Now, it must be noted that Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore did not join Malaysia. Malaysia did not exist yet, then. What existed was Malaya -- and Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore merged with Malaya to form Malaysia. This means, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore are of the same status as Malaya, not of the same status as one of the states of Malaya such as Selangor, Perak, Kedah, Perlis, Penang, etc. Today, Sabah and Sarawak are treated as just another of the Malaysian states and that is the bone of contention of these two East Malaysian states.
This was also one of the sore points in the Singapore-Malaysia relationship that resulted in Singapore leaving the Federation. Tunku Abdul Rahman did not agree that Lee Kuan Yew call himself Prime Minister of Singapore as the Tunku did not see how Malaysia could have two Prime Ministers. Lee Kuan Yew, on the other hand, did not agree to being ‘downgraded’ to a Chief Minister like Penang, Melaka, Sabah and Sarawak. Actually, Lee Kuan Yew was right and the Tunku wrong as far as I am concerned, though 99% of the Malays would disagree with me on this point.
What an opinion. If so, then can it then be summed that when some states joined the (federated states of) United States, they are not to be considered all equal because some of them joined late?
What about the UK, where Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland merged into England's age-old parliament as just another peer? There is but only one Prime Minister in the UK and he leads the executive branch of government with his cabinet. Was another 'equal executive branch and another equal PM made when those states merged with England to form the UK? Nope. They all still have their independent assemblies, but they come below the UK parliament.
Just like when firms merge, do they then create 2 CEO positions?
Why bother merging if you want to be separate?
People look too highly upon Lee Kuan Yew. He can take credit for Singapore's economic prosperity. For everything else, I doubt any credit is due to that man.
No comments:
Post a Comment