
Sabah more than a state
Published on: Sunday, May 04, 2025
Published on: Sun, May 04, 2025
By: Datuk Roger Chin Text Size: CALLING Sabah as one of the 13 states of Malaysia starkly overlooks the profound historical and legal context that sets Sabah apart as an equal partner in the federation. To reduce Sabah's status to that of a mere state as was attempted in 1976 but reversed in 2021 is to ignore the foundational agreements and constitutional safeguards that were meticulously crafted to ensure its unique position within Malaysia. This analysis delves into the historical context, legal frameworks, and recent constitutional amendments that collectively affirm Sabah's status as more than just a state. Historical Context Formation of Malaysia The Federation of Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963, bringing together the Federation of Malaya (comprising 11 states), Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (which later left in 1965). The formation of Malaysia was the result of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), signed by the United Kingdom, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (now Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore. This agreement laid down the terms and conditions for the formation of the new federation. Sabah's Unique Position Sabah's inclusion in Malaysia was not as a mere state but as a partner in the federation. The Cobbold Commission, which was set up to determine the wishes of the people of Sabah and Sarawak, reported a significant desire for these regions to join Malaysia but with certain safeguards and special autonomy. As a result, Sabah (and Sarawak) was granted specific rights and privileges, distinct from the existing states of Malaya. Legal Framework and Amendments to the Federal Constitution 1. Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) The MA63 is a fundamental document that outlines the conditions under which Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (at the time) agreed to form Malaysia. Key points include: Autonomy - Sabah and Sarawak were granted considerable autonomy in areas such as immigration, education, and religion. Special Legislative Lists - The Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution includes special legislative lists for Sabah and Sarawak, giving them legislative powers that other states do not have. Additional Protections - Article 161 of the Federal Constitution provides special provisions for Sabah and Sarawak, including safeguards for their native peoples and control over immigration into their territories. 2. The Federal Constitution The Federal Constitution of Malaysia incorporates provisions from the MA63 to ensure Sabah's (and Sarawak's) unique status. Key constitutional provisions include: 20-Point Agreement - Although not part of the Federal Constitution, this document details Sabah's specific conditions for joining Malaysia, including control over immigration, Borneanisation of the civil service, and guarantees of religious freedom. Article 161E - Protects the special position of Sabah and Sarawak in terms of representation in Parliament, the power of the state legislatures, and financial arrangements. Article 112C and 112D - Provide for special grants and sources of revenue for Sabah and Sarawak, acknowledging their unique economic and developmental needs. Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022 In an effort to reinforce Sabah's (and Sarawak's) status as equal partners within Malaysia, the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022 was passed unanimously by the Dewan Rakyat on 14 December 2021 and received royal assent on 11 February 2022. This amendment was specifically aimed at giving effect to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Key aspects of the amendment include: Restoration of Equal Partner Status - The amendment formally acknowledges Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners to Malaya, rectifying any perception that they are mere states. Revised Constitutional Language - Changes were made to the constitutional text to reflect the original spirit of the MA63, ensuring that the partnership status of Sabah and Sarawak is explicitly recognized and protected. Critical Analysis Sabah as a Partner The historical agreements and the specific provisions within the Federal Constitution, reinforced by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022, underscore that Sabah (and Sarawak) were envisaged as equal partners in the formation of Malaysia, rather than mere states. The special protections and autonomies granted reflect this intention. Erosion of Rights Over the decades, there have been claims that some of the special rights and autonomies of Sabah have been eroded. For instance: Petroleum Rights - The controversy over the Petroleum Development Act 1974, which essentially transferred ownership and control of petroleum resources from Sabah (and Sarawak) to the federal government, is often cited as an example of this erosion. Developmental Disparities - There is also ongoing debate about whether Sabah has received its fair share of development and resources, compared to Peninsular Malaysia. Recent Developments The passage of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022 is a significant development in the ongoing efforts to restore and recognize Sabah's special status within the federation. This legislative action demonstrates a clear commitment to upholding the spirit of the MA63 and ensuring that Sabah is treated as an equal partner in Malaysia. Affirming Sabah's Status While it is technically accurate say that Sabah is one of the 13 states, it fails to acknowledge the profound historical and constitutional context that sets Sabah apart. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and subsequent constitutional provisions, reinforced by the recent Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022, unequivocally establish Sabah as an equal partner in Malaysia. It is imperative to recognize and uphold this status, ensuring that Sabah's rights and autonomy are preserved and respected. To do otherwise is to undermine the very foundation upon which Malaysia was built. Sabah is not merely a state, but an equal partner in the Malaysian federation. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Express
5 hours ago
- Daily Express
DAP urges AG to explain NFA decision on Teoh Beng Hock case
Published on: Sunday, June 08, 2025 Published on: Sun, Jun 08, 2025 By: FMT Reporters Text Size: Gobind (right) and Loke. - Filepic by Yusof Mat Isa | Malay Mail PETALING JAYA: DAP has called on Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar to explain in detail why he thinks there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for criminal offences involving the death of former political aide Teoh Beng Hock. In a joint statement today, DAP chairman Gobind Singh Deo and secretary-general Loke Siew Fook also urged Dusuki to review the decision by the Attorney-General's Chambers to classify the investigation into Teoh's 2009 death as requiring no further action, or NFA. Advertisement 'The attorney-general, and no one else, has the discretion to prosecute under the Federal Constitution,' they said. 'He must explain why he is unable to do so in this case, particularly in light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal and civil proceedings in the High Court.' Gobind and Loke said DAP has been consistent in its call for action to be taken against those responsible for Teoh's death. The statement follows a letter dated May 30 from Dusuki to the family's legal representative, Ramkarpal Singh, seeking to explain the AGC's rationale for classifying the case as NFA. Advertisement In the letter, Dusuki said there was 'insufficient evidence' to support a criminal prosecution. Teoh died on July 16, 2009 at the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam after being questioned for hours by the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission headquarters. Last month, police informed Teoh's family that their latest investigation into the case had been classified by the AGC as NFA. On Nov 21 last year, the High Court directed the police to complete their long-delayed investigation into Teoh's death. At an inquest, the coroner returned an open verdict. However, the Court of Appeal ruled in 2014 that the death was caused by 'one or more persons unknown', including MACC officers. In 2019, police launched an investigation under Section 342 of the Penal Code for wrongful confinement. Before 2018, two special investigation teams had been set up – one in 2011 and the other in 2015 – to look into the incident, but both cases were classified as NFA by the public prosecutor. Gobind and Loke noted that DAP assisted Teoh's family in a civil suit which resulted in the government and the MACC admitting liability for negligence leading to Teoh's death. An award of RM600,000 was made to the family, with costs of RM60,000. They said both the findings of the Court of Appeal and the civil court provided a basis for the police to conduct further investigations into the search for the perpetrators behind Teoh's death. 'While the duty to investigate the case and to identify those responsible in this case is with the police, it is for the attorney-general to decide his next step based on the police's investigations,' they said. Noting that Teoh's family is considering challenging the NFA in court by way of judicial review, Gobind and Loke said they support the action. 'We also call upon the attorney-general to review his decision and push ahead with charges against those responsible for Teoh Beng Hock's death without further delay,' their joint statement added. - FMT * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia


Daily Express
8 hours ago
- Daily Express
There must be open dialogue, mutual respect
Published on: Sunday, June 08, 2025 Published on: Sun, Jun 08, 2025 By: Datuk Roger Chin Text Size: By working together, all stakeholders can build a brighter future for Malaysia, one that benefits all its citizens. A Legacy of Discontent - Resolving Sabah and Sarawak's Oil and Gas Impasse Sabah and Sarawak, the emerald jewels of Borneo, are the economic powerhouses of Malaysia. Their vast oil and gas reserves fuel the nation's growth, yet a deep sense of discontent threatens to shatter this prosperity. The root of this tension lies in the unresolved issue of oil and gas rights, a legacy of historical promises and contemporary disagreements. Advertisement This paper delves into the complexities surrounding Sabah and Sarawak's claims, arguing that a critical review of existing frameworks, coupled with open dialogue and a commitment to equitable resource sharing, is essential for achieving a lasting solution. Broken Promises - The Malaysia Agreement of 1963 (MA63) and the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) The Malaysia Agreement of 1963 (MA63) stands as a cornerstone document, promising significant autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak over their natural resources, including oil and gas. However, the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA) appears to contradict this very foundation. Advertisement Established under the cloak of a national emergency, the PDA vested sole authority over Malaysian oil and gas in Petronas, the national oil and gas company. This move by the federal government significantly altered the power dynamic, raising concerns about its adherence to the spirit and letter of MA63. Questioning Legitimacy and Transparency - Deeper Scrutiny Needed Legal scholars raise serious concerns about the PDA's legitimacy. Firstly, the absence of ratification by Sabah and Sarawak's state assemblies potentially violates Article VIII(2)(a) of MA63, which guarantees their control over their natural resources. This unilateral action by the federal government disregards democratic processes and undermines the autonomy promised to these resource-rich states. Secondly, the timing of the emergency coinciding with heightened racial tensions in 1974 necessitates a deeper examination of its true purpose. Was it a genuine crisis, or a convenient justification for a power grab over valuable resources? Scrutinizing historical records and emergency justifications becomes crucial in this context. Beyond legalities, the PDA's lack of transparency adds fuel to the fire. There's no record of citizen consent in these resource-rich states, and the current revenue-sharing formula within the PDA remains shrouded in secrecy. This lack of transparency fuels resentment, as vast wealth is extracted from Sabah and Sarawak with minimal reinvestment in these states. Statistics paint a stark picture - a 2022 World Bank report indicated that Sabah and Sarawak have a GDP per capita significantly lower than the national average. Additionally, these states consistently rank lower in metrics like road quality and access to healthcare compared to the developed peninsular states. The Human Cost of Inaction - Festering Wound and National Unity The extended state of emergency, lifted only in 2011, further stifled legal challenges to the PDA. Decades of simmering discontent have become a festering wound, threatening national unity. Ignoring these grievances has significant economic and social consequences. The oil and gas dispute stands as a major obstacle to national security, prosperity, and cohesion. A fractured Malaysia with a discontented Sabah and Sarawak is unlikely to achieve its full economic potential on the global stage. Beyond Money - A Fight for Self-Determination and Shared Prosperity Sabah and Sarawak's claims extend beyond mere monetary gain. They yearn for a fair deal, a chance to shape their own economic destinies. While increased oil royalty payouts are a necessity, the current model extracts vast wealth, leaving these states lagging behind. They deserve greater control over their resources, the power to decide how their wealth uplifts their people and fuels development. This is not a fight for greed; it's a fight for self-determination. They envision a future where they are active participants in shaping the national economic landscape, not just resource providers. Successful resource-sharing models exist in other federations. Canada's model grants significant autonomy to resource-rich provinces like Alberta over their oil and gas reserves, while ensuring a fair contribution to the national coffers. Similarly, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) employs a successful model where emirates rich in oil and gas contribute to a federal development fund. This fund is then used to support the development of less resource-rich emirates, fostering national unity and shared prosperity. These examples demonstrate that a balance can be achieved, allowing resource-rich regions to contribute to the national good while retaining a significant degree of control over their own resources. Implementing a similar framework in Malaysia, with revenue-sharing based on a transparent formula and provisions for regional development, could pave the way for a more equitable and sustainable future for all Malaysians. The Road to Reconciliation - A Call for Open Dialogue and Mutual Respect Open and honest dialogue involving all stakeholders is essential for forging a path towards reconciliation. This dialogue must extend beyond politicians to include economists, legal experts, and civil society representatives from Sabah and Sarawak. It must be a genuine attempt to understand the depth of discontent and explore solutions that address the root causes. Ignoring these grievances is a recipe for national fracture. A Sustainable Solution - Benefits for All Malaysians A sustainable solution requires a commitment from all parties involved. The federal government must acknowledge the legitimacy of Sabah and Sarawak's claims and demonstrate a willingness to revisit the existing agreements. This could involve: Establishing a revenue-sharing model that reflects a fairer distribution of oil and gas wealth, with a transparent formula that takes into account factors like production costs and depletion rates. Granting Sabah and Sarawak greater autonomy in managing their own oil and gas reserves, allowing them to decide on exploration, development, and production strategies. Investing in infrastructure development and social programs in Sabah and Sarawak to address historical neglect. This could include projects in transportation, education, healthcare, and rural development. Amending MA63 and related agreements to explicitly recognize Sabah and Sarawak's rights over their natural resources. By embracing a more equitable approach, Malaysia can unlock the full potential of Sabah and Sarawak. These resource-rich states can become not just contributors of wealth but active participants in shaping the national economic landscape. This will lead to a more prosperous and cohesive Malaysia, where all states feel they have a stake in the nation's success. Unity or Dissolution - The Choice Before Malaysia The fate of Sabah and Sarawak's oil and gas rights is a crossroads for Malaysia. The nation can choose the path of reconciliation and shared prosperity, or it can continue down the road of disenfranchisement and risk national dissolution. The time for empty promises and half-measures is over. Sabah and Sarawak deserve nothing less than genuine partnership, one that recognizes their rights and unlocks their full potential. Only then can Malaysia truly thrive as a united and prosperous nation. Call to Action The Malaysian government must take decisive steps to address the grievances of Sabah and Sarawak. A comprehensive review of existing agreements, coupled with open dialogue and a commitment to equitable resource sharing, is essential for achieving a lasting solution. By working together, all stakeholders can build a brighter future for Malaysia, one that benefits all its citizens. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]


The Star
16 hours ago
- The Star
Proposed URA faces legal snag
The proposed Urban Redevelopment Act (URA) introduces a consent threshold of 80% for properties under 30 years old and 75% for those over 30 years. This means a redevelopment project could proceed even if 20% (or 25%) of property owners object. Such provisions raise concerns about minority property owners being compelled to relinquish their property rights against their will. This situation potentially infringes on Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which safeguards property rights.