The former Law Minister, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, did not take into consideration the opinions of legal experts that the formation or existence of the federation Malaysia was by way of fraud or by dubious means. Malaysia was created after the setting of the Cobbold Commission in 1962 which led to the signing of the Malaysia Agreement on 9 July, 1963 which let to Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore been given as a gift to Malaya by the United Kingdom against the will of the majority of Sarawakians and Sabahans at that time.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 that allowed decolonization had never been complied with.

Legal experts also are of the opinion that MA63 could not bind the present generation because they were not born yet when Malaysia was created. There is nothing in the MA63 to say that it could the present generation.

Be it known, Sarawak and Sabah never helped formed or joined Malaysia. They were dubiously acquired to enlarge Malaya and this is clearly mentioned in the records of the United Nations Secretariat.

President Soekarno of Indonesia put a strong opposition to the ways how Sarawak and Sabah were annexed to enlarge Malaya to become Malaysia. The opposition of Malaysia led to the Border Confrontation Malaysia had with Indonesia was from 1963 to 1966 soon after Malaysia was formed on 16 September, 1963.

It follows that since Sarawak and Sabah were acquired in dubious means or by way of fraud to enlarge Malaya, whatever follows thereafter concerning to the taking of continental shelf, seawaters, marine life, oil and gas by the federal government by Acts of Parliament, should be illegal as it was the fruit that came from the poison tree and no one should eat them or profit from the poison tree. Malaya or the federal government has to return these ill-gotten wealth.

The signing of MA63 has made Sarawak and Sabah as colonies or at least been treated as colonies of Malaya.

The Law Minister did not see the point the federal parliament and the federal cabinet had since 1963 been controlled by Malaya and they could do anything in parliament by passing laws and policies to the detriment of Sarawak and Sabah. Members of Parliament from Sarawak and Sabah did not have the numbers to fight the acquisition or the extinguishment of their State’s resources by the federal government. The former law minister could have forgotten that Malaya or the federal government took the advantage of the existing state of emergency which came with threat under the draconian Internal Security Act 1960 to unconstitutionally force a change in law. Therefore, it could not be asserted that the Sarawak and Sabah are estopped from claiming their oil and gas.
The Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74), the Continental Shelf Act 1966 (CSA) and the Seas Territorial Act 2012(STA) should be declared illegal or null and void and inapplicable to Sarawak and Sabah. The Acts (PDA74),
CSA and TSA were in breach of MA63 (if valid) and international law (jus possetidis rule).

The federal parliament also could not extinguish or take away the territories of Sarawak and Sabah away. Article 2(1)(b) federal constitution protects against the alteration of boundaries of Sarawak and Sabah and the federal government could not limit the boundaries of Sarawak and Sabah to three nautical miles only. Its illegal and the law should be struck out!

The arguments of the former Law Minister, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, concerning the ownership of oil and gas of Sarawak is based on the doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel. The doctrine of acquiescence is a legal principle that operates as a defence against a legal claim. It is based on the idea that a party who unreasonably delays pursuing a claim or acquiesces to the actions of another party for an extended period may lose their right to enforce their claim or remedy. Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously agreed to or said.

But, I beg to say that the doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel are not applicable and enforceable against Sarawak and Sabah in their claims of their rights to marine wealth, oil and gas taken away or be extinguished by Act of Parliament because Malaysia was not constituted in accordance with international law and was considered a fraud. Malaysia is only a de facto federation or nation. I beg that since it is a fraud as opined by legal experts, the doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel are not applicable against Sarawak and Sabah because in law, if it’s a fraud, there is no limitation time to purse lost rights.

Furthermore, the fraud is a perpetuating or continuing act against Sarawak and Sabah.

VOON LEE SHAN
President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang
14 November, 2024

#Sarawak #Tribune #Sabah #PBK #Independence #MA63 #PDA74 #TSA2012 #Oil #Gas #Dayak #News #Borneo_Post #New_Straits_Time #Sin_Chew #See_Hua #X #Instagram #facebook #google #wechat #whatsapp #tiktok