She told FMT it was a mistake for Chief Minister Adenan Satem to drop the motion to reclaim Sarawak’s rights, based on the assurances of Prime Minister Najib Razak that Putrajaya was ready to deal.
“I’m deeply dismayed by the failure of our Sarawak leaders to take a firm stand on Sarawak’s rights, as enshrined under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
“It was a major failure not to proceed with the motion to amend Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution,” Soo said.
Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution, amended in 1976, reduced the status of Sabah and Sarawak from an equal regional partner to a federated state.
The motion, which would have likely received unanimous support from all parties, would have called on Putrajaya to observe Sarawak’s rights as enshrined in MA63, the Inter-Government Committee Report (IGC) 1963 and the Cobbold Commission Report 1962.
“This is a constitutional issue which requires a constitutional solution. And that can only be achieved with the full backing of all the lawmakers and the Sarawak government, which is one of the five signatories of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
“Adenan’s U-turn is merely political manoeuvring,” said Soo. The five signatories are the governments of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
Soo said properly addressing the issue of non-compliance with an international treaty, such as the MA63, would require an act of state.
“Once it is done through the legislature, the motion becomes a non-justiciable issue, meaning no courts can adjudicate on the matter.
“Adenan has failed to do what is most needed, which is to move a motion in the assembly.”
Soo also commented on Adenan’s comments at the Sarawak assembly today that “diplomacy is better than confrontation”.
“There is no diplomatic or confrontational way to reclaim our rights. There is only one correct way — restore the Constitution.
“It would be resolved for once and we could start by formalising it in our state assembly. Any attempt to obstruct this constitutional way is just to deprive the people of our rights, as enshrined in MA63,” Soo said.
A constitutional amendment would need to be supported by a super-majority, or two-thirds of MPs.