No need to ac vate Ar cle VIII of MA63
Ar cle VIII of Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is s ll alive and breathing. Therefore there is no need to “ac vate” it by a “legisla ve mandate” before it can be invoked to give effect to MA63, said Minister of Special Tasks Datuk Seri Panglima Teo Chee Kang.
KOTA KINABALU: Article VIII of Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is still alive and breathing. Therefore there is no need to “activate” it by a “legislative mandate” before it can be invoked to give effect to MA63, said Minister of Special Tasks Datuk Seri Panglima Teo Chee Kang.
Teo, who is also the president of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and chairman of Sabah Rights Review Committee, said Article VIII was designed to cover scenarios where recommendations in the Inter Governmental Committee (IGC) Report were not expressly incorporated into the Federal Constitution.
“In such cases, the parties to MA63 concerned shall be under an obligation to make laws or take administrative or other actions to give effect to such recommendations.”
He said this in response to Penampang member of parliament cum Parti Warisan Sabah deputy president Darell Leiking’s comment which refuted his contention that there was no need for the State Assembly to pass a motion to activate Article VIII of the MA63.
Teo said there was no legal necessity to take an extra step of “legitimising” Article VIII prior to exercising our legislative or administrative powers to give effect to all recommendations in the IGC Report.
“It can be done straight away, but we cannot negate the fact that certain rights can only be realised via bilateral or collective actions of both the state and federal governments.”
He added that the more Leiking spoke, the more the latter exposed his lack of understanding of the legal issues at hand.
Teo went on to say that the passing of a motion in the Sarawak State Assembly to mandate the Sarawak government to take all steps for implementation of recommendations in the IGC Report was more a political posturing than anything else.
“Don’t try to instigate a rift between Sabah and Sarawak.
“Though we may seem to differ from Sarawak in our approach, we stand equally firm in the quest for restoration of our rights. In fact we take the same stance in all common issues.”
He pointed out that it was erroneous for Leiking to use the State Sales Tax to illustrate his mistaken belief that the State Assembly can unilaterally pass law to give effect to something that requires two hands to clap.
“Let me point out that State Sales Tax is expressly provided as one of the additional sources of revenue assigned to states of Sabah and Sarawak under paragraph 7, Part V of the 10th Schedule to the Federal Constitution.
“That is why the state government can pass the State Sales Tax Enactment 1998 to realise such constitutional right. May I also add that the State Assembly didn’t have to ‘activate’ Article VIII of MA63 before passing the said Enactment.
“Leiking has yet to explain how our right to special grant can be realised by unilateral act of our State Assembly,” Teo added.
Additionally, he said it was common knowledge that many of our fellow Sabahans were detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) because they were vocal in claiming Sabah rights under MA63 during the Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad administration.
“Perhaps Leiking should realise that it is because ISA was repealed by the present administration that we can now freely debate on MA63.
“But the irony is that he is supporting Dr Mahathir as a prime ministerial candidate.
“It is so easy to conveniently say that our rights are all stated in MA63; just give us back.
“But we must pinpoint what are those rights and substantiate our claims with legal basis,” he said.