马来西亚协议 / MA63
播客第 5 期：Dato Sri JC Fong
他们的观点和我的理解
James：今天我非常高兴地邀请砂拉越前总检察长拿督斯里 冯裕中前来我的播客做客。他写了几本关于联邦与州关系的书。最新一期由 Law Publisher 出版，内容涉及马来西亚联邦和砂拉越的关系。
非常感谢您出席在我的播客上。
正如我所提到的，我已经尽可能跟无数 的专家就MA63 相关的问题进行了交谈。如您所知，它引起了相当大的争议，尤其是在沙巴和砂拉越。很多很多团体都对沙砂人对马来西亚联邦政府不满归咎联邦政府没有覆行 MA63协议规定的项目而引起的。也许，沙砂人应该根据国际法寻求法律补救措施。
你能谈谈你对这些问题的看法吗？
JCFong：我们在考虑什么样的补救措施？
我们就试图执行已注册为联合国契约的MA63协议条文。 联邦政府不按照协议规定办事，在国际法中有哪些补救措施？
哪个国际法庭能够授予执行这些补救措施？
这些问题正是我们在寻求补救措施时一些人认为马来西亚联邦政府一直违反MA63这国际契约？
另一点是：谁有法定资格去寻求这些补救措施，我们将指定谁作为此类诉讼答辩者？
我认为英国政府不想再参与其中，因为他们已经授予*（1）沙砂独立并在英国议会通过了《马来西亚法》以按照 MA63 中的约定授予主权。他们还将砂拉越殖民统治期间的砂拉越的所有财产权授予新的砂拉越邦，作为联邦内的一个邦。他们把以前拥有的一切还给了我们。这就是我们现在讨论的的课题。
James：正如我之前提到的，根据国际法，您提到对MA63契约的补救措施通常是非常困难。另一个需要注意的是，如果你想去国际法院，它只会受理有主权国家的案件。
去年（2019）很多人都非常兴奋，因为国际法院判决英国必须把查戈斯岛归还给毛里裘斯，而发布的咨询意见，因此他们声称现在有了先例。
JC Fong：*（2）可是砂拉越的情况不同。在你去国际法院之前，当事方必须接受其判决权。否则，我们将陷入*（3）中菲之争。尽管菲律宾获得了有利的判决，但中国政府并不承认。
JCFong：到目前为止，砂拉越和沙巴的情况也是如此。 沙砂人民同意加入马来西亚联邦的过程是在 MA63 签署之前进行的。
无论*（4）事实调查课题的缺陷/缺点是什么，包括马来西亚日之前由联合国提出的课题。
调查结果确实表明，这两个婆罗洲州的*（5）大多数人口都同意成为马来西亚联邦的一部分。
1963 年 6 月，在 3 级制度下进行了地方选举：
市级
省级
议会内阁级
*（7）选举结果也显示，大多数人民/代表都支持马来西亚。
然后英国按照惯例于 1963 年 7 月 22 日授予砂拉越*（6）自治政府，我们的首席部长和我们的内阁在上述日期宣誓就职。
因此砂在很大程度上拥有行政权力的自治政府接着有效的决定在内阁理事会里通过一项动议同意马来西亚的成立并修正了由代表在伦敦签署的MA63契约。
因此，有了所有这些行动像去伦敦签署MA63契约和在砂议会通过一项动议同意参组马来西亚联邦，所以，很*（7）难说我们与查戈斯案处于相同的位置。
我认为，如果我们将所有*（8）这些因素都考虑在内，就很难解除我们祖先已经决定的事情。
也许它是*（9）不完美的，但在这个世界上没有什么是完美的。
现在取决于我们如何让MA63协议发挥作用，并确保 MA63 中达成的任何协议都得到今天的联邦政府的应有的尊重。
James Chin：很明显，沙砂人民对联邦与沙砂邦国之间关系的不满一定是有根据的，沙砂人民觉得他们被联邦政府欺负了。他们觉得他们没有保留 SS 的自治权力和应享的权益(10)。
如果没有国际团体的符合，国内法院是否有任何法律针对MA63契约被忽视的补救措施？
JCFong：在马来西亚法院，有补救MA6契约措施的机会：
在 MA63 中协定的内容以及为沙砂邦国的特殊利益所协定的特殊保障措施应得到该有的尊重。
沙巴的许多拟议案件，如Robert Linggi（沙巴警察）的案件和David Wong（法官）所说的马来西亚人在某种程度上对联邦政府忽视和不遵守 MA63 的协定，可以将此事告上沙巴高等法庭。 可是，联邦政府上诉时，上诉庭裁定 Robert Linggi 没有诉讼法定资格。
因此，人们必须为这一判断感到欣慰。那些拥有诉讼法定资格的人可以针对联邦政府有任何违反 MA63协定 的行为向法院寻求补救(11)。
还有一些其他案件，例如 Datuk Ting Check Sii 和 Dato Tun Tofail Mahmud 对于马来西亚律师在 沙砂 法院审理案件，包括源自沙砂的案件在 Putrajaya 审理的出庭权。
他们拒绝Tan Sri Tommy Thomas出庭审理他们案件的权利，即使是在吉隆坡开庭审理。
在移民问题上有 Sugumar Balakrisnan起诉，但砂拉越强行使用移民的自主权禁止 他 进入砂拉越。
所以，总而言之，当案件符合法律规定以维护沙砂人的特殊利益时，可以向法院寻求弥补，法院不会拒绝你的命令。
随着时间的推移，当然会有不愉快的情况发生，随着新一代政客的到来，新的行政人员，(12)让他们忘记了婆罗洲国家所享有的特殊权利、保障和特权。确实在某种程度上，沙砂邦国的权利受到了侵蚀。
例如，旅游业在 1963 年 9 月 16 日之前已列入邦立法名单。当联邦政府在 1994 年进行修正时，他们将旅游业从残留列表中取出并放入联邦列表(13)而不是共同列表中。因此，他们剥夺了对旅游业有巨大兴趣的沙巴，伤害了即将建立其旅游业的砂拉越。
这么大的挫折，就是有那样的事情。宪法中有规定，一些行政权力将转移到沙砂政府，并由联邦政府必须资助(14)沙砂政府履行行政职责或责任。
如果所资助金不足(15)，沙砂政府可以提交这些问题给马来西亚首席大法官任命的法庭。其实这些结构都已到位。
James：但是沙砂政府从来没有用过。
JCFong：嗯，我们从Tan Sri Adenan时代(16)开始就一直在要求，因为我们觉得教育系统不够好，学校落后，破旧不堪，我们没有钱重建它们。卫生服务还有很多不足之处。
当前的 Covid-19 大流行暴露了其中的许多缺点。所以联邦必须有一定程度的权力下放(17)。
James：当你谈到权力下放时，我假设你是在谈论联邦政府没有履行责任而使沙砂人民不满，这些责任和不满始于首相纳吉任期，他设立了处理 MA63 问题的委员会。然后在希盟政府的领导下，他们也有串联级别的委员会(17)来处理这个问题。
我假设如果你认为这是处理问题的好方法，或者这是将法律问题置于政治问题之上的另一种方式。
你对这个联邦委员会有什么看法？
当您查看已讨论的问题时，超过一半的问题不是 MA63 的一部分，而是像您提到的权力下放的行政问题。
JCF: No. 1 两个行政单位想研究如何处理沙砂人民的不满，以收回一些失去的权利或自治权。两届政府都公开表示希望看到好的决议得以实现。
我一直持着怀疑的态度。由于我已经参与其中多年，所以我看不到太多或坦率的说，联邦政府必须有政治意愿（18）来执行在 MA63 中达成的协议，以消除这些不满，不知何故，谈MA63契约的课题使我们看到马来西亚联邦陷入同样不得安宁或问题。
正如我常说的那样，有很多特别工作组，但他们有任务但没有力量。他们想说什么就说什么，但是在实施方面，当我们提出要解决的SS/沙砂问题时，联邦政府没有任何政治意愿。
根据马来西亚法令，联邦政府在马来西亚日保留的任何砂土地，如果不再用于联邦用途，必须归还给 砂拉越。相反，联邦政府却使用代理机构将砂土地私有化。
James：为什么砂拉越政府不在法庭上对此提出质疑？
（JCF无法为砂拉越政府作答。）
JCFong：我们不排除任何可能性。我们已经将他们告上法庭，例如，Petronas 在 2018 年的销售税问题上。他们试图阻止我们使用砂法律来规范石油和天然气行业。我们拒绝了服从他们的指令，告上法庭，他们失败了。我们将看到接下来会发生什么。
我接受指示，我不能做任何没有指示的事情。
James：我邀请你来这里是为了以你的个人身份发言，而不是代表砂拉越政府。
有许多活动人士声称PDA74是非法的，因为砂拉越的首长没有法定权利在未经砂拉越议会同意的情况下签署该协议。
James：我能听听你的法律观点吗？
JCFong：几十年来，PDA74 的合法性和合宪性一直是一个有争议性的课题。双方都有争议论点。一些人从砂拉越的立场认为，联邦政府利用 PDA建立起的国油公司 试图将他们对矿产和土地的权利运用在砂拉越边界内。PDA只是联邦宪法 A32 规定的探索性法律，但是对于对此类措施该法律要求国油必须给予足够的补偿，在宪法上才生效。
没有人能说 5% 的现金支付是足够的补偿。在 1975 年签署的任何文件中（19），也从未如此表示。
其次，PDA74 影响了在马来西亚日之前或在国际边界内属于国家财产的土地上的自然资源。该措施在砂拉越就是违宪（20）的，因为那只不过是联邦议会获得了这种权力。
反对意见认为是当时的 首长 签署了砂石油权力归属令（21）。石油权力归属令是否对绝对归属国油所有权产生效果，这本身就是一个有争议的问题。
争论点之一是：国油能否在不遵守砂法律的情况下行使这些权利？根据《石油开采条例》/OMO 或马来西亚成立之前的法律，根据《马来西亚法》第 73 条，在马来西亚日之后继续执行的砂法律。
