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.