Separation, not Pakatan Rakyat, is the answer for Sabah and Sarawak - Daniel John Jambun

Constitutional lawyer Aziz Bari is barking up the wrong tree on Sabah and Sarawak re-thinking the idea of Malaysia after 50 years. Professor James Chin is also wrong to label separation attempts in Sabah and Sarawak as treason.

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

Why must Sabah, Sarawak now go through the Conference of Rulers now that they want to stand on their own two feet? Also, the states of Malaya were not consulted whether they wanted to be in a new Federation with Sabah and Sarawak.

There was no referendum either before Sabah and Sarawak were dragged by the Malayans and British into Federation with Malaya in 1963.

The principles which support Sabah and Sarawak going their own way can be found in the Western Sahara Case Advisory Opinion ICJ Reports (1975) 12.

The inicia 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 for the client 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 August, 1963 and 22 July, 1963 respectively.

The disturbing contents of declassified British colonial documents make it clear that the British were convinced that Malaya would colonise Sabah and Sarawak after their departure.

If so, these revelations and facts clearly demonstrate that the UK Government abandoned Sabah and Sarawak, inadvertently or otherwise, to Malayan colonialism on/or before 16 September, 1963.

The issue of colonisation arises in Borneo because Malaysia was not properly set up by the British Government in particular and the UN in general.

In the case of Brunei, originally included in the Malaysia concept, it had the choice of not choosing to join in the formation of Malaysia.

Brunei was able to wait for its independence until 1984. It again rejected the Malaysia idea when the Malaysian government approached them on the matter after independence.

Why didn’t the UN intervene in Malaya's occupation of Sabah and Sarawak as it did for example in the case of Indonesia's occupation of Timor Leste?

The people of Sabah and Sarawak, out of ignorance, did not press their case at the UN and at the UN Security Council.

If the Philippines/Sulu were to march into Sabah, for example, the UN will not recognise it even if the people don't protest because Putrajaya will protest.

Re: 16 September, 1963, who protested except Indonesia and the Philippines?
The British disguised it as a coming together of parts of the Empire in the wake of decolonisation although they knew Malaya would colonise Sabah and Sarawak after they left.

It was actually 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. The Borneo nations were not allowed to leave.

The 50th year of Malaya in Sabah and Sarawak via Malaysia was a moment in history.

The true history behind the so-called Malaysia should be told.

There being no compliance on the Malaysia Agreement stems from the fact that there was no proper decolonisation in Borneo, Malaysia if any was not set up properly, and what we have in fact is Malayan colonisation – despite Tunku's public assurances – replacing British colonisation.

Tunku used the so-called Singapore-Malaysia merger through Malaysia in 1963, with Borneo being the facilitator, as an excuse to get Sabah and Sarawak 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/Ketuanan Islam.

Why 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 pounds from the British North Borneo Company, both in the wake of World War II, if not to unwittingly or otherwise myopically facilitate Malayan colonisation in shouldering the defence burden in the interests of Britain's Commercial Empire in Borneo.

Fifty years after Sabah and Sarawak found themselves in Federation with Malaya on the other side of the South China Sea, the question that arises is the real name of this Federation.

Article 1 of the Federal Constitution states 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.

Wither the Malaysia Agreement 1963!

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 the 12th and 13th states are states in Malaysia.

This means the Federation of Malaysia 1963 does not exist.

What exists is the Federation of Malaya 1957 masquerading as the Federation of Malaysia 1963.

PKR is taking the stand that it’s better for Sabah and Sarawak to vote BN out rather than secede from the Federation.

The fact is that 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. The Government lacks legitimacy and it will get away with it if the people just keep quiet.

The present government in Putrajaya must be forced by the UN Security Council to step down and an interim government should be set up to reform the electoral process and hold free and fair elections.

* Daniel John Jambun is the president of Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation.