Search

No reason to declare MA63 null and void: SPA

Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
Telegram
Email

KUCHING: There is no reason to render the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) null and void, said the Sarawak Patriots Association (SPA). “MA63 guarantees that Sarawak is an equal partner in the formation of Malaysia,” said SPA secretary David Hii Chin Loung (pic) to New Sarawak Tribune.

He was responding to a statement made by Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr James Jemut Masing, who viewed that MA63 is no longer legally binding after Singapore, the fourth party to the Federation of Malaysia, seceded in 1965. Last Tuesday, Masing called for a new deal to be charted by the remaining parties Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah to replace the voided agreement.

Hii, a practising lawyer, cited that the Apex Court once ruled that there is no possibility, far less probability that the Malaysia Act or MA63 is a nullity.

“In 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 [1963] 1 LNS 145, the Government of The State of Kelantan had prayed for declarations that MA63 and the subsequent Malaysia Act were null and void, or alternatively not binding on the State of Kelantan.”

He also revealed that the Apex Court has recognised special laws for Sabah and Sarawak, which those special provisions were one of the terms of participation of Sabah and Sarawak in the formation of Malaysia.

“The inviolability of the IGC Report and MA63 were upheld in two (2) Apex Courts, Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah V. Sugumar Balakrishnan & Another Appeal [2002] 4 CLJ 105 and Datuk Mohammad Tufail Mahmud & Ors V. Dato’ Ting Check Sii [2009] 4 CLJ 449.

“Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Datuk David Wong Dak Wah who then presided over Fung Fon Chen & Anor. v. The Government of Malaysia & Anor. [2012] 8 CLJ 706 held that any breach to MA63 affects the lives of all Sabahans and the basic structure of the Federal and Statement Government relationship upon which Malaysia was formed.”

The SPA secretary viewed that the plaintiffs as Sabahans, had every right to come to the court to ensure that assurances given by the signatories in the Agreement were adhered to. “The assurances were promised to them and the rest of the population of Sabah and to hold that they had no locus standi defeated their constitutional right of access to the court.

“The signatories to the Agreement signed it as trustee to the people of North Borneo and Sarawak, the beneficiaries which the Court recognised.” Hii highlighted that SPA is of the view that there is just too much politics involved at the moment which may prolong and obstruct process of reclaiming back Sarawak’s eroded rights.

“We ask for politics to be set aside in the interests of the people of Sabah and Sarawak who are the beneficiaries to MA63.

“Without the IGC, Cobbold Commission and MA63, there may not be a Malaysia today. The intention of MA63 was not to take away Sarawak’s rights.

These rights were actually entrenched in the safeguards provided in MA63 and now is the time to honour and implement it.” He called for political differences to be set aside for a resolution be achieved as the decision, at the end of the day affects the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

Download from Apple Store or Play Store.