Posted on

Rule of law must prevail

by P. Ramakrishnan
President
Aliran
3rd Jan 2011

The Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, has precipitated a constitutional crisis in Selangor by ignoring time-honoured norms and constitutional requirements in naming the Selangor State Secretary unilaterally.

In any appointment to a state, there must be consultation before a final decision is taken. This sensible approach has been completely sidelined. Mohd Sidek had chosen to ride roughshod over the Menteri Besar of Selangor, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. In doing so, Malaysians are wondering whether he is acting strictly as a civil servant or as a political tool of the Barisan Nasional.

It is a matter of grave concern for Aliran when a functioning state constitution is not respected and its provisions not honoured. It has been pointed out by legal experts that according to Article 52(4) of the Selangor state constitution the state secretary “shall take and subscribe in the presence of the Menteri Besar the following oath of secrecy.” In this instance, the Meneri Besar’s central role cannot be ignored. Continue reading “Rule of law must prevail”

Posted on

Utusan Malaysia a daily reminder of the hollowness and hypocrisy of Najib’s 1Malaysia concept

Utusan Malaysia is a daily reminder of the hollowness and hypocrisy of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia concept as the Umno newspaper continues to peddle lies and poison to incite strife and hatred in Malaysia’s plural society.

Najib’s 1Malaysia talks about embracing “our diversity of ethnicity, religions and beliefs and, by being inclusive, build mutual respect and acceptance into a solid foundation of trust and cohesiveness” but Utusan Malaysia is doing the very opposite every day with its staple of lies and falsehoods.

The 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme Roadmap released in January last year advocated the promotion of “an all-inclusive 1Malaysia media” and warned of the danger of greater national divisions and disunity when “some writers abuse the greater freedom of expression now available to use terms and feelings that are racist or inflammatory in nature and tone”.

It said:

“While censorship is antithetical to democracy, there is a need to introduce, instill and internalize a commitment to journalistic professionalism, a sense of responsibility and self-restraint, with sensitivity to the divergent views and feelings of the diverse communities in Malaysia.”

Unfortunately, this “commitment to journalistic professionalism, a sense of responsibility and self-restraint, with sensitivity to the divergent views and feelings of the diverse communities in Malaysia” is completely absent in Utusan Malaysia, which have become even more irresponsible and unprofessional in the past year, peddling lies, falsehoods and poison to incite strife and hatred in our plural society. Continue reading “Utusan Malaysia a daily reminder of the hollowness and hypocrisy of Najib’s 1Malaysia concept”

Posted on

Removal of crucifixes and banning of hymns – violation of religious freedom guaranteed under Constitution

Media statement by Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP Life Advisor in Seremban on 3rd January 2011.

PM aides’ orders to St John’s Cathedral to remove crucifixes and banning of singing hymns at St John’s Cathedral constitute a violation of religious freedom guaranteed under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution

The orders border on the ridiculous. The excuse given by PM aides that the cruciffixes would be offensive to the Prime Minister while visiting the church and grounds.

Malaysia have diplomatic relations with many Christian countries in the West, South America and the Phillipines. Crucifixes decorate many public buildings in these countries. Would the aides issue orders to Christian countries in the West and South America to take down or remove the crucifixes when the Prime Minister of Malaysia visit the said countries?

Church buildings and grounds are sacred areas to Christians especially Catholics. Crucifixes are sacred. So are the religious rites and singing of hymns. Forcible removal of crucifixes in churches would constitute an act of sacriliege. The orders by the PM aides are therefore sacrilegious.

The prime minister is most welcome to visit churches and meet the priests and parishioners. No conditions should be imposed, as freedom to practice religion is guaranteed under the Constitution. Continue reading “Removal of crucifixes and banning of hymns – violation of religious freedom guaranteed under Constitution”

Posted on

Chief Secretary’s appointment of Selangor State Secretary without consultation with Mentri Besar violation of both the spirit and letter of Selangor Constitution

The appointment of Datuk Mohd Khusrin Munawi as the new Selangor State Secretary by the Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan on behalf of the Public Service Commission, without consultation with the Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, violates both the spirit and letter of the Selangor Constitution.

