By Daniel John Jambun
President, Change Advocate Movement of Sabah (CAMOS)
KOTA KINABALU: The Change Advocate Movement of Sabah (CAMOS) views the appointment of former Sabah Law Society (SLS) President, Roger Chin, as a nominated Member’s of the Legislative Assembly under the GRS government with deep concern.
This decision carries serious ethical and constitutional implications that the public cannot ignore.
This issue is not personal. It is about safeguarding the independence and integrity of Sabah’s ongoing struggle to restore its constitutional rights under MA63 — especially the 40% net revenue entitlement case now before the courts.
1. Chin’s New Political Role Directly Conflicts with His Public Interest Duty
As immediate past President of SLS, Chin:
authorised and led the 40% constitutional litigation,
defended Sabah’s rights against both state and federal governments,
represented an independent institution acting in the public interest.
Most importantly, the Sabah State Government is one of the named respondents in the 40% case.
This means Roger Chin is now a political appointee of a government directly defending itself against the very lawsuit he helped initiate.
This deepens the conflict of interest and further erodes public confidence in the independence of the litigation.
2. A Nominated MLA Is Not a Neutral Role
Nominated assemblymen are appointed to strengthen the ruling government. They are bound by:
political loyalty,
coalition discipline,
obligation to support government positions.
These expectations are in direct conflict with the ethical duty of a constitutional litigator challenging the same government.
You cannot question the government’s legal failures in the courtroom,
and serve as its political appointee in the Dewan,
without triggering serious public concern.
3. Public Perception Matters — and Trust Has Now Been Shaken
In constitutional cases, the appearance of independence is just as important as actual independence. Chin’s appointment will:
enable critics to argue that SLS is no longer fully independent,
weaken Sabah’s institutional credibility in the 40% litigation,
set a dangerous precedent for political co-optation of legal institutions.
This is a structural problem, not a personal attack.
4. GRS Gains Politically — But Sabah’s MA63 Struggle Suffers
By appointing Chin, GRS effectively:
neutralises a strong MA63 advocate,
borrows legitimacy from SLS to strengthen its narrative,
creates an illusion of consensus where scrutiny is needed.
This is political co-optation, not reform.
5. What Must Happen Now
(1) Roger Chin
Must immediately clarify his position regarding the 40% case and formally recuse himself from all legislative or political discussions relating to MA63, federal revenue, or the special grant.
(2) The Sabah Law Society
Must reaffirm its complete independence and reassure the public that the litigation remains free from political influence.
There is nothing wrong with appointing professionals to public office.
But when constitutional litigation is at stake — especially one where the Sabah Government is a respondent — ethics and public confidence must come first.
Roger Chin’s appointment may be legal,
but it is ethically untenable and risks undermining Sabah’s most important constitutional case in decades.
CAMOS will continue to speak out whenever Sabah’s rights and institutional integrity are at risk.
