There’s something audacious brewing across the South China Sea. Sarawak, in a bold (or brazen) political move, has just expanded its state assembly from 82 to a whopping 99 seats. The official reason? Better local representation.

The real reason? A power grab — one that could redraw the balance of federal politics and allow a state with just 9% of Malaysia’s population to block, jam, or extort the federal government for decades to come.

Let’s call it what it is: a calculated manoeuvre to resurrect the “one-third representation” myth. A narrative based on half-remembered history, selective reading of the Constitution, and wrapped in the noble packaging of MA63.

And if they get away with it, no mega-coalition in the Peninsula — not even a unity pact between PH and PN — will be able to govern without bowing to Borneo first.

Manufacturing a myth

The claim goes like this: at the formation of Malaysia in 1963, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore together had more than one-third of Dewan Rakyat seats to protect their rights. After Singapore exited in 1965, Peninsular Malaysia absorbed those seats, tipping the balance unfairly.

Now, Sarawak claims it’s simply trying to “restore” that one-third share — not grab more than they deserve, but just reclaim what was lost.

Except… that’s not what the law says.

A former official in Dewan Rakyat says: there is no provision in the Constitution guaranteeing Sabah and Sarawak one-third of parliamentary seats. Not in the Malaysia Agreement 1963, not in the 18- or 20-point agreements, not in Article 46, not in the 13th Schedule.

What Sarawak had in 1963 was a temporary political compromise, not a legal right. That compromise collapsed when Singapore left. And now, six decades later, Sarawak is cherry-picking a moment in time and demanding it be frozen into law — no matter how much the population and political landscape has changed.

One-third of the power, one-third of the voters

Let’s put this in perspective. Sarawak has 2.9 million people. Selangor alone has 6.7 million. Yet Sarawak is on track to have nearly the same number of parliamentary seats — not because of demographic growth, but because it’s inflating its state assembly and using that as justification for federal redelineation.

The logic is shaky at best.

Sarawak now has 99 state seats. On average, each DUN constituency has just 19,600 voters. In Selangor? 65,000.

How is this fair representation?

Thomas Fann of ENGAGE put it bluntly: Sarawak is the most over-represented state legislature in the country — and they’re making it worse. If the new DUN seats are used to argue for more parliamentary constituencies, we’re rewarding malapportionment with more national power.

And that’s assuming the new seats go to under-represented urban voters. But let’s be real: they won’t. They’ll go to the rural safe zones — Gedong, Sadong Jaya, Kalaka — where turnout is low, influence is high, and the ruling elite can continue to dominate without real challenge.

Who benefits? The PBB-GPS cartel

Let’s not pretend this is about fairness. It’s about power — and keeping it within Abang Johari’s inner circle.

Violet Yong, the DAP rep for Pending, pulled no punches. “It is politically motivated. It is for GPS’ own political agenda to maintain their grip on power,” she said. She warned that the seat increase will disproportionately benefit the ruling elite, especially PBB strongholds in rural Sarawak, at the expense of urban and opposition-held areas.

She’s right.

The additional 17 seats are likely to be drawn in a way that protects GPS — the Sarawak ruling coalition — and more specifically PBB, the dominant party helmed by Abang Jo himself. These aren’t new seats for the people. They’re new insurance policies for a regime that already controls nearly every lever of government in the state.

Violet added: “It will cost the Sarawak government and taxpayers more to pay the salaries, allowances, and provide annual development funds for another 17 YBs. All for what? To serve the people better or to serve GPS’ own interests?”

Even Wan Ahmad Wan Abdullah, former deputy chairman of the Election Commission, acknowledged the real playbook behind the move: “The decision to increase Sarawak’s DUN seats is politically motivated. It’s meant to pave the way for the creation of more parliamentary seats for Sarawak when the EC begins its next delineation exercise.”

The answer is clear.

This isn’t about representation. It’s about engineering political longevity — and locking in GPS rule for another generation.

Now they want to dictate national policy too

And here’s the kicker: once they get one-third of Parliament, they’re not just playing kingmaker — they’ll become the gatekeeper to federal policy.

We’ve already seen signs of this.

Just look at the Petros vs Petronas gas control issue. Despite oil and gas being under federal jurisdiction via the PDA 1974, Sarawak has unilaterally asserted control over its upstream and downstream gas resources. Petros now issues licences. Petronas has been dragged to court, and forced to apply for exemptions — in its own country.

And when asked, federal leaders like Anwar Ibrahim have to carefully balance their words, because upsetting Sarawak could collapse the government.

If Sarawak gets one-third of Parliament, this becomes the norm — not the exception.

Don’t want to play ball on royalty payments? Sarawak can block constitutional amendments.

Trying to pass national tax reform? Better get GPS on board first.

Even issues like education or language policy could get held hostage — not by the rakyat, but by a handful of political elites from one state.

A state, or a shadow government?

Sarawak’s leaders say they “don’t want more, don’t want less, just what was agreed.”

But what was agreed was a Federation, not a parallel government.

Representation should follow population. Power should be earned, not entrenched through creative seat-mapping and historical revisionism.

So let’s be honest: this isn’t just about Sarawak demanding more seats. It’s about GPS creating a firewall — not to protect Sarawakian rights, but to insulate their own political dynasty from ever being challenged again.

And if we let that pass, we’re not strengthening federalism.

We’re surrendering to it.