By DayakDaily Team
KUCHING, Nov 8: The Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) has expressed full support for the Sabah Law Society (SLS) in taking decisive legal action against a court application seeking to declare the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Federal Constitution as the authoritative text, emphasising that Article XI of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) clearly provides that in any situation of discrepancy, the English text shall take precedence, and that the Federal Constitution must always be read subject to MA63.
SSRANZ president Robert Pei said the application represents “another backdoor attempt” to override and usurp constitutional powers vested under Article 160B of the Federal Constitution, which vests discretionary authority in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to determine when the Bahasa Malaysia text becomes authoritative.
According to Pei, since the signing of MA63, the constitutional safeguards meant to protect Sabah and Sarawak’s rights have been “undemocratically and unilaterally altered” by Malayan authorities through numerous constitutional amendments.
“In truth, MA63 itself was an act of external interference, in direct contravention of the right of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to genuine independence under UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV),” he said in a statement, which was endorsed by Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) president Voon Lee Shan.
He further contended that the current court bid continues a “pattern of constitutional changes” that has undermined Malaysia’s secular and federal character, weakened East Malaysia’s autonomy, and strengthened “a colonial-style dominance under the guise of Ketuanan Melayu”.
Pei pointed out that Article 160B, inserted into the Federal Constitution in 1971, empowers the King to prescribe the national language text as authoritative once he is satisfied that it is an accurate translation of the English version.
“This provision mirrors Article XI of MA63, which recognises that English shall remain authoritative until a proper translation is achieved,” he said.
Pei highlighted that any judicial declaration bypassing this royal discretion would be unconstitutional, as it effectively usurps the Royal Prerogative and circumvents the amendment procedures required under Articles 159 and 161E, in which the latter mandates the consent of Sabah and Sarawak for constitutional changes affecting their rights.
While a court declaration may not formally amend the Constitution, Pei warned that it could produce binding effects by determining the authoritative meaning of constitutional provisions.
“If the Bahasa Malaysia text were declared authoritative, it would override the English text in interpretation, affect the legal meanings of provisions on religion, language, and native rights, and effectively alter the Constitution without due parliamentary process under Article 159 or Sabah and Sarawak consent under Article 161E,” he said.
Such a move, Pei emphasised, would constitute a fundamental breach of the rule of law, as constitutional change must occur through lawful and democratic procedures, not by “judicial or administrative shortcuts.”
SSRANZ reiterated that MA63 remains the foundational charter of Malaysia, the legal instrument that authorised the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation.
“Without MA63, there would have been no Malaysia,” he reiterated, underscoring that Article XI of MA63 ensures that the English text remains the authoritative reference and that the Federal Constitution must be read in harmony with MA63.
“If Malaya now denies this principle, it must also accept that MA63 no longer binds Sabah and Sarawak, because repudiating its supremacy destroys the legal foundation upon which Malaysia was proclaimed,” he added.
SSRANZ urged the federal government, Parliament, and Judiciary to honour the supremacy of MA63 and the constitutional safeguards for Sabah and Sarawak, instead of eroding them through indirect or procedural means.
“If Malaya refuses to honour MA63, then logically, Malaya may leave the union and allow Sabah and Sarawak to regain their rightful independence,” he said.
The international NGO argued that the ongoing disputes over MA63 and constitutional interpretation, even after 62 years, show that there was never genuine consensus among the founding partners of Malaysia, raising questions about the continuing validity of the Federal Constitution as applied to Sabah and Sarawak.
SSRANZ concluded that the Sabah Law Society’s legal challenge is not merely about linguistic interpretation, but about defending the rule of law, State sovereignty, and constitutional integrity.
“The SLS action is a necessary measure to uphold Sabah and Sarawak’s constitutional safeguards, prevent further erosion of their rights, and reaffirm the true federal compact that was promised in 1963,” Pei concluded. — DayakDaily
