Beggars can’t be choosers, Sabah Sarawak should Invoke Article VIII of MA63 for a new form of self-determination

Invoke Article VIII of Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) for a new form of self-determination.

Since Article VIII has not been Invoked, it’s a case of beggars can’t be choosers.

The state assembly has to Invoke Article VIII of MA63 for a new form of self-determination.

The CM should do it in the state assembly.

It should be by consensus, not majority vote.

Then, the state Cabinet can direct the state secretary to inform the chief secretary who is also the Federal Cabinet Secretary.

The PM can inform Parliament.

It doesn’t matter what happens in Parliament.

The Sabah and Sarawak gov’ts can inform the PM that Borneo MPs will confine themselves to four Federal Cabinet portfolios in line with the spirit of MA63 viz. defence, internal security, foreign affairs and Malaysian Common Market (Customs Dept etc).

Nothing is easy in life.

All 57 Borneo MPs should form a united, neutral, independant bloc in Parliament.

They should not get involved in the politics of Malaya.

They should not take sides.

The ruling party/coalition in Putrajaya should not rule Sabah and Sarawak.

Sabah and Sarawak should not say they are mesra Putrajaya.

They should not be strategic partners of the ruling party/coalition in Putrajaya.

Parti parti Malaya should stay out from Sabah and Sarawak.

No court will say MA63 is not valid.

If not valid, what’s the basis for Sabah and Sarawak to be in Malaysia with Malaya?

MA63 is the basis. It’s a fact of history and Malaysia Day 16 Sept 1963.

Anyone can go to the High Court of Borneo for a point of law ruling.

The High Court and Federal Court have referred to MA63 previously on case law.

If MA63 was not valid, the High Court and Federal Court won’t refer to it.

Harris Salleh keeps saying that MA63 is not law and it’s not valid and/or no longer valid.

He should test his Opinion in court.

In law, unless a court rules otherwise, even an invalid law remains valid.

The anti hop law remained valid until a court ruled that it was null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with a superior law.

So, it’s no point saying MA63 is not valid.

Opinion is not law.

Only the court can declare law.

No Federal gov’t will say MA63 is invalid.

No one is saying MA63 is law.

MA63 has force of law like Adat, based on customary practices, and the Federal Constitution, the ultimate political document for Malaya.

MA63 exists separately from the Federal Constitution irrespective of whether the former has been incorporated in the latter or otherwise.

There’s case law on MA63.

The Federal Court has ruled that only what has been incorporated from MA63 in the Federal Constitution is law.

By the same token, what has not been incorporated from MA63 in the Federal Constitution continues to have force of law.

It’s no point harping on compliance on MA63 after over half a century.

The Way Forward is to Invoke Article VIII of MA63 for a new form of self-determination.

Malaysia Day, 16 Sept 1963, was one form of self-determination.

Article VIII can be Invoked whether or not there has been compliance on MA63.

Malaysia has an uncodified/unwritten Constitution based on the Federal Constitution and the documents on Malaysia including MA63.

The Federal Constitution is not the Malaysian Constitution mentioned in MA63.

Read further here . . .

Orang Asal interests best served when Borneo MPs form united, neutral, independent bloc in Parliament.

The novel Corona virus pandemic has dried up the gravy train based on plundering the public treasury under various guises.

DAP should have reminded Borneo the onus on them to Invoke Article VIII of MA63 for a new form of self-determination.

Author: fernzthegreat

Joe Fernandez holds a honours degree in management, majoring in economics, and has opted from academia in law to being a jurist. He was trained professionally on the job as a journalist. He's a longtime Borneo watcher, keen on the history and legal aspects of Malaya's presence in Sabah and Sarawak. He teaches the English language privately and has emerged as a subject matter expert in public examination techniques.

3 thoughts on “Beggars can’t be choosers, Sabah Sarawak should Invoke Article VIII of MA63 for a new form of self-determination”


    Doris Jones, King of Frogs Jeffrey Kitingan should fall down on his hands and knees and confess his sins and beg the people for forgiveness.

    Why didn’t he introduce a Motion in the state assembly to Invoke Article VIII of MA63 for a new form of self-determination?

    Instead, he’s flogging a dead horse . . . compliance and/or review.

    That’s why MA asked him . . . Review? Review apa? Apa? Apa? Review? YB you are misleading the Dewan!

    Then, JK asked him: “Who appointed you CM? KL isn’t it?”

    Then, MA mumbled something about being chairman of BN Sabah.

    Orang Asal are plagued by leaders who latch on to Malay balls in Malaya to fill their pockets at the expense of the nation a la BANDPB (bangsa, agama, negara, derma, plea bargaining) and ketuananism.

    That’s why Article VIII of MA63 will never be Invoked for a new form of self-determination.

    MA63 is history. It’s dead.

    After over half a century, we can’t harp like JK on compliance on MA63 or Review.

    He does it to mislead the people and win elections so that he can latch on to Malay balls in Malaya to fill the pockets.

    Many people hang around him for some crumbs.

    When I write such things, to keep the issues alive, many people — including JK — say I am carrying Jeffrey G Kitingan’s balls.

    Why did they say NO DAP in the Federal gov’t?

    That’s because they want to plunder the public treasury.

    Chinaman doesn’t like anyone stealing his money.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. A Barunai activist once claimed the Orang Asal will regret calling for the RCI on Illegal Immigrants in Sabah.

    He was sure the RCI, based on the Native Interpretation Ordinance, will declare the PTI as Natives of Sabah.

    His critics pointed out that the Ordinance is “subject to immigration restrictions”.

    So, no outsider can seek Native status.

    Then, he claimed the KDMR are not Natives since they are not mentioned in the Ordinance.

    The critics pointed out the term indigenous, used in the Ordinance, was a reference to the KDMR.

    In any case, the critics stressed, Article 161A states that only the indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak are Natives.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: