Archive for May, 2008

Some people feel that in politics there is only either right or left, and the various schools of thought associated therewith or arising therefrom, and they fail to see that there is something called politics of rationalism.

What March 8th election results have brought to Malaysia is precisely this politics of rationalism. It was not so much a contest between right and left politics like the Alliance versus the Socialist Front in the 1960’s, or capitalism versus socialism in ideology, but a competition between what is right and what is wrong, good and bad, old and new, progressive and retrogressive, rational or irrational, conservative or liberal,democracy or autocracy,racialism or multi-racialism, and so on and so forth.

On 308, the silent voters actually caught the political parties by surprise. They had no fear of the usual threat of May 13 or emergency rule as in 1969 nationally, or seizure of political power through crisis  means as in  1977 in Kelantan, and again in 1980 in Sabah.

Immediately after the 12th election, most (but not all, though) leaders of BN component parties started to criticise UMNO for its uncrompomising and domineering attitude in running the government. Such statements could never be perceived before 308 as it would be unimaginable to do so. A big thump- up to the people’s power!

This is, however, only one side of the coin. There exists side by side some irrational politicians who are now openly advocating the going back to the original values of narrow racialism, special rights and privileges, etc. These  irrational politicians are either blind to the wishes and aspirations of the rakyat, or they must have had too much vested interests  in the old way of doing things by ‘ negotiating behind the doors’ so as to divide the spoils.Their harping of Ketuanan Melayu is no panacia to assist the down- trodden of the Malay community but a cloak for elites of all races to exploit the rich resources of the nation for their selfish gains.

At this critical juncture, it is none other than Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim who dared to openly challenge this racial bogey by offering a totally new vista to all Malaysians. He articulated for the cocept of Ketuanan Rakyat whereby the state would intervene for the betterment of the down-trodden and the marginalised people, and for that it must naturally also includes the Bumiputra community. He also laid out a new and comprehensive programme called the New Malaysian Economic Agenda ,whereby the gap between the strong and the weak, as well as the haves and the have-nots, could be successfully narrowed and hopefully eliminated one day, and that the people would not mistrust each other as there will be social justice, transparency and good governance.

Therefore, in order to see the new dawn of Malaysia and an egalitarian society, one have a moral duty to support Parti KeADILan Rakyat in its relentless struggle to attain its noble objective of justice and democracy for all since its inception in1999. One may quibble at those who hopped from one political party to another as ‘immoral’, for failing to understand their objective of attaining policy change. But it would be even more immoral for one to continue to support a regime that is living at the expense of its people’s justice and freedom, not to mention the nation’s  rich resources which are fast depleting soon.

Speculation is in the air that Malaysia may have a snap election, especially after the Election Commissioner suddenly said that he was asked (by whom ?) as to whether the Commission could be ready for one, and he gave an affirmative answer.

Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is facing the attacks from both inside and outside of UMNO. On one hand, when Tun Dr. Mahathir resigned, he did not hide his agenda of wanting to remove Pak Lah.  Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, on the other hand, has been telling the public that cross-over of  more than discontented 30 M.P.’s, basically from East Malaysia, to the side of the opposition is real, and the dead-line seems to be anytime before 916- the Malaysia Day.

Lim Guan Eng, the populist Pakatasn Rakyat Chief Minister of Penang and the Sec. Gen. of DAP, preempting that if a snap election were to be called now, he would rather not advise the  Governor of Penang to dissolve the Penang State Assembly, and, he, in fact, has every right to do so.

Actually, PAS was hesitating as to whether they would want to see to the dissolution of the Kelantan State Assembly and to participate in the just concluded 12th general election, though finally they also jumped on the ban wagon and they must be jubilant over their  right decision.

Sarawak did not hold their state election this time as they had just concluded theirs not long ago, though rather catastrophic to the BN with a heavy casualty to SUPP.

Indeed, Abdullah have a few choices in a critical situation like this. To dissolve the Parliament and call for a snap election is definitely one of them. And this seems to be a good measure to out-do Dr. Mahathir from within, and Anwar Ibrahim from without, provided he could secure a greater mandate and  thus come back on a stronger footing.

However, the Yan Di-Pertuan Agong may not have to follow  the advice of the Prime Minister in this instance, though under Article 40(1) the Federal Constitution, the Malaysian King is otherwise bound to do so.. His Royal Highness is, under Article 40(3), entitled to reject the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament, and, he could instead appoint a new Prime Minister, from either side of the House, whom in his Royal Highness’s opinion could command the simple majority in Dewan Rakyat ,and, thus, paving the way for stability.

The ball, after all, seems to be in the different court this time!

In my previous article on “Learning From Experience”, I talked about the need to refer to the break-down of Gagasan Rakyat in January 1995 as a negative experience to learn from in order to strengthen the Pakatan Rakyat of to-day.

Indeed, many would agree with me, including “the conscience of BN” for people such as Dr. Toh Kin Woon, that a two-party system is good for Malaysia. In a working paper by the learned party think-thank of Gerakan dated 26-01-1995, Dr. Toh seemed to concur with the political benefits as claimed by Semangat 46 and DAP and quoted at length as follows :

“There is much to be gained from having an alternative front to the Barisan, so the 2 parties claimed. Here are some such political benefits.

(i) There will be intense competition for political power between the Bariasan Nasional and the Gagasan-APU Opposition Front. Such competition will strengthen parliamentary democracy. The parties engaged in the competition will have to be more accountable and less arrogant, if they are to win public support.

(ii)Besides, the formation pf a multi-racial alternative front reduces ethnic politicking. Focus will then be shifted to issues affecting all communities. This will help reduce ethnic tension and promote greater inter-racial peace and harmony”.

Unsurprisingly, Dr. Toh’s criticism was more on the withdrawal of DAP in his final conclusion :

“DAP’s withdrawal is thus merely a move taken to maximise its electoral gains in the forthcoming General Election. In the process, it has decided to abandon the 2 front concept it has so vigorously pursued and actively promoted in the run-up to the 1990 General Election. DAP’s withdrawal thus taken more for opportunistic short-term electoral gains, especially in Penang, without regard to long-term political aspirations so actively promoted about 4 years ago”.

Despite of the dramatic episode surfaced immediately after the 12th General Elections over the purported, though abortive, boycott of the swearing-in ceremony of the new Perak Mentri Besar from PAS by the National DAP, and the unnessary war of words between some top leaders of DAP and PAS over the Islamic state issue, the popular opinion on the ground is that Pakatan Rakyat has to be strengthened instead of being weaken henceforth.

Bearing in mind the short-term gain of maintaining the status quo of PR government in the 5 states ( especially for Parak whereby a cross-over of two seats will turn the state power back to BN, and for that PAS has 6 seats), the long term gain of “a permanent workable alliance between the different parties that represent different ethnic interests in a broad coalition”, to borrow a phrase from Dr. Toh in the same working-paper(though he was claiming that BN was capable of working it out), should not be overlooked by any quarters indeed.

So, it seems pertinent and will be a political break-through if the impasse of lack of PAS’s participation in the PR’s state Government in Penang, and also the leaving out of DAP in the cold in the PR’s government in Kelantan, could be resolved soonest possible.

许多人总觉得在 “人赃并获”的情况下,为何法庭却往往会宣判无罪释放,或有时候甚至连表面罪状都不能成立(no prima facie case),因此难免会懊悔正义不能获得伸张,或对司法制度心存质疑。

追朔起来,我国的司法制度源自标榜着西方民主的大不列颠(Great Britain),它所信奉的基本原则是 “一个人应被设想为无辜,一直到他被证明为有罪为止”。整个原则的重点是在 “证明”,而这个证明则有赖于不只是整个司法制度的完整性及其操作能力,而且还有以下将触及的几个方面或环节。

在任何刑事案件中,警方从接受报案开始,就扮演了一个非常吃重的角色,这包括盘问证人、搜集证据、以及向总检察司部门(Attorney General’s Department)提呈报告。最后是在总检察司部门而非警方的慎重考虑与决定下,政府才会决定是否要发出传票或登门捉人,即采取提控的诉讼行动。

因此,由总检察司部门所派出的主控官(prosecuting officer)必须获得警方的查案官(investigating officer)的通力配合下,才能有力地在法庭证明被提控者的罪状。倘若是警方的办事效率出了问题,诸如应该盘问的证人没有被召集、应该盘问的问题没有被提出、应该提呈于法庭的证据却没有提呈、或证据不足,在这种情况之下漏洞百出,事情发生的环节产生断层,因此才会造成法官会认为连表罪都难于成立,遑论要展开一场官司。

当然,有关证人在法庭被盘问过程中的临场表现也占着非常重要的地位,在这里控辩双方律师的素质与经验也是不可或缺的因素。一些证人说话含糊不清、前后矛盾或记忆出了问题,将会左右案情的发展。而律师的功课如果做得不好,也当然会影响案件的胜负。

然而,我国司法制度为负方提供了一个上诉的公平机会。在刑事案件里,如果一开始时是在推事庭或地方法庭审讯,负方可向高庭上诉;如果一开始时是在高庭审讯, 负方可向上诉庭上诉。若上诉得直,表罪不成立的案件也有可能会变成要重新审讯;而经过被审判而无罪释放的案件也有可能会变成有罪而必须服刑。在这种情况下,不服的一方仍然可以根据刑事程序法典上诉至联邦法院以作最后的裁决。

由此可见,正义若要获得伸张,司法、警方、总检察司部门、证人、律师等皆扮演重要的角色,因此表面上看起来是“人赃并获”却变成无罪释放情况的出现,绝对不可以在不明究理或不做任何调查之下对任何一方妄作指责。

另一方面，许多人报了案连案情进展如何都无从揭晓，跟遑论要期待对方会被提控于法庭。因此，警方与总检察司部门应该具透明度地在一定的时间内主动向报案者交代，而不是给公众人士留下不满或欠缺廉政的印象。

一些宗教禁止教徒喝酒,深怕酒能乱性。

道教并不禁酒,它甚至以酒当大礼来祭祀神明祖先,神诞节日也多数以喝酒联欢,大有不醉不归之意。

华人习俗里也有 “吃喜酒”的说法,说 “吃”而非 “喝”是因为“吃”字来自“食”,而古文里的“食”包括了“吃与喝”的意思。

一些人平时胆小如鼠,但是一旦三杯酒下肚后讲起话来就特别大声,这是因为酒能壮胆,所以甚至有人会去借酒行凶。

在法律上,因酗酒而杀人作辩护可能会被判为误杀而非谋杀,如果真的不能寻获杀人的动机。

在人情上,酒后失言,也可能会博取被冒犯者的原谅,因为酗酒者在当时也很可能自己不知所云,脑控制不了心。

这么说来,酒的作用就很大,因为以科学的角度来看,酒精的确能麻醉一个人的脑袋或部分神经系统。

所以一些人会上了酒瘾,一天不喝酒日子就不好过。另一些人则成了酒鬼,喝到中巴金逊症,举起手来还会发抖。

所谓 “酒后吐真言”,因为平时蒇在心底里的话,或讲了出来会使人脸红,经过酒精的作用,总觉得再也没有隐瞒的必要了。

圆丘工人喜欢喝酒成了一种文化,椰花酒的确使他们放松一下一天的劳累,但是喝到酩酊大醉也会误事,家庭暴力的发生也通常让妻子哀求丈夫 “求你动手晚一点”!

自古以来,许多诗人墨客也都跟酒攀上了不解之缘。“举杯邀明月,对影成三人”; “把酒当歌,人生几何”;“酒逢知己千杯少,话不投机半句多”···这些都是诗人在酒后诗性大发的一些画面。墨客如王羲之酒后的笔墨挥毫作品,也是后来不只是别人、连自己都不能超越的。

小说水浒传里的鲁智深可以醉拔垂杨柳。三国演义里的曹操与刘备,也不是通过煮酒来论英雄吗?而西游记里的猪八戒,更是常常 “酒不醉人人自醉,色不迷人人自迷”!

在90年代我国某部长的年青政治秘书也因为在贵宾前酒后失态而必须挂冠而去,后来也因此继续“借酒消愁愁更愁”,最终也因复职无望酗酒致病而黯然随风而逝。

新加坡的前总统蒂凡那更因酗酒而被弹劾,后来政府还以从此不沾酒为条件才可以发放 “养老金”予他。但是, 蒂凡那就是蒂凡那,他至死都宁可选择不领取养老金,也不肯接受再不可滴酒不沾的不合理条件,对他来讲,喝酒是一种不可妥协的基本人权。

一些政党也曾训令其所有人民代议士不可流连风月场所,怕的不只是议员本身酒后失态,而且还会有损党威、或滋长不良政治文化。其实许多政治人物的倒台，都跟佛家所谓的“酒，色，财，气”脱离不了关系。

其实近年来,西方医学界已证明喝少许酒对人体的健康不但无害,反而有益,诸如促进人体内血液的循环,或推动血管内的渣滓对心脏所造成的阻塞。

因此酒并不一定会乱性,这倒要看您是喝了多少,以及您如何控制自己的脑和心。

The Pakatan Rakyat now in control of 5 states and the Federal Territory have reasons not to be complacent about. This is due to the fact that their member parties are still of separate entities which embrace different political philosophies. PKR is more inclined towards an egalitarian society, DAP is for a Malaysian Malaysia, whereas PAS has never been secretive of its Islamic state model.

However, all of them have one thing in common, that is they do share the common values of humanity, and, thus, achieve a common understanding of upholding justice, democracy, and freedom, as well as a common platform of anti-corruption, anti-cronyism and anti-nepotism.

To what extent that the voters actually voted PR as governments of the 5 states remain an issue of interest, as some claimed that they were only voted in to deny the 2/3 majority of BN. However, when the election results confirmed the PR’s role as the new state governments, the popular opinion was, and still is, that they should be given a chance to prove their worth, since after-all BN/Alliance was having the last good 50 years to do their jobs.

Therefore, it is time that PR synchronised the policies of the 5 states under their charge and deliver quality performance in their administration. Emphasis should be on commonalities, rather than, as we sometimes witnessed, an open quarrel on ideology such as challenges to PAS whether it would abandon its Islamic state model.

Experience should be drawn from the break-down of Gagasan Rakyat just before the 1995’s General Elections. It was a case of DAP putting the blame of its dismal electoral performance on PAS for its theocratic over-tones and decided not to be seen to be associated with. Even after the 12th General Elections, upon the selection by the Sultan of Perak, basing on the 3 names as submitted by the leaders of DAP,PKR and PAS, of a PAS Assemblyman as Mentri Besar, the National DAP appeared to be unhappy and even initially suggested a boycott of his swearing-in ceremony. Obviously, it was such an dis-coordinated approach that had prompted the formation of a Pakatan Rakyat henceforth.

Now with the excellent new policy of open tender, reduction of water bills, more-controlled hill-slope and other undesirable development projects, issuance of freehold land titles to occupiers of new villages and kampong baru, centralisation of pig-rearing schemes, and appointment of representatives from NGO’s to become city or local councillors, just to name a few, the more so PR have to synchronise its policy approach so that it is consistently reformist,  sustainable and beneficial to the rakyat.

Hope is pinning on the very first meeting of the Mentri Besar and Chief Minister of the 5 states now!

然而印尼停火的吊诡是它并不包括北加里曼丹在内,苏加诺总统的藉口是因为这是属于印尼控制之外的本土革命运动。印尼也提出先解决“政治课题”(是否指成立大印尼或马来西亚则无从得知)来作为全面停火的先决条件。因此这项停火承诺也只能沦为纸上谈兵,印尼的这种立场造成多次的多边会议都以失败而终。

1964年3月11日,基于印尼的军事威胁,马来西亚政府首次推介了国民服役计划,而英国的军队也相继抵马以提供支援来抗拒印尼的侵略。马印对岐的紧张局势一直挨到苏加诺总统在1966年7月5日的一项政变中倒台,并由苏哈多取而代之为止。

马来西亚的坚决立场也就通过当时的内政部长依斯迈医生在联合国第1145次安全理事会议正词严地指出:-

“今日的马来西亚人民不须要外人来率领他们对殖民主义的斗争,因为我们抗拒在我们土地上的殖民主义,因为马来西亚的成立本身是一项解脱殖民主义的主要行动。今日威胁着马来西亚的危险不是殖民主义,而是一个公开宣称政策要摧毁马来西亚的大邻居的新帝国主义。”

为了落实对沙、砂两州的承诺,以及反映马、英、沙、砂与新各造的意愿,联邦法律也就相应地作出适当的修整。

沙与砂比西马各州占尽优势,这全基于成立新国度时所达致的妥协与谅解所致。例如联邦宪法内的附件即沙与砂的州事务权限造表(State List),它们所涉及的层面也比较广泛。而基于星加坡在加入联合邦时已设立一个独立的政府,它除了在国防与外交事务以外,在其他领域早已享有独立的权限。

1959/1963年的移民法令授权于沙、砂州政府控制非当地人进入或居留於这两州,在这里连联邦的公民也被定义为“非公民”。但是宪法第150条有关紧急状态的权力保持不变,即吉隆坡在这方面尚占尽优势,在必要时可以如同对付其余12州般来动用它.

于1963年作为宪法保障机制的国会上议院,它的州委任上议员与联邦委任上议员的比率是28:22 ,这个情况一直到1964年才改为 32:28 ,而星加坡脱离马来西亚后则变成32:26。

东马2州也比其他12州享有额外资源的权力,包括可以立法徵收售卖税、石油产品的关税、木材与其他森林产品的出口税、港口与码头的收入等。当然这并不包括联邦的额外拨款,这是基于东马来西亚的发展较慢起步的缘故。

平民歌德早在1772年就说过这么一句心里的话:“我们有一个祖国吗? 如果我们能找到一个我们能够与为门的财物一起甜息的地方,一块供养我们的土地,一个容纳我们的家,在那里我们还会没有一个祖国吗?”

然而，作为一个国家的条件相信不只是停留在物质上尽量去满足它的人民,更重要的是除了它的人民必须拥有一个共仝的历史命运、共仝的文化与共仝的语言之外,它还必须在精神上照顾与领导它的人民,不断地朝向良好的社会价值观、进步、公正、民主与自由的康壮大道迈进!

莱恩(1864-1921)在一篇命名为<<制造国旗的人们>>的讲演中有这么一段扣人心弦的说话:-

“我在你们的眼前飘杨，象一束五彩的光，象征着你们自己，上面画出创造我们国家的伟大精神。我的星条是你们的梦想和劳动,它们因振奋而明亮,因果敢而光耀,因你们而坚定,因为那是你们用心做成的。你们是国旗的制造者,所以你们应当为制造国旗而感到无上光荣.”

在迎接9 月16 日“马来西亚日”这隆重日子之际,让我们对所有成立马来西亚联合邦曾经付出一份力量的领袖与各族人民致以最崇高的敬礼,没有你们这些“国旗制造者”的广大智慧与为被承认的英勇斗争,我们今天不可能有缘成为同一个祖国的国民，希望大家都能沿著一颗持续不断改革社会的赤子之心，共同昂首扩步地朝向一个马来西亚人的议程前进!

联合国调查团的报告一再印证了葛波德调查团的调查结果,后者接获了北婆罗洲的约600份备忘录,砂拉越的超过1千6百份备忘录,并且在这两处召开了65次的聆听会与接见了超过4千人。

葛波德调查团的调查结果显示,在这两个地区的各别约 1/3居民不附带条件地支持马来西亚的成立,另1/3 具有各种不仝条件诸如提供安全措施等的支持,剩下的1/3则表示希望再多几年由英国统治,在本身先达致独立后才来成立马来西亚。换句话说,若所要求的条件能够实现,绝大多数的北婆与砂人民将支持马来西亚的成立。

有鉴于此,马来亚联合邦政府就作了如下历史性的妥协:-

1. 北婆与砂将在移民法方面(包括对其他州的马来西亚公民在内)具有权力;
2. 马来语将被承认为国语,但是英语将继续成为一种教学媒介以及这两个州政府的官方语言,一直到它们的州议会作出另一决定为止;
3. 回教将成为官方宗教,但是允许其他宗教的宣传;
4. 这两州的原住民将享有如仝在马来西亚的马来人所享有的特权;
5. 将作出财务安排,以确保这两州获得联邦的拨款以作经济发展;
6. 将在这两州成立一个各别的联邦公共服务,以使到外国国籍官员获得沿用至获得充足的本土受训官员为
止。

1963年8月26日,基于马来西亚合约的签署,马来亚联合邦国会一致通过1963年马来西亚法令以成立马来西亚联合邦，并订于1963年9月16日生效。它也仝时通过修改1957年的国家宪法以修改国名及增加新的三个州属即沙芭、砂拉越与新加坡等事项。

1963年8月30日,国家元首在英国、北婆、砂与新政府的仝意之下颁布由14个州组成马来西亚联合邦，而北婆罗洲从此正式易名沙芭,并规订1963年9月16日为“马来西亚日”(Hari Malaysia)。马来亚政府也认为星加坡于1963年8月31日自行宣布独立是不合法的,因为它并没获得英女皇的御准,而砂沙两州的宪法也只能在成立了马来西亚之后而非之前开始生效。

但是李光耀却认为基于星加坡并未签署马尼拉合约，因此它并不受该合约的任何条件所牵制，而从1963年8月31日至9月16日这17 天之间，星加坡将自当作是马来西亚联邦政府的信托人,及基于马来西亚的利益来行使其权力。

虽然联合国秘书长乌坦在1962年9月14日所作出的报告赞仝马来西亚的成立，但是基于马来亚政府抢先在他报告书出炉之前，即仝年8月30日颁布将在9月16日成立马来西亚的消息，造成乌坦的不悦并指责它已产生混乱及造成马尼拉合约成员国的不满。

尽管如此，在联合国秘书长公布其调查报告的两天后即1963年9月16日，马来西亚联合邦也就在这种剑拔弩张的大环境下正式宣告成立。

这下子对自从1963年4月开始就在沙与砂边界展开军事攻击的印尼来讲是一项不可容忍的举止，它与菲就此正式跟马来西亚短绝外交关系。

印尼也加剧了它对马来西亚包括星加坡的“对抗”。自1962年12月苏加诺首次动用了“对抗”(CONFRONTASII)字眼,它涵簋了对马来亚、星加坡、北婆与砂的武装与思想的袭击,包括支持本土的颠覆活动、纵火、轰炸、海盗、游击队、以及政治宣传。

当时支持马来西亚的盟友除了英国以外、尚有美国、澳洲等国家。美国总统罗拔肯尼迪(Robert Kennedy)则负起了鲁仲连的角色，亲自飞往日本会晤了印尼总统苏加诺。前者答应后者考虑它的“MAPHILINDO”大印尼计划，但是条件是必须通过三造（即印、菲、马）的和平谈判以达致它。美国也以它将从印尼撒出经援为压力,以制止后者的游击队攻击,造成印尼也终於仝意在1964年正月与马来西亚停火.

在印尼与菲律宾的反对之下 ,马来西亚不能如期于1963年8月31日成立 ,但是星加坡却在李光耀的单独行动之下在当天自我抢先宣布独立。

所谓“解铃还须系铃人”,仝属东南亚协会(Association of SoutheastAsia ,ASA)成员国的菲律宾与马来亚(当时另一成员国为泰国).以及曾经于1959年与马来亚签署友好协议的印尼 ,三造终於于1963年7月30日至8月5日之间在马尼拉召开三大巨头会议 ,这三大巨头为马来亚的东姑、印尼的苏加诺以及菲律宾的马加柏高。

这项历史性的会议达致协议即印与菲将欢迎马来西亚的成立,但是条件是它必须获得联合国秘书长或其代表的独立与公平权威的确让它有获得婆罗洲领域人民的支持。在这方面砂与沙的选举是否有反映当地人民的意愿也是它应探讨的目标。这三大巨头亦成立了一个叫“原属马来人国家的仝盟国”(MAPHILINDO)以向殖民主义与帝国主义抗衡。

对这项历史性会议最具成就感的非印尼总统苏加诺总统莫属,因为对他来讲英美在新、马、婆罗洲与菲的军事力量的撤出已指日可待,他也预期联合国的调查团将会对砂、沙的选举因存有政治迫害而有所不满,以及他的大印尼计划(Indonesia Raya)将有望获得落实以建立印尼在本区域的军事与政治霸权。

反对马来西亚的来自社会主义国家如苏联与中国及其他左翼的力量,世界民主青年仝盟亦通过一项提案励声谴责英帝国主义及其马来亚的统治阶层。印共更以“新殖民主义”的措词来形容马来西亚的计划,并认为它旨在填压本区域的爱国与民主运动。尤有进者,于1963年2月所召开的亚非团结大会则排挤了马星的代表团 ,它只承认一个由汶莱人民党所派出的北加影子政府代表团 ,客观情况对马来西亚的成立非常不利。

基于菲为东南亚协议组织(SEATO)成员国 ,它与美国的爱昧关系不允许它跟印尼一样采取反对马英国防结盟的立场 ,因此印尼才在菲欲索讨北婆课题上作出让步以拉拢它为战友。

在这种情况下 ,联合国调查团是任重道远的。联合国秘书长乌坦(U Thant)派出他的个人代表罗连士麦可莫尔(Lawrence Michaelmore)与该秘书处的官员一行8人 ,于1963年8月16日至9月5日之间往婆罗洲作实地调查 ,他们一共开了17次的会议。

在这之前英国与马西亚政府也已成立了一个以连士道恩爵士(Lord Landsdowne)为首的政府与政府之间的委员会 ,以筹划建议中的联合邦新宪法。这个委员会的代表来自英国、马来亚、北婆与砂拉越。

它于1963年2月所提呈的报告书也就成为东马2州的宪法根据.1963年6月的伦敦会议也就是最后一轮的会议 ,它因此也产生了一个志日1963年7月9日与马来西亚发生关系的合约,签署者为英国、北婆罗洲、星加坡、砂拉越与马来西亚联合邦政府。

1963年9月14日 ,联合国秘书长乌坦公布说婆罗洲这两地区的大多数人民支持通过马来西亚以达致独立,他也仝时确认砂、沙两个民选政府也支持参与马来西亚的成立.他也表示星加坡最大的顾忌是财务的问题而因此有所却步 ,而汶莱不希望只有10年而是永久性享有石油收入的权利。

成立马来西亚的道路的确是坎坷与崎岖不平,不过看来此时已时来运济峰回路转,这个新国度的诞生虽然带有楚痛却也已露出生机,有诗曰:山穷水尽疑无路 ,柳暗花明又一村!

通过马来西亚团结委员会的协商之下 ,马来亚与英国政府组织了一个葛波德调查团(Cobbold Commission)来砂拉越与北婆罗洲调查两地人民对于成立马来西亚联合邦的意愿 ,以下乃葛波德调查团成员:-
主席:葛波德爵士 — 前英国银行总裁。
委员:安东尼、艾贝尔爵士 — 前砂总督。
大卫。瓦特史顿爵士 — 前马来亚辅政司。
拿督王保尼 — 马华槟州首席部长。
穆罕默德。加沙里(Muhammad Ghazali b.Shafie)
–马来亚联合邦外交部长。

这个调查团经过1962年2月19日至4月17日在砂与北婆罗洲两地作实地调查后 ,在它一份于仝年6月21日所提呈的报告书中作出以下重要的建议:-

“首先 ,有一个必要的条件 ,那就是所有的有关各造应该把马来西亚视为一个伙伴组织 ,为了共仝利益而联合起来 ,以创立一个新国家 ,不过却保持它们各自的特徵。如果产生任何认为马来西亚就是由马来亚联合邦‘接管’婆罗洲得区的想法 ,而且北婆罗洲和砂拉越的特徵也消失的话 ,我认为马来西亚将不能得到广泛的接受或成功。我建议即将到来的协商会议中 ,各个政府应该在心理方面和实盾方面都能密切注意这一点。”

接着下来 ,于1963年4月至6月期间 ,砂拉越初尝议会选举的民主滋味 ,举行了三级制的选举 ,它从5个省份的24个县、市中选出429位县、市议员 ,然后再从这些议员中选出省谘委员和委派立法委员 ,组成立法议
会 ,以执政砂拉越。这个选举制度的弱点是会造成在县、市议会选举中占优势的政党将在省与州的代表方面具有夸张的局势 ,当时的5个省份所分配的立法委员人数如下:-

第一省 : 10位
第二省 : 6位
第三省 : 11位
第四省 : 6位
第五省 : 3位

在1913年6月的砂县、市议会选举中 ,联盟赢了138席、人联党116席砂国家统一党59席、独立人士116席。基于砂国家统一党从联盟中退出以及出现为数众多的独立人士 ,联盟要执政砂州已面对阻力 ,因为一个以砂国家统一党与砂人联党的结盟将可能乘势而上。

但是最终砂联盟在赢取了足够的独立人士的支持下 ,在36个州理事会中夺了19席的情况下与7个独立人士组成联合政府。而史蒂芬卡隆宁甘(Stephen Kalong Ningkan)一位砂国民党(SNAP)的依班人领袖则成为砂第一任首席部长。虽然砂联盟的主席及砂保守党(PESAKA)的领袖天猛公朱卡(Temanggong Jugah Anak Barieng)被推荐为州元首 ,但是却遭受马来亚政府的否决 ,另起用砂回教理事会主席拿督亚邦(Dato Abang Haji Openg)为砂首任州元首 ,而天猛公朱卡则被委为联邦的砂拉越事务部长以作补偿。

在北婆罗洲(沙巴)类似的议会民主选举也在1963年初展开。在菲印两个邻近政府强烈反对成立马来西亚的情况下 ,所有的沙芭政党便更自觉地团结在一起而组成一个强大的沙芭联盟 ,因此没有任何反对党的存在。

以下乃北婆罗洲(沙巴)迄1963年7月止的选举成绩:

在成功掌握沙州议会绝大多数议员的支持之下 ,沙巴卡达山人联合党主席当劳史蒂芬就顺理成章地成为沙芭第一任首席部长 ,而沙统主席拿督姆斯达发则成为沙第一任州元首。这两位政治人物的微妙政治关系也就成为日后沙巴政坛斗争的焦点。