On the other hand, SIS Forum fights for LGBT rights, liberalism, pluralism, wrong interpretation of the holy Quran and other matters against Islam.
Sis Forum is also a member of two anti-government coalition, BERSIH and COMANGO.
BERSIH that received funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute(OSI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI), makes malicious and slanderous accusations not only towards UMNO but also towards PM Najib, and their main activity is organising illegal anti-government demonstrations in which they humiliate PM Najib and in its latest demonstration, BERSIH demonstrators are calling for PM Najib to step down.
COMANGO is a loose coalition of NGOs that made false accusations regarding human rights in Malaysia and demands the government of Malaysia to sign the UNHRC treaties that are against Islam, the Federal Constitution, the Rukun Negara (National Principles) and the laws of our country.
So, what is going on with Puteri UMNO and what are they trying to prove?
Is this an action of being politically mature or are they trying to stab UMNO in the back?
For their information, DAPSY will not be doing such thing together with PERKASA unless PERKASA makes a u-turn on its stance regarding Islam and the Malays.
What can they gain politically from inviting SIS Forum to their event?
If they think that political gain is not important for them despite they are an UMNO wing at the time when the general election is looming near; then I’m speechless.
Can’t those Puteri UMNO think of the consequences of their actions; that by working together with SIS Forum, they are giving the impression that they can tolerate and respect SIS Forum’s liberal and anti-government ideology?
Or are they really moving towards that path and away from UMNO’s ‘demi agama, bangsa dan tanahair’?
Next, perhaps they can invite leaders of SIS Forum as speakers for their programs.
The Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of our country has to be respected in order to maintain a harmonious society.
We are governed by law and regulations to maintain law and order of our country and living in a civilised world, we should adhere to proper social etiquette that defines a civilised society hence, a total freedom of speech like mocking people’s religion cannot be accepted.
In a malicious article, entitled “Making monkeys out of us”, Malay Mail Online’s Boo Su-Lyn tries to justify the controversial and spiteful Nanyang Siang Pau’s ‘Monkey Act’ caricature on the pretext of press freedom.
Claiming it is not even offensive, Boo questions the actions taken by the authority and the complains made by the people and want the government“to allow people to say whatever they want, as long as they do not advocate physical harm”; a situation made possible only in a fantasy world.
For most opposition-inclined activists, freedom of speech only applies to them, hence they are free to slur and mock others but not the other way around.
Below are with my answers (blue) to all Boo’s “Making monkeys out of us” (red).
APRIL 14 — When I applied seven years ago to be a journalist, my boss told me that my job was to report the “facts”, not the “truth”, since I was a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed wannabe-activist then. Along the way, I gradually learned the difference between the two. Now, of course, we have “alternative facts” and “fake news.” For example, Boo Su-Lyn’s “alternative facts”, “fake news”, fake facts and malicious accusations regarding Islam. What is worse – beyond those terms that Malaysia has long used even before Donald Trump became US president – are the increased incidents of censorship and attacks on press freedom and freedom of speech. We do not live in the dark ages and we are a civilised society. A gross slur on the country’s religion and the authorities on the pretext of “press freedom and freedom of speech” is wrong and uncivilised. Furthermore, Malaysia is not a lawless country, we are all governed by law. It’s hard to report the facts under such circumstances. Yes, it is hard to report real facts when the truth must be spun. In the latest incident, the Home Ministry has summoned the editor-in-chief of Nanyang Siang Pau over its cartoon on the RUU355 issue that depicted PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang and Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia as monkeys. Is Boo saying that the apology from Nanyang Siang Pau is not sincere and that the slur on Islam and the parliamentary procedure is only part of Nanyang’s “press freedom and freedom of speech”? The Tuesday announcement came hours after PAS Youth and several Muslim NGOs staged a protest outside the Chinese-language newspaper’s office. If it is true that the Nanyang Siang Pau’s apology is just a deception as indirectly implied by Boo, no wonder PAS Youth members took the action. Furthermore PAS Youth and the Muslim NGOs are just expressing their “freedom of speech” and freedom of expression. The police have also waded in and said they’ll launch an investigation, with the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) warning the media against publishing “sensitive” cartoons. It seems like the PDRM, especially the Inspector-General of Police is the ‘prime target’ for Boo and her gangs; therefore it proves the integrity and professionalism of the police force so far. Nanyang was simply mocking the RUU355 debacle that has seen the fifth tabling of Hadi’s Bill – which seeks to enhance Shariah punishments – without resulting in a debate and vote. The way Boo puts it, when she refers the parliamentary procedure as “the RUU355 debacle”, shows that she herself is mocking and debasing the long process of tabling the Act; which shows people like Boo Su-Lyn have no empathy and respect towards the rights of others. The amendment of Act 355 is important to the Muslims who are the majority population of Malaysia. It is a move to uphold Islam as the religion of the Federation, so mocking such a very sensitive matter is uncalled for. Alas, the arrogant Boo is mocking the process by referring it as “the RUU355 debacle”. Last Thursday, the Speaker postponed the debate after allowing opening arguments from PAS, saying: “If you don’t use your power, you are a bloody fool. Today, I don’t want to be a bloody fool.” The Speaker had to deal Lim Kit Siang and a few other opposition Members of Parliament who were behaving like spoiled children trying to disrupt a parliamentary process and denying the rights and the power of the Speaker in carrying out his duty as the the presiding officer of the Dewan Rakyat. The Nanyang cartoon shows the “Hadi” monkey offering the RUU355 “hot potato” to the “Pandikar” monkey, who leaps off the tree saying, “Keep it for next time”, as a bunch of monkeys get into a fight below. The cartoon is captioned: “Monkeys playing tricks”, with the word “tricks” referencing the Bill. Was the cartoon offensive? Opinions are sure to differ. A person does not have to be smart to answer the above questions. 1) The cartoon is offensive to the supporters of the amendment of Act 355 because matters relating upholding Islam is a “no-mocking’ matters to the Muslims. 2) The cartoon is not offensive to people like Boo Su-Lyn because they are the ones who are the mocker or the trouble makers. To me, calling someone a “bitch” or a “slut” is far more offensive than calling them a “monkey.” Yet, the police aren’t hunting down people who make such offensive remarks against women online. Another deception of truth using an out of context argument. This is not just another case of name-calling or people make rude and offensive remarks as published daily by the opposition and the ‘opposition-inclined’ news portals, for example Free Malaysia Today and Malay Mail Online. Nanyang is bounded by regulations and law because we are not living in dark ages or in a lawless country where anyone can do just anything they fancy. Even if Boo Su-Lyn tells people to call her monkey, she has no right to tell the Muslims to let non-Muslims humiliate Islam by implying the amendment of Act 355 is like a monkey business; after all the caricature was titled “Monkey Act” (as translated by most reports) for a reason, isn’t it? Why should a newspaper face State action over a caricature when Hadi is free to call the DAP a piece of “shit”? To be clear, I’m not advocating for police investigations against Hadi. Is she serious? The newspaper insults Islam while Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi did not insult any religion. Islam is the religion of the Federation but DAP is only a political party and not even a religion. Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi said that DAP is a piece of “shit” from PAP, a rude way to say that DAP is a spin-off from PAP. It is rude but not seditious nor malicious. DAP leaders not only slur PAS but they also make offensive and seditious statements towards Islam. In fact, Boo herself wrote a lot of malicious and seditious articles which are offensive to the Muslims. If Haji Hadi must be investigated, so must Boo Su-Lyn and DAP leaders. The point is everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, no matter how crude and offensive they are. So, Boo must now fight for the Speaker’s, PAS Youth’s and Muslim NGOs’ rights to their freedom of speech. It is not fair if the rights to go on a “crude and offensive” mocking spree is only bestowed on Boo and her gangs. The Nanyang cartoon wasn’t even mocking Islam; it was just taking a jibe at the way Hadi’s Bill has been politicised for two whole years since it first appeared in Parliament’s Order Paper in April 2015. Islam is a way of life and as a non-Muslim and especially an atheist Boo Su-Lyn has no right to comment about Islam. Neither PAS nor UMNO politicised the Bill. A piece of legislation cannot be equated to a religion. As an atheist, she fails to understand how people feel about their religion as she doesn’t even have a religion. Malaysia is a multi-cultural society, which means that our lawmakers in Parliament come from diverse backgrounds. Just because a certain Bill touches on religion (in the case of RUU355, it’s specifically on the Shariah court system), it does not mean that those of other faiths cannot question it. One need to be constitutionally literate in order to talk about legal matters. The fact that Malaysia is a multi-cultural society makes it crucial for the people to respect the rights of others as provided by the Federal Constitution. Please refer to Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution before making a statement on this matter. If that were the case, then we might as well prevent non-Muslim MPs from debating and voting on RUU355. Muslims leaders obey the Federal Constitution and do not do things based only on emotion. Or we might as well prevent Muslim MPs from debating and vosion ting on the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, since its proposed ban on unilateral child conversions deals primarily with the rights of non-Muslim parents and children. This is the problem when a person who is constitutionally illiterate comments on parliamentary procedure. It is unconstitutional to restrict the non-Muslims Members of Parliament from voting on matters regarding Islam in Parliament. The intellectual growth of the nation will be stunted if people are not allowed to question or to make criticisms on topics like religion. Any religious belief, or even the lack of belief like atheism, should be subject to debate, criticism, and yes, even satire. Please study the law of our country before making senseless comments. Boo Su-Lyn’s ‘logic’ on matters of religion is only accepted by the liberals. By the way, atheism is against both our Federal Constitution and Rukun Negara, so it has no legal standing according to the supreme law of our country. Freedom of speech is especially necessary in cases where religion is used as a basis for policymaking, be it healthcare, education, marriage, or childbearing. Policy making must be based on the ideology and the law of a country. We cannot force a secular country to make state policies based on religion and like wise we cannot force an Islamic country like Malaysia to make policies based on freedom of speech. In Malaysia, religion features in many of our policies, which makes it all the more important to ensure that the interests of the citizenry are not sacrificed for someone’s personal beliefs. In Malaysia, Islam is not merely “someone’s personal beliefs” but it is the religion of the Federation as enshrined by the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. “The interests of the citizenry are not sacrificed” by Islamic policies because it is only for the Muslims. Regarding the amendment of Act 355, it is the non-Muslims who are trying to deny the rights of the Muslims. If Malaysia really wants to go all out in preserving “national harmony”, then they can look at Singapore which prosecuted teenager Amos Yee for insulting Christians and Muslims and more recently, fined and deported a Muslim imam for saying during Friday prayers: “God help us against Jews and Christians.” Singaporean authorities even gave stern warnings to two Facebook users in the imam’s case. I agree that Malaysia should take stern actions on people who try to interfere with other people’s religion especially Islam, the religion of the Federation. Unlike Malaysia, Singapore is a country without a religion, thus all religions are at par as according to the Constitution of Singapore; so legal matters regarding religions cannot be the same for both countries. Christians and Muslims are minority groups in Singapore, forming 18 per cent and 15 per cent of the population respectively in the 2010 census. Buddhists and Taoists comprise the biggest religious group at 44 per cent. A significant percentage, 17 per cent, say they have no religious affiliation. So Malaysia can take the Singapore route if it wants to and prosecute criticism and insults of any religion, without being biased towards a certain faith. In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors 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.
