THE disagreement on Putrajaya’s proposed constitutional amendment to restore Sabah and Sarawak’s equal status with Peninsular Malaysia centres on the omission of words recognising the two states as distinct entities, and the definition of “federation” in the constitution.

“It’s a nonsensical amendment. How can anyone claim with such words, Sabah and Sarawak can be equal partners?” Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) political analyst Lee Kuok Tiung told The Malaysian Insight, adding that no part of the bill suggests the restoration of equality.

The current wording of Article 1(2) lumps Sabah and Sarawak with Malaysia’s 11 other states, following an amendment in 1976 that “downgraded” the two states to be of the same standing as the others.

Critics want the words “Borneo states” returned to distinguish Sabah and Sarawak, which history shows had formed the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 as sovereign and independent states after the British left.

Sabah – or North Borneo, as it was called then – stopped being a British crown colony about two weeks before the formation of Malaysia on August 31, 1963. Sarawak had already been granted self-rule by the British almost two months earlier, in July.

Many Sabah and Sarawak politicians blasted the wording of Putrajaya’s proposed amendment when the bill was tabled for the first reading in the Dewan Rakyat last Thursday.

The amendment reads:

The States of the Federation shall be

(a) Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu

and

(b) Sabah and Sarawak.

Those who slammed the wording said Putrajaya should revert to the original words prior to 1976 and keep to the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) that acknowledges Sabah and Sarawak’s sovereign status.

The original words before the 1976 amendment are:

The States of the Federation shall be:

(a) The States comprising the former Federation of Malaya, namely, Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu

and

(b) The two Borneo States, namely Sabah and Sarawak.

UMS’ Lee said Putrajaya has failed to convince the public that with the bill, Sabah and Sarawak will be restored as equal partners.

MA63 activist Zainnal Ajamain said the proposed amendment’s poor choice of words has no impact on the federation’s present structure.

“It appears to have been done half-heartedly. It does not reflect the true (aspirations) of Sabahans and Sarawakians,” said the member of the Sabah government’s steering committee on revisiting MA63.

Parti Solidariti Tanah Airku president Jeffrey Kitingan lambasted the bill, calling it a “play on words that changes nothing”.

“The proposed amendment maintains and reaffirms Sabah and Sarawak as the 12th and 13th states of Malaya.”

1963 Malaysia, not 1957 Malaya

Another contention with Putrajaya’s proposed amendment is the lack of changes to the definition of “federation” in Article 160(2), said Kitingan.

The definition of “federation” needs to change to refer to Malaysia at its formation in 1963, as the current definition is based on the Federation of Malaya created by the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957, where only Malaya gained independence from the British, he said.

“Without separately defining the Federation of Malaysia as a new nation created on September 16, 1963, the proposed amendment fails to relate Malaysia as an equal partnership between the Federation of Malaya, and Sabah and Sarawak.”

Sarawak Chief Minister Abang Johari Openg has explained the state government’s rejection of the proposed amendment, on the grounds that the definition of “federation” in Article 160(2) was not addressed.

Parti Bersatu Sabah president Maximus Ongkili said the proposed amendment relegates Sabah and Sarawak to “class B” states of the federation.

“There is nothing in the so-called amendment to show that Sabah and Sarawak are equal partners to Malaya in the federation, as spelled out in MA63.”

Ongkili and Kitingan called for a parliamentary select committee to fine-tune the amendment, and for the Sabah and Sarawak assemblies to have a say before the matter is brought to Parliament.

‘Clear as day’

De facto law minister Liew Vui Keong, however, cited the different time and context now, as well as possible implications, as reasons for the bill’s wording.

“The words ‘the states of Malaya, namely’ were not reintroduced because the terminology is not relevant to the present state of Malaya, and the words ‘the Borneo states, namely’ were not reintroduced because it will have implications with regard to other sovereign countries, such as Brunei and Indonesia’s Kalimantan, which were also part of Borneo,” he said in a statement to The Malaysian Insight.

“Essentially, this amendment puts Sabah and Sarawak back to their position in 1963, and it speaks volumes of the fact that Malaysia is made up of three entities – the 11 states, Sabah and Sarawak. This is as clear as day.”

He said critics of the proposed amendment must not look at MA63 and the constitution in isolation.

He also urged Sabahans and Sarawakians to consider why their lawmakers had overwhelmingly supported the 1976 amendment that downgraded the two states to be of the same standing as the other 11.

“The 1976 amendment received overwhelming support from the then MPs of Sabah and Sarawak, and I have the Hansard to prove it. Why didn’t they object to the downgrading of the status of Sabah and Sarawak then?”

Nothing was done, not even by the Sabah and Sarawak governments, in the intervening years, until Pakatan Harapan, upon winning federal power last May, listened to calls for a return to the spirit and intention of MA63, he said.

Liew said if Putrajaya’s proposed amendment is defeated due to a lack of support from Sabah and Sarawak MPs, they would have only themselves to blame for rejecting the opportunity to make the two states equal partners to the peninsula.

He said the second and third readings of the bill, as well as voting, will be held on Tuesday. The last day of the current Dewan Rakyat sitting is Thursday. – April 7, 2019.