A crucial compass

Essential literacy: A politician who understands constitutional boundaries is less likely to make promises that cannot legally be fulfilled, says the writer. — Agencies

HAVING observed Malaysian politics for many years, I find one concern becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. There is a worrying level of constitutional ignorance among some politicians. This becomes most apparent during election campaigns and political speeches.

Time and again, we hear sweeping statements about constitutional rights, the powers of government, the position of the Rulers, citizenship, religion, language or federal-state relations that are plainly inconsistent with the Federal Constitution or reveal only a superficial understanding of it. These are not minor mistakes. And many times such statements shock thinking citizens. They concern the very document that governs our nation.

Perhaps such statements passed unnoticed once upon a time. Today, they do not.

The Internet has fundamentally changed the relationship between politicians and the public. Citizens are better educated, have immediate access to legal materials, and can verify constitutional provisions, court decisions, and expert opinions within minutes. Lawyers, academics, journalists, and ordinary Malaysians regularly fact-check public statements. When political leaders make constitutional claims that are inaccurate, their credibility suffers, and so does the quality of public discourse.

The Federal Constitution is not merely another law enacted by Parliament. It is the supreme law of the land. Every institution of government derives its authority from it. It establishes the framework of our democracy, defines the limits of governmental power, protects fundamental liberties, structures the relationship bet-ween the Federation and the States, and provides the legal foundation upon which every other law rests. In many respects, it is the bedrock upon which our nation is built.

What surprises me is that constitutional literacy has never been treated as an essential qualification for those seeking public office. We expect doctors to understand medicine, engineers to understand engineering, and lawyers to understand the law. Yet we appear content for those entrusted with governing the country to possess only a limited understanding of the Constitution they have sworn to preserve, protect, and defend.

I am not suggesting that every Member of Parliament should become a constitutional lawyer. That is neither realistic nor necessary. But every parliamentarian should possess a sound working knowledge of the Constitution. They should understand the separation of powers, the role of Parliament, the jurisdiction of the courts, the respective powers of the Federation and the States, the amendment process, judicial review, constitutional monarchy, fundamental liberties, and the principles that underpin our system of government.

Such knowledge would undoubtedly improve the quality of parliamentary debates and legislative decision-making.

For this reason, I believe every newly-elected MP should undergo a structured constitutional orientation soon after taking office. This need not be lengthy. Even a well-designed programme conducted by constitutional scholars, retired judges, and experienced parliamentary practitioners would provide an invaluable foundation. Refresher programmes could be organised periodically as constitutional jurisprudence continues to evolve.

This should never be viewed as political indoctrination. The Constitution belongs to no political party. It belongs equally to the government and the opposition, to every race, every religion, and every Malaysian citizen. Consti-tutional education is therefore not about promoting any ideology. It is about strengthening our democracy.

Constitutional literacy also promotes restraint. A politician who understands constitutional boundaries is less likely to make promises that cannot legally be fulfilled. They are less likely to exploit sensitive constitutional issues for political advantage or create unrealistic public expectations. An appreciation of constitutional limits encourages responsible leadership because it reminds those in public office that political power exists within legal boundaries, not above them.

Our Constitution is a carefully balanced document. It balances rights with responsibilities, federal authority with state autonomy, democratic representation with constitutional monarchy, and majority rule with the protection of minorities. Those balances were not accidental. They were carefully negotiated and have been refined through decades of constitutional development and judicial interpretation. Political leaders should approach them with knowledge, care, and humility rather than rhetoric.

I have long believed that one of the greatest strengths of a democracy is an informed citizenry. Equally important, however, is an informed political leadership. Democracy cannot function effectively if those who make our laws misunderstand the constitutional framework within which they exercise power.

The Constitution is not simply a legal text studied by lawyers or cited in courtrooms. It is the nation’s constitutional compass. It defines the powers of government, protects the rights of citizens and provides the frame-work within which political disagreements are resolved peacefully.

Surely those who aspire to lead Malaysia should first understand the document that gives them the authority to do so.

Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is the founder and chairman of Yayasan Rapera, an NGO that promotes community-based learning activities and compassionate thinking among Malaysians. The views expressed here are entirely his own.