MIRI: The Federal Constitution is blatantly disregarded when the Chief Minister of Sarawak was not consulted as provided for under Article 121(4) on the decision to relocate the Registry of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak from Kuching to Kota Kinabalu.
A political observer, Karambir Singh, said while the announcement to move the registry to Kota Kinabalu had caused another controversy, the principal issue here, however, was the fact that Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg was not consulted.
“The more important issue here is one that relates to the specifics as provided in Article 121(4) of our Federal Constitution which states, ‘In determining where the principal registry of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak is to be, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister, who shall consult the Chief Ministers of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the Chief Judge of the High Court.’
“It is obvious that Putrajaya followed the part which states ‘the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister’. However, it is very clear that the part that says ‘the Prime Minister, who shall consult the Chief Ministers of the States of Sabah and Sarawak’ was clearly not followed,” argue Karambir.
Saying he wasn’t sure if the Sabah Chief Minister was consulted, he added that the Chief Minister of Sarawak on the other hand had very clearly stated he was not consulted.
Karambir stressed that though he accepted de facto Law Minister Datuk Liew Vui Keong’s argument that there was nothing in the law or the Federal Constitution stating that the registry would remain in Kuching forever, he could not accept the blatant disregard of the Constitution.
Liew had said that the registry had been based in Sarawak since Independence, and that Sabah too had its right to house it.
“In that aspect he is right and perhaps we should not make much of an issue about the actual move itself.
“In the future, perhaps a consensus could be reached so that the registry moves to the state where the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak resides. This might be a practical approach,” said Karambir.
But Putrajaya’s defiant of Article 121(4) of the Federal Constitution is unacceptable, he added.
He said the disregard of the Constitution was further evidence that the federal government “does not have any sincere desire to rectify the wrongs of the past that have been done to Sarawak”.
“In the past there has been open disregard to the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and laws have been passed that are detrimental to Sarawak. This continued assault on Sarawak is indeed another regressive step in our history.
“From this latest development, I would say that the GPS members of parliament were correct by abstaining in the vote to amend Article 1 (2) of the Federal Constitution. How can they claim that the proposed amendment to Article 1 (2) would have given equal status to Sabah and Sarawak, after their latest exercise to disregard all Sarawakians as irrelevant?
“It is merely a cosmetic exercise in an attempt to placate Sarawakians,” said Karambir.
He advised Sarawak lawmakers and citizens to be constantly vigilant to attempts to erode the rights of Sarawak.
“Despite so many campaigns to highlight all the injustices piled upon Sarawak, it seems the federal government still continues in its pursuit of belittling and trampling on Sarawakians,” he said.
