From James Chin
The demand for Sabah and Sarawak to hold 35% of Malaysia’s parliamentary seats isn’t merely a political proposition but a clarion call for justice, rooted in the historical political understanding that formed Malaysia and fuelled by decades of systemic marginalisation.
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), which formalised the federation of Malaysia, promised Sabah and Sarawak equal partnership with Malaya, with Sabah and Sarawak as “founders” and not mere states in the federation.
Yet, for much of Malaysia’s history, this promise has been betrayed, with Sabah and Sarawak treated as little more than resource colonies for Malaya’s benefit.
The refusal of Malayan-based NGOs to support this 35% seat allocation reveals a persistent colonial mentality, one that seeks to maintain control over Borneo’s political and economic destiny.
Historical foundations of the 35% demand
The formation of Malaysia in 1963 was not a unilateral act but a negotiated partnership between Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (until its exit in 1965).
The MA63 enshrined specific safeguards to ensure Sabah and Sarawak retain significant autonomy and influence. One critical aspect was the allocation of parliamentary seats, intended to reflect the unique status of these Borneo states.
At the time, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak were allocated a combined 34% of seats in the Dewan Rakyat, a proportion meant to guarantee a veto of constitutional amendments proposed by Malaya if one of the three “Ss” objects.
This wasn’t a random figure but a carefully negotiated commitment to balance Malaya’s numerical and political dominance. When Singapore left the federation, the right thing to do was to redistribute its parliamentary seats to Sabah and Sarawak to maintain the status quo.
This was not done and following subsequent redelineation exercises, Sabah and Sarawak are now left with 25% of parliamentary seats.
Malaya can effectively change the Malaysian constitution at will. In fact, this is exactly what happened. There have been slightly more than one constitutional amendment annually. In sum, it doesn’t matter what Sabahans and Sarawakians think, Malaya doesn’t need to consult them on constitutional amendments.
In fact, Sabah and Sarawak were called “fixed deposits” by Kuala Lumpur for many years, a derogatory term meaning no matter what KL does, Sabah and Sarawak will support them.
The demand for 35% representation is thus not a new claim but a restoration of the original intent under MA63, that Sabah and Sarawak’s contributions to Malaysia’s economy, culture, and geopolitical stability warrant a significant voice in the federation. Without this, the very foundation of Malaysia as a partnership of equals is rendered hollow.
Malaya’s exploitation: a colonial legacy
In Malaysia’s first 50 years of existence, Sabah and Sarawak weren’t treated as founder states but resource colonies and “fixed deposits” for Umno. Sabah and Sarawak MPs gave Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
The most glaring example is the exploitation of their oil and gas reserves. From the 1970s to 2013, an estimated RM500 billion worth of oil and gas was extracted from Sabah and Sarawak, through Petronas.
The Petroleum Development Act 1974 stripped Sabah and Sarawak of control over their O&G resources, giving everything to Petronas and, by extension, the federal government.
This act of economic colonisation ensured billions in revenue flowed westward, leaving Borneo with paltry royalties – just 5% – and little say in how their resources were managed.
Malayan leaders justified this as necessary for national development, but the reality is Sabah and Sarawak were plundered to fuel Malaya’s growth.
Sabah’s poverty rate remained among the highest in Malaysia, peaking at 20% in the 1990s, while Sarawak’s rural communities struggled with inadequate infrastructure. Roads, schools, and hospitals in Borneo lagged far behind those in Peninsular Malaysia, while Petronas poured billions into Putrajaya and the Twin Towers.
Can anyone name an iconic building built by Petronas in Sabah or Sarawak?
The political awakening post-2008
The year 2008 marked a turning point in Malaysia’s political landscape. For the first time, BN lost its two-thirds majority, relying heavily on MPs from Sabah and Sarawak to remain in power.
Suddenly, Malaya’s political elite began to pay attention to Borneo, not out of genuine respect for MA63 but out of sheer necessity. Promises of decentralisation, increased funding, and greater autonomy emerged, but these were tactical moves to secure Borneo’s votes.
This exposed the fragility of Malaya’s federalism rhetoric. For decades, Malayan leaders ignored Sabah and Sarawak’s grievances, dismissing calls for fair representation as divisive or unnecessary. Only when their political survival depended on Borneo’s MPs did they begin to acknowledge the imbalances.
This opportunism underscores a critical truth: Malaya’s newfound interest in dealing with historical grievances isn’t a moral awakening but a pragmatic response to political realities.
If Sabah and Sarawak MPs were no longer needed to prop up federal coalitions in the future, Malaya would likely revert to its old ways, sidelining Borneo’s interests once again.
The hypocrisy of Malayan NGOs
Malayan NGOs, often vocal on issues of governance and human rights, have been mounting a high profile campaign on the 35% seat allocation.
They frequently position themselves as champions of justice, yet their failure to advocate for Borneo’s rightful representation reveals a deep-seated bias. They’re quick to lecture Sabah and Sarawak on issues like environmental conservation or democratic reforms, but when it comes to empowering Borneo politically, they retreat into silence or outright opposition.
This reflects a colonial mentality that views Malaya as the intellectual and political centre of Malaysia, with Sabah and Sarawak as mere appendages. By ignoring the 35% demand, these NGOs perpetuate the idea that Borneo’s role is to follow, not lead.
Their reluctance to support greater representation stems from a fear that an empowered Sabah and Sarawak would challenge Malaya’s dominance, forcing a reckoning with the federation’s unequal structure. This isn’t progressivism but gatekeeping dressed up as national unity.
The path to true independence
Sabahans and Sarawakians must recognise the historical and ongoing injustices they have faced and unite to demand their rightful 35% of parliamentary seats. This isn’t just about numbers but reclaiming the power to shape Malaysia’s future as founder states.
With Borneo’s MPs holding significant leverage now, this is a rare opportunity to correct decades of marginalisation. Failure to act risks perpetuating the status quo, where Malaya’s interests continue to dominate at Borneo’s expense.
Unity is critical. Sabah and Sarawak must set aside internal differences and present a united front. The MA63 provides a legal and moral basis for their demands, and the economic contributions of Borneo, particularly its O&G wealth, underscore their indispensable role in the federation.
Sabahans and Sarawakians must reject the patronising narratives of Malayan NGOs and assert their right to think independently. True independence means not only political and economic autonomy
but also the freedom to define their own priorities without being dictated by KL.
Moreover, Sabah and Sarawak want no part of the toxic politics found in Malaya today where racial and religious politics has overtaken all rational discussion on public policies and Malaysia’s future.
The demand for 35% of parliamentary seats for Sabah and Sarawak is a non-negotiable step toward rectifying historical grievances and correcting past wrongs.
The time for half-measures is over. Sabah and Sarawak must claim their full independence – political, economic, and intellectual – and push back against the coloniser’s ideas that have held them back for
too long.
The future of Malaysia as a true federation depends on it.
James Chin is professor of Asian studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
