that he will be defeated in the Assembly. There is no apparent, reason to prevent his Government running its full five year course to May 1964. The Barisan Socialis have lost a series of battles with the P.A.P. Government: Chinese school examinations, the City Council strike, the Workers Brigade , and in the Assembly. Their strength comes from success and without success it is likely to wane. They have had no success since July last year. They have no capable Members in the Assembly and no obvious way to maintain their momentum. Their present, tactics of repeated pin prick strikes are likely gradually to alienate public opinion. Nor has the Singapore Government, yet, used the sharp weapon of arrest, of the known Communist, leaders and organisers, though Mr. Lee Kuan Yew stated recently that, the time was approaching when this weapon could be used without damage to the Government' s political strength. The removal of its Communist organisers would wreck the Barisan Socialis. This weapon is available now too the Internal Security Council. But, it should be used at the most favourable time. The Communist, leaders should, if possible first, be stripped of popular support. This Mr. Lee Kuan Yew seems to be doing. If he can win a referendum on merger and Malaysia is accepted by the British and Malayan governments and the majority of the people of the Borneo territories, then Singapore will probably accept merger as inevitable and abandon the lost, cause of opposing it. The Communists will be left on their own.

9. Ironically the only immediate danger to the P.A.P. Government now apparent arises from merger: the referendum. Presumably the longer this can be delayed, the better is the prospect that the Barisan Socialis Influence will be eroded and the referendum won. Alternatively, if Mr. Lee Kuan Yew judges that he can win the referendum, he can hold it. If he wins, then he has beaten the Barisan Socialis and secured his position. If he loses, presumably merger cannot be forced upon Singapore and the whole project of Malaysia will have to be postponed,

10.Singapore remains a problem and a threat, to Malaya. But there is no immediate crisis. indeed, it could be argued that, the better plan is give Mr. Lee Kuan Yew longer to beat the Communists politically and to take Singapore into merger with the support, of public opinion rather then risk losing a referendum this year; nor should the Tunku, if he can avoid it, take repressive action against the Singapore Communists while they are able exploit, the merger issue and appear as the champions of the interests of Singapore against subjugation to a Malay government in Kuala Lumpur.

11.On this assessment, a postponement of merger for a year or two in the interests of the Borneo territories would not weaken Mr. Lee Kuan Yew' s position. It would also give him an excuse to postpone his referendum, if he so wished.

12.How far does the Singapore general election affect the timing of Malaysia? It has been assumed that Malaysia and merger of Singapore and Malaya must be achieved before the general election in Singapore due in 1964. Presumably the arguments underlying this assumption are that, after merger the Singapore electorate will vote more sensibly and reject the Barisan Socialis end the Communist, and the Alliance Government, will be able to arrest Communist organisers if this is needed before the elections.

13. The first test will come in the referendum which must be held before merger. It must also be held before Malaysia is put into effect, since the Tunku has said that if the referendum rejects merger, he will not, go on with Malaysia. Therefore, Malaysia is only possible after a successful referendum in Singapore.

14. But if Singapore accepts merger in a referendum, the Barisan Socialis and the Communists will have been defeated. It would surely then be unlikely that the Communist,s would capture Singapore in the election. Mr Lee Kuan Yew will have won a decisive victory and be in a much stronger position to counter the Communist threat. Moreover with merger accepted by Singapore , and Malaysia accepted by all concerned for introduction after a short preparatory period, the Singapore Government and the Internal Security Council would be better placed to arrest and detain Communist leaders if necessary.

15.Lastly, it is hard to see how merger could be successfully carried out by a Singapore Government, facing a general election and possibility of defeat on the issue of merger. The sounder course for the future of Malaysia would surely be that Singapore should first confirm its acceptance of merger in a general election and elect a Government with the political strength to carry it out.

16. Alternatively, if the Tunku considers any delay in Singapore to be too dangerous , it is open to him go ahead with the merger of Singapore and Malaya as soon as Malaysia has been agreed in principle and the main features of the constitution settled, without, waiting for Malaysia to be fully carried out in North Borneo.

17.There is also the problem of Brunei. At present Azahari has successfully mobilised public opinion against Malaysia. It is uncertain whether or not the Sultan will be prepared to commit Brunei to Malaysia against the wishes of his people; or whether he could maintain his position if he did. He is committed to elections this year. The result, could be decisive. The Sultan is probably waiting to see what happens in Sarawak and North Borneo. If as a result of the Cobbold Commission both these territories accept Malaysia, the Sultan may then feel that he can take Brunei in too; if the other two do not accept Malaysia he can postpone the issue in Brunei . If Malaysia is accepted in principle for Sarawak and North Borneo and the main terms agreed now but a period of several years granted in which to effect the change, Brunei will still have to reach its own decision, There is no reason to think that delay in carrying out Malaysia would prejudice that decision.

18. It is at least arguable that, delay in carrying out Malaysia would not prejudice the situation in Singapore or in Brunei. On the other hand, if Malaysia is rushed, fails to work satisfactorily, and is rapidly discredited, its failure must, have serious consequences in all the territories concerned.

Extract: A Letter dated 7.4.1962 to Cameron Fromanteel Cobbold, 1st Baron Cobbold KG GCVO PC DL was a British banker. He served as Governor of the Bank of England from 1949 to 1961 and as Lord Chamberlain from 1963 to 1971 from William Allmond Codrington Goode (1907–1986) Governor of British North Borneo, 1960–1963.

Source: Kumis Kumis

LAWYER SAYS MA63 INTERNATIONAL TREATY IS NULL AND VOID ACCORDING TO 2019 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE RULING ON THE CHAGOS ISLANDS CASE

September 20, 2024 News

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.

>>>Download Official Statement<<<

Source: SSRANZ

Peaceful Demonstration in Victoria Parliament Calls for End to Malaya's Occupation of Borneo

September 19, 2024 News

Melbourne, 15 September 2024 – A peaceful demonstration was held today outside the Victorian Parliament, with protesters demanding international attention to the occupation of the Borneo states—Sabah and Sarawak—by Malaya (now Malaysia) since 16 September 1963. The event, organized by several NGOs, including the Republic of Sabah North Borneo, led by its president, Mosses PA Ampang, highlighted the urgent need for global support in addressing the long-standing political and territorial grievances of the Bornean people.

The protest marked the anniversary of the day in 1963 when Malaya, under the pretext of forming "Malaysia," extended its political boundaries to include Sabah and Sarawak. The demonstrators argue that no new country was formed on that day; rather, it was a strategic expansion of Malaya’s control over Borneo. Ampang, speaking at the event, stated, “The so-called formation of Malaysia was a political maneuver done by force, deception, and without the consent of the Borneo people. No referendum was ever held, making it an illegitimate annexation of our lands.”

According to Ampang and the protesters, the Malaysia Agreement of 1963, which enabled this annexation, is void and invalid from the beginning (ab initio). This view is supported by international precedents such as the Chagos Islands case, which ruled that colonies lack the capacity to sign international agreements on their own behalf. Ampang highlighted the fact that both North Borneo and Sarawak were not parties to the Malaysia Agreement, with even the British Attorney General of Sarawak at the time acknowledging that Borneo's inclusion in Malaysia was only for presentation purposes. "The Malaysia Agreement was nothing more than a bilateral deal between Britain and Malaya, excluding the people of Borneo from having any say in their own future," said Ampang.

The demonstration aimed to raise awareness among the Australian public and the international community about the Bornean people's call for justice. "Sabahans and Sarawakians deserve the right to independence, and they must be given the opportunity to express their democratic will," Ampang said, calling for an end to what he referred to as “Malaya's occupation” of the Borneo states. He added, "This peaceful demonstration is a call for international support to press Malaysia to respect the rights of the Bornean people. It is time for justice, and the world needs to stand with us."

The event underscored the ongoing efforts by the Republic of Sabah North Borneo NGO and other Bornean independence groups to bring attention to the historical and political context surrounding the Malaysia Agreement. Ampang and the protesters reiterated their demand for the international community to acknowledge the void nature of the agreement and for a peaceful resolution that respects the right of the Bornean people to self-determination.

As the demonstration came to a close, the organizers reaffirmed their commitment to continue advocating for the independence of Sabah and Sarawak, urging international bodies to intervene and provide the support necessary to end what they consider an unjust occupation.

Demonstrasi Aman di Parlimen Victoria Australia Menuntut Penamatan Penjajahan Malaya terhadap Borneo

September 18, 2024 News

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.

Three Borneo Rights NGOs to Hold Peaceful Demonstration at Victoria Parliament on September 15, 2024

September 14, 2024 News

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:

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.
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.
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.

FORMATION OF MALAYSIA UNDER SCRUTINY: THE NORTH BORNEO (SABAH) PERSPECTIVE

August 25, 2024 Extra Information

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.