Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "1966 Sarawak constitutional crisis" in English language version.
... there were qualifying words to the word "emergency" "whereby the security or economic life of the Federation or of anypart thereof is threatened". Yang di-Pertuan Agong in the exercise of his power under cl (1) of Article 150 must be regarded as the sole Judge for that. In my view, cl (5) is very clear, that whilst a proclamation of emergency is in force, Parliament may make any law on any matter whether such matter is a matter of the Federal List, State List, or Concurrent List or any other matters that come under article 77. ... no concurrence of the Governor of Sarawak would appear to be necessary. I have come to the conclusion that I am unable to say, with any degree of confidence, that the Cabinet advice to His Majesty was not prompt by bonafide considerations of security. I am also equally unable to gauge the degree or extent of which such concern for security bears on such advice in relation to the Cabinet's primary objective. At any rate, the Minister of Home Affairs, who should be best informed, had this to say "I would be guilty, and I will be failing my duty if, for example, I were to wait for three months, and during those three months the Communists got an upper hand through political means, ...
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)Ningkan's petition against his unconstitutional dismissal progressed slowly though the courts for another two years, finally ending on 1 August 1968 when he was advised that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had dismissed his appeal. Commenting on the controversial declaration of a state of emergency, Lord MacDermott observed: "their Lordships could not find any reason for saying that the emergency was not grave and did not threaten the security of Sarawak."
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)