Agenda utama SEDAR Sabah

Barisan Ahli Majlis Kerja Negeri, SEDAR Sabah bersama Presiden Parti di AGM Ahad lepas.

15-10-2024

KOTA KINABALU : Parti Sedar Rakyat (Cawangan Sabah) telah mengadakan Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan (AGM) Khas di Sabah International Convention Centre (SICC) di sini Ahad lepas yang turut dihadiri Presiden parti, Datuk Othman Abdullah, Pengerusi SEDAR Sabah, Prof Dr Ariffin Muhammad dan Timbalan Pengerusi SEDAR Sabah, Dr Julia Emelda Ongkili.

Mesyuarat ini menumpukan kepada pembentangan dan perbincangan beberapa resolusi penting yang bakal menjadi agenda utama parti dalam menghadapi Pilihan Raya Negeri Sabah ke-17 (PRNS17).

Dari kiri Dr Julia Emelda Ongkili, timbalan pengerusi SEDAR Sabah, Presiden Datuk Othman Abdullah dan Prof Dr Ariffin Muhammad, Pengerusi SEDAR Sabah.

Parti SEDAR Rakyat, Sabah bukan sekadar sebuah nama, malah membawa maksud yang mendalam kepada rakyat dan negeri Sabah. SEDAR adalah akronim bagi Sabah Economic Development and Accountability Reforms, yang menjelaskan misi utama parti untuk memperjuangkan pembangunan ekonomi yang berdaya tahan serta memperkukuhkan reformasi akauntabiliti dalam pentadbiran kerajaan. 

Parti SEDAR berpegang teguh kepada prinsip ini demi kesejahteraan jangka panjang negeri Sabah.

Dr Julia E. Ongkili bersama beberapa perwakilan wanita pada AGM SEDAR Sabah.

Antara resolusi utama yang dibincangkan dalam AGM khas tersebut adalah:

1. Memperkasakan Reforms Akauntabiliti

   Parti SEDAR Rakyat Sabah menekankan komitmennya untuk giat mempromosikan reformasi akauntabiliti dalam setiap gerak kerja parti. Langkah ini bertujuan memastikan kebertanggungjawaban yang tinggi dan pentadbiran yang telus, sesuai dengan visi untuk membawa perubahan menyeluruh dalam tadbir urus negeri dan memastikan hasil pembangunan ekonomi sampai kepada rakyat.

2. Partisipasi dalam PRNS17 

   Parti SEDAR Rakyat Sabah mengumumkan akan bertanding dalam Pilihan Raya Negeri Sabah ke-17 (PRNS17) bersama dengan Parti-Parti Tempatan di Sabah. Keputusan ini adalah berdasarkan keyakinan bahawa SEDAR mampu membawa pembaharuan ekonomi dan politik yang diperlukan, sekaligus meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat Sabah melalui agenda reformasi yang digariskan.

3. Pertambahan Keahlian Parti

   Parti SEDAR Rakyat Sabah menerima sambutan yang memberangsangkan daripada rakyat yang menunjukkan minat untuk menyertai parti. Jumlah keahlian yang semakin meningkat menunjukkan kepercayaan rakyat terhadap misi dan visi parti dalam membawa pembangunan yang lebih inklusif dan adil di negeri ini.

4. Persediaan Jentera Pilihan Raya

   Parti SEDAR Rakyat Sabah juga mengesahkan bahawa jentera pilihan raya parti sudah bersedia sepenuhnya untuk menghadapi PRNS17. Persiapan rapi dari segi logistik, strategi kempen, dan penyelarasan akar umbi telah dilaksanakan bagi memastikan kejayaan parti dalam pilihan raya tersebut.

5. *Pendirian Parti terhadap Kerajaan*

   Setakat ini, Parti SEDAR Rakyat Sabah mengekalkan pendirian yang mesra terhadap Kerajaan yang sedia ada. Namun, parti akan terus memperjuangkan prinsip akauntabiliti dan reformasi tadbir urus sebagai dasar utamanya dalam berinteraksi dengan mana-mana pihak.

Prof Dr Ariffin, Pengerusi SEDAR Sabah, menekankan bahawa parti ini bukan sahaja membawa harapan baharu untuk pembangunan ekonomi Sabah, tetapi juga menjamin akauntabiliti yang lebih kukuh dalam pentadbiran negeri. 

Parti SEDAR Rakyat Sabah optimis bahawa dengan sokongan padu daripada rakyat dan persiapan rapi, ia berupaya membawa perubahan yang lebih baik untuk masa depan Sabah. Parti juga menyeru semua rakyat Sabah untuk terus menyokong agenda reformasi ekonomi dan akauntabiliti yang dibawa oleh SEDAR demi kemajuan dan kesejahteraan negeri.

Demikian kenyataan penuh dari SEDAR Sabah yang diperolehi Borneo Herald hari ini.#

Reject Mufti Bill, Madani Government Ignores Main Issue, Say Borneo's Leaders

15-10-2024

KOTA KINABALU : The Borneo NGOs who rejected the proposed Mufti Bill 2024, raised deeper concerns on its eventual impact following the Federal Minister Fahmi Fadzil's response yesterday to their earlier statement on 11 October 2024, that the Mufti Bill 2024 is similar to the Sabah Bill 2004.

In a joint statement issued here, the group of 12 highlighted that Fahmi's explanation ignored the main issue: the undemocratic nature of granting non-elected individuals power over citizens which infringes the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the Constitution.

 

The NGOs also supported Latheefa Koya, a prominent rights lawyer, who criticized the Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024 for giving excessive control over Muslims’ lives and undermining the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Malaysia's constitutional head of Islam.

 

They also argued that for over 61 years, religion has been used to undermine the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) for a secular multicultural system which have affected both Muslim and non-Muslim communities in Sabah and Sarawak. The consequent restrictions on individuals, communities, and businesses due to religious rules are serious breaches of civil and humans.

 

"We are concerned about why lawmaking power is being given to non-elected individuals when a structured system is already in place, with the King as the head of Islam, supported by an elected government. 

"Such a move undermines democratic principles, raising questions about the true intentions behind these decisions," they pointed out.

 

The NGOs Key Concerns on the Mufti Bill, which potentially alters the Malaysia Agreement on which Malaysia was founded and the federal constitution are :

 

1. Constitutional Issues: The Mufti Bills propose creating a parallel religious authority that conflicts with Malaysia's constitutional framework, which is based on constitutional supremacy. Any laws contradicting this principle risk being unconstitutional.

 

2. Legal Gaps in Islamic Law: The lack of a specific legal framework in Islamic and Syariah law forces courts to reference foreign case law, which does not hold the same legal weight, limiting consistent interpretations in Islamic law.

 

3. Governance and Rule of Law: Elevating religious guidance to enforceable law could undermine the rule of law by challenging the constitutional role of Parliament as the supreme legislative body.

 

4. Judicial Role: The judiciary plays a crucial role in resolving disputes and ensuring laws like the Mufti Bills adhere to Malaysia's constitutional standards, maintaining checks and balances.

 

5. Constitutional Supremacy: Unlike the UK's parliamentary sovereignty, Malaysia's system requires that all legislative actions align with the Constitution, which takes precedence over any alternative religious rulings.

 

The NGOS affirmed their support for freedom of religion and belief as guaranteed by the MA63 and the Constitution. 

"The misuse of religious laws has undermined Malaysia's secular, multicultural foundations, breaching fundamental rights and imposing rigid social practices. 

"The Mufti Bill threatens to create a parallel legal system that challenges the rule of law and constitutional supremacy," they further said, adding it is crucial for the judiciary to ensure that any new laws comply with Malaysia's constitutional principles, balancing religious guidance with state governance.

 

The NGOs also feared that the new Bill was part of an overall agenda to replace the Malaysia Agreement federation concept with an Islamic state and, in effect, terminates the treaty by stealth. 

"Termination of the international treaty will enable Sabah and Sarawak the right to review the relation with Peninsular Malaysia and seek the option of exit like Singapore," the NGOs added.

Related information:

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/10/12/mufti-bill-nearly-the-same-as-20-year-old-sabah-law-says-minister/?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=share-button

https://www.cpiasia.org/index.php/268-e-media/2705-mufti-bill-creates-parallel-authority-alongside-agong

The Borneo leaders are :

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

Robert Pei President Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)

Peter John Jambun founder Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS)

Moses Anap President Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

Dr Kanul Gindol Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo 

Timothy Jagak - Dayak Cultural Ambassador For Gabungan Orang Asal Sabah (GOASS)

Alim GA Mideh - Bulang Birieh Dayak Civil Movement 

Jovilis Majami President Persatuan Pembangunan Sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)

Ricky Ganang Penasihat Forum Adat Dataran Tanah Tinggi Borneo (FORMADAT)

Cleftus Stephen Mojingol President Pertubuhan Kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah (PKRDS)

Patrick Anek Uren

Voon Lee Shan President Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)

Sabah, Sarawak NGOs opposed to the Mufti Bill 2024

11 October 2024

The undersigned NGOs and other signatories jointly express their utmost alarm and concern over the continuing federal breaches of MA63 (if valid) and the destruction of MA63 secularism concept.

“WE in Sabah and Sarawak strongly oppose the proposed Mufti Bill 2024 that seeks to expand the powers of the Mufti in the Federal Territories.

We firmly reject any move to be ruled by Muftis, as this would effectively sideline the constitutional monarchy, the Madani government, and the secular parliamentary democracy that Malaysia is built upon. 

Such a change would transform Malaysia into an Islamic state overnight. ”The ongoing violations of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) have reached a critical point, with recent developments such as the recent halal certification issue, the divisive #RUU355Bill, appointment of halal inspectors and the impending passage of the Mufti Bill 2024.

These measures represent yet more serious breaches of MA63 and have sparked widespread concern among citizens, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. 

It is also opposed by Muslim people who are concern that “the Mufti Bill marks a more explicit sectarian turn in the bureaucratisation of Islam since the 2000s, aiming to institutionalise Sunni Ash’arism as the state-sanctioned version of Islam”. 

The politicisation of ideologies “will foster intolerance and radicalism by promoting dehumanising values and undermining democracy”.(quotes from Competing Sectarianism in Malaysia By Aizat Shamsuddin October 08, 2024) TheDiplomat https://thediplomat.com/2024/10/competing-sectarianisms-in-malaysia/  )

These actions constitute direct attacks on the secular system, which was a fundamental guarantee to Sabah and Sarawak when Malaysia and also the Malayan Federation were set up. 

The cumulative effect of these breaches highlights a pattern of erosion of the constitutional safeguards that were intended to protect the pluralistic and secular nature of the federation.

Historical Context and Guarantees for a Secular System in Malaysia’s Formation 

When Malaysia was set up in 1963 under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), Sabah and Sarawak were promised autonomy and guarantees including protection of their secular and pluralist systems as inducement to give up their demands for real independence.

Unlike Malaya, where Islam was the official religion, Sabah and Sarawak were guaranteed the right to maintain their secular identities. It was an agreed term that there would have “no state religion” for the two states. 

This was a key factor in their decision to join Malaya and Singapore to set up the federation. However, over the past 61 years, these promises have been systematically violated.

This term was broken when the Sabah Constitution was amended to make Islam the state religion and the Sarawak Constitution amended to make the Agong the Head of Islam in Sarawak, a change that was never intended when Malaysia was created.

These amendments which could only have proceeded with the blessings of the federal government, effectively introduced Islam as an official religion in the states, contrary to the original terms of MA63.

In the 1970s the federal government in breach of UN human rights and international laws and the federal constitution, had initiated population re-engineering of Sabah by flooding it with southern Philippines refugees transforming it into a Muslim majority in Sabah. 

These changes were not only unconstitutional but also deeply troubling for the pluralistic and secular foundations upon which Malaysia was meant to stand.

The Mufti Bill and Its Far-Reaching Implications

The Mufti Bill, which is set to be passed on 16 or 17 October 2024, is yet another alarming development that further erodes the damaged secular structure of Malaysia. 

This bill would grant sweeping powers to the Mufti, enabling the issuance of religious decrees that could have significant impacts on both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. 

These decrees could bypass the authority of Parliament and the courts, effectively placing religious law above civil law. The Mufti could even appoint advisors from outside the federation, allowing external religious influence to shape domestic laws. 

Muftis have no jurisdiction in Parliament as they are not elected representatives of the people. Elevating their influence would ultimately lead to a situation where "the entire Federation could be ruled by Muftis.

"The broad powers of the Mufti under this bill pose a direct threat to the secular system. Non Muslims could be forced to comply with Islamic decrees, further deepening the Islamization and destabilising foundations of the federation. 

The bill exemplifies how the federal government, particularly under the current Madani administration, has accelerated the process of dismantling the secular foundations of the nation.

This trend, which began decades ago, has now reached a critical point where secularism is at risk of being completely replaced by a race-religion apartheid system. 

The Violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine and International Law

The secular pluralist system promised under MA63 has been replaced by a race-religion apartheid system embodied by the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the ideology of Ketuanan Melayu.

This was never a negotiated item of the Malaysia Agreement. These developments violate the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Malaysian Constitution, which protects the fundamental pillars of the federation, including secularism and federalism.

The imposition of race and religion-based policies not only undermines the Constitution but also breaches international law.

MA63 is an international treaty, and the ongoing violations of its terms—particularly the dismantling of the secular system—render it null and void. 

The treaty’s core promises, including the preservation of secularism in Sabah and Sarawak, have been systematically violated, giving these states the right to reconsider their position within the federation. 

Conclusion: The Right to Self-Determination

We affirm our support for the right of all citizens to freedom of religion and belief, as guaranteed under the terms of MA63. The recent halal certification issue, the divisive #RUU355Bill, appointment of halal inspectors in government departments and the imminent passage of the Mufti Bill represent only the latest in a long series of breaches of MA63. 

