of Sabah & Sarawak
By Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria**
Introduction
After more than five decades of reflection on the theme of federalism and the formation of Malaysia, there is still a basic need to question the issue of human rights. Is human rights a key cornerstone of the Federal-State relations? What, if any, are the roles of the Federal Government and State Governments of Sabah and Sarawak in ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights, particularly that of the indigenous people?
Fundamental to this discussion is the concrete evidence in Part II of the Federal Constitution, Articles 5 – 13 which contain the key provisions pertaining to fundamental liberties with a focus on equality (Article 8); civil and political freedoms (Articles 7 and 10); religious freedom (Article 11); educational freedom (Article 12) and property rights (Article 13). Although the Articles do not use direct human rights terminology, these fundamental liberties form the core of a human rights framework.
Part III of the Federal Constitution provides citizenship rights. Article 153 makes specific reference to the special position of indigenous people as natives of Sabah and Sarawak along with the Malays. The provisions in Articles 161A, 161B and 161E provide further constitutional safeguards to the natives of Sabah and Sarawak in relation to their identity and lands.
The 20-Point Sabah and 18-Point Sarawak (20/18 points), Malaysia Agreement is also built on the framework of human rights. Unlike the Federal Constitution, this agreement is not legally binding but more of a moral commitment from political leaders during the formation of Malaysia.
Based on this understanding, the four parties, namely the Federation of Malaya, the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak and Singapore (which eventually left), came together in 1963 to form Malaysia. Based on the pointers from the Federal
* Paper presented on September 27, 2013 at the Workshop on “50 Years of Malaysia: Federalism Revisited” organised by the Centre for Asian Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore.
** Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria is the Principal Research Fellow, Institute of Ethnic Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Secretary-General of Proham (Society for the Promotion of Human Rights).
Constitution and the 20/18 points, these reflect civil, political economic, social and cultural rights.
The roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government and State Governments are governed by the Federal and State lists as provided in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. There is also a supplement to the Concurrent List for Sabah and Sarawak. This aspect will be discussed later in this article.
The question then arises: who is responsible for ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights? Is it a Federal or State responsibility? Or is it both?
How have the Federal and State Governments fared in the context of human rights, especially in relation to the natives of Sabah and Sarawak?
The strongest commitment made by the Federal Government of Malaysia was on September 9, 1999 when the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act (Act 597) was gazetted. The Commission, known as Suhakam, held its inaugural meeting on August 24, 2000. Since then Suhakam has played a major role in monitoring human rights issues and concerns impacting the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak. It also acts effectively as the main institution which scrutinises human rights in Malaysia.
In the last 13 years the Suhakam has undertaken various monitoring tasks.
Therefore, a review of their work highlights many of the issues and concerns affecting the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak. In this review we will also discuss the roles of the Federal and State Governments in enhancing or neglecting human rights. Suhakam's studies and reports are accurate in capturing the violations on human rights as experienced by the people of Sabah and Sarawak, which have direct implications for Federal-State relations.
This article focuses on human rights issues and concerns pertaining to the people of Sabah and Sarawak. These issues have been well documented by Suhakam from the time it was established. The writer was a two-term commissioner from 2006 to 2010 and participated in a number of field visits, roundtable discussions and documentation.
The Suhakam Act mandates it to submit an annual report of its activities, findings and recommendations. The sad reality is that despite more than 13 annual reports submitted to parliament between 2001 and 2013, there has not been a single debate or deliberation during parliamentary sessions or at the select committee stage, simply because no time was allocated for the purpose. This demonstrates the general approach adopted by the Federal Government and the administration on matters pertaining to human rights.
On a similar note the Suhakam Annual Reports have specific chapters on Sabah and Sarawak including various socio-economic reports undertaken; these too have not been discussed in the State Assemblies. Although the state agencies
study them, the State Governments have neither adopted the findings nor ratified the concerns in the majority of cases.
This paper will reveal that many of the root grievances and violations could have been addressed effectively with open, rational, transparent and accountable discussions. The Suhakam reports highlight legitimate concerns and human rights violations. The Federal and State Governments would have been viewed as being more responsive towards human rights concerns and violations of the people of Sabah and Sarawak if it had provided the formal space to discuss the same within the democratic freedoms.
This review also takes into account the human rights principles consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is important to note that while Malaysia has ratified three conventions affecting children (CRC), women (CEDAW) and disabled persons (CRPD), it has not done so with any of the major human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Therefore, it appears that the response by the Federal Government to human rights is selective. It has not readily benchmarked itself by global standards.
In compliance with international standards however, Malaysia has signed a number of important declarations such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, Declaration on the Right to Development 1986; the UN Rio Declaration on Environment & Development 1992 and the UN Rio + 20 Declaration “The Future We Want”. Although such declarations are not legally binding like conventions, Malaysia’s signing of these international level declarations has a bearing nevertheless on their application at the domestic level.
The implications are there notably for indigenous land rights, forest management and poverty alleviation as well as on matters related to religious and cultural rights.
The demographic breakdown of Sabah and Sarawak shows a diversity which is very different from that of the population of Peninsular Malaysia. Politicians and administrators are often very peninsular-centric and have little understanding of East Malaysia’s distinctive context. The level of understanding and appreciation has a direct impact on areas of governance.
Based on the 2010 Department of Statistics report, Sabah has a population of 3.2 million comprising Kadazandusun (17.71%), Bajau (14%), other Bumiputera (20.57%), Malays (5.74%) and Murut (3.20%). There are altogether 72 ethnic and sub-ethnic groups.
In the case of Sarawak there are 28 indigenous groups with a population of 2,471,140 comprising Ibans (28.87), Malays (22.98%), Bidayuh (8.03%), Melanau (4.99%) and other Bumiputera (6.33%).
The four contemporary human rights issues, which have a bearing on the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak with specific reference to how the Federal-State Governments execute their policies and programmes, are citizenship, land, development and religion.
Citizenship Issues in Sabah
On July 31 and August 1, 2006 Suhakam hosted three activities “to identify the infringement and deprivation of human rights encountered by Malaysian citizens in Sabah due to the influx of foreigners who were alleged to have Malaysian identify cards.” In addition to a roundtable discussion the Suhakam team also made visits to Kinarut, Sri Tanjung and Telipok. The third activity was a dialogue with the residents of Kamong Maang.
The resulting issues, concerns and recommendations were documented in the Suhakam 2007Annual Report.1 Subsequently in February 2010, Suhakam released a full report titled “Human Rights and Citizenship in Sabah: Its impact on economic, social and cultural rights.”2 Suhakam listed four main issues in this annual report.
They were, an abnormal increase in Sabah’s population; the dubious issuance of identity cards to foreigners; foreigners with fraudulent Malaysian identity cards having access to voting in the elections; and the issuance of IMM13 cards to refugees displaced by civil war in the Southern Philippines. Suhakam called on the Federal Government and the Sabah State Government to investigate the allegations of infringements and deprivation of the rights of Sabahans. Furthermore, Suhakam indicated that “these problems must be addressed quickly to protect all Malaysians.”
One of the recommendations of the Roundtable discussion was the establishment of “a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to look into all aspects pertaining to the foreign population in Sabah.”3 Speakers at the discussions, including Joshua YC Kong of the Consumer Association of Sabah and Labuan and Dr Chong Eng Leong highlighted the need for an RCI.
A similar call was made by Proham,4 who hosted a Roundtable discussion on May 19, 2012 at University Malaysia Sabah on the theme of “Addressing Citizenship Issues in Sabah” urging the Federal Government not to delay the establishment of an RCI.5
It has taken more than five years for the Federal Government to announce the establishment of an RCI since the Suhakam roundtable discussions in 2006.
1 Pages 53 to 59.
2 Suhakam 2007a.
3 Suhakam 2007a, p 15.
4 Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia (Society for the Promotion of Human Rights).
5 Proham 2012, pp 419 – 420.
Following a public outcry on the matter, the Federal Government announced the establishment of an RCI under the Chairmanship of Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kiong on August 11, 2012.
The RCI has been very active from the time it was established. A recent Bernama report6 stated that the RCI completed hearing the testimonies of 211 witnesses.
It is now in the stage of reviewing the evidence. They were expected to release their report by December 21, 2013.
Unfortunately this has not taken place and therefore Luke Rintod raised the question “Where’s the RCI Report?” There seems to be some delay on the subject but there has been no communication with the public on this.7
Implications of the Citizenship Concerns
There is a great impact on the political landscape in Sabah due to demographic changes as the original natives are being outnumbered. In one sense the interests of the people of Sabah has not been protected as the Federal system might have been acting on politics of the centre as opposed to protecting the interest of the state.
Welcoming the establishment of the RCI Proham on August 12, 2012 noted that the Terms of Reference (TOR) did not call for the RCI “to provide effective solutions such as what ought to be done if there are some who have been granted citizenship but who did not qualify.”8 Another aspect noted by Proham was that the RCI’s TOR “does not call the RCI to identify those responsible and recommend appropriate action on the possible culprits, violators and collaborators.”
It was Dr Chong Eng Leong, who said in 2006, that “it is critical now and we need drastic actions with strong political will and sincerity to save sovereignty of Sabah within Malaysia. Sabah opted for formation of Malaysia because of security and protection of sovereignty.”9
6 Bernama 2013.
7 The RCI report was finally released on December 3, 2014 and made available for sale to the general public on December 12, 2014. Tan Sri Ali Hamsa, the Chief Secretary to the Government has given an assurance that the RCI report has not been tampered with. However opposition politicians and civil society leaders have casted doubts. The RCI conclusion was that “several government officials were working in cahoots with syndicate members to issue genuine identification cards to immigrants” (see “Sabah RCI: Syndicates blamed for issuing ICs for illegals”, http://www.
therakyatpost.com/news/2014/12/03/sabah-rci-report-released-today/, accessed January 9, 2015).
A permanent secretariat will be established to monitor the follow up of the findings headed by the Deputy Chief Minister of Sabah Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan. There is also a public call for the RCI report to be tabled in Parliament and Sabah State assembly for debate but this has not materialised.
8 Proham, 2012a, pp 422 - 424.
9 Suhakam, 2007a.
Granting of citizenship is the responsibility of the Federal Government. This impacts civil and political rights and have a bearing on economic, social and cultural rights as seen from the Sabah situation. The demographic shift has affected the natives of Sabah directly as they become marginalised within their own neighbourhoods.
The general accusation by certain quarters is that this has been orchestrated to ensure political dominance by the ruling political party. Furthermore there is a Muslim-Christian divide as the majority of new citizens are Muslims from Indonesia or the Philippines.
In this one area where the granting of citizenship falls under the Federal jurisdiction but immigration powers remain with the State we see the potential failure to safeguard the natives of Sabah from the new foreign arrivals. We now await the Royal Commission report and for both the Federal and State governments to work together to ensure border security and settle the citizenship related political crisis.
Issues Pertaining to Land
A second major area of concern is the indigenous ownership of land. One of the main public complaints received by Suhakam from the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak was in relation to land, particularly on customary land ownership. It is in this context that between Dec 2010 and June 2012 Suhakam conducted a National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous People in Malaysia. This was the first time that Suhakam had undertaken such a national inquiry in contrast with past inquires on specific allegations of human rights abuses.
In his message in the land inquiry report, Suhakam Chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam recognised that “land is central to the life of the indigenous peoples.”10 He further noted that “the violations of the land rights of the indigenous people takes many forms and are perpetrated by a number of actors who mostly knowingly, carry out economic activities in the pursuit of development that involve encroachments on the traditional land of the community…”11
A total of 407 statements from Sabah and 198 statements from Sarawak were recorded. These were categorised into seven issues, namely; administrative, plantation, logging & forest reserve, inclusion into national or state protected areas, community land development scheme, commercial development projects, compensation and others.
The inquiry report recognised “the unique relationship that indigenous peoples have with their land, which is central to the way of life and collective identities.”12 It found “that there is a high level of frustration, anger and desperation among
10 Suhakam, 2013, p v.
11 Suhakam, 2013, p vi.
12 Suhakam, 2013, p xii.
the indigenous communities because of the non-recognition of the rights to land, resulting in the venting of dissent or threats, and lately open protests.”13
Suhakam made 18 specific recommendations and that the injustices be dealt with in an expeditious and holistic manner, of which two were very significant. The first was the establishment of an Indigenous Land Tribunal or Commission to resolve issues and complaints related to indigenous people’s land claims.14 The other was the establishment of an independent National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Its function is to advise the government on laws and policies; propose and monitor sustainable development, and promote participation.15
Suhakam wanted this report to be presented in Parliament but the Government decided on setting up a National Taskforce led by Datuk Dr Mohd Tap Salleh, the Chairman of the Integrity Institute of Malaysia. The taskforce was made up of 15 members including civil society representatives. This was announced by Datuk Paul Low, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department on August 5, 2013.
The Government has made an assurance that the main function of the taskforce is to oversee the implementation of the 18 recommendations. The move was criticised by the Bar Council President, Christopher Leong as he felt that the Suhakam report should also be simultaneously released to Parliament in order for the recommendations to be adopted with immediate effect.
Noting that Suhakam is an independent Commission which undertook consultations and deliberations with the affected people; all relevant parties including government agencies, private sector, civil society; and academics, the current process of having a taskforce going through the review really undermines its role as an independent commission.
The Federal Government could have adopted Suhakam’s recommendations and established an Indigenous Land Tribunal to undertake the resolution of land related contestation rather than delay the process by reviewing the data gathered.
The Government and policy makers should accept the analysis provided by a commission which they themselves had appointed to take on this role.
The elected representatives from Sabah and Sarawak, who are members of the Cabinet, could have taken a more decisive step in supporting the recommendations of Suhakam rather than agreeing for it to be reviewed. They could have taken a positive step towards the land rights of the people by insisting on the establishment of a tribunal rather than just another taskforce which would only further delay and repeat the work of an independent commission.
13 Suhakam, 2013, p xii.
14 Suhakam, p 166.
15 Suhakam, 2013, p 174.
One notices that every time an RCI is appointed and a report completed, the Government tends to form another team to study the report and this team eventually comes to a different conclusion or dilutes the findings.
Furthermore, the State Governments of Sabah and Sarawak also seemed very resistant to Suhakam’s land report which was based on an independent inquiry of the people, agencies, private sector and academics. In this area the implications appear to be that both the Federal and State Governments are reluctant to respond positively to Suhakam’s findings. As a consequence the people’s grievances remain unresolved. There are also opinions on the ground that the development model adopted in both Sabah and Sarawak is friendly to big businesses engaged in logging, dam development and the plantation sector.
Implications of Land Issues
A possible counter argument could be that land is a state matter and not really under the ambit of the Federal Government. So the issue pertaining to land could be settled by the respective State Governments. This is the dominant view on the surface, however, Wee Chong Hui reveals otherwise. He notes that the Federal Constitution assigns functions in land and mines to the State Government, but
“the utilization and development of these natural resources are affected by federal regulations.”16
This is illustrated in reference to the National Land Council which “was formed to promote and control the utilization of land for mining, agriculture, forestry and any other purpose.”17 Wee Chong Hui cites another way of restraining State Governments as “through Federal Government employees holding state government post.” Another interesting observation is “in 1995, the federal Minister of Science, Technology and Environment issued an order to the effect that the Federal EIA requirement does not apply to dams in Sarawak. The order favoured the implementation of the Bakun Dam project. Although the order seems to give the Sarawak State Government legal autonomy, there is no avenue for public participation…”18
One major side effect of Federal-State relations is the narrow scope for State Governments to raise revenue. The states, especially Sabah and Sarawak derive their main revenue among others from “natural resources such as forest, land and mines, state government are assigned the related tax revenues, royalties and receipts from land sales… the limited sources of revenue risk over-exploitation of these resources for the state government to maximise revenue.”19
16 Wee Chong Hui, 2011, p 559.
17 Wee Chong Hui, p 564.
18 Wee Chong Hui, p 565.
19 Wee Chong Hui, p 566.
This could be one reason for the states to freely allocate the contested customary lands back to the natives. There is a lot of contestation between the state authorities and the indigenous people. The Suhakam report on the Penan Benalih blockade,20 Penans in Ulu Belaga21 and the Muru dam project22 reveal the lack of consultation and the way these dams and plantation development projects were bulldozed, causing tremendous socio-economic suffering to the poor indigenous people.
On March 20, 2014 when Malaysia presented its Working Group Report of the Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council at Geneva it did not make any proactive response or commitment towards resolving the land disputes other than stating it will wait for the findings of the Taskforce set up to review the Suhakam land inquiry report. This does not reflect a strong commitment on the part of the Government to accept the major recommendations of Suhakam but rather to delay the process through another review. The statement by the Government uses the language of human rights but does not reflect any substantive action to remedy the prolonged situation.
Development and Poverty Alleviation
The Federal Government has taken the lead role since 1970 in poverty alleviation through various development plans such as the New Economic Policy, New Development Plan and New Vision Plan. Using a poverty-line measurement, these policies have been effective in reducing poverty from 49.3% to 3.8% between 1970 and 2009.23
The poverty rate for Sabah is the highest in the country at 19.2% in 2009, Sarawak at 5.3% whereas Peninsular Malaysia is at 2.0%.24
The Malaysia Millennium Development Goals 2010 provides an interesting analysis; “in ethnic terms, the bottom 40% of households in 2009 show a large over-representation of other Bumiputera and others…”25
The main problem in the way data is analysed at the central level with national averages or at the state levels neglects the disaggregated data. The Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010 provides some breakdown of mean incomes by state and sub-ethnic data: Sabah (Malay, Kadazandusun, Bajau, Murut) and Sarawak (Malay, Iban, Bidayuh, Melanau). This shows higher income levels for Malays in contrast to other native communities.
20 Suhakam, 2007b.
21 Suhakam, 2007c.
22 Suhakam, 2009.
23 10th Malaysia Plan, p 145.
24 Ibid, pp 397 – 399.
25 Malaysia Millennium Development Goals, 2010, p 19.
A Suhakam micro-level case study report of the Penans in Ulu Belaga describes the suffering of the Penans in Long Singu and Long Jaik. They are described as the poorest groups in the country who live below the poverty level. They have inadequate access to nutritious food, health care, education, housing and clean water.26
Poverty is further complicated with a majority of the Penans met by Suhakam not possessing legal documents such as identification cards or birth certificates.
This renders them stateless and restricts their access to the public sector health, education and welfare services.
Implications for inclusive and sustainable development
The real struggle for the native groups of Sabah and Sarawak is to experience economic development and improved quality of life on par with the majority of people in Peninsula Malaysia. The use of disaggregated data and monitoring is more effective as it will enable specific targeting.
The New Economic Model 2010 is an inclusive development model with a focus on meeting the needs of the bottom 40%. The orientation would be towards growth among the poor with market-based affirmative action focusing on building capacity and capability. This is the thrust of the 10th Malaysia Plan.
At the recent launch of the Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Plan on September 14, 2013, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak appeared to send the wrong signals as there seemed to be a shift from inclusive development to a strong thrust to exclusive development. The fear is that certain sections of the political elite might take advantage of the provisions.27
This plan identifies the Bumiputera as Malays (9 ethnic groups), Orang Asli (18 categories), Sabah Bumiputeras (40 ethnic groups) and Sarawak (60 ethnic groups). He also indicated that the Muslim Bumiputeras made up 59.7% and non- Muslim Bumiputeras 7.6% and together they comprised 67.9% of the population.
This categorisation by national averages distorts the disaggregated categories in Sabah and Sarawak and therefore there is an urgent need to engage the people at the grassroots rather than handling it in a top-down manner. It is suggested that participatory development models would be more effective.
Aneeds basis approach anchored on human rights and empowerment will provide stronger socio-economic development which is fair and just for all communities based on equal opportunities.
26 Suhakam, 2007, p 3.
27 Najib, 2013.
Religious Freedom and Use of the Term “Allah”
Based on the Malaysia Agreement, the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak have no State religion and the implication is that Article 3 of the Federal Constitution is not applicable in North Borneo. The Yang Di Pertuan Agong is the Head of the Islamic religion.28
Christianity is the third largest religion in Malaysia with 9.2% of the population as indicated by the 2010 Census report. However, Christians make up 42.6% and 26.6% of the population in Sarawak and Sabah respectively. A majority of the Christians in the country are Malay speaking indigenous Malaysians residing in Sabah and Sarawak.
While Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution places restrictions on the propagation to Muslim, there are no restrictions on other aspects. The issue regarding freedom of religion began when the Ministry of Home Affairs banned the Malay language version of the Bible on December 22, 1981. But the ban was loosely applied. On December 5, 1986, the Ministry announced that Christians were banned from using three other words, namely; Kaabah (the sacred Muslim shrine in Mekkah), Baitullah (house of God) and solat (prayer).
A number of court cases were initiated as a result of the Ministry of Home Affairs’
prohibition on the use of the word ‘Allah’ in The Herald, a weekly Catholic publication on Jan 7, 2009. The Catholic church went to court on the matter on Feb 16, 2009 and on Dec 31, 2009, Kuala Lumpur High Court Judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan declared that the Home Minister’s decision of prohibiting The Herald from using the word ‘Allah’ in its Malay language publication, which catered specifically to the people in Sabah and Sarawak, was illegal, null and void.29
The Federal Government challenged this decision and the matter went up to the Court of Appeal. A three-member panel of judges at the Court of Appeal heard the application and reversed the earlier High Court decision.
The Catholic Church then took the case to Malaysia’s highest authority, the Federal Court. The appeal was heard by a panel of seven senior judges led by Chief Justice Ariffin Zakaria on March 5, 2014.
On June 23, 2014, the Federal Court rejected an application for leave to appeal the ban by the Court of Appeal with regards to the use of the word “Allah” in the Catholic weekly, by a four to three vote.30
28 Federal Constitution, Article 3 (3).
29 Bernama, 2013.
30 Vathani Panirchellvum, 2014.
Implications on the Religious Rights of the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak The initial appeal by the Federal Government to the Court of Appeal is viewed as controversial by the Churches as they claim that the Prime Minister had negotiated a 10-point settlement in 2011 where the prohibited words could be used by Sabah and Sarawak Christians in their churches.
The Bumiputera Christians of Sabah and Sarawak have been using the term
“Allah” for many generations even before the formation of Malaysia. This is well documented by The Christian Federation of Malaysia, which provides a comprehensive historical overview of the use of the term, especially by indigenous Christians.31
Rev Datuk Jerry Dusing, head of the largest Malay speaking church, stated that
“both states have guaranteed safeguards in the 18-point and 20-point agreements as conditions to be part of the new nation of Malaysia”.
He also highlighted that Article 11 (4) of the Federal Constitution provides only for the control or propagation of any religious doctrine or belief amongst persons professing the religion of Islam. However, there is no provision prohibiting the use of certain words by non-Muslims and any such provision should be regarded as unconstitutional.
The most recent statement by Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok, an ethnic Iban, who is the Bishop of Kuching and also head of the Anglican Church in South East Asia took a stronger stance. He said that the “unprecedented extra-judicial position that the use of the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity. This is an uncalled for, unnecessarily excessive and a gross insensitive provocation. This is a travesty of our constitutional and human rights”.
This is at the heart of how native Christians of Sabah and Sarawak feel. From the perspective of Peninsular Malaysia the “Allah” controversy has been portrayed as a sudden interest by the Indian and Chinese Christians wanting to use the term. However, this projection undermines the history and faith experienced by the majority of Christian population who live in Sabah and Sarawak and who are indigenous to the land.
The Sabahans’ have additional complaints against the Sabah National Registration Department who are arbitrarily changing individuals’ religion due to many Sabah Christians have the terms “bin” or “binti”.
Furthermore, Desmond Davidson of the Malaysian Insider has documented stories of 64 native Christians “who claimed they were tricked into converting to Islam” at Kampung Layung Maliau in Pitas with a payment of RM100.00. The
31 Christian Federation of Malaysia, 2013.
article also indicated that the Sabah Islamic authorities have denied that such actions took place.
Religious issues are at the heart of the contemporary contestation between the Federal, State and ordinary people. The narrative above indicates that both the Federal and State Governments have not done enough to protect the religious freedom of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak from a human rights understanding.
This is one aspect which is clearly defined in the Federal Constitution as well as in the 20/18 points agreement. The unique character of Sabah and Sarawak’s indigenous people who are also termed as Bumiputeras and their identity as Christians are being threatened by administrative and bureaucratic encroachments.
Adopting a stronger compliance to the Federal Constitution and adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people, will provide the safeguards needed for religious and cultural freedoms.
Conclusion
This paper focused on four key aspects, namely; citizenship, land, development and religious freedom. These issues pose serious concerns for people at the grassroots of Sabah and Sarawak. The Federal Government has neglected these concerns by not seeking effective solutions and remedies. This could have serious political implications in the future as ordinary citizens with unresolved grievances look to alternative political solutions.
Similarly, the State Governments have not played a strong interventionist approach in protecting the rights of the indigenous people. The State Governments could have adopted the International Convention on the Rights of Indigenous people as a guiding framework in all its dealings on state matters, especially rights to the land. However, the data and findings show a pro-business and market friendly approach as opposed to a pro-people approach in safeguarding the interest of the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak from a human rights and people- centred approach.
Looking at the 12th and 13th General Elections, it is important to note that it was the political parties from Sabah and Sarawak who ensured that the Barisan Nasional maintained control of Putrajaya. Both State and Federal elections show a steady increase in the presence of opposition political parties’ representation, particularly in Sabah and Sarawak’s urban seats.
Therefore, there is a need for both Sabah and Sarawak to utilise their political base to seriously impact the human rights issues, especially on compliance with the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous People. It is also imperative that both the Federal and State Governments treat the grievances of the local
people seriously to ensure equal opportunities and a fair measure of equity for all communities with equal outcomes through sustainable and inclusive development.
Five concluding themes could chart the way forward in strengthening andenhancing the human rights approach to development and resolving the concerns of the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak. In doing so there will be stronger Federal-State relations in addressing basic human needs and human rights.
First, there is a need for strong political leadership in adopting a human rights framework consistent with the Federal Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people in articulating socio-economic developments for this group. This pro- human rights and people- friendly approach are not just political clichés but grounded in public policy and delivery mechanisms with effective monitoring and complaints mechanism in place.
Second, to make a serious public policy commitment which takes people- centred development, wealth enlargement through business and environmental sustainability initiatives as articulated in the Post Rio UN document entitled “The Future We Want”. Such a commitment will adopt a balanced holistic approach to development. Malaysia is a signatory to this UN document and therefore both Federal and State Governments must ensure its application and adoption in addressing the concerns.
Third, foster greater consultative mechanism for maximum consultation and partnership in development. The Federal and State Governments must engage all stakeholders in an effective consultative and partnership. This is imperative to gain a buy-in and must ensure a participatory process where the people are partners in development and not mere objects. The Federal and State Governments must adopt creative approaches in ensuring meaningful engagement at the grassroots level through capability building and greater collaboration with civil society and people movements.
Fourth, the Federal Government must strengthen Suhakam as a truly effective intermediary mechanism with adequate powers not only to investigate violations but also in ensuring the human rights violations are stopped and those guilty brought before the courts. There must be a stronger commitment and political will by both Federal and State Governments to accept the independent inquiry process and findings to improve delivery and governance by public institutions.
There must be a greater accountability process and this could be enhanced by both parliamentary and state assembly by-partisan human rights committees made up of elected representatives from both sides of the political divide.
Fifth, Malaysia has made a commitment to develop a Human Rights action plan.
While this is long overdue, the Federal Government made a fresh commitment during the 2013/2014 Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council.
In undertaking this task, the Federal Government should take into serious account the issues and concerns of the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak; foster effective public awareness; public sector compliance to human rights standards;
develop effective monitoring mechanisms and establish effective grievance mechanisms. In doing so the Federal and State Governments will win the hearts and minds of ordinary people.
References
1. Bernama (2013), “Sabah RCI proceedings end, Commissioners start deliberating” www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/sabah-rci-proceedings-end- commissioners-start-deliberating-1.359906 (accessed September 20, 2013).
2. Bolly Lapok (2014), “Gempuru Besai Gerija Anglika Jaku Iban Communiqué”
www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/gempuru-besai-gerija- anglika-jaku-iban-communique-archbishop-datuk-bolly-la (accessed March 29, 2014).
3. Chong Eng Leong (2007), “Human rights, citizenship, illegal immigrants and stateless people” in Human Rights and Citizenship in Sabah: Its impact on Economic, Social & cultural Rights, Suhakam: Kuala Lumpur.
4. Christian Federation of Malaysia (2013), “When, Why & How Christians use the word Allah” www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/when-why- and-how-christians-use-the-word-allah-the-christian-federation-of-malaysia/
(accessed May 16, 2013).
5. Christopher Leong (2013), “Implement recommendations made in Suhakam Report of the National Inquiry into Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples”
www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/press_release_implement_
recommendations_made_in_suhakam_report_of_the_national_inquiry_into_
land_rights_of_indigenous_peoples.html (accessed August 26, 2013).
6. Department of Statistics (2010), Report on “Population Distribution & Basic Demographic Characteristics”, Malaysia.
7. Desmond Davidson (2014), “Sabah Christians meet today in bid to reverse conversions to Islam” www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/sabah- christians-meet-today-in-bid-to-reverse-conversions-to-islam (accessed February 4, 2014).
8. Federal Constitution of Malaysia (1957).
9. Jerry Dusing (2013), Statement by the Commission on Sabah Affairs of the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship Malaysia, “Any attack on the Alkitab is an attack on the religious freedom of Bumiputera Christians.”
10. Luke Rintod (2014), “Where’s the RCI report?” www.freemalaysiatoday.com/
category/opinion/2014/01/21/wheres-the-rci-report/ (accessed January 21, 2014).
11. Malaysia Agreement: 20-point (Sabah) and 18-point (Sarawak) http://
charleshector.blogspot.com/2012/09/malaysia-agreement-20-pointsabah- and-18.html (accessed September 25, 2013).
12. Malaysia, the Millennium Development Goals at 2010, UN Country Team in Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur.
13. Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006 – 2010, pp 58 – 59.
14. Najib Tun Abdul Razak (2013), “Bumiputera Economic Empowerment Plan”
www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/09/14/full-text-najib-bumi-speech.
aspx/ (accessed September 14, 2014).
15. National Economic Advisory Council (2010), New Economic Model (Part 1), pp 24 – 25.
16. National Economic Council (2011), New Economic Model: Kuala Lumpur, pp 79 – 81.
17. National Taskforce, www.nst.com.my/nation/general/task-force-to-study- report-on-orang-asli-land-rights-finalised-suhakam-took-18-months-to- complete-it-1.334514 (accessed August 8, 2013).
18. Proham (2012), “Sabah citizenship issues need urgent review through Royal Commission of Inquiry” in Denison Jayasooria (Ed) Proham & Human Rights Concerns in Malaysia, 2013, JJ Resources: Kuala Lumpur, pp 419 – 422.
19. Proham (2012a), “Proham welcomes the establishment of the RCI” in Denison Jayasooria (Ed) Proham & Human Rights Concerns in Malaysia, 2013, JJ Resources: Kuala Lumpur, pp 422 – 423.
20. Suhakam (2007) Annual Report.
21. Suhakam (2007a), Human Rights and Citizenship in Sabah: Its impact on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights.
22. Suhakam (2007b), Report on Penan Benalih Blockade Issue.
23. Suhakam (2007c), Report on Penan in Ulu Belaga: Right to land and socio- economic development.
24. Suhakam (2009), Report on the Muru hydroelectric project and its impact towards the economic, social and cultural rights of the affected indigenous peoples in Sarawak.
25. Suhakam (2013), Report of the National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
26. Suhakam Act: Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act 597), www.suhakam.org.my/about-suhakam/akta-suhakan/akta-597/ (accessed September 25, 2013).
27. Tenth Malaysia Plan, Moving towards inclusive socio-economic development, pp 139 – 188.
28. United Nations (2012), “The Future We Want” www.uncsd2012.org/content/
documents/727The%20Future%20W e%20W ant%2019%20June%20 1230pm.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).
29. Vathani Panirchellvum (2014), “Federal Court denies The Herald’s appeal on ‘Allah’ ban”, www.thesundaily.my/news/1089653 (accessed January 9, 2015).
30. Wee Chong Hui (2011), “Federal-State Relations in Natural Resource Management” in ISIS, Malaysia:
Policies & Issues in Economic Development.
