It is interesting to see how people would react to the immigration controls exercised by the two Malaysian states in the East.

In his/her article, Anak Malaysia criticised Sarawak for still maintaining the right accorded to the state when Sarawak and Sabah joined the federation in 1963 ('Dismantle immigration controls on Malaysians in S'wak', Nov 2).

Anak Malaysia's two basic themes are:

1) The right was meant to protect these two states in 1963, but that this is no longer necessary, because Sarawak is already enjoying a different living standard, and "After all, Sarawak today is hardly the Sarawak of 1963!"

This argument is motivated by a view that the constitutional order which formed the basis of Malaysia, is subject to change whenever "the time has changed". This is a very irresponsible way of looking at the law and the constitution in general. By definition, law is not an elastic concept, it is not, and should not, be ignored simply because the time has changed. The spirit of the respect of the rule of law - as enshrined in our constitution and the Rukunegara promulgated after 1969 - demands at least this much.

Secondly, to have this kind of view about our constitutional arrangements is dangerous to national integration and unity - something that Anak Malaysia cares so much about. Once we begin to accept that the very foundation of the Federation of Malaysia is "time-sensitive", this will lead to disaster.

Next time, when some other controversial issues which concern our constitution and the law come up, people would be quick to use "time-sensitive" argument to push their point.

What if Selangor claims that the Federation of Malaysia is no longer 'relevant', therefore it could leave Malaysia?

What if the prime minister says that having three branches of government is no longer 'relevant', because the BN has/will always enjoyed two-thirds majority, so in actual fact, the prime minister is the king anyway?

What if the attorney-general says tomorrow that since we have an ISA (and under ISA, the government can suspend the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech whenever it wishes), we should do away with the provisions in our constitution which protect these freedoms, because time has shown that they are no longer 'relevant' anyway?

The constitution and the rule of law is not subject to bargain. It could be amended, but it has to follow the proper procedures, done according to the law. Just because it is 'not relevant' does not mean that it is no longer the law.

2) Having immigration control is a barrier to national integration.

Maybe Anak Malaysia meant to argue that he/she respects the rule of law, and that s/he never claimed that we should just 'dismantle' immigration control without regard to constitutional procedure. S/he argues that even if it is the law, we should change it anyhow, following whatever procedure is necessary. We should change it because it is a barrier to national integration.

I do not like the attitude that lies behind Anak Malaysia's approach in arguing for his position. By deploying the phrase 'national integration', s/he is immediately trying to corner the Sarawak government into the other side - anti-national integration. By using the name 'Anak Malaysia', s/he immediately makes a very strong statement - albeit implicitly - that those in Sarawak or anyone supporting immigration control are not 'Anak Malaysia'.

My first point here is: Do not use this dirty tactic if we want to have a really sensible discussion about controversial issues. Be objective, and be willing to respect your opponent before you say anything. The manner in which Anak Malaysia is speaking is not that different from 'nationalist' propaganda.

Is respecting the constitutional arrangement unpatriotic, anti-integration? Let me use some controversial examples (only as an illustration, no 'pun' intended): The constitution says that bumiputra should enjoy special rights and privileges; Islam is the official religion. Does respecting these provisions in the constitution make us unpatriotic - even though they seems to embody the idea of inequality (perhaps, according to some, to a greater degree than Sarawak's immigration control)?

The constitutional safeguards given to Sarawak and Sabah are the very foundation of the Federation of Malaysia. Just like the provisions stating that the rulers of each of the nine Malay states have the power to decide their lines of succession to the throne, they have the right to exclude people from other states, other races and other religions, from becoming their respective rulers.

Without these safeguards for the individual states, Malaysia would not exist in the first place. Perhaps Anak Malaysia should learn more about the meaning of having a federation, and to seriously learn what is meant by giving autonomy and rights to a state.

States who enjoy unique rights not shared by other states are always under the spotlight, heavily scrutinised by other states. If we always try to 'corner' these states and put pressures on them to change, sooner or later all states will lose their autonomy and rights.

Worse still, this will breed a culture of "the tyranny of the majority", where a group of people - be them states, races, religions, economic - could always gang up and corner an individual (state, race, religion) and force it to give up its constitutional right. Is this the kind of country we want to live in? Democracy must not become gangster-politics.

It could be extremely offensive to call Sarawakians anti-integration and even non-Anak Malaysia. How much 'integration' is 'true integration' is in the eyes of the beholder. Not all of us want to become like citizens of Selangor, or Johor, or Penang, or Sarawak - just like not all of us want to become Chinese, Indian, Malays, Kadazans, or Dayaks; or Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims, or atheists. That is what diversity and autonomy really mean - to decide for yourself who and what you want to be.

We should respect the right of Sarawak and Sabah to decide for themselves. If they want to "embrace globalization" In the manner that Anak Malaysia wants, so be it. But we cannot force them to choose to become the European Union, or United States. We are not EU or US, and I don't know whether we want to. One day, we all will understand the value of state autonomy - but let's not 'understand' it the hard way.