As Malaysia celebrates its 46th anniversary on September 16th 2009, one wonders whether there is any true meaning in the formation of Malaysia. According to the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 in Part II Section 4 (1) "The Federation shall be known, in Malay and English, by the name Malaysia".
In Section 2 of the same part in the agreement, Malaysia is defined as below:
The States of the Federation shall be-
a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu; and
b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak; and
c) the State of Singapore.
From the above it can be concluded that Malaya is only a component within the Federation of Malaysia. Why then is Malaya's independence celebrated as the National Day for Malaysia?
And secondly, why does the Federal Constitution not define Malaysia Day? This is despite it being mentioned several times in the constitution, for example in Article 19 (4).
If we look at Article 160, the Federation is defined as the one established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957! Does this mean, the legality of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia can be questioned?
Linundus says ...
The Malaysia Agreement in 1963 should have been reviewed when Singapore was 'sacked' from the Federation of Malaysia.
Why was the Malaysia Agreement 1963 not reviewed since Singapore was no longer in the Malaysia Federation?
This question was thrown to Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi, Emeritus Professor of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA at the Seminar organized by MAJAPS and SLA on 18th July 2009 in Kota Kinabalu.
According to the Emeritus Professor, there was a 'review' on the change of the Malaysia Constitution 1963 when Singapore was no longer a component within the Federation of Malaysia to the effect that "all relevant items and clauses affecting Singapore do not apply".
Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Fauqi can be reached at shadsaleem@yahoo.co.uk
.jpg)
Gundohing SJD, according to a book published in the late 1960s entitled "The Rise and Fall of Kadazanism" by Margaret C, the author wrote that "when Singapore was expelled from the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965, the then CM of Sabah the late Donald Stephens aka Tun Fuad Stephens actually want to review Sabah entry to the Federation of Malaysia, but he was told by Founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman to forget his plan because Sabah cannot secede (20 points),even armed rebellion cannot... and Sabah do not have enough vote in the Parliament. So thats how powerful was Tunku Abdul Rahman at that time.
ReplyDelete... there was a 'review' on the change of the Malaysia Constitution 1963 when Singapore was no longer a component within the Federation of Malaysia to the effect that "all relevant items and clauses affecting Singapore do not apply".
ReplyDeleteAt the time of the above-mentioned "review" of the Malaysia Constitution ..."""HOW WAS THE PARLIAMENT REPRESENTED BY THE PEOPLE? HOW MANY MPs REPRESENTING MALAYA, SABAH AND SARAWAK?
...WHAT WE EAST MALAYSIANS SHOULD AND MUST DO NOW IS TO DEMAND EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT....50% MALAYANS AND 50% EAST MALAYSIANS....IN ORDER THAT NO OTHER BIASED ACTS OF LAW PERTAINING TO THE WELL-BEING OF EAST MALAYSIA'S RIGHTS AS AN EQUAL PARTNER OF THE FEDERATION BE UNJUSTLY ENACTED BY THE PRESENTLY MALAYAN-DOMINATED PARLIAMENT!
SABAH HAD BEEN A FULLY INDEPENDENT NATION FROM THE 31ST AUGUST 1963 TILL 16TH SEPTEMBER 1963 WHEN IT THEN AGREED TO THE MALAYSIA PLAN! WE AGREED BACK THEN TO SACRIFICE OUR INDEPENDENCE FOR A BETTER TOMORROW IN THE NEW MALAYSIA...AND WHAT JUSTIFIES A BIASED LAW THAT FORBIDS OUR DESIRE FOR SECESSION.....WHEN EVEN THE PARLIAMENT BACK THEN....AS IT IS NOW...IS NOT EQUAL IN REPRESENTATION FROM SABAH AND SARAWAK?!? THIS IS LIKE TITO'S FORMER YUGOSLAVIA!
.....anyway...God will find a way as scriptured in the Book of Exodus! God's way is mysterious....
King Cup s/o Nche Matahari
During those tumultuous period prior to Sabah joined hand with Malaya circa 1961/62 the leaders at that time should have heeded Sundang and Sedomon leaders from Interior to self independent first with British Army protection. Just like Brunei.
ReplyDelete...at that time...Indochina and even Indonesia were so "communist-virused" especially in the case of the former where the communists guerillas were gaining solid grounds against the colonial forces of France and its western allies. British and American political strategists saw that Malaya and Singapore...being the last bastion of western imperialism will not last long when there is no "physical existence in the form of an American/British-like statehood in the region,,,,hence the creation of Malaysia....with it's copyrighted American Glorious Stripes and shadows of British political system as seen in the Jalur Gemilang and the Internal Security Act....
ReplyDeleteSo...it means that Sabah and Sarawak not only saved Malaya in the last general election...but they saved Malaya in the early days of the 60's from chairman Mao's Long March Red Peasant army...by agreeing to form MALAYSIA!
Malaya...the Rose of Malaya won't survive without Sabah and Sarawak! That being us.....humble East Malaysians...
King Cup s/o Nche Matahari,
S.P.A.R.R.A,
United States of Buhavan (USB)
With deadwoods representing Sabah at the state assembly and parliament, Sabah might not achieve anything much.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Landsdowne report, despite the opposition of Pasok's Sedomon and Sabah Chinese United's Party from Sandakan that they wanted self-rule or independence first from the British and then joined Malaysia actually the former master British encouraged the formation of the Federation of Malaysia due to the instability in the region during that time (circa 1960s)like Communism in Kalimantan Borneo, the Phillipines claim and to balance the malays and chinese. Based on the report also, I understand that our people are not that naive when deciding to joined Malaysia but it was his former master the British that presurring her because we are under the Crown British Colony (Under King George lah) whereas Brunei is under self-rule (British protected} and thats the difference. The British fear that her former colony will not fall to the Communist China. Please read the Landsdowne Report available in Wikepedia for further reading.
ReplyDelete