Nothing wrong with Malaysia’s original Constitution: Amendments, skewered enforcement made it far from Supreme today

Nothing wrong with Malaysia’s original Constitution: Amendments, skewered enforcement made it far from Supreme today

There was nothing wrong with Malaysia’s Federal Constitution that was gazetted after Merdeka (Independence) 1957.

The problems started when the elected Members of Parliament (MPs) allowed the Constitution to be amended blindly. And at will.

And over the years, after more than 100 amendments, Malaysians and Malaysia are paying the price for the “lawlessness” and “injustice” afflicting our beloved nation.

The Constitution has been butchered so badly that it had not only become very much “alien” when compared with the original in 1957, it has also removed the all-important role of the Constitution - the separation of powers in governance.

The role of The Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Constitutional Monarchy have been blurred by politicians and politics.

And Malaysians have only themselves to blame for their present predicament for having continuously returning the same type of incompetent MPs and their parties to govern Malaysia.

Obviously, the MPs have not been making political decisions based on the well being and interests of the rakyat (people) and country.

And the second most contributing factor to the breaking down of the system of governance is the screwed-up enforcers of the law.

Enforcement action and prosecution are taken at the whim and fancy of the “Little Napoleans” who also act according to their own skewered interpretations.

Throw in racial, religious and political sentiments, you even get a higher potent mix of injustice and fair play.

And the impossible but best and fairest solution: Restore the Constitution to its originality.

The following two Free Malaysia Today (FMT) articles are differing views on Malaysia’s Federal Constitution:

"Time for people to reclaim the Constitution, says Negri prince

V Anbalagan

October 14, 2016

Competing groups are interpreting the Constitution differently and if this continues the country will see greater polarisation, says Tunku Zain.


PETALING JAYA: The Federal Constitution is interpreted differently by various groups because there is no preamble that clearly defines the nation’s charter, a Negri Sembilan prince said.

Tunku Zain Al-‘Abidin Tuanku Muhriz said this might have exacerbated the present situation of having to reclaim the supreme law of the land.

“Of course, countries which have a preamble still have problems, but there are limits as to how the Constitution should be understood,” he said.

The founding president of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) Malaysia said this at the inaugural lecture “Reclaiming our Federal Constitution – Preserve, Protect & Defend” at University of Malaya yesterday.

He cited India, the United States of America and Spain which had a preamble in their written Constitution for guidance of their citizens.

Tunku Zain said whether there was a preamble or not, the articles of the Constitution defined the institutions that “compels our life”.

“We need a Constitution unless we want to live in a state of anarchy,” he added.

He said the Malaysian Constitution needed to be reclaimed because there were citizens who interpreted it in ways that were vastly different from others.

“Competing groups approach the Constitution from their own world views and experiences and each proclaim legitimacy for themselves,” he added.

These occurrences, he said, were more pronounced and visible in recent years.

“If the trend continues, our country will see greater polarisation, making living together increasingly difficult,” he added.

He said this was due to, among others, the rise of race and religious politics, and concentration of power with the Executive.

He said Malaysians must learn and understand the Constitution as in the United Kingdom, where its citizens studied the Magna Carta – which is about upholding the rule of law.

“Unfortunately, our education system is not designed to nurture its people to take a historical narrative view of what it means to be a citizen today.”

He said people’s confidence in public institutions and the national leadership had eroded compared with the early days of Merdeka.

He cited the example of Parliament which failed to protect the Constitution and allowed the passage of the National Security Council Bill last year.

Also, he said, the ongoing delineation exercise by the Election Commission was seen as not observing the principles in the Constitution and instead obeying unpublished guidelines of the Executive.

He said since power was vested in the hands of the Executive, leaders and their political parties must act, but, unfortunately, they misinterpreted the Constitution when speaking to different audiences.

“This process creates a reinforcing of expectation by those particular audiences, and that these interpretations will be adhered to, further catalysing the polarisation that we are trying to combat,” he added."

"Confusion over Constitution? Nah, it is deliberate misinterpretation

October 14, 2016

Bad intentions, vested interests, and archaic philosophies are to be blamed for the many misinterpretations of the Constitution.

COMMENT

By TK Chua

I read with interest the piece "Time for people to reclaim the Constitution, says Negri prince".

Given the political situation in the country today, rarely can we read views of this nature anymore.

Whether or not our Constitution has a preamble is not important. What defines our system of government are the articles in the Constitution – which must be read in totality, not selectively or with ill-intention.

To me, there is hardly any ambiguity or confusion in our Constitution. The different interpretations are driven by vested interests or intentions that are not proper or noble.

Our Constitution provides for elections and for elected leaders to helm the government. It provides for different branches of government and separation of powers. If we elect the government and subject it to checks and balances, what other interpretations can we have other than Malaysia is a democracy? If we are truly a democracy, why do we challenge and circumscribe those who criticise the government of the day for its ineptness and baloney?

If our Constitution provides for general elections, how else can we interpret it other than that our elections must be free and fair? How else can we interpret other than that constituencies drawn up must provide fair representation to all citizens? Do unfair elections or lopsided constituencies make sense?

If our Constitution provides for proper promulgation and enactment of laws, regulations and policies, how else can we interpret it other than for all of us to subject ourselves to the rule of law, natural justice, and an independent judiciary?

If our Constitution says we have freedom of religion and fundamental liberty, how do we interpret restrictions and exceptions that are more pervasive than the freedoms given?

If our Constitution, in a nutshell, provides for the Westminster form of government, how did a different form of government, totally theocratic and alien, creep into our interpretation?

Unlike the US Constitution that is brief, I think our Constitution is sufficiently comprehensive to provide us with clarity.

To me, there is no confusion or ambiguity, only right and wrong interpretation.The problems we face today are due to deliberate and defiant misinterpretations.

Some interpret the Constitution to hold on to power. Some want to inject new interpretations because they are fantasising about a new system of government totally unproven and totally out of sync.

Some interpret it based on personal interests.They know it is wrong, but their personal interests make it right.

The authors of a Constitution can’t foresee everything or plug all the loopholes. If we have bad intentions, if we are governed by personal interests or if we are misguided by some archaic philosophies, please don’t take it out on our Constitution.
TK Chua is an FMT reader."