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.