I am a perpetual student of Malaysian constitutional law and its practices or otherwise. My favourite reference book for the subject is still Shad Saleem Faruqi’s Document of Destiny ; apart from the constitution itself.
I also agree with his original thesis that the book can help students expound constitutional provisions and case law precedents which help determine and define the destiny of this nation-state. The document defines and explores constitutional parameters of all authority and power for all institutions within our constitutional democracy of Malaysia. The constitution further declares itself as the supreme law of the federation.
Now, my issue of concern in this column is The Sun ’s headline, which declared that the Rulers Council is the one who rejected the cabinet decision of 2009 regarding unilateral conversions. If this is true, my only question then is: does the Conference of Rulers have such an authority and jurisdiction for this judgment call?
For me, the answer to that question lies not merely in the constitution but also within the precedent sets of laws including Federal Court decisions; but, all these must still be fully compliant with the provisions of the supreme law of this nation-state.
To therefore understand the limits upon the Conference of Rulers of this matter, I referred to Shad Faruqi’s book as a reference.
Chapter 29 of the book on the Conference of Rulers somewhat clearly defines the discretion and limits of this institution in Malaysia; as still defined by this supreme law of the federation.
The law explicitly states and disallows constitutional amendments without their agreement on matters only related to the position of rulers and the alteration of state boundaries.
On the other hand, when it refers to itself about the interpretation of words and phrases in the constitution, it clearly sates the following:
Act 388
INTERPRETATION ACTS
1948 AND 1967
Grammatical variations, gender and number
4. (1) Where any word or expression is defined in a written law,
the definition shall extend to all grammatical variations and cognate
expressions of the word or expression so defined.
(2) Words and expressions importing the masculine gender include
females.
(3) Words and expressions in the singular include the plural,
and words and expressions in the plural include the singular.
Now, when we piece the two together, I would conclude that the Conference of Rulers has little or no jurisdiction over the specific matter for the following reasons:
1. The rulers are each only head of religion of their own Malay states, and they do not act for the federation, as a whole. Even the Agong, is not head per se, as per his constituent state, but symbolically head of Islam in the Federal Territories and the two Straits Settlements.
2. The subject or content of the issue at hand is the interpretation about who is a parent, and whether this definition can be arbitrarily constituted wily nily as preferred?
3. Moreover the Interpretation Act is clear on this definition and there are many other laws and case precedents about the singularity or otherwise of the definition of the term parent.
Questions for the rulers
Therefore, my questions to the Conference of Rulers are:
- Did you give an official interpretation of this term, and if so, why did you do it and under which constitutional provision did you all do it?
- Does your jurisdiction about Islamic jurisprudence extend to those of the federation as a complete entity, or is it only limited to the states of the Malay peninsula?
- Can even the Agong unilaterally interpret the federal constitution independently of the Interpretation Act?
- Does not the constitution say of herself that “the constitution is the supreme law of the federation?”
- Does not the same constitution define and confine the role and jurisdiction of the Conference of Rulers? Is that not why you are called constitutional monarchs?
- Does not Article 3 & 11 say explicitly that Islam is the religion of the federation and that all other religions are allowed to be practiced? Do they not protect and preserve non-Muslim faiths as well?
- Does not the word, the religion exclude the word official and do you not consider that the drafters knew why they created that limiting condition? If it is not official religion, can we now give it an official status, even to the abuse of the two other members of the federation; especially the states of Sabah and Sarawak?
- Does not the same article implicitly promise that the Conference of Rulers will protect and preserve the equal rights of the non-Muslim religions?
- Does not that require the Conference of Rulers to understand and appreciate the role of the non-Muslim mothers in this instance and case-story? Can their rights be consequently denied by the Conference of Rulers, by a limiting interpretation which may also be unconstitutional?
Therefore also, before we get all twisted and worked up over the Office of the Papal Ambassador to Malaysia, now that even the foreign minister has weighed in on this subject of inter-faith discourse in Malaysia, maybe we should all understand that even within the Papal hierarchy, the Papal Office is obliged to understand and preserve the interests of all Catholics worldwide, even as the Rulers Conference is responsible to protect and preserve the rights and privileges of the Malay Muslims of the peninsular?
But, both must also seek to preserve the faith of the others, as well.
Maybe, we as Malaysians need to first understand the history of our federal constitution and then the history and the role of faith preservation in this nation-state, and only consequently seek the application of faith principles within this nation-state for truth, honesty and justice.
Can we also understand that all faith is a personal and deeply spiritual matter which no other soul can interpret and interfere within our own lives? May God help all Malaysians understand real faith in a real God out there.
