Budget dissatisfaction spawns secessionist calls

 

According to Sabah deputy chief minister Jeffrey Kitingan, some 60% of East Malaysians, are calling for Sabah and Sarawak to leave Malaysia, in disappointment with development funds allocated in the 2022 budget,

He was reported to have said in the Dewan Rakyat: “I hope the prime minister listens to the voices from Sabah and Sarawak, and saves Malaysia from breaking up.”

Kitingan, who is also Sabah’s agriculture and fisheries minister, pointed out the disparity in the budget, which allocated RM9.8 billion for Sabah and Sarawak while Peninsular Malaysia received RM67.8 billion.

Many would like to challenge Kitingan’s assertions on the 60% figure but what he alluded to was the growing sentiment in East Malaysia on the unfair allocation in the 12th Malaysia Plan and the budget.

Sabah, which has the highest poverty rate in Malaysia despite being rich in oil and gas resources, is accorded the same treatment as other states; one of the thirteen rather than as partners in Malaysia.

One thing is clear: it seems Sabahans across the political divide are united in fighting for their fair share of the nation’s wealth.

Deputy chief minister and state works minister Bung Moktar Radin, who is from Umno, also spoke up on the RM5.2 billion allocated for Sabah’s development, and said it was insufficient seeing as Sabah was a vast state facing numerous challenges pertaining to its infrastructure.

Some of us are unfamiliar with the word “secession” in Malaysia’s formation, but others who studied our history are well aware of the threat of secession.

Close to our region, the secessionist Free Aceh Movement in Indonesia stemmed from factors like historical mistreatment, disagreement over Islamic law, discontent over the distribution of Aceh’s natural resource wealth, and the increase in the numbers of Javanese in Aceh.

Aceh’s fight may hit close to home for East Malaysians fed up with the growing threat of shariah laws and conservative Islam stepping on peoples’ toes, as well as unfair distribution of oil wealth and taxes, and federal control of state allocations.

The idea of secession is not new. In the pre-Malaysia agreement known as the 20-point Safeguards for Sabah, point 7 on the right of secession states: “There should be no right to secede from the Federation”.

The 20-point agreement, however, was not incorporated in the Federal Constitution and the constitution remains silent on the right of secession.

Furthermore, a secession took place when Singapore was separated from Malaysia in August 1965 after a political fallout. Some observers of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 have claimed that if Singapore can secede, so can Sabah and Sarawak, as all three states signed the same agreement.

At the time of Singapore’s exit, which caught Sabah and Sarawak leaders by surprise, many wanted to exit Malaysia as Singapore did. Now Singapore is quoted as a shining example of what could have been if East Malaysia had followed the same path.

The 20 safeguards are regarded as a memorandum to guarantee the rights of inhabitants in Sabah and Sarawak, and many who are active in MA63 discussions believe that the points negotiated by the founding fathers were not adhered to after Malaysia was established.

There have been numerous calls for the 20-point memorandum to be reviewed to take into account social, economic, and political changes over time. The matter has been complicated by the 21 points negotiated by Sabah and Sarawak during Pakatan Harapan’s time, and the final report being kept under the Official Secrets Act.

The 20-point memorandum and the 18 points for Sarawak are regarded as a Malaysian social contract, unlike the Malay-centric social contract bandied about by West Malaysian politicians.

Across Sabah’s northern border in the Philippines is the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, formed after many years of conflict. The central Philippine government gave the region the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, subject to constitutional provisions. Shariah law applies only to Muslims and its application is limited by pertinent constitutional provisions.

With President Jokowi moving the Indonesian capital to Kalimantan and two examples of autonomous regions close to Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak may be looking for an exit if Kitingan’s assessment is correct.

The pressure is now on the federal government to accede to the funding requests of Sabah and Sarawak and to deal with the growing discontent which has spilled into the open.

Sabah’s young and passionate leaders such as Kota Belud MP Isnaraissah Munirah Majilis (former deputy minister for energy, technology, science, climate change and environment) and Mohd Azis bin Jamman (former deputy home minister), spoke eloquently and passionately in the Dewan Rakyat on the unfairness of the federal government in delivering their side of the MA63 bargain, especially in development funds and state autonomy.

Meanwhile, the move to reinstate Article 1(2) in the Constitution is ongoing, having gone through its first reading. Sabahan and Sarawakians are waiting patiently for their states to be restored to their original status as partners in Malaysia.

The federal government would be wise to heed the call for changes, as the voices of discontent grow louder and louder.

Unlike before, and with the advent of social media and the internet, the educated masses in Sabah and Sarawak know their constitutional rights and will follow through on their demands and rights. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.