*Tengku
Razaleigh Hamzah is the former finance minister of Malaysia. He
delivered this speech at The Malaysian Branch of The Royal Asiatic
Society Lecture in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the
formation of Malaysia on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at the Royal
Selangor Club Annexe in Bukit Kiara, Kuala Lumpur.
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
It
is my singular honour to have been invited to such an august gathering
as this. I am privileged to have this opportunity to talk about the
birth of Malaysia. Allow me, therefore, to record my gratitude and
appreciation to our host, the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic
Society, for the invitation in the first instance.
The
timing is apt, coming as it does eight days after the 50th anniversary
of her founding. It is also relevant given that Malaysia is facing
unprecedented political and economic challenges. These challenges are
formidable and, if left unsolved, could cause damage to the economy and
political integrity of Malaysia.
The
legitimacy of the formation of Malaysia is based on the fact that at
the time of her formation, Malaya was the only country that was
independent and had a democratic constitution, with institutions
supporting such a constitution, within this region.
Her
economic foundation justifiably gave Malayans, at that time, a vision
that we would one day be the shining example in South East Asia. It was
with this perspective that Malaya, under the leadership of Tunku Abdul
Rahman, took the initiative in helping to maintain stability in the
region. This was at a time when British colonialism was forced by
international opinion and in particular by Asia, to retreat as the
colonial power without leaving a vacuum.
Malaysia
was born, therefore, out of a historical necessity at that time. It
bears reminding that this country still remains a stable political force
in the region. The success or failure of Malaysia will not only affect
Malaysia, but the entire Asean region. Therefore, a historical
understanding of the birth of Malaysia is very important. Just as
important is the legitimacy of Malaysia to the citizens of the country
as well as to Sabah and Sarawak as part of Malaysia which is a political
necessity to maintain the stability of the region.
Much
has been written about the formation of Malaysia and, by and large, the
writings have been consistent. But it is sad to note that there is a
general ignorance of her founding among the younger Malaysians. The
importance of remembering our past should never be made light; for it is
the past that puts us where we are today. It is a pity that this
ignorance exists; but in itself, it is harmless. However, the danger
lies in the possibility of it being exploited for particular ends.
It
is fair to say that an average middle-aged Sabah or Sarawak Malaysian
does not seem to know about her formation, as is the average middle-aged
peninsular Malaysian. But one thing is clear. There is resentment at
and dissatisfaction with Sabah and Sarawak being treated as and equated
to just another state of Malaysia. To be sure, there are other issues;
but the two being equated to any of the 11 peninsular states is perhaps
the most contentious. It had been simmering since the 1980s but it never
surfaced, not as a formal articulation anyway. It is, nevertheless, a
political wart that has the potential to come to a boil.
The
advent of social media such as the Blog and Facebook has altered the
scene. With such media reaching every nook and corner of the country,
everyone is now acutely conscious of the angst of Sabah and Sarawak
Malaysians over the issue. The anguish is magnified whenever 16th
September comes around. We are then flooded with grouses of unfulfilled
promises to Sabah and Sarawak relating to the formation of Malaysia.
These grievances come from almost all sectors of our society, either in
writings or speeches or other suchlike mode. People of religion would
present their thoughts with a bias towards religious issues, and people
of trade, from an economic perspective. Other issues that are often
aired include education, human rights and politics.
It
bears noting that this discontentment and whatever dissatisfaction
expressed do not go beyond the superficial. The sad part is that not
many would care to sieve through the events and development leading to
the birth of Malaysia. It is my intent, this evening, to attempt this.
But before that it might serve us well to note a few of these grouses.
Let
me paraphrase the feeling of a particular Sabah academic. He pointed
out that Sabahans and Sarawakians agreed to be part of Malaysia on the
understanding that the interests of the states were safeguarded. These
interests were enshrined in the 20/18-point Agreements, the London
Agreements and the Inter-Governmental Reports. He pointed out further
that the safeguards were not honoured and taken away at the whim and
fancy of the Federal Government, and added in no uncertain terms that
Sabah and Sarawak are equal partners to the Federation of Malaya in
Malaysia and not two of her 13 states. A group of east Malaysian
politicians and social activists went so far as to describe the
transgressions as a looting of their riches.
A
complaint from Sarawak took on a more symbolic strain. The formation of
Malaysia was compared to a marriage with a prenuptial agreement, that
is, the 18-point Agreement. The complainant described how the wife,
Sarawak, was hurt by the lack of attention from the husband, Kuala
Lumpur, but continued to be the dutiful and responsible wife.
In
the recent past, a Sabah politician bluntly remarked that Sabah belongs
to Sabahans and not to Malaysia as the Malaysia Agreement has yet to be
implemented. He agitated for the review of its implementation while at
the same time addressing the unhappiness of Sabahans and Sarawakians. He
argued that Sabah has lost most of the 20 points after decisions
affecting the state were made by Kuala Lumpur. Worse, he accused that
Sabah was treated like a colony instead of an equal partner in Malaysia.
A Sabah Bishop, speaking on Malaysia Day 2012, questioned whether the
agreement to uphold freedom and other native rights and customs is being
kept. He tellingly pointed out that it was the understanding and the
compromise displayed during the negotiation that convinced the then
North Borneo and Sarawak to jointly form Malaysia with the Federation of
Malaya and Singapore.
An
activist with the moniker anak jati Sabah (a genuine Sabahan), in
venting his frustration, plainly and boldly pointed out that peninsular
Malaysians have been wrong in referring to Sabah as having joined
Malaysia. He argued that Malaysia had not always been in existence; that
Sabah, together with Sarawak, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya
had formed Malaysia. He contended that the 20-point Agreement and the
Batu Sumpah — a monument of honour, as it were, that was erected in
Keningau as a reminder of Sabah's support for Malaysia and the 20-point
Agreement - were not honoured and had been discarded by Kuala Lumpur.
His bitterness could be discerned from the following observation that
has been attributed to him; that is, "the Batu Sumpah and the 20-point
Agreement have been slowly and steadily violated and rubbished by Kuala
Lumpur."
An
equally strong sentiment had been echoed by a Sarawak professional who,
in reflecting about Malaysia, had made it known that it is justifiable
for Sarawak to opt out of Malaysia because of the perceived poor
treatment of her by Kuala Lumpur through what he felt was the violation
of the 18-point Agreement. However, he conceded that there are
advantages of being in Malaysia.
These,
then, are a sampling of the issues underpinning the listless and uneasy
relationship between Sabah and Sarawak, and Kuala Lumpur. If we were to
use the earlier Sarawak wife and Malayan husband analogy, it is not
unbecoming to describe it as a relationship between strange bedfellows.
These issues are critical when they viewed against the backdrop of the
territorial realpolitik that is particular to Malaysia. They need to be
redressed and the onus is greatest on those with the most political
influence. Only in this way could the legacy of a vibrant and
economically progressive Malaysia taking her rightful and dignified
place on the world stage be meaningful to our children and
grandchildren.
Ladies
and gentlemen, I would suggest that we begin the process of reparation
by looking at the gestation leading to the formation of Malaysia. I
would suggest further that we approach this with an open mind, without
any preconception. Let us analyse these grouses impartially. Let us not
jump to any conclusion by saying that a point is no longer relevant or
appropriate or significant. Let us view the issues in perspective and
address them accordingly. And let us begin at the beginning.
In
a speech on September 16, 1961, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the founding father
of Malaysia, spoke of the decision to form the confederation. He
pointed out that the formation was made with "much care and thought."
There was "mutual consent" by "debate and discussion" and "inquiries and
elections held over two and a half years". Tunku was proud that
Malaysia was created "through friendly arguments and friendly
compromise". He believed that the cooperation and concord that prevailed
were driven by the desire to share a common destiny. Tunku and the
other leaders must be cherished for Malaysia's successful formation. We
also owe it to them to make good on the compromises as we realise the
common destiny that the Tunku spoke of.
Earlier
in May 1961, at the Delphi Hotel in Singapore, Tunku had mooted the
idea of bringing together Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and
Brunei. His proposal was seen as a move to counter the communist
influence in the region, to balance the racial composition and to
expedite the economic development and independence of Singapore, North
Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. The suggestion was well received as it had
struck a chord with the British decolonisation attitude of the day.
There was, however, concern over the possibility of opposition by the
local leaders of the three Borneo territories. This was confirmed when
the Sarawak United People's Party, Partai Rakyat Brunei and the United
National Kadazan Organisation formed a United Front to denounce the
proposal as "totally unacceptable". Subsequently, the Sarawak National
Party supported this position.
Opposition to the idea of a Malaysia was also strong from the people of the North Borneo interior.
To
overcome this opposition, Tunku visited Sarawak and North Borneo in
July and August 1961 to win over the sceptics. Fact finding visits by
the Borneo leaders to Malaya eventually convinced them that Malaysia was
a good idea. In addition, Sarawak leaders were sent to the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association Conference taking place in Singapore during
the period. This afforded them the opportunity to discuss the concept
further with their Malayan and Singapore counterparts.
A
consensus was eventually established and this led to the formation of
the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC). It explained the
concept further to the people of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei and
discussed issues relating to the formation of Malaysia. The MSCC
prepared a memorandum that underscored the need to gauge and ascertain
the opinion of the general population of North Borneo and Sarawak on the
Malaysia concept.
The Cobbold Commission on the Formation of Malaysia
In
early 1962, this was submitted to the Cobbold Commission that had been
set up to determine whether the people of North Borneo supported the
formation of Malaysia. Later that year, the Commission submitted its
report to the Malayan and British governments. Among other things, the
report recorded that 80% of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak
supported the formation of Malaysia.
However,
the Cobbold Commission reported that large sections of the population,
especially in the interior, had no real appreciation of the Malaysia
concept. But it recorded that about one third of the population favoured
the idea strongly and wanted Malaysia to be formed as early as
possible. This third was not too concerned about the terms and
conditions. Another third asked for conditions and safeguards that
varied in nature and extent, but was, in the main, favourable to the
concept. The remaining third was divided into those who insisted upon
independence before Malaysia and those who preferred to remain under the
British.
The
Commission also expressed the following caution which is taken verbatim
from its report: "It is a necessary condition that from the outset
Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of
partners, combining in the common interests to create a new nation but
retaining their own individualities. If any idea were to take root that
Malaysia would involve a 'take-over' of the Borneo territories by the
Federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of North
Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not be generally acceptable and
successful."
The
safeguard demanded as a precondition to the formation of Malaysia was
looked into by an Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) set up upon the
recommendation of the Cobbold Commission. At its first meeting in
Jesselton on 30th August 1962, the IGC considered a memorandum calling
for, among other things, the two territories having control over
education and health for 10 years before reverting to the federal
government. The memorandum was, with some modification, included into
the Malaysia Act, the Federal Constitution and the relevant state
constitutions. These safeguards have now come to be known as the
20-point Agreement for Sabah and the 18-point Agreement for Sarawak.
For the sake of clarity, I should spell out, in passing, the 20-point safeguards for Sabah. They are points relating to:
- Religion
- The national language and the use of English
- The constitution to be a completely new document
- Head of Federation
- Name of Federation
- Control over immigration by the state
- Right of secession
- Borneonisation
- Position of British officers
- Citizenship
- Tariffs and finance
- Special position of indigenous races
- State Government
- Transitional period
- Education
- Constitutional safeguards
- Representation in the Federal Parliament
- Name of Head of State
- Name of State and
- Land, forest and local government, etc.
The
last two points regarding the name of the state and land, forest and
local government, etc. are not in the safeguards for Sarawak.
These
safeguards were to be reviewed 10 years after the coming into being of
Malaysia, that is, after 16th September, 1973. Tun Razak, who was the
then Prime Minister, set up a committee in that year under the
chairmanship of his Deputy, Tun Dr Ismail, to review the IGC agreements.
However, the committee did not meet at all in that year because the
Draft Bill of the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) was being drawn up at
the time. The prevailing wisdom then was that priority be given to the
acceptance of the PDA by Sabah and Sarawak. Upon the coming into force
of the PDA, I was asked by Tun Razak to get the Chief Ministers and
Menteris Besar of the relevant states to enter into agreements in
accordance with the requirements of the PDA. As it turned out, Sabah and
Sarawak put up formidable stands in making known their positions.
In
any event, Tun Dr Ismail passed away in August 1973 and this was
followed by the demise of Tun Razak in January 1976, giving the review a
tragic twist with it being left on the backburner. I should like to
emphasise here that the review not taking place despite Tun Razak's
intention reflects the good faith of the federal government in the
relationship with Sabah and Sarawak. However, this was overtaken by the
development of events during that period that I have just described.
Perhaps the review could be considered afresh as Malaysia celebrates her
golden anniversary.
President Sukarno
The
story of Malaysia will be incomplete if I do not touch on the
significant reactions by Indonesia and the Philippines to the idea of a
Malaysia. Indonesia withdrew its initial support for the concept. The
Philippines similarly objected to Malaysia's formation and announced its
own claim on North Borneo.
This
led to another round of public opinion assessment, this time by the
United Nations. Its report was made public on September 13, 1963. The UN
confirmed that the people of North Borneo and Sarawak had freely
expressed their wish for the formation of Malaysia. They were fully
aware that this would bring about a change in their status. The report
also noted that this was "expressed through informed democratic
processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage".
The Malaysia Agreement had been signed earlier on July 9, 1963 at the
Marlborough House in London, with her birth marked for August 31, 1963.
In the event, Malaysia was proclaimed on September 16, 1963 to
accommodate the UN report which was completed two days earlier.
I
have tried to paint a comprehensive picture of how Malaysia came into
being. Sadly, it does not quite match what was agreed upon originally.
One could come up with any number of explanations for this, but I would
respectfully submit that we do not go down this route. Let us muster
enough courage to recognise and admit that we have a problem. To do so
is to begin the process of its resolution.
That
there was poor availability of information surrounding the formation of
Malaysia in the public domain is most unfortunate. This has, in part,
led to the breeding of animosity between Malaysians on both sides of the
South China Sea. To be sure, this unfriendliness was not by design.
Neither was it borne out of malice or prejudice. Certainly there was no
ill intent. The oft repeated error that Sabah and Sarawak are but two
Malaysian states is a case in point. It is an error that has Sabahans
and Sarawakians blowing hot and cold under their proverbial collar. We
must now right this misconception. For a start, there is a dire need for
factual accuracy in the information on how Malaysia came to be. And it
would help greatly if we could ensure that this critical part of our
history is clearly spelt out in our school curriculum.
It
should be pointed out, for instance, that 31st August is of no
particular significance to Sabah and Sarawak, its grand celebration
notwithstanding. It is but the date of Malaya's independence and it
should be celebrated for just that. On the other hand, September 16 —
the Malaysia Day — has a greater significance and is certainly a more
important date in the annals of Malaysia. It must, therefore, be allowed
to take its place as a major celebration in our national calendar of
events.
I
should also point out that the 20-point and 18-point Agreements have
been incorporated into the Federal Constitution. Whether this is taken
to mean that the two agreements no longer exist as once propounded by
certain quarters is a conjecture that borders on the sensitive, given
the emotive nature of the subject. In any case, the Batu Sumpah of
Keningau will stand in perpetuity as a monument to the spirit of the
20-point Agreement.
This
begs the question, what next? Where do we go from here? They are best
answered by those in the political driving seat. It is, therefore,
incumbent upon those in power to kick start the process. We have to, no,
we must prove the cynics are off the mark when they say that the act of
Sabah and Sarawak jointly forming Malaysia is but a transfer of
political power from Britain to Malaya. We must prove the caution by the
Cobbold Commission wrong. We must do this and reinforce and strengthen
the building blocks of a united, prosperous and harmonious Malaysia.
A
Malaysia such as this could provide the cornerstone for the growth and
stability of our beloved land. By extension, such a growth and stability
could offer a rippling effect to benefit this region which faces many
uncertainties. A united, prosperous and harmonious Malaysia will, most
certainly, garner international respect and admiration. Given the
political uncertainty close to the Sabah shore, a calm and collected
Malaysia, confident of her position in the international scheme of
things, could well play a critical role in helping to resolve the
complex and multifarious problems besieging the region. As an example,
Malaysia could provide the calming voice in the effort to overcome the
overlapping claims by various countries in the Spratlays as a result of
the UN Law of the Sea Treaty recognising a 12-mile territorial sea limit
and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.
Ladies
and gentlemen, it bears repeating the reminder that tensions and stress
points among a people tend to increase in times of economic difficulty.
Given that there are still large areas in Sabah and Sarawak,
particularly in the interior, classified as poor with the standard of
living nowhere near that of urban enclaves, it is not surprising if the
animosity towards this side of Malaysia is felt strongly. It does not
help that the greater Kelang Valley is seen as, rightly or wrongly,
enjoying the level of wealth far ahead of the two eastern territories.
Such situations as the recent increase of the pump price of petroleum
worsen the situation as providers of goods and services pass such
increases to the consumers. This would heighten further the financial
difficulty suffered by the poor of Sabah and Sarawak. Therefore, the
government should seriously think of ways to overcome such hardships as
this.
It
is time that the government absorbed the continually increasing
financial burden rather than allowing it to ultimately land on the
shoulder of the people. If this is well handled, I am confident that we
can begin to mitigate and work towards overcoming the negative
perception towards Kuala Lumpur that seems to be playing in the
collective minds of Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good afternoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment