Leaders should settle MA63 dispute amicably — lawyer
KOTA KINABALU: The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is a form of legal deed used to realise the formation of Malaysia signed by UK, Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo ( Sabah) and Sarawak on 9th July 1963 in London.
Datuk Ainal Fattah, a senior Barrister-at-Law from Semporna, said MA63 was a very important deed of agreement relating to Malaysia. Among the signatories of MA63 were Tun Haji Abdul Razak bin Dato’ Haji Hussein on behalf of Malaya, Tun Abang Haji Openg on behalf of Sarawak and Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Haru on behalf of Sabah.
Tun Razak is the father of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak while Tun Openg is the father of Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Amar Abang Johari Tun Openg.
Ainal is of the opinion that Najib and Abang Johari would very much love to see that what had been agreed by their fathers would be duly complied, implemented and delivered to make Malaysia a developed, harmonious and peaceful nation in the world.
He respecfully suggested that any dispute or disagreement pertaining to any failure or a form of breach relating to MA63 should be discussed, negotiated and settled through concensus and amicable solution between Najib, Abang Johari and Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman.
“Alternatively, any party can seek remedy or the court interpretation or determination to solve any issue pertaining to MA63. The decision or judgement of the highest court of the land will finally lay the MA63 issue to rest.
“What has been said by Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin about MA63 must be read constructively in the light of the prevailing Malaysia Federal Constitution which guarantes the special position of Sabah and Sarawak in terms of revenue, grant and infrastructure developments.
“Let’s respect the constructive opinions of all parties who express concern on MA63 and settle the matter once and for all in the best interest of our beloved Malaysia,” said Ainah in a statement yesterday.
He also stated that Sarawak and Sabah had obtained special guarantees in the Malaysia Agreement with regard to the following items: language, education, qualification to be Head of State, ethnic composition of the civil service, citizenship, religion, native privileges, immigration and representation in the Federal Parliament.
The present Constitution of Malaysia contains lists of state powers and concurrent powers which belong only to the two Borneo states. Sabah was given a special grant, while both states were given additional sources of revenue. Special safeguards included immigration controls to prevent citizens from Peninsular Malaysia moving to live in Sarawak and Sabah or to take up jobs in these two territories. The Malaysia Act allowed both territories to use the English language as an official language until 1973, although in Malaya, the Malay language had become the national language in 1967 and been enforced since 1970, he added.
Ainal pointed out further that Sarawak was given 16 seats in the Malaysian Parliament and Sabah 24, while Singapore was only offered 15. The present total parliamentary representation for Sarawak and Sabah has risen to 44 following the re-delineation of electoral boundaries in the two states and the increase of the number of seats in Parliament.
“The BN-led federal government has used various means such as ministerial contacts, federalstate party relations, civil service contacts, development projects, language and education policies, and financial and economic arrangements to strengthen federalism and national integration in the two territories.
“The occasional appointment of state representatives to the Federal Government posts of Minister of Sarawak Affairs and Minister of Sabah Affairs in the early years of Malaysia had also involved them directly in decision-making at the Federal Cabinet level,” he said.
However, he said difficulties between the states and the centre had taken place. In the Sabah crisis of 1964 and the Sarawak crises of 1965 and 1966, the combined governmental-party influence of the federal Alliance government had prevailed. Recalcitrant Chief Ministers of Sarawak and Sabah were removed. Although the crises were resolved, they fomented state nationalisms.
“Sarawak nationalism and Sabah nationalism emerged in the respective state’s struggles with the Federal Government over state rights. Their political and constitutional disputes have sometimes been seen in terms of ‘rival nationalisms’, i.e., ethnic state nationalism versus Malaysian nationalism. Nevertheless, from the viewpoint of nation-building in Malaysia, the twin threats of ethnic nationalism and secession will always remain in Sarawak and Sabah,” he said.
He added since 1965 after the exit of Singapore, national leaders in Kuala Lumpur visited the two states almost weekly to keep in touch with state leaders and oversee development projects. Sabah time had officially become Malaysia’s standard time. The Federal Government had even held the official National Day celebrations and parade in Kuching and in Kota Kinabalu on separate occasions to foster national unity with the people of the two states.
“Nation-building in Malaysia is likely to encounter this pattern of politics time and again in Sarawak and Sabah. It would appear that any strong leader in Sarawak or Sabah could easily arouse state nationalism at the expense of Malaysian nationalism. But such nationalisms will in turn be checked by the Federal Government. No such problem of state nationalism has been encountered in Peninsular Malaysia probably because the Borneo states are new states and more ethnically distinct from the rest of Malaysia, while the peninsular states had experienced federation earlier, some as far back as in 1896, while the others in 1948,” he said.