“Malaysia was created as a secular nation” – Aidil Khalid Answers Clive Kessler

21 01 2016

On January 19, 2016, The Malay Mail Online published an article by Clive Kessler, “Enough of this nonsense! Malaysia was created as a secular nation”.

Stating that ,” Malaya and then Malaysia was created as a secular nation”, Clive Kessler who is an Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales maliciously called Uncle Azril Mohd Amin as a “creative legal innovators and myth-maker” when it is him (Clive Kessler) himself who had maliciously distorted the facts about the Federal Constitution of Malaysia in his article.

I sent the article to Uncle Azril and he sent me Uncle Aidil Khalid’s statement:

It was with interest, if also great bemusement, that I read the article entitled “Enough of this nonsense! Malaysia was created as a secular nation” by Professor Clive Kessler and published on January 19, 2016 in The Malay Mail Online. Without citing any binding or persuasive legal authorities whatsoever, the professor had had the audacity to dismiss those affirming the constitutional position of Islam as the religion of the Federation (and thus rejecting the alleged secular notion of our nation), like Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar of the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association and Azril Mohd Amin of the Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy, as mere “creative legal innovators and myth makers.”In 2014, I wrote an article, also published in The Malay Mail Online, entitled “Wither the Myth of a Secular Nation”, wherein I argued that the secular notion of our nation is actually a myth not supported by any legal or constitutional basis. I shall reconstruct my arguments therein, albeit trancated, as a response to Professor Kessler herein, but for a more complete and holistic perspective, it is advisable to read my full arguments there.When one reads the provisions of the Federal Constitution, it is important that the provisions be read as it is, and not to disingenuouosly add words that are not there just to satisfy a certain ideology that one believes in. In Dato’ Menteri Othman bin Baginda & Anor v Dato’ Ombi Syed Alwi bin Syed Idrus [1981] 1 MLJ 29, the Late Royal Highness Raja Azlan Shah (as HRH then was) cautioned that “[r]espect must be paid to the language which has been used and to the traditions and usages which have given meaning to that language.”In this regard, a plain reading of the language used in Article 3(1) says that “Islam is the religion of the Federation.” So to suggest, as Professor Kessler did, that Islam is merely the “official emblamatic religion” of Malaysia, when neither the word ‘official’ nor ‘emblamatic’ ever appeared in the provision, is nothing short of constitutional fraud, not to mention intellectual dishonesty. It makes a world of a difference here, between the former and the latter.

Islam is the religion of Malaysia and not merely the official religion of Malaysia, please watch my latest video: 





Is Proham Secretary-General Questioning Rights Of The Rulers?

24 11 2014

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.





NaPoWriMo Poem #19: A Fighter

19 04 2014

I know a brave man,
I know him very well,
He fights in a court,
For he is a lawyer.

He fights for what is right,
No matter what people say,
Meeting people and giving talks,
Almost everyday.

He’s tall and smart,
But not too thin,
And his name is,
Azril Mohd Amin

Uncle Azril and I during the Forum Islam Dan Cabaran Semasa – Polemik Isu Kalimah Allah.

Uncle Azril and I during the Forum Islam Dan Cabaran Semasa – Polemik Isu Kalimah Allah.





Photos: Sidang Media & Majlis Kesyukuran Muslim UPRo

30 03 2014
My photo before the program started.

My photo before the program started.

On March 27, 2014, I attended the Muslim UPRo press conference at the Hotel Putra in Kuala Lumpur.

The speakers were Azril Mohd Amin, Nasharudin Mat Isa and A. Karim Omar.

The Muslim UPRO committee members.

The Muslim UPRO committee members.

Before the program started, I spoke to Uncle Zul Noordin and I asked him a few political questions since he was one of Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers before he left Anwar.

Uncle Zul answering some of my questions.

Uncle Zul answering some of my questions.

We also talked about current political issues, like PRK Kajang together with Uncle Nasha, Uncle Jinggo and Uncle Sheikh Karim.

The former Director of Criminal Investigation and Commissioner of Police for the Royal Malaysia Police, Tan Sri Zaman Khan was also there and he advised me to eat more vitamins after Uncle Zul told him that I am a blogger.

Discussing about the current political issues with politicians. From left is Uncle Nasharudin Mat Isa, Uncle Sheikh Karim, Uncle Zul Noordin and I

Discussing about the current political issues with politicians. From left is Uncle Nasharudin Mat Isa, Uncle Sheikh Karim, Uncle Zul Noordin and I

Listening to Uncle Azril's briefing on the UPR process that had taken place in Geneva recently.

Listening to Uncle Azril’s briefing on the UPR process that had taken place in Geneva recently.

Listening to the briefing by the Muslim UPRO committee members.

Listening to the briefing by the Muslim UPRO committee members.

Briefing by the Muslim UPRO secretary general.

Briefing by the Muslim UPRO secretary general.

Uncle Nasha briefs us about the UPR process and COMANGO.

Uncle Nasha briefs us about the UPR process and COMANGO.

Uncle Zul sharing ideas with the Muslim UPRO committee members.

Uncle Zul sharing ideas with the Muslim UPRO committee members.





Seminar Islam dan Isu-Isu Hak Asasi Manusia

15 03 2014

On Wednesday, I attended the Seminar Islam dan Isu-Isu Hak Asasi Manusia which was organised by MuslimUPRo and YADIM.

The seminar was held at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia or National University of Malaysia and I was invited to the seminar by Uncle Azril Mohd Amin.

I do not agree with one of the speakers during the morning session who said that Islam is the official religion of Malaysia; when Islam is actually the religion of the Federation of Malaysia.

Atuk Mansur tried to point her mistake, but she insisted that Islam is only the official religion of Malaysia and used Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh VS Public Prosecutor to prove her case.

This case is used by the people who are against the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country because the judge, Tun Saleh Abbas said that Malaysia uses secular rules.

Anyway, Tun Saleh Abbas did not say that Malaysia is a secular country as what they claim was proven by this case.

But Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh VS Public Prosecutor is no longer a good law because it was decided before the coming into effect of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

Now we have more recent cases, to refer to, for example the cases of Meor Atiqulrahman v Fatimah Sihi and others and Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan.

In Meor Atiqul Rahman vs Fatimah Sihi and others, the judge, Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah said:

Islam ialah ugama bagi persekutuan tapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dalam aman dan damai. Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain. bukan duduk berganding bahu dengan agama lain atau berdiri sama sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan, dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati. Tinggi, teguh, dan terang. Jika bukan sedemikian, Islam bukanlah ugama bagi persekutuan, tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di wilayah ini, dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan mana-mana ugama yang dianuti. Tiada lebih di antara satu sama lain.”

And in the case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, the then Chief Justice, Yang Amat Arif Tun Ahmad Fairus said:

“Islam itu bukan sahaja suatu himpunan dogma-dogma dan ritual-ritual tetapi ianya juga suatu cara hidup yang lengkap merangkumi semua bidang aktiviti manusia, persendirian dan awam, perundangan, politik, ekonomi, sosial, budaya, moral atau kehakiman etc.”

I do not understand why a Muslim does not want to accept Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution that says, Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia.

By the way, I met Datuk Abdul Malik Mydin who was with Uncle Zul Noordin at the seminar. 

Datuk Abdul Malik Mydin the first Malaysian and Southeast Asian to swim across the English Channel on August 3, 2003.





Azril – Taklimat UPR kpd NGO Islam

30 09 2013




PPMM’s NGI Round Table Discussion On UPR Human Rights Council 2013

23 01 2013
Uncle Azril Mohd. Amin (L) and I at the Auditorium Utama, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa.

Uncle Azril Mohd. Amin (L) and I (R) during the Forum Islam Dan Cabaran Semasa – Polemik Isu Kalimah Allah at the Auditorium Utama, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa.

I was very proud and honoured when the vice-president of Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia (PPMM), Uncle Azril Mohd Amin invited us to a round table meeting organised by PPMM at the Putrajaya Marriott Hotel yesterday.

It was a closed discussion and lots of lawyers were there as well as some Islamic NGOs or  NGIs activists.

My siblings and I were the only kids and teens whom were invited to that important discussion.

It was a great experience but I am sad because I don’t really understand what Uncle Azril said in his speech as he was speaking  in Malay language, using difficult words.

And I can’t even read words on the English written slide show for I forgot to wear my glasses.

But fortunately Uncle Azril, my parents and my big sisters helped me to understand more about the it later on.

What was discussed was about the demands made by the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the Universal Periodic Review Process (COMANGO) and also about the treaty made by the United Nations regarding LGBT which Malaysia haven’t sign because Malaysia is an Islamic country.

I was shocked when I read the demands made by COMANGO.

I think that most of the demands are unfair and bias because lots of them are against the human rights of most Malaysian and also against our Federal Constitution.

Furthermore a lot of important NGOs are not part of COMANGO, so COMANGO does not represend the voice of the majority of Malaysian.

Is it fair to force a sovereign country to change parts of its Federal Constitution and to go against the human rights of the majority of its citizens or robbing their human rights; just to a make small group of people happy?

How about my human rights if their demands were accepted; because some of their demands are against my human rights.

As a citizen, I also want my human rights to be protected even though I am just a kid and I do not want my human rights to be robbed by others who fight for their own agendas.

The United Nations must understand that every country is unique and the values and the needs of its citizens is different from others so nobody must be forced to accept a universal value as the only standard of human rights.

If Malaysian eat rice, nobody must force us to eat bread instead of rice; so if Malaysia do not accept or recognise certain values, nobody must rob our rights by forcing Malaysia to accept the values.

I want to thank Uncle Azril for inviting me to the discussion because it was an important discussion about an interesting topic about Human Rights, and I learned a lot of thing from it.








%d bloggers like this: