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