Tag Archives: DAP

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!

Zairil Dakwa Tun M Mencadangkan Pindaan Semberono?

Saya tidak terkejut apabila ahli Parlimen DAP Bukit Bendera, Zairil yang walaupun mengaku beragama Islam tetapi menentang taraf, kedudukan dan bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia seperti yang telah termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Di dalam artikel yang bertajuk, “Kembalikan kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan sebagai pemutus muktamad isu undang-undang”, yang telah disiarkan oleh RoketKini.com, Zairil mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang menghalang Mahkamah Tinggi untuk membatalkan keputusan Mahkamah Syariah.

>>>Tekan sini untuk baca artikel tersebut<<<

Tidak setakat itu, ahli Parlimen DAP itu juga mencadangkan agar bidang kuasa yang telah diperuntukkan kepada Mahkamah Syariah untuk menghakimi “hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa” itu dirampas atau ditarik balik.

Lebih parah lagi, dengan memberi gambaran bahawa Perkara 121(1A) itu seolah-olah tidak adil dan satu “dilema sistem kehakiman“, pemimpin DAP itu mencadangkan satu jalan pintas diambil untuk merampas bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah melalui jalan belakang, seperti kenyataannya, “Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121”.

Bukankah cadangan Zairil itu bermakna menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah secara ‘bypass’ Perlembagaan Persekutuan?

Kenyataan Zairil:

Oleh itu, saya ingin mencadangkan agar Mahkamah Persekutuan dikembalikan tarafnya sebagai pemutus muktamad dalam segala isu undang-undang, yakni sebagai Mahkamah Perlembagaan. Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121.

Penyelesaian kepada masalah ini boleh dicapai melalui pindaan kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman dalam dua perkara. Pertamanya, pendefinisian bidang kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan harus menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak dihadkan kepada bidang kuasa yang sama dengan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Kedua, satu prosedur harus diperkenalkan bagi membenarkan pengemukaan petisyen secara langsung kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa. 

~Zairil (DAP)

Kalau dahulu Lim Guan Eng dengan celuparnya membuat fitnah dan hasutan jahat menuduh UMNO sanggup bekerjasama dengan PAS untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect” dalam hal Akta 355, kini terbukti siapa sebenarnya yang berniat jahat untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution” untuk mencapai hasrat mereka.

“MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP deserve public condemnation for betraying their principles and promises to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution but also for their political expediency to continue to deceive the people by supporting UMNO that is willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect.”

~Lim Guan Eng

Lebih teruk lagi, Zairil juga telah memberi sebab yang tidak masuk akal dalam mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A):

Jika kita kembali kepada Perlembagaan, Perkara 75 menyatakan bahawa undang-undang Persekutuan mengatasi undang-undang Negeri, manakala Perkara 4 menyatakan Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengatasi semua undang-undang lain. Hal ini jelas dan tidak dipertikaikan.

~Zairil (DAP)

Walaupun undang-undang Syariah itu dibawah negeri, namun sistem Mahkamah Syariah adalah sebahagian daripada sistem perundangan Persekutuan; kerana kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

Selain daripada Zairil, Lim Kit Siang juga mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A).

Menariknya pada masa yang sama, rakan sekumpulan mereka iaitu PKR menyangkal tuduhan DAP dan mengiktiraf Perkara 121(1A) sebagai penting dan baik sehingga mendakwa pemimpin mereka, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahimlah yang memainkan peranan utama dalam usaha untuk menambah Fasal 1A kepada Perkara 121.

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 – Page 20

Malah, bukan setakat itu sahaja, tetapi jika mereka membaca Hansard Parliamen, mereka akan mendapati bahawa rakan baik terkini parti DAP, Tun Dr. Mahathirlah yang merupakan orang yang mencadangkan penambahan Fasal 1(A) kepada Perkara 121 di Parlimen pada tahun 1988.

Jadi, apakah Zairil menuduh Dr. M seorang yang tidak cermat dan tidak berfikiran panjang sehingga mencadangkan satu “pindaan semberono” yang “telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita”?

Pindaan semberono yang dibuat pada tahun 1988 telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita dan mencetuskan krisis Perlembagaan dan penafian hak dan kebebasan asasi rakyat seperti yang berlaku dlm kes-kes S. Deepa dan Indira Gandhi.

~Zairil (DAP)

Apakah pindaan Perkara 121(1A) yang dituduh satu “pindaan semberono” oleh Zairil akan benar-benar menjadi satu “dilema” kepada DAP, PKR dan PPBM?

Maka persoalannya ialah:

  1. Apakah pendirian bersama parti DAP, PKR dan PPBM mengenai Perkara 121(1A)?

  2. Siapakah yang akan beralah dalam soal ini atau adakah PKR dan PPBM hanya bermain politik dan akhirnya akan akur akan semua kehendak DAP?

