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.

AzamsudinTrudin Ps24sep2021I am not a politician but, being legally trained, I felt that Sarawakians should not be allowed to be confused by politicians concerning Sarawak independence and issues surrounding Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and I need to clear some air because they involved some important legal issues.

I am responding to what Lina Soo President of ASPIRASI said in the press, in which, Lina Soo said she disagreed with what President Voon Lee Shan of Parti Bumi Kenyalang said, in which, Mr. Voon Lee Shan said unilateral declaration of independence is legally recognized under international law – see 20 September, 2021 The Borneo Post

As appeared in the said paper, it was mentioned that, “Soo also disagreed with PBK president Voon Lee Shan’s recent statement that a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is legally recognized under international law.” Lina Soo made special reference to the advisory opinion in Kosovo’s case delivered by the International Court of Justice.

From my humble reading of Kosovo’s case, the International Court of Justice on 22 July 2010 opined that the unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) by Kosovo from Serbia was not against international law. If it was not against international law, then this means, that the UDI by Kosovo was legal and Lina Soo had therefore misled the public to say that the UDI was illegal or could not be recognized under international law. Lina Soo has to show which law book, lawyer or law professor said UDI is illegal or could not be recognized under international law and should not simply say UDI is not part of international law.

The fifteen international jurists who sat on the Bench in Kosovo’s case were world’s best known legal lions. Lina Soo being not a lawyer, should not have the cheek to say that these international jurists were wrong to say that a UDI was not legally recognized under international law.

All advisory opinions of the ICJ have a force of law, which is recognized under international law. Being recognized under international law, all advisory opinions of ICJ are enforceable by the United Nations Security Council. Lina Soo needs to understand that both ICJ and United Nations Security Council are important arms of the United Nations to settle and to regulate disputes between member nations of the United Nations.

Lina Soo needs to be advised that, the advisory opinions of ICJ being having force of law had led Malaysia losing Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore on 24 July 2003 when the dispute went to ICJ.

To both Lina Soo and Fong Pau Teck, who kept on attacking Mr. Voon Lee Shan and Parti Bumi Kenyalang on their stand on Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), I wish to inform them that there is no lawyer yet, trying to dispute the fact that, based on the advisory opinion of the Chagos Islands case delivered by ICJ on 25 February 2019 dare to say that an international agreement made between colonies and parent countries is valid.

In Chagos Islands case, not less than fifty world’s best known lawyers and jurists been involved in the case and no legal brain until today dared to dispute the advisory opinion delivered by the ICJ in the case.

In this Chagos Islands case, ICJ opined that colonies have no legal capacity to make treaties or to enter any international agreement with parent countries. Based on this Chagos Island case, Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) could be declared null and void or invalid because at the time the agreement with the United Kingdom was entered on 9 July 1963 Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, were still colonies of United Kingdom.

The fact that the federal government had tried to rectify or restore the breaches in MA63 shows that the federal government had recognized, admitted or was aware that MA63 was not a valid international agreement. Without a valid international agreement Malaysia could not be formed in the first place. Malaysia is only a de facto nation.

Lina Soo gravely erred concerning the quest of independence of countries like Scotland and Catolonia. Scotland is not allowed to seek independence by UDI because the law of United Kingdom could not allow independence by UDI but could only do this if a Section 30 Order of the Scotland Act 1988 is approved by the British government. This section 30 Order is to allow a referendum to be held for Scottish to decide whether Scotland wish to become an independent country or to stay as part of the United Kingdom.

Likewise, Catalonia could not declare independence by way of UDI because the written declaration of independence by Catalonian President Puigdemont was legally void, as it was not voted upon and was signed outside a parliamentary session. The law upon which the UDI was made was suspended by the Spanish Constitutional Court.

At the moment, there is no provision in the Malaysian federal constitution to prevent Dewan Undangan Negri (DUN) Sarawak to declare independence. There is also no Malaysian Act of Parliament equivalent to the Scotland Act 1988 to prevent independence by DUN in Sarawak but to determine independence by way of a referendum. Unlike in Spain, there is also no law in Malaysia to allow intervention by court to suspend DUN or for a UDI be voted in DUN Sarawak.

Azamsudin Trudin

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

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:
1809514

Current No Of Online Viewers 线上游览者人数

在线: 78  个访客 和 0 个会员