JULY 13 — Ten days ago, Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem had a nearly two-hour discussion with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in Putrajaya.

The agenda was no secret. It was about the devolution of power to the state. A carefully worded press statement from the chief minister’s office was issued prior, citing that the Inter-governmental Committee Reports and Recommendations from the Malaysia Agreement 1963, the Malaysia Act and the Cobbold Commission Report would be part of the discourse.

Two memorandums outlining the state’s position on those reports would be submitted.

The reports intimated that in essence, Sarawak seeks autonomy in internal affairs, taxation, education and healthcare. It also asks for more development funds and the increase to 25 per cent of royalty fees for oil and gas mined within their territories.

So far, there has been no official announcement on the outcome of that meeting.

Sarawak in a persuasive position

Adenan demonstrated convincingly that the people of Sarawak are with him from the 11^th state election results held on May 7. The thrust of his campaign was that he will protect the state from "the race and religion” histrionics practised as politics in Semenanjung.

He even famously added that if "Umno comes into Sarawak today, he will quit the next day”.

If I were part of the Umno leadership, I would ask my colleagues to think seriously about Adenan’s poll success. Why was posturing Umno as the bogeyman so potent? It was alarming, if not demeaning.

Although it is easy to fault Pakatan Harapan’s dismal showing on their non-cohesiveness, it must be noted that the combined votes of the Opposition in each seat lost were still lower than the votes obtained by the winning Sarawak Barisan Nasional (BN) candidates.

It reasons to think that the electorates mostly chose to keep their political eco-system under the stewardship of Adenan, over that of tinkering with the state leadership.

Sarawakians have long felt that they were given the short end after the formation of Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963. The main grouse had been that both Sabah and Sarawak were treated as if they were one of the states in former Malaya, when they should be compared with Malaya as a whole, like Singapore was.

Just a few days ago, Sarawak United Peoples’ Party president Datuk Dr Sim Kui Hian told reporters not to refer to Sarawak as a state.

Although the state Cabinet members are known as ministers (as opposed to "state executive councillors” in West Malaysia), the Singapore head of government was known as prime minister, against Sabah and Sarawak’s chief ministers.

Lee Kuan Yew, a Cambridge-trained lawyer, had organised the state referendum and led the negotiations for Singapore during the formation, while the Cobbold Commission held sway for the other two components.

Lee’s personality and intellect were already a class removed, even then, from politics of the region. Then prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman had recognised that Lee’s visions would not fit in, and did the wise thing with the separation two years later.

The Cobbold Commission members were chairman Lord Cameron Cobbold (former Bank of England governor), (Tun) Ghazali Shafie (permanent secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), (Tan Sri) Wong Pow Nee (Penang chief minister), Sir Anthony Abell (former governor of Sarawak) and David Watherston (listed as former chief secretary of Malaya).

Were there no Sabahan or Sarawakian of reasonable stature available?

It did not help that the first chief ministers, Sarawak’s (Tan Sri) Stephen Kalong Ningkan and Sabah’s (Tun) Fuad Stephens, had tumultuous starts during their terms, further compounded with an uneasy federal-state relationship. 

Adenan knows there is no better opportunity to address the 18-point Agreement, the basic term of reference for Sarawak to be part of the Federation of Malaysia, even though it has been 53 years since.

Adenan carries no baggage and contributes 25 parliamentary seats to the BN 134 total. Take that contribution away and the parliamentary seat distributions will look like this — BN 109, the Opposition 88 and Sarawak PBB-led coalition 25.

In Australia, their six states and two mainland territories have lots of autonomy, and so do the 50 states in the United States. There can be no ambiguity in governance jurisdictions when the law and the spirit of the law are observed.

Sabah next?

Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, the mercurial personality in Sabah politics, had championed the 20-point Agreement several times but the "Sabah for Sabahan” calls have been muted over the last few years.

I have heard that former Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal is contemplating the "Sabahan” route for his political re-emergence.

It is really no skin off Putrajaya’s back to fully recognise the 18-point, as the gratitude from all Sarawakians would more than square off, although it is rightly a due correction.

Shouldn’t it then be even less difficult with Sabah, as it is directly under the rule of Umno? If Sabah Umno takes up the cudgels, like Adenan did, the state opposition would have lost a major initiative for at least two terms. And the 22 parliamentary seats won in the last general election would be intact.

I have argued in favour of respecting the agreements simply because it is a matter of honour. Besides, it would rubbish forever the on-off idiotic calls to secede.

Postscript

The 18-point and 20-point Agreements can either be seen as a burdensome "father’s sins”, or as golden opportunities. I think the latter is a "no-brainer” because when implemented purposefully, they can become classic displays of both good governance and worldly-wise statesmanship.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.