IT is the second day of the conditional movement-control order, and I, like many other Malaysians, am rather confused. I must admit – rather embarrassingly – that my confusion stems mainly from a lack of insight into our federal constitution.

After the CMCO was announced by Muhyiddin Yassin, many state governments said they would not comply with the ruling. I’ve always known that there is some form of separation of power between the federal and state governments. However, I also assumed that it was only in matters related to religion, land and local councils. That was my layman’s view.

I have now come to learn that the Ninth Schedule of the constitution contains legislative lists, basically three lists that define the separation or distribution of legislation. They are the Federal List, State List and Concurrent List.

The Concurrent List defines areas where both the federal and state governments can legislate, but if I’m not mistaken, the underlying principle of the constitution is that federal law always takes precedence, based on Article 81. Now that certain state governments are choosing to directly ignore federal law, is it not in violation of the constitution?

It may simply be the case that certain states felt that the announcement by the prime minister was merely an advisory, as the announcement was made before the regulations were gazetted. For the purpose of timelines, the announcement was made on the morning of May 1, while the regulations were gazetted on May 3.

This appears to be the case, as Ismail Sabri Yaakob said on May 4, the day the CMCO came into force, that all states must follow the new regulations as they have been gazetted. Mohamed Azmin Ali also came out to say states that refuse to comply could face suits by industry players. Even after these statements, there are still states saying they won’t follow the new regulations. If this is the case, are the states not going against the constitution, the very instrument they are supposed to uphold?

To further confuse matters, we have remarks by a prominent politician that “the era of the federal government having the final say is over”. Is this not akin to causing political strife and turmoil, as well as blatantly challenging the constitution?

As a layman and concerned citizen, I am rather troubled. Are states really allowed to go against federal law? Which article of the state or federal constitution is being referred to when choosing to ignore the CMCO? What exactly are you basing your decisions on? It is not enough to say you held a meeting and reached a consensus.

Do our elected representatives have a full understanding of the constitution, or are they making random statements? The public at large is already confused. The business community is affected by these mixed signals, especially those with offices in different states. How are they supposed to plan and restart their businesses when there are conflicting views on what they can and can’t do? I’m sure even civil servants operating in different states are uncertain on whether to follow federal or state regulations. And let’s not talk about how foreign investors are looking at us.

I implore our politicians and the relevant powers to give us facts, not rhetoric, and certainly to stop playing politics at this time. Again, I emphasise, make your decisions based on the prevailing law, and not what you think you can do. And tell us which law or article of the federal or state constitution gives you that authority.

Gone are the days when we need to accept anything you say as gospel, just because you are in a position of power. The media should also question politicians on which law, regulation or constitutional article they’re referring to when they claim they have the right to do – or not do – something. That will give us all some clarity. At the very least, it will show whether these politicians have a grasp of the applicable laws in the first place. That is what accountability and good governance according to the rule of law is about.

I still do not know who is right or wrong, or who is acting within their allowed powers in the current dispute between the federal and state governments. I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional expert, but simply a concerned citizen.

What I do know, however, is that knowledge of the constitution is not just for lawyers. We should all know and understand our constitution, to ensure our rights are protected. And, to call it out when they’re not.

A number of lawyers have spoken up about these anomalies, but we cannot leave it to the legal fraternity to do this. As citizens, we need to ensure our politicians make decisions and run the country as per the constitution, and not based on their own whims and fancies.

The constitution is, after all, the supreme law of the nation. – May 5, 2020.

* Dharm Navaratnam reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.