Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB

Apabila kita menelusuri kembali sejarah ‘pembentukan malaysia’ pada tahun 1963, naratif ataupun penceritaan yang sering didengari adalah bahawa kononnya ‘penyatuan antara malaya, Borneo Utara (Sabah), Sarawak dan Singapura’ merupakan satu tindakan sah hasil daripada persetujuan semua pihak. Namun, apabila diselidiki dengan lebih mendalam dan terperinci, kebenaran yang menyakitkan muncul: perjanjian malaysia 1963 (ma63) tidak pernah sah, bercanggah dengan undang-undang antarabangsa, dan berpaksikan kepada penilaian yang telah dimanipulasi — bukan daripada persetujuan rakyat secara sah.

Asas kepada proses yang cacat ini adalah Suruhanjaya Cobbold, yang sebenarnya bukanlah satu referendum, dan tidak boleh sama sekali dijadikan bukti persetujuan demokrasi Rakyat Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Rakyat Bangsa Negara Sarawak.

Suruhanjaya Cobbold Merupakan Satu Penilaian dan Bukan Referendum

Ramai rakyat malaysia tersalah faham dan disesatkan oleh naratif buatan dan percaya bahawa Suruhanjaya Cobbold adalah satu bentuk referendum rakyat. Ini adalah salah sama sekali tidak benar.

Suruhanjaya Cobbold bukan referendum. Ia hanyalah satu suruhanjaya lantikan British yang bertujuan untuk menilai pendapat umum mengenai cadangan ‘pembentukan persekutuan malaysia’. Peranannya hanyalah bersifat nasihat, dan tidak mempunyai sebarang kesan undang-undang.

• Tiada undi dijalankan.
• Tiada sistem rahsia undi.
• Tiada penglibatan semua rakyat secara menyeluruh.
• Tiada pemantau antarabangsa hadir.
• Keputusan tidak diiktiraf sebagai asas sah untuk menentukan masa depan politik.

Hanya 4,000 orang Sahaja yang dipilih daripada populasi  seramai lebih 1 juta di Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak. Mereka ini bukanlah mewakili rakyat secara adil — kebanyakannya terdiri daripada ketua masyarakat, pemimpin elit tempatan dan penyokong kuat cadangan malaysia.

Proses ini bukan satu referendum. Tiada satu pun piawaian referendum yang diiktiraf oleh undang-undang antarabangsa dipenuhi. Piagam Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, Resolusi 1541 (XV) dan beberapa pendapat ICJ telah menetapkan bahawa penentuan nasib sendiri mestilah dilakukan melalui pengundian secara bebas dan sah, yang tidak pernah berlaku di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Analisis Statistik Membuktikan Fakta Tidak Menipu

Daripada 4,000 orang yang dinilai oleh Suruhanjaya Cobbold:

• 1/3 (anggaran 1,333 orang) menyokong cadangan Malaysia, namun tidak memahami sepenuhnya apakah erti sebenar Malaysia.
• 1/3 (anggaran 1,333 orang)  menyokong secara bersyarat.
• 1/3 (anggaran 1,333 orang) menentang keras pembentukan Malaysia.

Ini bermaksud, hanya 1,333 orang sahaja, iaitu sekadar 0.13% daripada 1 juta penduduk, menyatakan sokongan secara terbuka tanpa syarat. Sebaliknya, rekod sejarah menunjukkan lebih 100,000 Rakyat Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Rakyat Bangsa Negara Sarawak — sekurang-kurangnya 10% — membantah ‘penyertaan dalam malaysia’ melalui petisyen dan bantahan rasmi. Suara-suara ini langsung tidak diendahkan dalam laporan rasmi.

Tidak Sah dari Awal Dapat Dibuktikan Melalui Analisis Undang-Undang ke Atas MA63

Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 ditandatangani oleh:

• Kerajaan United Kingdom (bagi pihak tanah jajahannya),
• Persekutuan Tanah Melayu,
• serta pihak daripada Borneo Utara, Sarawak dan Singapura — yang ketika itu bukan entiti berdaulat yang boleh melakukan perjanjian antarabangsa.

Ini adalah kecacatan utama dalam perjanjian antarabangsa.

Menurut Konvensyen Vienna Mengenai Undang-Undang Perjanjian (1969), sesuatu perjanjian hanya sah apabila ditandatangani oleh entiti yang berdaulat secara sah. Pada tahun 1963, Borneo Utara dan Sarawak masih merupakan tanah jajahan yang belum merdeka sepenuhnya, dan berada di bawah seliaan Jawatankuasa Dekolonisasi PBB (Committee of 24).

Justeru itu, mana-mana perjanjian yang ditandatangani tanpa kemerdekaan penuh dan tanpa mandat daripada rakyat adalah batal dan tidak sah dari awal (void ab initio).

 Penjenamaan Semula Penjajahan Merupakan Strategi malaysia Sebagai Jalan Pintas Politik

‘Pembentukan malaysia’ bukanlah hasil penentuan nasib sendiri rakyat — ia adalah strategi penjajahan semula oleh kuasa British dan malaya. Dengan kemerdekaan semakin menular selepas Perang Dunia Kedua, Britain mencari jalan untuk menyerahkan tanah jajahannya kepada Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dengan cepat dan mudah — lalu terhasillah idea malaysia.

Suruhanjaya Cobbold hanyalah alat untuk memberi 'legitimasi' palsu terhadap perancangan tersebut.

Apabila tiada referendum dijalankan, apabila suara penentangan rakyat diabaikan, dan apabila perjanjian dimeterai oleh pihak yang tiada kedaulatan, maka ‘pembentukan malaysia’ adalah satu tindakan tidak sah dan tidak bermoral di bawah undang-undang antarabangsa.

Mereka Yang Menyuarakan Kebenaran Kini Dikenakan Tindakan

Hari ini, mereka yang mendedahkan kebenaran ini diancam dan didakwa. Contoh sebelum ini ialah Doris Jones dibawah Gerakan Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia – SSKM yang telah bergerak dibawah platform NGO berdaftar iaitu Sabah Sarawak Union di UK, Robert Pei dibawah NGO Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia & New Zealand - SSRANZ dan terbaru ialah kes Mosses P.A. Ampang dibawah NGO Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB, yang dikenakan dakwaan di bawah Akta Hasutan 1948 hanya kerana menurunkan bendera malaysia dan menaikkan bendera Kebangsaan Negara Sabah sebagai simbol penolakan penjajahan malaya yang kini dunia mengenali mereka dengan nama malaysia sejak 16 September 1963. Ini membuktikan bahawa kerajaan malaysia ternyata sedang berusaha menindas suara kebenaran dengan menggunakan undang-undang lapuk daripada Kerajaan British.

Jika MA63 sah, kenapa perlu takut kepada kebenaran? Kenapa perlu menangkap mereka yang mempersoalkannya?

Jawapannya mudah kepada persoalan ini sangat mudah iaitu Kerana Asas Malaysia sebenarnya tidak kukuh dan sangat lemah. Ianya rapuh dan dibina atas operandi penipuan, ancaman dan pengkhianatan.

Kesimpulan Yang Mampu Dilakukan Ialah Kembalikan Apa Yang Tidak Pernah Diserahkan Secara Bebas

Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak tidak pernah ‘menyertai malaysia’ secara sah dan bebas. Penyertaan itu berlaku melalui manipulasi, ugutan, ancaman dan pembohongan. Suruhanjaya Cobbold tidak mewakili suara rakyat. ma63 tidak ditandatangani oleh negara yang berdaulat. Rakyat tidak diberi peluang memilih secara bebas melalui referendum.

Kini, masanya telah tiba untuk kita menebus kesilapan sejarah ini. perjanjian malaysia 1963 adalah tidak sah, batal dan mesti ditolak sepenuhnya.

Kita mesti kembalikan hak menentukan masa depan kita sendiri. Kita mesti bergerak secara sah, aman dan demokratik untuk menuntut kembali Kedaulatan Republik Sabah Borneo Utara.

Sejarah tidak akan sesekali memaafkan mereka yang berdiam diri.

Kerana kebenaran itu jelas: Kita tidak pernah menjadi sebahagian daripada malaysia yang sah. Masanya telah tiba untuk kita berdiri sendiri sebagai negara yang merdeka.

At the heart of this flawed process was the Cobbold Commission, which, contrary to popular belief, was not a referendum and cannot be used as evidence of democratic will.

Cobbold Commission Was An Assessment, Not a Referendum

Many Malaysians have been misled to believe that the Cobbold Commission represented the democratic voice of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak. This is entirely false.

The Cobbold Commission was not a referendum. It was a British-appointed fact-finding mission, tasked to assess public opinion about the proposed Federation of Malaysia. Its role was advisory, not legally binding.

• No ballots were cast.
• No secret votes were taken.
• No universal adult suffrage was applied.
• No international observers were present.
• The findings had no legal weight under international law.

Instead, the Commission selected only 4,000 individuals to represent the views of more than one million inhabitants in both territories. These individuals were not randomly chosen nor proportionally representative — many were handpicked community leaders, local elites, and pro-Malaysia voices.

This so-called assessment — based on interviews and memorandums — cannot and must not be mistaken as a referendum, which under international law requires free and fair voting by the people to determine their political future. The United Nations Charter, General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), and numerous ICJ advisory opinions all confirm that genuine decolonization requires a direct expression of the will of the people through referendum or similar democratic process. That standard was never met in Sabah and Sarawak.

Statistical Breakdown and The Numbers Don't Lie

Of the 4,000 individuals assessed by the Cobbold Commission:

• 1/3 supported Malaysia, but many of them did so without truly understanding what "Malaysia" was.
• 1/3 supported the proposal conditionally — subject to safeguards and assurances.
• 1/3 rejected the proposal outright.

That means only about 1,333 individuals supported Malaysia without conditions — a mere 0.13% of the 1 million people in Sabah and Sarawak.

By contrast, historical records show that over 100,000 people from these territories — at least 10% of the total population — actively opposed Malaysia's formation through petitions, letters, and organized resistance. These voices were ignored, dismissed, or omitted from official reports.

Void from the Start: A Legal Analysis of MA63

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was signed by:

• The United Kingdom (on behalf of its colonies),
• The Federation of Malaya,
• and the non-sovereign territories of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore, whose representatives had no independent treaty-making capacity.

This is a fatal flaw under international treaty law.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), a treaty is only valid between sovereign entities with lawful authority. Neither North Borneo nor Sarawak were sovereign states at the time. They were still classified as non-self-governing colonies under the supervision of the United Nations Decolonization Committee (Committee of 24).

Therefore, any agreement signed on their behalf without first granting full independence was inherently invalid. A colony cannot consent to give away its sovereignty — especially when its people were never given a referendum to decide.

Colonial Rebranding Malaysia as a Political Shortcut

The creation of Malaysia was not an act of self-determination — it was a political shortcut engineered by Britain and Malaya. With the winds of decolonization blowing after World War II, Britain sought to consolidate its strategic interests in Southeast Asia by merging its Borneo colonies with the already-independent Malaya.

The Cobbold Commission served as a rubber stamp, giving a thin veil of legitimacy to what was essentially a colonial handover dressed up as federation.

By bypassing the referendum process, by silencing mass opposition, and by using a manipulated advisory report as a foundation, Malaysia was formed without lawful democratic consent — rendering the MA63 a null and void agreement.

A Pattern of Suppression

Today, those who dare to speak the truth about this deception face intimidation and criminal charges. The recent case of Mosses P.A. Ampang, charged under the Sedition Act 1948 merely for lowering the Malaysian flag and raising the Sabah national flag as a symbolic act of reclaiming sovereignty, proves that Malaysia continues to use oppressive laws to silence dissent.

If MA63 were truly valid, there would be no need to arrest, threaten, or silence those who challenge it. The facts would speak for themselves. But the foundation of Malaysia cannot withstand scrutiny — and that’s why it must be defended with force instead of law.

Reclaiming What Was Never Freely Given

Sabah and Sarawak were never truly part of Malaysia through free will. They were annexed by manipulation, and the Cobbold Commission — far from proving consent — actually reveals how little support there was for the federation.

We must correct the historical lie, restore the dignity of our people, and reclaim the sovereignty that was never lawfully surrendered.

ICJ CHAGOS CASE DECISION VINDICATES ASSERTION THAT MA63 WAS VOID AB INITIO

The United Kingdom has accepted the ICJ’s 2019 advisory opinion (decision) and UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/73/295, which directed it to decolonise and return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. On 22 May 2019, the UN General Assembly endorsed the ICJ's advisory opinion, calling on the UK to end its administration of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which includes the Chagos Archipelago, within six months. In October 2024, the British government announced its intention to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, subject to the finalisation of a treaty. However, rather than an outright handover, the UK has negotiated a 99-year lease agreement with Mauritius at £90 million per year.

Implications for MA63

The Chagos Case decision supports the assertion made by SSRANZ President Robert Pei in 2013, that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was void ab initio. He argued that North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak were still British colonies on 9 July 1963, when MA63 was signed, and therefore lacked the legal capacity to enter into a binding international agreement.

Despite this, Malaysian authorities, academics, and legal professionals have largely avoided scrutinising the validity of MA63, as doing so would raise a fundamental issue: if MA63 were invalid, Malaysia was “formed” without a legal basis. This would imply that Malaya has been exercising de facto control over Sabah and Sarawak without their freely given consent since 1963.

Misinterpretation of the Chagos Case

Some proponents of Malaysia’s legitimacy attempt to distinguish the Chagos Case from MA63 by arguing that the former concerned territorial separation, while MA63 involved territorial unification. 

However, this is a misreading of the case’s core legal principles.

The Chagos decision was not merely about territorial division but rather about the principles of self-determination and treaty-making under international law.

Both the Chagos Case and MA63 share a critical legal issue: the unlawful transfer of sovereignty without the free and informed consent of the affected people, in breach of international law.

Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Chagos Case. The ICJ reaffirmed fundamental legal principles regarding self-determination and treaty-making :

    1. Right to Self-Determination

        ◦ UNGA Resolution 1514 grants all peoples the legal right to determine their own destiny free from external interference.

    2. Colonial Powers Cannot Make Binding Treaties with Their Colonies

        ◦ The ICJ ruled that as a crown colony under UK control, Mauritius lacked the legal capacity to enter into an agreement transferring sovereignty to the UK.

        ◦ International treaties must be signed between independent states, meaning a colony cannot validly sign a binding international agreement.

    3. Failure to Obtain Proper Consent

        ◦ The UK failed to hold a referendum, as required by UNGA Resolution 1541, to confirm whether the people of Chagos consented to separation from Mauritius.

    4. Coercion Invalidates a Treaty

        ◦ The ICJ found that the Mauritian government was coerced into agreeing to the transfer, rendering the agreement invalid under international law.

Parallels with MA63: Lack of Legal Capacity and Coercion

Like Mauritius, North Borneo and Sarawak were crown colonies under direct British rule from 1946 to 16 September 1963. Although Singapore received "internal self-rule" in 1959, it remained a British colony without sovereignty.

Pro-Malaysia advocates argue that the UK had the authority to make treaties on behalf of its colonies. However, this argument ignores a fundamental shift in international law:

    • UNGA Resolutions 1514 and 1541 override any colonial authority to make treaties for their territories.

    • These resolutions, part of the UN Decolonization Declaration (1960), mandate that colonial powers must allow their colonies to freely determine their future without coercion.

Under the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, British colonies had no independent legal authority. This was reaffirmed by the Statute of Westminster 1931, which granted treaty-making powers only to British Dominions (Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland), explicitly excluding crown colonies.

Thus, North Borneo and Sarawak lacked the legal capacity to be parties to MA63, a view also supported by P.E.H. Pike, Sarawak’s Colonial Attorney General, who helped draft MA63.

British Legal Position on Colonial Treaties

Professor Anthony Aust, a long-serving British Foreign Affairs legal adviser, reinforces this point in his book Modern Treaty Law and Practice (2013, p.70, Cambridge Press):

“As between a parent state and one of its territories, or between its overseas territories, there can be no international relations, since only the parent is sovereign; and any agreement between them will not be legally binding in law. When there is need for an agreement, it may be convenient — and will avoid any mistaken implication that it is legally binding — to draft it as if it were an MOU or ‘administrative agreement’.”

This aligns with the British legal drafters’ initial discussions on MA63, where Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak were originally not intended to be included as parties to the agreement.

The Case for MA63’s Invalidity

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was void from the outset because:

    1. Lack of Legal Capacity

        ◦ North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore were British colonies with no independent sovereignty in 1963, making them ineligible to enter into a binding international treaty.

    2. Absence of Free and Informed Consent

        ◦ The UK and Malaya failed to hold a referendum in compliance with UNGA Resolution 1541 to confirm the people’s consent.

        ◦ The UK instead pressured North Borneo and Sarawak into joining Malaysia under emergency conditions and political coercion.

    3. Unlawful External Interference

        ◦ UNGA Resolution 1514 explicitly forbids colonial powers from interfering in the self-determination of their colonies.

        ◦ The UK-Malayan "Malaysia Plan" interfered with the Borneo territories’ ability to freely determine their future, violating international law.

The Chagos Case confirms that the transfer of sovereignty from the UK to Malaya under MA63 was unlawful, as it lacked legal capacity, proper consent, and was carried out under coercion. The UK’s failure to properly decolonise North Borneo and Sarawak means that their incorporation into Malaysia did not comply with international law.

Malaysia was not formed through a legally valid agreement, but rather through a forced political arrangement that disregarded the right to self-determination.

Source: Mr.Robert Pei, President of SSRANZ

Despite the modest turnout, the message resonated far and wide. Holding banners that read “No More MA63” and “Sabah for Sabahan”, the demonstrators appealed not only to Australians but also to the broader international community, urging global actors to recognise the legitimacy of the independence movement now gaining significant momentum across the island of Borneo.

Legal Grounds for Independence: Invalid Malaysia Agreement 1963

A key highlight of the event was the reaffirmation of the legal basis for Sabah and Sarawak’s push for independence. Robert Pei, a practicing lawyer and President of Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia & New Zealand (SSRANZ), spoke forcefully about the invalidity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

Citing declassified British colonial documents and international legal precedents, Pei stated that MA63 was void ab initio—legally invalid from the start—since Sabah and Sarawak, still under colonial rule in 1963, lacked the legal capacity to enter into binding international agreements. He further argued that the failure to conduct a proper referendum and the documented coercion surrounding the federation's formation rendered Malaysia's claim over Borneo territories illegitimate under international law.

"This is not secession," Pei clarified. "This is decolonisation. We are seeking to rectify a historical injustice. The right to self-determination is enshrined under UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 and supported by International Court of Justice rulings such as the 2019 Chagos Islands case. Sabah and Sarawak were never truly granted independence—only transferred from one colonial master to another."

Ten-Year Roadmap for Peaceful Independence

"Sabahans are more than capable of governing themselves," he said confidently. "We can manage our own resources, protect our borders, develop our economy, provide healthcare, education, and security for our people. The myth that we need Malaya to survive must end."

Mosses laid out a 10-year peaceful roadmap toward independence, based on principles of lawfulness, democracy, and diplomacy. He emphasized that the movement will reject violence, instead focusing on international advocacy, public education, legal documentation, and political mobilisation.

Rising Solidarity: BORAF and SSKM Join the Struggle

“I can no longer tolerate the abuses, harassment, suffering, bullying, threats, and racial discrimination inflicted on our people by Malaya," he said. "BORAF is here to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with RSNB, SSRANZ, and all Borneans. We will amplify your voices until the world hears us.”

Members of Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM), a well-established independence movement, were also present, adding their support and solidarity. SSKM leaders reaffirmed their position: “There is no more MA63. There is only one path forward—INDEPENDENCE.”

A Message to the World

The demonstration was not just a domestic call—it was a diplomatic message to Australia and the international community. Organisers and speakers called on global leaders, human rights bodies, and international organisations to recognise the inalienable right of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to self-determination, and to support their peaceful transition toward sovereign statehood.

“We are not asking for sympathy,” said one speaker. “We are asking for recognition. We are asking for justice. And we are asking the world to stand with us as we reclaim what was unjustly taken.”

As the demonstration drew to a close, the participants stood united in a powerful chant of “Sabah! Sarawak! MERDEKA!”—a declaration of independence and a defiant echo of the hopes that were denied to Borneo's people more than six decades ago. The chant reverberated across the heart of Melbourne’s civic district, not as a theatrical performance, but as the living voice of a people reclaiming their rightful future.

This was not a protest for show, but the continuation of a long and unfinished liberation struggle that began in the 1960s when local resistance movements in Borneo first rose up against the rushed and coerced formation of the Malaysian federation.

That struggle—interrupted by political suppression, historical distortion, and decades of silencing—is now being revived, lawfully and peacefully, on the global stage. What began as whispers in the shadows of colonial withdrawal has now grown into a clear and resolute demand for decolonisation.

In the heart of one of the world’s leading democracies, this peaceful demonstration reminded the world that the people of Sabah and Sarawak have never truly relinquished their right to self-determination. Their voices—long silenced—are rising again with clarity, unity, and purpose. This is not a moment; it is a movement.

Credits to Dayak Daily

Today, more Sabahans and Sarawakians are calling for independence than ever before, not out of rebellion, but out of necessity, justice, and survival. This article is a call to Australians and the international community to understand the truth behind the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the ongoing political and economic oppression, and why the global community, especially Australia, has a moral obligation to stand in solidarity with Sabah and Sarawak.

The Legal Foundations: A Flawed Agreement

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was intended to lay the foundation for the creation of a new federation. But unlike other international treaties, MA63 lacked essential legal and democratic safeguards. There was no binding referendum or popular consultation with the people of Sabah and Sarawak. The Cobbold Commission, hastily set up to gauge public opinion, relied heavily on handpicked community leaders rather than a general vote. The United Nations' assessment mission was similarly flawed, with British diplomatic cables later revealing it was biased and predetermined to favor Malaysia's formation.

International law, particularly the principle of self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter and subsequent UN General Assembly resolutions, requires that any transfer of sovereignty or political arrangement must be freely determined by the people affected. This did not happen for Sabah and Sarawak. Therefore, many legal scholars and human rights advocates argue that MA63 is invalid under international law.

Decades of Broken Promises and Economic Exploitation

Sabah and Sarawak were promised equal partnership and autonomy within the Malaysian Federation. In reality, both states became politically and economically dominated by the federal government based in Kuala Lumpur. Despite being rich in oil, gas, timber, and other natural resources, Sabah and Sarawak remain among the poorest and least developed regions in Malaysia.

Billions in revenue from these resources have flowed to the federal government and its allied corporations, while basic infrastructure in Sabah and Sarawak—such as healthcare, education, clean water, and roads—lags far behind Peninsular Malaysia. Political voices calling for autonomy or independence have often been harassed, silenced, or prosecuted under broad and repressive laws. This is not federalism. This is colonialism in a new form.

Political Suppression and the Refugee Exodus to Australia

Over the years, many Sabahans and Sarawakians who spoke out for independence or simply advocated for their native rights have been subjected to surveillance, threats, arrest, or politically motivated charges. Civil society activists, indigenous leaders, and youth organizers have faced harassment for daring to express their people’s right to freedom and self-determination.

As a result, a growing number of Sabahans and Sarawakians have sought asylum in democratic countries like Australia. They are not economic migrants; they are political refugees seeking protection from persecution in Malaysia. Many are now building communities in Australia, continuing their peaceful advocacy from abroad while fearing imprisonment should they return home.

Why Australians and the International Community Must Care

Australia has deep historical ties with Borneo. Australian soldiers fought and died in Sabah and Sarawak during World War II, defending the people against imperial occupation. Today, that legacy demands continued moral responsibility. Supporting the right to self-determination of Sabah and Sarawak is not just an act of solidarity—it is a reaffirmation of the democratic values that Australia stands for.

Furthermore, continued oppression in Sabah and Sarawak poses risks to regional stability, human rights, and democratic development in Southeast Asia. Recognizing and supporting peaceful independence movements is a step toward a more just and equitable world.

A Call for Justice and Dignity

Sabah and Sarawak have endured 61 years of broken promises, exploitation, and suppression under a federation they never freely chose. Their struggle for independence is grounded in legal principles, historical truth, and a longing for dignity and self-governance.

To Australians and the wider international community: we urge you to listen, to learn, and to lend your voice to our call for freedom. Help us break the chains of post-colonial colonisation and build a future where Sabahans and Sarawakians can finally determine their own destiny.

#FreeSabah #FreeSarawak #RightToSelfDetermination

Kos barangan dan perkhidmatan yang lebih tinggi: Dasar kabotaj boleh menyebabkan kos pengangkutan yang lebih tinggi untuk barangan dan perkhidmatan yang dituju ke Sabah. Memandangkan kapal berbendera asing dihadkan daripada beroperasi di laluan domestik, ini mengehadkan persaingan dan mengurangkan pilihan untuk syarikat perkapalan. Kekurangan persaingan boleh menyebabkan kenaikan harga barangan import, menjejaskan kos sara hidup penduduk Sabah.

Sambungan dan akses terhad: Sabah, yang terletak di pulau Borneo, sangat bergantung pada pengangkutan maritim untuk perhubungan dengan seluruh Malaysia dan dunia. Dasar kabotaj boleh menyekat akses kepada perkhidmatan perkapalan dan mengehadkan pilihan ketersambungan untuk Sabah, menjejaskan perdagangan, pelancongan dan pembangunan ekonomi keseluruhan di rantau ini.

Kebergantungan pada pemindahan penghantaran: Dasar kabotaj mungkin memerlukan barangan asing yang dituju ke Sabah untuk dipindahkan melalui pelabuhan Malaysia sebelum diangkut ke Sabah, walaupun terdapat laluan yang lebih terus. Ini menambah lapisan logistik dan kos tambahan, yang berpotensi membawa kepada kelewatan dan ketidakcekapan dalam rantaian bekalan.

Daya saing yang dikurangkan: Sekatan yang dikenakan oleh dasar kabotaj boleh menjadikan perniagaan di Sabah lebih mencabar untuk bersaing dalam pasaran global. Ia boleh mengehadkan akses mereka kepada pilihan penghantaran antarabangsa, meningkatkan kos pengangkutan, dan menghalang keupayaan mereka untuk mengimport dan mengeksport barangan dengan cekap.

Impak pelancongan: Sabah ialah destinasi pelancongan popular yang terkenal dengan tarikan semula jadi dan biodiversiti. Dasar kabotaj boleh menjejaskan industri pelancongan dengan meningkatkan kos perjalanan, mengehadkan ketersediaan perkhidmatan atau produk tertentu, dan mengurangkan daya saing sektor pelancongan Sabah berbanding destinasi lain.

Pembangunan perindustrian terhalang: Dasar kabotaj boleh menimbulkan cabaran bagi pembangunan industri tertentu di Sabah, terutamanya industri yang bergantung pada pengangkutan barangan yang kos efektif dan cekap. Pilihan penghantaran terhad dan kos yang lebih tinggi mungkin tidak menggalakkan pelaburan dalam industri seperti pembuatan, perniagaan berorientasikan eksport dan pengekstrakan sumber.