For many Sabahans, the PBS is synonymous with state rights and autonomy. Its establishment in 1985 came after the PBS leaders fought to restore state rights from the pro federal the BERJAYA (Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Sabah) led by Harris Salleh. At the 26th PBS Annual General Meeting (AGM) held at the Hongkod Koisaan on 30th October 2011, the PBS once again renewed its regionalist stance in front of the Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. Only that this time it was done in a rather non-confrontational style by Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the PBS President and Huguan Siou of the Kadazandusun community. Pairin, now at 71, stole the show with a “pantun”. But this was not Pairin more than 20 years ago. Due to age and diminishing health, Pairin was not as aggressive and combative as he used to. But his husky voice and charisma filled the packed hall. Even though the PBS has gradually lost its multi-racial appeal, the crowd who came to the AGM consisted of members from various ethnic groups.
At one corner, one could see a group of Chinese supporters wearing red and waving the national and state flags. At another corner, one could see a group of women supporters wearing pink “tudungs” (one might easily mistaken them for Puteri UMNO members!!!). A “pak cik” with a “songkok” nodded his head thoughtfully whenever he got excited with Pairin’s speech. The multi-racial atmosphere was evident throughout the AGM. What was missing, however, was the presence of the younger members. Reading from a text, Pairin’s speech revolved around the issues of illegal immigrants, Borneonisation, jobs for Sabahans, and opportunities for Sabah-born teachers and contractors. It was not really a policy speech in the strictest sense of the term. When Pairin mentioned these issues, Muhyiddin was seen jotting down some notes. On the illegal immigrant issue, Pairin once again demanded the Federal Government to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI). Stating that the proofs are sufficient for an RCI to be established, Pairin urged Muhyiddin to bring the illegal immigrant issue to the attention of the cabinet. While no details on the progress of Borneonisation was given, Pairin said it is important for the pre-Malaysia policy to be observed.
When it was Muhyiddin’s turn to deliver his speech, the delegates were all eyes and ears. Muhyiddin responded to all the points raised by Pairin except for one thing—about oil royalty—which he considered as “sensitive”. On the illegal immigrant issue, Muhyiddin, as in the case of most federal leaders, was non-committal but promised to bring the case to the intention of the Federal Government. Muhyiddin’s response to the Borneonisation policy was a slap on the face for Pairin. Toying with the Federal Government’s meritocracy policy, Muhyiddin said posts in government departments will be filled by qualified Malaysians irrespective of states of origin. While Muhyiddin was “positive” on the last two issues raised by Pairin, the delegates were disappointed as they did not get any constructive feedback from Muhyiddin on the contentious Sabah issues for which the PBS has been fighting for since its inception.
If the atmosphere of the official launching of the PBS AGM was anything to go by, it showed that the PBS is a party of choice for race and religious blind Sabahans. One could see the Muslim Bumiputeras, non-Muslim Bumiputeras, and the Chinese singing PBS’s official anthem in unity and cheering at the mention of Pairin’s name. As mentioned, missing in the event of course were the younger members of PBS. Most who attended the AGM were those in their 40s, 50s and 60s. All the talks that the PBS is having a serious problem in keeping its younger members are real. Most of the younger Kadazandusun are more attracted to the UPKO (United Pasok Momogun Kadazandusun Organisation). This is understandable as the UPKO appears to be more successful in enticing the young generation through its programmes such as the “Komulakan”. Unlike the PBS, the UPKO has young cadre of leaders to take over the party.
It cannot be denied that the PBS remains a popular multi-racial party in Sabah. Even though its multi-racial make-up has slowly diminished, it remains a party of choice for many Sabahans who believe in the principle of multi-racial politics. The PBS, however, is in danger of losing its multi-racial appeal and electoral support if it does not take drastic and strategic actions.
First, the PBS has to quickly fill the leadership vacuum in the party to allow the younger members to contribute meaningfully and to prepare a smooth succession plan. The old guards must be prepared to groom young leaders. These young people must come from different races. It is not clear if the PBS has such a plan now. The UPKO seems to have one through its Komulakan to win the young generation. In the Peninsular Malaysia, the PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat) and the DAP (Democratic Action Party) have taken the same approach. Recently, the SUPP has also realised the need to include more young and professional members to contribute to the party. The PBS is no exception if it wants to stay relevant.
Second, in order to continue to enjoy its multi-racial appeal, the PBS must increase its multi-racial members especially among those from the Muslim Bumiputera and Chinese communities who have now looked at UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), DAP, LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) and SAPP (Sabah Action People’s Party) as the alternative to the PBS. Greater role must be given to the Muslim and Chinese members in PBS so that the party is not seen as too Kadazandusun. In essence, the PBS must prove itself that it is a multi-racial party committed to promote multi-racialism in Sabah.
Third, apart from projecting itself as a strong local-based party championing state rights and autonomy, the PBS must look beyond state-centrism as its main struggle. The PBS must start focusing on bread-and-butter issues such as the increase in cost of living, increase in prices of houses, race and religious issues, and so on. The PBS must reduce its regional rhetoric and transform itself to become a party accepted by all including those in the Peninsular Malaysia. For instance, the 2011 Budget recently tabled by Prime Minister Najib Razak should be critically assessed. Rather than accepting it at face value, which Pairin did when delivering his speech, the PBS should form a working committee to critically assess its relevance given Malaysia’s economic reality. And how about the recent Auditor-General’s Report which reveals misappropriation of government’s funds? Where is the PBS? What views does it give? The point is, the PBS must look beyond state issues and broaden its policy proposals.
The SUPP (Sarawak United People’s Party) a popular Chinese-based party in Sarawak faced an embarrassing moment during the by election in Sibu in 2010 and the Sarawak State Election in 2011 after losing many of the crucial Chinese seats. Its president George Chan was even defeated in Miri. The reasons for the SUPP’s dismal performance vary from its failure to connect with the electorate and its inability to reform according to changing times. The PBS risk of facing the same if it does react to the wishes of the electorate. The PBS supporters have grown weary of the party’s snail-paced action to reform. The PBS’s contemporaries the USNO (United Sabah National Organisation) and BERJAYA were disbanded after failing to sustain the electorate’s support. But the PBS must not wait until it is rejected by the electorate. Some have chosen to remain in the PBS and others wait for the right time to leave. If the PBS wants to keep its supporters, it has no choice but to act—and now.
Sunday 13 November 2011
Thursday 1 September 2011
How Old Is Malaysia? 54 years or 48?
Many people are arguing that Malaysia achieved its independence 48 years ago and not 54. The argument is that 48 years ago, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak agreed to form a new country called Malaysia. These people say that 54 is not correct noting that it only indicates the independence for Malaya and not the whole of Malaysia. So, which one? Well, there are two issues that we need to tackle here to prevent distortion to history and to avoid further confusion to the matter.
First, the issue of independence for Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak were still under the colonial rule when Malaya achieved its independence on 31 August 1957. So technically, Sabah and Sarawak were not yet independent. Remember that Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak were different entities ruled by the British. Sabah became a British protectorate in 1888 and a colony in 1946. The British granted Sabah independence on 31 August 1963. Note that when Sabah achieved its independence on 31 August 1963, it was not yet part of Malaysia. We could say that Sabah was an independent country much like Malaya after 31 August 1957. Sarawak has a different history altogether. It fell into the rule of James Brooke who went on to establish the “White Rajah Dynasty” which ruled Sarawak for more than 100 years. James’ successor, Charles Vyner, however, surrended Sarawak to the British on 1 July 1946 and Sarawak became a Crown Colony. Unlike Sabah, Sarawak achieved its independence much earlier on 22 July 1963.
Second, the issue of when Sabah and Sarawak achieved their independence. The independence of Sabah and Sarawak must be seen within the context of the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963. A United Nations (UN) report through its Secretary-General concluded that:
“Taking into account the framework within which the Mission's task had been performed, he had come to the conclusion that the majority of the peoples of Sabah (North Borneo) and of Sarawak had given serious and thoughtful consideration to their future and to the implications for them of participation in a Federation of Malaysia. He believed that the majority of them had concluded that they wished to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region with whom they felt ties of ethnic association, heritage, language, religion, culture, economic relationship, and ideals and objectives. Not all of those considerations were present in equal weight in all minds, but it was his conclusion that the majority of the peoples of the two territories wished to engage, with the peoples of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, in an enlarged Federation of Malaysia through which they could strive together to realize the fulfillment of their destiny”
So, the three different entities Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak achieved their independence separately. Malaysia was not born in 1957 nor achieved its independence in the same year. Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak combined to form Malaysia on 16 September 1963. The Malaysia Act 1963 states that:
“For the purpose of enabling North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as "the new States") to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as "the Federation"), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States”
It it clear that Malaysia became a NEW and INDEPENDENT nation on “the appointed day”, that is, on 16 September 1963, when the new country called Malaysia was declared. Even though it should have been declared earlier on 31 August 1963 to coincide with the Malayan Independence, it was postponed to 16 September due to the opposition from Indonesia and the Philippines to the formation of Malaysia. The fact that the British through Her Majesty agreed to relinquish Her “sovereignty” and “jurisdiction” over Malaysia revealed another strong point about Malaysia’s independence on the day it was born. So, the historical documents are sufficient to clear our confusions about the country’s age. The conclusion that we can derive, therefore, is:
1. Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak were different entities which achieved their independence separately. Even though Malaya (now generally known as Peninsular Malaysia or “Semenanjung Malaysia”), Sabah and Sarawak are still DIFFERENT as far as their political and cultural backgrounds are concerned, they all belong to the same country called Malaysia.
2. Malaysia was born out of the willingness of the people of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to federate and subsequently to form Malaysia. The people of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak must be willing to integrate and embrace their religious and racial differences in the spirit of the formation of Malaysia.
3. Malaysia, as a NEW and INDEPENDENT country, was therefore born on 16 September 1963 and this makes Malaysia 48 and not 54 years of age.
4. If the government is to unite the country and its people, it should appreciate and give more value to 16 September 1963 as it was the year Malaysia was born. Politicians—especially from Sabah—must stop harping on the issue of independence day for Malaysia but looking for concrete solutions to unite Malaysians of all races and religions.
5. While the significance of 31 August 1957 cannot be ignored, national leaders must also give emphasis to 16 September 1963. To appreciate the country’s history and to unite Malaysians of all races and religions, the government must decide to celebrate the country’s independence within the context of the formation of Malaysia in 1963. The decision of the Najib Administration to make 16 September every year a national holiday is a step in the right direction. While the decision is seen as “cosmetic” by some, the challenge for the government is to put into place policies which could draw people from the Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak to work together to develop the country.
First, the issue of independence for Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak were still under the colonial rule when Malaya achieved its independence on 31 August 1957. So technically, Sabah and Sarawak were not yet independent. Remember that Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak were different entities ruled by the British. Sabah became a British protectorate in 1888 and a colony in 1946. The British granted Sabah independence on 31 August 1963. Note that when Sabah achieved its independence on 31 August 1963, it was not yet part of Malaysia. We could say that Sabah was an independent country much like Malaya after 31 August 1957. Sarawak has a different history altogether. It fell into the rule of James Brooke who went on to establish the “White Rajah Dynasty” which ruled Sarawak for more than 100 years. James’ successor, Charles Vyner, however, surrended Sarawak to the British on 1 July 1946 and Sarawak became a Crown Colony. Unlike Sabah, Sarawak achieved its independence much earlier on 22 July 1963.
Second, the issue of when Sabah and Sarawak achieved their independence. The independence of Sabah and Sarawak must be seen within the context of the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963. A United Nations (UN) report through its Secretary-General concluded that:
“Taking into account the framework within which the Mission's task had been performed, he had come to the conclusion that the majority of the peoples of Sabah (North Borneo) and of Sarawak had given serious and thoughtful consideration to their future and to the implications for them of participation in a Federation of Malaysia. He believed that the majority of them had concluded that they wished to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region with whom they felt ties of ethnic association, heritage, language, religion, culture, economic relationship, and ideals and objectives. Not all of those considerations were present in equal weight in all minds, but it was his conclusion that the majority of the peoples of the two territories wished to engage, with the peoples of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, in an enlarged Federation of Malaysia through which they could strive together to realize the fulfillment of their destiny”
So, the three different entities Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak achieved their independence separately. Malaysia was not born in 1957 nor achieved its independence in the same year. Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak combined to form Malaysia on 16 September 1963. The Malaysia Act 1963 states that:
“For the purpose of enabling North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as "the new States") to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as "the Federation"), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States”
It it clear that Malaysia became a NEW and INDEPENDENT nation on “the appointed day”, that is, on 16 September 1963, when the new country called Malaysia was declared. Even though it should have been declared earlier on 31 August 1963 to coincide with the Malayan Independence, it was postponed to 16 September due to the opposition from Indonesia and the Philippines to the formation of Malaysia. The fact that the British through Her Majesty agreed to relinquish Her “sovereignty” and “jurisdiction” over Malaysia revealed another strong point about Malaysia’s independence on the day it was born. So, the historical documents are sufficient to clear our confusions about the country’s age. The conclusion that we can derive, therefore, is:
1. Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak were different entities which achieved their independence separately. Even though Malaya (now generally known as Peninsular Malaysia or “Semenanjung Malaysia”), Sabah and Sarawak are still DIFFERENT as far as their political and cultural backgrounds are concerned, they all belong to the same country called Malaysia.
2. Malaysia was born out of the willingness of the people of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to federate and subsequently to form Malaysia. The people of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak must be willing to integrate and embrace their religious and racial differences in the spirit of the formation of Malaysia.
3. Malaysia, as a NEW and INDEPENDENT country, was therefore born on 16 September 1963 and this makes Malaysia 48 and not 54 years of age.
4. If the government is to unite the country and its people, it should appreciate and give more value to 16 September 1963 as it was the year Malaysia was born. Politicians—especially from Sabah—must stop harping on the issue of independence day for Malaysia but looking for concrete solutions to unite Malaysians of all races and religions.
5. While the significance of 31 August 1957 cannot be ignored, national leaders must also give emphasis to 16 September 1963. To appreciate the country’s history and to unite Malaysians of all races and religions, the government must decide to celebrate the country’s independence within the context of the formation of Malaysia in 1963. The decision of the Najib Administration to make 16 September every year a national holiday is a step in the right direction. While the decision is seen as “cosmetic” by some, the challenge for the government is to put into place policies which could draw people from the Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak to work together to develop the country.
Saturday 16 April 2011
Outcomes of the Sarawak election: Some key observations
Now that the results of the Sarawak election have been released and that the BN has managed to re-capture the state with more than two-thirds majority. Pundits have predicted earlier that the BN will not be able to retain its two-thirds majority and that the Opposition will trail from behind very closely. But if the results are anything to go by, they prove the pundits wrong and many have under-estimated the onslaught of the BN’s election machineries especially in rural Sarawak. My prediction that the Opposition will win handsomely in urban and Chinese-based areas proved to be correct. And the biggest casualty for BN in these areas was George Chan the Deputy Chief Minister and President of SUPP. SUPP could have also lost in Senadin but thanks to postal votes its candidate there Lee Kim Shin survived. While it is too early to tell the reasons behind SUPP’s misfortune, it is clear that the Chinese voters are not happy with the party’s performance all these years. It seems that the rural people have renewed their support to the BN except in Ba’Kelalan where they voted for the PKR candidate Baru Bian. After a third attempt, Baru finally managed to win in Ba’Kelalan. But his dream of becoming the Chief Minister has not materialised as Sarawak PKR has failed to live up to expectation. Here, the role of a candidate’s personality and character is important. Baru is a former church elder who has a strong following among the SIB-professed Lun Bawang and Kelabit voters. I wrote before that prior to polling, Lun Bawang and Kelabit voters had been receiving smses persuading them to vote for Baru. Apart from Baru’s religious affiliation and personality, the SPDP election machinery in Ba’Kelalan is partly to be blamed for the BN’s loss. Until the nomination was made, no one knew for sure who was going to take on Baru. Lack of preparation as well as failure to counter Baru’s NCR land abuse allegations contributed to the BN’s failure in Ba’Kelalan. Quite simply, no one in Ba’Kelalan is willing to take on Baru. This is understandable as almost everyone in Ba’Kelalan is related and where social cohesion is strong. Baru will remain a headache for the BN until the next state election. His presence in the state assembly will surely boost the Opposition’s credibility but the extent to which he will measure up is yet to be seen. Overall, however, Sarawak PKR’s performance has been disappointing. Winning just three seats out of 49 contested is rather too negligible to “ubah” the landscape of Sarawak politics. This means depending on Anwar’s “ceramahs” alone will not suffice to jolt the rural voters. Sarawak PKR has to do more in Sarawak. Grooming young and potential leaders is one thing and encouraging its members to fight for real issues is quite another if PKR wants to “ubah” Sarawak politics. The “star” of the election is the DAP who managed to win 12 seats out of 15 contested. SNAP has failed miserably in the election failing to win any seat even in areas it was tipped to win. All the key Iban leaders of SNAP lost in the election. This shows that some voters placed more emphasis on the personality of the candidates than their party affiliation. So, why did the BN win in rural areas and where had the Opposition gone wrong? Many have blamed money politics for the Opposition’s loss in the rural areas. While this might be the case, factor such as strong affinity to the BN also played an important role. The rural voters have been long associated with the BN and it takes more than just monetary benefits to break their loyalty to the ruling party. Lack of access to the alternative media and the culture of dependency that prevails in the rural community also ensured the BN’s comfortable majorities in the rural areas. As we can see, the Malay-Melanau and Bidayuh seats were won by BN, as expected, so were the Iban-majority seats. It is, however, too early to tell about the overall outcomes of the election as more in-depth analyses are needed to examine the voting pattern. Personally, I am interested to study Ba’Kelalan where Baru Bian won after a third attempt. Did the Lun Bawang, Kelabit and other Orang Ulu tribes in Ba’Kelalan reject Taib Mahmud’s “politics of development”? If most of the rural areas rejected the Opposition, then, why was it accepted in Ba’Kelalan. What was the message that the voters in Ba’Kelalan want to show? More to come...
Monday 4 April 2011
A David and Goliath Battle in Ba' Kelalan
The guessing game continues The BN kept the people guessing when it left the BN candidacy in Ba' Kelalan vacant. Ba' Kelalan is one of the hot seats contested in the upcoming Sarawak election. When the list of candidates was announced, no name was mentioned to represent BN in Ba' Kelalan. And the speculations about Idris Jala's first foray into the political arena were squashed after he denied that he was the BN candidate to be fielded. The reason behind the incumbent Balang Rining's exclusion remains unclear but many have speculated that the BN cannot afford to field a less politically savvy person to take on Baru Bian who is a popular NCR (Native Customary Rights) lawyer in the Lun Bawang heartlands. A source related to me that the BN candidate who will fight Baru is a young lawyer from Ba' Kelalan. Until the final candidate is announced nothing is really certain. Whoever the candidate is, he must be willing to debate with Baru about the contentious NCR issue. Baru has long established himself as a native lawyer "fighting" for the people's land which he believes to have been "robbed" by the State Government for development purposes. He invited Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud to debate the issue but the latter had shown no interest to argue with Baru in public. He did respond to Baru's allegations of the NCR land abuse but some were not happy because Taib failed to raise doubts in the issues brought against him. Are the evidences too overwhelming for Taib to counter-argue? Or, is Baru too smart to debate with Taib? I, for one, is doubtful that any debate will ever take place in our elections, what more in Sarawak. It will come as a surprise to me if debates are slotted by the aspiring candidates in their campaigns. The Idris Jala factor It is not just the NCR land issue that has established Baru's leadership among the largely Lun Bawang community in Ba' Kelalan. His characters and Christian faith are also among the factors that make him the most likely candidate to win. The two previous elections (by election in 2004 and state election in 2006) are a testimony to Baru's popularity in Ba' Kelalan. Among the interesting issue to see is whether the Kelabits--the Lun Bawangs' "cultural cousins"--will vote for or against the BN this time around. They have been known as staunch supporters to the BN. The famous Malaysian Kelabit Idris Jala's prominence as a government troubleshooter and a business maestro will further boost the Kelabits' support to the BN. Had the plan to field Jala as a candidate materialised, it could have spelt trouble for Baru as the former is also an equally popular figure among the Kelabits and the Lun Bawangs. But Jala has denied that he is the "mysterious" candidate to represent the BN. And he is tactful enough by not associating himself with the Sarawak election. Jala so far has maintained a high level of professionalism and that he knows where his real calling is. However, it remains to be seen if Jala will go down to the election ground to campaign for the BN. If he does then Baru will have a tough time convincing the Lunbawangs and Kelabits to change their minds. Whoever the BN candidate in Ba' Kelalan is, he must be shrewd enough to overcome Baru's combination of wit, charisma and religious passion. Some of the Lun Bawangs and Kelabits are not easily duped into accepting the politics of development. The Lun Bawang and Kelabit communities have produced a substantial number of professionals and have strong middle class societies. The professional and educated Lun Bawangs and Kelabits will play a prominent role in determining the winner and loser of the election in Ba' Kelalan. The role of religion Another factor that will also determine the outcome of the battle in Ba' Kelalan is religion. Prior to the announcement of the candidates, the Lun Bawangs and Kelabits received messages via sms containing persuasive calls for the two communities to vote for Baru. Some even conducted prayer rallies to ensure his victory. For those who know Baru, he is a staunch Christian and an elder at an SIB church in Kuching. Apart from conducting a regular Bible study at his house, Baru is also active in church and gives sermons regularly. Prospect for the BN candidate In the final analysis, Baru's opponent will have to look into the former's track record in order to dislodge his influence. But no matter who the person is the battle in Ba' Kelalan will see a showdown between David and Goliath. Read more: "Whither Representative Democracy in Malaysia? The Ba' Kelalan By Election" by Arnold Puyok, Contemporary Southeast Asia (Singapore) "Voting Pattern and Issue in the Ba' Kelalan State Election" by Arnold Puyok, Asian Political Science Journal (UK) *Both articles are available upon request
Monday 21 February 2011
What's in store for Sabah's politics and economy in 2011?
*This piece is based on a talk I delivered at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brunei Darussalam.
*Tables and figures are omitted for space.
Introduction
Much attention has been given to Sabah after the 2008 general elections. This is understandable as Sabah contributed a substantial number of parliamentary seats to the national parliament, without which the BN would have lost power. In order to see this clearly, it is important to look at Sabah’s electoral contribution in a proper perspective. There were 222 seats contested in the 2008 elections. Overall, BN won 140 seats, 8 more seats before it could command a two-thirds majority in parliament. For BN, having a two-thirds majority is a “prerequisite” for establishing a strong and stable government, a “standard” set by former Prime Minister (Tun) Mahathir Mohamad. Given Malaysia’s political convention, having two parties forming a coalition government is almost impossible. Of the 140 seats BN won, Sabah and Sarawak BN obtained 54 seats giving BN the advantage of winning the 2008 elections with a simple majority. If, for example, Sabah and Sarawak are left out from the calculation, it is BN with only 86 seats against the Opposition 80. With just eight-seat difference, BN would have risked losing power in the event of crossovers. Clearly, without the 54 seats from Sabah and Sarawak BN, BN would not be able to form a stable government.
With the 2008 election results, Sabah and Sarawak are BN’s fixed deposits and hold the key for BN’s survival. Sabah, however, is given more attention than Sarawak due to UMNO’s strong presence in the state. That is why it is easy to understand why more “political goods” are given to Sabah than Sarawak. Sabah, for instance, received the largest financial allocation of RM16 billion under the Ninth Malaysia Plan and four of Malaysia’s federal cabinet ministers are Sabahans while only two from Sarawak. Given the above backdrop, the paper aims to present the key political and economic outlook in Sabah in 2011.
Key Political Outlook
Political Dynamics in Sabah BN
Local politics is essentially controlled by Sabah UMNO and Musa Aman. Conflict, however, began to resurface following allegations of dominance by Musa’s allies. The first leader who dared to stick his neck out to challenge Musa openly was Chong Kah Kiat of LDP (Liberal Democratic Party). Chong was a member in Musa’s cabinet who protested the latter’s decision to stop a contruction of a religious statue in Kudat. Chong alleged that the decision was personal following his order to stop a construction project supervised by Musa’s Ministry of Finance on the idyllic Sipadan Island. The spat between the two leaders reached its climax when both decided to fight it out in court. The court’s decision, however, favoured Musa. After Chong, another LDP leader went to the open to challenge Musa stating that he could no longer work with Musa. Musa appeared to be successful in making sure that the “mini rebellion” in Sabah BN did not affect his leadership. Others in Sabah BN appeared to be supporting him, thanks to Musa’s skillful political maneuverings in keeping the “rebels” tamed.
The Bajau Challenge
As the second largest ethnic group in Sabah, Musa faces a strong challenge from the Bajau community. Even though a substantial number of the Bajaus are Sabah UMNO members, some are not happy with the alledged domination of the “Malays” led by Musa. The three Bajau leaders who pose a threat to Musa’s leadership are Salleh Said Keruak, Amirkahar Mustapha and Pandikar Amin Mulia—also known as the”big three” in USBO (United Sabah Bajau Organisation). Except for Amirkahar, Salleh and Pandikar wield a significance influence among the Bajau community. Sabah UMNO is anxious about the rise of USBO whose re-branding in 2006 was seen as an attempt to replace Sabah UMNO as a party to represent the Muslims in Sabah. When Musa decided to drop all three as candidates in the 2008 elections, it was seen as not more than an attempt to chip away the Bajau influence in Sabah UMNO. Musa, however, was quick to prevent dissatisfaction among the Bajau community by giving Salleh and Pandikar important roles in government. Salleh was appointed as Science Adviser to the Chief Minister and recently as Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly while Pandikar, with Musa’s strong endorsement, was appointed as Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives). The Bajau factor will remain an important political challenge for Musa to overcome.
The Kadazandusun Challenge
Apart from the Bajau factor, Musa also needs to ensure that his Kadazandusun support remain intact. The Kadazandusun is the largest ethnic group in Sabah accounting for 17 percent of Sabah’s total population. While the Bajau community wanted to have a greater say in Sabah UMNO, the Kadazandusun, on the other hand, demanded that a proper power arrangement in the state be introduced. The voice of the Kadazandusun community is essentially coming from PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) which is the largest Kadazandusun-based party in the state. In its party congress, PBS suggested that the power sharing arragement in Sabah should be based on 70:30 ratio. This means, if there are 10 vacant political positions in a PBS-controlled constituency, seven should be appointed among its members while the rest from other parties.
While no visible changes could be seen after such demand was made, Musa seems to be continuing to enjoy the Kadazandusun support through the Huguan Siou Joseph Pairin Kitingan. The issue of power sharing came to the fore once again after PBS demanded that the new Mayor of Kota Kinabalu be given to a qualified Kadazandusun. The present Mayor is closely related to Musa and is a Muslim. Apart from PBS, other ethnic groups across the political divides also wanted Musa to appoint their own leaders to the post. After much speculation, Musa finally agreed to appoint a Kadazandusun from Ranau as the new Mayor for Kota Kinabalu. PBS is synonymous with the fight for state rights and autonomy. PBS, however, has been criticised for being too “soft” on issues such as illegal immigrants, regional autonomy and economic imbalance between East and West Malaysia. PBS supporters argue that it is more politically viable to talk about these issue behind close door rather than openly and Pairin, it seems, prefers not to use a confrontational approach in pursuing the Sabah issues. As far the the PBS support to Musa is concerned, the Kadazandusun support remain intact and will not pose a serious challenge to Sabah UMNO.
Another important aspect to ensure a continued political stability in Sabah is federal-state relations. Sabah’s history has shown that the role of the Federal Government is crucial in determing a stable State Government. Classic examples can be seen during the reign of Mustapha Harun, Harris Salleh and Joseph Pairin Kitingan. Mustapha, who courted with the federal leaders under Tunku Abdul Rahman had to give up power after Abdul Rahman’s succesor Abdul Razak initiated the formation of BERJAYA (Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Sabah) to topple Mustapha’s USNO (United Sabah National Organisation). Musa Hitam, the then Deputy Prime Minister was instrumental in Salleh’s fall and Pairin’s rise to power; and with the fourth Prime Minister Mahathir’s role, Pairin was left seeing PBS disintegrated in 1994.
Musa has learnt the lesson well and has been tactful in ensuring that federal-state relations remain integral to Sabah’s political stability. The speculations that say that Musa is not in good terms with Prime Minister Najib are rather weak to presume a change of leadership in Sabah anytime soon. If it is true that Najib had wanted his “proxy” Shafie Apdal, the UMNO Chief in Semporna, to lead Sabah, it is not only a wrong political calculation but a risky move which could affect Najib’s popularity in Sabah. Shafie, for one, is not based in Sabah and is considered as an outsider among Sabah UMNO’s rank and file. If indeed the war to gain political supremacy in the state exists, Musa seems to have the advantage to hold on to power as he enjoys a strong local support.
Whither the Opposition?
The expectation was high for the Opposition to provide a challenge to Sabah BN. After introducing Sabah PKR, Anwar promised to return political autonomy to Sabah. Support for Sabah PKR was overwhelming at the height of its formation in Sabah. If the 2008 elections results are used as a barometer for the Opposition’s strength, it could be said that the Opposition was relatively popular among the Kadazandusun voters. A closer look at the results indicate a swing toward the Opposition in the Kadazandusun areas. At the state level, the PBS’s share of the Kadazandusun votes was 32.91 percent while Sabah PKR 33.6 percent (Table 1). Sabah PKR also appeared to obtain more popular votes (35.02 percent) at the parliament level compared to PBS 24.55 percent. The results show that Sabah PKR managed to increase its popularity among the Kadazandusun voters. There are two main reasons to account for this swing. First, some Kadazandusuns were attracted to Sabah PKR’s promise to restore political autonomy in Sabah. Second, some were disappointed with Joseph Pairin Kitingan’s leadership and his failure in addressing issues such as illegal immigrants, regional economic imbalance and so on. They saw Sabah PKR as an “alternative” to PBS.
Sabah PKR, however, failed to maintain its strong presence in Sabah. Internal conflicts and squabblings among its leaders have weakened Sabah PKR. It faced a major crisis after Jeffrey Kitingan withdrew from the party and formed an NGO called UBF (United Borneo Front). Crisis in Sabah PKR intensified after its chief Pajudin Nordin resigned and joined Sabah UMNO. The introduction of a Presidential Council during the interim period before crisis in Sabah PKR is solved will do little to bring Sabah PKR to its former glory. Unless new breed of leaders with fresh and progressive ideas introduced, Sabah PKR will not be able to give real challenge to Musa and Sabah BN. With the continuing and unsettled problems in Sabah PKR, Musa has moved a step further in consolidating his power by ensuring that support for Sabah BN is solidified. With the 13th general election looms, the prospect of Sabah BN to retaining power is bright. Compared to his counterpart in Sarawak who is battling to stay in power, Musa will continue to lead Sabah as long as he is able to unite the Sabah BN parties and to maintain good relations with the Federal Government. It is worth noting that when presenting the 2011 State Budget, Musa announced an increase in the special allocation given to state constituency of RM1 million from RM600,000 previously. Musa also announced an increase in allocation to help the needy in each consituency to RM100,000. With the popularity of the “politics of development” among the rural people, Musa is sure having their support intact.
Key Economic Outlook
Sabah has registered a positive trade balance between 2006 and 2009 (Figure 1). This may be due to high demand for palm oil and crude petroleum worldwide. From January to June 2010, palm oil and crude petroleum accounted for 33 percent and 38 percent of Sabah’s commodities export (Figure 2). Sabah’s economy is set to be robust if the demand for these two commodities remain high. Sabah’s economy is also expected to register a healthy growth next year with the arrival of 2.5 million tourists that could earn the state more than RM5 billion in revenue. With the slogan “High Yiled, Longer Stay, Less Is More, tourism industry is set to play an important role in Sabah’s economic development.
Sabah has seen its GDP increasing consistently from 2002 to 2006 (Figure 3). In 2007, Sabah GDP’s was RM27 billion and increased by about 7 percent to RM29 billion in 2008. Along with the increase in GDP is an increase in Sabah’s per capita income. In 2007, per capita income in Sabah was RM12,583 and increased to RM17,239 in 2008 (Figure 4). While Musa and the Sabah BN have reason to smile for Sabah’s healthy economic growth, more have to be done to address a number of socio-economic concerns. The incidence of overty remains high in Sabah at 23 percent compared to national average of 6 percent. The World Bank’s calculation for poverty in Sabah is even higher at more than 23 percent (Figure 5). Sabah has also registered high incidence of hardcore poverty at 7 percent compared to national average of 1.2 percent. Unemployment rate in Sabah is also high at 6.1 percent in the first quarter of 2009 compared to national average of 4.0 percent. To address the problem of poverty, Sabah has allocated RM162 million to initiate poverty eradication excercises. On top of this allocation is the Federal Government’s assistance of RM40 million under the 1 Azam Programme.
Sabah is also expected to benefit from the ETP (Economic Transformation Plan) through the 71 high-income projects earmarked for the state. 25 of such projects will be developed in rural areas while the rest in urban areas. The projects are not only expected to create jobs for the local people but to increase the state’s GDP and income level. The main challenge for the Sabah BN, however, is to generate economic growth through domestic-initiated investments which could add value to Sabah’s economic strengths. The promises made to develop the SDC (Sabah Development Corridor) must be fulfilled through sound and effective economic policies. The onus is on Musa and Sabah BN to prove that the SDC is not more than a political gimmick but a practical economic plan to develop Sabah.
Conclusion
With the present political atmosphere, it is expected that Sabah BN will continue to lead Sabah and that Musa will continue to helm the government. The Opposition appears to be unable to pose a real challenge due to internal conflicts. Even though Sabah’s economy has registered a healthy growth, there are concerns about the incidence of poverty and unemployment that the government must address.
*Tables and figures are omitted for space.
Introduction
Much attention has been given to Sabah after the 2008 general elections. This is understandable as Sabah contributed a substantial number of parliamentary seats to the national parliament, without which the BN would have lost power. In order to see this clearly, it is important to look at Sabah’s electoral contribution in a proper perspective. There were 222 seats contested in the 2008 elections. Overall, BN won 140 seats, 8 more seats before it could command a two-thirds majority in parliament. For BN, having a two-thirds majority is a “prerequisite” for establishing a strong and stable government, a “standard” set by former Prime Minister (Tun) Mahathir Mohamad. Given Malaysia’s political convention, having two parties forming a coalition government is almost impossible. Of the 140 seats BN won, Sabah and Sarawak BN obtained 54 seats giving BN the advantage of winning the 2008 elections with a simple majority. If, for example, Sabah and Sarawak are left out from the calculation, it is BN with only 86 seats against the Opposition 80. With just eight-seat difference, BN would have risked losing power in the event of crossovers. Clearly, without the 54 seats from Sabah and Sarawak BN, BN would not be able to form a stable government.
With the 2008 election results, Sabah and Sarawak are BN’s fixed deposits and hold the key for BN’s survival. Sabah, however, is given more attention than Sarawak due to UMNO’s strong presence in the state. That is why it is easy to understand why more “political goods” are given to Sabah than Sarawak. Sabah, for instance, received the largest financial allocation of RM16 billion under the Ninth Malaysia Plan and four of Malaysia’s federal cabinet ministers are Sabahans while only two from Sarawak. Given the above backdrop, the paper aims to present the key political and economic outlook in Sabah in 2011.
Key Political Outlook
Political Dynamics in Sabah BN
Local politics is essentially controlled by Sabah UMNO and Musa Aman. Conflict, however, began to resurface following allegations of dominance by Musa’s allies. The first leader who dared to stick his neck out to challenge Musa openly was Chong Kah Kiat of LDP (Liberal Democratic Party). Chong was a member in Musa’s cabinet who protested the latter’s decision to stop a contruction of a religious statue in Kudat. Chong alleged that the decision was personal following his order to stop a construction project supervised by Musa’s Ministry of Finance on the idyllic Sipadan Island. The spat between the two leaders reached its climax when both decided to fight it out in court. The court’s decision, however, favoured Musa. After Chong, another LDP leader went to the open to challenge Musa stating that he could no longer work with Musa. Musa appeared to be successful in making sure that the “mini rebellion” in Sabah BN did not affect his leadership. Others in Sabah BN appeared to be supporting him, thanks to Musa’s skillful political maneuverings in keeping the “rebels” tamed.
The Bajau Challenge
As the second largest ethnic group in Sabah, Musa faces a strong challenge from the Bajau community. Even though a substantial number of the Bajaus are Sabah UMNO members, some are not happy with the alledged domination of the “Malays” led by Musa. The three Bajau leaders who pose a threat to Musa’s leadership are Salleh Said Keruak, Amirkahar Mustapha and Pandikar Amin Mulia—also known as the”big three” in USBO (United Sabah Bajau Organisation). Except for Amirkahar, Salleh and Pandikar wield a significance influence among the Bajau community. Sabah UMNO is anxious about the rise of USBO whose re-branding in 2006 was seen as an attempt to replace Sabah UMNO as a party to represent the Muslims in Sabah. When Musa decided to drop all three as candidates in the 2008 elections, it was seen as not more than an attempt to chip away the Bajau influence in Sabah UMNO. Musa, however, was quick to prevent dissatisfaction among the Bajau community by giving Salleh and Pandikar important roles in government. Salleh was appointed as Science Adviser to the Chief Minister and recently as Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly while Pandikar, with Musa’s strong endorsement, was appointed as Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives). The Bajau factor will remain an important political challenge for Musa to overcome.
The Kadazandusun Challenge
Apart from the Bajau factor, Musa also needs to ensure that his Kadazandusun support remain intact. The Kadazandusun is the largest ethnic group in Sabah accounting for 17 percent of Sabah’s total population. While the Bajau community wanted to have a greater say in Sabah UMNO, the Kadazandusun, on the other hand, demanded that a proper power arrangement in the state be introduced. The voice of the Kadazandusun community is essentially coming from PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) which is the largest Kadazandusun-based party in the state. In its party congress, PBS suggested that the power sharing arragement in Sabah should be based on 70:30 ratio. This means, if there are 10 vacant political positions in a PBS-controlled constituency, seven should be appointed among its members while the rest from other parties.
While no visible changes could be seen after such demand was made, Musa seems to be continuing to enjoy the Kadazandusun support through the Huguan Siou Joseph Pairin Kitingan. The issue of power sharing came to the fore once again after PBS demanded that the new Mayor of Kota Kinabalu be given to a qualified Kadazandusun. The present Mayor is closely related to Musa and is a Muslim. Apart from PBS, other ethnic groups across the political divides also wanted Musa to appoint their own leaders to the post. After much speculation, Musa finally agreed to appoint a Kadazandusun from Ranau as the new Mayor for Kota Kinabalu. PBS is synonymous with the fight for state rights and autonomy. PBS, however, has been criticised for being too “soft” on issues such as illegal immigrants, regional autonomy and economic imbalance between East and West Malaysia. PBS supporters argue that it is more politically viable to talk about these issue behind close door rather than openly and Pairin, it seems, prefers not to use a confrontational approach in pursuing the Sabah issues. As far the the PBS support to Musa is concerned, the Kadazandusun support remain intact and will not pose a serious challenge to Sabah UMNO.
Another important aspect to ensure a continued political stability in Sabah is federal-state relations. Sabah’s history has shown that the role of the Federal Government is crucial in determing a stable State Government. Classic examples can be seen during the reign of Mustapha Harun, Harris Salleh and Joseph Pairin Kitingan. Mustapha, who courted with the federal leaders under Tunku Abdul Rahman had to give up power after Abdul Rahman’s succesor Abdul Razak initiated the formation of BERJAYA (Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Sabah) to topple Mustapha’s USNO (United Sabah National Organisation). Musa Hitam, the then Deputy Prime Minister was instrumental in Salleh’s fall and Pairin’s rise to power; and with the fourth Prime Minister Mahathir’s role, Pairin was left seeing PBS disintegrated in 1994.
Musa has learnt the lesson well and has been tactful in ensuring that federal-state relations remain integral to Sabah’s political stability. The speculations that say that Musa is not in good terms with Prime Minister Najib are rather weak to presume a change of leadership in Sabah anytime soon. If it is true that Najib had wanted his “proxy” Shafie Apdal, the UMNO Chief in Semporna, to lead Sabah, it is not only a wrong political calculation but a risky move which could affect Najib’s popularity in Sabah. Shafie, for one, is not based in Sabah and is considered as an outsider among Sabah UMNO’s rank and file. If indeed the war to gain political supremacy in the state exists, Musa seems to have the advantage to hold on to power as he enjoys a strong local support.
Whither the Opposition?
The expectation was high for the Opposition to provide a challenge to Sabah BN. After introducing Sabah PKR, Anwar promised to return political autonomy to Sabah. Support for Sabah PKR was overwhelming at the height of its formation in Sabah. If the 2008 elections results are used as a barometer for the Opposition’s strength, it could be said that the Opposition was relatively popular among the Kadazandusun voters. A closer look at the results indicate a swing toward the Opposition in the Kadazandusun areas. At the state level, the PBS’s share of the Kadazandusun votes was 32.91 percent while Sabah PKR 33.6 percent (Table 1). Sabah PKR also appeared to obtain more popular votes (35.02 percent) at the parliament level compared to PBS 24.55 percent. The results show that Sabah PKR managed to increase its popularity among the Kadazandusun voters. There are two main reasons to account for this swing. First, some Kadazandusuns were attracted to Sabah PKR’s promise to restore political autonomy in Sabah. Second, some were disappointed with Joseph Pairin Kitingan’s leadership and his failure in addressing issues such as illegal immigrants, regional economic imbalance and so on. They saw Sabah PKR as an “alternative” to PBS.
Sabah PKR, however, failed to maintain its strong presence in Sabah. Internal conflicts and squabblings among its leaders have weakened Sabah PKR. It faced a major crisis after Jeffrey Kitingan withdrew from the party and formed an NGO called UBF (United Borneo Front). Crisis in Sabah PKR intensified after its chief Pajudin Nordin resigned and joined Sabah UMNO. The introduction of a Presidential Council during the interim period before crisis in Sabah PKR is solved will do little to bring Sabah PKR to its former glory. Unless new breed of leaders with fresh and progressive ideas introduced, Sabah PKR will not be able to give real challenge to Musa and Sabah BN. With the continuing and unsettled problems in Sabah PKR, Musa has moved a step further in consolidating his power by ensuring that support for Sabah BN is solidified. With the 13th general election looms, the prospect of Sabah BN to retaining power is bright. Compared to his counterpart in Sarawak who is battling to stay in power, Musa will continue to lead Sabah as long as he is able to unite the Sabah BN parties and to maintain good relations with the Federal Government. It is worth noting that when presenting the 2011 State Budget, Musa announced an increase in the special allocation given to state constituency of RM1 million from RM600,000 previously. Musa also announced an increase in allocation to help the needy in each consituency to RM100,000. With the popularity of the “politics of development” among the rural people, Musa is sure having their support intact.
Key Economic Outlook
Sabah has registered a positive trade balance between 2006 and 2009 (Figure 1). This may be due to high demand for palm oil and crude petroleum worldwide. From January to June 2010, palm oil and crude petroleum accounted for 33 percent and 38 percent of Sabah’s commodities export (Figure 2). Sabah’s economy is set to be robust if the demand for these two commodities remain high. Sabah’s economy is also expected to register a healthy growth next year with the arrival of 2.5 million tourists that could earn the state more than RM5 billion in revenue. With the slogan “High Yiled, Longer Stay, Less Is More, tourism industry is set to play an important role in Sabah’s economic development.
Sabah has seen its GDP increasing consistently from 2002 to 2006 (Figure 3). In 2007, Sabah GDP’s was RM27 billion and increased by about 7 percent to RM29 billion in 2008. Along with the increase in GDP is an increase in Sabah’s per capita income. In 2007, per capita income in Sabah was RM12,583 and increased to RM17,239 in 2008 (Figure 4). While Musa and the Sabah BN have reason to smile for Sabah’s healthy economic growth, more have to be done to address a number of socio-economic concerns. The incidence of overty remains high in Sabah at 23 percent compared to national average of 6 percent. The World Bank’s calculation for poverty in Sabah is even higher at more than 23 percent (Figure 5). Sabah has also registered high incidence of hardcore poverty at 7 percent compared to national average of 1.2 percent. Unemployment rate in Sabah is also high at 6.1 percent in the first quarter of 2009 compared to national average of 4.0 percent. To address the problem of poverty, Sabah has allocated RM162 million to initiate poverty eradication excercises. On top of this allocation is the Federal Government’s assistance of RM40 million under the 1 Azam Programme.
Sabah is also expected to benefit from the ETP (Economic Transformation Plan) through the 71 high-income projects earmarked for the state. 25 of such projects will be developed in rural areas while the rest in urban areas. The projects are not only expected to create jobs for the local people but to increase the state’s GDP and income level. The main challenge for the Sabah BN, however, is to generate economic growth through domestic-initiated investments which could add value to Sabah’s economic strengths. The promises made to develop the SDC (Sabah Development Corridor) must be fulfilled through sound and effective economic policies. The onus is on Musa and Sabah BN to prove that the SDC is not more than a political gimmick but a practical economic plan to develop Sabah.
Conclusion
With the present political atmosphere, it is expected that Sabah BN will continue to lead Sabah and that Musa will continue to helm the government. The Opposition appears to be unable to pose a real challenge due to internal conflicts. Even though Sabah’s economy has registered a healthy growth, there are concerns about the incidence of poverty and unemployment that the government must address.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)