Sarawak's rights Not to be Seized...

*Sarawak's Rights Not to be Seized, Not Negotiated, Premier Warns Federation* 

Borneo Herald

8.00AM MYT, 6-12-2025

KUCHING: The Sarawak government insists in the strongest possible terms that every inch of the seabed, subsoil and continental shelf within the state's borders is Sarawak's legitimate right. This right is not the result of current political demands, but a sovereign right guaranteed by law, enshrined in Malaysia's own formation documents.

Sarawak Premier, Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg, reminded the Federation that there is no single clause in MA63 or the Malaysia Act 1963 that grants ownership of Sarawak's continental shelf to the Federal Government.

He stated firmly that any interpretation that attempts to deny Sarawak's rights is against the law, historically wrong, and constitutionally invalid.

"Sarawak's Rights Cannot Be Infringed. Period." Premier

“I repeat: Sarawak’s rights to the continental shelf are absolute, inalienable, and non-negotiable. The seabed and subsoil of this state have been Sarawak’s rights through the Land Code 1958 since Malaysia Day 1963. This is a legal fact, not an opinion,” the Premier stressed.

In his winding up speech at the State Legislative Assembly yesterday, he stressed that:

• Article 2 of the Federal Constitution protects Sarawak’s borders.

• The Federation cannot change the state’s borders without the consent of the State Legislative Assembly.

• Any attempt is considered a serious violation of the constitution.

Continental Shelf Act 2009: Black and White Evidence of Sarawak’s Rights

The amendment to the Continental Shelf Act 2009 confirms that the state has substantive rights to the seabed and subsoil within its borders. This law is aligned with MA63 and the Sarawak State Constitution, thus strengthening the legal position of Sarawak.

“Sarawak has been managing its oil and gas since the British era. This right existed long before the Federation took any role. No one has the right to challenge it in terms of law, they have no locus standi to do so,” explained the Premier.

Article 47(2) of the Sarawak State Constitution which is a legal annex to MA63 details the limits of state power, including the continental shelf.

Challenging Sarawak’s Rights = Violating MA63 + State Constitution + Federal Constitution

The Premier warned that anyone who tries to dispute Sarawak’s rights is directly violating:

1. MA63, the foundation of the formation of Malaysia,

2. Sarawak State Constitution, and

3. Federal Constitution.

He stressed that Sarawak has its own legal authority through:

• Petroleum Mining Ordinance 1958,

• Gas Distribution Ordinance 2016,

which gives Sarawak absolute power to control the exploration and extraction of natural resources within its territory.

“Therefore, every entity, whether GLC company, Federal agency or foreign company, must submit to Sarawak’s laws. State laws cannot be set aside, cannot be trampled upon.”

Sarawak Will Not Give Up – Laws in Side with the State

“Sarawak will not back down even an inch. The rights of this state are not just political demands; these rights are protected by the highest law of the land,” the Premier stressed.

The Premier closed with a stronger statement:

“The sovereignty of Sarawak’s land, resources and continental shelf is a historical right, a legal right and a constitutional right. These rights are not for negotiation, not for questioning, and not for grabs. Sarawak will defend them fully,” he said.

 *Additional* commentary by Dr Kanul Gindol, a veteran observer of State~Federal politics:

Sarawak presented the 2026 Budget of RM12.9 billion, the largest in its history, compared to a revenue of RM13.1 billion.

As a current comparison, the Sarawak Budget is twice as large as the Sabah Budget, and far behind the budgets of the Malayan states which are only around RM600 million (such as Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Perlis) to RM3 billion (Penang RM1 billion, Johor RM2 billion and Selangor RM3 billion).

This means that the 11 state governments in the Peninsula have been too dependent on the Federal Budget for their development. They are the ones who have always taken the rights of Sabah and Sarawak for over 60 years.

Dr Kanul Gindol

This has also resulted in Sabah and Sarawak continuing to lag behind in terms of development. However, Sarawak has managed to take initial steps to close this gap by increasing its revenue through several tax initiatives.

Sarawak is also expected to implement new tax initiatives regarding carbon emissions and pollution. They have enacted legislation on it following the efforts of the Federal Government in this regard.

Sarawak is expected to start collecting revenue from this initiative starting next year 2026.

Sabah has not yet enacted the same law, which means it will lag behind again. That is why Sabah needs a wise leader who is quick to enlist the help of intelligent officials, including the State Attorney.

*砂拉越的权利不可被夺取、不可谈判* —— *总理警告联邦政府* 

《婆罗洲先驱报》（Borneo Herald）

2025年12月6日 上午8时（马来西亚时间）

古晋讯：

砂拉越政府以最强烈措辞重申，凡位于砂拉越州界内的海床、底土及大陆架的每一寸土地，皆是砂拉越合法、正当的权利。这些权利并非源于当前的政治诉求，而是受法律保障、并明确写入马来西亚建国文件中的主权权利。

砂拉越总理丹斯里阿邦佐哈里·敦奥本提醒联邦政府，《1963年马来西亚协议》（MA63）及《1963年马来西亚法令》中，没有任何一项条文将砂拉越大陆架的所有权赋予联邦政府。

他严正指出，任何试图否认砂拉越权利的诠释，既违法、又违背历史事实，同时在宪法上也是无效的。

> “砂拉越的权利不可侵犯。没有讨论余地。”——总理

他强调：

> “我再次重申：砂拉越对大陆架的权利是绝对的、不可剥夺的、不可谈判的。自1963年马来西亚成立以来，砂拉越州内的海床与底土，已根据《1958年土地法典》确立为砂拉越的权利。这是法律事实，而不是个人意见。”

在昨日州议会总结发言中，总理进一步强调：

联邦宪法第2条保障砂拉越的州界；

未经州议会同意，联邦政府无权更改州界；

任何试图更改的行为，皆构成对宪法的严重侵犯。

《2009年大陆架法令》：砂拉越权利的白纸黑字证据

《2009年大陆架法令》的修订，确认砂拉越对州界内海床与底土拥有实质性权利。该法令与MA63及《砂拉越州宪法》相一致，进一步巩固了砂拉越的法律地位。

总理指出：

> “砂拉越自英殖民时期起，便已管理本州的石油与天然气资源。这项权利早于联邦政府的任何角色之前便已存在。任何人都无权在法律上挑战这一点，他们在法律上没有诉讼地位（locus standi）。”

作为MA63法律附件之一的《砂拉越州宪法》第47(2)条，明确列出州权力范围，包括大陆架。

挑战砂拉越权利 = 违反 MA63 + 州宪法 + 联邦宪法

总理警告，任何试图质疑砂拉越权利者，等同直接违反：

1. 《1963年马来西亚协议》（MA63），即马来西亚建国基础；

2. 《砂拉越州宪法》；

3. 《联邦宪法》。

他强调，砂拉越依法拥有自身的法律权力，包括：

《1958年石油采矿条例》；

《2016年天然气分配条例》。

上述法律赋予砂拉越对州内天然资源勘探与开采的完全控制权。

> “因此，任何实体——无论是官联公司、联邦机构或外国公司——都必须遵守砂拉越法律。州法律不能被搁置、不能被践踏。”

砂拉越绝不退让——法律站在砂拉越一方

 *总理重申：* 

> “砂拉越不会退让哪怕一寸。这些权利不仅是政治诉求，而是受到国家最高法律保障的权利。”

他以更强硬的声明作结：

> “砂拉越土地、资源与大陆架的主权，是历史权利、法律权利与宪法权利。这些权利不可谈判、不可质疑、不可被掠夺。砂拉越将全力捍卫。”

 *追加评论* 

资深州—联邦政治观察员 卡努尔·金多博士（Dr Kanul Gindol）

砂拉越于2026年提呈高达129亿令吉的财政预算案，为历来最高，对比州政府收入约131亿令吉。

作为对比，砂拉越的预算规模是沙巴的两倍，也远高于多个半岛州属，其州预算仅约：

6亿令吉左右（如马六甲、森美兰、玻璃市），

至30亿令吉（槟城约10亿、柔佛约20亿、雪兰莪约30亿）。

这显示半岛的11个州政府，长期高度依赖联邦拨款进行发展；过去60多年，正是这些州持续攫取了沙巴与砂拉越的权利。

卡努尔博士指出，这种结构性失衡，导致沙巴与砂拉越在发展上长期落后。不过，砂拉越已透过多项税务改革，开始缩小这一差距。

砂拉越也预计将就碳排放与污染推行新的税务措施，并已立法配合联邦在相关领域的努力，预计将于2026年起开始征税。

相较之下，沙巴尚未通过类似法案，意味着将再次落后。因此，沙巴迫切需要一位具远见的领导人，迅速集结包括州检察长在内的专业官员团队，以应对挑战。

The equal partner Myth

The Equal Partner Myth — And the Truth Malaysia Has Spent 60 Years Avoiding

https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/6412/not-just-equal-partners-but-protected/

For much of our post-Malaysia history, Sabahans and Sarawakians have been encouraged to accept a version of events that sits uneasily beside the documents and negotiations that shaped this federation. After 1963, we were not treated as equal partners at all; instead, Sabah and Sarawak were gradually downgraded and reclassified as if they were merely two of the states within Malaya’s existing structure. The historical reality of how Malaysia was built — and the constitutional protections promised to the Bornean territories — was pushed aside, while the public was told that our grievances were emotional rather than structural. Only in recent years, after decades of erosion, did the federal government amend the Constitution’s wording to once again acknowledge Sabah and Sarawak as “regions” and “partners,” attempting to restore in language what was long denied in practice. This new phrase, “equal partners,” has since gained political currency, becoming the rallying cry for recognition precisely because it offers dignity without confrontation. Yet its popularity reflects how far we have drifted from the truth: we cling to equality now because the original promise — protection — was taken from us.

The truth, when we finally choose to confront it fully, is fundamentally incompatible with this modern narrative. Sabah and Sarawak were never meant to be equal to Malaya’s states. They were not expected to surrender their distinct circumstances, nor were they intended to blend seamlessly into the framework of the existing Malayan federation. Malaysia, as negotiated between 1961 and 1963, was built on the recognition that Sabah and Sarawak were joining a political structure shaped by a much larger and more established partner. Equality would not have protected them. A carefully constructed imbalance was necessary. And that imbalance — entrenched in constitutional text and preserved in historical record — remains one of the most misunderstood truths of Malaysian nationhood.

How Malaysia Actually Began - A Union of Unequal Realities

When the Malaysia proposal was first raised, the Federation of Malaya was already a sovereign state with institutions, civil services, political parties, and a unified constitutional framework. Sabah and Sarawak, still under British rule, were in an entirely different position. They were diverse territories, administratively distinct, culturally rich, but politically young and vulnerable.

The British understood this. Malaya understood this. And the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak understood it most acutely, because they were being asked to join a federation whose political centre of gravity was firmly located in the Peninsula. This imbalance in size, power, and political maturity was so significant that the British insisted on the Cobbold Commission to test whether Malaysia could even be contemplated without jeopardising stability in North Borneo and Sarawak.

The Commission did not find blind enthusiasm; it found conditional acceptance. Yes, there was support — but it was support shaped by historical memory, caution, and fear of domination. Many worried openly that Malaysia might reproduce the patterns of colonial rule under a new name. The Commission acknowledged these anxieties fully. It concluded that Malaysia would only be acceptable if adequate safeguards were included to prevent Malaya from overshadowing the two territories. This was the first formal recognition that Sabah and Sarawak could not enter Malaysia on equal footing with Malaya’s states.

The IGC and the Hidden Architecture of Protection

The Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC), convened after the Cobbold Report, did not pretend that Sabah and Sarawak could be treated like Malayan states. Its members were explicit - the two Bornean territories required constitutional protections that reflected not only their cultural and religious differences, but also their political vulnerability. Malaya was a single federation with a unified political will. Sabah and Sarawak were separate territories negotiating their entry into that federation from a position of comparative weakness.

The IGC therefore designed a constitutional structure that was deliberately asymmetrical. It entrenched immigration control, protected the use of English, recognised native law and customs, vested land and resource authority in the states, provided for fiscal arrangements distinct from Malaya, and ensured a separate High Court for the Bornean territories. These were not symbolic concessions. They were safeguards carved into the federation because without them Malaysia would not have been viable.

The IGC’s work was not guided by the principle of equality. It was guided by the principle of protection.

The 20 Points - A Territory’s Attempt to Secure Its Future

Sabah’s 20-Point Agreement (and Sarawak’s 18-Point Agreement) made explicit what the IGC then translated into constitutional language. These documents were not declarations of parity with Malaya; they were statements of what the Bornean territories required in order to accept the federation. Their focus was not on status but on security — religious freedom, language rights, immigration control, education autonomy, native protections, and financial safeguards. They were written from the perspective of communities fully aware of how easily smaller territories can be submerged by larger ones.

The Points did not speak in the language of equals. They spoke in the language of survival.

The Constitutional Record - A Federation That Entrenched Asymmetry

The culmination of these negotiations was a constitutional structure that placed Sabah and Sarawak in a legally distinct category. Their autonomy was entrenched across multiple domains — land, resources, immigration, language, religion, native law, and judicial structure. Their financial arrangements differed from those in Malaya. Their court system operated under a separate High Court. Their guarantees were not intended to fade over time. They were intended to define the federation permanently.

But nowhere is this protective design clearer than in Article 161E.

Article 161E - The Constitutional Shield That Exposes the Equal Partner Myth

Article 161E places a special brake on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution in relation to Sabah and Sarawak. For a defined list of matters – including the citizenship position of those connected to the State before Malaysia Day, the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and the tenure of its judges, the distribution of legislative and executive powers and the financial arrangements that go with them, and the provisions on religion, language and the special treatment of natives – no amendment can take effect unless the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of the State concerned formally concurs. The amendments must still clear the usual constitutional threshold of a two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament, but they cannot proceed at all without the consent of the Head of State. Historically, even Sabah and Sarawak’s initial allocation of seats in Parliament was guarded in this way in the early years after Malaysia was formed. The result is not equality but something more demanding - a structure in which the constitutional position of Sabah and Sarawak cannot be altered by federal power acting alone.

This is the heart of the matter - the Constitution itself distinguishes Sabah and Sarawak from Malaya’s states. The framers did not entrust the future of these territories to federal goodwill. They entrenched a mechanism that recognised the risk of domination and sought to guard against it. If Malaysia had been built by equal partners, such a provision would have been unnecessary.

Its very existence makes the “equal partner” slogan crumble.

How Protection Was Lost — And How a Half-Truth Replaced It

Over the decades, political practice diverged from constitutional intention. Emergency powers, centralisation, and political compliance all contributed to the erosion of safeguards that were meant to be permanent. None of this happened because the Constitution failed. It happened because those entrusted to defend Sabah and Sarawak chose silence or convenience over principle. As federal dominance expanded, the original arrangement faded from public consciousness.

In this vacuum, the “equal partner” narrative grew. It was a polite way of asserting dignity without reopening uncomfortable historical truths. But it was also a half-truth — easier to say, less confrontational, and more acceptable to a political environment that resisted acknowledging the asymmetrical nature of Malaysia’s foundation.

Yet half-truths have consequences. They weaken the real argument. They concede too much before the debate even begins.

The Truth Malaysia Must Now Confront

If Malaysia is to honour the compact that created it, then we must speak plainly. Sabah and Sarawak were never intended to be equal to Malaya’s states. They were intended to be distinct — constitutionally, administratively, politically, and culturally. They were intended to be protected, not assimilated. Their autonomy was not a courtesy; it was a condition. Their safeguards were not ornamental; they were fundamental. Their consent was not optional; it was indispensable.

In constitutional terms, Sabah and Sarawak were never meant to be merely equal partners; they were meant to hold a position beyond equality, protected by safeguards that reflected their distinct circumstances and insulated them from the overwhelming weight of Malaya. This is the truth at the heart of the Malaysia that was negotiated, and it is a truth the country has spent sixty years avoiding.

The promise made in 1963 was not a promise of equality. It was a promise of protection — a promise written into the constitutional text, reflected in the IGC Report, demanded in the 20 Points, and justified by the realities the Cobbold Commission exposed. It is a promise Malaysia has avoided for decades, but a nation cannot outrun its own foundation forever.

Sabah and Sarawak were not equal partners. They were protected partners. And until Malaysia confronts this truth honestly and fully, the federation will continue to bear the weight of a bargain half-remembered and half-kept.

The time for half-truths is over. The record speaks for itself. The Constitution speaks for itself.

And the country must finally listen.

艾德娜挺身捍卫沙巴自主权

艾德娜·杰西卡·马金本挺身捍卫沙砂完整主权——何来“狭隘政治”？

（余清禄 11-12-2025）

     沙巴前亚庇县长、民兴党（Warisan）下南南区的沙巴立法州席候选人艾德娜·杰西卡·马金本（Edna Jessica Majimbun），11月21日在《婆罗洲先驱报》上严厉批评沙烈赛益克鲁亚克，把沙巴人民要求由本地政党组成政府称为“狭隘政治”，引起高度关注。艾德娜指出，这种论调不仅背离《1963年马来西亚协议》（MA63）的立国精神，更延续了数十年来“马来亚中心主义”主导沙砂命运的框架。她的发言之所以引起共鸣，是因为它切中沙巴与砂拉越人民长期感受到的压抑、失衡与被掏空的现实。【 注∶ 这位前沙巴亚庇县县长，29/11/202出征立法议会胜选，现在是现任下南南区的民兴党沙巴立法议员】

（一）、历史与法理：沙砂不是“州属”，而是“立国伙伴”

     当马来亚、沙巴、砂拉越与新加坡在1963年一同建立“马来西亚”时，其法律基础不是“加入马来亚”，而是依据《马来西亚协议》（MA63）、《婆罗洲邦建国报告》（IGC Report）与联合国决议所成立的邦联性质政治实体。

     因此，沙巴与砂拉越的地位在法理上应是与马来亚平行，而非从属。

关键法理包括：

（1）MA63 明确给予沙砂高度自治权与保障，包含：

财政自主（包括40%净税收返还）

土地与自然资源绝对管辖权

教育、移民、地方政府的州权

宗教自由与文化保护

（2）《联邦宪法》第112C、112D 明确保障沙巴的 40%净税收返还权。这不是“谈判”所得，而是宪法赋权。

（3）石油与天然气属于州资源，是沙砂原本的天然权利

     直到1974年的《石油发展法》（PDA74）强行把所有石油专属权交给国油（Petronas）。但许多法学者指出：

     PDA74 从未经过沙巴与砂拉越州议会批准，因此存有违宪争议。

     也就是说，沙砂人民捍卫自治，不仅非“狭隘”，更是恢复法定权利。

（二）、资源与财政被掏空的真实损失

     沙巴与砂拉越拥有马来西亚最多的天然资源，却长期是最贫穷的地区之一。这并非巧合，而是结构性财政掠夺所造成。

     （1）石油资源被抽走的巨大损失

     ① 以砂拉越为例：

砂拉越石油产量占马来西亚 约30%～40%

但根据PDA74，砂拉越仅能获得 5%石油开采税（royalty）

     ② 对比国际标准：

1. 加拿大油砂区返还率：约 35%～50%

2. 印度尼西亚：约 15%～25%

3. 挪威：超过 70%（含税与主权基金）

     若以过去 50年平均贡献约每年400亿令吉石油总值 来计算，砂拉越至少损失：每年超过100亿令吉、50年累计超过5000亿令吉的资源收入

     沙巴亦遭遇相似命运，被迫依赖联邦拨款，却牺牲发展能力。

     （2）沙巴40%净税收返还被拖欠超过半世纪

     根据联邦审计数据与经济分析，若沙巴自1974年以来能获得宪法保障的40%返还： 沙巴平均每年可获得 30～50亿令吉。50年累计应超过 1500～2000亿令吉

     但实情是： 这笔钱几乎从未按宪法和承诺返还。

     这才是沙巴贫穷的根本原因，而非人民“懒惰”，更不是地方政党能力不足。

     （3）基础建设被延宕，经济落后成为必然

     ① 沙巴与砂拉越至今仍缺乏全面高速公路

     ② 沙巴医疗、学校、道路与水供长期不足

     ③ 沙巴电力不稳定问题困扰工业发展

     ④ 人均收入长期低于全国平均约 40%

     这些不是地方政府不努力，而是被抽走的资源使地方发展严重受限。

（三）、政治干预造成的长期不稳定

     艾德娜指出的“联邦操控沙砂政治”并非夸大：

     ① 2020年“喜来登政变”波及沙巴，引发州政府更替

     ② 全国政党频繁安插政治代理人

     ③ 外来势力可在数日内改变州政府构成

     ④ 本地需求被忽略，政策以“马来亚视角”制定

     这不是“合作”，而是结构性干预。若沙砂连自身政权都无法自主决定，何来真正的邦联平等？

（四）、连柔佛都追求自治，沙砂人民更有理由坚持主体性

     柔佛王储 TMJ 公开表示：

『 柔佛应效仿砂拉越，不让外来政党主宰本州政治。』

     这是马来半岛最发达州属的声音。

     当连柔佛都认识到“地方主导地方政治”的价值时，沙巴与砂拉越作为国家创始伙伴，更应坚持自治。

（五）、完整自治不是分裂，而是回归建国原点

     沙砂人民追求的不是无缘无故脱离，而是：

① 恢复宪法赋予的权力

② 拥有固有资源主权

③ 自主规划发展

④ 结束半个世纪的结构性财政不公

⑤ 建立与联邦平等的邦联关系

     这正是 1963 年建国时所承诺的。

     最后，我所观察的结论是：沙砂完整自治，是建国承诺的必须回归

     将沙砂人民的正当诉求称为“狭隘政治”，不仅毫无依据，更是一种对历史与宪法的无视或无知。

     艾德娜的声音，不只是政治人物的观点，而是：沙巴与砂拉越人民几十年来被忽视、被掏空、被欺骗、被压制的共同心声。

     一个由沙巴人治理的沙巴、由砂拉越人治理的砂拉越，不是特权，而是 MA63 的核心原则。只有当沙砂真正拥有完整自主权，马来西亚才能回到邦联平等的原点，也才能实现真正的团结、正义与共同进步。

Sarawak alone contributed more than than Peninsula Malaysia

*Sarawak alone contributed more than Peninsular Malaysia*

*KUALA LUMPUR:* Malaysia generated RM775.2 billion in petroleum revenue between 2018 and 2024, according to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said.

