“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:





Act 355: Another Baseless and Illogical Arguement from G25

22 03 2017

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


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

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

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

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

Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





PKR Claims Anwar Introduced Article 121 (1A)

20 02 2017

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

Please read:

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

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

Written on page 20 of the book:

At the Federal level, upon the initiatives of the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Article 121 (1A) was introduced to the Federal Constitution. The introduction upgraded the legal position of the Syariah Courts without infringing the civil on the court rights of non-Muslims. It must be stress that this initiative was discussed by the Islamic Consultation Body, the Islamic Centre (now JAKIM), and the Cabinet.

~Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Office of the Prime Minister

Therefore, I have a few questions for PKR :

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

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

Related Posts:





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.





Police Report On Lim Guan Eng’s False Statements

26 11 2016

whatsapp-image-2016-11-24-at-11-54-16-am

Yesterday, as a loyal citizen of Malaysia, I filed a police report on Lim Guan Eng’s blog article regarding Act 355 at the Ampang Jaya Police Station.

In the article, the Pulau Pinang’s Chief Minister (CM) made four seditious false accusations:

  1. DAP opposes the hudud-like laws because it is contrary to the Federal Constitution.
  2. Our Federal Constitution is secular in nature with Islam as the religion of the Federation. Raising the punishment cap so that it can come closer to Hudud provisions would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance.
  3. 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.
  4. DAP reiterates that the failure of MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN now is seen as a form of tacit approval of the unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move to raise the punishment cap of Islamic laws that moves closer to Hudud-like laws.

DAP opposes the hudud-like laws because it is contrary to the Federal Constitution.

This is a recycled accusation that I’ve answered many times before.

Neither the Act 355 nor the amendment of the Act is contrary to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and the amendment of Act 355 it is not about implementing hudud-like laws as falsely accused by the CM of Pulau Pinang.

The fact that the Federal Constitution recognises the institution of Syariah Courts as stated in the Article 121 (1A) and the Part 1 List II  of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, proves that the Act 355 is not contrary to the Federal Constitution.

Furthermore, the Act 355 is an existing Act and it is already part of the laws of Malaysia.

“Our Federal Constitution is secular in nature with Islam as the religion of the Federation. Raising the punishment cap so that it can come closer to Hudud provisions would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance.”

In his above accusation, he made two contradicting statements, saying that the “Federal Constitution is secular in nature” and “with Islam as the religion of the Federation”.

How can our Federal Constitution that states Islam as the religion of the Federation be secular in nature, when George Jacob Holyoake who is the creator of the term secularism, defines secularism as separating government and religion?

In fact, if our Federal Constitution is secular in nature, the Act 355 cannot be part of the laws of Malaysia and the Syariah Courts cannot be part of our judicial systems.

And if our Federal Constitution is secular in nature, the flag of Malaysia must not have any symbol of religion, such as the crescent and star in our flag that represents the religion of Islam.

“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.”

What a defamation and malicious falsehood!

The amendment of Act 355 is not contrary to the Federal Constitution and it is a lie made in bad faith to accuse UMNO as “willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect”, when everything was done according to the law.

“DAP reiterates that the failure of MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN now is seen as a form of tacit approval of the unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move to raise the punishment cap of Islamic laws that moves closer to Hudud-like laws.”

It is clearly said in the Act 355 that the Act only affect the Muslims, so why must the CM who is non-Muslim politicise the issue?

By calling MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN, and accusing the two biggest Muslim parties, PAS and UMNO as working together to bypass the Federal Constitution, Lim Guan Eng is trying to create religious and racial tension among the citizens of Malaysia.

Not only that, Lim Guan Eng’s words are against the call made by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong’s in the parliament on the 7th of March, 2016:

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

Lim Guan Eng has gone against four parts of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 3(1)(a), Section 3(1)(c), Section 3(1)(e), and Section 3(1)(f), an offense which is punishable under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948.

Section 3(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 states:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mendatangkan kebencian atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan tidak setia terhadap mana-mana Raja atau Kerajaan;

The CM of Pulau Pinang’s seditious words which contradict to the call made by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong can be seen as a “seditious tendency” that could “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government.”

Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 says:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mendatangkan kebencian atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan tidak setia terhadap pentadbirankeadilan di Malaysia atau di mana-mana Negeri;

Accusing the amendment of Act 355 is a hudud-like law that “would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance”, is an insult to the Syariah Courts, hudud law and Islam as well as giving bad impressions to the hudud law and Syariah Courts which could “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State”.

Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act 1948 states:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mengembangkan perasaan niat jahat dan permusuhan antara kaum atau golongan penduduk yang berlainan di Malaysia; atau

By making statements that:

  • 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.
  • Calling MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN because of the “unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move”,

Lim Guan Eng is playing a religious and racial games by falsely accusing the Malay Muslim PAS and UMNO “bypass the Federal Constitution” and “taking unconstitutional measures” which could “promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia”.

This will cause the non-Muslims to think that the government and the Muslims are up to something bad and doing things against the law which can cause anger and disharmony among the people of different races and religions.

Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act says:

bagi mempersoalkan 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.

The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is the head of religion of Islam of the country and “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 is against the Sedition Act.

It is the rights of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong to make decisions on matters concerning the religion of Islam as stated in the Federal Constitution thus making statements against the statement made by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong regarding this matter is interfering with the rights of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

"whatsapp-i</p

Related Posts:





PAN Protects Alcohol, Rejects Hadi’s Bill?

11 11 2016

PAN or Parti Amanah Negara’s MP for Kota Raja, Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud said in Parliament that the alcohol taxes should not be raised as reported by Free Malaysia Today (FMT).

I would understand if this issue was raised by a non-Muslim MP, but why must a Muslim MP from a so-called Islamic political party raised the issue in parliament?

FMT reported that Siti Mariah who is the women’s wing chief of PAN said that, “As for alcohol, it is allowed to non-Muslims, so if we increase its tax it will burden them.”

Bagi alkohol pula, ia dibenarkan untuk bukan Muslim, jadi jika kita naikkan cukainya ia akan membebankan mereka,” kata Siti Mariah Mahmood (Amanah-Kota Raja) di Dewan Rakyat hari ini. – FMT

This is an argument made by a senior leader from a party that claims that its aim is to become the main Islamic party in Malaysia.

My question to PAN’s Dr Siti Mariah are:

  1. Why must a Muslim like Siti Mariah fights for something which is haram just to win the non-Muslims’ votes?
  2. Is fighting for the non-Muslims alcohol drinker is more important than fighting for the Muslims who want the Act 355 to be amended?
  3. Is the issue of alcohol tax is more important than the issue of the amendment of Act 355?
  4. Is fighting for the tax on alcohol not to be increased is one of the actions taken by Siti Mariah and PAN to empower Islam as promised by them to their main voters who are the Muslims?
  5. Is there no better issue to fight for other than alcohol?
  6. Is PAN not aware of the bad effect of alcohol?
  7. Is PAN saying that all non-Muslims consume alcohol for concluding that an increase on alcohol tax will burden the non-Muslim and not only the people who consume alcohol?
  8. Is she implying that drinking alcohol is such an important part of the lives of the non-Muslims that it is a duty for her to raise the issue regardless the fact that she is a Muslim?

Siti Mariah must understand that alcohol is haram to the Muslims so it is wrong for a Muslim to fight for alcohol, as there is no reason for non-Muslims to make a fuss about Act 355 as it has nothing to do with them.

Furthermore, why must she fight for alcohol?

Is she not aware of the bad effects of being drunk, like causing accidents, crimes like domestic violence, fights and other violence actions?

Is this how a Muslim MP supposed to be; promoting bad practices and assuming that every non-Muslims drinks alcohol.

Siti Mariah as a PAS candidate in the 13th General Election has violated the trust of her Muslims voters.





Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355

6 11 2016

img-20161018-wa0001

Poster di atas yang bertajuk, “Memahami Rang Undang-Undang 355 Dan Impaknya” telah dikeluarkan oleh SIS Forum (Malaysia) Berhad untuk membantah cadangan pindaan Akta 355.

Jelas bahawa SIS Forum (Malaysia) Berhad yang lebih suka dikenali sebagai Sisters in Islam tidak memahami atau dengan sengaja mahu mengelirukan orang ramai dengan fakta-fakta yang tidak betul dan tidak tepat berkenaan cadangan pindaan Akta 355.

Sebenarnya SIS Forum amat keliru dan tidak faham perkara yang mereka bangkitkan kerana apa yang mereka dakwa sebagai Rang Undang-Undang (RUU) 355 itu sebenarnya ialah Bil Persendirian cadangan pindaan Akta 355 dan bukannya Rang Undang-Undang 355.

Rang undang-undang mestilah digubal oleh kerajaan Persekutuan dengan syarat tertentu dan dalam hal ini, kerajaan hanya boleh menggubal RUU ini setelah Bil Persendirian pindaan Akta 355 ini diluluskan oleh parlimen.

Saya ingin mengulas poster di atas, ayat bewarna merah ialah kenyataan pada poster SIS Forum Berhad manakala ayat bewarna biru ialah ulasan saya.

Akta 355 merupakan akta berkaitan bidang kuasa jenayah mahkamah syariah.
Seksyen 2 di bawah Akta 355 menjelaskan batas bidang kuasa mahkamah syariah di mana hukuman maksimum yang boleh dikenakan adalah penjara 3 tahun atau denda RM5000 atau 6 kali sebatan atau apa-apa gabungan hukuman tersebut.

SIS Forum mestilah amanah dan mesti menerangkan  perkara-perkara asas yang amat penting tentang Akta 355 dan Seksyen 2 Akta 355.

  • Pertama, SIS Forum mesti menjelaskan bahawa bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah hanya terhad kepada orang Islam sahaja untuk mengelak kekeliruan di kalangan rakyat yang kurang memahami isu perundangan dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
  • Kedua, hukuman sebat yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Syariah adalah “sebatan syariah” yang amat jauh lebih ringan daripada “sebatan sivil”.

Apakah cadangan pindaan RUU355?
Parti politik PAS mencadangkan untuk meminda Akta 355 bagi meningkatkan hukuman denda yang dikenakan olen mahkamah syariah, kecuali hukuman mati. Jumlah hukuman yang dikenakan akan ditentukan oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri.” 

  • Cadangan pindaan Akta 355 bukanlah semata-mata mahu meningkatkan hukuman denda. Denda di dalam konteks undang-undang Mahkamah Syariah sekarang bermakna sejumlah wang (tidak melebihi lima ribu ringgit) yang mesti dibayar oleh pesalah.
  • Perkara yang dicadangkan dalam pindaan Akta 355 termasuklah Mahkamah Syariah bukan hanya boleh mengenakan hukuman penjara, denda dan sebatan syariah, tetapi boleh mengenakan berbagai bentuk hukuman-hukuman lain termasuk hukuman sosial jika ianya lebih berkesan.

Apakah impak pindaan ini, jika diluluskan?
-Ia akan memberi kuasa yang lebih luas kepada mahkamah syariah untuk mengenakan hukuman denda kepada pesalah jenayah syariah tanpa batasan kecuali hukuman mati.
-Hukuman yang dikenakan oleh mahkamah syariah selamanya tidak akan selaras kerana ia tertakluk mengikut negeri.
-Kelemahan pelaksanaan hukuman akan memberi nama yang buruk kepada mahkamah syariah dan agama Islam.

Dakwaan SIS Forum adalah prejudis, di luar komteks dan tidak benar. Impak sebenar pindaan ini bila di luluskan ialah Mahkamah Syariah boleh menjatuhkan hukuman yang selaras dengan kadar hukuman Mahkamah Sivil dan DUN boleh menggubal undang-undang yang lebih sesuai bukan hanya untuk menghukum tapi juga untuk mendidik umat Islam supaya menjadi lebih baik di samping mengurangkan jenayah syariah.

  • Menuduh pindaan ini akan “memberi kuasa yang lebih luas kepada mahkamah syariah untuk mengenakan hukuman denda kepada pesalah jenayah syariah tanpa batasan kecuali hukuman mati” adalah satu fitnah jahat kerana bentuk dan had hukuman syariah adalah digubal oleh DUN di peringkat Negeri dan bukannya oleh Mahkamah Syariah itu sendiri.
  • Amat tidak masuk akal bila SIS Forum mendakwa jika pindaan ini diluluskan, impaknya ialah, “Hukuman yang dikenakan oleh mahkamah syariah selamanya tidak akan selaras kerana ia tertakluk mengikut negeri”. Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang memperuntukan kuasa penggubalan Undang-undang Syariah kepada Negeri dan bukannya cadangan pindaan Akta 355 yang mencadangkan perkara ini. Oleh itu, perkara ini tiada kaitan dengan pindaan Akta 355.
  • Amat tidak logik untuk SIS Forum mendakwa satu lagi “impak pindaan ini, jika diluluskan” ialah, “Kelemahan pelaksanaan hukuman akan memberi nama yang buruk kepada mahkamah syariah dan agama Islam” kerana Mahkamah Syariah bukanlah institusi yang melaksanakan hukuman.

Benarkah pindaan ini akan memartabatkan status mahkamah syariah di Malaysia?
Tidak benar, kerana pindaan ini hanya tertumpu kepada aspek hukuman, tanpa menyelesaikan masalah sistemik di mahkamah syariah, contohnya perlaksanaan Undang-undang Keluarga Islam yang masih bermasalah.

Keupayaan Mahkamah Syariah menjatuhkan hukuman yang setimpal dengan kesalahan syariah sudah tentu akan memartabatkan status Mahkamah Syariah.

  • Sekarang had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah jauh lebih rendah daripada hampir semua hukuman jenayah sivil, contohnya hukuman merokok di tempat awam adalah jauh lebih tinggi daripada hukuman jenayah syariah. Apakah SIS Forum merasakan bahawa kesalahan merokok di tempat awam adalah lebih serius daripada kesalahan di bawah Undang-undang Keluarga Islam?

Cara-cara lain untuk memperkasakan mahkamah syariah:
– Menyelaraskan sistem undang-undang keluarga Islam di antara negeri-negeri di Malaysia supaya sama.
– Memudahkan proses tuntutan nafkah bagi ibu-ibu tunggal supaya lebih efisien.
– Mempercepatkan proses perceraian, hak penjagaan anak dan lain-lain supaya tidak berlanjutan sehingga bertahun-tahun.
– Memastikan setiap daerah di Malaysia mempunyai hakim syarie yang mencukupi dan adil gender.

Undang-undang Syariah di Malaysia tidak hanya tertakluk kepada Undang-undang Keluarga Islam sahaja.

  • Cadangan SIS Forum tidak merangkumi cara menyelesaikan kesalahan syariah lain seperti murtad, LGBTIQ, khalwat, menghina Islam, ajaran sesat dan lain-lain.
  • Sistem Undang-undang Keluarga Islam di antara negeri-negeri yang disamakan, proses tuntutan nafkah dimudahkan, proses perceraian dipercepatkan dan setiap daerah di Malaysia mempunyai hakim Syarie yang cukup sahaja tidak boleh memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah jika had hukuman maksimanya jauh lebih rendah daripada hukuman merokok di tempat awam.
  • Jika SIS Forum berpendapat aspek hukuman tidak penting dalam sistem mahkamah, SIS Forum patut mendesak had hukuman Mahkamah Sivil diselaraskan dengan had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah iaitu terhad kepada 3 tahun penjara, denda 5 ribu ringgit dan 6 kali sebatan syariah.
  • Ataupun, adakah SIS Forum merasakan kesalahan syariah tidak seserius kesalahan sivil maka hukuman sekarang sudah memadai?
  • Sebenarnya cadangan SIS Forum berhubung cara penambahbaikan sistem Mahkamah Syariah sudah pun dilaksanakan Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia dan Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Negeri contohnya dengan menubuhkan Jawatankuasa Kerja Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Syariah untuk melicinkan proses mahkamah dan Jawatankuasa Kaedah Mahkamah Syariah pula untuk menggarap modul agar perbicaraan dapat dipercepatkan.

Bolehkah orang Islam membantah RUU355?
Rakyat Malaysia tanpa mengira latar belakang agama berhak menyuarakan bantahan kerana RUU355 adalan pindaan kepada prosedur yang akan memberi kesan kepada kepentingan awam.

  • Pertama, perkara ini berkaitan Bil Persendirian dan bukannya RUU355; jadi kenapa orang Islam harus membantah RUU355 yang tidak wujud?
  • Tidak menjadi satu kesalahan di bawah undang-undang Malaysia jika sesiapa sahaja mahu membantah Bil Persendirian ini, walaupun tiada sebab untuk mereka membantah satu pindaan yang membawa kepada kebaikan. Pindaan ini adalah salah satu cara untuk mengurangkan jenayah syariah. Pengurangan jenayah akan memberi kesan positif kepada seluruh rakyat yang cintakan keamanan termasuk juga orang yang bukan beragama Islam.
  • Namun, bagi orang Islam yang membantah bermakna mereka membantah satu usaha untuk mengurangkan jenayah Syariah; manakala bagi orang bukan Islam pula, tiada sebab untuk mereka membantah kerana jenayah syariah hanya melibatkan orang Islam sahaja dan Mahkamah Syariah tidak ada kaitan langsung dengan mereka.

SIS Forum Berhad yang suka menggunakan nama Islam sepatutnya membuat poster tentang pindaan Akta 355 dengan penuh amanah dan berdasarkan fakta yang tepat dan bukannya menggunakan imaginasi mereka untuk memburukkan suatu usaha yang murni untuk memartabatkan perundangan Islam di Malaysia.

Tindakan SIS Forum ini telah memberi nama yang buruk kepada agama Islam kerana mereka seakan memberi gambaran bahawa Mahkamah Syariah tidak harus diberi kuasa yang lebih tinggi dalam menjatuhkan hukuman; seolah-olah Mahkamah Syariah tidak penting dan hakim-hakim Mahkamah Syariah tidak mampu bertindak dengan adil dan amanah.

Related Post:








%d bloggers like this: