KOTA KINABALU: The Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) fully supports the statements by Professor James Chin and the Sabah Law Society(SLS), both of whom cautioned Sabahans and Sarawakians against celebrating the Federal Government’s recent announcement that it would not appeal the High Court ruling affirmingSabah’s 40% revenue entitlement.
SSRANZ agrees that the Federal Government’s statement is a calculated political manoeuvre —crafted to deceive rather than deliver.
The so-called decision “not to appeal” was designed to defuse voter backlash and serve as a lifeline for Malayan-based parties and their local allies ahead of the Sabah state elections, rather than reflecting a genuine commitment to honour MA63 obligations.
SSRANZ President Robert Pei noted that while the Federal Government publicly claims to respectthe court’s decision, it has simultaneously left open the option of appealing the “grounds ofjudgement.”
This ambiguous phrasing is a deliberate delay tactic — enabling Putrajaya to postponepayment of Sabah’s rightful 40% entitlement while pretending to comply with the ruling.
“This is a classic double-edged political sword,” Pei said, citing the SLS.
“Thegovernment avoids immediate backlash by claiming victory for Sabahans, yet keeps the door open to delay and challenge the very judgement it claims to accept.
“It is a classicexample of politicians speaking with fork tongues ”Political Stakes: The MA63 Safeguards and Malayan Domination /SSRANZ emphasises that the ongoing struggle over fiscal rights is inseparable from MA63’soriginal safeguards on parliamentary representation and political autonomy.
A massive voter rejection of Malayan parties could end direct Malayan domination of Sabah — anoutcome the Federal Government is desperate to prevent.
At Malaysia’s purported formation,Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore were collectively guaranteed 34.6% of parliamentary seats toprevent Malaya from gaining a two-thirds majority and unilaterally altering the Constitution.
“This allocation was a core MA63 safeguard, described by IGC Chairman Lord Lansdowne as “adecisive factor in convincing the Borneo leaders that there was here no question of a takeover bid,but a genuine offer of real partnership.
“This safeguard was not symbolic. It was a foundational term intended to preserve a real balance ofpower and ensure that no constitutional change affecting Sabah and Sarawak’s status could occurwithout their effective consent — a protection central to the concept of equal partnership.
However, when Singapore seceded from the Federation in 1965, Malaya acted in bad faith by refusing to allocate Singapore’s vacated seats to the Borneo States.
This act destroyed theconstitutional balance designed to protect Sabah and Sarawak’s political autonomy, in breach of both treaty law and the Basic Structure Doctrine, which forms part of Malaysia’s constitutionalframework.
“The presence of Malayan political parties in Sabah and Sarawak was never part ofMA63’s design,” said Pei.
“Their expansion diluted local autonomy, captured stateseats, and turned partnership into domination.
The Federal Government’s latestmanoeuvre over the 40% entitlement continues this pattern — retaining control whilepretending to comply.
”The entry and operation of Malayan political parties in Sabah and Sarawak were contrary to theintent and structure of MA63, which envisaged each Borneo State developing its ownrepresentative institutions free from external domination.
Allowing Malayan-based parties tocontest and control local legislatures undermines the 34.6% parliamentary safeguard, distortslocal representation, and entrenches federal dominance over the political will of Sabah andSarawak’s peoples.
Notably, no Malayan-based party has openly supported the High Court judgement or called forimmediate compliance. The
Federal Government’s “no appeal” statement thus serves to protect itsown political interests, not uphold justice.
SSRANZ opines that if voter anger over decades of MA63 breaches is not neutralised, Malayanparties could face electoral collapse — ending their long-standing dominance in Sabah.
Theambiguous “no appeal” claim, coupled with the reserved right to challenge the judgement, is acalculated attempt to diffuse outrage and preserve power through deception.
“Now more than ever, Sabahans must rally around the principle of ‘Sabah forSabahans’ — rejecting external domination and asserting our rightful political andfiscal autonomy,” Pei urged.
A Pattern of Federal Bad Faith Since 1963SSRANZ asserts that this is part of a broader pattern of federal bad faith dating back to Malaysia’sformation.
Since 1963, the Federal Government has repeatedly violated constitutional and fiscal safeguards under MA63 — from the 1973 failure to review MA63, deliberate omission to entrenchMA63 supremacy in the Constitution, the Petroleum Development Act 1974, unconstitutional amendments under Article 161E, to denial of financial autonomy under Articles 112C and 112D.
“These cumulative breaches,” Pei stated, “have rendered MA63 legally and morallymeaningless. The treaty has been fatally breached — if not void from inception — dueto lack of genuine consent and continued violations of its core terms.”
