SEVERAL days ago, a former speaker of the Dewan Rakyat Tan Sri Azhar Azizan Harun had thrown a stone (I'd call it a rock!) at a hornet's nest called Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63); generating a strong hive of activities that had threatened to 'sting' him with robust rebuttals and ardent arguments from Sarawak.
From the Head of State to a former speaker of the State Legislative Assembly (DUN), to political heads and other influential authorities, they all have a common response - you may have your own personal opinion on the issue, but promises that were expressly made, written, implied or historically significant must be duly honoured and fulfilled; not just simply brushed aside by your own personal agendas.
Azhar, in his 'understanding of the issue', had proclaimed that: "There is nothing in the documents I have reviewed, which included the Federal Constitution, Malaysia Act 1963, and the MA63 as well as the report by the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC), specifying that Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore are to occupy 35 per cent of the seats in the lower House."
Last year, Sarawak Premier Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg was reported as saying that Sarawak and Sabah should hold 35 per cent of the parliamentary seats to safeguard against any attempts to cancel MA63 and the rights it promised.
An academic, Prof James Chin of the University of Tasmania, who is a renowned authority on Asian studies and a published historian, had said that the MA63 enshrined specific safeguards to ensure that Sabah and Sarawak would retain significant autonomy and influence, of which one critical aspect was the allocation of 34 per cent of the seats in the Dewan Rakyat.
This was to guarantee a veto vote of constitutional amendments proposed by the Malayan states should any one or both of the Borneo states object.
Chin said that when Singapore left the Malaysian Federation in 1965, the right thing to do was to redistribute its parliamentary seats to Sabah and Sarawak to maintain the status quo.
That was not done, and following subsequent redelineation exercises, the two Borneo states were now left with only 25 per cent of all parliamentary seats.
On Sept 26 this year, speaking at a 'Statesman Speech' forum on MA63 held at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas), Yang Di-Pertua Negeri Sarawak Tun Pehin Sri Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar had said: "We will have to continue to fight until we get everything promised to us!"
He said Sarawak must persist in pressing the federal government until all rights under MA63 had been fully restored, particularly on matters originally enshrined in the Federal Constitution, but later amended without Sarawak's consent.
Wan Junaidi cited three examples of this: powers over the environment and tourism, which once belonged to Sarawak but were reclaimed by the federal government through constitutional amendments; another was on judicial appointments recalling that before 1985 the Head of State had the power to appoint judicial commissioners in Sarawak and Sabah on the advice of the premier or chief minister.
This has since been overridden.
Dato Sri Robert Jacob Ridu, a former speaker of DUN Sarawak had this to say in his statement to the press on Thursday: "It must also be remembered that MA63 was not just a domestic matter. It was an international treaty, registered with the United Nations (UN).
"Under international law, such treaties are interpreted in light of their object and purpose.
"And what was the purpose?
"To create a federation of equals. To respect the autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak. To safeguard their interests, not to whittle them down as the years passed.
"To argue that 'it isn't written in the Constitution, therefore it doesn't exist' is to miss the entire point of treaty interpretation. International undertakings are not reduced to narrow textualism.
"They are understood in light of the promises and rationale that gave them force."
Sarawak politicians across the racial and political divide also had their say about Harun's statement.
State minister Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah from PBB had this to say: "This arrangement was intended to ensure that Malaya could not unilaterally amend the Federal Constitution to the detriment of the other regions.
"If they have more than two-thirds, they can just bulldoze away rights such as immigration, our control over the sea, rivers and resources."
Assemblyman Wilfred Yap from SUPP echoed: "To argue that there is no entitlement because the words '35 per cent' are not explicitly written into the Constitution, is to play with semantics.
"History and context show that this safeguard was central to MA63, which was an international treaty deposited at the UN.
"This dismissal is even more troubling given how Sabah's 40 per cent revenue entitlement, explicitly stated in the Constitution, has already been ignored for decades.
"If rights written in black-and-white can be ignored, how much easier is it to deny those embedded in structural safeguards like representation?"
In a feature article written by Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, published in the New Straits Times of Sept 16, 2021, entitled 'Restore Sabah, Sarawak rights', I would like to quote the following passages: "While the late Tunku Abdul Rahman is commonly regarded as the leading architect of Malaysia, this remarkable union would not have been possible without the tireless negotiations between, and the warm cooperation of, key Sarawakian and Sabahan leaders of the time: Tun Fuad Stephens and Tun Mustapha Harun of Sabah, and Tun Temenggong Jugah, Datuk Amar Stephen Kalong Ningkan and Tan Sri Ong Kee Hui of Sarawak.
"...This special, asymmetrical arrangement was justified because of Sabah and Sarawak's cultural and religious distinctiveness, their huge territories (60 per cent of Malaysia's land mass), their rich natural resources in petroleum, natural gas and timber, and yet, their acute problems of poverty and underdevelopment.
"Sabah and Sarawak were given wider legislative powers than peninsular states. The federal power to have uniform laws on land, agriculture, forestry and local government is not applicable to Sabah and Sarawak.
"Amending the Constitution to affect the rights of Sabah and Sarawak requires the consent of their governors.
"All these special provisions formed the foundation of a hopeful beginning for the new Federation.
"Regrettably, not everything has worked out well. Sabah and Sarawak have suffered loss of some of their special, 1963 rights."
The writer concluded with serious caution, and even though it has been four years since his piece had appeared on print, not much progress has been made: "The list of demands and disagreements is long and painful, and there is a growing movement for secession.
"However, there is no cause for pessimism. Tensions are inherent in any federal set-up.
"What is necessary on both sides of the South China Sea is to return to the letter and spirit of the Federal Constitution of 1963; to honour and renew our commitments to safeguard the rights accorded to Sabah and Sarawak."
Pundits and opinions expressed by the likes of Azhar Harun would not help to lessen the politicking, which seeks a narrative favouring the federalist's mentality of a past colonial mindset.
It is essential that we are able to not just aim for a united and harmonious Malaysia, after 62 years, but also to be treated and behave like true equals under a Malaysian sun, be it in Kuantan, Kuching or Kota Kinabalu.
I fear that for many Sarawakians these days, the wise words of the late Tun Jugah still rings painfully true in their ears: "Malaysia should not be like the sugar cane - sweet at the head, but tasteless towards the end."
May Almighty God continue to shower his blessings on us all, Sarawakians, Sabahans and Malayans - together as Malaysians.