Malaysia Bukan Sekular

28 03 2017

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.





Does Teresa Kok Understand English?

13 03 2017

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.




Congratulations to Datuk YB Jais

12 03 2017

Today is YB Datuk Md Jais Sarday’s first day in his new office as the Housing and Local Government Exco of Johor.

This is a good move by the Menteri Besar of Johor, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin in order to ensure best practices in public governance of the Johor Government.

YB Jais is the best person for the job, not only because he is a senior exco, but also because he is a man of integrity, hardworking and a no-nonsense politician.

I am proud of YB Jais!

A special photo with YB Jais on his last day as the Education, Information and Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development Exco of Johor at the Amansari Residence Resort, Pasir Gudang, March 11, 2017.





SUARAM Man Questions “Belief in God”

8 03 2017

Director of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Kua Kia Soong wrote an article, “Keep the Constitution secular and inclusive” which was published on SUARAM’s website on February 20, 2017, in which he stated his view on the move to make Rukun Negara as the preamble to our Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

What really caught my attention was the fact that the SUARAM leader:

  • claims the Federal Constitution as secular and,
  • disagree with the first principal of the Rukun Negara which is, “Belief in God”.

The arguments in the press statement are totally out of context as Kua Kia Soong fails to understand both the Federal Constitution and the definition of the word, “secularism”.

The fact is, it is just impossible for the Federal Constitution to be secular when Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

Of course, I too do not agree with the idea of making the Rukun Negara as the preamble to our Federal Constitution, but not because I do not agree with any of its five principals; instead my reasons are:

  1. The Rukun Negara it is not a law, therefore having the Rukun Negara as a preamble will undermine the supreme law of the Federation.
  2. Adding a preamble will not help the people to understand the Federal Constitution better.
  3. Having the Rukun Negara as a preamble will increase the probability of misinterpretation of the Federal Constitution.
  4. I cannot see any reason why we need a preamble to the supreme law of our Nation.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Kua Kia Soong’s article in red:

There is an attempt by some “eminent persons” to install the Rukunegara as the preamble to the Malaysian Constitution. If there is indeed a need for such a preamble, it ought to reaffirm the principles of secularism and inclusiveness in the Constitution.

There are no “principles of secularism” in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. The third Article of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the Religion of the Federation and that itself denies any allegation that our Federal Constitution is secular. Furthermore, neither can we find any Article in the Federal Constitution that says the Constitution is secular nor can we find the word, “secular” in the Constitution.

In my humble opinion, any attempt to have a preamble to our Constitution needs first to be discussed by all the communities in the country including the Orang Asli, debated and passed through Parliament; secondly, it has to be inclusive.

This “national philosophy” of Rukunegara was proclaimed on Merdeka Day, 1970 as a response to the racial riots of May 13, 1969, when the country was still under a state of Emergency.

Rukun Negara is drafted as a national ideology to bond Malaysians of all races in order to establish peace among the races and to prevent future racial tension in order to avoid racial riots like the May 13 tragedy.

Like the National Culture Policy, it was drafted by selected “eminent persons” rather than involving representation from all Malaysian communities and it did not go through a democratic process of debate, nor was it passed by the Federal Parliament.

The Rukun Negara “did not go through a democratic process of debate, nor was it passed by the Federal Parliament” because it is not a law and was not meant to be a law, therefore, it does not have to go through that process.

While most of its aspirations are noble and acceptable, namely, “achieving a more perfect unity…; preserving a democratic way of life; creating a just society…; guaranteeing a liberal approach towards her rich and varied cultural traditions; and building a progressive society…”; nevertheless, its principle of “Belief in God” is not inclusive of all Malaysian faiths.

There is nothing wrong with the first Principle of the Rukun Negara. “Belief in God” is chosen as the first Principle of Rukun Negara because:

The People and Nation were established based on our strong faith in God. It is indeed in the name of God that the People and Nation were established as a sovereign People and Nation. – Department Of National Unity And Integration (Prime Minister Department)

“Belief in God” is not against the Federal Constitution. Every religion has its god, even those who practice animism worship certain ‘figure of god’. In the case of atheism, there is no constitutional provision that recognises atheism or other liberal ideologies because our Nation is not established based on liberalism.

Any preamble should include all peoples and stress social justice and democracy

In the first place, there is no need for a preamble. Secondly, it is the peoples who must respect the laws and the ideologies of their countries and not the other way around.

The preamble to the US Constitution, for example is short and concise, stressing that their nation is defined and formed by its people and what it stands for:

“We the People … in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution…”

Although peopled largely by Christians, the preamble to the US Constitution makes no reference to a God or monarch. Apart from serving as an executive summary, it merely sets the stage for how the new government defined by the Constitution will establish justice and secure the blessings of Liberty. Thus, their preamble is absolutely secular and the first three words are perhaps the most important: “We the People…”

It is clear that Kua Kia Soong does not understand the basic principles of our Nation. It is illogical for him to expect our Federal Constitution to follow the Constitution of the United States that “makes no reference to a God or monarch” because: 

  1. The United States is a secular country while Malaysia is an Islamic country.
  2. The United States is a republic while Malaysia has nine sovereign Sultans.

The SUARAM leader wrote, “Although peopled largely by Christians, the US Constitution makes no reference to a God”. The US, as a secular country it is unconstitutional for the US Constitution to make any reference to any God. So, even if all of the United States’ citizens are Christians, it is still unconstitutional for its Constitution to make any “reference to a God”. And it is crazy for the US Constitution to make any reference to a monarch because the country does not have a monarch.

Perhaps India is a better comparison since it was a former colony like ours. The preamble to the Constitution of India actually makes its secularism explicit:

Again, Kua Kia Soong’s facts are wrong because Malaysia is not a former colony like India. According to Profesor Emeritus Tan Sri Dr. Khoo Kay Kim, British has never conquered the Malay States or the Tanah Melayu except for Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapura. The rest of the Tanah Melayu are independent sovereign countries as proven by a few court cases such as Mighell v. the Sultan of Johore (1983) and Duff Development Co v Kelantan Government (1924).

If the Malay States were conquered by British, then our nine sovereign Sultans will lose their sovereignty like what happened in India. The British attempted to conquer the Malay States through multiple ways but failed. (Please read: Kebenaran Di Sebalik Sejarah Penubuhan Persekutuan Malaysia“)

“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: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…”

Thus the main purposes of having a preamble to the Indian Constitution are again, first, to refer to the source that is responsible for the authority of the Constitution (We, the People…), and to spell out the objectives of the Indian Constitution, namely, Equality, Justice, Fraternity and Liberty. Like the US constitution, there is no insistence on “Belief in God”.

Another out of context argument by the SUARAM leader. Again, unlike both India and the United States, Malaysia is neither a secular state nor a republic. 

The importance of being secular

Malaysia is not a secular state.

So what is the significance of including “Belief in (the monotheistic) God” in the hypothetical preamble to our Constitution?

The Federal Constitution does not need a preamble, so there is no “significance of including “Belief in (the monotheistic) God” in the hypothetical preamble to our Constitution”. 

Since the prevalence of Islamic populism in the Eighties, there has been attempts by politicians including one or two Prime Ministers to claim that Malaysia is an Islamic state. Nonetheless, this attempt has been rightfully frustrated by among others, Bapa Malaysia and the judiciary in the country.

Those are common statements made by people who either do not understand the Federal Constitution or purposely trying to misinterpret the supreme law. One must learn to accept facts and not to live in denial, or worst, trying to mislead the people with false facts. The supreme law of the country is the Federal Constitution, so any statement or any attempt by any politician or by any activist like Kua Kia Soong “which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”.

4. (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. – Article 4(1)

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution enshrines Islam as the Religion of the Federation hence making Malaysia an Islamic state no matter what were said by our former Prime Ministers. 

3. (1) Islam is the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. – Article 3(1) 

For example, on his 80th birthday on February 8, 1983, Tunku’s main message to the Barisan Nasional leaders was not to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State, stressing that Malaysia was set up as a secular State with Islam as the official religion and that this was enshrined in the Constitution. This was echoed a few days later by the third Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn on his 61st birthday on February 12, 1983.

The Barisan Nasional leaders do not have to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state because from the very beginning Malaysia is already an Islamic state. It is the Supreme law of the land, which is the Federal Constitution that enshrines Islam as the Religion of the Federation, making Malaysia an Islamic Nation. 

Statements made by both Tunku and Tun Hussein Onn are not above the Supreme law of the land and cannot change the words written in the Federal Constitution. 

The Alliance Memorandum submitted to the Reid Constitution Commission on Sept 27, 1956, clearly stated that “the religion of Malaya shall be Islam … and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state.” Thus, both the Reid Commission in 1957 and the Cobbold Commission in 1962 characterised Malaysia as a “secular state”.

The Reid Commission was only given the responsibilities to draft the Federal Constitution but it is the Malay Royal Rulers who had the final say on the matter and gave the endorsements for the Articles chosen. Both the Reid Commission and the Cobbold Commission are not law makers of our country hence their words and intentions are not laws. Their intentions cannot change the words written in the Supreme law of our Nation.

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 stated:

[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.

Most importantly, former Lord President of the Malaysian Judiciary, Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas in Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988), stated that the term “Islam” in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution meant “only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies… the law in this country is … secular law.” The previous Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim similarly wrote that Islam was made the official religion primarily for ceremonial purposes, to enable prayers to be offered in the Islamic way on official public occasions, such as the installation or birthday of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Independence Day and similar occasions.

Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55 is an old case which is no longer a good law. Furthermore, in the judgement of the case, Tan Sri Salleh Abbas has never said that Malaysia is a secular nation but Tan Sri Salleh Abbas only said that secular laws were used in Malaysia. 

We must look at the judgements of other more important and prominent later court judgements including the Court of Appeal case of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Binti Sihi & Ors, High Court case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, Federal and Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, and a lot more.

Against the background of confounding populist politicians, one would think that it is even more crucial – if there is a need for a preamble to our Constitution – for such a preamble to reaffirm the secular and inclusive character of our Constitution.

If there is a real need for a preamble to our Constitution, the preamble must reaffirm the Islamic character of our Constitution.

In a secular state, the state is officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor atheism. It treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion. Secularism is not merely desirable but essential for the healthy existence of a pluralist society such as ours. It implies a separation that exists between the State and religion. This does not detract from the fact that the right to religion is a fundamental right and the denial of this freedom is a violation of the basic principles of democracy.

This proves that Malaysia is not a secular state. The Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states, “Islam is the Religion of the Federation”,  so it is impossible to classify Malaysia as a secular state. 

Monotheism is not the only religion in this world

Monotheism is not a religion.

Secularism is also important in regulating the relation between the State and various religious groups on the principle of equality. When the Rukunegara espouses only “Belief in (Monotheistic) God”, it forgets that there are Malaysians of other faiths based on polytheism or animism and ancestor worship.

Malaysia is not a secular state because it has a religion, which is Islam. In fact, it is unconstitutional to regulate “the relation between the State and various religious groups on the principle of equality” because as the Religion of the State, Islam is not equal to other religions. 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 this matter:

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.

I am truly surprised that our “eminent persons” cannot see that such an imposition of “Belief in God” does not include polytheists, animists and ancestor worshippers. Their attempt to argue that, despite their inclusion of “Belief in God” in the hypothetical preamble, other faiths of minorities are in fact protected by the Malaysian Constitution, unwittingly demonstrates the secularism and inclusiveness of our Constitution.

Now, if the Constitution already guarantees the equal rights of Malaysians of all faiths – monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, animistic as well as ancestor worshippers – is it not presumptuous if not sacrilegious to try to impose “Belief in God” on ALL Malaysians?

There is no other religion that was mentioned in the Federal Constitution other than Islam which shows the status of Islam as the Religion of the land. The fact that Malaysia respects minority religions despite being an Islamic state proves the beauty of Islam that respects other religions.

It is a pity that not only there are people who cannot understand and appreciate this fact but they are trying hard to change the history, erase the Social Contract and challenge the Supreme law of the land by claiming that Malaysia is a secular country. As the one and only religion of the Federation, Islam must be respected by people of all faith.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions as long as it is in peace and harmony towards Islam, but there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions other than Islam, for example, the Article 11(4). The interpretation of the term, “in peace and harmony” in the Article 3(1) was clearly made 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:

[33] In short, Article 3(1) was a by-product of the social contract entered into by our founding fathers who collectively produced the Federal Constitution, which is recognized as the Supreme Law of the country. 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. It is also my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religion to the followers of Islam. That is the very reason as to why Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution came into place.

[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.

To conclude, the concept of secularism is derived from the principle of democracy and secularism becomes meaningful only when it refers to democratic equality and includes diverse peoples of all faiths, beliefs and practices.

To conclude, neither the words “democracy” nor “secular” are ever mentioned in the Federal Constitution. Malaysia is an Islamic state with the DYMM Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the head of state and the Prime Minister as the head of the government which is democratically elected by the people through General Elections.





Space Events Not To Be Missed In 2017

23 02 2017

(Yahoo News UK) – With a solar eclipse due on 26 February, there are plenty of celestial treats to keep stargazers happy in 2017.

Last year was packed with astronomical action including supermoons, Tim Peake’s history-making spacewalk and the arrival of NASA’s Juno probe at Jupiter and this year is set to be big just as big for space botherers. From meteor showers to solar eclipses, here are the space events you don’t want to miss in 2017…

  1. Annular solar eclipse – 26 February 2017
    At the end of February, the moon will pass in front of the sun, creating a bizarre halo effect. Unfortunately, this year’s eclipse will only be visible over South and West Africa and some of South America. 
  2. Jupiter at opposition – 7 April 2017
    The largest planet in our solar system will reach ‘opposition’ in April, meaning that it will slide into view as Earth moves into position between the sun and Jupiter. The massive planet’s face will be illuminated by the sun and will be visible through binoculars or a telescope. 
  3. Saturn at opposition – 15 June 2017
    In summer, Saturn will move into its closest position to Earth, giving us the best view possible. A telescope will be needed to see the huge planet’s famous rings while Saturn is fully lit up by the sun. 
  4. Perseid meteor shower – 12/13 August 2017
    One of the brighter meteor showers of the year, the Perseids happens annually between 17 July and 24 August, this year peaking 12-13 August. The best time to view the shooting stars is between midnight and dawn. 
  5. ‘Great American’ total solar eclipse – 21 August 2017
    For around two minutes, a 70-mile stretch between Oregon and South Carolina will be plunged into total darkness in a rare total eclipse as the sun will totally disappear behind the full moon. Stargazers elsewhere in the US will get a partial view of the stunning eclipse. 
  6. Cassini probe will crash into Saturn – 15 September 2017
    Launched in 1997, NASA’s probe finally made it to Saturn in 2004 and has been beaming back vital data to Earth ever since. The probe will be destroyed when it plunges through Jupiter’s atmosphere but not before sending back never-seen-before images. 
  7. Leonid meteor shower – 17/18 November 2017
    The Leonids meteors will be visible in the night sky throughout November, peaking between 17 and 18 November. The glowing pieces of comet debris will be visible to the naked eye. 
  8. Supermoon – 3 December 2017
    While 2016 saw stargazers treated to several supermoons, 2017 will see just one. December’s full moon, also known as the Full Cold Moon, will appear slightly bigger and brighter than normal. The best time to watch will be around sunset when the distinctive orange moon will appear.
  9. Geminid meteor shower – 13/14 December 2017
    Unlike most meteor showers, the Geminids are associated with an asteroid, rather than a comet. The glowing fireballs should be visible to the naked eye between December 7 and 16, but the best time to catch a glimpse is between 13 and 14 December. 




Mengarutnya Tun Mahathir… (Video)

22 02 2017

Dalam satu sidang media selepas sambutan Tahun Baru Cina oleh PKR Bandar Tun Razak di Flat Seri Johor di Cheras, pengerusi Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM), Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed membuat berberapa tuduhan yang amat mengarut tentang pindaan Akta 355.

Dalam sebuah video oleh KiniTV, Tun M sekali lagi membuat beberapa tuduhan liar seperti Himpunan 355 bermotifkan politik dan juga pindaan yang dicadangkan ini akan membolehkan perlaksanaan hukuman potong tangan dan lebih pelik lagi, penyembelihan orang.

“Tetapi nampak dia orang ni yang seronok sangat nak potong tangan orang, nak sembelih orang…”

~Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed

Persolannya, adakah Tun M tidak faham tentang pindaan Akta 355 atau Tun sengaja mahu mengelirukan orang ramai dengan tuduhan yang tidak masuk akal seperti menyembelih orang?

Memang pelik bila Tun M seperti tidak faham tentang Akta 355, kerana hakikatnya, Akta ini telah dipinda dua kali semasa zaman Tun menjadi Perdana Menteri.

Malah Tun M sendiri telah menyokong usul pindaan Akta 355 pada tahun 1984 bertujuan untuk menaikkan had hukuman bagi Mahkamah Syariah pada ketka itu.

Seperti pindaan Akta 355 pada tahun 1984, pindaan yang dicadangkan ini juga hanyalah untuk menaikkan had hukuman kesalahan di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah dan bukannya menentukan hukuman kerana ini adalah di bawah bidang kuasa kerajaan negeri.

Malangnya, kini Tun sudah senada dengan kumpulan SIS Forum Berhad yang gagal memahami perkara yang mudah ini.

Hukuman berat atau ‘capital punishment’ seperti potong tangan tidak termasuk di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah, apatah lagi hukuman bunuh.

Tambahan, di bawah hukum Islam, pesalah tidak boleh dibunuh secara kejam seperti dengan cara sembelih apabila dihukum mati, dan Tun M sudah salah di situ.

Tun M juga nampaknya tidak faham akan cara perlaksanaan sebatan Syariah apabila menuduh bahawa perlaksanaan seratus sebatan akan membunuh pesalah.

“Ini nak sebat orang sampai seratus kali, mati kalau sebat seratus kali.”

~Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed

Sebatan Syariah amat ringan berbanding sebatan sivil, dan sebatan akan dijalankan di bawah pengawasan doktor perubatan yang mengawasi keadaan pesalah semasa disebat dan sebatan akan ditangguhkan jika kesihatan pesalah tidak mengizinkan.

Kata Tun, “Melayu mudah lupa” tapi nampaknya Tun yang sudah lupa atau buat-buat lupa.

Related articles:

  1. Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan
  2. Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?
  3. Tun Dr Mahathir, From A Statesman To A Street Demonstrator
  4. Tun Dr. Mahathir, “Kalau Marahkan Nyamuk Jangan Bakar Kelambu”
  5. Tun M Has Gone Too Far
  6. Is Tun M’s Rights Above The Rights Of Agong
  7. Tun M, Janganlah Menghina Nabi S.A.W.
  8. Tun M: “Perdana Menteri Buat Demonstration” (Video)
  9. Tun M: Jangan Menang Sorak, Kampung Tergadai
  10. Tun M and TMI vs Bukit Aman
  11. Video: Tun M Sings “Imagine”, Is He Okay?





PKR Claims Anwar Introduced Article 121 (1A)

20 02 2017

In order to play safe and avoid losing Malay votes by saying “no” to PAS President’s Private Bill, PKR publishes a book named, “Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia”, where apart from recycling irrelevant and out of context questions that were answered a long time ago, the party issued a very confusing statement regarding the Bill in order not to directly says that the party is against the Bill.

Please read:

  1. “Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355”
  2. “Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  3. Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn

Worst, PKR tries to take the credit for the Federal Government’s effort in 1988 to upgrade the Syariah Courts by claiming that the move was “upon the initiatives of Almarhum Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim”.

Written on page 20 of the book:

At the Federal level, upon the initiatives of the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Article 121 (1A) was introduced to the Federal Constitution. The introduction upgraded the legal position of the Syariah Courts without infringing the civil on the court rights of non-Muslims. It must be stress that this initiative was discussed by the Islamic Consultation Body, the Islamic Centre (now JAKIM), and the Cabinet.

~Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia

It is a known fact that Almarhum Tan Sri Professor Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmad is the person who initiated the move but since I have not come across on Anwar’s specific role in fighting for the Article 121 1(A) together with Almarhum Professor Ahmad Ibrahim, I spoke to several senior lawyers and Constitution experts to clarify the claim made by PKR in the said book.

Contrary to what was claimed in the PKR book, the answers from the senior lawyers are that Anwar Ibrahim has nothing to do with the move to add the Article 121 (1A) to our Federal Constitution, neither in coming out with the idea nor the fight in pursuing the matter until it was accepted by the Federal Government.

I was told by the lawyers that it was the initiative of Almarhum Tan Sri Professor Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim with the help from the then Chief Justice Tun Hamid Omar and the then Attorney General that made it possible to bring the matter to Parliament and that it has nothing to do either with Anwar Ibrahim or PKR.

Furthermore, after studying the Parliament Hansard, I found out that on March 17, 1988, it was not Anwar Ibrahim who tabled the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill regarding Article 121 (1A) in the Parliament but it was the then Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed who tabled the Bill.

Below is a part of the Parliament Hansard on the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill:

Penyampai : DATO’ SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tajuk : MEMBENTANGKAN RANG UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN (PINDAAN) 1988
Lokasi : DEWAN RAKYAT, KUALA LUMPUR
Tarikh : 17-03-1988

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Saya mohon mencadangkan iaitu Rang Undang-Undang bernama suatu Akta untuk meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan dibacakan kali yang kedua sekarang….

…23. Perkara 118A menyatakan bahawa sesuatu aduan tentang tidak adanya dibuat pemilihan ke Dewan Rakyat hendaklah dianggap sebagai petisyen pilihanraya, dan Mahkamah Tinggi boleh membuat perintah untuk memaksa supaya pemilihan dibuat. Perkara itu juga menyatakan bahawa kegagalan membuat pemilihan dalam tempoh yang dinyatakan oleh Perkara 54 dan 55 tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa seseorang ahli itu telah tidak dipilih sewajarnya. Fasal 7 Rang Undang-Undang ini mencadangkan supaya Perkara 118A itu dipinda supaya ianya terpakai juga bagi pemilihan ke Dewan Undangan Negeri. PERKARA 121 ___________

24. Perkara 121 meletakhak kuasa kehakiman Persekutuan pada Mahkamah Tinggi dan mahkamah-mahkamah rendah. Ia juga meletakhak bidangkuasa tertentu pada Mahkamah Agung.

25. Fasal 8 Rang Undang-Undang ini mencadangkan supaya Perkara 121 dipinda dengan menghapuskan peruntukan tentang meletakhak kuasa-kuasa kehakiman pada mahkamah-mahkamah dan dengan memasukkan ke dalam Fasal (1) Perkara itu peruntukan yang menyatakan bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi dan mahkamah-mahkamah rendah hendaklah mempunyai bidangkuasa dan kuasa-kuasa sebagaimana yang diberi oleh atau di bawah undang-undang persekutuan. Dengan ini, Perkara itu tidak lagi akan memberi penekanan pada meletakhak kuasa kehakiman persekutuan pada mahkamah-mahkamah tetapi akan hanya memperkatakan tentang jenis-jenis mahkamah dan bidangkuasa serta kuasa-kuasanya.

~Office of the Prime Minister

Therefore, I have a few questions for PKR :

  1. What is the important role played by Anwar Ibrahim to justify his big role in Article 121 (1A) as claimed by PKR that, “At the Federal level, upon the initiatives of the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Article 121 (1A) was introduced to the Federal Constitution”?
  2. Since the Clause (1A) was added to the Article 121 in 1988, on what basis can PKR take the credit by using Anwar’s name when;
    ——–i. PKR was then not yet existed.
    ——–ii. And Anwar Ibrahim who was then a leader of UMNO acted in the capacity
    ———–of an UMNO leader and in accordance with the principals of UMNO and by
    ———–the consent of  UMNO leadership?
  3. Are these concocted fictional claims are parts of PKR’s values and interpretation of the phrase “justice, humanity and based on the Islamic values of “rahmatan lil ‘alamin” (a mercy unto the world)” that was said in the book as what PKR is “committed in the struggle for”?

>>>Click here to read Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia<<<

Related Posts:








%d bloggers like this: