IGGG M to resolve or dissolve Malaysia after 52 years

The substance of the Spirit of Malaysia says it all with clarity Since Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nancy Shukri wants to see the evidence on any non-compliance with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and intergovernmental committee (IGC) report.[ Provide proof of breach first DE 19 September, 2015], I would like to respond as these long standing issues of 52 years need to be resolved promptly as this has impacted everyone in Malaysia especially Sabah and Sarawak as we need to re-make Malaysia from 16 September 2015 or otherwise following the Prime Minister signing the Malaysia Commemorative Book in Kota Kinabalu’s Merdeka Padang witnessed by the TYT of Sabah followed by the raising of the Jalur Gemilang signifying a fresh start of promises affirmed or otherwise. It was in the same place that the Proclamation of Malaysia was done 52 years ago. Was the Spirit of Malaysia seriously bruised or dented so much so that an affirmative action (possibly questioned) was done symbolically by the signing of the Commemorative Book after 52 years? What was the intention from August 1961, when it was first announcement by the founding Father Tunku Abdul Rahman when it was meant to be five in the proposed family of Malaysia and then the action was first pursued by the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC). Going through the various ideas and comments floating in recent years, it is likely that “Malaysia” is a red herring confirming all the breaches done ab initio. The Spirit of Malaysia at the formative years namely 1961- early1963 was at grave variance as soon as the Proclamation of Malaysia was declared on 16 September, 1963. Then we had the Malaysia Agreement 1963 where Emeritius Professor Datuk Dr. Salem Shad Faruqi said Malaysia Agreement is not an internal arrangement but international one and he said at the presentation of paper entitled “Constitutional Issues in Federal-State Relations’ at the Malaysia Federalism and the Way Forward closed door discussion organised by the Society Empowerment and Economic Development Sabah (SEEDS). It was to note that in the Proclamation of Malaysia on 16 September, 1963, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were still British colonies and not nations/parties to commit in International agreement. Was this a serious legal breach as null and void and no effect? If you study the Proclamation of Malaysia carefully, the first paragraph started with four partners(states)/nations and then ended with sort of vagueness to include other 11 states in the Federation of Malaya. Quote: “MALAYSIA comprising the States of Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johore, Negri Sembilan, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Perlis, Penang,[1] Malacca, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak shall by the Grace of God, ….” Was that the true Spirit of Malaysia from the start? Can we treat the Proclamation of Malaysia as sort of sabotage of the movement? We could see the form and substance in conflict precipitating great injustice as soon as Malaysia came into existence. This article would illustrate some of items of injustice or even a scam of sort. While another headline titled “ Now the moment for Sabah” by Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat at the same forum of SEEDS could encourage Sabahans to proceed further except to face the possibility of Sedition Act 1948 as amended or the section in penal code of 124 in the context of Parliament democracy. So to avoid such untenable and undesirable scenario occurring it is best that Cabinet bring this malaise of Malaysia as too many breaches right from the beginning to the Parliament’s next sitting after 52 years and forthwith go forward promptly to do the needfuls. Now after 52 years, it is likened that we need to call up those early leaders (some still living) and the spirits of those who had passed on to re-create the substance of the Spirit of Malaysia. Nevertheless, their spirits may not be visible amongst us but the spirit of the words in the formation of Malaysia and the implementation of Malaysia are very much with us as we can now see more books to be published to state the strong case of the Spirit of Malaysia. Dr. Salem went to say that “Even the words used by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak such as devolution and empowerment are inaccurate.” So in this context, we really need the appropriate action and performance accordingly to the original concept of Malaysia. So is this substance and its spirit emerging to clear all the doubts of 52 years? The other intention for Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore was the de-colonisation of the British Empire after the World War 2 which was possibly good but premature for Sabah and Sarawak as it was Brunei still a colony till 1984. So was this process of true independence followed through by the British and Malaya? Was United Nations Resolution No. 1541 principle 1X complied with? Was this a breach of sort in the international context? Was there a hidden agenda of sort wounding the Spirit of Malaysia as UN was also sort of helplessness