Latest news with #Yangdi-PertuanAgong
Daily Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Express
Dangerous word game violates MA63
Published on: Sunday, July 27, 2025 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]
Borneo Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- Borneo Post
Asserting the native privileges — Part II
MY article on native privileges, which was published last Sunday in this column, caused some controversy. Yes, there were several criticisms, but those were almost all constructive, and I am grateful for those comments. The main complaint was that I did not say about the privileges of the natives of Sarawak, in terms of privileges enshrined in the Federal Constitution. Yes, the omission of the provisions was deliberate: for lack of space. Today, I have copied out the relevant provisions of the Federal Constitution. I hope the readers (two from Miri, and four from Sibu) who complained about the 'missing link', would read the provisions of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, together with provisions of Article 39 of the Sarawak Constitution. No more missing link! It was good that some people noticed the omission. As I am not aware of any amendment to the provisions of Article 153, so we will proceed looking at those provisions without delay. Here goes! • The Constitution of Malaysia (as of 31st March 2017) ◦ Article: 153. Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak. 1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article. 2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40* and of this Article, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law to safeguard in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then subject to the provisions of that law and this article, of such permits and licences. [*Article 40 states 'Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on advice'; advice from the Cabinet or of a minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet]. 3) The Yang di Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any commission to which part X** applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions [**Part X- Article 132 – Public services]. 4) In exercising his functions under this constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him. 5) This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136 [*** This Article (136) is about impartial treatment of federal employees]. All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially. 6) Where by existing federal law a permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grants of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with such directions. 7) Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorize the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorize a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events. 8) Notwithstanding anything in this constitution, where by any federal law any permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation: (a) deprive or authorize the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him; or (b) authorize a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business any transferable licence to operate that business; or (c) where no permit or licence was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorize a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorize a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of the reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.(8A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where in any University, College and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the University, College or such educational institution to candidates for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable and the authority shall duly comply with the directions. 9) Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.(9A) In this Article the expression 'natives' in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A [Read clauses (6) and (7) of that Article 161A for yourself; it's about the definition of 'native'. Sorry, no space for the provisions in this column for today]. 10) The constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article. Quite a mouthful, isn't it? Do not let yourself be intimidated by the legal language. Useful for an aspiring MP to learn how to read a document couched in the legal verbosity. It would be useful for the reader to learn what the rest of Article 153 encompasses, and to compare those provisions with the provisions of Article 39 of the Constitution of Sarawak. The same question that I would ask of the federal government is similar to what I asked the Sarawak government to specify: the reservation of quotas for each racial group in Malaysia, including the natives of the state of Sarawak. Don't forget about the natives of Sarawak – thank you. * The opinions expressed in this article are the columnist's own and do not reflect the view of the newspaper.
The Star
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Star
Govt to study, engage political parties over PM's two-term limit proposal, says Azalina
KUALA LUMPUR: Putrajaya is studying a two-term limit for the Prime Minister post, says Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said. The Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) said this would include discussions with political parties nationwide. She added that a preliminary study report on the proposal had also been presented to the Cabinet on March 19. 'The government is always open and committed to examining any proposals involving improvements to the country's administrative and governance systems, including the proposal to limit the term of the Prime Minister to two parliamentary terms or a maximum of ten years. 'The Cabinet has acknowledged that this proposal involves amendments to the Federal Constitution and touches upon the discretionary powers of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong,' she said in a parliamentary written reply to Hassan Abdul Karim (PH-Pasir Gudang). Hassan had asked the government to state the when will it table the amendment of the Federal Constitution to limit the prime minister's term. Azalina said that the amendment requires a thorough and holistic review, including obtaining views and consent from various stakeholders such as state governments and political parties at both Federal and State levels. She added that the matters are also still being reviewed by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department (BHEUU JPM). In March, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said he agreed with a proposal to limit the tenure to 10 years. He highlighted the need for bipartisan support to secure a two-thirds parliamentary majority for constitutional amendments.
New Straits Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Beyond political theatre: Recognising the Auditor General's competence
LETTERS: It is both disappointing and ironic that, in a time when we should be celebrating the institutional strength of independent audit and accountability, the appointment of Auditor General Wan Suraya Wan Radzi has come under fire from some politicians, not for failing in her duties, but for excelling at them while refusing to play political cheerleader. To suggest that her appointment is "tainted" simply because she is a civil servant is both legally unfounded and ethically disingenuous. Article 105 of the Federal Constitution clearly provides for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint the Auditor General on the advice of the Prime Minister — after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. This process was duly followed. The idea that a civil servant, by default, lacks independence is an insult not only to her professionalism but to the integrity of the Malaysian Civil Service as a whole. In fact, the suggestion that only retirees are "independent" is laughable. Since when did age or retirement status become the gold standard for objectivity? Is independence defined by being out of service — or by having the strength to serve without fear or favour? Wan Suraya brings with her 29 years of administrative service, deep knowledge of government operations, and a track record unmarred by scandal. If anything, this positions her to understand — and scrutinise — government mechanisms with greater precision than someone parachuted in from outside with no institutional insight. As a communications professional, I must also highlight that this debate reflects a larger challenge — the erosion of ethics and integrity in public discourse. True communication isn't just about broadcasting opinions; it is about educating the public with context, accuracy, and respect for institutions. When we distort narratives for political mileage, we not only mislead the public but undermine trust in democratic processes. Ethical communication, especially in public service, must be upheld — not attacked — if we are to strengthen national confidence and civic understanding. And let's talk about this so-called "cheerleading" for Madani. If public servants attending a national event or sharing an official Facebook post constitutes propaganda, then we might as well shut down every government event since Merdeka. By that logic, any participation in public discourse becomes a conflict of interest. Perhaps next we'll be told that liking a post on workplace safety makes you unfit to investigate construction sites. Let us be clear: auditors are not monks, nor are they mute. Their duty is not to hide in a cave until summoned — it is to engage with governance, communicate transparently, and uphold public trust. Selective outrage over a social media post, or over a conflict of interest exemption that is both legitimate and previously exercised under certain contexts, reeks more of political theatre than constitutional concern. Instead of applauding the fact that the National Audit Department continues to produce thorough, timely reports, certain quarters would rather question the messenger — simply because the message is inconvenient. To the critics: if your goal is to discredit institutional integrity, do so with facts — not conjecture laced with sarcasm and double standards. And please, let's not pretend this is about transparency when it is clearly about politics. Malaysia doesn't need a silent Auditor General. It needs a courageous, competent, and constitutionally appointed one. And, fortunately, it has one.
Malaysiakini
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Lawsuit seeks to declare BM version of Constitution as authoritative text
Lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla has filed a lawsuit seeking a court declaration that the Malay version of the Federal Constitution is the authoritative text that should prevail over the English version if there is any inconsistency. He cited Article 160B of the Constitution stating that where the Constitution has been translated into Bahasa Malaysia, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may prescribe it to be the authoritative text.
