SSRANZ 主席 关于砂拉越和沙巴权利的新闻声明

打印
分类:犀乡论坛

Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand - SSRANZ - Home | Facebook   Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand - SSRANZ - Home | Facebook

以他首相在巴勒斯坦问题上的开明观点首相也应该看到与英国政府在1963年非法将马来西亚联邦计划强加于沙巴(当时称为北婆罗洲)和砂拉越的相似之处,而不是给予他们独立。SSRANZ 主席:“ 呼吁你们的政府寻求与婆罗洲各州政府、婆罗洲民族主义者和感兴趣的政治人物进行对话。 和平顺利地移交权力,将主权移交沙巴和砂拉越。”

 

Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand - SSRANZ - Home | Facebook   Int'l NGO calls PM to repeal laws that allegedly eroded Sarawak's MA63  rights | DayakDaily

 

 

 

SSRANZ 关于砂拉越和沙巴权利的新闻声明(2022 年 12 月 22 日发布

SSRANZ 呼吁 PM ANWAR IBRAHIM 审查 SABAH SARAWAK 在马来西亚的地位,这类似于巴勒斯坦问题。

Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) 是一家总部设在澳大利亚的国际非政府组织,它评论了安瓦尔·易卜拉欣首相在 2022 年 12 月 20 日的新闻发布会上关于马来西亚承诺并声援巴勒斯坦人民“为使巴勒斯坦摆脱犹太复国主义以色列的控制而进行的斗争”的声明。

SSRANZ 主席贝聿铭表示,巴勒斯坦问题已被各种政客用作政治民粹主义的陈词滥调。 但众所周知,新任首相长期以来真诚支持承认巴勒斯坦是一个自由独立的国家,其在巴勒斯坦问题上坚定不移的反帝反殖民立场必须得到尊重。

他说:“近来,我们目睹了许多殖民历史遗留的殖民地成为独立国家,例如帕劳、东帝汶、黑山、塞尔维亚和南苏丹。 苏格兰、加泰罗尼亚、巴勒斯坦和布甘维尔等其他国家也在寻求独立,它们都走自己的道路寻求自决。 所有这些例子都肯定了自由选择个人命运的普遍合法权利的原则。”

他说,1948 年巴勒斯坦被英国政府剥夺独立和背叛,因为英国政府通过犹太复国主义接管、占领和夺取巴勒斯坦领土共谋建立以色列。 这导致了 66 年的巴勒斯坦抵抗。

以他在巴勒斯坦问题上的开明观点,首相也应该看到与英国政府在1963年非法将马来西亚联邦计划强加于沙巴(当时称为北婆罗洲)和砂拉越的相似之处,而不是给予他们独立。

SSRANZ 主席说:“关于沙巴和砂拉越的不完全非殖民化和独立问题,我想提请你们注意,并呼吁你们的政府寻求与婆罗洲各州政府、婆罗洲民族主义者和感兴趣的政治人物进行对话。 和平顺利地移交权力,将主权移交沙巴和砂拉越。”

SSRANZ 坚持认为,根据 MA63 成立马来西亚的过程存在法律缺陷和违法行为,违反了国际法,这使得该条约不具有法律约束力。 马来西亚不是一个合法组成的联邦,因为 MA63 条约从一开始就因为缺乏法律行为能力、同意和法律目标而无效(旨在否认沙巴和砂拉越真正独立以实施英国大设计)。

首相也可能知道,在 1946 年,也就是外国接管巴勒斯坦的两年前,英国政府以站不住脚的理由,吞并了独立的沙捞越州和北婆罗洲特许公司管理的沙巴领土,作为英国直辖殖民地。 当时,英国人郑重承诺,这两个殖民地最终都会获得独立。

然而,英国殖民主义者违背他们的一再承诺,根据无效的1963年马来西亚协定(MA63),将2个殖民地的主权和殖民控制权移交给马来亚联邦,强行实施所谓的非殖民化。

马来西亚是在强制性紧急情况下建立的,没有举行全民公决和镇压 1962 年文莱反马来西亚武装起义,还任意逮捕和非法拘留数千名“涉嫌”反对英马马来西亚计划的人。

英国政府称这是通过“马来西亚独立”实现的“非殖民化”。 这只是重新殖民的委婉说法,并没有真正改变地位。 任何一个国家在另一个国家内部“独立”,在法律上都是荒谬的,也是不可能的。

这两个婆罗洲领土只是英国大设计和冷战地缘政治的牺牲品,他们通过将它们与马来亚和新加坡合并为一个联邦来重新绘制地图的战略。 根据前砂拉越总督安东尼·阿贝尔爵士的说法,这是马来亚精英们共同的设计,他们的目光投向了北婆罗洲和砂拉越的广阔领土及其石油。

他提请首相注意 MA63 作为一项国际条约的有效性的法律问题,该条约目前正在 Bomeo 高等法院受到质疑。

当英国和马来亚于 1963 年 7 月 9 日与沙巴砂拉越和新加坡签署 MA63 时,这 3 个领土仍然是英国直辖殖民地(直到 1963 年 9 月 16 日),而不是具有制定具有约束力的国际条约的法律能力的主权国家。

国际法院 (ICJ) 在 2019 年的查戈斯案中确认了这项关于制定条约的国际法原则,该案得出的结论是,英国政府无法与其在英国完全控制的殖民地毛里求斯签订具有约束力的国际协议 1965 年。(国际法院还重申自决权现在是国际法的一部分)。

法律能力和同意的问题与沙巴和砂拉越在MA63谈判中都没有直接选举代表或通过公民投票民主授权的代表有关。 这实际上是由他们各自的英国总督代表他们谈判的。 在同意并起草条款后,婆罗洲人表面上参与其中。

有关马来西亚成立的解密殖民文件披露,英国政府已从法律上获知这一缺陷,但出于“表象目的”,继续向婆罗洲人民谎称他们在国际层面上是平等伙伴,有权签署 MA63 条约。 当时的殖民地总检察长也分别代表沙巴和砂拉越签署了MA63。

与英国和马来亚政府声称马来西亚是一个自愿协会或联盟的说法相反,从未举行公投通过准确衡量人民自由选择马来西亚或独立的意愿来征求人民的同意。 不同意 MA63 也使该条约无效。

如果马来西亚是一个自愿联盟,那么正如 1963 年 IGC 主席 Lord Lansdowne 所说,其成员有固有的权利可以随时“脱离”联邦,而这项权利不需要写入宪法。 他这样说是为了回应砂拉越内阁里议员要求在宪法中加入例外条款的要求。

1965 年,当马来西亚政府与新加坡同意它可以退出联邦时,行使了自由退出的必然权利。 英国以身作则,于 2019 年举行了脱欧公投,并于 2020 年退出了欧盟。

国际法并不禁止政治联盟的成员脱离或退出以自行独立。

除了上述的法律问题,SSRANZ主席指出,MA63和大马的合法性也存疑,因为马来亚在1963年7月31日与印尼和菲律宾签署的马尼拉协议,要求解决菲律宾对沙巴的主权要求从未有过得到解决。 这意味着英国能否在1963年有效地将沙巴的主权移交给马来亚尚不清楚。

因此,根据这项于 1965 年在联合国注册的国际协议,马来西亚的成立并未合法结束。

MA63在事实上显然是无效的,在“实施”之前,首相有责任解决这个问题,因为它对马来西亚作为一个国际实体的合法性具有国际法律后果。

他说,即使可以证明 MA63 是一项有效条约,但自 1965 年以来联邦政府多次违反条约,根据国际法,该条约将被终止。

贝聿铭指出,MA63的多次违反也带来了根本性的情况变化,使条约无法完全执行,从而导致条约终止(如果有效),其中包括:
• MA63 因英国政府未能在签署时立即登记条约而无效——《联合国宪章》第 102(2) 条规定“任何此类条约或国际协定的缔约方均未根据第 1 款的规定进行登记” 本条规定可在联合国任何机构之前援引该条约或协定”。 直到 1970 年未能注册 MA63,导致其无效。 这是一个缺陷,必须在当前“实施”MA63 尝试的背景下进行检查。
• 新加坡退出破坏了基于4 成员联盟组成结构的MA63 基本条款。 它还违反了基本结构原则。 在此之前,马来西亚的概念是拥有包括文莱在内的5个组成成员。 文莱苏丹在最后一刻拒绝签署 MA63,因为他认为马来西亚式的联合不符合他人民的利益。 由于这些变化,MA63 应该重新谈判,但它被掩盖了,没有完成。
• MA63 直到 2020 年才被联邦宪法承认,因此尽管 2021 年迟迟未能批准和承认该条约,但自 1963 年起,马来西亚成为非法和所有立法无效。
• 随后对 MA63 的非法修正案废除了基本条款或基础条款,无论是通过宪法修正案还是正常的立法变更。
• 1970 年 NEP 种族宗教种族隔离国家的制度化破坏了 MA63 世俗多种族国家的概念。
• 宣布的马来西亚“发展”沙巴和砂拉越的目标失败,取而代之的是通过非法征用他们的财富和土地使他们陷入贫困,以他们为代价发展马来亚。

最后,他说,沙巴人和砂拉越人被诱使放弃独立,以将他们的国家纳入 1963 年更名为马来西亚的马来亚联邦,已故首相东姑阿都拉曼宣布的安全发展和繁荣的承诺是证明其合法性的主要目标。

如果这个目标失败了,人民有权寻求其他选择,包括完全独立,以根据丰富的自然资源管理和发展自己的国家。 许多婆罗洲人将沙巴和砂拉越与马来亚更紧密融合的议程视为新殖民主义的野心。

不可剥夺的自决权得到国际法和联合国的承认,不容谈判。

声明结束 22/12/2022

罗伯特·裴-
澳大利亚新西兰沙巴砂拉越权利协会主席

 

SSRANZ CALLS ON PM ANWAR IBRAHIM TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF SABAH SARAWAK IN MALAYSIA WHICH IS AKIN TO THE PALESTINE ISSUE.

 Int'l NGO calls PM to repeal laws that allegedly eroded Sarawak's MA63  rights | DayakDaily

Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) an international NGO based in Australia, commented on PM Anwar Ibrahim’s statement on Malaysia's commitment to and solidarity with the Palestinian people’s “struggle to free Palestine from the grip of Zionist Israel” made in a press conference on 20 Dec 2022.

SSRANZ President Robert Pei said the issue of Palestine has been used by various politicians as a handy political populist platitude. However, it is well known that the new Prime Minister has for a long time sincerely supported the recognition of Palestine as a free and independent state and therefore must be respected for his unwavering anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist position on Palestine.

He said “In recent times we have witnessed many remnant colonies of the colonial past becoming independent states such as Palau, Timor‑Leste, Montenegro, Serbia, and South Sudan. Other countries are also seeking independence such as Scotland, Catalonia, Palestine and Bouganville, all of which have followed their own paths to seek self-determination. All these examples affirm the principle of the universal legal right to freely choose one’s destiny”.

He said in 1948 Palestine was denied independence and betrayed by the British government for its complicity in the creation of Israel through the Zionist takeover, occupation and seizures of Palestinian territory. This led to 66 years of Palestinian resistance.

With his enlightened view on the Palestinian issue, the Prime Minister should also see the similarity with the British government’s unlawful imposition of the Malaysia federation plan on Sabah (then called North Borneo) and Sarawak in 1963, instead of granting independence to them.

The SSRANZ President said, “It is in relation to the subject of the incomplete decolonisation and independence of Sabah and Sarawak that I wish to raise for your attention and call on your government to seek dialogue with respective Borneo state governments, Borneo nationalists and interested political parties for a peaceful and smooth devolution of power and transfer of sovereignty back to Sabah and Sarawak.”

SSRANZ maintains that the process of Malaysia formation pursuant to MA63, was tainted with legal defects and illegalities in violation of international law which rendered the treaty not legally binding. Malaysia was not a legally constituted federation as the MA63 treaty was null and void from the beginning for lack of legal capacity, consent and legal object for the formation (contrived to deny Sabah and Sarawak real independence to implement the UK Grand Design).

The Prime Minister may also be aware that in 1946, 2 years before the foreign takeover of Palestine, the British Government had with flimsy justifications, annexed the independent state of Sarawak and the North Borneo Chartered Company administered territory of Sabah as British Crown colonies. At the time, the British solemnly promised that both colonies would eventually be given independence.

However, in breach of their repeated undertakings, the British colonialists imposed its so-called decolonisation by transferring the sovereignty and colonial control of 2 colonies to the Malayan federation pursuant to the void Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

Malaysia was established under coercive emergency conditions without a referendum and suppression of the 1962 Brunei Anti-Malaysia armed uprising and arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions of thousands of “suspected” opponents to the British-Malayan Malaysia plan.

The British government said this was “decolonisation” through “independence in Malaysia”. This was only a euphemism for re-colonisation without a real change in status. It is legally absurd and impossible for any country to be “independent” within another country.

The 2 Borneo territories were just the sacrificial victims of the British Grand Design and cold war geopolitics in their strategic redrawing of the map by merging them with Malaya and Singapore in a federation. It was a design shared by Malayan elites who according to a former Sarawak governor Sir Anthony Abell, had their eyes on the vast territories of North Borneo and Sarawak and their oil.

He drew the Prime Minister’s attention to the legal issue of MA63 validity as an international treaty which is now being challenged in the Bomeo High Court.

When the UK and Malaya signed MA63 with Sabah Sarawak and Singapore on 9 July 1963, the 3 territories were still British crown colonies (up to 16 September 1963) and not sovereign states with the legal capacity to make binding international treaties.

This international law principle on treaty-making was confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 2019 Chagos case where it was concluded that the British government could not make a binding international agreement with its colony Mauritius which was under its full control in 1965. (The ICJ also reaffirmed that the right to self-determination is now a part of international law).

The issue of legal capacity and consent is linked to the fact that neither Sabah nor Sarawak had directly elected representation or representatives democratically authorised by a referendum in the MA63 negotiation. This was in reality negotiated on their behalf by their respective British Governors. The Borneo people were ostensibly involved after the terms were agreed to and drawn up.

The declassified colonial documents on Malaysia formation disclosed that the British government was legally advised of this flaw but had proceeded to misrepresent to the Borneo people that they were equal partners on the international level and competent to sign the MA63 treaty, for “presentational purpose”. The then-colonial Attorney-Generals also signed MA63 on behalf of Sabah and Sarawak respectively.

Contrary to the British and Malayan governments’ claim that Malaysia was a voluntary association or union, a referendum was never held to seek the people’s consent by precisely gauging the people’s wishes given freely on choosing Malaysia or independence. This lack of consent to MA63 also invalidates the treaty.

If Malaysia was a voluntary union, then as Lord Lansdowne the 1963 IGC chairman stated, its members have the intrinsic right to “secede” from the federation at any time and this right need not be included in the constitution. He had said this in response to Sarawak Council Negri members’ demand for an escape clause to be inserted in the constitution.

This corollary right of free exit was exercised in 1965 when the Malaysian government agreed with Singapore that it could exit the federation. The British led by example by holding their BREXIT referendum in 2019 and the UK exited the European Union in 2020.

International law does not prohibit members of a political union from secession or exit for independence.

In addition to the above legal issues, the SSRANZ President pointed out that MA63 and Malaysia’s legitimacy also remains in doubt as the Manila Accord signed on 31 July 1963 by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines, requiring the resolution of the Philippines’ Sabah claim has never been resolved. This means that it was unclear that the UK could effectively transfer sovereignty over Sabah to Malaya in 1963.

Malaysia formation was therefore not lawfully concluded in compliance with this international agreement, registered with the United Nations in 1965.

MA63 was clearly invalid on the facts, and before it could be “implemented”, the Prime Minister is duty-bound to settle this issue as it has international legal consequences on the legitimacy of Malaysia as an international entity.

He said that even if it could be proven that MA63 was a valid treaty, it would nevertheless, have been terminated under international law by the federal government’s multiple treaty violations since 1965.

Robert Pei pointed out that the multiple violations of MA63 had also brought about fundamental changes of circumstances making it impossible to fully implement the treaty and thus allowing termination of the treaty (if valid) and they include the following:
• MA63 was voided by UK Government’s failure to promptly register the treaty on signing- Article 102(2) of the UN Charter states that “No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations”. The failure to register MA63 till 1970, had the effect of rendering it void. This is a defect which must be examined in the context of the current attempts to “implement” MA63.
• Singapore Exit destroyed the MA63 fundamental term based on the component structure of a 4 member federation. It also violated the Basic Structure Doctrine. Prior to this, the Malaysia concept was to have 5 component members including Brunei. The Brunei Sultan had refused to sign MA63 in the last minute as he considered the union not to be in his people’s interest. MA63 should have been renegotiated because of these changes but it was covered up and not done.
• MA63 was not recognised by Federal Constitution till 2020 thus rendering Malaysia illegitimate & all legislation null & void from 1963 despite the 2021 belated attempt to ratify and recognise the treaty.
• Subsequent illegal amendments to MA63 abrogating fundamental or foundational terms whether by constitutional amendment or normal legislative alterations.
• Institutionalisation of 1970 NEP race religion-based apartheid state destroyed MA63 concept of secular multiracial state.
• Failure of the declared Malaysia Objective to “develop” Sabah and Sarawak which was replaced by the development of Malaya at their expense by keeping them impoverished through the illegal expropriation of their wealth and land.

In conclusion, he said Sabahans and Sarawakians had been induced to give up independence for integration of their countries into the Malayan Federation renamed Malaysia in 1963, with promises of security development and prosperity which the late PM Tunku Abdul Rahman declared was a principal objective justifying the formation.

If this objective has failed the people are entitled to seek other alternatives including full independence to manage and develop their own states based on their abundant natural resources. Many Borneo people see the agenda for the closer integration of Sabah and Sarawak with Malaya as a neo-colonial ambition.

The inalienable right to self-determination is recognised by international law and the United Nations and is not negotiable.

End of statement 22/12/2022


Robert Pei-
President, Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand

 

Tuesday the 31st. . Joomla 3.0 templates. All rights reserved.