Is the Cobbold Commission report legitimate?

 

Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB

Is the Cobbold Commission report legitimate?

 THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COBBOLD COMMISSION HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MUCH DEBATE, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF WHETHER IT TRULY REPRESENTED THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF SABAH AND SARAWAK IN THE FORMATION OF MALAYSIA.

 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 CompositionThe 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 InterestsThe 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

©2024 Blogger - Privacy policy