Bismillahhirrahmanirrahim
Assalamualaikum warahmatullahhi wabaraktuh and a very good ........

First and foremost, permit me to put on record my sincere and utmost appreciation and gratitude to the organizers for inviting me to speak today. It is indeed a privilege and honour to have this opportunity to address you all on the subject which is very important, but distant, as the day goes by. On accepting this invitation, I hope to do justice and I will be thrilled if the little that I am going to share can spark a significant enough interest to enact discussion, discourse and action that will bring about betterment to us all in our life contributing towards a sustainable growth and development for Malaysia.

Before I push through, I would like to appeal that every each of us free our mind, shed all the pre-conceive thoughts that we have and take a neutral stance instead. Likewise, we must always remember that the issues at hand are the focus and not the actors, even though at times we know we have to acknowledge them. To my mind, this is important and could well be the pre-requisite for us to have a fair and meaningful discussion which is needed for us to progress.

While we have to appreciate the ideals and wishes of all sectors, we must also be realistic in our approach for we all know that there are boundaries and constraints that bind us. For this to happen, we need to engage with one another and if needs be, compromised to aligned our minds and chart the way forward as we all deemed most appropriate.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
A lot has been written about the formation of Malaysia and I am happy to note and observe that they are consistent. However, I also observed and am appalled with the fact that most, especially our young ones are ignorance about it and worst, some does not have any interest in it. In our endeavor to push forward, we should not forget our past because the past put us where we are today. This ignorance is a pity but harmless if it remains as such, but can be dangerous when manipulated.

This part of history is very important to us and I just wonder why most of us today don’t know about it. An average middle age persons from Sabah and Sarawak didn’t know about it and what more a same average middle age person from the peninsula. To make matter worse, some academics that have even attained renowned status are also not aware. We could argue that it is not expected of them since they are not from the history fraternity. But then again, the history of our Malaysia, how it came about, to my mind, should not be exclusive to the historians but to all Malaysians from all walk of life.

Therefore, may I ask, “could this be deliberate so as to suppress the facts or being overlooked? Likewise, are there specific motives or reasons why this part of history is not a common basic knowledge across the spectrum? It has been said that history is subject to different interpretations. There are also cases when history is being distorted especially by people in power. But in our case, this is not the case, because the very knowledge of it is not widely spread.

Are we opening sort of a “Pandora’s Box” when we discuss these issues, or are we in a “Catch 22” kind of situation? Regardless, I am of the opinion that it should not be kept at the status quo. We should instead deliberate it openly, establish a common understanding, appreciate things that we can do and what we cannot, and most important, agree on actions that are needed to better the situation. This approach, to my mind, is definitely better than to leave it on its own where isolated discussions occurring here and there, either in cyberspace or the physical ones.

Ladies and gentlemen, when 16th September came, we are flooded with writings and statements; mostly grouses pertaining to the un-kept or broken promises in relation to the formation of Malaysia. I cannot say how many for a fact, but I have seen it coming from almost all sectors of our society either in the form of writings, speeches and the like. People of religion will represent their thoughts with a bias towards the religious issue and people of trade look at it from the economic perspectives. Suffice to say that related issues are coming in from almost all sectors; economics, education, religion, human rights, politics, so on and so forth.

Allow me to share a few:
One academic who hailed from Sabah said, and I quote, “The decision to accept Tunku’s proposal to become part of the federation of Malaysia was made by people of Sabah and Sarawak on the understanding that the interests of the state will be safeguarded. These interests were enshrined in the 20/18-point Agreement. The rights were also inscribed in the London Agreements and Inter-Governmental Committee Reports. Accordingly these safeguards were not honoured and being taken away according to the whims and fancies of the federal government. Sabah and Sarawak are equal partners to Malaya in Malaysia and shall not be merely one of the 13 states in Malaysia.”

This one took on a more satirical symbolic mode. He pictures the formation as a marriage which has a prenuptial agreement, the 18-point Agreement. He went on to state how the wife (Sarawak) was hurt by the lack of attention and broken promises from the husband (Malaya) but continue to be the dutiful and responsible wife.

A group of prominent politicians and social activists from East Malaysia are deeply perturbed by the federal government alleged violations of the state’s rights, interests and benefits which lasted ever since the formation in 1963. They even went on to equate what happened as being a systematic looting and plundering of the state’s wealth.

Another politician just recently, came on very strong with remarks, “Najib must realise that Sabah belongs to the people of Sabah. Malaysia does not own Sabah as the Malaysia Agreement is yet to be implemented”. He went on to say that the time has come to review the implementation of the Malaysia Agreement and ensure its viability and survival by addressing the unhappiness of the other remaining partners – Sabah and Sarawak. According to him, Sabah has lost most of the 20 points after UMNO came to the state and decisions are made by Kuala Lumpur which makes Sabah treated like a colony and not an equal partner in Malaysia.

The Borneo Legacies Centre showcased the 18/20 Agreement and in the owner’s words, I quote, “To me, it’s a legacy signed by the country’s forefathers. If we don’t preserve it, it will be gone someday. If we don’t do this, I don’t think my children and grandchildren will know about it,”

In his Malaysia Day address last year (2012), a Bishop, Datuk Cornelius Piong questioned whether the 49 year old agreement to uphold religious freedom and other native rights and customs is being kept. He also reminded the fact that the understanding and compromise were the ones that convinced Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak in the formation of Malaysia together with Singapore and Malaya.

One lady was straightforward when she says, and I quote, “I remember Point 1 although some people still refuse to accept it because it states that Sarawak has no official religion. It is good because we have freedom of religion in the state especially in a multi-ethnic and multi-racial society in Sarawak.” She went on to say that a lot more needs to be done to ensure a fair share for Sarawak and a better and fair Malaysia.

An economic analyst bring-up the issue of Point 2 to ensure that English remains the official language of the state. He also raised the issue on Point 11; state control on finance, development and tariff which seemingly is being ignored. One good point raised was also on constitutional safeguards and parliamentary representation from Sarawak as per Point 16 and 17 respectively. He observed the violation of Point 16 and appeals that legislative (Parliamentary and State) members from Sarawak carry out their duty and responsibility to protect the Agreement.

The Bishop was being polite in his approach. However, one activist who goes by the name “anak jati Sabah” doesn’t mince his words. He rather put it plainly and boldly that, people of the peninsula were and are wrong when Sabah was believed to have “join” Malaysia. Malaysia does not exist then, and as a matter of fact, Sabah together with Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya formed Malaysia. He went further to state that in actual fact, Batu Sumpah and the 20 Point Agreement were not honoured and being discarded by Kuala Lumpur.
“ Orang-orang Semenanjung selalu menyebut “Sabah Masuk Malaysia”...hakikatnya Sabah tidak masuk Malaysia kerana yang ada hanya Malaya....Sebenarnya Batu Sumpah dan Perjanjian 20 perkara telah dinodai dan disampahkan hari ke hari oleh Kuala Lumpur”

Likewise, a professional has some very harsh words for what happened. Accordingly, he said, and I quote, “The way Malayans treat us, I believe gives us all reason to get out of Malaysia. The Malayans have been violating our 18-points Agreement, particularly points 2, 12 and 15.” He however, went on to say that being in Malaysia is a good option but more needs to be done to ensure justice and a better Malaysia.

Those are examples of what that had being said and fair to put on record (deduce) that it amounts to something unpleasant or negative. There are also thoughts which are to the contrary, some cementing what that was well done and received. However, I reckon that we should not delve on it too much for fear of complacency and at worst, provide us with a pseudo-good feeling.

With all, that surfaced, we have to admit and recognised that the issue like many others is real, and significant. The shortcomings, unhappiness and some amounting or perceived to being unfairly handled needed redress from all of us, especially the one with the most influence. Even in normal circumstances and when all is well, this attitude and approach is still desirable. It continuously put us on our toes to do all that we can, push our limits and work towards a better life, current and future, leaving a better world for our children and grandchildren.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have put before you problems or issues that were brought about. Whether it was perceived or real depends on how we look at them. In all fairness, I think we should put all these grouses and what transpired leading to the formation of Malaysia together and analyse them, and let’s do this with an open mind. Let us not reason and opined that some points were no longer relevant, not appropriate, not significant or what. These can be addressed later. In all seriousness, the issues must be viewed from the proper perspectives and addressed accordingly. Where do we start and how to go about doing it? I reckon that we take a step back, pause, take stock and audit where we are, what we did which is not correct that resulted in all these grievances and concern. Let us go back to point zero, take a trip down historical foundation, appreciate the original understanding and move from there.

In a speech made by the late Tunku Abdul Rahman on ‘d’ DAY, he mentioned, and I quote,” we have made our decision after much care and thought, finally arriving at mutual consent by debate and discussion, inquiries and elections held over two and a half years. We can feel proud indeed of the way we have created Malaysia through friendly arguments and compromise. The spirit of co-operation and concord is living proof of the desire we share for a common destiny. What better basis for Malaysia can there be, what finer augury for the future?”

If we scrutinise what was said then, we have to appreciate that the process was lengthy and was not easy. We should raise our hat to all that played a role and contributed to the successful formation. We also owe it to them to make good all that was compromised and agreed upon to realise the fine future that was desired and expected.

Ladies and gentlemen, the concept of “Malaysia” was first recorded in the mid 1950s, when David Marshall the Chief Minister of Singapore proposed a merger between Malaya and Singapore. In 1959, when Lee Kuan Yew of the People’s Action Party assumed the chief ministership, he too proposes the merger for economic and political reasons. Both proposals passes by with only lukewarm reaction from Malaya. The leaders of Malaya however, changed their attitude when the political left movement gained momentum in Singapore. The threat of a Left-leaning Singapore as a neighbour is not desirable. Therefore the merger initiatives were picked-up but with a wider federation scheme involving North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Brunei who were also colonies of Great Britain. In this manner, the clout brought about by the Singapore movement was addressed and the racial composition of the federation is balanced.

In May 1961, at the Delphi Hotel, Singapore, YTM Tunku Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of bringing Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei together, “ it is inevitable that we should look ahead to this objective and think of a plan whereby these (five) territories can be brought closer together in political and economic co-operation”. Historians recorded three reasons that led to this suggestion;
(1) to counter the communist influence in the region;
(2) to balance the racial composition and
(3) to expedite economic development and independence for Singapore, Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak.
These reasons were all in line with the decolonialisation attitude of Britain at that time.
The suggestion was well received and in June 1961 Sir Alexander Waddell, the Governor of Sarawak, his counterpart in North Borneo, Sir William Goode and DC White, the High Commissioner for Brunei were summoned for talks in Singapore with Lord Selkirk, the Britain’s Commissioner General in South East Asia. These British Borneo leaders did not oppose the idea but appreciate the complication that will be brought by some local leaders.

This concern was confirmed when Ong Kee Hui, the Chairman of the Sarawak United People’s Party, AM Azahari, leader of Parti Rakyat Brunei and Donald Stephens (United National Kadazan Organization) from Sabah formed a United Front and denounce the proposal and state that, I quote, “totally unacceptable to the people of the three territories”. The stance was also supported by the Sarawak National Party led by Stephen Kalong Ningkan.

The resistance especially from the interior people of North Borneo was strong, so much so that when they eventually support and embrace the concept, an “Oath Stone” was erected in Keningau to manifest the spirit of support to the Malaysia concept and also to the 20-point Agreement.

In the months of July and August 1961, Tunku made several visits to Sarawak and North Borneo to explain the concept. Before long, leaders who were skeptical and have reservations about the concept was won over. Tunku even invited the leaders to visit Malaya on a fact finding mission which in the eventuality, awed them and convinced that entry into Malaysia was a good idea, relative to the prevailing developments then. In the same period, Sir Alexander Waddell also sent local Sarawak leaders to participate in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Singapore and at this forum, the leaders had the opportunity to discuss the concept face-to-face with their Malayan and Singapore counterparts.

A consensus was established, and led to the formation of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC) chaired by Donald Stephens. The MSCC is to further explain the concept of Malaysia to the public especially in Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei. The members of the committee are the respective leaders from all territories. The committee met 4 times to discuss on the formation issues. The first meeting was held in Jesselton (Kota Kinabalu), Sabah, in August 1961. In December 1961, a second meeting was convened in Kuching, Sarawak, the third was held in Kuala Lumpur in January 1962 and the last meeting was held in February 1962, in Singapore.

MSCC in their deliberations prepared and submitted to the Cobbold Commission a memorandum that underlines a need to gauge and ascertain the opinion of the general population in North Borneo and Sarawak on the Malaysia concept. The Cobbold Commission comprises of Lord Cobbold (former Bank of England Governor) as Chairman, Sir Anthony Abell and Sir David Watherston representing the British government, Dato Wong Pow Nee and Mohd Ghazali Shafie representing the Malayan Government.

From February till April 1962, the Commission met with more than 4000 people and received more than 2200 memorandums from all sectors; political, State legislative and executive council, religious leaders, workers union and the general public. In June (August, according to some writing) 1962 a report was submitted to both governments; British and Malaya, and both governments accepted almost all the recommendations made by the commission. It was also in this report that 80% of the population in North Borneo and Sarawak was recorded to have supported the concept of Malaysia.

The report did acknowledge that large sections of the population especially in the interior who have no real appreciation of the Malaysia concept. All in all the report can be summarised as follows:

“about one third of the population strongly favours the early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern about terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia concept ask for conditions and safeguards varying in nature and extent. The remaining third are divided; one who insists on independence before Malaysia and the other which prefers to see the continue of British rule”.

The Commission also expressed a cautionary note, “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 interests to create a new nation but 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 be generally acceptable or successful”.

The Commission also suggested that an Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) be set-up to work on the details incorporating the conditions and safeguards for North Borneo and Sarawak as requested by their leaders. In July 1962, an understanding was reached by the governments (British and Malaya) to pursue with the negotiation addressing all issues related to the formation of Malaysia.

The IGC which is also known as the Lansdowne Committee was chaired by Lord Lansdowne himself, and Tun Abdul Razak as deputy. Other members include Governor Sir William Goode, Donald Stephens, Abang Haji Mustaffa, Temenggung Jugah ak Barieng and a representative from the government of British and Malaya. The first meeting was held in Jesselton on 30th August 1962. In the meeting a memorandum on the safeguards of North Borneo and Sarawak were presented (Donald Stephens, Datu Mustapha, Datuk Khoo Siak Chew, Dato GS Sundang) and after thorough discussion it was incorporated into the IGC report with some modifications; states have control over education and health services for 10 years before reverting to the federal government. These IGC recommendations were included in the Malaysia Act, the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution.

Ladies and gentlemen, the memorandum on the safeguards is what we all know as the 20-point Agreement for Sabah and a similar 18-point Agreement for Sarawak. The difference is the Name of State (Sabah) point, which is of no relevance to Sarawak and the point on “Land, Forest, and Local Government”.

For the record, it was reported that when the leaders of North Borneo and Sarawak elected to join the formation of Malaysia, Donald Stephens convened a meeting on 13 – 14th August 1962 with the local leaders who drew up 14 points as minimum demand which later grew to 20 points and supported by the Sarawak leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I mentioned early on, the process was never easy. Indonesia initially supported the Malaysia concept when it was put through in 1961 but changed their stance in 1963. Likewise, the Philippines objected to the formation and reiterate their claim on North Borneo. Owing to pressure from Philippines and Indonesia, another assessment of public opinion was undertaken by the United Nations. This mission, led by Lawrence Michelmore carried out their duties and their report made public on the 13th September 1963 confirmed that the proposed Federation of Malaysia was, “the result of freely expressed wishes of the territory’s people acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having expressed through informed democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage”.

The signing of the Malaysia Agreement took place on 9th July 1963 in Marlborough House London. Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, Duncan Sandys and Lord Lansdowne represent the British, Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tan Siew Sin, Datuk VT Sambantham, Datuk Ong Yoke Lin and Dr Lim Swee Aun represents Malaya. Singapore was represented by Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee, North Borneo was represented by Datuk Mustapha Harun, Donald A Stephens, WKH Jones, Khoo Siak Chew, WS Holley and GS Sandang while representing Sarawak were, PEH Pike, Temenggung Jugah ak Barieng, Datuk Abang Haji Mustaffa, Lim Beng Siew and Datuk Abang Haji Openg. The Agreement was to establish Malaysia on 31st August 1963. However the planned date did not materialised because the UN report was only completed on the 14th of September leading to the proclamation as of 16th September 1963.

Ladies and gentlemen
I have painted a picture which shows obvious discrepancies between what that had transpired and what that was originally agreed upon. What was undertaken or not done which led to the unhappiness and concern is not consistent to what that was agreed. We can go on to justify them, but I suggest that we don’t. For a start let us draw the courage and be magnanimous in all honesty to recognize and establish this. If this can be achieved, then it will be a good start. Recognising that there is a problem, is 50% of that problem solved.

The knowledgelessness on the subject matter which is similar for both Sabah and Sarawak and worse still in the peninsula, (pause) I have to say is very unfortunate. As a result, the misconception or wrong perception by a person who hails from the peninsula led to unnecessary insults to his fellow countrymen from Sabah or Sarawak. Without prejudice, malice, and without ill intention whatsoever, he or she may have said something that could be offensive. A view that I related earlier whereby people from the peninsula perceived that Sabah and Sarawak is one of the thirteen states in Malaysia is an example. We cannot undo them, but we definitely can work towards rectifying and stop them from happening again. Academics must converge to better disseminate this fact about our history, and efforts must be made to make it compulsory in our curriculum so that our new generation is no longer naive and better understand the history of our nation.

31st August every year is celebrated in a big way but have no significance at all to Malaysians from Sabah and Sarawak. I reckon we have to be fair in this aspect. While it is okay to celebrate 31st August, it should not be celebrated as “Malaysia” but rather “Malaya”. The Malaysia Day which falls on the 16th September is of greater significance to “Malaysia” and therefore should not pass like any other day but be given due recognition.

I appreciate that some leaders from Sabah and Sarawak once said that the 18/20-Point Agreement were incorporated in the constitution and thus is no longer valid or cease to exist. The remarks drew criticism from both divides and some were very emotional about it, saying that the agreement will be forever valid. Accordingly, the oath stone in Keningau, shall stand as a lasting monument to the spirit of the 20-point agreement.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I mentioned at the outset, let us not worry about the relevancy of the agreements but instead let us revisit and appreciate what was desired then, but is not honoured leading to grievances as we have observed. To this end, a strong political will by the government is needed. A neutral, independent permanent secretariat may be established to deliberate on all the issues that surfaced and put recommendations through for rectification by the authorities. Similarly, the secretariat can also start looking at the review of the agreements so that it remains significant and relevant in our nation building efforts.

However, in making this suggestion, I note that something similar were enacted once, but died with the demise of the chairman. This is why a strong will and clear reference to the secretariat is needed so that history doesn’t repeat and the secretariat can be a platform of substance in this noble efforts.

To conclude, let us all do our part to preserve the sanctity and unity of our Malaysia. We must do our utmost to uphold and continuously enhance the unity and prove the critics wrong when they say, and I quote, “Sabah and Sarawak forming Malaysia is simply a transfer of power from British to Malaya”, and put the cautionary note as contained in the Cobbold Report at bay. A united, prosperous and harmonious Malaysia is not a subject of compromise and is therefore the responsibility of every citizen. Hopefully, this unity will contribute towards growth and stability not only for us Malaysian but also for the region which are subjected to so many uncertainties.

Thank you.