THE OHMSI Forum Perdana Series No. 1, co-organised by OPs4A and Ohmsi Sdn Bhd on March 10 last year, asked the speakers seven questions, but not publicly.

The core issue was whether the federal constitution, which Article 4 declares as supreme, remained as such, after all the abuse and misinterpretation by different communities and levels of society. These include members of the government, former judges, the opposition, and even law professors.

My seven primary concerns are:

1. The federal constitution of Malaya in 1957, which was negotiated and agreed on by the four original parties of Malayan institutions and reaffirmed in 1963 with a formal United Nations-negotiated Malaysia Agreement by four colonial states, was, vide the Cobbold Commission, a done deal. These matters predate the nation’s existence by definition. It was, to me, Malaysia 1.0.

When Merdeka was declared by Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, signalling the birth of Malaya, the federal constitution, as our only “social contract” or unwritten arrangement between the concluding parties, already existed. That was the constitution of Malaysia 1.0. Does not the Malaysia Agreement supersede it, and does it not become Malaysia 2.0?

2. The sociopolitical-cultural concessions made by the original political players in the Alliance Party are still badly described as the “social contract of Malaya”. The Alliance players allowed rights to immigrants in return for some qualified privileges for the so-called “Malays of Malaya”. These are, however, not explicitly contained within the Malaysia Agreement. The Malay Dignity Congress and its arguments have no foundation in law or any deal. What, then, is the real problem?

3. The federal constitution further declares in Article 11 what can be deemed to mean or include “matters of religious faith”, which cannot be debated as a matter of public discourse. Should they then not remain only as “private” or “family” matters? The public aspects of Islam are already provided for, as ruled by the Conference of Rulers.

4. When Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore (as British colonial states) came together with Malaya to form Malaysia, were they not four core units of membership, resulting in an increase in the number of states? Are the 14 stripes on the Jalur Gemilang then wrong? Can we afford to reinterpret the Malaysian flag for future generations?

5. If the Pakatan Harapan government hopes to review the Malaysia Agreement, as demanded by Sabah and Sarawak, what constitutes a fair process? Can we resolve this on our own, without international participation in the review? We’ve done so in the past.

6. If the days of a two-thirds majority in Parliament are really over, as per the total vote count in the last two general elections, is it reasonable to assume that any serious amendment to the federal constitution, especially regarding the rights and wrongs of the past, would need both an international dimension and “Moderate, Middle Merdeka Malaysians” for a Malaysia 2.0 arrangement?

7. In all traditional societies, groups take priority over the individual, even if their rights are guaranteed under the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Declaration. Whether it is in Israel or Myanmar or North Korea, similar issues are at stake for minority groups. What, then, is our modern idea and concept of a “private space for personal belief”, as opposed to a conviction imposed compulsorily by external forces with religious authority?

In conclusion, I believe that faith will always be a matter of human dignity and personal conscience, defining our individuality and unique humanity.

If we can afford to give up this freedom, then I’m not sure what it means to be a faithful human any more. – November 3, 2019.

* KJ John worked in public service for 32 years, retired, and started a civil group for which he is chairman of the board. He writes to inform and educate, arguing for integration with integrity in Malaysia. He believes such a transformation has to start with the mind before it sinks into the heart!

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.