Recently, 7 Borneo native non-Muslim Sessions judges and magistrates were transferred in one go in a highly unusual manner to the Peninsula. The rumour then was that the Registrar would be promoted and the 7 judicial officers were sent away and be removed from contention to be the replacement Registrar. It was also rumoured that the replacement Registrar would be another Muslim officer from the Peninsula.
Well, so far the rumours have come true!
At the outset of the formation of Malaysia in 1963, the judiciary was to be one of the pillars of the rule of law for Sabah and Sarawak. Hence, the High Court of Borneo was created as an equal to the High Court of Malaya, both with an ultimate avenue of appeal to the Privy Council in London.
The High Court of Borneo (now High Court of Sabah and Sarawak) has jealously guarded its autonomy and rejected external interference from the Peninsula.
Since 1963, the Registrar of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak has always been headed by a Borneo native until the current Registrar.
“If the new Registrar is to be someone from the Pensinsula, it runs smack of the Federal government’s Malayanization programme” opined Dr. Jeffrey.
“It is also totally contrary to the Borneonization set out under the 20-Points and the Malaysia Agreement” added Dr. Jeffrey.
It only shows the colonial master mindset of the federal leaders from the Peninsula and the sheer trampling of the special rights and privileges of Sabah and Sarawak agreed upon in the formation of Malaysia.
It is just another step in the colonization of Sabah and Sarawak by Malaya.
The Sabah and Sarawak governments need to implement Borneonisation more effectively and ensure that the new Registrar of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak will be a Borneo native to safeguard the autonomy of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and stop the Peninsula from meddling with the affairs of the judiciary in the Borneo States.
The Federal government (which is run by Malaya) should not be allowed to indirectly meddle with the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and do as it pleases. The separation of powers in Sabah and Sarawak in the judiciary must be respected and safeguarded at all times.
As an additional step, the Sabah government must ensure that a Sabahan will be appointed as the next Director of the High Court in Sabah.
If not, it will not be surprising if the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak is completely taken over and usurped by the Peninsula in the foreseeable future.
The Sabah government need to assert its authority for the sake of the future of Sabah and Sabahans and stop the Malayan manipulation of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak by the Peninsula.
Jeff, are you kid around?
ReplyDeleteWhy you don't implement any?
ReplyDeleteJeffrey seemed to mock himself
ReplyDeleteImpression depression
ReplyDeleteBorneonization is so happening
ReplyDeleteCome on Jeff, what else did we miss? Kid around with Harris and blew it up
ReplyDeleteKita tunggu dan lihat ja
ReplyDeleteIT must be just happy coincidence that as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was talking about the state-federal partnership during Malaysia Day celebrations in Bintulu, the same theme of partnership was bandied about in Kuching by the opposition.
ReplyDeleteThe prime minister was expounding on partnership as a fact over the last 49 years since the Malaysia Agreement was inked. The Malaysia Agreement was forged on the basis of a federal arrangement whereby the state and federal governments each has a clearly defined set of responsibilities, with certain overlapping responsibilities coming under a concurrent list.
ReplyDeleteThe Agreement was freely entered into by the expanded nation's founding fathers. It has withstood the test of time, despite some clamour by some quarters from time to time for a vaguely defined "review" of points in the Agreement.
ReplyDeleteAny call for a "review" may suggest some unhappiness over the terms of the Agreement but unless it is clearly spelt out if any dissatisfaction actually arises out of some breach or contravention of the Agreement and any attempts at seeking redress having been tried and found wanting, any "review" is at best premature.
ReplyDeleteWhatever dissatisfaction there may be over the so-called 20 points of the Malaysia Agreement in the case of Sabah and 18 points in Sarawak's case has not really amounted to any solid basis for a legal challenge over any breach or contravention of the Agreement so far.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Sarawak has recently just got another reaffirmation of the state's rights when a legal challenge to its barring of a citizen from Peninsular Malaysia from entering the state filed in a court in the peninsula was thrown out for lack of competent jurisdiction by the said court.
ReplyDeleteAnother persistent matter of contention in Sabah and Sarawak has been over the five per cent petroleum royalty that each state receives from Petronas. Again, it must be recalled that the five per cent quantum was something freely and readily agreed to between Sarawak and the Federal Government after extensive negotiations. The Sabah government quickly followed in signing a similar agreement thereafter.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone should find fault with these particular agreements now, any blame must fall at least equally between the Federal Government and either state government unless it can be shown that the state or federal authorities then put pressure to bear on the other party to sign a pre-drafted agreement.
ReplyDeleteThe first recourse for anyone in either state must be to hold the state government to account and justify the basis for signing the agreement. Partnership, after all, must be a two-way street if it is to mean anything at all.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the record thus far would suggest that the Federal Government has usually bent over backwards to accommodate the expectations and demands of the people in both Sabah and Sarawak. Najib brought up the concrete examples of how he readily approved the setting up of a university each in Kuching and Miri while education minister and now a university for Sibu has also been approved. All these universities had been state initiatives.
ReplyDeleteYet another loaded accusation has been a complaint that the autonomy enjoyed by both Sabah and Sarawak has somehow been eroded over time. General ignorance may be more at fault here, such as when even senior state officials mistakenly assume Islam to be the official religion for the entire country when constitutional provisions excluding Sabah and Sarawak from having any official religion remain in place.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the imperative of national integration will naturally have taken its course after almost half a century of Malaysia. This is largely for the greater good of the nation as a whole. But admittedly there will be some areas where the people in both Sabah and Sarawak quite firmly believe importing certain norms from the peninsula is unhealthy. Increasingly, even people in the peninsula realise as much and are actually advocating importing Sabah and Sarawak norms over to the peninsula.
ReplyDeleteIt is therefore somewhat mystifying that instead of re-affirming and seeking to strengthen the provisions of the Malaysia Agreement, the opposition sees fit to draw up its so-called "Kuching Declaration" committing the opposition parties to some ill-defined "equal partnership" agreement between state and federal governments and promising that it is a legally-binding document that will stand up in court should a future opposition-led Federal Government not live up to its provisions.
ReplyDeleteWill someone enlighten us as to what precisely may be wrong with the Malaysia Agreement to warrant an "alternative" agreement now and why, if indeed the original Agreement has its shortcomings, nobody bothered to legally test those shortcomings and the few who actually did find fault find that they themselves come up short?
ReplyDelete