By DayakDaily Team
KUCHING, Julu 30: Senator Robert Lau has criticised what he described as inaccuracies in a recent episode of the Keluar Sekejap podcast discussing the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), warning that misconceptions over the country’s formation risk distorting public understanding of Sarawak and Sabah’s constitutional position.
In a statement responding to Episode 207 of the podcast, Lau said discussions on federalism, the formation of Malaysia and the rights of Sarawak and Sabah must be grounded in historical and constitutional facts.
He took issue with several points raised during the episode, which featured law lecturer Muhammad Hafiz Hassan as a subject matter expert, particularly on the historical circumstances surrounding the creation of Malaysia and the constitutional status of Sarawak and Sabah.
One of Lau’s main objections was the characterisation of Sarawak and Sabah as states that joined the existing Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia.
He said this interpretation failed to recognise the role of Sarawak and Sabah as partners in the formation of a new federation.
“Sarawak and Sabah were partners in the formation of Malaysia. They entered the Federation as equal partners in the creation of a new nation,” Lau said, stressing that the distinction was fundamental to understanding Malaysia’s constitutional history.
Lau also disputed claims that a referendum was held in Sarawak and Sabah to determine whether the territories would join Malaysia.
He said no such referendum was conducted, although Singapore had held a referendum on the issue before becoming part of Malaysia in 1963.
“Although United Nations conventions governing the process of decolonisation envisage a plebiscite to determine whether the people of a colonised territory accept the proposed path to independence, no such plebiscite was held in Sarawak or Sabah,” he said.
Another point raised by Lau concerned the parties involved in the MA63.
He said the nine Malay states, along with Straits Settlements of Penang and Melaka, were not individual signatories to MA63. Instead, the Federation of Malaya itself was one of the five parties that signed the agreement, alongside the United Kingdom, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore.
“Kelantan opposed the Agreement and commenced legal proceedings against the Federal Government of Malaya, challenging the validity of MA63. Kelantan’s principal argument was that it had neither been consulted nor had it consented to the Agreement.
“In Government of the State of Kelantan v Government of the Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj [1963] MLJ 355, the court held that the Federation possessed the prerogative to enter into treaties and that the individual states had no constitutional role in that process,” he cited.
He also rejected the suggestion that the Malay states had granted concessions to Sarawak and Sabah in order to secure their participation in Malaysia.
According to Lau, the protections given to Sarawak and Sabah were constitutional safeguards arising largely from recommendations by the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC), which were later incorporated into the Federal Constitution.
“These were not concessions granted by the states of Malaya, but special constitutional arrangements designed to accommodate the unique circumstances of Sarawak and Sabah.
“Some of these amendments were introduced through the Supplement to the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, conferring legislative powers over matters such as native law and custom and cadastral land surveys,” he said.
In Sabah’s case, he added that legislative authority over the Sabah Railway was also included, recognising that it could not realistically be absorbed into Keretapi Tanah Melayu.
“While these constitutional arrangements were unique and make for an interesting study in constitutional law, they have also created significant practical and administrative challenges,” he said.
Lau pointed out that the continued misunderstanding of MA63 reflected a wider problem in public awareness of Malaysia’s constitutional development.
He expressed concern that many law students were not sufficiently exposed to the constitutional history and legal issues surrounding MA63, describing the omission as a serious gap in legal education.
“It is therefore regrettable when prominent public figures disseminate inaccurate information,” he said.
The senator’s response comes amid renewed public interest in MA63, particularly in Sarawak and Sabah, where issues surrounding state rights, autonomy, natural resources and federal-state relations continue to be widely debated.
For Lau, the issue extends beyond historical interpretation, arguing that an inaccurate understanding of Malaysia’s formation could shape how future generations view the relationship between the federal government and the two Borneo states.
“If we do not know our history — or worse, if our history is misunderstood or distorted — it does not bode well for our future.
“It is important that discussions on these matters are grounded in historical facts and constitutional accuracy,” he said. — DayakDaily
