By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) responds with grave concern to the statement by Hajiji Noor that 100 hectares in Sebatik is “not a surrender” but merely a correction based on a colonial treaty.
We state clearly:
This is not a technical matter.
This is a constitutional matter.
1. “NOT SURRENDER” IS A LEGAL LABEL — NOT A REALITY
The attempt to frame this as a “survey correction” does not change the lived and legal consequence:
Land associated with Sabah is now recognised as belonging to a foreign state.
You may call it:
realignment
demarcation
treaty compliance
But to the people of Sabah, the effect is the same:
Control has shifted. Territory is lost.
2. SABAH IN 2026 IS NOT A COLONIAL OUTPOST OF 1891
The reliance on the 1891 British–Dutch Convention raises a fundamental contradiction:
Are we to understand that:
Sabah’s territorial fate in 2026
is still determined by colonial lines drawn in 1891
without independent constitutional scrutiny?
Sabah is not a relic of empire.
Sabah is a founding partner of Malaysia under MA63.
Any action affecting its territory must reflect:
constitutional authority
democratic consent
state sovereignty
—not colonial convenience.
3. WHERE IS THE SABAH STATE ASSEMBLY?
This is the central issue the government has not answered:
Was this matter tabled and approved by the Sabah State Legislative Assembly?
Under the Federal Constitution:
State boundaries cannot be altered unilaterally
State consent is not optional — it is mandatory
If this decision was made:
without debate
without transparency
without a formal mandate
then it is not merely questionable—
it is constitutionally defective.
4. SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT A NET CALCULATION
The justification that Malaysia “gained 780 hectares elsewhere” is fundamentally flawed.
Territory is not a balance sheet.
Sovereignty is not an exchange rate.
You do not trade one piece of land for another and call it neutral.
Each inch of Sabah carries:
jurisdiction
identity
constitutional meaning
5. THIS IS A PATTERN — NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT
The Sebatik issue does not stand alone.
It reflects a broader and dangerous pattern:
decisions affecting Sabah made without full state accountability
federal-diplomatic priorities overriding state interests
constitutional safeguards treated as procedural obstacles
Sabahans are not blind to this trajectory.
6. OUR DEMAND IS SIMPLE — AND NON-NEGOTIABLE
BoPiMaFo calls for immediate action:
1. Full public disclosure of all agreements, maps, and survey findings
2. Confirmation whether Article 2 constitutional requirements were complied with
3. Immediate tabling of this matter in the Sabah State Assembly
4. A clear legal position from the State Government — not political reassurance
A VERY STRONG REMINDER
This is not about 100 hectares.
This is about a principle:
If Sabah’s territorial boundaries can be adjusted without clear constitutional process,
then Sabah’s sovereignty exists only in theory — not in law.
BoPiMaFo will not accept that outcome.
“Sovereignty is not corrected by maps.
It is defended by law.”
