We need to be honest, sincere and brave enough to face the facts. The Malaysia Agreement (MA63) was a pre-calibrated barometer to determine the nuances of who proposes and who opposes; who gains and who loses; who matters and who does not; who controls and who will be controlled, and who agrees or disagrees – as a major voice.
Decision-making is the key. It plays an obviously pivotal role. “Decision making is easy when your values are clear,” said Roy Disney. Were the values of Sabah and Sarawak evaluated, discussed and decided upon? How many local leaders participated in this endeavour? Is there a written record? If there is one, where is it?
If politics is all about a major and majority voice expressed through votes, was MA63 the result of a dedicated vote count, a British-controlled exercise (read: Cobbold Commission), a Malayan super-agenda, a communist threat inspired federation; or a Peoples’ Decision under the tenets, principles and strictures of representative democracy?
Other key questions arise: what law or laws dictated the decision-making process? Who decided what laws were to be followed? Were local customs and cultures consulted? Did Adat Iban factor in? Did anyone mention and invoke de facto rights enshrined in the doctrine of jus cogens?
While we are mulling over this, the overriding concern is whether the Federal Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, failed us the People: or have we, the People, as the supreme conscience of the land, failed it. Invoking and applying the supreme values of conscience require a new manifesto and mandate.
When we face the conundrum of whether the written constitution, or whether the unwritten conscience of the People has failed us, we invite another incendiary and unwanted question: did we fail as electors by consciously electing incompetents to rule and fool us? Short answer: both elector and the elected are duped and delusional!
To understand the pre-Malaysia formation era, it’s necessary to study and understand the sentiments of the People of Sarawak germane to the anti-cession movement in Sarawak that lasted from July 1946 and March 1950. After the defeat of the Imperial Japanese forces, the Brookes saw fit to cede Sarawak to the British Crown.
Was the British Crown eagerly wanting this? Were the Brookes tired after one hundred years of administration? Were the People of Sarawak consulted? Did Indonesia and Malaya have anything do with this considering the moves by Dr. Burhanuddin Al-Helmi? Many balls are still bouncing in the air. Waiting and guessing games were equally busy.
Once cession was announced, the People of Sarawak rose up in unison to express themselves in no uncertain terms. The Brookes must have felt saddened and confused as to why Sarawak was not very enthused or excited about British rule although the Brookes represented British culture and customs in their administration of Sarawak from 1841 to 1941.
The Japanese Occupation 1941-1946 must have given Sarawak a taste of external control by an alien force. Evidently, the Brookes were not perceived as an external threat because they encouraged the development of local customs, traditions where race and religion hardly mattered as a political bludgeon.
Mind you, Sarawak was not happy being ruled by Britain. They preferred the Brooke rule, apparently. The British government, intending to put an end to the anti-cession movement, tried to disrupt the close relationship between Malays and the indigenous Dayak people (read: divide-and-rule).
These were the same politicians who declared unity, peace, harmony and prosperity as a ritualistic requirement among various races. They also tried to weaken the movement by saying that the colonisation of Sarawak aimed to bring better life to Malays and encouraging the formation of the Young Malay Association (YMA), which supported the colonisation of Sarawak.
YMA members were picked at random from the anti-cession camp – if they refused to join, their children would be unable to attend school or work in the Civil Service. The British government also pursued psychological warfare against the anti-cession movement, causing it to decline from December 1947.
The second Governor of Sarawak, Duncan Stewart was assassinated in 1949 by Sibu born Rosli bin Dhobi, a plotter with the secret organisation dubbed Rakun 13. Anti-British hatred was strong. Secret documents say Rosli was planning a hostile takeover of Sarawak by Indonesia.
All this fracas, fear, animosity and uncertainty laid the framework and ground swell for including the Borneo Territories into Malaysia. Laws, rules, regulations, constitutions and treaty-making were no match to the politics of the times. Race played a heavy hand in every detail associated with the formation of Malaysia.
The hot issues were the Chinese majority in Singapore and the Malay majority in Malaya seemingly thwarting and threatening peace, partnership, progress and prosperity for Sabah and Sarawak. The short shrift, the shortfall and the short circuit for Sabah and Sarawak: territorial waters, oil, gas, timber and other natural resources.
Mark Twain summed it up neatly: “All the territorial possessions of all the political establishments in the earth consist of pilfering … No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no nation, howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not stolen.”
The word count does not grant me the necessary advantage to narrate the full story of the House of Commons Debate on the Second Reading on the Malaysia Bill of 19 July 1963 (Hansard Records).
It was aFriday which the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Nigel Fisher, was at pains to point out and that only a few Honorable Members were present as most were visiting their constituencies.
What was the hurry in pushing through this Bill? Lots of things were still to be done and finalized. Motive and agenda questionable. The Communists were not barging in from Indochina where the Vietnam War was increasing its staggering US troops involvement.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway, MP for Eton and Slough, rose to say that the dominant motive for Malaysia was to find an equitable balance between the Chinese majority in Singapore with the inclusion of the peoples of the Borneo Territories to not ruffle feathers with the Malayan Malay majority population!
Mr. Brockway made mention of the Manila Conference of Foreign Ministers where in an uneasy spirit of concord was felt. Then he said: One of my doubts about the way in which we are speeding this Bill through Parliament is the effect it will have on the relationship between Indonesia, the Philippines and Malayia….”
Mr. Brockway then mentioned that the Manila Conference documented a commitment to invite an independent and impartial authority in the person of the Secretary General of the United Nations to affirm and confirm the support of the people of the Borneo Territories for uniting with Malaysia.
The fact that pushing this Bill through in Parliament without the response of the United Nations Secretary General, the Philippines and Indonesia would make them feel that they have been rebuffed, affirmed Mr. Brockway.
The reader is invited at this juncture to see the big picture of what was going on in the minds of the shakers, fixers and movers. Of course, the big and ugly bogeyman was the terrifying Communist.
Mr. Brockway then said that even America was concerned about this Red scare. Really? Why then didn’t Uncle Sam send 25,000 military advisors (read: US Marines) to stand guard in the Borneo Territories to contain such threats? Nothing came out of this mere statement. Realpolitik all the way.
Hansard does not say whether the Brookes were consulted about the culture, customs and traditions of Sarawak. And why not? After all they were there for one hundred years (1841-1941).
But Hansard does say that Mr. Bottomley, MP for Middlesborough East, and Mr. Sorenson, MP for Leyton expressed “bemusement and bewilderment” that the support for Malaysia in Sarawak was 50-50!!
Part II will cover more of the Malaysia Bill Parliamentary Debate in the House of Commons on that fateful Friday.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
