Adakah Sarawak menpunyai hak Untuk Merdeka?

Adakah Sarawak mempunyai hak untuk merdeka? Ya atau tidak

Seperti yang kita sedia maklum bahawa Perjanjian Malaysia/MA63 adalah perjanjian antarabangsa yang ditandatangani oleh Sarawak, Sabah, Singapura (SSS) dan Malaya semasa Malaya adalah sebuah negara merdeka sedangkan SSS belum lagi merdeka untuk mempunyai locus standi untuk menandatangani perjanjian tersebut. (1)

Pada tahun 1965, apabila Singapura menarik diri, ia juga menjadikan MA63 tidak sah. （2）

MA63 hanya didaftarkan dengan UN sehingga 1970 dan dengan itu mereka melanggar Perlembagaan UN. (3)

Selama lebih 60 tahun dalam Malaysia (Malaya berselindung), Sarawak sentiasa dirompak, dieksploitasi, ditindas, dirompak, dibuli dan dijajah.

Kerajaan Federal sama sekali tidak bertindak mengikut perjanjian MA63. Justeru secara realitinya, kita hanya melihat kemajuan dan kemakmuran Malaya dengan mengorbankan kemiskinan Sarawak dan Sabah, yang sudah cukup untuk membatalkan perjanjian itu. (4)

Pengubahsuaian MA63 lebih 600 kali oleh kerajaan yang dikuasai Malaya merupakan satu lagi faktor yang menyebabkan perjanjian ini tidak sah. (5)

MA63 ialah rancangan berpusatkan Malaya oleh kerajaan British dan secara asasnya melanggar undang-undang antarabangsa hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri 1514 dan hak untuk penentuan kolektif dalam Resolusi 1541 [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi] yang diterima pakai oleh UN pada 14/12/1960.

Tanpa memberikan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak referendum, kedua-dua jajahan itu telah ditambah secara paksa ke Tanah Melayu untuk meluaskan wilayahnya bertentangan dengan Piagam Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu/UN [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi]. (6)

Dalam terma MA63, tiada sekatan ke atas Sabah dan Sarawak menarik diri daripada Persekutuan Malaysia. Oleh itu, rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak mempunyai keputusan 1514 dan 1541 atau 1441 untuk menarik diri. (7)

Abang Open is proving to be his own man-Kudos

BY ANONYMOUS  

Abang Openg is proving to be his own man - Kudos!

I like the fact that Sarawak is now being seen as an autonomous nation whereby Singapore wants to set up a Consulate office in Kuching - this is what the MA 63 agreement envisaged.

Why Sarawak, which is 120 x the size of Singapore and which had endless resources, a tiny population of less than 1 million in 1960 - (70% indigenous Iban and other tribes and 30% Chinese ) - which was majority Christian and separated 1000 km by the South China Sea could allow itself to operate like a vassal state of Malaya with its Muslim Malay monarchial system is something which defies logic.

The formation of Malaysia in 1963 in retrospect, proved to be so disadvantageous for Sarawak which has seen the grand scale exploitation and virtual colonisation of the soul of Sarawak by a foreign Malay nation.

All of this was due to the machinations of the British who did not want Sarawak to be an independent country. They played psychological warfare on the ruling elites of Sarawak saying it needed “protection’ from the threats of Indonesian invasion and the best way was to be part of Malaya.

2 years after the formation of Malaysia, Singapore pulled out in 1965 because Lee Kwan Yew was disgusted with the “Ketuanan Melayu dan Islam” ideology which was gaining a foothold which he saw as discriminatory and a betrayal of the promises made during Merdeka. At the time the Chinese population of Malaysia was larger than the Malay. It suited UMNOs quest for hegemony to see Singapore out of the picture. Singapore was unceremoniously ‘kicked’ out of the Federation by Tunku.

UMNO felt Singapore without any resources would be a destitute Island nation dependent on Malaysia but this suited the desires of LKY who had a vision for a Singapore as a secular, democratic republic. This rest is history, suffice to say that Singapore is the one of the richest country in the world with standards of education, health, transport and public infrastructure amongst the best the world not to mention the Singapore dollar is more than 3 x the value of the ringgit.

