KUCHING: The federal government has either deliberately or conveniently ignored and forgotten the Malaysia Agreement (MA63) and focused solely on the Constitution because they regard MA63 as merely a historical document without any force of law, says Tanjong Datu assemblywoman Datuk Amar Jamilah Anu
She believed that all right-thinking Sarawakians would never and should never accept the view that MA63 is merely a historical document without any force of law.
She cited the Federal Court in Keruntum’s case, which decided in no uncertain terms that MA63 is a valid legal document which binds all parties, and the Federal Court, the highest court in the country, was willing to enforce the provisions of MA63.
She said because of the importance and legal recognition of MA63 by the Federal Court, the Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) members of parliament (MPs) insisted that the amendment to Arcticle 1(2) of the Federal Constitution must incorporate MA63.
“This is a very clear proof that GPS lives up to its slogan of ‘Sarawak First’.
“The GPS government walks its talk unlike the PH government which has earned a reputation of revoking its talk and not keeping to its promises,” she said when debating a ministerial motion Under Standing Order 23(1)(a) MA63 yesterday.
Jamilah said the GPS MPs in insisting on inclusion of MA63 in the amendment, had stood firm in defending Sarawak’s rights, and concured with their views that the amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution was not comprehensive.
“It requires a package of amendment to other related provisions of the Federal Constitution, for instance, Article 160(2),” she said.
Jamilah said Article 160(2) interpretation of ‘the Federation’ refers to the Federation pursuant to the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957.
This, she said, was meant to be the general definition.
She noted that the words ‘unless the context otherwise requires’ should be interpreted to denote the general rule, not the exception.
She said in the Federal Constitution, the general rule is the 1963 Federation, not the 1957 Federation.
“It is an issue which would require both the attorney generals of Sabah and Sarawak and federal AG to interpret and conduct a thorough discussion,” she said.