SSRANZ President Calls On Malaysian Prime Minister To Discuss Sarawak Independence

SSRANZ president Robert Pei said he wished Prime Minister Mahathir a very happy birthday on 10 July and called on him to show the greatest magnanimity and statesmanship to convene a meeting with the state government and all community and NGO leaders in Sarawak to discuss the question of setting Sarawak free for independence. Sabah could be included if the leaders and people wished to also go for independence.

He said Dr. Mahathir could take this opportunity go down in history as a noble and great democratic leader.

The 1941 independent Sarawak government had set the precedent in its 1941 Sarawak Constitution by declaring in its 9 Cardinal Principles that state power was to devolve to the people. It was not an issue of national independence as Sarawak was then an independent state.
_____________________________________________________________

SSRANZ President Robert Pei said that it is misleading to label the issue of Sarawak independence as an issue of “secession from Malaysia” as it is disputed whether Sarawak and Sabah were legitimately integrated as part of the Malayan Federation renamed “Malaysia” in 1963.

He was responding cautiously to a news report of Prime Minster Dr. Mahathir’s statement “In line with the government’s policy to promote freedom of speech as per Item 1 of Article 10 in the Federal Constitution, the use of provisions under the Sedition Act will only be utilised in cases where an act of sedition creates a situation that is beyond control that it jeopardises the security and public order,” . (Malaysia Kini 05/07/19).

However, PM Mahathir had himself stated a month ago in an overseas forum, that there is no bar to Sarawakians or Sabahans seeking independence. If he really meant that, then seeking independence should not be seen as an “act of sedition” or secession but the exercise of free speech on the people’s intrinsic right to independence upheld by the United Nations and international law.

He said the Sarawak government gave a mixed reaction to the statement. The Chief Minister Abang Zohari agreed with the Prime Minister on action to be taken and many people felt this was “unSarawakian”.

Datuk Wan Junaidi a state government minster gave a more balanced view and said Malaysia may have been conceived as “perpetual posterity” but it was only a political arrangement. He said quitting Malaysia like Singapore was always a possibility if the people and government wanted independence.

Both the Parti Bumiputra Kenyalang and the Parti Bangsa Dayak Baru Sarawak have criticized the statement relating to “act of sedition” and said it is not against the law to speak about independence. The Star Reform party called for an inquiry to find out if Sarawak wants to be part of Malaysia.

Pei said the Prime Minister’s statement sounded like a mixed message. It may be meant as a strong warning both to deter the public and to Sarawak nationalists who are gaining growing popular support for their national independence campaign. Coupled with this is a rumour circulating that certain targeted leaders of the nationalist movement would be arrested. This appears to be a tactic to create fear and uncertainty to discourage public support for the official Sarawak Independence Day commemoration events on 22 July, 2019.

Pei said the Prime Minister’s clarification came after SSRANZ was singled out for mention a few days earlier in the 2019 July Parliament Question and Answer. An UMNO MP had asked if action was to be taken against SSRANZ members in Australia who allegedly made critical statements challenging the legitimacy of the government and giving “Malaysia a bad name”.

The Deputy Foreign Minister’s reply indicated that action would be taken on basis of a police report being made against any alleged offender on their return home.

The SSRANZ President said this was a typical over reaction often displayed by the former UMNO BN government which had always been sensitive to any form of criticism about Malaysian democracy especially from abroad. He recalled that in 1975 Dr. Mahathir himself made similar comments against overseas Malaysian students who criticized the political repression and arrests that were going on in the peninsula at the time.

The Prime Minister’s comments may now reflect a more tolerant approach to the activism but at the same time carried a warning.

His concern may be unwarranted as nationalist activities in Sarawak have always been peaceful and law abiding since marches and rallies for Sarawak independence began in 2013. The biggest march so far in 2015 saw over 5,000 people on the streets and rallying peacefully at the Song Kheng Hai grounds in Kuching on 22 July. This led to the Sarawak Government proclaiming 22 July as “Sarawak Independence Day” and gazetting it as as public holiday. The last time there were major rallies in Sarawak was in 1963 when Sarawakians rallied for Sarawak independence.

Pei said as an example for comparison, the Hong Kong Government had so far shown great restrain in its reaction to the ongoing anti-extradition protests which saw some 2 million people on the streets and these have been mainly peaceful apart from some police action to disperse demonstrators. Although this was marred by an attack and vandalising of the Legislature Assembly the Hong Kong government has not declared a state of emergency or carried out mass arrests (apart from arrests of those who vandalised public property).

Pei who is a lawyer in Australia, said in relation to the Sedition Act, the meaning of “act of sedition” was imprecise and defined very broadly in the Act to catch anyone whom the authorities may have formed a subjective opinion of being seditious. This allows an arbitrarily approach to suppressing people exercising their right to freedom of speech as charges could be simply based on politically motivated allegations. The Prime Minister had also mentioned other laws which could be used against activists.

He said the United Kingdom which imposed the law on Malaya in 1948 had long since repealed the outdated 1661 law enacted to suppress rebellions against the king. He called for the repeal of the archaic and draconian law as it should not be applied in the new democratic Malaysia Baru which the new government member parties had stood against.

He opined that labelling the continuing activist campaign or anyone as “secessionist” is unhelpful as he said Malayans need to honestly look at why Sarawakians are unhappy with Malaysia and have such a deep and driven aspiration for independence. This nationalism was born out of the 1946 anti-cession independence struggle and carried over to the 1960s when Sarawakians opposed the Malaysia plan and demanded independence.

The reason given in those days was that Malaysia was a neo-colonial creation which was for the UK to merely transfer Sarawak and Sabah sovereignty to the Malayan Federation thus denying the people real independence. In those 5 decades the Federal ill treatment and neglect of Sarawak now lend support to the renewed accusations of Malayan colonization of Sarawak.

He said there is strong legal evidence to support that the 2 colonies were never properly decolonized by Britain but were in fact absorbed or annexed into Malaya.

He pointed out that Malaysia was a de facto federation as the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was itself flawed by the fact that it purported to an international agreement between 5 countries. On signing of MA63 on 9 July 1963 Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak as still colonies were not sovereign states and therefore did not have capacity or competence in international law to make treaties with the UK and Malaya as independent states. This means MA63 was null and void and has no legal binding effect from the beginning and the current inter-government negotiations could not make MA63 valid and this questions the legitimacy of Malaysia.

This conclusion is supported by the recent International Court of Justice advice to the United Nations on the Chagos Islands case. The ICJ reaffirmed the right of countries to self-determination and that colonies were not sovereign states with capacity or competence to make international agreements. The ICJ ruled that the colonial administrating power could not therefore make a binding agreement with its colonies as they were under its full control at all times. This means that the agreement was totally void.

He said further supporting evidence is that the Malaysian Federal Constitution does not recognize MA63 as the instrument creating Malaysia.

This is reinforced by the new Federal Government’s refusal to amend the constitution to include the phrase “pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement 1963” and the fact that formation date 16 Sept 1963 was never officially commemorated until 2013 under public pressure. Then there is the evidence of 5 decades of continuing multiple breaches of fundamental treaty terms on security and development which has left MA63 (if not void ab initio) in tatters . He said the federal government was still in breach of the treaty as it has not been able to sincerely implement its election promises to rectify the MA63 breaches but had in fact backed down on them.

Pei said MA63 invalidity leaves Malaysia as a de facto state in control of Sarawak and Sabah by virtue of the UK transfer of sovereignty and jurisdiction. So it would be a case of gaining independence from Malaysia. To “secede” presumed that Sarawak and Sabah had agreed to the formation of Malaysia which is strongly disputed.

The independence issues are partly covered by what the Federal and Sabah and Sarawak state governments are now negotiating. These are what many citizens have been openly talking about for several years, that is, the subject of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), issues of loss Sabah Sarawak state autonomy power and rights and petroleum resources which the previous government violated and abrogated or took away by back door legislation altering MA63 in breach of the agreement Federal Constitution and international law.

He drew attention to what members of the Sarawak Council Negri had demanded in 1962 when they called for a secession clause to be inserted in the Federal Constitution. Madam Tra Zehnder a council member had said if it turned out that the people were unhappy with the federation they should be able to take Sarawak out.

It was then that Lord Lansdowne had replied that ‘any State voluntarily entering a Federation have an intrinsic right to secede at will.”

P Jenkins of the UK Far East and Pacific department said with some premonition at the time on Singapore exit in 1965 that “this point may come up again if secession becomes a live issue.”

He said therefore the Malaysian government should not over react to Sarawak independence rallies and be wise to exercise the greatest restrain towards Sarawakians in the exercise of freedom of speech, association and assembly. Any arrest of nationalist leaders would be counter-productive as seen in the past such actions only create greater resistance.

In conclusion, the SSRANZ president said he wished the Prime Minister a very happy 94th birthday on 10 July and called on him to show the greatest magnanimity and statesmanship to convene a meeting with the state government and all community and NGO leaders in Sarawak to discuss the question of setting Sarawak free for independence. Sabah could be included if the leaders and people wished to also go for independence.

He said Dr. Mahathir could take this opportunity go down in history as a noble and great democratic leader.

Thus, in the present situation it is not an issue of “secession” but that of restoring Sarawak independence as promised by the UK in annexing the country in 1946. The UK had reneged on its promise by transferring Sarawak sovereignty to Malaya without ever obtaining the people’s mandate freely expressed in a referendum.

Independence could be achieved peacefully as when Singapore exited the federation without any threat to security or bloodshed, by mutual agreement and equanimity between the parties.

End of comment.
Robert Pei
SSRANZ President,
09/07/2019.