Pages

Powered By Blogger

Sunday 3 November 2024

如果SS独立了

*如果砂拉越和沙巴都自由和獨立了*
(Robert Pei 04-11-2024)

 *想像一下,如果砂拉越和沙巴都自由和獨立,可以從馬來亞的種族隔離治理和外國統治中解放出來,獲得豐富的資源和機會!

 砂拉越和沙巴從馬來亞獨立後的經濟和社會優勢列表,透過控製石油和天然氣資源來體現財務實力:

 ### 經濟優勢

 **砂拉越和沙巴獨立的經濟和社會優勢**

 1. **主權資源控制**:獨立後,砂拉越和沙巴將對其豐富的石油和天然氣儲備擁有完全的權力,使他們能夠在當地管理這些資產並直接為國家發展最大化收入。 我們不再貢獻我們所有的資源來發展馬來亞並豐富其精英。

 2. **財政自治**:對石油和天然氣生產及其他資源的控制將產生大量收入,為強大的公共服務、基礎設施項目和經濟舉措提供資金,而無需聯邦再分配。

 3. **多樣化的經濟成長**:獨立將使砂拉越和沙巴能夠將資源利潤再投資到旅遊業、農業和技術等領域,減少對資源開採的依賴並提高整體經濟彈性。

 4. **量身定制的貿易關係**:不受聯邦限制,獨立的砂拉越或沙巴可以製定貿易協定,更好地反映當地需求,並為出口和經濟夥伴關係創造更有利的條件。

 5. **增加投資**:獨立可以吸引外國和本地實體的有針對性的投資,重點關注砂拉越和沙巴獨特的經濟機會,推動可持續增長。

 6. **在地化發展**:加強經濟控制將支持注重當地具體需求的發展舉措,推動包容性成長和區域賦權。

 ### 社會優勢

 1. **文化復興**:獨立可以讓砂拉越和沙巴保護和慶祝其多元化的文化遺產,培育一個尊重土著傳統、不受占主導地位的種族或宗教敘事壓力的社會。

 2. **社區賦權**:獨立治理將有助於制定支持地方社區自治、擴大基層參與和加強地方決策的政策。

 3. **教育改革**:砂拉越和沙巴可以創造一個符合當地價值觀的教育體系,滿足獨特的地區需求並確保所有種族群體的公平入學機會。

 4. **社會公平和正義**:獨立提供了解決歷史恩怨並保證邊緣化社區公平代表性的機會,從而建立一個更具包容性的社會。

 5. **強化身份**:自治將使砂拉越和沙巴能夠培養更強大、統一的身份,促進社會凝聚力和不同人群的自豪感。

 獨立可以釋放砂拉越和沙巴的全部潛力,創造一個自力更生、文化充滿活力和繁榮的社會,不受外部種族宗教的統治。

 羅伯特·貝
 沙巴 砂勞越 權利 澳洲 紐西蘭
 04/011/2024

*SARAWAK AND SABAH AS FREE AND INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES*

*Imagine the wealth of resources and opportunities that could be liberated from Malaya's apartheid-like governance and foreign domination if both Sarawak and Sabah were free and independent!*

List of the economic and social advantages for Sarawak & Sabah gaining independence from Malaya, incorporating the aspect of financial strength through control of oil and gas resources:

### Economic Advantages

**Economic and Social Advantages of Independence for Sarawak and Sabah**
1. **Sovereign Resource Control**: With independence, Sarawak and Sabah would have complete authority over their rich oil and gas reserves, allowing them to manage these assets locally and maximise revenue directly for state development. We no longer contribute all our resources to develop Malaya and enrich its elites.

2. **Financial Autonomy**: Control over oil and gas production and other resources would generate significant revenue, funding robust public services, infrastructure projects, and economic initiatives, free from federal redistribution.

3. **Diverse Economic Growth**: Independence would allow Sarawak and Sabah to reinvest resource profits into sectors like tourism, agriculture, and technology, reducing dependency on resource extraction and boosting overall economic resilience.

4. **Tailored Trade Relations**: Free from federal constraints, an independent Sarawak or Sabah could form trade agreements that better reflect local needs and create more favourable conditions for exports and economic partnerships.

5. **Increased Investment**: Independence could attract targeted investments from foreign and local entities, focusing on the unique economic opportunities of Sarawak and Sabah, fuelling sustainable growth.

6. **Localised Development**: Greater economic control would support development initiatives focused on specific local needs, driving inclusive growth and regional empowerment.

### Social Advantages

1. **Cultural Revival**: Independence could allow Sarawak and Sabah to protect and celebrate their diverse cultural heritage, fostering a society that honours indigenous traditions free from the pressures of a dominant racial or religious narrative.

2. **Community Empowerment**: Independent governance would enable policies that support local community autonomy, amplifying grassroots participation and enhancing local decision-making.

3. **Education Reform**: Sarawak and Sabah could create an education system that aligns with local values, addressing unique regional needs and ensuring equitable access for all ethnic groups.

4. **Social Equity and Justice**: Independence offers an opportunity to address historical grievances and guarantee fair representation for marginalised communities, building a more inclusive society.

5. **Strengthened Identity**: Self-governance would enable Sarawak and Sabah to cultivate a stronger, unified identity, fostering social cohesion and pride among diverse populations.

Independence could unleash Sarawak and Sabah’s full potential, creating a self-reliant, culturally vibrant, and prosperous society free from external race-religion domination.

Robert Pei
Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand
04/011/2024

Tuesday 29 October 2024

The promise to upgrade the rural areas in Sarawak

 

My comments:

Telang Usan rep urges Ahmad Zahid to fulfil logging road upgrade promise     By Jenifer Laeng on October 21, 2024

 

As I say, “A promise is made to keep, not to break or it is just like a dog barking for nothing.” 

 

With the collapse of UMNO-BN, and the new federal government, I wonder if he still barks for nothing.  If not, he should prove to us by fulfilling his promise, not barking for nothing.

 

We, Sarawak has all the resources more than enough for the development of the land.  But the federal government in the name of Malaysia@Malaya has been plundering and colonizing Sarawak since the very day of its formation.  Hence all the high ranking officials and Malaya as a whole prosper at the expense of Sarawakians and Sabahans.  Am I wrong?

 

For the increased allocation the ministry received RM11.9 billion

for rural development, would Sarawak and Sabah got their equity share?  

 

It is disheartening to note that the Baram people are still relying on logging roads which often become impassable in the rainy season.

 

Yes, in September 2023, Ahmad Zahid, the Minister of Rural and Regional Development, announced in the Dewan Rakyat to allocate RM331 million to maintain and upgrade more than 500 kilometres of logging roads in rural Sarawak, stating that work should begin immediately so that rural residents could return to their longhouses by Christmas of last year.

 

It has been more than a year since his announcement in the Dewan Rakyat. 

 

Never create the impression that the federal government in the name of Malaysia@Malaya still employs the same tactics of promises made never to be fulfilled

 

Never make Sarawakians think that the change of federal government from UMNO-BN to XXXX-PH shows no difference at all.  It is actually UMNO-BN—2.0.

 

Don’t wait until the time when all the Sarawakians rise up in protest of being colonized and seek justification in the International Court of Justice.

Beware and be warned of the happening that may take place.301024

联邦制使马来亚更强大

马哈迪和拉沙里說,聯邦制使國家更強大
Federalism makes the nation stronger, say elder statesmen 
(24-10-2024)
 https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/10/23/federalism-makes-the-nation-stronger-say-elder-statesmen/


 聯合新聞聲明

 2024 年 10 月 24 日


 沙巴和砂勞越拒絕聯邦制:聯邦政府未能兌現MA63承诺,是獨立運動的根源...


 亞庇讯:馬哈迪·穆罕默德和東姑拉沙里·哈姆扎最近發表的聲明,聲稱聯邦制「加強」馬來西亞。事实上,他们的申明,偏離了真正的問題:聯邦政府未能遵守1963年馬來西亞協議( MA63)暨其保障权利。 這種對沙巴和砂勞越權利的背叛,正是聯邦制失敗的原因,也是獨立運動在沙巴和砂拉越獲得抬起勢頭的原因。


 讓我們明確一點——如果聯邦政府從一開始就忠實遵守 MA63 的條款,今天就不會有人要求獨立。 沙巴和砂勞越不會覺得有必要質疑他們在馬來西亞的地位。 分離主義情緒的復甦是聯邦領導層一再違反旨在保障婆羅洲在聯邦內的權利和自治的條約的直接後果。


 61年來,沙巴和砂拉越一直被系統性地剝奪了MA63所保證的全部福利,例如沙巴40%的税务收入權利,以及對我們自己的石油和天然氣資源的控制權。 聯邦領導人現在沒有解決這些失敗,而是試圖將話題轉向所謂的“國家安全”和“團結”,但這些只是試圖轉移人們對其自身缺點的注意力。


 尤其是馬哈迪和拉沙里,幾十年來一直在損害婆羅洲的權利,但現在他們卻輕易地指責那些推動獨立的人是「極端分子」。 他們沒有提及的是,他們自己拒絕遵守 MA63,却是導致婆羅洲各邦與聯邦政府之間信任受到侵蝕的首要原因。 沙巴人和砂拉越人並沒有要求任何極端的東西——我們要求的,只是向我們承諾的東西,根據建立這個聯邦的條約,合法和正當地屬於我們的東西。


 這種轉移注意力的策略掩蓋不了一個事實:聯邦制的失敗不是因為沙巴和砂勞越人民,而是因為聯邦政府一再的背叛。 聯邦政府一貫無視《MA63》的條款,創造了導致沙巴和砂拉越对当年英国和马来亚美丽承诺,而期盼的普遍幻滅,和触发了獨立運動成長的條件。


 馬哈迪和拉沙里關於保護馬來西亞免受外部威脅的言論只是煙幕彈。 對馬來西亞團結的真正威脅,实际上是由於他們拒絕解決婆羅洲各邦的合理不滿,而造成的內部不公正。 如果聯邦制確實是為了團結馬來西亞,那麼它就會尊重《MA63》中規定的沙巴和砂勞越的自治權、資源权和种种固有權利。 相反,它(MA63) 却被用作剝削的工具,壓制我們的聲音並剝奪我們應得的國家权利和財富份額。


 我們必須重新聚焦爭論:沙巴和砂勞越不滿的根本原因是聯邦政府未能履行MA63。 任何忽視這一事實的敘述都只是試圖分散對事實的注意力。


 我們呼籲所有沙巴人和砂勞越人拒絕這種失敗的聯邦制,並團結一致要求正義。 聯邦政府必須停止轉移人們對失敗的注意力,並開始解決真正的問題。 聯邦制之所以失敗,是因為當權者未能履行他們的承諾。


 丹尼爾·約翰·詹本
 馬來西亞婆羅洲困境基金會 (BoPiMaFo) 主席


 羅伯特貝 (Robert Pei) 沙巴砂拉越权利澳洲紐西蘭 (SSRANZ)主席


 Peter John Jaban 創辦人 Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS)


 喬維利斯‧馬賈米 (Jovilis Majami) 沙巴社會社區 (BANGUN) 主席


 Ricky Ganang Penasihat Forum Adat Dataran Tanah Tinggi Borneo (FORMADAT)


 摩西‧阿納普 (Moses Anap) 北婆羅洲沙巴共和國 (RSNB) 主席


 Cleftus Stephen Mojingol 校長 Pertubuhan kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah (PKRDS)


 温利山 (Voon Lee Shan) 肯雅兰全民黨 (PBK) 主席

Monday 28 October 2024

The Borneo states called for 35%of parliamentary seats

KUCHING: The Borneo states’ call for one-third of parliamentary seats is about ‘correcting a historical wrong,’ says political analyst James Chin. Chin, a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia, explained that this is no more than what was agreed upon when Malaysia was formed.

“The historical wrong is simple. In 1965, the parliamentary seats held by Singapore should have been redistributed to Sabah and Sarawak. That would have preserved the original balance of power, with Borneo and Singapore collectively holding one-third of the seats. “But instead of reallocating those seats to Sabah and Sarawak, they were simply cancelled. Worse still, Sabah and Sarawak were not consulted when Singapore was expelled from Malaysia.

“Had they been asked; they would have insisted on reassigning those seats. This demand from Sabah and Sarawak is like the constitutional amendment – it’s about righting a historical wrong,” Chin told the Sarawak Tribune. He also pushed back against Peninsular Malaysia based NGOs claiming the 35 per cent allocation of Dewan Rakyat seats would disrupt today’s electoral system by introducing unfair representation to already underrepresented states. He warned that the narrative that NGOs in Peninsular Malaysia are pushing is ‘very dangerous.’

“The problem with the NGOs in Malaya, is that they are trying to correct political imbalance because of the strong Muslim versus non-Muslim political conflict. It has no bearing on Sabah and Sarawak, and they shouldn’t drag us into their argument. “It’s not about the 18 per cent electorate, nor ‘one person, one vote.’ This is about correcting history, not using today’s standards to look back into history. Any arguments based on post-1965 standards are irrelevant. It’s nonsense,” he said.

Chin argued that Malayan NGOs, attempting to impose ‘one man, one vote’ in Sabah and Sarawak, are simply trying to keep the status quo. If Sabah and Sarawak agree to the one man one vote, he said, the Malayan NGOs would find it easier to convince Malaya to adopt the ‘one man, one vote’ principle for the whole of Malaya. “That is why they are pushing so hard for Sabah and Sarawak to accept the one-third Dewan Negara seats which is consistent with the one man one vote principle.

Chin also addressed the Malayan NGO claims that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) does not explicitly mandate the one-third allocation for Sabah and Sarawak. “The tactic used by Malayan NGOs is to demand ‘black-and-white’ proof that this is in MA63. But it’s simple: Ketuanan Melayu isn’t written into the Malaysia Agreement either, yet it exists. “If they really want to change history, why don’t they push for a re-evaluation of Ketuanan Melayu ideology which is not acceptable today due to human rights?”

“Secondly, Malayan leaders initially agreed to allocate one-third of seats to Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore. If they had already agreed, why would it need to be written into MA63? These NGOs use underhanded tactics and flawed arguments, easily misleading anyone unfamiliar with the facts,” he added. For this demand to gain traction, Chin said Sabah and Sarawak must stand united. “Some Sarawak-based NGOs have been manipulated by Malaya. They’re working against Sabah and Sarawak’s interests. We’re correcting a historical wrong. There’s nothing sensitive about it,” he added.

“Its similar to the 2021 constitutional amendment going back to the 1963 wordings. How come the Malayan NGOs didn’t say anything?”

“Ïf we use today’s standards and norms to change history then, we might as well question the entire Malaysia Agreement 1963. Are they (Malayan NGOs) willing to talk about if MA63 is valid?,” he asked.

#Malaysia #MA63


婆罗洲要求35%联邦席位

詹运豪教授 (Professon James Chin of Tasmania)反驳马来亚NGO的缪论

 古晋:政治分析家James Chin表示,婆罗洲两邦国呼吁获得三分之一的议会席位是为了“纠正历史错误”。澳大利亚塔斯马尼亚大学亚洲研究教授詹解释说,这只不过是马来西亚成立时达成的共识。

 “历史错误很简单。 1965年,新加坡所持有的国会议席本应重新分配给沙巴和砂拉越。这将保持原来的权力平衡,婆罗洲和新加坡总共拥有三分之一的席位。 “但是,这些席位并没有重新分配给沙巴和砂拉越,而是被简单地取消了。更糟糕的是,当新加坡被驱逐出马来西亚时,没有征求沙巴和砂拉越的意见。

 “如果有人问他们;他们会坚持重新分配这些席位。沙巴和砂拉越的要求就像宪法修正案一样,是为了纠正历史错误。”他还反驳马来西亚半岛的非政府组织,声称下议院35%的席位分配将扰乱当今的选举制度,因为会给本来就代表性不足的州带来不公平的代表性。他警告说,马来西亚半岛的非政府组织所推行的说法“非常危险”。

 “马来亚非政府组织的问题在于,由于穆斯林与非穆斯林的强烈政治冲突,他们试图纠正政治失衡。这与沙巴和砂拉越无关,他们不应该把我们拖入他们的争论。 “这不是关于18%的选民,也不是‘一个人一票’。这是为了纠正历史,而不是用今天的标准来回顾历史。任何基于 1965 年后标准的论点都是无关紧要的。这是无稽之谈,”他说。

 詹认为,马来亚非政府组织试图在沙巴和砂拉越推行“一人一票”,只是 想维持现状。他说,如果沙巴和砂拉越同意一人一票,马来亚非政府组织将更容易说服马来亚在整个马来亚采用“一人一票”原则。 “这就是为什么他们极力推动沙巴和砂拉越接受上议院三分之一议席,这符合一人一票原则。

 詹还回应了马来亚非政府组织的说法,即《1963年马来西亚协议》(MA63)没有明确规定将三分之一分配给沙巴和砂拉越。 “马来亚非政府组织使用的策略是要求提供‘黑白分明’的证据来证明这是在 MA63 中。但这很简单:马来人主权也没有写入《马来西亚协议》,但它确实存在。 “如果他们真的想改变历史,为什么不推动重新评估马来人至上主义意识形态,因为人权问题,这种意识形态在今天是不可接受的呢?”

 

其次,马来亚领导人最初同意将三分之一的席位分配给沙巴、砂拉越和新加坡。如果他们已经同意了,为什么还要写入MA63呢?这些非政府组织

  

使用卑鄙的手段和有缺陷的论点,很容易误导任何不熟悉事实的人,”他补充道。詹说,为了使这一要求获得支持,沙巴和砂拉越必须团结一致。 “一些砂拉越的非政府组织受到马来亚的操纵。他们正在违背沙巴和砂拉越的利益。我们正在纠正一个历史错误。这没有什么敏感的,”他补充道。

 

“这与 2021 年宪法修正案类似,追溯到 1963 年的措辞。马来亚非政府组织为何不发声?”

 

“如果我们使用今天的标准和规范来改变历史,我们不妨质疑整个 1963 年马来西亚协议。他们(马来亚非政府组织)愿意谈论 MA63 是否有效?”他问道。


Thursday 24 October 2024

MA63的5个事实

关于 1963 年马来西亚协议你不知道的 5 个事实

本文仅供一般参考之用,不得以任何方式使用或解释为法律建议。所有文章都经过执业律师的审查,以确保准确性。

注:本文最初写于2017年7月]

在联邦政府宣布将于7月生效的旅游税后不久,砂拉越州政府出人意料地撤回了马来西亚旅游局的州代表,并立即生效。

此举相信是因为砂拉越要求推迟7月实施,但遭到拒绝。但有趣的是,砂拉越州旅游部长拿督阿都卡里姆拉曼哈姆扎表示,旅游业是1963年马来西亚协议的一部分来讨论的问题:

如果他们不想在 Semenanjung 推迟,那由他们决定。但至少在沙巴和砂拉越推迟......你必须尊重1963年的马来西亚协议。还有一件事——州政府必须在此事上有发言权;也许州政府希望退还部分征收的税款。”——Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah,《迈艾邮报在线》引述。

在最近的消息中,现任砂拉越首席部长 Abang Johari Openg 宣布,他将派遣一个律师团队前往伦敦研究马来西亚协议的细节:

这个协议不仅仅是一个协议;我们希望得到正确的事实,因为如果我们想提出索赔,我们必须做足功课,否则我们只是朝目标射击而没有击中目标。” - Abang Johari Openg,《当今大马》援引。

那么......马来西亚协议到底是什么?

快速回顾一下你在学校教科书中读到的内容,我们今天所知道的马来西亚最初是根据马来亚联邦协议于 1957 年 8 月 31 日成立的:

第三条,马来亚联合邦独立协议(部分):

“从一千九百五十七年八月三十一日起,马来各州和殖民地将组成一个新的联邦,名称为……马来亚联邦……”

然而,这不包括沙巴和砂拉越。这种纳入实际上是后来发生的,当时签署了另一项协议,导致沙巴、砂拉越以及新加坡和马来亚联邦合并,形成现在的马来西亚联邦。

该协议就是《1963 年马来西亚协议》(MA63),其中规定了三个州同意合并马来亚联邦组建马来西亚的条款和条件:

1963 年马来西亚协定第 1 条

“北婆罗洲和砂拉越殖民地以及新加坡国应根据本协定所附宪法文书与马来亚联邦现有的沙巴州、砂拉越州和新加坡州组成联邦,此后联邦将成为联邦。称为马来西亚。”

该协议就是《1963 年马来西亚协议》(MA63),其中规定了三个州同意合并马来亚联邦组建马来西亚的条款和条件:

1963 年马来西亚协定第 1 条

“北婆罗洲和砂拉越殖民地以及新加坡国应根据本协定所附宪法文书与马来亚联邦现有的沙巴州、砂拉越州和新加坡州组成联邦,此后联邦将成为联邦。称为马来西亚。”

除了成为东马更大自治权和(现在的)旅游税问题争论的核心之外,MA63 也是一份非常有趣的文件。例如,你知道吗...

1. MA63是一项国际协议

MA63是一项国际协议,于1970年9月21日在联合国注册,注册号为10760。作为一项国际协议,这意味着马来西亚议会无权修改MA63的条款。

议会能做的就是通过新的法律,使国际条约具有法律效力。例如,国会通过了《1963年马来西亚法案》,使MA63具有法律效力。联邦宪法的某些部分也进行了修改,以纳入马来西亚成立期间沙巴、沙越和马来亚之间达成的协议条款。

据称,自1957年以来,联邦宪法已被修改了700多次,但MA63中的条款自1963年签署之日起一直保持不变,因为修改它超出了议会的管辖范围。

2. 与马来西亚法律不同,MA63不能在马来西亚议会中修改
修改 MA63 条款的唯一方法是所有签署方以平等身份坐下来进行修改。

这是因为MA63是一项国际条约,而不是议会立法的法律。正如前一点所述,议会没有修改国际条约的合法权利。

实际上,这意味着沙巴、砂拉越、联邦政府和英国必须坐在一起重新谈判条款才能改变它。

 与可以由马来西亚议会修改的联邦宪法不同,MA63和IGC报告永远不能被任何人修改,除非最初签署它的领土决定再次回到谈判桌并重新谈判新的未来- Zainal Ajamain ,沙巴维权活动家兼作家,《马来邮报在线》引述

3. 沙巴和砂拉越有权自行执行MA63

MA63第8条文指出,沙巴和砂拉越可以采取自己的措施来执行和实施MA63,而无需修改联邦宪法。

1963 年马来西亚协议第 8 条(部分):

马来亚联邦政府、北婆罗洲和砂拉越政府将采取可能需要的立法、行政或其他行动,以实施保证、承诺、建议……只要它们没有通过宪法的明确规定实施。马来西亚

2016年11月,时任首席部长拿督巴丁宜丹斯里阿德南沙登最初在州议会提出收回砂拉越在MA63下的权利的动议,但在最后一刻被搁置。

如果动议获得通过,则可以被视为砂拉越州政府行使MA63第8条规定的权利。相反,州政府选择与联邦政府通过外交途径解决 MA63 下未实现权利的问题。

4. 由于MA63,沙巴和砂拉越拥有额外的决策自主权

沙巴和砂拉越与马来亚一起组建马来西亚,并达成共识,联邦宪法将保障其权利和特权。

这些保障和保障已写入宪法和相关法律。其中一些特权包括:

非沙巴和砂拉越律师没有权利在沙巴和砂拉越法院执业(第161B条)。

根据第161B条文,马来西亚半岛的律师在未向沙巴和砂拉越高等法院申请执照的情况下,不得在沙巴和砂拉越执业。即使他们获得了许可证,他们仍然需要向州移民局申请工作许可证。

沙巴和砂拉越仍然有权在州议会和法庭诉讼中使用英语(第161(1)和(2)条)。

第 161(1)条禁止任何限制沙巴和砂拉越出于官方目的使用英语的权利的法律,直至 1963 年 9 月 16 日起十年后。

截至今日,1963/1967 国家语言法令尚未在砂拉越生效。这意味着国家仍然没有强制要求政府部门和州政府部门使用马来语。

《国家语言法》第 1(2) 条:

本法应在沙巴州和砂拉越州生效,具体日期由各州当局通过各自州立法机关制定的法令指定,并且可以为本法不同条款的生效日期指定不同的日期。这些国家。

5. 砂拉越和沙巴有自己的移民法

砂拉越和沙巴有权监管其州属的移民。事实上,来自半岛的马来西亚人如果想在砂拉越或沙巴工作或学习,就需要获得许可证。那些短期访问砂拉越和沙巴的人必须填写移民表格以获得 90 天的访问通行证。

这项限制载于 1959/1963 年《移民法》第 66 条,并因 MA63 而被纳入其中。

1959/1963 年移民法第 66(1) 条(部分):

这些限制显然是为了限制那些能够为国家做出积极贡献的人入境,同时禁止任何可能对秩序和安全构成威胁的人进入其边境。

Asklegal
 
Constitution

5 Facts You Didn't Know About The Malaysia Agreement 1963

 over 7 years ago fadzel

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not meant to be used or construed as legal advice in any manner whatsoever. All articles have been scrutinized by a practicing lawyer to ensure accuracy.

[Note: This article was originally written in July 2017]

Shortly after the Federal Government's announcement of tourism tax that's slated to take effect in July, the Sarawak state government made a surprise move by withdrawing its state representative from the Malaysian Tourism Board with immediate effect.

This move is believed to be a result of Sarawak's request for the July implementation to be postponed to a later date, which was denied. But what's interesting is that Sarawak State Minister of Tourism Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah said that tourism was a matter to be discussed as part of the Malaysia Agreement 1963:

“If they do not want to defer it in Semenanjung, that is up to them. But at least defer it in Sabah and Sarawak ... You have to respect the Malaysia Agreement 1963. And another thing ― the state government must have some say in the matter; maybe the state government wants part of the tax collected to be returned." - Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, as quoted by The Maiay Mail Online.

In even more recent news, current Sarawak Chief Minister Abang Johari Openg announced he was sending a team of lawyers to London to study details of the Malaysia Agreement:

"This agreement is not simply an agreement; we want to get the facts right because if we want to make a claim, we must do our homework, otherwise we are just shooting at the target without hitting it." - Abang Johari Openg, as quoted by Malaysiakini.
So.... what's the Malaysia Agreement all about?

As a quick refresher on what you read about in school textbooks, the Malaysia as we know it today was initially formed as the Federation of Malaya on 31st August 1957 in accordance with the Federation of Malaya Agreement:

Article 3, Federation of Malaya Independence Agreement (in part):

"As from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, the Malay States and the Settlements shall be formed into a new Federation of States by the name of ... the Federation of Malaya..."

However, this did not include Sabah and Sarawak. This inclusion actually came about later, when another agreement was signed which led to the merger between Sabah, Sarawak and, briefly, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya to form the present day Federation of Malaysia.

That agreement is the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), which set out the terms and conditions in which the three states agreed to merge the Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia:

Article 1, Malaysia Agreement 1963

"The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement and the Federation shall thereafter be called Malaysia."

Aside from being the crux of the debate for greater autonomy for East Malaysia and (now) the tourism tax issue, the MA63 is a pretty fascinating document. For instance, did you know...

 1. MA63 is an INTERNATIONAL agreement


Signatories of the Malaysia Agreement arriving in London on July 12, 1963. Image from The Borneo Post.

MA63 is an international agreement, registered in the United Nations on 21 September 1970, bearing the registration number 10760. Being an international agreement, this means the Malaysia Parliament has no authority to amend the terms of MA63.

What the Parliament can do is pass new law to give legal effect to an international treaty. For example, the Parliament passed the Malaysia Act 1963 to give legal effect to MA63. Certain parts of the Federal Constitution have also been amended to incorporate the terms of agreement made between Sabah, Sawak and Malaya during the formation of Malaysia.

The Federal Constitution is said to have been amended over 700 times since 1957, but the terms contained within MA63 have remained unchanged since the day it was signed in 1963, as it is beyond the Parliament's jurisdiction to amend it.

 
2. Unlike Malaysian laws, MA63 cannot be changed in the Malaysian Parliament
The only way the terms within MA63 can be amended is for all the signatory parties to sit down together as peers and amend it.

This is due to the fact that MA63 is an international treaty, not a piece of law that the Parliament has legislated.As mentioned in the previous point, the Parliament has no legal right to amend an international treaty.

In practice this would mean Sabah, Sarawak, the federal government and the United Kingdom would have to sit together and renegotiate the terms in order to change it.

 Unlike the Federal Constitution which can be amended by the Malaysian Parliament, MA63 and IGC Report can never be amended by anyone, unless the territories that originally signed it decided once more to return to the negotiation table and re-negotiate a new future- Zainal Ajamain, Sabahan rights activist & author, as quoted by The Malay Mail Online
 
3. Sabah and Sarawak have the authority to enforce MA63 on their own


Tan Sri Adenan Satem. Image by Norman Goh from Malaysiakini.

Article 8 of MA63 says that Sabah and Sarawak can take their own measures to enforce and implement MA63, without having to amend the Federal Constitution.

Article 8, Malaysia Agreement 1963 (in part):

The Governments of the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak will take such legislative, executive or other action as may be required to implement the assurances, undertakings, recommendations….in so far as they are not implemented by express provision of the Constitution of Malaysia

In November 2016, then-Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Adenan Satem initially proposed a motion to reclaim Sarawak's rights under MA63 in the state assembly, but this was withheld at the last moment.

If the motion went ahead, it could be seen to be as the Sarawak state government using its right under Article 8 of MA63. Instead the state government opted on a diplomatic approach with the federal government on resolving the issue of unfulfilled rights under MA63.

 
4. Sabah and Sarawak has extra autonomy to make decisions because of MA63
Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaya in forming Malaysia with the understanding that there will be guarantees within the Federal Constitution to protect their rights and privileges.

These guarantees and safeguards have since been inserted into the Constitution and relevant laws. Some of these privileges include:

Non-Sabah and Sarawak lawyers do not have the right to practise in Sabah and Sarawak courts (Article 161B).

As a result of Article 161B, lawyers from Peninsular Malaysia are not allowed to practise in Sabah and Sarawak without applying for a licence from the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak. Even if they have the obtained the licence, they would still have to apply for a work permit from the state Immigration Department.

Sabah and Sarawak still have the right to use English in its state assembly and court proceedings (Article 161(1) and (2)).

Article 161(1) forbids any law that restricting Sabah and Sarawak's right to use English for official purposes until after ten years from 16th September 1963.

As of today the National Language Act 1963/1967 has not yet come into force in Sarawak. This means that it is still not mandatory for the state to use Bahasa Malaysia in government departments and state ministries.

Section 1(2), National Language Act:

This Act shall come into force in the States of Sabah and Sarawak on such dates as the respective State Authorities may by enactments of the Legislatures of the respective States appoint and different dates may be appointed for the coming into force of different provisions of this Act in those States.

 
5. Sarawak and Sabah has its own immigration law


Immigration counter in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Image from FamousChris.

Sarawak and Sabah has the power to regulate immigration to their states. In fact, Malaysians from the Peninsula require a permit if they want to work or study in Sarawak or Sabah. Those who are on a short visit to Sarawak and Sabah will have to fill an immigration form for a 90-day visit pass.

This restriction is laid in in Section 66 of the Immigration Act 1959/1963, and was included because of MA63.

Section 66(1), Immigration Act 1959/1963 (in part):

"... a citizen shall not be entitled to enter an East Malaysian State without having obtained a Permit or Pass in that behalf unless—

(a) he belongs to the East Malaysian State..."

These restrictions are apparently implemented to limit entry to those who can positively contribute to (either) state, while keeping their borders off-limits anyone who may pose a threat to order and security.

Tags:
Default avatar
fadzel

怎样的国际条约才有效?

国际条约应该如何才能被视为有效?
(Robert Pei 21-10-2024)

根據國際法,條約必須滿足幾個關鍵標準才能被視為有效:

1. **締約能力**:條約締約國必須具有簽訂協議的法律能力。這通常意味著它們是公認的主權國家或有權參與國際關係的實體。

2. **同意**:所有締約方必須表示同意受條約約束。這可以透過簽署、批准、接受或批准來完成,具體取決於條約的規定。

3. **目標和宗旨的合法性**:條約的主題必須合法且不違反國際法。違反強制性規範(強行法)或國際法基本原則的協議被視為無效。

4. **形式**:雖然條約可以採取多種形式(書面或口頭),但其意圖和條款必須明確。有些條約需要特定的形式(例如書面形式)才能有效。

5. **意圖創造法律義務**:締約方必須意圖讓條約創造具有約束力的法律義務。這通常反映在條約中使用的語言。

6. **批准程序**:各方必須遵循其國內法律程序進行批准。如果條約未經有關締約方的法律批准,則該條約可能無效。

7. **相互性**:理想情況下,條約應涉及相互義務或利益,但這不是嚴格要求。

如果滿足這些標準,該條約通常被認為根據國際法有效,並且可以由相關各方執行。

English version

Under international law, several key criteria must be met for a treaty to be considered valid:

1. **Capacity to Contract**: Parties to a treaty must have the legal capacity to enter into agreements. This typically means they are recognized sovereign states or entities with the authority to engage in international relations.

2. **Consent**: All parties must express their consent to be bound by the treaty. This can be done through signature, ratification, acceptance, or approval, depending on the treaty's provisions.

3. **Legality of Object and Purpose**: The treaty's subject matter must be lawful and not violate international law. Agreements that contravene peremptory norms (jus cogens) or fundamental principles of international law are considered invalid.

4. **Form**: While treaties can take various forms (written or oral), they must be clear in their intent and terms. Some treaties require a specific form, such as being in writing, to be valid.

5. **Intention to Create Legal Obligations**: The parties must intend for the treaty to create binding legal obligations. This is typically reflected in the language used in the treaty.

6. **Ratification Procedures**: Each party must follow its domestic legal procedures for ratification. A treaty may not be valid if it is not ratified according to the laws of the party involved.

7. **Mutuality**: The treaty should ideally involve mutual obligations or benefits, though this is not a strict requirement.

If these criteria are met, the treaty is generally considered valid under international law and can be enforced by the parties involved.

Monday 14 October 2024

Sarawak government & Petronas reached the agreement on Sales tax

Joint Statement by State Government of Sarawak and PETRONAS

2020 Media Release - 7 Dec

The Sarawak State Government and PETRONAS are pleased to announce the conclusion of negotiations, facilitated by the Ministry of Finance, on a commercial settlement after having resolved their differences over the imposition of State Sales Tax on petroleum products as well as oil and gas matters.  

The commercial settlement agreement (Agreement), which was executed on 7 December 2020, witnessed by both the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of Sarawak, amongst others provides Sarawak with a greater share of revenues from oil and gas found and produced in the State. 

It also provides for a more active involvement by the State in the oil and gas industry through the management of onshore oil and gas resources by PETROS and investment by PETROS in the upstream ventures in offshore areas. 

Both the Sarawak State Government and PETRONAS, continuing its current role as Malaysia’s national oil company, remain committed to working together to create and maintain a stable, conducive business and investment environment for the sustainable growth of the oil and gas industry, both upstream and downstream in Sarawak. 

Towards this objective, the Agreement provides for a consultative framework whereby both Parties will be able to jointly discuss and deliberate on matters of importance to the oil and gas industry including those which affect the interests of the State.

Datuk Jaul Samion
Sarawak State Secretary   

Tengku Muhammad Taufik
President & Group CEO

砂拉越政府与马来西亚联邦石油公司联合声明

2020 年媒体发布 - 12 月 7 日

砂拉越政府和马来西亚联邦石油公司很高兴地宣布,在解决了对石油产品以及石油和天然气问题征收砂销售税的分歧后,在财政部的推动下结束了商业和解谈判。  

该商业和解协议(协议)于 2020 年 12 月 7 日在砂拉越,在首相和首席部长等人的见证下签署,为砂拉越提供了来自该区发现和生产的石油和天然气的更大份额收入。 

它还规定通过 PETROS 管理陆上石油和天然气资源以及 PETROS 对海上地区上游企业的投资,更积极地参与石油和天然气行业。 

砂拉越政府和马来西亚联邦石油公司将继续发挥其目前作为马来西亚联邦石油公司的作用,继续致力于共同创造和维持稳定、有利的商业和投资环境,以促进在砂拉越的石油和天然气行业上下游的可持续增长。 

为了实现这一目标,该协议提供了一个协商框架,双方将能够共同讨论和审议对石油和天然气行业重要的问题,包括影响联邦利益的问题。