The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) continues its separate existence even if incorporated in the Federal Constitution.
LETTER: We urge former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh to seek a Declaration in the Federal Court on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
Harris is not the court. Only the court can declare on MA63.
The law is not just about the letter but the spirit too. That’s Rule of Law, that’s democracy.
Rule by Law is not law at all but dictatorship.
We caution Harris against continuing to issue errorneous statements in the media on MA63.
We refer to a statement by Harris in Daily Express late last week.
We note that Harris agrees with Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman that MA63 — and other constitutional documents on Malaysia — had been incorporated in the Federal Constitution of Malaya (now Malaysia).
In that case, it does not mean that MA63 was no longer valid. MA63 is an international agreement and treaty signed by five governments.
It has also been lodged with the UN Secretary General for all practical purposes as a Trust Deed.
If Harris actually meant that MA63 was no longer valid, after being incorporated in the Federal Constitution, that’s not the position in law.
The Magna Carta — the Grand Charter — was not only part of the uncodified/unwritten British Constitution but continues its separate existence.
This is irrespective of whether it had been incorporated or otherwise in the British Constitution.
The Federal Constitution was only part of the story. MA63 called for a Malaysian Constitution.
The Federal Constitution was the Malayan Constitution.
The Malaysian Constitution was an uncodified/unwritten one like the British Constitution.
The Federal Constitution was only one of the constitutional documents making up the Malaysian Constitution..The others are the constitutional documents on Malaysia. This ensures compliance on the Malaysia concept.
The Constitution, as the ultimate political document, has the force of law and hence emerges as the supreme law of the land. It’s the Constitution that’s supreme, not Parliament.
Harris was wrong in carrying on as if the Malaysian Parliament was supreme over the Constitution. The sovereignty of Parliament is confined to its five year term.
The bottomline is that the sovereignty of Parliament cannot be bound by a previous Parliament, nor can it bind a future Parliament. It’s the Constitution that decides.
Again, only the Federal Court — sitting as the Constitutional Court — that can interpret the Intention of the framers of the Constitution.
The Federal Court can also interpret the Intention of Parliament and the Intention of the Founding Fathers in Borneo on Malaysia.
Daniel John Jambun
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (Bopim Foundation)
Peter John Jaban
Kuching, Sarawak, Borneo