SSRANZ 关于砂沙权利的新闻声明

打印
分类:犀乡论坛

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

SSRANZ 主席说,即使 MA63 是有效制定的,它也不具有法律约束力,因为从 1963 年到 2021 年修正案承认马来西亚是根据该条约成立的,联邦宪法不承认它。  贝还指出了一个未被注意的法律问题即 MA63 也因英国未能在 1963 年至 1970 年期间向联合国登记该条约而无效根据联合国宪章第 102(2) 条,所有联合国会员国 必须在批准后立即登记条约,如果不登记,则不能援引条约。 如果该条约在7年内不能被援引,那么在这段时间内以马来西亚名义所做的一切行为都是不合法的并且会影响马来西亚的法律地位和行为

 

 

SSRANZ 关于砂拉越和沙巴权利的新闻声明(2023 年 9 月 1 日发布)

SSRANZ 关于 MA63 2023 年实施的声明

(完整声明)

Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) 是一个总部设在澳大利亚的国际非政府组织,它询问安瓦尔·易卜拉欣首相关于立即“实施”1963 年马来西亚协议 (MA63) 的指示是否只是一个政治噱头,因为不可能立即恢复或 实施许多 MA63 基本条款和权利,特别是行政权力和自治地位的下放,自 1965 年以来已被取消。砂拉越 GPS 和沙巴 GRS 政府已经向首相指出了这个问题。

                        RobertPei

SSRANZ 主席 Robert Pei 表示,在实施之前必须解决一些法律问题。 首先,联邦政府和州政府应在 2023 年 3 月之前暂停行动,等待婆罗洲高等法院就 MA63 有效性令状作出裁决。 其次,如果 MA63 有效,则有必要通过废除所有非法剥夺沙巴和砂拉越根深蒂固的宪法权利和权力的法律,特别是第 354 号法案,以及 1974 年石油发展法案(PDA74),将条约恢复到 1963 年的状态。 最重要的是,这将恢复他们对石油和天然气资源的控制,这对前英国殖民地的发展至关重要。

他问,突然匆忙“实施 MA63”是否是为了“阻止”目前婆罗洲高等法院的案件,其中 11 名诉讼当事人正在挑战 MA63 的有效性,并要求赔偿因违反条约而造成的损失和痛苦。

据新闻报道,该令状于 2022 年 11 月针对英国、马来西亚和砂拉越政府提交,要求宣布 MA63 无效且不具有法律约束力,因为它存在许多违反国际法的违法行为和缺陷。 该令状还寻求声明,如果 MA63 是一项有效条约,则该条约将被视为无效或因多次根本违反基本条款而终止。

正在进行的“MA63 谈判”和总理最近发表的关于 MA63 条约的实施“早就应该”的报道无可辩驳地承认,首相东姑阿都拉曼宣布的成立马来西亚的目标是为了婆罗洲人民的利益和 让他们摆脱殖民统治,失败了。 该条约(如果有效)可以被视为已经失效并且不再具有约束力,因为它从未被忠实地执行,或者该条约已经被修改以至于它不再反映最初的目标并且无法执行。

所谓的两个前英国殖民地的“非殖民化”,通过与马来亚和新加坡的联邦,诱导它们放弃独立以“自治”,是优先考虑立即下放或转移行政权力(称为“Borneonisation”) 为人们。 对于砂拉越人来说,在已经独立的砂拉越中“自治”是 1941 年砂拉越宪法规定的主要目标。 具有讽刺意味的是,已故砂拉越第一任首席部长斯蒂芬卡隆宁坎因反对试图取代婆罗洲化的“马来亚化”而被免职。 他谴责这是企图重新殖民砂拉越。

贝聿铭表示,就MA63的4大领域寻求一致的困难表明,该条约已被更改和损坏,可能无法纠正或恢复被废除的权利和权力并实施。 这一改变涵盖了一些商定的 MA63 基本条款,例如世俗和多元文化的马来西亚和宗教自由的概念,根深蒂固的议会席位分配(受 4 名组成成员的结构改变为 3 名,1965 年新加坡退出) 、自治地位、公务员制度和教育体系的婆罗洲化、“发展”沙巴和砂拉越的联邦承诺、国家领土完整、对包括石油在内的资源的权利和控制、沙巴 40% 的收入。

SSRANZ 主席说,即使 MA63 是有效制定的,它也不具有法律约束力,因为从 1963 年到 2021 年修正案承认马来西亚是根据该条约成立的,联邦宪法不承认它。 这一法律缺陷以及 MA63 和马来西亚是在强制性紧急情况下缔结的事实,质疑马来西亚是否在 1963 年合法地组成联邦。他说马来西亚在地位上只不过是一个事实上的联邦。

贝还指出了一个未被注意的法律问题,即 MA63 也因英国未能在 1963 年至 1970 年期间向联合国登记该条约而无效。根据联合国宪章第 102(2) 条,所有联合国会员国 必须在批准后立即登记条约,如果不登记,则不能援引条约。 如果该条约在7年内不能被援引,那么在这段时间内以马来西亚名义所做的一切行为都是不合法的,并且会影响马来西亚的法律地位和行为。

他说,所有这些问题都可以解释为什么首相和许多政治人物呼吁尽快实施MA63,显然是希望使该条约生效,因为他们肯定知道MA63无效或将因多次违反而被终止。

这一观点得到马来亚大学教授的支持,他在提到 MA63 有效性问题时表示,婆罗洲的政府出人意料地批准了 2021 年宪法修正案和一些额外的新闻条款,因此各方同意受 MA63 的法律约束。

SSRANZ 主席表示,无论是宪法修正案还是任何快速实施都不会在法律上使实际上无效的国际条约生效。 MA63 从表面上看是违反国际法的,从一开始就无效,如果有效,则因未及时注册(签署后七年才注册)和多次违规而无效。

1963 年 7 月 9 日,英国和马来亚政府据称与 3 个英国直辖殖民地达成协议,当时它们还不是具有缔结条约的法律能力的独立主权国家。

解密的殖民地文件显示,英国和马来亚政府已经着手制定国际协议,无视仍然是英国直辖殖民地的沙巴、砂拉越(和新加坡)不能成为该协议缔约方的法律建议,因为它们不是 具有订立条约的权力或法律行为能力的主权国家。 然而,殖民地被列为该条约的缔约方是出于“展示目的”,以避免国际社会批评 MA63 没有法律依据。 为了营造合法性的印象,英国殖民地总检察长还分别代表沙巴和砂拉越与当地精心挑选的签署人签署了协议。

SSRANZ 主席于 2013 年首次提出 MA63 无效的断言已得到联合国法院的证实,国际法院 (ICJ) 的裁决确认了 2019 年查戈斯案中的能力规则。 国际法院在对事实进行彻底审查后得出结论,英国政府无法在 1965 年与毛里求斯签订具有约束力的国际协议,因为毛里求斯当时是完全由英国行政控制的直辖殖民地,立法机关没有行政权,甚至没有立法权。 出于同样的原因,1963 年早些时候与英国控制的婆罗洲殖民地制造的 MA63 从一开始就是无效的。

SSRANZ 主席最后重申他先前呼吁首相和婆罗洲的政府首先审查沙巴和砂拉越在联邦中的法律地位以及影响马来西亚合法性的许多法律问题,他们有责任在采取进一步行动之前解决这些 MA63问题。 砂拉越政府也应该保持透明,就 MA63 举行公开听证会,并披露其伦敦法律团队对 MA63 的调查结果。

他提醒首相注意他最近的公开声明,即他的政府将继续支持巴勒斯坦的自决权及其对自由巴勒斯坦的追求。 他说,首相可以检讨沙巴和砂拉越在大马的地位,以显示他对自决的普遍法律原则的真诚支持。

声明结束 09/01/2023,

贝瑞华  

主席
沙巴沙捞越权利 澳大利亚 新西兰

 

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

 

SSRANZ PRESS STATEMENT ON SARAWAK & SABAH RIGHTS (ISSUED 09/01/2023)

SSRANZ STATEMENT ON MA63 IMPLEMENTATION 2023

(The complete statement)

Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) an international NGO based in Australia, has asked whether PM Anwar Ibrahim’s directive for the immediate “implementation” of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was just a political stunt as it is impossible to immediately reinstate or implement many MA63 foundational terms and rights especially devolution of administrative powers and autonomy status, which have been removed since 1965. The Sarawak GPS and Sabah GRS governments have already pointed out this problem to the Prime Minister.

The SSRANZ President Robert Pei said a number of legal matters must be resolved before implementation. Firstly, the federal and state governments should withhold action till March 2023, pending the Borneo High Court’s decision on the Writ on MA63 validity. Secondly if MA63 is valid, there is the need to reinstate the treaty to its 1963 position by repealing all laws especially ACT 354, that had illegally taken away Sabah and Sarawak’s entrenched constitutional rights and powers and the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74). This would most importantly, restore their control of oil and gas resources, essential for the development of the former British colonies.

He asked if the sudden haste to “implement MA63” was to “head off” the current Borneo High Court case in which 11 litigants are challenging MA63 validity and seeking compensation for loss and sufferings arising from treaty breaches.

According to news reports, the Writ was filed in Dec 2022 against the governments of the United Kingdom, Malaysia and Sarawak, seeking declarations that that MA63 was invalid and not legally binding as it was tainted by many illegalities and defects in violation of international law. The Writ also alternatively seeks declarations that if MA63 was a valid treaty, it was rendered null and void or terminated by multiple fundamental breaches of foundational terms.

The ongoing “MA63 negotiations” and the Prime Minister’s recent reported remarks that the implementation of the MA63 treaty was “long over due” are an irrefutable admission that the objectives of forming Malaysia declared by PM Tunku Abdul Rahman was for the Borneo people’s benefit and to free them from colonial rule, had failed. The treaty (if valid) could be treated as having lapsed and no longer binding as it was never faithfully implemented or that the treaty has been so altered that it no longer reflects the original objectives and impossible to implement.

The so-called “decolonisation” of the 2 former British colonies by inducing them to give up independence for “self-rule” through federation with Malaya and Singapore, was to prioritise the immediate devolution or transfer of administrative power (called “Borneonisation”) to the people. For Sarawakians “self-rule” in an already independent Sarawak was a prime objective set down by the 1941 Sarawak Constitution. Ironically the late CM Stephen Kalong Ningkan was dismissed from office for opposing “Malayanisation” which sought to replace Borneanisation. He had condemned this as an attempt to re-colonise Sarawak.

Robert Pei said the difficulty in seeking agreement on 4 major areas of MA63 indicates that the treaty has been so altered and damaged that it may be impossible to rectify or reinstate the abrogated rights and powers and implement. This alteration covers a number of agreed MA63 foundational terms such as the concept of a secular and multicultural Malaysia and religious freedom, entrenched parliamentary seat allocation (affected by a change in the structure of 4 component members to 3 with S'pore exit in 1965), autonomous status, Borneanisation of the civil service and education system, federal undertakings to “develop” Sabah and Sarawak, state territorial integrity, rights and control of resources including petroleum, Sabah’s 40% revenue.

The SSRANZ President said even if MA63 had been validly made, it was never legally binding as it was not recognised by the Federal Constitution from 1963 till the 2021 amendment to acknowledge that Malaysia was set up pursuant to the treaty. This legal defect and the fact that MA63 and Malaysia were concluded under coercive emergency conditions, question whether Malaysia was legitimately constituted as a federation in 1963. He said Malaysia would be no more than a de facto federation in status.

Pei also pointed out a legal issue which has gone unnoticed, is that MA63 was also rendered void by the UK’s failure to register the treaty with the United Nations from 1963 to 1970. Under Article 102(2) of the UN Charter, all UN members must promptly register a treaty after ratification and if not done, the treaty could not be invoked. If the treaty could not be invoked for 6 years, then all the actions done during that time in the name of Malaysia would be illegitimate and impact on the legal status and acts of Malaysia.

He said that all these issues may explain why the Prime Minister and many politicians have called for the speedy implementation of MA63, apparently in the hope of validating the treaty as they are surely aware that MA63 is invalid or would have been terminated by multiple violations.

This view is supported by a Malayan University professor who in alluding to the MA63 validity issue, said that the Borneo state governments had surprisingly endorsed the 2021 constitutional amendment and some additional news terms and that the parties had therefore agreed to be legally bound by MA63.

The SSRANZ president said that neither the constitutional amendments nor any speedy implementation would legally validate what was in reality an invalid international treaty. MA63 was on its face void ab initio in breach of international law and if valid it was made void by the non-registration and multiple breaches.

On 9 July 1963, the UK and Malayan governments had purportedly made an agreement with 3 British crown colonies when they were not independent sovereign states with legal capacity to make treaties.

Declassified colonial documents have revealed that the United Kingdom (UK) and Malayan governments had proceeded to make the international agreement ignoring legal advice that Sabah, Sarawak (and Singapore) which were still British Crown colonies could not be parties to the agreement as they were not sovereign states with power or legal capacity to make treaties. However, the colonies were included as parties to the treaty for “presentational purpose” to avert international criticism that MA63 did not have legal basis. To create the impression of legitimacy, the British colonial attorney generals also signed on behalf for Sabah and Sarawak respectively with their local handpicked signatories.

The assertion of MA63 invalidity first made by the SSRANZ president in 2013 has been vindicated by the United Nation’s court the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision confirming the capacity rule in the 2019 Chagos Case. After a thorough examination of the facts, the ICJ concluded that the British government could not make a binding international agreement with Mauritius in 1965 as it was then a crown colony under full British administrative control and the legislature did not have executive or even legislative powers. For the same reason, MA63 made earlier in 1963 with the British controlled Borneo colonies was null and void from the beginning.

The SSRANZ president concluded by repeating his previous call on the Prime Minister and the Borneo state governments to firstly review the legal status of Sabah and Sarawak in the federation and many legal issues affecting Malaysia’s legitimacy, which they have a duty to resolved before further action on MA63. The Sarawak State government should also be transparent and hold public hearings on MA63 and disclose its London Legal Team’s findings on MA63.

He reminded the Prime Minster of his recent public statement that his government would continue to support the Palestinian right to self-determination and its quest for a Free Palestine. He said the Prime Minister could show his sincere adherence to the universal legal principle of self-determination by reviewing the status of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia.

End of statement 09/01/2023,

Robert Pei,
President
Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand

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