Perhimpunan ICERD 8 Dec 2018

[cek mek molek]

Article 153 compatible with UN treaty - even without reservations​

Published: Today 11:01 am | Modified: Today 11:26 am

COMMENT | Ever since Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Sep 28, 2018, where he announced that Malaysia would accede to the six international human rights instruments to which it is not yet a party, attention has been focused on the implications for national laws and policies.

In this regard, I wish to look into a major argument currently being touted by those opposed to the idea that Malaysia should accede to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Icerd), namely that it would offend Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

For those not familiar, Article 153 is often referred to as the provision that protects 'Malay rights' or 'bumiputera rights'. This in itself is a misnomer, because the word 'bumiputera' does not appear in Article 153, nor in fact anywhere in the Federal Constitution.

The provisions of Article 153(1) of the Federal Constitution enjoin the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to
..safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

Article 153(2) addresses the specific areas for which the Agong is required to:
...safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

The provisions of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution thus focus purely on three areas: employment in the public service, educational privileges and special facilities, as well as trade permits or licences. It should be noted, in passing, that the famed 'bumiputera discount' for housing is not provided for in the article.

The provisions also refer to “the reservation….of such proportion as he may deem reasonable….” This appears to anticipate a scheme of quorum for the three communities mentioned, and not how it has been practised of setting a quota for other communities. The reference to “such proportion as he may deem reasonable” would also argue against a total exclusion of other communities, whether in terms of entry into academic institutions, or the grant of business licences such as Class F contractors.

'No one left behind'

If a modern phrase could be utilised to describe the intent of Article 153, it is “no one left behind,” the current slogan of the UN Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals.

The provisions are intended to ensure that “Malays and the natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak” are not neglected, but instead positively included as participants in and beneficiaries of the progressive development of the country. Such an aim should come as no surprise, and is similarly reflected in Icerd itself.

The Icerd, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec 21, 1965, and its precursor, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted Nov 20, 1963) were both born of ideals of the postcolonial era of the 1950s and 1960s, which sought to lift newly-independent countries from the ravages of colonialism.

Colonialism was identified with the rule of the minority over the majority and with philosophies of segregation, discrimination and racial superiority. The year 1965, in fact, saw the adoption of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by white minority-governed Rhodesia led by Ian Smith, which went against the flow of the postcolonial independence movement, both in Africa and elsewhere. The provisions of Icerd particularly prohibit apartheid, which was practiced at that time in Rhodesia and South Africa.

For this reason the definition of “racial discrimination” set out in Article 1 of Icerd reads:
In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

I have no doubt that it is because of this definition of “racial discrimination” that those opposed to Malaysia acceding to Icerd say that this would violate Article 153.

However, the drafters of Icerd were not oblivious to the reality of the on-going detrimental consequences of colonialism. Colonialism may have been ending, but the effects of colonialism on indigenous or national populations remained.

The international community of the day was not unaware and unconcerned that decades of colonial repressive laws had created an underclass of marginalised and alienated communities that suffered under policies of segregation, discrimination and racial superiority. As such, Article 1(4) of Icerd was thus included:

Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

Icerd also provides, in Article 2(2):
States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These measures shall in no case en tail as a con sequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

In the public discussion thus far advanced by those opposed to Malaysia’s accession of Icerd, there has been no reference to the provisions of these two articles.

Viewed from the perspective of Articles 1(4) and 2(2) of Icerd, Article 153 is not inconsistent with the aims of Icerd since it seeks to bring about effective or substantive equality, and not merely formal or superficial equality.

As mentioned earlier, temporary special measures of this nature which attempt to correct historical injustices and realign socio-economic trajectories would have been perfectly understood by the drafters of the Federal Constitution and also by members of the Reid Commission when drafting the constitution of then Malaya, and subsequently included in that of Malaysia.

It is only when the provisions of Article 153 are (mis)interpreted as permanently entrenching 'Malay rights' or 'bumiputera rights' would it be inconsistent with the aim of Icerd. Once these communities are able to hold their own, the need for the “leg up” provisions of Article 153, or, to recall the late deputy prime minister Ismail Abdul Rahman famous reference, a “golfing handicap”, would no longer be required.

There is no need, and certainly no warrant, to remove Article 153.

Looking forward, when it comes to new educational or training opportunities, or green-field trading or business ventures, there may be instances when the provisions of Article 153 may need to be invoked to ensure that none of the three communities are left behind.

But with respect, anyone attempting to re-interpret the provisions of Article 153 to argue that those provisions are intended to be permanent and everlasting in any and every case are, in my opinion, doing great violence to our Federal Constitution.

Even within the three communities mentioned, the large intra-ethnic disparity of socio-economic development would serve as an argument against broad-based policies that do not distinguish between different levels of progress and need within each community.

Given limited resources, assistance, as anticipated by the provisions of Article 153, would best and wisely be concentrated towards those who possess a genuine need for assistance, as opposed to those who are merely members of the community, regardless of how economically well-off they may be.

My conclusion is that acceding to Icerd would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

I would strongly encourage the government to proceed with its stated intention to accede to Icerd without the need to enter any reservations, and having received the approval of the Dewan Rakyat for the Prime Minister’s speech to the UN General Assembly to be the basis for Malaysia’s new government’s policies.

ANDREW KHOO is currently co-chair of the Bar Council constitutional law committee. He previously charied and co-chaired the Bar Council human rights committee. He writes here in his personal capacity.

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/449313

 

[cek mek molek]

Saya walau apapun berlaku, takkan menyokong ratifikasi ICERD ni

 

[stonecold88]

Saya walau apapun berlaku, takkan menyokong ratifikasi ICERD ni

saya sokong mek...

 

[traderfox]

awat??? aku pertahankan apa yang bangsa aku perlu pertahankan...

ko la hanat...duk kena kencing je patut la bang.anggg

aku quote ko punye ayat tu bukan cakap kat kau aku cakap kat kapir tu jangan la gelabah sangat.. sape yg bannggang sebenarnya ni

 

[cek mek molek]

Jangan terburu-buru ratifikasi ICERD​

Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar

KUALA LUMPUR 26 Okt. – Hasrat kerajaan meratifikasi Konvensyen Antarabangsa Mengenai Penghapusan Segala Bentuk Diskriminasi Kaum (ICERD) tidak seharusnya dibuat dalam keadaan terburu-buru.

Ini kerana ia melibatkan pelbagai implikasi undang-undang termasuk risiko pindaan Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang mengancam kedudukan orang Melayu dan agama Islam.

Presiden Persatuan Peguam-Peguam Muslim Malaysia (PPMM), Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar berkata, kerajaan sepatutnya me*lakukan rundingan awam terlebih dahulu supaya rakyat memahami dan boleh menyatakan pendirian mereka terhadap tindakan tersebut.

Malah, beliau turut mempersoalkan peranan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Senator P. Waytha Moorthy yang mengumumkan hasrat kerajaan tersebut sedangkan ia sepatutnya menjadi tanggungjawab Kementerian Luar atau Kementerian Dalam Negeri.

“Saya juga fikir, kenapa pengumuman dibuat Waytha Moorthy, (sedang*kan) beliau menteri (yang bertanggungjawab atas hal ehwal) perpaduan. Kenapa bukan Menteri Luar yang bertanggungjawab meratifikasi (perjanjian antarabangsa) ataupun Menteri Dalam Negeri yang menjaga isu-isu kedaulatan negara.

“Saya tidak tahu sama ada Kementerian Dalam Negeri atau Jabatan Peguam Negara sudah dirujuk atau tidak. Sebab itu saya kata kena ada rundingan, tapi saya tidak pernah dengar ada runding*an dibuat oleh kerajaan. Tiba-tiba ada pengumuman akan diratifikasi,” katanya kepada Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

Sementara itu, mengulas pendapat beberapa pihak yang mendakwa kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu, agama Islam dan kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu tidak akan terjejas kerana ia dijamin Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Zainul Rijal berkata, tindakan meratifikasi ICERD akan tetap mendedahkan negara kepada tekanan antarabangsa supaya undang-undang yang tidak selari dengan konvensyen itu dipinda.

Lebih teruk lagi, menurut beliau, tindakan meratifikasi tanpa meminda undang-undang berkaitan hanya akan memalukan negara pada mata dunia kera*na kerajaan dilihat bersetuju dengan konvensyen itu tetapi tidak mengambil apa-apa langkah ke arah persetujuan itu.

“Jadi pada pendapat saya, kerajaan tidak perlu terburu-buru meratifikasi konvensyen itu kerana ia akan menjejaskan kedaulatan dan juga jati diri Malaysia sendiri,” katanya.

http://www.utusan.com.my/berita/nasional/jangan-terburu-buru-ratifikasi-icerd-1.775854

 

[cek mek molek]

Malah, beliau turut mempersoalkan

-peranan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Senator P. Waytha Moorthy yang mengumumkan hasrat kerajaan tersebut sedangkan ia sepatutnya menjadi tanggungjawab Kementerian Luar atau Kementerian Dalam Negeri.

-“Saya juga fikir, kenapa pengumuman dibuat Waytha Moorthy, (sedang*kan) beliau menteri (yang bertanggungjawab atas hal ehwal) perpaduan. Kenapa bukan Menteri Luar yang bertanggungjawab meratifikasi (perjanjian antarabangsa) ataupun Menteri Dalam Negeri yang menjaga isu-isu kedaulatan negara.

-“Saya tidak tahu sama ada Kementerian Dalam Negeri atau Jabatan Peguam Negara sudah dirujuk atau tidak. Sebab itu saya kata kena ada rundingan, tapi saya tidak pernah dengar ada runding*an dibuat oleh kerajaan. Tiba-tiba ada pengumuman akan diratifikasi,

http://www.utusan.com.my/berita/nasional/jangan-terburu-buru-ratifikasi-icerd-1.775854

Waytha Moorty lak lebih lebih, walhal ni tanggungjawab Kementerian Luar atau Kementerian Dalam Negeri.
Kementerian Dalam Negeri atau Jabatan Peguam Negara sudah dirujuk atau tidak

 

[stonecold88]

aku quote ko punye ayat tu bukan cakap kat kau aku cakap kat kapir tu jangan la gelabah sangat.. sape yg bannggang sebenarnya ni

sori bro...aku baca balik ayat ko...salah faham...sori sekali lg

 

[akecema]

Skrg ade perlembagaan pun, selamba je lge dan menteri2 cina langgar
Kalo xde?

 

[g-man]

Hanat la...

Sign menatang ni dpt tingkatkan ekonomi negara ka?

Kurang hutang negara?

Dpt tgkp jho low?

Jilake sungguh geng 100 hari ni

Munafik..menipu janji 100 hari

 

[kepang]

Saya walau apapun berlaku, takkan menyokong ratifikasi ICERD ni

Mek, tak bolehkah Persatuan Peguam-Peguam Muslim Malaysia membuat petition bantahan? sebab pihak PPMM lebih memahami undang-undang berbanding rakyat marhaein.