Hello my Brother Datuk, I respectfully say Sabah and Sarawak never joined Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak also did not form Malaysia.
Sabah and Sarawak together with Singapore were acquired or annexed by Malaya by way of fraud or by a stroke of a pen by having been misled to sign the Malaysia Agreement 1963(MA63).
I agree with many experts that there was a collusion between the United Kingdom with Malaya to make Sabah and Sarawak together with Singapore at that time, to become territories of Malaya.
The Greater Malaya or Malaysia Plan was the most despicable act by the British and Malaya working with hands in gloves to deprive Sabah and Sarawak their rights to seek independence by taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the people of Sabah and Sarawak at that time of their right to seek independence by way of self-determination under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514(UNGAR 1514).
I would humbly say the Cobbold Commission Report was a fraud and was tailored to ensure it could be used as an instrument to draft the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
Members of the Cobbold Commission were from interested parties to see the Malaysia Plan would be realised. None of the members of the Cobbold Commission were from Sabah and Sarawak. How could a voice of just 4000 odd people could represent the people of Borneo Territories of over a million people at that time to say the people of Sabah and Sarawak
agreed to Malaysia?
None of the members of the Cobbold Commission were able to speak any native language and none could understand Sarawak Malay dialect. Who amongst the natives could speak and understand English at that time when called by the Cobbold Commission? If I could read correctly from materials I had, Tunku rubbed his hands on what should be mentioned or written in the Cobbold Commission Report - please see books written by Prof Michael Leigh.
The British government's commissioned study on "The Making of Malaysia by AJ Stockwell" disclosed colonial documents showing that the so-called formation of Malaysia was a pre-determined political arrangement by the UK and Malaya. I humbly repeat it was all in breach of UN laws on the right to self-determination under Resolution 1514 and 1541.
Neither North Borneo nor Sarawak had any role in the "forming of Malaysia" nor was Malaysia formed or created as a new state as claimed!
We should not continue to fool our own people because all of us will be answerable to God later. We should be sad that we have lost our country and we should grief to see our people perished because of ignorance or lack of knowledge. Our people perished because their lives and livelihoods had been affected by neo-colonialism.
The people of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak were not represented by their own elected representatives from the beginning but by the British governor representing the British Crown in negotiating the MA63 terms.
This was because both Sabah and Sarawak were still colonies and non-self-governing territories as defined by UNGAR 1541. They were not represented and participated as states in equal standing with the UK and Malaya in the negotiations.
If so, why is it claimed that Sarawak became independent on 22 July 1963 not 09 July 1963 when MA63 was signed?
Further, if they were independent, then the UK would absolutely have no role to play in the making of Malaysia! Thus for this reason MA63 was null and void ab initio. In the Chagos Islands case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in February 2019 advised that colonies have no legal capacity to make treaties with parent countries.
On its face, MA63 had the legal absurdity of the UK government negotiating with its colonial office to transfer Sabah and Sarawak to Malaya.
What actually happened was that the UK government secretly agreed with Malaya that the Malaysia Plan was to transfer Sabah and Sarawak to Malaya (according to MA63) without giving self-government or independence to the two colonies. This was publicly confirmed by The British Colonial secretary on 31 Aug 1963.
Further, on 16 Sept 1963, Malayan UN representative Dato Ong Yoke Lin stated in a letter to the UN Secretary that no new nation was created, just the renaming of the Malayan federation as Malaysia with the addition of three new territories (under MA63). International legal experts had advised that Malaysia was not formed in accordance with international law. The current political situation is that people are not happy because the consider Sabah and Sarawak are colonies of Malaya or at least been treated as colonies of Malaya. It is a rule of colonialism that colonial masters are entitled to take the resources of their colonies. Therefore, there are increasing numbers of Sabahans and Sarawakians are not happy of the loss of marine wealth, sea territories and oil and gas resources taken by or to develop Malaya
Even if MA63 was valid at the time it was signed, we all know that fundamental breaches of the Treaty had caused the Treaty itself to collapse. Furthermore, when Singapore exited from the federation, the Treaty itself collapsed.
I also wish to respectfully say what the statement "form Malaysia" implies, was that this was a mutual and voluntary association.
However, I respectfully say this was far from the truth, as MA63 was signed under coercive emergency conditions with ongoing fighting against nationalist forces.
This meant the conditions were not such that the people were free to agree or disagree with MA63. In fact, thousands of people were arrested in Sarawak and detained for allegedly opposing Malaysia. They have a legal right to defend their lives.
I wish to say that under international law, it is legitimate to fight back when the people are denied real independence. It is also part of the international law that citizens of a country is entitled to defend their country against foreign aggressions and interference in the internal affairs of their country.
The British-Malayan Malaysia Plan constituted an outside interference with their inalienable right to freely decide their future. The British in reality assisted the Malayans to occupy or invade Sabah and Sarawak.
A treaty made under such conditions and without even a referendum cannot be said to be valid.
The public especially DUN Members should educate themselves on the incontrovertible historic factors.
Yours sincerely and respectfully,
Voon Lee Shan
29 April 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment