More Autonomy for Sarawak in Malaysian Federation

Sarawak "joined" the Malaysian Federation in Sept 1963.

Given the vast disparity in terms of development between Sarawak and West Malaysia, I believe I'm not the only one questioning whether it was right for history and the regional politics to hand Sarawak to Malaya elites which at that time had no social, historical and commercial ties with Sarawak ?

Would it have been better if Sarawak were to progress towards globalisation and democratics principles along her own path, instead of joining the Malayan Federation which is at least 100 years ahead ?

I believe, if Lee Kuan Yew had succumb to the short term security of joining the Malayan Federation, the region would not have benefited from Singapore's development. The political, commercial and overall strength in initial capacity, afforded by a Federation, does not help a member state especially if it was a federation forced into being - in this case, the drive to get off being colonised by the British and at the same , for Sarawak to remain "independent" from the other regional powers. In another word, it was a marriage of convenience. To the great wisdom of statesman like Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore chose to forge a path towards nationhood independent of the Malayan Federation - and she is contributing more to the region than the whole Malaysian federation.

Take this view into the global context, and into the present - one can't help but laterally apply the history lessons to Iraq, Cosovo, Kurdistan, Sudan, Congo, Indonesia, Palestine etc. In the globalised world, will the regional powers allow a small state to prosper on its own path, and not to usurp her spirit into a force marriage, for some lofty balance of power in the region ? Take the Kurds for instance. Shouldn't the region and the world powers be more receptive to the possibility of the Kurds (some 12 million people) in the region have a country of their own ?

Afterall, democracy empowers the individual. If an aggregate of individuals identifies themselves as a people with common ties and visions for the future, would it not be for the overall benefit of the region if they were to be also empowered - give autonomy and perhaps, independence to self-determine their future, and to build their own institutions according to their norms ?

Forced union through federalism, in nation building, it seems to me, not only fail to acknowledge the underlying differences among member states but also is a failure to acknowledge the possibility that the member states can prosper faster if it were to be left on its own, independent of the federation.

Which now led us to thinking of modern federated states, and loose congregation of countries such as the United States and the European Union. I used the United States and the European Union in the same sentence because in some sense, the United States is a union of countries, in much the same way that the EU, are "almost" federated countries. The United States is the most successful federated states in history: and due to the diversity of the states, that may appear to runs counter to the earlier argument, that preference should be individuals to form their own country even to the smallest possible (strength in being small) group.

I think what the modern federation fail to recognise is how much autonomy the Federal govt in the United States gave to the state and local government. Why the model is no applied in Sudan (Darfur), and why the same cannot be negotiated for the states in Iraq ? Heck, even powerful China is experimenting with "one country, two system" !

In wrapping this up: it would be a pity if century from now, the Malaysian Federation still fail to recognise strength in a looser federation, and grant my Sarawak greater autonomy to chart its own development. By then, the disparity between Sarawak and West Malaysia, will be extended to 200 years: and its hard to imagine the disparity between Sarawak and Singapore !

For a Just World,
Meramat