Posts
Borneo Herald
11.45AM MYT, 15-5-2026
By Jose Telado, Penampang
UNDERSTANDING Malaysia, MA63, and Sabah’s Position in the Federation, and the Political Narratives Presented to Voters.
There is often confusion among ordinary Malaysians regarding the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Many assume that Malaysia was created as a completely brand-new country unrelated to the earlier Federation of Malaya. However, from both a constitutional and historical perspective, the reality is more nuanced.
In practical terms, much of the constitutional, legal, and administrative framework of the Federation of Malaya remained substantially intact after 1963. The formation of Malaysia did not dismantle the earlier Malayan system and replace it entirely from the ground up. Instead, the federation was expanded to include Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
At the same time, the federation was politically and constitutionally restructured to accommodate these new territories under an enlarged federal arrangement. The name “Malaya” was changed to “Malaysia” to reflect this expanded federation.
This is why some Sabahans view Malaysia not as a completely detached political creation from Malaya, but as an expanded federation built largely upon the existing Federation of Malaya framework. Much of the earlier constitutional and institutional structure remained in place, while MA63 introduced additional safeguards, provisions, and constitutional arrangements specifically relating to Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore.
Most importantly, Sabah and Sarawak did not enter the federation unconditionally. Their inclusion came with negotiated protections and special rights intended to preserve their distinct position within Malaysia. These included safeguards over matters such as immigration, land, native affairs, religion, language, and aspects of local administration.
One of the reasons MA63 remains complex today
One of the reasons the MA63 issue remains complicated today is because the constitutional framework inherited from the Federation of Malaya became the continuing legal foundation of Malaysia after 1963.
Although MA63 was the political and historical agreement that enabled the formation of Malaysia, its provisions were ultimately incorporated into the Federal Constitution, which itself was largely derived from the earlier Malayan constitutional structure. As a result, MA63 did not operate as a completely separate or overriding legal instrument outside the constitutional system. Instead, it became subject to constitutional interpretation, amendment processes, federal institutions, and parliamentary authority operating within the Malaysian constitutional framework.
This has created long-standing tensions and differing interpretations.
From the Sabah and Sarawak perspective, MA63 represents the original conditions, safeguards, and understandings upon which the federation was formed. However, because the constitutional structure after 1963 remained heavily rooted in the earlier Federation of Malaya system, many Sabahans feel that the constitutional system after 1963 continued to operate largely through that earlier federal framework.
In practical terms, sovereignty was shared within a federal system, not erased. However, politically, many argue that the original agreed autonomy has been reduced in practice over time. This distinction between legal structure and perceived implementation gap is central to understanding ongoing debates.
International recognition and what it actually means
When people say Malaysia is recognised as a sovereign state internationally, it refers to external legal recognition under international law.
This means:
• Only Malaysia (as a whole federation) is a member of the United Nations
• Only Malaysia can enter treaties, join international organisations, and maintain diplomatic relations
• Only Malaysia is treated as a single sovereign legal subject internationally
Sabah, like Sarawak and other Malaysian states, is not a separate subject of international law today and does not have independent diplomatic recognition.
However, this is not unique to Malaysia. In all federations:
- States or provinces are not internationally sovereign entities
- Sovereignty is held at the federal or national level
For example:
Texas is not recognised separately from the United States
Bavaria is not recognised separately from Germany
New South Wales is not recognised separately from Australia
So the principle is structural: international law recognises countries, not internal states within a federation.
But this does not mean Sabah has no rights or significance. It simply defines external representation, not internal constitutional standing.
Within Malaysia’s domestic constitutional system,
Sabah retains:
- Special safeguards under MA63
- Immigration autonomy provisions
-Historical recognition as a partner entity in the formation of Malaysia
- Distinct revenue and administrative arrangements compared to
Peninsular states
The key distinction is therefore:
• International level: Malaysia is one sovereign state; Sabah is not separately recognised
• Domestic level: Sabah is a constitutional component state with specific rights and historical safeguards under MA63
Importantly, this international recognition point is often used in political debate, but in legal reality it refers only to external sovereignty — not internal constitutional justice, fairness, or autonomy arrangements.
It should not be interpreted as:
- “Sabah has no standing or significance”
It simply means:
- “Only Malaysia represents Sabah internationally as part of a federal system”
Broader implication for MA63
For this reason, MA63 continues to be politically and constitutionally sensitive today. The issue is not merely about historical promises, but about whether the constitutional structure that evolved after 1963 has fully reflected the spirit of partnership, equality, and balance originally envisioned during the formation of Malaysia.
Over time, many Sabahans feel that the original spirit and balance of MA63 were gradually weakened through federal centralisation, administrative changes, and constitutional developments. As a result, today’s debate is less about separation from Malaysia and more about restoration — ensuring that the promises, safeguards, and constitutional understandings under MA63 are fully honoured in both spirit and practice.
Like many peoples throughout history, there remains an emotional desire among some Sabahans to see Sabah become fully independent one day. Yet many also recognise the practical realities involved.
At present, there is no comprehensive roadmap, institutional framework, or governance blueprint clearly demonstrating how an independent Sabah would sustainably function in terms of administration, economic management, national security, foreign relations, and long-term political stability.
For this reason, many believe that the more realistic and constructive struggle today is not secession, but restoration.
The central question facing Sabah today is therefore no longer simply:
“Can Sabah leave Malaysia?”
Rather, it is:
“Can Malaysia fully honour the spirit of partnership, equality, and justice upon which the federation was formed in 1963?"
To me, generally speaking, the focus should not be on leaving at this point in time. The reality is that we do not yet have the necessary foundations in place — no clear leadership consensus, no comprehensive white paper, no established compliance mechanism, and no fully developed framework to manage a multiracial and multi-religious society in the event of separation. Many essential structures and policies that would normally be required for such a major constitutional step have not yet been properly prepared or openly discussed in a structured, round-table process involving relevant Sabah institutions.
There are also deeper internal issues that must first be addressed, including the need to seriously confront and eradicate practices such as corruption, strengthen governance, and rebuild a stronger sense of unity — one people with one heart, one mind, and one shared purpose.
Without these foundations in place, discussions on withdrawal are premature. It would be far more constructive to prioritize development, stability, and the well-being of the people. Walking away without preparation would risk creating greater instability rather than meaningful progress.
For now, political focus should be directed toward practical and immediate priorities during elections and governance — improving the standard of living, eradicating poverty, strengthening support for senior citizens and persons with disabilities, ensuring affordable and nutritious provisions for children, improving healthcare services, and reviewing and reviving fair salary structures. These are the issues that directly affect daily life and require urgent attention.
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) can continue to be discussed and refined in its proper legal and administrative channels, but the immediate priority must be progress, development, and the upliftment of the people and the state.
Ultimately, the real measure of leadership is not in slogans or distant debates, but in delivering tangible improvements to the lives of the people today.~Borneo Herald™
