By Peter John JabanSarawak for Sarawakians and Founder of Saya Anak Sarawak
KOTA KINABALU: We support the recent remarks by Dato Sri Alexander Nanta Linggi, which reflect a concern long felt by many in Sarawak but often left unspoken.For years, politics in West Malaysia has been increasingly dominated by racial and religious narratives.
Too many politicians and their supporters openly exploit race and faith as political tools. Public discourse is frequently poisoned by intolerance, extremist rhetoric, and divisive language, creating an atmosphere of constant tension and instability.
Even worse, the numerous corruption scandals in West Malaysia involving politicians, businessmen, and senior civil servants risk tarnishing the good name and reputation of East Malaysia.
These cases create unfair perceptions that reflect poorly on Sarawak and Sabah, despite our long-standing record of integrity, transparency, and commitment to ethical governance.It is concerning that the misdeeds of others could affect how East Malaysia is perceived both nationally and internationally.
This is not merely a political disagreement. It reflects a fundamental divergence in values and political culture.
Sarawak, by contrast, has consistently upheld peace, moderation, and mutual respect among races and religions.
Diversity here is not weaponised for political gain; it is a lived reality.Governance in Sarawak has focused on social harmony, practical development, and coexistence not on inflaming fear or resentment.
As I have stated repeatedly over the years, these growing differences are one of the key reasons many Sarawakians feel increasingly disconnected from West Malaysian politics.
*This is part of the reasons why we Sarawakians are not keen to be part of MALAYSIA.*What is deeply concerning is that the situation began to worsen significantly when Sarawak started asserting its constitutional rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
Legitimate demands for autonomy, fair resource management, and equal partnership were increasingly met with hostility, suspicion, and politicised racial narratives from certain quarters in West Malaysia.Instead of engaging these demands in good faith, some politicians and their supporters chose to frame Sarawak’s constitutional claims as threats questioning loyalty, stoking fear, and portraying rights-based demands as acts of defiance. This response exposed an unwillingness to accept Malaysia as a true partnership of equals.
The racial and religious rhetoric intensified as Sarawak insisted on what was already agreed upon at the formation of Malaysia.
This has only deepened the sense that Sarawak’s moderation and constitutional approach are incompatible with the increasingly confrontational and identity-driven politics dominating the peninsula.
This growing hostility is not driven by Sarawak. It is the result of refusal to honour agreements, coupled with political opportunism that exploits race and religion to silence legitimate constitutional discourse.
*Sarawakians and Sabahans are now uncomfortable being drawn into political, ideological, and racial tensions and instability that we did not create.*
These developments have naturally led many Sarawakians to question whether their peace, identity, and future can be adequately protected within a political environment that thrives on division rather than respect.
This sentiment does not arise from hatred or disloyalty. It arises from a desire to safeguard harmony, dignity, and stability values Sarawak has carefully preserved for generations.If these fundamental issues remain unaddressed, it is inevitable that more Sarawakians will continue to reassess their relationship within the Federation.*Just a reminder,* Singapore left Malaysia on 9 August 1965 after serious political, racial, and economic conflicts between Singapore’s government and the federal leadership in Kuala Lumpur.
*Tensions escalated due to disagreements over race-based politics, economic policies, and governance.
*Fearing further instability, Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided that separation was the best option.
The separation was carried out legally and constitutionally.An agreement was signed on 7 August 1965, Parliament passed a constitutional amendment on 9 August 1965, Singapore became an independent, sovereign state.
*I believe that Sarawak has the potential to follow Singapore’s,should circumstances require it by negotiating peacefully asserting it’s rights,and ensuring any legal,constitutional,and in the best interest of it’s people.
.
*If the marriage isn’t working well, it’s best to divorce amicably*There is nothing wrong, unreasonable, or extreme about Sarawak demanding the rights and guarantees promised to it. These are not new demands, nor are they acts of rebellion.
They are constitutional rights and solemn promises made at the formation of Malaysia rights that remain legally valid and morally binding.( Since the formation of Malaysia) For decades, many of these promises were delayed, diluted, or left unfulfilled.Sarawak exercised patience, chose dialogue over confrontation, and remained committed to the Federation despite repeated postponements.
The current assertion of MA63 rights is not aggression; it is a long-overdue correction of historical imbalance. Demanding what was agreed upon is not divisive.
Failing to honour those agreements is.It is deeply troubling that when Sarawak finally began to speak more firmly about its rights, the response from certain political figures and their supporters in West Malaysia was not understanding, but defensiveness, racialisation, and accusations of disloyalty.
This reaction further proves the very concern being raised that legitimate constitutional discourse is being drowned out by identity politics.Sarawak’s demands are rooted in law, history, and partnership.
They are about fairness, dignity, and mutual respect, not supremacy or separation. Any attempt to frame these demands as threats to national unity is both misleading and irresponsible.True unity cannot be built on silence or submission. It must be built on honouring agreements, respecting differences, and treating partners as equals.
Sarawak is not asking for more than what was promised. Sarawak is simply asking for what was agreed and asking peacefully, constitutionally, and in good faith.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Jesselton Times.
