The Malaysia Agreement (MA63),[a] formally known as the Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore,[b] is a founding document which provided for the union of North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore with the existing states of Malaya.[3] This new political entity was to be known as Malaysia.[4][5]
Signed in London, United Kingdom, the agreement came into effect on 16 September 1963, which is now commemorated as Malaysia Day. Less than two years later, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia following political and economic disagreements, becoming a sovereign state on 9 August 1965.[6]
Throughout the 20th century, decolonisation became the societal goal of the peoples under colonial regimes aspiring to achieve self-determination. The Special Committee on Decolonisation (also known as the U.N. Special Committee of the 24 on Decolonisation, reflected in the United Nations General Assembly's proclamation on 14 December 1960 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples hereinafter, the Committee of 24, or simply, the Decolonisation Committee) was established in 1961 by the General Assembly of the United Nations with the purpose of monitoring implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and to make recommendations on its application.[8]
The committee is also a successor to the former Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories. Hoping to speed the progress of decolonisation, the General Assembly had adopted in 1960 the Resolution 1514, also known as the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" or simply "Declaration on Decolonisation". It stated that all people have a right to self-determination and proclaimed that colonialism should be brought to a speedy and unconditional end.[9]
Under the Malaysia Agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Malaya, Britain would enact an act to relinquish sovereign control over Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (now Sabah). This was accomplished through the enactment of the Malaysia Act 1963, clause 1(1) of which states that on Malaysia Day, "Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new states shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed".[10]
Decolonisation, self-determination and referendum
The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided: Before coming to any final decision it is necessary to ascertain the views of the peoples. It has accordingly been decided to set up a Commission to carry out this task and to make recommendations ........
In the spirit of ensuring that decolonisation was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Malayan Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cobbold.[11] The Commission released its findings, report and recommendations on 1 August 1962. It concluded that the formation of Malaysia should be implemented. However, Lord Cobbold also stressed that all parties enter the federation as equal partners. Lord Cobbold had secretly, without disclosing in the report, written to British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 21 June 1962: "I have supported Malaysia in the report on the assumption that Singapore also joins in ... if Singapore were to drop out, a federation between Malaya and the Borneo territories without Singapore would have few attractions."[citation needed]
In Singapore, the People's Action Party (PAP) initially sought merger with Malaysia on the basis of the strong mandate it obtained during the general elections of 1959 when it won 43 of the 51 seats. However, this mandate became questionable when dissension within the Party led to a split. In July 1961, following a debate on a vote of confidence in the government, 13 PAP Assemblymen were expelled from the PAP for abstaining. They went on to form a new political party, the Barisan Sosialis (BS), the PAP's majority in the Legislative Assembly was whittled down as they now only commanded 30 of the 51 seats. More defections occurred until the PAP had a majority of just one seat in the Assembly.
Given this situation, it would have been impossible to rely on the mandate achieved in 1959 to move forth with merger. A referendum was eventually held in 1962 for a new mandate. This new mandate was seen as necessary, especially since BS argued that the terms of merger offered were detrimental to Singaporeans – such as having reduced seats in the federal parliament compared to its population, only being able to vote in Singapore elections,[12] and the obligation that Singapore contribute 40% of its revenue to the federal government. To allay these concerns, a number of Singapore–specific provisions were included in the Agreement.[13] Singapore was ultimately expelled from Malaysia on 9 August 1965.
Brunei's refusal
Although Brunei sent a delegation to the signing of the Malaysia Agreement, they did not sign, as the Sultan of Brunei wished to be recognised as the senior ruler in the entire federation and what had happened during the Brunei revolt.[14] It would continue to be a British protectorate until it became a sovereign state on 1 January 1984.
Kelantan's claims
On 11 September 1963, just four days before the new Federation of Malaysia was to come into existence, the Government of the State of Kelantan sought a declaration claiming that the Malaysia Agreement and Malaysia Act were null and void, or alternatively, that even if they were valid, they did not bind the State of Kelantan. The Kelantan Government argued that both the Malaysia Agreement and the Malaysia Act were not binding on Kelantan on the following grounds that the Malaysia Act in effect abolished Malaya and this was contrary to the 1957 Malaya Agreement that the proposed changes required the consent of each of the constituent states of the Federation of Malaya – including Kelantan – and this had not been obtained. This suit was dismissed by James Thomson, then Chief Justice, who ruled that the constitution had not been violated during the discussion and creation of the Malaysia Act.[15][16]
Current issues
Over the decades after the agreement, many academics and politicians have argued that the promises made to Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah) have been eroded over time by the federal government.[17][18][19] After the historic initial defeat of the Alliance/Barisan Nasional (BN) government in the 2018 Malaysian general election, the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government promised to look into Sarawak and Sabah's grievances in relation to the Malaysia Agreement which had been neglected.
After a proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia to restore the status of Sabah and Sarawak according to the original content of Malaysia Agreement failed to pass a two-thirds majority, the federal government compromised to review the agreement to remedy breaches of the treaty with a "Special Cabinet Committee To Review the Malaysia Agreement".[20][21] The seven agreed issues were:
The first meeting about these issues was held on 17 December 2018.[21] Despite the willingness of the federal government to review the agreement, reports surfaced that negotiations between Sabah and the federal government had not been smooth, with the latter dictating some matters of the review, causing the perception that the review was a one-sided affair with the government appearing reluctant to relinquish control of affairs.[22]
In another 2021 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia, Article 160 (2) of the federal constitution was amended with the new definition of the term "federation" where the Malaysian federation is formed in accordance to the 1963 Malaysian agreement in addition to 1957 Malaya agreement.[23] In February 2022, the name of the head of government of Sarawak was changed from "Chief Minister" to "Premier". In 2024, it was proposed that Sabah does the same.[24]
In March 2022, 11 people from Sarawak filed a writ application to the High Court of Sarawak to declare the Malaysia Agreement as null and void on the argument that the people of Sarawak did not unconditionally exercise self-determination nor referendum was held before the formation of Malaysia.[25] In April 2022, the Government of Sarawak tried to strike out the suit on reasons that the High Court had no jurisdiction to enforce or nullify an international treaty like MA63.[26] In May 2023, the high court in Kuching dismissed the suit because the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the country and for Sarawak to leave the federation, the Federal Constitution needs to be amended.[27]
2025 Sabah High Court ruling
Through a ruling on 17 October 2025, the High Court of Kota Kinabalu ruled that the Malaysian federal government has acted unlawfully by failing to fulfil Sabah's right to 40% of federal revenue derived from the region for nearly 50 years.[28][29][30] The federal government, through Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, then made a contrasting response that they will not appeal the court ruling decision,[31][32] before changing his remarks the following days that they will "only file an appeal against the Kota Kinabalu High Court's grounds of judgement regarding the 40% special grant for Sabah, and not against the decision on the state's entitlement".[33] In another remarks, he further claimed that the court ruling on the federal entitlement invites misleading interpretations that the federal government only takes revenue from Sabah without contributing to its development.[34] Malaysia's former Minister in the Prime Minister's Department for Legal Affairs and Judicial Reform Zaid Ibrahim further chided the ruling through his own podcast in YouTube and said that if the federal government should pay as per the ruling, they will immediately become bankrupt; thus, he rather called for the removal of "burden" of Malaya with cancellation of the Malaysia Agreement and went as far as implying that both Sabah and Sarawak could pursue independence if they were unhappy.[35]
His remarks were subsequently criticised and attracted outrage from both Sabah and Sarawak state governments, opposition, various legal teams and NGOs, where he was warned that national issues are not material for jokes and it could become reality soon and lead to the termination of the Malaysia Agreement and subsequent dismantlement of the Federation of Malaysia.[36] A year before, Zaid also expressed his worriness with the way Sarawak state oil company (Petros) deal with federal government oil company (Petronas) for the latter "alleged disrespect of state laws, as well as claims that Sarawak may sever ties with the federal government over the oil issues".[37] The Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS) Youth Wing also saw the comments made by Zaid, who is a former law person, "revealed the real attitude of the Malayan colonialist mentality when the latter always had his own perception that Malaya was robbed by the British government when they signed the Malaysia Agreement with Sabah and Sarawak" despite the ruling actually being the return of Sabah's rights that has been ignored by the federal government for 50 years.[38] Zaid then made another controversial statement that what he saw as Sabah's and Sarawak's pursuit for their constitutional safeguards, which has been ignored for decades, "was a game of outwitting Malaya by forming a Borneo Bloc[ms] and began to challenge federal laws", where he was further criticised harshly.[39] Nevertheless, contrasting his current opinion that he perceived the East Malaysian region wanted to overtake West Malaysian political influence, Zaid once personally asked Sarawak to lead the country a year before in 2024, following Sarawak's rapid economic success compared to what he saw as the present decline of the federation of Malaysia, especially in the past 50 years, partly as a result of West Malaysian politicians persistent playing on "race, religion and royalty (3R)" issues.[40]
Within the heightened issues between the Sabah government and the Malaysian federal government over Sabah rights, a West Malaysian Multimedia University law lecturer analyst, Hafiz Hassan, further tried to downgrade the relevant status of Sabah and Sarawak with the opinion that "both were merely states within the federation, not separate 'partners' that jointly formed the country of Malaysia", adding that their status is just like the states that already existed within the Federation of Malaya.[41] His comments were subsequently rebuked by the president of Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo), Daniel John Jambun, who reminded him that such a statement reflects a narrow and incomplete reading of Malaysia's constitutional history since only Sabah and Sarawak entered Malaysia through an international treaty which is known as the Malaysia Agreement, whilst the other eleven Malayan Federation states did not since they were already constituent states within the Federation of Malaya formed in 1957.[42] He added the federation itself; Malaysia came into existence because these Borneo territories agreed to form a new federation based on specific safeguards and solemn assurances. If commitments are continued to be gradually ignored, diluted, or reinterpreted out of existence, then the question that West Malaysians should ask is not whether both territories are equal to other states but whether the constitutional promises made to the Borneo states in 1963 are still being honoured in good faith by them or otherwise betrayed, since history records clearly that the Malaysian federation was created through a valid agreement, not merely a territorial conquest or absorption.[42]
On 5 March 2026, a leaked document received by the Tuaran Member of Parliament (MP) of Sabah Wilfred Madius Tangau giving details that the federal government of Malaysia under Anwar Ibrahim "has secretly appealed for the postponement of the court ruling in February 2026" despite the prime minister's persistent announcement to the general East Malaysian public that there will be no appeal on the case, revealing the contrasting statement made by a prime minister and doubtful sincerity with false promises.[43] Following the findings, Sabahan MPs and senators have announced they have prepared to back legal action against the federal government if negotiations over the Sabah's 40% constitutional revenue entitlement fail to yield results by 15 April 2026.[44] Chief Political Secretary to the Sabah Chief Minister Azrul Ibrahim further reiterated the calls for the federal government to begin partial payments related to Sabah's 40% revenue entitlement while formal negotiations are underway without delaying the issues further,[45] which is also similarly echoed earlier by the leader of Sabah's opposition and former Chief Minister Shafie Apdal.[46]
Documents
The Malaysia Agreement lists annexes of
Annex A: Malaysia Bill
First Schedule—Insertion of new Articles in Constitution
Second Schedule—Section added to Eighth Schedule to Constitution
Third Schedule—Citizenship (amendment of Second Schedule to Constitution)
Fourth Schedule—Special Legislative Lists for Borneo States and Singapore
Fifth Schedule—Additions for Borneo States to Tenth Schedule (Grants and assigned revenues) to Constitution
Sixth Schedule—Minor and consequential amendments of Constitutions
Annex B: The Constitution of the State of Sabah
The Schedule—Forms of Oaths and Affirmations
Annex C: The Constitution of the State of Sarawak
The Schedule—Forms of Oaths and Affirmations
Annex D: The Constitution of the State of Singapore
First Schedule—Forms of Oaths and Affirmations
Second Schedule—Oath of Allegiance and Loyalty
Third Schedule—Oath as Member of the Legislative Assembly
Annex F: Agreement of External Defence and Mutual Assistance
Annex G: North Borneo (Compensation and Retiring benefits) Order in Council, 1963
Annex H: Form of public officers agreements in respect of Sabah and Sarawak
Annex I: Form of public officers agreements in respect of Singapore
Annex J: Agreement between the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore on common and financial arrangements
Annex to Annex J—Singapore customs ordinance
Annex K: Arrangements with respect to broadcasting and television in Singapore
↑Malay: Perjanjian yang berhubungan dengan Malaysia antara United Kingdom Great Britain dan Ireland Utara, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, Borneo Utara, Sarawak dan Singapura; Chinese:大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国与马来亚联合邦、北婆罗洲、砂拉越和新加坡之间关于马来西亚的协定; Tamil: ஐக்கிய இராச்சியம், வடக்கு அயர்லாந்து, மலாயா கூட்டமைப்பு, வடக்கு போர்னியோ, சரவாக், சிங்கப்பூர் நிலப் பகுதிகளுக்கு இடையே மலேசியா தொடர்பான ஒப்பந்தம்
↑See: Section 1(1), Malaysia Act 1963, Chapter 35 (UK).
↑Cobbold was Governor of the Bank of England from 1949 to 1961. The other members were Wong Pow Nee, Chief Minister of Penang, Mohammed Ghazali Shafie, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Abell, former Governor or Sarawak, and David Watherston, former Chief Secretary of Malaya.
↑Admission of New States: The Government of the State of Kelantan v. The Government of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
↑Bayar 40% Pada Sabah, Malaysia Bankrap! ° THE ZAID IBRAHIM PODCAST[Pay 40% to Sabah, Malaysia Goes Bankrupt! ° THE ZAID IBRAHIM PODCAST](media). The Zaid Ibrahim Podcast (in Malay) (YouTubeed.). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 12 November 2025. 28:06 minutes in. Retrieved 8 March 2026.
↑List of references: •Lajiun, Jenne (21 March 2025). "Sabah estimates RM20 billion in 40% revenue entitlement". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 11 April 2025. Retrieved 9 March 2026. Deputy Chief Minister I Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Jeffrey Kitingan revealed that the Government of Sabah has estimated its 40% revenue entitlement from federal collections at RM20 billion for the year 2024. The revenue from Sabah is collected by the federal government, but 40% must be returned to Sabah. How much is the 40%? It is a lot. But for 60 years, these financial rights have not been implemented. And we must claim it. Jeffrey recalled how in the past, his struggle to claim Sabah's own rights were met with laughter by other leaders who claimed that he was saying empty words and asked where he got the 40% detail from. I do not blame the previous leaders who are scared because they are scared of the administration at Kuala Lumpur under Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the time since those who try to raise their rights will end up arrested, just like me. So when they are scared, they don't read the Constitution. They don't speak out; their mouths have been shut, so they don't know. I was also not a politician at the time and instead a director at Yayasan Sabah. But I was already aware and voiced it out. The federal government administration at the time was angry, and Dr Mahathir asked me what I was doing in Sabah. I said nothing. I was teaching the people how to be independent. He said, 'Don't teach the people what they don't know.' The Kuala Lumpur federal government doesn't want us to know our rights. And because of this, I was arrested (under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and kept there for nearly three years). It doesn't matter. I was sick. Who was jailed for a day, two days, one week, or one month? I was there for two years and seven months. After I was released, the people believed the reason and said that I was arrested "because of a cause"; now more are fighting for the cause. Now some people (in West Malaysian administration) say that the federal government will go bankrupt if Sabah gets 40%. How can they go bankrupt? That is our money. •Rajah, M (24 November 2025). "MA63 not bargaining chip for tired politicians". Sarawak Tribune. Archived from the original on 27 November 2025. Retrieved 8 March 2026. •"Fazzrudin kecam kenyataan Zaid hina Sabah, Sarawak"[Fazzrudin condemns Zaid's statement insulting Sabah, Sarawak]. Nabalu News (in Malay). 24 November 2025. Archived from the original on 7 December 2025. Retrieved 8 March 2026. •Zhahrulniza (27 November 2025). "DUN Sarawak: Hamzah kecam Zaid Ibrahim, MA63 bukan bahan mainan politik"[Sarawak DUN: Hamzah slams Zaid Ibrahim, MA63 is not a political toy]. TV Sarawak (in Malay). Archived from the original on 8 March 2026. Retrieved 8 March 2026.
↑Firdaus Yaacob, Janatul (21 November 2024). "Zaid Ibrahim bimbang cara Sarawak ugut Petronas"[Zaid Ibrahim concerned about Sarawak's way of threatening Petronas]. Suara.TV (in Malay). Archived from the original on 8 March 2026. Retrieved 8 March 2026.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore at Wikisource 
