On Wednesday last week, I received an SMS from my brother-in-law and one of my theological guides, which simply requested me to see the headlines of the New Straits Times , with the words: \”it is everything you have been saying!\”

The specific content of this excitement was the 7-S theory of Integration with Integrity which The Regent of Perak Raja Nazrin\’s keynote outlined at the Roundtable of Young Malaysians organized by the Bar Council and ASLI.

And the NST, rather cleverly framed the summary into the number seven for their front page headlines.

Within it they summarized the seven steps to Integration with Integrity which the Perak royal outlined.

Truth be told, Raja Nazrin neither called it the 7-S or Integration with Integrity; these are merely my labels.

The more famous 7-S framework was popularised by McKinsey as an analytical model for most problem situations.

And, Integration with Integrity is my pet solution for what is wrong with Malaysia today.

Raja Nazrin\’s analysis via the keynote did both, highlight the key problems with Malaysia today and framed them into the seven key steps to overcome them.

One newspaper even credited the 7-S to become another icon of the same quality and vintage along the Rukunegara and Vision 2020.

Allow me therefore to revisit each of the 7 steps via the next few weeks since they fit almost exactly into my resolutions for the core problems facing Malaysia today.

\"\"

Place for all

The Nazrin first step proposed (the full text has since been carried by the Sun and malaysiakini ) was: \”Malaysians of all races, religions and geographic locations need to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have a place under the Malaysian sun.

\”Only when each citizen believes that he or she has a common destiny, will he or she make the sacrifices needed for the long haul. In Malaysia, the federal constitution, the Rukun Negara and Vision 2020 encapsulate the rights, hopes, and aspirations of the people in a way no other documents do.

\”The integrity of these documents must be defended and promoted, especially the first.\”

The NST even highlighted in red the last sentence of this paragraph in their headlines for effect. This thesis was what, I believe, my brother-in-law was excited about.

I have hitherto written about my pet \”Theory R\” which deals with Integration with Integrity.

It is a theory related to good and excellent corporate governance of any organisational system, based on my doctoral studies.

It is argues that managers or stewards of all organisational systems must always do the right things, in the right way and with a right attitude.

Now, can my theory be developed and applied to our nation-state system in the light of Raja Nazrin\’s edict to defend and promote the integrity of the federal constitution?

I believe that is exactly where we need to start. Our integrity as a nation-state begins and falls in our defense, promotion and protection of the federal constitution. It could not be articulated any better than did the royal.

It sounds even sweeter coming from the Regent of Perak and the son of the former Lord President of Malaysia and ex-King of Malaysia.

Therefore, the clarion call is for every Malaysian to defend the federal constitution and continue to \”believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have a place under the Malaysian sun.\”

I had many years ago, while writing a column in the NST, argued why I believed that I was a first class Malaysian citizen; second to none, having been trained at the RMC and having served as a public servant.

But, this reminder by the Regent of Perak is even better; he has asked every young post-Malaysian born citizen regardless of training or background, to regard themselves as having an \”equal place under the Malaysian sun!

My refrain is that we can become a Bangsa Malaysia; the vision embodied in the Vision 2020, after all.

Now, what could be better music than that for every Malaysian under the age of 44 who knows no better?

In fact, every American new citizen I know feels exactly that way beneath their American sun!

In fact, a very good friend and gynecologist describes his brother\’s new found commitment and loyalty as an American citizen in exactly these terms: \”within a short span of less than 10 years, he speaks and defends America, as if he was born there.\”

That is true nationalism. Such nationalism is necessary even for 200 year old America; why not even more for a young 44 year old nation.

What is the right thing?

What then is my Theory R\’s right thing, premised upon our federal constitution and the due process of democratic governance under our current system of common and civil jurisprudence?

The right thing is always to sustain the original integrity and charter of the Malaysian federal constitution.

This point is foundational and a preamble for our Malaysian meaning of Merdeka!

With due respects to all concerned, the Sabahans and the Sarawakians who are above 44 do not understand or appreciate the Tunku\’s Merdeka cheer the way we do! Please do not expect them to.

The new meaning of Merdeka must therefore move away from that of the Alliance generation of Peninsular Malaya, to include all below 44s of the Malaysian BN-type governance generation and must especially include the thoughts and feelings of all Sabahans and Sarawakians.

That is where, the other two portions of the Theory R notions of the right way and with the right attitude define the right thing.

The federal constitution is the new social and legal contract for Malaysia as a new nation-state born since 1963.

We, the Malayans, do not have the privilege of simply claiming to be \”big brothers\” to the Sabahans and Sarawakians.

In other words, the attitude of \’Ketuanan Melayu\’ of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu days have no more moral legitimacy in the context of the new Malaysia of 1963.

The Sabahans and Sarawakians voted to join Malaya to become Malaysia with Singapore. Even if coerced or cajoled, they made a distinct choice to become part of new Malaysia.

The only living and transcendent proof of that is the federal constitution (pre-defined by both the Cobbald and Reid Commissions) which now clearly defines that social and legal contract.

If the Peninsular Malayans choose to violate the spirit of that original agreement, our Sarawakian and Sabahan brothers and sisters have the legitimate and legal right to question the integrity of our transcendental social and legal contract.

Therefore, I would like to agree with malaysiakini columnist, Azly Abdul Rahman that all the below 44-year old Malaysians must now be considered new bumiputeras.

All of them have equal access and rights to every single article in the Malaysian federal constitution.

Surely, an Indonesian migrant from Acheh who gets a new citizenship after the post-tsunami cannot be regarded as more of a bumiputera, than another three or four generation Malayan Chinese from Penang who is currently not even considered a bumiputera!

That is clearly unacceptable and lacks the integrity assured by the federal constitution and the promises of an equal place under the Malaysia sun.

The Subashini case

I would therefore want to specifically apply this integrity edict from the Regent of Perak directly to the Subashini case; as there are four clear, distinct, different and unique Malaysians involved, and each with their own human rights and dignity related issues.

This current federal case for review under the Malaysian judicial sun; is clearly a question related to the integrity of the federal constitution; and no one should take it too lightly.

Subashini, the Hindu mother of two children, ages 4 and 2 went to the Court of Appeal; the supreme and only common law jurisdiction in this country to seek redress against the husband of a Hindu marriage, who had subsequently decided to become a Muslim, and sought to convert the minors to Islam as well, and also sought to seek a divorce of his Hindu wife in a Syariah Court.

The Appellate Court with a majority decision ruled that it had no right to interfere and advised the Hindu wife to seek redress in the Syariah Court meant only for Muslims, and one enacted under state jurisdiction, as per the Federal-State lists and provisions.

The claim of the majority judges is that, in their interpretation, Article 121 (1A) does not give them jurisdiction in the case of Muslim family or personal matter.

Is this then our final judicial wisdom of our blind lady of common law justice?

Thankfully for the sake the integrity of our federal constitution, the same Court of Appeal later gave a stay of execution to Subashini lawyers, so that all her fundamental and human rights under the civil and federal law can be equally and fully preserved vide a Federal Court review of the legal parameters of this case.

That constitutional hearing is now fixed for May in the Federal Court.

As Raja Nazrin has argued so poignantly, \”the integrity of the federal constitution must be defended and promoted for the benefit of every Malaysian under our sun. He was referring to every single able bodied Malaysian of presumably the pre-44 age given that he was addressing young Malaysians.

Questions, questions

My consequential question to the same majority judges of the Court of Appeal therefore is: what about the 50 percent rights of the non-Muslim Malaysian, in this case a Hindu wife of a Hindu marriage?

Do her rights before the federal and common law before our civil courts simple melt or disappear under the weight of the Muslim status of one half-partner in the marriage?

What about the rights of the children born to Hindu parents? What are their rights? Do our judges in fact have such absolute discretion to reinterpret the federal common law and jurisprudence any way they want?

Do they not swear to uphold the integrity of the federal constitution? Do they not view and review the federal constitution as our common law and social contract of 1957, and then a legal contract after 1963?

What are the implications if they do not uphold the federal constitution via their explicit and implied decisions?

What if they are abusing their federal jurisdictional authority and are in fact subverting it by the back-door through a subsidiary jurisdiction?

Can they not be impeached, under our federal laws and constitution? What is the due process of such an impeachment; given our rather sad history of the previous abuse of good faith on such a matter the last time?

What is the recourse for ordinary citizens like Subashini in the instance of irresponsible actions of a delinquent father and husband? Can our human right laws be so interpreted that they only apply to the male partner in a marriage?

Or, are our laws really so silent on the rights of women in this male-dominated world of Umno\’s politics so obviously intent on defining a kind of Malay male supremacy?

Can this pre-Malaysia attitude be pursued against the legitimate rights of all legally equal Malaysians under the same and common Malaysian federal constitutional sun?

To me, what was equally shocking was that the Minister of Woman and Family Affairs Shahrizat Abdul Jalil has also abandoned both the family institution and all women by a single stroke with her unwise comments. How shameful!

I feel she has betrayed both women and the institution of the family.

Maybe she should resign if she cannot remain a credible and able steward of this first ever ministerial appointment for a Woman and Family Affairs portfolio.

She is the minister of the federal cabinet set up under a federal written constitution which clearly states the limits of Islamic jurisprudence in matters specifically related to Muslim personal and family law.

The simple logic

In fact, why did not the husband first apply for the annulment of the marriage based on civil family law; the rules under which he was married?

The truth is that Syariah law cannot have effect on a Hindu marriage conducted based on a federal and civil family law.

You see, to my ordinary organisational mind, once married the family institution prevails over the both individuals and their off-springs. It cannot therefore become the sole right of one partner or even one child to annul the marriage or even seek to convert the off-springs or their parents by the back-door.

It is only western interpretations of individualised human rights that give total and absolute rights to one individual to do what they wish.

The community concerns is secondary in their worldview; but not so in the east.

Our common and family laws establish the sanctity of the family and their very existence; thereby reducing selfish and individualistic, irrational and uncivil behavior by either party in the marriage; and I believe the children as well.

The logic is very simple. If one enters by the front door of a Hindu marriage, the man or women in that same marriage must seek to exit by the laws of that same faith system.

In this specific case, the converted ex-Hindu husband even forgot that he even consulted the stars before the affixation of the marriage and fulfillment of the due ceremonies.

The \’omiprodhum\’ (the confluence of the two forms of times and individuals) of their marriage had the sanction of the gods, if you may.

Irresponsible judgment

Therefore, for two very human civil court officials (who appear to be Muslim by faith), after the fact, to declare the existence of yet a newer set of laws that transcend basic common law practice of an already consummated Hindu marriage is incredulous.

It in fact undermines the integrity of the federal constitution in favor of a, by definition, subsidiary enactment and state legislation.

Their actions question and challenge the integrity of the federal constitution, as the ruling system of federal governance; and therefore these need to be defended and promoted, as the good Regent said.

Symbolically, to me, like this Hindu marriage being dismantled under the cloudy and hazy Malaysian sun, our federal constitutionality is also being undermined by the personal choice and election of two irresponsible individuals (who are really agents of the private and not public interest) who forget their role and responsibilities of their earlier promises, oaths and commitments to carry out their incumbent duties thereafter without federal accountability to what has been already agreed to as right.

To me the two Court of Appeal judges behaved in exactly the same way as the irresponsible man and father in the marriage.

The judges in turn deny the federal constitution as the man willingly denies his earlier commitment and voluntary choice in seeking to destroy a consummated Hindu marriage, because he has now changed his heart and mind about his faith.

Let me remind him that all faith is made evident in actions as well as statements; but often actions speak louder than words. Surely, it is not the intent of Islam as a religion to become the framework for personal individual choice and recourse of irresponsible individuals; in their roles and duties in the public and common law spaces of life.

Therefore based on the right thing test, the ruling of the judges is manifestly wrong based on our federal constitutional jurisprudence and democratic system of governance.

We have to defend the integrity of our federal constitution; this issue involves all and every able-bodied Malaysian and we cannot deny this as our personal responsibility.

God bless Malaysia otherwise.