Nanta’s ‘political divorce’ remarks must be understood in MA63 context, says Perantis adviser

MIRI (Feb 4): Works Minister Dato Sri Alexander Nanta Linggi’s use of the term ‘political divorce’ must be viewed holistically in the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), rather than being twisted to create misunderstanding or baseless attacks against Sarawak leaders.

Persatuan Intelektual Pribumi Sarawak (Perantis) founder and adviser Wellie Henry Majang said the minister’s remarks were clearly rooted in love for the country and concern over the differing political, racial, and religious approaches between Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia.

“Dato Sri Alexander never intended to divide the nation. Instead, he was expressing a sense of responsibility to ensure that Malaysia remains strong, united and stable amid prolonged political conflicts,” he said in a statement.

Wellie added that Nanta did not commit any wrongdoing and urged the public to listen to the entire interview to fully understand what the minister intended to convey.

“The message was clear — his love for the country and his desire to protect Malaysia. Unfortunately, that positive message was not highlighted.

“Instead, the use of the term ‘political divorce’ was magnified and portrayed as though it was a grave mistake to be mentioned publicly, when in fact the true context of his statement was to safeguard national harmony,” he said.

Wellie also described calls by certain individuals claiming to be constitutional experts for Nanta to resign as an “ignorant and inappropriate” move, and viewed it as an attempt to silence the voices of Sarawak leaders at a time when MA63 rights have yet to be fully resolved.

He stressed that Nanta’s statement must be understood within the MA63 framework, which is based on the principles of partnership, mutual respect and recognition of autonomy between the Federal and state governments.

On constitutional matters, Wellie explained that the gazetting of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022, which recognises the amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution, was an important step.

However, he said it has not achieved its full meaning without amendments to Article 160(2) concerning the interpretation of the term ‘Federation’.

He said the amendment should be seen as an effort to clarify the position of Sabah and Sarawak within the Federation in line with the spirit of MA63, as well as to provide constitutional recognition to the agreement that formed the basis of Malaysia’s establishment.

Wellie also reminded that among the most important demands of the people of Sabah and Sarawak during the formation of Malaysia was the guarantee of the special rights of the indigenous peoples, as enshrined in Article 153(1) of the Federal Constitution, which places responsibility on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to protect that position.

“The past leaders who signed MA63 did so with good intentions and with the belief that Sabah and Sarawak would contribute to nation-building in the spirit of shared prosperity,” he added.

In this regard, Wellie stressed that any debate related to MA63 must be handled prudently, based on facts, and in accordance with the original spirit of the nation’s formation.