A Malaysia built by its people — Vasanthi Ramachandran

The article reflects on Malaysia Day, emphasizing the importance of the country's shared constitutional framework established on September 16, 1963.

It highlights recent calls for amending laws perceived as "colonial," stressing the potential repercussions on the constitutional balance between federal and state powers.

The article asserts that such changes could affect Malaysia's unity, given its diverse population, and underscores the significance of upholding the Federal Constitution as a unifying legal foundation, transcending political narratives to preserve the nation for future generations.

SEPTEMBER 15 — Every Malaysia Day, we are reminded of 16 September 1963 — the day Malaysia came into being.

But while that day marked the creation of Malaysia through an agreement, a constitution and a date in history, the nation has taken shape ever since — through the lives of its people.

For more than six decades, Malaysians have developed a national identity that is sometimes difficult to define, but easy to recognise.

It is not perfect. Nor is it without disagreement.

This Malaysia Day, that shared sense of belonging is worth affirming — especially when some of the constitutional foundations on which our country rests are being openly challenged.

On September 9, PAS president Tan Sri Abdul Hadi Awang called for the abolition of what he described as “colonial laws” obstructing the implementation of Islam, naming the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, or Act 355, the Civil Law Act 1956 and the division of powers under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

These are serious propositions. Because ultimately, what holds Malaysia together is not simply a shared history, but a shared constitutional framework — one that belongs to every Malaysian.

Hadi also referred to the division of powers under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. Criminal law generally falls under the Federal List, while states can legislate on religious offences. He argued that this limits the punishments Syariah courts can impose and has led to state Islamic laws being challenged in court.

In response, G25 Malaysia, a group of Malay civil servants, diplomats and professionals, has called on the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and all political parties seeking to govern, including PAS, to affirm unequivocally that the Federal Constitution is supreme and must remain so.

The very idea of changing the constitutional foundations on which Malaysia was formed should ring alarm bells.

For the record, Act 355 is not a colonial law. It was enacted by Malaysia’s own Parliament in 1965, eight years after Merdeka. Its present sentencing limits were established by Parliament in 1984.

The Ninth Schedule is not a colonial remnant either. It is part of the Federal Constitution itself. It sets out the division of legislative powers between the Federation and the states.

The Civil Law Act 1956 provides for the application of English common law and equity where Malaysian written law does not provide an answer, subject to local circumstances. Parliament remains free to change that law.

These are not remnants of colonial rule. They are part of the legal and constitutional framework through which Malaysia has governed itself.

There is also a fundamental problem with the proposal concerning Act 355.

The Constitution provides that Syariah courts have no jurisdiction over offences except to the extent conferred by federal law.

Act 355 is that federal law.

Repealing it would not, in itself, expand the criminal jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. It would remove the federal statutory basis governing that jurisdiction.

What is being proposed, therefore, goes beyond repealing a law described as colonial. It would alter the constitutional balance between federal and state powers.

That is a much larger question for Malaysia — because it affects the constitutional balance on which the country rests.

Malaysia’s constitutional framework was designed to accommodate a country of different territories, communities and histories.

The formation of Malaysia was grounded in the constitutional arrangements and commitments of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.The division of powers between the Federation and the states was fundamental to that structure.

That framework matters because Malaysia is not a homogeneous society. More than 300 ethnic and sub-ethnic groups live in Malaysia.

Sabah alone has more than 170 sub-ethnic groups, while Sarawak has more than 90 sub-groups. The Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia comprise three main groups and 18 sub-groups.

Our differences are real. But so is the Malaysia we share.

We do not experience Malaysia every day as a collection of separate political or legal communities.

We experience it as Malaysians.

This is why constitutional change matters.

The Federal Constitution is not simply a collection of laws. It establishes the institutions and division of powers through which Malaysia is governed.

Changing these arrangements has consequences beyond the individual provisions being challenged.

Repealing the Civil Law Act would affect the statutory basis for applying common law and equity in areas where Parliament has not legislated comprehensively.

Changing the Ninth Schedule would reopen the division of powers between the Federation and the states, including arrangements central to the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

These provisions are part of the constitutional architecture of Malaysia.

There is another reason to be careful about reducing Malaysia to political categories.

Malaysia’s people have spent decades creating connections that cross the boundaries through which politics often asks us to see one another.

In everyday life, those boundaries are often porous. We share workplaces and classrooms, do business with one another, celebrate one another’s festivals and live side by side — often without giving much thought to the political divisions that politics places between us.

This is the Malaysia we know.

It is a Malaysia that is far more complicated — and far more connected — than the political narratives that surround it.

Our differences are constantly visible. Our commonality is often taken for granted.

The question before us is therefore larger than whether particular laws should be retained or repealed. It is about what kind of country we want to leave to the next generation.

The Federal Constitution is the common framework that allows people with different identities, histories and beliefs to belong to the same country.

A constitutional settlement that belongs to all Malaysians should not be dismissed as ‘colonial’ simply because it places limits on what any one political movement may seek to change.

The third principle of the Rukun Negara is Keluhuran Perlembagaan — the supremacy of the Constitution.

It is not a ceremonial phrase. It is central to what makes Malaysia possible.

The supremacy of the Constitution means that Malaysia belongs to all its citizens — and that no one stands above the law that binds us together.

Ultimately, the Malaysia we built is larger than the political arguments of any one moment.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

AI doesn’t negotiate: Will Malaysia rule it or obey it? — Ahmad Nizam Che Kasim

The photos are yours, the childhood is theirs — Rozita Wahab and Norsafatul Aznin A. Razak

More than a bowl of cendol — Ng Kwan Hoong

Fahmi says Sarawak redelineation has begun but gives no election deadline (VIDEO)

Home Ministry vows to crush foreign worker fraud syndicates ‘at the root’

Haze flips west: 41 areas in Peninsular Malaysia hit unhealthy levels as Sabah, Sarawak clear

这篇文章回顾了马来西亚日，强调了该国于 1963 年 9 月 16 日建立的共同宪法框架的重要性。

它重点介绍了最近要求修改被认为是“殖民主义”的法律的呼声，强调了这些法律可能对联邦和州权力之间的宪法平衡产生的影响。

文章断言，鉴于马来西亚人口的多样性，此类变化可能会影响马来西亚的团结，并强调维护联邦宪法作为统一的法律基础的重要性，超越政治叙事，为子孙后代保护国家。

9月15日——每逢马来西亚日，我们都会想起1963年9月16日——马来西亚诞生的日子。

虽然那一天标志着马来西亚通过一项协议、一部宪法和一个历史性的日子而诞生，但此后，这个国家一直在其人民的生活中逐渐成形。

六十多年来，马来西亚人逐渐形成了一种民族认同感，这​​种认同感有时难以定义，但很容易辨认。

它并不完美，也并非毫无争议。

值此马来西亚日之际，这种共同的归属感尤其值得肯定——尤其是在我们国家赖以生存的一些宪法基础正受到公开挑战之时。

9月9日，伊斯兰党主席丹斯里阿卜杜勒·哈迪·阿旺呼吁废除他所称的阻碍伊斯兰教实施的“殖民法律”，他点名批评了1965年伊斯兰教法庭（刑事管辖权）法令（第355号法令）、1956年民事法律法令以及联邦宪法第九附表规定的权力划分。

这些都是严肃的提议。因为归根结底，维系马来西亚团结的不仅仅是共同的历史，更是共同的宪法框架——一个属于每一位马来西亚人的宪法框架。

哈迪还提到了联邦宪法第九附表规定的权力划分。刑法通常属于联邦管辖范围，而各州可以就宗教犯罪立法。他认为，这限制了伊斯兰教法庭可以施加的惩罚，并导致各州的伊斯兰法律在法庭上受到挑战。

对此，由马来公务员、外交官和专业人士组成的马来西亚 G25 组织呼吁首相、总检察长和所有寻求执政的政党（包括伊斯兰党）明确重申联邦宪法至高无上，并且必须保持这种地位。

改变马来西亚建国所依据的宪法基础这一想法本身就应该敲响警钟。

需要说明的是，第355号法令并非殖民时期的法律。它是由马来西亚国会于1965年颁布的，即马来西亚独立八年后。其现行的量刑限制是国会于1984年制定的。

第九附表也不是殖民时代的遗留产物，它是联邦宪法本身的一部分，规定了联邦与各州之间的立法权划分。

1956年《民事法》规定，在马来西亚成文法无法提供解决方案的情况下，可适用英国普通法和衡平法，但须视当地情况而定。议会仍有权修改该法。

这些并非殖民统治的遗留产物，而是马来西亚赖以治理自身的法律和宪法框架的一部分。

关于第 355 号法案的提案也存在一个根本性问题。

宪法规定，伊斯兰教法庭对联邦法律未赋予管辖权的犯罪行为没有管辖权。

第355号法案是那项联邦法律。

废除该法案本身并不会扩大伊斯兰教法庭的刑事管辖权，而是会移除规范该管辖权的联邦法律依据。

因此，目前的提议不仅仅是废除一项被认为是殖民主义时期的法律，它还会改变联邦和州权力之间的宪法平衡。

对于马来西亚来说，这是一个更大的问题——因为它影响到国家赖以生存的宪政平衡。

马来西亚的宪法框架旨在适应一个拥有不同领土、社群和历史的国家。

马来西亚的成立以1963年马来西亚协议的宪法安排和承诺为基础。联邦与各州之间的权力划分是该结构的基础。

这一框架至关重要，因为马来西亚并非一个同质化的社会。马来西亚居住着300多个民族和亚民族群体。

仅沙巴就有超过170个亚族群，砂拉越也有超过90个亚族群。马来西亚半岛的原住民（Orang Asli）由三个主要族群和18个亚族群组成。

我们之间的分歧是真实存在的，但我们共同拥有的马来西亚也是如此。

我们每天感受到的马来西亚并非是由一系列独立的政治或法律社群组成的。

我们作为马来西亚人对此深有体会。

这就是宪法改革为何如此重要的原因。

联邦宪法不仅仅是一系列法律条文。它确立了马来西亚赖以治理国家的机构和权力划分。

改变这些安排的影响远不止于受到质疑的个别条款。

废除《民法》将影响在议会尚未全面立法的领域适用普通法和衡平法的法律基础。

修改第九附表将重新划分联邦与各州之间的权力，包括 1963 年马来西亚成立时的核心安排。

这些条款是马来西亚宪法架构的一部分。

还有另一个原因需要我们谨慎地将马来西亚简化为政治类别。

马来西亚人民几十年来一直在建立跨越政治界限的联系，而政治往往要求我们彼此之间保持联系。

在日常生活中，这些界限往往是模糊的。我们共享工作场所和教室，彼此开展业务，庆祝彼此的节日，比邻而居——通常不会过多考虑政治在我们之间造成的隔阂。

这就是我们所熟知的马来西亚。

马来西亚远比围绕它的政治叙事要复杂得多，也联系得更加紧密。

我们的差异显而易见，而我们的共同点却常常被人们视为理所当然。

因此，摆在我们面前的问题远不止是某些法律应该保留还是废除，而是我们想给下一代留下一个怎样的国家。

联邦宪法是允许具有不同身份、历史和信仰的人们属于同一个国家的共同框架。

一项属于全体马来西亚人的宪法协议不应仅仅因为限制了任何一个政治运动可以寻求改变的内容就被斥为“殖民主义”。

国家原则的第三项原则是Keluhuran Perlembagaan——宪法至上。

这并非一句客套话，而是马来西亚得以存在的核心所在。

宪法的至高无上意味着马来西亚属于全体公民——任何人都不能凌驾于维系我们团结的法律之上。

归根结底，我们所建设的马来西亚超越了任何一时的政治争论。

* 这是作者或刊物的个人观点，并不一定代表《马来邮报》的观点。

人工智能不进行谈判：马来西亚将统治它还是服从它？——艾哈迈德·尼扎姆·切·卡西姆

照片属于你，童年属于他们——罗兹塔·瓦哈卜和诺萨法图尔·阿兹宁·A·拉扎克

不只是一碗煎蕊 — Ng Kwan Hoong

法米表示砂拉越选区重新划分工作已经开始，但没有给出选举截止日期（视频）

内政部誓言要“从根源上”打击外籍劳工欺诈团伙

雾霾西移：马来西亚半岛41个地区空气质量达到不健康水平，沙巴和砂拉越地区雾霾消散