Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill

28 06 2016

On June 1, 2016 the Malay Mail Online reported that:

G25 criticised today PAS President, Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi’s  Private Member’s Bill to expand the range of punishments the Shariah courts can impose, saying hudud law is inappropriate in secular Malaysia”.

~Malay Mail Online

In order to support its arguments, G25 made a contradictory and baseless statement:

“Although Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares that Islam is the religion of the Federation, still, constitutionally, Malaysia is a secular state, as our forefathers and the framers of the Federal Constitution had intended. Further, our nation is multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural,” it added.

~Malay Mail Online

How could a country be constitutionally a secular state when its Federal Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land  has declared that Islam is the religion of the country and the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution?

Does G25 misunderstood the term secularism or is G25 trying to say that the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution is unconstitutional?

If Malaysia is a secular state, the word “Islam” cannot even be mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

The creator of the term secularism, George Jacob Holyoake , in his book, “The Principles of Secularism”, defines secularism as separating government and religion, while Merriam-Webster defines secularism as “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society”.

So, Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim saying that Malaysia is a secular state; since secularism means separating government and religion which is the opposite case in Malaysia.

Please click here for my article on why Malaysia is not a secular state.

A good example of an important criteria of a secular state is the 25-year legal battle regarding the Mount Soledad Cross, a giant cross installed on Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in the United States of America.

After a group of people installed a giant cross on the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, the court ordered them to remove the cross, because as a secular state it is unconstitutional to put a symbol of religion on government land.

The controversy over the Mount Soledad Cross only ended after the US Department of Defense sold the government land on which the 29-foot cross stood.

So how could Malaysia be claimed as a secular state when the government not only built mosques on government lands but also finances Islamic religious authorities?

The Malay Mail Online also wrote:

They noted that by implication, the Bill allows Shariah courts to impose “any form of hudud punishment” other than the death penalty, for example 100 lashes of whipping for Muslims found guilty of adultery, or the amputation of one’s hand for theft.

~Malay Mail Online

What a defamation and malicious falsehood!

Firstly, it is a lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill “to impose any form of hudud punishment other than the death penalty” and “to expand the range of punishments the Shariah courts can impose”, because the Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions.

Secondly, as the above statement gives the implication that Hudud punishment is harsh and negative it is a defamation to Islam.

Muslims members of G25 must learn to understand the concept of punishments in Islam and how they are carried out – please click here for a video that explains the differences between Syariah whippings and civil whippings. 

Thirdly, it is a false statement to say that the Bill will allow the Shariah Courts to impose the “amputation of one’s hand for theft” because, since theft is a criminal crime that is punished under the Penal Code, theft is under the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not the Syariah Courts.

The Syariah Courts have jurisdiction only over the matters as stated in the State List under Item 1 of the List II of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and not over other offences; and the Bill is not about giving the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction over the offences punished under the Penal Code.

The Malay Mail Online further wrote:

The group noted that the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Bill 2015 prescribes  hudud punishments for offences like adultery, theft, robbery, sodomy, consumption of liquor and apostasy, but it has yet to be enforced due to the limits in the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act.

“Therefore, there is the need for the state of Kelantan to seek Parliament to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1995. And, so, here comes Hadi’s Bill,” said G25. 

~Malay Mail Online

It is untrue that the Bill is about to enable the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Criminal Code II to be implemented because as I wrote above, the Bill will not gives the power to the Syariah Courts to implement capital punishment Hudud nor the jurisdiction over offences punished under the Penal Code.

It is hard to understand why a Muslim opposes a Bill that not only helps to curb the social problems among the Muslims but also to empower the Syariah Courts.

The Article 37 states that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong must take his oath to protect the religion of Islam before exercising his functions; and this Bill is the right move towards protecting and upholding Islam which is the religion of our country. 

Related post on G25:





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

18 06 2016

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.








%d bloggers like this: