“MA63 is the most important social contract for maintaining the harmony and stability of the Malaysian Federation… It should not be seen as just a historical document but rather the basis for the formation of a nation and is relevant within the administrative framework and federal state relations.“
– Tun Pehin Sri Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, TYT
EVERY now and then, a politician long out of office resurfaces with remarks so reckless that they threaten to disturb the delicate balance holding this country together. Former de facto law minister, Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim, has done precisely that with his astonishing suggestion that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) should be “cancelled”.
His comments first appeared in his The Zaid Ibrahim Podcast episode uploaded on November 12, 2025, but the clip has resurfaced and gone viral again in recent days. And for good reason. What he said was irresponsible, insensitive, and unbecoming of someone who once held the nation’s legal portfolio.
In that podcast episode with moderator, Shahbudin Husin, Zaid argued that Putrajaya should appeal Sabah’s claim to its 40 per cent revenue entitlement, calling MA63 “unfair” and suggesting that honouring it would make “Malaya go bust”.
He even went as far as implying, perhaps jokingly, perhaps not, that Sarawak and Sabah could pursue independence if they were unhappy. That may have been delivered with a smirk, but serious national issues are not material for jokes. A former law minister of all people should know better.
It bears repeating: MA63 is not a casual memorandum, not an optional add-on, and certainly not an inconvenience that can be tossed aside at whim. It is the foundational, internationally recognised agreement that gave birth to Malaysia. Without Sarawak and Sabah joining as equal partners under clearly negotiated conditions, there would be no Malaysia in the first place.
That is the historical truth. That is the legal truth. That is the political truth. To talk of “cancelling” MA63, even lightly, is to question the very basis of the nation’s formation.
What makes Zaid’s remark even more reckless is its timing. At a moment when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is visibly and actively working to resolve outstanding MA63 matters through the highest technical committees and negotiations, it is baffling why certain former leaders choose to stir sentiments instead of supporting constructive nation-building.
Putrajaya has repeatedly affirmed that it is committed to honouring what is due. Progress may not be perfect, but it is ongoing, serious, and deliberate, unlike the provocative grenades lobbed by Zaid from behind a podcast microphone.
Worse, Zaid’s argument is rooted in the dangerous notion that meeting Sabah and Sarawak’s entitlements would bankrupt Malaya. This reflects not only flawed logic but an alarming disregard for the decades of wealth, resources, and revenue contributed by Sarawak and Sabah to Malaysia’s development. To claim that recognising rightful entitlements will cause financial ruin is not only unsubstantiated, it is also insulting!
Sarawakians and Sabahans who watched the clip were understandably outraged. Many leaders in both states have responded firmly, and rightly so.
Some time ago, Sarawak’s outspoken Minister of Tourism, Creative Industry, and Performing Arts, Datuk Seri Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, in a LinkedIn posting, had consistently defended MA63 from misinformed attacks. Back then, he had reminded Zaid, and by extension all Malayans, that Malaya has long benefited the most from Malaysia’s development path, while Sarawak and Sabah continue to grapple with infrastructure gaps, dilapidated rural schools, outdated clinics, and neglected roads.
Abdul Karim’s words carry truth and sting because he speaks from decades of lived experience and observation.
But Zaid’s remarks have done something else; they have reignited an uncomfortable but necessary conversation about Malaya’s so-called ‘social contract’, often invoked by certain groups to justify policies and entitlements that originated in the nation’s earliest negotiations.
Since Zaid has chosen to question MA63, perhaps he needs a gentle reminder about the fragility of the very framework he defends.
The Malayan social contract, unlike MA63, is not a written treaty. It is an understanding; a moral pact forged among the Malay, Chinese, and Indian communities during independence in 1957.
It was essentially a reciprocal compromise: generous citizenship rights for non-Malays in exchange for constitutional recognition of the special position of the Malays and indigenous groups, the sovereignty of Malay rulers, Islam as the official religion, and Malay as the national language.
This unwritten consensus became the backdrop of the Federal Constitution and continues to shape how affirmative action and national identity are interpreted.
Yet for decades, whenever non-Malayans raise issues of equal rights or representation, this ‘social contract’ is summoned like a protective shield. The irony is glaring. An unwritten understanding in Malaya is defended zealously, but a written, signed, internationally witnessed agreement like MA63 is suddenly deemed negotiable by Zaid.
How does that make sense? How can one defend a verbal moral pact while casually proposing the erasure of a binding treaty?
If Zaid insists on dragging MA63 into debate, then he should not be surprised if Sarawakians and Sabahans begin asking uncomfortable questions in return. Aren’t both documents, the social contract and MA63, designed to protect the interests of distinct regions and communities within Malaysia?
Isn’t MA63, in fact, far more legitimate since it exists in black and white and was signed by sovereign entities? Isn’t mocking MA63 equivalent to mocking the historical safeguards insisted upon by Sarawak and Sabah’s forefathers before agreeing to form Malaysia?
Fortunately, Sarawakians and Sabahans have always been wise and level-headed. No matter how provocative his remarks, no one has seriously called for a re-examination of Malaya’s social contract.
That restraint reflects a maturity and respect that Zaid himself should emulate. But he must understand that every time a former leader carelessly calls for MA63 to be “cancelled”, he risks waking the very sleeping giants he claims to fear: resentment, distrust, and the questioning of other foundational arrangements in this federation.
Putrajaya cannot remain silent forever. Authorities must consider whether such incitement crosses legal or ethical boundaries, especially when it touches on sovereignty, national unity, and the terms of federation. If ordinary Malaysians can see the danger, it is puzzling that no official reprimand has been issued. Leaders walking the thin rope of MA63 must be held accountable before their words tear the rope entirely.
Sarawak, despite being part of Malaysia for more than six decades, still grapples with uneven development outcomes. This is not a matter of pride or grievance; it is fact. Rural communities still travel hours for medical treatment. Many schools remain dilapidated. Basic infrastructure gaps persist.
Yet Sarawak has remained patient and constructive, choosing negotiation over confrontation. Anwar, to his credit, understands this deeply. His political journey, filled with hardship and reflection, has shaped him into a leader capable of empathy. It is why Sarawak has greater confidence now than under past administrations.
What Sarawak and Sabah do not need are former leaders taking cheap shots at their rights or trivialising the very agreement that binds them to the federation. National unity requires sensitivity, not provocation. It requires understanding, not arrogance. Above all, it requires respect for historical agreements that cannot simply be undone when inconvenient.
Zaid may not have meant outright cancellation, but impact matters more than intent. His words fuel distrust, create social media firestorms, and risk deepening regional divides. As a learned lawyer, he should know the weight of his statements. Sarawak and Sabah deserve better than half-baked legal arguments and podcast theatrics.
If anything, Zaid should be thankful he is nowhere near the committees tasked with MA63 implementation. His participation would likely derail the delicate consensus-building underway. MA63 needs sober minds, not showmanship.
For the sake of Malaysia’s unity, stability, and future, leaders must refrain from playing with the matchbox labelled MA63. Continued incitement may open the floodgates to wider discussions that no one truly wants.
Let the government continue its work. Let negotiations continue. And let those who have nothing constructive to contribute hold their silence; perhaps they should spend their remaining time taking care of their grandkids!
The nation was formed through trust. It must be sustained through respect.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at rajlira@gmail.com
