Private opinion is weak, but public opinion is almost omnipotent.
– Henry Ward Beecher, American clergyman and social reformer
The court of public opinion, as the Fifth Estate, is a powerful constituent assembly of reform-minded voters. This indispensable court has constitutional moorings in Article 10(1)(a) (freedom of speech, assembly, association).
Defence lawyers for the government will feel and fear the heat especially when the Federal Constitution and all religious texts are consulted to match the undeniable facts associated with higher law. Freedom to apply religion to unlawful government acts is long overdue.
Notwithstanding the appalling awkwardness of Article 8(2), “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law,” argues Article 8(1) Federal Constitution, as an absolute right.
The English version of the Holy Quran says thus: “I will never deny any of you – male or female – the reward of your deeds. Both are equal in reward…”4 (3:195).
So, the supreme law of Malaysia and the Holy Quran are on all fours with equality which begs the obvious question: does the Madani government obey these authoritative texts?
The verdict of the court of public opinion for disobeying higher laws: Total disqualification for election into public office. This enforceable verdict passes constitutional muster (Article 39) for Royal Assent with the Agong’s power to invoke Article 130 (Advisory jurisdiction of the Federal Court).
Freedom of religion in the court of public opinion will be a high-voltage matter. The word “freedom” can only have one meaning however narrowly interpreted. Understandably it’s not absolute for both the governed and the government.
Do Malaysians really enjoy freedom of religion in Malaysia? Article 11(4) Federal Constitution does not mince its words about proselytising to Muslims. Fair enough.
The English version of the Holy Quran says, “there shall be no compulsion in religion.” (2:256). So, are Muslims allowed to proselytise to non-Muslims? They may, but they cannot coerce, force or compel.
Article 11 Federal Constitution does not grant government special powers to advance any religion although Islam is the official religion of the nation. But the government seems focused on terrorising secularism!
The fifty or so ethnic groups in Sabah and Sarawak, the Chinese and Indians of Peninsular Malaysia exhibit no hostility towards dominant Islamic values and beliefs.
The court of public opinions finds that there is no threat whatsoever to Islam or to the dominant Malays. What then was the issue with the Malay Dignity Congress except that it further fuelled incendiary racism?
James Madison believed that “public opinion sets bounds to every government, and it is the real sovereign in every free one.” Sovereign Malaysians ought to take the decisions of the court of public opinion into their own hands.
Section 27(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code offers temporary solutions to caring and concerned Malaysians: “Any private person may arrest any person and . . . without unnecessary delay hand over the person so arrested to the nearest police officer or, in the absence of a police officer, take that person to the nearest police station.”
Imagine the news headlines when mass arrests take place under the guardianship and guidance of such applicable laws that grants sovereign citizens’ rights to citizen arrests. That genre of pragmatic democracy, sadly, is not practised.
It is our Eastminster culture to mind our own affairs (the tidak apa attitude) and look away when government actors and agents continuously break laws. Citizens’ arrests seem like future shock.
Article 153 Federal Constitution grants a holistic and blanket insurance coverage for the legitimate interests of all Malaysians as a constitutional duty imposed upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The government scoffs at Article 153 and literally mocks it. Sabah and Sarawak, especially, protected by an international treaty (MA63), are given the non-ICERD shove and shrug.
The court of public opinion declares that voting recycled old men and women with party-hopping natures must cease. We have a huge pool of talent ostensibly uninterested in (gutter) politics for all the right reasons.
The court of public opinion is not an “office of profit” as mysteriously enumerated in Article 160 Federal Constitution concerning “the office of any the judge of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and the High Court”. Public opinion, obviously and evidently, demands a higher calling.
Money politics maintains its incurable cancer status. One former prime minister said he lost his election deposit in GE-15, as did his party, because voters allegedly told him that they did not receive any money from his party. He is generally regarded as the progenitor of money politics.
The current English version of Article 1(2)(b) Federal Constitution: “the States of the Federation shall be “the Borneo States, namely Sabah and Sarawak”. Putrajaya is evidently petrified with equal partner status as ordained in MA63 because the unconstitutional overreach of PDA 1974, and other reprehensible laws, may face imminent repeal.
The court of public opinion declares that, since the Dewan Rakyat is ineffectual, the Borneo Territories must seek permanent redress at the United Nations World Court, and other international tribunals, as MA63, an international treaty, was totally ignored during the 2022 constitutional amendment deliberations.
“The court of public opinion moves much faster than the law,” remarked T. E. Carter. The law is sluggish, at best, but this court must keep its doors open 24/7/365 including public holidays, and holy days because government mischief never takes a vacation.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
