Welcome To Voice Of Kenyalang 肯雅兰之声,欢迎您!

肯雅兰之声是由一群关心砂拉越的未来发展的砂拉越人发起,目的是尽量为砂拉越人民提供即时的有关砂拉越的发展消息,一起从古至今了解砂拉越事实情况并探讨砂拉越未来的路何去何从。 砂拉越和沙巴人民最关心的是建立马来西亚的国际公约,就是马来西亚公约1963 (MA63)。这公约说明了马来西亚是由三邦成立,三邦就是砂拉越,沙巴和马来亚。没有砂拉越和沙巴就没有马来西亚。没有“马来西亚公约1963”也就没有马来西亚。

所以“马来西亚公约1963”是不可被修改不可以被取消。没有得到砂拉越政府和人民同意之下不可以以其他方法修改马来西亚的宪法和通过新法令来限制“马来西亚公约1963”权利,危害砂拉越和沙巴的主权和利益。现今情况明显抵触了“马来西亚公约1963”,也动摇了马来西亚建国基础。

This website is established by a group of concern Sarawakian with the aim to provide latest news of Sarawak. Learning from the past and charting new path for the future. Sabah and Sarawak people main concern is the restoration of Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) which had been properly registered at United Nation (UN), and MA63 is the foundation of formation of Malaysia. During formation of Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya are equal partners therefore any ACTS, laws, regulation and policies passed in parliament (with the intention to restrict or nullify full function of Malaysia Agreement 1963)  are illegal and therefore are against the very foundation of formation of Malaysia at the disadvantage of Sarawak and Sabah with the intention to remove equal partners status of Sarawak and Sabah making Sabah and Sarawak one of the states in Malaysia.

Parti Bumi Kenyalang

KUCHING: If the Federation was not established pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), then Sabah and Sarawak are not bound by its Constitution and the two countries are not part of Malaysia, says Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) president Robert Pei.

He said the Sarawak government may have intentionally or unintentionally dragged the Federal Government in a legal nightmare after the latter’s refusal to insert the six words “pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement 1963” in the proposed Bill to amend Article1(2) of the Federal Constitution.
He said it appears that the six words had killed the Bill.

He said according to a media report on April 10, Law minister Datuk Liew Vui Keong had revealed the real reason for rejection of the Bill was because the Federal government objected to its insertion. The Law Minister pointed out that the Attorney General advised against following the Sarawak government’s request, “as the signatories to MA63 had included Singapore, which left the federation in 1965 “…as it would complicate the spirit of MA63”.

Pei, in an emailed press statement, noted that it was not fully explained how the complication affected the federal arrangement between the remaining three signatory parties in the federation.

“One must then suspect the federal government’s motive for rushing to vote on the substantive motion when there was a procedural motion to defer the vote, which would have allowed the federal government to “save face”.

“The immediate question which arises is “If the Federation of Malaysia was not constituted pursuant to MA63, what was the legal basis for incorporating Sarawak and Sabah in the federation in 1963?”

“This issue continues many persisting doubts about the legitimacy of Malaysia formation especially when there is no constitutional recognition of the treaty and the question as whether Singapore exit terminated MA63?,” he said.

Pei, a lawyer and human rights activist in Australia, said it would be more befitting the “spirit of MA63” if the constitution recognised that the federation was constituted “pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement 1963” (if not void ab initio).

The Sarawak State Senior legal counsel has pointed out that the definition of the “Federation” was that defined by the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 (FMA48) and not MA63. (The senior counsel had however incorrectly stated 1957 as the date for FMA48).

A senior Sarawak Minister then drew attention to the absurd situation that as Sarawak and Sabah were not listed as states of Malaya in FMA48 they are (logically) therefore not part of Malaysian Federation.

Pei believed that the six-word phrase was intended to cure this defect or flaw in the federal constitution.
He had also previously drawn attention to this legal oddity or omission in the Federal Constitution and that MA63 the founding international treaty, was also not cited in the original “Malaysia Bills” to formally set up the 1963 federation and passed by the UK and Malayan Parliaments prior to the declaration of Malaysia on 16 September 1963.

He believed that the international treaty was used by the UK to justify its decolonisation of North Borneo (Sabah) Sarawak and Singapore by integration in the Malayan Federation with its name changed to “Malaysia” in 1963.

He cautioned that if the Federal Government insists on not including the phrase then it would leave itself open to legal challenges on many current and pressing issues relating to MA63.

“The legal status of Sarawak and Sabah would be unclear if they are not states and they would logically revert to be colonies (with limited self-government as they have now) as they were described on being transferred by the UK to the Federation on 16 September 1963,” he said.

The Sarawak born lawyer said however, no amount of word wizardry can magically cure many pre-existing fundamental legal flaws or defects which riddled MA63 documentation and there were multiple breaches of the treaty after the establishment of what Sarawak and Sabah people were led to believe was a new federation in equal partnership with Malaya.

These legal problems, he noted have the effect of invalidating or terminating MA63.

Pei suspected that the Federal rejection of the six words may be a conscious attempt to avert focus on question whether Singapore exit terminated MA63 and whether MA63 is on its face, void ab initio, that is invalid and not binding from the beginning.

He said the incontrovertible fact was that MA63 was not made in compliance with international law rules on treaty making, in particular the long established rule that only sovereign states can make treaties with other states.

“This is the capacity rule which was reaffirmed by International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Chagos Islands case on 25 February 2019. In its advisory opinion the court found that the UK government could not make a binding (international) agreement with Mauritius which was a colony completely under British administrative control in 1965.

“The Court in reaffirming UN Resolution 1514 on self-determination, said that the disputed agreement to separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius territory had not been lawfully completed in accordance with the exercise of the people’s right to self-determination,” he said.

Pei said the significance of this case is that for the first time on record, it appears that an international court of law can reopen a “decolonization” case and question the validity of a treaty made by a ruling colonial power with its colony. This has immense legal implications on the formation of Malaysia.

He noted that when MA63 was signed on 9 July 1963, by the UK with Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak, the last two territories were described as colonies by Art 1 of MA63 adding that Singapore was also not yet an independent state.

The British Colonial secretary, he said, had stressed that the UK remained in control of the three colonies till 16 September 1963 and Sarawak and Sabah colonial legislatures had agreed to this.

“Therefore MA63 was invalid and non-binding on its face. It is surmised that because of this fatal flaw the UK and then Malayan government did not cite the treaty when passing their respective Malaysia Act 1963 and the reason for the current Federal Government’s objection to inclusion of the 6 words.

Pei noted that neither federal nor state government legal advisers have yet disputed his assertion of MA63 invalidity since 2014.

He said if MA63 were valid, the federal rejection of the six words by reference to the complication of Singapore membership under MA63 underlies a more shattering reason that Singapore exit had terminated MA63.

He pointed out that the termination was understood by the Kuching Municipal Council which unanimously passed a resolution in August 1965 stating that the basis of 4 component countries forming the federation had been destroyed.

The resolution called on the Sarawak state government to hold a referendum to allow the people to decide whether Sarawak should remain in the federation. He suggested perhaps the Sarawak Government should re-visit the KMC resolution.

He said that even if the six words were inserted in the amendment it would not legitimise the Federation or the constitution (as it seems to be the GPS intention) as no amount of word wizardry can make it valid if MA63 was already null and void from the beginning or has been terminated by Singapore exit.

He said further even if Singapore exit did not terminate MA63, the multiple federal breaches of MA63 which included backdoor amendments of MA63 by ACT 354 (1976), Pteroleum Development Act 1974 and Territorial Sea Act 2012 and failure to implement MA63 in good faith, also amounted to a willful discontinuance of the treaty.

He cautioned that the consequence is that Sarawak and Sabah are not bound by MA63 or the Federal Constitution and their remedy is to exit for independence which many see as the better solution.

“If it is officially recognised that the Federation and the constitution were made pursuant to MA63 and if MA63 is not null and void, then it is clear that the supreme law of the land is MA63 and not the Constitution.

“Perhaps this is another reason why the Malaya-centric Federal Government is unwilling to agree with the Sarawak State government,” he said.

He concluded that whichever constitutional amendment is passed, it does not excuse the federal government from implementing MA63 in good faith or otherwise face continuing challenges to the legitimacy of its rule of Sarawak and Sabah.

He said that the Sarawak government has all this political leverage but does not show the public that it is using it for Sarawak’s benefit.

Source: Borneo Post

#CGTN #ICJ #UNITEDNATIONS #worldinsight #news #MA63 #sarawak #decolonization #pbk #partibumikenyalang

Related Articles:

温利山:砂寻求独立方法之一 可咨询国际法院

翻译 Translator

free website promotion SubmitX.com

Offer A Gift To Support Parti Bumi Kenyalang (以财礼方式来支援肯雅兰全民党)

Parti Bumi Kenyalang is a multi-racial political party in Sarawak and having an achievable mission :"IN QUEST OF INDEPENDENCE".

We plan to field 82 candidates in the coming Sarawak Election. We are not taking any donations but your gifts in appreciation of our struggles are appreciated. 

肯雅兰全民党是砂拉越的多元种族政党,其使命是可实现的:“追求独立之路”。我们计划在即将到来的砂拉越大选中派出82名候选人,因此我们需要砂拉越人民和海外支持者在经济上以财礼(gift) 方式来支援我们。

Click Here To Offer A Gift

(以财礼方式来支援我们)

Supportpbk

Pbk Donation

Parti Bumi Kenyalang Facebook "Live" 肯雅兰全民党面子书直播

Parti Bumi Kenyalang Facebook Live

PBK Mission Passport使命护照

Pbk Pr  

Generate

Download PBK Passport 
(for reference only)
下载肯雅兰全民党:使命护照 
(只共参考)

PBK Membership Application

Online Form

Voice Of Kenyalang QR Code 肯雅兰之声二维码

QRcode

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:
2659233

Current No Of Online Viewers 线上游览者人数

在线: 73  个访客 和 0 个会员