君主体制 and 2/3 majority

I read something from Malaysia-Today. I thought is quite informative and everyone of us should ready to re-educated ourselves as most of us were ignorant and know little about Malaysia.

But the chief editor of Malaysia Today is sometimes a bit long winded. I think maybe all Royal family member or people in power like to talk very long. Perhaps, Raja Petra is no exception. :P

I will just extract out what we should know from his article, about Monarchy and the 2/3 majority in Parliament.

So lets begin with some questions so that you can relate to the answer better.

Why is the Monarchy crucial? Can Malaysia function without a Monarchy? Is a two-thirds majority in Parliament crucial? Can the government function without its two-thirds majority in Parliament?

Malaysia is like UK, because we used to be their colony in the east. so in many ways we adopted their system when independent, Monarchy 君主体制 is one of them. the opposite of Monarchy is republic 共和体制.

Monarchy means we have Agong, UK have Queen Elizabeth that are not elected. Republic like America got their President elected. of course this is a simple classification, there are a lot of areas overlap, but the core never changed. We still don't vote to decide who is Agong.

Malaysia has a law called the Sedition Act. if you ask for Monarhcy system to be abolished, it is a crime under the Sedition Act. Meaning asking for Malaysia to be turned into a Republic can get you jailed.

Of course, the Sedition Act can be amended so that a proposal to turn malaysia into Republic is no longer a crime. But only two-thirds (2/3) majority of Parliament can do this.

In the process of independent, advisors and leaders from UK and Malaya including Tunku Abdul Rahman drafted the Constitution 宪法 of Malaya (Malaya = Sabah, Sarawak and Spore still not part of Malaysia).

Then this Constitution of Malaya evolved into The Federal Constitution of Malaya that came into force on 27 August 1957, four days before Merdeka.

Then, with significant amendments, it became the Federal Constitution of Malaysia when Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore merged to form Malaysia in 1963.

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia can be amended and has been amended many times. The Constitution itself has provisions under Articles 159 and 161E on how it may be amended. And the amendments can be made by federal law and in the following ways:

1. Some Articles may be amended only by a 2/3 majority in each House of Parliament but only if the Conference of Rulers consents to it. This means, even if you have a 2/3 majority in Parliament, you can’t amend these Articles in the Constitution unless the Rulers agree to the amendments. This would be with regards to the following:

* Amendments pertaining to the powers of sultans and their respective states
* The status of Islam in the Federation
* The special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak
* The status of the Malay language as the official language

2. Some Articles in the Constitution related to Sabah and Sarawak may be amended by a 2/3 majority in each House of Parliament but only if the Governors of the two East Malaysian states concurs. This would be with regards to the following:

* Citizenship of persons born before Malaysia Day
* The constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court of Borneo
* The matters with respect to which the legislature of the state may or may not make laws, the executive authority of the state in those matters and financial arrangement between the Federal government and the state.
* Special treatment of natives of the state

3. Then there are some Articles in the Constitution that may be amended by a 2/3 majority in each House of Parliament. These amendments do not require the consent of anybody outside Parliament. (The extension of the tenure of the Chairman of the Elections Commission is one case in point).

4. Some Articles, which are not that important, may be amended by Parliament with just a simple majority. You, therefore, do not need a 2/3 majority in Parliament in some cases.

It must further be noted that, according to Shad Saleem Faruqi, as at 2005, the Constitution has been amended 42 times over the 48 years since independence. However, as several amendments were made each time, he estimates the true number of individual amendments at around 650. Shad argued that there is no doubt that the spirit of the original document has been diluted. This sentiment has been echoed by other legal scholars who argue that important parts of the original Constitution, such as jus soli (right of birth) citizenship, a limitation on the variation of the number of electors in constituencies, and Parliamentary control of emergency powers, have been so modified or altered by amendments that the present Federal Constitution bears only a superficial resemblance to its original model. It has been estimated that between 1957 and 2003, almost thirty Articles have been added and repealed as a consequence of the frequent amendments.

so can you now see the logic in not allowing any one party, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat, in having a two-thirds majority in Parliament? Giving them two-thirds is like having no opposition at all. Better they rule without the two-thirds and the oppositions supports any bills that deserve supporting while they can oppose anything that should be opposed. If this were the case then the Chairman of the Elections Commission would have never seen his tenure extended and the recent general election would not have been rife with fraud.