Top UN court deems Israel’s presence in occupied Palestinian territories illegal
This photograph shows a general view of the courtroom during a non-binding ruling on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on July 19, 2024. -AFP
PUTRAJAYA: Malaysia has lauded a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel's continued occupation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) is unlawful and should cease immediately.
Wisma Putra said following the landmark ruling, all nations should compel Israel to abide by the decision and immediately end their support to Israel in continuing its illegal occupation of Palestine.
"Malaysia hails the landmark ruling of the ICJ in favour of Palestine rendered through its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the OPT, including East Jerusalem on July 19.
"The court, by an overwhelming majority, ruled that Israel's continued occupation in the OPT is unlawful and should end immediately.
"All new settlement activities should be ceased and all damages be compensated," it said in a statement on Saturday (July 20).
Wisma Putra said the ICJ ruling upholds Palestinian legitimate right to self-determination and that Israel's actions and policies contravene international law.
The Court, it said, also emphasised the collective legal obligations of all states and international organisations to end the illegal occupation by Israel.
The findings of the ICJ also affirm Malaysia's legal arguments presented by Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan during the oral submission to the court on Feb 22.
"Malaysia will continue to support and strongly advocate for the establishment of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine, based on the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, as well as the admission of Palestine as a full member of the United Nations," it added.
Melaka-born lawyer finds the perfect place to work hard and play hard
Running man: Mah, has taken part in over 10 marathons in China. — Photo by Mah Soon Sin
PETALING JAYA: Aiming to establish a legal career, he decided to relocate to the Middle Kingdom with the expectation of a relatively short stay in the country.
“Yet, unexpectedly, here I am in my ninth year,” said Mah Soon Sin, an international legal consultant at a Chinese law firm.
The Melaka-born lawyer has become so proficient in Mandarin that locals often mistake him for a native speaker.
“Whenever I meet strangers or make new friends, they tend to think that I’m a local,” he said, adding that his accent is similar to theirs.
In addition to his linguistic abilities, the 39-year-old bachelor has participated in over 10 marathons in China.
The enthusiastic runner, who has worked in Shanghai, Qingdao and Hangzhou, said: “I have achieved a personal best by completing a marathon in three hours and 43 minutes in China.”
Currently based in Hangzhou, Mah said he appreciates the ease of travel between cities.
“I find it convenient here. Shanghai is a mere 50-minute high-speed train ride away, along with Suzhou.”
It’s easy to travel within this vast country, said Mah.
“I enjoyed exploring the cities. While I haven’t visited them all, places like Tibet have left me mesmerised.”
Looking ahead, he said Beijing could be his next destination.
“It beckons as a place steeped in history. The Forbidden City and other historical sites are truly remarkable and worth exploring.”
When it comes to food, Mah has savoured the diverse offerings rooted in the country’s geography and population.
“The culinary scene in China is a delightful mix of flavours.
“Sichuan dishes bring the heat while Shanghai cuisine leans towards sweetness, each offering a unique taste,” he said.
As for his vocation, Mah has found his career thriving in China.
Serving as a legal director and in-house counsel for multinational giants spanning ecommerce, high-tech, and traditional manufacturing industries, Mah has spearheaded a wide range of projects, from mergers and acquisitions to litigation.
“My work here is fulfilling, although demanding at times,” he said.
Reflecting on his early days in China, Mah remembered arriving in China alone in 2015 with limited knowledge of the country but armed with a strong desire to better himself.
“I distinctly remember arriving here with no friends and with just 20,000 yuan to cover my initial expenses.
“Although unfamiliar with China and lacking local connections, I was eager to establish myself.”
Mah said he was thankful for his enriching experiences and achievements in China.
“I have gained much insight (into the country). I am thankful for all that I have accomplished so far.”
As for the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Malaysia and China, Mah said, “I hope this relationship will deepen with more development between the two nations and their people.”
He encouraged young people to bravely pursue their dreams, even in a foreign land.
“With clear vision and preparation, we can overcome any obstacles and achieve our goals.”
Having worked in Malaysia and Singapore before finding his niche in China, Mah acknowledges that he misses home sometimes.
“I do miss the work-life balance in Malaysia, but I aspire to achieve more in my current environment.”
And when homesickness does strike, Mah has some familiar “companions” from Malaysia.
“My trusty blanket and pillow from my hometown still accompany me,” he quipped.
By ALLISON LAI allison@thestar.com.my
China’s 5th Gen J-31B Stealth Jet Readies For Combat Role
In a recent reveal that has caused shockwaves across military circles worldwide, China has unveiled something that might just shift the balance of power in the skies. What if we told you there's a new player in the game, designed to rival the best out there? An aircraft so advanced, its mere existence is a clear sign to a nation's relentless pursuit of excellence.
Today’s episode will uncover China’s upcoming 5th generation J-31 Stealth Jet fighter and how its almost ready for a combat role.
#china#chinadefense#chinesemilitary#military#militaryaircraft
Chapter
00:00 – Intro
00:52 - J-31B China’s Upcoming Aerial Beastx
03:45 - A Collaboration With Fujian?
06:08 - The Global Power Shift
Photo: 123rf.com
CONSUMER protection laws are designed to safeguard consumers and ensure they are not subjected to fraudulent or unethical practices by businesses. One such law in Malaysia is the Financial Consumer Services Act 2013, which aims to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices by financial institutions.
One issue that has received increased attention in recent years is “mis-selling” by banks selling investment products to its depositors. Mis-selling refers to the practice of selling financial products to consumers that are not suitable for their needs or financial situation, which can often result in significant financial losses.
Banks have been known to engage in mis-selling by aggressively pushing investment products such as mutual funds, stocks, and insurance policies to their depositors without adequately disclosing the risks involved.
The Financial Consumer Services Act (FCSA) seeks to address this issue by imposing strict requirements on financial institutions to ensure that they act in the best interests of their clients.
FCSA requires financial institutions to disclose information about their products and services in a clear and concise manner, to ensure that consumers can make informed decisions.
It also provides for the establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism to enable consumers to seek redress for grievances.
In addition, the Act requires financial institutions to obtain sufficient information about their clients’ financial situation and investment goals before recommending any investment product.
This is particularly important if customers do not have the same level of knowledge or experience as more seasoned investors.
The Act also provides consumers with greater protection in the event of a dispute. It establishes an independent dispute resolution mechanism that is fair and impartial to resolve complaints and disputes between consumers and financial institutions.
In addition to this, the FCSA provides for compensation for consumers who have suffered losses as a result of mis-selling. Financial institutions are required to establish complaint handling procedures that enable consumers to make complaints and seek redress. These procedures must be transparent and accessible, and financial institutions must take reasonable steps to resolve complaints in a timely and efficient manner.
The FCSA also provides for enforcement measures to be taken against financial institutions that engage in unfair and deceptive practices. This includes fines, penalties, and other sanctions that may be imposed by the regulator.
These measures are designed to deter financial institutions from engaging in practices that are harmful to consumers.
It is important to note, however, that consumer protection laws are only effective when they are enforced. Financial institutions that engage in mis-selling must be held accountable for their actions, and consumers must be empowered to seek redress when they are harmed. This requires a strong and effective regulatory framework, as well as consumer education and advocacy to ensure that consumers are aware of their rights and able to protect themselves.
The FCSA is an important piece of legislation that plays a vital role in protecting consumers in the financial sector.
It provides consumers with greater transparency and clarity in financial transactions, and ensures that they are not subject to unfair and deceptive practices.
The provisions of the Act relating to the mis-selling of investment products by banks are particularly important, as this is a problem that has affected many consumers in the past.
With the FCSA in place, consumers can have greater confidence in the financial sector and can be assured that their rights and interests are being protected.
- PROF DR ONG TZE SAN School of Business and Economics Universiti Putra Malaysia
Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is the second former prime minister after Datuk Seri Najib Razak was charged in court.
Focus on your court cases, Anwar advises Muhyiddin
Muhyiddin, who is Bersatu president and Perikatan Nasional chairman, was charged at the Sessions Court yesterday with four counts of power abuse involving a total of Rm232.5mil in gratification and two counts of money laundering involving Rm195mil.
Muhyiddin, who is Bersatu president and Perikatan Nasional chairman, was charged at the Sessions Court yesterday with four counts of power abuse involving a total of Rm232.5mil in gratification and two counts of money laundering involving Rm195mil.
Najib was sentenced by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on July 28, 2020 to 12 years’ jail and a Rm210mil fine after he was found guilty of seven charges of criminal breach of trust, money laundering and abuse of position in the Rm42mil SRC International case in connection with the sovereign fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
RM300mil kickback claims that led to charges being filed
PETALING JAYA: The charging of Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in court is linked to allegations that contractors had deposited RM300mil into the party’s accounts in return for projects.
The projects were part of the Jana Wibawa programme, which was set in November 2020 by Muhyiddin when he was the prime minister, to empower bumiputra contractors struggling during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under the scheme, bumiputra contractors rated three to five stars were given contracts through direct negotiation.
They had to be approved by the Finance Ministry and Muhyiddin has pointed the finger at his finance minister then, Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz, as the one who had approved the companies getting the projects.
Muhyiddin has also called the allegations “political slander” to smear his reputation as the eighth prime minister.
In February, the MACC froze Bersatu’s accounts and has since charged several individuals in court.
They included former Bersatu information chief Datuk Wan Saiful Wan Jan and Segambut Bersatu division deputy chief Adam Radlan Adam Muhammad.
They were alleged to have collected funds from the award of the projects.
On March 2, Bersatu treasurer Datuk Mohd Salleh Bajuri was remanded by the graft busters to assist investigations into the party’s expenditure.
Mohd Salleh was instructed to go to the MACC headquarters on March 1 to give a statement on payments by Bersatu to suppliers and vendors.
INTRODUCED in November 2020 during the administration of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, the Jana Wibawa programme was meant wholly for bumiputra contractors to help them cope with the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission’s (MACC) probe into Jana Wibawa has revealed the shenanigans of the persons allegedly involved. According to Law and Institutional Reform Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, there were 56 projects valued at Rm6.3bil under the programme. But that’s another matter.
It must not be overlooked that non-malay contractors were also affected by the Covid-19 maelstrom. Some were on the verge of bankruptcy too.
It is therefore regretted that the government of the day chose to implement a politically popular policy instead of one that promoted inclusivity and would have enhanced racial unity.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, in enunciating the principles of Malaysia Madani, emphasised that the direction of the country must be guided by significant priorities that require an approach cutting across political, social, economic, environmental and technological aspects.
Good governance entails a more inclusive culture in promoting unity in diversity. It is hoped that the future will not look anything like the past.
In light of the rampant illegal bitcoin mining operations and financial
losses from illegal electricity tapping nationwide, Tenaga Nasional Bhd
(TNB) is looking at ways to legalise mining operations by imposing
special tariffs. - NSTP file pic
`
PUTRAJAYA: In light of the rampant illegal bitcoin mining operations and financial losses from illegal electricity tapping nationwide, Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) is looking at ways to legalise mining operations by imposing special tariffs. `
TNB chairman and chief executive officer Datuk Baharin Din said a proposal has been drawn up with special tariff rates for Bitcoin mining and this had been forwarded to the Energy Commission (EC) for approval. `
"We have made a proposal with our recommendations to legalise Bitcoin mining by charging them a special commercial rate but the proposal is still being reviewed by the EC," he said. `
Baharin said they first discovered the electricity tapping for Bitcoin mining in 2018 when at a time there were only 610 cases.
"But, last year the numbers jumped to 3,090 premises being used, and the tapping was done haphazardly, with the illegal operations posing a huge risk to the premises as well as others in the vicinity, through electricity sharing. `
"In addition, the (electricity) volume these illegal miners have been tapping was also way too high and detrimental to everyone," he said. `
Baharin said to undertake such tapping exercises, a person must be technically competent because it is a highly risky venture. `
"There are no safety elements included while they tap the electricity illegally for the machines and it can catch fire easily or cause a power outage," he said. `
Baharin was speaking to reporters after sharing the recent success of Op Power, a nationwide joint operation by MACC, police, EC and TNB which managed to cripple 998 illegal Bitcoin mining premises last month. `
Also present at the press conference today were MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki and EC chief executive officer Abdul Razib Dalwood. `
Azam said 18 suspects have been arrested and TNB losses from 2018 until last year are estimated to be RM2.3 billion. `
"The raids were carried out in Perak, Selangor, Pahang, Kedah, Melaka, Johor and Penang whereby 998 premises were found to have tampered to draw electricity (illegally). `
"We also identified 23 suspects paying and accepting bribes to allow these premises to operate but five have not been picked up due to Covid-19," he said. `
He said those arrested were receiving and paying money so that these illegal operations can be carried out. `
"One of the suspects picked up ran 500 premises on his own and on estimation, he pays about RM500 a month for each," he said, adding that the total bribe for the Os Power is estimated to be RM2.37 million. `
Azam said the payments were made either through cash or cryptocurrency monthly to and from these suspects. `
He said MACC has also frozen 126 accounts totalling up to RM4.47 million and seized 1,157 mining machines worth RM2.3 million in last month's nationwide joint operation. `
He said all those arrested will be charged for money laundering under the MACC Anti Money Laundering Act 2001.
A COUPLE of weeks ago, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad talked about the Sedition Act. He calmly explained to all Malaysians that it isn’t meant to avoid criticisms about wrongdoing, it isn’t meant to shackle whistleblowers, and it’s completely not sedition if you tell the truth.
“If you say something factual, you cannot be punished for it,” said Dr Mahathir, “But, on the other hand, if we shut the mouths of everyone, to the point that people cannot even speak up against acts of crime, then there will be injustice in the country.” (“Be clear on what insult means”, Nation, The Star, Jan 11; online at tinyurl.com/star-insult.)
Basically, it sounded like he could have been talking about anything – except the Sedition Act. Now, the Sedition Act is not unfamiliar to Pakatan Harapan. In its own manifesto, PH said that it would revoke the Sedition Act if it came to power, giving the reason that it is a law “inherited from the British colonial era without amendment to improve weaknesses”. And then after PH formed the government, it seemed to kind of casually forget this.
I have written about the Sedition Act before (“Lost in translation?”, Contradictheory, Star2, March 29, 2015; online at tinyurl.com/star-sedition). If you’re not reading this column online, here’s a summary of what I said then: I pointed out the problem that you can be guilty of sedition even if all you are doing is repeating what somebody else has said. And to top it off, it doesn’t matter if what you said was true, nor does it matter if you said it with the best of intentions. It’s like saying somebody’s dress is figure-hugging, and hearing them answer, “Are you saying I’m fat?”
It’s all there in the Act. The Act talks about whether “things” have a “seditious tendency”. These include actions, speech, words and publications, for example, and whether they influence people to feel hatred, contempt or disaffection for the Rulers or the government. Whether the “things” are true or not doesn’t matter.
The Act also says, “The intention of the person charged at the time ... shall be deemed to be irrelevant”.
Why is it interpreted like that? It’s hard to say, but I think it does make it easier for the authorities to manage anti-government sentiments.
For example, it’s possible to be selective with the truth to manipulate a situation. So, technically, what somebody said might be fact, but might also be misleading.
Secondly, intent is something that can be very difficult to establish. You have to get into the mind of the accused and tease out what he or she intended by what he or she said or wrote.
For example, if all you wrote on a Facebook page is that somebody should be investigated for doing a Very Bad Thing, then you have sown the seeds of doubt in the minds of the audience. You might argue, I didn’t know it wasn’t true, I just wanted to see justice being done. What, people got upset by what I wrote? I didn’t know that would happen.
This is precisely the sort of annoying thing I have to face on social media almost every day. Somebody re-posts or retweets a rumour en masse to others with two button clicks and when you ask them why didn’t they just check it first, they shrug and say, “I just wanted people to know – just in case”.
(That’s really what we should have a law against: Indiscriminate and irresponsible retweets. The penalty would be to copy pages of Wikipedia by hand for the local library.)
But the thing is, it should be hard to put somebody in jail.
The system of justice we have now focuses on the presumption of innocence. In other words, people have to gather evidence and prove to the court that you are guilty. And people should be entitled to the best possible defence, and saying I am normally a good person who does good things should be taken into account.
Intent matters. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. Intent is the bedrock of whether we are kind to others because we want everyone to thrive, or because we want to later take advantage of them.
