KOTA KINABALU, Jan 28 — Sabahans should reject recent assertions suggesting that the state’s claims over its continental shelf and petroleum resources lack historical or constitutional basis, said Raymond Alfred.
The BIMP-EAGA Sabah chairman said narratives attributed to Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said implying that such rights were not mentioned in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) are historically inaccurate, constitutionally incomplete and inconsistent with the founding agreement that formed Malaysia.
“MA63 is the agreement upon which Sabah agreed to form Malaysia as an equal partner, not as a subordinate state,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.
Raymond stressed that prior to Malaysia Day on Sept 16, 1963, Sabah—then known as North Borneo—was a self-governing territory with full jurisdiction over its land, internal waters, territorial sea, seabed, subsoil and natural resources, including petroleum.
“These rights were exercised under Sabah’s own laws and were never surrendered wholesale under MA63.
“MA63 did not extinguish Sabah’s territorial or resource rights; instead, it constitutionalised them within a federal framework premised on consent, autonomy and equality,” he said.
He also took issue with the application of the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and the Petroleum Mining Act 1966 to Sabah, noting that both laws were enacted after MA63 and were originally intended for Peninsular Malaysia.
“They were not automatically applicable to Sabah or Sarawak and were never adopted by the Sabah State Legislative Assembly,” he said, adding that their extension to Sabah occurred only in 1969 through emergency powers following the May 13 incident.
According to Raymond, the use of emergency ordinances to apply these laws was carried out without Sabah’s consent, without constitutional amendments and contrary to the safeguards entrenched under MA63.
“Emergency laws are, by nature, temporary. They were never meant to permanently alter state territories, ownership of resources or constitutional balances,” he said.
He further pointed out that with the revocation of emergency proclamations in 2011 and 2012, serious constitutional questions now arise over the continued applicability of those federal laws to Sabah.
“This position is not political or opportunistic. It is a logical constitutional consequence following the restoration of normal constitutional order,” he said.
Raymond said Sabah’s position is firmly anchored in the Federal Constitution, citing Article 1(3), which preserves Sabah’s territory as it existed immediately before Malaysia Day; Article 95D, which requires Sabah’s consent for federal laws on matters in the State List; and Articles 112C and 112D, which guarantee Sabah’s special financial and revenue entitlements.
“These provisions exist because MA63 recognised Sabah’s distinct constitutional position. They cannot be overridden by ordinary federal legislation or public interpretation,” he said.
Emphasising that MA63 is a binding constitutional compact, Raymond said it is neither a political slogan nor a symbolic document, but an international agreement incorporated into the Federal Constitution and recently reaffirmed through amendments restoring Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners in the federation.
“Sabahans do not accept any narrative that treats emergency-era federal control as permanent, suggests Sabah has no constitutional basis to assert its rights, or reduces MA63 to a political talking point,” he said.
“This is not an anti-federal position. It is a pro-Constitution position.”
Raymond called on the federal government to acknowledge the historical imposition of the relevant laws through emergency powers, respect MA63 as a binding constitutional framework, and engage Sabah through proper constitutional and institutional mechanisms.
He also proposed the establishment of a structured federal–state platform to resolve issues related to the continental shelf, petroleum governance and revenue sharing based on law, archival records and mutual respect.
“Sabah’s pursuit of its rights strengthens the federation. Ignoring history and constitutional safeguards weakens it,” he said.
“MA63 is not negotiable. History is not optional. Sabah’s rights are constitutional,” he added. — The Borneo Post
