PBB leaders slam Sabah activist for MA63 remarks

0

Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar

KUCHING: Two key members of Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) have hit out at Sabah activist Zainnal Ajamain, who has again portrayed himself as a ‘Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) expert’ and blamed MPs from PBB for last year’s failed amendment to the Article 1 (2) of the Federal Constitution.

Santubong MP Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar regards Zainnal as being disrespectful to Sarawakian leaders, in connection with the latter’s comments aired over a YouTube video uploaded on Jan 29 – deemed as ‘giving Sarawakian leaders a lecture about the MA63’.

“He (Zainnal) seems to portray that he has an exclusive monopoly of understanding the meaning and interpretation of all the contents in the Federal Constitution.

“Please – we Sarawakians can manage our own state without any advice from the people who belittle and debase us like that,” Wan Junaidi said in a statement.

He said as a loyal member of the PBB, which is a component of the ruling Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) coalition, he would stand by the party leadership and whatever decision that the leaders had made.

“Honestly, I simply cannot and do not find it possible to make Sarawak or Sabah, or Sarawak and Sabah, ‘equal partners’ with Peninsular Malaysia simply by introducing and passing that April 2019 amendment.

“That’s why I took the stand of not supporting the amendment – it is still my stand.”

Wan Junaidi said he began his interest in the documents pertaining to the formation of Malaysia when he wrote ‘Evolusi Parlimen dan Speaker Parlimen’ in 2008, and not in 2016 as alleged by Zainnal.

He recalled that when all the GPS MPs made the decision for not supporting the amendment to Article 1(2) of Federal Constitution in April 2019, they were told from the speeches and the discussions that they had to restore the rights of Sarawak.

Zainnal Ajamain

“My question is – what rights that Article 1(2) gives, even in its form or format of 1963?

“Thorough examination of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and all the related instruments of Malaysia Agreement, for example, the Cobbold Commission Report, the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report, MA63, the Act of Malaysia 1963 (UK), Act of Malaysia 1963 (Malaya), and the Federal Constitution Malaysia.

“Clearly there was no ‘equal partnership’ in them.”

Wan Junaidi believed that the terms used by the minister and Pakatan Harapan (PH) debaters in Dewan Rakyat for the amendment were wrong.

He pointed out that members could not mislead Parliament and the GPS MPs were not able to support the amendment because of the numerous misrepresentations.

Meanwhile, PBB information chief Dato Idris Buang said Zainnal was missing the point in the essence of the constitution amendment to restore Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners with Peninsular Malaysia.

The Muara Tuang assemblyman said Zainnal overlooked the importance of throwing out any ambiguity found in the original MA63, as well as the 1976 amended version, if such a phrase ‘pursuant to Malaysia Agreement 1963’ was not inserted.

“What he says in the video is only a half-right, half-wrong view,” he said in a statement.

Idris pointed out that the flaws in Zainnal’s argument could not be supported to suit Sarawak’s interest appertaining to the spirit of the seminal and formative documents such as MA63, the IGC Report and so forth, which made the Federation of Malaysia.

Idris reiterated Sarawak’s stand for a more comprehensive amendment to the Federal Constitution by acknowledging MA63 including the interpretation of the ‘Federation’, as well as safeguarding the legislative and executive powers of Sarawak, sources of revenues, special grants and financial autonomy.

“We must insist on what was passed by the State Legislative Assembly via a motion tabled by de facto Law Minister Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali last year.

“We just stick to our guns and insist on the insertion of, inter alia, the words ‘Sabah and Sarawak pursuant to MA63’ to their proposal on Article 1(2), and also to Article 160(2) on the definition of ‘The Federation’,” added Idris.