Buku Harapan – Dimanakah Agenda Islam Dalam Manifesto PH?

Pakatan Harapan telah mengeluarkan buku manifesto mereka yang bertajuk Buku Harapan dengan janji “akan memastikan semua rakyat pelbagai bangsa dan agama dapat berkongsi hasil kemakmuran dan kemajuan negara secara adil dan saksama”.

Banyak yang telah diperkatakan tentang buku manifesto ini namun terdapat satu perkara teras yang amat penting yang pada saya telah menimbulkan persoalan yang amat besar tentang ideologi dan asas negara yang cuba dipinda oleh pakatan DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM dan sekutu mereka secara halus tanpa disedari oleh majoriti rakyat Malaysia.

Pada muka surat 10 dokumen yang setebal 195 mukasurat itu, antara perkara penting yang disebut adalah mereka akan mempertahankan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, termasuklah Perkara 3.

Saya terkejut apabila membaca ayat diatas, namun ianya tidaklah menghairankan kerana ini bukanlah kali pertama pakatan yang diketuai oleh DAP ini gagal memetik, atau dengan sengaja salah petik Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan!

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

Malah tulisan saya itu telah mendapat perhatian daripada Tun Dr. Mahathir sendiri; sila baca, Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan.

Apakah niat Pakatan Harapan menukar dua perkataan daripada ayat sebenar Perkara 3(1) di dalam teks Bahasa Melayu Perlembagaan dimana:

1. Perkataan “tetapi” telah ditukarkan kepada “dan”
2. Perkataan “damai” telah ditukarkan kepada  “harmonis”

Mungkin ramai yang menganggap ini bukanlah persoalan yang besar, kerana ayat di atas kelihatan hampir sama dengan apa yang tertulis di dalam Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan:

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

Namun, walaupun ia dilihat sebagai hampir sama, tetapi hakikatnya, ayat yang tertulis di dalam Buku Harapan itu membawa maksud yang amat jauh berbeza dari segi tafsiran perundangan berbanding dengan maksud sebenar Perkara 3(1), akibatnya:

1. Merendahkan  kedudukan Islam kepada setaraf dengan agama-agama lain.
2. Merendahkan kepentingan Perkara 3 menjadi sebahagian daripada Perkara 11 (tentang kebebasan beragama).

Implikasi megUBAH perkataan “tetapi” ditukarkan kepada “dan”:

Dalam konteks ini, apabila perkataan “tetapi” diubah kepada perkataan “dan”; implikasinya ialah kedudukan agama-agama lain di naikkan kedudukannya menjadi setaraf dengan kedudukan Islam; sedangkan kedudukan Islam di dalam Perlembagaan adalah amat tinggi berbanding agama-agama lain; sila baca Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam.

Perkara ini telah ditegaskan oleh Hakim Mohd Noor Abdullah di dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi kes Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393:

Pada pendapat saya “Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” bermakna Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara ini seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu dan selainnya. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain, bukan duduk berganding bahu atau berdiri sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, ia berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati – tinggi, teguh dan terampil. Jika bukan sedemikian Islam bukanlah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di negara ini dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan manamana ugama yang dianutinya, tiada lebih satu dari yang lain. Peruntukan ‘Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan’ hendaklah ditakrif dan ditinjau tujuannya dengan membaca bersama peruntukan lain dalam Perlembagaan khususnya Perkara 89, 152, 153 dan 14.

Perkara 3 adalah Perkara yang memperuntukkan kedudukan Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan namun ada pihak yang merendahkan dan menyalah gunakan Perkara 3(1) untuk membuktikan bahawa Perlembagaan memberi kebebasan kepada agama-agama lain, padahal kebebasan beragama termaktub di bawah Perkara 11 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Tan Sri Apandi Ali di dalam penghakiman kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, menegaskan “Kebebasan Beragama” di dalam Perkara 11 adalah tertakluk kepada Islam kerana kedudukan Perkara 3(1) adalah “di dalam lingkungan Bahagian I Perlembagaan” (within the confines of Part I of the Constitution) sementara Perkara 11 berada di Bahagian 2 Perlembagaan.