If “national harmony” is the reason for clamping down on freedom of speech, it’s preferable to go after those who mock any religion rather than take action against people who criticise a certain faith. Boo Su-Lyn is either delusional or in a bad faith accused that it is lawful to mock any religion but Islam in Malaysia. This way, everyone will be happy and there will be genuine “national” peace and harmony across race and religion. In case Boo is unaware, the president of Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) was charged in court under the Sedition Act 1948 for questioning the citizenship of the Chinese. Of course, the best way for our country to develop intellectually is to truly protect fundamental liberties and to allow people to say whatever they want, as long as they do not advocate physical harm. Fundamental liberties is stated in Part II of the Federal Constitution and as we live in Malaysia, we follow the Malaysian laws. We shouldn’t try to be like robotic Singapore. Instead Malaysia should aim higher and allow the diversity of thought and opinion to flourish. The opposition had always named Singapore as an example which Malaysia should follow, but now they don’t want Malaysia to become like “robotic Singapore”; cherry picking again. Singapore has both the Internal Security Act 1985 and Sedition Act 1948, while Malaysia was forced to abolish the Internal Security Act 1960 by human right activists and is left with only the Sedition Act which is now under attack by the same group. Weirdly, the same group praises Singapore for its law-and-orderpolicy. If Boo lives in Singapore, I am doubtful if she dares to do what she is doing now. If Malaysia is as what portrayed by Boo, she would have been charged under the Sedition Act a long time ago. But she is still free to slur seditious and spiteful statements with malicious intent about Islam that can promote ill will and hostility or hatred between different races and religions of Malaysia, which is chargeable under both Section 3(1)(e) and Section (3)(1)(ea) of the Sedition Act 1948. She must be thankful that at least she is has yet to be charged for making seditious statements. This proves that Malaysia does support freedom of speech. If not, not only Boo but a lot others including some online portals have been charged for making or publishing malicious and spiteful contents.
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.
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’.
I am very proud to read what was said by Tun Ahmad Fairuz in Free Malaysia Today’s report, “Ex-CJ: Laws that are against Quran and Sunnah are void”.
FMT wrote, “Explaining his interpretation, Ahmad Fairuz who was the chief justice from 2003 to 2007, cited a Privy Council judgement on a case in Singapore, where it said for a law to be valid, it must conform to the fundamental rules laid down by English Common Law.”
“This view seems to be accepted in Malaysia too. But as Islam is the religion of the federation, surely the fundamental principles of the law should be based not only on English Common Law, but (also) on the shariah law.
“I want to stress the aspect of judiciary in the definition of Islam where the Quran and Sunnah are the main sources of Islamic laws.
“Article 4 of the Federal Constitution states that laws which are against the Federal Constitution are void, on the part of the contradicting provisions. And hence, laws that are against the Quran and Sunnah will also be void.”
Explaining about the interpretation of Article 3(1) Tun Fairuz was reported saying:
“In the case of Lina Joy, when I was the chief justice, I said Islam was also a complete way of life that included all aspects of human activities, including judiciary, politics, and economy among others.”
FMT further wrote, “Hence, Ahmad Fairuz, reading Article 3 and 4 together, interpreted the Federal Constitution as making Islamic law the second most supreme legislation.”
Therefore for those who are constitutionally illiterate and shouting that Malaysia is a secular country and the proposed amendment of Act 355 is unconstitutional, please attend Tun Fairuz’s next lecture to learn more about the Federal Constitution from our former Chief Justice.
“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.
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?
Named as a “group of prominent Muslims” by DAP, G25 is a group of people who are so clueless about the teaching of Islam that their arguments and ideas regarding Islam are so mind-blowing and out of context, making them good friends of DAP’s Penang Institute. Sharing DAP’s stance regarding the amendment of Act 355, G25’s arguments on this matter are as baseless and illogical as those given by DAP.Below are my answers (in blue) to G25’s article in red:
To all honourable Members of Parliament, We, G25, anxiously appeal for a promise from each Honourable Member of Parliament to not support/cancel the debate on PAS’ private motion to amend Act 355, or Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, which will now be debated in Parliament. We hope the honourable MPs would ponder upon and note that any amendment to Islamic laws should be done within the framework of the Federal Constitution. There is no law saying that Act 355 or any other Acts related to the Islamic Laws cannot be amended. The Hadi Private Bill to amend the Act 355 is being done within the framework of the Federal Constitution and I’m sure that the members of G25 are aware that this is not the first time the Act 355 is amended.
Specifically, Article 4 provides for the superiority of the federal law and civil courts over state Islamic enactments and shariah courts. This ensures the existence of only one system of justice governing all Malaysians. A misleading fabricated statement. Syariah Courts is part of Malaysian legal systems as confers by Article 121(1A). There is no such thing as,“This ensures the existence of only one system of justice governing all Malaysians”. 1) Article 4 states that the Federal Constitution is the Supreme law and Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution says:
The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.
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.
Limitations on the powers of the shariah courts: Item 1 in the Ninth Schedule of the State List of the Federal Constitution states that the shariah courts “shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law”. The purpose of this provision is for Parliament to have oversight and control over offences, including the nature of punishments created by state enactments, so that the state legislatures do not have a free hand to create offences or to prescribe sentences. 1) Act 355 is a Federal Law and not a State Law. The Act confers jurisdiction upon Courts constituted under any State law for the purpose of dealing with offences under Islamic law. 2) “Item 1 in the Ninth Schedule of the State List of the Federal Constitution” does not exist. What we have is, Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and it proves that the Syariah Court system is legal and constitutional.
Increasing status of the syariah courts complicates enforcement: The desire to raise the status of the shariah courts to be on a par with the civil courts is worrying and very likely will shock our multiracial community as it will raise questions on the direction of the country’s legal system. Is G25 unaware of the existence of Article 121(1A)? In 1988, the then Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed tabled the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill in Parliament to add Clause (1A) to the Article 121 which raised the status of the Syariah Courts. That happened 29 years ago and it had not “shock our multiracial community”. G25 must stop debasing the Syariah Courts.
A secular system of justice existing side by side with the Islamic system is not only unconstitutional but will cause considerable confusion and uncertainty in the enforcement of law and order. Is G25 saying that Articles 74(2) and 121(1A) is unconstitutional and Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution does not exist?
A big risk with investors: Economists and international experts who have studied Malaysia’s remarkable economic development over a relatively short period to become one of the most advanced economies in the developing world, have always cited its system of law and administration as a key factor in attracting foreign and local investors to do business here. It is a system which foreigners are familiar with because it is similar to what they find in their own countries. Their presence is most important for the transfer of knowledge and technology so that Malaysians can benefit by developing our own skills to compete in the world market. Our country will be taking a big risk with foreign and local investors if we have a system of law which is moving away from its original character to become more religiously oriented and less tolerant of modern lifestyles and values. Act 355 is not a new law and it will not change our current “system of law”. I wonder if: 1) To G25, is “modern lifestyles and values” means lifestyles and values which are against the teaching of Islam? 2) In what way does the amendment of Act 355 can be bad for our economy in regarding to “attracting foreign and local investors to do business here”? 3) G25 really thinks that a “religiously oriented” Muslimsociety is bad for the economy?
A step towards hudud: Supporters of the PAS bill to amend Act 355 insist that there is no intention to introduce hudud. Malaysians find this hard to believe as Kelantan, which is ruled by PAS, has already passed the Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015, prescribing hudud punishment forzina (illicit sex), murder, theft, robbery, sodomy, consumption of liquor and apostasy. The amendment of Act 355 cannot enable the implementation of the current Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015. The amendment is only to enable the Syariah Courts to increase its punishments limits, but its jurisdiction will still be limited to the crimes listed under the Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, which does not include murder, robbery and theft as in hudud.
But State law is currently prevented from being enforced because of Act 355. Another false fact. Act 355 confers the jurisdiction upon States’ Syariah Courts therefore it does not prevent the enforcement of State laws.
Prioritising good governance in public institutions A well-governed country with laws and governing institutions that provide social justice for the poor and the needy should be a priority for the country’s social and economic progression. This would be more Islamic than the implementation of hudud. We should be proud that our shariah index is higher than other Muslim countries because our children are better educated; health and medical facilities are available in all corners of the country; unemployment and poverty rates are low; andour youth can look forward to a brighter future. Higher priority should be given towards improving the standards of governance and to strengthen the institutions of law and order so as to promote integrity and clean administration in the country. These governing qualities are far more important to the country than policing the moral behaviour of Muslims and punishing them like criminals. The personal sins of Muslims do not hurt others in the society or the economy but the corruption and financial mismanagement among politicians and civil servants and the perception that the institutions of justice favour those in power — these are the social diseases that can cause economies to collapse and the people to rise up against their rulers. The government and MPs should be careful not to support the PAS bill and instead spend their energy in dealing with the unresolved problems surrounding 1MDB so that the country can turn its attention to deal with the bigger issues facing the economy, in particular the weak ringgit and the rising cost of living. We do not need the PAS bill to divide the nation at a time when all races should stand together. The time now is for the real 1Malaysia. Contrary to what was claimed by G25, the amendment of Act 355 will not only lead to good governance but it will help to build a better society and reduce social problems among the Muslims. Talking about economy, the increase of punishments for drinking and gambling can hinder Muslims from wasting their money on those negative activities, hence will improve the economy of their families. And faithful Muslims will not be involved in “corruption and financial mismanagement”, hencewill prevent “the social diseases that can cause economies to collapse and the people to rise up against their rulers”.
