THE bill that sought to amend Article 1(2) was killed after Pakatan Harapan failed to obtain two-thirds majority. Among the MPs, 138 voted for the amendment and 59 abstained. The purpose of this amendment was to restore Sabah and Sarawak’s so-called “equal partner” status with that of Peninsular Malaysia.

When the bill was defeated, many politicians were unhappy, and some called those who refused to vote as cowards. Some politicians said this is a “lost opportunity” which needed to wait for another 60 years to work on the amendments.

The “equal partners” issue has been a central agenda for the recent GE14 for both PH and Party Warisan Sabah. Tabling the bill is seen as their first step to fulfil their manifesto, despite it being done in haste. They overlooked some technical issues – for instance, the amendment should refer to the parliamentary select committee, and some pundits suggested that the amendment should first go to the state legislative assembly (though this is legally unnecessary).

Whether to change the Article 1(2) or not, one should understand the concept of federalism. To put it briefly, a federation is a group of states that come together to form a union under a central government. The central government will take certain functions while the states remain independent in their internal affairs.

Depending on the nature of the federation, some central governments’ functions are limited to certain aspects like security, defence and trade, like in the US, while some have broader and more centralised functions like the federation of Malaysia which left the states to perform limited functions.

As far as the federal constitution is concerned, Sabah and Sarawak formed the federation of Malaysia grounded with special privileges and rights. All these special privileges and rights are written in the constitution and listed in the 9th and 10th schedule, even if some states in the federation do not reserve such privileges and rights.

Rahezzal Shah, a Sabahan political scientist, has reiterated the Malaysian federation is asymmetrical – the division of authority is distributed unevenly while other states reserve some rights. In a recent opinion piece, Arnold Puyok pointed out that the amendment done in 1976 which relegated Sabah and Sarawak’s status is not true because the “special position” of the Bornean states in the federal constitution remained intact.

So what is equal status? In what sense does amending Article 1(2) solely make Bornean states equal partners with Peninsular Malaysia? We are already, in fact, partners grounded with special rights. Changing Article 1(2) is just symbolic in nature and does not suggest any significant change of the federal-state relations. Hence, we should look beyond equal partner issues.

Federal and state politicians should focus primarily on the provisions particularly relating to federal-state relations that could bring about development of the states. However, this does not suggest that the federal constitution is perfect. Rather, political actors need to revisit the provision to see whether it has been implemented or not, its relevance over time and discrepancies.

In any federation, the federal-state relation is never intended to be straightforward – it is subject to constant contestation between the federal and state. The conflict is common especially in terms of allocating resources, prioritising funds, development planning, and drawing the line of authority. It becomes complicated in the areas of concurrent lists and residual power.

Sabah leaders should focus on the state’s economic development and on their rights stipulated in the constitution. The state is in dire need of economic development. It is rich with resources but so poor in many development indicators.

Political leaders and the state bureaucracy need to be bold enough to bargain, negotiate and re-prioritise resources and funds at the federal level for the state development. Sabah policy makers must able to formulate development plans, and should not simply adopts economic planning from the federal government.

If the constitution does not permit some functions, perhaps state policy actors might want to discuss decentralising certain functions to the states. Decentralisation of power such as in the area of trade or education function should be the focus rather than ambiguous equal partner issues.

The constitution is not static – amendment is permissible but let the amendment be significant and meaningful to the states which can bring about developments. – April 24, 2019.

* Firdausi Suffian is a UiTM lecturer on political economy and policy analysis.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.