‘Erasing national borders does not make people safer or more prosperous. It undermines democracy and trades away prosperity.’
– US President Donald Trump
A nation ceding part of its territory to another is no ordinary event. When it does occur, controversy is almost inevitable.
Such is the case with recent reports that Malaysia has ceded approximately 5,200 hectares of territory to Indonesia as compensation in exchange for three villages in the Nunukan area, near the Sabah–Kalimantan border.
Like many Malaysians, I was taken by surprise by this development. Territorial adjustments of this nature are rare, and the lack of public familiarity only heightens concern.
Not surprisingly, the issue has quickly ignited heated exchanges between the government and the opposition. We can expect more political crossfire in the days ahead, but I hope the matter will have a satisfactory ending.
The story first came to my attention via a Malaysiakini article on Jan 22, when the news portal quoted Tempo, Indonesia’s official media, as stating that “thousands of hectares of this territory were proposed to support the development of cross-border posts and free-trade zones”.
The following day, Malaysia’s Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability Minister, Datuk Arthur Joseph Kurup, disputed the reports, clarifying that “the negotiations to survey and mark the borders between the two countries were done harmoniously based on pre-existing agreements, and not on ‘reciprocity, compensation, or profit-and-loss’”.
On Jan 29, Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin pressed Putrajaya to address concerns about its purported move to cede 5,207ha of land to Indonesia as compensation.
Addressing a press conference in Parliament, Hamzah emphasised that the government, especially Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, must uphold the principle of transparency in matters involving national sovereignty.
In an immediate response, the prime minister refused to entertain the opposition’s call for an explanation over Putrajaya’s purported move to cede land to Indonesia.
Asserting that there is “no need” for the matter to be clarified in Parliament, Anwar instead lambasted the opposition for supposedly spreading “lies” when commenting on the issue. The PM’s remarks were carried by Malaysiakini, with no elaboration on what he meant by “lies”.
I think the Madani government owes it to Malaysians to clarify the matter clearly, as it involves the sovereignty of the nation and is certainly of great public interest.
A Malaysiakini reader commented that “what makes the response more troubling is that even the minister’s clarification stopped short of addressing the key issue — the scale and substance of the border shift.
“Labelling reports ‘inaccurate’ without explaining what changed, what did not, and why, is not clarification.
“Malaysians expect better than character attacks when asking about land, borders, and sovereignty,” the reader added.
I share these sentiments.
This controversy should never have been allowed to spiral the way it has, precisely because it touches on borders, land, and sovereignty — matters that sit at the very core of the nation-state.
When such issues arise, the burden on the government is not merely to deny or deflect, but to explain and reassure.
At the outset, I think Hamzah Zainudin raised a legitimate question. Whether one agrees with him politically is irrelevant.
When reports emerge that 5,207 hectares of land may have been ceded as part of a settlement, the matter automatically becomes one of public interest. Silence or scorn does not make the concern disappear; it only deepens public unease.
The PM’s response, regrettably, fell short. To say there is “no need” to clarify the matter in Parliament, while simultaneously accusing the opposition of spreading “lies” without specifying what those lies are, is not transparency. It is evasion dressed up as confidence.
What makes the situation more troubling, as the Malaysiakini reader has noted, is that even subsequent ministerial clarifications failed to address the heart of the matter.
Equally concerning is the fact that these reports originated from Indonesia. If true, it suggests that Malaysians learned of a potentially significant border-related development not from their own government, but from a foreign source.
That alone should have prompted an immediate, detailed briefing. A confident government does not wait to be cornered; it steps forward.
Malaysians would surely want to see this issue reach a proper and credible conclusion.
For that to happen, the PM must allow and welcome a full parliamentary explanation. Parliament is precisely where questions of sovereignty belong.
The government should also release supporting documents where possible — maps, joint communiqués, or treaty references. Transparency is not a slogan; it is a paper trail.
Finally, it is important to recognise that Malaysians asking about land, borders, and sovereignty are not enemies of the state.
They are citizens exercising their rightful interest in the nation’s integrity. They deserve an explanation grounded in clear facts.
This issue can still be resolved cleanly. A calm, comprehensive explanation would not weaken the PM; it would strengthen him. It would reassure the public, neutralise speculation, and close the matter with authority.
On questions of sovereignty, Malaysians do not expect perfection — but they do expect honesty, clarity, and respect.
————————————-
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. He can be reached at sirsiah@gmail.com
