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
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:
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:
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.
Related Posts:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog 
