Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak sat down formally with Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem in Putrajaya earlier last month for talks on Sarawak’s quest for a streamlining of the state’s autonomy, as spelt out in the Malaysia Agreement.
The meeting between national and state chief executives set the train running over a subject that has been a matter of some political debate back in Sarawak. Lower-level discussions have been ongoing between state and federal officials for some time, ever since Adenan became chief minister almost two years ago. The two leaders followed up where they left off when they met in Kuching again last weekend.
Against the political excitement and expectations here in Sarawak, Adenan has been careful not to over-promise, so as to keep those expectations within manageable limits.
It is also important at the very outset for our political leaders to frame such talks and discussions for what they really are. They must be seen as part and parcel of the healthy to-and-fro, which should ideally be routine and regular, so that the substance and essence of federalism are sustained and even enhanced.
Some hardening of state attitudes has been discernible over the years, and probably owing to a complaint often enough expressed about a lack of federal-state consultation on matters where state interests are clearly involved.
Such complaints are historical and go back to federal administrations past, and do not necessarily reflect current practice. Indeed, Najib and the administration he leads deserve full credit for taking cognisance of such simmering resentments and instituting steps at the highest government levels to address them.
At the same time, Sarawak politicians must recognise that ours is undoubtedly a federation of 13 states, 11 of which won independence as the Federation of Malaya in 1957 before the expanded Federation of Malaysia was born in 1963 with Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore coming into the picture, and each of the newcomers entering into the new federation on terms separately negotiated and entered into with the central government.
With Singapore out of the picture after 1965, Malaysia did not become a confederation of Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah, as some in the two Borneo states would like to have us believe.
If anything, ours is a uniquely hybrid federation that has served the nation well in all these years and should continue to serve us well, so long as the essential give-and-take between state and centre holds.
A federal governing structure is still far from universally popular worldwide, but it, perhaps, remains the most suitable political innovation ever created that allows distinct regions to preserve their respective peculiarities and retain self-governing autonomy, while being part of a much larger economic and national union for the purposes of efficiency imperatives.
Sarawak and Sabah, not unnaturally, talk a lot about benefits accruing to both states with federation, often forgetting that federation allows them to concentrate on development priorities without having to worry about the intricacies (and expenses involved) of maintaining a well-equipped modern military (essential to secure both the long land and sea borders in both states), an internal-security apparatus, and diplomatic representation in a world which is, today, composed of nearly 200 countries.
Conversely, the federal powers-that-be will also have to accept and concede that administrative and other matters not specifically delineated as either state or federal responsibilities, or are designated as concurrent responsibilities, should, almost as a matter of course, be devolved eventually to state control, on the eminently sound principle that the governing entity closest to the people affected is almost always best positioned to effectively and efficiently plan and execute programmes and projects, within clear and well-defined overall national policies and objectives, of course.
With a Sarawak state election imminent, the jockeying for political advantage and point-scoring between politicians from the state government and opposition are expected to grow in intensity, especially over the issue of “state rights” and whether the governing side or the opposition has the better strategy to wrest “concessions” from the central government.
However, state-federal talks over state autonomy is not and should never be about a zero-sum game, where one side “gains” at the expense of the other. It should really be about arriving at a new and better administrative balance between the federal and state governments, which will result in greater efficiencies in delivering services and physical development to the people.
There is now recognition that at root, greater autonomy hinges on greater fiscal capabilities and resources for the state, which all require in-depth and time-consuming discussions.
These will not be resolved overnight.
John Teo is a Kuching-based journalist