林德宜——沙巴大选：改变大局契机

将在9月26日投票的沙巴州选举，将是我国史上最重要的州选。其结果将不仅决定沙菲益和民兴党+的命运，也将确定整个国家政治发展的未来方向。

回顾沙州大选的历史以及目前多个政党及多角战局面──来自16个政党的447名候选人参选，可能会给人错误的印象，即加沙巴人民联盟（GRS）必将胜出。

尽管GRS是最近才成立的，但实际上其是长期执政中央和沙巴，直到第14届全国大选失利的旧国阵之转世。因此，其不仅具有国阵意识形态的基因，而且还有来自国阵的许多旧脸孔领导人。更重要的是，它拥有强大的联邦政府支持和巨大的财政资源。许多观察家预测GRS能够轻松打败民兴党+。民兴党除了只是执政两年多的新政权和缺乏资源外，也在希盟失去中央政权，由慕尤丁出任首相后，在政治上处于防守处境。

但是，预测GRS是赢家，可能还言之过早。

沙巴被边缘化

在沙巴，有一股强烈情绪是509全国大选中出现并一直持续到今天的，一种特殊的本土民族主义，人们越来越关注本土的权益──就如砂拉越般，甚至更强烈──即本州的权益在巫统主导的联邦政府下，没获得公正、公平的对待。

许多沙巴人，尤其是受过教育者，担心联邦和巫统将继续主导局面，尤其来自中央的政治力量通过国盟及全民共识，再度尝试干涉和影响州选举的结果。人们担心的是，如果布城通过其本地代理而获得政权，沙巴将进一步被边缘化，甚至州的权益进一步的被典当。

过去，沙巴和砂拉越都是国阵的“定期存款”。但是他们对执政联盟的效忠并没有获得应有的回报，反而被当作“养子”般，没有获得如1963年马来西亚协议下──西马半岛、东马两州和新加坡是平等伙伴的邦属地位。在新加坡脱离或驱逐出马来西亚后，新的马来西亚联邦实际上是由剩馀的三个相等邦属沙巴、砂拉越和马来亚半岛组成的。但这没有反映在现实上。

取而代之的是，通过1976年《宪法修正案》将1965年的版本的第1条第2款条文修订，把沙巴和砂拉越的地位和所享有权益调降成如半岛11个州属。

1965年版本的宪法，第1条第2款：注明马来西亚联邦的组成是由：（a）马来亚州属，即柔佛、吉打、吉兰丹、马六甲、森美兰、彭亨、槟城、霹雳、玻璃市、雪兰莪和登嘉楼；和（b）婆罗洲州属，即沙巴和砂拉越。

1976年修订后改为：马来西亚联邦是由柔佛、吉打、吉兰丹、马六甲、森美兰、彭亨、槟城、霹雳、玻璃市、沙巴、砂拉越、雪兰莪和登嘉楼组成。

除了对1963年《马来西亚协议》的文字和精神进行根本性的歪曲外，东马两州遭受的不公正，歧视性待遇和违约的清单可说罄竹难书。根据沙州许多政治领导人，包括来自GRS领袖的说法，这些包括：

●来自两州油气资源开采后的不公平分配；
●去世俗化和日趋伊斯兰化；
●通过联邦公务员机构，内部殖民化，使砂拉越人和沙巴人在州决策上边缘化；
●布城与腐败领导人合作使少数人致富，却破坏了环境和牺牲原住民社群的利益；
●1990年代前首相马哈迪医生执政时臭名昭著的“身份证计划”，使大量外国非法移民涌入，他们在沙巴注册为选民，并对当地经济和公民产生不利影响。

实际上在拥有较高政治意识沙巴人中，过去50年来，对被某些批评者视为源自吉隆坡的“新殖民主义”之抗拒和不满，一直是断断续续，但并没多大效果。这次选举又会否发挥更大作用？

这次沙巴州选，两大鲜明讯息是：首相慕尤丁在“我的承诺”竞选宣言上，承诺疫情下联邦政府对沙州的援助，相反，民兴党沙菲益向沙巴人保证：“我们在这里是要建立一个国家，而不是特定种族或宗教。”

选举现实

慕尤丁的承诺似乎与“你帮助我，我帮助你”这一声名狼藉的承诺差不多。前首相纳吉和国阵在2010年5月的诗巫国席补选中，就曾使用此手段。

这次沙州选举，为追求本土主义和州权益的人士，提供了机会，让他们把沙巴遭到剥夺、背叛和不公正的议题推到台前。但是有政治意识的人毕竟还是少数。

这能否为沙菲益和民兴党＋团队带来胜利，将取决于他们能否将拒绝布城主导地位议题，与经济课题的就业机会，生计问题联系在一起，后者正是大多数选民尤其是郊区选民心目中的首要问题。

如果民兴党＋在州选中胜出，这可能不仅为州权益问题打开了重新谈判大门。这也可能为饱受半岛的种族和宗教政治纠缠，以及一马公司相关丑闻缠身的国家，提供一个新的方向。

《沙巴大选：改变大局契机》（Sabah Election: A Potential Game Changer for Malaysia）原文：

The coming Sabah state election on 26 September promises to be the most important state election in the nation’s history. Its outcome will decide not just the fate of Shafie Apdal's Warisan plus government. It could also determine the future course of political development in the entire country.

A reading of the past history of Sabah’s elections and the current lineup of multiple contestants and parties - a total of 447 candidates from 16 parties are standing - may give the wrong impression that Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) is sure to win.

Although GRS was recently set up, it is really a reincarnation of the old Barisan Nasional coalition which held power in Malaysia and Sabah until the 14th GE. Thus it not only has the genes of the Barisan ideology but also many of the old leaders from the Barisan camp. More important is that it has formidable federal government electoral support and huge financial resources behind it. Many observers expect GRS to easily overcome the Warisan grouping. In addition to being new to power and lacking resources, Warisan is also on the defensive following the replacement of the Pakatan coalition at the national level by the Perikatan government of Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

However the prediction of a GRS win may prove to be premature.  

The Marginalization of Sabah

What has emerged in the last national election and continuing strongly today is a special type of state nationalism and the heightened perception that the interests of the state - together with that of Sarawak, but much more - have been unfairly and unjustly subordinated to that of the UMNO dominated federal government.

Many Sabahans - especially among the educated - are fearful that federal and UMNO domination will continue with this latest attempt by the central political power led by Muafakat Nasional and Perikatan Nasional to interfere with and influence the outcome of what should be a state driven election. Should Putrajaya with its proven ability to use local proxies succeed, the fear is that there will be greater marginalization or even a bigger sellout of state rights and interests.

In the past Sabah together with Sarawak have been Barisan’s fixed deposits. But instead of rewarding the two states for their loyalty to the ruling coalition, they have been treated like step children and as unequal partners in what, under the terms of the 1963 Malaysia agreement should be a federation of four equal components comprising the two East Malaysia entities, Singapore and the states of Peninsula Malaya as a whole.

After the departure or expulsion of Singapore, the new Federation of Malaysia should have in fact been made up of the three equal and remaining components - Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya. This did not happen.

Instead what emerged was a federation of 13 states with Sabah and Sarawak downgraded in status and rights as a result of the 1976 Constitutional Amendment that changed Article 1(2) from its 1965 version. （See the attachment below）. 

CHANGE IN SABAH AND SARAWAK STATUS

As a bundle affecting some 30 articles and schedules in the Federal Constitution, the 1976 Constitutional Amendment changed Article 1(2) from its 1965 version:

The States of the Federation shall be

(a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu; and (b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak.

to:

The States of the Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu.

In addition to this fundamental distortion of the letter and spirit of the 1963 Malaysia agreement, the list of injustices, discriminatory treatment and broken promises suffered by the two East Malaysia states runs to more than a few pages.

According to many of the state’s political leaders - and this includes those from the GRS - it includes the following：

●Unfair insubstantial revenues from the two states' oil and gas resources
●de-secularisation and creeping Islamisation
●internal colonization by the federal civil service establishment which has marginalized local Sarawakians and Sabahans in the running of their own states
●Putrajaya's collaboration with corrupt leaders which have enriched a small minority and despoiled the environment at the expense of the native communities
●Dr Mahathir's infamous "project IC" which permitted a massive influx of foreign illegal immigrants, their registration as voters in Sabah, and the adverse repercussions on the local economy and citizenry

Resistance to what some critics see as Kuala Lumpur-orchestrated "new colonialism" has in fact been smoldering intermittently and ineffectively during the past 50 years among the more politically conscious electorate.
Can it be more successful in this election?  

Electoral Reality

The two striking and enduring election messages to voters in Sabah right now are captured in Prime Minister Muhyiddin's "I promise" pledge to Sabahans for federal government assistance to the state during the current covid pandemic crisis. In contrast, Chief Minister Shafie has promised Sabahans that “We are here to build a nation, not a race or religion.”

Muhyiddin’s pledge seems to be almost the same as the infamous one of “You help me, I help you”. This was used by disgraced former Prime Minister Najib Razak and Barisan in the Sibu parliamentary by-election in May 2010.

The electioneering for this election is providing the opportunity for state nationalists and state rights activists to push their sense of deprivation, betrayal and injustice to the forefront. But the politically conscious are a small minority.
 
Whether this can translate into a win for Shafie and his Warisan plus team will depend on their ability to intertwine this rejection of Putrajaya dominance with the economic jobs and bread and butter issues that are foremost in the minds of the larger electorate especially in the rural constituencies.

If Warisan plus is successful in this coming election, this may open the door to not only renegotiation of the entire raft of state rights issues. It may also provide a new direction for a nation that is tired out by our poisonous Peninsula brew of race and religious politics, and the surfeit of 1MDB and associated scandals.