Tag: Court of Appeal

Apabila Buku Teks Undang-Undang Tidak Berperlembagaan

For my 14th birthday this year, my eldest sister gave me a law textbook entitled “A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System”, written by Wan Arfah Hamzah and published by Oxford Fajar.

I was very excited to receive a book on the subject that is close to my heart, and so I began reading the book.

As I reached the fourth paragraph of page four, I noticed something peculiar:

“The federation is a secular state (see below, pp 162-3). It is not an Islamic state (an indispensable feature of which is the supremacy of the Syariah or Islamic law). In Malaysia the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law. Far from being the supreme law, Islamic law is not even the basic of the law of the land, ie the law of the general application. The basic law of Malaysia is the common law—the principles of which have their origins in England”

~Page 4 – A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System

It is very alarming that a law text book can make such a dreadful mistake in defining the core principal of our country.

The point is, does the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of the Federation, ever define Malaysia as a secular country?

To understand more about secular countries, please click here for: “Malaysia Bukan Sekular“

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

In reference to the ideology of our country, the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that:

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

In actual fact, without doubt, the Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim that says Malaysia is a secular state; for a country cannot be a secular state when it has a specific state religion, in this case Islam which makes Malaysia an Islamic state.

Anybody who reads the Federal Constitution, will find out that the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution but Islam is mentioned again and again through out the Constitution, proving the importance of Islam as the basic structures of the Constitution.

The Federal Constitution must be read as a whole and no provision can be considered in isolation, as stated by then President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif  in the Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor:

It is an established principle of constitutional construction that no one provision of the Federal Constitution can be considered in isolation. That particular provision must be brought into view with all the other provisions bearing upon that particular subject. This Court in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 257, applied the principle of considering the Constitution as a whole in determining the true meaning of a particular provision. This Court held:-

“A study of two or more provisions of a Constitution together in order to arrive at the true meaning of each of them is an established rule of constitutional construction. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to Bindra’s Interpretaion of Statue 7th Ed which says at page 947-948″

It is absurd to conclude that Malaysia is a secular country because of “the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law” for the Article 4 in no way dispute the constitutionality of the Article 3(1); and the fact that Malaysia has both the civil and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

The fact is, it is the Article 4 that intensify the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country because 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 than the Article 4.

Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be read and interpreted subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation as 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

In answering the argument regarding the intention of the Reid Commission, first we have to understand that it is the Royal Rulers and not the Reid Commission who are the real stake holders of our country.

The Reid Commission was only given the responsibilities to draft the Federal Constitution but it is the Malay Royal Rulers who had the rights to make the final say on the matter as well as to give the endorsements for the words to be written in the Federal Constitution.

It is vital to note that both the Reid Commission and the Cobbold Commission are neither law makers nor the state holders of our country, hence their words and intentions are not laws, therefore their intentions cannot change the words written in the supreme law of our Nation.

As for claiming that Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v. Public Prosecutor defines Malaysia as a secular country, this is a very lame argument with no valid fact to justify the claim.

In the Supreme Court decision of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55, the Judge, Tun Salleh Abbas only said that Malaysia follows the secular laws from the British, and did not say that Malaysia is a secular state; so how could this case be used to prove something that was not even stated in the judgement?

Furthermore, this is an old case which is no longer a good law.

We must look at the judgments of other more important and prominent later court cases including the Court of Appeal case of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Binti Sihi & Ors, High Court case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, Federal and Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and a lot more that clearly prove that Malaysia is an Islamic country.

In fact, the fact that it is the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam also denies that Malaysia is a secular country.

This 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.”

In a secular state, not only the government has no constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of a particular religion, but it is wrong for the government to do so.

Apart from Article 3(1), the Articles 11(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and a lot more further prove that Malaysia is and was meant to be an Islamic state and not a secular state; unless the book tries to redefine ‘secularism’ or implying that the Articles 3(1), 1(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and others related to Islam are unconstitutional.

