KUCHING: State Pakatan Harapan (PH) MPs chose to close their ears and shut their mouths when Sarawak’s rights were questioned by federal MPs, says Batang Sadong MP Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri.
She said for the record, it was an MP from Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) who stood up to rebut them.
“I was present in parliament when Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir mentioned about Sarawak asking so much from federal (government) and yet even as Malaysians, they had to use passports or identity cards to enter Sarawak.
“Seated behind and on his side were PH MPs from Sarawak who chose to close their ears and shut their mouths when those statements were uttered,” she said.
She was disappointed that some PH MPs and even federal ministers were ignorant about Sarawak’s special rights and powers enshrined in the constitution.
Nancy said these MPs and ministers should read the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and also the IGC Report, which clearly stated in Chapter III of the report in Para 16 (a) Immigration into Malaysia should remain on the Federal List, but legislation should be enacted by the Federal Parliament to ensure that, except as provided in sub- paragraphs (f) (i) and (iv) below, entry into the Borneo States will require the approval of the State concerned;
(b) the Federal Constitution should be amended to enable the Federal Parliament to legislate to control the movement of persons between the existing Federation and a new State or between new States on any ground (i.e.) not merely the grounds specified in Article 9(2).
For the record, she said Sarawakians too had to produce their identification cards to enter and exit the state.
According to Nancy, Para 16 covered a very wide scope on Sarawak’s immigration autonomy and urged MPs from outside Sarawak to read and understand the MA63 and also the Inter-Governmental Committee Report.
“It is also incorrect for Mukhriz to criticise Sarawak about asking for all sorts from federal. I would like to make it clear here that, we do not ask but claim for whatever that we have been entitled to under our special rights in the constitution.
“The federal government is equally responsible to develop Sarawak. Therefore, whatever we asked of the federal government to do is merely an agreement between both the federal and state governments.
“This is clearly stated in the constitution where responsibilities of the federal and state governments are clearly defined in the 9th Schedule under the Federal List, Concurrent and the State List,” she pointed out.
Perhaps, she said, Mukhriz should learn history from the fourth and seventh prime minister to know where the major source of the nation’s income came from.
“We are merely asking for what is ours. Sarawakians should realise it by now that since we were in the Barisan Nasional (BN), we have been asking for funds to bring in more development in our state.
“It would be a lie to say that we did not do anything for Sarawak, whatever we enjoyed and benefitted today is a result of the many years under the previous government.
“Now that we have a new government, it is their responsibility to continue developing Sarawak,” said Nancy.
She said this was also the reason that GPS did not vote for the amendment to the 1963 definition of Federation, but instead insisted the words “pursuant to MA63” be incorporated into the amendment but was thrown out.
To Sarawakians who have been condemning GPS MPs for their insistence that the proposed words be included in the amendment, she said, “It is very disappointing when the local PH parties keep questioning about the past whenever they could not explain their own actions.”
On the attempt to move the High Court Registry from Sarawak to Sabah, Nancy said it was a clear violation of Sarawak’s rights in the constitution.
“What Sarawak is concerned about is our right to be consulted under the country’s supreme law, which is the Federal Constitution.”
She said it was clearly stated in Article 121(4) which states “In determining where the principal registry of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak is to be, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister, who shall consult the Chief Ministers of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the Chief Judge of the High Court.”
She said another matter of concern was that the matter involved an institution that should be a model to others in the country.
“If the entrusted institution itself ignored a mandatory legal right clearly spelt out in the supreme law, then where else can Malaysians turn to?”
She was relieved that after so much hue and cry, a U-turn on the decision was made.
