When we look back at the formation of Malaysia in 1963, the dominant narrative suggests that the union between Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore was a legitimate act of self-determination. But a deeper analysis reveals a disturbing truth: the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) lacked democratic legitimacy, violated international law, and was based on manipulated assessments — not genuine consent.
At the heart of this flawed process was the Cobbold
Commission, which, contrary to popular belief, was not a referendum
and cannot be used as evidence of democratic will.
Cobbold Commission Was An Assessment, Not a Referendum
Many Malaysians have been misled to believe that the Cobbold
Commission represented the democratic voice of the people of North Borneo and
Sarawak. This is entirely false.
The Cobbold Commission was not a referendum. It was a
British-appointed fact-finding mission, tasked to assess public
opinion about the proposed Federation of Malaysia. Its role was advisory,
not legally binding.
- No
ballots were cast.
- No
secret votes were taken.
- No
universal adult suffrage was applied.
- No
international observers were present.
- The
findings had no legal weight under international law.
Instead, the Commission selected only 4,000 individuals
to represent the views of more than one million inhabitants in both
territories. These individuals were not randomly chosen nor proportionally
representative — many were handpicked community leaders, local elites, and
pro-Malaysia voices.
This so-called assessment — based on interviews and
memorandums — cannot and must not be mistaken as a referendum, which
under international law requires free and fair voting by the people to
determine their political future. The United Nations Charter, General
Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), and numerous ICJ advisory opinions
all confirm that genuine decolonization requires a direct expression of the
will of the people through referendum or similar democratic process. That
standard was never met in Sabah and Sarawak.
Statistical Breakdown and The Numbers Don't Lie
Of the 4,000 individuals assessed by the Cobbold Commission:
- 1/3
supported Malaysia, but many of them did so without truly
understanding what "Malaysia" was.
- 1/3
supported the proposal conditionally — subject to safeguards and
assurances.
- 1/3
rejected the proposal outright.
That means only about 1,333 individuals supported
Malaysia without conditions — a mere 0.13% of the 1 million people in
Sabah and Sarawak.
By contrast, historical records show that over 100,000
people from these territories — at least 10% of the total population — actively
opposed Malaysia's formation through petitions, letters, and organized
resistance. These voices were ignored, dismissed, or omitted from official
reports.
Void from the Start: A Legal Analysis of MA63
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was signed by:
- The
United Kingdom (on behalf of its colonies),
- The
Federation of Malaya,
- and
the non-sovereign territories of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore,
whose representatives had no independent treaty-making capacity.
This is a fatal flaw under international treaty law.
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(1969), a treaty is only valid between sovereign entities with
lawful authority. Neither North Borneo nor Sarawak were sovereign states at the
time. They were still classified as non-self-governing colonies under
the supervision of the United Nations Decolonization Committee (Committee of
24).
Therefore, any agreement signed on their behalf without
first granting full independence was inherently invalid. A colony cannot
consent to give away its sovereignty — especially when its people were never
given a referendum to decide.
Colonial Rebranding Malaysia as a Political Shortcut
The creation of Malaysia was not an act of
self-determination — it was a political shortcut engineered by Britain
and Malaya. With the winds of decolonization blowing after World War II,
Britain sought to consolidate its strategic interests in Southeast Asia by
merging its Borneo colonies with the already-independent Malaya.
The Cobbold Commission served as a rubber stamp,
giving a thin veil of legitimacy to what was essentially a colonial handover
dressed up as federation.
By bypassing the referendum process, by silencing mass
opposition, and by using a manipulated advisory report as a foundation,
Malaysia was formed without lawful democratic consent — rendering the
MA63 a null and void agreement.
A Pattern of Suppression
Today, those who dare to speak the truth about this
deception face intimidation and criminal charges. The recent case of Mosses
P.A. Ampang, charged under the Sedition Act 1948 merely for lowering
the Malaysian flag and raising the Sabah national flag as a symbolic act of
reclaiming sovereignty, proves that Malaysia continues to use oppressive
laws to silence dissent.
If MA63 were truly valid, there would be no need to arrest,
threaten, or silence those who challenge it. The facts would speak for
themselves. But the foundation of Malaysia cannot withstand scrutiny —
and that’s why it must be defended with force instead of law.
Reclaiming What Was Never Freely Given
Sabah and Sarawak were never truly part of Malaysia through
free will. They were annexed by manipulation, and the Cobbold Commission
— far from proving consent — actually reveals how little support there was for
the federation.
We must correct the historical lie, restore the
dignity of our people, and reclaim the sovereignty that was never lawfully
surrendered.
Post a Comment