Apabila Buku Teks Undang-Undang Tidak Berperlembagaan

For my 14th birthday this year, my eldest sister gave me a law textbook entitled “A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System”, written by Wan Arfah Hamzah and published by Oxford Fajar.

I was very excited to receive a book on the subject that is close to my heart, and so I began reading the book.

As I reached the fourth paragraph of page four, I noticed something peculiar:

“The federation is a secular state (see below, pp 162-3). It is not an Islamic state (an indispensable feature of which is the supremacy of the Syariah or Islamic law). In Malaysia the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law. Far from being the supreme law, Islamic law is not even the basic of the law of the land, ie the law of the general application. The basic law of Malaysia is the common law—the principles of which have their origins in England” ~Page 4 – A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System

It is very alarming that a law text book can make such a dreadful mistake in defining the core principal of our country.

The point is, does the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of the Federation, ever define Malaysia as a secular country?

To understand more about secular countries, please click here for: “Malaysia Bukan Sekular“

In “The Principles of Secularism”, the author and creator of the term ‘secularism’ George Jacob Holyoake defines secularism as separating government and religion; while Merriam-Webster defines secularism as “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society”.

In reference to the ideology of our country, the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that:

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

In actual fact, without doubt, the Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim that says Malaysia is a secular state; for a country cannot be a secular state when it has a specific state religion, in this case Islam which makes Malaysia an Islamic state.

Anybody who reads the Federal Constitution, will find out that the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution but Islam is mentioned again and again through out the Constitution, proving the importance of Islam as the basic structures of the Constitution.

The Federal Constitution must be read as a whole and no provision can be considered in isolation, as stated by then President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif  in the Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor:

It is an established principle of constitutional construction that no one provision of the Federal Constitution can be considered in isolation. That particular provision must be brought into view with all the other provisions bearing upon that particular subject. This Court in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 257, applied the principle of considering the Constitution as a whole in determining the true meaning of a particular provision. This Court held:-

“A study of two or more provisions of a Constitution together in order to arrive at the true meaning of each of them is an established rule of constitutional construction. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to Bindra’s Interpretaion of Statue 7th Ed which says at page 947-948″

It is absurd to conclude that Malaysia is a secular country because of “the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law” for the Article 4 in no way dispute the constitutionality of the Article 3(1); and the fact that Malaysia has both the civil and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

The fact is, it is the Article 4 that intensify the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country because 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 than the Article 4.

Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be read and interpreted subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation as 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

In answering the argument regarding the intention of the Reid Commission, first we have to understand that it is the Royal Rulers and not the Reid Commission who are the real stake holders of our country.

The Reid Commission was only given the responsibilities to draft the Federal Constitution but it is the Malay Royal Rulers who had the rights to make the final say on the matter as well as to give the endorsements for the words to be written in the Federal Constitution.

It is vital to note that both the Reid Commission and the Cobbold Commission are neither law makers nor the state holders of our country, hence their words and intentions are not laws, therefore their intentions cannot change the words written in the supreme law of our Nation.

As for claiming that Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v. Public Prosecutor defines Malaysia as a secular country, this is a very lame argument with no valid fact to justify the claim.

In the Supreme Court decision of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55, the Judge, Tun Salleh Abbas only said that Malaysia follows the secular laws from the British, and did not say that Malaysia is a secular state; so how could this case be used to prove something that was not even stated in the judgement?

Furthermore, this is an old case which is no longer a good law.

We must look at the judgments of other more important and prominent later court cases including the Court of Appeal case of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Binti Sihi & Ors, High Court case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, Federal and Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and a lot more that clearly prove that Malaysia is an Islamic country.

In fact, the fact that it is the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam also denies that Malaysia is a secular country.

This 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.”

In a secular state, not only the government has no constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of a particular religion, but it is wrong for the government to do so.

Apart from Article 3(1), the Articles 11(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and a lot more further prove that Malaysia is and was meant to be an Islamic state and not a secular state; unless the book tries to redefine ‘secularism’ or implying that the Articles 3(1), 1(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and others related to Islam are unconstitutional.

Such severe mistake in the law textbook regarding the ideology of our country that contradicts the Federal Constitution should not have happened because all Malaysian must respect and uphold the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and making such a mistake regarding the core principle of our country is really uncalled for.

We surely do not need constitutionally illiterate lawyers!

Related Posts:

• Menjawab “Jika Islam Boleh, Kenapa Kristian Tidak Boleh”
• Menjawab Dr. Ariffin Omar: Apa salahnya kalau Penang hendak dijadikan Christian city?
• Grow Up, MCA!
• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• 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

 

Grow Up, MCA!

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Posts:

• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• 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

10 Aku Janji Azmin Ali, Will He Uphold Them?

PKR Deputy president, Azmin Ali was sworn in as the new Menteri Besar of Selangor on Tuesday.

Like Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Azmin also took the 10 Akujanji (10-point pledge) before Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Sharafuddin as shown in this video…

But will Azmin be obeying all directives and decisions issued by the Sultan of Selangor as what he pledged in his Aku Janji or will he be taking orders from Anwar Ibrahim, for example on the Kalimah Allah issue?

Sultan Sharafuddin had issued a decree regarding the misuse of the word Allah by the Herald and Malay Bible, and told them to stop using the word Allah as the translation of the word god but Anwar Ibrahim, Azmin and Azmin’s party had openly disagree with the Sultan.

Now, will Azmin dare to go against his Aku Janji on this matter?

If he follows the Sultan and go against Anwar, then Anwar might sack him from PKR as what Anwar did to Khalid Ibrahim.

But if Azmin follows Anwar’s orders then he will break the Aku Janji that he pledged to the Sultan of Selangor.

This must be a hard decision for Azmin Ali.

Khairy, A Trojan Horse?

There is a leader who hold three important posts in the government of Malaysia as well as in his party.

His name is Khairy Jamaluddin, and he is the Sports and Youth Minister, the UMNO Youth Chief and the Member of Parliament of Rembau.

As a youth leader of his party, he must understand which party he is representing and who are the members of his political party.

On September 3, 2014, he launched Proham secretary-general, Datuk Dr. Denision Jayasooria’s biography at the DUMC.

There are three things I must say about this:

1. Dr Denison is one of COMANGO‘s activists.
   So why must Khairy launch a biography of an activist who is fighting against the Federal Constitution and the policies of Khairy’s political party, especially ‘ketuanan Melayu’ and Islam as in the 2011 DUMC case, kalimah Allah issue, bible issue, Article 3(1), Article 121(1A), Article 153, Article 160 and others? Khairy COMANGO has lots of agendas against the government and is fighting for the opposition party to take over the Malaysian government.

2. DUMC is a church.
   Why in the world a Muslim leader like Khairy Jamaluddin must go inside a church, just to launch such a book? If Khairy does not bother about the sensitivity and feelings of the Malays who are represented by UMNO and who voted for Khairy’s party in the GE13, why can’t Khairy, as a Muslim ask for the book launch to be held in another place instead of a church?

3. And why DUMC?
   Has Khairy forgotten the DUMC case where on the 4th day of Ramadhan 1432/2011, JAIS received a report that there were Muslims attending a church program at DUMC and they were having dinner even before Maghrib? So JAIS went there to investigate, but were stopped by the church’s people. JAIS, UMNO and the government were badly condemned and blamed by the Christians, opposition parties’ leaders and also activists who are now involved in COMANGO, when according to the law JAIS did the right thing.

Is Khairy an UMNO leader who really does not care about the dignity of Islam, the feelings and the sensitivity of the Muslims who voted for UMNO which made it possible for him to become a minister?

Please do not hurt the feelings of those who support UMNO in order to be popular among those who hate UMNO.

I hope his boss’ll remind him to remember, understand and uphold the 7 Wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu.

In Photo: At the Istana Kehakiman For The Court Decision On ‘Kalimah Allah’

PERKASA leaders addressed the crowd outside of the Istana Kehakiman, June 23, 2014.

This morning I was at the Istana Kehakiman or Palace of Justice in Putrajaya waiting for the court decision on the ‘Kalimah Allah’ case.

There were so many reporters inside as well as outside of the court building.

I met activists Uncle Zulkifli Noordin, Tok Him, Atuk Mansoor, Ustaz Masridzi of PERKID, Uncle Haniff, Uncle Rahim Sinwan and a lot of other activists.

Please click the photos for larger images:

We reached the Istana Kehakiman in Putrajaya, at about 8:30 a.m. this morning, June 23, 2014.

As we walked up the steps, we saw PERKASA’s Datuk Ibrahim Ali or Tok Him sitting on the steps, June 23, 2014.

A Muslim activist addressing the crowd outside of the Istana Kehakiman, June 23, 2014.

Tok Him addressing the crowd, June 23, 2014.

Another part of the crowd in front of the Istana Kehakiman, June 23, 2014.

Part of the early crowd in front of the Istana Kehakiman, June 23, 2014.

Uncle Zulkifli Noordin addressing the crowd, June 23, 2014.

A photo of Tok Him(2nd R), me(R) and PERKASA leaders.

PERKASA ladies were so happy that they cried after Tok Him announced the court’s decision, June 23, 2014.

A photo with Uncle Zul, June 23, 2014.

The medias rushed to interview Uncle Zul after the court decision was announced, June 23, 2014.

Part of the Muslim NGO leaders at the Istana Kehakiman, June 23, 2014.

With Uncle Abdul Rahim Sinwan the lawyer for the State Islamic council of Kuala Lumpur, June 23, 2014.

With Uncle Mohamed Haniff Khatri Adulla the lawyer for the Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association of Malaysia, June 23, 2014.

A photo with two ISMA brothers, Abang Amirul Eqhwan and Dr. Ihsan who are my blog readers, June 23, 2014.

Herald Weekly Fails To Get Leave To Appeal ‘Kalimah Allah’ Case

This morning, I was at the Istana Kehakiman or Palace of Justice in Putrajaya to wait for the final appeal of the ‘Kalimah Allah’ case.

A seven-man panel led by Chief Justice Ariffin Zakaria delivered a majority 4-3 judgment on the matter, Alhamdulillah.

 

Please click here for the photos.

Kereta MYVI Merah BXM 2345 Kini Ditahan Di Balai Polis!!!

(Karim’s Blog) – Laporan tersebar petang ini melalui pelbagai media social facebook, whatsapp, twitter dan pelbagai lagi menyebut dengan ringkas kenderaan MYVI berwarna MERAH bernombor pendaftaran BXM 2345. Sesetengah mesej yang dikirim itu beserta dengan gambar yang tertera sebelah.

Gempar masyrakat bertanya dan menuduh agensi kerajaan kerana dikatakan menahan kereta MYVI yang dipandu oleh seorang wanita tua yang bersama di dalamnya cucu-cucunya yang kecil.

Begitulah mudahnya berita tersebar. Kemudian baru kita akan bertanya kenapa. Kadang-kadang kenapa kereta itu ditahan tidak timbul kerana kesian nenek yang tua memandu yang ditahan dan dibawa ke balai polis dan dimasukkan lokap menunggu keesokkannya untuk direman.

Dengan sedikit siasatan mungkin kita dapat tahu bahawa rupanya kereta tersebut ketika ditahan disuatu operasi oleh polis bahagian narkotik rupanya sudah menerima aduan dan laporan dari orang ramai bahawa di dalam kereta tersebut ada sebungkus dadah. Dan nenek yang memandu turut ditahan untuk siasatan lanjut.

Senario kereta merah yang bernombor BXM2345 tersebut bukan ditahan kerana dipandu oleh nenek tua. Bukan juga kerana ianya jenama MYVI. Bukan juga kerana ianya berwarna merah dan bukan juga semata-mata kerana nombor pendaftaranya.

Ianya ditahan kerana kesalahan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya.

Begitulah contoh mudah untuk kita fahami isu terkini berhubung tindakan JAIS untuk merampas 351 buah naskah bahan bercetak di premis Persatuan Bible Malaysia.

Bahan-bahan cetak atau buku yang dirampas oleh pihak pengkuatkuasa JAIS kerana buku-buku tersebut melanggar Seksyen 9 Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam (Kawalan Perkembangan Di Kalangan Orang Islam) 1988 Negeri Selangor. Dalam Seksyen 9 tersebut disebut 35 istilah yang dilarang untuk digunakan dalam penerbitan bercetak tersebut – antaranya adalah kalimah Allah. Ini enakmen negeri! Bukan peraturan reka-rekaan yang dibuat-buat.

Secara kebetulan, buku-buku tersebut adalah terjemahan Bible dalam bahasa Melayu dan seumpamanya.

Siapa salah? Anda jawab …

Kalimah Allah: Tan Sri Khalid Pening Kepala

Please click here for the video of ‘MB Selangor Lafaz Ikrar Aku Janji.’

Related Post:

1. DAP vs Tan Sri Khalid And His Aku Janji

2. Has The Selangor MB Forgotten His 10 ‘Aku Janji’?

Kenyataan Media NGO-NGO Berhubung Kenyataan Yang Dibuat Oleh MKPN Berkaitan Rampasan Bible oleh JAIS

KENYATAAN MEDIA

PERTUBUHAN-PERTUBUHAN MELAYU-ISLAM

Selasa 05 Rabi’ul Awal 1435 / 07 Januari 2013

Kami mengecam keras kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh Majlis Konsultansi Perpaduan Nasional (MKPN) yang mengadakan perbincangan semalam mengenai isu kalimah ALLAH dan perampasan bibel versi Bahasa Melayu oleh JAIS baru-baru ini.

Dalam kenyataan yang disampaikan oleh Pengerusi MKPN Tan Sri Samsudin Osman seperti yang dilapurkan oleh media cetak dan elektronik termasuk media portal dan siber, MKPN dipetik sebagai mengkritik JAIS atas alasan kononnya tindakan JAIS itu adalah satu ‘blatant disregard for the agreed 10-Point Resolution‘ yang kononnya dikeluarkan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dan dipersetujui oleh pihak kristian.

Kami mengecam tindakan dan kenyataan MKPN itu atas alasan-alasan berikut:

1. Pihak JAIS langsung tidak dipanggil menghadiri mesyuarat tersebut, atau diberi peluang memperjelaskan tindakan mereka atau membela diri mereka. Pada kami ini adalah satu pencabulan hak asasi dan pelanggaran prinsip keadilan sejagat (natural justice) yang tidak sepatutnya dilakukan oleh sebuah badan yang ditubuh untuk tujuan memupuk perpaduan nasional;

2. Tindakan JAIS adalah dalam menguatkuasakan peruntukkan undang-undang jenayah iaitu Seksyen 9 Enakmen Pengawalan Pengembangan Agama Bukan Islam 1988 yang berkuatkuasa didalam Negeri Selangor. Seksyen tersebut dengan jelas melarang penggunaan beberapa kalimah termasuk kalimah ALLAH dan menjadikan pelanggarannya suatu perlakuan jenayah;

3. Tindakan JAIS bukannya merampas bibel versi Bahasa Melayu per se, tetapi merampas penerbitan yang melanggar Seksyen 9 tersebut, iaitu disyaki mengandungi perkataan-perkataan yang dilarang penggunaannya termasuk kalimah ALLAH. Ini adalah satu kesalahan jenayah yang, jika cukup bukti, boleh dikenakan tindakan pertuduhan jenayah di Mahkamah Jenayah sivil;

4. Oleh itu, tidak timbul soal JAIS harus berbincang atau berunding dengan mana-mana pihak yang disyaki melakukan suatu perlakuan jenayah. Sebagaimana agensi penguatkuasaan yang lain, tugas, tanggungjawab dan bidang kuasa JAIS adalah untuk menguatkuasakan undang-undang dan mencegah sebarang perlakuan jenayah;

5. Sama juga seperti agensi penguatkuasaan yang lain seperti polis dan lain-lain. Contohnya pihak polis tidak menahan sesebuah kenderaan per se, tetapi menahan kenderaan itu kerana disyaki membawa dadah. Adakah perlu diwajibkan pihak polis berunding dengan pemandu tersebut sebelum mengambil tindakan? Namanya pun agensi penguatkuasaan, maka tindakan JAIS menguatkuasakan undang-undang adalah dalam bidangkuasanya dan menjadi tanggungjawab dan kewajipan yang harus dilaksanakan.

6. Sekiranya mana-mana OYDS (Orang Yang Di Syaki) atau OKT (Orang Kena Tuduh) merasakan mereka mempunyai pembelaan dalam mana-mana prosiding pertuduhan jenayah, maka mereka mempunyai hak mengemukakan pembelaan tersebut didalam Mahkamah dalam prosiding tersebut. Tidak timbul soal hak asasi dan hak membela diri mereka dicabuli atau dilanggar!

7. Berkaitan 10-Point Resolution yang dijadikan sandaran oleh MKPN, ianya sudah dihujahkan di Mahkamah Rayuan dengan panjang lebar dalam isu kalimah ALLAH. 10-Point Resolution itu adalah berkaitan dengan soal kemasukan dan pengimpotan bibel versi bahasa Melayu kedalam negara ini. Ia langsung tidak menyentuh dan tidak ada kena-mengena dengan isu kalimah ALLAH.

Sebagai pihak yang berbidangkuasa didalam hal-ehwal impot-ekspot dan perdagangan antarabangsa, Kerajaan Persekutuan berhak memberi kelonggaran atau syarat kepada mana-mana pihak yang mahu membawa masuk atau mengimpot apa juga barangan daripada luar.

1. Dan sebagaimana dalam soal kemasukan dan impot-ekspot barangan luar kedalam negara ini, ianya wajib mematuhi undang-undang negara. Dan undang-undang negara melarang penggunaan beberapa kalimah dan perkataan tertentu dalam mana-mana penerbitan termasuk kalimah ALLAH. Maka membawa masuk atau mengimpot mana-mana penerbitan yang mengandungi perkataan atau kalimah yang dilarang adalah prima facie satu pelanggaran undang-undang yang boleh dikenakan tindakan termasuk merampas bahan penerbitan itu dan dikenakan pertuduhan jenayah di mana-mana Mahkamah Jenayah sivil;

2. Selanjutnya, 10-Point Resolution tersebut hanyalah dasar dan polisi Kerajaan. Mana-mana pihak yang mempunyai sedikit asas pengetahuan perundangan akan sedar bahawa dasar dan polisi Kerajaan tidak boleh melanggar, bercanggah atau bertentangan dengan mana-mana undang-undang negara. Dan jika ianya bercanggah, bertentangan atau melanggar mana-mana undang-undang negara, ianya tidak terpakai dan tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan.

Kami kesal melihat pihak MKPN seolah-oleh tergesa-gesa dan gopoh dalam menangani isu ini. Mengapa pihak MKPN tidak memanggil semua stake-holder dan pihak yang berkepentingan untuk memberi penjelasan atau hujah masing-masing sebelum MKPN membuat sebarang keputusan?

Apa yang kami khuatirkan ialah kelak nanti timbul persepsi seolah-olah MKPN dipenuhi oleh golongan tertentu yang mewakili suara kumpulan tertentu dan sekadar menjadi mouthpiece kepada pihak berkepentingan.

Jika persepsi ini berlaku, maka tanggungjawab legal dan moral MKPN untuk menjadi sebuah badan tanpa kepentingan bertujuan untuk mencari kata sepakat dalam mencapai dan memupuk perpaduan nasional dan keharmonian antara pelbagai agama dan kaum akan gagal; malah sebaliknya akan dilihat lebih mengeruhkan keadaan lagi.

Pada kami MKPN telah gagal dalam menjalankan tugas dan tanggungjawabnya secara matang, profesional dan berhemah dengan mematuhi lunas-lunas hak asasi dan prinsip keadilan sejagat (natural justice).

Mengapa isu ini langsung tidak dilihat dari perspektif umat Islam? Apakah umat Islam di Malaysia ini sudah tidak ada hak dalam mempertahankan aqidah dan hak asasi kami untuk menganut, mengamal dan melaksanakan agama Islam dengan aman dan harmoni sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan?

Apakah umat Islam di Malaysia sudah tiada hak didalam negara yang menjadikan Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan?

Satu perkara yang perlu kami tegaskan ialah kita tidak pernah menghalang umat kristian untuk menganut, mengamal dan melaksanakan kepercayaan mereka. Malah kita berbangga Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara umat Islam merupakan antara negara yang mengamalkan sifat toleransi agama dan kaum yang sangat tinggi, dan begitu akomodatif terhadap agama dan bangsa lain walaupun kita menjadi tunjang pemerintahan sejak zaman Kesultanan Melayu sehinggalah era pemerintahan moden ini.

Dan antara rahsia besar pengekalan keamanan dan keharmonian serta perpaduan unik ialah kerana sikap umat Melayu-Islam yang cukup bertolak ansur dan toleran.

Oleh itu kita berharap tidak ada mana-mana pihak yang cuba mengambil kesempatan menguji kesabaran dan sikap toleran umat Melayu-Islam, terutama dalam hal berkaitan bangsa Melayu dan agama Islam. Kerana tiap kesabaran ada hadnya; dan mencabul dan menghina agama Islam dan bangsa Melayu adalah sempadan yang rapuh yang memungkinkan pelbagai perkara berlaku.

Oleh itu kita memberi amaran kepada semua pihak supaya bersikap rasional dan matang dalam menjaga keharmonian antara agama dan perpaduan nasional yang telah kita bina begitu lama. Jangan sampai ianya tercemar dek kerana nafsu dan keghairahan segelintir antara kita yang tidak langsung mengerti untuk menghormati sensitivit dan hak orang lain.

Sekian terima kasih

KENYATAAN INI ADALAH MEWAKILI PERTUBUHAN-PERTUBUHAN BERIKUT:

1. Pertubuhan Muafakat Sejahtera Masyarakat Malaysia – MUAFAKAT
2. Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Negara – PERKASA
3. Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Pembela Islam – PEMBELA
4. Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia – PPMM
5. Jalur Tiga – JATI
6. Peguam Pembela Islam – PPI
7. Institut Pemikiran Tradisional Islam – IPTI
8. Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia – ISMA
9. Pertubuhan Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah Malaysia – ASWAJA
10. Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia (PPIM)
11. Persatuan Angkatan Islamiah Malaysia (P.A.I.M.)
12. Persatuan Belia Islam Nasional (PEMBINA)
13. Pertubuhan Professional Muslim (Pro-Muslim)
14. Persatuan Nur Alamiyyah
15. International Muslim Consumer Association (IMCA)
16. Pertubuhan Kebajikan Darul Islah Malaysia (PERKID)
17. Persatuan Jaringan Kaseh Ixora Putrajaya (JKIP)
18. Gabungan Bela Hak Insan Pinang (GABUNGAN)
19. Badan Anti IFC (BADAI)
20. Sekreteriat Dakwah Pulau Pinang (SDPP)
21. Raudhatul Huda Pulau Pinang (RH)