On Oct 31, 2014, police shot dead two Sulu men who were suspected of robbery in Penampang. Sabah Police Commissioner Jalaluddin Abdul Rahman identified both of them as Filipinos. One of them was 45-year-old from Kampung Likas in Kota Kinabalu with a MyKad and the other was a 50-year-old Filipino with an IMM13 (refugee) document holder from Labuan ( The Star Online , Oct 31, 2014).

While this news did not grab much attention in peninsular Malaysia, the incident raises deeper questions in Sabah. Firstly, it brings back unanswered questions about the Project IC, a project where government officials were alleged to have systematically granted citizenship to immigrants in Sabah in order to make up the Malay voters’ population (commonly known as Project M as it happened during Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s premiership).

Secondly and broadly, it questions the inter-governmental relationship between states and a centralised federal government.

Project IC

On Sept 21, 2012, the registration of illegal migrants was investigated by the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) on illegal immigrants in Sabah. This was headed by Steve Shim Lip Kiong, a former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, with other members of the RCI including:

1. Saripuddin Kasim (secretary) - secretary-general of the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry,

2. Kamaruzaman Ampon (commissioner) - vice-chancellor of University Malaysia Sabah,

3. Herman Luping (commissioner) - former Sabah state attorney-general,

4. KY Mustafa (commissioner) - former Sabah state secretary, and

5. Henry Chin Poy Wu (commissioner) - deputy chairperson of the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation.

The RCI’s terms of reference included investigating the number of foreigners issued Malaysian identity cards via Project IC, whether the issuance was in accordance with the law, whether the illegals were registered in the Sabah electoral roll and the social implications of these foreigners in Sabah. Some have referred Project IC as Project M as it was during former PM Mahathir Mohamad’s era that this project started.

During the inquiry, the commission has called upon 211 witnesses including opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and former prime minister Dr Mahathir.

After almost two years of delay in publishing its report, in October 2014, the RCI submitted the outcome of its investigation to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak. Yet till now, there is still no date as to when the RCI, Sabah report will be debated at this Parliament seating.

It is important to earmark Project IC as one of the intensified and systematic efforts made to have substantial control over Sabah, especially with the emergence of Umno’s presence in positions of power.

It was brought up at the RCI meetings by witnesses who have named the involvement of certain political parties as well as various government agencies including the Election Commission of Malaysia, the National Registration Department and the Immigration Department, which comes under the purview of the Home Affairs Ministry.

As a result of Project IC, the population of Sabah state rose significantly over 30 years with the registration of the illegal immigrants who were later allegedly made citizens. In 1980s Sabah’s population numbered 983,100 but significantly increased by reaching 2,603,400 in 2000. As of 2013, this number grew further to 2,626,300, with foreigners making up 27 percent of the total.

This illegal registration of migrants came to light in 1999 when a petition was made to nullify the results of the 1999 state election for the constituency of Likas. This is now commonly known as the Likas case. It was based on the existence of thousands of dubious names found on the electoral roll.

The seat was won by Yong Teck Lee ( left ), president of the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) and former Sabah chief minister. The election petitioner was Chong Eng Leong of Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) who lost in the election. At the Likas case, Mutalib Mohd Daud, a former Silam Umno division executive secretary, gave damaging evidence which showed that among the 43,000 newly-recruited Umno members, only 14,000 had genuine identity cards.

In the Likas case, Justice Muhammad Kamil declared the 1999 Likas election as null and void and in his judgment he said it was due to the failure of the EC to maintain an “electoral roll in accordance with the law”. (Likas judgment, Hakim Muhammad Kamil, June 11, 2001; Election petition No. K11 of 1999)

Subsequently, the victory was short-lived. In June 2002 the federal administration made a legal intervention.

The Election Commission (EC), through the Parliament, amended the Elections Act (EA) 1958 to include a new provision - section 9A. The amendments to the EA stated as follows: “After an electoral roll has been certified or re-certified, as the case may be, and notice of the certification has been published in the Gazette as prescribed by regulations made under this Act, the electoral roll shall be deemed to be final and binding and shall not be questioned or appealed against in, or reviewed, quashed or set aside by any court.”

The introduction of this new law and being so close to the 2000 Likas decision of Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang is a blow to judicial independence and diminishes the role of the Election Court in levelling the playing field for a free and fair election.

The new amendment closed all avenues to challenge an election when irregularities arise in any gazette election roll and leaves behind a legacy of electoral rolls where discrepancies are apparent but with no channels for legal redress.

Centralised federalism

The fact that Malaysia has a highly centralised federal government has opened the system for abuse. The insertion of section 9A shows that when the federal government is “unhappy” with opposing views, non-compliance, inappropriateness in state behaviour or unsupportive judiciary, they can exploit the centralised federal powers for their own gains.

Barisan Nasional with a one-party dominance, i.e., Umno, had at that time the power of the two-thirds majority to turn the tables.

Experience has shown us the abuse of power in a centralised federal government. Inter-governmental conflicts and contravention have taken places in various forms when BN policies or power were threatened or when there is a need to protect their interests. Some examples include:

a) Legal amendments or to impose repressive laws to remove state leaders.

- The removal of Stephen Kalong Ningkan in 1966 which was orchestrated by the federal government and subsequently the proclamation of the Emergency rule.

- The ending of opposition rule in Kelantan in 1973 when PAS formed a coalition government with Umno. In 1977, PAS objected to the appointment of Menteri Besar Mohamad Nasir by passing a no-vote of confidence at the state assembly. Emergency rule was proclaimed in November and later suddenly lifted on Feb 12, 1978, followed by the dissolution of the state assembly.

b) By centralising taxation under the federal government, it is able to control the purse strings of the states and in particular, the Pakatan states which are perceived as political threats. It also means control over oil royalty as in the oil controversy in Sabah, Sarawak and Kelantan versus federal control.

c) Through political defections, such as in the Perak crisis when three Pakatan state assemblypersons defected to become BN-friendly Independents, resulting in the installation of a new Umno menteri besar

d) And to use the BN’s majority rule to amend or enact repressive laws to suppress opposition through enactments of the Peaceful Assembly Act, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, and others.

It is no wonder that the shooting at Penampang ignites again the question of state sovereignty as oppose to central control by the federal government. The inter-governmental relationships have definitely not been equal, fair or given states their independence especially when the winnings are tipped over to the federal side in order to maintain a one-party dominance.

The rationality of the concentration of power by the federal government must be examined and questioned critically so that we can begin to talk about the “true” meaning of federalism, decentralisation and participation within a democratic framework.

MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH is the chairperson for the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections 2.0 ( Bersih 2.0 ) and the executive director of Empower . She believes politicians are bad masters if not made good servants through free, fair and competitive elections.