Category Archives: Law

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.

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:


Eric Paulsen Loses Defamation Suit Against Hafiz Nordin

Eric Paulsen looking devastated after losing the case.

Lawyers For Liberty Executive Director, Eric Paulsen lost a defamation case against the Chairman of Jaringan Muslimin Pulau Pinang (JMPP), Ustaz Hafiz Nordin at the High Court in the Kuala Lumpur today.

High Court Judge the Honourable Dato’ Mohd Zaki bin Abdul Wahab ruled the Plaintiff, Eric Paulsen failed to prove the Defendant (Ustaz Hafiz Nordin) was defamatory against him ordered Eric Paulsen to pay costs in the amount of RM20,000 to Ustaz Hafiz Nordin.

Eric Paulsen filed a suit against Ustaz Hafiz based on the article published by Portal Islam dan Melayu on the 9th of February, 2015 entitled “Jangan biar Eric Paulsen bebas tanpa perbicaraan” where Ustaz Hafiz was reported as saying:

Apa yang penting kita buktikan bahawa Eric yang didukung oleh Amerika Syarikat dan Kesatuan Eropah sebagai seorang fraud yang ‘cari makan’ dengan menipu, memfitnah itu telah menghasut masyarakat membenci Islam dengan tweet-tweetnya yang tidak bertanggungjawab.”

The portal interviewed Ustaz Hafiz regarding Eric Paulsen’s tweet on the 9th of January, 2015:

Below are some photos taken at the Kuala Lumpur Courts Complex earlier today:

Menjawab “Jika Islam Boleh, Kenapa Kristian Tidak Boleh”

Saya terkedu membaca sebuah artikel di portal berita yang bertajuk, “Jika Islam Boleh, Kenapa Kistian Tidak Boleh – Pensyarah Universiti” di  mana “seorang pensyarah universiti tempatan pada Sabtu lalu mempersoalkan jika orang Islam boleh berdakwah kepada orang-orang Kristian, kenapakah orang Kristian tidak boleh berbuat perkara yang sama?”

Menurut, persoalan tersebut telah diutarakan oleh Helen Ting yang merupakan  salah seorang felo utama di Institut Kajian Malaysia dan Antarabangsa (IKMAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia pada satu sesi soal jawab pada forum yang bertajuk “Deceitful? Distracting? Or Dedicated? Evangelicals and Current Controversies in Malaysia” anjuran Kairos Dialogue Network.

“If you think that it is okay to propagate your faith among Christians then, why is it that it is so wrong for Christians to do like that?”

~Helen Ting (Dipetik daripada

Orang bukan Islam dilarang berdakyah kepada orang Islam berdasarkan Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; Ting hanya membuatkan dirinya dilihat tidak cerdik apabila buat-buat tidak tahu atau memang tidak tahu tentang perkara asas ini.

Halangan ini diperkukuhkan lagi oleh Seksyen 298A Akta Kanun Keseksaan yang melarang perkara yang boleh menyebabkan perpecahan di antara kaum dan agama.

Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menegaskan:

Undang-undang Negeri dan berkenaan dengan WilayahWilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya, undang-undang persekutuan boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa doktrin atau kepercayaan agama di kalangan orang yang menganuti agama Islam. seterusnya melaporkan bahawa felo utama IKMAS itu juga mempersoalkan “kalau Muslim rasa risau dengan kata-kata yang mahu mengadakan ‘Christian State’, bagaimana pula dengan perasaan bukan Islam yang mendengar ahli-ahli politik membincangkan tentang negara Islam dan sebagainya?”

Soalan ini tidak masuk akal dan amat dangkal sekali kerana  sebagai felo utama IKMAS, Helen Ting sepatutnya tidak keliru tentang ideologi negara.

Malaysia ialah sebuah negara Islam, dan negeri-negeri  yang membentuk Malaysia ini dahulunya adalah merupakan negara-negara kerajaan Melayu Islam yang berdaulat di bawah pemerintahan Raja-Raja Melayu masing-masing.

Jadi adalah tidak logik apabila Ting, sebagai seorang ahli akademik mahu menyamakan kebimbangan umat Islam bila negara Islam Malaysia mahu ditukarkan kepada Christian State yang tentunya mengancam kedaulatan negara dan mencabar kuasa Yang Di Pertuan Agong, dengan perasaan orang bukan Islam yang tidak suka bila disebut negara Islam Malaysia; walhal, Malaysia sememangnya sebuah negara Islam sejak dahulu lagi.

Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengatakan:

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

Di dalam penghakiman kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia di Mahkamah Rayuan, Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan pada ketika itu, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali telah menegaskan bahawa tujuan di masukkan kata-kata “dengan aman dan damai” ke dalam Perkara 3(1) adalah untuk melindungi kesucian Isalm sebagai agama negara dan juga untuk melindungi Islam daripada apa-apa ancaman yang dihadapi atau apa-apa kemungkinan dan kemungkinan ancaman terhadap agama Islam.

“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.”

Oleh itu amat jelas bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara Islam, di mana agama Islam dilindungi oleh Perlembagaan; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan selagi “aman dan damai” terhadap Islam dan tidak menimbulkan ancaman terhadap Islam iaitu agama negara.

