Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has cited the need for the Government to preserve its ability to make “necessary adjustments” to the Constitution to strengthen the revenue base and pay for extra spending.
This was offered as a justification for not putting into force Article 5(2A) of the Constitution. (“Govt to keep ability to amend Constitution without vote: Shanmugam”; July 10)
This is a curious explanation, given that Article 5(2A) calls for a national referendum for amendments relating to fundamental liberties, the office of the President and its powers, the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, as well as the requirement that elections must be held within three months of Parliament being dissolved.
Furthermore, we should pause at the idea that Parliament should be allowed the prerogative to amend the Constitution with ease for the sake of policy expedience.
The Constitution, as the highest law of the land, is not merely an instrument of policy.
It is the embodiment of the rule of law, a foundational charter that delimits the proper bounds of state coercion and prevents the arbitrary exercise of executive power.
It establishes the framework of our statehood and citizenship, and — not least — enshrines our rights. Constitutional amendments, particularly in matters of constitutional essentials, should thus not be taken lightly.
American legal scholar Bruce Ackerman has described these amendments as a foray into “higher lawmaking”, which should be more “specially onerous” than the normal lawmaking of passing statutes.
Currently, we require a simple parliamentary majority to pass Bills and a two-third majority to amend the Constitution.
Perhaps it is time to consider bolstering the Constitution’s status and integrity as the highest law of the land by making it more difficult to amend it. Article 5(2A) is a good place to start.
KHAIRULANWAR ZAINI
*Article first appeared on TodayOnline Forums (12 July)
This was offered as a justification for not putting into force Article 5(2A) of the Constitution. (“Govt to keep ability to amend Constitution without vote: Shanmugam”; July 10)
This is a curious explanation, given that Article 5(2A) calls for a national referendum for amendments relating to fundamental liberties, the office of the President and its powers, the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, as well as the requirement that elections must be held within three months of Parliament being dissolved.
Furthermore, we should pause at the idea that Parliament should be allowed the prerogative to amend the Constitution with ease for the sake of policy expedience.
The Constitution, as the highest law of the land, is not merely an instrument of policy.
It is the embodiment of the rule of law, a foundational charter that delimits the proper bounds of state coercion and prevents the arbitrary exercise of executive power.
It establishes the framework of our statehood and citizenship, and — not least — enshrines our rights. Constitutional amendments, particularly in matters of constitutional essentials, should thus not be taken lightly.
American legal scholar Bruce Ackerman has described these amendments as a foray into “higher lawmaking”, which should be more “specially onerous” than the normal lawmaking of passing statutes.
Currently, we require a simple parliamentary majority to pass Bills and a two-third majority to amend the Constitution.
Perhaps it is time to consider bolstering the Constitution’s status and integrity as the highest law of the land by making it more difficult to amend it. Article 5(2A) is a good place to start.
KHAIRULANWAR ZAINI
*Article first appeared on TodayOnline Forums (12 July)
