Be extra cautious in debating amendment to Article 1 (2), lawmakers reminded
KUCHING: Sarawakians should blame nobody but themselves if they were ‘ to be fooled again’ by the federal government, said Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Datuk Amar Dr James Masing.
His remarks came in support of Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) parliamentarians objecting to the ‘ imperfection’ of the bill to amend Article 1 (2) of the Federal Constitution.
“You fool me once, shame on you. You fool me twice, shame on me! Don’t be fooled by Putrajaya again,” stressed Masing, who is also the president of Parti Rakyat Sarawak ( PRS) – one of four local component parties that form Sarawak’s ruling coalition, GPS.
The other three are Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu ( PBB), Sarawak United People’s Party ( SUPP) and Progressive Democratic Party ( PDP).
Adding on, Masing pointed out that the amendment to Article 1 (2) was more complicated than those that met the eyes.
“I am not a lawyer, but I was told that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) had no constitutional backing. If that’s indeed the case, then the amendment must include that definition of the Federation (which) should be changed to ‘the Federation formed pursuant to Malaysian Agreement 1963’.
“These are one of the many things that our lawmakers must carefully consider when debating the amendment to Article 1 ( 2). The question of giving equal status to Sarawak and Sabah is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Masing.
In his view, political activist Voon Lee Shan said the proposed amendment to Article 1( 2) was ‘ to get Sabah and Sarawak fall into the trap of the Federation of Malaya’.
According to him, the majority of the members of the federal cabinet are from the Federation of Malaya and they know that the Federal Constitution has to be amended ‘ to please the people of Sabah and Sarawak’.
“No matter how the Federal Constitution be amended, the amendment could not take away the fact that the birth of Malaysia should not have existed in the first place. Malaysia should have been an unborn child,” said Voon, who is former Batu Lintang assemblyman.
He stressed that there would be no MA63 without the Cobbold Commission Report, and no Malaysia without the MA63.
“MA63 could not stand as a legal treaty when the Cobbold Commission Report was defective in law.
“From available records, those interviewed by the Cobbold Commission in Sarawak within a period of about four weeks were only about 4,000 people out of a population of over 800,000.
“Only one-third of those interviewed agreed to the formation of Malaysia – another one-third disagreed, while the other (remaining one-third) could not make up their minds.”
Voon figured out that this small number of people could not, in law, represent the voice of all the people of Sarawak for the purpose of agreeing to the formation of Malaysia.
The proposed amendment to Article 1( 2) tabled in Parliament was to divert the attention of the people of Sabah and Sarawak from the real issues affecting the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, he pointed out – namely, whether or not Malaysia was ‘properly constituted’.
He said if Malaysia had not been properly constituted, no amount of amendments to the Federal Constitution could regularise the status of Sabah and Sarawak within the Federation of Malaysia.
“In simple language, Malaysia was a stillborn child.
“Even if MA63 was a valid treaty, which remains in dispute, the amendment tabled concerning Article 1( 2) of the Federal Constitution shows that Sabah and Sarawak are to be downgraded from country to state – ( being) equal in status to other states in Malaysia is simply unacceptable,” he said.
“The position of Sabah and Sarawak before Malaysia came into existence was that the two were equal in status with the Federation of Malaya,” added Voon, who is the legal advisor to Parti Bumi Kenyalang ( PBK).
“By the amendment, even if the status of Sabah and Sarawak were to be restored, this should not be taken as Sabah and Sarawak being treated as equal partners in the Federation of Malaysia,” he said.
According to Voon, the fact that the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sarawak has to be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, shows that Sarawak remains subservient to Peninsular Malaysia.
He also viewed the federal cabinet being controlled by the peninsula, leaving ministers from Sabah and Sarawak with ‘ very little voice’.
“Having said all these, the general perception by the people of Sabah and Sarawak is that Sabah and Sarawak are colonies of the Federation of Malaysia.
“According to records in the United Nations, Sabah and Sarawak were acquired by the Federation of Malaya from Great Britain to enlarge the territories of the Federation of Malaya.
“By the enlargement of its territory, the Federation of Malaya took a new name – the ‘Federation of Malaysia’. Therefore, Malaysia is Malaya and Malaya is Malaysia,” Voon pointed out.