SABAH CLAIM REFRAIN: "BLAME SOMEONE ELSE BUT ME"

"When Malaya's Tunku Abdul Rahman went to Sabah before the Sabah referendum in 1962 to talk to the elders of North Borneo (Sabah), why did not the Philippines and its Government do the same to organise a campaign in situ to get the Sabahans on side? Why didn't they do it?


 
By Anne de Bretagne
For the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum
for the Defenders of the Philippine Sabah & Spratly Claims
and for Sabah Claim Society
23 August 2015


Now, is "blame someone else but me" a distinct Filipino character trait? I'm beginning to think it is! 

For the last few years, the usual refrain when people discuss the Sabah claim issue is to blame the British for the situation the Philippines finds itself in with regard to its stale claim on Sabah. Well, well...

Alright, let's deal with it and throw the Framework Agreement, the BBL, the entire immobile Sabah claim, the Sultanate of Sulu bickering (nearly fratricidal crap, etc, etc) and include with them the kitchen sink at the British. 

I agree the British 'created the problem' as many people who have just recently discovered the North Borneo (Sabah) conundrum have been spewing all over the place.  But here's what: these Filipinos must understand and admit once and for all that the Philippines contributed largely to that decision that created the problem (and continues to contribute unequivocally to the problem TODAY).

But let's be fair and be a bit more clever about things. It's nice to have a punching bag or to have a butt of "sisi" (much like Noynoy aka as Boy Sisi), in this case, the British, but we must ascertain that the Philippines, its leaders and its people aren't at  fault either before we cast blame or "sisi" all around. Anyway, if we want to cast "sisi" all around, here are some real reasons for you to go and do all the "sisi" you want:

(1) At the time, i.e., early 60s, Senator Jovi Salonga was working so hard negotiating with the Brits, your/our own countryman, Senator Lorenzo Sumulong, a flamboyant ex-diplomat to the UN (who happens to be the grand uncle of current PH president, Noynoy Aquino), was going all over the place, attacking and casting vitriolic heaps of acid via the PH Senate pulpit to whip PH Govt and its Sabah claim to extinction. 

He sold the PH claim to Tunku Adul Rahman, then Malaysia's Prime Minister by acting as the soon-to-be-created Malaysia Federation's attack dog against the Government of the Philippines and its claim to Sabah. It wouldn't surprise me therefore, that like the big powers at the time, the Brits took this all-Philippine treasonous approach to the Sabah claim, happening in one of the highest echelons of power, as an excuse to say, "Bloody hell! You people don't know what you want? Well, I'll decide for you!" (Let's not beat around the bush, it was an all-Filipino treason game which must have greatly amused the Brits and the Malayans!) 

(2) Furthermore, if blame has to be cast all around, let's not look far away.... Our own masters and commanders at the time, the great United States of America, did not lift a finger, did not do anything at all to help us convince the British to allow the Sultanate of Sulu to have it back in 1962. On the contrary, the Americans not only did not pay even scant attention to this issue but also discouraged us from tackling the Sabah issue (check out records from as far back as 1957). And one would have thought that as our greatest allies, they would see our way. But heck, no...just didn't happen, but you don't see me around blaming the Americans, now, do you? (Fast forward... In 1967 or 68, it was America that alerted Britain that Marcos was on a "war path" and so what happened? Britain tried to show force by landing fighter aircraft on our own soil. Did America say anything? Nope! Not a word! They were in cahoots with the UK!)

(3) One important element: When Malaya's Tunku Abdul Rahman went to Sabah before the Sabah referendum in 1962 to talk to the elders of North Borneo (Sabah), why did not the Philippines do the same to organise a campaign in situ to get the Sabahans on side? Why?

The Philippine Government was well aware of what was going to happen but did not lift a finger, did not do anything and instead, LEFT EVERYTHING TO FATE as in "Bahala na!" The Government at the time just sat on its big fat ass while the other party, the Malayans led by Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, were going at things hammer and tong right in the heart of Sabah to convince the Sabahans to join the soon-to-be created Malaysia Federation. TOTAL PHILIPPINE INERTIA! PH Govt just didn't go the extra mile even if it meant saving Sabah claim's own skin for God and country. Parbleu! And you think we are not to blame?

And I can recite a long series of other "blames" but I won't. I'll stop at those because they should be enough to enlighten you.

So, lets be a bit more clever about this, shall we? Because we can't just be making "sisi" all around like Noynoy does today when things go wrong and believe that it's everybody else's fault but ours! If you really want to know, we were as much to blame for being generally do-lally about the claim. 

This "sisi" doctrine seems to be deeply embedded in our psyche but let's get over it and move on!

Let's not allow classic INERTIA (Bahala na!) to overcome us just because it makes us feel better to  whine consistently and to look back to the past to blame the British for all that has gone badly with Sabah (of which, I must remind Filipinos, are also largely, hugely responsible for, anyway) and let this politics of blame stop at the water's edge! Instead, FIND SOLUTIONS TO HOW TO GET THE BLASTED SABAH BACK or at the very least, find solutions not to allow this country to be partitioned by radicals, zealots, fanatics, secessionists, Malaysian warriors by proxy in the southern Philippines with the treasonous complicity -- again of Govt officials, elected and appointed!

Blaming the Brits for the Sabah debacle ad vitam eternam is not going to help achieve what many Filipinos want, i.e., get Sabah back. 

~~~~O~~~~

Najib continues to lie by perpetuating a gross Malaysian fairy tale

He's doing it again! 

In a ceremony in Sabah to set up Sabah East Coast Special Security Area (ESSCOM*) a couple of days ago, Malaysia's PM Najib Razak once again spewed his grotesque fairy tale: "... that the state of Sabah, since Sept 16, 1963 and with the decision and support of the majority of the people in the state, had stated that they wished Sabah would be independent in Malaysia."
  
There was no 1962 referendum as such in Sabah to speak of. If there was one, why can't Najib show the results of the referendum? All Najib has to do is to instruct Hishamm, his Home Minister to show the documents. But he can't do that because the humiliating truth will be revealed: that there was no 1962 North Borneo (Sabah) referendum as such! 

So, Mr Najib continues to lie by perpetuating a gross Malaysian fairy tale that the people of Sabah at the time had supported a joint Cobbold Commission-Tunku Abdul Rahman decision for Sabah to be annexed to Kuala Lumpur. Wrong! 

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.

If only Malaysians were a bit smarter, as in they are able to engage brain, they would realise that Kuala Lumpur is holding Sabah illegaly:

"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, for Free Malaysia Today

And what do you know? Even Malaysia Insider dared publish a challenge by Neal Cruz: Malaysia fears World Court opinion over Sabah claim, says columnist. 

So Najib lies! All good Muslims must ask for Najib's tongue to be cut off for lying!


NB: Najib's ESSCOM's mission is to do police and military operations to eliminate the "terrorists", a term Najib and his colleagues in Kuala Lumpur use against Filipinos in Sabah of Tausug and Suluk ancestry who own Sabah.

To Najib and his colleagues, we say: 

~~ By AdB

for the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum

14 April 2013

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.