Category Archives: Law

“Islam Ibarat Pokok Jati – Tinggi, Teguh dan Terampil…”

Last Friday, as we stopped at the North-South Expressway Seremban rest area’s Petronas station on our way to Tangkak, we coincidentally met Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah, the person whom I really respect and admire.

I have always wish to talk to Datuk Mohd Noor, whose judgement in the high profile High Court case of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393 is very important as one of the judicial precedent in interpreting the Article 3(1) that places Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Excitedly, I took the opportunity to tell Datuk Mohd Noor that I am a great fan of his and how I admire the powerful words he chose that not only are poetic but more importantly had precisely interpreted the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Datuk Mohd Noor said that I should not only be interested in the case but also must have the interest in the field.

In the judgement of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393 , Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah stated:

“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.”

Hence, the judgement of  Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors had nullified the claims that Malaysia is a secular state made by some groups of people who either do not understand the Federal Constitution or doing it with the intention of confusing the people.

These groups of people usually misquote Tun Salleh Abbas’s words in the judgement of the Supreme Court decision of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55 to prove their case; when Tun Salleh did not say that Malaysia is a secular country in the judgement of the said case.

I had quoted this case so many times to prove that Malaysia is not a secular country:

  1. Apabila Buku Teks Undang-Undang Tidak Berperlembagaan
  2. Menjawab “Jika Islam Boleh, Kenapa Kristian Tidak Boleh”
  3. The Constitutionally Illiterate Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail
  4. Boo Su-Lyn Supports Nanyang’s ‘Monkey Act’
  5. Grow Up, MCA!
  6. SUARAM Man Questions “Belief in God”
  7. Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam
  8. The Court Of Appeal Recognises SOGI Rights?
  9. Seminar Islam dan Isu-Isu Hak Asasi Manusia
  10. Gobind Singh: Malaysia Is A Secular State – Another Fairy Tale?

Please click the photos for larger images:

G25 Yang Terlalu Keliru

Saya amat tertarik membaca tajuk tulisan G25 yang disiarkan oleh  Free Malaysia Today (FMT), namun saya hairan kenapa G25 menggunakan ungkapan ‘place of pride’ sedangkan ungkapan yang betul dan tepat ialah “pride of place”, jika apa yang cuba G25 gambarkan dengan ungkapan itu ialah ‘mempunyai tempat yang penting dan istimewa’.

Menariknya kini G25 mengakui bahawa Islam adalah agama Persekutuan dan tidak lagi agama rasmi negara seperti dakwaan ahlinya Tawfik Tun Dr. Ismail: tetapi pendapat mereka masih sama; seolah-olah tiada bezanya di antara ‘agama negara’ dan ‘agama rasmi negara’.

Di bawah tajuk, “G25: The word “liberal” has place of pride in Rukun Negara”, G25 mendakwa perkataan “liberal” seperti yang dilabelkan ke atas mereka, telah digunakan untuk menghina umat Islam yang percaya kepada nilai demokrasi sejagat, hak asasi manusia, kesaksamaan gender dan menghormati kepelbagaian budaya dan segala bentuk kepelbagaian.

“G25 has often been labelled as “liberal” by its critics, using a word which is becoming a derogatory term in Malaysia to describe Muslims who believe in the universal values of democracy, human rights, gender equality and respect for multiculturalism and diversity.” – G25

Malah, G25 menuduh bahawa perkataan “liberal” disalahgunakan olen pihak penguatkuasa agama dan “ekstrimis” untuk memburukkan golongan yang mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza tentang bangsa, agama dan politik.

“It is a word which has been abused by the religious authorities and extremists to demonise those who have different opinions on matters of race, religion and politics.” – G25

Kenyataan-kenyataan di atas, jelas menunjukkan kumpulan G25 bersikap ‘double standard’, mereka tidak senang bila dilabelkan “liberal”, namun pada masa yang sama, G25 merasa mempunyai hak untuk mengutuk dan melabelkan orang lain sebagai “ekstrimis”!

Lebih teruk lagi, G25 berhujah bahawa perkataan “liberal” mempunyai ‘tempat yang penting dan istimewa’ di dalam Rukun Negara!

“We, the members of G25, would like to remind our critics that in the Rukun Negara, the word “liberal” has a place of pride in the five principles of the national ideology aimed at bringing the various races together for national unity and development.” – G25

Hujah G25 lagi “liberal” sebenarnya ialah satu sikap yang positif, malah menjadi salah satu hala tuju negara, selah-olah Rukun Negara dan hala tuju negara kita ini bersifat “liberal”. 

“In the preamble to the Rukun Negara, it states that one of Malaysia’s aims are: “menjamin satu cara yang liberal terhadap tradisi-tradisi kebudayaannya yang kaya dan berbagai corak”.” – G25

Nampaknya G25 sudah terlalu keliru sehingga gagal memahami maksud “liberal” dalam ayat di atas, yang hanyalah merujuk kepada kebudayaan sahaja; dan bukannya kepada soal agama atau kepercayaan.

Perkara ini disahkan sendiri oleh Prof. Dr Shamrahayu Abd Aziz, di mana Aunty Shamrahayu menerangkan kepada saya bahawa “liberal” dalam ayat tersebut bermakna keterbukaan menerima budaya pelbagai kaum, dan bersifat dan bersikap inklusif dengan prinsip asas; tetapi tanpa mengabaikan Tuhan dan prinsip kesopanan dan kesusilaan.

Ini kerana Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam, yang tidak mengabaikan prinsip-prinsip agama; sampai ke tahap Perkara 37 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa setiap Yang Di-Pertuan Agong sebagai Ketua Utama Negara mesti bersumpah atas nama Allah untuk pada setiap masa memlihara agama Islam sebelum menjalankan tugas baginda sebagai Ketua Utama Negara.

G25 adalah puak Islam liberal kerana mereka berusaha meliberalkan agama Islam, menolak, menentang dan mempertikaikan hukum-hukum Islam termasuk hukuman ke atas pesalah syariah.

Sebagai contoh, G25 mendawa kesalahan syariah hanyalah ‘personal sin’ di sisi Perlembagaan dan bukannya satu jenayah yang mesti dihukum oleh mahkamah, sedangkan kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

“… LGBT, free sex etc are wrong but that these are personal sins, not crimes as defined in constitutional law.” – G25

Nyata G25 gagal memahami Perlembagaan Persekutuan khasnya Perkata 3(1) dan sewenang-wenangnya telah memfitnah Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara demokrasi sekular!

 “We in G25 will defend the country’s secular democracy based on the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the country.” – G25

Bagaimanakah Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang jelas mengangkat Islam sebagai agama negara boleh dituduh menjadikan Malaysia bersifat demokrasi sekular sedangkan perkataan demokrasi dan sekular tidak pernah tertulis di dalam Perlembagaan?

Saya mencabar G25 untuk membuktikan di dalam Perkara atau Jadual manakah dalam Perlembagaan yang  menyebut bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara demokrasi sekular!

“The constitution was written with the intention that while Islam is the religion of the federation, the laws of the country should follow the universal values of justice which were in existence long before independence.” G25

Kenyataan di atas membuktikan bahawa G25 mesti kembali belajar daripada orang yang lebih pakar kerana G25 bukan setakat buta Perlembagaan, malah buta sejarah.

Sejarah negara membuktikan bahawa kerajaan-kerajaan Melayu dahulunya adalah Kerajaan Melayu Islam yang mana sistem perundangannya adalah berasaskan Islam dan bukannya mengikut nilai keadilan sejagat seperti yang direka oleh G25.

Maka, di atas dasar apakah G25 mahu berhujah jika ternyata mereka sendiri yang sebenarnya tersangat keliru dan yang gagal memahami asas kenegaraan Malaysia?

Malah, fakta yang mereka berikan bukan sahaja tidak benar, malah adalah bercanggahan di antara satu sama lain!

G25 memperakui bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan tetapi pada masa yang sama mendakwa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara demokrasi sekular serta menuduh pihak penguatkuasa agama melampaui batasan Perlembagaan dan menganggap perlaksanaan undang-undang Islam adalah melanggar prinsip-prinsip demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia!

Adalah tidak masuk akal jika sebuah negara Islam boleh bersifat sekular pada masa yang sama kerana sekular bermakna memisahkan agama dari pentadbiran negara sedangkan kerajaan Malaysia mempunyai tanggung jawab keperlembagaan untuk menjaga kesucian Islam di negara ini.

G25 lantang memburukkan pihak berkuasa agama yang menjalankan tugas mengikut Perlembagaan untuk mempertahankan kesucian Islam:

“… religious authorities go beyond the limits of the constitution in exercising their powers, and introduce laws to control and police the behaviour of Muslims against the principles of democracy and human rights, G25 has a duty to respond by raising the issues of law and order …” – G25

Lebih parah, G25 yang liberal ini mahu menyesatkan umat Islam di negara kita dengan mendesak kerajaan membenarkan golongan liberal dan sesat yang G25 dakwa mempunyai pandangan yang “controversial and radical” untuk bebas menulis dan berucap di negara ini, sebagai contoh buku mereka, “Breaking the Silence: Islam in a Constitutional Democracy” yang diharamkan oleh kerajaan; walaupun perkara itu bertentangan dengan undang-undang negara.

Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri jelas membuktikan hal ini, di mana YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim menegaskan bahawa:

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.”

Hujah dangkal G25 seterusnya yang menuduh ‘founding forefathers’ mahukan Malaysia menjadi sebuah negara demokrasi sekular yang liberal dapat saya patahkan dengan hujah Hakim Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

“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.”

