PBDSB concurs with STAR that MA63 should not be debated in parliament

By Bobby William

Parti Bansa DAYAK Sarawak Baru (PBDSB) agrees with State Reform Party Sarawak (STAR) president Lina Soo that all the talk about debating Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is merely for cheap political mileage since the election is quite near. The government should had just imposed and implemented, not debate MA63 instead.

Bobby William

As a local based Sarawakian party, we in PBDSB understand the sentiments which STAR had highlighted that it did not agree with the statement of Dewan Rakyat Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia who said that Sabah shared equal status with every other state, which was grossly mistaken by the Sabah Barisan Nasional (BN) politician because in actual fact, Sabah and Sarawak did not sign any treaty with Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu.

Beside Brunei and Singapore, it is a clear understanding that the initial formation was actually between Federation of Malaya, with Sarawak and Sabah; clearly it was Federation of Malaya as a whole was supposed to be one party (not several parties) which formation with Sarawak (one party) & Sabah (one party) suppose to form Malaysia.

MA63 is not an upgrade of or from Malaya Federation Act 1957, but later, it was found to be scrutinized to be as so Sarawak and Sabah are supposed to be equal with Malaya and not its Malaya's individual states.

It is no longer a secret today that many Sarawakians are fully aware of MA63 is an official international treaty between nations and are registered with the United Nations in 1970, it will make Malaysia a laughing stock in the eyes of the international community for it to be raised in Parliament and not reviewed at the inter-governmental level (G2G) for non-compliance and breach.

Why complicate the matters? When it is actually quite straight forward, all that the Malaysian government need do now is to execute and comply with the treaty agreement made, where all the terms and clauses have already been inked, signed and sealed on July 9, 1963, as how it was pointed out by Lina in her recent statement.

On another relevant issue, PBDSB fully agrees with STAR that the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA 1974) is unconstitutional and in which it places Sarawak’s mining rights under the sole authority of Petronas was a clear action made to exploit the petroleum resources of Sarawak.

PBDSB fully supports and agrees with STAR that the Act relied upon "the altered boundaries" of Sarawak which is inconsistent with Article 1(3) of the Federal Constitution, in which, provides the "said boundaries" of Sarawak shall be as stipulated before Malaysia Day; and Article 2(b) which forbids any alteration to the boundaries without prior consent of the Sarawak Legislature.

Therefore PDA passed by Parliament in 1974, did not follow a substantive provision of the Federal Constitution, as no purported vesting of those resources in Petronas can have any validity without the consent of the State Legislature.

The constitutionality of the PDA 1974 and the Territorial Sea Act 2012, neither of which were consented by Sarawak, in the manner provided under the said Article 2 (b) of the Federal Constitution is questionable, as any law passed by Parliament purporting to alter the boundaries of Sarawak without the consent of the Sarawak Legislature is clearly unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

Note: Bobby William is the Information Chief of PBDSB