It has been argued that there is no mention in the state constitution that the Mentri Besar must first be informed of the appointment nor that his consent was needed.

This is a flimsy and unacceptable argument, for going by this literal interpretation, Putrajaya should not have involved the Sultan in the appointment of the state secretary as there is equally no mention in the state constitution that the Sultan must first be informed of the appointment nor that any royal consent is needed.

What is pertinent is that constitutional conventions like meaningful consultation with the Mentri Besar and the Sultan on the appointment of the top state civil servant are carried out to uphold the integrity of the state constitution and to fulfill the mandate given by the people of Selangor when they voted for the government of their choice in the last general elections.

Although the Selangor State Constitution is silent on the role of the Mentri Besar on the appointment of the state secretary, just as it is silent on the role of the Sultan on the same matter, the Chief Secretary who has been delegated the constitutional task to make the appointment, should be mindful of the different political coalitions running the Federal and Selangor state governments and the importance of ensuring an appointee who could work as a bridge-builder or at least not seen as inimical to the Selangor state government interests vis-à-vis the Federal government. Continue reading “Chief Secretary’s appointment of Selangor State Secretary without consultation with Mentri Besar violation of both the spirit and letter of Selangor Constitution”

Posted on

The LoyarBurok Book Review: “Perak – A State Of Crisis” – An Unabashed Self-Indictment By The BN Government Of Its Undemocratic Takeover Of Perak

By NH Chan
27 December, 2010

[LoyarBaca’s first publication Perak: A State of Crisis (PASOC) has been a runaway hit and will soon be in Malaysia’s major bookstores through leading indie, activist distributor, Pak Chong’s GerakBudaya. We have sold out copies at hand for the moment (2nd impressions are on the way), but you may purchase them directly from GerakBudaya here. Here, after a brief hiatus, NH Chan re-appears to pen his thoughts on PASOC. ]

On the cover of Perak: A State Of Crisis, 2010 – the book is described as “Rants, reviews and reflections on the overthrow of democracy and the rule of law in Malaysia”.

On the back cover is this apt but accurate assessment by Marina Mahathir: “The people of Perak voted in March 2008 for a new government, then woke up one day to find that they had an entirely different one in place. A must read.”

Why is this book a must read? It is so because the book is a chronicle and commentary of the events that led to the unceremonious overthrow of the PR Government in Perak. The direct involvement of the BN protagonists who engineered the treacherous takeover – whose actions in that sordid episode spoke louder than words – has demonstrated unequivocally to the people of this country and to the world that they are the unquestionable “bad guys”.

With such unyielding and nefarious mindset in the BN camp, it looks like the choice for the voters in the next elections is between “good and bad”, “right and wrong”, “democracy and oligarchy” etc. The choice is obvious for no one wants to be governed by a group of self-serving people for this is the meaning of “oligarchy”; such an attitude in the psyche of the BN mindset would inevitably lead to “resource-draining corruption and rampant inequity” – to borrow a phrase from Audrey Quay in her “Editor’s Preface & Introduction” (page v) – as the Perak debacle has brought to light. Continue reading “The LoyarBurok Book Review: “Perak – A State Of Crisis” – An Unabashed Self-Indictment By The BN Government Of Its Undemocratic Takeover Of Perak”

Posted on

Pakatan: Choice of DPM will be based on the constitution

Saturday, December 11, 2010
Wong Choon Mei
Malaysia Chronicle

Pakatan Rakyat leaders did not discuss the issue of who would be the Deputy Prime Minister if they won the next general election but they agreed that the decision would be based on the federal constitution – an outcome that will surely be cheered by the non-Malays in the country who have long aspired for political equality.

“The issue (of who will become the next DPM) was not discussed at the leadership council meeting,but we did decide that it will be based on the constitution,” DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang told a press conference. Continue reading “Pakatan: Choice of DPM will be based on the constitution”

Posted on

Sad MCA leaders’ grasp of Constitution and political principles so shallow – no wonder no MCA Minister dare to tell Muhyiddin that he was wrong and anti-1Malaysia in declaring he is Malay first and Malaysian second!

After I have thrown back the question to the MCA Youth leader and Deputy Education Minister, Datuk Wee Ka Siong whether there is any provision in the Constitution which bars a Chinese or Malaysian of any race or religion from being Deputy Prime Minister, I would have thought that all the top MCA leaders would have become more educated about the Malaysian Constitution.

But this does not appear to be the case, with Wee continue to persist with the question whether I agree with the Pas Mursidul Am and Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat that only a Muslim can become a Deputy Prime Minister.

It is obvious that my answer is “No” but this seems to be too difficult for the top MCA leaders to understand or fathom.

It is sad that the MCA leaders’ grasp of the Constitution and political principles are so shallow. Continue reading “Sad MCA leaders’ grasp of Constitution and political principles so shallow – no wonder no MCA Minister dare to tell Muhyiddin that he was wrong and anti-1Malaysia in declaring he is Malay first and Malaysian second!”

Posted on

“Can a Chinese become Deputy Prime Minister?” – shows up MCA true colours when MCA leaders could ask such a question!

“Can a Chinese become Deputy Prime Minister?”

Although this question was posed by the MCA Youth leader and Deputy Education Minister Datuk Wee Ka Siong as a challenge to me, it shows up MCA true colours when MCA leaders could ask such a question.

Are top MCA leaders, including Ministers and Deputy Ministers, ignorant of the Malaysian Constitution?

Is there any provision in the Constitution which bars a Chinese or Malaysian of any race or religion from being Deputy Prime Minister? Or for that matter even as Prime Minister?

No wonder MCA Ministers and Deputy Ministers maintain monumental silence when MCA Cabinet posts have suffered one degradation after another, from Finance Minister and Minister for Industry and Commerce in Merdeka days to Deputy Finance Minister and Deputy Minister for International Trade and Industry. Continue reading ““Can a Chinese become Deputy Prime Minister?” – shows up MCA true colours when MCA leaders could ask such a question!”

Posted on

Daulat Tuanku!

By Tunku Aziz
My Sinchew
3.12.10

In an article I wrote recently, Rulers for all Malaysians, I had suggested, in a spirit of helpfulness, that their highnesses the rulers should drop the word “Malay” and instead use the more commonly understood title Sultan, for example, of Selangor or Sultan of Kedah as the case may be.

Continuing to describe themselves as Malay Rulers at a time when inclusiveness is what is required as part of the process of integrating our disparate community of races seems to be a little perverse.

His Highness the Sultan of Selangor, in decrying the suggestion I had made in my article, has, I fear, got the wrong end of the stick. Even a cursory reading of the article will show that the position of their highnesses in the constitutional arrangements of our nation remains inviolate, and Malaysians do not want it any other way.

We recognise the crucial importance of stability in the life of a nation. Stability is inherent in the system of constitutional monarchy. Rulers in today’s terms must be forward looking and open to ideas. It is no longer appropriate, at the drop of the hat, to invoke the divine rights of kings, used in the past by kings and emperors the world over, to legitimise absolutism. Nothing in the nature of things is permanent and if we cannot adjust to change, we are doomed to extinction.

Of course, we respect the institution of rulers because we respect our Constitution. We believe the institution represents all that is noble; the fountain of honour and justice for all. It would be senseless to replace an institution that has worked well. Continue reading “Daulat Tuanku!”

Posted on

Upholding the nation’s origins

By Clive Kessler

NOV 8 — Their royal highnesses, the Rulers of the Malay states, following their recent October meeting as the Conference of Rulers, have urged all Malaysians to heed the nation’s history. Citizens, they remind us, must recognise the obligation upon all Malaysians to share the land and its benefits equitably. Their highnesses accordingly call upon all Malaysians to respect and uphold “the social contract”.

More recently, in his regular “Reflecting on the Law” column in The Star (“Unifying Role of the Rulers”, November 3), the nation’s leading constitutional scholar Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi voiced a similar plea. Again, he insists, history must be acknowledged, it cannot be denied. There is no skirting around its legacy. The land and its bounty are to be shared in a fashion that is mindful of and faithful to the nation’s historical foundations. All the nation’s citizens, both Malay and non-Malay in their various historically distinctive ways born of how they became incorporated into the one shared nation, are stakeholders in the nation, its present benefits and future destiny.
Continue reading “Upholding the nation’s origins”

Posted on

Rulers for all Malaysians

By Tunku Abdul Aziz

NOV 2 — “RESPECT CONSTITUTION” screamed the New Sunday Times front page. There is really no need for the “Malay rulers” to have undue misgivings about their humble subjects occasionally dipping into the Constitution and questioning some aspect or other they do not fully understand.

Common, ordinary people like me are not Constitutional experts, unlike at least one of their Highnesses. Fear us not because we are not thinking even remotely of storming the Bastille. Such an unworthy thought has never crossed our minds, and certainly not mine.

We only want to know, as citizens, where we stand in Constitutional terms. It is our right to be enlightened. In other words, what are our Constitutional rights and obligations?

I can understand the rulers’ unease and apprehension after what Mahathir did to denigrate and run their institution into the ground, spewing filthy lies and uncharitable innuendoes against them individually and collectively. And, generally, he succeeded in causing public disaffection. Why was he not charged?
Continue reading “Rulers for all Malaysians”

Posted on

The ‘social contract’ — Concerned Scholars

by Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr Azmi Sharom, Dr Toh Kin Woon and Dr Wan Zawawi Ibrahim
October 27, 2010

We would like to provide some feedback to the speech made by Prime Minister Najib Razak on 21 October 2010 to the Umno general assembly in which he gave the impression that there is a ‘social contract’ whose terms are set in stone. He also told the delegates that no Malaysian should question it.

It is necessary to note that there is a range of views amongst us on the social contract issue and on how to respond to the Prime Minister’s advice.

One colleague has argued that it is not yet time for an “organized effort” of civil society to make such a statement as it may provoke negative reactions that may be harmful to our common pursuit of a fair and united nation.

Another has expressed concern that we must not play into the hands of politicians who will mobilize Malay support by trying to show that the non-Malays have reneged on their so-called promise to accept Malay political superiority in exchange for citizenship.
Continue reading “The ‘social contract’ — Concerned Scholars”

Posted on

Consensus on ‘social contract’ imperative

By Clive Kessler | Oct 22, 10 8:52am | Malaysiakini

The nature of the current disagreement about “the social contract” should be clearly identified.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that “the social contract” be repudiated, set aside, rejected. Nobody is arguing that it is fictive, a pure fantasy, an illusion. On all sides, everyone in their own way is arguing that it should be honoured, respected and upheld.

People just need to be clear, and find a way to agree, what its terms were, what “upholding the social contract” means and entails.

People are broadly agreed that in the years between 1955 and 1957 certain basic inter-ethnic or inter-communal understandings were reached. Through them a national “accord” was solemnly affirmed and politically “enshrined” that made the nation possible.

Known informally in earlier times as “the Merdeka agreements” or “Merdeka understandings”, these were subsequently, in the 1980s, relabelled, or as people now say “rebranded” with a new identity as “the social contract”.
Continue reading “Consensus on ‘social contract’ imperative”

Posted on

We all grieve for a Malaysia that could be!

by Romerz
October 22, 2010

In his presidential address to the 61st UMNO general assembly, a lot of things said by PM Najib could be argued against simply on the basis of logic, history, proper understanding of Malaysia’s federal constitution, democracy and a host of other things. But I will not argue against Najib’s fallacious arguments because I’m tired of warped views and I believe my readers are of a higher mentality than those he was addressing.

Instead I will focus on only one thing he mentioned in the speech. Najib said “the Malays were hurt when the social contract agreed upon by the forefathers of various races who had agreed to make sacrifices to gain the independence, was now being questioned.”

In the first place I know of no such social contract as after 53 years of independence, no one can show me a written copy of this contract nor explain to me what was it that was agreed upon specifically by our forefathers. Even assuming that such an agreement exists (possibly and perhaps reached privately by the leaders of UMNO, MCA and MIC then, which may explain why we know so little of this often touted social contract), hadn’t this preceding social contract been documented and articulated in the Constitution of Malaya 1957? Continue reading “We all grieve for a Malaysia that could be!”

Posted on

Syariah: ‘The law of the land’

Clive Kessler
The Malaysian Insider
Sept 21, 2010

These days it’s not easy for a person of good sense to avoid being accused of sedition.

Especially if you have a basic grasp of modern political history and the nation’s constitutional foundations.

Voicing well-known facts and trite legal principles can get you into real trouble.

You question Ketuanan Malayu, for example, and you are told by those of a “Perkasa-ish” inclination, or lectured by Dr. Ridhuan Tee Abdullah in Utusan, that Malay political dominance is an agreed and foundational national principle. That it is inscribed in the Constitution.

What is in the Constitution? Here the champions of Ketuanan Melayu invoke Article 153.

That is the peg on which they hang the claim that enduring Malay ascendancy, even absolute political domination, is constitutionally enshrined. That it is an integral part of the “social contract” that made the nation and its Constitution possible.

But Article 153 is a small and dubious peg for such a big, even extravagant, claim. It merely provides for, or allows the government in its good judgement to institute, certain defined kinds of preferential treatment for Malays in certain identified and circumscribed areas.

It does not provide for, enshrine or constitutionally entrench Malay ethnic supremacy, enduring political domination.

But if you say this, you are likely to be challenged, and hit with a volley of police reports accusing you of sedition.

Of a triple sedition: against legitimate Malay political entitlement, as enshrined in Article 153; against the rulers who are the constitutionally-designated protectors of the Malay stake in the country; and hence also against the Constitution itself and the nation whose sovereignty it embodies. Continue reading “Syariah: ‘The law of the land’”

Posted on

National integration with constitutional integrity

— Azzat Kamaludin (loyarburok.com)
Malaysian Insider
September 20, 2010

SEPT 20 — Our lives, attitude and outlook are formed by the encounters we experienced. I shall begin my discussion of this subject, by sharing with you two encounters that have so shaped me.

The first occurred after I passed out from the Royal Military College, then known as the Federation Military College. It was a college set up in 1953 by the then British High Commissioner to Malaya, Sir Gerald Templar. Its Charter was and is “Preparing young Malayans (now Malaysians) to take their places as officers in the Armed Forces, in the higher divisions of the Public Services and as leaders in the professional, commercial and industrial life of the country”. It was the second full boarding school to be established in the country.

The first full boarding school established on 2 January 1905 was the Malay College Kuala Kangsar, originally known as the Malay Residential School of Kuala Kangsar, it was conceived by the then Inspector of Schools for the Federated Malay States who in a letter to the Resident-General in February 1904 wrote about “establishing at a suitable locality in the Federated Malay States a residential school for the education of Malays of good family and for the training of Malay boys for admission to certain branches of Government service.”

I joined the Military College in Form 3, three years after Malaya became independent. After a few months of making friends I came to know Malays from Kota Baru, Besut and Kuala Lumpur; Chinese from Penang, Ipoh and Pontian; Indians, Sikhs and other races from Kuala Pilah, Seremban and Muar. Clearly the composition of students had been carefully constituted — there was not only geographical representation but also racial representation. I understood later that a racial quota was employed for admission to reflect the racial composition of the country then.

My two best friends when I left the College were a Chinese and a Sikh boy. As it happened, all three of us had decided to study law. We knew we could not pursue it without assistance from the State. I found that I had no problem whatsoever in obtaining a scholarship for my purpose. But it was not so for my two friends. Although there were scholarships for non-Malays, there was none for law. I tried to help them. Continue reading “National integration with constitutional integrity”

Posted on

Malaysia or Malaysaja? Part 2: Clarifying and reconciling the Constitution

By NURUL IZZAH ANWAR

Since I wrote my 31 August 2010 article, titled “The Ultimate Malaysian Debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja?”, which called for a constructive engagement with Perkasa, and with the stated purpose to seek clarification and not challenge or repeal the constitution, my invitation to Perkasa has not only been rejected but countless accusations and police reports were made against me.

I believe as a democracy, that all opinions made related to the article — which I hope was not lost in translation — is accepted and responded to with thanks.

With that, I invite everyone to read the full article again. (see: http://www.mysinchew.com/node/44287 )

I stand by that article and will remain a Malaysian Patriot forever.

I also recommend that the Malaysian Constitution be read in conjunction with the Articles mentioned. For brevity, the fantastic MyConstitution brochures produced by the Malaysian Bar Council are also very helpful.
Continue reading “Malaysia or Malaysaja? Part 2: Clarifying and reconciling the Constitution”

Posted on

What social contract?

by Clive Kessler
Malaysian Insider
September 06, 2010

“Najib warns against questioning ‘social contract’,” it is reported.

This claim is plain and simple “historical revisionism”.

To what “social contract” precisely is the PM referring?

In the 1980s a new political idea was created: that of “Ketuanan Melayu”, of Malay ascendancy, supremacy, domination.

Thereafter, especially from 2008 it has been ever more powerfully promoted, generally in association with the suggestion that a “social contract” had been entered into and constitutionally enshrined in the mid-1950s.

How was this manoeuvre executed? With what purpose and consequences? Continue reading “What social contract?”

Posted on

The ultimate Malaysian debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja?

By Nurul Izzah Anwar

AUG 31 — Perkasa claims to defend Malay rights in a multi racial Malaysia. And these Malay rights are inalienable, non-negotiable and permanent. Those that disagree with their interpretation of these Malays rights are deemed treacherous and should leave Malaysia.

In the spirit of Ramadhan and Merdeka, I would like to invite Perkasa to a Constructive Engagement for a new beginning for Malaysia with me.

I would like to ask Perkasa, several key questions to better understand, and together seek real solutions for the crisis it claims the Malays are facing.

I believe that Perkasa is the current vocal, and not necessarily the majority voice of the Malays. And by all indication, Perkasa is the alter-ego of Umno.

If Perkasa can be engaged constructively and a resolution found, then we would have answered the acid-test of Malay concerns once and for all?
Continue reading “The ultimate Malaysian debate: Malaysia or Malaysaja?”

Posted on

DAP supports Anwar’s call for proof of allegation of the existence of an alternate constitution to replace the current one to erase special rights of the Malays and the position of Islam as the official religion

DAP supports the call by Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Ketua Umum PKR Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for proof of the allegation of the existence of an alternate constitution to replace the current one to erase special rights of the Malays and the position of Islam as the official religion.

This allegation by the Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria is a very serious and inflammable one and should not be made without proof.

This allegation has already been the basis of a very alarmist front-page Utusan Malaysia headline “Elak perang besar” on Tuesday and an incendiary article entitled “Benar, ‘perang besar’ boleh berlaku di Malaysia” yesterday.

DAP leaders had never heard or known of such an alternate constitution.

Any such an alleged alternative constitution could not have emanated from Pakatan Rakyat as the component parties of PKR, PAS and DAP had reaffirmed commitment to the fundamental principles of the Malaysian Constitution in a common platform last December.
Continue reading “DAP supports Anwar’s call for proof of allegation of the existence of an alternate constitution to replace the current one to erase special rights of the Malays and the position of Islam as the official religion”