Grow Up, MCA!

“Malaysia is a secular country” – that is a very popular myth concocted and supported by people who are obviously constitutionally illiterate and clueless about the interpretation of the Federal Constitution of our country.

MCA Legal Affairs Bureau Chairman Datuk Tay Puay Chuan’s press statement  which was published on the MCA website yesterday (March 30, 2017) with the title, “Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the nation” is part of the series of false and baseless accusations by certain groups to undermined the core principals of our country.

Tay Puay Chuan who clearly does not (or pretended not to) understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the definition of secularism, made several false accusations regarding the position of Islam in Malaysia, using the recycled baseless arguments which had been answered by many people for years.

I’ve written so many articles on this currently “hot issue” trying to open the minds of these people but then, it seems that some people just prefer to live in denial.

Below is the press statement (orange) together with my answers (blue) to all his twisted facts and wild accusations regarding Islam as the religion of the Federation.

I would like to stress again that the status of Islam as the religion of the federation, the roots of the Islamic law nationwide are granted by the Federal Constitution. This ascertains that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia

It is true that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the Federation as mentioned in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, but Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles. Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation. This was mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case.

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

This is in response to the booklet by Institute Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM) on the ’10 Salah Tanggapan Tentang Kedudukan Islam di Malaysia (10 Misconceptions about the Position of Islam in Malaysia)’, in which it included topics that either directly wrote or implied that ‘Malaysia is not a secular country;’ ‘rejecting claims that Islam is lower than the Constitution;’ ‘As an Islamic  nation, Islamic system is the thrust;’ as well as ‘other religions have no equal standing; and ‘the nation does  not carry the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions.’

Malaysian leaders of all religions must be constitutionally literate and uphold the Federal Constitution including Article 3(1) that enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation making Malaysia an Islamic nation. All the Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read together and people cannot just cherry-pick what they like and interpret the Articles according to their fancy to serve their agendas. 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 had clearly clarified that other religions have no equal standing as Islam: 

In my opinion, “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practied in peace and harmony” means that Islam is the main religion among other religions that are practied in the country such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others. Islam is not equal to any other religion, not sitting together or stand upright. It sits on top, he walked past, located in the field and his voice heard. Islam is like teak trees – tall, strong and skilled. If not so Islam is not the religion of the Federation but is one among several religions practised in the country and everyone is equally free to practice any religion he professes, no more one than the other. Provisions ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’ shall be defined and reviewed with the objective to read other provisions of the Constitution, especially Article 89, 152, 153 and 14.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions (as long as they are in peace and harmony with Islam), there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions except Islam, for example, the Article 11(4).

IKSIM must be alerted that the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution also explains that Islamic law is for persons professing the religion of Islam on matters related to succession, marriage, divorce, etc.

I have read the booklet and in the booklet, IKSIM has never said that the Islamic law has the jurisdiction over people professing other religions other than Islam.

The Federal Constitution is THE supreme law of the nation, and the supremacy of the Constitution renders Islam as the religion of the federation whilst other religions are allowed to be practised freely.

That is not only a false but also a malicious statement. The Constitution has never stated that “other religions can be practised freely” in any of its Articles or Schedules. Article 11(1) says that, Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it” while Article 3(1) clearly says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. So, there is no phrase such as “other religions can be practised freely” in both Articles. Maybe Tay came across the word “bebas” in the Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM and was confused by it.

As for the phrase, “in peace and harmony”, it was clearly interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia.

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.

Malaysia is a secular country. In fact, the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Supreme Court judgement enables the implementation of secular laws in the country, which includes both criminal and civil laws. These laws apply to the entire country, irrespective of race and religion. Similarly, the Federal Constitution also provides that Islamic law may only be used on persons professing the religion of Islam. Therefore, Islamic law is not for everyone. Only secular laws may be applied to everyone. Hence, this is one of the proofs which shows that Malaysia is a secular country.

Contrary to what was argued by Tay, the fact that Malaysia has two court systems, the civil court systems and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

By the way, does Tay understand the meaning of the word secularism? George Jacob Holyoake, the creator of the term secularism defined 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. It also contradicts with other Articles of the Constitution such as the Articles 11(4), 12, 37, 76A, 121(1A) and others.

As I wrote in my article for the news portal Menara, in a secular country, the State does not have a religion and cannot has anything to do in relation to religion, for example in the case of Mount Soledad Easter Cross in San Diego, California.

Hence, by calling Malaysia a secular country, Tay slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

Syariah law which is currently applied across all states, is the provision of rights granted to all state governments on the law as outlined in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. It is stated with a condition that the criminal penalties and jurisdictions of the Syariah Court cannot contravene the Federal Constitution, or it will be considered void and unconstitutional.

The jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts does not contravene the Federal Constitution because it was conferred by the Federal Constitution in Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution also states that: Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

This again shows that other religions are also protected by the Federal Constitution. Hence the claims made in the booklet that the country has no obligation to defend nor protect other religions are incorrect. Instead, our nation and the government have the responsibility of defending all religions in line with the Articles and spirit of the Federal Constitution.

What a mind blowing senseless argument! It shows that either Tay is truly constitutionally illiterate or he, in bad faith is trying to deny and debase the position of Islam in our Federal Constitution because his argument is against the core principals of the supreme law of the land. In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali said that the purpose of “in peace and harmony” were added to Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam, and not to defend other religions as claimed by Tay.

It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the insertion of the words: “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and also to insulate against any threat faced or any possible and probable threat to the religion of Islam.

Therefore, Tay must be constitutionally illiterate if he really thinks that the Federal Constitution conferred Malaysia as a secular country, all religions have equal standing and the nation carries the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions other than Islam.

It is a known fact that during the 13th General Election, MCA won it seats mostly because of the Malay voters, so this kind of attitude is not a gracious way to thank the voters who had graciously voted for the party candidates regardless of their race and religion. MCA must grow up and stop imitating DAP in debasing Islam and the Malays in trying to win the Chinese votes because it won’t work.  

We are now constitutionally literate and therefore the people are not stupid to easily be fooled by concocted lies. Is it too much for me to hope for leaders to understand and uphold the core principals of my country as clearly stated in the Federal Constitution and stop misinterpreting the supreme law of the land for their political and personal agendas?

Related Posts:

Malaysia Bukan Sekular

Salah tanggapan bahawa Perlembagaan Malaysia bersifat sekular kerap berlaku memandangkan ramai yang tidak memahami definisi sebuah negara sekular. Masih ramai yang merasakan bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara sekular dengan Islam hanya sebagai agama rasmi. Perkara ini bertambah parah kerana adanya golongan yang dengan sengaja dan penuh tipu helah mendesak supaya Malaysia dinobatkan sebagai sebuah negara sekular demi untuk mencapai agenda mereka untuk menjatuhkan Agama Negara, iaitu Islam.

Untuk memahami perkara ini, kita mesti melihat dua dokumen penting, Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia dan buku ‘The Principles of Secularism Illustrated’ yang ditulis oleh George Jacob Holyoake, pengasas sekularisme. Di dalam buku tersebut, George Jacob Holyoake mendefinisikan sekularisme sebagai pemisahan agama daripada pentadbiran negara. Manakala Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia, melalui Perkara 3(1) mengistiharkan bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan.

Jika sekular bermakna memisahkan agama daripada pentadbiran negara, bagaimana mungkin Malaysia dikategorikan sebagai sebuah negara sekular sedangkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan sendiri menyebut bahawa Islam adalah agama Persekutuan?

Jadi, apakah ciri-ciri negara sekular? Kita ambil Amerika Syarikat, sebuah negara sekular yang dikenali ramai sebagai contoh. First Amendment (Amendment I) kepada Perlembagaan Amerika Syarikat menyatakan dengan khusus tentang pemisahan agama daripada pentadbiran negara selaras dengan definasi sekularisme. Ciri-ciri ini menjadikan Amerka Syarikat sebagai sebuah negara sekular.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Oleh kerana Perlembagaan Amerika memisahkan gereja (agama) daripada pentadbiran negara, maka kerajaan Amerika tidak boleh ada kena mengena dengan agama. Malah adalah melanggar perlembagaan negara itu jika lambang agama termasuk lambang agama Kristian di letakkan di atas tanah kerajaan, biarpun majoriti penduduknya adalah beragama Krisitan. Contoh terbaik ialah kes Mount Soledad Easter Cross di San Diego, California.

Pada tahun 1954, sebuah palang salib berukuran 9 meter tingginya dibangunkan di atas sebuah tanah perkuburan milik kerajaan. Perkara ini membawa kepada kes mahkamah yang berlarutan sehingga lebih 25 tahun dan akhirnya pada tahun 2011 mahkamah mengekalkan keputusan bahawa binaan palang salib di atas tanah kerajaan melambangkan sokongan kerajaan kepada agama yang tidak berperlembagaan atau “an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion” dan telah melanggar ‘First Amendment’ Perlembagaan Amerika.

Juga di Amerika, 14 palang salib putih telah didirikan di tepi lebuhraya di antara Farmington dan Kaysville di Utah bagi memperingati 14 orang anggota polis trafik lebuhraya yang terkorban di situ. Kes itu dibawa oleh kumpulan American Atheists hingga ke Mahkamah Rayuan Amerika dan akhirnya ketiga-tiga hakim mahkamah itu memutuskan bahawa salib-salib putih tersebut melanggar “Establishment Clause” Perlembagaan Amerika (“white crosses violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution”) kerana salib-salib itu adalah lambang agama, maka tidak boleh didirikan di atas tanah kerajaan.

Contoh kedua ialah Turki, sebuah negara yang sering disalahanggap sebagai sebuah negara Islam. Walaupun 98 peratus penduduknya beragama Islam, Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Republik Turki menyebut bahawa Turki adalah negara sekular.

ARTICLE 2- The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by rule of law, within the notions of public peace, national solidarity and justice, respecting human rights, loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the preamble.

Oleh itu, kerajaan Turki tidak boleh menggunakan apa-apa nama atau lambang agama kepada apa-apa institusi di negara itu sehinggakan kerajaan Turki terpaksa menamakan bank Islam negara itu sebagai Bank Ortak (Bank Partisipasi).

Bukan setakat itu sahaja, malah perlembagaan sekular Turki juga menghalang hak wanita Islam untuk bertudung di bangunan kerajaan seperti pejabat kerajaan, mahkamah, sekolah dan universiti. Malah, ahli parlimen Istanbul, Merve Kavakçı pernah dilarang memasuki parlimen negara itu kerana bertudung walaupun akhirnya beliau dibenarkan atas nama Hak Asasi Manusia. Namun, hak untuk wanita lain bertudung di bangunan awam masih dinafikan. Itulah keadaannya di negara sekular.

Bukan setakat itu sahaja, malah perlembagaan sekular Turki juga menghalang hak wanita Islam untuk bertudung di bangunan kerajaan seperti pejabat kerajaan, mahkamah, sekolah dan universiti. Malah, ahli parlimen Istanbul, Merve Kavakçı pernah dilarang memasuki parlimen negara itu kerana bertudung walaupun akhirnya beliau dibenarkan atas nama Hak Asasi Manusia. Namun, hak untuk wanita lain bertudung di bangunan awam masih dinafikan. Itulah keadaannya di negara sekular.

Begitu juga India. Mukadimah Perlembagaan India menyebut bahawa India adalah sebuah negara sekular.

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens …”

Maka, walaupun Perlembagaan India masih mengiktiraf agama, namun India tidak mempunyai agama rasmi, jauh sekali agama negara kerana sebagai sebuah negara sekular, negara India tidak boleh mempunyai agama.

FMT: Laws Against Quran And Sunnah Are Void, Said Tun Fairuz

I am very proud to read what was said by Tun Ahmad Fairuz in Free Malaysia Today’s report, “Ex-CJ: Laws that are against Quran and Sunnah are void”.

FMT wrote, “Explaining his interpretation, Ahmad Fairuz who was the chief justice from 2003 to 2007, cited a Privy Council judgement on a case in Singapore, where it said for a law to be valid, it must conform to the fundamental rules laid down by English Common Law.”

“This view seems to be accepted in Malaysia too. But as Islam is the religion of the federation, surely the fundamental principles of the law should be based not only on English Common Law, but (also) on the shariah law.

“I want to stress the aspect of judiciary in the definition of Islam where the Quran and Sunnah are the main sources of Islamic laws.

“Article 4 of the Federal Constitution states that laws which are against the Federal Constitution are void, on the part of the contradicting provisions. And hence, laws that are against the Quran and Sunnah will also be void.”

Explaining about the interpretation of Article 3(1) Tun Fairuz was reported saying:

“In the case of Lina Joy, when I was the chief justice, I said Islam was also a complete way of life that included all aspects of human activities, including judiciary, politics, and economy among others.”

FMT further wrote, “Hence, Ahmad Fairuz, reading Article 3 and 4 together, interpreted the Federal Constitution as making Islamic law the second most supreme legislation.”

Therefore for those who are constitutionally illiterate and shouting that Malaysia is a secular country and the proposed amendment of Act 355 is unconstitutional, please attend Tun Fairuz’s next lecture to learn more about the Federal Constitution from our former Chief Justice.



Constitutionally Illiterate!

“We cannot accept Shariah law, for Malaysia already has a supreme law, which is the Federal Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution declares it simply: ‘This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation’,” Baru said as reported by Borneo Post Online with the tittle, “Baru concurs with Abg Jo on concerns over proposed amendment to Act 355”.

Constitutionally illiterate! This senseless statement makes me wonder if the PKR leader knows what he is trying to say. In fighting against a law that has nothing to do with him as a non-Muslim, the PKR man said, “Hadi Awang and Umno may say this is Syariah and not hudud, but as far as I understand it, hudud is part of the Syariah and the proponents had said this bill was to pave way for hudud punishments in Kelantan. This attempt at RUU355 is but a political contest between Umno and PAS to champion the implementation of Syariah Law in Malaysia.”

Yes, Article 4 of the Constitution declares that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation, therefore the Shariah Court system is constitutional because Article 121(1A) confers the Syariah Courts systems as part of the Malaysian legal systems. Federal Constitution as the Supreme law of the land must not be misinterpreted and must be read as a whole.

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 that, “Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself”. Hence, it is wrong for Baru Bian to cherry-pick what he likes or bypassing other Articles in order to make his own interpretation to suit his argument and agendas.

If Baru Bian respects the Article 4, he must respect the fact that the Article 3(1) that says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” for it is placed before the Article 4, hence stating the importance of Article 3. 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 explained that , “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”. So by denying the acceptance of the Shariah laws, Baru Bian is literally against the Article 3(1) and therefore he is also against Supreme Law of the Federation.

If Baru Bian reads the Federal Constitution, he’ll understand that as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution defines the principles of our country, the sovereignty of Islam as the religion of the country, the sovereignty of the Rulers, the rights of the people, judicial system and other important laws but the Federal Constitution does not describe punishments and offences. It is the judiciary that interprets and applies the law in the name of our country through Act, Ordinance, Enactment and others. And there is no unconstitutional elements in the proposed amendment of the Act 355 because the Act 355 is an existing law, the proposed amendment is only to increase the Syariah punishments which are currently too low and not to introduce new sets of laws or seeks to widen the scope of its current jurisdiction.

Furthermore has Baru Bian forgotten or unaware of Article 11(3)(a) which says every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs? After all, why must the non-Muslims try so hard to deny the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage our own religious affairs as granted by Article 11(3) of our Federal Constitution?

This is not a Hudud Bill and it is impossible for the amendment of Act 355 to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015 because it is not within the power of the Syariah Courts to implement capital punishment nor the jurisdiction over offences punishable under the Penal Code.

So, please stop debasing the Federal Constitution and as a leader, please at least learn to respect and uphold our supreme law.


Related Posts:

Act 355: Another Baseless and Illogical Arguement from G25

Named as a “group of prominent Muslims” by DAP, G25 is a group of people who are so clueless about the teaching of Islam that their arguments and ideas regarding Islam are so mind-blowing and out of context, making them good friends of DAP’s Penang Institute. Sharing DAP’s stance regarding the amendment of Act 355, G25’s arguments on this matter are as baseless and illogical as those given by DAP. Below are my answers (in blue) to G25’s article in red:

To all honourable Members of Parliament,
We, G25, anxiously appeal for a promise from each Honourable Member of Parliament to not support/cancel the debate on PAS’ private motion to amend Act 355, or Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, which will now be debated in Parliament.
We hope the honourable MPs would ponder upon and note that any amendment to Islamic laws should be done within the framework of the Federal Constitution.
There is no law saying that Act 355 or any other Acts related to the Islamic Laws cannot be amended. The Hadi Private Bill to amend the Act 355 is being done within the framework of the Federal Constitution and  I’m sure that the members of G25 are aware that this is not the first time the Act 355 is amended. 

Specifically, Article 4 provides for the superiority of the federal law and civil courts over state Islamic enactments and shariah courts. This ensures the existence of only one system of justice governing all Malaysians.
A misleading fabricated statement. Syariah Courts is part of Malaysian legal systems as confers by Article 121(1A). There is no such thing as,“This ensures the existence of only one system of justice governing all Malaysians”.
  Article 4 states that the Federal Constitution is the Supreme law and Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution says:

The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no  jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. 

2) In the judgement of the case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, the Federal court ruled in a unanimous decision that the section 16 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) is valid and not ultra vires the Federal Constitution, 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.

Limitations on the powers of the shariah courts:
Item 1 in the Ninth Schedule of the State List of the Federal Constitution states that the shariah courts “shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law”. The purpose of this provision is for Parliament to have oversight and control over offences, including the nature of punishments created by state enactments, so that the state legislatures do not have a free hand to create offences or to prescribe sentences.
1) Act 355 is a Federal Law and not a State Law. The Act confers jurisdiction upon Courts constituted under any State law for the purpose of dealing with offences under Islamic law.
2) “Item 1 in the Ninth Schedule of the State List of the Federal Constitution” does not exist. What we have is, Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and it proves that the Syariah Court system is legal and constitutional.

Increasing status of the syariah courts complicates enforcement:
The desire to raise the status of the shariah courts to be on a par with the civil courts is worrying and very likely will shock our multiracial community as it will raise questions on the direction of the country’s legal system.
Is G25 unaware of the existence of Article 121(1A)?  In 1988, the then Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed tabled the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill in Parliament to add Clause (1A) to the Article 121 which raised the status of the Syariah Courts. That happened 29 years ago and it had not “shock our multiracial community”. G25 must stop debasing the Syariah Courts.

A secular system of justice existing side by side with the Islamic system is not only unconstitutional but will cause considerable confusion and uncertainty in the enforcement of law and order.
Is G25 saying that Articles 74(2) and 121(1A) is unconstitutional and Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution does not excise?

A big risk with investors:
Economists and international experts who have studied Malaysia’s remarkable economic development over a relatively short period to become one of the most advanced economies in the developing world, have always cited its system of law and administration as a key factor in attracting foreign and local investors to do business here. It is a system which foreigners are familiar with because it is similar to what they find in their own countries. Their presence is most important for the transfer of knowledge and technology so that Malaysians can benefit by developing our own skills to compete in the world market. Our country will be taking a big risk with foreign and local investors if we have a system of law which is moving away from its original character to become more religiously oriented and less tolerant of modern lifestyles and values.
Act 355 is not a new law  and it will not change our current “system of law”. I wonder if:
1) To G25, is “modern lifestyles and values” means lifestyles and values which are against the teaching of Islam?
2) In what way does the amendment of Act 355 can be bad for our economy in regarding to “attracting foreign and local investors to do business here”?
3) G25 really thinks that a “religiously oriented” Muslim society is bad for the economy?

A step towards hudud:
Supporters of the PAS bill to amend Act 355 insist that there is no intention to introduce hudud. Malaysians find this hard to believe as Kelantan, which is ruled by PAS, has already passed the Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015, prescribing hudud punishment for zina (illicit sex), murder, theft, robbery, sodomy, consumption of liquor and apostasy.
The amendment of Act 355 cannot enable the implementation of the current Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015. The amendment is only to enable the Syariah Court to increase its punishments limits, but its jurisdiction will still be limited to the crimes listed under the Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, which does not include murder, robbery and theft as in hudud. 

But State law is currently prevented from being enforced because of Act 355.
Another false fact. Act 355 confers the jurisdiction upon States’ Syariah Courts therefore it does not prevent the enforcement of State laws.

Prioritising good governance in public institutions
A well-governed country with laws and governing institutions that provide social justice for the poor and the needy should be a priority for the country’s social and economic progression. This would be more Islamic than the implementation of hudud. We should be proud that our shariah index is higher than other Muslim countries because our children are better educated; health and medical facilities are available in all corners of the country; unemployment and poverty rates are low; and our youth can look forward to a brighter future. Higher priority should be given towards improving the standards of governance and to strengthen the institutions of law and order so as to promote integrity and clean administration in the country. These governing qualities are far more important to the country than policing the moral behaviour of Muslims and punishing them like criminals. The personal sins of Muslims do not hurt others in the society or the economy but the corruption and financial mismanagement among politicians and civil servants and the perception that the institutions of justice favour those in power — these are the social diseases that can cause economies to collapse and the people to rise up against their rulers. The government and MPs should be careful not to support the PAS bill and instead spend their energy in dealing with the unresolved problems surrounding 1MDB so that the country can turn its attention to deal with the bigger issues facing the economy, in particular the weak ringgit and the rising cost of living.
We do not need the PAS bill to divide the nation at a time when all races should stand together. The time now is for the real 1Malaysia.
Contrary to what was claimed by G25, the amendment of Act 355 will not only lead to good governance but it will help to build a better society and reduce social problems among the Muslims. Talking about economy, the increase of punishments for drinking and gambling can hinder Muslims from wasting their money on those negative activities, hence will improve the economy of their families. And faithful Muslims will not be involved in “corruption and financial mismanagement”, hence will prevent “the social diseases that can cause economies to collapse and the people to rise up against their rulers”. 

Ceramah PAN: Kit Siang & Guan Eng Akan Masuk Islam?

I am not sure who is the speaker but he looks like Wan Ji and sounds like him too.

What will DAP say about this?

Meeting Lego Batman At Legoland Malaysia

Currently, the LEGO Batman event is running at LEGOLAND Malaysia Resort.

The picture above was taken on the 13th of February during the promotion, several days before the event began.

Jika Zakir Naik disekat, Siti Kasim Juga Perlu Disekat

[}-, dalam artikel yang bertajuk, “Siti Kasim: Ajaran Dr Zakir Naik Bertentangan Dengan Islam” melaporkan penentangan keras oleh Siti Zabedah Kasim terhadap Dr Zakir Naik yang mana menurut Siti Kasim, membawa ajaran Islam yang bertentangan dari ajaran yang termaktub dalam kitab Al-Quran.

Menurut laporan tersebut, Siti Kasim berkata, “Sebenarnya, kebebasan bersuara yang kami laungkan ini tidak boleh disamakan dengan kes Dr Zakir Naik”. Perkara ini menarik perhatian saya kerana kenyataan itu menunjukkan dengan jelas sikap ‘double standard’ yang diamalkan oleh Siti Zabedah Kasim dalam hal hak asasi manusia, khasnya hak kebebasan bersuara yang diperjuangkannya. Nampaknya, Siti Kasim mahukan hak kebebasan bersuara hanya untuk dirinya dan mereka yang sependapat dengannya sahaja, namun untuk mereka yang tidak menyokong pendapatnya mesti dikenakan batasan dalam hak kebebasan bersuara.

Dalam hal ini Siti Kasim nampaknya terlalu mengikut perasaan dan lupa untuk mencermin dirinya dahulu sebelum bertindak. Jika beliau inginkan sekatan ke atas Dr. Zakir Naik daripada “bebas menyampaikan ajaran serta ceramahnya yang jelas bertentangan dengan landasan Islam sebenar dan prinsip negara”, dia tidak boleh marah dan membuat bising apabila umat Islam mahu Siti Kasim disekat atas sebab-sebab yang sama seperti tuduhannya terhadap Dr. Zakir Naik.

Sebagai aktivis hak asasi manusia yang selama ini menentang semua sekatan yang dikatakan mereka sebagai satu tindakan diskriminasi, sepatutnya Zabedah mempertahankan hak asasi penceramah itu. Malah, selama ini Siti Kasim mempertahankan kebebasan bersuara orang-orang yang menghina hukum Allah. Oleh itu, tindakan Siti Kasim kali ini juga adalah satu tindakan yang tidak adil kerana mendiskriminasikan hak golongan lain.

Seperti mana Siti Kasim mahu Dr. Zakir Naik disekat, saya yakin majoriti umat Islam di Tanah Air kita juga mahukan sekatan yang sama ke atas Siti Kasim atas sebab-sebab yang sama seperti yang diberikannya untuk menyekat Dr. Zakir Naik. Saya menggunakan kata-kata Siti Kasim seperti yang dilaporkan oleh dan hanya menukar nama Dr Zakir Naik kepada nama Siti Zabedah Kassim.

Dalam realiti yang berlawanan, kata-kata Dr Zakir Naik mungkin berbunyi, “Berapa ramai yang berminat untuk membuat semakan dan kajian mengenai apa yang Siti Kasim cakap? Sebenarnya apa yang dikatakan oleh Siti Kasim semuanya boleh dikatakan “Rubbish” (sampah).

Siti Kasim menuduh Dr. Zakir Naik mengajar “Ajaran Islam dan ceramah yang dilakukan Dr Zakir adalah bertentangan dari ajaran Al-Quran yang boleh mengakibatkan perpecahan antara kaum di negara ini”, tetapi sebenarnya itulah yang dilakukan oleh Siti Kasim sendiri. Lebih teruk lagi Siti Kasim juga menolak dan membantah semua autoriti agama, fatwa-fatwa dan ajaran Islam yang sebenar kerana ianya bercanggah dengan tafsiran Islam yang dibuat sendiri.

Dan Siti Kasim juga selalu cuba “memberi fatwa” tentang hukum Islam, walaupun dia bukanlah seorang pakar berkenaan Islam, malah seorang aktivis liberal yang sebenarnya menentang hukum-hukum Islam.

Malah, dia terkenal kerana lantang menentang pemerkasaan institusi-insttusi Islam di Malaysia, contohnya dalam kes Pindaan Akta 355. Dia juga merupakan antara orang yang lantang mempertahankan golongan LGBT di Malaysia walaupun hal itu adalah bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam. Hukum Hudud yang belum dapat dilaksanakan pun dikritik oleh Siti Kasim, seolah-olah Islam dan undang-undang Islam adalah tidak adil.

Oleh itu, dimana logiknya Siti Kasim mahu melabelkan orang lain sebagai ekstremis dan menentang ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya, apabila dia sendiri yang menentang Islam selama ini?

Walaupun Siti Kasim mengatakan dia mempunyai hak kebebasan bersuara, tetapi kebebasan bersuara di Tanah Air ini masih ada batasan-batasannya dan ianya tertakluk kepada Akta Hasutan. Adalah bercanggah dengan undang-undang Tanah Air kita jika Siti Kasim menghasut orang ramai untuk menentang autoriti agama, fatwa dan ajaran Islam Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah yang diamalkan di Tanah Air kita.

Jika Siti Kasim mengatakan Dr. Zakir Naik seorang ekstremis yang menghasut, begitu juga dengan dirinya sendiri kerana liberal juga adalah ekstrem kerana liberalisme bermaksud menolak asas-asas agama dan asas-asas negara.

“Firstly Islam was a NEVER a Religion of PEACE”, Apa Komen Kak Wan?

Is this PKR man sane and worthy to be a leader of our country?

Lately, making seditious statements is the latest trend for some people who wanted to be seen as a hero for certain group of people.

Latest is a former PKR ADUN of Batu Uban, Pulau Pinang, Raveentharan Subramaniam’s turn to do so.

“Firstly Islam was a NEVER a Religion of PEACE”, wrote the former PKR ADUN of Batu Uban, Pulau Pinang, Raveentharan Subramaniam on his Facebook page.

Raveentharan later posted an apology saying that he never intended to offend Islam.

However, how can such a direct seditious, malicious and rude statement on Islam was said as not “intended to offend Islam”?

In fact, not only does the statement offend the Muslims, but worst it can cause a racial tension between the Muslims and the non-Muslims.

It was reported that he will be investigated under Section 298 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.

Moreover, by saying that, “Islam was NEVER a Religion of PEACE”, Raveentharan has gone against the Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act, which says:

A “seditious tendency” is a tendency— to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia…

By the way, what does PKR party president has to say about her man’s malicious statement?

And if Kak Wan and her allies say nothing, may I ask if that PKR agrees with Raveentharan Subramaniam’s statement?

Does Teresa Kok Understand English?

On March 11, 2017, the DAP Seputeh MP said on her Facebook page that, “This case tells us that Syariah laws will affect non-Muslims in the end…..” with a photo of a man being caned in Aceh.

I wonder if Teresa Kok read the News Asiaone report before making her posting because  News Asiaon reported that the two men chose to be punished under the Syariah laws instead of Indonesian national legal system.

If Teresa Kok understands English, she’ll know that the Buddhists themselves chose to be caned instead of jailed.

Maybe Teresa Kok is trying to relate the news to the amendment of Act 355 in order to scare the non-Muslims that in the end, it will affect them as well.

If so, it is another dirty tactic to spew hatred towards the Muslims who are fighting for the Act 355 to be amended because:

  1. The amendment of Act 355 will not broaden the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court beyond its current limit but it will only increase its punishment limits to the Muslims who are under the jurisdiction of the court.
  2. To allow the Syariah laws to be applied to the non-Muslims, the Federal Constitution must be amended where the Item 1 List II Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia must first be amended.
  3. We do not subscribe to the laws of Indonesia. That happened in Aceh, Indonesia where Syariah law is applied to everyone but we are living in Malaysia, where the Syariah law only applies to the Muslims.
  4. The two Buddhists chose to be punished under the Syariah law instead of the secular law; why must that bothers Teresa Kok?

It is easy for leaders like Teresa Kok to spread lies to her supporters because:

  1. They trust their leaders and are too blinded to see the truth.
  2. Like Teresa Kok, they only read the titles and do not bother to find out what really happens.
  3. They do not understand the Bahasa Melayu and English.
  4. They do not understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
%d bloggers like this: