MYTH OF EQUAL PARTNERSHIP
New relationship based on pragmatism, goodwill, fairness needed
NOT a day passes by without some kind of commentary in the mainstream and social media about Sabah and Sarawak’s claim to equal partnership with the peninsula within the ambit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
This claim was reported and substantiated by documentary evidence that the four entities of North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, Singapore and Peninsular Malaya had opted for a federation instead of a coalition of equal sovereign partners.
The federation structure was more feasible and practical than a coalition as it would be most advantageous to the Borneo states as their less developed economy would be much more difficult to manage as sovereign states of equal standing.
As a matter of record, the British were reluctant to grant outright independence to these two states as they did Malaysia because of the threat of the Philippines to Sabah, and Indonesia to Sarawak. This is evidenced by their opposition to the formation of Malaysia that led to the Indonesian confrontation and the Philippine ongoing claim of Sabah, citing it as part of the Sulu kingdom located in Mindanao.
Had Sabah and Sarawak not joined Malaysia, they would have been subdued by their two neighbours. If that happened, the British and Peninsular Malaysia would have been drawn into conflict to protect these two states.
The British would only grant independence to Sabah and Sarawak on condition that they join Malaysia as the peninsula had the capability to defend the two states from external aggressors and the economic strength and viability to render developmental aid.
When Sabah and Sarawak came together to form Malaysia in 1963, their economic infrastructure and manpower development were rudimentary compared with peninsular Malaysia. In fact, the British in North Borneo and the Raja Brooke Dynasty engaged only in rudimentary developments to serve their interests.
Most parts of Sabah and Sarawak were rural in nature, a majority of the tribal population lived in longhouses and were illiterate. Expertise and financial resources from the peninsula helped develop the resources of these two states.
Teachers and administrators were sent to Sabah and Sarawak to help in education and state administration respectively. Engineers and technical personnel helped in infrastructural development, while medical doctors, administrators and specialists provided healthcare. The armed forces took charge of security and trained recruits from Sabah and Sarawak.
Even today, Peninsular Malaysia engages in Sabah and Sarawak’s development despite the fact the people from the peninsula are restricted from seeking employment in these two states because the indigenous people would not be able to compete with them.
Currently, the two states are clamouring to manage their own resources, especially in oil and gas. Sarawak has set up its own oil company and has claimed the right to license operators. Sabah is considering that option, but both states, for now, want higher royalty in lieu of complete takeover.
For political expediency and provincial sentiments, both states choose to ignore the fact that Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) was set up by an Act of Parliament (The National Petroliam Act) to manage the oil resources of Malaysia.
Petronas, through the Federal Government, financed the exploration, extraction and marketing of the oil and gas, including developing the expertise to manage these resources. It has also developed a worldwide network, initiatives and goodwill, as well as established itself as a major multi-national company.
Thus Sabah and Sarawak cannot just step in and take over the complex operation without any experience in running an oil company and at the same time negating the financial investment by Petronas. These two states are not capable of managing the upstream and downstream operations without Petronas’ expertise. It is best that they settle for an increased royalty rather than a complete take-over of the oil resources, which would bring dire consequences.
As part of the equal partnership claim, there was a hint of threat of secession by irresponsible politicians just to serve their vested interests. That would be treason. As hypothetical musings, just imagine the scenario of secession.
Sabah and Sarawak will have to administer the country on their own, hopefully in a politically stable atmosphere without the local political parties getting at each other’s throat. Once they have stabilised the political volatility, the administrative structure could easily be emplaced.
But the larger question of fiscal management, security, education and manpower would pose challenges. First, they would have to expend billions of ringgit to acquire military assets and to develop the military personnel to manage them to secure the borders from external aggression. Likewise, the police force would need similar particular attention.
They would need to address the educational infrastructure and manpower requirements, as well as develop employment strategy. Both states will have to provide employment for hordes of Sabahans and Sarawakians returning or repatriated from Peninsular Malaysia, not mentioning uprooting them from the social, cultural and economic environment that they have been accustomed to in the peninsula.
Peninsular Malaysia will have to address similar challenges. In the final analysis, it would be best for Sabah and Sarawak to remain in Malaysia because the alternative scenario would cause enormous administrative, social, economic and cultural upheaval, which would disrupt the fabric of society that has proved to be most amenable, harmonious and advantageous to both sides.
Let us hope that this scenario will just remain as hypothetical musings just to remind us to count our blessings of the harmonious existence among the peoples of Malaysia.
We need a new paradigm in our relationship equation that should be based on pragmatism, goodwill and fairness, as well as the political realities rather than on emotional provincialism.
It is best that we put to rest our ideological differences and idiosyncrasies and continue towards national cohesion and integration in mind, body and spirit.
When Sabah and Sarawak came together to form Malaysia in 1963, their economic infrastructure and manpower development were rudimentary compared with peninsular Malaysia.
The writer is with the Centre for Policy Research and International Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia