Abdul Karim: Only EC, not Sarawak govt, can decide on more parliamentary seats
He clarified that while the state has successfully expanded its State Legislative Assembly (DUN) seats from 82 to 99, any increase in parliamentary representation must be decided by the Election Commission (EC) and approved by the federal government through Parliament.
'There is no agreement yet on the number of parliamentary seats for Sarawak. The state government has no authority to decide this.
'Parliamentary seats fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the EC. Any increase would require constitutional amendments and endorsement in Parliament,' he added when speaking at a press conference after the Dewan Undangan Negeri (Composition of Membership) Bill, 2025 was passed during a special sitting of the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly (DUN) yesterday.
He also emphasised that the DUN's role was confined to the composition of state seats too.
'We can propose and deliberate state seats, but for parliamentary constituencies, it must be tabled in Parliament and the Federal Constitution has to be amended. That's the proper channel.
'Sarawak's move today was a separate constitutional exercise focused solely on the state level. While the redelineation of the 17 new state constituencies now falls to the EC.
'They will determine where these new seats will be located. We have no influence over that.
'Any accusation of gerrymandering directed at the state government is therefore unfounded and unfair to the EC, which is an independent body appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong after consultation with the Conference of Rulers,' he said.
Responding to suggestions that the state seat increase may act as a precursor to parliamentary seat expansion, Abdul Karim agreed it may help pave the way.
'It will be easier for the EC to partition new parliamentary seats from these 17 additional state constituencies in the future.
'If eight or more can be derived, it would help us move closer to the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), where Sabah and Sarawak should ideally hold one-third of the seats in Parliament,' he said.
He further explained that the decision to increase the DUN seats to 99 was both strategic and symbolic.
'There's no fixed number stated in the Constitution. But 99 is the highest double-digit figure before we encroach into three-digit territory, which is associated with Parliament. And if you notice, our DUN building has 9 pillars, 9 arcs, and 9 floors. So, 99 feels fitting,' he said.
Meanwhile when asked about the timeline for the EC to complete its delineation work, Abdul Karim said that responsibility lies entirely with the commission.
'Our job ends with tabling and passing the Bill. It is now up to the EC to carry out their duties,' he said.
He also dismissed criticism from Opposition members regarding the cost and timing of the exercise, calling them politically motivated.
'We've done this before, four or five times. It's within our legal rights, and there's nothing improper about it,' he said.
Sarawak last increased its state seats in 2015, when 11 new constituencies were added.
The current move, which sees an addition of 17, marks the largest expansion of state seats in Sarawak's history.
'The move reflects our commitment to ensure Sarawak is well represented, fairly governed, and prepared for the future. It's a necessary and constitutional evolution,' said Abdul Karim. — The Borneo Post
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
19 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Think tank concerned about ‘secretive' US-M'sia trade talks
Investment, trade and industry minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz previously said that negotiators were bound by a non-disclosure agreement. (Facebook pic) PETALING JAYA : A think tank has questioned the extent to which Malaysia's negotiations with the US on reducing tariffs will result in constructive outcomes, saying the talks lack openness and appear driven more by political considerations than economic rationale. In a statement, the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) said the minimal change between the initial 24% tariff imposed in April and the 25% 'final' rate set out on Monday after months of negotiations reflected a lack of substantive progress in the 'secretive' trade talks. IDEAS also called on the government to prioritise transparency in negotiations, policy consistency, and clear engagement with regional partners to protect Malaysia's long-term economic interests. Prior to the negotiations which kicked off in May, investment, trade and industry minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz said the negotiators were bound by a non-disclosure agreement. However, he said they would endeavour to brief the relevant parliamentary select committees or caucuses on the tariff talks. In its statement, IDEAS said Malaysia must avoid being drawn into retaliatory trade barriers or a false choice between major powers, and continue to diversify and deepen partnerships with countries that share its interest in open and mutually beneficial trade. IDEAS's deputy director of research Stewart Nixon said that as the chair of Asean this year, it was imperative that Malaysia lead accelerated efforts towards a substantive and united regional response to US tariffs. 'The underwhelming outcomes from bilateral negotiations for Malaysia and other countries reinforce the need for collective action to combat Washington's divide-and-conquer strategy,' he said 'We cannot allow fragmented engagement to weaken Asean's position on the global stage.' On April 2, US president Donald Trump announced a 24% tariff on certain exports from Malaysia. This was paused for 90 days to enable negotiations. The pause ended on Monday when Trump issued a letter to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim outlining a 25% tariff on Malaysian exports from Aug 1. Singapore and the Philippines were the only two Asean nations that did not receive a tariff notification letter from Trump on Monday. They also have the lowest tariff rates as announced in April: 10% for Singapore and 17% for the Philippines.
Free Malaysia Today
20 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Ex-US trade official urges Malaysia to review strategy as 25% tariff looms
US president Donald Trump has told Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim that the 25% tariff announced on Malaysian imports on Monday was necessary to correct the 'unsustainable' trade deficit the US has with Malaysia. (AP pic) PETALING JAYA : A former US trade negotiator has called on Malaysia to modify its strategy in light of Washington's decision to impose a 25% tariff on imports from the country from Aug 1. This was up from the 24% tariff that the US had originally proposed to levy on certain exports from Malaysia, but it was paused for 90 days to enable negotiations to proceed. The pause ended yesterday. Stephen Olson, who represented the US in negotiations for two free trade agreements, said that while it would be premature to conclude that Malaysian negotiators have failed, it was a 'safe bet' that the concessions Malaysia has offered so far have been insufficient. 'This is a high-profile intermediary milestone, but don't draw any conclusions until the game is over,' he said. 'There are several weeks of negotiating left, and a further extension is always possible after that. 'Malaysia should review its positions and the specific complaints raised by the US, but beyond a certain point, additional concessions are not worth the deal. Judging exactly where the red line lies is always difficult,' he added. US President Donald Trump, who wrote to multiple heads of state to alert them to the tariff rates their countries will face next month if no deals are reached, told Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim that the 25% tariff was necessary to correct the 'unsustainable' trade deficit the US has with Malaysia. Trump said the deficit, which he has described as a 'major threat' to the US economy and national security, was due to Malaysia's long-standing tariff and non-tariff barriers. The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) previously identified Malaysia's strict rules on halal imports and Bumiputera equity requirements as barriers which contributed to the 24% tariff initially imposed on April 2. In its 2025 National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, the USTR said Malaysia's halal standards exceed international norms, requiring dedicated halal-only facilities and complex registration processes, which increase costs and delay exports. The report also flagged investment barriers, particularly the requirement for 30% Bumiputera ownership in foreign-owned firms and restrictions in sectors such as oil and gas, media, and public procurement. During a special parliamentary meeting in May, Anwar reaffirmed that core national policies — including the Bumiputera policy, local vendor requirements, and protections for strategic sectors — would remain unchanged in US tariff talks. Economist Geoffrey Williams proposed a pragmatic easing of restrictions, stating this may not necessarily shift demand away from local products. He also noted that public sentiment toward US companies in Malaysia has been affected by their reported business ties with Israel. 'Malaysia could simply remove tariffs and non-tariff barriers across the board and leave the choice to consumers and businesses. 'Even without tariffs, US products are not priced competitively in Malaysia, so it should not be presumed that removing tariffs will flood Malaysia with US products,' Williams added.
Free Malaysia Today
34 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Busted: 5 myths about Asean
Asean was built to prevent conflict within the region, and to give Southeast Asia collective strength in a divided world. PETALING JAYA : Asean summits are usually accompanied by the familiar complaints that the bloc is slow, soft, or slipping into irrelevance – but regional analysts say these claims are often based on outdated assumptions or unfair comparisons. Ahead of the 58th Asean Foreign Ministers' Meeting (AMM) and Related Meetings to be held in Kuala Lumpur this week, here are five common myths about Asean and why they don't hold up. 1. Asean is irrelevant Fact: In today's world, no country can solve major problems alone – and that's exactly where Asean comes in. From food security and climate change to digital governance and geopolitical tension, the challenges Southeast Asians face don't stop at national borders. Asean provides the platform for countries to coordinate responses, amplify their voice, and ensure that regional interests aren't sidelined by global power struggles. As Joel Ng, senior fellow at Singapore's S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, puts it: 'The relevance of Asean is something that's always in the background. 'Maybe it doesn't seem really urgent, but in the middle of particular crises and in the big picture and long run, it's really important to everything. 'You need cooperation. You need empathy to understand each other's positions. You need a willingness to meet and talk, and so forth.' Asean's dialogue platforms and forums are also one of the few places where all of the major powers – the US, China, Russia, India, Japan, and the EU – show up. That's not irrelevance. That's strategic necessity in an interdependent world. 2. Asean is a 'talk-shop' that doesn't deliver Fact: Asean delivers in ways that aren't always headline-grabbing, but these outcomes still matter. Not every event ends with dramatic breakthroughs. But continuous dialogue and diplomacy still help in building trust over time, laying the groundwork for cooperation on issues like trade, energy, public health, and climate adaptation. Progress may be incremental, but it's durable. Outcomes like regional food reserves, digital trade standards, and education exchanges don't happen overnight. They happen because Asean keeps the conversation going, and the impact builds, step by step. Asean also works through quiet diplomacy and informal consultations. Speaking to FMT, Institute of Strategic and International Studies analyst Izzah Ibrahim said that Asean has its own way of doing things. 'There is an aversion to publicising matters, for fear of escalation or interference, and that is why many of these negotiations, compromises, and decisions have happened behind closed doors,' she said. 'Sometimes this lack of appreciation or understanding of this style of diplomacy is used to criticise the effectiveness of Asean as a whole.' 3. Asean is meant to solve major power conflicts Fact: Asean wasn't created to referee global superpowers – it was built to prevent conflict within the region, and to give Southeast Asia collective strength in a divided world. In 1965, Asean's founding goal was to build peace and trust among its members, and to forge unity so that Southeast Asia could speak with one voice. That unity gives the region more leverage to stay neutral and avoid having to choose sides between major powers, such as in the ongoing US-China conflict. According to Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Kuik Cheng Chwee, Asean's main purpose is to mitigate intra-Asean problems, including shoring up regional peace and prosperity. 'While we have problems within Asean, they would be much bigger and more difficult to resolve without it,' he said. 'Nobody would say that Asean is sufficient,' he added, acknowledging the bloc's slower decision-making in resolving urgent matters. 'But it is indispensable.' Even bigger organisations like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization haven't been able to resolve superpower conflicts. Blaming Asean for this tall order might not hold up. 4. Asean's influence is limited to Southeast Asia Fact: Asean has dozens of external partnerships, including with the US, EU, China, the Gulf states, and Latin America. This cooperation spans the whole gamut – from defence and security, and trade and financial ties, to people-to-people exchanges and connectivity. This July, countries including Brazil, Pakistan, and Switzerland will be meeting in Kuala Lumpur for the 58th AMM and Related Meetings – proof that Asean's footprint extends far beyond the region. 5. Asean is the next EU Fact: Asean and the EU are both regional integration projects, but they go about integrating their member economies, laws and other national jurisdictions differently. Denis Hew, senior fellow at Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said that Asean is trying to build a single market and production base. 'It's not the EU style of market, but what you're trying to do is to get different Asean countries to work together and build on their comparative advantages to create an industrial platform that can be an alternative to big markets such as China. 'Asean is a potential big market for consumers, but it's also a potential big platform for investments. The big focus now is to address the challenges and implement what we have already written down [in the Asean Economic Community documents].' Woo Wing Thye, a visiting professor at Universiti Malaya agreed that Asean should not be mimicking the EU. 'We need to focus on what's achievable within the region,' he said. 'If Asean does not act collectively, it will not be taken seriously by the major powers.'
