Statement by Robert Lau

suppadmin | June 4, 2016

SUPP went through its toughest election last month. We were challenged by our traditional opponents, DAP and by our own splinter group UPP. The real threat was from UPP who was and is still all out to destroy Sarawak’s oldest party.

We went to the people of Sarawak. We are thankful the people has given us their vote and we won back 3 seats from DAP (BatuKawah, Maradong and Repok) and won by a bigger majority in the two seats we retained (Senadin and Sri Aman). We also won the new seats of BatuKitang.

We would have won more had it not for the traditional SUPP seats that was taken our from us this round by UPP to contest as BN direct candidates. We could have won BawangAssan, Dudong and Pujut in the urban areas and Opar, Engkilili and Mambong the rural seats. And another new seat promised to SUPP (Bukit Semuja or Serumbu). That would have been 14 elected representatives from SUPP had it not for the splinter from our own former leaders that left us to set up their own SUPP imitation party, UPP.

Today marked the 57^th year of SUPP formation with the first meeting held few hundred meters away from here. We are the current leaders and members to carry the touch of the party. The flame in this touch is the aim and purpose of the party – to fight for Sarawak interest and to provide for a more equitable society. These are the twin pillars of SUPP. It is not about fighting to secure position of the leaders like our former leaders. That is selfish and that type of personal interest will not last long.

Sarawak and Sabah formed Malaysia together with Malaya on 16 September 1963. After 53 years Malaysia has come to a cross road as one of the fundamental principle agreed to during the formation is now being challenged – that Malaysia is a secular state. The foundation of Malaysia is now being tested.

The Private Bill introduced by AwangHadi, the President of PAS will effectively make Malaysia an Islamic State. Hudud law will steadily replace the current criminal system based on rule or law and the Criminal Code used by all countries that run along democratic principles. If the Hudud law is passed by Parliament, it will be the end of Malaysia as a secular state. Our leaders in Sarawak did not and would never has agreed to the formation of Malaysia had it known fifty years down the line, Malaysia will become an Islamic State.

I refer back to history. There were series of consultative committee meetings held in 1961 and 1962 between the possible countries that were to form Malaysia. They were the Federation of Malaya (led by DatoOng Yoke Lin who was then the Minister of Health and Social Welfare), Singapore (led by Lee Kuan Yew), North Borneo (Donald Stephens), Brunei DatoSetiaPengiran Ali hjMohdDaud) and Sarawak (Yeo Cheng Hoe).

Article 3 of the Constitution of Federation of Malaya refers to Religion. Art 3(1) provides “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.

Malaya then was set up as a secular country. This is clearly and expressly stated during the consultative meetings. I quote DatoOng of Malaya during the meeting discussing on Art 3 (religion) held in Kuching on 18^th -20^th December 1961:

“MrChairman,

Article 3 refers to religion, and I think there must be some misapprehension or misunderstanding. The article says Islam is the religion of the Federation or it maybe called the State religion or the official religion loosely. Now onemust not confuse that with a State nation like Pakistan. That is a religious State. All the laws are based on the Islam religion. In our case, it is a secular state, and in the constitution all the safeguards are written in. Right, then this is a secular state with an official religion, exactly the same as what obtains in the U.K. and what obtains here at this moment.”

He concluded by saying “It is a secular state” (see pages 53 and 54 of the Record of the Second Meeting of Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee.)

This led to the Report of the Inter-Governmental Committee, 1962 (IGC Report). The IGC Report is one of the two fundamental documents in the formation and shaping of what the federation of Malaysia should be like.

In Chapter 3 paragraph 15 (1)of the IGC Report which dealt with Article 3 (Religion) it states:

“Article 3 (3) should be left unamaneded so as not to confer on the Yang Di-PertuanAgong the position of Head of the Muslim religion in the Borneo States.”

Paragraph 15(2) states:

The guarantee for religious freedom contained in Article 11 should be retained.

Malaysia has to remain a secular state as agreed. Any breach of this fundamental term will lead to the parting of ways. Sarawak cannot allow a state in the Federation of Malaya to dictate the type of country Malaysia should be.

I personally hold the political belief that the State (that is the government ) and religion must be kept separate. History has shown us how poisonous when the two are combined. We have to realize as a society that politics is the governance of human society whereas religion is the belief of individual and the relationship between that individual and his God; not his Government. Religion by using politics attempt to make human society a religious society. That will conflict with human desire of freedom and seeking knowledge. The European Christian society has gone through the same process that the Islamic society is now going through. The Spanish Inquisition of the second half of1500s will give a good history lesson and gave rise to the principle of keeping the state and religion separate. I offer a quote from the book, “The wealth and Poverty of Nations” by David Landes touching on the Inquisition period in Spain and the Catholic Church:

“Any thoughts of ending the Inquisition were shelved, and Church and civil authorities joined to control thought, knowledge, and belief. In 1558 death penalty was introduced for importing foreign books without permission and for unlicensed printing. Universities reduced to centres of indoctrination; unorthodox and dangerous books were prohibited (1557 in Rome, 1559 in Spain), and safe books appeared with an official imprimatur (“let it be printed”). p.179

Such major decision should be put to the people to decide and not jut by the 222 MPs. Sarawak and Sabah have the right of veto on such fundamental and issue. These two states have the right to accept of withdraw from such law by setting up its own legal system. We already have our own High Courts. Kelantan can has its own law but it cannot impose on Sarawak and Sabah. Kelantan is not even a member of the Malaysia Agreement 1963. How can it impose its set of law on the whole country? If Kelantan and any state so desire, let the power and jurisdiction over the criminal system be decentralized to the states with Sarawak and Sabah having full and unimpeded say. This is only right as Sarawak and Sabah are not states in Malaysia but equal partner with Malaya.

4 June 2016