The Formation of Malaysia and Development in Sabah
I expressed the following
Sumber: http://www.sabahdaily.com/
I thank the organizers of this Muzakarah Pakar “Adil Dan
Beramanah Dalam Tadbir-Urus” for having invited me to share my
thoughts on the topic “Pembentukan Malaysia dan Pembangunan
di Sabah” or “The Formation of Malaysia and Development in
Sabah”.
I have requested earlier for permission to speak in English which
was granted. However I will be quite happy to respond in Bahasa
Malaysia during the question and answer session. I wish to make it
very clear at the outset that what I say is purely my own opinion
and does not necessarily reflect the stand of SUHAKAM or agreed
to by my fellow-commissioners.
My presentation is based on my personal recollection, observation,
perception and experience.
THE FORMATION OF MALAYSIA
The nation called Malaysia was born on 16 September, 1963.
This is a historical fact. It cannot be disputed. I remember it very
well. I was already 25 years old at the time. I also remember the
day when Malaya gained independence on 31 August 1957. 1957
was the year I left school. It was the year I sat for my Cambridge
Oversea School Certificate – only a handful of us.
In school my teacher used to discuss with students the possible
merger of North Borneo (as Sabah was then known), Sarawak and
Brunei, all British Colonies. Malaya was never mentioned. We
were also asked to write essays on the subject. It was then that I
became aware that when separate independent states federate big
fish in a small pond becomes small fish in a big pond.
2. When Malaya became independent on 31 August 1957 there
was great jubilation in Malaya. You could feel the atmosphere of
jubilation through “Radio Tanah Melayu Kuala Lumpur” and Tunku
Abdul Rahman’s famous exclamation of “MERDEKA!”. However it
occurred to me at the time why Malaya chose the love song
“Terang Bulan” as the national anthem.
“Terang Bulan” was a very popular song in North Borneo at the
time. You could hear it being played in houses with the famous
“His Master’s Voice” grammaphones. I would have thought that a
completely new tune for the Malayan national anthem based on a
nation-wide competition would have been more appropriate and
preferable.
3. It has been said that history is subject to different interpretations.
For example, during the colonial era in North Borneo Mat Salleh,
we were told, was no more than a robber terrorising people. Now
he is glorified and labeled as a hero and a freedom fighter.
Personally I do not know what to believe. It happened such a long
time ago.
There are times when history is also the distortion of facts by
people in power. Lately I notice slogans like ‘celebrating 51 years
of nationhood’. The question that comes to mind is which nation is
being referred to? If it refers to Malaysia then obviously it is not
factual because in 2008 Malaysia is only 45 years old. If you refer
to Malaya then it will be correct.
However I believe Malaya ceased to be an independent separate
nation when it joined with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah to form
a new federation known as Malaysia on 16 September 1963. 51
cannot be equal to 45 unless we have forgotten how to count. I
wonder why we cannot be honest about something which is
impossible to deny.
4. Personally I feel the formation of Malaysia came at least 10
years too early in the context of Sabah. I vividly remember a
conversation I had in 1962 with one of our community leaders who
was very close to Donald Stephens regarding Sabah’s
1
participation in the formation of Malaysia.
views, amongst others, to him:-
i) Sabah would lose the only opportunity to experience being a
truly independent sovereign state.
ii) It would simply be a transfer of power from the British to Malaya.
iii) Sabah did not have the people qualified and experienced
enough to negotiate with Malaya and Singapore.
iv) Sabah should demand for self-rule initially followed by full
independence from the British.
v) Sabah should then go to the negotiating table without the British
if the people, via referendum, wished to federate with Malaya,
Singapore, Sarawak and Brunei.
vi) Sabah should examine carefully the pros and cons of joining the
proposed federation both in the short and long term before
deciding.
vii) Sabah should insist on an escape clause in the event it found
itself short-changed.
viii) At best it should only be a lose federation. And finally,
ix) The political union between Malaya and North Borneo would be
artificial because the two territories had very little, if any, in
common and separated by almost 2000 km of sea. North Borneo’s
case could not be compared with Singapore. Singapore was
geographically part of the Malayan peninsula. Political union with
Malaya made a lot of sense especially in terms of economic
survival for Singapore. It had no natural resources, not even
enough water for Singaporeans. At the time an independent
Singapore was not a viable option. The word “Malaysia” itself is
a combination of Malaya and Singapura. The recruitment of
North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei was an attempt to
counterbalance Singapore’s Chinese population in the proposed
federation. It was an after thought.
5. The literacy rate of Sabahans at the time was very low at best.
They had no idea what was happening. In 1962 only 2 political
parties were just formed. They were the United National Kadazan
Organization (UNKO) headed by Donald Stephens and the
United Sabah National Oganization (USNO) headed by Datu
Mustapha Bin Datu Harun.
6. As it turned out Brunei opted out at the last minute and
remained a big fish in a small pond. The intention of the founding
fathers was a federation of 4 independent states namely Malaya,
Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah. I have been unable to obtain a
copy of the first Federal Constitution following the formation of
Malaysia to see if such intention was ever reflected in the
Constitution which could have been subsequently amended.
Sabah according to the present Constitution is just one of the 13
states, a very small fish in a very big pond. The opening statement
of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement reads as follows:-
“The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the
Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore,
desiring to conclude an agreement relating to Malaysia agree as
follow:- ……………………..”
Malaya is referred to as the Federation of Malaya and the
individual states were not identified and specified.
7. Article 1 of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 provides that “The
Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore
shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of
Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in
accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this
Agreement and the Federation shall thereafter be called
‘Malaysia’.”
The signatories to the Agreement were the UK, the Federation of
Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore. Article 1 of the
Federal Constitution provides that the Federation shall be known
as Malaysia.
However in Article 160 of the Federal Constitution the term “The
Federation” means the Federation established under the
Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1957. Under the
circumstances where do Sabah and Sarawak fit in? Are they
really part of the Federation of Malaysia?
8. I am not sure whether Singapore left the Federation on its own
accord or expelled from it in 1965. In my opinion when one of the
original signatories ceased to be a party to the original Agreement
then that Agreement should have been abrogated. After all it was
very conceivable that Sabah and Sarawak became part of the
federation because of Singapore.
Brunei opted out of the federation in July 1963 and became
independent only in 1984. I remember Donald Stephens did
suggest that the Malaysia Agreement and Sabah’s position in the
Federation should be reviewed. Very shortly he ended up being
sidelined and neutralised.
9. The principle of a federal system of government is based on the
sharing of powers between the Central and State governments. In
the case of Malaysia they are listed under 3 main categories
namely the Federal List, State List and Concurrent List.
It can be seen that most powers are in the hands of the Federal
government. The States are left with LAND and LOCAL
GOVERNMENT matters. Even these, there are such Federal
agencies as the National Land Council and National Council for
Local Government. The system is one in which it is federal in form
but unitary in substance.
10. “Malaysia Day” is referred to no less than 6 times in the
Malaysia Agreement which has only 11 Articles. The birth of
Malaysia falls on 16 September 1963 which is Malaysia Day and
passes by like any other ordinary day in this country. The national
emphasis is 31 August which is the independence day of Malaya.
This date receives all the attention. To Sabah and Sarawak 31
August has hardly any significance.
11. Finally on the formation of Malaysia let me share with you
some of my recollection of North Borneo before it became part of
Malaysia. First and foremost the race/ethnic relations were
excellent. There were a lot of inter-marriages. When Peninsula
Malaysia was experiencing riots on 13 May 1969 there was no sign
of them anywhere in Sabah. If Sabahans are now conscious of
racial and religious divides they learned it from Semenanjung.
Life was peaceful. Admittedly there was no development of the
kind found today. However Sabah was not alone. What was more
significant was that there was no illegal immigrants.
There were no cases of local natives losing citizenship status
whilst foreigners gain it without difficulty. There was no repressive
and draconian laws such as the Official Secret Act, the dreaded
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 Civil Service was multi-racial and meritocracy was recognized
and practised. Corruption was unheard of. No community claimed
superiority over the others. So much for my version on the
formation of Malaysia. Let me now briefly turn to:-
2
DEVELOPMENT IN SABAH
12. I understand that Sabah is the poorest state in the country.
This speaks volumes in terms of development in Sabah. What is
surprising is that it happens in a state with rich natural resources
such as timber, oil, gas and possibly other minerals. It has fertile
soils, geographical features including mountains, beaches, islands,
flora and fauna which could be developed as tourist attractions.
13. Compared to Semenanjung infrastructure development such
as roads, water and electricity supply is way behind. The same can
be said for health care and educational facilities. For example,
before the formation of Malaysia 45 years ago the districts of
Tongod and Banggi had no doctor. Today 45 years later they still
have no doctor.
The district of Paitan does not even have one secondary school
building. If you visit remote areas abject poverty can be seen and
felt everywhere. Yet I have heard Federal and State political
leaders saying abject poverty can be eliminated by 2010!
Government has been unable to do it for the last 45 years and it
can now do it within less than 1 ½ years? To me only miracle can
make it possible.
14. When I was in the Civil Service I remember at the time Sabah
was producing between 110,000 and 120,000 barrels of oil per
day. It was reported in the newspaper recently that Sabah has gas
reserve amounting to about 12 trillion cubic feet. Yet there is no
commercial project and activity related to oil and gas.
Terengganu where oil was discovered much later has refinery and
related activities. I read in the local newspapers recently a
Petronas statement indicating that Sabah has the least amount of
gas reserve and located and spread in different places. I get the
impression that it is not viable to exploit it. If this is the case then it
should be left alone for future generations.
Yet a decision had been made to build more than 512KM gas
pipeline from Kimanis in Sabah to Bintulu in Sarawak. I believe this
is a multi-billion ringgit project. The source of gas is from Sabah
why can’t the project be located in Sabah? If there is doubt as to
the reliability of gas supply the multi-billion ringgit project should be
abandoned and the funds used to finance programmes for the
eradication of poverty in Sabah.
15. The mother of all problems in Sabah is associated with the
presence of unusually large population of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
It is quickly changing the economic, social, cultural and political
landscape of the State. The question that is in the mind of many
Sabahans is – why has the government allowed this to happen?
Thousands of people have requested for an Independent Royal
Commission of Inquiry to be established to determine who are
responsible for this state of affairs. I hope a day will not come
when the Philippines need not claim Sabah anymore due to a
reverse take-over which in my view, has long started.
The illegal immigrants issue represents a national problem but
shouldered by Malaysians living in Sabah. Sabahans feel
threatened and insecure as the number of foreigners keeps
increasing. My gut feeling is that there are more foreigners than
locals.
It has to be admitted that they contribute to the development of the
state by providing labour especially in the construction and
agricultural sectors. Sabah without them would come to an
economic standstill.
Personally I have never blamed the illegals for being in Sabah. If I
was one of them I would be doing exactly what they are doing–
searching for a better life. The blame is on the relevant authorities
for allowing them in illegally.
Two books entitled “IC Projek” and “Lelaki Malaysia Terakhir”
have identified national and state leaders who are alleged to have
played important roles associated with the illegal immigrants issue.
To the best of my knowledge none of those leaders mentioned in
the books has refuted or denied the allegations.
16. I understand that allocation of funds to Sabah is based on the
number of Malaysian citizens living in the State. The estimated
Sabah population is 3.5 million. Therefore the amount of funds
received is only meant for 1.75 million people which has to be
shared by 3.5 million people assuming that 50% of the population
are foreigners.
x) Corruption is like a cancer to the country. It is costly. It should
be minimized, if not, eliminated.
xi) The provisions of the Treasury Instructions should be strictly
complied with. Negotiated contracts should be stopped. It is
preventing the realization of the real value of public funds. One
ringgit spent should realize the value of one ringgit not say 50 sen
or less.
xii) The illegal immigrants in Sabah should be shared equally
among all the States in Malaysia. Why should Sabah alone suffer
from a national problem allegedly self-created by government?

17. The bottom line for Sabah is that it is the poorest state in the xiii) Sabah deserves better treatment by the Federal Government
country. in terms of more equitable distribution of opportunities and
development projects. There are far too many talks and pledges
Recommendations but little, if any, action.

I have been requested to suggest some proposals at the end of the ix) September 16 every year should be observed and celebrated
presentation. As requested and due to time constraint I briefly list as “Malaysia Day”.
the following recommendations:-

i) Genuine unity and national integration are vital for Malaysia. It

cannot be denied that this country has plenty of divisive factors. It Tan Sri Simon Sipaun
is a land of “multis”. The process of unifying and integrating should Vice Chairman of SUHAKAM
be based on justice, equal rights and respect. Article 1 of the 2008.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that all
humans are born free and equal in dignity and right. No nation
which embraced race-based politics and one community claiming
superiority over others survived. Nazi Germany and Aparthied
South Africa are cases that come to mind. We are all Malaysians
and equal before God.

ii) We should focus on our similarities rather than on our

differences. For example, school uniforms should be the same for
every student. Mykad should be the same for every Malaysian.
There should only be one box for all citizens indicated in
government forms and not at present – one for Malays, one for
Chinese, one for Indians and one for others. These are but a few
examples of things which are not conducive to the creation of a
genuine united country. Let us concentrate on our commonality
and humanity.

iii) To reduce, if not, eliminate polarisation, the composition of the

Civil Service and government agencies should be more reflective
of the multi-racial make-up of the Malaysian Society. Meritocracy
should be recognised, appreciated and practised, otherwise
Malaysia will lose out in a globalised and competitive world.

iv) We should concentrate on enlarging the size of the economic

cake rather spending too much effort and time how to share it.

v) We should have a sound education system at par with the best

in the world and all Malaysians should be subject to the same
system.

vi) Good governance is described as participatory, transparent,

accountable and efficient. It promotes the rule of law and equal
justice under the law. Good governance should be promoted and
maintained at all cost for the present and future good of the
country.

vii) No Malaysian or community should feel deprived or

marginalised. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly.
Selective prosecution or application of the law should stop.

viii) All laws which empower the government to arrest without trial
should be repealed. Article 10 of the UDHR provides that everyone
has the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial legal body. Article 11 provides that everyone has the right
to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

ix) It has been said that politicians think in terms of the next
election whereas statesmen of the next generation. Malaysia
needs more statesmen and less politicians.
3