listening to adriana calcanhoto's "metade", one is struck by the meaning of the word "metade". it means "half". in malaysia's localized context, half of malaysia is east malaysia: the other half of malaysia is west malaysia. most people link malaysia's national day celebrations to 31st august, 1957: the day the federated states of malaya came together to form a new, independent entity, a conglomeration of states headed in a similar direction.
a few years later, new entities were admitted to the federation: the british colonies of north borneo (sabah), sarawak, and the state of singapore. the key instrument was the malaysia agreement, which was to take effect on 9th july 1963. it is interesting that the agreement listed the united kingdom of england and north ireland as parties to the agreement, as well as the three new members of the federation. it is also interesting that singapore was listed as a state: was singapore independent prior to its admission to the federation of malaysia? one wonders what its fate should have been if it had been otherwise. the expulsion of singapore on 9th august 1965, led to the formation of the sovereign state of singapore. thereafter there was a flare-up of racial tensions, culminating in the black incident of 13th may 1969. one wonders, whether the incidence of singapore has had anything to do with the 13th may racial riots.
in recent months we have witnessed the stance of china towards taiwan. china has promulgated an anti-secession law, which was passed by president hu jintao on 14th march 2005. the stance taken by china is that the taiwan issue is a remnant of the war of the 1940's, one which is to be resolved by china alone as it is an internal problem, and one that does not merit external help. the key idea mooted by china is the "one china" concept. article 5 of the law states:
Article 5
Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country.
To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification.
After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/14/content_2694317.htmone wonders if, in the future, malaysia may pass a similar law with regards to singapore? yet, such a question is best left open-ended. little states like singapore, taiwan and israel remain powerful because they open their doors to world superpowers like the united states of america, the united kingdom, and australia, and readily accept the presence of foreign military troops. while it is true that doing so entails a win-win situation for the host country and the superpower nation yet there is the question of the troops' impact on the local society. troop-related crimes have been known to occur e.g. japan's okinawa military base, where an american soldier was reported to have raped a japanese schoolgirl.
back to the question of malaysia, as a student of comparative constitutional law i have recognised that malaysia is a federation of states, and that malaysia is an
asymmetrical federation. issues of federalism in malaysia need to be looked into, including, but not especially, the twenty points in sabah. the recent introduction of easy immigration into the east malaysian states of sabah and sarawak by means of the malaysian identification card (mykad) entails an erosion of one of the basic points incorporated into the twenty points of sabah: the right to control immigration of semenanjung (peninsular malaysia) citizens into the state of sabah.
andrew harding, in his book "law, government and the constitution in malaysia" notes that there is no right of secession of states, only a right of accession as provided in article 2. of course, secession is an extreme step to take, but it is not incongruous with the idea of self-determination as recognised by the united nations. of course, rarely is the idea of secession one that is recognised and accepted or even encouraged by the federal government of malaysia. this is vastly different from the USSR 1977 constitution which recognised the right of states to secede.
(Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR) it is also recognised in the european union constitution.
(Article I-60, para 1: Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.)in the future, malaysia may have several options on the federalism menu. Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
another point which i neglected to mention was the incident when the government of the state of kelantan sought to halt the implementation of the malaysia agreement. it claimed that its views as a member of the federation was not sought, thereby effectively bypassing its rights to object to the inclusion of the new states of sabah, sarawak and singapore. his lordship chief justice thomson cj in disposing of the case with much aplomb came to the conclusion that the conclusion of the malaysia agreement could not of itself be an illegality as the kelantanese government has previously given the federal government the right to conclude, on its behalf, treaties (inter alia). the malaysia agreement was such a treaty. the result of a perfectly legitimate act would be in itself perfectly legitimate.
notable track of the day: titas, "isso"
