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.

William Goode 1962 Letter on Malaysia

WILLIAM GOODE’S 1962 LETTER ON MALAYSIA

WHY WAS IT REALLY SAYING?

The 1962 letter by Sir William Goode, then Governor of British North Borneo, provides a revealing snapshot of British colonial thinking in the lead-up to the Malaysia project. While he expresses concern about North Borneo’s unreadiness and the potential dangers of rushing Malaysia, his argument is ultimately shaped by a deeply colonial and strategic calculus—not a principled commitment to self-determination. Below is a critical analysis of his position, highlighting key flaws and contradictions:

🔍 1. Lip Service to Self-Determination, But No Real Commitment

Goode acknowledges that the Malaysia proposal came as a shock to the people of North Borneo and that they were focused on domestic development with “no wish for change.” This is a clear admission that the people had neither expressed desire for Malaysia nor participated in its conception. Yet despite this, Goode treats Malaysia’s formation as inevitable, implying that the real issue is timing, not consent.

🔴 Flaw: Goode sidesteps the legal obligation under UNGA Resolution 1541 (XV) Principle IX, which requires a genuine act of self-determination—not just “preparation” for absorption into another country.

🔍 2. “Delay to Prepare” as a Colonial Smokescreen

He calls for a delay of several years to build institutions and political leadership before implementing Malaysia. This appears reasonable on the surface. However, his version of “preparation” is highly manipulative: it is not about enabling free political development or alternatives like independence, but rather about shaping local leadership to conform to pre-agreed Malaysia terms.

🔴 Flaw: This exposes the British strategy of manufacturing consent—deliberately building a class of elites who would eventually “agree” to Malaysia, while foreclosing meaningful alternatives, such as independence or UN-supervised referendum.

🔍 3. Admits Communism Was Not a Real Threat in North Borneo

Goode admits that Communists had no real foothold in North Borneo due to the absence of class struggle, trade unions, or anti-colonial movements. Yet later, he still parrots the anti-Communist rationale for Malaysia as necessary to counter Communist threats—particularly in Singapore.

🔴 Flaw: This contradiction undermines the entire security rationale for Malaysia. If North Borneo was politically dormant and not threatened by Communism, then its inclusion in Malaysia to counter Communism in Singapore was wholly unjustified.

🔍 4. Confession That Malaysia Was Driven by Singapore’s Political Crisis

He openly admits that the urgent push for Malaysia was due to internal political problems in Singapore, especially fears that Lee Kuan Yew’s government might fall to the Communist-linked Barisan Sosialis. Goode explains that the Tunku needed Borneo's inclusion as a “cover” to push merger with Singapore past domestic Malay resistance.

🔴 Flaw: This is a damning admission. It confirms that North Borneo (and Sarawak) were used as geopolitical pawns to resolve a Malayan and British dilemma over Singapore. It also violates the principle of equal partnership, as the Borneo territories were merely tools to enable a pre-planned outcome.

🔍 5. Manipulative View of Political Development

Goode is explicit that North Borneo's political leaders should not be given powers they would not retain under Malaysia. He proposes a controlled political transition, tightly circumscribed within a federal structure already drafted in advance.

🔴 Flaw: This reveals a profoundly anti-democratic mindset. Political development was not to be organic or representative, but rather engineered to ensure alignment with the federal blueprint—a blueprint never subjected to popular vote or referendum in North Borneo.

🔍 6. Complete Absence of Legal Basis for Federation

Goode makes no reference to any binding international legal framework (e.g., UN-supervised referendum, plebiscite, or treaty ratified by a self-governing people). The entire conversation is framed in administrative and strategic terms, not legal or human rights terms.

🔴 Flaw: His silence on UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and international norms for decolonisation shows that British colonial authorities were acting in breach of international law—effectively engineering a disguised transfer of colonial authority from London to Kuala Lumpur.

🔍 7. Brunei’s Opposition as a Red Flag

He notes that Azahari had mobilised Bruneian public opinion against Malaysia, and that the Sultan was hesitant to proceed. The Brunei Revolt (December 1962) occurred just months after this letter, showing that Goode vastly underestimated the depth of opposition to Malaysia in Borneo.

🔴 Flaw: This weakens the claim that there was widespread support for Malaysia, and highlights that British assessments were flawed, dismissive, or politically biased. Brunei’s rejection of Malaysia also invalidates claims of a unified regional desire for federation.

🔍 8. No Reference to the Manila Accord (1963)

The letter pre-dates the Manila Accord (July 1963), but it reveals that British policy was already moving ahead without safeguards for self-determination. When the Manila Accord later called for the “free and voluntary expression of the will of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak,” it was reactive, not proactive—a diplomatic cover for an already illegitimate process.

🔴 Flaw: The failure to build in genuine mechanisms for consent—such as a referendum—before negotiating federation terms, is a core violation of international treaty law and decolonisation norms.

✅ Conclusion

Sir William Goode’s letter is important not for what it argues, but for what it reveals:

    • That Malaysia was not a popular demand, but a British–Malayan geopolitical construct to stabilise Singapore and contain Communism.

    • That self-determination was never truly on the table for North Borneo.

    • That the process was guided by colonial manipulation, not democratic consent.

His call for a “transition period” masks a deeper strategy: to prepare the territory not for freedom, but for controlled absorption. Goode’s letter is, ultimately, an early exposé of the illegitimacy of the Malaysia formation process—and provides powerful evidence for legal and moral claims for Sabah and Sarawak’s right to self-determination today.

砂拉越有权独立吗？

各位砂拉越的同胞们，大家好。

SLM：脱马无罪 独立有理

砂拉越有权力独立吗？有或没有

大家知道马来西亚联邦是由砂拉越，沙巴，新加坡和马来亚签署一份国际协议叫马来西亚协议/MA63。 马来亚是一个独立国家然而砂拉越，沙巴和新加坡是还没独立的国家。 因此这砂拉越，沙巴和新加坡根本没有法定资格签署国际协议。 （1） 

在1965年，新加坡退出而独立去了。 （2）

马来西亚就是马来亚的更名。MA63协议延迟到1970年才在联合国登记这是违反联合国宪法。（3）

砂沙参组马联邦60多年，可是马来亚以马联邦的名义不间断的掠夺，剥削，打压，镇压，抢劫，霸凌和殖民咱们。

他们完全不按照MA63条约执行对砂沙任务。所以，今天，咱们看到的实相是马半岛不断的进步和繁荣，但是他们的进步和繁荣是建立在砂沙的贫穷上。 就这一重点已经足够让这协议无效。（4）

更不用说他们把MA63修改了600多次。这是国际协议，哪里可以由马来亚为主的政府如此任意修改。这是另一个因素让这协议无效。（5）

MA63完全是英国政府以马来亚为中心的策划根本就违法联合国在1960年12月14日大会通过【去殖民化宣言】1514号决议的自决权和1541号决议的集体决定权的国际法。

完全不给砂沙人民公投下，把这两家殖民地强硬的加入马来亚来扩展该国的土地，完全违反联合国【去殖民化宣言】的宪章。 （6）

在MA63条款中，没有限定砂沙退出马联邦。因此，砂沙人民有1514和1541或1441决定权退出。 （7）

Does Sarawak have the right to be independent? Yes or No

As we all know that the Malaysia Agreement/MA63 is an international agreement signed by Sarawak, Sabah, Singapore (SSS) and Malaya when Malaya was an independent country whereas SSS were not yet independent to have the locus standi to sign the treaty. (1)

In 1965, when Singapore withdrew, it also rendered MA63 void. （2）

MA63 was only registered with the United Nations in 1970 and thus they violated the United Nations Constitution. (3)

For over 60 years in the Malaysia Federation (Malaya in disguise), Sarawak and Sabah have continuously been plundered, exploited, oppressed, suppressed, robbed, bullied and colonised.

The Federal government did not act in accordance with the MA63 treaty at all. Thus, we only see the progress and prosperity of Malaya at the expense of the poverty of Sarawak and Sabah, which is enough to invalidate the agreement. (4)

The modification of MA63 over 600 times by the Malayan-dominated government is another factor rendering this agreement invalid. (5)

MA63 is a Malaya-centred plan by the British government and fundamentally violates the international law of the right to self-determination 1514 and the right to collective determination 1541 of the [Declaration of Decolonisation] adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14/12/1960.

Without giving Sabahans and Sarawakians a referendum, the two colonies were forcefully added to Malaya to expand its territory as against the Charter of Declaration of Decolonization of the United Nations (6)

In the terms of MA63, there is no restriction on Sabah and Sarawak withdrawing from the Malaysia Federation. Therefore, Sabahans and Sarawakians have the 1514 and 1541 or 1441 decision to withdraw. (7)

Adakah Sarawak mempunyai hak untuk merdeka? Ya atau tidak

Seperti yang kita sedia maklum bahawa Perjanjian Malaysia/MA63 adalah perjanjian antarabangsa yang ditandatangani oleh Sarawak, Sabah, Singapura (SSS) dan Malaya semasa Malaya adalah sebuah negara merdeka sedangkan SSS belum lagi merdeka untuk mempunyai locus standi untuk menandatangani perjanjian tersebut. (1)

Pada tahun 1965, apabila Singapura menarik diri, ia juga menjadikan MA63 tidak sah. （2）

MA63 hanya didaftarkan dengan UN sehingga 1970 dan dengan itu mereka melanggar Perlembagaan UN. (3)

Selama lebih 60 tahun dalam Malaysia (Malaya berselindung), Sarawak sentiasa dirompak, dieksploitasi, ditindas, dirompak, dibuli dan dijajah.

Kerajaan Federal sama sekali tidak bertindak mengikut perjanjian MA63. Justeru secara realitinya, kita hanya melihat kemajuan dan kemakmuran Malaya dengan mengorbankan kemiskinan Sarawak dan Sabah, yang sudah cukup untuk membatalkan perjanjian itu. (4)

Pengubahsuaian MA63 lebih 600 kali oleh kerajaan yang dikuasai Malaya merupakan satu lagi faktor yang menyebabkan perjanjian ini tidak sah. (5)

MA63 ialah rancangan berpusatkan Malaya oleh kerajaan British dan secara asasnya melanggar undang-undang antarabangsa hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri 1514 dan hak untuk penentuan kolektif dalam Resolusi 1541 [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi] yang diterima pakai oleh UN pada 14/12/1960.

Tanpa memberikan rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak referendum, kedua-dua jajahan itu telah ditambah secara paksa ke Tanah Melayu untuk meluaskan wilayahnya bertentangan dengan Piagam Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu/UN [Deklarasi Dekolonisasi]. (6)

Dalam terma MA63, tiada sekatan ke atas Sabah dan Sarawak menarik diri daripada Persekutuan Malaysia. Oleh itu, rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak mempunyai keputusan 1514 dan 1541 atau 1441 untuk menarik diri. (7)