Reply to Fernandez

By Chong Tet Loi

(Published in Daily Express Forum as “Never let extremists have their way” on 24 February 2013)

Many were amused by the article “Both these sultans never owned Sabah” by Joe Fernandez (Forum 17 February 2013). I personally was compelled to respond because the writer had not even had the courtesy to explain a bit on the criticism he leveled against me.

The article I wrote and Joe Fernandez referred to was “Ancestors of Migrants came via front door.” The content was case-specific. Similarly, I intend to keep this exchange case-specific and not deviate into a brain storming, show-off style.

Fernandez appears to deliberately ignore historical events in Sabah, especially the fact that Brunei extended its influence over Sabah for more than seven centuries. Moreover, the Chartered Company did not acquire Sabah in a once-and-for-all transaction but a number of moves ranging from the 1870’s to 1905.

Whether the sultans formerly owned Sabah or not, I leave it to all to judge for themselves. Their rights over Sabah were certainly respected by the colonialists and they painstakingly took care of the hurdles to their administration. Thanks to their prudence and contribution, the people of North Borneo could enjoy a long period of pax Britannica except the interruption of the Japanese occupation.

Historians look at the historical events and only then they form an opinion on the history of a particular place. Fernandez seems to confuse sovereignty or overlordship with forms of governance such as “Kerajaan Sungei.” As overlords of the territory, it was the sultans that could parcel out concessions in the form of “kerajaan sungei,” or they kept to themselves by collecting tolls themselves along the water ways under their influence.

“Kerajaan Sungei” had been prevalent in the Malay Peninsula and their existence had been well documented.  A number of leading Chinese pioneers were awarded such over tributaries in Malaya. James Brooke first acquired the territory around Kuching and the parcel was most likely fashioned after “Kerajaan Sungei.” His later acquisitions in Sarawak were definitely no more of that nature.

Had “kerajaan sungei” ever existed in North Borneo? The state of economy then could not sustain such. The historical literature and documents I have access to completely lacks such an example. Please alert me if anyone comes across one.

Malaya had it. Is it always right to assume that North Borneo was in the same region and therefore must also have the same things? It is just not accurate to arrive at statements about history of a particular place by mere inference or logical extension.

Fernandez made an interesting survey on the meaning of “land,” particularly in relation to ideas advanced by anthropologists and ethno-cultural theorists. He brought us a tour to America, New Zealand, Palestine, and Malaya, impressive indeed in knowledge of a global outlook. I have always lamented that a lot of our learnt are so well-versed about the outside while displaying conspicuous lack of understanding about their own land.

No matter how captivating, models in foreign countries are alien concepts and therefore highly inappropriate for adoption. While they are illuminating, they are also confusing us. In order to be fit for local consumption, its formulation must be based on and derived from indigenous knowledge or intellectual resources.

I have on and off come across local researchers expounding rudiments of this indigenous understanding of our land. If a comprehensive attempt is made to galvanize their findings, I am pretty sure a coherent system of the indigenous concept of land can be formulated. Such an outcome will easily bring about consonance and resonance among the various stakeholders and players, hence contributing to forging a convincing argument to consolidate cases of native customary right claims.

It is obvious that Fernandez had failed to appreciate the role of rhetoric and polemics which I choose to employ to convey intended messages. His criticism of merely and summarily saying that is “pointless” has not been kind to me especially in my discretion / wisdom in electing the type of literary genre to put across my message.

Rhetoric and polemics are established literary works that are popular and readily acceptable among the masses. They are powerful tools of communication. In very brief and simple text, I convey my ideas. They serve my purpose.

As a writer more accustomed with academic fashion, rhetoric and polemics are not my cup of tea. But I wrote this piece rhetorically and polemically because of the merits / demerits of the issue at hand. I was responding to an anonymous writer, a “faceless” character. His / her story would have been radically different if real name was used.

The said writer had touched an emotional subject in the sense that the illegals and the relevant political machination have inflicted serious wounds on the Sabahan society. The majority of the people of Sabah as a result become victims. Even if a deliberate attempt is initiated now to redress the problem, our wounds may also take two generations to heal.

Many people would like a stop of any further provocation that can worsen such wounds. The glorification of characters who perpetuated the infliction must be portrayed as an act of the wholly “OTHER.” In dissociating ourselves from the wholly “OTHER,” many thinking Sabahans definitely and resolutely take an uncompromising position in resisting these “OTHER.”

In his subsequent discussion, Joe Fernandez seems to harbour ill-will and envy against the half-natives especially the Sino. Cross marriages have been common and widespread in Sabah since the coming of the Chinese travelers dating back as early as a thousand years ago. Cross marriages take place across racial as well as religious borders; even Muslims and non-Muslims inter-marry liberally here. The community of half-natives is numerous indeed. Their numerical strength has contributed immensely to the integration and assimilation of the Sabahan society.

They are well represented also. During the nation-founding negotiation, Donald Stephens, a half-native, led the charge in the promotion of the interests of both the natives and the half-natives. Stephens and his half-native company succeeded in gaining for the said community bumiputra status and their privilege had been enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution. This epochal brilliant feat ushered well for racial integration in Malaysia.

Racial relation in Sabah had always been harmonious. Only after the formation of Malaysia and the development of racial politics along that of Malaya, we have a divisive society. Amidst all the communal turbulences in the nation, we are lucky for the existence of this large and critical mass of half-natives and their role in cementing the delicate fabric of our society. When the extremists advance their agenda at the expense of everybody, in Sabah, under influence of inter-racial blood ties, our sensible politicians and community leaders always rise to the occasion and serve the country well.

On the merit of biological ties, don’t half-natives have their birth rights also? In Sabah, the Orang Asal accept their half-brothers and sisters as equal members of their extended families. They are equally proud of each other and do not discriminate against each other. Because of this immense wealth of good will and harmony, the society in Sabah is the genuine epitome of One Malaysia, a concept which, ironically, is the battle cry of the hypocrites and lead politicians in Barisan Nasional. Incitement will not work and the closely knit Sabahan society will remain as united, solid and stable as ever.

********************************************

Reply to Fernandez 2

By Chong Tet Loi

In responding to my article “Ancestors of migrants came via the front door” (Daily Express Forum 3 February 2013), apart from free and liberal exchange, Joe Fernandez in his “Both these sultans never owned Sabah” (Daily Express Forum 17 February 2013) also started a game or whatever he wants to call it.

I took his initiative to engage me in free and liberal exchange as well as his criticism of my flaws seriously. In my article “Never let extremists have their way” (Daily Express Forum 24 February 2013), I defended my flaws. Whether we are aware or not, all dissertations have flaws, especially when we encroach into frontiers that are not our field. My said article also hints at his flaws with all intents and purposes expecting that we all close the loopholes in future treatises such that this free and liberal exchange can be meaningful, enlightening and edifying to all, particularly the readers.

Upon his issuance of “Orang Asal, Native and Bumiputra are not one and the same thing” (Malaysia today), regrettably, the sentiment and spirit of the exchange has turned highly inconducive, rendering it unworthy of the invaluable and sacred space the relevant media generously accord both of us.

Anyway, I thank Joe Fernandez for the publicity he gives me by mentioning my name many times.