Mycomments on Bill to define ‘resident’ in Sarawak Constitution passed in DUN - Borneo Post Online

 Whether this Bill amendment is for the best interest of Sarawakians or not, time will tell everything.  Getting the majority support of the said Bill is nothing to boast about for the BN-GPS government as the representatives from the same coalition are expected to act in accord and dance to the same tune.  These YBs have been habituated and conditioned to act so. 

That’s why I see that the BN-GPS government should be flushed out for good as it has stayed in power for far too long –à 50+7 years/half a century+7 years.  I think that they have thought that they are legitimated by birth or privilege to be the masters of DUN, not knowing that they are doomed.  The 12^th PRN will reveal the truth.   I doubt if these YBs always acting in accord to any Bills presented to them, so said to the best interest of Sarawakians still in DUN after the PRN 12^th election

        The victory of these YBs now for the said Bill, does it mean that they will enjoy the same victory in the PRN12 election? 

        It is imprudent, rude and rough to present the difficult Bill to be debated without proper preparation for other members knowing that it needs an depth study to understand it (Article 16, clause 2 (1)(c)). 

        Ambiguity of any nature should be removed to avoid the backfire.  Many Sarawakians, I believe, are confused with the definition of Sarawakians --  [the second part of the Bill, which seeks to amend the expression “resident in the State” in Article 16 clause 2(1) (c) of the Sarawak Constitution.]   It is no doubt confusing to laymen.  And why should it be passed in such a hurry without being suspicious of some ulterior motives by many Sarawakians?

        Do you still bluff it to be the victory of the BN-GPS government to have passed the Bill in that imprudent, rude and rough manners without being scorned and scoffed at by the public?

                Saying that the opposition members’ “sole intention was to run down the bill regardless.” may not be true as many Sarawakians share the same opinions as they. 

So said “They misled the DUN and those outside after only looking at the first part of the bill without trying to look deeper.  It is indeed very uncivilised, aggressive and arrogant of Datuk Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, to condemn the opposition members (Frankly speaking, I am not the supporter of them.) in that regard without giving them enough time for the indepth study and yet expecting them “to look deeper“.  Which field of logic is it, I wonder?

“--he is normally resident in the State; or a citizen, though not born in the State, whose parents or either of them was born in the State and he is normally resident in the State.”

If the ambiguity is to be done in court, only the plaintiff/prosecutor who brings this Bill to be judged wins all because the Malayan judges are always judge all. 

For the adverb of frequently, “normally” is to be put at the place in the sentence to avoid confusion.   It should be placed –--“ … normally, he is the resident in the State  – before the clause.  An adverb of frequently which does not modify verb at all might be taken as an adverb of manners which modify “verb” only. 

There are, no doubt, anomalies need time to be clarified with enough time given, not in haste.

                                                        Belinda Ling Moi Hung

                                                          (17^th November, 2020)