KUCHING: It was never the intention of Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) to fail the amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution.
“We have never intended for the tabling of the Bill to restore Sabah and Sarawak’s rights as equal partners in Malaysia to fail,” said Batang Sadong MP Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri.
“But the Bill did nothing to amend the Constitution which makes no mention of Malaysia Agreement 1963, which forms the basis of the formation of Malaysia.
“To merely go back to the words used in 1963 without inserting ‘Pursuant to MA63’ does not change anything,” she said.
Nancy was commenting on a statement by Works Minister Baru Bian who said that the decision by GPS and some opposition MPs to abstain from voting the Bill raised doubts as to their sincerity in restoring the status and rights of Sarawak and Sabah as enshrined in the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
Nineteen MPs from Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) were among the 59 lawmakers who abstained from voting on the amendment to restore Sabah and Sarawak’s rights as equal partners in Malaysia.
“We have made our actions clear to the minister first, to defer the Bill and let both Sarawak and Sabah’s legal fraternity, especially the Attorney Generals, to study the details and the implications of this amendment.
“We also asked for the Bill to be deferred while waiting for the decision of a special Cabinet Committee on the Rights of Sarawak chaired by the PM, where both the Sarawak and Sabah CMs are members.
“We want to see what the Committee’s final decisions with regard to the committee’s meeting as we are of the opinion that they (opinions of the AGs and Committee) are inter-related,” she said.
She said, “The second option was if the government insisted to push the Bill to be passed, please accept our proposed amendment for the sake of Sarawakians.”
Nancy said it was important for the words “Pursuant to MA63” to be included in the Bill since people, including the MPs from the PH, have been mentioning about MA63.
“This is to remind future generations about the spirit of MA63, which the Federal Constitution makes no mention of.
“And the third option is to refer the Bill to a Special Select Committee.”
She said GPS’ sincerity should not be an issue at all because its MPs had stated their concerns clearly to the minister.
“Indeed we looked forward to the amendment but because the amendment was not changing our status at all, because we are already in a situation that the amendment had already made in 1976, why the rush?” she asked.
“We have no other agenda at all. The golden opportunity was only to obtain a two-thirds majority, but why go back to something that doesn’t give us anything at all.
“We only want it amended with both sides to sit together and agree with the right words to tighten the Bill for Sarawakians. Who is insincere?” Nancy asked.
On the issue whether it should be brought up to the State Legislative Assembly, Nancy said to her that was the most ideal move because Sarawak has formed a State Consultative Committee comprising of both the ruling and the opposition parties.
“The basis of forming Malaysia was the MA63 agreement, then discuss it. Although the 1976 amendment was never brought to the state, it doesn’t mean that we should repeat and follow the process in 1976.
“To avoid questions by many Sarawakians unanswered, refer to DUN for a better representation,” she added.
Nancy said the PH people panicked and should feel ashamed of themselves for causing the government and the prime minister to lose (failed Bill),
She said the negative remarks by PH MPs were unbecoming of them and uncalled for.
