Stop attacking us, Sarawak lawyer tells Zaid

KUCHING: Former Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim should stop attacking Sarawak’s autonomies and constitutional rights that define Malaysia’s partnership.
 
Practising lawyer Wejok Tomik said Sarawak’s immigration autonomy is not a political tool but a fundamental constitutional right.
 
He explained that this protection exists for “legitimate purposes” as detailed in the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report, including protection of cultural identity, economic safeguarding and resource management and security and public order.
 
He said the recent assertions by Zaid characterising Sarawak’s immigration autonomy as a “political abuse of power” and framing the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) as an economic detriment to Malaya on social media are legally untenable and historically inaccurate.
 
“He has baselessly questioned whether the Federal Constitution grants Sarawak the “absolute right” to refuse entry to individuals from Peninsular Malaysia. He has termed that the exercise of these constitutional protections by Sarawak as a “political abuse of power”.
 
“Contrary to his unfounded claim, Sarawak possesses an exclusive power over its immigration through a combination of constitutional safeguards and specific legislation that distinguishes it from the states in Peninsular Malaysia,” he said when asked to comment on Zaid’s recent statement.
 
The Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu supreme council member said Sarawak’s immigration autonomy is a constitutional right protected by and anchored in three immovable legal pillars: The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the Federal Constitution (Article 161E), and Part VII of the Immigration Act 1959/63.
 
“It is highly irresponsible for a former law minister to continue provoking Sarawak in a manner that undermines the spirit of the Malaysian federation and can cause public confusion, tension and regional disharmony.
 
He said Zaid had recently used social media to launch a series of attacks questioning Sarawak’s autonomies and constitutional rights, adding that it undermined the spirit of the Malaysian federation.
 
He had even criticised the current Home Minister for being “unwilling” to help individuals remove entry restrictions to Sarawak and explicitly asked if the federal government can “revisit” the immigration clauses after 65 years of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
 
“Apparently, his words suggest that constitutional rights come with an expiration date, much like a carton of milk.
 
“Zaid has failed to account that Sarawak’s powers over its immigration and/or control over its borders are exclusive, constitutionally-anchored powers that cannot be dismissed as mere policy that can be revisited or unilaterally altered by the Federal Government.
 
“He has previously labelled Sarawak and Sabah as “financial burdens” that will cause Malaya to “go bust” and even going so far as to claim Malaya was “robbed in broad daylight” by MA63 regarding resource sharing,” he said.
 
Wejok said Zaid’s statements are indeed biased, selective, and inconsistent, adding the he fails to account for the decades of resource contributions — specifically gas and continental shelf resources — that Sarawak has provided to the national economy.
 
He noted that Zaid’s rhetoric focuses on attacking Sarawak’s autonomy rather than addressing the non-fulfilment of MA63 by the Federal Government.
 
“He ignores the original promises made to the Borneo States while labelling their revenue-sharing claims as Malaya being “robbed in broad daylight”.
 
“He previously suggested Sarawak should be “allowed to go” if dissatisfied. Yet, he now fights tooth and nail against the constitutional protections that define the very partnership that keeps them in the federation.
 
“His assertions are not just legally untenable; they are intended and calculated distraction from the real conversation: the restoration of Sarawak’s rightful status and constitutional rights.
 
Wejok added that rather than addressing the Putrajaya’s failure to fulfil its original promises under MA63, Zaid chooses to attack the victim of those unfulfilled obligations.