没有采矿名单，任何人都不能在砂拉越及其大陆架开采石油，因此马来西亚国家石油公司在其 PDA 条款中从未拥有不必遵守砂法律的豁免权（21）。
给予国油的唯一豁免是它不必遵守马来西亚联邦的 1966 年石油开采法。该法案可以适用于砂拉越。
这些争论点需要解决。我本人已向两位联邦总检察长TanSri Affandi Ali和Tan Sri Tommy Thomas建议解决这些问题。两种方式之一：一种方式是上庭（21）。由联邦法院根据联邦宪法A1281（B）条文行使其原本管辖权来决定联邦与砂之间的争端，或者如果您想要更友好的诉讼类型，请在A130法令 下寻求联邦法院的咨询意见。
我的这些建议（22）全被否决了，因为他们不愿意将这个问题提交司法解释或裁决来个一劳永逸的解决。当达成司法裁决时之后，政治领导层可以决定该做什么。
James：砂拉越政府为什么不自己寻求对这个问题的司法答案吗？为什么我们需要咨询联邦 总监察长？
JCFong：嗯，第一，我们需要获得联邦法院的许可（23）才能单方面启动它。我们不能拥有它，因为我们是政府
我们可以自己做，但我之前不是告诉你我只按照指示行事。补救措施是可用的。我们要寻求吗？
在个人层面上，我认为是时候结束这个问题了。
对于联邦政府的过失和不遵守MA63规定，我们可以通过从马联邦的高级法院获得最终裁决，无论裁决如何，都没关系。至少，在联邦法院发表意见后，联邦和砂一级的政治领导层是明确的指示，并且有机会了解如何处理这些问题。这将是解决这争端的最佳方式。否则，外界发表的意见和言论很多都令我觉得很可笑。
James：请问这些立场你建议去联邦法院去解决，到底是沙巴的法律界人士所持的相同立场还是这主要是砂拉越的事情？
JCFong:
哦，当我当着沙巴人提出这个，他们既不反对也不支持。通常，沙巴让砂拉越先完成所有工作后才跟着去做，像有关SST 课题。
James：他们知道适用于砂拉越的也将适用于沙巴。
我可以问你最后一个问题吗？
回顾过去 50 年来，砂从未采取所有这些法律补救措施，联邦层面几乎没有任何政治意愿。未来，联邦与砂关系的最佳前进方式是什么。我们知道过去十年以来，由于社交媒体的兴起，社会活跃分子的数量大幅增加，越来越多的沙砂人对这个课题感到愤怒。
JCFong：哦，我没有答案。
我想远离政治争论。我只能指出前进的方向，我的建议是否被采纳是另一回事，取决于他们。
James：我的最后一个问题与去年 4 月发生的极具争议的事情有关，希盟政府领导下的联邦议会希望象征性地修改措辞，将措辞恢复到 1963 年的措辞。对许多人来说，在将那些词语放回法律里显而易见纯粹只是象征性而已。
你认为在慕尤丁的新联邦政府领导下，沙巴和砂拉越人民是否仍然关注这些措辞？还是只有砂拉越这边，还顾虑着要加上追究MA63的字眼？
作为法律界人士，您怎么看？
JCFong：嗯，就我而言，对 A1(2) 的修正案没有任何区别，因为我们的权利、我们的特殊保障和我们的自主权不会通过仅仅象征性地改变第 1(2) 条来解决。
我们砂议会提出了一系列修正联邦宪法的法案。我们已将此转交给沙巴州前法律部长拿督刘伟强。
遗憾的是，虽然他表示会在今年（2020年）4月提出，但因政府更迭，未能落实。
基本上，我们想要比第 1(2) 条或追究 MA63 或其他更多的变化。我们希望将其中的内容纳入MA63协议其中，以便将旅游业与环境一起列入共同列表。我们希望一些执行，譬如将土地归还砂、某些土族习俗土地课题等等的规定。
砂议会对法案内容的答复有记录在案。
我不确定现任政府是否愿意处理它。不管是什么，现在可能很难，因为现政府没有明确的多数票（23）来通过宪法修正案。
与沙砂课题相比，现政府更关心下一次联邦选举。
James：这项修正案或修正案是在希盟设立的委员会内阁层面提出的，是否只处理行政或权力下放问题？
JCFong：不是，我们当时以正式官方提呈给指导委员会，就在内阁委员会之下。这是一个联合委员会，由当时的总检察长和拿督刘伟强担任主席。随后，我们得到消息说，他们要把我们提出的法案，部分或全部法案纳入4月份的修宪法案。但它们没有具体化。
James：一切都没有按计划进行
沙巴、砂拉越和联邦政府本应在1963年签署协议后的10年举行会议。为什么砂拉越政府从未被要求会面？
JCFong：宪法唯一要求做的是每 5 年审查给予这两个州的特别拨款和收入来源，但却在 1970 年代停止了（24）。
在我1997年任职期间，当时Datuk Anwar担任财政部长，我们提出了这个课题。他说他要的会议是秘书长来处理这件事，最后，就不了了之。在Tan Sri Adenan任职期间，当前谈判开始时，要审查这是他提出首要课题之一。他们说这是他们要检讨的法案，例如土地交易的印花税等等。
