talking points - formation of malaysia.pdf

7/27/2019 Talking points - formation of Malaysia.pdf

1/23

1

Topic: The formation of Malaysia - as I

remember it.

Date: Friday 27th

September, 2013.

Venue: National University of Singapore.

Time: 9.00 am 6.30 pm.Theme: 50 years of Malaysia: Federalism

revisited.

Mr. Moderator, Professor Andrew James

Harding, fellow speakers, distinguishedaudience, ladies and gentlemen.

I thank Professor Andrew James Harding for his

invitation to attend this seminar and for the

opportunity to share with you some thoughts

on The Formation of Malaysia As I remember

it.


2/23

2

When Malaysia was formed on 16th

September, 1963 I was already 25 years of age.

Malaysia turned 50 years of age on 16thSeptember this year (2013). 50 years for a

country is relatively a young age but quite old

for a human being. That is why I really feel my

age.

In 2007, I used to see billboards at the Kota

Kinabalu airport with the slogan celebrating 50

years of nationhood written on them. Kota

Kinabalu is the state capital of Sabah. It used to

be known as Jesselton. Some locals still call it

Api-Api. Api in Malay means fire. Sabah was

also known as North Borneo before it became

part of Malaysia. I believe Sabah is an Arabic

word for dawn. Sabah is fondly known as theland below the wind.


3/23

3

In 2007, Malaysia was only 44 years old. The

question is which nation was being referred

to in the slogan? It could not possibly refer toMalaysia since Malaysia at the time was only 44

years old and not 50. If it referred to Malaya

then it would have been correct. Malaya

attained its independence from the British on

31st

August 1957. However, Malaya ceased to

exist as a separate independent and sovereign

nation following the formation of Malaysia

some six years later. Malaya, Singapore, North

Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak became part of anew federation called Malaysia on 16

th

September, 1963. The slogan at the Kota

Kinabalu airport therefore was not reflective of

historical fact. History here is the distortion of

facts by the people in power.

It took the Malaysian government 46 long

years just to accept and acknowledge 16


4/23

4

September as Malaysia Day. For 46 years, this

day passed by as just like any other day. The

focus of national attention is 31st August, theIndependence Day of Malaya. This day is

observed and celebrated as Malaysias National

Day. However it has no relevance to Sabah and

Sarawak.

This year, 2013, was only the fourth time in 50

years that Malaysia Day was being observed

although in Sabah 16th

September also

happened to be a public holiday to mark the

official birthday of the Governor. The

Governors birthday has since been changed to

the first Saturday of October with effect from

the year 2010. Under the circumstances, it is

better late than never.Datuk VK Liew, former Deputy Minister in the

Prime Ministers Department was reported in


5/23

5

the Daily Express, a local Sabah newspaper, on

2nd

September, 2012 to have said that Malaysia

celebrates 16th September as Malaysia Day. Hedid not give any reason why it took the federal

government 46 years to decide. He further

stated that the USA declared independence on

4th

July, 1776 and other states joined on

different dates and yet the USA celebrates

Independence Day on 4th

July every year. There

was no argument. There was no issue. With due

respect to the Deputy Minister he was not

comparing apple with apple. In the case of theUSA, it was USA on 4

thJuly 1776. This year,

2013, it is still the USA, some 237 years later.

Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak never

joined Malaya on 16th

September, 1963.

Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak

together formed a new federation called

Malaysia on 16th

September, 1963.


6/23

6

Malaysia has a federal system of government.

It involves the sharing of political powers

between the central and state governments.This sharing is expressed in the federal

constitution. There are 3 separate lists of

political powers. They are the federal list, the

state list and the concurrent list. The federal

system in Malaysia is federal in form but very

much unitary in substance. The states are

essentially left with local government, land and

forest matters. Even these, there are such

bodies as the National Council for LocalGovernment and the National Land Council in

which the federal government exerts influence

over the state governments although the

Councils decisions are not binding on Sabah

and Sarawak. There is also a tendency in a

federal system for the central government to


7/23

7

get stronger over time especially following a

crisis.

Malaya became independent on 31 August,

1957 some six years before the formation of

Malaysia. Malaya chose the popular love song

terang bulan (bright moon) for its new

national anthem. It subsequently became thenational anthem of Malaysia.

North Borneo gained its independence on 31st

August, 1963 whereas Sarawak became

independent on 22nd

July, 1963. Historical

events indicate that the 3 nations namely

Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak gained

independence on 3 different and separate

dates. The question that comes to mind is

how is it possible for all of them to becelebrating 56 years of independence in 2013?

It is more accurate to say that Malaysia was


8/23

8

celebrating Malayas 56 years of independence

in 2013. I have no problem with this because it

is the truth. It is better to be truthful than forhistory to be distorted.

Article 160 of the Malaysian constitution

provides, amongst others, that merdeka day

means 31

st

August, 1957 and the federation ofMalaysia means the federation established

under the federation of Malaya Agreement,

1957. So what is the status and where is the

place of the Malaysia Agreement signed in

London on 9 July, 1963? How is it possible to

relate the formation of Malaysia to the Malaya

Agreement, 1957 and merdeka day to 31st

August, 1957 when Malaysia came into being

only 6 years later? Those of you who arelawyers would be able to understand the logic

and rationale behind this than me. I stand to be

legally guided. Does Malaysia really exist


9/23

9

legally? Independence day for Malaysia should

not arise because Malaysia has never been

colonized unlike Malaya, North Borneo andSarawak.

I have said many times in the past and I say it

again that the formation of Malaysia came at

least 10 years too early in the context of Sabah.I was still studying in 1963 but I was back in

North Borneo (Sabah) in January, 1962 for a

holiday and I remember our community leaders

were feeling exuberance at the thought of

independence through Malaysia which was a

misnomer considering that Sabah and Sarawak

were already independent nations before the

formation of Malaysia. I went to see one of

them who was very closed to Donald Stephens(later Tun Mohd Fuad Stephens). Donald

Stephens was Sabahs first Chief Minister

following the formation of Malaysia. Some of


10/23

10

the views I expressed to the community leader

included the following:

i) North Borneo would lose the only

opportunity to experience being a truly

independent and sovereign nation able to

determine its own destiny with its own seat in

the UN.

ii) It would simply be a transfer of power from

Britain to Malaya.

iii) North Borneo did not have the people

qualified and experienced enough to negotiatewith Malaya and Singapore.

iv) North Borneo should demand for self-rule

initially followed by full independence from the

British.

v) North Borneo should then go to the

negotiating table without the British if the


11/23

11

people, via referendum, wished to federate

with Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Brunei.

vi) North Borneo should examine very carefully

the pros and cons of joining the proposed

federation in the immediate, short, medium

and long term before deciding.

vii) North Borneo should insist on an escape

clause in the event it found itself short-changed

and/or betrayed later.

viii) At best, it should only be a loose federation

with considerable state autonomy includingfinancial autonomy by having the power to

impose taxes on certain taxable items. Political

autonomy without financial autonomy was not

good enough. The person holding the purse

usually has the last say and calls the shots.

ix) The political union between Malaya and

North Borneo would be an artificial one bearing


12/23

12

in mind that the 2 territories had very little, if

any, in common and separated by almost 2000

km of sea. North Borneos case could not becompared with Singapore. Singapore was

geographically part of the Malayan peninsula.

Political union with Malaya made a lot of sense

especially in terms of economic survival for

Singapore. It had no natural resources, not

even enough water for its people. At the time

independent Singapore was not a viable option.

The word Malaysia itself is a combination of the

words Malaya and Singapura. Therecruitment of North Borneo, Sarawak and

Brunei was an attempt to counterbalance

Singapores Chinese population in the proposed

federation. It was an after-thought.

The proposed Malaysian federation was very

topical at the time and attracted a lot of

attention especially those who were politically


13/23

13

inclined. My views at the time were based on

what I learnt about federalism which I took as a

subject for my degree course. I remember mylecturer saying about federalism which he

described as, before federating you were like a

big fish in a small pond. After federating you

become a small fish in a big pond. I did not find

any attraction to the idea of federalism when I

heard such description. It is therefore not

surprising that over the years federations have

tended to disintegrate such as Yugoslavia,

Soviet Union and Sudan, to name a few. Whilstwe hear of federations disintegrating we do not

hear of new federations being formed. The

small island of Cyprus can accommodate two

countries!

At the time when the idea behind the

formation of Malaysia was being talked about,

the literacy rate of North Borneans was very


14/23

14

low, at best. I do not think they had any clear

idea of what was happening. In 1962 only 2

political parties were just formed. They werethe United National Kadazan Organization

(UNKO) headed by Donald Stephens and the

United Sabah National Organization (USNO)

headed by Datu Mustapha Bin Datu Harun.

As it turned out Brunei opted out of the

negotiation at the eleventh hour and

remained a big fish in a small pond. It also

appears that Brunei has never regretted its

decision. Brunei kept its oil wealth to itself and

its citizens today do not pay any income tax. In

contrast Sabah which has oil and gas is the

poorest state in the country.

The intention of the founding fathers was afederation of 4 nations, namely, Malaya,

Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo. Today


15/23

15

Sabah has been reduced to one of the 13 states

in Malaysia a tiny and undernourished fish in a

very large pond. To the best of my recollection,when Singapore was part of Malaysia it always

had a Prime Minister and not a Chief Minister.

Singapore was expelled from Malaysia by the

Malaysian Parliament on 9 August, 1965. Myquestion is - did the Malaysian Parliament have

the power and authority to expel Singapore

from the federation? As far as I am aware there

is no provision for expulsion in the federal

constitution. Some argue that with the

expulsion of Singapore, the Malaysia

Agreement should have been abrogated. After

all it was very conceivable that Sabah and

Sarawak became part of the federation becauseof Singapore. Malaysia is a country where you

could be kicked out but you cannot kick

yourself out. I remember Tun Fuad (formerly


16/23

16

Donald Stephens) did raise the issue of Sabahs

position following the expulsion of Singapore

but very shortly he ended up being sidelinedand neutralized.

I cannot help thinking that the expulsion of

Singapore had been pre-planned from the start.

I feel that the Tunku had never any intention tosee Singapore remaining in Malaysia for a long

time. Whilst he was eager to assimilate the

Borneo territories he had aversion towards

Singapore. Singapore had Lee Kwan Yew who

was in the same weight division as him.

Incidentally, when I was still in school our

teacher used to discuss the possible merger of

the Borneo territories, namely Brunei, North

Borneo and Sarawak. We were asked to writeessays on the subject. The idea of Malaysia


17/23

17

never arose at the time. This was in the late

1950s.

One of the arguments supporting the

formation of Malaysia in the context of Sabah

was security with particular reference to the

Philippines and Indonesia. In reality it was the

very formation of Malaysia which promptedPresident Sukarno of Indonesia to embark upon

the confrontation campaign. The Philippines

renewed its claim over Sabah with vigour. This

claim has not been dropped to this day. On the

other hand one post-Malaysia development

which will haunt Sabah for the rest of time is

the alleged government created problem for

Sabah in the form of hundreds of thousands of

illegal immigrants, mostly Muslims, from thesouthern Philippines and allowed to walk in and

out of Sabah with impunity. The illegal

immigrants have permanently altered the


18/23

18

economic, social, cultural, political and

demographic landscape of the state. They have

outnumbered Malaysians of Sabah origin andsooner or later will take over the state. This is

the Sabah I never expected. Security through

Malaysia was only a mirage. Interestingly

enough, Brunei despite being on its own, does

not seem to experience any of the post

Malaysia problems facing Sabah.

My hope for Sabah lies with the youths of

today. They are more educated, computer

literate and more articulate to demand that

they deserve to be treated fairly and given

equal opportunities. It is now getting harder

and harder for government authorities to hide

or deny wrongdoings.I do feel sad that North Borneo appeared to

have rushed unnecessarily into the formation


19/23

19

of Malaysia to the extent of just accepting the

Malayan constitution with minimal adjustments

as well as its national anthem and flag.

Malaysia is Malaya plus in many ways. Surely a

new nation should have a new constitution, a

new flag and a new national anthem to name a

few. At the very least a referendum shouldhave been held.

The Cobbold Commission was not a

referendum. It was just a Commission of Inquiry

established to try and gauge the wish of the

people of North Borneo and Sarawak whether

or not they supported the formation of

Malaysia. It was headed by Lord Cobbold, the

former Governor of the Bank of England. The

other members were Wong Pow Nee, the ChiefMinister of Penang, Mohammed Ghazali Shafie,

Permanent Secretary to the Malayan Ministry


20/23

20

of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Abell, the former

Governor of Sarawak and David Whetherston,

the former Chief Secretary of Malaya. Oddlyenough, Sabah and Sarawak were not

represented in the Cobbold Commission.

Despite my reservations I remain hopeful for a

better Malaysia. I see more and more Malaywriters, figures and personalities who are pro-

good governance, against inequality and racial

discrimination. More often than not this group

comes from the younger generation, more

informed, educated and exposed to

international affairs. They see fellow human

beings not in terms of race and religion. They

have much broader outlook of life and human

existence. They believe in meritocracy and itsbenefits. They like to see government

assistance given based on real needs rather

than based on race and religion. To realize a


21/23

21

change for the better, Malaysia needs the

support and cooperation of the Malays who

comprise the majority population.

The results of the 13th

Malaysian general

elections held on 5th

May, 2013 as well as the

12th

held on 8th

March, 2008 indicate a move

away from the politics very much influencedand dominated by racial and religious

sentiments. Membership of several political

parties is becoming more and more multi-

racial. There is strong indication that finally the

birth of a 2-party system is beginning to

emerge.

The results of the general elections on 5th

May,

2013 indicate a strong desire for change. The

combined votes of people who wanted changeamounted to 5.82 million compared with 5.24

million who preferred the status quo. Under


22/23

22

the present electoral boundaries the 5.24

million who voted for the government were

rewarded with 133 parliamentary seatswhereas the 5.82 million who voted for change

were rewarded with only 89 parliamentary

seats. Thus, a government representing the

minority was formed. A democratic system of

government is usually associated with a

government representing the majority.

However, the fact remains that there is a very

strong opposition in Parliament which

represents a healthy development and goes along way in inducing the government to

practice and observe good governance.

It is generally perceived that the government

managed to retain power due to excessivegerrymandering, tainted electoral rolls, misuse

of government machineries and facilities,

money politics, Election Commission which is


23/23

23

not independent, phantom and postal voters,

uneven playing field and other alleged electoral

frauds. Sooner or later the government has torespond favourably to the legitimate demand

of the majority. I hope it will be sooner rather

than later.

I thank you for your kind attention.

talking points - formation of malaysia.pdf

Documents