When a Lawmaker Fails to Understand the Law

The proficiency of a government lies in the hands of its ministers and lawmakers; therefore, the quality of the government’s party politicians are very crucial not only in ensuring effective policy making but also to install trust, respect and support from the people.

As in their oath of office, the Members Of Parliament (MP) pledge to “memelihara, melindungi dan mempertahankan Perlembagaannya” (maintain, protect and defend its Constitution), it is crucial for the MPs to understand the Constitution or at least to do their homework and seek for proper advises before making statements regarding the Constitution.

Recently, a recording of a Parliament session on the 15th October 2018 where YB Kasthuriraani a/p Patto, the ruling party’s MP of the Batu Kawan constituency who thought that ‘Syiah’ and ‘Ahmadiyah’ are names of religions (“… individu-individu yang menganut agama-agama seperti Syiah, Ahmadiyah”) had spread across the social media.

Many pointed out that the MP had interfered into the internal matters of another religion; hence had gone against the rights of the religious group in managing its own religious affair as conferred by the Article 11(3)(a) of the Federal Constitution.

When I listened to the recording, not only I was shocked by her above statement, but I was totally aghast by her lack of basic Constitutional  knowledge of the Constitution that she had pledged to “memelihara, melindungi dan mempertahankan”.

According to the Parliament Hansard, the MP says:

Salah satu syor juga adalah untuk menghentikan penangkapan dan penahanan individu-individu yang menganut agama-agama seperti Syiah, Ahmadiyah, Bahai dan sebagainya, mengikut perkara 11 dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang menyatakan, “Agama Islam merupakan agama persekutuan dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai, di mana-mana bahagian Persekutuan”.

Now, the MP claimed (in Bahasa Melayu) that the Article 11 of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation and other religions may be practised in peace and harmony, in any part of the Federation! (Please check the video at the end of this article).

Below is the original text of Article 11, followed by the Bahasa Melayu translation by the Attorney General’s Chambers.

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

Tiap-tiap orang berhak menganuti dan mengamalkan agamanya dan, tertakluk kepada Fasal (4), mengembangkannya.

Some people may think that what was claimed by the MP as Article 11 may sounds rather similar to the Article 3(1) that states:

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

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

But, if we pay full attention to her statement, there is a huge difference between the MP’s version of the Article 11 and the words written in the Article 3(1).

The MP said “…dan agama-agama lain” as recorded by the Parliament Hansard” and the video recording of the Parliament session whereas the Article 3(1) says “… tetapi agama-agama lain”…; meaning the word “tetapi” (but) was changed to “dan” (and).

For a layman, this grave mistake may seems unnoticeable and unimportant, but from the legal point of view, the changed of the word “tetapi” to “dan” had positioned other religions to the same level as Islam, which is a distortion of the truth not only to the Article 3(1) but also to the Federal Constitution.

The matter cannot be looked as merely a small mistake, as each word in the Constitution brings important meaning in the interpretation of the Supreme Law of our nation.

The use of 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.

Hence, the intention of the phrase, “but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony” is to protect the sanctity of Islam as stated by the then Federal Court Judge and former Attorney General, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia:

[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.

The phrase also proves that at the same time, people of other religions are allowed to practise their religions as long as they obey the laws and not to do things that has “the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community”.

In the same judgement, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali also 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.

This is in accordance with the teaching of Islam as Islam does not oppress other religions, as said in Verse 256 of Surah Al-Baqarah:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

Worse, YB Kasthuriraani claimed that the Article 11 conferred Islam as the religion of the Federation.

That means she downgraded the importance of the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation which actually is conferred by the Article 3(1) that is in Part I to Article 11 which is in Part II of the Constitution.

Tan Sri Apandi Ali said in the same judgement:

“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”

Being placed as the third in the order of precedence of the Articles signifies the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation, and more important, it is positioned above the Article that enshrines the Federal Constitution as the Supreme Law (which is positioned in the Article 4); meaning that the Federal Constitution is subjected to Islam.

