THE lingering debate over constitutional amendments to “restore” Sabah and Sarawak’s “equal status” within the federation took another turn, this time inside the chamber of the Sarawak State Assembly this week.
State Assembly Speaker Datuk Amar Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar, in a preface to the introduction of a motion on the issue, justified it by suggesting that any amendment to the Federal Constitution affecting the state must be referred to the assembly and not done unilaterally and arbitrarily.
He further argued: “If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a ‘takeover’ of the Borneo states by the Federation of Malaysia and the submission of the individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not in my judgment be generally accepted as successful.”
Taking the cue from there, state Assistant Minister of Law and State-Federal Relations, Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali, in moving a motion on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) on Tuesday, took issue with the definition of the Malaysian Federation under Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution as “the Federation established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957”.
“I believe no Sarawakian would like to be in a federation formed under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957 and be considered as a part of the Malayan Federation,” Hasidah noted.
The assistant minister said the motion seeks to secure a comprehensive revamp of the Federal Constitution to accord to Sarawak the status as an “equal partner” to the Federation of Malaya under MA63.
While the motion may put some incremental pressure on the federal government, it remains questionable if it really moves the needle in the ongoing state-federal tussle which started out as a demand for greater state autonomy before it morphed into seeking the “restoration” of supposedly eroded state rights and now into a seeming quest to remake the very definition of federation as Malaysians have come to accept.
With ever moving goal-posts such as this, there can only be growing doubt if any substantive progress will be achieved in the negotiating processes currently underway over the whole issue.
Political grandstanding in the run-up to the impending state election seems to be an ever-growing risk factor that militates against any meaningful, much less comprehensive, resolution that can satisfy all parties.
Moreover, state-federal goodwill seems in unfortunate short supply, most clearly evident in a rather unusual spat over a decision to move the High Court Registry for Sabah and Sarawak from its current location in Kuching to Kota Kinabalu.
When the decision was highlighted in the local media following opposition from the Advocates Association of Sarawak, Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Abang Openg weighed in with a statement that it contravened a constitutional provision requiring that he be consulted over any such move. The relocation was subsequently aborted after a threat to challenge its constitutionality.
But the attempt to relocate ended up uniting leaders from across the political divide in Sarawak, with an opposition assemblyman, See Chee How, given a rare chance to initiate a motion of objection to moving the High Court Registry and which was unanimously carried.
There is, of course, an ever-present danger that as sentiments get whipped up amidst continuing state-federal political tensions, they can easily get out of hand.
Sarawak Yang di-Pertua Negeri Tun Abdul Taib Mahmud alluded to this in his address to the state assembly.
“To the people, do not take any action beyond the limits of the law that can undermine the peace and security of the state of Sarawak,” Taib advised.
“Negotiations on the eroded (state) rights must be conducted with the federal government through proper channels.”
Those cautionary words, however, are unlikely to prevent a cacophony of voices through various forums reaching new crescendos. Some of these voices are not likely to heed official state assurances that state-federal negotiations will be within the bounds of Sarawak remaining an integral part of Malaysia.
Leaders in the state political elite may have reasonable expectations that enhanced state rights — in whatever shape or form they eventually materialise — will secure for them greater control over state affairs and its resources than what currently exists.
Those grassroots voices emanating rather spontaneously from all the heightened debates over state rights may have completely different ideas from those espoused by the elite.
It is any such disconnect between elite and popular expectations that bears watching.
Sarawakians in the lead-up to Malaysia’s formation in 1963 certainly had their misgivings. Those mixed emotions may remain even today, to be exploited by various parties.