"Mangkang Menua,Mangkang Dunya,Ngetan Ke Bansa!!"

August 27, 2012

Independence Day 31st August VS Malaysia Day 16th September, Unitary States VS Federation

Filed under: Malaysian Agreement — Pengayau @ 2:06 am
Tags: ,

Independence Day 31st August VS Malaysia Day 16th September, Unitary States VS Federation

This is one of the argument that i came accross yesterday, take your time and read it properly, thoroughly point by point and my counter arguement would follow suit later :

“Let’s take a look at the USA : Independence Day, commonly known as the 4th of July, is a federal holiday in the United States commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, declaring independence of the 13 Colonies from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The 13 Colonies were Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. After achieving independence with the Treaty of Paris, the United States expanded westward, enlarging its borders seven times, with two major border adjustments, one each with colonies of the United Kingdom and Spain, and several small disputes.

The original thirteen states grew into fifty states, most of which began as incorporated territories.

The general pattern seen in this is of territorial expansion, carving of organized territories from the newly acquired land, modification of the borders of these territories, and eventual statehood. Only two states, Nevada and Missouri, grew appreciably after statehood, and five, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, lost land, in each case to form new states.

My counter argument :

I beg to differ with you and allow me to elaborate in my broken English🙂

United States of America vs Federation of Malaysia.

Cant you see the difference?🙂

USA is a Unitary States while Malaysia is a Federation

I dont see any single reason why we (Sabah/Sarawak) should celebrate 31st August as Independence Day.

Why? That is the date Federation of Malaya gain Independence from Britain.

Malaysia is a Federation of Equal Partner namely Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak.

Just like United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which consist of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

They are Separate but Equal Partner. They have their own state Government and their Head of Government is called First Minister, similar to Chief Minister for Sabah, Sarawak right?

In United Kingdom, they have no Independence Day or National Day due to the same reason

The only date that we should celebrate is September 16th because that is the date when Malaysia was officialy formed and it is called Malaysia Day, and yes, we SHOULD celebrate Malaysia Day and not 31st August as it has nothing to do with us although one may argue that if there is no 31st August 1957 Indepedence of Malaya, there would be no Malaysia BUT, if there is no September 16th 1963, there is NO Malaysia. If there is no Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore, there is NO Malaysia as well!

The formation of the new federation was planned to occur on June 1, 1963, but was later postponed to August 31, 1963, in order to coincide with the sixth Hari Merdeka.

Several issues related to the Indonesian and the Filipino objection to the formation of Malaysia delayed the declaration to September 16 of the same year.

The postponement was also done to allow the United Nations team time to conduct referendums in North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak regarding the two states participation in a new federation

Malaysia Agreement signed by the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (now Sabah including Labuan Island), Sarawak and Singapore in London on 9th July 1963

FACTUAL FACT

31 August 1957 : Federated States of Malaya gain Independence from the Britain

22 July 1963 : Sarawak was officially granted Independence from Britain

16 September 1963 : Sarawak together with North Borneo (Sabah), Singapore and Federation of Malaya formed the Federation of Malaysia as EQUAL PARTNER.Separate but Equal Entity

Rhetorically speaking, we had never achieved INDEPENDENCE in the true sense of words. Its just the change of Colonial Masters. From White Skin to Brown Skin. From British Imperialism to Malayan Imperialism

Simple Mathematics :

Federation of Malaya + States of Singapore + States of North Borneo + States of Sarawak : Federation of Malaysia (1963)

Status : Equal Partner

Federation of Malaya + States of Sabah + States of Sarawak – States of Singapore : United States of Malaysia (1965)

Status : 1 of the states in Malaysia

My Suggestion :

Federation of Malaya – States of Sabah – States of Sarawak : United States of Malaya (2065)

Status : Independent/Sovereign Country of Sabah/Sarawak🙂

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi : The only problem i see here is the factual error that the United States is a Federation and not Unitary, the way Malaysia is. Both have federal-level government. however, it is true that the similar analogy on celebration of 4th July CANNOT be used in Malaysian context.

Federation of Malaya who attained her independence on 31st August 1957 “ceased” to exist as a Sovereign Entity and surrenders her Sovereignty and Independence through the Formation of Malaysia with 3 other equal partners of North Borneo,  Singapore and Sarawak on the 16th September 1963, creating a new entity with new name and new constitution, yet the United States of America has been in continuous existence since 1776 and only absorbs new territories through expansion and purchase among other ways

Leslley Kalom : So if USA is a federation the way Malaysia is? If that is the case, my understanding of Federation is States, federated to form a new Country/Nation as Equal Partner while retaining their individualities

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi : Federalism basically involves a 3 tier governmental level which are the federal government, the state government and the local government (city/municipal council) with usually explicit mentions on the power division/separation between the states and the federal government.

Federated states or federations among others include Malaysia, the United States, Russia, India, Germany and Australia. whereas a Unitary state only have a 2 Tier Administration level which are the Central Government and the Local Government such as all other South-East Asian Nations, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, South Korea, even the United Kingdom (albeit devolved as to grant separate administrative powers to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)A far-less common form of administration is the confederation which is almost a hybrid of the two, with most of its units (or member states) having superior autonomy in their administration compared to those of in federation

How i wish Malaysia was a confederation, to be honest. Your understanding might reflects more of a Confederation, rather than a Federation, i believe.

Leslley Kalom : In other words, Malaysia is a not a merger between Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak as equal partner but merely an extension of Malaya? Am right?

Federation defined: An association of several sovereign states with a central organ vested with powers directly over the citizens of the member state and in certain defined circumstances over the member states themselves. There would be a central government and also state governments, but from the view point of international law, the collection of states forming the federation would be recognised as one sovereign state within a family of nations

Allow me to quote from Cobbold Commission Report 1962 which among other had said :

The Cobbold Commission published its findings in Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak in August 1962: “It is a necessary condition that, from the outset, Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interests to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities.“If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a ‘take-over’ of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not, in my judgement, be generally acceptable or successful.”

And also Debate on The Malaysia Bill in The British Parliament 19th July 1963 :The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): “May I say that the leaders of the countries, which are to unite on 31st August, have shown a very high level of statesmanship throughout the past two years, and I am persuaded that they will continue to do so. We in this House certainly—I know that in this respect I speak for the whole House—wish them well in their task of creating this new independent nation in the Commonwealth, and I am quite confident that hon. Members will give the Federation a good start by giving this Bill an unopposed passage through the House of Commons today.”

(Mr. R. W. Sorensen): “I support the Bill because I believe that, on the whole, the majority of the people in the four territories of Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and (Sabah) want Federation, if not with enthusiasm at least with what I may call prudent wisdom.”

Mr. A. G. Bottomley of Middlesbrough, East: “We are not only having an extension of Malaya. We are, in fact, creating a new (country Malaysia) … the other Commonwealth Governments have been consulted and that they will cordially welcome the new (country Malaysia) into the Commonwealth.”

The fact that the then proposed federation was not to be a unitary state but to be a new sovereign state within a family of nations was clearly set out in the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report.

“The report states that: ‘Federation Not Unitary: All delegations acknowledge the desirability that all component states should retain their identity and autonomy; the possibility of Malaysia being formed as a unitary state was never considered.

On the bright side, at least in United Kingdom, Scotland is free to pull out from UK with a Referendum which reflects the wish of their people but as far as 20/18 Point of Agreement is concern, under Point No.7 it says :

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation

Scottish independence panel suggests referendum question

Scottish voters should be asked just one “short, clear and unbiased” question on whether Scotland should be an independent state, a panel of experts set up by the anti-independence parties has recommended.

The three-member panel set up by Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems said the referendum should simply ask Scotland’s 4 million voters to agree or disagree with a neutral six-word statement that “Scotland should be an independent state”.

The panel, headed by Lord Stewart Sutherland, former principal of Edinburgh University, said the referendum should not be muddled by posing a second, separate question on giving Holyrood extra powers within the UK – a case being made forcibly by David Cameron, the prime minister.

But Sutherland’s group disputed complaints by the pro-UK parties that the Scottish government’s preferred question – “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” – was biased in favour of a “yes” vote.

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi : Through Malaysia Agreement, the original purpose and spirit on the formation of Malaysia is to have the Signatories to co-exist as Equal Partners, a Federation consists of 4 components., else the document (MA63) will be signed by the British Administrators of the day (instead of the representatives of the people of the state), yet this is not what had happened.

However, the way things are today (most unfortunately) indeed reflect as if Sabah and Sarawak is an extension of Malaya, 2 of the 13 States in the Federation rather than 2 out of the 3 components which constitute Malaysia.

A simple example would be the 31st August to be regarded and considered as the Independence date, although its factually incorrect.

Withdrawal or secession of Singapore in 1965 has rendered the agreement null and void by international convention, yet “Malaysia” continue to exists. Considering the fact that the Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 was signed between  the Federal Government and the Government of Singapore on the 7th August 1965,  yet the motion and bill on the separation of Singapore was only tabled in the Parliament of Malaysia on the 9th August 1965, wouldnt that constitute an act of ultra-vires?

Furthermore, the constitution of Malaysia does not include a provision on ejection of a territory or states from the federation, so was the act legal? and if MA63 was rendered null and void, the 20-points agreements may no longer be binding, including the point #7 which prohibit the secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia. In any way, we will need someone to present this case and lead the cause now

Leslley Kalom  : In simple words, Malaysia is actually/ theoretically a Federation consist of 4 Components (Equal partner) but an Unitary States in nature. Am i right?

I agreed with the rest of your point as i’ve read similar arguement many2 times before but the question is, what are the available options for us to fight for this?

United Nation? I dont think they can interfer in domestic affairs/politics of a Sovereign country unless something bad happen such as rebellion as in Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea and South Sudan

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi  : Thats true,  Malaysia is a Federation in name, yet unitary in practice. The Federal Government is immensely powerful in comparison to the State Government. Theres few options, but need one with enough support and calibre. Simplest way would  be Unilateral Declaration of Independence as such done by Kosovo in 2008 and recognized by Malaysia as well.  But this will certainly illicit responses from the Federal Government which if it culminate into “civil war”,  theres a need for a representative to the international stage (the UN, most ideally) to present the case on the violation of MA63 as asking for foreign intervention, which usually will take place if Humanitarian Crisis was regarded to take place. Other method would be sovereignty/independence through recognition of other states which is harder to attain as both Sabah and Sarawak does not deal with foreign affairs directly.

Muhammad Amirul Ismail : Sarawak MUST declare a Sarawak Sovereignty Ordinance to protect our COUTRY status! Texas has declare theirs. It is possible to be Sovereign while being in the federation because thats was the original plan. 3 country to form a federation!

Leslley Kalom : To me the best way is to have a Strong State Government to demand for more Autonomous Power thus improving Federal – States relationship/ties. That is possible through reviving of Sarawak and Sabah Alliance. This would ensure more bargaining power for the States agaisnt the Federal Government. What happen now was the Centralisation of Power to Federal while the State remain subservient to Federal. Sabah has did this in 1980s through PBS Government but they fall from grace by dirty/undemocratic tactics by the all powerful Federal/Central government

The best book that i ever read so far is The Politics of Federalism : Syed Kechik in East Malaysia

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi  : Thats true. Separation and Secessionist Movement may not the only answer. Sincere State Governments, rather that Puppets and Parrots from Putrajaya is a more realistic option. It is rather sad to see the Political Parties nowadays seems to be ignorant of the interest of their own states and more interested in their own personal benefits, being the pawn of malaya be it BN or PR in power (as both are Peninsula based).

Borneo Alliance is needed to restore the balance of under-development and under-emphasis of Sabah and Sarawak. Its believed that the Sarawak Constitutional Crisis of 1966 was the result of the Federal Government attempting to limit the autonomy of State Powers. Similar things happened to Sabah as youve mentioned

Leslley Kalom ‎ : I have this practial solution in mind and i would like to share it with you and please gave some comment wether it is Possible, Impossible or Nearly Impossible

Solution:

We cant seccede from Malaysia but we can be KICKED OUT from Malaysia like what Tunku Abd Rahman did to Singapore in 1965.Do you think that UMNO Malaya stupid enough to KICK US OUT from Malaysia? In 10 years time.without Oil&Gas resources from Sabah and Sarawak, Malaya would be a BANKRUPT NATION!

But Politically, we CAN do that.We can BE kicked out from Malaysia.How? It would not be that easy, don’t forgot ISA, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE, it is just near IMPOSSIBLE.

This is how we can do it:

1. Set up a Borneo Based Political Party.

2. Gain control of Borneo states namely Sabah and Sarawak through electoral proceess.

3. Persuade the Federal Government to Re-Look back at the 20/18 Point Of Agreement.

4. If they refused to do so, organised a Statewide campaign, go to every corner of the States and convinced the Rakyat that we should pull out from Malaysia and try to get their absolute support.

5. Send a referandum to United Nation that we are UNHAPPY with the way the Federal Government treat us as(State-Federal Ties).

6. Request the United Nation to send a Delegation for a Fact Finding Mission similar to the Cobbold Commision before to get the feedback and consensus from the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak.

But please bear in mind, this will not happen without repercussion from the Federal Government and ISA is the anwer of all this. Datuk Jeffry Kitingan was once being held under ISA and he has been accused of trying to pull out Sabah from Malaysia and is that TRUE? No, he merely request for the 5% Oil Royalty to be review.

He and his brother Joseph Pairin Kitingan has been harrased and being charged with Corruption.This is the begining of the fall of PBS Government in Sabah and UMNO take over since then.

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi : The immigration power can be used to bar any peninsular officers from entering the state. however, the police and the army remained to be a federal domain and thats gonna make it nearly impossible. for sabah and sarawak to be kicked out is almost unthinkable as we’re too rich to be kicked out, unlike singapore who got nothing (but determination, intelligence and visionary leaders). control of state-wide media is also needed as to avoid “contamination” of peninsula-based propaganda which may persuade the people of the state to reject secession.

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi : and btw, the sarawak rangers may need to be re-established as sarawak have no royalties, yet the armed forces are loyal to the agong, much to the disadvantage of states without rulers… use the similar excuse as johor military force. after all, sarawak ranger are older than JMF, and JMF was not disbanded because its older than wataniah. ergo, sarawak rangers should not be disbanded or merged into malaysian ranger regiment in the first place, but to exist as separate entity

Leslley Kalom ‎: So your solution is?

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi : No concrete solution for now. but for start, theres a need to empower the state government and to raise the awareness of the people, the true history of formation of malaysia, even the true history of sarawak as how it was once a sovereign state during the brooke’s era, to strengthen the “sarawak identity” and avoid the racial-based politics which is in a chronic stage in the peninsula. your practical solution is indeed commendable, apart from few hindrances such as getting through the RoS for new political parties, winning the election and wresting the power from current PBB and other parties. Once #1 & 2 was achieved, #3-6 shouldnt be a problem for at least its a legitimate platform. just need to focus on #1 & #2 for now. then, the road can be mapped further.

Leslley Kalom : Im sharing the same views. Btw, thanks for your time. Nice to have a “Brainstorming” session with you. Hope to have another session with you tomorrow or day after tomorrow and the subject would be our Oil Royalty on how we can get more percentage/control over our Oil & Gas Resources. Thank you, thank you very much. Dum Spiro Spero!

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi : Dum Spiro Spero!

Koh Yong Zher : Wow wall of text. I’m no expert on law and constitution, but I’ll try.

1) Malaysia is a classic example of an asymmetric federation. This is a direct result of the formation of the old Malayan Federation, which had certain terms and conditions established during its initial formation. The formation of Malaysia came with different terms and conditions (as per negotiations) for Sabah and Sarawak, hence a differing measure of power and autonomy. Note that I am in no way stating that Sabah and Sarawak are to blame for the different terms and hence differing measure of autonomy; I am simply stating that this is a result of circumstances.

2) Unfortunately and (deeply) regrettably, in no way has it been legally established (as far as I know; feel free to correct me on this) that the states that make up a federation are legally bound to be equal partners. Instead, measure of power and autonomy are dictated by signed terms and conditions, followed by provision of the Constitution. I concede that the Malaysia Agreement could have been signed in good faith that all four parties would be equal members, but nothing legally binding indicates that it was to be so.

3) Actually, there IS constitutional provision for the ejection of a territory or states from the Federation, although not discreetly worded. Lawmakers have noted that the signing of the Independence of Singapore Agreement of 1965 is provisioned for by both Articles 39 and 80(1) of the Constitution of Malaysia.

In essence, Article 39 states that the executive authority of the Federation lies with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and the Parliament may also confer executive function on other persons by law, in this case the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet who signed the independence agreement for Malaysia. Article 80(1) on the other hand states that the executive authority of the Federation extends to all matters with respect to which Parliament may make laws.

I would go so far as to say that since there are no articles limiting the Parliament from making laws regarding granting independence to a member state, that would serve as the constitutional provision for the granting of independence to Singapore.

4) The Independence Agreement of Singapore was indeed signed on 7th of August 1965; however, it is noteworthy that the agreement will only come into effect on the 9th, i.e. the date the motion and bill on the separation of Singapore was tabled and passed. It was also stated in the agreement that “the Government of Malaysia will proclaim and enact the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement in the manner hereinafter appearing.”

Hence, it can be inferred that the agreement has provided that the constitutional amendments to make the separation of Singapore possible would only be tabled AFTER the signing of the agreement on 7th. Since article 80(1) of the Malaysian Constitution states that the executive authority of the Federation extends to all matters with respect to which Parliament MAY MAKE laws, not HAS MADE laws, I would argue that this does not constitute ultra vires.

5) As I concluded in 3), the Constitution did indeed provide for the granting of independence to Singapore. Point #7 of the 20-Point Agreement also clearly stated that only “secession” is prohibited; no mention was made whatsoever regarding “granting of independence.” Hence, I would argue that since the act of granting independence to Singapore was indeed legal, MA63 was hence not rendered null and void by said act. Thus Point #7 of the 20-Point Agreement which states “There shall be no right of secession” remains legally binding

Leslley Kalom : In my earlier comment :

1. Federation of Malaya who attained her independence on 31st August 1957 “ceased” to exist as a Sovereign Entity and surrenders her Sovereignty and Independence through the Formation of Malaysia with 3 other equal partners of North Borneo, Singapore and Sarawak on the 16th September 1963, creating a new entity with new name and new constitution

2. In other words, Malaysia is a not a merger between Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak as equal partner but merely an extension of Malaya!

3. Allow me to quote from Cobbold Commission Report 1962 which among other had said :

The Cobbold Commission published its findings in Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak in August 1962: “It is a necessary condition that, from the outset, Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interests to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities.“If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a ‘take-over’ of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not, in my judgement, be generally acceptable or successful.”

And also Debate on The Malaysia Bill in The British Parliament 19th July 1963 :The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): “May I say that the leaders of the countries, which are to unite on 31st August, have shown a very high level of statesmanship throughout the past two years, and I am persuaded that they will continue to do so. We in this House certainly—I know that in this respect I speak for the whole House—wish them well in their task of creating this new independent nation in the Commonwealth, and I am quite confident that hon. Members will give the Federation a good start by giving this Bill an unopposed passage through the House of Commons today.”

(Mr. R. W. Sorensen): “I support the Bill because I believe that, on the whole, the majority of the people in the four territories of Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and (Sabah) want Federation, if not with enthusiasm at least with what I may call prudent wisdom.”

Mr. A. G. Bottomley of Middlesbrough, East: “We are not only having an extension of Malaya. We are, in fact, creating a new (country Malaysia) … the other Commonwealth Governments have been consulted and that they will cordially welcome the new (country Malaysia) into the Commonwealth.”

The fact that the then proposed federation was not to be a unitary state but to be a new sovereign state within a family of nations was clearly set out in the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report.

“The report states that: ‘Federation Not Unitary: All delegations acknowledge the desirability that all component states should retain their identity and autonomy; the possibility of Malaysia being formed as a unitary state was never considered.

On the bright side, at least in United Kingdom, Scotland is free to pull out from UK with a Referendum which reflects the wish of their people but as far as 20/18 Point of Agreement is concern, under Point No.7 it says :

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation.

4. NOPE, there is NO constitutional provision for the ejection of a territory or states from the Federation as far as our Federal Constitution is concern. Your interpretion of Articles 39 and 80(1) is terribly wrong. Read back my friend

5. There were 4 signatories to the Malaysian Agreement: Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. So, if one party pulls out (or in this case got expelled), then the original Malaysian Agreement is null and void.

A new Malaysian Agreement should have been drafted (and signed) to represent the the three remaining signatories. But there was none drafted or signed. So, if the original Malaysian Agreement was null and void, then Malaysia is an illegal nation. In this case Malaysia does not even exist legally!

Koh Yong Zher : 1) In no way did I state that the Federation of Malaya is still a Sovereign Entity by itself. I merely stated that when Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia, they joined under different terms and conditions compared to the Federation of Malaya, hence the different levels of autonomy and power which you lamented over. I was merely offering an explanation for that.

3) The Cobbold Commission report is what it is: a report. It was used as a reference, which has no legally binding power. Yes, the quotes you quoted has proven that the commission and the British parliament did not favor the idea of the Borneo territories being treated unfairly; their opinion and hopes. But was anything legally binding drafted to ensure that the Malaysian Government would not be treated unfairly? I suspect if anything had indeed been drafted to that effect, you would have quoted that instead of the opinions of the Cobbold Commission and the British lawmakers. Here I must make my stand clear: as stated above I believe the merger was signed in good faith that all 4 signatories would exist as equal partners. IN GOOD FAITH, not in legally binding capacity. I do not deny that the Malaysian government has trampled on that good faith and has failed to treat the Borneo territories as equal partners, and it is indeed a grave injustice and insult to the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak. Such is my personal stand in this matter.

4) Do not simply say “NOPE, you have interpreted it wrongly.” and try to brush me off. I stated my interpretation of the matter; if you wish to prove me wrong then do it properly. Present YOUR interpretation/the correct interpretation! Only then can we see which is more logical. Is that not the proper way in intellectual discourse?

5) Contrary to your belief, my friend, the withdrawal of a signatory from a legally binding agreement does not automatically render said agreement null and void. Only when ALL signatories of said agreement agree to cancel any and all provisions made in the agreement can said agreement be declared null and void. A good example would be the the Kyoto Protocol, which Canada pulled out of in 2011. Did said act render the Kyoto Protocol null and void?

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi :

#1 – the fact is right though I may not like it.

#2 – unfortunately is also right, except for 2 things. the first is the statement by Tunku Abdul rahman that Sabah and Sarawak wont be another “states” of malaya although this is not legally binding. the second argument against that is that sabah and sarawak are not equal to Malayan states through the “Kelantan case” of 1963 when the government of Kelantan and the Sultan of Kelantan challenged the formation of Malaysia as a violation of Federal of Malaya Agreement 1957 and that the Sultan ought to be the party of MA63.  Read Ramai Tak Tahu: Kelantan Pernah Cabar Penubuhan Malaysia Pada 1963 di Mahkamah 

“This ought to be a clear example that sabah and sarawak and singapore were never meant to be on equal footing as the states of Malaya. “It revealed that Kelantan and the other original states were placed together in a class of component states distinct and of a different status from the other three new states. This was the basis of the new federation.”

#3 – Article 39 and 80 (1) has been interpreted in a “too liberal” sense on this case. granted im not a student of law, but i do think the interpretation is a bit “too loose” here

#4 – the fact that most of the members of the parliament remained oblivious to the issue (of singapore secession) is another point of argument over the “unilateral action and decisions” by the federal government who does not take into account of the sentiments of north borneo (sabah) and sarawak in regards to this issue which is central to their interests.

#5 – whereas this does not constitute a legal argument, it is rather irrational and unfair that one have no right for secession but may be subject to expulsion or ejection. furthermore, personally im yet to see the real, physical documents of 18/20-points, though i have hold and handled the Sarawak copy of MA63 myself. whether 18/20-points argument is an amalgamation or synthesis of various documents (together with MA63, ICG reports etc) and when was it signed and by whom (if ever) is to be known. it is also rather difficult to ascertained how legally binding they are if theres no proper, comprehensive record of it. (i wish i can know and help more on this, but i have to be fair, as per my knowledge)

#6 – an addendum. it is not certain whether MA63 was subjected to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), in which it contained Article 60 which deals with “Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach” and in case of Malaysia Agreement 1963, the Article 62 which touched on “Fundamental change of circumstances”. The legal basis for such a rule is to be explained on the basis of the doctrine “conventio omnis intelligur rebus sic stantibus”: all treaties are concluded subject to an implied condition of “rebus sic stantibus” which literally translates as “things remaining as they are”

According to Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 Article 62:-

“A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to

be bound by the treaty; and

(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.”

in which both (part a and part b) applies to the case of Singapore’s expulsion/secession/separation from Malaysia considering that the agreement of participation of Sabah and Sarawak in the formation of Malaysia was partly determined by the participation and involvement of Singapore and the secession of Singapore has changed the balance of power in the parliament of Malaysia and denying the minimum 1/3 seating allocations as to preserve the interests of the borneo states  Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

Indonesia has no rights to claim Sarawak as theres no cultural nor historical basis for claims, unlike Philippines’s claim on Sabah. and the case of Sarawak and Taiwan may not be the best as Taiwan’s membership to t

The UN was barred or vetoed by PRC whereas Kosovo did in fact had its own unilateral declaration of independence in 2008 (which was recognized by Malaysia [perhaps establishing a legal precedent on recognition of unilateral declaration of independence] although its yet to attained UN membership due to Russian intervention). but other cases of unilateral declaration of independence or restoration of independence include that of Latvia or most of the Balkan states following the break-up of Yugoslavia. furthermore, Sarawak’s sovereignty was once recognized by the United States of America on 24th October 1850, by United Kingdom in 1863 and was UK’s protectorate in 1888 a proof that Sarawak was once a legitimate, sovereign, international entity.

Koh Yong Zher : Thank you for your gracious and insightful input.

I agree with you that the interpretation of Articles 39 and 80 (1) of the Constitution is liberal. However I am sure you would agree that such is the limit of law. The enforcement of it is subject to the interpretation of the written law, which ultimately depends on the language and the manner in which it is written. The rather vague nature of Articles 39 and 80 (1) has made it easy for liberal interpretations allowing the two articles to have broader coverage and in extension, allowed them to become the Constitutional provision for the signing of the Independence Agreement of Singapore.

I also strongly agree on the unfairness of having no right of secession at all. This leaves the people of Sabah and Sarawak completely at the mercy of the Federal Government, in my opinion. An option to secession could have at the very least served as a bargaining chip for the Borneo states to negotiate for an equal status and standing in Malaysia. Sadly, such is the essence of point #7 listed in the 18/20 point agreement. Unless it is ruled that the 18/20 point argument is no longer binding legally, the chances of a secession happening is very very slim indeed.

With regards to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), I am fairly certain that it is easy to argue that since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) was only adopted in 1969 and came into force even later in 1980, MA63 is not subjected to it. If it was up to me to defend the non-subjection of VCLT 1969 to MA63, this would certainly be the way I would go about with it. What are your thoughts on this?

Alset Alokin : Malaya has 11 states, sarawak has 11 divisions, sabah 5 divisions. did i get that right? Hmm

Koh Yong Zher : Since when have I contested that Sarawak has no autonomous rights to administer its own internal affairs? Such rambling suggests confusion on your part. Regarding the question of unilateral declaration of independence, I concur that countries such as Kosovo have successfully declared independence unilaterally. However, one striking similarity in the examples you listed would be that the new nations are mostly established following the dissolve/break up of previous governments which had previously ruled these countries as states/provinces/etc. This is an important point.

For example, for Sarawak to go down the path taken by Kosovo, Malaysia would have to become dissolved of its own accord due to certain reasons. We all know what are the likelihoods of this happening. For Sarawak to take after South Sudan instead, it would have to have rights for a secession, followed by the willingness of the Federal Government to allow Sarawak to secede, followed by other factors which resulted in South Sudan’s successful declaration of independence. Since we are all familiar with the current Federal Government’s profit driven stance and point #7 of the 18/20 point agreement, this path is moot unless the 18/20 point agreement can be rendered null and void followed by (maybe?) a change of government.

If we agree that both the characteristic paths of Kosovo and South Sudan are unlikely for Sarawak, what is left would be what Alset Alokin has suggested: “save itself from the colonial assholes of malaya”. If we assume that that is going to involve wresting back control of Sarawak from the Federal Government by force, then Sarawak has clearly veered from the path of Kosovo, and even further from the peaceful path of South Sudan. Leaving the odds of success aside, would the international community be willing to acknowledge the sovereignty of such a nation: one which gained independence by bloody revolt and strife? The times have changed now. Approving of such a nation would be setting a precedence, something which I believe the vast majority would not do.

If what I have posited above is not what you had in mind, Alset Alokin, then would you be so kind as to share what are the possible ways that Sarawak could achieve independence AND be acknowledged by the international community as well? I am sure it would be easy with your “know shit about world history beside sejarah textbooks” level of intellect and wit. Enlighten us!

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi :

#1 – it is rather unfortunate that the liberal interpretations of law may be used and abused to serve the interest of certain groups of people, that the spirit of the law does not necessarily ensure and preserve justice. for this, the point is acknowledged. but just to be sure, are you certain that article 39 and article 80(1) was explicitly mentioned and referred to in justifying the actions back then, between 7th to 9th august 1965? or is it implied and the constitutional article was never referred to by the parliamentarians of the day? if the former is the case, id love to see your sources.

#2 – whereas a portion on the rights of secession was initially considered, the leaders of sabah and sarawak was persuaded to drop the claim as the formation of malaysia was meant to be a permanent “marriage”. in their display of goodwill, they agreed, but who knows two years later singapore will be out of the federation? it is a violation of trust indeed. though #7 might be the crux of the argument against secession, the people of both sabah and sarawak still have the option of UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) on the basis of violation and failure of the federal government to fulfill and comply the content of MA63.

#3 – being objective, i did explicitly and intentionally mentioned in my previous comment that im also uncertain whether MA63 was subjected to VCLT69 or otherwise. in any cases, the option of UID might still remain as Malaya has little, if any shared historical, social and/or cultural commonalities with the Borneo states. the creation of Malaysia is an artificial construct by the colonial power done in a hurry during the height of the Cold War, as a buffer against the threat of communism. as now, communism is no longer a threat, such concern is no longer valid and the “marriage” might be subjected to “annulment” if not for the rich resources of the two states. furthermore, British had only colonized Sarawak since 1st July 1946, having little experience with the people (compared to the Brooke’s family 100 years rule) and they are in a hurry to relinquish control all their colonies east of Suez apart from Hong Kong (which later include Brunei as well due to its refusal to join in the formation of Malaysia). so my personal thought would be that as Malaysia is an artificial construct by the colonial power, rather than inherent, natural responses by the local populace, somehow all options might just be available.

Koh Yong Zher :

1) The Articles 71 and 80(1) was indeed used by Chief Justice James Thompson to dismiss the Kelantan case. Article 71 was mentioned on page 26 of my source, while Article 80(1) was mentioned on page 27. The exact source which I would like to cite follows:

 The case of the Government of the State of Kelantan v the Government of the Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj

2) Sadly, we both know the Federal Government would never let this slide without some sort of action. The “action” part is what worries me should Sarawak attempt a UDI.

3) Yes I had previously noted that you were also uncertain if VCLT 69 applies to MA63. I simply suggested a possible argument that could be used to prevent MA63 from being subjected to VCLT 69 by those with a hidden agenda.

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi :

#1 – the source quoted mentioned those of the “Kelantan Case” but not of the Singapore Secession of 1965. In the Kelantan Case, it is the Malayan parliament who took the initiative to pursue the MA63 on its own without regards to the component states of Malaya. However, the Singaporean case of 1963 differs in the role of Sarawak and North Borneo who were also the signatories of the MA63, yet they are not consulted and the federal government has been acting unilaterally as if the similar case of Kelantan. Formation of new entities through partnership with other entities is one thing, whereas kicking them out without consultation of other partners is quite another. The analogy is rather weak although this is open to further discussion.

#2 – Tunku Abdul Rahman once declared that “Any who intends to secede by force or by any other action will be regarded as rebels and traitors and will be dealt with as such.” Sarawak and Sabah would remain in Malaysia for ever. (excerpt from “Malaysia The Making of a Nation by Boon Kheng Cheah” (p. 65)) – this statement unfortunately contradict his earlier statement that Sabah and Sarawak wont be mere states or extension of Malaya as this latter statement echoes a nuance of (neo-) colonialism.

#3 – Although VCLT69 was formulated later and came into force much latter than MA63, it can be argued that the VCLT69 only compiled the common conventions and previous practices and made them official in a comprehensive document. Thus, as the practices and conventions (of rebus sic stantibus) existed and recognized prior to the documentation of VCLT69 (as referred to the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, United Kingdom v. Iceland 1973 [also known as the Cod Wars] in which the 1961 exchange of notes between the two parties were used in settling the dispute.), one may argue that such sentiments of trust and faith or expectations were in place during the signing of MA63.

a simpler albeit loose analogy would be that murder or corruption would still be perceived and implied wrong and considered as a crime in a newly independent state although comprehensive laws of the crime is yet to be formulated as the state had just attained its own self-rule.

Koh Yong Zher :

1) In the Kelantan case, as Chief Justice Thompson aptly summarized it, “the two things which are attacked in the present proceedings are the action of the Parliament in enacting the Malaysia Act and the action of the Government in concluding the Malaysia Agreement.” As you put it (and I would agree with it) the Federal Government has acted unilaterally without consulting Kelantan in this case, as it has in the act of granting independence to Singapore without consulting the Borneo states.

Hence in essence, I believe what was examined in the Kelantan case is actually “is the Federal Government legally allowed to act unilaterally without consulting the other member states of the federation?” If you agree with the above statement, then we shall go on to look at Chief Justice Thompson’s decision. On page 26 of my cited source, he stated that the real question is “whether the Parliament or the Executive Government has trespassed in anyway the limits placed on their powers by the Constitution. He went on to observe that “These powers were given by the signatories to the 1957 Agreement and they have not been taken away. If the steps that have been taken are in all respects lawful the nature of the results that they have produced cannot of itself make them unlawful. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum!”

Followed by another observation on page 27, where after examining Articles 39 and 80(1), he has concluded that “There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution requiring consultation with any State Government or the Ruler of any state. Again a power has been lawfully exercised by the body to which the power was given by the States in 1957.” He has effectively stated that there was nothing legally wrong with, and the Federal Government is constitutionally backed, to act unilaterally in matters falling under its jurisdiction; there is no law whatsoever which compels the Federal Government to consult the other states. This would definitely apply to the Independence of Singapore Agreement. Any attempt to legally challenge it would simply be dismissed just like the Kelantan case, based on the same grounds and reasoning.

3) Yes, I agree that “one may argue that such sentiments of trust and faith or expectations were in place during the signing of MA63.” Yet, regrettably, nothing legally binding exists to that effect. The same would go for VCLT69: it was not in force and official yet at the time of signing of 1963. Perceptions, implications, expectations, common practices not yet made official: these hold no power in a court of law. Counter-arguments based on these are fragile and sadly, can easily be dashed to pieces by a devious tongue wielding solid, legally binding agreements and strongly entrenched laws. Trust and faith only holds meaning when the other party values and reciprocates them.

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi :

‎#1 – the issue might be examined in this statement “is the Federal Government legally allowed to act unilaterally without consulting the other member states of the federation?”. It is arguable what constitutes “other member states of the federation” in comparing with this statement “It revealed that Kelantan and the other original states were placed together in a class of component states distinct and of a different status from the other three new states. This was the basis of the new federation.” Are the “other member states of the federation” refers to the Malayan component states or do they include the Borneo states which was considered to be distinct and of a different status? Subsection 2 of section 4 (page 23) clearly distinguish the States of Malaya (2(a)) and the Borneo states (2(b)). And just because they may act unilaterally without consulting the Malayan states, doesnt mean it is legal for them to act without consultation of the Borneo states of whom are not comparable to the Malayan states

#2 – another analogy which may be used in comparing the possible subjugation of MA63 to VCLT69 is the utilization of old maps, the cannon shot rule (to determine territorial waters) or effective control to determine the territorial issue and ownership of an area prior to the formulation of UNCLOS82. An example would be the claiming on the ownership of resources in the continental shelf by President Truman in 1945, which created a precedent which was followed by other states, giving rise to a new rule of customary law, constituting a legally binding custom despite an absence of any treaties pertaining to the issue during the period. My argument here is that, practices, norms, conventions, which exist and widely recognized prior to the codification of such law does indeed hold value, relevance and most importantly, legitimacy. This is applicable in arguing the case whether the doctrine of “rebus sic stantibus” applies to MA63 before its codification into VCLT69

Koh Yong Zher :

1) It is quite clear (and has been the point that you have been consistently conveying) that the Borneo states are treated as inferior compared to the Peninsular Malayan component states. Taking that into account, the question becomes this: if the Kelantan case has proven that the Federal Government does not need to consult the Kelantan Sultan (and hence by extension other Sultans/ Malayan state governments) when acting in its own constitutionally provided jurisdiction, would the Federal Government be legally/constitutionally required to consult the Borneo territories on the issue of the independence of Singapore?

3) Though I concur that practices which exist and widely recognized prior to the codification of such law do indeed hold certain value and relevance, the doctrine of “clausula rebus sic stantibus” presents a significantly unique case whereby said doctrine poses great risk to treaties due to its broad covering and relatively unconfined scope.

One may argue that such manipulable doctrines require proper legalization and regulation before allowing proper invocation of said doctrines, hence placing MA63 out of reach since it was signed before proper codification of “clausula rebus sic stantibus” into VCLT63 and its proper coming into force in 1980.

And I would also like to reiterate another point worth I mentioned several posts before: unilateral denunciation of agreements are legally prohibited. Even if it is ruled that “clausula rebus sic stantibus” applies to MA63, what then? The Federal Government will need to acknowledge that the granting of independence to Singapore has i) significantly altered the obligations of the MA63, ii) has significantly changed the circumstances existing at the time of the conclusion of the treaty which were indeed objectively essential to the obligations of MA63 (this is subject to debate as well), or iii) both i and ii.

Following that the Federal Government must be willing to denounce MA63 alongside Sabah and Sarawak, and acknowledge that a new agreement is necessary. Only then can MA63 be successfully nulled and voided. What are the chances of that? I personally believe that under the incumbent BN Federal Government, it is so low that the entire point of applying “clausula rebus sic stantibus” to MA63 is rendered quite moot.

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi :

#1 – there is no statement implying inferiority, rather than a statement which denotes that the Malayan component states are regarded as distinct or different in comparison to the Borneo states as per subsection 2 of section 4 (page 23) clearly distinguish the States of Malaya (2(a)) and the Borneo states (2(b)). And just because they may act unilaterally without consulting the Malayan states, doesnt mean it is legal for them to act without consultation of the Borneo states of whom are not comparable to the Malayan states. The contextual differences plays a role here. again, to reiterate, there is no presumption of borneo states to be inferior or superior in this case. merely contextually different and not to be grouped together with the states of Malaya as per 2(a).

The fact that the Borneo states were the signatories of MA63, together with Singapore warrant that consultation was needed in considering this issue although the outcome of such consultation, whtehr it is legally binding would be questionable. Regardless, its what-if, hypothetical scenario. The action of the federal government then to act unilaterally might (and i emphasis – might) be legal, but it certainly was and still is unjust and unethical.

#3 – it wont technically be unilateral if the two components or signatories of the MA63 decided to mutually renounce it (as it would make it bilateral, but not multi-lateral, and only unilateral renunciation was deemed illegal and prohibited). but anyway, the separation of singapore indeed constitute a significant change of circumstances at the very least in term of parliamentary seats reallocation which is needed as to preserve the interest of the borneo states and the balance of powers (less than 1/3, which enable the Malayan states to pass laws without the need for consent of both Sabah and Sarawak).

As i dont have the annexes of MA63 agreement, unfortunately, i cannot with all fairness argue the case of what constitutes the “obligations of MA63”.

However, the surrender of Malaysian territory in the form of oil block L & M to Brunei which took place during the premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in March 2009 might be another interesting consideration whether this constitutes a violation of Borneo states’ territorial integrity. And please advise whether this “handing over” is in compliance of Article 2 of the federal constitution as i do not recall any parliamentary session which passed the law on altering the boundaries of state nor can i recall any proceeding in the state legislative assembly (be it of Sarawak or Sabah – as im uncertain whether it falles within the territorial limit of either state) which gave consent to the act. But if the preservation of territorial integrity may be considered as part of “obligations of MA63”, i believe this can and does constitute significant alterations and violations of territorial sovereignty of the state(s) involved. This might be regarded as “material breach” according to VLCT69 article 60(3b) (arguing that MA63 was essential in the formation of Malaysia, yet the federal government failed to preserve Malaysian territorial integrity through the surrender parts of its territory to other states without parliamentary approval). But as mentioned earlier, please advise whether this act was in the first place in compliance to article 2 of the federal constitution. Thanks.

