No
more excuses not to resolve MA63 to move on
Sabah as a territory
according to the Chief Mnister Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Afdal when he told the
State Assembly of the special Committee set up to review the Malaysia Agreement
1963 (DE 13 November, 2018).
MA63 is indeed a great
controversy since 1963 as far as Peninsula Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak in
Borneo separated by the South China Sea itself also a great controversy with
several nations claiming Spratley Island now also challenged by the USA.
MA63 has been an
unresolved great controversy when Brunei opted out from the outset and
Singapore left or kicked out in August 1965.
MA63 signed by 5
nations namely Great Britain, Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak when Sabah
and Sarawak were sort of still colonised by Great Britain.
So was MA63 really legal
now 56 years later? No point really to
argue on this point as MA63 is still a force to be reckoned with in the
formation of Malaysia in both the written agreement and the spirit of that
event in 1963.
We are now told of so
many layers of questions possibly overlapping since then with the key matters
such the emergency power since 1969 and only vacated in 2011. So what are the various implications if any
concerning the major items such as territorial water limit, handing over of
Labuan in 1984, amendment of the states in formation of Malaysia vis-Ã -vis MA63
and national distribution of resources and revenue.
Prior to the amendment
of the Federal Constitution, it was stated in the Federal Constitution that the
States of the Federation shall be; (a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore,
Kedah, Kelantan. Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis,
Selangor and Terengganu; and (b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak
and (c) the State of Singapore.
After the amendment in
1976, it was stated in the Federal Constitution that the states of the
Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang,
Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Trengganu.
Isn’t it that any party
that sign any agreement and in this case it is MA63, and for Malaya as a
solitary body although Malaya did comprise 11 states and in this aspect the constitutional
amendment in 1976 would appear not in order.
Like Sabah and Sarawak were both States (although questioned
independence?) and yet they signed MA63 as separate bodies unlike the States of
Malaya did not sign the MA63. In this
respect the first Prime Minister of Malaya signed as a single party in MA63
conclusively. No after thought of 1963 then in 1976 when emergency provisions
were enforced.
Now in 2018 there is a
new term “territory” and how would that be as it was in 1963 and then in 1976?
We know that the
Federal Constitution had been amended 57 times with many items of amendments
that could add up to more than 700.
So how would it be with
the latest proposed amendment of “territory” to Article 1(2) in term of MA63
now in Parliament? Would the 3 partners with equal rights be a reality in the
present setting?
Malaya had avoided the
equal partners for so long since 1963 with greatest disadvantages to Sabah and
Sarawak in all aspects. So how would the implementation be if the past disparities
are now restored accordingly? In term of financial parameters, it would be
astronomical for Malaysia or Malaya be in a position to fulfil such obligation
given that the foreign debts of more than RM1 trillions and still counting and
that Petronas is not performing well for decades.
The ultimate question now
is MA63 really be negotiable like we see now ? Is the Federal Constitution as
amended so many times especially the one in 1976 really a valid document for
the people to rely on ?
Assuming Article 1(2)
is amended in 2019, would it be business as usual since 1963?
To be very honest we
know that it would take a great miracle to change the fortune of oil rich Sabah
and Sarawak after 55 years of Malaysia.
I am in particular more
concerned with Sabah which is very much now challenged in some areas namely
security, financial matters, demographic decadence, deals for illegal people
including project IC holders, investments, and many lopsided affairs in Sabah
when only in Kota Kinabalu there are some but inadequate opportunities to
maintain the proper growth of Sabah. It is likely that Sabah would still
receive less than 10% attention from the Federal Government as the impairment
of Sabah by the Federal Government aided by ineffective local leaders bordering
kleptocracy is really beyond repair.
No doubt, there is a
lot of politicking adversely affecting Sabah and now with the questioned entry
of Bersatu what is next is anybody guess of this game. Definitely with
excessive politicking, the rot of the “froggy”
scenario is inevitable.
The impairment in Sabah
would not be reduced as there is no political will to see Sabah to be on par
with the Peninsular Malaysia. We still
have only one university after 55 years. Jobs are still lacking with little
good industries in Sabah. Rising gaps in disparities in cost of living are
obvious for the two regions nationwide.
Larger parts of Sabah especially in the Northern and Eastern urban
regions of Sabah are soon to degenerate into “destitute” zones with most
struggling people moving to Kota Kinabalu and this is definitely an unhealthy
development statewide.
Pakatan Harapan‘s
manifesto 1st Promise was abolish GST but how many people were aware
of Promise
32 out of 60 was: Introduce a tax system that is
people-friendly and entrepreneur-friendly but SST is not so friendly to all
especially the lower level of people as
costs of living went on unabated. GST at 6% was badly implemented and so is
SST. Over regulation can “kill” potentialities in society. GST is definitely a
better tax regime if not lopsided in its implementation processes.
PILLAR 4: RETURN SABAH AND
SARAWAK TO THE STATUS ACCORDED BY THE MALAYSIA AGREEMENT 1963 Promise
40: Implement the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, Promise 41: To ensure the prosperity of the people of Sabah and Sarawak by
enhancing the states’ economic growth Promise 42: Create more employment opportunities for Sabahan and Sarawakian
youths, Promise 43: Making Sabah and Sarawak a model of harmonious society, Promise 44: Improving the quality of education and healthcare services, Promise 45: Advancing the interest of the rural and remote populations, Promise 46: Protecting the sovereignty and security of Sabah, Promise
47: Decentralisation of power to Sabah and
Sarawak, . Promise 48:
To return and guarantee the right of customary land of the people of Sabah and
Sarawak.
Malaysia Baru can be
“hollow” for Sabah and Sarawak if the
Pillar 4 of PH’s manifesto is ill
implemented. Maybe the report of Council of Eminent Persons (CEP) not OSAed can
give some enlightenment on this pillar 4.
Maybe with the
“territories” in offing, we have Peninsular side and Borneo side with focus on
advancement at accelerated pace for the Borneo side and that Pillar 4 of the
PH’s manifesto for GE14 with the pledge “rebuilding the nation fulfilling
our hopes” be implemented as soon as possible. Lets get the Government and
the opposition BN once under Najib with similar promises work it out in the
present Parliament session on the “territories” or without that with people
fully involved in this.
Joshua Y C Kong
02/04/2019
