Inside Sarawak 砂拉越境内

28/11/2025

JOINT PRESS STATEMENT

PBK–SSRANZ: Questioning MA63 Is Not Sedition — The State Government Must Stop Acting as Putrajaya’s Policeman

Zaid Ibrahim’s Remarks Underscore MA63’s Legal Invalidity and Reinforce Sabah and Sarawak’s Right to Self-Determination

Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) | Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) For Immediate Release – 27 November 2025



1. Silencing Critics Is the Real Concern

PBK and SSRANZ reject Deputy Minister Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali’s assertion that “questioning the legality or calling for the removal of MA63 may be seditious.” The statement is an attempt to suppress legitimate public debate on matters fundamental to Sabah and Sarawak’s political future.

For more than a decade, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) has been a central feature of regional discourse. The Sarawak Government’s refusal to release the publicly funded 2017 London legal mission report — still treated as a “state secret” — further undermines its claim that MA63 is beyond scrutiny. If the agreement is sound, there is no justification for withholding these documents.

Her comments on “seditious” questioning were made in response to former Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, who affirmed that the people of Sabah and Sarawak may lawfully repudiate MA63 and exit the federation, as Singapore did. This is the first time a senior Malayan legal figure has openly recognised the legal right of exit — a position long maintained by PBK and SSRANZ.

Zaid has since gone further: acknowledging that Sabah and Sarawak lacked treaty-making capacity in 1963 and therefore could not have been valid parties to any international treaty. There was no consensus ad idem, no free consent, and no equality of parties — rendering MA63 void ab initio under international law.

PBK and SSRANZ also highlight the increasingly troubling pattern of certain GPS leaders behaving less like representatives of Sarawak and more like policemen and political enforcers for Putrajaya. Their swift, coordinated rebuke of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s remarks exemplifies this reflexive defence of federal interests.

The democratic and transparent solution is clear: a referendum allowing the people of Sarawak to decide their political future.

2. Questioning MA63 Is Legitimate, Not Seditious

PBK and SSRANZ emphasise that Zaid Ibrahim’s position is not irresponsible but legally grounded. Public dissatisfaction is driven by:

• more than 60 years of non-implementation of constitutional safeguards,

• diversion of territorial revenues to the federal centre,

• repeated violations of autonomy guarantees, and

• federal control over natural resources contrary to MA63 and the Federal Constitution.

Civil society voices, including PBK President Voon Lee Shan and members of SSRANZ, have long been subjected to police scrutiny, Special Branch monitoring, and harassment for raising these issues — demonstrating a pattern of political suppression rather than legal necessity.

PBK and SSRANZ note that the 2015 High Court and subsequent Court of Appeal judgements in the Sarawak Association of People's Aspiration (SAPA) case reaffirmed the right of civil-society activists and organisations to operate free from arbitrary state interference. While the courts did not address the substance of MA63 or the legality of any particular statements, the judgements explicitly recognised SAPA’s right to exist under the Societies Act 1966. The rulings underscore that lawful advocacy and public commentary by activists and civil-society actors — including discussion on state rights, federal arrangements, or regional political issues — cannot be suppressed through administrative fiat alone. This affirms the principle that legitimate activism and political debate, conducted within the law, are protected from arbitrary silencing.

The argument that “questioning the legality of MA63 may be seditious” is therefore absurd and unsustainable. Under both Malaysian constitutional law and international human rights law, examining the legality of a treaty or asserting the right of self-determination is a legitimate democratic activity.

Zaid is correct: the “state” versus “region” debate is legally irrelevant. In 1963, Sabah and Sarawak were British colonies lacking sovereignty and the legal capacity to enter any treaty. With no independent representation, no referendum, and no free consent, there was never a true meeting of minds (no consensus ad idem). The agreement cannot be considered a lawful founding treaty. MA63 was void ab initio.

3. Federal and GPS Failures Highlight the Need for Open Debate

PBK and SSRANZ recall:

• Malaysia legitimacy remains questionable as it was formed under emergency rule in 1963 and remained under emergency laws until 2011, severely limiting political freedom and the ability to question MA63.

• Mandatory reviews of Sabah and Sarawak’s constitutional position — including the 1973 review — were never conducted.

• The Petroleum Development Act 1974 enabled federal control over oil and gas, contrary to MA63’s safeguards, diverting money to develop Malaya instead of “eradicating poverty” and development as promised for Sabah and Sarawak.

• MA63 discussions were suppressed under the Internal Security Act (ISA); Datuk Jeffrey Kitingan was detained simply for emphasising federal non-compliance.

• The 2017 London legal investigation, funded by Sarawakians, remains secret — reinforcing perceptions that GPS’s MA63 advocacy is superficial.

• The people of Sabah and Sarawak were denied a referendum three times:

1. Cobbold Commission,

2. UN assessment under the Manila Accord 1963,

3. Jakarta Peace Agreement 1966 stipulation for a referendum — not fulfilled.

Zaid Ibrahim’s observation that MA63 was “patched together” under colonial pressure is consistent with the historical record. The agreement was not the product of free will AND consensus ad idem — explaining why it has repeatedly failed.

4. Historical and International Legal Precedent Supports Zaid Ibrahim

• Tunku Abdul Rahman (18 July 1963): “If they are not happy, they can leave the federation.”

• Lord Lansdowne, Chairman of the IGC: States entering a federation voluntarily retain the intrinsic right to withdraw.

• Former Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim: MA63 may be cancelled and Sabah or Sarawak may exit under constitutional and international law.

• SSRANZ Position: Only a referendum can determine the true wishes of the people.

Clarification of PBK SSRANZ Position on Void Ab Initio and Exit Rights: A treaty that is void ab initio means it does not exist and creates no legal obligations. However, once a (de facto) political union is imposed — as Malaysia was — international law recognises that peoples subjected to an invalid or coerced arrangement retain the remedial right to external selfdetermination, including separation. Thus:

• Void ab initio explains the defective legal foundation;

• Exit rights arise as the remedy available to peoples whose self-determination was denied; more accurately, it should be described as “final decolonisation.” Both concepts are fully consistent.

5. Rebuttal to Deputy Minister Sharifah Hasidah

PBK and SSRANZ reject the contention that discussing MA63 constitutes “sedition.” On the contrary, the following are protected activities under both Malaysian and international law:

• scrutinising the legality of a colonial-era agreement,

• highlighting MA63’s defects under international treaty law,

• asserting the right of self-determination under the UN Charter, the ICCPR, and customary international law.

Instability has not been caused by public debate but by decades of:

• deliberate federal non-implementation,

• constitutional manipulation,

• suppression of dissent through ISA detentions and Special Branch action,

• resource expropriation to develop Malaya and not Sabah and Sarawak as promised, • and secrecy surrounding MA63-related investigations.

Zaid Ibrahim’s remarks simply expose the long-avoided truth: MA63 cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Suppressing debate does not defend the federation; it merely protects political interests.

6. Conclusion and Calls to Action

PBK and SSRANZ reject all attempts to silence discussion on MA63 or the right of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to determine their own future. Questioning MA63 is lawful, necessary, and grounded in constitutional and international legal principles.

The core issue is not public debate but persistent federal and GPS failures: non-implementation of MA63 (if valid), decades of economic extraction, and suppression of political freedoms.

PBK and SSRANZ therefore call on Deputy Minister Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali to:

1. Immediately release the full 2017 London MA63 legal investigation findings. These are publicly funded documents, and the people have an unequivocal right to know their contents. Any continued secrecy only raises suspicion that authorities are deliberately concealing the truth.

PBK and SSRANZ further call on the GPS Government to:

2. Hold a referendum on whether Sarawak should remain in or exit Malaysia. Historical precedent supports this demand:

• In 1965, the Kuching Municipal Council unanimously urged the government to hold a referendum after Singapore’s departure fundamentally altered Malaysia’s original four-party structure.

• During the KMC debate, Councillor Song Thian Ho warned that denying the people a voice “would amount to dictatorship.”

• Federal interference — including the declaration of emergency and the constitutional amendment allowing the Governor to dismiss Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan — prevented Sarawak from conducting its own review or withdrawal even after the original federal structure collapsed.

PBK and SSRANZ also call on both the federal and state governments to:

3. Refer MA63 to an independent international tribunal. MA63 is an international agreement belatedly registered with the United Nations in 1970. Disputes of this nature cannot be resolved through unequal political negotiations. A referendum on exit should empower and direct the Sarawak or Sabah government to seek a final judicial resolution. Only international adjudication ensures:

• an impartial and authoritative determination,

• protection of the people’s interests, and

• a transparent legal outcome free from political influence.

PBK and SSRANZ affirm their commitment to defending the rights of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to:

• genuine political self-determination,

• open and informed public debate on MA63, and

• full understanding of the historical and legal foundations of Malaysia.

End of Statement Jointly issued by:

Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) – President Voon Lee Shan

Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) – President Robert Pei 27 November 2025

02/11/2025

https://youtu.be/HxlznEkaDc8?si=JN14n386j21ZIuRu

烛光在跳跃，歌声在飘荡今天所有的祝福为你唱响开心是风，快乐是雨愿健康的你，能呼风唤雨每一个心愿都心想事成智慧与技能，伴你前行Happy Birthday to You!吉祥是天，幸福是地，平安顶天立地祝你生日快乐吉祥如意，平安幸.....

19/10/2025

https://youtu.be/XIxfMmUht7o?si=KCwk29HSOtjmqgBM

The formation of the Federation of Malaysia on September 16, 1963, was a pivotal moment in Southeast Asian history, uniting the Federation of Malaya with the British Crown Colonies of North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore. However, the historical narrative surrounding this event is far from monolithic.

For decades, the legitimacy and fairness of the process have been subjects of intense debate, particularly within Sarawak and Sabah. This article delves into the controversies surrounding the formation of Malaysia, examining the roles of the Cobbold Commission, the legality of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the absence of a popular referendum, and the geopolitical undercurrents that shaped the federation's creation. Drawing from a range of sources, including official reports, declassified documents, and critical analyses, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of a history that continues to influence contemporary political discourse in Malaysia.

The Cobbold Commission: A Flawed Mandate?

In 1962, the British and Malayan governments established the Cobbold Commission, a Commission of Enquiry, to ascertain the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak on the proposed Malaysian federation. The Commission's official report, published on August 1, 1962, concluded that a majority of the population was in favor of the merger, paving the way for the signing of the Malaysia Agreement. However, the Commission's methodology and findings have been heavily criticized for their lack of democratic legitimacy.

Methodology and Findings

The Commission, headed by the former Bank of England governor, Lord Cobbold, comprised two British and two Malayan representatives, with Lord Cobbold as chairman. Notably, there were no representatives from either North Borneo or Sarawak. The Commission spent two months touring the territories and, according to its report and subsequent analysis, interviewed approximately 4,000 people [1, 2]. This figure, representing less than one percent of the combined population of over one million at the time, has been a central point of contention.

The Commission's findings famously divided the population's views into three thirds:

About one-third of the population of each territory strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern about terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards... The remaining third is divided between those who insist on independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come. [3]

Based on this assessment, the Commission concluded that the formation of Malaysia should be implemented. However, critics argue that this interpretation glossed over significant opposition and a widespread desire for self-determination before any merger was considered.

Critical Flaws

The process undertaken by the Cobbold Commission was fraught with methodological issues that cast doubt on the validity of its conclusions.



Flaw

Description

Unrepresentative Sample

Interviewing only ~4,000 people out of a population of over one million is statistically insignificant and cannot be considered a genuine reflection of popular will.

Lack of Bornean Representation

The absence of any members from North Borneo or Sarawak on the Commission itself is a glaring omission, leading to accusations of it being an "Anglo-Malayan exercise" [2].

Language and Cultural Barriers

There is no evidence that the Commission members spoke the numerous local and indigenous languages, raising questions about how accurately they could have gauged the opinions of the non-English-speaking rural population.

Climate of Intimidation

Sources indicate that the political climate was suppressive. Those who openly opposed the Malaysia plan were often labeled as "subversives" or "communists" and faced arrest and persecution [2]. This climate of fear likely prevented many from expressing their true opinions.

Even the British Governor of North Borneo at the time, Sir William Goode, reportedly called the entire exercise "a farce" in private [2], a sentiment that underscores the deep-seated skepticism surrounding the Commission's work.

The Missing Referendum

A cornerstone of the criticism against the formation of Malaysia is the complete absence of a referendum. In an era of decolonization, the principle of self-determination, as enshrined in United Nations resolutions like UNGA 1514, was paramount. Yet, the people of Sarawak and North Borneo were never given the opportunity to vote directly on their future. The Cobbold Commission's enquiry, with its limited and selective interviews, was presented as a substitute for a popular vote.

This was further compounded by the role of the United Nations Malaysia Mission (UNMM), dispatched in August 1963 to conduct a final ascertainment of the people's wishes. The UNMM was not a referendum; it was another rapid assessment mission. Its legitimacy was severely undermined when the Tunku Abdul Rahman, Prime Minister of Malaya, announced on August 29, 1963, that the Federation of Malaysia would be established on September 16, 1963—before the UN mission had even completed its work. UN Secretary-General U Thant himself expressed his dismay:

This has led to misunderstanding, confusion, and even resentment among other parties to the Manila agreement, which could have been avoided if the date could have been fixed after my conclusions had been reached and made known. [4]

For many critics, the Cobbold Commission and the subsequent UN Mission were little more than "window-dressing exercises" [5] designed to legitimize a predetermined political outcome.

The Legality of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63)

The Malaysia Agreement 1963, the international treaty that created the federation, is another focal point of legal and political contention. The core of the controversy lies in the status of its signatories and the circumstances under which it was signed.

An Agreement Between Unequals?

MA63 was signed by five parties: the United Kingdom, the Federation of Malaya (an independent nation), and the three British colonies of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore. Proponents of Sarawak's independence argue that the agreement is void ab initio (invalid from the beginning) because an independent nation cannot legally enter into a binding international treaty with territories that are still under colonial rule and lack sovereignty [6]. This perspective holds that the colonies did not have the legal capacity to be genuine signatories, rendering the agreement illegitimate under international law.

Conversely, the official position of the Malaysian government and many legal scholars is that the agreement's validity is affirmed by its incorporation into domestic law. The British Parliament passed the Malaysia Act 1963, and the Malayan Parliament passed constitutional amendments to integrate the agreement's provisions into the Federal Constitution. This domestication, it is argued, gives MA63 its legal force within Malaysia, regardless of the initial status of its signatories [7].

The Impact of Singapore's Separation

The debate over MA63's validity is further complicated by the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in August 1965, less than two years after the federation's formation. The question is whether the departure of one of the four constituent territories automatically nullified the original agreement.



The Argument for Continued Validity: The counterargument is that the departure of one party does not invalidate a multilateral treaty unless the treaty contains a specific clause to that effect, which MA63 does not. Singapore's exit was formalized through the Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965, which legally amended the constitution. Therefore, the core provisions of MA63 concerning Sabah and Sarawak remained in force [7].

The Argument for Continued Validity: The counterargument is that the departure of one party does not invalidate a multilateral treaty unless the treaty contains a specific clause to that effect, which MA63 does not. Singapore's exit was formalized through the Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965, which legally amended the constitution. Therefore, the core provisions of MA63 concerning Sabah and Sarawak remained in force [7].



The Geopolitical Context: A British 'Grand Design'

Declassified documents and historical research have revealed that the formation of Malaysia was not a spontaneous idea from local leaders but rather a long-term strategic plan conceived by the British government. This "grand design" was driven by a confluence of economic interests and Cold War geopolitics.



Economic and Strategic Interests

As early as 1953, a classified Colonial Office paper revealed British plans for "some form of constitutional association" for its Southeast Asian territories [2]. The primary motivations were:



Economic Assets: Post-war Britain was heavily reliant on the revenue from Malayan tin and rubber. The discovery of significant oil reserves off the coast of Borneo added another layer of immense economic value to the region. Sir Anthony Abell, the Governor of Sarawak, noted in 1956 that Malayan and Singaporean politicians had a "considerable interest in the Borneo territories including its empty spaces, its potential wealth, and its oil" [2].

Decolonization and Control: By handing over its colonies to a friendly, pro-Western Malaya, Britain could grant nominal independence while ensuring its economic and strategic interests were protected within a larger, more stable federation.



This pre-planned handover was candidly confirmed years later by Malaya's first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, who stated in an interview:



"Yes and they [the British] gave us Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore and so many other things in 1963 [with the formation of Malaysia]. The British could have given Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak independence, but they did not. Instead, they handed them to us." [2]



This admission lends significant weight to the argument that the formation of Malaysia was less a merger of equals and more a transfer of colonial possessions.



Conclusion

The formation of Malaysia was a complex and deeply contested process. While the official narrative celebrates it as a voluntary union of peoples, a substantial body of evidence suggests a different story. The Cobbold Commission, while presenting a veneer of consultation, operated on a flawed and unrepresentative mandate. The complete absence of a referendum denied the peoples of Sarawak and North Borneo their fundamental right to self-determination. Furthermore, the legal validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 remains a subject of intense debate, fueled by the unequal status of its signatories and the subsequent separation of Singapore.



The historical record, supported by declassified documents and critical scholarship, points to a British-led initiative driven by economic and geopolitical interests, culminating in a transfer of colonial territories rather than a merger of sovereign nations. These historical grievances are not mere relics of the past; they continue to animate contemporary political movements in East Malaysia advocating for greater autonomy, the restoration of rights under MA63, and, for some, complete independence. Understanding this contested history is crucial for comprehending the ongoing political dynamics within the Malaysian federation.



References

[1] Rehman, I. (1963). THE MAKING OF MALAYSIA. Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 41(167), 174–192. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41371778



[2] Shan, V. L. (2024, September 28). Was the Cobbold Commission a scam? Borneo Herald. https://www.borneoherald.com/2024/09/was-cobbold-commission-scam.html



[3] Cobbold Commission. (1962). Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_of_the_Commission_of_Enquiry,_North_Borneo_and_Sarawak,_1962



[4] JC History Tuition. (2021, December 7). What was the United Nations Malaysia Mission of 1963? https://www.jchistorytuition.com.sg/what-was-the-united-nations-malaysia-mission-of-1963/

Source: Manus AI

In the harbor where the old ships cameCarrying stories we can't nameBeneath the weathered classroom wallsWhere children learn of distant callsThe fisherman s...

15/02/2025

Starlink performance is impressive while mounting to an EV roof still receiving internet connection while moving around. Will log pounds bosses get one for their jungle operations? What about ocean liner operations?

162 likes, 8 comments. “Replying to xx Does Starlink’s Standard V4 kit work in a moving car? There’s only one way to find out.”