ONE year after the new PH government has come into office, we find that human rights continue to be perverted because of apparent lack of political will to significantly reform the old institutionalised politics of racism and racial discrimination. The PH reneged on their promises to ratify crucial treaties in their election manifesto, namely International Convention on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Rome Statute on International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICC provides a significant mechanism as an international court to try “crimes against humanity”. Unfortunately, those opposing the ratification of the ICERD have misrepresented and twisted the role of the ICC, suggesting that the sovereignty of our rulers would be at risk. Such a red herring has no justification in our constitutional pond. To date, 122 countries have signed the Rome Statute of the ICC including Cambodia, Palestine and the Republic of Korea.
Does the Federal Constitution promote racial discrimination?
Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has said that ratifying ICERD would entail amending the Federal Constitution, and this is an almost impossible thing to do without a two-thirds parliamentary majority.
It is a very serious presumption that the Constitution promotes racial discrimination and will run afoul of the ICERD. When the nation became independent in 1957, did we really have a social contract that contained elements of racial discrimination? If that was the case, then our founding fathers were certainly deficient in wisdom and legal nous.
They agreed to a Federal Constitution that did not promote racial discrimination. We should be proud of Part II of the Constitution that guarantees “Fundamental Liberties” for all Malaysians. It includes Article 8:
“Equality. All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law ... 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 ...”
The supposedly “racially discriminatory” Article 153 merely mentions “the special position of the Malays” and that the main purpose for including Article 153 in the Constitution was to rectify the perceived weakness of the Malay community in the economic field, the public service and the problem of Malay poverty at the time of Independence. (Tun Mohamed Suffian bin Hashim, An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, KL 1972:245)
The first clause of Article 153 specifically states, “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.” Even so, the Reid Commission had recommended a sunset clause for this “special position of the Malays” of 15 years.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that between 1957 and 1971 there were no complaints of racial discrimination on the scale we have seen in recent years.
It was only after the racial violence of May 13, 1969 that the country was presented with a fait accompli by the new ruling elite in Umno during the state of Emergency when in early 1971, they introduced the infamous “Quota System” through a new clause (Amendment 8A) to Article 153 in the Constitution (Amendment) Act. Malaysians have lived with a dramatically distorted version of this “quota system” for more than 40 years with its continuing negative consequences for many citizens which has generated so much controversy.
Strictly speaking, if we were to go by Umno’s oft-repeated “social contract” at Independence in 1957, that “social contract” certainly does not include Clause 8A of Article 153 that was introduced much later in 1971. Even so, if we scrutinise this clause more closely, we will see that it is definitely not a carte blanche for the blatant racial discrimination witnessed in, for example, the quota for matriculation courses and other Mara institutions or the (bumis only) policy at UiTM.
One wonders if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has been consulted and has given “such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak as the YDPA deems reasonable” at the various Mara institutions and public tertiary institutions all these years.
A ‘new’ Malaysia must ratify ICERD
It is also surprising that lawyers including the attorney-general have not ventured an opinion on the applicability of Article 153 to the rampant racial discrimination in “new” Malaysia’s institutions. We have not yet seen a single constitutional lawyer who has dared to boldly state that he or she believes the government is justified under Article 153 to have a “bumis only” policy in UiTM. I throw a challenge to any lawyer who dares to make that assertion.
The prime minister must decide if his PH government has the political will to progress into the world community that respects all human rights. Ratifying ICERD is a statement to show we consent to be bound to an international treaty that outlaws racial discrimination. Thus, instead of implying that the Constitution is racially discriminatory, which is not true and is in fact scandalous, the prime minister should instead endeavour to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to ICERD.
First, the ICERD treaty prohibits policies that have a racially discriminatory impact on any sections of people. The prime minister should consult his Minister for National Unity P. Waythamoorthy, who has been the best publicist against the racially discriminatory policies in recent years.
The ICERD treaty requires that victims of discrimination should have a judicial enforcement mechanism available such as an Equality Act and an Equality & Human Rights Commission and the treaty applies to all levels of government – federal, state and local. Out of 197 countries, 179 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICERD. Malaysia is one of only 14 countries that have not signed the UN treaty.
Affirmative action based on class or need
When he announced the NEP in 1971, then prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein had said the policy would end in 1990. That deadline was ignored.
It is high time for a new socially just affirmative action policy based on need or class or sector. Thus, if Malays are predominantly in the rural agricultural sector, we should create policies that benefit the poor farmers and not the rich land-owning class who would also benefit from any “Malays only” policies. Only such a race-free policy can convince the people that the government is socially just, fair and democratic and walks the talk.
If, as the prime minister says, all the Chinese Malaysians are rich, then what is stopping the government specifying policies that benefit the B40 (based on socio-economic position) rather than policies that are only for the “Malays”. This question is also asked of the PM in waiting, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who has made statements on this issue – we cannot have policies which are intended to benefit the B40 but are at the same time, couched in racially discriminatory language for political effect.
Perhaps all politicians in “new” Malaysia should be made to attend “Rehabilitation Classes on Human Rights” where they learn to discard their old racist habits and relearn the politically correct behaviour required in “New Malaysia”.
Civil society needs to push for reforms
The lesson of the first year of the PH administration is that, as always, civil society needs to be ever vigilant and persistent in pushing for these reforms because the government has shown it is dragging its feet.
There have been engagements with civil society but no improvement in promised reform of repressive laws. The Cabinet imposed a moratorium on draconian laws including the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of CMA in October 2018. The moratorium was short-lived, and it was lifted in December 2018 following the Seafield Temple fracas. Considering the efforts by civil society in contributing to institutional reform after GE14, the prime minister’s decision not to make the CEP report public is unacceptable and stinks of BN non-transparency.
These laws that allow detention without trial violate basic human rights and should be expeditiously abolished. They include the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca), and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) 2015. The PH government is now reconsidering its initial pledge to abolish several contentious laws including, the Sedition Act 1948, Prevention of Crime Act (Poca) 1959, Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, Printing Presses and Publications (PPPA) Act 1984 and the National Security Council (NSC) Act 2016.
Such backtracking on the PH GE14 manifesto is unethical and a perversion of human rights.
The above is from a speech by Suaram adviser Kua Kia Soong at the launch of Suaram’s Human Rights Report.
