PAKATAN Harapan will not table another constitutional amendment on Sabah and Sarawak’s position in the federation until Sarawak MPs submit a written pledge to back future bills, said de facto law minister Liew Vui Keong.

Liew said future initiatives to amend the constitution, which require the support of two-thirds of 222 lawmakers in the Dewan Rakyat, may have been scuttled following last Tuesday’s vote to amend Article 1(2) of the constitution.

“It only goes to show one thing. We must have two-thirds majority in the Dewan to make life easy,” he told reporters in Putrajaya today.

Liew was speaking on the failed attempt by Pakatan Harapan and its allies to amend the constitution to recognise Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners in the federation, instead of just two of 13 states. The amendment would have seen Article 1(2) of the constitution revert to the language before it was changed in 1976.

The bill received 138 votes, 10 votes shy of the required two-thirds to amend the constitution.

Liew told reporters that to “overcome” such obstacles, Pakatan can only rely on capturing more seats in the next general election.

“Alternatively, I would want the 59 MPs, especially the 19 from Sarawak, to give a written pledge that they will support (the government), if there is any opportunity in the next amendment.”

Lawmakers from Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) had abstained from voting, along with PAS and Umno MPs.

“I don’t see that (tabling of another amendment) coming any time soon. We wait and see.

“They said, why are you all in a hurry, during the debates, remember? So why go in a hurry for the next tabling,” said Liew.

Liew showed a a letter sent by GPS chief whip Fadillah Yusof to Dewan Rakyat Speaker Mohd Ariff Md Yusof dated April 8, a day before Tuesday’s vote on the amendment. 

The letter had proposed that the words “pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement 1963” be added to the paragraph listing the 11 states of Malaya and the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak. 

Fadillah had said in the letter that such an amendment would revitalise the spirit of “equal partnership” that was foundation for the formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963. 

“They just shoot in the letter at the last minute to put in these words,” Liew said. 

“You have to ask them” why these words are important, he added. 

Article 1(2) was amended in 1966 after Singapore separated from Malaysia and in 1976, which relegated Sabah and Sarawak to two of 13 states in federation instead of polities on a par with the peninsula.

Liew said prior to that, since 1963, those six words were not used and that the law was explained in an explanatory note.

“The A-G (Attorney-General Tommy Thomas) was of the view that it would complicate things if you want to refer to the Separation Agreement 1965 (on) Singapore because Malaysia Agreement 1963 also included Singapore at that time.”

“The AG’s stand is that it’s not doable, because it’s repetitive.

“They (GPS) came up with the lame excuse that an explanatory note is not part of the constitution. They even used the childish argument that nobody wanted to read the explanatory note, to which I say, I rest my case, I don’t know what else to say.

“If you look at the explanatory note, it’s there. If you look at any act of Parliament, any law, such as the Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act, there would be an explanatory note underneath to explain the law.

“The explanatory note is binding.” 

On whether PH would consider adding the six words, Liew replied: “They already shown their intention they didn’t want to vote for it.” 

“What is the point repeating that because, there’s a saying you know, once bitten twice shy, isn’t it? They already made their intention known. They were so stubborn. They wanted these six words to be in. Our forefathers didn’t think to use these words… 

“They showed a lack of sincerity and lack a sense of political maturity to see it through. These excuses were so petty. I don’t know what is their political agenda.” – April 12, 2019.