Sabah's first chief minister Tun Muhammad Fuad Stephens at the Malaysia proclamation ceremony, in Jesselton (now Kota Kinabalu). —National Archive
THE road towards the creation of a country and honouring the Malaysia Agreement 1963 )MA63) is not without bumps, obviously.
For instance, the Kelantan government had on Sept 11, 1963 – four days before the announcement on the Federation of Malaysia – filed a suit to argue that the MA63 and its subsequent Act were not binding on Kelantan on the grounds that the latter had effectively abolished Malaya, contrary to the 1957 Malaya Agreement.
The state said any proposed changes would require the consent of each constituent state, which in the case of the formation of Malaysia, was not obtained. However, the suit was dismissed by then Chief Justice of Malaya James Thomson who ruled that no law or Constitution was violated. (See graphic on pages 24 and 25 for more.)
The announcement of the Federation of Malaysia as a new country then went on without a hitch. However, just 10 months later, on July 21, 1964, racial tensions erupted into violence during a procession celebrating the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday in Singapore.
Throughout the remainder of 1964 and into 1965, political and economic disputes between Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party and Umno intensified. The protracted disagreements led to Singapore being expelled from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965 (though some argue Singapore left of its own accord).
And later as Malaysia stepped into the 1970s, Sabah and Sarawak faced significant challenges in asserting their rights as spelt out in the MA63.
Among others, the Petroleum Development Act of 1974 was mooted to centralise the control of oil and gas resources under PETRONAS, sparking disputes over revenue sharing and resource management. Both states felt the centralisation unfairly disadvantaged them.
Sabah and Sarawak have also long sought greater autonomy in areas like education and healthcare, clashing with federal policies that they feel do not address their unique needs. Economic disparities have been a major issue, with complaints about inadequate development funds and unfair revenue distribution.
However, as the country moves forward, a change in government in the 14th General Election renewed the calls for honouring the agreement, which had also been listed under the then Pakatan Harapan’s manifesto.
But again, hurdles remained when the Pakatan government failed to obtain the two-thirds Parliament majority it needed to amend Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution during a sitting on Aug 9, 2019.
A two-thirds vote majority, which amounts to 148 out of the 222 seats in the Dewan Rakyat, is needed to amend the Constitution. Pakatan managed to secure 138 votes, with no lawmakers disagreeing. However, 59 MPs abstained from voting.
Former federal minister (now Sarawak Yang Di-Pertua Negeri) Tun Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar criticised PH government’s proposed constitutional amendment on Sabah and Sarawak, labeling it as a “political ploy.” He said Sarawak’s ruling coalition, Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS), had proposed an amendment that explicitly referenced MA63 in Article 1(2).
Their proposed changes aimed to clarify the status of the states in relation to MA63.
Nevertheless, on Dec 14, 2021, the government successfully made the constitutional amendment to re-establish Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners with Peninsular Malaysia (nee Malaya).
The Bill passed with 199 MPs voting in favour and 21 absent. Wan Junaidi said the amendment places MA63 alongside the Federal Agreements of 1948 and 1957, ensuring these states are acknowledged as autonomous entities within Malaysia.Article 160(2) now includes MA63, reflecting the formation of Malaysia more accurately. The amendment also officially designates Sept 16, 1963, as Malaysia Day, correcting the Constitution’s previous focus on Malayan Independence. This change ensures that Sabah and Sarawak’s demands are now part of the Federal Constitution.
