QUESTION TIME | The current constitutional standoff over the appointment of prominent lawyer Tommy Thomas as attorney-general is totally unnecessary and the concerns over it are utterly misplaced. There is no requirement under the law to appoint a Malay and it is a fallacy to imply that a non-Malay attorney-general cannot protect the rights of all people including Malays.
Any person who knows the law and who is capable will be able to protect and preserve the rights of all people as provided for in the Federal Constitution and any special privileges granted to the various communities aimed at safeguarding their livelihood and way of life. There are few available who are as qualified for this as Thomas.
As usual, those opposed to Thomas’ appointment have put a racial and religious spin on it which is irrelevant to the question as to whether he is suitable for the position of AG. If there are fears of any interference in the religious courts, there is a specific provision under the constitution.
Section 145 (3) states that the Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a syariah court, a native court or a court-martial. It’s clear his jurisdiction does not extend to syariah courts.
Here are 10 reasons why Thomas should be accepted for the post of attorney-general when the rulers’ council meets today ...