Article
I*
The Colonies of North Borneo and
Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of
the Federation of Malaya as
the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional
instruments annexed to this Agreement and the Federation shall
thereafter be called "Malaysia".
(emphasis added)
Question No. 1
Which
one of the following descriptions best depicts the status of Sabah:
1)
The Federation of Malaysia shall
comprise (a) the Federation of Malaya, (b) the State of Sabah, (c) the State of
Sarawak, and (d) the State of Singapore.
2)
Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore have the same status as any one of the 11 states in Peninsular.
If
you chose the 2nd description, shouldn’t Article I be framed as
follows:
The Colonies of North Borneo and
Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall
be federated along with the other existing States into the Federation
of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in
accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement and the
Federation of Malaya shall thereafter be renamed "Malaysia ". (emphasis added)…?
Article IV*
The
Government of the United Kingdom will take such steps as may be appropriate and
available to them to secure the enactment by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom of an Act providing for the relinquishment, as from Malaysia Day, of Her Britannic Majesty's sovereignty and
jurisdiction in respect of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore
so that the said sovereignty and jurisdiction shall on such relinquishment vest
in accordance with this Agreement and the constitutional instruments annexed to
this Agreement. (emphasis added)
Required reading
It
was stated that one part of Sabah belonged to the Brunei Sultanate and the
other part to the Sulu Sultanate; while Brunei had ceded her part of Sabah’s
sovereignty, Sulu (now part of The Philippines) only leased her part of Sabah
which explains why the Malaysian government is still paying annual rentals to
the Philippines.
Question No. 3
Does
the United Kingdom have sovereignty over the whole or only one part of Sabah?
Question No. 4
If
your answer is only one part of Sabah, isn’t Article IV null and void thereby
rendering the entire Agreement illegal and of no effect...?
**Tips for
Questions Nos. 3 and 4
There
is a house owned by 2 friends - Bujang and Puteh.
Bujang
sold his share to Udin.
Puteh
rented out his share to Udin as a sub-tenant.
Can
Udin sell the whole house to Mamat when he (Udin) is only a sub-tenant to Puteh’s
share…?
*Malaysia Agreement 1963
Dated the 10th day December 2012
*Malaysia Agreement 1963
**There
is a legal maxim “nemodat quod non habet” which means “you cannot give what you
do not have”.
ReplyDeleteMALAYSIA AGREEMENT VOID?
The Malaysia Agreement was entered into on 9th July 1963 when North Borneo and Sarawak were still British colonies and without the participation of Brunei.
The original Malaysia Concept of 5 nations forming “Malaysia” failed when Brunei declined to sign the Malaysia agreement and then Singapore left in 1965.
Further any one who knows the history can see that there is something incongruous with the preamble set out in the Malaysia Agreement (before amendment).
The agreement was made before Sabah and Sarawak were granted independence.
The British themselves only "granted" North Borneo (Sabah) nominal independence on 31/08/63 and Sarawak earlier on 22/07/63. This reflected just how rushed the were in trying to “form” Malaysia and did not logically proceed with the whole matter. Sabah and Sarawak formally became part of Malaysia on 16 September 1963.
The description as “colonies” gives the game away. This means that the Malaysia Agreement was made between independent Malaya and the colonial ruler of North Borneo (renamed Sabah) and Sarawak to incorporate the 2 colonies as part of Malay re-branded “Malaysia”.
MALAYSIA NOT AN ACT OF FREE CHOICE- NO INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM HELD
If they were still colonies it implies that they had no free choice. In fact an independence referendum was never held in North Borneo or Sarawak as a UN pre-condition to de-colonisation. The so-called Cobbold Commission was a sham enquiry conducted by British and Malayan representatives. It was not an independent UN body and its methods would not have gone past scrutiny as a credible newspaper poll today.
There was a general election in Brunei in August 1962 in which the anti-Malaysia Brunei People's Party won the majority of the electable seat except one. This was the closest to a free independence referendum in which the people chose the anti-Malaysia BPP. However, the British were able to deny the BPP the right to form government as it had stacked the Legislative Council with a majority of government appointed members.
Read more at: http://benjaminloi.blogspot.com/2009/10/brunei-smartest-singapore-smarter.html
On Dec. 5, 1962, these three proposals were submitted to the Brunei Legislative Council:
1. Reject the idea of joining Malaysia
2. Restore Brunei sovereignty over Sarawak and Sabah (“North Kalimantan” federation proposal)
3. British grant of independence to the Borneo federation by 1963.
The British ignored this demand and the anti-Malaysia Brunei Uprising broke out on 8 December 1962.
On 16 September 1963 the British and Malayan governments declared the formation of Malaysia. The North Kalimantan independence movement's wishes was sidelined. As it turned out, this was a mere transfer of colonial rule from Britain to Malaya. Neither the people of North Borneo or Sarawak had any real say in a major political to look to Brunei and Singapore as examples of real independence.
(cont'd Part 2)
PART 2
ReplyDeleteMISREPRESENTATION OF MALAYSIA CONCEPT
MALAYSIA WAS MISREPRESENTED TO THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT
The other most important fact about Malaysia today is that it is not the original concept of 5 countries Malaya Singapore Brunei North Borneo and Sarawak forming Malaysia.
