Editor-editor Media Mesti Disekolahkan Tentang Asas Kedaulatan Negara

[Karim’s Blog}- Membaca beberapa akhbar arus perdana dan liputan pelbagai portal berita berkaitan upacara pertabalan SPB YDP Agong Sultan Muhammad V, jelas menampakkan bahawa di kalangan wartawan dan ketua-ketua editor media, ramai yang masih tidak faham asas kedaulatan Negara serta Perlembagaan Persekutuan itu sendiri.

Kebanyakan media yang menyiarkan gambar YDPA mencium Al-Quran meletakkan ulasan (caption) “SULTAN Muhammad V mencium al-Quran iaitu lambang kemuliaan Islam sebagai agama rasmi negara pada Istiadat Pertabalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong XV di Istana Negara, semalam”

Ini adalah kesalahan besar dalam pemahaman tentang asas Negara dan kedudukan Islam di Tanah Air ini.

Sering kali media melaporkan bahawa “Islam Agama Rasmi” Malaysia. Malah ramai juga di kalngan pembesar Negara yang masih seing menggunakan slogan yang salah itu. Jika ada pun sesetengah Menteri yang sudah faham dengan menyebut Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan atau Islam Agama Negara, tetapi apabila ianya dilaporkan oleh akhbar entah sama ada waratwan yang tidak petik dengan betul atau ketua-ketua editor yang tidak faham dengan asas Persekutuan Malaysia ini.

Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah undang-undang utama Persekutuan seperti mana ditegaskan di dalam Perkara 4. Ini juga bermakna rangkap kata yang kita kerap dengar bahawa Islam itu adalah agama rasmi itu salah dan tidak berdasarkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Kegagalan memahami perkara asas ini di kalangan petugas media dan ketua-ketua editor media membuat naratif yang salah ini diteruskan dan diulang-ulang. Mungkin perlu ada usaha untuk sekolahkan mereka ini agar penyampaian maklumat yang benar dapat disampaikan kepada masyarakat agar lebih fahami asas Negara yang bertunjangkan Agama Islam sejak dari kedaulatan pemerintahan Raja-Raja Melayu yang sudah beratus tahun.

• Malaysia BUKAN Negara Sekular
• “Malaysia bukan negara sekular” di Parlimen pada 22 Oktober 2012
• Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tiada Istilah Sekular – Hanya Ada “Islam”, “Raja” dan “Melayu”
• Kepentingan Agama Perlu Atasi Politik

Boo Su-Lyn Supports Nanyang’s ‘Monkey Act’

The Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of our country has to be respected in order to maintain a harmonious society.
We are governed by law and regulations to maintain law and order of our country and living in a civilised world, we should adhere to proper social etiquette that defines a civilised society hence, a total freedom of speech like mocking people’s religion cannot be accepted.
In a malicious article, entitled “Making monkeys out of us”, Malay Mail Online’s Boo Su-Lyn tries to justify the controversial and spiteful Nanyang Siang Pau’s ‘Monkey Act’ caricature on the pretext of press freedom.
Claiming it is not even offensive, Boo questions the actions taken by the authority and the complains made by the people and want the government “to allow people to say whatever they want, as long as they do not advocate physical harm”; a situation made possible only in a fantasy world.
For most opposition-inclined activists, freedom of speech only applies to them, hence they are free to slur and mock others but not the other way around.
Below are with my answers (blue) to all Boo’s “Making monkeys out of us” (red).

---

APRIL 14 — When I applied seven years ago to be a journalist, my boss told me that my job was to report the “facts”, not the “truth”, since I was a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed wannabe-activist then.
Along the way, I gradually learned the difference between the two. Now, of course, we have “alternative facts” and “fake news.”
For example, Boo Su-Lyn’s “alternative facts”, “fake news”, fake facts and malicious accusations regarding Islam.
What is worse – beyond those terms that Malaysia has long used even before Donald Trump became US president – are the increased incidents of censorship and attacks on press freedom and freedom of speech.
We do not live in the dark ages and we are a civilised society. A gross slur on the country’s religion and the authorities on the pretext of “press freedom and freedom of speech” is wrong and uncivilised. Furthermore, Malaysia is not a lawless country, we are all governed by law. 
It’s hard to report the facts under such circumstances.
Yes, it is hard to report real facts when the truth must be spun.
In the latest incident, the Home Ministry has summoned the editor-in-chief of Nanyang Siang Pau over its cartoon on the RUU355 issue that depicted PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang and Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia as monkeys.
Is Boo saying that the apology from Nanyang Siang Pau is not sincere and that the slur on Islam and the parliamentary procedure is only part of  Nanyang’s “press freedom and freedom of speech”?
The Tuesday announcement came hours after PAS Youth and several Muslim NGOs staged a protest outside the Chinese-language newspaper’s office.
If it is true that the Nanyang Siang Pau’s apology is just a deception as indirectly implied by Boo, no wonder PAS Youth members took the action. Furthermore PAS Youth and the Muslim NGOs are just expressing their “freedom of speech” and freedom of expression.
The police have also waded in and said they’ll launch an investigation, with the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) warning the media against publishing “sensitive” cartoons.
It seems like the PDRM, especially the Inspector-General of Police is the ‘prime target’ for Boo and her gangs; therefore it proves the integrity and professionalism of the police force so far.
Nanyang was simply mocking the RUU355 debacle that has seen the fifth tabling of Hadi’s Bill – which seeks to enhance Shariah punishments – without resulting in a debate and vote.
The way Boo puts it, when she refers the parliamentary procedure as “the RUU355 debacle”, shows that she herself is mocking and debasing the long process of tabling the Act; which shows people like Boo Su-Lyn have no empathy and respect towards the rights of others.
The amendment of Act 355 is important to the Muslims who are the majority population of Malaysia. It is a move to uphold Islam as the religion of the Federation, so mocking such a very sensitive matter is uncalled for.
Alas, the arrogant Boo is mocking the process by referring it as “the RUU355 debacle”.
Last Thursday, the Speaker postponed the debate after allowing opening arguments from PAS, saying: “If you don’t use your power, you are a bloody fool. Today, I don’t want to be a bloody fool.”
The Speaker had to deal Lim Kit Siang and a few other opposition Members of Parliament who were behaving like spoiled children trying to disrupt a parliamentary process and denying the rights and the power of the Speaker in carrying out his duty as the the presiding officer of the Dewan Rakyat.
The Nanyang cartoon shows the “Hadi” monkey offering the RUU355 “hot potato” to the “Pandikar” monkey, who leaps off the tree saying, “Keep it for next time”, as a bunch of monkeys get into a fight below. The cartoon is captioned: “Monkeys playing tricks”, with the word “tricks” referencing the Bill.
Was the cartoon offensive? Opinions are sure to differ.
A person does not have to be smart to answer the above questions.
 1) The cartoon is offensive to the supporters of the amendment of Act 355 because matters relating upholding Islam is a “no-mocking’ matters to the Muslims.
 2) The cartoon is not offensive to people like Boo Su-Lyn because they are the ones who are the mocker or the trouble makers.
To me, calling someone a “bitch” or a “slut” is far more offensive than calling them a “monkey.” Yet, the police aren’t hunting down people who make such offensive remarks against women online.
Another deception of truth using an out of context argument. This is not just another case of name-calling or people make rude and offensive remarks as published daily by the opposition and the ‘opposition-inclined’ news portals, for example Free Malaysia Today and Malay Mail Online.
Nanyang is bounded by regulations and law because we are not living in dark ages or in a lawless country where anyone can do just anything they fancy.
Even if Boo Su-Lyn tells people to call her monkey, she has no right to tell the Muslims to let non-Muslims humiliate Islam by implying the amendment of Act 355 is like a monkey business; after all the caricature was titled “Monkey Act” (as translated by most reports) for a reason, isn’t it?
Why should a newspaper face State action over a caricature when Hadi is free to call the DAP a piece of “shit”? To be clear, I’m not advocating for police investigations against Hadi.
Is she serious? The newspaper insults Islam while Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi did not insult any religion. Islam is the religion of the Federation but DAP is only a political party and not even a religion. Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi said that DAP is a piece of “shit” from PAP, a rude way to say that DAP is a spin-off from PAP. It is rude but not seditious nor malicious. DAP leaders not only slur PAS but they also make offensive and seditious statements towards Islam. In fact, Boo herself wrote a lot of malicious and seditious articles which are offensive to the Muslims. If Haji Hadi must be investigated, so must Boo Su-Lyn and DAP leaders.
The point is everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, no matter how crude and offensive they are.
So, Boo must now fight for the Speaker’s, PAS Youth’s and Muslim NGOs’ rights to their freedom of speech. It is not fair if the rights to go on a “crude and offensive” mocking spree is only bestowed on Boo and her gangs.
The Nanyang cartoon wasn’t even mocking Islam; it was just taking a jibe at the way Hadi’s Bill has been politicised for two whole years since it first appeared in Parliament’s Order Paper in April 2015.
Islam is a way of life and as a non-Muslim and especially an atheist Boo Su-Lyn has no right to comment about Islam. Neither PAS nor UMNO politicised the Bill.
A piece of legislation cannot be equated to a religion.
As an atheist, she fails to understand how people feel about their religion as she doesn’t even have a religion.
Malaysia is a multi-cultural society, which means that our lawmakers in Parliament come from diverse backgrounds. Just because a certain Bill touches on religion (in the case of RUU355, it’s specifically on the Shariah court system), it does not mean that those of other faiths cannot question it.
One need to be constitutionally literate in order to talk about legal matters. The fact that Malaysia is a multi-cultural society makes it crucial for the people to respect the rights of others as provided by the Federal Constitution. Please refer to Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution before making a statement on this matter.
If that were the case, then we might as well prevent non-Muslim MPs from debating and voting on RUU355.
Muslims leaders obey the Federal Constitution and do not do things based only on emotion.
Or we might as well prevent Muslim MPs from debating and vosion ting on the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, since its proposed ban on unilateral child conversions deals primarily with the rights of non-Muslim parents and children.
This is the problem when a person who is constitutionally illiterate comments on parliamentary procedure. It is unconstitutional to restrict the non-Muslims Members of Parliament from voting on matters regarding Islam in Parliament.
The intellectual growth of the nation will be stunted if people are not allowed to question or to make criticisms on topics like religion. Any religious belief, or even the lack of belief like atheism, should be subject to debate, criticism, and yes, even satire.
Please study the law of our country before making senseless comments. Boo Su-Lyn’s ‘logic’ on matters of religion is only accepted by the liberals. By the way, atheism is against both our Federal Constitution and Rukun Negara, so it has no legal standing according to the supreme law of our country.
Freedom of speech is especially necessary in cases where religion is used as a basis for policymaking, be it healthcare, education, marriage, or childbearing.
Policy making must be based on the ideology and the law of a country. We cannot force a secular country to make state policies based on religion and like wise we cannot force an Islamic country like Malaysia to make policies based on freedom of speech.
In Malaysia, religion features in many of our policies, which makes it all the more important to ensure that the interests of the citizenry are not sacrificed for someone’s personal beliefs.
In Malaysia, Islam is not merely “someone’s personal beliefs” but it is the religion of the Federation as enshrined by the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. “The interests of the citizenry are not sacrificed” by Islamic policies because it is only for the Muslims. Regarding the amendment of Act 355, it is the non-Muslims who are trying to deny the rights of the Muslims.
If Malaysia really wants to go all out in preserving “national harmony”, then they can look at Singapore which prosecuted teenager Amos Yee for insulting Christians and Muslims and more recently, fined and deported a Muslim imam for saying during Friday prayers: “God help us against Jews and Christians.” Singaporean authorities even gave stern warnings to two Facebook users in the imam’s case.
I agree that Malaysia should take stern actions on people who try to interfere with other people’s religion especially Islam, the religion of the Federation. Unlike Malaysia, Singapore is a country without a religion, thus all religions are at par as according to the Constitution of Singapore; so legal matters regarding religions cannot be the same for both countries.
Christians and Muslims are minority groups in Singapore, forming 18 per cent and 15 per cent of the population respectively in the 2010 census. Buddhists and Taoists comprise the biggest religious group at 44 per cent. A significant percentage, 17 per cent, say they have no religious affiliation.
So Malaysia can take the Singapore route if it wants to and prosecute criticism and insults of any religion, without being biased towards a certain faith.
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.

