How can you Malaysia exist without it being formed first?
Sabah and Sarawak formed Malaysia and later federated with the other States. Nothing special about that.
Kota Kinabalu: A Kota Kinabalu-based legal consultant-cum- economist claims both Sabah and Sarawak did not form Malaysia – as propagated by politicians from both the Borneo states – but actually joined.
Jeremiah Yee said the proof of his argument is "conspicuous by the wordings in Article 1 of the Malaysia Agreement" which states: "… shall be federated with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya … and the Federation shall thereafter be called Malaysia"
"In Section 1 of the Malaysia Act that was passed by the British parliament on 31 July 1963, it was also undisguised: "… to federate with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as the Federation), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia …"
"In a nutshell, it is crystal clear that there was no new Federation but an old one called Malaya which was later renamed Malaysia," Yee said.
He also said Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan should advise the Sabah and Sarawak governments to jointly sue the British and Malaysian governments in a London court, instead of blaming the British.
"If Pairin thinks the British government should be held accountable for the deterioration in Sabah including seeking interpretation of the safeguards in the Malaysia Agreement, he should sue in a London court, since the Malaysia Agreement was inked by their predecessors there in 1963," he said.
He was commenting on Pairin's blaming of the British Government when debating the National Budget 2016 in Parliament, recently. Among the perennial issues which continue to plague Sabah today include the interpretation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, and the 40pc revenue entitled to Sabah, under the 48th Schedule in Inter-Governmental Committee Report that has not been reviewed since 2004.
The Malaysia Agreement was signed in London on 9 July 1963 and is a legitimate document in spite of overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise, he said.
To substantiate this, he pointed out that when the governments of Britain, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement in London on 9 July 1963, the governments of Sabah and Sarawak were actually still at that material time British colonial governments.
On another matter that crops up every year in August that Sabah gained independence on 31 August 1963, Jeremiah opined that this is also not true, citing that "self-government" is not independence as the British flag "Union Jack" was only lowered for the final time in Jesselton at midnight of 16 September 1963.
The departure of the last British Governor from Sabah took place in the morning after the Proclamation of Malaysia was announced in the town padang (now Padang Merdeka).
"Succinctly, there was never any formal declaration of independence on 31 August 1963 for Sabah even though there were shouts of "Merdeka" in the town padang on 16 September 1963, but "Merdeka" from what when only Malaysia was proclaimed?" he contended.
As much as he concurred with Pairin's lamentation that the formation of Malaysia was done in a hurry, Jeremiah nonetheless pointed out that after the Second World War ended, the British economy both in the United Kingdom and the colonial empire was so drained to an extent that it could barely sustain existing commitments then, let alone meet new ones.
"The only justifiable and viable thing for Whitehall to do at that time was to let go of their colonies to new masters or local actors under the guise of 'Merdeka' so that they could dispose of their assets and businesses which include among others mines and estates and bring the money back to mother England.
Jeremiah further opined that the Malaysia Project of the British government was short-sighted, carelessly co-ordinated, inadequately designed, and poorly executed, to say the least.
"For one among many indicators, look no further than the controversial 20-Points which have remained a unilateral list of political demands largely unmet after 52 years," he cited.
On the 40pc entitlement from the net collection of federal revenue from Sabah by the Federal government which has not been paid for decades, a large portion of the claim, save for only a few years back, Jeremiah opined that there's nothing much the State government could do as, it is actually statutorily-barred.
"For this fiasco alone, who is to be blamed – the British government or the government of Sabah? To me the answer is the latter because out of ignorance it did not pursue the matter with the Federal government which also conveniently kept quiet.
"For so many administrations under numerous chief ministers of which some held the stewardship for 9 years or more and even set up think-tank and paid high salary to its members for advising the Sabah government, what happened?" he asked.
(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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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)?
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!
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 also 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?
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?
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.
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…!
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 http://legalandprudent.blogspot.com giving no quarters to anyone.