What next after amendment Bill defeat?
Published on: Sunday, April 14, 2019
By: Datuk John Lo
Text Size:
Why did it fail to get 2/3? Are we supposed to be happy with the defeat? What does this defeat mean to us? What is instore for us in future?
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/04/09/federal-constitution-amendment-bill-defeated/
A number of friends, including politicians, thought I am against Sabah getting “equal partnership” in my previous article.
Who would be so crazy to reject it? My concern was and still is on the difficulties/complexities of achieving it.
The defeat has proven my point. Now that parliament has voted “no”, we should not give up. We should continue to fight for its impact will affect and shape the economic fortune of our future generations.
The defeat is not due to fundamental political ideology. Basically, it is due flimsy simple semantics, definition, procedure, and lack of understanding and/or communication between personalities in government and opposition MPs from Sarawak.
All these could have been solved quite easily had personal political interest been put aside for the sake of our future generations. I was put off by the wording in the first draft. The 2nd draft was much better. The semantic would not have caused problems if the exact original wordings in the pre-1976 constitution have been used. Then, no one would have any reason to complain or object.
Not reasonable to complain. The other cause for objection is the sentence in the explanatory note which says “The amendment does not, in any way, alter the functions of the federal and state governments under the concept of federalism”.
This killer sentence has effectively rendered the amendment of “equal partnership” useless in substance. Brandon Soh, Chairman of SLS has the most sensible suggestion https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/04/09/let-amendment-bill-reflect-original-wording-says-law-society/
Knowing “equal partnership” can be anything to anyone, an agreement on its definition in the very beginning would have smoothened its passage.
The federal government should not have presumed that everyone would jumped into bed with it without a definitive meaning on “equal partnership”.
This is 2019 and not 1976. People are better educated and politically more perceptive.
An acceptable definition by all those in government and opposition in favour of “equal partnership” should have been pre-emptive to secure 2/3. Elementary!
We have fought for equal partnership for more than 30 years. We do not want to wait for another 30 or more years to have another go. Sabah and Sarawak have too much to lose. Let’s us grasp the present opportune time when the federal government is in the mood for it. Let’s stop the favourite “blame games” antics of politicians immediately.
It is unproductive and, in this case, may tear our country apart. In any case, it is Sabahans and Sarawakians that will bear the blunt of sufferings and economic disadvantages under the present “unequal partnership”. What’s next? For the sake of our country, let’s bury “political face” saving and differences. The politicians can show some statesmanship.
After all, there is already a political convergence or consensus between the federal government and those in Sabah and Sarawak fighting for “equal partnership”. All that is needed is reaching agreement on the right semantics, definition, procedure.
Let us not let our mind set be imprisoned by “equal partnership” as it is impossible to achieve. I have mentioned in my earlier article, there is no successful federation or union in the world that has achieved perfect “equal partnership” for the component states. South Australia cannot have total equality with NSW, New Hampshire with California or Kedah with Selangor.
Let’s us look into other options that can be equally good for the country, for Sabah and Sarawak. By this I mean “equitable partnership” and/or “fair partnership” the concepts for which can be developed by the stakeholders meeting in good will.
In the above regards, I like to propose the following action plan. As the government’s proposal was not acceptable to some politicians fighting for “equal partnership” in Sabah and Sarawak, they, to show their sincerity and not opposing for the sake of opposing, can now initiate the next move by producing their version of the right semantics, definition, procedure.
They can give it to the law minister. After they have reached consensus with an appropriate comprehensive explanatory note, they can jointly present their proposal to the CMs of Sabah and Sarawak for their inputs and ok.
It must be remembered that the respective CMs’ inputs and approval are critical, for after all, they represent all Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Then to the federal cabinet. When the cabinet has given its nod, I want to propose this unique and “never been done” before procedure. The revised amendment for “equal partnership” should be tabled jointly by the federal government and all the opposition MPs from Sabah and Sarawak.
By this historical bipartisan gesture, these politicians can show to all Malaysians and to the world that they have some classy statesmanship.
They will be remembered in history as political leaders who have given a new hope and direction for a united Malaysia.
If, on the other hand, the politicians cannot raise above personal political interest to do above, my next suggestion is for Mr. Brandon Soh and his Sarawak counterpart to initiate a working group to produce the wordings for the amendment.
Such a non-political, independent initiative can be a good thing. They can present their version to the opposition MPs and the law minister for acceptance. The rest can happen as in the aforementioned para.
In conclusion, we cannot allow this “defeated amendment” to defeat us or to hold us back. We must push on with this historical golden opportunity to put things right once and for all times so that all Malaysians can move forward in unity and strength as equal Malaysians.
ADVERTISEMENT
