The Borneo states called for 35%of parliamentary seats

KUCHING: The Borneo states’ call for one-third of parliamentary seats is about ‘correcting a historical wrong,’ says political analyst James Chin. Chin, a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia, explained that this is no more than what was agreed upon when Malaysia was formed.

“The historical wrong is simple. In 1965, the parliamentary seats held by Singapore should have been redistributed to Sabah and Sarawak. That would have preserved the original balance of power, with Borneo and Singapore collectively holding one-third of the seats. “But instead of reallocating those seats to Sabah and Sarawak, they were simply cancelled. Worse still, Sabah and Sarawak were not consulted when Singapore was expelled from Malaysia.

“Had they been asked; they would have insisted on reassigning those seats. This demand from Sabah and Sarawak is like the constitutional amendment – it’s about righting a historical wrong,” Chin told the Sarawak Tribune. He also pushed back against Peninsular Malaysia based NGOs claiming the 35 per cent allocation of Dewan Rakyat seats would disrupt today’s electoral system by introducing unfair representation to already underrepresented states. He warned that the narrative that NGOs in Peninsular Malaysia are pushing is ‘very dangerous.’

“The problem with the NGOs in Malaya, is that they are trying to correct political imbalance because of the strong Muslim versus non-Muslim political conflict. It has no bearing on Sabah and Sarawak, and they shouldn’t drag us into their argument. “It’s not about the 18 per cent electorate, nor ‘one person, one vote.’ This is about correcting history, not using today’s standards to look back into history. Any arguments based on post-1965 standards are irrelevant. It’s nonsense,” he said.

Chin argued that Malayan NGOs, attempting to impose ‘one man, one vote’ in Sabah and Sarawak, are simply trying to keep the status quo. If Sabah and Sarawak agree to the one man one vote, he said, the Malayan NGOs would find it easier to convince Malaya to adopt the ‘one man, one vote’ principle for the whole of Malaya. “That is why they are pushing so hard for Sabah and Sarawak to accept the one-third Dewan Negara seats which is consistent with the one man one vote principle.

Chin also addressed the Malayan NGO claims that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) does not explicitly mandate the one-third allocation for Sabah and Sarawak. “The tactic used by Malayan NGOs is to demand ‘black-and-white’ proof that this is in MA63. But it’s simple: Ketuanan Melayu isn’t written into the Malaysia Agreement either, yet it exists. “If they really want to change history, why don’t they push for a re-evaluation of Ketuanan Melayu ideology which is not acceptable today due to human rights?”

“Secondly, Malayan leaders initially agreed to allocate one-third of seats to Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore. If they had already agreed, why would it need to be written into MA63? These NGOs use underhanded tactics and flawed arguments, easily misleading anyone unfamiliar with the facts,” he added. For this demand to gain traction, Chin said Sabah and Sarawak must stand united. “Some Sarawak-based NGOs have been manipulated by Malaya. They’re working against Sabah and Sarawak’s interests. We’re correcting a historical wrong. There’s nothing sensitive about it,” he added.

“Its similar to the 2021 constitutional amendment going back to the 1963 wordings. How come the Malayan NGOs didn’t say anything?”

“Ïf we use today’s standards and norms to change history then, we might as well question the entire Malaysia Agreement 1963. Are they (Malayan NGOs) willing to talk about if MA63 is valid?,” he asked.

#Malaysia #MA63

婆罗洲要求35%联邦席位

詹运豪教授 (Professon James Chin of Tasmania)反驳马来亚NGO的缪论

 古晋：政治分析家James Chin表示，婆罗洲两邦国呼吁获得三分之一的议会席位是为了“纠正历史错误”。澳大利亚塔斯马尼亚大学亚洲研究教授詹解释说，这只不过是马来西亚成立时达成的共识。

 “历史错误很简单。 1965年，新加坡所持有的国会议席本应重新分配给沙巴和砂拉越。这将保持原来的权力平衡，婆罗洲和新加坡总共拥有三分之一的席位。 “但是，这些席位并没有重新分配给沙巴和砂拉越，而是被简单地取消了。更糟糕的是，当新加坡被驱逐出马来西亚时，没有征求沙巴和砂拉越的意见。

 “如果有人问他们；他们会坚持重新分配这些席位。沙巴和砂拉越的要求就像宪法修正案一样，是为了纠正历史错误。”他还反驳马来西亚半岛的非政府组织，声称下议院35%的席位分配将扰乱当今的选举制度，因为会给本来就代表性不足的州带来不公平的代表性。他警告说，马来西亚半岛的非政府组织所推行的说法“非常危险”。

 “马来亚非政府组织的问题在于，由于穆斯林与非穆斯林的强烈政治冲突，他们试图纠正政治失衡。这与沙巴和砂拉越无关，他们不应该把我们拖入他们的争论。 “这不是关于18%的选民，也不是‘一个人一票’。这是为了纠正历史，而不是用今天的标准来回顾历史。任何基于 1965 年后标准的论点都是无关紧要的。这是无稽之谈，”他说。

 詹认为，马来亚非政府组织试图在沙巴和砂拉越推行“一人一票”，只是 想维持现状。他说，如果沙巴和砂拉越同意一人一票，马来亚非政府组织将更容易说服马来亚在整个马来亚采用“一人一票”原则。 “这就是为什么他们极力推动沙巴和砂拉越接受上议院三分之一议席，这符合一人一票原则。

 詹还回应了马来亚非政府组织的说法，即《1963年马来西亚协议》（MA63）没有明确规定将三分之一分配给沙巴和砂拉越。 “马来亚非政府组织使用的策略是要求提供‘黑白分明’的证据来证明这是在 MA63 中。但这很简单：马来人主权也没有写入《马来西亚协议》，但它确实存在。 “如果他们真的想改变历史，为什么不推动重新评估马来人至上主义意识形态，因为人权问题，这种意识形态在今天是不可接受的呢？”

 

其次，马来亚领导人最初同意将三分之一的席位分配给沙巴、砂拉越和新加坡。如果他们已经同意了，为什么还要写入MA63呢？这些非政府组织

  

使用卑鄙的手段和有缺陷的论点，很容易误导任何不熟悉事实的人，”他补充道。詹说，为了使这一要求获得支持，沙巴和砂拉越必须团结一致。 “一些砂拉越的非政府组织受到马来亚的操纵。他们正在违背沙巴和砂拉越的利益。我们正在纠正一个历史错误。这没有什么敏感的，”他补充道。

 

“这与 2021 年宪法修正案类似，追溯到 1963 年的措辞。马来亚非政府组织为何不发声？”

 

“如果我们使用今天的标准和规范来改变历史，我们不妨质疑整个 1963 年马来西亚协议。他们（马来亚非政府组织）愿意谈论 MA63 是否有效？”他问道。