ICJ reaffirmed international law rule that only independent sovereign states have power to make treaties.
UK must return North Borneo and Sarawak to their people under the supervision of the UN Security Council.
Alternatively, Malaysia can do so, under the supervision of the UN Security Council.
The UK and Malaysia can also be taken to the ICC, on the advice of the UN Security Council, to be held responsible for the plight of North Borneo and Sarawak.
Again, in view of ICJ ruling on Chagos Islands, the legislatures of North Borneo and Sarawak should debate the ruling and Invoke international law on self-determination.
Incompatibility, under the principles of self-determination, rules out peaceful co-existence.
The legislatures can also note that Article 8 of MA63 may not be applicable since Colonies could not be party, under international law, to international agreements.
The legislatures should take note of the fact that Law Minister V. K. Liew told the media that Attorney General Tommy Thomas advised him against making any reference to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) in the proposed 9 April 2019 amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution.
The AG, said Liew, felt the omission would help avoid “complications”.
What are the “complications”?
The complications arise from MA63 not being valid in international law.
The ICJ ruling on Chagos also refers.
Void ab initio
The meaning of the word void is empty or containing nothing.
Legally, void means invalid or having no legal force or effect.
Void ab initio means legally invalid from the very beginning.
If a document or act is declared void ab initio, it means that the document/act was invalid from the date it was made.
The law treats as if the document/act never existed.
UK transferred North Borneo and Sarawak to Malaysia, under the inapplicable Article 1 of MA63, as Colonies to be Federated States.
Having said that, it’s important to note that the Federal Court may decline to give a point of law ruling on the ICJ ruling on Chagos.
It may advise the Malaysian gov’t to settle the issue with the people of North Borneo and Sarawak.
Imran Khan said in China recently that corruption was the root cause of poverty in Pakistan.
He said wealth was being transferred from those who have no power to those who have power.
Such wealth was parked overseas.
As Putin said, Pakistan has become a big cemetery. Those who plundered the country only returned home in a coffin.
“You can’t develop a cemetery,” said Putin.
In Borneo, besides corruption, colonisation was another reason for the grinding poverty.
Wealth was being transferred from Borneo to Malaya.
The Sabah claim (to parts of Sabah) is based on the British not giving independence to the Territory before Malaysia.
The claim can only be resolved by the UK handing back Sabah to its people or Malaysia doing so.
If North Borneo and Sarawak are going to proceed on the basis that MA63 has not been declared invalid by a court, then both Territories can proceed to Invoke Article 8 for self-determination.
MA63, according to international law, is invalid.
What’s the basis in international law for North Borneo and Sarawak to be in Federation with Malaya?
The people in Borneo can’t be party to an illegality i.e. Malaya occupying their homelands.
It’s the INTENTION of the Founding Fathers and the INTENTION of the people in Borneo on 16 Sept 1963 that matter in law . . . spirit of the law more important than letter of the law in rule of law.
Just letter of the law alone is not law, it’s dictatorship.
Until MA63 is declared invalid by a court or ICJ, it’s still valid.
So, again, the way forward is to Invoke Article 8 of MA63 on self-determination.
When it comes to Borneo on the Malaysia Constitution, the High Court of Borneo and Federal Court must read MA63, Batu Sumpah and the other constitutional documents on Malaysia together with the Federal Constitution.
MA63 refers to the Malaysia Constitution but does not say it must be written/codified.
Source: FernzTheGreat
Post a Comment