SANDAKAN – In a surprising turn of events, Warisan president Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal has reignited debate over Article 6(7) of the Sabah Constitution, which was unexpectedly removed on May 25 of the previous year.
On February 23, during Warisan’s Chinese New Year celebration in Kota Kinabalu, Shafie declared his commitment to reinstate Article 6(7) if Warisan assumed governance after the upcoming Sabah election.
This has sparked a heated discussion over the past two weeks on whether Article 6(7) should be reinstated.
Article 6(7) states: “In the context of Clause (3) (pertaining to TYT’s appointment of a CM) of this Article, if a political party secures a majority of the elected seats in the Legislative Assembly during a general election, the leader of said political party, who is also a member of the Legislative Assembly, shall be the individual likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly members.”
This provision is unique to Sabah alone. It delineates a guideline for the governor to select the next chief minister, specifically emphasising that the chosen individual must be the leader of a political party that has secured a majority of seats.
The article was introduced on May 25, 1990, by the then-Parti Bersatu Sabah state government to prevent other parties from forming a majority with six nominated assemblymen.
It was intended to ensure political stability and prevent power grabs in Sabah, and it had served the state well for decades until the GRS government deemed it, as stated by the Sabah government’s legal adviser, Datuk Tengku Fuad Tengku Ahmad, “imprecise and poorly drafted, resulting in confusion about who, how, and when the head of state should appoint a chief minister”.
Warisan, however, perceives the move to abolish Article 6(7) as “an attempt to retrospectively legitimise the unconstitutional appointment of Datuk Seri Hajiji Mohd Noor, rather than a sincere effort to enhance the constitution’s equity and inclusivity”, according to Warisan’s deputy information chief Justin Wong.
Several Warisan representatives said the article was necessary to provide a guideline for Sabah’s head of state in appointing a chief minister, thereby preventing power grabs.
Clear legal language needed
Former Sabah Law Society president and senior lawyer Datuk Roger Chin pointed out that Article 6(7) does not have a clear definition of the term “majority”.
He questioned whether it should be construed as a relative majority (most seats) or an absolute majority (more than half).
This ambiguity, he claims, has the potential to spark disagreements and challenges to the governor’s decision, potentially delaying the chief minister’s appointment and creating a power vacuum.
Chin also stressed the importance of employing clear legal language when interpreting the article, especially in the ongoing discussions about balancing the governor’s discretion with the need for explicit guidelines to form a stable government.
In a recent statement, he emphasised the importance of clarifying this matter to avoid potential complications.
The way forward
Despite previous discussions about Article 6(7), it is now in the past. Even if Warisan were to consider its reinstatement, they would have to wait until the next Sabah election. The potential benefit would only be realised if Warisan secured a majority of seats in Sabah.
However, Sabah Progressive Party president Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee said there should be a better replacement for the provision before the Sabah election, suggesting setting up a select committee from all parties to draft the replacement.
In a recent statement, Yong said that the repeal of Article 6(7) was partly due to the blurred lines emerging from the 2018 and 2020 state elections, which witnessed unregistered electoral pacts. Despite this, he refutes that Article 6(7) was poorly drafted.
“Article 6(7) has served Sabah well for a long, long time. It only became controversial in 2018 and 2020 when different parties had their own interpretations to suit their own advantage,” he said. – March 3, 2024