https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/186057/more-symbolic-than-substantial/
1. What the report actually establishes (not merely implies)
Although the article is framed as a discussion on the 2021 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, the professors’ observations go far beyond symbolism. Taken together, they establish three critical factual propositions:
(a) Sabah and Sarawak were constitutionally distinct in 1963
The respected professors reaffirm that in 1963 the Federation was structured into three separate constitutional categories:
• the States of Malaya,
• the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak, and
• Singapore.
This confirms that Sabah and Sarawak were never intended to be ordinary component states. Their status was asymmetrical, special, and autonomous, consistent with:
• the IGC Report 1962,
• MA63,
• the Malaysia Act 1963, and
• the original Federal Constitution as amended in September 1963.
The very need for repeated “restoration” amendments today is itself evidence that the original constitutional settlement has not survived.
(b) Systematic erosion of MA63 safeguards
The report lists a long chain of federal actions that cumulatively undermine MA63, including:
• federalisation of key state powers (water, tourism, administration),
• erosion of judicial autonomy in Borneo,
• under-representation in Parliament and the civil service,
• dilution of native law, religion, and immigration safeguards,
• manipulation of state political processes,
• imposition of federal religious and administrative norms,
• demographic engineering through unlawful naturalisation.
These are not isolated policy disputes. They amount to persistent non-performance of MA63’s foundational terms.
Under general treaty law principles, such conduct constitutes:
• material breach, and
• repudiation by conduct.
(c) The 2021 amendment is an admission, not a cure
The professors are clear: the amendment is “more symbolic than substantial.”
Symbolic amendments cannot cure:
• 60 years of non-compliance,
• constitutional downgrading,
• and structural domination inconsistent with the original bargain.
In legal terms, symbolism cannot revive a settlement that has already been fundamentally breached.
2. The decisive legal question raised by the report
Once these facts are accepted, the unavoidable question arises:
Was MA63 ever validly made—and if so, has it not been fundamentally breached and rendered void and non-binding?
The report, perhaps unintentionally, pushes the analysis directly into international law territory, where three fatal problems arise.
3. Validity: MA63 and the absence of genuine consent
From an SSRANZ perspective, the report reinforces that:
• Sabah and Sarawak were colonies under British control, lacking full treaty-making capacity.
• No referendum was held.
• Consent was inferred through managed processes (Cobbold Commission, UN mission with limited terms).
• Even at inception, Sabah and Sarawak’s status was ambiguous and contested.
The continued debate today—over “equal partner” status, MA63 guarantees, and constitutional position—demonstrates that there was never a true consensus ad idem in 1963.
In treaty terms, that alone places MA63’s validity in serious doubt.
4. Breach: MA63 as a broken constitutional bargain
Even assuming arguendo that MA63 was initially valid, the professors’ findings demonstrate:
• sustained violation of core autonomy guarantees,
• unilateral constitutional amendments by Malaya,
• structural subordination of Sabah and Sarawak,
• demographic and religious transformation contrary to MA63 assumptions.
Under customary international law (now reflected in the Vienna Convention principles), this amounts to fundamental breach, entitling the injured parties to treat the agreement as terminated.
5. The decolonisation frame: Malaysia as unfinished business
Crucially, the report implicitly confirms that decolonisation was never completed:
• Sabah and Sarawak were not allowed to reassess their status once external threats ended.
• Britain’s role was not neutral decolonisation but transfer of control under Pax Malaysia.
• The federation evolved into a unitary-dominated state, contrary to the original arrangement.
This places Sabah and Sarawak squarely within the scope of:
• UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV), and
• UNGA Resolution 1541 (XV).
Self-determination delayed is not self-determination denied.
6. SSRANZ conclusion: MA63, Malaysia, and final decolonisation
Read carefully, the professors’ report leads to a conclusion they stop short of stating:
• MA63 has never operated as promised.
• Its guarantees have been hollowed out beyond recognition.
• Its symbolic “restorations” acknowledge failure rather than success.
• The status of Sabah and Sarawak remains unresolved after more than six decades.
Accordingly, SSRANZ’s position is reaffirmed:
MA63 was void ab initio, among a host of reasons for invalidity; alternatively, it has been fundamentally breached, rendering it void and non-binding. Malaysia therefore lacks a settled legal and moral basis to assert permanent sovereignty over Sabah and Sarawak.
The logical and lawful remedy is not further symbolic amendment, but final decolonisation through a genuine, internationally consistent exercise of self-determination.
Anything less perpetuates the very constitutional and political contradictions that the professors themselves now acknowledge.
SSRANZ 22/12/25
https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/186057/more-symbolic-than-substantial/
No comments:
Post a Comment