A letter to British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson from Robert Pei

P.O. Box 132 Post Office, South Melbourne Vic, 3205

25 February 2020

The Rt. Honourable Boris Johnson

Prime Minister

Office of the Prime Minister

10 Downing Street

London SW1A2AA  UNITED KINGDOM

boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Prime Minister

INDEPENDENCE FOR FORMER BRITISH COLONIES OF SABAH & SARAWAK

We, the undersigned persons, are representatives of NGOs and political parties and individuals from Sabah and Sarawak, who are concerned with the denial of the right to self-determination to the people of the former British Borneo colonies of Sabah (formerly British North Borneo) and Sarawak after they were annexed by the Federation of Malaya on 16 September 1963 under emergency conditions.

We congratulate you and the people of the United Kingdom on successfully regaining your independence with Brexit from the European Union on 31st January 2020.  With Brexit the British people have “taken back control” of their sovereignty, finances, economy, borders and

security and taxes. They have set an important example for other people to follow.

It is also the wish of the Borneo people of Sabah & Sarawak of all races and beliefs to exit and achieve independence from Malaysia and to take back control of their sovereignty and territories, affairs, economies and destinies as free people.  They look to the British Government to assist them in their quest for independence as it was responsible for “handing over” their countries to the Federation of Malaya under the Malaysia federation plan.

Malaysia was not “a spontaneous and natural association of peoples”

as it was unlawfully set up & ruled under emergency law for almost 50 years pursuant to the null and void Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

It was an exercise of the will of the colonial master not the colonised.  It

is therefore not a legitimate union.

        The people were wrongfully subjugated to 5 decades of disastrous

foreign rule which impeded their advancement as nations when many other nations have become free and independent from foreign domination since the 1960 United Nations decolonization declaration.

From the date of Malayan takeover of the colonies till today there has not been one compelling reason whether social, economic, political or legal justification for Sabah and Sarawak to be in the  federation.  MA63 (if valid) has been long since been terminated by Malaya’s multiple willful breaches of the federation’s 1963 founding principles.

The pretence of upholding MA63 is the only basis to continue the federation.

1  Sir, in view of the past 56 years’ damning evidence of re-colonization

in a false federation and its rapid degeneration into a dysfunctional

corrupt apartheid state, this matter cannot now be simply dismissed 

as being no longer the United Kingdom’s responsibility or in its

jurisdiction or that it is an internal affair of Malaysia.

   The UK Government intended to be bound by MA63 by registering it

   as a treaty with the United Nations in 1970 and therefore placed the

   agreement under UN jurisdiction and is governed by international law.

   The United Kingdom’s continuing responsibility towards Sabah and   

   Sarawak was acknowledged by the Colonial Secretary Duncan  

   Sandys in September 1963 in a telegram to Sir Geofroy Tory (British

   High Commissioner to Malaysia 1963) in relation to Sarawak and

   North Borneo (quote) :  “Having transferred sovereignty to Malaysia,

   subject to the conditions contained in the London

   Agreement, any breach of those conditions would constitute a breach

   of an agreement concluded with the British Government, who would

   have a continuing interest in this matter”.

   Sir, we are legally advised that the British Malayan federation plan to    

   form Malaysia had breached the United Kingdom’s international legal

   duty to unconditionally de-colonize Sabah and Sarawak for

   independence under UN Resolution 1514.  This was done in a manner   

   inconsistent with their people’s right to self-determination and the free

   and genuine expression of their will in choosing between federation

   and independence (under UN GAR 1541) and that the Malaysia

   Agreement 1963 was void ab initio and not binding.            

The British and Malayan governments had colluded to breach

Resolution 1514 by unlawfully interfering with the independence process of the two colonies and subjected the population to “sustained pressure” to give up independence and accept the Malaysia federation proposal.

       The proposed federation was announced on 27 May 1961 after secret talks by the 2 governments.  This collusion was documented by the secret Anglo-Malayan “Agreement to set up the Federation of Malaysia ” signed on 31 July 1962 and the declassified British colonial documents.  No referendum was conducted in the 2 colonies to measure objectively the wishes and inclinations of the people on the issue of the “Malaysia” federation plan. They took advantage of and manipulated the political immaturity of the people to sway them to support their new colonization plan with “assurances andsafeguards” given as “guarantees” for “self-government, security, development and progress” in breach of the requirements of UN Resolution 1541 that the people freely decide on the federation.

        The British government's “Malaysia Plan” had nothing to do with North Borneo or Sarawak independence. It was part of the UK’s post WW2 Grand Design to create “ Pax Malaysia” a branch of Pax Britannica, driven by Cold War considerations to consolidate its South East Asian colonialstrategic interests especially the control and exploitation of petroleum resources.    

        When this plan was first discussed in 1942 the proposal to include Sarawak in a union with Malaya was rejected by the then independent Sarawak Government.   After the war,  the British Government proceeded with its plan by establishing the Malayan Union in 1946.  At the same time, Britain annexed the 2 colonies with promises of independence and a specific undertaking not to include Sarawak in the Malayan Union. The annexation was most strongly opposed by Sarawakians till 1950.

The annexation was against Britain’s stand as an exponent of self-determination enshrined in the wartime Atlantic Declaration of 1939-1945, the precursor to the United Nations and UN Human Rights Charter.  In the joint declaration with the USA, both nations agreed not to seek territorial gains from the war, and they opposed any territorial changes made against the wishes of the people concerned. The two countries also agreed to support the restoration of self-government to those nations who had lost it during the war.      

2.  However, following the 1960 UN decolonization declaration, the UK

     revived the federation idea as its “de-colonization plan” and pushed it

     through despite the Borneo people’s opposition.  Thus real

     independence for the Borneo territories became a casualty of

     this Grand Design transformed into a neo-colonial scheme to cede   

     the 2 colonies in the care of an accommodating ally Malaya. For this

     reason the creation of Malaysia was unlawful as it breached the UN

     GAR 1514 requirement to unconditionally de-colonize the colonies

     for independence.  The whole process was stage-managed by

     the UK government.

     The late Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman (“the Tunku”)

     frankly described the denial of independence:  “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”.

     (Extractfrom Abdullah Ahmad’s book published in 2016,

     Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman.)

The hand over of North Borneo and Sarawak was formally sealed by

 the secret 1962 Anglo-Malayan “Agreement to set up the Federation  

 of Malaysia”. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 initiated by Britain was

 concluded  against the background of a state of emergency following

 the Brunei Uprising against Malaysia on 8 December 1962 and the

 mass arrests and detentions without trial of many anti-Malaysia

 opponents in Sarawak, often labelled as “communists’ and thereby    

 denied their right to demand independence.

This repressive situation continued after the British "relinquishment"  

and "vesting" of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Borneo colonies  

to Malaya in 1963. One-party Malayan rule  was harshly

maintained under emergency laws from 1963 to the date these were   

(including the Internal Security Act 1963) lifted in 2011. 

During this period any opposition to or questioning of Malayan

breaches of Sabah Sarawak MA63 rights and powers was ruthlessly

dealt with as seen in the detention without trial of many people from

1963 including Sabah politician Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan in 1990. This

situation allowed the federal government to imposed centralised   (4)

control of the Borneo states through its total domination of the alliance of political parties in power.  This left little room for real democracy, self-rule and autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak.  Malaysia lost its meaning.

Furthermore, we are advised that MA63 was invalid from the beginning as the UK and Malayan Governments had in bad faith made a

multilateral treaty with North Borneo and Sarawak knowing that colonies were not sovereign with capacity to make binding international

agreements according to international law.  It is not surprising that

neither the UK Malaysia Act 1963 nor the Malaysian Federal Constitution recognizes MA63 by citing it as the founding document for Malaysia.  The federation was therefore no more than a de facto and illegal union accomplished by addition of the 2 colonies with Singapore as new states of Malaya.

The transfer was effected in a hasty and improper manner as Mr. Fenner Brockway MP, pointed out in the House of Commons Malaysia Bill Debate on 19 July 1963, when he said that: “ this Bill should be taken on a Friday and that all its stages should, in the intention of the Government, be completed today.  Whatever our views may be about Malaysia,  I do not think that anyone can doubt that this is of momentous consequence ..... I do not think that it is any credit upon the Government or upon this Parliament that we should be carrying through the Bill in all its stages in one day—and on a day when so many non- Members are in their constituencies ....”

On the Manila Accord 1963 condition for a referendum

Fenner Brockway said: “ I understand that U Thant has been sounded about this, and has said that it would take him about four months to carry out a plebiscite to obtain the views of the peoples, and yet here we are proposing to set up Malaysia within a little more than a month from now.”

The momentous consequence of the hasty British decision has been far reaching and deeply damaging to the Sabah and Sarawak people and economy in “Malaysia”. The people have been subjected to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation effected under the reign of repressive

emergency law for almost 5 decades (from 1963 until repealed in 2011). The legitimacy of the federation is in question when it has to be ruled with emergency powers and laws for such a long period that it constitutes a gross breach of the people’s human rights under the UN Charter.     

The Malaysian Federal Government’s multiple wilful breaches of MA63 perpetrated during the emergency rule have altered the original promoted concept of a democratic and secular multi-cultural federation and objectives of the Agreement and effectively terminated the international agreement (if valid).

This is seen in the violation of the MA63 objectives and spirit

by turning the federation into a centralised unitary state coupled with enforcement of the Malayan plan to colonize Sarawak and Sabah with “Malayanization”.

The Malayanization of Sabah and Sarawak was made possible with Singapore’ exit from the federation in 1965.   A decisive factor in overcoming the Borneo people’s fear of Malayan domination or Malayanization and persuading the Borneo colonies to accept federation, was the agreement to

allocate 38.4% of federal parliamentary seats to Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. This arrangement was intended to deny a 2/3 majority to the Malayan states by forming a bloc vote of the 3 new states against any constitutional amendment affecting their rights and powers. On Singapore’s exit Malaya breached the MA63 entrenched safeguard by taking the Singapore seats instead of allocating them to the Borneo states in line with the agreed MA63 condition.  This removed the Borneo states’ ability to

block any federal constitutional amendments affecting them.

        Singapore’s 1965 exit from the federation arose from irreconcilable differences with the then UMNO ruling party over the secular and multicultural nature of Malaysia seen in its refusal to accept Singapore’s demands for a “Malaysian Malaysia” and issues of federal-state MA63 federation rights and powers. It was also resistance to similar issues over “Malayanization” which led to the illegal sacking of Sarawak Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan in 1965 and resignation of Sabah Chief

Minister Donald Stephens.

In fact many of the fundamental 1960s federation issues and grievances are being raised again by the 2 current Borneo state governments.  Before and after the 2018 General elections, both state governments had initiated talks with the federal government to restore and implement MA63 rights and powers it had taken away over 50 years.  This raises the question as to whether there was any consensus on the terms and conditions for federation in 1963 when these are still being “negotiated” in the year 2020?

However, after 5 years of “negotiations” on a signed and sealed treaty hardly any satisfactory resolution has been reached.                            

“The fact that Sarawak and Sabah’s MA63 rights and powers have to be “negotiated” again after 56 years in the union and that there is a Steering Committee to look into the breaches and restoration of rights and the status of Sarawak as an equal partner in the federation, is itself an admission by the federal government that the formation of Malaysia was tainted by violations and non-compliance and indeed as we will assert herein, MA63 was not validly made in good faith in accordance with international law and therefore it is an illegal union.

