Kuala Lumpur is holding Sabah illegaly because Malaysia Federation is neither legal nor valid

MALAYSIA's CONTINUING ANNEXATION OF SABAH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG EVEN BY 1963 FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA CONSTITUTION STANDARD

"The absence of Singapore has directly resulted in the constitutional treaty, which included the constitutions of Sabah and Sarawak in the Federation of Malaysia, being invalid." -- Joseph Wilfred Lakai, Free Malaysia Today 

I have always held the view that Peninsular Malaysia's continuing annexation of Sabah is constitutionally wrong even by 1963 Malaysia Federation constitution standard. Malaysia's treatment of its historical facts has always been to my mind filled with a lot of half-truths. Malaysians -- and worse their leaders, continue to deceive their own people by teaching their children that MALAYSIA gained independence from the British in 1957 which is an utter lie.

THE INALIENABLE TRUTH: MALAYSIA FEDERATION was born on 16 September 1963. So how could a nation which was not even born gain independence? How could Malaysia say that they gained their independence from the British when the British had technically not ruled the Peninsula since 1957, the year the British gave the Malayans 'their independence on a whether you like it or not basis'? In fact, the Malayans did not want to be independent because they feared that if left alone they would not be able to compete with the Chinese population of Malaya. The inalienable truth is lies have always been the basis of existence of Malaysia.

FIRSTLY, Sabah which was a separate entity that was under direct British colonial control received independence from their British colonialists on 31st August 1963 and for FIFTEEN DAYS was technically truly INDEPENDENT. However on 16 September 1963, it was annexed to a new political entity whose new constitution was not even formally framed yet: the MALAYSIA Federation (the letter 'S' in the new name stood for Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah.)

SECONDLY, the referendum was a sham! During the fifteen days when Sabah was supposed to be technically independent of their British colonizers, we were, and are still being made to believe that the idea of a 1963 referendum to determine if Sabahans agree for their infant nation, i.e., Sabah, to join a new Malaysia Federation that was in the making, was presented to the people of Sabah; that debates on the referendum were organised, that colloques were held, that political discussions across massive and greatly rural Sabah and among Sabahans took place; that voting was held; that counting was done, and finally, that it was determined that Sabahans indeed had decided, etc., -- AND that all of these activities that would decide the fate of an infant so-called independent nation took place in a matter of fifteen days. Hogwash!

We all know that Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Malayan who was leading the Malayans at the time, distributed a few leaflets about the referendum, talked to a few Sabahan leaders, promised them a lot of good things and then instructed them to do things to ensure that the referendum would be for an "Aye!" vote.

NOTE THIS: "The response from Sabah and Sarawak was not on par with that from Singapore and the initial response from Brunei, since both territories feared losing authority in the administration of their governments. Apart from this, the non-Malays feared that the Malays in Sabah and Sarawak would be even more dominant should the merger take place. To allay their fears, Tunku Abdul Rahman went to these territories in June 1961 and set up the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC) to inform the people of the benefits of the merger." Federation of Malaysia pdf document "

The group that was was tasked with overseeing that the people of Sabah supported the proposal for Sabah to become a federated member of the NEW Malaysia Federation was the Cobbold Commission which was also "responsible for the subsequent drafting of the Constitution of Malaysia prior to the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963."

The members of the Commission were (in picture): Lord Cobbold, former Governor of the Bank of England, chairman of the Commission, Wong Pow Nee, Chief Minister of Penang, Mohammed Ghazali Shafie, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Abell, former Governor of Sarawak, David Watherston, former Chief Secretary of Malaya.

Notice anything? There was NO SABAHAN member of the Commission.

What is surprising is that the Cobbold Commission report did not specifically address the concerns of the people but instead reported on generalities that tended to address the MALAYA desiderata, i.e., Kuala Lumpur leaders! Many Sabahans later on insisted that they had not even been allowed to vote. It is believed that many Sabahans, given the prevailing conditions for travelling at the time -- Sabah being rural with not many communication infrastructures in place, hence communication lines were hardly available, were not even aware that a referendum to decide on their fate was being organised!

Here's a Wiki entry on the Commission's report : The Commission found that 'About one third of the population of each territory [i.e. of North Borneo and of Sarawak] strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern over terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards... The remaining third is divided between those who insist upon independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come' [12].

THIRDLY, it's all about the NEW federation's Constitution if you think about it! Alright... So let's say the Sabah referendum took place and let's further say that the results favoured joining a new political entity called the new Malaysia Federation. Let's accept that Sabah finally joined the new entity and that by virtue of Sabah's joining OLD Malaya, along with Sarawak and Singapore, the new Malaysia Federation was born on 16 September 1963 (instead of 31 August 1963 because Indonesia was protesting the inclusion of Sarawak.)

The problem with the new federation (MALAYSIA) is that it was created on the basis of the Constitution of the OLD Federation of Malaya States (which was actually a federation of Malaya sultanates found in today's West Malaysia) which was still in vigour. This is so because technically, a Constitution for the New Malaysia Federation was not yet finished although mind you it was being rushed by the Cobbold Commission. So there was a hiccup. But never mind, let's accept that they rushed the inking of the new Constitution (as opposed to the old 1957 Malaya federation constitution involving only the Malaya states/sultanates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Malaysia); it was finally drafted and contained a clear provision that NAMED ALL the new members: old [federation of] Malaya states, Sarawak, Singapore and Sabah.

Now, on the birth of the NEW Malaysia Federation: On 9 July 1963, the Governments of the Federation of Malaya, United Kingdom, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement 175 whereby Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo would federate with the existing States of the Federation of [the old] Malaya and the new federation so established would be called MALAYSIA FEDERATION. The Federal Parliament then passed the Malaysia Act 176 to amend Art. 1 of the Federal Constitution "to provide, inter alia, for the admission of the three new States and for the renaming of the Federation as Malaysia. The Act received the Royal assent on 26 August and was to come into force on 16 September 1963."

The proviso in the NEW Malaysia Constitution left no room for doubt that the new Federation of Malaysia held on the basis of the union of FOUR independent states namely MALAYA (old Malaya union or old federation of Malaya states/sultanates), SARAWAK, SINGAPORE, and finally, SABAH.

But Singapore's chief minister Lee Kuan Yew was not happy with the status quo. He opposed the federal policies of affirmative action, which granted special privileges to Malays guaranteed under Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. On 9th August 1965, after racial riots, Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman expelled Singapore from the new Malaysia federation. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_Singapore.)

THEREFORE, when Singapore exited on 9th August 1965 from the newly formed "Malaysia Federation" whose newly framed Constitution specified that the Federation held based on the provision that the new Malaysia Federation held IF all 4 states were together, Singapore's expulsion rendered the existence of the new federation null and void.

NOTE THIS FROM A SABAH WRITER: "The absence of Singapore has directly resulted in the constitutional treaty, which included the constitutions of Sabah and Sarawak in the Federation of Malaysia, being invalid." Read: S’pore’s exit nullified Malaysia Agreement September 26, 2011

The Malaysia Agreement combined with the various related documents including the Bill of Malaysia, is now called the Malaysia Act 1963.

All these documents also included entry requirements and the constitutional reference to Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia. 

Agreement illegalThe Malaysia Agreement also required all partners to be signatories before a final decision was made. 

The intention of including all four signatories was to ensure they were in full knowledge of the agreement between the Federation of Malaya and the sovereign states of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore when forming Malaysia. 

Therefore, Malaysia has been described by various parties as a coalition of partners coming together to form a unified new country and with many of its respective sovereign features included. 

When Singapore was removed from the Malaysian Federation in 1965, questions arose and continued to persist as to what had happened to the Malaysia Agreement signed by all parties in 1963. 

The absence of Singapore has directly resulted in the constitutional treaty, which included the constitutions of Sabah and Sarawak in the Federation of Malaysia, being invalid. 

The Malaysia Agreement is now neither valid nor legal in that the Federation of Malaysia is now an illegal entity because of the removal of Singapore which was one of the signatories to the agreement, which led to the origin of the federation itself.

In this context, it is only common sense that the continuing annexation of Sabah to a federation that does not constitutionally hold even by the new Malaysia Federation standard cannot be legal. In essence, the continuing annexation of Sabah by today's Peninsular Malaysia is not only illegal, it is also morally wrong. To validate the federation, a NEW REFERENDUM must be held. But Kuala Lumpur has not done it. We can only wonder why...

So why is Malaysia continuing to illegally annex Sabah? If Malaysia wants to legalise their hold on Sabah, it is only fair that a new referendum to ask the people of Sabah must be held. But Malaysia cannot continue to use underhanded tactics, and make the world think that their fantasmagorical historical fantasies are real!

By Anne de Bretagne

For the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum

28 May 2012

Addendum: In All Good Muslims must ask for Najib's tongue to be cut off for lying 14 April 2013

Even Harvard-educated Jeffrey G Kitingan, a native of Sabah, leader and politician, had already disputed Najib's claim about "referendum" in Sabah and insisted that there was no referendum as such in 1962.  

In fact, Jeffrey Kitingan said that "Any talks between Malaysia and the Philippines must include Sabah because only the people of Sabah can decide what they want." 

A report by Luke Rintod for the Free Malaysia Today:

KOTA KINABALU: United Borneo Front (UBF) chairman Jeffrey Kitingan has disputed the context of the 1962 referendum which academics and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak claim confirmed Sabahans’ desire to be part of Malaysia. 

“There has never been a referendum on Sabah as stated by some academics. 

“In fact, the so-called referendum in 1962-63 was actually only a sampling survey of less than four percent of the Sabah population,” he said in response to Najib’s comments on Sabah yesterday.

RECOMMENDED READING:

An Essay on the Constitutional History of Malaysia [1995] 3CLJ xiv July 

A new federation in the making 

American support of the new Malaysia

North Borneo Dispute 

Fifteen Days of Independence

Singapore's exit nullified Malaysia Agreement

All Good Muslims must ask for Najib's tongue to be cut off for lying

THE COBBOLD COMMISSION: Lord Cobbold, former Governor of the Bank of England, chairman of the Commission, Wong Pow Nee, Chief Minister of Penang, Mohammed Ghazali Shafie, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Abell, former Governor of Sarawak, David Watherston, former Chief Secretary of Malaya.