Such severe mistake in the law textbook regarding the ideology of our country that contradicts the Federal Constitution should not have happened because all Malaysian must respect and uphold the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and making such a mistake regarding the core principle of our country is really uncalled for.

We surely do not need constitutionally illiterate lawyers!

Related Posts:

 

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:

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:

Murid Lelaki Beruniform Perempuan Ke Sekolah?

On Friday, the Court of Appeal lead by Justice Mohd Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus ruled that punishing transgenders for cross-dressing contravenes freedom of expression.

Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus said:

“A person’s dress, attire or article of clothing are a form of expression, which in our view is guaranteed under Article 10 (freedom of expression)” – The Star.

Now I wonder, if it is legal to cross-dress, then will it one day be legal to cross-dress to school in Malaysia?

Since punishing transgenders for cross-dressing contravenes freedom of expression, will it be okay for a school boy to wear a female’s uniform to school or vice versa?

Logically, if cross-dressing is ruled as a part of the transgenders’ freedom of expression, then surely others including students have that rights too, right?

Imagine what will happens if one day a student cross-dress to school and says that it is his or her rights to cross-dress?

Nauzubillah.

The Court Of Appeal Recognises SOGI Rights?

Star 1

In the above article, The Star reported that in a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal lead by Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus ruled that punishing transgenders for cross-dressing contravenes freedom of expression.

I was really shocked to hear the news because the transgenders and two of the three judges are Muslims and Malaysia is an Islamic country.

As a Muslim, I am sad with the ruling:

  1.  Isn’t the freedom of expression for the Muslims must be in accordance with the rule of Islam? Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation”; and since LGBT is against the teaching of Islam, it contravenes with Article 3(1). How could cross-dressing be a part of freedom of expression for the Muslims when it is against their religion and also the religion of the of the Federation?
  2. Muslims must understand that we must obey the rules of Islam and not the total freedom as in human rights that is against Islam. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action says, “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated…  While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.” So I think that freedom of expression must be in accordance with a person’s “national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds”.
  3. LGBT is against Malaysia’s, cultural and religious backgrounds; particularly the Muslims. And it can cause uneasiness to others and can cause unpeaceful situation.

Comparing this case to Meor Atiqulrahman and others vs Fatimah Sihi and others, is cross-dressing that important in someone’s life that they have the rights to do that even though it is against the law? In Meor Atiqulrahman and others vs Fatimah Sihi and others; Meor Atiqulrahman, his brother and cousin wore ‘serban’ in school. Serban is not a part of the school’s uniform and the rule is to wear uniform to school. Their headmistress told them to wear songkok instead but they did not listen. The headmistress told their parents to send them to another school and did not let them come the school again.

When it was brought to the court, Meor Atiqulrahman was not allowed to wear serban to school because although ‘serban’ is related to Islam, it is not a main part of the practice of Islam. And wearing ‘serban’ broke the school’s law.

Like wearing serban to Meor Atiqulrahman’s school, wearing other gender’s clothing is also against the law. So how can wearing other gender’s clothing be right when it is against the law and the rights of other people living in the same community? Imagine if a man in woman’s clothing enters a woman’s toilet because he dresses as a woman. Isn’t that contravenes the freedom of other women in the toilet? And what will happen in ‘surau’ and mosques? This matter is very serious because if this happens, it will involve the ‘aurat’ of others.

Malaysian government does not sign the SOGI Rights (Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity) and Malaysia does not legalise LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer). SOGI Rights is a part of Liberalism and Liberalism is against the teaching of Islam.

#MH370: Britain’s The Mail Owned By UMNO?

Frontpage news: The story that was published on The Mail On Sunday. (Credit to The Star for the image)
Frontpage news: The story that was published on The Mail On Sunday. (Credit to The Star for the image)

PKR leaders are furious when Britain’s The Mail on Sunday published, “Doomed Airliner Pilot Was Political Fanatic” on its front page.

