By DayakDaily Team
KUCHING, Oct 3: Sarawak and Sabah are not seeking to “colonise” Malaya by asserting their rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), says Batu Kitang assemblyman Dato Lo Khere Chiang.
Responding to former law minister Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim’s recent remarks on the Borneo states’ immigration autonomy, Lo said they were simply asking for the constitutional safeguards and arrangements agreed upon when Malaysia was formed.
“Sarawak and Sabah were accorded special powers concerning immigration into their respective territories. These safeguards remain recognised within Malaysia’s constitutional and legislative framework.
“The Federal Constitution itself provides special protection in Article 161E in relation to laws affecting the rights and powers conferred on Sabah and Sarawak concerning entry into and residence in those states.
“How can exercising such a safeguard amount to colonising Malaya?” he said in a statement recently.
Lo stressed that Sarawak’s immigration authority is confined to its own territory and does not give it control over entry into Peninsular states or Kuala Lumpur.
“Sarawak does not determine who may enter Selangor, Johor, Penang or Kelantan. It does not control immigration into Kuala Lumpur.
“Sarawak exercises immigration powers in relation to Sarawak.
“There is a world of difference between seeking power over somebody else’s territory and exercising constitutionally recognised powers over one’s own,” he added.
Lo also explained that MA63 was not a political slogan but an international agreement signed on July 9, 1963 by the United Kingdom, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore in connection with the formation of Malaysia.
He said Article VIII of MA63 required the governments concerned to take the necessary action to implement the relevant assurances, undertakings and recommendations of the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report.
“These safeguards were not gifts bestowed upon Sarawak and Sabah after Malaysia was created. They arose from the arrangements surrounding the creation of Malaysia itself,” he said.
Lo also pointed to Sarawak’s history before Malaysia, noting that the Council Negri, predecessor of today’s Sarawak Legislative Assembly, was established in 1867 and Sarawak attained self-government on July 22, 1963.
“Sarawak entered Malaysia with established institutions, laws and interests which its leaders sought to safeguard in negotiating the new Federation,” he said.
On oil and gas, Lo said the issue involved more complex legal and constitutional questions and should not be reduced to slogans.
He said Sarawak had its own petroleum laws before Malaysia was formed, while Article 162 of the Federal Constitution provides for the continuation of existing laws, subject to the Constitution and lawful modification.
At the same time, he acknowledged that the federal government and PETRONAS relied on subsequent federal legislation, including the Petroleum Development Act 1974, as the basis for federal and PETRONAS authority over petroleum.
“Where competing interpretations arise, they should be resolved according to the Federal Constitution, MA63, the relevant historical instruments, legislation and, where necessary, determination by the courts,” he said.
Lo said Sarawakians were therefore entitled to ask what belonged to Sarawak before Malaysia was formed, what was agreed to be surrendered to the Federation, what was agreed to be shared and what was expressly retained.
He also criticised the use of provocative language in the MA63 debate, saying describing Peninsular leaders as “eunuchs” contributed nothing to understanding Malaysia’s constitutional history.
Lo reiterated that Sarawak was not seeking to rule Malaya, nor was it demanding authority over immigration into Peninsular states.
“What Sabahans and Sarawakians seek is respect for the rights and safeguards applicable to their own territories and for the constitutional arrangements associated with the formation of Malaysia.
“There is nothing anti-Malaysia about that.
“On the contrary, respecting the agreements and constitutional compromises upon which a federation was established should strengthen that federation,” he said.
Lo’s statement came in response to a Sept 30 Facebook post by former law minister Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim concerning Sarawak and Sabah’s immigration autonomy.
Zaid said the two Borneo states had “complete autonomy” over immigration matters but claimed the autonomy had been “abused to the hilt”.
He also warned that Borneo could eventually hold one-third or more of parliamentary seats, saying Peninsular Malaysia would be “totally colonised” and describing Peninsular leaders as “eunuchs”. — DayakDaily
