Does Teresa Kok Understand English?

13 03 2017

On March 11, 2017, the DAP Seputeh MP said on her Facebook page that, “This case tells us that Syariah laws will affect non-Muslims in the end…..” with a photo of a man being caned in Aceh.

I wonder if Teresa Kok read the News Asiaone report before making her posting because  News Asiaon reported that the two men chose to be punished under the Syariah laws instead of Indonesian national legal system.

If Teresa Kok understands English, she’ll know that the Buddhists themselves chose to be caned instead of jailed.

Maybe Teresa Kok is trying to relate the news to the amendment of Act 355 in order to scare the non-Muslims that in the end, it will affect them as well.

If so, it is another dirty tactic to spew hatred towards the Muslims who are fighting for the Act 355 to be amended because:

  1. The amendment of Act 355 will not broaden the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court beyond its current limit but it will only increase its punishment limits to the Muslims who are under the jurisdiction of the court.
  2. To allow the Syariah laws to be applied to the non-Muslims, the Federal Constitution must be amended where the Item 1 List II Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia must first be amended.
  3. We do not subscribe to the laws of Indonesia. That happened in Aceh, Indonesia where Syariah law is applied to everyone but we are living in Malaysia, where the Syariah law only applies to the Muslims.
  4. The two Buddhists chose to be punished under the Syariah law instead of the secular law; why must that bothers Teresa Kok?

It is easy for leaders like Teresa Kok to spread lies to her supporters because:

  1. They trust their leaders and are too blinded to see the truth.
  2. Like Teresa Kok, they only read the titles and do not bother to find out what really happens.
  3. They do not understand the Bahasa Melayu and English.
  4. They do not understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.




Zairil Dakwa Tun M Mencadangkan Pindaan Semberono?

2 03 2017

Saya tidak terkejut apabila ahli Parlimen DAP Bukit Bendera, Zairil yang walaupun mengaku beragama Islam tetapi menentang taraf, kedudukan dan bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia seperti yang telah termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Di dalam artikel yang bertajuk, “Kembalikan kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan sebagai pemutus muktamad isu undang-undang”, yang telah disiarkan oleh RoketKini.com, Zairil mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang menghalang Mahkamah Tinggi untuk membatalkan keputusan Mahkamah Syariah.

>>>Tekan sini untuk baca artikel tersebut<<<

Tidak setakat itu, ahli Parlimen DAP itu juga mencadangkan agar bidang kuasa yang telah diperuntukkan kepada Mahkamah Syariah untuk menghakimi “hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa” itu dirampas atau ditarik balik.

Lebih parah lagi, dengan memberi gambaran bahawa Perkara 121(1A) itu seolah-olah tidak adil dan satu “dilema sistem kehakiman”, pemimpin DAP itu mencadangkan satu jalan pintas diambil untuk merampas bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah melalui jalan belakang, seperti kenyataannya, “Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121”.

Bukankah cadangan Zairil itu bermakna menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah secara ‘bypass’ Perlembagaan Persekutuan?

Kenyataan Zairil:

Oleh itu, saya ingin mencadangkan agar Mahkamah Persekutuan dikembalikan tarafnya sebagai pemutus muktamad dalam segala isu undang-undang, yakni sebagai Mahkamah Perlembagaan. Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121.

Penyelesaian kepada masalah ini boleh dicapai melalui pindaan kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman dalam dua perkara. Pertamanya, pendefinisian bidang kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan harus menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak dihadkan kepada bidang kuasa yang sama dengan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Kedua, satu prosedur harus diperkenalkan bagi membenarkan pengemukaan petisyen secara langsung kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa. 

~Zairil (DAP)

Kalau dahulu Lim Guan Eng dengan celuparnya membuat fitnah dan hasutan jahat menuduh UMNO sanggup bekerjasama dengan PAS untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect” dalam hal Akta 355, kini terbukti siapa sebenarnya yang berniat jahat untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution” untuk mencapai hasrat mereka.

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

~Lim Guan Eng

Lebih teruk lagi, Zairil juga telah memberi sebab yang tidak masuk akal dalam mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A):

Jika kita kembali kepada Perlembagaan, Perkara 75 menyatakan bahawa undang-undang Persekutuan mengatasi undang-undang Negeri, manakala Perkara 4 menyatakan Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengatasi semua undang-undang lain. Hal ini jelas dan tidak dipertikaikan.

~Zairil (DAP)

Walaupun undang-undang Syariah itu dibawah negeri, namun sistem Mahkamah Syariah adalah sebahagian daripada sistem perundangan Persekutuan; kerana kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

Selain daripada Zairil, Lim Kit Siang juga mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A).

