Talk:Constitution of Malaysia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Malaysian Internet source for constitution? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discrimination against Shias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expand this article please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  this article sucks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  constitution amended xxx times? so what? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  which articles have been amended?? lets analyze 

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

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Malaysia Constitutional Monarch.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article 11 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CaWV7ve3?url=http://www.agc.gov.my/images/Personalisation/Buss/pdf/Federal%20Consti%20%28BI%20text%29.pdf to http://www.agc.gov.my/images/Personalisation/Buss/pdf/Federal%20Consti%20%28BI%20text%29.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CaWV7ve3?url=http://www.agc.gov.my/images/Personalisation/Buss/pdf/Federal%20Consti%20%28BI%20text%29.pdf to http://www.agc.gov.my/images/Personalisation/Buss/pdf/Federal%20Consti%20%28BI%20text%29.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About the document totally been change