Koh Yong Zher :

1) In the current Constitution of Malaysia, Article 1 clause 2 states the following: “The States of the Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu.” This would mean that all 13 are considered equally as states and their jurisdiction are thus limited by Article 80 clause 1 which states the following: “Subject to the following provisions of this Article the executive authority of the Federation extends to all matters with respect to which Parliament may make laws, and the executive authority of a State to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of that State may make laws.” Hence Article 80(1) has already placed the granting of independence to Singapore, which falls into external diplomatic affairs, neatly into the hands of the Federal Government and out of reach for the State Governments.

As Chief Justice Thompson put it, “I cannot see that Parliament went in any way beyond its powers or that it did anything so fundamentally revolutionary as to require fulfillment of a condition which the Constitution itself did not prescribe, that is to say a condition to the effect that the State of Kelantan or ANY OTHER STATE should be consulted.” Article 81(2) further limits the jurisdiction of the State Governments by stating thus: “The executive authority of every State shall be so exercised- as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation.” This almost completely blocks State Governments from taking any actions which will impede and/or question the Federal Government’s actions and intentions, a good example of said action being (in our discourse here) the act of questioning and demanding to be consulted regarding the granting of independence to Singapore. This is a complete deadlock which I, in my personal capacity, see as almost impossible to circumvent legally. I would agree that it is rather unjust and unethical, and add that this is a devious and cunning move if it was deliberately implemented for purposes mentioned above.

3) With the current information I have on the territorial dispute over oil blocks L and M, I am inclined to conclude that, if oil blocks L and M rightfully and legally belonged to Malaysia (Sabah?) under the relevant provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, then the ceding of said territory to Brunei (giving up of claims to said territory?) in March 2009 is unconstitutional simply because there has been no state legislation (that we know of) with regards to the ceding. Note however that the sovereign rights of oil blocks L and M are highly disputed; I have personally come to conclude that the reason why oil blocks L and M were once considered Malaysian territory was simply because Malaysia claimed it first and Brunei did not react back then.

A possible scenario born of my speculation is that oil blocks L and M are actually rightful territories of Brunei under the provisions of UNCLOS 1982. The Federal Government was aware that if Brunei staked claims to the oil blocks and the matter was brought before an international tribunal, Malaysia would lose ANY AND ALL claims to said territory (profits from hydrocarbon resources, shipping, fishing etc). True to the spirit of “half a loaf is better than none”, the Federal Government under Abdullah Badawi negotiated with the Brunei Government and agreed to voluntarily give up claims on oil blocks L and M in exchange for Malaysia’s participation in any commercialisation of oil and gas from the area, thereby guaranteeing Malaysia’s share in the resources of the area. If that was the case, then I believe there is hardly any question of constitutionality in this issue since the oil blocks in question was not rightfully territory of Malaysia. Since the matter was never brought before an international tribunal and we do not have access to the details necessary to speculate the true rightful owner of oil blocks L and M based on UNCLOS 1982(do we?), we may never know for certain the truth of the matter.

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi :

#1 – I was initially referring to the sources you provided , the case used by Chief Justice James Thomson where the Malayan states were referred to differently than the Borneo states and Singapore. Granted that current constitution have it on equal basis through 1(2), but it was certainly subjected to amendments sometimes after the Singapore was out of the federation. what might be interesting is to figure out whether such is the arrangements before 1965, or were these states grouped/categorized separately as how it was stated in “subsection 2 of section 4” . There is a need to know when was it amended (as to exclude singapore) and what was the initial wording of the said article when Singapore was still part of Malaysia, before it was excluded. Would love to see the constitution as it were on 16th Sept 1963, the one on 9th August 1965 and those which comes afterwards to see the differences. It is rather sad that the essential founding documents of ours have been subjected to numerous amendments overtimes that it kinda lose its original spirit.

#3 – As for block L & M, Malaysia would only lose the dispute if both Malaysia and Brunei mutually agree to refer the case of territorial dispute to ICJ. If Malaysia simply refuse to refer the case, she might just retain the territory (albeit “by force and unjustly”) through “effective control/occupation” of said area and earlier claims. certainly this is not the “gentleman’s way” of things although its legitimacy can be argued. The same can be said on Malaysia’s refusal to be subjected to the ICJ ruling on the Philippines’s claim on Sabah. but yes, the certain truth of the issue may never see the lights of days.

By any means, it has been a stimulating, intellectual discussion. we may not agree on the facts, but we might have learned new things, in one way or another, few invaluable insights. it is uncouth for us to treat the wall posting as if its our personal blog, perhaps much to the annoyance of other posters and 114(a) might be just be around… LOL. i thank you for your arguments and points you have presented and lessons ive learned these few days. it has been a honorable and humbling experience and no less intriguing to have engaged in this discourse with you. looking forward for future engagements, and i bid the people of Malaya Happy 55th Merdeka Day and the People of Sabah, Happy 49th Independence Day!

Koh Yong Zher :

Such are my sentiments as well. This entire discussion has also been a huge learning experience for me. Thank you for the opportunity and your willingness for a meaningful discourse. I bid the people of Malaya Happy 55th Merdeka Day and the people of Sabah and Sarawak, Happy 49th Independence Day, and may the future Federal Government strive for a better and equal future for all peoples of Malaysia.

Awang Dzul-Hashriq Dharfizi :

Correction, Happy 55th Merdeka Day for Malaya on 31st August, 49th for Sabah while Sarawak on 22nd July🙂

1 Comment »

  1. You guys are going in cycle, the premise of your discussion is the 20/18 points which don’t exist. Try look at the Cobbold Commission Report and the Inter Government Report and don’t forget read the memorandum submitted by the Malaysia Solidarity and Consultative Committee. See whether the issues you raised and discuss is relevant or not. The 3 documents should provide the guide post for your discussion to expand in the right direction. You need not read the Malaysia Agreement 1963 from cover to cover, focus directly on Article 8 of that agreement which gives Sabah & Sarawak immense power. As far as I am concern Sabah & Sarawak was given absolute autonomy to govern ourselves. The only issue was that we are NOT assertive enough to demand what is rightfully ours.

    Comment by Zainal Ajamainainnal Ajamain — November 17, 2012 @ 6:14 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: