Is Tommy Thomas Really A Reforming AG Or Is He Selective And Discriminatory In His Actions?

Since Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pushed the 1993 Bill through Parliament, His Majesty the Agong’s assent and signature are no longer required before Parliament Bills become law. That may be so for most Bills. But when it comes to matters concerning the Malays, the Malay language, and Islam, the Majlis Raja-Raja cannot be by-passed, contrary to what most people think.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER 

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Federal Court was severely criticised when it recently declined to rule on whether the extension of service of the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Md Raus Shariff, and the Chief Judge of Malaya, Zulkifli Ahmad Makinudin, were in violation of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and illegal.

Federal Court judge Justice Zainun Ali, who more recently was applauded for various brave judgements, received brickbats for ruling that the issue was purely academic, as these two top judges had resigned their positions and thus a ruling was no longer necessary. (READ MORE HERE: Chief Justice Raus and Court of Appeal president Zulkefli resign).

Malaysians, especially the legal fraternity, considered that the Federal Court was shirking its duty by avoiding to answer a very important legal question that would have provided clarity. That, after all, is what Malaysia Baru or New Malaysia is all about — applying the rule of law to reinforce the institutions of government so that such blatant abuses will never be repeated again.

Many people had great hopes for the New Malaysia in the aftermath of GE14 on 9th May 2018. Perhaps the decision of the Federal Court cannot be blamed totally on the Pakatan Harapan ‘Reform’ Government as they are separate arms. But there have also been questionable decisions by the self-proclaimed new ‘reforming’ Attorney-General, Tommy Thomas.

The withdrawal of the Lim Guan Eng corruption charge was greeted with shock by the MACC. This was clearly a political decision, and probably done due to instructions from the top (arahan dari atas), as usual. Hence, while AG Tommy pontificated his justification, the public began to question if the new Pakatan Harapan government is any different from the old Barisan Nasional government.

The question hanging over AG Tommy’s head is whether he is coloured by his race and religion to be able to deliver fair and impartial advices to the government and whether he can protect all government institutions while seeking to reform them.

One of the issues related to race and religion is PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang’s Private Member’s Bill, a.k.a. RUU355. This Bill was so controversial that DAP reacted by closing down Pakatan Rakyat and forming a new coalition called Pakatan Harapan minus PAS. Basically, this was a ‘back-door’ way of kicking PAS out of the coalition as punishment for tabling the RUU355.

The RUU355 was a hot issue just before GE14 when Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia allowed Hadi’s motion to be tabled. Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail then filed a legal suit to stop Hadi’s motion and RUU355 and sought to declare that laws touching on Islam must have the prior consent of the Conference of Rulers or Majlis Raja-Raja under Article 38 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

After GE14, Tawfik’s lawyer, Mansor Saat, wrote to AG Tommy to request a meeting since the new Speaker has agreed that Article 38 Federal Constitution must be followed before such laws can be tabled (SEE LINK BELOW). Mansor wanted AG Tommy to help clarify and reinforce this point of law so that the Majlis Raja-Raja is given due deference in the legislative process and not treated like a rubber-stamp.

In an arrogant reply (SEE LINK BELOW), AG Tommy declined to have a meeting and said that the issue is academic — exactly how the Federal Court avoided answering the constitutionality of the extension of service of Raus and Zulkifli.

AG Tommy then directed the AGC to inform the High Court (SEE LINK BELOW) that the AGC will raise a preliminary objection so that this issue need not be heard by the High Court on Tuesday, 2nd October 2018. In short, AG Tommy is not interested in clarifying and reinforcing the position of the Majlis Raja-Raja under Article 38 that they must be consulted before the tabling of such laws in Parliament.

Lawyer Mansor Saat put it very aptly — “How can the AG say this is academic whereas the case is more than just about Hadi’s Motion? The Preliminary Objection by the AG is misconceived as it presupposes that the OS is solely on Hadi’s Motion. That is not the case. The reliefs sought are beyond just Hadi’s Motion. We have framed the following issues to be dealt with by the Court:

a) Conformity to the Standing Orders and the Federal Constitution;

b) Conformity to prerequisites for tabling of laws on Islam;

c) Conformity to Art. 38 Federal Constitution on rights of the Rulers and the Conference of Rulers;

d) Conformity to Art. 8 (1), 8 (2), and 8 (3) Federal Constitution and section 2 Penal Code on equality before the law and non-discrimination; and

e) The Speaker’s duty, oath and allegiance to preserve, protect and defend the Federal Constitution and not to abuse Parliament for tabling illegal laws.

This case shows that AG Tommy is incapable and not interested in defending the constitutional position of the Rulers and the Majlis Raja-Raja. Is this how a self-proclaimed reforming AG should behave, i.e., being selective in his advices to the governent?

As it is, AG Tommy has already attracted controversy the day his appointment as AG was announced. Muslims were worried that he would not be able to, or would not want to, protect the position of Islam.

Many in Pakatan Harapan argue that Malaysia is a secular country with Islam as the official religion. That is not so. Islam is not the official religion of Malaysia but THE RELIGION OF THE FEDERATION. In English, the use of THE means it is solitary or the only one, such as when people say ‘the Tunku’. ‘The Tunku’ means only one person, Tunku Abdul Rahman and not any other Tunku.

Matters concerning Malay customs and traditions, the Malay language, and Islam, require the consent of the Majlis Raja-Raja before Parliament can ‘touch’ them. While most countries have three branches of government (the executive, the legislature and the judiciary), Malaysia has four (the monarchy being that fourth).

Since Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pushed the 1993 Bill through Parliament, His Majesty the Agong’s assent and signature are no longer required before Parliament Bills become law. That may be so for most Bills. But when it comes to matters concerning the Malays, the Malay language, and Islam, the Majlis Raja-Raja cannot be by-passed, contrary to what most people think.

By treating the Majlis Raja-Raja as a rubber-stamp, in essence Pakatan Harapan is declaring that Malaysia is a Secular Republic.