Focus Malaysia:
James Chin rejects NGO’s suggestion for Sabah, Sarawak to be given ⅓ of Dewan Negara seats
By Prof James Chin
I REJECT Projek SAMA’s and other Peninsular Malaysian-based NGOs’ suggestion that Sabah and Sarawak should be allocated 35% of the seats in Dewan Negara rather than Dewan Raykat.
Editor’s Note: Projek SAMA which is made up of former BERSIH (Coalition of Free and Fair Elections) members was officially launched on April 20 as a NGO advocating institutional reform to enhance political stability and accountability in Malaysia with four core aspects — strengthening constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, rule of law and federalism.
This proposition is yet another evidence of lack of understanding among Peninsular Malaysian-based NGOs’ 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. Five key reasons stand out why the Borneo states must reject the suggestions and insist on a one-third seats in both Houses.
Valid reasoning
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 debates in the Dewan Negara have received less attention than those in the Dewan Rakyat.
Dewan Negara
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, hence it lacks the legislative authority to block significant bills.
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, hence it lacks the legislative authority to block significant bills.
Dewan Rakyat
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 the Dewan Negara in order to serve as ministers. This alone demonstrates that the political establishment views the Dewan Rakyat as more significant than the Dewan Negara.
Fourth, the Dewan Negara – in practice – 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 (Peninsular Malaysia).
Fifth, it is clear that the original intention of the framers of the Federal Constitution wanted Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak to hold a veto over Malaya. This is to ensure that Malaya cannot alter the Federal Constitution at will.
Prof James Chin (Image credit: CNBC)
“Historical error”
It was clear that Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak did not want Malaya to dominate Parliament in respect of constitutional amendments. In the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC) notes and Cobbold Report, it was made clear that Sabahans and Sarawakians 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 Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak had veto power in 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 re-distributed to Sarawak or Sabah.
This was a historical error that needs to be rectified. As time went by, the number of parliamentary seats of Malaya grew to more than two-third of the total parliamentary seats.
I hope that Sabahans and Sarawakians understand the proper context of demanding for one-third of the seats in Parliament and not be fooled by NGOs in Peninsular Malaysia who have their own agenda. – Sept 16, 2024
Prof James Chin is the leading authority of political developments in Sabah and Sarawak and the most cited-scholar on East Malaysian politics. A Sarawakian, he is currently a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia.
“Historical error”
It was clear that Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak did not want Malaya to dominate Parliament in respect of constitutional amendments. In the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC) notes and Cobbold Report, it was made clear that Sabahans and Sarawakians 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 Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak had veto power in 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 re-distributed to Sarawak or Sabah.
This was a historical error that needs to be rectified. As time went by, the number of parliamentary seats of Malaya grew to more than two-third of the total parliamentary seats.
I hope that Sabahans and Sarawakians understand the proper context of demanding for one-third of the seats in Parliament and not be fooled by NGOs in Peninsular Malaysia who have their own agenda. – Sept 16, 2024
Prof James Chin is the leading authority of political developments in Sabah and Sarawak and the most cited-scholar on East Malaysian politics. A Sarawakian, he is currently a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia.
Yes, goes back to the ORIGINAL agreements stated in the formation of M'sia.
ReplyDeleteThe ketuanan crowd SHOULDN'T get what they want at the ignorance & trickeries played by their kowtowing & self profiting past leaders.
RedDot could leave, so too Sabah & Sarawak, from this hijacked federation pact.