While some electoral system experts believe that that East Malaysia should not be over-represented in Parliament, several other speakers at the forum today made the opposite argument that its seats should be increased.

One of them, Monash University Malaysia professor James Chin, said the consensus in East Malaysia is that it should have a-third to half of the seats in Parliament. Right now it has about one-quarter.

 

“This is a political issue, it is not meant to be rational, you can’t argue on rational grounds… I think we have to be very conscious of the fact.

 

“Can an expert opinion replace historical facts, or even worse, replace the will of the people? I suspect the answer is ‘no’.” he told the seminar in Petaling Jaya today.

 

He said East Malaysians feels that it needs at least a third of the representation in Parliament in order to have the necessary clout to veto constitutional amendments.

 

Historically, he said, East Malaysians have long been anxious of being ‘dominated’ by Malaya and Singapore, since the very beginning of negotiations that led to Malaysia’s formation.

Missing: Singapore's seats
 
This was materialised in the Malaysia Agreement of 1963, in which Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore together have about a third of the 159 parliamentary seats.
 
Sabah and Sarawak have a quarter of seats - deliberately over-represented in consideration of its vast size - and this ratio is largely unchanged to this day.
 
However when Singapore left the federation in 1965, arguments were made at the time that the Federation of Malaysia has ceased to exist from that moment, since there is no right of secession under the Malaysia Agreement.
 
If the Malaysia is to continue as a federation, according to that argument, then Singapore’s 15 seats should be redistributed to Sabah and Sarawak, but this did not happen and the seats were simply removed.
 
"That is why there are a lot of unhappy people in Sabah and Sarawak," he said.
 
To a question from the moderator, Chin said there is already a clear consensus amongst Sabah and Sarawak elected representatives in favour of a 35-66 percent split between East Malaysia and Malay seats.
 
However, he added that in event of a ‘free-for-all’ discussion with the grassroots, he suspects that the majority would be in favour of secession from Malaysia.
 
Can there be a better deal?
 
Also speaking in favour of increasing seats in Sabah and Sarawak at the seminar are Projek Beres spokesperson Syahredzan Johan and Tindak Malaysia founder PY Wong, both of whom argued on basis of honouring the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement.
 
Syahredzan reminded the audience that the Malaysia Agreement was formulated to protect Sabah and Sarawak’s interests, and that the formation of Malaysia should not be seen as several states coming together to form a country.
 
It was rather that several nations - namely Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak - had come together, and Sabah and Sarawak each occupy a special position in the federal constitution.
 
"I see some people from the Peninsula ask why we need our IC to go to Sabah and Sarawak and all that, but you have to remember that this was what was agreed upon last time.
 
"This was there to protect their interests, and one could even argue that even with these safeguards, the interests of Sabah and Sarawak are not being taken care of," said the constitutional lawyer.
 
Yesterday, Chin Huat had told the seminar that greater representation in parliament had not benefited the two states.
 
Instead, he argued that the two states are more likely to get a better deal if it were equally represented, as this would intensify the contest for Putrajaya and force politicians to make better deals.
 
Pre-empting counter-arguments based on the Malaysia Agreement, he had asked, "Why should we stick the Malaysia Agreement, if there can be a better deal?"