Category Archives: Politic

YB Jais, An Exemplary Leader

I am very happy to meet the Housing and Local Government Exco of Johor, YB Datuk Jais Sarday again, during a seminar held by Muafakat Pendidikan Johor (MPJ) at the Prime City Hotel in Kluang.

I last met YB Jais two months ago in Pasir Gudang on his last day as the Education, Information and Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development Exco of Johor, before he was promoted to his current position.

YB Jais is a very hard-working and a pragmatic politician, and he is also a friendly and a down-to-earth person.

I am always glad to meet him, and I see him as my mentor.

Johor is very lucky to have such a great leader.

Even though YB Jais is no longer the Exco of Education anymore, but I can see that the education sector is still close to his heart.

Lawmakers Must First Understand the Law

The failure to apprehend the supreme law of the land will lead to disloyalty to the Rulers and the country. And this is a problem that we are facing with some of our Members of Parliament and other political leaders; who not only fail to understand, but do not even want to make the attempt to learn and uphold the law; which brings us to all kinds of conflicting and out of context statements that should not have came from the people who proudly call themselves the lawmakers. Worst, there are even some of them who purposely misinterpret our supreme law for their own political agendas.

The simplest example is how they fail to respect and uphold the main fundamental principal of our country which is clearly written in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. The words are crystal clear but some Members of Parliament and political leaders especially from DAP, PKR, and PAN are still denying the truth, and arrogantly insist that Malaysia is a secular country and Islam is merely the official religion; which in reality is a baseless and a malicious distortion of truth!

Members of Parliaments irrespective of their political ideologies are the lawmakers of the country; hence they must be responsible, constitutionally literate and must not in anyway try to debase the ideology of our country. Alas, instead of upholding the supreme law, some of these leaders are busy degrading and undermining the religion of the Federation. In other words, they are using their positions to corrupt the core foundation of our country and corrupt the minds of their supporters into believing in something that is not true.

It is unconstitutional for the lawmakers to deny the constitutional obligation of the government to protect and defend the sanctity of Islam and the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation. Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says that:

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

And to understand the interpretation of “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony”, we have read the Court of Appeal judgment of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri where the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali stated that:

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.

Unfortunately the phrase, “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony” is commonly used as the proof to debase the position of Islam as merely the official religion despite the fact that what was ever written is only, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” and not “the official religion”; and there is no Articles in the Federal Constitution that ever mentioned or implied that Islam is merely “the official religion” of the country.

It is the constitutional duty of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as the supreme head of our country to “at all time protect the Religion of Islam”, as said in the Article 37(1) or commonly referred to as the oath of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong which was written in Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 37(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall before exercising his functions take and subscribe before the Conference of Rulers and in the presence of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court (or in his absence the next senior judge of the Federal Court available) the oath of office set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule; and the oath shall be attested by two persons appointed for the purpose by the Conference of Rulers.

Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

OATH OF YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG
Kami ……………………………………. ibni ……………………………………………………. Yang di-Pertuan Agong bagi Malaysia bersumpah dengan melafazkan:
Wallahi; Wabillahi; Watallahi;
maka dengan lafaz ini berikrarlah Kami dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya mengaku akan taat setia pada menjalankan dengan adilnya pemerintahan bagi Malaysia dengan mengikut sebagaimana undang-undang dan Perlembagaan yang telah disah dan dimasyhurkan dan yang akan disah dan dimasyhurkan di masa hadapan ini. Dan lagi Kami berikrar mengaku dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya memeliharakan pada setiap masa Agama Islam dan berdiri tetap di atas pemerintahan yang adil dan aman di dalam Negeri.

English translation taken from Part III of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

We …………………………………………. ibni ………………………………………………… Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia do hereby swear:
Wallahi; Wabillahi; Watallahi;
and by virtue of that oath do solemnly and truly declare that We shall justly and faithfully perform (carry out) our duties in the administration of Malaysia in accordance with its laws and Constitution which have been promulgated or which may be promulgated from time to time in the future. Further We do solemnly and truly declare that We shall at all time protect the Religion of Islam and uphold the rules of law and order in the Country.

Since the oath is the oath of office of the supreme head of the country, by law it is not only the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong who is bound by the majesty’s oath to protect the Religion of Islam, but also the Prime Minister, the ministers, the lawmakers and the government servants; for they are tasked with the duty of administering the country on behalf of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

And the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam 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.”

And in the judgement of the Federal Court case of Fathul Bari Mat Jahya & Anor v. Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan & Ors, Tun Arifin Zakaria clarified that the integrity of Islam needs to be safeguarded at all cost.

The requirement of a tauliah for the purpose of protecting the public interest falls within the concept of Siyasah Syari’yah. Such order or direction is made not merely to prevent deviant teachings, but also to maintain order and prevent division in the community. Clearly, no one could suggest that the requirement of a tauliah as stipulated in s. 53 of the Enactment is a maksiat (vice). On the contrary, it is necessary in this day and age for the authority to regulate the teachings or preaching of the religion in order to control, if not eliminate, deviant teachings. The integrity of the religion needs to be safeguarded at all cost. That is what s. 53 purports to do. This being the case, the contention that the Syariah Court in Negeri Sembilan does not have the jurisdiction to try an offence under s. 53 of the Enactment is devoid of any merit. (paras 26 & 27)

Malaysia was formed as an Islamic country, and that the government is tasked to protect the religion of Islam, therefore, only those who are constitutionally illiterate and those who are blinded by their own illusions cannot see the truth, which unfortunately included our lawmakers; which is a very embarrassing situation! 

Hence, there is no legitimate reasons for the Members of Parliament, the lawmakers, the government servants and even the ministers to question the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country. We cannot change the core foundation of our country that had united the people and give away what we have achieved just to chase the rainbows. We must not be blinded by the beautiful colours of the rainbow; and there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Related articles:

Lim Guan Eng, Lama Berpolitik Tetapi Masih Buta Perlembagaan

Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng hari ini telah mengeluarkan satu kenyataan media berkenaan cadangan pindaan Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang kuasa Jenayah) 1965, atau lebih dikenali sebagai pindaan Akta 355. Dalam kenyataan media yang dimuatnaikkan di laman facebook beliau, Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang dan Ahli Parlimen Bagan itu membuat berberapa tuduhan liar dan bersifat fitnah terhadap pindaan Akta 355, termasuk tuduhan basi seperti ‘pindaan ini tidak berperlembagaan’.

Kenyataannya itu jelas membuktikan bahawa bukan sahaja Lim Guan Eng buta Perlembagaan, malah lebih parah lagi, Setiausaha Agung DAP itu nampaknya langsung tidak memahami sistem pengundian di Parlimen. Amat memalukan bagaimana seorang Ahli Parlimen tidak faham sistem undian di Parlimen. Apakah Lim Guan Eng tidak pernah mengundi di Parlimen sebelum ini? Lebih memalukan lagi ialah apabila Lim Guan Eng cuba bertindak mengulas hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, seolah-olah dia adalah pakar dalam bidang tersebut namun jelas terbukti betapa dangkal dan tidak berasasnya hujah Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang itu.

Lim Guan Eng menabur fitnah bahawa pindaan Akta 355 ini tidak berpelembagaan walaupun pelbagai penerangan telah dibuat untuk memperjelaskan perkara ini. Beliau juga mempertikaikan cara pengundian yang telah ditetapkan untuk pindaan Akta ini dengan memberi pelbagai sebab untuk mempertahankan kenyataannya. Namun, apakah Lim Guan Eng sebagai seorang Ahli Parlimen betul-betul tidak tahu tentang peruntukan di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang mengatakan dengan jelas tentang perkara ini? Perkara 62(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Tatacara Parlimen, telahpun mengatakan bahawa untuk meluluskan apa-apa undian, mereka hanya perlu mendapat majoriti biasa daripada ahli parlimen yang mengundi; kecuali jika mereka mahu meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang dimaktub di dalam Perkara 159(3) di mana undiannya mestilah tidak kurang daripada dua pertiga daripada jumlah bilangan ahli Majlis Parlimen itu.

PERKARA 62(3):

Tertakluk kepada Fasal (4) dan kepada Perkara 89(1) dan 159(3) dan kepada seksyen 10 dan 11 Jadual Ketiga Belas, setiap Majlis Parlimen hendaklah, jika tidak sebulat suara, membuat keputusannya mengikut majoriti biasa ahli-ahli yang mengundi; dan orang yang mempengerusikan itu, melainkan jika dia menjadi ahli Majlis Parlimen itu semata-mata menurut kuasa perenggan (b) Fasal (1A) Perkara 57, hendaklah membuang undinya apabila perlu bagi mengelakkan undi sama banyak, tetapi tidak boleh mengundi dalam apa-apa hal lain.

PERKARA 159(3):

Sesuatu Rang Undang-undang bagi membuat apa-apa pindaan kepada Perlembagaan (selain pindaan yang dikecualikan daripada peruntukan Fasal ini) dan sesuatu Rang Undang-undang bagi membuat apa-apa pindaan kepada sesuatu undang-undang yang diluluskan di bawah Fasal (4) Perkara 10 tidaklah boleh diluluskan di dalam mana-mana satu Majlis Parlimen melainkan jika Rang Undang-undang itu telah disokong pada Bacaan Kali Kedua dan Kali Ketiga dengan undi sebanyak tidak kurang daripada dua pertiga daripada jumlah bilangan ahli Majlis Parlimen itu.

Oleh kerana pindaan Akta 355 adalah satu pindaan bagi Akta dan bukannya meminda Perlembagaan; maka ianya tidak tertakluk kepada Perkara dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang dengan secara harfiahnya dipanggil Pindaan Perlembagaan. Maka di manakah logiknya hujah Lim Guan Eng yang mahukan peruntukan Perlembagaan tentang pindaan Perlembagaan digunakan untuk meminda Akta?

Hujah Lim Guan Eng amat memalukan bilamana seorang yang mempunyai kesetiaan yang agung terhadap parti masih keliru tentang perkara asas ini. Kalaupun had hukuman yang mahu dinaikkan itu menjadikannya lebih tinggi daripada had hukuman lain yang sedia ada dijadikan alasan; bagaimanakah parlimen meluluskan pindaan-pindaan untuk menambah hukuman sebelum ini? Sudah tentulah pernah ada pindaan yang menaikkan had hukuman sesuatu jenayah tertentu melebihi had hukuman yang tertinggi yang ada semasa pindaan tersebut dicadangkan. Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak melarang perkara ini, malah kita boleh menaikkan had sampai kepada 100 tahun penjara pun, ia tidak ada masalah dari segi Perlembagaan.

Bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah dan Sivil telah di tetapkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan punca kuasa Mahkamah Syariah datangnya daripada Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah pula tertakluk kepada Akta 355. Kerana itulah untuk meminda Akta 355, Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak perlu dipinda. Malahan, pindaan ini tidak menyentuh apa-apa perkara yang akan menjejaskan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Ini lah masalah dengan orang yang buta Perlembagaan tetapi cuba menunjuk pandai dan bercakap tentang perkara yang dia sendiri tidak faham.

DAP Uses MCA to ‘Screw’ UMNO?

Ever since the proposed amendment of Act 355 was tabled on the 26th of May 2016, DAP and its allies including supposedly Muslim parties had strongly opposed the amendment to empower the Syariah Courts and fabricated stories to justify their actions.

Using fictitious, weird and out of context arguments, DAP and friends have been making stern statements not only to voice out their disagreements but also trying to deny the democratic process by trying to forbid the private bill from being tabled in Parliament.   

Not only that, DAP went as far as dragging its ‘enemies’ along to support its cause and pressuring them, in particular MCA, MIC, GERAKAN, and SUPP to force UMNO to oppose the amendment as well.

They even made seditious statements such as urging the non-Malay parties to leave BN since UMNO is working together with PAS ‘to get hudud implemented through backdoor channels’.

Now, why does DAP seriously want UMNO to fight against the amendment that has nothing to do with most of DAP leaders and members?

Well, while the proposed amendment of Act 355 will not affect their lives, UMNO’s support for the Act will definitely gives a great impact to DAP’s chance to win in the coming general election, hence it does affect them indirectly!

DAP who wants to win big in the coming general election can only achieve its dreams if UMNO and Barisan Nasional candidates lose; so DAP must make sure that UMNO supporters will not vote for UMNO.

In general, the so-called progressive Malays such as the Malays supporting LGBT rights, pluralism of religion, liberalism and those who are against the amendment of Act 355 will not vote for UMNO; as they feel that UMNO’s approach to Islamic matters is too conservative and not ‘progressive’.

The Negeri Sembilan’s transgender case clearly proves that the government is really serious in curbing the LGBT way of lives.

At the same time, it is not a secret that majority of the Chinese did not vote for MCA during the last general election, and obviously will still not be supporting MCA in the coming 14th General Election.

So the MCA’s candidates can only win the election if the Malay voters who support UMNO vote for them in order to uphold Islam in Malaysia as so far proven by the UMNO led Barisan Nasional.

Therefore, in order to win in the coming general election, DAP must make sure that the UMNO’s Malay voters will no longer vote for UMNO and its allies, and one of the ways to do so is to give the impression that UMNO leaders are no longer fighting for Islam and are as bad as the progressive Muslims leaders of DAP and friends.

And one of the best ways to deny UMNO from winning is to stop UMNO from supporting the amendment of Act 355, hence, making UMNO’s Malay voters angry, and ‘hopefully’ in frustration, some may even vote for the progressive Malay parties as a revenge.

DAP will then play the issue that UMNO had cheated its Malay voters and tell them to teach UMNO a lesson by not voting for UMNO’s and other Barisan Nasional’s candidates; therefore giving DAP and friends a much bigger chance to win in the next general election.

In other words, DAP is actually trying to use MCA as a tool to make the Malays hate UMNO so that they won’t be voting for UMNO and other candidates of the Barisan Nasional, including MCA.

DAP dares to pressure MCA to fight against the amendment because DAP knows that MCA will not be able to win the hearts of the Chinese who had voted for DAP in the previous general election even if MCA went all out to fight against the amendment of Act 355.

So, does it make any sense for MCA to be so arrogant and make the people who voted for them feel very,very angry,unappreciated and cheated?

MCA must understand that unlike DAP’s supporters, the Chinese who had voted for MCA are those who do not agree to the harsh ideologies of DAP and understand and respect the rights of the Muslims to be governed by the Syariah law; so MCA must not fall into DAP’s trap if MCA really wants to win in the coming general election.

Is it logical that DAP cares enough for MCA that it is forcefully dragging MCA to go all out fighting against the amendment so that the non-Muslim voters especially the Chinese will not ‘punish’ MCA in the coming general election?

Unless MCA is an ally of DAP, DAP will do anything to make the voters hate MCA because unless there is a secret agenda, no political party will want their opponent to win any vote.

So that is why the leaders of DAP and friends insist that even though the non-Muslims are not under the jurisdiction the Act 355, they are still affected by the Act because the Malays who support the Act will not be voting for UMNO and Barisan Nasional candidates if UMNO fails to support the amendment; meaning the support for the amendment will affect both the Muslim and non-Muslim candidates of DAP and friends in their chances to win the Malay votes in the coming general election.

So, MCA must grow up and be rational, and remember that they must not fall into DAP’s trap unless it intends to ‘commit suicide’.

Akta 355: Lim Kit Siang dan ‘Pakatan Harapan’ BiaDAP!

Grow Up, MCA!

“Malaysia is a secular country” – that is a very popular myth concocted and supported by people who are obviously constitutionally illiterate and clueless about the interpretation of the Federal Constitution of our country.

MCA Legal Affairs Bureau Chairman Datuk Tay Puay Chuan’s press statement  which was published on the MCA website yesterday (March 30, 2017) with the title, “Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the nation” is part of the series of false and baseless accusations by certain groups to undermined the core principals of our country.

Tay Puay Chuan who clearly does not (or pretended not to) understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the definition of secularism, made several false accusations regarding the position of Islam in Malaysia, using the recycled baseless arguments which had been answered by many people for years.

I’ve written so many articles on this currently “hot issue” trying to open the minds of these people but then, it seems that some people just prefer to live in denial.

Below is the press statement (orange) together with my answers (blue) to all his twisted facts and wild accusations regarding Islam as the religion of the Federation.


I would like to stress again that the status of Islam as the religion of the federation, the roots of the Islamic law nationwide are granted by the Federal Constitution. This ascertains that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia

It is true that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the Federation as mentioned in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, but 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. Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation. This was 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

This is in response to the booklet by Institute Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM) on the ’10 Salah Tanggapan Tentang Kedudukan Islam di Malaysia (10 Misconceptions about the Position of Islam in Malaysia)’, in which it included topics that either directly wrote or implied that ‘Malaysia is not a secular country;’ ‘rejecting claims that Islam is lower than the Constitution;’ ‘As an Islamic  nation, Islamic system is the thrust;’ as well as ‘other religions have no equal standing; and ‘the nation does  not carry the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions.’

Malaysian leaders of all religions must be constitutionally literate and uphold the Federal Constitution including Article 3(1) that enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation making Malaysia an Islamic nation. All the Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read together and people cannot just cherry-pick what they like and interpret the Articles according to their fancy to serve their agendas. 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 had clearly clarified that other religions have no equal standing as Islam: 

In my opinion, “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practied in peace and harmony” means that Islam is the main religion among other religions that are practied in the country such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others. Islam is not equal to any other religion, not sitting together or stand upright. It sits on top, he walked past, located in the field and his voice heard. Islam is like teak trees – tall, strong and skilled. If not so Islam is not the religion of the Federation but is one among several religions practised in the country and everyone is equally free to practice any religion he professes, no more one than the other. Provisions ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’ shall be defined and reviewed with the objective to read other provisions of the Constitution, especially Article 89, 152, 153 and 14.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions (as long as they are in peace and harmony with Islam), there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions except Islam, for example, the Article 11(4).

IKSIM must be alerted that the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution also explains that Islamic law is for persons professing the religion of Islam on matters related to succession, marriage, divorce, etc.

I have read the booklet and in the booklet, IKSIM has never said that the Islamic law has the jurisdiction over people professing other religions other than Islam.

The Federal Constitution is THE supreme law of the nation, and the supremacy of the Constitution renders Islam as the religion of the federation whilst other religions are allowed to be practised freely.

That is not only a false but also a malicious statement. The Constitution has never stated that “other religions can be practised freely” in any of its Articles or Schedules. Article 11(1) says that, Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it” while Article 3(1) clearly says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. So, there is no phrase such as “other religions can be practised freely” in both Articles. Maybe Tay came across the word “bebas” in the Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM and was confused by it.

As for the phrase, “in peace and harmony”, it was clearly interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia.

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.

Malaysia is a secular country. In fact, the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Supreme Court judgement enables the implementation of secular laws in the country, which includes both criminal and civil laws. These laws apply to the entire country, irrespective of race and religion. Similarly, the Federal Constitution also provides that Islamic law may only be used on persons professing the religion of Islam. Therefore, Islamic law is not for everyone. Only secular laws may be applied to everyone. Hence, this is one of the proofs which shows that Malaysia is a secular country.

Contrary to what was argued by Tay, the fact that Malaysia has two court systems, the civil court systems and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

By the way, does Tay understand the meaning of the word secularism? George Jacob Holyoake, the creator of the term secularism defined secularism as separating government and religion. Therefore, as said in many of my previous posts, it is impossible for Malaysia to be defined as a secular country when Islam is stated as the religion of the Federation. It also contradicts with other Articles of the Constitution such as the Articles 11(4), 12, 37, 76A, 121(1A) and others.

As I wrote in my article for the news portal Menara, in a secular country, the State does not have a religion and cannot has anything to do in relation to religion, for example in the case of Mount Soledad Easter Cross in San Diego, California.

Hence, by calling Malaysia a secular country, Tay slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

Syariah law which is currently applied across all states, is the provision of rights granted to all state governments on the law as outlined in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. It is stated with a condition that the criminal penalties and jurisdictions of the Syariah Court cannot contravene the Federal Constitution, or it will be considered void and unconstitutional.

The jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts does not contravene the Federal Constitution because it was conferred by the Federal Constitution in Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution also states that: Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

This again shows that other religions are also protected by the Federal Constitution. Hence the claims made in the booklet that the country has no obligation to defend nor protect other religions are incorrect. Instead, our nation and the government have the responsibility of defending all religions in line with the Articles and spirit of the Federal Constitution.

What a mind blowing senseless argument! It shows that either Tay is truly constitutionally illiterate or he, in bad faith is trying to deny and debase the position of Islam in our Federal Constitution because his argument is against the core principals of the supreme law of the land. In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali said that the purpose of “in peace and harmony” were added to Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam, and not to defend other religions as claimed by Tay.

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.

Therefore, Tay must be constitutionally illiterate if he really thinks that the Federal Constitution conferred Malaysia as a secular country, all religions have equal standing and the nation carries the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions other than Islam.

It is a known fact that during the 13th General Election, MCA won it seats mostly because of the Malay voters, so this kind of attitude is not a gracious way to thank the voters who had graciously voted for the party candidates regardless of their race and religion. MCA must grow up and stop imitating DAP in debasing Islam and the Malays in trying to win the Chinese votes because it won’t work.  

We are now constitutionally literate and therefore the people are not stupid to easily be fooled by concocted lies. Is it too much for me to hope for leaders to understand and uphold the core principals of my country as clearly stated in the Federal Constitution and stop misinterpreting the supreme law of the land for their political and personal agendas?

Related Posts:

Constitutionally Illiterate!

“We cannot accept Shariah law, for Malaysia already has a supreme law, which is the Federal Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution declares it simply: ‘This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation’,” Baru said as reported by Borneo Post Online with the tittle, “Baru concurs with Abg Jo on concerns over proposed amendment to Act 355”.

Constitutionally illiterate! This senseless statement makes me wonder if the PKR leader knows what he is trying to say. In fighting against a law that has nothing to do with him as a non-Muslim, the PKR man said, “Hadi Awang and Umno may say this is Syariah and not hudud, but as far as I understand it, hudud is part of the Syariah and the proponents had said this bill was to pave way for hudud punishments in Kelantan. This attempt at RUU355 is but a political contest between Umno and PAS to champion the implementation of Syariah Law in Malaysia.”

Yes, Article 4 of the Constitution declares that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation, therefore the Shariah Court system is constitutional because Article 121(1A) confers the Syariah Courts systems as part of the Malaysian legal systems. Federal Constitution as the Supreme law of the land must not be misinterpreted and must be read as a whole.

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 that, “Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself”. Hence, it is wrong for Baru Bian to cherry-pick what he likes or bypassing other Articles in order to make his own interpretation to suit his argument and agendas.

If Baru Bian respects the Article 4, he must respect the fact that the Article 3(1) that says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” for it is placed before the Article 4, hence stating the importance of Article 3. 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 explained that , “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”. So by denying the acceptance of the Shariah laws, Baru Bian is literally against the Article 3(1) and therefore he is also against Supreme Law of the Federation.

If Baru Bian reads the Federal Constitution, he’ll understand that as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution defines the principles of our country, the sovereignty of Islam as the religion of the country, the sovereignty of the Rulers, the rights of the people, judicial system and other important laws but the Federal Constitution does not describe punishments and offences. It is the judiciary that interprets and applies the law in the name of our country through Act, Ordinance, Enactment and others. And there is no unconstitutional elements in the proposed amendment of the Act 355 because the Act 355 is an existing law, the proposed amendment is only to increase the Syariah punishments which are currently too low and not to introduce new sets of laws or seeks to widen the scope of its current jurisdiction.

Furthermore has Baru Bian forgotten or unaware of Article 11(3)(a) which says every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs? After all, why must the non-Muslims try so hard to deny the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage our own religious affairs as granted by Article 11(3) of our Federal Constitution?

This is not a Hudud Bill and it is impossible for the amendment of Act 355 to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015 because it is not within the power of the Syariah Courts to implement capital punishment nor the jurisdiction over offences punishable under the Penal Code.

So, please stop debasing the Federal Constitution and as a leader, please at least learn to respect and uphold our supreme law.

 

Related Posts: