UNHAPPY Sarawak MPs want a constitutional amendment bill that was to return the status of Sabah and Sarawak to the position of equal partners in the federation of Malaysia prior to 1976 withdrawn.

Eighteen Sarawak MPs from Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) have called for the bill, tabled by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui Keong this morning, to be withdrawn.

President of the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP), a GPS component, Dr Sim Kui Hian thrashed the bill as “totally unacceptable to Sarawak”, while PKR’s Puncak Borneo MP Willie Mongin, a lone voice in the ruling Pakatan Harapan coalition, joined the Sarawak chorus in opposing the bill.

GPS chief whip Fadillah Yusof (Petra Jaya) said the bill was “not comprehensive” and failed to address Sarawak’s many demands for full compliance with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), particularly concerning the erosion of the state’s rights.

The former works minister said GPS not only felt the proposed amendment was merely “cosmetic or window dressing, and does not meet the aspirations and real wishes of the people of Sarawak”, it was done in a rushed fashion without giving enough opportunities to the stakeholders, as well as all those involved in studying the proposed amendment, enough time to review it before it was tabled.

Fadillah’s statement that GPS was firm in its stand that the proposed amendment should have been brought to the Sarawak legislative assembly first before the Dewan Rakyat, suggesting GPS MPs would not support the bill.

The Sarawak legislative assembly will sit next month.

The SUPP president and Puncak Borneo MP said one matter of contention was the wording of the bill, particularly Article 2(a), which lumps Sabah and Sarawak together as one entity.

Sim said the proposed amendment would still maintain “Sarawak as one of the 13 states in Malaysia, instead of one of the three equal partner states to the federation of Malaysia”.

“We view the bill as the Pakatan Harapan government’s failure to honour the (spirit of the) MA63.

“In fact, PH has just committed another U-turn on its election promise to return Sabah and Sarawak’s status.”

Sim also questioned why the amendment was even tabled when questions on the return of Sarawak’s autonomy over healthcare and education were not addressed.

“Where is the amendment to Article 160 to make Malaysia a federation under the MA63?” Sim asked in reference to the long-standing complaint that the constitution is still very much based on the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957.

Sim, who is also state housing and local government minister, also questioned why Sarawak’s entitlement to a third of national resources and a third of seats in Parliament were not addressed.

“SUPP demands the bill be withdrawn as its contents goes against the wishes of our people in Sarawak.

“With such a disappointing amendment tabled by the PH government, we believe that the status of our state should be decided by our people in Sarawak, and not in Parliament.”

Monggin, a first-term MP, in a WhatsApp message to The Malaysian Insight, said he, too, was “not so pleased with the wording of the proposed amendment”, saying it needed to be “refined”.

“Sarawak should be stated as Negara Sarawak (the country of Sarawak) and Sabah as Negara Sabah (the country of Sabah) and not just one of the states in the federation,” he said.

Monggin said the bill, reverting to how it was worded prior to July 1976, should read “the Federation of Malaysia should consist of: 
(a) The states in the Federation of Malaya – Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Perlis, Pulau Pinang, Selangor and Terengganu – and 
(b) The Country of Sarawak; and 
(c) The Country of Sabah.

The bill tabled by Sabahan Liew also lumped Sabah and Sarawak as one, as how it lumps the federated Malay states together, Monggin said.

“Sarawak and Sabah are not equal partners in the Federation of Malaysia (in the proposed amendment).”

He said the wording in the proposed bill reading might indicate that Sabah and Sarawak are just one of the states in the federation.

“This may create confusion and misinterpretation.” – April 4, 2019.