These actions have fundamentally undermined the secular, pluralist system upon which Malaysia was built. 

The violations of the treaty, alongside the imposition of a race-religion apartheid system, have effectively terminated the validity of MA63.

The federal government has failed to uphold its obligations, and the systematic erosion of the secular foundation of the nation has breached both the spirit and the letter of the agreement.

Sabah and Sarawak now have unchallengeable legal and moral grounds to assert their right to self-determination. 

The destruction of the secular system, which was meant to protect the unique status of these regions, has violated their rights under the federation. 

The allocation of 34.6% of seats in the Dewan Rakyat, a principle rooted in constitutional and historical obligations, was meant to safeguard the interests of Sabah and Sarawak. Yet even this has been undermined, leaving the regions vulnerable to domination by the more populous Malaya.

Given these multiple breaches, it is time for the people and governments of Sabah and Sarawak to reassess the future of Sabah and Sarawak within Malaysia. 

The erosion of the secular system and the imposition of race-religion policies have fundamentally altered the nature of the federation, and it is now clear that MA63 has been rendered null and void by Malaya’s actions.

We, the undersigned NGOs and other signatories, hereby declare that the Malaysian government’s blatant breaches of the founding principles of the Malaysia Agreement 1963(MA63, if valid) constitutes its unilateral termination.

Consequently, we are no longer bound by the terms of MA63. We demand that the Sabah and Sarawak governments immediately defend our rights and pursue our rightful exit from this failed federation without delay.

Endorsed by:

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

2. Robert Pei  - President, Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand, (SSRANZ)

3. Peter John Jaban  - Founder, SAS Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS)

4. Mosses Paul Anap Ampang  - President, Republic Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

5. Voon Lee Shan - President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)

6. Timothy Jagak - Dayak Cultural Ambassador for Gabungan Orang Asal Sabah/ Sarawak (GOASS)

7. Ahmad bin Awang Ali, Pusat Latihan Orang Asal Sarawak

8. Alim GA Mideh - Bulang Birieh Dayak Civil Movement

9. Dr Kanul Gindol - Chairman, Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo 

10. Jovilis Majami - President, Persatuan Pembangunan Sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)

11. Cleftus Stephen Mojingol  - President, Pertubuhan Kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah (PKRDS)

12. Michael Jok - Secretary General, Society for Rights of Indigenous People of Sarawak (SCRIPS)

13. Paul Rajah Legal - Adviser, Society for Rights of Indigenous People of Sarawak (SCRIPS)

Versi Bahasa Malaysia:

Berikut adalah terjemahan pernyataan tersebut ke dalam bahasa Malaysia:

11 Oktober 2024

NGO dan penandatangan di bawah ini bersama-sama menyatakan kebimbangan yang amat serius terhadap pelanggaran berterusan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63) (jika sah) dan pemusnahan konsep sekularisme yang terkandung dalam MA63.

“Kami di Sabah dan Sarawak dengan tegas menentang Rang Undang-Undang Mufti 2024 yang dicadangkan, yang bertujuan untuk memperluaskan kuasa Mufti di Wilayah Persekutuan.

Kami dengan tegas menolak sebarang langkah untuk diperintah oleh Mufti, kerana ini akan mengetepikan monarki berperlembagaan, kerajaan Madani, dan demokrasi berparlimen sekular yang menjadi asas Malaysia.

Perubahan sedemikian akan mengubah Malaysia menjadi sebuah negara Islam dalam sekelip mata." Pelanggaran berterusan terhadap Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63) telah mencapai tahap kritikal, dengan perkembangan terkini seperti isu pensijilan halal, Rang Undang-Undang #RUU355 yang memecah belah, pelantikan pemeriksa halal, dan cadangan penggubalan Rang Undang-Undang Mufti 2024.

Langkah-langkah ini merupakan pelanggaran serius terhadap MA63 dan telah menimbulkan kebimbangan meluas di kalangan rakyat, terutama di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Malah, langkah ini juga ditentang oleh sebahagian orang Islam yang bimbang bahawa “Rang Undang-Undang Mufti ini menandakan langkah sektarian yang lebih jelas dalam birokrasi Islam sejak tahun 2000-an, yang bertujuan untuk menginstitusikan Sunni Ash’arisme sebagai versi Islam yang disahkan oleh negara".

Politik ideologi ini “akan mendorong intoleransi dan radikalisme dengan mempromosikan nilai-nilai yang tidak manusiawi dan melemahkan demokrasi.” (Petikan dari Competing Sectarianism in Malaysia oleh Aizat Shamsuddin, 8 Oktober 2024, The Diplomat)

Tindakan ini adalah serangan langsung terhadap sistem sekular, yang merupakan jaminan asas kepada Sabah dan Sarawak ketika Malaysia dan juga Persekutuan Tanah Melayu ditubuhkan.

Kesan kumulatif daripada pelanggaran ini menunjukkan corak penghakisan terhadap perlindungan perlembagaan yang bertujuan untuk melindungi sifat pluralistik dan sekular persekutuan.

Konteks Sejarah dan Jaminan untuk Sistem Sekular dalam Pembentukan Malaysia

Ketika Malaysia ditubuhkan pada 1963 di bawah Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63), Sabah dan Sarawak dijanjikan autonomi dan jaminan termasuk perlindungan sistem sekular dan pluralistik mereka sebagai syarat untuk melepaskan tuntutan kemerdekaan sebenar mereka.

Tidak seperti Malaya, di mana Islam adalah agama rasmi, Sabah dan Sarawak dijamin hak untuk mengekalkan identiti sekular mereka. Adalah terma yang dipersetujui bahawa tidak akan ada "agama rasmi" untuk kedua-dua negeri ini.

Ini adalah faktor utama dalam keputusan mereka untuk bergabung dengan Malaya dan Singapura untuk menubuhkan persekutuan. Bagaimanapun, sepanjang 61 tahun yang lalu, janji-janji ini telah dilanggar secara sistematik.

---

Rang Undang-Undang Mufti dan Implikasinya yang Luas

Rang Undang-Undang Mufti, yang dijangka diluluskan pada 16 atau 17 Oktober 2024, merupakan satu lagi perkembangan yang membimbangkan, yang terus menghakis struktur sekular Malaysia yang sudah rosak.

Rang undang-undang ini akan memberi kuasa yang luas kepada Mufti, membolehkan mereka mengeluarkan fatwa yang boleh memberi kesan besar kepada umat Islam dan bukan Islam.

Fatwa-fatwa ini boleh mengatasi kuasa Parlimen dan mahkamah, secara efektif meletakkan undang-undang agama di atas undang-undang sivil. Mufti juga boleh melantik penasihat dari luar persekutuan, membolehkan pengaruh agama luar membentuk undang-undang domestik.

Mufti tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa dalam Parlimen kerana mereka bukan wakil rakyat yang dipilih. Meningkatkan pengaruh mereka akan membawa kepada keadaan di mana "seluruh Persekutuan boleh diperintah oleh Mufti."

Kuasa luas yang diberikan kepada Mufti di bawah rang undang-undang ini menimbulkan ancaman langsung kepada sistem sekular. Bukan Islam mungkin dipaksa mematuhi fatwa Islam, yang akan memperdalamkan proses Islamisasi dan menggoyahkan asas persekutuan.

Rang undang-undang ini menggambarkan bagaimana kerajaan persekutuan, terutamanya di bawah pentadbiran Madani, telah mempercepatkan proses meruntuhkan asas sekular negara.

Trend ini, yang bermula beberapa dekad yang lalu, kini telah mencapai titik kritikal di mana sekularisme berada dalam bahaya digantikan sepenuhnya oleh sistem apartheid kaum-agama.

Pelanggaran Doktrin Struktur Asas dan Undang-Undang Antarabangsa

Sistem sekular pluralistik yang dijanjikan di bawah MA63 telah digantikan oleh sistem apartheid kaum-agama yang dijelmakan oleh Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) dan ideologi Ketuanan Melayu.

Ini bukanlah sesuatu yang dirundingkan dalam Perjanjian Malaysia. Perkembangan ini melanggar Doktrin Struktur Asas Perlembagaan Malaysia, yang melindungi tiang asas persekutuan, termasuk sekularisme dan federalisme.

Pelaksanaan dasar berasaskan kaum dan agama bukan sahaja melemahkan Perlembagaan tetapi juga melanggar undang-undang antarabangsa.

MA63 adalah perjanjian antarabangsa, dan pelanggaran berterusan terhadap terma-terma perjanjian ini—terutamanya pemusnahan sistem sekular—membuatkan perjanjian ini tidak sah.

Janji-janji teras perjanjian itu, termasuk pemeliharaan sekularisme di Sabah dan Sarawak, telah dilanggar secara sistematik, memberikan hak kepada kedua-dua negeri ini untuk mempertimbangkan semula kedudukan mereka dalam persekutuan.

Kesimpulan: Hak untuk Penentuan Nasib Sendiri

Kami menegaskan sokongan kami terhadap hak semua rakyat untuk kebebasan beragama dan kepercayaan, seperti yang dijamin di bawah terma MA63. Isu pensijilan halal baru-baru ini, Rang Undang-Undang #RUU355 yang memecah belah, pelantikan pemeriksa halal dalam jabatan kerajaan dan penggubalan Rang Undang-Undang Mufti yang akan datang hanyalah antara pelanggaran terbaru terhadap MA63.

Tindakan-tindakan ini telah menghakis secara asas sistem sekular dan pluralistik yang menjadi asas Malaysia.

Pelanggaran terhadap perjanjian itu, bersama dengan pelaksanaan sistem apartheid kaum-agama, telah secara efektif menamatkan kesahihan MA63.

Kerajaan persekutuan telah gagal memenuhi tanggungjawabnya, dan penghakisan sistem sekular negara secara sistematik telah melanggar semangat dan surat perjanjian tersebut.

Sabah dan Sarawak kini mempunyai asas undang-undang dan moral yang tidak dapat dipertikaikan untuk menuntut hak penentuan nasib sendiri.

Pemusnahan sistem sekular, yang sepatutnya melindungi status unik kedua-dua wilayah ini, telah melanggar hak mereka di bawah persekutuan.

Peruntukan 34.6% kerusi di Dewan Rakyat, yang berakar pada kewajipan perlembagaan dan sejarah, bertujuan untuk melindungi kepentingan Sabah dan Sarawak. Namun, perkara ini juga telah dikikis, menjadikan kedua-dua wilayah ini terdedah kepada dominasi Malaya yang lebih ramai penduduknya.

Berdasarkan pelanggaran-pelanggaran ini, sudah tiba masanya untuk rakyat dan kerajaan Sabah dan Sarawak menilai semula masa depan mereka dalam Malaysia.

Penghakisan sistem sekular dan pelaksanaan dasar kaum-agama telah mengubah secara asas sifat persekutuan, dan kini jelas bahawa MA63 telah dianggap tidak sah oleh tindakan Malaya.

Kami, NGO dan penandatangan yang dinyatakan di bawah, dengan ini mengisytiharkan bahawa pelanggaran terang-terangan oleh kerajaan Malaysia terhadap prinsip-prinsip asas Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63, jika sah) merupakan penamatan sepihaknya.

Oleh itu, kami tidak lagi terikat dengan terma MA63. Kami menuntut agar kerajaan Sabah dan Sarawak segera mempertahankan hak kami dan mengusahakan keluar dari persekutuan yang gagal ini tanpa sebarang penangguhan.

Kenyataan Bersama :-

1. Daniel John Jambun - Presiden, Yayasan Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

2. Robert Pei - Presiden, Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand, (SSRANZ)

3. Peter John Jaban - Pengasas, SAS Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS)

4. Mosses Paul Anap Ampang - Presiden, Republic Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

5. Voon Lee Shan - Presiden, Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)

6. Timothy Jagak - Duta Budaya Dayak untuk Gabungan Orang Asal Sabah/ Sarawak (GOASS)

7. Ahmad bin Awang Ali - Pusat Latihan Orang Asal Sarawak

8. Alim GA Mideh - Bulang Birieh Dayak Civil Movement

9. Dr Kanul Gindol - Pengerusi, Inisiatif Gindol untuk Masyarakat Madani Borneo

10. Jovilis Majami - Presiden, Persatuan Pembangunan Sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)

11. Cleftus Stephen Mojingol - Presiden, Pertubuhan Kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah (PKRDS)

12. Michael Jok - Setiausaha Agung, Society for Rights of Indigenous People of Sarawak (SCRIPS)

13. Paul Rajah - Penasihat Undang-Undang, Society for Rights of Indigenous People of Sarawak (SCRIPS)

Call for Malaysia to Review MA63 in Light of Chagos Islands Case

CALL FOR THE ANWAR IBRAHIM MADANI GOVERNMENT TO REVIEW THE MALAYSIA AGREEMENT 1963 (MA63) IN LIGHT OF THE ICJ CHAGOS ISLANDS DECISION AND UK RETURN OF CHAGOS TO MAURITIUS.

Updated 5th October 2024

WE, the undersigned organisations, call on Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and the Madani government to review the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) in light of international legal developments particularly the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision on the Chagos Islands Case (2019) and the United Kingdom government's recent announcement to return the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, and expedite the decolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak.

The Chagos Case sets a landmark legal precedent concerning the principles of self-determination, the legal capacity to make binding intentional agreements and the rights of non-self-governing territories under United Nations General Assembly Resolutions (UNGAR) 1514 and 1541. This case also underlines the fact that the passage of time does not cure a defective treaty like MA63 or legitimise a de facto a federation.  

The NGOs said that Prime Minster Anwar Ibrahim is known for his staunch support for the right of all nations and especially for Palestine, to national independence.  They call on him to recognise that both Sabah and Sarawak have the same right to self-determination as Palestine and they were unlawfully decolonised in 1963 by the United Kingdom in manner inconsistent with this right. 

The Prime Minister can see that the parallels between the Chagos Islands and Sabah and Sarawak are undeniable. Like Mauritius, Sabah and Sarawak were treated as non-self-governing territories whose peoples were denied genuine self-determination in the formation of the Malaysian Federation. 

The ongoing multiple Malayan violations of fundamental terms of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63, if valid) breaching the Basic Structure Doctrine and international law and the marginalisation of Sabah and Sarawak over the past 61 years mirror the injustices faced by the Chagossians under colonial rule and amount to a unilateral termination of MA63.  The failure to uphold agreed terms for a secular pluralist system, autonomy, fair representation, and control over resources has left Sabah and Sarawak in a state of de facto colonialism, exploited, impoverished and backward, subject to unequal treatment within the Federation.

Legal Capacity, Consent, and Coercion

The ICJ's ruling on the Chagos Islands reaffirmed that any agreement concerning the future of non-self-governing territories must be based on legal capacity of the parties to make the agreement, with free, prior, and informed consent consistent with their right to self-determination. 

In the case of MA63, Sabah and Sarawak’s entry into the Federation of Malaysia was accomplished under coercive emergency conditions with mass arrests and imprisonment of nationalists, undue pressure, and the exclusion of their peoples from meaningful consultation and without free consent. Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman declared that Malaysia would be formed even while there was a state of emergency (impose by the United Kingdom following the anti-Malaysia Uprising on 8 Dec 1962) in Borneo. The NGOs echo the ICJ’s emphasis on legal capacity and consent and reiterate that any treaty or agreement like MA63 that is formed under such conditions is null and void ab initio under international law.

Violation of UNGA Resolutions 1514 & 1541

The 1960 UNGA Resolution 1514 on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples sets forth the international community's commitment to decolonization and self-determination. In the cases of non-self-governing territories it was required by UNGAR 1541 that there be a referendum to seek the people’s informed consent. It is clear that the formation of Malaysia violated this resolution, as Sabah and Sarawak were not afforded the genuine right to self-determination nor a referendum before being absorbed into the Federation. 

The hasty and premature UK-Malayan announcement on 28 August 1963 to proclaim Malaysia on 16 September 1963 preempted the completion of the UN assessment and left unresolved disputes with neighbouring Indonesia and the Philippines under the Manila Accord 1963. This has kept the question of Malaysia's legitimacy alive, as it has been legally contested in 2018 and further highlighted by the 2013 armed invasion of Eastern Sabah by Philippine insurgents. It is long overdue for the Malaysian government to recognize these historical and legal realities.

Decolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak

The United Kingdom’s return of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius underscores the principle that colonial wrongs must be corrected, and sovereignty and territories unjustly held must be returned to their rightful owners and the principle self-determination be strictly observed. The United Kingdom’s decision to comply with the ICJ’s 2019 ruling is a significant victory for all colonized territories seeking independence

Sabah and Sarawak were promised autonomy and safeguards under MA63 (if valid), yet these have been systematically eroded over 61 years in Malaysia. The time has come for the decolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak, starting with a full and independent review of MA63 under international law, with particular emphasis on the issues of legal capacity, consent, and the violation of their right to self-determination.

Call to Action

If the Prime Minister can so strongly and consistently champion the cause of Palestine, then by the same principle, he should equally support the right of Sabah and Sarawak to independence.

We therefore, call on the Ibrahim Anwar Madani government to:

1. Initiate an urgent independent ICJ review of MA63 in the context of the ICJ's Chagos Islands decision and the UK's return of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.

2. Recognize the legal and moral obligation to uphold the principles of self-determination and decolonisation for Sabah and Sarawak, as mandated by international law.

3. End the ongoing colonial-style exploitation of Sabah and Sarawak’s resources and restore full control over oil and gas to the rightful governments of Sabah and Sarawak.

4. Pending the ICJ review, address the systematic violations of MA63 including abuse and replacement of the secular pluralist federation system with the NEP Ketuanan Melayu race-religion based apartheid system and negotiate a clear road map for the restoration of the rights and autonomy promised to Sabah and Sarawak upon joining the Federation. 

5. Act decisively to end the unequal treatment of Sabah and Sarawak, ensuring that their people are no longer marginalised within the Malaysian Federation.

The UK’s decision to return the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius is a powerful reminder that colonial wrongs can and must be righted. Malaysia, as a nation, must not continue to turn a blind eye to the ongoing colonial injustices within its own borders. If MA63 is valid, the multiple Malayan violations amount to a unilateral termination of MA63 and the people of Sabah and Sarawak will accept this termination and consider that MA63 is no longer binding. In particular the final destruction of the secular pluralist system which will be sealed by the proposed PKR Pas race-religion based alliance is deeply disturbing. The Chagos Islands case underlines the fact that the passage of time does not cure a defective treaty like MA63 or legitimise a de facto a federation. It is time to decolonise Sabah and Sarawak and restore their full rights under international law.

Signed

Daniel John Jambun 

President Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Robert Pei

President, Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand, (SSRANZ)

Peter John Jaban

Founder SAS Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS)

Mosses Paul Anap Ampang

President Republic Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

Voon Lee Shan 

President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang 

PBS nafi ingin bersama Warisan, PBS komited bersama GRS, kata Presidennya

            Datuk Dr Joachim Gunsalam, Presiden PBS merangkap Timbalan Ketua Menteri Sabah.

3-10-2024

KOTA KINABALU : Presiden Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), Datuk Dr Joachim Gunsalam, menafikan laporan atau khabar angin yang Majlis Tertinggi partinya berharap PBS, StarSabah dan Warisan akan dapat membentuk kerjasama sebagai alternatif baru.

"Tiada kebenaran laporan ini. PBS kekal dan komitted bersama GRS", kata Dr Joachim ketika dihubungi Borneo Herald hari ini.

Dr Joachim yang juga Timbalan Ketua Menteri berkata ada pihak yang cuba mengelirukan orang-ramai dalam hal itu.

"Ini cubaan mengelirukan rakyat Sabah," katanya ringkas.

PBS dijangka mengeluarkan kenyataan rasmi mengenai perkara itu hari ini.

Khabar-khabar angin bertiup kebelakangan ini bahawa ada usaha menyatukan Warisan, PBS, StarSabah dan KDM untuk menentang Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) pada pilihanraya negeri yang bakal diadakan pada bila-bila masa.

Kononnya salah satu sebab utama usaha itu ialah keangkuhan rakan dalam GRS terutama PGRS pimpinan Ketua Menteri Datuk Hajiji Noor yang enggan memberi lebih banyak kerusi untuk ditandingi PBS dan StarSabah pada PRN mendatang.

Satu lagi sebab ialah penegasan Hajiji bahawa GRS akan tetap bekerjasama dengan parti-parti dari Malaya seperti DAP, PKR dan Amanah menerusi Pakatan Harapan yang juga turut dianggotai Upko.

Hari ini, viral satu laporan oleh laman yang bernama MalaysianSpeaks memetik sumber dalaman PBS berkata parti itu ingin mencari rakan baru kerana kebersamaan dalam GRS tidak menguntungkan PBS malah akan mengecilkan lagi parti yang sudah berusia menjangkau 40 tahun itu.

Seorang pemimpin lain PBS yang dihubungi Borneo Herald pula berkata "biarlah presiden atau setiausaha agung yang mengeluarkan kenyataan mengenai hal ini."

"Tidak dinafikan, ada yang berpendapat terus bersama GRS tidak menguntungkan PBS dan boleh menghancurkan PBS, tapi biarlah presiden yang ulas perkara ini," katanya sambil meminta namanya tidak disiarkan.#

SSRANZ & RSNB's response to Malaysian IGP and accusation of sedition

    The event in question, in Melbourne, Australia, organised by Sabah and Sarawak activists based there.

Here is a lengthy response from the two bodies that are responsible for the Melbourne event that  lowered Malaysia's flag and raised both Sabah and Sarawak flags...

30-9-2024

SSRANZ & RSNB REJECT ALLEGATIONS OF SEDITION & CONDEMN  MALAYAN  PARTIES’  INTERFERENCE 

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 by

Robert Pei 

President of Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)

&

Mosses Anap

President of Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)#

Sabah, Sarawak NGOs reject suggestion to give 1/3 of Dewan Negara seats to Borneo, it should be Dewan Rakyat seats they say

A Joint Statement by Sabah, Sarawak NGOs

WE note the strong push by NGOs such as ROSE, BERSIH, ENGAGE and Tindak Malaysia to push for the Borneo states to be given more than one-third of Senatorial seats.

After strong pushback from Sabah and Sarawak, they have now issued a statement dated 21 September giving a set of reasons. 

This was published in: https://www.sarawakrose.org/?p=117We reject the reasons given in the statement because they do not address the fundamental issue. 

The fundamental issues are the following: 

1. We are requesting a historical correction to the mistake made in 1965. When the federation of Malaysia was established in 1963, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore received more than 34% of the seats in the Dewan Rakyat. This was an important "safeguard" requested by North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore. When Singapore left the federation in 1965, Malayan officials should have followed the original ratio and redistributed the Singapore seats to Sabah and Sarawak. As a result, we are requesting a correction for a historical error. This correction is similar to the constitutional amendment made in 2021 when the original wordings was put back in Article 1 (2) of the Federal Constitution. It was to “right” a historical “wrong” in 1976. 

2. All agree that Dewan Negara lacks political legitimacy. Their members are appointed by the Agong and DUN rather than being directly chosen by the rakyat. You cannot expect a non-elected chamber to have the authority to speak out for Sabah and Sarawak with legitimacy. If the Dewan Negara was powerful, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak leaders would have requested a third of the Dewan Negara seats back in 1963. The fact that they wanted one-third of the seats in Dewan Rakyat indicates that they knew where power lay.

In summary, using today’s lens and half-truths to push for the 1/3 criteria to be met by Dewan Negara is disingenuous and an insult to Sabahans and Sarawakians. 

The Malayan NGOs may want to reform the electoral system in Malaya but they should do so without harming the interests of Sabah and Sarawak. 

Their push for more equalization of the vote in Malaya should not include Sabah and Sarawak  as it is a political  problem in Malaya between the Malays and non-Malays. 

It has  nothing to do with Sabah and Sarawak. We urge all Sarawakians and Sabahans to unite on this issue and reject the suggestions by ROSE, BERSIH, ENGAGE and Tindak Malaysia. They do not have the best interest of Sabah and Sarawak. 

Statement endorsed by : 

1. Sarawak Association For Peoples' Aspiration (SAPA)

2. Dayak International Organisation (DIO)

3. MOPOT - Moningolig Pogun Tokou (Defenders of Ancestral LandsSabah)

4. Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo

5. Pertubuhan Kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah (PKRDS)

6. Gabungan orang Asal Sarawak (GOASS)

7. Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak (PEDAS )

8. Sarawak Institute of International Affairs (SIPA)

9. Sabah Action Body Advocating Rights (SABAR)

10. Sabah Entitlement & Equity Now (SEEN)

11. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)#

Stop the amendment on citizenship, Sabah NGOs and activists call on Sabah MPs

Borneo Herald publishes the full statement herewith :

PRESS STATEMENT

SABAHANS: CITIZENSHIP BILL WILL EXACERBATE STATELESSNESS

CRISIS IN SABAH

28 September 2024

WE, civil society organisations, activists and individuals in Sabah, are deeply concerned with some of the amendments in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2024. We understand that the Bill will be debated and voted on between the 14th and 15th October.

To date, the government has not consulted us as stakeholders with extensive knowledge and experience from direct engagement with individuals and families who will be negatively affected by these amendments. It is widely acknowledged that a high number of children born in Sabah do not have proper documentation – even when at least one parent is Malaysian. As a result, these children are frequently denied Malaysian citizenship. Their lack of legal status criminalises their existence, and they struggle to access even the most basic rights such as education, healthcare and subsequently employment.

Because the number of Sabahans without proper documentation is high, it is our firm belief that two amendments in particular will severely exacerbate the challenges of statelessness in Sabah. 

An amendment to Section 1(a) will remove the constitutional right of children born to individuals who are permanently residing in Malaysia to access automatic citizenship. This is a problem for Sabah because over the years, many Sabahans – individuals who have born and lived all their lives in Sabah – have been granted permanent resident status (red IC) instead of Malaysian citizenship (blue IC). Despite their PR status, they are stateless and have no country of origin. If the amendment to Section 1(a) passes, these individuals – when they have children – will be unable to pass on any no citizenship, thus leading to intergenerational statelessness. This will increase the number of individuals who will need to apply for citizenship, instead of being granted it automatically. 

Secondly, the government is also proposing to reduce the age limit that a child can apply for citizenship from 21 to 18. This amendment will shorten the amount of time a child has to apply for Malaysian citizenship by three years. It is well known that the approval process of citizenship applications is long, and marked by a lack of transparency. After the age of 21, there is no clear pathway to citizenship unless special approval is granted by the Home Minister. 

Together, both amendments will increase the number of people who will need to apply for citizenship, while simultaneously reducing the amount of time they are able to do so, without fixing the application process itself. These amendments do not bode well for Sabah, and threaten to only worsen statelessness in a state that is already grappling with the largest number of undocumented Malaysians in the country.

We urge the Government to engage with MPs, ADUNs, CSOs in Sabah, and other key stakeholders to understand the situation in Sabah. We strongly believe that Sabah MPs must vote against amending sections 1(a) and provisions to reduce the age limit. 

The amendment granting Malaysian women the automatic right to confer citizenship to their children born overseas, however, must proceed without delay, while the harmful regressive amendments should be halted and removed entirely. Passing the bill in its current form will worsen the statelessness crisis in Sabah, particularly among vulnerable, long-neglected communities.

The government must recognise the unique challenges faced by Sabah and move away from policies that reflect a form of modern colonisation — by imposing measures that worsen local conditions without understanding or addressing the realities on the ground. We call for better solutions that tackle the root causes of statelessness in Sabah by disclosing the number of statelessness among Malaysian families and provide solutions based on the evidence at hand, rather than quick fixes that ultimately fail the very people they are meant to help.

ENDORSED BY 66 SABAH CSOS, ACTIVISTS AND INDIVIDUALS

SABAH CSOs:

Advocates for Non-discrimination and Access to Knowledge (ANAK)

Borneo Komrad

Borneo Speaks

Cahaya Society

Child Safeguarding Initiative Sabah

ETANIA Schools Sabah

Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo

Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur

Green Semporna

HUSH Collective 

Iskul Sama diLaut Omadal

Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS)

Justice for Sisters

Light Brigade (LB)

Mandiri Borneo

PACOS Trust

Persatuan Tadika Sabah

Pertubuhan Minda Anak Sabah (MINDA)

Pertubuhan Permuafakatan Dan Perpaduan Peranakan Suluk Bajau Sabah

PLUHO, People Like Us Hang Out!

Sabah AIDS Support Services Association (KASIH)

Sabah Human Rights Centre (SHRC)

Sabah Women's Action Resource Group (SAWO) 

Society for Equality, Respect And Trust for All (SERATA)

Stairway to Hope

Tarbiyatun Nisa' 

The Tiada.Guru Campaign

Undi Sabah

Sabahans (Activists & Individuals):

Abigail Jubilee

Adzmin Fatta

Alanis Mah Siao Yen

Ana Jonessy

Andi Suraidah

Ann Cerill Ivon Michael

Anne Baltazar

Beverly Joeman

Calvina Angayung

Cherlanne Patrick

Daphne M Iking (Humarap)

David Ong

Dr Kanul Gindol

Edna Salumbi

Elizabeth Chin-Sikayun

Fazar Arif

Fiqah Roslan

Gavin Chow

Hanaa Wong Abdullah 

Irwan Idris

Jacqueline Lingham

Jason Hoo Kim Thoe 

Liyana Khalisa binti Kula

Mashithah binti Abdul Halim

Megan Steven

Michael Liman

Mohd Nasir Alizaman

Noah Raj

Nurul Rafeeqa

Patty Pang

Prudence Lingham

⁠Qalista S. Dohny

Rachel Giling

Ruth Yap

Sherzali Herza Asli

Siti Maryam binti Dawalih

Sonia Chin

Wong Kueng Hui 

Marshela binti Foh

Addy Samsudin

Contact Persons: 

Anne Baltazar | 014 3701317

Beverly Joeman | 011 59826297#

Dr Kanul says apt name for the sea fronting Borneo island is Borneo Sea

There should be Borneo Sea from now on, says activist Dr Kanul Gindol from Sabah.

Luke Rintod, 28-9-2024

KOTA BELUD : A well-known Sabah activist has suggested that the vast sea on the west side of the Borneo Island should be named the Borneo Sea.

"I suggest Malaysia consider to rename the large part of sea fronting the island of Borneo as the Borneo Sea," he said in a statement issued from Kota Belud today.

He was commenting on suggestions by various observers lately to rename the South China Sea, partly to counterbalance communist China asserting claim to the whole of South China Sea.

Dr Kanul, who worked as journalist before, said for that matter the three Borneo's states of Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak must be in agreement to name such sea as the Borneo Sea.

"If we have Sulu Sea, Celebes Sea and Java Sea, there is no reason a sea-surrounded large island of Borneo can't have a Borneo Sea, at least the vast sea on its western frontage.

"This part of the sea was used to be known in old scripts as Sea of Puni or Poni or Poli, perhaps the Poni referred to Borneo or Brunei," he pointed out.

He further said that this does not discount others from naming the vast sea fronting the Cambodia and Vietnam lands as the Champa Sea.

Dr Kanul is currently a chairman of an NGO, the 

Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo. He is also the Coordinator for North Zone for Parti Kerjasama Anak Negeri.#

Was the Cobbold Commission a scam?

              Voon Lee Shan, a Sarawak lawyer

By Voon Lee Shan, 28-9-2024

WITHOUT the Cobbold Commission, there is no Cobbold Commission Report. Without the Cobbold Commission Report, there is no Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Without the Malaysia Agreement 1963, there is no Malaysia. However, the issue is Whether the Cobbold Commission was a scam – a scam to deceive the people of the British Borneo Territories to agree to the Malaysia Plan. 

Members of the Cobbold Commission which was set up in January 1962.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 is to allow or to have all colonies in the world to be decolonized and achieve independence from their colonial masters.  This Resolution was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960. 

But, the Malaysia Plan by the British was not motivated by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It has to be noted that the Malaysia Plan was motivated by the need by United Kingdom, to release their colonies from their burden in maintaining their colonies. Records show that the British planned Malaysia since 1953 and therefore, I repeat, it has nothing to do with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514. 

It was the plan of the British in 1953 that their colonies in South East Asia has to join together to form a federation or a country. Hence, came the Malaysian Plan.

In order to ensure that the Malaysia Plan be executed smoothly and in compliance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 and international protocols, the British constituted the Cobbold Commission in 1962 headed by Lord Cobbold. Lord Cobbold was a former Bank Governor of Bank of England. 

In the Cobbold Commission, there were three British and two Malayans. The two Malayans were Dato’ Wong Pow Nee from Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and Chief Minister of Penang and Ghazali Shafie, Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaya. 

There is no evidence that members of the Cobbold Commission could speak the local or native languages of the Borneo People. Without able to speak native language of Borneo people how could the members of the Cobbold Commission came to the conclusion that the people of Sarawak and Sabah wanted Malaysia to be formed? It could not be denied that this Cobbold Commission was to also to overcome the need for a referendum to determine the wishes of the people of Borneo Territories as required by UNGAR 1514.

The Cobbold Commission published its report on 1 August 1962 concluded that roughly only one-third of Sarawak’ population enthusiastically supported forming Malaysia, another one-third vehemently opposed, and the crucial remaining third of the population, though open to the idea, was yet to be convinced of the merits of independence through merger.  The published report seems not correct because from available records, only 4,000 odd people were interviewed by the Cobbold Commission.  Commonsense tells us that this is devoid of democracy! How could these people who were only about 4,000 odds were able to represent the voice of over a million people of North Borneo and Sarawak at that time to decide the fate or destiny of their countries?

From records and books by a several researchers, it is difficult to convince the people of Sarawak and Sabah not to come to the conclusion that the Cobbold Commission was not a scam that took away the intrinsic rights of peoples of Sarawak and Sabah to determine the fate of their countries and to gain independence.  

Besides two books by Professor Michael Leigh, The Rising Moon and the other ones Deals, Datus And Dayaks, there are two other books that we all in Sarawak, need to read concerning the creation of Malaysia. These two books are one, by Dr Matthew Jones  “Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia 1961-1965, Britain, the United States and the Creation of Malaysia (2001) and the other ones is by Dr Stanley S. Bedlington’s Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States (1978). 

Of course, the research work of AJ Stockwell and The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia 1945-1965 by Dr Greg Poulgrain are “goldmines” that we all Sarawakians should read to find out the secrets on how  Malaysia was created.

Dr. Bedlington mentioned that “local leaders in Sabah and Sarawak reacted strongly and adversely” to the Malaysia Plan.

Dr. Bedlington also mentioned that the Cobbold Commission as a “British contrivance activated and organized by British officials.” He said that the “Commission was an Anglo-Malayan exercise was immediately obvious from the fact that it did not include a single Bornean representative.”

The Cobbold Commission did not conduct any referendum in either British North Borneo or Sarawak to measure objectively the wishes and inclinations of the people on the issue of the “Malaysia” merger to assist in its enquiry. Bedlington added that the population of the two States was subjected to “sustained pressure” by British colonial officials to accept the merger. Records showed that those who opposed the Malaysia Plan were considered “subversives” and were arrested, assaulted and battered and many for fear of arrest and physical injuries had to run away and hid in the forests and took arms to resist their arrests. Many were branded as communists and terrorists and were  shot dead.  Those who are still alive said that they were forced by circumstances to join the clandestine organisation in their struggles to fight against Malaysia Plan.

Matthew Jones in his book noted that the Governors of the two crown colonies were sceptical of the Commission, with Governor Goode of British North Borneo calling the exercise “a farce’.

Therefore, it is clear that the true wishes of the majority of the populations of the two Borneo territories were seriously subverted, if not deliberately misconstrued and ignored. The voices of opposition to the merger were traduced. 

Surprising facts that have been censored or hidden from the public all these years, were revealed by Dr Greg Poulgrain, and, in the process, cast the whole project of Malaysia itself in a fundamentally different light.  Poulgrain was able to combine archival research at the Colonial Office, U.K. with interviews of surviving protagonists of the formative era of Malaysia who had played various roles in that period, thereby challenging the conventional version of the formation of Malaysia. 

Poulgrain referred to a classified Colonial Office paper, “Political Objectives in British Territories of South East Asia” of 10th March, 1953, reveals that the British government (Her Majesty’s Government, or HMG) was “engaging in deliberate deception” for, while paying lip service to the Third Rajah’s aspiration for self-government for Sarawak which is embodied in the preamble to the 1941 Sarawak Constitution, Her Majesty’s Government was already planning for “some form of constitutional association” for the Borneo Territories and the Malaya/Singapore bloc coming together as a “British South-East Asia Dominion” in the early fifties. 

Commissioner-General Malcolm MacDonald On April 2, 1955, informed the British Secretary for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, that “the Bornean leaders are perhaps less aware than those in Malaya of our grand design.” 

Despite that, Alan Lennox-Boyd on November 29, 1956, informed the Governor of North Borneo, Sir Roland Turnbull, “The possibility of a federation of North Borneo and Sarawak and indeed of all three Borneo territories ... is a matter for the people of the territories themselves to decide.” It was noted by Poulgrain that, at no time did Her Majesty’s Government envisage self-government by the people of Sarawak. 

However, it must be noted that the colonial officers in the two territories were initially adverse to the idea of a merger of the Borneo states with Malaya and Singapore which they considered premature. 

More concerned with their populations of different ethnicities living in harmony, they had in mind a more gradual move towards independence with the possibility of first forming a Borneon federation before a merger with their more politically savvy neighbours across the South China Sea, Malaya and Singapore.  The “Borneo Proposal” was put forward in 1958, but, as Poulgrain notes, it was already foreshadowed by the 1953 paper. The Borneon proposal was in fact disparaged by the noted historian on South East Asian history, K.J. Tregonning as “a disguised MI5 exercise”. 

Despite that, it is still widely believed and propagated that the proposal for the “Malaysia” merger with the Borneo territories was made by then Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on May 27, 1961, to the Foreign Correspondents’ Association Club in Singapore. The British allowed Tunku take the credit for what was in fact the British brainchild, given the potential of the material benefits at stake for Britain. 

It may be noted here that after the war, British interests in Malaya in the form of investments exceeded those that they had in India and the revenue from rubber and tin was sorely needed for post-war debt payment and reconstruction. The financial stake in having a peaceful merger of the Borneo territories and Singapore with Malaya was, therefore, huge. 

Lee Kuan Yew, having been elected the Prime Minister of Singapore, then assisted the British to push forward the idea of Malaysia, while at the same time, consolidating his own party’s position against that of the Barisan Socialis [Socialist Front] whom he characterised, together with the Chinese opposition in Sarawak, as having been directed to oppose the Malaysia plan by outside powers, namely, Indonesia and China. Lee between September 13 and October 9, 1961, made twelve radio broadcasts (published as The Battle for Merger) in favour of the merger. It seemed that Lee Kuan Yew had his own political agenda to have Malaysia formed.

The research work by Poulgrain, however, pointed to that the primary purpose for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity, even though much was made in the press then and in the mainstream books since of the Tunku’s insistence in having the Borneo colonies aboard in order to balance out the large Chinese population in Singapore with the indigenous populations in the Borneo territories. 

The interviews by Poulgrain’s in 1991 with both Captain D.R. Gribble, and Captain Albert Young confirmed that the huge oilfield was known to the authorities in 1958, years before its “official discovery” in 1963. 

The British at that time were prepared to surrender the oil in Sarawak territory to the new federation under control of Malaya. Sir Anthony Abell, then Governor of Sarawak, in April 1956 observed in a communication to the Colonial Office that “the politicians in both Malaya and Singapore were showing considerable interest in the Borneo territories “including its empty spaces, its potential wealth, and its oil”. 

Poulgrain inexplicably added that it is “noteworthy” that the Governor could admit that Malaya had “imperialistic design” on the Borneo territories, and then to treat this as a reason for merger. 

It is also noted that Tunku Abdul Rahman in a series of conversations with Abdullah Ahmad, which was later published in 2016 in a book entitled, Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman candidly admitted thus: 

“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”.

That’s how Cobbold Commission was used by the British to deny Sarawak the right to independence and to allow, in the words of, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to be handed to Malaya. From the words of Tunku Abdul Rahman, it should be clear to Sarawakians that 22 July is not Sarawak Independence Day as Sarawak had never been granted independence but was given to Malaya  by the British.  

It was all because of empty spaces, potential wealth and oil that made Sarawak now be part or an enlarged Federation of Malaya, renamed the Federation of Malaysia. Therefore, the Federation of Malaysia is not a new federation or country. This new name was conveyed to the United Nations Secretariat by Dato’ Ong Yoke Lin of Malaya after Malaysia Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak became part of the federation of Malaya effective 16 September, 1963 by way of Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The people of Sarawak needs to know the Truth because it is the Truth that sets us free. May God Bless this Land of Sarawak and her people. 

Voon Lee Shan is President of Parti Bumi Kenyalang of Sarawak