Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) | Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ): Zaid Ibrahim’s Remarks Underscore MA63’s Legal Invalidity and Reinforce Sabah andarawak’s Right to Self-Determination

1. Silencing Critics Is the Real Concern
PBK and SSRANZ reject Deputy Minister Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali’s assertion that “questioning the legality or calling for the removal of MA63 may be seditious.” The statement is an attempt to suppress legitimate public debate on matters fundamental to Sabah and Sarawak’s political future.

For more than a decade, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) has been a central feature of regional discourse. The Sarawak Government’s
refusal to release the publicly funded 2017 London legal mission report — still treated as a “state secret” — further undermines its claim that MA63 is beyond scrutiny. If the agreement is sound, there is no justification for withholding these
documents.

Her comments on “seditious” questioning were made in response to former Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, who affirmed that the people of Sabah and Sarawak may lawfully repudiate MA63 and exit the federation, as Singapore did. This is the first time a senior Malayan legal figure has
openly recognised the legal right of exit — a position long maintained by PBK and SSRANZ.

Zaid has since gone further: acknowledging that Sabah and Sarawak lacked treaty-making capacity in 1963 and therefore could not have been valid parties to any international treaty. There was no consensus ad idem, no free consent, and no equality of parties — rendering MA63 void ab initio under international law.

PBK and SSRANZ also highlight the increasingly troubling pattern of certain GPS leaders behaving less like representatives of Sarawak and more like policemen and political enforcers for Putrajaya. Their swift, coordinated rebuke of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s remarks exemplifies this reflexive defence of federal interests.

The democratic and transparent solution is clear: a referendum allowing the people of Sarawak to decide their political future.

2. Questioning MA63 Is Legitimate, Not Seditious

PBK and SSRANZ emphasise that Zaid Ibrahim’s position is not irresponsible but legally grounded. Public dissatisfaction is driven by:
• more than 60 years of non-implementation of constitutional safeguards,
• diversion of territorial revenues to the federal centre,
• repeated violations of autonomy guarantees, and
• federal control over natural resources contrary to MA63 and the Federal Constitution.

Civil society voices, including PBK President Voon Lee Shan and members of SSRANZ, have long been subjected to police scrutiny, Special Branch monitoring, and harassment for raising these issues — demonstrating a pattern of political suppression rather than legal necessity.

PBK and SSRANZ note that the 2015 High Court and subsequent Court of Appeal judgements in the Sarawak Association of People's Aspiration (SAPA) case reaffirmed the right of civil-society activists and organisations to operate free from arbitrary state interference. While the courts did not
address the substance of MA63 or the legality of any particular statements, the judgements explicitly recognised SAPA’s right to exist under the Societies Act 1966. The rulings underscore that lawful advocacy and public commentary by activists and civil-society actors — including discussion on state rights, federal arrangements, or regional political issues — cannot be suppressed through administrative fiat alone. This affirms the principle that legitimate activism and political debate, conducted within the law, are protected from arbitrary silencing.

The argument that “questioning the legality of MA63 may be seditious” is therefore absurd and unsustainable. Under both Malaysian constitutional law and international human rights law, examining the legality of a treaty or asserting the right of self-determination is a legitimate democratic activity.

Zaid is correct: the “state” versus “region” debate is legally irrelevant. In 1963, Sabah and Sarawak were British colonies lacking sovereignty and the legal capacity to enter any treaty. With no independent representation, no referendum, and no free consent, there was never a true meeting of
minds (no consensus ad idem). The agreement cannot be considered a lawful founding treaty.

MA63 was void ab initio.

3. Federal and GPS Failures Highlight the Need for Open Debate PBK and SSRANZ recall:

• Malaysia legitimacy remains questionable as it was formed under emergency rule in 1963
and remained under emergency laws until 2011, severely limiting political freedom and the
ability to question MA63.
• Mandatory reviews of Sabah and Sarawak’s constitutional position — including the 1973
review — were never conducted.
• The Petroleum Development Act 1974 enabled federal control over oil and gas, contrary to
MA63’s safeguards, diverting money to develop Malaya instead of “eradicating poverty”
and development as promised for Sabah and Sarawak.
• MA63 discussions were suppressed under the Internal Security Act (ISA); Datuk Jeffrey
Kitingan was detained simply for emphasising federal non-compliance.
• The 2017 London legal investigation, funded by Sarawakians, remains secret — reinforcing
perceptions that GPS’s MA63 advocacy is superficial.

• The people of Sabah and Sarawak were denied a referendum three times:
1. Cobbold Commission,
2. UN assessment under the Manila Accord 1963,
3. Jakarta Peace Agreement 1966 stipulation for a referendum — not fulfilled.

Zaid Ibrahim’s observation that MA63 was “patched together” under colonial pressure is consistent with the historical record. The agreement was not the product of free will AND consensus ad idem — explaining why it has repeatedly failed.

4. Historical and International Legal Precedent Supports Zaid Ibrahim
• Tunku Abdul Rahman (18 July 1963): “If they are not happy, they can leave the federation.”
• Lord Lansdowne, Chairman of the IGC: States entering a federation voluntarily retain the intrinsic right to withdraw.
• Former Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim: MA63 may be cancelled and Sabah or Sarawak may exit under constitutional and international law.
• SSRANZ Position: Only a referendum can determine the true wishes of the people.
Clarification of PBK SSRANZ Position on Void Ab Initio and Exit Rights: A treaty that is void ab initio means it does not exist and creates no legal obligations. However, once a (de facto) political union is imposed — as Malaysia was — international law recognises that peoples subjected to an invalid or coerced arrangement retain the remedial right to external self determination, including separation. Thus:

• Void ab initio explains the defective legal foundation;
• Exit rights arise as the remedy available to peoples whose self-determination was denied; more accurately, it should be described as “final decolonisation.”

Both concepts are fully consistent.

5. Rebuttal to Deputy Minister Sharifah Hasidah

PBK and SSRANZ reject the contention that discussing MA63 constitutes “sedition.” On the contrary, the following are protected activities under both Malaysian and international law:

• scrutinising the legality of a colonial-era agreement,
• highlighting MA63’s defects under international treaty law,
• asserting the right of self-determination under the UN Charter, the ICCPR, and customary international law.

Instability has not been caused by public debate but by decades of:
• deliberate federal non-implementation,
• constitutional manipulation,
• suppression of dissent through ISA detentions and Special Branch action,
• resource expropriation to develop Malaya and not Sabah and Sarawak as promised,
• and secrecy surrounding MA63-related investigations.

Zaid Ibrahim’s remarks simply expose the long-avoided truth: MA63 cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Suppressing debate does not defend the federation; it merely protects political interests.

6. Conclusion and Calls to Action
 
PBK and SSRANZ reject all attempts to silence discussion on MA63 or the right of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to determine their own future. Questioning MA63 is lawful, necessary, and grounded in constitutional and international legal principles.

The core issue is not public debate but persistent federal and GPS failures: non-implementation of MA63 (if valid), decades of economic extraction, and suppression of political freedoms.

PBK and SSRANZ therefore call on Deputy Minister Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali to:
1. Immediately release the full 2017 London MA63 legal investigation findings. These are publicly funded documents, and the people have an unequivocal right to know their contents. Any continued secrecy only raises suspicion that authorities are deliberately concealing the truth.

PBK and SSRANZ further call on the GPS Government to:
2. Hold a referendum on whether Sarawak should remain in or exit Malaysia. Historical precedent supports this demand:
• In 1965, the Kuching Municipal Council unanimously urged the government to hold a referendum after Singapore’s departure fundamentally altered Malaysia’s original four-party structure.
• During the KMC debate, Councillor Song Thian Ho warned that denying the people a voice “would amount to dictatorship.”
• Federal interference — including the declaration of emergency and the constitutional amendment allowing the Governor to dismiss Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan — prevented Sarawak from conducting its own review or withdrawal even after the original federal structure collapsed.

PBK and SSRANZ also call on both the federal and state governments to:
3. Refer MA63 to an independent international tribunal. MA63 is an international agreement belatedly registered with the United Nations in 1970. Disputes of this nature cannot be resolved through unequal political negotiations. A referendum on exit should empower and direct the
Sarawak or Sabah government to seek a final judicial resolution. Only international adjudication ensures:

• an impartial and authoritative determination,
• protection of the people’s interests, and
• a transparent legal outcome free from political influence.

PBK and SSRANZ affirm their commitment to defending the rights of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to:
• genuine political self-determination,
• open and informed public debate on MA63, and
• full understanding of the historical and legal foundations of Malaysia.

End of Statement
Jointly issued by:
Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) – President Voon Lee Shan
Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) – President Robert Pei
27 November 2025