By social activist Remy Majangkim
KOTA KINABALU: In this opinion piece, we delve into the realm of religious authority in the context of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 with the newly proposed Mufti Bill (Federal Territories), soon to be tabled for the third reading in Parliament.
In this context, we will use Article 4, the Supreme Law of the Federation, as the guiding principle.
We must address several important questions and considerations so that the parliamentarian can make a well-informed decision.
Does the Federal Government have authority regarding the religion of Islam?
Is the Mufti Bill applicable to the Federation of Malaysia or only the Federal Territories? Why was it not draughted as a federal law?
Does the Constitution provide a provision to create a new state under Article 2 for the Federal Territories?
The government must reinstate Articles 161C and 161D, along with others, under the protection of Article 161E.
To address the first question, as stated in Article 3(1)(2) of the Constitution, Islam is the religion of the Federation, and other religions may be practiced in harmony. The article further states that in the absence of a Malay ruler, the role of the head of Islam will be under the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is elected through the Council of Rulers. This notable mentions Sabah, Sarawak, Melaka, and Penang.
The provision in Article 3 entirely did not specify the role of the Federal Government in the Federal Territories to bypass the Malay ruler and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The government swore an oath to uphold the Constitution as stipulated. When we put it through the constitutional test under Article 4, there is inconsistency, and it should be deemed null and void.
Understandably, this mufti bill (federal territories) can only be applicable to its territories: Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, and Labuan. This leads to two jurisdictions in the matter of religion as the government attempts to micromanage it.
The next question is: Is the Federal Territory a legal entity? Does the Constitution provide for the creation of a new state? This can be observed in Article 2, as the Constitution provides for the admission of a new state, not the creation of a new one and admitting it later. This is evident in the admission of the Borneo States and Singapore during the formation of Malaysia.
The inclusion of federal territories complicates the Constitution because it states that federal territories are the territories that existed before Malaysia Day. However, this definition presents an inconsistency. Malaysia Day is celebrated on 16th September 1963, but Kuala Lumpur was declared a Federal Territory in 1974, Labuan in 1984, and Putrajaya in 2001. This again proves inconsistency under the guidance of Article 4, the Supreme Law of the Federation.
The formation of Malaysia comes with an entrenched safeguard under Article 161E, which states that the agreed terms cannot be modified or repealed. The Federal Government should not treat our status equally with the other states in the Federation of Malaya, now Malaysia.
However, breaches have occurred through the repeal of articles 161C and 161D (amongst others), which happened after the passing of our sitting Chief Minister of Sabah in a tragic plane crash in Kota Kinabalu.
Therefore, it is imperative for our Members of Parliament to be familiar with our history and the documents leading up to the formation of Malaysia. The government needs to relinquish its power, acknowledge the mistakes made over the years, and reform.
