By DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN BORNEO’S PLIGHT IN MALAYSIA FOUNDATION (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) takes serious note of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s recent remarks during an Al Jazeera interview in which, while discussing the China–Taiwan question, he indicated that force would be used if any part of Malaysia attempted to break away from the Federation.
BoPiMaFo acknowledges the context.
The Prime Minister was principally discussing China and Taiwan and was using Malaysia as an analogy. We also recognise that almost any Malaysian Prime Minister, regardless of political affiliation, would be expected to defend the territorial integrity of Malaysia.
But the remark nevertheless opens a profound question which cannot simply be brushed aside.
Before Putrajaya speaks about force, it should first ask why increasing numbers of Sabahans and Sarawakians are questioning the existing federal arrangement at all.
That question cannot be answered by coercion.
It must be answered by history, constitutional fidelity, fulfilment of promises, equality and continuing democratic consent.
SABAH AND SARAWAK ARE NOT MERE PROVINCES
Sabah and Sarawak are not administrative provinces created by Kuala Lumpur.
They are States of the Federation possessing a distinctive constitutional and historical position arising from the formation of Malaysia in 1963.
North Borneo and Sarawak did not become part of Malaysia through conquest or annexation.
Malaysia was established through a complex international and constitutional process involving the Malaysia Agreement 1963, the Inter-Governmental Committee, constitutional safeguards and political assurances made to the peoples of the Borneo territories.
The China–Taiwan analogy therefore has obvious limitations when applied to Sabah and Sarawak.
The relationship between Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Government cannot simply be reduced to the relationship between a central authority and an ordinary province.
MALAYSIA WAS PRESENTED AS A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION
The historical record surrounding the formation of Malaysia becomes particularly important when contemporary leaders begin speaking about force.
During the negotiations leading to Malaysia, the question of an express right of withdrawal was discussed.
Lord Lansdowne, Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee responsible for working out constitutional arrangements and safeguards for North Borneo and Sarawak, was reported to have taken the position that an express exit clause was unnecessary because a State voluntarily entering a federation possessed an intrinsic right to withdraw.
That historical understanding is significant.
It indicates that Malaysia was not originally presented to the Borneo peoples as an irreversible political imprisonment regardless of future circumstances.
The founding Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, was likewise reported shortly after the signing of MA63 as saying, in substance, that if participation in Malaysia did not bring benefit to the territories concerned, they would be free to leave.
BoPiMaFo does not contend that those historical statements, standing alone, amount to a presently enforceable constitutional provision permitting Sabah or Sarawak simply to declare independence.
The Federal Constitution today contains no express unilateral exit mechanism.
But their historical and political significance cannot simply be erased.
They reveal the spirit in which Malaysia was presented:
Voluntary association.
Mutual benefit.
Consent.
Safeguards.
Equality.
Partnership.
Not permanent domination.
Not irreversible subordination.
And not a federation maintained solely by the threat of force.
FROM VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION TO THE LANGUAGE OF FORCE
This is why Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s remarks deserve deeper reflection.
In the period surrounding Malaysia’s formation, the language was about voluntary participation, safeguards and mutual benefit.
More than six decades later, Sabahans and Sarawakians now hear the language of force.
How did Malaysia travel from the language of voluntary partnership to the language of coercion?
That is a question Putrajaya should answer.
The strongest way to preserve Malaysia is not by telling Sabah and Sarawak that the door is permanently locked.
It is by ensuring that the constitutional relationship remains sufficiently fair that their peoples have no reason to look for that door.
PEACEFUL DEMOCRATIC ADVOCACY IS NOT ARMED REBELLION
There must be a fundamental distinction between armed insurrection and peaceful constitutional advocacy.
If an armed organisation uses violence to seize territory or overthrow lawful institutions, that is plainly a security question.
But if Sabahans or Sarawakians peacefully demand:
greater autonomy;
restoration of constitutional safeguards;
implementation of MA63;
constitutional restructuring;
renegotiation of the federal relationship;
a referendum;
a confederal arrangement;
or peaceful discussion about self-determination,
those demands should be answered through democracy, negotiation, law and constitutional processes.
They should not automatically be characterised as threats to national security.
A mature federation must be strong enough to permit difficult constitutional questions to be discussed peacefully.
WHY ARE SABAHANS BECOMING DISILLUSIONED?
If Putrajaya genuinely wishes to understand growing dissatisfaction in Sabah, it should examine the accumulated grievances rather than merely the consequences of those grievances.
THE 40 PER CENT CONSTITUTIONAL REVENUE ENTITLEMENT
Sabah’s constitutional financial entitlement remains contested decades after it should have been regularly reviewed and implemented.
A constitutional right should not repeatedly have to be negotiated as though it were discretionary federal generosity.
THE LOSS OF BORNEO’S CONSTITUTIONAL VETO
At the formation of Malaysia, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak together possessed more than one-third of the seats in Parliament.
That numerical balance had enormous constitutional significance.
Because major constitutional amendments generally require a two-thirds majority, the Borneo territories together with Singapore possessed a practical capacity to prevent fundamental constitutional changes from being imposed solely by the Malayan majority.
After Singapore left Malaysia in 1965, that balance was never meaningfully restored to Sabah and Sarawak.
Today, Sabah and Sarawak no longer possess that original one-third protective bloc.
BoPiMaFo considers restoration of at least one-third parliamentary representation for Sabah and Sarawak to be central to any genuine restructuring of the Federation.
A constitutional safeguard is meaningless if the parties it was intended to protect can simply be outvoted on matters affecting the very foundations of their position.
MA63 AND THE ORIGINAL SAFEGUARDS
Many safeguards associated with the formation of Malaysia remain disputed, weakened, delayed or incompletely implemented.
Sabahans are entitled to ask whether the Federation operating today still resembles the political arrangement they were told they were joining in 1963.
SECURITY AND PROJECT IC
Sabah continues to carry the demographic and security consequences of illegal immigration and the extraordinary growth of its undocumented and non-citizen population.
The findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into illegal immigrants remain highly relevant.
If Putrajaya wishes to speak about national security, Sabahans are equally entitled to ask why Sabah’s own long-standing demographic security concerns have not been comprehensively resolved.
SABAH LAND AND FELDA
Sabahans are also entitled to demand a full accounting of the enormous areas of State land placed under FELDA development.
In 1979, approximately 247,000 acres were reportedly committed for FELDA development involving cocoa and oil palm.
Questions remain about the original objectives of those schemes, the number of Sabahans who ultimately benefited as settlers, the revenues received by Sabah, subsequent expansion of FELDA landholdings, and the long-term ownership and lease arrangements affecting those lands.
Land is one of Sabah’s most valuable and finite assets.
If enormous areas were made available in the name of rural development and poverty eradication, Sabahans have every right to know precisely:
Who benefited?
How much did Sabah receive?
How many local families obtained land?
What remains under FELDA control today?
And when, if ever, should those lands revert to Sabah?
OIL, GAS AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Sabahans continue questioning whether existing petroleum arrangements fairly reflect Sabah’s ownership, constitutional position and enormous contribution to national wealth.
TERRITORIAL RIGHTS
Questions surrounding Sabah’s territorial waters and the application of the Territorial Sea Act 2012 continue to generate constitutional concern.
LABUAN
The transfer of Labuan to the Federal Government remains another historical and constitutional issue which deserves proper reassessment.
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Sabah possesses extraordinary natural wealth, yet many communities continue to experience poverty, inadequate roads, unreliable electricity, water shortages, weak rural infrastructure and dilapidated schools.
A resource-rich State should not remain among the least developed parts of the Federation after more than six decades.
That contradiction inevitably produces political consequences.
FUTURE GENERATIONS CANNOT BE SILENCED FOREVER
BoPiMaFo believes another principle must be stated clearly.
No political generation can reasonably assume that it possesses the moral authority to bind every future generation forever, regardless of how radically circumstances may change.
The Sabahans and Sarawakians of 2063, 2100 or beyond may form views about their political future which are different from those held today.
If future generations, through a peaceful and clearly democratic process, eventually choose to debate independence or separation, their voices cannot simply be extinguished by saying that decisions taken in 1963 permanently ended all future political choice.
Whether any future claim to separation would succeed legally or constitutionally is another matter.
But peaceful democratic thought itself cannot be forbidden.
FOR NOW, THE BETTER PATH IS NOT SECESSION — IT IS A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT
BoPiMaFo’s present position is not that Sabah and Sarawak should immediately secede from Malaysia.
We believe there remains a peaceful and constructive alternative.
Malaysia should consider replacing the increasingly centralised and substantially altered present arrangement with a genuinely negotiated confederal constitutional compact.
The objective should be to preserve cooperation while restoring genuine political equality and self-government to the Borneo territories.
WHAT IS A CONFEDERATION?
A confederation is a substantially looser political association than the highly centralised federation Malaysia has gradually become.
Under an ordinary federation, substantial governmental powers are vested directly in the federal government, whose laws generally operate directly throughout the country.
Under a confederal arrangement, the constituent territories retain much greater political and governmental autonomy.
Only clearly agreed powers are delegated to common institutions.
A Malaysian confederation could therefore be designed so that Sabah, Sarawak and the Peninsula exercise extensive self-government while sharing agreed responsibilities in limited common areas.
These could include matters such as:
external defence;
foreign affairs;
common currency and monetary arrangements;
inter-territorial trade;
selected national infrastructure;
and other matters expressly agreed by the constituent partners.
Everything not expressly delegated would remain with the constituent governments.
Major constitutional changes affecting Sabah or Sarawak could require their consent rather than merely a numerical majority in Parliament.
The arrangement could include a restored one-third Borneo parliamentary safeguard or even stronger veto mechanisms for matters affecting the fundamental constitutional compact.
Resource ownership, taxation powers, immigration, land, local government, education, health and economic development could be substantially returned to the constituent territories according to an agreed constitutional division.
That would fundamentally reverse the present philosophy.
Instead of Sabah and Sarawak having to ask Putrajaya to return powers one by one, the common government would exercise only those powers which the constituent partners expressly agreed to share.
THIS IS NOT THE DESTRUCTION OF MALAYSIA
A confederal discussion should not automatically be portrayed as anti-Malaysia.
On the contrary, it could provide a peaceful constitutional mechanism for preserving cooperation while correcting structural grievances that have accumulated over more than sixty years.
The objective would not necessarily be to destroy Malaysia.
It could be to save the relationship by reconstructing it on terms that all constituent peoples regard as legitimate.
The choice should not be reduced to:
Accept the present arrangement forever, or leave Malaysia.
There is a third path:
Renegotiate Malaysia.
Create a new constitutional compact based upon genuine equality, clearly defined powers, financial autonomy, territorial integrity, democratic consent and enforceable safeguards.
THE REAL QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER PUTRAJAYA CAN KEEP SABAH
A federation should not merely ask:
How do we stop Sabah or Sarawak from leaving?
It should ask:
Why would their people ever want to leave?
If dissatisfaction exists, the solution is not first to discuss soldiers, police powers or coercion.
It is to examine whether the promises that persuaded the Borneo territories to join Malaysia have been honoured.
Has Sabah received genuine economic equality?
Has the 40 per cent entitlement been implemented?
Has the original parliamentary safeguard been preserved?
Have Sabah’s territorial and resource rights been respected?
Has demographic security been protected?
Have State lands and natural resources primarily benefited Sabahans?
Has MA63 been honoured in substance rather than merely celebrated ceremonially?
These questions determine whether a federation commands genuine loyalty.
LOYALTY MUST BE EARNED THROUGH JUSTICE
Political loyalty cannot indefinitely be demanded simply by invoking territorial integrity.
It must be sustained through fairness.
If Malaysia wants Sabah and Sarawak to remain committed members of a common political arrangement, then that arrangement must remain worth belonging to.
Honour the constitutional bargain.
Restore the parliamentary safeguard.
Resolve the 40 per cent entitlement.
Address Project IC.
Account fully for FELDA lands.
Protect Sabah’s territorial and resource rights.
Restore meaningful autonomy.
And negotiate a new constitutional structure if the existing structure can no longer deliver genuine equality.
FROM AN UNCOMPLETED AND ALTERED COMPACT TO A NEW AGREEMENT
BoPiMaFo believes the greatest mistake would be to pretend that Malaysia’s present constitutional structure cannot be reconsidered.
MA63 was intended to create a workable political partnership.
If six decades of constitutional amendment, centralisation, political practice and unresolved grievances have substantially altered that original arrangement, then the responsible response is not denial.
It is renegotiation.
Future generations may ultimately choose a different destiny.
That choice belongs to them.
For the present generation, however, BoPiMaFo believes the more constructive objective is a new confederal compact capable of restoring the equality, autonomy, safeguards and mutual respect that should have characterised Malaysia from the beginning.
A FEDERATION MAINTAINED BY CONSENT IS STRONGER THAN ONE MAINTAINED BY FEAR
Before talking about force, Putrajaya should talk about fulfilment.
Before demanding unquestioning loyalty, honour the bargain.
Before warning Sabah and Sarawak against leaving, ask why their peoples are increasingly questioning the present arrangement.
And before declaring the constitutional structure permanent and untouchable, recognise that political partnerships survive only when all parties continue to see justice and benefit in them.
Malaysia does not need greater coercion.
It needs a new constitutional conversation.
Not separation by force.
Not unity by force.
But partnership by consent.
If the existing federal structure can no longer deliver that partnership, then Malaysia should have the courage to negotiate something better.
A federation maintained by consent is infinitely stronger than a federation maintained by fear.
