Starting with the Perak Mufti’s now infamous remark about a “new Constitution”, then rebutted by Professor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, a LoyarBurokker today flies us on a hot-air balloon, LB-styled. The courts have consistently ignored the Constitution and failed to uphold many of its protective provisions. The people have suffered. Is the Malaysian Federal Constitution a Document of Tyranny or one of Salvation? Is it time to let go of a Constitution which continues to protect only the elite and powerful?
Back in 1956, a constitutional conference was held in London. It was attended by Tunku Abdul Rahman, three other ministers, four representatives of the Malay Rulers, and by the British High Commissioner in Malaya and his advisers.
A Commission headed by Lord William Reid, and consisting of constitutional experts from Commonwealth countries was appointed by the Queen and the Malay Rulers (Reid Commission).
The Constitution of Malaya was drafted on the advice of the Reid Commission which conducted a study in 1956. The Constitution came into force on 27 August 1957.
The Constitution of Malaya (with significant amendments) was used as the basis for the Constitution of Malaysia when Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore merged to form Malaysia in 1963. This so-called “document of destiny”, per Professor Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, has been the supreme law of Malaysia ever since.
I am not a big fan of the Federal Constitution.
It was a document devised to protect the interests of the elite and the royalty of Malaya, and one of compromise between the British and Malay rulers for the economic benefit of the British. It represents an insult to human dignity and intelligence.
A “document of tyranny”, the Constitution tells us how many Members of Parliament and senators we can have, the levels of government, the election periods, the role of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and provides other lame guarantees of individual rights.
This document did not come from the people of Malaya; it came from the very people who colonised us.
Some say it is a symbol of our independence; the question is, when have we ever been dependent?
And it can never be a symbol of freedom. Ironically, it is a document which propagates the ideas of the elite that we have enslaved ourselves to.
I subscribe to the opinion of Justice Learned Hand of the US Supreme Court that liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; and when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.
Freedom is not something you gain; it is something that you are born with.
We need no recognition to be free; we just need not be enslaved.
As the wise Jean Jacques Rousseau said, “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains”, and so are we, to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, 1957.
Many Malaysians fiercely protect the Federal Constitution, giving it unreasonable credit for various purposes, not knowing that it is the most abused document of law in Malaysia. A tool which legitimises any act of the Executive, be it right or wrong.
Many argue that the actions of the Executive are subject to the scrutiny of the courts of law, the so-called guardians of the Constitution that protect, preserve and defend the Constitution from legislative changes or other attacks. The question remains however: do we even need a Constitution?
Thomas Jefferson said that all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights. We have the right of enjoying and defending our lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; that of seeking and obtaining our safety and happiness.
Our fundamental rights are universal in nature, rights so sacred that it is inalienable to us. There is no need for a document to protect these rights.
Has the Federal Constitution of Malaysia done any good in providing for or even protecting these rights? Have the courts stopped the Executive from infringing these rights or have they legitimised the infringements? In my view, the courts have done nothing but legitimise the infringements of civil liberties, which cases such as Stephen Kalong Ningkan, Assa Singh and Karam Singh bear witness.
Clarence Darrow was right when he said, “You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.”
The current Constitution represents the mindset that is the cause of Malaysia’s inherent problems. We have yet to resolve these problems.
The ultimate resolution is to get rid of this imperialist legacy. Only then will we be truly free as a nation, only then will we be truly united as Malaysians, only then will we be able to appreciate our sovereignty, for it will not be an order imposed upon us, but one that we acknowledge as our own.
We do not need a Constitution to ensure that our rights are guaranteed, we need liberty, we need compassion, we need equality, we need honesty, and most of all we need justice. That is all we need to ensure our rights.
That is all we need for a better Malaysia.
It is time we set ourselves free, it is time we tell ourselves that it is alright to let go of our Constitution.
James Baldwin said, “Freedom is not something that anybody can be given; freedom is something people take and people are as free as they want to be.”
And of course, “It’s only after you’ve lost everything,” Tyler Durden says, “that you’re free to do anything.” (Fight Club)
[But for extraordinary reasons there are those of you who would disagree with me, do follow this excellent Campaign.]
LB: Lingswaran Singh has been a LoyarBurokker since he was 5. He speaks an open but disinterested language, dictated not by passion but that of humanity. Independence is his happiness, and he views things as they are without regard to place or person. His country is the world, and his religion is to do good. He too is an emissary of Lord Bobo Barnabus, tasked to enlighten Malaysians through loyarburok.com, this awesome blawg leading the quest for world domination.
dinturtle,
It’s totally unacceptable to question our independence and it is unwitting, to say the least, to ask if we have ever been dependent. Whatever religious belief he professes and wants to promote, being anti-constitution is plainly anathema and goes against the moral fibre of all decent Malaysian citizens who respect law and order and want to live in peace.
It smacks of irresponsibility to talk about obedience yet not obeying, even calling for the abandonment of, the Constitution of the country. And if he is a lwayer, he should have known better. We are unsure how much regard people have for him and his blog. Perhaps we are making a mountain out of a molehill. But the message must be put out loud and clear: respect the Constitution of the country fully and only after then can one call oneself a Malaysian citizen.
There are far too many irresponsible and wayward citizens out there. Stern action needs be taken to get them in line with mainstream Malaysiana. Apply the Sedition Act where applicable. Even the ISA where advisable. Even the United States have laws or practices equivalent to the ISA. And the United Kingdom is now trying to practice affirmative action – see the well presented article by Jebat Must Die in his blog carrying that name. Affirmative action in the form of the NEP is derived from the Constitution and the Constitution must be preserved and fully respected.
Loyarmabuk is forever in the state of mabuk. Wonder if he could just name one nation that upholds all he preaches… everything also want free…dom. where got mah ? u live in the jungle also got to follow the unwritten rules of the jungle..
His world does exists, but entrance only when u mabuk !
No, he does not appear to be talking about amending the Constitution and he does appear to want the Constitution be simply abandoned.
A Constitution is one that sets laws and dictates subsidiary rules and regulations. Without the Constitution there will be no law and order. The first thing a military coup d’etat regime usually does is to suspend or simply disregard the Constitution of the country. This often happened in Africa and among the so-called Banana Republics. A responsible military regime (which is hardly found the world over) would take over the country to set the country along the correct path and save it from the chaos and disorder that it sees as prevailing. It then hands the country back to democratic rule. In the case of the Emergency rule headed by Tun A Razak as a result of the 13 May 1969 racial riots, the Constitution was suspended, the military was asked to play the role of restoring law and order and protecting the safety of the citizens and property. Tun Razak had Parliament re-convened and democratic rule came back after less than 2 years.
Anarchists are akin to communists. They both do not mind a state of chaos and disorder and they usually thrive when such situations exist. They then offer salvation through the so-called “alternatives” they offer. We hear the word “alternative” being bandied about by opposition politicians in the country now.
Those who have been promoting the so-called Malaysian Malaysia concept have brought about tense feelings in the country as that concept subverts the Special Position of the majority Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak. In 1969, it led to racial riots. That concept is still perpetrated to day. Those who do so do not respect the Constitution – equality in this country has to take into account the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras as stated under Article 153 of the Constitution. That slogan has caused a lot of problems in the country. Particularly in the area of racial harmony and long-term unity.
abda,
We are not sure if he is a lawyer and don’t find it worth the effort to google this kind of a person. He speaks about what the average Malaysian may not understand and may get confused or misled e.g “an open but disinterested language, dictated not by passion but that of humanity. Independence … and he views things as they are without regard to place or person. His country is the world, and his religion is to do good. He too is an emissary of Lord Bobo Barnabus, tasked to enlighten Malaysians through loyarburok.com, this awesome blawg leading the quest for world domination.” World domination is something that even the Americans and the Russians could never achieve.
Lingswaran Singh appears to be Sikh in origin but the Missionary Order of St. Barnabas appears to be one of the numerous Christian religious sects, claiming in one website as “an ecumenical order with vows of Charity, Stability, Obedience and Prayer”. If that is so, he has broken one of the first tenets of the religion – obedience. If he has converted to Christianity, he has not obeyed the Sikh religion and shunned it. Viewing things “without regard to place or person” and speaking about “world domination” shows he has broken another tenet of what he preaches – Stability. No stability can be achieved with those words he used.
There may therefore be not much in his views about the Constitution of the country. He does not respect the Constitution because of his declared agenda.
One even wonders whether he intended his article to be comical. It is a joke by any political ideology to question Malaya’s independence and to ask whether we have ever been dependent. He appears so skewed about being independent to practice his apparently new found religious belief that he was prepared to imply that we have not been ruled by the British for about 80 years.
He should know that religious freedom exists in this country to the extent that even the Christians want to use the term “Allah” to refer to their God which comprises of a Trinity of The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, in contradiction with and to the annoyance of Muslims who believe that Allah is the ONE and ONLY God. Especially when Islam is the official religion of the country and the word “Tuhan” sufficiently serves their purpose. But, like in all countries all over the world, there must be limits to freedom, and freedom is never absolute. Wanting “world domination” in whatever form appears to have exceeded that limit.
Indeed there has been the group that wants to change the history of the country. Calling the communist terrorist Chin Peng and the Malayan Communist Party as nationalists, wildly alleging that the Malays started the Larut Wars of the 19th Century instead of the constantly warring clans killing each other involving secret societies thugs and gangsters brought into Perak from Penang. The communists received material and moral support from communist China and Communist International, wanting to set up a communist Republic aligned with if not under the tutelage of mainland China. They fought the democratically elected Malayan Government even after the British have left the country. And Malayan history written by established academicians and others have all regarded them as traitors, never as nationalists. True, those people and their present day sympathisers do not respect the Constitution and may be classified as the subversive group.
Is he a lawyer? Doesn’t sound one the way he talks there.
He does not know much about history. Whatever political ideology he subscribes to, he does not know history when he questioned about independence and asked “when have we ever been dependent?”
Unless he belongs to the subversive group which wants to change the history of this country. That kind doesn’t respect the Constitution.
Aiyyoyo, that loyarburuk fellow want Constution to go oso? He speaking the Constution did not come from Malayan people. If he loyar he should known the Constution was debate in Parliment two times, yo. At Malaya Merdeka time and at Malaysia time. What man he.
when we mention "inherent rights", is everyone aware of these rights? what makes these rights "inherent" to a person? more importantly who determines whether certain rights are "inherent" and some not?
what one deems as "inherent rights" to him/her may or may not be the same as what others deem as "inherent rights" to them. when we stop a father from beating his child, are we upholding the child's human rights or violating the father's?
taking into context the different socio economic, cultural and political realities that contributes in shaping and influencing individuals' perception and behavior, can we safely say that human rights is "universal"? is there such thing as "universal values" amidst all our differences?
the answer is yes. no matter how different we're defined from each other, the concept of justice and law, legitimacy and dignity, protection from oppresive rule and participation in community affairs is found in every society. the principles of human rights have been widely adopted, imitated and ratified by many countries and these countries have played an important role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of 30 Articles and serves as a reminder to member states of the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. several engagements were conducted in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. logically, it wouldn't have existed out of thin air. in my opinion, the same applies to our constitution. due process was taken into drafting it and it became one of the most important document for the country.
it is also in my opinion that the writer's view in this article is an example of an individualistic take of man as an autonomous being with a need to be free from inteference by the state..with the right to be left alone..and most preferably would like that right to be protected in the constitution.
i remember at my last constitutional law class, i asked the lecturer, should we just throw this little book into the dustbin? it protects no one except those who are walking at the corridor of power..
i dun remember how the lecturer replied though, typical law student =p
For further reading please refer to http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/constitutional_law…
@Nirwant, thank you for your kind words.
@Andrew Yong, I repeat, i am not blaming the Reid Commission or the judges or anybody. I am stating that i am not a big fan of the constitution, i dont like it. That's all…
I dnt like the idea that my rights depends on what people in the parliament think, or even the people for that matter.
I'm saying, look we need certain values to ensure things are good and well, which is universal values. These values shall be an inherent right, that needs no guarantee as they are so inalienable to us.
Im saying if we hold on to those values, then we will see a better future, and we wont need a constitution to protect our rights.
You're missing the point. This is our Constitution, it's in our hands, there's no point blaming the Reid Commission or the judges or anyone else. We are the ones who have been giving the Alliance/BN a two-thirds majority for 50 years.
The article mentions Karam Singh – Karam Singh was overturned by the Singapore courts in Chng Suan Tze. It took less than one month for the Singapore Parliament to reverse the decision by amending the Constitution and the ISA. What can the judges do if the voters are idiots? At the end of the day, you get the government you deserve.
While the Constitution entrenches, guides and regulates the macro-structure and behavioral codes of society, but, if this sacrosanct collection of principles and ideals is to be constantly violated, defiled and surreptitiously hijacked for the political gain of the powers-that-be, then what good can it serve. Ours is a classic example of the mockery and sacrilege that has visited the FC since MM ruled supreme. This is not a discourse on the merits of having a written FC. It is more an examination in the abstract, into the relevance and the concomitant purposes written constitutions serve, when the respect and sanctity they deserve are frequently abused and the fundamental spirit and meaning of their content casually distorted to mislead society and to provide legitimacy to actions that are contrary to human decency and dignity.
As brilliant and articulate and deserving of credit for the clarity of thought and the courage to visit an aspect of human experiment that most would not want to contemplate, yet, LS's attempts have been met with a certain amount of flak from some readers. This only reveals the enormity of the task one faces when he embarks on an exercise to challenge a belief system that is guarded with seemingly fanatical fervor by others.
In the final analysis, given the faults in the FC, if it were to be constantly re-visited like a whore-house, just to satisfy the irrepressible lust of those who find it easy to purchase prostitutes to quench their desires, as in the case with a Parliament that is dominated by members from the same party, what else could you expect but outright contempt and scorn for the FC, and a meaningless dependence and reliance on its inherent capacity and ability to check and control conduct to the detriment of life and liberty of the people it is designed to protect.
Like i said earlier, i am not asking people to forgo the constitutional system, im saying we need one from the people. Yes i am that idealistic and i will hold on to my idealism as if it was my faith. Yes it is a dangerous experiment, no i dont think anybody would buy my idea. No, there will be no bloodshed whatsoever. When i was speaking of those qualities, i had a larger plan in mind. I believe those universal values are what we need to plant in the minds of our young. The way things are going today, people think if it is not in the Federal Constitution then there is no place for it in our system. To me, the obsession with such a document to such a level is very unhealthy. It is but a document, that is given life by the courts, and the courts need those qualities… Indirectly, with all due respect, i am criticizing the courts.
The UK, New Zealand and Israel are very much the exception in a world of 200+ independent countries. The first two are homogenous societies which are the heirs of a parliamentary tradition of nearly a thousand years, which is so engrained in their populations that the unwritten conventions of parliamentary democracy are as binding as if they were law.
I agree that we might have had a stronger constitution more embedded in the consciousness of our political class if it had been autochthonous and written by our own constituent assembly, but I personally don't agree that we could have done without any constitution at all.
"The ultimate resolution is to get rid of this imperialist legacy. Only then will we be truly free as a nation, only then will we be truly united as Malaysians, only then will we be able to appreciate our sovereignty, for it will not be an order imposed upon us, but one that we acknowledge as our own."
No-one imposed it on us. It was passed by the elected federal LegCo and all 11 state councils. The constitution reflects the constitutional bargain in 1955-7. In any case, the same people we voted in in 1955 and at every election until 2008 had every opportunity to amend the constitution anyhow they pleased if they didn't like it.
You don't explain how getting rid of the constitution would bring about unity and "appreciating our sovereignty". I submit there is no multiracial society that has ever prospered without some sort of entrenchment of the constitutional bargain and basic rights. Otherwise no-one would have committed to the constitutional settlement, we would have just fought it out as soon as the British left (though arguably that is what happened in 1969 anyway). What would there be to stop the permanent majority from riding roughshod over the permanent majority?
To put it another way, we effectively had no constitution when Parliament was suspended during the 1969 emergency. If UMNO had not got its way with entrenching the "post-1969" constitutional settlement in 1971, do you think we would have had the restoration of parliamentary democracy?
"We do not need a Constitution to ensure that our rights are guaranteed, we need liberty, we need compassion, we need equality, we need honesty, and most of all we need justice. That is all we need to ensure our rights."
So liberty, compassion and justice are ideals that will supposedly guarantee our rights. Again, how do we get there? How do we stay there? It may not be circular, but it is like saying there is no need for laws in heaven, or singing "Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man". You may be making a more subtle point that if we had no constitution, the voters would be more wary about their rights and be as anti-state and libertarian as the traditional Anglo-Saxon voter. This may or may not be true, but it seems a very dangerous experiment. You might have only achieved that equilibrium of a two-party system after a good deal of trial and possible bloodshed. The fact is that whatever the ills of our system, it is one of the oldest and most stable constitutions in Asia, where the average constitution lasts no more than 20 years.
You have a point with the FPTP electoral system, which works badly in a multi-racial country and exaggerates the government's majority. But at every election other than 1969, the Alliance/BN has had at least 50% of the popular vote, and without exception has always been the largest grouping, so under your system with no constitution they could still do whatever they liked.
Thanks @Bean, but dont bother entertaining Haron, probably a cyber trooper.
@Andrew Yong. I dont remember saying that either the British Government, the Reid Commission or the Malay Rulers were responsible for any objectionable provisions.I was merely saying that the negotation did not consider the voices of the masses.
Thank you @Clearic for the link. @Andrew Yong, note that there WAS civil action in coming up with a draf constitution, which the British and Malay rulers choose to overlook.Im not even saying that there are objectionable articles. Im saying that document is an insult to the Rakyat as if it was a document to enslave us all, because it was designed by the powers above us, not by the people.
“We do not need a Constitution to ensure that our rights are guaranteed, we need liberty, we need compassion, we need equality, we need honesty, and most of all we need justice. That is all we need to ensure our rights.”
Whats so circular about it? I'm simply saying we do not need a constitution to make sure our rights are guranteed. Look at Israel, UK, and New Zealand they are fine without one. When i said rights in that contexts i wasnt referring to liberty, compassion and equality. (note liberty is a concept, compassion is an indepth feeling, and equality is a principle.)
How sure are you that the two thirds that the ruling party has been getting is real figures? How sure are you they represent the people? How sure are you that it is fair?
About the only thing I agree with is that an autochthonous constitution might have been better, but it is wrong to say that either the British Government, the Reid Commission or the Malay Rulers were responsible for any objectionable provisions: that is largely due to the minority report of Mr Justice Abdul Hamid of independent Pakistan, and the Alliance federal government who had 51/52 seats in the Legislative Council and largely had their way in the constitutional negotiations.
With respect, this article is full of platitudes:
"We do not need a Constitution to ensure that our rights are guaranteed, we need liberty, we need compassion, we need equality, we need honesty, and most of all we need justice. That is all we need to ensure our rights."
This seems a pretty circular argument: in order to ensure that our rights are guaranteed, we need our rights? And how is it proposed that we establish and maintain our rights, except we have a constitution that distributes and diffuses political power?
The reason our Constitution has been amended, perverted, and misinterpreted is because we the people of Malaya/Malaysia have kept giving the Government a two-thirds majority in Parliament with which to do what they will with the Constitution and to emasculate the judicial power. No Constitution in the world, not even the Indian Constitution, could have withstood such concentrated executive/legislative power.
In India it was the People who liberated their Constitution in 1977 from Mrs Gandhi and her thugs, by kicking her out of office. But the first thing their representatives did after that so was to strengthen their Constitution so that what had happened during the Emergency would never happen again. We in Malaysia are still under the pall of Emergency tyranny, and it is the voters, not the judges, whose responsibility it is to deliver change necessary in order to restore and reform our Constitution.
As long as UMNO is there and BN are in the Power, don't ever dream of having a Malaysian World as per described as above. They will never allowed themself to be traumatized by such a Law to stop them from plundering and robbing the Nation to it's poverty. The only way for us to live in that dream and much sought World and Environment in Malaysia is to change and removed the UMNO and BN from Power and have Pakatan Rakyaat rule the Nation.
For Pakatan Rakyaat, they must practice and preach what they promise and don't be an UMNO/BN copy cat, least we will be back to the square one again. Any chance of making a change?
Yes that is for sure by voting all the BN candidates OUT, OUT, OUT during the GE13 next time, Will you do it, or not? For me it is a damn sure a big YESSSSSSS, that is my committment and foremost requirement during the polling day!!!!!!!!!!Nothing Else, just to see these theft out into history.
Constitution is a document intended to avoid uncertainties that flow in the veins of everyone who wishes to be a citizen of the country.
The US Constitution and its judges have yet to properly address the gross injustice to foreigners and US citizens themselves meted out by the previous Bush Administration and its many follies under the Patriot Act and its war on terrorism. Or is that merely a statistics to you?
Of course the Constitution is not a document "of the people". The writ of any authority came from the 2 main pillars of government in pre-Merdeka, ergo the Sultans and the British Colonial authorities.
Freedom, truth and justice doesn't grow in a vacuum. However bad you say the Constitution has been interpreted or applied, without the constitution there would be nothing to stand between Malaysia and anarchy.
My conscience is married to the history of this country. And though I am disgusted also by some of the injustice occuring here, we must bear in mind that it is not the fault of the Constitution nor the institution of the monarchy. How many years did US allow slavery before it was finally banished? And how come Bush totally blindsided the pathetic US congress by assuming the mantle of a Super President in this pathetic excuse of a war by simply ignoring the congress and its weak democrats? Where was the US constitution then?
So now we have Obama on board. Did he decide that to hell with the constitution? Screw the 2nd Amendments? No, instead of chucking it out, he wants to work on it.
So lets work on the Constitution… not to dismiss our heritage and history which is owned by all Malaysians, but simply to make the Constitution work better…
FC made by Freemason la bro.. dekat sekolah mereka tiada ajar ni..sbb siapa control sistem edukasi?
Regarding Haron’s comment, it’s funny that he says Lingswaran Singh should throw away his degrees, since they’re only pieces of paper. First of all, LS earned his degree, through his own effort, while our constitution was thrown together by the Reid Commission with negligible public consultation. Second of all, even if LS threw his degrees away, he’d still be able to think, feel, empathise and provide reasoned argument. This is analogous to the need for all Malaysians to stand up for all our rights, instead of clinging on to the “security” that the contitution “guarantees” (it does nothing of the sort, of course, if the executive and judiciary do as they please.)Finally, unfortunately for Haron, he has amply demonstrated that even if he himself has a degree, he’ll never be able to articulate logical, well-reasoned arguments that others will respect, tough luck.
It is sad that some still speak of USA as if it were an ideal, when it is the greatest tyrant the world has known.
“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.” – Malcolm X, African American activist
Man here refers to humans. The subjugation of women proves the point.
I think what the writer is saying is that we should uphold a constitution that is from the people of this country. One of that example is the Perlembagaan Rakyat drafted by Pusat Tenaga Ra’ayat dan All-Malaya Council of Joint Action (PUTERA-AMCJA). Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yaxq7xtTPsA .It was done after much consultation with the people of Malaya. Perhaps it is not so much about the constitution, but more about the Rakyat.
so if i want to kill you now, no law can protect you because you asked a question – do we even need the constitution?
You still saying you dont need the constitution?
I agree with both ladymissazira on 24 August, 2010 at 9:33 am and Janetlee on 24 August, 2010 at 9:52 am. It’s all about the PEOPLE. It is we, who decide how we run our way of life. It has been good all this while but suddenly now, we have a lot of grouses about others. These has got to stop as it is causing uneasiness among the people of different races. We are about to celebrate National day and the atmosphere is no longer there.
Mr LB
Very nice piece of article.
First throw away whatever degrees you have cos its only “writings on paper” that you have. Do not be proud or try to show of your degrees etc.
Secondly , go to India and make the proposal to the Indian Government. See whether they agree to your proposal and accept to do away with the Indian Constitution. Like wise other Governments.
I see your ideas are rubbish.
Haronjanor
Superb Article, Lingswaran Singh.
Thank you very much for your support in our Awareness Campaign of MyConstitution/PerlembagaanKu!!!
Unlike the United States Of America, we are still considered an immature nation country comprising a multicultural background compared to the United States Of America, perhaps even in the United Kingdom, unlike many nations, the UK has no core constitutional document.
American history would tell us that the United States of America is a nation with a history as rich as its people. The U.S. Constitution is an institution in itself & has earned their freedom from colonial powers, to develop systems that challenge adversity and welcome change… Indeed they welcomed change!!!
To reaffirm — Like you have quoted earlier…requote— “I subscribe to the opinion of Justice Learned Hand of the US Supreme Court that liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; and when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.
Freedom is not something you gain; it is something that you are born with…”
I have time and time again mentioned this — “The People Makes The Country”… that includes its failure.
The Rakyat needs to be EMPOWERED…!!!
…And for the way forward, the Rakyat needs to know history leading to our Malaysian Federal Constitution before its over 600 amendments to it that curtailed the Rakyat’s civil liberties and freedom.
……Notwithstanding the above, our Federal Constitution, that is before its 600 amendments, must be the basis or platform to rebuild the harmony, peace, and compassion into the hearts of men & women once again before moving forward for the betterment of the Raykat…. like in the USA..the Rakyat must develop systems that challenge adversity and welcome change… this is the hallmark of a progressive nation country.
I reiterate your quotation of — “Thomas Jefferson said that all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights. We have the right of enjoying and defending our lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; that of seeking and obtaining our safety and happiness.”
In conclusion, and to repeat — “The People Makes The Country”… and that also includes its failure.
Regards,
Janetlee
The federal constitution, like any agreement, is merely words that are printed on paper. Humans give credence to the words, humans give it significance, and humans are the ones who either obey or abuse it.
It’s not much, but it is our heritage.
My point is this, i know all of us has been disillusioned and are let down by the going ons in this nation. It is not the fault of that piece of paper with words written on it.
It’s people.
It matters not that the colonials & the rulers & sultans drew it up. It only matters what we do with it. How we choose to interpret it. How we decide to retain or amend it as we see fit, if Mahathir’s clamp down on both the Royals and Judges is any indication.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do it, I’m saying that it’s unnecessary.