Short answer: yes, but not as simple as other Federal legislation to amend
Two news items caught my eye: Union chief: S’wak Labour Ordinance can be amended in Parliament once state cabinet agrees
The Sarawak Labour Ordinance 1959 (SLO), a federal law, can only be amended in Parliament once the State Cabinet agrees to it, said Sarawak Bank Employees Union (SBEU) chief executive officer Andrew Lo.
The governments of Sabah and Sarawak are advised to amend their respective state Labour Ordinance to be consistent with the amendments to the Employment Act 1955 (EA 1955), said Deputy Human Resources Minister Mustapha Sakmud.
He said the amendment, which can only be made through the approval of the State Legislatures in Sabah and Sarawak, will allow Malaysian workers in both regions to enjoy the same rights and benefits as people in other states under the Federation of Malaysia.
And there is this: Sarawak Labour Ordinance amendments to be presented in Parliament
The Sarawak Labour Ordinance (SLO) amendment will be tabled in the forthcoming parliamentary session for approval.
Deputy Minister in the Premier’s Department (Labour, Immigration and Project Monitoring) Datuk Gerawat Gala said the amendment is crucial for the well-being of workers in Sarawak.
“And I am proud to say that we have obtained approval from the Ministry of Human Resources in Kuala Lumpur, where the amendments have been approved and submitted to the ministry.
“Our hope is that the amendments will be tabled in the forthcoming parliamentary session probably in June or July,” he said.
So why is the Federal parliament involved with a piece of state legislation?
Quick lesson on legislation: in Malaysia, Federal legislation are called Acts, such as the Income Tax Act 1967, Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, etc
State legislation are generally called Enactments, such as the Penang Freedom of Information Enactment 2010, Kedah Islamic Family Law (Kedah Darul Aman) Enactment 2008, Perlis Administration of Muslim Law Enactment 1963, etc
Except Sarawak, where they are called Ordinances.
(As to why they're called Enactments vs Ordinances, that's another post for another time)
So why is the Sarawak Labour Ordinance, given the reference number Cap. 76 in the list of Sarawak state legislation, required to be modified by the Federal parliament?
As it turns out, it comes back to Inter-Governmental Committee Report on Malaysia, MA63, and the 9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution as modified by the Malaysia Acts.
The first hint comes from the List Of Amendments section of the Sarawak Labour Ordinance:
Hasn't been modified much since its enactment in 1957. What was interesting was the fact it was last modified in 2005, by the Labour Ordinance of Sarawak (Amendment) Act 2005. A Federal piece of legislation.
Digging into the Federal Parliament Hansard, I found the first mention of the amendment act on the 9 December 2004 hansard, at page 46:
Translation: Mr. Yang di Pertua, I beg to suggest that the Bill named Sarawak Labor Ordinance Chapter 76 (Amendment) 2004 be read for the second time now. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, The Labour Ordinance Sarawak Chapter 76 was enacted with effect from on 1 January 1952 by Human Resources Department of Sarawak which was then known
as The Department of Labour Sarawak.
This Ordinance became an piece of Federal legislation from Malaysia Day 1963 through a notification of the Ordinance under the Malaysian Acts. This Ordinance is the primary legislation relating to the themes and conditions of of employment of workers in the state of Sarawak. The Ordinance covers manual workers only. The last amendment to the ordinance was made in 1964. In Annex A, list 1/15 of the Report of the Intergovernmental Committee 1962 it was specified that labor and social security matters including labor unions, unemployment and other labor, unemployment etc. are under the federal list. But it also
made the following concessions:
(a) For interim period until otherwise agreed the commissioners of labour of Sarawak and North Borneo shall remain in charge of the respective departments and should have direct access to the federal ministry and should be directly responsible to the Federal Minister of Labour;
(b) In the case of Sarawak the Sarawak Labour Laws shall remain enforce and Malaysia is establish and as necessary they should be a gradual move towards a comment form of
Malaysian legislation in this respect;
(c) In the case of North Borneo and Sarawak they should be a delegation of powers to make subsidiary legislation to due with the conditions peculiar to the state
So what happened was that in the Inter-Governmental Committee Report on Malaysia, Labour would fall under the Federal List, which was codified as MA63, and put into the 9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution via Malaysia Act 1936 (Act No 26 of 1963).
But via MA63, the states of Sarawak (and Sabah) will maintain their own Labour Laws "to deal with conditions peculiar to the State", and that changes to what is ostensibly federal legislation that impacts the Borneo states require approval from their respective governments.
If one had a time machine, it would be interesting to see the debates and discussions during the Cobbold Commission on how they ended up with list 1/15 of Annex A in the Inter-Governmental Committee Report on Malaysia.
If I had to guess, it was to try and bridge the compromises of losing the ability of the Borneo states to maintain some level of control, while acknowledging that most industrial relations laws in a Federation system of government generally falls on the federal government.
End note: it was quite interesting tracing the legislative history of Labour Ordinance of Sarawak (Amendment) Act 2005:
First and Second reading on 9 Dec 2004 (page 46): https://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-09122004.pdf
Second and Third reading rubber stamped on 13 Dec 2024 (page 16): https://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-13122004.pdf
Sent to the Dewan Negara on 21 Dec 2004: https://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DN-21122004.pdf
It went through the first, second, and third readings in less than half an hour, and was then rubber stamped on the same day it was brought to the Dewan Negara.
Those were the days when one party held all the power and could push through amendments in less than 3 weeks.
