CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS

Liberty is not something a government gives you. It is a right that no government can legally take away – A.E. Samaan

[1] Constitutional rights and property rights are closely intertwined, often viewed as fundamental, non-negotiable guarantees that protect individual liberty, dignity, and equality against government overreach. While distinct, many legal theories hold that all rights—including life and liberty—are fundamentally "property" in that they are entitlements of which individuals cannot be deprived without due process. But governments have the right to illegally take away from you whatever rights you would otherwise normally enjoy.

[2]. Article 13 Federal Constitution (Rights to property) is airtight, waterproof and bulletproof concerning this authoritative right, yet the Attorney General is not known to use due process (procedural law) to book the bad hats who threaten property rights that require parry, thrust and challenge in an independent court of law. Nobody, but nobody, files a public interest litigation against the Attorney General as afforded by the Government Proceedings Act 1956 (Act 359) (Revised 1988).

[3] Article 13 is clear about being safe from property deprivation “save in accordance with law” relating to compulsory acquisition and just compensation if indeed that property has to be surrendered for the public good. What if any of the nine fundamental liberties are threatened or face potential loss? And why are they referred to as liberties and not rights in the Federal Constitution?

[4] Articles 5 right up to Article 13 Federal Constitution are the nine fundamental “liberties” which for all intents and purposes are property rights. Therefore, any public servant attempting to deprive any of these nine property rights must face the strictest scrutiny regardless of office, position, power or authority. That’s the reason and purpose of the Government Proceedings Act (Act 359) (1956) (Revised 1988).

[5] In the United States there is a law called the “Right to Honest Services” (18 U.S.C Section 1346) which will never work in Malaysia if passed into law to nail the crooks and thieves holding high office. Malaysia is unique in that high officials enjoy a rare form of immunity unless you are meant to be fixed - also called the “social club remedy” for those who dare to stand up and speak up against vote bank controllers.

[6] So, if the nine fundamental property rights are part and parcel of the supreme law of the land, why is it never protected from harm and injury? Answer: we have become a lawless “abomi-nation.” Where do we go from here? Nobody really cares especially those who mouthed off election promises and assurances.

[7] The Bar Council is seldom involved in public interest litigation since time began unlike India where the judges initiate public interest litigation sua motu. The MACC Chief, currently, is being hunted, hounded and haunted, but the Bar Council has not begun proceedings, but reportedly “planning” to start something yet to be defined or specified.

[8] Been talking to some friends and associates who assure me that Malaysians will seldom take cation except to mount street protests or peaceful marches to Parliament – a favorite forum for Malaysian lawyers who believe issuing a petition or motion to MPs will solve all known and unknown problems.

[9] These “officers of the court” are not keeping pace with Section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 that avers, affirms and asserts that lawyers are duty bound to uphold justice without fear or favor while establishing the Malaysian Bar to protect the rule of law and public interest.

[10] PDRM, MACC and other law enforcement agencies appear less inclined to stop the rot that is getting swollen and septic. Our morals and ethics end up in septic tanks. PMX appears busy as usual condemning the bad hats and threatening appropriate punitive action. But it fills newspaper columns and social media platforms as his oratory takes on a feverish pitch. That's the extent of his take on the rule of law.

[11] Ultimately, YAB Rakyat may have to seek Royal intercession under Article 182(2) and (7) Federal Constitution – the Special Court – where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has unique constitutional power and authority to right the wrongs being perpetrated by seasoned and experienced lawbreakers. Article 182(7), especially, clearly, consistently, calmly, and cogently underscores the special power and authority at the command and demand of His Majesty under the supreme law of the land. Who then dares to disobey?