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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. In a speech on 16th September 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.” The 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. The 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.
16. Earlier in May 1961, at the Delphi Hotel in Singapore, the 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.
17. To overcome this opposition, the 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.
18. 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. 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 per cent of
the people of North Borneo and Sarawak supported the formation of
Malaysia.
19. 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.
20. 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.”
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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 13th September 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 9th July 1963 at the Marlborough House in London, with her
birth marked for 31st August 1963. In the event, Malaysia was proclaimed
on 16th September 1963 to accommodate the UN report which was completed
two days earlier.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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, 16th September –
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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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 a situation 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 seem to be playing in
the collective mind of Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good afternoon.
Speech by
Y.B.M. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
At The Malaysian Branch of The Royal Asiatic Society Lecture in
Conjunction with the 50th Anniversary of the Formation of Malaysia On
Wednesday, 25.9.13 at 5.00 p.m. at the Tan Sri Hamzah Hall, Royal
Selangor Club Annexe, Bukit Kiara, K.L.
