(8 November 2025) The Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) international NGO expresses its full appreciation to the Sabah Law Society (SLS) for taking decisive legal action against the court application seeking to declare the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Federal Constitution as the authoritative text.

SSRANZ states that the application amounts to another backdoor attempt to override and usurp the constitutional powers vested under Article 160B of the Federal Constitution.

Historical and Legal Context
Since 1963, beginning with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63)—if it were ever valid—the Malayan authorities have undemocratically and unilaterally interfered with and altered the Federal Constitution, eroding the safeguards guaranteed to Sabah and Sarawak.

In truth, MA63 itself was an act of external interference, in direct contravention of the right of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to genuine independence under UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV).

This latest case follows a continuing pattern of constitutional changes designed to impose the Ketuanan Melayu agenda and strengthen the colonial domination of Sabah and Sarawak. The Federal Constitution has been amended more than 40 times, mainly to weaken its secular and federal foundations — a fact that itself reflects recurring problems in constitutional interpretation and legitimacy.

Constitutional Implications of Article 160B
Article 160B (inserted in 1971) provides that:
“Where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that the text of the Constitution in the national language has been accurately and correctly translated from the English language text, he may by order prescribe that such national language text shall be the authoritative text of the Constitution.”
This provision mirrors Article XI of MA63, which recognises that English shall remain authoritative until a proper translation is achieved.
Crucially, Article 160B confers discretionary power upon the King, meaning that any court declaration compelling an authoritative text would remove that discretion and therefore be unconstitutional. Such an act would, in effect, usurp the Royal Prerogative and bypass the procedures established under Articles 159 and 161E.

The Legal Consequences of a Court Declaration
While a court declaration may not formally amend the Constitution, it can have binding constitutional effects when it determines the authoritative meaning of constitutional provisions.
If a court were to declare the Bahasa Malaysia text as the authoritative version, such a declaration would:
• Be binding on all courts, the executive, and Parliament;
• Supersede the English version in interpretation; and
• Alter the legal meaning of key provisions relating to religion, language, and native rights.
This would effectively change the substance of the Constitution without parliamentary scrutiny under Article 159, and without the required consent of Sabah and Sarawak under Article 161E.
SSRANZ therefore agrees with SLS that this issue raises a fundamental rule of law question:
that constitutional change must occur only through lawful and democratic means — never by judicial or administrative shortcut.

MA63 as the Foundational Charter
Underlying this rule of law is MA63, the foundational charter that authorised the extension and modification of the Malayan Constitution to include Sabah and Sarawak.
Without MA63, there would have been no Malaysia.
Importantly, Article XI of MA63 provides that in situations of discrepancy, the English text shall take precedence, and that the Federal Constitution must be read subject to MA63.
Therefore, if Malaya now chooses to deny that principle, it must also accept that MA63 no longer binds Sabah and Sarawak — because repudiating its supremacy destroys the legal foundation upon which Malaysia was proclaimed.

Political and Moral Consequences
SSRANZ calls upon the Federal Government, Parliament, and Judiciary to respect the constitutional safeguards and the supremacy of MA63, rather than eroding them through indirect judicial or administrative means.
If Malaya refuses to honour the terms of MA63, then logically, Malaya may leave the union and allow Sabah and Sarawak to regain their rightful independence.
The persistent disputes over MA63 and constitutional interpretation — even after 62 years — demonstrate that there was never true consensus ad idem at the time of Malaysia’s formation.
This enduring lack of agreement calls into question the binding nature and continuing validity of both MA63 and the Federal Constitution as applied to Sabah and Sarawak.

Conclusion
The Sabah Law Society’s action is therefore not only a defence of linguistic accuracy or procedural compliance — it is a defence of constitutional integrity, state sovereignty, and the rule of law.
SSRANZ fully supports this legal challenge as a necessary measure to uphold Sabah and Sarawak’s constitutional safeguards, prevent further erosion of their rights, and reaffirm the true federal compact that was promised in 1963.

Disclaimer:
The Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) maintains that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was void ab initio, and that Malaysia’s formation was therefore without lawful effect. Nevertheless, pending the attainment of full self-determination, SSRANZ recognizes the necessity of defending the residual legal and constitutional rights of Sabah and Sarawak from further erosion through unilateral or arbitrary actions by the de facto Federation of Malaya/Malaysia or its agents.

Issued by:
Robert Pei, President
Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)
For immediate release – 8 November 2025

Endorsed by Voon Lee Shan
President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)