Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:50:54.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Malaya/ Singapore/ Malaysia: Comments on State Competence, Succession and Continuity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

L. C. Green
L. C. Green*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton
Get access

Extract

The Constitutional and international history of Singapore and Malaya have been chequered and hectic since the days of the Japanese occupation. Perhaps the most startling were the years from 1963 to 1965, the period during which Singapore ceased being a Crown Colony to form with Malaya the Federation of Malaysia and, when that experiment failed, to become an independent sovereign state within the Commonwealth.

It is the purpose of this paper to examine this history in order to extract those issues which are of interest from the point of view of state succession and the continuity of law, while at the same time paying attention to some of the problems of competence that occur in a federal state, especially one in which the component parts have only recently enjoyed independence.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 4 , 1966 , pp. 3 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Straits Settlement Act, 1866, 29 & 30 Vict., c.115.

2 See Tregonning, K.G., A History of Modern Sabah (Singapore, 1965). Google Scholar

3 See Smith, H.A., Great Britain and the Law of Nations, vol. 2, 83 et seq. (London, 1935).Google Scholar

4 See Sheridan, L.A., Malaya and Singapore, the Borneo Territories 7–9 (London, 1961)Google Scholar; Emerson, R., Malaysia, c.4 (Kuala Lumpur, 1964).Google Scholar

5 102 British and Foreign State Papers 126 (London, 1908–9).

6 See Duff Development Co. v. Government of Kelantan, [1924] A.C. 797.

7 Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, [1884] 1 Q.B. 149.

8 9 & 10 Geo. 6, C.37.

9 S.R. & O., 1946, No. 464.

10 Ibid., No. 463. See also Malayan Union and Singapore, Cmd. 6724 and 6749 (1946).

11 Federation of Malaya O. in C., S.I. No. 108, Cmd. 7171 (1948).

12 Sultan of Johore v. Abubakar Tunku Aris Bendahar, [1952] A.C. 318.

13 In re Hirota and Others (1948), 15 I.L.R. 356.

14 II Oppenheim, International Law 218 (7th ed. Lauterpacht, 1952).

15 Harvard Draft Convention on Rights and Duties of States in Case of Aggression, Art. 5: “By becoming an aggressor, a State loses the right to require other States to perform the obligations of executory treaties, but is not relieved of the duty to perform the obligations of such treaties; executed treaties are not affected,” 33 Am. J. Int’l L., Supp. 828 (1939).

16 Oppenheim, supra note 14, at 219.

17 U.K., Manual of Military Law, Part III, The Law of War on Land, App. V. at 203, 208 (London, 1958).

18 See Greenspan, M., The Modern Law of Land Warfare 217–18, esp. n. 29 (Berkeley, 1959).Google Scholar

19 Gaius, Inst., Lib. 1, s. 129; Justinian, Inst., Lib. 1, tit. 12, s.5. For discussion of this concept see Grotius, , De Jure Belli, Lib. Ill, cap. ix, “On Postliminy” (1625; Carnegie tr. 701).Google Scholar

20 It is doubtful whether the term “belligerent” would be used today, or whether even in 1819 an accused could suggest that this “temporary allegiance” constituted a valid defence to a charge of treason. Joyce v. D.P.P. [1946] A.C. 347, and similiar decisions during and after the Second World War suggest that these remarks are no longer acceptable.

21 (1819)4 Wheat. 246, 254; 4 L. Ed. 562, 564.

22 Proclamation No. 1, August 15, 1945. For general discussion, see Das, S.K., Japanese Occupation and Ex Post Facto Legislation in Malaya, c. 5 (Singapore, 1959).Google Scholar

23 No. 24, November 10, 1945, ibid., 34.

24 Per Lord Simon, supra note 12, at 336, 341–42.

25 [1947] M.U.L.R. 52; 15 Ann. Dig. Pub. Int’l L. Gases (Ann. Dig.) 583.

26 [1907] A.C. 326, 328–29.

27 [1947] M.U.L.R. 80, affirmed 86; (1948) 15 Ann. Dig. 583, 585.

28 [1947] M.U.L.R. 14; (1948) 15 Ann. Dig. 589. Cp. Wandel-Hirschberg v. Jacobsfeld-Yaruska (1958, Israel) 26 I.L.R. 702, and Jiday v. C.E.O. Haifa (1955) Israel) 22 I.L.R. 698.

