By : TAN SRI SIMON SIPAUN
I
thank the organizers of this Muzakarah Pakar ‘Adil Dan Beramanah Dalam
Tadbir-Urus’ for having invited me to share my thoughts on the topic
‘Pembentukan Malaysia dan Pembangunan di Sabah’ or ‘The Formation of
Malaysia and Development in Sabah’.
I
have requested earlier for permission to speak in English which was
granted. However I will be quite happy to respond in Bahasa Malaysia
during the question and answer session.
I
wish to make it very clear at the outset that what I say is purely my
own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the stand of SUHAKAM or
agreed to by my fellow-commissioners. My presentation is based on my
personal recollection, observation, perception and experience.
The Formation of Malaysia
The
nation called Malaysia was born on 16 September, 1963. This is a
historical fact. It cannot be disputed. I remember it very well. I was
already 25 years old at the time. I also remember the day when Malaya
gained independence on 31 August 1957. 1957 was the year I left school.
It
was the year I sat for my Cambridge Oversea School Certificate – only a
handful of us. In school my teacher used to discuss with students the
possible merger of North Borneo (as Sabah was then known) Sarawak and
Brunei, all British Colonies. Malaya was never mentioned. We were also
asked to write essays on the subject. It was then that I became aware
that when separate independent states federate big fish in a small pond
becomes small fish in a big pond.
When
Malaya became independent on 31 August 1957 there was great jubilation
in Malaya. You could feel the atmosphere of jubilation through ‘radio
tanah Melayu Kuala Lumpur’ and Tunku Abdul Rahman’s famous exclamation
of ‘merdeka!’.
However
it occurred to me at the time why Malaya chose the love song ‘terang
bulan’ as the national anthem. ‘Terang bulan’ was a very popular song in
North Borneo at the time.
You
could hear it being played in houses with the famous ‘His Master’s
Voice’ grammaphones. I would have thought that a completely new tune for
the Malayan national anthem based on a nation-wide competition would
have been more appropriate and preferable.
It
has been said that history is subject to different interpretations. For
example, during the colonial era in North Borneo Mat Salleh, we were
told, was no more than a robber terrorising people. Now he is glorified
and labeled as a hero and a freedom fighter.
Personally
I do not know what to believe. It happened such a long time ago. There
are times when history is also the distortion of facts by people in
power. Lately I notice slogans like ‘celebrating 51 years of
nationhood’.
The
question that comes to mind is which nation is being referred to? If it
refers to Malaysia then obviously it is not factual because in 2008
Malaysia is only 45 years old. If you refer to Malaya then it will be
correct.
However
I believe Malaya ceased to be an independent separate nation when it
joined with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah to form a new federation known
as Malaysia on 16 September 1963. 51 cannot be equal to 45 unless we
have forgotten how to count. I wonder why we cannot be honest about
something which is impossible to deny.
Personally
I feel the formation of Malaysia came at least 10 years too early in
the context of Sabah. I vividly remember a conversation I had in 1962
with one of our community leaders who was very close to Donald Stephens
regarding Sabah’s participation in the formation of Malaysia. I
expressed the following views, amongst others, to him:-
i) Sabah would lose the only opportunity to experience being a truly independent sovereign state.
ii) It would simply be a transfer of power from the British to Malaya.
iii) Sabah did not have the people qualified and experienced enough to negotiate with Malaya and Singapore.
iv) Sabah should demand for self-rule initially followed by full independence from the British.
v)
Sabah should then go to the negotiating table without the British if
the people, via referendum, wished to federate with Malaya, Singapore,
Sarawak and Brunei.
vi)
Sabah should examine carefully the pros and cons of joining the
proposed federation both in the short and long term before deciding.
vii) Sabah should insist on an escape clause in the event it found itself short-changed.
viii) At best it should only be a lose federation. And finally,
ix)
The political union between Malaya and North Borneo would be artificial
because the two territories had very little, if any, in common and
separated by almost 2000 km of sea. North Borneo’s case could not be
compared with Singapore.
Singapore
was geographically part of the Malayan peninsula. Political union with
Malaya made a lot of sense especially in terms of economic survival for
Singapore. It had no natural resources, not even enough water for
Singaporeans.
At
the time an independent Singapore was not a viable option. The word
‘Malaysia’ itself is a combination of Malaya and Singapura. The
recruitment of North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei was an attempt to
counterbalance Singapore’s Chinese population in the proposed
federation. It was an after thought.
The
literacy rate of Sabahans at the time was very low at best. They had no
idea what was happening. In 1962 only 2 political parties were just
formed. They were the United National Kadazan Organization (UNKO) headed
by Donald Stephens and the United Sabah National Oganization (USNO)
headed by Datu Mustapha Bin Datu Harun.
As
it turned out Brunei opted out at the last minute and remained a big
fish in a small pond. The intention of the founding fathers was a
federation of 4 independent states namely Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and
Sabah.
I
have been unable to obtain a copy of the first Federal Constitution
following the formation of Malaysia to see if such intention was ever
reflected in the Constitution which could have been subsequently
amended. Sabah according to the present Constitution is just one of the
13 states, a very small fish in a very big pond. The opening statement
of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement reads as follows:-
“The
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation of
Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore, desiring to conclude an
agreement relating to Malaysia agree as follow:- ……………………..”
Malaya is referred to as the Federation of Malaya and the individual states were not identified and specified.
Article
1 of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 provides that “The Colonies of North
Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with
the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah,
Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional instruments
annexed to this Agreement and the Federation shall thereafter be called
‘Malaysia’.”
The
signatories to the Agreement were the UK, the Federation of Malaya,
North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore. Article 1 of the Federal
Constitution provides that the Federation shall be known as Malaysia.
However
in Article 160 of the Federal Constitution the term ‘The Federation’
means the Federation established under the Federation of Malaya
Agreement, 1957. Under the circumstances where do Sabah and Sarawak fit
in? Are they really part of the Federation of Malaysia?
I
am not sure whether Singapore left the Federation on its own accord or
expelled from it in 1965. In my opinion when one of the original
signatories ceased to be a party to the original Agreement then that
Agreement should have been abrogated.
After
all it was very conceivable that Sabah and Sarawak became part of the
federation because of Singapore. Brunei opted out of the federation in
July 1963 and became independent only in 1984. I remember Donald
Stephens did suggest that the Malaysia Agreement and Sabah’s, position
in the Federation should be reviewed. Very shortly he ended up being
sidelined and neutralised.
The
principle of a federal system of government is based on the sharing of
powers between the Central and State governments. In the case of
Malaysia they are listed under 3 main categories namely the Federal
List, State List and Concurrent List. It can be seen that most powers
are in the hands of the Federal government.
The
States are left with land and local government matters. Even these,
there are such Federal agencies as the National Land Council and
National Council for Local Government. The system is one in which it is
federal in form but unitary in substance.
‘Malaysia
Day’ is referred to no less than 6 times in the Malaysia Agreement
which has only 11 Articles. The birth of Malaysia falls on 16 September
1963 which is Malaysia Day and passes by like any other ordinary day in
this country. The national emphasis is 31 August which is the
independence day of Malaya. This date receives all the attention. To
Sabah and Sarawak 31 August has hardly any significance.
Finally
on the formation of Malaysia let me share with you some of my
recollection of North Borneo before it became part of Malaysia. First
and foremost the race/ethnic relations were excellent. There were a lot
of inter-marriages.
When
Peninsula Malaysia was experiencing riots on 13 May 1969 there was no
sign of them anywhere in Sabah. If Sabahans are now conscious of racial
and religious divides they learned it from Semenanjung. Life was
peaceful.
Admittedly
there was no development of the kind found today. However Sabah was not
alone. What was more significant was that there was no illegal
immigrants. There were no cases of local natives losing citizenship
status whilst foreigners gain it without difficulty.
There
was no repressive and draconian laws such as the Official Secret Act,
the dreaded Internal Security Act, the Printing Presses and Publication
Act, the Sedition Act, the Police Act and the 4 Proclamations of
Emergency.
There
was no quarrelling over dead bodies. The Civil Service was multi-racial
and meritocracy was recognized and practised. Corruption was unheard
of. No community claimed superiority over the others. So much for my
version on the formation of Malaysia. Let me now briefly turn to:-
Development in Sabah
I
understand that Sabah is the poorest state in the country. This speaks
volumes in terms of development in Sabah. What is surprising is that it
happens in a state with rich natural resources such as timber, oil, gas
and possibly other minerals. It has fertile soils, geographical features
including mountains, beaches, islands, flora and fauna which could be
developed as tourist attractions.
Compared
to Semenanjung infrastructure development such as roads, water and
electricity supply is way behind. The same can be said for health care
and educational facilities.
For
example, before the formation of Malaysia 45 years ago the districts of
Tongod and Banggi had no doctor. Today 45 years later they still have
no doctor. The district of Paitan does not even have one secondary
school building. If you visit remote areas abject poverty can be seen
and felt everywhere.
Yet
I have heard Federal and State political leaders saying abject poverty
can be eliminated by 2010! Government has been unable to do it for the
last 45 years and it can now do it within less than 1 ½ years? To me
only miracle can make it possible.
When
I was in the Civil Service I remember at the time Sabah was producing
between 110,000 and 120,000 barrels of oil per day. It was reported in
the newspaper recently that Sabah has gas reserve amounting to about 12
trillion cubic feet.
Yet
there is no commercial project and activity related to oil and gas.
Terengganu where oil was discovered much later has refinery and related
activities. I read in the local newspapers recently a Petronas statement
indicating that Sabah has the least amount of gas reserve and located
and spread in different places. I get the impression that it is not
viable to exploit it.
If
this is the case then it should be left alone for future generations.
Yet a decision had been made to build more than 512KM gas pipeline from
Kimanis in Sabah to Bintulu in Sarawak. I believe this is a
multi-billion ringgit project. The source of gas is from Sabah why can’t
the project be located in Sabah?
If
there is doubt as to the reliability of gas supply the multi-billion
ringgit project should be abandoned and the funds used to finance
programmes for the eradication of poverty in Sabah.
The
mother of all problems in Sabah is associated with the presence of
unusually large population of illegal immigrants. It is quickly changing
the economic, social, cultural and political landscape of the State.
The
question that is in the mind of many Sabahans is – why has the
government allowed this to happen? Thousands of people have requested
for an Independent Royal Commission of Inquiry to be established to
determine who are responsible for this state of affairs. I hope a day
will not come when the Philippines need not claim Sabah anymore due to a
reverse take-over which in my view, has long started.
The
illegal immigrants issue represents a national problem but shouldered
by Malaysians living in Sabah. Sabahans feel threatened and insecure as
the number of foreigners keeps increasing. My gut feeling is that there
are more foreigners than locals. It has to be admitted that they
contribute to the development of the state by providing labour
especially in the construction and agricultural sectors.
Sabah
without them would come to an economic standstill. Personally I have
never blamed the illegals for being in Sabah. If I was one of them I
would be doing exactly what they are doing--searching for a better life.
The
blame is on the relevant authorities for allowing them in illegally.
Two books entitled ‘IC Projek’ and ‘Lelaki Malaysia Terakhir’ have
identified national and state leaders who are alleged to have played
important roles associated with the illegal immigrants issue. To the
best of my knowledge none of those leaders mentioned in the books has
refuted or denied the allegations.
I
understand that allocation of funds to Sabah is based on the number of
Malaysian citizens living in the State. The estimated Sabah population
is 3.5 million. Therefore the amount of funds received is only meant for
1.75 million people which has to be shared by 3.5 million people
assuming that 50% of the population are foreigners.
The bottom line for Sabah is that it is the poorest state in the country.
Recommendations
I
have been requested to suggest some proposals at the end of the
presentation. As requested and due to time constraint I briefly list the
following recommendations:-
i)
Genuine unity and national integration are vital for Malaysia. It
cannot be denied that this country has plenty of divisive factors. It is
a land of ‘multis’. The process of unifying and integrating should be
based on justice, egual rights and respect. Article 1 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that all humans are born
free and equal in dignity and right. No nation which embraced race-based
politics and one community claiming superiority over others survived.
Nazi Germany and Aparthied South Africa are cases that come to mind. We
are all Malaysians and equal before God.
ii)
We should focus on our similarities rather than on our differences. For
example, school uniforms should be the same for every student. Mykad
should be the same for every Malaysian. There should only be one box for
all citizens indicated in government forms and not at present – one for
Malays, one for Chinese, one for Indians and one for others. These are
but a few examples of things which are not conducive to the creation of a
genuine united country. Let us concentrate on our commonality and
humanity.
iii)
To reduce, if not, eliminate polarisation, the composition of the Civil
Service and government agencies should be more reflective of the
multi-racial make-up of the Malaysian Society. Meritocracy should be
recognised, appreciated and practised, otherwise Malaysia will lose out
in a globalised and competitive world.
iv) We should concentrate on enlarging the size of the economic cake rather spending too much effort and time how to share it.
v)
We should have a sound education system at par with the best in the
world and all Malaysians should be subject to the same system.
vi)
Good governance is described as participatory, transparent, accountable
and efficient. It promotes the rule of law and equal justice under the
law. Good governance should be promoted and maintained at all cost for
the present and future good of the country.
vii)
No Malaysian or community should feel deprived or marginalised.
Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. Selective prosecution or
application of the law should stop.
viii)
All laws which empower the government to arrest without trial should be
repealed. Article 10 of the UDHR provides that everyone has the right
to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial legal body.
Article 11 provides that everyone has the right to be treated as
innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
ix)
It has been said that politicians think in terms of the next election
whereas statesmen of the next generation. Malaysia needs more statesmen
and less politicians.
x) Corruption is like a cancer to the country. It is costly. It should be minimized, if not, eliminated.
xi)
The provisions of the Treasury Instructions should be strictly complied
with. Negotiated contracts should be stopped. It is preventing the
realization of the real value of public funds. One ringgit spent should
realize the value of one ringgit not say 50 sen or less.
xii)
The illegal immigrants in Sabah should be shared equally among all the
States in Malaysia. Why should Sabah alone suffer from a national
problem allegedly self-created by government?
xiii)
Sabah deserves better treatment by the Federal Government in terms of
more equitable distribution of opportunities and development projects.
There are far too many talks and pledges but little, if any, action.
ix) September 16 every year should be observed and celebrated as ‘Malaysia Day’.
(Source: http://sabahkinimirror.blogspot.com, March 2011)
