|
Why are Sabah MPs so unhappy? What do they want from the federal government? And is Project IC still ongoing? ANIZA DAMIS speaks to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, a Sabahan Aniza Damis, New Straits Times
Q: Many Sabah members of parliament have been vociferous in bringing up issues regarding Sa-bah. Why? | 
| | Tan Sri Bernard Dompok calls for the formation of a royal commission of inquiry into illegal immigrants |
A: If you look back at the last two decades in Parliament, or at least, since I started as an MP in 1986, voices from Sabah and Sarawak have always brought up the shortcomings in Sabah and Sarawak, the lack of infrastructure and the issues important to them.
The voices have become louder, but the issues are the same.
The feeling is that Sabah is off the beaten track, and in the early 1990s, government leaders from Semenanjung (the peninsula), especially from Umno, went there mainly to conduct political meetings, Not enough attention was given to issues raised by Sabah. So, now, they have come out in the open. Also, this is partly due to the new "mood" created by the prime minister, allowing discourse or discussion on issues.
Giving latitude to MPs or individuals to talk has given the opportunity for more issues to be discussed and not hidden away. So, people are more expressive, and this is now what we see in Sabah.
Q: When you say they are now "not hidden away", does it mean they were hidden away before this?
A: In the early days, people were in denial about poverty. Even as late as last year, there were some leaders in Sabah who were disputing the United Nations Development Programme figures.
Now people want the truth and remedies taken.
Q: Some Sabah MPs have said that since the formation of Malaysia in 1963, poverty statistics in Sabah have not gone down. But only now do we hear Sabah leaders speak about poverty in Sabah in sad tones, almost weeping, which we haven't heard before this.
A: After decades, you can't blame people for being vocal now, because it had not been noticed by the decision makers. A lot of these programmes are put on the table by government officers who assess the situation and recommend remedies for policy makers.
It's probable that not much work has been done to assess the situation at ground level.
People are now more demanding, and people know, by comparing with Semenanjung, that the disparity is not small.
Even the government recognises in the Malaysia Plan that there is a disparity between the regions in the country.
That is the cornerstone of the prime minister's development philosophy.
Q: You say, "This issue had not been noticed". It's been 45 years. Isn't that a long time?
A: I know. It may not be correct to say it has been totally unnoticed, but it was not, perhaps, important, to the people who decided the development policies.
When I got into the Federal Cabinet, this has been one of the things I have been harping on. To the extent that, when people from Sabah like us continuously bring these things up, we are looked upon as being parochial, kenegerian. But we cannot but raise them.
Q: Are you raising this now because Sabah has more clout in Parliament?
A: The ground is pushing the leadership of Sabah to ask why the issue is unresolved and why representatives did not bring this up. Public opinion is strong on the neglect, perceived or otherwise, by the government.
Q: Before this, did Sabah MPs or leaders feel that if they tried to push the issue, they wouldn't be heard or that they would be punished for it?
A: MPs from Sabah believed in doing things the quiet way before. The proper channel had always been the preferred route. But, of course, it did not seem to bring the desired results.
People are trying another road and, in some ways, it has brought the desired result, in that they are heard, the issues are recognised and the government is trying to solve the problem.
Q: The government says there are only about 70,000 illegal immigrants in Sabah. How many are there actually?
A: Nobody can give authoritative figures. Seventy thousand would be too low a figure for that.
Q: "Illegal" means without identity cards (IC)?
A: People who come into the country illegally, who have no permission to be in the country and should not be here. They are not citizens of the country, stay and don't have documents.
And by documents, I mean those given by the immigration authorities. Given properly, valid.
Q: So, when you say that 70,000 is too low, how much is the estimate on the ground?
A: I don't know. How do you do a head count on this?
Q: If you don't know, then why do you think 70,000 is too low?
A: In 1970, Sabah had 636,431 people and Sarawak had 979,269. And Sarawak has always had more people than Sabah.
In 1980, Sabah's population went up to 929,299 and Sarawak's was 1,235,553.
In 2000, Sabah's population had increased to 2,499,389 while Sa-rawak's was 2,012,616.
The population from 1970 to 2000 went up by 285 per cent in Sabah, compared with 106 per cent in Sarawak. And the national population growth was 113 per cent in those three decades.
In the 2005 consensus, Sabah's population was 3,313,000 while Sarawak's was 2,340,000.
So, in 35 years, Sabah's population had over taken Sarawak's by nearly a million. Where did these people come from?
Q: It's not possible that Sabahans are just happy and productive people?
A: I don't know. How productive can you be? You can't have twins all the time.
Q: Where do you think these people came from?
A: From the Philippines and Indonesia.
Q: You have said you believed that Usno under Tun Fuad Stephens and Berjaya under Harris Salleh were responsible for this. Why was nothing said during the Project IC exercise?
A: Because figures are not accessible. That's why I wanted the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on Integrity to dwell on the figures, to get them out of the National Registration Department and the Immigration Department.
They (officers from these departments) came in for a while, and then they stopped coming. I think their bosses told them not to come.
Q: You couldn't compel them?
A: They refused to come. How do you compel them?
Q: Couldn't you ask the court to charge them with contempt?
A: No. The PSC didn't have that sort of role. We were there to collect information.
You see, the PSC was intended to gather opinions and information, and then make recommendations to Parliament.
The reason why I wanted to call the officers in front of the PSC is to make sure that there is integrity in the system of administration and the system by which it is dealt with. However, they decided not to call for it.
Q: Why do you think those officers did not give you that information?
A: I don't know. I can only speculate that they might have something to hide.
Q: At the time, one of your fellow cabinet members said that you had overstepped your boundaries when you asked for that information.
A: The problem here is that this is a select committee of the legislature. I happened to be also a member of the executive. So, the expectation is that I am an executive member supervising the select committee.
I didn't agree that this was the role. It's a committee of Parliament. It's as good as Parliament itself.
Why can't information be given to Parliament? Parliament has the right to know the figures and to know how things are done.
Q: (MP and DAP adviser) Lim Kit Siang has said he wants a royal commission on the illegal immigrant issue.
A: He is repeating what we have been saying all along.
We don't want a cabinet committee, or another PSC. I know the shortcomings of a PSC; there is a tendency for it to be looked upon as a committee of the executive, which it should not be.
In the case of the cabinet committee, this has been tried before, and it didn't work.
So, we feel the right course is for a royal commission of inquiry, so that they can devote their time to the issue, give recommendations to the government, and then it's up to the government to decide.
When the Royal Commission on the Police was set up, it brought up positive results and most of the recommendations were accepted by the government and implemented, and I think it's one of the reasons why the police force is improving.
Q: Even so, now a cabinet committee has been set up. Has Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who is in charge of that, approached you about this?
A: Until today, I think a committee has not been formed, not to my knowledge, anyway.
I think he must be in the process of forming it. But I have not been informed about it yet.
[Note: At the same time that this interview was taking place in Parliament, unbeknownst to Dompok, Najib had convened the cabinet committee meeting, not too far away.]
Q: You don't think a cabinet committee is the answer. So, when that committee is formed, what are you going to do?
A: If the cabinet committee is formed, views will have to be given, and my view would be that one of the things the committee should recommend is to go for a royal commission.
Q: Are you going to discuss that on Friday?
A: I don't know whether it's in the agenda (for the cabinet meeting).
The easiest way for the government to engage the issue is to have a royal commission of inquiry, so that the public is assured of an independent investigation into the causes and the recommendations to the government and the authorities to put things right .
Q: Besides yourself and Sabahans, do you think anyone else is interested in getting to the bottom of this?
A: People should be interested. I would be disappointed if people are not interested in illegal immigration.
We're not just talking about illegal immigration per se, but also about the charges (allegations) that people can get an identiy card or a MyKad through the back door.
I'm not saying this without evidence. There is evidence.
Two people admitted publicly in a newspaper in Sabah that they got ICs through these means. I asked this in the PSC, and the government officers admitted that this has indeed been given.
I'll be surprised if my colleagues are not interested in backdoor-citizenship issues, especially when so many people who have been applying for citizenship over the years are not getting it.
Q: You said you believed so many immigrants were given citizenship because the federal leadership wanted to change the demographics to influence voting patterns. Why would it be advantageous to the government to admit to such a thing?
A: We have to come clean, and move on. (If the government were to deny this) all the time, this would stay in the hearts and minds of people who are distressed by such an action. And it will remain there for a long time.
We don't want this to linger in the minds of Sabahans, and therefore, coming out with it has been a good thing.
Q: Of the 3.3 million Sabahans, how many of these do you think got backdoor citizenship?
A: I don't know. I wouldn't put a figure to it, because I don't know. These are things I am hoping to uncover.
Q: So, if you had a royal commission, what would you want it to find out?
A: To begin with, what are the statistics? Why does it happen? And what are the solutions to these problems?
Q: Is Project IC ongoing?
A: I don't know. How would you know?
Q: A lot of these people may have been naturalised, and are now citizens. If it was found they were given backdoor ICs, what action should be taken against them?
A: We have to go by the law. What are the provisions in the law? You cannot take any action that is not within the ambit of the legislation.
It is premature to discuss this topic, which has yet to be established properly. The law has to be examined to see what are the avenues and choices available.
Q: You have said that there are some places in Sabah where the immigrant community is larger than the local community. What is the effect of this on Sabah society?
A: First of all, the question of jobs, space and residential areas. Local Bumiputeras who were once open and receptive are now concerned that they are fighting for the same piece of land to build houses and plant crops. So, it affects them economically and socially.
In my own constituency, I attended a funeral of this guy who was decapitated by immigrants.
Q: What was the issue in that?
A: I don't know. Police are investigating. They have not briefed me yet.
Q: In any community, there are good people and there are bad people. It's got nothing to do with whether they are immigrants or not.
A: No, but in that community, I've never heard of anybody being slashed before.
Q: Has the influx of immigrants affected religious ties in Sabah?
A: As far as that is concerned, issues of religion have not surfaced to the extent that there are feelings of being sidelined.
But the voting demographics has changed. And this is a concern for local Bumiputeras.
But of course, I hope people realise that it's not always so that immigrants, once they are citizens, will vote according to how they said they would at the onset of getting the citizenship.
Q: During one meeting in Parliament at the last session, one MP said there were so many immigrants in Sabah now that there actually was a danger of these naturalized citizens asking for Sabah to become a part of the Philippines, or to vote not to have Sabah as part of Malaysia. Is that a realistic fear?
A: I suppose we can laugh about that now. But we cannot tell what's in the hearts of men or what's in the future.
Don't forget that the Philippines has not given up its claims on Sabah. If you look at the Philippines map, Sabah is part of the Philippines.
The Philippines has refused to set up a consulate in Sabah, because that would be seen as acknowledging that it is Malaysian territory.
When people talk about this, they are talking about a future fear. We cannot dismiss it outright. And, therefore, we must have prudence in our immigration policies and our policy towards citizenship.
I would welcome workers to the country; I would even welcome people who apply for citizenship. But a clear-cut policy must be made: how many can we accept?
And they must get citizenship through the front door, not the back door.
Look at the people who become citizens of Australia and America. It's a proud day for a citizen; there's a tea party to welcome you, you recite the oath of allegiance and you sing the national anthem.
But we don't hear of these sort of things in Sabah. Overnight, they become citizens.
Q: Having brought up all these issues again now, how confident are you the Federal Government is going to address them.
A: How would the Federal Government not address the issue? It will come up every time a federal leader comes to Sabah.
Every time there is a meeting, it will be brought up. Every election, it becomes an issue.
How can the government not look at it?
Q: But as (independent MP) Datuk Ibrahim Ali cynically said: "Every time a federal minister goes to Sabah now, Sabah gets RM1 billion." Are you going to stop once you get enough billions?
A: No. Those are separate issues. Those are development issues. This is the issue of national sovereignty, and the integrity of the government and the system.
If the government cannot maintain integrity on this issue, then it's going to reflect badly on the government.
Q: Do you support the move by SAPP to table a motion of no-confidence against the prime minister?
A: We prefer to exhaust all avenues. The government was set up in March, and now it's just June; so, it's only been in power three months.
So, I'm interested in seeing how we go through all these issues and resolve them.
Q: Upko has said it is sympathetic to SAPP. Why?
A: All these issues are the same. All the things that we have brought up, such as development and immigration, have also been brought up by them.
We cannot deny that we do not concur on basic issues that we feel should be solved.
Q: If, somehow, SAPP were to table that motion, would you support it?
A: That's a hypothetical motion, because there's no way that it can be brought up.
If you look at the Standing Orders in Parliament, there's no provision for that.
 |
The Blogs 
