光明磊落 則無需掩藏

這段過去,馬來西亞和新加坡都輕描淡寫。我年代的SPM歷史課本,連『馬來西亞日』或『9月16日』的字眼都找不到。若光明磊落,何必遮三瞒四?

簡單說,沒有李光耀,就沒有馬來西亞的成立。反過來,沒有沙巴和砂拉越的配合,美國和英國都預測,李光耀政府會被左翼的社陣推翻。

東姑無法說服婆羅洲諸邦。他和拉薩連最伊斯蘭的英屬汶萊都無法說服。根據汶萊人民黨Azahari的回憶,拉薩跟他說,如果汶萊願意共組馬來西亞,Azahari可以成為副首相。Azahari聽後感覺內有乾坤,隨後在印尼的協助下,汶萊1962年的叛亂,打亂了眾多人的如意算盤。

在英國的支持下,東姑以為婆羅洲諸邦會義務反顧地要和馬來亞『結婚』,沒有料到英國內部也有不同的聲音。北婆和砂拉越的英國官員覺得要保障其人民的利益,才有了後來婆羅洲利益的談判。 继续阅读“光明磊落 則無需掩藏”

回到1976年

问:砂拉越和沙巴1976年自己降格成州,现在又不赞成恢复地位。是东马自己害自己。

回应黄进发的Sabah and Sarawak downgraded by their MPs in 1976

答:

成为边缘,即是整体的一部分,却被排除在主体之外。
To be in the margin is to be part of the whole but outside the main body——Bell Hooks, 2000

把砂拉越或沙巴简化成一个单一的个体,是典型核心看待边缘的盲点。把少数的边缘看成单一的、没有内部复杂性的、没有时间和空间差异的单位,是最需要反省,且透露了提倡所谓“平等地位”的人,态度上仍是“马来亚本位”。

image

1976年是43年前的事了,当时的议员当然不是现在的议员。同一个选区的议员即使是同个阵营的系谱,也不代表他们必须有一致的看法。我想,大家应该也很清楚,包括同一个党内同一个选区的前后议员之想法也不一定一样。问这些问题,好比希盟问国阵当时为什么不这样,然后国阵现在问回老马和安华,你们当时又不为什么这样,这样的循环逻辑很杀时间。

继续阅读“回到1976年”

MA63 and Malaysia Day are NOT defined in Constitution since 1963

For those who claim the conspiracy of GPS to abstain their votes, please include to the 2015 book “The Queen’s Obligation” as part of the “story”. To make the story complete, please claim that GPS has predicted about the return of Mahathir and the change of federal regime in 509 (so they can form GPS).

P180

Otherwise, we might need to listen to the other side of story. Zainnal Ajamain from Sabah pointed out the Malaysia constitution from very beginning has very weak link to Malaysia Agreement 1963. There is NO mention of the term “Malaysia Agreement 1963” in the whole constitution. (This was raised up by the GPS MP during 9 April debate.) However, the term “Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957” and “Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948” appear in article 160.

P235

P236

Second, the term “Malaysia Day” appeared in 44 instances to commence the execution of MA63 and IGCR. However, the term “Malaysia Day” is NOT defined properly, it appeared as a footnote. In contrast, the term “Merdeka Day” is well defined as “31 August 1957” in 160(2). Why can’t we well defined “Malaysia Day” from the very beginning?

P158P159

继续阅读“MA63 and Malaysia Day are NOT defined in Constitution since 1963”

The first draft of “partnership” constitutional amendment

If this issue is not something that I familiar with or that important, I should not comment too much. However, I feel that constitutional amendment is too important (as the highest law in “the Federation”). Based on the information I collected during the past few years from the major libraries/archives in Singapore, Taipei and Kota Kinabalu, I feel that this constitutional amendment is too hasty and contains implicit political agenda from PH.

Tomorrow (9 April) will be the day for the second and third readings of RUU (and it may last until mid-night). If PH and its alliance receive nine more support, I perceive that it is difficult to propose another constitutional amendment on this issue in the next 20 years (if Malaysia is still there).

Although many politicians and NGOs have requested for the amendment draft since the end of March, the draft was only publicly presented during the first reading on April 4, and the people has only five days to discuss and react before the voting.

Since the PM announcement in last September, all the public discourse was centered on the term “Wilayah/Territory”, which made people mistakenly think that the term “Wilayah/Territory” would appear in the draft. Subsequently, many people questioned the real meaning of the term, but there was no official reply. The SS government even mistakenly believed and announced their readiness to drop off the usage of “State/Negeri” in all official documents after the amendment. Now I know that “Wilayah/Territory” is just an illusion to shifts the public focus. The 2019 draft does not contain the term “Wilayah/Territory”, afterwards many PH politicians argue hardly to prove that the term “States/Negeri” functions as “Wilayah/Territory”. Wao! We do not believe in the explanation that are not written on the draft.

Moreover, whether the draft proves “three territories” or “two territories”, their explanation are still self-contradictory. By turning the 1976 version from one into two lines, does it actually mean “three territories”? Then why not three lines? If all PH politicians agree that it is “two territories”, then at least I can understand that there is a consensus from their point of views! But in fact, no consensus among them! (Please check their statements from internet)

Then they claim that this draft is equivalent to 1963 version. If so, why do they delete “the States of Malaya” and “the Borneo States”? Minister LVK’s own explanation is that the two words are simply “out of date”. He claimed that “the Borneo States” could refer to Brunei and Kalimantan as well. Is it logic for Brunei and Kalimantan to appear in the Malaysia’s highest law? Moreover, isn’t the line, “namely, Sabah and Sarawak” explain further on what are “the Borneo States”?
Furthermore, if “Malaya” is out of date, why PH politicians back up the definition of “the Federation” in the 160(2) articles, “the Federation established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957” ? Why is the “Malaya” of the 1(2) article out of date, and then the 160(2) article still relevant? They claimed that the 160(2) articles have nothing to do with the 1(2) article, but there is no further explanation given. In my opinion, the distinction that makes the 1(2) and 160(2) article irrelevant is to emphasize and restore “the States of Malaya” and “the Borneo States” in the 1(2) article, in order to veto the general definition of “the Federation” in the Constitution. Another more thorough approach is of course to modify the definition of 160(2) “the Federation” into “the Federation established under the Federation of Malaysia Agreement 1963”.

56468283_736939340032915_5194365956389863424_n

Do remember, the 160(5) article clearly states that “the Federation” has nothing to do with the definition of “the Federation” under “the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948”. Then why can’t we repeat the same in the Constitution by adding similar line to void “the Federation established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957”?

The confusion about the definition of “the Federation” has been raised up by scholars since 2015 (maybe earlier). We cannot accuse that the East Malaysian MP are making trouble this time. As long as the definition of 160(2) “the Federation” remained, “the Federation of Malaya” still exists in De Jure. In fact, I am very happy to see the status restoration of the lost “Federation of Malaya” in De facto.

After 4th April, the comments of the PH MP were directed to show “the unreasonableness” of localism MP, saying that they advocated the status restoration and now they oppose the act, that they are dominated by Umno. PH MP are trying to imply that if this amendment succeeds, localism parties will have nothing to attract votes. If PH MP really want them to lose local support, my suggestion is to return the oil and gas tax to 20%; it will be much more effective.

Some of the PH MP and scholars have pointed their fingers to 1976 scenario, showing that SS MP themselves support the amendment with the reasons to integrate more into Malaysia. Please, analyze the 1976 amendment in the politic-social context! Weeks before the constitutional amendment, the chief minister of Sabah and half of his cabinet that insisted on oil and gas tax and autonomy “were exploded”. In addition, in 1976, SS have not fully experienced the hardship for being Malayized and being Islamized.

The most important point, both the BN and PH have pledged to restore the status of 1963 before the election, rather than the status of 1976. Why focus on 1976? The people were dissatisfied with the 1976 amendment and that is the reason they propose to restore the status of 1963, isn’t it? Unless PH manifesto does not mention 1963, it is at least understandable from their perspective.

If you have watched the live broadcast of the 4th April Parliament, the localists did not completely oppose to the purpose of amendment, but they doubt the practical significance after the amendment. They hope that there will be more time and room for discussion. They request the establishment of special committee to analyze the wordings carefully and then pass the amendment in both Sarawak and Sabah legislative assemblies before passing in the parliament. These are their feedbacks that willing to communicate, and to reduce future disputes. If so, why PH is so rushed?

I sincerely hope that everyone can help me find that a non-contradictory interpretation or clear answers from PH MP in their past few days (4-9 April) statements. Thank you!

written on 8 April, a day before the amendment date
followed by Chinese version

af3ad905624249ec27d57e467b4981d9

继续阅读“The first draft of “partnership” constitutional amendment”

About the real partnership

No one in the history knew better than Lord Lansdowne, the UK Minister of State for Colonial Affairs as well as the chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee in 1963.

The IGC is formed to ascertain the views and autonomy rights of North Borneo and Sarawak people and the IGC report is signed by the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and United Kingdom representatives (all together 27).

This is how he interpret the “real partnership” during the debate of “The Malaysia Bill 1963” in the UK house, 26 July 1963, 17 days after MA63 is signed in London.

When both PH and BN manifestos are to restore the autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak back to 1963, those leaders should have the least focus on the changes of those rights afterwards, especially after Singapore separation. Have a nice read, if you really care ^^

Equal partnership


继续阅读“About the real partnership”

非復邦,仍州也

希盟很傻,復邦一案,若是不想處理可以反悔,或是慢慢商議。如今被認為是騙局一場,只會加速沙砂的獨派聲音。

三個月前,希盟透過各大媒體宣傳『邦』(Wilayah)字眼;宣傳『沙巴、砂拉越和馬來亞,三個同等地位』,但是建議法案竟是,沒有『邦』,也把1976年版本的13聯邦州屬拆成11+2的公式,明顯和宣傳的有差,但是很多網民依然認為是東馬議員鬧事,沒有事先做功課(事前已強烈要求提早公佈草案卻不果)等,令人傻眼。

我們首先看看聯邦憲法第1(2)條文(1963年版本=《馬來西亞聯邦協定》版本):

聯邦的成員州屬為:
(a)馬來亞州屬,即柔佛、吉打、吉蘭丹、馬六甲、森美蘭、彭亨、檳城、霹靂、玻璃市、雪蘭莪與登嘉樓;(b)婆羅洲州屬,即沙巴與砂拉越;及
(c)新加坡州屬。

1965年新加坡退出,(c)項被刪除。

1976年所謂的沙砂降級修憲:

聯邦的成員州屬為柔佛、吉打、吉蘭丹、馬六甲、森美蘭、彭亨、檳城、霹靂、玻璃市、沙巴、砂拉越、雪蘭莪與登嘉樓。

注意:『馬來亞州屬』和『婆羅洲州屬』兩個字眼不見了。2019年的修案美其名是恢復《馬來西亞協議》版本,但結果和1963年相差很遠。

2019年草案版本:

聯邦的成員州屬為:
(a)柔佛、吉打、吉蘭丹、馬六甲、森美蘭、彭亨、霹靂、玻璃市、檳城、雪蘭莪與登嘉樓;及
(b)沙巴與砂拉越。

外加解釋,不在憲法://若修正案通過,將牽涉政府的額外財政預算,但金額目前尚未能敲定。//(沒有敲定細節,那就當作沒有說過^^)

注意:『馬來亞州屬』和『婆羅洲州屬』兩個字眼依然不存在。

再看外加解釋的最後一句話:

此修正,在任何形式,不會改變聯邦政府和州政府在聯邦概念下的功能。(Pindaan ini, dalam apa-apa cara, tidak mengubah fungsi Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Kerajaan-Kerajaan Negeri di bawah konsep federalism.)

州屬和聯邦的地位沒有改變,這只是形式上的不同,(現在或未來)都體現不出『恢復平等地位的意義』。

56264327_10214007938408569_1631707326140383232_n56433427_815007098865305_3416051510738419712_n56664629_815006952198653_1921102372868718592_n 继续阅读“非復邦,仍州也”

談平等地位夥伴修憲的背景知識

馬來西亞聯邦在這季國會要把沙砂的州屬地位還原成和馬來亞同等的『邦』地位。

姑且不論到底是『婆羅洲州屬(沙砂)』和『馬來亞』同等,或是『沙巴』、『砂拉越』和『馬來亞』同等。但,總覺得大家在討論這件議題的時候,有些背景知識需要認清。

1. 《獨立十八/二十條款》存在,但沒有法律約束力
2. 沙砂新的國會議席比例,重點不在三分一強
3. 成立之初的國會議席分配並非根據人口密度

1. 馬來西亞成立的過程其實充滿很多法律協定的簽署,但是我至今還不明白為什麼馬來西亞政府會專挑一個最沒有法律約束力的《獨立二十條款》來教導。實際上,馬來亞政府為了『邀請』沙砂汶新共組馬來西亞,所答應的保障遠遠超過二十個

《獨立二十條款》缺乏約束力,是因為當時後提出的政黨UNKO,並非是民選的政黨。況且馬來亞、英國、沙和砂的政府代表都沒有簽署這《獨立二十條款》。

但,大部分的獨立二十條款的內容其實大部分和《1962年英國-馬來亞協定》的Annex重複,由英國首相Harold Macmillian和馬來亞首相Tunku簽訂。單單這個協定,馬來亞所承諾的保障就有29條(還沒有包括之後的條約)。

《1963年馬來西亞協定》的基礎是《1962年跨政府級別報告書》(Intergovernmental Committee Report, ICGR)。後者長達55頁,簽署代表包括英沙砂馬四方(汶萊作為觀察者)。

ICGR全文早期很難找到,如今可見:http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/…/ReportOfTheI…/IGCReport.pdf

2. 沙砂新的國會議席比例,重點在於是否達否決修憲的門檻:即如果有一天馬來西亞聯邦把《聯邦憲法》的修憲門檻改到二分之一,即須根據ICGR的No19(2)內容,把沙砂新的國會比例提升到二分之一。(如果馬來亞政府乖乖的話)

即,如果是平等夥伴的話,就有用擁有否決一方所做的決定的權力。這體現在修憲的門檻上,即沙砂新的國會議席總和,須具有否決馬來亞所做的修憲權力。

ICGR No19.2 继续阅读“談平等地位夥伴修憲的背景知識”