The fallacy of referendums and the Sarawak independence issue

By MT Webmaster Last updated Jul 8, 2016

And that is what many British are angry about. They say those who campaigned for Brexit did not tell the voters the complications after the vote and how long it would take. Many thought it was going to be a next day thing. And the same goes with the so-called Sarawak Independence movement that is asking for a referendum. They have not told you ‘what then, after the vote’?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Last month’s EU Referendum a.k.a. Brexit Referendum (on whether the UK should leave the EU) has taught us many valuable lessons: one of which is that referendums are not really as fantastic as many originally thought.

And every day since the 24th of June 2016 people have been arguing about nothing else other than the Brexit Referendum. In fact, never before in British history, since the English Civil War of the 1640s, has the UK been so badly divided with families split and long-time friends now turned enemies. It is almost like the situation back in Malaysia between the Barisan and Pakatan supporters.

Now we are being told that referendums are not legally binding after all but only serve to gauge the people’s sentiments. So ultimately it will be up to Parliament to decide and Parliament can ignore that referendum and the Members of Parliament can vote on the matter.

There are also some who say referendums of such importance should not be based on a simple majority (50% plus one vote) but at least 60% — or, even better, two-thirds just like you would need to amend the constitution. The problem is they are saying this only now, after the referendum was taken, and did not set this ‘ground rule’ before 24th June.

The argument here is that referendums such as Brexit are too important to be decided on a simple majority and the bar should be set higher at, say, 60% or two-thirds. Others even say that decisions on crucial matters (such as Brexit) should be done based on two referendums, maybe two years apart.

But then what happens if the first referendum says ‘yes’ and the second one says ‘no’, which means it’s a tie? Do they do a third referendum in another two years and take the results of two referendums out of three? That was not clarified.

Another matter that not many considered in the beginning is that even if you want to implement the results of that referendum it does not need to (or cannot) be done straight away. In other words, if you hold a referendum today, you do not need to implement it tomorrow. You can take your time and do it years later once you are ready.

One major complaint about the Brexit vote is that, the older the population, the higher the votes to leave the EU, while the younger the population, the higher the votes to stay.

For example, in the 20-30 years age group only 20-30% want to leave the EU while in the 60-70 years age group up to 60-70% want to leave (well, not exactly that accurate but just to demonstrate how it roughly worked out).

Furthermore, in the 60-70 age group 60-70% turned out to vote while in the 20-30 years age group only 20-30% turned out to vote (again, not exactly that accurate but just to demonstrate how it roughly worked out).

So what does this tell you? It tells you that a higher ratio of older people came out to vote so there were more ‘leave’ votes while a lower ratio of younger people came out to vote so there were less ‘stay’ votes.

And that was why 52% voted to leave and only 48% voted to stay — it was because the voter balance was not perfect. If the ratio of young to old voters had been balanced (which means 85% instead of just 72% came out to vote) then the Brexit referendum would have gone the other way.

And this was the main bone of contention. They say the referendum is not fair and if another referendum was held the results will be different. Not enough young people voted so the older generation dominated the vote.

Of course, there are those who argue that the younger people should have come out to vote then. They were repeatedly told to register to vote (in fact, they were bombarded on TV plus with dozens of pamphlets sent to their houses every day) and they were told that every vote counts. So why did they not register and/or vote?

And now they say since not enough young people voted then that first referendum should be ignored and a second one held, where this time more young people will come out to vote and will reverse the result of the referendum.

Anyway, what I want to talk about is the referendum that some people say should be held for Sarawak to leave Malaysia. The ironical thing is the same people who oppose Scotland leaving the UK, or the UK leaving the EU, support Sarawak leaving Malaysia (no prize for the right guess as to who these people are).

My question is why are these Mat Salleh who oppose Scotland leaving the UK and oppose the UK leaving the EU so gung ho about Sarawak leaving Malaysia?

Anyway, let’s say we do what these so-called ‘nationalists’ want and hold a referendum to see whether Sarawakians want Sarawak to leave Malaysia. Who are those who can vote? In the UK anyone can register to vote and can vote as long as you are 18 and live in the UK, even if you are not a British citizen.

Will that apply to the Sarawak referendum?

So that means you first need to register all those above 18 who live in Sarawak even if they are not Malaysian citizens.

Next, how many percent will we need to make this referendum legal? 60%? Two-thirds?

What if the voter turnout is less that 70%? Do we need at least 75% voter turnout (or 80%) and if less than that then the referendum is invalid?

If, say, 75% voters turn out to vote and, say, 60% vote for Sarawak to leave Malaysia, how long will the process take? Of course, it cannot be done the next day. But must it be done within 10 years?

And can Parliament decide to vote on it and only implement the referendum if two-thirds of Parliament votes yes? Or can a simple majority do? Or does Parliament have no say on the matter?

Then, within that timeframe, Sarawak needs to sort out the issue of federal assets and how much they are going to pay Malaysia to take over all the federal assets in Sarawak and how they are going to pay and how long it will take them to pay.

Then the issue of the police, army, navy, air force, etc., needs to be settled. Sarawak will have to start purchasing defence equipment and employ and train police and military personnel. The Malaysian police and military cannot just pack up and go overnight and leave a vacuum or else Sarawak will become a cowboy town.

Sarawak will also need to set up its immigration and registration department to issue new Sarawak ICs and passports. It will need to set up its own Election Commission and re-register Sarawak voters. It also needs its own Central Bank and a new Sarawak currency.

There are so many things Sarawak needs to do to become a fully-fledged independent nation. And a lot of money will be required to nationalise federal assets and to set up Sarawak’s own infrastructure, especially that involving policing, security and defence.

So, even if 60% of 75% of Sarawakians vote for Sarawak to leave Malaysia, there are still many things that will need to do done before that can happen.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK