Top posts

Featured Posts

KDM Tandek bergolak, isu pemilihan calon dan tuntutan disebarkan pemimpin parti

Dari kiri Datuk Baintin Adun, Datuk Wetrom Bahanda dan Jaiping Minsu.

Borneo Herald 
11.55AM MYT, 24-10-2025


Tandek, KOTA MARUDU : Parti Kesejahteraan Demokratik Masyarakat (KDM) Tandek kini bergolak berikutan isu pemilihan calon yang kemudian melarat kepada tuntutan sulit yang dihebahkan pemimpin parti itu sendiri.

Perang mulut dan teks bersebaran di kawasan Kota Marudu melibatkan pimpinan kanan KDM dan Datuk Baintin Adun yang telah bekerja keras tiga tahun untuk memajukan KDM khususnya di Tandek.

Antara yang disebut ialah timbalan presiden KDM sendiri Datuk Wetrom Bahanda dan pegawai khasnya, Steven Gan.

Menurut mereka yang mengetahui pergolakan itu, ia bermula apabila Wetrom dikatakan telah memberi 'bayangan' kepada Baintin sendiri bahawa pilihan Wetrom untuk menjadi calon KDM di Tandek bukan dirinya tetapi pegawai perhubungannya sendiri iaitu Benson Tuyundo.

Dari sini, dikatakan Baintin menimbulkan apa jadi kepada pengorbanannya selama ini. Dalam mesyuarat parti, Steven dikatakan meminta Baintin mengemukakan tuntutan (gantirugi?) yang kemudian dikemukakannya.

Sepatutnya surat tuntutan itu adalah sulit, namun apa yang telah menimbulkan kekecewaan dan kemarahan Baintin dan yang lain apabila tuntutan itu telah disebarkan di sana sini oleh pihak yang berkepentingan dalam isu calon dan parti berkenaan.

Dilaporkan juga Baintin memohon bertemu dengan Wetrom hari ini untuk membincangkan hal tersebut. Bagaimanapun Baintin turut dilaporkan beliau sudah kurang minat dengan KDM.

Borneo Herald di sini menyiarkan beberapa petikan teks whatsapp yang tersebar luas dalam media sosial supaya awam lebih memahami isu berkenaan :



[24/10, 9:16 am] 
(dipercayai teks mesej dari Datuk Baintin)
SALAM DAN SELAMAT SEJAHTARA SEMUA PEJUANG PKDM DI SELURUH SABAH.
TERLEBIH DULU SAYA MINTA MAAF KEPADA SEMUA, JIKA TERDAPAT KESALAHAN SAYA SELAMA 36 BULAN KITA BERSAMA DALAM PKDM.
KEMUNGKINAN BESAR SAYA AKAN MELEPASKAN SEMUA JAWATAN DAN KEAHLIAN SAYA DALAM PKDM DALAM MASA YANG TERDEKAT INI, ATAS PERMINTAAN SECARA TIDAK LANSUNG DARIPADA ORANG2 KANAN YB DATUK WETROM BAHANDA TIMBALAN PRESIDEN PKDM.


MEREKA YANG SUDAH DIUMUMKAN NAMANYA SEBAGAI CALON KDM PRN17, SEMOGA KAMU SEMUA MENANG BERGAYA.
BAGI SAYA, SAYA TIDAK BERMINAT JADI CALON PKDM SUDAH, SETELAH ...tapisan keselamatan... MEMPERAKUI TUAN BENSON TUYUNDO PEGAWAI PERHUBUNGAN YB DATUK WETROM DI N7 TANDEK.
[24/10, 9:16 am] 

SALAM DAN SELAMAT SEJAHTARA SEMUA, TERUTAMA SAUDARAKU TUAN HERWIN MARANJAK.
SAYA BERTERIMA KASI NASIHAT TUAN SAUDARAKU HM.
UNTUK MAKLUMAN SAYA SUDAH JUMPA 2 KALI DENGAN YB DATUK WETROM, SELEPAS DATUK WETROM MEMBAYANGKAN C BENSON TUYUNDO YANG DIPILIH OLEH ...tapisan keselematan...
UNTUK MAKLUMAN SAUDARAKU TUAN HM, HARI INI 24/10/2025, SAYA ADA JANJI JUMPA YB DATUK TIMBALAN, TIDAK TAU JADI ATAU TIDAK?, SAYA TUNGGU SAJA.
UNTUK MAKLUMAN SAUDARAKU TUAN HM, MASA INI, SAYA HANYA MINTA HAK SAYA SETELAH HAK SAYA BERTANDING DINAFIKAN. ITU SAJA.
TIADA NIAT TIDAK HORMAT DENGAN YB DATUK TIMBALAN, TIADA NIAT LAIN. KALAU TUAN TANYA NIAT, TANYA LAH PEGAWAI KHAS TUAN STEVEN GOH, SEMUA INI BERPUNCA DARI DIA, TANYA DIA, APA DIA CAKAP DALAM MESYUARAT HARI ITU?,
KENAPA DIA BURUK BURUK KAN NAMA SAYA, SEBAB TUNTUTAN SAYA?, KENAPA DIA SEBARKAN SINI SANA?, KENAPA PEMIMPIN PARTI2 LAIN TAHU TUNTUTAN SAYA, STEVEN GOH SURUH SAYA BUAT SURAT TUNTUTAN DALAM MESYUARAT, KENAPA DI SEBAR KAN?.
ORANG2 DI KAKI LIMA DAN KEDAI KOPI MEMBINCANGKAN TUNTUTAN SAYA.
YB DATUK TIMBALAN PRESIDEN, TUAN HERWIN MARANJAK DAN SEMUA PEMIMPIN MATUNGGUNG, SAYA HORMAT, TETAPI SEBAHGIAN ORANG2 YB DATUK TIMBALAN PRESIDEN DI KOTA MARUDU, SANGAT BERNIAT JAHAT..
TERPULANG KEPADA TAFSIRAN SAUDARAKU TUAN HERWIN DLL, SAYA HANYA TUNTUT HAK SAYA MASA INI, BUKAN SOAL MAU CALON PKDM LAGI.#~Borneo Herald™

Sabah Telah Memberi Lebih Daripada Apa yang Diterima — BoPiMaFo Jawab PMX

Borneo Herald
8.36AM MYT, 24-10-2025



Oleh Daniel John Jambun
KOTA KINABALU : The Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) hari ini membidas kenyataan Perdana Menteri Datuk Anwar Ibrahim yang mendakwa bahawa Kerajaan Persekutuan “memberi lebih daripada apa yang diterimanya” daripada Sabah, sambil menyifatkannya sebagai kenyataan yang mengelirukan dan tidak sensitif terhadap realiti ketidakseimbangan fiskal yang telah lama ditanggung oleh Sabah selama berdekad-dekad.

1️⃣ Kerajaan Persekutuan Telah Mengambil Berbilion Dari Kekayaan Asli Sabah

Sejak penubuhan PETRONAS pada tahun 1974, berbilion ringgit hasil minyak dan gas telah diekstrak dari perairan Sabah, namun sebahagian besar hasilnya mengalir ke Perbendaharaan Persekutuan.
Data rasmi menunjukkan bahawa antara tahun 1974 hingga 2011, PETRONAS telah menyumbang lebih RM653 bilion dalam bentuk bayaran kepada kerajaan Persekutuan dan negeri-negeri — tetapi hanya sebahagian kecil daripadanya sampai ke Sabah.

Malah, Jabatan Perdana Menteri sendiri mengakui bahawa antara tahun 1976 hingga 2023, Sabah menerima kira-kira RM23 bilion hasil petroleum, sementara Kerajaan Persekutuan juga mengutip sekitar RM23 bilion daripada pengeluaran minyak Sabah.
Ini bermakna, Putrajaya telah mengambil bahagian yang sama besar — jika tidak lebih besar — daripada hasil minyak Sabah, walaupun sumber tersebut berasal dari wilayah Sabah sendiri.

Lebih penting, angka ini tidak termasuk hasil daripada sektor huluan dan hiliran minyak dan gas yang lebih luas — seperti cukai korporat, duti eksport, operasi penapisan, perkapalan, dan aktiviti petrokimia — yang semuanya dikenakan cukai dan direkod di peringkat Persekutuan.
Ini menunjukkan bahawa keuntungan sebenar Kerajaan Persekutuan daripada sumber petroleum Sabah adalah berkali ganda lebih tinggi daripada angka rasmi yang dinyatakan.

2️⃣ Data Baharu Mengesahkan Sumbangan Besar Sabah

Data Parlimen terkini turut membuktikan betapa besarnya sumbangan Sabah terhadap kekayaan petroleum negara.
Antara tahun 2018 hingga 2024 sahaja, aktiviti huluan minyak dan gas PETRONAS di Sabah menjana pendapatan sebanyak RM205 bilion, berbanding RM285 bilion dari Sarawak dan RM284 bilion dari Semenanjung Malaysia.
Angka ini hanya merujuk kepada pengeluaran huluan, tidak termasuk aktiviti hiliran seperti penapisan, pemprosesan gas asli cecair (LNG), petrokimia, perkapalan dan cukai eksport — yang semuanya dikutip terus oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan.

Dengan kata lain, walaupun Sabah menyumbang lebih daripada satu perempat daripada jumlah hasil petroleum huluan negara — dianggarkan sebanyak RM205 bilion — pulangan yang diterima negeri ini masih jauh tidak seimbang.
Jika hasil hiliran dan cukai korporat turut diambil kira, keuntungan keseluruhan Kerajaan Persekutuan daripada sumber petroleum Sabah berkemungkinan melebihi RM300 bilion dalam tempoh yang sama.

Fakta ini sekaligus menafikan naratif bahawa Putrajaya “memberi lebih daripada apa yang diambilnya” daripada Sabah.
Angka-angka jelas menunjukkan bahawa Sabah telah memberi jauh lebih banyak daripada apa yang diterimanya — dan ketidakseimbangan ini berterusan tahun demi tahun.

3️⃣ Peruntukan Persekutuan Bukanlah Sumbangan Amal

Peruntukan Persekutuan kepada Sabah bukanlah pemberian atau ihsan daripada Putrajaya, tetapi sebahagian daripada tanggungjawab perkongsian hasil yang termaktub dalam Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63) dan diperuntukkan di bawah Perkara 112C dan 112D Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Namun begitu, peruntukan tersebut sering kali ditangguhkan, tidak dibelanjakan sepenuhnya, atau ditahan.

Rekod rasmi menunjukkan bahawa hanya sekitar 60% daripada peruntukan Persekutuan kepada Sabah biasanya dibelanjakan, manakala selebihnya dikembalikan ke Perbendaharaan Persekutuan akibat kelemahan birokrasi dan kawalan langsung Putrajaya ke atas projek-projek tersebut.
Inilah sebabnya mengapa, walaupun saban tahun diumumkan “berbilion-bilion ringgit” peruntukan, Sabah masih terus berhadapan dengan sekolah daif, sistem kesihatan yang lemah, dan infrastruktur yang tidak mencukupi.

4️⃣ Pendirian BoPiMaFo

BoPiMaFo menegaskan bahawa kekayaan dan hak perlembagaan Sabah mesti dihormati dan dipulihkan — bukan dijadikan bahan tawar-menawar politik.
Jika Kerajaan Persekutuan benar-benar ikhlas untuk berlaku adil kepada Sabah, ia mesti:

Memulangkan kawalan dan pengurusan penuh terhadap sumber minyak dan gas kepada Kerajaan Negeri;

Menyalurkan semua peruntukan Persekutuan melalui Dana Disatukan Negeri Sabah; dan

Melaksanakan hak 40% hasil negeri sebagaimana diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi — tanpa sebarang kelewatan atau rayuan lanjut.


Daniel John Jambun ialah Presiden
Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)#~Borneo Herald™

Billions Announced, But Where Did the Money Go? — Federal Allocations Must Be Channelled Through Sabah’s Consolidated Fund



Borneo Herald 
1.07PM MYT, 23-10-2025


KOTA KINABALU : The Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) today said that Prime Minister Datuk Anwar Ibrahim’s claim that the Federal Government spends RM13–17 billion annually for Sabah raises serious questions about transparency, fiscal accountability, and real outcomes on the ground.

BoPiMaFo said that while these figures sound impressive, very little of that money actually entered the Sabah State Consolidated Fund. Instead, most of the funds were spent directly by federal ministries and agencies, bypassing state control, accountability, and scrutiny.

“This means Sabah has no real say over how those billions are used. The funds are recorded as ‘federal spending in Sabah’ but not ‘revenue shared with Sabah’. That is a crucial distinction,” the Foundation said.

BoPiMaFo further highlighted that federal development allocations for Sabah are rarely fully utilised.
According to repeated findings by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), on average only around 60% of federal allocations for Sabah are actually spent, while the remaining 40% is rolled over or returned to federal coffers at the end of each fiscal year.

“This is a chronic issue — every year, billions are announced but never reach the ground. Projects are delayed, funds are frozen, and what remains unspent is quietly absorbed back into the federal system,” BoPiMaFo said.

Despite these massive allocations, Sabah continues to face crumbling schools, poor healthcare facilities, unreliable water supply, and dilapidated roads. The state still records the highest poverty rate in Malaysia, at 25.3% in 2020 according to the Department of Statistics — a figure that exposes how little the so-called billions have changed everyday life.

“If RM13–17 billion were truly spent effectively, Sabah should not still be struggling with Third World infrastructure 60 years after joining Malaysia,” the Foundation stressed.

BoPiMaFo reiterated that development allocations are not substitutes for Sabah’s 40% net revenue entitlement, which must be paid directly into the State Consolidated Fund as mandated under Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution.

“The Federal Government cannot continue using development projects as political window dressing while ignoring constitutional obligations. True equality under MA63 means fiscal empowerment — not federal paternalism,” it said.

BoPiMaFo further noted that the High Court judgment on the 40% entitlement was clear: the Federal Government has a legal duty to conduct periodic financial reviews and return the rightful share of net revenue derived from Sabah.

“This is not about generosity or politics — it’s about constitutional justice,” BoPiMaFo asserted.

In conclusion, BoPiMaFo issued a sharp reminder to the Federal and State Governments:

“Sabahans are no longer impressed by billion-ringgit headlines. We want delivery, not decoration. Stop hiding behind big numbers and start fulfilling constitutional rights. Every sen that belongs to Sabah must go through Sabah’s Consolidated Fund — not through federal agencies and political proxies.”

“Until Putrajaya returns full fiscal control and honours the 40% entitlement, the promise of ‘development for Sabah’ remains nothing more than a recycled illusion,” the Foundation declared.


Daniel John Jambun
President
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)#~Borneo Herald™

PAN batal hasrat bergabung dengan GSB pimpinan Dr Jeffrey Kitingan

Borneo Herald 
7.25PM MYT, 22-10-2025


Oleh Jayden Lisandu
KOTA KINABALU : Gabungan yang mulanya diwar-warkan antara Star, SAPP dengan Parti Kerjasama Anak Negeri (PAN) akhirnya tidak menjadi.

Menurut mereka yang mengetahui hal itu, PAN tidak meneruskan hasrat bergabung dengan Gabungan Sabah Bersatu (GSB) apabila hasrat meletak lebih ramai calon PAN bercanggah dengan kehendak GSB.

"Macamana mahu gabung? GSB tidak beri laluan PAN tanding lebih banyak kerusi sedangkan PAN sudah bergabung dengan barisan bebas yang menamakan diri Gemilang Sabah (GS)," kata seorang sumber.

Menurut seorang lain, PAN dan GS dijadual meletak 55 orang calon pada PRN17 ini di mana dikatakan 17 calon adalah dari PAN.

Pewujudan GSB diumumkan beberapa hari lalu oleh presiden Star Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan yang juga menyatakan keinginannya mempelawa parti-parti lokal.

Bagaimanapun setakat ini belum ada parti yang jelas berminat.

Presiden PAN ialah Datuk Henrynus Amin manakala presiden SAPP ialah Datuk Yong Teck Lee.#~Borneo Herald™

Selepas 24 Tahun Pemerintahan Gagal UMNO, Rakyat Sabah Mesti Tolak Parti Ini Selama-lamanya

Borneo Herald
11.00AM MYT, 19-10-2025


Oleh Jayden Lisandu
KOTA KINABALU : Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS) hari ini menyatakan bahawa cubaan terbaru UMNO untuk menggambarkan dirinya sebagai parti “Sabahan” hanyalah sandiwara politik semata-mata bagi memperdayakan pengundi menjelang pilihan raya negeri pada 29 November ini.

Jurucakap CAMOS, Calextus Edwin, berkata kenyataan Presiden UMNO merangkap Pengerusi Barisan Nasional (BN), Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi — bahawa “insya-Allah BN bersedia membentuk kerajaan bersama parti-parti lain atas dasar perkongsian kuasa” (Malay Mail, 18 Oktober 2025) — sebenarnya mendedahkan niat sebenar UMNO: untuk menapak semula di Sabah melalui perjanjian politik, bukan melalui kepercayaan rakyat.

“Selepas 24 tahun pemerintahan panjang UMNO dari 1994 hingga 2018, rakyat Sabah tahu apa maksud sebenar ‘perkongsian kuasa’ — ia bukan kerjasama, tetapi penaklukan Persekutuan yang diselindungi dengan slogan perpaduan.

"Segala dasar, kontrak dan keputusan penting akhirnya tunduk kepada Kuala Lumpur. Hasilnya, Sabah semakin miskin, terbahagi dan bergantung,” kata Calextus yang juga Ketua Penyelaras CAMOS Kimanis dalam satu kenyataan di sini.

Sepanjang tempoh itu, UMNO secara sistematik melemahkan institusi-institusi Sabah, mengurangkan autonomi negeri, dan membiarkan kemiskinan serta rasuah berleluasa, sementara berbilion ringgit hasil minyak, balak dan cukai disedut keluar dari Sabah.

Lebih parah lagi, di bawah pemerintahan UMNO, pendatang tanpa izin diberi kad pengenalan dan kemudiannya didaftarkan sebagai pengundi, sehingga mengubah komposisi demografi dan landskap politik Sabah untuk selama-lamanya.

“Ini bukan sekadar kegagalan pentadbiran — ia adalah tindakan yang disengajakan untuk merampas hak demokratik dan kedaulatan rakyat Sabah,” tegasnya lagi.

Jika benar UMNO peduli tentang Sabah, katanya lagi, mereka sudah lama memulangkan hak 40% hasil bersih negeri seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan — bukannya mempertahankan penggantungannya yang tidak sah, kata lagi.

Menurut Calextus, mereka juga sepatutnya mengembalikan pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan, bukannya menghapuskan sistem tersebut, serta memberdayakan rakyat Sabah, bukannya menggantikan mereka dengan kepentingan luar.

Beliau turut menempelak dakwaan Zahid bahawa UMNO kini mempunyai autonomi di Sabah sebagai janji kosong lama yang diulang dengan kata-kata baharu.

“UMNO tidak boleh membersihkan dosa politiknya hanya dengan mengaku diri sebagai parti ‘Sabahan’. Parti ini sejak awal hingga kini tetap menjadi simbol penguasaan politik Malaya terhadap Sabah. 

"Rekod kegagalannya terukir dalam sejarah pengkhianatan — daripada penindasan ekonomi hinggalah kepada manipulasi demografi,” ujarnya lagi.

Sehubungan itu, beliau menyeru seluruh rakyat Sabah — khususnya generasi muda — agar menolak UMNO dan Barisan Nasional sekali dan untuk selamanya.

“Masa depan Sabah tidak boleh lagi ditentukan dari Malaya. Kita telah belajar daripada sejarah, dan kita tidak akan diperbodohkan lagi. Pilihan raya kali ini, Sabah mesti memilih maruah, autonomi, dan masa depan yang diterajui oleh anak-anak Sabah sendiri," katanya.

Calextus Edwin ialah Ketua Penyelaras Kawasan Kimanis bagi NGO Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS)#~Borneo Herald™

Anwar’s “Misleading Interpretation” Remark Misses the Real Issue — The 40% Entitlement Is a Constitutional Right, Not a Federal Gift


                          Daniel John Jambun 

Borneo Herald 
4.5.00PM MYT, 22-10-2025


KOTA KINABALU : The Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) today expressed concern over Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s remarks in Parliament suggesting that the Kota Kinabalu High Court’s ruling on Sabah’s 40% federal revenue entitlement “invites misleading interpretations” as though the Federal Government merely takes revenue from the state without contributing to its development.

BoPiMaFo said this statement mischaracterizes the essence of the High Court’s judgment, which did not in any way question or diminish the Federal Government’s development role. Instead, the Court simply affirmed a constitutional duty under Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution — that the Federal Government is legally bound to return 40% of the net federal revenue derived from Sabah as part of the original financial arrangements agreed upon under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

“The Prime Minister’s comment risks confusing the public. The Court’s decision was not about development assistance or federal contributions, but about restoring constitutional compliance that has been ignored for over five decades,” BoPiMaFo said.

Development spending by the Federal Government is discretionary and political in nature, whereas the 40% entitlement is mandatory and constitutional. One does not replace or offset the other.

“For far too long, successive federal administrations — including the present one — have failed to carry out the periodic financial reviews required every five years under Article 112D. The High Court ruling merely directs Putrajaya to fulfil this long-neglected legal obligation,” the Foundation added.

BoPiMaFo said that if there has been any misleading interpretation, it is not from the Court, but from those who continue to frame Sabah’s constitutional rights as an act of federal generosity.

“The 40% entitlement is not a grant, not a subsidy, and not a favour. It is a right enshrined in Malaysia’s founding constitution — part of the solemn bargain that persuaded Sabah to join the Federation. To imply otherwise is to undermine the very foundation of MA63,” the statement read.

BoPiMaFo therefore urges the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to accept the High Court judgment in good faith, comply fully with the directive to conduct the joint review with the Sabah Government, and stop treating constitutional compliance as a matter of political discretion.

“As the head of a government that professes to uphold reform and justice, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim must ensure that Malaysia honours both the letter and spirit of MA63 — not reinterpret them for political convenience,” BoPiMaFo concluded.

Daniel John Jambun
President
Borneo's Plight in Malaysia foundation {BoPiMaFo}





Versi Bahasa Malaysia:

Kenyataan “Tafsiran Mengelirukan” Anwar Tersasar — Hak 40% Adalah Hak Perlembagaan, Bukan Pemberian Persekutuan

KOTA KINABALU — Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) hari ini menyuarakan kebimbangan terhadap kenyataan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim di Parlimen yang menyifatkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu berhubung hak Sabah kepada 40% hasil Persekutuan sebagai sesuatu yang “mengundang tafsiran mengelirukan”, seolah-olah Kerajaan Persekutuan hanya mengambil hasil dari negeri ini tanpa menyumbang kepada pembangunan.

BoPiMaFo berkata kenyataan itu telah menyalahertikan intipati sebenar keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang sama sekali tidak menafikan peranan Kerajaan Persekutuan dalam pembangunan negeri. Sebaliknya, Mahkamah hanya mengesahkan kewajipan perlembagaan di bawah Perkara 112C dan 112D Perlembagaan Persekutuan — bahawa Kerajaan Persekutuan terikat secara undang-undang untuk memulangkan 40% daripada hasil bersih Persekutuan yang diperoleh dari Sabah sebagai sebahagian daripada perjanjian kewangan asal yang dipersetujui di bawah Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63).

“Kenyataan Perdana Menteri itu boleh mengelirukan rakyat. Keputusan Mahkamah bukanlah mengenai bantuan pembangunan atau sumbangan Persekutuan, tetapi mengenai pemulihan pematuhan terhadap Perlembagaan yang telah diabaikan lebih lima dekad,” kata BoPiMaFo.

Perbelanjaan pembangunan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan bersifat discretionary dan berasaskan pertimbangan politik, manakala hak 40% tersebut bersifat mandatori dan termaktub dalam Perlembagaan. Kedua-duanya tidak boleh saling menggantikan antara satu sama lain.

“Sejak sekian lama, kerajaan-kerajaan Persekutuan — termasuk kerajaan sekarang — gagal melaksanakan semakan kewangan berkala yang diwajibkan setiap lima tahun di bawah Perkara 112D. Keputusan Mahkamah hanya mengarahkan Putrajaya untuk menunaikan kewajipan undang-undang yang telah lama diabaikan,” tambah kenyataan itu.

BoPiMaFo berkata bahawa jika terdapat sebarang tafsiran mengelirukan, ia bukan datang daripada Mahkamah, tetapi daripada mereka yang terus menggambarkan hak perlembagaan Sabah sebagai bentuk kemurahan hati Kerajaan Persekutuan.

“Hak 40% bukan geran, bukan subsidi, dan bukan ihsan. Ia adalah hak yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia — sebahagian daripada perjanjian muktamad yang meyakinkan Sabah untuk menyertai Persekutuan. Menyiratkan sebaliknya bermaksud menafikan asas sebenar MA63,” kata kenyataan itu lagi.

BoPiMaFo oleh itu menggesa Perdana Menteri dan Jemaah Menteri supaya menerima keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi itu dengan niat baik, mematuhi sepenuhnya arahan untuk melaksanakan semakan bersama dengan Kerajaan Negeri Sabah, dan berhenti memperlakukan pematuhan perlembagaan sebagai isu pilihan politik.

“Sebagai ketua kerajaan yang mengaku memperjuangkan reformasi dan keadilan, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim mesti memastikan Malaysia menghormati bukan sahaja teks tetapi juga semangat MA63 — dan bukannya menafsirkannya semula demi kepentingan politik,” BoPiMaFo menegaskan.

Daniel John Jambun
Presiden
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)#~Borneo Herald™

A GRS Victory Means Five More Years of Ruthless Abuse, Rampant Corruption, and Shameless Plundering of Sabah’s Wealth


                            Chrisnadia Sinam 

Borneo Herald 
1.50PM MYT, 21-10-2025



Statement by Chrisnadia Sinam, Head of Wanita Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS)  
KOTA KINABALU

The Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS) today issued a scathing condemnation of Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor’s recent call for a “resounding victory” for Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS), describing it as a desperate attempt to entrench a regime marked by exploitation, corruption, and betrayal of Sabah’s rights.

> “A GRS victory will doom Sabahans to suffer five more years of unchecked abuse of power, shameless greed, and the blatant selling off of Sabah’s precious resources to the highest bidder,” declared Chrisnadia Sinam, Head of Wanita CAMOS.

Chrisnadia accused Hajiji’s administration of systematically plundering Sabah’s resources, dismantling key industries, and leaving the state’s economy in ruins.

> “Sabah Forest Industries has been abandoned to rot, the Pitas Prawn Farm driven to bankruptcy, and state land and mineral concessions flagrantly handed out as spoils to political cronies. This is not governance — this is daylight robbery on an industrial scale,” she said.

She highlighted the Sabah Mineral Mining (SMM) concession scandal as a grotesque example of how state assets have been weaponized to buy political loyalty through defections.

> “When mining concessions intended to serve the people are twisted into tools to bribe assemblymen, corruption reaches a new, dangerous depth — power is no longer won but bought and bartered,” she added.

Chrisnadia also condemned the corrosive “gaji YB tidak cukup makan” mentality, calling it symptomatic of a morally bankrupt leadership.

> “Leaders who brazenly justify corruption as necessary because their salary is ‘not enough’ showcase the rot at the heart of Sabah’s governance. Greed is official policy, and it is why Sabah’s wealth vanishes while ordinary citizens remain trapped in hardship,” she said vehemently.

She rejected Hajiji’s claim that GRS alone can champion Sabah’s rights, pointing to the coalition’s silence on critical constitutional issues.

> “If GRS truly cared, why did it remain silent when the Federal Government challenged the High Court ruling on Sabah’s 40% constitutional rights? Why has it not demanded the immediate fulfilment of the MA63 promises?” she challenged.

Chrisnadia further denounced GRS’ so-called “unity” as a cynical alliance of convenience among politicians clinging desperately to power.

> “GRS is united not by love for Sabah, but by greed and survival instinct. It is a coalition entrenched in self-interest, not public service,” she stated.

She concluded with a rallying cry to Sabahans—especially women and youth—to reject the corrupt cycle and demand leaders of true integrity.

> “No more selling Sabah’s lands and minerals for political favors. No more pathetic excuses about ‘insufficient salary.’ Sabah demands clean, courageous leadership that serves its people, not the corrupt elite. We refuse to sacrifice our children’s futures on the altar of political greed,” Chrisnadia said powerfully.

Issued by:  
Wanita Head
Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS)  
Kota Kinabalu, Sabah#~Borneo Herald™

GRS Lambang Kompromi Politik, Bukan Kematangan, kata CAMOS

                             Handery Pijin

Borneo Herald 
9.30PM MYT, 20-10-2025


PAPAR : Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS) hari ini menolak dakwaan Presiden LDP, Datuk Chin Su Phin bahawa Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) melambangkan “kematangan politik,” sebaliknya menyifatkannya sebagai satu gabungan yang lahir daripada kepentingan, kompromi dan ketakutan kehilangan kuasa.

Ketua Penyelaras CAMOS Papar, Handery Pijin, berkata tidak ada apa-apa yang matang tentang sebuah gabungan yang terbentuk hasil pengkhianatan politik pada tahun 2020 dan kekal berkuasa hanya kerana perlindungan serta sokongan daripada Kerajaan Persekutuan, bukannya kehendak rakyat.

“Kematangan politik sebenar lahir daripada rasa hormat terhadap mandat pengundi, berpegang kepada prinsip, dan mempertahankan hak-hak Sabah di bawah Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 — bukan daripada membentuk gabungan semata-mata untuk mengekalkan kuasa,” kata Handery dalam satu kenyataan di sini.

Handery berkata pujian Chin terhadap GRS mengabaikan hakikat bahawa di bawah pentadbiran GRS, Sabah kekal sebagai antara negeri termiskin di Malaysia, dengan jurang ketidaksamarataan yang semakin melebar, pengabaian luar bandar, dan kekecewaan yang meningkat dalam kalangan pengundi muda yang tidak melihat sebarang kemajuan nyata selain janji-janji lama dan projek-projek dibiayai oleh Persekutuan.

"Kestabilan politik tidak bermakna apa-apa jika ia tidak membawa keadilan, pekerjaan, dan maruah kepada rakyat. 

"Lebuhraya Pan Borneo dan jalan-jalan luar bandar sudah pun merupakan projek Persekutuan jauh sebelum GRS wujud — mendakwa ia sebagai kejayaan GRS adalah satu pembohongan,” kata Handery lagi.

Beliau turut menegaskan bahawa di bawah pentadbiran Ketua Menteri, Datuk Hajiji Noor, autonomi Sabah semakin terhakis apabila Ketua Menteri terus menyesuaikan diri dengan kepentingan Putrajaya daripada menegaskan hak perlembagaan negeri — termasuk hak Sabah terhadap 40% hasil bersih Persekutuan di bawah Perkara 112C dan 112D Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Jika inilah yang dikatakan sebagai ‘kematangan politik baharu’, maka ia adalah kematangan dalam kepatuhan, bukan kedaulatan,” tegasnya.

Handery menyeru rakyat agar tidak terpedaya dengan retorik “kestabilan” yang sering dilaungkan oleh GRS, dan menyedari bahawa kestabilan sebenar hanya boleh dicapai melalui sebuah kerajaan yang berpihak kepada rakyat — bukan kerajaan yang hidup atas dasar perjanjian politik dan bantuan Persekutuan.#~Borneo Herald ™

Federal Breach of MA63 Would Have Given Sabah the Moral Right to Seek International Remedy

                          Daniel John Jambun 


Borneo Herald
12.20PM MYT, 20-10-2025

KOTA KINABALU : The Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) today said that if the Federal Government had succeeded in defeating Sabah’s claim to its 40% revenue entitlement, it would have amounted to a fundamental breach of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) — giving Sabah the moral and political right, though not yet the legal standing, to seek international remedy through the United Nations or even the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

BoPiMaFo emphasised that the 40% net revenue entitlement is not an ordinary fiscal issue but one of the core constitutional guarantees negotiated under MA63 to preserve Sabah’s fiscal autonomy within the Federation. Any attempt by Putrajaya to deny or nullify that right would effectively repudiate one of the founding terms upon which Sabah agreed to form Malaysia.

“Had the Federal Government won the case, it would have signalled a unilateral dismantling of the MA63 partnership — undermining the foundation upon which the Federation was built. Such a breach would have provided Sabah the moral right to seek international recourse, even if formal legal standing at the ICJ remains limited,” BoPiMaFo said.

The Legal and Constitutional Context

BoPiMaFo explained that under international law, only sovereign states may file or defend cases before the ICJ. Although Sabah and Sarawak were equal founding partners under MA63, subsequent constitutional developments — particularly the 1976 amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution — downgraded both territories to the same status as Peninsular states, stripping them of their separate international identity.

The Foundation acknowledged that the 2021 constitutional amendment (which came into effect in 2022) restored the original structure of Article 1(2), once again distinguishing between the States of Malaya and the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak.

“This amendment was a welcome symbolic correction and a recognition of Sabah and Sarawak as co-founding partners. However, it was largely declaratory, not substantive. The amendment did not alter Article 160(2), which still defines ‘the Federation’ as the one established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957 — a definition that continues to exclude Sabah and Sarawak’s distinct status under MA63,” BoPiMaFo said.

As such, Sabah and Sarawak are today acknowledged as equal partners in name, but remain subnational entities in law. This means that while Sabah cannot directly bring a case to the ICJ, it can still pursue international remedy through the United Nations system, including through diplomatic representations or UN General Assembly resolutions.

The Chagos Precedent

BoPiMaFo cited the Chagos Archipelago case as an example of how international bodies can review historical breaches of decolonization or partnership agreements.

In that case, the ICJ’s 2019 Advisory Opinion found that the United Kingdom’s separation of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 violated international law. The proceedings were initiated not by the Chagos Islanders themselves, but by the Government of Mauritius, after the UN General Assembly formally requested the ICJ’s opinion.

“This demonstrates that international remedies exist for breaches of post-colonial agreements — but they must be pursued through the UN process, not by unilateral legal action. If MA63 is repeatedly violated, Sabah and Sarawak could similarly seek international review through the United Nations General Assembly or the Committee on Decolonization,” BoPiMaFo said.

Restoring Equal Partnership

BoPiMaFo stressed that it does not advocate secession, but calls for the full restoration of constitutional equality and the faithful implementation of MA63.

“The High Court’s judgment affirming Sabah’s 40% entitlement spared Malaysia a deeper constitutional and diplomatic crisis, but it also confirmed what we have said for years — that the Federal Government has been in continuing breach of MA63,” the Foundation said.

BoPiMaFo reminded Putrajaya that MA63 is not a domestic administrative arrangement, but an internationally recognized treaty deposited with the United Nations.

“When one party consistently violates the terms of such a treaty, the matter ceases to be internal — it becomes a legitimate concern of the international community. The restoration of Article 1(2) in 2021 reaffirmed Sabah and Sarawak’s status as equal partners. It is now time to give that equality real meaning through action, not symbolism,” BoPiMaFo concluded.

Daniel John Jambun
President
Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation {BoPiMaFo}




Versi Bahasa Malaysia :

Pelanggaran MA63 oleh Persekutuan Akan Memberikan Sabah Hak Moral untuk Mencari Pemulihan Antarabangsa

KOTA KINABALU — Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) hari ini menyatakan bahawa sekiranya Kerajaan Persekutuan berjaya menafikan tuntutan Sabah terhadap hak 40% hasil bersih persekutuan, ia akan merupakan satu pelanggaran asas terhadap Perjanjian Malaysia 1963 (MA63) — sekaligus memberikan Sabah hak moral dan politik, walaupun belum mempunyai kedudukan undang-undang yang formal, untuk mencari pemulihan antarabangsa melalui Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) atau Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ).

BoPiMaFo menegaskan bahawa hak 40% hasil bersih bukan isu fiskal biasa, tetapi merupakan salah satu jaminan perlembagaan teras yang dirundingkan di bawah MA63 bagi mengekalkan autonomi fiskal Sabah dalam Persekutuan. Sebarang cubaan oleh Putrajaya untuk menafikan atau membatalkan hak tersebut adalah tindakan menolak salah satu syarat asas yang menjadi asas pembentukan Malaysia.

“Sekiranya Kerajaan Persekutuan memenangi kes tersebut, ia akan menandakan tindakan sebelah pihak untuk membubarkan semangat perkongsian MA63 — sekali gus meruntuhkan asas pembentukan Persekutuan. Pelanggaran seperti itu akan memberikan Sabah hak moral untuk mencari pemulihan antarabangsa, walaupun kedudukan undang-undang formal di ICJ masih terhad,” kata BoPiMaFo.

Konteks Perundangan dan Perlembagaan

BoPiMaFo menjelaskan bahawa di bawah undang-undang antarabangsa, hanya negara berdaulat yang boleh memfailkan atau mempertahankan kes di ICJ. Walaupun Sabah dan Sarawak merupakan rakan pengasas setara di bawah MA63, perkembangan perlembagaan seterusnya — khususnya pindaan tahun 1976 terhadap Perkara 1(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan — telah menurunkan taraf kedua-dua wilayah itu kepada status yang sama dengan negeri-negeri di Semenanjung, sekaligus menafikan identiti antarabangsa yang berasingan.

Yayasan itu mengakui bahawa pindaan perlembagaan pada tahun 2021 (yang berkuat kuasa pada 2022) telah memulihkan semula struktur asal Perkara 1(2), yang sekali lagi membezakan antara Negeri-Negeri Tanah Melayu dan Negeri-Negeri Borneo Sabah dan Sarawak.

“Pindaan ini merupakan pembetulan simbolik yang dialu-alukan dan satu pengiktirafan bahawa Sabah dan Sarawak ialah rakan pengasas bersama. Namun, ia lebih bersifat deklaratif berbanding substantif. Pindaan itu tidak mengubah Perkara 160(2) yang masih mentakrifkan ‘Persekutuan’ sebagai yang ditubuhkan di bawah Perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1957 — satu takrif yang terus menafikan kedudukan khas Sabah dan Sarawak di bawah MA63,” kata BoPiMaFo.

Oleh itu, Sabah dan Sarawak hari ini diiktiraf sebagai rakan setara pada nama sahaja, tetapi kekal sebagai entiti subnasional dari segi undang-undang. Ini bermakna walaupun Sabah tidak boleh membawa kes terus ke ICJ, ia masih boleh mencari pemulihan antarabangsa melalui sistem PBB, termasuk melalui saluran diplomatik atau resolusi Perhimpunan Agung PBB.

Duluan Chagos

BoPiMaFo turut merujuk kepada kes Chagos Archipelago sebagai contoh bagaimana badan antarabangsa boleh menilai semula pelanggaran sejarah terhadap perjanjian pasca-penjajahan atau perjanjian perkongsian.

Dalam kes itu, Advisory Opinion ICJ pada tahun 2019 memutuskan bahawa tindakan United Kingdom memisahkan Kepulauan Chagos daripada Mauritius pada tahun 1965 adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang antarabangsa. Prosiding itu bukan dimulakan oleh penduduk Chagos sendiri, tetapi oleh Kerajaan Mauritius, selepas Perhimpunan Agung PBB secara rasmi meminta pendapat nasihat daripada ICJ.

“Kes ini menunjukkan bahawa terdapat mekanisme pemulihan antarabangsa terhadap pelanggaran perjanjian pasca-kolonial — tetapi ia mesti dilakukan melalui proses PBB, bukan tindakan undang-undang sebelah pihak. Jika MA63 terus dilanggar, Sabah dan Sarawak juga boleh mencari semakan antarabangsa melalui Perhimpunan Agung PBB atau Jawatankuasa Nyahpenjajahan,” kata BoPiMaFo.

Memulihkan Perkongsian Setara

BoPiMaFo menegaskan bahawa pihaknya tidak menyokong pemisahan, sebaliknya menyeru kepada pemulihan sepenuhnya kedudukan setara dan pelaksanaan sebenar MA63.

“Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang mengesahkan hak 40% Sabah telah menyelamatkan Malaysia daripada krisis perlembagaan dan diplomatik yang lebih mendalam, tetapi ia juga mengesahkan apa yang telah kami nyatakan selama ini — bahawa Kerajaan Persekutuan telah lama melanggar MA63 secara berterusan,” kata yayasan itu.

BoPiMaFo mengingatkan Putrajaya bahawa MA63 bukan satu urusan pentadbiran dalaman, tetapi perjanjian antarabangsa yang diiktiraf dan didaftarkan dengan Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu.

“Apabila satu pihak terus-menerus melanggar syarat perjanjian sedemikian, perkara itu tidak lagi bersifat dalaman — ia menjadi perhatian sah masyarakat antarabangsa. Pemulihan Perkara 1(2) pada tahun 2021 telah mengesahkan semula kedudukan Sabah dan Sarawak sebagai rakan setara. Kini tiba masanya untuk memberikan makna sebenar kepada kesetaraan itu melalui tindakan, bukan sekadar simbolisme,” BoPiMaFo menegaskan.

Daniel John Jambun
Presiden
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)#~Borneo Herald™

40% Judgment Confirms MA63 Has Been Breached, Sabah and Sarawak Must Now Seek ICJ Review

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™

Search This Blog