FIXED DEPOSIT BECOME A PEANUT?

By :TAN SRI SIMON SIPAUN'S

It has been said that what has a beginning must have an end and we have now come to the end of this leadership Inter-Party Dialogue and Leadership Seminar. We have heard very interesting papers presented by very prominent, distinguished, experienced and learned leaders in the person of Datuk Dr. Jeffery Kitingan and Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee.

Both papers are associated with the formation of Malaysia and the consequential relationship between the central and state authorities under a federal system of government which involves, amongst others, the sharing of powers between the federal and state governments.

We have also witnessed a panel discussion by panelists whose credentials are no less impressive. The questions and answers session provided opportunities for interventions from the floor. All these activities took more than 5 hours. I am now asked to make a summary and concluding remarks in 15 minutes.

This is indeed a herculean assignment for a rusty and long retired civil servant who has never been a politician. At best I can only attempt to come up with what I call ‘the last say.‘

From the deliberation, I could feel a great sense of disappointment and frustration that expectations have not been met and promises remain unfulfilled. It is akin to a situation in which the dog can bark all day but the caravan keeps moving. Agreements and related legal documents associated with the rights of Sabah and Sarawak within the federation are, more often than not, seen as the inconvenient truths and preferred to be forgotten than fulfilled.

For example, the fact that it took the federal government 46 years just to admit and officially recognize 16 September 1963 as the date of the birth of Malaysia speaks volumes. This is a historical fact which cannot be denied. This is where history is the distortion of facts by the people in power when history should be the accurate record of a particular event.

Political union between the Borneo territories and Malaya was at best an artificial one. The 2 regions had very little, if any, in common. They are separated by almost 2000 km of sea. The merger between Malaya and Singapore made a lot of sense. Singapore is geographically part of peninsula Malaya. It had no natural resources, not even enough water supply to meet its own need.

The inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak was an afterthought to counter balance the Chinese population of Singapore. As it happened Singapore left the federation in 1965 and continued to progress by leaps and bounds. Brunei decided to withdraw from the negotiation at the 11th hour and has survived well to this day. It remained a big fish in a small pond whilst Sabah and Sarawak became a small fish in a big pond.

Life in Sabah, known as North Borneo at the time before Malaysia was good to say the least. Admittedly there was no development as seen today but Sabah was not alone. Malaya too was in a similar situation. There was no racial problem. Mixed marriages were very common. That is why there are many ‘peranakans’ in Sabah.

If Sabahans are now conscious of racial and religious divides they learn them from Semenanjung. There was no illegal immigrants. There were no cases of Sabahans losing citizenship status whilst foreigners gain it without much difficulty. There was no repressive and draconian laws such as the Official Secrets Act, the Internal Security Act, the Printing Presses and Publication Act, the Sedition Act, the Police Act and the 4 Proclamations of Emergency.

There was no quarrelling over dead bodies. The composition of the civil service was multiracial. Meritocracy was appreciated, observed and practised. Corruption and ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ were unheard of. The list continues. How not to miss pre-Malaysia Sabah?

Datuk Dr. Jeffrey has taken us for a conducted tour of the background leading to the formation of Malaysia, the minimum safeguards insisted upon by Sabah and Sarawak leaders, the expectations and hopes of the 2 states, the problems and challenges and how the country evolved into what it is today. He has come up with a road map indicating the way to move forward. He has given us food for thought and materials to reflect upon and to guide us as to which direction to go.

Our 7 panelists have expanded on Dr. Jeffrey’s main theme into several important components including the Malaysia Agreement, cabotage policy, comparison between communal and native titles, towards a more equitable sharing of revenue, parliamentary seats etc, economic development and illegal immigrant issue.

Over the years this problem has grown in size and complexity. It is now a question of sheer numbers. Arguably it is now Sabah’s mother of all problems and appears that it is here to stay. With the exception of some Sabah and Sarawak leaders, the Malaysia Agreement appears to have been forgotten and preferred for it to remain that way. Sabah, although rich in natural resources, and once the second richest state is now the poorest.

That is the bottom line. What else is there to say? As for the so called state autonomy I think it only exists in our imagination. Malaysia is federal in form but unitary in substance. At least the situation in Sarawak appears to be somewhat better. For now Sarawakians in the absence of UMNO in the state still have a say in deciding who is going to be the Chief Minister.

I believe that there are also more local Sarawakians holding senior and important positions in federal departments in Sarawak. Illegal immigrant problem is also minimal.

Datuk Yong has comprehensively articulated the state-federal relationship as well as state autonomy. Being President of SAPP and having been in government himself and now in the opposition he would have the benefit of firsthand knowledge and experience both inside and outside the corridor of power.

His coverage of the topic was analytical, informative and interesting. Sabah and Sarawak have many things in common sadly including predicaments. In the interest of both states it is vital and important for the 2 states to have very close cooperation and to continuously pool their resources together and exchange of skills, knowledge and experience to maximize mutual benefits. We have also witnessed active and lively interventions from the floor which contributed greatly to the success of this seminar.

There is general consensus that Sabah and Sarawak deserve better treatment by the federal government in terms of more equitable distribution of opportunities and development projects, amongst others.

I understand that in the 2011 budget the value of development projects for both Sabah and Sarawak only amounts to about RM 9.55 billion which is peanuts compared to the massive RM 109.74 billion for Semenanjung.

This means Sabah and Sarawak get less than RM 5 billion each. However 1 project, namely the Warisan Merdeka, incorporating the 100-storey building located in KL has been allocated RM 5 billion.

Yet both Sabah and Sarawak are producer of oil and gas which represent an important source of federal revenue. The combined size of Sabah and Sarawak is almost twice that of Semenanjung and much more developed in every respect. During the last general election it was the voters of Sabah and Sarawak who saved the present government from losing power, so much so that Sabah has now been referred to as ‘fixed deposit’.

Personally I find this term derogatory and insulting. In return for all these Sabah and Sarawak appear to continue to be short-changed and getting a raw deal. I often wonder what is the general feeling of the majority of the population of Sabah and Sarawak towards this state of affairs. Are they not aware of the lop-sided treatment?

I am confident that you will agree with me when I say that, by and large, the objectives of the seminar have been achieved. The various problems and challenges confronting the 2 states have been deliberated on and identified. Several options on how they could be resolved as well as where to go from here have also been discussed. However unless they are acted upon by the government they will remain as mere proposals and things will not change for the better.

The general feeling is that if the government is unwilling to act for whatever reasons then a change of government will obviously be desirable. This is where everyone has an important role to play especially those who are occupying influential and leadership positions. Leaders must not only be united but seen to be united.

They must have vision. They must have the ability to communicate effectively with one another and more so with the people to ensure that they move in unison moving towards the same goal. They must have a give and take and caring attitude and ready to sacrifice personal interests over the larger interests.