NO sooner had the first constitutional amendment bill presented by the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government failed to secure the requisite two-thirds parliamentary majority last week, the recriminations and blame game started in earnest in Sarawak.
It was an initiative to restore the constitutional text to its earlier, pre-1976, form that was primarily instigated in Sarawak and Sabah — to put back the two Borneo states in a category all their own and separate from all the other states in the peninsula.
In fact, it was none other than the late Sarawak chief minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem who first pointed this out and set the ball rolling towards the current impasse.
The current Sabah government went along and its members of parliament voted accordingly for the amendment but the Sarawak government baulked and the bill died when all its MPs abstained from voting either way.
Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Abang Openg described the whole episode as a “botched” effort but it was not clear if that better described how the federal government went about presenting the ill-fated bill or how the Sarawak government handled it.
Abang Johari had earlier given the green light for the initiative only to harbour second thoughts and signalled later for the phrase “pursuant to MA63 (Malaysia Agreement 1963)” to be added to the text of the bill.
This never appeared in the original Federal Constitution before 1976. The bill got killed as a result.
“Sarawak PH MPs wasted little time in painting their Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) counterparts as obstructionists who squandered the golden opportunity for Sarawak to regain its original status in MA63 in Malaysia,” said Sarawak PH chairman Chong Chieng Jen.
The Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land spells out the fundamental operating principles underpinning the functioning of our federation.
The accession of Sabah and Sarawak (and Singapore) to the federation was, of course, facilitated by MA63, a document drawn up by the three territories and then colonial administrator, Britain, with the then Malaya.
Singapore was already self-governing since 1959, something that only happened with Sarawak on July 22, 1963 and with Sabah on Aug 31, 1963.
It is thus a stretch to argue now, as some in Sarawak and Sabah do, that MA63 was signed by their representatives on behalf of two already “sovereign” states.
At any rate, in my layman’s understanding, our existing constitution is already unquestionably pursuant to MA63.
Harking back to MA63 today, it looks in parts suspicious and puzzling.
The logical inference from this is that it is just an opening gambit to undertake a revisit of the federation accession agreement.
For this, Putrajaya has to be on board. However, any negotiating process presupposes a willingness by all involved parties to participate.
Sarawak and Sabah appear to want something out of Putrajaya but Abang Johari has kept stressing publicly that the most fundamental issues involving state rights — such as control over immigration — are non-negotiable.
The process cannot be promising if one side takes but is unwilling to give anything in return.
If the fate that has befallen the constitutional amendment bill results in bad blood between Sarawak and the federal government, the risk is that it may spill over into the ongoing negotiations underway by several committees so tasked.
The greatest risk is that the process may now be held hostage by political grandstanding, particularly between GPS and Sarawak PH in the run-up to the next state election.
In the current feverish political environment, statesman-like observations from political leaders are what is needed but they are in rather short supply.
This is regrettable and does nothing to further the cause of Sarawak, to say nothing about the national cause.
Under the current circumstances, the comments coming from former Sabah chief minister Tan Sri Bernard Dompok are noteworthy.
On the now discarded amendment bill, Dompok stressed that the objective would have been to fulfil not just the letter of MA63 but its spirit.
“So I think the present amendment would have been a way forward for the lawmakers to then come up with other substantive items that have yet to be talked about and agreed on between the parties,” he said.
“It (the aborted bill) would have put it (the Federal Constitution) back to what it was in 1963 and therefore from then on you take up the remaining issues.
“I feel that the amended bill on the second reading should have been supported,” concluded Dompok.
The writer views developments in the nation, the region and the wider world from his vantage point in Kuching, Sarawak.