By Former assemblyman Datuk James Ligunjang
KOTA KINABALU: Remy Majakim’s recent article in Jesselton Times attempts to portray Warisan as a sympathetic and heroic force; however, it is marred by numerous factual inaccuracies, legal misinterpretations, and logical inconsistencies. Rather than providing serious political commentary, it reads more like partisan fan fiction cloaked in misunderstood legal language.
Remy’s interpretation of Article 6(7) of the Sabah State Constitution is both superficial and legally flawed. He assumes that “a political party” excludes coalitions, which is an oversimplification. Under the Societies Act 1966, coalitions such as Barisan Nasional, which governed Malaysia from 1973 to 2018, can be registered as a single political entity.
He appears unaware that coalitions have long played a legitimate role in government formation — as evidenced in the 1967 Sabah state election, where a coalition government was formed between USNO and SCA after no party secured a majority. This is a fundamental feature of parliamentary democracy, not an anomaly.
Remy’s attempt to redefine “majority” using a general dictionary, rather than within its constitutional context, is misleading. In constitutional terms — particularly regarding government formation — “majority” means more than half of the total seats, not just the most seats won.
In the 2020 Sabah state election, Warisan secured 23 out of 73 seats — a plurality, not a majority. In a hung assembly, Article 6(7) does not apply. Instead, the Yang di-Pertua (TYT) acts under Article 6(3), appointing the individual most likely to command the confidence of the assembly. Omitting this important constitutional provision is a significant oversight on Remy’s part.
Furthermore, Remy’s portrayal of the 2020 dissolution of the Sabah State Assembly as a necessary move, claiming that the government was “held hostage” and Shafie Apdal “had no choice,” is more spin than fact. A constitutional route was available through a confidence vote in the Assembly. Shafie’s decision to advise early dissolution during a pandemic was a strategic political move, not a constitutional obligation.
Remy also claims GRS was merely an informal alliance and thus not a unified political force, ignoring that Warisan Plus was similarly unregistered. His reasoning seems biased toward Warisan, suggesting partisanship rather than principle.
Additionally, emphasizing Warisan’s 23 seats as decisive overlooks the coalition nature of parliamentary politics. GRS presented itself as a united front and secured 38 seats, constituting a clear majority. Coalition arithmetic is standard practice in parliamentary democracies.
Remy’s use of emotionally charged language, such as “held hostage” and “backdoor government,” sensationalizes rather than objectively analyzes the situation. Such rhetoric tends to provoke sentiment rather than reason, undermining healthy public discourse.
Ultimately, Remy Majakim’s article falls short as a legal or political analysis. By citing repealed provisions and applying inconsistent logic, he distorts facts and misleads the public. If he aims to be a serious commentator of integrity, he must move beyond politicized talking points and engage with the law more accurately.
He is neither a trained lawyer nor a constitutional expert. Until then, his commentary remains political storytelling rather than genuine constitutional insight.
