From Murray Hunter
There has long been unhappiness about the way Sabah and Sarawak have been treated by Putrajaya. Sabah and Sarawak’s indigenous peoples are among the poorest and most marginalised in Malaysia.
Solutions to Sabah and Sarawak’s long-standing grievances have been stalled, delayed, sabotaged, and even just ignored. In addition, Malaysian federalism has been on a centralist projection for decades, forcing Sabah and Sarawak to become much more dependent upon decisions made by the federal government.
Until relatively recently, discussions and expressions about autonomy and independence had been repressed.
However, today there is new debate arising over Sabah and Sarawak’s position in Malaysia from a new generation of Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Grievances
Most grievances through social media focus upon the legal aspects of the formation of Malaysia. For instance, most want to restore the status of Sabah and Sarawak under the constitution as territories of Malaysia, rather than just being listed as states together with those in the peninsula.
They want the constitution to reflect that Sabah and Sarawak were equal parties to Malaya in the formation of Malaysia. Sabah and Sarawak’s entry into Malaysia is also seen as illegitimate by some as there was no plebiscite or referendum to determine the will of the people at the time.
Much of the discussion is centred around finding and launching legal remedies to the current situation. The reality is that any legal route won’t reverse what has already happened.
There are many more contemporary grievances that permeate much wider within communities in Sabah and Sarawak.
These include Sabah and Sarawak’s share of the oil revenue, jurisdiction over the continental shelf, the flow of illegal migrants from the Philippines and Indonesia who have been granted citizenship, the intrusion of peninsula-based political parties into Sabah and Sarawak, Islamisation, development, and indigenous groups being treated as second class Bumiputeras in their own land.
The pragmatic view that has been taken by Sabah and Sarawak is to work at altering the current balance of federal-state relations. Within this framework, Sabah and Sarawak state governments try to obtain as much autonomy as possible.
This is the current attitude of Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB), the senior partner in the Sarawak government. The state government has insulated Sarawak as much as possible from federal interference.
PBB elders told this writer that the party was not enthusiastic about the Malaysian federation, but that an independent Sarawak would not be economically viable.
Sarawak MPs in Parliament voted against the 2019 federal constitutional amendment to return the status of Sabah and Sarawak as parties to the formation of the Malaysian federation before the 1976 constitutional amendment.
The 1976 amendment relegated Sabah and Sarawak’s status to equal states along with those in the peninsula. PBB has usually stood alone and not cooperated with other parties seeking greater autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak, often denying entry to Sabah politicians who are advocating for more rights from Putrajaya.
The division and disagreement of politicians from Sabah and Sarawak have long prevented any common front to Putrajaya, thus weakening leverage. Various political groupings have been competitive and even gone to the lengths of sabotaging each other.
This is not to mention the presence of peninsula-based political parties that now influence local politics, especially in Sabah. The current state government in Sabah is Malay-centric, although there are very few Malays in the state.
In fact, peninsula-based political parties have changed the narratives within Sabah and Sarawak. While DAP and PKR haven’t been able to develop strong political alliances in Sarawak, they are increasing their influence with a Malaysian-centric, rather than Sarawak-centric view.
Umno’s clandestine project through federal agencies to grant citizenship and papers to immigrants from the Philippines and Indonesia in Sabah has tipped the population balance, where Sabah is now a Muslim-majority state. This has been reflected in electoral results, which allowed Umno to rule Sabah for decades.
Autonomy
The objective of trying to gain as much autonomy from Putrajaya is adversarial, usually with short-term objectives in mind, rather than with a vision for Sabah and Sarawak. Politics and dealings between the peninsula, and Sabah and Sarawak are transactional.
Some within the younger generations want to forget the past, as it can’t be undone, and move on to a new future. Their view seeks a new federal-state relationship framework. This centres on renegotiating the MA63 agreement, which has always been met with issues that stall any discussion.
This is not welcomed by the federal government as any more autonomy given to Sabah and Sarawak could possibly open the floodgates with other states like Johor and Kelantan demanding the same autonomy. This would be a nightmare scenario for the federal government which has always been centralist, slowly increasing power over the states for decades.
Talk of secession has arisen from time to time in Sabah and Sarawak, and in the past it was met with the police taking swift action to arrest anyone talking about secession under the now abolished Internal Security Act (ISA).
Over the last couple of years, a number of professionals have formed groups and promoted the idea through social media. The Sabahan and Sarawakian diaspora, primarily in Australia and the UK, are the most vocal through social media, webinars and demonstrations.
According to Sabah and Sarawak watchers, there are many who sympathise with the idea of secession, although they are not vocal.
However, these numbers are not high, and those advocating secession have not mapped out a vista of what Sabah or Sarawak could look like if they were independent states.
No politician in either the respective states or federal legislatures openly advocates secession. Only one political party in Sarawak, Parti Bumi Kenyalang, advocates secession on the party platform. However, this party has no elected representatives in any legislature.
The Sarawak state government celebrates Sarawak’s independence from Britain on July 22 each year. This is very symbolic, sending a clear message to Putrajaya that Sarawak values its sovereignty as a state.
Merdeka Day on Aug 31 has no significance for Sabah and Sarawak. Merdeka Day is seen as being a Malay-centric celebration and tends to be seen as a celebration of all the things Sabahans and Sarawakians don’t like.
Malaysia Day on Sept 16 is celebrated, but is seen by some as “Occupation Day 916”.
Where to Malaysia?
Sabahan and Sarawakian unhappiness over the status quo now has much wider reach through social media and local news websites.
Twelve NGOs from Sabah want Sabah and Sarawak to have one-third of the total parliamentary seats, according to the terms of the MA63 agreement. They are asking for Article 46 of the Malaysian Constitution on seat allocation to be restored.
The recently signed MoU between Pakatan Harapan and the Ismail Sabri Yaakob government only talks of strengthening matters that are contained in the MA63 agreement.
The important question that could be asked here is whether adhering to the terms of MA63 really gives more autonomy to Sabah and Sarawak? Maybe the effort should be made on a completely new deal.
The MA63 agreement itself has many weaknesses and issues left out that have led to constitutional inequities. For example, the monarch of each Malaysian state takes a 5-year turn as Malaysia’s Yang di-Pertuan Agong or King.
Sabah and Sarawak are treated like Penang and Melaka, which have a governor rather than a sultan or raja. This means that Sabah and Sarawak will never see one of their own as King.
The history of Sabah and Sarawak is not taught in schools. Many Sabahans and Sarawakians are living and working in the peninsula and their children grow up in an environment different from that of their parents.
Institutional discrimination against non-Muslim indigenous ethnic groups in the civil service is hindering the development of future leaders from minority groups, who have lost the most from the Malaysianisation of their respective cultures.
It would be very difficult to undo the cultural and social engineering that has been going on for the last 58 years.
However, the biggest threat to the integrity of Malaysia today is the export of Islamisation and Ketuanan Melayu to Sabah and Sarawak. This has been happening for a while.
Comments made by some political and Islamic leaders remind the Bumiputeras of Borneo they are second class to Malays. Ketuanan Melayu has created two classes of Bumiputeras, which is potentially dangerous to the premise that Malaysia was created to form a multicultural nation. Peninsula-centric politics is destroying this.
Malay-centric political narratives are alien concepts to Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak have traditionally been harmonious multi-ethnic societies. This is under threat today. Sabahans and Sarawakians don’t want a situation where they feel forbidden to celebrate the festivals of other ethnic groups, something they have done for generations.
One of the products of a more polarised Malay-centric government will be a more unhappy Sabah and Sarawak. Federal government insensitivity to the aspirations of Sabah and Sarawak and failure to treat them as equal partners in Project Malaysia will carry the price of more demands for secession, unless a new approach is found.
The answer may be in the way Malaysia structures federal-state relations. This may mean reversing federal centralism and adhering to the principles of a true federation.
If Project Malaysia is to succeed, fixing MA63, or enforcing the twenty points isn’t going to solve the problem. A new shared vision for Malaysia is necessary.
Murray Hunter is an FMT reader
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.