BH – Laporan Polis Oleh Remaja 13 Tahun

Semalam, wartawan Berita Harian, Cik Siti Azila telah menemuramah saya tentang laporan polis yang saya buat terhadap ketua menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng, kerana kenyataannya pada 23 November lalu.

Sila baca: Police Report On Lim Guan Eng’s False Statements

whatsapp-image-2017-01-14-at-01-07-35

 

Police Report On Lim Guan Eng’s False Statements

whatsapp-image-2016-11-24-at-11-54-16-am

Yesterday, as a loyal citizen of Malaysia, I filed a police report on Lim Guan Eng’s blog article regarding Act 355 at the Ampang Jaya Police Station.

In the article, the Pulau Pinang’s Chief Minister (CM) made four seditious false accusations:

  1. DAP opposes the hudud-like laws because it is contrary to the Federal Constitution.
  2. Our Federal Constitution is secular in nature with Islam as the religion of the Federation. Raising the punishment cap so that it can come closer to Hudud provisions would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance.
  3. MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP deserve public condemnation for betraying their principles and promises to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution but also for their political expediency to continue to deceive the people by supporting UMNO that is willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect.
  4. DAP reiterates that the failure of MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN now is seen as a form of tacit approval of the unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move to raise the punishment cap of Islamic laws that moves closer to Hudud-like laws.

DAP opposes the hudud-like laws because it is contrary to the Federal Constitution.

This is a recycled accusation that I’ve answered many times before.

Neither the Act 355 nor the amendment of the Act is contrary to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and the amendment of Act 355 it is not about implementing hudud-like laws as falsely accused by the CM of Pulau Pinang.

The fact that the Federal Constitution recognises the institution of Syariah Courts as stated in the Article 121 (1A) and the Part 1 List II  of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, proves that the Act 355 is not contrary to the Federal Constitution.

Furthermore, the Act 355 is an existing Act and it is already part of the laws of Malaysia.

“Our Federal Constitution is secular in nature with Islam as the religion of the Federation. Raising the punishment cap so that it can come closer to Hudud provisions would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance.”

In his above accusation, he made two contradicting statements, saying that the “Federal Constitution is secular in nature” and “with Islam as the religion of the Federation”.

How can our Federal Constitution that states Islam as the religion of the Federation be secular in nature, when George Jacob Holyoake who is the creator of the term secularism, defines secularism as separating government and religion?

In fact, if our Federal Constitution is secular in nature, the Act 355 cannot be part of the laws of Malaysia and the Syariah Courts cannot be part of our judicial systems.

And if our Federal Constitution is secular in nature, the flag of Malaysia must not have any symbol of religion, such as the crescent and star in our flag that represents the religion of Islam.

“MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP deserve public condemnation for betraying their principles and promises to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution but also for their political expediency to continue to deceive the people by supporting UMNO that is willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect.”

What a defamation and malicious falsehood!

The amendment of Act 355 is not contrary to the Federal Constitution and it is a lie made in bad faith to accuse UMNO as “willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect”, when everything was done according to the law.

“DAP reiterates that the failure of MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN now is seen as a form of tacit approval of the unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move to raise the punishment cap of Islamic laws that moves closer to Hudud-like laws.”

It is clearly said in the Act 355 that the Act only affect the Muslims, so why must the CM who is non-Muslim politicise the issue?

By calling MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN, and accusing the two biggest Muslim parties, PAS and UMNO as working together to bypass the Federal Constitution, Lim Guan Eng is trying to create religious and racial tension among the citizens of Malaysia.

Not only that, Lim Guan Eng’s words are against the call made by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong’s in the parliament on the 7th of March, 2016:

“Beta berharap langkah-langkah ke arah memperkukuhkan institusi agama dan kecekapan perlaksanaan undang-undang pentadbiran agama Islam melalui pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah dapat disegerakan.”

Lim Guan Eng has gone against four parts of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 3(1)(a), Section 3(1)(c), Section 3(1)(e), and Section 3(1)(f), an offense which is punishable under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948.

Section 3(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 states:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mendatangkan kebencian atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan tidak setia terhadap mana-mana Raja atau Kerajaan;

The CM of Pulau Pinang’s seditious words which contradict to the call made by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong can be seen as a “seditious tendency” that could “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government.”

Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 says:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mendatangkan kebencian atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan tidak setia terhadap pentadbirankeadilan di Malaysia atau di mana-mana Negeri;

Accusing the amendment of Act 355 is a hudud-like law that “would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance”, is an insult to the Syariah Courts, hudud law and Islam as well as giving bad impressions to the hudud law and Syariah Courts which could “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State”.

Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act 1948 states:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mengembangkan perasaan niat jahat dan permusuhan antara kaum atau golongan penduduk yang berlainan di Malaysia; atau

By making statements that:

  • MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP deserve public condemnation for betraying their principles and promises to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution but also for their political expediency to continue to deceive the people by supporting UMNO that is willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect.
  • Calling MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN because of the “unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move”,

Lim Guan Eng is playing a religious and racial games by falsely accusing the Malay Muslim PAS and UMNO “bypass the Federal Constitution” and “taking unconstitutional measures” which could “promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia”.

This will cause the non-Muslims to think that the government and the Muslims are up to something bad and doing things against the law which can cause anger and disharmony among the people of different races and religions.

Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act says:

bagi mempersoalkan apa-apa perkara, hak, taraf, kedudukan, keistimewaan, kedaulatan atau prerogatif yang ditetapkan atau dilindungi oleh peruntukan Bahagian III Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau Perkara 152, 153 atau 181 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is the head of religion of Islam of the country and “to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution is against the Sedition Act.

It is the rights of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong to make decisions on matters concerning the religion of Islam as stated in the Federal Constitution thus making statements against the statement made by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong regarding this matter is interfering with the rights of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-13316" src="https://ahmadalijetplane.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/whatsapp-image-2016-11-24-at-11-23-30-pm.png" alt=""whatsapp-i

Related Posts:

Maintaining Racial Harmony In Malaysia

Himpunan Rakyat Bersatu at Padang Merbok, Sept. 16, 2015. Photo credit to sejarahmelayu.blogspot.my
Himpunan Rakyat Bersatu at Padang Merbok, Sept. 16, 2015. Photo credit to sejarahmelayu.blogspot.my

Yesterday, was a big day for the Malays, when the city of Kuala Lumpur was flooded by “baju merah” to mark their support for the legitimately elected government after the “baju kuning” of illegal Bersih 4 demonstration claimed that they are the voices of the nation.

The rally was a great success despite the instigation made by people whose idea about human rights and freedom of speech is, ‘it is our right to organise a rally to bash the government, Article 3(1) and Article 153 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia’ but ‘it is racist to organise a rally to support the government, Article 3(1) and Article 153 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.’

I am proud of my country and do not want the sovereignty of my country to be ‘invaded’ by foreign powers and ideologies. 

Our country has always been peaceful apart from the racial riot of 13 May 1969 that killed a lot of innocent people that was started by people who are selfish and do not respect the Federal Constitution.

To protect the stability of our country and to avoid such tragedy, the government then amended the Akta Hasutan. 

Now the people who call themselves as human right activists are again questioning some Articles in our Federal Constitution and want the Akta Hasutan to be abolished.

And they are the people who are behind the Bersih illegal demonstration.

They call the Himpunan Rakyat Bersatu racist because the participants are the Malays and bumiputeras but Bersih 4 is not racist because 90% of the participants were Chinese!

Are they being fair when they demand their rights but deny the rights of others?

We must learn from history and learn to respect each others’ rights to maintain racial harmony and we can start from listening to what had been said by our great forefathers:

tuntansiewsin-hak-melayu-30apr1969 sambanthan-indianrace-1965

TS Muhyiddin: Akta Hasutan Harus Dikekalkan

Below are some of the interesting part of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s speech to officiate the Wanita, Pemuda and Puteri Umno assemblies. It was a very good speech that makes me respect Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin even more for being a brave fighter of the Malays.

“Kerana itu saya telah menyatakan pendirian saya mengenai Akta Hasutan. Bagi saya, Akta ini wajar dikekalkan dengan beberapa penambahbaikan. Peruntukan khusus perlu dimasukkan untuk melarang mana-mana pihak daripada mempersoalkan jaminan perlembagaan mengenai kedudukan agama Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan. Akta ini juga perlu menghalang mana-mana pihak daripada mempersoalkan hak penganut agama lain untuk mengamalkan kepercayaan agama masing-masing. Begitu juga dengan kedudukan tanah rezab Melayu dan Regimen Askar Melayu DiRaja yang merupakan sebahagian daripada wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu perlu dilindungi daripada perbuatan menghasut.

Apa yang penting ialah kita perlu melihat Akta Hasutan bukan sebagai akta yang hanya melindungi kepentingan orang Melayu, tetapi akta yang memelihara perpaduan dan keharmonian nasional.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

Like most Malaysian, I totally agree with him. Akta Hasutan should not be abolished. As I mentioned in my post, “Is Proham Secretary-General Questioning Rights Of The Rulers?” the Akta Hasutan is very important to maintain the stability of our country.

May 13, 1969 has seen a bad racial riot and it can happen again if we are not careful. In fact, I’m not surprise if there are a small number of people who want such incident to happen. They’ll use Article 10 of the Federal Constitution to claim total freedom of speech even though they are aware that Article 10 is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4), that among others restricts people from questioning the four sensitive issues. So, section 3 (1) (f) of the Akta Hasutan which protects the four sensitive issues is very important so that these issues will not be questioned even by the MPs in Parliament.

Below are the four sensitive issues:

  1. Article 152 of the Federal Constitution

  2. Article 153 of the Federal Constitution

  3. Part III

  4. Article 181 of the Federal Constitution

“Di samping itu, institusi-institusi Islam perlu diperkasa, penguatkuasaan undang-undang Islam perlu dipertegas dan kerjasama UMNO dengan NGO-NGO Islam perlu diperkukuh.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

I’m truly glad to hear this statement after UMNO Youth Vice Chief, Khairul Azwan’s unbelievable statement that angered a lot of Malay activists who are the supporters of UMNO. It is really odd when the UMNO Youth Vice Chief wants UMNO’s senior leaders to turn away from the people who are also fighting for “agama, bangsa dan negara”.

“Di mana taring Pemuda? Di mana ketegasan Wanita? Di mana kelantangan Puteri? Kesannya, kita seolahnya ketandusan pemimpin untuk menjuarai kepentingan orang Melayu. Sehinggakan timbul cakap-cakap di luar sana yang mengatakan NGO Melayu lebih lantang daripada UMNO dalam memperjuangkan hak dan kepentingan Melayu.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

There are more and more leaders who are lost and forgot which party they are in, for example, the Pemuda leaders. What did they do when people humiliate Islam and question thee four sensitive issues? On top of that, the Pemuda UMNO Youth Vice Chief wants the senior leaders of UMNO to be as liberal and forget the UMNO’s own constitution! Maybe they are too busy promoting their ‘#lifestyle’ to be cool and popular that they have ignored their responsibilities as Muslim leaders.

“Penghinaan ke atas umat Islam juga dilakukan secara terbuka. Selain itu, umat Islam juga sedang berhadapan dengan ancaman ekstremisme dan militanisme yang sekiranya tidak dibendung segera akan memberi kesan buruk kepada negara.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

I hope serious actions will be taken to solve this problems but I wonder if all of the leaders understand this problem, especially people like the UMNO Youth Chief who are not happy with the right wings NGOs who are fighting hard against this threat. 

Is Proham Secretary-General Questioning Rights Of The Rulers?

Insider 12

A lot of things have been said about the Akta Hasutan or the Sedition Act, a very important Act that was amended in 1970 to protect the stability of our country after a serious racial riot in 1969.

The question is, can the Akta Hasutan be abolished without the Rulers’ consent and is it true that Akta Hasutan is just a “normal Act” and “a colonial-era law made by the British” as claimed by some people?

The Malaysian Insider (TMI) in the above article wrote that Proham secretary-general Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria said,

“The Sedition Act is not protected by the constitution. It is a law made by the British.”

TMI also reported that, “the consent of the Rulers is not needed to abolish the Sedition Act 1948, as claimed by defenders of the colonial-era law, Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria said.”

Now, how true is Proham secretary-general’s statement?

A law expert, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman does not agree with the those statements.

Tan Sri Aziz explains that Akta Hasutan is not considered as a British law any more because it has already been amended in 1970, after the May 13, 1969 racial riot.

The government had identified four sensitive issues as one of the major causes of the racial riot:

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

To avoid more racial riots, Articles 10, 63 and 159 of the Federal Constitution was amended by adding Article 10 (4), 63 (4) and 159 (5) to prohibit any questioning on these issues.

The parliament then passed a law amending the Akta Hasutan under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution by the addition of section 3 (1) (f), making questioning any of the four issues as an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan.

Therefore, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz said that in reference to Article 159 (5) of the Federal Constitution, the consent from the Conference of Rulers is needed to repeal the Akta Hasutan since the Act was amended under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution. 

Article 159 (5) says:

A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, Clause (4) of Article 63, Article 70, Clause (1) of Article 71,
Clause (4) of Article 72, Article 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitutions says:

In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under paragraph (a) of Clause (2), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Prof Madya Dr. Syamrahayu Abdul Aziz who is an expert in the Constitutional Laws of Malaysia agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz and explains that:

  1. The laws that was passed before Merdeka Day are known as Enactment.
  2. The laws that was passed during the period of Emergency are known as Ordinance.
  3. The laws that was passed after our Merdeka Day but not during the period of Emergency are known as Act.
  4. If an Enactment and an Ordinance has been amended by the Parliament, it will be known as an Act.

So, since Akta Hasutan is an Act and not an Enactment, it is not just a British law as claimed by the Proham secretary-general.

A very senior lawyer, Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa who also agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz, told me that in fact claiming the consent of the Rulers are not needed to amend the Akta Hasutan can be an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan because it is against the Article 181 for questioning the rights of the Rulers.

I agree with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz that the people who are pushing for the Act to be abolished actually want total freedom and to be able to question the four sensitive issues that was protected under the Act.

They want section 3 (1) (f) of the Act to be abolished so that they are free to say what they want including to question the four sensitive issues.

Are their personal total freedom are more important than the love for their country?

But the weirdest thing is, those people who are fighting to repeal the Akta Hasutan are the same people who want the vocal Rightist to be charged under the Akta Hasutan.

Is preserving a peaceful country is a wrong thing to do that we need to abolish the important law that had managed to curb racial riots?

If the United Nations wants the country members to obey to certain laws made by them, we as a sovereign country has our rights to keep a law that is good for our country.

I would like to thank Uncle Azril for sending me Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz’s statements, Uncle Datuk Zulkifli Noordin for Dr. Syamrahayu’s article and Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa for helping me to understand more about Akta Hasutan that helps to understand the facts of this case that enable me to write this post.

Is Muhyiddin Racist?

Please watch the video of Tan Sri Muhyiddin’s speech on Article 10 of the Federal Constitution : “Muhyiddin: Tiada Pihak Boleh Persoalkan Pembentukan Negara Malaysia (Video)”.

The opposition parties are very busy complaining about everything that they can think of instead of working to solve the problems in Selangor, Penang and Kelantan.

Now they and some human rights activists are fighting for a total freedom of speech because they want to be free to say everything they wish, including matters related to sensitive issues such as the Federal Constitution, the Royal Institution and others.

Like when Lim Kit Siang humiliate the Khutbah Jumaat that reminded the Muslims of the Surah Al-Baqarah: verse 120.

Insider 9

Tony Pua also humiliated JAKIM’s Khutbah Jumaat (about Valentine’s day.)

Hannah Yeoh went against the Sultan of Selangor’s decree on Allah issue as well as Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988,  and Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

I wonder if Khalid Ibrahim would obey Hannah Yeoh.

PAS’s Wan Ji made lots of rude statements against the teaching of Islam, Islamic authorities and the Royal Institution.

Wanji 1

And lots of human rights activists do not respect the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

Insider 10

They use Article 10 of the Federal Constitution as the reason why they are free to say anything they wish; claiming that Article 10 Clause 1 (a) granted them total freedom of speech’.

Article 10 Clause 1 (a) says:

“every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”

Is it true that the Article 10 of the Federal Constitution gives us a total freedom of speech?

No, because Article 10 of the Federal Constitution says:

“10. (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)—
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;”

That means Article 10 (1) of the Federal Constitution is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4).

And Clause 2 (a) of the Article 10 says:

“Parliament may by law impose— on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;”

So, the oppositions and human rights activists who support them, only use Article 10 (1) (a) and purposely ignore Article 10 (1) which says that the article is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4).

That means, they just skipped the part of the article that says there are restrictions to freedom of speech.

That is wrong because we cannot use only a part of an article of the Federal Constitution and skip the rest of the article as we wish. 

They did the same when they refer to Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution by purposely leaving the part saying, “subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”.

Anyway, freedom of speech that they are fighting for is only a total freedom for them to say what ever they want but not for others.

Does Anwar respect freedom of speech if he wanted to sue the reporter who asked him a question that he is not happy with?

Another example is the issue between the Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng and PAS’s Nasruddin Hassan Tantawi.

Is freedom of speech respected by people who always talk about freedom of speech in the above examples?

I am tired of the opposition’s tactics to destroy the stability of our country with the help of those human rights activists who support them.

They must look at themselves before telling others what to do.

They are worse than the pot calling the kettle black.

Muhyiddin: Tiada Pihak Boleh Persoalkan Pembentukan Negara Malaysia (Video)

There are people who think that they have the rights to say anything they wish to say but they’ll get angry when others do not agree with them.

These people love to bully others and have no respect for others.

Malaysia is a sovereign country, so we are governed by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and the laws of our country; and not by laws of other countries’.