Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Sabah: Separatist tendencies in Sabah put Putrajaya on edge

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Sabah: Separatist tendencies in Sabah put Putrajaya on edge

    Separatist tendencies in Sabah put Putrajaya on edge

    Written by Joe FernandezTuesday, 08 October 2013 16:15

    Hardly three years after the World Bank used Malaysian government figures to underline in Kota Kinabalu in Dec 2010 that Sabah and Sarawak were the poorest states in Malaysia, “I am Malay First” Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin turned up in the Sabah capital on Mon 30 Sept and declared that “Malaysia has been a blessing – in disguise? -- to the Bumiputera”. No mention of the so-called non-Bumiputera.

    The last time that anyone checked the figures, these two nations in Borneo were still the poorest in Malaysia. If something is a “blessing” in disguise, then one is merely indulging in wishful thinking to console oneself on a negative situation and living on hope.

    Muhyiddin trotted out some figures that looked good on paper.

    Earlier, he was warned in the local media not to turn up empty-handed in Sabah. He was advised to bring along at least RM2 billion to make good “the rotten state of the roads in Sabah”.

    The “nationalists” in Borneo were not impressed with Muhyiddin’s rhetoric. Their thinking is more on “seizing the moral high ground on Malaysia”.

    “If there's a thief in the house, we should focus on getting rid of the thief, not talk about repairing, painting and re-decorating the house to keep up with the neighbours, or even worse, discuss getting back some of the stolen money from the thief to do up the house,” runs the conventional wisdom. “We should also not dwell too much on how the thief did a number on us. We know the story. We should focus on how to get rid of him and why we should get rid of him.”

    Defence MinisterHishammuddin Hussein Onn has no illusions on Malaysia. He vowed in a late September statement that his Ministry would help the Home Ministry, which he formerly headed, to identify anti-Kuala Lumpur instigator groups who want Sabah to leave Malaysia and are politicising the issue in the alternative media especially in Facebook. It's interesting, in more ways than one, that Hishammuddin didn't mention Sarawak as well.

    Obviously it would be bad news for the powers-that-be to mention Sabah and Sarawak in the same breath when challenging any change advocated, however remote, in their current status in the Federation of Malaysia.

    Hishammuddin was speaking to the media on the sidelines of a parade in conjunction with the 80th Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) Day at Dataran Merdeka in Kuala Lumpur recently on Sept 21.

    Responding to queries from reporters, the Defence Minister alleged that the “separatist tendencies” in Sabah had been going on for the past several years and its promoters evidently getting “bolder” all the time in the face of seeming official impotence and inaction. He also implied that “enough was enough”.

    Sabah for Sabahans

    Hishammuddin reiterated the “heroic efforts” made by many security personnel from Peninsular Malaysia in beating back a ragtag bunch of claimants, ostensibly from the Sulu islands but holding MyKads, who seized a remote village in Lahad Datu along the eastern seaboard of Sabah not so long ago. The terrorists shot dead, according to the local media quoting police sources, were all buried in various places in Sabah, according to the addresses listed in their MyKads.

    He stopped short of issuing the usual litany of threats all too predictable from Putrajaya but was careful at the same time not to appear to be too toothless in Umno’s electoral fixed deposit states. After all, he’s facing a six-cornered fight in a renewed bid to retain one of the three Umno vice presidencies. There are shades here of former Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar who made ‘Allah’ in Malay print a political issue, at the expense of the Christians, when he was vying for an Umno vice presidency. The rest is history.

    Hishammuddin also warned the unnamed separatists against flogging the ‘Sabah for Sabahans’ theme, last played up in the late 1980s and early 90s by the then ruling Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS). Except for a brief mention by the breakaway Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) during the recent general election, no one remembers the old PBS battle cry being replayed for any length of time in recent years.

    Indeed, the nearest to the theme are constant reminders, in Facebook in particular, that the presence of the PATAI (Pendatang Asing-Tanpa-Izin Tapi Ada IC) – illegal immigrants with MyKads – and other PATI (illegal immigrants), are no longer tolerable in Sabah if they insist on getting their hands on MyKads and getting on the electoral rolls.

    Former Petagas state assemblyman JamesLigunjang, for one, was furious with Hishammuddin putting the Sabah for Sabahans theme under government scrutiny.

    “If Sabah is not for Sabahans, then for who?” he asked rhetorically in a text message as soon as news of the Defence Minister’s controversial remarks broke in Kota Kinabalu.

    Anti-Malaysia comments in Facebook

    Ligunjang, a tiger in executive secretary of PBS which he ditched in 1994 for the breakaway Parti Demokratik Sabah (PDS), now the United PasokMomogun KadazanDusunMurut Organisation (Upko). He’s no longer with the “toothless” party but thinks, like many Sabahans and Sarawakians, that “it’s high time that we stood on our own two feet”. Ligunjang belabours the point that this approach is the only way for the two nations to realise their full potential and wrest their manifest destiny.

    Patently, it’s no longer news that anti-Malaysia comments from Sabah and Sarawak hog the limelight in Facebook pages originating from these two nations. These comments reach a crescendo every August and September before being sidetracked by the politics of distraction and disruption.

    Indeed, these comments by various individuals may be viewed by Putrajaya in particular as bordering on ‘treason’ or at least seditious, if not calculated to pit people against each other on both sides of the South China Sea and/or cause public alarm at the very least.

    These comments, in any case, are more a reflection of the perennial question in Malaysian Borneo since 16 Sept 1963: “How did we get into this situation (being in a Federation with Peninsular Malaysia on the other side of the South China Sea)?” That is the ultimate vote against Malaysia! Such sentiments translate into Facebook Pages like ‘Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia’, moderated by lawyer Doris Jones, a UK-based lawyer from Sabah. She’s wheelchair-bound half the time when overcome by lethargy. There have been strident calls in Facebook, obviously from peninsular Malaysia, for her to be arrested and locked up and the keys virtually thrown away.

    The colonial British authorities incarcerated thousands of Sarawakians who were against Malaysia. Many died while during detention or otherwise suffered physical injuries inflicted on them by the colonial authorities who branded them as communist. (Refer to Assoc. Prof Kee Howe Yong's book, The Hakkas of Sarawak- Sacrificial gifts in Cold War Era Malaysia p.52-60)

    Dayaks were not excluded as seen in the first division, the Rascom region and other parts of Sarawak where villagenisation took place.

    There’s a case for suing the British government to get justice for these people and their families. The Mau Mau case in Kenya and Batang Kali in Malaya refer.

    2013 is a watershed year

    While Hishammuddin’s preoccupation is with retaining his Umno vice presidency, it seems that he’s also capitalising on the Achilles heel of the ruling Malay elite: they would not want the issue of Sabah and Sarawak to mencabar (challenge) their so-called maruah (dignity) and ketuanan Melayu-ism (Malay political supremacy and dominance).

    Still, there's nothing that Putrajaya can do about the numerous obviously anti-Malaysia comments in Facebook, for example, or the emails circulating in cyberspace on the issue. It’s that season: Sabah and Sarawak 50 Years in Malaysia! This is a watershed year like that the ‘Indian Nation’ in Malaya faced on 31 Aug 2007 before the Nov 25 uprising that year by 100,000 of them in the streets of Kuala Lumpur. It’s a time for reluctant Malaysians in Borneo to pause, reflect and decide for the future.

    On the one hand, Putrajaya “would not want to make somebodies out of nobodies or heroes out of zeroes”. The burden of Empire sits heavy!

    However, if given a chance, they would want to make zeroes out of local heroes especially if the latter are few – that’s hardly the case – in number. Beyond that, there's really very little that they can do. The more Putrajaya shrieks, hysterically or otherwise, in public about the issue of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia, the worse it will be for them as it will be tantamount to opening the proverbial Pandora’s Box.

    Being typical “ketuanan Melayu-ists”, Putrajaya first pretended to be deaf, dumb and blind when activists in Sabah and Sarawak started “wagging their tails”. They didn't want to dignify the issue.

    They pretended to be much bigger than anything that can be thrown at them. However, they are not India, America or the Church for example to take this omnipresent stand. They can't get carried away too long either by their air-conditioned comfort in the massive empire-like structures in Putrajaya. There’s the danger of being eventually exposed like the emperor with no clothes.

    Manufacturing new Malays

    Putrajaya has no shortage of ketuanan Melayu apologists in Sabah and Sarawak.

    Sabah state Mufti Ustaz Bungsu @ Aziz Jaafar (left), for example, proposed at a symposium in the federal administrative centre on Sept 28 that all Muslims in Sabah be re-classified -- no doubt administratively -- as Malays. He pointed out that the Bugis and Javanese among others – along with the Minang, Acehnese, and other Muslims -- in Malaya were classified as Malay.

    Article 160 of the Federal Constitution defining Malay as a nation in Malaya, not a race, refers. [DNA-wise, the people of southeast Asia are descended from the dark-skinned Dravidians (archaic Caucasoid) who made their way from south India along the Asian coasts to south China and Taiwan and mated with the yellow-skinned “after specialisation” Mongolian tribes – descended from Dravidians from Afghanistan – living there.]

    The Mufti claimed that Islamisation in Sabah had been successful in raising the number of Muslims from below 40 percent in the 1970s to something like 60-odd percent today. He referred to a 1973 amendment which made Islam the official religion in Sabah. If true, the said amendment is unconstitutional, thereby unlawful and therefore illegal since it violates the 20/18 Points and other constitutional documents on Malaysia. Even Article 3 of the Federal Constitution does not mention an official or national religion.

    The Mufti’s proposal, if followed, would no doubt whitewash the illegal immigrants in Sabah who purportedly are now classified as Malay in the MyKads that they evidently mysteriously carry around with them.

    Malay is not native in Sabah – even the Brunei Malay prefer to be known as Barunai – and nor in Sarawak or Malaya. Malay in Sabah would not qualify to own native land.

    However, being Malay automatically brings one within the ambit of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution and the umbrella term Bumiputera which is not law per se but administrative law i.e. Government policy in action and which in any case can be subject to judicial review in Court. (Sarawak Malay is not Malay but Orang Asal – Bidayuh and Iban living along the coasts – who converted to Islam some 300 years ago. The Brookes called them Malay as per the administrative dictates of the British in Malaya. No Malay in Malaya called himself Malay until the anti-Malayan Union movement of 1946.)

    Meanwhile, multiple themes on Malaysia are being promoted by individuals locally or groups based abroad and which certainly don't run foul of the country’s laws. Hishammuddin doesn’t have a leg to stand on here as the varied themes, again, “seize the moral high ground on Malaysia in Borneo”.

    Non-compliance to 1963 Malaysia Agreement

    Besides the “we want to stand on our own two feet” lobby, State Reform Party (Star) Sabah chairman and Bingkor state assemblyperson Dr Jeffrey Kitingan , for one, has been questioning Putrajaya at every opportunity on the federal government’s purported non-compliance of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement.

    Jeffrey has long been chanting the same mantra, in fact since the late 1980s, and was even incarcerated for this under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1990 for two two-year terms, the second cut short in time for the 1994 state election during which he won Bingkor for the first time.

    Then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad openly accused Jeffrey of “plotting to take Sabah out of Malaysia to be president”. Jeffrey, upon his release, claimed that Mahathir advised him “not to tell the people what they do not know. Don’t make the people smart”.

    Mahathir, in retaliation, alleged that RM4 billion – apparently the difference between spot prices and long-term contract prices – went missing during Jeffrey’s tenure as Sabah Foundation director. Jeffrey has denied the allegation and welcomed an investigation. A Pricewaterhouse audit found no criminal wrongdoing on the RM4 billion.

    Jeffrey, unrepentant as ever despite ISA, wants the 20/18 Points which are linked to the Malaysia Agreement to be honoured, Malaysia to have a constitution which is not based on that of the old Federation of Malaya, the country to be a two-tier federation i.e. a Federation of Malaya and a Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia; and Malaysia as one country but with two systems like in China.

    Jeffrey has written several must read books including Twenty Points – Basis for Federal State Relations; Justice for Sabah; Political Stability and Economic Development in Malaysia which capture his thoughts and provide the ideological basis for his political struggle for so long.

    Political temperature in Borneo

    Not surprisingly, Jeffrey’s Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) is sponsoring this forum, International Forum 2013, and Malaysia 50 Years On – Expectation vs Reality, in Kota Kinabalu.

    Besides the keynote address and two sub-papers, at least 11 papers are being presented by local and international speakers. The fact that the forum has been organised by former Borneo Mail managing director and a former Star Sabah deputy chairman, Paul Voon, tell us something about the political temperature in Borneo. Voon is otherwise more noted for spending his time on the golf course and on the business side of the professional sport rather than being a gravel-voiced bearded revolutionary on the warpath.

    Former Sabah state secretary Simon Sipaun has been preaching, even after being questioned by police not so long ago, that “life was better in Sabah before Malaysia”. Sipaun’s beef is that “the people in Sabah are living in fear”, their country swamped by illegal immigrants as racial and religious polarisation a la Malaya takes root, and government is no longer colour-blind as before 1963.

    Sipaun is the right person to moderate at this forum. He presented a paper, but not on his favourite theme, at a closed-doorConference on Malaysia 50 Years at the National University of Singapore on Sept 27.

    The salient points in Sipaun’s paper were a reference to nine reasons he came up with in 1963 for opposing the idea of Sabah in Malaysia. He conveyed these reasons in writing to Huguan Siou (Paramount Chief) Donald Stephens:

    1. North Borneo (Sabah) would lose the only opportunity to experience being a truly independent and sovereign nation able to determine its own destiny with its own seat in the UN;

    2. It (Sabah in Malaysia) would simply be a transfer of power from Britain to Malaya;

    3. North Borneo did not have the people qualified and experienced enough to negotiate with Malaya and Singapore;

    4. North Borneo should demand for self-rule initially followed by full independence from the British;

    5. North Borneo should then go to the negotiating table without the British if the people, via referendum, wished to federate with Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Brunei;

    6. North Borneo should examine very carefully the pros and cons of joining the proposed federation in the immediate, short, medium and long-term before deciding;

    7. North Borneo should insist on an escape clause in the event it found itself short-changed later;

    8. At best it should only be a loose federation with considerable state autonomy including financial autonomy by having the power to impose taxes on certain items. Political autonomy without financial autonomy was not good enough. The person holding the purse usually has the last say and calls the shots; and

    9. The political union between Malaya and North Borneo would be an artificial one bearing in mind that the two territories had very little, if any, in common and was separated by almost 2,000km of sea. North Borneo’s case should not be compared with Singapore. Singapore was geographically part of the Malayan peninsula. Political union with Malaya made a lot of sense especially in terms of economic survival for Singapore. It had no natural resources, not even enough water for its people. At that time, independent Singapore was not a viable option.

    Liberation Day in Sarawak

    Some activists want to restore the sovereignty of Sabah and Sarawak won on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 through the Declaration of Independence from British colonial rule. Surprisingly, for the first time in 50 years, the Sarawak government observed July 22 this year as Liberation Day.

    Kuching blogger Lina Soo organised a conference at the same time on Sabah and Sarawak’s 50 years in Malaysia. Jeffrey was among the speakers. She moderates a 916 Occupation Day page in Facebook.

    The UK-based Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BOPIM), headed by a former Star Sabah deputy chairman Daniel John Jambun, has been making the rounds of several western capitals – Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva and London – raising awareness on “Malaya’s colonisation of Sabah and Sarawak”.

    The BOPIM campaign has been inspired by the contents of declassified colonial documents on Malaysia released in London but not by Putrajaya. Apparently, these documents appear to indicate that the British were convinced that “Malaya would colonise Sabah and Sarawak after they left”.

    BOPIM has also been very much taken up by a case, The Government of the State of Kelantan v. The Government of the Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, which questioned the Formation of Malaysia. [1963] 1 MLJ 355.

    Kelantan, according to the prevailing wisdom at that time, was not acting alone but had the support of the Malay rulers who were apparently upset that the Malayan government did not consult them on the new federation and thereby breached Malay culture, customs and traditions unlike with the establishment of the Federation of Malaya which had the consent of the traditional rulers, the politicians and the people.

    According to academician Dr Khairil Azmin Mokhtar’s paper, Confusion, Coercion and Compromise in Malaysian Federation, presented at the Sept 27 meet in Singapore, “the process of establishing Malaysia was not done in conformity with Malay custom and tradition”.

    “The process of making Malaysia did not repeat the procedure in establishing Malaya 1957,” argues Dr Khairil. “Unfortunately, the Malay rulers and the states had been marginalised in the process of establishing Malaysia.”

    “There’s no record found so far that the Conference of Rulers gave its consent on the matter. Individual rulers were also not met and consulted by the federal authorities.

    Apparently, the Malay rulers and Kelantan felt that the Federation of Malaysia was a new federation, which means that the procedure to establish the Federation of Malaya must be followed before the new federation could be established. The Malay rulers, continued Dr. Khairil, wanted the states to have the right to participate in the process of making any decision which touched on the membership of the new federation.

    Daniel John hopes to hit the international circuit again soon for Sabah and Sarawak but has been handicapped somewhat since Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman P. Waythamoorthyjoined the government in Putrajaya. Waytha used to be BOPIM’s honourary international advisor on the United Nations, the US State Department and the House of Commons in the UK.

    Dispute over oil and gas fields

    There’s a case in the High Court of Borneo claiming that the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) is unconstitutional, and that the oil agreement which is based on it, is unlawful, null and void, and illegal.

    Activists are alleging that Putrajaya has been stealing Sabah and Sarawak oil and gas since 1976. They want the fields returned before they run dry in 15 years’ time and compensation, at eight percent interest per annum compounded yearly, for the stolen commodities. The onus is on Malaya to disprove theft, failing which the issue of punitive compensation enters the picture.

    According to a recent Sabah Law Association study announced by lawyer Sukumaran Vanugopal, the Petroleum Development Act may be unconstitutional, thereby unlawful, and therefore illegal. Hence, the oil agreement based on the PDA was a nullity from the very beginning, void and illegal.

    Indeed, former Finance Minister and former Petronas chairman Tengku Razaleigh Hamzahdisclosed on Sept 25 in Kuala Lumpur, at a Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society lecture in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia, that oil was the reason why the 1973 Review of Sabah and Sarawak’s participation in Malaysia, ten years after 16 Sept 1963, was not held. He wants the review to be held now, cynically considering the 50th year is as good a time as any, obviously better later than never.

    BOPIM plans on launching a signature campaign to endorse Razaleigh’s call that a review be held. The target is to secure as many as one million signatures, although even 50,000 would suffice in a campaign of this nature given the multiplier effect.

    Benefits conferred by Sabah

    The biggest benefit that Putrajaya is getting in Sabah, according to critics, “is the virtual theft of an entire country from its people in cahoots with illegal immigrants”.

    The other benefits are Felda getting its hands on 300,000 hectares in Sabah, peninsular Malaysian companies getting their hands on thousands of acres in the state, peninsular Malaysian companies getting all the big contracts in the state, and the national cabotage policy sucking the blood of consumers and local industry.

