Talk:Constitution of Malaysia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Malaysian Internet source for constitution?[edit]

Hello wikipedians. I was surprised to see no link to an authoritative source for Malaysia's constitution. I've had a (not brief, not exhaustive) search for a government web that details the constitution, but can find none. Perhaps it's there, but not in English? There are links at www.gov.my, but to .com.my sites, a provision that doesn't strike me as quite proper (for a government). I know, not from Malaysia and always think I know better... I think the source attribution for the Malaysian constitution on wikipedia really ought to be a government site. Perhaps if some of you have friends in high places, you could suggest a page be added? I think I've suggested it (and similar) via a 'contact us' form on gov.my sites before, but I always got the same response. SeanCollins (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the most authoritative is in Malay, and you can find that in a couple of government websites. Here is one: Pension Dept. On the other hand, I found many links from outside Malaysia and there are in English. I assumed these copies were from a printed version published by the Government Printer and sold in the market. If I'm not mistaken, the finality of the constitution resides in the one written in Malay --Tikar aurum (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That's a good link, though I'm not sure quite how to add it to the article. I doubt that the Constitution of Malaysia is in Malay / Bahasa Malaysia. I know it sounds perverse that a nation's constitution should be in a foreign language! But given its construction (in London, advised by Reid Commission) and intent (formal independence from the UK), I would be extremely surprised if the authoritative version was not (at least originally) in English. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt translated law carries much weight - so if the Constitution did change language (there can't surely be equally authoritative versions in different languages?) it must be recorded somewhere. If the Constitution really was originally in Malay, then this article should make it clear we're reading a translation. The Malay language article refers to "used in the Malay version of the Federal Constitution", so somebody must think there is more than one version! I don't even know how to go about finding a definitive source. I've tried the library in Port Dickson, but I think they shut it when they see me coming - I've never seen it open! I've just spent a couple of hours searching, but found nothing helpful. I'll try some forums... SeanCollins (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 2006 government version of the constitution is at http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/images/Personalisation/Buss/pdf/Federal%20Consti%20%28BI%20text%29.pdf . It reveals that the English text widely found on the Internet, including the Wikisource version, is not authentic. My first tipoff was the garbled English in some of that text's very first provisions (those dealing with the position of state rulers as heads of Islam and with the requirement that states without rulers make the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the head of Islam in their states). By contrast, the government version contains correct English, at least in those provisions. Wbkelley (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against Shias[edit]

File:Discrimination against the shia.jpg
Letter

Greetings, I have a letter in my possesion, scanned here, from a Malaysian university. I am unable to find any English sources from the govt websites of malaysia that supports one way or the other the malaysian law against Shias that the letter talks about.

  • I think this is not a federal policy, but rather a state policy. But I cannot verify it.
  • Can anybody help verifying this?--Zereshk 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a Sunni, not a Shia, but I'd like to point out that no such policy exists on paper and that it's just discrimination practised out by the government. It's also against the Malaysian Federal Constitution, Article 5 which guarantees religious freedom. Please read this. - Kriskhaira 07:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, the university in that letter is the International Islamic University Malaysia. - Kriskhaira 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my point of view:
    • Article 3(1) Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.
    • Article 3(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Head of the religion of Islam in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; and for this purpose Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters relating to the religion of Islam.
    • Therefore parliament has the right to differentiate the "right" Islam from the "wrong" Islam. It is not only the shias who suffer discrimination, but also the sufis like the al Arqam movement, the latest Ayah Pin case, and of course, muslims who are not practicing the kind of islam that the authorities think they should (they call it devious teachings aka ajaran sesat here). For example, two muslims of different sex with no blood relation cannot be in the same room, and they could be fined and thrown into jail (depends on state islamic law which differs between states). Im not sure about threesomes however haha! --Zaid Ibrahim 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I don't there is discrimination in this country, about that Shia, theres acctually alot of Shias in state of Johore, Malaysia. Theres even many Shia lecture in University in Johore. I don't see why the shia being discriminize there, its just probably some government Instituion as you ppl stated, its because this country are mojority under Shafi'i sect, and thats University is about Islam, they maybe concerned about it, its because the different sect between sunni and shia.--Towaru 18:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand this article please[edit]

Don't we have expert lawyers or judges here?

no,we have anti-gov in wikipedia here, thats for sure.--60.52.16.63 02:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article sucks[edit]

i think it lacks neutrality. the editors seem to project the idea that their rights shouldnt be abridged at all, etc. and all forms of rights-abridging laws must be the result of abuse of power on the part of the government. however one must admit that all rights can be "abused". the exercise of one right might be harmful to other peoples' rights. let me illustrate:

i have the right to express myself.. so i decide to play extremely loud punk rock music for the whole KL to hear, at 2am. as an addition, i also distribute pornography showing a CONSENTING 14 year old child being gangbanged by 3 old men, 1 horse, and 5 dogs.. the questions are: don't the kl ppl have a right to a peaceful night after working all day? can distributing child pornography of a consenting child be a protected right?

and since i hav the right to assemble, i'll just call my uncle's transport company so that he can "assemble" his lorries and block all major roads in kl for 5 weeks.. to voice out his discontent about the recent oil price increase.. question: don't taxpayers who paid for the roads construction have right to a safe and peaceful road circulation?

i'm sure these are extreme examples, but there is really an uber fine line between exercising your rights and respecting others' rights.. and the constitution serves as a definer of which rights to uphold and which rights to abridge and which rights to dismiss at all. if the constitution provides for arbitrary arrests and has been doing so since 1950s, and that the same government has been elected since merdeka, is it not safe to say that the majority of malaysians accept this kind right-abridging laws?

having said that, i also agree that THERE ARE SOME ISSUES about certain rights-abridging laws as a direct effect to the provisions of this constitution. however, i dont think that it should be written in an article called "contitution of malaysia". issues, discontent, abuses, etc etc should be moved to another article. this article should describe the history of the constitution, the general outlay of it, the idea and the spirit of it, how is it amended, the branches it creates, the safeguarding procedures, etc etc.

just look at other articles about other "free" and "democratic" countries' constitutions. i highly doubt that those constitutions are perfect and accepted without any criticisms, but these dissenting opinions don't appear in the main article. for example, the patriot act has been said to be a direct violation of the bill of rights and also a violation of many international conventions on human rights (which is of higher power than the us constitution itself), but is it discussed in the us constitution article? no. what about the tudung controversy in france? or the fact that french courts MUST apply laws that are known to be unconstitutional if those laws are decided to be constitutional by lawmakers anyway? or the prohibitions of the use of nazi symbol and any "seditious" speech in germany? no and no. they aren't discussed. why? because it is irrelevant to the basic purpose of the articles, which is: to describe the constitution.

and that is what this article lacks... the meticulous description of the constitution itself. what is it of abundance? complaints of how the constitution doesn't work and the "abuses" of some people in power. totally irrelevant.

Zaid Ibrahim (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

constitution amended xxx times? so what?[edit]

not really surprising considering that our constitution is extremely NOT vague. 183 articles+schedules are a lot for a constitution! the us constitution originally had 7 articles. it now has 7+27 acticles. the french constitution has 89 or so articles. it has been amended 24times since 1958. not a lot yea? consider this: the french, instead of "diluting" the "spirit" of the constitution by amending it xxxxx times, just burnt the whole constitution, and entirely replacing it with new "better" constitution.. and they did this not just once, not twice, not thrice... but FIFTEEN TIMES!!

my points are: firstly, changing/amending a constitution only reflects the changes needed in society. and secondly, shad saleem faruqi's opinion that our constitution has lost its "spirit" just because it has changed and that this opinion is "echoed by other legal peers" (god knows who), is totally irrelevant to the subject matter and thus shouldnt be included in this article at all. i suggest we create an article called "the nostalgia of shad saleem and his legal peers about the abandoned original spirit of the m'sian constitution" to talk about this..

Zaid Ibrahim (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which articles have been amended?? lets analyze[edit]

of course i wont include everything in detail but lets see if amendments that hav been made are really "bad"...

article 1. (total amendments: at least 5)
original ideas:
-country name: malaya
-states: including singapore, excluding sabah sarawak
-federal territory: kl
new ideas:
-country name: malaysia
-states: excluding s'pore, including sabah, s'wak
-federal territories: kl, labuan, putrajaya

articles 181-183 (total amendments: at least one)
old idea: sultans and agong can't be sued and cant be held liable for any criminal misconduct
new idea: now they are liable for their mischiefs

changes of spelling, grammar rectification, language syntax, legal jargons(total amendments: idk, in the hundreds?)
-"religion of islam" changed into "muslim religion"
-"states not having a ruler" changed into "melaka, penang, sabah, sarawak"
-"islamic" into "muslim"
-"supreme court" into "federal court"
-"Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof" to "Subject to any restriction imposed by any law relating to the security of the Federation"
-"supreme head" to "Yang Dipertuan Agong" to "Yang diPertuan Agong" to "Yang di-Pertuan Agong"
-"dollars" to "ringgit"
-number of seats in each states
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) -"registering authority" to "minister"[reply]

etc etc

Zaid Ibrahim (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official name[edit]

Which is the official name of the document: "Constitution of Malaysia" or "Federal Constitution of Malaysia"? __earth (Talk) 13:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the official name is: Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia. this is the title of the document in malay, and its only official name. the malaysian constitution is silent about its name in other languages, but if i were to translate it, i'd say "constitution of federal malaysia". this brings up an interesting point... should we include the official translation in malay? as in german constitution Zaid Ibrahim (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malaysia Constitutional Monarch.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Malaysia Constitutional Monarch.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article 11[edit]

I suggest to insert some real life relevance into this Wikipedia article, by noting, in the subchapter on the constitution's article 11, that this article is ignored by both government and courts. In reality, Malaysia is an Islamic theocracy. If noone objects I will add a suitable passage to the subchapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.232.94.56 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the document totally been change[edit]

I wang to do some report about the articles haved totally been change by the people who have ni responsible and vandalism 2001:D08:1387:8829:2509:97C5:30E8:B1E1 (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_of_Malaysia&oldid=1206864649"