By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) refers to the recent exchange between Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Salleh Said Keruak
on the meaning of autonomy and independence.
Let us state this plainly:
Sabah is not confused.
Sabah has been patient.
Sabah has been denied.
1. THIS IS NOT CONFUSION — THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMAND
We firmly reject the suggestion that Sabahans are confusing autonomy with independence.
Sabahans understand exactly what autonomy means:
Rights within the Federation
Powers guaranteed under the Constitution
Safeguards agreed at the formation of Malaysia.
What Sabah is demanding is not separation — it is restoration.
To trivialise this as “confusion” is not only inaccurate — it is deeply dismissive of Sabah’s constitutional position.
2. AUTONOMY IS NOT A SLOGAN — IT IS A LEGAL OBLIGATION
Sabah’s position is grounded in the
Malaysia Agreement 1963,
and the Federal Constitution.
Autonomy means:
Respecting the agreed distribution of powers
Honouring fiscal and administrative safeguards
Recognising Sabah’s distinct constitutional status.
These are not requests. These are binding obligations.
3. TO SALLEH — AGREEMENT IS NOT ENOUGH, IMPLEMENTATION IS EVERYTHING
We acknowledge the position that Sabah is not seeking independence.
That is correct.
But Sabahans are no longer interested in:
Statements
Clarifications
Political reassurance.
The time for explanation is over.
The time for implementation is long overdue.
4. SABAH ENTERED MALAYSIA AS A PARTNER — NOT A SUBJECT
Sabah did not enter Malaysia as a subordinate state.
Sabah joined under clear assurances of:
Equal partnership
Autonomy in key areas
Constitutional protection
This was a negotiated federation — not a surrender of rights.
What was agreed in 1963 must not be diluted in 2026.
5. SABAH AND SARAWAK DID NOT BEG — AND WERE NOT GIVEN A FULL VOICE
Sabah and Sarawak did not beg to enter Malaysia.
Nor was there ever a full democratic referendum of the people to determine their future.
The
Cobbold Commission
did not conduct a one-person-one-vote process.
There was:
No universal referendum
No direct mandate from the entire population
Instead, the process relied on consultations and representations.
Even then, the findings made one thing clear:
Support for Malaysia was conditional — based on safeguards, autonomy, and assurances.
Malaysia was not formed on unconditional consent.
It was formed on promises.
6. STOP WEAPONISING “INDEPENDENCE”
The attempt to equate Sabah’s demands with “independence” is a calculated political tactic.
It is used to:
Create fear
Discredit legitimate claims
Avoid addressing constitutional obligations
Let this be clearly understood:l
Sabah’s demands are lawful.
Sabah’s demands are constitutional.
Sabah’s demands are long overdue.
7. THE REAL CONFUSION IS IN PUTRAJAYA
If there is confusion, it lies not in Sabah — but in the corridors of power.
Where:
Constitutional rights are reduced to negotiations
Legal duties are repackaged as “commitments”
Binding agreements are treated as optional.
That is not federalism.
That is erosion.
8. SABAH HAS THE RIGHT TO SHAPE ITS OWN FUTURE — WITHIN MALAYSIA
Sabah is entitled to:
Shape its own policies
Determine its own development priorities
Chart its own future direction within the Federation
This is not a call for separation.
This is a call for meaningful self-governance, as envisaged in 1963.
Sabah is not asking to leave Malaysia.
Sabah is asking to function as it was meant to — as an equal partner.
Sabah is not asking for independence.
Sabah is asserting its right to self-govern, to determine its policies, and to be treated as an equal partner within Malaysia.
Malaysia cannot claim strength while ignoring its own foundation.
Malaysia cannot speak of unity while denying its own agreements.
Honour MA63.
Restore autonomy.
End the distortion.
