Tag Archives: IKSIM

My Highlights of 2017

With the arrival of the new year of 2018, I’m writing a post dedicated to 2017, listing out some of the things that happened around me in the previous year.

1. A surprise letter from Tun M, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia

On the 12th of January, I received a letter from Tun Dr. Mahathir, replying to my article,“Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?” In the article, I did not even mention Tun M’s name but only commented about how the word ‘bebas’ in the agreement between DAP, PKR, PAN and Mahathir’s PPBM can undermine and violate the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. So Tun M replied to my article came as a real surprise but unfortunately I am sad to say that not only Tun M’s explanation does not answer my question, but it also makes the matter more confusing because the fact that the Article 3(1) is the Article that explains about Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions. [Read more…]

2. Made the news on national media

I was interviewed by Berita Harian, Utusan Malaysia and Harian Metro and was featured on the front page of Utusan Malaysia which later led me to being reported on news portals including Astro Awani, MalaysiaKini,  Free Malaysia Today, Tanjak and many others receiving attention from several politicians like Mejar Jeneral (B) Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, Dr. Asyraf Wajdi, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Ibrahim Ali. [Read more…]

3. Meeting YB Datuk Md Jais Sarday on his last day as the Education, Information and Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development Exco of Johor

I had the chance to meet Datuk Jais Sarday in Pasir Gudang on his last day as the Education, Information and Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development Exco of Johor before moving to his new post as the Housing and Local Government Exco of Johor. [Read more…]

4. Attending the Bukit Aman Special Branch Aidilfitri Open House

On the 11th of July, I attended the Aidilfitri open house by the Bukit Aman Special Branch, where I had the chance to meet the then Deputy Inspector-General of PDRM, Tan Sri Nor Rashid Ibrahim, and even managed to get his autograph. [Read more…]

5. Witnessing the court case of Eric Paulsen v. Ustaz Hafiz Nordin

I attended the court proceedings of the High Court case of Eric Paulsen v. Ustaz Hafiz Nordin, where Eric Paulsen failed to defamation case against the Chairman of Jaringan Muslimin Pulau Pinang (JMPP), Ustaz Hafiz Nordin at the High Court of Kuala Lumpur. This is my first experience of witnessing the whole proceeding of a high profile case. [Read more…]

6. My first solo talk to a crowd of over 400 students in JB

I was invited as the official ambassador of Muafakat Pendidikan Johor, to give a speech to the students and teachers of the SMK Tan Sri Mohamed Rahmat in Kempas, Johor Bahru as part of Muafakat Pendidikan Johor’s ‘Jelajah Kemerdekaan’ program, on the 21st of August. In about an hour talk, I talk about the basic foundation of our country, starting with the history of the formation of Malaysia, basic principles of the country, the sovereignty of the Federation, and also a brief introduction to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. [Read more…]

7. Program Ibadah Qurban dan Majlis Ramah Mesra IKSIM

I attended the Program Ibadah Qurban dan Majlis Ramah Mesra IKSIM on the 4th of September, which is my first experience in taking part and helping out at a qurban event. [Read more…]

8. Meeting Tan Sri Shahrir Samad

I got the chance to spend some times talking to Tan Sri Shahrir Samad, the Member of Parliament of the Johor Bharu. Despite how certain people tried to paint him, I find him as very polite, soft spoken, funny and very friendly. [Read more…]

9. The officiating program of the Pusat Latihan DIAN IKSIM (PLDI)

I attended the officiating program of IKSIM’s training centre in Batang Kali, Selangor; where I also met the Minister at the Prime Minister’s Department, Mejar Jeneral (B) Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom. [Read more…]

Institusi Agama Fitnah G25 & Shad Faruqi? Biar Betul!

Is this merely a very foolish mistake or is it another spiteful spin with the intention to detriment the good name of Islamic agencies?

In an article, “Religious radicalism on the rise” published by The Star on November 23, 2007, Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi made another attack on JAKIM before focusing its attack on another Islamic agency, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM).

To be fair, since the allegations were made based on “a booklet by the Malaysian Islamic Research Institute (IKSIM)”, I checked the said booklet to see what was written by IKSIM and I found the source of the chaos.

IKSIM’s words were wrongly translated from “Awas! Sekularisme, Liberalisme dan Pluralisme merupakan agenda penghakis akidah Islam dalam meruntuhkan kedaulatan Negara” to “secularism, liberalism and cultural diversity are elements that will undermine the Islamic agenda and destroy the country’s sovereignty”!

Armed with the wrong translation, Prof Shad who is also one of  the contributors to the infamous book by G25,Breaking the Silence: Voices of Moderation‘ attacked IKSIM.

It is like putting words in one’s mouth in order to attack the victim:

  1. “Cultural diversity” has not been mentioned in the book by IKSIM.
  2. The English translation of the Bahasa Melayu word “pluralisme” is pluralism.
  3. “Pluralisme” in the above sentence obviously means religious pluralism as clearly explained in a chart on page 7 of the book.
  4. In Bahasa Melayu, “cultural diversity” is ‘kepelbagaian kebudayaan’.

I guess Prof Shad has not have the chance to read the book because it is almost impossible for a learned man like him to not be able to understand the thin, simple book, except, unfortunately the person does not understand Bahasa Melayu well.

Having said that, I really pity Prof Shad for being shocked and at the same time slandering others only because of his own mistake, “I am shocked to read that “cultural diversity” is seen by IKSIM as a threat to Islam and to our nation”.

Prof Shad also questioned, “although Malaysians can embrace other religious faiths, the country is not duty-bound to protect other religions”, claiming that, “The belief that we have no duty to protect other religions is both un-Islamic and un-Malaysian”.

I sincerely hope that Prof Shad is not trying to challenge the Oath of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who is the Supreme Head of the Federation!

In taking the Oath of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, his Majesty declares, “……We do solemnly and truly declare that We shall at all time protect the Religion of Islam … “.

Hence, by law the Prime Minister, the ministers, the lawmakers and the government servants are bounded by his Majesty’s oath to protect the Religion of Islam as they are being tasked with the duty of administering the country on behalf of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri, where YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim stated:

“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.”

However, even though “the country is not duty-bound to protect other religions” but Islam, Malaysia still guarantees “freedom of faith and conscience and cultural and legal autonomy to all religions and tribes” as long as it is not against the law of our country.

One of the main elements of a secular country is, the country is not duty-bound to protect any religion; so using the same argument, are we saying that secular countries do not guarantee “freedom of faith and conscience and cultural and legal autonomy to all religions and tribes”?

Next, Prof Shad said that the Islamic agency is challenging the supremacy of the Federal Constitution by saying that Islam has a higher position than the Federal Constitution itself.

The provision on Islam as the religion of the Federation was inserted in the Part 1 of the Constitution, that is in Article 3(1) which indicates the importance of the provision in the Constitutional structure; whereas the supremacy of the Federal Constitution is positioned after the provision on Islam, which is in Article 4.

Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the high profile case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri stated 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”

In fact Article 3(4) which says that “nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution” has further accentuate the matter.

 Prof Shad words, “According to it, religious enforcement authorities come under the patronage of the Sultans, not state governments. This is a remarkable vision of an autonomous, almost all-powerful, religious elite that is like a state within a state”, for me is uncalled for because it questions the rights of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam which is protected by the Article 181.

Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act says, “A “seditious tendency” is a tendency to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution”.

It was also reported that the false allegations by Prof Shad had led IKSIM to lodge a police report against him, The Star and Sin Chew Daily; which was responded by G25’s Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin as reported in Free Malaysia Today (FMT) under the title, “G25 calls for action against Putrajaya-linked institute”.

The G25 member went further saying, “Iksim had singled out Amanah, G25, Sisters in Islam (SIS) and Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) as liberals”.

She said, “If they (Iksim) can lodge a police report against Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi, similarly I am in a very good position to make a police report against them and sue them for defamation”.

This is the part where it gets very hilarious; G25, in another article, “G25: The word “liberal” has place of pride in Rukun Negara” argues that liberal is something positive so why is the fuss over the word now?

“Note that the word “liberal” is used in both versions in the context of something positive and beneficial to our ambitions to become a united, happy and prosperous country.” – G25 (FMT)

In her speech, “Malaysia as a Secular State”, The Malaysian Insight (TMI) reported G25’s Noor Farida as saying that Malaysia is neither a theocracy states nor secular state!

But I have to highlight that G25 also claimed that Malaysia is a secular state and at other time a secular democratic state!

It is very hard either to try to make sense of what they are trying to say or to take G25’s words seriously when its members keep on changing their minds and seems very confused, for example on their perception regarding the ideology of Malaysia.

To top it all, in its eagerness, FMT made a grave mistake in its reporting: 

  1. Iksim was established on Dec 9, 2014 after consent from the Conference of Rulers, with the objective of upholding Islam as the country’s official religion.
  2. According to its official website, Iksim was established to fulfil the wishes of the country’s Muslim community to defend the Malay Rulers and uphold Islam as the official religion of the federation.

IKSIM clearly states that Islam is the religion of the Federation hence not only FMT’s wrong reporting defames IKSIM, but also the Constitution itself since the addition of the word “official” undermines the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Taking G25’s Noor Farida Ariffin’s advice, IKSIM should “lodge a police report or even take legal action” against FMT for defaming both IKSIM and Article 3(1) of the Constitution.

Rather than confusing others, G25’s Datuk Noor Farida should walk the talk by making a police report against IKSIM to settle the matter once and for all and to prove that she and her friends from G25 are not the ones who are really confused not only about the truth but also in making their own opinions and views.

Please be reminded that, causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing on grounds of religion” is an offence under Section 298 of the Penal Code. 

Related Articles:

Gambar: Program Ibadah Qurban dan Majlis Ramah Mesra IKSIM

Pada pagi Isnin, berlangsung Program Ibadah Qurban dan Majlis Ramah Mesra IKSIM di Ulu Yam, Selangor.

Di bawah adalah gambar-gambar daripada program ibadah qurban tersebut.

Ateisme Mencabar Kedaulatan Negara

Sejak beberapa hari yang lalu, beberapa portal berita pro-pembangkang giat menyiarkan laporan yang bersifat tidak benar dan prujudis tentang isu golongan ateis yang asalnya beragama Islam di Malaysia ekoran pendedahan tentang kumpulan Atheist Republic.

Free Malaysia Today (FMT) melaporkan seorang ahli akademik Amerika Syarikat yang berpangkalan di Washington, Prof. Zachary Abuza mengkritik reaksi kerajaan Malaysia terhadap kumpulan ini.

Menurut FMT, Abuza berkata Malaysia bukan lagi sebuah negara yang mengamalkan kesederhanaan seperti sebelum ini.

Ini adalah satu fitnah jahat kerana fahaman ateisme adalah bercanggah dengan undang-undang tertinggi Negara; lebih-lebih lagi untuk bekas umat Islam.

Jelaslah, terdapat usaha terancang untuk menghalalkan ateisme dan murtad.

Menggunakan hujah liberal dari kumpulan yang sememangnya tidak faham atau ‘yang sengaja buat-buat tidak faham’, porta-porta berita pro-pembangkang dilihat cuba menimbulkan persepsi perundangan yang salah dan bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan untuk menjustifikasikan desakan mereka supaya orang Islam bebas berfahaman ateis.

FMT juga melaporkan kata-kata Prof. Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi bahawa Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak menyebut mengenai murtad dan “ia tidak mengharamkan murtad dan tidak membenarkannya”, yang memberi persepsi seolah-olah murtad tidak bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan maka tidak boleh ada peruntukan undang-undang yang sah untuk mengawal gejala songsang ini.

Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan:

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

Ini membuktikan bahawa asas kenegaraan kita ialah Islam sebagai agama bagi negara ini tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan selagi amalan mereka tidak menjejas kesucian Islam dan tidak menimbulkan apa-apa ancaman atau apa-apa kemungkinan ancaman dan kemungkinan yang boleh menjadi ancaman terhadap agama Islam. 

Perkara ini telah ditegaskan oleh Tan Sri Apandi Ali  yang ketika itu Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, di dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia:

[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.

Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menegaskan:

Undang-undang Negeri dan berkenaan dengan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya, undang-undang persekutuan boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa doktrin atau kepercayaan agama di kalangan orang yang menganuti agama Islam.

Ini bermakna Perlembagaan Persekutuan membenarkan undang-undang Negeri dan Persekutuan digubal untuk menyekat penyebaran perkara yang boleh memurtadkan umat Islam termasuk penyebaran fahaman ateis.

Di dalam penghakiman kes Mahkamah Persekutuan ZI Publications Sdn Bhd dan lain-lain v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan ketika itu, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif menegaskan:

Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. 

Malah “Kebebasan bercakap, berhimpun dan berpersatuan” di dalam Perkara 10(1) adalah tertakluk kepada Fasal (2), (3) dan (4), dimana:

(2) Parlimen boleh melalui undang-undang mengenakan—(a) ke atas hak yang diberikan oleh perenggan (a) Fasal (1), apa-apa sekatan yang didapatinya perlu atau suai manfaatdemi kepentingan keselamatan Persekutuan atau manamana bahagiannya, hubungan baik dengan negara-negaralain, ketenteraman awam atau prinsip moral dan sekatan sekatan yang bertujuan untuk melindungi keistimewaan Parlimen atau mana-mana Dewan Undangan atau untuk membuat peruntukan menentang penghinaan

(c) ke atas hak yang diberikan oleh perenggan (c) Fasal (1), apa-apa sekatan yang didapatinya perlu atau suai manfaat demi kepentingan keselamatan Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya, ketenteraman awam atau prinsip moral.

Hujah ni diperkuatkan lagi oleh Perkara 37 yang mewajibkan Yang Di-Pertuan Agong untuk bersumpah di atas nama Allah S.W.T. untuk memelihara pada setiap masa agama Islam, seperti apa yang tertulis di dalam Jadual Keempat Perlembagaan Persekutuan, sebelum memulakan tugas Baginda sebagai Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

Maka, negara mempunyai ‘constitutional duty’ untuk memelihara dan menjaga kesucian agama Islam daripada apa-apa ancaman, kemungkinan ancaman dan apa-apa yang akan memungkinkan berlakunya ancaman terhadap agama Islam, termasuk ancaman pemurtadan termasuk fahaman ateisme.

Malah, menurut Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif IKSIM yang merupakan seorang pakar Perlembagaan, Dato’ Prof. Mahamad Naser Disa, golongan ateis tidak mempunyai hak Perlembagaan (constitutional rights) di negara ini kerana Perlembagaan negara hanya mengiktiraf hak rakyat yang beragama seperti tertulis di dalam Perkara 3 dan 11 dan Prinsip pertama Rukun Negara iaitu “Percaya Kepada Tuhan”.

Huraian prinsip pertama Rukun Negara kepada kedaulatan negara amat terang dan jelas:

Bangsa dan Negara ini telah diwujudkan atas kepercayaan yang kukuh kepada Tuhan. Sesungguhnya dengan nama Tuhanlah, Bangsa dan Negara ini diwujudkan sebagai sebuah Bangsa dan Negara yang berdaulat. – Jabatan Perpaduan Dan Integrasi Negara (Jabatan Perdana Menteri) 

Namun terdapat pendapat songsang dan salah yang menafsirkan hak beragama seperti yang di jelaskan di dalam Perkara 11(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan sebagai termasuk hak untuk tidak beragama dan kepercayaan kepada Tuhan juga merangkumi tidak percaya kepada Tuhan.

Tafsiran songsang itu tidak benar kerana asas pengertian sesuatu undang-undang itu mestilah, pada mulanya, dicari dalam bahasa undang-undang itu ditulis, dan jika bahasanya terang dan jelas, maka kewajiban tafsiran tidak timbul dan fungsi tunggal mahkamah adalah untuk menguatkuasakannya mengikut istilahnya.

The 1917 American case of Caminetti v. United States had held that “it is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain… the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” And if a statute’s language is plain and clear, the court further warned that “the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion,”

Jelasnya tafsiran undang-undang tidak boleh dibuat dengan sesuka hati, apalagi dengan menambah perkataan yang tidak ada tertulis di dalam undang-undang itu, dalam hal ini, di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Inilah nilai dan fahaman songsang golongan liberal yang mahu merosakkan tatasusila dan tamadun rakyat Malaysia untuk membebaskan diri daripada undang-undang agama yang akhirnya mennghakis sifat ketamadunan masyarakat kita.

Menurut seorang lagi pakar Perlembagaan Prof. Dr. Shamrahayu Abd. Aziz, hak asasi hanya boleh menjadi hak apabila ianya tidak melanggar undang-undang, maka mereka yang berfahaman ateis tiada hak dan tidak boleh menuntut hak mereka kerana Perlembagaan Persekutuan hanya mengiktiraf rakyat yang beragama.

Sesungguhnya dengan nama Tuhanlah, Bangsa dan Negara ini diwujudkan sebagai sebuah Bangsa dan Negara yang berdaulat, maka jelaslah fahaman ateisme yang tidak percaya kewujudan Tuhan mencabar dan menjejaskan kedaulatan negara.

Grow Up, MCA!

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

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

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

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

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


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

It is true that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the Federation as mentioned in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, but Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles. Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation. This was mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case.

The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution

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

Malaysian leaders of all religions must be constitutionally literate and uphold the Federal Constitution including Article 3(1) that enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation making Malaysia an Islamic nation. All the Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read together and people cannot just cherry-pick what they like and interpret the Articles according to their fancy to serve their agendas. In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah had clearly clarified that other religions have no equal standing as Islam: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such publication will surely have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Any such disruption of the even tempo is contrary to the hope and desire of peaceful and harmonious co-existence of other religions other than Islam in this country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the insertion of the words: “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and also to insulate against any threat faced or any possible and probable threat to the religion of Islam.

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

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

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

Related Posts:

Dato’ Naser Disa, Dato’ Zainul Rijal, Dr Yusri Di Himpunan 355

Anda masih belum betul-betul faham tentang apa itu Pindaan Akta 355?
Datanglah ke Himpunan 355 di Padang Merbok untuk mendengar penjelasan daripada peguam-peguam terkenal negara pada malam Sabtu 18 Februari 2016.

Aturcara tentatif:

Dato’ Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar (Presiden Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia – PPMM)
9:16 P.M.

Dato’ Prof Hj. Mahamad Naser Disa (Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia – IKSIM)
9:32 P.M.

Dr. Yusri Mohamad (Majlis Amal Islami Malaysia – MAIM)
10:10 P.M.

Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam

After posting my article, “Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)“, I received two comments from two law experts regarding another important part of the agreement that I had overseen.

Both, Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa, the CEO of IKSIM and Dr. Kamarul Zaman Yusoff of Universiti Utara Malaysia, highlighted that 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: