In Part Four: Sabah’s territorial waters, continental shelf and petroleum resources—and the documents the State Assembly must demand.
By DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN, President Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
THE TERRITORIAL SEA ACT 2012
The Territorial Sea Act 2012 provides that, for specified purposes including laws relating to the continental shelf, petroleum mining and land in Sabah and Sarawak, references to territorial waters are to be construed as waters not exceeding three nautical miles from the low-water line.
The critical constitutional question is whether this provision merely allocates legislative or administrative jurisdiction for specified purposes, or whether it operates in substance to alter Sabah’s boundaries, territory, proprietary rights or resource jurisdiction.
If it has the latter effect, Article 2(b) of the Federal Constitution becomes directly relevant.
Article 2(b) provides that a law altering the boundaries of a State cannot be passed without the consent of that State expressed by a law made by its Legislature, together with the consent of the Conference of Rulers.
The Sabah Legislative Assembly has previously been informed that it did not consent to the application of the three-nautical-mile limit to Sabah.
The Federal Government should therefore explain:
– whether the Act merely regulates jurisdiction or purports to redefine Sabah’s territory;
– whether Sabah’s pre-existing territorial or proprietary rights were affected;
– whether any Sabah law expressing consent was enacted;
– whether the Conference of Rulers gave the constitutionally required consent if State boundaries were altered;
– what constitutional provision authorised the measure; and
– what legal advice was obtained by the Federal and Sabah Governments.
The State Assembly should demand production of any Sabah Cabinet paper, Assembly resolution, State enactment, instrument involving the Yang di-Pertua Negeri, legal opinion or federal document relied upon to claim that Sabah had lawfully surrendered or limited its territorial or proprietary rights.
THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
The Continental Shelf Act 1966 and subsequent measures placed extensive authority over the continental shelf and offshore resources under federal control.
The State Assembly should examine whether these measures merely regulated Malaysia’s international continental-shelf rights or whether they also operated to displace pre-existing territorial, proprietary or resource interests belonging to Sabah.
The question is not answered merely by asserting that the continental shelf is a federal legislative matter.
The Federal Government should identify the precise constitutional provision relied upon to treat resources adjoining Sabah as exclusively federal and explain whether Parliament possessed authority to extinguish or transfer any proprietary or territorial right previously belonging to Sabah.
The State Assembly should require disclosure of:
– the constitutional basis relied upon for exclusive federal control;
– whether the Sabah Cabinet was consulted or agreed to the measures;
– whether any State resolution or law was enacted;
– whether the Yang di-Pertua Negeri was involved where constitutionally required;
– the precise legal instrument by which any proprietary right of Sabah was transferred;
– whether Sabah received compensation or a corresponding financial settlement; and
– whether emergency powers were used to effect a permanent transfer of rights beyond the emergency period.
THE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT ACT 1974
The Petroleum Development Act 1974 established the statutory mechanism under which ownership and exclusive rights in petroleum throughout Malaysia were vested in PETRONAS.
However, Parliament’s enactment of the PDA did not, by itself, resolve every constitutional and proprietary question concerning petroleum situated within Sabah’s land, territorial waters and offshore areas.
The State Assembly is entitled to determine:
– what petroleum rights Sabah legally possessed immediately before the vesting;
– who executed the vesting instrument on behalf of Sabah;
– in what constitutional or statutory capacity that person acted;
– what Cabinet, legislative or other State authority authorised its execution;
– whether State legislation was required to transfer any proprietary right belonging to Sabah;
– whether the person signing possessed authority to bind future Sabah Governments permanently;
– whether the State Attorney-General advised that the arrangement was lawful;
– whether the full economic value of the petroleum rights was disclosed;
– whether the five per cent cash payment represented fair and informed consideration; and
– what legal relationship existed between the vesting instrument and the cash-payment agreement.
The signature of a Chief Minister or other office-holder cannot be presumed, without examination of the governing constitutional and statutory authority, to have transferred every proprietary, territorial and constitutional interest of Sabah in petroleum.
If the Federal Government maintains that Sabah’s petroleum rights were validly and permanently vested, it should produce the documents proving the legal authority relied upon.
In Part Five: The federalisation of Labuan, Sabah’s 40 per cent revenue entitlement and the weakening of Sabah’s parliamentary safeguards.
PART FIVE
LABUAN, SABAH’S REVENUES AND THE EROSION OF POLITICAL SAFEGUARDS
THE FEDERALISATION OF LABUAN
The transfer of Labuan from Sabah to the Federal Government in 1984 was one of the most significant permanent alterations ever made to Sabah’s territory, political representation and economic interests.
Labuan formed part of the territory of Sabah at the creation of Malaysia in 1963.
It was not an unowned federal asset capable of being transferred merely through an informal political arrangement.
Article 2(b) of the Federal Constitution permits Parliament to alter the boundaries of a State only with the consent of that State expressed by a law made by its Legislature, together with the consent of the Conference of Rulers.
In 1984, the Sabah State Legislative Assembly enacted the Federal Territory of Labuan Enactment 1984, and Parliament subsequently amended the Federal Constitution to establish the Federal Territory of Labuan and alter Sabah’s boundaries.
The existence of those enactments means that formal legislative steps were taken.
However, formal legislation does not place the transfer beyond constitutional, historical and democratic scrutiny.
The State Assembly must examine whether every applicable constitutional requirement was satisfied, whether the Legislature acted upon complete and accurate information, what territory and rights were understood to be transferred, and whether Sabah’s long-term constitutional and economic interests were adequately protected.
The Assembly should determine:
– whether the Sabah Cabinet formally approved the proposed permanent transfer;
– whether Assembly members received the complete agreement, legal advice, valuation and economic assessment before voting;
– whether the people of Labuan and Sabah were meaningfully consulted;
– whether the role of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri was properly observed;
– whether the consent of the Conference of Rulers was obtained;
– whether Sabah received fair and adequate compensation;
– whether the transfer was conditional upon promises of development or economic benefit; and
– whether those promises were fulfilled.
The constitutional audit should also determine
PART SEVEN
SARAWAK EDUCATES ITS PEOPLE ON MA63 — WHY DOES SABAH RESTRICT THE DEBATE?
The contrast between Sarawak and Sabah could not be clearer.
On 22 July 2026, Sarawak Premier Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg urged Sarawakians, particularly the younger generation, to read, study and understand the Malaysia Agreement 1963 in depth.
He correctly recognised that knowledge of MA63 is essential if future generations are to understand Sarawak’s constitutional position and defend the rights and interests entrusted to them.
That is responsible constitutional leadership.
A State Government that is serious about defending its rights does not keep its people uninformed about the constitutional foundation of the Federation.
It encourages its citizens to study the historical documents, understand the division of federal and State powers, question possible infringements and participate intelligently in the defence of their constitutional inheritance.
Sarawak is seeking to cultivate a population that understands its history and knows how to defend its rights.
Sabah should be doing the same.
Instead, the proceedings involving Tamparuli Assemblyman Datuk Seri Wilfred Madius Tangau reveal a disturbing contrast.
When Madius raised the question of whether several federal laws affecting Sabah had been enacted without Sabah’s constitutionally required consent, he was reportedly directed by the Speaker to retract his statement because it was considered too sweeping and unsupported by proof of bad faith.
Yet Madius should have been given the opportunity to identify the disputed legislation, particularise the alleged constitutional breaches and table the relevant supporting documents.
An elected Assemblyman was not asking the House to accept an unproven allegation as established fact.
He was raising a constitutional question and seeking an opportunity for it to be examined.
The appropriate response was therefore not retraction.
It was particularisation, evidence and debate.
TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO CONSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP
In Sarawak, the Premier tells the people:
Read MA63.
Study it.
Understand your rights.
Prepare yourselves to defend Sarawak’s constitutional future.
In Sabah, however, an elected representative seeking to speak about possible breaches of Sabah’s constitutional rights is restricted before he can fully particularise the laws and evidence concerned.
This sends the wrong message to the people of Sabah.
It suggests that understanding MA63 may be encouraged in principle, but questioning possible violations of Sabah’s rights inside the very institution entrusted to protect those rights may be treated as inconvenient or improper.
The Sabah State Legislative Assembly must not become a place in which discussions about Sabah’s constitutional rights are permitted only when they are politically comfortable.
It should be the principal democratic forum in which those rights are examined, defended and, where necessary, restored.
THE SPEAKER SHOULD FACILITATE CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY
The Speaker occupies an important constitutional office.
