The phrase “Borneo bloc” has recently entered Malaysian political debate, sparking discussion about the role of Sabah and Sarawak in national politics. Some leaders describe it as a strategy for strengthening the voice of East Malaysia, while others reject the idea entirely or prefer to call it a partnership rather than a bloc. To understand the controversy, it is necessary to look at what a Borneo bloc actually means and why the idea has emerged in the first place.
In simple terms, a Borneo bloc refers to the possibility of political parties and Members of Parliament (MPs) from Sabah and Sarawak working together as a unified group in the Malaysian Parliament. The aim would be to coordinate their positions on national issues and negotiate collectively with political parties from Peninsular Malaysia.
The idea of a Borneo bloc cropped up in 2018 following the exit of Sarawak’s ruling parties from Barisan Nasional, which saw a group of leaders from Sabah welcome the idea on the basis that it would allow the two East Malaysian states to work together to push for rights under MA63 to be implemente
The concept is rooted in the unique position of Sabah and Sarawak within the federation. Both states joined Malaya and Singapore to form Malaysia in 1963 under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). The agreement established Malaysia as a federation formed by equal partners, with Sabah and Sarawak granted specific rights and safeguards.
Over time, leaders and activists in East Malaysia have argued that some of these safeguards have not been fully implemented. Issues such as oil and gas revenue, development disparities, immigration autonomy, and greater administrative powers are often cited in discussions about MA63.
Because of these concerns, some politicians have proposed closer cooperation between Sabah and Sarawak representatives in Parliament.
One of the reasons a Borneo bloc is considered politically significant is the number of parliamentary seats held by the two states. Sabah has 25 seats and Sarawak has 31, giving them a combined total of 56 seats in the 222-member Dewan Rakyat.
While this is not a majority, it is large enough to influence the formation of governments, especially in an era where Malaysian politics has become more fragmented and coalition-based. In such a situation, a united bloc from Sabah and Sarawak could potentially act as a “kingmaker,” supporting or withholding support from federal governments depending on whether their demands are addressed.
Supporters of the idea say the purpose is not to dominate Peninsular Malaysia but to ensure that East Malaysian interests are heard more clearly.
Sabah political leader Armizan Mohd Ali has suggested that cooperation between the two states could help shape federal policies and strengthen their negotiating position within the government.
Similarly, former Sabah chief minister Salleh Said Keruak has argued that cooperation between Sabah and Sarawak should be seen as a partnership rather than a confrontational bloc. According to him, working together allows both states to pursue key issues, particularly the implementation of provisions under MA63 and fairer representation in national decision-making.
From this perspective, the idea of a Borneo bloc is less about confrontation and more about coordination.
However, the concept has also attracted criticism and controversy.
Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim suggested that the idea of a Borneo bloc could allow Sabah and Sarawak to “outwit and control Malaya,” a statement that drew strong reactions from East Malaysian activists and leaders.
Zaid also accused Sabah and Sarawak of challenging federal laws and were claiming “30 items still outstanding from MA63”.
Sarawak activist Peter John Jaban described such comments as insulting and dismissive of Sabah and Sarawak’s role in the formation of Malaysia.
According to him, framing East Malaysia’s pursuit of constitutional safeguards as a strategy to outmaneuver the peninsula misunderstands the historical foundations of the federation.
“MA63 was never a political stunt,” he said. “It is a binding agreement that formed the foundation of Malaysia.”
Others have also warned that portraying the Borneo bloc as a scheme to dominate Peninsular Malaysia risks creating unnecessary tensions between regions.
Sabah chief minister Hajiji Noor has also publicly rejected the notion that such a bloc exists in a divisive sense. He stressed that Malaysia remains one country and that cooperation between all states is necessary for national success.
“There is no Borneo Bloc,” Hajiji said in response to the debate. “We in Malaysia are one country… there is no Sabah, Sarawak or Peninsular bloc.”
His statement reflects a concern among some leaders that the language of regional blocs could create the perception of division within the federation.
In response to Hajiji's dismissal, former Sabah chief minister, Salleh Said Keruak has suggested that cooperation between the two East Malaysian states should be called a partnership instead of “Borneo bloc”.
Salleh said Sabah and Sarawak are partners in the federation and thus any cooperation between the two states must therefore be understood within such a framework.
And for that reason, he said, “partnership” is a more appropriate term than bloc, adding that the latter comes off as confrontational.
“Partnership reflects cooperation and shared responsibility within Malaysia.
“By moving together, Sabah and Sarawak can strengthen their bargaining position and continue to pursue key matters such as the implementation of items under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and fairer parliamentary representation,” Salleh said in a Facebook post.
Nevertheless, the discussion itself reveals deeper structural realities within Malaysian politics.
For decades, political power in Malaysia was largely concentrated in parties based in Peninsular Malaysia. However, as national coalitions became more fragmented in recent years, the influence of regional parties in Sabah and Sarawak has grown.
This shift has given East Malaysian leaders greater leverage in federal negotiations, particularly when governments rely on small parliamentary margins to remain in power.
In that context, the idea of a Borneo bloc can be seen less as a formal alliance and more as a strategic concept. It reflects the growing awareness among Sabah and Sarawak politicians that coordination between the two states could strengthen their bargaining position within the federation.
Ultimately, the debate over the Borneo bloc is not only about parliamentary arithmetic. It is also about the balance of power within Malaysia and the continuing effort to define the relationship between Peninsular Malaysia and the two states on the island of Borneo.
Whether described as a bloc, a partnership, or simply cooperation, the underlying issue remains the same: how Sabah and Sarawak can ensure that the promises and principles of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 continue to shape the future of the federation.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
