『50 years after the formation of Malaysia, the belief in the right of the people to self-determination and freedom of the peoples to decide the destiny of our country (Sarawak) has not been extinguished, and remains very much alive in the hearts of Sarawakians today,』 ====~======~=====~=== I did a story about Point 7 of the 18-point Malaysia Agreement for Sarawak last week, and got Ms Lina Soos opinion and views about the matter. Ms Lina had been very informative and cooperative to me, and I do believe the story would be very strong and should attract the attention of many people, especially the younger generation. However, it was very heartbreaking to know that my news portal, Free Malaysia Today, have yet to publish the article, for reasons I yet to know. Perhaps being worried of ridiculous governmental action, or even worse. Here I wish to share it with my fellow Sarawak nationalists, so that Ms Linas and my efforts would be be in vain. Please share my humble article here with as many people as possible:- ‘Sarawak, Sabah may opt to break away from the Federation?’ Point 7 of Malaysia Agreement may only ‘advises’ Sarawak and Sabah not to, instead of ‘prohibiting’ them to secede （By Winston Way ） ----～-----～----～---- KUCHING: Sarawak and Sabah may in point of fact have the right to secede from Malaysia, based on the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, yet supposedly there were parties that would not tolerate it. Based on the English Language, Point 7 of the said agreement was perceived as being merely ‘advisory’, instead of being ‘prohibiting’ and ‘obligation’ in nature. There were extremely dynamic discussions about the said point, which reads, “Point 7 – Rights of Secession; There should be no right to secede from the Federation”, among Facebook users from both Sarawak and Sabah in recent years. The main focus of the argument was the use of the word “should”, instead of “shall” in the said point. In contrast of having stated, “There shall be no right to secede from the Federation”, which would mean Sabah and Sarawak ‘have the obligation or being commanded never secede from the Federation’, the use of the word ‘should’ was generally taken by those taking part in the discussions as merely being ‘advisory’. They said Point 7 of the Malaysia Agreement suggests it was a ‘mere recommendation’ that “Sabah and Sarawak continue to be a part of the Federation of Malaysia, when there are no reasons or causes to trigger their need to secede”. One user added, “If Point 7 intends to say that Sabah and Sarawak need not secede from the Federation, unless they want to, then it also intends to say that Sabah and Sarawak need not continue to be part of the Federation of Malaysia unless it wants to”. However, a member of the NGO Borneo Heritage Foundation, Lina Soo has different views in the matter, and also has some ‘bad’ news and ‘good news’ for those concerned, calling both Point 7 and Sarawak’s 18-point agreement under Malaysia Agreement as somewhat ‘mythical’. As for Sabah, she said the 20-point agreement was drawn up by the Sabah (then North Borneo) government back in August 1962, before it was submitted to the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) which was set up to determine the constitutional framework and safeguards for Malaysia, yet there was nothing from Sarawak then. “I always believed the 18-point agreement for Sarawak never existed, as during one of our (Sarawak) Council Negri sessions then, (the then Sarawak Attorney-General, Philip E.H.) Pike regretted that while Sabah (North Borneo) had submitted their 20-point agreement, Sarawak had not done so. “This would have been a confirmation, as this is gazetted in our Council Negri proceedings. However one British did tell me that the 18-point Agreement does exist and can be found in the United Nations treaties department, but until someone can come out with the document as part of the Malaysia treaty, I’m inclined to think it doesn’t exist,” said Soo, who had been exceptionally active in one so-called Borneo Agenda in recent years. She however opined that the right to self-determination for any territory is a fundamental right, of which Sarawak allegedly had been denied and consequently, Sarawak’s territorial sovereignty was handed over to Malaya. “If Malaya says we willingly entered the federation, then we retain our right to leave the federation. When the IGC was being drawn up, there was some reference to the right to secede by North Borneo and Sarawak, but the Malayans made it clear they would not tolerate any right to secede. “At a meeting of the South East Asian Group of the Conservative Commonwealth Council, Malaysia was discussed at a private meeting, and Lord Lansdowne who was the Chairman of IGC (purportedly) said that there was no need to include the right to secede from the Federation, on the ground that any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will, and that it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Constitution,” Soo said. The remark by Lord Lansdowne was quoted by Soo in her recently launched book “Sarawak: The Real Deal”. In relation to the ‘shall’ and ‘should’ debate over Point 7 of the Malaysia Agreement, she said there was no need to ‘split hairs over the issue, because as far as Sarawak is concerned the 18-point agreement does not exist, or if it does, Point 7 is not included’, thus making Malaysia Agreement purportedly silent about the question of secession or separation. “The right to federate or unfederate is an intrinsic right. Laws made by man can be unmade,” she stated when contacted by Free Malaysia Today. She pulled comparisons with the region of Catalonia, which will be going ahead with a referendum sometime next year to secede from Spain, even though the Spanish constitution says there could be no secession by the semi-autonomous community (province). “Sarawak was an independent and sovereign nation for 100 years, and then the British colonized us unconstitutionally and against the will of the people, and in 1963 they surrendered us over to Malaya,” she opined. During the launch of her book last month, Soo said she was leading a group of Sarawakians to sue the British Government for failing to return sovereignty to the state before the formation of Malaysia in 1963. She alleged then that recent declassified British colonial documents appear to support the groups assertion that the British colonial office conspired with Malayan leaders to secretly engineer the sovereignty of British Borneo to Malaya. “The British were masterminds and strategists. Despite massive opposition to the Malaysia Plan, they denied Borneo colonies rights to self-determination,” said Soo then. She stressed that ‘Sarawak and Sabah were plundered of their oil and resources for 50 years and both states became the most impoverished parts of Malaysia’. Soo also stated then that a group of people, including a few lawyers, was preparing the legal documents to file the suit against the British government, with its main object being to decide whether Sarawak willingly join the federation to form Malaysia, and whether Sarawak can federated with another nation before gaining independence. Additionally, she said during the book launch that the case would seek damages from the British government for ‘its breach of human rights and the people’s unalienable right to self-government under international law’. “50 years after the formation of Malaysia, the belief in the right of the people to self-determination and freedom of the peoples to decide the destiny of our country (Sarawak) has not been extinguished, and remains very much alive in the hearts of Sarawakians today,” Soo told FMT. https://facebook/groups/SarawakSovereigntyMovement/permalink/530589030350117/ see more info at: https://facebook/groups/553949527998238/permalink/589545917771932/
Posted on: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:36:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015