Citing data from Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas), she said the amount comprised RM284.8 billion from Peninsular Malaysia, RM205.0 billion from Sabah, and RM285.4 billion from Sarawak.

Over the same period, petroleum investments across Malaysia amounted to RM256 billion, comprising RM86.5 billion from Peninsular Malaysia, RM56.3 billion from Sabah, and RM113.2 billion from Sarawak.

"The overall investment-to-upstream revenue ratio stood at 33 per cent, with Peninsular Malaysia accounting for 30 per cent, Sabah 27 per cent, and Sarawak 40 per cent," she said in a written reply published on Parliament's website today.

She was responding to Mordi Bimol (PH-Mas Gading), who had asked for details on Petronas's annual exploration and production costs for oil and gas operations in each producing state from 2018 to 2024, and the percentage of those costs relative to total revenue. - Bernama

Robert Pei : Anthony Loke

[11/19, 10:23 PM] Robert Pei 律师 澳� � 墨尔本 贝瑞华 Pei律师澳��墨尔本 Robert: *Dear Anthony Loke,*

*Secretary-General, Democratic Action Party*

Your recent rebuke of UPKO President Ewon Benedick was not merely disrespectful — it starkly exposed the colonial relationship that Malayan leaders have imposed on Sabah and Sarawak since the very inception of Malaysia.

Let us speak plainly: Malaysia was not formed through equal partnership. It was constructed and imposed under emergency rule, when both North Borneo and Sarawak were still British colonies with no sovereign capacity, and when Malaya itself was still governed under the remnants of emergency law from the 1948–1960 anti-British independence war. 

Even PM Tunku Abdul Rahman himself declared that if Malaya could “gain independence under a state of emergency,” there was no reason it could not take over North Borneo and Sarawak under similar emergency conditions.

From the very beginning, Sabah and Sarawak were absorbed through coercive legal and administrative pressure — and expected to remain compliant dependencies ever since.

Your remarks unfortunately echoed that deep-rooted colonial dynamic. Sabah and Sarawak have never been treated as equal partners in a federation, but as subordinated territories expected to nod obediently while Putrajaya decides their fate. 

*Your tone was unmistakable: a master correcting a wayward subordinate. This is the condescension Sabahans and Sarawakians have endured for sixty years under Malayan domination.*

One can only imagine the nausea Ewon must have felt — being lectured by the same political class that systematically denied Sabah its historical and constitutional rights, including the 40% net revenue entitlement. Malayan leaders, including those within PH, had no qualms quietly conniving to dilute, defer, or deny Sabah’s rights. 

When Ewon refused to participate in this charade, he did what any leader of integrity should do: he stood up, he spoke out, and he walked away.

That took courage — real courage. Courage to reject the patronising, colonial tone Malayan parties routinely direct at Borneo leaders. Courage to refuse to play the minion. Courage to say no to a federal structure built on exploitation, extraction, and deception dressed up as “federalism.”

*The Prime Minister’s claim that Sabah cannot pursue its 40% entitlement because previous Malayan prime ministers did not activate it is absurd*. 

Sabahans have demanded their rights for decades — but under a system where Malaya alone controls the purse and the power, Sabah receives only what the Malayan elite chooses to give, and only when they choose to give it. This is not federalism. It is colonial rule

*This is not partnership. This is not equality. This is colonial subjugation, pure and simple.*

Your dismissal of Ewon’s stance was therefore not just rude — it was emblematic of a deeper structural arrogance embedded in the Malayan political class. An arrogance that assumes Sabah and Sarawak must always remain compliant, grateful, and silent while their resources are extracted and their rights negotiated away.

*But that era is ending.*

Ewon’s decision marks a line in the sand. Sabahans and Sarawakians are no longer prepared to remain subjugated. They will no longer play the role of obedient provinces in a federation built on emergency rule and broken promises.

*Your remarks simply reaffirm the very issue you refuse to acknowledge.*

[11/19, 10:23 PM] Robert Pei 律师 澳� � 墨尔本 贝瑞华 Pei律师澳��墨尔本 Robert: 尊敬的陆兆福先生：

民主行动党秘书长

您最近对沙巴团结党主席伊旺·贝内迪克的斥责并非仅仅是不尊重——它赤裸裸地揭露了马来亚领导人自马来西亚建国之初就强加给沙巴和砂拉越的殖民关系。

让我们直言不讳：马来西亚并非通过平等伙伴关系建立起来的。它是在紧急状态统治下构建和强加的，当时北婆罗洲和砂拉越仍是英国殖民地，没有主权，而马来亚本身也仍在1948年至1960年反英独立战争遗留的紧急状态法的约束下进行统治。

甚至连首相东姑阿都拉曼本人也宣称，如果马来亚能够在“紧急状态下获得独立”，那么它也没有理由不能在类似的紧急状态下接管北婆罗洲和砂拉越。

从一开始，沙巴和砂拉越就被强加于马来亚，遭受了法律和行政上的强制压迫——并被期望从此永远保持顺从的附属地位。

不幸的是，你的言论恰恰反映了这种根深蒂固的殖民主义思维。沙巴和砂拉越从未在联邦中被视为平等伙伴，而是被当作附属领土，任由布城（Putrajaya，马来西亚首都）决定其命运，并被要求唯唯诺诺。

你的语气清晰可辨：一位主人正在纠正一位不听话的下属。这正是沙巴人和砂拉越人在马来亚统治下六十年来所遭受的居高临下的对待。

人们只能想象埃旺（Ewon）当时的感受——被同一批政治精英教训，而正是他们系统性地剥夺了沙巴的历史和宪法权利，包括40%的净收入份额。马来亚领导人，包括希望联盟（PH）内部的那些人，毫不犹豫地暗中勾结，削弱、拖延甚至剥夺沙巴的权利。

当埃旺拒绝参与这场闹剧时，他做了任何一位正直的领导人都应该做的事：他挺身而出，公开表态，然后毅然离去。

这需要勇气——真正的勇气。这种勇气让他敢于拒绝马来亚各政党惯常对婆罗洲领导人摆出的那种居高临下、殖民主义式的姿态。这种勇气让他敢于拒绝甘愿做附庸。这种勇气让他敢于对建立在剥削、掠夺和欺骗之上，却披着“联邦制”外衣的联邦结构说不。

首相声称沙巴无法争取其40%的应得份额，是因为之前的马来亚首相没有启动这项权利，这种说法荒谬至极。

几十年来，沙巴人民一直在争取他们的权利——但在一个马来亚独揽财政和权力的体制下，沙巴只能得到马来亚精英想要给予的东西，而且只能在他们想要给予的时候才能得到。这不是联邦制，这是殖民统治。

这不是伙伴关系，这不是平等，这是赤裸裸的殖民征服。

因此，你对伊旺立场的漠视不仅无礼，更体现了马来亚政治阶层根深蒂固的傲慢。这种傲慢认为，沙巴和砂拉越必须永远保持顺从、感恩和沉默，任由资源被掠夺，权利被蚕食。

但这样的时代即将终结。

伊旺的决定划下了一条界限。沙巴人和砂拉越人不再甘愿受人奴役。他们不会再扮演一个建立在紧急状态和背信弃义之上的联邦中唯命是从的省份。

你的言论恰恰印证了你拒绝承认的问题。

签署MA63后，结果

*从伦敦签署桌到牢房 林鹏寿家族与砂拉越命运交织* 

——从“诛达行动”到主权回归的再思考

（砂拉越中区友谊协会会务顾问 余清禄　2025年11月12日）

     1963年7月9日，英国人委派林鹏寿以砂拉越华族代表之一的身份，在伦敦签署《马来西亚协议》（MA63），象征着当时上层政治菁英对“平等伙伴”的信念；然而十年后，他却在“诛达行动”（Operation Judas）中被捕，成为殖民阴影下的牺牲者。这一转折，仿佛凝结了砂拉越政治命运的两极——从信任到悲剧，从合併到觉醒。

     从签署桌到牢房

     林鹏寿出身诗巫下游廿四甲坡，为福州移民第二代，长期领导砂拉越华人公会（SCA）。 他是右翼的政治工作者，认为与马来亚联合可换取经济援助与防务保障，是殖民终结后维稳的务实之路，似乎砂拉越、沙巴、新加坡，就此和马来亚进入了“平等伙伴”的历史时刻。

     然而，所谓“平等”很快被政治现实吞噬。1966年砂拉越第一任首席部长史蒂芬.卡隆宁甘被吉隆坡搞的政变推翻了，1976年宪法修正案又将砂拉越公然降格为马来西亚第13州。殖民换了形式，主权却被一再剥夺殆尽。

     1973年9月22日，耶谷政府发动“诛达行动”，以“镇压共产党地下组织”为名，逮捕29名诗巫华社知名领袖，其中包括政界人士、律师、医生、商人与教育工作者。林鹏寿的名字赫然在列——这位十年前签署马来西亚协议、象征“合法与合作”的代表，此刻却被指为“协助共产组织”的嫌疑人。 从伦敦签署桌到牢房，时间只隔十年，象征着砂拉越政治信任的彻底崩塌。

     诛达行动（22/9/1973 “Operation Judas”）被捕者名单（共29 位）列下，以志历史∶ 

     陈则颂、林恩洲、赵增荣、丁永超、郑传景、许如顺、丁仲敏、柳承彬、黄聿杰、许庆南、魏顺莲（黄中教师）、郑元石、黄礼秋、叶立德、刘其凤、陈国侨、萧招冬、吴庆发、李培新、黄江涵、周振裔、何余厚、刘文华、何仕松、何有明、萧孝江、黄和顺、许家栋、林鹏寿（在吉隆坡被捕）。

     当年，诗巫的经济菁英、政界人士、教育界人士因同情左翼或邦助物资，就被扣上“通共”之名。政府以“特别保安区”为由，实施无审讯拘留。许多被捕者无罪而终，却在历史档案中留下模糊的“安全威胁”印记。林鹏寿的被捕，是最具象征性的。他代表着一代相信殖民者诺言的政治人物，却在国家机器转向高压时，成为牺牲品。历史的讽刺在于：他曾签下将砂拉越纳入联邦的条约，却亲历了联邦暴力的反噬。

     从父辈的信任到子辈的追问

     林鹏寿之子——林履宋（Alex Ling），在父亲的阴影与信念之间成长。他留学剑桥，主修宪法与国际公法，回国后以学者身份提出震撼法界的论证： 《石油发展法1974》（PDA 1974）在未经砂拉越议会同意的情况下实施，违反联邦宪法“邦国同意条款”，因此在法理上“无效”。 他指出，《砂拉越土地法典1958》与《石油采矿条例1958》仍保留邦国主权，砂拉越对陆地与海域石油拥有完整权利。

林履宋的学说，是对父辈政治信任的法理反省—— 父亲以签署“协议“导致砂拉越被纳入马来亚联合邦1成为附庸，儿子以法学要求恢复平等； 一个相信承诺，一个要求兑现。 历史，在这一家族中完成了自我辩证。

     从“诛达”的镇压到MA63的觉醒

     “诛达行动”的幽影并未随着时间消失，它成为砂拉越政治记忆的一部分。 那些被捕者的沉默与痛苦，让后来者明白： 没有主权保障的合作，终将沦为附属。 也正因如此，今日砂拉越各界重新审视MA63，强调“恢复邦国地位”，要求联邦归还原有的所有主权。这不仅是法理诉求，更是历史的清算。林履宋等新一代知识分子，透过法学与国际法框架，为砂拉越主权辩护。他们的行动，实为对父辈被时代误导的温柔纠正——以理性的宪政之笔，修补历史的遗憾。

     诛达的铁窗，MA63的签署，石油法的争论—— 这些并非割裂的事件，而是一条连续的历史线索： 从殖民的余烬到邦国意识的觉醒，从被动被纳入到主动索回主权。

     今日，当砂拉越再度高呼“落实MA63、恢复主权”时，我们回望那场52年前的名为“诛达”的风暴，应记得： 那不是一个人的遭遇，而是一代人的代价。历史终于在林家的两代身上，完成了悲剧与救赎的轮回—— 从政治的迷梦，到宪政的清醒； 从“相信马来西亚”，到“索回砂拉越主权”。这是一场迟来的觉醒，但却是砂拉越重新书写自身命运的起点。

Bintang Borneo

Bintang Borneo

Tuesday, November 4, 2025

 *Open Letter by Datuk Dr. Jeffrey G. Kitingan* – 4 March 1991 (English Translation)

This letter was published in several local newspapers on 4 March 1991 as Datuk Seri Panglima Dr. Jeffrey G. Kitingan’s response to personal attacks made by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad during his visits to Sabah.

The open letter was issued at a time when the Internal Security Act (ISA) was still in force in Malaysia.

A few months later, on 13 May 1991, Dr. Jeffrey G. Kitingan was detained under the ISA and imprisoned for two years and seven months at the Kamunting Detention Centre.

This letter is being republished for the awareness of the younger generation — to help them understand the unwavering struggle and conviction of Dr. Jeffrey G. Kitingan, a cause he has steadfastly carried for more than 33 years.

This struggle is not over — and it must continue.

_________________

Date: 4 March 1991

Dear friends and beloved people of Sabah,

You may have already heard or read Mahathir’s uncensored speech that appeared in the newspapers on 21 February 1991. I have only recently become aware of it myself.

Mahathir’s statement that Sabah is his colony is not surprising. He himself had brought UMNO into Sabah precisely to ensure total control over the people of this state.

He refuses to respect the leaders whom we, the people of Sabah, have chosen.

He wants to appoint his own leaders, and to dictate the course they should follow.

He believes that Sabah is under his dominion, and that he can do whatever he pleases with us.

He also believes that no one can stop him — not even other leaders from Kuala Lumpur — and they too threaten us through the army, the police, and the Anti-Corruption Agency (BPR).

The true purpose of Kuala Lumpur is now plain for all to see.

Mahathir’s real intention is to abolish the 20-Point Agreement, which formed the fundamental basis of Sabah’s consent to join the Federation of Malaysia.

This plan was deliberately designed to reduce Sabah’s status from that of an equal partner to that of a colony of the Federation of Malaya.

The statement once made by former Indonesian President Sukarno was correct when he warned, during the formation of Malaysia, that Sabah’s colonial status would not change under Malaysia.

He said that what would change was merely the office of the colonial master — from London to Kuala Lumpur.

The events and actions of Kuala Lumpur since 1963 have proven that Sukarno’s words were true.

The people of Sabah were hurried and misled by our leaders into forming the Federation of Malaysia.

Read all the books and documents concerning the formation of Malaysia, and the events that followed, and you will come to understand the truth.

The 20-Point Agreement

Our leaders, though reluctant, ultimately agreed to join the new Federation — but only on certain guarantees.

After a series of discussions, Sabah’s leaders — including Tun Mustapha, Donald Stephens (Tun Fuad Stephens), and Khoo Siak Chew, along with representatives from the Federation of Malaya and the British Government — reached an understanding known as the 20-Point Agreement.

These conditions were extremely important, because they meant that Sabah agreed to form Malaysia only on the terms outlined in those 20 Points.

This was the purpose and understanding reached by all parties at the time.

We all supported it wholeheartedly.

The Betrayal of That Promise

However, everything has changed.

Once our attention turned toward politics, social affairs, and economic development, many of our former leaders became self-serving — more concerned with their own status and interests, and less about what was happening to the state as a whole.

When these leaders became intoxicated with power, wealth, and development, the leaders in Kuala Lumpur seized the opportunity to change Sabah’s status —

from that of an independent nation federated with Malaya and Sarawak (and originally, Singapore) —

to what we are experiencing now: a colony once more.

Worse still, in the process, Kuala Lumpur’s leaders also made the people of Sabah surrender their oil, land, and forest rights — all done quietly and systematically, so that the people of Sabah would not realize what was happening.

I was one of those who saw these things taking place, and I understood clearly where we were being led.

Regardless of what may happen to me or to my family, I cannot ignore it.

As someone privileged — in position, education, and status — I felt it was my duty as a Malaysian citizen and a true Sabahan to correct these wrongs, to raise the issue of the 20 Points, and to expose Kuala Lumpur’s injustices toward Sabah, especially since 1985.

Why the Federal Government Targets Me

I believe you already know much of this.

Now you understand why the Federal Government never stops harassing me and the PBS leadership.

Now you also understand what the Anti-Corruption Agency (BPR) has been after me for.

Kuala Lumpur knows — Mahathir knows — that I am right.

They prefer to eliminate leaders and thinkers like me who question their actions rather than admit the truth about what they have done.

They — Mahathir and some (not all) of the leaders in Kuala Lumpur — can easily destroy me and anyone who agrees with me, because they possess all the instruments of power:

the police, the army, the BPR, the Inland Revenue Department, the Official Secrets Act, and others.

Tell me — is it wrong for me to fight for my state and my people?

The Questions I Ask

Is it wrong for me to question Kuala Lumpur?

Should I not demand a fairer share of oil royalties for this state?

Is it wrong for me to fight to free Sabah from colonial domination?

Is it wrong for me to educate Sabahans about the true facts of our country and our condition?

Is it wrong for me to introduce new and revolutionary ideas for development, poverty reduction, and employment —

to restore dignity and self-worth to our people?

If that is wrong, then we are all guilty — guilty for standing on the side of truth.

It would have been much easier for me not to get involved in the affairs of the people, the state, or the nation.

Some may ask: “Why must you care about all this?”

Indeed, if I cared only for myself and my family, if I were selfish, it would have been better not to get involved at all.

I could have maintained my position comfortably, enjoyed my high salary, and laughed off whatever was happening.

If I had chosen to please the federal leaders and bribe enforcement officials and others, I would have been protected — nothing would have happened to me.

Is that what you wish to see from me? I believe not.

Someone must make a sacrifice.

But such a sacrifice will be meaningless without your support and encouragement.

All of you are the only power capable of stopping Mahathir and freeing us once again from the chains of domination.

On Mahathir’s Misrepresentation

If reviving the 20-Point Agreement and questioning Kuala Lumpur’s actions toward Sabah are interpreted by Mahathir as incitement — an attempt to make Sabahans hate the people of Peninsular Malaysia — then Mahathir must either be a fool or a liar.

I have many friends in Peninsular Malaysia who know me well, who know who I am.

I even have relatives married to Peninsular Malaysians.

I promote goodwill, not hatred.

It is Mahathir himself who has introduced and invited hatred.

He has insulted the leaders elected by the people of Sabah and deliberately deceived the Malaysian public — especially through lies about race and religion.

My Meeting with Mahathir

Do you remember the “sigar” (headgear) incident involving Tengku Razaleigh?

When I met Dr Mahathir in May 1990, I discussed with him several issues.

I told him that I did not come to raise personal matters but to talk about Federal–State relations.

One piece of “advice” he gave me concerning the 20 Points was as follows:

“Jeffrey, the villagers don’t know about Sabah’s rights and the 20 Points — so why should we tell them?

Reports from the Special Branch say that you and IDS are responsible for informing the people...”

For a moment I could hardly believe what I heard — that the Prime Minister of the country was telling me to deceive the very people we are supposed to educate.

When I asked Mahathir to increase Sabah’s share of oil royalties, he replied:

“You’re lucky the Federal Government gives you five percent.

Remember, there was no oil in Sabah before Malaysia existed.”

What Mahathir meant was that this state has no right to its oil and natural resources — that it was not God who gave us our oil, but Malaysia.

On Land and Federal Control

Regarding land matters, Dr Mahathir said it was difficult for the state government to refuse or delay federal agencies when they needed land.

He said that land should be controlled by the Federation.

This reveals Mahathir’s long-term objective — to control Sabah’s land and forests, which are still under state authority as guaranteed by the 20 Points.

His other goal is to turn Sabah into a colony or a component of the Federation of Malaya.

He said:

“...State rights are only temporary. Sabah should be just like Kedah or Perlis.”

This clearly contradicts what the late Tunku Abdul Rahman said during the formation of Malaysia:

“Sabah and Sarawak will not become the 13th and 14th states of the Federation of Malaya,

because they are not joining as equal partners to Malaya but as separate entities with equal status and powers.”

On the Malaysia Agreement

When Malaysia was formed in September 1963, a treaty known as the Malaysia Agreement was signed between the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak, binding all parties to its terms.

Those terms constituted a partnership — and if any partner were to withdraw, it would affect the validity of the agreement for the others, requiring a review or a new treaty among those remaining.

When Singapore left the Federation in 1965, it should have invalidated the Malaysia Agreement, which formed the legal foundation of Malaysia.

To me, unless Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak had jointly reviewed and reaffirmed or renegotiated the Malaysia Agreement after Singapore’s departure,

the legal basis for the Federation of Malaysia ceased to exist.

Why did we not do this?

Why were they afraid to discuss it?

Instead, the federal leaders — especially Mahathir — resorted to threats and arrests to silence us.

A State of Political Persecution

This is the problem we face today.

That is why I am deeply disturbed and shocked by such unfair actions,

where the Prime Minister of our country can make wild and baseless accusations against me, the IDS, and the PBS State Government — a government democratically elected by the people of Sabah.

Based on statements made by Mahathir and other UMNO leaders during their visit to Kota Kinabalu last week,

it is clear to the people of Sabah — and to the world — that in Malaysia, power equals truth.

The Prime Minister and national leaders came to Sabah to display their power and strength.

They came to show that they control the Federal Government, the police, and the military,

and that there are people in Sabah willing to sacrifice their own state’s interests to carry out UMNO’s agenda.

These leaders willingly turn a blind eye to the legitimate rights of the Sabah State Government under PBS —

a government that should be allowed to govern peacefully without interference.

This is a sad day for the people of Sabah, for Malaysia, and for future generations.

Now I can fully understand—and sympathize with—those who attended the USNO assembly, many of whom could not hold back their tears.

They share our love for this land and wish to preserve our basic rights.

They were truly disappointed to see Sabah’s own leaders ready to surrender the state’s political power to Mahathir.

Mahathir has levelled serious accusations against me.

He claimed that I was involved in a plot to take Sabah out of Malaysia, and that I harboured ambitions to become the President of an independent Sabah.

These allegations were made simply to win loud applause from USNO delegates and observers.

