The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported that, “Bar Council constitutional law committee chairperson Firdaus Husni said the current framework of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution did not allow for hudud implementation, based on several articles.”
According to TMI, the articles are Articles 7, 8 and 3 of the Federal Constitution.
It puzzles me when Firdaus Husni said that, “hudud could also be challenged using Article 3, which stated that Islam was the religion of the federation”; when hudud is a part of Islam and not against the religion of the Federation.
Article 3(1) says:
“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.
She went on saying:
“Instead, the 1993 Supreme Court case held it to mean that Islam in the context of Article 3 only relates to rituals and ceremonies,” – The Malaysian Insider.
I guess she was referring to the case ofChe Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55;an old case which is no longer a good law; in fact the case was decided before the coming into effect of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.
To define Islam in Article 3(1), she should refer to later and more important cases to like the cases of Meor Atiqul Rahman v Fatimah Sihiand others  5 MLJ 375and Lina Joy v Majlis agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & 1 Lagi  4 MLJ 585.
Furthermore, in Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v Public Prosecutor, Tan Sri Salleh Abbas did not say that Malaysia is a secular nation but Tan Sri Salleh Abbas only said that secular lawswere used in Malaysia.
After giving all her arguments of why Hudud is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, I have a question for the Bar Council; has the Bar Council forgotten about Articles 3(1), 10(4), 11(4), 181 and others when it fights for the LBGT rights, the freedom for the Muslims to change their religion or to become atheists and to abolish of the Sedition Act?
Indeed as lawyers they surely understand thatin order for the Sedition Act to be removed,it needs the consent of nine Sultans because the Sedition Act is related to Article 10 (4); but they do not respect and sort of question the rights of the Sultan which is against the Article 181of the Federal Constitution.
The Bar Council also supportsCOMANGOthat are fighting for lots of things that are against the Federal Constitution in Geneva.
To simplify what I am trying to say, I think those Bar Council lawyers do not mind to change the Federal Constitution in order to achieve what they want.
So what is the logic of the Bar Council’s arguments saying that Hudud is against the Federal Constitution, when they are also fighting for things which are against the Federal Constitution?
If we compare Hudud to the rights to leave Islam, I think Hudud as the Islamic laws is more relevant in Malaysia since Islam is the religion of the Federation.
As a Muslim, Bar Council lawyer, Firdaus Husni must fight for Islam and not against Islam.
Reuters reported that about 15,000 homes and businesses in Oklahoma and Arkansas were without power on Thursday after tornadoes touched down in the states a day earlier, leaving at least one person dead and scores of structures damaged.
Above is the seditious statement towards the Judicial Institution made by Nurul Izzah Anwar in Parliament on March 10, 2015.
Using Clause 2 of Article 63 of the Federal Constitution, the opposition leaders defended her by claiming that Members of Parliament (MP) can say whatever they want in the Parliament; and starting to create stories so that actions will be taken to others who are against them.
In fact they even accused the Inspector General of Police for “blatant abuse of power”.
The Malaysian Insider reported Nurul Izzah as saying:
“I think it is quite clear. My arrest is a blatant abuse of power by the IGP, and I hold the prime minister responsible for allowing transgressions against parliamentarians. I have immunity granted to me… on the issues raised in Parliament,” the Lembah Pantai MP said after being released at 12.30pm at the Dang Wangi police headquarters today. – TMI
Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an offence under the law passed by Parliament under Clause (4) of Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 [Act 15] as amended by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 45, 1970 [P.U. (A) 282/1970].
Article 3(a) and 3(c) of the Sedition Act says:
A “seditious tendency” is a tendency—
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
In fact in the case of Datuk Mark Koding -v- Pendakwaraya  2 MLJ 120 FC, Datuk Mark Koding was found guilty under the Sedition Act for his speech which was made in the Parliament.
Total freedom to say anything they want and to accuse anybody they wish to, no matter if they are lying or will create disharmony in the country?
Now it is very clear why the opposition parties want the Sedition Act to be abolished.
I’m very thankful that the government of Malaysia is wise enough to keep the Sedition Act to protect peace and harmony in our country from spiteful people with personal, self-interest agendas.
Two KT-1B aircraft of Indonesia’s Jupiter aerobatics team crashed when the two aircraft had clipped each other’s wings during display rehearsals for session for the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace (Lima’15) 2015 exhibition at about 2 P.M. just now.
The pilots of the two planes were landed safely after ejecting from their aircraft before the aircraft crashed onto the ground.
They are now under observation at the Langkawi Hospital.
BERNAMA reported that the organiser said that the search and rescue (SAR) team headed by the RMAF was on hand within minutes of the incident and successfully located the pilots in Kendawang, approximately 11.3 km away from the Mahsuri International Exhibition Centre.
BERNAMA also reported that, “One house and one parked car caught fire as result of the falling debris but Zulkeflee Abu Mutalib the owner was not at home at the time.”
One of the pilots is seen on a stretcher after being rescued by firemen following the crash in Langkawi. Photo by Fire and Rescue Services Department.