Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah
KUCHING: Former Sabah Archives director Datuk Datu Tigabelas Datu Zainal Abidin upset Sabahans and Sarawakians when he said in a statement on Monday that the 20-point and 18-point agreements for the two states to form Malaysia was a memorandum of conditions and not an agreement.
A memorandum is not only inferior to an agreement but might not have legal binding effect.
The reaction yesterday to this stand from netizens in news portals and social networks was furious and vitriolic as it was seen as an attempt to deny people of the two states their safeguards and rights promised them as a condition for the merger of the then four territories (Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah) to form Malaysia.
Assistant Minister of Youth Development Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah when asked on his view on the issue said, “History must not be rewritten by mere single opinion of the former Sabah Archive director (Datu Tigabelas), whoever he is.”
“What is important to see is the ‘intention’ of the parties when they discussed and finally agreed to ‘merge’ and formed what is today’s Malaysia,” he added.
Karim said: “Nobody should reduce the strength, terms and conditions that had been agreed and/or put it aside as it was on that ‘terms and conditions’ that the people of Sabah and Sarawak had agreed pursuant to the formation of Malaysia.
“During that discussion (pursuant to formation of Malaysia), certain ‘terms’ and ‘conditions’ were agreed upon by Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and the then Malaya.
“The terms and conditions are crucial and formed an integral part and foundation for the formation of Malaysia and must be respected by the respective parties that inherit the respective governments of the two states and the federal government,” he pointed out.
Sarawakians will always regard the 18-point agreement as legally binding despite arguments to the contrary, Karim stressed.
Santubong MP, who is also a lawyer, Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar also disagreed with Datu Tigabelas and took pains to explain that the 18 and 20 points agreements were the products of negotiations between all parties for the formation of Malaysia and a study made by the Cobbold Commission.
“Looking at the two states’ interest the leaders of the country should observe the terms of the agreements where they are not in conflict with the word of the Constitution,” Wan Junaidi added.
He said everyone must agree that the Supreme law of the country is the constitution and no other law or document is valid when in conflict with it.
“If this present generation think that there thing in the Agreement ought to be included in the Constitution then the only cause open is to amend the Constitution. We can’t refer to the term in the agreements as legal right although they reflect the unfulfilled aspirations of the people of the two States,” he said
Wan Junaidi said he believed leaders of the two States ought to explain the terms of the agreements and where they differ with the Constitution.
“We can’t continue to avoid understanding this document. Wrong perception ought to be put right. We can’t live on wrong perception and the legal position of this agreement,” he said.
Meanwhile in Kota Kinabalu Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan in a statement issued yesterday said, “It is important to understand that the 20-Points are minimum conditions for Sabah agreeing to be part of the Malaysia Project. And, as pointed out by the former Archives Director, “it is a memorandum of conditions”
The 20-Points, being a list of conditions, submitted by the leaders of the five Sabah political parties (UNKO, USNO, Pasok, DP, UP) are, therefore an important milestone in the creation of Malaysia.
Without these conditions being agreed and discussed one can conclude that there would have been no Malaysia. It is that important!
Therefore, people, including politicians and the former State Archives Director should not be quick and shallow to dismiss the 20-Points Memorandum merely at its face value but what they represent i.e. the desires and concerns of the people of Sabah.