If “national harmony” is the reason for clamping down on freedom of speech, it’s preferable to go after those who mock any religion rather than take action against people who criticise a certain faith.
Boo Su-Lyn is either delusional or in a bad faith accused that it is lawful to mock any religion but Islam in Malaysia.
This way, everyone will be happy and there will be genuine “national” peace and harmony across race and religion.
In case Boo is unaware, the president of Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) was charged in court under the Sedition Act 1948 for questioning the citizenship of the Chinese.
Of course, the best way for our country to develop intellectually is to truly protect fundamental liberties and to allow people to say whatever they want, as long as they do not advocate physical harm.
Fundamental liberties is stated in Part II of the Federal Constitution and as we live in Malaysia, we follow the Malaysian laws.
We shouldn’t try to be like robotic Singapore. Instead Malaysia should aim higher and allow the diversity of thought and opinion to flourish.
The opposition had always named Singapore as an example which Malaysia should follow, but now they don’t want Malaysia to become like “robotic Singapore”; cherry picking again.
Singapore has both the Internal Security Act 1985 and Sedition Act 1948, while Malaysia was forced to abolish the Internal Security Act 1960 by human right activists and is left with only the Sedition Act which is now under attack by the same group. Weirdly, the same group praises Singapore for its law-and-order policy.
If Boo lives in Singapore, I am doubtful if she dares to do what she is doing now. If Malaysia is as what portrayed by Boo, she would have been charged under the Sedition Act a long time ago. But she is still free to slur seditious and spiteful statements with malicious intent about Islam that can promote ill will and hostility or hatred between different races and religions of Malaysia, which is chargeable under both Section 3(1)(e) and Section (3)(1)(ea) of the Sedition Act 1948.
She must be thankful that at least she is has yet  to be charged for making seditious statements. This proves that Malaysia does support freedom of speech. If not, not only Boo but a lot others including some online portals have been charged for making or publishing malicious and spiteful contents.

Related Posts:

• Grow Up, MCA!
• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• 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

Peter Chong Had Wasted Police’s Time and Energy

Malaysian IGP, Khalid Abu Bakar released a statement stating that the ‘disappearance’ of Peter Chong wasted a lot of the police’s time and energy.

In a press confrence at Bukit Aman earlier today, he said that Chong had put the public in a state of fear, and had wasted the police’s time.

I’m sure the opposition supporters will cause a deafening uproar if Peter Chong is not one of them.

Further news can be read in the report made by Free Malaysia Today:

---

.::Report by Free Malaysia Today::.

KUALA LUMPUR: Activist Peter Chong, who was thought to have been abducted, wasted the police’s time and energy, said Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar.

He said Chong’s two-week disappearance had put the public in a state of fear, as they believed that abduction cases were on the rise.

“He (Chong) got the public shocked. So we want to find out why he did that.

“Of course he has wasted our men’s time,” he told a press conference at Bukit Aman here today.

Chong was reported missing on April 5, but police later discovered that he had gone to Thailand.

The activist later told police that he went to Hatyai on April 7 to meet a source who claimed to have information on the whereabouts of Pastor Raymond Koh, who was abducted on Feb 13.

Chong alleged that he was then abducted and taken to Pattaya before being released.

Hatyai police however said they had not received any report regarding the abduction, and that they would take action against Chong if he was found to have fabricated the incident.

Pattaya police echoed the warning, adding that they too had no knowledge of the alleged abduction as no report had been lodged.

Khalid had said Malaysian police were working with their Thai counterparts to investigate Chong’s abduction claim.

“We are checking with Pattaya police. We will wait for their response before taking further action.

“We can’t make any assumptions. Whether there was a police report or not, we will wait for feedback from there (Thailand),” he said.

‘Missing’ Peter Chong is Back From Pattaya

Breaking news!

One out of the five ‘missing’ people, Peter Chong has been ‘found’!

Well, the police found out that he is not even lost after all, but went on a trip to Thailand without telling anyone.

That made some people went hysterical about his ‘disappearance’ and made all kinds of theories including conspiracy theories.

Some accused that he was abducted and openly blamed the Malaysian Police and the government for his disappearance, only to find out that he was on a trip.

So, they all went crazy over nothing, putting the blame on the innocents, pointing fingers to who ever they wish and condemning the authorities; and did all that for nothing!

That is the mentality of some people from the opposition parties, who are fast to blame others especially the government and the authority for everything without investigations.

So, since it is proven that they had wrongly accused others and the authorities, are they going to issue an apology?

---

.::Report by Free Malaysia Today::.

PETALING JAYA: The former aide to a PKR MP, who was said to have gone missing since April 5, has been found and has returned to Kuala Lumpur, Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar announced today.

“Missing Peter Chong is back from Pattaya this afternoon,” Khalid said on his Twitter account, while congratulating the police force.

Police took a statement from Chong at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport before he joined his family members about 2pm.

When contacted, Kuala Lumpur police chief Amar Singh Ishar Singh, said Chong told police he had gone to Hatyai with the intention of meeting his source who was to reveal more information on the disappearance of Pastor Koh Keng Joo.

Upon reaching Hatyai, he claims he was abducted and brought to Pattaya.

Upon release, he said he contacted his son who bought his return ticket home.

On Wednesday, Khalid had said police had information that Chong had crossed the border into Thailand at the Bukit Kayu Hitam checkpoint.

Chong, a former aide to PKR MP Sivarasa Rasiah, was said to have disappeared days after he related on Facebook about his conversation with a stranger, who warned him to be more careful in the wake of several cases of missing activists.

Chong’s son, Darryl, had lodged a police report on April 8 after attempts to contact his father failed. A task force was subsequently formed to look into Chong’s disappearance.

Chong’s disappearance came after the widely reported abduction of Pastor Raymond Koh, as well as the cases of Pastor Joshua Hilmy, his wife Ruth Hilmy and Perlis-based social acitivist Amri Che Mat.

Sony World Photography Awards – The incredible winners

A paper boat bobs along a fabric sea in this surreal picture. (Sergey Dibtsev)

(Yahoo News) – The first winners of the 2017 Sony World Photography Awards have been announced.

10 extraordinary pictures have been selected as the winners of the ‘Open’ category of the competition, selected from a pool of more than 100,000 entries.

Journalist and photographer Damien Deomolder, chair of the Open competition, said: ‘It has been a pleasure and an inspiration to be exposed to such a volume of great work, and a privilege too that I could share in the personal moments, the joys, tears, life and losses of photographers from all around the globe who recorded their experiences through their pictures.’

The winners of the National Awards, a global contest to find best images taken by photographers in 66 countries, have also been announced.

This year the competition expanded to Cambodia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates for the first time.

Here are some of the most spectacular pictures, taken by both amateur and professional photographers.

Lim Guan Eng, Lama Berpolitik Tetapi Masih Buta Perlembagaan

Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng hari ini telah mengeluarkan satu kenyataan media berkenaan cadangan pindaan Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang kuasa Jenayah) 1965, atau lebih dikenali sebagai pindaan Akta 355. Dalam kenyataan media yang dimuatnaikkan di laman facebook beliau, Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang dan Ahli Parlimen Bagan itu membuat berberapa tuduhan liar dan bersifat fitnah terhadap pindaan Akta 355, termasuk tuduhan basi seperti ‘pindaan ini tidak berperlembagaan’.

Kenyataannya itu jelas membuktikan bahawa bukan sahaja Lim Guan Eng buta Perlembagaan, malah lebih parah lagi, Setiausaha Agung DAP itu nampaknya langsung tidak memahami sistem pengundian di Parlimen. Amat memalukan bagaimana seorang Ahli Parlimen tidak faham sistem undian di Parlimen. Apakah Lim Guan Eng tidak pernah mengundi di Parlimen sebelum ini? Lebih memalukan lagi ialah apabila Lim Guan Eng cuba bertindak mengulas hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, seolah-olah dia adalah pakar dalam bidang tersebut namun jelas terbukti betapa dangkal dan tidak berasasnya hujah Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang itu.

Lim Guan Eng menabur fitnah bahawa pindaan Akta 355 ini tidak berpelembagaan walaupun pelbagai penerangan telah dibuat untuk memperjelaskan perkara ini. Beliau juga mempertikaikan cara pengundian yang telah ditetapkan untuk pindaan Akta ini dengan memberi pelbagai sebab untuk mempertahankan kenyataannya. Namun, apakah Lim Guan Eng sebagai seorang Ahli Parlimen betul-betul tidak tahu tentang peruntukan di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang mengatakan dengan jelas tentang perkara ini? Perkara 62(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Tatacara Parlimen, telahpun mengatakan bahawa untuk meluluskan apa-apa undian, mereka hanya perlu mendapat majoriti biasa daripada ahli parlimen yang mengundi; kecuali jika mereka mahu meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang dimaktub di dalam Perkara 159(3) di mana undiannya mestilah tidak kurang daripada dua pertiga daripada jumlah bilangan ahli Majlis Parlimen itu.

PERKARA 62(3):

Tertakluk kepada Fasal (4) dan kepada Perkara 89(1) dan 159(3) dan kepada seksyen 10 dan 11 Jadual Ketiga Belas, setiap Majlis Parlimen hendaklah, jika tidak sebulat suara, membuat keputusannya mengikut majoriti biasa ahli-ahli yang mengundi; dan orang yang mempengerusikan itu, melainkan jika dia menjadi ahli Majlis Parlimen itu semata-mata menurut kuasa perenggan (b) Fasal (1A) Perkara 57, hendaklah membuang undinya apabila perlu bagi mengelakkan undi sama banyak, tetapi tidak boleh mengundi dalam apa-apa hal lain.

PERKARA 159(3):

Sesuatu Rang Undang-undang bagi membuat apa-apa pindaan kepada Perlembagaan (selain pindaan yang dikecualikan daripada peruntukan Fasal ini) dan sesuatu Rang Undang-undang bagi membuat apa-apa pindaan kepada sesuatu undang-undang yang diluluskan di bawah Fasal (4) Perkara 10 tidaklah boleh diluluskan di dalam mana-mana satu Majlis Parlimen melainkan jika Rang Undang-undang itu telah disokong pada Bacaan Kali Kedua dan Kali Ketiga dengan undi sebanyak tidak kurang daripada dua pertiga daripada jumlah bilangan ahli Majlis Parlimen itu.

Oleh kerana pindaan Akta 355 adalah satu pindaan bagi Akta dan bukannya meminda Perlembagaan; maka ianya tidak tertakluk kepada Perkara dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang dengan secara harfiahnya dipanggil Pindaan Perlembagaan. Maka di manakah logiknya hujah Lim Guan Eng yang mahukan peruntukan Perlembagaan tentang pindaan Perlembagaan digunakan untuk meminda Akta?

Hujah Lim Guan Eng amat memalukan bilamana seorang yang mempunyai kesetiaan yang agung terhadap parti masih keliru tentang perkara asas ini. Kalaupun had hukuman yang mahu dinaikkan itu menjadikannya lebih tinggi daripada had hukuman lain yang sedia ada dijadikan alasan; bagaimanakah parlimen meluluskan pindaan-pindaan untuk menambah hukuman sebelum ini? Sudah tentulah pernah ada pindaan yang menaikkan had hukuman sesuatu jenayah tertentu melebihi had hukuman yang tertinggi yang ada semasa pindaan tersebut dicadangkan. Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak melarang perkara ini, malah kita boleh menaikkan had sampai kepada 100 tahun penjara pun, ia tidak ada masalah dari segi Perlembagaan.

Bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah dan Sivil telah di tetapkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan punca kuasa Mahkamah Syariah datangnya daripada Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah pula tertakluk kepada Akta 355. Kerana itulah untuk meminda Akta 355, Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak perlu dipinda. Malahan, pindaan ini tidak menyentuh apa-apa perkara yang akan menjejaskan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Ini lah masalah dengan orang yang buta Perlembagaan tetapi cuba menunjuk pandai dan bercakap tentang perkara yang dia sendiri tidak faham.

Fake: Minaret Dome Miraculously Flies in Nepal

“ALLAHU AKBAR! Yes it’s miracle of “ALLAH”. Happend in Nepal. Govt didnt allowed the crane for Mosque minar and said that `go and ask your ALLAH to help you.  Allah helps muslim by putting gunbad on menar without any support, since, non muslims dont allow muslims to use crane to lift gunbad, so the imam of mosque saw our beloved prophet pbuh in dream who told him just cover the gunbad with white bed sheet and then see.”

Those were the words which spread through various social medias, sent with the video implying that the dome of a mosque’s minaret was miraculously lifted to its minaret by itself with the help from Allah.

I received this message through WhatsApp where the message was translated to the Malay language.

Feeling curious and guessing that this is just a hoax, I looked up for articles or any sort of writings regarding this matter to find out what really happened.

I found a blog post saying that this is a hoax, complete with evidences showing that the dome was actually lifted using pulleys, similar to how cable cars function.

Even though the cables were almost invisible because the video was recorded a long time ago using a low quality camera; it can still be seen, but for those who are easily tricked and do not investigate after receiving these kind of messages, tend to just believe the fake message and share it through the internet.

In fact, at the end of the video we can clearly see a few Indonesian flags, thus showing that this happened in Indonesia and not in Nepal as claimed.

The fake story came in at least 6 different versions, ranging from the Imam being told to cover the dome in his dream, to 3000 Imams gathering in the mosque to perform Dhikirullah.

This is a good example of how easy we can be fooled by fake stories, and how ‘perception terrorism’ can easily ‘terrorised’ our mind into believing things that are not true.

‘Perception terrorism’ can cause serious problems including racial riots and can even cause civil wars if we are not careful.

So, always remember to investigate before forwarding or sharing any news, and please restrain from forwarding or sharing any news right after receiving them, especially sensational news.

DAP Uses MCA to ‘Screw’ UMNO?

Ever since the proposed amendment of Act 355 was tabled on the 26th of May 2016, DAP and its allies including supposedly Muslim parties had strongly opposed the amendment to empower the Syariah Courts and fabricated stories to justify their actions.

Using fictitious, weird and out of context arguments, DAP and friends have been making stern statements not only to voice out their disagreements but also trying to deny the democratic process by trying to forbid the private bill from being tabled in Parliament.   

Not only that, DAP went as far as dragging its ‘enemies’ along to support its cause and pressuring them, in particular MCA, MIC, GERAKAN, and SUPP to force UMNO to oppose the amendment as well.

They even made seditious statements such as urging the non-Malay parties to leave BN since UMNO is working together with PAS ‘to get hudud implemented through backdoor channels’.

Now, why does DAP seriously want UMNO to fight against the amendment that has nothing to do with most of DAP leaders and members?

Well, while the proposed amendment of Act 355 will not affect their lives, UMNO’s support for the Act will definitely gives a great impact to DAP’s chance to win in the coming general election, hence it does affect them indirectly!

DAP who wants to win big in the coming general election can only achieve its dreams if UMNO and Barisan Nasional candidates lose; so DAP must make sure that UMNO supporters will not vote for UMNO.

In general, the so-called progressive Malays such as the Malays supporting LGBT rights, pluralism of religion, liberalism and those who are against the amendment of Act 355 will not vote for UMNO; as they feel that UMNO’s approach to Islamic matters is too conservative and not ‘progressive’.

The Negeri Sembilan’s transgender case clearly proves that the government is really serious in curbing the LGBT way of lives.

At the same time, it is not a secret that majority of the Chinese did not vote for MCA during the last general election, and obviously will still not be supporting MCA in the coming 14th General Election.

So the MCA’s candidates can only win the election if the Malay voters who support UMNO vote for them in order to uphold Islam in Malaysia as so far proven by the UMNO led Barisan Nasional.

Therefore, in order to win in the coming general election, DAP must make sure that the UMNO’s Malay voters will no longer vote for UMNO and its allies, and one of the ways to do so is to give the impression that UMNO leaders are no longer fighting for Islam and are as bad as the progressive Muslims leaders of DAP and friends.

And one of the best ways to deny UMNO from winning is to stop UMNO from supporting the amendment of Act 355, hence, making UMNO’s Malay voters angry, and ‘hopefully’ in frustration, some may even vote for the progressive Malay parties as a revenge.

DAP will then play the issue that UMNO had cheated its Malay voters and tell them to teach UMNO a lesson by not voting for UMNO’s and other Barisan Nasional’s candidates; therefore giving DAP and friends a much bigger chance to win in the next general election.

In other words, DAP is actually trying to use MCA as a tool to make the Malays hate UMNO so that they won’t be voting for UMNO and other candidates of the Barisan Nasional, including MCA.

DAP dares to pressure MCA to fight against the amendment because DAP knows that MCA will not be able to win the hearts of the Chinese who had voted for DAP in the previous general election even if MCA went all out to fight against the amendment of Act 355.

So, does it make any sense for MCA to be so arrogant and make the people who voted for them feel very,very angry,unappreciated and cheated?

MCA must understand that unlike DAP’s supporters, the Chinese who had voted for MCA are those who do not agree to the harsh ideologies of DAP and understand and respect the rights of the Muslims to be governed by the Syariah law; so MCA must not fall into DAP’s trap if MCA really wants to win in the coming general election.

Is it logical that DAP cares enough for MCA that it is forcefully dragging MCA to go all out fighting against the amendment so that the non-Muslim voters especially the Chinese will not ‘punish’ MCA in the coming general election?

Unless MCA is an ally of DAP, DAP will do anything to make the voters hate MCA because unless there is a secret agenda, no political party will want their opponent to win any vote.

So that is why the leaders of DAP and friends insist that even though the non-Muslims are not under the jurisdiction the Act 355, they are still affected by the Act because the Malays who support the Act will not be voting for UMNO and Barisan Nasional candidates if UMNO fails to support the amendment; meaning the support for the amendment will affect both the Muslim and non-Muslim candidates of DAP and friends in their chances to win the Malay votes in the coming general election.

So, MCA must grow up and be rational, and remember that they must not fall into DAP’s trap unless it intends to ‘commit suicide’.

Akta 355: Lim Kit Siang dan ‘Pakatan Harapan’ BiaDAP!

Siti Kasim Finally Supports Act 355?

Liberal lawyer and activist, Siti Zabedah Kasim seems to be very mad, in fact it looks like she is steaming, raging mad after being advised by the Mufti of Perak, Tan Sri Harussani to not touch on matters concerning tauhid.

On her Facebook page, claiming that the Mufti of Perak accused her of “being an apostate”, she wrote that the Mufti is “punishable by 80 kali sebat according to the Quran” for making “a very big fitnah to accuse woman wrongly”; and she quoted the 4th verse of the Surah An-Noor to prove her point.

I am appalled by her arrogant attitude and her out of context self-interpretation of the holy Quran to suit her needs.

Fortunately, she is not a Syariah lawyer; as it will cause a deafening uproar in the courtroom if she insists that her out of context self-interpretation of the Quran is valid!

Anyway, it puzzles me when she talks about the punishment from the Quran; after all, isn’t she is the one who vocally complains about the proposed amendment of Act 355?

As I understand from her ridiculous stunts at numerous public forums, she is against the implementation of “80 kali sebat” and wants the maximum limit for whipping stays at only six strokes. 

May be her anger made her confused… 

As I wrote in my previous post, ‘Siti Kasim: Drowned by Freedom of Speech‘ it is best for her to stand up tall and clarify the matter with JAKIM to solve the problem.

I also asked, “Or is she going to deny what she had said in the video and says something weird like, the video was edited by somebody to defame her?”

And I was right because on her Facebook page she told the Mufti to listen to her original interview and “not to get confused by the cut paste fitnah version by menara.my, fundamentalist website that is out to attack what the Islamofascists term as liberals”. 

Has she changed her mind regarding the proposed amendment of Act 355 so that the people who accused her can be punished as according to the Quran?

Siti Bedah must make up her mind!