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

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。。

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.

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。

To compromise on the legality of MA63

If Malayans want Sabah and Sarawak to compromise on the legality of MA63, there can be no problem but

1. Give back all our oil and gas resources 

2. Compensate us all our Marine, oil and natural gas wealth that been taken away by the federal government/PETRONAS in all past decades 

3. Give back all revenues taken by the federal government since Malaysia was formed 

4. Remove Art 3, 153 and all provisions that could discriminate Sabah and Sarawak from the federal constitution 

5. Govenors from Sabah and Sarawak can be made king Of Malaysia 

6. Malaya can only hold One-Third seats in parliament and in senate 

7. Remove all officers from Malaya and let citizens of Sabah and Sarawak fill in all posts

8. Full control of immigration by Sabah and Sarawak 

9. Give back all land including territorial waters, continental shelfs and land taken by the federal government back to Sabah and Sarawak 

10. Restore Sarawak Rangers, Border Scouts and Sarawak Constabulary.

11. Agong not to be head of Islam in Sarawak 

12. No official religion in Sabah and Sarawak and this must be clearly mentioned in the constitution 

13. Revenues to the federal government must be under the control of governments of Sabah and Sarawak. Presently, federal government departments are collecting revenues from Sabah and Sarawak and send them to the federal treasury and Sabah and Sarawak will be given annual allocations at end of each year by parliament which normally was always less than RM6 billion for Sabah and for Sarawak normally was less than RM5 billion 

14. Move the capital of Malaysia to East Malaysia.

All of these must be done in one year. After that, no further deal. If Malaya or federal government could not fulfill these, exit from Malaysia is the solution.

Sabah and Sarawak won't die! We won't die even if we don't have oil and gas resources. We have too many brilliant people who know how to manage Sabah and Sarawak.

Sabahans and Sarawakians know how to manage their countries like running a business involving their citizens with bonuses from participation of businesses sponsored by the government or by businesses supervised by government agencies.

At the moment, businesses are controlled by the government and the capitalists especially, by the federal government and capitalists from Malaya. The federal government and these capitalists can become rich and richer while people becomes poor and poorer. They are special slaves to help government treasury and the capitalists to get rich in return for small income.

Long live Sabah and Sarawak! God bless Sabah and Sarawak!  Voon Lee Shan 

Let the respective house of worship conduct religious lessons

Let respective house of worship conduct religious lessons

Yes, in Sarawak, the government has allocated a total of RM385 million to numerous places of worship since the establishment of Unit for Other Religions (Unifor).

I wonder how much the total allocation has been given to the mosques in Sarawak.  Yes, it remains a secret. Otherwise, we can make a comparison of the disparity.

The allocation to the Unifor, of course, is for the upgrading and building the houses of worship for the purpose of providing the optimal comfort to the worshippers.

With the well-establsihed houses of worship of various faiths, why not let these places of worship conduct the religious lessons for students.

To attend or not to attend the respective religious lessons should be made optional. 

I believe all theses houses of worship,  may they be mosques, churches, temples or centres should have the capacity and expertise to conduct the lessons, right?

Sarawak schools should be the place to acquire basic knowledge and skills and prepare students for the job market.

Sarawak schools, of course, should emphasise a lot on language acquisition through intensive and extensive listening and reading for the input and opportunity in speaking and writing in the output.

For fluency, there must be a lot of comprehensible input in listening and reading to prepare students for the output in speaking and writing.

For accuracy in writing, of course, it is advisable to spare some time and put in some deliberate effort to learn grammatical items one by one and holistically.

Intensive and extensive reading is so important to gain knowledge and  learn many core values in life to lead a meaningful, inspiring and happy life.  I always think that reading books of great persons and interesting as well as inspiring stories provides more than what religious lessons can provide.  14/10/24

让各自的崇拜场所进行宗教课程

是的，在砂拉越，自其他宗教单位（Unifor）成立以来，政府已拨款总计3.85亿令吉给众多崇拜场所。

我想知道砂拉越的清真寺总共拨款是多少。  是的，这仍然是一个秘密。否则，我们可以对差异进行比较。

当然，Unifor 的拨款是用于升级和建造崇拜场所，以便为崇拜者提供最佳的舒适度。

既然各种信仰的崇拜场所都已建立良好，为什么不让这些崇拜场所为学生进行宗教课程呢？

加或不参加相应的宗教课程应该有选择的自由。 

我相信所有这些崇拜场所，无论是清真寺、教堂、寺庙还是中心，都应该有能力和专业知识来举办课程，对吗？

砂拉越学校应该成为学生获得基本知识和技能并为就业市场做好准备的地方。

当然，砂拉越的学校应该非常重视通过精读和广泛的听力和阅读的语言习得，以获取输入和提供口语和写作的输出机会。

为了达到流利程度，听力和阅读中必须有大量可理解的输入，为学生的口语和写作输出做好准备。

当然，为了写作的准确性，建议花一些时间并刻意地努力一项一项地、整体地学习语法项目。

透过精读和泛读可以让学生获取知识和学习生活中许多核心价值观，所以，阅读非常重要。 有了方方面面的知识和认知，肯定更可以让个人从而过上有意义、鼓舞人心和幸福的生活。  我始终认为，阅读伟人的书籍以及有趣且鼓舞人心的故事所提供的东西比宗教课程所能提供的丰富和多更多。

No religious teachers in school!

学校不办宗教课

教育服务委员会以砂拉越缺乏伊斯兰宗教教师为借口，将300名来自马来亚的伊斯兰宗教候选人纳入砂拉越特别教师招聘活动。

砂拉越不需要来自马来亚的伊斯兰宗教老师，就是这样！

砂拉越学生最需要的是能够了解当地语言、文化和思想的当地教师。

我们需要能够带领学生学习并激发他们发掘自身潜力并得到适当发展的教师。

基督教学生不需要基督教宗教教师。

佛教学生不需要佛教宗教老师。

印度教学生不需要印度教宗教老师。

巴哈伊学生不需要巴哈伊宗教教师。

为什么穆斯林学生在学校需要伊斯兰老师？？？

对我来说，学习道德价值观的最好方法是通过鼓舞人心的故事，比如伟人传记和教授道德价值观的有趣故事。

阅读精彩且鼓舞人心的故事也有助于性格发展。

好书是灵感的源泉；有可以效仿的典型人物；提供他人的经验和人生感悟。

拒绝马来亚300名宗教老师！

准备好永远退出马来西亚@Malaya！

Keluar Malaysia 不是犯罪，而是我们固有的权利。

Education Service Commission included 300 Islamic religious candidates from Malaya in the special teacher recruitment drive for Sarawak with the good excuse that Sarawak lacks Islamic religious teachers.

Sarawak need no Islamic religious teachers from Malaya, that's it!

What Sarawak students need most is local teachers who can understand their local languages, cultures and minds.

We need the teachers who can lead students in their studies and inspire them to explore their potentialities for proper development.

Christian students need no Christianity religious teachers.

Buddhist students need no Buddhism religious teachers.

Hindu students need no Hinduism religious teachers.

Baha'i students need no Baha'i religious teachers.

Why Muslim students need Islamic teachers in school????

To me, the best way to learn moral values is through inspiring stories like the biography of great persons and interesting stories teaching moral values.

Reading good and inspiring stories helps in character development, too.

Good books are a source of inspiration; have the model characters to emulate; provide the experiences of others and insights of life.

Reject the 300 religious teachers from Malaya!

Be prepared to exit Malaysia @Malaya for good!

Keluar Malaysia is not crime but our intrinsic right.

Jerun油田

马来西亚国家石油公司宣布在砂拉越近海 Jerun 油田首次生产天然气

吉隆坡（7月9日）：马来西亚国家石油和天然气公司Petronas周二表示，SK408区块的Jerun油田最近首次实现天然气生产。

马来西亚国家石油公司在一份声明中表示，Sapura OMV Upstream（砂拉越）公司以 40% 的股权经营砂拉越海岸附近的区块，其余 60% 的股权由马来西亚国家石油公司和壳牌公司平均持有。据称，Jerun油田日产量可达5.5亿标准立方英尺。

马来西亚石油管理局（管理该国石油资源的管理机构）的马来西亚国家石油公司高级副总裁拿督巴乔皮隆（Datuk Bacho Pilong）表示：“该项目将增加该国的能源组合，为维持马来西亚的长期天然气供应做出重大贡献。”

Petronas announces first gas production at Jerun field offshore Sarawak

KUALA LUMPUR (July 9): Malaysia’s national oil and gas company Petroliam Nasional Bhd, or Petronas, said on Tuesday the Jerun field in Block SK408 had recently achieved its first gas production.

Sapura OMV Upstream (Sarawak) Inc operates the block off the coast of Sarawak with a 40% stake, while the remaining 60% is equally shared by Petronas and Shell, Petronas said in a statement. The Jerun field could produce up to 550 million standard cubic feet per day, it said.

“Adding to the country’s energy portfolio, this project promises significant contributions towards sustaining Malaysia’s long-term gas supply,” said Datuk Bacho Pilong, Petronas’ senior vice-president of Malaysia Petroleum Management, the governing body that manages the country’s petroleum resources

UK decision to return Chagos island proves MA63 invalid

UK decision to return Chagos Islands proves MA63 is invalid

英國决定歸還查戈斯群島证明MA63无效

（06-10- 2024）

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/721467

The ICJ found that the 1965 UK agreement with Mauritius was not binding because at the time Mauritius 

The UK decision to return the Chagos Islands is important to vindicate and reinforce our claim that MA63 was invalid. 

The ICJ found that the 1965 UK agreement with Mauritius was not binding because at the time Mauritius was still a colony under British control and was not an independent state with the legal capacity to make international agreements.  

Now that the UK has decided to obey the ICJ, people cannot argue that MA63 is not affected by the Chagos Islands Case.

英國歸還查戈斯群島的決定對於證明和強化我們關於 MA63 無效的主張非常重要。 

 國際法院認為，1965年英國與毛里求斯簽訂的協議不具約束力，因為當時毛里求斯仍是英國控制下的殖民地，並不是簽訂國際協議的法律能力的獨立國家。  

 既然英國決定服從國際法院，人們就不能說MA63不受查戈斯群島案的影響。

List of international law cases on self -determination

*LIST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CASES ON SELF-DETERMINATION*

For those determined to understand the meaning of UNGAR 1514

Self-determination has been a significant principle in international law, and various cases and legal opinions have addressed it. Here’s a list of notable international law cases and opinions related to self-determination:

1. **The Western Sahara Case (Advisory Opinion, 1975)**:

   - Issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this opinion addressed the legal status of Western Sahara and affirmed the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination.

2. **The Namibia Case (Advisory Opinion, 1971)**:

   - The ICJ recognized the right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and asserted that South Africa’s presence in Namibia was illegal.

3. **The Kosovo Advisory Opinion (2010)**:

   - The ICJ provided an advisory opinion on Kosovo’s declaration of independence, stating that it did not violate international law, though it did not directly address the right to self-determination.

4. **East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia, 1995)**:

   - The ICJ dealt with the question of East Timor's right to self-determination, emphasizing that all peoples have the right to self-determination.

5. **The Chagos Archipelago Case (Mauritius v. United Kingdom, 2019)**:

   - The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued a ruling affirming the rights of the Chagossians, related to their self-determination concerning the British Indian Ocean Territory.

6. **The case of the Aaland Islands (1920)**:

   - This case was decided by the League of Nations, which ruled that the Aaland Islands should remain part of Finland but recognized the population's desire for autonomy, thereby affirming aspects of self-determination.

7. **The Quebec Secession Reference (1998)**:

   - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that while Quebec has a right to self-determination, this right is conditioned by the principles of federalism and democracy within the context of Canada.

8. **The Case of the Former Yugoslavia (Various Cases in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 1990s)**:

   - Various rulings addressed issues of self-determination amidst the conflicts arising from the breakup of Yugoslavia.

9. **The Case of the Somali Region (2014)**:

   - A regional referendum in the Somali region of Ethiopia led to discussions about the right to self-determination for various ethnic groups.

10. **The Scottish Independence Referendum (2014)**:

   - While not a case in the traditional sense, the legal debates surrounding Scotland's referendum on independence raised significant questions about self-determination within the UK’s constitutional framework.

These cases illustrate the complexities surrounding self-determination, its legal interpretations, and its applications in various contexts.

The review would be a*legal examination of MA63

The review would be a *legal examination of MA63*, which the Press Statement is calling for the Malaysian gov't to initiate, if possible at the ICJ. 

There are more parallels between MA63 and the 1965 Chagos Islands agreement than any differences. 

Mauritius (not Maldives) territory which included the Chagos Islands was a British Crown colony (1814 -1968) as were North Borneo and Sarawak crown colonies from 1946 to 1963.

Crown colonies are/were directly controlled by the British Crown represented by the British Governor. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mauritius

Whether it is necessary to involve the British gov't is a legal question to be considered. 

But the decolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak only needs Malaya to agree as it happened with S/poure in 1965 (the year the Chagos Agt was made). This is because Malaya has de facto control over SS after the UK had unlawfully transferred them to Malaya. 

If a court of law like the ICJ finds MA63 invalid, the solution must be for Malaya to de-colonise SS. 

In reality, it is unlikely Malaya will do this so SS people will have to seek other options.

此次審查將是“對 MA63 的法律審查”，新聞聲明呼籲馬來西亞政府啟動這項審查，如果可能的話，由國際法院啟動。 

 MA63 與 1965 年查戈斯群島協議之間的相似之處多於差異。 

 包括查戈斯群島在內的毛里求斯（不是馬爾地夫）領土是英國直轄殖民地（1814 年至 1968 年），北婆羅洲和沙撈越從 1946 年至 1963 年也是英國直轄殖民地。

 皇家殖民地由英國總督代表的英國王室直接控制。 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mauritius

 是否有必要讓英國政府介入，是需要考慮的法律問題。 

 但沙巴和砂拉越的非殖民化只需要馬來亞同意，就像1965年S/poure（Chagos Agt制定的那一年）發生的那樣。 這是因為在英國將沙巴和砂拉越非法轉移到馬來亞後，馬來亞實際上擁有了對沙巴和砂拉越的控制權。 

 如果像國際法院這樣的法院認定 MA63 無效，那麼解決方案必須是馬來亞對沙巴和砂拉越進行非殖民化。 

 事實上，馬來亞不太可能這樣做，因此沙巴和砂拉越人民將不得不尋求其他選擇。

Is the Cobbold Commission report legitimate?

 

Republic of Sabah North Borneo - RSNB

Is the Cobbold Commission report legitimate?

 THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COBBOLD COMMISSION HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MUCH DEBATE, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF WHETHER IT TRULY REPRESENTED THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF SABAH AND SARAWAK IN THE FORMATION OF MALAYSIA.

 Many critics argue that the Cobbold Commission was, if not an outright scam, certainly a flawed process that lacked transparency and failed to capture the genuine aspirations of the people of these territories. 

 Here are a few key points that support this critical perspective:

1. Bias in CompositionThe Cobbold Commission was largely made up of individuals selected by the British and Malayan governments, who were British and Malayans (including Lord Cobbold), which led many to argue that the Commission was biased in flavor of forming Malaysia, as it reflected the British and Malayan interests. 

 2. Pre-Determined Outcome The formation of Malaysia was already part of a grand design by the British and Malayan governments even before the Commission began its work. 

 Many historians argue that the creation of Malaysia was intended as a way for Britain to quickly decolonize while ensuring the protection of its strategic and economic interests in Southeast Asia. 

 The Commission was seen as a way to legitimize a decision that had already been made, rather than genuinely assessing whether Sabah and Sarawak wished to join the federation.

 3. Manipulation of Public Opinion  

The public consultations conducted by the Commission have been widely criticized as insufficient and poorly representative of the views of the indigenous populations in Sabah and Sarawak. 

 The Commission claimed to have interviewed around 4,000 people, but only one-third of those interviewed actually supported the formation of Malaysia. Another third expressed conditional support, provided certain safeguards were implemented, and the remaining third were either against Malaysia or preferred independence. 

 Despite these findings, the Commission extrapolated this limited sample to claim that a majority of the people of Sabah and Sarawak supported Malaysia. 

 This interpretation has been criticized as misleading, as significant opposition existed, particularly from rural and indigenous communities, which were often underrepresented in the consultations.

 4. Absence of a Proper Referendum 

 The use of the Cobbold Commission begs the question as to why the British and Malayans were leading the inquiry on Malaysia when it was an issue that should have been decided by the people in referendum. 

 Unlike in other decolonization processes, where the populations of the territories were given the opportunity to decide through a referendum or plebiscite, the people of Sabah and Sarawak were never given a clear choice.

 The Commission's consultations were not a substitute for a full referendum, leaving the process open to accusations of manipulation.

 5. The Role of Britain and Malaya’s InterestsThe British and Malayan governments had a strong incentive to ensure the success of Malaysia's formation. Britain wanted to offload its colonies while maintaining some control over regional security and economic interests, especially with the rise of communism in the region. 

 Malaya, under Tunku Abdul Rahman, saw the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak as a way to strengthen the new federation politically, economically, and demographically.

 Conclusion: Was it a Scam?From a legal standpoint, the Cobbold Commission was a necessary procedural step to legitimize the formation of Malaysia under international law. 

 Without it, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) would likely not have been possible. However, given the political pressures, lack of genuine representation, and the absence of a true democratic process, the Commission can be seen as a flawed and manipulated process designed to rubber-stamp a predetermined outcome. 

 Some activists and historians would go as far as calling it a "scam" due to its apparent role in facilitating an unjust political arrangement under the guise of consultation.

 Without the Cobbold Commission, the MA63 likely would not have materialized in its current form. However, the validity and fairness of the Commission's findings remain deeply contested, particularly by those who feel that Sabah and Sarawak were not given a fair say in their future.

 Robert Pei SSRANZ 28/09/24

©2024 Blogger - Privacy policy

 

科博尔德委员会合法性

科博尔德委员会的合法性一直是争论的焦点，尤其是在它是否真正代表了沙巴和砂拉越人民在组建马来西亚方面的意愿这一背景下。

许多批评者认为，科博尔德委员会如果不是彻头彻尾的骗局，那肯定是一个有缺陷的程序，缺乏透明度，未能捕捉到这些地区人民的真正愿望。以下是支持这一批判性观点的几个关键点：

1. 组成偏见

科博尔德委员会主要由英国和马来亚政府选出的个人组成，这些人既是英国人又是马来亚人（包括科博尔德勋爵），这导致许多人认为该委员会在组建马来西亚方面存在偏见，因为它反映了英国和马来亚的利益。

 2. 预定结果

早在委员会开始工作之前，马来西亚的成立就已经是英国和马来亚政府宏伟计划的一部分。许多历史学家认为，马来西亚的成立是英国快速去殖民化的一种方式，同时确保其在东南亚的战略和经济利益得到保护。委员会被视为一种使已经做出的决定合法化的方式，而不是真正评估沙巴和砂拉越是否希望加入联邦。

3. 操纵舆论

委员会进行的公众咨询受到广泛批评，被认为不足且不能很好地代表沙巴和砂拉越土著居民的观点。委员会声称采访了大约 4,000 人，但只有三分之一的受访者真正支持马来西亚的成立。另有三分之一表示有条件支持，只要实施某些保障措施，剩下的三分之一要么反对马来西亚，要么倾向于独立。 尽管有这些发现，委员会仍根据这一有限样本推断沙巴和砂拉越的大多数人支持马来西亚。这种解释被批评为误导，因为存在着重大的反对意见，特别是来自农村和土著社区的反对意见，而这些社区在协商中往往代表性不足。

4. 缺乏适当的全民公投

科博尔德委员会的使用引发了一个问题，即为什么英国人和马来人领导对马来西亚的调查，而这个问题应该由人民通过全民公投来决定。

与其他非殖民化进程不同，在这些进程中，领土的人民有机会通过全民公投或公民投票来决定，而沙巴和砂拉越的人民从未得到明确的选择。委员会的协商并不能替代全面公投，因此这一进程容易受到操纵的指控。

 5. 英国和马来亚利益的作用

英国和马来亚政府有强烈的动机确保马来西亚的成功成立。英国希望卸下殖民地，同时保持对地区安全和经济利益的一定控制，尤其是在该地区共产主义兴起的情况下。在东姑阿卜杜勒·拉赫曼的领导下，马来亚将沙巴和砂拉越纳入其中，认为这是一种在政治、经济和人口上加强新联邦的方式。

结论：这是一个骗局吗？

从法律角度来看，科博尔德委员会是根据国际法使马来西亚成立合法化的必要程序步骤。没有它，1963 年马来西亚协议 (MA63) 可能就不可能实现。然而，鉴于政治压力、缺乏真正的代表性以及缺乏真正的民主程序，该委员会可以看作是一个有缺陷和被操纵的程序，旨在批准预定的结果。 一些活动家和历史学家甚至称其为“骗局”，因为它显然在以协商为幌子促成不公正的政治安排。

如果没有科博尔德委员会，MA63 可能不会以目前的形式实现。然而，委员会调查结果的有效性和公平性仍存在很大争议，尤其是那些认为沙巴和砂拉越没有得到公平的未来发言权的人。

罗伯特·贝

SSRANZ

28/09/24

LPKP Sarawak waives requirement for all existing Licence 'A' holders, says chairman

LPKP Sarawak waives equity requirement for all existing Licence ‘A’ holders, says chairman

KUCHING (Sept 24): The Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (LPKP) Sarawak has unanimously agreed to waive the equity requirement for all existing Licence ‘A’ (container) holders, said Michael Kong yesterday.

The LPKP Sarawak chairman said this means that businesses whose licences were approved before Sept 12 this year can continue to operate and renew their licences without needing to meet the 51 per cent Bumiputera shareholding requirement.

He said this would ensure stability and continuity in the industry.

“It was also agreed that all new or additional Licence ‘A’ (non-container) applications from these companies can be processed and approved,” he said in a statement.

The statement was issued after he received a courtesy call from the Sarawak Forwarding Agencies Association (SFAA) at the LPKP Sarawak office here.

During the meeting, Kong said they had a productive discussion on various issues affecting the forwarding industry, with a particular focus on the equity requirements for freight forwarders operating under Licence ‘A’ (container).

At present, he said Licence ‘A’ (container) holders are subjected to an equity requirement where 51 per cent of the company’s shares must be held by Bumiputera.

He said this policy was established many years ago to encourage Bumiputera participation in the forwarding industry.

“However, over time, many existing companies have grown, diversified and expanded their operations, which has naturally led to changes in their shareholding structure. Some businesses, in the course of their growth, no longer meet the 51 per cent Bumiputera equity requirement,” he explained.

Kong said strict enforcement of this requirement would mean that many of these well-established businesses would face closure, which could have a significant negative impact on the forwarding industry in the state.

He added that a sudden closure of such businesses would create a glut in the industry, leaving the market under-serviced and potentially driving up costs for consumers and businesses alike.

He pledged that LPKP Sarawak is committed to being proactive in finding practical solutions that help sustain and grow the industry while fostering a more open and competitive business landscape.

“Our approach will ultimately benefit Sarawak’s economy, ensuring smoother logistics and more competitive costs for businesses and consumers alike.

“We are confident that these measures will not only protect the interests of existing players but also encourage new players to enter the market under fair and sustainable conditions,” added Kong.

Who allowed this practice to take place?

LPKP Sarawak 免除所有现有 A 牌照持有者的股权要求

Michael Kong昨天表示，砂拉越商用车辆牌照委员会（LPKP）一致同意免除所有现有“A”牌照（集装箱）持有人的股权要求。

LPKP砂拉越主席表示，这意味着在今年9月12日之前获得牌照的企业可以继续经营和更新牌照，而无需满足51%土著持股要求。

他表示，这将确保行业的稳定性和连续性。

他在一份声明中表示：“双方还同意，这些公司的所有新的或额外的许可证‘A’（非集装箱）申请都可以得到处理和批准。”

该声明是在他在LPKP砂拉越办事处接到砂拉越货运代理协会（SFAA）的礼节性拜访后发表的。

Kong表示，在会议期间，他们就影响货运代理行业的各种问题进行了富有成效的讨论，特别关注在“A”牌照（集装箱）下运营的货运代理的股权要求。

他表示，目前，“A”牌照（集装箱）持有人必须遵守股权要求，即土著必须持有公司51%的股份。

他说，这项政策是多年前制定的，旨在鼓励土著参与货运行业。

“然而，随着时间的推移，许多现有公司不断发展、多元化并扩大业务，这自然导致其股权结构发生变化。有些企业在发展过程中，不再满足土著股权51%的要求。”

Kong表示，严格执行这一要求将意味着许多成熟的企业将面临关闭，这可能对该州的货运行业产生重大负面影响。

他承诺，LPKP 砂拉越致力于积极寻找实用的解决方案，帮助维持和发展该行业，同时培育更加开放和有竞争力的商业环境。

“我们的方法最终将有利于砂拉越的经济，确保企业和消费者的物流更加顺畅，成本更具竞争力。

“我们相信，这些措施不仅会保护现有参与者的利益，还会鼓励新参与者在公平和可持续的条件下进入市场，”江峰年补充道。

是谁让这么荒唐的政策在联邦议会通过？？？？

35% federal seats allocation

Sarawak and Sabah/S&S should demand 35% of federal seats allocation or we should secede for good.

It is meaningless to stay in the federation of Malaysia @Malaya when S&S are at the mercy of the Malaya colonial masters.

Bear in mind that Malaysia @Malaya is a federation with 3 nations. It is blatantly irrational to take it as an entity to practise one person one vote in the election.

Actually, the present parliament has been meant for the interests and benefits of Malaya. It is definitely not the right place for S&S.

Remember that S&S joined the federation with Malaya, not the 11 states .

What has happened is over-representation of the representatives from Malaya as against the clauses agreed upon in MA63.

No, it is not appropriate for SS to be in this parliament, No. It is also too awkward for SS in this parliament meant for Malaya.

On the other hand, if 35% seats allocation for SS is not fair, Malaya @Malaysia can opt for secession for good, why not?

Having a huge population is your problem.  

Practising one-person-one -vote is only viable in Malaya, Sarawak or Sabah individually but never take Malaysia as an entity to practise one person one vote.

By taking S&S as the same entity as Malaysia @Malaya is too aggressive and arrogant to be accepted.

MA63 is the foundation of Malaysia federation. If it is not honoured, what is Malaysia after all?

Before the formation of the Malaysia Federation, Malaya should have emphasised on federal seats allocation to be based entirely on the population.

Take note that land size and potentiality of Sarawak and Sabah should be considered as reported in the Cobbold Commission.

Always remember that MA63 was written based on the documents of IGC Report and Cobbold Commission Report.

The 10 points about exiting Malaysia

*THE TEN POINTS ABOUT EXITING MALAYSIA*

I would say waiting for the people to hand down the mandate.

10 key points on exit from Malaysia for independence:

### 1. **Violation of MA63 Terms**:

   The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was established to guarantee autonomy and specific protections for Sabah and Sarawak. However, numerous breaches of its fundamental terms over the years have weakened these rights. This ongoing violation undermines the legitimacy of the federation and justifies the need for reconsideration of Sabah and Sarawak’s continued inclusion in Malaysia. *This is highlighted by the replacement of the secular pluralist system with the Ketuanan Melayu race-religion-based NEP system.* 

### 2. **Invalidity of MA63**:

   A key issue surrounding Sabah and Sarawak's continued place in Malaysia is the **legal capacity and validity of MA63** itself. Since both territories were still British colonies during the negotiations, they lacked the **sovereign legal capacity** to enter into an international agreement as equal partners. This raises serious questions about whether the agreement was valid from the start. The invalidity of MA63 could mean that Sabah and Sarawak were never legally bound to remain in Malaysia, reinforcing the case for independence.

### 3. **Restoration of Sovereignty**:

   As colonies at the time of the Malaysia Agreement, neither Sabah nor Sarawak were fully sovereign entities. By exiting Malaysia, they could restore their sovereignty, enabling their people to fully govern their own political, legal, and economic systems without external interference from the federal government in Kuala Lumpur.

### 4. **Unequal Development**:

   Sabah and Sarawak contribute significantly to Malaysia’s economy through their vast natural resources, yet both regions remain underdeveloped compared to Peninsular Malaysia. The imbalance in development and wealth distribution has long been a point of frustration. Independence would allow them to take control of their resources and manage their own economic development.

### 5. **Cultural and Political Marginalization**:

   Sabah and Sarawak have diverse indigenous populations with distinct cultures and traditions. These communities often feel marginalized under the political dominance of Peninsular Malaysia. Independence would allow these regions to better protect and promote their unique cultural identities without the constraints imposed by centralized governance. 

### 6. **Erosion of Autonomy**:

   MA63 promised a high level of autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak, particularly in areas such as immigration, religion, and education. Over time, however, the federal government has steadily eroded this autonomy by centralizing power. Independence would restore full control over key aspects of governance that were originally promised to them.

