By Prof. James Chin

The demand for Sabah and Sarawak to secure 35% of Malaysia’s parliamentary seats in the Dewan Rakyat is a critical effort to restore the foundational promises of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). This agreement positioned Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners in the federation, not as appendages to Peninsular Malaysia.

Yet, over six decades, this partnership has been undermined by centralization of power, resource extraction, and demographic disregard. Opposition from Peninsular-based NGOs, such as Projek SAMA and Engage, frames this as a threat to democratic principles like “one man, one vote.” Malaysians must reject these arguments outright: they misrepresent the issue as a violation of equality when it is, in fact, about rectifying historical imbalances and preventing ongoing colonial-like dominance.

This 35% allocation would honor MA63 while addressing disparities in economic contributions, cultural integrity, geopolitical importance, and social equity. Failing to implement it perpetuates a federation where Peninsular Malaysia dictates terms, treating Borneo as a subordinate territory rather than a co-founder.

Historical Foundations and the Erosion of Balance

Malaysia was formed in 1963 as a union of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore under MA63, with built-in safeguards against Malayan overreach. Parliamentary seats were allocated as follows: Malaya with 104 (65.4%), Singapore 15, Sabah 16, and Sarawak 24, totaling 159 seats. The combined 55 seats for the “three S’s” provided approximately 34.6%, sufficient to veto constitutional amendments requiring a two-thirds majority if any objected. This was intentional, to ensure consensus and protect Borneo’s autonomy.

Singapore’s 1965 exit should have led to redistributing its seats to Sabah and Sarawak to maintain equilibrium. Instead, a subsequent redelineation exercise reduced Borneo’s share to 25% (56 of 222 seats: Sabah 25, Sarawak 31).

Today, Peninsular Malaysia can amend the constitution unilaterally, with 61 amendments since 1957; averaging nearly one per year. This has stripped MA63 protections on key areas.

The 35% demand restores the original veto power, allowing Borneo to safeguard these rights without Peninsular approval.

AI SUMMARY — 5 KEY POINTS FROM THE ARTICLE
1️⃣ The proposal for 35% of Dewan Rakyat seats is viewed as an effort to restore the original balance of Sabah and Sarawak in line with the spirit of MA63.
2️⃣ The redistribution of parliamentary seats after Singapore’s exit reduced Borneo’s political influence, giving Peninsular Malaysia a significant advantage in constitutional amendments.
3️⃣ Development gaps and poverty in Sabah and Sarawak are cited as evidence that limited political power has affected infrastructure, healthcare, and economic progress.
4️⃣ The article criticises Peninsular-based NGOs that rely on the “one man, one vote” principle, arguing that it does not suit the federal context of the MA63 agreement.
5️⃣ The 35% allocation is framed as a mechanism to safeguard autonomy, ensuring a more balanced voice for Sabah and Sarawak within Malaysia’s federal system.

Persistent Social and Infrastructure Inequities

The consequences of Sabah and Sarawak not getting the 35% parliamentary seats is obvious for those who are willing to look at the facts. With no political power to check the centralisation of powers by the federal government, for the past sixty years, Borneo has suffered from persistent social and neglect of basic infrastructure inequities.

While Peninsular Malaysia was busy with building the North-South Highway in the 1980s, the Borneo Highway is still incomplete after sixty years. Why did it take more than half a century for the federal government to approve the Borneo Highway?

The answer is obvious. BN lost power in 2018 and since then, Sabah and Sarawak have been able to politically assert themselves. Imagine if Sabah and Sarawak had 35%, something that was agreed upon at the formation of the federation, maybe the Borneo Highway would have been built much, much earlier on.

Despite massive oil/gas contributions to Petronas, widespread poverty persists. In 2022, Sabah had Malaysia’s highest poverty rate at 19.7%, Sarawak at 10.8%, versus the national 6.2%. Eight of the ten poorest districts are in Sabah, with extreme poverty in areas like Tongod. Rural Sabah faces high absolute poverty, five times the national rate in Sabah’s East Coast.

Infrastructure lags in Borneo is serious and yet nobody is talking about it in Peninsular Malaysia: Sabah’s treated water access is low, with East Coast piped water at 84% versus 96% in Peninsular Malaysia. Health disparities include a doctor-to-patient ratio of 1:1,500 in Sabah; double the national average; elevating mortality. Brain drain costs Sabah RM15 billion annually, as graduates flee for opportunities.

With 35% seats, Borneo will get targeted funding for education, health, and green initiatives, fostering local innovation and retaining talent.

Rejecting NGO Arguments: It’s About Correcting historical mistake, Not Democracy

Peninsular NGOs like Projek SAMA, Engage, and others oppose 35% in the Dewan Rakyat, claiming it violates “one man, one vote” and causes electoral distortions. They argue Borneo, with 17.4% of voters, would be overrepresented, undermining democracy.

Malaysians must reject this framing; it’s a red herring.

First, this is about restoring MA63’s historical balance, not altering democratic rules. MA63 never promised equal per capita representation; it guaranteed veto power to prevent Malayan dominance. This was explicitly stated in the notes from senior officials and in the various reports that explicitly stated that you cannot equate the population of Sabah and Sarawak with Malaya or Singapore when it comes to representation in the national parliament.

The 35% restores that equilibrium post-Singapore, ensuring constitutional changes require Borneo’s consent. It’s federation-specific, not a general democratic breach.

Second, these NGOs’ “one man, one vote” advocacy stems from Peninsular issues; malapportionment in Malayan constituencies, where urban areas are underrepresented compared to rural ones. Their fight aims to even out seats in Selangor, Johor, etc., to curb gerrymandering favouring certain parties.

This has zero relevance to Borneo, where the issue is inter-state balance, not intra-state equity. Conflating the two is disingenuous, ignoring MA63’s unique federal structure.

Third, the opposition reveals a colonial mindset. Peninsular elites view Sabahans and Sarawakians as peripheral, unfit for equal say. They fear an independent-minded Borneo challenging resource grabs or toxic politics.

Projek SAMA, focused on Peninsular reforms like anti-corruption and term limits, selectively ignores MA63 injustices. Engage’s “distortion” claims echo fears of losing control; Malaya wants to dictate, not partner. This paternalism treats Sabahans and Sarawakians as needing guidance, unable to self-govern.

Moreover, Projek SAMA’s alternative proposal; to allocate 35% of seats in the Dewan Negara (Senate) to Sabah and Sarawak, is laughable and underscores their insincerity.

They suggest adding 15 senators each to Borneo, expanding the Senate to 100 members for a 35% share. But everyone knows the Dewan Negara is a toothless body: its 70 members are mostly appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the Prime Minister’s advice (40 federal appointees), with only 26 elected by state assemblies and 4 for federal territories.

It lacks political legitimacy as an unelected chamber, often serving as a retirement home for political has-beens and government loyalists.

The Senate can delay bills for up to a year but cannot block them indefinitely; real power resides in the Dewan Rakyat.

Offering Sabah and Sarawak influence in this powerless house is a patronizing sop, not a genuine concession. It allows Peninsular Malaysia to maintain control while pretending to address MA63, further entrenching colonial dynamics where Malaya decides what’s “good” for Borneo.

Malaysians should see through this: opposing 35% in the Dewan Rakyat while pushing a meaningless Senate boost perpetuates Malaya’s colonial-like mastery, extracting wealth while denying voice.

An empowered Borneo benefits all; moderating national discourse with its multi-ethnic harmony amid Peninsular racial-religious tensions.

The 2008 elections stripped Barisan Nasional’s two-thirds majority, making Borneo’s MPs holding the balance.

Federal concessions emerged from necessity, not justice.

In polarized Malaysia, Borneo resists imported toxicity. Without 35%, it’s vulnerable to Peninsular projections.

United for True Equity

Sabahans and Sarawakians must unite, transcending divides, to leverage MA63 and contributions. Reject Peninsular narratives; claim autonomy as was originally intended in MA63.

The 35% is restitution, fortifying Malaysia as an equitable federation. Reject NGO and other distractions; embrace Borneo’s independence for a stronger nation.

Comparative federations like Australia’s Senate or Canada’s provincial negotiations show balanced power fosters stability. Malaysia’s imbalance invites discord.

Prof. James Chin is Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia, and a leading expert on Sabah and Sarawak’s political history

(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or editorial position of this publication.)