Articles by "Official Statement"

Showing posts with label Official Statement. Show all posts

SSRANZ Admn December 30, 2024


Joint Press Statement by Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB) & Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand

In a joint press statement on 30 Dec 2024, Australia-based NGOs, the Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB) and Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) have expressed strong support for and commended the bravery and determination of Sabah university students who have proposed demonstrations against corruption 31 Dec 2024.

The 2 non-governmental organisations dedicated to seeking real self-determination for Sabah and Sarawak, firmly uphold the principles of integrity, accountability, and self-government.

The NGOs said that the students’ activism is a testament to the spirit of the youth, who are refusing to accept the status quo of corruption and injustice. Their commitment to demanding accountability is an inspiration to all Sabahans, and they fully support their call for a government free from corruption. 

“We urge that these efforts be conducted with fairness and impartiality, ensuring that all forms of corruption are addressed without bias or selective targeting. The future of Sabah rests on the shoulders of its youth, and their efforts must be guided by integrity, transparency, and the pursuit of the greater good.”

It is important to recognize that corruption at the federal level has played a pivotal role in nurturing the culture of corruption that continues to plague Sabah and Sarawak. The creation of Malaysia itself was marked by corruption at the highest level, with the British bribery of their nominees to sign the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). 

This historical precedent set the tone for political practices that have continued unchecked at the federal level, which in turn fostered similar corrupt practices in Sabah and Sarawak. The political systems in both states have suffered as a result, as the pervasive culture of corruption from the top has trickled down to local governance. This has undermined public trust and fundamentally hindered the growth and progress of both states.

RSNB and SSRANZ believe that corruption has also facilitated the federal government's control over the 2 Borneo state governments, undermining their ability to exercise self-government by eroding transparency and accountability.

The NGOs are steadfast in their commitment to combat corruption in all its forms as part of their campaign for Sabah and Sarawak self-determination. Corruption is a cancer that erodes public trust, weakens institutions, and hampers Sabah’s development. No individual, political organisation or institution should be beyond scrutiny. Anti-corruption efforts must be inclusive and non-selective, targeting all forms of wrongdoing regardless of rank or affiliation. Transparency and accountability must remain the cornerstone of governance in Sabah.

As Sabah moves forward, RSNB and SSRANZ call on all Sabahans to unite in pursuit of a just, transparent, and sovereign state. It is only through collective action—free from corruption and external interference—that we can achieve true independence and prosperity.

“We reiterate our commitment to championing these principles and urge all stakeholders—political leaders, institutions, and civil society—to uphold the values of democracy, accountability, and the people’s right to self-determination.”

Mosses PA Ampang

President of Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB) NGO

and 

Robert Pei 

President of Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) NGO


Endorsed by

1. Daniel John Jambun President Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

2. Peter John Jaban Founder  Sarawakians for Sarawak & Saya Anak Sarawak

3. Emily Edward - President of Sabah Sarawak Borneo Natives Organisation of Australia

4. Yu Chin Liik, Plaintiff on MA63 2018 CASE


Read more »

SSRANZ Admn October 06, 2024

 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.


Source: SSRANZ
Read more »

SSRANZ Admn October 06, 2024

 


The Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) and Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB) NGOs issue the following joint statement in refuting allegations of sedition made against a peaceful Melbourne flag raising ceremony:

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 


Read more »

SSRANZ Admn June 10, 2020
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.   

Read more »

SSRANZ Admn May 11, 2020

JOINT PRESS STATEMENT dated 9 May 20

"A group of NGOs including SAPA, S4S, and SSRANZ, has issued a joint statement strongly condemning the Sarawak GPS Government's appalling and shameless surrender of Sarawak's sovereign rights to petroleum ownership to Petronas."

They expressed deep shock and disappointment and strongly oppose what is a most unfavorable and ill-considered “deal” struck by the GPS government with Petronas on Sarawak’s inalienable petroleum rights. It is a body blow to Sarawakians’ right to self-determination.

The GPS Government Petronas Joint Press statement of 08 May 2020, has confirmed their worst fears that the Sarawak government has recklessly and illegally completely surrendered all Sarawak’s petroleum ownership rights to Petronas and the Federal government (personifying Malaya) despite its previous strenuous defence of Sarawak’s ownership rights. 