### 7. **Loss of Parliamentary Representation**:

   Under **Article 161E of the Federal Constitution**, Sabah and Sarawak were guaranteed 34.6% of parliamentary seats to protect their interests. Following Singapore's exit in 1965, this representation was never recalibrated, weakening their ability to influence critical federal decisions. This diminished voice in the federal parliament has made it difficult for them to protect their rights and ensure their interests are prioritized.

### 8. **Unfulfilled Promises of Development**:

   To entice them to accept federation in Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak were promised significant infrastructure and economic development. Decades later, many of these promises remain unmet, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. Independence would allow these regions to set their own development priorities and distribute their wealth according to the needs of their people.

### 9. **Increasing Calls for Self-Determination**:

   The growing sentiment in both Sabah and Sarawak for **self-determination** reflects the belief that they should have the right to independently decide their future. Many argue that a full, independent referendum was never held to truly gauge public support for joining Malaysia. A new referendum could allow the people to exercise their democratic right to choose independence.

### 10. **Resource Control and Economic Freedom**:

   Sabah and Sarawak are rich in natural resources, particularly oil and gas. Currently, all revenue from these resources is controlled by the federal government. By becoming independent, Sabah and Sarawak could fully control their own resources, directly benefiting their economies and enabling more equitable distribution of wealth within their territories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50JW4aHHm5Q 

### Conclusion:

The legal, political, and economic foundations of Malaysia’s federation with Sabah and Sarawak have been severely undermined by breaches of MA63, the erosion of autonomy, and questions regarding the agreement's legal validity. The lack of sovereignty during the formation of MA63 casts doubt on whether Sabah and Sarawak were ever truly equal partners in Malaysia. Coupled with ongoing marginalization, underdevelopment, and resource control issues, these factors provide compelling reasons for the people of Sabah and Sarawak to consider independence as the best path forward.

有关自决权的国际法案列清单

*有關自決的國際法案例清單*

(供 對於那些決心了解 UNGAR 1514 含義的人 参考）

 自決一直是國際法的重要原則，各種案例和法律意見都涉及這項原則。 以下是與自決相關的著名國際法案例和觀點的清單：

 1. **西撒哈拉案例（諮詢意見，1975）**：

    - 該意見由國際法院發布，涉及西撒哈拉的法律地位，並確認西撒哈拉人民的自決權。

 2. **納米比亞案例（諮詢意見，1971）**：

    - 國際法院承認納米比亞人民的自決權，並聲稱南非在納米比亞的存在是非法的。

 3. **科索沃諮商意見（2010）**：

    - 國際法院就科索沃宣布獨立提供諮詢意見，指出並未直接涉及自決權，但並未違反國際法。

 4. **東帝汶案（葡萄牙訴澳大利亞，1995 年）**：

    - 國際法院處理東帝汶自決權問題，強調所有人民都享有自決權。

 5. **查戈斯群島案（毛里求斯訴英國，2019）**：

    - 國際海洋法法庭（ITLOS）作出裁決，確認查戈斯人關於英屬印度洋領土自決的權利。

 6. **奧蘭群島案例（1920）**：

    - 此案由國際聯盟裁決，國際聯盟裁定奧蘭群島仍應是芬蘭的一部分，但承認人民對自治的願望，從而確認了自決的各個方面。

 7. **魁北克分裂國家參考資料（1998）**：

    - 加拿大最高法院裁定，雖然魁北克擁有自決權，但這項權利受到加拿大境內聯邦制和民主原則的限制。

 8. **前南斯拉夫案（前南斯拉夫問題國際刑事法庭的各種案件，1990年代）**：

    - 多項裁決涉及南斯拉夫解體引發的衝突中的自決問題。

 9. **索馬里地區案例（2014）**：

    - 埃塞俄比亞索馬利亞地區舉行的區域公投引發了關於各民族自決權的討論。

 10. **蘇格蘭獨立公投（2014）**：

    - 雖然不是傳統意義上的案例，但圍繞蘇格蘭獨立公投的法律辯論引發了有關英國憲法框架內自決權的重大問題。

 這些案例說明了自決的複雜性、其法律解釋及其在各種情況下的應用。

联邦宪法马来亚没有三分二席位规定

 

‘No two thirds rule (seats) for the States of Malaya under FC’

·         The Borneo Post    26 Jun 2022

·         By Alex Ling Lee Soon MA LLB (Cambridge University) 

李光耀总理证实，如果《FC》第 46 条和《1963 年马来西亚法案》附件 A 第 9 条没有规定“不得三分之二规则（席位）”，他将永远不会加入马来西亚的组建。 MA 1963，在其序言中规定插入为FC之母。

“这是政府的先决条件，而政府只是宪法的产物。宪法不是政府的行为，而是组成政府的人民的行为”：托马斯·潘恩

联邦议会众议院三分之一的代表权似乎有些混乱。

IA 首先，作为初步要点：

(i) 这并不意味着砂拉越应该拥有三分之一的国会议席。沙巴也应该这样做，那么马来亚各州也将剩下三分之一。根据最初的《联邦宪法》（“FC”）第 46 条，这是不正确的，该条文是根据《1963 年马来西亚协议》（“MA63”）的《马来西亚法案》（1963 年）附件 A 的相同第 9 条采纳的。宪法，

(ii) 这也不意味着砂拉越和沙巴应该只占 222 个国会议席的三分之一。那么这将是无用且不正确的。

如果是这样的话，马来亚州和联邦政府仍然可以在不与砂拉越和沙巴协商或同意的情况下，对联邦委员会的所有立法和修正案进行橡皮盖章。

李光耀总理证实，如果《FC》第46条和《1963年马来西亚法案》附件A中的《1963年马来西亚法案》第9条没有规定“没有第二第三条规则（席位）”，他将永远不会加入马来西亚的组建，在其序言中规定插入为 FC 之母。

这正是在1965年发生的情况，当时新加坡没有将15个议席给予砂拉越和沙巴，以维持超过三分之一的议席，即34.6%（而不是33.3%），而马来亚州则有65.4%的议席，这是根据《宪法》商定和规定的。 1963年马来西亚法案第9条文，并在原联邦宪法第46条中通过。

上述第 9 条和 FC 原第 46 条规定如下：(1)

众议院由一百五十九[159]名当选议员组成。

(i) 应有一百零四 (104) 名成员，其中五十七 (57) 名来自马来亚州 [159 名成员中的 104 名占 65.4%。这就是所谓的“没有三分之二规则”。如果马来亚联邦有三分之二，他们将有66.6%]

(b) 十六名成员[16]来自沙巴

(c) 来自砂拉越的二十四[24]名成员

(d) 来自新加坡的十五[15]名成员

简而言之

(1) 马来亚州没有三分之二规则（只有 65.4%），因此没有三分之二（66.6%）。

（2）在新加坡于1965年8月9日离开马来西亚之前，砂拉越、沙巴和新加坡拥有超过三分之一的人口，即34.6%（不是33.3%）。

（3）当新加坡离开马来西亚时，15个议席必须以24：15的比例分配给砂拉越和沙巴，以维持34.6％。

（4）但吉隆坡领导人故意向砂拉越和沙巴领导人隐瞒，直到新加坡分裂协议执行。

其次，新加坡离开后，通过一系列修正案【AM Act A537】【AM AC5 A94J, A109J, A1198, A1260】，【Subs ACT A1198; AM法案A1260]，沙巴和砂拉越在本应执行的“禁止三分之二规则”（“NTTR”）中遭受了百分比损失。

事实上，所有新加坡议席本应以24:16的比例分配给砂拉越和沙巴。这意味着砂拉越应该获得24+9 = 33个席位，沙巴应该获得15+6 = 21个席位。然后他们将保留34.6%，以防止马来亚各州在联邦政府中橡皮图章。

现在，公平的宪法解决方案或补救措施是在国会中以砂拉越31个：沙巴25个的比例分配32个新议席，总计254个，以考虑纠正和批准联邦直辖区无效和非法的13个议席。

第三，上述修正案违反了首相东姑、副首相敦拉萨和总理李光耀在沙捞越和沙巴根据《宪法》第八条加入马来西亚之前向砂拉越和沙巴领导人保证的“NTTR”保证。 MA1963 的“保证，只要它们没有通过马来西亚宪法的明确规定实施”。

正如所解释的，如果没有“NTTR”，总理李光耀将永远不会加入马来西亚，否则马来亚各州在议会中将能够批准所有联邦立法和联邦宪法修正案。

砂拉越和沙巴将为他们根深蒂固的保障措施而奋斗，新加坡将帮助执行这些保障措施。东姑和敦拉萨知道这一点。那种恐惧终于来了！

砂拉越和沙巴领导人没有被咨询，甚至不知道新加坡1965年分离协议的执行情况，直到媒体披露为止。

李总理曾口头承诺不会向砂拉越和沙巴领导人透露《分离协议》，而砂拉越和沙巴领导人只有在《1965年分离协议》签署并通过媒体披露后才知道。

最糟糕的是，李光耀晚年确实感到遗憾，因为公平地说，作为“平等伙伴”，砂拉越和沙巴应该被协商并成为分离协议的缔约方，并遵守分离协议中商定的条款。

沙巴和砂拉越肯定会要求获得新加坡国会的15个席位，即：9个（砂拉越）：6个沙巴，以维持“NTTR”并根据MA1963第VIII条保证。

敦拉萨想不惜一切代价避免这种情况。可以理解的是，在新加坡退出马来西亚之后，李光耀总理不会打扰。自身利益和生存是最重要的。良好的关系对于新加坡的商业、供水和安全仍然至关重要。

婆罗洲领土的利益仍将次于新加坡，根据 FC，新加坡对婆罗洲领土没有任何财务或其他义务。

因此，通过上述一系列修正案，对违反宪法和无效的众议院人数进行了第46（1）条的修改，而没有修改三方补充协议（“TSMA”）中第一个MA1963附件A的《1963年马来西亚法案》第9条，将其修改为：由马来亚、沙巴和砂拉越执行。

目前第 46 条内容如下： (1) 众议院由 222 名当选议员组成 [222] 名。

(2) 209 [209] 名来自马来西亚各州的成员如下：

(i) 二十六名来自柔佛州的成员；

(ii) 十五名来自吉打州的成员；

(iii) 十四名来自吉兰丹的成员；

(iv) 六名来自马六甲的成员；

(v) 八名来自森美兰州的成员；

(vi) 十四名来自彭亨州的成员；

(vii) 来自槟城的十三名成员；

(viii) 来自霹雳州的二十四名成员；

(ix) 三名来自玻璃市的成员；

(x) 来自沙巴的二十五名成员；

(xi) 来自砂拉越的三十一名成员；

(xii) 来自雪兰莪的二十二名成员；和

(xiii) 八名来自登嘉楼州的成员；和

(3) 来自吉隆坡、纳闽和布城联邦直辖区的十三名成员如下：

(i) 来自吉隆坡联邦直辖区的十一名成员；

(ii) 一名来自纳闽联邦直辖区的成员；

(iii) 一名来自布城联邦直辖区的成员。

 

评论

(1) 然而，《1963 年马来西亚法案》附件 A、MA1963 第 9 条仍然未经修订、有效且可执行。因此，所有关于第一、四十五、四十六条的修正案都是违宪、无效和非法的，因此无效和不可执行，因为这是联邦宪法中MA1963的基本主体和灵魂，在序言中指出，1963年马来西亚法案，作为“ FC 的条款”被作为联邦宪法中的商定条款插入。 

(2) 1963年马来西亚法案附件中删除新加坡

如果马来亚、沙巴和砂拉越作为剩余的合法政党首先执行 TSMA，那么 MA1963 的 A 本身也是违宪的。 

在新加坡于 1965 年离开马来西亚以修订 MA1963 作为宪法协议和多边条约之前，马来亚、砂拉越和沙巴这三个剩余缔约方并没有按照商定的条件签署强制性 TSMA。

(3) 根据第 46(b) 条增加 13 个联邦直辖区（“FTS”）是违宪、无效、非法且不可执行的，因为 FTS

(a) 不是第 160 条定义下的国家，也不是最初的第一条和第二条所定义的国家，也不是马来亚的国家。

(b) 没有资格成为州，因此不能根据联邦宪法第 I 条和第 2(a) 条被接纳为马来西亚联邦。

(c) 甚至FC中没有规定，因此违反了“NTTR”或超过65.4%。 《1963年马来西亚法案》第4条、MA63附件A以及原来的《联邦宪法》第一条，并未根据宪法和国际条约法的要求，与TSMA进行适当的修改。

第四 

(i) 在修订第 45、46、1 条（ 2）和（3）和1（4）关于1965年8月9日或之后新加坡退出马来西亚时，马来亚州国会议员席位的增加是违宪且无效的。因此，必须进行追溯性修正案以恢复原来的第1（2）（b）条，并商定46项修正案，其中包括第45条规定的4名无效的FT参议院成员。

(ii) 婆罗洲各州领导人在签署《分离协议》之前故意蒙在鼓里，失去了与马来西亚总理李光耀面对面再次确认的唯一机会在马来西亚成立之前，在正式“退出”执行之前，敦拉萨向婆罗洲州领导人就NTTR作出口头保证，并进行必要的修改，将新加坡的15个议席按比例不可撤销地全部分配给砂拉越和沙巴24 比 16 维持马来亚各州的 65.4% 或 NTTR。

(iii) 随着 NTTR 的违反，随后创建了 13 个无效 FT，作为宪法注释和悬而未决的条款，违反了 1963 年 MA 法第 4 条和第 (9) 条，即最初的第 I 条，

2（a），第46条和第45条增加议会席位，以防不幸跳蛙！

(iv) 同样，在不修改 4 项基本协议/文件的情况下，首先根据第一个 TSMA，对第 1(2)、1(3)、46 和 45 条关于无效“FT”的第 1 条( 4）（附属法案A1095）违反了NTTR或65.4%，将婆罗洲各州的固定席位从77个减少至56个，并分配75%或166个空缺席位增加至122个，宪法规定的席位总数为222个（修订）1983 和 84 号法令。

 (v) 事实上，这些严重的违宪行为和越权的“准许”FT（4 第 45 条）和 MA1963 第 9 条以及所谓的 FC 条款 I (4) 和 46 以及第 2(a) 条也为违反宪法协议和 1963 年马来亚国际条约的精神和文字，将马来亚州席位增加到 166 个席位，包括 FT 的 13 个国会议席，无效。

 (vi) 但恢复 MA63 的必要修正案的交换条件将是婆罗洲各州要求恢复马来亚各州的 NTTR (65.4%) 和 13 个 FT，增加 32 个新席位。婆罗洲领土共有 254 个席位，将 13 个 FT 合法化，它们必须接受这些席位，作为公平权衡，以根据第 1（4）、2（a）、1 条对 13 个 FT 的宪法光泽和不确定性进行必要的纠正和批准(2)、45、46 以及根本违反第 2 (b) 条和 1963 年 MAt 相应章节的但书，除了 7 个 FC 和 7 个 PM 之外。

 

带有修正案的公平解决方案。

 简而言之

（我）。首先修改MAct63第4条和第9条的先决条件，然后修改第46条、第1(2)、1(4)、2(a)条以及新的第2A和46A条，建议纠正和批准13个FT中违宪的席位国会和参议院4个席位，必须立法增加32个新席位，将众议院总数从222个增加到254个，其中32个新席位将分配给砂拉越和沙巴，比例为31（18）对25（14），今后始终维持马来亚州和FT的NTTR或65.4%，因为马来亚州原来只有159个国会议席中的104个，而联邦直辖区以前从未存在过。

 (二).议会必须根据第 46 A 条通过以下 3 项修正案，即：

 a）规定，自修正案之日起，马来亚州或同等地位的州和FT应遵守NTTR或根据修订后的MA 1963第46条和第9条规定的国会议员总席位的65.4％，以纠正和批准非法除了偿还数十年的经济福利外，英国《金融时报》的 13 名国会议员和 4 名参议员的地位也无效。

 b）规定众议院将增加32个新席位，以维持马来亚各州和13个FT的NTTR，从现在的222席增加到现在的254席，以31比25的比例分配砂拉越州（18）和沙巴州（14）分别是，包括未来增加的席位。

 不允许再增加超过13个FTS，并且不允许将4个边界从领土水域的12海里更改为沙巴大陆架的350海里

 c) 规定第1(2)、1(4)和46条的修订必须在MAct63第4和9节以及第2(a)和(c)条以及新的第2A和46A条的修订之后进行根据在第一条、第 1(4) 条、第 45 条和第 46 条下的 13 个 FT 之前执行的 TSAM，可以对宪法进行修改。

 只有对“不得三分之二规则（席位）”进行全面修正，“领地”或“省”才能恢复宪法所赋予的在过去几十年里被联邦风浪削弱的原有权利。

 恢复文件权很重要，但更重要的是，合法和公平地逾期了四十多年，除了已为沙巴批准的逾期拨款增加5倍外，还需审查拨款增加5倍。

 目前石油价格约为每桶 100 美元。由于地缘政治因素和OPEC的影响，近期油价应该在75美元/桶左右。现场生产成本仅为每桶8.00美元至10.00美元左右，利润空间巨大。

 希望布城考虑在20年内以大折扣支付特许权使用费/现金支付的短款，最重要的是恢复“NTTR”作为平等伙伴。

 上述各项条款的整体修正案，特别是 NTTR，将成为有意义地恢复砂拉越在 1963 年 MA 第 VIII 条下的权利的保证途径，最终目标是“经济宪法”，以纠正逾期、平衡、公平和公正的分配砂拉越的石油和天然气为我们州、民族和国王的发展提供资金。