FMT:
Sanusi should move on
Kedah menteri besar Sanusi Nor’s territorial claim over Penang, even if based on historical records, proves sticky.
The claim by Kedah menteri besar Sanusi Nor that Penang belongs to Kedah and his call to amend the Federal Constitution to reflect this is, to say the least, interesting.
Last Monday, Sanusi again asserted that Kedah “owns Penang”, citing the annual payment that Penang pays Kedah and historical records as proof.
Those who have read Malaysian history would know that the Kedah sultanate leased Penang island and Province Wellesley to the British in 1791 for 10,000 Spanish dollars. Later, the East India Company acquired this territory from the Sultan of Kedah in exchange for military protection and an annual payment in perpetuity.
Even this is contentious, with some claiming that Siam ceded Penang island and Province Wellesley to the British in a treaty in 1826. But I don’t wish to get into that quagmire.
According to a FMT report, after Merdeka, the federal government began paying an annual honorarium of RM10,000 to the Kedah government. The amount was increased to RM10,010,000 in 2018 by the government of then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Following his claim, and Penang residents getting riled up, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim rightly pointed out that Penang was listed as one of the 13 states of the Federation of Malaysia in the Federal Constitution.
Anwar told Sanusi to “understand the Federal Constitution”. Now that was a slap in the face, surely. For one would expect a lawmaker to know and understand the supreme law of the land.
The first Article in the Federal Constitution clearly states that the federation shall be called Malaysia, and then lists the states making up Malaysia. Penang is on that list.
Sanusi shot back at Anwar by saying historical and academic studies supported his claim that Kedah owned Penang and that there was a need to rectify the “distortion of history”. He then called for the Federal Constitution to be amended to reflect this.
“Given that the Federal Constitution can be amended in Parliament to accommodate present needs, why should the discovery of strong evidence be disregarded simply because of what is written in the constitution?” he asked.
I can’t help wondering why he started a public quarrel with Penang rather than taking up the matter with the federal government and Penang at some meeting or other, or requesting that it be discussed in a civil manner. There is no need for drama, surely.
But let us not forget that this is not the first time someone from Kedah has asked for the return of Penang. Every now and then, someone from Kedah brings this up.
While it could be an emotional issue for some people, we must acknowledge that Penang is a self-governing state within the federation. The constitution says so and it has also been the practice since 1957 when Malaya gained independence.
At the same time, having worked and lived in Kedah for a few years, I understand why some Kedahans want it back. If Dindings, then a part of the Straits Settlements, could be returned to Perak, why not return Penang to Kedah?
But it’s too late now.
As lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla told FMT on Oct 29, 2021, Kedah lost its right to reclaim Penang when it signed the Federation of Malaya agreement in 1948 along with other Malay states.
He also said the Kedah ruler signed another Malayan federation agreement in 1957 but did not make any territorial claim over Penang.
“Furthermore, the Federal Constitution recognises the state of Penang as having rights equal to any other state in the country,” Haniff said.
And as Jelutong MP RSN Rayer noted on June 1, by calling for the constitution to be amended to reflect his claim, Sanusi had admitted that Penang was a sovereign state.
FMT quoted Rayer as saying: “Now he (Sanusi) is asking for the constitution to be amended. So, his claim (that Penang belongs to Kedah) is clearly baseless, lacking intelligence, and can lead to disruption to public order and chaos.”
Rayer went to the extent of saying Sanusi’s remarks could be interpreted as sedition. He wants the police to act on his report against the menteri besar.
The thing is, while we must learn lessons from history, we should look forward rather than backward.
Look at the problems created by the descendants of the Sulu sultanate who are still claiming that Sabah belongs to them. Does Sanusi want to go down that route?
On May 30, Inspector-General of Police Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani said police had initiated investigations against the self-proclaimed heirs of the Sulu Sultanate for alleged sabotage.
He said in a statement: “The police take a serious view on any elements that can threaten the country’s public safety, especially acts of sabotage to the security, sovereignty and stability of the nation.”
On March 14, Malaysia’s Sulu Special Secretariat said in a statement: “The claims are invalid, void and terminated by the exercise of the right to self-determination by the people of Sabah through the consultation of the Cobbold Commission in 1962 and the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.”
Let’s not forget that Malaysia and several Southeast Asian nations are being challenged over their territorial rights in the South China Sea by China which claims it has historical maritime rights over a vast expanse of this sea.
The fact is, there will be no end to it if everyone decides to claim what was once their territory. For instance, what if Thailand were to claim that Kedah belongs to it?
Thais, including some of their historians, have said in the past that the sultanates of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu had sent the “bunga mas” tribute to the Siamese rulers, acknowledging their vassalage.
Many Malaysian historians, however, contend that the “bunga mas” was an act of friendship and not an acknowledgement of vassalage, and that the Malay states were sovereign entities.
Again, it’s a contentious issue and I don’t wish to go there; and it can be argued that my examples involve foreign nations and this is a Malaysian affair. I concede that.
My point is that it’s all water under the bridge and Malaysia has moved on.
It’s time Sanusi moved on too.
Rather than looking at it from a Kedah perspective, he should consider it from a Malaysian perspective. Penang is still a part of Malaysia after all.
And if he feels so strongly about Kedah’s affinity with Penang, perhaps he should explore ways in which the two states can work closely together to benefit Kedahans.
Rather than attempting to reclaim territory at this late hour, Sanusi should expend his energies on ensuring Kedah progresses and Kedahans prosper.
