Malaysia: A federation of three states
After Persekutuan Tanah Melayu gained independence from colonial Britain on Aug 31, 1957; it became a federation of 11 states; nine of whom were federated and un-federated states; with another two being former Straits Settlements.
This meaning of ‘merdeka’ or independence therefore remains only with/for the Malayans of the 11 states of their federation! Even the concept of ‘pendatangs’ mean only something to these Malayans who were not born in Malaya but were from some other locations; whether Indonesia, India or China. That is, our parents or the grandparents who came from elsewhere.
Then, at the initiative of Alliance leaders, Malaya wooed the two Borneo states (Brunei rejected the offer) of Sabah and Sarawak to become part and parcel of yet another newer organisation, or nation-state, which was to be called Malaysia. The British and UN moderated this choice process made in an orderly way; by way of a referendum.
Obviously the leaders of the different peoples of Sabah and Sarawak agreed with this agenda, but they also argued some conditionality’s within the new formation and foundation. These were documented as their 18 and 20 point issues related to the Malaysia Agreement submissions. Even Singapore was part and parcel of the same agenda. I am not sure what Lee Kuan Yew’s conditionalities were.
Malaysia then became one nation on Sept 16, 1963; even though Malaya tried hard to make it the same date as Merdeka, the Almighty did not allow it; for good reasons. Today, most Malayans are therefore confused about ‘how many states make up the federation’. Singapore left in 1965; after two years of marriage with Malaysia. Malaysia is now only a new federation of three colonial states.
What is therefore left today is a brand new organisational reality called Malaysia; made up of three entities, all three of whom with its own history and legacy systems in terms of socio-political culture, as an integral part and parcel of the British Commonwealth of nations!
Is federation the same one after Malaysia’s formation?
For example, Petronas Berhad was created under our Petroleum Development Act of 1974, and only became a reality post-1963. Therefore, when one reads the Act 144 and its clause in Article 4 reads:
4. In return for the ownership and the rights, powers, liberties and privileges vested in it by virtue of this Act, the Corporation shall make to the Government of the Federation and the Government of any relevant State such cash payment as may be agreed between the parties concerned.
Under this Act, if we read in between the lines, the creation of Malaysia and “the respective rights of states” were equated in similar ways. Sabah and Sarawak’s rights vis-à-vis petroleum payments are exactly the same as Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang. Therefore, in the same logic system, Sabah and Sarawak were consequently regarded as states numbers 13 and 14.
Obviously, Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew ( left ) were smart enough to figure all this out. They understood the mindset and worldview of the neo-colonial xovernment of the Alliance, who already considered the Orang Asli as only a tribal and native people, so what about the difference with the political leadership of Sabah and Sarawak?
They were mere natives and thus can also be treated as second-class citizens; exactly like the other pendatangs. Except; they are not really ‘pendatangs’ in the Malayan definition of such terms and meaning.
Consequently, my organiaational theory argument is that Malaysia is not the Federation of Malaya enlarged with three more states. It is a whole new entity made up of three (formerly four) states of the new federation; that is: the federation of Malaya, and the two Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak.
So long as this misperception and bad framing is not corrected, the two-thirds members of Malaysia will be treated as an unequally qualified and second class citizen, like other pendatangs. It is therefore really up to Sabah and Sarawakian leaderships to make this change happen; since, they never liked to be greeted with “welcome to Malaysia” by peninsular Malaysians.
Peninsular Malaysians were always taught and brain-washed to believe that these were states numbers 13 and 14.
If one does not believe, please consider why we still have 14 stripes in the flag until today? Should not the symbol of Malaysia have been four, and now three, as representative symbols of the new federation? We can still do that, if we are clever and make the changes needed; at least in terms of meaning and perceptions, if not in reality.
Why hudud only for Kelantan?
I notice that a ‘clever’ Gerakan Party representative made the argument that if all PKR and DAP Malay MPs vote against a Private Member’s Bill for ‘hudud’ in Parliament, it will not have the requisite majority for the bill to be tabled or carried.
Dear Gerakan MP, this is not only a lame but an obvious truth; the more fundamental question is: why an Umno minister is allowed to publicly state that their assemblypersons will support the hudud Law in Kelantan?
Dear MCA, Gerakan, MIC, and Sabah and Sarawakian MPs, and all assemblypersons who support the ‘Eminent 25\’ of Malaysia; if we all are serious about a moderate Malaysia; which Umno propagates but quietly undermines in public through their MPs and even ministers; it is time to say enough is enough, and we need to also put our foot down, as did the Eminent 25.
The non-Muslim bumiputra and non-bumiputra members of the Parliament and all assemblypersons of Malaysia must give their personal and public views about all such matters. Various people groups of 25, No 26, 33, and almost 100 NGO groups have spoken out against the need for hudud laws in Malaysia; and the moderate majority, I believe, are totally against it.
If there is any minister who seriously wants hudud, and it is a majority cabinet position on this issue; then, can we agree to debate it in parliament before Kelantan is allowed to implement hudud; even on an experimental basis.
Non-Muslims would like to observe the kind and quality of its enforcement; but, without federal police involvement. The federal police are legally only authorised to enforce federal criminal law; hudud is not federal criminal law but only state-enacted syariah and meant only for Muslims by Muslims and of Muslims.
The Royal Malaysian Police were never designed as an Islamic entity, unlike, maybe, even the Malay Regiment. May God bless Malaysia with moderation.
