Monday, 2 May 2016

“Any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will”

The issue of secession was not included in the IGC report because “any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will”.

The view put forth by a constitution expert and a former Law professor from the International Islamic University recently is arguable.

The professor claimed that Sabah and Sarawak cannot leave Malaysia because of Article 2 of the Malaysia Constitution.

Well this Article was never amended ever since it was written into the Constitution which means that this Article was there when Singapore was “expelled” as he claimed from Malaysia in 1965.

The same Article 2 is still present today in the Constitution, not amended what-so-ever.

The Kota Belud MP and federal minister asserted that talking about seceding from Malaysia is seditious under the Malaysia law and that Sabah and Sarawak cannot secede from Malaysia.

Let me state that anyone who wants to talk about the Malaysia Agreement 1963 without showing their own stupidity must at least read the following primer:

The Cobbold Commission Report 1962
The Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC) 1963
The Malaysia Agreement 1963

There are two things that everyone must learn from the IGC. Firstly, the IGC is where five political parties from Sabah submitted their memorandum on the 29th August 1962.

Today this memorandum is commonly known as the 20 points. The 20 points is a memorandum and NOT an agreement as asserted by the Minister.

As a memorandum the 20 point document was submitted to the IGC for consideration by the committee members.

The IGC was headed by Lord Lansdowne the British Minister of State for Colonial Affairs.

Its tasks was “to work out the future constitutional arrangements, including safeguards for the special interest of North Borneo and Sarawak to cover such matters as religious freedom, education, representation in the Federal Parliament, the position of the indigenous races, control of immigration, citizenship and the State Constitution”.

Therefore, the 20 points memorandum was incorporated into the IGC report. The IGC report has 37 points and NOT just 20 points.

Secession is not seditious

Based on the above, the IGC report is the framework to formulate the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The IGC is NOT the Malaysia Agreement 1963. It is just a report and accepted by the governments.

The IGC has similar function to the Reid Commission which drafted the Constitution for the Federation of Malaya. The IGC report was accepted and signed on Feb 27, 1963 by the United Kingdom, North Borneo, Federation of Malaya and Sarawak

Secondly, the 20 point memorandum submitted by the five political parties contain a secession clause which is point No. 7.

In this clause it was specified that there shall be no secession which means that Sabah cannot secede from Malaysia.

However, the issue of secession was not included in the IGC report.

The reason given by Lord Lansdowne was that “any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will, and that it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Constitution”.

Basically what it means here is that Sabah and Sarawak is free to form Malaysia, it is also therefore free to leave.

Sabah and Sarawak does not need the approval of each of the states to leave. Sabah and Sarawak does not need the support of the Rulers Council to leave.

All Sabah and Sarawak need to do is to pass a resolution in their respective Dewan Undangan Negeri to leave and Sabah and Sarawak will become a sovereign nation.

I hope the above explanation is sufficient to clear any confusion about the content and usage of terms pertaining to the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

It is an embarrassment and shameful to see, read and hear Ministers, Professors and ordinary man in the street talking about the formation of Malaysia without them really knowing what the subjects is all about.

There is also nothing seditious about talk son secession. These are real issues based on the IGC, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and after five decades of forming Malaysia.

These are options available to the people in Sabah and Sarawak and to avoid these discussions all the government needs to do is simply fulfill its obligations as per the agreement “nothing more, and nothing less”.

Source: Hui Lim Wee
Reactions:

1 comments :

The Philippine claim against Sabah was a national issue and brought they claim to the UNCLOS spratly island and includes half sabah (old sulu sultanate land) ... and now 12 july 2016 , we will know the if the Philippine government win against china arbitration case... it will be a huge seismic gravitational change in geopolitics of south east asia... the Philippine pursuit its claim to UN ICJ maybe will eventually take sabah and expose the crime of the Neo Malaya colonialists in sabah... but ive doubt it because Sabah had exercised their right to self-determination and joined the malaysia in MA1963 agreement.... but does it? some claim that even the agreement Federation of Malaysia null and void because sabah and sarawak supposed to be an equal partner between nation to the tanah melayu but the it turn out to be a "Putrajaya take over"by the Neo-malaya elit colonialists... the Philippine claim to UN ICJ may be a blessings in disguise because it will clarified all the distorted history perpetuate to the native of Sabah.... if so to speak maybe the UN ICJ will once give a chance to Sabahan people to exercise once more its self-determination to finally make a choice to be trully independence free from malaysia and Philippine? only time will tell

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...