[Letter to the Editor] Malayan NGOs’ suggestion 35pct of Dewan Negara seats be given to S’wak, Sabah shows lack of understanding

Prof James Chin (file pic)

Letter to the Editor

By Prof James Chin

The suggestion by Project SAMA and other Malayan-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that Sabah and Sarawak be allocated 35 per cent of the seats in Dewan Negara rather than Dewan Rakyat is yet another evidence of Malaya-based organisations’ lack of understanding of the Borneo States’ historical grievances and claim to one-third of Parliament seats in both Houses.

There are numerous reasons why Sabah and Sarawak should reject the Dewan Negara proposal, which is a ‘trick’ to maintain the status quo.

First, the Dewan Negara has minimal political legitimacy in Malaysian politics because it is a totally appointed House. Its members are not directly elected by the populace. That is why, for many years, debates in the Dewan Negara have received less attention than those in the Dewan Rakyat. Furthermore, many of individuals nominated to Dewan Negara are viewed as ‘reward’ for post-political service. Hence the significant number of retired politicians in the Dewan Negara.

Second, all major legislations are introduced in the Dewan Rakyat, where the actual discussion occurs. The Dewan Negara only debates laws enacted by the Dewan Rakyat and hence lacks the legislative authority to block significant bills.

Third, all major political players, including the prime minister, his deputies, and the majority of ministries, are from the Dewan Rakyat. Ministers from Dewan Negara are commonly regarded as ‘backdoor’ ministers because they are appointed to serve as ministers at Dewan Negara. This alone demonstrates that the political establishment views the Dewan Rakyat as more significant than the Dewan Negara.

Fourth, in practice, the Dewan Negara has no real power to block laws other than to delay them. The one-third seats are designed to restore Sabah and Sarawak’s ability to block constitutional amendments if they disagree with Malaya.

Fifth, it is clear that the original intention of the framers of the Constitution wanted Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak to hold a veto over Malaya. This is to ensure that Malaya cannot alter the Federal Constitution at will.

Under para 19 of the IGC report, it states:

19. Federal Legislature

(1) Two members of the Senate should be elected for each Borneo State in accordance with Article 45 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Article 45 (1) (b) of the Constitution should be amended to increase the number of appointed members of the Senate by six in respect of the accession of North Borneo and Sarawak to Malaysia. An assurance should be given that, on the occasion of the first appointments of these additional members after Malaysia Day, at least two would be appointed from North Borneo and at least two from Sarawak after consultation with the Chief Minister of the State concerned.

(2) Article 46 (1) should be amended to increase the number of elected members of the House of Representatives from one hundred and four to one hundred and fifty-nine (including the fifteen proposed for Singapore). Of the additional members sixteen should be elected in North Borneo and twenty-four in Sarawak. The proportion that the number of seats allocated respectively to Sarawak and to North Borneo bears to the total number of seats in the House should not be reduced (except by reason of the granting of seats to any other new State) during a period of seven years after Malaysia Day without the concurrence of the Government of the State concerned, and thereafter (except as aforesaid) shall be subject to Article 159 (3) of the existing Federal Constitution (which requires Bills making amendments to the Constitution to be supported in each House of Parliament by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of that House).

Under The Malaysia Agreement 1963, Chapter 3 para 9, it states:

9. (i) The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty-nine elected members.

(2) There shall be—
(a) one hundred and four members from the States of Malaya ;
(b) sixteen members from Sabah ;
(c) twenty-four members from Sarawak ;
(d) fifteen members from Singapore.

It was clear that Singapore, (Sabah) North Borneo, and Sarawak did not want Malaya to dominate Parliament in respect of Constitutional amendments. In the MSCC notes and Cobbold Report, it was made clear that the people of North Borneo and Sarawak were of the view that Malaya should not dominate the new federation.

Thus, under the formula, the parliamentary seats in the proposed Malaysian Federation were distributed to ensure that Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak had veto power by ensuring that they had slightly more than one-third of the seats in Parliament.

When Singapore left the Federation in 1965, its 15 Parliamentary seats out of the 159 were not redistributed to Sarawak or Sabah. This was a historical error that needs to be rectified. As time went by, the number of Parliamentary seats in Malaya grew to more than two-thirds of the total Malaysia Parliament seats.

It is with hope that the people of Sabah and Sarawak understand the proper context of asking for one-third of the seats in Parliament and not be fooled by NGOs in Malaya who have their own agenda.

Prof James Chin is currently a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia.

This is the personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of DayakDaily. Letters to the Editor may be lightly edited for clarity.