By Daniel John Jambun
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) refers to the recent statement by Idris Jala praising Abdul Razak Hussein for Malaysia’s response to the 1973 oil crisis, calling it a “game-changer.”
Let us be absolutely clear:
No historical policy — no matter how successful — can override the Federal Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), or Sabah’s entrenched rights within the Federation.
1. MA63 IS THE LEGAL FOUNDATION OF MALAYSIA — NOT A POLITICAL OPTION
MA63 is not rhetoric.
It is the legal basis upon which Malaysia exists.
It defines:
The terms of Sabah’s entry into the Federation
The safeguards negotiated and agreed
The constitutional balance between Federation and State
These safeguards were never meant to be diluted by subsequent federal policies — including those arising from the 1973 oil crisis.
Any policy framework that undermines MA63 is not reform — it is a constitutional deviation.
2. PETROLEUM POLICY DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION
The post-1973 petroleum framework — including the central role of Petronas — cannot lawfully displace constitutional guarantees.
Under Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution:
Sabah is entitled to 40% of net revenue derived from the State
This is a binding constitutional right
Yet today:
The Federal Government has failed to fully implement this entitlement
The matter has been forced into litigation
And most recently, the Attorney General’s Chambers Malaysia has pursued an appeal and obtained a stay of execution
Let us call this what it is:
A legal strategy that delays constitutional compliance — not a defence of the Constitution.
3. THE COURTS HAVE SPOKEN — AND THE LAW IS CLEAR
The High Court has already affirmed Sabah’s entitlement.
Instead of complying, the Federal Government has:
Filed a partial appeal
Sought a stay of execution
Effectively suspended the consequences of its own non-compliance
This raises a serious constitutional concern:
Can the Government rely on legal process to postpone the enforcement of constitutional rights indefinitely?
The answer must be:
No.
4. BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE: SABAH’S RIGHTS CANNOT BE ERODED
Malaysia’s highest courts have already made this clear.
In Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and Indira Gandhi v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak, the Federal Court affirmed:
The Basic Structure Doctrine applies in Malaysia
Certain constitutional features cannot be removed or undermined
These include:
Judicial power
Rule of law
Federal-state balance
Sabah’s position under MA63 — including its fiscal safeguards — forms part of this protected structure.
No executive policy, no statute, and no administrative arrangement can lawfully dilute these guarantees.
5. THIS IS A CONTINUING CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH
This is no longer a matter of historical debate.
It is a matter of ongoing constitutional violation.
For decades, Sabah has:
Contributed substantial natural resource wealth
Received disproportionately limited fiscal return
Been forced to seek judicial intervention to enforce its rights
This is not governance.
This is a continuing breach of constitutional duty.
6. THE REAL ISSUE: COMPLIANCE — NOT NARRATIVE
Idris Jala’s statement attempts to celebrate a past “game-changer.”
But Sabahans are not asking about 1973.
Sabahans are asking:
Why must Sabah go to court to enforce the Constitution?
Why is compliance delayed through appeals and stays?
Why is constitutional entitlement treated as negotiable?
The rule of law is measured not by historical success — but by present compliance.
MA63 MUST PREVAIL — OR THE FEDERATION ITSELF IS AT RISK
If Malaysia is to remain constitutionally legitimate, one principle must prevail:
MA63 is supreme in defining the Federation’s structure — and it must be honoured in substance, not in rhetoric.
Sabah’s rights are:
Not political requests
Not fiscal negotiations
Not historical leftovers
They are:
Constitutional guarantees.
Legally enforceable rights.
Binding obligations on the Federation.
And until they are honoured in full—
Malaysia cannot claim to be upholding the rule of law.
