Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB

1. Borneo Utara - W.K.H. Jones

• Jawatan: W.K.H. Jones berkhidmat sebagai Peguam Negara Borneo Utara pada masa penandatanganan.
• Kapasiti Undang-Undang: Sebagai Peguam Negara, Jones adalah pegawai undang-undang utama Borneo Utara dan mewakili kepentingan undang-undang kerajaan kolonial British di wilayah tersebut. Kedudukannya memberinya kuasa untuk bertindak bagi pihak Borneo Utara dalam urusan undang-undang, menjadikannya individu yang paling layak untuk menandatangani MA63 dengan kapasiti undang-undang. Peranannya sebagai Peguam Negara memberinya mandat untuk terlibat dalam perjanjian antarabangsa bagi pihak wilayah tersebut.
• Rasional: Jones dilantik oleh pentadbiran kolonial British, yang mentadbir Borneo Utara sebelum MA63. Oleh kerana Borneo Utara masih di bawah kedaulatan British pada masa itu, peranannya selaras dengan kepentingan British dan memastikan representasi undang-undang dalam perjanjian tersebut. Namun, kapasitinya adalah terutamanya sebagai wakil kepentingan undang-undang British, bukan semestinya kepentingan penduduk tempatan.

2. Sarawak - P.E.H. Pike

• Jawatan: P.E.H. Pike adalah Peguam Negara Sarawak.
• Kapasiti Undang-Undang: Sama seperti Jones, kedudukan Pike sebagai Peguam Negara memberinya kapasiti undang-undang sebagai wakil undang-undang utama Sarawak. Pelantikannya oleh kerajaan kolonial British meletakkannya sebagai pegawai undang-undang yang sah untuk terlibat dalam penandatanganan perjanjian antarabangsa, termasuk MA63, bagi pihak Sarawak.
• Rasional: Peranan Pike, seperti Jones, adalah untuk mewakili kepentingan undang-undang kerajaan kolonial British di Sarawak. Memandangkan Sarawak berada di bawah bidang kuasa British pada masa itu, tandatangan Pike membawa kuasa undang-undang pentadbiran British. Namun, seperti Jones, peranannya lebih kepada mewakili kepentingan British dan bukannya mandat daripada rakyat Sarawak.

Analisis dan Implikasi

• Representasi Kolonial: Kedua-dua Jones dan Pike adalah pegawai kolonial yang dilantik oleh British, yang mewakili kuasa British dan bukan pemimpin tempatan yang dipilih atau pemimpin pribumi. Ini menghadkan representasi mereka terhadap kehendak sebenar rakyat Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, kerana mandat mereka selaras dengan kepentingan kolonial British.
• Ketiadaan Mandat Demokratik: Penandatangan lain dari Borneo Utara dan Sarawak adalah pemimpin tempatan, tetapi mereka tidak memegang jawatan undang-undang rasmi yang memberikan mereka kuasa untuk memasuki perjanjian antarabangsa yang mengikat. Jones dan Pike, sebagai Peguam Negara, adalah satu-satunya yang mempunyai kuasa undang-undang untuk menandatangani, tetapi peranan mereka menimbulkan persoalan mengenai kesahihan MA63 dari perspektif rakyat Borneo Utara dan Sarawak.

Kesimpulan

Sebagai kesimpulan, W.K.H. Jones (Peguam Negara Borneo Utara) dan P.E.H. Pike (Peguam Negara Sarawak) mempunyai kapasiti undang-undang untuk menandatangani Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 kerana peranan mereka sebagai pegawai undang-undang utama yang dilantik oleh kerajaan kolonial British. Namun, kapasiti undang-undang mereka terutamanya mewakili kepentingan British dan bukannya aspirasi penduduk tempatan. Ini menonjolkan kritikan utama terhadap MA63: bahawa perjanjian itu ditandatangani tanpa representasi yang sebenar dan demokratik dari Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, sekaligus menimbulkan persoalan mengenai kesahihan dan keadilan persekutuan dari perspektif wilayah-wilayah ini.

Dengan pertimbangan ini, perjuangan berterusan Sabah untuk memisahkan diri dari Malaysia dan menubuhkan sebuah Republik Sabah North Borneo mendapat asas yang kukuh dalam konteks sejarah dan undang-undang. Laluan Sabah untuk disertakan dalam Malaysia penuh dengan ketidakteraturan prosedur dan representasi yang dipersoalkan, yang mendorong pergerakan untuk penentuan nasib sendiri dan kemerdekaan pada zaman moden ini.

Kapasiti Undang-Undang dan Representasi: Pengaruh Kolonial British

Kekurangan mandat demokratik tempatan ini amat ketara dalam konteks undang-undang antarabangsa. Resolusi 1514 dan 1541 Perhimpunan Agung PBB, yang diluluskan pada tahun 1960, menetapkan hak semua wilayah kolonial untuk menentukan nasib sendiri, dengan menekankan bahawa keputusan seperti itu mesti mencerminkan kehendak sebenar rakyat. Walau bagaimanapun, dengan melantik pegawai kolonial British sebagai penandatangan, Britain telah memintas prinsip ini, dan pada hakikatnya mengecualikan penduduk Borneo Utara dan Sarawak daripada suara yang bermakna dalam masa depan politik mereka.

Undang-Undang Antarabangsa dan Resolusi PBB Mengenai Penentuan Nasib Sendiri

Resolusi 1514 Perhimpunan Agung PBB (1960)—Deklarasi Mengenai Pemberian Kemerdekaan kepada Negara dan Rakyat Kolonial—menyatakan bahawa proses dekolonisasi mesti menghormati hak semua rakyat untuk menentukan nasib sendiri, bebas daripada "penaklukan asing, dominasi, dan eksploitasi." Resolusi ini bertujuan untuk menghalang jenis pemaksaan dari atas ke bawah yang berlaku dalam MA63 bagi Borneo Utara dan Sarawak.

Resolusi 1541 Perhimpunan Agung PBB (1960) menguatkan lagi hal ini dengan menghendaki adanya "ungkapan kehendak rakyat yang tulen" dalam hal-hal status politik. Menurut Prinsip IX resolusi ini, pilihan masa depan politik bagi wilayah bukan pemerintahan sendiri sepatutnya dibuat oleh wakil yang dipilih secara bebas oleh rakyat atau melalui mekanisme demokrasi seperti referendum. Dalam kes MA63, prinsip ini tidak dipenuhi; pegawai kolonial yang dilantik menjadi penandatangan bagi pihak Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, bukannya wakil yang dipilih rakyat. Penduduk wilayah ini diketepikan, dengan keputusan mengenai masa depan politik mereka dibuat oleh pegawai British dan bukannya mereka sendiri.

Kegagalan untuk memastikan representasi yang autentik dan mematuhi prinsip penentuan nasib sendiri telah memberikan kesan mendalam terhadap kesahan MA63, dan telah mencetuskan rasa tidak puas hati dan ketidakadilan dalam kalangan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak.

Persekutuan Sekadar Nama: Kelanjutan Dinamika Kolonial

Terma MA63 nampaknya memihak kepada Tanah Melayu, meletakkannya di pusat persekutuan baru sambil mengehadkan autonomi Borneo Utara dan Sarawak. Walaupun terdapat janji untuk melindungi hak dan autonomi wilayah-wilayah ini, MA63 menumpukan kuasa di dalam kerajaan persekutuan, dengan pengaruh yang besar dari Tanah Melayu. Daripada pertahanan kepada pengaturan kewangan dan dasar imigresen, perjanjian itu mencipta struktur yang membolehkan Tanah Melayu menguasai bidang utama di Sabah dan Sarawak.

Kekurangan perundingan bermakna dan penyertaan demokratik dalam perjanjian ini menguatkan persepsi bahawa MA63 hanya memudahkan perpindahan kuasa kolonial, meletakkan Sabah dan Sarawak di bawah kuasa Malaya dan bukannya membentuk persekutuan rakan sekutu yang sama rata. Bagi ramai di Sabah, persepsi ini selaras dengan konsep “penjajahan dalaman,” di mana kawalan beralih dari British ke Malaya tanpa memberikan Sabah kebebasan sebenar atau representasi yang sah.

Justifikasi untuk Pergerakan Kemerdekaan: Penubuhan Republik Sabah North Borneo

Dalam konteks kelemahan prosedur dan representasi ini, pergerakan kemerdekaan Sabah, termasuk usaha untuk menubuhkan Republik Sabah North Borneo, muncul sebagai satu tindak balas yang wajar. Rakyat Sabah telah lama mempersoalkan kesahan MA63, dengan menekankan bahawa kekurangan representasi tempatan dan penumpuan kuasa di Kuala Lumpur adalah bukti bahawa hak mereka untuk menentukan nasib sendiri telah dikompromi sejak dari awal.

Pergerakan Republik Sabah North Borneo bertujuan untuk membetulkan ketidakadilan sejarah ini, dengan berhujah bahawa penyertaan Sabah dalam Malaysia tidak mengikut piawaian penentuan nasib sendiri yang ditetapkan oleh undang-undang antarabangsa. Hasrat untuk menubuhkan sebuah republik merdeka bukan sekadar aspirasi politik semasa; ia berakar pada ketidakadilan sejarah bahawa MA63 tidak dirunding atau dilaksanakan dengan cara yang benar-benar menghormati kehendak rakyat Sabah.

Resolusi PBB Sebagai Asas untuk Penentuan Nasib Sendiri

Seruan untuk kemerdekaan Sabah juga disokong oleh Resolusi 1514 dan 1541 PBB, yang menekankan bahawa hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri tidak boleh dikompromi atau diatasi demi kesenangan pentadbiran. Memandangkan MA63 ditandatangani oleh pegawai kolonial tanpa input langsung daripada rakyat Sabah, ia melanggar prinsip-prinsip yang ditetapkan dalam resolusi ini. Pergerakan kemerdekaan Sabah, oleh itu, dibingkai bukan sahaja sebagai pilihan politik tetapi sebagai usaha untuk menunaikan hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri yang asalnya dinafikan di bawah MA63.

Tambahan pula, penerapan undang-undang antarabangsa menyokong kedudukan Sabah bahawa ia mempunyai asas yang sah untuk menilai semula dan mentakrifkan status politiknya. Oleh kerana persekutuan asal diasaskan atas representasi yang dipersoalkan, Sabah mempunyai asas yang munasabah untuk menuntut mandat baharu—kali ini benar-benar mencerminkan kehendak rakyat melalui cara demokratik.

Langkah Ke Hadapan: Legasi MA63 dan Perjuangan untuk Penentuan Nasib Sendiri

Legasi MA63 kekal sebagai isu yang memecahbelahkan di Sabah dan Sarawak. Walaupun perjanjian itu seolah-olah mewujudkan sebuah Malaysia bersatu, kekurangan penyertaan demokratik dan representasi yang sama rata telah meninggalkan kesan yang mendalam kepada rakyat di wilayah-wilayah ini. Bagi ramai rakyat Sabah, MA63 mewakili peluang yang terlepas untuk penentuan nasib sendiri, sekaligus menimbulkan keraguan terhadap kesahihan Malaysia sebagai persekutuan yang sama rata.

Pergerakan untuk Republik Sabah North Borneo, yang berakar dalam konteks sejarah ini, bertujuan untuk akhirnya memenuhi janji penentuan nasib sendiri yang dinafikan oleh MA63. Ia adalah satu pernyataan bahawa masa depan politik Sabah harus diputuskan oleh rakyatnya sendiri, bebas daripada batasan sejarah yang dikenakan oleh kuasa kolonial dan kawalan berpusat kerajaan persekutuan. Dalam perjuangan ini, rakyat Sabah merujuk kepada prinsip penentuan nasib sendiri yang ditetapkan oleh undang-undang antarabangsa, dengan berhujah bahawa perjanjian asal gagal menghormati prinsip-prinsip ini dan bahawa sudah tiba masanya untuk menubuhkan sebuah Sabah yang berdaulat dan merdeka.

Kesimpulan

Perjanjian Malaysia 1963, dengan ketidakteraturan prosedur dan kekurangan representasi yang tulen bagi Borneo Utara dan Sarawak, menimbulkan persoalan yang ketara mengenai kesahihannya di bawah undang-undang antarabangsa. Dengan mengetepikan mandat demokratik penduduk tempatan, MA63 melanggar prinsip-prinsip yang ditetapkan oleh Resolusi 1514 dan 1541 PBB, yang menekankan penentuan nasib sendiri sebagai hak asas bagi semua rakyat kolonial.

Pergerakan untuk Republik Sabah North Borneo, oleh itu, bukan sekadar aspirasi politik tetapi satu perjuangan sah yang berakar pada hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri. Dengan mencabar terma dan syarat asal MA63, rakyat Sabah berusaha untuk membetulkan ketidakadilan sejarah dan membentuk masa depan yang benar-benar mencerminkan aspirasi mereka. Dalam konteks undang-undang antarabangsa dan preseden sejarah, perjuangan Sabah untuk kemerdekaan berdiri sebagai tindak balas yang wajar terhadap legasi kawalan kolonial dan neo-kolonial yang diwakili oleh MA63.

With these considerations, Sabah’s ongoing struggle to separate from Malaysia and establish an independent Republic of Sabah North Borneo finds a strong basis in the historical and legal context. The path to Sabah’s inclusion in Malaysia was fraught with procedural irregularities and questionable representation, fueling the movement for self-determination and independence in modern times.

Legal Capacity and Representation: The British Colonial Influence

The signatories of MA63 for North Borneo and Sarawak were W.K.H. Jones, Attorney General of North Borneo, and P.E.H. Pike, Attorney General of Sarawak. As chief legal officers, both were British-appointed officials, representing British colonial interests rather than the indigenous aspirations of the people of these territories. Their positions granted them the authority to sign the agreement, but only within the context of British administrative oversight—not as representatives of the will of the local population.

This lack of local democratic mandate is particularly significant in the light of international law. UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 and 1541, passed in 1960, establish the right of all colonial territories to self-determination, emphasizing that such decisions must reflect the genuine will of the people. However, by appointing British colonial officials as signatories, Britain bypassed this principle, effectively excluding North Borneo and Sarawak’s residents from a meaningful voice in their political future.

International Law and UN Resolutions on Self-Determination

UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960)—the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples—stipulates that the process of decolonization must honor the right of all peoples to self-determination, free from “alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation.” This resolution was designed to prevent precisely the kind of top-down imposition that characterized MA63 for North Borneo and Sarawak.

UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (1960) further reinforces this by requiring a “genuine expression of the will of the people” in matters of political status. According to Principle IX of the resolution, the choice of political future for non-self-governing territories should be made by freely elected representatives or through democratic referendums. In the case of MA63, this principle was not upheld; instead of elected representatives, colonial appointees signed on behalf of North Borneo and Sarawak. The people of these territories were effectively sidelined, with decisions about their political future made by British officials rather than by themselves.

The failure to ensure authentic representation and adherence to the principles of self-determination has cast a long shadow over the legitimacy of MA63, giving rise to a sense of disenfranchisement and disillusionment among the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

A Federation in Name Only: The Continuation of Colonial Dynamics

Justification for the Independence Movement: Establishing the Republic of Sabah North Borneo

In the context of these procedural and representational flaws, the movement for Sabah’s independence, including efforts to establish the Republic of Sabah North Borneo, emerges as a justified response. The people of Sabah have long questioned the legitimacy of MA63, pointing to the lack of local representation and the centralization of power in Kuala Lumpur as evidence that their right to self-determination was compromised from the start.

The Republic of Sabah North Borneo movement seeks to rectify this historical injustice, arguing that Sabah’s inclusion in Malaysia did not follow the standards of self-determination set by international law. The desire to establish an independent republic is not simply a contemporary political aspiration; it is rooted in a historical grievance that MA63 was neither negotiated nor executed in a manner that genuinely respected the will of Sabah’s people.

UN Resolutions as a Foundation for Self-Determination

The calls for Sabah’s independence are further bolstered by UN Resolutions 1514 and 1541, which emphasize that the right to self-determination cannot be compromised or overridden by administrative convenience. Given that MA63 was signed by colonial officials without direct input from Sabahans, it stands in violation of these resolutions’ principles. Sabah’s movement for independence is therefore framed not only as a political choice but as an attempt to fulfill the right to self-determination that was originally denied under MA63.

Furthermore, the application of international law supports Sabah’s position that it has a legitimate claim to reassess and redefine its political status. Since the original federation was founded on questionable representation, Sabah has a reasonable basis to argue for a fresh mandate—this time genuinely reflecting the will of the people through democratic means.

Moving Forward: The Legacy of MA63 and the Struggle for Self-Determination

The movement for the Republic of Sabah North Borneo, rooted in this historical context, seeks to finally fulfill the promise of self-determination denied by MA63. It is an assertion that Sabah’s political future should be decided by its own people, free from the historical constraints imposed by colonial powers and the centralized control of the federal government. In this struggle, Sabahans draw on international principles of self-determination, arguing that the original agreement failed to honor these principles and that the time has come to establish a sovereign, independent Sabah.

Conclusion

The Malaysia Agreement 1963, with its procedural irregularities and lack of genuine representation for North Borneo and Sarawak, raises significant questions about its legitimacy under international law. In bypassing the democratic mandate of the local population, MA63 contravened the principles set forth by UN Resolutions 1514 and 1541, which emphasize self-determination as a fundamental right of all colonial peoples.

The movement for the Republic of Sabah North Borneo, therefore, is not merely a political aspiration but a legitimate struggle rooted in the right to self-determination. By challenging the original terms and conditions of MA63, Sabahans are seeking to correct a historical injustice and establish a future that truly reflects the aspirations of their people. In the context of international law and historical precedent, Sabah’s quest for independence stands as a justified response to the legacy of colonial and neo-colonial control that MA63 represents.

The Pivotal Players and Unequal Representation

This lack of elected representation for North Borneo and Sarawak raises questions about whether the people of these territories had any true say in the process. The involvement of colonial appointees, rather than locally elected representatives, hints at a paternalistic approach by Britain, which prioritized a quick handover to Malaya over genuine consultation with the people. This dynamic has led many to question the democratic legitimacy of MA63, suggesting that it may have served British and Malayan interests more than those of Sabah and Sarawak.

A Bilateral Agreement in All but Name

An excerpt from Deals, Dayaks & Datus by Michael Leigh highlights a critical perspective: MA63 was, in essence, a bilateral agreement between Britain and Malaya. As per the notes of the Sarawak Attorney General, Sarawak and North Borneo were “not parties to the formal agreement,” but were included largely for “presentational purposes.” This distinction is crucial. Although the agreement was presented as a pact among equals, it appears that Britain’s primary objective was to transfer its colonial authority over North Borneo and Sarawak to Malaya, ensuring continuity of control in the region.

This arrangement gave Malaya significant control over the new federation, a structure that some view as “neo-colonialism.” By formally transferring power to Malaya, Britain effectively ensured that its former territories would remain under the influence of a friendly and aligned government, rather than granting true autonomy to the people of Sabah and Sarawak. This arrangement challenges the narrative of a genuine federation and suggests that MA63 was designed with the continuation of colonial power structures in mind.

The Cobbold Commission and the Inter-Governmental Committee

The Cobbold Commission, established in 1962, was tasked with gauging public opinion in North Borneo and Sarawak regarding the proposed formation of Malaysia. While the commission reported a mixed reception—some in favor, others opposed—it ultimately recommended moving forward with the formation, provided that specific safeguards were implemented to protect the rights and autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak within the federation.

Following this, the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC), chaired by Lord Lansdowne, outlined these safeguards, which were meant to ensure that Sabah and Sarawak retained control over key areas, including immigration, religion, and land. However, the actual text of MA63, signed on July 9, 1963, was strikingly brief, covering just four pages and 11 annexes. The promised safeguards were minimal, leading many in Sabah and Sarawak to feel that they were not granted the protections and autonomy they were assured.

The involvement of high-level British and Malayan officials in the IGC, including future Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Razak, further underscores the power dynamics at play. The voices of local leaders were minimal, and the final recommendations reflect a top-down approach, one that arguably prioritized stability and British-Malayan interests over a truly representative federal structure.

Continuation of Colonial Dynamics under a New Name?

Critics of MA63 argue that rather than establishing a new federation, the agreement simply replaced British colonial rule with Malayan dominance. In this view, “Malaysia” was not a fresh start, but a rebranding of Malaya to incorporate new territories without granting them equal status. The central role played by Tunku Abdul Rahman and Malayan officials in negotiating and implementing MA63 reinforces the impression that the federation was Malaya-led, with Sabah and Sarawak treated as junior partners.

This perception is supported by the use of the Malayan flag as the new Malaysian flag, as well as the adoption of Malayan laws, systems, and policies across the new federation. While MA63 included provisions to protect Sabah and Sarawak’s unique identities, many argue that these safeguards were subsequently eroded, leading to a sense of marginalization and disenfranchisement among Sabahans and Sarawakians.

The Legacy of MA63 and Calls for Reassessment

Today, MA63 remains a contentious issue. Many in Sabah and Sarawak believe that the agreement failed to deliver on its promises of autonomy and equal partnership. Over the years, calls for greater autonomy, and in some cases, independence, have grown louder, fueled by a sense that the rights and identities of Sabah and Sarawak have been overshadowed by a Malaya-centric federal structure.

The inclusion of colonial officials as signatories, rather than democratically elected representatives, continues to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the agreement. Nationalist groups in Sabah and Sarawak argue that MA63 was an instrument of neo-colonialism, designed to maintain control over the territories rather than grant them genuine self-determination.

Conclusion: A Federation in Name, or a Colonial Legacy?

As Sabah and Sarawak continue to reassess their roles within Malaysia, the legacy of MA63 remains a focal point. For many, it is a reminder of promises unfulfilled and autonomy undermined—a colonial legacy that persists under a new flag. The questions surrounding MA63 are unlikely to disappear, as Sabahans and Sarawakians seek a future that honors their rights, identities, and aspirations in ways the original agreement failed to deliver.

Purpose and Long-Term Vision

The document expresses a clear goal: to gain full independence for Sabah, free from what it describes as the “colonial control” exerted by Malaya since the formation of Malaysia in 1963. According to the RSNB, this movement is anchored in principles of self-determination, justice, and freedom. The organization aims to build a united front within Sabah, generate broad public support, and seek international recognition for its cause.

Mosses PA Ampang emphasizes that this initiative is not merely a reactionary movement but a carefully planned, diplomatic campaign for autonomy. The roadmap envisions a resilient and inclusive republic that reflects Sabah’s unique cultural heritage and diverse ethnic composition. RSNB’s ultimate goal is a peaceful referendum on independence, anticipated within the next decade.

Phase One: Building Awareness and National Identity (2024-2026)

Phase One of the RSNB’s strategy centers on two primary objectives: raising awareness and fostering a cohesive national identity. To achieve this, RSNB plans to initiate a series of workshops, webinars, and public forums aimed at educating both local and international audiences on Sabah’s right to self-determination. These events will focus on historical narratives, legal precedents, and the perceived failures of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), which RSNB claims was flawed and did not adequately represent the interests of the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

The RSNB also aims to strengthen the sense of unity among Sabah’s diverse ethnic communities under a single national identity termed “Bangsa Negara Sabah.” This term symbolizes the collective identity of Sabahans, which RSNB hopes will bridge ethnic and cultural divides and consolidate support for independence.

Emphasis on Historical and Legal Justifications

A key component of the strategy document is the emphasis on the historical and legal basis for Sabah’s independence. RSNB points to United Nations documents and principles of international law, including self-determination, as foundational to its claim. The organization asserts that Sabah’s original status as a distinct entity under British rule, prior to the formation of Malaysia, supports its bid for autonomy. RSNB has drawn on British colonial records to substantiate the argument that the inclusion of Sabah in Malaysia was not an act of voluntary union but rather a forced integration.

The movement underscores that independence is not merely a political stance but a right deeply rooted in Sabah’s unique history and identity. RSNB’s educational campaigns will highlight these historical issues, aiming to clarify the narrative around MA63 and expose what they perceive as 61 years of “colonial-like control” by the central government in Kuala Lumpur.

Pathway to a Peaceful and Democratic Referendum

While the document does not specify a date, RSNB’s roadmap envisions a democratic referendum on independence within the 10-year timeline. Mosses PA Ampang and his team advocate for a non-violent and democratic process, asserting that self-determination is a right that must be pursued responsibly and peacefully. By preparing the public and building international support, RSNB hopes to lay the groundwork for a smooth transition to independence, should the referendum pass.

The group is keen on avoiding abrupt or disruptive changes, instead emphasizing the need for a stable and sustainable governance model. RSNB’s vision includes establishing local governance structures, economic systems, and a strong civic foundation to support an independent Sabah.

Conclusion of Phase One

Phase One serves as a critical foundation for RSNB’s overall strategy. By prioritizing awareness and identity-building, RSNB seeks to unify the people of Sabah under a shared vision of independence. The success of this phase, according to Mosses PA Ampang, will be pivotal in mobilizing widespread support for the independence movement and creating momentum for future phases of the campaign.

“This journey is about awakening the people of Sabah to their history, their rights, and their future,” Mosses PA Ampang stated. “The ceremonial lowering of the Malaysian flag and the raising of the Sabah and Sarawak flags symbolizes the end of Malayan colonialism. We must unite and stand for our right to be free. Our path is clear, and we will continue this fight until we achieve true independence.”

Looking Forward

The RSNB has set an ambitious timeline, with each phase of its strategy aiming to build on the achievements of the previous steps. If successful, RSNB’s vision will culminate in a peaceful, democratic Sabah Republic, marking the end of what they see as “colonial-like control” by Malaya. For Mosses PA Ampang and his supporters, this is not just a political mission; it is a movement driven by a deep-seated desire for justice, dignity, and sovereignty for the people of Sabah.

The journey may be long, but with this structured roadmap, RSNB hopes to bring Sabah closer to realizing its dream of self-governance and independence.

Tujuan dan Visi Jangka Panjang

Dokumen ini menyatakan matlamat yang jelas: memperoleh kemerdekaan penuh untuk Sabah, bebas daripada apa yang disifatkan sebagai “kawalan kolonial” yang dikenakan oleh Malaya sejak 'pembentukan Malaysia' pada tahun 1963. Menurut RSNB, gerakan ini berakar umbi dalam prinsip penentuan nasib sendiri, keadilan, dan kebebasan. Organisasi ini berhasrat untuk membina perpaduan dalam kalangan rakyat Sabah, mewujudkan sokongan awam yang luas, dan mendapatkan pengiktirafan antarabangsa bagi perjuangannya.

Mosses PA Ampang menekankan bahawa inisiatif ini bukan sekadar gerakan reaktif tetapi satu kempen diplomatik yang dirancang dengan teliti untuk mencapai autonomi. Pelan tindakan ini membayangkan sebuah republik yang berdaya tahan dan inklusif, yang mencerminkan warisan budaya Sabah yang unik serta komposisi etnik yang pelbagai. Matlamat akhir RSNB adalah referendum aman mengenai kemerdekaan, yang dijangka dalam dekad akan datang.

Fasa Pertama: Membangunkan Kesedaran dan Identiti Nasional (2024-2026)

Fasa Pertama strategi RSNB berpusat pada dua objektif utama: meningkatkan kesedaran dan memupuk identiti nasional yang kohesif. Untuk mencapai matlamat ini, RSNB merancang untuk mengadakan siri bengkel, webinar, dan forum awam bagi mendidik kedua-dua khalayak tempatan dan antarabangsa mengenai hak Sabah untuk menentukan nasib sendiri. Acara-acara ini akan menumpukan pada naratif sejarah, preseden undang-undang, dan kegagalan Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63) yang dianggap oleh RSNB sebagai mempunyai kecacatan dan tidak mewakili kepentingan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak secara adil.

RSNB juga bertujuan untuk memperkukuh rasa perpaduan dalam kalangan komuniti etnik Sabah di bawah satu identiti nasional yang digelar “Bangsa Negara Sabah.” Istilah ini melambangkan identiti kolektif rakyat Sabah yang diyakini oleh RSNB dapat merapatkan jurang etnik dan budaya serta mengukuhkan sokongan bagi kemerdekaan.

Penekanan pada Justifikasi Sejarah dan Undang-Undang

Komponen penting dalam dokumen strategi ini ialah penekanan terhadap asas sejarah dan undang-undang bagi kemerdekaan Sabah. RSNB merujuk kepada dokumen-dokumen Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu dan prinsip-prinsip undang-undang antarabangsa, termasuk penentuan nasib sendiri, sebagai asas bagi tuntutannya. Organisasi ini menegaskan bahawa status asal Sabah sebagai entiti yang berasingan di bawah pemerintahan British, sebelum 'pembentukan Malaysia', menyokong usahanya untuk mendapatkan autonomi. RSNB menggunakan rekod-rekod kolonial British untuk menyokong hujah bahawa 'penyertaan' Sabah dalam Malaysia bukanlah satu tindakan penyatuan sukarela, tetapi sebaliknya 'penggabungan' paksa atau dalam erti kata lain, satu penjajahan.

Gerakan ini menegaskan bahawa kemerdekaan bukanlah sekadar pendirian politik tetapi hak yang berakar dalam sejarah dan identiti unik Sabah. Kempen pendidikan RSNB akan mengetengahkan isu-isu sejarah ini, dengan tujuan menjelaskan naratif mengenai MA63 dan mendedahkan apa yang mereka anggap sebagai 61 tahun “kawalan kolonial” oleh kerajaan pusat di Kuala Lumpur.

Laluan ke Arah Referendum Aman dan Demokratik

Walaupun dokumen tersebut tidak menyatakan tarikh tertentu, pelan tindakan RSNB membayangkan satu referendum demokratik mengenai kemerdekaan dalam tempoh 10 tahun. Mosses PA Ampang dan pasukannya memperjuangkan proses yang aman dan demokratik, menegaskan bahawa penentuan nasib sendiri adalah hak yang mesti diperjuangkan dengan bertanggungjawab dan aman. Dengan menyediakan rakyat dan membina sokongan antarabangsa, RSNB berharap dapat menyediakan asas bagi peralihan yang lancar kepada kemerdekaan, jika referendum berjaya.

Kumpulan ini berusaha untuk mengelakkan perubahan yang tergesa-gesa atau mengganggu, sebaliknya menekankan keperluan untuk model pemerintahan yang stabil dan lestari. Visi RSNB termasuk penubuhan struktur pemerintahan tempatan, sistem ekonomi, dan asas kewarganegaraan yang kukuh untuk menyokong Sabah yang merdeka.

Kesimpulan Fasa Pertama

Fasa Pertama merupakan asas kritikal bagi keseluruhan strategi RSNB. Dengan mengutamakan kesedaran dan pembinaan identiti, RSNB berusaha untuk menyatukan rakyat Sabah di bawah visi kemerdekaan yang dikongsi bersama. Kejayaan fasa ini, menurut Mosses PA Ampang, akan menjadi penentu dalam menggerakkan sokongan yang meluas untuk gerakan kemerdekaan dan mencipta momentum untuk fasa-fasa kempen yang seterusnya.

“Perjalanan ini adalah tentang membangkitkan kesedaran rakyat Negara Sabah mengenai sejarah mereka, hak mereka, dan masa depan mereka,” kata Mosses PA Ampang. “Upacara menurunkan bendera Malaysia dan menaikkan bendera Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak melambangkan berakhirnya kolonialisme Malaya. Kita mesti bersatu dan berdiri teguh untuk memperjuangkan hak kita untuk bebas. Jalan kita jelas, dan kita akan terus berjuang sehingga mencapai kemerdekaan sejati.”

Masa Depan Pergerakan

RSNB telah menetapkan garis masa yang bercita-cita tinggi, dengan setiap fasa strateginya bertujuan untuk membina kejayaan daripada langkah sebelumnya. Sekiranya berjaya, visi RSNB akan berakhir dengan penubuhan Republik Sabah yang merdeka secara aman dan demokratik, menandakan berakhirnya apa yang mereka anggap sebagai “kawalan kolonial” oleh Malaya. Bagi Mosses PA Ampang dan penyokongnya, ini bukan sekadar misi politik; ia adalah gerakan yang didorong oleh keinginan mendalam untuk keadilan, maruah, dan kedaulatan bagi rakyat Sabah.

Perjalanan ini mungkin panjang, tetapi dengan pelan tindakan yang teratur ini, RSNB yakin untuk membawa Sabah lebih dekat ke arah merealisasikan impian untuk pemerintahan sendiri dan kemerdekaan.

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

Robert Pei
President  
Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand - SSRANZ 

Mosses PA Ampang
President
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