DUA ISU SEMPADAN, SATU PETUNJUK: KELEMAHAN PENTADBIRAN MADANI DALAM MENGURUS KEDAULATAN

DUA ISU SEMPADAN, SATU PETUNJUK: KELEMAHAN PENTADBIRAN MADANI DALAM MENGURUS KEDAULATAN
Oleh: Dr Armin Baniaz Pahamin

(English version at the bottom)

1. Dalam tempoh yang singkat, dua isu sempadan muncul berturut-turut. Kawasan seluas 5,207 hektar di Sabah diikuti dengan 1,273 hektar di Pulau Sebatik.

2. Ini bukan sekadar kebetulan. Ia mencerminkan kelemahan yang semakin jelas dalam cara pentadbiran hari ini mengurus isu kedaulatan negara.

3. Kerajaan Madani telah memberikan penjelasan teknikal. Mereka menyatakan ia melibatkan kawasan Outstanding Boundary Problem (OBP) dan berasaskan perjanjian lama.

4. Namun persoalannya bukan lagi sekadar teknikal.

5. Persoalannya ialah keupayaan kerajaan untuk bertindak dengan tegas, mengawal naratif, dan meyakinkan rakyat.

6. Sepanjang dua dekad lalu, Malaysia telah berdepan pelbagai isu sempadan. Namun pendekatan yang diambil oleh pentadbiran terdahulu menunjukkan satu pola yang berbeza. 

7. Dalam kes Pulau Batu Putih, Malaysia membawa pertikaian tersebut ke Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa untuk mendapatkan penyelesaian berasaskan undang-undang, menunjukkan kesediaan negara menggunakan saluran undang-undang antarabangsa dalam mempertahankan tuntutannya.

8. Dalam era Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, kerajaan mengambil langkah untuk mencabar semula keputusan tersebut apabila terdapat dokumen baharu yang berpotensi mengubah kedudukan kes.

9. Pendekatan ini menunjukkan bahawa walaupun keputusan tidak memihak sepenuhnya, usaha mempertahankan kedaulatan tetap dilaksanakan melalui saluran yang jelas dan tegas.

10. Rundingan sempadan dengan negara jiran juga dilaksanakan secara berperingkat dengan penglibatan agensi teknikal, diplomatik dan keselamatan secara tersusun. 

11. Isu-isu sensitif dikendalikan dalam kerangka diplomasi yang terkawal dan tidak dibiarkan berkembang menjadi polemik awam berulang dalam tempoh singkat.

12. Hari ini, pendekatan tersebut kelihatan semakin berbeza.

13. Isu muncul dalam tempoh yang singkat dan ditanggapi secara berasingan. 

14. Penjelasan mengenai isu 5,207 hektar di sidang khas Parlimen dibuat tanpa sesi soal jawab. Ini menimbulkan persoalan terhadap ketelusan dan keyakinan terhadap keupayaan kerajaan. 

15. Penjelasan diberikan secara teknikal tanpa naratif yang jelas dan menyeluruh. 

16. Dalam masa yang sama, kenyataan dari luar negara membentuk persepsi yang tidak selari dengan penjelasan dalam negara.

17. Ini bukan sekadar kelemahan komunikasi, tetapi kelemahan kepimpinan strategik.

18. Apabila negara jiran secara terbuka menyatakan mereka mendapat kawasan, sedangkan kerajaan hanya memberi penjelasan teknikal tanpa keyakinan yang meyakinkan, rakyat mula membuat kesimpulan sendiri. 

19. Dan kesimpulan itu tidak memihak kepada kerajaan.

20. Dalam soal kedaulatan, tindakan yang diambil adalah lebih penting daripada penjelasan.

21. Kerajaan terdahulu menunjukkan bahawa isu sempadan memerlukan ketegasan, strategi undang-undang dan kawalan naratif yang jelas. Hari ini, elemen-elemen ini dilihat semakin lemah.

22. Kerajaan Madani mungkin betul dari sudut teknikal. Namun dalam politik, menjadi betul sahaja tidak memadai.

23. Kerajaan mesti dilihat tegas. Kerajaan mesti dilihat yakin. Dan kerajaan mesti mampu meyakinkan rakyat bahawa setiap inci tanah negara diurus dengan penuh tanggungjawab.

24. Hakikatnya semakin jelas bahawa ini bukan sekadar isu sempadan.

25. Ini adalah ujian terhadap keupayaan kerajaan mempertahankan kedaulatan negara.

26. Dan ketika ini, ujian tersebut dilihat gagal diurus dengan meyakinkan.

27. Jika kerajaan hanya mampu menjawab dengan istilah teknikal tetapi gagal meyakinkan rakyat, maka masalah sebenar bukan sempadan, tetapi kelemahan kepimpinan negara itu sendiri.

Salam hormat,

Dr Armin Baniaz Pahamin

ENGLISH

TWO BORDER ISSUES, ONE SIGNAL: WEAKNESS IN THE MADANI ADMINISTRATION’S MANAGEMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY

By: Dr Armin Baniaz Pahamin

1. Within a short span of time, two border issues have emerged in succession. An area of 5,207 hectares in Sabah has now been followed by 1,273 hectares in Pulau Sebatik.

2. This is not merely a coincidence. It reflects a growing weakness in how the current administration is managing matters of national sovereignty.

3. The Madani government has provided technical explanations, stating that these involve Outstanding Boundary Problems (OBP) and are based on historical treaties.

4. However, the issue is no longer purely technical.

5. The real question is whether the government has the ability to act decisively, control the narrative, and maintain public confidence.

6. Over the past two decades, Malaysia has faced numerous boundary issues. Yet the approach taken by previous administrations reveals a distinctly different pattern.

7. In the case of Pedra Branca, Malaysia brought the dispute before the International Court of Justice to seek resolution through international law, demonstrating the nation’s willingness to utilise legal mechanisms in defending its claims.

8. During the tenure of Mahathir Mohamad, the government took steps to challenge the ruling when new evidence emerged that could potentially alter the outcome.

9. This approach demonstrates that even when outcomes were not entirely favourable, efforts to defend national sovereignty were pursued through clear and decisive institutional channels.

10. Boundary negotiations with neighbouring countries were also conducted in a structured and phased manner, involving technical, diplomatic, and security agencies.

11. Sensitive issues were managed within a controlled diplomatic framework and were not allowed to escalate into recurring public controversies within a short period.

12. Today, that approach appears increasingly different.

13. Issues are emerging within a short timeframe and are being addressed in isolation.

14. The explanation on the 5,207-hectare issue was presented in a special parliamentary sitting without a question-and-answer session. This raises concerns regarding transparency and confidence in the government’s handling of the matter.

15. Explanations have been largely technical, without a clear and comprehensive narrative.

16. At the same time, external statements are shaping a perception that does not align with the government’s position.

17. This is not merely a communication gap, but a weakness in strategic leadership.

18. When neighbouring countries openly state that they are “gaining territory,” while the government responds only with technical explanations without persuasive conviction, the public inevitably begins to draw its own conclusions.

19. And those conclusions do not favour the government.

20. In matters of sovereignty, actions carry more weight than explanations.

21. Previous administrations demonstrated that boundary issues require firmness, legal strategy, and clear control of the national narrative. Today, these elements appear to be weakening.

22. The Madani government may be technically correct. However, in politics, being right is not sufficient.

23. A government must be seen as firm. It must be seen as confident. And it must be able to assure the public that every inch of national territory is managed with full responsibility.

24. The reality is becoming increasingly clear. This is no longer just about borders.

25. This is a test of the government’s ability to safeguard national sovereignty.

26. At present, that test has failed and is not being managed convincingly.

27. If a government can only respond with technical arguments but fails to convince its people, then the real problem is not the border itself, but a weakness in national leadership.

Kind regards,

Dr Armin Baniaz Pahamin