Before Singapore left the federation, there was a negotiation with Malaya. When all negotiations failed to reconcile all political and economic differences, Singapore parted from the federation. Singapore did not hold a referendum to exit. Britain was forced to pass Singapore Independence Act to grant Singapore independence. This meant SSS were parked by Britain with Malaya to make Malaya as trustee. This is because Britain knew SSS( Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak) have a privilege or right to seek independence by way of decolonization under UN Resolutions.


Therefore, the rule or procedure has been set on how to exit from the federation of Malaysia and there is nothing for Sarawak to wait when negotiations had failed to restore all our rights (assuming that MA63 was not a null and void ab initio Treaty). This is the second time SS are afforded the rare opportunity to exit. The first was when Singapore exited from the federation and SS should have taken the opportunity to exit too. Sarawak had sought independence even before Malaysia came into existence.

Dr Mahathir never said SS could not exit when he was asked in Sabah and in New York about this issue after the General Elections and his words should be taken as encouragement for Sabah & Sarawak (SS) to seek exit. There is also nothing in the Federal Constitution to prohibit SS to exit from the federation.

The fsct that Aziz from DAP was booed by the audience during the recent debate at Grand Continental Hotel Kuching when he caused fear by saying to seek independence will cause bloodshed was seen as an irresponsible stand by Aziz and or by DAP. TUNKU and David Marshall also sought to exit from Britain and this was perfect under the law. Our regret to be in Malaysia was there were secret negotiations between Tunku and Britain to take over Sarawak as part of Malaya.

Public may wish to be advised, legal experts opined that there is a right under the law to speak and discuss on issues of Independence and under International law there is a legal right, if conditions are met, to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice for Advisory Opinions of the Court.

From VOON LEE SHAN
President Parti Bumi Kenyalang

新闻声明

即时发布

在新加坡离开联邦之前,与马来亚进行了谈判。 当所有谈判未能调和所有政治和经济差异时,新加坡从联邦分开。新加坡没有举行全民公决退出。 英国被迫通过“新加坡独立法案”以授予新加坡独立。 这意味着SSS被英国将与马来亚一起停放,使马来亚成为受托人。 这是因为英国知道SSS(新加坡,沙巴和砂拉越)有权根据联合国决议通过非殖民化的方式寻求独立。

因此,关于如何退出马来西亚联邦的规则或程序已经确定,当谈判未能恢复我们的所有权利时,砂拉越没有什么可以等待的(假设MA63不是一个无效的条约)。 这是SS第二次获得退出难得的机会。 第一次是新加坡退出联邦时,SS也应该抓住机会退出。 砂拉越甚至在马来西亚成立之前就已经寻求独立。

马哈蒂尔博士从未说过SS在大选后,被问及在沙巴和纽约有关这个问题时,SS不能退出,他的话应该被视为鼓励沙巴和砂拉越(SS)寻求退出。 “联邦宪法”中也没有任何规定禁止SS退出联邦。

来自民主行动党的阿齐兹最近在古晋大陆酒店的辩论中遭到观众的嘘声,当时他声称寻求独立会引起人民的恐慌时,将导致流血事件,这将阿齐兹和民主行动党被视为不负责任的立场。 TUNKU和大卫马歇尔也试图退出英国,这在法律上是完美的。 我们对于在马来西亚感到遗憾的是TUNKU和英国之间进行的秘密谈判以接管砂拉越作为马来亚的一部分。

法律专家认为,法律专家似宜向公众提出建议,根据法律依照国际法,有权就独立问题发言和讨论。如果符合条件,将此事提交国际法院,向法院咨询公平正义的意见。

来自VOON LEE SHAN

Parti Bumi Kenyalang主席

翻译 Translator

QR Code 肯雅兰之声二维码

Total Viewers Since 1 Dec 2018 从2018年12月1日至今总拜访人数

页面访问数:
112414