To flip or to flop, that is the question

  KJ John

Why do ministers not stop to think before they speak? I am glad that the health minister has resolved that he will forgo his perk with the personalised number plate; since they “goofed” in a simple and fairly well-established process of bidding.

In fact, I would add that the Road Transport Department (RTD) director-general must now put a deadline as to when a minister exercises his right to “call in his number.” Surely there must be a rational basis for such decisions; and the public deserves to know that a number is not up for bidding, as a minister had exercised his option for the said number.

The other day, we had another idiocratic statement of the higher education minister who declared a new policy that PTPTN loans would be withheld from students in two specific public universities. The deputy prime minister even said this was “fair game”. Then, as soon as it was announced it was equally speedily withdrawn.

Why so, when the loan is a legitimate contract and every Malaysian student cannot be discriminated based on any other flimsy criterion?
Now we have yet another minister in charge of Islamic Affairs in the Prime Minister’s Department making another idiocratic statement asking the Bar Council president to not make comments about Islam.

To quote him explicitly, as reported in the Sun, “the issues of Islam are too sensitive to be discussed by non-Muslims and this is a common understanding among the multi-religious people in Malaysia. I cannot understand when somebody who understands this ‘unwritten’ regulation tries to interfere in matters concerning the mufti institution and Islamic affairs.”

He was of course commenting on the Bar Council president’s statement that the Kedah state government had used an ouster clause in their amendment to the Fatwa Committee Enactment 2008 defining that all fatwas or edicts cannot be challenged in court. The Bar Council president said this was clearly unconstitutional.

What is it that the minister does not understand? Does he know that we have a constitution which is the supreme law of this nation?

While faith is always a personal and private matter, there is never a question that, even for “what is Islamic and what is not,” the prime arbiter in Malaysia is the constitution of the federation. Does every minister understand this?

We are a country of laws. And we must always seek to come under the domain of the rule of law in Malaysia. Even as the monarchy, Malay customs and traditions and Islam are also protected and preserved by the same constitution, as are the rights and privileges of all citizens and so, too, the jurisprudence of civil laws in Malaysia.

‘Uncivilised civility’

I pray and hope that all ministers realise that we are a nation of civil laws which essentially define us as civilised. When we do not follow these prescribed laws and privileges we can then be considered an ‘uncivilised civility,’ as stated by the Raja Muda of Perak recently.

Religious laws in Malaysia are limited to the ambit of state enactments and apply only to Muslims in matters of their personal faith and family-related issues, especially related to distribution of assets and properties.

To me, when the minister of Islamic Affairs in Malaysia (an institution of governance) asks the president of the Bar Council (another institution of governance) to stop talking about the constitution and her provisions, regardless of the nature of the subject, this is tantamount to uncivil civility, to borrow the term from the Raja Muda of Perak.

The same is also true of the ‘burgermen’ and the ‘buttmen’ when they do not know that it is unlawful to establish stalls in front of another’s house.

To me, Perkasa and other like-minded types are the uncivil ones.  Even as the minister of Islamic Affairs said, what is good, proper and civic minded in Malaysia is a function and nature of our upbringing and culture. That defines us as a people in Malaysia.

In fact, at a recent wedding of a friend’s daughter, it was wonderful to see a complete mix of multi-ethnic and multi-religious sentiments from our growing-up generation of Sungai Petani. We exemplified what I would consider “yang tersurat dan tersirat”.

In fact, I have used the original phrase in Malay because I want the minister to also reflect and realise that part and parcel of the hidden cultural aspects is also knowledge and wisdom that comes from being ‘lettered’ (or the meaning of ‘tersurat’. My problem with the minister’s statement is that while he criticises the Bar Council president, he is himself sounding rather unlettered with little or no logic in his statement.

All ministers and public officials should be cautious when speaking; especially if they are speaking off the cuff. Unless they have a policy brief on the subject, knee jerk reactions are what causes them to shoot themselves in their foot.

Ministers must be rational and above all speak with a full consciousness of laws and the constitution; which can be called the ‘public religion of governance’ in Malaysia.

The over-riding principle of governance in Malaysia must therefore always be the rule of law.  Even the monarchy is defined and established by the constitution; otherwise the Sabahans and Sarawakians do not need to accept it. Even our nature of democracy is defined by the federal constitution through the institutions it officially recognises.

Therefore, my advice to all cabinet ministers is to study their federal constitution and please be rational and not simply emotional when you speak... otherwise you appear irrational and before long the PM will have no choice but to drop you from the cabinet; because you are what the rakyat will call a flip-flop minister. May God bless Malaysia with good governance.