YB Kasthuriraani Patto must apologise for:

1. Failing to understand the Federal Constitution that she pledged to “memelihara, melindungi dan mempertahankan” in her oath of office.
2. Demoting the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation to the same level as other religions, which is a distortion of the truth not only to the Article 3(1) but also to our Federal Constitution.
3. Degrade the importance and the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation to Article 11 which is in Part II of the Constitution, placing the basic structure of the Constitution at par with the fundamental liberties.

The question is, could YB Kasthuriraani be able to “memelihara, melindungi dan mempertahankan Perlembagaannya” if she fails to understand the Constitution itself? In the Court of Appeal judgement of the case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Justice 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.”

“Saya, ….……..……………………………..……………………………………………, setelah dipilih (atau dilantik) sebagai seorang ahli Dewan Rakyat (atau Dewan Negara) dengan sesungguhnya bersumpah (atau berikrar) bahawa saya akan dengan jujur menunaikan kewajipan-kewajipan saya sebagai yang demikian dengan segala upaya saya, bahawa saya akan menumpahkan taat setia yang sebenar kepada Malaysia, dan akan memelihara, melindungi dan mempertahankan Perlembagaannya.”

---

Related posts:

• Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?
• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Buku Harapan – Dimanakah Agenda Islam Dalam Manifesto PH?
• Zairil Dakwa Tun M Mencadangkan Pindaan Semberono?
• Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan

The Constitutionally Illiterate Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail

In a FMT’s article, “Did Zahid call Malaysia an Islamic state?” Tawfik attacks the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for calling Malaysia an Islamic state; because according to Tawfik, Malaysia is a secular country with Islam only as its official religion. 

That makes me wonder if Tawfik Ismail, who Free Malaysia Today (FMT) referred as “a prominent opponent of theocratic governance”, has ever read the Federal Constitution or understands the definition of the word secular.

A member of a liberal group called G25, Tawfik had made uncalled statements before such as urging JAKIM to be abolished.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Tawfik’s statements (in red) as published by FMT.

---

PETALING JAYA: A prominent opponent of theocratic governance, Tawfik Ismail, has questioned whether Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was calling the country an Islamic state during a recent breaking of fast gathering in Alor Setar.

He said Zahid would be wrong if it was true that he rejected the notion that Malaysia was a secular state.

Contrary to Tawfik’s accusation, Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is right by calling the country an Islamic state and rejected the notion that Malaysia is or was a secular state. It is Tawfik who is constitutionally illiterate for rejecting the notion that Malaysia is an Islamic state and instead, claiming that our country is a secular state.

He was referring to a Bernama report that quoted the deputy prime minister as saying that those who claimed this country was secular should first have a look at the Federal Constitution. He said the constitution placed Islam as the official religion and referred to the country as a Muslim country.

I wonder if Bernama made a mistake in reporting when it wrote that the Deputy Prime Minister says, “the Constitution placed Islam as the official religion” because Berita Harian quoted Zahid saying that the Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation. The Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia says:

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

Please note that the Constitutions says “Islam is the religion of the Federation and not ‘the official religion’. Adding the word “official” is a slender to the federal Constitution as it distorts the notion of the Article 3(1).

“It would be more accurate to call the country a Muslim-majority country. That would be factual,” Tawfik told FMT.

It is factual that Malaysia is an Islamic country, and also a Muslim-majority country. 

“The constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, the sultans’ role as heads of religion in their respective states, the notion of equality under the law, the right of everyone to stand for public office regardless of race or religion all guarantee that Malaysia is a secular country.”

Tawfik’s problem is, he does not understand the definition of a secularism which means the separation of religion and state. His above statement does not define a secular country. 

Tawfik, who is a former Umno member and one-term MP of Sungai Benut, said Islam’s position as the country’s official religion gave little support to the argument that the country wasn’t secular.

Tawfik must first read the Federal Constitution before making any statement regarding the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution, in Article 3(1) enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation and not as the official religion of our nation. 

“I think it means the sovereign or king is Muslim and therefore Islam is considered the official religion, just like the Queen in England is head of the church.

Tawfik must first study the Federal Constitution before talking about constitutional issues.

“You could say ours is a hybrid system because we have many races practising many religions allowed under the constitution. Just because the majority of Malaysians are Malays and Malays are defined under the constitution as Muslims, making Islam the dominant religion, it doesn’t dominate other faiths.”

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 the Federal Constitution has provided 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.

Bebas spokesperson Azrul Khalib also spoke on the matter, agreeing that the constitution did not put Islam in a position to dominate other religions.

Since when does a Bebas or any NGO leader is given the rights to redefine and reinterpret the supreme law of our country? It is a mind-blowing to see FMT using just a mere opinion of an NGO leader who is not even a constitutional expert to define the Federal Constitution.

“It’s important to realise that nowhere does the constitution ever intend for the country to be an Islamic state,” he told FMT.

The Malay rulers as the stakeholders of the Federation have never intent for the country to become a secular state. In fact the word secular or anything related to secularism is not even mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

In the conclusion of the judgement of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, where The Right Honourable Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said that:

”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”.

And to further prove that Malaysia was meant to be an Islamic state and not a secular state, the Federal Constitution has Articles such as Article 11(4), Article 12(2), Article 37, Article 121(1A), and more.

“At the end of the day, it needs to be emphasised that the position of Islam as the official religion of the federation should not be a reference or a tool to bludgeon people of other religions into submitting to Islam.”

Islam is the religion of the Federation. Only constitutionally illiterate people think that Islam is the official religion of the federation; so there is no such thing as “using the position of Islam as the official religion of the federation should not be a reference or a tool to bludgeon people of other religions into submitting to Islam.”

He said that as much as it was important to look at the constitution to see that the country was a secular state, people should also look at court rulings affirming this.

The Federal Constitution has never said that Malaysia is a secular country. In fact, it is the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam which is in itself 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 the Federal Court judgement of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, The Right Honourable Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

“Thus, in the present case, we are of the view that Article 10 of the Federal Constitution must be read in particular with Articles 3(1), 11, 74(2) and 121. Article 3(1) declares Islam as the religion of the Federation. Article 11 guarantees every person’s right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it. With regard to propagation, there is a limitation imposed by Article 11(4) which reads:-

“(4) 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.”

In a secular state, the government has no constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of a particular religion.

“The supremacy of secular law in Malaysia was upheld in 1988 in the Supreme Court case of Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor in which the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the death penalty for drug trafficking was unconstitutional for offending the principles of Islam,” he said.

“The court said Article 3 of the Federal Constitution recognises Islam as the religion of the federation but it does not allude to Malaysia being an Islamic state, confirming that the country is secular.

This is another lame argument used by people who are trying to spin the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic state. In the judgement of the case Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor, Tun Salleh Abas has never said that Malaysia is a secular state; alas he only said that Malaysia still uses the secular laws.

Today, there are other new judgments of more important cases that clearly state that Malaysia is an Islamic state such as Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri,  ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and others.

“We need to remember the second part of Article 3, which reads ‘Islam is the religion of the federation, but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation.’ Therefore, Article 3 should not be used to impose dominance on non-Muslims or insist on religious superiority.”

The words “in peace and harmony” have been interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali during the judgement of the Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia. His words were:

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.

Related Post:

• Grow Up, MCA!
• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

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!
• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

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!
• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

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:

• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

Act 355: Another Baseless and Illogical Arguement from G25

Named as a “group of prominent Muslims” by DAP, G25 is a group of people who are so clueless about the teaching of Islam that their arguments and ideas regarding Islam are so mind-blowing and out of context, making them good friends of DAP’s Penang Institute. Sharing DAP’s stance regarding the amendment of Act 355, G25’s arguments on this matter are as baseless and illogical as those given by DAP. Below are my answers (in blue) to G25’s article in red:

---

To all honourable Members of Parliament,
We, G25, anxiously appeal for a promise from each Honourable Member of Parliament to not support/cancel the debate on PAS’ private motion to amend Act 355, or Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, which will now be debated in Parliament.
We hope the honourable MPs would ponder upon and note that any amendment to Islamic laws should be done within the framework of the Federal Constitution.
There is no law saying that Act 355 or any other Acts related to the Islamic Laws cannot be amended. The Hadi Private Bill to amend the Act 355 is being done within the framework of the Federal Constitution and  I’m sure that the members of G25 are aware that this is not the first time the Act 355 is amended. 

Specifically, Article 4 provides for the superiority of the federal law and civil courts over state Islamic enactments and shariah courts. This ensures the existence of only one system of justice governing all Malaysians.
A misleading fabricated statement. Syariah Courts is part of Malaysian legal systems as confers by Article 121(1A). There is no such thing as,“This ensures the existence of only one system of justice governing all Malaysians”.
1)  Article 4 states that the Federal Constitution is the Supreme law and Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution says:

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

2) In the judgement of the case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, the Federal court ruled in a unanimous decision that the section 16 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) is valid and not ultra vires the Federal Constitution, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

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.

Limitations on the powers of the shariah courts:
Item 1 in the Ninth Schedule of the State List of the Federal Constitution states that the shariah courts “shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law”. The purpose of this provision is for Parliament to have oversight and control over offences, including the nature of punishments created by state enactments, so that the state legislatures do not have a free hand to create offences or to prescribe sentences.
1) Act 355 is a Federal Law and not a State Law. The Act confers jurisdiction upon Courts constituted under any State law for the purpose of dealing with offences under Islamic law.
2) “Item 1 in the Ninth Schedule of the State List of the Federal Constitution” does not exist. What we have is, Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and it proves that the Syariah Court system is legal and constitutional.

Increasing status of the syariah courts complicates enforcement:
The desire to raise the status of the shariah courts to be on a par with the civil courts is worrying and very likely will shock our multiracial community as it will raise questions on the direction of the country’s legal system.
Is G25 unaware of the existence of Article 121(1A)?  In 1988, the then Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed tabled the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill in Parliament to add Clause (1A) to the Article 121 which raised the status of the Syariah Courts. That happened 29 years ago and it had not “shock our multiracial community”. G25 must stop debasing the Syariah Courts.

A secular system of justice existing side by side with the Islamic system is not only unconstitutional but will cause considerable confusion and uncertainty in the enforcement of law and order.
Is G25 saying that Articles 74(2) and 121(1A) is unconstitutional and Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution does not excise?

A big risk with investors:
Economists and international experts who have studied Malaysia’s remarkable economic development over a relatively short period to become one of the most advanced economies in the developing world, have always cited its system of law and administration as a key factor in attracting foreign and local investors to do business here. It is a system which foreigners are familiar with because it is similar to what they find in their own countries. Their presence is most important for the transfer of knowledge and technology so that Malaysians can benefit by developing our own skills to compete in the world market. Our country will be taking a big risk with foreign and local investors if we have a system of law which is moving away from its original character to become more religiously oriented and less tolerant of modern lifestyles and values.
Act 355 is not a new law  and it will not change our current “system of law”. I wonder if:
1) To G25, is “modern lifestyles and values” means lifestyles and values which are against the teaching of Islam?
2) In what way does the amendment of Act 355 can be bad for our economy in regarding to “attracting foreign and local investors to do business here”?
3) G25 really thinks that a “religiously oriented” Muslim society is bad for the economy?

A step towards hudud:
Supporters of the PAS bill to amend Act 355 insist that there is no intention to introduce hudud. Malaysians find this hard to believe as Kelantan, which is ruled by PAS, has already passed the Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015, prescribing hudud punishment for zina (illicit sex), murder, theft, robbery, sodomy, consumption of liquor and apostasy.
The amendment of Act 355 cannot enable the implementation of the current Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015. The amendment is only to enable the Syariah Court to increase its punishments limits, but its jurisdiction will still be limited to the crimes listed under the Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, which does not include murder, robbery and theft as in hudud. 

But State law is currently prevented from being enforced because of Act 355.
Another false fact. Act 355 confers the jurisdiction upon States’ Syariah Courts therefore it does not prevent the enforcement of State laws.

Prioritising good governance in public institutions
A well-governed country with laws and governing institutions that provide social justice for the poor and the needy should be a priority for the country’s social and economic progression. This would be more Islamic than the implementation of hudud. We should be proud that our shariah index is higher than other Muslim countries because our children are better educated; health and medical facilities are available in all corners of the country; unemployment and poverty rates are low; and our youth can look forward to a brighter future. Higher priority should be given towards improving the standards of governance and to strengthen the institutions of law and order so as to promote integrity and clean administration in the country. These governing qualities are far more important to the country than policing the moral behaviour of Muslims and punishing them like criminals. The personal sins of Muslims do not hurt others in the society or the economy but the corruption and financial mismanagement among politicians and civil servants and the perception that the institutions of justice favour those in power — these are the social diseases that can cause economies to collapse and the people to rise up against their rulers. The government and MPs should be careful not to support the PAS bill and instead spend their energy in dealing with the unresolved problems surrounding 1MDB so that the country can turn its attention to deal with the bigger issues facing the economy, in particular the weak ringgit and the rising cost of living.
We do not need the PAS bill to divide the nation at a time when all races should stand together. The time now is for the real 1Malaysia.
Contrary to what was claimed by G25, the amendment of Act 355 will not only lead to good governance but it will help to build a better society and reduce social problems among the Muslims. Talking about economy, the increase of punishments for drinking and gambling can hinder Muslims from wasting their money on those negative activities, hence will improve the economy of their families. And faithful Muslims will not be involved in “corruption and financial mismanagement”, hence will prevent “the social diseases that can cause economies to collapse and the people to rise up against their rulers”. 

Does Teresa Kok Understand English?

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.

PKR Claims Anwar Introduced Article 121 (1A)

In order to play safe and avoid losing Malay votes by saying “no” to PAS President’s Private Bill, PKR publishes a book named, “Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia”, where apart from recycling irrelevant and out of context questions that were answered a long time ago, the party issued a very confusing statement regarding the Bill in order not to directly says that the party is against the Bill.

Please read:

1. “Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355”
2. “Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355“
3. “Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn“

Worst, PKR tries to take the credit for the Federal Government’s effort in 1988 to upgrade the Syariah Courts by claiming that the move was “upon the initiatives of Almarhum Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim”.

Written on page 20 of the book:

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

It is a known fact that Almarhum Tan Sri Professor Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmad is the person who initiated the move but since I have not come across on Anwar’s specific role in fighting for the Article 121 1(A) together with Almarhum Professor Ahmad Ibrahim, I spoke to several senior lawyers and Constitution experts to clarify the claim made by PKR in the said book.

Contrary to what was claimed in the PKR book, the answers from the senior lawyers are that Anwar Ibrahim has nothing to do with the move to add the Article 121 (1A) to our Federal Constitution, neither in coming out with the idea nor the fight in pursuing the matter until it was accepted by the Federal Government.

I was told by the lawyers that it was the initiative of Almarhum Tan Sri Professor Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim with the help from the then Chief Justice Tun Hamid Omar and the then Attorney General that made it possible to bring the matter to Parliament and that it has nothing to do either with Anwar Ibrahim or PKR.

Furthermore, after studying the Parliament Hansard, I found out that on March 17, 1988, it was not Anwar Ibrahim who tabled the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill regarding Article 121 (1A) in the Parliament but it was the then Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed who tabled the Bill.

Below is a part of the Parliament Hansard on the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill:

Penyampai : DATO’ SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tajuk : MEMBENTANGKAN RANG UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN (PINDAAN) 1988
Lokasi : DEWAN RAKYAT, KUALA LUMPUR
Tarikh : 17-03-1988

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Saya mohon mencadangkan iaitu Rang Undang-Undang bernama suatu Akta untuk meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan dibacakan kali yang kedua sekarang….

…23. Perkara 118A menyatakan bahawa sesuatu aduan tentang tidak adanya dibuat pemilihan ke Dewan Rakyat hendaklah dianggap sebagai petisyen pilihanraya, dan Mahkamah Tinggi boleh membuat perintah untuk memaksa supaya pemilihan dibuat. Perkara itu juga menyatakan bahawa kegagalan membuat pemilihan dalam tempoh yang dinyatakan oleh Perkara 54 dan 55 tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa seseorang ahli itu telah tidak dipilih sewajarnya. Fasal 7 Rang Undang-Undang ini mencadangkan supaya Perkara 118A itu dipinda supaya ianya terpakai juga bagi pemilihan ke Dewan Undangan Negeri. PERKARA 121 ___________

24. Perkara 121 meletakhak kuasa kehakiman Persekutuan pada Mahkamah Tinggi dan mahkamah-mahkamah rendah. Ia juga meletakhak bidangkuasa tertentu pada Mahkamah Agung.

25. Fasal 8 Rang Undang-Undang ini mencadangkan supaya Perkara 121 dipinda dengan menghapuskan peruntukan tentang meletakhak kuasa-kuasa kehakiman pada mahkamah-mahkamah dan dengan memasukkan ke dalam Fasal (1) Perkara itu peruntukan yang menyatakan bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi dan mahkamah-mahkamah rendah hendaklah mempunyai bidangkuasa dan kuasa-kuasa sebagaimana yang diberi oleh atau di bawah undang-undang persekutuan. Dengan ini, Perkara itu tidak lagi akan memberi penekanan pada meletakhak kuasa kehakiman persekutuan pada mahkamah-mahkamah tetapi akan hanya memperkatakan tentang jenis-jenis mahkamah dan bidangkuasa serta kuasa-kuasanya.

~Office of the Prime Minister

Therefore, I have a few questions for PKR :

1. What is the important role played by Anwar Ibrahim to justify his big role in Article 121 (1A) as claimed by PKR that, “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”?
2. Since the Clause (1A) was added to the Article 121 in 1988, on what basis can PKR take the credit by using Anwar’s name when;
   ——–i. PKR was then not yet existed.
   ——–ii. And Anwar Ibrahim who was then a leader of UMNO acted in the capacity
   ———–of an UMNO leader and in accordance with the principals of UMNO and by
   ———–the consent of  UMNO leadership?
3. Are these concocted fictional claims are parts of PKR’s values and interpretation of the phrase “justice, humanity and based on the Islamic values of “rahmatan lil ‘alamin” (a mercy unto the world)” that was said in the book as what PKR is “committed in the struggle for”?

>>>Click here to read Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia<<<

Related Posts:

• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn

Boo Su-Lyn’s Malay Mail Online article, “Why we must stand up against Hadi’s Bill” is full of false, slanderous and malicious accusations that undermine Islam, the religion of the Federation. She is instigating disunity among people of different races. She is disloyal to the DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as she refutes the DYMM Agong’s oath to uphold Islam at all time and she also went against the decree of the former DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong which was made in the parliament on the 7th March, 2016:

“Beta berharap langkah-langkah ke arah memperkukuhkan institusi agama dan kecekapan perlaksanaan undang-undang pentadbiran agama Islam melalui pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah dapat disegerakan.”

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”. That means Boo Su-Lyn has no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs and to question the implementation of our Syariah Laws.

One of the causes of religious conflicts in Malaysia is instigation made by people like Boo Su-Lyn who seems to think that she knows everything, has the right to interfere with everything and has respect to others.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Boo Su-Lyn’s article in red:

---

JANUARY 20 — If we fear that PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s Bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) may irrevocably change our beloved country, then we must stand up against the Bill in a united show of protest.

PAS president’s Private Member’s Bill is an amendment to enhance the Act 355, which was last amended in 1989 in order to empower the Malaysian Judiciary Systems, specifically the Syariah Courts. Lots of other Acts had been amended more than twice since Act 355 was last amended.

Today, the maximum punishment for smoking in public places is higher than the maximum punishments for any Syariah offences, thus, giving an impression that the offence of smoking in public places is more serious than any Syariah offences including apostasy.

It’s not enough to merely issue press statements as our voices are scattered.

Boo Su-Lyn is beginning to echo what was said by Jamal Yunos about Bersih, so she must stop complaining about him. Bersih rallies are illegal, affect everybody including Jamal but Act 355 is constitutional and does not affect the non-Muslims including Boo. 

PAS knows that there is significant opposition to Hadi’s Bill, which is why they themselves are organising a mass rally on February 18 to gather support for the Bill, even though the prime minister himself has announced that the government will take over the proposed legislation.

On the February 18, Muslims will rally in solidarity as a united Muslim ummah, regardless of their political parties, to urge their MPs to support the amendment of Act 355. PAS does not need to gather support from the Muslims because the majority of the Muslims support the private Bill.

Likewise, if we Malaysians across race and religion feel strongly against Hadi’s Bill which threatens to alter the secular structure of our country, then we must mobilise ourselves and express our opposition on a single, visible platform.

By calling Malaysia a secular country, Boo Su-Lyn slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

George Jacob Holyoake who is the creator of the term secularism defines 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 in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Hence, Boo words, “threatens to alter the secular structure of our country” is indeed a malicious lie.

Proponents claim that Hadi’s Bill is not about hudud, conveniently ignoring history when PAS has always wanted to amend Act 355 and even the Federal Constitution to allow it to implement hudud in Kelantan.

Boo is wrong again.  It is a slanderous lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill or it will legalise the Kelantan’s Hudud  because:

• The offences under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts are not the same as the offences listed under the Hudud law.
• Hudud’s punishments include capital punishment which is not included under the Act 355.

The Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions. Therefore, this Bill is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) 2015 or known as Kelantan’s Hudud.

A working paper by the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) that was leaked in 2014 had even argued that the Islamic penal code should be applied to all Malaysians on the basis that Islam is the religion of the federation.

The amendment of Act 355 is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) because Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II contradicts with our judicial systems.

It has only been of late that PAS claims that Hadi’s Bill is not aimed at introducing hudud law, but merely at expanding the punitive powers of the Shariah courts. The proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic — increasing jail term limits from three to 30 years, hiking up fines by 20 times from RM5,000 to RM100,000, and multiplying lashes of the cane from six to 100.

For those who do not bother to check their facts right like Boo Su-Lyn, will claim that “the proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic”. Actually, the hike in the proposed amendment seems high because the current punishment limits are much too low and are overdue for a revised since the last increase in the punishment was done 33 years ago.

In reality, even though the maximum punishment for the civil offence of smoking in public places is RM10,000 fine or two years of imprisonment, some activists are still fighting for the increase in the punishments. 

In the case of whipping, there is a huge difference between Syariah whipping as compared to civil whipping, both in terms of the way of conduct and also the size of the cane. I trust the Syariah Courts’ judges and I’m sure they are as professional as the Civil Courts’ judges and not to punish people cruelly.

What religious offence would merit imprisonment of up to three decades?

A lot because Islam is a way of life.

In the Penal Code, rape and culpable homicide not amounting to murder are punishable with 30 years’ jail. What offence which merely violates certain religious instructions can possibly be equivalent to the violent crimes of rape and homicide?

A lot including apostasy and offences under Islamic Family Laws.

MCA is against PAS’ “Himpunan 355” rally, claiming that it will cause disunity.

MCA should have banned their members from taking part in the illegal Bersih 5 because not only Bersih causes disunity, it condemned the government and caused chaos all around the city for its selfish decision to demonstrate around the city instead of holding a rally in a stadium or a field.

I don’t think we should try to prevent PAS from organising their rally. It’s well within their rights to assemble peacefully for whatever cause they hold dear.
Just as it’s within our rights as Malaysian citizens to protest against Hadi’s Bill.

Make sure that it will be legal, hold the rally in a stadium or a field and do not turn it into street demonstrations like Bersih. It will be interesting to see if the Malay leaders of PPBM, PAN and PKR dare to take part.

Hadi’s supporters say that non-Muslims are interfering with Muslim affairs by questioning and criticising Hadi’s Bill, which they claim will not affect non-Muslims.

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”.

It’s a spurious argument.

Are you challenging the Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution?

Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. We do not live in silos. We eat, work and live together.

Wrong. Malaysia is a multi-racial but not a multi-religious country. Malaysia’s only religion is Islam, as stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. But Malaysia is a country with multi-religious citizens.

Non-Muslims may not want to see their Muslim friends, family or neighbours subjected to an unjust law that is opposed by some Muslims themselves.

In the judgment of the Federal Court case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

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.

Claiming Syariah laws and punishment as unjust is challenging the Federal Constitution because the Syariah Courts are part of our judicial systems as written in Article 121(1A). It has a seditious tendency as stated in Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, which is, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State.

Non-Muslims may also end up being victimised, which has already happened in several interfaith child custody cases involving Muslim converts. A 60-year-old Christian woman was publicly caned in Acheh, Indonesia, last April under Shariah law for selling alcohol.

Another lame and out of context argument. Malaysian Syariah Courts have never punished any non-Muslim and the proposed amendment does not give the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction to do so.

Everyone has the right to talk about Hadi’s Bill because it is just like any other ordinary piece of legislation. This is not interference in someone else’s religious affairs; it’s about exercising our roles in democracy as equal Malaysian citizens.

Everyone has the right to talk but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs as stated in Article 11(3).

Hadi’s opinions must be open to scrutiny just like those of any Malaysian politician. No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else.

Agreed, that is why I hope Boo Su-Lyn will be professional enough to write about the seditious statements made by opposition leaders toward the religion of Islam.

We cannot separate “Muslim” and “non-Muslim” affairs as if they’re different slices of a cake.

Boo Su-Lyn must go back to school and learn about Article 11(3) and other basic facts about our Federal Constitution before writing on matters related to the Constitution because everyone is subjected to the laws of our country including Boo Su-Lyn. “No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else”.  

Taxpayers’ money that goes towards maintaining the Shariah courts and Islamic departments and enforcing Shariah legislation, just like it’s used to upgrade roads and to pay the salaries of civil servants, comes from both non-Muslim and Muslim taxpayers.

Boo must go back to school. Islam is the religion of the Federation. Therefore, the Federal Government is allowed to spend for the Syariah Courts using the taxpayers’ money. And Article 12(2) of the Federal Constitution allows the Federal Government to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam. In fact, the government is not at all allowed to spend taxpayers’ money for secular reasons or on anything that could cause any negative effect on the religion of Islam.

Laws that are passed in both the state legislative assemblies and in Parliament, including state Shariah legislation, involve the participation of both Muslim and non-Muslim lawmakers.

These state assemblymen and MPs must also remember that they represent voters across race and religion, even if most of their constituents may be predominantly of a certain ethnicity. Hence, their vote on Hadi’s Bill must be representative of their entire constituency, and not merely come from personal religious convictions.

Precisely. Boo Su-Lyn must remind the MPs that they represent their voters, so they are supposed to listen to the voters in the case of Hadi’s Private Bill and not to make their own decisions. Non-Muslim MPs must not forget who voted them into office, especially those from MCA, MIC and Gerakan.

Both non-Muslims and Muslims, as Malaysian citizens who vote and pay taxes, have just as much right as each other to talk about various issues and policies, including Shariah law and vernacular schools.

All Malaysian citizens have the rights to talk about the bill but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to fight against the amendment of Act 355 because it is regarding the Muslims religious affairs as it is against the Article 11(3).

So, everyone should not be afraid of speaking up against Hadi’s Bill.

The can talk about it as long as they know their limits.

It is our right as citizens to stand up for what we think is right and to stop Malaysia from turning into an intolerant state like Brunei or Acheh.

Boo Su-Lyn must stop making slanderous accusations and remember that nobody is above the law, including her. We are governed by law and our supreme law is the Federal 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 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).

Related posts:

• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

Good Leaders Lead By Example

I do not understand what is the problem with certain politicians of late.

It seems that condemning Islam and questioning the rights of the Malays is now in trend, and so, lots of political leaders jump on the bandwagon as not to be left behind.

Recently, it was the Gerakan vice-president’s turn to make to make such statement, although he later retracted his statement.

According to Gerakan’s Dominic Lau Hoe Chai, “it is religious schools and not vernacular schools that are likely to threaten unity in the country”, as reported by Free Malaysia Today (FMT).

FMT wrote, “He also claimed religious schools had the tendency to produce people with a more extremist interpretation of Islam” and Gerakan’s Lau as saying, “The reason we have problems like the unilateral conversion of children in this country is because we’ve moved away from this vision of a secular country”.

Please read and understand the Rukun Negara and the Federal Constitution.

 

Good leaders lead by example.

How could leaders lead a country and want the people to obey the law when they themselves failed to understand and respect the main principals and the supreme law of our country?

My question is, is political gains are more important to these politicians than the unity of the people?

Can they at least try to understand the Social Contract and the history of our country?

Talking about the actions and attitude that threaten that unity in the country, the ill and racist comments by FMT readers on articles about me mostly came from people who hate Islamic Schools and claim that Malaysia is a secular country.

By the way, does the Gerakan man think that Gerakan can win the election without the Malay votes?