KOTA KINABAlU: Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) & Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)SSRANZ and BoPiMaFo commend the Sabah Law Society (SLS) for initiating the landmarklawsuit on Sabah’s 40% Special Grant entitlement, and the Sabah High Court for its historicjudgement upholding constitutional justice and the rule of law.
This decision has crystalliseddecades of unresolved grievances and confirms what Sabah and Sarawak people and leaders havelong argued — that the Federal Government has persistently and unlawfully breached itsfundamental obligations under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
The Court found that no formal revenue reviews had been conducted for nearly fifty years, despiteMA63 and Article 112D of the Federal Constitution mandating periodic reviews of Sabah’s40% entitlement to net federal revenue.
The judge held that this duty was mandatory, notoptional, and that the Federal Government’s failure to act was irrational, unlawful, and injuriousto the people of Sabah. This ruling is judicial confirmation of a constitutional delinquencythat strikes at the foundation of the Federation.
Any further attempt by the Federal Government to delay, dilute, or frustrate the High Court’sruling would amount to holding in contempt both the MA63 treaty and the court’s decision tohonour it, while reaffirming the Federal Government’s own position that it is not bound byMA63.
This entrenched pattern of defiance confirms that all domestic remedies have beenexhausted, leaving international recourse as the only lawful path for Sabah and Sarawak to seekjustice — including final decolonisation and the restoration of full independence.SSRANZ said the 40% ruling serves as a long-overdue indictment which questions the veryfoundations of Malaysia and exposes a federal betrayal so deep that it removes any remainingreason for Sabah and Sarawak to stay in the Malaysian federation.A Pattern of Foundational BreachesSSRANZ explains that the 40% issue is only part of a broader pattern of systemic breaches ofMA63’s founding guarantees, which include:•
Failure to review and honour the 40% revenue entitlement since 1974, despite itsexpress inclusion in MA63 and Article 112D of the Federal Constitution;
Reported default on the mandatory MA63 1973/74 review, roughly a decade after Malaysia’s formation, reportedly deferred following the death of Deputy Prime Minister TunDr Ismail Abdul Rahman and later financial excuses — no formal review was everconducted;•
Denial of equitable seat allocation (after Singapore secession) and political safeguards,weakening Sabah and Sarawak’s representation and autonomy;•
Malaysia’s MA63 component structure/foundation based on 4 members was destroyedby Singapore secession, but Sabah and Sarawak were not consulted about their membershipin the federation or a new agreement reached on the altered structure.
Suppression of genuine self-government (Borneonisation replaced by Malayanisation),contrary to the IGC’s guarantees of local authority;• Erosion of secularism, violating the foundational secular character of the “Malaysianfederation”;• Institutionalised racial discrimination, particularly through the New Economic Policy(NEP), which has disadvantaged over a quarter of the population of Sabah and Sarawak inaccess to education, employment, and development;
Unlawful expropriation of territorial and natural resource rights, including oil and gas,in breach of Article VIII of MA63 and the IGC Report.
The 1976 constitutional amendment to Article 1(2) of the federal constitution, enactedin violation of MA63, unlawfully reduced Sabah and Sarawak to the status of ordinary statesof Malaysia and denied their constitutional role as equal founding partners — without whoseparticipation Malaysia could not have been formed.
The major breach of human rights and MA63 foundational term of Sabah control pfimmigration by the unlawful federal 1970-1990s demographic change in Sabahdesigned to disenfranchise locals, quash dissent, and entrench Peninsular Malaysia’s politicaldominance under its Ketuanan Melayu agenda.
Breach of International Preconditions under the Manila Accord 1963 and BangkokPeace Agreement (ending Konfrontasi between Indonesia and Malaysia) 1966. Failure to resolve the Philippines’ Sabah claim continues to question Malaysia’slegitimacy on the legal basis that the United Kingdom could not lawfully transferSabah’s sovereignty to Malaya in 1963 without first complying with the ManilaAccord’s precondition for Malaysia’s formation.
Failure to comply with the 1966 Bangkok Peace Agreement (and in breach of theManila Accord 1963), which required a democratic act of self-determinationallowing the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to determine their political future — avote that was never held.These failures demonstrate that Malaysia’s formation did not meet the mandatoryconditions agreed by Malaya, the Philippines, and Indonesia under the ManilaAccord (31 July 1963) and reaffirmed under the Bangkok Peace Agreement(1966). Under these instruments, Malaysia’s creation was conditional upon (a) aUnited Nations-supervised and genuinely free ascertainment of the peoples’ wishesin accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), and (b) a peacefulsettlement of the Philippines’ territorial claim over Sabah. Neither condition was everfulfilled.
The integrity and credibility of the UN mission’s assessment was impairedand compromised by the UK and Malayan governments’ premature announcementthat Malaysia would be proclaimed on 16 September 1963, and no referendum orplebiscite was conducted.
Proceeding without meeting these conditions meant thatMalaysia’s proclamation contravened international law and the UN Charter’sdecolonisation framework.These breaches violate both the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Malaysian Constitution andinternational treaty law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 60–62), whichprovides that a treaty fundamentally breached in its essential terms may be voided or terminated.
The MA63 Legal Void and Malaysia’s Questionable LegitimacyAdding to these constitutional breaches is the legal void surrounding MA63 itself.
The MalaysiaAgreement 1963 was not registered with the United Nations until 1970, creating a seven-yearperiod (1963–1970) during which the treaty had no standing under international law.Article 102 of the UN Charter explicitly states that no unregistered treaty may be invoked beforeany organ of the United Nations.
Yet the UN Secretariat relied on this unregistered and thereforelegally non-existent agreement to authorise the 1963 UN Assessment Mission and to issue its LegalOpinion of 19 September 1963 — actions that were ultra vires and in violation of the UN’s ownCharter.
The failure to comply with the Manila Accord and the Bangkok Peace Agreement compounded thislegal vacuum. These instruments established preconditions for Malaysia’s formation that were neverfulfilled — a genuine act of self-determination for the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak and anegotiated settlement of the Philippines’ claim. Proceeding without fulfilling those conditions meantthat the 1963 proclamation of Malaysia contravened international law and the UN Charter’sdecolonisation framework, further undermining Malaysia’s legitimacy as a lawful successor state.This legal vacuum fatally compromised the legitimacy of Malaysia’s creation.
During thisunregistered period, the Federation of Malaya exercised de facto control over Sabah and Sarawak,enacted federal laws curtailing state and native rights, and imposed political domination withoutlegal foundation.
The absence of UN registration, coupled with Malaya’s unilateral assumption ofauthority, demonstrates that Malaysia’s formation proceeded in breach of both international law andthe UN Charter, thereby casting serious doubt on Malaysia’s legitimacy as a lawful successor stateunder MA63. Malaysia is no more than a de facto federation.
Legal and Political ConsequencesTaken together, these developments confirm that if MA63 was ever validly made in 1963, it hassince been legally and substantively destroyed through ongoing violations and procedural defects.The High Court’s 40% judgement now provides judicial corroboration that Malaysia no longerfunctions as a genuine federation of equal partners and that its legal foundation has been fatallycompromised.Call for International Legal ReviewSSRANZ therefore calls upon the Governments of Sabah and Sarawak to refer the issues ofMA63’s validity and Malaysia’s legitimacy to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
This callis in line with the recent parliamentary intervention by Mr Willie Mongin, GPS Member ofParliament, marking a historic first in Malaysian parliamentary history.Referral to the ICJ represents a lawful, peaceful, and internationally recognised pathway todetermine, once and for all, the legitimacy of MA63 and the international status of Sabah andSarawak. It accords fully with UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV) ondecolonisation and the right to self-determination.ConclusionThe Sabah High Court’s 40% judgement, together with the Sabah Law Society’s principled action,has vindicated the long-standing struggle of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak for justice, equality,and sovereignty.
It confirms that the Federal Government’s failures and violations havefundamentally breached MA63 and undermined Malaysia’s constitutional and international legitimacy.
The time has come for Sabah and Sarawak leaders — across all political lines — to unite in defenceof their peoples’ rights. The High Court’s ruling is not an end but a beginning. Both StateGovernments must immediately convene a joint legal and diplomatic task force to prepare an ICJsubmission, mobilise international support, and assert Sabah and Sarawak’s political equality underMA63 and international law.SSRANZ calls on both State Governments to act decisively and lawfully — to bring these mattersbefore the ICJ and the United Nations, so that the world may finally hear the case for Sabah andSarawak’s right to self-determination and national restoration.
Signed by Robert Pei President, Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)
Daniel John Jambun President, Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMafo)
Endorsed by Voon Lee Shan President Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)
