[UPDATED on 11 September 2010 with this clarification that His Majesty’s speech was first highlighted by Uppercaise which in turn inspired this post. As communicated to Uppercaise by email on 9 September 2010, LoyarBurok was to have updated this post with our due acknowledgment to Uppercaise. We apologise for our oversight, Uppercaise. Perhaps it was the festive season starting to kick in!]
Certain quarters are demanding that Malaysians do not discuss the Constitution. However at the opening of the first Parliament of Malaya, Yang Di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Rahman opined that we should. And the MyConstitution campaign is doing just that!
The full text of His Majesty’s speech is available here (and in pdf format here). Below is an excerpt.
In general, this Constitution … defines the powers of the Federation Government and of the various States of our united nation, provides for amendment of the Constitution should this be found necessary; and asserts the electoral rights of citizens in our democracy. In this way it ensures that the voice of the people is the will of the people.
In particular, this Constitution is the guardian of the rule of law. It protects the integrity, the freedom from influence, and the independence of our Courts and our Judges and our Law Officers and the Members of our various Commissions of the Public Service, responsible for appointments and discipline. In this way it ensures the security, integrity and impartiality of the Civil Service.
The Constitution belongs to all of us – it belongs to Us as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it belongs to you as the Members of Parliament, it belongs to the people as the fount of power.
The Prime Minister, the members of his Cabinet, the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives have all sworn … that they will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Therefore, We wish all Our subjects on this historic day to know and understand that the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, our charter of rights and liberties, is now, finally and completely, in operation and with the establishment of this Parliament under the Constitution, a new era begins for our nation.
It is Our earnest hope that as many as possible of Our subjects will take early opportunity to make themselves familiar with our Constitution, and with the powers and procedure of our Parliament.
Tuanku Abdul Rahman ibni Al-Marhum Tuanku Muhammad
Yang Di-Pertuan Agong I
at the opening of the first Parliament of Malaya, 12 September 1959
Namun begitu, untuk memahami permasalahan yang berlaku sekarang ini berhubung dengan wacana tentang perlembagaan persekutuan ini, kita tidak dapat lari daripada keharusan meneliti jejak-jejak sejarah yang melahirkan perlembagaan kita ini. Proses sejarah inilah dengan kekhususan kontekstualnya yang wujud pada ketika itu yang harus kita fahami.
Realitinya, perlembagaan kita itu disusun oleh Suruhanjaya Reid, yang jawatankuasanya terdiri daripada 5 individu (2 warga Britain, 1 warga Australia, 1 warga Pakistan dan 1 warga India) yang mengambilkira usulan, cadangan dan tuntutan dari pelbagai pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan yang umumnya diwakili oleh elit-elit etnik masing-masing.
Inilah antara penyebab-penyebab yang menjadi akar kepada permasalahan yang timbul berhubung dengan perlembagaan kita ini – iaitu persoalan keabsahan.
Keabsahan menjadi persoalan penting kerana pertamanya dokumen ini adalah dokumen yang disusun dan dicadangkan oleh suatu Suruhanjaya yang tiada orang tempatan yang terlibat didalam penyusunan dan penulisannya.
Keduanya, cadangan, usulan dan tuntutan yang dipertimbangkan oleh Suruhanjaya Reid tersebut di dalam menulis perlembagaan kita ini datangnya dari elit-elit etnik dari kelompok-kelompok yang tertentu semata-mata.
Oleh kerana iaya merupakan suatu dokumen yang isinya ditentukan hasil dari permuafakatan elit-elit etnik pada masa itu semata-mata, maka sebahagian besar daripada rakyat tidak dilibatkan di dalam proses membuat keputusan akhir tentang isikandungan perlembagaan kita ini yang natijahnya mempengaruhi nilai keabsahan beberapa perkara yang terkandung di dalam perlembagaan kita ini yang ditandingkan tafsirannya sehinggalah sekarang ini.
Dan kita generasi sekarang mewarisi permasalahan ini sehinggalah sekarang ini. Kalau kita rajin menjejaki proses pensejarahan kelahiran perlembagaan kita sehingga sekarang ini, kita akan dapati tanding tafsiran terhadap beberapa perkara di dalam perlembagaan tidak pernah surut sehinggalah ke hari ini. Dan ini adalah wajar sahaja terjadi kerana keabsahannya tidak kita perolehi sepenuh-penuhnya daripada seluruh rakyat pada waktu ianya lahir.
Glad to have chanced a moment of brightness there Lingswaran, thanks for sharing it with all of us too. Keep repairing and patching the fragile folks and broken situations around us . . .
@Dear Uppercaise, i think i owe you an apology. I am sorry for labeling you empty-headed. Please do forgive my ignorance, and frustration in dealing with trolls. Yes, of course that is no excuse to be verbally abusive. I am, deeply sorry for offending you.
@AgreeToDisagree, thank you for your insightful words. Much appreciated reality check. I am humbled by your remarks, it is an eye opener. Thank you
You deserve respect for idealising unthanked professionalism, but minds do burn out if attention limited spans are expected to follow 'due courtesy' to the letter. I don't think Lord Bobo was neglectful on purpose.
"Being labelled empty-headed by Mr Lingswaran wasn’t courteous."
He said that about you? I'm with you on this then, but not in the direction about credits cos it makes it seem kinda petty, especially since Malaysia needs to deseminate information quickly so that dangerous people in government don't get the upper hand. No harm done if it's for the public good right?
But it doesn't surprise that some lawyers forget it's just a 3 year stint (or for Dr. 6 years) separating them from non-lawyers and 'ordinary people'. We can't afford those qualifications, there are no affordable facilities here in Malaysia.
So its about the rich riding roughshod over the poor where being "labeled empty headed" is concerned. Besides Laws are man made and can be struck off, just like offensive constitutional clauses…
http://hi-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=318515515…
Anyone can throw a few tens of thousands at a profiteering institution and get a law degree then start being rude and arrogant. Oh look I'm a lawyer, everything I say must be correct! I'll sue everyone who disagrees with me, tie everyone up in red tape, BUT NEVER HELP THE PEOPLE *REMOVE* – APARTHEID, FORCED MILITARY CONSCRIPTIONS, TOLL CONCESSIONAIRES, UNCONSTITUTIONAL VEHICULAR APS, ABUSIVE BY-LAWS.
Alot of lawyers are just there for the POSSIBLE money and the ego trip, so don't expect 'due courtesy' especially in re-distribution of profit free non-print media articles – cos they're too busy, out for lunch or at a meeting! Make an appointment why don't you!
By the way didn't 'Lord Bobo' already apologise up there? You could be accused of giving him a hard time in this case when you could have brushed it off as something that slipped Lord Bobo's mind – god knows how he's really like but he doesn't seem very arrogant does he?
Dear Uppercaise,
We have just updated this post. Please accept our apology. Thank you.
@uppercaise it's a public document, anyone can look it up. Nobody has whatsoever claim over it. Its in the Hansard for crying out loud. If people were to apply your principle, every lawyer would have to credit the lawyers in the previous cases for every mention authority from the Handsard or even case law.
@ Funny, your not funny at all, you remind me of Tan Sri Ghani Patail and Datuk Azailiza Mohd Ahad.
Being forthright isn't being malicious or red-tapey. It was a simple matter of professional courtesies between professionals and fellow-bloggers. Being labelled empty-headed by Mr Lingswaran wasn't courteous. The matter is now closed.
Take it easy uppercaise. Lets not get all 'red tapey' and be like LGE's malicious compliance attitude. There are good and bad journalists and lawyers.
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/1378/gambier1….
Well if the Constitution defies the Hadiths of Islam (God's Law) prohibiting racism and the Human Rights Charter (International Law Malaysia is a signaoty to), then the Royal Collective must make haste to amend these offending portions so that justice may be given to emancipate the minorities as well as apostate or unwilling Muslims who are being or will be discriminated against. Bring us justice Tuanku and please study the wrongs promulgated in this flawed Constitution!
Dear Mr Lingswaran
"you talk before you think, you make a bad lawyer"
To Lingswaran: the speech by the king is in the public domain though technically crown copyright. but the effort to find the speech, make the relevant extract and to publish it is not in the public domain.
lord bobo lifted my posting in its entirety without acknowledging the fact that it was first published elsewhere. only the introductory paragraph was his own intellectual effort. everything else was lifted from uppercaise. that is intellectual theft.
i even reminded him to be aware that it was tuanku abdul rahman and not tunku abdul rahman. but that was ignored and the introduction carried the words tunku abdul rahman.
we journalists would regard that as plagiarism.
taking a legalistic point of view of who owns the copyright of the king's speech is deflecting from the issue of intellectual theft. perhaps lord bobo resented the fact that a mere journalist found something he wasn't aware of. perhaps lord bobo didn't want to lose face.
what do you reckon journalists really think of many lawyers? i do know that most lawyers have little regard for journalists except when it comes to self-serving publicity.
Thank you for the clarification.
Uppercaise, you don't wanna know what they regard this among lawyers.
Dear Uppercaise,
We have just updated this post.
Please accept our apology.
Thank you.
Uppercaise… i think your uppercase is empty. What are you talking about? that speech was by the first YDPA! Its a public document for heavens sake.
Among journalists, this would be regarded as plagiarism.
The above extract of the speech was first published at http://uppercaise.wordpress.com By royal command: Know your Constitution which is where "Lord Bobo" obtained it. But Lord Bobo has not shown due courtesy in acknowledging the source of his posting, which he reproduced with his sole contribution being the introductory remarks. It is unethical and unprofessional to lift other people's efforts without acknowledging them. Even the link to the full text above was provided by me when Lord Bobo asked by email for permission to reproduce the posting. It is regrettable that I have to resort to making this point on a matter of ethics and professionalism. Shame on Lord Bobo.
Dear jojo51,
Knowing your Constitution… the keyword "YOUR"… to put it simply… the Constitution belongs to YOU & ALL 28 million Folks…. created for YOU and ALL 28 million Folks (oh, may be less that time la in 1957)….by our beloved Tuanku AR and Tunku AR plus our former leaders….
and if you don't know what's in it… you'll be amazed how beautiful YOUR Constitution is… that was created by our beloved Tuanku AR and Tunku AR…. and when you've learnt it… the concept in your mind… that is, you said — "Now everybody is almost a racist, at least in their mind….."… will automatically disappear.. like the magic hands of David Copperfield.. BECAUSE….. you are now more learned and savvy to see the beauty of YOUR Constition and not otherwise…to never again think the way you do… Think about it..
Knowledge is power..and knowledge sets us free…free fr prejudice, fr wrong views, fr. narrow mindedness..
Knowing the Constitution, is like knowing the rules of any game.
Without it there will only be chaos, frustration, anger and make us victim of manipulation.
I say..Power to the people! Let them be equipped with knowledge!
53 years ago the people are more rational. Now everybody is almost a racist, at least in their mind. Everybody is interpreting the Constitution to meet their parochial agenda. Therefore it's a waste of time to have a public discussion on the Constitution.
So it looks like those who are against MyConsti from helping the people get to know the Fed Consti are committing acts of seditious actually yah?
Because erm…they…umm…like…go against the words of the King, no?
Like who are the IDIOTS who dont want to discuss the federal constitution? Even Russia and China are more open. Where did these people crawl out from? If they are lawyers, its the more stooopid of them.