Perhaps Putrajaya should hold discussions with Kedah and Penang to resolve this matter once and for all. It does nobody any good to waste energy on this issue every now and then.
Last Monday, Sanusi again asserted that Kedah “owns Penang”, citing the annual payment that Penang pays Kedah and historical records as proof.
Those who have read Malaysian history would know that the Kedah sultanate leased Penang island and Province Wellesley to the British in 1791 for 10,000 Spanish dollars. Later, the East India Company acquired this territory from the Sultan of Kedah in exchange for military protection and an annual payment in perpetuity.
Even this is contentious, with some claiming that Siam ceded Penang island and Province Wellesley to the British in a treaty in 1826. But I don’t wish to get into that quagmire.
According to a FMT report, after Merdeka, the federal government began paying an annual honorarium of RM10,000 to the Kedah government. The amount was increased to RM10,010,000 in 2018 by the government of then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Following his claim, and Penang residents getting riled up, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim rightly pointed out that Penang was listed as one of the 13 states of the Federation of Malaysia in the Federal Constitution.
Anwar told Sanusi to “understand the Federal Constitution”. Now that was a slap in the face, surely. For one would expect a lawmaker to know and understand the supreme law of the land.
The first Article in the Federal Constitution clearly states that the federation shall be called Malaysia, and then lists the states making up Malaysia. Penang is on that list.
Sanusi shot back at Anwar by saying historical and academic studies supported his claim that Kedah owned Penang and that there was a need to rectify the “distortion of history”. He then called for the Federal Constitution to be amended to reflect this.
“Given that the Federal Constitution can be amended in Parliament to accommodate present needs, why should the discovery of strong evidence be disregarded simply because of what is written in the constitution?” he asked.
I can’t help wondering why he started a public quarrel with Penang rather than taking up the matter with the federal government and Penang at some meeting or other, or requesting that it be discussed in a civil manner. There is no need for drama, surely.
But let us not forget that this is not the first time someone from Kedah has asked for the return of Penang. Every now and then, someone from Kedah brings this up.
While it could be an emotional issue for some people, we must acknowledge that Penang is a self-governing state within the federation. The constitution says so and it has also been the practice since 1957 when Malaya gained independence.
At the same time, having worked and lived in Kedah for a few years, I understand why some Kedahans want it back. If Dindings, then a part of the Straits Settlements, could be returned to Perak, why not return Penang to Kedah?
But it’s too late now.
As lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla told FMT on Oct 29, 2021, Kedah lost its right to reclaim Penang when it signed the Federation of Malaya agreement in 1948 along with other Malay states.
He also said the Kedah ruler signed another Malayan federation agreement in 1957 but did not make any territorial claim over Penang.
“Furthermore, the Federal Constitution recognises the state of Penang as having rights equal to any other state in the country,” Haniff said.
And as Jelutong MP RSN Rayer noted on June 1, by calling for the constitution to be amended to reflect his claim, Sanusi had admitted that Penang was a sovereign state.
FMT quoted Rayer as saying: “Now he (Sanusi) is asking for the constitution to be amended. So, his claim (that Penang belongs to Kedah) is clearly baseless, lacking intelligence, and can lead to disruption to public order and chaos.”
Rayer went to the extent of saying Sanusi’s remarks could be interpreted as sedition. He wants the police to act on his report against the menteri besar.
The thing is, while we must learn lessons from history, we should look forward rather than backward.
Look at the problems created by the descendants of the Sulu sultanate who are still claiming that Sabah belongs to them. Does Sanusi want to go down that route?
On May 30, Inspector-General of Police Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani said police had initiated investigations against the self-proclaimed heirs of the Sulu Sultanate for alleged sabotage.
He said in a statement: “The police take a serious view on any elements that can threaten the country’s public safety, especially acts of sabotage to the security, sovereignty and stability of the nation.”
On March 14, Malaysia’s Sulu Special Secretariat said in a statement: “The claims are invalid, void and terminated by the exercise of the right to self-determination by the people of Sabah through the consultation of the Cobbold Commission in 1962 and the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.”
Let’s not forget that Malaysia and several Southeast Asian nations are being challenged over their territorial rights in the South China Sea by China which claims it has historical maritime rights over a vast expanse of this sea.
The fact is, there will be no end to it if everyone decides to claim what was once their territory. For instance, what if Thailand were to claim that Kedah belongs to it?
Thais, including some of their historians, have said in the past that the sultanates of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu had sent the “bunga mas” tribute to the Siamese rulers, acknowledging their vassalage.
Many Malaysian historians, however, contend that the “bunga mas” was an act of friendship and not an acknowledgement of vassalage, and that the Malay states were sovereign entities.
Again, it’s a contentious issue and I don’t wish to go there; and it can be argued that my examples involve foreign nations and this is a Malaysian affair. I concede that.
My point is that it’s all water under the bridge and Malaysia has moved on.
It’s time Sanusi moved on too.
Rather than looking at it from a Kedah perspective, he should consider it from a Malaysian perspective. Penang is still a part of Malaysia after all.
And if he feels so strongly about Kedah’s affinity with Penang, perhaps he should explore ways in which the two states can work closely together to benefit Kedahans.
Rather than attempting to reclaim territory at this late hour, Sanusi should expend his energies on ensuring Kedah progresses and Kedahans prosper.
Perhaps Putrajaya should hold discussions with Kedah and Penang to resolve this matter once and for all. It does nobody any good to waste energy on this issue every now and then.
No comments:
Post a Comment