KUCHING, Jan 10: The Federal Constitution neither prohibits Sarawak or Sabah from exercising their right to exit the Federation of Malaysia, nor does it allow any law, such as the Sedition Act 1948, to impede this right.
In response to Bukit Semuja assemblyman and Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) Youth chief Miro Simuh’s statement that Sarawak cannot leave the federation without the Federal government’s agreement, Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) and Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) argued that such a stance would imply that Malaysia is not a free and voluntary association of four countries established in 1963.
In a joint statement, BoPiMaFo president Daniel John Jambun and SSRANZ president Robert Pei said Miro had unfairly criticised Bumi Kenyalang Party (PBK) president Voon Lee Shan’s persistent advocacy for Sarawak’s independence.
“Voon was just performing his duty as a loyal Sarawakian to fight for Sarawak rights, especially the inalienable legal right to independence under international law as recognised by the United Nations’ Resolution 1514.
“In fact, other than the PBK, no Sarawak or Sabah party has consistently called for independence from Malaysia owing to 60 years failure of the federation. There should be no limitation on this discourse in an association claimed by federalists to be a freely formed democratic federation,” claimed both BoPiMaFo and SSRANZ.
The Sarawak and Sabah non-governmental organisations (NGOs) presidents highlighted that the incorporation of former British colonies Sarawak and Sabah into the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 by the United Kingdom and Malayan governments does not extinguish the right to secession for several reasons.
They argued that as the Federation of Malaysia was created by an international treaty, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), registered with the United Nations in 1970 and therefore governed by international law, does no prohibit secession from a federation.
“It is the intrinsic right of any member in a free association to unconditionally and freely exit at any time,” they said, arguing that this issue was raised in the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) discussions before MA63 was signed on July 9, 1963 when both Sarawak and Sabah demanded the right to exit be included in the constitution.
They cited Lord Lansdowne, the IGC chairman who described Malaysia as a ‘buttress of freedom in Asia’, dissuaded them by stating that ‘any state voluntarily entering a federation had the intrinsic right to secede at will and therefore it was unncessary to include it in the constitution’.
This sentiment, they added, was further echoed by then Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman nine days after the MA63 was signed, who was reported on July 18, 1963, as saying that ‘the regions that join Malaysia have freedom to exit the federation if the new nation will not bring any benefit to them’.
“However, this was not the original position of the then Malayan government which insisted that ‘there be no right to secede’from the federation. This was at odds with the fact that the Malayans went through the motion of consulting Sarawak and Sabah to demonstrate that the union was the free and voluntary wish of the people but in reality, it was just to entrap them in their proposed union,” they claimed.
The NGO presidents also refuted claims that Point 7 of the Sabah 20 Points agreement prohibits secession, clarifying that the “20 Points” was merely a memorandum of terms and conditions and not legally binding agreement signed by the MA63 signatories nor incorporated as the law in MA63 or the federal constitution.
They cited in 1962, the British colonial secretary revealed their entrapment strategy by stressing to the Malayan government “the political advantages which might accrue both to H.M.G. and the Government of the Federation of Malaya if Malaysia was seen as voluntary merger rather than transfer, merger rather than absorption”. (Para 142 Stockwell “The Making of Malaysia”)
“Thus the world and Borneo people were led to believe that the admission of new members to the federation was a free and voluntary act,” they said.
The NGO presidents added that those opposing Sabah and Sarawak independence also erroneously claim that the Sedition Act 1948 was amended to prohibit ‘secession’.
They pointed out that there is no such prohibition in the ACT 1485 amendment of the Sedition Act in 2015 or any other Acts.
“The failure to resolve MA63 issues of state autonomy, seat allocation, loss of control of the civil service and education, resources and revenue from oil and gas, lack of development and infrastructures and poverty, Sabah’s 40 per cent revenue entitlement, Ketuanan Melayu race and religion concept replacing MA63 concept of secularism, pluralism and multiculturalism, and illegal migrants have led to the widespread sentiment for independence. The recent call to amend the Constitution for a Malay/Muslim government and a Malay Prime Minister only, has aroused more calls for independence,” they said.
The NGO presidents contend that MA63 was void ab initio as Sarawak and Sabah were still colonies without the legal capacity to make binding international treaties.
Even if MA63 were valid, they argued that multiple breaches of its terms since 1965 would entitle Sarawak and Sabah to exit as independent nations.
BoPiMaFo and SSRANZ called on both the Sarawak and Sabah governments to seek a proper resolution of the question of MA63 validity, especially in view of the International Court of Justice’s decision in the Chagos Case 2019 that colonies have no legal capacity to make binding international agreements and hold a referendum to let the people freely decide on the value or benefit for the two states to continue as members of the federation.
They added that a referendum should only be held after a period of at least two years to allow all parties to inform the people of the pros and cons of exit and independence. — DayakDaily