他们起草了进行这种审查的程序规则，沙巴也同意了。但当时财政部长林冠英先生领导下的联邦财政部并不同意。在完全没有召集会议情况下，财政部在上一次的预算案中，突然说要补足某数额的特别拨款，所以没有没有按照正规做适当的审查。
The Malaysian Agreement 1963/ MA63
Podcast No. 5: Dato Sri JC Fong
Their points of view and my understanding
James:
So today I am really pleased to welcome this podcast with Dato Sri JC Fong , the former Attorney-General of Sarawak. He has written a few books dealing with the Federal-State relations. The most recent one is published by Law Publisher concerning Federal-State in Sarawak.
Thank you very much for your presence on my podcast.
As I mentioned to you, I have talked to as many experts as possible about the issues relating to the MA63. As you know it has caused a fair bit of controversy especially in Sabah and Sarawak. And many and many groups blamed that because of unhappiness over MA63. Perhaps, they should seek legal remedies under international laws.
Can I have your opinions on these issues?
JCFong:
What sort of remedies are we thinking about?
What remedies are available in international laws in terms of trying to enforce a treaty like MA63, which, no doubt, is registered as a treaty of the United Nations?
Which international tribunal is able to grant any remedies that can be enforced?
These are the problems we have in terms of seeking remedies what some people say to be a breach of MA63 as an international treaty?
Another point is:
Who has the Locus Standi to go to seek these remedies and whom are we going to name as respondents of such proceedings?
I don’t think the UK government wants to be the party to it anymore as far as they are concerned they had granted the independence and passed the Malaysia Act in the UK parliament to vest sovereignity as agreed in MA63. They also vested all the rights to property existed in Sarawak during the colonial administration in Sarawak to the new State of Sarawak as a State within the Federation. They had given us back everything they previously had.
That is the issue that we have now.
James:
As I mentioned earlier, under international law, remedies as you mentioned are usually quite difficult. Another to note is that if you want to go to ICJ, it will only take cases of sovereign nations.
A lot of people got very excited last year (2019), because they claimed that there is a precedent now. That was an advisory opinion issued from ICJ in relation to the Chagos Case.
JC Fong:
The circumstances are different in Sarawak. Before you can go to the ICJ, the party must submit to its jurisdiction. Otherwise, we will end up in the dispute like the one between China and the Philippines. Though the Philippines got the judgement to its favour, the Chinese government does not recognise it.
JCFong:
Now in so far the situation in Sarawak and for the matter Sabah as well. The process of getting the people of SS/SabahSarawak to agree to join the Federation of Malaysia was undertaken before MA63 was signed.
Whatever maybe the defects / shortcomings of fact-finding issues including the ones by the United Nations just before the Malaysia Day.
The findings do show the majority of the population of the two Borneo States agreed to be part of the Federation of Malaysia.
In June, 1963m there was a local election conducted under 3-tier system:
Municipal Level
Divisional Level
Council Negri Level
The outcome of the election showed also that the majority of the people/representatives were in favour of Malaysia.
Then British in accordance to the normal practice granted us self-government on 22nd July, 1963 with our own chief Minister and our Cabinet sworn in on the said date.
So effectively, what happened was the self-government which had the executive authority to a large extent to over the state took the decision to pass a motion in the Council Negri which effectively agreed to the formation of Malaysia and recified the MA63 which was signed by its representatives in London.
So with all these, it is difficult to argue that we are in the same position as the Chagos Case.
I think if we take all these factors into consideration, it is difficult to unwind what has been decided already by our forefathers.
Maybe it is imperfect but in this world nothing is perfect.
It is up to us now how to make it work and to make sure for whatever has been agreed in MA63 is duely honoured by the Federal Government of today.
James Chin:
Obviously this unhappiness in SS people over federal-State relationship, there must be some basis to it , SS people feel that they are being bullied by the Federal Government. They feel that they have not kept the issue of autonomies for SS.
If international group is not available, are there any legal remedies available in the domestic court?
JCF:
In the Malaysian Court, there are opportunities:
What was agreed in MA63 and what was agreed to be the Special safeguards for the special interests of SS to be duely honoured.
Many of the proposed cases of Sabah like the case of Robert Linggi (Sabah police)and what David Wong (judge) said Malaysians who are in some way agreed by the way MA63 is implemented may take the matter to court. Of course, on an appeal, the court decided that Robert Linggi had no Locus Standi.
So one must take comfort for that judgement. For somebody who has the Locus Standi can go to the court to seek remedy for any breach of MA63.
There are some other cases as well like the case Datuk Ting Check Sii & Dato Tun Tofail Mahmud over the rights of audience by way of Malaysian lawyers before the court of SS including the case originating from SS to be heard in Putrajaya.
And they denied Tan Sri Tommy Thomas the right to appear in that case even though it was to be heard in Kuala Lumpur.
There is Sugumar Balakrisnan over the immigration matter where the autonomy of SS over immigration was held forcefully to bar the entry of Sugumar Balakrisnan to Sarawak.
So I think overall, when the case is properly made up to the court to safeguard the special interest of SS, the court would not fail your order.
There are cases of unhappiness, of course, occur as time goes by, with the new breed of politicians coming, new administrators, make them forget about the special rights, safeguards and privileges accord to the Borneo States. It is true to some extent, there is an erosion of the rights of SS.
For instance, tourism, was on state legislative list before 16/9/1963. When they made an amendment in 1994, they took it from the Residue List to be put in Federal List instead of Concurrence List. So they deprived Sabah which has vast interests in tourism whereas Sarawak was about to establish its tourism industry.
Such a big setback, there are things like that. There are provisions in the constitution for some executive authority to be transfered to the States of SS and for federal to fund the performance of the executive duties or responsibilities on behalf of the federal government.
If money given is not enough to do so, it would be brought before a tribunal appointed by Chief Justice of Malaysia. All these structures are in place.
James:
But there have never been used.
JCFong:
Well, we have been asking for it since the time of Tan Sri Adenan because we felt that the education system was not good enough and the schools were lagged in dilapidated states and we had no money to rehabitate them. The health service left much to be desired.
The current Covid-19 pandemic exposes many of these shortcomings. So there has to be some degree of decentralisation.
James:
When you talk about decentralisation, I am assuming you are talking about the federal government’s responsibilities and unhappiness which started from Najib’s premiership who set up the committee dealing with the issues of MA63. Then under the PH government, they also had the tandem level of committee to deal with the issue.
I am assuming that if you think that it is a good way handling the issue or it is another way to cabal the legal issue over the political issue.
What is your thinking on this federal committee?
When you look at the sort of issues that have been discussed, more than half of the issues are not part of MA63 but rather administrative issues of decentralisation like what you have mentioned.
JCF:
No. 1 The two administrations want to look into how to deal with he grievances of SS to reclaim some of the lost rights or autonomies. Both administration, publicly said that would want to see good resolutions to achieve
I have always been a sceptic. I don’t see much or be quite frank as I have been involved in it for many years. There must be a political will to implement what has been agreed in MA63 to dissolve these grievances, somehow rather it falls into the same sort of malaise or the problems we see in Malaysia.
As I always say that there are a lot of taskforce but they have tasks but no force. They can say whatever they want. But when it comes to implementation, there is no political will on the part of the federal government when we brought up the issues of SS to resolve.
Under the Malaysia Act, any land reserved on Malaysia Day taken by the Federal government, if no longer used for the federal purpose must be returned to SS. On the contrary, the federal government uses an agency to privatise the land.
James:
Why doesn’t Sarawak government challenge this in court?
(JCF was not able to answer it for the Sarawak Government. )
JCF:
We are not ruling out anything. We have taken them to court, for example, Petronas on the sales tax issue in 2018. They had tried to prevent us from using our State law to regulate the oil and gas industry. We had resisted that and they failed. We would see what develops next.
I take instructions and I cannot do anything which I am not instructed to.
James:
I am inviting you here to talk on your personal capacity, not on behalf of the Sarawak government.
There are many activists claiming PDA74 to be illegal as CM of Sarawak had no legal right to sign the agreement without the consent of Sarawak Dun.
James:
Can I have your legal view?
JCFong:
The legality and constitutionality of PDA74 has been a contentious issue for many decades. There are arguments on both sides. Some take the view from the State that PDA74 which seeks to base their rights over mineral and land within the boundary of Sarawak in Petronas is in the way for exploratory law which is under A32 of the Federal Constitution which requires an adequate compensation for such measure to be constitutionally valid.
Nobody can say that the 5% cash payment is adequate compensation. It is never represented as such in any of the documents that was signed in 1975.
Secondly, the PDA74 affected natural resources on land which is the property of the State before Malaysia Day or within the boundary of the State. That measure is unconstitutional because the Federal parliament simply got this power
The counter-argument is that there is a vesting order signed by then the CM. Whether that the vesting order has the effect on absolute vesting on all the rights of petroleum in Petronas is itself a contentious issue.
Among the points of contention: Can Petronas just exercise those rights without complying to the State laws? The State law under the Oil Mining Ordinance/ OMO or pre-Malaysia law which continues to be re-enforced after Malaysia Day because of Section 73 of Malaysia Act.
Nobody can mine oil in Sarawak and its continental shelf without the mining list, so Petronas has never had in its PDA provision exemption not to comply to the State Laws.
The only exemption given to Petronas is that it does not have to comply to petroleum mining act 1966 of the federation of Malaysia. That act can apply to Sarawak.
These points of contention need to be resolved.
I myself have proposed to two federal AG Tan Sri Affandi Ali and Tan Sri Tommy Thomas to clear out these issues. One of the two ways: one way is to go to the court. It is for the federal court to exercise its original jurisdiction to decide this dispute between the Federation and State under the A1281 (B) of the Federal Constitution or if you want a more friendly type of litigation, go and seek the advisory opinion of the Federal Court under A130.
These suggestions of mine were brushed off because they were not willing to submit this issue for a judicial interpretation or ruling that would have settled the matter once and for all.
When the judicial decision is reached, then the political leadership can decide what to do in the course of time.
James:
What don’t the Sarawak government seek the judicial answer to this question on its own?
Why do we need to consult the federal AG?
JCFong:
Well, No. 1 we need to get leave of the Federal Court in order to launch it unilaterally.
We can’t have it because we are the government
We can do that on our own but I am not the one to make decision as I have told you before I only act on instructions.
Remedy is available. Do we want to pursue?
On the personal level, I would think it is time to put this issue to rest.
By getting a definitive ruling from the higher court of the country, whichever way the decision goes doesn’t matter. At least, there is clarity and there is opportunity for the political leadership at Federal and State levels to see how the matters to be dealt with after the Federal Court has given its opinions. That would be the best way to resolve this dispute. Otherwise, there are a lot of opinions and statements expressed outside. Some of them I found are hilarious.
James:
Can I ask whether these positions you suggest to go to the Federal Court to get a definite answer, is it the same position taken by legal people in Sabah or is this primarily a Sarawak thing?
JCFong:
Well, when I proposed this when Sabah people were around, they neither objected nor supported it. Usually, Sabah let Sarawak do all the work first in the case of SSD issue.
James:
They underline the assumption that what applies to Sarawak will apply to Sabah as well.
Can I ask you one final question?
Given all these legal remedies that have not been taken for the last 50 years, there is hardly any political will at Federal level. What is the best way forwards in terms of Federal-State relationship since we know the last ten years, the number of activists have grown substantially because of the rise of social media, more and more are angry over this issue.
Well, I don’t have the answer to that.
I want to stay out of political controversy. I can only point out the way forwards whether my advice is taken up or not is different matter and up to them.
My final question related to highly controversial thing that happened last year in April, the Federal parliament under PH administration wanted to amend symbolically putting the wordings back to 1963 wordings. It is obvious to many laws by putting the words back that are purely symbolic.
Do you think under the new Federal government of Muhyddin, Sabah and Sarawak people are still concerned about the wordings? Or on Sarawak side, they are still concerned to add the words in pursuit of MA63?
Speaking as a legal person, what is your opinion?
JCFong:
Well, on myself on amendments to A1(2) makes no difference because our rights, our special safeguards and our autonomies will not be addressed by just symbolically changing the Article 1(2).
Our State Assembly has put up a proposed bill for the amendment of the Federal Constitution. We have passed this over to the former minister of Law Datuk VK Liu of Sabah.
Unfortunately, although he said that matters would be brought up in April this year (2020), it would not be materialised because of the change of government.
Basically, we want more changes than the Article 1(2) or pursuing MA63 or whatever it is. We want to incorporate there among other things to put Tourism in the Concurrence List together with the environment. We want some reinforcement into the provision of the return of the land to the State, certain native land issue and so on and so forth.
It is on record in State Assembly’s answers on what the content of the bill ought to be.
I am not sure if the present government will want to entertain it.
Whatever it is, it might be difficult now as the present government does not have a clear cut of the majority to pass a constitutional amendment bill.
The present government is more concerned about the next election than the issue dealing with SS.
Was this amendment or slab of amendment brought up in the Cabinet level of committee set up by PH only dealt with the administrative or decentralisation issues
JCFong:
No, we put it officially, at that time, the steering committee, a level below the Cabinet Committee. It was a joint committee chaired by then Attorney-General and Datuk VK Liu. Subsequently, we got the information that they wanted to table the bill to incorporate some or all the bills we had proposed into the constitutional amendment bill in April. But they were not materialised.
James:
Everything was not done according to plan
Sabah, Sarawak and Federal government were supposed to meet 10 years after the signing of the agreement in 1963.VWhy was the Sarawak government never asked for the meeting?
JCFong:
The only thing the constitution requires to do is 5 yearly review of the special grants and revenue sources given to the two States but it stopped in 1970s.
During my tenure in 1997, we brought the matter up when Datuk Sri Anwar Ibrahim was the Finance Minister. He said that the meeting he wanted was the Secretary-General to deal with the matter and we heard nothing.
On the onset of the current negotiation during Tan Sri Adenan Satem’s time, it was one of the top issue he brought up for review. They said it was a bill they wanted to review it like the stamp duty on land transaction and so on.
They had drafted the procedural rules for such a review to take place and Sabah also agreed to it . But then the Federal Finance Ministry, under Mr Ling Guan Eng did not agree. The Finance Minister in its last budget suddenly said it topped up the sum of certain amount of special grants without calling for a meeting, so there was no proper review.
