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。