“DAP Bukan Lagi Musuh Melayu”; Is Zam Okay?

6 07 2017

Bekas Menteri Penerangan, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin atau lebih dikenali sebagai Zam baru-baru ini menulis sebuah artikel di blognya, Zamkata, yang bertajuk “DAP BUKAN LAGI MUSUH MELAYU AKIBAT PEMESONGAN NASIONALISME UMNO”.

Artikel tersebut menunjukkan betapa setianya Tan Sri Zam kepada Tun Mahathir (Tun M) kerana demi mempertahankan pendirian Tun M, Zam sanggup menulis apa sahaja walaupun tulisan itu amat mengelirukan, tuduhan yang melulu tanpa fakta dan alasan yang amat dangkal dan tidak logik; semata-mata untuk memberi persepsi yang buruk kepada UMNO dan kerajaan.

Zam buat-buat tidak tahu bahawa parti DAP ialah sebuah parti yang menentang hak orang-orang Melayu dan Raja-Raja Melayu dan sentiasa mendesak supaya Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dihapuskan agar hilanglah hak istimewa orang Melayu di Tanah Melayu ini.

Di manakah logiknya bila Zam cuba menyamakan kesan hubungan “penanaman modal dari China atau kerjasama ekonomi Malaysia dengan Republik Rakyat China” dengan kesan kekuasaan politik parti DAP kepada orang Melayu?

Zam seterusnya menulis:

“Orang Melayu sekarang melihat UMNO sebagai menambah ancaman dan cabaran kepada mereka dibandingkan DAP yang semakin matang dalam melihat nilai-nilai politik yang diperlukan untuk kerjasama politik yang progresif, dinamik ,bersih dan cekap yang tidak lagi berasaskan politik perkauman dan sentimen keugamaan yang sempit.”

Nampaknya Zam menganggap penentangan keras DAP terhadap dasar-dasar Islam itu sebagai sikap “DAP yang semakin matang” dan “tidak lagi berasaskan politik perkauman dan sentimen keugamaan yang sempit”.

DAP bukan sahaja dengan biadapnya menentang pindaan Akta 355 yang dibuat untuk memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah, malah Ahli Parlimen DAP Bukit Bendera mencadangkan supaya bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah yang diperuntukkan di bawah Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan itu ditarik balik.

Walaupun bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah hanya terpakai kepada orang Islam sahaja, namun DAPlah yang dengan lantang menentang dengan berbagai alasan yang tidak masuk akal termasuk, demi mempertahankan hak kebebasan umat Islam termasuk untuk murtad.

Di negeri yang mereka kuasai iaitu Pulau Pinang, mereka mahu seruan azan diperlahankan, seolah-olah Pulau Pinang kini  bukan lagi sebuah negeri Islam.

Pada mereka, hak asasi umat Islam hanyalah hak untuk bebas membuat dosa namun hak untuk hidup secara Islam yang sebenarnya dinafikan dan ditentang habis-habisan dengan berbagai alasan termasuk bersifat ekstrimis, rasis dan merbahayakan negara.

Malah telah ada pemimpin DAP yang berani berkata, “apa salahnya kalau Penang hendak dijadikan Christian City” walaupun kata-kata itu jelas mencabar kuasa Yang Di-Pertuan Agong sebagai Ketua bagi Agama Islam bagi Pulau Pinang dan seluruh Malaysia.

Begitu juga dengan pendedahan Dr. Kamarul Zaman tentang adanya agenda Kristian di sebalik penglibatan Hannah Yeoh sebagai ahli politik di Malaysia yang mana bersalahan dengan undang-undang negara ini.

Bencinya DAP kepada Islam sehinggakan mereka dengan sengaja menyalah tafsirkan Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dengan memfitnah bahawa Malaysia ini ialah sebuah negara sekular dengan Islam hanyalah sekadar agama rasmi sahaja.

Begitu juga dengan perlembagaan parti DAP yang dengan jelas bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Jadi, bagaimana mungkin Zam boleh berpendapat bahawa hubungan ekonomi dengan China lebih merbahaya berbanding dengan memberikan kuasa politik kepada DAP yang hakikatnya dimonopoli oleh orang Cina yang tidak memghargai pengorbanan Raja-Raja Melayu dan mahu menghapuskan kontrak sosial yang telah dibuat dahulu?

Peliknya bila Zam menuduh “UMNO yang mahu menChinakan Malaysia menerusi penjajahan ekonominya” namun menutup mata bila kerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang cuba “menChinakan” Pulau Pinang dengan membawa masuk pelaburan dari China dan membangunkan berbagai projek hartanah mewah yang dijual kepada rakyat dari negara China.

Juga menghairankan saya adalah, bagaimana Zam boleh menyalahkan kerajaan mengenai penjualan saham Proton kepada Geely, sebuah syarikat pembuat kereta China sedangkan Tun M dan bukannya PM Najib yang berada di dalam kumpulan yang telah merancang perkara ini dan telah terlibat dalam rundingan awal di antara Proton dan Geely.

“Orang Melayu bimbang perkongsian Proton Holding Berhad dengan pembuat kereta China, China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group akan membuka peluang pekerjaan kepada orang Cina dari China  di Proton yang selama ini eksklusif kepada orang Melayu.”

Dari tulisannya juga, nampaknya seperti dasar parti DAP, Zam juga mahukan negara ini mengamalkan “dasar sekularisme dan liberalisme” yang bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam, Perlembagaan dan undang-undang negara:

“Disamping itu orang bukan Melayu melihat perubahan dasar sekularisme dan liberalisme UMNO sejak permuafakatan politik dengan Pas untuk bersama menguasai negara ini. Pindaan Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang Kuasa Jenayah atau Akta 355) menimbulkan prasangka buruk bukan Melayu terhadap matlamat UMNO…”

Terpengaruh dengan pendapat “Peguam-Peguam Islam yang terkemuka di negara ini” dari parti DAP seperti Zaid Ibrahim dan peguan liberal lain contohnya Siti Zabedah Kassim, Zam berpendapat bahawa, “Hukuman jenayah tidak seharusnya berbeza antara Melayu Islam dan bukan Islam”; seolah-olah Zam tidak tahu akan adanya sistem Mahkamah Syariah yang bidang kuasanya telah diperuntukkan melalui Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Peguam-Peguam Islam yang terkemuka di negara ini juga bimbang pindaan ini akan membawa kepada pencerobohan terhadap prinsip-prinsip asal perlembagaan negara yang mahu membina suatu bangsa atas nasionalisme Malaysia yang menolak dan perbezaan hukuman kaum di Malaysia termasuk orang Islam sendiri yang menyemai perasaan ketidakadilan dari segi perlembagaan.”

Nampaknya Zam yang kurang memahami Perlembagaan Persekutuan merasakan PAS lebih merbahaya daripada DAP kepada orang Melayu.

“PAS yang belum pun berada dalam kerajaan telah berjaya mempergunakan UMNO untuk menggugat kesucian Perlembagaan Negara menerusi Parlimen dengan mengambil kesempatan di atas kelemahan UMNO dan pucuk pimpinannya.”

Lebih memeningkan lagi ialah, setelah menuduh, “UMNO yang mahu menChinakan Malaysia menerusi penjajahan ekonominya” Tan Sri Zam menulis:

“Orang Melayu tidak menolak penanaman modal dari China kerana kesesatan dari nasionalisme atau misguided nasionalism tetapi kerana kehilangan keyakinan mereka terhadap nasionalimse UMNO yang terpesong dari dasar asalnya dan juga dari Perlembagaan Negara .”

Saya tidak faham apakah Zam merasakan pelaburan modal dari China ini memberi kesan yang baik atau buruk kepada orang Melayu; adakah kesannya buruk bila modal China dibawa masuk oleh UMNO dan kesannya baik jika dibawa masuk oleh pihak lain contohnya DAP dan Tun M?

Dan apakah maksud “nasionalimse UMNO yang terpesong dari dasar asalnya dan juga dari Perlembagaan Negara”?

Jika Zam maksudkan pemerkasaan dasar Islam dan usaha UMNO untuk memperbetulkan penafsiran Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan dan bukannya hanya sekadar agama rasmi seperti yang di salah tafsirkah oleh DAP itulah sebagai ” terpesong dari dasar asalnya dan juga dari Perlembagaan Negara”, maka patutlah beliau merasakan “DAP bukan lagi musuh orang Melayu”, bak kata pepatah Inggeris, “Birds of a feather flock together”.

Tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa DAP dan parti-parti sekutunya seperti PKR, PAN dan PPBM merupakan ancaman terhadap kedaulatan Islam di Malaysia dan itulah yang menjadikan DAP sebagai musuh yang amat nyata kepada orang Melayu, walaupun Zam menafikannya dengan sepenuh hati.

Related Posts:





Kepimpinan PAN Yang Buta Hati Dan Keliru

19 06 2017

Apabila pensyarah Universiti Utara Malaysia, Dr. Kamarul Zaman Yusoff mendedahkan adanya agenda Kristian di sebalik penglibatan Hannah Yeoh sebagai ahli politik di Malaysia, pemimpin-pemimpin DAP dan PAN mula menyerang Dr. Kamarul dengan begitu hebat, dan cuba menggambarkan seolah-olah kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Dr. Kamarul itu adalah palsu dan tidak berfakta.

Hannah Yeoh pula segera bertindak membuat laporan polis terhadap Dr. Kamarul dan seterusnya memberi  berbagai kenyataan kepada media pro-pembangkang sebagai menyanggah kenyataan Dr. Kamarul.

The Malaysian Insight (TMI), di dalam artikelnya yang bertajuk “Hannah pertikai masa siaran artikel Kamarul Yusof” melaporkan:

“Yeoh, berkata sebagai penganut Kristian, beliau percaya kepada kedaulatan undang-undang, keadilan, ketelusan, kebertanggungjawaban, kesaksamaan dan tadbir urus yang baik”.

Soalan saya ialah, adakah Hannah Yeoh yang dikatakan “percaya kepada kedaulatan undang-undang” itu taat kepada undang-undang negara sedangkan di dalam artikel yang sama, TMI melaporkan:

“Komitmen DAP ialah mewujudkan negara sekular seperti didefinisikan di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia. DAP mempunyai agenda rakyat Malaysia bukan Kristian.”

  1. Dengan menyatakan Malaysia ialah sebuah “negara sekular seperti didefinisikan di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia”, Hannah Yeoh telah memfitnah Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dengan jelas mengatakan bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan yang membawa erti bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara Islam.
  2. Hannah Yeoh dan parti DAP bukan sahaja telah melanggar undang-undang negara tetapi juga telah menderhaka kepada Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang di Pertuan Agong jika dia melaksanakan “Komitmen DAP ialah mewujudkan negara sekular”; iaitu satu komitmen untuk menukar Malaysia menjadi sebuah negara sekular yang bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan mencabar kuasa Yang di Pertuan Agong sebagai Ketua Agama Islam negara ini.

Malaysia bukanlah sebuah negara sekular.

Malaysia ialah sebuah negara Islam, menegaskan bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara sekular adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang tertinggi negara iaitu Perlembagaan Persekutuan,  apatah lagi apabila Hannah Yeoh melaksanakan komitmen DAP untuk menjadikan Malaysia sebuah negara sekular.

Bolehkah laporan TMI itu dijadikan hujah untuk mematah dakwaan Dr. Kamarul?

Hakikatnya, Hannah Yeoh sendiri menulis yang dia berjaya untuk berdakyah di gereja-gereja, kepada pemimpin-pemimpin dunia dan kepada orang-orang muda (“to preach at churches, to world leaders and to young people”, muka surat 108) kerana Tuhan Kristiannya yang “made it happen through my political office”. 

Seperti kata Dr. Kamarul, Hannah Yeoh sendiri mengaku telah menggunakan kedudukan politiknya untuk berdakyah.

Oleh itu, bolehkah kita percaya kata-kata Hannah Yeoh Tseow Suan dan penyokongnya termasuk pemimpin parti PAN yang menuduh Dr. Kamarul berbohong?

Dr. Kamarul seterusnya mendedahkan bahawa Hannah Yeoh yang merupakan seorang evangelist telah menyeru “agar penganut Kristian membina semula Malaysia kerana Tuhan mahu menuntut semula politik dan perkhidmatan awam di Malaysia (“God wants to reclaim politics and public service in Malaysia”, muka surat 110), ditambah tindakan beliau mengaitkan diri dengan cita-cita untuk membawa kepercayaan dan perkhidmatan Kristian kepada dunia awam (“aims to bring Christian faith and service to the public sphere”)!

Perkara ini telah mencetuskan keresahan di kalangan umat Islam dan menjadi ancaman kepada kedaulatan dan keamanan negara kita.

Kita tahu akan gejala pemurtadan di tanah air kita.

Sebagai contohnya, dalam kes pemurtadan Azlina Jailani atau Lina Joy pada tahun 1999; Azlina telah mendapat sokongan hebat daripada puak itu yang sehingga kini, masih menggunakan kes ini dan membawanya ke peringkat anratarabangsa untuk mendesak Malaysia memberi kebebasan kepada umat Islam untuk murtad.

Contoh yang lain, dalam ceramahnya pada tahun 2006, seorang paderi Kristian bernama Benjamin Stephen berkata, “di Johor sahaja sudah lebih daripada atau hampir kepada 10,000” orang Melayu telah dimurtadkan dan memeluk agama Kristian, malah di setiap gereja di Semenanjung Malaysia yang dia lawati, ada orang-orang Melayu yang telah murtad seperti dirinya sendiri.

Hari ini, mereka termasuk politik DAP sangat lantang bersuara mengutuk institusi-institusi Islam dan berani mencampuri hal ehwal agama Islam yang mana mereka tidak mempunyai hak kepelembagaan untuk berbuat demikian.

Contoh yang paling mudah ialah kes pindaan Akta 355, dimana mereka bertalu-talu menentang dan menyerang secara lisan dan tulisan, bukan sahaja membantah pindaan suatu Akta yang tiada kena mengena dengan mereka tetapi juga mengutuk dan berusaha untuk menghapuskan institusi perundangan Islam yang telahpun ada di Tanah Melayu ini sejak sebelum adanya sistem perundangan sivil.

Perkara ini merupakan suatu serangan dan penindasan ke atas hak umat Islam dan perkara ini tidak sepatutnya berlaku di sebuah negara Islam.

Mereka juga mengangkat dan menyokong golongan liberal seperti kumpulan G25, SIS Forum,  Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) dan sebagainya sebagai suara umat Islam Malaysia dan seterusnya menggunakan golongan ini untuk menentang ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya, institusi-institusi Islam dan juga sistem perundangan Islam.

Hannah Yeoh sebagai Puan Speaker DUN Selangor telah menolak usul untuk memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah di DUN Selangor daripada dibahaskan tetapi pada masa yang sama mendakwa  bahawa dia tidak membenci Islam, malah sangat mesra dengan orang Islam.

Untuk mendapat sokongan orang Islam, Hannah Yeoh dan pemimpin bukan Islam DAP dan PKR telah memasuki masjid hingga ke ruang solat untuk berbagai aktiviti termasuk memberi ucapan.

Ini membawa kepada tindakan biadap Ahli Parlimen PKR Subang, Sivarasa Rasiah yang berucap di kawasan saf hadapan masjid sehingga Sultan Selangor menzahirkan rasa teramat murka dan dukacita dengan tindakannya yang memasuki Masjid An Nur, Kampung Melayu Subang dan menggunakan ruangan solat sebagai tempat berpolitik.

Sebelum ini, semasa menjadi Ahli Parlimen Serdang, pemimpin DAP, Teo Nie Ching juga pernah berucap di di kawasan solat saf hadapan sebuah surau manakala ADUN PKR  Dr. Xavier Jayakumar juga telah berucap di kawasan solat saf hadapan masjid Ar-Rahimiah Klang.

Lebih malang lagi, bila ditegur, mereka lantang mempertahankan perbuatan biadap mereka, seolah-olah mereka lebih faham hukum Islam daripada pihak berkuasa Islam sendiri.

Saya tidak faham bagaimana ada orang-orang seperti Khalid Samad, Mujahid Yusof Rawa dan sebagainya masih buta dan mahu mempertahankan Hannah Yeoh dan bersungguh-sungguh menyerang Dr. Kamarul yang hanya memetik kata-kata Hannah Yeoh sendiri di dalam bukunya, ‘Becoming Hannah’.

Di manakah dasar perjuangan ‘Maqasid Syariah’ parti PAN apabila pemimpin-pemimpin mereka sendiri menentang orang yang mempertahankan negara Islam dan mempertahankan orang yang berusaha menghapuskan kedaulatan Islam di tanah air kita?

Related Posts:

 





Lawmakers Must First Understand the Law

5 05 2017

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:





Ceramah PAN: Kit Siang & Guan Eng Akan Masuk Islam?

21 03 2017

I am not sure who is the speaker but he looks like Wan Ji and sounds like him too.

What will DAP say about this?





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

2 01 2017

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

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

15439895_1820054294933619_5239681811501991150_n

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

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

15419650_1820054354933613_2455664813730344125_o

Screenshot taken from the agreement

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

Well, let us take a look of what is stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word, “aman dan harmoni” in the Article 3(1), has been interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia:

[31] It is my observation that the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) has a historical background and dimension, to the effect that those words are not without significance. The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that the fundamental liberties Articles were grouped together subsequently under Part II of the Constitution.

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

[42] It is my judgment that, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the usage of the word “Allah” particularly in the Malay version of the Herald, is without doubt, do have the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community. Such publication will surely have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Any such disruption of the even tempo is contrary to the hope and desire of peaceful and harmonious co-existence of other religions other than Islam in this country.

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

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

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

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

Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution:

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

Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution:

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

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





Tun M Has Gone Too Far

14 12 2016

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

Reported by The Malay Mail Online, Tun M said:

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

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

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

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

Related Article:

 





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

7 12 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the same article, MalysiaKini wrote:

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

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

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

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








%d bloggers like this: