Reject Malayan parties

Suggest giving points on why we need to reject the Malayan parties:

*WHY REJECT MALAYAN PARTIES FROM CONTESTING IN SABAH & SARAWAK*

*Malayan parties contesting here is not democracy — it’s subtle takeover.* 

 *1. Protect the MA63 compact’s seat-allocation safeguard*

* The MA63 negotiations implicitly envisaged protections against Malayan dominance by granting Sabah & Sarawak dedicated representation.

* Allowing Malayan parties to contest undermines that protective design — it dilutes the seat-allocation intent and opens the door to overwhelming by Malayan votes.

* If that seat-allocation right is still legally alive, then Malayan parties have no right to invade those slots.

*2. Prevent federal takeover of internal affairs & resources*

* If Malayan parties win seats locally, they gain leverage to influence or usurp local policy, budget, resource management and appointments.

* This paves the path for centralisation and creeping control from Kuala Lumpur into what ought to be local jurisdiction.

* In effect, we surrender political autonomy and resource sovereignty.

*3. Safeguard local identity and priorities*

* Sabah and Sarawak have distinct ethnic, cultural, geographic and economic conditions. Local parties are more responsive to local needs.

* Malayan parties often impose Peninsular agendas not suited to Borneo’s realities.

* We must not allow outside parties to drive our direction, especially when they lack deep local accountability.

*4. Maintain checks on constitutional imbalance*

* With Malayan parties contesting and winning seats, they can support federal amendments or laws inimical to MA63 or state rights.

* Even if Sabah & Sarawak had “reserved seats,” Malayan party MPs allied to the center can swell the majority, override protections, or push centralising amendments.

    

*5. Uphold the decolonisation/self-determination rationale*

* The anti-cession struggle and MA63 were ostensibly about ensuring self-rule, not integration into Malaya’s party system.

* If external parties contest us, we revert to a neo-colonial political pattern — where control is exercised via party machines, not local consent.

*6. Violates spirit (and possibly letter) of MA63 and constitutional protection*

* Many activists argue that certain provisions of MA63 entrench state autonomy and limit federal encroachment. Malayan parties intruding is arguably contrary to that entrenchment. 

* Under SSRANZ proposals, expelling the Malayan parties is seen as necessary to defend the MA63 guaranteed (if valid) seat allocation right. (See SSRANZ public statements) (e-pbk.com)

* PBK and other groups have publicly argued that Malayan parties contesting amounts to “poaching” of seats allocated to Sabah & Sarawak. (e-pbk.com)

 *7. Political leverage: Local parties must have priority*

* Rejecting Malayan parties forces constituents to choose local representatives who are more accountable to local interests.

* It strengthens state-based political parties, fosters local leadership, and reduces dependence on KL’s patronage networks.

*8. Defensive move in the face of historical domination*

* Historically, Malayan parties have dominated policy direction, resource extraction, and federal priorities at the expense of Sabah & Sarawak.

* Allowing them further in local contests perpetuates historical injustice and structural imbalance.

*9. Electoral fairness and sovereignty of state elections*

* State-level elections should remain under the jurisdiction of the local people, not be a satellite of national party contests.

* Malayan parties entering local fields distort the playing field — they bring in national funding, networks and influence not available locally.

https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/267690/pbk-urges-sabah-sarawak-voters-to-reject-malayan-parties/

All this is a continuation of the Ningkan Crisis from 1966

*All this is a continuation of the Ningkan Crisis from 1966.* 

The current struggle over Sarawak’s sovereignty cannot be separated from the Ningkan Crisis of 1966, when Sarawak’s first Chief Minister, Stephen Kalong Ningkan, was unlawfully removed under federal pressure. That episode marked the start of direct Malayan intervention in Sarawak politics. GPS’ political predecessors participated in this ouster, inheriting—rather than resolving—the deeper problem of Malayanisation. Today, those unresolved issues resurface in the fight over Sarawak’s territorial rights.

At the heart of Sarawak’s position is the argument that federal laws seizing control of land and natural resources—the Continental Shelf Act 1966 (CSA), the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA), and later the Territorial Sea Act 2012 (TSA)—were never validly consented to by Sarawak’s Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN). This violates both the Federal Constitution and the terms of MA63, which required local legislative approval for changes to fundamental rights and territorial arrangements.

This, in turn, reopens the foundational question of Malaysia’s legality. If the formation of Malaysia lacked genuine and informed consent of the people of Sarawak (as required under international law, UNGA Resolutions 1514 & 1541, and reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Chagos case), then the federation’s legal basis is gravely weakened. Malaysia’s claim to be a decolonisation exercise collapses if it is shown to be merely a transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Malaya under a void treaty.

*International law is clear*: in the context of decolonisation, boundaries cannot be redrawn and territories cannot be seized without the free and genuine consent of the people concerned. This principle is also embedded in Malaysia’s own Federal Constitution, Article 3, which recognises the sanctity of territorial integrity in decolonisation.

*The legislative manoeuvres in 2012, where the TSA was rushed through to reassert federal control once emergency powers lapsed, reveal that federal authorities were always conscious of the illegality of their claims. Far from being inadvertent, this was a deliberate policy of consolidation over Sarawak’s land and offshore wealth.*

*Conclusion*

The cumulative effect of the Ningkan ouster, the unilateral federal legislation (CSA 1966, PDA 1974, TSA 2012), and the absence of genuine consent at Malaysia’s formation amounts to a fundamental breach of MA63—if it were ever valid in the first place. These breaches extinguish Malaysia’s legal claim over Sarawak’s sovereignty.

Sarawak, therefore, possesses not only the political but also the legal right to reclaim independence through final decolonisation. The path forward is not the piecemeal restoration of powers under MA63, but the assertion of Sarawak’s right to self-determination under international law, free from Malayan encroachment.

See CT Choo & Chang's well-researched paper, FEDERALISM AND RESTORATION OF SARAWAK’S TERRITORIAL WATERS AND BOUNDARIES.

Harun's remarks

Press Statement

Art Harun’s Remarks Confirm That MA63 Provided No Safeguards, Strengthening the Case for Sabah’s Independence

The Republic of Sabah North Borneo Government-in-Exile (RSNB-GiE) notes with deep concern the remarks of former Dewan Rakyat Speaker, Tan Sri Azhar Azizan Harun (Art Harun), published in The Borneo Post on 26 September 2025, dismissing the claim that Sabah and Sarawak were entitled to one-third of parliamentary seats under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). While some may view his statement as a denial of Borneo’s political rights, RSNB-GiE views it as a significant admission that reinforces what we have long argued: MA63 never provided genuine safeguards and was never a valid international treaty of equal partnership.

Firstly, Art Harun openly admits that no provision exists in MA63, the Malaysia Act 1963, the Inter-Governmental Committee Report, or the Federal Constitution that guarantees Sabah and Sarawak one-third of the parliamentary seats. This is important, because it confirms that MA63 was never designed to safeguard the political autonomy or equal status of the Borneo territories. Instead, it was a framework engineered by Britain and Malaya to justify the transfer of colonial authority to Malaya, which then rebranded itself as “Malaysia” in 1963.

Secondly, historical records demonstrate that the so-called “formation of Malaysia” was not a formation at all, but an enlargement of the Federation of Malaya. The confidential British Commonwealth Office letter of 15 August 1966, and subsequent documents, clearly confirmed that Malaysia was regarded as nothing more than the continuation of Malaya with new territories and a new name. This proves that Sabah and Sarawak were annexed into an enlarged Malaya rather than joining as equal founding partners. The United Nations and the international community were misled into believing in a new federation, when in truth, there was no new political entity created in 1963.

Thirdly, the Manila Accord of 1963 required that the people of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak must freely decide their future through a proper act of self-determination before Malaysia could be recognised internationally. This requirement was never fulfilled. Instead, Britain and Malaya rushed the process, suppressing international concerns, and a flawed UN mission, whose impartiality has since been questioned by declassified UK diplomatic telegrams, was used to give the appearance of legitimacy. In reality, the process violated the UN Charter, Resolution 1514 (on decolonisation), Resolution 1541 (on association with independent states), and the Statute of Westminster 1931 on treaty-making powers of colonies.

Fourthly, even if one were to accept MA63 as valid, the structural safeguards supposedly promised to Sabah and Sarawak were systematically eroded. The exit of Singapore in 1965 reduced the Borneo bloc’s strength, yet no corrective action was taken to restore the balance. Art Harun’s statement today confirms what RSNB-GiE has consistently argued: there were no enforceable safeguards, not for parliamentary representation, not for autonomy, and not for equality. This exposes the entire arrangement as a colonial deception designed to favour Malaya.

Finally, the current reality speaks for itself: Sabah and Sarawak together hold less than 25% of parliamentary seats. This structural imbalance means that Sabah and Sarawak are permanently at the mercy of Malayan-controlled politics, unable to influence constitutional amendments or defend their interests. The erosion of autonomy, the plunder of resources, demographic manipulation, and the sidelining of our people all stem from this original illegitimacy.

The RSNB-GiE therefore rejects the narrative that Sabah and Sarawak should be satisfied with token debates about seat allocations within Malaya’s Parliament. Our position is clear: we do not seek more seats in Malaya’s Parliament, we seek the restoration of Sabah’s independence and the establishment of our own Parliament in Sabah.

Art Harun’s remarks have inadvertently strengthened our case. By admitting that MA63 never provided binding safeguards, he confirms that Sabah was deceived into an arrangement that failed to uphold the standards of international law and decolonisation. This is why the RSNB-GiE declares MA63 void ab initio and continues to pursue the recognition of Sabah’s independence as a matter of urgent justice and unfinished decolonisation.

Issued by:

Office of the President

Republic of Sabah North Borneo Government-in-Exile (RSNB-GiE)

27 September 2025

Dire Warning to Sabahans and Sarawakians

Dire Warning to Sabahans and Sarawakians:

Steer Clear of Project SAMA, ROSE,  

and Their Malayan Puppet Masters

Sabahans and Sarawakians, heed this urgent call: Project SAMA and ROSE are 

not your allies. 

These organizations, cloaked in the deceptive garb of reform and democracy, are nothing but instruments of Malayan domination, orchestrated by 

their puppet master, BERSIH. 

For too long, the people of Sabah and Sarawak have been subjected to the insidious machinations of Malaya, and these groups are the latest weapons in a year-long campaign to keep us as subservient  colonies. 

Their agenda is clear: to deny Sabah and Sarawak the rightful 35% of 

parliamentary seats that would grant us true power and autonomy. Do not be 

fooled by their polished rhetoric or their NGO status. These are wolves in sheep’s 

clothing, and they pose a clear and present danger to the future of our beloved Borneo states. 

The so-called “democracy” these organizations champion is a sham, a carefully crafted illusion designed to perpetuate Malayan colonial rule over Sabah and  Sarawak. 

BERSIH, the mastermind behind Project SAMA and ROSE, has mounted a relentless campaign to undermine the Malaysia Agreement 1963 

(MA63), the very foundation of our rights as equal partners in the federation. Their 

tactics are as cunning as they are treacherous. 

They dangle the promise of “one-

man, one-vote” fairness while simultaneously pushing for Sabah and Sarawak to settle for a measly one-third of the seats in the Dewan Negara, the Senate. 

This is no compromise—it is a deliberate Malayan trick to strip us of real power in the Dewan Rakyat, where true legislative authority lies. By relegating us to a token 

presence in the Senate, they ensure that Malaya retains its iron grip on the federal 

government, leaving Sabah and Sarawak as powerless appendages of a 

Peninsula-centric regime. 

Let us be unequivocal: any organization that does not unequivocally support 

Sabah and Sarawak’s rightful claim to 35% of parliamentary seats is an enemy of our people. 

This is not a matter of negotiation or debate—it is a matter of justice, of honouring the sacred promises made before the formation of Malaysia. 

Project SAMA and ROSE, despite their claims of advocating for fairness, plot to keep us subjugated. 

Their refusal to back 35% representation in Dewan Rakyat exposes their true colours. They are not here to uplift Sabah and Sarawak; they are here to 

ensure we remain colonies, stripped of influence and chained to Malayan 

interests. 

Most disgraceful of all is the role of ROSE, a Kuching-based organization 

that has betrayed its own people. ROSE, led by misguided Sarawakians, has 

become a willing accomplice in BERSIH’s schemes, acting as a comprador for Malayan interests. Their betrayal cuts deep, selling out Sarawak’s future for a 

pat on the back from their Malayan overlords. They received direct funding from Malaya for their work. 

A glaring example of their duplicity occurred on 21 Sept, when 

ROSE organised for Professor Andrew Harding to speak in Kuching. What should have been an opportunity for open dialogue was instead a carefully controlled farce. 

Sarawakian participants were silenced, their questions censored. Simple, 

critical inquiries—such as “Is MA63 valid?” and “Can Sarawak leave the Malaysian federation?”—were blocked 

outright. This is not democracy; this is suppression masquerading as discourse. 

The fact that ROSE and its allies refuse to engage with these fundamental questions reveals their true allegiance: they are agents of Malaya. 

Read: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16Jndmgvxy/

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Fqj7Uz9gb/

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/15bkd2So4Z/

Make no mistake—ROSE is the classic “running dogs” of Malayan colonialism, 

cloaking their treachery in the language of reform and equality. Their talk of “one-

man, one-vote” is a hollow slogan, a distraction from their real goal: to maintain the status quo where Malaya reigns supreme.

 If they were truly committed to the spirit of MA63 and the empowerment of Sabah and Sarawak, they would be fighting tooth and nail for our 35% parliamentary representation. Instead, they offer crumbs in the form of Senate seats, hoping we will be naive enough to accept this insult as progress. 

We are not so easily deceived. They are a clear and present danger to our sovereignty, our identity, and our future. We must reject their influence and rally together to demand what is rightfully ours: 35% of parliamentary seats. 

To every Sabahan and Sarawakian reading this: stand firm, stay vigilant, and do not fall for the honeyed words of these Malayan puppets. Project SAMA and ROSE may operate under the guise of local advocacy, but their loyalty lies 

with BERSIH and the Malayan elite. 

They are not here to liberate us; they are 

here to chain us. Let us unite in defiance of their betrayal and fight for the 

full restoration of our rights under MA63. 

The future of Sabah and Sarawak 

depends on it. We will not be silenced, we will not be sidelined, and we will not be 

colonies any longer. 

Issued by: 

The Real Patriots of Sabah and Sarawak

The mystery of Sabah's state religion

The Mystery of Sabah’s State Religion: A Wake Up Call for Sarawak

📜 The Original Promise: No State Religion

In 1963, Point 1 of the 20 Point Agreement clearly stated: “There should be no state religion in Sabah.” This was a key condition for Sabah joining Malaysia to protect religious freedom and prevent religion from being politicized.

🔧 Silent Constitutional Change: No Referendum, No Coverage

Yet by 1973, Sabah’s constitution was quietly amended to make Islam the official state religion, without any referendum, public debate, or significant media coverage. Sabah lost its secular status in silence.

🤝 Who Benefited? Who Betrayed Sabah?

The masterminds were Sabahan parties aligned with West Malaysian UMNO, who traded Sabah’s secular constitution for political power and funding. Some say this was the start of a cultural conquest.

🧪 Sabah Was the Testbed Sarawak Is the Target

Conspiracy theorists argue: Sabah was just the testing ground; the real prize is Sarawak, where religious freedom is stronger. Today, similar patterns are emerging in Sarawak:

 • Public buildings adopting mosque-like architecture

 • Official events beginning with Islamic prayers

 • Education system increasingly reflecting West Malaysian norms

 • Non-Muslims gradually excluded from core decision-making

Sarawak is retracing Sabah’s steps only decades later.

A Rebuttal to the validity of MA63

https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/6209/ma63-fatigue-scepticism-and-cynicism/

A Rebuttal to the Naiveté on MA63: 

*THE LEGAL FICTION AND THE DENIAL OF SELF-DETERMINATION*

*A REBUTTAL TO THE ROMANTICISED MA63 NARRATIVE: DECONSTRUCTING THE "PARTNERSHIP" MYTH*

The perspective that laments "MA63 fatigue" while clinging to a romanticised view of the Agreement's origins—that it was a "negotiated arrangement premised on mutual respect" between "equal partners"—fails to engage with the overwhelming historical and legal record. This view, as expressed by commentators like Roger Chin, is not just optimistic; it is fundamentally ahistorical, flawed and ignores the deliberate colonial machinations that engineered Malaysia's formation.

The article's lament about "MA63 fatigue" is undercut by its own uncritical adoption of the very idealised language that causes this disillusionment. Phrases like “A Partnership That Was Meant to Be Equal” and “The Malaysia Agreement was intended to reflect that foundational understanding—that these were equal partners, not appendages” are not historical facts; they are a political narrative designed to cover up a deeply flawed and coercive process.

A critical examination of the historical record reveals this "partnership" to be a legal fiction, forced upon the people of Sabah and Sarawak without their sovereign consent.

*1. The Fiction of Negotiation and the Reality of Colonial Imposition*

The central pillar of this romanticised narrative of a "carefully negotiated" arrangement between equal partners collapses under the simplest scrutiny: *who, exactly, negotiated and signed the agreement?* 

The undeniable historical fact is that no elected representatives of North Borneo or Sarawak were involved in the core discussions with the British and Malayan governments from 1958 onwards. The negotiations were conducted by British colonial officials. The signatories for the Borneo territories were not leaders with a popular mandate but the colonial Attorney-Generals, W.K.H. Jones (North Borneo) and P.E.H. Pike (Sarawak), acting alongside British-appointed nominees.

*2. An Agreement Void from the Beginning (Void Ab Initio)*

On July 9, 1963, Sarawak and North Borneo were British Crown Colonies, not sovereign states. Under international law (as reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) and British constitutional law (the Statute of Westminster 1931), colonies lack the legal capacity to enter into treaties. 

This was not a mystery; internal British communications, including from Attorney-General Pike himself, reveal they were acutely aware of this fatal legal flaw. Pike explicitly advised that including the colonies as signatories was invalid but should be done for “presentational purposes.” This admission transforms MA63 from a treaty into a deliberate misrepresentation—a document designed to create the illusion of partnership to legitimise a colonial handover.

*3. The Brutal Denial of Self-Determination*

This process constituted a blatant violation of the inalienable right to self-determination under UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 and 1541, which guaranteed non-self-governing territories a free and fair vote on their political future. 

The people of Sabah and Sarawak were systematically denied a referendum. Instead, the process was rushed under a climate of fear following the armed Brunei Uprising in December 1962, which was met with emergency laws, mass arrests, and detention without trial. This was not negotiation; it was annexation under duress.

*Conclusion: Fatigue from Gaslighting, Not Broken Promises*

Therefore, the profound "fatigue, scepticism and cynicism" is profoundly misunderstood by the article. It is not simply a modern ailment born of promises being broken today. It is the exhaustion that comes from six decades of being told a fairy tale—of a "carefully negotiated" "equal partnership"—that the foundational evidence categorically disproves.

The fatigue is a rational response to a sustained gaslighting campaign that uses flowery language like “equal partners, not appendages” to whitewash a historical reality where the people were never treated as partners, but as colonial assets to be transferred. The scepticism is not cynicism; it is the justified intellectual position of those who have chosen to examine the evidence over repeating the myth.

Abdullah Badawi gave away Sarawk oil blocks to Brunei

Badawi Is Dead But Never Forget He Gave Away Sarawak's Oil Blocks To Brunei WIthout Sarawak's Permission

Malaysia’s Costly Concession: The 2009 Brunei Deal and the Loss of Sarawak’s Oil Wealth

In March 2009, Malaysia, under then-Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, signed a secretive agreement with Brunei that critics argue ranks among the nation’s most egregious diplomatic blunders. The Exchange of Letters, as it’s euphemistically called, resolved a decades-long territorial dispute over Limbang and offshore oil blocks in the South China Sea—but at what cost? According to detractors, Malaysia handed Brunei sovereignty over two immensely valuable oil blocks, known as L and M (now Brunei’s CA1 and CA2), in a deal so lopsided it’s tantamount to giving away Sarawak’s economic future for a pittance. Assuming the worst-case scenario, the numbers are staggering, and the fallout continues to haunt Malaysia’s credibility and prosperity.

The Deal: A Faustian Bargain

The 2009 agreement was sold as a diplomatic triumph, ostensibly securing Limbang—a Sarawak district Brunei historically claimed—while granting Malaysia a 40-year commercial stake in the disputed oil blocks. But critics, led by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, cried foul, accusing Badawi of surrendering Malaysia’s sovereign rights over blocks L and M, which they claim held reserves worth hundreds of billions. The lack of transparency fueled suspicion: the letters’ details were never fully disclosed, and the public learned of the deal’s scope only when Murphy Oil, a U.S. firm with contracts for the blocks, announced their termination in 2010, stating the areas were “no longer part of Malaysia.”

Why the secrecy? Critics argue Badawi’s administration knew the deal was indefensible. By ceding sovereignty, Malaysia relinquished control over resources that could have transformed Sarawak and the nation. The joint development arrangement with Petronas, Malaysia’s state oil firm, was a weak consolation—Brunei now calls the shots, and Malaysia’s share is a fraction of what full ownership would have yielded. Limbang, a small district with limited economic potential, was hardly worth the trade. Some even question whether Brunei explicitly dropped its claim, as Brunei’s Foreign Minister later suggested Limbang wasn’t discussed, casting doubt on Malaysia’s supposed gains.

The Staggering Value Lost

Let’s assume the worst, as critics have long feared: blocks L and M were a treasure trove of oil and gas, and Malaysia’s concession was a catastrophic miscalculation. In 2010, analysts speculated block L alone could produce 150,000–200,000 barrels per day (bpd), potentially doubling Brunei’s output at the time. Combined with block M, estimates suggested reserves of 500 million to 1 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), possibly more, given nearby fields like Kikeh, which boasted 400–700 million barrels. Fast-forward to 2025, with Brent crude hovering at $80–$90 per barrel, the gross value of 1 billion BOE could exceed $80–90 billion. Gas, a significant component, adds further billions at $5–$7 per million Btu.

Since 2009, Brunei has quietly developed these blocks with partners like Total and Shell. Assuming production began around 2013–2015 and ramped up to 50,000–100,000 bpd by 2025 (a conservative worst-case estimate), the blocks may have already yielded 200–400 million BOE. At $80 per barrel, that’s $16–$32 billion in gross revenue—revenue Malaysia could have claimed outright. Instead, Petronas scrambles for a minority share, perhaps 20–30%, leaving Malaysia with crumbs: maybe $3–$9 billion over a decade, minus hefty costs and taxes. Over the 40-year agreement, critics warn, Malaysia’s total take might not exceed $20–$30 billion, while Brunei reaps $50–$100 billion or more. Mahathir’s claim of a RM320 billion (USD100 billion) loss, once dismissed as hyperbole, looks chillingly plausible in this light.

Production: Brunei’s Gain, Malaysia’s Pain

Brunei’s reticence about CA1 and CA2’s output only deepens suspicions. Unlike Malaysia, which publishes Petronas reports, Brunei releases vague national figures. In 2022, Brunei’s oil and gas exports were $2.1 billion, with CA1 and CA2 likely contributing significantly since exploration resumed post-2009. If each block produces 25,000–50,000 bpd (a reasonable worst-case guess), that’s 18–36 million barrels annually combined. Over 10 years, 180–360 million barrels at $80 yields $14–$29 billion already pocketed by Brunei and its partners. Malaysia’s cut, filtered through Petronas’ diluted stake, might be $2–$8 billion—peanuts compared to full ownership.

Gas adds insult to injury. CA1’s Maharaja Lela field, for instance, is rumored to be gas-heavy, feeding Brunei’s LNG exports (90 cargoes daily). If CA1/CA2 supply 20–30% of Brunei’s gas, that’s billions more in revenue Malaysia could have tapped. Instead, Petronas plays second fiddle, its profits siphoned off by Brunei’s sovereignty and foreign operators like Total. Critics argue this is a slow bleed: every barrel and cubic foot extracted enriches Brunei while Malaysia watches from the sidelines, locked into a deal that prioritizes diplomacy over dollars.

Why It Hurts: Sarawak’s Betrayal

For Sarawakians, the deal stings deepest. Blocks L and M lie off their coast, yet Sarawak sees little benefit. Malaysia’s federal structure funnels oil revenue to Putrajaya and Petronas, not the state. Had Malaysia retained sovereignty, Sarawak could have pushed for a bigger share, boosting local development. Instead, the 2009 deal feels like a double betrayal: Kuala Lumpur gave away Sarawak’s wealth, and Sarawakians got no say. Critics point to Badawi’s haste—signed weeks before his resignation—as evidence of political expediency, perhaps to burnish his legacy or placate Brunei at Malaysia’s expense.

The Limbang argument falls flat. Valued at $1–$2 billion in land and resources, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the blocks’ potential. Even if Brunei’s claim was weak (historical records suggest it was), Malaysia could have negotiated harder or pursued arbitration, as it did successfully against Indonesia over Sipadan and Ligitan in 2002. Instead, Badawi’s team folded, leaving critics to speculate about incompetence—or worse, hidden motives. Was pressure from foreign oil firms or geopolitical players a factor? The secrecy invites such questions, unanswered to this day.

A Legacy of Regret

Assuming the worst, the 2009 deal is a wound that festers. Brunei, a tiny sultanate, gained a windfall that could sustain its economy for decades, while Malaysia forfeited a resource base that could have funded schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. Petronas’ commercial stake is a bandage on a gaping hole—Malaysia trades sovereignty for scraps, reliant on Brunei’s goodwill and foreign operators’ terms. By 2049, when the 40-year deal expires, the blocks may be depleted, leaving Malaysia with nothing but regret.

Critics like Mahathir were right to sound the alarm: the deal was a giveaway, cloaked in diplomatic platitudes. The lack of public debate, the rushed timing, and the murky terms scream mismanagement. Sarawakians, especially, deserve answers—why was their birthright bartered so cheaply? As Brunei drills and prospers, Malaysia counts the cost of a decision that, in the worst light, traded a fortune for fleeting goodwill. The numbers don’t lie: up to $100 billion lost, and counting. For a nation that prides itself on sovereignty, this was a surrender history won’t forgive.