Interesting Facts I Never Knew

Out of curiosity I searched for information regarding the formation of Malaysia.

I am not going to go in details about what I have found because some information are vague or is controversial and likely to cause unnecessary dispute, but there are two undeniable facts I find particularly interesting.

In the 18-Point-Agreement proposed by Sarawak (Sabah has additional 2 points) prior to the formation of Malaysia, and which was accepted, point 7 states that "there shall be no rights to secede from the Federation".

I was wondering with the sentiments boiling so highly in Sarawak demanding a greater autonomy, and to some degree, independence, why their state government, both central and opposition, remain curiously quiet and keep mum on that problem. Now I know why. It is clearly stated in their agreement that Sarawak has no rights to secede from Malaysia. Sarawak basically gave up the rights before joining Malaysia.

Demanding independence would be unconstitutional and subsequently void the whole agreement. This would not resonate well with Sarawak as Malaysia government would have taken drastic actions to keep Sarawak in their grip should Sarawak rebels to depart, perhaps even by military force.

I know Sarawakians have claimed that the federal government has almost robbed them of almost everything they have. Here's my advice: instead of blaming federal government incessantly (they deserve to be blamed though), here's what you can do - use your votes to change your state government. I know your state government treats you all very well, but if all he can do is treat you well in your home but allow your home to be abused by other people, he is not good enough.

After 50 years of independence and if your state government has yet to halt this cruelty, it means they are incapable. So for God's sake it's time you guys realise while he could give you all what you want in the state, your state as a whole is still trampled on and is still being taken advantage because your state government is good at protecting you in your home, but he cannot protect your home from outside forces.

The second fact I found was Kelantan opposed to the Formation of Malaysia. Kelantan is well known to be a distinctive state with unique culture and special political status. It is the only state in Malaysia that has been governed by the Opposition for more than a decade and it is also the only state in which Shariah Law is strictly applied and enforced. It has its own distinctive Malay dialect which is almost intelligible with the Malay in other states.

Apparently, a few days prior to the formation of Malaysia, Kelantan mounted a legal challenge to declare that the Malaysia Agreement was null and void for violating the Constitution drafted in 1957. Kelantan was unhappy because the state was not consulted, the Sultan was not a party of the agreement, and Malaysia Agreement would effectively abolish the Federation of Malaya. It appeared Kelantan was fuming over the name change from "Malaya" to "Malaysia".

Only few hours prior to the announcement of Malaysia, the then Chief Justice ruled that the formation of Malaysia was done at the interest of the inhabitants who had suffered at the hands of communists and victims of political instability that had haunted the then Malaya. He ruled that the central government's decision did not violate the Constitution drafted in 1957 and consequentially he threw out the case and allowed the formation to proceed smoothly.

I wondered why our history textbooks never let us learn all these things. Obviously these events are significant. Sarawak and Sabah's agreements to joining Malaya to form Malaysia were significant as their demands and hence their autonomy are what shaped the states today and what cause them to be different from the other states in Peninsular Malaysia. Geographic distance already causes substantial misunderstandings, or the lack of understanding, and miscommunication between the two states. Missing out important facts like these are not helping the issue and would only aid the geographic boundaries to drive us apart.

The refusal of Kelantan to the formation of Malaysia and the legal challenge it initiated should have been included as obviously Kelantan did not join voluntarily. It simply had no legal standing to oppose the formation but its unwillingness does not seem insignificant.

I think Malaysia's textbook needs to be seriously looked into. Omitting these facts do not reverberate well for the future of Malaysia as obviously we do not learn enough about our country and this is extremely disturbing in my opinion.

Another controversial topic I read was that Sarawak never gained independence prior to the formation of Malaysia. It was simply given self-governance but apparently self-governance status did not mean the state was independent. Now this is a topic I have not found sufficient evidence about, so I'll cease from further commenting on this issue.