Mistakes In Designs Of Vertical Flags Of Johor

The districts of Johor, Malaysia were given their own flags on the 3rd March of 2015, and since then the districts flags are proudly seen waving in their respective districts.

All of the ten district flags come in two versions, horizontal and vertical.

The horizontal flags are the ones that we usually see either hoisted from poles or hung against the walls, fences and others.

(Please click here to learn more about the horizontal flags of the districts if Johor)

The vertical flags are the flags that are usually hoisted from a crossbar, either on lamp posts or on walls.

Below are the vertical flags of the districts of Johor:

But it is very unfortunate that when it comes to the districts of Johor vertical flags, I saw mistakes in the designs of some of the flags hung around the districts that I had visited.

One of the common mistakes is converting the design of the horizontal flag into a vertical flag by just rotating the horizontal flag and “stretching its background”.

I first realised these mistakes during my visit to Felda Bukit Ramun, and since then, I like to observe vertical district flags whenever I travel around Johor; and I found that there are mistakes in designs of other vertical flags hung in other places too, including in Batu Pahat which I visited a few day ago.

Please click the photos for larger images:

From my observation as I travel around Johor, below are the common mistakes in the designs of the vertical flags of the districts of Johor:

Maybe some people are not bothered by these mistakes; and may consider them as little mistakes but for me this is a serious problem because of the importance and the significance of the flags as part of our love, respect and loyalty to the state of Johor.

Apart from that, it also can ruin the meaning and significance in the designs of the district flags.

The best example is the flag of Tangkak, where the blue triangle represents the Mount Ledang; but when the design of the horizontal flag is just rotated to turn it into a vertical flag, the triangle which represents the Mount Ledang is also rotated thus, it doesn’t represent the shape of a mountain anymore.

And that is why in the actual design of the vertical flag of Tangkak, the triangle is cropped at the sides so that the triangle shall remains as a symbol of a mountain.

Please click the photos for larger images:

The integral aspects of the designs are the crescent and star, and the core colour which must be placed in the right positions of the flags.

The crescent and star in the district flags represent Islam as the religion of the state of Johor, hence they must be placed at the top of the flag or in the central part of the designs; and not at the lower part of the flags as in some of the “faulty” district flags of Kota Tinggi, Mersing and Muar that I came across.

Another mistake that people made when converting a horizontal district flag to a vertical flag is to place the center point of the orthogonally divided flag exactly in the middle of the flag, which what happens in the flags of Muar and Kulai.

And in the flag of Muar, they made the first and fourth quarters black, second quarter yellow with a red crescent and star, and the third quarter red with a white crescent and star.

The real flag has the first quarter red with a white crescent and star, the second and third quarters black, and the fourth yellow with a red crescent and star.

In the flag of Kulai they also made the first and fourth quarters blue, and the second and third quarters red instead of the first and fourth quarters red, and the second and third quarters blue.

Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties

What is the problem with some non-Muslims when the Muslims tries to strengthen the teaching of Islam in an Islamic country?

Why must non-Muslims oppose laws that only affect the Muslims?

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) opposes the private member’s bill regarding the Act 355 or Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 tabled by PAS President, Datuk Seri Haji Hadi, reported Malay Mail Online on May 31, 2016.

According to Malay Mail Online, MCCBCHST claimed that, “…. the proposed law risks weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom.”

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) expressed today its opposition to the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment)Bill 2016, and warned that the proposed law risks weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom.

~Malay Mail Online.

In the first place I wonder if the council leaders understand Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill and the Act 355 before making the statement.

As I wrote in, “Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks”,  the Private Member’s Bill  is not about proposing a new Act but it is about amending an existing Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, which is to increase the Syariah Courts punishments that are currently limited to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or with a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or with whipping not exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.

So how can the Bill, “risk weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom“?

Firstly, since Act 355 is an existing Act about criminal jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts which only affects persons professing the religion of Islam, how could the increase of the Syariah Courts current existing punishments weakens the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom when the Bill will empowers the teaching of Islam for the Muslims and has nothing to do with people professing other religions?

Instead, the Bill will strengthen the “constitutional liberties,  including religious freedom” of the Muslims because it will give more constitutional rights for the Muslims in professing the true teaching of Islam and to curb deviant teachings that claimed to be the true Islamic teaching.

So, will that pose problems to the council?

In fact, it is MCCBCHST that is “weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom” by interfering into the internal matter of the Muslims and denying the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage their own religion.

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs;

So, in my opinion, since the council does not represent the Muslims and the Bill will not effect the people of religion groups represented by the council the council has no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims and to tell the Muslims how to manage Islam. 

Also said in the same article by Malay Mail Online:

“It has the potential to undermine religious freedom and fundamental liberties as enshrined in Part II of the Constitution. The Non-Muslim’s position too would be in jeopardy under Hudud and they would not have equal rights if implemented,” the group said in a statement.

~Malay Mail Online

I do not understand why the leaders of the council group are so opposed to the Bill that not only will give so much advantages for to the Muslims but also very positive impacts to the society because a Muslims who observes the true teaching of Islam will be a very good citizen and will obey the law of our country.  

So I wonder why that will pose a problem to others.

Stating that:

“Our former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had warned the PAS government of Kelantan in 1994 against introducing Hudud Law in the State because ‘Hudud Law punishes victims while actual criminals were often left off with minimum punishment,” it said. 

~ Malay Mail Online.

If Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad made that statement regarding the Bill, then he clearly does not understand it.

So, the council must stop listening to Tun regarding the matter and please ask for clarifications from the official authorities.

That is why Dato’ Sri Najib Razak must not listen to Tun and oppose the Private Member’s Bill just because Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad disagreed with the amendment.

Pindaan Akta 355 – Memberi Autonomi Lebih Kepada Negeri-negeri

Credit to Karim's Blog
Credit to Karim’s Blog

(Sumber: Karim’s Blog)

PINDAAN AKTA 355: MENINGKATKAN AUTONOMI NEGERI UNTUK MEMBENDUNG GEJALA MAKSIAT DAN SALAHLAKU SYARIAH

Mahkamah Syariah ialah warisan unggul Kesultanan Melayu/Islam yang telah berdaulat sejak permulaan kedaulatan Islam di alam Melayu sebagaimana yang tercatat pada batu bersurat Terengganu iaitu 1303(M). Kedaulatan Mahkamah Syariah kemudiannya diiktiraf oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan (PP) sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam Butiran 1, Senarai Negeri, Jadual Kesembilan (B1SNJ9PP) berdasarkan Kuasa Negeri sebagaimana yang diberikan menurut Perkara 74(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Walaupun Perlembagaan Persekutan mewujudkan sistem Kehakiman Negara berteraskan Peruntukan Bahagian IX PP, namun bagi memastikan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah tidak tersentuh oleh Mahkamah Sivil, maka pada tahun 1988, diperkenalkan pula Perkara 121(1A) pada Bahagian IX tersebut. Peruntukan 121(1A) ini tidak dengan sendirinya menyenaraikan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah, tetapi ia memantapkan kedaulatan Mahkamah Syariah dari diganggu-gugat oleh Mahkamah Sivil.

Bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah adalah sebagaimana yang termaktub di dalam B1SNJ9PP yang antara lain menggariskan prinsip utama bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah seperti berikut – “the constitution, organization and procedure of Syariah Courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons profesing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law;”

Secara telitinya prinsip-prinsip yang termaktub dalam butiran 1 tersebut di atas adalah seperti berikut:

1. Terhad kepada umat Islam

Bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah terhad hanya kepada orang yang menganut agama Islam. Oleh itu orang bukan Islam tidak perlu bimbang dengan agenda politik yang cuba menakut-nakutkan masyarakat bukan Islam.

2. Terhad kepada perkara-perkara dalam Butiran 1

Tidak termasuk perkara-perkara dalam senarai Persekutuan dan perkara-perkara lain dalam Senarai Negeri Butiran 1 juga menetapkan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah hanya kepada perkara-perkara yang terkandung dalam Butiran 1 sahaja yang meliputi perkara-perkara berkaitan kekeluargaan, zakat, hibah, amanah, pewarisan, wakaf, masjid, surau dan sebagainya. Manakala dalam hal kesalahan (jenayah Syariah) pula bidangkuasanya terbatas kepada offences by persons profesing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except inregard to matters included in the Federal List: Justeru Perlembagaan sendiri yang menghalang mahkamah Syariah membicarakan atau menghukum kesalahan-kesalahan yang terkandung dalam Kanun Keseksaan (Penal Code) serta undang-undang lain di bawah senarai Persekutuan. Justeru kesalahan-kesalahan seperti mencuri, merogol, rasuah, pecah amanah, merompak, ragut tidak termasuk di bawah Mahkamah Syariah.

3. Tertakluk kepada had hukuman maksimum yang ditentukan Akta Persekutuan – Akta 355

Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidangkuasa Jenayah) 1965 (Akta 355) adalah keperluan Undang-undang berdasarkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan iaitu; bidang kuasa hukuman Mahkamah Syariah hendaklah ditetapkan oleh undang-undang Persekutuan. Justeru pindaan A355 tidak boleh disifatkan sebagai “unconstitutional” kerana ia adalah keperluan Perlembagaan. Akta 355 ini hanya menetapkan had hukuman maksima yang boleh dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Syariah sama seperti dalam isu kesalahan berkaitan kekeluargaan, zakat, hibah, amanah, pewarisan, wakaf, masjid, surau dan kesalahan berkaitan „offences against precept of Islam‟ sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam Enekmen Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah sekarang. Ia hanya mengandungi 3 seksyen sahaja. Seksyen 2 adalah yang terpenting iaitu menetapkan hukuman maksima penjara 3 tahun, denda RM5,000.00, dan 6 sebatan (356) dan telah berkuatkuasa selama 32 tahun sejak tahun 1984, sedangkan kebanyakan hukuman lain di Mahkamah Sivil di bawah Kanun Keseksaan dalam kesalahan jenayah, telah ditingkatkan berulang kali.

Autonomi Lebih Luas Kepada Negeri Untuk Mencegah Maksiat dan Salahlaku Syariah

Jika pindaan Akta 355 diluluskan di Parlimen, ia tidak meningkatkan kadar hukuman secara automatik sebaliknya Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) perlu meluluskan tahap hukuman bagi setiap kesalahan dalam Enakmen-enakmen Syariah yang sedang berkuatkuasa di negeri tersebut terlebih dahulu. Peluang untuk berbahas mengenai kadar hukuman yang munasabah masih terbuka di peringkat DUN. Selain daripada kesalahan-kesalahan di dalam Enakmen Jenayah Syariah, kesalahankesalahan lain yang berkaitan kekeluargaan seperti kahwin lari, poligami tanpa kebenaran, tidak bayar nafkah, melarikan anak dara dari jagaan dsbnya masih tidak berubah. Rujuk: 1. Contoh-contoh Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah 2. Pindaan Akta 355 Tidak Membabitkan Kesalahan Kekeluargaan (W.P.) Akta 303.

Akta 355 ini tidak memperuntukkan sebarang undang-undang hudud “capital punishment”. Pilihan untuk menaikkan kadar hukuman kepada kadar yang lebih tinggi adalah terpulang kepada negeri-negeri untuk memastikan keberkesanan penguatkuasaan undang-undang. Akta 355 tidak menyentuh bidang kuasa mahkamah sivil untuk membicarakan kes-kes jenayah di bawah Kanun Keseksaan.

pindaanAkta355-usahamurniPindaan Akta 355 adalah bertujuan meningkatkan hukuman bagi memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah dalam pengawalan moral yang sekarang ini berhadapan dengan gejala sosial yang amat serius. Jika hukuman terhadap kesalahan persetubuhan luar tabii dengan haiwan di bawah Seksyen 377 Kanun Keseksaan boleh dikenakan hukuman penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan denda atau sebatan maka hukuman “3,5,6” untuk kesalahan terhadap manusia adalah terlalu ringan. Adakah kita ingin biarkan undang-undang sedia ada melindungi kehormatan binatang lebih daripada kehormatan manusia? Haruskah hukuman menyetubuhi haiwan adalah lebih tinggi dan menggerunkan berbanding meliwat manusia?!

