SSRANZ President Robert Pei has sharply criticised British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for his double standard in giving controversial support to “pro-democracy” Hong Kong Chinese citizens in contrast to his silence over the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) issues affecting Sabah and Sarawak which were raised in a letter SSRANZ had sent to him on 25 February 2020.
The SSRANZ letter endorsed by a number of Sabah and Sarawak NGOs was the latest to follow a series of letters raising MA63 issues with the British Government since 2011 starting with the statement by the Sabah Sarawak Borneo Plight in Malaysia NGO (BOPIM) at the time. In its responses to these letters, the British Government has given contradictory reasons for not taking action. On one hand, it has stated that the issues raised were the internal matters of Malaysia and the British Government had vested sovereignty and relinquished all responsibilities and jurisdiction to the Malaysian Government. On the other hand, it has often stated that it kept a close watch over political developments in Malaysia affecting Sabah and Sarawak implying that it still holds responsibility for them.
The SSRANZ letter reminded the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom’s continuing treaty responsibility towards Sabah and Sarawak was specially acknowledged by the Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys in September 1963 in a telegram to Sir Geofroy Tory (British High Commissioner to Malaysia 1963) in relation to Sarawak and North Borneo Sabah) quote:
“Having transferred sovereignty to Malaysia, subject to the conditions contained in the London Agreement, any breach of those conditions would constitute a breach of an agreement concluded with the British Government, who would have a continuing interest in this matter”.
Robert Pei said the UK’s legal responsibility to keep watch over and ensure the federal compliance with MA63 arose as the “transfer” had been made in exchange for “guarantees” of special rights and powers given to the United Kingdom by the then Malayan government. This gave rise to a continuing international treaty responsibility which has been frequently affirmed by British foreign secretaries in relation to Hong Kong including Mr. Johnson when he was the previous British Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018.
Robert said the British Government which claims to be a law-abiding world citizen, has already been rebuked over its failure to observe international law in compliance with the United Nations Assembly’s May 2019 resolution to decolonize the Chagos Islands and return them to Mauritius. The resolution was made following the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conclusions that the separation of the islands from Mauritius’ territory under an agreement between the 2 parties in 1965 was unlawful.
He said in relation to the above points he had drawn Mr. Johnson’s attention to legal advice given to SSRANZ that the British Malayan federation plan to form Malaysia was unlawful as it had breached the United Kingdom’s international legal duty to unconditionally de-colonize Sabah and Sarawak for independence under UN Resolution 1514.
This had been done in a manner inconsistent with their people’s right to self-determination and the free and genuine expression of their will in choosing between federation and independence in a referendum, (under UN GAR 1541) and that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 was void ab initio and not binding on the parties. The ICJ conclusions in the Chagos Case supported his assertion that the treaty was void as it was made by the UK and Malaya with 3 colonies Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak which did not possess international sovereign personality with capacity to make international treaties like MA63. Malaysia was therefore not legally constituted under international law.
SSRANZ has been pursuing the issue of the “unfinished decolonization of Sabah and Sarawak” after integration into the Malayan Federation in 1963 which inflicted long term damaging consequences for the two territories.
The letter had raised with the Prime Minister legitimate issues on the plight of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia created by the Malaysian Government’s 56 years of continuing wilful breaches of MA63, especially failure to faithfully comply with MA63 guarantees it gave to the United Kingdom and deliberate impoverishment of the people caused by colonial plunder of resources to develop Malaya. The size of this plunder from Sarawak was estimated by a local member of parliament to be over $600 billion (only based on figures disclosed by Petronas) since 1976. Federal breaches by legislative amendments taking away MA63 special rights and powers have undermined all the reasons including the principal federation objective to develop the 2 states for forming Malaysia. The conclusion is that both Sabah and Sarawak have been reduced to colonies and the basis or rationales justifying forming Malaysia have long since ceased to exist owing to such breaches and it was the right of the people to seek real independence.
The SSRANZ president said it was ironic that the United Kingdom has been most vocal in supporting the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement as part of its “treaty responsibilities” which the Chinese Government has condemned as interfering in China’s internal affairs. However, it has repeatedly used the excuse of not interfering in the internal affairs of Malaysia to avoid its MA63 treaty responsibilities.
He pointed out that Mr. Johnson’s silence over MA63 was in stark contrast to his readiness to risk the United Kingdom’s lucrative relations with China by his criticisms of the Chinese Government and provocation in generously offering what are “protection” visas to disaffected Hong Kong Chinese citizens over alleged China’s non-compliance or breaches of their rights under the “One country two systems” constitution and recently over enforcement of the national security laws. Mr. Johnson was just giving them false hopes by complicating the Hong Kong situation and encouragement to the local separatist movement. This in fact breaches international law on non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.
The protests were sparked off over opposition to the proposed extradition law between the Hong Kong government and the Chinese central government to extradite fugitives and persons accused of crimes for trial in China. The protesters have been demanding rights they never enjoyed under British colonial rule which was diverted into demands for independence and in the process, many have participated in a wave of wanton destruction and criminal acts in Hong Kong over 8 months from June 2019 till February 2020. The violent protests consequently compelled the Chinese Government to pass the law to enforce its national security laws over Hong Kong as agreed in the 1984 Basic laws but not ratified by the Hong Kong Legislature.
Robert Pei said that there are distinguishing features between the Hong Kong and Sabah Sarawak situations in relation to Britain’s treaty responsibilities arising from treaties it made with the Chinese government in 1984 and the Malayan Government in 1963 respectively, which raises the issue of British double standards in its approach to the 2 situation.
In his opinion, British responsibilities or obligations for Hong Kong ended when it restored legal possession and sovereignty to its rightful owner China of a territory which Britain had forcibly seized in the Opium Wars in the 1840s. It should also be noted that the extradition and national security laws required to be enacted for Hong Kong under its Basic Laws are not unusual but are part and parcel of the security laws of most countries around the world. This means the protests are really baseless and unjustifiable as these laws do not breach citizens’ rights per se.
However in the case of Sabah and Sarawak, the British Government instead of handing sovereignty back to the rightful owners being the Sabah Sarawak peoples, had “gifted” the colonies to Malaya pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). This transfer of sovereignty was purportedly made pursuant to the decolonization of the 2 colonies which Britain annexed in 1946 with the undertaking to grant independence to the 2 territories and not to include Sarawak in the Malayan Union formed in that year. British responsibility arose from the guarantees given by Malaya to Britain for handing over the colonies to the federation.
He said the Malaysia proposal had been hurriedly and improperly imposed on a largely politically immature and unrepresented population into an unequal union which was sold as a “federation of equal partners” and “decolonization for self-determination”. The UK had clearly breached its 1946 undertaking to grant independence to the 2 colonies and UN resolutions 1514 and 1541 by the secret Anglo-Malayan “Agreement to set up the Federation of Malaysia” (signed on 31 July 1962) and conducting MA63 federation “negotiations” on behalf of the colonies and not by direct negotiations with elected representatives of local independent legislatures thus rendering MA63 void ab initio. This illegality was compounded by the signing of the agreement by the colonial attorney generals for the 2 colonies and handpicked British nominees on behalf of the 2 colonies. In reality, the British Government had deprived the 2 colonies of their right to independence by unlawfully incorporating them into the Malayan federation without their people’s concurrence and after subjecting them to sustained political pressure and denying them the opportunity to choose independence. In doing so the British government had been deceitful in promising the people independence when it annexed North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak in 1946 in the face of local opposition.
The real object for federation was described in a 1962 CIA report “In short, the Federation proposal is a contrived political maneuver, essentially defensive in nature, and designed for the primary purpose of checking the Communist threat in Singapore while protecting the preferred political position of the Malays throughout the area. It amounts, in effect, to a merging of Singapore and ‘the three Borneo territories into the existing Federation of Malaya.”
Robert Pei said “This was not “decolonization” as claimed by the British government but the UK’s colonial era arrangement with their long held “Grand Design” to protect British interests in the region by consolidating them under the control of a friendly stateand the UK had neglected its United Nations and international law duty and responsibility to “decolonise” Sabah and Sarawak”.
He said further “Whether the issue of MA63 was void ab initio or not, the fact remains that both the British and Malayan governments had unlawfully engaged in a joint pernicious effort to transfer sovereignty over North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak to Malaya under MA63. Neither parties can shirk from their responsibility to see to the final decolonization of the 2 territories”.
He called on Prime Minister Johnson to be seen as acting responsibly in particular, to approach the Malaysian Government and the United Nations to facilitate the final decolonization of the 2 territories. The reasons for forming Malaysia have long since ceased to exist in the face of irrefutable evidence that fundamental terms and conditions for the Malaysian federation have never been honoured in good faith and the people are entitled to exit for independence. This would be in accordance with Britain’s solemn promise to grant independence made on its 1946 annexation of Sabah and Sarawak, a process which was part of Britain’s Grand Design culminating in the “creation of Malaysia”.
Robert Pei said there should be no double standards in this matter as it is clear that the UK retains a legal responsibility as the initiator and leading signatory party to MA63 registered with the UN and governed by international law. He said this puts MA63 under the UN and its International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction. The precedent to re-open decolonization cases has been set down by the ICJ in the Chagos Case.
The British Government can no longer go on to avoid its responsibility to see that decolonization justice be done and assist with the freeing of Sabah and Sarawak from the failed de facto union. Failure to do so will continue Sabah and Sarawak’s unenviable distinction of being the last 2 countries to be made colonies after WW2 when the era of decolonization was just beginning.
Robert Pei, SSRANZ President
08 June 2020
Melbourne.
Post a Comment