Opposition strongman Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan has urged that Sabah and Sarawak seriously consider creating new states within themselves.
He cites the vastness of the territory, empowerment either within (or outside) Malaysia, greater efficiencies through decentralisation and maximisation of potential, as reasons for doing so.
His idea is that Sabah be carved up into five states along the borders of the existing residencies viz. Tawau, Sandakan and Kudat along the eastern and northern seaboard, and West Coast and Pedalaman elsewhere, and to be known as the Sabah states.
The 11 existing divisions in neighbouring Sarawak should re-emerge as new states i.e. Kuching, Samarahan, Sri Aman, Betong, Sarikei, Sibu, Mukah, Kapit, Bintulu, Miri and Limbang.
"The total of 16 states and one federal territory in Malaysian Borneo will eclipse the 11 states and two federal territories in peninsular Malaysia," pointed out Jeffrey in his keynote address at a closed-door forum, 'Formation of Malaysia, a Promise Revisited and the Way Forward' on Saturday in Kota Kinabalu.
The forum was a curtain-raiser to the first official celebration of Malaysia Day on Sept 16.
The event was organised by the Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) in association with the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMA), an ad hoc apolitical movement.
Power shift
If there's method in Jeffrey's "madness", it's this - that the new states will help Sabah and Sarawak win back the 32 percent share of the seats in the Malaysian Parliament that Malaysia outside peninsular Malaysia had until Singapore "was booted out in 1965".
"With Singapore out of Malaysia, the island's 15 seats in the Malaysian Parliament (141) should have gone collectively to Sabah (14) and Sarawak (16)," recalled Jeffrey. "Instead, peninsular Malaysia (96) took seven of Singapore's seats for a new total of 103 and the remainder was divided between Sabah and Sarawak to give them 18 and 20 respectively.
This resulted in the original power balance between peninsular Malaysia and non-peninsular Malaysia, i.e. 68 percent to 32 percent respectively, to become even more in favour of the former.
He left it to the 500-odd invited participants - opinion leaders, students and others - to work out the ratio today: 74.32 percent (peninsular Malaysia) and 25.67 percent (Sabah/Sarawak).
The logical deduction of the audience, prompted by Jeffrey, was that 14 of the 165 seats held today in Parliament by peninsular Malaysia belong legitimately to Sabah and Sarawak.
"From being a partnership of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo degenerated after 1965 to be two out of 13 states," said Jeffrey. "The federal government refused to acknowledge the status of Sabah and Sarawak. This was in order to create more parliamentary seats for states in peninsular Malaysia at the expense of Sabah and Sarawak."
Jeffrey sees this as the main reason why the federal government was able to whittle away at the 20 Points (Sabah) and 18 Points (Sarawak) entrenched in the federal constitution.
The 20 and 18 Points respectively are the basis for the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and the formation of the new federation.
"The creation of new states in Sabah and Sarawak will neutralise peninsular Malaysia's argument that it has 11 states and two federal territories to merit its present seats in Parliament," reiterated Jeffrey. "Hopefully, this would be the way to reverse the recolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak by peninsular Malaysia in the wake of the British departure in 1963."
The number of seats any particular state should have in Parliament, stressed Jeffrey, should not only be based on population - "a peninsular Malaysia argument" - but also on territory, economic potential, history and law.
Ills of recolonisation
Recolonisation has also allegedly meant the degeneration of the federation into a unitary state, the erosion of the doctrine of separation of powers which assures checks-and-balances, the lack of transparency, accountability and good governance, and the advent of a police state sanctioned by four unrepealed emergency ordinances.
Alternatively, the politician in Jeffrey - he's also Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president - challenged the audience to consider two other strategic options viz. accept and work within the current situation with all its constraints, or push for a referendum in Sabah and Sarawak as proposed previously by former Sabah chief minister Harris Salleh.
Jeffrey's paper was also a litany of oft-cited woes in the two states.
Grinding poverty with all its attendant ills topped the list, followed by appalling public healthcare and educational standards, disenfranchisement with the influx of illegal immigrants, the lack of security, Borneo-nisation, and "the wholesale plunder" of oil and gas reserves by Petronas in return for "a measly five percent oil royalty".
Four other speakers contributed their papers as well. They also went over familiar territory as in Jeffrey's paper.
Briefly, former Sarawak deputy chief minister James Wong's paper was on the equal partnership and merger concept of the Federation of Malaysia, the role and findings of the Cobbold Commission, the Inter-Governmental Committee and the UN Special Mission.
The ailing Wong, 88, was represented by Sarawak PKR chief Baru Bian (left), a Lun Bawang, lawyer and native land rights activist tipped by the opposition to be the next chief minister.
Sabah Umno veteran Karim Ghani, a translator for the Cobbold Commission, spoke on whether Malaysia was 13 states or one federation with three components and expressed disappointment with his party.
He insisted that Malaysia was one federation with three components. He feels that this could be easily resolved by the respective state assemblies in Sabah and Sarawak.
Three components
Sabah Law Association (SLA) representative Sukumar Vanugopal gave a detailed and highly technical explanation on the numerous breaches of the 20 Points in the federal constitution which he attributed to Sabah and Sarawak being under-represented in Parliament.
He also warned that the federal constitution was being tampered with because of the rejection of the basic structure doctrine by the courts. The federal constitution has been amended over 600 times within 50 years compared with the US constitution which has seen only 27 amendments in the last 200 years, chipped in lawyer Nilakrisna James from the floor.
Simon Sipaun's Point Of View
Nearly 47 years after the formation of Malaysia, former Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) vice-chairperson Simon Sipaun is convinced more than ever that he was right to have opposed, from the very beginning, the idea of Sabah being in the new federation.
"Even if joining Malaysia was the right thing to do, it came at least ten years too early for us," Sipaun told 500-odd participants at a closed door forum, 'Formation of Malaysia, a Promise Revisited and the Way Forward', in Kota Kinabalu over the weekend.
The forum was organised by the Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) in association with the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMa), an ad hoc apolitical movement dedicated to "reversing the recolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak".
Sipaun felt, back in 1962 as now, that the British should have stayed on for another ten years at least. Alternatively, Sabah should have been independent first for a similar period of time before considering, if at all, Malaysia as an option.
He recalled his fervent opposition.
He was 25 years old at that time but didn't hesitate to make his views known to Donald Stephens, the Huguansiou (paramount chief) of the KadazanDusunMurut.
He conveyed his views to Stephens through a community leader known to be close to him and raised several other issues as well.
Sipaun was gratified to find that Stephens was in complete agreement with him. Apparently, Stephens himself had already concluded that Malaysia was not for Sabah.
Broad spectrum
Sipaun's objections ran across a broad spectrum. He warned that Malaysia, as it was then proposed, was simply "a transfer of colonial power in Sabah and Sarawak from the United Kingdom to Malaya".
He preferred that Sabah should experience being a truly independent and sovereign state, favouring self-rule initially, followed by full independence.
He also cautioned that Sabah, like Sarawak, did not have people qualified and experienced enough to negotiate with Malaya and Singapore.
Even so, he suggested going to the negotiating table alone i.e. without the British if the UN referendum showed that the people wanted the new federation with Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Brunei.
It later transpired that the UN referendum found that only a third of the people in Sabah, as in Sarawak, favoured Malaysia and an equal number was opposed while the remainder wanted independence first before considering the new federation as an option.
Among other ideas, he suggested that Sabah propose that Malaysia be a loose arrangement. In any case the new federation would be an artificial one, and urged that Stephens win an escape clause "in the event that Sabah found itself short-changed".
"What puzzles me to this day is why Stephens changed his mind and opted for Malaysia," said Sipaun. "This was after he met Lee Kuan Yew."
Light shed on mystery
Sipaun's open query to the audience was later resolved when Dusun activist Raymond Tombung offered to shed some light on the mystery.
According to Tombung, he recently posed the question to Lee - now Minister Mentor in Singapore - during a courtesy call on him. He was greeted by ten seconds of pin-drop silence during which the Singapore leader just hung his head, eyes cast downwards. Lee, regaining his composure, simply gave a non-answer: "Stephens has a mind of his own. It's not easy to convince him on anything."
Tombung, not disclosing his sources, swears that Stephens changed his opposition to Malaysia after Lee (right) convinced him that he (Lee) would eventually be prime minister of the new federation and that the Sabah leader would be his number two in Kuala Lumpur.
Tombung disclosed that Sabah opposition strongman Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan and Kota Kinabalu lawyer and social activist Nilakrisna James were also present when he questioned Lee on the Stephens mystery i.e. why he eventually dropped his opposition to Malaysia.
Hardly taught
What gets on Sipaun's nerves today is the fact that the historical background to Malaysia is not only disputed, but taught very little in the schools, if at all. "It took nearly 47 years before the federal government officially acknowledged that Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963," said Sipaun. "So, we are celebrating this great event for the first time this year. Better late than never."
History must be allowed to record, continued Sipaun, that Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak came together to form Malaysia and that Brunei stayed out at the 11th hour and why.
"We did not join Malaysia but helped to form Malaysia," said Sipaun. "People in peninsular Malaysia must acknowledge this fact and not continue to distort our history."
He expressed his disappointment that even academicians in peninsular Malaysia continue to wallow in ignorance or refuse to be drawn into the issue of how old Malaysia was and whether a new federation was formed or it was simply a case of Malaya changing its name and new states joining it.
"I even posed this question once to renowned historian Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim (right) and he was very evasive," disclosed Sipaun. "He simply told me that this matter could be discussed. He never answered my question."
The individual states in Malaya are not referred to in the Malaysia Agreement, pointed out Sipaun. "So it should not be flogged that we joined Malaysia unless we have forgotten how to count. Why can't we be honest with ourselves? We can't get even a simple thing like the birthday of the federation right."
CigMA activist Harry Manicit from Kudat chipped in from the floor to much applause: "We didn't negotiate with Johore, Selangor or the other states but with Malaya. So, Malaysia is one federation, three components."
In his concluding remarks, Sipaun called for a fair deal for Sabah or else "history will repeat itself".
Among others, he called for the civil service to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation, Borneonisation of the civil service in Sabah and Sarawak honoured, negotiated contracts stopped, the economic cake enlarged rather than quarreling about how to share it, the illegal immigrants in Sabah - "created by the federal government" - be redistributed among all states in peninsular Malaysia, and Sabah rights be restored.
Sipaun also moderated the question-and-answer sessions after the other speakers. He was assisted by former federal deputy minister Kalakau Untol from Tuaran. Kalakau recently quit the United PasokMomogun KadazanDusunMurut Organisation (Upko) to join Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
Nearly 47 years after the formation of Malaysia, former Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) vice-chairperson Simon Sipaun is convinced more than ever that he was right to have opposed, from the very beginning, the idea of Sabah being in the new federation.
"Even if joining Malaysia was the right thing to do, it came at least ten years too early for us," Sipaun told 500-odd participants at a closed door forum, 'Formation of Malaysia, a Promise Revisited and the Way Forward', in Kota Kinabalu over the weekend.
The forum was organised by the Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) in association with the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMa), an ad hoc apolitical movement dedicated to "reversing the recolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak".
Sipaun felt, back in 1962 as now, that the British should have stayed on for another ten years at least. Alternatively, Sabah should have been independent first for a similar period of time before considering, if at all, Malaysia as an option.
He recalled his fervent opposition.
He was 25 years old at that time but didn't hesitate to make his views known to Donald Stephens, the Huguansiou (paramount chief) of the KadazanDusunMurut.
He conveyed his views to Stephens through a community leader known to be close to him and raised several other issues as well.
Sipaun was gratified to find that Stephens was in complete agreement with him. Apparently, Stephens himself had already concluded that Malaysia was not for Sabah.
Broad spectrum
Sipaun's objections ran across a broad spectrum. He warned that Malaysia, as it was then proposed, was simply "a transfer of colonial power in Sabah and Sarawak from the United Kingdom to Malaya".
He preferred that Sabah should experience being a truly independent and sovereign state, favouring self-rule initially, followed by full independence.
He also cautioned that Sabah, like Sarawak, did not have people qualified and experienced enough to negotiate with Malaya and Singapore.
Even so, he suggested going to the negotiating table alone i.e. without the British if the UN referendum showed that the people wanted the new federation with Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Brunei.
It later transpired that the UN referendum found that only a third of the people in Sabah, as in Sarawak, favoured Malaysia and an equal number was opposed while the remainder wanted independence first before considering the new federation as an option.
Among other ideas, he suggested that Sabah propose that Malaysia be a loose arrangement. In any case the new federation would be an artificial one, and urged that Stephens win an escape clause "in the event that Sabah found itself short-changed".
"What puzzles me to this day is why Stephens changed his mind and opted for Malaysia," said Sipaun. "This was after he met Lee Kuan Yew."
Light shed on mystery
Sipaun's open query to the audience was later resolved when Dusun activist Raymond Tombung offered to shed some light on the mystery.
According to Tombung, he recently posed the question to Lee - now Minister Mentor in Singapore - during a courtesy call on him. He was greeted by ten seconds of pin-drop silence during which the Singapore leader just hung his head, eyes cast downwards. Lee, regaining his composure, simply gave a non-answer: "Stephens has a mind of his own. It's not easy to convince him on anything."
Tombung, not disclosing his sources, swears that Stephens changed his opposition to Malaysia after Lee (right) convinced him that he (Lee) would eventually be prime minister of the new federation and that the Sabah leader would be his number two in Kuala Lumpur.
Tombung disclosed that Sabah opposition strongman Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan and Kota Kinabalu lawyer and social activist Nilakrisna James were also present when he questioned Lee on the Stephens mystery i.e. why he eventually dropped his opposition to Malaysia.
Hardly taught
What gets on Sipaun's nerves today is the fact that the historical background to Malaysia is not only disputed, but taught very little in the schools, if at all. "It took nearly 47 years before the federal government officially acknowledged that Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963," said Sipaun. "So, we are celebrating this great event for the first time this year. Better late than never."
History must be allowed to record, continued Sipaun, that Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak came together to form Malaysia and that Brunei stayed out at the 11th hour and why.
"We did not join Malaysia but helped to form Malaysia," said Sipaun. "People in peninsular Malaysia must acknowledge this fact and not continue to distort our history."
He expressed his disappointment that even academicians in peninsular Malaysia continue to wallow in ignorance or refuse to be drawn into the issue of how old Malaysia was and whether a new federation was formed or it was simply a case of Malaya changing its name and new states joining it.
"I even posed this question once to renowned historian Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim (right) and he was very evasive," disclosed Sipaun. "He simply told me that this matter could be discussed. He never answered my question."
The individual states in Malaya are not referred to in the Malaysia Agreement, pointed out Sipaun. "So it should not be flogged that we joined Malaysia unless we have forgotten how to count. Why can't we be honest with ourselves? We can't get even a simple thing like the birthday of the federation right."
CigMA activist Harry Manicit from Kudat chipped in from the floor to much applause: "We didn't negotiate with Johore, Selangor or the other states but with Malaya. So, Malaysia is one federation, three components."
In his concluding remarks, Sipaun called for a fair deal for Sabah or else "history will repeat itself".
Among others, he called for the civil service to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation, Borneonisation of the civil service in Sabah and Sarawak honoured, negotiated contracts stopped, the economic cake enlarged rather than quarreling about how to share it, the illegal immigrants in Sabah - "created by the federal government" - be redistributed among all states in peninsular Malaysia, and Sabah rights be restored.
Sipaun also moderated the question-and-answer sessions after the other speakers. He was assisted by former federal deputy minister Kalakau Untol from Tuaran. Kalakau recently quit the United PasokMomogun KadazanDusunMurut Organisation (Upko) to join Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
He cites the vastness of the territory, empowerment either within (or outside) Malaysia, greater efficiencies through decentralisation and maximisation of potential, as reasons for doing so.
His idea is that Sabah be carved up into five states along the borders of the existing residencies viz. Tawau, Sandakan and Kudat along the eastern and northern seaboard, and West Coast and Pedalaman elsewhere, and to be known as the Sabah states.
The 11 existing divisions in neighbouring Sarawak should re-emerge as new states i.e. Kuching, Samarahan, Sri Aman, Betong, Sarikei, Sibu, Mukah, Kapit, Bintulu, Miri and Limbang.
"The total of 16 states and one federal territory in Malaysian Borneo will eclipse the 11 states and two federal territories in peninsular Malaysia," pointed out Jeffrey in his keynote address at a closed-door forum, 'Formation of Malaysia, a Promise Revisited and the Way Forward' on Saturday in Kota Kinabalu.
The forum was a curtain-raiser to the first official celebration of Malaysia Day on Sept 16.
The event was organised by the Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) in association with the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMA), an ad hoc apolitical movement.
Power shift
If there's method in Jeffrey's "madness", it's this - that the new states will help Sabah and Sarawak win back the 32 percent share of the seats in the Malaysian Parliament that Malaysia outside peninsular Malaysia had until Singapore "was booted out in 1965".
"With Singapore out of Malaysia, the island's 15 seats in the Malaysian Parliament (141) should have gone collectively to Sabah (14) and Sarawak (16)," recalled Jeffrey. "Instead, peninsular Malaysia (96) took seven of Singapore's seats for a new total of 103 and the remainder was divided between Sabah and Sarawak to give them 18 and 20 respectively.
This resulted in the original power balance between peninsular Malaysia and non-peninsular Malaysia, i.e. 68 percent to 32 percent respectively, to become even more in favour of the former.
He left it to the 500-odd invited participants - opinion leaders, students and others - to work out the ratio today: 74.32 percent (peninsular Malaysia) and 25.67 percent (Sabah/Sarawak).
The logical deduction of the audience, prompted by Jeffrey, was that 14 of the 165 seats held today in Parliament by peninsular Malaysia belong legitimately to Sabah and Sarawak.
"From being a partnership of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo degenerated after 1965 to be two out of 13 states," said Jeffrey. "The federal government refused to acknowledge the status of Sabah and Sarawak. This was in order to create more parliamentary seats for states in peninsular Malaysia at the expense of Sabah and Sarawak."
Jeffrey sees this as the main reason why the federal government was able to whittle away at the 20 Points (Sabah) and 18 Points (Sarawak) entrenched in the federal constitution.
The 20 and 18 Points respectively are the basis for the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and the formation of the new federation.
"The creation of new states in Sabah and Sarawak will neutralise peninsular Malaysia's argument that it has 11 states and two federal territories to merit its present seats in Parliament," reiterated Jeffrey. "Hopefully, this would be the way to reverse the recolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak by peninsular Malaysia in the wake of the British departure in 1963."
The number of seats any particular state should have in Parliament, stressed Jeffrey, should not only be based on population - "a peninsular Malaysia argument" - but also on territory, economic potential, history and law.
Ills of recolonisation
Recolonisation has also allegedly meant the degeneration of the federation into a unitary state, the erosion of the doctrine of separation of powers which assures checks-and-balances, the lack of transparency, accountability and good governance, and the advent of a police state sanctioned by four unrepealed emergency ordinances.
Alternatively, the politician in Jeffrey - he's also Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president - challenged the audience to consider two other strategic options viz. accept and work within the current situation with all its constraints, or push for a referendum in Sabah and Sarawak as proposed previously by former Sabah chief minister Harris Salleh.
Jeffrey's paper was also a litany of oft-cited woes in the two states.
Grinding poverty with all its attendant ills topped the list, followed by appalling public healthcare and educational standards, disenfranchisement with the influx of illegal immigrants, the lack of security, Borneo-nisation, and "the wholesale plunder" of oil and gas reserves by Petronas in return for "a measly five percent oil royalty".
Four other speakers contributed their papers as well. They also went over familiar territory as in Jeffrey's paper.
Briefly, former Sarawak deputy chief minister James Wong's paper was on the equal partnership and merger concept of the Federation of Malaysia, the role and findings of the Cobbold Commission, the Inter-Governmental Committee and the UN Special Mission.
The ailing Wong, 88, was represented by Sarawak PKR chief Baru Bian (left), a Lun Bawang, lawyer and native land rights activist tipped by the opposition to be the next chief minister.
Sabah Umno veteran Karim Ghani, a translator for the Cobbold Commission, spoke on whether Malaysia was 13 states or one federation with three components and expressed disappointment with his party.
He insisted that Malaysia was one federation with three components. He feels that this could be easily resolved by the respective state assemblies in Sabah and Sarawak.
Three components
Sabah Law Association (SLA) representative Sukumar Vanugopal gave a detailed and highly technical explanation on the numerous breaches of the 20 Points in the federal constitution which he attributed to Sabah and Sarawak being under-represented in Parliament.
He also warned that the federal constitution was being tampered with because of the rejection of the basic structure doctrine by the courts. The federal constitution has been amended over 600 times within 50 years compared with the US constitution which has seen only 27 amendments in the last 200 years, chipped in lawyer Nilakrisna James from the floor.
Simon Sipaun's Point Of View
Nearly 47 years after the formation of Malaysia, former Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) vice-chairperson Simon Sipaun is convinced more than ever that he was right to have opposed, from the very beginning, the idea of Sabah being in the new federation.
"Even if joining Malaysia was the right thing to do, it came at least ten years too early for us," Sipaun told 500-odd participants at a closed door forum, 'Formation of Malaysia, a Promise Revisited and the Way Forward', in Kota Kinabalu over the weekend.
The forum was organised by the Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) in association with the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMa), an ad hoc apolitical movement dedicated to "reversing the recolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak".
Sipaun felt, back in 1962 as now, that the British should have stayed on for another ten years at least. Alternatively, Sabah should have been independent first for a similar period of time before considering, if at all, Malaysia as an option.
He recalled his fervent opposition.
He was 25 years old at that time but didn't hesitate to make his views known to Donald Stephens, the Huguansiou (paramount chief) of the KadazanDusunMurut.
He conveyed his views to Stephens through a community leader known to be close to him and raised several other issues as well.
Sipaun was gratified to find that Stephens was in complete agreement with him. Apparently, Stephens himself had already concluded that Malaysia was not for Sabah.
Broad spectrum
Sipaun's objections ran across a broad spectrum. He warned that Malaysia, as it was then proposed, was simply "a transfer of colonial power in Sabah and Sarawak from the United Kingdom to Malaya".
He preferred that Sabah should experience being a truly independent and sovereign state, favouring self-rule initially, followed by full independence.
He also cautioned that Sabah, like Sarawak, did not have people qualified and experienced enough to negotiate with Malaya and Singapore.
Even so, he suggested going to the negotiating table alone i.e. without the British if the UN referendum showed that the people wanted the new federation with Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Brunei.
It later transpired that the UN referendum found that only a third of the people in Sabah, as in Sarawak, favoured Malaysia and an equal number was opposed while the remainder wanted independence first before considering the new federation as an option.
Among other ideas, he suggested that Sabah propose that Malaysia be a loose arrangement. In any case the new federation would be an artificial one, and urged that Stephens win an escape clause "in the event that Sabah found itself short-changed".
"What puzzles me to this day is why Stephens changed his mind and opted for Malaysia," said Sipaun. "This was after he met Lee Kuan Yew."
Light shed on mystery
Sipaun's open query to the audience was later resolved when Dusun activist Raymond Tombung offered to shed some light on the mystery.
According to Tombung, he recently posed the question to Lee - now Minister Mentor in Singapore - during a courtesy call on him. He was greeted by ten seconds of pin-drop silence during which the Singapore leader just hung his head, eyes cast downwards. Lee, regaining his composure, simply gave a non-answer: "Stephens has a mind of his own. It's not easy to convince him on anything."
Tombung, not disclosing his sources, swears that Stephens changed his opposition to Malaysia after Lee (right) convinced him that he (Lee) would eventually be prime minister of the new federation and that the Sabah leader would be his number two in Kuala Lumpur.
Tombung disclosed that Sabah opposition strongman Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan and Kota Kinabalu lawyer and social activist Nilakrisna James were also present when he questioned Lee on the Stephens mystery i.e. why he eventually dropped his opposition to Malaysia.
Hardly taught
What gets on Sipaun's nerves today is the fact that the historical background to Malaysia is not only disputed, but taught very little in the schools, if at all. "It took nearly 47 years before the federal government officially acknowledged that Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963," said Sipaun. "So, we are celebrating this great event for the first time this year. Better late than never."
History must be allowed to record, continued Sipaun, that Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak came together to form Malaysia and that Brunei stayed out at the 11th hour and why.
"We did not join Malaysia but helped to form Malaysia," said Sipaun. "People in peninsular Malaysia must acknowledge this fact and not continue to distort our history."
He expressed his disappointment that even academicians in peninsular Malaysia continue to wallow in ignorance or refuse to be drawn into the issue of how old Malaysia was and whether a new federation was formed or it was simply a case of Malaya changing its name and new states joining it.
"I even posed this question once to renowned historian Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim (right) and he was very evasive," disclosed Sipaun. "He simply told me that this matter could be discussed. He never answered my question."
The individual states in Malaya are not referred to in the Malaysia Agreement, pointed out Sipaun. "So it should not be flogged that we joined Malaysia unless we have forgotten how to count. Why can't we be honest with ourselves? We can't get even a simple thing like the birthday of the federation right."
CigMA activist Harry Manicit from Kudat chipped in from the floor to much applause: "We didn't negotiate with Johore, Selangor or the other states but with Malaya. So, Malaysia is one federation, three components."
In his concluding remarks, Sipaun called for a fair deal for Sabah or else "history will repeat itself".
Among others, he called for the civil service to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation, Borneonisation of the civil service in Sabah and Sarawak honoured, negotiated contracts stopped, the economic cake enlarged rather than quarreling about how to share it, the illegal immigrants in Sabah - "created by the federal government" - be redistributed among all states in peninsular Malaysia, and Sabah rights be restored.
Sipaun also moderated the question-and-answer sessions after the other speakers. He was assisted by former federal deputy minister Kalakau Untol from Tuaran. Kalakau recently quit the United PasokMomogun KadazanDusunMurut Organisation (Upko) to join Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
Nearly 47 years after the formation of Malaysia, former Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) vice-chairperson Simon Sipaun is convinced more than ever that he was right to have opposed, from the very beginning, the idea of Sabah being in the new federation.
"Even if joining Malaysia was the right thing to do, it came at least ten years too early for us," Sipaun told 500-odd participants at a closed door forum, 'Formation of Malaysia, a Promise Revisited and the Way Forward', in Kota Kinabalu over the weekend.
The forum was organised by the Borneo Heritage Foundation (BHF) in association with the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMa), an ad hoc apolitical movement dedicated to "reversing the recolonisation of Sabah and Sarawak".
Sipaun felt, back in 1962 as now, that the British should have stayed on for another ten years at least. Alternatively, Sabah should have been independent first for a similar period of time before considering, if at all, Malaysia as an option.
He recalled his fervent opposition.
He was 25 years old at that time but didn't hesitate to make his views known to Donald Stephens, the Huguansiou (paramount chief) of the KadazanDusunMurut.
He conveyed his views to Stephens through a community leader known to be close to him and raised several other issues as well.
Sipaun was gratified to find that Stephens was in complete agreement with him. Apparently, Stephens himself had already concluded that Malaysia was not for Sabah.
Broad spectrum
Sipaun's objections ran across a broad spectrum. He warned that Malaysia, as it was then proposed, was simply "a transfer of colonial power in Sabah and Sarawak from the United Kingdom to Malaya".
He preferred that Sabah should experience being a truly independent and sovereign state, favouring self-rule initially, followed by full independence.
He also cautioned that Sabah, like Sarawak, did not have people qualified and experienced enough to negotiate with Malaya and Singapore.
Even so, he suggested going to the negotiating table alone i.e. without the British if the UN referendum showed that the people wanted the new federation with Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Brunei.
It later transpired that the UN referendum found that only a third of the people in Sabah, as in Sarawak, favoured Malaysia and an equal number was opposed while the remainder wanted independence first before considering the new federation as an option.
Among other ideas, he suggested that Sabah propose that Malaysia be a loose arrangement. In any case the new federation would be an artificial one, and urged that Stephens win an escape clause "in the event that Sabah found itself short-changed".
"What puzzles me to this day is why Stephens changed his mind and opted for Malaysia," said Sipaun. "This was after he met Lee Kuan Yew."
Light shed on mystery
Sipaun's open query to the audience was later resolved when Dusun activist Raymond Tombung offered to shed some light on the mystery.
According to Tombung, he recently posed the question to Lee - now Minister Mentor in Singapore - during a courtesy call on him. He was greeted by ten seconds of pin-drop silence during which the Singapore leader just hung his head, eyes cast downwards. Lee, regaining his composure, simply gave a non-answer: "Stephens has a mind of his own. It's not easy to convince him on anything."
Tombung, not disclosing his sources, swears that Stephens changed his opposition to Malaysia after Lee (right) convinced him that he (Lee) would eventually be prime minister of the new federation and that the Sabah leader would be his number two in Kuala Lumpur.
Tombung disclosed that Sabah opposition strongman Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan and Kota Kinabalu lawyer and social activist Nilakrisna James were also present when he questioned Lee on the Stephens mystery i.e. why he eventually dropped his opposition to Malaysia.
Hardly taught
What gets on Sipaun's nerves today is the fact that the historical background to Malaysia is not only disputed, but taught very little in the schools, if at all. "It took nearly 47 years before the federal government officially acknowledged that Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963," said Sipaun. "So, we are celebrating this great event for the first time this year. Better late than never."
History must be allowed to record, continued Sipaun, that Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak came together to form Malaysia and that Brunei stayed out at the 11th hour and why.
"We did not join Malaysia but helped to form Malaysia," said Sipaun. "People in peninsular Malaysia must acknowledge this fact and not continue to distort our history."
He expressed his disappointment that even academicians in peninsular Malaysia continue to wallow in ignorance or refuse to be drawn into the issue of how old Malaysia was and whether a new federation was formed or it was simply a case of Malaya changing its name and new states joining it.
"I even posed this question once to renowned historian Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim (right) and he was very evasive," disclosed Sipaun. "He simply told me that this matter could be discussed. He never answered my question."
The individual states in Malaya are not referred to in the Malaysia Agreement, pointed out Sipaun. "So it should not be flogged that we joined Malaysia unless we have forgotten how to count. Why can't we be honest with ourselves? We can't get even a simple thing like the birthday of the federation right."
CigMA activist Harry Manicit from Kudat chipped in from the floor to much applause: "We didn't negotiate with Johore, Selangor or the other states but with Malaya. So, Malaysia is one federation, three components."
In his concluding remarks, Sipaun called for a fair deal for Sabah or else "history will repeat itself".
Among others, he called for the civil service to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation, Borneonisation of the civil service in Sabah and Sarawak honoured, negotiated contracts stopped, the economic cake enlarged rather than quarreling about how to share it, the illegal immigrants in Sabah - "created by the federal government" - be redistributed among all states in peninsular Malaysia, and Sabah rights be restored.
Sipaun also moderated the question-and-answer sessions after the other speakers. He was assisted by former federal deputy minister Kalakau Untol from Tuaran. Kalakau recently quit the United PasokMomogun KadazanDusunMurut Organisation (Upko) to join Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
No comments:
Post a Comment