Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB

The Inspector-General of Police’s statement, delivered on 24th September 2024, raised questions regarding an incident where the Malaysian flag was ceremonially lowered and replaced by the flags of Sabah and Sarawak in front of the Victorian Parliament in Australia. Additionally, there were inquiries about any connections between Mosses and the TikTok account holder "Bentanalamin29," whose activities had been flagged by authorities.

In his response, Mosses clarified that the act of lowering the Malaysian flag and raising the flags of Sabah and Sarawak was a symbolic gesture to mark what he described as "the end of Malayan colonialism" that began on 16th September 1963. He explained that this act represented the growing recognition among Sabahans and Sarawakians of the historical realities surrounding the formation of Malaysia, which, according to Mosses, has been misrepresented for over 60 years.

“We have come to understand the true history through British colonial records obtained from the London Archives,” Mosses said, referring to documents shared on various independence movement platforms, including his personal Facebook page and RSNB. These records, Mosses asserts, reveal secret communications between the British government and Malaya, which resulted in the creation of Malaysia without genuine consent from the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

Mosses pointed out that the narrative of Malaysia as a newly formed country on 16th September 1963 is false. “The truth is, no new country was registered with the United Nations on that date,” he explained. Instead, Malaya merely changed its name to Malaysia, incorporating the territories of Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore. Mosses emphasized that Malaya’s identity as a nation that gained independence in 1957 remained intact, and the so-called formation of Malaysia was, in essence, a continuation of colonial rule, with Malaya replacing the British as the dominant power.

Mosses went further, challenging the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). He argued that North Borneo and Sarawak were not sovereign entities at the time and thus lacked the legal capacity to sign an international agreement. Drawing parallels with the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Chagos Archipelago case, Mosses contended that, like Mauritius in the Chagos case, North Borneo and Sarawak, as British colonies, could not have legally entered into an international treaty with their colonizer, the British.

“The signing of the Malaysia Agreement was simply a facade to ease international political pressure, particularly from Indonesia and the Philippines,” Mosses asserted. He claimed that the agreement effectively handed over the sovereignty and independence of North Borneo and Sarawak to Malaya, further perpetuating colonial rule under a new name.

Mosses reaffirmed his commitment to the independence movement, stating that the symbolic lowering of the Malaysian flag and raising the flags of Sabah and Sarawak was a powerful reminder of the need for Sabah and Sarawak to regain their true independence. “This act should be repeated annually from now until both Borneo nations achieve true independence through democratic means, within the next 10 years,” he declared.

In addressing the Inspector-General of Police's concerns about his alleged connection to the TikTok user "Bentanalamin29," Mosses firmly denied any involvement. “I do not know this individual and have never had any contact or collaboration with him,” he stated. However, Mosses emphasized the importance of free speech and called for the protection of individuals advocating for democratic causes, including independence. “Suppressing, threatening, or intimidating voices advocating for democracy will only worsen the situation and disrupt peace,” he warned.

Mosses concluded his statement by reiterating the need for clarity and understanding of the historical context of the Malaysia Agreement, urging all parties to recognize the movement for Sabah and Sarawak’s independence as a legitimate and democratic effort to right the historical wrongs imposed by colonialism.

Many critics argue that the Cobbold Commission was, if not an outright scam, certainly a flawed process that lacked transparency and failed to capture the genuine aspirations of the people of these territories. Here are a few key points that support this critical perspective:

1. Bias in Composition

The Cobbold Commission was largely made up of individuals selected by the British and Malayan governments, who were British and Malayans (including Lord Cobbold), which led many to argue that the Commission was biased in flavor of forming Malaysia, as it reflected the British and Malayan interests. 

2. Pre-Determined Outcome

The formation of Malaysia was already part of a grand design by the British and Malayan governments even before the Commission began its work. Many historians argue that the creation of Malaysia was intended as a way for Britain to quickly decolonize while ensuring the protection of its strategic and economic interests in Southeast Asia. The Commission was seen as a way to legitimize a decision that had already been made, rather than genuinely assessing whether Sabah and Sarawak wished to join the federation.

3. Manipulation of Public Opinion

The public consultations conducted by the Commission have been widely criticized as insufficient and poorly representative of the views of the indigenous populations in Sabah and Sarawak. The Commission claimed to have interviewed around 4,000 people, but only one-third of those interviewed actually supported the formation of Malaysia. Another third expressed conditional support, provided certain safeguards were implemented, and the remaining third were either against Malaysia or preferred independence. Despite these findings, the Commission extrapolated this limited sample to claim that a majority of the people of Sabah and Sarawak supported Malaysia. This interpretation has been criticized as misleading, as significant opposition existed, particularly from rural and indigenous communities, which were often underrepresented in the consultations.

4. Absence of a Proper Referendum 

The use of the Cobbold Commission begs the question as to why the British and Malayans were leading the inquiry on Malaysia when it was an issue that should have been decided by the people in referendum. 

Unlike in other decolonization processes, where the populations of the territories were given the opportunity to decide through a referendum or plebiscite, the people of Sabah and Sarawak were never given a clear choice. The Commission's consultations were not a substitute for a full referendum, leaving the process open to accusations of manipulation.

5. The Role of Britain and Malaya’s Interests

The British and Malayan governments had a strong incentive to ensure the success of Malaysia's formation. Britain wanted to offload its colonies while maintaining some control over regional security and economic interests, especially with the rise of communism in the region. Malaya, under Tunku Abdul Rahman, saw the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak as a way to strengthen the new federation politically, economically, and demographically.

Conclusion: Was it a Scam?

From a legal standpoint, the Cobbold Commission was a necessary procedural step to legitimize the formation of Malaysia under international law. Without it, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) would likely not have been possible. However, given the political pressures, lack of genuine representation, and the absence of a true democratic process, the Commission can be seen as a flawed and manipulated process designed to rubber-stamp a predetermined outcome. Some activists and historians would go as far as calling it a "scam" due to its apparent role in facilitating an unjust political arrangement under the guise of consultation.

Without the Cobbold Commission, the MA63 likely would not have materialized in its current form. However, the validity and fairness of the Commission's findings remain deeply contested, particularly by those who feel that Sabah and Sarawak were not given a fair say in their future.

Robert Pei 

SSRANZ 

28/09/24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Yes and they [the British] gave us Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore and so many other things in 1963 [with the formation of Malaysia]. The British could have given Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak independence, but they did not. Instead, they handed them to us”.

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

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

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

VOON LEE SHAN

President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang

26 September, 2024

I, Mosses PA Ampang, would like to make an official statement regarding the remarks made by the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Razarudin Husain, on 24th September 2024.

After reviewing the video of the statement, I have identified two separate cases:

The first case focuses on an individual with the TikTok account under the name "Bentanalamin29."

The second case concerns me and the NGO Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB).

In the statement by the Malaysian Inspector-General of Police, several questions were raised, including the motive behind lowering the Malaysian flag and replacing it with the flags of Sabah and Sarawak in front of the Victorian Parliament, Australia, and my connection, if any, to the TikTok account owner "Bentanalamin29."

I would like to clarify that the ceremonial lowering of the Malaysian flag and replacing it with the national flags of Sabah and Sarawak outside the Victorian Parliament in Australia was a symbolic act representing the end of Malayan colonialism, which began on 16th September 1963 when Malaya was renamed Malaysia.

We have come to understand the true history through British colonial records obtained from the London Archives, which have been shared publicly on several pages dedicated to the independence movement. These include my Facebook page, Mosses PA Ampang, Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ), Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB), and Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM).

These documents reveal the true situation leading up to the formation of Malaysia, including secret communications between the British government and Malaya. After thorough research over 10 years, beginning in 2013, we are confident that Malaysia was essentially a form of colonialism, with Malaya taking over British colonial territories in Borneo—namely North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak.

The narrative that Malaysia was a newly formed country on 16th September 1963 is a lie, perpetuating 61 years of historical misrepresentation. The truth is, no new country was ever registered with the United Nations on that date. Instead, the UN was simply notified that Malaya had changed its name to Malaysia and had incorporated three new territories: Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore. Malaya retained its identity as a nation that gained independence on 31st August 1957.

We are also confident, after reviewing international legal precedents, that the Malaysia Agreement signed on 9th July 1963 was invalid. The governments of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore at the time lacked the legal status to sign an international agreement. This is supported by the ruling in the International Court of Justice case concerning the Chagos Archipelago, where the court determined that Mauritius, as a British colony, did not have the capacity to sign an international agreement with its colonizer, Britain.

In the context of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, North Borneo and Sarawak had not yet formed democratic governments, had not held general elections, and had no legislative or executive powers at the time of signing. Their presence at the signing in London on 9th July 1963 was purely symbolic, as they were handpicked by the British, as acknowledged by the British Chief Legal Advisor for Sarawak. The signing of the Malaysia Agreement was simply a facade to ease international political pressure, particularly from Indonesia and the Philippines.

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 essentially handed over the sovereignty and independence of North Borneo and Sarawak to Malaya. In other words, Malaya merely replaced the British as the colonizing power.

With this factual narrative, it is clear that 16th September 1963 did not mark the formation of a new country, but rather the beginning of Malaya’s colonial rule under the new name "Malaysia."

Understanding this historical truth, the campaign to liberate Sabah and Sarawak from Malayan colonialism is not an option but a responsibility that must be shouldered by the people of Sabah and Sarawak. Therefore, the ceremonial lowering of the Malaysian flag and replacing it with the national flags of Sabah and Sarawak symbolizes the end of Malayan colonialism. This act should be repeated annually from now until both Borneo nations achieve true independence through democratic means, within the next 10 years.

Regarding my connection to the TikTok account holder "Bentanalamin29," I would like to clarify that I do not know this individual and have never had any contact or collaboration with him. However, as a fellow Sabahan, I urge that he be granted his right to free speech, as guaranteed by the constitution. Suppressing, threatening, or intimidating voices advocating for democracy, especially the voice of independence, will only worsen the situation and disrupt peace.

I hope this explanation provides clarity to all parties.

Thank you.

Mosses PA Ampang

President,

Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB NGO

Setelah meniliti video rakaman kenyataan Ketua Polis Malaysia, saya mendapati wujud dua kes yang berbeza.

Kes Pertama adalah memfokuskan kepada seorang individu yang memiliki akaun tiktok dengan nama Bentanalamin29.

Kes Kedua adalah memfokuskan kepada diri saya dengan NGO Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB.

Melalui kenyataan Ketua Polis Malaysia, beberapa persoalan ditimbulkan iaitu apakah motif tindakan menurunkan bendera malaysia dan digantikan dengan bendera Sabah dan Sarawak di Parlimen Victoria, Australia. Dan Apakah hubungan saya dan NGO RSNB dengan pemilik akaun tiktok yang bernama Bentalamin29.

Ingin saya memberikan penjelasan bahawa upacara menurunkan bendera malaysia dengan hormat dihadapan bangunan parlimen Victoria, Australia dengan digantikan bendera Kebangsaan Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak adalah sebagai satu tanda simbolik menurunkan penjajahan malaya yang kini dikenali sebagai malaysia sejak 16 September 1963.

Pihak kami telah memahami sejarah sebenar melalui rekod dokumen kolonial British yang telah diperolehi dari Arkib London, yang telah dikongsikan secara umum didalam beberapa Page yang memperjuangkan kemerdekaan iaitu Page Facebook saya iaitu Mosses PA Ampang, Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ), Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB, Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia - SSKM.

Dokumen-dokumen ini telah merekodkan keadaan yang sebenar tentang apa yang telah berlaku sebelum kewujudan malaysia. Ia merupakan komunikasi rahsia diantara Kerajaan British dan kerajaan malaya.

Melalui penelitian yang tekun selama 10 tahun sejak 2013, pihak kami dengan yakin percaya bahawa malaysia merupakan satu penjajahan bagi mengambilalih tanah-tanah jajahan British di Borneo iaitu Negara Borneo Utara dan Negara Sarawak oleh malaya.

Kesemua naratif ataupun penceritaan sejarah yang digunakan selama ini kononnya sebuah negara baru dibentuk pada 16 September 1963 adalah satu pembohongan dan penyesatan sejarah selama 61 tahun.

Ini kerana tidak ada negara baru yang pernah didaftarkan di United Nations pada 16 September 1963 sebaliknya hanyalah satu makluman kepada Setiausaha United Nations bahawa malaya menukar namanya kepada malaysia dengan kemasukan tiga wilayah baru iaitu Sabah, Sarawak dan Singapura ke dalam malaya, yang mengekalkan identiti yang merdeka pada 31 Ogos 1957.

Pihak kami juga yakin dengan pasti setelah membuat rujukan perundangan antarabangsa tentang perjanjian malaysia yang ditandatangani pada 9 Julai 1963. Hasil dapatan mendapati bahawa perjanjian malaysia 1963 adalah sebuah perjanjian yang tidak sah dan terbatal kerana ia dilakukan pada saat kepimpinan North Borneo ataupun kini dikenali sebagai Sabah, Sarawak dan Singapore tidak memiliki status yang sah untuk menandatangani perjanjian antarabangsa. 

Kenyataan ini dapat disokong melalui kes mahkamah antarabangsa mengenai Pulau Chagos yang menyaksikan kemenangan kepada Kerajaan Mauritius, yang mana pulau Diego Garcia milik Kerajaan Mauritius telah dipisahkan daripada pentadbiran kerajaannya sebagai syarat untuk Kerajaan Mauritius dimerdekakan daripada penjajahan British.

Mahkamah antarabangsa telah mendapati dan menyimpulkan bahawa kerajaan mauritius yang berstatuskan tanah jajahan British tidak memiliki kapasiti untuk menandatangani perjanjian antarabangsa dengan British yang merupakan penjajah kepada Kerajaan mauritius. 

Dalam konteks perjanjian malaysia 1963, ketika tandatangan perjanjian malaysia itu dilakukan di London, North Borneo dan Sarawak belum memiliki Kerajaan Demokrasi yang sah, belum memiliki kepimpinan yang dipilih melalui sistem demokrasi pilihanraya. Belum memiliki Dewan Undangan Negara Sabah ataupun Parlimen, belum memiliki 3 doktrin kuasa demokrasi iaitu kuasa legislatif, judisiari dan eksekutif. Mereka hadir bukan atas kapasiti Ketua Menteri ataupun Perdana Menteri North Borneo dan Sarawak.

Kehadiran kepimpinan Borneo pada upacara menandantangani perjanjian malaysia pada 9 julai adalah kerana dipilih ataupun handpicked by British sebagai satu persembahan  sahaja bagi mengaburi mata dan meredakan tekanan politik masyarakat antarabangsa seperti mana yang diakui oleh Ketua Peguam Kerajaan British Sarawak.

Dokumen perjanjian malaysia 1963 merupakan dokumen penyerahan kuasa kedaulatan dan kuasa kemerdekaan Bangsa North Borneo atau kini Sabah dan Sarawak kepada malaya.

Dalam erti kata lain, malaya hanya menggantikan kedudukan British sebagai penjajah.

Maka, dalam konteks naratif ataupun penceritaan sejarah berfakta ini, ia jelas terang dan bersuluh bahawa tarikh 16 September 1963 sebenarnya bukanlah sebuah pembentukan negara baru sebaliknya merupakan hari bermulanya penjajahan malaya yang menukar namanya kepada malaysia secara rasmi.

Dengan kefahaman naratif sejarah yang berfakta ini, maka kempen kesedaran untuk memerdekakan Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak daripada penjajahan malaya adalah bukan satu pilihan sebaliknya adalah satu tanggungjawab yang mesti dipikul oleh Bangsa Negara Sabah dan Bangsa Negara Sarawak.

Dengan itu, upacara menurunkan bendera malaya yang kini dikenali sebagai malaysia merupakan satu simbolik menurunkan penjajahan malaya dengan menggantikan bendera Kebangsaan Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak, adalah satu tindakan yang wajar dilakukan setiap tahun bermula pada tahun ini sehingga kedua-dua negara Borneo ini mencapai kemerdekaan sebenar secara demokrasi dalam tempoh 10 tahun yang diberikan dari sekarang.

Mengenai hubungan diri saya dan NGO RSNB dengan pemilik akaun tiktok yang bernama bentalamin29, ingin saya maklumkan bahawa saya tidak mengenali individu ini dan tidak pernah berhubung mahupun mempunyai sebarang kerjasama dengannya. Walau bagaimanapun, sebagai Sabahan, saya mohon agar beliau diberikan kebebasan bersuara seperti mana yang termaktub didalam perlembagaan yang memberikan jaminan bersuara kepada rakyat. Tindakan menyekat, mengancam, mengugut suara demokrasi khususnya suara kemerdekaan ini hanya akan mengeruhkan keadaan dan keamanan.

Saya berharap penjelasan ini dapat memberikan pencerahan yang jelas kepada semua pihak.

Harap maklum.

Mosses PA Ampang

President,

Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB NGO