Is MA63 A Valid International Agreement - Updated Version 2019

IS MA63 A VALID INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT?
WAS MA63 DE-COLONIZATION OR RE-COLONIZATION?
WHAT THIS PAPER IS ABOUT
The formation of Malaysia as part of Britain's “de-colonization” plan was an extremely

controversial issue opposed both locally and internationally in the 1960s. According to the
declassified secret British colonial documents Britain had secretly planned a direct transfer
(the “second cession” or annexation) of its Borneo colonial territories to Malayan rule
without even first granting independence to the territories. Its critics said it was just
exchanging the old colonial master for a new one. In other words it was a shocking denial
of their inalienable right to self-determination.
A recent comment by an Australian historian Geoffrey Wade pinpointed the purpose of the
British Malayan creation of Malaysia that:
“By ensuring that Sabah and Sarawak did not seek independence and instead became dependent
on and subordinate to Kuala Lumpur, the British Cold War strategy of creating a Western-
oriented bulwark across the middle of Southeast Asia was achieved.
This relationship of dependence and subordination of Sabah and Sarawak to Kuala Lumpur has,
however, been a cause of dissatisfaction ever since.
Originally proclaimed as equal partners in the new nation, the two Bornean states have been
continually exploited for their oil and timber resources, fiscal allocations (they are given 5%
“royalty” of the oil and gas revenues they produce) and their representation in the federal
parliament. This exploitation has been exacerbated by the corruption of those, such as Taib
Mahmud, who were assigned fiefdoms in the Bornean states by Kuala Lumpur.”
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/author/Geoffrey-Wade.aspx
Thus despite its over 50 years of existence Malaysia has remained a smouldering and unsettled
issue which in very recent years saw it flaring up again as the poverty stricken Sabah and
Sarawak people most affected by its negative effects, are seriously questioning whether there is
any benefit for their countries to remain in Malaysia.
The main purpose of this paper is therefore to explore one aspect of this hot issue being the
proposition that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (called “MA63” in short) was not a validly made
and binding multi-party international treaty in accordance with international law, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1946) and Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Colonial Countries and Peoples (in short “UNDD”) (1960) and UN Resolution 1514 (XV)
affirmed on 14 December 1960.
The outline arguments presented here are part of a piece of work in progress.
[Author's note: The international law aspects of the Malaysia formation issue have not been
adequately dealt with by scholars and researchers - hence this subject has been very much kept
under the radar by design or omission. Not surprisingly the British boasted that “Malaysia” has
been one of their most successful “projects” allowing the same Malayan government to ride
rough shod over Sabah and Sarawak rights over 50 years. ]

There are other questions which have not been discussed here including the distinct pre-Malaysia
historic, political, cultural and ethnic differences between Malaya and Borneo, and the question
of secession and independence, validity of “unequal treaties” , the Cobbold Commission and the
wrongful part played by the U.N. in endorsing “Malaysia”
Further the related question is asked: Was MA63/Malaysia really the “de-colonization” of
North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak according to the 1960 UN Decolonisation Declaration or
was it just a vehicle for “re-colonization by a new colonial master – Malaya ” by annexation of
the Borneo territories?
This is really a question of whether Sarawak (and Sabah) had actually achieved real
independence and self-determination or just annexed as dependent vassal states or colonies in
“Malaysia”?
“International law recognizes the right of self-determination for every “people.” In the
decolonization context, the right to self-determination has been interpreted as leading toward
remedial secession, because the colonized peoples were not properly represented by the
governments of their mother-states (the colonial powers).”
[Prof. Milena Sterio on the Crimea independence issue: http://ilg2.org/author/milenasterio/]
This paper is based on a reading of the declassified documents, and open sources and references
listed in the Index, as well as from secondary sources.
The details of the stated international laws and background facts are made by reference to the
attached appendices which the audience may read in their spare time. It is hoped that readers can
also follow up or join in further discussions on this paper when published in the Internet after the
conference.
The book Sarawak: The Real Deal by Ms. Lina Soo is an invaluable source to gain a deeper
understanding of the issues as argued by both pro and anti-Malaysia sides.
It is also recommended readers read Vidal Yudin Weil's article “Can Sabah and Sarawak
Secede?” It asserts that MA63 was void ab initio because Britain had no right to transfer Sabah
Sovereignty and territory which was (and is) being claimed and disputed by the Philippines in
the 1960s.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2014/04/14/can-sabah-and-swak-secede/
THREE PROPOSITIONS ON MA63
The Concept and formation of Malaysia when examined in context of the declassified British
colonial documents stands out as a pre-determined plan and a deception carried out by Britain in
collusion with Malaya on one hand to consolidate administration of its South East Asia colonies

pursuant to its mid-1942 wartime plan to create the “Malayan Union”. This was to be done by
denying the people of Sabah and Sarawak (and also Brunei as originally intended) their right to
self determination and the United Nations was manipulated to endorse the formation of Malaysia
in contravention of its declared principles for national self-determination.
On the other hand the Malaysia Plan also fitted in very neatly with Malayan UMNO colonial
expansionist plans to create a Greater Malaysia or Melayu Raya based on an apartheid
race/religious system of Malay/Muslim supremacy. It is also this supremacist agenda coupled
with the unremitting plunder of Sabah and Sarawak to develop Malaya which has re-awakened
Borneon resistance against what is now widely perceived as Malayan colonialism under the same
very corrupt regime over 50 years of Malaysia.

There are 3 propositions relating to the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63):
1. The first Proposition is: That the Malaysia Agreement as an international treaty was not
validly made in compliance with principles and rules of International Law and the U.N.
Decolonisation Declaration 1960. (There are 7 overlapping Reasons or grounds for invalidity).
[If the MA63 is void from the beginning it would be unnecessary to ask the other 2 questions
below but lawyers like to cover all the possibilities. So we ask the following alternative
questions:]
2. The Second Proposition is: If the MA63 was “valid”, was it not abrogated by Singapore's
separation and independence from Malaysia in 1965?
3. The Third Proposition is: Assuming that the MA63 was valid despite propositions 1 and
2 above, Malaya has repeatedly committed fundamental breaches of MA63 and completely
repudiated MA63 by over 50 years of non-compliance and failure to implement MA63 as
an international treaty and the Malaysia experiment itself.
The discussion will refer to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the UN
Declaration on Decolonization and the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties or VCLT. The
UNDD motion was affirmed unanimously in the United Nations as Resolution 1514 (XV) on 14
December 1960 (used herein as abbreviated “UNDD “)
The VCLT is itself an international treaty entered into by and binding on all the signatories on its
roll.
“The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international
law on treaties between states. It was adopted on 22 May 1969 and opened for signature on 23
May 1969. The Convention entered into force on 27 January 1980. The VCLT has been ratified
by 114 states as of April 2014. Some countries that have not ratified the Convention recognize it
was a restatement of customary law and binding upon them as such.”
The VCLT was formalised after a 20 year research and study of the established international
legal principles. Although the VCLT is not “retro-active” that is, applicable to treaties made prior
to this date such as MA63, it is a useful reference to the established international laws principles
and precedents for our discussion.

WHAT IS AN “INTERNATIONAL TREATY”?
A Treaty may be defined as follows:
“A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states (or international agencies, such
as the United Nations, that have been given treaty-making capacity by the states that created
them) that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law. It may be
contained in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments such as an exchange of
diplomatic notes. Various terms have been used for such an agreement, including treaty,
convention, protocol, declaration, charter, Covenant, pact, act, statute, exchange of notes,
agreement, modus vivendi ("manner of living" or practical compromise), and understanding. The
particular designation does not affect the agreement's legal character.”
“The (Vienna) Convention codifies several bedrocks of contemporary international law. It defines
a treaty as "an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed
by international law," as well as affirming that "every state possesses the capacity to conclude
treaties." Most nations, whether they are party to it or not, recognize it as the pre-eminent
"Treaty of Treaties"; [citation needed] it is widely recognized as the authoritative guide vis-à-vis
the formation and effects of treaties.”
See comment on this link on VCLT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties

PROPOSITION 1
That the Malaysia Agreement 1963 purporting to be an international treaty to form the
Federation of Malaysia was null and void and not binding on the signatory parties from the
beginning.
It is asserted here that MA63 was not validly made in compliance with the established principles
and rules of International Law (now codified by VCLT 1969) and the 1960 U.N. Decolonisation
Declaration UNDD R1514 (XV) as well as UNDD R1541 (XV) for the interrelated reasons
stated below.
The combination of all the seven (7) grounds or reasons below for MA63 “invalidity” stands as a
damning indictment of Britain and Malaya's external intervention and violation of the Sabah and
Sarawak people's right of self-determination. This was perpetrated by Britain's unashamed
collusion with Malaya even before the 1960s and later with the United Nations' endorsement, to
deny the people their right in total disregard of local and international opposition and in breach
of established international laws making MA63 null and void:
1. MA63 “VOID AB INITIO” - INVALID FROM THE BEGINNING
MA63 was made in breach of the established customary international law (jus cogens) that only
sovereign states can enter into valid international treaties.
2. BRITAIN BROKE 1946 TREATY TO RESTORE SARAWAK INDEPENDENCE
Britain was in breach of its 1946 Cession treaty with the then independent Sarawak Brooke
government to restore independence to Sarawak as demanded by the Sarawak United People's
Party (SUPP). Appendix A 9 Cardinal Principles, Appendix B.
3. MA63 VOIDED BY BREACH OF UNDD (R1514) ARTICLE 5 BY BRITAIN IN

COLLUSION WITH MALAYA TO FORM MALAYSIA IN PLACE OF BORNEO
INDEPENDENCE
MA63 voided on the ground that Britain and Malaya's bilateral pre-determined plan to transfer
(cede, annex) sovereignty over the Borneo colonies to Malaya without independence under the
“Malaysia” concept was in contravention of the people's right to self-determination free from
foreign interference. UN De-colonization Declaration. Appendix A Clause 5, 6 & 7. Refer to also
Declassified Colonial documents. (Argument 3 & 4 overlap).
4. MA63 WAS USED TO LEGITIMISE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORIES IMPOSED

WITH COERCION BY USE OF FORCE SEEN IN THE BRITISH MALAYAN
SUPPRESSION OF BRUNEI ANTI-MALAYSIA INDEPENDENCE UPRISING &
SARAWAK NATIONALISTS ACTIVISTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF “UNDD” (R1514).

MA63 was void and not binding as it was made by coercion with use of force to cede or annex
the 2 territories to Malayan rule, against the background of foreign political interference British
colonial suppression of Borneo nationalists and armed intervention by Malaya which was
prohibited under the UNDD (R1514) and the principle codified in Article 52 VCTL.
The people were denied a genuine referendum and the whole formation process was wrongfully
endorsed by the United Nations in the face of strong open opposition to Malaysia and a travesty
of an justice.
Put simply, MA63 was used to legitimise Malaya's annexation of Sabah and Sarawak.
APPENDIX H. Read Case of Japanese annexation of Korea:

https://works.bepress.com/young_kim/3/
Michael Leigh “The Rising Moon” published 1974 on Sarawak's political development 1950s to
1970s.
5. MA63 & MALAYSIA CONCEPT WAS MADE IN “BAD FAITH” & CHANGED 3
TIMES WITHOUT REFERENDUM OR PEOPLE'S CONSENT
“BAD FAITH OR LACK OF GOOD FAITH”: There was no intention by Britain and Malaya
to consider real independence for the Borneo colonies before considering the Malaysia concept.
“Malaysia” was a bilateral predetermined concept and decision which was made in bad faith and
in contravention of international principles of non-interference in the independence process of
the colonies under the UNDD (R1514).
As the final version of “Malaysia” was not the original Malaysia concept of federating 5
countries which the British and Malayans had set to out to construct, the question is:
How could this be a valid concept by 1965 when Singapore gained independence from
Malaysia? Read Appendix F
6. BRITAIN COULD NOT TRANSFER DISPUTED SABAH TERRITORY &

SOVEREIGNTY
It is Sabahan Vidal Yudin Weil's assertion in his article “Can Sabah and Sarawak Secede?” that
MA63 was void ab initio because Britain had no right to transfer Sabah Sovereignty which was
being disputed and claimed by the Philippines.

7. THE 1963 UNITED NATIONS “ASSESSMENT” WAS UNRELIABLE IN THAT IT
WAS NOT A FAIR & BALANCED ASSESSMENT & WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF
RESOLUTION 1514 (XV) AND NOT A PROPER REFERENDUM ON THE PEOPLE'S
WISHES.
The so-called 1963 United Nations Assessment on views of the people of Sabah and Sarawak
was improper and an unacceptable as a “valid fair reliable and balanced” assessment and was in
contravention of the United Nations' 1960 Declaration on Decolconization. The U.N.
endorsement of “Malaysia” was a shameful travesty of justice. It was also done in contravention
of the Manila Accord which indicated a “plebiscite” or “referendum” was to be held in the
Northern Borneo territories.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE 7 POINTS
1. MA63 WAS “VOID AB INITIO”- VOID FROM THE BEGINNING.
MA63 failed to comply with the established principle that international treaties can only be
validly entered into by independent sovereign states (and or with recognised organisations
like the U.N.)
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 registered as an international treaty with the United Nations by
the United Kingdom in 1973 was purportedly made between 5 “sovereign states” on 9th July
1963, being the United Kingdom, Malayan Federation, Singapore with North Borneo and
Sarawak. A 6th signatory Brunei had refused to sign the agreement. Brunei was also part of the
scheme but the differences between the Malayan and Brunei sides were too far apart.
“The (Vienna) Convention codifies several bedrocks of contemporary international law. It

defines a treaty as "an international agreement concluded between states in written form and
governed by international law," as well as affirming that "every state possesses the capacity to
conclude treaties." Most nations, whether they are party to it or not, recognize it as the pre-
eminent "Treaty of Treaties"; [citation needed] it is widely recognized as the authoritative guide
vis-à-vis the formation and effects of treaties.” Article 1 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties.
See comment on this link on VCLT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties
The British Empire practice of never empowering any of its colonies to make international
treaties underlines this principle of capacity.
British officials like the Colonial officials Duncan Sandys was also aware that as disclosed
in the declassified colonial documents, that the British advisors on MA63 drew attention to
the fact that North Borneo and Sarawak “were not sovereign and could not be party to the
agreement”.
On 31 August 1963 Duncan Sandys the British colonial Secretary confirmed that Sabah and
Sarawak were not to be granted independence and that it was just a transfer of British
sovereignty over the colonies to Malaya as had been agreed in the secret 1961 Chequers Talks. It
was made clear that Britain still effectively controlled Sabah and Sarawak and Singapore as
colonies up till 16 September 2016.
Thus on its very face, the MA63 document displayed a fatal and fundamental flaw which was
clearly in breach of the established principle of international law that only sovereign states can
enter into valid agreements with other states.

At international law there are four recognised attributes of independent statehood:
 territory (even if borders are unsettled)
 population
 government (effective – it governs the territory)
 capacity to enter into relations with other states
At the time of the Malaysia Agreement on 9 July 1963, neither Sabah and Sarawak had attained
“statehood” as Britain had not granted nor intended to grant independence to them according to
the declassified colonial documents.
According to established British Government practice a grant of independence to any of its

colonies must be done by an Act of Parliament in Westminster. Neither colonies had elected
government which were in effective control of their territories on 9 July 1963
The secret Anglo-Malaya “Agreement to set up the Federation of Malaya” signed by the UK
and Malaya on 31 July 1962 stated that the main object was to transfer the territories to
Malayan rule without independence.
Another important aspect of treaty making is that the British Empire jealously guarded its
powers and it had never in its long history ever authorised or empowered any of its colony
to make treaties with other countries. This “rule” was confirmed in an Australian
Government paper published in 2000.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Lib
rary/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000RP15
“Today, as a sovereign nation, Australia enters into treaties and its Parliaments decide whether
to implement them as law in Australia. This situation is vastly different from that which
prevailed at the time the Commonwealth Constitution came into effect.
In 1901, the Australian Government had no power to enter into treaties in its own right. At
most its powers extended to indicating to the British Government that it wished to adhere (or
not to adhere) to certain commercial treaties.
The Australian colonies were not considered at international law to have the capacity to enter
into treaties.”
In relation to Sabah and Sarawak, there is no record existing to show that Britain had
empowered the colonial governments to make MA63. This in fact underlined the
unrepresentative nature of the Sabah and Sarawak sides in the treaty making.
The Malaysia Agreement was actually entered into between only 2 independent sovereign States
the United Kingdom and Malaya and allegedly with a semi-colonial State Singapore (Singapore
was still under British Control prior to its UDI on 31 August 1963) and the 2 colonies of North

Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak which did not have any capacity to make international treaties.
Quote from the: Preamble to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 which stated:
AGREEMENT RELATING TO MALAYSIA
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation of Malaya, North
Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore;
Desiring to conclude an agreement relating to Malaysia;
Agree as follows:
Article I
The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with
the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in
accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement and the Federation
shall thereafter be called " Malaysia".
The same description was used in the “Proclamation of Malaysia” by Malayan P.M. Tunku Abdul
Rahman and the Sarawak Proclamation of Malaysia by Sarawak Chief Minister Stephen K
Ningkan on 16 September 1963.
This is a definition of what is a “colony” from Wikipedia

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony]
“In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state,
distinct from the home territory of the sovereign. For colonies in antiquity, city-states would
often found their own colonies. Some colonies were historically countries, while others were
territories without definite statehood from their inception. The metropolitan state is the state that
owns the colony. In Ancient Greece, the city that founded a colony was called the metropolis.
Mother country is a reference to the metropolitan state from the point of view of citizens who
live in its colony. There is a United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Unlike a puppet state or satellite state, a colony has no independent international representation,
and its top-level administration is under direct control of the metropolitan state.”
See further on definition of “colonies” in Appendix G & Appendix I, List of colonial territories
My Comments:
Singapore gained “internal government” in 1955 but it was still controlled by Britain until 1963
so it could not be considered an “independent sovereign state” capable of entering into
international treaties. This view is supported by the fact that Singapore found it necessary to
declare unilateral independence (UDI) on 31 August 1963 after MA63 was signed but Britain did
not recognise the UDI.

The focus is on the capacity of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak to make international treaties
when both were definitely “colonies” (as defined) not “independent states” at the date of MA63
on 9th July 1963 as described in the MA63 itself.
Sabah and Sarawak were not “independent sovereign states” with independent international
representation capable of making treaties but colonies controlled by Britain up to 16 September
1963.
Singapore came under British colonial suzerainty from 1819. North Borneo (administered by the
North Borneo Company) and Sarawak (ruled as an independent country by the Brooke Raj
Government 1841-1941) were both ceded to British colonial rule in 1946.
As if to reinforce this fact, both the “Proclamation of Malaysia” and the Sarawak “Proclamation
of Independence” on 16 September 1963 described Sabah and Sarawak as “colonies” not
“independent states”. See Appendix K & L
This monumental legal absurdity and defect exposes the embarrassing haste in which the British
took to “de-colonize” by handing over Sabah and Sarawak to Malaya and the colonial
assumption of the time that the colonial master had a free hand to play with the future of nations.
However, it reflected the colonial determination to implement the original 1961/1962 (Chequers)
secret pact between Britain and Malaya to form Malaysia as a cover to transfer sovereignty over
the Borneo colonies directly to Malayan rule. This was an open secret, as the nationalist leaders
and ordinary people in all 3 territories very vehemently voiced their concern and opposition to
this “transfer” plan.
That neither North Borneo and Sarawak were independent sovereign states on 9th July 1963 is
confirmed by the fact that Sarawak was only ostensibly granted “self-rule” on 22 July 1963 and
Sabah was similarly granted “self-rule” but was called “independence” on 31 August 1963.
The effect is that Britain and Malaya were the only 2 sovereign states which made an Agreement
with at best, a semi-colony Singapore and Britain's own 2 colonies North Borneo and Sarawak.
British colonial officials signed MA63 on behalf of Sabah and Sarawak. It was not signed with
the mandate or consent of the people in Sabah and Sarawak given freely and voluntary in a
referendum. In fact they were denied a referendum on the Malaysia issue which the
Philippines and Indonesian governments and independence movement had repeatedly
called for and formalised in the Manila Accord on 31 July 1963.
The Manila Accord had set 2 pre-conditions for the establishment of Malaysia: (a) that the views
of the people of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak must first be assessed as to whether they
accepted or rejected “Malaysia” (the UK and Malaya interpreted this to be an “assessment”
conducted by the UN and not by a referendum) and (b) that the Philippines’ claim on a part of
Sabah be resolved.

The signing of the Accord by Malaya and then the agreement of Britain to allow a UN
“assessment” was an acknowledgement by both governments that the Malaysia Agreement
had not been properly and validly made. (Conclusion by one time UN Advisor Profession
Richard Falk in his book “Status of Law in International Society, 1970”)
However both governments then went on to effectively scuttle the Accord and the UN Mission,
while the “assessment” was still being conducted by announcing that “Malaysia would be
established on 16 September 1963. (Malaysia original formation date set for 31 August 1963 had
to be cancelled to allow for the Mission to conduct its task of assessment). This rendered the UN
findings meaningless according to Professor Richard Falk in his book pp 100 -112.
(The abuse of the Manila Accord also falls under the heading of the failure by Malaya and
Britain to act in good faith in the making of MA63)
The respective “new Sabah and Sarawak governments” later purportedly ratified MA63 on their
first session.
However the breach of an established principle of law and what is a fundamental defect or flaw
cannot be retrospectively ratified or perfected. MA63 was also made without a proper
referendum to determine the wishes of the people in Sabah or Sarawak on the future of their
respective countries.
MA63 was invalid from the beginning.
Sabah and Sarawak (and Singapore) were just not “independent sovereign states” capable of
making the MA63.
They were not listed as “independent states” in 1963 but as only having a “change of status”
(which sounds quite meaningless!) in the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. There was
no effective treaty made by them in 1963. See APPENDIX J
This fatal flaw must have been staring at both the British and Malayan creators and kept them in
a state of nightmares for 50 years. It seems that all the while when people debated on MA63
issues very few people have critically looked at this point.
Second argument
2. Britain was in flagrant breach of its 1946 treaty with the Sarawak Brooke government to
restore independence to Sarawak (and also its avoiding a referendum so that the people could
freely decide on the Malaysia issue) as demanded by the Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP).
Nine Cardinal Principles Appendix B, UNDD (R1514) Article 5.
It is an international law principle that all treaties or agreements must be made, kept and
honoured in good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacta_sunt_servanda

“A treaty is based on the consent of the parties to it, is binding, and must be executed in good
faith. The concept known by the Latin formula pacta sunt servanda (“agreements must be kept”)
is arguably the oldest principle of international law. Without such a rule, no international
agreement would be binding”.
(Definition from Encyclopaedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/930509/pacta-sunt-servanda)
Sarawak was an independent state for 100 years from 1841 to 1941 and recognised by the
United States in 1850 and Britain in 1863 when most South East Asian countries including
Malaya were colonies.
Britain had reportedly coerced the Sarawak Brooke government in 1946 to cede independent
Sarawak to its colonial rule. But this strongly opposed by the Sarawak people who demanded
that Sarawak remained an independent country. In opposing cession the “Tuan Muda” Anthony
Brooke had asked why Sarawak a sovereign and independent country should be reduced the
status of a “Crown colony”. Cession was finally agreed to by the Brooke Government on the
understanding that Sarawak was not to be included in the “Malayan Union” and on condition that
Sarawak independence was to be restored.
It must now be seen that it had also falsely promised to restore Sarawak independence in 1963.
The so-called grant of “self-government” on 22 July 1963 was not the independence Sarawak
had for 100 years. If it was “true independence” there would be no need to be in “Malaysia” or
all negotiations for Malaysia formation should have been conducted by the newly independent
Sarawak Government. The declassified colonial documents reveal that Britain and Malaya had
already decided it would be a straight transfer of sovereignty over the Borneo territories
including Brunei to Malaya control and rule.
Britain had committed a deliberate shameful breach of the trust placed in them by the former
Sarawak Government by failing to honour their agreement to restore Sarawak independence and
as reiterated and demanded by Sarawak nationalists in 1963. It was a pre-condition which Britain
had failed to comply before pushing Sarawak into the Malaysia Agreement.
Britain cannot legally resort to arguing that there was any change by “intervening circumstances”
(which they deliberately instigated and manipulated to suit their justifications for forming
“Malaysia” with arguments of protecting Sabah and Sarawak from Indonesia's “Konfronstasi”
and cold war theory of an “communist takeover”) to so blatantly deny the Sarawak people from
freely exercising their right to self-determination.
It was Britain's legal duty to ensure that this right was exercised by allowing all parties to do so
instead of suppression with mass arrests of the nationalists. This act can only be described in the
most undiplomatic language that the British Government in the most underhanded fashion
cheated the Sarawak people out of their independence.

This point has been explained very well in the landmark book “Sarawak -The Real Deal” by Lina
Soo published in September 2013. Reader can follow up on all the important information
reproduced in this book on how the British went about suppressing the Sarawak nationalist anti-
Malaysia movement before and after the Brunei Uprising from Chapter 5 in the book onwards.
The Preface to Ms. Soo's book also rounds up the arguments against the formation of Malaysia in
Appendix C.
Thus the incorporation of Sarawak into Malaysia was a fundamental breach of trust and terms of
the Cession treaty which must nullified the MA63 as Britain had deliberately refused to fulfil a
prior treaty, the pre-condition to restore Sarawak independence so their people can then freely
decide on the Malaysia issue if they chose to. Sarawak was transferred and remained as a colony
in status up to and after 16 September 1963.
3rd Argument
3. MA63 VOIDED BY BRITISH MALAYAN COLLUSION TO FORM MALAYSIA TO

DEFEAT SARAWAK SABAH INDEPENDENCE IN BREACH OF UNDD ARTICLE 5
UNDD Article 5
“5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other
territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of
those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed
will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to
enjoy complete independence and freedom.”
The proposal to form Malaysia was on its face an interference with the people's right to
self-determination according to Article 5.
The declassified British colonial documents give details of how Britain and Malaya had
bilaterally colluded and pre-determined the formation of Malaysia by entering into a secret pact
to (cede or annex) transfer sovereignty over the Borneo colonies directly to Malaya without
independence. This is the secret Anglo-Malaya “Agreement to set up the Federation of Malaysia”
signed on 31 July 1962. Both countries had acted in contravention of the people's right to self-
determination free from foreign interference. UN De-colonization Declaration Appendix A
Clause 6 & 7. Refer to Declassified Colonial documents.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.555523671156385.1073741839.335090303199724
&type=1

See appendix M.
Clause 7 of the UN Decolonization Declaration clearly states that:
“All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United
Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of
equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights
of all peoples and their territorial integrity.”
However, in discussions between Britain and Malaya between 1960 and 1963, the 2 parties had
secretly agreed to transfer sovereignty of the Borneo territories to Malaya with first giving
independence.
In order to cover up their illegal act Britain proposed to set up the Cobbold Commission to carry
on an “inquiry” on Malaysia and the wishes of the people on the issue. The Commission was
drenched in illegality as it was intended to avoid holding a referendum as demanded by the
nationalists and was not an independent body but had a huge conflict of interest as it comprising
of only British and Malayan nominees.
Further there is clear evidence from the facts that Britain and Malaya jointly used force to coerce
the Borneo countries into Malaysia under cover of suppressing the Brunei Uprising and the
guerrilla independence war. This is prohibited in the UNDD and established legal principles now
codified in the VCLT
“VCLT Article 52
Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the
principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.”
MA63 was signed following suppression of the anti-British anti-Malaysia Tentera Nasional
Kalimantan Utara (TNKU) freedom fighters and sweeping “clampdown” with mass arrests of
anti-
Malaysia pro-independence Sarawak nationalists under the Internal Security Act (ISA)1960.
This argument overlaps that in Point 4 and in this context we read the next point-
4. MA63 WAS VOID AS IT WAS MADE TO FACILITATE ANNEXATION OF

TERRITORIES WITH COERCION BY USE OF FORCE SEEN IN THE BRITISH
MALAYAN SUPPRESSION OF BRUNEI ANTI-MALAYSIA INDEPENDENCE
UPRISING & SARAWAK NATIONALISTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF “UNDD”
(R1514).

This proposition raises 2 points of international law:
(a) The established law as codified in the VCLT Article 52

“Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force”
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of
the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
(b) Invasion and annexation of other countries are now illegal acts according to international
law. Case of Japanese annexation of Korea
https://works.bepress.com/young_kim/3/
“Direct annexation, the acquisition of territory by way of force, was historically recognised as a
lawful method for acquiring sovereignty over newly acquired territory before the mid-1700s. By
the end of the Napoleonic period however, invasion and annexation ceased to be recognized by
international law and were no longer accepted as a means of territorial acquisition. The
Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV, 1907) contained
explicit provisions concerning the protection of civilians and their property in occupied
territories. The United Nations Charter also has related provisions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereignty
FIRSTLY- “Malaysia” was formed against the background of foreign political interference
and British colonial suppression of Borneo nationalists and with armed intervention by
Malaya. This contravened Clause 4 to 7 of the UNDD (R1514). Appendix A.
Britain as the colonial power had the duty to de-colonise by allowing all the Borneo people to
freely decide their future without any conditions or reservations, according to the UNDD Article
5 cited above not to mention that the 1946 Cession treaty was entered into on the understanding
that Britain must restore Sarawak independence. However Britain openly interfered with and
restricted the right of the people by imposing the Malaysia concept on them in place of giving
them independence first as they had demanded.
Malaya as a foreign power had no legal right, mandate, authority or standing to interfere in
Borneo affairs by coveting and annexing the Borneo territories. It had colluded and pre-
determined with Britain to interfere and form “Malaysia” to deprive the people's right of self-
determination in the Borneo colonies.
President Sukarno had correctly denounced this as a mere “transfer of the colonial office from
London to Kuala Lumpur”.
MA63 was therefore no more than a sham to legitimise the armed invasion and annexation by
Malaya of the 2 territories under cover of forming Malaysia. Malayan armed intervention
occurred when Malayan armed forces entered Borneo to assist with the British suppression the
anti-Malaysia TNKU forces following the Brunei Uprising and later the guerrilla independence
war in Sarawak was in reality an invasion of Sarawak Territory. The country's legitimate armed

resistance had to be “pacified” from 1962 to 1990.
The Brunei Uprising for national independence and to oppose Malaysia broke out on December
8, 1962 primarily after the British had illegally blocked the Brunei People's Party from forming
government after its landslide generation election win in the first and last Brunei General
elections on 1962. The British ignored nationalists' demands for independence and continued to
harass arrest and hinder the nationalists in their independence campaign in Brunei, Sarawak
Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah). (Note: the Uprising touched all three territories).
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 tacitly supports or condones the use of armed
insurrection or resistance by people to free themselves from the tyranny and oppression of
colonial rule.
“THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1948
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the
highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to
rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law, “
The Anti-Malaysia Brunei Independence Uprising was downplayed by Britain to avoid

compliance with the UN Decolonization Declaration and the inference of coercion in forming
Malaysia.
The Brunei Uprising had broken out when the independence movement failed in its peaceful
attempts to get independence from Britain by negotiations in 1957 and then in 1962 when the
Brunei Partai Raykat (Brunei People's Party) won a landslide election on its anti-Malaysia
platform. On both occasions Britain refused to listen to or accept the legitimate demands of the
independence movement for independence which it proposed as a federation of the 3 Borneo
territories. Britain was in flagrant breach by not ceasing its armed aggression against the TNKU
anti-Malaysia Brunei independence Uprising and allow the parties to participate in the
independence process but proceeded to form Malaysia. See Appendix A Clauses 4, 5, 6 & 7.
MA63 was thus arguably nullified by Britain's coercion by use of force and deceit to enforce the
Malaysia concept on Sabah and Sarawak and foreign interference in the independence process.
Read Appendix D & A.

SECONDLY, the conquest or forcible annexation of territory is illegal under the Convention
respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV, 1907) containing explicit
provisions in relation to the protection of civilians and their property in occupied territories. The
United Nations Charter also has related provisions.
As stated above, MA63 was really part of the exercise to legitimise Malaya's annexation of the
Sabah and Sarawak territories as both the Malayan and British Governments had predetermined
by the beginning of 1960. The Malayan army had entered Borneo territory as part of the
Commonwealth force to suppress the Brunei independence uprising and this was really an
invasion to enforce Malaya's annexation.
Only Brunei successfully resisted both politically and with their armed uprising against the
British Malayan plan and opposed their violation of the international law principle that foreign
states are prohibited from interfering in the local independence process.
The British portrayed the Brunei Uprising as an “illegal revolt” against the Sultanate so it
appeared to the world that it was not about fighting for national independence.
However many people were fooled even till today by this propaganda line as they were unaware
of the background of the uprising and believed it was illegal.
If people are still unable to see this point they must realise that the British did indeed embark on
a cruel and vicious campaign against the nationalists under the pretext of an anti-communist
campaign and made sweeping arrests and detention without trial of over 10,000 people in
Sarawak between 1961 and 1963.
The Sarawak arrests represented almost 1 in 75 persons in this country (Sarawak population
approx 750,000 in the 1960 Census) many of whom were detained for long periods from 10 to
25+ years without trial well into the late 1970s.
Before the Brunei Uprising, the British were already arresting and harassing nationalists in
Brunei and also Sarawak under the Restrictive Residence Regulations 1961 and later the Internal
Security Act.
The British repression and suppression of nationalists was not just a violation of the UNDD but it
was a major violation of human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
The recent successful UK court claim by the Mau Mau Independence fighters claim against
Britain illustrates the illegality of Britain' s anti-independence actions around the world.
Britain's failure to comply with the customary international law had nullified MA63 by its
coercion by use of force and deceit to enforce the Malaysia concept on Sabah and Sarawak and
foreign interference in the independence process. Read Appendix D & A.
A most important fact adding weight to voiding MA63 is it was made without a prior referendum

to seek consent of the Sabah and Sarawak people in breach of the principles in the UN De-
colonisation Declaration (UNDD) which confirmed the right to self-determination as an
established customary international law. See APPENDIX C The Joint Northern Borneo UN
Memorandum.
The Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) had made repeated demands for independence first
before the people should consider the Malaysia question. When it became clear Britain was
stubbornly determined to push ahead with Malaysia they demanded a plebiscite/referendum.
It meant that Sarawak should have been given full independence and the new government should
consider whether to enter into negotiations on the Malaysia proposal. This was Brunei's position
and it was able to negotiate and refused to sign MA63 at the last minute.
Thus it can be immediately seen that because Britain debased and reneged on an existing treaty,
the MA63 was null and void from the beginning without any legally binding effect as an
international treaty. It cannot be claimed that MA63 superseded the Cession Treaty which was
debated in the British Parliament 1946 and it was officially confirmed by the British government
member that Sarawak independence was to be honoured and restored.
The position of the nationalist movement is best summed up in the Joint Memorandum to the
United Nations by the Brunei People's Party, the SUPP and the United National Pasok
Memonggon Party of Sabah (PMP) in Appendix B. The SUPP petition against Malaysia
formation and demand for independence with over 110,000 signatures and the Joint UN
Memorandum were ignored by the British and UN. The conclusion in the Memorandum
reiterated the Borneo nationalist case for independence and is reproduced below:
THE JOINT NORTHERN BORNEO MEMORANDUM
APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS 1962
“18. The signatories to this memorandum appeal to the UN and urged that:
1. the UN should, in pursuance to its declaration and resolutions, intervene in the proposed
transfer of sovereignty in Sarawak and Sabah on the ground that such a transfer is a
denial to the peoples in these territories of their right to self determination and of their
right to complete independence.
2. Alternatively that a plebiscite organized and conducted by UN be held before such
transfer of sovereignty.
3. In accordance with the peoples’ freely expressed will and desire and our belief, a
federation of Union of the three Borneo territories viz Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei be
brought about with his Highness the Sultan of Brunei as the Constitutional Head of such
Federation or Union.

Dated this 9th September 1962.
The United National Pasok Momogun Party

(G.S. Sundang)
The Partai Rakyat of Brunei

(A.M. Azahari Mahmud)
The Sarawak United Peoples’ Party

(Ong Kee Hui) “
THE MANILA ACCORD: Under severe international criticisms and opposition especially by
Indonesia and the Philippines, Malaya tried to undermine the 2 countries' opposition by
convening the Manila talks in late July 1963. The first 2 named countries demanded that a
plebiscite or referendum be carried out in the Borneo territories to determine the people's wishes
on Malaysia formation.
The Manila Accord signed on 31 July 1963 agreed to a referendum but it was made by Malaya in
bad faith (and negotiated without the Borneo people's consent and authority) as this turned out to
be a deliberate fraud by Malaya which did not proceed with a referendum on the Malaysia issue
and to hasten formation of Malaysia.
Britain and Malaya even amended the MA63 anticipating the formation Malaysia by 16
September 1963 before any “referendum” had been concluded! Malaysia was already pre-
determined. See Page 106 Sarawak The Real Deal.
This pre-determination is further confirmed by U.N. Secretary U Thant who said the UN
Assessment had to be completed (under 2 weeks by a 9 man team in Sabah and Sarawak) to
comply with the dateline for formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963!
5. MA63 & MALAYSIA CONCEPT WAS MADE IN “BAD FAITH” & CHANGED 3
TIMES WITHOUT REFERENDUM OR PEOPLE'S CONSENT
On this point readers are refer to the longer comments in APPENDIX F.
The MA63 was manifestly Britain and Malaya's arbitrary intentions made in “bad faith” to
transfer the Borneo colonies to Malaya rule directly without giving independence. (Revealed in
the declassified British colonial documents).
The people in the colonies were illegally prevented from getting independence and having a

referendum on the “Malaysia question” and from re-examination and proper re-negotiation of
terms and conditions for forming Malaysia Concept which was changed 3 times between 1961
and 1965.
Any vigorous challenge or debate was suppressed following the Brunei Uprising and under the
several State of Emergencies declared in 1964 (Konfrontasi) and 1966 affecting Sarawak. The
1966 State of Emergency was actually designed to suppressed any such discussion following
Singapore's secession in late August 1965. They were further denied a “review” in 1973.
The Malaysia concept as originally proposed was to form Malaysia with 5 countries including
Brunei.
However, Brunei freely chose not to be in the union and the concept was changed to 4 countries.
When Singapore freely exited and gained independence from Malaysia, the concept changed
again to 3 countries in Malaysia.
This totally changed the original proposed structure of the federation. The consequences are still
being debated by politicians today especially in relation to the unfair distribution of
Parliamentary seats and loss of Sabah Sarawak parliamentary power and oil and gas rights and
many other rights. Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan listed “8 Losses” in Proposition 3 below.
That the Malaysia concept was conceived in bad faith purely to annex these territories to Malaya
is seen in how over 50 years Malaya has virtually repudiated the entire MA63 ( that is if it were
at all “valid and binding”). After 1965 Sabah and Sarawak were reduced to mere vassal “states
of Malaya” or colonies as many Sabahans and Sarawakians are seeing it now.
On the above rationale it could also be asserted MA63 was void because both Britain and Malaya
did not enter into the MA63 in good faith and Malaya failed to comply with the Agreement.
The original Malaysia concept actually ceased to exist when Brunei rejected and withdrew
participation in the Malaysia formation negotiations.
Discussions here on "good faith"- "Pacta sunt servanda"- suggested readings:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/238692/good-faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacta_sunt_servanda
Paper on principle of “Good Faith”:
http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/encyclopedia/good-faith.pdf

6. BRITAIN COULD NOT TRANSFER DISPUTED SABAH TERRITORY &
SOVEREIGNTY
Sabahan Vidal Yudin Weil asserted in his article “Can Sabah and Sarawak Secede?” that
MA63 was void ab initio because Britain had no right to transfer Sabah territory and sovereignty
which was being disputed and claimed by the Philippines.
EXCERPTS FROM VIDAL Y WEIL'S COMMENTS “CAN SABAH & SARAWAK

SECEDE?”
“Official deceit which is one part of Machiavellian politics has always been the religion of
colonizers and one classic lie that has never fail to be used is “you need us to protect you from
yourself” has been said to the naive and brainwashed colonized population throughout the ages
until today.
We do not need to look far, actually; the present political drama unfolding in Malaysia that is
shaking right-thinking citizens reveals the unprecedented thievery and pretence perpetrated by
mendacious opportunists from both sides of the political divide is ample indications itself......
…...Before we proceed, it is necessary to recapitulate that the Malaysia Agreement is absolutely

void from the very beginning because Britain at all material times never had sovereignty over the
whole of Sabah to give away and the government of Malaysia like its predecessor the British
government is still paying annual rentals to the Sulu Sultanate in the Philippines until today.
The Latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” is a legal principle that says you cannot confer
property you do not own on another person except with the authority of the true owner or simply
put – you cannot give what you do not have.
For further reading, go to the Manila Accord which was signed on July 31, 1963 between Abdul
Rahman Putra, Soekarno, and Diosdado Macapagal; it is clearly and unambiguously understood
that the formation of Malaysia is subject to the claim of the Philippines on Sabah being
adjudicated in the International Court of Justice which Putrajaya is scared of going there for fear
of losing.
And worst, the more than 1.1 million people of Sabah and Sarawak at that point of time
were never consulted in a referendum whether they wanted Malaysia – only about 4,000
were reportedly interviewed by the Cobbold Commission.
Backward society
We cannot really blame Sabahans and Sarawakians who suffer from collective issues of
ignorance because like the rest of Malaya today, for more than 50 long years, they have been
indoctrinated with falsified historical facts and fed with substandard education that taught them
“what to think” instead of “how to think” and living their entire lives on assumptions peddled by

cheats and liars.
Do readers know why are things becoming so complicated and bad here in Sabah now?
Because the people of Sabah are so gullible to the extent that they cannot even be trusted to
honourably do the right thing on their own volition during elections for their own good and that
of their descendants.
Suffice to say, the Sabah of today has remained a feudal and backward society since the British
left.
The fine example of Brunei not becoming a colony of Malaya, look at how they can do what
they want with their oil and gas wealth – poverty practically does not exists there; the success
story of tiny and resource-less Singapore who left Malaysia in 1965 being transformed into a
First World nation today profoundly confirms that both Sabah and Sarawak are incurable failures
of epic proportions.
Now, we go to the circus to showcase our clown of the day.”
SEE FULL ARTICLE IN APPENDIX I or on this Internet link:

[Owing to the time constraint the following short comments are made below. It is proposed that a
fuller discussion on the last 2 proposition below will be published at a later date.]
2. THE SECOND PROPOSITION IS: If the MA63 was valid, was it not abrogated by
Singapore's separation and independence from Malaysia in 1965?
An international treaty cannot be changed without the agreement and consent of all the parties.
The bilateral Singapore Separation agreement between Singapore and Malaya in 1965 was made
without active involvement of the other 3 signatory parties. The issue was secretly discussed
with Britain which subtly coerced the 2 countries to refrain from “secession” and impacted on
the relation with Sabah and Sarawak and Malaya for over 50 years.
The Singapore Separation Agreement basically changed the concept of Malaysia which should
have been re-negotiated. It effectively invalidated and abrogated MA63.
The Malaysia concept had effectively ceased to exist in 1965.
This was the basis of a resolution by the Kuching Municipal Council (KMC) in August 1965
which declared that Singapore exit had destroyed the basis 4 countries forming the Federation.
The KMC called on the Sarawak Government to hold a referendum for the people to decide if
Sarawak should remain in “Malaysia”.
3. THE THIRD PROPOSITION IS: Assuming that the MA63 was valid despite propositions 1

and 2 above, there has been repeated fundamental breaches of MA63 by Malaya. Malaya in
completely repudiated MA63 by its 50 years of repeated non-compliance with and
implementation of MA63 as an international treaty.
The most basic principle of international law is that an international treaty must be made and
kept in good faith.
The current complaints by Sabahans and Sarawakians (based on the assumption that MA63
continue to be valid) is that the terms of MA63 such as Borneonization have not been faithfully
complied with by Malaya which has assumed the alter ego of the Federation.
In international law if one party to the Agreement breaks a treaty whether by deliberate act(s) of
breach or omission in its performance this constitutes a repudiation of the whole Agreement.
Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan has a good summary of Malaya's failure to keep good faith in complying
with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 in his Power Point KUCHING presentation (27 April 2014)
He listed 8 “losses” for Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia:
1. Loss of Political Autonomy
2. Loss of State Franchise to patai
3. Loss of Oil Resources
4. Loss of Legitimate Role in Federation
5. Loss of Job Opportunities
6. Loss of Religious Freedom
7. Loss of Dignity
8. Loss of Independence
He said that since Malaysia was an absolute failure there are 3 options to resolve this problem:
1. DO NOTHING – ACCEPT AND SURRENDER

2. GIVE UP AND LEAVE MALAYSIA
3. DEMAND FOR SOLUTIONS AND REVIEW AND RE-NEGOTIATE MA63
The last 50 years have seen Malaya totally reneging on the terms and conditions of the MA63
under circumstances which Dr. Kitingan describes as the colonies of Sabah and Sarawak having
gone round in full circle and became colonies again.
(These breaches are covered by the doctrine of wilful discontinuance which states that a treaty
may be terminated (a) by alterations or revisions to the treaty after it was signed and (b) the
treaty has lapsed form disuse, consensual termination and denunciation).
This reflects that Malaya had really made the MA63 in bad faith and had no intentions to abide
by the agreement. Malaya had repeatedly made material breaches and thus repudiated all the
fundamental terms and conditions of MA63

VCLT ARTICLE 60 formalising established legal principles says that
“3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the
treaty.”
If MA63 has been repudiated, the obvious question is why would Sabahans and Sarawakians
want to reinstate Malaysia which is illegitimate and as the last 50 years have demonstrated
beyond doubt that Malaysia is fact as its name implies is pure “BAD FAITH”.
“MALAYSIA” was Britain's “grand design” in collusion with Malaya to preserve its strategic
and economic interests which fitted in with UMNO's supremacist Melayu Raya expansionist
plans or “Greater Malaysia”.
50 years have been more than enough time to prove that reinstatement of Malaysia is not an
option. The real option is for Sabahans and Sarawak to accept Malaya's repudiation and take
their countries out of Malaysia.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is, if the Malaysia Agreement is “void” and “illegal”, the people of Sabah and
Sarawak are not bound to remain in a unequal and unfair relationship with Malaya which many
see as no more than a colonial master-and-slave relationship with their country being plundered
and their people marginalised into greater poverty than before 1963.
If MA63 is illegal, Malaysia only exists as a de facto state whereby Malaya is controlling Sabah
and Sarawak without any legal right. The issues of decolonization and independence become
relevant.
Many Sabahans and Sarawakians are asking, was “Malaysia” really a “decolonization plan or a
re-colonization plan”?
They have seen how the structure of colonization has been built up now with virtual direct
federal (read “Malayan”) control of Sabah and Sarawak, “Malayanization” in place of
“Borneonization” and imposition of the UMNO's race and religion supremacist agendas on
Sabah and Sarawak and the blatant plunder of their resources at the expense of their people.
They see they have not benefited from the promised “security and prosperity” for the formation
of Malaysia but are the victims of what many are calling a “fraudulent independence scam” for
over 50 years.

Countries like East Timor, South Sudan and Crimea have chosen independence from what was as
an unequal and submissive colonial relationship. Scotland will for similar reasons be voting in its
independence referendum on September 2014.
So it is not surprising that in the past year we have seen a growing movement of mostly young
people coming out to assert their rights in the slogans “Sarawak for Sarawakians!” and “Sabah
for Sabahans”!
I thank the organisers of this forum for enabling this paper to be presented and I thank all
Sarawakians nationalists and other friends here today for their patience in listening to the
propositions that the Malaysia Agreement was not validly made.
Thank you very much.
Robert Pei
President of SSRANZ
Disclaimer: References and comments from Wikipedia links have been provided for basic
understanding of the terms used and issues discussed here subject to verification of the opinions
expressed therein.
Permission from the author is required to quote and to reproduce the paper.
Note: Parts of this paper has been revised on September 16, 2019.

Is MA63 A Valid International Agreement - Updated Version 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is MA63 A Valid International Agreement - Updated Version 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is MA63 A Valid International Agreement - Updated Version 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IS MA63 A VALID INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT?

WAS MA63 DE-COLONIZATION OR RE-COLONIZATION?

WHAT THIS PAPER IS ABOUT

The formation of Malaysia as part of Britain's “de-colonization” plan was an extremely

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

[Prof. Milena Sterio on the Crimea independence issue: http://ilg2.org/author/milenasterio/]

THREE PROPOSITIONS ON MA63

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

A Treaty may be defined as follows:

See comment on this link on VCLT:

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

1. MA63 “VOID AB INITIO” - INVALID FROM THE BEGINNING

2. BRITAIN BROKE 1946 TREATY TO RESTORE SARAWAK INDEPENDENCE

3. MA63 VOIDED BY BREACH OF UNDD (R1514) ARTICLE 5 BY BRITAIN IN

4. MA63 WAS USED TO LEGITIMISE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORIES IMPOSED

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

APPENDIX H. Read Case of Japanese annexation of Korea:

6. BRITAIN COULD NOT TRANSFER DISPUTED SABAH TERRITORY &

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

1. MA63 WAS “VOID AB INITIO”- VOID FROM THE BEGINNING.

“The (Vienna) Convention codifies several bedrocks of contemporary international law. It

See comment on this link on VCLT:

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

According to established British Government practice a grant of independence to any of its

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

AGREEMENT RELATING TO MALAYSIA

Desiring to conclude an agreement relating to Malaysia;

This is a definition of what is a “colony” from Wikipedia

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

MA63 was invalid from the beginning.

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

(Definition from Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

3. MA63 VOIDED BY BRITISH MALAYAN COLLUSION TO FORM MALAYSIA TO

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Clause 7 of the UN Decolonization Declaration clearly states that:

Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force

4. MA63 WAS VOID AS IT WAS MADE TO FACILITATE ANNEXATION OF

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

(a) The established law as codified in the VCLT Article 52

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

The Anti-Malaysia Brunei Independence Uprising was downplayed by Britain to avoid

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

THE JOINT NORTHERN BORNEO MEMORANDUM

APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS 1962

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

The United National Pasok Momogun Party

The Partai Rakyat of Brunei

The Sarawak United Peoples’ Party

On this point readers are refer to the longer comments in APPENDIX F.

Follow us in Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SSRANZ/ and blog http://www.ssranz.com

Discussions here on "good faith"- "Pacta sunt servanda"- suggested readings:

Paper on principle of “Good Faith”: