I have been informed just now that I am required to attend another police investigation. I try to see them today if I can. Based on prior experience, I understand that this inquiry may relate to my political activities and public statements concerning the constitutional position and historical status of Sarawak. I place this statement on record in the interest of clarity, transparency, and respect for the rule of law.

I wish to affirm that my political work has always been conducted through peaceful, lawful, and democratic means. My advocacy is grounded in historical documents, constitutional interpretation, and principles of international law. At no time have I promoted violence, public disorder, or unlawful conduct. My intention has consistently been to contribute to informed public discourse on matters of legitimate public interest.
It is a fundamental principle of a democratic society that citizens are entitled to express opinions, raise questions, and engage in debate on constitutional and historical issues, provided such engagement is peaceful and lawful. Political expression, particularly on matters affecting federal arrangements and territorial history, should not in itself give rise to criminal suspicion.

From a historical and legal perspective, Sarawak was not part of Malaya prior to 1963. The formation of Malaysia involved the expansion of Malaya’s territorial and political structure, accompanied by a change of name to “Malaysia” effective 16 September 1963. It is a matter of public record that Malaysia did not apply for new membership at the United Nations at that time, and that the United Nations membership registration originally held by Malaya was retained following the change of name. This continuity has been noted by scholars and raises constitutional and international-law questions that are appropriate for academic and political discussion.

International law further recognises the principle of self-determination. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) affirms the right of colonial peoples to self-determination and to pursue independence through peaceful and lawful means. Sabah and Sarawak were colonies of the United Kingdom prior to 1963, and legal experts have debated whether the process of decolonisation fully satisfied international legal standards. Referencing these principles constitutes legal and historical analysis, not sedition or hostility toward the state.

It is my position that discussions on Sarawak’s rights, autonomy, and constitutional status fall squarely within the bounds of legitimate democratic discourse. Such discussions should be addressed through dialogue, legal interpretation, and political processes rather than through repeated investigative measures that may have a chilling effect on free expression.

I remain committed to engaging constructively within the framework of the law. I trust that all authorities will likewise uphold constitutional guarantees, respect democratic space, and distinguish clearly between peaceful political expression and conduct that genuinely threatens public order.

I hereby beg Sarawakians to show solidarity and support me to protect Sarawak rights.