If we want to be able to prosecute people for saying hateful things that disturb society, you must show intent. Either make clear the context or show a pattern of previous behaviour. It’s the difference between an Internet troll and Karpal Singh.
The Sedition Act, in a way, does try to at least cover situations where you are trying to right a perceived wrong in society. But in a case like when artist Zunar (Zulkiflee Anwar Haque) drew cartoons making fun of alleged crimes in the previous government, it is clear there is still much leeway for interpretation there.
The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them. It’s an opportunity for the truth to shine instead of hiding out.
There are many who blame the PH government for being hypocritical for not keeping its election promise and maintaining the Sedition Act. I don’t disagree.
But the fact is that Dr Mahathir touched on the two things that perhaps could potentially make the Act fairer. He said it is OK if we told the truth. And it is OK if we want to stop injustice.
And I can’t think of why any Malaysian wouldn’t want to do both.
The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them.
star2@thestar.com.my Dzof Azmi
Logic is the antithesis of emotion but mathematician-turned-scriptwriter Dzof Azmi’s theory is that people need both to make sense of life’s vagaries and contradictions. Write to Dzof at star2@thestar.com.my.
MYANMAR, South Sudan, North Korea, Vanuatu... What do these countries have in common with Malaysia?
Yes, they all have not signed or ratified the United Nation’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).
Malaysia is currently one of 14 countries in the world that have not recognised or signed the UN treaty.
The other countries in this exclusive club include the Cook Islands, the federated states of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Niue and Tuvalu.
Out of 197 countries, 179 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICERD. Four countries – Angola, Bhutan, Nauru and Palau – have signed the ICERD but not ratified it.
The treaty was first mooted in the early 1960s in response to the growing racial discrimination and religious intolerance in the world.
In 1965, the ICERD was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly, with one abstention. The Convention came into force in 1969.
Malaysia and Brunei are the only Islamic-majority countries that have not signed ICERD. All 22 states of the Arab League, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Indonesia, among others, have signed and ratified the treaty.
However, many countries only agreed to be bound by ICERD with certain reservations.
Reservations to parts of ICERD are allowed as long as they are not “incompatible with the object and purpose” of the treaty. Even the US has made a reservation: it does not accept any part of the Convention that would oblige it to criminalise hate speech.
Many – including China, India and Thailand – do not accept a provision that allows national ICERD disputes to be referred to the International Court of Justice. Singapore, which only ratified ICERD in November 2017, reserves the right to apply its own policies on foreign workers, “with a view to promoting integration and maintaining cohesion within its racially diverse society”.
Most of the Islamic states that have ratified ICERD state that they will not recognise or establish relations with Israel.
Saudi Arabia is the sole Islamic state that has a reservation that it will only implement the ICERD provisions that do not conflict with the Islamic Syariah.
Tonga and Fiji reserve the right on indigenous citizens’ land. In fact, many countries that have ratified the ICERD have affirmative action policies to ensure marginalised and indigenous groups are given some privileges to help them move up the social and economic ladder.
This is clearly stated in the treaty: state parties are allowed, “when the circumstances so warrant”... to use “positive discrimination policies” for specific racial groups to guarantee “the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms”.
And while the treaty obliges signatories to “pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms”, some have questioned its effectiveness in eliminating racism and hate crime.
To ratify or not to ratify no longer the question
But the ICERD remains a tempest in a political teapot, and so the discussion on the UN Convention must continue in Malaysia, a nation at the crossroads.
https://youtu.be/8yPfmIlpWq8
A NUMBER of individuals and groups denounced the proposal to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) on the ground that it will destroy Malay rights, weaken the position of Islam and erode the power of the Malay Rulers.
Most of the criticisms have no legal basis. However, as hate and fear are potent weapons in politics, the perpetrators have succeeded in polarising society and raising the spectre of violence. The Prime Minister has, therefore, strategically retracted the proposal to ratify.
The debate on this UN Convention will, however, continue and this necessitates a brief discussion of the Federal Constitution and the ICERD.
Equality
The Constitution in Articles 5-13 protects many human rights and these are available irrespective of race. Article 8(1) declares that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. Article 8(2) states that except as expressly authorised, there shall be no discrimination on the ground of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.
Many other Articles explicitly forbid racial discrimination. Among them are Article 12(1) relating to education and Article 136 regarding impartial treatment of federal employees.
Citizenship (Articles 14-22); the electoral process; membership of Parliament; and positions in the Cabinet, public services, judiciary and the constitutional commissions are all free of racial differentiation.
Permissible exceptions: To the general rule of racial equality, a number of exceptions are explicitly provided. Foremost are protection for the aborigines (Article 8), Malay Regiment (Article 8), Malay Reserves (Article 89) and special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (Article 153). These preferential provisions are not based on the idea of racial superiority or exclusiveness but on a mixture of historical realities and the impulses of affirmative action. Their primary purpose is to engineer society through the law and to ensure that those left behind in socioeconomic development are able to catch up with the others.
Article 153’s provisions have much in common with India’s special provisions for the Scheduled Castes. Like in India, Article 153 provisions are hedged in by clear limits. For example, Article 153’s quotas do not apply across the board but only in four areas: positions in the public service; scholarships and educational and training facilities; licences and permits; and post-secondary education.
It is also notable that Article 153 enjoins the King to safeguard the “legitimate interests of other communities”.
Likewise, Article 89(2) requires that where land is reserved for Malays, an equal area shall be made available for general alienation.
ICERD
This piece of international law takes a strong stand against apartheid, segregation, discrimination and racial superiority. However, it recognises the need for affirmative action. It acknowledges the need to rectify historical injustices and to enrich formal equality with functional and substantive equality. Articles 1(4) and 2(2) of ICERD permit “special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection”.
This is quite in line with Articles 89 and 153 of Malaysia’s Constitution. However, the ICERD seeks to set limits on the duration for affirmative action. The measures “shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved”.
This has riled up the ICERD critics because Articles 153 and 89 contain no time limits. It is submitted that for all practical purposes the differences between Article 153 and ICERD are insignificant. ICERD opposes “eternity clauses” but imposes no time limit. Article 153 imposes no time limit but is capable of amendment subject to the special procedures of Articles 159(5) and 38(4) – two-thirds majority plus the consent of the Conference of Rulers and the Governors of Sabah and Sarawak.
ICERD in Article 20 allows nations to ratify it with reservations. For example, the United States adopted ICERD but objected to any provision in the Convention that breached the US Constitution. Malaysia can do the same and indeed has done so in a number of situations.
We adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 in section 4(4) of our Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 but subjected it to our Federal Constitution. We adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) but subjected it to our Constitution’s Article 8(5) which exempts personal laws from the Constitution’s gilt-edged provisions for gender equality.
ICERD and Islam
To bolster their opposition to the ICERD, its critics are claiming, amazingly, that ICERD will weaken the position of Islam. To give this claim any credibility requires a willing suspension of disbelief. The ICERD is against racial discrimination and does not address itself to official religions or secularism or theocracy. In any case, Islam promotes racial equality. The ICERD has been ratified by 179 nations, of which 48 are Muslim nations. Out of 50 Muslim countries, only Malaysia and Brunei are non-signatories.
ICERD and Malay Rulers
The ICERD is not anti-monarchial and in no way affects the honours and dignities of the 27 monarchies existing in the world today, six of whom are absolute monarchies.
International law is not law
Even if ratified by the executive, ICERD cannot displace Article 3 (Islam), Article 153 (special position of the Malays and natives) and Article 181 (prerogatives of Malay Rulers). This is due to the legal fact that our concept of “law” is defined narrowly in ArticIe 160(2) and does not include international law.
The constitutional position on the ICERD is, therefore, this: Even if the ICERD is ratified by the executive, it is not law unless incorporated into a parliamentary Act. Even if so legislated, it is subject to the supreme Constitution’s Articles 3, 153 and 181. Unless these Articles are amended by a special two-thirds majority and the consent of the Conference of Rulers and the Governors of Sabah and Sarawak, the existing constitutional provisions remain in operation.
The ICERD is not a law but only a pole star for action. Its ideals cannot invalidate national laws. The agitation against it is contrived for political purposes and perceptive Malaysians must not allow themselves to be exploited by politicians.
By Shad Saleem Faruqi
Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is a holder of the Tunku Abdul Rahman Chair at Universiti Malaya.
