where in the Constitution...?

Where in the Constitution stipulates that all states are equal in status?

There has been a lot of arguments over MA63, 20/18 Points, Cobbold Commission and IGC Report recently and seem to be endless when solution is not insight even with some official committees being formed to look into this matter on the formation of Malaysia.

Lets look at the Federal Constitution as per 16.09.1963 on Article 1- Names, States and territories of the Federation:- 1(1) The Federation shall be known, in Malay and in English, by the name Malaysia.

1 (2) The States of the Federation shall be –(a) The States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu; and (b) the Borneo States, namely Sabah and Sarawak; and (c) the State of Singapore.

(3)  The territories of each of the States mentioned in Clause (2) are the territories comprised therein immediately before Malaysia Day.

Then we had the amendment to the Federal Constitution on 27 August, 1976 as Article 1 -   - Names, States and territories of the Federation 1(1) The Federation shall be known, in Malay and in English, by the name Malaysia.  1 (2) The States of the Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Trengganu.

We can see that in 1963, the states in 1(2) were listed in alphabetic order and similarly in 1976, the states without Singapore were listed also in alphabetic order, meaning such adjustment had really immaterial impact on equal status of all states in 1976 even with the said amendment on the formation of Malaysia where Malaya with the three partners Sabah Sarawak and Singapore were supposedly equal in status as per Malaysia Agreement 1963.

We are now in after-thought scenario argument on partners or states in equal status with states of Malaya when some people say Parliament is all powerful to decide on that.

I would like to quote the letter by Awang Jambul on “Blame latter day leaders, not documents” DE 11 December, 2016- “The 20 points, Cobbold Commission, Malaysia Agreement and inter-Governmental Committee Report have been incorporated into the Federation Constitution and State Constitutions.  The Federal Constitution and Sabah Constitution are the final products of all prolonged negotiations, documentations, commissions, enquiry and agreements by our founding fathers.”  He went to say that “Parliament is supreme”.  

There are comments that the Federal Constitution has been amended countless of times when BN Government has 2/3 majority in Parliament and could be accused of abuses in that context in Parliament with hidden agenda.

Laws and amendments could be done by the Parliament on the Federal Constitution but what if the implementation of the Constitution was departure from the intention of any Agreement like the Malaysia Agreement 1963 as it was depicted in 1963 when the amendment in 1976 could be really be meaningless in several context.

I hope the legal fraternity and the constitutional experts would enlighten the public where in the Federal Constitution stipulate that all the 13 states in 1963 and 1976 were equal in Status? Can I safely say that Sabah and Sarawak were never treated as equal partners with Malaya since 16 September, 1963?  If the two Borneon states were not treated as equal partners ab intio, it would  be meaningless for the amendment in 1976 to give the impression legally or otherwise that all the states were equal in status.   So it is misconception by such amendment of sort of confirming what is in the mind of the current leaders post the formation of Malaysia?

Article 1 in 1963 does give some unwritten understanding that they were partners and the states in Malaya were just “shareholders” or “minority” in Malaysia.  Is there any implication of “pari passu” of all the states in Malaysia? So in 1976, was there any specific stipulation that all the states are equal as demonstrated by the dubious treatment of national leaders in the implementation of national policies?  Can we impart imagination or assumption in Federal Constitution if “Parliament is supreme” to do what it likes?  Parliament also must be seen to do justice to all states irrespective whatever assumptions when lop-sidedness prevails when there are so much disparities (demography, economy, resources, wealth/poverty) amongst all states especially Sarawak  and Sabah are the two bigger states as compared with some tiny states in Malaya.  Sarawak and Sabah had been least developed comparatively with West Malaysia (Malaya) even after 53 years despite so much contribution of resources to the national coffer.

Can we now query Parliamentary Monarchy democracy where much injustice had prevailed over 53 years in Malaysia?

As we talk about Parliament and the Federal Constitution, can we find the solutions albeit 53 years late so that we may resolve all the disputes splashed up in various avenues such as compliance with various deals as partners like the 40% revenue return to the two states, the pittance in allocations of annual fiscal budget and the Malaysia Plans allocations for decades and other non-monetary aspects?

Also we are past the state of evaluating or assessing the questioned mal-treatments, and assumptions and that the nation should have revert to the intention of MA63 and implement that deal long overdue immediately without any red-tape and unnecessary bureaucracy meant to delay settlements.

Our national income tax system is flawed if only RM4b is from Sabah out of RM128b as taxes of multi-national companies operating in Sabah are accounted for by the headquarters of these companies without showing separate figures for the Sabah sector.  This is obvious a setback for Sabah in the context of nation building as a double whammy when Sabah is treated “equal” with all other states.

Joshua Y C Kong 21/12/2016