His responsibility is not merely to maintain order or protect the Government’s legislative programme.
He must also protect the dignity, authority and deliberative function of the House.
Where an allegation is broad, the Speaker may properly require it to be particularised.
Where documents are necessary, he may require their production.
Where language is unparliamentary, he may require it to be corrected.
However, procedural authority should not be exercised in a manner that prevents a legitimate constitutional issue from being presented altogether.
The Sabah State Legislative Assembly should not fear evidence.
It should demand evidence.
It should not silence questions concerning the loss or diminution of Sabah’s rights.
It should insist that those questions be stated precisely, supported by documents and answered by the responsible State and federal authorities.
SABAHANS MUST ALSO BE EDUCATED ABOUT MA63
BoPiMaFo therefore calls upon the Sabah Government to adopt an organised and comprehensive programme of public constitutional education.
The programme should cover:
1. the Malaysia Agreement 1963;
2. the Inter-Governmental Committee Report;
3. the Cobbold Commission Report;
4. the constitutional safeguards originally provided to Sabah;
5. Sabah’s special position under the Federal Constitution;
6. the distribution of legislative, executive and financial powers between Sabah and the Federation;
7. Sabah’s immigration safeguards;
8. Sabah’s territorial, maritime and natural-resource interests;
9. the 40 per cent net-revenue entitlement;
10. the constitutional procedures governing State consent; and
11. the historical assurances upon which North Borneo agreed to participate in the formation of Malaysia.
These materials should be made readily available through schools, universities, public libraries, government offices and official digital platforms.
Public forums should be organised throughout Sabah, involving constitutional lawyers, historians, academics, indigenous organisations, civil-society representatives and elected members from both sides of the political divide.
Young Sabahans must not inherit constitutional ignorance.
They must understand what was promised, what was constitutionally protected, what may have been diminished and what lawful measures remain available to restore Sabah’s position.
THE GRS GOVERNMENT MUST SHOW THE SAME DETERMINATION
The GRS Government should demonstrate the same determination shown by the Sarawak Government in educating its people and institutionalising the defence of State rights.
Defending Sabah cannot consist merely of announcing negotiations with the Federal Government or postponing the implementation of individual federal measures after concerns arise.
It requires a permanent constitutional policy supported by:
– public education;
– institutional research;
– open legislative scrutiny;
– publication of historical and legal records;
– bipartisan cooperation;
– regular reporting to the State Assembly; and
– a clear programme for the restoration of any right found to have been unlawfully diminished.
The Sabah Government should state openly whether it supports the establishment of the bipartisan Select Committee on Sabah’s Constitutional Rights proposed in this series.
It should also state whether it will support a substantive motion allowing Madius Tangau or another Assemblyman to identify the federal laws concerned, particularise the alleged breaches and table the supporting evidence.
Silence or procedural obstruction will only strengthen the perception that Sabah’s political institutions are less willing than Sarawak’s to confront difficult constitutional questions.
KNOWLEDGE IS THE FIRST LINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENCE
A population that does not understand its constitutional rights will struggle to recognise when those rights are being diminished.
A Legislature that does not permit alleged breaches to be particularised will struggle to protect the State from further erosion.
Sarawak understands that constitutional knowledge is a form of political and institutional strength.
Sabah must learn the same lesson.
BoPiMaFo therefore asks:
Why is Sarawak’s Premier encouraging his people to read MA63 and prepare themselves to defend Sarawak’s rights, while an elected Sabah Assemblyman faces restrictions when attempting to speak about possible breaches of Sabah’s rights?
Why has the Sabah Government not established an equivalent State-wide programme to educate Sabahans about MA63 and their constitutional safeguards?
Why should questions about Sabah’s territory, petroleum, revenues, immigration autonomy and institutional consent be treated as too uncomfortable for full examination in the State Legislative Assembly?
These questions cannot be answered by demanding retraction.
They must be answered with documents, evidence and constitutional reasoning.
Sabahans must read MA63.
Sabahans must understand their rights.
Their elected representatives must be permitted to speak, particularise alleged breaches and table the evidence.
The State Assembly must debate that evidence openly.
Sarawak is preparing its people to defend their constitutional inheritance.
Sabah must not be left behind.
Let the people understand. Let the Assemblyman speak. Let the evidence be tabled. Let Sabah’s rights be defended.
