Uphold Federal Constitution and Rukunegara to preserve national harmony

TOLERANCE has been commonly and consistently propagated around the world as an important tool for people of different beliefs, ethnicity and nationalities to coexist and work together for the betterment of their nation.

Wednesday, 25 Oct 2017

In multireligious and multi-ethnic societies like Malaysia, tolerance among the different communities is essential and achievable if there is mutual effort from all parties concerned.

Religious beliefs, which are the source of moral and ethical fundamentals in society, must be duly respected through mutual tolerance.

Islam emphasises that its followers should be considerate and tolerant to others, including non-Muslims. Likewise, non-Muslims are required to have a sense of tolerance towards Muslims in the same manner as Islam requires Muslims to have tolerance towards them.

The Rukunegara, which was introduced following the May 13, 1969 incident, is aimed at achieving national and racial harmony and unity, the key ingredient for the success and stability of the country.

An important component of the Rukunegara is the principle of good behaviour which encompasses the duty to be considerate of others and not to belittle or mock others’ religious beliefs and cultural practices.

Preferences based on religion only, such as Muslims-only laundry shop, Muslims-only hair salon, Muslims-only patrons of a restaurant, Muslims-only cutlery and Muslims-only sitting arrangements at certain public places, among others, should not be tolerated as this would cause racial disharmony.

Likewise, advertisements that are discriminatory or offensive in nature against any particular race, religion or group in the country must be avoided.

Discrimination on the basis of religion and race is against the Federal Constitution. Article 3(1) of the Constitution says that Islam is the religion of the Federation but provides that “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. Article 8(1) provides for equality before the law for all persons and Article 11(1) gives every person the right to profess and practise his or her religion.

These constitutional provisions must be respected and upheld.

ASHGAR ALI ALI MOHAMED

Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws

International Islamic University Malaysia

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2017/10/25/uphold-federal-constitution-and-rukunegara-to-preserve-national-harmony/

Understanding the significance of the Rulers’ statement

WHAT is the real significance of the statement issued by the Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal on behalf of the Conference of Rulers on Oct 10?

Wednesday, 25 Oct 2017

One, it reaffirms the fundamental importance of unity and harmony in multi-religious Malaysia and demonstrates why respect for one another and for the dignity of all human beings is imperative. At the same time, the Rulers’ statement rejects unequivocally extremism and divisiveness in our society.

Two, by reasserting their authority as Head of Islam in their respective states, the Sultans have made it explicitly clear that they do not want the religion to be associated with exclusiveness and bigotry. They want Islam to be presented and practised as it has always been – a religion of tolerance, moderation and inclusiveness.

Three, to bring these and other such values to the fore, Malaysians, the Rulers emphasised, should adhere to the principles of the Federal Constitution and the spirit of the Rukunegara. The Rukunegara is described as the nation’s guiding compass.

The Rulers have made their stand and the people should now come out in full support.

DR CHANDRA MUZAFFAR

Chairman

Board of Trustees

Yayasan 1Malaysia

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2017/10/25/understanding-the-significance-of-the-rulers-statement/

What defines a bumiputra?

A Humble Submission

Thursday, 27 July 2017

BY SYAHREDZAN JOHAN

THE announcement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak a few days ago that the Government will study in depth the request by the Indian-Muslim community to be recognised as bumiputra has caused quite a stir and sparked numerous discussions.

Some think that recognising a community as bumiputra is akin to “changing the race” of the said community.

This is a misconception. There is no question of changing anyone’s race. This article will attempt to clear the confusion.

The term “bumiputra” is not found in the Federal Constitution, at least with regards to ethnic communities in Peninsular Malaysia.

The term “bumiputra” or “pribumi” does exist in the context of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Article 161A of the Federal Constitution lists down the ethnic groups recognised as natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

The Constitution also provides for the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and quotas may be reserved in certain areas for these communities. This can be found in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

“Malay” is generally defined in Article 160 as “a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom”. This means that the special position in Article 153 does not include the orang asli of Peninsular Malaysia. However, Article 8 does allow for special laws to be made for the benefit of the orang asli of Peninsular Malaysia.

When the Prime Minister talked about studying the request to recognise Indian-Muslims as bumiputra, he is not talking about Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

If he were, then Parliament would need to amend the Federal Constitution and expand the definition of Malay, or widen the scope of Article 153.

Such an endeavour would require the support of two-thirds of the Members of Parliament and would also require the express consent of the Council of Rulers, since it concerns Article 153.

The term “bumiputra” can be found in other Federal legislation apart from the Federal Constitution. But there is no legal definition of the term for Peninsular Malaysian ethnic groups.

Thus, the term “bumiputra” is not a legal term, but a policy construct. It is a useful term to group together Malays, natives of Sabah and Sarawak and other ethnic groups, especially after the New Economic Policy was implemented.

It is a “catch-all” term when implementing policies which benefit “natives” of Malaysia, including the orang asli who do not fall under Article 153.

The term has also been extended to other ethnic groups, depending on the context and the policy in question. Certain states have also recognised certain ethnic groups as “bumiputra”.

For example, ethnic groups such as Malaysian Siamese, Peranakan and the Malacca Portuguese have at some point asked to be recognised as bumiputra or have already been recognised as such.

The request made by the Federation of Malaysian Indian Muslim Associations (Permim), communicated to the Prime Minister, is not unique.

The request by Permim, therefore, does not require a legislative amendment.

One must also not forget that there are those with South Indian ancestry (as there are those with Pakistani, Arab and other South-East Asian ethnicities such as Javanese, Bugis and others) who qualify as Malay under Article 16 and are already within the ambit of Article 153.

There is no question of “changing one’s race”, which is often brought up in discussions and commentary about this issue. Permim itself is not asking to be seen as Malay, just to be recognised as bumiputra.

Mature and civil discussions and debates about this issue should be allowed to take place. But at the same time, one must be clear about the difference between “bumiputra” and “Malay”, and what Article 153 entails.

There is, of course, the question of whether race-based policies such as those in the New Economic Policy are effective in today’s world.

But that is a discussion for another time, and perhaps another article.

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/online-exclusive/a-humble-submission/2017/07/27/what-defines-a-bumiputra-as-we-debate-this-issue-it-is-important-for-us-to-get-all-the-terminology-r/

Other articles:

The Constitution stands supreme

Time to enact the Freedom of Information Act

The right to peaceful assembly

The principle of Parliamentary privilege

CONFUSION is a chicken with shattered eyes. That’s the Thai proverb buzzing in the mind in the wake of last week’s Parliament ... 

Wednesday, 2 November 2016

BY M. VEERA PANDIYAN

CONFUSION is a chicken with shattered eyes. That’s the Thai proverb buzzing in the mind in the wake of last week’s Parliament proceedings.

Translated, it means being utterly baffled by events happening very quickly.

And based on management guru Tom Peters’ dictum of “If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention”, I could also be suffering from an acute case of attention deficit disorder.

The confounding issue revolves around Parliamentary privilege and conflicting statements made by the Speaker, several ministers and the Inspector-General of Police over the alleged breaches of official secrecy committed by three ex-ministers in the speeches made during the debate on Budget 2017.

Former deputy prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, second finance minister Datuk Seri Husni Hanadzlah, and rural and regional development minister Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal are reportedly under probe for violating the Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1972 for speaking about 1MDB. Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said that the trio could not claim immunity when speaking about matters classified under the OSA in the august House.

Zahid said the Government would leave it to the police to investigate and forward the findings to the Attorney-General.

Parliament Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia set things in motion on Thursday when he said the former ministers might have breached their oaths by disclosing details about Cabinet meetings in Parliament.

He suggested that they might have even broken the OSA and the Sedition Act with their revelations in the Dewan Rakyat.

Muhyiddin was alleged to have revealed classified information on the company and Shafie had questioned several government decisions over it, while Ahmad Husni had reportedly said the country could still face economic repercussions if the controversial issues surrounding the firm were not properly handled.

After reports were lodged by two NGOs – Jaringan Melayu Malaysia (JMM) and Sahabat N87 Federal Territory – IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said police would record the former ministers’ statements for allegedly revealing confidential information.

The IGP reminded all government officials and those who had left the civil service to be very careful and responsible when making statements as action could be taken against them if they disclosed official secrets or breached oaths of secrecy.

As requested, Ahmad Husni turned up at Bukit Aman on Monday for police to question him and record his statements made in the Dewan Rakyat.

The session, however, was inexplicably postponed.

Hours earlier, current Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani added to the muddle by saying that it was not wrong to ask questions in the House.

“There is nothing wrong in asking questions. In Parliament, everybody can ask questions,” he told reporters at the Parliament lobby.

Well, not exactly anyone, but elected Members of Parliament and appointed senators can do so.

They have the privilege to ask and speak in the interest of the people and have immunity from prosecution, except for matters deemed seditious.

The principle of freedom of speech, often described as the most important of all privileges, dates back to the English civil wars during the 1600s when parliamentarians fought for the right to self-governance and independence from the monarchy.

After three wars, the Bill of Rights finally established the powers of parliament and became enshrined in law in 1689.

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights states that “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.

Our Federal Constitution also clearly affirms this under Article 63 which states:

(1) The validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in any proceedings of either House of Parliament or any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of either House of Parliament.

However, under two conditional clauses (4 & 5) added through amendments made after the May 13, 1969 riots, the privilege does not apply to any person charged with the Sedition Act 1948 and laws enacted under Article 10 (4) which protect the national language, the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak and commenting on the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Malay rulers.

As many of our legal experts have since pointed out, there is no mention of the OSA or oaths of secrecy involved.

If the former ministers had violated any rules, they should rightly be referred to Parliament’s Rights and Privileges Committee, chaired by the Speaker himself.

The rule of law, an intrinsically moral notion, should reign supreme in the administration of Parliament because that is the place where our laws are made.

As it is, we have already fallen sharply in the global rule of law standings.

Malaysia ranks 54 out of 113 countries surveyed in the latest annual Rule of Law Index, a drop of 15 points from last year’s position of 39.

The index, published by the World Justice Project advocacy group, measures how rule of law is perceived, based on nine factors – constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, criminal justice and customary justice.

The assessment of residents (1,000 respondents per country) and local legal experts also covers the conditions experienced by the population, including the marginalised.

By comparison, Singapore – the only Asian state in the top 10 rankings led by Denmark – holds the ninth place for the second year running.

Media Consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this observation by Aristotle:

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.

• Media Consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this observation by Aristotle: At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/along-the-watchtower/2016/11/02/the-principle-of-parliamentary-privilege-the-rule-of-law-should-reign-supreme-in-the-administration/

DPM: Malaysia a model of unity, equal rights for all

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia is a model of unity as it assures fair and equal rights for all races as stipulated in the Federal Constitution ...

Friday, 28 October 2016 | MYT 10:39 PM

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia is a model of unity as it assures fair and equal rights for all races as stipulated in the Federal Constitution, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said.

As such, he said the ethnic minorities in the country need not be scared to practice their religions and traditional cultures, let alone to be worried of losing their identities.

"I believe that our different religions, languages and skin colours have made us a nation having a rich culture.

"The differences have become the strength, not a weakness, in the formation of Malaysian nation, unity in diversity," he said in his two-minute video message posted on his Facebook and Twitter pages on Friday in conjunction with Deepavali.

Ahmad Zahid also called on all Malaysians to strengthen racial unity and solidarity, which were the backbone in nation development.

He reminded the people not to turn the social media into a medium that could shake national unity.

"Last but not least, I would like to wish all Malaysians, especially the Hindu devotees, Happy Deepavali 2016," he added. – Bernama

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/10/28/ahmad-zahid-malaysia-model-of-unity-equal-rights-for-all-races/