Selangau MP Baru Bian addresses members of the media at the Merdeka Square in Kuala Lumpur August 2, 2021. — Picture by Hari Anggara
KUCHING, Feb 15 — Ba Kelalan assemblyman Baru Bian will not support the Constitution of the State of Sarawak (Amendment) Bill, 2022 unless the proposed change of the term Chief Minister to ‘Premier’ is removed.
He proposed the Federal Constitution should first be amended to include the term ‘premier’, in the same way the definition of ‘Native’ was amended under Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution.
Baru said while he understands, appreciates, and supports that the rationale behind the move to change the term ‘chief minister’ to ‘premier’ is to elevate the status of Sarawak following the recent amendment to the Federal Constitution, and to differentiate Sarawak from states in the peninsula, his concern is the amendment could be said to be unconstitutional.
According to him, nowhere in historical documents and the Federal Constitution is the word ‘premier’ used in relation to the Chief Minister of Sarawak.
“I note that there is a deeming provision in Section 5 of the Bill wherein Article 44 of the Sarawak Constitution is amended to include this clause: ‘any reference to the chief minister in any written law shall refer to the premier’.
“However, such deeming clauses cannot be applied to the historical documents upon which this country’s foundations were built. Neither can the State Legislature make laws to modify the supreme law of the country,” he said when debating the Constitution of the State of Sarawak (Amendment) Bill, 2022 at the State Legislative Assembly today.
He also noted that by amending the term ‘chief minister’ to ‘premier’ without a concurrent amendment in the Federal Constitution, it could be said the amendment would destroy the basic structure of the Federal Constitution as it would render certain provisions meaningless and create confusion.
“Will this amendment be caught by Article 4 of the Federal Constitution being ‘inconsistent’ with the Supreme Law of the Land and therefore unconstitutional?
“It appears to me, in all probability, yes. In addition, I would venture to say that the deeming provision in the proposed amendment Bill would not be held to be applicable to the Federal Constitution if challenged in a court of law.
“Such unilateral amendments would create ambiguities, and the government should exercise caution in this matter,” he warned.
Baru opined it is more important to focus on implementing Sarawak’s rights and claim the promises made during the formation of Malaysia.
He said the Sarawak government should also take concrete action on the motion which was passed unanimously in 2015 by the DUN to demand Putrajaya implement rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 mandating to the state government to review all federal legislation, including to amend or repeal laws that affected the state’s rights to its natural resources.
“These laws include the Territorial Sea Act 2012 that limited the state’s territorial waters to within three nautical miles of the coast, the Continental Shelf Act and the Petroleum Act 1966.
“It would be better to take concrete steps which will benefit Sarawak and Sarawakians tangibly rather than rushing into a name change that may bring some self-gratification but may ultimately be criticised for being unconstitutional,” he said.
He said the rest of the Bill is acceptable and he would have no problem with it except for the term ‘Premier’.
“With the greatest respect, my stand on this Bill is that, I will oppose it because of this one factor only, changing the term ‘chief minister’ to ‘premier’, unless it is removed from the Bill. I understand my colleagues in PSB (Parti Sarawak Bersatu) are of the same view,” he added. — Bernama