Photo show the two books containing essays on the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia. A sequel to them would be most welcoming, says the columnist.
TWO books containing essays on the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia are available. Subject to corrections, there has been no sequel to these publications. I wish there would appear soon another volume. Why? There have been a number of important constitutional issues that have occurred in the country since the completion of the book entitled ‘The Constitution of Malaysia – Further Perspectives and Developments’, which was published by the Oxford University Press (OUP) in 1986.
It was edited by two prominent lawyers, Prof Francis Trindade and Dr PH Lee, of the Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
The other book published earlier by the OUP (1978) is called ‘The Constitution of Malaysia – Its Development: 1957-1977’. It was jointly edited by Tun Mohamed Suffian, former President of the Federal Court of Malaysia, with the two lecturers in Law of the same Australian university.
It contains essays covering events having constitutional law relevance during the Malayan Independence (1957, plus six years of events at pre-formation of Malaysia).
The second volume covers the period between 1978 and 1986.
What about the period from 1986 up to now? It’s a long period of time in the history of Malaysia during which, a number of important events having relevance and relation to the constitution have taken place but not yet written about in a book on constitution.
A need for the third volume
The third book containing essays written by the present generation of lawyers on the various developments in the life of the Constitution since the completion of the second volume would be of great interest indeed, not only to the legal fraternity but also to the laymen and the laywomen who wish to follow the talks on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and other related constitutional issues up to the present time.
Ordinary citizens should have access to opinions of lawyers writing about events that have had direct or indirect relevance to the Constitution, as amended from time to time, and which have therefore, impacted on their lives and indeed their future in the country.
Any fresh perspective would be a great help to those in Malaysia who wish to understand why events had happened as they did.
For instance, why was it necessary in 1976 for the Members of Parliament from Sarawak and Sabah to approve the amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution? The amendment has the effect of changing the wording of that Article and this is believed to be affecting the state rights. This is concerning to the present generation of Malaysia in Sarawak and Sabah.
Those readers who are not familiar with the Malaysian Constitution may like to compare the two versions of the wording of the same provision of the same Constitution.
BEFORE Aug 27, 1976: Article 1(2) used to read like this: “The States of the Federation shall be —
a) The States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu, and;
b) The Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak, and;
c) The State of Singapore.
EFFECTIVE from Aug 27, 1976, Article 1(2) of same Constitution (valid as at March 1, 2017), reads as: “The States of the Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu.”
Spot the difference?
How will the Article be worded, do you think, should the Special Council on Malaysia 1963 recommend that this article of the Constitution be amended?
I’m unable to speculate.
The amendment to Article 1(2) of the Constitution in 1976 is one among several provisions of the constitution that has been blamed for the erosion of Sarawak’s rights.
Is it really the culprit? This is where opinions of lawyers of constitutional law may be of great help to clarify the most likely position. We need second, even third opinion of legal experts before we could resort to the courts. Many people even question the legality and the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1973 itself and, by implication, the very existence of Malaysia. Technically.
The surrender of rights by Sarawak and also by Sabah in respect of their oil and petroleum as the result of the coming into operation of the Petroleum Act 1974; the rationale for the abolition of local government elections in November 1981; the effects of the Territorial Act 2012, to name three important laws – all these are considered as acts that have seriously eroded state rights. There are several other issues relating to devolution of powers or of alleged failure of the federal government to honour the promises and assurances made 57 years ago by the founders of the Federation of Malaysia; all these are among the most talked about issues for the past 30 years.
The sooner answers to them are found, the better it would be.
What better commentators than the legal eagles to have a dig at these issues? These would be additional to the perspectives by social and political scientists looking at events from 1963 to 1988.
Recommended reading
I have not got permission to quote any extract from any essay in either book.
However, I do recommend that Malaysians in the peninsula and in Borneo read and pay particular attention to the articles written by former attorney-general of Sabah Datuk Nicholas Fung Ngit Chung, and former attorney-general of Sarawak Tan Sri Datuk Amar Mohamad Jemuri Serjan. They both dealt with the constitutional position of their respective states.
Read them in the second book ‘The Constitution of Malaysia – Further Perspectives and Developments’.
The first book contains essays encompassing a period of 20 years including six years into the life of Malaysia.
Obviously, not about events inclusive of those in Sarawak and Sabah for the 40 years, but equally of immense educational value to Malaysians.
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].