On 4 April 2019, a bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat of the Parliament of Malaysia. The bill proposes to amend Article 1(2) so as to restore the status of the two East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak according to the original content of Malaysia Agreement that was signed in 1963.[1][2][3]
| Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2019 | |
|---|---|
| Parliament of Malaysia | |
| |
| Territorial extent | Malaysia |
| Considered by | Dewan Rakyat |
| Legislative history | |
| Bill citation | D.R 7/2019 |
| Introduced by | Liew Vui Keong |
| First reading | 4 April 2019 |
| Second reading | 9 April 2019 (negatived) |
| Amends | |
| Constitution of Malaysia | |
| Related legislation | |
| Constitution (Amendment) Act 1976 | |
| Summary | |
| To restore the constitutional status of Sabah and Sarawak according to the Malaysia Agreement. | |
| Status: Not passed | |
Despite six hours of debate in the Parliament during the second reading of the bill on 9 April,[4][5] only 138 MPs supported the bill, 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority of the chamber, 148 votes, required for amendments to the Constitution. The remaining 59 (non-absent) votes were abstentions, all of which are from opposition parties.[6][7][8][9]
Background
edit1976 constitutional amendment
editIn 1976, under the Malaysian government, Article 1(2) was amended as part of a larger package affecting 45 articles and 2 schedules in the Constitution of Malaysia. This package removed the distinction between the states in Peninsular Malaysia and the Bornean states of Sabah and Sarawak. It was argued, at the time, that the change would lead to greater uniformity between the eastern and western regions of Malaysia. As a result of some political maneuvering by the government , no MPs from Sabah or Sarawak opposed this amendment package.[10]
Breaches of the Malaysia Agreement
edit
The 1963 Malaysia Agreement, under which Sabah and Sarawak unified with Malaya to become Malaysia, included strong provisions for the autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak (see the 18-point and 20-point agreement). However, this autonomy has eroded in numerous aspects, such as a smaller share of oil revenue than previously agreed and a reduction in the territorial waters that belonged to each state. Following their victory in the 2018 election, the Pakatan Harapan alliance promised to make changes including an amendment to Article 1(2) and a greater share of oil revenue.[2][3][11][12][13] Other causes of dispute between East and West Malaysia include freedom of religion,[14] distribution of profits from natural resources,[15][16] and demographic change (particularly in Sabah).[17][18][19][20]
Prior to 2010, the anniversary of Federation was a public holiday in only the East Malaysian states, but it was later made a national holiday by the government in response to an opposition statement declaring their intention to do so if they won an election.[21] Some groups, including the Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF), Movement for Change Sarawak (MoCS), and the Sarawak Association of People's Aspirations (SAPA), have cited these issues, among others, as reasons for advocating separation from Malaysia.[14][22][23]
Authority of Sabah Sarawak |
MA63 as agreed between United Kingdom,  Malaya,  North Borneo,  Sarawak,  Singapore |
Current situation under Malaysia
|
|---|---|---|
| Development | British delegation promised both states a total of £1½ million a year for five years after Malaysia Day, provided the Malayan government also extended aid for that period.[24] Malaya would provide $200 million to North Borneo and $300 million to Sarawak for the first five years of Malaysia,[25] while Singapore would provide a $150 million development loan to North Borneo and Sarawak, of which $100 million would be interest-free for five years[26][27] | Sabah: RM5 billion per year[28][29] Sarawak: RM4.3 billion per year[29] [30][31][32][33] |
| Education | Rights to own education system[note 1] | Malaysia standardised education system (Dilapidated schools and frequent misinformation in history textbooks for both Sabah and Sarawak history)[34][35][36] |
| Immigration | Control immigration entry[note 2] | Controlled immigration entry via permit[37][38] (Sabah: Southern Filipino refugees fleeing the civil war were issued IMM13 documents by the Federal government, instead of the Sabahan state government, leading to a situation whereby the refugees, and their families who had settled in Sabah, could not be stripped of their IMM13 without rendering them stateless as the Philippine government did not recognise them as citizens)[39][40] |
| Language | English as the official language[note 3] | Sabah: Malay is amended as official language through the controversial 1973 State Constitution[41][42] Sarawak: Both Malay and English are official language as of 2015[43] (Malay is also used in all courts except High Court and Native Court) |
| Law | Authority to agree/disagree to amend law[note 4] | Recognised as state under Malaysian laws with the exclusion of certain laws (e.g. National Land Code) (Frequent reported conflicts with federal government regarding indigenous land rights)[44][45] |
| Natural resources | North Borneo: 40% of the state revenue[46] Sarawak: Up to RM21 million for the first four years (Both North Borneo and Sarawak retain import duty, excise duty and export duty with North Borneo retain a total of 30% from customs and excise for as long it is responsible for health and medical expenditure)[note 5] |
In 1966, the Continental Shelf Act was enforced by the federal government on the two despite both had already extended their jurisdiction over the continental shelf adjacent to their territory.[47] Further in 1974, the Petroleum Development Act was enforced on the two, giving them only 5% of oil royalty from the revenue[48][49][50] |
| Religion | No official religion[note 6] | Sabah: Islam is amended as official religion through the controversial 1973 State Constitution[41][42][51] Sarawak: No official religion (Updated in state government website as of 2015.[52] In 2018, Sarawak began to allow converts to renounce Islam if they already wish so without the need to keep forcing them to stay in the religion)[53] (Frequent cases of Sabahan and Sarawakians non-Muslims identified as Muslims,[54][55] Muslims who wish to convert out of Islam are being prevented as well the rampant religious intolerance and conversion of non-Muslims students in schools without their parents consent.[56] In July 2006, state mufti of Sabah issued a fatwa to an ongoing Taoist statue project where a stop-work order was then being imposed by the state government on the construction of Mazu (Goddess of the Sea) statue in Kudat District.[57][58] Further in April 2007, a local businesswoman loan application was rejected because her unisex styling business was in conflict with Islam)[58] |
| See also: 1962 Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report and 1963 Malaysia Agreement | ||
Inter-governmental negotiations
editIn October 2009, the then Prime Minister Najib Razak declared that Malaysia Day would become a national holiday with the intent of promoting unity between West and East Malaysia.[21][59] On the Malaysia Day following his victory in the 2018 general election, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad announced a commitment to restore Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners to Western Peninsula after a review of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement.[60][61] That year, the Prime Minister's Department published a special article regarding the formation of the country.[62]
On 5 March 2019, a meeting was held between Prime Minister Mahathir and representatives from the Sabah and Sarawak governments. Neither party identified any significant items of dispute with regards to the 1963 agreement. Items that were not resolved, such as stamp duty were to be referred to a Technical Review for detailed assessment.[63] Although some issues were unresolved, Minister of Law in the Prime Minister's Department Liew Vui Keong announced on 8 March that the cabinet had agreed to amend Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution and that the amendment will be tabled for the next sitting of Parliament on 11 March.[64] On 11 March, the sitting of Parliament began with the amendment being the primary focus of discussion.[65]
On 2 April, Minister Liew announced that the federal government would table the amendment at the Parliamentary meeting, scheduled for the following week.[66]
Dewan Rakyat debate
editFirst reading
edit_2_of_the_Constitution_of_Malaysia,_p_1.jpg)
_2_of_the_Constitution_of_Malaysia,_p_2.jpg)
(Right) The bill explanatory statement.[67][68]
On 4 April, before the amendment could be tabled for its first reading by Minister Liew, a number of opposition MPs from Sabah and Sarawak raised significant concerns that the proposed amendment was being pushed through without adequate consultation with East Malaysian MPs on the draft contents.[67] Minister Liew responded with a statement in Parliament that the amendment would effectively change the status of Sabah and Sarawak from state into territory, once the committee completed their review of the 1963 agreement.[69]
In his statement, Liew also explained that the special committee was chaired by Prime Minister Mahathir, along with the Chief Ministers of Sabah and Sarawak, the Attorney Generals and other high-ranking officers. However, he did not clarify why the bill should be passed before other separate amendments, which would promote greater autonomy of the two entities, were implemented.[69] Despite the review and meetings, the bill was opposed after the reading,[70] with one opposition MP, Sim Kui Hian of the Sarawak United Peoples' Party (SUPP) who voted against the bill, stating in an interview that the amendment retained Sarawak as one of the 13 states of Malaysia rather than equal partner. He also stated that there was no amendment to Article 160 of the constitution regarding the definition of "Federation", which should be based on the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 instead of the Malaya Agreement of 1957.[71] Other opposition MPs also followed suit demanding the bill be temporary retracted.[72]
Second reading
edit_2_amendment_with_definition_as_according_to_the_1963_Malaysia_Agreement.jpg)
On 8 April, Minister Liew stated that the wording of the bill would follow the 1963 version of Article 1(2) of the Constitution. The minister also stated that he received no opposition from the Prime Minister or the federal Attorney General.[73][74] However, despite these changes,[75] Fadillah Yusof, Chief Whip of the Sarawak Parties Coalition (GPS), stood firm on a request that the bill be temporarily withdrawn, or referred to a select committee, for further discussion.[76]
In a speech on 9 April, during the second reading of the bill, Prime Minister Mahathir stated that the amendment was a "starting point and [this] is an appropriate time for the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government to take the first step in realising the needs of the people in Sabah and Sarawak in line with the Malaysia Agreement 1963".[77] People's Justice Party (PKR) President Anwar Ibrahim concurred saying the matter had undergone extensive debate and that the concerns of the people of Sabah and Sarawak were being addressed by the PH administration. He also stated that restoration of the two states was a meaningful step being undertaken by the PH government, compared to the half century of inaction by the previous Barisan Nasional government, and should not be opposed.[4][78]
In response to a question from Ketereh MP Tan Sri Annuar Musa concerning the necessity of having a select committee review the bill, Sabah Chief Minister Shafie Apdal agreed that such a review was unnecessary and would only delay other amendments that would restore other aspects of the 1963 agreement. He also refuted claims that passing of the bill would result in an "erosion of nationhood among the people of Sabah and Sarawak".[79]
Division result
editAt 10:20 pm local time, the chamber divided.[80] Of the 197 MPs present, 138 voted in support for the amendment while 59, primarily members of the Barisan Nasional coalition, did not cast a vote.[5][6] The bill was put up for voting by Speaker Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof after a day-long debate with no MPs from either side actually opposing the restoration bill.[4][9]
A separate motion by Santubong MP, Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, for the bill to be submitted to a special committee of Parliament for a review was supported by only 60 MPs and opposed by 136 MPs. The full sitting of parliament was one MP short as Wong Tien Fatt had died from a heart attack a week prior to the vote.[7][9] As the bill had failed to reach the required two-thirds majority, it would not get a third reading in Parliament. Despite this, PKR President Anwar Ibrahim said that he was satisfied with the show of support from government MPs and their coalition allies.[6] Prime Minister Mahathir said that, despite the failure of the bill to pass, he did not expect future efforts at amending the constitution to fail. He also stated that, in response to a request by Pontian MP Ahmad Maslan, there was no need to refer the amendment to the Conference of Rulers for review as it was not within their remit, but there would be no opposition from the government if members of parliament sought the formation of a select committee to review the 1963 agreement.[4][9][86]
Domestic response
editFollowing the commitment shown by Prime Minister Mahathir, and responding to the need for review, Sabah Social Activist Patrick Sindu suggested that the steering committee set up to review the 1963 agreement should also invite the British government for feedback considering they were party to the original agreement.[87] Sarawak Assistant Minister of Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali pointed out that any review of the 1963 agreement should be aimed at remedying any violation of the terms, spirit and intent of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.[88] Both the Sabah Council of Churches (SCC) and the Association of Churches in Sarawak (ACS) have called for a full restoration of religious freedom.[89][90][91]
The President of the Sabah Law Society Brenndon Keith Soh issued a statement saying that legal action could be taken against the federal government if it fails to fully implement the 1963 agreement.[92][93] Arnold Puyok, a commenter on Sabah and Sarawak affairs, stressed that the restoration of the territorial status of Sabah and Sarawak should be viewed from a perspective that encompasses Malaysian federalism, and not with a bias towards either Sabah or Sarawak.[94] Sabah Sarawak Rights-Australia New Zealand Incorporation (SSRANZ) President Robert Pei pointed to parallels between the issues surrounding the 1963 agreement and those that arose during the decolonisation of Mauritius in 1968 when the island nation challenged the validity of the 1965 Agreement with the United Kingdom removing the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritian control. According to Pei, the 1963 agreement was invalid from inception as, per a judgement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Sabah and Sarawak were both still British colonies, and not sovereign nations, at the time and thus had no power to sign treaties.[95]
Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Sabah Women Chief Pamela Yong said that she doubted the "sincerity" of the federal government and perceived it as a move to temporarily placate discontented residents of the two states.[96] State Reform Party (STAR Sarawak) President Lina Soo,[97] Homeland Solidarity Party (STAR Sabah) President, and MP, Jeffrey Kitingan as well as Nancy Shukri of the United Bumiputera Heritage Party (PBB) of Sarawak all issued statements cautioning against rushing the bill and have strongly emphasised the need for a complete review. Dr Kitingan expressed concerns that the amendment was "shrouded in secrecy", while MP Nancy Shukri is one of many voices urging the government to release a draft to them.[98][99] The Sarawak committee that is acting as consultants on the negotiations have stated they will refrain from commenting until they have been provided with the contents of the bill.[100]
Chief Minister of Sabah, Shafie Apdal, said that once the amendment was passed, Sabah would consider dropping the word "state" from official documents,[101] where as Chief Minister of Sarawak, Abang Abdul Rahman Zohari, said that the word "state" would be dropped completely.[102] Former Sabah Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) Deputy Commissioner, and lawyer, Hamid Ismail responded to these statements by claiming that such actions would violate the 1963 agreement.[103] United Sabah Party (PBS) Youth Chief Christopher Mandut countered this claim, instead arguing that the use of the word "state" was an inexact translation of "negeri" as used in the modern political sense. He cited Germany and Italy as examples of states that were not "negeri" but were nonetheless referred to as "states" in the sovereign sense.[104] STAR Sarawak President Lina Soo also issued a statement to this effect, saying that "Borneo States" differs from "states of Malaya" ("negeri"), which specifically referred to constituent territories of a sovereign nation. She claimed that the British used "state", when renaming the "British Borneo Territories" to "Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak", to refer to "self-governing entities with a history, laws, political and social systems".[105]
Opposition leader Ismail Sabri Yaakob expressed the opposition's support for the bill, but he also had concerns over various aspects of its content, such as the absence of any reference to the 1963 agreement.[106] He also expressed concerns that the bill was being rushed through without a careful review by the Parliamentary Select Committee.[4]
Reactions after the amendment bill tabling on 4 April
editIn an interview, Nancy Shukri, the PBB MP representing Batang Sadong, perceived the proposed amendment as a "trap" as she could not see how the hastily proposed amendment could restore the position of Sabah and Sarawak. She also noted the absence of several Sarawak PH MPs when the bill was tabled during its first reading on 4 April and added stated her desire for a deferral of the amendment to a select committee for an in-depth review,[107] with an eye towards ensuring related legislation is also amended accordingly. Nonetheless, she called for members of Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) and Pakatan Harapan (PH) to come together in a show of bipartisanship and to cooperate in ensuring the status of Sarawak is restored.[4][108] STAR Sarawak President Lina Soo also announced her support for a temporary withdrawal of the bill and to debate it in the Sarawak legislative assembly as well as seek the affirmation of the people. She stated her concern that "Without the safeguards and assurances defined in the explanatory statement, this Bill is a manipulative and repugnant act which is like giving a blank cheque to PH to write, or akin to locking ourselves in a prison and throwing the keys away".[105]
A Sarawakian lawyer, Robert Lau Hui Yew from SUPP,[109] dismissed the proposed amendment as "just playing with the construction of a sentence". According to his analysis, the amendment merely splits the 1976 agreement into two parts, but is effectively the same sentence. He further alleges that the drafting of the amendment could have been a simple process and yet "the drafters are trying to confuse and hold on to the assimilated nature of Malaya in the guise of Malaysia".[110] Similar views were also expressed by former Sabah Chief Minister, and Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) President, Yong Teck Lee together with SUPP Youth Chief Michael Tiang and Sarawak MP Tiong King Sing.[111][112][113][114]
Sarawak Legal Counsel JC Fong further said that the federal government should redefine the "federation term" to achieve equal status for both entities as through the bill reading, there will still be 13 states in Malaysia including Sarawak and Sabah based on Clause (2) in the bill.[115] PBS President Maximus Ongkili described the proposed amendment as a "disappointment" as there is really nothing in it when Sabah continued to be mentioned as one of the 13 states through the tabling on 4 April when the actual reason for the amendment is to restore the position of the two entities as equal partners, adding that is why most of the opposition MPs from both entities proposing a review by a select committee for a study and modification on the bill which then will be referred to the two current state assemblies for debate and adoption before the national Parliament being allowed to make a vote.[116] Another Sabah MP Anifah Aman urge the federal government not to be hasty with a deep study are required before its tabling as the issue has long been a thorny issue and a cause of growing unhappiness amongst Sabahans and Sarawakians residents.[117] Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) political analyst Lee Kuok Tiung calling the amendment as "nonsensical", saying that with such definition during the tabling, he wondering how the two entities can be equal partners.[118] Former Minister in the Prime Minister Department and United Sabah People's Party (PBRS) President Joseph Kurup said the bill is far from what the people in the two entities wished but urging the matter should not being prolonged as it will causing further tense relationship between the two entities with the federation.[119] As a solution, Kurup calling Minister Liew to postponed the tabling and held discussion with all of the involved MPs before presenting the bill again in the Parliament for its second reading and debate.[119] The Vice President of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Yew Chau Khiong said the amendment bill is too "hasty" in its first reading, calling the governments of the two entities together with the Advocates Association of Sarawak (AAS) and Sabah Law Society to make a more in-depth study followed by a discussion on the proposed amendment before being referred to a select committee in Parliament prior to debate and voting as an hasty amendment which just passed for the sake of achieving an objective will only resulting in consequences that affecting the lives of future generations as evidenced in the current situation of both entities.[120]
In response to the claim made by Minister Liew who said the two Chief Ministers have been consulted over the bill, Sarawak Chief Minister Abang Zohari made a clear statement that no approval was given by both Chief Ministers from Sabah and Sarawak on the amendment in its current form with the cabinet committee appointed for the review of the 1963 agreement never discussed the actual wording of the amendment in its meetings.[121] Abang Zohari further explained that they will support any amendment to the Federal Constitution or any law that seeks to restore their rights as according to the 1963 agreement but the amendments must not merely in form but of substantive nature.[122] PBB also respond to the appeal made by Chong Chieng Jen of the DAP in Sarawak through its Information Chief Idris Buang who said the federal government need to respond to a list of claims made by the Sarawak government delegation in the committee reviewing the 1963 agreement which includes Sarawak's stand on non-negotiable matters pertaining to its rights over land, continental shelf, natural resources (oil and gas and mining rights) as well as the special grants and capitation grants along with the need for equal share of parliamentary seats following the exit of Singapore from the federation in 1965 as the proposed amendment is just not simply to get it done to prevent getting a supposed rights restoration which is just "beautiful in the outside, but actually empty inside".[123]
Response by the federal government and other allied parties on the definition of the bill
editPrime Minister Mahathir said afterwards that it is up to Sabah and Sarawak MPs to support the bill, adding that what they have announced is that they will recognise the amendment as an agreement among three entities — the Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. But as the previous constitution did not make it clear, they have to amend the constitution by getting two-thirds majority vote in the Parliament.[124] Minister Liew also said that both Sabah and Sarawak leaders have been consulted and have deliberated over the issue with both entities will be termed as territories, telling that if the opposition MPs want to establish a separate special select committee on the matter, it can be done but since it is a government bill, it will not initiate a proposal to establish one.[124] During Mahathir visit to Sabah on 6 April, the Prime Minister assuring the public that the amendment is not merely a cosmetic with the federal government will fulfill its promise for the two entities to get equal status to Peninsular Malaysia, officially declaring that:
We promised we will recognise the signatures to the Malaysia 1963 agreement was by Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia. We will recognise these three regions as members of the federation.[125][126]
— Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Responding to the criticism towards him and the federal government on the bill content definition during the tabling, Minister Liew explained that through the 1963 agreement, every party have agreed on the definition but it became null in 1966 following the Singapore exit from the federation in 1965 where an amendment was made in the year of the nullification.[127][128] In 1976, another amendment was made to placed both Sabah and Sarawak as "negeri" by dropping the words like "the States of Malaya, namely" and "the Borneo States, namely" from the original definition of the States of the Federation of Malaysia where it receive two-thirds majority vote from the Parliament including the support from the MPs of the two entities itself thus saying the leaders from the two only realising their mistake recently when they who are supposed to oppose the previous 1976 amendment.[127][128] The statement are similarly echoed by Sarawak PH Chairman Chong Chieng Jen who agreed that it is actually PBB and SUPP MPs who support the downgrade of Sarawak status to one of the 13 states in Malaysia when they were still part of the BN coalition without realising its implications today.[129]
On 7 April, both the Democratic Action Party (DAP) branches in East Malaysia through Chong Chieng Jen for Sarawak and Chan Foong Hin for Sabah appeal to both opposition MPs in the two entities to stop playing politics and remove their egos as the bill will soon be debated and put to vote on 9 April,[130] adding that co-operation between government and opposition MPs are needed to undo the wrongdoings of the past as any failure to pass the bill in the end will only resulting to negative consequences on the negotiation for the rights in the 1963 agreement.[131] Chan explained the amendment were indeed seeking to reverse the previous amendment in 1976 which placed both entities as one of 13 states in Malaysia as the 1963 agreement committee are still doing its work with more amendments to come soon.[131] On the reason behind the exclusion of several phrases as mentioned before, Chong stated that it was due to an earlier discussion made by the committee who feel both of the entities are not the only states on the island of Borneo as there are also the country of Brunei and Indonesian Kalimantan provinces, explaining that the proposed amendment is similar in structure to the original Article 4 (1) of the Federal Constitution even with the exclusion.[130]
Similar views were also expressed earlier by Sarawak PKR lawmaker See Chee How who urging every MPs to put aside their political differences to fulfill the long-waited aspiration and hope of all Sarawakians and Sabahans to right the wrong of the last 43 years, adding that the committee and various working groups on the matters are still deliberating and working with steps are being taken to devolve the autonomous powers to both entities with their report is scheduled to be finalised and revealed by the committee in June.[132] Sarawak Assemblyman from Padungan Wong King Wei further said that opposition MPs should not doubt the present federal government sincerities to restore the rights of the two entities as if they were not care on the issues, they will just ignore by not doing anything like in the past over the matters.[133] He elaborated that several steps as the evidence of the federal government commitment have been shown such as the forming of a special committee on the 1963 agreement and even tabled an amendment bill to the Parliament, adding that the proposed amendment is just one of the first steps to restore the two entities rights as when their status have been restored, both entities can discuss further in the round table of the committee for further negotiations on their rights.[133]
Other PKR MP from Sarawak such as Willie Mongin said the federal government move for the bill tabling is good as one of the first step to legally restore the two entities rights as according to the original 1963 agreement, but openly expressing that he is "displeased" with the words used in the proposed amendment and believed the wording could be refined, adding his proposals that "Sarawak should be stated as Negara Sarawak (the Country of Sarawak) and Sabah as Negara Sabah (the Country of Sabah), not as one [of] the states in the federation" as the previous wording may indicate that both entities are just one of the states in the federation in par with Malay Peninsula states that will causing confusion and misinterpretation.[134] The United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (UPKO) also distancing their opinion differ than other government allied parties who simply supporting the bill, the party President Wilfred Madius Tangau agreed with the suggestion by opposition MPs to refer the amendment to the special committee before the second reading in Parliament on the evening of 9 April, stressing that the process must be fulfilled if the federal government was really serious in implementing the 1963 agreement and restoring their rights since a bill that was tabled in a rush will only drawn negative reactions from various parties in both of the entities as the amendment have implications that will subsequently transformed the federation governance.[135] Ronald Kiandee of the Malaysian United Indigenous Party (PPBM) said the bill must be approved by the MPs from both entities as it had long been anticipated to lift the ranks of the current two states.[4]
Aftermath of the bill second reading and subsequent voting
editPrime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said he did not expect the federal government bid to amend the constitution will fail, explaining that even with the unsatisfied result, they need to respect the decision made by opposition as every lawmaker has the right to vote "whatever they have set their sights on" and stressing the bill was not done in haste.[9] Deputy Prime Minister Wan Azizah Wan Ismail also expressed her deep disappointment over the result since she put a deep hope for the return of both entities status, adding that she thought when seeing the debate session everyone seemed to have agreed.[136] PKR President Anwar Ibrahim blamed the failure on the passage of the bill for the constitutional amendment to both UMNO and BN who are majority seen jointly choose to be "abstained" without giving their concrete reason in the voting, citing that since their long period of administrating the country, they did not even want to review the amendment of the country.[6][137] He further added that the amendment was very meaningful and historic to the people of the country, especially to Sabah and Sarawak since the matter has been debated for a long time and we have heard the complaints of frustration and sadness of the people from both of the entities, adding that he could not understand why some people still disputed the matter when the old administration could not even moved an inch when they were in power for more than half a century.[4] Sabah Chief Minister Shafie Apdal expressed his very deep disappointment on the failure to amend the constitution. In a statement, he expressed:
You can imagine, in particular, fundamental things that we cannot agree on and vote for it, what more other things that we can realise. It's already 55 years, we have waited for such a long time ... we are not saying that we should be in a hurry but, for God's sake, this is 55 years, this is a fundamental thing.[5]
— Shafie Apdal, Chief Minister of Sabah.
Despite the deep disappointment, Shafie said the result of the voting is not the end of their struggle for equalities but instead its just becoming the first one after 55 years with the struggle will continues by all means, adding that he refuse to blaming anyone on the result when asked by the media whether he thought their counterpart Sarawak was to be blame for placing their politics above the bill with the Sabah government would continue their co-operation together with Sarawak government for the return of their rights.[138][139] Former Chief Minister of Sabah and MP of UPKO, Bernard Giluk Dompok opined that all lawmakers should support the bill because the federal government had done what it was supposed to do to return the two entities status as before the 1976 amendment.[140] Petaling Jaya MP and social activist Maria Chin Abdullah called the 59 MPs who choose to abstained from the voting have shown through their own action that they are really not committed to the country reform agenda where they were blinded by their own political interests and have forsaken the struggles and aspirations of the people in the two entities which as a direct result of their conducts, these MPs have effectively retained both Sabah and Sarawak as only states in the federation of Malaysia.[141] Minister of International Trade and Industry and President of the Sabah Heritage Party (WARISAN) Darell Leiking said the majority decision taken by opposition MPs evidently showing they have no dignity towards their voters, adding that it was a historical moment for the country when the Prime Minister have willing to read out the rationale behind amending the constitution which would have reinstated our status to the pre-1976 amendment, but instead all of these efforts been wasted by the opposition MPs.[142] The PH coalition in Sarawak through their Secretary Senator, Alan Ling expressed their great disappointment as the historical opportunity to restore both entities status had been dashed to the ground by the decision of the opposition to abstained from voting, adding that the opposition especially GPS had intentionally failing the aspirations of Sarawakians which is totally unacceptable and beyond any justification with any further excuses given by GPS MPs have no merit as the wording on the proposed amendment have been agreed to be redefined as in the original version of 1963 agreement.[143] Despite the failure of the bill passage, Minister Liew has stated that they would never give up and would continue to fight for the people especially for those in the two entities,[144] calling the action by a small group of parliamentarians not voting for the amendment was unreasonable and detrimental to the society with the moment will forever be remembered and identified by the generation as those who preventing the return of the two entities status.[5]
GPS through its SUPP President Sim Kui Hian said the blame should not been thrown on them, but instead the federal government should have listened earlier to their demands to amend the definition of the "federation" as a federation that were established through the 1963 agreement, not under the federation term as inscribed in the 1957 Malaya Agreement.[145] STAR Sarawak President Lina Soo called the failure to pass the bill as a "landmark victory" for Sarawakians and Sabahans, praising that the political maturity of the people in the two entities has reached new heights which is not seen since the formation of the country.[146] She adding that the people had voiced out loud and clear that any constitutional amendment without adhering to the principle of the 1963 agreement must be rejected where she also insisted that any constitutional amendment which would have subsequent effect to the political position of the two entities must first be brought before the current state legislative assembly for legitimacy.[146] Responding to the "landmark victory" as claimed by opposition allied parties, Sabah Beluran MP Ronald Kiandee described the move by the opposition as just to politicising the issue too much with their abstention from the bill voting just for the sake of opposing.[147] Former law lecturer Abdul Aziz Bari also said those opposition MPs who didn't vote for the amendment bill could have actually used their debate time to point out what they saw as lacking in it and ask for the gaps to be filled, calling the suggestion made by an opposition MP from Pengerang, Azalina Othman Said for the need of a select committee before the bill tabling are actually just to wasting the time.[148] The adviser of the Sabah government on the 1963 agreement, Zainnal Ajamain said following the result, the two entities lost their opportunity to restore their status as equal partners. In a statement, he said:
We know that in the first reading there are problems, but in the second reading [the content] is taken from MA63, word by word, unchanged … then it was also rejected. [The defeat of the amendment] has big implications. We have been waiting for 55 years, then we have this rare opportunity. The opportunity is there, but some people are still dissatisfied … It's up to them. I think the dissatisfied party should now think deeply, to reflect on what has happened and read as well understand [the 1963 agreement] better.[149]
An independent Sabah MP, Anifah Aman stated that even the Parliament failed to pass the bill, the fight for equal partnership will never end.[150] The leader of the opposition, Ismail Sabri Yaakob stressed that even the opposition choose to abstained in the voting, the bill are not actually lost since not even a single opposition MPs rejecting the bill, adding that the federal government should not have been rushed for its tabling in the Parliament but instead taken it up for a thorough discussion at the parliamentary select committee as if the joint committee have expressing their views along with their facts, both can jointly support the amendment since he himself also questioned the amendment bid's significance to the two entities which according to him would only highlight the difference between those in the peninsula and those in Borneo from a geographical perspective.[151] Similar opinion were also expressed by an UMNO Supreme Council Member and former MP Abdul Rahman Dahlan who said that he did not blame the Prime Minister for what has happened as the bill was originally drafted by Minister Liew who failed to understand what opposition MPs from the two entities really wanted with regard to the amendment, adding that if the bill was earlier sent to the select committee, it surely be a win-win situation for all concerned parties with the Prime Minister would receive praises from all quarters.[152] Similar views were expressed by Sarawak Chief Minister Abang Abdul Rahman Zohari.[153] Another opposition MP of MCA from Ayer Hitam, Wee Ka Siong said the proposed bill is done in rush and merely a cosmetic change, stressing that the opposition only want the bill to be looked into carefully and diligently for the constitutional amendment.[154] Nevertheless, with the unaccomplished goals, Sabah Deputy Chief Minister Wilfred Madius Tangau hopes the steering committee on the 1963 agreement chaired by the Prime Minister would meet as soon as possible to further discuss steps that will be taken by the Sabah government.[155] On the proposal to re-tabling the bill in the Parliament as the bill should be referred first to a special committee, Prime Minister Mahathir answered the question that a discussion will be held with involved MPs on the matter with the re-tabling would depend on "needs".[156][157] The Sabah Legislative Assembly through Chief Minister Shafie had announced they would table emergency motion regarding the 1963 agreement in the nearest time to regain their rights despite the bill failure following the request made by one of the assemblyman, Masidi Manjun.[158][159][160] On 18 April, the Sabah assembly unanimously passed a motion to endorse the proposed amendment if it gets re-tabled in the national Parliament.[161][162] The Sarawak Legislative Assembly follow suits on 30 April by unanimously approves motion for constitutional amendments on Sarawak's rights with the motion includes a provision for the amendment of Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution by inserting "pursuant to Malaysia Agreement 1963" which subsequently read as: "The States of the Federation, pursuant to Malaysian Agreement 1963, shall be".[163]
Local analysts hold the view that the failure for the bill passage is not end on the struggle of both entities to restore their status, urging both sides of political factions either from the government and opposition to stop blaming each other and moving forwards towards a solution for the betterment of the residents in the two entities.[164] Other political analysts also in the position that the opposition faction of GPS did not simply want the bill to fail, but instead just want to ensure it is done correctly, adding that despite the bill failure, the federal government must move forward to correct the long historical grievances in the two entities before it is escalated into far more secessionist option with the growing frustration and unhappiness.[165][166]
During the celebration of Sarawak Day on 22 July, Sarawak Association for People's Aspiration (SAPA) reminded the federal government to not wasting further time to restore Sarawak's rights and status under the 1963 agreement with the increase independence sentiment among the people.[167] Further on 25 July, Sabah Chief Minister Shafie said that Prime Minister Mahathir will announce the restoration of both Sabah and Sarawak rights in the nearest time.[168] On 17 December, Minister Liew announced that the proposed amendment to be re-tabled in March 2020 following a reach consensus through a three-way meeting between Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, Sabah Chief Minister Shafie Apdal and Sarawak Chief Minister Abang Zohari held at the Prime Minister's office on 16 December 2019.[169]
Two years after the failed attempt, on 16 September 2021, Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob pledged to look into issues relating to Sabah and Sarawak via the Special Council on Malaysia Agreement 1963.[170] The amendments were tabled on 3 November 2021, consisting of four changes, being restoring Sabah and Sarawak as "territories", defining Malaysia Day as the day when Sabah and Sarawak joined and changes to the definition of the Federation, and defining who are natives of Sabah and Sarawak.[171] On 14 December 2021, the proposed amendment was passed in the Parliament unanimously with 199 votes in favour, and 21 MPs absent from the 6-hour long debate.[172] The law came into force on 11 February 2022.[173]
See also
edit
Notes
edit- ^ Education, while becoming a federal subject in principle, is to remain practically under state control until the state government otherwise decides; in particular, the present policy of teaching in English is to continue.[25]
- ^ Immigration to remain largely under state control; while the federation is to have general control of movement in and out of Malaysia and between states, entry into the Borneo states will require the approval of the state concerned, and except that the federal government may bar entry in the national interest, the Borneo states are to have discretion in permitting entry by persons outside Malaysia.[25] On citizenship, through the Cobbold Commission recommendations provides additional provisions for the registration of foreign-born residents in the eight years after Malaysia.[25]
- ^ The national language of the federation will be Malay, but English is to remain an official language for ten years after Malaysia Day and thereafter till the state legislature otherwise provides.[25]
- ^ On the special position of the indigenous race, it adopts the recommendations of the Malayan members of the commission and provides that in the federal public service as well as within the states, the Borneo indigenous are to enjoy the special rights and privileges that Malay now enjoy under the present constitution.[25] In matters concerning land administration the powers of the federation vis-à-vis the states are to be modified to give the states the power to decide whether or not to follow the policies formulated in the National Land Council.[25] The Borneo states are to have a total of 40 seats in the Federal House of Representatives – 24 to Sarawak and 16 to North Borneo. No reduction in the proportion of their representation to the whole (except by reason of the entry of new states) may take place in the seven years after Malaysia without the concurrence of the government of the state concerned, and thereafter any change in proportion must be supported by a two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament.[24]
- ^ On finance, it is agreed that the level of federal taxation in the states should be brought up to federal levels over a period of years, and that in addition to the sources of revenue at present allocated to states, North Borneo and Sarawak should retain import duty and excise duty on petroleum products, export duty on timber and other forest produce, and export duty on minerals up to a joint total of royalty and export duty of 10 per cent ad valorem; and that in the case of North Borneo the state should retain a total of 30 per cent of revenue from customs and excise for as long as it is responsible for health and medical expenditure. In addition to the capitation and road grants received by states under the existing constitution, North Borneo and Sarawak are to receive balancing grant equal to the difference between assigned state revenue in 1963 (including statutory grants) and the estimated cost of services; Sarawak is to receive an escalating annual grant in order to assure adequate expansion of state services, and a special grant is also to be assigned to North Borneo, proportionate to the increase in federal revenue from that state in 1963. (These grants are to be subject to review in the first ten years after Malaysia).[25]
- ^ Islam remains the religion of the federation, but is not to be established as the state religion in either territory, and the Borneo States are not to be required to contribute to financial aid for Muslim institutions or education, either in the states or in the federation.[25]
References
edit- ^ "Key points from the Malaysia Agreement 1963". The Star. 16 September 2018. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ a b "What restoring MA63 rights means". The Straits Times. 18 September 2018. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ a b Sabrina Noor (15 March 2019). "Sabah and Sarawak may no longer be known as states. But how is this gonna work?". Cilisos.my. Archived from the original on 19 March 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ a b c d e f g h "Debate on Constitution (Amendment) Bill lasts more than six hours". Bernama. The Malay Mail. 9 April 2019. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ a b c d "Bill to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners rejected in Malaysia parliament". Bernama. Channel NewsAsia. 10 April 2019. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ a b c d Mohd Anwar Patho Rohman (10 April 2019). "UMNO/BN punca pindaan RUU MA63 tidak diluluskan - Anwar" [UMNO/BN caused amendment of the MA63 bill to fail - Anwar] (in Malay). Berita Harian. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ a b Adam Aziz (9 April 2019). "No two-thirds majority for Bill to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners". The Edge Markets. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Yiswaree Palansamy (9 April 2019). "Pakatan's Federal Constitution amendment on Sabah, Sarawak foiled". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ a b c d e "Status of Sabah, Sarawak stays". Bernama. Daily Express. 10 April 2019. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Wong Chin Huat (8 April 2019). "Sabah and Sarawak downgraded by their MPs in 1976". Malaysiakini. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
- ^ Philip Kiew (8 December 2017). "MA63, IGC Report set up terms for three sovereign states to form Malaysia". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ "The Malaysia Agreement disagreement". The Star. 16 September 2018. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Popelier 2019, p. 324.
- ^ a b "Sarawak group calls for independence". Bangkok Post. 22 January 2013. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Harding 2012, p. 95.
- ^ "MA63, Federal Constitution infringed upon since formation of M'sia — Former rep". The Borneo Post. 25 February 2019. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Sadiq 2008, p. 83.
- ^ Harding & Chin 2014, p. 173.
- ^ Weiss 2014, p. 97.
- ^ Piya Sukhani (3 April 2019). "What's Behind Calls for Independence in Sabah?". The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 3 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ a b "Malaysia Day Special - New Hope, New Challenges". The Star. 16 September 2018. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
Malaysia may have been formed in 1963, but believe it or not, it wasn't until 2010 that Malaysia Day was celebrated as a national public holiday. Prior to that, it was a state holiday only in Sabah and Sarawak.
- ^ "Many in Sabah, Sarawak don't want to be part of Malaysia, claims analyst". The Rakyat Post. 16 February 2014. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Group draws up self determination petition for Sarawak and Sabah". The Borneo Post. 13 August 2014. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ a b Silcock 1963, p. 54.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Silcock 1963, p. 53.
- ^ "Signing of the Malaysia Agreement". 9 July 1963. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019 – via National Library Board, Singapore.
- ^ "Logic triumphed: It was just settlement, says Lee". The Straits Times. 10 July 1963. p. 4. Archived from the original on 5 August 2018. Retrieved 5 April 2019 – via National Library Board, Singapore.
- ^ Dambul, Omar & Osman 2010, p. 18.
- ^ a b Arnold Puyok (3 November 2018). "Sarawak still has to 'compete' with other states for a fair share in budget allocation". Dayak Daily. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Hashim 1998, p. 47.
- ^ Daniel John Jambun (9 May 2011). "The Root Causes of Poverty in Sabah & Sarawak, Exposed (Stories from the East)". Loyar Burok. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ Mei Mei Chu (27 November 2013). "Why Are Sabah And Sarawak So Poor, When Both Are Rich In Natural Resources?". Says.com. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ "Resolve or Dissolve Malaysia; Sabah, Sarawak Lags Far Behind Peninsula". Borneo Today. 8 June 2017. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Jason Santos (15 September 2017). "Historian on mission to correct textbooks on Sabah, Sarawak". The Malaysian Insight. Archived from the original on 15 September 2017. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Sharon Ling (14 November 2018). "More than 1,000 schools still in dilapidated category". The Star. Archived from the original on 18 November 2018. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ "More than half of Sabah schools dilapidated". Bernama. Free Malaysia Today. 21 October 2018. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ "History". Immigration Department of Malaysia. Archived from the original on 21 July 2018. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ "Malaysia: East Malaysia immigration requirements and practices" (PDF). 20 January 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019 – via PricewaterhouseCoopers.
- ^ Sadiq 2008, p. 51.
- ^ "Stateless foreigners headache". Daily Express. 17 November 2018. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ a b "Constitution of the State of Sabah". Sabah State Government (State Attorney-General's Chambers). Archived from the original on 15 June 2016. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ a b David Phung. "Religious Liberty in East Malaysia". NECF Malaysia Religious Liberty Commission. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Sulok Tawie (18 November 2015). "Sarawak makes English official language along with BM". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Adibah Awang (2003). "Conflict in the Land Law under the Federation Structure". International Convention on Urban Development & Management. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ David Thien (27 February 2019). "Prof: Respect indigenous land rights". Daily Express. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ Wilson 1996, p. 57.
- ^ Chin & Choi 1998, p. 273.
- ^ Lim 2008, p. 75.
- ^ Kaur 2016, p. 203.
- ^ "Why the petroleum development Act 1974 is in breach of the Malaysia agreement 1963 and the federal constitution and is null and void". The Borneo Post. 17 November 2016. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Mohammad Agus Yusoff (1999). "The Politics of centre-state conflict: the Sabah experience under the ruling Sabah Alliance (1963–1976)" (PDF). Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. p. 14/25. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 November 2017. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Sulok Tawie (11 December 2015). "Islam no more official religion on Sarawak government website". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Trinna Leong (5 March 2018). "Sarawak could allow converts to renounce Islam". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ Sandra Sokial (15 August 2014). "Sabah Christians often mistaken as Muslims for carrying 'bin' or 'binti' in MyKad". The Rakyat Post. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Richard Joe Jimmy (7 May 2016). "Don't mess with religion". Daily Express. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Sabah apostates: Repent or go to 'jail'". Free Malaysia Today. 12 January 2011. Archived from the original on 18 June 2017. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
• Ida Lim (12 July 2014). "Path to leave Islam simple, but far from easy". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
• "Sabah leaders demand explanation for underaged girl's conversion". The Star. 9 February 2015. Archived from the original on 20 September 2017. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
• "Sabah school in conversion row must be held accountable, father insists". The Malay Mail. Yahoo! News. 26 March 2015. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
• Wong Chun Wai (5 April 2015). "Teach, not convert students". The Star. Archived from the original on 20 September 2017. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
• Julia Chan (23 August 2015). "In Sabah, shivers of discomfit over rising religious barriers". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
• "Law is silent on Muslim converts wishing to leave Islam – Baru". The Borneo Post. 11 February 2017. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
• "Churches: Louder calls to restore religious freedom". Daily Express. 28 July 2016. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
• Goh Pei Pei (27 February 2018). "(Updated) Federal Court rejects appeal of Sarawakian apostates". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 28 February 2018. Retrieved 5 April 2019. - ^ "Taoist statue deemed "offensive" to Islam raises new controversy over religious freedom". AsiaNews.it. 1 April 2008. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ a b "State Spot [Sabah]". NECF Malaysia Religious Liberty Commission. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Yeng Ai Chun (19 October 2009). "Malaysia Day now a public holiday, says PM". The Star. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Stephanie Lee; Fatimah Zainal (16 September 2018). "Sabah, Sarawak to be restored as equal partners forming Malaysia, says Dr M". The Star. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Sabah, Sarawak to be restored as equal partners forming Malaysia, not just component states, says PM Mahathir". The Star/Asia News Network. The Straits Times. 16 September 2018. Archived from the original on 17 September 2018. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Kupasan Sejarah Perjanjian Malaysia 1963" [Review of the History of the Malaysia Agreement 1963] (PDF) (in Malay). Prime Minister's Department (Malaysia). 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Little Disagreement Between Federal Government, Sabah, Sarawak on MA63 – PM". Bernama. Prime Minister's Department (Malaysia). 5 March 2019. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Cabinet agrees to restore Sabah, Sarawak as equal partners". Bernama. The Malay Mail. 8 March 2019. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Spotlight on MA63 as Dewan Rakyat convenes". Bernama. Daily Express. 11 March 2019. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Julia Chan (2 April 2019). "Law minister: Tabling of Bill on equality for Sabah, Sarawak in Parliament next week". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 3 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ a b c Martin Carvalho; Hemananthani Sivanandam; Rahimy Rahim; Tarrence Tan (4 April 2019). "'Rushed', barebones MA63 bill causes uproar in Parliament". The Star. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Lim How Pim (4 April 2019). "[LIVE UPDATES] First reading of Bill seeking to amend Article 1 (2) gets underway". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ a b Adam Aziz (4 April 2019). "Constitution amendment will turn Sabah, Sarawak into territories, says law minister". The Edge Markets. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Lim How Pim; Abdul Hakim Bujang (4 April 2019). "GPS MPs, legal experts less than impressed with Bill to amend Article 1 (2)". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ Churchill Edward (4 April 2019). "Article 1 (2) amendment Bill 'totally unacceptable' to Sarawak – SUPP". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Bill tabled amid concern". Daily Express. 5 April 2019. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ a b Lim How Pim; Abdul Hakim Bujang (8 April 2019). "Liew: Article 1(2) amendment Bill's wording to be altered to follow that of 1963 version". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ Amar Shah Mohsen; Ashwin Kumar (8 April 2019). "Govt intends to compromise with opposition to restore Sabah, Sarawak status". The Sun. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ Lim How Pim; Abdul Hakim Bujang (8 April 2019). "GPS sticks to its decision to call for Article 1(2) amendment Bill to be withdrawn". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ "S'wak govt to support constitutional amendment if it reflects 'original intent' of negotiating parties". The Borneo Post. 8 April 2019. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ Syed Umar Ariff; Beatrice Nita Jay (9 April 2019). "Sabah, Sarawak to revert to original status as associate members in Malaysia". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ Martin Carvalho; Hemananthani Sivanandam; Rahimy Rahim; Tarrence Tan (9 April 2019). "Anwar: Pakatan will keep promise to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners". The Star. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ Syed Umar Ariff (9 April 2019). "Shafie: Supporting amendment bill does not mean no love for Malaysia". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof, Speaker (9 April 2019). "Rang Undang-undang Perlembagaan (Pindaan) 2019: Bacaan Kali Yang Kedua dan Ketiga" [Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2019: Second and Third Readings] (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) (in Malay). Malaysia: Dewan Rakyat. pp. 197–204. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 August 2019.
- ^ "Constitutional Amendment Bill fails to get two-thirds majority support". Bernama. New Sabah Times. 10 April 2019. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- ^ "Bung, 19 from Sarawak abstained". Daily Express. 13 April 2019. Archived from the original on 13 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
- ^ a b Mazwin Nik Anis; Joseph Kaos Jr (12 April 2019). "Maszlee, three other Pakatan MPs among those absent during Article 1(2) vote". The Star. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- ^ a b Emmanuel Santa Maria Chin (12 April 2019). "Law minister: Maszlee among four Pakatan MPs absent from Constitution amendment vote". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- ^ "Sandakan MP Stephen Wong passes away". Bernama. The Edge Markets. 28 March 2019. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- ^ Yiswaree Palansamy (9 April 2019). "Dr M: No need to refer Federal Constitution amendment for Sarawak, Sabah to Rulers' Conference". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ "Invite British govt to give views". Bernama. Daily Express. 13 October 2018. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Review of MA63 should focus on breach of terms of formation of Malaysia". The Borneo Post. 7 November 2018. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Julia Chan (14 March 2019). "As MA63 review begins, Sabah churches call for complete religious freedom". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ Sharon Ling (27 March 2019). "ACS calls for freedom of religion to be restored in accordance with MA63, Constitution". The Star. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ "Sabah churches press for religious freedom as Malaysia debates giving more power to region". Barnabas Fund. 3 April 2019. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ Neil Brian Joseph (12 March 2019). "Legal action as last resort if fed govt fails to fully implement MA63". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Tracy Patrick (13 March 2019). "Sabah, Sarawak can sue Putrajaya if MA63 not implemented". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ Arnold Puyok (4 April 2019). "MA63, 'equal partnership' and the future of the Malaysian federation". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Activist cites 1965 Mauritius 'agreement' as basis for MA63 issue". The Borneo Post. 2 April 2019. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Tracy Patrick (16 March 2019). "MCA questions sincerity behind move to amend Article 1 (2)". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ Sulok Tawie (11 March 2019). "Don't rush into amending Federal Constitution on Sarawak rights, party chief tells MPs". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Larissa Lumadan (31 March 2019). "Show us draft MA63 bill, says Nancy Shukri". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Defer Tabling Article 1 (2) and Await Other Amendments - Dr. Jeffrey". Borneo Today. 31 March 2019. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Desmond Davidson (28 March 2019). "We'll comment on Sarawak, Sabah status bill when we see it, says Sarawak MA63 panel". The Malaysian Insight. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "CM: Sabah mulling dropping term 'state'". The Malay Mail. 17 March 2019. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ Goh Pei Pei (16 March 2019). "Sarawak to drop the word 'state'". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ "Dropping 'state' violation of MA63 — Lawyer". The Borneo Post. 19 March 2019. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ Tracy Patrick (23 March 2019). "PAS man doesn't know what 'state' means in MA63, says PBS". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ a b "Soo: Stop the drama over Article 1(2) amendment Bill". The Borneo Post. 9 April 2019. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ Syed Umar Ariff (9 April 2019). "Ismail: Why no mention of MA63 in amendment bill?". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Larissa Lumadan (5 April 2019). "Constitutional amendment a 'trap', says Sarawak MP". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Joash Kong (8 April 2019). "Prioritise Sarawak in second reading". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ Mohd Roji Kawi (3 May 2018). "SUPP man Robert Lau appointed as senator". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 3 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
- ^ Andy Chua (5 April 2019). "Lawyer: Proposed amendment to honour MA63 'just playing with sentence construction'". The Star. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Muguntan Vanar (5 April 2019). "Former Sabah CM says proposed Constitutional amendment hollow and meaningless". The Star. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ "Proposed amendment to Article 1(2) an insult – Yong". The Borneo Post. 6 April 2019. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ Lim How Pim (5 April 2019). "No reason for Sarawak MPs to vote for amendment Bill – Tiang". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ "Amendment Bill not reflecting spirit of MA63 — MP". The Borneo Post. 7 April 2019. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ Raynore Mering (4 April 2019). "Redefine 'Federation' for Sarawak, Sabah to achieve equal status, says lawyer". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ "PBS says will not support proposed Article 1(2) amendment in its present form". The Star. 5 April 2019. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Muguntan Vanar (4 April 2019). "Anifah wants Sabah, Sarawak legislative assemblies to approve proposed constitutional amendments". The Star. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ Jason Santos (7 April 2019). "Putrajaya at odds with Sabah, Sarawak over equal status bill's wording". The Malaysian Insight. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ a b Johan Aziz (7 April 2019). "Bill needs approval of Sabah, Sarawak assemblies: Kurup". Daily Express. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ "Amendment bill too hasty on first reading – LDP". The Borneo Post. 8 April 2019. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ "Sabah/Sarawak CMs did not give approval on amendment of Article 1(2), says Abang Johari". Bernama. The Malay Mail. 6 April 2019. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ "Abang Johari explains why GPS not supporting". Bernama. Daily Express. 8 April 2019. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ Sulok Tawie (8 April 2019). "Want Sarawak's support for Article 1(2) revision? Answer our questions first, says PBB info chief". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ a b Chester Tay; Adam Aziz (5 April 2019). "MA63 motion tabled". The Edge Markets. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
- ^ Julia Chan (6 April 2019). "Dr M: Amendment Bill to Article 1 (2) to recognise Sabah and Sarawak as members of the federation". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ "Putrajaya sincere in restoring rights of Sabah, Sarawak, says PM". The Malaysian Insight. 6 April 2019. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ a b Poliana Ronnie Sidom (6 April 2019). "Pindaan Perlembagaan kembalikan status Sabah, Sarawak" [Amendment of the Constitution restores Sabah, Sarawak status] (in Malay). Berita Harian. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ a b Mardinah Jikur (7 April 2019). "Liew: Why oppose it now?". Daily Express. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ "PBB and SUPP supported 1976 constitutional amendment : Chong". Bernama. New Straits Times. 10 March 2019. Archived from the original on 6 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
- ^ a b Sulok Tawie (7 April 2019). "We need your support to push Bill to restore equality for Sarawak, Pakatan tells GPS". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ a b Durie Rainer Fong (7 April 2019). "Sabah DAP pleads with opposition to back amendment bill". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ Sulok Tawie (6 April 2019). "PKR rep: Put aside political affiliations to support amendment Bill to Article 1 (2)". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
- ^ a b "Wong: Why so much negativity over proposed amendment?". The Borneo Post. 8 April 2019. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
- ^ Rintos Mail (4 April 2019). "Article 1 (2) amendment: It should be 'Negara' Sabah & Sarawak, says Puncak Borneo MP". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ Stephanie Lee (8 April 2019). "Madius Tangau: Refer amendment on Bill to MA63 special committee". The Star. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ Suhaila Shahrul Annuar (10 April 2019). "TPM kecewa pindaan Perlembagaan gagal" [DPM disappointed amendment of the Constitution failed] (in Malay). Berita Harian. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ "BN MPs reason why Bill failed, says Anwar". Bernama. The Malay Mail. 10 April 2019. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Julia Chan (10 April 2019). "Missed opportunity but not the end of the road, says Shafie of failed Bill". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ "Sabah to continue cooperation with Sarawak — Shafie Apdal". Bernama. The Borneo Post. 11 April 2019. Archived from the original on 12 April 2019. Retrieved 12 April 2019.
- ^ "All lawmakers should have backed MA63 Bill – Dompok". The Borneo Post. 11 April 2019. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ "59 MPs have forsaken people of Sabah, Sarawak, says Maria Chin". The Malaysian Insight. 10 April 2019. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ Durie Rainer Fong (10 April 2019). "No dignity in abstaining, MPs told on amendment bill". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Philip Kiew (10 April 2019). "Opportunity to restore S'wak, Sabah's status 'dashed to the ground' by GPS, says Ling". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Amin Ridzuan Ishak (12 April 2019). "Usaha pinda Perlembagaan Persekutuan diteruskan" [Efforts for the amendment of the Constitution will continued] (in Malay). Berita Harian. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- ^ Sulok Tawie (10 April 2019). "Don't blame GPS for defeat of Sarawak status amendment Bill, says SUPP president". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ a b "Landmark win for Sabah, Sarawak in Bill amendment failure, says STAR". The Borneo Post. The Sun. 10 April 2019. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Minderjeet Kaur (10 April 2019). "Opposition opposed amendment bill for the sake of opposing, says Sabah MP". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Vinodh Pillai (11 April 2019). "Azalina spewing nonsense on constitutional amendment bill, says law expert". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ "Sabah, Sarawak miss opportunity to restore status as equal partners". Bernama. The Borneo Post. 11 April 2019. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ Olivia Miwil (10 April 2019). "Sabah lawmakers will not stop finding ways to restore equal partnership for the state". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
- ^ Terence Tang (10 April 2019). "Bill on Sabah, Sarawak should go through PSC first, says Ismail Sabri". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ "Minister failed to understand what Sabah, Sarawak MPs want – Rahman". The Borneo Post. 11 April 2019. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ "Abang Johari: Secretariat weakness caused Constitution amendment Bill to fail". The Malay Mail. 12 April 2019. Archived from the original on 13 April 2019. Retrieved 13 April 2019.
- ^ "Wee: It was a rush job and merely a cosmetic change". The Star. 11 April 2019. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ Nancy Lai (10 April 2019). "Sabah DCM wants MA63 Steering Committee to meet with haste". The Borneo Post. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ "Re-Tabling of Amendment Bill Depends on Needs – PM". Bernama. Prime Minister's Department (Malaysia). 10 April 2019. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- ^ "Re-tabling of Bill depends: PM". Bernama. Daily Express. 11 April 2019. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
- ^ Durie Rainer Fong (15 April 2019). "Sabah reps urged to show support for bill shot down in Dewan Rakyat". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 16 April 2019. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
- ^ Julia Chan (15 April 2019). "Sabah CM says would table urgent motion on MA63". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 16 April 2019. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
- ^ Ricardo Unto (16 April 2019). "Sabah's dues to be pursued". Daily Express. Archived from the original on 16 April 2019. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
- ^ Kristy Inus (18 April 2019). "Sabah assembly endorses amendment of Constitution to honour MA63". The Star. Archived from the original on 20 April 2019. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
- ^ Leonard Alaza (19 April 2019). "Unanimous Assembly support for restoring Sabah's status". Daily Express. Archived from the original on 20 April 2019. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
- ^ Sulok Tawie (30 April 2019). "Sarawak Assembly unanimously approves motion for constitutional amendments on state's rights". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 12 July 2019. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
- ^ Sharon Ling (13 April 2019). "Stop the blame game and try again". The Star. Archived from the original on 13 April 2019. Retrieved 13 April 2019.
- ^ Philip Golingai (14 April 2019). "'Leaving' is getting sexy for some". The Star. Archived from the original on 14 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
- ^ Durie Rainer Fong (15 April 2019). "Failure to amend constitution leaves lingering divisions". Free Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
- ^ Sharon Ling (22 July 2019). "NGO: Restore Sarawak rights or risk a secession movement". The Star. Retrieved 25 July 2019.
- ^ Julia Chan (25 July 2019). "Sabah CM: PM set to announce restoration of state's rights soon". The Malay Mail. Archived from the original on 25 July 2019. Retrieved 25 July 2019.
- ^ "Amendment to restore Sabah, Sarawak's status to be tabled in March 2020". Bernama. The Borneo Post. 17 December 2019. Archived from the original on 19 December 2019. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
- ^ "MA63: Govt to pay close attention to Sabah, Sarawak matters of interest — PM Ismail Sabri". The Edge. 16 September 2021. Archived from the original on 11 November 2021. Retrieved 11 November 2021.
- ^ Razak, Radzi (3 November 2021). "Govt to table four constitutional amendments to restore Sabah and Sarawak's position". Malay Mail. Retrieved 11 November 2021.
- ^ Zulkifli, Ahmad Mustakim (14 December 2021). "MPs unanimously vote for constitutional amendments to empower Sabah, Sarawak". MalaysiaNow. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
- ^ "Admendments [sic] to Federal Constitution come into force on Feb 11, says Wan Junaidi". The Star. 11 February 2022. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- Silcock, Thomas Henry (1963). The Political Economy of Independent Malaya: A Case-study in Development. University of California Press. p. 53. GGKEY:LTF1ABP2J6P.
borneo special rights.
- Wilson, L. S. (1996). Federal-state fiscal arrangements in Malaysia ; State revenue equalization in Malaysia. Queen's University, John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy.
sabah 40% state revenue.
- Chin, Anthony; Choi, Alfred (1998). Law, Social Sciences, and Public Policy: Towards a Unified Framework. NUS Press. ISBN 978-9971-69-205-6.
- Hashim, Shireen Mardziah (1998). Income Inequality and Poverty in Malaysia. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-8476-8858-6.
- Sadiq, Kamal (2008). Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-988813-9.
- Lim, Regina (2008). Federal-state Relations in Sabah, Malaysia: The Berjaya Administration, 1976-85. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN 978-981-230-812-2.
- Dambul, Ramzah; Omar, Marja Azlima; Osman, Sabihah (2010). Sabah Priority Issues: Setting the Course for Change. Universiti Malaysia Sabah. ISBN 978-967-5224-45-4.
- Harding, Andrew (2012). The Constitution of Malaysia: A Contextual Analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84731-983-8.
- Harding, Andrew J.; Chin, James (2014). 50 Years of Malaysia: Federalism Revisited. Marshall Cavendish International Asia Pte Ltd. ISBN 978-981-4561-96-9.
- Weiss, Meredith L. (2014). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Malaysia. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-62958-0.
- Kaur, A. (2016). Economic Change in East Malaysia: Sabah and Sarawak since 1850. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-0-230-37709-7.
- Popelier, Patricia (2019). Constitutional Asymmetry in Multinational Federalism: Managing. Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-11701-6.
Further reading
edit- Tang Ruxyn (15 September 2017). "The Historical Moments That Led Up To Malaysia's Formation, Captured In 35 Old Photos". Says.com.
- Fadzel (2017). "5 Facts You Didn't Know About The Malaysia Agreement 1963". AskLegal.
- James Chin (31 May 2018). "Why new Malaysian govt must heed MA63 rallying cry". The Straits Times – via Academia.edu.
- John Teo (22 September 2018). "Restoring Sabah and Sarawak's lost rights". New Straits Times.
- James Chin (19 November 2018). "Sabah and Sarawak in the 14th General Election 2018 (GE14): Local Factors and State Nationalism" (PDF). Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. 37 (3): 173–192. doi:10.1177/186810341803700308.
- Alex Ling (27 January 2019). "Protecting special rights of Borneo Territories". The Borneo Post.
- Alex Ling (24 February 2019). "Necessary amendments of the FC and Federal Acts". The Borneo Post.
- Alief Esmail (10 March 2019). "Status Update: Sabah & Sarawak Will No Longer Be Treated like Any Other States in Peninsula". World of Buzz. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
- Alex Ling (7 April 2019). "Necessary amendments on the Territorial Sea, EEZ and Continental Shelf of Sarawak and Sabah". The Borneo Post.
- Joseph Chinyong Liow (9 April 2019). "Back to the future for East Malaysia?". The Straits Times.
- James Chin (10 April 2019). "Commentary: The ghost of Borneo, talk of secession are back to haunt Malaysia". Channel NewsAsia.
- "Restore Sabah, Sarawak as equal partners". Sin Chew Daily. 11 April 2019.
- Eileen Ng (22 April 2019). "Futile bid for 'equal partner' status evokes passion in Sabah, Sarawak". The Straits Times.