29 [1948] S.C.R. 1; (1948) 15 Ann. Dig. 586.

30 Article 23(h) provides that “…it is especially forbidden... to declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party.”

31 (1948) 15 Ann. Dig. 586-87. On Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, see text to supra note 17.

32 [1948] S.C.R. 12; 15 Ann. Dig. 587, 588–89.

33 Taylor, A.W, Indonesian Independence and the United Nations, App. 1, 449 (London, 1960).Google Scholar

34 Ibid., App. 3, 464.

35 Ibid., App. 4, 468.

36 90 British and Foreign State Papers 51 (1898); Piggott, F.T., Extradition 217 (London, 1910).Google Scholar

37 17 M.L.J. 38 (1951) ; (1950) 17 I.L.R. 82.

38 (1950) 17 I.L.R. 82, 84, 87, 89–90. The learned judge tended to ignore the fact that the Queen of the Netherlands was also Head of the Netherlands Indonesian Union; see Asbeck, F. Van, “The Birth and Decline of the Netherlands Indonesian Union,” 7 Year Book of World Affairs 204 (London, 1953).Google Scholar

39 Hackworth, V., Digest of International Law 375.Google Scholar

40 (1934), 29 P. (2d) 388, 389.

41 13 Dept. State Bull. 1020; 14 ibid., 738.

42 For the text of this treaty, see Artukovic v. Boyle, 107 F. Supp. 11, 13–14, fn. 2 (1952).

43 Ibid., 30, 33.

44 (1902) 184 U.S. 270.

45 (1957) 140 F. Supp. 845; 247 F 2d. 198; (1959) 170 F. Supp. 383.

46 (1947) 14 P.L.R. 461 ; 14 Ann. Dig. 42.

47 See, e.g. Jiday v. C.E.O. Haifa, supra note 28, for a discussion of the relations between Israel and Lebanon.

48 Supra note 12.

49 For a discussion of some of these cases, see Green, L.C., “The Status of Pakistan,” 6 Indian L.R. 66, 68 et seq. (1952).Google ScholarPubMed

50 [1951] 2 K.B. 1003.

51 [1952] 1 All E.R. 326; 2 All E.R. 64.

52 No. 2 of 1951, Parry, C., Nationality and Citizenship Laws 889, s.3 (London, 1957)Google Scholar

53 1948, 11 & 12 Geo. 6, C.56, s.3.

54 Pakistan Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1952; see Green supra note 49, at 75, 77.

55 5 & 6 Eliz. a, c.6o.

56 Constitutional Proposals for the Federation of Malaya, Cmd. 201 (1957).

57 S.I. 108 of 1948.

58 See Federation of Malaya Independence Order in Council (No. 1533) 2 (1957).

59 Ibid., Sch. 1.

60 Section 38.

61 See Bal Shakri v. Bapusinghji Takhatsinghji, A.I.R. (45), Bombay 30; (1958-II) 26 I.L.R. 195.

62 Supra note 7.

63 Supra note 8.

64 The Times (London) ; July 17;, 1963.

65 (1954) S.C.A. 787; [1954] All India Rep. 561.

66 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

67 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

68 (1935) P.G.I.J., ser. A/B, No. 64, at 19–20; 3 Hudson, , World Court Reports (W.C.R.) 485, at 498.Google Scholar

69 German Settlers in Poland (1923), P.C.I.J., ser. Β., No. 6, at 24; 1 W.C.R. 208, at 218.

70 For some of the problems that arose in the case of Israel, see Green, L.C., “The Maxim Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the Eichmann Trial,” 38 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 457, 465 (1962)Google Scholar, and esp. Katz-Cohen v. Att. Gen. (1949) 16 Ann. Dig. 68, and Forer v. Guterman (1948) 15 Ann. Dig. 58. See also O’Connell, D.P., The Law of State Succession, 211 et seq. (London, 1956).Google Scholar

71 Supra note 69.

72 (1926), P.C.I.J., ser. A., No. 7; 1 W.C.R. 510.

73 Schwarzenberger, G., International Law, vol. 1, at 170–71 (3rd. ed., 1957).Google Scholar

74 Cmd. 346. (1958).

75 For a general survey of the problem, see I.L.A., The Effect of Independence on Treaties (London, 1965).

76 See also ibid., c.12.

77 See Robertson, A.H., Human Rights in Europe 200 (London, 1963).Google Scholar

78 Article 14 is as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

79 [1951] 2 K.B. 1003.

80 See Fawcett, J.E.S., The British Commonwealth in International Law, Part 4 (London, 1963).Google Scholar

81 Cmd. 263 (1957)

82 See Green, L.C., “Indonesia, the United Nations and Malaysia,” 6 J. of Southeast Asian History 71 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Modelski, G., “Indonesia and the Malaysia Issue,” 18 Year Book of World Affairs 128 (1964).Google Scholar

83 Arrangements for the Employment of Overseas Commonwealth Forces in Emergency Operations in the Federation of Malaya After Independence, Cmd. 264 (1957).

84 Exchange of Letters, supra note 81, at 16–18.

85 Ibid., 16.

86 1958, 6 & 7 Eliz. 2, C.59.

87 1958, No. 1956.

88 (1870), 33 & 34 Vict, C.90.

89 See Fawcett, supra note 80, at 80.

90 10 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 376 (1961); this report states that the communication was made on July 6, 1959, but gives the citation Singapore Gazette, Supp. No. 4 of April 7, 1959.

91 Cmd. 620 (1958).

92 See Johnson, D.H.N., “The Effect of Resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations,” 32 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 97 (1955–56)Google Scholar; F.B. Sloan, “The Binding Force of a Recommendation of the General Assembly of the United Nations,” 25 ibid., 1 (1948); Virally, M., “La valeur juridique des recommendations des organisations internationales,” 2 Annuaire Français 66 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; South-West Africa (Voting Procedure) [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 67, Separate Opinion by Lauterpacht, 90, 115.

93 See supra note 82.

94 Meadows, M., “The Philippine Claim to North Borneo,” 77 Political Science Quarterly 321 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95 Smith, supra note 3, at 45 et seq., 77 et seq.; Tregonning, K.G., “The Claim for North Borneo by the Philippines,” 16 Australian Quarterly 283 (1962).Google Scholar

96 76 British and Foreign State Papers 58.

97 58 ibid., 493.

98 2 Malloy, Treaties 1692.

99 1938, T.I.A.S., No. 4261.

100 Supra note 82.

101 Straits Times (Singapore), August 31, 1963. For a discussion of the allotment of non-permanent seats, see Green, L.G., “Gentlemen’s Agreements and the Security Council,” 13 Current Legal Problems 255 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Representation in the Security Council,” 11 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 48 (1962).

102 See The Times (London), October 19, 1963, for reference to Malaysia as the Commonwealth candidate.

103 Straits Times, October 25, 1963.

104 Verbatim Minutes of Ninth Plenary Session, June 25, 1945, 1 UNCIO Documents 616–17, 620.

105 (1927) P.C.I.J., ser. A., No. 10; 2 W.C.R. 20, at 35.

106 (1923) P.C.I.J., ser. A., No. 1 ; 1 W.C.R. 163, at 175.

107 Straits Times, January 27, 1965.

108 Malaysia, Cmd. 2094 (1963). See also Federal Gazette, vol. 7, No. 16, August 13, 1963.

109 See, for other instances, Green, L.C., “Legal Aspects of the Sino-Indian Border Dispute,” No. 3 The China Quarterly 42, 43 et seq. (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

110 Art. 6 (italics added).

111 Kelantan v. Federation of Malaya (1963), 23 M.L.J. 355; 3 Int. Legal Materials 132 (1964).

112 See review by State Advocate-General of Groves’ Constitution of Malaysia in 30 M.L.J. xcvii (1964).

113 1881, 44 & 45 Vict., c.69.

114 Public Prosecutor v. Anthony Wee Boon Chye (1965), 31 M.L.J. 189, 192–93.

115 [1951]. All India Rep. 517, 519.

116 (1949) 12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6, c.92.

117 [1952] 1 All E.R. 1060, 1062.

118 The Times (London), August 10, 1965.

119 Independence of Singapore Agreement, Singapore Government Gazette, vol. 7, No. 66, August 9, 1965; Siaran Akhbar (Kuala Lumpur), PEN. 8/65/109 (PM), August 9, 1965.

120 Enacted as No. 53 of 1965 on the afternoon of August 9, 1965 (secession was announced in the morning).

121 The Times (London), February 22, 1966.

122 [1965] 2 M.L.J. xxxvii.

123 Ibid.