Thus the people of North Borneo and Sarawak were misled into a union totally different from that which was first proposed by the British and Malayan governments. This was not the real deal! It was a misrepresentation to the people.
Brunei and wisely stayed out and retained control of its oil. Singapore left and became one of the richest countries in the world with hardly any natural resources other than its people. Sabah and Sarawak were not consulted about Singapore leaving and made stay in Malaysia and and they lost control of their oil and political freedom.
Another reason why the Malaysia Agreement is void is mentioned in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Agreement:
“ On 11 September 1963, just 4 days before the new Federation of Malaysia was to come into being, the Government of the State of Kelantan sought a declaration that the Malaysia Agreement and Malaysia Act were null and void, or alternatively, that even if they were valid, they did not bind the State of Kelantan.
The Kelantan Government argued that both the Malaysia Agreement and the Malaysia Act were not binding on Kelantan on the following grounds that the Malaysia Act in effect abolished the Federation of Malaya and this was contrary to the 1957 Federation of Malaya Agreement that the proposed changes required the consent of each of the constituent states of the Federation of Malaya – including Kelantan – and this had not been obtained “
(And therefore not binding on Sabah and Sarawak either!)
A further weighty argument is that the Malaysia Agreement was voided by Singapore leaving the union:
“Malaysia Agreement was not valid and legal in the Federation of Malaysia was illegal because the removal of Singapore, one of the signatories to the agreement which led to the origin of the Federation itself. Agreement either Malaysia or the Malaysian Federal Constitution does not provide for the removal of any partner in the Federation of Malaysia”.
From a comment by Wilfred Lakai in Wikisabah News
http://wikisabah.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/malaysia-agreement-1963-need-to-be.html
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF PROMSISE MADE BY MALAYAN LEADERS
This aside, there is also an element of deliberate “misrepresentation”.
Many Sabahans and Sarawakians have been hammering on the issue of misrepresentation over failed promises made for forming Malaysia. Issues of security and economic development and a regressive new apartheid system emphasising the supremacy of one “ethnic/religious” group which has come to control and monopolise political power and the economy.
At law if there is misrepresentation made to induce a party to enter into an agreement, this is a ground for “rescission” - to cancel the Agreement.
The misrepresentations were indeed made by none other than Tunku Abdul Rahman who put in writing that “Malaya would never colonise Sabah and Sarawak. They were equal partners in the Federation”.
Now many are saying “colonies”- Yes. “Equal partners” No.
So why are they still called "colonies" in the Malaysia Agreement and not treated as "independent states" (equal partners) in the descriptions?
We need to look at the implications. The way it was phrased indicates how they were setting out the relationship- was it federation or just annexation?
To many Sabahans and Sarawakians there is no doubt it was “annexation” dressed up as "federation" by a transfer of colonial rule by UK to Malaya. Like Indonesia annexing West Papua and East Timor.
(cont'd Part 3)
PART 3
ReplyDeleteHOW TO BE FREE & INDEPENDENT?
lthough the document is by definition null and void and not binding on Sabah and Sarawak.... the question is how can they be really free and independent from Malayan rule?
Further have you ever thought of the contradiction in the phrase "independence within Malaysia"...?
How can there be "independence" by becoming part of a newly created country and especially when they were already independent before Malaysia.
Why should they be so foolish to agree to be re-colonised?
Many people are beginning to look to Brunei and Singapore as examples of real independence.
Other background articles and comments:
Discussion on 20 Points Agreement- pre-Malaysia terms and conditions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20-point_agreement
An agreement forged and forgotten
by Karen Bong and Wilfred Pilo. Posted on September 16, 2011, Friday(Borneo post)
http://sarawaknews.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/sarawakians-are-unhappy-about-forgotten-1820-point-agreement/
Malaysia is dead when Singapore left the Federation in 1965 by Peter Kuek
http://borneoherald.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/malaysia-is-dead-when-singapore-left.html#more
Sarawak Headhunter- Comments by Al Tugauw
http://sarawakheadhunter.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-sarawak-was-conned-into-formation.html
How Sarawak Was Conned Into The Formation Of Malaysia
by Kami Rakyat Sarawak Mahu Taib Berundur on Monday, April 18, 2011 at 8:09pm
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=209228179096706
SABAH, A COLONY OF MALAYA?- Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan
Posted on March 5, 2012
http://www.mosepa.com/2012/03/sabah-colony-of-malaya.html
LOYAR BUROK- Comments by Ryan Soo on the 20 Points Agreement
http://www.loyarburok.com/2011/04/29/state-of-sabah-stories-from-the-east/
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE TWO QUESTIONS:
(1) Why can’t West Malaysians enter and stay in East Malaysia freely?
(2) Why does East Malaysia have a different court system from West Malaysia?
Sabah Sarawak Want Their Rights Back @ SSKM
http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/sabah-sarawak-rights.html
http://sabahsarawakmerdeka.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.pengerindu.com/2012/06/original-agreement-of-malaysia-9-july.html
ReplyDelete