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