ADVERTISEMENT
.jpg)
Nominated Assemblyman practice illegal?
Published on: Sunday, June 18, 2023
Text Size:
At the recent State Assembly sitting: Only Sabah enjoys the privilege of appointing six members of the Assembly.
It appears that nobody is aware of this provision and, therefore, the additional six assembly members continue to be nominated.
The aim and objective of the six nominated seats was to provide minority communities and professions representation in the legislative assembly.
Legally, this is the highest authority in Sabah. As a member of the Malaysian Federation, there are additional restrictions on the legislative assembly to pass laws which may contradict national interests. It is clearly stated in the Constitution that the Provision for the six nominated seats had expired, implying the provision is now null and void.
It may even be that after all these years of Assembly meetings with the nominated seats, the meetings may have actually been illegal in a country where members are democratically elected. The main reason why every government since has continued to nominate the six members to the Assembly, can only be for political and tactical advantages. Sabah now has a staggering 79 members in the Legislative Assembly, 73 are elected and six are nominated.
Better still if the GRS State Government go back to the assembly to create another six Nominated Assembly members so that more people have a chance to cari makan.
As the saying goes, the more the merrier while the state continues to struggle with so many issues from water to electricity to roads.
It also has proved useful as a backdoor entry for peninsula parties like PAS, who would otherwise never imagine they would find a place in the Assembly.
Lawless
- IT is widely held that the provision for the six Nominated Members has long outlived its intended purpose. In fact, this was evident even right after the first State election in 1967, when it was used as a tool to pad the assembly with cronies, contributors and supporters of the ruling party, than as a means to ensure the representation of minorities and the disadvantaged.
Which was why from 1963 at the time of independence until 1967 was the only time when even Indians were represented through the appointment of Avtar Singh.
Strangely, although the Crown took possession of Sarawak after the war from the Brooke family, it did not include such provision even though Sarawak also had some 30-plus ethnic groups like Sabah, whose numbers would be insufficient to send a representative to the assembly via the ballot box.
The closest that Sabah came to dispensing with the need for the six Nominated members – who enjoy all the advantages and perks as those who had to fight in an election – was during the administration of former Chief Minister Tan Sri Musa Aman in 2004.
However, instead of scrapping the archaic provision altogether, Musa decided to leave the six positions vacant soon after the rotation of the CM post was stopped. Some at that time saw it as a great opportunity to rectify an anomaly missed by having the intention but lacking the courage. The fact that Sabah continues to be plagued by legacy issues from previous state governments like inadequate water and electricity supply, rural poverty and potholed roads despite the Assembly now having a whopping 73 elected reps is further evidence that these unelected reps represent only themselves and are a huge drain on resources.
It is unclear whether the six are also eligible for the extra millions in allocations that elected reps are entitled to. It need be said that while you make a strong case that subsequent state governments after 1975 have been appointing them illegally, you do not cite the provision in the Federal constitution that states this.
Unless you are referring to the understanding under the MA63 that whatever was practised during the colonial period would be allowed to continue for 10 years after independence unless decided otherwise by the State Assembly. – Ed.
ADVERTISEMENT
