About point 7

SHOULD vs SHALL ~ A
Consideration for Point 7:
Right of Secession
=====================
Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to
secede from the Federation.
======================
We should take a positive
view of the "no right to
secede" initiative, which is
worth considering despite its
affirmation in Point 7 which
speaks of the Sabahan and
Sarawakian rights to secede
from the Federation of
Malaysia This is so because
“the use [by Point 7] of the
word ‘’should’ (as
opposed to the word
‘shall,’ for example) turns
the option of "NO RIGHT TO
SECEDE" into a mere
recommendation.”
You see.. Diplomatic
documents often demand
close linguistic analysis.
Would that Point 7 have
meant something else, had it
said that “There SHALL be
no right to secede from the
Federation.”?
Since the auxiliary verbs
“shall” and “shan’t”
have all but disappeared from
American English, in much of
Great Britain they are still in
common use. The facts that
the 18/20 Points Agreement
was an Agreement relating to
Malaysia between United
Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, Federation
of Malaya, North Borneo,
Sarawak and Singapore, it’s
British usage that counts —
and when it comes to that,
what greater authorities do
we have than the estimable
Fowler brothers, F.G. and
H.W., whose “The King’s
English” (first edition
published by Oxford
University Press, 1906) served
generations of perplexed
English speakers as a revered
guide. Here’s what “The
King’s
English” (traditionally
known as “Fowler”) has to
say about “shall,”
“should,” “will” and
“would” in a discussion
that is 20(!) pages long:
“It is unfortunate that the
idiomatic use [of these
words], while it comes by
nature to southern
Englishmen (who will find
most of this section
superfluous), is so
complicated that those who
are not to the manner born
can hardly acquire it; and for
them [this] section is in
danger of being useless. In
apology for the length of the
remarks it must be said that
the short and simple
directions often given are
worse than useless. The
observant reader soon loses
faith in them… and the
unobservant is the victim of
false security."
Needless to say, this is highly
reassuring! Fowler then
opens its discussion with the
following short and simple
directions: “Roughly
speaking, should follows the
same rules as shall, and
would as will.”
In their pure form, Fowler
continues, "shall" and
"should" express command
or obligation, whereaswill
and would express intention
or prediction, the difference
between the two members of
each pair being that the
second is the conditional
form of the first. Hence,
“There SHALL be no right to
secede from the
Federation.” would indicate
that Sabah & Sarawak is
commanded NOT TO SECEDE
FROM THE FEDERATION
unconditionally, whereas
“There SHOULD be no right
to secede from the
Federation.” indicates that
this command is SUBJECT TO A
CONDITION (or CONDITIONS)
— in this case, presumably,
that SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN
wish “to continue being
part of the Federation”
Would such a reading of my
argument, if it is the correct
one, turn POINT 7 into a
“mere recommendation”
that SABAH & SARAWAK
continue to be part of the
Federation of Malaysia when
there is no reasons/causes to
trigger their need to SECEDE
FROM THE FEDERATION?? If
POINT 7 intends to say that
SABAH & SARAWAK need not
secede from the Federation
unless it wants to, then it
also intends to say that
SABAH & SARAWAK need not
continue to be part of the
Federation of Malaysia unless
it wants to — a construction
of POINT 7 that would be
rather bizarre, to say the
least.
True, in practice, as opposed
to theory, the difference
between “shall” and
“should” in British English
is somewhat different:
“shall” often expressing a
COMMAND on the speaker’s
part, and “should” merely
a DESIRE, as in “You shall go
to the doctor” vs. “You
should go to the doctor.”
And yet if we paraphrase
POINT 7 as saying, “The
Point 7 of the Agreement of
Malaysia desires that Sabah &
Sarawak not to secede from
the Federation,” is this
significantly better for Sabah
& Sarawak? How big an
improvement over flouting
the POINT 7’s command
would be flouting the POINT
7’s desire??
In short, if we take
consideration of the above
arguments on the reading of
POINT 7, the FEDERATION OF
MALAYSIA should politely be
told in the king’s English,
“No, thank you.. we
SABAHAN & SARAWAKIAN wish
to SECEDE from the
Federation.”