Institutional Democracy-Part 1
We have to continuously evaluate if we are any closer to the ideal; one we have called, “a developed Malaysia in our own mould”.
By KJ John
The world now knows that kleptocracy has been well acculturated or oiled into our current system of governance. My reflection and pondering through this series will focus on the nature and standards of Good Governance for Public Policy to serve citizenry.
That is our 2020 ideal and we have to continuously evaluate if we are any closer to this ideal; one we have called, “a developed Malaysia in our own mould”.
In 2006, at a Bloggers United gathering of many media personalities and speakers, with TDM (post retirement) as a Keynote Speaker, I argued that a Good Governance system for Malaysia should have at least 8 Good Governance features. I repeat the same argument more completely now:
- An elected legislature;
- An appointed Executive from those elected to form government, including the Attorney-General;
- A separate and independent judiciary but with full powers to interpret the Federal Constitution and our system of governance, premised on socio-cultural history and agreed documentations for such a history;
- An independent public services system of governance by professional commissions but fully responsible to the Public Services Commission and original mandate of the nation-state;
- A fully independent media aided and supported by government to facilitate truth seeking and truth reporting;
- Freely forming non-government social and civil society groups and organization to help grow the nature and nurture of democracy in Malaysia;
- A globally accepted and agreed system of standards/definitions for compliance and measurement of the inherent competitiveness of the Malaysian economy and society; and finally,
- A fully dependent, independent, and interdependent mature membership of citizens who help moderate, grow and define democracy in Malaysia.
Religion not excluded
Now, I would argue that any good system of Good Governance would not need to have religion embedded as part and parcel o the dictated faith of adherents. Any spiritual person does not have his faith like a soldiers pips on his shoulders. Rather, if they are truly spiritual, their faith is made visible vide their life and living; others will come to know about their faith through their conduct and example.
Therefore, while the debate on whether shariah should be legislated or not in global models of Islamic jurisprudence, I would argue that since inception and our history-based documents, of both Reid and Cobbold Commissions, and which focused upon the independence of colonial states of the then British Empire, there is ample evidence that we were designed and intended by mutual regard and agreement to be a Secular State.
In the wisdom of the creators and framers of our document of destiny, plus the many subsequent amendments, we are still very much a secular state, and I would argue that Article 121 (1A) was poorly conceived and is part of the reason for most of the religion related confusion in jurisprudence today.
Article 3 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution assures and guarantees that Islam is the religion of the Federation, but it is silent on the nature and form of Islamic culture. It does not say “official religion” and I understood from the late Professor Ahmad Ibrahim that this wording was in fact discussed but wisely rejected by them in favour of simply the word, “the religion.”
Nevertheless, in order not to ignore the concerns of other faith systems, which included Buddhists, Hindus and Christians (including the few mainline Protestant congregations of the then British Empire) in sufficient numbers, the words, “and all other religions can be practiced in peace and harmony” these are captured in Article 11 of the same Consitution.
Therefore, one can understand why and how “Islamic jurisprudence,” as under shariah or any other interpretation, was relegated to, firstly the nine states of the Federation, and secondly maintained as the preserve of the nine royals. The institution of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong is the creature of the Federal Constitution and unique, best I know, only to the Federation of Malaya.
Consequently, and correspondingly, the Federal Constitution relegates matters of Islam and shariah into Schedule II of the Federal Constitution. The reason is obvious; it only applies to the original nine states of the Federation of Malay States. Malacca and Penang were not in the similar category of Malay States. Of course, subsequently, Sabah and Sarawak could never be reduced to be equal to a Federated Malay State.
KJ John was director of Industrial Policy with MITI until 1996 before he moved to the NITC at Mimos Berhad to develop the National IT Agenda.
Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider