From Ibrahim M Ahmad
It was not surprising to hear that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had agreed to consider increasing the number of parliamentary seats in Sabah and Sarawak, subject to the resolution of legal issues.
The premise of the argument is simple enough. Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore originally held about 34% of the seats in the Dewan Rakyat. The formula was designed to prevent peninsula MPs from holding a two-third supermajority in the lower house to enable them to pass constitutional amendments prejudicial to the three other regions.
Sabah and Sarawak claim that following Singapore’s exit in 1965, they ought to be entitled to hold one-third of the seats in the Dewan Rakyat between them. It is a demand that has grown louder in recent years, encouraged by political discord and vote fragmentation in the West.
No one will dispute the proposition that parliamentary seats should ensure equitable representation so that the weight of one person’s vote is not vastly different from another’s. However, equitable representation is not achieved by simply allocating seats in a particular proportion between Peninsular and East Malaysia without considering other factors.
Over the past 60 years, Malaysia’s population has grown fourfold: from approximately nine million in 1965 to 34.2 million in 2025. Yet, it would be foolish to suggest that all three regions grew at the same rate.
Even within the peninsula, the growth rate has been unequal, primarily driven by rapid urbanisation. For example, the Klang Valley, estimated to be home to 8.8 million presently, has grown almost 15 times — from a population of 600,000 in 1965.
As a result, today, the imbalance is glaring. Igan, in Sarawak, has about 28,000 voters — less than 10% compared to Bangi, in Selangor, which has more than 300,000. Both elect only one MP.
That means a vote in Igan already carries more than ten times the weight of one in Bangi. If the creation of new constituencies further reduces Igan’s electorate size, that weightage will be even more lopsided.
If Sabah and Sarawak are to gain more seats, fairness requires that heavily populated urban constituencies in Peninsular Malaysia also be rebalanced. Otherwise, we risk drifting further away from the “one person, one vote” principle.
The one-third argument in context
It is true that, together with Singapore, the Borneo territories held about one-third of the 159 Dewan Rakyat seats when Malaysia was first formed. This was deliberate — a safeguard written in for the first seven years to give confidence to the new partners.
But it was never meant to be a permanent entitlement. After the initial period, representation was to follow the ordinary constitutional process. The spirit was clear: Malaysia should grow into one nation, not remain divided into East and West. That is why fixating on “one-third” or “two-thirds” misses the point.
For decades, that spirit held. Under Barisan Nasional, Sabah and Sarawak leaders were included in the national government, holding ministerial portfolios and shaping policy. There was no sustained quarrel over the “one-third entitlement”, because stability and inclusion existed.
Why seats grew to 222
From 159 seats in 1963, the lower house has expanded to 222 today. On paper, the reason was population growth and urbanisation. Selangor, Johor, Penang and the Klang Valley grew rapidly, creating pressure for more constituencies. Sabah and Sarawak also gained additional seats, though not in the same proportion.
But it would be naïve to say expansion was only about demographics. Under BN, seat creation and redelineation were also used for political advantage. Malapportionment tilted the system towards smaller constituencies, often in rural areas, while overcrowded urban seats were left untouched.
Sabah and Sarawak, with their relatively small constituencies, were not bystanders — they benefited from the same system. Today Sarawak has some of the smallest electorates in the country.
So, yes, seats grew in tandem with population, but also in ways that entrenched political advantage. This was accepted by all, because everyone gained something from it.
Every state has contributed
It is understandable that Sabah and Sarawak want more rights and autonomy, including more seats in Parliament, as many feel their resources have been taken unfairly.
However, if we reflect honestly, every state has shaped Malaysia’s journey.
Sabah and Sarawak brought land, forests and energy resources; Pahang contributed timber and minerals; Terengganu and Kelantan petroleum wealth; Johor became an industrial hub; Selangor and Penang, centres of trade and services. Negeri Sembilan and Perak once anchored the tin industry; while Kedah has long been the nation’s rice bowl. Malacca is a tourism port, while Kuala Lumpur rose into the financial and political capital.
No single region carried Malaysia alone. Our prosperity came from pooling resources, talent and institutions across states. And history shows that natural wealth alone does not guarantee prosperity. Countries rich in oil like Nigeria and Venezuela, or in minerals like the Democratic Republic of Congo, remain poor despite their vast reserves.
By contrast, nations with limited natural resources — such as Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan — have advanced through education, innovation and shared values.
Malaysia’s strength has always been in combining the contributions from both the East and West into one federation with a shared destiny. That was the promise of 1963, and remains the way forward.
Why the debate is louder today
The “one-third” demand was not pronounced during the multi-decade BN rule largely because the country enjoyed political stability. It returned after the 13th general elections, when national politics began to fracture and as old coalitions crumbled.
Amid the instability, appeals to state nationalism became a convenient way to demand more resources and influence. What began as a temporary safeguard was revived as a political rallying cry.
But the deeper issue is not about leverage. It is whether Malaysians accept the system as fair — that votes carry equal weight, so that no region or state feels excluded from national leadership.
Beyond numbers and vetoes
The federation was never meant to be governed by permanent numerical locks. Malaysia has prospered most when inclusion and fairness prevailed, not when regional blocs asserted their veto rights.
History shows that neither side has ever truly used “bloc leverage” against the other. If anything, it is now East Malaysian parties that often hold the decisive say over who governs from Putrajaya.
The way forward is not to entrench old numbers but to restore balance — with urban voters represented more fairly, rural voices not ignored, and Sabah and Sarawak respected as equal partners.
The Malaysia Day reminder
As we mark another Malaysia Day, we should remember why we became one nation in 1963. We joined together because we were stronger together. We prospered because each side brought something the other lacked.
Our task now is to renew that spirit — to add seats not as weapons of leverage, but as instruments of fairness; to recognise that Malaysia’s future depends not only on resources, but on talent, values and institutions; to ensure that no Malaysian’s vote is worth ten times more than another’s, and that no region or state feels sidelined.
If we hold to these principles, the federation will remain intact, and Malaysia will endure — as one nation, with one purpose.
Ibrahim M Ahmad is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
