After 51 years since the formation of Malaysia, the issue of secession has come to haunt the country once again. While the urgings for secession by some quarters in Sabah and Sarawak are not as serious as it looks in the social media, anti-federal feelings are real and growing.
It is not too late to 'save' Malaysia. The federal structure was designed in such a way to preserve the uniqueness of each of the state in the federation. The country’s founding fathers must be commended for their vision in creating a united Malaysian nation. However, 51 years have passed and Malaysians are still divided. Apart from racial and religious conflicts, regional sentiments have also grown stronger.
The main problem faced by the country lies in the weaknesses in the implementation of the federal constitution. It is time that Malaysians - the young people especially - take a hard look at the country’s origin by studying the federal constitution. The country’s leaders, too, must not ignore the fact that the country will be reduced to nothing if the provisions in the federal constitution are not honoured.
Now, coming back to the Federation of Malaysia that is said to be on the brink of collapsing, the federal-state conflict in Malaysia are caused by an “ideological clash” between federal and state leaders, imbalance in centre-periphery relations, and lack of meaningful engagement between federal and state administrative officers.
Ideological clash
The ideological approach in the academic texts of federalism discusses the “ideological and philosophical foundation of federalism”. Ideologies clash due to differences in language, culture and religion - i.e. Canada - conflict between the minorities Inuit, Quebecois and the majority English-speaking (anglophones) population.
Malaysia’s federal foundation is essentially driven by Malay-Muslim ideology - a ‘copycat’ of the previous federal structure under the Federation of Malaya - even though the later federal structure - the Federation of Malaysia - was significantly altered to accommodate non-Islamic and non-Malay territories of Sabah and Sarawak.
From 1957-1963, efforts to 'build' the country through language and education was done with a strong Malay-Muslim flavour. Politically, the federal government would find a willing ally in Sabah and Sarawak to promote the Malay-Muslim federal framework of nation-building.
This was the main reason for Mustapha Harun’s (of United Sabah National Organisation) elevation to power and the ouster of Donald Stephens. The latter leader was regarded by the federal government as a strong regional leader who supported Sabah’s secular and multiracial outlook.
With a strong federal support, Mustapha promoted a policy of 'one language (Malay), one religion (Islam) and one culture (Malay)' as a basis for creating national solidarity in Sabah. This was opposed by many non-Muslim Sabahans. The issue concerning national identity, a vision for national unity and integration, continue to plague Malaysian society.
A British scholar writes: “Indeed, the Malaysia that was inaugurated on Sept 16, 1963 failed to wholly satisfy, nor did it reflect a homogenous national identity. Rather it was the product of grudging compromise and underpinned by only fragile guarantees: its formation was peppered with resistance and that it came into being at all was regarded by many at that time as a close-run thing”.
Imbalance in centre-periphery relations
This imbalance is marked by centralisation of power by the federal Government that dictate most national policies. There is little room for state players to contribute. In politics, the federal’s dominating role is obvious. Under Mahathir Mohamad, for instance, the federal government would use its constitutional and political power to force the state to prioritise federal than state needs.
The federal influence in Sabah was further consolidated with Umno’s entry in 1991. The federal government would ‘punish’ stubborn state leaders who refuse to subscribe to its agenda by declaring them ‘persona non grata’ in the country’s decision-making process and also by reducing the compulsory federal allocation to the state.
In education, school syllabi do not reflect Malaysia’s multicultural outlook. Sabah’s and Sarawak’s unique historical and cultural background were not given due consideration. On the economic front, the government’s revenue and total expenditure were dominated by the federal - 96 percent and 80 percent respectively in 1990.
And even though forestry is a state matter, timber exports and industry are under the federal control. In 1992, the federal government banned log exports from Sabah, causing the state to lose a substantial amount of revenue.
Lack of meaningful engagement between federal and state administrative officers
Owning a satellite dish by private individuals in Sabah is one of the many thorny issues in federal-state relations. The federal government disallowed the use of a private satellite dish without a licence. Sabah counter-argued saying that the federal government was protecting Astro and was victimising Sabahans especially those in the rural areas who did not have the means to access to information.
Licensing requirements caused unhappiness and led to perception of federal officers’ lack of sensitivity to local needs.
There is also this issue of Sabah wanting to proclaim its natural sites as World Heritage Site. But the federal government refused to support the initiative unless those sites are federalised. Another ‘hot-button’ issue is the state’s lack of autonomy in educational affairs. The state has charged that it cannot manage school projects below RM500,000. Many of the schools especially in the rural areas are in dire need of repairs and maintenance.
However, repair and maintenance works are slow as state officers need to wait for approval from their federal counterparts. Work progress is also affected by delay in payment to local contractors by Putrajaya.
Had there been meaningful and constant contacts between federal and state administrative officers, most of the administrative problems such as those cited above could be solved. Due to lack of constructive engagement between federal and state civil service, unscrupulous politicians took advantage to pit the federal government against the state.
Ways to harmonise federal-state relations
A clear vision of national unity and integration
The Vision 2020 can be referred to as a starting point. The first point of the Vision 2020 is “to establish a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny - a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one Bangsa Malaysia with political loyalty and dedication to the nation”.
But the question is: how are we going to become a united Malaysian nation if we are still arguing over the year of our country’s founding? How are we to achieve the Bangsa Malaysia race if we continue to talk about our rights - race, religious, regional - instead of sharing them with fellow Malaysians?
Our leaders must be extremely clear about where they want to bring Malaysia to. The concept of 1Malaysia looks very ideal on paper but it has to be made workable in practise: is it a concept for the purpose of nation-building? Is it a concept for re-branding of government commercial products? Is it a concept to promote the country’s tourism industry?
There is one huge billboard with a tagline ‘Menghayati 1Malaysia’. Strangely, the tagline is followed by a picture of a group of depressed-looking proboscis monkeys at the background. It looks like we can use the concept of 1Malaysia to describe everything and anything!
Equilibrium in centre-periphery relations
To ensure equilibrium, there has to be effective implementation of the federal constitution vis-a-vis the safeguards for Sabah and Sarawak. It is time the federal government to decentralise power as a way to lessen its dominance and to allow the state to develop independently according to its needs.
There are two types of decentralisation: devolution of power and deconcentration of administration. Devolution of power is also known as “home rule” in which the state is given autonomy in making wide range of decisions - i.e. Denmark giving autonomy to Greenland as Greenland’s minority population - the Inuits - are culturally and socially different from the Danes. Denmark only retains power in foreign affairs and defence.
Deconcentration of administration happens when state federal officers make decisions independently. Apart from checking and balancing the power of the federal government, deconcentration, if applied effectively and judiciously, can also ensure effectiveness in public-delivery system.
Crucially, the state should be allowed to deal independently with its socio-cultural policy. Sabah and Sarawak should determine how they wish to preserve their people’s diverse culture, just like India’s ‘territorial linguism’ and Ethiopia’s ‘cultural and linguistic autonomy’. Deconcentration of administration in the socio-cultural realm is important to preserve the ethnic identities of the various indigenous communities in Sabah and Sarawak.
Our leaders could also enact a Territorial Integration Act to renew the commitment of federal and state leaders to abide by the federal constitution. It is a kind of Oath-Fellowship that can be found in Switzerland. It is a “covenant” to conserve differences and diversity.
The government should also establish a constitutional court to arbiter conflict between the federal and state governments - i.e. a special court in Germany - the Federal Constitutional Court - to check against the centralising tendency of the federal government.
Before decentralisation of power can be fully implemented, a National Council of Decentralisation or National Decentralisation Commission should be established to review aspects that are over-centralised and need to be decentralised, areas that are under-centralised and need to be centralised, and to review the concept of power sharing between the federal and state governments in light of Malaysia’s multicultural make-up.
Constructive engagement between federal and state administrative officers
The role of the State Federal Office needs to be strengthened so that federal priorities do not clash with that of state’s. The government can also organise a yearly conference between federal and state administrative officers to discuss issues in implementation of federal and state programmes. A frequent conference is important to increase “contacts” between federal and state civil service.
The government could also revive the ‘State and Federal Relationships Committee’ meetings between state secretaries and senior federal government officers.
A good federal-state relations is vital for Malaysia’s survival. Talks of secession should not be swept under the carpet. Secession threats are culminated in dissatisfactions of some sections of society. People who promote secession should be engaged in a civil and rational manner.
At the same time, the government must double the efforts to increase the sense of belonging of people from various races and religions towards the country. Malaysia is worth preserving but it also needs changing.
ARNOLD PUYOK is an independent political analyst based in East Malaysia. He is a Sabahan.
