Letter to the Editor
By Dato Sri Robert Jacob Ridu
From time to time, we hear a tired refrain: “There is no safeguard in the Constitution guaranteeing Sabah and Sarawak’s proportional representation in Parliament.”
Technically, that statement may be correct. But it is also misleading and dangerous. It ignores the very spirit and purpose of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report, and the solemn assurances given by Malayan, Bornean, and British leaders when Malaysia was born.
Constitutions are not lifeless contracts. They are living compacts that must be read together with the agreements and understandings that gave them birth. Malaysia’s Federal Constitution, in the context of Sabah and Sarawak, cannot be divorced from MA63 and the IGC Report.
These were not side documents or ‘background noise’. They were the foundation upon which Sabah and Sarawak agreed to form Malaysia. Without those assurances, there would have been no federation to begin with.
One of the clearest safeguards was the assurance that Sabah and Sarawak would have meaningful representation in Parliament—not merely as States, but as founding partners. This was not about population arithmetic. It was about balance.
The fear was obvious: if Malaya held an unchecked majority, it could unilaterally amend the Constitution to the detriment of Sabah and Sarawak. The safeguard was therefore political weight—representation strong enough to ensure that Borneo’s voice could not be silenced.
Whether or not a permanent quota was spelt out in the Constitution is beside the point. The rationale was never meant to expire: Sabah and Sarawak were to be protected, not absorbed.
It must also be remembered that MA63 was not just a domestic matter. It was an international treaty, registered with the United Nations. Under international law, such treaties are interpreted in light of their object and purpose.
And what was the purpose? To create a federation of equals. To respect the autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak. To safeguard their interests, not to whittle them down as the years passed.
To argue that “it isn’t written in the Constitution, therefore it doesn’t exist” is to miss the entire point of treaty interpretation. International undertakings are not reduced to narrow textualism. They are understood in light of the promises and rationale that gave them force.
Legally, it may be said that Malaya’s parliamentary majority has been within its rights to amend the Constitution and redistribute seats. But morally, this is a betrayal of trust. The founding leaders spoke not of absorption but of partnership. Their words ring hollow if Sabah and Sarawak’s political weight can be diminished by a simple arithmetic of numbers.
If Malaysia is serious about honouring MA63, it must move beyond technical excuses. It must restore Sabah and Sarawak’s rightful voice in Parliament, not as a concession but as a recognition of the spirit of 1963.
For without that spirit—the purposive intent of the agreement—Malaysia becomes less a federation of equals and more a story of absorption by the larger partner. And that was never the deal.
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia must be interpreted in light of the MA63, the IGC Report, and the Cobbold Commission. These were not side notes but the very foundation of the federation. MA63 was also an international agreement, registered with the United Nations, and subject to interpretation under the rules of international law (Geneva/Vienna Convention principles):
- Founding context: Sabah and Sarawak did not enter Malaysia as ordinary states. They joined as founding partners on the assurance that their political weight in Parliament would protect them from unilateral constitutional changes by Malaya’s majority.
- Letter vs Spirit: The Federal Constitution, read literally, does not enshrine a permanent quota of seats. But the spirit and rationale of MA63 and the IGC were precisely to ensure Bornean safeguards. The Constitution cannot be divorced from these founding instruments.
- Judicial recognition: Malaysian courts have acknowledged that constitutional law must be interpreted purposively, not narrowly. The judiciary has recognised that MA63 is part of Malaysia’s constitutional history and must inform interpretation.
- International dimension: MA63 is an international treaty, lodged with the United Nations. Under international law, treaties are read in light of their object and purpose — here, to create a federation of equals, not an absorption by the larger partner.
- Political Reality vs Legal Ideal: Over time, parliamentary arithmetic has diluted Sabah and Sarawak’s strength. While technically permissible through constitutional amendments, this erosion contradicts the original federal balance.
- Moral safeguard: Beyond law, the safeguards were a solemn promise by the founding leaders that Sabah and Sarawak would never be relegated to mere provinces. Breaking that promise undermines the moral foundation of Malaysia.
- The living spirit of MA63: Safeguards were never meant to expire. The principle remains that Sabah and Sarawak must retain sufficient voice in Parliament to preserve the partnership and prevent unilateral changes by Malaya.
To restore this balance is not to rewrite history—it is to keep faith with it.
But if the spirit of MA63 is ignored and swept aside, Malaysia risks becoming a union of numbers rather than a federation of trust. Leaders today must be reminded: the durability of the nation depends not only on legality, but on fidelity to the promises that brought it into being. If safeguards can be ignored and swept aside by the majority in Malaya, then the very foundation of Malaysia is shaken.
For Malaysia is, after all, a marriage of partners. And every marriage survives not on the power of one, but on the honouring of promises made to each other.
Dato Sri Robert Jacob Ridu is a former Speaker of the Sarawak Legislative Assembly.
This is the personal opinion of the author(s) and does not necessarily represent the views of DayakDaily. Letters to the Editor may be lightly edited for clarity.
— DayakDaily