    Other running themes in the alternative media, Facebook in particular and/or by emails, are that Malaysia is a failure – lack of security, poverty, unflattering comparisons with Singapore (its economy being almost as large as that of Malaysia) and Brunei are being cited –; Sept 16 is Occupation Day since there was “no referendum” on Malaysia; Malaysia is a bad British idea; the Sabah Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) was set up to be a great whitewash; and the UN should revisit Malaysia in Borneo following allegations of colonisation.

    The consensus of public opinion in Sabah, in the wake of the just concluded Sabah RCI, is that those who broke the laws on the issuance of MyKads in Sabah must go to jail or be hanged for treason. Foreigners can seek amnesty if they are willing to surrender the Malaysian documents they hold and which they are not entitled or eligible to hold and pay a fine.

    The RCI hence, the thinking goes, must not degenerate into a great whitewash:

    (1) those MyKads not listed in the JPN data bank must be seized and destroyed;

    (2) those MyKads listed in the JPN data bank but not sponsored by parents must be seized and destroyed;

    (3) the birth certificates of the twice born must be seized and destroyed; and

    (4) any other suspect MyKad and birth certificate not listed above must be investigated.

    Sabahans know who are not Sabahans and not Malaysians.

    The betting in Sabah and Sarawak is that Putrajaya’s own “guilty conscience on Malaysia”, whatever that means, would eventually kill them in Borneo. The activists are realistic enough to be convinced that it would not be enough to say “boo” when the day comes for “Putrajaya to flee from Borneo in sheer terror with its tails between its legs”.

    Still, it cannot be said that hope does not spring eternal in the human breast!

    Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya are nations apart

    Moving forward, it remains crystal clear that the people of Sabah and Sarawak must also seize the moral high ground on the issue and not be sidetracked by the apologists for Malaya. No man likes to be enslaved and call another man master. Freedom is the universal birthright of every individual.

    Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya are nations apart with their own separate histories.

    It's time to review the so-called Federation of Sabah and Sarawak with Malaya. The federation as it stands is nothing more than myopia of the highest order, which if continued, will result in the people of both the Borneo nations losing their countries.

    The full potential of Sabah and Sarawak can only be realized with these two nations in Borneo reviewing their Federation with Malaya.

    It's high time that Sabah and Sarawak stand on their own two feet and free of Malaya’s suffocating control and influence, for better or worse.

    Surely, it cannot be worse considering the experience of Singapore and Brunei, the first was expelled from Malaysia after two years, and the other wisely stayed out at the 11th hour as advised by the hypocritical British themselves who felt their oil and gas interests in the sultanate threatened by Malaya. (Sabah and Sarawak were then yet to emerge as oil and gas producers.)

    The key to saving Sabah and Sarawak from Malaya is to change the mindset of the people in Malaysia and the world on 16 Sept 1963.

    The lack of referendum

    The absence of a Referendum or Yes or No Vote on Malaysia in 1963 makes the Malaysia Agreement and other constitutional documents, providing the basis for Sabah and Sarawak to be in Malaysia, to be irrelevant and immaterial. Hence, the Malaya-controlled federal government has been in non-compliance on these constitutional documents which should make up the constitution of Malaysia, whether codified or uncodified, had there been a referendum or Yes or No vote on Malaysia.

    Instead, the codified constitution of Malaya is being passed off as the codified constitution of Malaysia, and the Federation of Malaya is masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia.

    Those who keep parroting the hype that Sabah and Sarawak made the right decision to join Malaysia are mindlessly promoting a bundle of contradictions.

    For starters, although it's not true, it has always been said that Sabah and Sarawak helped to form Malaysia and that they did not “join” the federation as it did not exist previously.

    Again, the fact is that there was no referendum on Malaysia. So, the question of Sabah and Sarawak forming or joining Malaysia does not arise.

    The facts speak for themselves. No more lies in history books to cover up the truth.

    Malaya should shed the burden of Empire in Borneo.

    The British told Sabahans and Sarawakians that Malaysia will be an equal partnership.

    They told the UN that Sabah and Sarawak will be joining the existing Federation of Malaya and that there was no need for referendum.

    Now, it seems that Putrajaya's proxies, stooges and rogue elements in Borneo want us to believe that we joined Malaysia and that we made the right decision.

    Even if we accept for a moment a ridiculous line as the gospel truth, are Putrajaya's apologists and sycophants saying that Brunei was stupid to stay out of Malaysia at the eleventh hour and that Singapore was even more stupid to leave the federation and/or get kicked out after two years?

    Singapore has an economy almost as large as that of Malaysia while Sabah and Sarawak are not only the poorest and second poorest in the Federation, the former in particular has been swamped by illegal immigrants since 1963. These people are reportedly entering the electoral rolls with MyKads allegedly issued by the National Registration Department. These unwelcome hordes continue to marginalize and disenfranchise the Orang Asal in particular.

    To add insult to injury, Article 160 of the Federal Constitution defines "Federation" as that set up by the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957. In that case, Sabah and Sarawak are the 12th and 13th states in Malaya, as often pointed out Putrajaya-lovers in Sabah and Sarawak.

    Wither the Malaysia Agreement 1963! The 28 July, 1976 anti-Sabah/Sarawak Amendment to the Federal Constitution on “Federation” was a gross violation and distortion of the proposed and never held 1973 Review and the Malaysia concept, notwithstanding the fact that there was no referendum on it (the concept). There's no indication in the federal constitution that the name Malaya was changed to Malaysia.

    So, it can be said that the Federation of Malaya is masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia and that the constitution of Malaya is being passed off as the constitution of Malaysia. Negaraku, the national anthem of Malaya based on the music of Terang Bulanan Indonesian song, is being touted as the national anthem of Malaysia. The Malayan flag has become the Malaysian flag.

    The words "masquerading" and "passing off" -- Malaya as Malaysia and the Malayan constitution as the Malaysian constitution -- have entered the debate along with "theft" of oil and gas resources and the demand for "punitive compensation".

    We need to bring closure to Malaya's unfortunate history of shouldering the burden of Empire, after the British, in Borneo.

    The Manila and Jakarta factors

    The darkest moment is that before the first rays of a new dawn.

    Malaysia is not forever. The tragedy is that it wasn't even a little good for Borneo while it lasted as long as it did, although there may be some especially the self-serving who will beg to differ.

    While the jury is still out on whether Malaysia was "properly set up" or otherwise, the fact remains that the people had no say in such an important matter, the respective state assemblies in Sabah and Sarawak at the material time were not elected, and the federal government is in non-compliance on the 1963 Malaysia Agreement.

    Sabah and Sarawak first lost their sovereignty of 31 Aug 1963 and 22 July 1963 respectively when they were evidently dragged into Malaysia on 16 Sept 1963 by the British and the Malayans.

    It’s noteworthy in international law that the Philippines and Indonesia immediately objected to the formation of Malaysia and registered their protests. Manila still refuses to set up a consulate in Sabah and Sarawak despite Wisma Putra being reduced to begging the Philippines government on the matter since 1963.

    Indonesians make no secret of the fact that they hate Malaysia and despise Malaysians. Both Manila and Jakarta are yet to forget that the Malayans and the British referred to them as big crocodiles in the region. Ironically, the critics will point out that it’s Malaya which has turned out to be the big crocodile in Borneo.

    Sabah and Sarawak were further reduced in their sovereign status after the departure of Singapore from Malaysia. The definition of ‘federation’ in the Federal Constitution was amended to reduce Sabah and Sarawak from their status as equal partners with Malaya to the lowly 12th and 13th states. This is further non-compliance of the Malaysia Agreement, an important constitutional document making up the uncodified constitution of Malaysia, had the federation been properly set up.

    Note: The above sub paper was the Joe Fernandez’s contribution towards the international forum ‘Malaysia 50 Years On, Expectation Vs Reality’ held at 1Borneo Grand Ballroom, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah on 5 Oct 2013.

    Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez is a graduate mature student of law who also tutors at local institutions. He subscribes to Dr Stephen Hawking’s ‘re-discovery’ of the ancient Indian theory that “the only predictable property of the universe is chaos”. He feels compelled, as a semi-retired journalist, to put pen to paper – or rather the fin

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    ‘Federation of Malaysia 1963 does not exist’

    [COLOR=#707070 !important]FMT Staff
    | February 18, 2014[/COLOR]

    Separation, not Pakatan Rakyat, is the answer for Sabah, Sarawak woes within the federation, says activist Daniel John Jambun

    KOTA KINABALU: The opposition’s stand that it is better for Sabah and Sarawak to vote BN out rather than secede from the federation is purile, claims activist Daniel John Jambun.

    “The people of Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya have long lost their sovereignty to an apartheid-style set up in Putrajaya.

    “As in Thailand, it’s not possible to change the government through the electoral system because of this loss of sovereignty.

    “What exists is the Federation of Malaya 1957 masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia 1963,” said Jambun.

    Jambun pointed out that Article 1 of the Federal Constitution stated that the Federation will be known in Malay and English as Malaysia.

    Article 160 of the Federal Constitution however defines Federation as that set up by the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957.

    “Article 2 further states that Sabah and Sarawak are the 12th and 13th states in the Federation.

    “The first 11 states are the States of Malaya. So, it cannot be suddenly said that Sabah and Sarawak are the 12th and 13th states in Malaysia.

    “This means the Federation of Malaysia 1963 does not exist,” he said.

    No referendums

    Jambun was responding to comments from both constitutional lawyer Aziz Bari and Monash university professor James Chin.

    He said while Aziz was barking up the wrong tree on Sabah and Sarawak re-thinking the idea of Malaysia after 50 years, Chin was also wrong to label separation attempts in Borneo as treason.

    “When the two Borneo nations were dragged into the Federation with Malaya, the Conference of Rulers, the Sultans and the states in Malaya were not consulted.

    “Why must Sabah, Sarawak go through the Conference of Rulers now that they want to stand on their own two feet?” he asked adding that no referendum was called before the Malayans and British dragged Borneo into the Federation.

    He cited principles in the Western Sahara Case Advisory Opinion ICJ Reports (1975) 12 which supported Sabah and Sarawak going their own way.

    He said the principles include (a) a unique cultural or ethic group; (b) a defined geographic area; (c) the will to emerge as a free state; (d) the will to self-determine governance independently; (e) attempts to assert the aforesaid wills.

    “A reading of this case is a good start as well as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples, General Assembly Resolution (XV) of December 14, 1960 GAOR, 15th Sess, Supp 16 at p 66.

    “Whether it’s easy or otherwise for Sabah and Sarawak to leave the Federation is beside the point.

    “We have to consider the exact nature and actual circumstances surrounding the British departure from Sabah and Sarawak in the wake of the independence of these two countries on 31 Aug, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively,” he said in a statement here.

    Pre-meditated move

    Jambun went on to add that the disturbing contents of declassified British colonial documents made it clear that the British were convinced that Malaya would colonize Sabah and Sarawak after their departure.

    “These revelations and facts clearly demonstrate that the UK Government abandoned Sabah and Sarawak, inadvertently or otherwise, to Malayan colonialism on or before 16 Sept, 1963.

    “The British disguised it as a coming together of parts of the empire in the wake of decolonization although they knew Malaya would colonize Sabah and Sarawak after they left,” he said.

    Jambun in actuality the strategy was the Singapore and Malaya getting together in the wake of the occupation of Sabah and Sarawak by the latter to “facilitate” the Singapore-Malaya merger.

    “Malaya ostensibly would not ‘agree’ to the merger unless Sabah and Sarawak were part of the 1963 Federation to offset the large Chinese population in Singapore.

    “After Malaya got Sabah and Sarawak, it kicked out Singapore from the Federation two years later.

    “But the Borneo nations were not allowed to leave.. why? he asked.

    According to Jambun it was clear that then prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman had used the 1963 Singapore-Malaysia merger as an excuse to get Sabah and Sarawak in as colonies.

    “Having got his hands on the two Borneo Nations, he lost no time within two years to kick out Singapore to pave the way for apartheid a’la ketuanan Melayu.

    “Why (else) did the British force the Rajah of Sarawak to cede his kingdom to the colonial office in London and “buy” Sabah for 1.2 million sterling pounds from the British North Borneo Company.

    “Both were done in the wake of World War II, if not to unwittingly or otherwise myopically facilitate Malayan colonization in shouldering the defence burden in the interests of Britain’s commercial empire in Borneo.

    “The no compliance on the Malaysia Agreement (by Putrajaya) stemmed from the fact that there was no proper decolonization in Borneo and that Malaysia at the time was not properly set up by the British Government in particular and the UN in general,” he said.

    Visit http: for extensive coverage on Sabah and Sarawak

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: Can Sabah and Sarawak secede?

    By Jacqueline Ann Surin | 03 March 2014 | Read [9] Comments | Print This Post
    RECENTLY, there have been renewed calls for Sabah and Sarawak to assert their interests and rights within the federation of Malaysia. These calls, including by State Reform Party (Star Sabah) chief Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, have included proposals to consider secession. The same sentiments are also apparent in Sarawak. The Union of Sarawak and Sabah Nationalists has called on newly sworn-in Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem to fight for equal rights, or secede from the federation.

    The Nut Graph speaks to political scientist Wong Chin Huat to find out what’s behind these calls for secession, and whether secession by any state in the federation would even be possible.

    What is triggering these calls for secession in Borneo?

    First, the sense of betrayal is growing stronger and stronger among most Sarawakians and Sabahans. The Malaysia project was meant to bring about decolonisation, which would lead to prosperity and dignity. However, many Borneans feel that they did not get decolonised after 1963. Rather it would seem that the colonial office was transferred from London to Kuala Lumpur – a claim initially made by Indonesian President Soekarno, who vehemently opposed Project Malaysia.

    How can you blame Sabahans and Sarawakians for feeling this way? Sabah and Sarawak have the richest natural resources and yet, today, they are among Malaysia’s poorest. In Sabah, just about 200km from Kota Kinabalu, three villages in Pangi are connected to the next town,Tenom, by just a railway, not a road. Beyond the limited train service, the locals have to creatively transport themselves on “trolleys”. Is this “Sabah Maju Jaya Dalam Malaysia”?

    The second trigger for renewed secession calls is Umno’s weakening hold of power in Malaya. This has emboldened the Bornean elite. At the same time, it also pushes Umno to play up ethno-religious issues, such as the “Allah” ban, in order to secure its vote base. This only enrages many Sabahans and Sarawakians, both Christians and Muslims.

    Do you think the call for secession will gain traction in either Sabah or Sarawak? Should Putrajaya be taking these calls seriously?

    Tun Mustapha Harun (public domain)
    The obstacle to Sabah and Sarawak nationalism – greater in Sabah than in Sarawak – is the Malaya-style ethno-religious politics imported since 1963. Sabahans and Sarawakians are generally proud of their harmonious and tolerant communal relations. But things changed fundamentally after the installation of Tun Mustapha Harun as Sabah chief minister in 1967 and Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub as Sarawak chief minister in 1970.

    Umno laid down a new ground rule: the chief minister had to be a Muslim. While this built resentment against Kuala Lumpur among the non-Muslims, especially the Christian bumiputeras, it also tied the political interests of Muslims structurally. Being a Muslim is like holding a political lottery to the top job.

    Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub (
    Umno created a captive market among Muslim Borneans through “Muslim supremacy”, hence keeping itself in power nationally and through its Muslim vassals at the state level. In Sabah, where Muslims were 37.9% of the population in 1963, Mustapha and later Tan Sri Harris Salleh actively converted non-Muslims to Islam. Later, under Project M, Muslim electoral strength was boosted with instant and en masse naturalisation of Filipinos, Indonesians and even Pakistani and Indian Muslims.

    Just last year, the Sabah mufti called for Muslim bumiputeras to be categorised as Malays, indirectly admitting the political process of Malayisation: Non-Muslim bumiputeras → Muslim bumiputeras → Malays.

    Sarawak is by and large spared from this Malayisation process because it hurts the Melanau ruling elites’ interests. If Malays became the majority, the Melanau would soon be out of the running for both the offices of chief minister and governor. But in Sarawak as in Sabah, entrenched “Muslim supremacy” creates incentives for some Muslims to vote for the Barisan Nasional (BN) no matter what. So, how can secession gain enough appeal to command a majority?

    Putrajaya is not too worried about Bornean secessionism as long as the religious card still works. In the 2013 general election, Umno and Parti Pesaka Bumipetera Bersatu (PBB) – the only other Muslim-dominated BN component party – won 46% of seats, just 10 seats away from a simple parliamentary majority of 112. They did this with a mere 32% of total votes. If Putrajaya gets to increase seats in Sabah and Sarawak, you can bet that there will be even more Muslim-majority constituencies, keeping Umno solidly in power for two more terms. Then any talk of secession would just be a pipe dream.

    For Sabah and Sarawak nationalists to be a real force to be reckoned with, even before any talk of secession, they must be able to present an inclusive discourse. This discourse must cut across the Muslim-Christian divide. So far, the Bornean nationalists have been disproportionally Christian. That speaks volumes.

    Do you think this growing sense of dissatisfaction with and distrust of Putrajaya is stronger in Sabah or Sarawak?

    Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud (Wiki commons)
    The question may not be the intensity of discontent per se, but its distribution. After all, we must not assume that Sabah or Sarawak, like any other state or nation, is a unitary actor. In Sarawak, there is general consensus across political parties to keep Umno out. The only exception may be a few Malay PBB leaders who want to end the Yakub-Taib Mahmud Melanau dynasty by setting up a Sarawak Umno. Former Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud’s success in keeping Umno out has also made many Sarawakians feel more distant from its threat.

    In Sabah, Umno’s entry polarised the population. While many became more anti-Malaya, others found that their political and economic fortunes were tied to Umno.

    Taib reportedly told his successor Adenan to keep Umno’s brand of politics out of Sarawak and to protect the state’s rights under the 1963 Malaysia Agreement. How able do you think Adenan will be in doing that?

    Adenan will not do that. Neither will Taib actually want him to do that. Mustapha was once Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman’s darling and was allowed to run Sabah like his own fiefdom. Taib was no different in Sarawak. But when Mustapha’s head grew too big, Kuala Lumpur propped up a new party, Berjaya, and brought him down in the elections.

    For Taib, all Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak needs to do is to get the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate more seriously the allegations of graft against him. And if even the 33-year reigning Taib didn’t challenge Putrajaya to protect his state, why should newbie Adenan risk his own political future?

    One of the calls has been for Putrajaya to set up a cabinet-level committee to review the Malaysia Agreement, which has been overdue for 40 years. What’s preventing this review?

    A review would mean decentralisation and greater autonomy. This would mean greater political independence for the Bornean elite and possibly also their masses. This in turn would mean the BN losing its fixed deposit, or at least having to pay more for support from the East. Why should Umno risk this political suicide? Until Sabahans and Sarawakians can unite across ethno-religious lines, it would be foolish for Umno to make any concessions.

    Singapore left the federation of Malaysia in 1965. So, we know from history that it is possible for a state to leave. From a political and legal point of view, what needs to happen for either or both Borneo states to secede?

    Singapore did not secede. It was expelled because its ruling party, the People’s Action Party, initiated a second coalition, the Malaysian Solidarity Convention. This coalition consisted of allies from both Malaya and Borneo to challenge the Alliance Party. In Project Malaysia, the right to divorce is only one way. You can be ditched, but you can’t ditch.

    Tan Sri Simon Sipaun (
    In our Federal Constitution, there is only a provision for the admission of new territories (Article 2) but no provision for secession of the existing states. The 20- and 18-point agreements signed away the rights of Sabah and Sarawak respectively to secede. Former Sabah state secretary Tan Sri Simon Sipaun has said several times in public that Sabah locked herself into a prison and threw away the key.

    But eventually, what will decide the matter is not the law but politics. If the idea of secession gains ground, and crackdown becomes too costly, then any federal government will have to deal with the challenge politically. If the majority of people want to go, how do you keep them?

    For now, however, secession is but a self-indulgent fantasy for many Bornean nationalists.

    Do you think calls for secession are treasonous?

    I am against secession but all for the right to secede, in the same way that I believe in the right to divorce as a necessary condition for happy marriages. First of all, without the right to divorce, people have to stay in the same marriage even though they are unhappy. Secondly, if divorce is not legally possible, one party may be induced to abuse or exploit the other party, knowing well the latter cannot leave.

    It would be mad if people married just to divorce eventually. But the vow to stay together until “death do us part” must be voluntary, not a blank cheque for one party to point a gun at another to stop the other from leaving.

    Any breakup is hard and requires difficult negotiations. But this is not an excuse for a tyrannous union. Much as any talk of divorce cannot be construed as adulterous, talk of secession must also not be construed as treacherous. In fact, any coercive means to suppress the idea of divorce or secession is antithetical to the very idea of a celebrated union. If you’re sure of happiness in the union, why would you need to force people to stay?

    Do you think secession would end the exploitation of Sabah and Sarawak?

    If it does, then all Malaysians are morally bound to agree to the divorce should Sabah and Sarawak want it.The truth is, however, likely the opposite. Even if we assumed that Sabah and Sarawak could remain independent and not be annexed by Indonesia or the Philippines at some point, independence may not end the exploitation of Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak suffer “double internal colonisation”, first by the Malayan elite in Kuala Lumpur, then by their own elite in Kota Kinabalu and Kuching. And these rajahs may just have greater power when they no longer have a colonial master to report to.

    To free Sabah and Sarawak from land grabs, rent-seeking and elite capture, you need democratisation, which must include elected governments at the division level. Sabah and Sarawak are so geographically wide and diverse that their divisions are like Malayan states.

    Independence without real democratisation can be a recipe for greater disaster. But if you have real democratisation, Sabah and Sarawak may not need independence at all, as they may truly benefit from the union with Malaya.

    Wong Chin Huat is a political scientist by training and was a journalism lecturer prior to joining the Penang Institute, a Penang government think tank. If readers have questions and issues they would like Wong to respond to, they are welcome to e-mail for our consideration.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Can Sabah and S’wak secede?

    Vidal Yudin Weil
    | April 14, 2014

    This article is intended for those who think Malaysia or rather Malaya owns Sabah and Sarawak.

    Once again I am writing about Abdul Rahman Dahlan, the Kota Belud MP who was reported on Feb 17, 2014 in the mainstream media to have cited the 20-Points and said the following:

    (1) It is seditious and treasonous to suggest that both Sabah and Sarawak secede from the Federation of Malaysia;

    (2) Sabah and Sarawak cannot secede from Malaysia;

    (3) Secession is not a solution to the woes of Sabah and Sarawak.

    If readers have accessed my previous pieces about the man, they would conclude that Abdul Rahman really does not actually know what he is saying all of the time.

    Before that I would remind readers that:

    Official deceit which is one part of Machiavellian politics has always been the religion of colonizers and one classic lie that has never fail to be used is “you need us to protect you from yourself” has been said to the naive and brainwashed colonized population throughout the ages until today.

    We do not need to look far, actually; the present political drama unfolding in Malaysia that is shaking right-thinking citizens reveals the unprecedented thievery and pretense perpetrated by mendacious opportunists from both sides of the political divide is ample indications itself.

    Half past six champions of the void ab initio Malaysia Agreement of July 9, 1963 that saw the formation of the Federation of Malaysia are asserting that the rights of Sabah (20-Points) and Sarawak (18-Points) are safeguarded in a document identified as the Inter-Governmental Committee Report of 1962 or in short, the IGC Report; today, we shall see how foolishly wrong they are.

    Before we proceed, it is necessary to recapitulate that the Malaysia Agreement is absolutely void from the very beginning because Britain at all material times never had sovereignty over the whole of Sabah to give away and the government of Malaysia like its predecessor the British government is still paying annual rentals to the Sulu Sultanate in the Philippines until today.

    The latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” is a legal principle that says you cannot confer property you do not own on another person except with the authority of the true owner or simply put – you cannot give what you do not have.

    For further reading, go to the Manila Accord which was signed on July 31, 1963 between Abdul Rahman Putra, Soekarno, and Diosdado Macapagal; it is clearly and unambiguously understood that the formation of Malaysia is subject to the claim of the Philippines on Sabah being adjudicated in the International Court of Justice which Putrajaya is scared of going there for fear of losing.

    And worst, the more than 1.1 million people of Sabah and Sarawak at that point of time were never consulted in a referendum whether they wanted Malaysia – only about 4,000 were reportedly interviewed by the Cobbold Commission.

    Backward society

    We cannot really blame Sabahans and Sarawakians who suffer from collective issues of ignorance because like the rest of Malaya today, for more than 50 long years, they have been indoctrinated with falsified historical facts and fed with substandard education that taught them “what to think” instead of “how to think” and living their entire lives on assumptions peddled by cheats and liars.

    Do readers know why are things becoming so complicated and bad here in Sabah now?

    Because the people of Sabah are so gullible to the extent that they cannot even be trusted to honorably do the right thing on their own volition during elections for their own good and that of their descendants.

    Suffice to say, the Sabah of today has remained a feudal and backward society since the British left.

    The fine example of Brunei not becoming a colony of Malaya, look at how they can do what they want with their oil and gas wealth – poverty practically does not exists there; the success story of tiny and resource-less Singapore who left Malaysia in 1965 being transformed into a First World nation today profoundly confirms that both Sabah and Sarawak are incurable failures of epic proportions.

    Now, we go to the circus to showcase our clown of the day.

    Question 1

    The 1962 IGC Report by its name alone is only a report; and the pertinent confusion is this – since when can a mere report containing proposed recommendations or demands, as some people put it, evolve into a legally binding international Treaty, Agreement, Contract, or Convention?

    In the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, were the 20-Points and 18-Points, or alternatively how many of both were clearly spelt out in the same?

    Find out too exactly how many of the individual 20-Points and 18-Points were actually incorporated into the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the latter of which is evidently masqueraded by the Constitution of Malaya.

    By all international standards, is the IGC Report not at best only a Memorandum of Understanding with no legal force of law?

    Question 2

    If the IGC Report has no legality or statutory effectiveness, of what legitimacy do the Sabah 20-Points and the Sarawak 18-Points contained therein have?

    Question 3

    Ask yourselves this: if the clause “there should be no right to secede from the Federation” are in the Points that have no legitimacy nor legality, can Sabah and Sarawak still secede from the Federation of Malaysia?

    Question 4

    Do readers know that Malaysia is not a country but a federation of independent nations that consists of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (left in 1965)?

    Question 5

    Do readers know the meaning of the word “treason”? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as the crime of betraying one’s country.

    Say for example the democratically elected government of the independent country of Scotland has decided that a referendum will be held onSept 18, 2014 to let their Scottish citizens decide whether they want to secede from the United Kingdom after more than three hundred years in the union since 1707; what treason is there?

    Therefore, to the people of Sabah and Sarawak who harbor the wish of secession: you must first elect educated and competent patriots and nationalists to run your Sabah and Sarawak governments – not bootlickers who are remotely-controlled by Malayan political parties like what is happening now!

    Question 6

    Now, Malaysia is a federation while Sabah (an independent nation) is our country or NEGARA in the Malay language; we have always been a negara when Malaysia was formed until 1976 when Parliament downgraded our status to negeri without consulting the Sabah Legislative Assembly after former Sabah Chief Minister Donald Stephens and many other leaders were mysteriously killed in an air disaster upon flying back from Labuan island without signing the petroleum agreement that robs Sabah to the tune of 95% of our oil and gas wealth.

    The subsequent signing of the same by former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh and witnessed by Joseph Pairin Kitingan is also illegal because the Sabah Legislative Assembly was a

    lso not consulted on the matter.

    How can anyone who calls for the secession of our country Sabah from the Federation of Malaysia be committing treason?

    Question 7

    The Macmillan Dictionary best defines “state” as a nation or country and the government of a country.
    Take note that the State of Sabah like the State of Sarawak is an independent nation or country with a government where cabinet members are called ministers unlike say Penang or Johore where their local governments do not have cabinets and members are only executive councillors.

    Sabah and/or Sarawak are equal in status with the entire Malaya combined and not with any individual states in Peninsular.

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines “seditious” as inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

    As has been mentioned in question 4 supra, Malaysia is a federation of independent nations and Sabah is our nation or country (NEGARA in Malay) where we have our own government and in lieu of a monarch we have our own Head of State (originally called Yang diPertuan Negara and later changed to Yang diPertua Negeri by Parliament without consultation with the Sabah Legislative Assembly in 1976).

    As far as we know, nationalists in Sabah and Sarawak are not instigating rebellions against the Sabah or Sarawak governments or respective Heads of State; for every citizen from the independent nations of Sabah and Sarawak, how can we when we call for the secession of our respective countries from a failed Federation of Malaysia be seditious, then?

    Question 8

    In every suit that we handled or lecture delivered in the past, we always provide simple and easy to understand analogies when we submit and today we give you the following:

    If in a failed marriage (Federation of Malaysia), the lazy and incompetent husband (Malaya) not only neglect his conjugal duties (development) to his wives (Sabah and Sarawak) but also took away 95% of their wealth (taxes and natural resources) for his own extravagant spending, what should the wives do if not divorce and leave him?

    If ever Sabah and Sarawak are to be bankrupted, let it not be done by Malaya for the benefit of Malaya.

    Question 9

    When the Federation of Malaysia was illegally formed in 1963 (as per our reasoning above), there were the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (left in 1965); do you realize that the government of Malaya has ceased to exist altogether unlike Sabah, Sarawak, and even Singapore?

    If Malaya was not masquerading as Malaysia to colonize Sabah and Sarawak today, we really do not know what is…!

    Question 10

    In the year 1963 when Malaysia was formed, the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement; an advocate and solicitor recently drew our attention to the following:

    When Singapore left Malaysia in 1965, an agreement was executed on Aug 7, 1965 for the separation between the government of Singapore and the government of Malaysia without consultation with the governments of Sabah and Sarawak as original partners in the Malaysia Agreement.

    Is the Singapore Separation Agreement of 1965 valid without the signatories from Sabah and Sarawak; if the answer is in the negative, is Singapore still technically and legally a part of Malaysia; further and in the alternative, is the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 voided as a result of the 1965 Separation Agreement?


    The 1963 Malaysia Agreement is void ab initio; can the 1965 Singapore Separation Agreement further invalidate something that is clearly invalid in the first instance; or in laymen’s term, would blowing up a corpse which died years earlier with C4 explosives kill it again?

    On June 18, 1984 former President Diosdado Macapagal who laid the Philippines claim on Sabah in 1962 said “unless Sabah becomes an independent state by itself, it shall be the continuing duty of our posterity to carry on the endeavor to return Sabah to the Philippines”.

    In plain and uncomplicated language, it means that if Sabah truly becomes free, the Philippines claim will be dropped.

    Our final question to readers from Sabah and Sarawak is this:

    Is it not our nationalistic, patriotic, and holy duty to free our countries of an evil colonizer who is striving on racism and religious persecution, a greedy subjugator who commit continuous economic genocide on the people of Sabah and Sarawak by siphoning our wealth in the billions to sustain their lifestyle and leaving us with pittance?

    To those of you who now understand but think and decide otherwise, where then have you hidden your conscience – in the sewage pond…?

    The author is a retiree in Kota Kinabalu and depending on health, time, and interest, do blog occasionally at giving no quarters to anyone.

Visitors found this page by searching for:

sabah separatism

sabah separatist groupe

sabah flag

ong kee hui

formation of malaysia sabah sarawak chinese populationParti Bersatu Bugis Sabahimage logo sabah sarawakbreast binder shop in kota kinabaluJoe Fernandez sabahsabah secessiondoris jones bersihethno religious issue in sabahkingdom of sarawak flagsabah sarawak separatismputrajaya violates 20 point agreementsabah sarawak keluar malaysiasabah sarawak keluar malaysia 2014will there be secession war in sabahmufti sarawak
SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts