Another fatal defect in Speaker Pandikar’s ruling that Malaysia is not a secular state was his sole reliance on Jamil Khir’s explanation and failure to canvass all views in Parliament on the controversial subject, including those from non-UMNO Ministers/MPs from BN

Yesterday I said that Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia had exceeded his powers and functions as Speaker of Parliament when he passed judgment on the Malaysian Constitution ruling that Malaysia is not a secular state.

This is because it is not the role or function of the Speaker of Parliament to interpret the Constitution and make a Constitutional ruling which becomes an authority quoted by all and sundry as the law of the land.

Although Pandikar has limited his interpretation to “merely for the purposes of this House” and not an opinion to be “an authority” in the country, there is no doubt that it would be quoted by various quarters as an “authority” both inside and outside Parliament to justify the arbitrary, dubious and controversial stand that Malaysia is not a secular state.

Another fatal defect in Pandikar’s ruling that Malaysia is not a secular state was his sole reliance on the explanation by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom and his failure to canvass all views in Parliament on the controversial subject, including those from non-UMNO Ministers and MPs from Barisan Nasional.

As the DAP MP for Bandar Kuching, Chong Chieng Jen had tried to point out in Parliament after Pandikar’s ruling yesterday, as far as Sarawak and Sabah were concerned with regard to the formation of Malaysia in 1963, Jamil was very wrong to say that Malaysia is not a secular state “berdasarkan kepada fakta sejarah yang menunjukkan bahawa Malaysia telah ditubuhkan berasaskan Kerajaan Islam Kesultanan Melayu dan Raja Raja Melayu merupakan Ketua Agama bagi negeri masing masing” – as both Sarawak and Sabah (and Singapore, which was a party to the Malaysia Agreement 1963) did not have a history of Malay Rulers.

For 44 years, from 1957 to 2001, no Federal Government had ever questioned Malaysia’s constitutional position as a secular state with Islam as the official religion of the Federation as provided in Article 3 of the Constitution, stipulating that other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.

In 1956, the Alliance party submitted a memorandum to the Reid Commission, which was responsible for drafting the Malayan constitution. The memorandum quoted:

“The religion of Malaya shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state.”

The full text of the Memorandum was inserted into paragraph 169 of the Commission Report.

This suggestion was later carried forward in the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Proposals 1957 (White Paper), specifically quoting in paragraph 57:

“There has been included in the proposed Federal Constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular State….”

The Cobbold Commission also made another similar quote in 1962:

“….we are agreed that Islam should be the national religion for the Federation. We are satisfied that the proposal in no way jeopardises freedom of religion in the Federation, which in effect would be secular.”

It is not for the Speaker of Parliament to contradict the position taken by nation’s founding fathers, in particular the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, the other Alliance founding leaders like Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun V.T. Sambathan and the Sarawak and Sabah leaders who were signatories to the 1963 Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as official religion.

On Sept. 29, 2001, solely for political purposes, the then Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad made his new-fangled and arbitrary declaration on Sept. 29, 2001 that Malaysia is a “Islamic nation”. Now Mahathir says that Malaysia is neither a secular state nor an Islamic state.

Neither Mahathir nor anyone could rewrite history and deny that Malaya and subsequently Malaysia were formed specifically as a secular state with Article 3 which states:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Pandikar should seriously consider what he could do to minimise if not to undo the damage his improper judgment as Parliament Speaker that Malaysia is not a secular state has done to the entire Malaysian nation-building process, in particular with regard to Sarawak and Sabah’s proper role in Malaysia 50 years after the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

  1. #1 by sotong on Friday, 20 June 2014 - 5:11 pm

    In a secular State, faith based politicians should NOT be allowed to force their views on the Malaysian public.

    No wonder the country is in deep shit!

  2. #2 by digard on Friday, 20 June 2014 - 5:21 pm

    Pandikar? Undo? He has to bow to whatever the fashion of the day is. Once he starts to look independent, BN (UMNO) will remove and replace him with a compliant person.

  3. #3 by Noble House on Saturday, 21 June 2014 - 4:20 am

    Now everyone can be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner – All in one!

  4. #4 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 21 June 2014 - 9:34 am

    You can make all the reason argument and facts you want, the truth is these people will not accept it no matter what.

    When the 13th colony got their independence, secularity was already well on its way in Europe. Yet the founders of the US particular Jefferson, a very religious man, saw the necessity to take one step further of strict separation of church and state because they did not trust the power of religion in those with public power.

    And how they have been proven right, right here in this country. These people don’t even know the difference between separation of church/mosque and state and Secularity. Malaysia is secular, its not strict separation of Islam and state – YET they don’t want it. Yet they say they can’t live without more. Perhaps they ought to ask they ask of their religion too much and they themselves are ABUSING THEIR RELIGION? PERHAPS They do not seek answer elsewhere ENOUGH?

    I have no problem those who argue for Islamic state. I have a problem with those that made up their mind that its their right and do not feel they have to make their case because its just an excuse not to do what they should

  5. #5 by boh-liao on Saturday, 21 June 2014 - 10:15 am

    Dis is 1DERful land mah, those in power interpret d laws mah, apa2 pun boleh 1, U NO like it, get lost or b chased out of d building lor, so so simple n eazi 1 what

    S’wakians n Sabahans NO like, too bad lor, also kena kicked out what

You must be logged in to post a comment.