If Sarawak does not act firmly to defend its rights under the Federal Constitution and Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), there is every risk that Putrajaya will continue to encroach upon these rights, even to the extent of disregarding constitutional safeguards.
This was emphasised by Deputy Speaker Datuk Gerawat Gala (GPS-Mulu) in supporting the motion to amend the Federal Constitution during the debate session.
Though the motion was described as redundant by Dr Ting Tiong Choon(DAP-Pujut) after Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) MPs ironically abstained from voting the proposed Bill amendment of the Federal Constitution during the parliament sitting earlier in April, Gerawat was quick to counter Dr Ting’s argument that the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government’s proposed amendment was merely reverting back to the original text of Article 1(2) in the Federal Constitution, which was first promulgated in 1963.
“The PH says that this amendment is necessary as a first step to enable Sarawak to regain its rights which have been eroded or ignored by the federal government over the last 55 years since the formation of Malaysia.
“This is a very misleading statement by PH because the proposed amendment has nothing to do with our rights. In other words, the restoration of our eroded rights is not dependent on or conditional on the amendment.
“Even without the amendment, the federal government is in the position to restore our eroded rights, if they wish and are sincere, because these rights are already provided in the Federal Constitution and the MA63,” he said.
Gerawat, who is also the Mulu assemblyman, further stated that the proposed amendment was basically motivated by PH’s desire to show that they had fulfilled one of their election promises to restore Sarawak’s status in the Federation.
“The amendment does not necessarily restore Sarawak rights. It is our eroded rights that matters and not the symbolic wordings of the amendment.
“In any event, PH government breaking promises and making frequent U-turns do not give us much confidence that PH will grant our eroded rights,” Gerawat elaborated.
He pointed out that the Article 160(2) defined Sarawak essentially as a state in the Federation of Malaya and that Malaysia was merely a new name of the federation of Malaya after the addition of Sabah and Sarawak.
In response, Dr Ting also questioned the state government’s weakness in taking actions on the amendment of the Article 1(2).
He said, “Year after year, election after election, we are still talking about this issue of bringing the rights back to its origin and yet no action was taken.”
The argument that Dr Ting presented was supported by Irene Mary Chang Oi Ling (DAP-Bukit Assek) Chiew Chiu Sing (DAP-Tanjong Batu).
In his defence, Chang said credit should go to the PH government for its attempt to give back to Sabah and Sarawak.
To her, the motion was “good to go” but both the federal government and the state government viewed it differently which explained the recent tension arising from both parties.
“What the federal government intends to do is to restore the status of Sabah and Sarawak first but the state government presumably, based on the parliamentary sitting on April 9, wishes to do everything in one go which leads to the failed passing of the proposed Bill,” she noted.
