The Malaysian Insight

PUTRAJAYA should have acted on Sabah and Sarawak’s complaints regarding Article 160 of the constitution before tabling the equal status bill, said rights activists from the two states.

Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) activist Peter Govind, from Sabah, said the bill to amend Article 1(2), which was defeated in Parliament last night, should have been put on hold while stakeholders discussed amending Article 160.

Article 160 defines “the federation” as that established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948.

Govind said state rights activists, as well as Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) MPs, view Putrajaya’s refusal to amend Article 160 along with Article 1(2) as “dishonouring MA63”.

“There cannot be two federations in the constitution. The constitution must first be updated in accordance with MA63.

“If we don’t amend it, it won’t be easy for us to restore our status.”

The equal status bill failed to get the two-thirds support required to see it through, with GPS lawmakers abstaining from voting on the grounds that the proposed amendment was merely a “cosmetic change”.

The bill got the “yes” vote from 128 Pakatan Harapan MPs and 10 lawmakers from PH allies Parti Warisan Sabah and Upko. It was short of 10 votes to pass, with 59 opposition lawmakers, including 17 from GPS, abstaining.

Gerawat Gala, a member of the Sarawak consultative committee on MA63, called on the federal government to look into the state’s grouses regarding Article 160.

“That’s fundamental,” said the Sarawak deputy speaker.

He told reporters outside the Kuching court complex, where he attended the defamation trial of Deputy Chief Minister Douglas Uggah Embas, that Article 160 refers to the Federation of Malaya Agreement, “which excludes Sabah and Sarawak”.

He said despite the setback, talks within the special cabinet committee on MA63 should continue.

The committee is chaired by Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and has as members the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak.

Sabah Institute Development of Studies chairman Simon Sipaun expressed relief that the bill was defeated.

The former state secretary described it as “a blessing in disguise”, as the “present constitution is a Malaya constitution disguised as a Malaysia constitution”.

“I think most of the provisions in the constitution are that of a Malayan constitution. Article 160 proves that the term ‘federation’ was based… on the Federation of Malaya Agreement.

“How can that be when Malaysia was formed only in 1963?”

If Putrajaya wants to press ahead with amending Article 1(2), “we need to revisit the whole constitution and reflect the real intention”, he said.

“The present constitution makes no reference to the basis of the formation of Malaysia. Legally, it is not possible.

“We don’t need to rush it. The signatories to MA63 have nothing to do with the other 11 Malayan states. It’s only Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.”

Universiti Malaysia Sabah political analyst Lee Kuok Tiung took aim at PH politicians, including Works Minister Baru Bian, for describing the defeat as a missed “golden opportunity” for the two states to regain equal status.

He said this gave the impression that the bill’s defeat last night was the only opportunity to amend the constitution.

“There should always be another time. Why the rush?

“Matters like amending the constitution should not be rushed. It should be done properly, for the proposal to be resubmitted and debated again.

“We need a bill that really reflects Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners in the Federation of Malaysia.”

State Reform Party Sarawak president Lina Soo hailed the bill’s defeat.

She said it was expected, and a “landmark victory” for Sarawakians and Sabahans.

“The political maturity of the people of Sarawak and Sabah has reached heights not seen since the formation of Malaysia.

“For Sarawak, such esprit d’corp and nationalist sentiments have not been witnessed since the anti-cession movement of the 1940s, when Sarawak was annexed by Britain to become a crown colony.”

She insisted that any constitutional amendment affecting the political position of Sabah and Sarawak must first be brought before the respective state assemblies.

Additionally, she said, any proposed amendment should have the consensus of civil society and local parties, “to give voice to the people”.

Soo said the federal government must now recognise that Sarawak and Sabah folk are no pushovers.

“In the past, the federal government could have their way and get away with anything, but not today.” – April 10, 2019.