Why Fight for MA63 Autonomy When Daily Bureaucracy Fails Us?

 

In Sabah, the push for full implementation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is often framed as a noble struggle for greater autonomy — the right to manage our own affairs, land, immigration, resources, and a fairer share of revenue. Proponents argue we were promised special safeguards when Malaysia was formed, and much of that has been diluted over the decades.

But here’s a question many ordinary Sabahans are asking: What is the point of struggling for more autonomy when we struggle with basic service delivery under the autonomy we already have?

The Daily Reality on the Ground

·        Civil servants who do not reply to emails.

·        Statutory bodies that refuse to release survey reports, citing they are “waiting for authority.”

·        The Sabah Advocates Disciplinary Board applying filing procedures and fees even for B40 SARA recipients.

·        PDRM referring complaints about alleged crimes in court filings directly to KKTP (Sabah’s Ministry of Local Government and Housing) — even when KKTP is one of the defendants. I have since lodged a complaint about the police handling with the IPCC.

·        Land and survey matters dragging on because the responsible state department cannot (or will not) act without higher approval.

 

These issues directly affect housing, land titles, legal disputes, and access to justice. When government departments refer complaints to one of the parties being complained against, it creates a clear perception of conflict of interest.

Who Actually Controls What?

Land surveys and titles → Jabatan Tanah dan Ukur Sabah (JTU), a state department. Land matters are already under Sabah’s autonomy per MA63.

Housing and local government → KKTP, a state ministry.

Discipline of Sabah advocates → Sabah Advocates Disciplinary Board under the state Advocates Ordinance (separate from the Peninsular Malaysia ASDB).

Policing → Federal (PDRM). While referrals between federal and state agencies happen, sending a criminal complaint to a named defendant feels like passing the buck instead of conducting an independent investigation.

 

Many of these pain points sit within state-controlled institutions or require better state-federal coordination. This raises the question of whether more autonomy on paper will deliver real change without deeper reforms.

Autonomy Without Accountability Changes Little. MA63 is about power, resources, and decision-making rights. In theory, stronger implementation could give Sabah the tools to:

• Digitise services for faster responses and transparent tracking of applications/reports.
• 
  
• Introduce clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for civil servants and departments — such as mandatory reply times to public emails, fixed turnaround for survey reports, and targets for resolving complaints.
• 
  
• Provide meaningful fee waivers or fast-track processes for B40 families.
• 
  
• Improve coordination protocols so police properly investigate criminal elements (e.g., alleged false documents in court filings) instead of immediate referrals to involved parties.
• 
  
• Strengthen oversight and consequences for poor performance.

 

In practice, without good governance, transparency, and accountability, additional autonomy may simply shift the same problems closer to home. Inefficiency, delays, and perceived conflicts persist regardless of who holds the formal power.

The Real Struggle

The campaign for MA63 is legitimate. Sabah deserves the full safeguards, better revenue sharing, and protection from over-centralisation. However, the bigger and more immediate battle is fixing how institutions actually serve the rakyat in the areas they already control.

We need:

·        Responsive civil service with public, enforceable KPIs and real consequences for non-performance.

·        Greater transparency (e.g., timely release of survey reports).

·        Practical support for B40/SARA families when dealing with state bodies.

·        Proper separation of roles when police handle complaints involving government defendants.

·        Effective oversight mechanisms, including meaningful follow-through on complaints to bodies like the IPCC.

 

Until everyday governance improves — emails are answered, complaints are investigated impartially, and services are delivered efficiently — grand talk of “autonomy” will continue to feel hollow to many Sabahans.