Document of Destiny Constitution of Federation

Question: Discuss about the Document of Destiny Constitution of Federation. Answer: Introduction: Federal Constitution enjoys the status of the highest law in Malaysia. Actually it is based on the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. It has been prepared by the Reid Commission that was headed by Lord William Reid for creating a Constitution for preparing Federation of Malaya which was independent and fully self-governing. The Reid Commission to the viewpoints of several different political parties as well as nonpolitical organizations and individuals for coming up with appropriate governance structure that was suitable for the country (Sheridan and Groves, 2004). In February 1957, Reid Commission report was made available. In this report, the Commission has recommended that the Constitution should safeguard the rights of the individuals and it should also make sure a democratic way of life. For the purpose of achieving the objective of identical rights, the Constitution was created by the Reid Commission by giving importance of four main features of the Constitution. These w ere Federation, entrenched human rights, separation of powers and the constitutional amendment procedure. It was tried that the Constitution should be devised by adapting the constitutional concepts of Britain and India. Efforts were made by the Reid commission to maintain a balance between individual rights and restrictions. But it is not as simple as said. Complete freedom regarding basic liberties as provided by the Constitution of Britain is not present in the Federal Constitution (Neoh, 2008). The main reason is the multi-racial people of Malaysia and the rebellion of communists during that era. For the upkeep of public order, individual rights have been restricted. In view of these features, the proposals of the Reid Commission were modified and the appeal in part P of the Federal Constitution under the title, Fundamental Liberties. Although the concepts of Federalism and constitutional monarchy have been adopted but the report of the Reid commission also contained provisions that protect the particular rights for the Malays like quota in higher education and civil services. The official religion has been mentioned as Islam. The special position of Malay language has also been accepted and the right of having regular education in Chinese and Tamil have been provided protection in the report (Bari and Shuaib, 2009). In this way, the Reid Commissioned tried to provide the fundamental individual rights as the essential element of the constitution of an autonomous country. For example, the guarantees of fundamental liberties that have been provided to the people of Malaysia by the federal Constitution are not allowed to be taken away irresponsibly. As provided in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, every single thing said by others is protected by a guarantee of freedom of speech and expression but within the confines prescribed by the Constitution. This freedom permits the people to freely convey their opinions regarding any subject and sans any fear for the result. It is obvious that the basic liberties that have been provided by the Constitution are appropriately balanced for the purpose of embracing and preserving the multiracial society of the country (Khoo, 2009). Today, the freedom of speech has been provided in Malaysia. Nonetheless, the freedom that has been granted by the federal commission cannot be described as total. There are many acts of laws that restrict this freedom so we get to the society. Some of the examples that can be given in this regard are the Defamation Act, 1957; the Printing Presses and Publications Act, 1984; The Sedition Act, 1948 and the Internal Security Act and Police Act, 1967 that have placed some restrictions on this freedom in a particular way. Therefore, generally the people of Malaysia free to speak whatever they want to but at the same time they should not exceed the limit that has replaced by different laws in this regard (Carroll, 2009). More or less, the historical background had sound effect on the forming of the Federal Constitution. Being a multiracial society, there are several facets that have to be taken care of. The result is that absolute freedom cannot be provided to all the people in Malaysia. The freedom of speech and expression provided by the Constitution of Malaysia is more restricted after the incident of May 13 racial riots. It is important that the requirements and feelings of all the parties concerned should be kept in mind and at the same time, the security of the people is also an important issue (Shad, 2008). After the riots that took place on May 13, 1969, certain changes have been introduced in the Sedition Act in 1970. The issues like the language, particular place of the Bumiputras and the sovereignty of the rulers cannot be raised. All these issues have been made a part of the list of seditious substance. For instance in Mark Koding v Public Prosecutor (1982) and Public Prosecutor v Mark Koding (1983) it was found that a Member Parliament, Mark Koding was held responsible for telling seditious alterations to Article 152 of the Constitution as he had suggested that the Chinese/Tamil language schools need to be put an end to and in the same way, the use of Chinese/Tamil on the road signs ought to be discontinued. The contents suggested by Mark Koding were considered to be said the shares and offending. In case of homogeneous democratic societies like Malaysia, the racial and language issues particularly need to be taken care of. On the other hand, excessive freedom of speech provided i n describing such matters can simply result in stirring up the dissatisfaction of the other communities in the country and therefore it may result in race riots in the country. It needs to be mentioned that although the people of Malaysia have never asked for the total freedom of speech, it appears that the limitations go beyond the confines. Such a situation is detrimental for the freedom of speech in the country. Although the legislations have been enacted for the reason of national security but it has been seen that most of the victims of these legislation for the members of opposition and the journalists who have used their rights entirely as the citizens of Malaysia and to perform, their role in the society. Hence it is important that the government should make sure that these legislations are not abused. In the end, it can be said that there individual rights like the freedom of speech and expression but at the same time the freedom provided by the federal constitution is not absolute. It cannot be denied that the individual rights fall among the foundations of a democratic society. However, too much individual freedom may result in unexpected happenings like the racial riots that took place on May 13, 1969. In a multiracial society as is present in Malaysia, it is important to carefully take note of every single word as may offend or had the feelings of others. The government plays a noteworthy role in enforcing the law and had the same time ensuring that there is no abuse of law. Every person has equal rights to do whatever they want to do but at the same time, they should also make sure that they do not break the law as mentioned in the Federal Constitution for the purpose of protecting each other. References Bari A.A. and Shuaib, S.F. (2009) Constitution of Malaysia Text and Commentary, Pearson Malaysia Carroll, A. B. (2009) AStruggle with Faith: Freedom of Religion in Malaysia. Religion and Human Rights, volume 4, numbers 23, 101106 Khoo, A. (2009) Human Rights in Malaysia: The Last 10Years. LAW. Panel Discussion, Malaysian Human Rights Day Neoh, J. (2008) Islamic State and the Common Law in Malaysia: ACase Study of Lina Joy. Global Jurist 8.2 Shad S. F. (2008), Document of Destiny The Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia, Shah Alam, Star Publications Sheridan L. A. Groves, H.E. (2004) The Constitution of Malaysia, 5th Edition, by KC Vohrah, Philip TN Koh and Peter SW Ling, LexisNexi Mark Koding v Public Prosecutor [1982] 2 MLJ 120 Public Prosecutor v Mark Koding [1983] 1 MLJ 111