Menariknya pada masa yang sama, rakan sekumpulan mereka iaitu PKR menyangkal tuduhan DAP dan mengiktiraf Perkara 121(1A) sebagai penting dan baik sehingga mendakwa pemimpin mereka, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahimlah yang memainkan peranan utama dalam usaha untuk menambah Fasal 1A kepada Perkara 121.

At the Federal level, upon the initiatives of the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Article 121 (1A) was introduced to the Federal Constitution. The introduction upgraded the legal position of the Syariah Courts without infringing the civil on the court rights of non-Muslims. It must be stress that this initiative was discussed by the Islamic Consultation Body, the Islamic Centre (now JAKIM), and the Cabinet.

~Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia – Page 20

Malah, bukan setakat itu sahaja, tetapi jika mereka membaca Hansard Parliamen, mereka akan mendapati bahawa rakan baik terkini parti DAP, Tun Dr. Mahathirlah yang merupakan orang yang mencadangkan penambahan Fasal 1(A) kepada Perkara 121 di Parlimen pada tahun 1988.

Jadi, apakah Zairil menuduh Dr. M seorang yang tidak cermat dan tidak berfikiran panjang sehingga mencadangkan satu “pindaan semberono” yang “telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita”?

Pindaan semberono yang dibuat pada tahun 1988 telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita dan mencetuskan krisis Perlembagaan dan penafian hak dan kebebasan asasi rakyat seperti yang berlaku dlm kes-kes S. Deepa dan Indira Gandhi.

~Zairil (DAP)

Apakah pindaan Perkara 121(1A) yang dituduh satu “pindaan semberono” oleh Zairil akan benar-benar menjadi satu “dilema” kepada DAP, PKR dan PPBM?

Maka persoalannya ialah:

  1. Apakah pendirian bersama parti DAP, PKR dan PPBM mengenai Perkara 121(1A)?
  2. Siapakah yang akan beralah dalam soal ini atau adakah PKR dan PPBM hanya bermain politik dan akhirnya akan akur akan semua kehendak DAP?
  3. Sanggupkah PKR dan Tun Dr. Mahathir bersekongkol dengan DAP untuk menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah?
  4. Di manakah suara pemimpin Islam mereka yang pernah berkata mahu memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah?
  5. Apakah inilah yang mereka maksudkan sebagai pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah versi mereka?

 





Will Dr. Kamarul Accept DAP Man’s Challenge To Deregister DAP?

10 02 2017

mk-drk

Yesterday, MalaysiaKini reported that Johor DAP leader, Sheikh Omar Ali dares Mapan’s director Dr. Kamarul Zaman Yusoff to “try and get the party de-registered if their claims were true”.

MalaysiaKini wrote that the DAP man was referring to Dr. Kamarul Zaman Yusoff’s article with the title, “DAP Memang Anti-Islam”.

Johor DAP assistant publicity chief Sheikh Omar Ali said those accusing DAP of being anti-Islam should try and get the party de-registered if their claims were true.

He said this in reference to a commentary by Universiti Utara Malaysia’s Institute for Malaysian Political Analysis (Mapan) director Kamarul Zaman Yusuf titled ‘DAP memang anti-Islam’ (DAP is indeed anti-Islam).

~MalaysiaKini.

Sheikh Omar Ali then added:

“If Kamarul Zaman Yusuf is man enough to stand by his accusation that DAP is anti-Islam, then I challenge him to take legal action to get DAP deregistered as it (being anti-Islam) goes against the spirit of the Federal Constitution,” he said in a statement today.

~MalaysiaKini

Will Dr. Kamarul accept the serious challenge to “try and get the party de-registered” as dared by Johor DAP assistant publicity chief?

 

 





Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?

2 01 2017

Four Malaysian opposition political parties, DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM had signed an agreement on the 13th of December 2016.

In the agreement which is named, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM, the four parties agreed on several main issues including to uphold the Federal Constitution.

15439895_1820054294933619_5239681811501991150_n

{For the full document, please >>>click here<<<}

I read the agreement and since I am familiar with the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, the below sentence below caught my eye:

15419650_1820054354933613_2455664813730344125_o

Screenshot taken from the agreement

The above sentence says, “To fight in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Constitution 1957/63 especially to uphold the Federal Constitution”, but then it went on saying, “… dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan bebas, aman dan damai di di negara ini sejajar dengan Perkara 3 …”

Well, 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.”

Now, where did the word, “bebas” comes from and more importantly, why did they add the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1)?

Are the opposition parties trying to rewrite the Article 3(1) in order to undermine Islam as the religion of the Federation?

As the supreme law of the Federation, each word in the Articles of the Federal Constitution was chosen for a very specific reason.

The Article 3(1) states that, “… other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony” or “agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai“; there is no such word as ‘bebas‘ in the clause, and adding the word ‘bebas‘ gives the Article a totally different meaning.

Thus, it is a violation of the Article 3(1).

How could the opposition parties pledge, “To fight in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Constitution 1957/63 especially to uphold the Federal Constitution“, when they clearly changed and violated the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution?

To understand this matter, we need to know the meaning of the words, “aman dan damai” or “peace and harmony” in the context of the Article 3(1).

The word, “aman dan harmoni” in the Article 3(1), has been interpreted by 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:

[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.

[33] In short, Article 3(1) was a by-product of the social contract entered into by our founding fathers who collectively produced the Federal Constitution, which is recognized as the Supreme Law of the country. 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. It is also my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religion to the followers of Islam. That is the very reason as to why Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution came into place.

[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.

Therefore, the phrase, “tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” means that the practice of religions other than Islam, must be in peace and harmony with the people of other religions, especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation; thus by adding the word, “bebas“, the opposition had violated the Federal Constitution.

In the same judgement, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali also said:

[36] The alleged infringement of the fundamental liberties of the respondent can be negated by trite law that any freedom is not absolute. Freedom cannot be unfettered, otherwise like absolute power, it can lead to chaos and anarchy. Freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1) are subjected to restrictions imposed by law under Article 10(2)(a). Freedom of religion, under Article 11(1), as explained above is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).

So, contrary to what is claimed by the opposition leaders, even the Article 11(1) does not give us total freedom of religion, for it is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).

Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution:

Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution:

State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

What is the intention of the opposition leaders in adding the word ‘bebas‘ in their reference to the Article 3(1), for the implication of the added word can undermine the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation and distort the interpretation of the Article?





Tun M Has Gone Too Far

14 12 2016

After a series of humiliating statements, on the 10th of December 2016, Tun Dr. Mahathir made another uncalled for statement at the PAN Convention in Shah Alam and this time he had gone too far.

Reported by The Malay Mail Online, Tun M said:

“It is not the will of Allah to want the whole world to be Muslims. If Allah wanted that, today everybody would be Muslims. But Allah doesn’t tell everyone to be Muslims.” – The Malay Mail Online.

As a Muslim, Tun M had gone too far and it proves that and he would just say whatever he wants to say, to the point that he dares to spin the words of Allah S.W.T. and humiliating Rasulullah S.A.W. just to justify his actions.

I do not understand what the Muslims in his party feel about his above words and his slanderous words about Rasulallah S.A.W., for justifying and accepting those words would mean that they agree with Tun M’s slanderous words towards Allah S.W.T.and Rasulullah S.A.W.

In his earlier speech at the DAP convention, he uttered this slanderous and humiliating words, “… and now he (PM Najib) is comparing himself to the Prophet of Islam but the Prophet of Islam, as you know, did not have 1MDB, he did not have 2.6 billion Ringgit in his account….” 

Related Article:

 





Tun M, Janganlah Menghina Nabi S.A.W.

10 12 2016

Saya terkejut dan merasa amat sedih dan kecewa membaca kenyataan Dr Mahathir (Tun M) seperti yang disiarkan oleh MalaysiaKini di bawah tajuk, “Dr M: Nabi tak ada RM2.6b, 1MDB”.

Mengulas kenyataan Naib Presiden Umno Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi baru-baru ini kenyataan mengaitkan Najib dengan kehendak Allah serta sikap walak, Dr Mahathir (Tun M) berkata ia seolah-olah menyamakan perdana menteri dengan nabi. – MalaysiaKini

(Sila rujuk minit ke 16:45 dalam video diatas)

Seterusnya MalaysiaKini melaporkan Tun M berkata:

“Tetapi nabi tak ada RM2.6 bilion dalam akaun dia, juga (tak ada) 1MDB,” katanya disambut ketawa orang ramai. – MalaysiaKini.

Dalam laporan sama MalaysiaKini menulis Tun M membuat kenyataan di atas semasa menghadiri Konvensyen Tahunan DAP, sebagai mengulas kenyataan Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi di Perhimpunan Agung UMNO.

MalaysiaKini melaporkan Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi sebagai berkata:

“Takdir Allah SWT mengkehendakinya begitu (Najib menjadi presiden UMNO dan Perdana Menteri Malaysia)”. – MalaysiaKini

Kemudian, Datuk Rizal Mansor telah menulis di dalam Facebooknya:

mahathir-perlekeh-nabi-muhammad

Marah dengan kenyataan di atas, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin telah menjawab kenyataan Datuk Rizal Mansor di blog beliau.

zam-rizal-mansor-mempertikai

Komen saya:

  1. Janganlah terlalu berpolitik sampai tidak takut pada Allah S.W.T. dan bercakap sesuka hati, lebih- lebih lagi perkara yang berkait dengan akidah.
  2. TPM tidak menyamakan PM Najib dengan Nabi S.A.W. tetapi itu hanyalah tuduhan dan rekaan Tun M.
  3. Kenapa sampai Tun M sanggup mengaitkan Nabi S.A.W. dalam hal ini?
  4. Bukankah apa yang dikatakan oleh TPM itu adalah betul, kerana sebagai orang Islam, kita wajib percaya bahawa apa sajaja yang berlaku di dunia ini ditentukan oleh Allah S.W.T.?
  5. Bukankah dengan mengatakan, “Tetapi nabi tak ada RM2.6 bilion dalam akaun dia, juga (tak ada) 1MDB,” itu menghina Rasulullah S.A.W., lebih teruk lagi bila ianya disambut ketawa orang ramai?
  6. Sebagai sahabat Tun M, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin sepatutnya menasihat dan menegur Tun M dan bukannya memperbetulkan yang salah.
  7. Saya tidak faham bagaimana Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin sanggup menulis bahawa, “Rizal percaya bahawa Nabi mempunyai akaun sebenar RM 2.6 Billion, dan mengatakan Nabi tak ada akaun sebesar itu adalah memperlekeh Nabi”, seolah-olah Nabi S.A.W. boleh dipermain-mainkan sesuka hati.
  8. Saya bersetuju apabila Rizal menyebut bahawa Tun M memperlekehkan Nabi kerana Tun M mengaitkan kedudukan PM Najib dengan Nabi S.A.W. dan mengatakan bahawa Nabi tidak ada akaun sebesar 2.6 billion dan 1MDB.
  9. Semoga Tun M sedar akan ketelanjurannya.

Related Post:





Tun M: “Perdana Menteri Buat Demonstration” (Video)

7 12 2016

Many videos of Tun Dr Mahathir’s (Tun M) statements at the 50th DAP National Convention were released, among them by KiniTV.

Watching those videos, I wonder what had happened to Tun M, for those statements made by him were as ridiculous as those made by PAN’s Mohamad Sabu or Mat Sabu.

For example, in the video below, in which he said that a government do not hold demonstrations and a Prime Minister should not be demonstrating.

Tun M was answering questions from a reporter regarding the ‘Himpunan Solidariti Ummah untuk Rohingya’ which was held on the 4th of December at the Titiwangsa Stadium, attended by both UMNO’s and PAS’s president.

Media supporting opposition parties like MalaysiaKini and KiniTV are very excited about Tun M’s government and PM Najib bashing and wrote headlines about the matter.

I agree with MalaysiaKini Stephen Ng’s article, “Only Najib is capable of doing it”, that the video is “worth watching again and again” because it is so funny to see how Tun Dr Mahathir, who had turned into a street demonstrator from a statesman, thinks that other people too are turning into street demonstrators, just like him.

“What mesmerised me yesterday was the way the nonagenarian responded to a question posed by a journalist about Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s participation in the Rohingya solidarity demonstration. The video clip posted by KiniTV is worth watching again and again.” – MalaysiaKini

The question is, when does Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak  participate in a demonstration? 

And since when has a ‘himpunan‘ or an assembly becomes a ‘demonstrasi‘ or a demonstration?

Seriously, how can a smart man like Tun M make such a statement that makes him sounds like a not so smart politician?

Maybe Tun M ‘sudah lupa’ that in his days as a Prime Minister, he too had attended a lot of himpunan or assemblies and the best example is the yearly ‘Perhimpunan Agung UMNO’ or the General Assembly of UMNO which he attended as the president of UMNO.

Is Tun M trying to tell us that he had been leading demonstrations year after year in his long years as the UMNO president and the Prime Minister of Malaysia?

In the same article, MalysiaKini wrote:

“Even at 92, Dr Mahathir’s mind is still very sharp. I can imagine Najib reeling under the force of the punch after Dr Mahathir poked at him: “When you are in the government, what is there to demonstrate about?” “- MalaysiaKini

Are people in MalaysiaKini seriously thinking that the inability to understand the difference between an assembly and a demonstration is the sign that, “Dr Mahathir’s mind is still very sharp”?

Now I wonder if the video is an attempt to ridicule Tun M.

Anyway, watching Tun M speaking in the video, I really pity him, Tun M really has disgraced himself.








%d bloggers like this: