“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”

- Writer Leo Tolstoy

COMMENT | Discussion on a particular constitutional amendment is often reduced to asking what the federal government is up to and whether it can or cannot secure the required two-thirds majority in Parliament, like the recent failed attempt to limit the prime minister’s office to only two terms.

At other times, the discussion is centred on whether an amendment, if passed in Parliament, will correct “an inherent conflict of interest,” as in the case of a proposed amendment to separate the role of the public prosecutor from that of the attorney-general.

In this particular case, the discussion will likely focus on the need for transparency and accountability, painfully reminded by the sudden and summary removal of the AG, Abdul Gani Patail, in July 2015 by the then prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, when the former was part of the task force investigating IMDB.

And there are yet other voices reminding us that, like all other constitutions, ours is not cast in stone but is a living document that must be regularly amended to serve the needs of an evolving society in a constantly changing world.

The speed of change can indeed be both...