Tag: ICERD

[GAMBAR] Suasana Di Sekitar #DaulatHimpunan812

(Gambar diambil daripada media sosial)

ICERD: PERLUKAH? – Analisis TV AlHijrah

Hidup Melayu! Hancur ICERD! Daulat Tuanku! Allahuakhbar!

RIBUAN orang membanjiri Perhimpunan Perpaduan Ummah yang diadakan malam tadi. – UTUSAN ONLINE

[Utusan Online}- PERANCANGAN AWAL hanya perhimpunan kecil-kecilan bagi membantah ICERD. Tetapi manusia merancang, Allah juga merancang.

Perhimpunan kecil Pasir Salak diangkat sebagai perhimpunan peringkat negeri. Diangkat lagi menjadi perhimpunan peringkat kebangsaan. Maka berhimpunlah kira-kira 30,000 di Kampung Gajah, Pasir Salak, Perak.

Khemah yang disediakan tidak muat menampung orang ramai yang hadir. Ketika solat Isyak berjemaah terpaksa bersesak dan melimpah-ruah dari kawasan disediakan.


PRESIDEN Pas, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang dan presiden UMNO, Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi pada Perhimpunan Perpaduan Ummah di pekan Kampung Gajah malam tadi. – UTUSAN ONLINE /KAMAL BASIR WAHAB

Sebenarnya acara telah pun bermula lebih awal iaitu sebaik selesai solat Maghrib. Ketika itu jumlah hadirin belum cukup besar. Selepas Isyak kawasan padang Aman Jaya mulai menyaksikan limpahan orang ramai.

Memang mudah untuk melihat mereka yang hadir datang parti mana. Selain pakaian, karaktor juga membezakan mereka ahli UMNO atau Pas.

Namun mereka tidak kekok untuk bersama, bersalaman dan berbual-bual isu semasa dan sudah pasti tumpuannya adalah membantah ICERD.

Tidak kira yang berkupiah putih, bersongkok hitam, bertengkolok atau kupiah hijau mereka memakai lilit kepala yang terpampang bantahan terhadap tuntutan hak sama rata iaitu pelaksanaan ICERD.

Presiden UMNO, Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi memilih untuk berucap terlebih dahulu daripada Presiden Pas, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Zahid mengambil peluang itu untuk memohon maaf kerana selama 22 tahun beliau dan ahli UMNO diajar untuk membenci parti lain khususnya Pas.

Beliau mengakui kekalahan pada pilihan raya lalu ada hikmah dan kini membawa penyatuan umat Islam.

Hadi pula mengimbau kembali bagaimana peristiwa 13 Mei iaitu tercetusnya rusuhan kaum telah menyatukan pengikut Pas dan UMNO. Dan kini tercetus ICERD yang mencabar hak umat Islam, Melayu dan raja Melayu, ahli dua parti terbesar kembali bertaut silaturrahimnya.

Perhimpunan malam tadi bergema dengan laungan hidup Melayu, hancur ICERD, daulat tuanku dan Allahuakhbar. Memang terasa tegak bulu roma berada perhimpunan sedemikian.

Tetapi itu belum kemuncak. Kemuncaknya adalah pada 8 Disember di Kuala Lumpur. Sejuta umat Islam akan turun ke jalan bagi tujuan yang sama.

Hidup Melayu, hancur ICERD, daulat tuanku, Allahuakhbar laungan sejuta umat Islam Melayu bakal bergema di ibu negara.

ICERD Mencabar Perpaduan, Perlembagaan Dan Kontrak Sosial

“Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu”; itulah moto negara yang terukir pada Jata Negara; menggambarkan betapa pentingnya perpaduan rakyat dalam membangunkan negara ini.

Walaupun warganegara Malaysia terdiri daripada pelbagai kaum dan bangsa, namun negara ini telah berjaya mengekalkan keamanan hasil kebijaksanaan pemimpinnya serta sikap toleransi dan kesatuan rakyatnya yang berasaskan kepada Kontrak Sosial yang menjadi asas kepada Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Namun kini, sudah ada sebilangan warganegara Malaysia yang bukan sahaja buta sejarah dan tidak memahami sejarah di sebalik penubuhan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, malah berusaha untuk menghapuskan sejarah negara bangsa.

Mereka juga gagal menghargai pengorbanan Raja-Raja Melayu dan pejuang-pejuang negara yang terdahulu demi menubuhkan negara ini.

Ramai yang tidak ambil tahu tentang ucapan Tun V.T. Sambanthan semasa perbahasan Parlimen pada 1hb Jun 1965:

“If we look around in Asia and East Asia, particularly, you will find that my race the Indian Race, is not welcomed in Ceylon, is not welcomed in Burma. Look at my brother Chinese race, it is not welcomed in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in all the other areas. What help do they get for citizenship in all these territories? In Burma, as we know, Indians have been sent packing, in Ceylon they refused them citizenship and in Burma it is likewise. I know it, you know it. And yet in Malaya what happened? Here, we found that the Malay leadership said, “We shall take them unto ourselves as brothers, we shall give them full opportunity to live in this country, we shall give them every opportunity to become citizens.” And so, in 1957, for the whole year, we waived language qualifications, and tens of thousands of Indians, Chinese, Ceylonese and others became citizens”It has been my great good fortune to have born in this country.

Where else can you find a more charitable, a more polite, a more decent race than Malay race? Where else can you get such politically decent treatment for any immigrant race? Where else in the history of the world?”

Jika kita lihat di sekitar Asia dan Asia TImur, khususnya, anda akan mendapati bahawa bangsa saya Bangsa India tidak diterima di Ceylon, tidak diterima di Burma. Lihatlah saudara Bangsa Cina saya, mereka tidak diterima di Thailand, di Vietnam, di Cambodia, di semua kawasan lain. Adakah mereka mendapat bantuan untuk mendapat kewarganegaraan di semua wilayah ini? Di Burma, seperti yang kita ketahui, orang-orang India telah dihalau, di Ceylon mereka (Bangsa India) tidak diberikan kewarganegaraan dan begitu juga di Burma. Saya tahu, anda juga tahu. Namun di Persekutuan Tanah Melayu apa yang terjadi? Di sini kita dapati pemimpin-pemimpin Melayu berkata, “Kami akan mengambil mereka menjadi saudara, kami akan memberi mereka peluang yang sepenuhnya untuk tinggal di negara ini, kami akan buka setiap peluang untuk mereka menjadi warganegara.” Maka pada 1957, selama setahun, kita mengenepikan kelayakkan bahasa, dan berpuluh ribu orang-orang India, Cina, Ceylon dan lain-lain menjadi warganegara.”Saya merasa bertuah kerana lahir di negara ini.

Dimana lagi anda akan mendapat satu bangsa yang lebih bermurah hati, yang lebih sopan, yang lebih beradab daripada bangsa Melayu? Dimana lagi anda akan mendapat layanan politik yang baik kepada mana-mana bangsa pendatang? Di mana lagi di dalam sejarah dunia ini?”

Pada 30 April 1969, Tun Tan Siew Sin pula berkata:

“The Malays, through UMNO were generous enough to relax the citizenship laws of this country … MCA and the MIC agreed to continue the policy of preserving the special position of the Malays.”

Orang Melayu melalui UMNO teramat baik hati untuk melonggarkan undang-undang kewarganegaraan di negara ini … MCA dan MIC bersetuju untuk meneruskan polisi untuk memelihara kedudukan istimewa orang-orang Melayu.

Kontrak Sosial memberi kedudukan istimewa kepada bangsa Melayu iaitu rakyat Raja, sebagai timbal balik kepada kewarganegaraan yang diberikan kepada kaum pendatang pada waktu itu; dan perkara ini adalah asas kepada perpaduan rakyat.

Demi menjaga keamanan dan kestabilan negara, Seksyen 3(1)(f) Akta Hasutan melarang apa-apa persoalan terhadap apa-apa perkara, hak, taraf, kedudukan, keistimewaan, kedaulatan atau prerogatif yang ditetapkan atau dilindungi oleh peruntukan Bahagian III Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau Perkara 152, 153 atau 181 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

[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.

Tetapi kini ada golongan yang mempertikaikan kontrak sosial dan Perkara 153.

Baru-baru ini, kerajaan Malaysia menyatakan hasrat untuk meratifikasikan International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) iaitu satu konvensyen antarabangsa yang bertujuan untuk menyamaratakan semua manusia tidak kira bangsa, jantina, bahasa, dan agama demi hak asasi manusia.

Perlaksanaan ICERD akan melanggar Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan juga  Kontrak Sosial kerana ia mencabar kedudukan Islam, Melayu dan Bumiputra.

Kesannya akan membangkitkan kemarahan dan pertikaian ke atas perkara yang selama ini telah dipersetujui bersama.

Kerbau dipegang pada talinya, manusia dipegang pada janjinya, kata biarlah dikota.

Perlukah kita menandatangani dan meratifikasikan kesemua konvensyen Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu?

Perlu diambil perhatian, negara-negara lain seperti Amerika Syarikat tidak menandatangani kesemua konvensyen PBB.

Sebelum konvensyen antarabangsa seperti ini diimplementasikan, kita harus merujuk kepada Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 1993, di mana Perenggan 5 Bahagian I deklarasi tersebut dengan jelas menyebut bahawa menjadi kewajipan negara-negara Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu untuk mengutamakan latar belakang sejarah negara itu di dalam mempromosi dan mempertahankan hak asasi manusia.

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Mendengar guruh di langit, air di tempayan dicurahkan.

Janganlah digadaikan perpaduan rakyat dan keamanan negara demi perkara yang belum pasti mendatangkan kebaikan kepada negara.

Artikel berkaitan:

  1. When a Lawmaker Fails to Understand the Law
  2. Hayati Pengorbanan Raja-Raja Melayu Dalam Menyambut Hari Kebangsaan
  3. Apakah Maksud Kemerdekaan?
  4. Di Sebalik Hari Kebangsaan Malaysia
  5. Ideologi Komunis dan Kekeliruan yang Nyata
  6. Kebenaran Di Sebalik Sejarah Penubuhan Persekutuan Malaysia
  7. A Kadir Jasin and the Raja-Raja Melayu
  8. Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?
  9. Constitutionally Illiterate!
  10. Buku Harapan – Dimanakah Agenda Islam Dalam Manifesto PH?
  11. Zairil Dakwa Tun M Mencadangkan Pindaan Semberono?
  12. Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan

A Hidden Treasure Of The Federal Constitution

Studying the case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, I came across an Article of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that attracts my attention.

The Article is Article 76, which explains about “the power of Parliament to legislate for states in certain cases”.

Clause 2 of Article 76 or Article 76(2) says:

(2) No law shall be made in pursuance of paragraph (a) of Clause (1) with respect to any matters of Islamic law or the custom of the Malays or to any matters of native law or custom in the States of Sabah and Sarawak and no Bill for a law under that paragraph shall be introduced into either House of Parliament until the Government of any State concerned has been consulted.

Paragraph (a) of Clause (1),

Parliament may make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List, but only as follows, that is to say— for the purpose of implementing any treaty, agreement or convention between the Federation and any other country, or any decision of an international organization of which the Federation is a member

This Article is interesting because it says that in matters related to the “Islamic law or the custom of the Malays or to any matters of native law or custom in the States of Sabah and Sarawak”, no laws shall be introduced into either House of Parliament until the Government of any State concerned has been consulted.

Hence, I think that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Sultans as the heads of states, have the rights to give the final says in the making of laws regarding these important matters and not the parliament.

This Article is precisely harmonious with Article 3 that says the Rulers are the Head of the religion of Islam in their respective states and Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of the religion of Islam in that states without Sultan, and Article 153 where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong “shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary  to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak”.

The human rights activists are lobbying the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to force the government of Malaysia to sign and to fully ratify some treaties and conventions that are against the teaching of Islam, the State laws, the Federal Constitution and the National Principals of Malaysia such as Article 18 of ICCPR, Article 14 of CRC, SOGI, and ICERD.

Can the parliament enact new laws to nullify the State laws regarding the matter?

I think it is the States and not the parliament that have the power to enact new laws in order to ratify the conventions because the enforcement of Islamic law on Muslim citizens is decided independently by each state.

The judgments by the Federal Court in the case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and the case of Negeri Sembilan’s transgenders supported these facts.

Malaysia And UNHRC Declaration

Each country is unique, and there is no two countries that are totally the same. As a sovereign country has its own law and constitution, nobody can force a sovereign country to follow the universal rules made by other countries especially when the rules are against the values and the needs of its citizens. The same is with Malaysia.

Malaysia has it’s own Federal Constitution, laws and Rukun Negara (National Principles) that ensures the harmony of its citizens. So, Malaysia does not need to follow all of the UNHR declarations. Why? Because some of the declarations are against the Malaysian Federal Constitution, laws and Rukun Negara. And if Malaysia accept all UNHRC declarations, we must accept total Freedom of Religion, total Freedom of Expression, LGBTIQ and others that are not only against our Federal Constitution but also illegal by Malaysian law.

As I wrote before, Article 3(1) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution wrote that “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. That means, Malaysia is an Islamic country. So, Malaysia cannot accept any part of the UNHRC declaration that is against the Islamic teachings, for example SOGI or LGBTIQ rights. 

