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.
