Dr M’s ‘multiracialism not constitutional’ claim legally sound, says Pejuang

 

Pejuang information chief Rafique Rashid Ali said even though the constitution provided special privileges to the Malays, it did not make Malaysia a ‘Malay supremacy’ country but a ‘Malay primacy’ one.

PETALING JAYA: Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali has defended Dr Mahathir Mohamad against criticism that the former prime minister has misunderstood the Federal Constitution in claiming that promoting a multiethnic country is unconstitutional.

Rafique, who is Pejuang information chief, said Mahathir’s statement on the matter, taken in full context rather than piecemeal, was legally accurate.

“His statement is backed by historical events as well as provisions of the Federal Constitution, the highest law of the land,” he said in a statement.

FMT earlier quoted constitutional lawyer Bastian Pius Vendargon as saying that Mahathir’s claim was incorrect as Article 8 of the constitution stated that all persons were equal before the law and entitled to equal protection.

Vendargon also said the constitution did not seek to impose “Malayness” on others or exclude people of different ethnic backgrounds, although it recognised Malay rights and Islam’s special position.

Philip Koh, an adjunct professor at Universiti Malaya, had said the Reid and Cobbold commissions — which had formed the backdrop for Merdeka and the formation of Malaysia — had affirmed that the country was “a liberal democracy and not a race-based autocracy”.

In response, Rafique said the right to equality under Article 8 was not absolute, citing Article 11(4) on the restriction to propagate religious doctrines or beliefs to Muslims as well as Article 153 on the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

He claimed that the special position of the Malays was reflected in the Reid commission papers, showing the acknowledgement by the nation’s forefathers that Malaysia was not a multicultural country.

Rafique also said even though the constitution provided special privileges to the Malays, it did not make Malaysia a “Malay supremacy” country but a “Malay primacy” one.

He claimed that the protection afforded to non-Malays could not be used as a “weapon” to trump Article 153 to demand equal rights for all ethnicities.

He said it was the norm for “landlords”, referring to the Malays, to be afforded special privileges compared to “guests”. “If both were treated equally, chaos would ensue and a great tragedy would befall,” he added. - FMT