“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
– WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, ROMEO AND JULIET
The quotation above is Juliet’s line telling Romeo that a name is nothing, but a name and it is hence a convention with no meaning behind it.
When it comes to the honorific and official title of “Premier” for Sarawak’s chief of the executive branch or head of the government, it has attracted a lot of attention and generated some excitement. Most of the views are in favour of the change, as evidenced by the overwhelming support in the Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak or the State Legislative Assembly. The distractors are in the minority.
Looking closely at the whole thing, it becomes obvious that the change in nomenclature is far from a superficial act or an exercise in tokenism. In fact, the seemingly minor constitutional change is tantamount to a fundamental restatement of the correct state of things, a positive step towards adopting the proper nomenclature and a necessary but subtle change to re-set the correct and proper constitutional position within the concept of federalism.
In terms of utilisation of the terminology, the term ‘Premier’ is similar to the practice and convention in Australia where the component states that make up the Commonwealth of Australia, a federation of states, are led by premiers while the head of the central government is ‘Prime Minister.’ So, there is a precedent to this practice.
To get a better context on the issue, it is important to understand how federations are formed in the first place. The establishment of federations come in two fundamental ways, namely, (i) through the devolution of powers by a hitherto unitary state into identified provinces, regions or new component states; and (ii) by the coming together of hitherto sovereign states to form a federation, a new and larger political entity. On both methods, the federated concept means a division of power between the central government and the state or provincial/regional governments. In terms of the process of devolution of power, the first method is a top-down process, whilst in the second, it’s a bottom-up process.
Obviously, the constitutional set up and consequences of the path to federalism are different for each method. Being top-down, the powers and authorities, and stature of the component parts in the first option are by definition as granted by the original unitary entity. Before the establishment of the federation, there was only one sovereign state. But for some reason, the decision is made to turn the unitary state into several parts. The subdivisions which form the new federated entity are conferred with the powers that are essentially devolved from the conferring authority.
But in the second option, the division of powers is determined by negotiation and the agreement of the component parts thereof that are essentially sovereign states in their own rights in the first place. In other words, the second method is a coming together of equals, a marriage of hitherto autonomous and separate states. This is not the same as in the first method.
The Federation of Malaya was formed in 1948 to replace the Malayan Union by the coming together of the original autonomous components of the federation — the nine Malay states and the Straits Settlements of Penang and Malacca, all of whom were separate political entities on their own. Singapore was, however, excluded from the Federation of Malaya and remained a separate crown colony.
Similarly, the Federation of Malaysia was formed in 1963 by the coming together of the Federation of Malaya, the State of Singapore, the State of Sarawak and the State of Sabah. The division of power between the federal government and state governments is reflected in Federal Constitution, especially in the forms of the Federal List, The State List and the Concurrent List. Over and above that, the States of Sabah and Sarawak retained additional powers and autonomy pursuant to the terms of the Malaysia Agreement 1963. The additional autonomy given to Sabah and Sarawak makes the Federation of Malaysia an asymmetrical federation, where parts of the federation have been conferred additional autonomy.
With the context as explained above, it is submitted that the step taken by the State of Sarawak is not a mere change of nomenclature or a window dressing exercise. In fact, it is everything. Once gazetted, the change will be legally binding and become a valid constitutional provision in Sarawak, forever enshrined as part of the law of the land. Unless and until it is changed by constitutional and legal process it will remain so.
In other words, the steps taken by the Legislative body of the State of Sarawak was an expression of the sovereign will of the people and is an empathic and clear constitutional and legal statement which indirectly seeks to reinforce the federated nature of the nation. It’s a restatement of the right concept of federation as envisaged in the Federal Constitution and the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963. And in that sense, it is a strong affirmation of the concept of the nation state as being a federation of states. It’s a strong endorsement of Malaysia as a federated entity.
To recap, the Federation of Malaysia was formed by the 4 component parts on Malaysia Day, namely, Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. In 1965, Singapore seceded and legally left the Federation. That separation did not change the legal and constitutional character of the federation or the nature of relationship of the component parts. There are, however, some views or interpretation that the Malaysia Agreement was somehow rendered ineffective or void upon the leaving of Singapore from the federation. That’s a legal and constitutional interpretation that may one day be argued in a court of law. But what is clear is the deduction or inference that the peaceful separation of Singapore in fact confirmed and reaffirmed the principle under international law that the right to federate lies with the component states thereof and that it is an inherent and fundamental right of the said state. Obviously, the converse has to be true as also amply demonstrated by the case of Singapore.
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that there is some confusion in the use of the word “state” which term has two shades of meaning. The term “state” can mean just a political, administrative division or component of a nation state, with specific conferred powers and authority by the nation state that gave birth to the federation. On the other hand, the term “state” can mean the “nation state” with full sovereign and inherent powers, authority and independence as in the case of modern nation states.
The first case is a mere province or administrative division with limited or no powers whilst the second case is a coming together of equals.
Coming back to the term “Premier”, and in the context of its usage or intended use, it is clearly first and foremost just an honorific, word, title, or grammatical form that signals respect, politeness and social deference. Honorifics are also known as courtesy titles or address terms and very commonly used before names in salutation — for example, Mr Speaker, Madame Chair, Emeritus Professor, Princess Leia, etc. So, all the excitement, reactions and over reactions to the honorific “Premier” are, in the words of Shakespeare, just “much ado about nothing”. Some would say a big fuss over a trifle?
