Jambun: Hold RCI on Malaysia Agreement 1963
The Technical Committee, as suggested by Putrajaya, is a case of too little too late and reduces the importance of the MA63, argues human rights advocate.
KOTA KINABALU: “The way forward is to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the 1963 Arrangement.”
A Technical Committee, as suggested by Purajaya, says human rights advocate Daniel John Jambun, belittles MA63 and reduces its importance.
“A Technical Committee would have been more appropriate in the early years after Sept 16,1963 if it was on the basis that there was compliance.”
Jambun, who heads the UK-based Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopim), was begging to differ with Putrajaya’s establishment of a Technical Committee on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and related constitutional documents.
The Technical Committee was announced by de facto Law Minister Nancy Shukri.
Jambun delved into an analogy with Superman to argue his case. He recalled that when a reporter asked Superman why he was in America from a faraway galaxy, the reply was: “To fight for truth, justice and the American way.”
The reporter cautioned the Man of Steel: “In that case, you will be fighting every elected public official in the country.”
“Superman said: ‘Surely you don’t mean that’. The reporter replied: ‘Yes, I do’.”
Jambun reminded that MA63 called for the establishment of mechanisms to translate the guarantees, undertakings and assurances on Malaysia into concrete, practical and meaningful action.
“Unfortunately, no such mechanisms were set up.
“A promised 10-year review of MA63 was never held in 1973. Instead, came the 1976 amendment to ‘alter’ MA63.”
He pointed out that there’s great fear that a Technical Committee 53 years after Malaysia Day may degenerate into whitewashing the “clear non-compliance” on MA63.
“The Malayan way is not the Borneo way.”
The human rights advocate noted that Putrajaya had not shifted the focus of the Technical Committee from “devolution” to “non-compliance” on MA63.
“The Committee cannot, at the end of the day, say that certain aspects of MA63 were not complied with because Sabah and Sarawak agreed.”
It was not the intention of the Founding Fathers in Borneo for North Borneo and Sarawak to join the Federation of Malaya, argued Jambun.
The RCI’s Terms of Reference (TOR) must proceed on the basis that MA63 is an International Treaty and Trust Agreement, that it cannot be amended by the Malaysian Parliament or ignored by the Federal Constitution, and that it was not complied with given Article 1 and Article 160.
Article 1 in the Federal Constitution, reiterated Jambun, refers to Sabah and Sarawak — since 1976 — as the 12th and 13th states in the Federation.
“Until the Federal Constitution was amended in 1976, Sabah and Sarawak were equal to Malaya in a two-tier Federation.”
The Definition of “Federation” in Article 160, continued Jambun, refers to the “Federation” set up in 1948 under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 and reinforced by the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957.
“The Federation of Malaya cannot be read as the Federation of Malaysia.”
Malaysia, summed up Jambun, is not a Greater Malaya.
“It’s an Equal Federation of Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya.”
If Malaya wants to call itself Malaysia, said Jambun, the two-tier Federation should then be known as the Federation of Sabah, Sarawak and Malaysia.
Read further: Borneo states’ rights to come under scrutiny
Jambun: M’sia should heed lessons from Brexit
Jambun: Lessons for M’sia in UK referendum on EU
Jambun: Bopim to ‘consult’ UN on Malaysia Agreemen
Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram