Below are some of the interesting part of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s speech to officiate the Wanita, Pemuda and Puteri Umno assemblies. It was a very good speech that makes me respect Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin even more for being a brave fighter of the Malays.
“Kerana itu saya telah menyatakan pendirian saya mengenai Akta Hasutan. Bagi saya, Akta ini wajar dikekalkan dengan beberapa penambahbaikan. Peruntukan khusus perlu dimasukkan untuk melarang mana-mana pihak daripada mempersoalkan jaminan perlembagaan mengenai kedudukan agama Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan. Akta ini juga perlu menghalang mana-mana pihak daripada mempersoalkan hak penganut agama lain untuk mengamalkan kepercayaan agama masing-masing. Begitu juga dengan kedudukan tanah rezab Melayu dan Regimen Askar Melayu DiRaja yang merupakan sebahagian daripada wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu perlu dilindungi daripada perbuatan menghasut.
Apa yang penting ialah kita perlu melihat Akta Hasutan bukan sebagai akta yang hanya melindungi kepentingan orang Melayu, tetapi akta yang memelihara perpaduan dan keharmonian nasional.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
Like most Malaysian, I totally agree with him. Akta Hasutan should not be abolished. As I mentioned in my post, “Is Proham Secretary-General Questioning Rights Of The Rulers?” the Akta Hasutan is very important to maintain the stability of our country.
May 13, 1969 has seen a bad racial riot and it can happen again if we are not careful. In fact, I’m not surprise if there are a small number of people who want such incident to happen. They’ll use Article 10 of the Federal Constitution to claim total freedom of speech even though they are aware that Article 10 is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4), that among others restricts people from questioning the four sensitive issues. So, section 3 (1) (f) of the Akta Hasutan which protects the four sensitive issues is very important so that these issues will not be questioned even by the MPs in Parliament.
Below are the four sensitive issues:
Article 152 of the Federal Constitution
Article 153 of the Federal Constitution
Article 181 of the Federal Constitution
“Di samping itu, institusi-institusi Islam perlu diperkasa, penguatkuasaan undang-undang Islam perlu dipertegas dan kerjasama UMNO dengan NGO-NGO Islam perlu diperkukuh.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
I’m truly glad to hear this statement after UMNO Youth Vice Chief, Khairul Azwan’s unbelievable statement that angered a lot of Malay activists who are the supporters of UMNO. It is really odd when the UMNO Youth Vice Chief wants UMNO’s senior leaders to turn away from the people who are also fighting for “agama, bangsa dan negara”.
“Di mana taring Pemuda? Di mana ketegasan Wanita? Di mana kelantangan Puteri? Kesannya, kita seolahnya ketandusan pemimpin untuk menjuarai kepentingan orang Melayu. Sehinggakan timbul cakap-cakap di luar sana yang mengatakan NGO Melayu lebih lantang daripada UMNO dalam memperjuangkan hak dan kepentingan Melayu.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
There are more and more leaders who are lost and forgot which party they are in, for example, the Pemuda leaders. What did they do when people humiliate Islam and question thee four sensitive issues? On top of that, the Pemuda UMNO Youth Vice Chief wants the senior leaders of UMNO to be as liberal and forget the UMNO’s own constitution! Maybe they are too busy promoting their ‘#lifestyle’ to be cool and popular that they have ignored their responsibilities as Muslim leaders.
“Penghinaan ke atas umat Islam juga dilakukan secara terbuka. Selain itu, umat Islam juga sedang berhadapan dengan ancaman ekstremisme dan militanisme yang sekiranya tidak dibendung segera akan memberi kesan buruk kepada negara.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
I hope serious actions will be taken to solve this problems but I wonder if all of the leaders understand this problem, especially people like the UMNO Youth Chief who are not happy with the right wings NGOs who are fighting hard against this threat.
In his opening speech of the assemblies of Wanita, Pemuda and Puteri UMNO, Tan Sri Muhyiddin reminded the delegates of the Clause 3.3 of the UMNO Constitution, which explains the core spirit of the party.
Tan Sri Muhyiddin also wants UMNO to work closely with the Muslim NGOs.
“Di samping itu, institusi-institusi Islam perlu diperkasa, penguatkuasaan undang-undang Islam perlu dipertegas dan kerjasama UMNO dengan NGO-NGO Islam perlu diperkukuh.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin.
