Rise of Social Efforts (Sarawak Rose), the Coalition for Clean and Free Elections (Bersih), Engage and Tindak Malaysia support the call for Sarawak, Sabah and Labuan to be given more than a third of senatorial seats.
A specific proposal, “Dewan Negara 35/100”, was made by Project Stability and Accountability for Malaysia (Projek Sama) on Malaysia Day and has received mixed reception.
We see the demands for over-representation of East Malaysia in the House of Representatives and the Senate as two closely linked but separate issues that deserve detailed scrutiny and rational deliberation.
Our full position is as follows.
Malaysia Agreement 1963
Discussion on how Malaysia’s federalism can be enhanced should be done inclusively, respectfully, factually and honestly, without assuming ill intent of opposing views.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
We should acknowledge the context and considerations embedded in historical documents in the formation of Malaysia, which include:
- the Cobbold Commission Report in 1962
- the Inter-Governmental Committee Report in 1962
- the Malaysia Act 1963 (UK)
- the Malaysia Act 1963 (Malaysia)
- the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63)
- the supplementary agreement to the Malaysia Agreement 1963
- the Constitution of Malaya pre-1963 and
- the Constitution of Malaysia in 1963
In enhancing Malaysia’s federalism, MA63 should be the floor, not the ceiling. We should aim to achieve the aspirations in MA63 and be prepared to go beyond MA63 on matters that receive consensus support across the South China Sea.
Bicameral parliament in federalism
It is a common practice for federations to have a bicameral parliament.
The lower house is to be elected on the principle of equality among citizens – “one person, one vote, one value” – and exclusively tasked with government formation, functioning like the accelerator in car.
Functioning as the guardian of state interests and the brake to force deliberation, the upper house is often elected on the basis of equality among states (hence over-representing less-populated states) and even over-representation of special states.
Sarawak and Sabah voters form 17% of the national electorate and already enjoy 25% of seats in the Dewan Rakyat. Further increasing it to 35% would be worsening malapportionment and violating international standards of one person, one vote, one value.
Veto power achieved in this way is less democratic and less likely to be realised due to political objections. There is another more realistic way to achieve veto power for Sarawak and Sabah.
Senatorial reform and East Malaysia’s veto power
Malaysia’s feeble and unelected Senate is a weak link in our federalism that requires reform, in both having elected members and expanding states’ representation.
While the Malayan Senate started with 22 state representatives and 16 federal appointees, Article 45(4) of the 1957 Federal Constitution also provided an easy pathway, by way of a parliamentary act without constitutional amendment, of having a Senate entirely consisting of elected state representatives, up to three per state.
Regrettably, MA63 did not enhance the states’ power through the Article 45(4) pathway to create a veto bloc for Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.
Instead, as the number of state representatives was increased from 22 to 28 with senators from Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, the federal non-geographical appointees were also increased to 22 in 1963, and eventually 40 in 1978.
Today, 44 federal appointees (including two representatives for Kuala Lumpur and one each for Labuan and Putrajaya) outnumber 26 state representatives in the 70-member Senate.
The Senate enjoys the same power as the House of Representatives in three aspects:
- two-thirds passage of all members in both houses is necessary for ordinary constitutional amendments, generating the veto power of either house [Article 159(3)]
- both houses may initiate laws [Article 66(2)]
- members of both houses can be appointed as ministers or deputy ministers [Articles 42(2)(b) and 43A(1)]
However, the Senate can only delay – not veto – financial bills passed by the House of Representatives for one month and non-financial bills for one year.
In the current status quo, the Senate’s lack of veto power are conditionally justified by the fact that senators are not directly elected and have no popular mandate.
Not allowing the Senate to defeat budgets and potentially cause governments to collapse is also not unjustified to prevent budget deadlocks or frequent changes of government.
Instead of cynically labelling the Senate as a “rubber stamp”, Malaysians should remedy its peril by realising the reform which the constitutional drafters in 1957 had prepared through the pathway in Article 45(4): an entirely elected Senate, which can legitimately vie for equal power as the House of Representatives to provide checks and balances except for defeating budgets and ousting governments.
Such extensive reform, of course, requires detailed deliberations which may take years.
The veto power for East Malaysia in the Senate can even be established before the next general election by simply amending Article 45(1) to add senatorial seats for Sabah and Sarawak. The exact proportion of East Malaysian senators may be negotiated and decided upon by a cross-party consensus.
As both the existing and additional Sabah and Sarawak senators would be elected by the state legislatures (effectively appointed by the state governments) under the existing structure, they can collectively vote down any constitutional amendment that undermines the interests of East Malaysians, effectively guaranteeing the right to veto by Sarawak and Sabah to safeguard their collective interests.
We therefore call for the Senate and both government and opposition parties to study and discuss the best proposal to give East Malaysia veto power with senatorial seats exceeding one third before the next general election.
Inter-state apportionment for lower house
An honest scrutiny of MA63 finds no evidence that MA63 provided for one third of parliamentary seats for Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore such that Sabah and Sarawak should inherit Singapore’s share upon the latter’s exit in 1965.
Representation in the federal legislature was brought up to and discussed by the Cobbold Commission, and it recommended for the Electoral Commission to take into account the population of the territories, the size and their distances from the centre and the difficulty of communications in the allocation of seats.
The Inter-Governmental Committee report and MA63 only stated the allocation of seats for the four regions in the new 159-member Federal Parliament: Malaya, 104 (65.4%), Sarawak, 24 (15.1%), Sabah, 16 (10.0%) and Singapore, 15 (9.4%).
As recommended in the report, Article 161E(2)(e) of the Federal Constitution provides for the freezing of Sarawak’s and Sabah’s parliamentary representation at 15.1% and 10.0% respectively, but only for seven years until the end of August 1970.
The ‘seven-year’ temporary arrangement underlines the fundamental flaw of Article 46, which allows Parliament to arbitrarily allocate seats to the states and federal territories without being bound by any formula of demographic and electoral weight.
Cyclical increases of parliamentary seats, in four rounds from 1974 to 2005, resulted in greater inequality between states. In the 2022 general election, a Selangor MP represented 167,175 voters on average, two to three times the average voters of his or her counterparts in Pahang (81,210 voters), Sabah (67,575) and Sarawak (62,680).
More problematically, as the House of Representatives is tasked with government formation, a 35% over-representation for the 17% East Malaysian voters means that a simple majority government can be formed with all East Malaysian parliamentarians and a mere 16% more West Malaysian parliamentarians. That would be effectively an electorally minority-backed government with majoritarian power. Such a scenario is likely a recipe for political chaos that everyone in Malaysia cannot afford to endure.
As advocates for clean, free and fair representation, we cannot in good conscience support even greater deviation from the “one person, one vote, one value” principle. Correction of the historical marginalisation of East Malaysia over the past 61 years should be done through decentralisation and a senatorial veto-power.
Most viable path for Sarawak and Sabah veto power
Advocates of “Dewan Rakyat 35%” risk putting all their eggs in one basket. [Their proposal] is unlikely to be realised by the next general election, as the proposal would need to go through three stages:
- A consensus within the “Madani” (civil and compassionate) government on the allocation of seats for all states and federal territories (not just Sabah and Sarawak) in Article 46
- A constitutional amendment in Parliament, which would be scrutinised by the opposition
- Constituency delimitation, which starts immediately after amendment of Article 46 but which may take two years to complete
Unless newer and more concrete proposals are mooted, the sole proposal so far is by Roger Chin, former president of the Sabah Law Society, to retain the House of Representatives’ 222 seats but transfer 21 seats from West Malaysia to Sabah and Sarawak.
No Malayan states would willingly concede their seats, thereby making the realisation of Sarawak and Sabah’s veto power contentious, acrimonious and unlikely to materialise.
This all-or-nothing approach is detrimental to prospects of achieving veto power for Sarawak and Sabah.
By contrast, a simple addition of senatorial seats to Sarawak and Sabah can result in an immediate attainment of veto power in a prospectively elected and empowered Senate, which will also simultaneously strengthen Malaysia’s federalism in the long run. – Rose/Bersih/Engage/Tindak Malaysia
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
