Tag: Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia

Lawmakers Must First Understand the Law

The failure to apprehend the supreme law of the land will lead to disloyalty to the Rulers and the country. And this is a problem that we are facing with some of our Members of Parliament and other political leaders; who not only fail to understand, but do not even want to make the attempt to learn and uphold the law; which brings us to all kinds of conflicting and out of context statements that should not have came from the people who proudly call themselves the lawmakers. Worst, there are even some of them who purposely misinterpret our supreme law for their own political agendas.

The simplest example is how they fail to respect and uphold the main fundamental principal of our country which is clearly written in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. The words are crystal clear but some Members of Parliament and political leaders especially from DAP, PKR, and PAN are still denying the truth, and arrogantly insist that Malaysia is a secular country and Islam is merely the official religion; which in reality is a baseless and a malicious distortion of truth!

Members of Parliaments irrespective of their political ideologies are the lawmakers of the country; hence they must be responsible, constitutionally literate and must not in anyway try to debase the ideology of our country. Alas, instead of upholding the supreme law, some of these leaders are busy degrading and undermining the religion of the Federation. In other words, they are using their positions to corrupt the core foundation of our country and corrupt the minds of their supporters into believing in something that is not true.

It is unconstitutional for the lawmakers to deny the constitutional obligation of the government to protect and defend the sanctity of Islam and the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation. Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says that:

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.

And to understand the interpretation of “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony”, we have read the Court of Appeal judgment of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri where the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali stated that:

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.

Unfortunately the phrase, “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony” is commonly used as the proof to debase the position of Islam as merely the official religion despite the fact that what was ever written is only, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” and not “the official religion”; and there is no Articles in the Federal Constitution that ever mentioned or implied that Islam is merely “the official religion” of the country.

It is the constitutional duty of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as the supreme head of our country to “at all time protect the Religion of Islam”, as said in the Article 37(1) or commonly referred to as the oath of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong which was written in Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 37(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall before exercising his functions take and subscribe before the Conference of Rulers and in the presence of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court (or in his absence the next senior judge of the Federal Court available) the oath of office set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule; and the oath shall be attested by two persons appointed for the purpose by the Conference of Rulers.

Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

OATH OF YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG
Kami ……………………………………. ibni ……………………………………………………. Yang di-Pertuan Agong bagi Malaysia bersumpah dengan melafazkan:
Wallahi; Wabillahi; Watallahi;
maka dengan lafaz ini berikrarlah Kami dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya mengaku akan taat setia pada menjalankan dengan adilnya pemerintahan bagi Malaysia dengan mengikut sebagaimana undang-undang dan Perlembagaan yang telah disah dan dimasyhurkan dan yang akan disah dan dimasyhurkan di masa hadapan ini. Dan lagi Kami berikrar mengaku dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya memeliharakan pada setiap masa Agama Islam dan berdiri tetap di atas pemerintahan yang adil dan aman di dalam Negeri.

English translation taken from Part III of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

We …………………………………………. ibni ………………………………………………… Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia do hereby swear:
Wallahi; Wabillahi; Watallahi;
and by virtue of that oath do solemnly and truly declare that We shall justly and faithfully perform (carry out) our duties in the administration of Malaysia in accordance with its laws and Constitution which have been promulgated or which may be promulgated from time to time in the future. Further We do solemnly and truly declare that We shall at all time protect the Religion of Islam and uphold the rules of law and order in the Country.

Since the oath is the oath of office of the supreme head of the country, by law it is not only the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong who is bound by the majesty’s oath to protect the Religion of Islam, but also the Prime Minister, the ministers, the lawmakers and the government servants; for they are tasked with the duty of administering the country on behalf of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

And the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam is proven by the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri, when YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim said:

I would add however that the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, to my mind imposes certain obligation on the power that be to promote and defend Islam as well to protect its sanctity. In one article written by Muhammad Imam, entitled Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia – A Reappraisal [1994] 2 CLJ lvii (June) referred to by the learned counsel for the 8th appellant it was said that: “Article 3 is not a mere declaration. But it imposes positive obligation on the Federation to protect, defend, promote Islam and to give effect by appropriate state action, to the injunction of Islam and able to facilitate and encourage people to hold their life according to the Islamic injunction spiritual and daily life.”

And in the judgement of the Federal Court case of Fathul Bari Mat Jahya & Anor v. Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan & Ors, Tun Arifin Zakaria clarified that the integrity of Islam needs to be safeguarded at all cost.

The requirement of a tauliah for the purpose of protecting the public interest falls within the concept of Siyasah Syari’yah. Such order or direction is made not merely to prevent deviant teachings, but also to maintain order and prevent division in the community. Clearly, no one could suggest that the requirement of a tauliah as stipulated in s. 53 of the Enactment is a maksiat (vice). On the contrary, it is necessary in this day and age for the authority to regulate the teachings or preaching of the religion in order to control, if not eliminate, deviant teachings. The integrity of the religion needs to be safeguarded at all cost. That is what s. 53 purports to do. This being the case, the contention that the Syariah Court in Negeri Sembilan does not have the jurisdiction to try an offence under s. 53 of the Enactment is devoid of any merit. (paras 26 & 27)

Malaysia was formed as an Islamic country, and that the government is tasked to protect the religion of Islam, therefore, only those who are constitutionally illiterate and those who are blinded by their own illusions cannot see the truth, which unfortunately included our lawmakers; which is a very embarrassing situation! 

Hence, there is no legitimate reasons for the Members of Parliament, the lawmakers, the government servants and even the ministers to question the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country. We cannot change the core foundation of our country that had united the people and give away what we have achieved just to chase the rainbows. We must not be blinded by the beautiful colours of the rainbow; and there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Related articles:

Grow Up, MCA!

“Malaysia is a secular country” – that is a very popular myth concocted and supported by people who are obviously constitutionally illiterate and clueless about the interpretation of the Federal Constitution of our country.

MCA Legal Affairs Bureau Chairman Datuk Tay Puay Chuan’s press statement  which was published on the MCA website yesterday (March 30, 2017) with the title, “Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the nation” is part of the series of false and baseless accusations by certain groups to undermined the core principals of our country.

Tay Puay Chuan who clearly does not (or pretended not to) understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the definition of secularism, made several false accusations regarding the position of Islam in Malaysia, using the recycled baseless arguments which had been answered by many people for years.

I’ve written so many articles on this currently “hot issue” trying to open the minds of these people but then, it seems that some people just prefer to live in denial.

Below is the press statement (orange) together with my answers (blue) to all his twisted facts and wild accusations regarding Islam as the religion of the Federation.

I would like to stress again that the status of Islam as the religion of the federation, the roots of the Islamic law nationwide are granted by the Federal Constitution. This ascertains that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia

It is true that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the Federation as mentioned in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, but Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles. Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation. This was mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case.

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

This is in response to the booklet by Institute Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM) on the ’10 Salah Tanggapan Tentang Kedudukan Islam di Malaysia (10 Misconceptions about the Position of Islam in Malaysia)’, in which it included topics that either directly wrote or implied that ‘Malaysia is not a secular country;’ ‘rejecting claims that Islam is lower than the Constitution;’ ‘As an Islamic  nation, Islamic system is the thrust;’ as well as ‘other religions have no equal standing; and ‘the nation does  not carry the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions.’

Malaysian leaders of all religions must be constitutionally literate and uphold the Federal Constitution including Article 3(1) that enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation making Malaysia an Islamic nation. All the Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read together and people cannot just cherry-pick what they like and interpret the Articles according to their fancy to serve their agendas. 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 that other religions have no equal standing as Islam: 

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.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions (as long as they are in peace and harmony with Islam), there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions except Islam, for example, the Article 11(4).

IKSIM must be alerted that the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution also explains that Islamic law is for persons professing the religion of Islam on matters related to succession, marriage, divorce, etc.

I have read the booklet and in the booklet, IKSIM has never said that the Islamic law has the jurisdiction over people professing other religions other than Islam.

The Federal Constitution is THE supreme law of the nation, and the supremacy of the Constitution renders Islam as the religion of the federation whilst other religions are allowed to be practised freely.

That is not only a false but also a malicious statement. The Constitution has never stated that “other religions can be practised freely” in any of its Articles or Schedules. Article 11(1) says that, “Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it” while Article 3(1) clearly says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. So, there is no phrase such as “other religions can be practised freely” in both Articles. Maybe Tay came across the word “bebas” in the Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM and was confused by it.

As for the phrase, “in peace and harmony”, it was clearly interpreted 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.

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.

Malaysia is a secular country. In fact, the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Supreme Court judgement enables the implementation of secular laws in the country, which includes both criminal and civil laws. These laws apply to the entire country, irrespective of race and religion. Similarly, the Federal Constitution also provides that Islamic law may only be used on persons professing the religion of Islam. Therefore, Islamic law is not for everyone. Only secular laws may be applied to everyone. Hence, this is one of the proofs which shows that Malaysia is a secular country.

Contrary to what was argued by Tay, the fact that Malaysia has two court systems, the civil court systems and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

By the way, does Tay understand the meaning of the word secularism? George Jacob Holyoake, the creator of the term secularism defined secularism as separating government and religion. Therefore, as said in many of my previous posts, it is impossible for Malaysia to be defined as a secular country when Islam is stated as the religion of the Federation. It also contradicts with other Articles of the Constitution such as the Articles 11(4), 12, 37, 76A, 121(1A) and others.

As I wrote in my article for the news portal Menara, in a secular country, the State does not have a religion and cannot has anything to do in relation to religion, for example in the case of Mount Soledad Easter Cross in San Diego, California.

Hence, by calling Malaysia a secular country, Tay slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

Syariah law which is currently applied across all states, is the provision of rights granted to all state governments on the law as outlined in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. It is stated with a condition that the criminal penalties and jurisdictions of the Syariah Court cannot contravene the Federal Constitution, or it will be considered void and unconstitutional.

The jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts does not contravene the Federal Constitution because it was conferred by the Federal Constitution in Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution also states that: Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

This again shows that other religions are also protected by the Federal Constitution. Hence the claims made in the booklet that the country has no obligation to defend nor protect other religions are incorrect. Instead, our nation and the government have the responsibility of defending all religions in line with the Articles and spirit of the Federal Constitution.

What a mind blowing senseless argument! It shows that either Tay is truly constitutionally illiterate or he, in bad faith is trying to deny and debase the position of Islam in our Federal Constitution because his argument is against the core principals of the supreme law of the land. In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali said that the purpose of “in peace and harmony” were added to Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam, and not to defend other religions as claimed by Tay.

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.

Therefore, Tay must be constitutionally illiterate if he really thinks that the Federal Constitution conferred Malaysia as a secular country, all religions have equal standing and the nation carries the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions other than Islam.

It is a known fact that during the 13th General Election, MCA won it seats mostly because of the Malay voters, so this kind of attitude is not a gracious way to thank the voters who had graciously voted for the party candidates regardless of their race and religion. MCA must grow up and stop imitating DAP in debasing Islam and the Malays in trying to win the Chinese votes because it won’t work.  

We are now constitutionally literate and therefore the people are not stupid to easily be fooled by concocted lies. Is it too much for me to hope for leaders to understand and uphold the core principals of my country as clearly stated in the Federal Constitution and stop misinterpreting the supreme law of the land for their political and personal agendas?

Related Posts:

Constitutionally Illiterate!

“We cannot accept Shariah law, for Malaysia already has a supreme law, which is the Federal Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution declares it simply: ‘This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation’,” Baru said as reported by Borneo Post Online with the tittle, “Baru concurs with Abg Jo on concerns over proposed amendment to Act 355”.

Constitutionally illiterate! This senseless statement makes me wonder if the PKR leader knows what he is trying to say. In fighting against a law that has nothing to do with him as a non-Muslim, the PKR man said, “Hadi Awang and Umno may say this is Syariah and not hudud, but as far as I understand it, hudud is part of the Syariah and the proponents had said this bill was to pave way for hudud punishments in Kelantan. This attempt at RUU355 is but a political contest between Umno and PAS to champion the implementation of Syariah Law in Malaysia.”

Yes, Article 4 of the Constitution declares that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation, therefore the Shariah Court system is constitutional because Article 121(1A) confers the Syariah Courts systems as part of the Malaysian legal systems. Federal Constitution as the Supreme law of the land must not be misinterpreted and must be read as a whole.

In the judgement of the Federal Court case, Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, the then Federal Court Judge, DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah stated that, “Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself”. Hence, it is wrong for Baru Bian to cherry-pick what he likes or bypassing other Articles in order to make his own interpretation to suit his argument and agendas.

If Baru Bian respects the Article 4, he must respect the fact that the Article 3(1) that says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” for it is placed before the Article 4, hence stating the importance of Article 3. 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 explained that , “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”. So by denying the acceptance of the Shariah laws, Baru Bian is literally against the Article 3(1) and therefore he is also against Supreme Law of the Federation.

If Baru Bian reads the Federal Constitution, he’ll understand that as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution defines the principles of our country, the sovereignty of Islam as the religion of the country, the sovereignty of the Rulers, the rights of the people, judicial system and other important laws but the Federal Constitution does not describe punishments and offences. It is the judiciary that interprets and applies the law in the name of our country through Act, Ordinance, Enactment and others. And there is no unconstitutional elements in the proposed amendment of the Act 355 because the Act 355 is an existing law, the proposed amendment is only to increase the Syariah punishments which are currently too low and not to introduce new sets of laws or seeks to widen the scope of its current jurisdiction.

Furthermore has Baru Bian forgotten or unaware of Article 11(3)(a) which says every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs? After all, why must the non-Muslims try so hard to deny the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage our own religious affairs as granted by Article 11(3) of our Federal Constitution?

This is not a Hudud Bill and it is impossible for the amendment of Act 355 to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015 because it is not within the power of the Syariah Courts to implement capital punishment nor the jurisdiction over offences punishable under the Penal Code.

So, please stop debasing the Federal Constitution and as a leader, please at least learn to respect and uphold our supreme law.

 

Related Posts:

Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan

Yesterday evening I was stunned when my father showed me a letter that was address to me from former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, in replying to my blog article, Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?

The letter was sent by the Office of Datuk Badariah Arshad, Director of Operations, Perdana Leadership Foundation (Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana) to my father via e-mail, to be forwarded to me.

I want to thank Tun M for writing to me, I am very honoured to receive a letter from a former Prime Minister and to know that someone as important as him reading my blog article.

Below is Tun M’s letter that was addressed to me.

tun-m-letter

 

In my article, I commented that the opposition parties’ agreement, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM that was signed by DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM, had misquoted the Article 3(1) by adding the word ‘bebas‘. Please click here for my article.

In explaining about the added word, Tun M wrote:

It is true that the word “bebas” is not in the sentence referring to Islam as the official religion of the Federation.
But the word “bebas” is not meant for Islam the official religions but for “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity.

From what I understand, Tun M explains that the word, “bebas” in the agreement refers to the freedom to convert to other religion where Tun M further wrote that, “But the word “bebas” was not meant for Islam, but for the followers of “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity”.

I am sad to say that not only Tun M’s explanation does not answer my question, but it also makes the matter more confusing because the fact that the Article 3(1) is the Article that explains about Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions.

Let us take a look of what is stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:

Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan ; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.

or

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

I do not mean to be rude but it seems like Tun M is confused about what is written in the Article 3(1) and therefore Tun M’s explanation about the reason for adding the word “bebas” is totally out of context, because adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) means that the followers of other religions are given the freedom do anything they wish in the name of practising their religions even though if it disrupts the peace and harmony of the community.

Hence, I questioned the opposition parties’ intention of the adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) because the added word “bebas” distorts the interpretation of the Article 3(1) and undermines the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

I have to stress that the Article 3(1) that places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution and that is grouped under Part 1 of the Constitution, must not be confused with the Article regarding the “freedom of religion” which is the Article 11 that is grouped under Part II of the Constitution.

The then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia wrote that:

[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.

And I also wrote that as the supreme law of the Federation, each word in the Articles of the Federal Constitution was chosen for a very specific reason, therefore adding just a word can change the interpretation of the Article and can disrupt other related Articles.

Another important matter that I have to highlight is, it is incorrect to say that Islam is the official religion of the Federation as written by Tun M in his letter because Islam is not merely the official religion, but it is the religion of the Federation as what was said by Tun M himself during his years as the Prime Minister, that Malaysia is a “Negara Islam” .

I made the video below to help people understand that Islam is actually the religion of the Federation because a lot of us are still confused about this important fact.

It seems like Tun M’s principals has changed, for, during Tun M’s reign, in order to maintain peace and harmony among the people in Malaysia, Tun did not give the freedom to the people; but now as a leader of an opposition party, Tun M went against his own principle and is fighting for total freedom.

Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam

After posting my article, “Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)“, I had a discussion with law experts to confirm another part of the agreement that makes me question the intentions of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM  in their chosen words for the agreement in the context of Article 3(1).

In the agreement, it was written, “… dan agama-agama lain … ” whereas in the original text of the Federal Constitution, the Article 3(1) says ” … tetapi agama-agama lain …”; meaning in their agreement, the opposition parties had not only add the word “bebas” but also changed the word “tetapi” (but) to the word “dan” (and). 

These are not small matters, important agreements are written by lawyers and lawyers are very specific in choosing each word for such agreements, to make sure that it covers specifically the important matters that were asked by their clients.

And we as the citizens must know and protect our rights as provided by our Federal Constitution and do not let others fool us with sweet promises of protecting our rights but at the same time cheat us behind our back.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:

Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan ; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.

or

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

As in the case of adding the word, “bebas“ to the Article 3(1), replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” to the same Article seems to reaffirm their intention to rewrite the Article 3(1) and to undermine Islam.

The word “tetapi” in the Article 3(1) signifies the supreme position of Islam as the religion of the Federation as compared to other religions in Malaysia.

So, by replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” in the context of the Article 3(1), the opposition leaders who signed the agreement has distort the interpretation of the Article 3(1) by positioning other religions at the same level as Islam, which is a distortion of the truth; not only to the Article 3(1) but also to our Federal Constitution.

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 has clearly clarified this matter:

Pada pendapat saya “Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” bermakna Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara ini seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu dan selainnya. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain, bukan duduk berganding bahu atau berdiri sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, ia berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati – tinggi, teguh dan terampil. Jika bukan sedemikian Islam bukanlah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di negara ini dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan manamana ugama yang dianutinya, tiada lebih satu dari yang lain. Peruntukan ‘Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan’ hendaklah ditakrif dan ditinjau tujuannya dengan membaca bersama peruntukan lain dalam Perlembagaan khususnya Perkara 89, 152, 153 dan 14.

Hence, the intention of the phrase, “but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” in the Article 3(1) is to specify that even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, people of other religions are allowed to practise their religions but their actions must be in peace and harmony with the people of other religions, especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation; and not to give them the freedom to do anything they wish.

In other words, even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, Malaysia does not discriminate people of other religions, they are allowed to the practise their religions as long as they obey the laws and not to do things that have “the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community”.

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 states:

[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.

In fact, by doing what some people may think as small changes, the oppositions are not only giving a totally different meaning to the Article 3(1) but they are also interfering with other important Articles in the Federal Constitution such as Article 10(2), 11(4), 153 and others; as the Articles of the Federal Consitution cannot stand alone or cannot be read singularly, but must be read as a whole because each Article are ‘connected’ with other Articles.

In the judgement of the Federal Court case, Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, the then Federal Court Judge, DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah stated:

Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself.

So when they replace the word “tetapi” with the word “dan”, they are positioning other religions at par with Islam which is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and by adding the word “bebas” to the same Article, they are giving the freedom to people of other religions to do whatever they want in the name of practising their religions even though it can cause disorder in the community.

As stated by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the “Freedom of other Religions” which is Article 11 is subjected to Islam since Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution is “within the confines of Part I of the Constitution” while Article 11 is under the Part 2 of the Constitution.

[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.

Just one word can make a very big different, and in this case, not only it distorts the interpretation of Article 3(1) and interfere with other Articles of the Federal Constitution but discriminate and take away the rights of the Muslims as provided by the Federal Constitution.

Since in the “Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM”, the leaders of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM on behalf of their parties agree to uphold the Federal Constitution, “Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan bebas, aman dan damai di negara ini sejajar dengan Perkara 3”, the people must understand that DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM only vow to uphold their edited version of the Article 3(1) and not the one that is written in our Federal Constitution.

This action by them is consistent with their stance that Malaysia is a secular country whereas Malaysia is not and has never been a secular country.

Related Article:

Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”

In preserving a harmonious country, the people of Malaysia from all faiths and races must uphold the Federal Constitution, respect each other, obey the laws of our country and must not insult others.

As a person in his position who always talks about unity and harmony, Hermen Shastri must not insult the Muslims by making rude, harsh and false accusations regarding the Syariah punishments as well as the PAS president’s Bill.

After all, why must non-Muslims try so hard to deny the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage our own religious affairs as written in Article 11(3) of our Federal Constitution?

In its article, “In plea to MPs, CCM says Hadi’s Bill will ‘radically’ rewrite constitution”, Malay Mail Online (MMO) wrote:

Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM)’s secretary-general, Reverend Dr Hermen Shastri recently claimed that a vote for the Act 355 Bill which was tabled by PAS’ president, Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi will “radically” rewrite the Federal Constitution, urging MPs to not look at the Bill lightly and instead view it with “great concern and alarm” – Malay Mail Online.

MMO later quoted Shastri as saying:

“Hadi’s Bill is not just about upgrading the power of the Shariah Courts, it is rewriting the constitution in a radical way,” – Malay Mail Online.

Now, what does the CCM leader’s intention of using the words, “… in a radical way” when Hadi’s Bill is in no way will bring any changes to the Constitution?

The fact is, the Bill is only to increase the Syariah punishments which maximum punishments are currently too low and not to introduce new sets of laws.

MMO also wrote that:

Shastri pointed out that Shariah Courts were established and regulated by state laws, and that their powers and offences were defined by the Federal Constitution – Malay Mail Online.

The Bill will not change this fact, the Shariah Courts will still be regulated by State laws while the Civil Courts will still be regulated by Federal laws.

bill

Worse, Herman Shastri’s wild accusation gives the implications to people who believe his words that those who are telling the truth about the Bill are liars; which will cause anger and hatred that can divide the people.

According to MMO:

He added that the ramification to widen Islamic laws was not only limited to those who are Muslims – Malay Mail Online.

Another false statement because under the laws of Malaysia, non-Muslims are not subjected to the Syariah Laws.

Section 2 of the Act 355 clearly says that the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over the non-Muslims and Hadi’s Bill is not about amending the Section 2 of the Act 355 to give the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction over the non-Muslims.

Also said by Shastri:

“Once we lose the balance between Syariah and Civil Courts as set forth in our Federal Constitution, it is going to lead to a dangerous path of conflicting jurisdictions; forms of punishment not acceptable in modern societies; and erosion against the liberal secular status of the Constitution and its impact especially on the states of Sabah and Sarawak,”

~Malay Mail Online

Firstly, what does the CCM’s secretary-general mean by “forms of punishment not acceptable in modern societies”?

From the above sentence, I understand the above rude phrase is written in reference to the Syariah punishment, which is clearly an insult to Islam, the religion of the Federation and to the Muslims who believe in the teaching of Islam.

Is insulting and scoffing at other religions an attitude that is “acceptable in modern societies”?

There is no case of “… erosion against the liberal secular status of the Constitution”, because the status of our Federal Constitution is neither liberal nor secular since Article 3(1) of our Federal Constitution stated that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

In fact, the words liberal and secular have never been mentioned in our Federal Constitution.

To understand a secular constitution, please refer to the constitution of the United States of America and read the interesting case about Mount Soledad.

As a CCM leader, Hermen Shastri must be really careful of what he said, especially when commenting about other religions, please do not scoff at or insult other religion.

Do not insult others and learn to respect the constitutional rights of others.

He must get his facts right from the people who understand the matter for if not, not only it will be a pointless statement which doesn’t make any sense but it will also cause anger and hatred.

The rights of the Muslims to be governed by the Islamic law is granted under the Federal Constitution of our country.

In the judgement of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, the Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif concluded:

Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law.

Hadi’s Bill only concerns the lives of the Muslims and we are not disturbing people of other faith.

We want to prevent and solve social problems among the Muslims as some offences punishable by the Syariah Courts are not considered as offences under civil law, such as Muslims drinking alcohol in public which can also cause problems to non-Muslims as in the cases of violence when they are drunk.

So why must it become a problem to non-Muslims when the Muslim are working to solve our social problems and helping each other to become better Muslims and better human being?

Are the people who are against the Bill are against the faithful Muslims?

Related Posts:

Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School

Moderation in Islam means wasatiyyah and not being liberal as understood by G25.

G25 members who are trying to teach other Muslims about moderation in Islam must seek advises from Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMM) to understand what is ‘moderation’ in Islam. 

In its latest attack on the Islamic authorities of Malaysia, G25 wants the punishment for ‘khalwat’ to be repeal on the ground of “those are personal sins”; and in response to the statement, Mufti Perak, Tan Sri Dr. Harussani Zakaria adviced G25 to “bertaubat”.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Free Malaysia Today (FMT)’s article (in red) regarding this issue.

PETALING JAYA: A “personal sin” like khalwat (close proximity) is between the couple involved and God and should not be treated like a crime punishable by the state, said the G25 movement of Malay moderates.

Speaking on their behalf was Noor Farida Ariffin, who was quoted by The Rakyat Post as saying, “Those are personal sins. It’s a sin against God. Between that person and God.”

Does Datuk Noor Farida mean to say that khalwat is just “personal sin” and is not punishable by the State according to the Islamic laws? Now, is she trying to liberalise the Islamic laws or she knows nothing about the Islamic laws? Datuk Noor Farida must understand that the Islamic laws cannot be changed. Muslims must live according to the rules of Islam and not the other way around.

Khalwat is against the Islamic laws, so it is punishable by the State in Malaysia because as an Islamic country, Muslims in this country are also governed by the Islamic personal law as written by The Right Honourable Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Md Raus bin Sharif in the Federal Court judgement of the case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor:

“Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law”.

In Malaysia, we have the Syariah Court that deals with the Islamic laws, and it has the jurisdiction upon every Muslim in this country. 

Questioning why it was turned into a crime, she added, “Islam says you could not intrude on personal space.”

Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, who does not understand Islam and the Islamic laws should not speak about matters that she knows nothing about. Rather than making her own conclusion and judgement about khalwat and other Islamic laws, she should go to JAKIM and ask for help to guide her to the right path of Islam. She really needs help.

She said this at a press conference after a G25 forum on “Islam in a Constitutional Democracy” and noted that Malaysia was the only country in the world that punished those involved in khalwat.

Datuk Noor Farida must do her homework. Countries that observe the Islamic laws in their legal systems, will punish those involved in khalwat, for example Saudi Arabia and Brunei. 

“This is against Islam. You cannot knock at a person’s door at 3am and arrest people.”

Does she mean that actions taken by the Islamic authorities against khalwat (that is against the Islamic law) is against Islam? She is really confused between what are the rights and wrongs in Islam. It is her statements that is actually against Islam.

She also said there was a need to review other syariah laws that trespassed on the Federal Constitution and pointed out that even non-Muslims were being affected by the Islamic law presently.

All the Articles in the Federal Constitution are harmoniously with each other. The Syariah laws does not trespassed the Federal Constitution because the Article 3(1) states that Islam is the religion of the Federation, hence the other Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read harmoniously with Article 3(1).

In fact, the Federal Constitution recognises the Syariah Court as stated in the Article 121(1)(1a) of the Federal Constitution:

121. (1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely—

(a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Malaya as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine; and

(b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine;

(1a) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.

The Syariah laws only govern the Muslims and does not affect the non-Muslims.

She cited the incidents of dead bodies being snatched for Muslim burials and custody issues when one spouse converts to Islam and explained, “This is the kind of injustices we want to prevent.

Datuk Noor Farida must get her facts rights. This is a malicious distortion of truth used again and again to undermine the Islamic religious authorities even after the Islamic religious authorities had answered the accusations. When the Islamic authorities receive a report, it is their duty to investigate and to take proper actions to solve the problems.

“The way Islam is being implemented under syariah law is resulting in a lot of injustice to Muslims and non-Muslims.

Datuk Noor Farida must learn more about Islam and the implementation of the syariah laws in Malaysia before making more silly statements. Only the Muslims who do not love their religion and do not want Islam as the way of life are against the implementation of the Syariah laws in their countries.

“This is why people are saying that Islam has been hijacked by state authorities,” she said, adding that the way it was being interpreted did not uphold the values of Islam as a religion of justice, mercy and compassion.

People made all kinds of statements and accusations regarding matters which are not agreeable to them; so Datuk Noor Farida must specify who are the people who made the above statements.

She must mix around with more Muslims and attend programs organised by Islamic groups rather than only making friends with the people who subscribe to the liberal ideology in order to see things straight. 

Rukun Negara, The Foundation Of The Federal Constitution

How could a person talk about our national unity if the person does not understand the Rukun Negara or the National Principles of Malaysia?

Do all citizens of Malaysia memorised the five principles of our Rukun Negara and understand the importance of the principles in building a harmonious society where people respect each other regardless of our different races and religions?

In my opinion, all Malaysian must all least memorise the the five principles of Rukun Negara, which is the basic pillar of our nation.

Below is what I understand about our Rukun Negara after studying to a talk by Aunty Prof. Syamrahayu Abdul Aziz.

MAKA KAMI, rakyat Malaysia, berikrar akan menumpukan seluruh tenaga dan usaha kami untuk mencapai cita-cita tersebut berdasarkan atas prinsip-prinsip yang berikut :

  • KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA TUHAN;
  • KESETIAAN KEPADA RAJA DAN NEGARA;
  • KELUHURAN PERLEMBAGAAN;
  • KEDAULATAN UNDANG-UNDANG;
  • KESOPANAN DAN KESUSILAAN

The first principle of the Rukun Negara is “Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan” or “Belief in God”, which is in consistent with Article 11 of our Federal Constitution.

“Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan” means that all Malaysians must belief in god or in another word, every citizen of Malaysia must has a religious belief; we must remember that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is about “Freedom of Religion”, and not “Freedom from Religion”.

Religions tie us to god and and teach us to obey rules; religious people respect others, do not humiliate or cause trouble with others, including those from different races and religions.

Therefore, atheism is not recognised in Malaysia as it is against the first principle of Rukun Negara as well as the Article 11 of our Federal Constitution.

The second principle of the Rukun Negara is “Kesetiaan kepada Raja dan Negara” or “Loyalty to the King and Country”.

This is very important because the royal institution is the key to the stability of our country.

Article 32 of The Federal Constitution says that the King or the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is the Supreme Head of the Federation, so loyalty the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong also means loyalty to the country.

How could a person says that he or she is loyal to a country if he or she is not loyal to the Supreme Head of the country?

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 153, is the caretaker of the rights of the people of all races in Malaysia as agreed in the Social Contract or agreement made by our great forefathers in giving the citizenship to the non-citizen migrants before our Merdeka Day.

Article 153 (1) states that:

It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

Article 153 protects the rights of all races of Malaysians; so the Article unites the citizens of Malaysia as it ties us to our rights and at the same time we respect the rights of others.

Questioning the Article 153 is against the national unity because it is also questioning the citizenship given to the Chinese and the Indians; and that must not happen because all of us have our own rights as agreed by our forefathers.

A person is worthless if he or she demands his or her rights as a citizen but is not loyal to his or her country.

The third principle of the Rukun Negara is “Keluhuran Perlembagaan” or “Upholding the Constitution”.

Article 4 of the Federal Constitution states that the Federal Constitution is the “Supreme law of the Federation”, therefore it must be upheld by each and every citizen of Malaysia.

Article 4(1) states that:

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.

Apart from being the supreme law, the Federal Constitution is also an agreement between us as the citizen and our nation; and upholding the Constitutions means that we must put the national interests and the loyalty to the Federation above others including our ‘states sentiments’. 

Honest people will uphold their promises at all time, so good citizens must uphold the Federal Constitution at all time; and respect all the Articles that had been agreed upon by our forefathers.

The fourth principle is “Kedaulatan Undang-Undang” or “Rule of Law”.

“Kedaulatan Undang-Undang” means that every citizen must respect the law, is subjected to the law and that our country must be governed by law.

If a person, even if he is a party leader was found guilty by the Federal Court which is the highest court of our country, he must respect the rule of law and not asking foreign powers to interfere with the law of our country; for all citizens must not only uphold the rule of law but must protect the sovereignty of our country. 

The last principle of the Rukun Negara is “Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan” or “Good Behaviour and Morality”.

“Kesopanan dan kesusilaan” is the key to a harmonious society that is the core factor in ensuring the stability of a nation. 

It is impossible to live harmoniously in a country where each and every citizen exercises personal total freedom without thinking of others, either freedom of speech or freedom of expression because we will be end up hurting each other for our needs and interests are different.

Living in society, we cannot be individualistic and selfish but we need to also respect the rights of others in consistent to the Federal Constitution and the rule of law of the nation.

In fact, the Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia states the limits of one’s freedom of speech and expression.

Therefore, liberalism is against our Rukun Negara and our Federal Constitution because the liberalists want to be free from rules either rules of religion or rules of the country; and interpret all matters only the way they wish, according to their own personal interests.

Rukun Negara as the foundation of the agreement in forming the Federal Constitution must be understood and upheld by all Malaysian citizens.

* I want to thank Aunty Sham for helping me to understand the Rukun Negara that helps me to write this assignment given by my mother.

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

Tony Pua Hina Khutbah Jumaat?

DAP’s MP of Petaling Jaya Utara, Tony Pua Kiam Wee made a very silly statement in his Facebook page.

On Friday, February 14, 2014, JAKIM’s Friday sermon talked about why Muslims must not celebrate Valentine’s day.

Look at what Tony Pua wrote:

Image from Tonu Pua's Facebook.
Image from Tonu Pua’s Facebook.

From what he wrote, he clearly try to mock JAKIM especially by writing:

“Oh no. I feel so unclean and immoral now I might just burn in hell.”

May be Tony Pua does not know that Friday sermons are read in the mosques and to be addressed to the Muslims and not to the non-Muslims like him.

Is it fair for a Malaysian politician like Tony Pua to mock other people’s religion especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation?

DAP always talks about Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution and now what is Tony Pua’s right to interfere with another religion which is not his?

Freedom of Speech? 

What would he say if a Muslim politician from UMNO make such an open rude statements to make fun of his religion?

On top of that, Tony Pua had clearly humiliate Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that says:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Apart from mocking Islam, Tony Pua also failed to understand the phrase, “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.

A very senior lawyer, Uncle Naser Disa says “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” means that people from other religions must practise their religions in peace and harmony with others from different religions especially Islam, which is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia.

Is Tony Pua proud of mocking other people’s religion?

But what about his integrity?

Well, may be integrity means nothing to him.

I wonder if Hannah Yeoh will call Tony Pua a racist?