Federalism in Malaysia..

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read.cfm?NewsID=2190 What’s needed on MA63 breaches is a Restoration Committee Published on: Saturday, August 27, 2016 WHAT do we expect to be resolved with what some call “Devolution of Powers” with the 8-point Term of Reference (ToR) established in the State Legislative Assembly on 9th august, 2016? We may have to define “Devolution of Powers” and “autonomy” if there are any differences in the context of independence from UK with Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). One source defines Devolution as the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level. It is a strong form of decentralisation. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area. Autonomy can be given such as independence, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, self-government, self-rule, self-sufficiency, home rule, etc, in that context. So is it right to think that devolution of powers as proposed is to return to Sabah and Sarawak after 53 years the socalled “autonomy” under MA63? There is so much already known of the misplaced MA63 with regards to IGC report and the 18/20 Points but the Devolution of powers ToR is silent on the 18/20 points ? Are 18/20 points included in the “other related documents” in the ToR? Despite the much flawed MA63 and the absence of MA63 in a Malaysia Act in the Federal Constitution except there is one such, a Parliamentary Act in UK, are we able to rely on such challenged MA63 in this devolution of power in nation building. So the newly established Main Committee at the Federal level and a Technical Committee at the state level may be a “red herring” as we do not know how effective this set up would be as this is long overdue for resolution of MA63 and the maladies thereof. Why not a Parliament Select Committee or a Royal Commission of Inquiry as such bodies would be more open? Would these main /steering and technical committees hold open townhall meetings and fully publicised properly? What is really self defeating is that the ToR 5 as “All of the proposals and decisions by the Steering Committee and Technical Committee will be classified as confidential”? Is it to be OSA? So if such condition is applied the people would be stopped to talk about MA63 in the context of OSA. Why should this be? We may smell a rat if this is OSA materials and some people are just buying time to delay this dispute for decades more especially so much money in hundreds of billions of ringgit is concerned if repayment, damages, short changes are some of the solutions to be certain over MA63. It is also very disappointing when the Federal Minister from Sabah Wilfred Tangau said “If you resolved this Malaysia Agreement, it is not an Aladdin lamp, once it’s resolved, and everything is fine.” That statement was made under the heading “Bigger Things Than M’sia Agreement, says UPKO” (DE 14 August, 2016). Going by the way the Federal government had performed for 53 years, it is very likely that nothing would come out of this effort prior to GE14 as firstly the nation owes at least RM1 trillion debts where money is concerned. Secondly, the Federalism policy seems to be to exploit Sabah and Sarawak to the maximum as we have already witnessed. Thirdly the issues – many of those – already known are complex issues and entangled by the authorities financially and otherwise and how to re-start whatever promised in MA63. We have also seen so many denials over the decades and even the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCI IIS) has yet to see any fruit at all after years since 2012. What we really need to be in place is the resolution or restoration committee to implement progressively whatever already known and get on to build/rebuild the nation albeit 53 years too late. There is already so much pressure from various corners including international bodies that justice be done and not only talking about that. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Federalism in Malaysia must be addressed accordingly based on MA63 18/Aug 2016 What do we expect to be resolved with what some call “Devolution of Powers” with the 8-point Term of Reference (ToR) established in the State Legislative Assembly on 9th august, 2016? We may have to define “Devolution of Powers” and “autonomy” if there are any differences in the context of independence from UK with Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). One source defines Devolution is the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level. It is a strong form of decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area. Autonomy can be given such as independence, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, self-government, self-rule, self-sufficiency, home rule etc in that context. So is it right to think that devolution of powers as proposed is to return to Sabah and Sarawak after 53 years the socalled “autonomy” under MA63? There are so much already known of the misplaced MA63 with regards to IGC report and the 18/20 points but the Devolution of powers ToR is silent on the 18/20 points ? Are 18/20 points included in the “other related documents” in the ToR? Despite the much flawed MA63 and the absence of MA63 in a Malaysia Act in the Federal constitution except there is one such a parliamentary act in UK, are we able to rely on such challenged MA63 in this devolution of power in nation building. So the newly established Main Committee at the Federal level and a Technical Committee at the state level maybe a “red herring” as we do not know how effective this set up would be as this is long overdue for resolution of MA63 and the maladies thereof. Why not a Parliament Select Committee or a Royal Commission of Inquiry as such bodies would be more open? Would these main /steering and technical committees hold open townhall meetings and fully publicised properly? What is really self defeating is that the ToR 5 as “All of the proposals and decisions by the Steering Committee and Technical Committee will be classified as confidential”? Is it to be OSA? So if such condition is applied the people would be stopped to talk about MA63 in the context of OSA. Why should this be? Whose idea is this? We may smell a rat if this is OSA materials and some people are just buying time to delay this dispute for decades more especially so much money in hundreds of billions of ringgit is concerned if repayment, damages, short changes are some of the solutions to be certain over MA63. It is also very disappointing when the Federal Minister from Sabah Wilfred Tangau said “"If you resolved this Malaysia Agreement, it is not an Aladdin lamp, once it's resolved, and everything is fine.” That statement was made under the heading “Bigger things than M’sia Agreement, says UPKO” (DE 14 August, 2016). Going by the way the Federal government had performed for 53 years, it is very likely that nothing would come out of this effort prior to GE14 as firstly the nation owes at least RM1 trillion debts when money is concerned. Secondly, the Federalism policy is to exploit Sabah and Sarawak to the maximum as we have already witnessed. Thirdly the issues – many of those – already known are complex issues and entangled by the authorities financially and otherwise and how to re-start whatever promised in MA63 without destabilising the “evil” approaches of the Central Government? We have also seen so many denials over the decades and even the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCI IIS) has yet to see any fruit at all after years since 2012. I will see how I can respond to this special committee if at all it is justified at all. Even without this committee, the restoration of past deeds deemed illegal and ultra vires MA63 can be in place immediately so that the violation of our rights can be mitigated with simply going back to the basic principle of MA63 as illustrated in IGC Report and 18/20 points etc.of 3 partners in the formation of Malaysia instead of 13 or 14 states. What we really need to be in place is the resolution or restoration committee to implement progressively whatever already known and get on to build/rebuild the nation albeit 53 years too late. There are already so much pressure from various corners including international bodies that justice be done and not only talking about that. If the present Government and the oppoosition already too entangled with so much resistance in all aspects cannot do it now, the time is now for others such as Interim Good Governance Government to takeover as national interest is of paramount importance. Joshua Y. C. Kong 18 August, 2016