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。