Suddenly, no shortage of ‘rights fighters’
Published on: Sunday, January 15, 2017
Text Size:
AS a Sabahan, I am 100pc in support of reclaiming any rights that we may have lost or that may have been taken away from us by the Federal Government.
Without reservation, I would support Sabahan political leaders to fight for the restoration of these rights.
No Sabahan in his right mind would oppose. The question is how to go about it and what to reclaim.
It would be fantastic if they can be successful in their endeavours and in the process, secure more or new rights if they can. To proceed in an effective and meaningful way, we need to determine: what exactly are the rights that we have lost or have been taken away from us.
There is no shortage of political parties and politicians cashing in on this ‘rights’ issue.
So many statements have been made. Everyone seems to have become instant expert in his/her own right.
Quite a few who have failed to address this ‘rights’ issue when they were in position of power have become ardent advocates. They need to establish credibility. I stand to be corrected – no one has ever given specifics or a list on the rights that we are supposed to have lost or have been taken away. I have been keeping a close tab on public statements on this subject. Often mentioned are the Malaysia Agreement, Inter-government committee report, Butu Sumpah and the 20 points. Do they have legal authority like the Federal Constitution or an Act of Parliament? Will keeping to the spirit of these documents give us satisfaction? Can they be made specific legal reference points to highlight breaches by the Federal Government? Have they been incorporated into the Federal Constitution? Less highlighted is the Malaysia Act 1963. I must admit I am somewhat confused by all these as to exactly what are they are fighting for, their priority and how will they approach in getting back ‘our rights’.
The situation has generated little succinct details and plenty of emotional energy. Those wishing toacquire a better understanding on the historical and legal complexities may wish to read ‘The Constitutional Rights of Sabah and Sarawak’ by Sukumaran Vanugopal who is a prominent Sabahan lawyer. Sukumaran has unveiled many issues surrounding our constitutional rights in a simple, easy to understand manner.
Who among the many opposition leaders has the political credibility, stature and in depth knowledge to speak on the ‘rights’ issue in a coherent and authoritative way?
It is my humble opinion that our number 1 priority should be to seek clarification on the most important issue which is: Is Sabah 1/3 or 1/13 of Malaysia? We should settle this burning question first because this involves Sabah’s position in Malaysia in the most fundament way. There is a ‘heaven and earth’ difference in being 1/3 or 1/13. Once this is settled, most other issues can be resolved will be less complex. Many persons are of the opinion that we are 1/3 because we have formed Malaysia with Malaya and Sarawak [after Singapore’s departure].
Is this presumption and/or perception correct? There are also some who say that Sabah and Sarawak formed Malaysia with the “existing states” of the federation of Malaya which can be interpreted that we are 1/13 and not 1/3. I am just wondering if the 2 key words “existing states”have been excluded what is the interpretation?
Quite honestly, I do not know the answer. Arguments for and against this point have been inconclusive so far.
The best way to settle this critical point is for the ‘rights fighters’ to take this matter to the constitution court so that it can be settled once for all.
What follows after the 1/3 or 1/13 position has been established by the court is very important.
If we are 1/3, the whole gambit of Federal/State relation needs to be reviewed and redefined in the most profound manner, from financial arrangements, share of revenue to respective authorities for Federal and State governments. There are other very fundamental issues too that can also ensue, the most urgent of which is: Will Sabah be entitled to 1/3 of the total parliamentary seats? How can we be 1/3 if we do not have 1/3 of parliamentary votes? Should Sabah be given 1/3 of the total Federal Cabinet posts? What does 1/3 mean in the day to day administration of Malaysia and Sabah? Should there a 3 Deputy PMs, 1 each for the respective 3 parts.
On the other hand, if the constitutional court decides we are a mere 1/13, can Sabahans accept such a decision?
What does 1/13 mean for Sabah? Will Sabah get a worse deal than the present arrangement?
What is our strategy?
To my mind, the issue of regaining our ‘lost rights’ can only be discussed in the right context after the 1/3 or 1/13 issues have been determined. It would be good if some ‘rights’ advocates can come up with specifics on the rights that we have lost or taken from us, the reasons thereof and a plan to reinstate them. The present “free for all” campaign needs to be reinforced with focus and definitive political leadership. The ideal situation is for the opposition to discard narrow opposition politics, to work with the State Government in the interest of Sabah, so that we will have a solid front in dealing with the Federal Government. When it comes to our rights, every effort should be made to reach bipartisan agreement between opposition and government. Divisive partisan politics will work against Sabah’s interest.
From the many public statements on this matter, it can be discerned that there is considerable amount of misunderstanding and/or overlapping between “constitutional rights” as enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution and “bad policies” of the Federal Government and “prejudiced implementation” of these policies by Federal Government. Most of the problems we have with the Federal Government are bad and/or unfavourable policies and poor implementation. I would suggest for a committee to be set up to undertake an in depth study to correct them.
It is quite obvious that for many years, the Federal Government has given Sabah the “unwanted child of inconvenience” treatment. Many policies on financial allocations, promotion of investment, especially foreign investment, location of industry, infrastructure development, promotion of tourism, etc, have been grossly W Malaysia centric. The Federal Government has given scant attention to Sabah in these matters.
Most obvious was the Cabinet appointments for Sabahans, all of which were inconsequential posts.
For the first time in history, Sabahans have been given important ministries like Foreign Affairs and Economic Planning after the last General Election. Sabah has been left largely in the cold and neglected.
Understandably many Sabahans have been very unhappy at the grass root level. But we have to bear in mind that these are negative policies and implementation blockages and not “constitutional rights” issues.
Many of our past Federal Cabinet ministers and MPs should take responsibility and blame for allowing W Malaysian politicians to mistreat us and not fighting for our fair share. Driven by greed, contracts, favours and fear of being investigated for corruption, they have been much too compliant, obedient and submissive.
I stand corrected, education, information and broadcasting, health and head of Islam were under Sabah’s jurisdiction before. Were these taken away by the Federal Government or we gave them up?
And the reasons thereof? If they have remained under Sabah, can we have the revenue to handle them?
Can we regain the oil revenue?
What approach shall Sabah adopt? This seemingly simple question demands some strategic brain-work as it can impact on the outcome. Seeking favourable and practical solutions to this complex issue such as this is best to avoid public negotiations in the newspaper, passing resolution in the State Assembly or shouting threats.
This is not diplomacy. This is “pasar malam” politics. Nothing much positive or concrete will come out of this as has already been proven in Sarawak. Needed for successful outcome is quiet diplomacy, behind closed door negotiations armed with a sensible, forceful, logical case backed up with 1st class research and documentation.
Cordial personal relationship is a huge bonus. I can understand the Sabah opposition parties in wanting to raise their decibels so that they can secure political support for their cause. I am not in favour of the Sarawak style – making many aggressive public statements and threatening to pass a resolution in the Sarawak Legislative Assembly. Then they had to make a complete reverse turn at the last minute, causing a lot of embarrassment and disappointment for themselves. The end result of their method is plenty of thunder but not a single drop of rain.
The obvious conclusion one can draw is that the Federal /Sarawak relation is not as good as it is being played out in public. If it is that good, Sarawak needs not be shouting for attention. Datuk Musa may have achieved more by adopting his brand of ‘quiet diplomacy’. This is logical and pragmatic. As Musa and Najib have a cordial and close relationship, there is no necessity for Sabah to scream and rankle in public like Sarawak has done for PM’s attention.
ADVERTISEMENT
