theborneopost.com
The saga of Stephen Kalong Ningkan — the conclusion
Marcel Jude Joseph
The
concept of 1Malaysia brilliantly espoused by Prime Minister Datuk Seri
Najib Tun Razak can be appreciated when we look at the birth of
Malaysia. Ours is a unique country in so many ways. Besides being a
melting pot of various races, we are one of the few countries in the
world where one half of the country is physically separated from the
other by sea — the South China Sea. By looking at history, you will
understand how difficult the challenge was for there to be a Malaysia
and that the country be one.
Last
week, we looked at the build-up to the constitutional crisis in Sarawak
involving Stephen Kalong Ningkan expressed in five letters.
On
June 16, 1966, the Governor of Sarawak received a letter signed by 21
members of the Council Negri to the effect that the writers no longer
had any confidence in Stephen Kalong Ningkan, as their Chief Minister.
The
Governor thereupon wrote on June 16 that from representations he had
received, he was satisfied that the plaintiff had ceased to command the
confidence of the Council Negri and invited Ningkan to resign.
In
his reply of June 17, Ningkan informed the Governor that the Governor’s
views as to the loss of confidence of the members of the Council Negri
in him was not supported by the meeting of the Council Negri held on the
June 14 and he requested the names of those who had signed the
representations.
In reply to this letter, the Governor on the same
date informed Ningkan as he had refused to tender the resignation of
members of the Supreme Council, the Governor declared that Ningkan and
other members of the Supreme Council had ceased to hold office and
appointed Tawi Sli as Chief Minister forthwith. The Governor also
forwarded a list of those who had signed the representations and Ningkan
commenced proceedings in the Sarawak High Court against the Governor as
the first defendant and Tawi Sli as the second defendant. On Sept 7,
1966, the ruling Chief Justice of Borneo, Justice Harley, delivered his
decision on Ningkan’s suit: “Has the Governor in Sarawak power at all to
dismiss the Chief Minister? In considering this question, we may start
with section 21 of the Interpretation Ordinance, the general effect of
which is that where there is power to appoint (and it is not disputed
that the Governor has power to appoint a Chief Minister) there is power
to dismiss. However, where the appointment is ‘subject to the approval
of some other person, the power of dismissal shall only be exercisable
subject to the approval of such other person’. If the appointment of a
Chief Minister is subject to the approval of Council Negri, then by this
section 21 dismissal also would be subject to its approval.
“In
Sarawak, the Chief Minister’s dismissal is quite simply beyond the
powers of the Governor unless (a) the Chief Minister has lost the
confidence of the House, and (b) the Chief Minister has refused to
resign and failed to advise a dissolution.
“I do not think that
the Chief Minister of Sarawak was ever given a reasonable opportunity to
tender his resignation or to request a dissolution. He was never even
shown the letter on which the dismissal was based until court
proceedings started, although it is true that at the moment of dismissal
a list of signatories was sent to him with the letter from the Governor
dated 17th June. That list and that letter were typed on the same date
as the publication in the Gazette of the dismissal of the plaintiff, who
was given no time at all to consider the weight or effect of the move
against him. Plaintiff did not refuse to resign: he merely expressed
doubts whether in fact he had ceased to command a majority and requested
‘that the matter be put to the constitutional test’.
“My task is
simply to interpret the written word of the Constitution. On such
interpretation the case presented in the statement of claim is
unchallengeable. There will be judgement for the plaintiff as prayed.”
Judgment for Stephen Kalong Ningkan.
Conclusion
And
so Stephen Kalong Ningkan had finally won the day. But victory was
short-lived. The Federal Government at that time was facing fierce
opposition to the concept of Malaysia. Brunei refused to join, and
Singapore – the original partner to Malaysia – had seceded from the
Federation. Indonesia started the Confrontation Wars. The Philippines
still kept alive their claim to Sabah.
There was internal racial
tension, which in 1969 culminated in the May 13 riots. The new nation of
Malaysia was under immense pressure after its baptism of fire in the
world of nations. The loss of Sarawak would have been the knockout blow
for the new nation.
It was inevitable that the Federal Government
declared a state of emergency which legally ended Ningkan’s reign as
Chief Minister of Sarawak. In a strange way, Ningkan was sacrificed to
ensure the survival of Malaysia.
Ningkan challenged the emergency
declaration right up to the Privy Council, but on each occasion he was
defeated. After that his political career descended into oblivion and
outside Sarawak he is hardly known or ever mentioned, even though he was
the first Chief Minister of Sarawak. You can hardly find his images,
even on the Internet.
However, there has been a unique revival of
his name through an unusual way. Whenever any student studies or
researches the constitutional law of Malaysia, or whenever there is a
leading constitutional case before the Malaysian courts, there will be
reference to the leading case law authorities involving Stephen Kalong
Ningkan or bearing his name.
His cases are standard text book
material on Malaysian constitutional law. A most recent example was the
recent constitutional crisis in Perak last year, where the Malaysian
Courts had to decide whether the legal Menteri Besar is Nizar or Zambry.
Yet
few people know or appreciate this statesman of Sarawak and Malaysia
who fought a lonely battle in the face of overwhelming odds and had a
never-say-die spirit even when the odds were heavily stacked against
him.
History is fraught with stories of men who never give up no
matter how great the odds against them. I hope that my maiden articles
the last three weeks will revive your memory of him and make him a less
forgotten hero of Borneo and Malaysia. Have a productive week.
My comments:
The History subject was once a dry and dull subject to me to study for the test. But now I enjoy every single fact of Sarawak History. Yes, the late Stephen Kalong Ningkan is our statesman and hero to fight for the rights of Sarawak. He was betrayed by the governor of Sarawak and suppressed and oppressed by the Federal Government of Malaysia of the day.
