Issued By: The Majangkim Office, Author: Remy Majangkim (The Third Eyed Raven Series)
KOTA KINABALU: The Majangkim Office notes the recent public demonstration and press statement issued by SSKM (Australia) outside the Parliament House of Victoria in Melbourne.
While we acknowledge the diaspora’s passion for the rights of Sabah and Sarawak, their campaign relies on a profound misreading of international law, an omission of vital legislative acts, and a complete disregard for the geopolitical realities of 1963.
Activists can claim the federation is “void ab initio” (void from the beginning) as loudly as they want, but a flawed argument does not change international law.
The historical timeline and the global documentary record have already proven them wrong. The legal architecture of the federation is not an unresolved mystery; it is anchored in stone by the British Parliament, the United Nations, and subsequent sovereign acts.
We issue this focused rebuttal to address the core arguments and claims regarding the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63):
The Protection of the Crown Colony Transition
The diaspora’s narrative that the British Crown simply “annexed” or “gave away” North Borneo and Sarawak is historically bankrupt. Following the structural devastation of the Japanese occupation, both the British North Borneo Company and the Brooke Dynasty (White Rajahs) were functionally bankrupt.
They lacked the capital, infrastructure, and military capability to rebuild or defend these territories independently.
The transition to Crown Colony status in 1946 was a vital protective measure. The British did not abandon us; they absorbed the massive financial burden of post-war reconstruction and ensured that our birthrights were insulated during a period of intense global instability.
The Statutory Authority: The United Kingdom Malaysia Act 1963 (Chapter 35)
The diaspora questions who authorized the integration and by what constitutional instruments.
The definitive answer rests in The Malaysia Act 1963 (Chapter 35), enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
This Act explicitly provided for the relinquishment of Her Majesty’s sovereignty over the Colonies of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore to allow them to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya.
The British Crown, as the sole sovereign administering power under international law, held the absolute treaty-making capacity to devolve authority to local plenipotentiaries, including Donald Stephens and Datu Mustapha, to sign MA63. To claim the signatories lacked authority is to reject the statutory law of the very Crown that protected our birthrights.
The International Mandate: The United Nations Mission Report
The claim that the wishes of the people were not properly ascertained completely ignores the United Nations Mission Report on North Borneo and Sarawak (August–September 1963).
Triggered by the Manila Accord, jointly signed by the Federation of Malaya, the Republic of Indonesia, and the Republic of the Philippines to cement our position globally—UN Secretary-General U Thant deployed an independent team to directly assess the population.
The UN Mission concluded unequivocally that the majority of the population in both territories, having fully understood the political choices available to them in a volatile Cold War climate, chose to achieve independence through a sovereign merger.
The findings were officially accepted by the UN General Assembly, legally binding our neighbors to respect the newly formed federation.
The Sovereign Precedent: Singapore’s Exit and the Singapore Act 1966
The diaspora points fingers at the validity of the original structure but completely fails to account for the legal mechanics of Singapore’s separation in 1965 and the subsequent Singapore Act 1966 passed by the British Parliament.
If the entire foundation was truly “void ab initio,” the separation of Singapore would have triggered a total legal dissolution of the entire structure in 1965.
Instead, the international community and the British Parliament enacted the Singapore Act 1966 to formally manage a clean separation between sovereign components of a valid federation.
This historic event validated the continuing legitimacy of the remaining partners under the amended constitutional architecture.
Conclusion: Enforce the Ledger, Don’t Burn It
The international community settled the status of Sabah and Sarawak in 1963. The diaspora is trying to debate a closed ledger.
The path forward for East Malaysia does not lie in begging foreign bodies for a romanticised referendum, nor does it lie in burning the contract.
MA63 was designed as a geopolitical shield to protect our borders, our resources, and our autonomy via the 20-Point and 18-Point Agreements.
To claim MA63 is invalid is an act of political self-sabotage. If you declare the treaty invalid, you strip Sabah of the very legal shield that guarantees our 40% net revenue claim and our native autonomy.
We do not need a foreign referendum to tear up the contract; we need the absolute political will at home to act like the Iron Bank—using our absolute domestic parliamentary leverage to force Kuala Lumpur to honor the ledger and pay its debts in full.
Pergo Et Perago.
Let the Ledger Speak. Let the Contract Be Enforced
