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？ )