KOTA KINABALU, July 4 — Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Minister of Sabah, Sarawak Affairs and Special Duties) Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali has denied that 17 of the 21 matters in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) have been ‘resolved’ as alleged by the leader of a political party.
He said the party making the allegation should explain the definition of ‘resolved’, on whether the matter has been raised, submitted, has achieved policy agreement, or settled in the sense of being implemented.
According to Armizan, what the people of Sabah want as ‘resolved’ in the context of matters under MA63 are those which are fully implemented and from which the people can benefit.
“My answer in Parliament was quoted (by the leader of the political party), saying that in my written answer, it is mentioned that 17 matters have been resolved. I re-read my answer, there was no mention of 17 matters being resolved,” he told reporters after closing the Sabah State Disaster Management and Operations Coordination Workshop here today.
Armizan was commenting on the claims of Parti Warisan (Warisan) Information chief Datuk Azis Jamman and Kota Belud MP Isnaraissah Munirah Majilis during a live discussion session on Facebook claiming that he (Armizan) had stated during a Parliament session that the 17 matters had been resolved.
Armizan, who is also Papar MP, said his answer referred to the query from Semporna MP and Warisan president Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal about the issues raised in the Special Cabinet Committee on MA63 between 2018 and 2019.
According to Armizan, at present, there are matters related to MA63 that have been partially completed, among them the electricity and gas issue, and the review of Article 112D of the Federal Constitution regarding the amount for special annual grants for Sabah and Sarawak.
“There are also those that have not been completed but have already had a policy decision, this is what (the leader) may have considered, (that) when there is a policy decision, it is ‘resolved’.
“For example, there is a policy decision about the need to review Article 112D on special grants but it has not been completed yet, and will only be deemed so when the amount has been determined and implemented,” he said.
