What MA63 Actually Says (Not What Everyone Claims It Says)

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 is a treaty signed in London on 9 July 1963 AD by five parties: the United Kingdom, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore. It was registered with the United Nations Secretariat and sits in the UN Treaty Series at Volume 750, Number 10760. It took effect on 16 September 1963 AD.

You will hear MA63 invoked as though it were one long document containing every Sabahan grievance and every Sabahan claim. The treaty itself is short. The substance sits across three documents, and telling them apart is the first skill this subject requires.

The Malaysia Agreement is the treaty: the instrument by which North Borneo and Sarawak agreed to federate. The Inter-Governmental Committee Report 1962, chaired by Lord Lansdowne, worked out the detailed terms and was annexed to the treaty. The Federal Constitution, as amended by the Malaysia Act 1963, is where those terms became enforceable domestic law, mainly in Part XIIA, headed Additional Protections for the States of Sabah and Sarawak, and in the financial provisions at Articles 112C and 112D read with the Tenth Schedule.

Arguments about Sabah’s position are won and lost on which of those three a claim comes from. A claim grounded in the Federal Constitution can be taken to court. A claim grounded in the IGC Report is interpretive support. A claim grounded in nothing but a 1962 negotiating memorandum will lose.

Four claims about MA63 circulate widely and none of them survives contact with the documents.

It is not a grant of rights from Kuala Lumpur. Nothing was given. The safeguards record the conditions on which North Borneo agreed to federate at all, and those conditions were the price the Federation of Malaya paid for a territory it wanted. A gift can be revised by the giver. A condition of entry cannot. Every other misreading on this list becomes possible once that distinction slips, which is why it goes first.

It is not the 20 Points. Sabah’s political leaders drew up a twenty-point memorandum and submitted it to the Inter-Governmental Committee. Sarawak submitted eighteen. Those were opening positions in a negotiation. Some points were incorporated into the Constitution to varying degrees. Others were accepted only in conversation and gained no legal status at all. Point 1 asked that there be no state religion in North Borneo, and Sabah’s own State Legislative Assembly amended the State Constitution in 1973 AD to declare Islam the state religion, which tells you plainly what a memorandum weighs against a state government with the numbers. Treating the 20 Points as though it were the operative legal instrument hands the federal side an easy win in any serious argument, and it happens constantly, including from people whose position on Sabah is otherwise sound.

It is not dead history. A treaty obligation does not lapse because a generation stopped mentioning it. The Kota Kinabalu High Court demonstrated as much on 17 October 2025 AD, when Justice Celestina Stuel Galid ruled that the federal government had acted unlawfully and beyond its constitutional powers in failing to give Sabah its 40 per cent revenue entitlement for the years 1974 to 2021.

It is not a single lever that answers every complaint. MA63 covers specific subject matter. It contains no petroleum provision at all, because commercial offshore extraction was not in contemplation in 1962. The oil arrangement comes from the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and the 1976 supplementary agreement fixing a five per cent cash payment, and the argument about state waters comes from the Territorial Sea Act 2012, which sets state territorial sea at three nautical miles. Those are strong arguments on their own terms. Filing them under MA63 weakens both.

What the Constitution does contain can be set out in six parts.

1. Immigration. Article 9(3) permits Parliament to restrict citizens’ freedom of movement and residence as between Sabah and the other States for as long as Sabah holds a special position under the Constitution. Part VII of the Immigration Act 1959/63 gives that permission effect: the State controls entry under section 65, and Malaysian citizens from the Peninsula require a pass under section 66. The courts have declined to interfere with how the power is used. In Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan [2002] 4 CLJ 105; [2002] 3 MLJ 72 the Federal Court upheld section 59A of the Act, which excludes judicial review of the immigration authority’s substantive decisions, and section 59, which removes the right to a hearing. The reasoning concerned ouster clauses rather than MA63, and the outcome nonetheless leaves Sabah’s immigration discretion effectively unreviewable. This remains the most functional safeguard Sabah holds.
2. Native status and native land. Article 161A defines natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and Article 161A(5) preserves state law reserving land for them or giving them preferential treatment in its alienation. Since the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022, the determination of which races count as native rests with the State rather than with the federal Constitution.
3. Language and the courts. Article 161 protects the use of English and of native languages, in part with a time limit written into the clause. Article 161B restricts non-residents from practising before the courts in Sabah and Sarawak.
4. Legislative and executive division. Articles 95B to 95E set out the asymmetric arrangements, including Article 95D, under which federal law on land and local government does not apply in Sabah unless the State Assembly adopts it, and Article 95E, which excludes Sabah from national plans for land use, local government and development.
5. Revenue. Article 112C, read with section 2(1) of Part IV of the Tenth Schedule, entitles Sabah to 40 per cent of the net revenue the Federation derives from the State. Article 112D requires a review of that grant at five-yearly intervals.
6. The consent requirement. Article 161E(2) provides that no amendment may be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri where the amendment affects any of five listed matters. Four carry no expiry: citizenship rights of persons born before Malaysia Day; the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and the appointment, removal and suspension of its judges; the matters on which the State Legislature may make laws, the State’s executive authority in those matters, and the financial arrangements related to them; and religion in the State, the use of any language in the State or in Parliament, and the special treatment of natives of the State. The fifth concerns the State’s quota of Dewan Rakyat seats, and it applies only to a Parliament summoned to meet before the end of August 1970.

Point six is the hinge on which the whole structure turns, and it is the point most Sabahans have never heard of. Read it closely enough to notice the date in the fifth paragraph, because a great deal turns on it, and the companion primer takes up what that date has cost.

The recurring question MA63 puts to any federal decision is who was competent to take it and whether they were the ones who took it. That is a question about the location of authority rather than about the generosity of the outcome. A federal grant delivered promptly to Sabah still leaves the deciding in Putrajaya, and a Sabahan who measures the relationship only by what arrives will never notice the thing that was actually bargained for.

The cost of knowing this properly should be stated. Precision is expensive in a political argument. It requires conceding that some widely repeated Sabahan claims have no constitutional basis, that some safeguards were surrendered by Sabahans themselves, and that the strongest case is narrower than the loudest one. Anyone unwilling to pay that price will keep making arguments that feel satisfying in a hall in Kota Kinabalu and collapse in a courtroom in Putrajaya.

The primary sources are all public, and a reader who wants to check any of the above can do so without a law library. The Malaysia Agreement as registered at the United Nations (Treaty Series Vol. 750, No. 10760). The Inter-Governmental Committee Report 1962. The Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962, known as the Cobbold Commission Report. The Federal Constitution, Part XIIA, Articles 9, 95B to 95E, 112C and 112D and the Tenth Schedule, from the Attorney-General’s Chambers reprint. The 20-point and 18-point memoranda, read alongside the IGC Report so the difference between what was asked and what was agreed becomes visible on the page.

MA63 is not a grievance. It is a contract with clauses, dates and remedies, and a people who can quote it are harder to govern badly than a people who can only resent it.

---

A note on Sarawak. This primer covers Sabah. Sarawak’s position under MA63 runs on different figures and a different recent trajectory: its special grant sits in Part V of the Tenth Schedule rather than Part IV and has never carried a 40 per cent formula, and its government has pursued restoration through negotiation with markedly more success than Sabah has. The comparison deserves its own article, and folding it into this one would obscure both.

References

Ordered by where the claim appears in the piece.

1. Malaysia Agreement 1963, signed London 9 July 1963 AD. Parties: United Kingdom, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak, Singapore. In force 16 September 1963 AD. UN Treaty Series Vol. 750, No. 10760.
2. Inter-Governmental Committee Report 1962 (Lansdowne Report), annexed to MA63.
3. UN Treaty Series citation confirmation: https://citra-excel.com/blog/sarawak-immigration-autonomy/
4. Federal Constitution, AGC official reprint (carries text plus amendment notes): https://lom.agc.gov.my/ilims/upload/portal/akta/LOM/EN/Federal%20Constitution%20(Reprint%202020).pdf
5. Federal Constitution reprint, alternate mirror (fetchable; the AGC site blocks automated access): https://media.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/r2e002/5c697b36285ff53e3f573e0c049d64610ebaa572.pdf
6. Part XIIA contents and the repealed status of 161C and 161D — confirmed in the reprint's arrangement of articles, item 5 above.
7. Overview of Part XIIA protections: https://constitutionnet.org/news/restoring-constitutional-equality-sabah-and-sarawak-do-proposed-amendments-malaysian-federal
8. Legal status of the 20 Points. Some points were incorporated into the Constitution to varying degrees; others were accepted only orally and gained no legal status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20-point_agreement
9. Point 1 text. No objection to Islam as national religion, but no state religion in North Borneo, and the Malayan constitutional provisions on Islam not to apply. https://www.ssuuk.com/p/18-20-points-memorandum-between-sarawak.html
10. The 1973 Sabah state religion amendment. Mohd Nazim Ganti Shaari, "Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments? Exploring the 1973 Sabah Constitutional Amendment That Declared Islam the State Religion", Kajian Malaysia 32(2) 2014: http://web.usm.my/km/32(2)2014/KM%2032(2)%202014%20-%20Art.%201.pdf — the State Constitution was amended in 1973 to insert Article 5 declaring Islam the state religion, contrary to the guarantee North Borneo had sought; Cobbold Commission Report para. 102 recorded Islam as a minority religion in North Borneo.
11. High Court judgment, 17 October 2025 AD. Justice Celestina Stuel Galid declared the special grants invalid, ultra vires and irrational. https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/114182/sabah-wins-landmark-ruling-over-40-revenue-entitlement
12. MA63 silence on oil. There is no provision in MA63 supporting a royalty above five per cent, and no discussion of oil across the 1963 negotiations. https://hrmars.com/papers_submitted/19185/factors-of-oil-royalty-revenue-claim-during-the-administration-era-of-musa-aman.pdf
13. PDA 1974 and the 1976 supplementary agreement fixing the 5 per cent as royalty: https://www.malaysia-today.net/2018/08/02/why-mahathir-refuses-to-increase-the-5-oil-royalty-to-20/
14. Territorial Sea Act 2012 [Act 750], three-nautical-mile limit. The TSA defines a state's territorial sea as up to three nautical miles from the low tide line, which determines PDA cash payment liability. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2024/07/17/petronas-to-pay-5pc-in-cash-to-terengganu-for-oil-discovery-extraction-says-azalina/144009
15. Article 9(3) text — from the reprint, item 5 above: so long as a State is in a special position compared with the States of Malaya, Parliament may restrict citizens' movement and residence as between that State and others.
16. Immigration Act 1959/63 [Act 155], Part VII. Sections 65 and 66. Section 66 pass requirement confirmed by the Immigration Department: https://www.imi.gov.my/index.php/en/main-services/pass/endorsement-of-exemption-section-66/
17. Section 65 state consent: https://newmalaysiaherald.com/2026/05/05/new-labour-package-for-sabah-from-parliament/
18. Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan [2002] 4 CLJ 105; [2002] 3 MLJ 72, Federal Court, 23 May 2002. Section 59A was held valid law excluding judicial review of the authority's substantive decision, and section 59, which excludes the right of hearing, was also endorsed. Federal Court summary citing both reports: https://www.kehakiman.gov.my/sites/default/files/documents/Ringkasan_Media/2021/MARIA%20CHIN%20SUMMARY%208.1.2021%20(RAHMAN%20%20MARY).pdf
19. Confirmation the decision remains good law: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/09/20/ambiga-fails-in-bid-to-challenge-her-ban-to-enter-sabah
20. Article 161A(5) — preservation of state law reserving land for natives: text in the reprint, item 5 above. Also summarised at https://www.commonlii.org/my/legis/const/1957/13.html 
21. Act A1642 moving native determination to the States. The amendments covered Article 161A(6)(a) and removed Article 161A(7); native status is now decided by the Sarawak and Sabah governments through their own constitutions. https://www.theborneopost.com/2022/02/13/pbk-constitutional-amendments-meaningless-unless-sarawak-sabah-given-two-thirds-of-parliamentary-seats/
22. Articles 161 and 161B — text in the reprint. The English-language protection carries a time limit written into the clause (ten years after Malaysia Day, per Article 161(1)): https://www.commonlii.org/my/legis/const/1957/13.html
23. Summary: https://constitutionnet.org/news/restoring-constitutional-equality-sabah-and-sarawak-do-proposed-amendments-malaysian-federal
24. Articles 95B–95E — arrangement and headings confirmed in the reprint, item 5 above. Article 95D summarised at https://jesseltontimes.com/2026/03/09/why-sabah-and-sarawaks-35-demand-is-law-not-politics/
25. Article 112C with section 2(1), Part IV, Tenth Schedule. The 40 per cent entitlement stems from Article 112C read with section 2(1) of Part IV of the Tenth Schedule. https://sabahmedia.com/2025/11/07/court-rules-for-sabahs-40-entitlement/
26. Article 112D five-yearly review requirement: https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/11/12/sabahs-lost-years-fight-not-over-as-part-appeal-of-40pc-revenue-ruling-may-affect-arrears-says-lawyer/198074
27. Article 161E(2) full clause text, all five paragraphs including the August 1970 limitation in paragraph (e) — Afif Rahman & Chong, "Something to Ponder: Insertion of Article 121(1A) and the Concurrence of Sabah and Sarawak": https://arclaw.com.my/something-to-ponder-insertion-of-article-121-1a-and-the-concurrence-of-sabah-and-sarawak/
28. Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, on the four constitutional amendment routes including the Article 161E(2) route requiring the Governor's consent. Cited in item 27.
29. Sarawak's Part V arrangement. Sarawak's grant sits under Article 112C and Part V of the Tenth Schedule, and its arrangement differs from Sabah's. https://jesseltontimes.com/2025/10/18/40108/
30. Comparative figures on the two Parts of the Tenth Schedule: https://www.theborneopost.com/2026/07/12/still-wondering-about-the-special-grants/