WAS MALAYSIA FORMED BY WAY OF FRAUD?

In rural areas, not many have yet ever heard about MA63 and even in towns and cities in Sabah and Sarawak, many people never heard about MA63.

Legal opinions in UN Secretariat clearly mentioned that Malaysia is not a new nation but a nation with a change of name to Malaysia. This means Malaysia is Malaya and Malaya is Malaysia. UN secretariat legal opinions are also of the opinion that Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore were gifted by UK to enlarge Malaya. Tunku in a book titled Conversation with Tunku Abdul Rahman at page 86 also mentioned Singapore Sabah and Sarawak were a gift to Malaya and Tunku also wrote a letter of thanks to the Queen for the gift.

Therefore, it was a fraud because there was no referendum at that time for people of Sabah and Sarawak to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to join Malaya to create Malaysia.

UK and Malaya cleverly overcome the need of a referendum to settle this issue by circumventing United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 of right of colonized countries for self determination by way of assessment of 4000 odd Sabahans and Sarawakians by the Cobbold Commission and came with a doctored report to say peoples of Sabah and Sarawak wanted Malaysia. How could these 4000 odds could represent the voice of 1.3 million Borneo people at that time? 

Please read the book by Prof Michael Leigh the demands by Tunku that Cobbold Commission Report must show that peoples of Borneo Territories wanted Malaysia.None of the members of Cobbold Commission could speak and understand the native languages of Sabah and Sarawak and most of our people were illiterate and could not at that time understand English. They could not understand the purpose of the Cobbold Commission which came with a report within weeks only. How could they able to travel the length and breadth of Sabah and Sarawak to find the true wishes of the people?

There are evidence in our hands that those who disagree with MALAYSIA were arrested and tortured and branded as terrorists and communists. They had to save their lives and hid themselves in the jungle and took arms to defend themselves. To take arms to defend yourself against being killed is legal under domestic and international law. 

Indonesian President Soekarno and the Philippines were against MALAYSIA and this caused the border wars in 1960s which also led to peace settlement by signing the Manila Accord with a promise by Malaya to hold a referendum but until now this was not fulfilled.

Records also showed that officials from the United Nations were "handpicked" to agree with the Cobbold Commission Report. A guy was said known could be bribed.

When fraud was involved in the creation of Malaysia, we could not allow the dead child Malaysia be revived.  In law, the law could not help any fraud.

Although in the federal constitution etc it mentioned that Sabah and Sarawak are federated with Malaya or helped formed Malaysia, but in reality, politically Sabah and Sarawak are colonies of Malaya. 

Malaya controls parliament and the federal cabinet and controls the state government by proxies in past 60 years. Malaya also have political parties from Malaya like PKR, PAS, Bersatu, DAP, MUDA fighting for seats in Sabah and Sarawak. Seats won by them are seats taken away from Sabah and Sarawak. 

Sabah and Sarawak are only given 56 out of 222 MP seats. 

At the moment, not many could be bothered to say MA63 is a fraud or that Sabah and Sarawak are colonies of Malaya. At the same time, not many feel the pain of loss of marine wealth, oil and gas and natural resources being taken by Malaya because things are not from their pockets.

Under international law, colonizers have the legal right to impose their wills on their colonies including their religion and imposing their culture, language and administration on the colonised. This gave rise to slavery by colonisers against the colonized. Please see Africa until now.

PBK has no means at the moment to set the matter straight due to lack of support, manpower and fund. It is the people's power that is important in politics. I personally believe time will come people will seek justice in the streets and there will be a peaceful revolution against MALAYSIA or the federal government. We have seen this in many African countries and even in the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand had "tasted" street revolution.

You couldn't seek justice in many matters in Malaysian Court and I had discussed this with an eminent foreign law professor and a foreign judge.

Voon Lee Shan
President Parti Bumi Kenyalang

Read More

RENUNGAN MALAYSIA AGREEMENT 1963, dan MALAYSIA ACT 1963

Perhatikan perbezaan kemasukan Scotland ke dlm UK dan kemasukan North Borneo ke dlm Malaysia. 

Parlimen Scotland meluluskan Act of Union 1707 untuk bergabung atau memasuki UK. Tapi Parlimen Britain yg meluluskan Malaysia Act 1963 supaya North Borneo bergabung dgn Malaysia pada 16.09.1963 kerana North Borneo belum mempunyai Parlimen atau Dewan Undangan Negeri pada waktu itu. Ia hanya mempunyai Parlimen atau DUN sendiri pada 25.09.1963.

Ini membuktikan bahawa North Borneo tidk ada kapasiti atau bidang kuasa utk mendatangani Malaysian Agreement 1963 (MA63). Bererti North Borneo MASIH dijajah oleh Britain waktu ia bergabung atau memasuki Malaysia pada tahun 1963 dan masih belum mencapai kemerdekaan sepenuhnya. 

Konon referendum Cobbold Commission yg menentukannya. Ketahuilah bahawa walaupun keputusan referendum 100% memihak cadangan utk memasuki Malaysia, ia WAJIB dibentangkan di Parlimen/DUN negara itu sendiri sebelum menjadi Akta. 

Oleh sebab North Borneo belum mempunyai Parlimen / DUN sendiri,  keputusan referendum tersebut terpaksa dibentangkan di Parlimen Britain hingga termeterainya Malaysia Act 1963.

Jadi sudah jelas bahawa Parliamen Britain yg membuat keputusan supaya North Borneo memasuki Malaysia, bukan North Borneo atau Parlimen/DUN North Borneo yg membuat keputusan tersebut."

Source: Jack Situn II

Read More

KAJIAN TUNTUTAN SABAH & SARAWAK KELUAR MALAYSIA (SSKM) DALAM MEDIA MASSA

 PROF MADYA DR. NIDZAM SULAIMAN, KITA UKM 

PROF MADYA DR. KARTINI ABOO TALIB @ KHALID, KITA UKM PROF MADYA DR. SUZANNA MOHAMED ISA FUU, UKM 

LAPORAN AKHIR PENYELIDIKAN JPNIN 

JABATAN PERPADUAN NEGARA DAN INTEGRASI NASIONAL 2016 

Laporan Eksekutif: Kumpulan Kajian Tuntutan Sabah & Sarawak  Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) dalam Media Massa 

Dr. Nidzam Sulaiman, Dr. Kartini Aboo Talib, Dr Suzanna Mohammed Isa, UKM 

LATAR BELAKANG SSKM 

SSKM merupakan satu gerakan yang cuba mempengaruhi pemikiran ramai untuk mengeluarkan Sabah dan Sarawak dari Malaysia. Ia menggunakan facebook, mendakwa sebagai satu Pertubuhan Bukan Kerajaan atau NGO yang dipelopori oleh Doris Jones. Kumpulan ini melahirkan rasa tidak senang dengan kedudukan Sabah dan Sarawak dalam Malaysia dan mendakwa dua negeri ini tidak mendapat layanan yang sewajarnya dari kerajaan pusat. Perjanjian penubuhan Malaysia diungkit kembali akan kesahannya.  

MEDIA DI MALAYSIA 

Dalam konteks kebebasan bersuara, terdapat kekangan kebebasan media di negara ini, membuatkan SSKM menggunakan media sosial yang lebih terbuka. Akta Penerbitan dan Mesin Cetak, Akta Penyiaran dan lain-lain memberi ruang yang agak terhad. Ini menyebabkan karyawan menerbit dari luar Malaysia. 

ISU / FAKTOR 

Terdapat pelbagai faktor yang mendasari tuntutan SSKM ini seperti berikut (beberapa pilihan), 

1. Ketidakpuasan dalam Isu Royalti Minyak. SSKM berpandangan bahawa kerajaan Malaysia telah melanggar perjanjian hak royalti minyak. Kekayaan minyak Sabah & Sarawak sepatutnya menjadi negeri ini dan bukan menjadi hak ‘Semenanjung’.  

2. Isu pengagihan kekayaan yang tidak sama rata sehingga memberi impak kepada pembangunan Sabah dan Sarawak yang lebih ketinggalan berbanding dengan Semenanjung.  

3. Isu Malayanisasi dalam pengurusan pentadbiran. Kerajaan pusat didakwa melakukan dasar Malayanisasi sehingga pentadbiran dalaman dua negeri ini didominasi pegawai dari Semenanjung. 

4. Isu gagal mematuhi Perkara 20 (Sabah) & Perkara 18 (Sarawak): Kerajaan pusat didakwa telah melanggar Perkara 20 dan Perkara 18 apabila gagal melaksanakan apa yang telah dipersetujui.  

5. Perjanjian Malaysia telah melanggar perundangan antarabangsa, yang menyatakan hanya negara merdeka boleh menyertai perjanjian antarabangsa. Sabah dan Sarawak masih koloni Inggeris. 

6. Legitimasi wakil kepada rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak dalam perjanjian ini diragukan. Lima individu yang menandatangani untuk Sarawak – P.E.H Pike, Tun Jugah, Abang Haji Mustapha, Ling Beng Siew dan Abang Haji Openg tidak mempunyai mandat rakyat Sarawak. 

7. Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 melanggar Artikel 5, United Nations Decolonisation Declaration 1960 (UNDD 1960) apabila Britain dan Malaya memindahkan kemerdekaan koloni Borneo kepada Malaysia tanpa memindahkan kesemua kuasa kepada rakyat terlebih dahulu.  

8. Suruhanjaya Cobbold dan United Nations Assessment Mission tidak dilakukan dengan sempurna apabila hanya menemui 4,000 penduduk daripada jumlah waktu itu 1.2 juta dan mendakwa menerima 2,200 memo dan surat orang ramai, sedangkan ramai yang tidak ditemui.  

9. Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 dianggap terbatal apabila berlaku pemisahan Singapura pada tahun 1965 tanpa persetujuan semua pihak termasuk tanpa rundingan dengan Sabah dan Sarawak.  

10. Sabah merasa tiga pihak saja dalam pejanjian Malaysia, iaitu Sabah, Sarawak dan Semenanjung dan merasa kedudukan agak kuat sebagai satu pertiga. Namun seterusnya SSKM mendapati Malaysia telah melanggar konsep asal pembentukan Persekutuan tiga negeri apabila pentadbiran seterusnya menjadikan dua negeri ini sebahagian dari kumpulan 13 negeri.  

CADANGAN  

a) Pembangunan inklusif 

Usaha pembangunan inklusif perlu dilaksana secara agresif terhadap dua negeri ini dalam proses pembangunan Malaysia keseluruhan.  

b) Sejarah Untuk Semua 

Pusat perlu mengurangkan kawalan sehingga elemen asas federalisme hilang. Kuasa pusat yang berleluasa menjadikan negeri tidak mempunyai ruang luas untuk merancang pembangunan dalaman negeri. 

(c) Dikotomi pusat dan negeri – Perlembagaan 

Literasi mengenai dikotomi kuasa pusat dan negeri ini harus dikongsi dan difahamkan kepada rakyat Malaysia. Ia harus dilihat sebagai perbezaan kawasan secara geografi sahaja, bukan diikuti dengan perbezaan layanan, peruntukan, kekayaan dan sebagainya.  

(d) Mengambil perhatian tuntutan peruntukan dan peningkatan biaya atas nama keterpinggiran, bukan kerana keistimewaan. 

(e) Kadar 5% royalty minyak sebaiknya dirunding semuala untuk memberi kewajaran kepada hak negeri.  

KESIMPULAN 

Tuntutan SSKM setakat ini masih kencang dan tidak menampakkan akan berhenti. Kerajaan Malaysia mempunyai pelbagai pilihan untuk menangani perkara ini dan setakat ini mengambil pendirian memerhati sahaja dahulu. Pihak SSKM harus rasional dan professional dalam melaksanakan tuntutan. Manipulasi sentimen etnik, agama dan lain-lain unsur sensitif tidak akan membantu.

Source: JPNIN

Read More

Unraveling Malaysia's Formation

 Emergency Creation of Malaysia Without Legal Basis

Saturated with Illegalities

Facts revealing how the UK colluded with Malaya to breach international Law by unlawfully denying North Borneo & Sarawak real Independence.

Malaysia Plan Announcement: On May 27, 1961, Malayan PM Tunku Abdul Rahman announced the Malaysia Plan to take over Brunei, North Borneo (Sabah), and Sarawak after secret talks with the UK government. This plan was declared without consulting or obtaining the agreement of the Borneo people.

Exclusion of Borneo Parties: On July 31, 1962, the UK and Malaya decided on Malaysia's terms without involving the proposed Borneo parties. The federation plan was set in motion, despite protests from the people, through an "inquiry on the people's wishes."

Anti-Malaysia Brunei Uprising: The December 8, 1962, Anti-Malaysia Brunei Uprising for Independence led to a British declaration of an emergency, resulting in sweeping arrests of alleged "subversives" in Sarawak (1962 to 1990s) and Singapore in February 1963.

Malaysia Agreement 1963: On July 9, 1963, the Malaysia Agreement was signed by the UK and Malaya under coercive emergency conditions with Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah), and Sarawak, which were colonies, not sovereign states. This raised concerns about the agreement's validity under international law.

Manila Accord: The July 31, 1963, Manila Accord was signed by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines, making Malaysia's formation conditional on the UN assessment of the Borneo people's wishes on the proposed plan and the resolution of the Philippines' claim.

UN Assurances and Mission: On August 9, 1963, the British Colonial Secretary, Duncan Sandys, informed his London office that UN officials had given assurances in favor of the UK Malayan Plan and to avoid scrutiny by the UN decolonization Committee. The UN Mission made a cursory assessment from August 16 to September 5, 1963, in breach of UN protocols on decolonization.

Preempting UN Assessment: On August 28, 1963, the British and Malayan governments amended the Malaysia Day from August 31 to September 16, 1963, before the UN assessment was completed, breaching the Manila Accord. The UN endorsed their federation despite this action.

Sabah and Sarawak's Status: On August 31, 1963, British Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys publicly stated that Malaysia was not to give independence to Sabah and Sarawak but to transfer them to Malaya.

Despite Breaches, Malayan Colonial Takeover: On September 16, 1963, despite the breach of the Manila Accord, UN decolonization requirements, and human rights, the UK and Malaya proclaimed Malaysia under emergency conditions, and the UN endorsed the Malayan colonial takeover of Sabah and Sarawak.

Read More

Sabah Self-Determination and Validity of Malaysia Agreement 1963 Questioned by NGOs

KOTA KINABALU: In a joint statement issued today, the Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) international NGO and the Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopimafo) NGO, along with other political parties, NGOs and individuals, expressed their support for former law minister Tan Sri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar's assertion of the right of the Sabah people to self-determination. They also raised questions about the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the process through which Sabah and Sarawak joined the federation of Malaysia.

SSRANZ President Robert Pei and Bopimafo President Daniel John Jambun commended Tan Sri Wan Junaidi for his speech at the Sabah Colloquium on 4 July 2023, where he emphasized the right of nations to self-determination. They highlighted that self-determination is an inalienable legal right recognized by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR) 1514, which allows colonies to determine their destiny and political independence without foreign interference.

On the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Malaysia Agreement (MA63), the NGO leaders raised concerns about whether the people of Sabah and Sarawak have truly achieved self-determination and the promised development progress and prosperity. They disagreed with the notion that the Cobbold Commission of Enquiry's findings, indicating two-thirds of the people supported integration into Malaysia, constituted a valid exercise of self-determination.

The NGO leaders pointed out that the Cobbold Commission's findings were based on a selective survey of opinions rather than a referendum under UNGAR 1541. They stressed that the commission's report was not legally binding and did not fulfill the requirements for a free choice or self-determination by the people in accordance with UNGAR 1541. The commission was merely an inquiry and not a proper referendum, which was necessary for the people to express their wishes on the federation question.

They further criticized the composition of the Cobbold Commission, consisting of British and Malayan officials, which they considered a conflict of interest. The NGO leaders argued that the commission's purpose was to facilitate the implementation of the Malaysia concept, denying the people of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak their right to genuine self-determination and independence.

The NGO leaders also highlighted the Manila Accord signed between the Malayan, Indonesian, and Philippine governments, which called for a United Nations assessment of the people's wishes on Malaysia and the resolution of the Sulu Claim on Sabah. By accepting the terms of the Accord, the British and Malayan governments indirectly acknowledged that the people's consent had not been properly obtained through a referendum.

The statement by SSRANZ and Bopimafo emphasized that the Cobbold Commission's report was not a legally binding document and should not be considered a substitute for a proper referendum. They contended that the report, along with the entire process leading to the Malaysia Agreement 1963, was tainted with illegalities and used to legitimize Malaysia's formation.

The NGO leaders concluded that the lack of real self-determination for Sabah and Sarawak was evident by the ongoing Sulu Claim, which still challenges Sabah's sovereignty. They argued that a proper referendum in 1963, as advocated by the Philippines, could have resolved the claim and allowed the people of Sabah to choose between Malaysia, independence, or another state.

The statement by SSRANZ and Bopimafo, raises significant concerns about the historical context and legal basis of Sabah's integration into Malaysia. As the debate on Sabah's self-determination continues, it remains to be seen how the Malaysian government and relevant stakeholders will address these issues and ensure the rightful representation of the Sabah people's aspirations and interests.

The SSRANZ and Bopimafo Presidents said in conclusion, there was no real self-determination for Sabah or Sarawak is highlighted by the fact that Sulu claim is still alive and continues to be asserted by the claimants. The resolution of the claim could have been achieved in a proper referendum in 1963 whereby the Sabah people were seen to have cast a vote to choose Malaysia, Philippines or independence. 

The late Philippines Diosdado Macapagal said in 1982: “In laying claim to North Borneo in pursuance of the legal and historic rights and the security interests of the Philippines, we recognize the cardinal principle of self-determination of which the Philippines has been a steadfast adherent. 

In the prosecution, of our valid claim, it is agreeable to us that at an appropriate time, the people of North Borneo should be given an opportunity to determine whether they would wish to be independent or whether they would wish to be a part of the Philippines or be placed under another state. 

Such referendum, however, should be authentic and bona fide by holding it under conditions, preferably supervised by the United Nations that would insure effective freedom to the people of North Borneo to express their true and enlightened will.”

The joint statement received endorsements from various political parties, NGOs and individuals, including Doris Jones of the Sabah Sarawak Union, Lina Soo, President of ASPIRASI, Voon Lee Shan, President of Parti Bumi Kenyalang and Mosses Paul Anap, President of the Republic of Sabah North Borneo NGO. The signatories collectively questioned the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and called for a reevaluation of the process through which Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia.

Robert Pei

President SSRANZ 

Daniel Jambun
President of the Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopimafo).

Mosses Paul Anap
President of NGO- Republic of Sabah North Borneo

Emily Elvera Edward
Woman Council Office & Secretariat.
Sabah Sarawak Borneo Natives Organisation Incorporated of Australia.

Endorsed by: NGOS & individuals

1. Doris Jones Sabah Sarawak Union – SSU

2. Kanul Gindol Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society

3. Ricky Ganang Penasihat Persatuan Kebudayaan Orang Darat Sabah 

4. Jovilis Majami President Persatuan  pembangunan sosial komunity Sabah (BANGUN)

5. Wainin Setimin President Pertubuhan Prihatin Mualaf Sabah 

6. Cleftus Stephen Mojingol President Pertubuhan Kebudayaan Rumpun Dayak Sabah.

8. PBK Life President- Yu Chin Lik

9. PBK President- Voon Lee Shan

10. Lina Soo - ASPIRASI President

11. Peter John Jaban-Deputy President for Global Human Rights Federation Borneo.

12. Alim Ga Mideh for Bulang Birieh Dayak

13. Lawrance Clement Ahsay for Bulang Dayak Bukit Kelingkang

14. Buln Ribos- Sarawak Rights activist

Reference:

The Vibes: Sabahans Self-Determination Trumps Any Treaty_Wan Junaidi

Daily Express Sabah: Britain Secretly Planned M'sia Since 1953

Read More