Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn

Boo Su-Lyn’s Malay Mail Online article, “Why we must stand up against Hadi’s Bill” is full of false, slanderous and malicious accusations that undermine Islam, the religion of the Federation. She is instigating disunity among people of different races. She is disloyal to the DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as she refutes the DYMM Agong’s oath to uphold Islam at all time and she also went against the decree of the former DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong which was made in the parliament on the 7th March, 2016:

“Beta berharap langkah-langkah ke arah memperkukuhkan institusi agama dan kecekapan perlaksanaan undang-undang pentadbiran agama Islam melalui pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah dapat disegerakan.”

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”. That means Boo Su-Lyn has no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs and to question the implementation of our Syariah Laws.

One of the causes of religious conflicts in Malaysia is instigation made by people like Boo Su-Lyn who seems to think that she knows everything, has the right to interfere with everything and has respect to others.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Boo Su-Lyn’s article in red:

---

JANUARY 20 — If we fear that PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s Bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) may irrevocably change our beloved country, then we must stand up against the Bill in a united show of protest.

PAS president’s Private Member’s Bill is an amendment to enhance the Act 355, which was last amended in 1989 in order to empower the Malaysian Judiciary Systems, specifically the Syariah Courts. Lots of other Acts had been amended more than twice since Act 355 was last amended.

Today, the maximum punishment for smoking in public places is higher than the maximum punishments for any Syariah offences, thus, giving an impression that the offence of smoking in public places is more serious than any Syariah offences including apostasy.

It’s not enough to merely issue press statements as our voices are scattered.

Boo Su-Lyn is beginning to echo what was said by Jamal Yunos about Bersih, so she must stop complaining about him. Bersih rallies are illegal, affect everybody including Jamal but Act 355 is constitutional and does not affect the non-Muslims including Boo. 

PAS knows that there is significant opposition to Hadi’s Bill, which is why they themselves are organising a mass rally on February 18 to gather support for the Bill, even though the prime minister himself has announced that the government will take over the proposed legislation.

On the February 18, Muslims will rally in solidarity as a united Muslim ummah, regardless of their political parties, to urge their MPs to support the amendment of Act 355. PAS does not need to gather support from the Muslims because the majority of the Muslims support the private Bill.

Likewise, if we Malaysians across race and religion feel strongly against Hadi’s Bill which threatens to alter the secular structure of our country, then we must mobilise ourselves and express our opposition on a single, visible platform.

By calling Malaysia a secular country, Boo Su-Lyn slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

George Jacob Holyoake who is the creator of the term secularism defines secularism as separating government and religion. Therefore, as said in many of my previous posts, it is impossible for Malaysia to be defined as a secular country when Islam is stated as the religion of the Federation in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Hence, Boo words, “threatens to alter the secular structure of our country” is indeed a malicious lie.

Proponents claim that Hadi’s Bill is not about hudud, conveniently ignoring history when PAS has always wanted to amend Act 355 and even the Federal Constitution to allow it to implement hudud in Kelantan.

Boo is wrong again.  It is a slanderous lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill or it will legalise the Kelantan’s Hudud  because:

• The offences under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts are not the same as the offences listed under the Hudud law.
• Hudud’s punishments include capital punishment which is not included under the Act 355.

The Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions. Therefore, this Bill is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) 2015 or known as Kelantan’s Hudud.

A working paper by the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) that was leaked in 2014 had even argued that the Islamic penal code should be applied to all Malaysians on the basis that Islam is the religion of the federation.

The amendment of Act 355 is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) because Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II contradicts with our judicial systems.

It has only been of late that PAS claims that Hadi’s Bill is not aimed at introducing hudud law, but merely at expanding the punitive powers of the Shariah courts. The proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic — increasing jail term limits from three to 30 years, hiking up fines by 20 times from RM5,000 to RM100,000, and multiplying lashes of the cane from six to 100.

For those who do not bother to check their facts right like Boo Su-Lyn, will claim that “the proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic”. Actually, the hike in the proposed amendment seems high because the current punishment limits are much too low and are overdue for a revised since the last increase in the punishment was done 33 years ago.

In reality, even though the maximum punishment for the civil offence of smoking in public places is RM10,000 fine or two years of imprisonment, some activists are still fighting for the increase in the punishments. 

In the case of whipping, there is a huge difference between Syariah whipping as compared to civil whipping, both in terms of the way of conduct and also the size of the cane. I trust the Syariah Courts’ judges and I’m sure they are as professional as the Civil Courts’ judges and not to punish people cruelly.

What religious offence would merit imprisonment of up to three decades?

A lot because Islam is a way of life.

In the Penal Code, rape and culpable homicide not amounting to murder are punishable with 30 years’ jail. What offence which merely violates certain religious instructions can possibly be equivalent to the violent crimes of rape and homicide?

A lot including apostasy and offences under Islamic Family Laws.

MCA is against PAS’ “Himpunan 355” rally, claiming that it will cause disunity.

MCA should have banned their members from taking part in the illegal Bersih 5 because not only Bersih causes disunity, it condemned the government and caused chaos all around the city for its selfish decision to demonstrate around the city instead of holding a rally in a stadium or a field.

I don’t think we should try to prevent PAS from organising their rally. It’s well within their rights to assemble peacefully for whatever cause they hold dear.
Just as it’s within our rights as Malaysian citizens to protest against Hadi’s Bill.

Make sure that it will be legal, hold the rally in a stadium or a field and do not turn it into street demonstrations like Bersih. It will be interesting to see if the Malay leaders of PPBM, PAN and PKR dare to take part.

Hadi’s supporters say that non-Muslims are interfering with Muslim affairs by questioning and criticising Hadi’s Bill, which they claim will not affect non-Muslims.

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”.

It’s a spurious argument.

Are you challenging the Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution?

Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. We do not live in silos. We eat, work and live together.

Wrong. Malaysia is a multi-racial but not a multi-religious country. Malaysia’s only religion is Islam, as stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. But Malaysia is a country with multi-religious citizens.

Non-Muslims may not want to see their Muslim friends, family or neighbours subjected to an unjust law that is opposed by some Muslims themselves.

In the judgment of the Federal Court case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law.

Claiming Syariah laws and punishment as unjust is challenging the Federal Constitution because the Syariah Courts are part of our judicial systems as written in Article 121(1A). It has a seditious tendency as stated in Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, which is, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State.

Non-Muslims may also end up being victimised, which has already happened in several interfaith child custody cases involving Muslim converts. A 60-year-old Christian woman was publicly caned in Acheh, Indonesia, last April under Shariah law for selling alcohol.

Another lame and out of context argument. Malaysian Syariah Courts have never punished any non-Muslim and the proposed amendment does not give the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction to do so.

Everyone has the right to talk about Hadi’s Bill because it is just like any other ordinary piece of legislation. This is not interference in someone else’s religious affairs; it’s about exercising our roles in democracy as equal Malaysian citizens.

Everyone has the right to talk but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs as stated in Article 11(3).

Hadi’s opinions must be open to scrutiny just like those of any Malaysian politician. No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else.

Agreed, that is why I hope Boo Su-Lyn will be professional enough to write about the seditious statements made by opposition leaders toward the religion of Islam.

We cannot separate “Muslim” and “non-Muslim” affairs as if they’re different slices of a cake.

Boo Su-Lyn must go back to school and learn about Article 11(3) and other basic facts about our Federal Constitution before writing on matters related to the Constitution because everyone is subjected to the laws of our country including Boo Su-Lyn. “No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else”.  

Taxpayers’ money that goes towards maintaining the Shariah courts and Islamic departments and enforcing Shariah legislation, just like it’s used to upgrade roads and to pay the salaries of civil servants, comes from both non-Muslim and Muslim taxpayers.

Boo must go back to school. Islam is the religion of the Federation. Therefore, the Federal Government is allowed to spend for the Syariah Courts using the taxpayers’ money. And Article 12(2) of the Federal Constitution allows the Federal Government to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam. In fact, the government is not at all allowed to spend taxpayers’ money for secular reasons or on anything that could cause any negative effect on the religion of Islam.

Laws that are passed in both the state legislative assemblies and in Parliament, including state Shariah legislation, involve the participation of both Muslim and non-Muslim lawmakers.

These state assemblymen and MPs must also remember that they represent voters across race and religion, even if most of their constituents may be predominantly of a certain ethnicity. Hence, their vote on Hadi’s Bill must be representative of their entire constituency, and not merely come from personal religious convictions.

Precisely. Boo Su-Lyn must remind the MPs that they represent their voters, so they are supposed to listen to the voters in the case of Hadi’s Private Bill and not to make their own decisions. Non-Muslim MPs must not forget who voted them into office, especially those from MCA, MIC and Gerakan.

Both non-Muslims and Muslims, as Malaysian citizens who vote and pay taxes, have just as much right as each other to talk about various issues and policies, including Shariah law and vernacular schools.

All Malaysian citizens have the rights to talk about the bill but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to fight against the amendment of Act 355 because it is regarding the Muslims religious affairs as it is against the Article 11(3).

So, everyone should not be afraid of speaking up against Hadi’s Bill.

The can talk about it as long as they know their limits.

It is our right as citizens to stand up for what we think is right and to stop Malaysia from turning into an intolerant state like Brunei or Acheh.

Boo Su-Lyn must stop making slanderous accusations and remember that nobody is above the law, including her. We are governed by law and our supreme law is the Federal Constitution.

The then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia said:

[36] The alleged infringement of the fundamental liberties of the respondent can be negated by trite law that any freedom is not absolute. Freedom cannot be unfettered, otherwise, like absolute power, it can lead to chaos and anarchy. Freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1) are subjected to restrictions imposed by law under Article 10(2)(a). Freedom of religion, under Article 11(1), as explained above is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).

Related posts:

• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

[BH] – Tiada Keperluan Rukun Negara Sebagai Mukadimah Perlembagaan

[Berita Harian}- KUALA LUMPUR: Cadangan menjadikan Rukun Negara sebagai mukadimah Perlembagaan Persekutuan berpotensi menyempitkan dimensi, sekali gus menyukarkan tafsiran kepada Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Sebaliknya, Rukun Negara yang hanya mencakupi sebahagian teks dan semangat Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang didakwa beberapa pihak dipinggirkan dan diketepikan memerlukan pemerkasaan menerusi sistem perundangan dan pendidikan.

Menyifatkan tiada keperluan untuk menjadikan Rukun Negara sebagai mukadimah Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Pakar perlembagaan, Prof Madya Dr Shamrahayu A Aziz, berkata peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan mencakupi ruang lingkup yang luas dan Rukun Negara tidak meletakkan kesempurnaan terhadap teks Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Beliau yang juga Felo Utama Pusat Kajian Syariah Undang-Undang dan Politik Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM), berkata Rukun Negara hanya menangani sebahagian perkara dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, antaranya hanya menyebut Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan tanpa pernyataan khusus mengenai kedudukan Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan, selain tidak menyatakan soal Persekutuan seperti termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Katanya, walaupun Rukun Negara bersumberkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, ia hanya sebahagian daripada Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang tidak menggambarkan keseluruhan peruntukan, semangat dan sejarah Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Ideologi dan semangat Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak sepenuhnya ada dalam inti pati Rukun Negara. Saya bimbang dalam perkembangan semasa, dunia luar menitik beratkan mukadimah sebagai sebahagian daripada Perlembagaan, bukan sebagai pengenalan semata-mata sehingga melangkaui niat sebenar

“Pada masa depan, mahkamah antaranya akan menggunakan mukadimah sebagai teks Perlembagaan yang nanti akan ditafsirkan melangkaui fakta dan dijadikan sebagai alasan penghakiman.

“Cadangan itu berpotensi menyukarkan tafsiran kepada Perlembagaan Persekutuan apabila peruntukan teks dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan mungkin didapati bercanggah dengan Rukun Negara,” katanya kepada BH.

Baru-baru ini, sekumpulan individu membabitkan ahli akademik, peguam dan aktivis dikenali sebagai Rukun Negara Mukadimah Perlembagaan (RMP) mengusulkan Rukun Negara dijadikan mukadimah Perlembagaan Persekutuan bagi mengatasi masalah yang timbul kerana Rukun Negara dipinggirkan dan diketepikan.

Pengerusi RMP, Dr Chandra Muzaffar dilaporkan berkata Rukun Negara perlu dikaitkan dengan Perlembagaan bagi membolehkan ia dirujuk secara tidak langsung sebagai garis panduan dalam penggubalan dasar dan undang-undang negara.

Ketika ini, Perlembagaan di 160 daripada 193 negara di dunia memiliki mukadimah, manakala Perlembagaan Persekutuan negara ini tidak memiliki sebarang mukadimah, sebaliknya bermula dengan peruntukan substantif.

Shamrahayu berkata, langkah terbaik untuk memastikan Rukun Negara menjadi lebih relevan ialah menjadikan peruntukan Rukun Negara sebagai sebahagian daripada peruntukan undang-undang lain termasuk undang-undang jenayah.

Selain itu, katanya Rukun Negara juga dijadikan sebahagian cara hidup tata negara kerana sebahagian lagi cara hidup sudah termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Beliau berkata, pemerkasaan Rukun Negara juga boleh diterjemahkan menerusi sistem pendidikan di semua institusi pendidikan rendah, menengah dan tinggi di negara ini.

“Jika kumpulan itu beranggapan mukadimah penting untuk Perlembagaan, ia perlu dibincang secara menyeluruh dengan mengambil kira kesan yang mungkin berlaku,” katanya.

TANJAK – Young blogger expects senior leaders to understand constitution

Last week, news portal, Tanjak contacted me for my reaction towards the baseless and bias comments made by Lim Guan Eng and his supporters in order to ridicule my ability and knowledge on the matters concerning my November 23, 2016 police report against LGE.

Below is the article taken from Tanjak regarding this matter.

---

Prominent young blogger Ahmad Ali Abdul Karim, who lodged a police report against Lim Guan Eng, is unfazed by the scurrilous attacks against his person made by hardcore pro-opposition and leftist elements.

Ali’s police report concerned the Penang chief minister cum DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng with regard to the latter’s Nov 24 last year statement on the proposed bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction Act) 1965 commonly known as RUU355 that was proposed PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang.

Lim Guan Eng, DAP party secretary-general and Chief Minister of Penang

According to Ali’s police report lodged, the statement made by Lim contains seditious elements designed to mislead the Malaysian public on the nature of the amendment proposed, among others by claiming that RUU355 contravenes the federal constitution.

Young blogger subjected to insults, derision

While the young blogger’s action in lodging the report has received glowing praise, including from Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, supporters of the Penang Chief Minister did not mask their contempt for the move as well as the blogger himself.

The Dapsters were sceptical of the deputy minister’s opinion that the young lad knew the constitution better than Lim.

Their comments deluged the social media and pages of leftist news outlets such as MalaysiaKini attacking Ail’s credibility and accusing the teenager of being a stooge for the BN-led federal government.

MalaysiaKini report quoting Deputy Minister in the PM’s Dept over blogger Ali Abdul Karim’s police report against Lim Guan Eng

One commentator on MalaysiaKini, ‘JusticeNow!’ likened the move by Ali to the use of children as soldiers by corrupt regimes dominating the African continent, saying that just when one would think that Umno/BN “cannot go any lower”, they go ahead and do so and that Ali is a “forced recruit child soldier under the hegemony and exploitation of (the) BN/UMno (government)”.

Another, “Thickskin” suggested that Karim be made the new attorney-general since he knows more about the constitution.

Astoundingly, one commentator, “Anonymous_1429175092” went as far as to accuse the young blogger of being “jealous” of how the Penang state government was currently run, stating blithely that he had “no standard whether in merit, capability, knowledge, and foresight” and was childish to boot.

The response of the leftists on MalaysiaKini is hardly surprising given the pro-DAP news portal’s tendency for far-left slanted reporting, which has attracted fanatical supporters of the much maligned ethnic Chinese-based party.

Groups of DAP supporters have been known to regularly converge on pro-opposition Malaysian news portals to engage in race-baiting and bashing everything that is Malay and Islamic in origin as inferior to their Western and Chinese counterparts.

Tthe Red Bean Army (RBA), an organised group of DAP cybertroopers, is the best known example of these.

Previously, a sImilar responses had been recorded in response to the proposalby Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GMPS) president Zamri Mohd Isa in response to his urging of prime minister Najib Razak not to grant official recognition of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) in last Novermber.

Blogger doubles down on LGE’s misrepresentation

When contacted by the Tanjak news team for comment, the blogger denied he was being used as an agent by any party nor that he had any political motive, save to maintain Malaysia’s racial and religious harmony and defend the constitution.

Ali was also unfazed by the barrage of personal attacks mounted by the abovementioned elements on social media.

He responded that the commentators would seem to be deliberately overlooking the attempt by certain non-Muslim leaders, including the Penang chief minister, to undermine Islam’s position as enshrined in the constitution.

DAP, MCA and Gerakan all work together in defending and promoting Chinese interests in Malaysia and undermining Islam as the religion of the federation

He referred to Articles 3(1) of the constitution (on Islam’s status as the religion of the Federation) and 11(1) (freedom of religion) (as applied in the case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia) as the constitutional provisions that non-Muslim leaders such as Lim were guilty of wilful violation, in particular with regard to the position of Islam in the public sphere and the right of Muslims to practice their faith respectively.

He also stated that it was misleading of Lim to claim that he was merely expressing his opinion as a citizen and that “blocking” him using the Sedition Act would amount to the rakyat “not being able to have opinions anymore”.

“As a chief minister, [Lim] must understand that the four sensitive issues mentioned in section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act 1948 cannot be questioned, even in Parliament. Even the president of Isma [Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman] was found guilty under the Act,” the young blogger told Tanjak.

Clear elements of seditious tendency in LGE’s statement

The young lad cited at least two parts of Lim’s statement that were clearly seditious in nature.

The first was the call by Lim for non-Muslim BN component parties to “leave” BN over the proposed tabling of RUU355, which the blogger claimed would exerbate racial and religious relations. The second would be the claim by Lim that Umno and PAS were working together to “bypass” the constitution.

The blogger argued that Lim in his capacity as chief minister of Penang ought to have known better as his public statements may influence the way his supporters view issues as after all, they would naturally trust his judgment on public matters.

“I may be immature but I understand that I cannot intepret the [constitution] for my own gain. [The constitution] is the foundation of my country and I want our leaders to respect our supreme law,” he added.

Kuasa Pendaftar Pertubuhan Yang Kita Tak Ambil Peduli

Semakin banyak saya membaca, semakin bertambah pengetahuan saya dan semakin saya sedar begitu banyak pekara yang saya perlu saya pelajari.

Membaca tulisan salah seorang Uncle Naser Disa di portal Menara.my yang bertajuk, ‘ROS Boleh Batalkan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Yang Menentang Agenda Islam Negara!’ telah membuka mata saya betapa tingginya kedudukan Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan di negara kita, dan betapa lemahnya usaha kita dalam menggunakan peruntukan undang-undang yang sediaada untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan Islam.

Saya diminta oleh Menara.my untuk mengulas isu ini, dan setelah saya menghubungi Uncle Naser untuk mendapatkan keterangan lanjut tentang perkara ini, dan saya menulis satu artikel yang ringkas tentang isu ini.

Di sini saya lampirkan tulisan saya yang telah disiarkan oleh portal Menara.my.

---

Saya amat tertarik membaca kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM), Dato’ Prof. Hj Mahamad Naser Disa seperti yang dilaporkan oleh portal berita Menara di bawah tajuk, ‘ROS Boleh Batalkan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Yang Menentang Agenda Islam Negara!’.

Seksyen 2A Akta Pertubuhan 1966 dengan jelas menggariskan bahawa setiap pertubuhan berdaftar mestilah mematuhi Perlembagaan Persekutuan dalam menjalankan urusan mereka.

Menara melaporkan bahawa menurut Dato’ Prof. Hj Mahamad Naser Disa, parti-parti politik dan pertubuhan yang menentang pemerkasaan Akta 355 boleh dibatalkan pendaftaran mereka.

Selain daripada mempersoalkan pindaan Akta 355, apakah tuduhan bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah Negara Sekular oleh pemimpin sesebuah parti politik atau pertubuhan akan mengakibatkan terbatalnya pendaftaran pertubuhan mereka kerana perkara itu jelas bertentangan dengan Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan?

Persolannya, kenapakah sekarang ini pemimpin-pemimpin parti politik dan pertubuhan berlumba-lumba untuk dengan lantangnya mendakwa bahawa mereka bebas dan berhak menentang dan menghina hal-hal berkaitan agama Islam dan kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu? Malah, ada pemimpin yang sanggup menghina Raja-Raja Melayu dan mempertikaikan titah Raja-Raja kita. Apakah mereka terlalu jahil undang-undang atau sengaja mahu mencabar undang-undang dan kedaulatan Perlembagaan negara kita?

Akta Pertubuhan 1966 memperuntukkan bahawa setiap pertubuhan diwajibkan untuk menjalankan apa-apa aktiviti dan hal ehwal nya selaras dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Perlembagaan Negeri. Dan yang penting sekali, jika apa-apa yang dibuat oleh pertubuhan itu berlawanan dengan, atau berkurangan atau bertentangan terhadap, atau tidak mengambilkira mengenai kedudukan Islam sebagai agama Malaysia, maka pendaftaran pertubuhan tersebut boleh dibatalkan.

Kes-kes seperti kenyataan songsang oleh pemimpin-pemimpin parti politik, G25, COMANGO, Bersih, SIS Forum Berhad, dan lain-lain dengan jelas melanggar Seksyen 2A Akta Pertubuhan 1966.  Mereka dengan sengaja menyalahtafsirkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia untuk mengelirukan orang ramai dalam usaha untuk meruntuhkan asas-asas negara kita yang bertentangan dengan ideologi mereka.

Malah, COMANGO pula sudahpun membawa tuntutan-tuntutan yang bercanggah dengan Seksyen 2A Akta Pertubuhan 1966 kepada Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu (PBB) untuk Semakan Berkala Sejagat (Universal Periodic Review). Perkara ini telah membawa kepada tekanan oleh Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu keatas negara kita dan mendesak kerajaan Malaysia mematuhi piawaian UPR biarpun ianya jelas bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia.

Apakah ini bermakna bahawa tindakan boleh diambil ke atas pertubuhan-pertubuhan mereka?

Kini sudah sampai masanya pihak berwajib mengambil langkah yang lebih tegas dalam mengawal aktiviti-aktiviti parti-parti politik dan pertubuhan yang dengan bangganya menghina dan memperlekehkan agama Islam serta membuat kenyataan yang bertentangan denganundang-undang Malaysia. Perkara ini amat penting kerana ianya boleh mencetuskan perbalahan kaum dan agama yang boleh membawa kepada rusuhan seperti tragedi 13 Mei 1969. Jika ini terjadi, kestabilan ekonomi negara akan musnah dan akan membawa kepada kehancuran negara kita.

 

Good Leaders Lead By Example

I do not understand what is the problem with certain politicians of late.

It seems that condemning Islam and questioning the rights of the Malays is now in trend, and so, lots of political leaders jump on the bandwagon as not to be left behind.

Recently, it was the Gerakan vice-president’s turn to make to make such statement, although he later retracted his statement.

According to Gerakan’s Dominic Lau Hoe Chai, “it is religious schools and not vernacular schools that are likely to threaten unity in the country”, as reported by Free Malaysia Today (FMT).

FMT wrote, “He also claimed religious schools had the tendency to produce people with a more extremist interpretation of Islam” and Gerakan’s Lau as saying, “The reason we have problems like the unilateral conversion of children in this country is because we’ve moved away from this vision of a secular country”.

Please read and understand the Rukun Negara and the Federal Constitution.

 

Good leaders lead by example.

How could leaders lead a country and want the people to obey the law when they themselves failed to understand and respect the main principals and the supreme law of our country?

My question is, is political gains are more important to these politicians than the unity of the people?

Can they at least try to understand the Social Contract and the history of our country?

Talking about the actions and attitude that threaten that unity in the country, the ill and racist comments by FMT readers on articles about me mostly came from people who hate Islamic Schools and claim that Malaysia is a secular country.

By the way, does the Gerakan man think that Gerakan can win the election without the Malay votes?

Different Political Views Should Not Divide the People

(Photo credit to Uncle Norlizaizul Ismail)

Today, I was visited by Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa (PERKASA) President, Dato’ Paduka Ibrahim Ali, together with Tuan Syed Hassan Syed Ali, Secretary General of PERKASA and En. Norlizaizul Ismail PERKASA MT member who are friends of my father.

For the record, my father is not a PERKASA member, and of course, nor am I.

We had a wonderful time, discussing about current issues specifically on the reasons of my police report.

Tok Him has nothing to do with my police report; in fact, he was surprised that the 13 year old teenager is me.

Even though we have different political views, we agree on upholding Islam and the special rights of the Malays as provided in our Federal Constitution.

(Photo credit to Uncle Norlizaizul Ismail)

I told Tok Him about the letter Tun Dr. Mahathir sent me a few days ago.

Politics should not divide the people in Malaysia if we respect each other’s opinion.

(Photo credit to Uncle Norlizaizul Ismail)

(Photo credit to Uncle Norlizaizul Ismail)

(Photo credit to Uncle Norlizaizul Ismail)

(Photo credit to Uncle Norlizaizul Ismail)

Wacana Pemikiran Dan Peradaban Ummah Ke-9 : Liberalisme – Agenda Jahat Illuminati

BH – Laporan Polis Oleh Remaja 13 Tahun

Semalam, wartawan Berita Harian, Cik Siti Azila telah menemuramah saya tentang laporan polis yang saya buat terhadap ketua menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng, kerana kenyataannya pada 23 November lalu.

Sila baca: Police Report On Lim Guan Eng’s False Statements

 

Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan

Yesterday evening I was stunned when my father showed me a letter that was address to me from former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, in replying to my blog article, Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?

The letter was sent by the Office of Datuk Badariah Arshad, Director of Operations, Perdana Leadership Foundation (Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana) to my father via e-mail, to be forwarded to me.

I want to thank Tun M for writing to me, I am very honoured to receive a letter from a former Prime Minister and to know that someone as important as him reading my blog article.

Below is Tun M’s letter that was addressed to me.

 

In my article, I commented that the opposition parties’ agreement, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM that was signed by DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM, had misquoted the Article 3(1) by adding the word ‘bebas‘. Please click here for my article.

In explaining about the added word, Tun M wrote:

It is true that the word “bebas” is not in the sentence referring to Islam as the official religion of the Federation.
But the word “bebas” is not meant for Islam the official religions but for “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity.

From what I understand, Tun M explains that the word, “bebas” in the agreement refers to the freedom to convert to other religion where Tun M further wrote that, “But the word “bebas” was not meant for Islam, but for the followers of “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity”.

I am sad to say that not only Tun M’s explanation does not answer my question, but it also makes the matter more confusing because the fact that the Article 3(1) is the Article that explains about Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions.

Let us take a look of what is stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:

Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan ; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.

or

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

I do not mean to be rude but it seems like Tun M is confused about what is written in the Article 3(1) and therefore Tun M’s explanation about the reason for adding the word “bebas” is totally out of context, because adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) means that the followers of other religions are given the freedom do anything they wish in the name of practising their religions even though if it disrupts the peace and harmony of the community.

Hence, I questioned the opposition parties’ intention of the adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) because the added word “bebas” distorts the interpretation of the Article 3(1) and undermines the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

I have to stress that the Article 3(1) that places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution and that is grouped under Part 1 of the Constitution, must not be confused with the Article regarding the “freedom of religion” which is the Article 11 that is grouped under Part II of the Constitution.

The then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia wrote that:

[31] It is my observation that the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) has a historical background and dimension, to the effect that those words are not without significance. The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that the fundamental liberties Articles were grouped together subsequently under Part II of the Constitution.

And I also wrote that as the supreme law of the Federation, each word in the Articles of the Federal Constitution was chosen for a very specific reason, therefore adding just a word can change the interpretation of the Article and can disrupt other related Articles.

Another important matter that I have to highlight is, it is incorrect to say that Islam is the official religion of the Federation as written by Tun M in his letter because Islam is not merely the official religion, but it is the religion of the Federation as what was said by Tun M himself during his years as the Prime Minister, that Malaysia is a “Negara Islam” .

I made the video below to help people understand that Islam is actually the religion of the Federation because a lot of us are still confused about this important fact.

It seems like Tun M’s principals has changed, for, during Tun M’s reign, in order to maintain peace and harmony among the people in Malaysia, Tun did not give the freedom to the people; but now as a leader of an opposition party, Tun M went against his own principle and is fighting for total freedom.

Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam

After posting my article, “Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)“, I had a discussion with law experts to confirm another part of the agreement that makes me question the intentions of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM  in their chosen words for the agreement in the context of Article 3(1).

In the agreement, it was written, “… dan agama-agama lain … ” whereas in the original text of the Federal Constitution, the Article 3(1) says ” … tetapi agama-agama lain …”; meaning in their agreement, the opposition parties had not only add the word “bebas” but also changed the word “tetapi” (but) to the word “dan” (and). 

These are not small matters, important agreements are written by lawyers and lawyers are very specific in choosing each word for such agreements, to make sure that it covers specifically the important matters that were asked by their clients.

And we as the citizens must know and protect our rights as provided by our Federal Constitution and do not let others fool us with sweet promises of protecting our rights but at the same time cheat us behind our back.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:

Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan ; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.

or

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

As in the case of adding the word, “bebas“ to the Article 3(1), replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” to the same Article seems to reaffirm their intention to rewrite the Article 3(1) and to undermine Islam.

The word “tetapi” in the Article 3(1) signifies the supreme position of Islam as the religion of the Federation as compared to other religions in Malaysia.

So, by replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” in the context of the Article 3(1), the opposition leaders who signed the agreement has distort the interpretation of the Article 3(1) by positioning other religions at the same level as Islam, which is a distortion of the truth; not only to the Article 3(1) but also to our Federal Constitution.

In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah has clearly clarified this matter:

Pada pendapat saya “Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” bermakna Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara ini seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu dan selainnya. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain, bukan duduk berganding bahu atau berdiri sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, ia berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati – tinggi, teguh dan terampil. Jika bukan sedemikian Islam bukanlah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di negara ini dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan manamana ugama yang dianutinya, tiada lebih satu dari yang lain. Peruntukan ‘Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan’ hendaklah ditakrif dan ditinjau tujuannya dengan membaca bersama peruntukan lain dalam Perlembagaan khususnya Perkara 89, 152, 153 dan 14.

Hence, the intention of the phrase, “but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” in the Article 3(1) is to specify that even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, people of other religions are allowed to practise their religions but their actions must be in peace and harmony with the people of other religions, especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation; and not to give them the freedom to do anything they wish.

In other words, even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, Malaysia does not discriminate people of other religions, they are allowed to the practise their religions as long as they obey the laws and not to do things that have “the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community”.

In the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali states:

[42] It is my judgment that, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the usage of the word “Allah” particularly in the Malay version of the Herald, is without doubt, do have the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community. Such publication will surely have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Any such disruption of the even tempo is contrary to the hope and desire of peaceful and harmonious co-existence of other religions other than Islam in this country.

In fact, by doing what some people may think as small changes, the oppositions are not only giving a totally different meaning to the Article 3(1) but they are also interfering with other important Articles in the Federal Constitution such as Article 10(2), 11(4), 153 and others; as the Articles of the Federal Consitution cannot stand alone or cannot be read singularly, but must be read as a whole because each Article are ‘connected’ with other Articles.

In the judgement of the Federal Court case, Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, the then Federal Court Judge, DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah stated:

Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself.

So when they replace the word “tetapi” with the word “dan”, they are positioning other religions at par with Islam which is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and by adding the word “bebas” to the same Article, they are giving the freedom to people of other religions to do whatever they want in the name of practising their religions even though it can cause disorder in the community.

As stated by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the “Freedom of other Religions” which is Article 11 is subjected to Islam since Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution is “within the confines of Part I of the Constitution” while Article 11 is under the Part 2 of the Constitution.

[31] It is my observation that the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) has a historical background and dimension, to the effect that those words are not without significance. The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that the fundamental liberties Articles were grouped together subsequently under Part II of the Constitution.

Just one word can make a very big different, and in this case, not only it distorts the interpretation of Article 3(1) and interfere with other Articles of the Federal Constitution but discriminate and take away the rights of the Muslims as provided by the Federal Constitution.

Since in the “Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM”, the leaders of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM on behalf of their parties agree to uphold the Federal Constitution, “Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan bebas, aman dan damai di negara ini sejajar dengan Perkara 3”, the people must understand that DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM only vow to uphold their edited version of the Article 3(1) and not the one that is written in our Federal Constitution.

This action by them is consistent with their stance that Malaysia is a secular country whereas Malaysia is not and has never been a secular country.

Related Article:

• Gobind Singh: Malaysia Is A Secular State – Another Fairy Tale?
• Is Malaysia A Secular State?
• Answering “Marina: What crime has Namewee committed?”
• Reza Aslan, A Pluralist Who Calls Himself A Muslim
• Is Islam Only The Official Religion of Malaysia?
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please DO Your Homeworks
• Lim Guan Eng: DAP Says No To Hudud
• DAP vs Tan Sri Khalid And His Aku Janji
• Tun M Has Gone Too Far
• Tun M, Janganlah Menghina Nabi S.A.W.
• Has The Selangor MB Forgotten His 10 ‘Aku Janji’?
• Ngeh Tweeted, “Malays Has Freedom To Choose Religion”