By social activist Remy Majangkim
KOTA KINABALU: A social activist from Sarawak, who is also a lawyer, argues that the formation of Malaysia is “void ab initio”. He is responding to former Sabah Law President Datuk Roger Chin, engaging in what appears to be an endless debate about the legality of Malaysia’s formation.
His argument is not new; it has circulated for many years. The activist and his supporters previously initiated a legal challenge in the Kuching High Court, but their case was dismissed in the first round. This outcome suggests that there are elements within their argument that lack substantial evidence.
As an activist and historian, I take responsibility for my actions and findings. His argument is compelling and feels good at first glance, but does it hold up with documented evidence, guidance from international law, and a historical timeline? I aim to debunk this in my argument.
What is “Void Ab Initio”? It is a Latin term meaning that something is null and void from the very beginning, essentially indicating that it was never valid to begin with. This is his main argument regarding the flawed formation of Malaysia in 1963.
On July 9, 1963, the colonies of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement in London. However, some individuals question the legitimacy of this action and whether these territories had the authority to sign a treaty on their behalf.
According to these critics, these territories should achieve their independence before entering any treaty. This is correct, but what international guidance is he referring to as its basis?
He was referring to the Montevideo Convention of 1933. Surprisingly, the British were not one of the signatories. We are dealing with British territories that are not part of the Montevideo Convention; therefore, they could do as they wish.
They could have easily handed us over to the Federation of Malaya, but they did not. Her Majesty’s Privy Council worked diligently to ensure our self-determination is attainable once we are ready.
As we look further, the Borneo States and Singapore have a Malaysia Agreement that outlines our rights and the devolution of power upon Malaysia’s formation. In contrast, Chagos has no such agreement.
Chagos was under British protectorate, meaning it was governed by the British government. The Borneo States and Singapore are annexed to the British Crown colonies, thus directly under the monarch’s jurisdiction.
In 1966, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan signed a 50-year lease agreement with the United States, which expired in 2016. This agreement led to the establishment of an American military base called Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Before the Americans could set up their base, the Chagossians were forcibly evicted by the British to clear the way for the military installation.
After the Malaysia Agreement was signed in London, the British Parliament passed the Malaysia Act, Chapter 35. This effectively established the Malaysia Agreement as a trusteeship, transferring authority from the British to the Federation of Malaya, now Malaysia.
The protest by the Republic of the Philippines and Indonesia, as detailed in the Manila Accord, ultimately prompted intervention from the United Nations, which significantly shaped our future. World governing bodies recognised our emergence as a step toward self-determination, leading to our registration under the UN Trusteeship Council by the principles of United Nations Resolution 1541, Principle 9.
The British have effectively established a “ready-made nation”, and the Bill of Independence can only be obtained from the British Parliament. This has been exemplified by Lee Kuan Yew’s declaration to separate from Malaysia and the subsequent passage of the Singapore Act in 1966, which granted Singapore its independence.
Ask yourself this question: Why do we need to reinvent the wheel when it has already been created for us? His argument suggests that we should reject UN Resolution 1541, Principle 9, and replace it with new resolutions without acknowledging the hard work done by the Privy Council and its international partners.
The evidence is quite clear on our status, supported by documentation from primary and secondary sources. His insistence was based solely on conspiracy theories and other unrelated arguments. If one can debate, it is the same move made by Stampa on the Sulu claim on Sabah.
