Category Archives: Book

Apabila Buku Teks Undang-Undang Tidak Berperlembagaan

For my 14th birthday this year, my eldest sister gave me a law textbook entitled “A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System”, written by Wan Arfah Hamzah and published by Oxford Fajar.

I was very excited to receive a book on the subject that is close to my heart, and so I began reading the book.

As I reached the fourth paragraph of page four, I noticed something peculiar:

“The federation is a secular state (see below, pp 162-3). It is not an Islamic state (an indispensable feature of which is the supremacy of the Syariah or Islamic law). In Malaysia the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law. Far from being the supreme law, Islamic law is not even the basic of the law of the land, ie the law of the general application. The basic law of Malaysia is the common law—the principles of which have their origins in England” ~Page 4 – A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System

It is very alarming that a law text book can make such a dreadful mistake in defining the core principal of our country.

The point is, does the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of the Federation, ever define Malaysia as a secular country?

To understand more about secular countries, please click here for: Malaysia Bukan Sekular

In “The Principles of Secularism”, the author and creator of the term ‘secularism’ George Jacob Holyoake defines secularism as separating government and religion; while Merriam-Webster defines secularism as “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society”.

In reference to the ideology of our country, the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that:

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

In actual fact, without doubt, the Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim that says Malaysia is a secular state; for a country cannot be a secular state when it has a specific state religion, in this case Islam which makes Malaysia an Islamic state.

Anybody who reads the Federal Constitution, will find out that the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution but Islam is mentioned again and again through out the Constitution, proving the importance of Islam as the basic structures of the Constitution.

The Federal Constitution must be read as a whole and no provision can be considered in isolation, as stated by then President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif  in the Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor:

It is an established principle of constitutional construction that no one provision of the Federal Constitution can be considered in isolation. That particular provision must be brought into view with all the other provisions bearing upon that particular subject. This Court in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 257, applied the principle of considering the Constitution as a whole in determining the true meaning of a particular provision. This Court held:-

“A study of two or more provisions of a Constitution together in order to arrive at the true meaning of each of them is an established rule of constitutional construction. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to Bindra’s Interpretaion of Statue 7th Ed which says at page 947-948″

It is absurd to conclude that Malaysia is a secular country because of “the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law” for the Article 4 in no way dispute the constitutionality of the Article 3(1); and the fact that Malaysia has both the civil and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

The fact is, it is the Article 4 that intensify the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country because Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles than the Article 4.

Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be read and interpreted subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation as mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case:

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

In answering the argument regarding the intention of the Reid Commission, first we have to understand that it is the Royal Rulers and not the Reid Commission who are the real stake holders of our country.

The Reid Commission was only given the responsibilities to draft the Federal Constitution but it is the Malay Royal Rulers who had the rights to make the final say on the matter as well as to give the endorsements for the words to be written in the Federal Constitution.

It is vital to note that both the Reid Commission and the Cobbold Commission are neither law makers nor the state holders of our country, hence their words and intentions are not laws, therefore their intentions cannot change the words written in the supreme law of our Nation.

As for claiming that Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v. Public Prosecutor defines Malaysia as a secular country, this is a very lame argument with no valid fact to justify the claim.

In the Supreme Court decision of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55, the Judge, Tun Salleh Abbas only said that Malaysia follows the secular laws from the British, and did not say that Malaysia is a secular state; so how could this case be used to prove something that was not even stated in the judgement?

Furthermore, this is an old case which is no longer a good law.

We must look at the judgments of other more important and prominent later court cases including the Court of Appeal case of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Binti Sihi & Ors, High Court case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, Federal and Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and a lot more that clearly prove that Malaysia is an Islamic country.

In fact, the fact that it is the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam also denies that Malaysia is a secular country.

This 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.”

In a secular state, not only the government has no constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of a particular religion, but it is wrong for the government to do so.

Apart from Article 3(1), the Articles 11(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and a lot more further prove that Malaysia is and was meant to be an Islamic state and not a secular state; unless the book tries to redefine ‘secularism’ or implying that the Articles 3(1), 1(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and others related to Islam are unconstitutional.

Such severe mistake in the law textbook regarding the ideology of our country that contradicts the Federal Constitution should not have happened because all Malaysian must respect and uphold the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and making such a mistake regarding the core principle of our country is really uncalled for.

We surely do not need constitutionally illiterate lawyers!

Related Posts:

 

Tajuk Lapan Penerbitan Diharam KDN

Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) telah mengharamkan lapan penerbitan kerana mengandungi unsur-unsur yang boleh menyebabkan kemudaratan kepada ketenteraman dan kepentingan awam serta mengandungi unsur-unsur yang boleh merosakkan moral. 

Menurut laporan NST, lima penerbitan diharamkan setelah didapati berbahaya kepada ketenteraman awam, selain mengandungi elemen yang boleh mengelirukan umat Islam dan boleh membahayakan kepercayaan mereka.

Tajuk-tajuk lima buku tersebut adalah: 

  1. Isu Semasa Dalam Risalah: Hukum Barat Pun Islam

  2. Isu Semasa Dalam Risalah: Konsep Kebebasan Dan Agama

  3. Menuju Reformasi Perundangan Islam oleh Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im

  4. Zainab Srikandi Cucu Baginda SAW  

  5.  Imam Mahdi Yang Ditunggu Dan Malapetaka Akhir Zaman 

Dua lagi penerbitan telah diharamkan kerana mengandungi elemen yang menghina agama Islam dan juga boleh mewujudkan implikasi negatif dari segi keselamatan negara.

Tajuk-tajuk dua buku tersebut adalah:

  1. Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jew oleh Elias Al-Maqdisi dan Sam Solomon

  2. Dari Majapahit ke Putrajaya: Mencari Satu Lagi Malaysia oleh Farish A. Noor 

Manakala penerbitan bertajuk ‘Saucy Seaside Postcard’ diharamkan kerana didapati mengandungi elemen dan imej bersifat pornografi.

Menurut Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Alwi Ibrahim, semua buku-buku tersebut bukanlah bahan bacaan yang sesuai serta boleh membahayakan dan mengelirukan orang ramai, terutamanya generasi muda.

Beliau juga berkata bahawa pencetakan, pengimportan, penghasilan, penghasilansemula, penerbitan, penjualan, pengeluaran, pengelilingan, pengedaran atau pemilikan hasil pengeluaran penerbitan yang telah diharamkan adalah suatu kesalahan di bawah subseksyen 1 Seksyen 7 Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan 1984 (Akta 301).

Dan mereka yang didapati bersalah boleh dihukum penjara sehingga tiga tahun dan denda tidak melebihi RM20,000, atau kedua-duanya di bawah Seksyen 8 Akta 301.

Datuk Seri Alwi Ibrahim menasihatkan orang ramai untuk melaporkan sebarang penerbitan yang melanggar undang-undang negara ke Bahagian Penerbitan Kementerian Penerbitan dan Pengendalian Teks Al-Quran di 03-88868047 atau faks pada 03-88891682.

Kepimpinan PAN Yang Buta Hati Dan Keliru

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:

A Special Gift From Uncle Zul Noordin

20160910_143926

The Chinese Dilemma by Ye Lin-Sheng

I received this special present from Uncle Zul Noordin a day after he flew to Jeddah.

Since Uncle Zul is in Mekkah for Haj, the book was sent to me by Pak Cik Rusdi.

It is a very special book because it is very hard to get this book in Malaysia, and my father had been searching for this book every time we go to the book shops.

Uncle Zul bought me this book during one of his overseas trips and I’m so happy because Uncle Zul always remember me even though we have not met for months.

Thank you, Uncle Zul, may Allah bless you always and thank you again for the other book.

20160910_150150

A very special note from Uncle Zul.

 

Beyond Belief – Advertisement ‘Golden Age of Madison Avenue’

Today we’re constantly told that children need to reduce their sugar intake. But this advert claims that 7-Up is ‘so pure, so wholesome’ that babies under the age of one should drink it. (Seven-Up 1955)

Today we’re constantly told that children need to reduce their sugar intake. But this advert claims that 7-Up is ‘so pure, so wholesome’ that babies under the age of one should drink it. (Seven-Up 1955)

Offensive, misleading, racist, sexist and dishonest, countless adverts created in the so-called ‘Golden Age of Madison Avenue’ are inconceivable to modern eyes. With no industry body to regulate them the much-revered ‘Ad Men’ were free to go to any lengths to sell their clients’ products – and did so. From using babies to peddle cigarettes to telling women that their husbands would leave them if they didn’t but certain items, nothing was off limits. Founder of global advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi, Charles Saatchi has gathered more than 100 of the most shocking campaigns in his latest book Beyond Belief, showing some jaw-dropping examples of non-PC salesmanship.  – Yahoo News.

Hikayat Tanah Jauh By Zainal Rashid Ahmad

This morning when I accompanied my father to the TV AlHijrah studio, I met Uncle Zainal Rashid of TV AlHijrah .

My father was invited by the TV station to talk about the Paris attacks.

Though we did not have a long talk, I am very happy to get a surprise present from Uncle Zainal, which is his latest book entitled, ‘Hikayat Tanah Jauh’.

It was a wonderful gift especially when Uncle Zainal signed the book for me.

WP_20151116_14_47_05_Pro