Sabah on the agenda, again
THIS is not the first time I touch on this admittedly sensitive issue and it will not be the last, especially when it concerns my beloved homeland, Sabah. Yet another round of diplomatic contretemps has recently arisen between the Philippines and Malaysia over the status (or, as some would coin it, sovereignty) of Sabah. Strong, sometimes less than diplomatic words were uttered, protests were launched, and ambassadors were summoned to explain their respective government’s stand. The Sabah issue has once again heated up.
And, as readers would know by now, I typically try to not mince my words in my writing. And of course, I humbly ask for the indulgence of my dear readers if my personal stance on this issue happens to be contrary to that of most of you. Please do not lynch or troll me or this newspaper, especially electronically, as I experienced a few years ago with the netizens of another neighboring country, who apparently did not like something I said ( out of the best of intentions on my part) and decided to cyberbombard me with the most excruciating curses. We can have responsive and responsible dialogues and even constructive debates on this issue, without resorting to malicious name- calling.
I was born and raised (at least until my mid- teens) in Sabah that was and is a part of Malaysia. Growing up, as I studied history and geography ( often on my own and not through the official school curriculum), it did cross my mind that Malaysia was a most geographically “interesting” country, with components spanning both sides of the southern reaches of the South China Sea, with Malaya on one side, and Sabah and Sarawak on the other. That was of course a product of colonial legacy, just as with the formation of many other Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines.
Like many other Sabahans, I have my misgivings with regard to what we perceive as the diminished rights and interests of Sabah in the Malaysian federation, which was supposed to be formed on an equal footing by Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore (which subsequently left Malaysia), and I cheer on those who bravely raise and advocate these concerns in order to build a more perfect union. But I also firmly believe in what I consider the “Malaysian Experiment,” whereby peoples with vastly different cultural and, yes, geographic backgrounds would come together to form a nation that exudes new opportunities and challenges. After all, if we extend the “experiment” to a more global stage, isn’t this what the United Nations was supposed to achieve, with peoples from around the world with diverse backgrounds coming together to try to build peace?
Having said that, I am also of the opinion that both the governments and the peoples of both Malaysia (and especially Sabah) and the Philippines must also face up to the realities on the ground and in the mind. For example, I often heard of the senior leaders of either country expressing sentiments to the effect that their respective countries’ exercise or claim of sovereignty over Sabah is “indisputable.” And indisputability often implies refusal to discuss or to communicate constructively, beyond the conveyance of those messages of indisputability. But the plain fact is that the other side does dispute such exercise or claim, albeit to often varying degrees of severity. So, just as with exercises and claims of sovereignty over parts of the South China Sea, I think it is high time that both countries and peoples properly recognize such dispute over the sovereignty of Sabah, and not continue to wallow in jingoistic nationalism that frankly did not and could not resolve such disputes.
For only if we mutually recognize the existence of such disputes over sovereignty can we even begin to think of coming up with creative solutions or resolutions. Similarly, the physical fact remains that Sabah has long (more than half a century) been under the effective control of Malaysia, and most, if not all, Sabahans consider themselves to be Malaysians. My experience of having worked in international organizations would inform me that a plausible, peaceful resolution of the dispute over the sovereignty of Sabah would be by a popular referendum among the Sabahans. This was done in many war- torn regions around the world, although admittedly to varying degrees of success. I remember vividly that an African country even openly declared that it would recognize the results of the referendum of a territory trying to declare independence only if the results were in favor of continuing sovereignty of that country over the territory, and not otherwise. That was no way to resolve a dispute, for it essentially precluded any compromise, and the wishes of the local people of the territory, who should decide their own fate in the spirit of self- determination, were summarily disrespected. During my international career, I also came across yet another regional territory which, in an internationally monitored referendum, voted overwhelmingly for independence, but the subsequent process toward such independence also became a very bloody one, with scars still visible even today.
And that is precisely the point. My native experience of having grown up and now substantially living in Sabah would also realistically inform me that in such a referendum, Sabahans are likely to vote overwhelmingly in favor of staying in Malaysia. Would this then put the dispute over sovereignty of Sabah to rest? Or would it continue to fester and break out from time to time, as is the case now, again?
The two neighboring countries are and should forever be the best of friends and allies. Protracted diplomatic tussles are regrettable but they are useful if they stay true to their original meaning, namely being diplomatic and not beyond. Wars of words are also displeasing but they admittedly serve as channels for venting pent- up frustrations, but all sides should work hard not to let them escalate into wars of arms. There are many other, much more pressing and insidious, common challenges facing the two neighbors, and they have to remain in the best of speaking terms.