Below is a video clip containing excerpts of some of the presentations at the recently concluded Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia Roadshow in Ipoh. Many thanks to Victor Chin.
Prof Azmi Sharom appears from around minute 4.24 to a little after minute 6.
Round about minute 6 , you will catch Azmi confirming that in our Constitution, there is no such thing as Malay rights, but seemingly conceding that there are Malay privileges.
I just got off the phone with Azmi and he confirms that by ‘Malay privileges’, he had actually meant to refer to the ’special position’ of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak as provided for under Article 153 and which, in his presentation, he had, by reference to pronouncements of our earliest political leaders, confirmed was intended to be temporary.
So, no special Malay rights and no Malay privileges.
Let’s look at two constitutional provisions to try and appreciate the difference between a constitutional conferment of a right and the ’special position’ provision of Article 153.
Article 10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association.
(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) -
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.
Article 11. Freedom of religion.
(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.
The constitution does not pussyfoot when it confers rights.
It says it like it is.
No room for guessing.
Article 153. Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.
No rights conferred.
Only a duty on the Agong to reserve such proportion as he may deem reasonable of those matters highlighted in green to safeguard that special position.
What if, in the reasonable opinion of the Agong, it is no longer necessary to reserve quotas of those matters highlighted in green for the Malays or the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and therefore no reservations are made?
Can any of these interested parties sue to compel the making of these reservations?
No.
Why?
Article 153, unlike the other two Articles mentioned earlier, does not confer any enforceable right.
Malaysianinsider today, in reference to PERKASA’a and Ibrahim Ali’s shenanigans, quotes Prof Aziz Bari as saying that “…Malay rights have always been outlined, stated and guaranteed clearly by the Federal Constitution. I don’t see any logic in Perkasa’s rhetoric about protecting the Malays. The constitution has already provided a space for Malay rights, and it is never challenged…” and that Prof Aziz had gone on to say that the “Malays have never been in danger of losing their rights or position as the legal provision for that cannot be amended”.
Let’s take the last point attributed to Prof Aziz first.
Article 159. Amendment of the Constitution.
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Article and to Article 161E the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by federal law.
(5) A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Articles 38, 63 (4), 70, 71(1), 72 (4), 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.
Sorry, Prof, but Article 153 can be amended.
Sure, it would need the consent of the CoR, but please do not give the impression that the provisions of Article 153 are cast in stone.
They are not and were never intended to be.
You know it Prof, so please don’t tell a lie.
As for the Malay rights that the good Prof speaks of, he should make specific reference to the constitutional provisions that support his theory of “Malay rights outlined, stated and guaranteed clearly by the Federal Constitution”.
In truth, Prof, you are as confused as Ibrahim Ali and PERKASA.
Prof, I’m calling your bluff now.
No comments:
Post a Comment