Tun M, Tolong Jawab Soalan Saya Yang Tun Gagal Jawab Dalam Surat Tun

12 08 2017

“Nothing to Hide 2.0” forum, which is organised by Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) and to be held on Aug 13, 2017 is supposed to be the platform where the party promises to answer all the questions asked by its audience.

Anyhow, funnily Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reported that, “Mahathir said the platform would be a good place for Najib to address the allegations against him once and for all”.

In my opinion, in contrary to what was said by Tun M as reported by FMT, PPBM should not waste its time and money on PM Najib, but should make full use of the opportunity to clear out issues that are bothering some of their supporters and the general public, especially about the vision and mission, as well as the direction of the party in the future.

I have an important question that Tun M had failed to answer in the letter that was sent to me by Tun M as to answer an important question regarding PPBM’s agreement with DAP, PKR, PAN that I wrote in my blog post on the 10th of January, 2017.

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

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

In the post, I asked why did the parties involved added the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) which will definitely undermine the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation and distort the interpretation of the Article 3(1)?

To my surprise, on January 12, 2017, I received a letter from Tun M himself to answer the question I had asked in my post.

The letter was sent by the Office of Datuk Badariah Arshad, Director of  Operations, Perdana Leadership Foundation (Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana) to my father via e-mail, to be forwarded to me.

Please click here for: “Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan”

Unfortunately, not only Tun M’s explanation failed to answer my question, but it made the matter even more confusing.

In contrary to what was written by Tun, the Article 3(1) is the Article that confers Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions as what Tun tried to explain in his letter.

The letter that was sent to me by Tun Dr. Mahathir.

So, if I will be able to attend the program, I really want to ask Tun M the above question as the issue is crucial for it touches on the supreme law of our Nation and hopefully this time Tun M will be able to answer my question because he has Nothing to Hide.





Zairil Dakwa Tun M Mencadangkan Pindaan Semberono?

2 03 2017

Saya tidak terkejut apabila ahli Parlimen DAP Bukit Bendera, Zairil yang walaupun mengaku beragama Islam tetapi menentang taraf, kedudukan dan bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia seperti yang telah termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Di dalam artikel yang bertajuk, “Kembalikan kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan sebagai pemutus muktamad isu undang-undang”, yang telah disiarkan oleh RoketKini.com, Zairil mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang menghalang Mahkamah Tinggi untuk membatalkan keputusan Mahkamah Syariah.

>>>Tekan sini untuk baca artikel tersebut<<<

Tidak setakat itu, ahli Parlimen DAP itu juga mencadangkan agar bidang kuasa yang telah diperuntukkan kepada Mahkamah Syariah untuk menghakimi “hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa” itu dirampas atau ditarik balik.

Lebih parah lagi, dengan memberi gambaran bahawa Perkara 121(1A) itu seolah-olah tidak adil dan satu “dilema sistem kehakiman”, pemimpin DAP itu mencadangkan satu jalan pintas diambil untuk merampas bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah melalui jalan belakang, seperti kenyataannya, “Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121”.

Bukankah cadangan Zairil itu bermakna menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah secara ‘bypass’ Perlembagaan Persekutuan?

Kenyataan Zairil:

Oleh itu, saya ingin mencadangkan agar Mahkamah Persekutuan dikembalikan tarafnya sebagai pemutus muktamad dalam segala isu undang-undang, yakni sebagai Mahkamah Perlembagaan. Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121.

Penyelesaian kepada masalah ini boleh dicapai melalui pindaan kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman dalam dua perkara. Pertamanya, pendefinisian bidang kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan harus menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak dihadkan kepada bidang kuasa yang sama dengan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Kedua, satu prosedur harus diperkenalkan bagi membenarkan pengemukaan petisyen secara langsung kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa. 

~Zairil (DAP)

Kalau dahulu Lim Guan Eng dengan celuparnya membuat fitnah dan hasutan jahat menuduh UMNO sanggup bekerjasama dengan PAS untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect” dalam hal Akta 355, kini terbukti siapa sebenarnya yang berniat jahat untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution” untuk mencapai hasrat mereka.

“MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP deserve public condemnation for betraying their principles and promises to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution but also for their political expediency to continue to deceive the people by supporting UMNO that is willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect.”

~Lim Guan Eng

Lebih teruk lagi, Zairil juga telah memberi sebab yang tidak masuk akal dalam mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A):

Jika kita kembali kepada Perlembagaan, Perkara 75 menyatakan bahawa undang-undang Persekutuan mengatasi undang-undang Negeri, manakala Perkara 4 menyatakan Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengatasi semua undang-undang lain. Hal ini jelas dan tidak dipertikaikan.

~Zairil (DAP)

Walaupun undang-undang Syariah itu dibawah negeri, namun sistem Mahkamah Syariah adalah sebahagian daripada sistem perundangan Persekutuan; kerana kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

Selain daripada Zairil, Lim Kit Siang juga mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A).

Menariknya pada masa yang sama, rakan sekumpulan mereka iaitu PKR menyangkal tuduhan DAP dan mengiktiraf Perkara 121(1A) sebagai penting dan baik sehingga mendakwa pemimpin mereka, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahimlah yang memainkan peranan utama dalam usaha untuk menambah Fasal 1A kepada Perkara 121.

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 – Page 20

Malah, bukan setakat itu sahaja, tetapi jika mereka membaca Hansard Parliamen, mereka akan mendapati bahawa rakan baik terkini parti DAP, Tun Dr. Mahathirlah yang merupakan orang yang mencadangkan penambahan Fasal 1(A) kepada Perkara 121 di Parlimen pada tahun 1988.

Jadi, apakah Zairil menuduh Dr. M seorang yang tidak cermat dan tidak berfikiran panjang sehingga mencadangkan satu “pindaan semberono” yang “telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita”?

Pindaan semberono yang dibuat pada tahun 1988 telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita dan mencetuskan krisis Perlembagaan dan penafian hak dan kebebasan asasi rakyat seperti yang berlaku dlm kes-kes S. Deepa dan Indira Gandhi.

~Zairil (DAP)

Apakah pindaan Perkara 121(1A) yang dituduh satu “pindaan semberono” oleh Zairil akan benar-benar menjadi satu “dilema” kepada DAP, PKR dan PPBM?

Maka persoalannya ialah:

  1. Apakah pendirian bersama parti DAP, PKR dan PPBM mengenai Perkara 121(1A)?
  2. Siapakah yang akan beralah dalam soal ini atau adakah PKR dan PPBM hanya bermain politik dan akhirnya akan akur akan semua kehendak DAP?
  3. Sanggupkah PKR dan Tun Dr. Mahathir bersekongkol dengan DAP untuk menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah?
  4. Di manakah suara pemimpin Islam mereka yang pernah berkata mahu memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah?
  5. Apakah inilah yang mereka maksudkan sebagai pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah versi mereka?

 





Mengarutnya Tun Mahathir… (Video)

22 02 2017

Dalam satu sidang media selepas sambutan Tahun Baru Cina oleh PKR Bandar Tun Razak di Flat Seri Johor di Cheras, pengerusi Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM), Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed membuat berberapa tuduhan yang amat mengarut tentang pindaan Akta 355.

Dalam sebuah video oleh KiniTV, Tun M sekali lagi membuat beberapa tuduhan liar seperti Himpunan 355 bermotifkan politik dan juga pindaan yang dicadangkan ini akan membolehkan perlaksanaan hukuman potong tangan dan lebih pelik lagi, penyembelihan orang.

“Tetapi nampak dia orang ni yang seronok sangat nak potong tangan orang, nak sembelih orang…”

~Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed

Persolannya, adakah Tun M tidak faham tentang pindaan Akta 355 atau Tun sengaja mahu mengelirukan orang ramai dengan tuduhan yang tidak masuk akal seperti menyembelih orang?

Memang pelik bila Tun M seperti tidak faham tentang Akta 355, kerana hakikatnya, Akta ini telah dipinda dua kali semasa zaman Tun menjadi Perdana Menteri.

Malah Tun M sendiri telah menyokong usul pindaan Akta 355 pada tahun 1984 bertujuan untuk menaikkan had hukuman bagi Mahkamah Syariah pada ketka itu.

Seperti pindaan Akta 355 pada tahun 1984, pindaan yang dicadangkan ini juga hanyalah untuk menaikkan had hukuman kesalahan di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah dan bukannya menentukan hukuman kerana ini adalah di bawah bidang kuasa kerajaan negeri.

Malangnya, kini Tun sudah senada dengan kumpulan SIS Forum Berhad yang gagal memahami perkara yang mudah ini.

Hukuman berat atau ‘capital punishment’ seperti potong tangan tidak termasuk di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah, apatah lagi hukuman bunuh.

Tambahan, di bawah hukum Islam, pesalah tidak boleh dibunuh secara kejam seperti dengan cara sembelih apabila dihukum mati, dan Tun M sudah salah di situ.

Tun M juga nampaknya tidak faham akan cara perlaksanaan sebatan Syariah apabila menuduh bahawa perlaksanaan seratus sebatan akan membunuh pesalah.

“Ini nak sebat orang sampai seratus kali, mati kalau sebat seratus kali.”

~Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed

Sebatan Syariah amat ringan berbanding sebatan sivil, dan sebatan akan dijalankan di bawah pengawasan doktor perubatan yang mengawasi keadaan pesalah semasa disebat dan sebatan akan ditangguhkan jika kesihatan pesalah tidak mengizinkan.

Kata Tun, “Melayu mudah lupa” tapi nampaknya Tun yang sudah lupa atau buat-buat lupa.

Related articles:

  1. Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan
  2. Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?
  3. Tun Dr Mahathir, From A Statesman To A Street Demonstrator
  4. Tun Dr. Mahathir, “Kalau Marahkan Nyamuk Jangan Bakar Kelambu”
  5. Tun M Has Gone Too Far
  6. Is Tun M’s Rights Above The Rights Of Agong
  7. Tun M, Janganlah Menghina Nabi S.A.W.
  8. Tun M: “Perdana Menteri Buat Demonstration” (Video)
  9. Tun M: Jangan Menang Sorak, Kampung Tergadai
  10. Tun M and TMI vs Bukit Aman
  11. Video: Tun M Sings “Imagine”, Is He Okay?





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?








%d bloggers like this: