27 January 2026, Kota Kinabalu: Recent developments and conflicting reports concerning the Malaysia–Indonesia land boundary near Sabah have crossed from technical discussion into a matter of constitutional seriousness.
Public statements by the Federal Government assert that no cession, transfer, or exchange of territory has taken place, and that the process involves only technical demarcation under international law. At the same time, reports originating from Indonesia refer to villages, administrative control, and quantified land areas arising from the same process. These accounts cannot coexist without legal contradiction.
Where two materially different narratives exist, assurances are no longer sufficient. What is required is documented proof.
Sabah is not a peripheral state. Sabah is a founding partner of the Federation of Malaysia, and any process that touches on its land or maritime boundaries engages the highest constitutional safeguards. Boundary matters affecting Sabah are not administrative exercises to be resolved quietly or retrospectively explained.
If no alteration of Sabah’s territory has occurred, the Federal Government must place on public record the full legal and technical basis of the process, including:
• the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18 February 2025;
• official joint survey maps and coordinates; and
• records demonstrating that Sabah’s boundaries remain unchanged.
Until such disclosure is made, claims that the matter is purely technical remain unverified.
Sabah’s experience with unresolved boundary ambiguity, including in areas such as Ambalat, stands as a reminder that technical uncertainty, if left unclarified, can mature into lasting international disputes with permanent consequences.
Articles 2 and 161E of the Federal Constitution are not symbolic provisions. They exist precisely to prevent any adjustment to Sabah’s boundaries — whether described as technical or otherwise — without clear constitutional compliance and Sabah’s express consent. Participation by Sabah representatives in discussions does not amount to consent. Consent must be formal, documented, and accountable to the Sabah State Legislative Assembly.
Silence cannot be taken as approval. Technical language cannot override constitutional limits.
Sabah’s borders are not negotiating margins. They define Sabah’s rights, identity, and place within Malaysia. Any process that affects them must withstand constitutional scrutiny, public transparency, and legal accountability.
Until the full documentation is disclosed, the issue remains constitutionally unresolved. Sabah requires clarity by law, not assurance.
Lawyer Yong Yit Jee
Supreme Council Member cum Vice Youth Chief
Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP)