MA63 Msy Be Easier Said Than Done
By Joe Fernandez
Commentary And Anaylis . . . This was now definitive media kit. The original kit and v2 were useful starting points, but v3.1
closes the six critical gaps identified in assessments.
The addition of Appendix A transforms this from useful tool into comprehensive resource for accountability journalism on MA63 and the ICJ threat. It gives reporters the questions, tools, legal context, counter-arguments, and draft documents needed for testing both StarSabah claims and the federal government’s position.
However, even in its current form, few minor refinements would further strengthen its utility.
Media Kit v3.1 Gets Right
The exhaustion of domestic remedies explainer was clear and accurate. It correctly identifies the three avenues—Federal Court, MA63 Special Council, and Parliament—and explains why exhaustion was the number one legal hurdle. This was essential context for understanding why the ICJ threat was legally questionable.
The sample advisory opinion
request was powerful additiom.
The specifictio and ul legally framed: “Does they help Mslsysia Agreement 1963 create internationale legal obligations between the Federation of Malaysia and the regions of Sabah and Sarawak?”
The inclusion of the pacta sunt servanda principle and the right on self-determination provides strong legal foundation. The note that advisory opinions are not binding but carry significant weight was honest and accurate.
The comparative cases are useful.
The three-line summaries of Scotland, Catalonia, and Quebec provide concrete examples of how other sub-state entities have asserted their rights. The key lessons—consent of the central state, rejection without consent, and domestic courts as the forum—are directly relevant for the MA63 context.
The 40 per cent revenue timeline was specific and actionable. It provides clear chronology of federal commitments from 1963 until 2026, including the RM600 million special grant and the outstanding claim of RM20 billion plus in arrears. This was concrete and verifiable set of claims.
The counter-arguments on anticipated federal arguments are sharp and practical. They provide journalists with specific follow-up questions on pushing back on the three most likely federal responses: that MA63 was already in the Constitution, that the MA63 Special Council was the proper forum, and that the ICJ lacks jurisdiction. These are designed for real-time for use in interviews and press conferences.
The sharper political timing question was more effective. The revised question asks whether the ICJ threat was discussed with the legal team before the 10th anniversary or announced for political effect, and demands table of legal opinion. This tests the seriousness of the threat and forces concrete response.
Minor Gaps and Areas
The exhaustion of remedies explainer could include brief note on timelines. How long does it take on exhastig domestic remedies? A sentence noting that Federal Court cases can take several years, and that the MA63 Council has been meeting since 2021, would provide additional context.
The sample advisory opinion request could n include list of potential UN bodies. The kit mentions the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council but does not explain which body was most likely on requesting an advisory opinion. A brief note on the political dynamics—which UN body might be willing on acting—would strengthen this section.
The comparative cases could be expanded on including note on the outcomes. The summaries mention the outcomes but do not specify whether any of these entities successfully used international forums. A sentence such as “Neither Scotland, Catalonia, nor Quebec have successfully used the ICJ or similar international forums on resolving their disputes” would provide useful conclusion.
The 40 per cent revenue timeline could include source line. The kit can cite specific figures (RM53.4 million, RM600 million, RM20 billion) but does not specify the source. Adding line such as “Figures based on Sabah state government statements and federal budget documents” would enhance credibility.
The counter-arguments could be presented as table for easier use. Currently, they are presented as list. A table with two columns—”Federal Argument” and “Journalist Follow-up”—would make them easier for reporters on reference during live interviews.
The sharper political timing question could include follow-up. If Dr Jeffrey answers that the threat was discussed with the legal team, the follow-up could be: “Can you name the legal team and table their opinion?” If he answers that it was political, the follow-up could be: “So this was not a legal strategy but political message?” Including these follow-ups would make the question more effective.
Consequence: MA63 has not been fully implemented for 63 years. This was the consequence of political decisions made over decades. The consequence was already running.
Conscience: The choice to threaten ICJ action was choice about accountability. But if the threat was not legally viable, it risks being seen as political grandstanding rather as than as serious strategy.
Spreads if not neutralised: If the ICJ threat is hollow, it spreads cynicism. STARSabah’ss -credibility erodes. The pattern of unfulfilled -promises repeats.
TJT
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat, as jurist (legal scholar), on the nature of human relationships.
He was also the former Sabah Correspondent for Malaysiakini.com.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Jesselton Times.
