Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jafaar is again reminded that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is an invalid international agreement under international law. Since it is an invalid international agreement, no right in the invalid agreement could be implemented, restored or reinstated. The MA63 was invalid for many reasons.
First, the Cobbold Commission and findings of the Cobbold Commission was against international law.
The findings of the Cobbold Commission could also be a fraud because Tan Sri Muhammad Ghazali Shafie and Wong Pau Nee, who were members of Cobbold Commission and being Malayans, were interested parties that could influence the decisions of the Commission.
Since none among the five of them in the Cobbold Commission was able to speak native and local malay languages, how could they be able to find out the wishes of 4000 odd people whom they interviewed wanted Malaysia to be formed? How could these small numbers of people able to represent the voices of about a million people of Sabah and Sarawak? At the time of signing, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, being still colonies of United Kingdom had no legal capacity under international law, to sign the said MA63.
The fact that MA63 could be registered with the United Nations does not mean that it not challengeable as invalid treaty or a fraud.
The advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 25 February 2019 on the Chagos Island case to say that colonies are incapable to make treaties with parent countries is crystal clear on this.
Even if MA63 was validly signed, the fundamental breaches of MA63 plus Singapore’s exit from the federation of Malaysia, had caused the agreement to collapse and invalid. I hope this is clear to the de facto law minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jafaar and to all members of parliament from Sabah and Sarawak.
The law minister erred in fact and in law to say Sarawak had already achieved independence.
If Sarawak had been given independence by the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom could not, under international law, handed Sarawak together with Sabah and Singapore as a gift to Malaya. This made it difficult to convince many Sabahans and Sarawakians that Sabah and Sarawak are not colonies of Malaya.
I am afraid that any member of parliament or ministers from Sabah and Sarawak who seek to amend the MA63 or who seek the restoration of the terms and conditions in the MA63 would be viewed by Sabahans and Sarawakians as not protecting or acting in the interest of Sabah and Sarawak.
I foresee that any amendment and or restoration of any rights that had been breached in the MA63 would one day be challenged in court Sabahans and Sarawakians. Many West Malaysians and people in Kalimantan at the moment are harbouring their hope of this to happen in the very near future. This is because they viewed Sabah and Sarawak had not been treated fairly by being short-changed by Malaya with their oil and gas being taken away.
What the law minister should do is to inform parliament that MA63 is indeed invalid and ought to be disregarded. In Parti Bumi Kenyalang’s (PBK) assessments concerning the handling of MA63 in parliament at the moment, not only Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jafaar but the YAB Chief Minister Abang Abdul Rahman Zohari Tun Openg would find it difficult to defend their seats in coming elections.