Sarawak can easily become a “Singapore" if it adopts a non-racial, secular and meritocratic and republican mode of governance. Unfortunately, the UMNO leadership colonised Sarawak for so long but since the recent implosion of UMNO, we are seeing the seeds of Sarawakian autonomy taking shape.

The British colonial engineered experiment with Sarawak joining Malaysia 60 years ago, has seen the grand scale exploitation of forests, oil, gas and land for the benefit of Malaya and British commercial interests in a vastly disproportionate manner. The indigenous tribes of Sarawak have their own languages and comprised 70% of the population in the 1960s, with the Chinese comprising 30%. Christianity was and still is the majority religion.

The standards of education were deliberately dumbed down with standards of English being allowed to erode to be eventually replaced by ‘foreign’ Malay. In the eyes of the UMNO hegemon, Sarawak was ’theirs’ to exploit to the hilt. This is the typical 'coloniser settler’ mindset - the indigenous population, their lands and history had to be air brushed out of the picture.

Let it be known and put into perspective, that the Ibans have pushed out of their lands many times the land mass of Palestine. The Ibans and Penans were bulldozed out of their ancestral lands by “settlers” who grew oil palm, logged their forests, mined their lands and polluted their rivers, flooded their lands to build dams which do not serve their purpose. They do not live in lands which have Western historical significance, they are not inspired by religious injunctions, they do not have weapon or are inclined to use them which is why thy are not on the ‘radar’ of world conscience.

Abang Openg is gradually asserting Sarawak's autonomous status and is looking to rekindle the spirit of the MA 63 agreement. I am hoping the interest in forging closer relations with Singapore will be beneficial to the development of Sarawak and rightfully see a vast improvement in the well being of the indigenous people there who have been exploited with the collusion of local corrupt elites for far too long.

Maybe one day Sarawak will see the benefit of being an independent country just like Singapore.

ANONYMOUS

Fresh referendum

https://focusmalaysia.my/conduct-fresh-referendum-to-determine-if-sabahans-sarawakians-wish-to-remain-part-of-malaysia/ 06 July 2024

A JOINT Sabah/Sarawak NGO grouping has warned that the Philippines could approach the United Nations’ (UN) Decolonisation Committee to resurrect the Manila Accord 1963 by asserting that the then Malayan and British governments had breached the pre-Malaysia formation accord agreed to by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines on July 31, 1963.

Sabah/Sarawak NGOs

Peter John Jaban

Publicity and information Chief 

Sarawak Association for peoples Aspirations ( SAPA )

Robert Pei President Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)

Daniel John Jambun

President, Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Jovilis Majami President Persatuan pembangunan sosial komunity Sabah (BANGUN)

Timothy Jagak

 Gabongan Orang Asal Sarawak/Sabah (GOASS)

Moses Anap President Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)

Emily Elvera Edward President of Sabah Sarawak Borneo Native Organisation Inc 

Cleftus Stephen Mojingol President Pertubuhan kebajikan Rumpun Dayak Sabah 

Voon Lee Shan President party Bumi Kenyalang Sarawak (PBK)

Apun Achong 

Deputy President 

Persatuan Etnik Dayak Asal Sarawak ( PEDAS )

Kanul Gindol Chairman Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo

MA63实施的问题和答案

关于 MA63 实施的问题和答案

(Robert Pei 03-07-2024)

澳大利亚新西兰沙巴砂拉越权利协会 (SSRANZ) 主席 Robert Pei 回答了关于 MA63 实施的问题。

1. ）您现在如何看待联邦政府在为砂拉越实施 MA63 的全部内容方面取得的进展？

联邦政府在全面实施 1963 年马来西亚协议 (MA63) 方面面临重大挑战，因为许多违宪的修改已经将商定的马来西亚概念从一个世俗的多元文化国家转变为一个由种族和宗教主导的国家。这些变化已经侵蚀了 MA63 的原始条款和条件，即使废除违宪的法律，也无法完全恢复砂拉越（和沙巴）的“失去的权利”。

联邦政府既没有能力，也不愿意补偿砂拉越和沙巴在过去 60 年遭受的巨大经济和发展损失。自 2015 年就恢复 MA63 权利开始谈判以来，谈判一直拖延很久，沙巴 40% 收入权利等问题仍未解决。

此外，对 MA63 有效性的彻底法律审查至关重要，因为它的合法性将影响马来西亚的基础。大量违反基础条款的行为表明该协议可能会被有效终止，这让人质疑联邦的约束性。

2 . ）您认为砂拉越自治（资金等）的一些最关键方面是什么，您希望尽快引入这些方面？

在 MA63 有效的情况下，应优先考虑完全自治或婆罗洲化，正如 1963 年最初达成的协议。这包括砂拉越政府机构去马来亚化，恢复对内政、教育、财政和资源的全面控制，并废除所有侵犯砂拉越 MA63 权利的联邦法律。实现真正的自治需要消除马来亚强加的殖民式控制，并确保砂拉越真正有权独立管理自己的事务。

3. ）您对砂拉越政府在这方面与联邦政府的打交道感到满意吗？

不，尽管砂拉越政府声称是“平等的伙伴”，但仍然屈从于马来亚联邦政府。政府尚未采取重大措施重新夺回对砂拉越石油和天然气资源、行政和教育的控制权。砂拉越政府在 2018 年马来西亚国家石油公司 PDA74 案的处理中接受了“商业和解”，而不是伸张其优越的法律主张，这说明了他们采取了屈从。虽然砂拉越政府正在开展各种发展项目，但它尚未解决 MA63 的基本条款，例如婆罗洲化和废除许多影响砂拉越权利的违宪法律。

4. ）您是否认为自安瓦尔总理上任以来，这种自治推动力有所增强？为什么/为什么不？

自治推动力似乎有所增强，部分原因是民众对贫困、教育和发展问题的潜在不满，以及对为马来亚利益而开发资源的不满。砂拉越政府的自信也是对民族主义运动和社会不满情绪复苏的回应。经过数十年的一党统治后，国阵垮台，让砂拉越权力精英得以更加大胆地维护自己的权利，从 PBB 更名为 GPS，并声称要为砂拉越人的权利而战。然而，仍然存在严重违反 MA63 的行为，这对联邦政府和砂拉越政府在恢复砂拉越权利方面的可信度提出了挑战。这与一系列违宪立法有关，这些立法从 1965 年到 2021 年取消了 SS MA63 权利，尤其是 1965 年新加坡分离法案、CSA1966、ACT 354、PDA74 和 TSA2012。

要完全恢复这些权利，必须废除所有这些法律。联邦政府和砂拉越政府都不愿意这样做，因为这将给马来亚的马来人至上 (KM) 霸权带来巨大危机，并可能结束马丹尼政府的执政，以及挑战砂拉越 GPS 不平衡的马来人至上统治。

5. ）为什么您认为联邦政府在全面实施 MA63 方面仍然缺乏某些方面？

联邦政府不愿全面实施 MA63 和砂拉越去殖民化，是因为他们希望保持对砂拉越和沙巴的控制以及这种控制带来的好处。废除违宪法律并全面恢复 MA63 权利将威胁马来西亚的政治合法性，而马来西亚的政治合法性是基于种族和宗教至上的意识形态。联邦政府不愿意做出必要的改变来破坏这种霸权。

6. ）一个充分自治的砂拉越在你眼中是什么样子的？你设想它会是什么样子？

一个充分自治的砂拉越将拥有自治权，不受马来亚对其内部事务、资源和财政的控制，并废除影响 MA63 权利的法律。自治是联邦的基本条件，旨在用地方治理取代后殖民时期的行政管理。然而，婆罗洲化已被马来亚化取代，实际上将砂拉越变成了马来亚控制下的殖民地。实现自治意味着扭转这些趋势，废除违宪的法律，并允许砂拉越独立治理，类似于 MA63 的初衷。

7. ）有些人还呼吁给予砂拉越走向独立。你对此有何看法？

鉴于未能实现“马来西亚独立”的好处，退出和独立似乎是砂拉越实现真正自决的唯一途径。国际法并不禁止分裂，如果愿意，砂拉越有脱离联邦的固有权利。

1963 年，砂拉越-沙巴要求在 MA63 讨论中加入退出条款，但 IGC 主席兰斯顿勋爵 (Lord Lansdowne) 驳回了这一要求，他表示“任何自愿加入联邦的州都有固有权利随意脱离联邦，因此没有必要将其纳入宪法”。联邦主义者总是声称马来西亚是一个自由联合体，但与此同时，他们又认为沙巴 20 点中的第 7 点禁止“分裂”。沙巴的 20 点备忘录不是具有法律约束力的协议，甚至没有得到坚持第 7 点的马来亚的签署。这被排除在 1957 年修订的联邦宪法之外，该宪法被采纳为马来西亚宪法。

