 |
| Mr.Robert Pei, President of SSRANZ |
Press statement: 29 FEB 2020
ALTERNATIVE CALL FOR A SABAH OR SARAWAK PRIME MINISTER IF WANT TO CONTINUE IN MALAYSIA
LETTER TO UK PRIME MINISTER TO ASSIST IN DE-COLONIZATION OF SABAH & SARAWAK
Press statement: 29 FEB 2020
SSRANZ President Robert Pei commenting on the current Putrajaya political crisis has called on the Sabah and Sarawak state governments to act responsibly in the interest of their people and not ally with the undemocratic race religion-based apartheid parties of Malaya.
He said it would be politically disastrous for the 2 states if their governments give their support to the race-based apartheid Malayan parties as they should know better after 56 years of one-party rule.
He said the state governments should learn from 5 decades of Malaya’s wilful breaches of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) federation promises and look at the alternatives now available to them.
First, with the collapse of the federal government, they are now in the best position as “kingmakers” to leverage for the restoration of all MA63 rights and powers from 1963. If they still believe that the international agreement is valid or they wish to continue as members of the federation, they must demand the unconditional restoration of their states to their 1963 special position in the federation, subject to the ultimatum to seek independence.
(a) This can only be done by repealing all the illegal amendments to the Federal Constitution since 1966 including the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and Territorial Sea Act 2012, Petroleum Development Act 1974, Act 345A in so far as they have taken away the Borneo states’ rights and powers especially the 38.4% parliamentary seat allocation must be restored so that the 2 states have a bloc veto power as was agreed in the pre-MA63 negotiations.
(b) Implement all the financial and development provisions of MA63 and embedded in the federal constitution.
(c) Seek return of ownership and compensation for loss of oil and gas income and compounded interest, lost opportunities, etc.,
(d) Sabah and Sarawak have been made vassals or colonies of Malaya since 1965 and to restore their 1963 position, a Sabahan and Sarawakian should be appointed the next Prime Minister to make up for the 5 decades of lost status. This is entirely feasible as, after all, we have the recent precedent of a minority party leader being appointed the last Prime Minister.
His preference is that the best alternative is independence for Sabah and Sarawak as it is clearly pointless to continue as members of a dishonest and unfaithful federation relationship wreaked with irreconcilable differences.
Second, Sabah and Sarawak have the option to seek full independence from Malaysia on the basis that MA63 was an invalid and not binding international agreement.
There are a host of legal reasons available to them on why MA63 was invalid:
(a) Contrary to conventional narratives, Malaysia was not “a spontaneous and natural association of peoples” as it was unlawfully set up & ruled under emergency law by a one-party government for 55 years pursuant to the null and void Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). It was an exercise of the will of the colonial master, not the colonised. It is therefore not a legitimate union.
There are a host of legal reasons available to them on why MA63 was invalid:
(a) Contrary to conventional narratives, Malaysia was not “a spontaneous and natural association of peoples” as it was unlawfully set up & ruled under emergency law by a one-party government for 55 years pursuant to the null and void Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). It was an exercise of the will of the colonial master, not the colonised. It is therefore not a legitimate union.
(b) If MA63 was validly made, it would have been terminated by 50 years of wilful federal breaches and no longer binding on the 2 states according to international law. Neither the GPS or Warisan governments seem to be aware of this or have a conflict of interest to raise this issue.
(c) MA63 was not valid from the beginning by reason of the British Government’s breach of UN Resolutions 1514 and 1541 requirements to unconditionally de-colonize Sabah and Sarawak for independence before considering the federation plan by a referendum (which was not done). This issue was acknowledged by the UK and Malaya in agreeing to the Manila Accord 1963 conditions for a UN assessment of the people’s wishes.
(d) It was made clear by the late PM Tunku Abdul Rahman when he said: “Yes and they [the British] gave us Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore and so many other things in 1963 [with the formation of Malaysia]. The British could have given Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak independence, but they did not. Instead, they handed them to us”. (Extract from Abdullah Ahmad’s book published in 2016, Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman.)
(e) It is SSRANZ’s assertion that MA63 was null and void from the beginning and not binding as it was made in violation of legal requirements for making international agreements. The treaty was used to circumvent UN Resolution 1514. The British Government had breached international law by misrepresenting to North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak that they could enter into the agreement when it knew that as colonies they were not sovereign states with the capacity to make binding international agreements.
British colonial representatives, not Sabahans or Sarawakians had negotiated MA63 for the 2 colonies and even signed MA63 on their behalf. This was akin to the UK making a treaty with itself.
This issue of legitimacy was pointed out by the former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir when he stated publicly that (quote): “Historically, the agreement to form Malaysia was sealed by the British, as colonial masters of Sabah and Sarawak and involved a few leaders from both provinces who were handpicked by the British themselves.” Reported by Free Malaysia Today internet paper, on 29 September 2018
It is no wonder that the federal constitution and the British Malaysia Act 1963 do not recognize MA63.
(f) The declared concept and spirit for federation with the Federation of Malaya has long since been abused and broken, especially after Singapore's exit in 1965.
The agreed composition of the federation ceased to exist from 1965 as the fundamental reason for Malaysia was the merger of Singapore with Malaya to protect British strategic interest in the region. This meant MA63, if valid, was no longing binding. This led to the deliberate federal reduction of the Borneo states power by not allocating Singapore's parliamentary seats to Sabah and Sarawak to maintain the MA63 agreed 38.4% veto bloc position in seat allocation.
(g) The federal government never faithfully honoured the concept of the federation from 1963 and since that time Malaysia has rapidly degenerated into a dysfunctional corrupt apartheid race religion-state and this revolts against the agreement for a secular multicultural and democratic state.
He said he has written to the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson mentioning the matters raised above and called on him to assist by approaching the United Nations and the Malaysian government to complete the decolonization of Sabah and Sarawak.
He said the UK remains morally, politically and legally responsible for handing over the 2 colonies to Malaya in 1963. This was a great injustice and a wrongful act committed by the UK government.
The verdict by the International Court of Justice in the Chagos Islands case on 25 February 2019 affirmed his assertion since 2013 that MA63 was void ab initio (void from the beginning). This means the UK government is bound to ensure that the de facto Malayan control of Sabah and Sarawak has to be ended as required by international law.
A copy of his letter is also being sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the governments of a number of countries for their information. The letter is supported by a number of Sabah Sarawak political parties and NGOs.
End of statement
Robert Pei SSRANZ President
29 February 2020
Post a Comment