SSRANZ 关于砂拉越和沙巴权利的新闻声明（2022 年 12 月 22 日发布）
SSRANZ 呼吁 PM ANWAR IBRAHIM首相安华 审查 砂拉越沙巴 在马来西亚的地位，这类似于巴勒斯坦问题。
Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) 是一家总部设在澳大利亚的国际非政府组织，于2022年12月20日它评论了首相安华在 2018 年 12 月 10 日的新闻发布会上关于马来西亚承诺并声援巴勒斯坦人民“为使巴勒斯坦摆脱犹太复国主义以色列的控制而进行的斗争”的声明。
SSRANZ 总裁Robert Pei 罗伯特（貝瑞华）表示，巴勒斯坦问题已被各种政客用作政治民粹主义的陈词滥调。
但众所周知，新任首相长期以来真诚支持承认巴勒斯坦为自由独立国家，其坚定不移的反帝反殖民立场必须得到尊重。
他说：“最近一段时间，我们目睹了帕劳、东帝汶、黑山、塞尔维亚和南苏丹等许多历史遗留的殖民地成为独立国家。其他苏格兰、加泰罗尼亚、巴勒斯坦和布甘维利亚等国家也在寻求独立，它们都走自己的道路寻求自决权。所有这些例子都肯定了自由选择个人命运的普遍合法权利的原则。”
他说，在1948 年，英国政府通过犹太复国主义接管、占领和夺取巴勒斯坦领土共谋建立以色列以致其被剥夺了独立和背叛。这就导致了 66 年的巴勒斯坦还在抵抗。
以他在巴勒斯坦问题上的开明观点，首相也应该看到与英国政府在1963年非法将马来西亚联邦计划强加于沙巴（当时称为北婆罗洲）和砂拉越的相似之处，而不是给予他们独立。
SSRANZ 主席说：“这是关于沙巴和砂拉越不完全去殖民化和独立的主题，我想提示敬请你们注意，并呼吁你们的政府寻求与婆罗洲各州政府、婆罗洲民族主义者和感兴趣的政治人物进行对话致使各方争取和平顺利地移交权力和移交主权給回沙巴和砂拉越。”
SSRANZ 坚持认为，根据 MA63 成立马来西亚的过程存在法律缺陷和违法行为，违反了国际法，这使得该条约不具有法律约束力。马来西亚不是一个合法组成的联邦，因为 MA63 条约从一开始就因缺乏法定資格、同意和成立的合法对象而无效（试图否认
沙巴和砂拉越实现独立大设计）。
首相也可能知道，在 1946 年，也就是外国接管巴勒斯坦的两年前，英国政府以站不住脚的理由，吞并了独立的砂捞越和北婆罗洲特许公司管理的沙巴领土，作为英国皇家殖民地。当时，英国人郑重承诺，这两个殖民地最终都会获得独立。
然而，英国殖民主义者违背了其屢屢承诺，卻依据无效的1963年馬來西亞協议(MA63)将两个殖民地的主权和殖民控制权转移给了马来亚而成立马来西亚联邦，实施了所谓的去殖民化。马来西亚是在强制性紧急情况下所建立的，没有举行全民公决卻镇压 1962 年汶莱反马来西亚武装起义，也任意逮捕和非法拘留数千名“涉嫌”反对英国-马來亞之马来西亚计划的人士。
英国政府称这是通过“马来西亚之內独立”实现的“去殖民化”。这只是重新殖民的委婉说法，其并无真正改变其地位。任何一个国家在另一个国家内“独立”，在法律上都是荒谬的，也是不可能的。
这两个婆罗洲领土只是英国大设计和冷战地缘政治的牺牲品，他们通过将它们与马来亚和新加坡合并为一个联邦来重新绘制地图的战略。
根据前砂拉越总督安东尼·阿贝尔爵士的说法； 这是马来亚精英们共同的设计, 他们的目光投向了北婆罗洲和砂拉越的广阔领土及其石油。
他提请首相注意 MA63 作为一项国际条约之有效性的法律问题，该条约目前正在 婆罗洲高等法院受到质疑。
当英国和马来亚于 1963 年 7 月 9 日与沙巴砂拉越和新加坡签署 MA63 时，这 3 个领土仍然是英国皇家殖民地（直到 1963 年 9 月 16 日），而不是主权国家具有法定資格制定有约束力的国际条约。国际法院 (ICJ) 在 2019 年的查戈斯案中确认了这一国际法原则，该案得出的结论是，英国政府无法与其 1965 年完全控制的殖民地毛里求斯制定具有约束力的国际协议。（国际法院还重申自决权是现在国际法的一部分）。
事實上法定资格和同意之问题与沙巴和砂拉越都没有直接选举代表或通过公民投票民主授权的代表参于MA63谈判。这实际上是由他们各自的英国总督代表他们谈判的。在同意并起草条款后，婆罗洲人表面上参与其中。
有关马来西亚成立的解密殖民文件披露，英国政府已在法律角度上被告知这一缺陷，但出于“表象目的”，其继续向婆罗洲人民谎称他们在国际层面上是平等伙伴，有权签署 MA63 条约。当时的殖民地总检察长也分别代表沙巴和砂拉越签署了MA63。不符合与当时的英国和马来亚政府声称马来西亚是一个自愿协会或联盟，因為連公投通过准确衡量人民自由选择马来西亚或独立的意愿也从未举行过。因此缺乏征求人民的同意之 MA63 也使该条约无效。
如果马来西亚是一个自愿联盟，那么正如 1963 年 IGC 跨政府委員會主席 Lord Lansdowne 所说的其成员具有固有权利可以随时“脱离”联邦，而这项权利不需要写入宪法。他这样说是为了回应砂拉越内閣里之议员要求在宪法中加入'脫離'条款的要求。 在1965 年，当马来西亚政府同意新加坡退出联邦时，就行使了自由退出的必然权利。英国也在 2019 年举行了脱欧公投，并于 2020 年退出欧盟。
国际法并不禁止政治联盟的成员脱离或退出独立。
除了上述的法律问题，SSRANZ主席指出馬來西亞合法性仍然存在质疑因為马来亚与印尼和菲律宾于1963年7月31日签署的马尼拉协议，要求解决菲律宾对沙巴的索求尚未获得妥當处理。
这意味着英国能否在 1963 年有效地将沙巴的主权移交给马来亚尚不清楚。因此馬來西亞之成立在法律上沒有符合联合国註冊的国际協议。
MA63在事实上显然是无效的，在“实施成立”之前，首相有责任解决这个課题，因为它对马来西亚作为国际实体的合法性具有国际法律后果。
他说，即使可以证明 MA63 是一项有效的条约，它仍然会因联邦政府自 1965 年以来多次违反条约而根据国际法是会被终止的。
罗伯特贝也指出，多次违反MA63也带来了根本性的情况变化致使MA63无法完全实施，从而允许终止該条约（如果有效），其中包括：
MA63 因英国政府未能在签署时立即登记条约而无效——《联合国宪章》第 102 条第 2 款规定“任何此类条约或国际协定的任何缔约方均未根据《联合国宪章》第 1 款的规定进行登记本条可在联合国任何机构援引该条约或协定”。MA63直到 1970 年才被注册 ，以导致其无效。这是一个缺陷，必须在当前“实施”MA63 尝试的背景下进行检查。
新加坡的退出 已破坏了基于 4 成员联盟的组成结构的 MA63 基本條件因而违反了基本结构原则。在此之前，马来西亚的概念是拥有包括汶莱在内的 5 个组成成员。汶莱苏丹在最后一刻拒绝签署 MA63，因为他认为联盟並不符合其人民的利益。由于这些变化，MA63 应该重新谈判，但它卻被掩盖了而沒有执行。
MA63 直到 2020 年才被联邦宪法承认, 这就造成了自1963年起非法的馬來西亞与其所有立法之條约皆无效, 尽管迟到了 2021 年才试图批准和承认該協议。
随后对 MA63 的非法修正案废除了基本条款或基础条款，无论是通过宪法修正案还是正常的立法变更。
1970 年 新經濟政策种族宗教基于种族隔离国家的制度化破坏了 MA63 世俗多种族国家的概念。
他們通过非法征用砂拉越与沙巴的财富和土地來發展馬來亞致使砂沙任然贫困。这就造成`發展'砂沙目標失敗。
最后，他说，沙巴和砂拉越人民已被诱导放弃独立将其国家纳入 1963 年更名为马来西亚的马来亚联邦，已故首相东姑阿都拉曼宣布的安全发展和繁荣的承诺是证明成立联邦的主要目标.如果这个目标失败了，人民有权寻求
其他选择包括完全独立並以其丰富的自然资源为基础管理和发展自己的国家。许多婆罗洲人看到了沙巴和砂拉越与馬來亞更紧密融合的议程
是作为新殖民主义者的野心。
不可剥夺的自决权得到国际法和联合国的承认，不容谈判。
声明结束 22/12/2019
SSRANZ PRESS STATEMENT ON SARAWAK & SABAH RIGHTS (ISSUED 22/12/2022)
SSRANZ CALLS ON PM ANWAR IBRAHIM TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF SABAH SARAWAK IN MALAYSIA WHICH IS AKIN TO THE PALESTINE ISSUE.
Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) an international NGO based in Australia, commented on PM Anwar Ibrahim’s statement on Malaysia's commitment to and solidarity with the Palestinian people’s “struggle to free Palestine from the grip of Zionist Israel” made in a press conference on 20 Dec 2022.
SSRANZ President Robert Pei said the issue of Palestine has been used by various politicians as a handy political populist platitude.
However, it is well known that the new Prime Minister has for a long time sincerely supported the recognition of Palestine as a free and independent state and therefore must be respected for his unwavering anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist position on
Palestine.
He said “In recent time, we have witnessed many remnant colonies of the colonial past becoming as independent states such as Palau, Timor - Leste, Montenegro, Serbia, and South Sudan. Other
countries are also seeking independence such as Scotland, Catalonia, Palestine and Bouganvillea, all of which have followed their own paths to seek self-determination. All these examples affirm the principle of the universal legal right to freely choose one’s destiny”.
He said in 1948 Palestine was denied independence and betrayed by the British government by its complicity in the creation of Israel by the Zionist takeover, occupation and seizures of Palestinian territory. This led to 66 years of Palestinian resistance.
With his enlightened view on the Palestinian issue, the Prime Minister should also see the similarity with the British government’s unlawful imposition of the Malaysia federation plan on Sabah (then called North Borneo) and Sarawak in 1963, instead of granting independence to them.
The SSRANZ President said, “It is in relation to the subject of the incomplete decolonisation and independence of Sabah and Sarawak which I wish to raise for your attention and call on your government to seek dialogue with respective Borneo state governments, Borneo nationalists and interested political parties for a peaceful and smooth devolution of power and transfer of sovereignty
back to Sabah and Sarawak.”
SSRANZ maintains that the process of Malaysia formation pursuant to MA63, was tainted with legal defects and illegalities in violation of international law which rendered the treaty not legally binding.
Malaysia was not a legally constituted federation as the MA63 treaty was null and void from the very beginning for lack of legal capacity, consent and legal object for the formation (contrived to deny Sabah and Sarawak of independence to implement the Grand Design).
The Prime Minister may also be aware that in 1946, two years before the foreign takeover of Palestine, the British Government had with flimsy justifications, annexed the independent state of Sarawak and the North Borneo Chartered Company administered territory of Sabah as British Crown colonies. At the time, the British solemnly promised that both colonies would eventually be given independence.
However, in breach of their repeated undertakings, the British colonialists imposed it so-called decolonisation by transferring the sovereignty and colonial control of the 2 colonies to the Malayan
federation pursuant to the void Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Malaysia was established under coercive emergency conditions without a referendum and suppression of the 1962 Brunei Anti-Malaysia armed uprising and arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions of thousands of “suspected” opponents to the British-Malayan Malaysia plan.
The British government said this was “decolonisation” through “independence in Malaysia”. This was only a euphemism for re-colonisation without real change in status. It is legally absurd and impossible for any country to be “independent” within another country.
The 2 Borneo territories were just the sacrificial victims of the British Grand Design and cold war geopolitics in their strategic redrawing of the map by merging them with Malaya and Singapore in a federation.
It was a design shared by Malayan elites who according to a former Sarawak governor Sir Anthony Abell, had their eyes on the vast territories of North Borneo and Sarawak and their oil.
He drew the Prime Minister’s attention to the legal issue of MA63 validity as an international treaty which is now being challenged in the Bomeo High Court.
When the UK and Malaya signed MA63 with Sabah Sarawak and Singapore on 9 July 1963 the 3 territories were still British crown colonies (up to 16 September 1963) and not sovereign states with
legal capacity to make binding international treaties. This international law principle was confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 2019 Chagos case where it was concluded that the British government could not make a binding international agreement with its colony Mauritius which was under its full control in 1965. (The ICJ also reaffirmed that the right to self-determination
is now a part of international law).
The issue of legal capacity and consent is linked to the fact that neither Sabah nor Sarawak haddirectly elected representation or representatives democratically authorised by a referendum in the
MA63 negotiation. This was in reality negotiated on their behalf by their respective British Governors. The Borneo people were ostensibly involved after the terms were agreed to and drawn
up.
The declassified colonial documents on Malaysia formation disclosed that the British government was legally advised of this flaw but had proceeded to misrepresent to the Borneo people that they were equal partners on the international level and competent to sign the MA63 treaty, for “presentational purpose”. The then colonial Attorney-Generals also signed MA63 on behalf of Sabah and Sarawak respectively.
Contrary to the then British and Malayan governments’ claim that Malaysia was a voluntary association or union, a referendum was never held to seek the people’s consent by precisely gauging the people’s wishes given freely on choosing Malaysia or independence. This lack of consent to MA63 also invalidates the treaty.
If Malaysia was a voluntary union, then as Lord Lansdowne the 1963 IGC chairman stated, its members have the intrinsic right to “secede” from the federation any time and this right needs not to be included in the constitution. He had said this in response to Sarawak Council Negri members’ demand for an escape clause to be inserted in the constitution. This corollary right of free exit was exercised in 1965 when the Malaysian government agreed with Singapore to exit the federation. The British also held their BREXIT referendum in 2019 and the UK exited the European Union in 2020.
International law does not prohibit members of a political union from secession or exit for independence.
In addition to the above legal issues, the SSRANZ President pointed out that MA63 and Malaysia’s legitimacy remains in doubt as the Manila Accord signed on 31 July 1963 by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines requiring the resolution of the Philippines’ Sabah claim has never been resolved.
This means that it was unclear that the UK could effectively transfer sovereignty over Sabah to Malaya in 1963. Malaysia formation was therefore not lawfully concluded in compliance with the
international agreement, registered with the United Nations.
MA63 was clearly invalid on the facts, and before it could be “implemented”, the Prime Minister is duty-bound to settle this issue as it has international legal consequences on the legitimacy of Malaysia as an international entity.
He said even if it could be proven that MA63 was valid a treaty, it would nevertheless, have been terminated under international law by the federal government’s multiple treaty violations since 1965.
Robert Pei pointed out that the multiple violations of MA63 had also brought about fundamental change of circumstances making it impossible to fully implement MA63 and thus allowing termination of the treaty (if valid) and they include the following:
MA63 voided by UK Government’s failure to promptly register the treaty on signing-Article 102(2) of the UN Charter states that “No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations”. The failure to register MA63 till 1970, had the effect of rendering it void. This is a defect which must be examined in the context of the current attempts to “implement” MA63.
Singapore Exit destroyed the MA63 fundamental term based on the component structure of a 4 member federation. It also violated the Basic Structure Doctrine. Prior to this the Malaysia concept was to have 5 component members including Brunei. The Brunei Sultan had refused to sign MA63 in the last minute as he considered the union not to be in his people’s interest. MA63 should have been renegotiated because of these changes but it was covered up and not done.
MA63 not recognised by Federal Constitution till 2020 thus rendering Malaysia illegitimate & all legislation null & void from 1963 despite the 2021 belated attempt to ratify and recognise
the treaty.
Subsequent illegal amendments to MA63 abrogating fundamental or foundational terms whether by constitutional amendment or normal legislative alterations.
Institutionalisation of 1970 NEP race religion based apartheid state destroyed MA63 concept of secular multiracial state.
Failure of Malaysia Objective to “develop” Sabah and Sarawak which was replaced by the development of Malaya at their expense by keeping impoverished through the illegal expropriation of their wealth and land.
In conclusion he said Sabahans and Sarawakians had been induced to give up independence for integration of their countries into the Malayan Federation renamed Malaysia in 1963, with promises of security development and prosperity which the late PM Tunku Abdul Rahman declared was the principal objective justifying the formation. If this objective has failed, the people are entitled to seek other alternatives including full independence to manage and develop their own states based on their abundant natural resources. Many Borneo people see the agenda for the closer integration of Sabah
and Sarawak with Malaya as a neo-colonial ambition.
The inalienable right to self-determination is recognised by international law and the United Nations and is not negotiable.
End of statement 22/12/2019
