Sabah dan Sarawak adalah BERSTATUS NEGARA dan bukannya Negeri.

Sabah dan Sarawak adalah sebuah Negara yang MERDEKA DAN BERDAULAT yang mana kedua - dua NEGARA ini telah bersama-sama dengan Singapura dan Malaya untuk membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia pada 16 September 1963.

Happy Sabah (North Borneo) Independence Day 51 Years

Sabah or previously known as North Borneo was gained Independence Day from British on August 31, 1963. To all Sabahan, do celebrate Sabah Merdeka Day with all of your heart!

Sarawak For Sarawakian!

Sarawak stand for Sarawak! Sarawakian First. Second malaysian!

The Unity of Sabah and Sarawak

Sabah dan Sarawak adalah Negara yang Merdeka dan Berdaulat. Negara Sabah telah mencapai kemerdekaan pada 31 Ogos 1963 manakala Negara Sarawak pada 22 Julai 1963. Sabah dan Sarawak BUKAN negeri dalam Malaysia! Dan Malaysia bukan Malaya tapi adalah Persekutuan oleh tiga buah negara setelah Singapura dikeluarkan daripada persekutuan Malaysia.

Sign Petition to collect 300,000 signatures

To all Sabahan and Sarawakian... We urge you to sign the petition so that we can bring this petition to United Nations to claim our rights back as an Independence and Sovereign Country for we are the Nations that live with DIGNITY!

Decedent of Rajah Charles Brooke

Jason Desmond Anthony Brooke. The Grandson of Rajah Muda Anthony Brooke, and Great Great Grandson of Rajah Charles Brooke

A true Independence is a MUST in Borneo For Sabah and Sarawak.

Sabah (formerly known as North Borneo) and Sarawak MUST gain back its Freedom through a REAL Independence.

Showing posts with label Agreement of Malaysia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agreement of Malaysia. Show all posts

Friday, 18 April 2025

Malaysia Without Consent: The Truth Hidden Since 1963


When we look back at the formation of Malaysia in 1963, the dominant narrative suggests that the union between Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore was a legitimate act of self-determination. But a deeper analysis reveals a disturbing truth: the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) lacked democratic legitimacy, violated international law, and was based on manipulated assessments — not genuine consent.

At the heart of this flawed process was the Cobbold Commission, which, contrary to popular belief, was not a referendum and cannot be used as evidence of democratic will.

Cobbold Commission Was An Assessment, Not a Referendum

Many Malaysians have been misled to believe that the Cobbold Commission represented the democratic voice of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak. This is entirely false.

The Cobbold Commission was not a referendum. It was a British-appointed fact-finding mission, tasked to assess public opinion about the proposed Federation of Malaysia. Its role was advisory, not legally binding.

  • No ballots were cast.
  • No secret votes were taken.
  • No universal adult suffrage was applied.
  • No international observers were present.
  • The findings had no legal weight under international law.

Instead, the Commission selected only 4,000 individuals to represent the views of more than one million inhabitants in both territories. These individuals were not randomly chosen nor proportionally representative — many were handpicked community leaders, local elites, and pro-Malaysia voices.

This so-called assessment — based on interviews and memorandums — cannot and must not be mistaken as a referendum, which under international law requires free and fair voting by the people to determine their political future. The United Nations CharterGeneral Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), and numerous ICJ advisory opinions all confirm that genuine decolonization requires a direct expression of the will of the people through referendum or similar democratic process. That standard was never met in Sabah and Sarawak.

Statistical Breakdown and The Numbers Don't Lie

Of the 4,000 individuals assessed by the Cobbold Commission:

  • 1/3 supported Malaysia, but many of them did so without truly understanding what "Malaysia" was.
  • 1/3 supported the proposal conditionally — subject to safeguards and assurances.
  • 1/3 rejected the proposal outright.

That means only about 1,333 individuals supported Malaysia without conditions — a mere 0.13% of the 1 million people in Sabah and Sarawak.

By contrast, historical records show that over 100,000 people from these territories — at least 10% of the total population — actively opposed Malaysia's formation through petitions, letters, and organized resistance. These voices were ignored, dismissed, or omitted from official reports.

Void from the Start: A Legal Analysis of MA63

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was signed by:

  • The United Kingdom (on behalf of its colonies),
  • The Federation of Malaya,
  • and the non-sovereign territories of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore, whose representatives had no independent treaty-making capacity.

This is a fatal flaw under international treaty law.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), a treaty is only valid between sovereign entities with lawful authority. Neither North Borneo nor Sarawak were sovereign states at the time. They were still classified as non-self-governing colonies under the supervision of the United Nations Decolonization Committee (Committee of 24).

Therefore, any agreement signed on their behalf without first granting full independence was inherently invalid. A colony cannot consent to give away its sovereignty — especially when its people were never given a referendum to decide.

Colonial Rebranding Malaysia as a Political Shortcut

The creation of Malaysia was not an act of self-determination — it was a political shortcut engineered by Britain and Malaya. With the winds of decolonization blowing after World War II, Britain sought to consolidate its strategic interests in Southeast Asia by merging its Borneo colonies with the already-independent Malaya.

The Cobbold Commission served as a rubber stamp, giving a thin veil of legitimacy to what was essentially a colonial handover dressed up as federation.

By bypassing the referendum process, by silencing mass opposition, and by using a manipulated advisory report as a foundation, Malaysia was formed without lawful democratic consent — rendering the MA63 a null and void agreement.

A Pattern of Suppression

Today, those who dare to speak the truth about this deception face intimidation and criminal charges. The recent case of Mosses P.A. Ampang, charged under the Sedition Act 1948 merely for lowering the Malaysian flag and raising the Sabah national flag as a symbolic act of reclaiming sovereignty, proves that Malaysia continues to use oppressive laws to silence dissent.

If MA63 were truly valid, there would be no need to arrest, threaten, or silence those who challenge it. The facts would speak for themselves. But the foundation of Malaysia cannot withstand scrutiny — and that’s why it must be defended with force instead of law.

Reclaiming What Was Never Freely Given

Sabah and Sarawak were never truly part of Malaysia through free will. They were annexed by manipulation, and the Cobbold Commission — far from proving consent — actually reveals how little support there was for the federation.

We must correct the historical lie, restore the dignity of our people, and reclaim the sovereignty that was never lawfully surrendered.

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was void, invalid, and must be rejected.
The path forward lies in legal resistance, peaceful assertion of self-determination, and international recognition of our right to exist as independent nations.

History will not forgive silence — it will reward truth.
And the truth is clear: We were never truly part of Malaysia. It’s time to go our own way.

Sunday, 13 August 2023

RENUNGAN MALAYSIA AGREEMENT 1963, dan MALAYSIA ACT 1963

Perhatikan perbezaan kemasukan Scotland ke dlm UK dan kemasukan North Borneo ke dlm Malaysia. 

Parlimen Scotland meluluskan Act of Union 1707 untuk bergabung atau memasuki UK. Tapi Parlimen Britain yg meluluskan Malaysia Act 1963 supaya North Borneo bergabung dgn Malaysia pada 16.09.1963 kerana North Borneo belum mempunyai Parlimen atau Dewan Undangan Negeri pada waktu itu. Ia hanya mempunyai Parlimen atau DUN sendiri pada 25.09.1963.

Ini membuktikan bahawa North Borneo tidk ada kapasiti atau bidang kuasa utk mendatangani Malaysian Agreement 1963 (MA63). Bererti North Borneo MASIH dijajah oleh Britain waktu ia bergabung atau memasuki Malaysia pada tahun 1963 dan masih belum mencapai kemerdekaan sepenuhnya. 

Konon referendum Cobbold Commission yg menentukannya. Ketahuilah bahawa walaupun keputusan referendum 100% memihak cadangan utk memasuki Malaysia, ia WAJIB dibentangkan di Parlimen/DUN negara itu sendiri sebelum menjadi Akta. 

Oleh sebab North Borneo belum mempunyai Parlimen / DUN sendiri,  keputusan referendum tersebut terpaksa dibentangkan di Parlimen Britain hingga termeterainya Malaysia Act 1963.

Jadi sudah jelas bahawa Parliamen Britain yg membuat keputusan supaya North Borneo memasuki Malaysia, bukan North Borneo atau Parlimen/DUN North Borneo yg membuat keputusan tersebut."


Source: Jack Situn II

Thursday, 10 December 2015

‘Not wrong to revisit Malaysia Agreement’

IT is not wrong for the state to revisit what its forefathers have agreed to when the Malaysia Agreement was penned on July 9, 1963.

Assistant Minister of Housing Datuk Abdul Karim Hamzah said there were various factors that ought to be looked into especially when Sarawak attained independence through Malaysia more than 50 years ago.

“What they have agreed to at that time, what safeguards the state has got, whether these terms and conditions they have agreed to at that moment of time…were they followed through by the leaders of post Malaysia after the leaders that helmed this beloved nation of ours through the years?

“These are natural questions that come to us especially now with the increase in social media where people are able to access information easier and with a population with a good eduction background, there’s a lot of questions being asked,” he said in his debate to support the motion calling on the state government to be fully committed in safeguarding the special interest of the state which was tabled by Land Development Minister Tan Sri Datuk Amar Dr James Masing at the State Legislative Assembly yesterday.

Abdul Karim (BN Asajaya), who seconded the motion, said Sarawakians had experienced many levels of unhappiness throughout the years on issues concerning the rate of infrastructure such as the condition of schools, hospitals, clinics, roads, electricity and clean water supplies in the state, and the insufficient funding given by the federal government among others.

“There is also unhappiness of certain policies such as the usage of English, the use of the word ‘Allah’, and the right to practise one’s faith through the years as well as unhappiness over erosions of the rights of our territory especially on the ‘continental shelf’ which even before we formed Malaysia, are recognised as ours.”

“I won’t go into the very details on what are the areas that have been eroded but suffice for me to say that some of these matters have been highlighted by Our Right Honourable Chief Minister (Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Adenan Satem) in his speeches across the state, in Peninsular Malaysia as well as by members of this august House,” he said.

Abdul Karim also said it was enlightening that the state government had set up several committees to discuss these issues with the federal government.

“It is enlightening to see that the state government is looking into this and we have got our own way of trying to address this problem so it will be a win-win situation for the state and the nation.

“The answers to these have not come about but slowly, we can see that the federal government is giving what we have requested for such as the (Pan Borneo) Highway, which is already undergoing construction now in Teluk Melano-Sematan and another in Bintulu while the request for increase in oil royalty as well as contracts of the oil industry to be given to local or state-linked companies seemed to be getting attention from Petronas and the federal government,” he said, adding that with the committees being set up, hopefully there’s light at the end of the tunnel for the state to be given more empowerment from the federal government.

Abdul Karim also took the opportunity to make a playful jab at the opposition stating that they had been trying to jump on the ‘popularity bandwagon’ that Adenan has created.

“It cannot be denied that Our Right Honourable Chief Minister has been steadfast in his efforts to get back the rights that are rightfully ours and which have through the years been taken away or diminished from us and unfortunately the opposition has tried to jump on the bandwagon as (prior to this) we have not heard them talking about this.

“It is probably because the election is near and they might have run out of issues. This is the first time I’ve seen so many motions (from the opposition) practically related to the same subject matter which is on the state-federal relationship,” he said.

Coincidently, opposition members Chong Chieng Jen (DAP Kota Sentosa), David Wong (DAP Pelawan) and See Chee How (PKR Batu Lintang) also filed the same motion that contained the same subject matters to what Masing had tabled.

Source: The Borneo Post

Thursday, 24 September 2015

HARRIS SALLEH: MALAYSIA AGREEMENT NOT BINDING

NATIONALISTS CALL FOR DE-COLONIZATION OF SABAH & SARAWAK

Former Sabah Chief Minister Harris M Salleh has openly declared that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) the Inter Government Committee (IGC) Report and Sabah's 20 Points are not legally binding.

He said it was that is the authority in Malaysia.

A lawyer (who asked that his name be withheld) said Malaysia was created by the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and if MA63 was invalid then the Malaysia Parliament was an illegal body and the Federation of Malaysia was also illegal.

The effect is that Malaya has illegally ruled and control Sabah and Sarawak for 52 years without any legal authority.

The lawyer said this was indeed a great boost to the nationalists who are championing for decolonization of Sabah and Sarawak independence from Malaya.

He said Sabah and Sarawak were never granted independence under any Parliamentary Act by their former colonial master Britain as was the required process to relinquish and vest sovereignty in all former colonies for independence. This means British de-colonization was never completed when Britain had merely handed over Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak as colonies to Malayan rule.

Malaysia existed as "de facto" state by Malaya illegally acquiring 3 new colonies with UK assistance.

It follows that everything done in the name of Malaysia since 1963 is illegal.

The lawyer opined that Malaya effectively occupied Sabah and Sarawak with its army and approaches should be made to the United Nations to call for their de-colonization.

Source: Borneo Wiki

Shad Faruqi: 57 MPs can make or break Putrajaya

Malaysia’s survival hinges on the Malaysia Agreement 1963, an International Agreement on Full Autonomy and Federation for Sabah, Sarawak.

KOTA KINABALU: Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi, a constitutional law expert who is with the UiTM Faculty of Law, has stressed during a closed door discussion in the Sabah capital that Full Autonomy and Federation was the basis on which the two Borneo nations came together with Malaya and Singapore in 1963. “They came in on the explicit condition that their autonomy would be safeguarded in full and that Malaysia would be a Federation,” said Shad Faruqi during his talk, “Constitutional issues in Federal-State Relations” at the Malaysia Federalism and the Way Forward closed door discussion.

The discussion was arranged by Sabah Empowerment and Economic Development (Seed), a think tank, over the weekend.

“The peninsula would be better off if they recognize this,” said Shad Faruqi. “At the same time, Sabah and Sarawak should accept the Federal Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.”

“The situation warrants the need for discussion given the fact that 57 MPs in the Malaysian Parliament are from Sabah and Sarawak. This could make or break future governments. How far the Malayanisation and Islamisation of Sabah and Sarawak would be tolerated remains to be seen.”

When Sabah and Sarawak entered into Federation with Malaya/Singapore, it was clear that they were culturally and historically distinct, said the Professor. “They were not Malay and Muslim.”

“Besides, they have enormous economic potential and despite this they are the poorest states in the Federation.”

He attributed the poverty of the two Borneo states to bias on the part of the Federal Government in Putrajaya and the fact that Malaysia was not a true Federation. “One result of this has been the loss of the two-thirds majority that the ruling coalition used to have in Parliament highlighting the plight of Sabah and Sarawak.”

For every ringgit the Federal Government collects in revenue, said Shah Faruqi, the state gets 10 sen. “This is very disappointing and needs to be addressed. This is not how a Federation should work.”

He conceded that it would be for the people to decide whether a unitary system, as at present, was better than a Federal system. “It’s a fact that it’s the unitary system which led to the loss of the two-thirds majority in Parliament.”

All this should be read within the context of the on-going talks on “more powers” for the Sabah and Sarawak Governments, he added. “The Federal, Sabah and Sarawak Governments should sit down and discuss and negotiate if they are serious about restoring the Full Autonomy status the two Borneo nations were promised in 1963 and the Federation.”

The Professor said that devolution, more powers and empowerment, the terms used by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, were inaccurate. “It’s not about devolution. Many of the powers of Sabah and Sarawak are already in the Constitution. It’s not empowerment. It’s about giving back what was pledged in 1963.”

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 is an International Agreement, pointed out Shad Faruqi, and cannot be treated as an internal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between states.

The 20 Points (Sabah) and 18 Points (Sarawak), he stressed, was not law at all but gentleman’s agreements which the Federal Government should honour. “There should be discussions between the people of Sabah and Sarawak with leaders in the peninsula to iron out these Agreements to investigate how many points have been incorporated in the Federal Constitution or otherwise.”

‘Many of the 20 Points and 18 Points have not been incorporated into law and hence they may have no legal status.”

There’s no legal duty (to incorporate the points into law), he argued, but it’s a moral issue. “Politically, it’s important in terms of honouring a gentleman’s agreement for us to listen to their concerns and also for the survival of the Federation.”

Saturday, 15 August 2015

MALAYSIA IS NOT ONE COUNTRY

Go Addy: "malaysia" is not one country. It is a federation of 3 Nations (Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak) - every Nation is independent of each other as seperate legal entity. That is the Federation of 'malaysia" (in accordance with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 - if still valid)

Instead of complying with the Federation arrangement, Malaya is changing the rules in the middle of the game to turn "malaysia' into a " Unitary State " by taking away of the autonomous rights of Sabah Sarawak and make them states as parts of Malaya.

This has created irreparable damage and irreversible complications. "malaysia" is now at a lost - cannot go forward and cannot go backward : STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE!!!

"malaysia" cannot exist based on the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957. ( because this agreement does not include Sabah and Sarawak) This Agreement 1957 should have been abolished on 16 September 1963 and replaced with the Malaysia Agreement 1963. This replacement cannot be done because to do so will dissolve the Malayan Union of 11 states and everyone will become independent states ( Kelantan, Trengganu, Johore, Penang and Malacca are ready to opt out at anytime now). In fact in 1963 - 4 days before the proclamation of "malaysia", Kelantan made a Court Application to challenge that the they are not consulted when the Malaysia Agreement was signed in 1963 and are therefore not bound by it.

So the danger of adopting the Malaysia Agreement 1963 as rhe basis to legitimise the formation of "malaysia" cannot be done. 

This explains the reason why Sabah Sarawak legally and constitutionally are by default still remain outside the constitution's definition (Article 160).

NOW - "MALAYSIA" CANNOT GO FORWARD AND CANNOT GO BACKWARDS.

--- STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE ---

-----NEITHER HERE NEITHER THERE-----

Lina Soo: so precise, thank you Addy. may i add if Malaysia is a new country, then Malaya will have to cease as a member state of United Nations, and Malaysia to re-apply as a new member of UN. 

so quit saying msia is a new nation and all are equal partners. dont believe the spin and propaganda of britain and malaya promoters of malaysia scam. we have been taken for a ride for 52 years, so wake up now

Borneo Wiki: "Malaya" renamed "Malaysia" as stated in MA63. Go Addy --- But, wait...... MA63 was abrogated when S'pore left & the original "Malaysia" agreed to by 4 countries ceased to exist...

So that means SS are not legally part of Malaysia and there is nothing to negotiate except de-colonization!

***In order to get better understanding about this matter, please read these articles, "Defining Malaysia: Is Malaya Masquerading as Malaysia?and "Is Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) a Valid International Agreement?" Once you finish your reading, you will know the truth. Don't forget to share these articles to your friends.***

Friday, 7 August 2015

Secession a right of any state that joined Malaysia voluntarily, says Sabah politician

It is not seditious for Sabah and Sarawak nationalists to call for secession from Malaysia if the agreements that formed the country in 1963 are not honoured, Sabah opposition politician, Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan said.

The Bingkor assemblyman, who is chairman of the Sabah STAR party, said the people of these two Borneo states which formed Malaysia with Malaya had been "taken for a ride and cheated outright" despite the Malaysia Agreement as the peninsula depended on these two states for political support and oil wealth.

"If the federal leaders care to listen, Sabah and Sarawak nationalists and activists are not seeking secession but restoration of the legitimate rights, privileges and autonomy of the Borneo states that were taken away or eroded since 1963.

"There was a basis that led to the formation of Malaysia and if that basis is not honoured, one of the lawful and legal recourse would be a de-merger or dissolution. In such an event, it is not secession," Kitingan said in a statement today.

The opposition politician has long campaigned against the Barisan Nasional federal government over issues of oil royalty, freedom of religion, alleged Islamisation of Sabah institutions and the local people as well as immigration which have change the demographic of the state's population.

Kitingan said secession was a legal right of a state if it had voluntarily entered a federation, citing Lord Landsdowne who had chaired the Inter Governmental Committee which had studied the proposed formation of Malaysia in 1962.

Because a state had this "intrinsic" right, it was "unnecessary to include it in the constitution", Landsdowne had said, quoted Kitingan.

"If secession is seditious and against the constitution, why was Singapore allowed secession in 1965? Shouldn't the Singapore leaders then be charged for sedition?" Kitingan added, noting that the federal government then had even signed a departure agreement with Singapore.

Kitingan also noted that "nowhere is it stated in the Federal Constitution that Sabah and Sarawak are not allowed to secede".

The federal government's decision to retain the Sedition Act and plans to make calling for Sabah and Sarawak's secession a criminal offence was a "huge mistake", he added.

But he welcomed threats to arrest and charge Sabah or Sarawak activists for sedition for making such calls, as prosecution would reveal "dark secrets and wrongdoings" against the people of both states.

Criminalising calls for Sabah and Sarawak to leave Malaysia, Kitingan said, would "mark the beginning of the end and break-up of the Malaysian federation". – February 1, 2015.

Saturday, 1 August 2015

Ramai Tak Tahu: Kelantan Pernah Cabar Penubuhan Malaysia Pada 1963 di Mahkamah

On July 9, 1963, the governments of the Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom, Sarawak, North Borneo and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement that brought Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak into the federation.

The federal parliament then passed the Malaysia Act to amend the federal constitution to include the three new states and to provide for matters in connection with the admission.

On Sept 10 , six days before Malaysia was to be declared, the government of Kelantan began an action against the federal government for declarations that the Malaysia Agreement and the Malaysia Act were null and void or were not binding on the state.

In the case of The Government of the State of Kelantan v The Government of the Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj ("the Kelantan case"), Kelantan argued that:
  • The Malaysia Act would violate the Federation of Malaya agreement 1957 by abolishing the "Federation of Malaya".
  • The proposed changes needed the consent of each of the constituent states including Kelantan, and this had not been obtained.
  • The Sultan of Kelantan should have been made a party to the Malaysia Agreement.
  • Constitutional convention dictated that consultation with rulers of individual states was required before substantial changes could be made to the constitution.
  • The federal parliament had no power to legislate for Kelantan in matters that the state could legislate for on its own.
Chief justice James Thomson delivered his decision 30 hours before Malaysia was to be declared, saying: "Never, I think, has a judge had to pronounce on an issue of such magnitude on so little notice and with so little time for consideration."

He added that "a clearer expression of opinion than would be customary is clearly required in a matter which relates to the interests of political stability in this part of Asia and the interests of 10 million people, about half a million of them being inhabitants of the state of Kelantan".

Thomson responded to the five different arguments forwarded by the Kelantan government by framing the issues into one general question of "whether parliament or the executive government has trespassed in any way the limits placed on their powers by the constitution".

In this way, he bypassed addressing some fundamental questions relating to the supremacy of the constitution raised by the Kelantan government. Nevertheless, he still managed to make several important constitutional pronouncements. The court said that even if Kelantan was a sovereign state prior to the 1957 Federation of Malaya Agreement, the effect of that agreement was that a large proportion of the powers that make up sovereignty passed from the Kelantan government to that of the federation.

These powers are thus limited to and subject to the 1957 Federal Constitution that formed part of the agreement. The court also found that the Malaysia Act in amending the constitution to admit the new states and changing the name to "Malaysia" did not contravene the requirements of the constitution, which were found to be liberal in such matters.

And if the steps that had been taken were in all respects lawful, the nature of the results they had produced could not make them unlawful.

What is now known as the "basic structure doctrine" stipulates that a constitutional amendment can be declared by the courts to be invalid on the grounds that it destroys the basic structure of the constitution.

The courts, therefore, must play a vital role in ensuring that the basic structure is not dismantled. It is within their function to interpret the constitution and determine what the basic features are.

With respect, the court in the Kelantan case missed the opportunity to make a pronouncement on this. There was certainly merit in the argument that theinclusion of the three new states with their different status and privileges as compared with the original 11 states created a fundamental change to the structure of the federation, at least in the eyes of Kelantan and the 10 other original members.

The Kelantan case, besides being a political challenge to the fundamental principle of equality found in the 1957 agreement, manifested into a legal pronouncement of the state of constitutionalism in the new federation.

It revealed that Kelantan and the other original states were placed together in a class of component states distinct and of a different status from the other three new states. This was the basis of the new federation.

The Kelantan government also, through this challenge, succeeded in opening a door upon a new sphere of constitutional interpretation. The chief justice gave approval to the possibility of there being implied limitations in the power of constitutional amendments.

Although subsequent judicial decisions in Malaysia did not show approval for this doctrine, they did not completely close the door that was opened by the Kelantan case. The future of constitutionalism and the supremacy of the constitution rest significantly on the continuous deliberation of the basic structure doctrine by our courts.

The Kelantan challenge was thus a significant chapter in Malaysian constitutional history. It resulted in establishing the constitutional relations between the component states of the federation, defining the path along which federalism in Malaysia will go.

In particular, this episode appears to have been a precursor of things to come for the constitutional and political relations between Kelantan and the federal government.

Thursday, 30 July 2015

THE MALAYSIA PROJECT AND THE STATUS OF SABAH IN THE FEDERATION

On 27 May, 1961, Y.T.M Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, the Prime Minister, Federation of Malaya, at a press luncheon in Singapore made the proposal that a Federation of Malaysia should be created, comprising the eleven States of Malaya, Singapore, the three Borneo territories of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei. The regularly quoted words of the Tunku were as follows:

“… Sooner or later she (Malaya) should have an understanding with the peoples of Singapore, North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak… these territories can be brought closer together in a political and economic cooperation” (speech made by Tunku Abdul Rahman on 27 May, 1961 to the Foreign Correspondents of Southeast Asia in Singapore).

Later, on 16 October, 1961, the Tunku explained to the Malayan Parliament the motivation and framework for the formation of the Federation of Malaysia as follows.

“… When considering the concept of Malaysia it is necessary to keep in mind that the independent Federation of Malaya has to take note of three separate elements and the special interests of each. These three elements are the State of Singapore, which is almost completely self-governing, the three Borneo territories which are still colonies, and the United Kingdom which has special obligations or duties in relation to the people of these areas.”

“… I will turn now to the problem of the Borneo territories in relation to the concept of Malaysia. These territories do not present the same complexity in the implementation of the concept as Singapore does. In a broad sense, it could be stated that the question is much simpler there, in fact so much simpler that they present a special difficulty of their own. The three Borneo territories have two political factors in common. First… vestiges for British colonialism. Second… their constitutional development has been very slow” (speech by Tunku Abdul Rahman, Prime Minister, the Federation of Malaya, in the Federal Parliament on 16 October, 1961).

Amidst all the rhetoric which accompanied the campaign for an enlarged Federation, the plan to include the States of North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei was, however, somewhat coincidental, for what the Tunku really wanted was Singapore. Nevertheless, the Tunku had one genuine aim for the Borneo territories – independence from the British colonialism. As he put it then:

“… it is our duty to help bring about an end to any form of colonialism. The very concept of Malaysia Plan is an effort to end colonialism in this region of the world, in a peaceful and constructive manner. We in Malaya won our independence by peaceful means and we are sure that the people of the Borneo territories would like to end their colonial status and obtain independence in the same way."

“… the important aspect of the Malaysia ideal as I see it, is that it will enable the Borneo territories to transform their present colonial status to self-government for themselves and absolute independence in Malaysia simultaneously.”

On the British Government’s side, it was not an issue to grant independence to the Borneo States (North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei), since the British Government had decided to allow these territories to attain their own independence ultimately. The question was one of timing and the form it should take. As one document puts it:

“… The declared aim of the British Government is to grant independence to all its colonial territories as soon as they are ready for it. Hitherto this has been thought of simply as independence fo North Borneo standing by itself or, more recently, in association with Sarawak.”

“… It is the view of the British Government that provided satisfactory terms of merger can be worked out, the plan for Malaysia offers the best chance of fulfilling its responsibility to guide the Borneo territories to self-government in conditions that will secure them against dangers from any quarters.”

“… Malaysia offers for them all the prospect of sharing in the destiny of what the British Government believes will be a great, prosperous and stable Independent State within the Commonwealth” (Extract from “North Borneo and Malaysia” published by Authority of the Government of North Borneo, Jesselton, February 1962)

Even at the point in time, there was considerable concern that the notion of ‘independence through Malaysia’ might not be the sort of independence that the Borneo States were looking for. There were those who were concerned about neo-colonialism. On this issue the Tunku had the following to say:

“… One reaction in the Borneo territories was that the Malaysia concept was an attempt to colonise the Borneo territories. The answer to this was, as I said before, it is legally impossible for the Federation to colonise because we desire that they should join us in the Federation in equal partnership, enjoying the same status between one another, so there is no fear that Malaysia will mean that there will be an imposition of Islam on Borneo… everybody is free to practise whatever religion.” (Extract of speech by Tunku Abdul Rahman, Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, in the Federal Parliament on 16 October 1961)

In addition, the colonial government of North Borneo had cautioned that:

“… It is necessary, therefore, for the people of North Borneo to consider what powers they are prepared to concede in order to bring Malaysia into being. It is understood that there should be widespread apprehension lest, in practice, Malaysia would mean that the people of North Borneo would have far less control over their own affairs than they exercise already, and that North Borneo would be relegated to the position of a relatively powerless province of a strong Federal Government situated 1,000 miles away” (Extract from ‘North Borneo and Malaysia’)

For this reason, in the same speech the Tunku raised the issue of constitutional safeguards:

“… Moreover in our future constitutional arrangement the Borneo people can have a big say in matters on which they feel very strongly, matters such as immigration, customs, Borneonisation, and control of their State franchise rights.” (Speech by Tunku Abdul Rahman in the Federal Parliament on 16 October 1961)

The need for consultation and non-interference in the normal affairs of the Borneo State was highlighted by the Tunku.

“… One very strong feeling was that they must be consulted on the future of their people and the future of the country. I have said on more than one occasion that Malaya can only accept Borneo people from an expression of their own free will to join us.”

Other observers noted that:

“… In conversation with members of the North Borneo delegation to the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee he (the Tunku) has made it abundantly clear that he has no wish to interfere in the internal affairs of North Borneo and is willing to consider sympathetically any proposal for the management by the people of this country of their own internal affairs.” (IGC Report)

Even the Colonial Government of North Borneo cautioned strongly that:

“… It would, indeed, be against the long-term interest of the Malayan Government to insist on excessive control against the wishes of the people of the Borneo territories, which would over the course of the years build up resentment and discontent leading to a repetition within Malaysia of the internal stresses and strains which, in recent years, have become apparent within the framework of Indonesia, and, more recently still, have culminated in the secession of Syria from the United Arab Republic." (‘North Borneo and Malaysia’)

Arising from the various public statements on the need for safeguards and conditions, formal steps were undertaken to identify these safeguards and to present them for discussion by political leaders and officials of all the parties involves. A strong starting point for these discussions was the submission of a Memorandum containing the ‘Twenty Points’ on 29th August, 1962 by the leaders of five newly formed political parties (The United Kadazan Organisation, The United Sabah National Organisation, The United Party, The Democratic Party and The National Pasok Momogun organisation). The Memorandum was a joint declaration setting out the basis on which Malaysia would be acceptable in North Borneo and embodying minimal safeguards in the form of Twenty Points which the parties considered necessary for North Borneo in its entry into Malaysia. The signatories to the 20 Points Memorandum were as follows:

The principles of the 20 Points were accepted in total. The implementation of the Twenty Points was discussed at length by the IGC and most of them were subsequently taken up and incorporated in the Malaysia Agreement.

Discussion of the details of the various safeguards and conditions is the subject of the next section of this Memo. Suffice it to emphasize here that security consideration and economic development were important motivations for support for the proposed Federation, which was identified with independence in the mind of the People. Certainly, there existed as expectation that the new Federation will be conducive to harmony among ethnic groups and economic advancement in the rural areas.

The process of bringing the Malaysia Project to fruition was of course a lengthy and arduous task. It involved, among others, the Cobbold Commission of Inquiry, IGC and UN Malaysia Mission. While these bodies all came to the conclusion that the leaders and people of Sabah generally “expressed strong support for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia” it is crucial to note that their views were by no means unanimous. The main finding of the Commission of Inquiry deserves to be mentioned here:

“… In accessing the opinion of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak we have only been able to arrive at an approximation. We do not wish to make any guarantee that it may not change in one direction or the other in the future.”

“… About one third of the population in each territory strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern about terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia Project, asked with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards varying in nature and extent: the warmth of support among this category would be markedly influenced by a firm expression of opinion by Governments that the detailed arrangement eventually agreed upon are in the best interests of the territories. The remaining third is divided between those who insist on independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come…"

"There will remain a hard core, vocal and politically active, which will oppose Malaysia on any terms unless it is preceded by independence and self-government; the hard core might amount to near 20 per cent of the population of Sarawak and somewhat less in North Borneo.” (Extract of the Commission of Inquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962 – HMSO SMND, 1974).

The reservation exhibited by the people of Sabah (about two-thirds) as regards the proposed Federation served to emphasise the importance they attached to the provision of specific safeguards and conditions because of the uncertainty of their future in the enlarged Federation. The issue of safeguards and their fulfilment by the Federal government was very basic to their decision to form the Federation. Any violation of the safeguards would constitute a violation of the conditions upon which the State agreed to be a party to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.

In retrospect, the vision of the Tunku, the aspirations of the Sabahan leaders and the consent of the Colonial Government as regards the formation of the Federation of Malaysia all converged on the important conclusion that:

(a)   Sabah would participate in the formation of the Federation in equal partnership with Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak;

(b)   The Federal government would not interfere in the internal affairs of Sabah, which would also be consulted on the future of her people and the future of Malaysia;

(c)   There would be autonomy in specific areas of government;

(d)   The new Federation promised an independence state and an improved economic well-being to the people of Sabah.

Sunday, 19 July 2015

Malaysia Agreement is ‘invalid’, breaches international conventions, Kuching forum told

The Malaysia Agreement of 1963, the treaty that brought Sarawak, Sabah, and for a short while Singapore, to form the Federation of Malaysia, is an invalid agreement, a forum here heard.

The forum on the Malaysia Agreement in Kuching was also told that Malaysia had started out as an “equal partnership” but had now turned to a “take-over project” by Putrajaya.

A former deputy minister also told the forum to take its case to courts in the United Kingdom as the agreement was brokered by the British.

Robert Pei, a Sarawak-born lawyer now practising in Australia, said the Malaysia Agreement was “void ab initio” - a Latin legal phrase meaning it was not valid from the start - as it was not made in compliance with the established principles and rules of international laws like the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (VCLT), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1946 and the United Nations Decolonisation Declaration of 1960 (UNDD).
He said the Malaysia Agreement:
  • breached established customary international law that only sovereign states could enter into international treaties;
  • violated Article 5 of the UNDD when Britain was in breach of its 1946 Cession treaty with then independent Sarawak Brooke government to restore independence to Sarawak;
  • violated Article 7 of the UNDD as there was no referendum;
  • violated Article 4 of the UNDD and Article 52 of VCLT, when Britain and Malaya jointly used armed force and repression to coerce the Borneo states into Malaysia under cover of quelling the Brunei Uprising in 1962 and the guerrilla independence war.

“The British repression and suppression of pro-independence Sarawak nationalists was not just a violation of the UNDD but it was a major violation of human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948,” Pei added.

“On its very face, the MA63 document displayed a fatal and fundamental flaw.

On the “established principle” of international law that only sovereign states could enter into valid agreements with other states, Pei pointed out the then North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak were not sovereign states on July 9, 1963 when the Malaysia Agreement was signed and therefore had no legal standings to sign the agreement.

“The Malaysia Agreement, registered as an international treaty with the United Nations in 1973, was purportedly made between five 'sovereign states' - the United Kingdom, Malayan Federation, Singapore with North Borneo and Sarawak on July 9, 1963."

He said as North Borneo and Sarawak were still colonies and therefore has no independent international representation, and its top-level administration is under direct control of the metropolitan state that owns the colony, the agreement was actually entered into between only two independent sovereign states, the United Kingdom and Malaya.

Pei then posed the question: “So is the MA63 (Malaysia Agreement 1963) really about the de-colonisation of North Borneo and Sarawak or just a vehicle for re-colonisation by the new colonial master – Malaya?”

He believed in the latter, saying Malaya had “colluded and pre-determined with Britain to form Malaysia to re-colonize the Borneo territories”.

He also said the MA63 was invalid and was abrogated by Singapore's separation and independence from Malaysia in 1965.

“An international treaty could not be changed without the agreement and consent of all the parties.

“The bilateral Singapore Separation agreement between Singapore and Malaya in 1965 was made without active involvement of the other three signatory parties... and it basically changed the concept of Malaysia which should have been re-negotiated.”

The chief of Sabah-based party Star and Bingkor state assemblyman, Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan (pic, left), concurred with Pei's view that what started as “equal partners” had now turned to a “take-over project” by Putrajaya.

Kitingan, who has been critical of the erosion of Sabah and Sarawak rights in the Malaysia Agreement, cited issues like religion, 'Project IC' and the plundering of the states' mineral wealth, failure to implement the Borneosation of the civil service, and the position of indigenous people in favour of the Malays as the “federal play to re-colonise Sabah”.

Hindraf chairman, P. Waythamoorthy, who was specifically invited to share his experience in taking Hindraf's case to the courts in the United Kingdom, said Sabah and Sarawak can also take their right for self-determination to British courts as the British government could be held liable for their current predicament.

“Sue Britain and hold them liable for compelling Sabah and Sarawak into the Malaysia Agreement and seek a declaration in the UK court that the MA63 is null and void,” the former deputy minister said.

Waytha however warned that such a legal fight would be long and “would not be easy”.

Sharing his experience in taking the plight of Malaysian Indians to the British court, Waytha said he is willing to assist nationalists in the two Borneo states to take their case to Britain.

“The states of Borneo have the right to self determination, autonomy.

“Culturally, socially, ethnically they are different from Peninsula Malaysia. They have their right to chart their own course,” he said at the forum that also had former Sabah chief minister and president of SAPP, Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee, and deputy President of Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (PBDS) Baru, Patrick Anek Uren, as speakers.

Waytha (pic, right), who once inked a Memorandum of Understanding last year with Barisan Nasional to improve the Indian community, said the British government was not acting in good faith in creating Malaysia because the “UK government was more interested in protecting their strategic defence and economic interests in South-east Asia than the interests of Sabah and Sarawak”.

“UK wanted control of the South China Sea and to maintain its military bases. It needed to protect the sea route up to the Philippines.”

The forum, jointly organised by Sarawak Association for Peoples’ Aspiration (SAPA) and Borneo Heritage Foundation of Sabah (BHF) which Kitingan heads, had some 200 people packed in the conference hall of a local hotel. – April 28, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysia-agreement-is-invalid-breaches-international-conventions-kuching-fo#sthash.7JfSHKKg.dpuf

Saturday, 18 July 2015

Persekutuan Malaysia HANYA WUJUD pada 16 September 1963 dan BUKAN pada 31 Ogos 1957!

Adakah anda masih tidak faham??? Mengapa tidak menggunakan Perjanjian Persekutuan Malaysia 1963? Untuk menggunakan perjanjian Persekutuan Malaysia 1963, sebuah Perlembagaan Baru yang terdiri daripada Negara Sabah, Negara Sarawak, Negara Singapura dan malaya (yang terdiri daripada 11 negeri) perlulah diwujudkan. Pemimpin malaya yang dahulu diketuai oleh tunku abdul rahman mengatakan gunakanlah dahulu perlembagaan malaya dan nanti perlembagaan baru akan diwujudkan. Sehingga kini, tiada sebarang usaha untuk mewujudkan perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia. Yang ada hanyalah perlembagaan malaya bertopengkan malaysia. 

Adakah susah sangat untuk anda memahami perkara ini?

Perlembagaan malaya tidak mampu mengikat Negara Sabah mahupun Negara Sarawak kerana dasar perjanjian tidak dipatuhi sepenuhnya. Ini kerana perlembagaan yang wujud sekarang hanyalah yang melibatkan negeri-negeri tanah melayu. Apabila terwujudnya persekutuan malaysia, Negara Sabah dan Negara Sarawak hanya diselitkan didalam beberapa artikel dan perkara didalam perlembagaan malaya.

Adakah itu yang anda katakan perlembagaan baru? Atas sebab itu jugalah malaya tidak mampu mengikat negara Singapura kerana pembentukkan persekutuan ini adalah atas dasar sukarela. You don't like, you can quit from the federation. Singapura sudah membuktikan kebenaran kata-kata ini.

Namun, kepimpinan negara Sabah dan negara Sarawak pada waktu dahulu tidak sehebat seperti negara Singapura kerana taraf kehebatan pemikiran dan kesedaran serta sokongan rakyat telah menjadi faktor kepada kelemahan penentangan yang inginkan perpisahan. Ditambahkan lagi terdiri daripada pemimpin-pemimpin yang sanggup mengkhianati kepentingan bangsa dan negara telah membawa negara Sabah dan negara Sarawak kepada keadaan yang mendukacitakan sehingga kini.

Tetapi, perkara ini akan berubah tidak lama lagi kerana kesedaran dan keberanian itu sudah mulai menampakkan aura dan kebangkitan. Apakah ancaman seperti penangkapan, akta hasutan dan sebagainya mampu menakutkan serta melemahkan gerakkan Kemerdekaan ini? 

Sejarah sudah membuktikan bahawa usaha seperti itu hanya akan menjadi faktor pemangkin yang paling mujarab dalam menjayakan gerakkan kemerdekaan ini.

Apakah ini semua omongan kosong? Lakukanlah jikalau tidak percaya.

Monday, 6 July 2015

Singapore Separates From Malaysia And Becomes Independent on August 9th, 1965


On 9 August 1965, Singapore separated from Malaysia to become an independent and sovereign state.[1] The separation was the result of deep political and economic differences between the ruling parties of Singapore and Malaysia,[2] which created communal tensions that resulted in racial riots in July and September 1964.[3] At a press conference announcing the separation, then Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was overcome by emotions and broke down. Singapore’s union with Malaysia had lasted for less than 23 months.[4]

Singapore in Malaysia

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew signed the Malaysia Agreement in London on 9 July 1963.[5] The agreement spelt out the terms for the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah), which was to take place on 31 August 1963.[6] The terms for Singapore’s entry into Malaysia, which were agreed upon by both the Singapore and federal governments, were published in a White Paper in November 1961.[7] This White Paper documented the outcome of talks between Lee and then Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman on Singapore’s inclusion into Malaysia. The terms included the margins of Singapore's autonomy, Singapore's political representation in the federal government, the status of Singapore citizens and Singapore’s revenue contribution to the federal government.[8] Prior to the signing of the Malaysia Agreement in London, there was a week of “arduous and gruelling negotiations” over the more thorny issues of a common market between Singapore and Malaya, and the portion of Singapore’s revenue and taxes that would go to the federal government.[9] With these issues settled, Singapore began its journey as part of Malaysia.

A Difficult Union

Even before the proclamation of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963, Singapore and Malayan leaders were mindful that the differences in the political approach and economic conditions between the two countries “cannot be wiped out overnight”.[10] This, however, did not prevent sharp exchanges between the leaders of both countries throughout the period of the union. The slow progress of the creation of a common market and the difficulty in getting pioneer status from Kula Lumpur for Singapore industries frustrated Singapore leaders, while Kuala Lumpur was dissatisfied with Singapore's dogged response to the federal government’s clamour for increased revenue contribution to combat the Indonesian Confrontation, and for an agreed loan to develop Sabah and Sarawak.[11]

At the political front, the grossly imbalanced Malay-Chinese population in both countries made each vulnerable to communal prejudices which were played up by political leaders. The two major political parties in Malaysia, the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), were soon accusing one another of communalism. The accusations escalated into tensions until they erupted into racial violence in Singapore on 21 July and 2 September 1964.[12] Despite agreeing to a two-year truce in September 1964, the acrimony between UMNO and PAP soon flared up again. At the heart of the rift was Lee’s multi-racial slogan, “Malaysian Malaysia”, which sowed deep distrust among UMNO leaders, especially the “ultras”, who viewed his vision of a non-communal Malaysia as a challenge to their party’s raison d'être of undisputed Malay dominance.[13]

Separation

By the second half of 1965, the stormy political climate in Malaysia showed no signs of easing. Tunku Abdul Rahman, who had become the Malaysian Prime Minister, was pressed to intervene to avoid a repeat of the communal clashes that had taken place in 1964. During his London trip to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in June 1965, the Tunku decided that severing Singapore from the federation was the only course and communicated this to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, who was instructed to sound out the senior Malaysian ministers and lay the groundwork for separation.[14] By the time the Tunku returned to Kuala Lumpur on 5 August, Singapore’s days in the federation were numbered.[15]

The week leading to 9 August 1965 was a busy time for the leaders of both countries as by this time, separation had become a certainty.[16] Negotiations were, however, done in complete secrecy. In Singapore, not only were civil servants and permanent secretaries kept in the dark, but some senior PAP cabinet members, most notably Deputy Prime Minister Toh Chin Chye and Culture Minister Rajaratnam, were also clueless. Leading the negotiations for Singapore was then Finance Minister Goh Keng Swee, and for Malaysia, Tun Razak.[17] Razak was aiming to convene a federal parliament sitting on 9 August and was pushing for the legal paperwork for the release of Singapore to be tabled at that session.[18] In Singapore, Lee had asked then Law Minister E. W. Barker to draft the separation agreement at the end of July, along with other legal documents such as the Proclamation of Independence.[19]

As the deadline of 9 August neared, Goh and Barker made arrangements to travel to Kuala Lumpur to finalise the separation, arriving quietly in the capital on 6 August. Lee, who was in Cameron Highlands at that time, left for Kuala Lumpur and also arrived on 6 August to study and approve the separation documents. Thereafter, the separation draft prepared by Barker occupied the attention of five men – Razak, Malaysian Attorney-General Kadir Yusof, Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Ismail bin Dato Abdul Rahman, Barker and Goh. The final version, which included a few amendments and insertions, were typed late that night and signed by Goh, Barker, Razak, Ismail, Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin and Malaysian Minister for Works V. T. Sambanthan well after midnight.[20]

After Lee was shown the final signed separation documents by Barker, he called Toh and Rajaratnam in Singapore to meet him the following morning. Arriving in Kuala Lumpur separately on 7 August, both Toh and Rajaratnam were particularly distraught when Lee told them of the news, and were not willing to sign the agreement.[21] However, a letter written by the Tunku to Toh stressing the former’s irrevocable decision – that there was “absolutely no other way out” – left them with no choice.[22] Realising that their persistence to pursue the status quo could well mean bloodshed, both Toh and Rajaratnam reluctantly signed.[23]

Lee then flew back to Singapore on 8 August on a Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) jet so that he could get the separation agreement signed by the rest of his cabinet members. Two other individuals were called upon to assist with the task to meet the 9 August deadline: John Le Cain, the Police Commissioner, to ensure law and order, and Stanley Stewart, head of the Singapore Civil Service, to prepare and print the special gazette and proclamation of independence notices.[24] The Government Printing Office (GPO) had to recall its staff overnight, and to keep the lid on the separation, Stewart locked the GPO.[25] Encoded messages on the separation were also dispatched to the British, Australian and New Zealand prime ministers in the wee hours.[26]

Similarly in Kuala Lumpur on 8 August, things also moved swiftly as Razak had to ensure that everything was ready for the Tunku’s address to the federal parliament the following day, where he would move a bill to amend the constitution that would provide for Singapore’s departure from the Federation. Razak was also waiting for the fully signed separation agreement from Singapore to allay possible suggestions that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia. Only when the RMAF craft sent to Singapore to collect the document bearing the signatures of the entire Singapore cabinet arrived in Kuala Lumpur did he share the purpose of the 9 August parliament session with the chief ministers, mentri besars and state rulers in the Federation.[27]

The Birth of Singapore

The proclamation declaring Singapore’s independence was announced on Radio Singapore at 10:00 am on 9 August 1965.[28] Simultaneously in Kuala Lumpur, the Tunku announced the separation to the federal parliament. He then moved a resolution to enact the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Bill, 1965, that would allow Singapore to leave Malaysia and become an independent and sovereign state. The bill was passed with a 126-0 vote and given the royal assent by the end of the day.[29] Singapore TV also aired the press conference called by Lee at 4:30 p.m.[30] During the press conference, Lee explained why the separation was inevitable despite his long-standing belief in the merger, and called on the people to remain firm and calm. Filled with emotions and his eyes brimming with tears, Lee had given Singaporeans a glimpse of their leader’s “moment of anguish”.[31]

Many rallied behind the news of the separation with relief although the manner of its announcement came as a shock and was initially greeted with disappointment and regret.[32] It was slightly less than two years ago that the people of Singapore had backed Lee’s merger through their votes in the September 1962 referendum.[33] However when merger came, the greater share of it was marked by constant differences and bitter political wrangling between leaders of the two nations.[34] Although all signs were pointing to trouble, very few were prepared for the dramatic end to Singapore’s union with Malaysia.

Sunday, 28 June 2015

PERJANJIAN MALAYSIA 1963 SEPERTI YANG DITAFSIRKAN DI BAWAH UNDANG-UNDANG CONTRACT MALAYSIA 1950

MALAYSIAN AGREEMENT 1963 AS INTERPRETED BY THE MALAYSIAN CONTRACTS ACT 1950

Section 52:

When a contract consists of reciprocal promises to be simultaneously performed, no promisor need perform his promise unless the promisee is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise.

(Apabila sesuatu [perjanjian] kontrak itu mengandungi janji-janji bersaling yang mana perlu dilaksanakan serentak, PEMBUAT JANJI TIDAK PAYAH (diulangi, Tidak Payah) MELAKSANAKAN JANJINYA kecuali PENERIMA JANJI PUN BERSEDIA DAN INGIN MELAKSANAKAN JANJINYA JUGA)

Section 38:

The parties to a contract [agreement] must either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless the performance is dispensed with or excused under this Act, or of any other law.

(Semua pihak [perjanjian[ kontrak mesti melaksanakan, atau, menawarkan untuk melaksanakan, janji-janji mereka masing-masing, kecuali perlaksanaan itu tidak diperlukan atau abaikan di bawah Akta tersebut, atau undang-undang lain)

Source: https://www.facebook.com/notes/doris-jones/malaysian-agreement-1963-as-interpreted-by-the-malaysian-contracts-act-1950/615012215265210

Sabah and Sarawak's right to say 'Sorry, no entry'

QUICK TAKE: The power to say, “Sorry, no entry” to anyone, including Malaysian citizens, into Sabah or Sarawak rests entirely in the hands of the director of immigration of these Borneo states who is to comply with the direction of the “State authority” which in effect means the chief minister.

The latest victim of this special immigration power, granted to the two states since the formation of Malaysia in September 1963, happens to be Seputeh Member of Parliament Teresa Kok who was denied entry when she landed at the Sandakan airport after a flight from Kuala Lumpur on Feb 4.

As usual and expected, there are protests over the incident but to no avail, because the state concerned does not even have to give a reason or explain such an action.

For, under Section 65(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1959/63, the state authority in Sabah or Sarawak has the right to restrict or cancel a permit, pass or certificate of anyone wishing to gain enter into that state.

This is a law applicable only to the East Malaysian states in recognition of the fact that immigration control was one of the top safeguards requested by Sabah and Sarawak leaders and this point was duly incorporated into the Immigration Act 1959 that was accordingly amended by Parliament in 1963.

In the months prior to the formation of Malaysia, there were genuine fears of people in Sarawak and Sabah that Malayans who were more advanced in education, commerce and industry, would flock into their states in large numbers and take away employment and other opportunities from the locals, considered as unfair competition then.

Over half a century down the line, this law is still firmly in place and from time to time the chief minister concerned would use it to bar the entry of individuals considered by him to be undesirable to the state, including leaders of opposition parties, like Teresa Kok.

And no one could do anything about it, not even the prime minister.

Last November when Negara-Ku Patron Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan was denied entry into Sabah she described the ban as ridiculous saying, “I don't know what they are paranoid about in this day and age. These types of restrictions are meaningless, when there are other ways to go about it.”

She had suffered a similar restriction in April 2011 when disallowed to enter Kuching and put on the next flight back to Kuala Lumpur, her port of origin. She took the matter to the High Court in the nation's capital and was told by the court there that it had no jurisdiction to hear a Borneo case and dismissed her application.

Another who had a similar experience was PKR vice-president Tian Chua, who was denied entry into Sabah by the immigration authority in April 2013 and forced to take the next flight back to Kuala Lumpur the same day.

The display of this special power by the state authority of these two states is not confined only to social activists and opposition personalities, but to academicians as well. In late December last year, controversial academician Ridhuan Tee Abdullah was barred from entering Sarawak upon arrival at the Kuching International Airport.

Sarawak Immigration Department deputy director Hamfatullah Syawal Hamdan confirmed to Bernama in a report that his department had received instructions from the Chief Minister’s Office to stop Mohd Ridhuan from entering the state.

Mohd Ridhuan was scheduled to deliver a religious talk at the Lundu District Mosque. A source told Bernama that Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem was not in favour of Ridhuan's presence in Lundu and had instructed that the event be cancelled.

Two years ago, PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar was denied entry into Sabah because she was heading for an event in conjunction with the state level Kaamatan (harvest) festival in Penampang, near the state capital.

State Secretary Tan Sri Sukarti Wakiman explained in early June 2013 that the ban on Nurul Izzah was only for a single occasion, which was on the eve of the closing ceremony of the state level Kaamatan celebrations on May 30. He said the decision to bar her entry was done for security reason.

“There is no permanent ban on her or any other opposition leader coming into Sabah as long as they do not pose a security threat,” he was reported to have said then.

According to Sandakan Member of Parliament Stephen Wong, who was at the airport to receive Teresa Kok on Wednesday, the latter was scheduled to attend and witness the installation of DAP Sandakan Wanita wing that night.

In what way could the Seputeh MP be a security threat then?

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...