Tujuan ungkapan “tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” dalam Perkara 3(1) ialah untuk memperincikan bahawa walaupun Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan, namun penganut agama lain masih dibenar  mengamalkan agama mereka, selagi mereka mematuhi undang-undang dan tidak menimbulkan potensi yang boleh mengganggu kehidupan masyarakat Malaysia, khasnya penganut agama Islam; dan bukannya memberi kebebasan kepada mereka untuk berbuat sesuka hati atas dasar amalan agama mereka.

Implikasi apabila perkataan “damai” telah diUBAH kepada “harmonis”:

Apakah tujuan Buku Harapan menggunakan “aman dan harmonis”; walhal di dalam teks Bahasa Melayu Perlembagaan Persekutuan, perkataan yang diguna adalah “aman dan damai”?

Mengubah satu perkataan ini telah membawa implikasi yang amat besar, iaitu telah merendahkan kedudukan Islam di Malaysia.

Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) mendefinisikan perkataan damai sebagai:

1 tidak berperang atau tidak bermusuh-musuhan dll; aman: Rakyat Malaysia hidup dgn aman.

Manakala perkataan harmonis didefinisikan sebagai:

IB selaras, seimbang, sepadan, sesuai atau bersesuaian (antara satu sama lain). (Kamus Dewan Edisi Keempat)

Ini membuktikan bahawa penggatian perkataan “damai” kepada “harmonis” telah sekali lagi menyamaratakan kedudukan semua agama; dan ini bercanggah dengan tafsiran Perlembagaan oleh Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali semasa penghakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia:

[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.

Jelas, dengan mengubah perkara yang nampaknya kecil kepada Perkara 3(1), pembangkang bukan sahaja telah mengubah maksud Perkara 3, tetapi juga Perkara 10(2), 11(4), 153 dan sebagainya kerana semua Perkara di dalam Perlembagaan mesti dibaca bersama dan tidak boleh bercanggah di antara satu sama lain seperti yang telah ditegaskan oleh DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah Di dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi kes Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187.

Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself.

Di dalam Buku Harapan, Pakatan Harapan sekali lagi menjelaskan apa maksud Perkara 3 yang mereka ingin pertahankan; iaitu ‘Perkara 3’ yang telah mereka ubah selaras dengan niat dan kehendak mereka dan bukannya berjanji untuk mempertahankan Perkara 3(1) seperti yang tertulis di dalam Perlembagaan yang ada sekarang. 

Amat tidak masuk akal apabila orang Islam menyokong Pakatan Harapan, sedangkan janji mereka di dalam Buku Harapan jelas mengkhianati kedudukan agama Islam di dalam Perlembagaan.

Berdasarkan manifesto mereka, menyokong Pakatan Harapan adalah seolah-olah memberi mandat untuk mereka merendahkan kedudukan agama Islam di Malaysia.

Malangnya ramai orang Islam yang tertipu dengan janji manis pakatan DAP!

Sila baca: Kit Siang Akan Pinda Perlembagaan DAP?

Constitutionally Illiterate!

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

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

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

In the judgement of the Federal Court case, Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, the then Federal Court Judge, DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah stated that, “Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself”. Hence, it is wrong for Baru Bian to cherry-pick what he likes or bypassing other Articles in order to make his own interpretation to suit his argument and agendas.

If Baru Bian respects the Article 4, he must respect the fact that the Article 3(1) that says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” for it is placed before the Article 4, hence stating the importance of Article 3. In the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali explained that , “The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution”. So by denying the acceptance of the Shariah laws, Baru Bian is literally against the Article 3(1) and therefore he is also against Supreme Law of the Federation.

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

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

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

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

 

Related Posts:

• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam

After posting my article, “Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)“, I had a discussion with law experts to confirm another part of the agreement that makes me question the intentions of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM  in their chosen words for the agreement in the context of Article 3(1).

In the agreement, it was written, “… dan agama-agama lain … ” whereas in the original text of the Federal Constitution, the Article 3(1) says ” … tetapi agama-agama lain …”; meaning in their agreement, the opposition parties had not only add the word “bebas” but also changed the word “tetapi” (but) to the word “dan” (and). 

These are not small matters, important agreements are written by lawyers and lawyers are very specific in choosing each word for such agreements, to make sure that it covers specifically the important matters that were asked by their clients.

And we as the citizens must know and protect our rights as provided by our Federal Constitution and do not let others fool us with sweet promises of protecting our rights but at the same time cheat us behind our back.

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.

or

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

As in the case of adding the word, “bebas“ to the Article 3(1), replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” to the same Article seems to reaffirm their intention to rewrite the Article 3(1) and to undermine Islam.

The word “tetapi” in the Article 3(1) signifies the supreme position of Islam as the religion of the Federation as compared to other religions in Malaysia.

So, by replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” in the context of the Article 3(1), the opposition leaders who signed the agreement has distort the interpretation of the Article 3(1) by positioning other religions at the same level as Islam, which is a distortion of the truth; not only to the Article 3(1) but also to our Federal Constitution.

In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah has clearly clarified this matter:

Pada pendapat saya “Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” bermakna Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara ini seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu dan selainnya. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain, bukan duduk berganding bahu atau berdiri sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, ia berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati – tinggi, teguh dan terampil. Jika bukan sedemikian Islam bukanlah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di negara ini dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan manamana ugama yang dianutinya, tiada lebih satu dari yang lain. Peruntukan ‘Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan’ hendaklah ditakrif dan ditinjau tujuannya dengan membaca bersama peruntukan lain dalam Perlembagaan khususnya Perkara 89, 152, 153 dan 14.

Hence, the intention of the phrase, “but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” in the Article 3(1) is to specify that even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, people of other religions are allowed to practise their religions but their actions must be in peace and harmony with the people of other religions, especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation; and not to give them the freedom to do anything they wish.

In other words, even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, Malaysia does not discriminate people of other religions, they are allowed to the practise their religions as long as they obey the laws and not to do things that have “the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community”.

In the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali states:

[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.

In fact, by doing what some people may think as small changes, the oppositions are not only giving a totally different meaning to the Article 3(1) but they are also interfering with other important Articles in the Federal Constitution such as Article 10(2), 11(4), 153 and others; as the Articles of the Federal Consitution cannot stand alone or cannot be read singularly, but must be read as a whole because each Article are ‘connected’ with other Articles.

In the judgement of the Federal Court case, Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, the then Federal Court Judge, DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah stated:

Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself.

So when they replace the word “tetapi” with the word “dan”, they are positioning other religions at par with Islam which is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and by adding the word “bebas” to the same Article, they are giving the freedom to people of other religions to do whatever they want in the name of practising their religions even though it can cause disorder in the community.

As stated by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the “Freedom of other Religions” which is Article 11 is subjected to Islam since Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution is “within the confines of Part I of the Constitution” while Article 11 is under the Part 2 of the Constitution.

[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.

Just one word can make a very big different, and in this case, not only it distorts the interpretation of Article 3(1) and interfere with other Articles of the Federal Constitution but discriminate and take away the rights of the Muslims as provided by the Federal Constitution.

Since In the “Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM, the leaders of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM on behalf of their parties agree to uphold the Federal Constitution, “Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan bebas, aman dan damai di negara ini sejajar dengan Perkara 3”, the people must understand that DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM only vow to uphold their edited version of the Article 3(1) and not the one that is written in our Federal Constitution.

This action by them is consistent with their stance that Malaysia is a secular country whereas Malaysia is not and has never been a secular country.

Related Article:

• Gobind Singh: Malaysia Is A Secular State – Another Fairy Tale?
• Is Malaysia A Secular State?
• Answering “Marina: What crime has Namewee committed?”
• Reza Aslan, A Pluralist Who Calls Himself A Muslim
• Is Islam Only The Official Religion of Malaysia?
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please DO Your Homeworks
• Lim Guan Eng: DAP Says No To Hudud
• DAP vs Tan Sri Khalid And His Aku Janji
• Tun M Has Gone Too Far
• Tun M, Janganlah Menghina Nabi S.A.W.
• Has The Selangor MB Forgotten His 10 ‘Aku Janji’?
• Ngeh Tweeted, “Malays Has Freedom To Choose Religion”