The article stated that the missing MH370 pilot, Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah is “a political fanatic” and an “obsessive” supporter of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

It also reported that the pilot had attended Anwar’s trial at the Court of Appeal and could had been very upset over the court decision hours before he piloted the plane to Beijing.

The Star reported that Anwar rubbished the claims and blamed Umno for creating the perception.

PKR’s Fahmi Fadzil, Tian Chua, N. Surendran, Dr Afif Bahardin, Peter Chong and Datuk Abdul Malik Abul Kassim and PAS’s Suhaizan Kaiat also gave strong statements against the report.

I wonder why are they so ‘aggressive’ over the news when PKR are fighting for the freedom of press?

The report only said that the pilot is a political fanatic and an obsessive supporter Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim; well I’m sure he is not the only person who is a ‘political fanatic and an obsessive supporter Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’ – if not how could Anwar claims that a lot of people support him?

Anwar says that he wants press freedom in Malaysia and that overseas medias enjoy the press freedom, so now, why must he be furious and put the blame on UMNO?

Or is UMNO the owner of Britain’s The Mail?

Photos: Federal Court Reserves Judgement On ‘Allah’ Case

Solat hajat at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, March 5, 2014.
Solat hajat at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, March 5, 2014.

This morning I went to the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya for the hearing of the “Allah” case.

The Federal Court has reserved judgement in the leave application by Catholic weekly Herald to challenge the Home Ministry over the ban on the use of the word “Allah”.

The seven-man panel are Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria, Court of Appeal president Justice Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Justices Suriyadi Halim Omar, Zainun Ali and Jeffrey Tan.

Below are some of the photos that I snapped.

Please click the photos for larger images.

Please click here for more photos.

Has The Selangor MB Forgotten His 10 ‘Aku Janji’?

Malaysian Insider - Sultan Selangor gesa Herald Bible Melayu henti guna kalimah Allah
Malaysian Insider, Nov 14, 2013.

In the above article, Malaysian Insider reported that the Sultan of Selangor told the Herald and Malay Bible to stop using the word Allah as the translation of the word god.

NST reported that the Sultan of Selangor said:

“This is because ‘Kalimah Allah’ for the Muslims refers to the ‘One God’, prescribed in the Surah Al-Ikhlas (in the Al-Quran).
The people of Selangor, especially, must respect and adhere to the ‘muzakarah’ (decision) made by the National Fatwa Committee, Selangor Fatwa Committee, laws as well as the unanimous decision made by the Court of Appeal in the case involving the Home Minister and eight others versus the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur on Oct 14, 2013.”

On October 14, 2013, the Court of Appeal ruled unanimously against allowing the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” in its weekly publication the Herald; Justice Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali said:

“It is our common finding that the usage of the name ‘Allah’ is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity. From such finding, we find no reason why the respondent is so adamant to use the name ‘Allah’ in their weekly publication. Such usage, if allowed, will inevitably cause confusion within the community.”

What he said is true for Allah is not the name of Christian god and the translation of the word god to the Malay language is tuhan and not Allah; in fact a lot of Christians outside of Malaysia think that it is wrong to call Christian god as Allah.

But some Christians in Selangor do not respect the Sultan’s decree and the ruling made by the Court of Appeal and still want to call their god Allah.

Malaysian Insider - Kami akan terus guna kalimah Allah di gereja Selangor, kata paderi|Dec 27 2013
Malaysian Insider, Dec 27, 2013.

We must understand that as the head of state of Selangor, the Sultan of Selangor is also Selangor’s head of the religion of Islam; so it is the Sultan’s duty to protect Islam; and the Sultan has the rights to do so according the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

And Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution gives the Sultan Selangor the rights to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam in Selangor.

So to the Christians in Selangor, please respect the Sultan of Selangor as he is our head of state and please respect the laws of Malaysia.

I really hope Selangor’s Menteri Besar has not forgotten the 10 undertakings that he pledged to the Sultan of Selangor on May 14, 2013.

Photo from Jinggo Fotopages
Photo from Jinggo Fotopages