I’m glad to hear that because I think it is time for some UMNO leaders, especially the Pemuda or UMNO Youth who are too busy to be popular to be reminded about the Cause 3 of UMNO’s Constitution.
Please read: “Khairy, A Trojan Horse?“
A lot of Malays are questioning the UMNO Youth Vice Chief, Khairul Azwan’s statement to Astro Awani.
I do not understand why must he as the UMNO Youth Vice Chief could make such a statement.
Is he confused about which party he is now representing?
Maybe the UMNO Youth Chief must make sure that all UMNO Youth leaders understand the Clause 3 of the UMNO Constitution that UMNO’s core fight is for ‘agama, bangsa dan negara.
If the UMNO Youth Vice Chief understands Clause 3 of the UMNO Constitution, he’ll see that what the right wings Malay/Muslim NGOs which he seems not to be happy with, share the same spirit with UMNO.
In fact they are part of the unsung heroes behind UMNO’s success in the PRU 13.
I would like to end this article with a nice poem read by Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
Bunga kesidang si bunga tanjung,
Tumbuh di laman mekar berkembang,
Agama dijulang Bangsa dijunjung,
Begitulah UMNO terus berjuang.
Below are photos of the 6.7 earthquake that struck west of Nagano city of Hakuba in Japan, shortly after 10 p.m. on Saturday at a depth of 5 kilometers (3 miles).
At least 50 homes destroyed in two villages.
Officials said that 41 people were injured across the region, including seven people that were seriously injured.
Please click the photos for larger images:
A lot of things have been said about the Akta Hasutan or the Sedition Act, a very important Act that was amended in 1970 to protect the stability of our country after a serious racial riot in 1969.
The question is, can the Akta Hasutan be abolished without the Rulers’ consent and is it true that Akta Hasutan is just a “normal Act” and “a colonial-era law made by the British” as claimed by some people?
The Malaysian Insider (TMI) in the above article wrote that Proham secretary-general Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria said,
“The Sedition Act is not protected by the constitution. It is a law made by the British.”
TMI also reported that, “the consent of the Rulers is not needed to abolish the Sedition Act 1948, as claimed by defenders of the colonial-era law, Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria said.”
Now, how true is Proham secretary-general’s statement?
A law expert, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman does not agree with the those statements.
Tan Sri Aziz explains that Akta Hasutan is not considered as a British law any more because it has already been amended in 1970, after the May 13, 1969 racial riot.
The government had identified four sensitive issues as one of the major causes of the racial riot:
- Article 153 of the Federal Constitution: Special Rights For The Malays
- Article 152 of the Federal Constitution: Malay As The National Language
- Part III: of the Citizenship Rights
- Article 181 of the Federal Constitution: Rights, Status, Sovereignty Of The Rulers
To avoid more racial riots, Articles 10, 63 and 159 of the Federal Constitution was amended by adding Article 10 (4), 63 (4) and 159 (5) to prohibit any questioning on these issues.
The parliament then passed a law amending the Akta Hasutan under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution by the addition of section 3 (1) (f), making questioning any of the four issues as an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan.
Therefore, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz said that in reference to Article 159 (5) of the Federal Constitution, the consent from the Conference of Rulers is needed to repeal the Akta Hasutan since the Act was amended under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution.
Article 159 (5) says:
A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, Clause (4) of Article 63, Article 70, Clause (1) of Article 71,
Clause (4) of Article 72, Article 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.
Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitutions says:
In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under paragraph (a) of Clause (2), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.
Prof Madya Dr. Syamrahayu Abdul Aziz who is an expert in the Constitutional Laws of Malaysia agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz and explains that:
- The laws that was passed before Merdeka Day are known as Enactment.
- The laws that was passed during the period of Emergency are known as Ordinance.
- The laws that was passed after our Merdeka Day but not during the period of Emergency are known as Act.
- If an Enactment and an Ordinance has been amended by the Parliament, it will be known as an Act.
So, since Akta Hasutan is an Act and not an Enactment, it is not just a British law as claimed by the Proham secretary-general.
A very senior lawyer, Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa who also agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz, told me that in fact claiming the consent of the Rulers are not needed to amend the Akta Hasutan can be an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan because it is against the Article 181 for questioning the rights of the Rulers.
I agree with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz that the people who are pushing for the Act to be abolished actually want total freedom and to be able to question the four sensitive issues that was protected under the Act.
They want section 3 (1) (f) of the Act to be abolished so that they are free to say what they want including to question the four sensitive issues.
Are their personal total freedom are more important than the love for their country?
But the weirdest thing is, those people who are fighting to repeal the Akta Hasutan are the same people who want the vocal Rightist to be charged under the Akta Hasutan.
Is preserving a peaceful country is a wrong thing to do that we need to abolish the important law that had managed to curb racial riots?
If the United Nations wants the country members to obey to certain laws made by them, we as a sovereign country has our rights to keep a law that is good for our country.
I would like to thank Uncle Azril for sending me Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz’s statements, Uncle Datuk Zulkifli Noordin for Dr. Syamrahayu’s article and Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa for helping me to understand more about Akta Hasutan that helps to understand the facts of this case that enable me to write this post.
A coal mine in Silantek Quarry exploded killing three foreigners; a Korean, Myanmar and Indonesian.
11 people were injured in the incident.
Initial investigation showed that the explosion took place 150 meters underground and no one was trapped in the mine.
Heavy rains caused bad flood in Terengganu and Kelantan.
Please click the photos for larger images:
I find the above article from The Malaysian Insider (TMI) as unjustly written, full of lies and using wrong arguments and analogies to wrongly accuse the Islamic religious authorities and the Malaysian government.
It is a malicious distortion of the truth.
Below are my answers to the writer’s statements, TMI’s text is in blue and my answer will be in red.
It seems that whenever we question anything, either the government or those linked to it does, it is seen as a bad thing. And this comes during a period of a prime minister whose initial speech said “the era of government knows best is over”.
So, why is questioning a fatwa a big issue? It is truly not.
A: Official fatwas are Muslim’s guidelines. We are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah. People cannot interpret Islam as they wish or the way they want it to be like the liberals do. I think it is the same with other religions.
Even if we look at the most conservative nations practising Islam, there are landmark changes globally. Iran allows sex reassignment surgeries for their transgender community. However warped their mindset may be, it is clearly different than Malaysians who recently heckled the courts for upholding the constitution.
A: Iran is one of an example of “the most conservative nations practising Islam”? He must be kidding because Iran is not an Islamic country but it is a Syiah country. There are big differences in important matters like akidah between us, the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah Muslims and Syiah followers. The rules of Syiah is against our akidah.
In Saudi Arabia, the authorities are now mulling over giving women the right to drive cars, a fatwa which is decades’ old and has only been vocally challenged in the last five years.
We have seen Muslim-majority countries that are moving forward in issuing religious edicts or limiting the viability of such rules and regulations to allow moving ahead together as a nation.
A: Driving has nothing to do with akidah, unlike LGBT. Malaysia never ban women from driving. Women are free to drive buses, lorries or even to become commercial pilots.
And yet in Malaysia, we continue to limit the general public and civil stakeholders from venturing an opinion without being heckled, or in the case of Sisters in Islam, having a fatwa quietly gazetted banning them.
A: Sisters in Islam (SIS) leaders are liberal activists. Liberalism is against Islam. They tell people that they understand Islam better than our Muslim scholars and Muftis but they do not follow even the basic rules like to cover their aurat. They do not respect Islamic rules and want liberal rules to be accepted as Islamic rules.
It is truly nonsensical that in this day and age when other nations are talking about matters which are truly important such as poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport – we are stuck discussing, and even going so far as to file police reports, a tourist attraction dedicated to a Hindu deity placed on a bottle of water next to a “Halal” logo.
A: Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia, so in Malaysia everybody must respect Islam. The halal logo was placed at a lower part of the mineral water bottle than the Batu Caves picture. In our custom, that shows disrespect to the religion of the Federation. I guess in Vatican City, they also have rules to respect Christianity more than other religions suitable to their customs that people over there must respect.
The Malaysian government has done much more than solving the problems of “poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport”. But there are people who are never thankful and only look for ways to complain and cause troubles to the country to put down the government.
Even worse: we have Malaysian Muslims who think cross-dressers are a threat to society by promoting a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT, if you still don’t know what that is) lifestyle.
A: LGBT is against Islam and so are cross-dressers. Malaysia does not sign the SOGI Rights.
Permit me to point out that a guy in a dress has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, especially when Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear a burqa to escape their hunters.
Would you accuse them of being sodomites, too?
A: Will a man who is not LGBT supporter wants to look like a woman and wear a dress in public without any purpose?
re: “Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear burqa to escape their hunters”.
There is a huge difference between men wearing women’s clothes to escape from danger or to save their lives or for other important reasons like investigating a certain case compared to men who always wear them including in public because they like and proud of wearing them, saying that they have the rights to do so.
Fatwas should be up for question because while the religion stays true, its followers evolve. There was once a limited source of knowledge specific to Islam from muftis and imams, and perhaps PAS for the more politically inclined.
A: We cannot change a religion, changing means liberalising and that is against Islam. To question a fatwa, a person must be at least as knowledgeable as the members of the fatwa council on Islamic matters. PAS is not an Islamic party because like SIS they only use the word Islam for their own agendas.
However, with the advent of the Internet, anything and everything about Islam and other religions can be found online. Intellectual debates can be seen on YouTube as raging, trolling debates rage on news portals and social media aplenty.
A: We can find lots of things from the internet including lies like this article from TMI. How can a person who does not understand a subject take part in intellectual debates on the subject or be a judge on problems regarding the subject?
Malaysian Muslims can not only listen to the lectures of Azhar Idrus, but can also go as far the BBC to see debates of Islam versus Science.
A: Yes, I agree that we must not listen to Azhar Idrus and his ‘fatwas’. I wrote about one of them: Ustaz Azhar Idrus: “Islam Dan Kristian Bertuhankan Allah?”
The internet sparked a revolution of information being streamed, “torrented” and read online without control, allowing Malaysian Muslims to seek counsel outside the boundaries, and this is what has made our religious authorities very nervous to the point of stupidity.
A: It is the main duty for our religious authorities to protect the akidah of the Muslims in Malaysia. Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitutions gives the rights for the states in Malaysia to have state laws to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. Prevention is better than cure.
What was once a monopoly of information by the religious authorities is now apparently threatened by Malay-language Bibles and Irshad Manji books. Not Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, whose books are widely available and for everyone to read and buy either online or at a local bookshop.
A: The religious authorities are not threatened by the Malay bibles or Irshad Manji books. They are only doing their duty because any bible that calls the Christian god as Allah is against most of the states’ laws in Malaysia. Irshad Manji books are about deviant teaching but she claims them as the true teaching of Islam. Promoting deviant teachings to Muslim is against the law of Malaysia. All countries have laws to protect their constitutions and people.
They have lost control over the access to information; so clinging to this moral authority has resulted in stupidity beyond measure. Instead of opening issues for debate, our government-led religious authorities have instead decided it is better to outlaw those who talk back.
A: Religious authorities have lots of other more important things to do to benefit the Muslims.
Never since the schism of the Christians by Martin Luther, creating the Catholics and Lutheran churches and subsequently the Protestant denomination, has any religious authority done something so despicable.
Questions lead to enlightenment. The ability to debate and discuss everything – even faith – is a must. While this is definitely encouraged, what matters is also how such affairs are debated.
A: A rule is not made to be broken even if one does not like it. In Islam not everything can be debated and denying Allah’s rules affect our akidah and cause a person to be a murtad or an apostate.
It is one thing to say our religious authorities are out of sync with the rest of the world, but it is totally another for us to blame it on the religion itself.
Tact, respect and even the ability to access information are a necessity in order to discuss these issues intellectually and with a level head. Personally, Islam should not be limited for discussion among Muslims because it has now become a national issue.
A: Muslim authorities in Malaysia do not interfere with people of other religions unless people of other religions slander, humiliate, interfere in Islamic matters or other similar things in order to protect Islam and the Muslims.
When you steal the bodies of the deceased, kidnap kids from parents, stop people from getting married on their wedding day, confiscate Bibles or even raid bookstores and take managers to court, I am pretty sure you are affecting the lives of non-Muslims as well.
A: These are lies and the writer spins the facts of the cases to unjustly accuse the Muslim authorities.
So, religious authorities have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity and harmony that will not be resolved easily. – November 18, 2014.
A: People like the writer who write and spread lies are the ones that “have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity”.