Michael Kong, the special assistant to state DAP chairman Chong Chieng Jen, said the GPS lawmakers claimed the amendment was to tighten the constitution and to ensure only a true Sarawakian could contest in the state elections.

“But, this is not true as there is a certain ambiguity in the amendment,” he said in a statement.

He said the constitution only said that in order for someone to qualify to be elected as a state assemblyman, that person’s “parent” must be born in Sarawak.

He noted that it did not say “biological parent”.

“Does it mean the ‘parent’ can be either a stepfather or stepmother? This is because in Black’s Law Dictionary, a ‘parent’ is defined as the lawful father and mother of the person,” he said in a statement.

Under the newly amended constitution, only two categories of persons qualify as “resident in the state”, namely, a citizen born in Sarawak whose parents, or either one of them, are born in the state, a citizen born outside Sarawak whose parents or either of them was born in the state and was “normally resident” in Sarawak.

“With a team of legal officers in the Sarawak state Attorney-General’s Chambers, why can’t the GPS government draft it with more clarity? Why does the GPS government purposely leave some ambiguity in the new amendment?” he asked.

On Nov 12, Ba Kelalan assemblyman Baru Bian said the state opposition could not support the proposed amendment on Article 16-2(2)(a) of the Constitution of the State of Sarawak (Amendment) Bill 2020, because it was ambiguous.

“We cannot define a person solely based on his or her birthplace and the birthplace of one or both of the parents and vice versa,” he had said when debating the bill at the state assembly sitting here.