It is a legal document registered with the United Nations (UN) and governed by international laws and procedures, said Santubong MP Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.
He was responding to a suggestion by Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri James Jemut Masing on Monday for the remaining signatories of MA63 — Sarawak, Sabah and Malaya — to make a new deal.
Masing, who is also Infrastructure Development and Transportation Minister, said the MA63 was rendered null and void after Singapore withdrew from Malaysia in 1965 because no supplementary agreement was signed between Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah to validate the union of the three remaining territories.
Wan Junaidi argued that a new deal was only feasible should the MA63 is ‘void ab initio’ (to be treated as invalid from the outset) or it’s void or voidable after Singapore ceded in 1965, or it may be voidable due to the many breaches
by Malaya.
“Even then, it has to be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, which is either the Federal Court of Malaysia or the ICJ (International Court of Justice).”
He told the New Sarawak Tribune yesterday that Singapore’s withdrawal might not invalidate the agreement as many countries had opted out of international agreements and yet the UN continued to pursue the fulfilment of obligations by the remaining member states.
Wan Junaidi said, “Firstly, if the MA63 was invalid from the start, would the Act of Malaysia 1963 (UK) and the Act of Malaysia (Malaya) be invalid too?
“Consequently, are the amendments to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia based on the two Acts invalid as well? Secondly, what about the legal position of the Federation of Malaysia after Singapore exited the Federation?
“So, our best avenue is to seek for the legal declaration of validity of the documents through
the ICJ.”
The GPS lawmaker said there is no doubt that Sarawak and Sabah were signatories to the MA63, but does that mean that they were valid parties to it? If not, then the question of locus standi to bring the case to the ICJ will arise.
“You see, both were not independent states at the time of the signing. Could the agreement nevertheless be valid after the declaration of independence on September 16, 1963? These need to be answered.”
Wan Junaidi believed that Sarawak might have to persuade Putrajaya to push for a new deal.
“Then we have to petition London to bring up the case on our behalf, but even if London is willing, it has to seek the consent of Putrajaya to refer the case to the ICJ which only assumes jurisdiction after the disputing parties agreed that the case be brought to it.”
The veteran lawyer said if London refused to become a party to the petition, then the only avenue is to go to the Federal Court of Malaysia.
But remember, we are talking about the goose (Sarawak) that lays the golden eggs … in the billions every year. Tun Dr Mahathir now has to refer the matter to his Cabinet for a decision, but will his colleagues support him? We (Sarawak) have only one representative in the Cabinet. Will he be in support of the drastic move to renegotiate the new deal?” he asked.
“Of course, if the PM and the Cabinet agree then any deal could be negotiated. The state government is urging the federal government to honour all its promises … return all our rights eroded since 1963, etc.”
On whether Sarawak needs a new deal to replace MA63, Wan Junaidi said it depended on what a majority of Sarawakians want.
“The people must know the content of the agreement, the Inter-Governmental Report and the Federal Constitution before they ask about what is not in it.
“I think the Sarawak government has already designed its negotiation with the federal government. So, we’ll cross the bridge when we reach it,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment