Have a referendum on MA63 for East Malaysians

 

Recently Maximus Ongkili, the minister for Sabah and Sarawak Affairs, led a delegation of Sabah and federal officials to the United Kingdom to view and study documents on the Malaysia Agreement of 1963.

Perhaps Ongkili was looking for a “smoking gun” hidden in some English haystack that can change the course of history after 57 years of Malaysia.

People criticised his visit to the British archives as a waste of time and taxpayers’ money as the Sarawak government had sent a delegation of state officials much earlier, most probably to view the same documents.

Furthermore, the MA63 negotiations are continuing and referral documents such as the Inter-Governmental Committee Report, the 20 points agreement, the Malaysia Act 1963, and the Malaysia Agreement are accessible in Malaysia.

Ongkili’s London visit must have ruffled some bigwigs in Kuala Lumpur.

Soon after his return from London, Barisan Nasional deputy chairman Mohamad Hasan, or Tok Mat, suggested a new Malaysia Agreement as a more concrete way towards realising the state’s rights and demands.

Tok Mat had said that a new spirit, context and aspiration should underpin a new Malaysia Agreement in restoring the rights and interests of Sabah and, at the same time, strengthen the federation.

In reply, Ongkili said the proposal, which was also supported by Sabah deputy chief minister Jeffrey Kitingan, was simply short-sighted, misguided and would not strengthen Malaysia.

One prominent MA63 activist said it’s time for our politicians to stop giving only their views without considering the people who are born and living in the Borneo states.

The people should be consulted, as the Cobbold Commission did in August 1962, before any amendments are made to any part of MA63.

The very least that our leaders can do is to offer a referendum to the people of the Borneo states whether they want to tear up MA63 or replace it with some other “agreement”.

He added: “It’s not for the politicians to carve up East Malaysia according to their liking; the mandate must come from the people. Our leaders must be reminded of the United National declaration of 14 December 1960 that all peoples have the right to self-determination.”
.
MA63 is an international agreement, registered with the United Nations. Being an international agreement, this means the Malaysian Parliament has no authority to amend the terms of MA63. It needs to consult the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and perhaps Singapore.

Singapore left Malaysia but some in the legal fraternity think by Singapore leaving Malaysia, the MA63 agreement is no longer valid as there are no provisions for secession.

Sarawak’s premier, Abang Johari Openg, said the Malaysia Agreement that was agreed upon by the country’s forefathers was fundamental to the establishment of the country. What Tok Mat proposed should not even be considered.

Abang Jo said that most of the conditions in MA63 had been eroded and negotiations are now being conducted between the federal government, Sabah and Sarawak to restore these conditions.

A report in June said Petronas is likely to pay dividends of RM25 billion to the Federal government this year. Sabah’s royalty is estimated to be RM1.2 billion. Petronas does not pay dividends to the oil-producing states.

The disproportionate sharing of oil wealth has always been a bone of contention between the East Malaysia states and Petronas. The wealth of the state like oil and gas has been sucked out by Petronas leaving Sabah with the highest poverty rate in Malaysia and less developed.

The confusion about MA63 still reigns.

Ongkili has now suggested that a supplementary deal to the Malaysia Agreement be considered, incorporating all the non-compliances and unfulfilled promises that have been recognised and endorsed by the Special Council on MA63.

“This avenue and provision are also provided in Article VIII of the MA63, which says that Sabah and Sarawak can take their own measures to enforce and implement MA63, without having to amend the Federal Constitution,” said Ongkili.

If Article VIII of MA63 can be applied, there is no necessity for the state to constantly ask the Federal government for specific performance on MA63 as it can act on its own in the state assembly to right the wrong. It is easier said than done given the complexity and precedents created since 1963.

The winter of discontent has set on MA63.

The Sabal Law Society and Sabah political parties have already filed applications for judicial review on the matter of tax revenue-sharing. It is likely more legal suites will be filed by private or political entities from Borneo.

Some observers view the Sulu sultanate claims in the International Court of Arbitration as one way to address the grievances of the Borneo states. The other long shot is the International Court of Justice. - FMT

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