LGBT way of life is against the Malaysian law as well as against the Syariah law and the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. To declare the LGBTIQ rights means committing a huge crime, a violation of human rights of others and undemocratic because it gives the rights to people to commit crime and against the rights of the majority.

ICERD is also against the Federal Constitution as Article 153 of the Federal Constitution gives special rights and position of the Malays and the Bumiputras (indigenous people of the Sabah and Sarawak). Is Article 153 unfair? People need to study the history of Malaysia and not reading the reports from COMANGO to understand why Article 153 is fair.

Malaysians live peacefully and the government had been fair to the minorities, treat them well and not discriminating them. So Malaysia does not need to accept all of the UNHRC declarations because some are not suitable for Malaysia. What seems fair for the minorities may not be fair for the majorities. For the ones who support LGBTIQ and wants Malaysia to accept SOGI rights, can they understand that it is unfair and against the human rights of the majority to force others to follow them? When one wants to make it fair, he or she must look at the whole condition and situation and not being selfish and only wants things his or her way.

Is being a religious state unfair to others? Malaysia is not the only religious state in the world; Vatican City, Monaco, Argentina and lots of other countries are also religious state so why must Malaysia be forced to accept the idea of secularism?

Not all of the UNHRC declarations are suitable for every country because each country has different social values and ways of live. Human rights must not only means giving rights for total freedom; such as total freedom of expression and others to everybody but it must be about being fair to the whole community because humans do not live alone. For example, Muslims living in England cannot force the British government to ban the selling of alcohol for the reason that consuming alcohol is against the Islamic teaching.

UNHRC declarations should be about making people happy, protecting people and giving people a better quality of life. And human rights should not be about everybody can do things their way without thinking of others around them, the law and constitution of their countries and others.

UNHRC declaration must not be about making a country accept a universal rule that is against the law and constitution of the country that in the end, make most people miserable, unhappy, causing problems, havoc and instability in the country.

Related articles

COMANGO And Human Rights

During the briefing for Muslim UPRo (Muslim NGOs in the UPR process) at Dewan Tun Rahah Memorial Tun Abdul Razak in Kuala Lumpur, Uncle Azril briefed us about the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) declarations. The review process will be held at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. 

United Nations

Malaysia is a peaceful country where the minorities races and religions are not been discriminated by our government. And Malaysia has its own Federal Constitutions, Rules of Laws, Social Contract and National Principles. This is very important to ensure the stability of our country since the people in our country is multi racial.

Anyway a loose coalition of NGOs called COMANGO (Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR process) made some false accusations regarding human rights in Malaysia. It also demands Malaysia to sign the UNHRC treaties that are against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, our Rukun Negara (National Principles) and the laws of our country.

COMANGO claims that it represents the majority of Malaysian, but they are not. Actually COMANGO only represents a minority of Malaysian citizens. They claimed to represent 54 NGOs but only 12 of those NGOs are legal, meaning most of the NGOs that COMANGO represented are illegal as they are not registered under the ROS or SSM.

Some of COMANGO’s demands are:

  • Demands Malaysia to sign the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR) which said,“The Committee observes that the freedom to “have or to adopt” a religion or belief necsesarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one’s religion or belief…”. ICCPR is against Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” and Article 11 (4) that says that state laws and federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims and also against the first principle of  Rukun Negara (National Principles) that says, “Believe in God”.

  • Demands Malaysia to sign the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). This is against Article 153 of the Federal Constitution that gives special rights and position of the Malays and the Bumiputras (indigenous people of the Sabah and Sarawak).

  • Demands Malaysia to agree on the SOGI Rights (Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity) which means they want Malaysia to legalised LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer). This is against Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution and also the law of Malaysia.

  • Demands some enactments of the Syariah Law to be abolished. This is also against Article 3 (1) and against the second principle of the Rukun Negara that says, “Loyalty to the king and country,” because the king must protect Islam.

I do not agree on certain things that UNHRC declares as Human Rights because it is against my Rights as a Malaysian citizen according to the Federal Constitutions, Rukun Negara and the Rules of Laws of Malaysia. 

COMANGO does not respect the Federal Constitutions, Rukun Negara, Rules of Laws and the Social Contract of Malaysia. And COMANGO does not respect human rights because it claims that it represent the majority of Malaysian when it is not true. Cheating and making false accusations is a crime. Can we trust criminals to fight for other people’s Human Rights?

Related articles