KUCHING: Calls for the expansion of parliamentary seats in Sarawak and Sabah are growing louder as many leaders and civil groups push for the restoration of the constitutional balance envisioned under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
The demand comes amid increasing dissatisfaction following remarks by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Reforms), Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, that the addition of parliamentary seats for Sarawak and Sabah needs to be thoroughly examined because it brings implications to other states.
Her remarks have sparked disappointment among leaders and members of the public in the two states, who argue that the matter is not merely about political representation but about restoring the original spirit of MA63.
Practising lawyer Wejok Tomik explained that Malaysia was not formed through casual administrative arrangements; it was established through the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), supported by the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report, and embedded within the Federal Constitution.
These instruments, he noted, did not merely create another federation, but created a constitutional partnership between Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.
“At the formation of Malaysia, parliamentary representation was carefully structured to ensure that the Borneo territories could not be politically sidelined within the federal legislature,” he said.
He added that the original composition of parliament in 1963 was Malaya – 104 seats, Singapore – 15 seats, Sabah – 16 seats and Sarawak – 24 seats, and together, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore held more than one-third of parliament.
“This was not an accident. It was a constitutional safeguard designed to ensure that amendments requiring a two-thirds majority under Article 159 of the Federal Constitution could not be passed without meaningful participation from the Borneo territories.
“In other words, the framers of Malaysia clearly understood something that modern federal administrators sometimes appear to forget: constitutional balance matters.
“When Singapore left Malaysia in 1965, the structural balance that had protected Sabah and Sarawak was significantly weakened,” he said.
Wejok, who is a Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) supreme council member, noted that today’s situation is Sarawak and Sabah only have 31 seats and 25 seats respectively, a total of 56 seats, roughly 25 per cent of parliament.
He said it does not require a constitutional scholar to recognise that 25 per cent is not the same as the structural protection originally envisioned.
“Yet when Sabah and Sarawak raise the entirely reasonable proposal of restoring at least 35 per cent parliamentary representation, the response from federal authorities often suggests that the matter is somehow complex, sensitive, or still under discussion.
“The constitutional imbalance has existed for six decades, but apparently seven years of MA63 technical committee discussions are still insufficient to determine whether the Constitution should reflect its original spirit,” he said.
Wejok pointed out the Federal Constitution already provides the necessary mechanism, saying Article 46 allows parliament to determine the number of members of the Dewan Rakyat while Article 161E recognises the special constitutional position of Sabah and Sarawak.
The process required, he said, is therefore straightforward – a constitutional amendment under Article 46, a two-thirds parliamentary majority and an electoral adjustment by the Election Commission.
“Malaysia has amended its Constitution dozens of times since independence. It is therefore somewhat difficult to understand why restoring a foundational safeguard of the Malaysia Agreement suddenly requires endless technical deliberations,” he said.