  3. Sanggupkah PKR dan Tun Dr. Mahathir bersekongkol dengan DAP untuk menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah?

  4. Di manakah suara pemimpin Islam mereka yang pernah berkata mahu memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah?

  5. Apakah inilah yang mereka maksudkan sebagai pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah versi mereka?

Will Dr. Kamarul Accept DAP Man’s Challenge To Deregister DAP?

mk-drk

Yesterday, MalaysiaKini reported that Johor DAP leader, Sheikh Omar Ali dares Mapan’s director Dr. Kamarul Zaman Yusoff to “try and get the party de-registered if their claims were true”.

MalaysiaKini wrote that the DAP man was referring to Dr. Kamarul Zaman Yusoff’s article with the title, “DAP Memang Anti-Islam”.

Johor DAP assistant publicity chief Sheikh Omar Ali said those accusing DAP of being anti-Islam should try and get the party de-registered if their claims were true.

He said this in reference to a commentary by Universiti Utara Malaysia’s Institute for Malaysian Political Analysis (Mapan) director Kamarul Zaman Yusuf titled ‘DAP memang anti-Islam’ (DAP is indeed anti-Islam).

~MalaysiaKini.

Sheikh Omar Ali then added:

“If Kamarul Zaman Yusuf is man enough to stand by his accusation that DAP is anti-Islam, then I challenge him to take legal action to get DAP deregistered as it (being anti-Islam) goes against the spirit of the Federal Constitution,” he said in a statement today.

~MalaysiaKini

Will Dr. Kamarul accept the serious challenge to “try and get the party de-registered” as dared by Johor DAP assistant publicity chief?

 

Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?

Four Malaysian opposition political parties, DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM had signed an agreement on the 13th of December 2016.

In the agreement which is named, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM, the four parties agreed on several main issues including to uphold the Federal Constitution.

15439895_1820054294933619_5239681811501991150_n

{For the full document, please >>>click here<<<}

I read the agreement and since I am familiar with the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, the below sentence below caught my eye:

15419650_1820054354933613_2455664813730344125_o

Screenshot taken from the agreement

The above sentence says, “To fight in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Constitution 1957/63 especially to uphold the Federal Constitution”, but then it went on saying, “… dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan bebas, aman dan damai di di negara ini sejajar dengan Perkara 3 …”

Well, let us take a look of what is stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:

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

Now, where did the word, “bebas” comes from and more importantly, why did they add the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1)?

Are the opposition parties trying to rewrite the Article 3(1) in order to undermine Islam as the religion of the Federation?

As the supreme law of the Federation, each word in the Articles of the Federal Constitution was chosen for a very specific reason.

The Article 3(1) states that, “… other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony” or “agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai“; there is no such word as ‘bebas‘ in the clause, and adding the word ‘bebas‘ gives the Article a totally different meaning.

Thus, it is a violation of the Article 3(1).

How could the opposition parties pledge, “To fight in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Constitution 1957/63 especially to uphold the Federal Constitution“, when they clearly changed and violated the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution?

To understand this matter, we need to know the meaning of the words, “aman dan damai” or “peace and harmony” in the context of the Article 3(1).

The word, “aman dan harmoni” in the Article 3(1), has been interpreted by 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:

[31] It is my observation that the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) has a historical background and dimension, to the effect that those words are not without significance. 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. It is pertinent to note that the fundamental liberties Articles were grouped together subsequently under Part II of the Constitution.

[33] In short, Article 3(1) was a by-product of the social contract entered into by our founding fathers who collectively produced the Federal Constitution, which is recognized as the Supreme Law of the country. 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. It is also my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religion to the followers of Islam. That is the very reason as to why Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution came into place.

[42] It is my judgment that, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the usage of the word “Allah” particularly in the Malay version of the Herald, is without doubt, do have the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community. 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.

Therefore, the phrase, “tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” means that the practice of religions other than Islam, must be in peace and harmony with the people of other religions, especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation; thus by adding the word, “bebas“, the opposition had violated the Federal Constitution.

In the same judgement, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali also said:

[36] The alleged infringement of the fundamental liberties of the respondent can be negated by trite law that any freedom is not absolute. Freedom cannot be unfettered, otherwise like absolute power, it can lead to chaos and anarchy. Freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1) are subjected to restrictions imposed by law under Article 10(2)(a). Freedom of religion, under Article 11(1), as explained above is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).

So, contrary to what is claimed by the opposition leaders, even the Article 11(1) does not give us total freedom of religion, for it is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).

Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution:

Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution:

State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

What is the intention of the opposition leaders in adding the word ‘bebas‘ in their reference to the Article 3(1), for the implication of the added word can undermine the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation and distort the interpretation of the Article?