” (observation made in a letter to the UK Government by the President of Sarawak Parti Bumi Kenyalang 19 Dec 2019).  The implementation of “Malayanization” instead of “Borneonization” (self-rule and autonomy) to impose direct control of the people and economy was against the UK’s declared intention to “de-colonize” Sabah and Sarawak with “independence in Malaysia”.  They experienced the systematic abrogation of “guaranteed”  MA63 rights and powers and loss of social economic and political rights and freedoms which the people had feared might happen.  

b)  The second occasion of denial was when the UK agreed to the Manila

     Accord condition for a UN assessment of the people’s wishes on Malaysia    

     instead of a referendum.

    

The Manila Accord 1963 (signed on 31 July 1963 by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines, 22 days after MA63) was to ensure that the Borneo people were able to exercise their right to self-determination in a free and genuine expression of their will by choosing between federation and independence in accordance with UN GAR 1514 and 1541.

        The British and Malayan Governments’ agreement to the Accord conditions was an acknowledgement that MA63 had not complied with the said UN resolutions.

The UK Colonial Secretary Duncan Sandys in a memo to the Tunku on 2 August 1963, said “I was glad to learn from the report which you asked our Chargé d’Affaires to send us this morning that you are standing firm against Indonesian pressure for a pre-Malaysia plebiscite If Malaysia Day were postponed for the sake of a plebiscite, it would create doubts and uncertainty throughout the area and would encourage everyone to have second thoughts

.”

He had also dismissed the proposed UN assessment:

“As you know, we are much concerned about the possible effects of postponing Malaysia. If you feel it necessary to agree to a representative of the United Nations Secretary-General visiting North Borneo and Sarawak before 31^st August, we would concur even though you and we would naturally not regard any such perfunctory assessment of opinion as more reliable than the clear results of the recent elections in both territories.”

The elections mentioned by Duncan Sandys were “local council” elections staged in Sabah and Sarawak from April to June 1963 under the “indirect three-tiered” electoral system the British government had set up.  However, it chose not to utilise the existing electoral mechanism to assist the UN to hold a “one man one vote” referendum on the Malaysia Question fearing this might not produce the desired result.

The Tunku had in talks with Indonesia and the Philippines leading to the Accord signing, apparently agreed to a referendum but later adamantly denied this and openly opposed any referendum. The British and Malayan governments then improperly diverted the intention of the accord for a “pre-Malaysia plebiscite” into an assessment.

The British Government after learning that the UN favoured the British plan, agreed to a UN “assessment” as a “fresh approach”. It rejected a referendum with the reason that the UN advice that it would take 4 months to organise a referendum did not fit in with the agreed MA63 Malaysia Day dateline. Thus people were again denied the right to make a free choice on the Malaysia Question in a referendum and their destiny was subject to compliance with a dateline for the convenience of the instigators of the Malaysia Plan.

The UN Assessment was itself compromised and unsound from the beginning as there was evidence of collusion by UN officials to ensure that the result would favour the British view.

Before the UN assessment team was selected, Duncan Sandys sent a telegram from New York on 9^th August 1963 to inform the Foreign office in London, that they were advised the UN team would be “handpicked to produce the right results from our point of view”.

The British and Malayan governments then most improperly pre-empted the UN assessment by amending the Malaysia Day declaration date on 31 August 1963 to 16 September 1963, instead of waiting for the 2 UN Teams to complete their work before setting the new date and thus treated the UN Mission as irrelevant.                                                                

This act appears to confirm the Sandys telegram of a pre-determined outcome for the assessment.

The UN Mission further compromised its mission objectivity, credibility and independence by not objecting to the pre-empting of its assessment but acquiesced to complying with the time restriction.

The UN Mission completed its “assessment” in under 3 weeks (basing its conclusions on the unsafe Cobbold Report) which Indonesia had discredited as no more than a “cursory” opinion poll.  Indeed, an event of such “momentous consequence” was dealt with in a perfunctory and arbitrary manner without adequate, proper and careful appraisal of the people’s wishes as could only be done by a referendum not a staged assessment.

c)  Brunei was free to choose not to be in the federation.  Further, the Brunei

     people had elected the Brunei People’s Party in a landslide victory in the

     1962 general elections on its platform for independence and rejection of

     the Malaysia Plan. The Party was later provoked by the British Special

     Branch to launch the anti-Malaysia uprising in December 1962 after it was

     blocked from forming the new government.

d)  The British Government did not object to Singapore holding a referendum

     on Malaysia which its Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had called a “Hobson’s

     Choice” as there was no option to reject merger with Malaya. This

     freedom was denied Sabah and Sarawak which were pressured to accept

     the federation plan. It begs the question as to why the UK Government

     had denied a referendum for Sabah and Sarawak when it held

     independence referendums in its other colonies before and after 1963.

Therefore, contrary to conventional narratives, the federation was not freely and peacefully created with popular consent.  “Malaysia” was declared on 16 September 1963 under emergency conditions with ongoing armed conflict following the Brunei Uprising against Malaysia.  The uprising gave the

reason to unleash the mass arrest of anti-Malaysia nationalists in Sarawak creating an environment of fear and insecurity which was used as anti-nationalist propaganda to swing public opinion to support Malaysia. The Philippines Claim has been left unresolved to this day. The declaration was opposed by Indonesia and the Philippines on the ground that Malaya had breached the Manila Accord and they refused to recognize Malaysia. It led to an escalation of Konfrontasi. British and Common-wealth armed forces fought in Borneo till 1970 to secure Northern Borneo for Pax Malaysia.

The fact remains that the people were prevented from freely deciding on the federation question in a referendum. There was no popular consent. 

3.

ILLEGAL OBJECT:

That the real objective of the transfer was itself illegal under international law as it was for a strategic purpose to preserve and defend British interest in Pax Malaysia as elaborated further above and not to free the colonies for independence under UN GAR 1514.

        The declassified colonial documents reveal that the strategic plan was mooted long before WW2.  “The idea of Malaysia has in fact been discussed in the territories in an informal way for a longer period, but when it was proposed two years ago the motive for it was strategic.”  (Fenner Brockway in the Commons’ Malaysia Bill Debate 19/07/63).

4.

NON COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAW PRINCIPLES ON

TREATY MAKING MA63 was made in violation of a number of other international conventions on treaty making which included not making MA63 in good faith, the UK government’s breach of its public solemn undertaking not to include Sarawak in the Malayan Union and restore its independence, and applying undue pressure and coercion on the people to accept the

absorption of Sabah and Sarawak into the Malayan Federation and the fact that MA63 was made under emergency conditions with ongoing armed conflict following the Brunei Uprising against Malaysia on 08 December 1962.

5.

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION OF THE MALAYSIA CONCEPT IN

MANY AREAS:

The 1961 announced federation structure based on the concept of 5 countries composing the Federation of Malaysia was changed twice. The composition was downsized to 4 countries in 1963 because Brunei refused to sign MA63 and finally reduced to 3 countries by Singapore Exit in 1965. The proposed plan became a misrepresentation as the change in composition was not re-appraised or re-negotiated as to the impact on the terms agreed on and fresh terms drawn up.

The Borneo people had feared that the Malaysia plan was to recolonise them and they would be dominated by the Malayans. A decisive factor in persuading the 2 colonies to give up independence and accept federation was the agreement to deny Malaya the ability to amend the federal constitution with a two-third majority.  This was done by allocating the 3 new states 38.4% of parliamentary seats which allowed them to block

any constitutional amendments affecting their rights and powers.   (10)

Lord Lansdowne explained this in the Malaysia Bill Debate in the House of Lords on 26/07/1963 "

The Malayan gesture of goodwill in agreeing that the Borneo States with a population of 1¼ million out of a total of 10 million should have 40 out of 159 seats in the Federal Parliament, was a decisive factor in convincing the Borneo leaders that there was here no question of a takeover bid, but a genuine offer of real partnership."

This seat allocation was duly incorporated in the Federal Constitution.

On Singapore exit, the Federal Government purposefully breached MA63 by takingaway Singapore’s 15 parliamentary seats instead of distributing them to the 2 states, denying them the block vote. Thus from 1965, the federal government was able to progressively take away Sabah and Sarawak’s entrenched MA63 rights and powers.

If MA63 was valid it would have been terminated by Singapore Exit as Singapore merger with Malaya underpinned the British post war strategic plan for consolidation of its South-east Asian interests and propelled the hasty establishment of the federation. The Malayan government was more interested to takeover Sabah and Sarawak because of the prospect of enlarging its territories and exploitation of their rich petroleum resources.

“Malaysia” was promoted as the creation of a new nation but reported to the UN as the addition of 3 new states with the name of Malaya changed to “Malaysia” to avoid the need to apply for admission as a new member because of opposition by UN members.

“Decolonisation” became “re-colonization” in Malaysia and the “federation” became a “unitary state”, “secular democracy” was converted to a race religion apartheid states” and “self-rule and autonomy” became subjugation and domination. These were the fears the Borneo people had of the Malaysia federation proposal.

False agreement to maintain a democratic secular multi-cultural system which has now been replaced with an authoritarian one party race religion apartheid and anti-human rights system. Official support of discriminatory practices against minority communities has dangerously poisoned and polarised race relations in Peninsula Malaysia.

Misleading the colonies on equal partnership and state autonomy with special rights and Borneonization and replaced with Malayanization.     

Promoting a deceptive and self-contradicting “independence in Malaysia” concept as de-colonization but reducing the 2 states to vassals and exposing the federation as a neo-colonial scheme.

Both the prime federation object of the UK & Malaya was “strategic” and not to deliver “security, development and progress” to the colonies as stated. The stated principal objective to develop Sabah and Sarawak in the federation became the development of Malayan states at the expense of the Borneo states’ social and economic advancement by depletion of their rich natural resource.

It was never agreed in MA63 that Malaya could take over Sabah Sarawak resources as done with illegal backdoor constitutional amendments by the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and Petroleum Development Act 1974 and related legislation.

The MA63 terms entrenched in the Federal Constitutions have largely been breached, such as failure to return 40% of the annual state revenue to Sabah since 1963 and the illegal federal seizure of Sabah Sarawak oil & gas resources were never MA63 terms.

The Honourable Prime Minister will recall that he has also acknowledged the UK’s role to uphold its treaty responsibilities when he said in 2019 that he fully backed the Hong Kong democracy protesters demands made pursuant to the 1984 Anglo-Sino treaty on the return of Hong Kong to China.

This treaty responsibility has been similarly acknowledged by the current UK Foreign Secretary Mr. Dominic Raab and former Foreign Secretaries including Mr. Jeremy Hunt on 02/07/2019, who said in context of the Hong Kong mass demonstrations which received wide media coverage:

"The UK signed an internationally binding legal agreement in 1984 that enshrines the 'one country, two systems rule', enshrines the basic freedoms of the people of Hong Kong and we stand four square behind that agreement, four square behind the people of Hong Kong...There will be serious consequences if that internationally binding legal agreement were not to be honoured."

The United Kingdom has chosen (via a referendum) to freely exit from the European Union after 47 years as there is no immutable rule of international law that states that federation with another state is to be permanent and unbreakable.  In 1965 Singapore also freely exited the Malaysian federation and have been able to stand alone and prosper with little resources and becoming a well managed independent state.

The people of Sabah and Sarawak also wish to exercise their right to self-determination by exiting Malaysia and take control of their affairs and resources and have every right to peacefully bring this about.

Indeed in 1963 Lord Lansdowne Chairman of the MA63 Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) in response to demands for an exit clause stated that “any state voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will,” and therefore there was no need to include an exit clause in the Federal Constitution.

The Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr. Mohamad Mahathir publicly acknowledged that Sabah and Sarawak have the right to independence and said that there is no provision in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 that they cannot exit the federation. 

Reported by the Free Malaysia Today newspaper on 29 Sept 2018.

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/09/29/pm-sabah-and-sarawak-want-autonomy-not-independence/

However, as there was no free and genuine expression of the will of the people on the federation proposal it was in reality just the re-colonization of Sabah and Sarawak, the UK is all the more compelled by the circumstances to correct the wrongs unjustly inflicted on its people and do its utmost to see that they achieve real independence.  The fundamental terms of MA63 if intended to be binding, have all been virtually broken and there is no reason to keep the Borneo states falsely locked in a failed federation.

We believe that the United Kingdom’s transfer of Sabah and Sarawak to Malaya in 1963 was unlawful as it was done in breach of UN GAR 1514 and 1541 pursuant to an invalid MA63 and breach of Manila Accord 1963 conditions.  The resolution of the the Philippines’ Sabah Claim which

was a condition of the Manila Accord 1963 for Malaysia formation remains uncompleted and affects the legitimacy of the federation.

As long as Malaysia exists as a de facto federation, the UK is

morally and politically bound to assist Sabah and Sarawak to gain independence.

We therefore call on the British Government to initiate talks with the Malaysian government and the United Nations to start the process of  (13)  decolonization and enabling both Sabah and Sarawak to gain full independence from the Federation of Malaysia as soon as possible.  In doing so, the UK government will in a manner of speaking, finally keep its 1946 annexation promise to Sabah and Sarawak to give them independence.

We will also be publishing this letter in public and providing copies for the information of the United Nations and the governments listed below.

We look forward to your reply.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully

Robert Pei,

SSRANZ President

Dominique Ng

President: Sarawak Association for People’s Aspiration

Voon Lee Shan

President: Parti Bumi Kenyalang (Sarawak)

Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan

President: SABAH STAR PARTY

Daniel John Jambun

President: Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation.

Amde Sidik -

PIPPA Progressive Institute of Public Policy Analysis

Peter John Jaban

President: DRAF : Dayak Rights Action Force, DRAF : Dayak Ritual Awareness

Fellowship

Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak

William Mangor

Secretary : Terabai Kenyalang Heritage Association of Sarawak (TKHAS)

Bobby Anak William

President of Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak Baru (PBDSB)

Hadi Suboh

Chairman of the Persatuan Pewaris Kedayan Jati Mierek Padang Kerbau Daerah Miri.                                                                                   (14)

Munan Laja

President of Sarawak Workers Party.

Sarawak for Sarawakians Referendum movement

Andrew Ambrose Atama

Representative at the United Nations

Dayak International Organisation, 8th West 126th St, 3rd Flr, New York, NY 10027

Abdul Karim Abdul Rahman

SAS- Solidarity Anak Sarawak, PMS- Persatuan Malayu Sarawak

Felsie Joe Pillin Mosuyun

President of United Varsity Students of Borneo (UVSB)

Dr Bego Sepop

Rumpun Bangsa Dayak (RBD) Sarawak NGO

Patrick Anek

- Lawyer, former MP, retired

Emily E. Edward

President: Sabah Sarawak Borneo Natives Organisation Inc Australia

Mosses P. Anap

Sabah Nationalist

cc. The UN Secretary General & The Committee of 24

cc. The EU Secretariat

cc. The Sabah Government

cc. The Sarawak Government

cc. The Malaysian Government

cc. The Philippines Government

cc. The Indonesian Government

cc. The USA Government

cc. The Russian Government

cc. The Chinese Government

cc. The Australian Government

cc. The New Zealand Government