SARAWAK and Sabah’s relentless push to regain our rightful one-third representation in Parliament reflects the ongoing struggle to restore a promise made over 60 years ago; this struggle is more than a call for parliamentary seats – it’s a demand to honour the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the foundational principles that led to Malaysia’s formation.
As much as I do not wish to sound like a broken record, I have little choice but to repeat that if had it not been for the two Borneo states, there would not have been a nation called Malaysia.
Sarawak and Sabah’s current representation in the Dewan Rakyat is insufficient and unfairly weighted against the two East Malaysian states, whose unique contributions, challenges, and rights have been overlooked by federal authorities for too long.
The outcry from some quarters over our demand has been vocal, with even a non-governmental organisation (NGO), Engage, arguing that we should not receive additional seats due to our “low population density” –oh crap! This argument not only reveals a lack of understanding of MA63 but also perpetuates a Malaya-centric view of democracy that disregards the distinction between federalism and regional equity.
Sarawak’s demand for representation is not based on mere population figures but on constitutional, historical, and geographical grounds, as outlined in MA63 and the safeguards that accompanied Malaysia’s formation.
The promise made to us in 1963 was for one-third representation in Parliament. This was designed to provide us with a vital check against federal dominance, giving us a substantial voice to protect our interests and prevent overreach by the federal government.
Following the expulsion of Singapore in 1965, however, the 15 seats previously allocated to Singapore were not redistributed to Sarawak and Sabah, resulting in a significant dilution of our representation.
The current distribution of 25 per cent parliamentary seats to Sarawak and Sabah is a departure from this foundational principle, reducing the states to a mere 57 seats out of 222 –a figure that leaves us effectively sidelined in crucial legislative decisions.
The Malayan NGO’s argument that increasing Sarawak and Sabah’s seats would create “electoral distortions” due to our smaller population sizes misses the mark entirely! This view is deeply flawed because it disregards the unique geographical and logistical realities of Sarawak and Sabah.
Unlike the densely populated urban constituencies in Malaya, many constituencies in Sarawak, such as Belaga and Baram, are vast and remote. The challenge of representing these areas is enormous, with representatives having to travel hours, if not days, to reach their constituents.
This is not an issue of mere numbers but one of accessibility, inclusivity, and fairness in representation. Redrawing the electoral map solely based on population density would marginalise the rural and remote communities of Sarawak, robbing them of their right to equitable representation.
Furthermore, the argument that a one-third representation for Sarawak and Sabah would “supercharge” our political power is an exaggeration. This representation is not a demand for undue influence but a rightful claim to what was agreed upon in 1963.
Our combined electorate of 3.7 million –Sabah (1,670,354 people –2022 figures), Sarawak (1,252,014 –2021) may represent only13.85 percent of Malaysia’s total eligible voters (21.1 million – 2021) , but the issue at hand transcends numbers. It’s about ensuring that the unique interests and challenges of these two states are adequately represented and not drowned out by the dominant voices from Malaya.
True democracy respects both equality and fairness, recognising that rural and remote areas deserve representation based on their unique circumstances.
Sarawak’s leaders, including Datuk Fazzrudin Abdul Rahman, have rightly pointed out that the demand for one-third representation is firmly grounded in history and legality. Constitutional safeguards were meticulously outlined in the Cobbold Commission Report, the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report, and MA63, and they were intended to ensure Sarawak and Sabah’s interests would not be overshadowed.
The Federal Court has consistently upheld these safeguards, with former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi affirming that they were “critical and pivotal” to securing Sarawak’s participation in Malaysia.
Likewise, Judge David Wong ruled these safeguards were “conditions precedent” for Sarawak and Sabah’s inclusion in the federation. Ignoring these safeguards not only erodes the integrity of MA63 but also risks undermining national unity.
Premier Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg has made it clear that this demand is not driven by self-interest but by the need to protect Sarawak and Sabah’s rights within the federation. With a one-third representation in Parliament, Sarawak and Sabah would hold a vital check against any attempts to nullify MA63 provisions.
This would ensure that amendments to the Constitution affecting Sarawak and Sabah cannot be passed without their consent, preserving the balance of power originally envisioned by Malaysia’s founding leaders.
One must also address the fact that the federal government has consistently benefited from our vast resources, while the state’s development has lagged behind. As Fazzrudin aptly noted in the ongoing State Legislative Assembly, 90 per cent of the revenue generated from Petronas’ gas operations has been used in Malaya.
This disparity in resource allocation is a stark contradiction to the concept of “shared prosperity” that Malaysia was founded upon. While Sarawak’s wealth has been channelled to fuel the growth of Malayan states, we ourselves struggle with underdeveloped infrastructure, limited access to healthcare, and inadequate educational facilities.
If resources were distributed equitably, Sarawak’s developmental journey would be far less arduous, and the state would be able to enjoy the full benefits of its contributions to the federation.
Critics argue that allocating additional seats to Sarawak and Sabah would diminish representation in already under-represented states like Selangor and Terengganu. But this argument overlooks the essence of federalism, where each region’s distinct identity and contributions are recognised and respected.
Equal representation does not mean equal seats based solely on population; it means each state has a fair voice in Parliament, ensuring that regional interests are not compromised for the convenience of the majority.
In fact, equitable representation based on geography and historical agreements is a common practice in federations worldwide. In countries like Canada and the United States, sparsely populated regions still receive fair representation to ensure their interests are not marginalised by larger, more populous states.
The federal government’s reluctance to grant us our rightful representation raises questions about Putrajaya’s commitment to a fair and united Malaysia. Sarawak and Sabah’s call for one-third representation is not about disrupting Malaya’s power but about restoring the balance that was promised.
If Putrajaya continues to dismiss this demand, it risks deepening the sense of disenfranchisement among Sarawakians and Sabahans, leading to growing calls for autonomy and even secession. The failure to respect MA63 and the principles of the IGC Report is not just an affront to Sarawak and Sabah but a threat to the unity of Malaysia itself.
Engage’s concerns about “distortions” in the Dewan Rakyat overlook the broader implications of dismissing our demands. True unity cannot be achieved by ignoring the foundational agreements that brought us together. Instead of viewing Sarawak’s demands as a challenge, federal leaders should recognise it as an opportunity to strengthen Malaysia’s federation, reaffirming the nation’s commitment to fairness and respect for all states.
Finally, I have no choice but to sound like a broken record again –the call for one-third representation is not just Sarawak and Sabah’s right, it’s a test of Malaysia’s integrity as a federation!
Putrajaya must heed this demand, not as a concession, but as an obligation to the founding spirit of Malaysia and to our forefathers –Temenggong Jugah Barieng, Datuk Bandar Abang Mustapha and Ling Beng Siew, among other leaders –who helped create a nation called Malaysia! Respecting MA63 is more than a legal duty; it’s a moral commitment to honour the diversity that makes Malaysia strong.
Sarawak and Sabah’s voices deserve to be heard, and it’s time for Putrajaya to act decisively, respecting and honouring the historical agreements –least the three Sarawak representatives who penned their signatures to MA63 in London on July 9, 1963 turn in their resting places –that bind us and ensuring that our nation remains united, fair, and true to its founding principles.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