On March 11, 2017, the DAP Seputeh MP said on her Facebook page that, “This case tells us that Syariah laws will affect non-Muslims in the end…..” with a photo of a man being caned in Aceh.
I wonder if Teresa Kok read the News Asiaone report before making her posting because it was reported that the two men chose to be punished under the Syariah laws instead of Indonesian national legal system.
If Teresa Kok understands English, she’ll know that the Buddhists themselves chose to be caned instead of jailed.
Maybe Teresa Kok is trying to relate the news to the amendment of Act 355 in order to scare the non-Muslim that in the end, it will affect them as well.
If so, it is another dirty tactic to spew hatred towards the Muslims who are fighting for the Act 355 to be amended because:
The amendment of Act 355 will not broaden the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court beyond its current limit but it will only increase its punishment limits to the Muslim who are under the jurisdiction of the court.
To allow the Syariah laws to be applied to the non-Muslims, the Federal Constitution must be amended where the Item 1 List II Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia must first be amended.
We do not subscribe to the laws of Indonesia. That happened in Aceh, Indonesia where Syariah law is applied to everyone but we are living in Malaysia, where the Syariah law only applies to the Muslims.
The two Buddhists chose to be punished under the Syariah law instead of the secular law; why must that bothers Teresa Kok?
It is easy for leaders like Teresa Kok to spread lies to her supporters because:
They trust their leaders and are too blinded to see the truth.
Like Teresa Kok, they only read the titles and do not bother to find out what really happens.
They do not understand the Bahasa Melayu and English.
They do not understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
In order to play safe and avoid losing Malay votes by saying “no” to PAS President’s Private Bill, PKR publishes a book named, “Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia”, where apart from recycling irrelevant and out of context questions that were answered a long time ago, the party issued a very confusing statement regarding the Bill in order not to directly says that the party is against the Bill.
Worst, PKR tries to take the credit for the Federal Government’s effort in 1988 to upgrade the Syariah Courts by claiming that the move was “upon the initiatives of Almarhum Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim”.
Written on page 20 of the book:
At the Federal level, upon the initiatives of the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Article 121 (1A) was introduced to the Federal Constitution. The introduction upgraded the legal position of the Syariah Courts without infringing the civil on the court rights of non-Muslims. It must be stress that this initiative was discussed by the Islamic Consultation Body, the Islamic Centre (now JAKIM), and the Cabinet.
~Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia
It is a known fact that Almarhum Tan Sri Professor Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmad is the person who initiated the move but sinceI have not come across on Anwar’s specific rolein fighting for the Article 121 1(A) together with Almarhum ProfessorAhmad Ibrahim, I spoke to several senior lawyers and Constitution experts to clarify the claim made by PKR in the said book.
Contrary to what was claimed in the PKR book, the answers from the senior lawyers are that Anwar Ibrahim has nothing to do with the move to add the Article 121 (1A) to our Federal Constitution, neither in coming out with the idea nor the fight in pursuing the matter until it was accepted by the Federal Government.
I was told by the lawyers that it was the initiative of Almarhum Tan Sri ProfessorAhmad Mohamed Ibrahim with the help from the then Chief Justice Tun Hamid Omar and the then Attorney General that made it possible to bring the matter to Parliament and that it has nothing to do either with Anwar Ibrahim or PKR.
Furthermore, after studying the Parliament Hansard, I found out that on March 17, 1988, it was not Anwar Ibrahim who tabled the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill regarding Article 121 (1A) in the Parliament but it was the then Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed who tabled the Bill.
Below is a part of the Parliament Hansard on the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill:
Penyampai : DATO’ SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD Tajuk : MEMBENTANGKAN RANG UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN (PINDAAN) 1988 Lokasi : DEWAN RAKYAT, KUALA LUMPUR Tarikh : 17-03-1988
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Saya mohon mencadangkan iaitu Rang Undang-Undang bernama suatu Akta untuk meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan dibacakan kali yang kedua sekarang….
…23. Perkara 118A menyatakan bahawa sesuatu aduan tentang tidak adanya dibuat pemilihan ke Dewan Rakyat hendaklah dianggap sebagai petisyen pilihanraya, dan Mahkamah Tinggi boleh membuat perintah untuk memaksa supaya pemilihan dibuat. Perkara itu juga menyatakan bahawa kegagalan membuat pemilihan dalam tempoh yang dinyatakan oleh Perkara 54 dan 55 tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa seseorang ahli itu telah tidak dipilih sewajarnya. Fasal 7 Rang Undang-Undang ini mencadangkan supaya Perkara 118A itu dipinda supaya ianya terpakai juga bagi pemilihan ke Dewan Undangan Negeri. PERKARA 121 ___________
24. Perkara 121 meletakhak kuasa kehakiman Persekutuan pada Mahkamah Tinggi dan mahkamah-mahkamah rendah. Ia juga meletakhak bidangkuasa tertentu pada Mahkamah Agung.
25. Fasal 8 Rang Undang-Undang ini mencadangkan supaya Perkara 121 dipinda dengan menghapuskan peruntukan tentang meletakhak kuasa-kuasa kehakiman pada mahkamah-mahkamah dan dengan memasukkan ke dalam Fasal (1) Perkara itu peruntukan yang menyatakan bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi dan mahkamah-mahkamah rendah hendaklah mempunyai bidangkuasa dan kuasa-kuasa sebagaimana yang diberi oleh atau di bawah undang-undang persekutuan. Dengan ini, Perkara itu tidak lagi akan memberi penekanan pada meletakhak kuasa kehakiman persekutuan pada mahkamah-mahkamah tetapi akan hanya memperkatakan tentang jenis-jenis mahkamah dan bidangkuasa serta kuasa-kuasanya.
~Office of the Prime Minister
Therefore, I have a few questions for PKR :
What is the important role played by Anwar Ibrahim to justify his big role in Article 121 (1A) as claimed by PKR that, “At the Federal level, upon the initiatives of the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Article 121 (1A) was introduced to the Federal Constitution”?
Since the Clause (1A) was added to the Article 121 in 1988, on what basis can PKR take the credit by using Anwar’s name when; ——–i. PKR was then not yet existed. ——–ii. And Anwar Ibrahim who was then a leader of UMNO acted in the capacity ———–of an UMNO leader and in accordance with the principals of UMNO and by ———–the consent of UMNO leadership?
Are these concocted fictional claims are parts of PKR’s values and interpretation of the phrase “justice, humanity and based on the Islamic values of “rahmatan lil ‘alamin” (a mercy unto the world)” that was said in the book as what PKR is “committed in the struggle for”?
Boo Su-Lyn’s Malay Mail Online article, “Why we must stand up against Hadi’s Bill” is full of false, slanderous and malicious accusations that undermine Islam, the religion of the Federation. She is instigating disunity among people of different races. She is disloyal to the DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as she refutes the DYMM Agong’s oath to uphold Islam at all time and she also went against the decree of the former DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong which was made in the parliament on the 7th March, 2016:
“Beta berharap langkah-langkah ke arah memperkukuhkan institusi agama dan kecekapan perlaksanaan undang-undang pentadbiran agama Islam melalui pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah dapat disegerakan.”
Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”. That means Boo Su-Lyn has no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs and to question the implementation of our Syariah Laws.
One of the causes of religious conflicts in Malaysia is instigation made by people like Boo Su-Lyn who seems to think that she knows everything, has the right to interfere with everything and has respect to others.
Below are my answers (in blue) to Boo Su-Lyn’s article in red:
JANUARY 20 — If we fear that PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s Bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) may irrevocably change our beloved country, then we must stand up against the Bill in a united show of protest.
PAS president’s Private Member’s Bill is an amendment to enhance the Act 355, which was last amended in 1989 in order to empower the Malaysian Judiciary Systems, specifically the Syariah Courts. Lots of other Acts had been amended more than twice since Act 355 was last amended.
Today, the maximum punishment for smoking in public places is higher than the maximum punishments for any Syariah offences, thus, giving an impression that the offence of smoking in public places is more serious than any Syariah offences including apostasy.
It’s not enough to merely issue press statements as our voices are scattered.
Boo Su-Lyn is beginning to echo what was said by Jamal Yunos about Bersih, so she must stop complaining about him. Bersih rallies are illegal, affect everybody including Jamal but Act 355 is constitutional and does not affect the non-Muslims including Boo.
PAS knows that there is significant opposition to Hadi’s Bill, which is why they themselves are organising a mass rally on February 18 to gather support for the Bill, even though the prime minister himself has announced that the government will take over the proposed legislation.
On the February 18, Muslims will rally in solidarity as a united Muslim ummah, regardless of their political parties, to urge their MPs to support the amendment of Act 355. PAS does not need to gather support from the Muslims because the majority of the Muslims support the private Bill.
Likewise, if we Malaysians across race and religion feel strongly against Hadi’s Bill which threatens to alter the secular structure of our country, then we must mobilise ourselves and express our opposition on a single, visible platform.
By calling Malaysia a secular country, Boo Su-Lyn slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.
George Jacob Holyoake who is the creator of the term secularism defines 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 in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Hence, Boo words, “threatens to alter the secular structure of our country” is indeed a malicious lie.
Proponents claim that Hadi’s Bill is not about hudud, conveniently ignoring history when PAS has always wanted to amend Act 355 and even the Federal Constitution to allow it to implement hudud in Kelantan.
Boo is wrong again. It is a slanderous lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill or it will legalise the Kelantan’s Hudud because:
The offences under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts are not the same as the offences listed under the Hudud law.
Hudud’s punishments include capital punishment which is not included under the Act 355.
The Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions. Therefore, this Bill is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) 2015 or known as Kelantan’s Hudud.
A working paper by the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) that was leaked in 2014 had even argued that the Islamic penal code should be applied to all Malaysians on the basis that Islam is the religion of the federation.
The amendment of Act 355 is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) because Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II contradicts with our judicial systems.
It has only been of late that PAS claims that Hadi’s Bill is not aimed at introducing hudud law, but merely at expanding the punitive powers of the Shariah courts. The proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic — increasing jail term limits from three to 30 years, hiking up fines by 20 times from RM5,000 to RM100,000, and multiplying lashes of the cane from six to 100.
For those who do not bother to check their facts right like Boo Su-Lyn, will claim that “the proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic”. Actually, the hike in the proposed amendment seems high because the current punishment limits are much too low and are overdue for a revised since the last increase in the punishment was done 33 years ago.
In reality, even though the maximum punishment for the civil offence of smoking in public places is RM10,000 fine or two years of imprisonment, some activists are still fighting for the increase in the punishments.
In the case of whipping, there is a huge difference between Syariah whipping as compared to civil whipping, both in terms of the way of conduct and also the size of the cane. I trust the Syariah Courts’ judges and I’m sure they are as professional as the Civil Courts’ judges and not to punish people cruelly.
What religious offence would merit imprisonment of up to three decades?
A lot because Islam is a way of life.
In the Penal Code, rape and culpable homicide not amounting to murder are punishable with 30 years’ jail. What offence which merely violates certain religious instructions can possibly be equivalent to the violent crimes of rape and homicide?
A lot including apostasy and offences under Islamic Family Laws.
MCA is against PAS’ “Himpunan 355” rally, claiming that it will cause disunity.
MCA should have banned their members from taking part in the illegal Bersih 5 because not only Bersih causes disunity, it condemned the government and caused chaos all around the city for its selfish decision to demonstrate around the city instead of holding a rally in a stadium or a field.
I don’t think we should try to prevent PAS from organising their rally. It’s well within their rights to assemble peacefully for whatever cause they hold dear. Just as it’s within our rights as Malaysian citizens to protest against Hadi’s Bill.
Make sure that it will be legal, hold the rally in a stadium or a field and do not turn it into street demonstrations like Bersih. It will be interesting to see if the Malay leaders of PPBM, PAN and PKR dare to take part.
Hadi’s supporters say that non-Muslims are interfering with Muslim affairs by questioning and criticising Hadi’s Bill, which they claim will not affect non-Muslims.
Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”.
It’s a spurious argument.
Are you challenging the Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution?
Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. We do not live in silos. We eat, work and live together.
Wrong. Malaysia is a multi-racial but not a multi-religious country. Malaysia’s only religion is Islam, as stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. But Malaysia is a country with multi-religious citizens.
Non-Muslims may not want to see their Muslim friends, family or neighbours subjected to an unjust law that is opposed by some Muslims themselves.
In the judgment of the Federal Court case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:
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.
Claiming Syariah laws and punishment as unjust is challenging the Federal Constitution because the Syariah Courts are part of our judicial systems as written in Article 121(1A). It has a seditious tendency as stated in Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, which is, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State.
Non-Muslims may also end up being victimised, which has already happened in several interfaith child custody cases involving Muslim converts. A 60-year-old Christian woman was publicly caned in Acheh, Indonesia, last April under Shariah law for selling alcohol.
Another lame and out of context argument. Malaysian Syariah Courts have never punished any non-Muslim and the proposed amendment does not give the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction to do so.
Everyone has the right to talk about Hadi’s Bill because it is just like any other ordinary piece of legislation. This is not interference in someone else’s religious affairs; it’s about exercising our roles in democracy as equal Malaysian citizens.
Everyone has the right to talk but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs as stated in Article 11(3).
Hadi’s opinions must be open to scrutiny just like those of any Malaysian politician. No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else.
Agreed, that is why I hope Boo Su-Lyn will be professional enough to write about the seditious statements made by opposition leaders toward the religion of Islam.
We cannot separate “Muslim” and “non-Muslim” affairs as if they’re different slices of a cake.
Boo Su-Lyn must go back to school and learn about Article 11(3) and other basic facts about our Federal Constitution before writing on matters related to the Constitution because everyone is subjected to the laws of our country including Boo Su-Lyn. “No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else”.
Taxpayers’ money that goes towards maintaining the Shariah courts and Islamic departments and enforcing Shariah legislation, just like it’s used to upgrade roads and to pay the salaries of civil servants, comes from both non-Muslim and Muslim taxpayers.
Boo must go back to school. Islam is the religion of the Federation. Therefore, the Federal Government is allowed to spend for the Syariah Courts using the taxpayers’ money. And Article 12(2) of the Federal Constitution allows the Federal Government to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam. In fact, the government is not at all allowed to spend taxpayers’ money for secular reasons or on anything that could cause any negative effect on the religion of Islam.
Laws that are passed in both the state legislative assemblies and in Parliament, including state Shariah legislation, involve the participation of both Muslim and non-Muslim lawmakers.
These state assemblymen and MPs must also remember that they represent voters across race and religion, even if most of their constituents may be predominantly of a certain ethnicity. Hence, their vote on Hadi’s Bill must be representative of their entire constituency, and not merely come from personal religious convictions.
Precisely. Boo Su-Lyn must remind the MPs that they represent their voters, so they are supposed to listen to the voters in the case of Hadi’s Private Bill and not to make their own decisions. Non-Muslim MPs must not forget who voted them into office, especially those from MCA, MIC and Gerakan.
Both non-Muslims and Muslims, as Malaysian citizens who vote and pay taxes, have just as much right as each other to talk about various issues and policies, including Shariah law and vernacular schools.
All Malaysian citizens have the rights to talk about the bill but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to fight against the amendment of Act 355 because it is regarding the Muslims religious affairs as it is against the Article 11(3).
So, everyone should not be afraid of speaking up against Hadi’s Bill.
The can talk about it as long as they know their limits.
It is our right as citizens to stand up for what we think is right and to stop Malaysia from turning into an intolerant state like Brunei or Acheh.
Boo Su-Lyn must stop making slanderous accusations and remember that nobody is above the law, including her. We are governed by law and our supreme law is the Federal Constitution.
The then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia said:
 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).
Last week, news portal, Tanjak contacted me for my reaction towards the baseless and bias comments made by Lim Guan Eng and his supporters in order to ridicule my ability and knowledge on the matters concerning my November 23, 2016 police report against LGE.
Below is the article taken from Tanjak regarding this matter.
Prominent young blogger Ahmad Ali Abdul Karim, who lodged a police report against Lim Guan Eng, is unfazed by the scurrilous attacks against his person made by hardcore pro-opposition and leftist elements.
Ali’s police report concerned the Penang chief minister cum DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng with regard to the latter’s Nov 24 last year statement on the proposed bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction Act) 1965 commonly known as RUU355 that was proposed PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang.
According to Ali’s police report lodged, the statement made by Lim contains seditious elements designed to mislead the Malaysian public on the nature of the amendment proposed, among others by claiming that RUU355 contravenes the federal constitution.
Young blogger subjected to insults, derision
While the young blogger’s action in lodging the report has received glowing praise, including from Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, supporters of the Penang Chief Minister did not mask their contempt for the move as well as the blogger himself.
Their comments deluged the social media and pages of leftist news outlets such as MalaysiaKiniattacking Ail’s credibility and accusing the teenager of being a stooge for the BN-led federal government.
One commentator on MalaysiaKini, ‘JusticeNow!’ likened the move by Ali to the use of children as soldiers by corrupt regimes dominating the African continent, saying that just when one would think that Umno/BN “cannot go any lower”, they go ahead and do so and that Ali is a “forced recruit child soldier under the hegemony and exploitation of (the) BN/UMno (government)”.
Another, “Thickskin” suggested that Karim be made the new attorney-general since he knows more about the constitution.
Astoundingly, one commentator, “Anonymous_1429175092” went as far as to accuse the young blogger of being “jealous” of how the Penang state government was currently run, stating blithely that he had “no standard whether in merit, capability, knowledge, and foresight” and was childish to boot.
The response of the leftists on MalaysiaKini is hardly surprising given the pro-DAP news portal’s tendency for far-left slanted reporting, which has attracted fanatical supporters of the much maligned ethnic Chinese-based party.
Groups of DAP supporters have been known to regularly converge on pro-opposition Malaysian news portals to engage in race-baiting and bashing everything that is Malay and Islamic in origin as inferior to their Western and Chinese counterparts.
Tthe Red Bean Army (RBA), an organised group of DAP cybertroopers, is the best known example of these.
Previously, a sImilar responses had been recorded in response to the proposalby Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GMPS) president Zamri Mohd Isa in response to his urging of prime minister Najib Razak not to grant official recognition of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) in last Novermber.
Blogger doubles down on LGE’s misrepresentation
When contacted by the Tanjak news team for comment, the blogger denied he was being used as an agent by any party nor that he had any political motive, save to maintain Malaysia’s racial and religious harmony and defend the constitution.
Ali was also unfazed by the barrage of personal attacks mounted by the abovementioned elements on social media.
He responded that the commentators would seem to be deliberately overlooking the attempt by certain non-Muslim leaders, including the Penang chief minister, to undermine Islam’s position as enshrined in the constitution.
He referred to Articles 3(1) of the constitution (on Islam’s status as the religion of the Federation) and 11(1) (freedom of religion) (as applied in the case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia) as the constitutional provisions that non-Muslim leaders such as Lim were guilty of wilful violation, in particular with regard to the position of Islam in the public sphere and the right of Muslims to practice their faith respectively.
He also stated that it was misleading of Lim to claim that he was merely expressing his opinion as a citizen and that “blocking” him using the Sedition Act would amount to the rakyat “not being able to have opinions anymore”.
“As a chief minister, [Lim] must understand that the four sensitive issues mentioned in section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act 1948 cannot be questioned, even in Parliament. Even the president of Isma [Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman] was found guilty under the Act,” the young blogger told Tanjak.
Clear elements of seditious tendency in LGE’s statement
The young lad cited at least two parts of Lim’s statement that were clearly seditious in nature.
The first was the call by Lim for non-Muslim BN component parties to “leave” BN over the proposed tabling of RUU355, which the blogger claimed would exerbate racial and religious relations. The second would be the claim by Lim that Umno and PAS were working together to “bypass” the constitution.
The blogger argued that Lim in his capacity as chief minister of Penang ought to have known better as his public statements may influence the way his supporters view issues as after all, they would naturally trust his judgment on public matters.
“I may be immature but I understand that I cannot intepret the [constitution] for my own gain. [The constitution] is the foundation of my country and I want our leaders to respect our supreme law,” he added.