In 1994, Herman Luping in his seminal work, “Sabah’s dilemma”, wrote about the dilemma faced by Sabahans in maintaining state autonomy and independence under the Federation of Malaysia. Sabah leaders wanted to safeguard the state’s regional rights but the federal leaders viewed this as an attempt to override the power of the central government. Just as Sabahans are prepared to vote in the upcoming 13th Malaysian General Election, they are facing with a new kind of dilemma – which party to vote to rule Sabah for the next term. Sabahans have shown that they are capable of voting out a party that they dislike. A case in point is USNO (United Sabah National Organisation) in 1975. Despite USNO’s leader Mustapha Harun’s iron fist rule, Sabahans voted in unison to oust him from power. In 1985, Sabahans bravely voted against the mighty BERJAYA (Sabah People’s United Front) in favour of PBS (Sabah United Party). Back then, Sabahans had a clear choice: BERJAYA to replace USNO, and PBS as an alternative to BERJAYA. Now, despite the desire of Sabahans to see change in the political landscape of the country, they have to make a hard choice between the complacent Sabah BN whose leaders lack the tenacity to address the Sabah issues and the fractious opposition coalition led by PR (People’s Front) consisting of PKR (People’s Justice Party), DAP (Democratic Action Party), PAS (Pan Malaysian Islamic Party), and UBF (United Borneo Front) comprising STAR (State Reform Party) and SAPP (Sabah People’s Progressive Party).
In a survey conducted by Merdeka Centre, more than 70 percent of the respondents in Sabah were satisfied with the performance of Prime Minister Najib Razak. It is undeniable that Najib’s popularity is contributed by his transformational leadership style and his pragmatic policies (despite their many flaws). Unlike Najib, however, Sabah BN leaders lack pragmatism in addressing the Sabah issues. Not many Sabahans in the rural areas understand what Najib is trying to do. Sabah BN leaders seem to lack the fervour to materialise Najib’s transformational plan. Many Sabahans are also unhappy with the lackadaisical attitude of Sabah BN leaders in tackling the perennial illegal immigrant issue. Due to the inertia shown by BN, Sabahans have no choice but to look for the alternative. In 1999 and 2004, Sabahans rejected PKR as it was then a newcomer in Sabah politics. In 2008, Jeffrey Kitingan helped increase PKR’s popularity. Even though Jeffrey is known for his infamous reputation as “katak” (political frog), he managed to “re-package” the Borneo Agenda to rally Kadazandusun support for PKR. Despite PKR’s failure to win any seat, its popular votes increased substantially in most of the constituencies.
Now, PKR is back to woo Sabahans once again through a partnership with DAP and PAS in PR. PKR’s future in Peninsular Malaysia looks promising but it is a different story in Sabah. Lack of leadership, clashing personalities and infighting cause disarray in PR. Internal party conflict in PR has deteriorated further with the admission of APS (Sabah Coalition for Change) and PPS (Sabah People’s Front for Change) into PR. Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin who lead APS and PPS respectively have submitted their potential candidates to PR, much to the chagrin of the “original” members of the opposition coalition who regard the two former BN leaders as opportunists. The mudslinging between PR and the state-based opposition parties in UBF has weakened the opposition coalition in Sabah. STAR and SAPP have accused PR as having the agenda to “colonise” Sabah. They urge Sabahans to reject Peninsula-based parties as only Sabah-based parties can understand local sentiments better. Some Sabahans, however, have had enough of Jeffrey and SAPP’s leader Yong Teck Lee. They have been in politics for too long and have a lot of political baggage. Many still remember Jeffrey’s act of betrayal in 1994 in which he left his brother Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the founder of PBS, to form a new party. Partly because of Jeffrey’s action, Pairin had to relinquish his post as chief minister of Sabah. Yong was one of the ring leaders whom Pairin had accused of having the intention to oust him from power. Yong’s withdrawal from PBS had weakened the Chinese support in the party. So, just like Wilfred and Lajim, Jeffrey and Yong are also considered as opportunists and not real fighters for Sabah rights.
The fractious opposition coalition means that PR and UBF will contest against each other. Come nomination day, disgruntled members of the respective coalitions will file their candidacy to contest as independents. This will add colour to the electoral contest in Sabah as in 2004 and 2008. Nevertheless, the 13th general election will be different from the ones in 1975 and 1985 where Sabahans had a clear choice between the incumbent and the alternative party. The upcoming election will force Sabahans to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Source: www.asiapacific.anu.edu.au
Friday, 5 April 2013
Monday, 1 April 2013
In search of the lost "tataba"
The tataba is a magic wand in the Dusun mythology. It is, however, no longer used by the Kadazandusuns in the modern times. It is lost in the mid of the advancement of the socio-cultural life of the Kadazandusuns. The Kadazandusuns are now looking for a different kind of tataba - one that propelled the Kadazandusuns to prominence in the early 1960s and 1980s. The elusive tataba that the Kadazandusuns have been looking after losing it in 1994 is the oft-repeated and over-used word, unity.
Recently, the three Kadazandusun-based parties in Sabah -- PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah), UPKO (United Pasok Momogun Organisation) and PBRS (Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah) -- held a gathering at the famed KDCA (Kadazandusun Cultural Association) building in Penampang. The "misompuru" (unity meet) is widely seen as a symbolic event that rekindles the Kadazandusun nationalistic movement during the eras of Donald Stephens and Joseph Pairin Kitingan. Stephens formed UPKO in the early 1960s to represent the Kadazans at the height of the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Pairin formed PBS in 1985 as a response to BERJAYA's pro federal policies that caused the Kadazandusuns to lose their cultural significance.
In 1968, Stephens dissolved UPKO in the name of "indigenous unity" after failing to prevent UPKO's members from joining USNO (United Sabah National Organisation), a Muslim-based party led by Mustapha Harun. Stephens joined USNO with the remaining members of UPKO. This was generally regarded as the end of Kadazandusun preeminence. In 1985, the Kadazandusuns once again had the chance to exert their influence through PBS. Despite PBS's multiracial outlook, it was mainly a Kadazandusun-based party. Pairin who formed and led PBS was also (and still is) the Huguan Siou (paramount and brave leader) of the Kadazandusuns. At the same time, Pairin also led the KCA (Kadazan Cultural Association. Now Kadazandusun Cultural Association). This gave Pairin enourmous influence over the Kadazandusuns. Under Pairin, PBS won the successive state elections in 1986, 1990, and 1994. PBS was fighting along state issues and wanted the federal government to restore the Twenty Point memorandum and to give more recognition to the Malaysian Agreement 1963. Such strong regional overtones, however, irked the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad who regarded Pairin as a "dangerous" regional leader.
When PBS failed to force the federal government to accede to its demands, it left BN in 1990 at the elevant hour before nomination for the 1990 general election. This angered Mahathir who called Pairin's action as a "stab in the back". Sabah was under the opposition PBS until 1994. Despite PBS being democratically elected, it was treated indifferently by the federal government. Federal allocation was cut off substantially and Pairin, on a number of occasions, was even snubbed by federal officials despite his role as Sabah chief minister elect. By 1994, federal influence in Sabah became more pronounced with UMNO’s (United Malays National Organisation) entry into local politics. USNO was effectively dissolved and its members joined UMNO en masse. In the 1994 state election, PBS won once more with a razor-thin majority and formed the next government. But with only two-seat majority in the state legislative assembly, PBS failed to prevent its members from leaving the party. Two of Pairin's deputies and founding members of PBS Bernard Dompok and Joseph Kurup were also leaving PBS. With the massive exodus, PBS's nine-year rule ended abruptly. James Chin wrote that the fall of PBS in 1994 signifies the "end of Kadazan unity". After almost 12 years in the opposition, PBS returned to BN in 2002. There is no better explanation as to why PBS decided to be part of the ruling party once again other than its desire to survive. Since then, the Kadazandusuns are represented by PBS, UPKO and PBRS.
At the recent misompuru, Pairin, Dompok and Kurup saw eye to eye once again. The rendition of PBS's official anthem "bersatu" brought Pairin, Dompok and Kurup to the PBS's heyday in the 1980s. Dompok and Kurup, however, did not show any sign of regret in dithcing PBS. Pairin was neither apologetic about his failure to prevent his two deputies from leaving him. Obviously, the three Kadazandusun leaders did not use the misompuru to set a new vision to develop the Kadazandusuns. Kurup who was given the opportunity to talk first did not mince his words in saying that it is about time the Kadazandusun-based parties to unite after a long separation. Dompok who is seen as more vocal in championing the Kadazandusun cultural rights spoke at length about the illegal immigrant problems. He also suggested that the Malaysian ICs be re-issued so that only genuine Sabahans are recognised as citizens. Pairin was clearly not as combative as he used to in the 1980s. Reading from a prepared text, Pairin did not offer any new idea on the future direction of the Kadazandusuns.
Despite the "success" of the misompuru, Pairin, Dompok and Kurup have failed to convince the Kadazandusuns that they are willing to walk the talk in achieving real Kadazandusun unity. The misompuru is largely seen as an attempt to consolidate the Kadazandusun support in BN. In the past months or so, the Kadazandusuns have been quite unhappy with the failure of their leaders to speak up on issues such as the illegal immigrants, cultural rights of the Kadazandusuns, and under-representation of the Kadazandusuns in the state and federal service. BN is also wary of the split in Kadazandusun support after the formation of STAR Sabah led by Pairin's younger brother Jeffrey Kitingan. Not all Kadazandusuns support Jeffrey but he has a substantial number of loyal Kadazandusun supporters in the interior.
In the end, many Kadazandusuns were left disappointed despite the "historic" misompuru. PBS, UPKO and PBRS are set to remain as they are for the time being. There is no sign that either Pairin, Dompok or Kurup is willing to step down as president of their respective party, nor is there any indication that they are willing to form a single entity to represent the Kadazandusuns. For some people, Kadazandusun unity can only be achieved if Dompok and Kurup return to PBS. At the very least, many Kadazandusuns want the three Kadazandusun leaders to set aside their ego and to form a new entity led by young and progressive Kadazandusun blood. Otherwise, the Kadazandusuns will never (ever) find the lost tataba.
Thursday, 14 March 2013
Lahad Datu standoff: claim on Sabah is a non-issue
Arnold Puyok
At the time of writing, the Malaysian security forces are still hunting down the remaining members of the Sulu group who invaded Sabah with arms almost four weeks ago. Effort to bring the standoff through negotiation failed resulting in an all-out military attack by the Malaysia government. There are many reasons given as to the main motive of the Sulu group. The Sulu group claims that it belongs to the Royal Army of the Sulu Sultanate. The group’s main demand is to claim Sabah from Malaysia. The group also says that it will not leave Sabah even when forced to do so.
The questions are: if the Sultan of Sulu is serious in pursuing the Sabah claim, why did he resort to violence? Why did he not go into a peaceful negotiation with the Philippines government? After all, as a Filipino citizen, the Sultan of Sulu cannot pursue a serious international security issue personally without his government’s intervention. The Sultan of Sulu can also initiate a dialogue with the Malaysian government to address the plight of the Sulu Sultanate. There are various channels the Sultan of Sulu can take to make his voice heard. But his use of violence and unwillingness to ask his followers to surrender puts into question his main motive. The way in which the whole incident unfolded warrants us to look into the Lahad Datu standoff in a wider perspective.
Analysts have assumed that the Lahad Datu incident may have been triggered by the peace negotiation between the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) and the Philippines government. Malaysia was the broker of the peace plan. The peace agreement will give the autonomous region of Mindanao more freedom in handling local affairs in turn for ceasefire from militants. Malaysia’s involvement is purely for economic and security reasons. The region’s growth will not only ensure peace but economic opportunities for Malaysia and the Philippines. Malaysia also hopes that with the peace deal, Filipinos – especially those without proper documents – will return to their homeland to start a new life.
Unfortunately, some parties were not happy with the peace deal. At stake is the region’s natural wealth awaiting to be exploited. The parties involved in the peace deal are expected to directly benefit from its spillover economic effects. The main question is: how best can the economic benefits be distributed fairly among the warring parties? Apart from the wealth-sharing formula discussed in the peace plan, a power-sharing strategy was also laid out to ensure that the people in the Southern Philippines are adequately represented.
The Lahad Datu standoff is an attempt by a covert group to sabotage the peace deal and to embarrass the Philippines president Benigno Aquino. The Sulu group is using the Philippines claim over Sabah to gain attention and also to help the Sultan of Sulu to resurrect his personal demand. The whole incident in Lahad Datu has nothing to do with the Philippines claim over Sabah. The attempt to debate whether Sabah belongs to the Sulu Sultanate or not is just a waste of time.
The prospect of peace and security in the Southern Philippines looks gloomy. Without the sincerity and seriousness of the warring parties to end violence and to spare more innocent lives, the Southern Philippines will continue to be plagued by poverty, intermittent wars, and violence. The effects of the conflict can be felt in Sabah – a state within the federation of Malaysia that has never experienced any major conflict and has been enjoying a remarkable economic growth in the past decades. While it is the responsibility of the Philippines government to ensure that the conflict in its troubled southern territory does not spread to Sabah, the Malaysian government has a duty to protect its border from being intruded in the future. The Lahad Datu standoff is not Malaysia’s problem alone, it is also the Philippines’ and both countries must now work out a long-term solution to ensure that rule of law is restored in the Sulu region.
Source: www.themalaysianinsider.com
At the time of writing, the Malaysian security forces are still hunting down the remaining members of the Sulu group who invaded Sabah with arms almost four weeks ago. Effort to bring the standoff through negotiation failed resulting in an all-out military attack by the Malaysia government. There are many reasons given as to the main motive of the Sulu group. The Sulu group claims that it belongs to the Royal Army of the Sulu Sultanate. The group’s main demand is to claim Sabah from Malaysia. The group also says that it will not leave Sabah even when forced to do so.
The questions are: if the Sultan of Sulu is serious in pursuing the Sabah claim, why did he resort to violence? Why did he not go into a peaceful negotiation with the Philippines government? After all, as a Filipino citizen, the Sultan of Sulu cannot pursue a serious international security issue personally without his government’s intervention. The Sultan of Sulu can also initiate a dialogue with the Malaysian government to address the plight of the Sulu Sultanate. There are various channels the Sultan of Sulu can take to make his voice heard. But his use of violence and unwillingness to ask his followers to surrender puts into question his main motive. The way in which the whole incident unfolded warrants us to look into the Lahad Datu standoff in a wider perspective.
Analysts have assumed that the Lahad Datu incident may have been triggered by the peace negotiation between the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) and the Philippines government. Malaysia was the broker of the peace plan. The peace agreement will give the autonomous region of Mindanao more freedom in handling local affairs in turn for ceasefire from militants. Malaysia’s involvement is purely for economic and security reasons. The region’s growth will not only ensure peace but economic opportunities for Malaysia and the Philippines. Malaysia also hopes that with the peace deal, Filipinos – especially those without proper documents – will return to their homeland to start a new life.
Unfortunately, some parties were not happy with the peace deal. At stake is the region’s natural wealth awaiting to be exploited. The parties involved in the peace deal are expected to directly benefit from its spillover economic effects. The main question is: how best can the economic benefits be distributed fairly among the warring parties? Apart from the wealth-sharing formula discussed in the peace plan, a power-sharing strategy was also laid out to ensure that the people in the Southern Philippines are adequately represented.
The Lahad Datu standoff is an attempt by a covert group to sabotage the peace deal and to embarrass the Philippines president Benigno Aquino. The Sulu group is using the Philippines claim over Sabah to gain attention and also to help the Sultan of Sulu to resurrect his personal demand. The whole incident in Lahad Datu has nothing to do with the Philippines claim over Sabah. The attempt to debate whether Sabah belongs to the Sulu Sultanate or not is just a waste of time.
The prospect of peace and security in the Southern Philippines looks gloomy. Without the sincerity and seriousness of the warring parties to end violence and to spare more innocent lives, the Southern Philippines will continue to be plagued by poverty, intermittent wars, and violence. The effects of the conflict can be felt in Sabah – a state within the federation of Malaysia that has never experienced any major conflict and has been enjoying a remarkable economic growth in the past decades. While it is the responsibility of the Philippines government to ensure that the conflict in its troubled southern territory does not spread to Sabah, the Malaysian government has a duty to protect its border from being intruded in the future. The Lahad Datu standoff is not Malaysia’s problem alone, it is also the Philippines’ and both countries must now work out a long-term solution to ensure that rule of law is restored in the Sulu region.
Source: www.themalaysianinsider.com
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Tough Task for Sabah RCI
Arnold Puyok
AS more and more disclosures are made at the ongoing hearing of Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sabah illegals problem, Sabahans have begun to speculate in earnest about the matter, considered the "mother of all issue" in the state.
Some are angry at what they see transpiring at the RCI hearing so far, with witnesses testifying about various ways in which illegals were given documentation. But others prefer to adopt a wait-and-see attitude until more stories are told. Of course, the opposition leaders have been quick to capitalise on the issue even though they are struggling to find the right "angle" through which they can use to attack the Barisan Nasional.
Some of the opposition leaders have called the present government "illegitimate" while others want the electoral roll to be cleaned first before the general election in called. Former chief minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh, whose name is implicated in the illegal immigrant issue, defended his track record, saying that he did not break any law. He was also quick in passing the buck to the federal government who he said held the power to award citizenships to anyone.
Harris snubbed one of the RCI investigation officers when he was asked about the Project IC (or Project M). Calling the Project IC as a "false" story, Harris said he did not have time to respond to people who raise the issue. Interestingly, Harris's former boss Tun Mahathir Mohamad acknowledged Project IC and defended it as a "legal" process.
The RCI was established by Prime Minister Najib Razak who was under pressure from the public and leaders from both sides of the political divide. The decision to go ahead with the RCI is a popular one. In a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre, an overwhelming 88% of the respondents agreed with the establishment of the RCI. Most of the respondents (11%) also said that they want the illegal immigrant issue to be debated in the coming election. This shows that the illegal immigrant issue is important and requires an urgent solution.
Not everyone is happy that the RCI is taking place. Obviously, Najib is taking a bold but risky political gamble as many Umno leaders are implicated in the issuance of Malaysian ICs through dubious means. The RCI works both ways for Najib and the BN. It works for Najib as it "proves" the sincerity of the government to address the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah; it works against the BN as the allegation of illegal immigrants being given Malaysian citizenship illegally happened throughout the BN's rule.
The stories recounted by the witnesses at the RCI so far show that the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah is complex and has no easy solution. Some of those alleged to have acquired Malaysian ICs illegally have become part of the society and have on numerous occasions participated in the country's electoral process.
Questions have been raised whether these "fake" Malaysians should have their citizenships revoked or whether they be allowed to remain as citizens based on humanitarian grounds. Public confidence can only be restored if the RCI is allowed to do its task without fear or favour. As the election looms, the public is expecting the RCI to wrap up its investigation soon and to propose immediate and long term solutions to the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah. That is not likely to happen, as the RCI has six months to complete its task.
Despite the rhetoric and posturing by commentators and politicians alike, the illegal immigrant issue is one touching on the country's security and sovereignty. Thus no parties should interfere in the work of the RCI or try to take advantage of it for their political gain.
Source: http://fz.com/content/tough-task-sabah-rci
AS more and more disclosures are made at the ongoing hearing of Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sabah illegals problem, Sabahans have begun to speculate in earnest about the matter, considered the "mother of all issue" in the state.
Some are angry at what they see transpiring at the RCI hearing so far, with witnesses testifying about various ways in which illegals were given documentation. But others prefer to adopt a wait-and-see attitude until more stories are told. Of course, the opposition leaders have been quick to capitalise on the issue even though they are struggling to find the right "angle" through which they can use to attack the Barisan Nasional.
Some of the opposition leaders have called the present government "illegitimate" while others want the electoral roll to be cleaned first before the general election in called. Former chief minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh, whose name is implicated in the illegal immigrant issue, defended his track record, saying that he did not break any law. He was also quick in passing the buck to the federal government who he said held the power to award citizenships to anyone.
Harris snubbed one of the RCI investigation officers when he was asked about the Project IC (or Project M). Calling the Project IC as a "false" story, Harris said he did not have time to respond to people who raise the issue. Interestingly, Harris's former boss Tun Mahathir Mohamad acknowledged Project IC and defended it as a "legal" process.
The RCI was established by Prime Minister Najib Razak who was under pressure from the public and leaders from both sides of the political divide. The decision to go ahead with the RCI is a popular one. In a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre, an overwhelming 88% of the respondents agreed with the establishment of the RCI. Most of the respondents (11%) also said that they want the illegal immigrant issue to be debated in the coming election. This shows that the illegal immigrant issue is important and requires an urgent solution.
Not everyone is happy that the RCI is taking place. Obviously, Najib is taking a bold but risky political gamble as many Umno leaders are implicated in the issuance of Malaysian ICs through dubious means. The RCI works both ways for Najib and the BN. It works for Najib as it "proves" the sincerity of the government to address the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah; it works against the BN as the allegation of illegal immigrants being given Malaysian citizenship illegally happened throughout the BN's rule.
The stories recounted by the witnesses at the RCI so far show that the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah is complex and has no easy solution. Some of those alleged to have acquired Malaysian ICs illegally have become part of the society and have on numerous occasions participated in the country's electoral process.
Questions have been raised whether these "fake" Malaysians should have their citizenships revoked or whether they be allowed to remain as citizens based on humanitarian grounds. Public confidence can only be restored if the RCI is allowed to do its task without fear or favour. As the election looms, the public is expecting the RCI to wrap up its investigation soon and to propose immediate and long term solutions to the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah. That is not likely to happen, as the RCI has six months to complete its task.
Despite the rhetoric and posturing by commentators and politicians alike, the illegal immigrant issue is one touching on the country's security and sovereignty. Thus no parties should interfere in the work of the RCI or try to take advantage of it for their political gain.
Source: http://fz.com/content/tough-task-sabah-rci
Monday, 7 January 2013
Opposition Capers in Sabah
Opposition Capers in Sabah
By Arnold Puyok
Sabah politics has never failed to generate the interest of political pundits. Not only does Sabah have a lot of political mavericks known for their political stunts, Sabah politics is also as unpredictable as the weather. The withdrawal of two former BN strongmen, Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin, to align with PR has heightened the race to win public office in Sabah. BN is banking on its track record while PR is riding on the promise to form a transparent, democratic and people-friendly government.
The state-based opposition parties SAPP and STAR are also promising a better and more reliable government. But different from PR, they rely heavily on the “Borneo Agenda” to rally support. The PR-friendly groups such as APS (Angkatan Perubahan Sabah) led by Wilfred is tasked to go into the Kadazandusun areas to weaken STAR while Lajim’s PPPS (Pakatan Perubahan Sabah) is responsible for consolidating the Muslim support in PR.
All the state-based opposition parties resort to sloganeering to woo new supporters. The very mention of “inikalilah” (this is the time) reminds one of STAR with its no-holds-barred approach in championing Sabah’s rights and autonomy. APS’s campaign motto is “ubah” (change), almost similar to PPPS’s “tukar”. Can PR and state-based opposition parties provide a strong challenge to BN that has more than 50 years of experience in electoral politics?
In the effort the deny BN any chance of winning, PR is determined to have a one-to-one fight with the ruling party. However, such a plan seems remote judging from the way PR deals with the issue of seat allocation. The chances for PR to win and deny BN’s two-thirds majority in Sabah are high if it allows state-based opposition parties to contest one-to-one against the ruling party in all the 60 state constituencies.
As PR’s main aim is to win Putrajaya, it will have to win a certain number of parliamentary seats in Sabah even though the task of winning has become difficult than ever. The SAPP’s strongholds are mainly in Chinese-majority areas. The state-based opposition party to watch is STAR, whose support is growing particularly in the Kadazandusun areas even though there has been rumour that the party has lost support following the allegation that it is funded by UMNO to split the support for PR.
STAR’s “Borneo Tea Parties” seem to bear fruits at least among young professionals, especially teachers. If STAR’s facebook account is used to measure the party’s popularity, the Sarawak-based party should be commended for its ability in attracting new members in such a short time.
SAPP had said that it managed to strike a deal with STAR. But Jeffrey Kitingan’s statement in the media that he is determined to “do it alone” squashed SAPP’s attempt at finding an amicable solution to end the squabble over seat allocation. It is possible for all the state opposition-based parties to contest against each other and thus give BN the advantage to return to power.
There are many reasons why Jeffrey refused to budge. First, Jeffrey has a bigger agenda in mind, one of which is to restore Sabah’s rights and autonomy through the Borneo Agenda. For Jeffrey, this can only be done if STAR has bargaining power in the legislative assembly. Second, in the event there is no clear winner in the election, STAR would have the chance to bargain as a coalition partner.
Seats allocation will remain a main issue among the opposition parties. PR might contest in all the 25 parliamentary seats in Sabah depending on the outcome of its on-going negotiation with SAPP and STAR. However, on his visit to Sabah, Anwar Ibrahim said he is willing to contest only in areas where PR has a higher probability of winning.
STAR may contest in all 60 state seats. STAR may have no choice but to go into a collision course with APS in Kadazandusun-majority areas and PPPS in Muslim-majority areas. SAPP may have no choice as well but to compete with STAR. If this happens, it reduces the chances of the opposition to win. No amount of sloganeering and sophisticated campaign approach can help the opposition leaders topple BN unless they are willing to bury their ego and work as a team.
Retrieved from http://themalaysianinsider.com
By Arnold Puyok
Sabah politics has never failed to generate the interest of political pundits. Not only does Sabah have a lot of political mavericks known for their political stunts, Sabah politics is also as unpredictable as the weather. The withdrawal of two former BN strongmen, Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin, to align with PR has heightened the race to win public office in Sabah. BN is banking on its track record while PR is riding on the promise to form a transparent, democratic and people-friendly government.
The state-based opposition parties SAPP and STAR are also promising a better and more reliable government. But different from PR, they rely heavily on the “Borneo Agenda” to rally support. The PR-friendly groups such as APS (Angkatan Perubahan Sabah) led by Wilfred is tasked to go into the Kadazandusun areas to weaken STAR while Lajim’s PPPS (Pakatan Perubahan Sabah) is responsible for consolidating the Muslim support in PR.
