No more excuses not to resolve MA63 to move on

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-à-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 1^st 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