Berkenaan dengan isu kesamarataan, tidak timbul isu kesamarataan seperti yang disebutkan dalam Perkara 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana kesamaratan tersebut hanya merujuk kepada “genre” yang sama, sebagai contoh, Islam dan bukan Islam adalah bukan kategori atau genre yang sama tetapi kategori yang sama ialah hukuman yang berlainan kepada dua kumpulan orang Islam.

Pindaan Akta 355 ini telahpun dicadangkan oleh JAKIM sejak hampir 10 tahun yang lalu, namun, oleh kerana kekangan birokrasi menjadi faktor kelambatan, ia lebih mudah dibentangkan secara persendirian.

Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM)

An Answer To Boo Su Lyn’s, “Why don’t we eat together anymore?”

The Malay Mail Online columnist, Boo Su Lyn wrote an article discussing why she thinks the Malays and Chinese do not eat together anymore.

Interestingly, in the article, she seemed to put all the blame on the Malays, implying their “obsession with “halal” food“, as the main cause of the problem.

This is not the first time Boo Su Lyn makes malicious statements about Islam, the Malays, the Muslims and Islamic authorities.

(Please click here for MMO Did Not Apologise For Boo Su Lyn’s Seditious Article).

In her article, “Why don’t we eat together anymore?”, she wrote:

This unhealthy obsession foments suspicion on Chinese food sellers, even if they’re not selling pork, and discourages Malay-Muslims from dining with other Malaysians at the same table, at the same restaurant, or even at the same section in a food court.

She complained that the Malays do not even want to eat at pork-free Chinese restaurants.

She further accused the Malays of having, “persistent myth that associates the Chinese to pork”, saying:

Why can’t Malays eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants? Not all Chinese dishes contain pork. I don’t understand why there is a persistent myth that associates the Chinese to pork, or why there are irrational fears of so-called pork “particles” contaminating the air. Not only do such concerns sound ridiculous; there’s also an undertone of racism.

I feel really offended by people like Boo Su Lyn, who likes to insult other, calling others racists and behaving as if she understands Islam better than the Muslims.

Having negative perceptions towards the Malays, she wrote that the Malays avoid eating at Chinese restaurants because of racial reasons but says nothing about the Chinese who avoid eating at Malay restaurants.

The night before, my family and I enjoyed a wonderful dinner at a Chinese Muslim halal restaurant in Kota Tinggi, Johor.

The Chinese restaurant serves delicious Chinese food but the people eating there are mostly the Malays, I saw only one Chinese customer waiting for his order to be packed.

My question to Boo Su Lyn is, why must the Chinese avoid eating at the restaurant despite it is a Chinese restaurant?

Is it because the Chineseman who runs the restaurant is a Muslim?

So, by Boo Su Lyn’s logic, it is the non-Muslim Chinese who are actually racists.

The non-Muslim Chinese have no limitation in food affairs so they can eat at halal restaurants, and if non-Muslim Chinese like Boo Su Lyn eats at halal restaurant, everybody will be eating together.

Trying to teach the Malays again, Boo Su Lyn asked, “Why can’t Malays eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants?”

By asking the question, she is telling the Malays that they can eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants or in another word, the non-pork Chinese restaurants are halal restaurants.

Boo Su Lyn should check with JAKIM the criteria of halal food before making silly conclusion about halal food.

And to further insult the Malays, Boo Su Lyn wants the Malays to share a table with a Chinese who is eating “bak kut teh”, knowing that “bak kut teh” is a pork-laden dish where the word ”bak” refers to pork in Chinese.

Why can’t we have Malays eating nasi lemak, the Chinese dining on “bak kut teh and the Indians consuming roti canai at the same table? Do dietary restrictions really mean that one cannot dine with someone else who doesn’t have those restrictions?

If this is her idea of promoting unity, she must be a very inconsiderate and self-centered person for she fails to respect other people’s religion.

Instead of putting the blame on the Malays, why don’t Boo Su Lyn tell the people who have no dietary restrictions to eat at halal restaurants so that everybody can eat together?

As a non-Muslim, Boo Su Lyn has no constitutional rights to talk about Islam and teach the Muslims about what is halal and what is not.

In fact, she has to look at herself first, the fact that she is an atheist means that she is against the National Principles of our country because being an atheist is against the first Rukun Negara, which is, “Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan” or Belief in God.

She must learn to respect the National Principles and the Federal Constitution of Malaysia before telling Malaysians what they should do.

By making malicious statements regarding Islam and the Malays, it is her who does not respect the national unity and not the other way around.

The Flags of the Districts of Johor

The state of Johor has ten districts which are Batu Pahat, Johor Bahru, Kluang, Kota Tinggi, Kulai, Mersing, Muar, Pontian, Segamat and Tangkak.

And on March 3, 2015, all the ten districts were given their own district flags.

Six months later, the district of Kulaijaya and the district of Ledang were renamed as Kulai and Tangkak respectively by the Sultan of Johor, Ibrahim Ismail ibni Almarhum Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj.

Please click for larger images…

All of the district flags of Johor have similar characteristic, which are red, white and blue in colour and with crescents and stars.

There are five bend flags, Kluang, Kota Tinggi, including three per-bend flags which are Batu Pahat, Johor Bahru and Segamat; two orthogonal quartered flag, Kulai and Muar; two triangle flag, Tangkak, including one chevron flag which is Mersing; and one horizontal bicolour flag which is Pontian (charged with a white crescent and star).

The stars’ rotation angles are the same in all flags except for the per-bend divided ones, since the stars are aligned to the bend of the flag.

The designs of the flags symbolises the special characteristic of the districts, for instance in the case of Kota Tinggi’s flag, the colour white at the center field represents the Johor River where the old Sultanate of Johor was established on 1528.

In the case of the district of Mersing flag, the upper field of the flag symbolizes the South China Sea while in the district of Tangkak flag, the blue triangle represents the Mount Ledang which used to be the name of the district before August 2015.

Related posts:

•~    Municipal flags in Terengganu (Malaysia)
•~    Johor (1): Tanjung Piai Resort
•~    Johor (2): Photos – Taman Negara Tanjung Piai (Tanjung Piai National Park)
•~    Johor (3): Muar

The Malays of Malaysia – The Unique, Generous Race

Malaysia is a country of many races, ethnics, cultures, and languages.

But despite of the variety of races and religions of its people, there is only one race and one religion that is mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which is the supreme law of the Federation; that is Malay and Islam.

The Article 3(1) of the Federation Constitution of Malaysia states that Islam is the religion of the Federation while the Article 153 of the Federal Constitution wrote about the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities.

Article 152 states that the Bahasa Melayu or the Malay language is the national language of Malaysia.

Not only “Malay” is specifically mentioned in the supreme law but the Federal Constitution also gives the interpretation of the Malays.

The Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution:

 “Malay” means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom 

So, that makes the Malays of Malaysia so unique, for it is the only race in this whole world that is legally bound to a religion, which is Islam, the religion of the Federation.

Islam, the Malay language and the special position of the Malays are not only protected by the Federal Constitution but are also protected by the Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act of Malaysia, which protects the four sensitive issues: 

  1. Article 153: Special Rights For The Malays
  2. Article 152: Malay As The National Language
  3. Part III: of the Citizenship Rights
  4. Article 181: Rights, Status, Sovereignty Of The Malay Rulers

In respond to critiques regarding the Article 153, our great forefathers, Tun V. T. Sambanthan and Tun Tan Siew Sin said that the Malays are very charitable, polite and “generous enough to relax the citizenship laws of this country”.

sambanthan-indianrace-1965

tuntansiewsin-hak-melayu-30apr1969

If the Malays were not generous, the Chinese and Indians who were immigrants at the time, would not be given the citizenship of this country and therefore became stateless people.

Article 153 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia was based on the Social Contract where the Malays and the Malay Rulers agreed to accept the immigrant races to become citizens of Malaysia.

In the contract, it was agreed that while the immigrant races were given citizenship, the Malays who are the subjects of the Malay Rulers must be given special position.

The great Malay Rulers of nine Malay Kingdoms had sacrificed their own absolute powers over their own sovereign countries to unite into the Federation of Malaya, which later becomes Malaysia with the addition of Sabah and Sarawak.

With the motto, “Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu” or “Unity is Strength”, the Malay states becomes a Federation and is now a great country.