Sabah dan Sarawak Bebas untuk meninggalkan Persekutuan

Isu pemisahan tidak dimasukkan dalam laporan IGC kerana “mana-mana Negeri secara sukarela memasuki persekutuan mempunyai hak intrinsik untuk menarik diri” Lord Lansdowne Chairman Inter-Government Committee (IGC)

Pandangan yang dikemukakan oleh seorang pakar perlembagaan dan bekas profesor Undang-undang dari Universiti Islam Antarabangsa baru-baru ini adalah boleh diperdebatkan.

Profesor itu mendakwa bahawa Sabah dan Sarawak tidak boleh meninggalkan Malaysia kerana Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Malaysia.

Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Malaysia ini tidak pernah dipinda sejak ia ditulis ke dalam Perlembagaan yang bermaksud bahawa Perkara ini sama dengan apabila Singapura “diusir” dari Malaysia seperti dakwaan beliau pada tahun 1965.

Perkara 2 sama dan masih ada pada hari ini dalam Perlembagaan, tidak dipinda atau diubah apa-apa pun.

Ahli Parlimen Kota Belud dan Menteri Persekutuan menegaskan bahawa bercakap tentang meninggalkan Malaysia adalah berunsur hasutan di bawah undang-undang Malaysia dan Sabah dan Sarawak tidak boleh menarik diri dari Malaysia.

Izinkan saya perjelaskan disini bahawa sesiapa sahaja yang mahu bercakap tentang Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 tanpa membaca buku asas berikut akan menunjukkan kebodohan mereka sendiri:

The Cobbold Commission Report 1962

The Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC) 1963

The Malaysia Agreement 1963

Terdapat dua perkara yang semua orang mesti tahu dari laporan IGC. Pertama, IGC tempat lima parti politik dari Sabah menyerahkan memorandum mereka pada 29 Ogos 1962.

Pada hari ini memorandum ini dikenali sebagai 20 Perkara.  20 Perkara adalah memorandum dan bukan “perjanjian” seperti yang ditegaskan oleh Menteri Persekutuan tadi.

Sebagai memorandum dokumen 20 Perkara ini telah diserahkan kepada IGC untuk dipertimbangkan oleh ahli-ahli jawatankuasa tersebut.

IGC telah diketuai oleh Lord Lansdowne Menteri Negara British bagi Hal Ehwal Tanah Jajahan.

Tugasnya adalah “untuk menyediakan perlembagaan akan datang, termasuk perlindungan untuk kepentingan khas Borneo Utara dan Sarawak untuk menampung perkara-perkara seperti kebebasan beragama, pendidikan, perwakilan di Parlimen Persekutuan, kedudukan penduduk asli, kawalan imigresen, kewarganegaraan dan Perlembagaan Negeri”

Oleh itu, perisian memorandum 20 Perkara telah dimasukkan ke dalam laporan IGC.  Laporan IGC mempunyai 37 Perkara dan TIDAK hanya sekadar 20 Perkara.

Pemisahan bukan hasutan

Berdasarkan maklumat di atas, laporan IGC adalah rangka kerja untuk menggubal Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.

IGC BUKAN Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.  Ia hanya laporan dan diterima oleh kerajaan Great Britian, Persekutuan Malaya, Sabah dan Sarawak.

IGC mempunyai fungsi sama dengan Suruhanjaya Reid yang merangka Perlembagaan bagi Persekutuan Malaya.  Laporan IGC telah diterima dan ditandatangani pada Feb 27, 1963 oleh United Kingdom, Borneo Utara, Persekutuan Malaya dan Sarawak.

Kedua, memorandum 20 Perkara yang dikemukakan oleh lima parti politik Sabah mengandungi fasal pemisahan yang merupakan Perkara No 7.

Dalam fasal ini telah dinyatakan bahawa tidak boleh hak pemisahan yang bermaksud bahawa Sabah tidak boleh menarik diri dari Malaysia.

Walau bagaimanapun, isu pemisahan tidak dimasukkan dalam laporan IGC.

Alasan yang diberikan oleh Lord Lansdowne bahawa “mana-mana Negeri secara sukarela memasuki persekutuan mempunyai hak intrinsik untuk menarik diri pada bila bila masa, oleh itu perkara ini tidak perlu untuk memasukkannya ke dalam Perlembagaan”.

Maksudnya Sabah dan Sarawak adalah bebas membentuk Malaysia, oleh itu ia juga bebas untuk meninggalkan Malaysia.

Sabah dan Sarawak tidak perlu mendapat persetujuan daripada setiap negeri untuk meninggalkan Malaysia.  Sabah dan Sarawak tidak memerlukan sokongan Majlis Raja-Raja untuk meninggalkan Malaysia.

Sabah dan Sarawak hanya perlu meluluskan satu resolusi dalam masing-Dewan Undangan Negeri masing masing untuk mereka meninggalkan Malaysia dan Sabah dan Sarawak akan menjadi sebuah negara yang merdeka dan berdaulat.

Saya harap penjelasan di atas sudah mencukupi untuk membersihkan sebarang kekeliruan tentang kandungan dan penggunaan istilah yang berkaitan dengan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963.

Sungguh memalukan untuk melihat, membaca dan mendengar Menteri, Profesor dan orang ramai bercakap tentang pembentukan Malaysia tanpa mereka benar-benar mengetahui apa subjek yang mereka nyatakan

Tiada terdapat apa-apa bentuk hasutan apabila membincangkan mengenai pemisahan.  Ini adalah isu-isu nyata berdasarkan laporan IGC, Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 dan selepas lima dekad membentuk Malaysia.

Ini adalah pilihan rakyat di Sabah dan Sarawak dan untuk mengelakkan mereka dari membincangkan perkara ini, pihak kerajaan hanya perlu memenuhi kewajipan mereka seperti yang telah dijanjikan “tidak lebih, dan tidak kurang.”

Zainnal Ajamain

Zainnal Ajamain adalah seorang pakar ekonomi, menamatkan pengajian dengan ijazah Sarjana dari University of East Anglia.  Beliau telah memegang beberapa jawatan kanan didalam perkhidmatan awam kerajaan dan ahli fikir kerajaan dan beliau telah bekerja sebagai pensyarah universiti, penyelidik kanan, broker saham, dan ekonomi dan menerbitkan beberapa kertas kerja dalam jurnal media antarabangsa.  Beliau merupakan penulis bersama di belakang wawasan Kerajaan Sabah untuk pembangunan dan kemajuan dalam Koridor Pembangunan Sabah.  Beliau satu satunya penerbit Dana Islam luar pesisir yang pertama di Labuan.  Beliau juga memegang jawatan Felo Penyelidik Kanan di Pusat Remote Sensing dan Sistem Maklumat Geografi di Universiti Malaysia Sabah.  Beliau adalah salah seorang Pengasas United Borneo Front (UBF) dan seorang aktivis ingin menghapuskan Dasar Kabotaj.  Beliau juga merupakan Setiausaha Agung sebuah parti politik yang baru ditubuhkan di Sabah

Source: http://suarasabah.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/sabah-dan-sarawak-bebas-untuk-meninggalkan-persekutuan/.

Read More

SECESSION-IT IS NEVER BEEN A TREASON UNDER MALAYSIAN LAW!

We, the SSKM Administrator would like to give respond to Prof.James Chin from Monash University, Kuala Lumpur regarding to the statement made by him about "secession is treason under Malaysian law." 

When we talk about secession, it is NEVER BEEN be a treason under Malaysian Law because there is no ACT or Law to forbid Sabah or Sarawak to leave/separate from the Federation of Malaysia. Therefore, this enable the former member of Federation of Malaysia, Singapore to leave the Federation on their own accord. Or should we say that they has been removed by malaya leaders back in August 9, 1965 without the approval from the Leaders of Sabah and Sarawak?

We, then wish to share and highlight statement made by Mr.Zainal Ajamain regarding the "secession" in order to make our statement more crystal clear.

"The issue of secession was not included in the IGC report because “any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will”.

The view put forth by a constitution expert and a former Law professor from the International Islamic University recently is arguable.

The professor claimed that Sabah and Sarawak cannot leave Malaysia because of Article 2 of the Malaysia Constitution.

Well this Article was never amended ever since it was written into the Constitution which means that this Article was there when Singapore was “expelled” as he claimed from Malaysia in 1965.

The same Article 2 is still present today in the Constitution, not amended what-so-ever.

The Kota Belud MP and federal minister asserted that talking about seceding from Malaysia is seditious under the Malaysia law and that Sabah and Sarawak cannot secede from Malaysia.

Let me state that anyone who wants to talk about the Malaysia Agreement 1963 without showing their own stupidity must at least read the following primer:

The Cobbold Commission Report 1962

The Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC) 1963

The Malaysia Agreement 1963

There are two things that everyone must learn from the IGC. Firstly, the IGC is where five political parties from Sabah submitted their memorandum on the 29th August 1962.

Today this memorandum is commonly known as the 20 points. The 20 points is a memorandum and NOT an agreement as asserted by the Minister.

As a memorandum the 20 point document was submitted to the IGC for consideration by the committee members.

The IGC was headed by Lord Lansdowne the British Minister of State for Colonial Affairs.

Its tasks was “to work out the future constitutional arrangements, including safeguards for the special interest of North Borneo and Sarawak to cover such matters as religious freedom, education, representation in the Federal Parliament, the position of the indigenous races, control of immigration, citizenship and the State Constitution”.

Therefore, the 20 points memorandum was incorporated into the IGC report. The IGC report has 37 points and NOT just 20 points.

Secession is not seditious

Based on the above, the IGC report is the framework to formulate the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The IGC is NOT the Malaysia Agreement 1963. It is just a report and accepted by the governments.

The IGC has similar function to the Reid Commission which drafted the Constitution for the Federation of Malaya. The IGC report was accepted and signed on Feb 27, 1963 by the United Kingdom, North Borneo, Federation of Malaya and Sarawak

Secondly, the 20 point memorandum submitted by the five political parties contain a secession clause which is point No. 7.

In this clause it was specified that there shall be no secession which means that Sabah cannot secede from Malaysia.

However, the issue of secession was not included in the IGC report.

The reason given by Lord Lansdowne was that “any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will, and that it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Constitution”.

Basically what it means here is that Sabah and Sarawak is free to form Malaysia, it is also therefore free to leave.

Sabah and Sarawak does not need the approval of each of the states to leave. Sabah and Sarawak does not need the support of the Rulers Council to leave.

All Sabah and Sarawak need to do is to pass a resolution in their respective Dewan Undangan Negeri to leave and Sabah and Sarawak will become a sovereign nation.

I hope the above explanation is sufficient to clear any confusion about the content and usage of terms pertaining to the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

It is an embarrassment and shameful to see, read and hear Ministers, Professors and ordinary man in the street talking about the formation of Malaysia without them really knowing what the subjects is all about.

There is also nothing seditious about talk son secession. These are real issues based on the IGC, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and after five decades of forming Malaysia.

These are options available to the people in Sabah and Sarawak and to avoid these discussions all the government needs to do is simply fulfill its obligations as per the agreement “nothing more, and nothing less”."

With this article from Mr.Zainal Ajamain, we hope you, the so called Professor will never ever again made such inaccurate statement.

Pergo Et Perago || Dum Spiro Spero

Read More

Sabah, Sarawak rights groups channel secession anger into better methods

The Malaysia Day celebrations in Kuching last year. Younger folk from Sabah and Sarawak are increasingly demanding that Putrajaya honour the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and start treating the two states as equals. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, June 17, 2014. 

At football games  in Kuching's main stadium, fans of the Sarawak team hold up the state's pre-Malaysia red and black flags with a crown in the middle while more and more cars in Kuching have stickers that say: "Sarawak for Sarawakians".

Online, a survey that is making its rounds among Sabah folk supposedly shows 90% of respondents choosing "leaving the Malaysian Federation" as the solution to the state's problems.

If left unchecked, said a Sabah-rights activist, these feelings, especially among the young, could combust and see thousands marching down on Putrajaya a la Bersih 2.0 to press for secession.

It was flare-ups like these, which a group of like-minded associations in Sabah and Sarawak was trying to prevent, said Jalumin Bayogoh (pic) of the Borneo Heritage Foundation.

Unlike rallies on electoral reform, for instance, calls for Sabah and Sarawak to secede from Malaysia are treasonous, which carry severe penalties under the law.

So instead of taking to the street and getting arrested, the group and others like it are attempting to channel their anger into initiatives, such as pressing Putrajaya to honour the 1963 Malaysia Agreement.

“(Demanding secession) is a last option. We want to try other approaches first. Many of us have spouses from the peninsula, so we don’t want to leave Malaysia,” said Jalumin, when met on the sidelines of the groups’ latest public forum on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 in Kuala Lumpur.

“We want only what has been agreed upon in the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and we are willing to work with Putrajaya to fulfil this demand,” said Jalumin.

51 years of colonisation

Even at the forum itself, there were calls, from its younger audience, for Sabah and Sarawak rights groups to stop the tried and old ways of talking to Putrajaya and to just take to the streets.

“Why are still trying to negotiate with the federal government? What’s the point? We should plan to march to Putrajaya,” said one young man in the audience.

The anger was palpable and the calls for secession, at least online, were increasing, said veteran opposition politician Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan.

He said the online poll three months ago was an eye-opener even to him, a staunch critic of the federal government’s treatment of Sabah and Sarawak for more than 30 years.

Having been detained for 2½ years in the early 1990s by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on charges of plotting secession, Kitingan attempted to play down sentiments shown in the poll.

“I don’t believe that the respondents want secession in the real sense. I believe the poll actually reflects a sense of hopelessness they feel and how Putrajaya does not listen to them,” said Kitingan.

Besides frustration at having the highest poverty rate in Malaysia, there is sharp feeling of among Sabah and Sarawak folk of being colonised by the federal government since 1963.

Instead of being treated as equal partners in the federation, many feel that it got the short end of the deal and ended up being treated like a “state” instead of a more autonomous entity.

Some of the complaints about Putrajaya not fulfilling the 1963 agreement are:

* Putrajaya takes a lion share of the oil wealth but Sabah and Sarawak hardly get any money for infrastructure with many still living in abject poverty;

* The civil service is filled with peninsula folk instead of Sabah and Sarawak folk as promised under “Borneonisation”;

* Sabah and Sarawak get to control immigration but Putrajaya has run a mass identity card-giving campaign that has flooded Sabah with foreigners who turned citizens overnight; and,

* Despite the agreement not mentioning an official state religion for Sabah and Sarawak,  Putrajaya runs a stealth Islamisation campaign through government schools.

“The feeling (of wanting to secede) is there, but we have to diffuse it,” said Kitingan.

Better methods

The movement’s key demand is that Putrajaya gives Sabah and Sarawak the right to self-determine how they want to run things in these two territories.

To get this, Jalumin said the group would start drawing up a memorandum after another public forum in Sabah, which will then be submitted to Putrajaya.

But it does not stop there. Taking a page from the Hindu Rights Action Front (Hindraf), the movement is planning to file a suit against the United Kingdom for brokering the 1963 agreement and failing to ensure that its conditions were met.

Hindraf chairman P. Waytha Moorthy says the Sabah and Sarawak rights movement can take a leaf out of Hindraf’s book and start pressuring Putrajaya on problems faced by Sabah and Sarawak folk. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Wan Amirul Asraf Wan Omar, June 17, 2014.

“The aim is to get world attention on the Malaysian government and to pressure it.”

The Sabah and Sarawak rights movement is hoping to replicate Hindraf’s success at jolting the Malaysian government to pay attention to Indian community problems and to address them.

In fact, the Hindraf suit, according to its chairman P. Waytha Moorthy, who was also at the forum, is due to be heard in the UK courts at year-end.

Seeking change through the ballot box was not enough, said Kitingan.

Barisan Nasional, which has had a storied career contesting elections, was able to manipulate the poor to win continuously.

“We also need a civil society approach,” said Kitingan, who is now Bingkor assemblyman and chairman of BHF.

But if Putrajaya still does not listen, they are prepared to escalate their methods, which include going to the streets and finally, campaigning for secession.

“It has not come to that yet. There are still other methods to pursue. As much as possible we want to save Malaysia, not tear it apart,” said Jalumin. – June 17, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/sabah-sarawak-rights-groups-channel-secession-anger-into-better-methods

Read More

Can Sabah and S’wak secede?

This article is intended for those who think Malaysia or rather Malaya owns Sabah and Sarawak.

Once again I am writing about Abdul Rahman Dahlan, the Kota Belud MP who was reported on Feb 17, 2014 in the mainstream media to have cited the 20-Points and said the following:

(1) It is seditious and treasonous to suggest that both Sabah and Sarawak secede from the Federation of Malaysia;

(2) Sabah and Sarawak cannot secede from Malaysia;

(3) Secession is not a solution to the woes of Sabah and Sarawak.

If readers have accessed my previous pieces about the man, they would conclude that Abdul Rahman really does not actually know what he is saying all of the time.

Before that I would remind readers that:

Official deceit which is one part of Machiavellian politics has always been the religion of colonizers and one classic lie that has never fail to be used is “you need us to protect you from yourself” has been said to the naive and brainwashed colonized population throughout the ages until today.

We do not need to look far, actually; the present political drama unfolding in Malaysia that is shaking right-thinking citizens reveals the unprecedented thievery and pretense perpetrated by mendacious opportunists from both sides of the political divide is ample indications itself.

Half past six champions of the void ab initio Malaysia Agreement of July 9, 1963 that saw the formation of the Federation of Malaysia are asserting that the rights of Sabah (20-Points) and Sarawak (18-Points) are safeguarded in a document identified as the Inter-Governmental Committee Report of 1962 or in short, the IGC Report; today, we shall see how foolishly wrong they are.

Before we proceed, it is necessary to recapitulate that the Malaysia Agreement is absolutely void from the very beginning because Britain at all material times never had sovereignty over the whole of Sabah to give away and the government of Malaysia like its predecessor the British government is still paying annual rentals to the Sulu Sultanate in the Philippines until today.

The latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” is a legal principle that says you cannot confer property you do not own on another person except with the authority of the true owner or simply put – you cannot give what you do not have.

For further reading, go to the Manila Accord which was signed on July 31, 1963 between Abdul Rahman Putra, Soekarno, and Diosdado Macapagal; it is clearly and unambiguously understood that the formation of Malaysia is subject to the claim of the Philippines on Sabah being adjudicated in the International Court of Justice which Putrajaya is scared of going there for fear of losing.

And worst, the more than 1.1 million people of Sabah and Sarawak at that point of time were never consulted in a referendum whether they wanted Malaysia – only about 4,000 were reportedly interviewed by the Cobbold Commission.

Backward society

We cannot really blame Sabahans and Sarawakians who suffer from collective issues of ignorance because like the rest of Malaya today, for more than 50 long years, they have been indoctrinated with falsified historical facts and fed with substandard education that taught them “what to think” instead of “how to think” and living their entire lives on assumptions peddled by cheats and liars.

Do readers know why are things becoming so complicated and bad here in Sabah now?

Because the people of Sabah are so gullible to the extent that they cannot even be trusted to honorably do the right thing on their own volition during elections for their own good and that of their descendants.

Suffice to say, the Sabah of today has remained a feudal and backward society since the British left.

The fine example of Brunei not becoming a colony of Malaya, look at how they can do what they want with their oil and gas wealth – poverty practically does not exists there; the success story of tiny and resource-less Singapore who left Malaysia in 1965 being transformed into a First World nation today profoundly confirms that both Sabah and Sarawak are incurable failures of epic proportions.

Now, we go to the circus to showcase our clown of the day.

Question 1

The 1962 IGC Report by its name alone is only a report; and the pertinent confusion is this – since when can a mere report containing proposed recommendations or demands, as some people put it, evolve into a legally binding international Treaty, Agreement, Contract, or Convention?

In the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, were the 20-Points and 18-Points, or alternatively how many of both were clearly spelt out in the same?

Find out too exactly how many of the individual 20-Points and 18-Points were actually incorporated into the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the latter of which is evidently masqueraded by the Constitution of Malaya.

By all international standards, is the IGC Report not at best only a Memorandum of Understanding with no legal force of law?

Question 2

If the IGC Report has no legality or statutory effectiveness, of what legitimacy do the Sabah 20-Points and the Sarawak 18-Points contained therein have?

Question 3

Ask yourselves this: if the clause “there should be no right to secede from the Federation” are in the Points that have no legitimacy nor legality, can Sabah and Sarawak still secede from the Federation of Malaysia?

Question 4

Do readers know that Malaysia is not a country but a federation of independent nations that consists of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (left in 1965)?

Question 5

Do readers know the meaning of the word “treason”? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as the crime of betraying one’s country.

Say for example the democratically elected government of the independent country of Scotland has decided that a referendum will be held onSept 18, 2014 to let their Scottish citizens decide whether they want to secede from the United Kingdom after more than three hundred years in the union since 1707; what treason is there?

Therefore, to the people of Sabah and Sarawak who harbor the wish of secession: you must first elect educated and competent patriots and nationalists to run your Sabah and Sarawak governments – not bootlickers who are remotely-controlled by Malayan political parties like what is happening now!

Question 6

Now, Malaysia is a federation while Sabah (an independent nation) is our country or NEGARA in the Malay language; we have always been a negara when Malaysia was formed until 1976 when Parliament downgraded our status to negeri without consulting the Sabah Legislative Assembly after former Sabah Chief Minister Donald Stephens and many other leaders were mysteriously killed in an air disaster upon flying back from Labuan island without signing the petroleum agreement that robs Sabah to the tune of 95% of our oil and gas wealth.

The subsequent signing of the same by former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh and witnessed by Joseph Pairin Kitingan is also illegal because the Sabah Legislative Assembly was also not consulted on the matter.

How can anyone who calls for the secession of our country Sabah from the Federation of Malaysia be committing treason?

Question 7

The Macmillan Dictionary best defines “state” as a nation or country and the government of a country.

Take note that the State of Sabah like the State of Sarawak is an independent nation or country with a government where cabinet members are called ministers unlike say Penang or Johore where their local governments do not have cabinets and members are only executive councillors.

Sabah and/or Sarawak are equal in status with the entire Malaya combined and not with any individual states in Peninsular.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “seditious” as inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

As has been mentioned in question 4 supra, Malaysia is a federation of independent nations and Sabah is our nation or country (NEGARA in Malay) where we have our own government and in lieu of a monarch we have our own Head of State (originally called Yang diPertuan Negara and later changed to Yang diPertua Negeri by Parliament without consultation with the Sabah Legislative Assembly in 1976).

As far as we know, nationalists in Sabah and Sarawak are not instigating rebellions against the Sabah or Sarawak governments or respective Heads of State; for every citizen from the independent nations of Sabah and Sarawak, how can we when we call for the secession of our respective countries from a failed Federation of Malaysia be seditious, then?

Question 8

In every suit that we handled or lecture delivered in the past, we always provide simple and easy to understand analogies when we submit and today we give you the following:

If in a failed marriage (Federation of Malaysia), the lazy and incompetent husband (Malaya) not only neglect his conjugal duties (development) to his wives (Sabah and Sarawak) but also took away 95% of their wealth (taxes and natural resources) for his own extravagant spending, what should the wives do if not divorce and leave him?

If ever Sabah and Sarawak are to be bankrupted, let it not be done by Malaya for the benefit of Malaya.

Question 9

When the Federation of Malaysia was illegally formed in 1963 (as per our reasoning above), there were the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (left in 1965); do you realize that the government of Malaya has ceased to exist altogether unlike Sabah, Sarawak, and even Singapore?

If Malaya was not masquerading as Malaysia to colonize Sabah and Sarawak today, we really do not know what is…!

Question 10

In the year 1963 when Malaysia was formed, the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement; an advocate and solicitor recently drew our attention to the following:

When Singapore left Malaysia in 1965, an agreement was executed on Aug 7, 1965 for the separation between the government of Singapore and the government of Malaysia without consultation with the governments of Sabah and Sarawak as original partners in the Malaysia Agreement.

Is the Singapore Separation Agreement of 1965 valid without the signatories from Sabah and Sarawak; if the answer is in the negative, is Singapore still technically and legally a part of Malaysia; further and in the alternative, is the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 voided as a result of the 1965 Separation Agreement?

Conclusion

The 1963 Malaysia Agreement is void ab initio; can the 1965 Singapore Separation Agreement further invalidate something that is clearly invalid in the first instance; or in laymen’s term, would blowing up a corpse which died years earlier with C4 explosives kill it again?

On June 18, 1984 former President Diosdado Macapagal who laid the Philippines claim on Sabah in 1962 said “unless Sabah becomes an independent state by itself, it shall be the continuing duty of our posterity to carry on the endeavor to return Sabah to the Philippines”.

In plain and uncomplicated language, it means that if Sabah truly becomes free, the Philippines claim will be dropped.

Our final question to readers from Sabah and Sarawak is this:

Is it not our nationalistic, patriotic, and holy duty to free our countries of an evil colonizer who is striving on racism and religious persecution, a greedy subjugator who commit continuous economic genocide on the people of Sabah and Sarawak by siphoning our wealth in the billions to sustain their lifestyle and leaving us with pittance?

To those of you who now understand but think and decide otherwise, where then have you hidden your conscience – in the sewage pond…?

The author is a retiree in Kota Kinabalu and depending on health, time, and interest, do blog occasionally at http://legalandprudent.blogspot.com giving no quarters to anyone.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2014/04/14/can-sabah-and-swak-secede/

Read More

Separation, not Pakatan Rakyat, is the answer for Sabah and Sarawak - Daniel John Jambun

Constitutional lawyer Aziz Bari is barking up the wrong tree on Sabah and Sarawak re-thinking the idea of Malaysia after 50 years. Professor James Chin is also wrong to label separation attempts in Sabah and Sarawak as treason.

When the two Borneo nations were dragged into the Federation with Malaya, the Conference of Rulers, the Sultans, the states in Malaya were not consulted.

Why must Sabah, Sarawak now go through the Conference of Rulers now that they want to stand on their own two feet? Also, the states of Malaya were not consulted whether they wanted to be in a new Federation with Sabah and Sarawak.

There was no referendum either before Sabah and Sarawak were dragged by the Malayans and British into Federation with Malaya in 1963.

The principles which support Sabah and Sarawak going their own way can be found in the Western Sahara Case Advisory Opinion ICJ Reports (1975) 12.

The inicia include (a) a unique cultural or ethic group; (b) a defined geographic area; (c) the will to emerge as a free state; (d) the will to self-determine governance independently; (e) attempts to assert the aforesaid wills.

A reading of this case is a good start for the client as well as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples, General Assembly Resolution (XV) of December 14, 1960 GAOR, 15th Sess, Supp 16 at p 66.

Whether it’s easy or otherwise for Sabah and Sarawak to leave the Federation is beside the point.

We have to consider the exact nature and actual circumstances surrounding the British departure from Sabah and Sarawak in the wake of the independence of these two countries on 31 August, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively.

The disturbing contents of declassified British colonial documents make it clear that the British were convinced that Malaya would colonise Sabah and Sarawak after their departure.

If so, these revelations and facts clearly demonstrate that the UK Government abandoned Sabah and Sarawak, inadvertently or otherwise, to Malayan colonialism on/or before 16 September, 1963.

The issue of colonisation arises in Borneo because Malaysia was not properly set up by the British Government in particular and the UN in general.

In the case of Brunei, originally included in the Malaysia concept, it had the choice of not choosing to join in the formation of Malaysia.

Brunei was able to wait for its independence until 1984. It again rejected the Malaysia idea when the Malaysian government approached them on the matter after independence.

Why didn’t the UN intervene in Malaya's occupation of Sabah and Sarawak as it did for example in the case of Indonesia's occupation of Timor Leste?

The people of Sabah and Sarawak, out of ignorance, did not press their case at the UN and at the UN Security Council.

If the Philippines/Sulu were to march into Sabah, for example, the UN will not recognise it even if the people don't protest because Putrajaya will protest.

Re: 16 September, 1963, who protested except Indonesia and the Philippines?

The British disguised it as a coming together of parts of the Empire in the wake of decolonisation although they knew Malaya would colonise Sabah and Sarawak after they left.

It was actually Singapore and Malaya getting together in the wake of the occupation of Sabah and Sarawak by the latter to "facilitate" the Singapore-Malaya merger.

Malaya ostensibly would not "agree" to the merger unless Sabah and Sarawak were part of the 1963 Federation to offset the large Chinese population in Singapore.

After Malaya got Sabah and Sarawak, it kicked out Singapore from the Federation two years later. The Borneo nations were not allowed to leave.

The 50th year of Malaya in Sabah and Sarawak via Malaysia was a moment in history.

The true history behind the so-called Malaysia should be told.

There being no compliance on the Malaysia Agreement stems from the fact that there was no proper decolonisation in Borneo, Malaysia if any was not set up properly, and what we have in fact is Malayan colonisation – despite Tunku's public assurances – replacing British colonisation.

Tunku used the so-called Singapore-Malaysia merger through Malaysia in 1963, with Borneo being the facilitator, as an excuse to get Sabah and Sarawak as colonies.

Having got his hands on the two Borneo nations, he lost no time within two years to kick out Singapore to pave the way for apartheid a la Ketuanan Melayu/Ketuanan Islam.

Why did the British force the Rajah of Sarawak to cede his Kingdom to the colonial office in London and "buy" Sabah for 1.2 million pounds from the British North Borneo Company, both in the wake of World War II, if not to unwittingly or otherwise myopically facilitate Malayan colonisation in shouldering the defence burden in the interests of Britain's Commercial Empire in Borneo.

Fifty years after Sabah and Sarawak found themselves in Federation with Malaya on the other side of the South China Sea, the question that arises is the real name of this Federation.

Article 1 of the Federal Constitution states that the Federation will be known in Malay and English as Malaysia.

Article 160 of the Federal Constitution however defines Federation as that set up by the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957.

Wither the Malaysia Agreement 1963!

Article 2 further states that Sabah and Sarawak are the 12th and 13th states in the Federation. The first 11 states are the States of Malaya. So, it cannot be suddenly said that the 12th and 13th states are states in Malaysia.

This means the Federation of Malaysia 1963 does not exist.

What exists is the Federation of Malaya 1957 masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia 1963.

PKR is taking the stand that it’s better for Sabah and Sarawak to vote BN out rather than secede from the Federation.

The fact is that the people of Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya have long lost their sovereignty to an apartheid-style set up in Putrajaya.

As in Thailand, it's not possible to change the government through the electoral system because of this loss of sovereignty. The Government lacks legitimacy and it will get away with it if the people just keep quiet.

The present government in Putrajaya must be forced by the UN Security Council to step down and an interim government should be set up to reform the electoral process and hold free and fair elections. – February 17, 2014.

* Daniel John Jambun is the president of Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/separation-not-pakatan-rakyat-is-the-answer-for-sabah-and-sarawak-daniel-jo#sthash.gVWDL0dk.dpuf

Read More

SECESSION IS NOT A TREASON

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaration of Independence

Another day, another unconstitutional executive order signed violating our rights. The Internet will soon be given to the corporate overlords. In this the final hours of freedom of speech I thought it was important to share this message with you all.

In his farewell speach Dr Paul as well called for Secession from the union. Now conservative talking heads are even harping on this along with the Libertarians in light of the petitions to the White House for states to peacefully secede now reaching over 1 million signatures collectively. I for one agree, Reinstate the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, Secede and reform as one, separating from the corporate oligarchy which has hijacked our nation. 

deprave, Nov 16, 2012

Read More

The right perspective on 1963 Federation

Ignoring Sept 16 is yet another example of how Putrajaya alienates the people of Sabah and Sarawak and caused ill-feelings among them.

KUALA LUMPUR: Two leaders from Sabah and Sarawak, one from the Opposition and another from the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN), found common ground on the Sept 16, 1963 Federation of Sabah and Sarawak with the peninsula.

Sarawak Minister of Land Development James Masing and Penampang MP Darell Leiking told a book launch at a university in Petaling Jaya on Fri that the celebration of the independence of the peninsula on 31 Aug, 1957 should not take precedence over Malaysia Day. Sarawak became independent on July 22 and Sabah on Aug 31, both in 1963 just weeks before Malaysia on 16 Sept, 1963.

“If Aug 31 (Independence Day of the peninsula) is made (within the national context) a more important date than Sept 16, it would worsen already strained ties between Sabah/Sarawak and the peninsula,” warned the duo.

“It could only heighten the anger of Sabahans and Sarawakians, who already feel that they are being robbed of development funds by Putrajaya despite billions in oil revenue from the two states.”

They noted that Sept 16, unlike Aug 31, was not a public holiday until 2010 shortly after 

Prime

 Minister Najib Abdul Razak assumed office.

“We came a long way, i.e. 47 years, to get the date 16 Sept 1963 recognised as the birthday of Malaysia,” said James.

Ignoring Sept 16, reiterated the duo, is yet another example of how Putrajaya alienates the people of Sabah and Sarawak and caused ill-feelings among them.

“Our school textbooks and our songs also do not teach the right facts. There was no Malaysia before 1963,” fumed James. “Even my children won’t believe me.”

Darrel, echoed by James, reiterated his call for the review of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) which was supposed to be held in 1973.

Borneo not destructive and politicians should not kill the messenger

He refuted accusations that calling for a review of MA63 meant that a secession movement was brewing in Sabah.

“The expression of dissatisfaction on the part of Sabahans cannot be regarded as a movement for secession,” said Darell. “This is about the treatment of Sabah by the federal government.”

James pleaded that “these are positive criticisms, so we could look into solving the problem. These dissatisfactions of the people of Borneo are not destructive and politicians should not kill the messenger”.

The book titled, 50 Years of Malaysia: Federalism Revisited, was co-authored by James Chin of Monash University Malaysia and Andrew Harding of National University of Singapore, with James Masing being among the contributors.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/08/23/the-right-perspective-on-1963-federation/

Read More

Facebook reflects the people’s aspirations

Jeffrey implies Salleh to blame for East Malaysian activists turning to the UN regarding the issue of decolonisation in Borneo.

KOTA KINABALU: The quiet revolution taking place in the social media, Facebook in particular, is a reflection of the people’s aspirations on the way forward in Borneo after half a century of Federation with the peninsula on the other side of the South China Sea.

That’s the thesis statement in a five-page release by Jeffrey Kitingan expressing outrage on Sabah Speaker Salleh Keruak calling on the authorities to act firmly against those demanding in the social media for Sabah to exit the Federation with the peninsula.

Jeffrey, among others the state assemblyman for Bingkor, implied that he could not believe that the Speaker was using the people’s legitimate aspirations as an excuse to please his political masters in the peninsula and further his political career in the process.

“Salleh is just following the old dictatorial ways and threatening the people instead of listening and addressing the issues raised by them,” said Jeffrey, also Star Sabah chairman. “Salleh is playing politics, playing one upmanship, against his competitors for the Chief Minister’s post.”

Jeffrey expressed surprise that Salleh, as a Sabahan, does not seem to care about “the concerns of the people and the injustices suffered by them” as a result of the way that the Federation has turned out to be since 1963.

He urged that “leaders should listen more and understand the voices of dissension and unhappiness and not jump to conclusions”.

Jeffrey implied that Salleh was to blame for activists in Sabah and Sarawak turning to the United Nations (UN) to bring closure on the unfinished business of decolonisation in Borneo.

“I have personally raised the issue in the Sabah Assembly but it was not allowed,” said Jeffrey in reminding Salleh of his role as the Speaker in the incident.

Correct the manipulation of facts and history, not condone it

Dismissing Salleh’s concerns, the Star Sabah Chief explained that the People’s Petition which is now making its way in both Borneo Nations to collect a minimum 300,000 signatures was unfinished business from 1962 when a similar petition before the UN was allegedly sabotaged by the British when the Brunei Rebellion broke out.

He called on everybody, including Salleh in particular, to help make known the true story of the last half century which has been emerging in Facebook since the 50th year of the Sabah, Sarawak Federation with the peninsula. “Salleh should take steps to help correct the manipulation of facts and history, not condone it,” urged Jeffrey. “Let the truth and facts be put correctly.”

Jeffrey stopped short of calling on Salleh to participate in several events planned between now and the run-up to Malaysia Day on Sept 16: Merdeka Walk on Aug 27 from Kudat, Ranau and Keningau to Kota Kinabalu and culminating in an Independence Walk on Aug 31 at the world-famous Tanjung Aru beach in the Sabah capital; a Merdeka Convoy from Ranau to Kundasang on Sept 5; a Love Malaysia Parade in Ranau on Sept 6, a Malaysia Day Commemoration at Batu Sumpah, Keningau on Sept 16; and a Malaysia Day Convoy from Keningau to meet a similar convoy from Sarawak at Limbang.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/08/21/facebook-reflects-the-peoples-aspirations/

Read More