Apabila Buku Teks Undang-Undang Tidak Berperlembagaan

8 08 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact is, it is the Article 4 that intensify the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country because Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles than the Article 4.

Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be read and interpreted subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation as mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case:

The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is proven by the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri, when YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim said:

I would add however that the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, to my mind imposes certain obligation on the power that be to promote and defend Islam as well to protect its sanctity. In one article written by Muhammad Imam, entitled Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia – A Reappraisal [1994] 2 CLJ lvii (June) referred to by the learned counsel for the 8th appellant it was said that: “Article 3 is not a mere declaration. But it imposes positive obligation on the Federation to protect, defend, promote Islam and to give effect by appropriate state action, to the injunction of Islam and able to facilitate and encourage people to hold their life according to the Islamic injunction spiritual and daily life.”

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

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

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

We surely do not need constitutionally illiterate lawyers!

Related Posts:

 

Advertisements




Federal Court Unanimous Dismisses Anwar’s Sodomy Judicial Review

14 12 2016

NST: PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will have to serve out his remaining 16 months of his five-year jail sentence after the Federal Court dismissed his review application to set aside his sodomy conviction today.

In a unanimous decision, a five-man panel chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin ruled that there was no merit in the application.

“The court finds that there is no merit in this application and that this not a fit and proper case to be heard in this court,” the judge said.

In his review application, Anwar is seeking the court to invoke Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 and review the decision of the previous five-member panel of the Federal Court, led by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria.

Alternatively, he wants the Federal Court to re-hear his appeal on its merits.

Following the decision today, Anwar who has now served a year and 10 months in jail will have to complete his five-year jail term.

Anwar, 68, filed the review application on April 30 last year after the Federal Court on Feb 10 last year affirmed his guilt for sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 31.

The others presiding were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, Federal Court judges, Tan Sri Hasan Lah, Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin and Tan Sri Zaharah Ibrahim.





MMO Did Not Apologise For Boo Su Lyn’s Seditious Article

10 10 2015

Malay Mail Online (MMO) columnist, Boo Su Lyn wrote a seditious article, “Abolish Federal Constitution’s Article 11(4)” last Friday, October 2, 2015. (Please click here for the article)

Anyway on October 7, MMO retracted the seditious article and wrote that it apologises “to anyone who may have been offended by it”.

It is very interesting to see that MMO retracted the article a day after the ruling by the Federal Court on the case of Azmi Sharom challenging the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.

Any way MMO is defending the writer:

“The writer wishes to point out that she is aware of the sensitivities in Malaysia regarding the topic of religion. She has no intention of insulting Islam.”

I do not understand how could MMO wrote that the writer has no intention of insulting Islam.

In the article which was deleted by MMO on October 7, not only did the writer insult Islam but she took the liberty to interpret the Islamic law in her own way when she is not even a Muslim.

“In Ezra Zaid’s case, Muslims, like other Malaysians, may have freedom of expression, but there are a string of state laws, as empowered by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, that do not allow Muslims to publish books that are deemed unIslamic.” – MMO.

By saying that “there are a string of state laws, as empowered by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, that do not allow Muslims to publish books that are deemed unIslamic”, she is questioning the decision made by MAIWP and JAIS as the religious authorities that Irshad Manji’s Allah, Liberty and Love is contrary to the Islamic law.

The writer also wrote:

“Who decides whether a particular book is “unIslamic”? That would be the state religious departments.” – MMO.

What right has a person of another religion to question and interfere in matters regarding Islam, the religion of the Federation?

Of course, it must be the Islamic religious departments that decide on matters regarding Islam and not a person of another religion like the writer.

Boo Su Lyn also wrote that:

“It’s unclear if the Selangor Islamic Religious Department or the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department (in Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz’s case involving the same book), had actually read Allah, Liberty and Love, or if the religious authorities merely opposed the book simply because the Canadian author Manji is a lesbian.”- MMO.

What a malicious statement!

Is Boo Su Lyn saying that she understands Islam better than MAIWP and JAIS and that the Islamic authorities are unprofessional in doing their duties?

Furthermore, is the writer trying to violate the Article 11(3)(a) of the Federal Constitution by interfering into the rights of the Muslim authorities to manage its own religious affairs?

Article 11(3)(a) states:

Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs

In its Apology and Retraction article, MMO did not even mention that Boo Su Lyn made a public statement against Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act which restricts anyone to question the four sensitive issues of the Federal Constitution.

Boo Su Lyn wrote that Article 10(4) that prohibits a person from questioning Part III (citizenship), Article 152 (national language), Article 153 (special position of the Malays and of Sabah and Sarawak natives) and Article 181 (rulers’ sovereignty) should also be abolished so that there can be public discussion on what she wrote as “these so-called “sensitive” issues.”

Article 10(4) is protected by Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act:

“A “seditious tendency” is a tendency— to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.”

She even questions Article 153 that against Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act by writing:

“It also allows state-sanctioned discrimination against minority groups, with no avenue for victims to seek redress as they’re not even supposed to question the so-called “sensitive” matter of Malay privileges.” – MMO.

Apart from condemning and calling for the Article 10(4) to be abolished, Boo Su Lyn did the same to the Article 11(4) when it has nothing to do with her and the fact that she has no rights to interfere in the matters of Islam (Article 11(3)(a)).

What is her intention to ask for the Article that protects Islam, the Religion of the Federation as stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to be abolished?

Without Article 11(4), the Rulers cannot ‘restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam’.

Article 11(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.”

By calling for the Article 11(4) to be abolished, Boo Su Lyn is also challenging the Article 3(1) for disrupting “peace and harmony” of the relationship between the Muslims and people practicing other religions.

A very senior lawyer, Professor Dato’ Naser Disa explains that the words, “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” means that people from other religions must practise their religions in peace and harmony with others from different religions especially Islam, which is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia.

In the ruling of the case of Kalimah Allah, the Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali wrote that:

“It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the 29 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.”

It is unconstitutional for Boo Su Lyn to write untrue and seditious statements about Articles 10(4) and 11(4) to justify her call for the Articles to be removed and a person who questions the four sensitive issues mentioned under Article 10(4) can be charged under Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act.

However, regarding the malicious article, MMO wrote:

“Malay Mail Online also has no intention of insulting Islam or any religion, and is withdrawing the said article and apologising in the hopes of avoiding any such perception.”

So, we can clearly see that:

  1.  MMO does not think that the seditious and malicious content of article is wrong.
  2. It is not wrong for a non-Muslims to take the liberty to interpret Islam the way they wish and to interfere in the Islamic matters.
  3. It is not seditious to question Article 153 and the other sensitive issues protected by Article 10(4) . 
  4.  MMO did not apologise and withdrawing the article because it is wrong and seditious.
  5. MMO took the action only because, “in the hopes of avoiding any such perception.”
  6. MMO is actually supporting Boo Su Lyn’s article that maliciously insulting Islam and the Islamic authorities and condemning Article 10(4), and saying that she is right.
  7.  It is the readers with “such perception” who wrongly think that the article insults Islam.

My conclusion is, MMO and the writer find there is nothing wrong with the article that not only insult and humiliate Islam but has gone against Articles 3(1), 10(4), 11(3)(a), 11(4) and 153 of the Federal Constitution and Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act.

The Sedition Act must be used to stop people from challenging the law and the Federal Constitution and to protect the peace and harmony of our beloved country.





Pakatan Is Selling Off Malaysia For Anwar?

15 02 2015
TMI

The Malaysian Insider, 11 February 2015 10:41 PM

In his article, “Pakatan Willing To Sell Off Nation For Anwar”, Hafidz Baharom wrote how the opposition parties are willing to even sacrifice the nation, just to release their leader, Anwar Ibrahim from jail.

I’m not a fan of Hafidz Baharom; in fact I’ve never agree with his opinions, so the article above really surprised me.

He started his article with:

“It is disappointing to see that the only agenda the Pakatan Rakyat parties and supporters have a care for is the immediate release of their leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, even to the point of willing to barter away our sovereignty.” – TMI

Hafidz Baharom then asked;

“…is one person really worth sacrificing the entire nation for?” – TMI

Of course NOT!

Hafidz Baharom also wrote:

“With Pakatan promoting this petition to its supporters, allow me to ask this; what if the US puts forward trade sanctions on Malaysia? Think about it.” – TMI

But again, maybe that is what the opposition leaders want – for the US to “put forward trade sanctions on Malaysia”, so that they can blame the whole thing on the government, and call for the people to topple the government even though it’s them who cause that to happen.

Hafidz Baharom also wrote about the opposition leaders:

“So congratulations to them on finally showing their political stripes and just how far they are willing to sell out the people they vowed to defend.” – TMI

I really hope that more people can see the true colours of the leaders and can see that they do not care about the people and that they are willing to sell of the sovereignty our country for their own agendas.

“Malaysians should not unwittingly support something so blindly.” – Hafidz Baharom (TMI)

Most Malaysians are tired of Anwar and his ‘Reformasi’, and opposition parties’ supporters must remember that they must “not unwittingly support something so blindly.”

It seems like PKR is only all about Anwar Ibrahim and his family.

I want to congratulate Hafidz Baharom for being brave enough to be honest and not spinning facts but his boss might not be very happy with him.

Anyway, I’m not surprise if Hafidz Baharom will soon be writing another article that he has change his mind and that he supports the petition to force the Malaysian government to free Anwar Ibrahim.

Please click here to Say That You Respect The Sovereignty of Malaysia.





Federal Court Sentenced Anwar To Five Years In Jail

10 02 2015

The Federal Court sentenced Anwar Ibrahim to a five-years period of jail for sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan seven years ago.

The five men panel lead by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria delivered an unanimous 5-0 judgement on the matter.

Hakim

 

Below is the summary of the case which took 7 years to be finalised.

B9cwy_zCUAABUjq





Photos: Federal Court Reserves Judgement On ‘Allah’ Case

5 03 2014
Solat hajat at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, March 5, 2014.

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

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

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

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

Below are some of the photos that I snapped.

Please click the photos for larger images.

Please click here for more photos.








%d bloggers like this: