Advise Sabah govt to sue British, Pairin urged
KOTA
KINABALU: Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan should
advise the Sabah government and invite the Sarawak government to jointly
sue the British government and the Malaysian government in a London
court for the many unresolved issues plaguing Sabah, today, said Kota
Kinabalu based legal consultant cum economist, Jeremiah Yee.
“If Pairin thinks the British government should be held accountable for the deterioration in Sabah, including seeking interpretation of the safeguards in the Malaysia Agreement, it is my opinion that he should advise the Sabah government and invite the Sarawak government to jointly sue the British government and the Malaysian government in a London court, since the Malaysia Agreement was inked by their predecessors there in 1963,” he said.
He was commenting on Pairin’s blaming of the British government when debating the National Budget 2016 in parliament recently.
Among the perennial issues which continue to plague Sabah till today include the interpretation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, and the 40 per cent revenue entitled to Sabah, under the 48th Schedule in Inter-
Governmental Committee Report that has not been reviewed since 2004.
Jeremiah meanwhile clarified that his view was based on the assumption that the Malaysia Agreement signed in London on 9 July 1963 is a legitimate document in spite of overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise.
To substantiate this, he pointed out that when the governments of Britain, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement in London on 9 July 1963, the governments of Sabah and Sarawak were actually still at that material time British colonial governments.
“When a so called agreement is signed by a left hand on the one part and then a right hand of another part of the same person, what legitimacy is there?” he asked.
Jeremiah also opined that contrary to popular belief propagated by certain local politicians, Sabah and Sarawak did not form Malaysia but actually joined the existing states of Malaya which later changed its name to Malaysia.
“This is conspicuous by the wordings in Article 1 of the Malaysia Agreement: “ … shall be federated with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya … and the Federation shall thereafter be called Malaysia.
“In Section 1 of the Malaysia Act that was passed by the British parliament on 31 July 1963, it was also undisguised: “… to federate with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as the Federation), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia …”
“In a nutshell, it is crystal clear that there was no new federation but an old one called Malaya which was later renamed Malaysia,” he elaborated.
“If Pairin thinks the British government should be held accountable for the deterioration in Sabah, including seeking interpretation of the safeguards in the Malaysia Agreement, it is my opinion that he should advise the Sabah government and invite the Sarawak government to jointly sue the British government and the Malaysian government in a London court, since the Malaysia Agreement was inked by their predecessors there in 1963,” he said.
He was commenting on Pairin’s blaming of the British government when debating the National Budget 2016 in parliament recently.
Among the perennial issues which continue to plague Sabah till today include the interpretation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, and the 40 per cent revenue entitled to Sabah, under the 48th Schedule in Inter-
Governmental Committee Report that has not been reviewed since 2004.
Jeremiah meanwhile clarified that his view was based on the assumption that the Malaysia Agreement signed in London on 9 July 1963 is a legitimate document in spite of overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise.
To substantiate this, he pointed out that when the governments of Britain, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement in London on 9 July 1963, the governments of Sabah and Sarawak were actually still at that material time British colonial governments.
“When a so called agreement is signed by a left hand on the one part and then a right hand of another part of the same person, what legitimacy is there?” he asked.
Jeremiah also opined that contrary to popular belief propagated by certain local politicians, Sabah and Sarawak did not form Malaysia but actually joined the existing states of Malaya which later changed its name to Malaysia.
“This is conspicuous by the wordings in Article 1 of the Malaysia Agreement: “ … shall be federated with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya … and the Federation shall thereafter be called Malaysia.
“In Section 1 of the Malaysia Act that was passed by the British parliament on 31 July 1963, it was also undisguised: “… to federate with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as the Federation), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia …”
“In a nutshell, it is crystal clear that there was no new federation but an old one called Malaya which was later renamed Malaysia,” he elaborated.
Read more: http://www.theborneopost.com/2015/11/03/advise-sabah-govt-to-sue-british-pairin-urged/#ixzz3qUwzSA3J
My comments:
Let the history be told by those we really know the happenings without any bias.
I think Sarawakians and Sabahans should work together to get back all our rights as a country respectively with our own identity.
Remember to choose the leaders who love Sarawak / Sabah more than $.
No comments:
Post a Comment