I TURNED 55 last month. In another era in the not too distant past, I would be retired by now, but this is 2015 and I have five more years if I chose to continue working, which, for now, seems the default setting. All of this did not stop me from thinking about retirement plans though.

I decided that when I retire, I will enrol as a law student, pass my exams, complete my pupillage and get admitted to the Bar, which would qualify me to practise law in Malaysia. I will be a bit older compared with most qualifying lawyers, but if I pass my exams on the first sitting, I will be a bit younger than when my father passed his law degree.

I am driven to do this because I want to take up constitutional cases and argue them in the courts. It is not about earning a living but it is my way of ending my life doing something useful for the country. It came down to teaching or this advocacy of the Constitution as my last leg before I check out permanently.

The level of constitutional literacy in Malaysia is fairly low in my opinion and it is at the root of many confusion and problems we are facing today. Let me just quote a few examples just from recent news.

The Federal Territory mufti, which makes him a federal government appointee, opined that Muslims who have paid zakat — the literal translation from Arabic means “that which purifies”, which has taken the more specific definition of “a tax for alms” — should be exempted from paying the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

Yes, he actually said that in all seriousness. I cannot read his intention but his statement seems to stem from his belief that Muslims will be double taxed, paying zakat and GST. All kinds of questions come to mind when I read what he said. Does he even understand the basics of public finance?

His assertion suggests that he does not but more worryingly, he seems to frame his thinking around a notion of Muslim exceptionalism. And he is not alone. There are others offering their views on many issues from a somewhat exclusive perspective that ignores the institutional and governmental framework of the country.

In another incident, some people in Petaling Jaya decided to protest against a church in their neighbourhood for putting a cross on the church. Yes, they protested against a cross on a church. Newspapers reported that they — as individuals — felt “challenged” by the cross, and by some tele-extrapolation, Islam itself as a faith is challenged by such an act.

They protested on a Sunday morning during service at the church. Apparently, it is a Muslim area and having a cross displayed in that area is both offensive and threatening. There must only be homogeneity in society, according to them.

The last example is somewhat more pleasant. The minister in charge of law and law-making in the Prime Minister’s Department made some sense recently when commenting on how laws are passed in Parliament. The most recent session of Parliament saw, instead of the repeal of the colonial era Sedition Act, its amendment and the passage of the new Prevention of Terrorism Act, together with their consequential amendments. The session also saw the non-tabling of a private member’s bill to amend federal laws in order to implement Pas’ hudud in Kelantan.

The minister was basically lamenting the state of law-making in the Malaysian Parliament and in my books, discharged her responsibilities by proposing that the Parliamentary Select Committee mechanism be instituted in Parliament.

Legislation can originate from the government of the day or from a member of the Dewan Rakyat. The originators of the bill — the draft law — would have their justifications for why such a law is required and why the specifics of the law are drafted the way they are tabled.

The initial tabling of a bill, called the first reading of the bill, introduces the legislation without debate. In some legislative traditions, such a bill is immediately referred to a select committee relevant to the Bill. In Malaysia, the first reading is a mere formality that leads to the second reading where the bill is tabled to the full Dewan Rakyat, its general outlines debated on policy grounds and a vote is taken. A successful vote at this stage will see the bill referred to the committee stage where the specifics of the draft will now be scrutinised, debated and voted on.

In Parliament, there are no select committees that specialise in specific aspects of government to consider legislation that passes through it. Therefore, to observe the Standing Orders of Parliament which requires reference to committees, the whole Dewan Rakyat acts as a “generic” committee, thereafter referring the bill back to the Dewan itself, for the final and third reading.

Without the select committees on specific areas of government, the legislation process is quite meaningless. Whatever is drafted and tabled at first reading will be passed, without amendments in almost all cases, with the whole Parliament having almost no role in shaping the legislative process.

The power to enact laws that define rights and boundaries of rights of citizens lies in the hands of those drafting the bills at the Attorney-General’s Chambers as Parliament does not even have a drafting division within it. The legislative process becomes a closed one, a non-consultative one and one where even the elected representatives have very limited roles.

The minister’s suggestion is actually the norm for democratic legislative processes the world over. It is just that we have not kept up with times. The MPs are legislators whose primary responsibility is to shape the laws that are being enacted.

Besides getting feedback from their constituencies, membership on a select committee grants members the right to call all interested parties to a piece of legislation to testify at committee meetings. While the executive branch, the government, has the civil service to do its work, the legislators, as direct representatives of the rakyat, must be equipped to solicit views from society at large on any piece of legislation.

Our constitutional illiteracy has resulted in these examples of ignorant, as well as sometimes, moronic behaviour. They have a warped sense of citizenry and citizenship. The only things that matter are those that matter to them only.

There are those who have no conception of what the Constitution is or what it stands for, or even have an understanding of how government works and the roles of the judiciary and the legislative branch. There are politicians and even elected representatives who do not understand that even the legislative branch is not unencumbered by the Constitution. There are limits to legislation and these are defined by the Constitution.

I cannot recall having been taught about the Constitution in the 11 years that I went to school and I suspect that has always been the case for most Malaysians. Somehow, the smart people at the Education Ministry, all these years, decided that the Constitution is not important to form an educated citizenry.

I checked the National Education Philosophy, which says, “Education in Malaysia … to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable and competent, who possess high moral standards and who are responsible and capable of achieving high level of personal well-being as well as being able to contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, the society and the nation at large”.

There is mention of citizens but not citizenship and basic ideas of the civil liberties of citizenship. Come to think of it, it does not even aspire to develop the true potential of individuals. This has got to change.

I once had the privilege and also the burden to take an oath of office that contained the words “… do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia, and will preserve, protect and defend its Constitution”.

It was indeed a solemn moment, the burden of the words so onerous that my signature afterwards was distorted. You cannot take that sort of oath and forget it when you are out of office. You keep it with you.

I do, and I feel that if there is a worthy cause to dedicate my retirement to, it would be towards increasing the overall awareness of the Constitution and what it means to uphold it and live under it. Without the Constitution, we live in anarchy.

Dr Nungsari Radhi is an economist and managing director of Prokhas Sdn Bhd, a Ministry of Finance advisory company. The views expressed here are his own.

This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly, on May 4 - 10, 2015.

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.