载重量不合逻辑

载重量不合逻辑

马来亚和婆罗洲载重量相差3 吨，这种双重标准不是罗里/L业者的主要困扰。

只批准21吨的载重量/BDM，表示车斗只载三分之一。载满平斗三分之二是属于超载。

砂L会长林家强认为拟定这样的标准非常不合情理和逻辑。

基本上，L车斗规划和BDM 都是由 LB交通部（冷气房里）策划和批准。同一部门却有两个标准。

为什么批准那么大的车斗却限制合理的载重量？

这使老实勤奋干活的业者因赚不到钱而叫苦连天。

目前10轮L，保守估计，一个轮子可承担3.6吨，一辆可以承受36吨。

马L'B交通部规定马来亚L载重量为24吨而婆罗洲是21吨。

每一款L都有设计图，每辆L载重量都可以轻易算出。为什么要如此离谱的限制？

据L公会会长，公共工程局//JKR的不批准提高L载重量。

JKR官员们甚至把可承载80吨的桥梁挂个牌只允许20吨的L。

通往峇贡的路，每天都有载整百公吨的车辆来来往往，十多年了，这桥梁都没显现坍塌。

我个人认为只有不间断的改善路况以应付更大型的L出现，符合时代的要求。

最后，还是希望砂政府早日索回砂交通管辖权，以一劳永逸的解决L业者的困境。

祖传农业地

祖传地兄弟姐妹继承各自建屋无法更新地契 

兄弟姐妹继承祖传农地，各自建设房屋。农地到期，就因违反一块地，只能建一间屋的规定，所以申请更新地契，不被批准。

事实真相，一块祖传农地，通常都建好多间房屋。

要想更新地契，其他屋子必须在拆除。这是多么违反人性，不合情理，不以民为本和中心。这简直是有意图刁难百姓。

同时，是鼓励人民贿赂有关当局以获得农地更新的机会。

一些农业地的地主有建修车厂设施也不被允许。真的是管太多了。

我认同火箭YB张健仁的提议土地更新和土地使用是不能混在一起处理。

据说2022年6月后，许多农业地变成城市地。这变动大大影响了土地更新的费用。

现有的土地政策，60年限土地更新费用每英亩：

1. 农业地 RM200

2. 郊区地 RM2500

3. 城市地RM5000

砂拉越资源超级丰富，可惜，砂人民无法享受该有的优惠。

砂这政府单位活像恶霸总是想搜刮民脂以富政治集团。

希望砂政府有政治意愿更改不良政策以去除那些造成民生问题的政策。

森林局和燕窝业

森林局，燕农和燕窝贸易商

燕农起步难，花费大，等待成果时间长。一直以来，燕农配合正规燕窝出口商向兽医局申请燕屋执照。

 

后来，燕农归纳在森林局管辖下，要申请 燕屋执照，手续非常复杂，要通过6个部门，准证很难获得批准。申请准证要等很久，常常无下文。诗巫申请文件必须寄去古晋总部批准。

 

森林局官爷办事不用心是文件被拖延的主要原因之一。燕农总是要不断的催促。很多燕农申请不到准证，森林局始终无法给予清楚理由交代。

 

整个砂拉越有两万多间燕屋，到目前为止，获得准证的大概有491间。其余的都属于非法燕屋。

 

一直以来，森林局不时不时就来充公燕屋的器材，采光燕窝，自行拍卖，不间断的掠夺燕农。

 

要求燕农将燕屋搬迁离市中心15公里以外，可是，森林局官爷想不出理想方法搬迁燕子。

 

就在2023年5月3日，大概下午两点左右，森林局带着警察完全没有搜查准证到诗巫美丹商业中心向4家有买卖执照的贸易商下手。他们的行为是粗暴野蛮的，这代表砂政府整体的形象。

 

他们强行破门而入，二话不说就秤和充公价值高达200多万的燕窝。同时，把这些公司的文件通通拿走。随意给个不曾听过的新口述法律，说燕窝商没有获得森林部买卖执照都是贼赃。就这样充公了燕窝贸易商的燕窝。这不是抢劫是什么，所以森林局这种行为活像盗匪。

 

燕窝是天然资源给砂带来外资和就业机会，同时燕农获得应有的回报。今天在森林局大搅局下破坏了至少整10万多人的生计。 同时，燕农和燕商在森林局的淫威下都变成罪犯。

 

是时候，咱们的部长先生，女士和小姐们要好好整顿森林局，去除不利百姓的政策。森林局这单位办事不良成为燕农燕商的灾难。是时候监管森林局办好事。燕农需要燕屋执照，就要官爷们认真，用心负责任的批准；批准燕商买卖执照。政府单位存在的目的是方便人民，而不是处处刁难人民，制造贪污舞弊滥权腐败的机会。

 

燕农和燕商集体成立工会看顾好自家的权益是必要的。

我对“诉讼案”的看法和希望

       *我对"诉讼案"的看法和希望* 

（ 俞诗东 29-05-2023 ）

     以13位砂拉越子民:多鲁斯卡丹祖曼.诺雅威.哈维亚吉纳法.泽麦亞烏吉.伯拉勇雅丹.加莱希勃.Yu Chin Liik.Chieng Kung Chiew.章杰玛邦.阿末阿旺阿里和乔瓦尼阿德利，(姓名摘自星洲日报)向古晋高庭申请废除1963立国契约的诉讼案，经一年多审理及多次展延后，终于5月25日宣判。

      (注明:第一次上诉时有13位原告，华族佔15.4%，其他伊班丶比达友丶馬来丶马兰诺族佔84.6%。在案件审理过程有两位伊班原告逝世，宣判日只有上述11位原告。我只知道伊班原告之一是Serijin Ak Ubong，谁会懂的另一位伊班原告姓名，望能将之记录载入史册)

    我有几点看法和希望与大家交流。

 *1，诉讼案是失败了吗？* 

    请看高庭法官亞历山大萧的判词:...."12名起诉人没有权利提出诉讼，同时也指有关的诉讼无法持续....砂拉越和沙巴是马来西亞的一部分，根据联邦宪珐，若要沙巴和砂脱离马来西亞，需要修改联邦宪法，而不是由民事法院决定"。

      砂拉越政府提出申请，要求驳回此案，理由是"高等法院无权执行或疲除像立国契约的国际条约"。

     根据上述判决，我的解读是：

甲，13位勇士上诉并没有錯，只是錯在是在马来西亚的法庭上诉，法庭无权接受。

乙，只是因为马来西亞的法庭(包括古晋高庭)旡权审理或废除像立国契約的国际条约。

      原告是无罪的。要付还诉讼费，(不是罰款，更不是赔偿)只是"过堂费"。

     结论是，诉讼是不被接受，不是失败。

 *2，提出诉讼的重大意义* 

     一，温利山律师带头以合法的手段从法律上挑战mA63的合法性，从法律角度揭示当年砂拉越人民反殖反马斗争的历史事实，这在砂拉越政治史上是创造性的，是要有很大的勇气和高智慧。

     二，13位砂拉越子民敢于挑战mA63的合法性，在当前的国內外形势下，无疑须要准备面对牺牲个人利益(包括坐牢)的考验。起诉马来西亚的合法性，这是砂拉越历史上第一宗。他们的壮举又一次为砂拉越人民树立了不畏强权的好榜样。

      三，根据马耒西亞的政治环境，要解决mA63是否合法，肯定须要经过国际与论什至国际法庭的介入，这次的诉讼已经为走向国际做了第一步准备。

      如果说''一个国家成立6O年內，没有遭到国内子民上诉法庭，这个国家就是合法的"。在温利山等律师的帶头下，已将砂拉越子民的反对声音，在马来西亞强行成立6O周年前，在古晋高庭在国际留下永不磨灭的纪录。也为延续将来斗争开创新局面。

       四，13位英勇子民的壮举，再一次告诉砂拉越人民，从法律上挑战mA63的非法性，不是神圣不可侵犯的。好比十年前砂人民刚刚揭示马来西亞联邦侵犯mA63权益时的恐惧心理，深怕会触及内安法令一样。我相信再过若干年，人们讨论mA63是否合法？也会像今天人们谈论争取和捍卫主权那么的习以为常。这就是先鋒作用的重大意义。

     我的希望是砂拉越新届选举很快就要来到，乘着诉讼案暂告一段落的时后，党中央应集中人力和物力，积极宣传教育组织群众的工作，争取新届选举到耒时，有所突破。

      从诉讼的判决中，清楚看到只有夺取或争取砂拉越政府，才有权力促使国会修宪，也只有充份动员砂拉越人民作党的坚强后盾，我们的斗争才有希望，這是重中之重。包括"诉讼"做为一种鋪助手段，也只有充份动员群众才有希望。 

    

The Baram Regatta

Shared by Diana Ningkan 

The Baram Regatta 1966

1996, the small town of Marudi,

in Sarawak's Fourth Division, 

was the scene of 

an international gathering.

Thousands of Central Borneo

Tribesmen, as well as Chinese,

Malay and European converged

on the town, situated some 350

miles north-east of Kuching. 

The reason for their visit was to 

witness one of the most 

colourful & spectacular events 

of the year - The Baram River 

Regatta.

The first Baram Regatta 

was held 70 years ago. The

biennial event has been the 

biggest in the calendar for the  

Kelabit, Kenyah, and Iban 

longhouse dwellers of Central 

Borneo.

The Regatta, held on May 14 

and 15, brought excitement to 

Marudi. The spectators travelled 

in motor launches which took 

one day's outboard journey from 

the remote areas along the 

Baram River.

Source: Reuters

Photo showed L-R

Tun Jugah ak Barieng

Tan Sri Stephen Kalong Ningkan

Tun Abdul Razak 

Unidentified headman (could be Tmg Oyong Lawai Jau)

Tan Sri Ong Kee Hui

温利山：法院对MA63的判决

温利山：法院对 MA63 的判决

 感谢媒体和媒体工作人员於昨天报道有关 MA63 诉讼的裁决讯息。

 对于关注新闻的砂拉越人和沙巴人，我们也感谢您对这起诉讼的兴趣。

 我们知道很难让法庭接受我们的论点，但我们已经达到了目的。

 我们感谢博学的司法专员 YA Alexander Siew 耐心指导原告的法律团队，确保案件在他面前的辩论中顺利进行。 我们知道，MA63诉讼涉及太多新奇的法律问题，对于任何法官来说都不是一件容易处理的事情。

 媒体报道称马来西亚的成立涉及欺诈和虚假陈述，这是一个信息，我们希望所有砂拉越人和沙巴人都知道，根据我们的拙见和我们的记录，我们被“欺骗”和拿走了我们的祖国， 海洋财富、石油和天然气资源，我们通过寻求法院调查此事来寻求收回它们。 由于这些原因，PBK 支持原告在法庭上解决这些问题。

 法院裁定只有砂拉越州政府才有资格寻求废除 1963 年马来西亚协议（MA63）的事实现在很清楚，砂拉越政府在法庭上追究此事的责任已落在脚下 寻求法院废除 MA63。 砂拉越政府作为砂拉越人民权利和自然资源的受托人或监护人，应该维护砂拉越人民的权利。

 根据 1974 年石油发展法令和议会通过的法律，砂拉越没有理由将她的海洋财富、石油和天然气资源输给联邦政府。

 肯雅兰全民感到遗憾的是，现任砂拉越政府领导下的砂拉越政府决定不支持原告的案件，而是与联邦政府一起寻求取消原告的案件。

 PBK也对砂拉越倡导者协会没有派代表观看这起MA63案的简报表示遗憾。 这是一个影响数百万砂拉越人和沙巴人的公共利益案件，但砂拉越倡导者协会似乎没有跟进诉讼程序。 我们相信，作为律师和砂拉越人，砂拉越维权协会的成员应该对诉讼表现出特别的兴趣。

 有市民问我为什么砂拉越律师公会没有代表出席法庭程序，但我必须说，砂拉越律师公会应该知道法庭的诉讼程序。

 温利山

 肯雅兰全民党主席

 2023 年 5 月 26 日

[26/05, 11:32 pm] yuchinliik: PRESS STATEMENT 

Re: Decision by court on MA63 

Thanks to members of the press who covered the decision or news on the MA63 Suit yesterday. 

To Sarawakians and Sabahans who followed the news we also thank you for your interest in this suit.

We know it was tough to get court to buy our argument but we have achieved our purpose. 

We thank the learned Judicial Commissioner YA Alexander Siew for his patience and guidance to the legal team for the Plaintiffs in ensuring the case went on smoothly during arguments before him. We know MA63 Suit is not easy for any judge to handle because of too many novel issues of law involved. 

With the reporting in the press to say fraud and misrepresentation were involved in the formation of Malaysia is a message we wanted all Sarawakians and Sabahans to know that in our humble opinion and from records we have, we had been "cheated" of our motherland, marine wealth, oil and gas resources in which we have sought to take them back by seeking the court to look into the matter. For these reasons PBK was supportive of the plaintiffs to have these matters settled before the court. 

The fact that the court had ruled that only the state government of Sarawak has the locus standi to seek the nullification of the Malaysia Agreement 1963(MA63) is now clear that the ball is at the feet of the Sarawak government to pursue the matter in court to seek court to nullify MA63. The Sarawak government being the trustee or custodian of people's rights and natural resources of Sarawak should pursue the rights of people of Sarawak. 

There is no reason for Sarawak losing her marine wealth, oil and gas resources to the federal government under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and under laws passed in parliament. 

Parti Bumi Kenyalang regrets that the current Sarawak government under GPS had decided not to support the plaintiffs' case but together with the federal government had sought to strike out the case of the plaintiffs. 

PBK also expressed its regret that the Sarawak Advocates Association did not send any representative for watching brief of this MA63 case. This is a case of public interest which affects millions of Sarawakians and Sabahans but Sarawak Advocates Association had not appeared to follow the proceedings. We believe that being lawyers and Sarawakians themselves, the members of the Sarawak Advocates Association should have shown special interest in the suit.

I was asked by members of the public why Sarawak Advocates Association had no representatives attending the court proceedings but I have to say that Sarawak Advocates Association could have known of the proceedings before the court. 

VOON LEE SHAN 

President Parti Bumi Kenyalang 

26 May 2023

Kelantan government sued Federal government of Malaya over MA63

Here is a historical fact for your reference

( 下面一则历史事实供大家参考)

:

Kelantan government sues Federal government of Malaya, seeks court to declare MA63 invalid

( 吉兰丹政府起诉马来亚联邦政府，寻求法院宣判MA63无效 )

11 September 1963 

The Kelantan State Government sued the Federal Government of Malaya, seeking the court to declare MA63 invalid as it violated the Federation of Malaya Agreement and without consulting the rulers of Malaya and Kelantan The Federal Constitution was amended to admit 3 new members (North Borneo, Sarawak, Singapore) with the consent of the government and without the consent of other state governments. The sole presiding judge ruled that MA63 was not invalid but said he acted under intense political pressure to bring about the Malaysian Proclamation on 16 September 1963. The Kelantan government could have appealed the above decisions, but they did not.

( 1963 年 9 月 11 日     吉兰丹州政府起诉马来亚联邦政府，寻求法院宣告 MA63 无效，因为它违反了《马来亚联合邦协议》，并在没有征求马来亚统治者和吉兰丹政府的同意，也没有征求其他州政府的同意下，就修改联邦宪法以接纳 3 名新成员（北婆罗洲、砂拉越、新加坡）。 唯一的主审法官判决 MA63 并非无效，但表示，他是在巨大的政治压力下行事，以促成 1963 年 9 月 16 日马来西亚得以公告。吉兰丹政府原可以对相关的上述决定提出上诉，但结果他们并没有如此做。)

Courts often refer to successful cases as the basis for judging new cases.

So this Kelantan case, can it reflect the wrongdoing of the defendant's lawyer and the judge's disregard of the plaintiff's right to sue MA63?

( 法庭时常提到的是成功的案例，以作为其判断新案的依据。

那么这个吉兰丹的这个案例，是否可以反衬出被告律师的理亏和法官的无视原告可以控告MA63 的权利？ )

砂燕窝业

砂燕窝业 24/5/23 Wed

燕子是天然资源。燕农要采集燕子，必须下大成本建燕屋，买器材引燕。这也是很费时，还要下真功夫，辛苦引燕和养燕的血汗事业。燕农理应是归于农业部的项目。燕农申请燕屋执照是合情理的事。燕农绝对会配合到家。可是，在1998年野生动物保护法令使森林部有无限可能去干预燕农的事业。甚至要求燕农申请买卖执照，这是多么离谱的事。

同时，制造困难申请，因此，这机构就制造很多非法营运的燕农和燕商。燕农和燕商接着就不间断的被森林局骚扰和掠夺。这让无数百姓揣测嫌疑森林部利用肮脏的手段来抢夺燕农和燕商的血汗财富。全心全意想不劳而获，坐享事成，看起来他们已经成为变相的恶霸。

森林局再配合警察一条龙的举动，燕农燕商肯定死翘翘。所以，2023年5月3日, 森林局带着警察上美丹商业中心向4位有买卖执照的燕商下手，充公价值250万令吉的燕窝，强行夺走。以莫虚名的理由说燕窝货源来自非法燕农，这已经引起无限公愤。

这对燕农商业造成无限的伤害，也影响整10万多砂人从事跟燕窝业相关的工作。森林局这次的大搅局大举动是自私自利不顾后果。我认为这些的官爷们的任意行为必须受到严厉惩罚。

森林局如此横行霸道，粗暴野蛮对待燕农燕商是部长先生，女士和小姐们对该单位监管不利。掀开他们过去黑史，扣留，充公非法伐木之后，自行拍卖当然是自肥腰包。 今天，制造无数非法燕农，充公燕农引燕器材和灯光设备，还有采光燕窝，也自行拍卖。这种行为变成森林局的常态。

部长们必须审查和修正1998年野生动物保护法令把爪哇金丝燕和大金丝燕从野生动物保护名单内移出。之后，把燕农归纳在农业局范畴内，森林局就从此也出局了。

据报道，联邦政府在2009年就修宪修改野生动物保护法令的第176条文，并在2010年在宪报上公布，将爪哇金丝燕和大金丝燕从野生动物名单移出。从此，我们看到马来半岛那边的燕窝业获得良好的发展。

反观咱们砂燕窝业处处面对森林局无限的刁难，限制，破坏和掠夺。只要修正这法令，砂燕窝业就会逢勃发展起来。燕窝业“对社会福利，就业机会和外汇收入都可以带来很多的益处”。 还有燕农和燕商需要砂政府的支持和关注以保证燕窝业获得良好发展。 有政府的配合，还有燕农和燕商对引燕知识和认知，就可以轻易解决燕屋的噪音，卫生等等的问题。燕窝业对整体砂人都是有益处的。

重拳出击（4）James Chin Podcast 5

重拳出击（四）：James Chin Podcast 5

James 问既然，马联邦有提供法院补救任何联邦政府的缺失或犯规。法院有提供这些方便，沙砂政府为什么不用呢？

Fong辩护说在2018年，砂政府有入禀法庭寻求公道（我说有史以来，第一次），当希盟联邦政府拒绝付费MA63规定的可以抽10%的石油天然气的销售税而砂只要求5%。

Petronas当时要妨止砂政府使用砂拉越的法律来调节石油天然气工业，但砂政府坚持立场。

让我补充一下这点，在2/2020, 希盟倒台了。在阴差阳错下，也在马联邦元首的操作下，和砂政府的支持下，慕尤丁便任相。之后，他允许砂抽5%的石油天然气的销售税。这5%是相等于30亿令吉。

2018年之前，砂政府从来没有向Petronas 征收石油和天然气的销售。这之前，Petronas 和其他石油公司从来没有申请开采准证等等。

在2013年之前，砂国阵是完全受控于马联邦国阵的淫威，跟这政治集团是狼狈为奸，吃里扒外和理应外合。当马联邦做出种种违规违宪的行为时，砂政府完全没有采取任何行动。

James认为有很多社会活跃分子都认为PDA违宪，因为砂首长个人未经砂议会通过，签署石油归属权力给Petronas。

Fong讲解说数十年来PDA74的合法性和合宪性一直引起争端。

联邦政府在联邦议会里通过PDA74成立Petronas。但是，Petronas在砂境内的权力只限于开采权是受限于联邦宪法A32在足够补偿下才能生效。

在1975，PDA74签署文件中，并没有书写规定给5% 现金补偿。过去，Petronas完全没有准证在沙砂开采石油和天然气的一切活动是违宪的，完全不符合MA63规定。

从2018年7月1日开始，Petronas必须受限于砂石油开采条例/OMO。按照马联邦宪法73条，OMO在马联邦成立后，还是可以继续使用。因此，Petronas必须遵守砂OMO，申请准证在砂及其大陆架采矿

其实，对于PDA74争议不断，Fong前后有书写给联邦两个总检察长Tan Sri Affendi Ali 和Tan Sri Tommy Thomas. 他建议马联邦和砂政府就联邦宪法A1281（B）上法联邦法院求判决以一劳永逸解决PDA74引起的争端。

他也有建议联邦总检察长就A130法令，上联邦法院咨询意见，可是，他的建议全被否决。

我猜马联邦心中有鬼，他们知道PDA74，压根儿对马联邦完全不利，所以，不愿意入禀法院一次过搞定它。

Fong认为如果有司法裁决，未来政治领导才能决定该做什么。

具有里程碑意义的法院判决

具有里程碑意义的法院判决 高等法院裁定联邦宪法第 122AB 条无效

KOTA KINABALU：在一项具有里程碑意义的决定中，高等法院在这里宣布联邦宪法第 122AB 条关于国家元首（TYT）为沙巴和砂拉越任命司法专员的条款无效。

法官拿督David Wong裁定，1994 年取消沙巴和砂拉越 TYT 任命司法专员/大法官的权力的修正案是无效的，因为它是在未经两州同意的情况下进行的。

在允许退休警察Robert Linggi对联邦政府提起的诉讼中，法官David还宣布了《司法任命委员会法》（JAC）第 37 条，该条授权首相通过公报修改该法的任何条款，无效和空白。

然而，他驳回了Keningau的Robert的说法，即《司法任命委员会法》（第 37 条除外）违宪。

在他于 2009 年 3 月 13 日提交的诉讼中，由律师Datuk Lawrence Thien代表的罗伯特，除其他外，要求法院宣布联邦取消两国元首权力任命沙巴和砂拉越高等法院司法专员/大法官无效。

大卫在 3 月 15 日提交的长达 39 页的书面判决书中表示，不可争辩的事实是联邦政府没有获得沙巴和砂拉越各自国家元首的同意下取消沙砂元首任命大法官的权力。

在 1994 年 6 月 24 日修订联邦宪法第 122A（3）和（4）条之前，沙巴和砂拉越高等法院的司法专员的任命可由各自的 TYTs 根据行政长官的建议任命沙巴和砂拉越高等法院法官（现称首席法官）。

“1994 年 6 月 24 日之后发生的事情是，沙巴和砂拉越元首任命司法专员的权力已被 1994 年宪法（修正案）法令（1994 年修正案）取消，该法令纳入了新的第 122AB 条同样的宪法，”他说。

大卫说，第 161E(2) 条禁止在未经各 TYT 同意的情况下修改联邦宪法，“如果该修正案会影响（联邦）宪法在沙巴和砂拉越高等法院的宪法和管辖权方面的运作。

“在我看来，‘1994年修正案 ’无疑‘ 影响了’联邦宪法的运作，因为它取消了沙砂元首任命高等法院司法专员的权力。

David说，考察联邦宪法的历史背景，也可以得出同样的结论。

他指出，起点是1962年政府间委员会（IGC）的报告和1963年7月8日的马来西亚协议。

IGC 包含沙巴和砂拉越同意组建马来西亚的条款和条件，这反映在马来西亚协议的第八条中，Wong 补充说，该建议在废除的第 122a(3) 和 (4) 条中是根深蒂固的联邦宪法。

“因此，可以说‘1994年修正案’违反了IGC报告，该报告就所有意图和目的而言，规定了沙巴和砂拉越在成立马来西亚方面的权利。

“这些权利是受保护的权利，要取消该权利必须获得沙砂元首/Yang di-Pertua Negeri 的同意。因此，可以推断，被废除的联邦宪法第122A条第3款和第4款（即IGC第3章第26（15）段）只能在得到沙砂元首同意后才能废除任命沙巴和砂拉越大法官/JC。

“因此，我认为‘1994年修正案’是无效的，因此，就取消沙巴和砂拉越元首任命司法专员/JC的权力而言，它是无效的，”他说。

针对2009年司法任命委员会法令（第695号法令）的制定是否违宪、无效的问题，大卫认为，2009年司法任命委员会法令（JAC法令）于2009年2月2日生效。

“通过 2009 年 JAC 法令，成立了司法委任委员会（JAC），主要是向首相推荐被委任为司法专员或法官的候选人，或将现任法官晋升至高等法院。

“我同意被告律师的意见，JAC 法案只是提供了一个程序，让 JAC 审查法官候选人，”他说。

看过相关规定后，David表示有一点很清楚，那就是JAC的所有职能都是向首相推荐合格的法官候选人，而这些推荐仍然是“推荐”，只是因为首相有全部自由裁量权。首相不受联邦宪法第 122AB 条和第 122B 条规定所影响。

“但是，JAC 法案中没有规定何时进行选择合适候选人的过程。是在咨询相关法官之前还是之后？

“《联邦宪法》第 122Ab 和 122B 条规定，‘首相还没向最高元首提出建议任命任何法官之前，应先咨询’相关法官。

“这种咨询义务是一项宪法义务，只能通过三分之二的国会议员投票修正案才能明确取消联邦宪法。

“当然没有这样的宪法修正案，因此必须根据宪法的咨询义务来阅读 JAC 法案，”他说。

换句话说，Davod认为司法委员会的建议是首相受制于职责义务必须咨询相关的法官。

“因此，2009 年 JAC 法案第 28 条不应被理解为没有要求当时的首相在根据联邦宪法第 122AB 和 122B 条提出建议之前，先咨询相关法官，否则，将使第 28 节越权被解读为联邦宪法。

“最后，至于 JAC 法令第 37 条文，无论以何种方式解读，它赋予首相权力，以刊登公报的方式修改 JAC 法令的任何条款。对 JAC 法案的任何修正或与此相关的任何立法都是立法权的行使。

“联邦宪法所体现的三权分立原则规定，只有议会才能制定或修改法律。因此，我别无选择，只能认为 JAC 第 37 条无效，因为它违反了联邦宪法。

“这一发现现在当然是学术性的，因为该条款有两年的日落条款，然后太阳从 2011 年 2 月 9 日开始落山，”他补充说。

针对代表联邦政府的高级联邦法律顾问Suzana Atan和Narkunavathy Sundereson认为Robert没有法定资格提起诉讼，法官裁定“所有马来西亚人都有责任保护我们的宪法”。

他说，身为沙巴人，Robert真心诚意的关心沙巴和砂拉越高等法院的宪法和管辖权以及该法院法官的任命、罢免和停职方面的权利受到侵蚀。

“我毫不犹豫地发现原告有法定资格提起诉讼。

“我完全理解这可能会鼓励诉讼的论点，但我认为，要挑战和废除国家最高法时，应该鼓励诉讼，”David补充道。

Borneo Post Online

Landmark court decision High Court rules Article 122AB of Federal Constitution null and void

BY KELIMEN SAWATAN ON MARCH 18, 2011, FRIDAY AT 1:28 PMSABAH

KOTA KINABALU: In a landmark decision, the High Court here has declared Article 122AB of the Federal Constitution on the appointment of Judicial Commissioners by the Heads of State (TYTs) for Sabah and Sarawak, null and void.

Justice Datuk David Wong Dak Wah ruled that the 1994 amendment to the provision for the removal of the power of the TYTs for Sabah and Sarawak to appoint Judicial Commissioner was invalid as it was done without the consent of the two states.

In allowing the suit brought by retired policeman Robert Linggi against the Federal Government, David also declared Section 37 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act (JAC), which empowers the Prime Minister to amend any provisions of the Act by way of a gazette, null and void.

He however dismissed the claim by Robert, who is from Keningau, that the Judicial Appointments Commission Act (except for section 37) was unconstitutional.

In his suit filed on March 13, 2009 Robert, who was represented by counsel Datuk Lawrence Thien, had, among others, sought declaration from the court that the removal of the power of appointment of judicial commissioners to the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak by the heads of the two States null and void.

In his 39-page written judgement delivered on March 15, David said it was not disputed that no consent was obtained from the respective Heads of State for Sabah and Sarawak.

Prior to amendments to Article 122A (3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution on June 24, 1994, the appointment of judicial commissioners to the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak may be appointed by the respective TYTs acting on the advice of the Chief Justice (now known as Chief Judge) of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak.

“What happened after 24th June 1994 is that the power of the respective Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah and Sarawak to appoint judicial commissioners has been taken away by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994 (1994 Amendments) which incorporated a new Article 122AB of the same constitution,” he said.

David said that Article 161E(2) prohibits amendments to the Federal Constitution without the consent of the respective TYTs “if the amendment is such as to affect the operation of the (Federal) Constitution as regards the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak.

“The ‘1994 Amendment’ in my mind had no doubt ‘affected the operation’ of the Federal Constitution as it had removed the power of appointment of judicial commissioners to the High Court by the Yang di-Pertua Negeri.

“Hence, when the ‘1994 Amendment’ was introduced without the consent of the respective Yang di-Pertua Negeri, it contravened Article 161E (2) (b) of the Federal Constitution,” he held.

David said that the same conclusion can be reached by looking into the historical background of the Federal Constitution.

He pointed out that the starting point was the report of the Inter-Government Committee, 1962 (IGC) and the Malaysia Agreement dated July 8, 1963.

The IGC contained the terms and conditions in which Sabah and Sarawak agreed to form Malaysia and this is reflected in Article VIII of the Malaysia Agreement, said Wong, adding that the recommendation was entrenched in the repealed Article 122a(3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution.

“Hence, it can be said that the ‘1994 Amendment’ had contravened the IGC Report which for all intent and purposes set out the rights of Sabah and Sarawak in the formation of Malaysia.

“These rights are protected rights and their protection lies in the consent of the respective States through the consent of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri. Thus, it can be inferred that the repealed Article 122A (3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution (which is paragraph 26 (15) of Chapter 3 of IGC) can only be repealed with the consent of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah and Sarawak.

“Accordingly, it is my view that the ‘1994 Amendment’ is invalid and therefore, null and void in so far as it concerns the removal of the power to appoint judicial commissioners by the respective Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah and Sarawak,” he said.

Touching on the issue whether the enactment of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (Act 695) is unconstitutional, null and void, David held that the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (JAC Act) came into force on Feb 2, 2009.

“Through the JAC Act 2009, a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) was established mainly to make recommendation to the Prime Minister on the candidates to be appointed as judicial commissioners or judges or on the promotion of sitting judges to the higher courts.

“The JAC Act, I agree with counsel for the defendant, merely provides a process in which candidates for judgeship are vetted by the JAC,” he said.

Having read the relevant provisions, David said one thing is clear and that is, all JAC do in their function is to recommend to the Prime Minister qualified candidates for judgeship and such recommendations remain as ‘recommendations’ only in that the Prime Minister’s discretion is completely untouched which is as provided in Article 122AB and 122B of the Federal Constitution.

“However, there is no provision in the JAC Act as to when this process of selecting suitable candidates is to occur. Is it before or after the consultation with the relevant judges?

“Article 122Ab and 122B of the Federal Constitution provides that ‘the Prime Minister shall consult’ the relevant judges before he advises the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for any appointment of judges.

“This duty to consult is a constitutional duty and it can only be taken away by an express amendment to the Federal Constitution, that is, by votes of two-third of members of Parliament.

“Of course there was no such constitutional amendment and hence the JAC Act must be read subjected to that constitutional duty to consult,” he said.

In other words, David held the recommendations of the Judicial Commission are subjected to the Prime Minister’s duty to consult the relevant Judges.

“Accordingly, Section 28 of the JAC Act 2009 should not be read as if there is no requirement for the Prime Minister of the day to consult the relevant Judges before he tenders his advice in accordance with Article 122AB and 122B of the Federal Constitution and to read otherwise would make section 28 ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

“Lastly, as for Section 37 of the JAC Act, whichever way one reads it, it gives the power of the Prime Minister to amend any provisions of the JAC Act by way of a gazette. Any amendment to the JAC Act or for that matter any legislation is an exercise of legislative power.

“The doctrine of separation of powers embodied in the Federal Constitution dictates that only the Parliament can make or amend laws. Accordingly, I am left with no option but to hold that Section 37 of the JAC null and void as it contravenes the Federal Constitution.

“This finding is now of course academic as this provision has a sunset clause of two years and then the sun has since set on 9 Feb 2011,” he added.

On the contention by Senior Federal Counsel Suzana Atan and Narkunavathy Sundereson who acted for the government that Robert had no locus standi to bring the suit, the judge ruled that “all Malaysians have a duty to protect our constitution.”

He said Robert, as a Sabahan, was genuinely concerned with the erosion of the rights of Sabah in so far as the Constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and the appointment, removal and suspension of judges of that court.

“I have no hesitation in finding that the plaintiff has the locus standi to bring this action.

“I am fully aware of the argument that this may encourage litigation but in my view when there is a challenge concerning and dismantling of the Supreme Law of the country, litigation should be encouraged,” David added.

砂中区燕窝沦陷了！！！

东马中区燕窝沦陷了！！！

     从以前燕窝因为受中国的青睐，所以才有很多平民百姓花重金去建燕屋养燕子，一个四四方方的三层楼燕屋建筑成本高达40-80万100万不等看大小。花了重金还得细心和耐心的引燕，花的可不止是时间和精力，有时发现设计不理想的时候可能已经过了3-5年不等，还要再花几万块去装修和改善然后再花两三年时间等待燕屋成长。回头看，做一间燕屋花了不止是重本，还牺牲了自己的青春！重点是还不一定成功！！燕屋的成功率其实只有30%不到，也就是说10间里面只有两三间是7年里面回本，而其他的15年可能还没回本，这些都还没算进我们的时间价值，精力，付出呢！

     一直以来，我们都为了配合正规燕窝出口商去注册了兽医部燕屋准证来合法化我们的燕窝，所以市场上有一部分的燕农会自行注册此准证。但近年来有个叫”森林部”的部门出新的条规，规定只要在砂劳越的燕屋都得得到它的燕屋准证，事后民众有去申请，不但手续复杂，需要通过6个部门，准证申请的时间还无厘头的久。准证批准是由古晋总部批，所以在诗巫申请的文件也是全寄给古晋，曾经有燕农交文件给诗巫申请，一个半月后打电话询问，那份文件竟然还在诗巫，理由是公务员忘记了。然后再等半个月后文件才发到古晋开始处理。有个燕农甚至持续追问了8个月，得来的只是”sedang process”。大部分的燕农执照根本申请不到，理由也不清不楚。大众不是不配合森林部，而是内部的管理存在着极大的问题！整个砂劳越燕屋超过20000间，而自古以来准的只有区区的200间！这意味着剩下的2万间在森林部眼中都是非法燕屋，上门破门充公只是迟或早罢了！！

     不知从何开始，就一直听到森林部充公燕屋器材，採光燕窝，自行拍卖，然后找下一间，充公，自己採，拍卖，充公，採，拍卖。简直是有执照的燕窝大盗啊！无法无天的抓燕屋，打压燕农，规定市中心15公里以外才可以养燕子，然后下令你们把现有的燕屋搬迁到离市中心15公里以外，这简直是荒谬之谈！今天就算你有本事搬迁燕屋，试问如何搬迁燕子？曾经有人尝试过搬迁燕子，最终导致燕子全部死光。后来民众在和森林部对话中要求森林部分享搬迁燕子的理想方法，对方竟然在再三的追问下还是依然假装没听见，可见他们本身也深知这是不可能的事。在森林部和民众对话中表示，做燕窝贸易商（燕窝收购/加工厂）必须申请买卖执照，而燕屋燕农需要申请森林部燕屋执照。

     但昨日5月3号下午两点左右，森林部带着警察，冲上诗巫美丹商业中心的4家有买卖执照的平民燕窝贸易商，强行破门二话不说就秤燕窝，充公燕窝，然后把公司的文件通通拿走。给的理由是一条从未听过的新口述法律，”燕农的燕窝没有森林部买卖执照就算是贼赃来充公！” 

     天啊，这个事情轰动了整个马来西亚燕窝界，根本没有人或相关当局发布任何条规说明养燕的燕农必须要持有森林部买卖执照才能卖燕窝，也就是说一直以来市场上哪怕你卖一粒燕窝给朋友，只要你没有森林部买卖执照你就是犯人！森林部可以充公你所有燕窝，然后再在警局报你案！这简直是打枪人民啊！据了解，当时这4家都出示了买卖执照，3家都还valid ，只有一家是过期但森林部领头Azlan一直不当一回事，一心就想把眼前全部的燕窝拿走就是了，甚至连燕农带有ic的正规买货单都提供了还是不被当一回事。这根本就是打枪！充公了200多万马币的燕窝啊……这可是人民血汗钱，真金白银买回来的货，这些公司合计一年缴超过100千的所得税，都是持有合法经营，燕窝买卖执照的平民啊……

     燕窝是天然资源，是一个地方的福气，它不但带来了外资，就业机会，带给辛苦燕农的回报，还带给当地人享用燕窝的口福。但今天！这个森林部却把整个局面沦落为燕农和燕商都是罪犯。给的理由是从所未有，无中生有的！明明说好燕商需买卖执照，燕农需燕屋执照，结果抓的时候却说成是燕农需要买卖执照！而且在当局指出的Wildlife protection Ordinance 里面section 34，写的很清楚，罚款2千块。没了。结果森林部的出发点根本不在于执行该给的处罚，而是想尽办法篇故事充公民众的资产，下午几个小时就以扭曲的法律剥夺了你两百多万！！试问这如果不是抢劫，是什么？真正的燕屋进贼又从来没见过一次森林部协助警方捕获燕窝贼？！反而把目标指向平民手里合法的燕窝！

     呼吁砂劳越有养燕的民众，好之为之，只要一天你们的燕屋没给森林部批准，你的燕窝是不可以採下来的，採了就是犯罪！就算有了燕屋执照，你还要申请买卖执照，不然奉劝你还是把燕窝丢了吧或者藏紧紧，它分分钟是你的犯罪证据！如果只有几粒或许森林部不会充公只会罚款2000-10000不一定。如果量多的话，他们一定会想尽办法充工。

     其实整件事情不是没风就起浪的，据当局内幕消息透露，事发当天有人联系了森林部总部问关于这次的行动起因，森林部局长竟然回答说是诗巫这个领头的想要创造业绩，没案子就自己创造案子。试问天理何在……

     早起在90年代开始森林部主要是抓水木为生，主要工作就是靠抓了水木，跟物主讨kopi o 然后再把水木归还。一直以来都是一门黑吃黑的肥肉生意。近年来水木已经少之又少了，所以把目光转移到你们华人的燕屋，其做法类似，想尽办法编故事把你货扣留，然后强行充公，然后进行拍卖，其利润又上面分配。

     燕窝本身是好的，但被这种政府部门管理，小篇认为，养燕和犯毒。或许选择犯毒轻松点，又不用时常驾远途，晒太阳，扫鸟粪，爬上爬下不小心又摔断手脚，重本起鸟屋，十年本钱还不一定拿回来，鸟多贼更多，等等烦恼。

     砂劳越燕农朋友们，保重吧！希望有高见者可以在下留言如何取缔这无法无天的部门！

重权出击（四）James Chin Podcast 5

重拳出击（四）：James Chin Podcast 5

James 问既然，马联邦有提供法院补救任何联邦政府的缺失或犯规。法院有提供这些方便，沙砂政府为什么不用呢？

Fong辩护说在2018年，砂政府有入禀法庭寻求公道（我说有史以来，第一次），当希盟联邦政府拒绝付费MA63规定的可以抽10%的石油天然气的销售税而砂只要求5%。

Petronas当时要妨止砂政府使用砂拉越的法律来调节石油天然气工业，但砂政府坚持立场。

让我补充一下这点，在2/2020, 希盟倒台了。在阴差阳错下，也在马联邦元首的操作下，和砂政府的支持下，慕尤丁便任相。之后，他允许砂抽5%的石油天然气的销售税。这5%是相等于30亿令吉。

2018年之前，砂政府从来没有向Petronas 征收石油和天然气的销售。这之前，Petronas 和其他石油公司从来没有申请开采准证等等。

在2013年之前，砂国阵是完全受控于马联邦国阵的淫威，跟这政治集团是狼狈为奸，吃里扒外和理应外合。当马联邦做出种种违规违宪的行为时，砂政府完全没有采取任何行动。

James认为有很多社会活跃分子都认为PDA违宪，因为砂首长个人未经砂议会通过，签署石油归属权力给Petronas。

Fong讲解说数十年来PDA74的合法性和合宪性一直引起争端。

联邦政府在联邦议会里通过PDA74成立Petronas。但是，Petronas在砂境内的权力只限于开采权是受限于联邦宪法A32在足够补偿下才能生效。

在1975，PDA74签署文件中，并没有书写规定给5% 现金补偿。过去，Petronas完全没有准证在沙砂开采石油和天然气的一切活动是违宪的，完全不符合MA63规定。

从2018年7月1日开始，Petronas必须受限于砂石油开采条例/OMO。按照马联邦宪法73条，OMO在马联邦成立后，还是可以继续使用。因此，Petronas必须遵守砂OMO，申请准证在砂及其大陆架采矿

其实，对于PDA74争议不断，Fong前后有书写给联邦两个总检察长Tan Sri Affendi Ali 和Tan Sri Tommy Thomas. 他建议马联邦和砂政府就联邦宪法A1281（B）上法联邦法院求判决以一劳永逸解决PDA74引起的争端。

他也有建议联邦总检察长就A130法令，上联邦法院咨询意见，可是，他的建议全被否决。

我猜马联邦心中有鬼，他们知道PDA74，压根儿对马联邦完全不利，所以，不愿意入禀法院一次过搞定它。

Fong认为如果有司法裁决，未来政治领导才能决定该做什么。

新加坡独立是一场政变？

*新加坡独立是一場政变？*

李光耀已计划好為新加坡引退。此計划当他还在英国与 EW Baker 一起学习法律时，就开始了,还有其他一些新加坡人也和他在一起。在他的回忆录中，他确实提到了其对新加坡如何获得自由和独立的想法。

对我来说，李光耀知道英国人希望马来西亚成立但不会让新加坡独立。大卫·马歇尔与他一起率队前往英国要求独立，但未获准。大卫马歇尔信守诺言，如果他未能说服英国给予独立，就辞去新加坡总理职务。马歇尔很有信心，因为他是东姑派往英国寻求马来亚独立的团队的顾问。如果我能记得我读过的话，那时候马歇尔是吉打州的一名律师。

新加坡未获独立后，李光耀执行 B 计划

 他来到这里并与东姑一起出售马来西亚计划。他们成功了。在我看来，李光耀描绘了一幅画面，说马来西亚对新加坡来说是正确的举动，但在他的内心深处，他想要独立。当时在新加坡存在共产主义威胁，如果马来西亚成立，李光耀也感到安全。

马来西亚成立后，他所倡议的马来西亚人之马来西亚议程造成了严重破坏，致使东姑落入其陷阱。

在一篇文章中，我读到新加坡方面所说的这是一场和平政变；他们成功地让新加坡脱离联邦并宣布独立。

李光耀在东姑向马来西亚议会提交新加坡退出提案之前就宣布新加坡独立了。

在李光耀的指示下，EW Baker 匆忙提出分离法案。从我读到的，李光耀 似乎非常渴望离开马来西亚。

 EW Baker 是当时的新加坡总檢長。为什么是新加坡起草并提出了分离法案，而不是马来亚？

因此，无论出于何种目的，李光耀都按计划行事并打好他的牌。他当时是喜極而泣，並不是因新加坡退出他所表达的遗憾而流泪。

在他的独立宣言演讲中，他谈到了自决权。如果这不是他离开马来西亚的策略，为什么李光耀要谈论自决？如果新加坡被踢出局，他可以在演讲中这么说，但他没有。

虽然新加坡退出是双方达成的协议，但我的看法不同。这是李光耀的政治操弄手段，不是通过相互退出而是通过单方面宣布独立（UDI）退出。分离协议仅供展示之用。

所以，读政客的思想时我们需要看字里含意因為他们一般不会直言不諱。在任何情况下，这都是真正的政变和打东姑脸的耳光。

温利山

2023年5月14日

*SINGAPORE INDEPENDENCE-A COUP DE TAT?*

LKY planned Singapore Exit well. It started when he was still in UK studying law with EW Baker. A few other Singaporeans were with him and in his memoire he did mention of his thoughts on how Singapore need to be set free and independent.

To me, LKY knew British wanted Malaysia formed and would not allow Singapore gained independent. David Marshall together with him led a team to UK to ask independence but was not granted. David Marshall kept his words, resigned as Singapore CM if he failed to persuade UK to grant independence. Marshall was confident because he was the counsel in Tunku's team to UK to seek Malaya Independence. At that time Marshall was a lawyer in Kedah if I could recall what I read

Lee Kuan Yew executed planned B after Singapore was not granted independence 

 He came here and sold Malaysia Plan with Tunku. They succeeded. To my thinking, LKY painted a picture that Malaysia was the right move for Singapore but deep in his heart he wanted independence. At that time there was a communist threat in Singapore and LKY also feel safe if Malaysia was formed. 

After Malaysia was formed he then created havoc by his Malaysian Malaysia agenda and Tunku fell into the trap. 

In an article I read Singapore side said it was a peaceful coup de tat and they succeeded to get Singapore out of the federation and declared independent. 

LKY declared Singapore independent before Tunku tabled Singapore Exit in Malaysia Parliament. 

The Separation Bill was rushed into by EW Baker, as directed by LKY. From what I read it seems that LKY was very eager to leave Malaysia. 

 EW Baker was the Singapore AG at that time. Why it was Singapore that drafted and presented the Separation Bill, not Malaya? 

Therefore, for all purposes LKY could have planned and played his card well. His tears was tears of joy not of regret as expressed by him when Singapore exited. 

In his Declaration of Independence speech he was talking of the right of self-determination. Why was LKY talking about self-determination if this was not his strategies to get out of Malaysia? If Singapore was kicked out he could in his speech said so but he didn’t. 

Although it was a mutual agreement for Singapore to exit but I look it differently. It was a political maneuvering by LKY for exit not by mutual exit but by unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). The Separation Agreement was only for presentational purpose only. 

Therefore, reading a politician's thought, politicians normally don't talk straight and we need to read between the lines. In all circumstances, it was truly a coup and a slap on the face of Tunku.

Voon Lee Shan 

14 May 2023

How democracy works to control our society

*How democracy works to control our society*

Democracy is a tool used by politicians and wealthy entrepreneurs to control the behaviour of people. Democracy is also a tool to rob the resources of the country. The wealthy entrepreneurs will work with the politicians to win elections and to ensure that politicians they support will form the government. 

The wealthy entrepreneurs are willing to pump in any amount of money as long as they can make sure that the politicians whom they support will form the government after elections 

These politicians in gratitude normally will repay these wealthy entrepreneurs with land and licences to rob the resources and wealth of the country. 

But again there is no free lunch 

These wealthy entrepreneurs have to 'buy" the licence, land and mines of the state from the politicians or ministers in power. Here corruption creeps into the system of government.  

The politicians in power and entrepreneurs may also destroy the environment and land of indigenous people of the land. Land alienated to wealthy entrepreneurs may encroach into land of indigenous people. Indigenous people found themselves to become squatters in own land because politicians may pass law to dissolve their rights to the land. The court is also controlled by the politicians and the wealthy entrepreneurs. Therefore indigenous people will find it difficult to fight them in court. 

Indigenous people who are less educated are easily taken to believe that the politicians are sincere to help them when politicians come with sweet words and some honey supplied by the wealthy entrepreneurs during elections. 

The system of democracy is also to ensure the indigenous people remain poor and uneducated so that they could not understand what is happening in the world and so that they become subservient and dependent to their ruling government. 

To non indigenous people, you work for the entrepreneurs from morning until evening and are their "slaves". While you are working these wealthy entrepreneurs could be on holiday or playing golf with the politicians and ministers. You make money for them and they are laughing to the bank. They give your salaries according to their perceived value about you and they keep you comfortable. When you feel comfortable you never wish to come out from your comfort zone. 

Salaried people never be rich because salaries are like drugs which is to keep you happy and you forgot to pursue your financial freedom but just keep on working for the entrepreneurs. 

When you get older or about to retire you then realise you do not have enough saving for your retirement.

Voon Lee Shan 

President Parti Bumi Kenyalang 

17 May 2023

Singapore independence --a coup de

*SINGAPORE INDEPENDENCE-A COUP DE TAT?*

LKY planned Singapore Exit well. It started when he was still in UK studying law with EW Baker. A few other Singaporeans were with him and in his memoire he did mention of his thoughts on how Singapore need to be set free and independent.

To me, LKY knew British wanted Malaysia formed and would not allow Singapore gained independent. David Marshall together with him led a team to UK to ask independence but was not granted. David Marshall kept his words, resigned as Singapore CM if he failed to persuade UK to grant independence. Marshall was confident because he was the counsel in Tunku's team to UK to seek Malaya Independence. At that time Marshall was a lawyer in Kedah if I could recall what I read

Lee Kuan Yew executed planned B after Singapore was not granted independence 

 He came here and sold Malaysia Plan with Tunku. They succeeded. To my thinking, LKY painted a picture that Malaysia was the right move for Singapore but deep in his heart he wanted independence. At that time there was a communist threat in Singapore and LKY also feel safe if Malaysia was formed. 

After Malaysia was formed he then created havoc by his Malaysian Malaysia agenda and Tunku fell into the trap. 

In an article I read Singapore side said it was a peaceful coup de tat and they succeeded to get Singapore out of the federation and declared independent. 

LKY declared Singapore independent before Tunku tabled Singapore Exit in Malaysia Parliament. 

The Separation Bill was rushed into by EW Baker, as directed by LKY. From what I read it seems that LKY was very eager to leave Malaysia. 

 EW Baker was the Singapore AG at that time. Why it was Singapore that drafted and presented the Separation Bill, not Malaya? 

Therefore, for all purposes LKY could have planned and played his card well. His tears was tears of joy not of regret as expressed by him when Singapore exited. 

In his Declaration of Independence speech he was talking of the right of self-determination. Why was LKY talking about self-determination if this was not his strategies to get out of Malaysia? If Singapore was kicked out he could in his speech said so but he didn’t. 

Although it was a mutual agreement for Singapore to exit but I look it differently. It was a political maneuvering by LKY for exit not by mutual exit but by unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). The Separation Agreement was only for presentational purpose only. 

Therefore, reading a politician's thought, politicians normally don't talk straight and we need to read between the lines. In all circumstances, it was truly a coup and a slap on the face of Tunku.

Voon Lee Shan 

14 May 2023

虚假独立--值得庆祝吗？

虚假独立 有什么值得庆祝的？

(16-05-2023) 转载

 砂拉越统治精英在延续“独立”的幻觉

 砂拉越从未实现真正的独立，而是成为马来亚的附庸州，更名为“马来西亚”

 砂拉越统治精英继续其 60 年的欺骗和迷惑人民，说砂拉越获得“独立”，甚至不清楚砂拉越是否曾被英国人合法地自治过。

 当一个国家摆脱外国控制，其人民重新控制国家的主权、领土和资源时，一个独立的国家就形成了。

 在大英殖民帝国存在期间，任何英国殖民地的独立都必须由伦敦的英国议会通过一项法案。 但这从来没有做过。

 有 3 个不同的日期，不同的人声称是 1963 年砂拉越独立的日期。

 一个团体声称是在 1963 年 7 月 22 日，当时英国殖民地总督任命斯蒂芬卡隆宁甘为砂拉越第一任首席部长，并有一些砂拉越人担任内阁成员。

 它不可能是独立的，因为英国人一直控制着该殖民地，直到 1963 年 9 月 16 日。

 第二组声称 1963 年 8 月 31 日是砂拉越获得独立的日期。 由于上述原因，这也不准确。

 最后一组声称，当英国最终放弃对砂拉越的控制并离开时，砂拉越于 9 月 16 日获得独立。 但在同一天，英国人并没有根据 MA63 将砂拉越主权移交给人民，而是移交给马来亚。

 很明显，英国政府从未在 1963 年 9 月 16 日正式授予砂拉越独立。

 根据 MA63 第 1 条和第 4 条，砂拉越只是与北婆罗洲和新加坡一起作为 3 个额外的“州属”转移到马来亚，更名为“马来西亚”。 这正如马来亚联合国代表拿督翁育林在1963年9月16日致联合国秘书长的信中所说。

 面子书页面上的一个表扬简洁地解决了这个问题：

 “永远不要相信马来亚人所说的话，也永远不要相信法迪拉会做什么。没有蓝图，没有时间表，最重要的是，永远不要咨询人民。”

 GPS 仍然想尊重“受辱”的 MA63，因为他们没有勇气退出。

 最近有一场辩论，出席的大部分是高中生，辩论结果是中立：7.4%

 对于联邦制：11.8%

 支持砂拉越民族主义：80.7%

 结果没有发表在论文中。”

致给记者们：有关MA63诉讼

致给记者们*

亲爱的记者好朋友们，

鉴于：1963 年马来西亚协议 (MA63) 诉讼。

法官 Alexander Siew 将于明天 2023 年 5 月 5 日 0900 时在古晋高等法院就 MA63 诉讼作出裁决。

这是由 11 名砂拉越人提起的诉讼，其中包括寻求法院宣布 MA63 无效。即使有效但由于根本性违约历时或約超过 50 年，马来西亚协议也是等于无效的。

我们的论点含括尤其是沙巴砂拉越和新加坡 (SSS) 仍然英国是殖民地，在签署协议时没有法律定位与英国签署协议。我们的论点基于国际法院于 2019 年 2 月 25 日提交的查戈斯群岛案。殖民地总检察长 PEH Pike 也持相同与附和此观点。

我们也争辩说，高等法院有权审理此案，理由是该法院甚至在马来西亚成立之前就已经存在。它以前称为婆罗洲高等法院，现在最近才更名为沙巴和砂拉越高等法院。

我们还认为Cobbold(科博尔德)委员会报告被用来克服閃避联合国大会第 1514 号决议是一种欺诈行为。 Cobbold 委员会当中,沒有一位成员能深諳和拥有理解砂拉越人民的当地方言或语言。他们是被精心挑选出来提供有利的报告，以确保马来西亚的成立。没有 Cobbold 委员会的报告，就不可能起草提供各方签署的马来西亚协议。

菲律宾和印度尼西亚反对马来西亚成立，因为它不遵守国际规则; 包括没有实施国际法之要求沙巴和砂拉越人民决定他们和国家命运的公民投票。

 1963年至1965年印尼的婆罗洲对峙，是因为印尼反对非法成立马来西亚。这导致了称为马尼拉协议的和平谈判，其中东姑承诺为婆罗洲人民举行公民投票来决定他们的命运，但这直到今天还沒完成。基于这几个理由和法律要点，法学教授和一些外国律师告诉我，马来西亚协议是一个骗局。

11名原告知道马来西亚的成立是沒有根据国际法成立的，之后所以提起诉讼起诉砂拉越和联邦政府。英国政府已通过英国驻吉隆坡高级专员收到法庭文件，但英国政府没有回应或出庭。

數名原告在抗击非法成立大马时遭到当局骚扰。迫于骚扰，他们只好躲进丛林。我们知道许多民族主义者不得不离开砂拉越，自我流放海外。 Ubong Anak Nuing 是为数不多的人之一，他是砂拉越恢复独立国家的伟大战士。当他被当局追捕时，他拿起武器自卫。我被告知根据国际法，为保卫国家而被追捕的人有权拿起武器自卫。这是在保护生命的规则下。 《刑法》还允许在受到拥有强大武器的人的攻击时进行自卫。那些躲藏起来的人武装配备很差，无法保护自己。双方火力非常不均。

Ubong Anak Nuing Wen Ming Qiun 和 Bong Kee Chok (黃紀作)被打上共产主义者或恐怖分子的烙印，因为他们拿起武器为其认为是他们的权利而战——挑战马来西亚成立的权利。他们与 SUPP(砂拉越人民联合党) 中的许多其他人并不希望马来西亚成立。

但历史是由胜利者书写的。

您们可能希望出席博学多才的法官宣读判决的过程。

您诚挚而恭敬的

原告辯護律師

温利山

4 May, 2023

*Sent to Reporters*

Dear Good Friend Reporters, 

Re: Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) Suit.

Justice Alexander Siew will deliver decision on MA63 Suit tomorrow 5 May 2023 at 0900hrs in High Court Kuching. 

This is a Suit filed by 11 Sarawakians seeking inter alia the court to declare MA63 as null and void. Even if valid but due to fundamental breaches or past over 50 years, the Malaysia Agreement is void. 

Our arguments inter alia was that Sabah Sarawak and Singapore (SSS) being still colonies had no legal capacity to sign the Agreement with UK as at the time of signing the Agreement, SSS being still colonies of UK had no legal capacity to sign the Agreement. We based our argument on the Chagos Islands case delivered by INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE on 25 February 2019. The colonial Attorney General PEH Pike also opined/echoed the same. 

We also argued that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit on the grounds that this court existed even before Malaysia was formed .It was previously called High Court of Borneo which is now renamed High Court of Sabah and Sarawak only recently. 

We also argued that Cobbold Commission Report was use to overcome United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 was a fraud. None of the members in the Cobbold Commission were able to understand the local dialects or languages of peoples of Sarawak. They were handpicked to give favourable Report to ensure Malaysia be formed. Without the Cobbold Commission Report there could not be a Malaysia Agreement being drafted to be signed by the parties.

The Philippines and Indonesia were against the formation of Malaysia because it didn't follow international rules. There was no referendum as required by international law for peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to decide their fate and the fate of their countries. The Borneo confrontation in 1963 - 1965 from Indonesia was because Indonesia was against Malaysia being formed illegally. This led to peace talk called Manila Accord in which Tunku promised to hold a referendum for Borneo people to decide their fate but this was not done until today. On these few grounds and legal points I was advised by law professors and some foreign lawyers that Malaysia was a fraud. 

The 11 plaintiffs were aware of the formation of Malaysia was not constituted in accordance with international law then took up the Suit to sue the Sarawak and federal governments 

The UK government had been served the court documents through the British High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur but UK government did no response or appeared in court. 

A few of the plaintiffs were harassed by the authorities when they fought against the unlawful formation of Malaysia. Being harassed they had no choice but went into hiding in the jungle. We know many nationalists had to leave Sarawak and self exiled themselves overseas. Ubong Anak Nuing among the few, was a great fighter for Sarawak be restored as an independent Nation. He took arms to defend himself as he was hunted by the authorities. I was advised under international law, a person who is hunted in defence of his country has a right to defend himself by taking up arms. This is under the rule to preservation of life. The Penal Code also allows self defence when under attack by persons with superior arms. Those who went into hiding were very poorly armed to protect themselves. There was unequally of fire power. 

Ubong Anak Nuing Wen Ming Qiun and Bong Kee Chok were branded as communists or terrorists because they took arms to fight for what they believe was their rights - the right to challenge the formation of Malaysia. They didn't with many others in SUPP want Malaysia be formed. 

But history is written by the victors.

You may wish to attend the delivery of the decision by the learned Justice. 

Yours sincerely & respectfully 

Voon Lee Shan

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

4 May, 2023

MA63 Suit, Whether Court Has Jurisdiction to Hear

*MA63 SUIT, WHETHER COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR?*

Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was signed before Malaysia was formed The Malaysian Court was not in existence at that time although there was a High Court of Borneo and High Court of Malaya existing at that time 

We had filed a Suit against the two retired Judges who were not Sarawakians to practise as Lawyers in Sarawak but we lost. Under MA63 no lawyer who is a Sarawakian could practise law in Sarawak. Therefore MA63 gave protection against Lawyers outside Sarawak to practise here. But the federal constitution and the Advocates Ordinance gave certain leeway for floodgates to be opened. There was no full protection by the constitution and Advocates Ordinance which in spirit to my opinion is against MA63. 

The suit against the two retired judges were filed because we want to know how the court would decide on matters protected by MA63.

We lost the case but the court did not touch on issue of court's JURISDICTION to hear cases protected under MA63. With that, it is not sure how the court will rule on issue of jurisdiction in our MA63 SUIT.

If the court rules it has no jurisdiction to hear matters touching on MA63 then the MA63 Suit filed by us under 11 plaintiffs would be struck out on this ground alone. 

If the court decides that it has jurisdiction the court will look into other grounds if the court decides to strike our case out. 

Voon Lee Shan 

President 

14 May 2023

重拳出击（三）James Chin Podcast 5

重拳出击（三）：James Chin Podcast 5

1. JC Fong认为MA63或许不完美，但这世间没有完美的事。这就激发我无限的思考。我认为MA63契约是完全违反国际法而失效。这是一个有极度缺陷不完美协议。

总而言之，我认为事实证明这是从英国殖民沙砂转移到马来亚殖民沙砂，马来亚以马来西亚联邦的名义不间断的掠夺，剥削，打压，抢劫和霸凌沙砂。这种不合情，不合理和合法的不完美，天底下，谁能接受？

合情，合理和合法的不完美是小瑕疵，谁不能接受？

台湾，澳门和香港是中国的领土，可是，中国从来没向他们征收一分税金。再看看马来亚政府这些海盗如何殖民咱们沙砂两国和在SS干什么违法的事？记得，沙砂完全不是马来亚的领土。

2. James Chin也完全认同沙砂人民对马联邦不满是有根据的，因为马联邦否决SS/沙砂自主权和剥夺他们的权益。马联邦完全不尊重和遵守MA63协定。 我认为这种不满已经达到愤怒不已水平。

他认为暂时，国际补救措施是无法采用。所以，他问在联邦法院是否可采用的补救措施。

3. JC Fong 认为在马联邦法院是有机会进行补救的。针对MA63协定中，沙砂拥有特殊权益保障，不受尊重时，可以提交诉讼上法院。 于是，他就提起（A）Robert Linggi (前警察)对沙巴拥有委任沙巴大法官的权力被剥夺时提交诉讼上沙巴高等法院。David Wong（法官）说他有法定资格，所以，法庭判他胜诉。但是，联邦政府上诉，他在上诉庭被否决，而且还不允许他上诉，说他没有法定资格。

有法定资格的沙砂政府，却袖手旁观，没有争取到底SS的特殊权益。这就是马联邦政府敢在SS横行霸道，完全不尊重MA63的协定。

B）.. Ting Check Sii 和.. Tofail Mahmud 即使在Putrajaya法院审理，他们有权力要求砂律师处理他们的法律案件。凡是源自砂拉越的案件在KL审理，沙砂人就是有这种权力。沙砂的法律案件不管在SS或KL，我们就是有这种权力要求沙砂律师审理。

C） 另一宗是有关Sugumar Balakrisnan被禁止入境沙巴而提交诉讼上沙巴高等法庭，败诉后，他上诉到联邦法庭。联邦法庭的判决是尊重SS拥有特殊移民权。最后，沙移民庭强势禁止Sugumar入境沙巴。

D）旅游业原本是属于沙砂立法名单的项目。但是，就在1994年被马联邦野蛮的列入联邦名单内。这大大的打击沙巴人更大发展旅游的兴趣，也影响砂拉越要开始发展的旅游业。

E）马联邦宪法有提供条文注明当行政权从联邦转移到SS时，联邦资金提供不足，SS政府是可以提交诉讼上大法官提供的仲裁庭。

4. James认为SS政府从来未用过。

JC Fong辩护说在砂前首长Adenan 时代开始一直有诉求。譬如，联邦教育和医疗服务非常不到位。教育系统不良，砂有无数残校，破坏不堪，没钱重建。医疗服务和设备在Covid-19的肆虐下，更是暴露无遗。所以，Fong认为马联邦一定要权力下放。 

我认为必须全权下放教育和医疗服务权力。

5. James述说在Najib任相时有设立处理MA63课题的委员会。到希盟时也有窜联级别的委员会。 他质疑以法律处理是否会让人觉得法律超越政治呢？ 这些委员会所探讨的超过一半是权力下放而非MA63课题。

两个行政单位都在探讨如何处理SS人民对马联邦剥夺SS的权益和自主权感到不满。两届政府都希望看到好的决议实现。

Fong本身参与其中多年完全看不到联邦政府的政治意愿。

是的，从这次2023年财政预算案中，联邦发展拨款990亿令吉：

马来亚 ----------------》869亿令吉

沙巴--------------------》 65亿令吉

砂拉越------------------》 56亿令吉

三国联邦说是平等伙伴关系，实际上是完全不平等，所以才有这么大的拨款差距。

真的是光说不做。对SS都一直采取侵略的策略以达到拼吞的目的。

马联邦胆大包天竟然敢将砂保留地交给私人代理机构私有化这些土地。

重拳出击（二）James Chin Podcast 5

重拳出击（二）James Chin Podcast 5

JC Fong 说Chagos 岛和砂拉越情况截然不同。

但我认为国际上普及价值殖民者不能跟被殖民者签国际契约/协议，这规定是完全相等的。

按照联合国宪章，被殖民者完全没有法定资格跟殖民霸权签国际契约。

在1960年12月14日，联合国大会通过［去殖民化宣言］中的1514和1541号决议，就是赋予一般人［人权和自决权］。

殖民者在这宪章通过后，功力全废了。

因此，英国政府在1965年要求Mauritius 割让Chagos 岛给英国以交换独立是违反联合国大会通过的宪章。

随着时间转移，Mauritius 政府发现英国政府触犯国际法要求割让Chagos 岛以换取Mauritius 独立。

Mauritius 政府在2000年后期，就提交上诉，2019年2月25日，终于获得平反。联合国国际法院的咨询意见后，Chagos 岛就完璧归赵。

砂社会活跃分子对此判决都把它看成是先列而兴奋不已。

咱们砂拉越现在最大的问题是掌握大权的砂政盟完全没有任何意愿要脱离马联邦。(表面解读)

砂政盟的前身是砂国阵。在2018年之前，在国阵阵容内，完全被控制，活像傀儡，也像被点了死穴。

在2018年，国阵联邦政府倒台后，砂国阵就抽身离开，改名为砂政盟/GPS。

在马联邦框架下，砂这些顶级领袖们都是100%的受益者，所以，他们舍不得离开马联邦。

砂这政治集团和马联邦政治大集团在他们权益的考量上是一体的。

留马派系思维是偏一边。所以，他们不认同提交MA63上国际法院做个裁决。

JC Fong 提到中菲在南中国海的纷争提交上国际仲裁庭

事情没有获得解决。

其实，中菲的纷争是上美国自家设立的仲裁庭来做判决。跟正规的联合国扯不上关系。

这是留马派的自圆其说，合理化不正规的做法。

他是认同Cobbold Commission 调查结果。沙砂当时人口大约有百多万。他们只调查4000多人。三分之一同意参组马联邦，三分之一不同意，还有三分之一没意见。可是，调查结果是大多数沙砂人同。

这就是留马派的思维：不讲逻辑，不论事实。砂人民的权益，就被这群人典当掉了。

在1963年6月，砂选举。宣言是什么？怎么说多数代表支持马联邦。这些代表合格吗？他们反映多少人民的心声？

为什么不要在1963年7月9日之前，还没去伦敦签署MA63之前，明明白白按照联合国规章来个公投，让人民决定要（1）独立；（2）联邦或（3）合并呢？

在1963年7月22日，英国政府给砂拉越政府什么权力。连自治权都沾不上边。

当天的确，有砂首长和内阁宣誓就职，可是全都是委任的。

说内阁当时，就动议修正，代表（委任的）去伦敦签署MA63同意参组马联邦。全都是受指示被动完成的动作，在法律上是失效的。所以，MA63肯定是不合法。

砂有5个MA63签署者，其中一个是英国人，怎么搞的？

重拳出击（一）James Chin Podcast 5

重点出击谈James Chin Podcast 5 访问Dato Sri JC Fong.

探讨针对马联邦不尊重和不遵守MA63契约协议而引起沙砂人民*（极度）不满。

众所周知，MA63契约是国际契约。但是在国际法律中，(一)有哪些补救措施？（二）谁有资格作答辩者？

对这两道题，砂人民都有答案了。砂政府就是有法定资格，因它拥有砂议会82席位中76席位。 砂政府有资格提交MA63契约上联合国的国际法院/ICJ。

到那一步，砂人民肯定不是寻求补救措施而是要求撤除MA63契约。我们不要其他婆婆妈妈的事了。

马联邦承诺让沙砂进步和繁荣，这些言语，还是一直停留在空中没落实。对马沙砂发展做个评估，沙砂两邦国至少落后马来亚20多年。简而言之，马来亚的进步和繁荣昌盛是建立在沙砂的贫穷和落后上。

针对可以指定谁为答辩者，我们也有明确的答案。由温利山律师代表11个砂原告已经上提诉讼到砂高等法院请求判决MA63契约是否合法成立马联邦。

指定的答辩者就是英国政府，马来亚政府和自家砂拉越政府。

让我们历史回顾一下，在1960年12月14日，联合国大会通过［去殖民化宣言］的1514和1541号决议。就是还权给当地人民公投去决定（一）独立；（二）联邦；，（三）合并 

可是，英国政府死性不改，其实在联合国大会通过［去殖民化宣言］那一刻开始，所有殖民主义者都被废功了。但是，他们还在放纵操纵。因此，来个马联邦计划。这一切都违反人权和联合国宪章否定

马联邦/LB自从在1963年9月16日成立以来，以马LB名义，一直掠夺，剥削，打压，抢劫和霸凌沙砂两邦国。

马联邦一直以来都不尊重和遵守MA63协议。要推翻马联邦对沙砂的控制权，只有靠沙砂人民的团结力量。

马联邦和砂政府的政治意愿没有面对来自人民的威胁是绝对不可能自动自发产生出来的。

这些政治集团图谋的是政治集团的权益摆中间，人民权益得靠边。

总而言之，把MA63协议提交上联合国的国际法院判决才是最最佳,if Justice means being just and fair after checking all the justification for the judgement.

庆祝砂60周年独立，有没搞错？

庆祝砂60周年独立日？有没有搞错！

我看GPS官爷们似乎也很想独立。可是，就是没什么勇气，所以，只好放纵于玩游戏。装模作样create很多 make-believes。

每年722,就是那么纠结，硬把砂拉越日整装成独立日来庆祝。

没有感到一点丁尴尬，也没不好意思，意图要来弄假成真。

明明白白法案归纳为砂拉越假日。官爷们就自作主张归纳为独立日，还来个大庆祝。

官爷们还想自欺欺人。来演这种重头戏：小丑傀儡重叠戏。

在这种科技极度发达时代。处处尽是照妖镜，妖魔鬼怪尽显身。

分明被马来亚殖民60载，不间断的被掠夺，剥削，打压，抢劫和霸凌。

今天，这些官爷却搞笑的在胡搞庆祝砂60周年独立！

其实，砂政盟要独立, 就走这三步曲：

一。砂拉越是有固有权力独立。砂政盟拥有82席位的76的大优势。可以在砂议会通过独立法令，就在砂议会完成独立程序。

二。向联合国申请成为会员国。

三。来个普天同庆的独立日大庆典，公告天下，砂拉越脱离马来西亚联邦独立自主去了。

Podcast 5: Dato Sri JC Fong

马来西亚协议 / MA63                                                            

播客第 5 期：Dato Sri JC Fong

他们的观点和我的理解

James：今天我非常高兴地邀请砂拉越前总检察长拿督斯里 冯裕中前来我的播客做客。他写了几本关于联邦与州关系的书。最新一期由 Law Publisher 出版，内容涉及马来西亚联邦和砂拉越的关系。

非常感谢您出席在我的播客上。

正如我所提到的，我已经尽可能跟无数 的专家就MA63 相关的问题进行了交谈。如您所知，它引起了相当大的争议，尤其是在沙巴和砂拉越。很多很多团体都对沙砂人对马来西亚联邦政府不满归咎联邦政府没有覆行 MA63协议规定的项目而引起的。也许，沙砂人应该根据国际法寻求法律补救措施。

 

你能谈谈你对这些问题的看法吗？

JCFong：我们在考虑什么样的补救措施？

我们就试图执行已注册为联合国契约的MA63协议条文。 联邦政府不按照协议规定办事，在国际法中有哪些补救措施？

哪个国际法庭能够授予执行这些补救措施？

这些问题正是我们在寻求补救措施时一些人认为马来西亚联邦政府一直违反MA63这国际契约？

另一点是：谁有法定资格去寻求这些补救措施，我们将指定谁作为此类诉讼答辩者？

我认为英国政府不想再参与其中，因为他们已经授予*（1）沙砂独立并在英国议会通过了《马来西亚法》以按照 MA63 中的约定授予主权。他们还将砂拉越殖民统治期间的砂拉越的所有财产权授予新的砂拉越邦，作为联邦内的一个邦。他们把以前拥有的一切还给了我们。这就是我们现在讨论的的课题。

James：正如我之前提到的，根据国际法，您提到对MA63契约的补救措施通常是非常困难。另一个需要注意的是，如果你想去国际法院，它只会受理有主权国家的案件。

去年（2019）很多人都非常兴奋，因为国际法院判决英国必须把查戈斯岛归还给毛里裘斯，而发布的咨询意见，因此他们声称现在有了先例。

JC Fong：*（2）可是砂拉越的情况不同。在你去国际法院之前，当事方必须接受其判决权。否则，我们将陷入*（3）中菲之争。尽管菲律宾获得了有利的判决，但中国政府并不承认。

JCFong：到目前为止，砂拉越和沙巴的情况也是如此。 沙砂人民同意加入马来西亚联邦的过程是在 MA63 签署之前进行的。

无论*（4）事实调查课题的缺陷/缺点是什么，包括马来西亚日之前由联合国提出的课题。

调查结果确实表明，这两个婆罗洲州的*（5）大多数人口都同意成为马来西亚联邦的一部分。

1963 年 6 月，在 3 级制度下进行了地方选举：

市级

省级

议会内阁级

*（7）选举结果也显示，大多数人民/代表都支持马来西亚。

然后英国按照惯例于 1963 年 7 月 22 日授予砂拉越*（6）自治政府，我们的首席部长和我们的内阁在上述日期宣誓就职。

因此砂在很大程度上拥有行政权力的自治政府接着有效的决定在内阁理事会里通过一项动议同意马来西亚的成立并修正了由代表在伦敦签署的MA63契约。

因此，有了所有这些行动像去伦敦签署MA63契约和在砂议会通过一项动议同意参组马来西亚联邦，所以，很*（7）难说我们与查戈斯案处于相同的位置。

我认为，如果我们将所有*（8）这些因素都考虑在内，就很难解除我们祖先已经决定的事情。

也许它是*（9）不完美的，但在这个世界上没有什么是完美的。

现在取决于我们如何让MA63协议发挥作用，并确保 MA63 中达成的任何协议都得到今天的联邦政府的应有的尊重。

James Chin：很明显，沙砂人民对联邦与沙砂邦国之间关系的不满一定是有根据的，沙砂人民觉得他们被联邦政府欺负了。他们觉得他们没有保留 SS 的自治权力和应享的权益(10)。

如果没有国际团体的符合，国内法院是否有任何法律针对MA63契约被忽视的补救措施？

JCFong：在马来西亚法院，有补救MA6契约措施的机会：

在 MA63 中协定的内容以及为沙砂邦国的特殊利益所协定的特殊保障措施应得到该有的尊重。

 

沙巴的许多拟议案件，如Robert Linggi（沙巴警察）的案件和David Wong（法官）所说的马来西亚人在某种程度上对联邦政府忽视和不遵守 MA63 的协定，可以将此事告上沙巴高等法庭。 可是，联邦政府上诉时，上诉庭裁定 Robert Linggi 没有诉讼法定资格。

因此，人们必须为这一判断感到欣慰。那些拥有诉讼法定资格的人可以针对联邦政府有任何违反 MA63协定 的行为向法院寻求补救(11)。

还有一些其他案件，例如 Datuk Ting Check Sii 和 Dato Tun Tofail Mahmud 对于马来西亚律师在 沙砂 法院审理案件，包括源自沙砂的案件在 Putrajaya 审理的出庭权。

他们拒绝Tan Sri Tommy Thomas出庭审理他们案件的权利，即使是在吉隆坡开庭审理。

在移民问题上有 Sugumar Balakrisnan起诉，但砂拉越强行使用移民的自主权禁止 他 进入砂拉越。

所以，总而言之，当案件符合法律规定以维护沙砂人的特殊利益时，可以向法院寻求弥补，法院不会拒绝你的命令。

随着时间的推移，当然会有不愉快的情况发生，随着新一代政客的到来，新的行政人员，(12)让他们忘记了婆罗洲国家所享有的特殊权利、保障和特权。确实在某种程度上，沙砂邦国的权利受到了侵蚀。

例如，旅游业在 1963 年 9 月 16 日之前已列入邦立法名单。当联邦政府在 1994 年进行修正时，他们将旅游业从残留列表中取出并放入联邦列表(13)而不是共同列表中。因此，他们剥夺了对旅游业有巨大兴趣的沙巴，伤害了即将建立其旅游业的砂拉越。

这么大的挫折，就是有那样的事情。宪法中有规定，一些行政权力将转移到沙砂政府，并由联邦政府必须资助(14)沙砂政府履行行政职责或责任。

如果所资助金不足(15)，沙砂政府可以提交这些问题给马来西亚首席大法官任命的法庭。其实这些结构都已到位。

James：但是沙砂政府从来没有用过。

JCFong：嗯，我们从Tan Sri Adenan时代(16)开始就一直在要求，因为我们觉得教育系统不够好，学校落后，破旧不堪，我们没有钱重建它们。卫生服务还有很多不足之处。

当前的 Covid-19 大流行暴露了其中的许多缺点。所以联邦必须有一定程度的权力下放(17)。

James：当你谈到权力下放时，我假设你是在谈论联邦政府没有履行责任而使沙砂人民不满，这些责任和不满始于首相纳吉任期，他设立了处理 MA63 问题的委员会。然后在希盟政府的领导下，他们也有串联级别的委员会(17)来处理这个问题。

我假设如果你认为这是处理问题的好方法，或者这是将法律问题置于政治问题之上的另一种方式。

你对这个联邦委员会有什么看法？

当您查看已讨论的问题时，超过一半的问题不是 MA63 的一部分，而是像您提到的权力下放的行政问题。

JCF: No. 1 两个行政单位想研究如何处理沙砂人民的不满，以收回一些失去的权利或自治权。两届政府都公开表示希望看到好的决议得以实现。

我一直持着怀疑的态度。由于我已经参与其中多年，所以我看不到太多或坦率的说，联邦政府必须有政治意愿（18）来执行在 MA63 中达成的协议，以消除这些不满，不知何故，谈MA63契约的课题使我们看到马来西亚联邦陷入同样不得安宁或问题。

正如我常说的那样，有很多特别工作组，但他们有任务但没有力量。他们想说什么就说什么，但是在实施方面，当我们提出要解决的SS/沙砂问题时，联邦政府没有任何政治意愿。

根据马来西亚法令，联邦政府在马来西亚日保留的任何砂土地，如果不再用于联邦用途，必须归还给 砂拉越。相反，联邦政府却使用代理机构将砂土地私有化。

James：为什么砂拉越政府不在法庭上对此提出质疑？

（JCF无法为砂拉越政府作答。）

JCFong：我们不排除任何可能性。我们已经将他们告上法庭，例如，Petronas 在 2018 年的销售税问题上。他们试图阻止我们使用砂法律来规范石油和天然气行业。我们拒绝了服从他们的指令，告上法庭，他们失败了。我们将看到接下来会发生什么。

我接受指示，我不能做任何没有指示的事情。

James：我邀请你来这里是为了以你的个人身份发言，而不是代表砂拉越政府。

  

有许多活动人士声称PDA74是非法的，因为砂拉越的首长没有法定权利在未经砂拉越议会同意的情况下签署该协议。

James：我能听听你的法律观点吗？

JCFong：几十年来，PDA74 的合法性和合宪性一直是一个有争议性的课题。双方都有争议论点。一些人从砂拉越的立场认为，联邦政府利用 PDA建立起的国油公司 试图将他们对矿产和土地的权利运用在砂拉越边界内。PDA只是联邦宪法 A32 规定的探索性法律，但是对于对此类措施该法律要求国油必须给予足够的补偿，在宪法上才生效。

没有人能说 5% 的现金支付是足够的补偿。在 1975 年签署的任何文件中（19），也从未如此表示。

其次，PDA74 影响了在马来西亚日之前或在国际边界内属于国家财产的土地上的自然资源。该措施在砂拉越就是违宪（20）的，因为那只不过是联邦议会获得了这种权力。

反对意见认为是当时的 首长 签署了砂石油权力归属令（21）。石油权力归属令是否对绝对归属国油所有权产生效果，这本身就是一个有争议的问题。

争论点之一是：国油能否在不遵守砂法律的情况下行使这些权利？根据《石油开采条例》/OMO 或马来西亚成立之前的法律，根据《马来西亚法》第 73 条，在马来西亚日之后继续执行的砂法律。

没有采矿名单，任何人都不能在砂拉越及其大陆架开采石油，因此马来西亚国家石油公司在其 PDA 条款中从未拥有不必遵守砂法律的豁免权（21）。

给予国油的唯一豁免是它不必遵守马来西亚联邦的 1966 年石油开采法。该法案可以适用于砂拉越。

这些争论点需要解决。我本人已向两位联邦总检察长TanSri Affandi Ali和Tan Sri Tommy Thomas建议解决这些问题。两种方式之一：一种方式是上庭（21）。由联邦法院根据联邦宪法A1281（B）条文行使其原本管辖权来决定联邦与砂之间的争端，或者如果您想要更友好的诉讼类型，请在A130法令 下寻求联邦法院的咨询意见。

我的这些建议（22）全被否决了，因为他们不愿意将这个问题提交司法解释或裁决来个一劳永逸的解决。当达成司法裁决时之后，政治领导层可以决定该做什么。

James：砂拉越政府为什么不自己寻求对这个问题的司法答案吗？为什么我们需要咨询联邦 总监察长？

JCFong：嗯，第一，我们需要获得联邦法院的许可（23）才能单方面启动它。我们不能拥有它，因为我们是政府

我们可以自己做，但我之前不是告诉你我只按照指示行事。补救措施是可用的。我们要寻求吗？

在个人层面上，我认为是时候结束这个问题了。

对于联邦政府的过失和不遵守MA63规定，我们可以通过从马联邦的高级法院获得最终裁决，无论裁决如何，都没关系。至少，在联邦法院发表意见后，联邦和砂一级的政治领导层是明确的指示，并且有机会了解如何处理这些问题。这将是解决这争端的最佳方式。否则，外界发表的意见和言论很多都令我觉得很可笑。

James：请问这些立场你建议去联邦法院去解决，到底是沙巴的法律界人士所持的相同立场还是这主要是砂拉越的事情？

JCFong:

哦，当我当着沙巴人提出这个，他们既不反对也不支持。通常，沙巴让砂拉越先完成所有工作后才跟着去做，像有关SST 课题。

James：他们知道适用于砂拉越的也将适用于沙巴。

我可以问你最后一个问题吗？

回顾过去 50 年来，砂从未采取所有这些法律补救措施，联邦层面几乎没有任何政治意愿。未来，联邦与砂关系的最佳前进方式是什么。我们知道过去十年以来，由于社交媒体的兴起，社会活跃分子的数量大幅增加，越来越多的沙砂人对这个课题感到愤怒。

JCFong：哦，我没有答案。

我想远离政治争论。我只能指出前进的方向，我的建议是否被采纳是另一回事，取决于他们。

James：我的最后一个问题与去年 4 月发生的极具争议的事情有关，希盟政府领导下的联邦议会希望象征性地修改措辞，将措辞恢复到 1963 年的措辞。对许多人来说，在将那些词语放回法律里显而易见纯粹只是象征性而已。

你认为在慕尤丁的新联邦政府领导下，沙巴和砂拉越人民是否仍然关注这些措辞？还是只有砂拉越这边，还顾虑着要加上追究MA63的字眼？

作为法律界人士，您怎么看？

JCFong：嗯，就我而言，对 A1(2) 的修正案没有任何区别，因为我们的权利、我们的特殊保障和我们的自主权不会通过仅仅象征性地改变第 1(2) 条来解决。

我们砂议会提出了一系列修正联邦宪法的法案。我们已将此转交给沙巴州前法律部长拿督刘伟强。

遗憾的是，虽然他表示会在今年（2020年）4月提出，但因政府更迭，未能落实。

基本上，我们想要比第 1(2) 条或追究 MA63 或其他更多的变化。我们希望将其中的内容纳入MA63协议其中，以便将旅游业与环境一起列入共同列表。我们希望一些执行，譬如将土地归还砂、某些土族习俗土地课题等等的规定。

砂议会对法案内容的答复有记录在案。

我不确定现任政府是否愿意处理它。不管是什么，现在可能很难，因为现政府没有明确的多数票（23）来通过宪法修正案。

与沙砂课题相比，现政府更关心下一次联邦选举。

James：这项修正案或修正案是在希盟设立的委员会内阁层面提出的，是否只处理行政或权力下放问题？

JCFong：不是，我们当时以正式官方提呈给指导委员会，就在内阁委员会之下。这是一个联合委员会，由当时的总检察长和拿督刘伟强担任主席。随后，我们得到消息说，他们要把我们提出的法案，部分或全部法案纳入4月份的修宪法案。但它们没有具体化。

James：一切都没有按计划进行

沙巴、砂拉越和联邦政府本应在1963年签署协议后的10年举行会议。为什么砂拉越政府从未被要求会面？

JCFong：宪法唯一要求做的是每 5 年审查给予这两个州的特别拨款和收入来源，但却在 1970 年代停止了（24）。

在我1997年任职期间，当时Datuk Anwar担任财政部长，我们提出了这个课题。他说他要的会议是秘书长来处理这件事，最后，就不了了之。在Tan Sri Adenan任职期间，当前谈判开始时，要审查这是他提出首要课题之一。他们说这是他们要检讨的法案，例如土地交易的印花税等等。

他们起草了进行这种审查的程序规则，沙巴也同意了。但当时财政部长林冠英先生领导下的联邦财政部并不同意。在完全没有召集会议情况下，财政部在上一次的预算案中，突然说要补足某数额的特别拨款，所以没有没有按照正规做适当的审查。

The Malaysian Agreement 1963/ MA63                                     

Podcast No. 5: Dato Sri JC Fong

Their points of view and my understanding

James:

So today I am really pleased to welcome this podcast with Dato Sri JC Fong , the former Attorney-General of Sarawak. He has written a few books dealing with the Federal-State relations. The most recent one is published by Law Publisher concerning Federal-State in Sarawak.

Thank you very much for your presence on my podcast.

As I mentioned to you, I have talked to as many experts as possible about the issues relating to the MA63. As you know it has caused a fair bit of controversy especially in Sabah and Sarawak. And many and many groups blamed that because of unhappiness over MA63. Perhaps, they should seek legal remedies under international laws.

 

Can I have your opinions on these issues?

JCFong:  

What sort of remedies are we thinking about?

What remedies are available in international laws in terms of trying to enforce a treaty like MA63, which, no doubt, is registered as a treaty of the United Nations?

Which international tribunal is able to grant any remedies that can be enforced?  

These are the problems we have in terms of seeking remedies what some people say to be a breach of MA63 as an international treaty?

Another point is:

Who has the Locus Standi to go to seek these remedies and whom are we going to name as respondents of such proceedings?

I don’t think the UK government wants to be the party to it anymore as far as they are concerned they had granted the independence and passed the Malaysia Act in the UK parliament to vest sovereignity as agreed in MA63. They also vested all the rights to property existed in Sarawak during the colonial administration in Sarawak to the new State of Sarawak as a State within the Federation. They had given us back everything they previously had.

That is the issue that we have now.

James:

As I mentioned earlier, under international law, remedies as you mentioned are usually quite difficult. Another to note is that if you want to go to ICJ, it will only take cases of sovereign nations.

A lot of people got very excited last year (2019), because they claimed that there is a precedent now. That was an advisory opinion issued from ICJ in relation to the Chagos Case.

  JC Fong: 

The circumstances are different in Sarawak. Before you can go to the ICJ, the party must submit to its jurisdiction. Otherwise, we will end up in the dispute like the one between China and the Philippines. Though the Philippines got the judgement to its favour, the Chinese government does not recognise it.

JCFong:

Now in so far the situation in Sarawak and for the matter Sabah as well. The process of getting the people of SS/SabahSarawak to agree to join the Federation of Malaysia was undertaken before MA63 was signed.

Whatever maybe the defects / shortcomings of fact-finding issues including the ones by the United Nations just before the Malaysia Day.

The findings do show the majority of the population of the two Borneo States agreed to be part of the Federation of Malaysia.

In June, 1963m there was a local election conducted under 3-tier system:

Municipal Level

Divisional Level

Council Negri Level

The outcome of the election showed also that the majority of the people/representatives were in favour of Malaysia.

Then British in accordance to the normal practice granted us self-government on 22nd July, 1963 with our own chief Minister and our Cabinet sworn in on the said date.

So effectively, what happened was the self-government which had the executive authority to a large extent to over the state took the decision to pass a motion in the Council Negri which effectively agreed to the formation of Malaysia and recified the MA63 which was signed by its representatives in London.

So with all these, it is difficult to argue that we are in the same position as the Chagos Case.

I think if we take all these factors into consideration, it is difficult to unwind what has been decided already by our forefathers.

Maybe it is imperfect but in this world nothing is perfect.

It is up to us now how to make it work and to make sure for whatever has been agreed in MA63 is duely honoured by the Federal Government of today.

James Chin:

Obviously this unhappiness in SS people over federal-State relationship, there must be some basis to it , SS people feel that they are being bullied by the Federal Government. They feel that they have not kept the issue of autonomies for SS.

If international group is not available, are there any legal remedies available in the domestic court?

JCF:  

In the Malaysian Court, there are opportunities: 

What was agreed in MA63 and what was agreed to be the Special safeguards for the special interests of SS to be duely honoured.

Many of the proposed cases of Sabah like the case of Robert Linggi (Sabah police)and what David Wong (judge) said Malaysians who are in some way agreed by the way MA63 is implemented may take the matter to court. Of course, on an appeal, the court decided that Robert Linggi had no Locus Standi.

So one must take comfort for that judgement. For somebody who has the Locus Standi can go to the court to seek remedy for any breach of MA63.

There are some other cases as well like the case Datuk Ting Check Sii & Dato Tun Tofail Mahmud over the rights of audience by way of Malaysian lawyers before the court of SS including the case originating from SS to be heard in Putrajaya.  

And they denied Tan Sri Tommy Thomas the right to appear in that case even though it was to be heard in Kuala Lumpur.

There is Sugumar Balakrisnan over the immigration matter where the autonomy of SS over immigration was held forcefully to bar the entry of Sugumar Balakrisnan to Sarawak.

So I think overall, when the case is properly made up to the court to safeguard the special interest of SS, the court would not fail your order.

There are cases of unhappiness, of course, occur as time goes by, with the new breed of politicians coming, new administrators, make them forget about the special rights, safeguards and privileges accord to the Borneo States. It is true to some extent, there is an erosion of the rights of SS.

For instance, tourism, was on state legislative list before 16/9/1963. When they made an amendment in 1994, they took it from the Residue List to be put in Federal List instead of Concurrence List. So they deprived Sabah which has vast interests in tourism whereas Sarawak was about to establish its tourism industry.

Such a big setback, there are things like that. There are provisions in the constitution for some executive authority to be transfered to the States of SS and for federal to fund the performance of the executive duties or responsibilities on behalf of the federal government.

If money given is not enough to do so, it would be brought before a tribunal appointed by Chief Justice of Malaysia. All these structures are in place.

James: 

But there have never been used.

JCFong:

Well, we have been asking for it since the time of Tan Sri Adenan because we felt that the education system was not good enough and the schools were lagged in dilapidated states and we had no money to rehabitate them. The health service left much to be desired.

The current Covid-19 pandemic exposes many of these shortcomings. So there has to be some degree of decentralisation.

James:  

When you talk about decentralisation, I am assuming you are talking about the federal government’s responsibilities and unhappiness which started from Najib’s premiership who set up the committee dealing with the issues of MA63. Then under the PH government, they also had the tandem level of committee to deal with the issue.   

I am assuming that if you think that it is a good way handling the issue or it is another way to cabal the legal issue over the political issue.   

What is your thinking on this federal committee?

When you look at the sort of issues that have been discussed, more than half of the issues are not part of MA63 but rather administrative issues of decentralisation like what you have mentioned.

JCF: 

No. 1 The two administrations want to look into how to deal with he grievances of SS to reclaim some of the lost rights or autonomies. Both administration, publicly said that would want to see good resolutions to achieve

I have always been a sceptic. I don’t see much or be quite frank as I have been involved in it for many years. There must be a political will to implement what has been agreed in MA63 to dissolve these grievances, somehow rather it falls into the same sort of malaise or the problems we see in Malaysia.  

As I always say that there are a lot of taskforce but they have tasks but no force. They can say whatever they want. But when it comes to implementation, there is no political will on the part of the federal government when we brought up the issues of SS to resolve.  

Under the Malaysia Act, any land reserved on Malaysia Day taken by the Federal government, if no longer used for the federal purpose must be returned to SS. On the contrary, the federal government uses an agency to privatise the land.

James:

Why doesn’t Sarawak government challenge this in court?

(JCF was not able to answer it for the Sarawak Government. )

JCF:  

We are not ruling out anything. We have taken them to court, for example, Petronas on the sales tax issue in 2018. They had tried to prevent us from using our State law to regulate the oil and gas industry. We had resisted that and they failed. We would see what develops next. 

I take instructions and I cannot do anything which I am not instructed to.

James:

I am inviting you here to talk on your personal capacity, not on behalf of the Sarawak government.

  

There are many activists claiming PDA74 to be illegal as CM of Sarawak had no legal right to sign the agreement without the consent of Sarawak Dun.  

James:

Can I have your legal view?

JCFong:

The legality and constitutionality of PDA74 has been a contentious issue for many decades. There are arguments on both sides. Some take the view from the State that PDA74 which seeks to base their rights over mineral and land within the boundary of Sarawak in Petronas is in the way for exploratory law which is under A32 of the Federal Constitution which requires an adequate compensation for such measure to be constitutionally valid.

Nobody can say that the 5% cash payment is adequate compensation. It is never represented as such in any of the documents that was signed in 1975.

Secondly, the PDA74 affected natural resources on land which is the property of the State before Malaysia Day or within the boundary of the State. That measure is unconstitutional because the Federal parliament simply got this power

The counter-argument is that there is a vesting order signed by then the CM. Whether that the vesting order has the effect on absolute vesting on all the rights of petroleum in Petronas is itself a contentious issue.    

Among the points of contention: Can Petronas just exercise those rights without complying to the State laws? The State law under the Oil Mining Ordinance/ OMO or pre-Malaysia law which continues to be re-enforced after Malaysia Day because of Section 73 of Malaysia Act.

Nobody can mine oil in Sarawak and its continental shelf without the mining list, so Petronas has never had in its PDA provision exemption not to comply to the State Laws.

The only exemption given to Petronas is that it does not have to comply to petroleum mining act 1966 of the federation of Malaysia. That act can apply to Sarawak.

These points of contention need to be resolved.  

I myself have proposed to two federal AG Tan Sri Affandi Ali and Tan Sri Tommy Thomas to clear out these issues. One of the two ways: one way is to go to the court. It is for the federal court to exercise its original jurisdiction to decide this dispute between the Federation and State under the A1281 (B) of the Federal Constitution or if you want a more friendly type of litigation, go and seek the advisory opinion of the Federal Court under A130.

These suggestions of mine were brushed off because they were not willing to submit this issue for a judicial interpretation or ruling that would have settled the matter once and for all.

When the judicial decision is reached, then the political leadership can decide what to do in the course of time.

James:

What don’t the Sarawak government seek the judicial answer to this question on its own?

Why do we need to consult the federal AG?

JCFong:

Well, No. 1 we need to get leave of the Federal Court in order to launch it unilaterally. 

We can’t have it because we are the government

We can do that on our own but I am not the one to make decision as I have told you before I only act on instructions.  

Remedy is available. Do we want to pursue?

On the personal level, I would think it is time to put this issue to rest.

By getting a definitive ruling from the higher court of the country, whichever way the decision goes doesn’t matter. At least, there is clarity and there is opportunity for the political leadership at Federal and State levels to see how the matters to be dealt with after the Federal Court has given its opinions. That would be the best way to resolve this dispute. Otherwise, there are a lot of opinions and statements expressed outside. Some of them I found are hilarious.

James:

Can I ask whether these positions you suggest to go to the Federal Court to get a definite answer, is it the same position taken by legal people in Sabah or is this primarily a Sarawak thing? 

JCFong:

Well, when I proposed this when Sabah people were around, they neither objected nor supported it. Usually, Sabah let Sarawak do all the work first in the case of SSD issue.  

James:

They underline the assumption that what applies to Sarawak will apply to Sabah as well.

Can I ask you one final question?

Given all these legal remedies that have not been taken for the last 50 years, there is hardly any political will at Federal level. What is the best way forwards in terms of Federal-State relationship since we know the last ten years, the number of activists have grown substantially because of the rise of social media, more and more are angry over this issue.

Well, I don’t have the answer to that.

I want to stay out of political controversy. I can only point out the way forwards whether my advice is taken up or not is different matter and up to them.

My final question related to highly controversial thing that happened last year in April, the Federal parliament under PH administration wanted to amend symbolically putting the wordings back to 1963 wordings. It is obvious to many laws by putting the words back that are purely symbolic.

Do you think under the new Federal government of Muhyddin, Sabah and Sarawak people are still concerned about the wordings? Or on Sarawak side, they are still concerned to add the words in pursuit of MA63?

Speaking as a legal person, what is your opinion?

JCFong:

Well, on myself on amendments to A1(2) makes no difference because our rights, our special safeguards and our autonomies will not be addressed by just symbolically changing the Article 1(2).

Our State Assembly has put up a proposed bill for the amendment of the Federal Constitution. We have passed this over to the former minister of Law Datuk VK Liu of Sabah.

Unfortunately, although he said that matters would be brought up in April this year (2020), it would not be materialised because of the change of government.

Basically, we want more changes than the Article 1(2) or pursuing MA63 or whatever it is. We want to incorporate there among other things to put Tourism in the Concurrence List together with the environment. We want some reinforcement into the provision of the return of the land to the State, certain native land issue and so on and so forth. 

It is on record in State Assembly’s answers on what the content of the bill ought to be.

I am not sure if the present government will want to entertain it.

Whatever it is, it might be difficult now as the present government does not have a clear cut of the majority to pass a constitutional amendment bill.

The present government is more concerned about the next election than the issue dealing with SS.

Was this amendment or slab of amendment brought up in the Cabinet level of committee set up by PH only dealt with the administrative or decentralisation issues

JCFong:

No, we put it officially, at that time, the steering committee, a level below the Cabinet Committee. It was a joint committee chaired by then Attorney-General and Datuk VK Liu. Subsequently, we got the information that they wanted to table the bill to incorporate some or all the bills we had proposed into the constitutional amendment bill in April. But they were not materialised.

James:

Everything was not done according to plan

Sabah, Sarawak and Federal government were supposed to meet 10 years after the signing of the agreement in 1963.VWhy was the Sarawak government never asked for the meeting?

JCFong:

The only thing the constitution requires to do is 5 yearly review of the special grants and revenue sources given to the two States but it stopped in 1970s.

During my tenure in 1997, we brought the matter up when Datuk Sri Anwar Ibrahim was the Finance Minister. He said that the meeting he wanted was the Secretary-General to deal with the matter and we heard nothing.

On the onset of the current negotiation during Tan Sri Adenan Satem’s time, it was one of the top issue he brought up for review. They said it was a bill they wanted to review it like the stamp duty on land transaction and so on.

They had drafted the procedural rules for such a review to take place and Sabah also agreed to it . But then the Federal Finance Ministry, under Mr Ling Guan Eng did not agree. The Finance Minister in its last budget suddenly said it topped up the sum of certain amount of special grants without calling for a meeting, so there was no proper review.

英国把新加坡沙巴和砂拉越当礼物送了

沙巴砂劳越和新加坡是送给马来亚的礼物，马来亚从 1963 年 9 月 16 日起正式改名为马来西亚。法律专家认为，沙巴和砂劳我现在是马来亚的殖民地。

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sabah Sarawak and Singapore were a gift to Malaya which then took a new name Malaysia effectively from 16 September 1963. Legal experts opined that Ssbah and Sarawak now are colonies of Malaya.

1963年9月19日秘件

东姑在接获“Britian's gift to Malaysia" 电报后，回复桑迪斯的电报里说：

我可以向你保证，我是最欣喜地接获你的讯息。

....

我非常高兴地得到陛下的信任，将新加坡、砂拉越、沙巴的拥有权给我们。

......

为了表示感谢，东姑赠回给桑迪斯和连斯顿各人一支镶银象牙柄匕首。

The transcript of the video Podcast 5

The Malaysian Agreement / MA63 7/5/23 

Podcast No. 5: Dato Sri JC Fong

Their points of view and my understanding

James:

So today I am really pleased to welcome this podcast with Dato Sri JC Fong , the former Attorney-General of Sarawak. He has written a few books dealing with the Federal-State relations. The most recent one is published by Law Publisher concerning Federal-State in Sarawak.

Thank you very much for your presence on my podcast.

As I mentioned to you, I have talked to as many experts as possible about the issues relating to the MA63. As you know it has caused a fair bit of controversy especially in Sabah and Sarawak. And many and many groups blamed that because of unhappiness over MA63. Perhaps, they should seek legal remedies under international laws.

 

Can I have your opinions on these issues?

JCFong:  

What sort of remedies are we thinking about?

What remedies are available in international laws in terms of trying to enforce a treaty like MA63, which, no doubt, is registered as a treaty of the United Nations?

Which international tribunal is able to grant any remedies that can be enforced?  

These are the problems we have in terms of seeking remedies what some people say to be a breach of MA63 as an international treaty?

Another point is:

Who has the Locus Standi to go to seek these remedies and whom are we going to name as respondents of such proceedings?

I don’t think the UK government wants to be the party to it anymore as far as they are concerned they had granted the independence and passed the Malaysia Act in the UK parliament to vest sovereignity as agreed in MA63. They also vested all the rights to property existed in Sarawak during the colonial administration in Sarawak to the new State of Sarawak as a State within the Federation. They had given us back everything they previously had.

That is the issue that we have now.

James:

As I mentioned earlier, under international law, remedies as you mentioned are usually quite difficult. Another to note is that if you want to go to ICJ, it will only take cases of sovereign nations.

A lot of people got very excited last year (2019), because they claimed that there is a precedent now. That was an advisory opinion issued from ICJ in relation to the Chagos Case.

  JC Fong: 

The circumstances are different in Sarawak. Before you can go to the ICJ, the party must submit to its jurisdiction. Otherwise, we will end up in the dispute like the one between China and the Philippines. Though the Philippines got the judgement to its favour, the Chinese government does not recognise it.

JCFong:

Now in so far the situation in Sarawak and for the matter Sabah as well. The process of getting the people of SS/SabahSarawak to agree to join the Federation of Malaysia was undertaken before MA63 was signed.

Whatever maybe the defects / shortcomings of fact-finding issues including the ones by the United Nations just before the Malaysia Day.

The findings do show the majority of the population of the two Borneo States agreed to be part of the Federation of Malaysia.

In June, 1963m there was a local election conducted under 3-tier system:

Municipal Level

Divisional Level

Council Negri Level

The outcome of the election showed also that the majority of the people/representatives were in favour of Malaysia.

Then British in accordance to the normal practice granted us self-government on 22nd July, 1963 with our own chief Minister and our Cabinet sworn in on the said date.

So effectively, what happened was the self-government which had the executive authority to a large extent to over the state took the decision to pass a motion in the Council Negri which effectively agreed to the formation of Malaysia and recified the MA63 which was signed by its representatives in London.

So with all these, it is difficult to argue that we are in the same position as the Chagos Case.

I think if we take all these factors into consideration, it is difficult to unwind what has been decided already by our forefathers.

Maybe it is imperfect but in this world nothing is perfect.

It is up to us now how to make it work and to make sure for whatever has been agreed in MA63 is duely honoured by the Federal Government of today.

James Chin:

Obviously this unhappiness in SS people over federal-State relationship, there must be some basis to it , SS people feel that they are being bullied by the Federal Government. They feel that they have not kept the issue of autonomies for SS.

If international group is not available, are there any legal remedies available in the domestic court?

JCF:  

In the Malaysian Court, there are opportunities: 

What was agreed in MA63 and what was agreed to be the Special safeguards for the special interests of SS to be duely honoured.

Many of the proposed cases of Sabah like the case of Robert Linggi (Sabah police)and what David Wong (judge) said Malaysians who are in some way agreed by the way MA63 is implemented may take the matter to court. Of course, on an appeal, the court decided that Robert Linggi had no Locus Standi.

So one must take comfort for that judgement. For somebody who has the Locus Standi can go to the court to seek remedy for any breach of MA63.

There are some other cases as well like the case Datuk Ting Check Sii & Dato Tun Tofail Mahmud over the rights of audience by way of Malaysian lawyers before the court of SS including the case originating from SS to be heard in Putrajaya.  

And they denied Tan Sri Tommy Thomas the right to appear in that case even though it was to be heard in Kuala Lumpur.

There is Sugumar Balakrisnan over the immigration matter where the autonomy of SS over immigration being used forcefully to bar the entry of Sugumar Balakrisnan to Sarawak.

So I think overall, when the case is properly made up to the court to safeguard the special interest of SS, the court would not fail your order.

There are cases of unhappiness, of course, occur as time goes by, with the new breed of politicians coming, new administrators, make them forget about the special rights, safeguards and privileges accord to the Borneo States. It is true to some extent, there is an erosion of the rights of SS.

For instance, tourism, was on state legislative list before 16/9/1963. When they made an amendment in 1994, they took it from the Residue List to be put in Federal List instead of Concurrence List. So they deprived Sabah which has vast interests in tourism whereas Sarawak was about to establish its tourism industry.

Such a big setback, there are things like that. There are provisions in the constitution for some executive authority to be transfered to the States of SS and for federal to fund the performance of the executive duties or responsibilities on behalf of the federal government.

If money given is not enough to do so, it would be brought before a tribunal appointed by Chief Justice of Malaysia. All these structures are in place.

James: 

But there have never been used.

JCFong:

Well, we have been asking for it since the time of Tan Sri Adenan because we felt that the education system was not good enough and the schools were lagged in dilapidated states and we had no money to rehabitate them. The health service left much to be desired.

The current Covid-19 pandemic exposes many of these shortcomings. So there has to be some degree of decentralisation.

James:  

When you talk about decentralisation, I am assuming you are talking about the federal government’s responsibilities and unhappiness which started from Najib’s premiership who set up the committee dealing with the issues of MA63. Then under the PH government, they also had the tandem level of committee to deal with the issue.   

I am assuming that if you think that it is a good way handling the issue or it is another way to cabal the legal issue over the political issue.   

What is your thinking on this federal committee?

When you look at the sort of issues that have been discussed, more than half of the issues are not part of MA63 but rather administrative issues of decentralisation like what you have mentioned.

JCF: 

No. 1 The two administrations want to look into how to deal with he grievances of SS to reclaim some of the lost rights or autonomies. Both administration, publicly said that would want to see good resolutions to achieve

I have always been a sceptic. I don’t see much or be quite frank as I have been involved in it for many years. There must be a political will to implement what has been agreed in MA63 to dissolve these grievances, somehow rather it falls into the same sort of malaise or the problems we see in Malaysia.  

As I always say that there are a lot of taskforce but they have tasks but no force. They can say whatever they want. But when it comes to implementation, there is no political will on the part of the federal government when we brought up the issues of SS to resolve.  

Under the Malaysia Act, any land reserved on Malaysia Day taken by the Federal government, if no longer used for the federal purpose must be returned to SS. On the contrary, the federal government uses an agency to privatise the land.

James:

Why doesn’t Sarawak government challenge this in court?

(JCF was not able to answer it for the Sarawak Government. )

JCF:  

We are not ruling out anything. We have taken them to court, for example, Petronas on the sales tax issue in 2018. They had tried to prevent us from using our State law to regulate the oil and gas industry. We had resisted that and they failed. We would see what develops next. 

I take instructions and I cannot do anything which I am not instructed to.

James:

I am inviting you here to talk on your personal capacity, not on behalf of the Sarawak government.

  

There are many activists claiming PDA74 to be illegal as CM of Sarawak had no legal right to sign the agreement without the consent of Sarawak Dun.  

James:

Can I have your legal view?

JCFong:

The legality and constitutionality of PDA74 has been a contentious issue for many decades. There are arguments on both sides. Some take the view from the State that PDA74 which seeks to base their rights over mineral and land within the boundary of Sarawak in Petronas is in the way for exploratory law which is under A32 of the Federal Constitution which requires an adequate compensation for such measure to be constitutionally valid.

Nobody can say that the 5% cash payment is adequate compensation. It is never represented as such in any of the documents that was signed in 1975.

Secondly, the PDA74 affected natural resources on land which is the property of the State before Malaysia Day or within the boundary of the State. That measure is unconstitutional because the Federal parliament simply got this power

The counter-argument is that there is a vesting order signed by then the CM. Whether that the vesting order has the effect on absolute vesting on all the rights of petroleum in Petronas is itself a contentious issue.    

Among the points of contention: Can Petronas just exercise those rights without complying to the State laws? The State law under the Oil Mining Ordinance/ OMO or pre-Malaysia law which continues to be re-enforced after Malaysia Day because of Section 73 of Malaysia Act.

Nobody can mine oil in Sarawak and its continental shelf without the mining list, so Petronas has never had in its PDA provision exemption not to co ❤️mply to the State Laws.

The only exemption given to Petronas is that it does not have to comply to petroleum mining act 1966 of the federation of Malaysia. That act can apply to Sarawak.

These points of contention need to be resolved.  

I myself have proposed to two federal AG Tan Sri Affandi Ali and Tan Sri Tommy Thomas to clear out these issues. One of the two ways: one way is to go to the court. It is for the federal court to exercise its original jurisdiction to decide this dispute between the Federation and State under the A1281 (B) of the Federal Constitution or if you want a more friendly type of litigation, go and seek the advisory opinion of the Federal Court under A130.

These suggestions of mine were brushed off because they were not willing to submit this issue for a judicial interpretation or ruling that would have settled the matter once and for all.

When the judicial decision is reached, then the political leadership can decide what to do in the course of time.

James:

What don’t the Sarawak government seek the judicial answer to this question on its own?

Why do we need to consult the federal AG?

JCFong:

Well, No. 1 we need to get leave of the Federal Court in order to launch it unilaterally. 

We can’t have it because we are the government

We can do that on our own but I am not the one to make decision as I have told you before I only act on instructions.  

Remedy is available. Do we want to pursue?

On the personal level, I would think it is time to put this issue to rest.

By getting a definitive ruling from the higher court of the country, whichever way the decision goes doesn’t matter. At least, there is clarity and there is opportunity for the political leadership at Federal and State levels to see how the matters to be dealt with after the Federal Court has given its opinions. That would be the best way to resolve this dispute. Otherwise, there are a lot of opinions and statements expressed outside. Some of them I found are hilarious.

James:

Can I ask whether these positions you suggest to go to the Federal Court to get a definite answer, is it the same position taken by legal people in Sabah or is this primarily a Sarawak thing? 

JCFong:

Well, when I proposed this when Sabah people were around, they neither objected nor supported it. Usually, Sabah let Sarawak do all the work first in the case of SSD issue.  

James:

They underline the assumption that what applies to Sarawak will apply to Sabah as well.

Can I ask you one final question?

Given all these legal remedies that have not been taken for the last 50 years, there is hardly any political will at Federal level. What is the best way forwards in terms of Federal-State relationship since we know the last ten years, the number of activists have grown substantially because of the rise of social media, more and more are angry over this issue.

Well, I don’t have the answer to that.

I want to stay out of political controversy. I can only point out the way forwards whether my advice is taken up or not is different matter and up to them.

My final question related to highly controversial thing that happened last year in April, the Federal parliament under PH administration wanted to amend symbolically putting the wordings back to 1963 wordings. It is obvious to many laws by putting the words back that are purely symbolic.

Do you think under the new Federal government of Muhyddin, Sabah and Sarawak people are still concerned about the wordings? Or on Sarawak side, they are still concerned to add the words in pursuit of MA63?

Speaking as a legal person, what is your opinion?

JCFong:

Well, on myself on amendments to A1(2) makes no difference because our rights, our special safeguards and our autonomies will not be addressed by just symbolically changing the Article 1(2).

Our State Assembly has put up a proposed bill for the amendment of the Federal Constitution. We have passed this over to the former minister of Law Datuk VK Liu of Sabah.

Unfortunately, although he said that matters would be brought up in April this year (2020), it would not be materialised because of the change of government.

Basically, we want more changes than the Article 1(2) or pursuing MA63 or whatever it is. We want to incorporate there among other things to put Tourism in the Concurrence List together with the environment. We want some reinforcement into the provision of the return of the land to the State, certain native land issue and so on and so forth. 

It is on record in State Assembly’s answers on what the content of the bill ought to be.

I am not sure if the present government will want to entertain it.

Whatever it is, it might be difficult now as the present government does not have a clear cut of the majority to pass a constitutional amendment bill.

The present government is more concerned about the next election than the issue dealing with SS.

Was this amendment or slab of amendment brought up in the Cabinet level of committee set up by PH only dealt with the administrative or decentralisation issues

JCFong:

No, we put it officially, at that time, the steering committee, a level below the Cabinet Committee. It was a joint committee chaired by then Attorney-General and Datuk VK Liu. Subsequently, we got the information that they wanted to table the bill to incorporate some or all the bills we had proposed into the constitutional amendment bill in April. But they were not materialised.

James:

Everything was not done according to plan

Sabah, Sarawak and Federal government were supposed to meet 10 years after the signing of the agreement in 1963.VWhy was the Sarawak government never asked for the meeting?

JCFong:

The only thing the constitution requires to do is 5 yearly review of the special grants and revenue sources given to the two States but it stopped in 1970s.

During my tenure in 1997, we brought the matter up when Datuk Sri Anwar Ibrahim was the Finance Minister. He said that the meeting he wanted was the Secretary-General to deal with the matter and we heard nothing.

On the onset of the current negotiation during Tan Sri Adenan Satem’s time, it was one of the top issue he brought up for review. They said it was a bill they wanted to review it like the stamp duty on land transaction and so on.

They had drafted the procedural rules for such a review to take place and Sabah also agreed to it . But then the Federal Finance Ministry, under Mr Ling Guan Eng did not agree. The Finance Minister in its last budget suddenly said it topped up the sum of certain amount of special grants without calling for a meeting, so there was no proper review.