BROKEN ASSURANCES & SAFEGUARDS & THE MALAYSIA AGREEMENT (MA63 TREATY) The Malaysia concept was from the beginning a plan to transfer sovereignty of Brunei North Borneo and Sarawak by calling it merger with Malaya under the euphemistic neo-colonial independence in Malaysia. However, the process by which Malaysia was formed was in breach of the UN Decolonization Declaration. 1. The SSM assertion is that the Malaysia (Treaty) Agreement was not binding as it was void from the beginning. This was because it was in breach of the UN Decolonization Declaration and Resolution 1514 XV. https://un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml The MA63 was prepared and signed without properly elected Sabah Sarawak representation and without a referendum to get popular approval and against a background of massive suppression of anti-Malaysia opposition. This is the point which the anti-Malaysia opposition was arguing in the 1960s. 2. If people are arguing MA63 was valid in 1963 then it was abrogated in 1965 when Singapore broke away.. This is only an alternative argument to the main argument of MA63 being void from the beginning. If considered valid then the MA63 should have been re-negotiated in 1965 and as it was not re- negotiated it is not legally binding since 1965. 3. Further, even if people are relying on the validity argument, they must see that the MA63 was totally repudiated by the Malayan Umno partner over the last 50 years. Only in this context, is it relevant to bring up the Assurances & Safeguards and the 18/20 Points and the IGC Report. This is posted so people can see the relevance and context of arguing 18/20 POINTS:
Posted on: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:05:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015