Bastian Pius Vendargon said the constitution’s current framework is premised on federalism, with Putrajaya wielding considerable power and influence.

“The rights, obligations and powers of the federal government and the states of Malaya are identified and spelt out in the constitution.

“The additional rights and autonomy granted to Sabah and Sarawak by virtue of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement must be considered in a separate light,” he said.

Vendargon was commenting after Johor regent, Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, suggested a reform of the federal system, so that Johor is treated more as a partner, like Sabah and Sarawak.

Tunku Ismail, who said he was merely giving his personal opinion, had also suggested that Johor-based political parties unite in a coalition known as “Gabungan Bangsa Johor” to protect the state’s interests.

He also lamented that the people and businesses in Johor contribute almost RM49 billion to federal coffers every year but only receive RM1.4 billion from Putrajaya.

Vendargon said Johor, being a state in the peninsula, does not enjoy the same status as Sabah and Sarawak, which were identified as territories when Malaysia was formed in 1963.

He said under the federalism concept, the central government implements most of the development projects.

“There is a need for consultation and consensus if greater autonomy is to be extended to the states,” he said, adding that it would necessitate “serious” amendments to the constitution.

Vendargon said states in Australia and provinces in Canada have far greater political control as provided for in their respective constitutions.

Lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla said Johor could not be treated as a federal partner due to “historical and constitutional perspectives”.

He said the Federation of Malaya, which Johor was a part of, was created under the 1948 and 1957 agreements in which the Malay monarchs gave away most of their rights to administer their states.

“Under the ninth schedule and Articles 74 of the Federal Constitution, the state’s powers are limited to certain subjects, including Islam and the Malay customs,” he said.

However, he said Sabah, by way of its 20-point agreement, and Sarawak, pursuant to an 18-point agreement, were given broader powers, including in areas such as education, immigration, local government and taxation.

Haniff said states in Peninsular Malaysia receive an annual grant from the federal government as stipulated in the 10th schedule to the constitution, although this is much lower than what Sabah and Sarawak are entitled to.

“However, Putrajaya implements federal projects through the various ministries and agencies for the wellbeing of the people in all states and territories,” he added.

Lawyer Abdul Shukor Ahmad explained that the Reid Commission, set up before Merdeka, was tasked with making recommendations for a constitution with a “federal form”, which was to include a strong central government.

Meanwhile, he said, the Cobbold Commission, founded in 1962, concluded that Sabah and Sarawak should retain certain rights after the formation of Malaysia.

Shukor said he understood where Tunku Ismail was coming from, especially with regard to the “contentious issue” of power distribution.

“It is time to tweak the Federal-state power-sharing concept,” he said, proposing that defence matters remain with Putrajaya while each state should have a bigger say in education.

He said states presently had to obtain permission from Federal authorities to implement development projects, such as the Sultan Ibrahim solar power project in Johor.

“The concentration of power in the hands of Putrajaya is perceived to be stifling states’ economic growth,” he added.