20-point agreement

The 20-point agreement, or the 20-point memorandum, is a list of 20 points drawn up by North Borneo, proposing terms for its incorporation into the new federation as the State of Sabah, during negotiations prior to the formation of Malaysia. In the Malaysia Bill of the Malaysia Agreement some of the twenty points were incorporated, to varying degrees, into what became the Constitution of Malaysia; others were merely accepted orally, thus not gaining legal status. The 20-point agreement often serves as a focal point amongst those who argue that Sabah's rights within the Federation have been eroded over time.[1]

Background

Under an agreement signed between Great Britain and the Federation of Malaya the issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak formed a challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. A Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961 announced that before coming to any final decision it was necessary to ascertain the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak. It was decided to set up a Commission to carry out that task and to make recommendations.

The British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cobbold.[2] An inter-governmental committee (The Lansdowne Committee) was appointed to work out the final details of the Malaysia Agreement. Lord Lansdowne served for Britain and Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya served for Malaya.[3]

The 20 points were written with a view to safeguarding the interests, rights, and autonomy of the people of North Borneo upon the formation of the federation of Malaysia. A similar proposal, with certain differences in content, was made by Sarawak, and is commonly referred to as the 18-point agreement.

Attention is often drawn to these memoranda by those who believe that their principles were not subsequently adhered to after federation. There have been numerous calls for the 20-point memorandum to be reviewed so as to take into account social, economic, and political changes over time.[4]

Brief timeline of related events

The Report of the Inter-Governmental Committee. On 1 August 1962

The 20 points

Point 1: Religion

While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.[8][9]

Point 2: Language

Point 3: Constitution

Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo was of course essential.[8][9]

Point 4: Head of Federation

The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.[9]

Point 5: Name of Federation

"Malaysia" but not "Melayu Raya"[9]

Point 6: Immigration

Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.[8][9]

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation.[9][10]

Point 8: Borneanisation

Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.[9][10]

Point 9: British Officers

Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo.[9][10]

Point 10: Citizenship

The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments:

Point 11: Tariffs and Finance

North Borneo should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.[9][10]

Point 12: Special position of indigenous races

In principle the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malaya formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo.[9][10]

Point 13: State Government

Point 14: Transitional period

This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government.[9][10]

Point 15: Education

The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control.[9][10]

Point 16: Constitutional safeguards

No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo

The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the state.[9][10] (Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourth majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient.)

Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament

This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its size and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore.[9][10]

Point 18: Name of Head of State

Yang di-Pertua Negara.[9][10]

Point 19: Name of State

Sabah.[9][10]

Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.

The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.[9][10]

Controversies

Point 7: Right of Secession

Article 2 of the Constitution of Malaysia states that the Parliament of Malaysia has the right to change the state boundaries or to admit any new states into the federation. However, there is no provision about the secession of states from the federation.[11] However, former International Islamic University Malaysia (PIHE) academic, Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, said that Article 2 of the Constitution also implies that the Malaysian Parliament has the final say on the secession of a state from the federation, as it did to Singapore in 1965.[12] Besides, any suggestions about secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia would be punishable under Sedition Act.[13]

Dr Jeniri Amir from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) stated that Sarawak and Sabah has no right to secede from the federation according to Point 7.[14] However, a separatist group led by Doris Jones said that the meaning of the word "should" as in "There should be no right to secede from the Federation" is only a recommendation as opposed to "shall" which implies a command.[15]

Point 18: Name of Head of State

In the Malaysia Agreement, the meaning of the term "Governor" included the title of the Head of State of Sabah, which was "Yang di-Pertua Negara".[16] This term was incorporated into the Constitution of Malaysia from 1963 to 1976. However, the Sarawak head of state was named "Yang di-Pertua Negeri" from 1963.[17]

On 27 August 1976, under Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia, the term "Governor" was abolished and replaced with "Yang di-Pertua Negeri".[18] This effectively ended the title of "Yang di-Pertua Negara" of Sabah. The Malay translation of the term "State" of Sabah and Sarawak has been "Negeri" (Federated states) instead of "Negara" (Nation) since 1963.[19]

Nevertherless, some groups argue that Sabah and Sarawak should be called "Negara" (Nation), and the head of state called "Yang di-Pertua Negara", on the basis that Sarawak achieved independence on 22 July 1963 and Sabah achieved independence on 31 August 1963 before forming Malaysia together with Federation of Malaya on 16 September 1963. They believe that the head of state of Sabah being known as "Yang di-Pertua Negara" between 1963 to 1976 supports this view.[20][21][22][23]

Erosion of Borneo state rights

It appears that the Sarawak and Sabah rights have been eroded over the years since the Malaysia formation and taken by the federal government in Kuala Lumpur due to increasing centralization of administration and concentration of power by the same. The safeguards provided for Sabah and Sarawak by the 20/18 point agreements have not been adhered to or implemented by the federal government. The first Sarawak and Sabah Chief Ministers were removed and replaced for defending their national rights by amendment to the federal constitution and declaration of emergency which lasted until lifted recently. Now these state autonomy rights have cropped up again during the last elections and several movements like Sarawak for Sarawakians (S4S) and Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) have come up to champion the return to the original or true spirit and purpose of Malaysia formation i.e. Federation of Malaysia is an association of equal partners of federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore which has since ceded the federation. The purposes and grouses of these movements to call for the federal government to abide by the provision a of Malaysia Agreement have not been properly understood and entertained by the establishment and instead are seen as calling for secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia. It should be noted that Lord Cobbold has replied that "Secession is an intrinsic right in any union or partneship" when asked why secession was not included in the Malaysia agreement.

There are many glaring examples of erosion of Sabah and Sarawak rights and major noncompliances or deviations from the Malaysia Agreement by the federal government. The Malaysia Agreement is an international treaty between the parties involved and lodged with the United Nations. The first and foremost is the amendment of the federal constitution to downgrade the Sabah and Sarawak status from a separate, independent and sovereign nations or countries before formation of Malaysia to merely 12th and 13th states within Malaysia which are equivalent in status to each of 11 states in the preceding Federation of Malaya.

Subsequently, the federal government forms the "consolidated funds" whereby Sabah and Sarawak have to surrender all their national revenues collected within their own nations to the central government every year before the federal budget is allocated to each state regardless of how much each state contributes to the federal coffer annually. As it turns out, most of the federal budget is allocated to Malaya while Sabah and Sarawak receive crumps eg in recent years' budget, RM100 billions to Malaya and 1 billion each to Sabah and Sarawak which is so disproportional to the contribution of revenues from each Sabah and Sarawak. It has been highlighted that according to the Malaysia Agreement, 40% of revenues from each Sabah and Sarawak must be returned or retained by these two nations for their respective expenditure and development. Therefore, Sabah and Sarawak have to be on their political feet to beg for budgets and allocations from the federal government whereas the money is originally revenues from their own nations in the first place.

Another example is the Petroleum Development Act of Malaysia which takes the oil rights from Sabah and Sarawak in exchange for a mere token of 5% oil royalty. There has been called to increase this amount to 20% but disagreed by the federal government. The National front at the Sarawak level has unanimously agreed in the Sarawak assembly to request for a 20% increase in oil royalty but the UMNO-led federal government objected to it.

Further, the federal government exerted its dominance and transgression with the Malaysia Agreement when it takes the education matters of Sarawak and Sabah to be under the federal government and thus followed by the change of the English medium of instruction by the Malay language, even the Borneo Literature Bureau has been replaced by the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (Language and Library Hall) from Malaya. It should be noted that more than 50% of federal scholarships allocated to Sarawak and Sabah students to pursue their education in local universities had allegedly no takers and as such went to students in Peninsular Malaysia. The situation was equally depressing for scholarships for overseas studies where Sarawak and Sabah could not fill their quota in 2008 and 2011 for overseas scholarship. There were complaints from Dayak students who scored above average results but who had their applications for scholarships rejected. Why can't the rule be lowered to average results so that they can have a chance to fill in their quota? After all, Sabah and Sarawak are the training grounds for teachers from Malaya who transferred to Malaya after 2 or 3 years and a new cycle is repeated. Only recently MARA colleges are set up in Sarawak wher MARA stands for Maljis Amanah Rakyat (People Trust Council). MARA colleges in Malaya produce Malay students with excellent results which can opt to study overseas under the Joint Program of the Malaysian Public Service Department.

From these on, the federal government went on rampage to centralize almost all matters into their hands like housing, museum, tourism and so forth except perhaps land, forestry and immigration matters still retained by the respective Sabah and Sarawak governments, perhaps mostly in exchange for signing of the Petroleum Development Act which centralizes the oil rights with the federal government.

In order to control and dominate the politics in Sabah after the Sabah-based Parti Bersatu Sabah (Sabah Unity Party) declared itself to exit the National Front which forms the federal government on the eve of the polling day in 1994 national election, the federal government through its own controlled department of national registration secretly embarked on issuing Identity Cards under project IC or M where IC stands for Identity Card and M stands for Mahathir who was the prime minister of Malaysia at the material time to foreign nationals from Philippines, Indonesia and perhaps Pakistan or India as long as they are muslim or converted to muslim. In pratie, there is a widespread Islamization among the initially nonmuslim natives in Sabah since the Donald Stephens' and Mustapha's government. This initiative changes the demography of Sabah forever, from the fact that the majority population in Sabah is the Christian KadazanDusunMurut community to muslim majority and exponentially soars the Sabah total population from about 1 million pre-Malaysia to almost 4 millions by now while the Sarawak population increases incrementally. By this, the federal party UMNO (United Malay National Organization) manages to easily win both state and national elections to elect state assemblymen and members of the Malaysian parliament. Now, the Pairin's party has rejoined the Sabah National Front coalition and Pairin made the Sabah deputy chief minister. In Sarawak, the politics is still favourable to the ruling party and UMNO because the backbone of the state politics is still controlled by the Sarawak-based PBB (Parti Pesaka Bumipuetra Bersatu) which is a member of the 13 component parties of the National Front (Barisan Nasional) which is symbolized by the scale (dacing) graphic. It is envisioned if PBB is ever lost power to the opposition bloc, UMNO will spread its wing into Sarawak in order to maintain the Malay supremacy and political power therein.

It should be further noted that Christian Chief Ministerships of Sabah and Sarawak have not lasted long as both the first Sabah and Sarawak Chief Ministers i.e. Donald Stephens and Stephen Kalong Ningkan were removed from office and replaced with pro-federal hand-picked puppets due to friction and disagreements with the central government with regards to Sabah and Sarawak autonomy rights which are enshrined in the federal constitution and related documents like the 20/18 point agreements. In Sabah, Donald Stephens was replaced by Mustapha while in Sarawak, Stephen Kalong Ningkan was replaced by the soft-spoken Tawi Seli before being replaced by muslim Abdul Rahman Yaacop. Later, the same scenario happens again to when the caretaker chief minister of Sabah, Joseph Pairin Kitingan who won the majority of state constituencies was not immediately sworn in as the chief minister but his archrival Mustapha was sworn in by the pro-federal government Sabah governor even Mustapha won the minority number of seats. Mustapha was hoping for or expecting some assemblymen from the Pairin's camp to defect or jump party to Mustapha's camp. However, this did not occur but subsequently, the tactic of enticing and defection did crumple the Sabah government formed by Pairin's party. Are Christian Sabahan or Sarawakian not eligible or competent enough to become chief ministers or their tenures were shortened because they defend their rights and stick to the true purpose and spirit of Malaysia formation?

Another unequal sharing of political power and thus wealth among the natives of Sabah and Sarawak is the post of Sabah and Sarawak governors which have been held and dominated by only muslim individuals since Malaysia formation until now. Initially Christian individuals like Donald Stephens and Abang Louis have converted before their respective appointments as the Sabah and Sarawak governors respectively so their names have been changed into Malay names i.e. Fuad Stephens and Abang Sallehuddin. Alfred Jabu Anak Numpang retired from active politics prior to Sarawak 2016 election, will he be ever appointed as the next Sarawak governor in return for his loyalty to ruling National Front for over 40 years and his tenure as the Sarawak deputy chief minister after the Ming Court affair in 1987 which is almost 30 years long? As of now, he is going to be appointed as the Sarawak governor. He has been bypassed to be promoted as the next Sarawak chief minister to replace his boss Taib Mahmud. Jabu's name was not even not the list of three names endorsed by PBB supreme council to replace Taib. The name list contains Adenan Satem, Abang Johari, and Awang Tengah, all are muslim. Adenan was handpicked by Taib to replace him, perhaps most likely due to family close relation and to protect the interests of Taib and his family and the Laut/Melanau elite group within PBB in Sarawak especially their wealth accumulated during Taib's 33 years tenure as Sarawak chief minister and the coming government funds and projects. One of Taib's sons is estimated to be a billionaire with 70,000 hectares of state land and ordered to pay RM30 millions to his ex-wife in their recent divorce settlement court case. Does this suggest that nonmuslim or Christian individuals are not qualified or eligible to be appointed as Sabah and Sarawak governors? Are these posts of governors reserved for muslim only? Nonmuslim natives can accept and agree that noen of them may become the king (agung) of Malaysia but noteligible to become the governor is too much bitter salt to chew on and to be quite not to complain. Why can't the post be rotated between muslim and nonmuslim natives of Sabah and Sarawak in fairness and justice to all?

There were supposed to be no official religion in Sabah and Sarawak as per the 20/18 points. In Sabah, this was changed to make Islam as the official religion of Sabah during Mustapha's tenure as the Sabah chief minister. Sarawak has not changed this point but the official website of Sarawak government stated Islam as its official religion until pointed out the opposition in the Sarawak state assembly recently. Sarawak's right to use English in official matters in addition the national language of Malay has only been reexerted by the Sarawak government on the eve of Sarawak election 2016 after pointed by again the opposition.

The Malaysian country’s coffers had run dry after channelling public funds for 1MDB loan repayments and that was the reason the Goods and Service Tax (GST) was implemented in 2015 by the federal government. Prior to the introduction of the GST, the Sales and Service Tax (SST) was collected by the Sarawak and Sabah governments and used purely for the welfare of Sarawak and Sabah citizens. Now, the SST has been abolished and the new GST is collected by the federal government.

All the above changes effectively cease the control and independence of Sarawak and Sabah rights to manage their own affairs of finance, tariff and development and other safeguards contained in the 18/20 points agreements. According to the Malaysia Agreement, there is the Federal List, Sarawak List and Concurrent List as far as powers and autonomy of federal and state governments are concerned. Among those included under the Sarawak List are land rights, agriculture, forests, local government, state holidays, water supply and resources, library and museum. The federal government is supposed to be responsible for internal security, defence and foreign affairs.

The above changes in policy have been disguised as necessary and required to have uniform and ease administration throughout the federation but these can also be seen as neo-colonization of Sabah and Sarawak by Malaya in reality and practice after the colonial British left.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Abdication of Responsibility: The Commonwealth and Human Rights, United States of America: Human Rights Watch, October 1991, pp. 33–34, ISBN 1-56432-047-2, retrieved 15 September 2010
  2. ↑ Cobbold was Governor of the Bank of England from 1949 to 1961. The other members were Wong Pow Nee, Chief Minister of Penang, Mohammed Ghazali Shafie, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Abell, former Governor or Sarawak, and David Watherston, former Chief Secretary of the Federation of Malaya.
  3. ↑ Bastin, John Sturgus (1979). Malaysia; Selected Historical Readings. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9783262012165.
  4. ↑ "Sabah, S'wak urged to review agreements". Daily Express. 21 December 2004. Retrieved 15 September 2010.
  5. ↑ Cobbold Commission (1962). "Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962" (pdf). DigitaLibrary. DigitaLibrary Malaysia. Retrieved 16 September 2010.
  6. ↑ A J Stockwell (2004), p.377
  7. 1 2 A J Stockwell, ed. (2004), British Documents on the End of Empire, B 8, Norwich, UK: TSO (The Stationery Office), pp. 386 [141], ISBN 0 11 290581 1, retrieved 16 September 2010
  8. 1 2 3 4 A J Stockwell, ed. (2004), British Documents on the End of Empire, B 8, Norwich, UK: TSO (The Stationery Office), p. 624, ISBN 0-11-290581-1, retrieved 30 July 2012
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Luping, Herman James (1985). The Kadazans and Sabah Politics (PDF) (Ph.D.). Political Science Department at the Victoria University of Wellington. p. 61. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ram Bahadur Mandal, ed. (1990), Patterns of Regional Geography: An International Perspective 3, New Delhi: Concept Publishing, pp. 252–254, ISBN 81-7022-292-3, retrieved 15 September 2010
  11. ↑ Ann Surin, Jacqueline (15 January 2014). "Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat:Can Sabah or Sarawak Secede?". The Nut Graph. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
  12. ↑ Anbalagan, V (17 February 2014). "Not easy for Sabah, Sarawak to leave Malaysia, says constitutional expert". The Malaysian Insider. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
  13. ↑ Surach, G (17 February 2014). "Rahman Dahlan: Seditious to suggest that Sabah, Sarawak secede". The Star (Malaysia). Retrieved 28 September 2014.
  14. ↑ "SABAH, S'WAK SECESSION: Really just a 'vocal minority' or is Putrajaya lying to itself?". Malaysia Chronicle. 17 February 2014. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
  15. ↑ Jones, Doris (17 February 2014). "SHOULD vs SHALL - A Consideration for Point 7:Right of Secession". Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM). Retrieved 28 September 2014.
  16. ↑ Wikisource link to Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/Annex A. Wikisource.
  17. ↑ Choong Wah, Lang (15 January 2014). "Federal system of Malaysia-Then and Now". The Rocket. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
  18. ↑ Blaustein, A.P., Flanz, G.H.(1971). In Constitutions of the Countries of the World. Oceana Publications. p.298. Google Book Search. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
  19. ↑ "Perlembagaan Persekutuan Akta 1260/2006 (The Federal Constitution revision as of 2006) (Malay language), Page 181" (PDF). Centre for Public Policies Studies. 2006. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
  20. ↑ Rintod, Luke (24 January 2011). "Negara, not negeri, status for Sabah". Free Malaysia Today. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
  21. ↑ Goliu, Percy (17 September 2014). "Doris explains Sabah ‘secessionist’ Facebook drive". Free Malaysia Today. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
  22. ↑ Jones, Doris (25 May 2012). "Sabah&Sarawak Kehilangan Kuasa Kemerdekaan?Kehilangan Taraf Negara? (Malay language)". Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM). Retrieved 24 September 2014.
  23. ↑ Way, Winston (15 January 2014). "Governor should be ‘Yang DiPertuan Negara’". Free Malaysia Today. Retrieved 24 September 2014.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, May 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.