KOTA KINABALU – Attorney-General Tan Sri Idrus Harun should adopt a consultative process and not rely entirely on Article 160B in proposing Bahasa Malaysia as the authoritative text for the federal constitution, as opposed to English, said Wisdom Foundation chairman Datuk Seri Wilfred Madius Tangau.
He said the proposed change will arouse deep concerns in East Malaysia where the translation has not been presented to the Parliament and the respective assemblies of Sabah and Sarawak for scrutiny.
Tangau also noted that the Malay language is still in the process of developing better legal terms to bear the same nuances and meanings as in English.
“We recognise this desire for change as it is only right in principle for the supreme law in our country to be in the national language.
“This enables the majority of Malaysians, with their first language being Bahasa Malaysia, to better understand their rights as enshrined in the constitution,” he said in a statement here today.
On January 10, Idrus made the proposal during the opening of the legal year in Putrajaya.
Tangau stressed that English was used officially to create the 1957 federal constitution and the signing of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) as the British government was included in the process.
He said language develops over time and the English used in that period bears nuances and intentions specifically made in that particular context of time.
Hence, Tangau said a premature change in the authoritative language would fail to reflect the true intention of the federal constitution and MA63.
“It would be a grievous mistake to treat this monumental transformative project as a simple translation job of the mid-20th century English language to modern-day Bahasa Malaysia, handled by limited authorities before presentation to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for endorsement,” said Tangau.
He expressed concern that inaccurate translations could change individual as well as collective constitutional rights.
English used in Sabah, Sarawak
For the Borneo states, English remains the language used in the high courts of Sabah and Sarawak as stated in Article 161(3) of the federal constitution, unless a legislature is passed for a change, he said.
He said this would be unconstitutional if the authoritative text is changed without the consent of Sabah and Sarawak.
However, Tangau said inputs can be gathered from various stakeholders nationwide to ensure changes to the supreme law would still safeguard the rights of the rulers and the people.
For instance, prior to the creation and ratification of the 1957 federal constitution, the Reid Commission held 118 conferences and examined 131 memoranda from all walks of life to guide their drafting, he said.
In this instance, the Attorney-General’s Chambers can replicate this process to create a more holistic approach to the translation of the supreme law by getting input from various actors.
These include the Conference of Rulers, the Governors of Sabah and Sarawak respectively, the attorney-general of Sabah and Sarawak, the Malaysian Bar Council, the Sabah Law Society, the Advocates Association of Sarawak, state legislative assemblies, representatives from Malaysia’s law faculties, field experts and academicians, civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations, minority communities and all relevant stakeholders.
Tangau said changing the language of the authoritative text of the federal constitution of a country requires incredible efforts and should not be an executive-dominated agenda.
He said the Wisdom Foundation recommends the following measures to ensure a holistic approach should the proposal from Idrus were to advance:
1. Have special parliamentary and state assembly proceedings to debate the super amendment to the federal constitution.
2. Set up a special select committee in Parliament to supervise the translation process.
3. Conduct meetings with relevant stakeholders to receive input.
4. Perform physical and/or virtual surveys to receive views from the general public. – The Vibes, January 17, 2023
.jpg)
