I refer to the Malaysiakini article 916 A personal testimony . I am indeed honoured that an eminent person like Sim Kwang Yang (whose writings in Malaysiakini I have long admired) has taken note of my slightly different perception of the formation of Malaysia.

I have always been an adherent of the concept of 'substance over form' and whichever way you look at it, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak joined the other 11 states of the Federation of Malaya and this enlarged nation was renamed 'Malaysia'. Each of the three added one more point to the star and one more stripe to the erstwhile flag of the Federation of Malaya.

The then Yang Di-Pertuan Agong (the Raja of Perlis) became the head of Islamic affairs of these three states that did not have a Malay ruler, just like Malacca and Penang and later, Wilayah Persekutuan. The constitution of Malaysia was essentially identical to that of the Federation of Malaya.

People who argue for the form would have you believe that the local leaders of Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak negotiated with the independent Federation of Malaya as equals. Yet none have addressed the issue that the sovereignty of these three states- pre-Aug 31, 1963 - rested with Queen Elizabeth II. All three were British possessions whereas the Federation of Malaya was an independent country and a member of the United Nations.

May I ask Sim what would happen if Brunei one day were to join Malaysia, say on Jan 1, 2009? Would Brunei be celebrating Malaysia's centenary on Aug 31, 2057 or would it be the 48th anniversary? No one has yet to cast a dent on my drawing of a parallel of the formation of Malaysia with that of the United States of America.

Many East Malaysians often forget that in the early 1960s, the effete Britain (after the debilitating WWII) was anxious to get out of the Far East and of other far-flung colonial possessions and was desperate to offload its Borneo burden. If Tunku had not been pressured to take on this burden, it was an accepted hypothesis that if North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei were to be somehow allowed to become independent, they would not last six months with rapacious and avaricious Sukarno's Indonesia next door.

We have travelled the same road for nearly five decades and our destinies are somewhat, for better or for worse, entwined. Problems we have many but surely we do not need to add another by this annual parade of denial and whining about the date of independence and nationhood.

The name 'Malaysia' was coined to be a better, fitting name for an entity enlarged to include the Borneo states. Prior to Aug 31,1957, the term 'Malaya' included the nine Malay states and the Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. (Even the term, 'University of Malaya' was first used for the union of the Raffles College and King Edward School of Medicine, both of which were located on the island of Singapore.)

That slight name change is now being quoted to support this erroneous perception that North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore 'formed' Malaysia as equal partners with the Federation of Malaya in 1963. To any thinking person who look not merely at the form but at the substance, this cannot be further from the truth.

All three joined the federation as three additional new states to the existing 11 and that is the substance.