More than six decades have passed since the formation of Malaysia, yet Sarawak and Sabah are still waiting for the fulfilment of a key tenet of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63): that both regions combined must hold at least one-third of the parliamentary seats in the Dewan Rakyat.
So when federal leaders speak of the need for “direct discussions” or building consensus to move forward, it prompts a question many Sarawakians are likely asking: Why is there a need to renegotiate something already agreed upon?
Let’s be clear – the MA63 is not a proposal awaiting approval. It is a legally binding international agreement that laid the foundation for Malaysia’s formation. At its core is the understanding that Sabah and Sarawak were not merely states joining a federation – they were equal partners. That equality must be reflected not only in words but also in representation.
The one-third parliamentary seat allocation is not just about having more MPs from East Malaysia. It is a constitutional safeguard – a buffer against unilateral decisions that could jeopardise the rights and interests of Sarawakians and Sabahans.
Currently, with only 56 out of 222 seats in Parliament, Sabah and Sarawak collectively hold just over 25 per cent – far below the 35 per cent benchmark. This imbalance allows laws, policies, and even constitutional amendments to be passed without meaningful input from the Borneo states. That’s not an equitable partnership – that’s tokenism cloaked in federalism.
Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi recently said the proposal had yet to be discussed among component parties and would require consultations with the Election Commission and opposition lawmakers.
While that may be reasonable from a procedural standpoint, from a moral and historical perspective – what more is there to discuss?
This issue didn’t emerge overnight. It has been studied, debated, and reaffirmed time and again – through Cabinet committees, bipartisan panels, legal interpretations, and most significantly, via the MA63 Implementation Steering Committee under successive administrations. If anything, what’s overdue is not more discussion – it’s action.
In response, Deputy Minister in the Sarawak Premier’s Department (Law, MA63 and State-Federal Relations), Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali, rightly pointed out that the original seat allocation at the time of Malaysia’s formation was never just about representation. It was also a deliberate mechanism to uphold constitutional safeguards.
She noted that Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore were initially allocated 35 per cent of the seats in the House of Representatives – a structure designed to prevent Malaya from securing a two-thirds majority and unilaterally amending the Federal Constitution.
She added that this principle was further reinforced in Clause 66 of the Malaysia Bill – appended as “Annex A” to MA63 – and later incorporated into Article 161E of the Federal Constitution. This explicitly safeguarded the seats allocated to the Borneo Territories (24 for Sarawak and 16 for Sabah), ensuring that constitutional amendments affecting these states could not be made without their consent.
However, over time, while Sabah and Sarawak did gain additional seats, Sharifah Hasidah lamented that the number of seats in Peninsular Malaysia expanded at a much greater rate – eroding the original balance and weakening the very constitutional protections that were meant to safeguard East Malaysian interests.
This growing imbalance, if left unaddressed, does not just shortchange Sarawak and Sabah; it undermines the spirit of equal partnership envisioned in MA63. It also erodes national unity and trust in the federal system, and risks fuelling rising discontent, particularly among younger generations who are increasingly aware of historical injustices and structural disparities.
Moreover, Sabah and Sarawak are no longer passive participants in national affairs. Both regions now have assertive leadership, growing economic clout, and a more politically conscious electorate. If repeated calls for fairness continue to be brushed aside under the guise of “ongoing discussions”, more radical sentiments may take root.
To some, parliamentary seat allocation may seem like a technical issue. But to Sarawakians and Sabahans, it is deeply symbolic. It reflects whether Malaysia truly honours the spirit of equality and mutual respect on which it was founded – or whether MA63 is just a document to be referenced when politically convenient.
To those in Peninsular Malaysia currently deliberating this matter, remember this: We are not asking for charity. We are simply asking Malaysia to keep its word.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………
DISCLAIMER:
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 drnagrace@gmail.com.
