Talk:Federalism in Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Formation of Malaysia[edit]

The legal system of the State administration is based on Law of the United Kingdom - Omdo(talk) 11:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And this is relevant to your text implying that Malaysian states are sovereign how? CMD (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that the discussion would go better if it avoided being sidetracked from federation or federalism matters not into an opinion about nationalistic - Omdo (talk)
It hasn't so far. How does this justify the tangential information on the UN, the in text links to a bunch of primary documents that are against MOS, and the listing of the Malaysian states as sovereign states? CMD (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your sense is much probably questionable, States of the federation of Malaysia. - Omdo (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo this now comprises the state of Sabah, the Federal Territories of Labuan and six smaller islands (Pulau Burung, Pulau Daat, Pulau Kuraman, Pulau Papan, Pulau Rusukan Kecil and Pulau Rusukan Besar), Sarawak and Singapore with annexes is a multilateral treaties by sovereign states as the parties, and which had been signed or acceded to on behalf of Malaysia as a succession of union state, the British Goverment confirmed to the United Nations Secretary-General that Malaysia would continue to be bound by those in respect of which the Secretary-General acts as depositary, registered and publicated - See Registered Nr. I-10760 - Omdo (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't have much affect on whether or not to include the content you added. It doesn't explain why a long paragraph on decolonisation that has no direct relevance is needed, the excessive legal detail, or why you've listed the current states as sovereign. Could you comment on that please? CMD (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Malaysia in 1963 has already been referred to. In 1965, by a treaty - See: United Nations Secretary-General Registered No. I-8206, Singapore separated from Malaysia, the Agreement relating to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia as an independent and sovereign state between Malaysia and other State at the date of Singapore (Singapore in Malaysia) independent should, in so far as Malaysia had application to Singapore (Singapore in Malaysia), be deemed to be a treaty between the latter and the other sovereign State or states concerned. ? - Omdo (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Any bilateral treaties made post 1965 between Malaysia and Singapore are between sovereign states. From 1963 to 1965 Singapore was part of Malaysia, and thus not a sovereign state. Before that it was also not a sovereign state. How does this relate to any of the issues raised? CMD (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

in this Agreement reads :

An Agreement dated the 7th day of August, 1965, and made between the Government of Malaysia of the one part and the Government of Singapore of the other part.

WHEREAS Malaysia was established on the 16th day of September, 1963, by a federation of the existing states of the Federation of Malaya and the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore into one independent and sovereign nation;

AND WHEREAS it has been agreed by the parties hereto that fresh arrangements should be made for the order and good government of the territories comprised in Malaysia by the separation of Singapore from Malaysia upon which Singapore shall become an independent and sovereign state and nation separate from and independent of Malaysia and so recognised by the Government of Malaysia;

While the federation treaties in force, an agreement between Malaysia and at the same dated of Singapore adherence to Malaysia that it was under an obligation to accept the continuance of a multilateral treaty, how can be explained from the perspective of international law? - Omdo (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
A federal government is freely able to make agreements with state government, just as they are able to make agreements with companies, resistance groups, or contractors. There's no problem here, international law wise, and if there was we'd need secondary sources for both the problem and the explanation. Again, this seems unrelated to the questions I raised. CMD (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If we will draw sovereign state, of course, the criterion of sovereignty is an essential in this discussion, so what is the doctrine implied in the sovereign state clause ? - Omdo (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Malaysian states don't have sovereignty, if that's what you're asking. Do you have any secondary sources that support your addition, per WP:V and WP:RS? Currently, your text is just WP:Original Research and WP:Synthesis, which is against wikipedia's sourcing policies. CMD (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
What is Malaysia federal system of government ? - Omdo (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Malaysia does have a federal system. In such systems, ultimate sovereignty is with the federal government. CMD (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

in this federation proclamation reads :
WHEREAS by an Agreement made on the Ninth day of July in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three between the Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore it was agreed that there shall be federated the States of Sabah (Formerly North Borneo), Sarawak and Singapore with the Federation of Malaya comprising the states of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang and Malacca, and that the Federation shall thereafter be called MALAYSIA

Now, the issue is the federated States has retained sovereignty over her States following Agreement relating to Malaysia 1963 or whether the sovereignty has since formation passed to federation, and, then who's aggregation ownership of the federal government? - Omdo (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Their is no issue. Subnational states are not sovereign. By joining the federation, all states involved relinquished individual sovereignty. CMD (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thus, the other question is whether the federated States has passing of sovereignty over her States to the federation (i.e. Malaysia), it is desired must to be clarify the status of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore, I would therefore be most grateful to know whether there is any document or sources that support your conclusion showing a handover or whether it has been ceded by the Governments of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore or in any other way disposed of. - Omdo (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The numerous sources you've edited about which show the union for a state. By entering a federation, they did cede sovereignty. It's not my conclusion, it's a very standard fact. CMD (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The federalism is not a fixed principle for allocating power between the federation and state governments, but it is a principle that could be changed in response to changing political needs. The federalism has passed through several distinct changes following to the State’s history. Malaysia was under an obligation and affected to accept the continuance in multilateral treaties have been signed by four other sovereign states as the parties, in respect of which the Secretary-General has performed Depository Functions - See:Secretary-General of the United Nations registered Nr. I-10760 and Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties - Omdo (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Considering three states were barely out of British control (Malaya hadn't been independent long either) there weren't many multilateral treaties to follow up on. As for your assertion on federalism being changeable, if you don't have a source, it doesn't belong. As it stands, Sabah and Sarawak are Malaysian states with a little more autonomy than Malayan ones, no more, no less. CMD (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
We cannot go into the complex discussions about the summa potestas here, the discussion would go well better if the question is whether the Governments of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore to an union state (a grouping of states) has losing its sovereignty or in any other way disposed of, currently uses the notion of the Agreement relating to Malaysia and Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties - Omdo (talk)
The governments of all three surrendered full sovereignty when they joined the union. Singapore of course, was given it back. CMD (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Was given it back is an entirely respectable political bias opinion which does to endow itself, in my view, Malaysia was established on the 16th day of September, 1963, enacted by The British Malaysia Act 1963 (1963 C 35)


For the purpose of enabling North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as "the new States") to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya(in this Act referred to as "the Federation"), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States (i.e. North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore) are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as the appointed day) Her Majesty’s sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States (i.e. North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore) shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation (i.e. Malaya) and the new States (i.e. North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore).

Her Majesty may by Order in Council enact State Constitutions to take effect for the new States (i.e. North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore) immediately before the appointed day.

imply that the cultural, and political heritage, coupled with the very special quality of federation or federalism, necessarily have to be expressed through a union sovereign state rather than through a federated states. thereafter being called Malaysia mean Malaya was changed to Malaysia. - See:United Nations Press Release United Nations Member States - It is conceivable that the Malaya (i.e. federation), North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (Singapore in Malaysia) in related with the Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 between Malaysia (i.e. Malaya) and Singapore (Singapore in Malaysia) - See:Secretary-General Registered No. I-8206 - independent was domestic law or an international treaty, Singapore (Singapore in Malaysia) could be able to express itself, In what circumstances does not the transition from one of domestic law to be an international treaty come about? Where, then, is the breaking point? - Omdo (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The transition comes about when an official action brings the transition about. Your assertions don't present themselves clearly in the primary sources you are using to back them up. We need WP:Secondary sources for any of this, and every secondary source I've seen calls Sabah and Sarawak states of Malaysia. CMD (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Coming here from 3O. What exactly is the dispute? If it is about whether to include this text, what are the arguments against including it?  Sandstein  15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The text I removed in the diff provided has quite a few problems. For a start, it's completely based off primary sources, and is a prime example of why one shouldn't base text off primary sources, as the sources are the documents of the events and don't describe it the way our text does. Adding to this, the English is quite poor, for example "and achieved independence with the Straits Settlements of Penang (including Province Wellesley) and Malacca union within the Federation of Malaya". I also don't know why Province Wellesley is included in that statement, as there's nothing altogether special about it.
The second added paragraph is just a WP:Coatrack about self-determination, which isn't at all linked back to the topic at hand, and is again poorly sourced, to a general link that doesn't contain any of the information stated. The links to wikisources suggests that this is also just based off primary sources.
The third paragraph is another poorly sourced and badly worded paragraph which could basically be summed up as "Under the terms of the Malaysia agreement, Malaysia became independent." Again there's a quite random addition, listing all the islands in Labuan separately, something this user has made a habit of doing everywhere they edit.
The section afterwards is a list of states, repetitive to the lists they added in the above text, and also poorly sourced. It also links "state" to sovereign state, which is simply wrong, in the same way that the States of Australia, or Germany, or the USA aren't sovereign either. Again the random inclusion of Province Wellesley and the many islands of Labuan.
The section on Constitutions is written in such a way that I really don't know what point it is trying to convey. It again however, is poorly sourced, with the sources not saying what they're used to source, and is again filled with links to wikisource, suggesting again more interpretation from primary sources. The reference added to the bottom is not used as a reference at all, and from the title appears to be a collection of primary sources.
Of course, this could all be better sourced, but there isn't really a point to including any of it. From the discussion above, the information appears to be some sort of attempt to shore up support for the idea that Sabah and Sarawak are somehow not part of Malaysia, or something like that. This is also supported by the change they made where they switched the Malaysia-Stub template for three others, a Malaya one (created by Omdo, and as I just found out checking on it subsequently deleted), a Sabah one, and a Sarawak one. The addition of lots of legal documents and information is unlikely to be that understandable by the general reader by itself (one good reason secondary sources are better than primary ones), but combined with selective quotes and generally poor English I don't think any of this material is useful. A short history section could be nice, but not this one. CMD (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, reading the text more closely I agree with the above. The English is poor, the point of the second paragraph with all the bureaucratese Special Committee blah blah hereinafter blah blah monitoring implementation I don't get at all, much less its relation to the topic, and the rest reads like more random buraucratese without an explanation of what this has to do with federalism. I agree that this text should not be included.  Sandstein  19:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)