\"\"

Frankly, while I did applaud the president of the Malaysian Senators Council (MSM), and I took the Dewan Negara president seriously, I am disappointed that they all spoke one way and acted differently. Lim Kit Siang labelled this discrepancy a “wayang kulit” . I call it a lack of integrity. Or, what is called the integrity gap between walk and talk.

My complaint is that the National Security Council (NSC) Bill is unconstitutional; in fact as described by some senators who spoke in the Dewan Negara. Therefore, those who spoke are frauds for “appealing for the bill to be realigned with the federal constitution”. Why not call it unconstitutional because it violates Article 4 (1). Period.

The insecurity phenomenon

I am therefore ashamed of the incongruous conduct of senators in Parliament who voted to approve the bill. Nevertheless, it also demonstrates real fear for truth-seeking and truth-making in our most August Upper House. Why? Is it really because only idiocrats are appointed to these posts?

Why then is current Malaysian political leadership so insecure about their welfare and well-being? Did we not grow up in an excellent country? Do we now have any serious doubts about our culture, environment, and rule of law? What really is our deepest anxiety, angst, or fear? Is it human, or spiritual, or simply material? Or, more truthfully is it merely political, and therefore, we are creating a rule by law state by default of that fear?

My three reasons

First and foremost, I want to ask why there is no preamble to this bill. Usually called, ‘prayers’, in any bill tabled in Parliament, such a preamble included in the bill is necessary to state the reason for the bill.

Some military friends of mine have argued that “the real reason for the bill is the trouble in Sabah”. I can and am willing to buy into this argument, but please simply make the preamble explicit; so that all ordinary Malaysians can understand the underlying reason for this insecure feeling.

Actually, at a briefing I attended, organised by the National Human Rights Society (Hakam), there were two retired Appeal Court Judges and one spoke up expressing a similar concern, after a prominent constitutional lawyer made his entire argument for the unconstitutionality of this bill. In both their mind and hearts, there is no doubt at all that this bill may have an unstated silent but political intent ‘to secure what is insecure’, when the right time comes. That may explain why there is no ‘prayer’ for this bill.

Secondly, the other obvious and telling truth is the issue and concern as to why the bill is being tabled without a requisite two thirds majority, and why such haste when security is a federal matter but includes all states? Why cannot we get the entire House involved in fully in discussing and thereby amending the federal constitution if there is really an important national security reason? Does not national security require citizens also all on board?

In fact the bill should have been tabled under either Article 149 or 150; because then it would have required both the Conference of Rulers (including the four governors) and the Agong to concur with the new legislation. The Article 149 and 150 appears distinctly under a different sub-section of the constitution labelled:

ART XI SPECIAL POWERS AGAINST SUBVERSION, ORGANISED VIOLENCE, AND ACTS AND CRIMES PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC AND EMERGENCY POWERS

If national security has a new meaning, outside of the above, should these words not be amended instead of the infusion of further confusion into the interpretation of our federal constitution?

My third objection is that the bill was instead tabled under Article 74 of the federal constitution. This Article sub-section VI is labelled ‘Relations between Federation and the States’.

Therefore, my even more serious question is: Was the Conference of Rulers briefed about this bill which seeks to revise the current quality and ‘boundary of relations’ between the federation and all the states; while equating Sabah and Sarawak to the other 11 states?

My related question is why have the framers deployed the above sub-section and not used an earlier sub-section if their real intent was ‘redefining what the constitution calls, ‘Public Services’ in Sub Section X.

Are we secretly therefore trying to create a new multi-force public service regime with unlimited powers but reporting only to the prime minister? Are we serious that the chief of Armed Forces and the inspector-general of police then report directly to the PM, as if we are under Emergency conditions, and not under the federal constitution?

Is not the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces under whose command all military officers are also commissioned, and therefore serve under Article 37 of the constitution? Will they instead then take orders from some other civilian for any external threats, unless an Emergency is declared? Am I therefore wrong to call this the ‘Insecurity Bill’?

A simplistic but naughty reading of the bill creates and implies a new multi-force regime structure which only reports to the Umno prime minister of Malaysia? Is this then a newer version of a different kind of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’?

Former law minister’s concerns

‘Zaid Ibrahim’s prophecy of doom for Malaysia’, like with Syria, was the lead story for a concern expressed by the former Umno minister, who has made it his agenda to reform laws and correct norms of injustice in Malaysia. But then, he too lost his job; and it appears Umno does not like to hear any truths about such matters.

Is Zaid Ibrahim, owner of one the largest Malay legal firms in Malaysia, simply mistaken about life and issues regarding poor governance in Malaysia? Or, is his version too close to truth matters that there is a small section of extreme people in Malaysia who want to see him politically dead.

I think Zaid Ibrahim is as Malaysian as I am. His book, ‘I, too, am Malay’ declares this truth. He believes in our great nation and our full potential for greatness and excellence. He chose his life of legal service and then became a key player in Umno and later made a law minister by PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah).

He therefore reached his pinnacle of such legal service, as law minister, but he also had to deal with embedded multi-force public service appointees who were cowed to the inherent power systems. He was then ousted for political reasons.

I believe Zaid Ibrahim stands for truth matters, and I consider him a brother Malaysian with whom I can easily stand side by side to defend and protect our nation and our traditional values. There are many other middle and moderate Malaysians who I would consider in the same category, but most of whom have not made public their life views about all such issues and concerns.

It is time for all Moderate Middle Malaysians (3M) to stand up and be counted. All of us who attended the NSC Bill briefing, with only one exception, have stated our stand to protect and preserve Malaysian traditional values that shaped, formed, and framed this country. We will not let thieves and robbers rob us of our sovereign dignity.