With reference to the letter by ES Chua, Sabah, Sarawak part of independence plan , I would like to object to some of the points he raised in trying to counter my earlier letter . Chua claimed that the name Malaysia has been around since the 1800s and was coined by a British man (or men) to refer to the entire Malay Archipelago. To use this as an argument to back the claim that Malaysia existed since 1957 would be quite inappropriate in my opinion. The point is that officially, there was no country by the name of Malaysia which existed before 1963.

Chua also went on to say that there were no plans on the part of the Kuala Lumpur government to form a nation of three equal states, namely Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya. Whether there were plans or not on the part of the Malayan leaders to form a nation of three (or four) equal states, I do not know. But the Borneo leaders, especially the Upko leaders in Sabah were made to believe that Malaysia would be a partnership between four different countries, namely Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya. And to assure the Upko leaders, the Malayan leaders even signed the Malaysia Agreement which suggested such an equal partnership.

In Part 2 of the Malaysia Act contained in the Malaysia Agreement, Section 4(2) says: The States of the Federation shall be-

the States of Malaya, namely Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis,Selangor and Trengganu; and

the Borneo states namely, Sabah and Sarawak; and

the State of Singapore.

And as if this was not enough to assure that Malaysia is an equal partnership of four different countries, Section 9 (Part Three - Chapter 3) of the same agreement states:

(1) The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty nine elected members.

(2) There shall be -

104 members from the states of Malaya

16 members from Sabah

24 members from Sarawak

15 members from Singapore

I believe that the above clauses were included to reflect the equal partnership between Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Even the early leaders of Sabah namely, Donald Stephens, GS Sundang, Peter Mojuntin, Herman Luping and many more believed the same. That was the cause of much friction between the Federal and Sabah governments. Even Tun Datu Mustapha, who had at first happily became a Federal stooge, realised his folly and tried to turn things around but it was too late. Not long before he died, he had said that Kuala Lumpur was behaving like a colonial master towards Sabah.

And to further emphasise my earlier point that Malaysia is 43 years old and not 49, we need only look at the Federal Constitution. Merdeka Day and Malaysia Day are mentioned separately. But Merdeka Day is defined as Aug 31, 1957 in Article 160. The definition for Malaysia Day is not given, but it can be found in the Malaysia Agreement which says it is on the day that the nation of Malaysia officially comes into being.

Therefore I would like to remind Chua, and those who share his view, that Malaysia is 43 years old and this is not merely a claim by a few Sabahans and Sarawakians but a historical fact that was signed and preserved by our founding fathers.