Yesterday, I examined in my weekly column the proposal to limit the prime minister’s tenure to two five-year terms. That piece was about strengthening democratic institutions. Today, let’s take the next logical step: strengthening the federation itself.
More than six decades have passed since independence in 1957 and over half a century since the formation of Malaysia in 1963. In that time, we have had 10 prime ministers. All have come from Malaya. History has unfolded in a particular pattern, perhaps understandably in the early decades, but history need not be destiny.
Isn’t it about time Malaysia had a prime minister from East Malaysia?
Veteran journalist Datuk Seri Azman Ujang WhatsApped me his answer candidly, yesterday: “Yes, why not? It will be a new narrative to have a prime minister from Sarawak or Sabah. Anyone, either from Sarawak or Sabah; let the 222 parliamentarians decide and send the name to the King for approval. It is about time.”
I agree with Azman. After more than half a century of federation, offering the nation a prime ministerial candidate from East Malaysia is not a radical demand. It is a logical progression. Sarawak and Sabah are not ‘lain-lain’ territories; we are founding partners in the federation. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was not an act of absorption. It was a ‘coming together’.
Yet we must confront the candid question: will Malaysians in Malaya accept it?
Sabah-born political analyst Dr Oh Ei Sun once observed that Sarawak and Sabah have long felt they were not recognised as equal partners in the federation and often felt short-changed. He suggested that having a prime minister from Borneo would enhance national unity and integration. He likened it to Barack Obama becoming the first Black president of the United States; a moment that reshaped the psychological landscape of American politics.
When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad returned as prime minister in 2018, he too acknowledged that one day a Sarawakian or Sabahan could lead the country, provided that individual possessed the necessary capability to lead all Malaysians.
“In a democratic country, anyone can become a leader as long as that person has certain capabilities,” he said.
That statement is significant. It dismantles the myth that leadership must be geographically confined. Capability, not postcode, is the criterion. If that is so, then the conversation should no longer be about ‘if’ but ‘when’. The argument for an East Malaysian prime minister is not rooted in sentimentality or regional pride alone. It rests on the very structure of federalism.
My good friend Datuk Mohammad Medan Abdullah, an oil and gas veteran and former group chief executive officer of Bintulu Port Holdings Berhad, frames it within the theory of federal systems. He reminds us that some federations are ‘coming together’ federations, meaning unions of sovereign entities that voluntarily merge to form a stronger nation while retaining their identities. The United States, Switzerland and Australia are classic examples. Their constituent states are equal in status, and the federation is built upon that equality.
By contrast, there are ‘holding together’ federations such as India, Spain or Belgium, where a central authority devolves powers to constituent regions within a pre-existing state.
Malaysia, Medan argues, was conceived as a ‘coming together’ federation. Independent entities came together in 1963 under the Malaysia Agreement, pooling sovereignty while preserving distinct rights and safeguards. The Federal Constitution embeds special provisions reflecting that understanding.
If that is the founding philosophy, then equality is not a rhetorical flourish, but a structural intent.
However, Medan and many East Malaysians feel that the translation of that intent has sometimes been wanting. The oil and gas question is a recurring example, where perceptions persist that benefits are not commensurate with the location of the resources. Whether one agrees fully with that sentiment or not, the perception itself is powerful. Perception shapes national cohesion.
An East Malaysian prime minister would not magically resolve every issue. But he would recalibrate the psychological balance of the federation. It would send a message that the highest office is not geographically monopolised. It would affirm that the federation is indeed a partnership.
Medan proposes that, by convention and intention, the premiership could rotate between Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah, elevating national unity above partisan calculations. Such an arrangement would not undermine democracy. Parliament would still decide. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong would still exercise his constitutional prerogative in appointing the prime minister. But the political culture would consciously reflect regional balance.
Critics may argue that leadership should never be about rotation but purely about merit. On that, we agree: merit must remain paramount. But merit exists in every region. Talent is not monopolised by geography. Sarawak and Sabah have produced capable administrators, seasoned parliamentarians, corporate leaders and technocrats who have demonstrated integrity and competence.
Moreover, East Malaysia has historically maintained a political culture that is more moderate in tone, less entangled in race-and-religion polarisation that sometimes dominates Malaya. An East Malaysian prime minister could offer a fresh narrative, one that stresses inclusivity, pragmatism and economic development over identity politics.
But, be mindful that this is not about displacing anyone. It is about expanding the nation’s leadership imagination. There is also a broader strategic dimension. Sarawak and Sabah together account for over 60 per cent of Malaysia’s landmass and are rich in natural resources. As Malaysia navigates complex geopolitical currents, having a leader who intimately understands the aspirations and sensitivities of East Malaysia could strengthen internal cohesion and external positioning.
Of course, political realities cannot be ignored. Parliamentary arithmetic remains decisive. The support of the majority of the 222 Members of Parliament determines who commands confidence. Ultimately, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints as prime minister the individual who, in His Majesty’s judgment, is likely to command that majority.
The constitutional pathway is clear. The question is whether political will and national imagination are equally clear. Some may fear that raising this issue risks regionalism. I disagree. Silence breeds alienation; dialogue fosters integration. Openly discussing the possibility of an East Malaysian prime minister signals maturity. It signals that Malaysia is confident enough in its identity to embrace diversity at the highest level.
It also forces us to re-examine how federal appointments, bureaucratic representation and institutional leadership are structured. Medan rightly notes that perception and sincere intention often carry more weight than brute strength in keeping people together. A properly constituted body to audit and recommend the fulfilment of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 could further reinforce trust.
But beyond institutional reform lies something deeper: psychological equity.
For decades, Sarawak and Sabah have contributed immensely to the national economy and security framework. Their leaders have served loyally in federal cabinets. Yet the premiership has remained symbolically distant. If Malaysia is serious about being a federation of equals, then equality must occasionally be visible at the apex.
Will Malaya accept it? I believe Malaysians are more pragmatic than we often assume. When confronted with capable leadership that prioritises economic growth, stability and inclusivity, voters respond to results. The electorate has evolved. The days when rigid narratives alone determined political outcomes are fading.
Perhaps the greater challenge is not public acceptance but political courage. To consider an East Malaysian prime minister is not to diminish the contributions of past leaders. It is to build upon them. It is to acknowledge that the federation has matured. Just as limiting prime ministerial terms signals democratic refinement, broadening the geographic pool of leadership signals federal maturation.
The door is constitutionally open. The talent exists. The federation’s founding philosophy supports it. What remains is timing and resolve.
In the end, this is not a Sabah-versus-Malaya debate, nor a Sarawak-versus-anyone conversation. It is about completing the Malaysian story. After 63 years of independence and over half a century of federation, perhaps the next chapter requires a different voice at the helm; one that reflects the full geography of our nation.
If capability, integrity and parliamentary confidence align in a leader from Sarawak or Sabah, then the question should no longer be “Can Malaysia accept it?”
It should simply be: “Why not now?”
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at rajlira@gmail.com.
