GPS MPs not convinced; what we wanted weren’t there: Junaidi
KUCHING: “Mind-boggling!” This was how former home affairs deputy minister described the explanation made by Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad when tabling the Amendment Bill on Wednesday.
Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said based on the prime minister’s explanation it seemed there were two meanings to the word “Federation” in the Federal Constitution.
“One refers to the Federation of Malaya established under Agreement 1957, and indeed there is another for the Federation of Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah. However, there is no explanation when either one is to be used,” he said here yesterday.
“The answers to the questions posed by Opposition leader Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri of Barisan Nasional on this interpretation during the winding-up was far from satisfactory,” he lamented.
Junaidi, who is also Santubong MP, said he stood up under Rule 54(2) of the Rules of Dewan Rakyat for the Bill to be referred to the Special Select Committee after the winding-up, adding: “We lost on the ‘Division’ but sent a strong message that we GPS MPs could not be part of another mistake in Dewan Rakyat.”
He said the failure of the PH government was in not treating the importance of Malaysia Agreement 1963 to Sarawakians.
He said the PH government must know how important it was to Sarawakians that the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia was by the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 and not the Malayan Agreement of 1957.
He said it was the fault of the federal government not to appreciate the importance of MA63 to us Sarawakians and to put it in the Federal Constitution to reflect its significance.
“We intend to amend Article 1(2) and to put the spirit of MA63 for posterity in the most important document in the country – the Federal Constitution,” he stressed.
He said GPS leaders had specifically demanded for a relook into the interpretation of “Federation” in Article 160(2) which refers to the Federation established under the Federation of Malaya Agreement.
“To our (GPS) considered opinion, the hundreds of ‘Federation’ that appears in the Federal Constitution is about the states in Malaya, which unfortunately makes Sarawak and Sabah left out of the Federation of Malaysia! So, we want that word ‘Federation’ to be redefined to refer to the Malaysia Agreement of 1963.
“Secondly, to realise the spirit of ‘equal partnership’ based on the MA63, we suggested that the Amendment to Article 1(2) of the Constitution should include the words “…Pursuant to Malaysia Agreement 1963…” not just putting Sarawak and Sabah into group (b) States in the Federation of Malaysia,” he added.
Junaidi said as it was, GPS MPs viewed the amendment as not “well considered” and that the opinion of Sarawak and Sabah were never consulted and considered.
“In view of these, GPS Members of Parliament (MPs) have decided to abstain from voting for the proposed Bill to amend Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution.
“Initially, we in GPS welcomed the government’s intention to amend the Constitution. But, later we realised that it was only politics and we would not want to repeat a similar mistake yet again.
“That was why we did not oppose the voting in the Dewan because there was a good intention to amend, albeit wrong, so we GPS MPs decided to abstain from making a similar mistake yet again.
“We decided to abstain from voting when the blue Bill was tabled in Dewan Rakyat, because we realised that it was only politics and not really to ‘give’ what Sarawak and Sabah had wanted,” he added.
Junaidi said the PH government lost that opportunity in making their first step which GPS believed “should be the first right step, not the first wrong step again”.
He recalled that Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof (former works minister, who is also GPS chief whip) and Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri (former minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) had two engagements with the de facto Law Minister Datuk Liew Vui Keong on the Bill amendment while he (Junaidi) prepared for the referral of the Bill to the Select Committee.
“We had several consultations with our lawyers at the Sarawak Attorney Chambers for the draft of the amendment. We continued our internal discussions and division of work. (Progressive Democratic Party president) Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing and Datuk Seri Fadillah went to engage our MP friends to explain our position and stand.”
Junaidi said they continued to engage with the Law Minister to withdraw the Bill and to study the Constitution for a greater amendment on some of the inconsistencies in the Constitution.
He said he and Fadillah had discussions with the Minister of Law on the matter on April 9.
The minister expressed his reservations on the inclusion in the amendment of MA63 which they proposed, saying he had to consult the Federal Attorney General and get the consent of the Prime Minister.
The proposed Bill was tabled for first reading by Liew on April 4.
For the second reading, the Bill was supposed to have had some amendments to reinstate the previous wording of Article 1(2) to pre-1976. However, when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad tabled it there was still no reference to the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
“From this, we could see that they do not want the spirit of MA63 to be in the Constitution. And again, we discussed among ourselves on our stand.
“We all agree to stand as advised by Kuching and the Chief Minister on our next course of action. We maintained this stand to the end, and advised our colleagues in Barisan Nasional, PAS and the Sabah MPs who are not in PH government.”
