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

“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.

Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan

Yesterday evening I was stunned when my father showed me a letter that was address to me from former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, in replying to my blog article, Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?

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.

I want to thank Tun M for writing to me, I am very honoured to receive a letter from a former Prime Minister and to know that someone as important as him reading my blog article.

Below is Tun M’s letter that was addressed to me.

 

In my article, I commented that the opposition parties’ agreement, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM that was signed by DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM, had misquoted the Article 3(1) by adding the word ‘bebas‘. Please click here for my article.

In explaining about the added word, Tun M wrote:

It is true that the word “bebas” is not in the sentence referring to Islam as the official religion of the Federation.
But the word “bebas” is not meant for Islam the official religions but for “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity.

From what I understand, Tun M explains that the word, “bebas” in the agreement refers to the freedom to convert to other religion where Tun M further wrote that, “But the word “bebas” was not meant for Islam, but for the followers of “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity”.

I am sad to say that not only Tun M’s explanation does not answer my question, but it also makes the matter more confusing because the fact that the Article 3(1) is the Article that explains about 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.

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.

or

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

I do not mean to be rude but it seems like Tun M is confused about what is written in the Article 3(1) and therefore Tun M’s explanation about the reason for adding the word “bebas” is totally out of context, because adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) means that the followers of other religions are given the freedom do anything they wish in the name of practising their religions even though if it disrupts the peace and harmony of the community.

Hence, I questioned the opposition parties’ intention of the adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) because the added word “bebas” distorts the interpretation of the Article 3(1) and undermines the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

I have to stress that the Article 3(1) that places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution and that is grouped under Part 1 of the Constitution, must not be confused with the Article regarding the “freedom of religion” which is the Article 11 that is grouped under Part II of the Constitution.

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 wrote that:

[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.

And I also wrote that as the supreme law of the Federation, each word in the Articles of the Federal Constitution was chosen for a very specific reason, therefore adding just a word can change the interpretation of the Article and can disrupt other related Articles.

Another important matter that I have to highlight is, it is incorrect to say that Islam is the official religion of the Federation as written by Tun M in his letter because Islam is not merely the official religion, but it is the religion of the Federation as what was said by Tun M himself during his years as the Prime Minister, that Malaysia is a “Negara Islam” .

I made the video below to help people understand that Islam is actually the religion of the Federation because a lot of us are still confused about this important fact.

It seems like Tun M’s principals has changed, for, during Tun M’s reign, in order to maintain peace and harmony among the people in Malaysia, Tun did not give the freedom to the people; but now as a leader of an opposition party, Tun M went against his own principle and is fighting for total freedom.

Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam

After posting my article, “Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)“, I had a discussion with law experts to confirm another part of the agreement that makes me question the intentions of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM  in their chosen words for the agreement in the context of Article 3(1).

In the agreement, it was written, “… dan agama-agama lain … ” whereas in the original text of the Federal Constitution, the Article 3(1) says ” … tetapi agama-agama lain …”; meaning in their agreement, the opposition parties had not only add the word “bebas” but also changed the word “tetapi” (but) to the word “dan” (and). 

These are not small matters, important agreements are written by lawyers and lawyers are very specific in choosing each word for such agreements, to make sure that it covers specifically the important matters that were asked by their clients.

And we as the citizens must know and protect our rights as provided by our Federal Constitution and do not let others fool us with sweet promises of protecting our rights but at the same time cheat us behind our back.

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.

or

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

As in the case of adding the word, “bebas“ to the Article 3(1), replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” to the same Article seems to reaffirm their intention to rewrite the Article 3(1) and to undermine Islam.

The word “tetapi” in the Article 3(1) signifies the supreme position of Islam as the religion of the Federation as compared to other religions in Malaysia.

So, by replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” in the context of the Article 3(1), the opposition leaders who signed the agreement has distort the interpretation of the Article 3(1) by positioning other religions at the same level as Islam, which is a distortion of the truth; not only to the Article 3(1) but also to our Federal Constitution.

In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah has clearly clarified this matter:

Pada pendapat saya “Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” bermakna Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara ini seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu dan selainnya. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain, bukan duduk berganding bahu atau berdiri sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, ia berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati – tinggi, teguh dan terampil. Jika bukan sedemikian Islam bukanlah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di negara ini dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan manamana ugama yang dianutinya, tiada lebih satu dari yang lain. Peruntukan ‘Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan’ hendaklah ditakrif dan ditinjau tujuannya dengan membaca bersama peruntukan lain dalam Perlembagaan khususnya Perkara 89, 152, 153 dan 14.

Hence, the intention of the phrase, “but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” in the Article 3(1) is to specify that even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, people of other religions are allowed to practise their religions but their actions must be in peace and harmony with the people of other religions, especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation; and not to give them the freedom to do anything they wish.

In other words, even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, Malaysia does not discriminate people of other religions, they are allowed to the practise their religions as long as they obey the laws and not to do things that have “the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community”.

In the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali states:

[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.

In fact, by doing what some people may think as small changes, the oppositions are not only giving a totally different meaning to the Article 3(1) but they are also interfering with other important Articles in the Federal Constitution such as Article 10(2), 11(4), 153 and others; as the Articles of the Federal Consitution cannot stand alone or cannot be read singularly, but must be read as a whole because each Article are ‘connected’ with other Articles.

In the judgement of the Federal Court case, Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, the then Federal Court Judge, DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah stated:

Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself.

So when they replace the word “tetapi” with the word “dan”, they are positioning other religions at par with Islam which is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and by adding the word “bebas” to the same Article, they are giving the freedom to people of other religions to do whatever they want in the name of practising their religions even though it can cause disorder in the community.

As stated by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the “Freedom of other Religions” which is Article 11 is subjected to Islam since Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution is “within the confines of Part I of the Constitution” while Article 11 is under the Part 2 of the Constitution.

[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.

Just one word can make a very big different, and in this case, not only it distorts the interpretation of Article 3(1) and interfere with other Articles of the Federal Constitution but discriminate and take away the rights of the Muslims as provided by the Federal Constitution.

Since in the “Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM”, the leaders of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM on behalf of their parties agree to uphold the Federal Constitution, “Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan bebas, aman dan damai di negara ini sejajar dengan Perkara 3”, the people must understand that DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM only vow to uphold their edited version of the Article 3(1) and not the one that is written in our Federal Constitution.

This action by them is consistent with their stance that Malaysia is a secular country whereas Malaysia is not and has never been a secular country.

Related Article:

• Gobind Singh: Malaysia Is A Secular State – Another Fairy Tale?
• Is Malaysia A Secular State?
• Answering “Marina: What crime has Namewee committed?”
• Reza Aslan, A Pluralist Who Calls Himself A Muslim
• Is Islam Only The Official Religion of Malaysia?
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please DO Your Homeworks
• Lim Guan Eng: DAP Says No To Hudud
• DAP vs Tan Sri Khalid And His Aku Janji
• Tun M Has Gone Too Far
• Tun M, Janganlah Menghina Nabi S.A.W.
• Has The Selangor MB Forgotten His 10 ‘Aku Janji’?
• Ngeh Tweeted, “Malays Has Freedom To Choose Religion”

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

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.

{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:

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?