DAP Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo said that Malaysia is proven to be a secular state by referring to Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v Public Prosecutor.
As a lawyer he must understands thatChe’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v Public Prosecutoris no longer a good law because it was decided before the coming into effect of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.
Furthermore, inChe’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v Public Prosecutor, Tan Sri Salleh Abbas did not say that Malaysia is a secular nation but Tan Sri Salleh Abbas only said that secular laws were used.
By the way, does Gobind Singh Deo understand what is a Secular State?
Wikipedia wrote that:
“A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion (established religion) or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular; however, a true secular state should steadfastly maintain national governance without influence from religious factions; i.e. Separation of church and state.”
Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says that:
“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.
InMeor Atiqul Rahman v Fatimah Sihiand others, Judge Yang Arif Dato’ Mohd Noor Abdullah explained that:
“Islam ialah ugama bagi persekutuan tapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dalam aman dan damai. Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain. bukan duduk berganding bahu dengan agama lain atau berdiri sama sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan, dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati. Tinggi, teguh, dan terang. Jika bukan sedemikian, Islam bukanlah ugama bagi persekutuan, tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di wilayah ini, dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan mana-mana ugama yang dianuti. Tiada lebih di antara satu sama lain.”
And in the case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, the then Chief Justice, Yang Amat Arif Tun Ahmad Fairus said:
“Islam itu bukan sahaja suatu himpunan dogma-dogma dan ritual-ritual tetapi ianya juga suatu cara hidup yang lengkap merangkumi semua bidang aktiviti manusia, persendirian dan awam, perundangan, politik, ekonomi, sosial, budaya, moral atau kehakiman etc.”
With those statements, it proves that Malaysia is not a Secular State because Malaysia has a state religion, that is Islam; and “secular states do not have a state religion”; therefore Malaysia is not officially neutral in matters of religion (as what was said in the ruling of Meor Atiqul Rahman v Fatimah Sihiand others) and “nonreligion” is against the first Rukun Negara or National Principles of Malaysia which says, “Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan” or “Belief in God”.
How could a lawyer like MP Gobind Singh Deo forget Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution and the Rukun Negara?
And the DAP MP could only remember a small part of the case of Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v Public Prosecutor but forgot about more important cases like Meor Atiqul Rahman v Fatimah Sihi and others and Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan.
Mr. Gobind Singh Deo, please be a good and responsible Malaysian citizen and please stop spinning stories and please respect the Federal Constitution.
Not everybody in Malaysia can be fooled by oppositions fairy tales.
Each country is unique, and there is no two countries that are totally the same. As a sovereign country has its own law and constitution, nobody can force a sovereign country to follow the universal rules made by other countries especially when the rules are against the values and the needs of its citizens. The same is with Malaysia.
Malaysia has it’s own Federal Constitution, laws and Rukun Negara (National Principles) that ensures the harmony of its citizens. So, Malaysia does not need to follow all of the UNHR declarations. Why? Because some of the declarations are against the Malaysian Federal Constitution, laws and Rukun Negara. And if Malaysia accept all UNHRC declarations, we must accept total Freedom of Religion, total Freedom of Expression, LGBTIQ and others that are not only against our Federal Constitution but also illegal by Malaysian law.
As I wrote before, Article 3(1) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution wrote that “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. That means, Malaysia is an Islamic country. So, Malaysia cannot accept any part of the UNHRC declaration that is against the Islamic teachings, for exampleSOGI or LGBTIQ rights.
LGBT way of life is against the Malaysian law as well as against the Syariah law and the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. To declare the LGBTIQ rights means committing a huge crime, a violation of human rights of others and undemocratic because it gives the rights to people to commit crime and against the rights of the majority.
ICERD is also against the Federal Constitution as Article 153 of the Federal Constitution gives special rights and position of the Malays and the Bumiputras (indigenous people of the Sabah and Sarawak). Is Article 153 unfair? People need to study the history of Malaysia and not reading the reports from COMANGO to understand why Article 153 is fair.
Malaysians live peacefully and the government had been fair to the minorities, treat them well and not discriminating them. So Malaysia does not need to accept all of the UNHRC declarations because some are not suitable for Malaysia. What seems fair for the minorities may not be fair for the majorities. For the ones who support LGBTIQ and wants Malaysia to accept SOGI rights, can they understand that it is unfair and against the human rights of the majority to force others to follow them? When one wants to make it fair, he or she must look at the whole condition and situation and not being selfish and only wants things his or her way.
Is being a religious state unfair to others? Malaysia is not the only religious state in the world; Vatican City, Monaco, Argentina and lots of other countries are also religious state so why must Malaysia be forced to accept the idea of secularism?
Not all of the UNHRC declarations are suitable for every country because each country has different social values and ways of live. Human rights must not only means giving rights for total freedom; such as total freedom of expression and others to everybody but it must be about being fair to the whole community because humans do not live alone. For example, Muslims living in England cannot force the British government to ban the selling of alcohol for the reason that consuming alcohol is against the Islamic teaching.
UNHRC declarations should be about making people happy, protecting people and giving people a better quality of life. And human rights should not be about everybody can do things their way without thinking of others around them, the law and constitution of their countries and others.
UNHRC declaration must not be about making a country accept a universal rule that is against the law and constitution of the country that in the end, make most people miserable, unhappy, causing problems, havoc and instability in the country.
During the briefing for Muslim UPRo (Muslim NGOs in the UPR process) at Dewan Tun Rahah Memorial Tun Abdul Razak in Kuala Lumpur, Uncle Azril briefed us about the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) declarations. The review process will be held at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.
Malaysia is a peaceful country where the minorities races and religions are not been discriminated by our government. And Malaysia has its own Federal Constitutions, Rules of Laws, Social Contract and National Principles. This is very important to ensure the stability of our country since the people in our country is multi racial.
Anyway a loose coalition of NGOs called COMANGO (Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR process) made some false accusations regarding human rights in Malaysia. It also demands Malaysia to sign the UNHRC treaties that are against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, our Rukun Negara (National Principles) and the laws of our country.
COMANGO claims that it represents the majority of Malaysian, but they are not. Actually COMANGO only represents a minority of Malaysian citizens. They claimed to represent 54 NGOs but only 12 of those NGOs are legal, meaning most of the NGOs that COMANGO represented are illegal as they are not registered under the ROS or SSM.
Some of COMANGO’s demands are:
Demands Malaysia to sign the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR) which said,“The Committee observes that the freedom to “have or to adopt” a religion or belief necsesarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one’s religion or belief…”. ICCPR is against Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” and Article 11 (4) that says that state laws and federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims and also against the first principle of Rukun Negara (National Principles) that says, “Believe in God”.
Demands Malaysia to sign the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).This is against Article 153 of the Federal Constitution that gives special rights and position of the Malays and the Bumiputras (indigenous people of the Sabah and Sarawak).
Demands Malaysia to agree on the SOGI Rights (Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity) which means they want Malaysia to legalised LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer).This is against Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution and also the law of Malaysia.
Demands some enactments of the Syariah Law to be abolished.This is also against Article 3 (1) and against the second principle of the Rukun Negara that says, “Loyalty to the king and country,” because the king must protect Islam.
I do not agree on certain things that UNHRC declares as Human Rights because it is against my Rights as a Malaysian citizen according to the Federal Constitutions, Rukun Negara and the Rules of Laws of Malaysia.
COMANGO does not respect the Federal Constitutions, Rukun Negara, Rules of Laws and the Social Contract of Malaysia. And COMANGO does not respect human rights because it claims that it represent the majority of Malaysian when it is not true. Cheating and making false accusations is a crime. Can we trust criminals to fight for other people’s Human Rights?