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

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: 

Malaysia Can Extradite So-Called Sulu Sultan

PETALING JAYA (The Star) : Malaysia can seek the extradition of self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III from the Philippines to face the law over the intrusion into Sabah, legal experts said.

They said Malaysia’s arrest and extradition of Moro National Libera­tion Front leader Nur Misuari to the Philippines in 2001 following a request by that country had set a precedent for cooperation in dealing with such cases.

Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar said the culprits, including those based in Philippines such as Jamalul Kiram, needed to be brought to Malaysia to face criminal charges of waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, an offence under the Penal Code that is punishable by death upon conviction.

“Our sovereignty has been challenged and while Malaysia wanted to avoid bloodshed they started firing, triggering action which resulted in our security personnel dead, which means there is no more room to forgive them,” said Zainul.

He added that since Jamalul Kiram did not directly take up weapons in Malaysian territory, he could be investigated for abetting to wage war, which also carries the death penalty upon conviction.

International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) Associate Professor Shamrahayu A. Aziz said the charge could be used against the culprits even if they were not Malaysian citizens because what mattered was where the crime was committed.

“It is also possible for Malaysia to request the extradition of a person who is not in our country if we can prove that the instructions came from him or that he instigated or incited the actions,” she said.

Emeritus Professor of Law at Univ­er­s­iti Teknologi Mara Prof Datuk Shad Saleem Faruqi said many Sections in Chapter 6 of the Penal Code could be used against the culprits.

He said Malaysians in Lahad Datu, who had given protection to the intruders, could also be charged under Section 125A of the Act, which makes it an offence to harbour any person in Malaysia or a foreign country who is at war or considered hostile against the King.

In addition, Shad Faruqi said the culprits could also be charged under the newly included Section 6A of the Penal Code, which deals with offences relating to terrorism.