Dangerous word game violates MA63
Published on: Sun, Jul 27, 2025 Text Size: Declaring the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Federal Constitution as the Authoritative is a Backdoor Amendment — and that's tantamount to unconstitutional THERE is nothing wrong with loving Bahasa Malaysia. But there is everything wrong with using language to quietly change the meaning of the Constitution. The recent proposal to declare the Bahasa Malaysia (BM) version of the Federal Constitution as the 'authoritative text' may appear harmless or symbolic. It is not. It amounts to a backdoor constitutional amendment — one that risks overriding decades of legal precedent, reshaping fundamental rights, and violating the special safeguards promised to Sabah and Sarawak in 1963. Translation Is Not Neutral — It Shapes the Law Malaysia's Constitution was drafted in English by the Reid Commission and adopted in 1957. Every clause, word, and phrase reflects legal concepts from the common law tradition. The BM version, while official, is still a translation — not a legal twin. Article 160B of the Constitution allows the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare the BM version of the Constitution as 'authoritative.' However, this must be read in harmony with other constitutional provisions. Declaring a different-language version legally authoritative changes the words by which the Constitution is interpreted. That shift is not merely linguistic — it is legal. Here, it is important to clarify - is a declaration under Article 160B a law or an administrative act? Articles 159 and 161E apply to constitutional amendments and legal changes, not mere administrative declarations. However, if the effect of declaring the BM version as authoritative is to alter how rights are interpreted or protected, then it must be treated as a legal amendment — regardless of form. Otherwise, it would allow circumvention of constitutional safeguards through executive discretion. Regardless of whether Article 160B is exercised administratively, its legal effects must comply with the Constitution's substantive limits. The courts have long held that constitutional compliance is determined by outcome, not form. Importantly, Article 160B was introduced in 1971 through Act A514. Hansard records from that period make clear that the provision was intended to affirm the BM version as authoritative only after a careful process of harmonisation with the English version. The legislative intent was never to permit divergence in meaning, but rather to ensure that both versions align. Declaring the BM text authoritative without resolving inconsistencies would create a parallel text capable of altering constitutional meaning through linguistic drift. One Parent or Both? The Real Consequences Article 12(4) of the Constitution states that the religion of a minor shall be determined by 'his parent or guardian.' In English, 'parent' was interpreted by the Federal Court in Indira Gandhi (2018) to mean both parents must consent. The BM version says 'ibu atau bapanya' ('mother or father'), suggesting one parent may act unilaterally. If the BM version becomes authoritative, this change in wording could allow unilateral conversion of children to Islam without both parents' consent. That is a major shift — one which cannot be made without proper constitutional amendment. For Sabah and Sarawak, This Isn't Just a Legal Shift — It's a Constitutional Breach When Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), they did so with express constitutional safeguards, especially in matters of religion, language, and autonomy. These safeguards are found in the Constitution: Article 161E(2)(d) Requires consent of Sabah and Sarawak for any amendment that affects the religion of the State.
If the BM version alters the understanding of conversion of minors, it directly interferes with religious rights. Article 161E(2)(d) Requires consent for any amendment that affects the language in use in the State.
English is still used officially in Sarawak and arguably in Sabah. Declaring the BM version authoritative displaces English as the legal baseline — which triggers this clause. Article 161E(2) Requires consent for any amendment affecting the operation of the Constitution in those States.
Changing the authoritative text changes how the Constitution is interpreted and enforced. This clause covers not just the content of the Constitution, but its application in practice, which reinforces that such a declaration affects operational law. These Articles show that consent is not a formality. It is a legal safeguard. To bypass it is to breach the Federal Constitution. Legal Chaos, Constitutional Drift If courts are forced to choose between the BM and English texts, precedents like Indira Gandhi could be revisited. This move invites confusion over fundamental rights, undermines legal certainty, and erodes public confidence in constitutional protections. A History We Must Not Forget Sabah and Sarawak were not absorbed into Malaysia — they co-founded it. Their agreement to join was conditional upon express guarantees, including the continued use of English and protections for religious freedom. To change the terms of that understanding through translation — not legislation — is to violate the spirit and letter of MA63. Article 160B Is Not a Blank Cheque Yes, Article 160B gives the Agong discretion to declare the BM version authoritative. But that discretion must be exercised within constitutional limits. It cannot override Articles 161E, 159, or 4(1) (the supremacy clause). You cannot change the legal operation of fundamental rights by simply changing the language used to describe them. That would amount to amending the Constitution without using the amendment process. What Must Happen Before any BM version is declared authoritative: Disclose all discrepancies between the English and BM texts for public review; Obtain consent from Sabah and Sarawak as required by Articles 161E(1), 161E(2)(c), and 161E(2)(d); Use the amendment procedure under Article 159 if substantive legal changes occur; Establish a Constitutional Harmonisation Commission to conduct a line-by-line reconciliation of both versions of the Constitution, ensuring consistency of meaning. This Commission should include judicial and constitutional experts from all regions, including Sabah and Sarawak. Until then, the English version must remain authoritative — not because it is in English, but because it is legally and constitutionally valid. Don't Change the Constitution Without Saying So If this move proceeds without proper process and consent, it sets a chilling precedent - that the Constitution can be changed by translation, not legislation. Language can unite a country — or unmake its laws. We must not allow a quiet switch of wording to transform the rights of millions, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. To do so without consent is not just unconstitutional. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Sosma amendments should prioritise legal access and timely hearings, say experts
KUALA LUMPUR: As the government enters the final stages of reviewing the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), a former Suhakam commissioner has identified key areas he hopes will be addressed during upcoming stakeholder consultations. Ragunath Kesavan said amendments should prioritise enhanced legal safeguards for detainees, including guaranteed access to legal counsel, the option of bail, and improved trial conditions. He also urged the government to shorten the extended remand periods currently permitted under Sosma and to ensure that hearings proceed without unnecessary delays. In addition, he stressed the need to strengthen procedural integrity to prevent abuse and ensure the law aligns more closely with the Criminal Procedure Code. The government recently announced it would hold engagement sessions with key stakeholders, including the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), as part of the review process. Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Andrew Khoo called on the government to disclose its proposed amendments early, along with the rationale and justification for each proposed change. He also stressed the need for meaningful and substantive stakeholder engagement before the Bill is tabled in Parliament, warning against superficial consultations that amount to little more than a "tick-the-box" exercise. Ultimately, Khoo believes the law should be repealed in its entirety, citing reported abuses such as denying detainees access to legal counsel and prolonged delays in bringing cases to trial. On July 29, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the ministry planned to amend Sosma following sustained calls from rights groups for its review or repeal. The ministry intends to present the proposed amendments in Parliament, pending Cabinet approval. Saifuddin said 73 offences under the law had been identified and reviewed to ensure its implementation was consistent with the Federal Constitution, Malaysia's international obligations, and the principle of due process of law.
New Straits Times
5 hours ago
- New Straits Times
A year after Southport attack, Britain tackles youth knife crime crisis
A year after one of Britain's most harrowing knife attacks, the government is urging young people to drop off bladed weapons at "amnesty" bins or mobile vans in a month-long campaign - part of efforts to control knife-related violence, particularly when it involves youths. On July 29, 2024, teenager Axel Rudakubana, who was obsessed with violence and genocide, attacked a Taylor Swift-themed children's dance event in the northern English town of Southport, killing three girls and stabbing 10 other people. Since then, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government has pledged tougher age checks for knife buyers, warned social media firms they could face fines for failing to curb sales and promotion of weapons, and banned zombie-style knives and ninja swords. Starmer launched a coalition in September last year aimed at tackling youth knife crime. Actor and anti-knife campaigner Idris Elba joined the conversation at a meeting this month, alongside King Charles. Charities and experts interviewed by Reuters call the government's efforts a step forward but say they largely fail to address the root causes. Some charities involved in classes and workshops aimed at young people are urging the government to make such education part of the national curriculum. Overall, knife crime in England and Wales has risen 87 per cent over the past decade, with 54,587 offences last year alone, a two per cent rise from 2023 and among the highest rates in Europe, figures from Britain's interior ministry show. Data from the justice ministry showed that in the year to March 2024 there were just over 3,200 knife or offensive weapon offences committed by children (aged 10-17) resulting in a caution or sentence. Of the 262 people killed with a knife or sharp object in the 12 months to March 2024, 57 were under 25. Kitchen knives were the most commonly used weapons. A public inquiry into the Southport murders that opened this month will begin by looking into the specifics of Rudakubana's case before a second phase examines the wider issue of children being drawn into violence, an increasing concern for British authorities. Amanda Marlow, from the youth charity Safety Centre, which runs knife crime awareness workshops in schools, says young people carry knives for a range of reasons. These include seeing it as a "quick fix" to make money when growing up in poverty, trying to gain status among peers, or being drawn into the wrong crowd, such as gangs, where they are often exploited. Some police forces have launched dedicated knife crime units. In the West Midlands, one of the country's worst-hit areas, the Guardian Taskforce focuses on reducing knife crime among under-25s. In June alone, officers patrolled for over 3,000 hours, carried out 366 stop-and-searches, and seized 57 knives or offensive weapons. After surviving the Southport stabbings, Leanne Lucas launched the "Let's Be Blunt" campaign, calling for safer, rounded-tip kitchen knives instead of pointed ones. Jade Levell, a researcher at the University of Bristol who studies masculinity, vulnerability and violence, said anti-knife crime efforts should focus on early intervention, such as mental health care, rather than short-term fixes like amnesty bins. "Some boys see their only option is to be afraid or to make others afraid of them," Levell said, referring to those growing up with violence, poverty or discrimination. Some 4.5 million children are growing up in poverty in the UK, according to charities. In 2023, about 1 in 5 children and young people aged 8 to 25 years had a probable mental disorder, according to the National Health Service. The government announced funding this month for hubs offering mental health and career support for young people at risk of gang involvement, violence or knife crime. The scheme, focused on high-risk areas, is starting with eight such centres and aims to have 50 open in the next four years. Amani Simpson, who survived being stabbed in 2011 believes societal pressures and some forms of entertainment such as violent video games also play a role in spawning knife crime. "Young people feel displaced and disengaged ... those things need to be uprooted," Simpson said after a talk at TCES North West London. "Hope for me is the missing piece," he said.
New Straits Times
8 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Feasibility study on human rights tribunal underway, says Kulasegaran
KUALA LUMPUR: The government has formally set up a feasibility study committee to explore the establishment of a Human Rights Tribunal in Malaysia, with findings expected to be finalised by October. Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform), M. Kulasegaran, said the Feasibility Study Committee on the Human Rights Tribunal (JKKTHAM) was established in June, following an initial meeting chaired by him on Nov 21, last year to discuss the proposal. He said five JKKTHAM meetings have been held, and the research team presented its preliminary findings to the committee earlier this month. These findings include the conceptual and theoretical framework, an analysis of existing human rights mechanisms in Malaysia, a comparative study of international practices, and a proposed model for a Malaysian Human Rights Tribunal. "A focus group discussion (FGD) involving stakeholders was held on July 17 in Kuala Lumpur and will be followed by zonal FGDs, including sessions in Sabah and Sarawak. "The proposal to establish a Human Rights Tribunal is part of the Madani government's institutional reform efforts, aimed at creating a body that provides a more accessible alternative mechanism for victims of human rights violations to seek justice," he said. He also assured that the establishment of the tribunal would be aligned with the Federal Constitution and would also take into account input from syariah (Islamic law). Kulasegaran said the committee is chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mah Weng Kwai and includes representatives from the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, Suhakam, the Malaysian Bar Council, academia, legal practitioners, relevant government agencies, and civil society organisations. He was responding to a question from Teresa Kok (PH–Seputeh) on the update of the establishment of the tribunal and how the government would ensure Suhakam's recommendations are enforced through the proposed tribunal, given that many human rights violations are also criminal offences. She also cited the case of Teoh Beng Hock, who died at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) premises and whose case was eventually marked as No Further Action, questioning whether his family could bring the matter to the tribunal once it is set up. Kulasegarran said the tribunal may serve as an alternative and accessible justice mechanism for victims of human rights violations, potentially hearing cases such as those involving Teoh Beng Hock, though the specific framework and jurisdiction are still under discussion. "I believe that cases involving human rights violations could fall within the scope of the tribunal once it is established. "However, it is still too early to say definitively, as the basic framework and parameters have yet to be finalised, which is why stakeholder engagement is ongoing. "But I concur with you that such matters can be investigated and further action can be taken, as is the practice in other countries with functioning human rights tribunals," he said. He added that they are also examining the implementation of Suhakam's recommendations or findings through the proposed Human Rights Tribunal, particularly in terms of feasibility and legal implications.
