Top posts

Featured Posts

Children belong in their homes not in barracks, says activist



Peter John Jaban querried the need for another "national service" for teens.


29-10-2024

KUCHING : Sarawak human rights advocate, Peter John Jaban, is calling out the Madani Government on its recent announcement of new ‘national service’ requirements, due to begin in January 2025. 

He is demanding that parents and the public are given proper justification as to why ‘selected’ children as young as 16 should be taken away from their families and placed in training camps under the supervision of the Malaysian Defence Force, as announced by Deputy Defence Minister Adly Zahari on 27 October.

“This is the third attempt at such a programme in Malaysia, the previous two ending in complete failure. The last was suspended under claims it was being used for indoctrination of ‘certain beliefs’. 

"But now the Madani government are trying again, with all the same problems and still no explanation of who will be targeted, what they will be taught and even why this is needed,” Peter said in a statement endorsed by four other activists.

Jaban said, to make matters worse, this new programme is going after even younger children who should be at home with their communities, not forced into camps with other conscripts. 

"Does the Deputy Minister really think that the Malaysian Defence Force is better able to care for children than their own parents, especially given the recent coverage of extreme abuse at the National Defence University which resulted in the tragic and terrible death of a 20-year-old naval cadet who was not safe in his own barracks?” he asked.

Jaban said the Deputy Minister has acknowledged that ‘the public need not worry about the country’s security and defence capabilities’. 

"So, what is this program about? And what has happened to cause the Government to rush this program in to operation in January instead of in June as it had planned?" he further asked. 

The Deputy Minister has said that ‘when they leave the national service programme, they will have a sense of identity’ and ‘have the highest level of ability to succeed in their respective fields’.

"Should they not be getting this from the national education system where the curriculum is clear? What are the values and what is the identity that the Deputy Minister thinks that the Malaysian Defence Force can instil in these young people that requires them to be removed from their homes, their communities and even their states?” Peter pointed out.

He went on to say: “This cannot be considered ‘National Service’ when it only applies to a ‘chosen’ few. Why is there not any transparency in the process? What criteria are they using to select these minors? What rights do parents have to say no to the Government in order keep their children safely at home? All Malaysians should be demanding to know who is being targeted and on what basis.  After all, your children could be next.”

He said choosing to join the armed services is one thing but imposing this arbitrary and pernicious plan now on a ‘pilot group’ of young people, when its necessity is not immediately apparent, should be triggering alarm bells for everyone. 

"The Madani Government and the Ministry of Defence must be more transparent on this programme and its role in modern,  multicultural Malaysia.

"Parents break their backs to build a safe haven for their kids to thrive in, a safe space to grow, vetting their friends and allowing only those with similar values to mingle with and now the government wants to strip them of this shield by forcing them to send their kids away with 10,000 strangers governed by a bunch of adults from unknown backgrounds?

"Hasn't  the last incident of sexual assault in the national service taught anyone a lesson yet?" Peter added.


The four other activists who endorsed Jaban's statement :

1.Daniel John Jambun

Presiden, Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

2.Timothy Jagak

Gabungan Orang Asal Sabah Sarawak

3.William Dino Watson 

Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak

4.Stephanie Lazarus, Secretary General of MOPOT

Barisan pimpinan USLA 2023-2025

28-10-2024
TUARAN: Persatuan Lotud Sabah Bersatu (USLA) kini telah meningkatkan bilangan ahli Majlis Tertingginya daripada sembilan kepada 17 berikutan kelulusan pindaan perlembagaan pada persidangan agung tahunan tahun lepas.

Dalam pengumuman di sini, Ketua Penerangan USLA, Jimmy Omar, berkata bahawa mesyuarat  agung tahunan 2024 yang diadakan Sabtu lalu di sini telah secara rasmi memutuskan melalui pemilihan dan pelantikan barisan baharu yang kini terdiri daripada:

Presiden: Datuk Raymond Boin Tombung
Timbalan Presiden: Richard Libun Adou dan Asnah Pekul
Naib Presiden: Ewon Raman Nasip, Raymond Jinipin Barangin dan Milah Adau
Setiausaha Agung: Joy Maynard Ansadon
Timbalan Setiausaha Agung: Rozza Rothman Buntar
Bendahari Agung: Jim Tahir
Timbalan Bendahari Agung: Junaidi Tun Hamdan
Ketua Penerangan: Jimmy Omar
Ahli Majlis Tertinggi Biasa: Anastasia Ansayoh Ogos, Andywind Tombung, Mohd. Shahlan Abdullah, Petrus Penyabang Longkod, Dewin Tumas, Bibiana Uril Orow ddan Wedness Jikar.

"Dengan kepimpinan yang cekap daripada Presiden kami, USLA berada kini bersemangat dan keyakinan tinggi untuk dapat meningkatkan keahliannya daripada kalangan 20,000 orang Lotud di pelbagai kawasan di Tuaran dan Telipok," kata Jimmy. 

"Majlis Tertinggi USLA yang baharu akan mengadakan mesyuarat minggu ini untuk segera merancang aktiviti pembangunan Lotud untuk sepanjang tahun ini dan sehingga persidangan agung tahunan seterusnya pada awal tahun 2025," katanya lagi.#



English version :

USLA now has 17 supreme councillors

TUARAN: The United Sabah Lotud Associaton (USLA) now has raised its Supreme Council members from nine to 17 following approval of its constitutional amendment in last year’s annual general meeting.

In announcing this here, USLA’s Information Chief, Jimmy Omar, said that the 2024 AGM held last Saturday here had officiall decided through election and appointments that the new lineup which now comprises:

Preident: Datuk Raymond Boin Tombung
Deputy President: Richard Libun Adou and Asnah Pekul
Vice Presidents: Ewon Raman Nasip, Raymond Jinipin Barangin and Milah Adau
Secretray General: Joy Maynard Ansadon
Deputy Secretary Generl:  Rozza Rothman Buntar
Treasurer General: Jim Tahir
Deputy Treasurer General: JunaidiTun Hamdan
Inforrmaton Chief: Jimmy Omar
Ordinary Supreme Council Members: Anastasia Ansayoh Ogos,Andywind Tombung, Mohd. Shahlan Abdullah, Ptrus Penyabang Longkod, Dewin Tumas, Bibiana Uril Orow and Wedness Jikar.

“With the capable leadership of our President, USLA is in high spirit and confidence to be able to increase it membership from among the 20,000-odd  Lotud people in the various areas in Tuaran and Telipok,” Jimmy said. 

“USLA's new Supreme Council will be meeting this week to immediately plan its activities for Lotud development in the rest of this year and until our next AGM in early 2025," he added.#

Sabah and Sarawak NGOs condemn Dr Mahathir for insensitive remarks


https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/10/28/high-income-sarawak-must-help-poorer-states-says-dr-m/

Joint Statement 28th October 2024


SABAH AND SARAWAK NGOS CONDEMN MAHATHIR FOR INSENSITIVE REMARKS....


The Presidents of BOPIMAFO and SSRANZ NGOs *strongly condemned* former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir for his deeply insensitive and offensive suggestion that Sarawak, now deemed a “high-income” state, should share its income with Malayan states. 

Dr. Mahathir seems to ignore or deliberately dismiss the grim reality that Sarawak and Sabah were left among the poorest states in Malaysia, despite their vast oil and gas resources being exploited to fuel Malaya’s growth since 1976. 

Such a statement only deepens the rift between East and West Malaysia, undermining relations already frayed by decades of resource inequity and federal neglect.

The news report of his remarks on 28 October 2024 sidesteps the critical historical and economic disparities Sarawak has faced as part of Malaysia, and the systemic plunder of its resources. 

