By Mohd Ustar Abdul Ghani
KOTA KINABALU: There is seemingly a sense of intricate political prognostic impending upon Sabah’s political skyline.
The supposition that the coming State election will converge upon a political impasse capitulating a political deadlock or an inconclusive victory is a political prophecy becoming imminently clear as the contretemps for power exacerbated.
In a 73 seats legislative assembly scrimmage for political ascendancy, reckoning the vanquisher is undemanding.
To be victorious ostensibly, the magical number that ought to be effectuated is a simple 37.
That may be feasible in a less strenuous context but in a capricious political scramble where that magical number is elusive, the prospect of finding an unqualified victor becomes laborious.
Based on the prevailing political perspective, it is anticipated that none of the contesting political parties in the coming election would be able to secure that magical number thus engendering a hung Assembly.
A hung Assembly call forth negotiations between dominant political parties be held to find amicable solutions to form a government.
That may be painstaking for warring factions to resolve but not an impracticability.
There is a legal presumption that the party with the highest number of seats though short of the required bare majority be given “the first bite at the cherry” to form the government.
That postulation may be legally logical and approachable but skewed. It conspicuously provides a perilous non effective solution and in jeopardy of creating a fragile minority government easily overhauled rendering that argument flawed and untenable.
What recourse do such predicament offer if it happens and when it happens.
The recent formation of the Unity Government at the federal level may draw inspiration. The task of replicating such political ingenuity in the event a political deadlock transpired is vested upon the Governor of Sabah under Article 6(3) of the State Constitution substantially in pari materia with Article 43 (2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. The provision reads:
“The Yang di Pertua Negeri shall appoint a member of the legislative who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the Assembly and shall appoint the other members mentioned in clause (2) in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister from among the members of the assembly “.
The question begs, when and how is the appointment of the Chief Minister envisaged?.
The word shall denote a mandatory obligation. When, is not ascertained by the clause but by inference and by deploying the purposive approach it must be held that the appointment relates to after an election was held or probably upon the demise of the Chief Minister where convention offers no safeguard for the appointment of a successor.
The expression “who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of a majority”, rather than providing a strict adherence to selecting a choice, affords the Governor jurisdictional prerogative not subjected to negotiations.
The word “likely” interpreted literally is suggestive of the fact that something is in a predictive state which presupposes that only the Governor holds privilege and luxury to discover.
The recent Malaysian political theatrics, the unprecedented Sheraton Move, the inevitable power shift which saw the appointment of three Prime Ministers within one Parliamentary term and the introduction of the anti-hop law are reflections of how complicated politics have become. In Sabah the insertion of Article 17A provides political safeguard from a more complex political disorder.
The Governor can rely on some of this political chaos as precedence to initiate a more pragmatic and acceptable middle ground when appointing a Chief Minister.
The ousting of individual statutory declarations to manifest support should be perceived as a way forward to creating a political moral high ground. Application of Article 17A is seen as tightening the loose ends to the notorious disruptive political defections that ensued in political tragedy and extraneous court battles.
This coming election will not only accentuate the efficacy of the Governor’s power under Article 6(3) but it also for the very first time unveiled the efficacious discharge of Article 17A.
The Governor in arriving at such salient decisions will be succoured by the dependable legal experts available at his disposal.
Despite the many criticisms of a strained relationship with some political figures, the Constitution will avail all parties to a fair and acceptable decision.
Based on the ongoing provisions in the constitution, The Governor will assuringly be able to summon a Unity Government in the event no party could secure the magical 37.
