Borneo Herald
9.16PM MYT, 19-10-2025
Issued by: 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 landmark
lawsuit on Sabah’s 40% Special Grant entitlement, and the Sabah High Court for its historic
judgement upholding constitutional justice and the rule of law. This decision has crystallised
decades of unresolved grievances and confirms what Sabah and Sarawak people and leaders have
long argued — that the Federal Government has persistently and unlawfully breached its
fundamental obligations under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
The Court found that no formal revenue reviews had been conducted for nearly fifty years, despite
MA63 and Article 112D of the Federal Constitution mandating periodic reviews of Sabah’s
40% entitlement to net federal revenue. The judge held that this duty was mandatory, not
optional, and that the Federal Government’s failure to act was irrational, unlawful, and injurious
to the people of Sabah. This ruling is judicial confirmation of a constitutional delinquency
that strikes at the foundation of the Federation.
Any further attempt by the Federal Government to delay, dilute, or frustrate the High Court’s
ruling would amount to holding in contempt both the MA63 treaty and the court’s decision to
honour it, while reaffirming the Federal Government’s own position that it is not bound by
MA63. This entrenched pattern of defiance confirms that all domestic remedies have been
exhausted, leaving international recourse as the only lawful path for Sabah and Sarawak to seek
justice — including final decolonisation and the restoration of full independence.
SSRANZ said the 40% ruling serves as a long-overdue indictment which questions the very
foundations of Malaysia and exposes a federal betrayal so deep that it removes any remaining
reason for Sabah and Sarawak to stay in the Malaysian federation.
A Pattern of Foundational Breaches
SSRANZ explains that the 40% issue is only part of a broader pattern of systemic breaches of
MA63’s founding guarantees, which include:
• Failure to review and honour the 40% revenue entitlement since 1974, despite its
express 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 Tun
Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman and later financial excuses — no formal review was ever
conducted;
• 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 destroyed
by Singapore secession, but Sabah and Sarawak were not consulted about their membership
in 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 “Malaysian
federation”;
• Institutionalised racial discrimination, particularly through the New Economic Policy
(NEP), which has disadvantaged over a quarter of the population of Sabah and Sarawak in
access 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, enacted
in violation of MA63, unlawfully reduced Sabah and Sarawak to the status of ordinary states
of Malaysia and denied their constitutional role as equal founding partners — without whose
participation Malaysia could not have been formed.
• The major breach of human rights and MA63 foundational term of Sabah control pf
immigration by the unlawful federal 1970-1990s demographic change in Sabah
designed to disenfranchise locals, quash dissent, and entrench Peninsular Malaysia's political
dominance under its Ketuanan Melayu agenda.
• Breach of International Preconditions under the Manila Accord 1963 and Bangkok
Peace Agreement (ending Konfrontasi between Indonesia and Malaysia) 1966.
Failure to resolve the Philippines’ Sabah claim continues to question Malaysia’s
legitimacy on the legal basis that the United Kingdom could not lawfully transfer
Sabah’s sovereignty to Malaya in 1963 without first complying with the Manila
Accord’s precondition for Malaysia’s formation.
Failure to comply with the 1966 Bangkok Peace Agreement (and in breach of the
Manila Accord 1963), which required a democratic act of self-determination
allowing the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to determine their political future — a
vote that was never held.
These failures demonstrate that Malaysia’s formation did not meet the mandatory
conditions agreed by Malaya, the Philippines, and Indonesia under the Manila
Accord (31 July 1963) and reaffirmed under the Bangkok Peace Agreement
(1966). Under these instruments, Malaysia’s creation was conditional upon (a) a
United Nations-supervised and genuinely free ascertainment of the peoples’ wishes
in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), and (b) a peaceful
settlement of the Philippines’ territorial claim over Sabah. Neither condition was ever
fulfilled. The integrity and credibility of the UN mission’s assessment was impaired
and compromised by the UK and Malayan governments’ premature announcement
that Malaysia would be proclaimed on 16 September 1963, and no referendum or
plebiscite was conducted. Proceeding without meeting these conditions meant that
Malaysia’s proclamation contravened international law and the UN Charter’s
decolonisation framework.
These breaches violate both the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Malaysian Constitution and
international treaty law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 60–62), which
provides that a treaty fundamentally breached in its essential terms may be voided or terminated.
The MA63 Legal Void and Malaysia’s Questionable Legitimacy
Adding to these constitutional breaches is the legal void surrounding MA63 itself. The Malaysia
Agreement 1963 was not registered with the United Nations until 1970, creating a seven-year
period (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 before
any organ of the United Nations. Yet the UN Secretariat relied on this unregistered and therefore
legally non-existent agreement to authorise the 1963 UN Assessment Mission and to issue its Legal
Opinion of 19 September 1963 — actions that were ultra vires and in violation of the UN’s own
Charter.
The failure to comply with the Manila Accord and the Bangkok Peace Agreement compounded this
legal vacuum. These instruments established preconditions for Malaysia’s formation that were never
fulfilled — a genuine act of self-determination for the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak and a
negotiated settlement of the Philippines’ claim. Proceeding without fulfilling those conditions meant
that the 1963 proclamation of Malaysia contravened international law and the UN Charter’s
decolonisation framework, further undermining Malaysia’s legitimacy as a lawful successor state.
This legal vacuum fatally compromised the legitimacy of Malaysia’s creation. During this
unregistered 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 without
legal foundation. The absence of UN registration, coupled with Malaya’s unilateral assumption of
authority, demonstrates that Malaysia’s formation proceeded in breach of both international law and
the UN Charter, thereby casting serious doubt on Malaysia’s legitimacy as a lawful successor state
under MA63. Malaysia is no more than a de facto federation.
Legal and Political Consequences
Taken together, these developments confirm that if MA63 was ever validly made in 1963, it has
since been legally and substantively destroyed through ongoing violations and procedural defects.
The High Court’s 40% judgement now provides judicial corroboration that Malaysia no longer
functions as a genuine federation of equal partners and that its legal foundation has been fatally compromised.
Call for International Legal Review
SSRANZ therefore calls upon the Governments of Sabah and Sarawak to refer the issues of
MA63’s validity and Malaysia’s legitimacy to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This call
is in line with the recent parliamentary intervention by Mr Willie Mongin, GPS Member of
Parliament, marking a historic first in Malaysian parliamentary history.
Referral to the ICJ represents a lawful, peaceful, and internationally recognised pathway to
determine, once and for all, the legitimacy of MA63 and the international status of Sabah and
Sarawak. It accords fully with UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV) on
decolonisation and the right to self-determination.
Conclusion
The 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 have
fundamentally 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 defence
of their peoples’ rights. The High Court’s ruling is not an end but a beginning. Both State
Governments must immediately convene a joint legal and diplomatic task force to prepare an ICJ
submission, mobilise international support, and assert Sabah and Sarawak’s political equality under MA63 and international law.
SSRANZ calls on both State Governments to act decisively and lawfully — to bring these matters
before the ICJ and the United Nations, so that the world may finally hear the case for Sabah and
Sarawak’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)#~Borneo Herald™
Posts
