BREAKING NEWS! . . . MA’63 isn’t law, Federal Court declared . . .

Opinion on Borneo rights being viralled from forever . . .

People’s Petition on MA’63 may be Way Forward on Malaysia!

MA’63 isn’t law, Federal Court declared . . .

It can be argued that MA’63, the ultimate political document on M’sia, has force of law.

COMMENT and ANALYSIS . . . If I don’t mention source in this comment and analysis, I am connecting the dots as a legal scholar (jurist). There’s originality of thought even if inspired by source.

The graphics above on the “validity” of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA’63) has been viralled in Sabah and Sarawak since forever.

MA’63 is the basis for the Borneo Territories, Sabah and Sarawak, being in Malaysia with Malaya, ostensibly as “Equal Partners”.

Malaysia isn’t Federation, it can be argued, but again “Equal Partnership”.

The Federation was under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 (it’s not 1957). See Definition of Federation in Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution. The Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 reinforced the 1948 Agreement. Both should be mentioned in Article 160(2). Instead, the Article in the Federal Constitution dates the Agreement as 1957. This is an error in fact and error in law which can only be blamed on the printer’s devil.

Equal Partnership in this case cannot be about population and territory but only about law. That’s why there are two High Court in Malaysia viz. High Court of Borneo (Sabah and Sarawak) and High Court of Malaya (yes Malaya, not Malaysia).

Malaya exists as seen in the High Court of Malaya, Universiti Malaya, and various statutes and case laws. Malaya cannot be read, in law, as synonymous with Malaysia. This is a fact in law. If it’s Opinion, it will stand up in the court of law.

The Opinion in the graphics isn’t law. Only the court can declare law.

Even an “invalid” law or Agreement “like MA’63” is valid in law unless the court declares otherwise. If MA’63 is invalid in law, the High Court of Borneo and the Federal Court wouldn’t refer to it from time to time before Ruling on matters which originate from the Borneo Territories.

Again, in the case of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA’63), the passage of time may matter in law.

There have been so many elections and gov’ts in Sabah and Sarawak since Malaysia Day, 16 Sept 1963.

If MA’63 is invalid in law, the matter should have been taken up by the parties concerned within a reasonable period of time from Malaysia Day.

It was not done.

That may be a fatal flaw in law. I stand corrected as, except for 1990 to 1994 in Sabah under Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the gov’ts in Sabah and Sarawak have been proxy gov’ts of the Federal gov’t. The gov’t in Sarawak hasn’t changed since 1966. Under international law, the people of Sarawak have lost their sovereignty.

Locus standi . . .

The people, under the international law on self-determination and human rights, have locus standi.

They should have lodged a Petition with the UN Security General, UN Security Council, UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court since the Federal gov’t was allegedly party to illegalities in the Borneo Territories, the Federal Court, Agong, the High Court in London and the Queen in England. Before the UK left EU, the Petition could have been lodged at the European Court as well.

The people can still do it.

Belum cuba, belum tahu (if you don’t try, you won’t know).

In short, the People’s Petition on MA’63 may be the Way Forward on Malaysia.

Sabah and Sarawak also have other Options on MA’63 and Borneo rights.

These include seeking greater administrative powers by devolution for Sabah and Sarawak, autonomy, self-determination, independence, secession, and unilateral declaration of independence, among others.

Court of law . . .

The court of law is only about law, not truth.

The court isn’t about ethics, moral, theology, sin, God or justice.

Law exists, and has always existed as evident from the Word of God, based on common sense, universal values and the principles of natural justice.

Common sense may not be common but it exists.

Streets . . .

The Federal Court has previously declared that only what has been incorporated from MA’63, in the Federal Constitution, is law.

No court will compel compliance on a contract. At best it can only offer compensation. It must be quantified at the assistant registrar’s office.

MA’63 is an international Treaty or Agreement.

Political matters must be settled politically, not in a court of law.

In law, a gov’t on paper can do whatever it wants unless restrained by the court or by the people taking to the streets.

Administrative law — gov’t policy in action which has been gazetted — is about gov’t doing whatever it wants.

The streets II . . .

Kazakhstan is an example of the people taking to the streets. It’s a People’s Movement on multiple issues.

The farmers in India, on the streets for months, is an example of the people taking to the streets. It was about a specific issue: three Agriculture Bills ostensibly designed to modernise agriculture. No surrender no compromise Modi recently agreed to withdraw the Bills.

Wed 6 Jan 2021 in the US was an example of the people taking to the streets. It was about a specific issue: electoral integrity.

In the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, there’s greater emphasis on the spirit of the law, read with the letter of the law.

The letter of the law, by itself, isn’t law at all.

There must be a basis for comparison.

We can’t compare apples and oranges.

If we understand Definition, and thesis statement, we would be better placed to connect the dots for the Way Forward on relevant facts, the issues arising, and the law/s applicable.

The following on operation of law is an extract from wikipedia and may have relevance in court . . .

Operation of law is a way in which someone gets certain rights (or sometimes responsibilities) automatically under the law without taking action, requiring cooperation from another person, or being the subject of a court order.

Operation of law can also describe what a person can or cannot do, or what rights or interests a person has.

Therein lies the case for letters of representation to the AGC and AG on matters in court.

Read the Article in Full here . . .

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.

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: