Greater decentralisation, not a "review" of the Malaysia Agreement

The Federal Constitution is clear about the safeguards for Sabah. These safeguards are not enjoyed by other states in the federation (except Sarawak). Enough said about why these safeguards were included. What is important now is how they can be effectively implemented for the benefits of Sabahans. This is where a robust decentralisation policy for the country is needed. The main argument in support for decentralisation is that Sabah is culturally and geographically unique compared to other states especially in Peninsular Malaysia.

Decentralisation will allow Sabah leaders, administrators, policy makers and implementers to develop the state according to its needs. Take, for instance, the construction of schools in rural areas. Federal and state education officers should be empowered to make decisions faster for the benefit of rural school children. This should also be applied in public delivery system involving federal services.  

Sabah should also be allowed to determine how best its multiracial society be managed. This is important to preserve Sabah’s cultural uniqueness. The naming or re-naming of ethnic groups in Sabah should be done after consulting the state’s various cultural stakeholders. Economically, local players should be empowered so that they can design and implement business models suited for Sabah’s business environment.

If Sabah leaders are not happy that they are getting little powers to manage the state, they should form a committee to look into the division of powers between state and federal governments i.e. State List, Federal List and Concurrent List in the Federal Constitution. For starters, a high-level bipartisan committee should be formed to look into this carefully. The committee can then study and recommend strategies to improve the implementation of state and federal powers. The next step is to push for an amendment in the Federal Constitution. This is more practical than persuading the August House to review the Malaysia Agreement, IGC (Inter-Governmental Committee) Report and 20-point.

Academic debates on the Malaysia Agreement should be encouraged but Sabah needs more than intellectual exercises to develop its people. Sabahans need education, jobs, better standard of living, and more importantly, security. It is time for Sabahans to embrace progressive ideas to develop Sabah. There are better ways to safeguard Sabah’s unique position in the federation. The Malaysia Agreement is still -- and forever will be -- relevant in spirit. This spirit must be carried on by pragmatic and progressive thinking Sabahans.       

Saving the Federation of Malaysia

“[Sabah’s] Dilemma in the Federation of Malaysia”

Based on my talk at the forum on “Dilema dalam Persekutuan Malaysia” organised by PiPPA Sabah at Dewan Hakka, Kota Kinabalu

Introduction

Understanding the concept of federation

It is “a formal division of legislative, executive, judicial and financial powers between the Central Government and the State Governments though the weightage is heavily in favour of the Central Government”. This formal division of power is clearly stated in the Federal Constitution

However, in the context of Malaysia, power rests heavily in the Federal Government that has been ruled by BN since independence particularly under former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad whose hallmark of leadership is a strong government achieved through a two-thirds majority in parliament 

It is important to distinguish between unitary and confederation. In a unitary system, power lies in the hands of the Central Government. The Central Government has greater say in directing the affairs of people in local units — i.e. Brunei (unitary monarchy), Japan, Thailand, etc. In a confederation, power is held by the constituent units. The Central Government only plays a “coordinating role” — i.e. European Union 

From the Federation of Malaya to the Federation of Malaysia

Federation of Malaya 1957

The Federation of Malaysia 1963 has its origin in the Federation of Malaya 1957. The latter consisted of eleven Malay states in the Peninsular Malaysia. The Federation of Malaya was instituted by the British to ensure a strong administrative system through centralisation of power. The main features of the Federation of Malaya were: strong Central Government,  power to states on matters related to religion (Islam), and Malay customs. The reason for the British to agree to a federal arrangement was to preserve state uniqueness while at the same time to maintain control over the country’s financial and political affairs

Federation of Malaysia 1963

It is the expanded version of the Federation of Malaya to include new states —Singapore (but later withdrew in 1965), Sabah and Sarawak. The structure of the new federation was discussed as early as before the inception of Malaysia. Britain’s initial idea was to form a “super-federation” consisting of Gov. of Malaya, Gov. of Singapore, Gov. of the three Borneo territories — Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei — with complete autonomy in internal affairs by each government. Britain agreed with the federal structure only if it is supported by the people and that they have attained self-rule first

It is assumed that our founding fathers had deliberated on the federal structure based on the Malaysian Agreement 1963 (Article 1). In fact, the Federal Constitution is quite clear about Malaysia’s federal system and the status of the states within it

However, there seems to be a gap in our understanding with regards to the origin of the Federation of Malaysia vis-a-vis the agreement among our country’s founding fathers on the proper federal system to be adopted: did they unanimously agree on the proposed federal structure especially on Sabah’s and Sarawak’s status under the federation? Did our leaders consider the long-term implications of a federal system with a strong Central Government? Did they rigorously discuss the guiding-principle of the Federation of Malaysia as far as nation-building is concerned?

Despite the many weaknesses of the federal system, it is considered as applicable to Malaysia given its vast area and heterogenous society

A federal structure is also timely to accommodate Sabah and Sarawak. What remains an issue until today is the status of Sabah and Sarawak in the federation: are they the 12th and 13th states under the federation? Are Sabah and Sarawak equal partners with Peninsular Malaysia combined? Has their status been deliberately demoted by the Federal Government?

Despite the unending polemics over Sabah’s and Sarawak’s status, they have considerable power and autonomy in the federation. Their special position in the federation is part of the condition set by local leaders before Sabah’s and Sarawak’s incorporation into Malaysia. The condition was put forward because Sabah and Sarawak were culturally unique and were less politically and economically advanced than Malaya. It is also to weigh against possible Malayan domination

Sabah’s and Sarawak’s special position in the federation:

1. Financial
• Special sources of revenue under Part IV of the 10th Schedule
• Special grants under Article 112D (6)
• Additional sources of revenue under Part V of the 10th Schedule
2. Legislative
• Special legislative powers on items in the Supplementary State List and the Supplementary Concurrent List of the 9th Schedule
• Legislative powers on land, agriculture, forestry and local government (Articles 95D and 95E)
3. Immigration 
• Restrictions on West Malaysian lawyers practising in Sabah and Sarawak (Article 161B)
• Exclusive control over immigration (Article 161E [4] and Part VII of the Immigration Act 
4. Judicial
• Special consultative processes relating to appointment, removal and suspension of judges in the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak (Article 161E [2][b])

Issues in the Federation of Malaysia

Ideological clash (“competing nationalisms”)

The ideological approach in the academic texts of federalism looks at the “ideological and philosophical foundation of federalism”. Ideologies clash due to differences in language, culture and religion — i.e. Canada — conflict between the minorities Inuit, Quebecois and the majority English-speaking (anglophones) population

Malaysia’s federal foundation is essentially driven by Malay-Muslim nationalism — a “copycat” of the previous federal structure under the Federation of Malaya — even though the later federal structure — the Federation of Malaysia — was significantly altered to accommodate non-Islamic and non-Malay territories of Sabah and Sarawak. From 1957-1963, efforts to “build” the country through language and education was done with a strong Malay-Muslim flavour. Politically, the Federal Government would find a willing ally in Sabah and Sarawak to promote the Malay-Muslim federal framework of nation-building. This was the main reason for Mustapha Harun’s (of USNO) elevation to power and the ouster of Donald Stephens. The latter leader was regarded by the Federal Government as a strong regional leader who supported Sabah’s secular and multiracial outlook. With a strong federal support, Mustapha promoted a policy of “one language (Malay), one religion (Islam) and one culture (Malay)” as a basis for creating national solidarity in Sabah. This was opposed by many non-Muslim Sabahans. Conflict with the Federal Government escalated when PBS rose to power

Issue concerning national identity, a vision for national unity and integrity continue to plague Malaysian society. A British scholar writes: “Indeed, the Malaysia that was inaugurated on 16 September 1963 failed to wholly satisfy, nor did it reflect a homogenous national identity. Rather it was the product of grudging compromise and underpinned by only fragile guarantees: its formation was peppered with resistance and that it came into being at all was regarded by many at that time as a close-run thing”

Imbalance in centre-periphery relations

This imbalance is marked by centralisation of power by the Federal Government. Most national policies are dictated by the Federal Government. There is little room for state players to contribute

In politics, federal’s dominating role is obvious. Under Mahathir, the Federal Government would use its constitutional power and political power (two-thirds majority in parliament) to force the State Government to prioritise federal than state needs

Federal power in Sabah was further consolidated with UMNO’s entry in 1994

The Federal Government would “punish” stubborn state leaders who refuse to subscribe to its agenda by declaring them “persona non grata” in the country’s decision-making process and also by reducing the compulsory federal allocation to the state

In education, school syllabi do not reflect Malaysia’s multicultural outlook. Sabah’s and Sarawak’s unique historical and cultural background were not given due consideration

On the economic front, government’s revenue and total expenditure were dominated by the Federal Government —  96% and 80% respectively in 1990. And even though forestry is a state matter, timber exports and industry are under the federal control. In 1992, the Federal Government banned log exports from Sabah, causing the state to lose revenue

Lack of meaningful engagement between federal and state administrative officers

Owning a satellite dish by private individuals in Sabah is one of the many issues showing lack of contact between federal and state administrative officers/policy-makers. Federal said no to owning a private satellite dish. The state counter-argued saying that the Federal Government was protecting ASTRO and was victimising  Sabahans especially those in the rural areas who did not have the means to access to information. Licensing requirements especially from SIRIM and MCMC caused unhappiness and led to perception of federal officers’ lack of sensitivity to local needs

There is also this issue of Sabah wanting to proclaim many of its natural sites as World Heritage Site. But the plan was thwarted by the Federal Government that refused to support it until those sites are federalised

The state does not have autonomy in managing local educational matters too. The state has charged that it cannot manage projects below RM500k. Many schools especially in the rural areas are in dire need of repair and maintenance. Repairs and maintenance works are slow as state officers need to wait for approval from their federal counterparts. Work progress is also affected by delay in payment to local contractors by Putrajaya 

Had there been meaningful and constant contacts between federal and state administrative officers, most of the administrative problems such as those cited above could be solved. Due to lack of constructive engagement between federal and state civil service, unscrupulous politicians took advantage to pit the Federal Government against the state. 

Ways to harmonise federal-state relations

A clear vision of national unity and integration

The Vision 2020 can be used as a point of reference. The first point of the Vision 2020 is “to establish a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny — a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one Bangsa Malaysia with political loyalty and dedication to the nation”. But the question is: how are we going to become a united Malaysian nation if we are still arguing over the year of our country’s founding? How are we to achieve Bangsa Malaysia if we continue to talk about our rights — race, religious, regional — instead of sharing them with fellow Malaysians? 

Our leaders must be extremely clear about what kind of Malaysia they wish to see. The concept of 1Malaysia looks very ideal on paper but it has to be made workable in practise: is it a concept for the purpose of nation-building? Is it a concept for re-branding of government commercial products? Is it a concept to promote the country’s tourism industry? There is one huge billboard with a tagline “menghayati 1Malaysia”. Strangely, the tagline is followed by a picture of a group of depressed-looking proboscis monkeys at the background. It looks like we can use the concept of 1Malaysia to describe everything and anything! 

Equilibrium in centre-periphery relations 

To ensure equilibrium, there has to be effective implementation of the Federal Constitution vis-a-vis the safeguards for Sabah and Sarawak. It is about time the Federal Government to decentralise power as a way to lessen its dominance and to allow the state to develop independently according to its needs. There are two types of decentralisation: devolution of power and deconcentration of administration. Devolution of power is also known as “home rule” in which the state is given autonomy in making wide range of decisions — i.e. Denmark giving autonomy to Greenland as Greenland’s minority population — the Inuits — are culturally and socially different from the Danes. Denmark only retains power in foreign affairs and defense. Deconcentration of administration happens when state federal officers make decisions independently. Apart from checking and balancing the power of the Federal Government, deconcentration, if applied effectively and judiciously, can also ensure effectiveness in public-delivery system. The state should be allowed to deal independently with its socio-cultural policy. Sabah and Sarawak should determine how they wish to preserve their people’s diverse culture, just like India’s “territorial linguism" and Ethiopia’s “cultural and linguistic autonomy”. Deconcentration of administration in the socio-cultural realm is important to preserve the ethnic identities of the various indigenous communities in Sabah and Sarawak

Our leaders could also enact a Territorial Integration Act to renew the commitment of federal and state leaders to abide by the Federal Constitution. It is a kind of "Oath-Fellowship" that can be found in Switzerland. It is a “covenant” to conserve differences and diversity

The government should also establish a constitutional court to arbiter the conflict between the Federal and State Governments — i.e. a special court in Germany — the Federal Constitutional Court — to check against the centralising tendency of the Federal Government

Before decentralisation of power can be fully implemented, a National Council of Decentralisation or National Decentralisation Commission should be established to review aspects that are over-centralised and need to be decentralised, areas that are under-centralised and need to be centralised, and to review how the concept of power sharing between the Federal and State Governments can be harmonised in light of Malaysia’s multicultural make-up

Constructive engagement between federal and state administrative officers

The role of the State Federal Office needs to be strengthened so that federal priorities do not clash with that of state’s

The government can also organise a yearly conference between federal and state administrative officers to discuss issues in implementation of federal and state programmes. A frequent conference is important to increase “contacts” between the federal and state civil service. The government could also revive the “State and Federal Relationships Committee” meetings between state secretaries and senior federal government officers

Conclusion

A good federal-state relations is vital for Malaysia’s survival. Talks of secession should not be swept under the carpet. Secession threats are culminated in dissatisfactions of some sections of society. People who promote secession from Malaysia should be engaged in a civil and rational manner. At the same time, the government must double the efforts to increase the sense of belonging of people from various races and religions towards the country. Malaysia is worth preserving but it also needs changing

Celebrating Diversity

Based on my inaugural speech at the Kuching Toasmaster Club Meeting

Let me be specific about the topic of diversity. This is important as the topic is wide for the uninitiated. I want to talk about diversity as in cultural diversity; culture as in values or norms that guide a person’s way of life or how he/she looks at the world around him/her. 

I consider this topic interesting as I myself was born and brought up in a culturally diverse environment. My late father is a Filipino from the Ilo-Ilo province in the Philippines while my mother is a Lundayeh (or Lunbawang) from Sabah. My father did not tell me much about his cultural background until I discovered it myself in what I call an epic journey to Ilo-Ilo in July this year. My father is an Illonggo, one of the many ethnic groups in the Philippines. The Illonggos are regarded as “malambing” (gentle/soft-spoken). Generally, they also do not take life very seriously. This probably explains my father’s laid back and free-wheeling lifestyle! 

When I married to a Kenyah-Kelabit in 2005, I came to deeply appreciate cultural diversity even more. I remember my marriage was one that was full of cultural display. We had my uncle explaining to my wife’s family the significance of the traditional gifts we brought for the bride, and the bride’s family representative telling us about the Kenyah/Kelabit cultural uniqueness.  

At home, we celebrate cultural diversity in its various forms occasionally. We can taste different food menu, ranging from the Filipino’s highly popular “lechon” (roasted pig cooked over charcoal), the Lundayeh’s “telu” (pickled meat), to the Kelabit’s “duree” (minced vegetables). We also use different languages to communicate. When my wife asked me once whether I wanted to eat “labo”, I vehemently said no thinking that labo in the Lundayeh language means “rat” but in Kelabit it means “meat” — normally fish or pork meat!

But the most important point that I want to stress today is our country’s cultural diversity. There are more than 80 different ethnic groups in Malaysia — or probably more — if we take into account not only the main ethnic groups but the sub-ethnic groups as well. Each of these ethnic groups has its own language and tradition. One thing that makes Malaysia unique is that each of the main ethnic group can practise its own tradition without hindrance. What is more important is that the rights to practise our own culture are clearly spelt out in the constitution. Despite our cultural differences, we have been able to live in peace and harmony for more than 50 years. So our country’s strength, I must emphasise, is its cultural diversity. To ensure the survival of our country as a nation, it’s not about accepting other people’s cultural differences anymore; it’s about celebrating those differences with them!  

I would like to end by stating a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “no culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive”. Let’s share with the world the uniqueness of our cultural background. By doing so, we may not only help in promoting it but also in prolonging its lifespan. Let’s also send a strong message to the world that “there is beauty and there is strength” in cultural diversity. 

Crisis in Selangor erodes public confidence in PR

PR is a tripartite coalition comprising PKR, DAP and PAS. It has been able to capture the imagination of Malaysian public due to its inclusive policies and promising young leaders. PR’s popularity was evident following its major victory in 2008 in which it managed to deny the ruling party BN its customary two-thirds majority in parliament. The opposition coalition once more managed to deny BN its absolute electoral victory last year. Without Sabah and Sarawak, the ruling coalition risked of losing the government.

Since 2008, the people’s expectations of PR are high because it sets a very high standard of governing. It promises to establish a better Malaysia by providing its citizens freedom, equality and justice. Swelling support for PR — especially from the urban, professionals and young — electorates — comes amid BN’s decades-long rule that has been marred by inefficiency, lack of transparency and abuse of powers. Despite Prime Minister Najib Razak’s effort to transform the country, many people are still unconvinced due to BN’s lack of resolve in fulfilling many of its reform promises. Ardent PR supporters are not giving up hope yet while the undecided public are keeping a close watch on the opposition coalition’s performance in Kelantan, Penang dan Selangor. While Kelantan and Penang remain relatively stable, Selangor is not due to the persistent leadership struggle within PKR. The leadership crisis in Selangor does not look good on PR as it runs counter to the coalition’s boastful “demi rakyat” (for the people) rallying point. The people are asking: if indeed PR is serious about uplifting the people’s well-being, why isn't the PR leadership helping the embattled Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim to solve Selangor’s pressing domestic problems? Why the move to remove Khalid when Selangor is in dire need of a leader?

While it is PKR’s prerogative to appoint and sack its own leaders, the manner in which Khalid was removed from the party was highly questionable. It is not enough for PR to explain the reason behind Khalid’s sacking in a single rally alone. The Malaysian public — those seeking a better alternative to BN — deserve to know the answer as to why Khalid was unceremoniously removed from the party. The main questions which PR really need to answer are: if Khalid was sacked on the ground of integrity, were there any proofs to back up the claim? And if indeed Khalid needed to be replaced due to his sheer incompetence as Menteri Besar, why was he not given ample opportunity to prove himself that he has strategies to get Selangor back on track? Did he fail as Menteri Besar during his first term of office? And, why must Khalid be removed in haste?

Even though Khalid is still legally the Menteri Besar, he is in danger of losing legitimacy in the event of PAS, PKR and DAP withdrawing their support to the former corporate captain in the legislative assembly. For observers and experts alike, the Selangor leadership crisis can only be solved through a vote of no confidence. Khalid might lose all the support in PKR but it does not mean that he has to step down as Menteri Besar without evidence of Khalid losing support from Selangor’s elected representatives. PR is answerable to the people who elected it to power. Is a snap election possible? Yes, but it is the most risky move for PR to take as there is no guarantee that the coalition can win in Selangor again. PR is deeply divided over the crisis and the public are getting weary. It is possible for the frustrated public to shun from voting as they did during the Kajang by-election as some are getting tired of political drama staged by self-serving politicians. As in the case of Selangorians, they want the state’s domestic issues to be solved fast. Even if the scheme to remove Khalid is successful, PR has a lot of work to do to regain the eroding public confidence.

Let's Build Malaysia Together

The last couple of years has been challenging for Malaysia. Racial and religious cleavages are getting deeper than ever. If these are not addressed soon, the future of the country is at stake. Many people attribute to intolerance and bigotry to Malaysia’s present state of affairs, not to mention the leaders’ lack of assertiveness in dealing with raising racial and religious tensions. Why is this happening after Malaysia’s founding 51 years ago? In the talk which I delivered at the forum of “Building Malaysia: The Way Forward”, I argued that it is important for the country to emphasise on efforts to build Malaysia, starting from the young generation. It is also important for Malaysians to talk less about race, religion and regionalism but more about policy issues. While much has been written about the formation of Malaysia in 1963, there is so little attempt to look at the historic event from the perspective of nation-building. I had the privilege to attend a forum discussing this long neglected topic. PIMPIN (Persatuan Alumni Majlis Perwakilan Pelajar Universiti Teknologi MARA) Sabah Chapter and the Sabah Strategic Forum (SSF) — the main organisers of the forum — should be commended for their effort in making the event a great success. Here is the full text of my talk.

I do not wish to discuss the concept of nation-building in detail. My understanding of the concept is quite modest. For me, nation-building is a process of attaining people’s sense of belonging and national identity through various political, social, and economic programmes. In the context of Malaysia, efforts to build the country started in two phases. The first phase happened in 1957 when Malaya achieved its independence. The second phase occurred in 1963 when Sabah and Sarawak were incorporated into the Federation of Malaysia. In the first phase, efforts were made to ensure that each of the main ethnic group — the Malays, Chinese and Indians — could live in peace and harmony despite their differences. The Federal Constitution of 1957 was instituted in such a way to ensure that the rights of each ethnic group are granted. In the second phase, efforts at building the nation became difficult than ever. This is because Sabah and Sarawak were culturally more diverse. There was also strong oppositions from Borneo nationalists who feared that their cultural significance might be diluted under the federation. It’s possible for the third phase of nation-building to take place in the next 50 years where Malaysians would no longer identify themselves based on their race and religion.

I am not sure if the founding fathers had carefully deliberated about the kind of nation that they wanted Malaysia to become. Nation-building probably was not given much emphasis in the negotiation to form Malaysia as the founding fathers were bogged down by the structure, constitutional make-up and overall development of people in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. The subject of competing nationalist aspirations of the various ethnic groups might be deliberately neglected. Interestingly, despite the challenges faced by the founding fathers at the initial stage of the formation of Malaysia, they were optimistic that Malaysia would work. Tunku Abdul Rahman said, “it is our intention together with all those who have made their home in these territories, to build a nation where we can all live together in peace and happiness with one another — a nation where there will be freedom, equality, peace, justice and prosperity for all”. When approaching Temenggung Jugah of Sarawak, Tunku was said to have convinced the formidable Iban leader that the nation would become strong if Sarawak were to agree to be part of Malaysia. At first, Temenggung Jugah was not convinced. But later, he took the trouble to gather other Iban leaders to discuss the viability of Malaysia. After almost two-and-a-half years, Malaysia was formed. Sabah and Sarawak’s unique characters were retained after their inclusion into the larger federation and the process of building the nation began.

After 51 years since the formation of Malaysia, how much progress have we made in terms of nation-building? From the personal perspective, I see rapid development everywhere. The country’s progress has been enjoyed by all people. I myself am a recipient of a federal scholarship to enable me to do my MA and PhD locally. Throughout my university life in Peninsular Malaysia, I had the chance to meet with people from various races and religions. My best buddies were all representing the major ethnic groups in Malaysia: Fahmi Ahmad, Nithianathan A/L Ghani, Apple Kuah, Oi Peng, Ng Mui Hwa, Jaime Muring John, to name a few more. We are truly “1Malaysia” in outlook. There were also thousands of Sabahans and Sarawakians in Peninsular Malaysia, studying various courses across the country’s public universities.

Having studied and developed my professional career locally, I see the process of nation-building happening spontaneously. In Sabah and Sarawak, it is a normal occurrence to see people of different cultures mingling at coffee shops, and as well as intermarry, freely. I also see that more and more people from Peninsular Malaysia coming to Sabah and Sarawak not only for work but to pamper themselves with Sabah and Sarawak’s natural beauty. In politics, since the mid and late 1990s, more and more political parties from Peninsular Malaysia have established their branches in Sabah and Sarawak. This has exposed political leaders in Peninsular Malaysia to issues of local concerns in East Malaysia. This “nationalisation of local politics” is a good sign of nation-building from the political realm. Since 2008, our political landscape has changed, too. More and more people are exposed to current issues. With the advent of new media, the young generation especially have made their voices known through Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. Most do not consider racial and religious issues as important anymore as they are more concerned about bread-and-butter issues.

It appears that sports and entertainment have the magic role in strengthening the spirit of Malaysia. Just look who’s jumping and clapping when Datuk Lee Chong Wei is performing? Who voted for Stacy of Sabah who won the Akademi Fantasia 6? And guess what, Jimmy Pelikat’s “Tanak Kampung" is sung everywhere in the country including Kelantan! At the height of campaigning in the 2013 general election, the “ini kali lah" battle cry was used by political leaders from across the country to win support. Of course, no one can claim ownership to the slogan but we all know that it originally comes from Sabah. All of the sudden, this Sabah-originated catchphrase has become a popular throughout the country.

I would not be truthful to myself if I say that the situation is all rosy in Malaysia. There are challenges confronting the country that need to be addressed by all concerned Malaysians. Instead of promoting the politics of inclusiveness, most political leaders are still very ethnic-driven. While it is not wrong to champion the rights of one’s ethnic community, one must also look at the interest of the country as a whole. Most are also unwilling to enliven the spirit of accommodation, tolerance and understanding anymore as envisioned by the country’s founding fathers. The country is also further divided by what I call as the “politics of parochialism”. For instance, the insistence by Sabah and Sarawak leaders on the fulfilment of the 20-point and 18-point pre-Malaysia memoranda. They also invoke Article 8 of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 to demand for compliance to recommendations of the IGC (Inter-Governmental Committee). There is nothing wrong in talking about the Malaysian Agreement and the alleged breaches to it but in doing so, one must look at the political reality of the country. The safeguards for Sabah and Sarawak are clearly stated in the Federal Constitution. So, instead of arguing about whether Malaysia was a viable plan, let’s examine whether the safeguards for Sabah and Sarawak are complied with in the Federal Constitution. Let’s go from there and make sure that the Federal Constitution is implemented in harmony and in the spirit of Malaysia.

Where do we go from here? We cannot build the country by talking about our differences; we must start talking about our similarities. Let’s take the middle-path to build Malaysia. It’s good that the government has chosen “Disini Lahirnya Sebuah Cinta” as the theme of this year’s merdeka celebration. But how do we inculcate people’s love towards the country? People cannot be forced to love their country. Love is a two-way process: one cannot love when one is not loved. We need to increase people’s sense of belonging towards Malaysia. This can only happen if the decision-making process in government reflects the country’s multicultural make-up. In governing the country, the voices of the Bajaus, Kadazandusuns, Muruts, Ibans, the Orang Ulus, etc, must be taken into consideration. Through the support of the government, we also need to seed the message of building Malaysia based on the spirit of the formation of Malaysia 1963 with the Federal Constitution as the anchor. We must do this with the aim of strengthening Malaysia. This is the task of every Malaysian especially the youth. We need to produce more nation-builders in schools, universities, etc. The country needs more people like Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Donald Stephens, Temenggung Jugah, James Wong, etc, who were willing to abandon narrow political thinking for the sake of the country’s progress. The role of the media is important too. Unfortunately, most media organisations today are only interested in sensationalising contentious racial and religious issues. Just look at the amount of media coverage given to Ibrahim Ali of PERKASA, etc. While it is important to engage with people like Ibrahim, the media is also responsible for highlighting the prospect of unity in diversity in Malaysian society.

In the early 1960s, the former Governor of North Borneo, William Goode, was a bit pessimistic about the Malaysia Plan. He said the scheme to form Malaysia “as too much too soon”. But after two decades of progress, he observed that “Sabah’s decision to join Malaysia in 1963 was right”. Malaysia is a “fait accompli”. Building Malaysia is an on-going process and let’s us work together to make it work.

Looking beyond the oil royalty issue

As stated in my previous article, it is not wrong for Sabah to ask for an increase in oil royalty if it can prove that the billions of ringgit distributed by the federal government through various grants are insufficient to develop the resource-rich state. Since 2008, Sabah is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the federal financial allocation. It is also important for state leaders to convince PETRONAS and the federal government that the increase in oil royalty from 5 percent to 20 percent will not adversely affect the sustainability of oil production in Malaysia. While most leaders are harping on the issue continuously, none so far has been able to provide a viable solution to put an end to it.

But before the increase in oil royalty is to be considered, several factors must be put into consideration. It is wrong to assume that out of the 100 percent oil revenues that go to PETRONAS, only 5 percent is given to Sabah while the remaining 95 percent is “grabbed” by the national oil company. This is the popular misconception among Sabahans. PETRONAS’ revenues with its PSC (Production Sharing Contract) partners make up 45 percent of oil incomes obtained by the national oil company. Another 45 percent is for recovery cost and 5 percent more goes to the federal government. After tax deductions of 38 percent, PETRONAS gets roughly 16 percent in profit while its PSC partners 11 percent. Because managing oil business requires certain skills and knowledge about drilling and exploration, it is necessary for PETRONAS to team up with international oil companies such as Shell, Murphy and ExxonMobil through “production sharing contracts”. The decision to enter into joint-venture projects with these oil giants is also strategic from the business point of view because they can absorb the risks associated with oil drilling and exploration.

So, an increase in oil royalty will not only affect PETRONAS’ overall business operation but its ability to manage oil sustainably. An increase in oil royalty will also reduce tax contributed by PETRONAS to the federal government’s financial coffer. Tax money from PETRONAS is used to build schools, hospitals and a host of other public amenities for Malaysians not only in Peninsular Malaysia but Sabah and Sarawak.

Sabah leaders must give due consideration to the constraints faced by the federal government and PETRONAS. If they still want to pursue the oil royalty demand, a viable method of revenue-sharing must be put on the table for all of the interested parties to consider. Instead of asking for an increase in oil royalty, Sabah may demand for the setting up of more specialised training institutes to produce capable manpower from Sabah in the oil and gas industry. This is important as Sabah is now building the SOGT (Sabah Integrated Oil and Gas Project) in Kimanis and the SOGIP (Sipitang Oil and Gas Industrial Park) in Sipitang. With sufficient supply of manpower, it is possible for Sabah to own a state-based oil and gas company and become a leading player in the region. As oil and gas are important sources of revenues for the country, they must be managed well for the sake of future generation of Malaysians. And this is only possible if we are all ready to look beyond the oil royalty issue.

Sabah autonomy: the winners and the losers

The issues of state rights and autonomy have always been an intense subject of public discussion in Sabah. Sabah leaders claim that Sabah has lost its autonomy and it is time for it to be fully reinstated. This includes an increase in oil royalty from the meagre 5 percent to 20 percent. While no one can deny the fact that Sabah deserves the right to assert its autonomy based on the Malaysian Agreement 1963, it has to be done within the context of the Federation of Malaysia and the interest of the country as a whole. Sabah leaders appear to lack the vision on how they aim to translate this call for autonomy into pragmatic policies that can benefit the ordinary people.

If Sabah leaders are serious about reinstating and strengthening the autonomy for the state, they must first convince the people that their call for autonomy is not only for their own political survival but for the overall well-being of Sabahans. The people of Sabah must not be duped into thinking that these 'champions' of Sabah issues are this time serious in providing what is 'best' for the state. Sabahans must realise that issues of state rights and autonomy are capable of striking an emotional chord which can be used to win political support.

On the issue of oil royalty, Sabah deserves a better deal only if the leaders can convince that the billions of ringgit channeled to the state's financial coffer by the federal government is insufficient to develop the state. What guarantee can Sabah leaders give that with more funds there will be a greater sense of responsibility and integrity? Is the problem here lack of funds, lack of leadership, lack of good governance, or lack of ideas on how to develop Sabah? Can Sabahans be assured that with more funds, their standard of living be uplifted at par with Brunei and Singapore?

It is true that issues of state rights and autonomy are (and will always be) important. After all, the 20-point memorandum for Sabah and 18-point memorandum for Sarawak would not have been drafted to preserve Sabah and Sarawak's distinctive characters in the federation. For the Federation of Malaysia to work, the special characters of each of the state must be maintained. However, there is a need for the country's current and emerging leaders to look forward in uniting the country in spite of its diversity.

Most of the ordinary people in Sabah do not understand what autonomy is and do not think it really matters that much. In a survey conducted by Merdeka Centre in 2012, only 3 percent of the respondents said that the issue of autonomy was important and needed to be solved fast compared to matters such as illegal immigrants (53 percent), price hike (38 percent), and corruption (21 percent). In the same survey, only 9 percent of the respondents regarded oil royalty as an urgent issue. Despite Sabahans’ concerns over other pressing issues that affect their daily lives, they have been told by the political elites that Sabah has been robbed of its riches by 'Malayan leaders' or colloquially 'Orang Malaya'. It is true that due to the dominance and indifference shown by the federal government, coupled with acquiescent state leaders in the past, Sabah remained within the league of poor states in Malaysia. However, local leaders should also be blamed for their lack of leadership in developing the resource-rich Sabah. They appeared to be more interested in enriching themselves and being compliant to what their federal masters wanted rather than thinking hard how to solve the problem of poverty in Sabah and to develop the state’s natural resources optimally.

Now, Sabahanas have been urged to look at Sarawak for its 'gumption' in standing up to the federal pressure. But Sabah cannot be compared with Sarawak. Sabah is already infested by the Peninsular's political dichotomy of Muslim Bumiputera-versus-non-Muslim Bumiputera-versus- Chinese. This is evident after UMNO's entry into Sabah in the early 1990s. The Muslim electorate, for instance, had no choice but to rally behind UMNO - the single most dominant Muslim-based party in Sabah after the disbandment of USNO. Due to gerrymandering, electoral boundaries were altered in favour of UMNO, causing the biggest ethnic group in Sabah, the Kadazandusun to be electorally split between the PBS, UPKO and PBRS while the Chinese between the SAPP, LDP and MCA. The real losers were the multiracial and multireligious Sabahan electorate who had to vote along racial lines. One of Sabah’s unique characters is its multiracial politics but with UMNO’s entry, communal politics styled after the Peninsular has begun to seep into Sabah society.

The claim by PBS that they represent Sabah's multiracial society is just a camouflage to ensure its survival. In fact, if not due to Joseph Pairin's status as Huguan Siou (paramount and brave leader) and the Kadazandusuns' sympathy for his political struggle in the past, PBS would have closed shop long time ago. Another Kadazandusun-based party UPKO is struggling to retain support among the Kadazandusun electorate, knowing that many of the young Kadazandusuns are now supporting the PKR. The other Kadazandusun-based party - albeit without a strong grassroots support PBRS - will survive as long as Joseph Kurup continues to get patronage support from the federal government. When the youth wings of PBS, UPKO and PBRS organised a joint press conference to state their support for an increase in oil royalty, it meant only one thing: they wanted to help rejuvenate their party's fading popularity. Their 'older' comrades did the same thing before the 2013 general election through the 'tataba' meeting but nothing really concrete came out of it, apart from 'proof' that the BN Kadazandusun-based parties were 'prepared' and 'united' to help the ruling party secure an electoral victory. But the election results proved otherwise. Popular support for PBS, UPKO and PBRS saw a marked declined, indicating the Kadazandusuns’ frustration with the lack of leadership shown by their leaders.

While the leaders may come out of their political obscurity using the autonomy and oil royalty issues as a tool, the real losers are the ordinary Sabahans. Believing that it is the Malayan leaders who cause Sabah to remain poor, Sabahans are time and again reminded that they can become rich like the Bruneians and Singaporeans if they are granted autonomy and if they get a 20 percent increase in oil royalty. Some also buy the idea that Sabah is “better off” if it is separated from the Federation of Malaysia and be governed “independently” by Sabahan leaders. But most forget, Sabah was once ruled 'independently' by USNO, Berjaya and PBS. Federal interference only occurred when Sabah leaders allowed federal priorities to takeover state needs. Clearly, Sabah leaders are partly to blame for failing to defend the Malaysian Agreement 1963 and the Federal Constitution that safeguard Sabah’s special position within the Federation of Malaysia.

So, the same parties (and their offshoots) that ruled Sabah before are now clamouring for change, promising to give Sabah a better future if they can force the federal government to grant Sabah autonomy and an increase in oil royalty. The current and emerging leaders too seem to be trapped by the political thinking of the past. Sabahans must 'free' themselves from the old paradigm. They cannot afford to support leaders who continue to harp on the issues of state rights and autonomy but fail to provide them with pragmatic policies that can uplift their standard of living. Sabah can only be rich and be at par with Brunei and Singapore if it is led by capable leaders who can formulate and implement policies that are people-oriented, needs-based, and in tune with changing times.