What has happened to my rights as a Malaysian citizen?

Who gave the Prime Minister the right to persecute a Malaysian publicly, on television, and through the mass media to the entire world?

Is the Prime Minister above the law?

Is Malaysian law meant only to be used against the Kitingan family, PBS leaders, state officials, and anyone who refuses to obey Barisan Nasional?

To me, such behaviour is vile and shameful, and has no place in a country that claims to uphold democracy.

I have already consulted my lawyers about what legal action can be taken against the Prime Minister and others who have insulted and accused me.

If I were truly involved in what he accuses me of, the Prime Minister should have used legal authority to arrest me and charge me in court.

Why, instead, does he make dramatic political statements?

If this were a matter of national security, it should be handled accordingly.

Why raise it only during USNO’s congress?

And yet he still claims that these actions have nothing to do with politics.

This is hypocrisy.

Why is Jeffrey Kitingan punished by Mahathir every time USNO holds a gathering?

To me, this is political persecution of the worst kind.

On Federal Intimidation

We in Malaysia are not blind.

People can now see clearly that the PBS Government is under siege by the Federal power through

UMNO politics, physical threats (military build-up), ISA detentions, BPR probes,

and actions by the Inland Revenue Department—

until there are those who simply obey every federal demand without question.

Is this the environment Sabah’s leaders agreed to when they helped form Malaysia in 1963?

No! Absolutely not.

We did not agree to be belittled like this, and we did not agree to be colonized by Kuala Lumpur or anyone else.

I call upon the State Government under PBS, which bears the responsibility to defend Sabahans’ rights,

to seriously question Sabah’s position in Malaysia through proper legal channels with the Federal Government.

What is the point of being a State Government when its Chief Minister and leaders are sidelined and not even invited to welcome the Prime Minister’s arrival in Sabah?

Who, then, is really promoting anti-Malaysia sentiment?

Who is truly involved in anti-Malaysia actions?

It is the Prime Minister and the UMNO leaders who are doing so.

On Standing Firm

I will not bow to the Federal threats and conspiracies against me and Sabah’s interests.

I will stand firm by what I have said—

on the 20 Points, on our state rights, and on the need for justice and fairness from the Federal Government toward Sabah,

as I have stated in my previous declarations.

To all the people of Sabah:

Do not lose hope, never give up,

for God will help those who fight for freedom and justice.

To the civil servants, and to my staff in Yayasan Sabah (YS), IDS, and ICSB —

continue your work calmly, efficiently, and with dedication.

Perform your duties wholeheartedly and responsibly.

My mission is to see us live in peace, free from oppression, pressure, and injustice.

Your mission is to free our people from poverty and suffering.

Let us together build an economically progressive state,

so that we may all become instruments of God, serving and loving one another.

To the Youth and Students

To the students, I urge you to devote your full attention to your studies,

for you are the leaders of the next generation.

Use your time and mind to seek and understand the truth about our history and development.

Do not be confined only to what you are taught in school or college,

for that is only one side of the story.

Continue to search for the truth.

Understand what life, freedom, and justice truly mean.

Read the 20 Points, the Sabah Commemorative Book – Sabah 25 Years Later, and other writings.

Do not make conclusions until you know the truth.

Once you know the truth, you will know what to do.

To Parents and Families

To all parents, you are the captains navigating stormy seas.

Guide your children toward truth and the right path in life.

Tell them what has happened to our country so that they may shape a brighter future.

Discipline must be nurtured — but beyond that, we must instil in our children the right attitude,

for they always learn by watching their parents.

To husbands, respect and care for your wives.

A wife is part of yourself — a companion and partner.

She knows many things and can help you distinguish between what is true and false,

between good and bad decisions.

Do not neglect your wife.

To wives, love and care for your husbands.

He is your partner, friend, and adviser — and your mirror when you make mistakes.

But your husband also needs your guidance to find truth and understand our situation in Sabah.

To the People of Peninsular Malaysia

To our brothers and sisters in Peninsular Malaysia,

you are our fellow Malaysians.

We need you to understand our situation in Sabah.

We do not hate you, as your leaders have told you.

It is your leaders who have sown seeds of hatred between us

for their own political gain.

We, the people of Sabah, are oppressed, disturbed, and treated unfairly.

We are colonised and controlled until we have lost our democratic freedom and dignity.

We were told that we achieved independence in 1963 —

but today, we no longer have power over our own political future.

It is the leaders from Peninsular Malaysia who have done this to us.

You need not pity our struggle — but please, try to understand us and our circumstances.

Only then can you contribute meaningfully to us.

And only then will you realise how Kuala Lumpur’s leaders have deceived even the people of Peninsular Malaysia themselves.

To Businesspeople and Investors

To the businessmen and investors — you are the ones who keep the economy moving,

and through your work, you help feed our families.

Do not stop your investments.

Help our economy grow so that our homeland may prosper and become fertile ground for more opportunities.

Support the struggle of the people of Sabah —

because if the people of Sabah succeed, you too will succeed.

To the Political Leaders of Sabah

To the political leaders of Sabah,

you are the true leaders of our people.

Lead them to their destiny.

Fight for their freedom and justice.

Free this homeland from injustice.

Hold firmly to your principles.

Do not be easily tempted to abandon your struggle for the sake of a few ringgit.

Do not oppress the people for personal gain, wealth, or position,

or just to avoid the wrath of your enemies.

Learn to distinguish between personal interests and the interests of the people.

We will all die one day, and all our actions will be recorded in history.

How much wealth or rank can you take with you to the grave?

Will your children be proud of you?

Ask yourself:

“What is my mission? What am I fighting for?

Is it merely to gain position and power —

or to free this homeland from oppression and injustice,

so that we can live in peace and determine our own future?

Am I fighting for myself, or for my people?”

You are leaders.

Do not sell out your land and your people.

If you are confused, take a moment to be still, to reflect and pray —

and God will guide you to the right path.

Do not be ashamed to correct your mistakes.

It is not too late.

Remember — we are all human.

As leaders, your followers seek guidance, information, and advice.

They place their hope in you and expect you to be strong.

Once you know what must be done, do not look back —

for if you do, you are no longer a leader.

If Kuala Lumpur controls our lives, our policies, and our resources,

then life in Sabah will never be the same again.

So my message to you is this:

Unite, stand shoulder to shoulder, and lead as you were elected to lead.

This is your homeland, and politics is in your blood.

To the Leaders in Kuala Lumpur

To other leaders in Kuala Lumpur —

some of you understand us.

You know that some 

The Malaysia-US deal is not OUR DEAL

Title: “THE MALAYA–US DEAL IS NOT OUR DEAL”

Listen, anak-anak tanah Borneo. Tonight we speak clearly, with no apology.

KL just signed a deal with Washington and called it “Reciprocal Trade.” Sinar Harian calls it “Musuh dalam selimut.” The elites call it “strategic.” We call it what it is:

➡️ It is Malaya selling the whole federation to America — without Sabah and Sarawak at the table.

➡️ It is the blueprint to turn Borneo into a permanent resource colony.

➡️ It is a direct threat to our right to self-government.

Let me break it down in language that even the Putrajaya comprador class can understand.

🧷 POINT 1 — “FOLLOW AMERICA OR BE PUNISHED.”

The agreement lets the United States control who Malaysia is allowed to trade with. If Malaysia signs deals with a country that America doesn’t like, America can cancel the pact and punish Malaysia with tariffs again.

That’s Article 5.3.

They also force Malaysia to “mirror” US sanctions. That’s Article 5.1.

Translation for kampung level:

> If Washington says, “Don’t trade with China,” KL must say, “Yes boss.”

> If Washington says, “Block this tech company,” KL must say, “Yes boss.”

Question: Who elected Washington to decide our future? Nobody.

But here’s the next question:

When KL surrenders like this — did Sabah and Sarawak consent?

Answer: NEVER.

So why should we be bound by chains we did not fasten?

This is why Borneo Third Force says: Sabah and Sarawak are NOT obligated to follow a colonial agreement signed without our mandate.

🧷 POINT 2 — “PETRONAS NOW BELONGS TO THEM, NOT US.”

The deal forces Petronas to buy billions in US gas every year. That means our national oil company becomes a guaranteed customer of American exporters.

Before this deal: Petronas could buy gas from whoever gives best price.

After this deal: Petronas MUST feed American suppliers.

That kills sovereignty. That kills bargaining power. And who suffers first?

Sabah and Sarawak.

Why? Because our oil, our gas, our offshore blocks —already sucked for half a century — were supposed to be our leverage to demand back our MA63 rights and 40% revenue.

But if Petronas is now structurally tied to a US supply obligation, Sabah’s oil becomes just “federal collateral.”

Federal treats our resources as bargaining chips in THEIR foreign alignment.

Understand this well:

➡️ When Putrajaya bends the knee, Sabah and Sarawak lose the only weapon left — our control over resource politics.

➡️ This is economic annexation through contract.

🧷 POINT 3 — “NO MORE PROTECTION FOR OUR PEOPLE, ONLY PROTECTION FOR THEIR CORPORATIONS.”

This pact tells Malaysia we cannot “discriminate” against US goods. We must open our market to their agriculture, vehicles, and products cheaply. We must not subsidize our own state-owned companies in a way that “hurts” them.

So what happens?

• Our farmers in Tenom and Beaufort now compete with subsidised agribusiness from a superpower.

• Our small fisheries in Semporna, Kota Belud, Bintulu now face American seafood imports with no SST tax.

• Our village entrepreneurs, our cooperatives, our state GLCs — no special support, no shield — because that would be “unfair” to America.

Tell me:

Is that “free market”?

Or is that textbook neoliberal colonization?

You already know the ans

🧷 POINT 4 — “CULTURE ALSO BEING COLONISED.”

The agreement even forces Malaysian broadcasters to DROP the 80% local content rule on TV and allow US content in prime time.

You think that’s small? That’s not small.

That means:

* Less Sabahan, Sarawakian language on air.

* Less indigenous storytelling.

* Less local drama.

* More imported narrative, imported values, imported brainwashing.

They don’t just want to take your oil.

They want to rewrite your mind.

When they control the land AND the story — that is full-spectrum domination.

🧷 POINT 5 — “THIS IS NOT JUST MALAYA’S SURRENDER. THIS IS MALAYA OFFERING BORNEO AS TRIBUTE.”

This part is critical, Borneo listen carefully.

The federal government went to America and said:

“We will align our economy with yours. We will align our foreign policy with yours. We will align our digital infrastructure with yours. We will buy your gas. We will open our markets. We will weaken our own institutions. We will quiet our broadcasters. Just give us tariff favours.”

In other words:

They sold national sovereignty cheap.

But here is the deeper treason:

They offered Sabah and Sarawak as 'payment'.

Because who holds the oil? Borneo.

Who sits on rare earths? Borneo.

Who has deepwater gas fields, timber, biodiverse biopharma potential, deep-sea fibre routes?

BORNEO.

So when KL kneels, they kneel using OUR spine.

When they surrender, they surrender OUR bargaining position.

When they sign, they sign AWAY OUR FUTURE.

You see it now.

🧷 POINT 6 — “SO WHAT NOW? DO WE JUST SHOUT ON FACEBOOK?”

No. We act.

Borneo Third Force lays down TWO immediate lines for Sabah and Sarawak:

1. We invoke MA63 as a living shield, not museum glass.

   Sabah and Sarawak must declare — in policy, not poetry — that any external economic alignment signed by Putrajaya which touches (a) state resources, (b) state trade access, (c) state cultural control, (d) communications infrastructure within our borders,

   CANNOT APPLY in Sabah/Sarawak territory without explicit ratification by the State Legislative Assembly.

   If KL can say “national interest,” we can say “state survival.” That’s how a federation actually works.

   This is not illegal. This is federalism in its raw form.

2. We build our own Borneo-led economic axis.

   Sabah and Sarawak must accelerate direct subnational diplomacy and trade cooperation with Nusantara (Kalimantan new capital region), Brunei, Southern Philippines, and regional South-South partners.

   Food, energy, fibre, digital, logistics.

   We are not a peninsula appendage. We are the heart of the East Indies trade corridor.

   Stop thinking like a periphery. We ARE the prize.

This is what self-government looks like in practice:

Not shouting “Merdeka!” alone —

but refusing to let foreign clauses walk into our ports.

🧷 POINT 7 — “MESSAGE TO GEN Z, RURAL PEOPLE, AND PETTY BOURGEOISIE IN BORNEO.”

This is the part KL hopes you don’t understand.

They think the kampung people won’t read the fine print.

They think the youth only care about TikTok, not sovereignty.

They think the small business owners are too busy surviving to notice structural conquest.

We are telling you now:

→ These clauses, if allowed to stand, will kill your local contract work.

→ They will drown your local brands under foreign imports.

→ They will erase your dialect from broadcast.

→ They will make Sabah and Sarawak legally invisible in decisions that decide war, trade, and energy.

And when Sabah and Sarawak are invisible in law, we become disposable in reality.

That is how you erase a people without firing a bullet.

🧷 POINT 8 — “THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE BLANKET.”

Sinar Harian asked: “Musuh dalam selimut?”

Answer: Yes.

The foreign hand holds the pen.

But the one signing is wearing our flag.

We are not just dealing with American imperialism.

We are dealing with Malayan compradors — smiling middlemen who trade our birthright for their own career.

That is why we name this clearly:

Hajiji’s comprador politics in Sabah.

PH federalism under Anwar that obeys external hegemony.

Zafrul’s obedience to capital, not rakyat.

We are done being polite about it.

🧷 POINT 9 — THE BORNEO THIRD FORCE POSITION

We do not accept:

– A federation that uses us as collateral.

– A trade pact that chains our future to a foreign superpower.

– A leadership that signs away our resource leverage without even consulting our land.

We assert:

– Sabah has the right to govern Sabah.

– Sarawak has the right to govern Sarawak.

– The people of Borneo have the right to decide who we trade with, what we tax, what we protect, and what we broadcast to our children.

That is not extremism.

That is what self-government means.

🧷 POINT 10 — THE CLOSING WAR CRY

From Pitas to Lawas, from Keningau to Kapit, from Kudat to Mukah — listen:

We are not anti-Malaysia.

We are anti-colonial.

We are anti-comprador.

We are anti-selling-Borneo-without-Borneo’s-permission.

We don’t bow to Washington.

We don’t bow to Putrajaya.

We bow only to the land, to Aki Nabalu, to the rivers that feed us, to the ancestors who bled so we can still stand here tonight.

Say it with me:

Borneo is not for sale.

Sabah decides Sabah.

Sarawak decides Sarawak.

This is our land.

This is our future.

This is our turn.

🔥 BORNEO THIRD FORCE 🥉

Reclaim the Land. Reclaim the Future. Reclaim Borneo.

Forwarded from: 

🔥 BORNEO THIRD FORCE 🥉 STATEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF SABAH & SARAWAK GROUP 🔥

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.