Federal Government’s “No Appeal” Announcement A Deceptive Political Manoeuvre-SSRANZ Support SLS And Prof. James Chin’s Warning Sabah For Sabahans

“If MA63 were ever valid, it has been fatally breached — and the time has come for its full legal review.”

12 November 2025

KOTA KINABALU: The Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) fully supports the statements by Professor James Chin and the Sabah Law Society (SLS), both of whom cautioned Sabahans and Sarawakians against celebrating the Federal Government’s recent announcement that it would not appeal the High Court ruling affirming Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement.

SSRANZ agrees that the Federal Government’s statement is a calculated political manoeuvre — crafted to deceive rather than deliver.

The so-called decision “not to appeal” was designed to defuse voter backlash and serve as a lifeline for Malayan-based parties and their local allies ahead of the Sabah state elections, rather than reflecting a genuine commitment to honour MA63 obligations.

SSRANZ President Robert Pei noted that while the Federal Government publicly claims to respect the court’s decision, it has simultaneously left open the option of appealing the “grounds of judgement.”

This ambiguous phrasing is a deliberate delay tactic — enabling Putrajaya to postpone payment of Sabah’s rightful 40% entitlement while pretending to comply with the ruling.

“This is a classic double-edged political sword,” Pei said, citing the SLS. “The government avoids immediate backlash by claiming victory for Sabahans, yet keeps the door open to delay and challenge the very judgement it claims to accept. It is a classic example of politicians speaking with fork tongues”

Political Stakes: The MA63 Safeguards and Malayan Domination

SSRANZ emphasises that the ongoing struggle over fiscal rights is inseparable from MA63’s original safeguards on parliamentary representation and political autonomy. A massive voter rejection of Malayan parties could end direct Malayan domination of Sabah — an outcome the Federal Government is desperate to prevent.

At Malaysia’s purported formation, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore were collectively guaranteed 34.6% of parliamentary seats to prevent Malaya from gaining a two-thirds majority and unilaterally altering the Constitution.

This allocation was a core MA63 safeguard, described by IGC Chairman Lord Lansdowne as “a decisive factor in convincing the Borneo leaders that there was here no question of a takeover bid, but a genuine offer of real partnership.”

This safeguard was not symbolic. It was a foundational term intended to preserve a real balance of power and ensure that no constitutional change affecting Sabah and Sarawak’s status could occur without their effective consent — a protection central to the concept of equal partnership.

However, when Singapore seceded from the Federation in 1965, Malaya acted in bad faith by refusing to allocate Singapore’s vacated seats to the Borneo States. This act destroyed the constitutional balance designed to protect Sabah and Sarawak’s political autonomy, in breach of both treaty law and the Basic Structure Doctrine, which forms part of Malaysia’s constitutional framework.

“The presence of Malayan political parties in Sabah and Sarawak was never part of MA63’s design,” said Pei. “Their expansion diluted local autonomy, captured state seats, and turned partnership into domination. The Federal Government’s latest manoeuvre over the 40% entitlement continues this pattern — retaining control while pretending to comply.”

The entry and operation of Malayan political parties in Sabah and Sarawak were contrary to the intent and structure of MA63, which envisaged each Borneo State developing its own representative institutions free from external domination.

Allowing Malayan-based parties to contest and control local legislatures undermines the 34.6% parliamentary safeguard, distorts local representation, and entrenches federal dominance over the political will of Sabah and Sarawak’s peoples.

Notably, no Malayan-based party has openly supported the High Court judgement or called for immediate compliance. The Federal Government’s “no appeal” statement thus serves to protect its own political interests, not uphold justice.

SSRANZ opines that if voter anger over decades of MA63 breaches is not neutralised, Malayan parties could face electoral collapse — ending their long-standing dominance in Sabah. The ambiguous “no appeal” claim, coupled with the reserved right to challenge the judgement, is a calculated attempt to diffuse outrage and preserve power through deception.

“Now more than ever, Sabahans must rally around the principle of ‘Sabah for Sabahans’ — rejecting external domination and asserting our rightful political and fiscal autonomy,” Pei urged.

A Pattern of Federal Bad Faith Since 1963

SSRANZ asserts that this is part of a broader pattern of federal bad faith dating back to Malaysia’s formation.

Since 1963, the Federal Government has repeatedly violated constitutional and fiscal safeguards under MA63 — from the 1973 failure to review MA63, deliberate omission to entrench MA63 supremacy in the Constitution, the Petroleum Development Act 1974, unconstitutional amendments under Article 161E, to denial of financial autonomy under Articles 112C and 112D.

“These cumulative breaches,” Pei stated, “have rendered MA63 legally and morally meaningless. The treaty has been fatally breached — if not void from inception — due to lack of genuine consent and continued violations of its core terms.”

[Legal Note:] Under international treaty law, repeated and material breaches of a foundational agreement such as the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) may constitute grounds for its termination under Articles 60 and 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which reflect customary international law. Within Malaysia, the Basic Structure Doctrine — as affirmed in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2017] and related cases — incorporates constitutional supremacy and rule of law principles that extend to treaty compliance.

Therefore, the cumulative federal breaches of MA63 not only invalidate the agreement under international law but also offend the Basic Structure Doctrine domestically. Together, these frameworks establish that MA63 may be deemed legally terminated, giving rise to legitimate options for renegotiation of federal relations, reconsideration of Sabah and Sarawak’s constitutional status, or reassertion of self-determination consistent with the UN Charter.

(For background: https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/about-us/committees/constitutional-law committee/the-basic-structure-doctrine-in-malaysia)

Call for a Full Review of MA63’s Validity

SSRANZ calls on the Federal Government that if it insists on appealing the High Court’s “reasoning,” it must also agree to a comprehensive, transparent, and independent review of MA63’s validity — under both international law and Malaysia’s constitutional framework.

Such a review must determine whether MA63 was ever validly concluded, given that:

• The Borneo territories were still colonies in 1963 and lacked sovereign capacity to enter treaties;

• The UN self-determination process was manipulated and prematurely concluded; and

• Repeated breaches have destroyed MA63’s binding force.

“If the Federal Government wishes to revisit the High Court’s legal basis, it must also confront the larger question — whether MA63 itself was ever valid in law,” Pei said.

A Call for Reflection, Unity, and Self-Determination

SSRANZ reminds Sabahans and Sarawakians that over half a century of unfulfilled promises and constitutional breaches has exposed Malaysia’s federation as one dominated by Malayan control rather than equal partnership.

The 40% revenue entitlement was only one of many solemn assurances given in 1963 to persuade Sabah and Sarawak that joining Malaysia would bring fairness, prosperity, and respect for autonomy. Six decades later, these promises remain unfulfilled.

“The High Court judgement confirms what Sabahans have long known — that the Federal Government has failed to act lawfully. As the court noted, its conduct has been irrational, unlawful, and injurious to Sabah’s people,” SSRANZ said.

Strengthened Call to Local Parties and Activists: Sabah for Sabahans

SSRANZ urges all Sabah-based parties, activists, and civil society leaders to recognise this truth: Malayan political parties and their local proxies have never acted in the genuine interest of Sabahans. Their loyalty lies with Putrajaya, not with Sabah’s people, land, or resources.

“The High Court judgement and the Federal Government’s ambiguous response clearly show who protects Sabah’s interests — and who does not,” Pei said.

“Local parties and activists must now step up, reject Malayan domination, and reclaim Sabah’s political autonomy and rightful revenues in the short term. Sabah must be for Sabahans — and ultimately Sabahans alone must decide our future.”

SSRANZ calls on Sabahans to vote wisely, and hold leaders accountable, support genuine local parties, and use the upcoming elections as a historic opportunity to restore self-determination and protect Sabah’s rights under — and beyond — MA63.

“If Sabahans continue to entrust their future to parties beholden to Putrajaya, the cycle of domination, broken promises, and exploitation will continue. Now is the time for unity, vigilance, and decisive action. Sabahans must also seriously consider the option of real independence — the only path guaranteeing control over our resources, laws, and future,” Pei concluded.

Issued by: Robert Pei President, Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)

12 November 2025

Endorsed by Voon Lee Shan President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang