Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB

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.

Purpose and Long-Term Vision

The document expresses a clear goal: to gain full independence for Sabah, free from what it describes as the “colonial control” exerted by Malaya since the formation of Malaysia in 1963. According to the RSNB, this movement is anchored in principles of self-determination, justice, and freedom. The organization aims to build a united front within Sabah, generate broad public support, and seek international recognition for its cause.

Mosses PA Ampang emphasizes that this initiative is not merely a reactionary movement but a carefully planned, diplomatic campaign for autonomy. The roadmap envisions a resilient and inclusive republic that reflects Sabah’s unique cultural heritage and diverse ethnic composition. RSNB’s ultimate goal is a peaceful referendum on independence, anticipated within the next decade.

Phase One: Building Awareness and National Identity (2024-2026)

Phase One of the RSNB’s strategy centers on two primary objectives: raising awareness and fostering a cohesive national identity. To achieve this, RSNB plans to initiate a series of workshops, webinars, and public forums aimed at educating both local and international audiences on Sabah’s right to self-determination. These events will focus on historical narratives, legal precedents, and the perceived failures of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), which RSNB claims was flawed and did not adequately represent the interests of the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

The RSNB also aims to strengthen the sense of unity among Sabah’s diverse ethnic communities under a single national identity termed “Bangsa Negara Sabah.” This term symbolizes the collective identity of Sabahans, which RSNB hopes will bridge ethnic and cultural divides and consolidate support for independence.

Emphasis on Historical and Legal Justifications

A key component of the strategy document is the emphasis on the historical and legal basis for Sabah’s independence. RSNB points to United Nations documents and principles of international law, including self-determination, as foundational to its claim. The organization asserts that Sabah’s original status as a distinct entity under British rule, prior to the formation of Malaysia, supports its bid for autonomy. RSNB has drawn on British colonial records to substantiate the argument that the inclusion of Sabah in Malaysia was not an act of voluntary union but rather a forced integration.

The movement underscores that independence is not merely a political stance but a right deeply rooted in Sabah’s unique history and identity. RSNB’s educational campaigns will highlight these historical issues, aiming to clarify the narrative around MA63 and expose what they perceive as 61 years of “colonial-like control” by the central government in Kuala Lumpur.

Pathway to a Peaceful and Democratic Referendum

While the document does not specify a date, RSNB’s roadmap envisions a democratic referendum on independence within the 10-year timeline. Mosses PA Ampang and his team advocate for a non-violent and democratic process, asserting that self-determination is a right that must be pursued responsibly and peacefully. By preparing the public and building international support, RSNB hopes to lay the groundwork for a smooth transition to independence, should the referendum pass.

The group is keen on avoiding abrupt or disruptive changes, instead emphasizing the need for a stable and sustainable governance model. RSNB’s vision includes establishing local governance structures, economic systems, and a strong civic foundation to support an independent Sabah.

Conclusion of Phase One

Phase One serves as a critical foundation for RSNB’s overall strategy. By prioritizing awareness and identity-building, RSNB seeks to unify the people of Sabah under a shared vision of independence. The success of this phase, according to Mosses PA Ampang, will be pivotal in mobilizing widespread support for the independence movement and creating momentum for future phases of the campaign.

“This journey is about awakening the people of Sabah to their history, their rights, and their future,” Mosses PA Ampang stated. “The ceremonial lowering of the Malaysian flag and the raising of the Sabah and Sarawak flags symbolizes the end of Malayan colonialism. We must unite and stand for our right to be free. Our path is clear, and we will continue this fight until we achieve true independence.”

Looking Forward

The RSNB has set an ambitious timeline, with each phase of its strategy aiming to build on the achievements of the previous steps. If successful, RSNB’s vision will culminate in a peaceful, democratic Sabah Republic, marking the end of what they see as “colonial-like control” by Malaya. For Mosses PA Ampang and his supporters, this is not just a political mission; it is a movement driven by a deep-seated desire for justice, dignity, and sovereignty for the people of Sabah.

The journey may be long, but with this structured roadmap, RSNB hopes to bring Sabah closer to realizing its dream of self-governance and independence.