Sarawak’s so-called “high-income” label is a gross misrepresentation that fails to reflect the daily struggles of most Sarawakians, who continue to suffer from underdeveloped infrastructure, high poverty rates, and a severe lack of essential services.

Although federal data may paint an improved picture of per capita income, it conceals the fundamental reality that much of Sarawak’s wealth has been siphoned off for federal use, with minimal reinvestment in the state itself. 

This ongoing extraction has left vast areas of Sarawak impoverished and deprived of the very benefits generated by its resources.

Despite Sarawak contributing immensely to Malaysia’s oil and gas revenue, it receives only a 5% royalty under the Petroleum Development Act of 1974. This has stymied Sarawak’s economic autonomy for decades, leaving it reliant on federal allocations instead of allowing it to fully leverage its resources. 

Recent efforts to implement an oil and gas sales tax bring in only a fraction of what Sarawak actually generates—wealth that has long been funnelled into developing Peninsular Malaysia.

The notion that Sarawak should now “share its wealth” with poorer states is an insult, disregarding the fact that this wealth has never truly benefited Sarawakians but has been systematically siphoned to Malaya. 

The federal government has capitalized on Sarawak’s oil resources for national projects that largely exclude the very state that produced this wealth.

Calls for Sarawak to support other states are premature and offensive when it has only just begun reclaiming control over its own resources through initiatives like the state-owned Petros. These long-overdue steps toward autonomy are necessary for Sarawak to achieve true development and address the historical inequities imposed upon it.

This exploitation of Sarawak and Sabah's resources is among the reasons why the federation’s unity has become increasingly fragile. Achieving parity with Peninsular Malaysia means Sarawak should retain a much larger portion of its revenue to alleviate poverty and reverse the underdevelopment that still afflicts its people. 

Dr. Mahathir’s remarks show a shocking disregard for the suffering endured by Sarawak’s people, suffering largely exacerbated by policies enacted during his tenure. 

“If Malaya had honoured its part of the MA63 bargain, Sarawak and Sabah would have long ago become high-income states like Singapore!
His statement is a reminder of past injustices, and he owes Sarawak and Sabah an apology for the immense harm inflicted upon them during his time in power.

His insensitive and recalcitrant attitude toward the community's concerns only deepened the mistrust of the federal government, as he refused to acknowledge or address the issues they faced.

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

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



VERSI BAHASA MALAYSIA 

Kenyataan Bersama 28 Oktober 2024

NGO SABAH DAN SARAWAK KECAM MAHATHIR ATAS KENYATAAN TIDAK SENSITIF

Presiden NGO BOPIMAFO dan SSRANZ dengan tegas mengecam bekas Perdana Menteri Dr. Mahathir atas cadangan yang amat tidak sensitif dan menyinggung perasaan bahawa Sarawak, yang kini dianggap sebagai negeri “berpendapatan tinggi,” seharusnya berkongsi pendapatannya dengan negeri-negeri di Semenanjung.

Dr. Mahathir seolah-olah mengabaikan atau sengaja menafikan realiti suram bahawa Sarawak dan Sabah dibiarkan menjadi antara negeri termiskin di Malaysia, meskipun sumber minyak dan gasnya yang melimpah telah dieksploitasi untuk memajukan Semenanjung sejak tahun 1976.

Kenyataan ini hanya memperdalam jurang antara Malaysia Timur dan Barat, yang telah lama tegang akibat ketidakseimbangan sumber dan pengabaian dari kerajaan persekutuan.

Laporan berita tentang kenyataannya pada 28 Oktober 2024 mengetepikan perbezaan sejarah dan ekonomi kritikal yang dihadapi Sarawak sebagai sebahagian daripada Malaysia, serta penjarahan sistematik terhadap sumber-sumbernya.

Label “berpendapatan tinggi” yang diberikan kepada Sarawak adalah salah tafsir yang sangat besar, yang tidak mencerminkan perjuangan harian kebanyakan rakyat Sarawak, yang masih terpaksa menghadapi kekurangan infrastruktur, kadar kemiskinan yang tinggi, dan kekurangan perkhidmatan asas.

Walaupun data persekutuan mungkin melukiskan gambaran yang lebih baik tentang pendapatan per kapita, ia menyembunyikan hakikat asas bahawa sebahagian besar kekayaan Sarawak telah disalurkan untuk kegunaan persekutuan, dengan pelaburan semula yang sangat minima di negeri itu sendiri.

Ekstraksi berterusan ini telah menyebabkan kawasan-kawasan luas di Sarawak miskin dan kekurangan manfaat yang dihasilkan oleh sumber-sumbernya sendiri.

Meskipun Sarawak banyak menyumbang kepada pendapatan minyak dan gas Malaysia, negeri ini hanya menerima royalti sebanyak 5% di bawah Akta Pembangunan Petroleum 1974. Hal ini telah membatasi autonomi ekonomi Sarawak selama beberapa dekad, menjadikannya bergantung kepada peruntukan persekutuan daripada membenarkan Sarawak untuk sepenuhnya memanfaatkan sumber-sumbernya.

Usaha baru-baru ini untuk melaksanakan cukai jualan minyak dan gas hanya menyumbang sebahagian kecil daripada apa yang sebenarnya dihasilkan oleh Sarawak—kekayaan yang selama ini telah disalurkan untuk membangunkan Semenanjung Malaysia.

Cadangan bahawa Sarawak sepatutnya “berkongsi kekayaannya” dengan negeri-negeri miskin adalah satu penghinaan, yang mengetepikan fakta bahawa kekayaan ini tidak pernah benar-benar memberi manfaat kepada rakyat Sarawak tetapi telah lama disalurkan ke Semenanjung.

Kerajaan persekutuan telah mengambil kesempatan terhadap sumber minyak Sarawak untuk projek-projek nasional yang sebahagian besarnya tidak memberi manfaat kepada negeri penghasil kekayaan ini.

Panggilan agar Sarawak membantu negeri-negeri lain adalah pramatang dan menyinggung apabila Sarawak baru sahaja memulakan proses untuk mengembalikan kawalan terhadap sumber-sumbernya sendiri melalui inisiatif seperti syarikat milik negeri, Petros. Langkah-langkah menuju autonomi ini amat diperlukan untuk Sarawak mencapai pembangunan sebenar dan menangani ketidaksamarataan sejarah yang dikenakan ke atasnya.

Eksploitasi terhadap sumber Sarawak dan Sabah adalah antara sebab kenapa perpaduan dalam persekutuan menjadi semakin rapuh. Untuk mencapai kesetaraan dengan Semenanjung Malaysia, Sarawak sepatutnya mengekalkan sebahagian besar pendapatannya untuk mengurangkan kemiskinan dan membalikkan kekurangan pembangunan yang masih membelenggu rakyatnya.

Kenyataan Dr. Mahathir menunjukkan pengabaian mengejutkan terhadap penderitaan yang dialami oleh rakyat Sarawak, penderitaan yang sebahagian besarnya diperparah oleh dasar-dasar yang dilaksanakan semasa pemerintahannya.

"Jika Semenanjung menunaikan bahagiannya dalam perjanjian MA63, Sarawak dan Sabah sudah lama menjadi negeri berpendapatan tinggi seperti Singapura!" Kenyataan ini mengingatkan kita kepada ketidakadilan yang lalu, dan beliau berhutang permohonan maaf kepada Sarawak dan Sabah atas kerosakan besar yang dilakukan semasa pemerintahannya.

Sikapnya yang tidak sensitif dan keras kepala terhadap kebimbangan masyarakat hanya memperdalamkan ketidakpercayaan terhadap kerajaan persekutuan, kerana beliau enggan mengakui atau menangani isu-isu yang dihadapi oleh mereka.

Daniel John Jambun
Presiden Yayasan Penderitaan Borneo dalam Malaysia (BoPiMaFo)

Robert Pei
Presiden Hak Sabah Sarawak Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)#

Berita bergambar sekitar "Taklimat Peguam : Dokumen Untuk Semua" di Kota Belud

26-10-2024
BERIKUT gambar-gambar "Taklimat Peguam : Dokumen Untuk Semua" yang berlangsung di Kota Belud hari ini. Peguam Jo Anne Jameson menyampaikan penerangan mengenai hak dan cara mendapatkan dokumen pengenalan serta  kewarganegaraan Malaysia.

Seramai 30 peserta hadir termasuk Ketua Anak Negeri (KAN), beberapa Wakil Ketua Anak Negeri (WKAN), Ketua Kampung dan pemimpin komuniti. Taklimat dianjurkan bersama oleh Salvation Army Kota Belud dan sebuah NGO, Inisiatif Gindol Untuk Masyarakat Madani Borneo.

Turut hadir Envoy Andrew Sogindal dari Salvation Army, Dr Kanul Gindol dari NGO berkenaan dan KAN Walter Kandayon.

Dr Kanul dalam ucapan ringkasnya pada majlis itu memuji pelayanan masyarakat Jo Anne dalam hal membantu mendapatkan dokumen termasuk warganegara bagi mereka yang layak, dan yakin penerangan dan tindakan susulan beliau akan menyelesaikan banyak kes tidak berdokumen di pelbagai daerah termasuk Kota Belud.

Kegagalan Kerajaan Persekutuan Mematuhi MA63 Punca Kebangkitan Gerakan Kemerdekaan



Kenyataan Bersama 10 pemimpin NGO/Parti Borneo, 24-10-2024
KOTA KINABALU : Kenyataan terbaru oleh Mahathir Mohamad dan Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah yang mendakwa bahawa federalisme "menguatkan" Malaysia hanyalah satu usaha untuk mengalihkan perhatian daripada isu sebenar: kegagalan kerajaan persekutuan mematuhi Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63). Pengkhianatan terhadap hak-hak Sabah dan Sarawak ini adalah punca utama mengapa federalisme telah gagal, dan mengapa gerakan kemerdekaan semakin mendapat sokongan di kedua-dua negeri.

Jelas sekali—jika kerajaan persekutuan telah mematuhi sepenuhnya terma MA63 sejak awal, tiada tuntutan kemerdekaan yang wujud hari ini. Sabah dan Sarawak tidak akan merasa perlu untuk mempertikaikan kedudukan mereka dalam Malaysia. Kebangkitan semula sentimen pemisahan ini adalah akibat langsung daripada pelanggaran berulang kali terhadap perjanjian yang sepatutnya melindungi hak dan autonomi Borneo dalam persekutuan.

Selama 61 tahun, Sabah dan Sarawak telah dinafikan hak yang dijamin di bawah MA63, seperti hak mendapatkan 40% daripada hasil negeri Sabah dan kawalan ke atas sumber minyak dan gas kita. Daripada menangani kegagalan ini, pemimpin-pemimpin persekutuan kini cuba mengalihkan perbincangan kepada isu "keselamatan negara" dan "perpaduan," namun ini hanyalah usaha untuk mengelak daripada tanggungjawab mereka.

Mahathir dan Razaleigh, khususnya, telah menghabiskan berdekad-dekad merosakkan hak-hak Borneo, tetapi kini mereka dengan mudahnya menyalahkan mereka yang memperjuangkan kemerdekaan sebagai "ekstremis." Apa yang mereka gagal sebutkan adalah bahawa keengganan mereka untuk mematuhi MA63 adalah punca utama kerosakan kepercayaan antara negeri-negeri Borneo dan kerajaan persekutuan. Rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak tidak meminta sesuatu yang melampau—kami hanya menuntut apa yang telah dijanjikan kepada kami, hak yang sah dan sepatutnya di bawah perjanjian yang membentuk persekutuan ini.

Taktik pengalihan ini tidak boleh menutup kebenaran: federalisme telah gagal bukan kerana rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak, tetapi kerana pengkhianatan berulang kali oleh kerajaan persekutuan. Dengan terus mengabaikan terma MA63, kerajaan persekutuan telah mencipta keadaan yang membawa kepada kekecewaan yang meluas dan pertumbuhan gerakan kemerdekaan di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Retorik Mahathir dan Razaleigh tentang melindungi Malaysia daripada ancaman luar adalah helah semata-mata. Ancaman sebenar kepada perpaduan Malaysia adalah ketidakadilan dalaman yang disebabkan oleh keengganan mereka untuk menangani rungutan sah dari negeri-negeri Borneo. Jika federalisme benar-benar bertujuan untuk menyatukan Malaysia, maka ia seharusnya menghormati autonomi, sumber, dan hak Sabah dan Sarawak seperti yang termaktub dalam MA63. Sebaliknya, federalisme telah digunakan sebagai alat untuk eksploitasi, meminggirkan suara kami dan merampas kekayaan negara yang sepatutnya menjadi hak kami.

Kita mesti mengubah fokus perdebatan: punca utama ketidakpuasan hati di Sabah dan Sarawak adalah kegagalan kerajaan persekutuan untuk mematuhi MA63. Mana-mana naratif yang mengabaikan fakta ini hanyalah cubaan untuk mengelirukan kebenaran.

Kami menyeru semua rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak untuk menolak versi federalisme yang gagal ini dan bersatu dalam menuntut keadilan. Kerajaan persekutuan mesti berhenti mengalihkan perhatian daripada kegagalan mereka dan mula menangani isu sebenar. Federalisme telah gagal kerana mereka yang berkuasa gagal menunaikan janji mereka.

Kenyataan Bersama :-
Daniel John Jambun
Presiden, Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

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

Peter John Jaban Founder Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS)

Jovilis Majami President Persatuan Pembangunan Sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)

Moses Anap President Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

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

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

Patrick Anek Uren  - Human Rights Activist Sarawak 

Voon Lee Shan President Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)

Alim GA Mideh
Bulang Birieh Dayak, Sarawak



The English version :
Federalism makes the nation stronger, say elder statesmen

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/10/23/federalism-makes-the-nation-stronger-say-elder-statesmen/


Joint Press Statement
24th October 2024

Sabah and Sarawak Reject Federalism: Federal Government’s Failure to Honour MA63 is the Root Cause of Independence Movements...


Kota Kinabalu: The recent statements by Mahathir Mohamad and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, claiming that federalism "strengthens" Malaysia, are nothing more than a deflection from the real issue: the federal government's failure to honour the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). This betrayal of Sabah and Sarawak’s rights is precisely why federalism has failed, and why independence movements have gained momentum in both states.

Let’s be clear—if the federal government had faithfully complied with the terms of MA63 from the beginning, there would be no calls for independence today. Sabah and Sarawak would not have felt the need to question their place within Malaysia. The revival of separatist sentiments is a direct consequence of the federal leadership’s repeated violations of the treaty that was meant to safeguard the rights and autonomy of Borneo within the federation.

For 61 years, Sabah and Sarawak have been systematically denied the full benefits guaranteed under MA63, such as the 40% revenue entitlement for Sabah and control over our own oil and gas resources. Instead of addressing these failures, federal leaders now try to shift the conversation towards so-called "national security" and "unity," but these are just attempts to divert attention from their own shortcomings.

Mahathir and Razaleigh, in particular, have spent decades undermining Borneo’s rights, yet now they are conveniently blaming those pushing for independence for being "extremists." What they fail to mention is that their refusal to comply with MA63 is what led to the erosion of trust between the Borneo states and the federal government in the first place. Sabahans and Sarawakians are not asking for anything extreme—we are demanding what was promised to us, what is legally and rightfully ours under the very treaty that established this federation.

This diversionary tactic cannot hide the truth: federalism has failed not because of the people of Sabah and Sarawak, but because of the federal government’s repeated betrayals. By consistently ignoring the terms of MA63, the federal government has created the very conditions that have led to widespread disillusionment and the growth of independence movements in Sabah and Sarawak.

Mahathir and Razaleigh’s rhetoric about protecting Malaysia from external threats is a smokescreen. The real threat to Malaysia’s unity is the internal injustice caused by their refusal to address the legitimate grievances of the Borneo states. If federalism was truly meant to unite Malaysia, then it would have respected the autonomy, resources, and rights of Sabah and Sarawak as laid out in MA63. Instead, it has been used as a tool for exploitation, silencing our voices and depriving us of our rightful share of the nation’s wealth.

We must refocus the debate: the root cause of the dissatisfaction in Sabah and Sarawak is the federal government’s failure to honour MA63. Any narrative that ignores this fact is simply an attempt to distract from the truth.

We call on all Sabahans and Sarawakians to reject this failed version of federalism and stand united in our demand for justice. The federal government must stop diverting attention from their failures and start addressing the real issues. Federalism has failed because those in power have failed to uphold their end of the bargain.

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 Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS)

Jovilis Majami President Persatuan Pembangunan Sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)

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

Moses Anap President Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

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

Voon Lee Shan President Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)

Alim GA Mideh
Bulang Birieh Dayak, Sarawak

Bajet 2025 : Kenapa tiada peruntukan majukan sawah padi Sabah? tanya Dr Julia Emelda Ongkili


                      Dr Julia Emelda Ongkili 

20-10-2024
TAMPARULI : Seorang pemimpin kanan Parti Sedar Rakyat (SEDAR) di Sabah mempersoalkan mengapa Perdana Menteri gagal memberi dana untuk memajukan sawah padi di Sabah.

Dr Julia Emelda Ongkili, Timbalan Pengerusi SEDAR Sabah, berkata beliau terkejut tiada peruntukan untuk memajukan sawah padi Sabah sedangkan dana sangat besar diberi kepada Semenanjung setiap tahun.

"Yang sangat jelas dan mengejutkan ialah Bajet ini tidak memperuntuk wang untuk membangunkan pengeluaran padi di Sabah berbanding RM1 bilion disediakan untuk Lembaga Kemajuan Pertanian Muda (MADA) di Kedah.

"Setiap tahun sawah padi di Semenanjung khususnya di Kedah dan Selangor menerima bilion ringgit sejak berpuluh tahun kenapa Sabah tiada?" tanya beliau.

"Kita berterima kasih kerana Bajet 2025 memang memperuntuk dana pembangunan yang agak besar juga kepada Sabah iaitu RM6.7 bilion namun ia masih jauh daripada apa yang kita sepatut terima," katanya dalam satu kenyataannya hari ini.

Menurut Dr Julia, yang juga anak bekas menteri pusat dan juga timbalan ketua menteri Sabah, mendiang Datuk Dr James Ongkili, Sabah terus ketinggalan, diburukkan lagi oleh kekurangan inisiatif dan idea dalam kerajaan Sabah, berbanding Sarawak.

Katanya, Sabah terus mengimport 75% keperluan berasnya kerana hanya 25% ditampung sawah tempatan, berbanding Semenanjung mengimport hanya 20% beras kerana 80% sudah dapat ditampung keluaran tempatan.

Beliau juga turut mempersoalkan kenapa peruntukan diberi pula kepada agensi pusat, FELCRA, untuk pembangunan sawah padi di Sabah dan Saeawak.

"Peruntukan RM65 juta kepada FELCRA, sebuah agensi Pusat, kononnya untuk meluaskan sawah padi atas tanahnya di Sabah  dan Sarawak juga menimbulkan tanda tanya saya.

"Adakah perundingan Menteri Pertanian Federal, Mat Sabu dengan kerajaan Sabah menemui jalan buntu kerana kerajaan pusat bertegas mahukan kawasan tanah yang luas diserah kepada agensi Pusat sebagai syarat diberi dana?

"Premier Sarawak dilaporkan turut kecewa tidak mendapat dana yang dimintanya untuk membangun lebih luas sawah. Namun kerajaan beliau akan menggunakan wang negeri RM500 juta untuk tujuan itu," kata Dr Julia.

"Bagaimana dengan Sabah? Apa langkah kerajaan Sabah meningkatkan pengeluaran padinya khususnya di Kota Belud, Tuaran, Papar, Keningau dan kawasan berpotensi lain?" tambah beliau lagi.#

Yayasan Sabah patut bantu siswa miskin, kata Dr Kanul

Yayasan Sabah patut tubuh Tabung Khas bantu pelajar susah.. Dr Kanul Gindol 

Oleh Jayden Lisandu, 18-10-2024
KOTA BELUD : Yayasan Sabah (YS) yang ditubuhkan pada 1966 untuk memajukan pendidikan Sabah sepatutnya mengambil inisiatif menubuhkan Tabung Khas membantu pelajar dari keluarga susah yang tidak mampu membayar yuran pendaftaran universiti yang semakin mahal.

Aktivis terkenal yang juga Penyelaras Zon Utara, Parti Kerjasama Anak Negeri (AN), Dr Kanul Gindol, berkata banyak isi rumah tidak mampu membayar yuran pendaftaran kolej atau universiti, ada yang sehingga RM3,000.

"Mengapa pula sehingga Yang di-Pertua Negeri sendiri "turun padang" memberi bantuan kilat kepada dua pelajar yang hampir-hampir tidak dapat mendaftar di Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) seperti dilapor baru-baru ini," katanya dalam satu kenyataan di sini semalam.

Beliau merujuk TYT Tun Juhar Mahiruddin yang menghulur bantuan kepada Chrisnanalina Jumis dari Paitan dan Nor Fasha Natashya dari Tawau beberapa hari lepas bagi menjamin mereka tidak terlepas peluang mendaftar di Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).

Dr Kanul yang juga Ketua Bahagian AN Kota Belud, turut mempersoal kenapa membebankan lagi Wakil-Wakil Rakyat sehingga mereka turut terpaksa menghulurkan wang untuk membayar yuran pendaftaran sebahagian pelajar Sabah dari kawasan masing-masing.

"Kita sering mendengar kes pelajar kita dari kurang berkemampuan tidak dapat menyambung pengajian ke universiti kerana ibu bapa mereka tidak mampu membayar yuran pendaftaran universiti atau kolej.

"Kenapa Yayasan Sabah tidak cari inisiatif dalam hal ini? Begitu ramainya staf dan pegawai serta pengurus pelbagai unit dan bahagian dalam Yayasan Sabah dengan gaji yang sangat besar, untuk apalah memiliki pegawai sangat ramai tapi gagal membantu pelajar miskin menyambung pengajian.

"Yang kita dengar pula ialah anak kemanakan orang politik diberikan biasiswa keluar negeri bahkan ada pinjaman ratusan ribu oleh mereka ini kemudian ditukar menjadi biasiswa hanya kerana ada kaitan keluarga di dalam," tambahnya lagi.

Menurut Dr Kanul, AN, jika diberi mandat memerintah atau menjadi sebahagian kerajaan suatu masa nanti, akan mencari jalan menjadikan YS pemimpin utama GLC kerajaan dalam menubuhkan Tabung Khas memastikan kesemua pelajar Sabah dari keluarga susah, sekurang-kurangnya dibantu dari segi yuran pendaftaran universiti.

"Kita tidak sanggup ada seorang pun pelajar Sabah dinafikan peluang menyambung pengajian universiti hanya kerana tiada wang membayar yuran pendaftaran," tambah Dr Kanul lagi.#

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 rights.
 
"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)

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.#

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)#

Search This Blog