WHEN the Federal Constitution was amended in February 2022 to finally acknowledge the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), Tun Pehin Sri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar knew he had achieved something that generations before him had fought for.

As the Law Minister at the time, he became the architect who secured Sarawak and Sabah’s rightful place within Malaysia’s legal framework.

“It took 58 years, but finally, on February 11, 2022, MA63 was recognised in the Constitution.

“For the first time, Sarawak and Sabah’s rights had a constitutional footing,” he recalled.

In an exclusive interview with Sarawak Tribune, Wan Junaidi said that this was not just a legal triumph, but it was the culmination of a lifetime of struggle.

To him, the story of Malaysia’s formation, neglect, and eventual revival can only be understood by confronting how MA63 had long been “left in the shadows”.

Forgotten in the Constitution

Wan Junaidi has often reminded audiences that history is built on treaties.

“History was written through treaties and agreements. The Pangkor Agreement of 1874, the Straits Settlements Agreement, the 1948 Federation Agreement, and the 1957 Merdeka Agreement were all acknowledged in our Constitution.

“But MA63, despite being the cornerstone of our federation, was not recognised. It was left in the shadows,” he explained.

That omission would haunt Sarawak and Sabah for decades. Their rights, promised at the time of Malaysia’s formation, were steadily eroded by federal laws that ignored the spirit of 1963.

For Wan Junaidi, understanding how this neglect happened meant tracing the origins of MA63 itself.

Britain’s urgent exit and the push for Malaysia

The roots of MA63 lay not in Malaya’s vision but in Britain’s haste to decolonise after World War II. Malaya at the time was a patchwork of arrangements: the Federated Malay States, the Unfederated States, and the Straits Settlements.

Britain’s first attempt to centralise them, the Malayan Union of 1946, collapsed under Malay resistance.

It was replaced by the Federation of Malaya in 1948, which restored the rulers’ powers and paved the way for independence in 1957.

At that point, Tunku Abdul Rahman was content with a compact federation of eleven states.

“Tunku Abdul Rahman never dreamt of Malaysia until the British persuaded him, because Britain wanted a safe exit from its colonies,” Wan Junaidi said.

The Cold War sharpened British anxieties. Singapore was volatile under Lee Kuan Yew, with communist influence on the rise.

“The British told Tunku: if you don’t take Singapore, you will have a Cuba at your doorstep.

“At first, Tunku was reluctant, but later he realised that Singapore alone would destabilise the Malay majority.

“That is why Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei had to be included, to balance the numbers,” he added.

Testing public opinion: The Cobbold Commission

The Malaysia proposal triggered a series of steps.

Tunku’s 1961 luncheon speech signalled his interest, followed by the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee in 1962, and then the Cobbold Commission to gauge public sentiment in Sarawak and North Borneo.

The findings were far from unanimous. The Malay community largely supported Malaysia, seeing it as the path to independence.

Many Dayaks were hesitant, preferring continued British rule until they were better prepared.

The Chinese were divided: the elite groups leaned towards Malaysia, while the leftist and communist elements opposed it.

“It was the Kapit Resolution of 1962, led by Temenggong Jugah, that swayed the Dayaks to support Malaysia.

“Without that resolution, Malaysia might never have materialised,” he said.

The Inter-Governmental Committee and safeguards

To formalise the terms, the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) was set up under Lord Lansdowne (UK) and Tun Abdul Razak (Malaya), with Sarawak, North Borneo, and Singapore at the table. Brunei observed but later withdrew.

Five sub-committees: constitutional, fiscal, legal and judicial, public service, and departmental organisation, produced the framework for Malaysia.

Out of this came the draft Malaysia Agreement, the UK and Malaya Malaysia Acts, state constitutions for Sarawak, Sabah, and Singapore, and, critically, immigration safeguards granting Sarawak and Sabah control over entry.

Wan Junaidi explained why this process was flawed.

“The IGC did not create a new constitution for Malaysia. Instead, it amended the Federal Constitution of Malaya in 1957, but in doing so, it flawed the process by effectively placing Malaysia within the framework of a constitution drafted for Malaya in 1957, when the federation of Malaysia did not yet exist,” he said.

That decision, he added, was critical because earlier agreements were entrenched in the 1957 Constitution, while the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was not.

“This omission left Sarawak and Sabah exposed to decades of neglect and dereliction, as the safeguards promised under MA63 were never constitutionally entrenched.

“This historical misstep has had lasting consequences for both states, which have spent decades seeking to reclaim rights that were supposed to have been protected from the start,” Wan Junaidi stressed.

Signing Malaysia into existence

On July 9, 1963, the MA63 was signed in London by Britain, Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo, and Singapore. Brunei opted out after its 1962 rebellion.

Malaysia was scheduled for August 31, 1963, but objections from Indonesia and the Philippines delayed it. The UN, under U Thant, was tasked to confirm public support.

“It was only after the Manila Summit and the UN’s endorsement that Malaysia Day was shifted to 16 September 1963,” Wan Junaidi recalled.

Finally, at midnight on September 15, 1963, the Queen of Great Britain relinquished sovereignty and jurisdiction. Then, at dawn the next day, Malaysia was born.

Misconceptions of Independence

One of the enduring myths is that Sarawak achieved independence on July 22, 1963. Wan Junaidi has consistently corrected this.

“We must be clear. Sarawak never achieved independence on July 22. That was only self-government.

“Independence came when the Queen finally relinquished sovereignty and jurisdiction on 16 September 1963,” he explained.

For him, clarity on this point is vital because misinterpretations of history have too often been used to dilute Sarawak’s actual legal standing within Malaysia.

The erosion of rights

Though MA63 promised safeguards, the lack of constitutional entrenchment left Sarawak and Sabah’s rights vulnerable. Over time, federal laws steadily eroded one after another of those guaranteed rights

The Petroleum Development Act 1974 and Emergency laws centralised control of oil and gas under PETRONAS.

The Territorial Sea Act 2012 narrowed maritime rights. Encroachments spread into education, healthcare, and governance.

“Because MA63 was not entrenched in the Constitution, Parliament after Parliament passed laws that undermined Sarawak’s rights.

“Oil, gas, and even our territorial waters were taken away,” Wan Junaidi lamented.

Decades of silence, then a revival

For much of the late 20th century, MA63 was politically dormant. Successive Prime Ministers paid lip service, while rural Sarawak remained underdeveloped.

The revival began with the late Tan Sri Adenan Satem in 2016, who boldly raised MA63 with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

After GE14 in 2018, Pakatan Harapan promised reforms but focused narrowly on restoring Article 1(2) to its original 1963 wording.

The real breakthrough, however, came when Wan Junaidi assumed the role of Law Minister in 2021. He spearheaded constitutional amendments that, for the first time, inserted explicit recognition of MA63 and related documents into the Federal Constitution.

“It was not easy, but we could not allow another decade to pass without securing Sarawak and Sabah’s position.

“Recognition in the Constitution was the minimum we owed to the spirit of 1963,” he added.

Wan Junaidi’s caution for the future

Today, Sarawak Premier Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg has made reclaiming MA63 rights a central focus of his administration, particularly in terms of energy and revenue autonomy.

Wan Junaidi supports these efforts but offers a note of realism about rights which are spelt out within the intergovernmental report, which have not been put into reality based on the MA63.

“We must be realistic. Referendums like Scotland’s cannot happen here because our Constitution does not provide for them.

“The only way forward is through law, negotiation, and constitutional amendment,” he cautioned.

For him, the struggle is ongoing. Constitutional recognition was a breakthrough, but the implementation of rights, especially in resources, revenue, and governance, remains unfinished business.

The Spirit of 1963

While reflecting on his struggles, Wan Junaidi insists the goal has never been secession but fairness.

“Our struggle is not to undo Malaysia, but to make Malaysia fair to Sarawak and Sabah.

“That was the spirit of 1963, and that must be the spirit today,” he said.

MA63, he reminds Malaysians, encompasses key documents such as the IGC Report and the Malaysia Act 1963, which together laid the foundation of the federation.

“The MA63 itself is only three pages long with 11 clauses, yet its long neglect weakened that foundation, while its formal recognition helped to strengthen and restore it,” he said.

For Wan Junaidi, the struggle has been personal, political, and historical. Yet, it is also unfinished, a story still being written, with Sarawak and Sabah’s place in Malaysia continuing to evolve.