如果联合国国际法庭证明 MA63 无效，马来西亚将被证明是在没有法律依据的情况下“成立”的。然后必须寻求联合国的援助以和平获得独立。马来亚必须立即将主权和领土归还给砂拉越和沙巴。

以寻求独立的承诺而当选的政党将有权采取适当行动，包括宣布单方面独立宣言 (UDI) 或进行全民公投。GPS 党团不应阻碍追求独立，因为真正的自决是砂拉越人民的最终目标。

评论结束

Robert Pei

SSRANZ 总裁，2024 年 7 月 3 日。

SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy

By DayakDaily Team

KUCHING, July 4: Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) president Robert Pei has emphasised that prioritising Borneanisation is essential to reclaim Sarawak’s rights and achieving true autonomy.

 Robert Pei  7/8/24, 3:25 PM SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy | DayakDaily https://dayakdaily.com/ssranz-president-advocates-borneanisation-to-reclaim-sarawaks-rights-achieve-true-autonomy/ 2/4

He asserted that achieving true autonomy involves undoing the colonial-like control imposed by Malaya, ensuring that Sarawak can govern its own affairs independently.

 “Subject to Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) being valid, full autonomy or Borneanisation should be prioritised as was originally agreed in 1963.

“This includes de-Malayanisation of Sarawak’s government machinery, restoring full control over internal affairs, education, finances, and resources, and repealing all federal laws that infringe upon Sarawak’s MA63 rights,” he said in a press statement today. 

Despite the Sarawak government’s efforts to address various development projects, Pei highlighted that it has yet to address fundamental MA63 terms such as Borneanisation and the repeal of unconstitutional laws affecting Sarawak’s rights.

 “The push for autonomy appears to have grown stronger, partly due to underlying popular discontent over poverty, education, and development issues, and resentment over the exploitation of resources for Malaya’s benefit.

 “The Sarawak government’s assertiveness is also a response to the revival of nationalist movements and social discontent,” he said. 

Pei pointed out that there are still significant breaches of MA63 that challenge the credibility of both the federal and Sarawak governments in restoring Sarawak’s rights, in referring to a series of unconstitutional legislation that removed Sarawak-Sabah MA63 rights from 1965 to 2021, particularly the 1965 Singapore Separation Act, CSA1966, ACT 354, PDA74, and TSA2012. 

“To fully restore those rights, all these laws must be repealed. Neither the federal government nor the Sarawak government are willing to do this, as it will create a huge crisis in Ketuanan Melayu (KM) hegemony of Malaya and possibly end the Madani government’s stay in power, and as well as challenging Gabungan Parti Sarawak’s (GPS) lopsided KM rule of Sarawak,” he said.

Envisioning a sufficiently autonomous Sarawak, Pei described a self-ruled state free from Malayan control of its internal affairs, resources, and finances, as well as the repeal of laws affecting MA63 rights.

“Autonomy was a foundational condition for the federation, meant to replace post-colonial administration with local governance.  7/8/24, 3:25 PM SSRANZ president advocates Borneanisation to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, achieve true autonomy | DayakDaily

https://dayakdaily.com/ssranz-president-advocates-borneanisation-to-reclaim-sarawaks-rights-achieve-true-autonomy/ 3/4 “However, Borneanisation has been replaced by Malayanisation, effectively turning Sarawak into a colony under Malayan control.

“Achieving autonomy would mean reversing these trends, repealing unconstitutional laws, and allowing Sarawak to govern itself independently, similar to the original intent of MA63,” Pei remarked. He further asserted that exit and independence might be the only routes for true self-determination for Sarawak, emphasising that international law does not prohibit secession and that Sarawak has the intrinsic right to leave the federation if desired.

Analysis of the Validity of MA63

Analysis of the Validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 Based on Historical Context and International Law

1. At the time our leadership signed the Malaysia Agreement, did we already have a democratic government formed through elections, or were we still under the British Colonial Government of North Borneo/British Colonial Government of Sarawak?

- **North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak** were still under British colonial rule when the Malaysia Agreement was signed in 1963. The first elections in these territories were held after the signing of the agreement.

2. Did we choose our leadership through general elections across North Borneo (Sabah)/Sarawak?

- **No.** The first state elections in Sabah were held in 1967, and similar processes occurred in Sarawak around the same time. Therefore, the leadership that signed the agreement was not chosen through a general election.

3. If yes, how many parliamentary or state assembly seats did we have at that time?

- **Not Applicable.** Since the leadership was not elected through general elections, there were no parliamentary or state assembly seats directly representing the people's will at the time of signing the agreement.

4. Who was our Prime Minister or Chief Minister at that time before the signing of Malaysia Agreement on 9th July 1963?

- **North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak** did not have a Prime Minister or Chief Minister prior to the Malaysia Agreement, as they were under British colonial administration.

5. Who were the members of our cabinet at that time?

- There was **no local cabinet** in North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak before the Malaysia Agreement. The British colonial administration held authority.

6. Did our state assembly or parliament already have the three fundamental democratic powers: Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive?

- **No.** The territories were under British colonial rule, and the British administration held the legislative, judicial, and executive powers.

7. Who was the Head of State at that time?

- The **Governor of North Borneo and the Governor of Sarawak** were the heads of state, representing the British Crown.

8. Were the leaders who signed the Malaysia Agreement in 1963 our legitimate representatives, elected democratically, or were they hand-picked by the British?

- The leaders who signed the Malaysia Agreement were largely **appointed or hand-picked by the British** administration, rather than being democratically elected representatives.

9. Before signing the agreement, did we already have a parliament or state assembly to debate its contents, like Malaya did a year before signing it?

- **No.** There was no established parliament or state assembly in North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak to debate the contents of the Malaysia Agreement prior to its signing.

10. Did our leadership approve the Malaysia Agreement 1963 document in Parliament or the State Assembly?

- **No.** There was no parliament or state assembly in place in North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak to formally approve the Malaysia Agreement.

11. How many supported it, and how many opposed it?

- Since there was no parliament or state assembly to debate the agreement, there are **no official records** of support or opposition among representatives.

12. Was our leadership directly involved in the process of preparing the document?

- The leadership from North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak had **limited involvement** in the actual drafting and preparation of the Malaysia Agreement document. The process was largely driven by the British and Malayan governments.

Conclusion

Based on the historical context and international legal principles, the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 is questionable. The lack of a democratic process, insufficient representation, and absence of local legislative approval undermine the legitimacy of the agreement. These factors provide a strong basis for arguing that the agreement did not fully comply with the standards of genuine consent and self-determination required under international law, thus potentially invalidating the agreement from a legal perspective.

部长们的薪水

尊敬的马来西亚公民

请您阅读此信息并将其转发给您的联系人列表中的至少二十个人。依次要求他们每个人也这样做。拜托。

三天后，马来西亚的大多数人都会收到此信息。

马来西亚的每个公民都应该发声：改革“2018 年法案”。

01

a) 应为议员引入年龄限制（从 35 岁到 60 岁）。

b) 议员不应获得养老金，因为这不是就业，而是人民代表法下的选举，它没有退休限制，禁止重新就业，但他们可以再次当选同一职位，等等。（目前，他们在服务 5 年后获得养老金）。

02.

议员的薪酬应根据中央薪酬委员会进行修订。

（目前，他们通过投票任意增加/提高工资）。

03.

议员应放弃其现有的医疗保健制度，与马来西亚普通民众一样参与相同的医疗保健制度。（这是我们改善当前糟糕的公共卫生系统的唯一方法。）

4.

应取消所有优惠，如免费年度旅行、电费、水费、食品杂货费、电话费。

（他们不仅获得这些优惠，而且还定期增加优惠 - 大胆而无耻。）

05.

过去或现在有污点记录、刑事指控和定罪的议员应立即被禁止进入议会并以任何借口或其他理由参选。

6.

因政客执政而造成的经济损失必须从政客、其直系亲属、受益人、提名人和财产中追回。

07

议员应同样遵守他们向普通民众制定的所有法律。附加条款只提供给总理和 4 位重要的部长（例如财政部、国防部等）。没有获得附加条款的部长将理解并改善我们当地的公共道路（如果没有附加条款，他们将被迫提前离开，以便准时出席公开场合和工作）。目前，由于发展、收费出口和车道规划不当，公众不得不忍受道路工程、捷运项目的延误和严重拥堵。

08

所有当选的国会官员都必须申报其以前的财富和收入，这也适用于参议员和反对党。每两年对他们（政客）的财富进行一次独立审计，并在主要当地报纸上报道，审计员网站门户网站提供副本。对退出、辞职或担任公职的政客进行另一次审计。

09

一旦他们当选，他们应该留在同一个政党，否则，他们必须离开政界。

10

他们不应该被允许代表其他政党参选，此外，应该废除跨党派的权利。

记住

为国会服务是一种荣誉，而不是一个掠夺的赚钱职业。

🔴

如果每个人至少联系二十个人，那么马来西亚大多数人只需三天就能收到这条信息。🌸

你不觉得是时候提出这个问题了吗？同意并分享，为了我们的利益和子孙后代。

Fully agree to this suggestion.

👇🏿👇🏿

Dear/Respected Citizens of Malaysia 

You are requested to read this message and try to forward it to a minimum of twenty people in your contact list. In turn ask each of them to do likewise. Please. 

In three days, most people in Malaysia will have this message. 

Every citizen in Malaysia should raise a voice to: REFORM the “Act of 2018”.

*01*

a) Age limits should be introduced to Parliamentarians (from 35 to 60). 

b) Parliamentarians should NOT get Pension since it is NOT employment but Election under People's Representation act, it has no retirement with bar on reemployment but they can get reelected to same position again, .. etc. (Currently, they get pension after 5 years of service) .

*02.* 

Parliamentarians pay should be revised in line with Central Pay Commission.

(Currently, they increase/raise their salary arbitrarily by voting for themselves) . 

*03.* 

Parliamentarians should lose their current health care system and participate in the same health care system as the general public in Malaysia. (This will be the only way we can improve our current poor Public health system.)

*4.* 

All concession like free yearly travel, electricity, water, groceries, phone bill should be abolished.

(They not only get this concessions but they also regularly increase it - Boldly and Shamelessly.)

*05.*

Parliamentarians with tainted records, criminal charges & convictions, past or present should be summarily banned from the parliament and CONTESTING election on any pretext or the other. 

*6.*

Financial Losses incurred due to politicians in office, must be RECOVERED from the Politician , their immediate families' , benomies' , nominees' , properties.

*07*

Parliamentarians should equally ABIDE by ALL laws THEY impose on the general public. Out riders only given to PM and key 4 important ministers (e.g. Finance, Defense and etc.). Of the ministers not given the out riders, they will understand and make our local public roads to improve (without the out riders they will be forced to leave early to arrive on time for their public appearances and work). Currently the public has to suffer the delayed road works, MRT projects and bad jams due to bad planning of development, toll exits and road lanes. 

*08*

All elected Parliament officials must declare their previous wealth and income and this applies to Senators and oppositions as well. An independent Audit be done every two years on their (Politicians) wealth and reported in major local news papers and a copy available by the Auditors web portal. Another audit be done to Politician that quits,resigns or servers his term as public official.

*09*

Once they elected, they SHOULD remain in the same party if not, they have to leave politics. 

*10* 

They should NOT be permitted to contest from another party and in addition, the ability to crossover SHOULD be ABOLISHED. 

                 REMEMBER

*SERVING PARLIAMENT IS AN HONOR, NOT A LUCRATIVE CAREER FOR LOOTING*. 

🔴

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people in Malaysia to receive this message.🌸

_*Don't you think it's time to RAISE this issue?*_ 

_*Agree & Share, for our benefit and for the future generations.*_

A declaration of independence

A declaration of independence, declaration of statehood or proclamation of independence is an assertion by a polity in a defined territory that it is independent and constitutes a state. Such places are usually declared from part or all of the territory of another state or failed state, or are breakaway territories from within the larger state. In 2010, the UN's International Court of Justice ruled in an advisory opinion in Kosovo that "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence",[1] though the state from which the territory wishes to secede may regard the declaration as rebellion, which may lead to a war of independence or a constitutional settlement to resolve the crisis.

https://youtu.be/7qFbDTGv3CA