PDA

View Full Version : Article 153 of the Federal Constitution



pywong
21st August 2010, 01:37 PM
Article 153 of the Federal Constitution

Fifty three years after Independence, racial issues continued to monopolise national politics, and championing Malay rights remains the single dominant ideology of the only ruling power that this independent nation has known, UMNO. Thousands of speeches have been made championing this Malay cause, using various terminologies such as Malay 'special rights', Malay 'special privileges' or simply Malay 'rights', often invoking the nation's Constitution as the legal back-up. But, of the thousands of politicians who have used these terminologies, how many have read through the Constitution to find out what these 'rights' really are? Very few, perhaps!

Our Constitution is printed in a small booklet that can be bought for about RM10 in the book shops. Buy one copy and read through to find out what it says about these 'rights'. After all, these issues have been the hottest favourites of our politicians ever since our Independence. Aren't you curious to find out?

If you have read through the Constitution to look for an answer to these Malay 'rights', perhaps the first thing that has struck you is that, familiar terminologies such as Malay 'special rights', Malay 'special privileges' or Malay 'rights' are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Instead, we only find the term 'the special position of the Malays', which appears twice, in Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 153, which is titled 'Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc, for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'.

Anyone who has read through Article 153 might be surprised to discover that the provisions favouring Malays are in fact quite moderate, and certainly no way as stretched out in intensity and scope as our politicians would want us to believe. Similarly, those provisions protecting the non-Malays as a counter-balance to the special position of the Malays under this Article are also surprisingly quite well conceived and fair. In fact, when read in conjunction with Article 8 (Equality) and Article 136 (Impartial treatment of Federal employees), Article 153 cannot be construed as having significantly violated the egalitarian principles of our Constitution, contrary to common perception.

Since the egalitarian nature of our Constitution is largely intact, in spite of the presence of Article 153, then why should it have acquired such an adverse reputation as the legal root of all kinds of racial inequalities in this country?

Answer: the fault is not with our Constitution, but with our politicians twisting, misinterpreting and abusing it.

It is perhaps high time we get to the bottom of Article 153.

Clause (1) of Article 153 states: 'It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article'.

So, the first understanding that we must have on Article 153 is that it is meant to protect the interests of not only the Malays, but also those of the non-Malays.
Next, note the deliberate use of the words 'safeguard' and 'special position' (instead of 'special rights' or 'special privileges'). The choice of these words must be understood in the historical context of the drafting of this Constitution half a century ago when Malays were economically and educationally backward in relation to other races.

It was thought fit and proper then that there must be 'safeguards' to protect the Malays from being swarmed over by other races. Hence, the creation of the 'special position' of the Malays, which was obviously intended for defensive purpose: to protect for survival. The impeccable avoidance of using words like 'rights' and 'privileges', and the choice of the word 'safeguard' were clearly calculated to reflect its defensive nature. Under that historical context, the provision of the special position of the Malays in the Constitution certainly could not be interpreted to mean the endowment of racial privileges to create a privileged class of citizenship.

Clause (2) says that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall safeguard the special position of the Malays by reserving positions 'of such proportion as he may deem reasonable' in a) the public service b) educational facilities and c) business licenses.

Clauses (3) & (6) say that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, for purpose of fulfilling Clause (2), give general directions to the relevant authorities, which shall then duly comply.

There is a separate clause covering the allocation of seats in tertiary education - Clause (8A). It says that where there are insufficient places for any particular course of study, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may give directions for the 'reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.'

As for the protection of non-Malays against possible encroachment of their existing interests, there are several provisions under different clauses in this Article, prohibiting the deprivation of the existing facilities enjoyed by them, whether in public service, education or trading licenses. Of these protective clauses, Clauses (5) and (9) are particularly significant.

Clause (5) consists of one sentence, which reads: 'This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136'.

Article 136 also consists of one sentence, which reads: 'All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the Federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.'

Clause (9) consists of one sentence, which reads: 'Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays.'

Reading Article 153 will not be complete without reading Article 89 (Equality). I will quote the more significant Clauses (1) and (2) of this Article in full, as follows:

Clause (1) states: 'All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.'

Clause (2) states: 'Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.'

Reading through these Articles of the Constitution, we are able to draw the following conclusions:

1. The present clamour for Malay 'special rights' as sacrosanct
racial privileges of a privileged race, especially under the
ideological ambit of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay the master race), is in
conflict with the letters and spirit of the Constitution.

2. The special position of the Malays as prescribed under Article 153 of the Constitution is limited in scope to only the reservation of reasonable quotas in these 3 sectors: public services, educational places and business licenses. Hence, the present rampant racial discriminations practiced on almost every facet of our national life are mostly violations of the Constitution.

Examples of these violations are:
a) Racial discrimination in the appointment and promotion of employees in publicly funded bodies, resulting in these becoming almost mono-raced bodies (particular so in their top strata). These bodies include: the civil service, police, army and various semi and quasi government agencies.

b) Barring of non-Malays from tenders and contracts controlled directly or indirectly by the government.

c) Imposition of compulsory price discounts and quotas in favour of Malays in housing projects.

d) Imposition of compulsory share quota for Malays in non-Malay companies.

e) Blanket barring of non-Malays to publicly funded academic institutions (that should include the UITM, which is the subject of debate in Parliament referred to earlier in this article).

f) Completely lop-sided allocation of scholarships and seats of learning in clearly unreasonable proportions that reflect racial discriminations.

3) Our Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship and all citizens are equal before the law. The presence of Article 153 does not alter this fact, as it is meant only to protect the Malays from being 'squeezed' by other races by allowing the reservation of reasonable quotas on certain sectors of national life. However, this Constitution has now been hijacked through decades of hegemony of political power by the ruling party to result in the virtual monopoly of the public sector by a single race. The ensuing racism, corruption and corrosion of integrity of our democratic institutions have brought serious retrogression to our nation-building process in terms of national unity, discipline, morality and competitiveness of our people.

4) At this critical juncture, when nations in this region and around the world are urgently restructuring and shaping up to cope with globalization, our nation stagnates in a cesspool that has been created through decades of misrule. Unless urgent reforms are carried out, beginning with the dismantling of the anachronistic racial superstructure, we are in for serious troubles in the days ahead.

Let us do our part in educating the nation about our constitution and helping to restore sensible, responsible governance and rule by law.

pywong
30th January 2011, 02:18 PM
http://media1.malaysiakini.com/324/9adcb725101237834e6fe62bcded87f6.jpg

When 'special position' evolved into 'ketuanan'

S Pathmawathy
Jan 30, 11
1:31pm


A constitutional expert has outlined how he thought the special position of the Malays had subtly evolved into ethnic hegemony at a public forum yesterday.

Emeritus professor Shad Saleem Faruqi eloquently described the "atrocities" against equality in the constitution in a forum co-organised by the Bar Council and human rights movement Tenaganita in Kuala Lumpur last week.

In the four-hour forum entitled 'Race relations and religion: Towards equality and non-discrimination', Shad opined that provisions in the constitution contradict the ideals of equality.

The forum also featured Dimitrina Petrova (right), who is executive director of the Equal Rights trust from the UK, and Kuala Selangor PAS parliamentarian Dzulkefly Ahmad.

"No constitutional ideal is as worthy, as yet as unattainable, as the ideal of equality before the law," Shad noted in beginning his speech.

"I work in a Malay environment... some have told me that in 1957 there was a social bargain in terms of citizenship, social and cultural freedom that was permitted to the non-Malays and in return (we were guaranteed) Malay reserve land and the Malay special position," he said.

The renowned law lecturer with Universiti Tekonologi Malaysia (UTM) then stressed that the constitution's provision only offered a "special position" but the term has over the years underwent political evolution.

"As things evolved, what was a 'special position' became a privilege and what was a privilege became a right, and what was a right became ketuanan (supremacy).

"We need to put things right and say 'excuse me, that's not in the constitution'."

Social agreement

There are, however, arguments he said, questioning why only one area of the social agreement signed by the founding fathers of the country needs to be renegotiated.

"Since non-Malays got citizenship in exchange, we (the Malays) got privileges - now they are saying if privileges must go what then happens to the citizenship?

"But I don't have a simple answer to that," he said.

http://media1.malaysiakini.com/324/e01aa41372676dabed5e1196bb93e3c0.jpg

Shad (left) pointed out the that the constitution although "deeply flawed" from formation, was an experiment in social engineering.

"Many people would say that it is successful because it was a product of negotiation and compromise.

"It dealt with some existential realities so it took a path of compromise and pragmatism."

He went on to simplify the extensive provisions which had some grey areas, for instance Article 153 which speaks of special position, and Article 136 which states there should impartiality in treatment of employees regardless of race.

"(Mohamed) Suffian (Hashim), the former lord president, was able to straddle the gap between Article 136 and 153, by suggesting that at entry point, reservations and quotas are permissible under affirmative action," he said, adding however this has failed in implementation.

Affirmative policies to aid the much impoverished Malay community was embarked on in the 1970s to reduce the economic gap with the other races.

The absence of a time frame on the affirmative policies and the continual recognition on the need for the special position under Article 153, argued Faruqi, only benefited the politically dominant.

Permissible exceptions

In theory, affirmative policies are to assist minority groups, as practiced in India and Europe, and are to lapse after the goals are achieved.

Although Shad accepted that the Malays at one point were in need of such remedy to alleviate unjust positions, such provisions are no longer relevant, he added.

"Obviously, the constitution does have a great a many positive features. Regrettably, however, are the many permissible exceptions to equality," he noted.

http://media1.malaysiakini.com/324/7d89dcc2ca2501de513c4904ca111a38.jpg

"All this was not decided by an impartial commission but left to politicians and its implementation has often benefited the rich elite."

He also criticise a lack in the provisions that touch on legal pluralism.

"When you have two sets of courts and two sets of laws sometimes conflicts will happen and when conflicts occur, the difficult issue is which one will prevail.

"For example in England, equity courts and common courts used to clash but now the rule is that decisions by equity courts will prevail.

"In Malaysia, administrative tribunals and ordinary courts often clash but the decision by the ordinary court takes precedence."

He thought Article 121 which was amended with the clause Article 121(1)(a), that states that civil courts shall have no jurisdiction over matters under the jurisdiction of Syariah Court, was not well constructed.

"Sadly, under Article 121(1)(a) it doesn't say what happens if there is a clash of jurisdiction especially in the cases of conversion, when one party is a Muslim and the other is a non-Muslim," he said.

He raised the long-standing legal tussles in which injustice had been permitted on non-Muslims following Syariah Court decisions and complained on the hesitancy to resolve the issue.

Shad lamented that the "government's lack of political will" has hindered any progress in the area as amendments to laws pertaining to matters of conversion were withdrawn from Parliament at the eleventh hour following an objection from the Conference of Rulers.

"Sadly the legal system is thunderously silent about what needs to be done to redress this grave injustice."

Equal opportunities commission

Shad is concerned that, at present, any attempt to dislodge the provisions would tear society apart.

Instead he suggested an examination of its implementation and misuse or overzealousness in its enforcement.

This can be done by way of a "equal opportunities commission or tribunal", he said, to ensure that there are measures taken to scrutinise public and private practices that contradict equal treatment.

http://media1.malaysiakini.com/324/ceb6d380da8c74bfad17a3673ae456a8.jpg


http://media1.malaysiakini.com/324/0ecaf554960dc83b4bbadb8608a05a63.jpg

Petrova, who expanded on UK's Equality Act 2010 explained the features of the law which covered discrimination, harassment and victimisation, among others.

"(The purpose is to) end inconsistencies in the rights afforded to different discriminated groups within the same societies and nations and so end the current hierarchy of discrimination," she said.

She, however expressed shock to learn that Malaysia was not a signatory to various international human rights agreements and that at this point in time, pressure to enact a law to ensure equality was still an idea in its infancy.

http://media1.malaysiakini.com/164/439426da36868399d778baa1c031fd0f.jpg

Dzulkefly, on the other hand, was steadfast in his stance that "no amount of enactments on race relations or equality would resolve the matters at hand".

He reiterated the opposition's stance that "only a change in government" could end the tyranny of the ruling power and encourage further action on needs based policies.

Dzulkefly was also bombarded on questions on the formation of a Islamist state and whether would a be retrograde step in the path towards equality.

He stressed that should PAS run the federal government "Islam will never be used to surpass the principles of democracy". Malaysiakini. Subscription required. (http://malaysiakini.com/news/154893)