Secession for Sarawak?

From FMT:

Hold referendum on Sarawak quitting Malaysia, GPS urged

by Larissa Lumandan

An aerial view of the Sarawak state assembly building. SUPP Youth says the state should not continue being ‘subservient’ to Putrajaya

(Bernama pic)

KUCHING: A component party of Sarawak’s ruling coalition has suggested a referendum on the state’s future in Malaysia in the event of a deadlock in negotiations with Putrajaya over the equality of partnership in the Malaysian federation.

Speaking to FMT, SUPP Youth secretary-general Milton Foo urged the coalition, Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS), to set a time frame for the negotiations.

Putrajaya should not expect the state to go on being subservient to it, he said.

“We cannot allow Malaya to continue to prosper at the expense of Sarawak and Sabah,” he added.

SUPP Youth secretary-general Milton Foo 

He claimed he had spoken to people on the ground and found that many believed Sarawak should leave Malaysia “if the federal government refuses to return to us what we deserve under the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 (MA63)”.

He also said he had always believed that MA63 was signed in a rush. “Our forefathers were right when they wanted Sarawak to gain its independence before negotiating with Malaya or Singapore to form the federation.”

Francis Paul Siah, who heads the Movement for Change in Sarawak, agreed on the idea of a referendum.

Francis Paul Siah
(also columnist for Malaysiakini) 

“The present generation of Sarawakians did not decide in 1963 to team up with the others to form Malaysia,” he said.

He told FMT it was known to him and many others that there were elements in GPS who were in favour of the state’s secession from Malaysia.

He attributed this to heightened patriotism and growing discontent with Putrajaya over allegedly racial and religious-based policies.

Secession!

What do you, my dear readers, think?

It's not only 'some' Sarawakians who want secession from the Peninsula but also 'some' Sabahans, and I suspect, Johoreans too (wakakaka).

Years ago, prior to Merdeka (1957), Penangites wanted to remain outside Malaya, preferring to continue as a British Crown Colony or to have a political association with the British Empire or Singapore, but the Poms eff-ed that idea - not all wannabe secessionists were Chinese as Indians, Indian Muslims and Eurasians also supported an independent Penang.

Wikipedia tells us (extracts only):

However, the merger of the British crown colony of Penang into the vast Malay heartland alarmed some quarters of Penang's population. Questions were raised over economic and ethnic issues, such as the citizenship of non-Malays, greater trade regulations imposed on Penang by the central government in Kuala Lumpur and the introduction of export duties for trade with the rest of Malaya.

Consequently, the Penang Secession Committee, formed in 1948, proposed to exclude Penang from the Federation of Malaya, which would allow Penang to either retain its links with the British Empire or form a political union with Singapore.

The movement was led by D.A. Mackay, then the chairman of the Penang Chamber of Commerce, and included the Penang Muslim Chamber of Commerce, the Penang Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Penang Straits Chinese Association, the Penang Eurasian Association and the Penang Indian Chamber of Commerce.

Ultimately, the Penang Secession Committee failed to attain its goals and petered out. A secession motion tabled in the Penang Settlement Council in 1949 was narrowly dismissed by British official votes, while another petition sent to London in 1951 also met with British disapproval.

While some British and American observers were sympathetic to the secessionists' cause, the British administrators were reluctant to jeopardise their own plans to gradually grant independence to a united Malayan polity. Moreover, the British government allayed the fears raised by the secessionists by guaranteeing George Town's free port status and by reintroducing municipal elections for the city in 1951.

On 1 January 1957, George Town, the capital of Penang, was granted city status by Queen Elizabeth II in 1957, becoming the first city within the Federation of Malaya, and by extension, Malaysia. George Town continued to be the only city within Malaysia (other than Singapore between 1963 and its Separation in 1965) until 1972, when Kuala Lumpur was also conferred city status.

[...]

As previously guaranteed by the British authorities, George Town's free port status was untouched in the years immediately after the Malayan independence.

The earlier fears by the secessionists eventually came true, however, when in 1969, the free port status was suddenly revoked by the Malaysian federal government. 

Consequently, 16.4% of Penang's working population became unemployed as the Port of Penang's trade volume plummeted, adversely affecting George Town's services sector. In the long run, this also marked the beginning of George Town's slow, decades-long decline, which was only recently reversed.

The revocation of George Town's free port status, coupled with an unsuccessful, bloody strike by Penang's unions in 1967, led to a loss of popular support for the Alliance amongst Penangites.

During the 1969 State Elections, then an opposition party, was voted into power in Penang, replacing the Alliance. The party's founder, Lim Chong Eu, succeeded Wong Pow Nee as the Chief Minister of Penang.

However, the violent race riots in Kuala Lumpur following the concurrent Malaysian General Elections led to the nationwide imposition of martial law and the functions of the Penang state government were taken over by the National Operations Council until 1971.

And all for the same reason, namely, over alleged racial and religious-based policies, that have left most of these dissenters very unsatisfied and unsure of their 'future' in such a bigoted Malaysia, Sarawakians today seem to have a proclivity towards secession and independence (from Malaysia).

There is also an element of 'we can do better ourselves' in arriving at such a drastic decision, inspired by and most likely to be modelled after Singapore.

Personally I've been one who has been strongly against secession, especially by Sarawak and Sabah, for the reason I've often stated, to wit, that my uncles and their peninsular mateys in uniform had shed blood, toil, tears and sweat during Confrontation, and thus, I admit, I have been very much influenced by their emotional attitude towards secession.

How sad for them to learn of Sarawakians or/and Sabahans wanting to tear themselves away from the Peninsula, from the very people who fought for them and their freedom against the grasping greedy oppressive hands of the Indons and Pinoys

But obviously, things have changed since 1963 and the Sarawakians (and Sabahans) feel differently today.

Recently in Facebook, I came across a comment made by Tunku Aziz, formerly of the DAP, wakakaka. Like me he was once a pro DAP man, had even served as a DAP-nominated senator, but alas, left the Rocket Party on acrimonious terms.

On Sarawak he said (words to the effect) Sarawakians should be allowed to leave Malaysia if they so wish, and for them to build a new country of their own.

I was somewhat taken aback by Tunku's comments, but after reflecting on his elderly wisdom I began to make sense out of them. Yes, in the words of Tunku, if Sarawakians feel they want to leave they should be allowed to, notwithstanding my uncles' and their mateys' undoubted sadness. What's the point of holding back Sarawak if Sarawakian hearts are not with Malaysia?

In recent times, some like Jeffrey Kitingan even dream of a Pan-Borneo Island people grouped together in both political, cultural and ethnic union. Jefferey Kitingan is President of the Borneo Dayak Forum (BDF) and wants to form such a political-social-cultural-ethnic union of Dayak people (including all Sabahan natives eg. Muruts, Kadazan, Dusuns, etc).

But he was eff-ed off, with a Sabahan political scientist saying:

“I am very sure that the people who identify themselves as Kadazandusun, Mamasok, Momogun, etc, would oppose to being clumped under Dayaks. We have fought for our ethnicity when the federal government ticked Sabah natives as ‘dan lain-lain’ in the government forms – why should we now be lumped together as Dayaks?

“Jeffrey cannot even unite his own Kadazandusun people and now he wants to unite the ‘Dayaks’ of Borneo under one roof.”

Wakakaka, Jeffrey Kitingan was even barred from entering Sarawak in 2017, but then he has been known to have fantasized political ambitions.

OK, back to Sarawak - Assuming Putrajaya can ever bring itself to peacefully release Sarawak from its federation via a referendum to its new sought fate and sovereignty a la Czech with Slovakia, and Baru Bian himself said it may be legally difficult, I urge the Sarawakians not to make the same mistake as the United Kingdom (Britain and Northern Ireland) in its Brexit.

Don't leave by a simple majority in a referendum. It will make for a large group of unhappy Sarawakians and thus a very divided state as Britain is today.

The Australian model requires that to pass a referendum, the bill must ordinarily achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states (i.e. 4 out of 6 states).

In circumstances where a state is affected by a referendum, a majority of voters in that state must also agree to the change. This is often referred to as a "triple majority".

Canada, in simple explanation, requires 7 out of its 10 provinces to agree, or two-thirds of voters.

A simple majority as per the Brexit decision, 51.89% for 'Leave' to 48.11% for 'Remain' (a margin of only 3.78%), was not a good result to make a decision to 'Leave'. It means Brexit will be against the wish of nearly half of the population (48.11%), a very unpopular decision to half the British people. 

By regions, while England and Wales voted to leave, a hefty 60% of Londoners said 'no'. Scotland and Ireland also said 'no', so again two regions (half of Britain's 4 regions) objected to leaving Europe.

The Canadian model seems the best as it requires approximately 2/3 affirmation, meaning the clear and distinct support of the majority of Canadian people.

Czech and Slovakia 

Should Sarawakians one day arrive at an approved referendum to leave Malaysia, I would strongly recommend that the referendum must require a two-thirds majority to pass the 'Leave Malaysia' motion. That will minimise the 'unhappy to leave' segment.

Secondly, I would also recommend the UN be involved in the transition and a selected group of neutral nations (members of UN) be invited to assist, oversight and protect Sarawak as a new sovereign state, until she is ready to defend herself.

Don't ever choose these nations to oversight a new Sarawak, wakakaka, namely:

(1) USA (including Canada),

(2) China,

(3) Japan,

(4) Russia (including former East European nations),

(5) UK (wakakaka),

(6) France, Holland (Netherlands), Spain & Portugal.

(7) All Asian and especially ASEAN nations,

(8) Australia.

There are many reasons but mostly of those nations' predatory interests and colonial/oppressive historical associations in this region (or their own), wakakaka.

I would recommend Scandinavian nations, Germany, New Zealand. They have been very neutral.

 

Lastly and very importantly, I wonder how Sarawakians will deal with Peh Mor, wakakaka. Putrajaya today won't touch him, but with an independent Sarawak, he will become the new Sarawak nation's problem, so the people there must deal with him and family as they see fit, to ensure he does NOT become the default Dictator, and more importantly, for the new nation to prosper without his greedy grasp lurking around, wakakaka.

Good luck.

After-note (extracts from Malaysiakini):

The government can take action under the Sedition Act against those involved in movements that attempt to get Sarawak to secede from Malaysia, Dr Mahathir Mohamad said.

However, in line with its policy to promote freedom of speech, the prime minister said Putrajaya would only use the Act in extreme cases, where such calls jeopardise the country's security and public order.

"In line with the government's policy to promote freedom of speech as per Item 1 of Article 10 in the Federal Constitution, the use of provisions under the Sedition Act will only be utilised in cases where an act of sedition creates a situation that is beyond control that it jeopardises the security and public order," Mahathir said in a written reply released in Parliament yesterday.

He was replying to a question from Alice Lau Kiong Yieng (DAP-Lanang) who asked what action the government could take against those who call for the secession of Sarawak, and if such secession is allowed by the Federal Constitution and Malaysia Agreement 1963.

In his answer, Mahathir said several other laws under the Penal Code, including Section 121 for waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, could also be used to deal with the matter if it involved an act or the preparation for an act of violence, such as the use of firearms.

According to the written reply, there was also no provision under the Federal Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 or the Inter-Governmental Committee Report that touched on any rights by Sabah and Sarawak to secede from Malaysia.

The right to secede from Malaysia was also not suggested for the terms in Malaysia's formation, as could be seen in the Cobbold Commission Report, Mahathir pointed out.