LETTER | Following the massive backlash from Sabah and Sarawak NGOs who rejected their proposal, Malayan NGOs have come up with new reasons why the Borneo states should accept their proposal to have one-third of the Dewan Negara seats reserved for Borneo rather than one-third of seats in the Dewan Rakyat, as originally agreed to by the founders of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.

These groups are even organising roadshows and forums in Sabah and Sarawak to push their proposal.

Let me be clear about my position. All Sabahans and Sarawakians who understand the origins of the Federation must oppose these NGOs’ proposal.

First, the Borneo states are requesting a historical rectification. When Malaysia’s federation was formed in 1963, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore acquired more than 34 percent of the Dewan Rakyat seats. This was the critical “safeguard” sought by the three.

When Singapore departed the federation in 1965, the only obvious and morally right step was to transfer Singapore’s seats to Sabah and Sarawak. This did not happen, and Sabah and Sarawak were left with less than one-third of the seats in the Dewan Rakyat.

Righting a historical wrong

This rectification sought by Sabah and Sarawak is comparable to the constitutional revision enacted in 2021, which reinstated the original wording in Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution. It was to “right” a historical “wrong” in 1976 and ensure that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 was formally recognised (via the explanatory note) in the Malaysian Constitution.

The one-third “safeguard” similarly is about correcting a historical mistake in 1965.

Second, notwithstanding my argument that the Dewan Negara lacks political legitimacy, these Malayan NGOs now propose that senators from Sabah and Sarawak be chosen directly. This is an afterthought, as they realise that everyone agrees that the Dewan Negara lacks political legitimacy.

If they were honest, why didn’t they propose it sooner? Why don’t they suggest directly electing the entire Dewan Negara? Do you believe the Malayan political class will agree on this? The answer is “no”. So now they are saying Sabah and Sarawak can elect senators but the rest of Malaysia can keep the existing system?

Muslim vs non-Muslim political conflict

The ultimate truth is that the Malayan NGOs’ quest for “one person, one vote, one value” (Opovov) stems from a fundamental political dilemma in Malaya.

In Malaya, it is widely acknowledged that political competition between Malay/Muslims and non-Malay/Muslims has reached an all-time high, and we are witnessing a toxic political environment across the board. It has resulted in fire bombings and personal threats to non-Muslim companies and politicians.

Malayan NGOs hope that equalising the vote in Malaya will lower the political temperature in the long run by giving non-Malays more constituencies and voting power, thereby moderating the far Malay right, which requires more non-Malay votes to win. As a result, they will shift closer to the middle ground. The validity of this claim has yet to be proven.

Malayan NGOs are pushing hard for the Opovov in Borneo because they understand that they will be unable to succeed with this plan in Malaya if Borneo runs under a different system.

The truth is that the toxic Muslim vs non-Muslim political conflict in Malaya has little to do with Borneo states. If Malayan NGOs believe they need to improve the election system or politics in Malaya, they should do so without involving Sabah or Sarawak. The toxic Malayan politics were caused by Malayan politicians and have nothing to do with Sabah or Sarawak.

The ultimate fact is that when North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak helped create Malaysia’s federal system in 1963, it was recognised that the Borneo states differed from Malaya. Borneo has distinct political dynamics and culture.

We, the people of Borneo, have always rejected Malaya’s strong racial and religious politics from the Federation’s inception. That is why we sought for, and received the safeguards. After six decades, Malayans are seeking to remove the safeguards.

Reminiscent of colonialism

The bottom line is that Malayan NGOs do not respect Sabahans or Sarawakians. By imposing their idea on Sabah and Sarawak, they are acting like colonial masters who claim, “We know what is best for you and you must obey us”.

Sabahans and Sarawakians cannot accept the proposal because the matter of one-third of seats for Sabah and Sarawak is a fundamental feature of Malaysia’s federation from its founding.

Today’s standards cannot be applied through historical events.

Using Sabah and Sarawak to deal with Malaya’s toxic politics is not only inappropriate but also reminiscent of colonialism.

To summarise, Sabah and Sarawak must reject the suggestion made by Malayan NGOs. The fact that they refused to listen to the majority of rejecting voices in Sabah and Sarawak reveals more about their attitudes towards Sabahans and Sarawakians than anything else.

JAMES CHIN, a Sarawakian, is professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania and is widely regarded as the authority on contemporary politics of Sabah and Sarawak.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.