All the state-based opposition parties resort to sloganeering to woo new supporters. The very mention of “inikalilah” (this is the time) reminds one of STAR with its no-holds-barred approach in championing Sabah’s rights and autonomy. APS’s campaign motto is “ubah” (change), almost similar to PPPS’s “tukar”. Can PR and state-based opposition parties provide a strong challenge to BN that has more than 50 years of experience in electoral politics?
In the effort the deny BN any chance of winning, PR is determined to have a one-to-one fight with the ruling party. However, such a plan seems remote judging from the way PR deals with the issue of seat allocation. The chances for PR to win and deny BN’s two-thirds majority in Sabah are high if it allows state-based opposition parties to contest one-to-one against the ruling party in all the 60 state constituencies.
As PR’s main aim is to win Putrajaya, it will have to win a certain number of parliamentary seats in Sabah even though the task of winning has become difficult than ever. The SAPP’s strongholds are mainly in Chinese-majority areas. The state-based opposition party to watch is STAR, whose support is growing particularly in the Kadazandusun areas even though there has been rumour that the party has lost support following the allegation that it is funded by UMNO to split the support for PR.
STAR’s “Borneo Tea Parties” seem to bear fruits at least among young professionals, especially teachers. If STAR’s facebook account is used to measure the party’s popularity, the Sarawak-based party should be commended for its ability in attracting new members in such a short time.
SAPP had said that it managed to strike a deal with STAR. But Jeffrey Kitingan’s statement in the media that he is determined to “do it alone” squashed SAPP’s attempt at finding an amicable solution to end the squabble over seat allocation. It is possible for all the state opposition-based parties to contest against each other and thus give BN the advantage to return to power.
There are many reasons why Jeffrey refused to budge. First, Jeffrey has a bigger agenda in mind, one of which is to restore Sabah’s rights and autonomy through the Borneo Agenda. For Jeffrey, this can only be done if STAR has bargaining power in the legislative assembly. Second, in the event there is no clear winner in the election, STAR would have the chance to bargain as a coalition partner.
Seats allocation will remain a main issue among the opposition parties. PR might contest in all the 25 parliamentary seats in Sabah depending on the outcome of its on-going negotiation with SAPP and STAR. However, on his visit to Sabah, Anwar Ibrahim said he is willing to contest only in areas where PR has a higher probability of winning.
STAR may contest in all 60 state seats. STAR may have no choice but to go into a collision course with APS in Kadazandusun-majority areas and PPPS in Muslim-majority areas. SAPP may have no choice as well but to compete with STAR. If this happens, it reduces the chances of the opposition to win. No amount of sloganeering and sophisticated campaign approach can help the opposition leaders topple BN unless they are willing to bury their ego and work as a team.
Retrieved from http://themalaysianinsider.com
Role of Sabah and Sarawak in nation-building
Role of Sabah and Sarawak in nation-building
By Arnold Puyok
TO BUILD a nation is not easy. It took the Americans more than 200 years to finally find their identity. Hence, there surely is a lot of work to be done to transform Malaysia into a solid nation. It is indeed a work-in-progress. We must remember, Malaysia is just 49 years old (from its founding in 1963), way too young compared with major countries, such as the United States, China and India, just to name a few.
In order to build a successful Malaysian nation, Malaysians must be willing to put aside their political and cultural differences. However, this will be an enormous challenge as not only are Malaysians divided politically and culturally, they are also divided regionally. A case in point is Sabahans and Sarawakians who are separated from their peninsular Malaysian counterparts by the South China Sea.
The main challenge confronting the government of the day (and any government to come) is to bridge what I call the political and cultural gap in Malaysian society. This endeavour must start with the effort to truly integrate Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation of Malaysia. Since 2008, Sabah and Sarawak are considered by many as the ruling party Barisan Nasional’s (BN) “fixed deposits”. The label came after the East Malaysian states helped the BN return to power by contributing 56 parliamentary seats in the 2008 general election.
These seats were crucial in ensuring the BN’s slim electoral victory. Many analysts (including this writer) have predicted that the BN will return to power but not necessarily with Sabah and Sarawak as its fixed deposits anymore, depending on changes in the dynamics of local politics. Sabah and Sarawak’s fixed deposits status has brought them to national prominence. Sabah, in particular, has been receiving numerous development assistances from the Federal Government.
Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan Sabah received the largest financial allocation of more than RM16 billion. More Sabahans were also appointed to hold important positions in the federal cabinet. Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, for instance, was appointed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to helm the influential Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Afdal, the Ministry of Rural Development. These cabinet portfolios are normally reserved for key Umno leaders from peninsular Malaysia.
Despite the special treatment given to Sabah and Sarawak, many are not happy with the fixed deposits label. They ask: if Sabah and Sarawak did not contribute the 56 seats to the national parliament, would they receive the same treatment today? Would the BN withdraw its fixed deposits (special treatment) when Sabah and Sarawak could no longer offer better interest rates (electoral support)?
When the democratically elected PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) was in power, it was pushed into the political wilderness by the Mahathir administration simply because the party was championing state rights and autonomy. This caused Sabah to lag behind in terms of infrastructural development. Despite peninsular Malaysia’s marked development progress, Sabah and Sarawak are still way behind.
It is important for the government to set politics aside for the sake of nation-building. Sabah and Sarawak must not be regarded as fixed deposits anymore. Sabahans and Sarawakians have suffered a lot due to “bad politics” played by self-serving leaders. The Federal Government must not alienate Sabahans and Sarawakians just because they are politically and culturally different. Sabahans and Sarawakians are loyal Malaysian citizens who want to be treated equally as their fellow Malaysians in the peninsular Malaysia.
If the government is serious about building a strong Malaysian nation, Sabahans and Sarawakians teach us that we all can live in peace and harmony if we are willing to accept each other’s political and cultural differences. In Sabah and Sarawak, ethnic tolerance is high. There have never been any ethnic riots in Sabah and Sarawak throughout Malaysia’s 49 years of history. Ethnic harmony is intact thanks to inter-ethnic marriages. Regional identity plays a more important role than do ethnicity and religion. It does not matter whether one is Kadazandusun, Bajau, Murut, Lundayeh or Bisaya, racial identity is not as strong as in peninsular Malaysia.
While many of the indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak have embraced either Islam or Christianity, they take pride in their cultural roots. That is why when the “Allah” issue came about, Sabahan Muslims came to defend the right of their Christian counterparts to use the word “Allah".
Najib is correct when he said that Sabah is a model for the 1Malaysia policy even though many acknowledge the fact that 1Malaysia existed in Sabah and Sarawak long before it was conceived. The introduction of the 1Malaysia concept and the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak into the country’s mainstream development by the Najib Administration is a step in the right direction towards building a Malaysian nation.
However, this must be done by acknowledging the religious and cultural diversity of the people of Sabah and Sarawak. The journey of building a Malaysian nation started long ago when the country’s founding fathers drafted a constitution that respects the democratic right of every Malaysian citizen such as the right to religious beliefs, the right to vote, the right to form a political party and so on.
The people in Sabah and Sarawak were also accorded with certain rights due to their religious and cultural uniqueness. If the powers-that-be recognise these rights and make every effort to educate Malaysians to respect and accept them, we are in the right track to building a successful nation.
The original version of this posting can be found at http://fz.com/content/role-sabah-and-sarawak-nation-building.
By Arnold Puyok
TO BUILD a nation is not easy. It took the Americans more than 200 years to finally find their identity. Hence, there surely is a lot of work to be done to transform Malaysia into a solid nation. It is indeed a work-in-progress. We must remember, Malaysia is just 49 years old (from its founding in 1963), way too young compared with major countries, such as the United States, China and India, just to name a few.
In order to build a successful Malaysian nation, Malaysians must be willing to put aside their political and cultural differences. However, this will be an enormous challenge as not only are Malaysians divided politically and culturally, they are also divided regionally. A case in point is Sabahans and Sarawakians who are separated from their peninsular Malaysian counterparts by the South China Sea.
The main challenge confronting the government of the day (and any government to come) is to bridge what I call the political and cultural gap in Malaysian society. This endeavour must start with the effort to truly integrate Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation of Malaysia. Since 2008, Sabah and Sarawak are considered by many as the ruling party Barisan Nasional’s (BN) “fixed deposits”. The label came after the East Malaysian states helped the BN return to power by contributing 56 parliamentary seats in the 2008 general election.
These seats were crucial in ensuring the BN’s slim electoral victory. Many analysts (including this writer) have predicted that the BN will return to power but not necessarily with Sabah and Sarawak as its fixed deposits anymore, depending on changes in the dynamics of local politics. Sabah and Sarawak’s fixed deposits status has brought them to national prominence. Sabah, in particular, has been receiving numerous development assistances from the Federal Government.
Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan Sabah received the largest financial allocation of more than RM16 billion. More Sabahans were also appointed to hold important positions in the federal cabinet. Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, for instance, was appointed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to helm the influential Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Afdal, the Ministry of Rural Development. These cabinet portfolios are normally reserved for key Umno leaders from peninsular Malaysia.
Despite the special treatment given to Sabah and Sarawak, many are not happy with the fixed deposits label. They ask: if Sabah and Sarawak did not contribute the 56 seats to the national parliament, would they receive the same treatment today? Would the BN withdraw its fixed deposits (special treatment) when Sabah and Sarawak could no longer offer better interest rates (electoral support)?
When the democratically elected PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) was in power, it was pushed into the political wilderness by the Mahathir administration simply because the party was championing state rights and autonomy. This caused Sabah to lag behind in terms of infrastructural development. Despite peninsular Malaysia’s marked development progress, Sabah and Sarawak are still way behind.
It is important for the government to set politics aside for the sake of nation-building. Sabah and Sarawak must not be regarded as fixed deposits anymore. Sabahans and Sarawakians have suffered a lot due to “bad politics” played by self-serving leaders. The Federal Government must not alienate Sabahans and Sarawakians just because they are politically and culturally different. Sabahans and Sarawakians are loyal Malaysian citizens who want to be treated equally as their fellow Malaysians in the peninsular Malaysia.
If the government is serious about building a strong Malaysian nation, Sabahans and Sarawakians teach us that we all can live in peace and harmony if we are willing to accept each other’s political and cultural differences. In Sabah and Sarawak, ethnic tolerance is high. There have never been any ethnic riots in Sabah and Sarawak throughout Malaysia’s 49 years of history. Ethnic harmony is intact thanks to inter-ethnic marriages. Regional identity plays a more important role than do ethnicity and religion. It does not matter whether one is Kadazandusun, Bajau, Murut, Lundayeh or Bisaya, racial identity is not as strong as in peninsular Malaysia.
While many of the indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak have embraced either Islam or Christianity, they take pride in their cultural roots. That is why when the “Allah” issue came about, Sabahan Muslims came to defend the right of their Christian counterparts to use the word “Allah".
Najib is correct when he said that Sabah is a model for the 1Malaysia policy even though many acknowledge the fact that 1Malaysia existed in Sabah and Sarawak long before it was conceived. The introduction of the 1Malaysia concept and the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak into the country’s mainstream development by the Najib Administration is a step in the right direction towards building a Malaysian nation.
However, this must be done by acknowledging the religious and cultural diversity of the people of Sabah and Sarawak. The journey of building a Malaysian nation started long ago when the country’s founding fathers drafted a constitution that respects the democratic right of every Malaysian citizen such as the right to religious beliefs, the right to vote, the right to form a political party and so on.
The people in Sabah and Sarawak were also accorded with certain rights due to their religious and cultural uniqueness. If the powers-that-be recognise these rights and make every effort to educate Malaysians to respect and accept them, we are in the right track to building a successful nation.
The original version of this posting can be found at http://fz.com/content/role-sabah-and-sarawak-nation-building.
Monday, 13 August 2012
RCI on illegal immigrants in Sabah: Najib is taking a bold and risky political move
Prime Minister Najib Razak has announced the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the RCI (Royal Commission of Inquiry) to investigate the illegal immigrant problems in Sabah. The next thing for the investigative body to do is to ensure that the findings are announced before the general election next year. This would be politically risky for Najib depending on the outcomes of the investigation as many UMNO leaders will be implicated. The TOR of the RCI are comprehensive focusing on the issue plaguing Sabah for a long time. However, missing in the TOR is a provision to hold the perpetrators behind the issuance of Malaysian ICs to foreigners accountable. This has riled up opposition leaders who have been pressing the government to prosecute anyone responsible for causing the influx of illegal immigrants into Sabah.
Members of the RCI come from different professional backgrounds and are eminent members of the civil service. However, question has been asked as to why there is no representative from NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisation) or civil society movement. Opposition leaders have also complained that members of the RCI are “pro-establishment”. Now, we come to the timeframe given to the RCI to complete its tasks. Six months might not be enough to investigate a perennial and complex problem. Further, as the timeframe given coincides with the expiry of the parliament’s term, the RCI will have no choice but to complete its investigation before the election is called. This will be difficult as the RCI will have no flexibility in determining the pace of its investigation. What if the RCI wants to extend its investigation due to lack of cooperation from witnesses? Or, what if the RCI needs more time to obtain more data? Holding the election before the RCI completes its mission will only reinforce the notion that the formation of the inquiry body is not more than a “political ploy”. Sabahans have been waiting for so long for actions to be taken.
Despite all the strengths and weaknesses of the RCI, Najib should be commended for taking such a bold and risky political move. Najib is basically putting his head on the chopping board as many of the UMNO leaders are implicated in the issuance of Malaysian ICs through dubious means. If MD Mutalib’s book on “Project IC” and Chong Eng Leong’s “Lest We Forget” are to be taken seriously, some big names are mentioned and it will a difficult task to ask them to respond to the RCI’s queries.
BN might be able to score some points by forming the RCI. The RCI has managed to boost BN’s image in the eyes of Sabahans who want the illegal immigrant problems solved if not sooner, later. The main issue that Najib has to deal with is, will the government have the political will to act based on the recommendations of the RCI? What assurance that the government can give that the RCI will not end up like other previous RCIs? What happens if the findings are not in favour of BN? The onus is on Najib to prove that the government is sincere and Sabahans are not taken for another ride on the illegal immigrants issue.
Members of the RCI come from different professional backgrounds and are eminent members of the civil service. However, question has been asked as to why there is no representative from NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisation) or civil society movement. Opposition leaders have also complained that members of the RCI are “pro-establishment”. Now, we come to the timeframe given to the RCI to complete its tasks. Six months might not be enough to investigate a perennial and complex problem. Further, as the timeframe given coincides with the expiry of the parliament’s term, the RCI will have no choice but to complete its investigation before the election is called. This will be difficult as the RCI will have no flexibility in determining the pace of its investigation. What if the RCI wants to extend its investigation due to lack of cooperation from witnesses? Or, what if the RCI needs more time to obtain more data? Holding the election before the RCI completes its mission will only reinforce the notion that the formation of the inquiry body is not more than a “political ploy”. Sabahans have been waiting for so long for actions to be taken.
Despite all the strengths and weaknesses of the RCI, Najib should be commended for taking such a bold and risky political move. Najib is basically putting his head on the chopping board as many of the UMNO leaders are implicated in the issuance of Malaysian ICs through dubious means. If MD Mutalib’s book on “Project IC” and Chong Eng Leong’s “Lest We Forget” are to be taken seriously, some big names are mentioned and it will a difficult task to ask them to respond to the RCI’s queries.
BN might be able to score some points by forming the RCI. The RCI has managed to boost BN’s image in the eyes of Sabahans who want the illegal immigrant problems solved if not sooner, later. The main issue that Najib has to deal with is, will the government have the political will to act based on the recommendations of the RCI? What assurance that the government can give that the RCI will not end up like other previous RCIs? What happens if the findings are not in favour of BN? The onus is on Najib to prove that the government is sincere and Sabahans are not taken for another ride on the illegal immigrants issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)