Malaysia was a scam ab initio.

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read.cfm?NewsID=2171


 How long more to address the MA 63 shortcomings? Published on: Saturday, August 13, 2016



 A few days ago the Deputy Prime Minister in the National Day celebrations in Tawau stated that “Sabah and Sarawak are not marginalised”, while Chief Minister of Sabah said there is “No point “shouting and demanding” for Sabah rights, autonomy.” Many other similar statements have revived the focus on the Malaysia Agreement 63 embracing 20/18 points (Sabah & Sarawak) and the Cobbold Commission and the Inter Governmental Committee Report. Since the Proclamation of Malaysia on 16 September, 1963, there has been a departure from what had been observed and done when Malaysia was announced by Tunku Abdul Rahman . The 18/20 points of Sarawak and Sabah are in the “dustbin”.


 We had the Cobbold Commission and IGC Report which had been sidelined .

 What we may have is the Malaysia Agreement 1963, which to some have been overshadowed by the various Parliamentary amendments with or without the consent of Sabah and Sarawak.

 What some “leaders” are saying is that Parliament can change the MA63 and the original intention thereof by amending whatever could be amended with or without consent.

 Malaysia does not have a Parliamentary Malaysia Act 1963.

 The International Agreement aka Malaysia Agreement 1963 was signed by 5 parties on 9th July, 1963 and the 5 parties were UK, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak especially when Sabah and Sarawak lacked the legal standing to sign the said agreement as British colonies.

 The reality as diluted is Malaysia is 5, 4 or 13 or 14, 15 partners expanded by fanciful desires.

 Look at how any Agreement is made especially MA63 when 5 parties were fully involved. Did Tunku represent Malaya as a solitary body or did he represent 11 other states of Malaya? Was he empowered to negotiate for 11 states of Malaya? Where is the consent document from all the 11 States? Why did Kelantan object to Malaysia on 11 September, 1963? Did that objection divert the mind of Tunku in his original intention of Malaysia of 5, 4 or 3?

 What did Tunku actually say in 1962? So the reality of any Agreement in any partnership is that all the partners should come together in any meeting but no so in Malaysia Agreement 63 where only 5 parties signed and not signed the states of Malaya then.

 So after Singapore left in August, 1965, it is Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya or 3 equal partners and not as distorted 13 states as partners. Any Agreement made by the parties concerned must be fulfilled by the partners concerned and not otherwise.

 Whatever documents including Parliament amendments especially in 1976 are all after–thoughts.

 So what are before us when Nancy Shukri pledged that MA63 and its shortcomings would be resolved with the Federal Government last August, but till today nothing is happening in that direction. Has her recent change of portfolio in the Najb’s cabinet taking charge of Justice/Judiciary impacted that intention to resolve MA63?


 What other items still in the works of MA63 and related issues are state rights taken over by the Federal Government namely our oil and gas, the promise of 40pc revenue not returned to the two states for more than 40 or 50 years (now meaningless and diluted with a 8 points TOR on the latest committee to be treated as confidential) and just like Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCI).

 Fishery rights, distribution of development funds in 11 Malaysia Plans of 13 states instead of 3, not to mention the annual fiscal budgets, etc. All these would add up to hundreds of billions Ringgit that need to be returned to the two Borneo States to be placed as sovereign funds of each state not to be abused by any existing state Governments.

 31 August 2016 and 16 September, 2016 are just around the corner and these dates are not meaningful for Sabahans and Sarawakians if the national tempo and development had been lopsided for decades. {}


 Malaysia was a scam ab initio. By Joshua Y. C. Kong 10/August/2016

 A few days ago the Deputy Prime Minister in the National Day celebrations in Tawau stated that “Sabah and Sarawak are not marginalised”, while Chief Minister of Sabah said “No point ‘shouting and demanding’ for Sabah rights, autonomy.”.

 Many other similar statements have revived the focus on Malaysia Agreement 63 embracing 20/18 points (Sabah & Sarawak) and the Cobbold Commission and the Inter Governmental Committee Report. So what is Malaysia really is when it may seem Malaysia was a scam ab initio as per Proclamation of Malaysia. (see below).

That is the reality since the Proclamation of Malaysia on 16 September, 1963, a departure from what had been observed and done since Malaysia was announced by Tunku Abdul Rahman since early 1962. We had the 18/20 points of Sarawak and Sabah now likely in the “dustbin” of the conqueror not equal partners.

We had the Cobbold Commission and IGC Report which had been sidelined by the conqueror.

So what we may have is Malaysia Agreement 1963, which to some have been overshadowed by the various Parliamentary amendments with or without the consent of Sabah and Sarawak. What some “leaders” are saying is that Parliament can change the MA63 and the original intention thereof by amending whatever abuses of the conqueror could do like now rapists are marrying the very young victims after raping with or without consent.

 Malaysia does not have a Parliamentary Malaysia Act 1963. The International Agreement aka Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed by 5 parties on 9th July, 1963 and the 5 parties were UK, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak especially when Sabah and Sarawak lacks legal standing to sign the said agreement as British Colonies. What are the views of the legally uneven yoked partners? The reality as diluted is Malaysia is 5, 4 or 13 or 14, 15 partners expanded by fanciful desires of the conqueror? Look at how any Agreement is made especially MA63 when 5 parties were fully involved. Did Tunku represent Malaya as a solitary body or did he represent 11 other states of Malaya?


 Was he empowered to negotiate for 11 states of Malaya? Where is the consent document from all the 11 States? Why Kelantan objected to Malaysia on 11 September, 1963? Did that objection divert the mind of Tunku in his original intention of Malaysia of 5, 4 or 3?

 What did Tunku actually say in 1962? So the reality of any Agreement in any partnership is that all the partners should come together in any meeting but no so in Malaysia Agreement 63 where only 5 parties signed and not signed the states of Malaya then. So after Singapore left in August, 1965, it is Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya or 3 equal partners and not as distorted 13 states as partners.

Any Agreement made by the parties concerned must be fulfilled by the partners concerned and not otherwise. Whatever documents including Parliament amendments especially in 1976 are all after thoughts of the conqueror making Malaysia a scam ab initio.

 Lets re-examine the Proclamation of Malaysia--- (start of PoM) WHEREAS by an Agreement made on the Ninth day of July in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three between the Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore it was agreed that there shall be federated the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore with the Federation of Malaya comprising the states of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang[1] and Malacca, and that the Federation shall thereafter be called "MALAYSIA": (end of PoM) MALAYSIA comprising the States of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang,[1] Malacca, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak shall by the Grace of God, the Lord of the Universe, forever be an independent and sovereign democratic State founded upon liberty and justice, ever seeking to defend and uphold peace and harmony among its people and to perpetuate peace among nations.

 Is this Proclamation questioned or questionable even after 53 years as to its reality?

 I hope the Civil Court or Constitutional Court or the Public Court can decide on the substance over form / form over substance in the context of sizes of various states in Malaysia when Sabah and Sarawak together is bigger than Malaya and in the same rank of the much smaller states Perlis and Malacca. So we must now deal with this deformity of Malaysia and resolve or dissolve it in the most appropriate manner without fail.

 So what are before us when Nancy Shukri pledged that MA63 and its shortcomings would be resolved with the Federal government last August, but till today nothing is happening in that direction. Is her recent change of portfolio in the Najb’s cabinet taking charge of Justice/Judiciary impacted that intention to resolve MA63? Now the Sabah state Government is talking of devolution of power rather than independence references within Malaysia in MA63.

What other items still in the works of MA63 and related issues are state rights taken over by the Federal Government namely our oil and gas (even killed to get its way or release the OSA on the investigation report on the Sembulan crash after 40 years), the promised of 40% revenue not returned to the two states for more than 40 or 50 years (now meaningless and diluted with a 8 points TOR on the latest committee to be treated as confidential) and just like Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah –RCI IIS as directionless), the fishery rights, the distributions of development funds in 11 Malaysian Plans of 13 states instead of 3 not to mention the annual fiscal budgets and the dubious project IC holders in Sabah and elsewhere.

 All these would add up to lots of hundreds of billions Ringgit that need to be returned to the two Borneo States to be placed as sovereign funds of each state not to be abused by any existing state Governments.


 I will write another article on the 8 points TOR on Devolution of Power. 31 August 2016 and 16 September, 2016 are just around the corner and these dates are not meaningful for Sabahans and Sarawakians if the national tempo and development had been lopsided for decades.


 Such adverse lopsidedness would likely continue into infinity under the existing setup

. I have suggested Interim Good Governance Government Malaysia (IGGG M) since 2004 for the beginning of the fresh effort of fresh air in this national tragedy to resolve or dissolve Malaysia. Joshua Y. C. Kong. 10/8/2016