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.
Monday, 11 August 2014
Monday, 30 June 2014
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.
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.
Friday, 6 June 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, 29 May 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, 5 December 2013
Sabah defections may backfire on BN; ‘buhangkut’ will be punished
Arnold Puyok
Sabah’s electorates are not always kind to defecting party leaders – or infamously known as “katak-ing” in Sabah. In 1994, the then opposition PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) leaders left the party either to join BN or to form their own parties.
The mass defections from PBS forced the party to give up power to BN. And the 1995 general election results were telling: some of the defecting leaders lost in the election.
The voters were clearly angry and were not afraid to punish the “buhangkut” (a Kadazandusun word for frog), such as Jeffrey Kitingan, Bernard Dompok, Monggoh Orow, Othman Minudin and Limun Laikim.
The story did not end there. In the 1999 state election, more of the defecting leaders were punished. Dompok, who worked to get back his former Moyog constituency, was once again defeated.
PBS offshoots such as the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP), Parti Demokratik Sabah (PDS) and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS) failed to make inroads.
The 1995 and 1999 elections results combined indicate the response of the voters towards elected representatives who jumped from one party to another.
Sabah voters driven by personality politics
One should understand that Sabah voters in general are driven by personality politics and parochialism. This partly explains why errant elected representatives are often punished in the elections by the voters.
So, instead of boosting BN’s strength in Sabah, the recent resignations of PKR members and their pledge to support the ruling party could well backfire.
The decision made by Prime Minister and BN chief Najib Abdul Razak and Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman to hold a press conference to welcome the former PKR members is a wrong strategy to boost the ruling party’s popularity.
In fact, it may cause BN to lose support, especially in the Kadazandusun-majority areas.
Instead of accepting the former PKR leaders and trying to make it appear as if support for BN is growing, the ruling party should go to the ground and understand the reasons why it was rejected by mostly the Kadazandusun voters.
Of course, no one should be prevented from joining and supporting the BN cause, but to make a big fuss of the admission into BN by “disgruntled” and “insignificant” former members of PKR shows that the ruling party is desperate to win support.
Najib might want to create an impression that PKR is losing support and BN is slowly gaining ground.
But he should know the fact that Sabah politicians can change their political allegiance as fast as a “girl changes clothes” – to borrow a line from American singer Katy Perry’s lyrics.
Anwar was also trying to create the same impression when accepting Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin into PKR. But he was not able to use the two former BN leaders to increase support for the opposition.
In fact, PKR was in tatters due to acrimony between the party’s pioneering members in Sabah and supporters of the two former BN leaders.
The only way for BN to increase its popularity in Sabah is to understand what the electorates want and to address these matters fast.
BN has no reason not to do this because it has the power and resources to solve people’s problems.
The BN must not listen too much to Sabah leaders who say they are fighting for the people when in fact they are only interested in fighting for their own personal interests. The same goes for PKR, if it wants to provide the alternative to BN.
PKR cannot continue to allow internal bickering to weaken its presence in Sabah. It has to move fast to address its structural weaknesses and to turn itself into a mass political organisation.
The only way to do this is to allow for a succession plan to take place, so that the younger generation of leaders can chart a new strategy to ensure effective opposition politics in Sabah.
Source: http://borneoinsider.com/2013/12/05/sabah-defections-may-backfire-on-bn-buhangkut-will-be-punished/
Sabah’s electorates are not always kind to defecting party leaders – or infamously known as “katak-ing” in Sabah. In 1994, the then opposition PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) leaders left the party either to join BN or to form their own parties.
The mass defections from PBS forced the party to give up power to BN. And the 1995 general election results were telling: some of the defecting leaders lost in the election.
The voters were clearly angry and were not afraid to punish the “buhangkut” (a Kadazandusun word for frog), such as Jeffrey Kitingan, Bernard Dompok, Monggoh Orow, Othman Minudin and Limun Laikim.
The story did not end there. In the 1999 state election, more of the defecting leaders were punished. Dompok, who worked to get back his former Moyog constituency, was once again defeated.
PBS offshoots such as the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP), Parti Demokratik Sabah (PDS) and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS) failed to make inroads.
The 1995 and 1999 elections results combined indicate the response of the voters towards elected representatives who jumped from one party to another.
Sabah voters driven by personality politics
One should understand that Sabah voters in general are driven by personality politics and parochialism. This partly explains why errant elected representatives are often punished in the elections by the voters.
So, instead of boosting BN’s strength in Sabah, the recent resignations of PKR members and their pledge to support the ruling party could well backfire.
The decision made by Prime Minister and BN chief Najib Abdul Razak and Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman to hold a press conference to welcome the former PKR members is a wrong strategy to boost the ruling party’s popularity.
In fact, it may cause BN to lose support, especially in the Kadazandusun-majority areas.
Instead of accepting the former PKR leaders and trying to make it appear as if support for BN is growing, the ruling party should go to the ground and understand the reasons why it was rejected by mostly the Kadazandusun voters.
Of course, no one should be prevented from joining and supporting the BN cause, but to make a big fuss of the admission into BN by “disgruntled” and “insignificant” former members of PKR shows that the ruling party is desperate to win support.
Najib might want to create an impression that PKR is losing support and BN is slowly gaining ground.
But he should know the fact that Sabah politicians can change their political allegiance as fast as a “girl changes clothes” – to borrow a line from American singer Katy Perry’s lyrics.
Anwar was also trying to create the same impression when accepting Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin into PKR. But he was not able to use the two former BN leaders to increase support for the opposition.
In fact, PKR was in tatters due to acrimony between the party’s pioneering members in Sabah and supporters of the two former BN leaders.
The only way for BN to increase its popularity in Sabah is to understand what the electorates want and to address these matters fast.
BN has no reason not to do this because it has the power and resources to solve people’s problems.
The BN must not listen too much to Sabah leaders who say they are fighting for the people when in fact they are only interested in fighting for their own personal interests. The same goes for PKR, if it wants to provide the alternative to BN.
PKR cannot continue to allow internal bickering to weaken its presence in Sabah. It has to move fast to address its structural weaknesses and to turn itself into a mass political organisation.
The only way to do this is to allow for a succession plan to take place, so that the younger generation of leaders can chart a new strategy to ensure effective opposition politics in Sabah.
Source: http://borneoinsider.com/2013/12/05/sabah-defections-may-backfire-on-bn-buhangkut-will-be-punished/
The non-fulfillment of the Malaysia Agreement: Who is to blame?
Arnold Puyok
In 1963, Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaya formed what is now called Malaysia. But the forming of Malaysia was not without challenges. In terms of population demography, Sabah and Sarawak were more culturally heterogeneous than Peninsular Malaya.
Sabah and Sarawak were also economically under-developed. Due to Sabah and Sarawak’s distinctive characters, they were allowed to make specific demands as part of a deal before their incorporation into Malaysia.
These demands were known as the 20-point memorandum for Sabah and 18-point memorandum for Sarawak. Both memorandums were later used as a guide by the Cobbold Commission to ascertain the views of Sabahans and Sarawakians about Malaysia.
The demands were later discussed in the Inter-Governmental Committee before their incorporation into the Federal Constitution. At the London talks in July 1963, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore agreed to sign the Malaysia Agreement.
The signing of the agreement was significant because it paved the way for the enactment of the Malaysia Act (Act No. 26 of 1963) which sealed the formation of Malaysia. With the enactment of the Malaysia Act, the Federal Constitution took over from the Malayan Constitution as a new “document of destiny” for Malaysia. The rights and privileges for Sabah and Sarawak are clearly stated in the Federal Constitution (Articles 161, 161A, 161B, 161E).
Apart from becoming a supreme document in the land, the Federal Constitution also reflects the new political reality in Malaysia. It should be stated that Malaysia was formed through the merging of three separately independent entities – Peninsular Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.
However, some people argue that the federal government does not honour the 20/18-point memorandum. The issue becomes complicated when the legality of the 20/18-point is questioned. For some, raising the 20/18-point is akin to flogging a dead horse because it is already incorporated into the Federal Constitution. For others, the 20/18-point is a legal document and it is the federal government’s duty to fulfill the demands of Sabah and Sarawak before their incorporation into Malaysia. But ironically, the non-fulfillment of the 20-point demands were a work of Sabah own leaders.
In 1973, Sabah Chief Minister Mustapha Harun of Usno (United Sabah National Organisation) amended the State Constitution to make Islam the official religion of Sabah. In the 20-point memorandum, Sabah leaders requested for Islam not to be made official religion because the majority of the population was non-Muslims and many were not inclined towards Islam.
Mustapha continued to amend the State Constitution to make Bahasa Melayu the official language in replace of English. The 20-point stated that English should be the “official language of [Sabah] for all purposes, [s]tate or [f]ederal without limitation of time”. Mustapha’s actions were driven by his beliefs that Sabah could only be developed under one religion (Islam), one language (Bahasa Melayu), and one culture (Malay).
In 1976, the 20-point and Sabah’s autonomy were further eroded by Mustapha’s successor Harris Salleh of Berjaya who surrendered the state’s control over natural resources to the federal government. In 1984, Harris continued with his massive federalisation policies by surrendering Labuan. In 1991, the federal influence in Sabah came to its high point with the establishment of Umno and other Peninsular-based parties in the state. Most of the Usno members left the party and joined Umno.
The rotation system of the chief minister’s post introduced by then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to ensure equal representation of the main ethnic groups in Sabah was just a temporary measure to consolidate Umno’s powers in Sabah. Just before the system completed its full cycle, it was abolished by Umno to seal its dominance in Sabah.
Changes in Sabah’s political landscape also affected the relations between one ethnic group with the other. Sabah has never experienced any serious ethnic tension since the formation of Malaysia. But when the Sabah Mufti called for the “Malay-isation” of the Muslim indigenous people, it caused a lot of anxiety – and potentially explosive ethnic fissures – in Sabah. The mufti’s refusal to apologise did not go well with many who continued to force the state Islamic leader to appear before the Native Court.
The mufti’s suggestion came amid the growing number of Malay/Muslim population in Sabah since the era of Mustapha. The non-Muslim people were aware of the fact that Sabah’s population demography had been altered to increase the Malay/Muslim population for political expediency. This is among the factors making the ruling party BN unpopular in the non-Muslim constituencies.
Sabahans have every reason to voice out their unhappiness about the attempt to alter Sabah’s plural identity and autonomy. But they must look introspectively and stop blaming the federal government and “semenanjung” people. The problems that happen in Sabah are mainly caused by Sabah leaders and Sabahans themselves.
Of course, one can say that the federal government has the innumerable powers to exert its influence in Sabah. But it is the duty of Sabah leaders to defend the Federal Constitution which grants Sabah certain rights and autonomy. Sabahans must also be aware that many Sabah leaders are using the 20/18-point issue and the Malaysia Agreement to revive their fading political support. Others use it as a “bargaining chip” to pursue their political ambition.
So, Sabahans should not trust these opportunist politicians too much. They must seek the truth themselves and use their democratic rights to elect leaders who are sincere in fighting for their rights.
The Federal Constitution protects the special privileges for Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysians of all walks of life have the duty to defend the sanctity and sovereignty of the Federal Constitution. Any attempt to erode the constitutional safeguards of Sabah and Sarawak must be stopped.
The formation of Malaysia happened by the sweat and toil of our founding fathers who envisioned a new country that belongs to all Malaysians irrespective of their ethnic identity and religion. Let us all defend what Malaysia was meant to be. – December 4, 2013.
Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-non-fulfillment-of-the-malaysian-agreement-who-is-to-blame-arnold-puyok
In 1963, Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaya formed what is now called Malaysia. But the forming of Malaysia was not without challenges. In terms of population demography, Sabah and Sarawak were more culturally heterogeneous than Peninsular Malaya.
Sabah and Sarawak were also economically under-developed. Due to Sabah and Sarawak’s distinctive characters, they were allowed to make specific demands as part of a deal before their incorporation into Malaysia.
These demands were known as the 20-point memorandum for Sabah and 18-point memorandum for Sarawak. Both memorandums were later used as a guide by the Cobbold Commission to ascertain the views of Sabahans and Sarawakians about Malaysia.
The demands were later discussed in the Inter-Governmental Committee before their incorporation into the Federal Constitution. At the London talks in July 1963, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore agreed to sign the Malaysia Agreement.
The signing of the agreement was significant because it paved the way for the enactment of the Malaysia Act (Act No. 26 of 1963) which sealed the formation of Malaysia. With the enactment of the Malaysia Act, the Federal Constitution took over from the Malayan Constitution as a new “document of destiny” for Malaysia. The rights and privileges for Sabah and Sarawak are clearly stated in the Federal Constitution (Articles 161, 161A, 161B, 161E).
Apart from becoming a supreme document in the land, the Federal Constitution also reflects the new political reality in Malaysia. It should be stated that Malaysia was formed through the merging of three separately independent entities – Peninsular Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.
However, some people argue that the federal government does not honour the 20/18-point memorandum. The issue becomes complicated when the legality of the 20/18-point is questioned. For some, raising the 20/18-point is akin to flogging a dead horse because it is already incorporated into the Federal Constitution. For others, the 20/18-point is a legal document and it is the federal government’s duty to fulfill the demands of Sabah and Sarawak before their incorporation into Malaysia. But ironically, the non-fulfillment of the 20-point demands were a work of Sabah own leaders.
In 1973, Sabah Chief Minister Mustapha Harun of Usno (United Sabah National Organisation) amended the State Constitution to make Islam the official religion of Sabah. In the 20-point memorandum, Sabah leaders requested for Islam not to be made official religion because the majority of the population was non-Muslims and many were not inclined towards Islam.
Mustapha continued to amend the State Constitution to make Bahasa Melayu the official language in replace of English. The 20-point stated that English should be the “official language of [Sabah] for all purposes, [s]tate or [f]ederal without limitation of time”. Mustapha’s actions were driven by his beliefs that Sabah could only be developed under one religion (Islam), one language (Bahasa Melayu), and one culture (Malay).
In 1976, the 20-point and Sabah’s autonomy were further eroded by Mustapha’s successor Harris Salleh of Berjaya who surrendered the state’s control over natural resources to the federal government. In 1984, Harris continued with his massive federalisation policies by surrendering Labuan. In 1991, the federal influence in Sabah came to its high point with the establishment of Umno and other Peninsular-based parties in the state. Most of the Usno members left the party and joined Umno.
The rotation system of the chief minister’s post introduced by then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to ensure equal representation of the main ethnic groups in Sabah was just a temporary measure to consolidate Umno’s powers in Sabah. Just before the system completed its full cycle, it was abolished by Umno to seal its dominance in Sabah.
Changes in Sabah’s political landscape also affected the relations between one ethnic group with the other. Sabah has never experienced any serious ethnic tension since the formation of Malaysia. But when the Sabah Mufti called for the “Malay-isation” of the Muslim indigenous people, it caused a lot of anxiety – and potentially explosive ethnic fissures – in Sabah. The mufti’s refusal to apologise did not go well with many who continued to force the state Islamic leader to appear before the Native Court.
The mufti’s suggestion came amid the growing number of Malay/Muslim population in Sabah since the era of Mustapha. The non-Muslim people were aware of the fact that Sabah’s population demography had been altered to increase the Malay/Muslim population for political expediency. This is among the factors making the ruling party BN unpopular in the non-Muslim constituencies.
Sabahans have every reason to voice out their unhappiness about the attempt to alter Sabah’s plural identity and autonomy. But they must look introspectively and stop blaming the federal government and “semenanjung” people. The problems that happen in Sabah are mainly caused by Sabah leaders and Sabahans themselves.
Of course, one can say that the federal government has the innumerable powers to exert its influence in Sabah. But it is the duty of Sabah leaders to defend the Federal Constitution which grants Sabah certain rights and autonomy. Sabahans must also be aware that many Sabah leaders are using the 20/18-point issue and the Malaysia Agreement to revive their fading political support. Others use it as a “bargaining chip” to pursue their political ambition.
So, Sabahans should not trust these opportunist politicians too much. They must seek the truth themselves and use their democratic rights to elect leaders who are sincere in fighting for their rights.
The Federal Constitution protects the special privileges for Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysians of all walks of life have the duty to defend the sanctity and sovereignty of the Federal Constitution. Any attempt to erode the constitutional safeguards of Sabah and Sarawak must be stopped.
The formation of Malaysia happened by the sweat and toil of our founding fathers who envisioned a new country that belongs to all Malaysians irrespective of their ethnic identity and religion. Let us all defend what Malaysia was meant to be. – December 4, 2013.
Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-non-fulfillment-of-the-malaysian-agreement-who-is-to-blame-arnold-puyok
Monday, 11 November 2013
The Politics of "Cari Makan" in Sabah
Arnold Puyok
Sabah politicians have always been driven by what I call as the politics of ‘cari makan’. But before I go any further, let me first explain what the politics of ‘cari makan’ means.
For Sabah politicians, politics is not about understanding people’s problems and turning those problems into policy solutions. These are not in the Sabah politicians’ vocabulary. Politics for them is simply about finding the ways and means to get access to the state’s development resources - often, in order to gain monetary benefits quickly. So, becoming a politician in Sabah is one of the fastest ways to become rich - or an instant millionaire.
When news about a former opposition assemblyperson leaving his party came out, it was hardly news at all – at least for me. This is Sabah! Sabah politicians like to ‘jump’ to ‘cari makan’. The excuses given by the assemblyperson who used expressions such as “for the people”, “for development’s sake”, “loss of confidence”, etc, etc, are not new and have become a cliché in Sabah.
But to be fair to the assemblyperson, he may have a “strong” reason to leave his party. It is his democratic choice to decide his future political direction. It may be argued that his leaving the party was for the interest of his electorate whom he thought might be better served under a more resourceful and financially able party. So, if this is the case, the assemblyperson cannot be blamed. It is the system that forces him to leave his party.
In Malaysia, opposition leaders are often relegated to a second-class status even though they are voted by the rakyat to represent them. The system is seriously skewed in that only elected representatives from the ruling party have access to the state’s development resources to develop their constituencies. This puts the opposition parties in a disadvantageous position - without sufficient financial resources, it is rather difficult to serve the rakyat’s needs satisfactorily.
There is also a question about moral principles of elected representatives. The argument against defecting to another party is that the leader has betrayed the trust of people who voted for him under the party he represented. But it may be argued that voters’ voting preference might be influenced by the candidate’s popularity than by the party’s standing.
So, rather than questioning the moral integrity of the defecting leader, the main issue here is how to increase the accountability of elected representatives so that they will not use their political position to ‘cari makan’. I suggest a number of ways.
First, parties from both sides of the political divide must use the ‘bottom-up’ approach in selecting potential candidates to run in an election. The potential candidates must be vetted from the lowest level of representation such as the village to the highest level of representation in the party. The current practice of most political parties is to choose candidates who are closer to the centre of power instead of those who are closer to the electorates.
It is also important for the potential candidates to appear in a council-type debate. The ability to debate and to articulate issues of public interest is essential to increase the accountability of elected representatives. The final stage of this process is a vetting by an independent body within the party to choose the most suitable candidate to contest in an election. The process of selecting a candidate must be done early and not one or two days before the election.
Second, potential candidates must declare their assets publicly. Assets declaration by elected representatives is part and parcel of a functioning democratic society. By declaring their assets, elected representatives may be discouraged from using the public office to accumulate wealth or to involve in commercial activities in which they may have certain hidden interests. The role of elected representatives is to serve people and not to make money.
Drawing the line on political funding
Thirdly, a law must be enacted to prevent elected representatives from using their political position to expand the business interests of their allies, family members, or other parties with whom they may have certain vested interests with.
The law must also draw the line very clearly in respect to political donation, political funding, campaign programmes, and so on to ensure that elected representatives do no take advantage of those activities mentioned to serve their own personal interests.
Fourthly, the status and prestige of the legislative assembly must be elevated. Assembly meetings should be conducted regularly, and not a one-day sitting as in the case of the recent Sabah assembly proceeding. Assembly debates should be live telecast so that the electorates can assess the performance of their representatives.
Proposed enactments should be pre-debated and previewed before they are brought to the assembly for deliberation.
All this while, most people do not have any idea about what is going on in the assembly. The general perception about assembly sittings is that they are boring, a waste of time, and do not affect the day-to-day life of public. Elected representatives have a duty to explain to the rakyat that the legislative is an important government institution as it is the ‘brain’ that determines the future of the country.
Fifthly, political parties must conduct an empowerment session or a capacity building programme to train their elected representatives.
Most of the elected representatives think their work is done after winning the election. Some spend more time at golf courses, at hotel lounges, and at karaoke outlets than in their constituencies to serve the rakyat.
Elected representatives must be trained how to debate, how to write and evaluate policies, and how to initiate grassroots-level programmes, among other things.
Finally, the government must set up a people’s tribunal as an avenue to lodge complaints against underperforming elected representatives. Most elected representatives regard themselves as “untouchable”, “semi-god”, and worse, a “boss”.
Through the people’s tribunal, elected representatives will be made accountable to the people they serve. It is also an avenue for people to speak up openly and critically about issues which their representatives fail to address satisfactorily.
It is important for elected representatives to have the moral courage to explain to people their every action - including to defect to other party or to become an independent - as in the case of the opposition assemblyperson earlier.
But what is more important is for people to be empowered so that they can hold their elected representatives accountable. People - especially Sabahans - have had enough of leaders who become elected representatives simply to ‘cari makan’. Elected representatives who merely want to ‘cari makan’ are an impediment to the country’s progress. People of all races and religions should stand up and say ‘no’ to this kind of leaders.
Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/246082
Sabah politicians have always been driven by what I call as the politics of ‘cari makan’. But before I go any further, let me first explain what the politics of ‘cari makan’ means.
For Sabah politicians, politics is not about understanding people’s problems and turning those problems into policy solutions. These are not in the Sabah politicians’ vocabulary. Politics for them is simply about finding the ways and means to get access to the state’s development resources - often, in order to gain monetary benefits quickly. So, becoming a politician in Sabah is one of the fastest ways to become rich - or an instant millionaire.
When news about a former opposition assemblyperson leaving his party came out, it was hardly news at all – at least for me. This is Sabah! Sabah politicians like to ‘jump’ to ‘cari makan’. The excuses given by the assemblyperson who used expressions such as “for the people”, “for development’s sake”, “loss of confidence”, etc, etc, are not new and have become a cliché in Sabah.
But to be fair to the assemblyperson, he may have a “strong” reason to leave his party. It is his democratic choice to decide his future political direction. It may be argued that his leaving the party was for the interest of his electorate whom he thought might be better served under a more resourceful and financially able party. So, if this is the case, the assemblyperson cannot be blamed. It is the system that forces him to leave his party.
In Malaysia, opposition leaders are often relegated to a second-class status even though they are voted by the rakyat to represent them. The system is seriously skewed in that only elected representatives from the ruling party have access to the state’s development resources to develop their constituencies. This puts the opposition parties in a disadvantageous position - without sufficient financial resources, it is rather difficult to serve the rakyat’s needs satisfactorily.
There is also a question about moral principles of elected representatives. The argument against defecting to another party is that the leader has betrayed the trust of people who voted for him under the party he represented. But it may be argued that voters’ voting preference might be influenced by the candidate’s popularity than by the party’s standing.
So, rather than questioning the moral integrity of the defecting leader, the main issue here is how to increase the accountability of elected representatives so that they will not use their political position to ‘cari makan’. I suggest a number of ways.
First, parties from both sides of the political divide must use the ‘bottom-up’ approach in selecting potential candidates to run in an election. The potential candidates must be vetted from the lowest level of representation such as the village to the highest level of representation in the party. The current practice of most political parties is to choose candidates who are closer to the centre of power instead of those who are closer to the electorates.
It is also important for the potential candidates to appear in a council-type debate. The ability to debate and to articulate issues of public interest is essential to increase the accountability of elected representatives. The final stage of this process is a vetting by an independent body within the party to choose the most suitable candidate to contest in an election. The process of selecting a candidate must be done early and not one or two days before the election.
Second, potential candidates must declare their assets publicly. Assets declaration by elected representatives is part and parcel of a functioning democratic society. By declaring their assets, elected representatives may be discouraged from using the public office to accumulate wealth or to involve in commercial activities in which they may have certain hidden interests. The role of elected representatives is to serve people and not to make money.
Drawing the line on political funding
Thirdly, a law must be enacted to prevent elected representatives from using their political position to expand the business interests of their allies, family members, or other parties with whom they may have certain vested interests with.
The law must also draw the line very clearly in respect to political donation, political funding, campaign programmes, and so on to ensure that elected representatives do no take advantage of those activities mentioned to serve their own personal interests.
Fourthly, the status and prestige of the legislative assembly must be elevated. Assembly meetings should be conducted regularly, and not a one-day sitting as in the case of the recent Sabah assembly proceeding. Assembly debates should be live telecast so that the electorates can assess the performance of their representatives.
Proposed enactments should be pre-debated and previewed before they are brought to the assembly for deliberation.
All this while, most people do not have any idea about what is going on in the assembly. The general perception about assembly sittings is that they are boring, a waste of time, and do not affect the day-to-day life of public. Elected representatives have a duty to explain to the rakyat that the legislative is an important government institution as it is the ‘brain’ that determines the future of the country.
Fifthly, political parties must conduct an empowerment session or a capacity building programme to train their elected representatives.
Most of the elected representatives think their work is done after winning the election. Some spend more time at golf courses, at hotel lounges, and at karaoke outlets than in their constituencies to serve the rakyat.
Elected representatives must be trained how to debate, how to write and evaluate policies, and how to initiate grassroots-level programmes, among other things.
Finally, the government must set up a people’s tribunal as an avenue to lodge complaints against underperforming elected representatives. Most elected representatives regard themselves as “untouchable”, “semi-god”, and worse, a “boss”.
Through the people’s tribunal, elected representatives will be made accountable to the people they serve. It is also an avenue for people to speak up openly and critically about issues which their representatives fail to address satisfactorily.
It is important for elected representatives to have the moral courage to explain to people their every action - including to defect to other party or to become an independent - as in the case of the opposition assemblyperson earlier.
But what is more important is for people to be empowered so that they can hold their elected representatives accountable. People - especially Sabahans - have had enough of leaders who become elected representatives simply to ‘cari makan’. Elected representatives who merely want to ‘cari makan’ are an impediment to the country’s progress. People of all races and religions should stand up and say ‘no’ to this kind of leaders.
Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/246082
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)