According to the statement, all agreements between the Sarawak government and Petronas under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 are still valid and in force.

“Petronas is still recognised as the national oil company that acquires full authority in regulating the development of the oil and gas in the country,” it said.

This has dashed the Sarawak people's hopes that they would at least regain control of their oil and gas resources as the Sarawak claim was based on very strong legal grounds and this would have augured well for Sarawak’s development.

The "deal" was secretly done behind closed doors without consulting and obtaining approval of the DUN and most importantly it should have sought the people’s approval in the forthcoming state elections. 

But clearly, the ruling GPS holds the people's interests in contempt with such a brazen act as it seems so arrogant as to believe that it will be re-elected in the polls.

This is a most shameful and arbitrary repeat of what happened in 1974 when the Petroleum Development Act (PDA74) was illegally and unconstitutionally passed to seize Sarawak and Sabah petroleum resources and then in 1976 GPS’ predecessor Chief Minister Abdul Rahman, Yakub had illegally signed the Petroleum Agreement with Malaya to surrender one of our most important heritage assets.

This new deal with Petronas was on its face designed to absolve the past illegal actions of GPS’ predecessors and compounds the crime against the Sarawak people especially when Sarawak had the strongest upper hand in legally reinstating its petroleum ownership right. 

It is incomprehensible why the GPS government had so contemptuously treated and flippantly thrown away the Sarawak people’s inalienable sovereign rights. 

In fact, the Kuching High Court had only recently declared that Sarawak had the right to impose the sales tax on Petronas. 

Further, it also incomprehensible why Sarawak should gradually decrease the 5% sales tax rate imposed on the oil firm when all other oil companies operating in Sarawak territory have paid the tax in full without question except Petronas which squandered taxpayers’ money to challenge it. 

The right to impose the sales tax rests on Sarawak’s sovereign control of its territories and resources. 

These were points raised by the current Chief Minister, in the petroleum rights litigation with Petronas, the State Senior legal advisor and the Sarawak legal fraternity. This sovereign right has now been arbitrarily surrendered by GPS government without any authority from its people or their elected representatives in the DUN.

In the NGOs considered opinion, Sarawak petroleum ownership, and associated rights were never an item discussed in the making of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and in any not part of the Federal Constitution and therefore expressly a matter excluded from any federal dealing as it was a right clearly reserved to Sarawak and remain a resource owned by Sarawak. 

This point is reinforced by the fact that this same issue led to Brunei refusing to sign MA63 when Malaya demanded 100% control of its petroleum ownership and exploitation. Thus it was not raised in Sabah and Sarawak’s case and not part of the MA63 deal.

The joint group of NGOs considers that the Sarawak Government was in the position to right some of the major wrongs by Malaya against the Sarawak people and has failed miserably to even stand firm on those rights but allowed Petronas to dictate terms to it.

The question is asked as to what stand-over tactics were used to make GPS submit to Petronas’ wishes?

This “deal” breaches a fundamental declared objective for “Malaysia formation” which was to develop the Borneo territories and not the Malayan states. Since 1976 Sarawak petroleum wealth has been expropriated to develop and enrich the peninsula leaving the majority of Sarawakians in poverty.

This is a wrongful act by the state government which has actually diminished Sarawak’s bargaining power and made it more dependent on the Federal government.  

The people of Sarawak will forever condemn GPS for its grave misdeed against their interest and reinforce their desire for real self-determination so as to control their own destiny.

Now is the time to call for a Referendum to let all Sarawakians decide on their own future by addressing the issue of self-determination as to whether Sarawak should remain or exit the Federation. 

SAPA – Sarawak Association for Peoples’ Aspirations
S4S    - Sarawak for Sarawakians
SSRANZ –Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand
DRAF Dayak Rights Action Force
SAS Solidarity Anak Sarawak
SOS Son of Sarawak
YATT Society Sarawak
MOCs – Movement for Change Sarawak

(End of Statement)
Read more »

SSRANZ Admn February 29, 2020
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. 

The SSRANZ President said the state governments will not make headway with their MA63 talks if they do not link it with the ultimatum to seek independence. They all know that there is no Malaysia without Sabah and Sarawak.  

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.

(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

Read more »

SSRANZ Admn September 16, 2019

The formation of Malaysia as part of Britain's “decolonization” plan was an extremely controversial issue opposed both locally and internationally in the 1960s. According to the declassified secret British colonial documents Britain had secretly planned a direct transfer (the “second cession” or annexation) of its Borneo colonial territories to Malayan rule without even first granting independence to the territories. Its critics said it was just exchanging the old colonial master for a new one. In other words, it was a shocking denial of their inalienable right to self-determination.
Read more »

SSRANZ Admn August 12, 2019
Emily Edward – Goodwill Ambassador
The first year of SSRANZ has been a year of challenging progress in terms of the Sabah Sarawak Rights agenda, with some key achievements.

As a Goodwill Ambassador, I am pleased to be able to arrange some diplomatic meetings with some government ministers and non-government organisation to discuss Sabah and Sarawak legal issues concerning the current status of the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak.

The SSRANZ is fully committed to raise the issues with the Commonwealth Lawyers Association to upholding “The Rule of Law” on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), based on the reason that the treaty has been terminated by multiple federal government violations, abuses and dishonoured for more than 55 years rendering the treaty as no longer binding on Sabah and Sarawak.

Presenting the Sabah Sarawak struggles at the Human Rights Conferences and Forum were part of the initiative carried into action plan since the past two years to promote awareness of the Sabah Sarawak justice mission to the international authority.


During the diplomatic visits, the current situation in Sabah Sarawak Borneo being advocated to promote justice concerning mass deforestation, horrible destruction by logging, palm plantation, and hydro dams in Borneo's Rain forests caused by human's greed causing 90% of the lowland of Borneo rain forest has gone, for the production of palm oil.

The Indigenous Natives of Borneo continue to suffer from the loss of their Native Land.

The burning and felling of the jungle led to the destruction of the natural habitat and also killing of many local animals like the Orang Utans and Borneo pygmy elephants.

The Sabah Land Ordinance has been manipulated by land grabbers and the rights of the Native Customary Rights violated.

The Malayan Government made a promise in 1963 to especially safeguard the rights of the Borneo native people under the terms of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

However, under the Malaysian Government’s “watch”, it has allowed its police to used by local authorities to evict the people of Sabah (and Sarawak) from their land by force so as to alienate their land to commercial agricultural companies, many of which are from Malaya.

The Malaysian government is on the lookout to stop foreign journalists who are trying to expose the corruption since two Global Witness investigators caught Taib Mahmud's family members red-handed on hidden cameras admitting to their under-the-table commission land deals (including a three-thousand-hectares concession of rain forest).

There's no 'Freedom of expression' in these issues as it could be dangerous to challenge the rampant commercial activities in the native land. The Malaysian government has permitted the destruction of the native's people homeland and sources of livelihood and the environment in the process of so-called economic development with a colonial one-crop economy of palm oil plantations.

The formation of Malaysia was justified by the main reason that federation was to develop Sabah and Sarawak.

However, this “federation” became a vehicle for long-term human rights abuses in Sabah and Sarawak since 1963 especially failure to eradicate poverty and raise living standards.

The abuses cover a wide range of matter including failure to access to basic amenities such as clean water, education, hospital, tarred road in the rural area, discrimination, oppression, demographic structure, ethnic cleansing, violation of international law in relation to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and Petroleum Development Act 1974.

Collecting sign petition of ‘Calling for Sabah Sarawak Rights’ are part of the undertaking chore that I carried to support the justice mission by the Sabah Sarawak Union – United Kingdom (Australia Chapter).

I always promoted the people’s rights, struggles and dignity as part of my discussions in every diplomat visit that I have attended. It is a vital part of seeking justice for the people of Sabah Sarawak Borneo in a damaged political system. Many people have come to see that the idea of Formation of Malaysia was only to colonise Sabah and Sarawak for the Malaya’s benefits, while the people of Borneo are struggled and ignored

Read more »

SSRANZ Admn April 11, 2019
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.

Read more »

SSRANZ Admn March 05, 2019
President’s Report 2017-2018

Sabah Sarawak Rights in Australia & New Zealand organisation was registered as an Australia NGO on 22 Aug 2017 with the objective to work for the welfare of Sabahans and Sarawakians in Australia and New Zealand and defend their basic human rights which are supposed to be safeguarded under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and Federal constitution.

The organisation while acknowledging the importance of reaching out to Sabahans and Sarawakians who live in Australia the SSRANZ is also tasked to raise public awareness of their rights and through the media and to organise forums on topics such as the social-political developments affecting the home situation from time to time.

One of the first activities SSRANZ organized was a forum on 17 Sept 2017 on issues about the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). This was well attended by over 50 Sabahans and Sarawakians, noting that quite a number of them had come a long way from outside Melbourne for the event. One person even flew all the way from the top of Australia. We thank them for their support.

A bank cheque account was set up on 27 Sept 2017 so that any funds received could be paid into the account to run the NGO activities. Mosses Anap the Finance Officer has prepared a report on the financial situation. Emily Edward has prepared a report on her diplomat and public relations activities as the Goodwill Ambassador of SSRANZ.

During the year Emily Edward the Goodwill Ambassador person has done a wonderful job in connecting with a few thousand Sabahans and Sarawakians all over Australia and almost singlehandedly assisted many who needed basic help to adjust with living in Australia for the first time and helping to solve the issues they face.

On 2 June 2018, a Borneo Cultural night was organised by the Sabah Sarawak Borneo Native Organization which was well attended by over 100 people. Cultural dances were put on the show after a number of invited speakers gave speeches on Sabah and Sarawak. The Ngo also organised food and drinks and in general, everyone was happy with the evening’s events.

A number of articles were published in the SSRANZ facebook and SSRANZ Blog page. Owing to
commitments by members to other matters, publication lapsed a bit on the blog page but a number of articles were published in the Facebook.

A couple of articles by Robert Pei on MA63 legal issues reached between 5000 to 10,000 readers in short space-time. This is very encouraging considering that most people might find such topics a bit “dry”.

Moving into 2018, there were 2 main events which were constantly in the headlines, the General elections (GE14) on 11 May 2018 and the Petronas High Court Case in Kuala Lumpur in June.

The GE14 was a watershed in Malaysian history which saw 2 important political developments.

The first one was the end of the UMNO BN 60 years of dictatorial rule was ended and it was replaced by the new party Pakatan Harapan which promised hopeful changes.

However, hopes were soon dashed for Sabahans and Sarawakians who voted for the new government which promised to restore their MA63 rights which had been illegally taken away by the federal government over 55 years. The “PH” government immediately announced it would not be able to implement any of its promises to the Borneo people.
The second change was very important for Sarawak and Sabah because the change of federal government also ended 55 years of direct federal control of the 2 Borneo states. While the newly elected Sabah government decided to join the PH government and took a submissive role in fighting for Sabah rights, the Sarawak Government decided it would be free of direct federal control. For the first time, it began to act “independently” making its own decisions and pressed forward with the campaign to restore Sarawak rights which began over 3 years ago under Chief Minister Adenan Satem.

One of the Sarawak government’s agenda was to regain control of Sarawak oil and gas and which it did before the general elections by taking steps to declare that Sarawak was legally in control of the exploitation of these resources. This provoked Petronas the National Petroleum Company to seek a declaration in the Federal High Court that it was the sole owner of those assets. A hearing was set for 21 June 2018.

SSRANZ organised and held its first rally on 19 June 2018 to highlight the issue and support the Sarawak’s government to oppose Petronas’ illegal claim. The rally was held on outside the Victoria state library along Swanston St. Melbourne. Then on 20 June, another rally was held on the steps of the Victoria Parliament in Collins Street Melbourne. This attracted a bit of attention. A few speakers including Robert Pei and Emily Edwards talked about the issue affecting Sabah and Sarawak.

A general meeting was held on 31 August 2018 with the re-election of Robert Pei as President, Francis Chang as Vice President & New Zealand representative. Moses Anap was re-elected as the Treasurer/Finance Officer, Emily Edward re-elected as the Welfare Public relations officer and Cecilia Paul as activities Officer.

For its first year, SSRANZ had a reasonably successful year with various activities and in its publication work.

We look forward to a new year with greater success.
Read more »
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Sabah Sarawak Rights - Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) © 2020. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Blogger

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.