Will Sabah and Sarawak Secede?
Will
Sabah and Sarawak (S & S) secede from the Federation of Malaysia? Does the
overwhelming response over the celebration day on 22 July in Kuching is a
manifestation of Sarawakians for breakout? Will other member states go against
Putrajaya in the future? For sure, no one can give exact answer.
Despite
the call from IGP to the organisers, Group 722, Sarawak Dayak Iban Association
(SADIA) and Sarawak for Sarawakians (S4S) to call-off the independence gathering
in the wake of national security, yet media reporting says that the celebration
of Sarawak’s Independence Day from British on 22 July went ahead with bigger
crowd compared to past celebrations. While the exact turnouts were not revealed
but BFM radio had indicated the numbers may reached up to 20 thousand people. (For record Sarawak was given independence
from British on 22 July 1963 with mutual understanding that it will join
Malaya, Sabah and Singapore as an equal partner to form the Federation of
Malaysia).
As
we all aware, Malaysia was officially formed on 16 September 1963 after four
components, namely Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore agreed to be united, as
an equal partner under one rooftop. During my school years history books says
that Tunku proposed the formation of Malaysia as then the threats of
communists’ insurgency in Malaya as well as in Singapore were getting stronger.
Tunku believe one of the the way forward to contain the communist ideology is
by uniting various states under one territory through federal government system.
However,
for domestic political reason, which was strongly advocated by UMNO, accepting
Singapore alone will create the racial imbalance and thus, may jeopardise their
political power in Kuala Lumpur. To
avoid unnecessary political turbulence in the near future Brunei, Sabah and
Sarawak, which were then known as Borneo, was proposed to be part of Malaysia. Likewise,
Borneo also then was facing communists’ insurgency.
Besides
socio-economic and security stability under the Federation of Malaysia; Brunei,
Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore also will be released from British’s
administration. Furthermore, Sabah and Sarawak were given some privileges under
the 20 points agreement (Sabah) and 18-point memorandum (Sarawak). So if you wonder, why few years ago,
Malaysians from Peninsular need to use passport (now you have to show your IC
and 30 days visiting permit will be issued) to travel either to Sabah or
Sarawak, or why until today some, especially now defunct Pakatan Rakyat’s
politicians as well as rights activists from Peninsular were banned from travelling
to S & S, it is because the immigration authority of the states comes under
the purview of State government and this was inked as one of the privileges
agreed by then founders of Malaysia. Normally, Chief Minister will hold this
power and he/she have full authority to stop anyone from Peninsular to travel
to their state under the pretext of state security.
Nevertheless,
Brunei decided to withdraw from fitting together at the eleventh hour after
Tunku Abdul Rahman disagreed with the Sultan of Brunei demands for special
privileges in return to be part of Malaysia.
Brunei’s demand was rejected as it would have made its Ruler one rank
above other nine Monarchs from Malaya. Tunku’s strong desire to see Brunei as
part of Malaysia shattered and the official declaration of the Federation of
Malaysia on 31 August 1963 did not take place. Nevertheless, Tunku had decided
to carry on with the official declaration on 16 September 1963. Unfortunately,
after two years, in 1965 Singapore’s membership in Malaysia was terminated
unilaterally by Tunku for political reason and the rest is history. (This is
what I learnt in my school years – but now you may find various additional
reasons).
After
many years, lately the call for review from people of Sabah and Sarawak
regarding their states’ position in Malaysia are getting stronger. The call
commonly made by opposition’s politicians, as well as rights activists. Only
recently, those politicians who were aligned with the ruling party are making
their stand openly for a greater devolution of executive power to state. The change
of mind among the ruling party politicians is an indication that the displeasure
sentiments against Putrajaya are taking place among the people in grassroots and
if politicians were seen not favouring these sentiments the cost might be high,
their political career. Though, the call for independence in Sabah was not new
but the same tone from Sarawak lately is alarming.
As a
matter of fact, there are five common political systems around the world such
as Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Communism and Dictatorship. Federated Malaya
and later Malaysia from the day one had been decided to embrace Democracy as
basic foundation of the government. Meanwhile, we have inherited the Monarchy
system way back from Malay Sultanate of Malacca and thereafter in Perlis,
Kedah, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Johor, Pahang, Kelantan and
Terengganu, and thus the Crowned head had been entrenched in our culture as well
as one of the pillar of the state. Consequently their position was incorporated
into our Federal Constitution. Apart from Parliamentary Democracy, we embrace
Constitutional Monarchy and the existence of the state government. However, in
our system Federal government always prevail and federal law will override the
state law in any circumstances. (So, Kelantan will never be able to implement
Hudud as the law will be against the Federal Constitution)
Going
back to answer the aforementioned questions, it is only partly true that
Federal system is the finest government system and member states will not go
separately. We do have many examples where a federal system breakaway from one
another and the best case in point was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The simple reason for
breakup is political especially when federal government failed to honour the
agreement of federation.
In Sabahans and Sarawakians’ opinion, Putrajaya are not doing enough to devolve the executive power as stipulated in Malaysia’s 1963 agreement and therefore, they believe it is their rights to re-visit the agreement signed by founders of Malaysia. Furthermore, S & S claimed that they were downgraded as a state that was equal to other states in peninsular. While both S & S are rich in mineral resources yet the bigger portions were taken by Putrajaya while they get nuts. Financial provision was one of the factors for displeasure against Putrajaya. S & S believe they deserve more as founder states.
In Sabahans and Sarawakians’ opinion, Putrajaya are not doing enough to devolve the executive power as stipulated in Malaysia’s 1963 agreement and therefore, they believe it is their rights to re-visit the agreement signed by founders of Malaysia. Furthermore, S & S claimed that they were downgraded as a state that was equal to other states in peninsular. While both S & S are rich in mineral resources yet the bigger portions were taken by Putrajaya while they get nuts. Financial provision was one of the factors for displeasure against Putrajaya. S & S believe they deserve more as founder states.
If you follow the matters closely for sure you can
identify this sentiment among the people of S & S. For instance, Sarawak
CM, as reported by The Star (quoted from Bernama) on 23 July 2015, said that:
“… Sarawak was not just a state within the federation,
but a founding state of the Federation of Malaysia, a party to the formation
and had a say in the Cobbold Commission report.”
“… we sympathise
with the sentiments expressed as there is a ground swell of opinion in Sarawak
insisting on autonomy and so on, and we subscribe to and welcome that, but not
to the extent of ceding from the federation.”
The above statement from the Chief Minister of
Sarawak is more than enough to prove their frustration on Putrajaya. If these
sentiments were not politically countered than from my point of view, Sabah and
Sarawak will decide to go on their way in the future. I might be wrong but
reading at world history and geographically S & S were not connected by
land with Putrajaya the possibility for secede always exists. It may not happen
under current administration but no one can say it will not happen in the
future. If one component decided to go on its way than for sure another will
follow. And this may trigger other states in Peninsular to make their own
decision.
I believe one can safely say the intimidation as
well as blemishing tactics will not work. S & S may emerge stronger in positioning
their demand if Putrajaya intends to put more pressure to outgo their demand.
The best option is political remedy. Well, it’s common sense.
#end.
Comments