or party to sort of “scam” emerging? Would UN now assess its own failing in the formation of Malaysia? There was the Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed on 9th July, 1963 but like all Agreements subject to breaches when the parties signing that Agreement could be influenced by whatever persuasions especially we were told by some of those who were involved then. This MA63 was obviously breached or even null and void and ineffective or unenforceable since the beginning with the Proclamation of Malaysia especially with the forced departure of Singapore on 7th August, 1965, and on 9th August, 1965, Singapore became a new nation. As we all known it is difficult to enforce any Agreement if there is a dominant party or parties. So likewise MA 63 was supported by a Malaysia Act 1963 passed in the UK Parliament. Was a similar Malaysia Act 1963 passed in the Malaya Parliament? Would it be any difference if an Act of the parliament is violated unlike an agreement? I leave this to learned legal scholars to tell us now. Another ongoing argument is that every thing done in all powerful Parliament would over write others such as the 20/18 points being the basis of the negotiation for the Spirit of Malaysia to be in place and possible the InterGovernmental Committee (IGC) report. In the absence of Malaysia Act 1963 in Malaya, the Parliament of Malaysia would amend anything as time passed by. So the Argument goes on unabated about Malaysia as 4 parties (Singapore included) or Malaysia of 13 units ranging from very big Sarawak and smallest Perlis. If the dispute had started with the Proclamation of Malaysia, it was sort of confirmed by an amendment in the Parliament on 27 August, 1976 so soon after the Double six plane tragedy over Sembulan, Sabah making Sabah and Sarawak as the 12 and 13 states of great diminished status in every respects and aspects within Malaysia. Why amend 13 years later in 1976? Another anomaly with Malaysia if we go the way of thinking of USA (Federal versus States), every states would have a state Government but Malaya from the outset did not maintain its own Government except what we see a Malaysian Government (Federal) overshadowing the Government of Singapore, Government of Sabah, and Government of Sarawak. So what does that tell us? Let the learned legal fraternity in Constitution law tell us of this anomaly of missing Malaya’s Government in term of Spirit of Malaysia. So much from me on the legal framework of the Spirit of Malaysia in the various documents as being exposed by some parties. Now I would go into the reality in the implementation of the true Spirit of Malaysia in the context of power and money as the actual direction of Malaysia in 4 or 3 partners rather than 13 states to share the spoilt. If we give prominence to the Federal Cabinet of Ministers as this connects to power, we would see this a pittance in terms of the number of Sabahans and Sarawakians holding cabinet posts then at the beginning and now. If Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak are 3 in 1, then each partner should have 12 Cabinet ministers each but how much do we have then and now? Search this spirit of power in the right number of clean hands. Also give the quantum of allocation of funds to the various ministries in the “clean” hands of Cabinet members of Sabah and Sarawak as compared with those of Malaya. I hope Nancy can provide such data for the 52 years. So I come to the financial aspect as in all Agreement, there is the financial consideration and implications of contributions and then the sharing of financial responsibilities – give or take or givers or takers? It was great impression at the preliminary negotiation that great help was forthcoming to Sabah and Sarawak being the much less developed partners and would like to remind our people what is recorded in the formative years namely:- Kuala Lumpur and London Talks on Malaysia- Agreement on Establishment of Federation by Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, and Sabah The financial question s previously in dispute between Singapore and Malaya were settled in the following manner: (1) 60 per cent of the Federal revenue collected in Singapore would be paid to the Singapore Government and 40 per cent to the Federal Government: (2) to assist development in the Borneo territories, Singapore would make available to the Federal Government a 15-year loan of 100,000,000 Malayan dollars, free of interest for the first five years, and a 15-year loan of 50,000,000 Malayan dollars at current market rates in the Federation (i.e. 150,000,000 Malaya dollars in all or about £17,500,000). (Source: Keesing's Contemporary Archives- November 2-9, 1963) So some of my questions would be as follows: Was the Sabah's portion fulfilled? Why the sharing proportion as with Singapore not applied to Sabah? Was Article 8, on the Intergovernmental Committee recommendations fully complied? Was Singapore expelled over Lee Kwan Yee retained as Prime Minister of Singapore holding much power to resources and Malaya unable to fulfil the promise of 60% of gross revenue after two years of trials? As a nation, revenue would go to the Central Government as was this case in Singapore vis-à-vis Malaya? Suddenly, Malaya is awaken by the Spirit of the 40% of net revenue (federal portion) arising in Sabah and Sarawak goes to both partners. Had the Federal Government considered this factor in its accounting system which is likely almost fully consolidated centrally since much earlier years? If that is the case how would the two partners get their shares hence financial breaches is of paramount importance as we will see later. Also a lot of federal revenues come from Sabah and Sarawak sources but not segregated for such basic accounting for 52 years. In response to the 40% net revenue to Sabah, MP of Kota Belud Rahman also Federal Cabinet Minister said Federal Government spends a lot of money in Sabah. I want Rahman to come up with a back up detailed paper on that statement and NOT talk to cheat others. I want to see a detailed balance sheet of Sabah revenue going to KL less the amount Sabah is getting from KL for as long as 52 years. In the balance sheet, please show the fund separately showing the Capital portion mainly for the development and Revenue expenditure to collect all the Federal revenue back to the KL coffers. For most development fund coming to finance Sabah projects, please indicate how much of that had been awarded to the companies in KL where a certain percentage already deducted before the fund come to Sabah for the target project. Your detailed paper would clear all the doubt when all Federal Allocation had been one of thirteen rather than one of three. If he knows history, he should learn that Singapore and Malaya owe Sabah in their pledges a lot of fund prior to 16th September, 1963. With accrued statutory interests of 8%, such promised fund could be tens of billions Ringgit. Would Singapore and Malaya make good such debts made in good faith then. Looking back Sabah had been cheated ab initio. So with some hindsight, I had done much research on private funding or sacrifice and came up with a revealing book “Sabah Wealth – image of wood power” in 2004 where I republished my article published in Daily Express titled “Sabah a case for review in the Msia Plans” 4th July 1999. For 30 years, from 1971 to 2000 in 6 Malaysia Plans, the equal partners of Sabah and Sarawak only got allocations of 5.58% and 6.11% respectively when Malaya got 88.3% out of a total of RM229billion. So the financial allocations without the return of 40% net revenue really spells out the real intention of Malaya side lining the Queen’s Obligations that partnership was fake. So it was an evil intention that an amendment was done in 1976 to confirm the question of Spirit of Malaysia. The financial allocations for Sabah in annual budget and the recent Malaysia Plans namely 8, 9 and 10 from 2001-2015 were clearly inadequate per capita when Federal Conspiracy had brought in one to two millions project IC holders in Sabah evident in the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCIIIS) 2012-2014 with a sort of “fake” Royal Report. The is clearly a breach of the partnership by a demographic felony or misdemeanour of Malaya as the well being of Sabah had been very much challenged and allegation of Genocide (ethnic cleansing & “apartheid”) is not unfounded when illegal given project IC become bumiputra overnight. Wither RCIIIS in 2015? The other major financial debacle is the Petroleum Development Act (Act 144) in 1974 could be construed as breach of MA63 as it was not there in 1963, and what followed with the oil agreement in 1976 of 5 % Royaty after the skyline “broken” over Sembulan and blood in the shallow water, we cannot accept that equal partners have to lose so much more to the dominant player. All these happened before the Parliament amended the Constitution to 12 and 13 states in 1976 and see how this conspiracy developed to cover up something which the Spirit of Malaysia did not expect to have happened when the expressive hope of much help for Sabah and Sarawak from Malaya and Singapore was dashed. Is there any silver lining now that PM had affirmed the Commemorative booklet after 52 years? Would Nancy be in the real position to handle the so many breaches of the Spirit of Malaysia in various context? Can we set up an Interim Good Governance Government Malaysia (IGGG M) to resolve or dissolve Malaysia in amicable atmosphere without any shouting and boasting. Was it the founder Tunku Abdul Rahman’s intention alone that Malaysia had turned out this way? He was still around in 1973-1976. Did he voice out anything? Now it would appear that Malaya had done it Malaya’s Way wounding the Spirit of Malaysia incredibly and not repayable or irreparable? So what is the way forward, Nancy? Obviously, there are a few options open in an Agreement even without going to Court as she urged. The options of various dimensions could be worked out like any breach of Agreement. What happen if the Constitution and the Acts of Parliament are breached? Is there really a Malaysia or the Spirit therof? One thing is for sure there is no stopping now after 52 years and possible to exert pressure for a reverse takeover to empower Sabah and Sarawak for the execution of MA63 to the letters and the Spirit thereof albeit 52 years later no matter the cost thereof. Joshua Y. C. Kong 23 September, 2015