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
No comments:
Post a Comment