Tujuan dan Visi Jangka Panjang

Dokumen ini menyatakan matlamat yang jelas: memperoleh kemerdekaan penuh untuk Sabah, bebas daripada apa yang disifatkan sebagai “kawalan kolonial” yang dikenakan oleh Malaya sejak 'pembentukan Malaysia' pada tahun 1963. Menurut RSNB, gerakan ini berakar umbi dalam prinsip penentuan nasib sendiri, keadilan, dan kebebasan. Organisasi ini berhasrat untuk membina perpaduan dalam kalangan rakyat Sabah, mewujudkan sokongan awam yang luas, dan mendapatkan pengiktirafan antarabangsa bagi perjuangannya.

Mosses PA Ampang menekankan bahawa inisiatif ini bukan sekadar gerakan reaktif tetapi satu kempen diplomatik yang dirancang dengan teliti untuk mencapai autonomi. Pelan tindakan ini membayangkan sebuah republik yang berdaya tahan dan inklusif, yang mencerminkan warisan budaya Sabah yang unik serta komposisi etnik yang pelbagai. Matlamat akhir RSNB adalah referendum aman mengenai kemerdekaan, yang dijangka dalam dekad akan datang.

Fasa Pertama: Membangunkan Kesedaran dan Identiti Nasional (2024-2026)

Fasa Pertama strategi RSNB berpusat pada dua objektif utama: meningkatkan kesedaran dan memupuk identiti nasional yang kohesif. Untuk mencapai matlamat ini, RSNB merancang untuk mengadakan siri bengkel, webinar, dan forum awam bagi mendidik kedua-dua khalayak tempatan dan antarabangsa mengenai hak Sabah untuk menentukan nasib sendiri. Acara-acara ini akan menumpukan pada naratif sejarah, preseden undang-undang, dan kegagalan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63) yang dianggap oleh RSNB sebagai mempunyai kecacatan dan tidak mewakili kepentingan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak secara adil.

RSNB juga bertujuan untuk memperkukuh rasa perpaduan dalam kalangan komuniti etnik Sabah di bawah satu identiti nasional yang digelar “Bangsa Negara Sabah.” Istilah ini melambangkan identiti kolektif rakyat Sabah yang diyakini oleh RSNB dapat merapatkan jurang etnik dan budaya serta mengukuhkan sokongan bagi kemerdekaan.

Penekanan pada Justifikasi Sejarah dan Undang-Undang

Komponen penting dalam dokumen strategi ini ialah penekanan terhadap asas sejarah dan undang-undang bagi kemerdekaan Sabah. RSNB merujuk kepada dokumen-dokumen Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu dan prinsip-prinsip undang-undang antarabangsa, termasuk penentuan nasib sendiri, sebagai asas bagi tuntutannya. Organisasi ini menegaskan bahawa status asal Sabah sebagai entiti yang berasingan di bawah pemerintahan British, sebelum 'pembentukan Malaysia', menyokong usahanya untuk mendapatkan autonomi. RSNB menggunakan rekod-rekod kolonial British untuk menyokong hujah bahawa 'penyertaan' Sabah dalam Malaysia bukanlah satu tindakan penyatuan sukarela, tetapi sebaliknya 'penggabungan' paksa atau dalam erti kata lain, satu penjajahan.

Gerakan ini menegaskan bahawa kemerdekaan bukanlah sekadar pendirian politik tetapi hak yang berakar dalam sejarah dan identiti unik Sabah. Kempen pendidikan RSNB akan mengetengahkan isu-isu sejarah ini, dengan tujuan menjelaskan naratif mengenai MA63 dan mendedahkan apa yang mereka anggap sebagai 61 tahun “kawalan kolonial” oleh kerajaan pusat di Kuala Lumpur.

Laluan ke Arah Referendum Aman dan Demokratik

Walaupun dokumen tersebut tidak menyatakan tarikh tertentu, pelan tindakan RSNB membayangkan satu referendum demokratik mengenai kemerdekaan dalam tempoh 10 tahun. Mosses PA Ampang dan pasukannya memperjuangkan proses yang aman dan demokratik, menegaskan bahawa penentuan nasib sendiri adalah hak yang mesti diperjuangkan dengan bertanggungjawab dan aman. Dengan menyediakan rakyat dan membina sokongan antarabangsa, RSNB berharap dapat menyediakan asas bagi peralihan yang lancar kepada kemerdekaan, jika referendum berjaya.

Kumpulan ini berusaha untuk mengelakkan perubahan yang tergesa-gesa atau mengganggu, sebaliknya menekankan keperluan untuk model pemerintahan yang stabil dan lestari. Visi RSNB termasuk penubuhan struktur pemerintahan tempatan, sistem ekonomi, dan asas kewarganegaraan yang kukuh untuk menyokong Sabah yang merdeka.

Kesimpulan Fasa Pertama

Fasa Pertama merupakan asas kritikal bagi keseluruhan strategi RSNB. Dengan mengutamakan kesedaran dan pembinaan identiti, RSNB berusaha untuk menyatukan rakyat Sabah di bawah visi kemerdekaan yang dikongsi bersama. Kejayaan fasa ini, menurut Mosses PA Ampang, akan menjadi penentu dalam menggerakkan sokongan yang meluas untuk gerakan kemerdekaan dan mencipta momentum untuk fasa-fasa kempen yang seterusnya.

“Perjalanan ini adalah tentang membangkitkan kesedaran rakyat Negara Sabah mengenai sejarah mereka, hak mereka, dan masa depan mereka,” kata Mosses PA Ampang. “Upacara menurunkan bendera Malaysia dan menaikkan bendera Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak melambangkan berakhirnya kolonialisme Malaya. Kita mesti bersatu dan berdiri teguh untuk memperjuangkan hak kita untuk bebas. Jalan kita jelas, dan kita akan terus berjuang sehingga mencapai kemerdekaan sejati.”

Masa Depan Pergerakan

RSNB telah menetapkan garis masa yang bercita-cita tinggi, dengan setiap fasa strateginya bertujuan untuk membina kejayaan daripada langkah sebelumnya. Sekiranya berjaya, visi RSNB akan berakhir dengan penubuhan Republik Sabah yang merdeka secara aman dan demokratik, menandakan berakhirnya apa yang mereka anggap sebagai “kawalan kolonial” oleh Malaya. Bagi Mosses PA Ampang dan penyokongnya, ini bukan sekadar misi politik; ia adalah gerakan yang didorong oleh keinginan mendalam untuk keadilan, maruah, dan kedaulatan bagi rakyat Sabah.

Perjalanan ini mungkin panjang, tetapi dengan pelan tindakan yang teratur ini, RSNB yakin untuk membawa Sabah lebih dekat ke arah merealisasikan impian untuk pemerintahan sendiri dan kemerdekaan.

Summary of the Event:

• The flag-raising event held in Melbourne, Australia, on 15 September 2024, marked the 61st anniversary of the British "decolonization" of Sabah and Sarawak on 16 Sept 1963, and their subsequent absorption into the Malayan Federation with its name changed to Malaysia under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63, if valid).  Malaysia was formed under dubious legal conditions which questioned its legitimacy. The NGOs noted that it was a perfectly legitimate expression that with one flagpole the flags had to be raised and lowered in turn.
• The event was also to highlight 61 years of Malayan humiliation, subjugation and exploitation of Sabah and Sarawak, reducing them to colonial dependencies in Malaysia.
• The peaceful gathering was given significant media attention in Malaysia and abroad, with sensational news headlines with reports accusing the event as seditious, such as “Cops probe video of M’sian flag being replaced with that of Sabah, Sarawak”, “Investigate the mastermind of the incitement to lower the Malaysian flag - AMK Marudu”, “In Malaysia, viral video linked to Borneo secessionists sparks police investigation”.  Sabah UMNO Media Chief made inflammatory allegations that the rally was “inciting and destabilising” the country. 
• The Malaysian police was instigated to launch an investigation on a viral video showing the Jalur Gemilang (Malaysian flag) being lowered and replaced with the flags of Sabah and the Kingdom of Sarawak (flown as independent Sarawak national flag from 1870 to 1946 and also under British colonial rule from 1946 to 1963 and then as Sarawak's state flag from 1963 to 1973), following police reports lodged by UMNO and PKR members in Sabah. 

SSRANZ and RSNB strongly refute the Sedition Allegations and state that it was a lawful rally to highlight a number if issues concerning the legitimacy of Malaysia Formation and 61 years of Malaysia misrule:

1. The Flag-Raising Was Not An Incitement To Violence Or Sedition: The NGOs strongly condemned the politicisation of the event by UMNO and PKR, in spreading politically motivated misinformation and manipulating the police to suppress freedom of expression and legitimate grievances. They criticised the Malayan-controlled Sabah UMNO Party and Sabah PKR members for orchestrating baseless accusations such as “inciting and destabilising” the country, aimed at discrediting calls for self-determination and rights restoration. This highlights that Malayan parties will always prioritise Malayan interests over those of Sabah and Sarawak, perpetuating domination and exploitation of the two territories.
   
   
   Regarding allegations of sedition: Contrary to the portrayal of the rally by Sabah UMNO Media and the police, the event was a peaceful expression of dissatisfaction with Malaysia's ongoing failure to honour its international law obligations under MA63. The flag-raising was not an incitement to violence or sedition but symbolised the continued marginalisation of Sabah and Sarawak. It was a call for the people of these regions to remember the loss of their sovereignty and to raise awareness of their situation to the world. The response of Malayan Sabah political parties only exposed their colonial mindset and subservience to Malaya.
   
   
   Legitimate Grievances Suppressed:  The peaceful rally, held in a country that protects free speech, was not a call for violence but a statement against the systemic marginalisation of Sabah and Sarawak. Attempts to criminalise this protest are part of ongoing efforts to suppress legitimate grievances. 
   
   
2. Neo-colonial Misrule and Exploitation in Sabah and Sarawak: The real source of instability in Sabah and Sarawak stems from decades of federal misrule, corruption, exploitation, and demographic manipulation, including UMNO’s political engineering by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants to secure federal control over Sabah. This has created widespread and deep dissatisfaction against the federal government.
   
   
3. Right to Self-Determination: SSRANZ and RSNB stressed that the event underscored Sabah and Sarawak’s legal right to self-determination, recognized by international law and the UN 1945 Charter on Human Rights and UN General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR) 1514. The formation of Malaysia was an external interference by the United Kingdom in collusion with Malaya to deny this right in breach of the United Kingdom’s undertaking to grant independence to both countries when it annexed them as crown colonies in 1946 and UNGAR 1514.
   
   
   This legal right allows for peaceful expressions of national independence and sovereignty, and, if Malaysia is truly a voluntary federation, also implies the right to exit. The British Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Chairman Lord Lansdowne in response to calls for the right to exit Malaysia confirmed in 1963 that in a voluntary federation it was an “intrinsic right to secede at any time”. PM Tunku Abdul Rahman in agreement stated that if the 2 regions were unhappy with Malaysia, they could always leave. International law does not prohibit the right to exit any political union for independence.
   
   
   SSRANZ and RSNB view that Malaysia was unlawfully set up in a manner inconsistent with the Borneo people’s right to self-determination in breach of international law.
   
   
   The event symbolically commemorated the 1963 so-called British decolonisation of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak, which occurred through the unlawful transfer of their sovereignty to Malaya. This transfer, carried out without a proper referendum, relied on the flawed findings of the 1962 Cobbold Commission and the 1963 UN Mission, leading to the forced inclusion of these regions into the Federation of Malaysia. It was for this reason that Indonesian and Philippines Governments opposed Malaysia on the ground that the process of Malaysia formation did not have legal basis. Rather than achieving true decolonization, the process was intended to impose PAX MALAYSIA by expanding Malaya’s territories, perpetuating colonial dominance under centralised control. Indeed Sabah and Sarawak were taken over by Malaya under coercive emergency conditions and ruled under centralised control with the use of emergency laws from 1963 to 2011, with mass suppression, detention in concentration camps and bloodshed. Malaysia was created in conflict, not consensus!
   
   
   It is a historical fact that the British Union Jack was lowered symbolising the end British colonial rule on 16 September 1963 and replaced by the Malayan Jalur Gemilang representing a new ruler and also raising the Sabah and Sarawak flags to show their achieving self-government. Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman claimed that Malaysia was formed to free North Borneo and Sarawak from British colonial rule. However in reality, it was not liberation or freedom from colonialism as the Malayans claimed, but merely replacing the old colonial ruler with a new ruler.   President Sukarno of Indonesia condemned this as neo-colonial transfer of the colonial office from London to Kuala Lumpur. The late Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem reminded the Malayans that Sarawak did not become free from one colonial rule to be ruled by another power.
   
   
4. No new nation was form as Malaysia. The renaming of Malaya to Malaysia and the inclusion of Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak in 1963 was presented to the UN, not as the creation of a new nation, but as an expansion of the existing Federation of Malaya.  The UN Legal Opinion of 19 September 1963 referring to Malayan UN representative Dato Ong Yoke Lin’s letter to the UN Secretary General, confirmed this legal interpretation, ensuring that Malaysia was seen as a continuation of Malaya rather than the creation of a new state or country. This did not require an application for new UN membership. This was a key British planned diplomatic manoeuvre to ensure that Malaysia did not face the same level of scrutiny that a newly independent country would face, preventing strong international challenges to its legitimacy.
   
   
5. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 as an Neo-colonial Territorial Expansion Agreement and at the same time, fulfilled the British Grand Design to continue maintaining it strategic military base of Singapore and economic interests in the region.
   
   
   Legal Continuity: The decision to form Malaysia was pre-determined and formalised in the secret “Agreement to set up the Federation of Malaysia” signed by the UK and Malaya on 31 July 1962, one year before MA63 was concluded. The people of Sabah and Sarawak were not represented by their own elected representatives in the negotiations which were held between the UK and Malaya from 1958 to 1963. 
   
   
   The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was framed as an agreement to expand the Federation of Malaya by admitting three new territories (Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak). Rather than creating a new political entity, it merely amended the 1957 Malayan constitution to accommodate the entry of new members. This gave the appearance that Malaysia was simply an extension of the Federation of Malaya, rather than a newly formed country.
   
   
   Constitutional Amendments vs. New Constitution: A critical point is that Malaysia did not adopt a new constitution, but rather amended the existing Malayan constitution to reflect its new territorial composition. This reinforces the argument that Malaysia was a continuation of the existing state of Malaya, not a newly constituted country. 
   
   
6. The event sought to highlight the fact that Malaysia was formed through the invalid Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) signed on 9 July 1963, in violation of the people’s right to self-determination.  MA63 was void ab initio as Sabah and Sarawak were still British colonies at the time and not sovereign states with the legal capacity and free consent to enter into binding international treaties. By including them and Singapore as signatories, the British and Malayan governments deliberately perpetrated a fraud as they were well aware that the three colonies had no legal capacity to be parties to the treaty. If they were, it would not have been necessary for the UK to be involved in the federation process.
   
   
   The process of Malaysia formation was designed by the British Government in collusion with the Malayan government to circumvent the UN decolonisation laws and international law with an invalid international agreement. This parallels the 2019 ICJ ruling on the Chagos Islands Case, where the court found that the UK's separation of the islands from Mauritius violated international law because colonies were not sovereign states with the right to make such agreements. Similarly, MA63 is considered invalid from the beginning as the colonial territories of Sabah and Sarawak were not sovereign and thus lacked the capacity to consent freely, making Malaysia's formation legally questionable.
   
   
   In reality, Malaysia was set up as a de facto neo-colonial creation. The illegality of MA63 underlines the external British Malayan interference and violation of the right to self-determination for the people of Sabah and Sarawak. Their futures were significantly shaped by unlawful external powers (the UK and Malaya) interference, and that they were not given a genuine opportunity to decide whether to join Malaysia or choose real independence. Moreover, the breaches of MA63 over the decades are seen as ongoing violations of their autonomy and rights, further justifying the claim that MA63 was invalid or has since been rendered invalid.
   
   
7. Breach of the Manila Accord 1963. Owing to local and international opposition, the Malayan government signed the Manila Accord on 31 July 1963, (22 days after MA63 was signed), with the Philippines and Indonesia governments agreeing to two pre-Malaysia conditions. The Accord required both a fresh survey of the people's wishes in Sabah and Sarawak and the resolution of the Philippines' claim over Sabah before forming Malaysia. The British and Malayan acceptance of these conditions amounted to an acknowledgement that the earlier Cobbold Commission process and MA63 were defective or flawed. However, the British and Malayan governments pre-empted the completion of the UN Mission assessment by announcing prematurely on 28 August 1963, that Malaysia would be formed on 16 September 1963 regardless of the assessment’s outcome. This  breach of the accord further undermined the legitimacy of MA63 and Malaysia’s formation. The failure to resolve the Philippines Sabah claim also questions whether the UK had the legal right to transfer Sabah to Malaya and therefore whether the process of forming Malaysia was legitimately completely. If not then this only confirms that Malaysia is a de facto federation.
   
   
8. Highlighting 61 Years of Violations: The rally aimed to shed light on 61 years of multiple Malayan violations of MA63 basic foundational terms for a secular state now replaced with a extremist and divisive apartheid-like race-religion based New Economic Policy (NEP) or Ketuanan Melayu supremacist system, resource exploitation, suppression of civil and human rights and the treatment of Sabah and Sarawak as virtual colonies and the peoples severely discriminated as 3rd class citizens. The event was to expose the real neo-colonial nature of Malaysia and its ruling regime which failed to honour but instead violated the rights and autonomy originally promised under MA63.
   
   
9. Symbolic Protest for Unfulfilled MA63 Promises: The lowering of the Malaysian flag and raising of Sabah and Sarawak flags was a peaceful symbolic act highlighting Malaysia's failure to honour MA63, which promised self-determination and equal partnership. The continued political and economic marginalisation of these regions contradicts those promises. Those who support this immoral and tyrannical system and agenda of fascism and race-religion supremacy, fear any challenge to their false privileges.
   
   
10. Core Grievances Highlighted by the NGOs: Prime Minster Tunku Abdul Rahman had declared that one of the prime objectives to form Malaysia was to develop Sabah and Sarawak. However, decades of neglect and deprivation of funds and exploitation of Sabah’s and Sarawak’s resources to  enrich the elites and develop Malaya have kept Sabah and Sarawak as the most backward, underdeveloped and impoverished parts of the federation. This is seen in the  continuing Malayan denial of Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement under MA63, while Sarawak is forced to self-fund its development despite its oil and gas wealth being siphoned off to Malaya.

SSRANZ and RSNB’s Demands:

The NGOs said that they are prepare to consider ceasing advocating for independence if the following conditions are met by the federal government:

• Seek an International Court of Justice review of the validity of MA63 and legitimacy of Malaysia formation in the light of the ICJ ruling in the 2019 Chagos Island Case, that colonies are not sovereign state with legal capacity to make binding international agreements and to abide but its decision on whether MA63 is binding. If not binding, then decolonise Sabah & Sarawak.
• Restore the MA63 secular system by repealing ACT 354 and dismantle the anti-human rights New Economic Policy (NEP) race-religion based institutions which have used apartheid-like policies to discriminate against Sabah and Sarawak and their peoples for decades.
• The immediate implementation of Borneonisation in the civil service and education sectors and withdraw all federal officials to empower Sabah and Sarawak with real self-government and autonomy as agreed.
• Restore full immigration powers to Sabah and Sarawak in their original form.
• Return control over oil and gas resources to Sabah and Sarawak.
• Transfer of all Petronas’ assets to Sabah and Sarawak to compensate for 61 years of resource loss and development opportunities.
• Full restoration of MA63 rights, including the repeal or amendment of the Continental Shelf Act 1966, Petroleum Development Act 1974, and Territorial Sea Act 2012.
• Restoration of 34.6% parliamentary representation for Sabah and Sarawak.
• Withdraw all Malayan political parties from Sabah and Sarawak.
• Resolve the Philippines’ Sabah claim which challenges the legitimacy of Malaysia, pursuant to the Manila Accord 1963. 
• Resolve Sabah refugees problem by repatriation to their homelands or to Malaya.

Conclusion:

SSRANZ and RSNB said that Malaysia's legitimacy will remain in doubt as long as the issue of MA63’s validity along with the unresolved Philippines' claim on Sabah, are not addressed. Even if MA63 is deemed valid, the numerous breaches of its fundamental terms by Malaya, effectively amount to a unilateral termination of the agreement, which entitles Sabah and Sarawak to exit the federation.

The attempt to criminalise peaceful protests and suppress the legitimate demands of Sabah and Sarawak will only intensify calls for independence. The NGOs reaffirm that Sabah and Sarawak, like Singapore, have the inalienable right to self-determination and will pursue independence if their grievances continue to be ignored.

Signed 30 September 2024

Robert Pei
President  
Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand - SSRANZ 

Mosses PA Ampang
President
Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB