A question of constitutionality

The Appeals Court has ruled that the NS syariah law must not supersede the Federal Constitution, and has ruled that the syariah law is invalid as it contravenes the Federal Constitution’s provision to protect the citizens’ rights for freedom, equal treatment, freedom of movement and freedom of expression.

Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily

There were three big things taking place on this day: I feel happy for the transgenders, a big salute to Justice Hishamudin Mohd Yunus and other judges, and a big hurray for the Constitution of Malaysia.

The three-man panel at the Appeals Court made a historic verdict by allowing Muslim transgenders to dress as women in protecting their right of attire.

Feeling happy for the transgenders? Don’t get shocked by me.

To be honest, I do not have a transgender friend and have not personally kept in touch with any. To be frank, I only have very little knowledge of them.

I might occasionally come across one at the mall or restaurant. They are males but are dressed like women, often accompanied by very thick make-up and long hair that characterize the female gender.

It doesn’t seem to fit in so well, but that is their sexual inclination and they should be given the right to wear the way they want. I will not give them a second look, treating them just like any ordinary people as a form of respect, which is what they need most.

Everyone born to this world has been a gift from God. We are all equal and even if we may appear different, that is quite normal.

Transgenders and transsexuals in Malaysia, in particular, have come under the discrimination by the religious departments and enforcers. In the “I’m scared to be a woman: Human rights abuses against transgender people in Malaysia” report, the Human Rights Watch pointed out that Malaysian transgenders are facing arrests, detention, intimidation and assaults by religious officials and police.

The Negri Sembilan law enactment specifies that it is a crime for a Muslim man to dress like a woman, further confining their space for survival.

Their choice of their attire is never a kind of option nor right but a punishable crime.

It is actually unnecessary for the state religious department to control how the state’s residents should dress.

Human beings have developed many different types of fashions based on their own needs and cultures since time immemorial.The Westerners put on their jackets and suits; the Chinese have their traditional costumes andcheongsams while the Papuan men wrap penis sheaths around their loins. No one should claim they are not properly attired and have to be punished.

Moreover, transgenders have been existent in this world for a very long time. Since transgenders were allowed to dress like women a century ago, why can’t they do so today? I thought we are more democratic and showing more respect for human rights today?

As a matter of fact, the Appeal’s Court verdict has transcended far beyond the question of transgender’s attire. Its more far-fetching significance is the constitutionality.

The Constitution defines the boundaries of power execution in protecting the human rights of each and every citizen, and should therefore be treated with utmost respect.

But given the prevailing religionising trend, the all-important status of the country’s Constitution has been obscured, and often shunned at the most critical moments.

On several occasions the religious court’s verdicts have contradicted those of civilian court while the attitude of the police remains ambiguous, unwilling to enforce the orders passed down by the civilian court.

And the state of Kelantan has even gone this far as to table the hudud law in gross disrespect for the Federal Constitution.

The secular system upheld by the Constitution has come under constant assaults as irresponsible quarters attempt to derail the country towards absolute theocracy.

Against the backdrop of such religionisation, the three-man panel of the Appeals Court has ruled that the NS syariah law must not supersede the Federal Constitution, and has ruled that the syariah law is invalid as it contravenes the Federal Constitution’s provision to protect the citizens’ rights for freedom, equal treatment, freedom of movement and freedom of expression.

Protecting the rights of transgenders is actually protecting the civic rights of all other people under the country’s Constitution. If the transgenders are denied of their rights, those of other citizens will also be denied.

In this case, the paramount status of the Constitution has been reaffirmed. At least we have seen hope in the midst of all the depressions.