Gesaan untuk membenarkan orang Kristian berdakyah kepada umat Islam dan niat untuk menukar Malaysia kepada sebuah Christian State bukan sahaja boleh menimbulkan ketegangan di antara agama, malah mempunyai kecenderungan mencabar dan menghalang Yang Di Pertuan Agong (sebagai Ketua Tertinggi Islam negara) daripada kedaulatan negara dan jika disabitkan kesalahan, boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen-Seksyen berikut Akta Kanun Keseksaan Malaysia: 

  • Seksyen 121B  Akta Kanun Keseksaan
  • Seksyen 121C  Akta Kanun Keseksaan
  • Seksyen 121D  Akta Kanun Keseksaan
  • Seksyen 298A Akta Kanun Keseksaan

(Untuk keterangan lanjut tentang Seksyen-Seksyen 121B, 121C, 121D dan 298A, sila rujuk “Menjawab Dr. Ariffin Omar: Apa salahnya kalau Penang hendak dijadikan Christian city?”:

Kenyataan seterusnya oleh Ting yang dipetik jelas menggambarkan sikap felo utama IKMAS itu yang gagal berpijak di bumi yang nyata dan telah mencabar Perlembagaan Persekutuan dengan merendahkan kedudukan agama Islam, seolah-olah kedudukan agama Islam di Tanah Air kita ini hanyalah setaraf dengan kedudukan agama-agama lain.

“For me, I feel this country is ours, everybody’s. There should not be a preference towards one religion.”

~Helen Ting (Dipetik daripada

Di dalam penghakiman kes Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, di Mahkamah Tinggi, hakim ketika itu, Tan Sri Mohd Noor Abdullah menegaskan:

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.

Tingginya kedudukan Islam sebagai agama negara adalah jelas kerana hanya nama Islam  sahaja yang disebut, malah berkali-kali di dalam Perlembagaan,

Tiada nama agama-agama lain yang disebut di dalam Perlembagaan, agama-agama lain hanyalah dirujuk sebagai ‘agama-agama lain’.

Persekutuan Malaysia ini adalah sebuah negara Islam dan rakyat Malaysia yang taat dan sayangkan negaranya mesti patuh kepada undang-undang negara yang selama ini telah menyatukan rakyat Malaysia dan berjaya memelihara keamanan negara.

Seperti kata Aunty Prof. Dr Shamrahayu Abd Aziz, janganlah diruntuh rumah pusaka, yang saya rasa bermaksud, janganlah kita runtuhkan negara yang kita warisi ini kerana nantinya kita juga yang akan rugi dan menyesal; oleh itu kita mestilah memelihara dan menghargai keamanan negara yang telah kita warisi dari pengorbanan nenek moyang kita.

Helen Ting sebagai seorang pensyarah kanan universiti mestilah bersikap bertanggung jawab, bertindak dengan bijak dan apabila bercakap, mestilah berdasarkan fakta dan bukannya mengikut emosi dan persepsi.

Malangnya, terdapat ahli-ahli akademik yang bertindak memutar belitkan fakta untuk mencipta persepsi yang salah atau buruk terhadap suatu kebenaran demi mencapai tujuan tertentu.


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

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 lerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang cuba “menChinakan” Pulau Pinang dengan membawa masuk pelaburan dari China dan membanguinkan 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 memulis:

“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 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-part 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:

Menjawab Dr. Ariffin Omar: Apa salahnya kalau Penang hendak dijadikan Christian city?

DAP’s senator, Dr. Ariffin Omar’s arrogant statement in the Dewan Negara on the 19th of April 2017 saying, “Apa salahnya kalau Penang hendak dijadikan Christian city” had enraged many Muslims.

It seems that the idea of turning Penang into a Christian city is alright to Arrifin, who is also the vice-chairman of DAP, as what he said in the Dewan Negara:

The DAP leader may think that with the power that DAP now has over Penang, DAP leaders can do anything, even interfering in the matters related to Islam.

Is this DAP’s good governance is all about?

The main issue here is, has the DAP man forgotten that in the Article 3(3) of the Federal Constitution, it is clearly written that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is the Head of the religion of Islam in Pulau Pinang?

The Constitution of the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak shall each make provision for conferring on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the position of Head of the religion of Islam in that State.

The DAP man must understand that it is the constitutional duty of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong to “at all time protect the Religion of Islam”, as stated in the oath of office of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, or the Article 37(1); the text is written in Part I and III of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

And the Article 32(1) states that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is the Supreme Head of the Federation.

Although the state of Penang is now ruled by DAP, the Supreme Head of Penang is still the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong and not a DAP leader; hence the power of the Penang state government is not above the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, especially in matters related to  the sovereignty of the state.

Having said that, Dr. Ariffin Omar’s arrogant statement is not merely rude but also offensive and might has the tendency to challenge and to deprive the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong from the sovereignty of Penang.

The Section 121B of the Penal Code says that anyone whoever compasses, imagines, invents or intends the deposition or deprivation of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong from the sovereignty of Malaysia shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

And the Section 121C(1) of the same Act says that whoever abets the commission of any of the offences punishable by section 121A or 121B shall be punished with the punishment provided for the said offences while the Section 121D(1) says that whoever knowing or having reason to believe that any offence punishable under section 121, 121A, 121B or 121C has been committed intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence,which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonmentfor a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.

Dr. Ariffin’s offensive statement had enraged the Muslim, causing the feeling of enmity and hatred that can bring to the sate of disharmony or disunity on grounds of religion not only in Penang but also in the whole country.

The Section 298A(1) of the Penal Code states that whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs,or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organizing, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organizing, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other
(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will; or
(b) prejudices, or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,
on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.

It is a fundamental rule for lawmakers to understand the Supreme law of the land.

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.

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 interpreted in peace and harmony” as:

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.

In the same judgment, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali also states:

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.

Lawmakers must remember that Malaysia is governed by our rule of law and we are not a lawless country that practices absolute freedom.

Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the above ruling also stated:

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).

Related Posts: