20 Points a memo, not pact, says former Sabah Archives director
KOTA KINABALU June 12, 2012: It should be clarified that the “Twenty Points” document was just a memorandum of conditions and not an actual agreement that was signed during the formation of Malaysia.
Former Sabah Archives director Datuk Datu Tigabelas Datu Zainal Abidin said this was important when discussing the matter to avoid confusing the people and the issue being exploited for political gain by certain quarters.
The recently retired archivist said it was regrettable that many individuals debated the Twenty Points based on misinterpretation derived from secondary or even tertiary sources, without referring the actual records, which are available at the State Archives.
“As the custodian of the country’s historic records for almost 13 years, I have inspected and studied various materials pertaining to the Twenty Points, including reports, memorandums, letters, meeting minutes, books, films, photos, news reports, articles and translations that are related to the document and its contents, apart from the Twenty Points document it self.
“Recently, the issue, which had been brought up and debated many times in the past, has resurfaced again. Statements were made by leaders, politicians and individuals, among others to argue whether the Twenty Points is still valid,” he said when met at his residence here, yesterday.
“But it appeared to me that most of them have read or came to know about the document from secondary sources, many seemed to have based their comments and understanding of the Twenty Points on the book ‘Sabah 25 Years Later’ produced in 1988.
“The question is, are we really informed and do we even understand the real content of the Twenty Points, each and every point in that document?” he questioned.
Tigabelas said it must be understood that the British had negotiated with Tanah Melayu through Tunku Abdul Rahman prior to the Twenty Points being drafted and later presented to the Inter-Governmental Commission (IGC).
He said the Twenty Points and the Eighteen Points (for Sarawak) were similar, both promotes the strategic interest of the British colonial government in the respective states.
By closely examining its content, he said one would find that it is not wise to continuously highlighting the Twenty Points, firstly because they are no longer relevant and secondly they are embarrassing to Sabahans.
“It is like ‘membuka pekung di dada’ (air one’s dirty laundry in public), pointing out the weaknesses and stupidity of our own past leaders who have submitted the Twenty Points as a condition from Sabah for the formation of Malaysia.
“This is because even though some of the things in the conditions stated in the document has been agreed, most of them are actually bizarre and illogical for us to demand.
“Majority of the people of Sabah and its leaders at the time were eager to form Malaysia, they just wanted to be free from the British and did not care too much if the so-called conditions they are going to demand were actually pre-determined by a third party, which is the British officers, to ensure their own interests are secured after the formation of Malaysia.
“In fact, British officers, namely W.K.H Jones and W.S Holley were in Sabah delegate when the Malaysia Agreement was signed in London on 9 July 1963,” he explained.
Among the peculiar things in the Twenty Points, he said, is the Point 2(a) and (c) that demanded Malay to be the national language of the Federation while English should be the official language of Sabah (North Borneo then) for all purposes State or Federal, without limitation of time.
Point 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 13(a), 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are also strange in one way or another as they put Sabah on the losing end by either promoting the interest of British or appeared to be more like a demand made by other states rather than Sabah it self.
“For example, Point 4 which refers to the head of the Federation. Why would our leaders wanted to demand not to be given the rights for the post.
“And Point 5… it was Singapore that was concerned about the name of the Federation and wanted “Malaysia” to be used instead of “Melayu Raya”. We in Sabah did not care about the name at the time, we just wanted our independence,” he argued.
Tigabelas said there is no point for Sabah to raise the issue of Twenty Points almost half a century after the Malaysia Agreement was signed by the founding fathers.
He stressed the Twenty Points was never a valid agreement and no more than a documented proposal that was brought for negotiation during the formation of Malaysia, and what was discussed and agreed were two different things.
“Even Sarawak does not raise their 18 Points any more. Why must we rock “the big boat of marriage” that has been agreed and established by our past leaders almost 50 years ago.
“We must look forward and not backward. We must think as Malaysian now and not as foreigner, or as if we are still under the colonial rule.
“Sabah has developed a lot compared to when we were colonized by the British, we should use the advantages given to us to discuss and negotiate with the federal government any issues or problems we have,” he said.
----------------
Cobbold Commission (1962). "Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962" (pdf)
----------------
1. Religion: While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.
2. Language:
(a) Malay should be the national language of the Federation;
(b) English should continue to be used for a period of ten years after Malaysia Day;
(c) English should be the official language of North Borneo, for all purposes State or Federal, without limitation of time.
3. Constitution: Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of States and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different States in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo was, of course, essential.
4. Head of the Federation: The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.
5. Name of Federation: “Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”.
6. Immigration: Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movement of persons, other than those in Federal Government employ, from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.
7. Right of Secession: There should be no right to secede from the Federation.
8. Borneonisation of the public services should proceed as quickly as possible.
9. British Officers: Every effort should be made a encourage British Officers to remain in the public services until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo.
10. Citizenship: The recommendations in paragraph 148 (k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo persons subject to the following amendments:
(a) subparagraph (1) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence;
(b) in order to tie up with our law, subparagraph (II) (a) should read “seven out of ten years” instead of “eight out of twelve years”;
(c) subparagraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must a Federal citizen.
11. Tariffs and Finance: North Borneo should have control of its own finance, development funds and tariffs.
12. Special Position of Indigenous Races: In principle, the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malaya formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo.
13. State Government:
(a) The Chief Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council;
(b) there should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo.
14. Transitional Period: This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government.
15. Education: The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under State control.
16. Constitutional Safeguards: No amendment, modification or withdrawal of any special safeguards granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo.
The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the State.
17. Representation in Federal Parliament: This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its size and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore.
18. Name of Head of State: Yang di-Pertua Negara.
19. Name of State: Sabah.
20. Lands, Forests, Local Government etc.: The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo.
Likewise the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan