The Malaysian Insight

FORMER Sabah Barisan Nasional leaders said Putrajaya’s proposed constitutional amendment to make the two Borneo states equal partners with Peninsular Malaysia fails to do just that because of the way it is worded.

The text in the amendment to Article 1(2) of the federal constitution does not alter Sabah and Sarawak’s standing as mere states, they said.

Greater distinction should be accorded to the two states as independent and separate entities, they said.

Kota Marudu MP Maximus Ongkili said the proposed amendment should have been studied by a parliamentary select committee before it was tabled . 

Putrajaya has to look at other related provisions in the constitution so that equal status is fully restored, he said in a statement in Sabah.

“The matter is not just about amending the article in the constitution. Equally important are the accompanying by-laws and instruments to implement the position of equal status (for Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya),” he said. 

One such provision that needs attention is Article 160, which defines “federation”, but de facto law minister Liew Vui Keong has dismissed it as important. 

Liew tabled the proposed amendment on Article 1 (2) for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday, to severe criticism from the opposition and Sarawak MPs.

The proposed amendment reads: “The states of the Federation shall be (a) Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu, and, (b) Sarawak and Sabah.”

Sarawak and Sabah are listed as being among the “states of the Federation”.

‘Putrajaya is not serious’

Former Kota Belud MP Abdul Rahman Dahlan from Sabah Umno said the amendment does not change anything.

“Putrajaya is not serious and the proposed amendment is only cosmetic. It does not indicate anywhere that the status of Sabah and Sarawak has been raised to equal partners,” he said in a statement.

Kimanis MP Anifah Aman said the concept of equal partnership must be clearly expressed and defined in “actionable” constitutional terms. 

The language of the amendment should leave no doubt as to the obligations and duties owed to Sabah and Sarawak by the federation, he said, adding that the amendment must be holistic and embrace the concept of Malaysia.

“Prudence dictates that it ought not to be rushed in view of the longer-term consequences and ramifications such an amendment will have on the Bornean states,” he said.

He said their lack of equal status has long been a thorny issue and a cause of growing unhappiness among Sabahans and Sarawakians. 

He proposed that the amendment should drawn up with bipartisan participation and involve all stakeholders.

It should also be debated first by the state assemblies of Sabah and Sarawak, he added.

“Each assembly must pass a resolution adopting and approving the contents of the proposed amendment. Only then will Parliament have the political and socio-cultural legitimacy to pass the proposed amendment”.

Amendment must not proceed to second reading

Parti Kerjasama Anak Negeri president Henrynus Amin said Liew had deceived Sabah and Sarawak on the proposed bill. 

“The said amendment must revert to the original wordings to reflect the true spirit of the Malaysia Agreement as the basis of the formation of Malaysia. 

“The amendment must reflect that Malaysia is an equal partnership between Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya,” he said. 

Amin said the proposed bill should instead  state the following:

“The states of the Federation shall be:-
(a) The States comprising the Federation of Malaya namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu and,  (b) The Borneo States, namley, Sabah and Sarawak.”

He said Liew must not proceed with the second reading of the bill and that the government must withdraw it.

“PH is using old BN tactics to delay releasing the draft bill until the last hour to deny public comment, scrutiny and counter suggestion from Sabah and Sarawak,” he added.

If Sabah and Sarawak cannot agree to the proposed amendment, Amin said, as a final resort, they could seek a judicial review of the fulfilment of the terms of the Malaysia Agreement 1963. – April 5, 2019.