In my last column , I communicated my undivided support for the central thesis of the Raja Nazrin 7-S Speech. He argued why the Federal Constitution is the central pillar of the multi-racial political entity we call Malaysia. He called upon all Malaysians to defend and promote the integrity of the constitution.

I also extended his argument as to why, without the constitution in its current form and structure, we cannot even have integration with integrity. Let me build on this central axiomatic argument even more to make the case both solid and concrete.

Two recent incidents in the public space over the last week make the need to understand and be aware of such an axiomatic role and imperative of upholding the uprightness of the constitution even more critical.

Before that, allow me to recognise and describe the best lesson I learned from working with International Trade and Industry Ministry (Miti) Rafidah Aziz while working in the ministry for about five years. Learning from Rafidah started first as a student of hers at the University of Malaya.

At Miti she always made us recognise the difference between the words \’playing a role\’ and \’assuming a role\’. She would not allow us to use the phrase memainkan peranan in any official text, but always insisted upon the use of memikul tanggungjawab/beban . What was the brilliance in this epistemological and etymological insistence? That one must always assume responsible roles and behavior in all public performances?\’

\"\"

You see she never wanted us to ever become reduced to wayang kulit performers but wanted us even in our mere words to accept responsibility for every word and action we proposed. Thank you Minister Rafidah for this excellent lesson; for there is already too much of a wayang kulit world out there!

Now back to my two cases. The first was the statement of frustration or maybe angst by former Attorney-General (AG) – and currently the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia – that he is \”surprised\” our Syariah court judges are not treated as equal to the judges of the federal civil system of the judiciary. I find his statement to be merely \’playing to role\’. How could the AG who master-minded the amendment of Article 121(1A) of the constitution not know the reasons for this discrepancy between the two judicial systems in the eyes of the federal legal system and under a federal constitutional system of governance?

Federalism is not a new science or a new idea. We became a federation in the copy of the American system especially because we saw the \’problems\’ arising from a unitary British system, from which most other non-federated countries still suffer. Therefore, based on the already crafted Indian-model constitution, we crafted ours after much thought and with no less than the most brilliant of minds.

Questioning their intelligence and integrity shows that the former AG lacks credibility, wisdom and honesty. I may be out of my turn here, as I am not a constitutional lawyer or professor of law, but merely a student of our unique constitutional system of governance.

Theory of organisations

My argument is based almost solely and entirely on the systems theory of organisations. This theory of organisational life evolved out of studying the organic view of life, from natural and mechanical systems around us.

Under this theory, there is a hierarchy of systems in all types of organisations; whether organic or mechanical systems. All systems, by definition, therefore have inputs, processes and outputs with a feedback loop; and a boundary which defines its outer limits of control. Organic systems can be thought of as comprising small fractal systems to larger supra systems; with the sky being the limit.

\"\"

So, for example, the Federation of Malaysia is made up of three distinct, different and unique subs-systems called Peninsular Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. These are not fractal sub-systems of the larger federation; but as in the US or in India, a federation of different and unique states. The three entities are each components of three independent sociologies with different histories and geographies that have come together to make up the Federation of Malaysia since 1963.

Malaysia therefore did not exist before Malaysia Day of Sept 16,1963, when it had four components and equal partners. Two years later, Singapore became an independent state to join the community of the United Nations; with much gratitude for the concerns of Peninsular Malaya\’s self-interest and interest in self-preservation.

The nation-state that remained continued to be called Malaysia. Technically, if Singapore had objected to our name and deformation of Malaysia then, we may even have had to change the name, as their membership was part and parcel of the making of Malaysia!

This Malaysian nation is a federal entity and will always be one. Federalism ensures that the whole always is greater than the sum of the parts. While the component parts are legitimate entities in their own right; their existence and continued sustainability are always a function of the Federal Constitution and her rules of both construction and sustenance.

Under this federal system of governance pre-agreed to both in 1957 (between the original states and ethnic entities of the peninsula) and then again legally voted upon by the two states of Sabah and Sarawak to join the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, the Federal Constitution is our only legal and civil (and rational) basis of federal governance.

Even the Rulers\’ Council came into existence as a direct result of the Federal Constitutional construction of Malaysia. If there is no Federal Constitution, there cannot be either a Malaysian nation-state or a Rulers\’ Council or even a federal system of judiciary which explicitly recognises the High Courts of Sabah and Sarawak, but not the Syariah high courts. Why? Is it really a new magic show?

\"\"

If the former AG is so smart, should he not have advised the prime minister of this, especially in relation to the full implications of the back-door way of amending the Federal Constitution to resolve particular issues related to the practice of Islam for personal and family law? He is on record as stating that the explicit intentions of that amendment should be limited to Islamic family and personal law. So, why is he now trying to further impose Islamic family law issues and construction from a state-based system into a federal-based system, again by the back-door?

Is he not aware where the limitations and jurisdiction of state institutions lie in our federal-state relations? Is not the federal system of jurisprudence based on the civil system already enshrined in our federal system of constitutional governance? Where is there a basis to treat any of the state institutions as federal ones under our current system of federalism? Why shouldn\’t Malaysian high commissioners and ambassadors also be appointed form state administrators, instead of federal officers?

The former dean of the Harvard Law School wrote a book entitled \’The Death of Common Sense\’. I suggest that the former AG takes the time to read it and also become a good student of the Rafidah school of \’do not play a role, assume it\’.

New battle cry

My next concern relates to the case of rubber tapper P Marimuthu from Ulu Yam, whose six children and wife have been separated from him. Here is another case of how a husband and father assumed a role but others have presumed that they know better.

This case is really pathetic, and I really think it is time for the government of Minister Rafidah to assume its role as guardians of the constitutional monarchy and constitutional democracy, as argued by the Regent of Perak. Enough is enough!

My battle-cry, starting with this blatant abuse of human rights under the Malaysian constitutional sun, is that we obviously need a newer form of governance. If the elected government with more than 90 percent support of the people cannot defend their basic human and fundamental human rights as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and the UN human rights conventions, it is time to consider an alternative government.

\"\"

Therefore, I am going to start encouraging all civil minded and rational citizens to begin to ponder why we should again give our vote to the Barisan Nasional. At least begin to ask your wayang kulit MPs and state assembly representatives who close one eye and speak with a forked tongue, to show case as to why we should vote for them in the next general election? What is their unique value proposition? Why should we vote gain for them? Where is the governance of excellence, brilliance and exceptionalism?

These are empty words when a family is removed from a man who claims he and his wife are Hindus, married under Hindu rites and have had three children under the same framework. Suddently the Religious Department comes into their house and removes the wife and children from the husband and father, under some notion that the woman is a Muslim. She claims not to practice Islam any more but obviously, that is not good enough.

The state jurisdiction of Islam has prevailed over the basic human rights of the man, his wife and the children. The government is fast losing credibility and soon enough, its integrity too, if it does not figure out a way of dealing with the protection, preservation and promotion of the integrity of the constitution and its construction.

To me, the slippery slope is just around the corner and we are in danger of tripping and falling over one of these issues. At the crux of all these is the issue of the dignity and destiny of what it means to be a human being.

\"\"

To quote the Perak Regent under the 4th S: \”Enforced solutions must be avoided. Nation building is effectively rendered null and void by coercion or the threat of violence. Might cannot and must not be shown to right. If solutions cannot be found within political and social structures, there will be a strong temptation to resort to illegitimate ways and means.\”

Need more be said? I think Raja Nazrin has crafted these ideas exceptionally well. We would do well to heed his advice. And here I include the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi – hear the words of warning and caution of the wise Regent!