The Federation of Malaysia was established with a vision of unity, equality, and balanced representation. Assurances were made to Sarawak and Sabah, ensuring we would not be sidelined by the numerically superior Malaya.
These safeguards were not mere aspirations but legally binding commitments under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), designed to protect the rights and representation of Sarawak and Sabah. However, these promises have not been fully honoured, and Sarawak’s representation in Parliament remains severely imbalanced.
Today, the discrepancy in parliamentary seats has reached an unacceptable level. When Malaysia was formed in 1963, it was agreed that Sarawak, Sabah, and Singapore would collectively hold one-third of the seats in Parliament to prevent Malaya from overwhelming them. Yet, following Singapore’s expulsion from the federation in 1965, its parliamentary seats were not allocated to Sarawak and Sabah.
Instead, they were absorbed by Malaya, upsetting the balance that was a fundamental principle of the federation’s foundation. This shift in representation has effectively stripped us of our rightful legislative influence, reducing them to minority voices within the legislative framework.
Presently, Malaya holds an overwhelming 75 per cent of parliamentary seats, leaving only 25 per cent for Sarawak and Sabah. This disparity is not only a violation of the original terms of federation but also a direct threat to our ability to have a meaningful say in the governance of Malaysia.
Decisions that impact the entire federation can be made without the input or support of Sarawak and Sabah, enabling Malaya to push through significant bills unilaterally. For Sarawak and Sabah, this is more than a technicality – it is a fundamental erosion of our status as equal partners in the formation of Malaysia.
The foundation for equitable representation was laid well before the formation of Malaysia. Documents such as the Cobbold Commission Report, the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report, and MA63 all stress the importance of safeguarding Sarawak and Sabah’s interests and autonomy.
These documents were not only designed to secure the support of Sarawak and Sabah in joining Malaysia but were also intended to ensure that these states would not be marginalised within the federation. In fact, the IGC Report specifically recommended that Sabah and Sarawak should be granted substantial representation in Parliament to prevent the dominance of any single region.
The principles outlined in these documents were subsequently enshrined in the Federal Constitution, which contains provisions aimed at protecting Sabah and Sarawak’s unique rights, including those related to immigration, religion, and land.
Moreover, Article 159(3) of the Federal Constitution stipulates that a two-thirds majority in Parliament is required to amend the Constitution, stressing the importance of balanced representation to safeguard the interests of all member states.
Following Singapore’s expulsion, the 15 seats it held in Parliament should have been reallocated to Sarawak and Sabah to maintain the one-third representation ratio. It was not the case as Malaya retained these seats, tilting the scales heavily in its favour.
This has allowed Malayans to control the legislative agenda, often without needing support from us. For Sarawak, this is not merely a question of seat numbers – it is a question of fairness, autonomy, and respect for the original terms under which it helped form Malaysia.
The demand for one-third representation is not an arbitrary request but is rooted in the legal agreements that formed Malaysia. The Federal Constitution, MA63, and the IGC Report all stress the need to protect the unique position of Sarawak and Sabah within the federation.
Judicial decisions have repeatedly affirmed this. In landmark cases such as Datuk Haji Mohammad Tufail Bin Mahmud v Datuk Ting Check Sii and Fung Fon Chen v The Government of Malaysia, the Malaysian courts recognised the binding nature of the agreements enshrined in MA63 and the IGC Report. These rulings stressed that the constitutional safeguards set out in these documents are not optional but are essential to the integrity of the federation.
In these cases, the judiciary acknowledged the significance of maintaining the balance envisioned at Malaysia’s formation. The courts ruled that these safeguards were critical in securing Sarawak’s participation in the federation, a stance that must be respected by Putrajaya.
The Cobbold Commission Report, though not a legally binding document, provided the foundation for the IGC Report and MA63, establishing the framework for protecting Sarawak and Sabah’s autonomy and representation.
Furthermore, the judiciary has recognised that the safeguards set out in these historical agreements serve as a check against unilateral changes that could undermine Sarawak and Sabah’s position in Malaysia.
This is why the one-third seat allocation is so important – it was meant to ensure that Putrajaya could not amend the Constitution or pass significant legislation without the support of representatives from Sarawak and Sabah.
By failing to restore this balance, Putrajaya is not only breaking the promises made to us but is also disregarding the judicial precedents that uphold these promises.
One of the arguments often used to justify the current distribution of seats is that representation should be based on population size. However, this approach is overly simplistic and fails to take into account the unique geographical and demographic challenges faced by Sarawak and Sabah.
Both states are sparsely populated, with vast rural areas that are difficult to reach and represent. If parliamentary seats were allocated solely on the basis of population, regions such as Ulu Baram, Belaga, and Ulu Rajang would struggle to have their voices heard, effectively marginalising the people who live there. Is this what Putrajaya wants?
Malaysia’s federal system should consider both population and geographical size to ensure fair representation. This is a principle that is also observed in other federal systems around the world, such as the United States and Canada, where representation takes into account both population and regional significance.
In the United Kingdom, constituency boundaries are regularly reviewed to ensure that all regions receive equitable representation, considering both population changes and geographical challenges.
For Sarawak, equitable representation means ensuring that rural and remote areas are not left out of the national conversation. This is why the demand for one-third of parliamentary seats is so crucial – it reflects the reality of governing a region with diverse needs and unique challenges.
By restoring this balance, Putrajaya would be acknowledging the distinct character of Sarawak and Sabah, recognising our contribution to the federation, and respecting the original intent of MA63.
The current administration under Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has often spoken of justice, equality, and respect for the principles enshrined in MA63. However, these words must be backed by action.
Fulfilling our demand for one-third representation in Parliament is an opportunity for the Madani government to demonstrate its commitment to fairness and to honour the promises made at Malaysia’s formation.
This is not simply a matter of correcting a historical oversight; it is about strengthening the federation and fostering unity. A fair distribution of parliamentary seats would restore balance and give us the representation we deserve.
This would also ensure that significant decisions impacting the entire federation cannot be made without our support. Such a move would demonstrate Putrajaya’s respect for the diversity and autonomy of its member states, fostering a sense of shared ownership and partnership in Malaysia’s future.
Sarawak and Sabah have waited for decades to see this balance restored. Anwar’s Madani administration now has an opportunity to right this historical wrong and to reaffirm Putrajaya’s commitment to a united, fair, and balanced Malaysia.
The demand for one-third representation is not a plea for special treatment, but a call for justice, rooted in the agreements that form the foundation of our federation.
Sarawak’s appeal for one-third parliamentary representation is not only justified but is essential for maintaining the unity and integrity of Malaysia. By restoring this balance, Putrajaya can ensure that Sarawak and Sabah have a meaningful role in the legislative process, upholding the promises made at Malaysia’s formation and strengthening the bonds that unite us.
The time has come for Putrajaya to act decisively and honour its commitment to Sarawak and Sabah, ensuring a fair, balanced, and united Malaysia for generations to come.
Please fulfil the promises made to our forefathers. If it had not been for them, there would not have been a country called Malaysia.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
