The Sarawak government will support the amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution on the specified basis that it reflects the “original intent” of the negotiating parties, according to a reliable source.
KUCHING: The Sarawak government will support the amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution on the specified basis that it reflects the “original intent” of the negotiating parties, according to a reliable source.
The Borneo Post has learnt that towards this end, the Sarawak government will lend its support on the explicit condition that the Federation of Malaysia shall comprise: (i) the States of Malaya and (ii) the Borneo States of Sarawak and Sabah.
The source also revealed that the Sarawak government will also put forward its expressed stand that consistent with the proposed amendment to “reflect the original intent of the parties involved”, there should also be an amendment to the definition of “the Federation” in Article 160(2) of Federal Constitution which currently reads: “the Federation” means the Federation established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1957”
In this regard, the definition of “the Federation” should be amended accordingly to read “the Federation”
means the Federation formed under the “Malaysian Agreement, dated July 9, 1963,” the source added.
The source also stated that the Sarawak government is also expecting consequential amendments to Article 166 (Succession of Property), Article 167 (Rights, Liabilities and Obligations)and Article 169 (International Agreements made before Merdeka Day).
Meanwhile, state legal counsel Dato Sri J C Fong pointed out that the proposed amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution which was submitted earlier has not been adopted by the federal government.
In an exclusive interview with a Chinese daily, Fong stressed the amendment in its present form, which was first read in Parliament last week, will not restore Sarawak and Sabah to equal status with Peninsular Malaysia.
Fong, who has been advising the Sarawak government on legal matters since 1992, noted that former Chief Minister Pehin Sri Adenan Satem and former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had discussed in-depth on MA63 and the provisos pertaining to the Agreement under the Federal Constitution.
He stressed that after the change of government with Pakatan Harapan (PH) at the helm following the 14th General Election (GE14), the Sarawak government’s stand on restoration of equal status has remained unchanged.
In January this year, during the MA63 Technical Committee Meeting, the Sarawak Attorney-General Chambers had submitted the proposal to amend the Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution to reflect the equal status of Sarawak and Sabah — which should include “The States of Malaya” and “The Borneo States of Sarawak and Sabah.”
This proposal also included amendments to Article 166 (Succession of Property), Article 167 (Rights, Liabilities and Obligations) and Article 169 (International Agreements made before Merdeka Day).
Fong said the proposal was made in the presence of MPs from Sarawak PH.
He pointed out that according to his knowledge, the Technical Committee had decided to present the Amendment Bill at the parliamentary sitting in October.
“However, in the last cabinet meeting, it was decided that the Bill be presented at the April sitting. The reason why the Bill was presented earlier and why it did not adopt the proposal from Sarawak is not known.”
Fong further revealed that after being made aware that the Bill would be presented earlier, he and the Sarawak AG had sent a letter to Technical Committee, requesting for a delay but there had been no reply from the Committee.
He stressed that under the proposed amendment, first read in Parliament last week, Sarawak and Sabah have been derogated further to ‘item B’. ‘Item A’ consists of the 11 states in the Peninsular Malaysia while ‘item B’ comprises Sarawak and Sabah.
Fong reaffirmed what the people in Sarawak wanted is equal partner status with the Peninsular Malaysia and not just being one of the 13 states in the Federation.
Referring to the statements by some PH MPs that Malaysia is now not using “Malaya”and “Borneo States,” Fong argued that “Malaya” still exists in the Federal Constitution as clearly reflected in the use of the term “High Court of Malaya.”
He urged PH leaders to study the amendments to ensure Sarawak’s rights are being protected instead of playing with words.
He opined that the argument and explanation from PH Sarawak chairman Chong Chieng Jen are out of context, stressing: “The amendments are not favourable to Sarawak and Sabah to restore their equal status.”
Fong said the crucial issue to look at now is how to amend the Federal Constitution with the best interests of Sarawakians at heart and not whether the previous leaders had committed any mistake.
Fong said harping on the mistakes of the previous leaders and playing with words will serve no useful purpose other than to cause unnecessary confusion.
He reiterated that the present undertaking is to discuss how best to protect the interests of Sarawak so that the rights of Sarawakians will not be lost.
“As such, the Bill should not be hastily presented for debate and voting,” he added.