Rethinking power, periphery, MA63 enigma

HAS Dato Sri Alexander Nanta Linggi crossed the Rubicon, when he appears to have deviated from the traditional norms of collective leadership to express displeasure and discomfort over the prevailing state-federal relationship?

In an environment where the politics of Malaysia is under intense analysis, his statements have given rise to an interesting debate on whether he has crossed an important line.

In his recent appearance on the popular ‘The Breakfast Grille’ podcast, Nanta, the federal Public Works Minister and the secretary-general of the Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) coalition, chose to set aside the diplomatic nicety that would often characterise the dialogue between the federal and state governments in Malaysia, and offered his unvarnished take on what he considered to be the ‘ugliness and divisiveness’ in the politics and hegemony of Peninsular Malaysia.

The implications of his actions remain to be seen, but one thing is clear: Nanta’s willingness to challenge the status quo has ignited a lively debate about the future of state-federal relations, and the role of leaders in shaping this critical aspect of governance.

Although Nanta’s discomfort was conveyed indirectly, without directly confronting the issue, it should, however, not be forgotten that the implications are significant.

By choosing to voice his dissent rather than maintain silence, Nanta might have initiated a new course, one that does not follow tradition.

Dialogical conflict

If this is the case, then this could have some bearing on federal-state relations, possibly leading to either more dialogical discord or ushering in a new era of openness.

What does this portend for the future of constitutional harmony in Malaysia, and has the Nanta situation contributed to changing the course of intergovernmental relations?

A close look at his ‘Pandora‑box’ remarks points to a story that goes back to 1963 when the Malaysia Agreement was signed, and what followed were many years of hiccups in the relationship between Kuala Lumpur and Sarawak.

This is compounded by the growing political and social disparity between the two regions.

By pulling open a metaphorical chest that has remained relatively shut since the birth of Malaysia, Nanta foregrounds a narrative that stretches back to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

The latter is a legal and historic document that united Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore under a single federation.

Singapore left the grouping two years later.

Hiccups in federal-state relations

Though the agreement provided for an equal partnership, there have been a number of ‘hiccups’ in the relationship between Kuala Lumpur and Sarawak over the following decades, including a series of revisions to revenue-sharing formulas, a gradual erosion of state-level autonomy, and a number of federal policies that have sometimes appeared to favour peninsular interests over those of the Borneo states.

It is from these imbalances that a sense of political marginalisation and social disparity has come to emerge, and it can be evidenced through a variety of different things, from a lack of fair and equitable federal allocation to a feeling that the natural resources of Sarawak are exploited for the benefit of the centre.

The sentiment expressed, a sense of political marginalisation and social disparity in Sarawak, is a dominant theme in East Malaysian politics that has been discussed within the framework of the MA63 negotiations.

The issues that have been raised have been with regard to federal allocation, lack of federal development funds in rural areas, as well as oil and gas resources.

Unfulfilled promises

It is possible to see Nanta’s remarks in the podcast interview as potentially disruptive, and for a union whose very existence is at odds with itself, the act of opening the box is a form of purging of repressed emotions and views, or catharsis as Aristotle would choose to describe it.

Through this, he not only raises questions on the history of peaceful nation-building, but also speaks volumes of the need for the federal government to deal with a neglectful heritage that has been festering away for more than five decades.

The reference in the podcast interview to his late grandfather Tun Jugah Barieng, a founding father of Malaysia on agreeing to form Malaysia on the premise of equality and social justice and without discrimination by the dominant ethnic and religious group in Malaya, brings to light his agitation against many unfulfilled promises and the growing tension between ethnic groups attributed to rising extremism.

While it is too early to say if this statement by Nanta would result in more dialogue or more division, one thing is for sure: he has decided to cross the Rubicon, and abandon the quiet that has all too often shrouded complaints from Sarawak.

Centre dominance critiqued

By invoking language that implicitly critiques the centre’s dominance, Nanta opened what many observers have called a Pandora’s box: a set of grievances that have long festered in Sarawak (and, by extension, Sabah), but are rarely voiced so bluntly on a national platform.

The question now circulating in both Kuala Lumpur and Kuching is whether this candour was a calculated move to ‘cross the Rubicon’.

That is, is it deliberately forcing a point of no return in the strained Peninsula‑Borneo states relationship?

Yet, another school of interpretative thought argues that Nanta’s remarks appear designed to shock the federal corridor into acknowledging the deep‑seated unease that many Sarawakians and Sabahans feel about unequal development, resource allocation, and political marginalisation.

Beyond GPS influence

Whether on purpose or not, Nanta was able to use the well-liked morning show to make sure that the message would reverberate beyond the GPS influence, and might startle the prime minister, ministers, and senators into taking Sarawak’s demands more seriously.

His home constituency of Kapit in Sarawak would undoubtedly be inspired by the same direct statement.

Nanta’s candour serves as a rallying cry for Sarawakians who have long witnessed the federal narrative overshadow their provincial ambitions, proving that their concerns are at last being spoken of and heard at the highest levels of authority.

It appears to be a strategic move to build further support among the people of Sarawak, while pressuring the elite in the peninsula to engage in a fairer dialogue.

Regardless of whether Nanta’s words were a premeditated gambit or a spontaneous outburst, the fact remains that they have clearly made an impact.

They have once again put the old issue of Sabah and Sarawak in the national spotlight and forced the relevant authorities to confront some uncomfortable realities.

The ‘Rubicon’ that Nanta may have crossed in the weeks to come will not only be measured by the reaction of Kuala Lumpur to his words, but also by the impact they have on the politics of the GPS and its allies.

Escalating legal disputes

The recent statements by Nanta have once again ignited the long-standing feud between East and West Malaysia, and the imbalance of power and resource management has again been brought into the limelight.

The core of the current issue is the decision by Petronas to sue the Sarawak state-owned oil and gas company, Petroleum Sarawak (Petros), which is seen as a defiance of the autonomy of Sarawak.

The crux of the contentious issue is who has the legitimate authority to control and monetise the oil and gas reserves in Sarawak.

Petronas has also invoked a RM7.95 million bank guarantee issued by Petros, marking an escalation in the legal and commercial dispute regarding control over Sarawak’s oil and gas resources.

This not only adds to the pre-existing grievances on matters of sharing resources, but also seeks to widen the divide between Kuching and Kuala Lumpur.

For many in Sarawak, the issue is not so much the amount, but sovereignty, self-determination, and the federal government’s lack of willingness to abide by the true meaning and intention of the MA63.

As trust diminishes, the face-off serves to highlight a basic imbalance in the federation and prompts the need for decentralisation and a renegotiation of the position of Sarawak in Malaysia.

* Toman Mamora is ‘Tokoh Media Sarawak 2022’, recipient of Shell Journalism Gold Award (1996) and AZAM Best Writer Gold Award (1998). A holder of PhD in Social Anthropology (Nottingham UK), this communication and research consultant remains true to his decades-long passion for critical writing as he seeks to gain insight into some untold stories of societal value.