There’s a saying that oil and water do not mix. Apply this saying to Sarawak’s position in the ‘Federation of Malaysia’ and it’s obvious that there are undeniable and glaring differences between Sarawak and Malaya – from the demographic, socio-economic and even religious perspectives.
The Federation of Malaysia was largely an arranged marriage of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak in 1963 – a hastily arranged marriage, to be more precise.
Our British ‘parents’, perhaps out of genuine concern that Malaya may not treat Sarawak as equal ‘marriage partners’ decided to offer some protection via the Malaysia Agreement – a pre-nuptial agreement of sorts.
As like most hastily arranged marriages, it was done out of necessity and circumstances, rather than love.
Not surprisingly, relations had seemingly been strained over the years, with neglect, inequitable development, racial and religious polarisation threatening to separate, rather than unite us.
So much so that arguments even arose whether this MA63 is still valid after Singapore’s exit from the Federation in 1965, leaving Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak as the remaining founding partners.
In a business partnership, the withdrawal of a partner automatically dissolves the partnership – as in ‘all for one and one for all’ – the act of one partner binds all the others, including the act of separation.
In the context of countries, it will likely culminate in a protracted legal and constitutional tussle at the international courts, for better or for worse.
Sentiments are running high among Sarawakians after years of indifference and unfulfilled promises by the federal government towards our Fairland Sarawak.
As mentioned in my previous article, what we have practised correctly over the ages in the Sarawak spirit of unity in diversity had lately come under threat, no thanks to the ‘Malayan and Arab’ culture creeping into our ‘Negara Sarawak’.
What’s ‘Sarawak for Sarawakians’ when we choose to adopt practices, dressings and culture alien to ours?
Need I elaborate on them? I don’t think so as we are generally aware of them.
It’s about time that Sarawakians should have a bigger say as an equal founding partner as regards the inequitable distribution of wealth and development over the past 55 years.
We cannot deny that most of these shortcomings stemmed from our continued subservience to Putrajaya, resulting in the erosion of our rights and status.
More could have been done notwithstanding the land size, sparse population and ‘lack of funds’, which seemed more like excuses than genuine reasons.
As the saying goes – ‘if there’s a will, there’s a way’.
Political will, and even courage, appear lacking in dealing with Putrajaya, notwithstanding our professed status as an ‘equal founding partner’.
What is stopping us from demanding what are rightfully ours?
Why do we keep blaming Petronas for stealing our oil and gas resources when we had voluntarily vested ownership with them?
On the other hand, why are we not reclaiming ownership when we strongly believe that PDA74 is irrelevant to Sarawak?
Legally or illegally, the oil and gas are flowing into Petronas’ coffers, not Petros’ – set up to enable the state government to participate directly in the O&G industry in Sarawak within the two years or so.
While we cannot keep referring to the past, we must, collectively send a strong message to our leaders in Putrajaya that we will not accept anything less but full compliance and implementation of the terms and conditions of MA63.
MA63 can no longer be used as a political marketing tool to fish for votes – Sarawakians must not be held to ransom on this.
‘While we cannot keep referring to the past, we must, collectively send a strong message to our leaders in Putrajaya that we will not accept anything less but full compliance and implementation of the terms and conditions of MA63.’
We want a Sarawak free from the divisive disease of religious radicalisation and racial disunity.
We want our voices to be heard and concrete action taken to fulfill our aspiration under MA63.
There have even been calls for a referendum to review Sarawak’s position within Malaysia, and timely too.
While some federal leaders have maintained that secession is against the Constitution, legal and constitutional experts argue that the right to join the federation carries with it the intrinsic right to secede.
Even Tun Mahathir mentioned that there is nothing to stop Sarawak and Sabah from leaving Malaysia.
While we look for an amicable solution to these thorny issues, they do make Sarawak appear like a square peg in a round hole.
That may be the truth behind the whole problem, since 1963.
Any marriage not built around love will surely turn rocky – Sarawak is obviously no exception.
We pray for healing under the new federal government’s nation re-building.
But accommodating a square peg in a round hole is obviously getting us nowhere.