Seperti golongan liberal lainnya G25 sengaja memfitnah bahawa Perkara 10(1) memberikan kebebasan bersuara sehingga bebas menghina dan menafsir Islam secara liberal dan sesuka hati; atau menurut G25 pendapat yang “controversial and radical”, malah mendakwa pendapat sesat sebegitu adalah satu budaya yang sihat dalam memahami Islam.

Ini adalah satu lagi fitnah kerana di dalam penghakiman kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali yang ketika itu ialah Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, berhujah:

“[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).”

G25 dengan sendirinya telah membuktikan bahawa mereka adalah sebuah golongan liberal yang keliru, bercakap melawan fakta, ‘double standard’ dan tidak profesional; mereka bebas menuduh orang lain sebagai extrimis dan melanggar Perlembagaan sedangkan mereka sendirilah sebenarnya yang gagal memahami ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya serta buta Perlembagaan.

Anehnya bila mempertahankan suara liberal, G25 melaungkan hak kebebasan bersuara walaupun ianya “controversial and radical” namun menentang suara pejuang Islam yang mereka gelar extrimis serta tugas pihak berkuasa Islam yang mereka fitnah melampaui batas Perlembagaan, seolah-olah “constitutional guarantee on the freedom of speech and expression” hanya sah kepada puak liberal dan penentang Islam sahaja!

Semoga G25 yang telah sedar bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan, boleh belajar memahami ajaran Islam  yang sebenarnya  serta suatu hari nanti akan bersama-sama mempertahankan Islam Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, mazhab Syafie daripada anasir yang mahu meruntuhkan akidah umat Islam di Malaysia, Amin.

Related Article:

Pembangkang Restui Wan Ji Mahu Runtuhkan Institusi Raja?

Pegawai Penerangan di Pejabat Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, Wan Ji Wan Hussin baru ini ditahan oleh polis selepas memberi khutbah Jumaat di Masjid Jalan Sembilang, Seberang Jaya, Pulau Pinang.

Sila baca: (LGE Lantik Pengkhianat Raja Sebagai Pegawai Penerangan Tentang Islam?)

Menurut laporan akhbar-akhbar tempatan, beliau ditahan dibawah Seksyen 4(1) Akta Hasutan 1948, yang bertulis:

4. (1) Any person who—

(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;
(c) prints, publishes or causes to be published, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) propagates any seditious publication,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than three years but not exceeding seven years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.

Tetapi apa yang mungkin ramai orang tidak tahu adalah, kes video Wan Ji bukan hanya boleh disiasat di bawah Akta Hasutan tetapi apa yang telah diperkatakan oleh Wan Ji di dalam rakaman itu harus disiasat di bawah Akta Kanun Keseksaan 1997.

Seksyen 121B Akta Kanun Keseksaan mengatakan bahawa:

Whoever compasses, imagines, invents or intends the deposition or deprivation of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong from the sovereignty of Malaysia or the deprivation or deposition of the Ruler, his heirs or successors, or of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri from the rule of a State, or the overawing by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force the Government of Malaysia or of any State, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Apabila Wan Ji merancang untuk menghapuskan Sistem Sultan atau Sistem Pemerintahan Beraja, beliau melanggar Seksyen 121B Akta Kanun Keseksaan dan jika sabit kesalahan boleh dihukum dengan hukuman penjara seumur hidup, dan juga akan didenda.

Institusi Raja adalah teramatlah penting di dalam sistem pemerintahan Negara.

Sultan atau Raja adalah Ketua Agama Islam dan DYMM Yang Di Pertuan Agong adalah Ketua Tertinggi Negara.

Rajalah yang menyatukan rakyat dan yang membolehkan kita hidup dalam keadaan yang aman dan damai seperti sekarang ini dengan izin Allah S.W.T. serta menjaga hak rakyat Malaysia seperti yang tertulis pada Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Tetapi masalahnya, hari ini ramai orang gagal memahami kepentingan dan kedaulatan Institusi Raja dan akhirnya berlakulah kes seperti kenyataan Wan Ji yang bukan sahaja telah menghina Sultan, tetapi lebih parah lagi, mahu menghapuskan “Sistem Sultan” atau Sistem Pemerintahan Beraja di Negara ini.

Lebih menarik, pemimpin pembangkang khususnya DAP, berdiam diri dan tiada yang melaporkan kes ini kepada pihak polis atau cuba menghebohkan isu ini; walhal dalam kes Ustaz Zamihan, mereka telah membuat berbagai kenyataan seolah-olah merekalah pembela Institusi Raja walaupun kesalahan Ustaz Zamihan tidak seberat kesalahan Wan Ji yang merancang untuk menjatuhkan Institusi Raja, dan kesalahan Ustaz Zamihan  tidak melanggar Akta Kanun Keseksaan.

Yang lebih ringan digempar-gempurkan; yang lebih berat cuba didiamkan.

Related Post:

Menjawab “Jika Islam Boleh, Kenapa Kristian Tidak Boleh”

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

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: