Malaysia Agreement (MA63) ceased to exist with Federal gov’t’s non-compliance

Listen to soft instrumental music for 15 to 20 mins before bed to calm the emotions and have a restful night . . .

Why would Parliament amend Article 1(2) on 13 July 1976 and then go back to the status before 13 July 1976? That’s tantamount to admitting that 13 July 1976 was unconstitutional.

The Federal Court, not Parliament, should decide on the attempt to GO BACK to before 13 July 1976, and ON 13 July 1976 re Article 1(2).

Having said that, the sovereignty of Parliament is confined to its five year term. No Parliament can bind a future Parliament or be bound by a previous Parliament.

The Federal Constitution is supreme over Parliament. Still, the Constitution cannot go against itself.

When it comes to Sabah and Sarawak, we have to look at the “Malaysian Constitution”, not just the Federal Constitution.

No MA63, no Malaysia.

MA63 is the basis for Sabah and Sarawak to be in Malaysia with Malaya as Equal Partners. Again, Malaysia is not Federation but Equal Partnership.

Get a point of declaration on law from the Federal Court on Equal Partnership. See Dewan Rakyat Debates, IV, No.3, April 28 1962, cols. 451-452 on what Tunku said on Equal Partnership.

Sabah and Sarawak are in Malaysia with Malaya as Equal Partners under MA63.

AG in Sabah

AG in Sarawak

High Court of Borneo

High Court of Malaya

AG in Putrajaya

Do you think the Federal Court dare say that Malaysia is not an Equal Partnership of Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya?

Read the Definition of Federation in Article 160 of the Federal Constitution. Malaya is Federation. It exists although Malaysia came into being on 16 Sept 1963.

Incidentally, the Federation of Malaya Agreement was in 1948, not in 1957 as erroneously stated in the Federal Constitution.

There’s case law which states that MA63 is not law and that only what has been incorporated from MA63 in the Federal Constitution is law.

This is only half the story by the Federal Court. No one will say that MA63 is law. Just like the Federal Constitution itself, the MA63 is about force of law. In short, the Federal Constitution itself is not law but being the supreme political document on Malaya, it has force of law and goes on to be the supreme law of the land.

The Federal Constitution is not the supreme political document for Sabah and Sarawak. The Federal Constitution refers to the Federation set up by the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 and reinforced by the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957.

It’s not necessary to incorporate anything from MA63 in the Federal Constitution to make it into law. MA63, whether incorporated in the Federal Constitution or otherwise, exists.

The Federal Constitution can state that it should be read together with MA63 and the constitutional documents on Malaysia, when it comes to Sabah and Sarawak.

The Federal Court has referred to MA63 and the constitutional documents on Malaysia when ruling that Malayan lawyers cannot lead/or handle Sabah and Sarawak cases even in the CoA and Federal Court in Putrajaya if these (cases) originated in a court in Malaysian Borneo.

In my Opinion, the Malaysian Constitution is an uncodified/unwritten document based on the Federal Constitution and the constitutional documents on Malaysia including MA63.

Opinion is not law.

Only the court can declare law.

Get a point of law ruling on the Malaysian Constitution from the Federal Court.

Also, get a point of law ruling on whether MA63 exists. In my Opinion, MA63 has ceased to exist with the Federal gov’t’s non-compliance on the Agreement. Singapore’s departure from Malaysia, without the Sabah and Sarawak gov’ts being consulted, also refers.

The states in Malaya were not signatories to MA63 nor were they consulted.

The Kelantan gov’t sued the Malayan gov’t on Malaysia.

The Malayan gov’t assured the Supreme Court on 11 Sept 1963 that the Federation of Malaya will continue even after Malaysia comes into being on 16 Sept 1963. So, non-compliance means that only the Federation exists, the Equal Partnership being stillborn. Even so, Sabah and Sarawak can Invoke the spirit of Article VIII in MA63 for a new form of self-determination.

The parties in dispute wanted to resolve an issue in conflict: the status of the Federation of Malaya after Malaysia Day 16 Sept 1963.

The case was resolved in favour of the Malayan gov’t when it told the Supreme Court that the Federation of Malaya will continue to exist after 16 Sept 1963.

What does that mean?

Only the Federation exists.

MA63 has ceased to exist because the Federal gov’t has not complied with the Agreement.

The Malaysia of MA63 does not exist.

Malaya changing its name to Malaysia is irrelevant.

Malaya is illegally occupying Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysia Day, 16 Sept 1963, was Occupation Day.

The Sabah and Sarawak gov’ts should engage QCs in the UK and the Commonwealth on constitutional matters.

We don’t have constitutional experts and jurists in Malaysia. A constitutional lawyer in Malaysia does not become a constitutional expert just because the media says so.

Constitutional “lawyers” like Shad Faruqi, Aziz Bahari, Gurdial Singh, Azmi Sharom & Co are not “experts” on the Constitution. They are not the law. They just dish out Opinions based on ventilating their ignorance.

Is there even any “expert” in Sabah and Sarawak like Shad Faruqi, Aziz Bahari, Gurdial Singh, Azmi Sharom & Co?

We don’t even have “frauds” on the Constitution.

Why did 13 July 1976 happen?

This comes back to what CJ Richard Malanjum said in his farewell address to lawyers and the judiciary.

The letter of the law only is not the sum total of the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution.

The rule of law is not only about the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well with greater emphasis on the latter.

The fact that Parliament is considering RM100K fines a la PAS for drunk driving shows that it’s only about letter of the law. In law, disproportionate punishment is unlawful. There must be proportionality in punishment. You can’t start chopping off hands, stoning people to death and meteing out 1, 000 lashes.

According to jurisprudence, God is not a source in law.

There must be jurisdiction, authority and power in law.

Law exists, and has always existed, based on common sense, universal values, and the principles of natural justice.

The force of law is based on the ultimate political document, local customary practices and international customary practices.

The letter of the law ONLY is about rule BY law, as in China for example, and is not law at all but dictatorship.

There’s no democracy.

The law of the jungle prevails in China. That’s why they are claiming among others the South China Sea almost in its entirety.

We also have to add that Islam is not about law but sin. Article 3 in the Federal Constitution is a standalone clause, an artificial construct, an aberration in law.

The rule of law is the basis of the Federal Constitution, not religion and theology.

The court is only about law.

The court is not about ethics, moral values, theology, sin, God, justice or the truth.

The Federal gov’t has no religion. Islam is the religion of the sultans and they preside over the local ummah in Malaya.

The sultanship in its current form is a British colonial creation elevated into territories from river-mouth dwelling tax collectors who purportedly called themselves sultans. Not all of them were former Hindu rajas. Many were former pirates.

Orang lain boleh sambung . . .

Read further here . . .

https://fernzthegreat.wordpress.com/2020/06/01/bahasa-kebangsaan-no-longer-exists-bahasa-sabah-dominates-north-borneo/

Bahasa Malaysia not bahasa kebangsaan, Article 152 says bahasa kebangsaan means Bahasa Melayu.

PSB shocked by Wan Junaidi’s claim S’wak gained self-rule, not independence in 1963

Self-rule is BIG BULLSHIT. There was no Self-Government Act for Sabah and Sarawak as with Singapore in 1958 and Malaya in 1955.

Read further here . . .

a question for joe says:

Aug 2, 2020 at 12:23 pm

Edit

If you are such a smart educated person why are you not in Australia or Canada or USA?

Why stuck in backward part of Malaysia

hehehehehe

Like

Reply

fernzthegreat says:

Aug 2, 2020 at 5:12 am

Edit

Except for an international city like New York which is the publishing capital of the world, there’s really nothing to do in those boring countries.

Washington and England would be good places for a change either to teach or practise law and perhaps write. I might still do that but only for a time.

Money is not the be all and end all of life.

Principles matter.

Man does not live by bread alone.

Agi idup, agi ngelaban!

Lawan tetap lawan.

Kalau bukan kita, siapa lagi?

Kalau bukan sekarang, bila lagi?

This is not about us but the children, grandchildren and generations unborn.

The Gen Y should not piss on our graves.

If you see something, say something, do something.

Sabah and Sarawak are backward because of Malaya. The grinding poverty is the result of the transfer of wealth from those who have no power to those who have power.

This is a matter of international law and human rights. In fact, human rights is the basis of international law. Look up international customary practices.

International law has outlawed colonialism — the transfer of wealth — as a criminal enterprise. Apartheid, Nazism, fascism and the evil caste system have been outlawed too. There’s a case against ketuanan Melayu, political Islam and communism too.

Once Malaya quits Borneo, and quit it will as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning in the East, Sabah and Sarawak will find their rightful place in the sun.

When that day comes, I might head for Washington or England. Not sure about New York.

Liked by you

Reply

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.

5 thoughts on “Malaysia Agreement (MA63) ceased to exist with Federal gov’t’s non-compliance”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: