Daniel John Jambun wrote?

Diplomacy and confrontation – which is more effective?

The component parties of the Barisan Nasional have been using this outdated excuse that we all should join the BN and create change through diplomacy, or “to create change for the inside” and not be in the opposition because creating change through confrontation will not do any good, or worse, cause damage and destruction. Some NGOs even rationalize that they support BN because “we need to move forward, not backward.”

This idea that if you can’t beat them, join them is true only if when you join them, you become their leader. Lee Kuan Yew did that and created history, but most of the others who tried it paid heavily for doing so. Tun Mustapha lost his political heritage for dismantling Usno and opening the gate for Umno to come and take over Sabah. He later joined PBS to try to fight back the enemy, but it was too late. Now Datuk Karim Ghani had learned the same lesson as well. PBS joined the BN out of desperation for survival and now it has become silent on many critical issues, but has become a very aggressive attacker of the opposition to please its master.

But my question is, how much benefit had Sabah received because our top leaders had joined the BN and tried to get favours through the diplomatic means? After almost half a century of siding the government (beginning with Datuk Payar Juman’s betrtayal of the old Upko) what real increase of shares have we been given? The problem with in-party diplomacy is that the boss can say (diplomatically, of course) to the beggar to “wait and be patient”. In the meantime, there is that appeasement of giving a series of little things to placate the beggar, but at the same time many things much bigger are taken from the beggar’s house in the name of “co-operation” and “loyalty”. In the end the loyal beggar gets a few things and lose many things. The process continues until the beggar, like Sabah, becomes the poorest state in the whole nation. And still the Sabah leaders believe they are getting a fantastic deal for their people in the whole corrupt system. The tragedy of diplomacy is that diplomacy within a system means continuous begging. If we are talking about diplomacy between two systems, like between two countries, the process is very different. It is NOT a process of one party begging from the other. It is often a case of negotiating (diplomatically) with THREATS! Diplomats may shake hands and smile nicely in front of the journalists’ cameras, but in the negotiation room, it is “If you don’t give us this you will not get this from us!” That’s is true ‘diplomacy’! A very famous high-tension ‘diplomatic’ situation was when John F. Kennedy blockaded the Cuban warships during the Cuban missile crisis. And it was done under threat of full-scale nuclear war! Cuba relented and Kennedy joined the list of great presidents. Do all the Sabah BN leaders know this meaning of diplomacy? I doubt it. Many of them are not diplomats but beggars, not leaders but followers, a few even as bad as a kerbau dicucuk hidung. I know a few who cannot even tell you what GDP is. Many don’t even raise their voices to their own bosses who are milking off their state, but are barking at the opposition leaders who are trying their best to fight for what is right, and to get back what has been taken away from us. Recfently, the BN parties in Sabah managed to get favours from BN, partly because of noises made by the opposition. Upko praised the government for implementing Borneonization in two departments but they failed to say thank you to the opposition for having continuously harped on the issue. Remember, it was Dr. Jeffrey who raised the BN lack of gratitude for Sabah and Sarawak which helped the BN retain power in the 12th general elections. Then many people got appointed to become full ministers and speakers of parliaments, even an ambassador. (But, of course, Dr. Jeffrey is not holding his breath for the arrival of the hampers and bouquets of flowers!).



I would like to ask them these three important questions: If diplomacy is good, how come we have lost so much rights listed in the 20 Points, the IGC and the Malaysia Agreement? If diplomacy and co-operation is so beneficial, how come we have become the poorest state in Malaysia? If diplomacy and co-operation is the best way to look after our interests, why is Sabah now inundated with aliens which the federal government has no wish to get rid off?

Gentlemen, if we look back we will realise that the great changes that occurred in history are those that happened through confrontations like demonstrations and war. Oppressions were stopped because of rebellions. But we in the a democratic system are lucky because we can create change without bloodshed, but through voicing out issues in the media and replace bad governments through the ballot box. Some BN leaders need to remember that they too were in the opposition in the past.


DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN