Malaysia Salutes Fire-Fighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim

by K. Siladass

The death of Fire-fighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim, warns us that irrational behaviour as in Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman temple land dispute could lead to meaningless violence resulting in loss of precious lives and damage to properties. His death was cruel it should not have happened.

Sri Maha Mariamman Temple land dispute could have been resolved through intelligent and peaceful means. The parties involved failed to resort to peaceful, and legal means to find a lasting solution. Why was this lackadasical attitude? Who was responsible for this state if affairs? Admitted, it is futile and no useful benefit will come about in arguing who was responsible and where the fault originated; but it is an eye-opener that Malaysians, whoever it may be should not think that laws could be trifled with.

We must reject the impression that justice is at the mercy of powerful men and women whose singular motive is to milk benefits from disputes, more so when they are greedy politicians.

It is only after properties had been damaged, and Muhammad Adib’s life was in actual danger certain steps were taken to see an end to that long overdue dispute. This is a course that was available prior to the incident, and it could have been fruitfully pursued avoiding the calamity that had left the country and the people to grief especially the cruel end of Fire-fighter Muhammad Adib. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from this untimely but heroic death of Muhammad Adib, and that is when a dispute, particularly when it could evoke sensitivity, positive steps should be taken to tackle and solve it at the earliest opportunity. Delaying settlement of such disputes could lead to calamitous consequences. Aside that, it is also essential that places worship are not the nests for greedy politicians and ruthless thugs. Malaysians join in the bereavement of the family of Fire-fighter Muhammad Adib.

UMNO IS GOVT-IN-WAITING, SO CLAIMS HAMIDI

BY

K.SILADASS

Dato’ Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the President of UMNO, and former Deputy Prime Minister, is optimistic that UMNO will return to power, thus, his contention UMNO is Govt-in-waiting.

The original UMNO which was founded in 1946 to oppose the formation of Malayan Union, had as its principal objective to protect the Malay Rulers, who were the protectors of Malay people, their religion and their ancestral custom, and so on. The founder of the then UMNO was Dato’ Onn bin Jaafar.

No sooner the Malayan Union was dissolved and its place the Federation of Malaya was established in accordance with the terms of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, Onn Jaafar wanted UMNO to change its Malay only policy and identity to include the non-Malays as members, thus, he suggested the change of the name to United Malayan National Organisation. His proposal did not materialise, and among the principal characters who opposed the change included Tunku Abdul Rahman. From the time of its formation in 1946, it must be noted that, it had behaved as an exclusive party, and its first association with Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) was a reluctant marriage – a sort of marriage of convenience during the newly introduced municipal elections. Malayan Indian Congress joined later. In 1954, Alliance contested in the first general election for the Federal legislative council and won 51 out of 52 seats. It was a significant victory.

It could be noticed that from the time of its conception UMNO had acted in a manner excluding others. For instance, in the negotiations for the dissolution of Malayan Union and the formation of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, with the collusion of the British and the blessings of the Rulers, only the then UMNO was allowed to take part. Other interested parties were deliberately excluded. When the negotiation for Merdeka began, and the appointment of the Reid Commission was deliberated, it was UMNO, and more significantly Tunku Abdul Rahman’s view seemed to have been given importance and no other parties were let in – in fact they were excluded as far as the composition of the Reid Commission was concerned.

It could also be seen that the old UMNO was claiming to itself exclusive right to decide on matters of national importance and its association with MCA and MIC was just a camaflouge to hoodwink everyone that it was embracing an inclusive policy. UMNO had always remained hegemonic.

The crisis that broke out in UMNO in the late eighties resulted in a court action, and on 4 February 1998, the late Justice Harun Hashim declared that it was an unlawful party because of the existence of unregistered UMNO branches. The old UMNO was given a judicial burial. But, the taste of power lingered on, and that resulted in the formation of UMNO Baru led by Dr. Mahathir Mohammad (now Tun Dr. Mahathir).

It could, therefore, be seen that the old UMNO having lost its legality resurfaced as a new entity, and had remained in power all these years, had always played a dominant political role. And in course of retaining it powers has shown its Machiavellian prowess.

Now, if we were to consider Hamidi’s expectations it can be seen that he and his party members are not prepared to admit the wrongs that had been committed over the years when BN was in power. Of course, there are a few who have come out of UMNO and had condemned it for not being alive to the people’s aspiration, or, the interest of Malaysia as a whole.

What is Hamidi’s plan? He has not disclosed. Has he a plan? Maybe so, as he might be keeping it close to his heart; but one thing that is too obvious is the fact that the present leadership of UMNO Baru have yet to learn, understand the judgment Malaysians rendered on 9^th May, 2018. They still believe in the rhetoric they are so accustomed with, that includes UMNO is Govt-in-waiting.

The present UMNO to be relevant must begin to realise that the situation has changed since 1946. They must begin to accept the fact that protecting the Sultans is no longer in issue, the Federal, as well as the State Constitutions provide adequate safeguards. The Malay rights and privileges too can never be challenged. They too are protected. However, the main question as to Malay rights and privileges are concerned as reasonable Malaysians, we are duty bound to ask: Have the majority of the Malays benefitted from this special privileges, or is it only a fraction of the Malay population who have benefitted at the expense of the Malay majority. The scandalous manner wealth had been accumulated by those in power and their henchman in the past is now brought to the public knowledge, which is clear that the majority of the Malays have been duped. Another area where the majority of Malays’ financial predicament can be seen in the rising number of insolvencies involving Malays. It has now been disclosed by Dato’ Seri Dr. Wan Azizah, the Deputy Prime Minister that 90%, that is about 13.7 million Malaysian workers are still not covered by any form of social security. Would it be an exaggeration if we conclude that the large percentage of this 13.7 million will be Malays?

What is important now is for the present UMNO to abandon its exclusive policy, shed off its arrogance and treat all Malaysians as equals. Respect all Malaysian, respect all religions, and respect all languages. In short, UMNO should shed its megalothymia attitude. These are the noble thoughts that had occupied the authors of the Federal Constitution in 1957 and accepted as a model for the 1963 Malaysian Constitution.It has worked in the past, it could continue to work provided the spirit of the letter is respected and everyone acquiring power act sincerely, conscientiously according to his or her constitutional oath. Until the present UMNO accepts this cardinal truth, it can wait but the wait will be fruitless, because, the new generation of Malaysians want a Malaysia which travels into the future, not reversing to the distant past.

UMNO THROWS IN THE TOWEL

By

K. Siladass

UMNO led Barisan Nasional has thrown in the towel in the Port Dickson Parliamentary by-election, even before the actual contest had begun. The reasons assigned by UMNO for boycotting the by-election is that, according to the Election Commission, the by-election would cost RM3.6 million. This, it must be noted does not include the costs the candidates and the voters would incur. UMNO’s President Dato Seri Zaid Hamidi, says that this could have been used to relieve some of the financial woes the country is facing. UMNO claims that the government must be peoplecentric.

One wonders when did UMNO and its people begin to entertain the notion of peoplecentric, as facts are surfacing that UMNO and its allies in BN had been far from being peoplecentric but were enjoying the benefits through various devious means. Further, were they not under self-induced anaesthesia regarding the welfare of the nation and the people.

The next reason UMNO has raised is that the by-election is engineered to fulfil the political ambition of an individual. Although there may be merit in this argument, the crucial question is that the country has been drained off its wealth by an individual, Dato’ Seri Abdul Najib Razak. So, why now this wisdom given priority? Where was this wisdom, when Najib actions were for his benefit, his family and his cronies alone?

Whatever the true reason may be, the decision to boycott the by-election can only be seen as a person who is incurably ill abandoning  hope of own survival. BN as well as UMNO are in similar position and that is the precise situation UMNO and its allies are in.

It is crystal clear that UMNO leaders themselves have begun to realise that UMNO’s megalothymia attitude (the arrogant attitude that it ought to be recognised as superior as Francis Fukuyama would define the word) had been exposed. With that attitude UMNO had been able to perpetuate the UMNO only theory which was hatched during the Malayan Union crisis incubated until Merdeka, given an identity of infinity and paramountcythereafter, and which were shattered on May 9^th this year.

In the circumstances, the real reason behind UMNO’s boycott of the Port Dickson by-election is that it has no plausible political agenda to put forward to the voters for their consideration. Whether it was proper for the serving member of Port Dickson Parliamentary constituency to resign is a question the voters will have to decide, and UMNO-BN-could have taken the opportunity to explain, and that is democracy is all about, not abstaining from the democratic process, and hurling ineffective arrows from outside. UMNO-led BN should have learnt the political lesson from former Labour Party of Malaya, whose demise was not only confined to boycott policy it pursued but also the overt acts of the BN’s predecessor the Alliance, which significantly contributed for Labour Party’s unceremonial funeral. UMNO-led Barisan Nasional is not in a different position. 

Now, the voters need only decide whether Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim should be their representative – there being no other issues at all. Strangely, Pakatan Harapan too has no problem, or issue to campaign, because, the deeds of BN-led by the former Prime Minister Najib are now in the court to be adjudicated. The only thing PH can talk about is that Anwar Ibrahim is the Prime Minister-in-waiting,so give him the passport to Parliament! The voters have the right to ask: Is this necessary? Why the haste? And why incur so much of tax-payers’ money and, more importantly, why subject the voters to unnecessary inconvenience and money? Finally, the failure of UMNO or BN failing to take part in the PD by-election is not an issue at all.

Appointment of Attorney General

by K.Siladass

Although the appointment of Tommy Thomas as Attorney General is no longer an issue, it has left behind a plethora of questions unanswered and it cannot be said that there has been a finality on the issue. The questions that need to be addressed are:-

–       First of all, what is the legal effect of Article 145(1) of the Federal Constitution?

–       Secondly, is the selection of the candidate by the Prime Minister final?

–       Thirdly, can the Yang di-Pertuan Agong refuse to accept the advice of the Prime Minister? or, alternatively, does Article 145 of the Federal Constitution allow the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to withhold the appointment of a candidate advised by the Prime Minister? In other words, has the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong discretion in the appointment of the Attorney General?

–       Fourthly, can the Yang di-Pertuan Agong refuse the appointment on grounds of race or religion or both?

–       Can the conference of Rulers be called upon to mediate or advice the Yang di-Pertuan Agong if there has arisen some stalemate in the appointment of the AttorneyGeneral?

These are the vital questions and it cannot be ruled out that similar questions would not surface in the future.Since a non-Malay and non-Muslim Tommy Thomas has been appointed as the Attorney General has the issue of non-Malay or non-Muslim been put to rest?

We are not sure the basis upon which the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong finally agreed to appoint Tommy Thomas as the Attorney General advised by the Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad. The explanations given so far do not seem to be reasonable, and intelligible. Looking at the constitutional provisions, the safest course would be that the effect of Article 145 has been accepted without adding any condition, because if there is room for condition or conditions, then that could defeat the spirit of Article 145.

Dealing with the actual effect of Article 145 it could be deduced that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has to appoint the person submitted by the Prime Minister as the AttorneyGeneral. There are no two ways about it: any other interpretation will render Article 145(1) meaningless.

As to who should be the AttorneyGeneral, it is for the Prime Minister to decide. Article 145 does not suggest any formula for the Prime Minister’s choice, except that the proposed candidate should be qualified as stated in Article 123 of the Constitution. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong should satisfy himself that Article 123 had been strictly complied with. It is only when there is non-compliance with Article 123, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong could decline making the appointment.

Any attempt questioning the Prime Minister's choice, will tantamount to a challenge, meaning, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong does not agree with the Prime Minister's advice. In this context, it must be emphasized that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has not any discretion in the selection of the AttorneyGeneral as it is within the power of the Prime Minister.

The rational behind this is very clear and sound, and that is the Prime Minister will be fully aware of the problems the country is facing and the remedies that are needed. In the circumstances laws have to be made to cater urgent needs the country in facing. The Prime Minister is the best person who understands the urgency of the needs, and the necessity of an AttorneyGeneral who would be capable to meet the challenges arising from time to time.

Once the Prime Minister has advised the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it is the duty of the latter to make the appointment. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong being a symbol of unity cannot be heard, or seen, to suggest anything along racial and religious lines, for such an attitude would tarnish the sacred office of the Yang di-PertuanAgong.

The appointment of the AttorneyGeneral is a matter between the Prime Minister and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Article 145(1) is very clear and there is no ambiguity. Therefore the advice of the Conference of Rulers is unnecessary. At best a senior ruler could privately tell the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the futility in refusing the appointment and also the repercussion that would ensue especially the stalemate which should be avoided at all costs.

It being the Constitutional requirement that the Prime Minister advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and, it is inappropriate for anyone to suggest other names. By doing so, they are indeed telling that the Prime Minister's choice is wrong.

After all the doubts raised, concerned expressed, legal arguments put forward, the matter has ended happily. The Prime Minister's advice has been accepted, and Tommy Thomas is the new Attorney General, and he has started work. However, one question that lingers on and that had escapes consideration is that: what could have happened if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had refused to accept the Prime Minister's advice.

We must remember that the Prime Minister has been elected by the Parliamentarians, who command the majority in Parliament and who have elected him as the Prime Minister. The Parliamentarians are people's representatives; the people had elected them to serve them. In the circumstances, the rejection by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of a name submitted by the Prime Minister would be considered as a challenge to the people whose representatives had elected a suitable candidate as their leader in Parliament to be the Prime Minister. Thus, any stand taken against the advice of the Prime Minister will not go well with the people.

There was a suggestion that in the unlikely event of such a statements the Prime Minister could bring the question to the Federal Court and seek an answer on an urgent basis. The problem here is: there is no Attorney General to argue the governments’ case; on the other hand, the Prime Minister could treat the refusal by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as having no confidence in mind. This is a serious situation. What can the Prime Minister do? Resign as a Prime Minister? That cannot be the answer! Such a course would mean that the people have lost. Aside that, had a wrong interpretation been upheld, then, the entire constitutionality of the issue would become explosive. That should not happen and the people will not countenance such a course.

These are very interesting legal issues but if common sense prevail, then, the country will have to decide as to who is right the Prime Minister or the Yang di-Pertuan Agong? That, it is submitted, is an undesirable course, and should not happen. The present system is correct and should remain so.

Is telling the truth seditious?

by K. Siladass

The Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah “has expressed disappointment with the actions of certain parties, who he says “openly insult and belittle the monarchy in a bid to instigate the people to hate the Malay Rulers.” He is especially saddened as the instigation against Malay Rulers came from the Malays themselves. This statement comes in the wake of a letter written by Datuk A. KadirJasin, veteran and eminent journalists who was at the helm of UMNO's, later UMNO Baru's mouth piece, New Straits Times.

KadirJasin in his letter has disclosed the huge amount spent on the Yang di-PertuanAgong. Either it is false or true. If it is false, then, it is an offense; on the other hand if it is true, then, it needs to be addressed and the people are rightfully entitled to the benefit of the truth.

Rather than taking Kadir to task it would be a prudent course to evaluate the nuance of his statement.

The Sultan of Selangor says that the Malays themselves are instigating. The word “instigating” has many meanings, and one among them, is to prompt someone to think. Therefore, the real position is that the Malays have begun to think, and it would not be proper to say that they are instigating, or campaigning an erroneous cause.

One must always remember that there was a time when some Malay politicians looked to Indonesia for guidance, and they were labelled as radicals because of their left-leaning political beliefs, and their overt association with communists. The British, with the help of the Malays protected the monarchical institution. And it is not a tale that the Malayan Communist Party openly campaigned for a Malayan Republic. Now, the truth is that any change in the monarchical system can only be initiated with the support of Malays: the non-Malays by themselves cannot do so; because it could lead to other political upheavals.

The Malays being in the majority there is no doubt that the decision of the Malays will always be paramount.

Therefore, if the Malays themselves are questioning the life style, or the political views, or the criticisms of the Sultans from time to time, it cannot, and should not be treated as a negative sign but accept them as reasonable and pragmatic evaluation by the Malay mind, which could also be the view of Malaysians of all races about the Malay Rulers.

One anecdote of Emperor Akbar is very enlightening. Akhbar walked into his court looking very grave, and angry. When asked the cause for his angry mood, he answered that on his way someone pulled his moustache, and spat on his face. He wanted to know what to do with the person who had committed such a heinous crime.

One minister said, “the culprit should be jailed for five years.” Another said, “his head must be cut off.” Thus, most of the ministers wanted severe punishment, meted out. Then, enters Birbal, a noted man of wisdom, who, on being told of the attacks on Akbar, laughed and said, “Who could have spit your face and pull your mustaches except your son.” Akbar said: “You are right…” If we take this as an analogy, we could say that the subjects of the Sultans are their children. And occasional attacks – healthy ones – should not be groused but taken in the spirit of receiving good advice or suggestion.

Speech of K. Siladass on his eightieth birthday

on 30^th June 2018

Distinguished Guests,

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Time melts away reminding us that we are growing older. The weak mind seeks to find solace along the way. We cannot defeat time. It follows you as shadow. There was a time when old age was thought to be a sin. And if that is not enough, old age was also considered as a burden. So, chaps like me had to find a way to be sober in this world and choose a middle course between a world which had scant respect for old age, and a world full of affection surrounded by friends and relatives.

Aging is not a sin, nor is it unnatural. It is part of life. But the negative perception about old age and aging had become proverbial. There is a feeling that aged persons are a nuisance. But when I see you all gathered here this evening, I feel assured that I am not a nuisance. However, something remarkable happened this year which had earned some modicum of respect for old age.

From the time the Fourteenth General elections was announced there was significant shift in the thinking of the people. There were clear indications that TunDr Mahathir Mohammad will be the Prime Minister should the coalition were to form the next government. He was ninety-two years old. There was a general feeling. What can an old man of ninety-two, going ninety three do? There were video clips showing the daring exploits of TunMahathir. Driving alone in pouring rain, horse riding, reminding the viewer of Yul Brynner in Magnificent Seven and the accompanying Elmer Bernstein’s music. Many must have begun to realisethat it must be a fun to be ninety-two going ninety-three. Nice feeling though to those like me who were turning to be octogenarians.

Then came May 9^th. The people’s verdict was, Tun Mahathir led coalition should form the next government, and Mahathir should be the Prime Minister. Overnight everything changed. Until then old aged people were thought to be burdensome: castigated and neglected. When Mahathir took office as the seventh Prime Minister the deep-seated traditional negative attitude towards old aged people changed. There was all of a sudden immense respect for old aged persons.

Not only that: everything old was promptly displayed and honoured. The old inexpensive watch Mahathir wore, and not forgetting my half-a-century old friend Lim Kit Siang, who is still wearing a watch he bought few decades ago became focal point of discussion and admiration.

There is an Arabic proverb: If you don’t have an old man buy one. I hope old age has acquired a new definition and meaningful respect.

So much so, everyone wants to be old or wants to look old. And I am glad too see you all who have come to see how an old chap is getting along. After seeing you all ladies and gentlemen. I remind myself of what Rabindranath Tagore, the Nobel Prize laureate wrote:

                I do not wish to die

                        in this lovely World.

                I wish to live as man

                        among men.

Yes, that is what I hope for. After seeing your support I want to live many more years to enjoy your warmth, or until you get fed up. My old friend Dr Lee Man Pin could not make it to this party but phoned me and said that he will definitely attend my hundredth birthday. I want to live until then and see him.

By your presence this evening you have assured me that life begins at eighty. And I will certainly respect and honour your sentiments. Thank you.

Thank you my dear friends from near and far. You will always be on my mind.

THE WAR AGAINST NATIONAL DEBT

By K. Siladass

When our country is at war with a foreign country every citizen will volunteer to fight against the enemy. They do so because they love the country, they want to be part of the war against the common enemy. Every citizen looks upon his fellow citizen as being part of the fight against the common enemy. The bond that engulfs them knows no bounds in newfound friendship, they are notconcerned with colour of the skin or race or religion. They only know, and acknowledge one thing; we are in a war against a common enemy. It follows, therefore, it is not unusual that, at the time of war, to strengthen our armed forces, and to assist our war efforts we will contribute to the war chest.

Our country is not engaged in any physical war with any country, but our country’snational debt exceeds trillion Ringgit. Which means, if we default in repayment; or we are unable to fulfil our national obligation, our dignity will be atstake.

Consider an actual war where all Malaysians pool their resources to fight the common enemy and save our country. Similarly, look at the frightening national debt of trillion Ringgit. It is in fact a war, a war not with weapon, but a financial war which can ruin our country’s reputation. Who else can fight this economic war except the Malaysians?

It is with this in heart, to save our country there had been calls to create a trust so that Malaysians could contribute and clear the national debt. Responding to the Malaysians resolve to voluntarily to contribute, and be part of the solution, the Federal Government has set up a trust; HOPE FUND MALAYSIA (HFM). Malaysians are free to contribute.

The decision of Malaysians to contribute to HFM – to settle the national debt is a clear sign of a marvellous spirit that Malaysians are united to save the country, which came about from the voters decision on 9^th May. And their love for Malaysia will never abate. Their will to safeguard Malaysia’s interest can never be questioned or challenged.

Contribution can be made to:

Date: 5/6/2018

APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

By K. Siladass

Hardly a month had passed since Pakatan Harapan took over Putrajaya and it is already facing problems that have been left behind by the previous government. One problem is the Attorney-General Tan Sri Apandi Ali, who was handpicked by the former Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Razak. It has now been revealed that the former Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail was asked to leave on a weak ground that he was unwell. It is now reported that Gani Patail had in fact prepared the charge sheet to prosecute the then serving Prime Minister Najib Razak for a criminal offence. That was the bravest thing to do. Gani Patail would not have moved to charge Najib if there was no evidence to do so. However, Gani Patail was in fact sacked – constructive dismissal.

Apandi was appointed as the Attorney-General by Najib. When the whole world recognized the scandalous corrupt Najib, Apandi alone could not see the dark side of Najib.

The present government under the leadership of Tun Dr. Mahathir made it very clear from the time it took over the Federal government that, it has no confidence in Apandi as Attorney-General, and he was asked to go on leave.

A new Attorney-General has to be appointed and it is reported that the Prime Minister has submitted the name of Tommy Thomas, an eminent lawyer in private practice. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong has yet to act on the advice of the Prime Minister or is said have some reservations because Tommy Thomas is a non-Malay and a non-Muslim. If this is the true reason given by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it is indeed shocking. Hard to believe and every Malaysian hopes that this is not true.

It is important to remember that before and for a short time after independence the office of the Attorney-General’s chamber was headed by non-Malays and non-Muslims. They were in fact Christians. Athi Nahappan, a Hindu, was appointed as the Attorney-General. As far as the appointment of the Attorney-General is concerned the Prime Minister makes the selection and he advises the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint the person he names as the Attorney-General.

Article 145(1) of the Federal Constitution reads as follows:

“The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.” (emphasis mine)

What are the requirements the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has to satisfy himself? Is the person submitted for the office of the Attorney-General qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court? That is the only condition the Yang di-Pertuan Agong needs to satisfy himself.

Article 123 of the Federal Constitution spells out the qualification of a person for the appointment as a judge of the Federal Court. It reads:

“A person is qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court if –

(a) he is a citizen; and

(b) he has been an advocate of the Supreme Court (now High Court) or a member of the judicial and legal service of the Federation for a period not less than ten years, or has been the one for part and the other for the remainder of that period.”.

It could, therefore be seen that the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice of the High Court and the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal, and of the High Court are made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Prime Minister after consulting the Conference of Rulers.

In so far as the appointment of judges, other than the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice.

What is the meaning of all these constitutional provisions?

Before advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the appointment of the judges to the Federal Court, to the Court of Appeal and to the High Court, the Prime Minister must consult the Chief Justice. And the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall make the appointments after consulting the Conference of Rulers. The consultation with the Rulers only takes place when judges are appointed.

Thus, the question arises whether the consent of the Rulers is needed when the Prime Minister acts under Article 145 of the Constitution and the answer is that such a necessity does not arise, and it is not provided for in the Constitution.

Further, under Article 145(1) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong retains no discretion on the appointment of the Attorney-General because the Prime Minister advice is final and unchallengeable. In the circumstances, it would be totally unconstitutional for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to require the Prime Minister to change the nominee. It had never happened before, and it should not happen now.

It was also reported that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong wanted an Attorney-General who is a Muslim so that he could advise on Syariah matters.

Article 145(3) of the Constitution disables the Attorney-General from the proceedings before a Syariah Court. Therefore, this argument is without any constitutional basis, and it would be prudent not to introduce elements that are not in the constitution.

In conclusion, it must be pointed out that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Malay Rulers, must not forget that, their role is a very unique one, in the sense, notwithstanding their allegiance to Islam they must never forget, the existence of other religions’ right protected by the constitution. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers are symbols of unity and they should not be seen to treading a course or cause that may trigger misunderstandings. They must always remain faithful to their oath under the constitution. And they must never depart from the fact that they derive their powers from the constitution, and in so far as the states are concerned, the source of their power is the respective state constitutions with such modifications but always subject to the Federal Constitution.

The most important thing that must be borne in mind is that Malaysians have on 9^th of May finally decided what they want and what they expect from the new Federal Government. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers have a duty to respect the people’s aspirations. As symbols of unity, they should preserve the uniqueness, they should not give the slightest indication which may be seen as giving credit to divisive notion.

Date: 5/6/2018

WARPED INTERPRETATION

by

K. Siladass

My attention was drawn to an article by the former Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Hamid Mohammad, in respect of the Contract of Co-operation dated 13 December 2016 entered into between Pakatan Harapan consisting of PKR, DAP and Amanah on one part and Peribumi on the other part, which was signed by Dato’ Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (PKR), Lim Guan Eng (DAP), Haji Mohamad Sabu (Amanah) and Tan Sri Hj Muhyiddin Hj Mohd Yassin (Peribumi).

The contract touches on religion and states that it will uphold the Federal Constitution, Islam as the religion of the Federation, and that other religions can be practised “freely, safely and peacefully.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution reads that:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions can be practised safely and peacefully.”

When comparing the two versions it could be seen that the word “freely” which appears in the contract is new, and is absent in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. The inclusion of the word “freely” in the contract has prompted Hamid to interpreteit and warn of its effect.

According to him, the words that other religions can be practiced (sic) “freely”, safely and peacefully used in the contract could produce any of the following three results:-

“1. Non-Muslims cannot be prevented from propagating their religion to Muslims as it is part of their religious teachings.

2.   They have reason to demand to build or they can build their churches and temples (“tokong”) in public places, including in university campuses.

3.   The way they worship also cannot be blocked/interfered. For example, in a hungry ghost festival month, they could place a roasted (cooked) pork outside their places of worship (including in the university campuses), as celebrating hungry ghosts festival is part of their worship.”

Hamid then concludes that the three Muslim leaders referring to Dato’ Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (PKR), Haji Mohamad Sabu (Amanah) and Tan Sri Hj Muhyiddin Hj Mohd Yassin (Peribumi), were trying to please Lim Guan Eng or have already been fooled by Lim Guan Eng. Theseare very harsh conclusions without any basis, but have obvious political content.

Sadly, the instances Hamid has imagined cannot be treated as an interpretive exercise but a sheer attempt to distort the actual intent of the parties to the contract.

There may be some who might feel that this method of interpretation falls within the purview of freedom of speech. That may be so, but when interpreting the Constitution it must never be forgotten it is secular and its aim is to protect all religions. Any interpretation or any attempt to interprete constitutional provisions to instigate or promote schism among Malaysians should be avoided, should never be allowed.

To sum up, the interpretation by Hamid, is patently if not dangerouslytoo narrow, and warped. Ii ignores, the principle underlying Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. He has let his own imagination run wild seemingly with the hope of garnering support for Barisan Nasional and condemn Pakatan Harapan, asif the latter had acted against Islam. Therefore, his criticism is not a genuine expression of a concern, or one which made in good faith, but laced with political nuance. The statement was issued on the eve of the 14^thgeneral elections i.e. 8^th May 2018, and that adds colour to his political motive.

The Federal Constitution has always been secular notwithstanding repeated attempts to jettison its secular content. Islam is given a lofty status which can never be destroyed, and other religions could be practised freely and peacefully.

Needless to remind that, one can only practise his religion safely and peacefully if he is free to do so. Although the word “freely” is not used in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, the intention of Parliament was crystal clear. There can be no restrictions on the practice of other religions. That freedom will not be abused as Hamid had portrayed. And the restrictions are those that had been spelt in the Constitution itself.

The Malaysians, have on 9.5.2018, answered unequivocally. They have rejected people like Hamid and the organisation he represents, and the distortion that had been unleashed all these years.

We are looking to a new era with a new born Malaysian spirit, where people cherish unity, friendliness and the accommodation of views in a decent rational and mature way. The days of threats, and spite are gone. 9^th May witnessed the birth of new Malaysia. The springtime efflorescence in Malaysian life has begun. The process of the integration of Malaysian is blooming.

Date: 4/6/2018

LIEW CHIN TONG, THE INVINCIBLE WARRIOR

by

K. Siladass

There is a Tamil folklore which explains who is a hero and what constitutes heroism. An ailing chieftain of a hunters’clan decided to choose his successor. Following the clan’s tradition, the chieftain summoned his two sons and in the presence of his folksmen announced that the duo should go for huntingand return with their prey. This being the tradition that had been practised by the ancestors, it shall be strictly complied with. The two brothers went into the jungle to hunt for their prey.

The older son returned very quickly, proudly holding up the rabbit he had caught.  The chieftain was glad and the folks were excited at the sight of the older son with his prey. They reckoned that he had acted as speed as the wind. 

The chieftain and the folks waited for the return of the other son so that the proclamation could be properly made. Hours passed and there was no sign of him. At long last he showed up. Everyone was shocked to see a despondent, forlorn, miserable and empty-handed son. The crowd was sorry to see his pathetic state. The young fellow went up to his father and said, "I'm sorry. I could not get anything. I failed."

The chieftain father was curious to know where he had been for so long.  The young man answered: "I went into the elephants' jungle but was unsuccessful in catching one."

The chieftain was pleasantly surprised. He embraced the young man and said: “You are the real hero. You ventured into elephant’s jungle about which I never thought of and none of our ancestors had ever dreamt of doing. You attempted something heroic none had ever in his wildest dream endeavoured to do so. You did a brave thing. You dared when others had and would have avoided.  You are the real hero. It is not the prize that matters but the brave attitude you exhibited is important.” He then proclaimed his younger son as his successor. The chieftain considered the deed, braveness involved. Thus, the moral of the story is: it is not the result that is important, but the quality of the result, the courage, bravery which have to be considered.

Liew Chin Tong, the Pakatan Harapan candidate for Air Hitam parliamentary constituency, could have looked for a safe-seat, or remained in Kluang where he had served before. As a warrior who obeys the command of his leader, he went to Air Hitam where victory was not guaranteed. He was a stranger to the constituency but a warrior carrying the message of a clean and just government. He had to accept the challenge which he did. Provisionally, Chin Tong may have lost Air Hitam, but, he worked hard and ensured Pakatan Harapan ousted the out-moded and corrupt Barisan National in Johore, presumably for good, which also witnessed unseating of UMNO and its partners in Putra Jaya. He has indeed won.Chin Tong, is an invincible warrior.

Date: 1/6/2018