KUCHING: The discussion on the amendment Bill in the Federal Constitution will still continue even after the defeat of the amendment on the Article 1(2).
This was emphasised by Santubong MP Datuk Seri Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar at a press conference after a briefing on projects development at the Public Works Department (JKR) at Batu Lintang here, yesterday.
“The amendment can still take place if the Cabinet Committee led by the Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad as well as in the presence of Sarawak and Sabah representatives, would come to a consensus on the inclusion of the spirit of Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
“We want the Cabinet Committee to study the whole constitution and if there is anything to be amended, we have to amend it in one go,” he said.
According to Wan Junaidi, the Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) would give 100 percent support to the amendment on the Federal Constitution if the state legislative assembly agreed to put the three important words which are “pursuant to MA63”.
“With the insertion of the words, it shall read as: The states in the Federation shall be pursuant to the MA63.
“However, the one that the Prime Minister claimed in the recent proposed bill was pounding over the agreement on 1957 and not over the agreement on 1963,” he further added.
He explained, “The proposed bill are as follows: The States of the Federation shall be – (a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu; and (b) Sabah and Sarawak.”
“The only difference is the missing of the phrase ‘Borneo States’ originated from ‘Borneo States’, namely Sabah and Sarawak but everybody knows that even without the word ‘Borneo States’, Sabah and Sarawak are still states of Borneo. The meaning stops there and does not signify the equal partnership of the two states.
“Therefore, the amendment is also the same thing, only the way you read it is different. What is still missing is the equal partnership.
“If the amendment does not involve amending Article 160 which specifies the definition of ‘The Federation’, it does not change the status of Sabah and Sarawak as component members of the Federation of Malaysia,” he pointed out.
He further added that the GPS does not intend to undermine or deny the federal government’s sincerity in giving what belongs to Sarawak and Sabah.
“We are not trying to make enemies with people like Deputy Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Chong Chieng Jen and Works Minister Baru Bian. We are fighting for the same thing but we shouldn’t play politics. We have to make sure that we are doing it right for Sarawak,” he said.
Current Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution
(1) The Federation shall be known, in Malay and in English, by the name Malaysia.
(2) The States of the Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu.
Draft Amendment Bill First Reading
“(2) The States of the Federation shall be—
(a) Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu; and
(b) Sabah and Sarawak.”.”
Draft Amendment Bill D.R 7/2019 Second Reading
“Amendment of Article 1(2)
The Federal Constitution is amended in Article 1 by substituting for Clause (2) the following Clause:
“(2) The States of the Federation shall be—
(a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu; and
(b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak.”
Proposed amendment by GPS
“The States in the Federation pursuant to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 shall be –
(a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu; and
(b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak.”
The reasons why we feel it should be amended in the manner GPS proposed
1. In the present Federal Constitution, there is no mention or recognition of Malaysia Agreement 1963 in the Constitution.
2. Even in Article 160(2), the interpretation of “the Federation” refers to the Federation pursuant to the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957. This is meant to be the general definition. The words “unless the context otherwise requires” should be interpreted to denote the general rule, not the exception. In Federal Constitution, the general rule is 1963 federation, not the 1957 federation. It is an issue which would require both the States AGs Sabah and Sarawak and Federal AG to discuss on because it involves legal interpretation and thorough discussion amongst the AGs.
3. This issue could have been settled if the amendment proposed by GPS i.e. to put in the word “pursuant to Malaysia Agreement 1963” in the article 1(2) itself was accepted.
4. It is important that MA63 be given its due recognition by being included in the Constitution and not just in the spirit for the following reasons:-
a) Many would argue that the spirit of MA63 cannot be legally binding. An example being, when the YAB PM brushes aside GPS proposal that the spirit of MA63 requires consultation and the matter be referred to our state assembly, by saying that, “that is not provided in the law”.
b) Merely changing to the original words of the MA63 does not guarantee a return of our equal status, because such change is superficial. Only MA63 and its accompanying documents i.e. the IGC Report, has provision recognising our equal status.
c) To just simply rely on the spirit of MA63 is insufficient. The current situation occurred because people forgot about the spirit of MA63. If the proposed amendment was allowed to pass then the same situation would occur to Sarawakians in the future.
