Top posts

Featured Posts

PBS nafi ingin bersama Warisan, PBS komited bersama GRS, kata Presidennya


            Datuk Dr Joachim Gunsalam, Presiden PBS merangkap Timbalan Ketua Menteri Sabah.


3-10-2024
KOTA KINABALU : Presiden Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), Datuk Dr Joachim Gunsalam, menafikan laporan atau khabar angin yang Majlis Tertinggi partinya berharap PBS, StarSabah dan Warisan akan dapat membentuk kerjasama sebagai alternatif baru.

"Tiada kebenaran laporan ini. PBS kekal dan komitted bersama GRS", kata Dr Joachim ketika dihubungi Borneo Herald hari ini.

Dr Joachim yang juga Timbalan Ketua Menteri berkata ada pihak yang cuba mengelirukan orang-ramai dalam hal itu.

"Ini cubaan mengelirukan rakyat Sabah," katanya ringkas.

PBS dijangka mengeluarkan kenyataan rasmi mengenai perkara itu hari ini.

Khabar-khabar angin bertiup kebelakangan ini bahawa ada usaha menyatukan Warisan, PBS, StarSabah dan KDM untuk menentang Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) pada pilihanraya negeri yang bakal diadakan pada bila-bila masa.

Kononnya salah satu sebab utama usaha itu ialah keangkuhan rakan dalam GRS terutama PGRS pimpinan Ketua Menteri Datuk Hajiji Noor yang enggan memberi lebih banyak kerusi untuk ditandingi PBS dan StarSabah pada PRN mendatang.

Satu lagi sebab ialah penegasan Hajiji bahawa GRS akan tetap bekerjasama dengan parti-parti dari Malaya seperti DAP, PKR dan Amanah menerusi Pakatan Harapan yang juga turut dianggotai Upko.

Hari ini, viral satu laporan oleh laman yang bernama MalaysianSpeaks memetik sumber dalaman PBS berkata parti itu ingin mencari rakan baru kerana kebersamaan dalam GRS tidak menguntungkan PBS malah akan mengecilkan lagi parti yang sudah berusia menjangkau 40 tahun itu.

Seorang pemimpin lain PBS yang dihubungi Borneo Herald pula berkata "biarlah presiden atau setiausaha agung yang mengeluarkan kenyataan mengenai hal ini."

"Tidak dinafikan, ada yang berpendapat terus bersama GRS tidak menguntungkan PBS dan boleh menghancurkan PBS, tapi biarlah presiden yang ulas perkara ini," katanya sambil meminta namanya tidak disiarkan.#


SSRANZ & RSNB's response to Malaysian IGP and accusation of sedition


    The event in question, in Melbourne, Australia, organised by Sabah and Sarawak activists based there.

Here is a lengthy response from the two bodies that are responsible for the Melbourne event that  lowered Malaysia's flag and raised both Sabah and Sarawak flags...

30-9-2024
SSRANZ & RSNB REJECT ALLEGATIONS OF SEDITION & CONDEMN  MALAYAN  PARTIES’  INTERFERENCE 

The Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) and Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB) NGOs issue the following joint statement in refuting allegations of sedition made against a peaceful Melbourne flag raising ceremony:

Summary of the Event:
The flag-raising event held in Melbourne, Australia, on 15 September 2024, marked the 61st anniversary of the British "decolonization" of Sabah and Sarawak on 16 Sept 1963, and their subsequent absorption into the Malayan Federation with its name changed to Malaysia under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63, if valid).  Malaysia was formed under dubious legal conditions which questioned its legitimacy. The NGOs noted that it was a perfectly legitimate expression that with one flagpole the flags had to be raised and lowered in turn.
 The event was also to highlight 61 years of Malayan humiliation, subjugation and exploitation of Sabah and Sarawak, reducing them to colonial dependencies in Malaysia.
 The peaceful gathering was given significant media attention in Malaysia and abroad, with sensational news headlines with reports accusing the event as seditious, such as “Cops probe video of M’sian flag being replaced with that of Sabah, Sarawak”, “Investigate the mastermind of the incitement to lower the Malaysian flag - AMK Marudu”, “In Malaysia, viral video linked to Borneo secessionists sparks police investigation”.  Sabah UMNO Media Chief made inflammatory allegations that the rally was “inciting and destabilising” the country. 
 The Malaysian police was instigated to launch an investigation on a viral video showing the Jalur Gemilang (Malaysian flag) being lowered and replaced with the flags of Sabah and the Kingdom of Sarawak (flown as independent Sarawak national flag from 1870 to 1946 and also under British colonial rule from 1946 to 1963 and then as Sarawak's state flag from 1963 to 1973), following police reports lodged by UMNO and PKR members in Sabah. 

SSRANZ and RSNB strongly refute the Sedition Allegations and state that it was a lawful rally to highlight a number if issues concerning the legitimacy of Malaysia Formation and 61 years of Malaysia misrule:

1. The Flag-Raising Was Not An Incitement To Violence Or Sedition: The NGOs strongly condemned the politicisation of the event by UMNO and PKR, in spreading politically motivated misinformation and manipulating the police to suppress freedom of expression and legitimate grievances. They criticised the Malayan-controlled Sabah UMNO Party and Sabah PKR members for orchestrating baseless accusations such as “inciting and destabilising” the country, aimed at discrediting calls for self-determination and rights restoration. This highlights that Malayan parties will always prioritise Malayan interests over those of Sabah and Sarawak, perpetuating domination and exploitation of the two territories.
Regarding allegations of sedition: Contrary to the portrayal of the rally by Sabah UMNO Media and the police, the event was a peaceful expression of dissatisfaction with Malaysia's ongoing failure to honour its international law obligations under MA63. The flag-raising was not an incitement to violence or sedition but symbolised the continued marginalisation of Sabah and Sarawak. It was a call for the people of these regions to remember the loss of their sovereignty and to raise awareness of their situation to the world. The response of Malayan Sabah political parties only exposed their colonial mindset and subservience to Malaya.
Legitimate Grievances Suppressed:  The peaceful rally, held in a country that protects free speech, was not a call for violence but a statement against the systemic marginalisation of Sabah and Sarawak. Attempts to criminalise this protest are part of ongoing efforts to suppress legitimate grievances. 
2. Neo-colonial Misrule and Exploitation in Sabah and Sarawak: The real source of instability in Sabah and Sarawak stems from decades of federal misrule, corruption, exploitation, and demographic manipulation, including UMNO’s political engineering by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants to secure federal control over Sabah. This has created widespread and deep dissatisfaction against the federal government.
3. Right to Self-Determination: SSRANZ and RSNB stressed that the event underscored Sabah and Sarawak’s legal right to self-determination, recognized by international law and the UN 1945 Charter on Human Rights and UN General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR) 1514. The formation of Malaysia was an external interference by the United Kingdom in collusion with Malaya to deny this right in breach of the United Kingdom’s undertaking to grant independence to both countries when it annexed them as crown colonies in 1946 and UNGAR 1514
This legal right allows for peaceful expressions of national independence and sovereignty, and, if Malaysia is truly a voluntary federation, also implies the right to exit. The British Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Chairman Lord Lansdowne in response to calls for the right to exit Malaysia confirmed in 1963 that in a voluntary federation it was an “intrinsic right to secede at any time”. PM Tunku Abdul Rahman in agreement stated that if the 2 regions were unhappy with Malaysia, they could always leave. International law does not prohibit the right to exit any political union for independence.
SSRANZ and RSNB view that Malaysia was unlawfully set up in a manner inconsistent with the Borneo people’s right to self-determination in breach of international law. 
The event symbolically commemorated the 1963 so-called British decolonisation of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak, which occurred through the unlawful transfer of their sovereignty to Malaya. This transfer, carried out without a proper referendum, relied on the flawed findings of the 1962 Cobbold Commission and the 1963 UN Mission, leading to the forced inclusion of these regions into the Federation of Malaysia. It was for this reason that Indonesian and Philippines Governments opposed Malaysia on the ground that the process of Malaysia formation did not have legal basis. Rather than achieving true decolonization, the process was intended to impose PAX MALAYSIA by expanding Malaya’s territories, perpetuating colonial dominance under centralised control. Indeed Sabah and Sarawak were taken over by Malaya under coercive emergency conditions and ruled under centralised control with the use of emergency laws from 1963 to 2011, with mass suppression, detention in concentration camps and bloodshed. Malaysia was created in conflict, not consensus! 
It is a historical fact that the British Union Jack was lowered symbolising the end British colonial rule on 16 September 1963 and replaced by the Malayan Jalur Gemilang representing a new ruler and also raising the Sabah and Sarawak flags to show their achieving self-government. Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman claimed that Malaysia was formed to free North Borneo and Sarawak from British colonial rule. However in reality, it was not liberation or freedom from colonialism as the Malayans claimed, but merely replacing the old colonial ruler with a new ruler.   President Sukarno of Indonesia condemned this as neo-colonial transfer of the colonial office from London to Kuala Lumpur. The late Sarawak Chief Minister Adenan Satem reminded the Malayans that Sarawak did not become free from one colonial rule to be ruled by another power.
4. No new nation was form as Malaysia. The renaming of Malaya to Malaysia and the inclusion of Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak in 1963 was presented to the UN, not as the creation of a new nation, but as an expansion of the existing Federation of Malaya.  The UN Legal Opinion of 19 September 1963 referring to Malayan UN representative Dato Ong Yoke Lin’s letter to the UN Secretary General, confirmed this legal interpretation, ensuring that Malaysia was seen as a continuation of Malaya rather than the creation of a new state or country. This did not require an application for new UN membership. This was a key British planned diplomatic manoeuvre to ensure that Malaysia did not face the same level of scrutiny that a newly independent country would face, preventing strong international challenges to its legitimacy. 
5. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 as an Neo-colonial Territorial Expansion Agreement and at the same time, fulfilled the British Grand Design to continue maintaining it strategic military base of Singapore and economic interests in the region. 
Legal Continuity: The decision to form Malaysia was pre-determined and formalised in the secret “Agreement to set up the Federation of Malaysia” signed by the UK and Malaya on 31 July 1962, one year before MA63 was concluded. The people of Sabah and Sarawak were not represented by their own elected representatives in the negotiations which were held between the UK and Malaya from 1958 to 1963.  
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was framed as an agreement to expand the Federation of Malaya by admitting three new territories (Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak). Rather than creating a new political entity, it merely amended the 1957 Malayan constitution to accommodate the entry of new members. This gave the appearance that Malaysia was simply an extension of the Federation of Malaya, rather than a newly formed country. 
Constitutional Amendments vs. New Constitution: A critical point is that Malaysia did not adopt a new constitution, but rather amended the existing Malayan constitution to reflect its new territorial composition. This reinforces the argument that Malaysia was a continuation of the existing state of Malaya, not a newly constituted country. 
6. The event sought to highlight the fact that Malaysia was formed through the invalid Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) signed on 9 July 1963, in violation of the people’s right to self-determination.  MA63 was void ab initio as Sabah and Sarawak were still British colonies at the time and not sovereign states with the legal capacity and free consent to enter into binding international treaties. By including them and Singapore as signatories, the British and Malayan governments deliberately perpetrated a fraud as they were well aware that the three colonies had no legal capacity to be parties to the treaty. If they were, it would not have been necessary for the UK to be involved in the federation process. 
The process of Malaysia formation was designed by the British Government in collusion with the Malayan government to circumvent the UN decolonisation laws and international law with an invalid international agreement. This parallels the 2019 ICJ ruling on the Chagos Islands Case, where the court found that the UK's separation of the islands from Mauritius violated international law because colonies were not sovereign states with the right to make such agreements. Similarly, MA63 is considered invalid from the beginning as the colonial territories of Sabah and Sarawak were not sovereign and thus lacked the capacity to consent freely, making Malaysia's formation legally questionable.
In reality, Malaysia was set up as a de facto neo-colonial creation. The illegality of MA63 underlines the external British Malayan interference and violation of the right to self-determination for the people of Sabah and Sarawak. Their futures were significantly shaped by unlawful external powers (the UK and Malaya) interference, and that they were not given a genuine opportunity to decide whether to join Malaysia or choose real independence. Moreover, the breaches of MA63 over the decades are seen as ongoing violations of their autonomy and rights, further justifying the claim that MA63 was invalid or has since been rendered invalid.
7. Breach of the Manila Accord 1963. Owing to local and international opposition, the Malayan government signed the Manila Accord on 31 July 1963, (22 days after MA63 was signed), with the Philippines and Indonesia governments agreeing to two pre-Malaysia conditions. The Accord required both a fresh survey of the people's wishes in Sabah and Sarawak and the resolution of the Philippines' claim over Sabah before forming Malaysia. The British and Malayan acceptance of these conditions amounted to an acknowledgement that the earlier Cobbold Commission process and MA63 were defective or flawed. However, the British and Malayan governments pre-empted the completion of the UN Mission assessment by announcing prematurely on 28 August 1963, that Malaysia would be formed on 16 September 1963 regardless of the assessment’s outcome. This  breach of the accord further undermined the legitimacy of MA63 and Malaysia’s formation. The failure to resolve the Philippines Sabah claim also questions whether the UK had the legal right to transfer Sabah to Malaya and therefore whether the process of forming Malaysia was legitimately completely. If not then this only confirms that Malaysia is a de facto federation.
8. Highlighting 61 Years of Violations: The rally aimed to shed light on 61 years of multiple Malayan violations of MA63 basic foundational terms for a secular state now replaced with a extremist and divisive apartheid-like race-religion based New Economic Policy (NEP) or Ketuanan Melayu supremacist system, resource exploitation, suppression of civil and human rights and the treatment of Sabah and Sarawak as virtual colonies and the peoples severely discriminated as 3rd class citizens. The event was to expose the real neo-colonial nature of Malaysia and its ruling regime which failed to honour but instead violated the rights and autonomy originally promised under MA63.
9. Symbolic Protest for Unfulfilled MA63 Promises: The lowering of the Malaysian flag and raising of Sabah and Sarawak flags was a peaceful symbolic act highlighting Malaysia's failure to honour MA63, which promised self-determination and equal partnership. The continued political and economic marginalisation of these regions contradicts those promises. Those who support this immoral and tyrannical system and agenda of fascism and race-religion supremacy, fear any challenge to their false privileges.
10. Core Grievances Highlighted by the NGOs: Prime Minster Tunku Abdul Rahman had declared that one of the prime objectives to form Malaysia was to develop Sabah and Sarawak. However, decades of neglect and deprivation of funds and exploitation of Sabah’s and Sarawak’s resources to  enrich the elites and develop Malaya have kept Sabah and Sarawak as the most backward, underdeveloped and impoverished parts of the federation. This is seen in the  continuing Malayan denial of Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement under MA63, while Sarawak is forced to self-fund its development despite its oil and gas wealth being siphoned off to Malaya.

SSRANZ and RSNB’s Demands:

The NGOs said that they are prepare to consider ceasing advocating for independence if the following conditions are met by the federal government:
 Seek an International Court of Justice review of the validity of MA63 and legitimacy of Malaysia formation in the light of the ICJ ruling in the 2019 Chagos Island Case, that colonies are not sovereign state with legal capacity to make binding international agreements and to abide but its decision on whether MA63 is binding. If not binding, then decolonise Sabah & Sarawak.
 Restore the MA63 secular system by repealing ACT 354 and dismantle the anti-human rights New Economic Policy (NEP) race-religion based institutions which have used apartheid-like policies to discriminate against Sabah and Sarawak and their peoples for decades.
 The immediate implementation of Borneonisation in the civil service and education sectors and withdraw all federal officials to empower Sabah and Sarawak with real self-government and autonomy as agreed.
 Restore full immigration powers to Sabah and Sarawak in their original form.
 Return control over oil and gas resources to Sabah and Sarawak.
 Transfer of all Petronas’ assets to Sabah and Sarawak to compensate for 61 years of resource loss and development opportunities.
 Full restoration of MA63 rights, including the repeal or amendment of the Continental Shelf Act 1966, Petroleum Development Act 1974, and Territorial Sea Act 2012.
 Restoration of 34.6% parliamentary representation for Sabah and Sarawak.
 Withdraw all Malayan political parties from Sabah and Sarawak.
 Resolve the Philippines’ Sabah claim which challenges the legitimacy of Malaysia, pursuant to the Manila Accord 1963. 
 Resolve Sabah refugees problem by repatriation to their homelands or to Malaya.

Conclusion:
SSRANZ and RSNB said that Malaysia's legitimacy will remain in doubt as long as the issue of MA63’s validity along with the unresolved Philippines' claim on Sabah, are not addressed. Even if MA63 is deemed valid, the numerous breaches of its fundamental terms by Malaya, effectively amount to a unilateral termination of the agreement, which entitles Sabah and Sarawak to exit the federation.
The attempt to criminalise peaceful protests and suppress the legitimate demands of Sabah and Sarawak will only intensify calls for independence. The NGOs reaffirm that Sabah and Sarawak, like Singapore, have the inalienable right to self-determination and will pursue independence if their grievances continue to be ignored.


Signed 30 September 2024 by
Robert Pei 
President of Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)
&
Mosses Anap
President of Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)#

Sabah, Sarawak NGOs reject suggestion to give 1/3 of Dewan Negara seats to Borneo, it should be Dewan Rakyat seats they say

A Joint Statement by Sabah, Sarawak NGOs

WE note the strong push by NGOs such as ROSE, BERSIH, ENGAGE and Tindak Malaysia to push for the Borneo states to be given more than one-third of Senatorial seats.

After strong pushback from Sabah and Sarawak, they have now issued a statement dated 21 September giving a set of reasons. 

This was published in: https://www.sarawakrose.org/?p=117We reject the reasons given in the statement because they do not address the fundamental issue. 

The fundamental issues are the following: 

1. We are requesting a historical correction to the mistake made in 1965. When the federation of Malaysia was established in 1963, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore received more than 34% of the seats in the Dewan Rakyat. This was an important "safeguard" requested by North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore. When Singapore left the federation in 1965, Malayan officials should have followed the original ratio and redistributed the Singapore seats to Sabah and Sarawak. As a result, we are requesting a correction for a historical error. This correction is similar to the constitutional amendment made in 2021 when the original wordings was put back in Article 1 (2) of the Federal Constitution. It was to “right” a historical “wrong” in 1976. 

2. All agree that Dewan Negara lacks political legitimacy. Their members are appointed by the Agong and DUN rather than being directly chosen by the rakyat. You cannot expect a non-elected chamber to have the authority to speak out for Sabah and Sarawak with legitimacy. If the Dewan Negara was powerful, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak leaders would have requested a third of the Dewan Negara seats back in 1963. The fact that they wanted one-third of the seats in Dewan Rakyat indicates that they knew where power lay.

In summary, using today’s lens and half-truths to push for the 1/3 criteria to be met by Dewan Negara is disingenuous and an insult to Sabahans and Sarawakians. 

The Malayan NGOs may want to reform the electoral system in Malaya but they should do so without harming the interests of Sabah and Sarawak. 

Their push for more equalization of the vote in Malaya should not include Sabah and Sarawak  as it is a political  problem in Malaya between the Malays and non-Malays. 

It has  nothing to do with Sabah and Sarawak. We urge all Sarawakians and Sabahans to unite on this issue and reject the suggestions by ROSE, BERSIH, ENGAGE and Tindak Malaysia. They do not have the best interest of Sabah and Sarawak. 


Statement endorsed by : 

1. Sarawak Association For Peoples' Aspiration (SAPA)
2. Dayak International Organisation (DIO)
3. MOPOT - Moningolig Pogun Tokou (Defenders of Ancestral LandsSabah)
4. Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo
5. Pertubuhan Kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah (PKRDS)
6. Gabungan orang Asal Sarawak (GOASS)
7. Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak (PEDAS )
8. Sarawak Institute of International Affairs (SIPA)
9. Sabah Action Body Advocating Rights (SABAR)
10. Sabah Entitlement & Equity Now (SEEN)
11. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)#

Search This Blog