Legally speaking Sarawak was only given internal self governance and not independence on three reasons
1) the governor was still in the Astana until 15 September 1963. Openg only moved into the Astana @ 4.00pm that day about two hours after the British Governor left.
2) External affairs were still much under UK control at that time
3) There was no Sarawak Independence Act passed by UK Parliament until today.
The declaration of independence by our beloved TS Adenan was political. It was for two reasons
First, to put pressure to Putrajaya to give our rights back. Prime Minister Dato Sri NAJIB Abd Razak, visited Sarawak if I am not mistaken, not less than forty times during Tok Nan's time. Why so often? There must be reasons for that. Najib pumped lots of funds too possibly or apparently due to demands by TS Adenan
Two, TS Adenan wants to tell Sarawakians that our journey to independence started from 22 July 1963 and we're to complete the process under United Nations Resolutions 1514 and 1541. This process is called decolonization process which ultimately once completed, will lead to independence. Internal self governance is part of the process of decolonization.
UK still has a political obligation to see Sarawak gain its independence. I humbly say UK after giving Malaya independence, parked Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak (SSS) with Malaya which took a new name Malaysia. This was recorded in UN Juridical Yearbook 1963 that no new nation was born. UK parked Sarawak with Malaya because Sarawak was not ready to fully govern itself. SSS were still colonies when malaya took them under her wing to enlarge her territory. UK wanted to park SSS with Malaya on reason that UK's resources caused by the war, dwindled and could no longer maintain her colonies.
Another reason was UK had wanted all colonies in South East Asia to regroup under Malaya so that UK will still be able to exert economic and political control over her colonies in the region.
Mr PE Pike, the Attorney General of Sarawak at that moment advised the Colonial Office that Sarawak could not as a colony, sign the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and it should be a bilateral agreement between UK and malaya.
Politically, the move by UK getting SSS to sign when they were still colonies was to ensure that SSS can one day taste independence or it could also with the hope UK as their colonial master will one day able to come back to control the colonies. UK acting against the advice of Mr PE Pike should know the Treaty would not be valid under International law. The recent advisory opinion delivered on 25 February 2019 by the United Nations International Court of Justice on the Chagos Archipelago case is very clear that Treaties signed between parent countries and colonies are invalid under international law.
Singapore was well advised because not only Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) was a lawyer but Singapore's Attorney General was a British, Mr E. W Barker who was exceptionally a brilliant lawyer were behind the Singapore independence move. LKY in his opening speech in his declaration of independence of Singapore said that it was an "inalienable right of a people to be free and independent". He then proceeded to unilaterally declare Singapore independent from the federation of Malaysia after negotiations failed to patch up the differences between Singapore and the federation of Malaya.
I am not so sure whether Chong Chieng Jen was speaking as a Sarawakian first or malaya first when he said the declaration of independence by TS Adenan should be degazetted.
In Quest of Independence for Sarawak, let us vote Chong Chieng Jen and Pakatan Harapan out of Sarawak so that the road to independence would be smoother for Sarawakians to walk on.
VOON LEE SHAN
Parti Bumi Kenyalang
Saturday 27 July 2019
#unitednations #MA63 #sarawak #WSJ #decolonization #Non-Self-Governing #UN