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.