Have you got a copy of this Agreement?
The Politicians
I’M assuming that the proposed debate on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) between Lina Soo of STAR Sarawak and Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, Speaker of Parliament, will take place as scheduled on Dec 23, this year.
By now both teams have lined up their speakers; who will speak first and who will speak later; who will do the summing up.
The audience consisting of members of the public drawn from various levels of society may want to participate in the debate.
English has been offered as the language used for the debate. I would suggest to the organisers to be flexible: allow anybody to speak in the language of his or her choice. In Sarawak, there aren’t many who can speak Swahili or Urdu, so there’s no fear of people speaking in tongues that are not understood in Sarawak.
It will be a day of fun and, depending on how well prepared speakers will be, the debate will be beneficial to the participants and audience in understanding a famous document and its related literature. These documents have created so much confusion among Malaysians even after 54 years of Malaysia. It is high time we understood what the founders of Malaysia had really wanted to pass on to future generations of Malaysians – a safe, prosperous and happy nation – via agreements, assurances, promises, and safeguards.
I hope the debaters will address the perception or the reality that the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak have been giving more to Malaysia than they take from it. There’s plenty of literature on this. Quote the relevant statistics.
Are there any assurances by Malaya or Britain at the time of Malaysia Plan negotiations that have not been honoured? By whom? Which assurances?
Just in case there’s no time for questions from the floor during the debate, I would like the debaters to touch the point (highlighted in bold) that Lord Cobbold had made in paragraph 237 of his Report: “237. The British and Malayan members have both concluded that, on the lines of their respective approaches, a Federation of Malaysia is an attractive and workable project and in the best interest of the Borneo territories. On the assumption that Singapore also join in the federation, I strongly endorse this view, adding that the inclusion of the Borneo territories would also be to the advantage of the other participants in the Federation.
It is a necessary condition that from the outset Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interest to create a new nation by retaining their own individualities. If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a ‘take over’ of the Borneo territories by the federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of north Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not in my judgement, be generally acceptable or successful.
I recommend that, in the forthcoming negotiations, Governments should pay close attention to this point, both in its psychological and its practical aspects.”
During the negotiations that lasted for about two years, did the governments (British and Malayan) pay close attention to Lord Cobbold’s point about a ‘take over’ of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya?
The debaters on Saturday may like to answer this question.
The Legal Eagles
Just as I was going to read more literature on MA63 for my own education, news came that two local lawyers might see each other in court, not as officers of the court, but as litigants over an alleged libel by another.
Unless taxpayers’ money is involved, it is not our concern that these two legal eagles should choose to fight in court to prove a point. Nonetheless, we are interested in the court case in so far as it relates to certain provisions of the MA63. From the judgement later, we may learn more about MA63 of its enforceability or otherwise.
We should follow the case closely but in doing so we must be neutral as far as possible. It is a quarrel between two individual Sarawakians, one to convince the court that his reputation has been allegedly damaged by the other and the other to put the standard defence of fair comment on public interest, justification and privilege.
In the course of the trial, local History buffs should attend the proceedings. They may learn something more about MA63 and its application or its relevance to Sarawak in Malaysia.
However, I don’t think that there will be a mother of pearl for either team of debaters to capitalise on, come Saturday, because the civil case may take a long time to settle. They may decide to settle their problem out of court, for all we know. In which case, we would be the poorer for loss of benefit in terms of a judicial opinion on certain portions of the MA63.
Meanwhile, go on with the preparation for the great debate. We shall see if there will be anything that may help us better understand the substance of MA63, especially for those politicians preparing for the forthcoming election and making an issue out of the MA63 during the campaign. They should avail themselves of the opportunity to participate in the debate, or, at least, to come and be good listeners.
I’m sure that the audience would love to hear also from other less known politicians from various parties. We need their input to the conversation that is so important to the wellbeing of Malaysians in the Federation.
Sarawakians and others, come with me to the debate. Join the verbal exercise in good clean fun.
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].