Tag Archives: PAN

Lawmakers Must First Understand the Law

The failure to apprehend the supreme law of the land will lead to disloyalty to the Rulers and the country. And this is a problem that we are facing with some of our Members of Parliament and other political leaders; who not only fail to understand, but do not even want to make the attempt to learn and uphold the law; which brings us to all kinds of conflicting and out of context statements that should not have came from the people who proudly call themselves the lawmakers. Worst, there are even some of them who purposely misinterpret our supreme law for their own political agendas.

The simplest example is how they fail to respect and uphold the main fundamental principal of our country which is clearly written in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. The words are crystal clear but some Members of Parliament and political leaders especially from DAP, PKR, and PAN are still denying the truth, and arrogantly insist that Malaysia is a secular country and Islam is merely the official religion; which in reality is a baseless and a malicious distortion of truth!

Members of Parliaments irrespective of their political ideologies are the lawmakers of the country; hence they must be responsible, constitutionally literate and must not in anyway try to debase the ideology of our country. Alas, instead of upholding the supreme law, some of these leaders are busy degrading and undermining the religion of the Federation. In other words, they are using their positions to corrupt the core foundation of our country and corrupt the minds of their supporters into believing in something that is not true.

It is unconstitutional for the lawmakers to deny the constitutional obligation of the government to protect and defend the sanctity of Islam and the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation. Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says that:

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

And to understand the interpretation of “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony”, we have read the Court of Appeal judgment of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri where the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali stated that:

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

Unfortunately the phrase, “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony” is commonly used as the proof to debase the position of Islam as merely the official religion despite the fact that what was ever written is only, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” and not “the official religion”; and there is no Articles in the Federal Constitution that ever mentioned or implied that Islam is merely “the official religion” of the country.

It is the constitutional duty of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as the supreme head of our country to “at all time protect the Religion of Islam”, as said in the Article 37(1) or commonly referred to as the oath of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong which was written in Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 37(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall before exercising his functions take and subscribe before the Conference of Rulers and in the presence of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court (or in his absence the next senior judge of the Federal Court available) the oath of office set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule; and the oath shall be attested by two persons appointed for the purpose by the Conference of Rulers.

Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

Kami ……………………………………. ibni ……………………………………………………. Yang di-Pertuan Agong bagi Malaysia bersumpah dengan melafazkan:
Wallahi; Wabillahi; Watallahi;
maka dengan lafaz ini berikrarlah Kami dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya mengaku akan taat setia pada menjalankan dengan adilnya pemerintahan bagi Malaysia dengan mengikut sebagaimana undang-undang dan Perlembagaan yang telah disah dan dimasyhurkan dan yang akan disah dan dimasyhurkan di masa hadapan ini. Dan lagi Kami berikrar mengaku dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya memeliharakan pada setiap masa Agama Islam dan berdiri tetap di atas pemerintahan yang adil dan aman di dalam Negeri.

English translation taken from Part III of the Fourth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

We …………………………………………. ibni ………………………………………………… Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia do hereby swear:
Wallahi; Wabillahi; Watallahi;
and by virtue of that oath do solemnly and truly declare that We shall justly and faithfully perform (carry out) our duties in the administration of Malaysia in accordance with its laws and Constitution which have been promulgated or which may be promulgated from time to time in the future. Further We do solemnly and truly declare that We shall at all time protect the Religion of Islam and uphold the rules of law and order in the Country.

Since the oath is the oath of office of the supreme head of the country, by law it is not only the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong who is bound by the majesty’s oath to protect the Religion of Islam, but also the Prime Minister, the ministers, the lawmakers and the government servants; for they are tasked with the duty of administering the country on behalf of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

And the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam is proven by the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri, when YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim said:

I would add however that the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, to my mind imposes certain obligation on the power that be to promote and defend Islam as well to protect its sanctity. In one article written by Muhammad Imam, entitled Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia – A Reappraisal [1994] 2 CLJ lvii (June) referred to by the learned counsel for the 8th appellant it was said that: “Article 3 is not a mere declaration. But it imposes positive obligation on the Federation to protect, defend, promote Islam and to give effect by appropriate state action, to the injunction of Islam and able to facilitate and encourage people to hold their life according to the Islamic injunction spiritual and daily life.”

And in the judgement of the Federal Court case of Fathul Bari Mat Jahya & Anor v. Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan & Ors, Tun Arifin Zakaria clarified that the integrity of Islam needs to be safeguarded at all cost.

The requirement of a tauliah for the purpose of protecting the public interest falls within the concept of Siyasah Syari’yah. Such order or direction is made not merely to prevent deviant teachings, but also to maintain order and prevent division in the community. Clearly, no one could suggest that the requirement of a tauliah as stipulated in s. 53 of the Enactment is a maksiat (vice). On the contrary, it is necessary in this day and age for the authority to regulate the teachings or preaching of the religion in order to control, if not eliminate, deviant teachings. The integrity of the religion needs to be safeguarded at all cost. That is what s. 53 purports to do. This being the case, the contention that the Syariah Court in Negeri Sembilan does not have the jurisdiction to try an offence under s. 53 of the Enactment is devoid of any merit. (paras 26 & 27)

Malaysia was formed as an Islamic country, and that the government is tasked to protect the religion of Islam, therefore, only those who are constitutionally illiterate and those who are blinded by their own illusions cannot see the truth, which unfortunately included our lawmakers; which is a very embarrassing situation! 

Hence, there is no legitimate reasons for the Members of Parliament, the lawmakers, the government servants and even the ministers to question the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country. We cannot change the core foundation of our country that had united the people and give away what we have achieved just to chase the rainbows. We must not be blinded by the beautiful colours of the rainbow; and there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Related articles:

Ceramah PAN: Kit Siang & Guan Eng Akan Masuk Islam?

I am not sure who is the speaker but he looks like Wan Ji and sounds like him too.

What will DAP say about this?

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

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

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


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

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


Screenshot taken from the agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word, “aman dan harmoni” in the Article 3(1), has been interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia:

[31] It is my observation that the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) has a historical background and dimension, to the effect that those words are not without significance. The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that the fundamental liberties Articles were grouped together subsequently under Part II of the Constitution.

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

[42] It is my judgment that, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the usage of the word “Allah” particularly in the Malay version of the Herald, is without doubt, do have the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community. Such publication will surely have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Any such disruption of the even tempo is contrary to the hope and desire of peaceful and harmonious co-existence of other religions other than Islam in this country.

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

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

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

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

Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution:

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

Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution:

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

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

Tun M: “Perdana Menteri Buat Demonstration” (Video)

Many videos of Tun Dr Mahathir’s (Tun M) statements at the 50th DAP National Convention were released, among them by KiniTV.

Watching those videos, I wonder what had happened to Tun M, for those statements made by him were as ridiculous as those made by PAN’s Mohamad Sabu or Mat Sabu.

For example, in the video below, in which he said that a government do not hold demonstrations and a Prime Minister should not be demonstrating.

Tun M was answering questions from a reporter regarding the ‘Himpunan Solidariti Ummah untuk Rohingya’ which was held on the 4th of December at the Titiwangsa Stadium, attended by both UMNO’s and PAS’s president.

Media supporting opposition parties like MalaysiaKini and KiniTV are very excited about Tun M’s government and PM Najib bashing and wrote headlines about the matter.

I agree with MalaysiaKini Stephen Ng’s article, “Only Najib is capable of doing it”, that the video is “worth watching again and again” because it is so funny to see how Tun Dr Mahathir, who had turned into a street demonstrator from a statesman, thinks that other people too are turning into street demonstrators, just like him.

“What mesmerised me yesterday was the way the nonagenarian responded to a question posed by a journalist about Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s participation in the Rohingya solidarity demonstration. The video clip posted by KiniTV is worth watching again and again.” – MalaysiaKini

The question is, when does Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak  participate in a demonstration? 

And since when has a ‘himpunan‘ or an assembly becomes a ‘demonstrasi‘ or a demonstration?

Seriously, how can a smart man like Tun M make such a statement that makes him sounds like a not so smart politician?

Maybe Tun M ‘sudah lupa’ that in his days as a Prime Minister, he too had attended a lot of himpunan or assemblies and the best example is the yearly ‘Perhimpunan Agung UMNO’ or the General Assembly of UMNO which he attended as the president of UMNO.

Is Tun M trying to tell us that he had been leading demonstrations year after year in his long years as the UMNO president and the Prime Minister of Malaysia?

In the same article, MalysiaKini wrote:

“Even at 92, Dr Mahathir’s mind is still very sharp. I can imagine Najib reeling under the force of the punch after Dr Mahathir poked at him: “When you are in the government, what is there to demonstrate about?” “- MalaysiaKini

Are people in MalaysiaKini seriously thinking that inability to understand the difference between an assembly and a demonstration is the sign that, “Dr Mahathir’s mind is still very sharp”?

Now I wonder if the video is an attempt to ridicule Tun M.

Anyway, watching Tun M speaking in the video, I really pity him, Tun M really has disgraced himself.

PAN Protects Alcohol, Rejects Hadi’s Bill?

PAN or Parti Amanah Negara’s MP for Kota Raja, Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud said in Parliament that the alcohol taxes should not be raised as reported by Free Malaysia Today (FMT).

I would understand if this issue was raised by a non-Muslim MP, but why must a Muslim MP from a so-called Islamic political party raised the issue in parliament?

FMT reported that Siti Mariah who is the women’s wing chief of PAN said that, “As for alcohol, it is allowed to non-Muslims, so if we increase its tax it will burden them.”

Bagi alkohol pula, ia dibenarkan untuk bukan Muslim, jadi jika kita naikkan cukainya ia akan membebankan mereka,” kata Siti Mariah Mahmood (Amanah-Kota Raja) di Dewan Rakyat hari ini. – FMT

This is an argument made by a senior leader from a party that claims that its aim is to become the main Islamic party in Malaysia.

My question to PAN’s Dr Siti Mariah are:

  1. Why must a Muslim like Siti Mariah fights for something which is haram just to win the non-Muslims’ votes?

  2. Is fighting for the non-Muslims alcohol drinker is more important than fighting for the Muslims who want the Act 355 to be amended?

  3. Is the issue of alcohol tax is more important than the issue of the amendment of Act 355?

  4. Is fighting for the tax on alcohol not to be increased is one of the actions taken by Siti Mariah and PAN to empower Islam as promised by them to their main voters who are the Muslims?

  5. Is there no better issue to fight for other than alcohol?

  6. Is PAN not aware of the bad effect of alcohol?

  7. Is PAN saying that all non-Muslims consume alcohol for concluding that an increase on alcohol tax will burden the non-Muslim and not only the people who consume alcohol?

  8. Is she implying that drinking alcohol is such an important part of the lives of the non-Muslims that it is a duty for her to raise the issue regardless the fact that she is a Muslim?

Siti Mariah must understand that alcohol is haram to the Muslims so it is wrong for a Muslim to fight for alcohol, as there is no reason for non-Muslims to make a fuss about Act 355 as it has nothing to do with them.

Furthermore, why must she fight for alcohol?

Is she not aware of the bad effects of being drunk, like causing accidents, crimes like domestic violence, fights and other violence actions?

Is this how a Muslim MP supposed to be; promoting bad practices and assuming that every non-Muslims drinks alcohol.

Siti Mariah as a PAS candidate in the 13th General Election has violated the trust of her Muslims voters.

Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355

Pengarah Komunikasi Parti Amanah Negara (PAN), YB Khalid Samad telah menulis sebuah artikel bertajuk, “Kenyataan Berhubung Usul Persendirian Marang: Cadangan Pindaan ke Atas Akta 355″di blognya.

Di bawah adalah jawapan-jawapan saya (biru) kepada artikel tersebut (jingga).

1. AMANAH ingin menegaskan bahawa Mahkamah Syariah adalah institusi keadilan Islam dan oleh itu apa jua usaha ke arah menperkasakannya adalah disokong. Bidang kuasanya berhubung kesalahan jenayah syariah dijelaskan dalam Akta 355 sediada. Akta 355 ini perlu dijaga dengan baik dan apa jua usaha pembaik-pulihan serta pindaan terhadapnya perlu diperhalusi secara teliti supaya tidak menjejas kedudukan mahkamah syariah.

YB Khalid Samad dan PAN tidak patut berdolak-dalik. Jika benar PAN mahu memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah, maka PAN sepatutnya menyokong pindaan ini. Khalid Samad tentu faham bahawa menaikkan had hukuman jenayah syariah akan menambahbaik Mahkamah Syariah dan bukannya menjejaskan kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah.

2. Akta 355 sediada telah digubal mengambil kira kedudukan dan peranan Mahkamah Syariah di dalam kerangka struktur kenegaraan Malaysia yang di dalamnya wujud Mahkamah Sivil dan juga Mahkamah Syariah. Sepertimana diketahui umum, bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah adalah terhad kepada orang Islam dan kesalahan-kesalahan tertentu seperti terkandung dalam Senarai II Senarai Negeri Jadual kesembilan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Selainnya adalah di bawah Mahkamah Sivil.

Benar, dan pindaan yang dicadangkan ini tidak bercanggah dengan kenyataan di atas.

3. Apa jua pindaan yang ingin dibawa semestinya selari dengan kedudukan dan peranan ini supaya tidak berlaku percanggahan sehingga boleh menyebabkan kedudukan dan peranan sediada Mahkamah Syariah terjejas dan terganggu. Pindaan-pindaan yang tidak selari, walaupun berniat untuk memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah, perlu dielak supaya tidak akhirnya menimbulkan fitnah terhadap mahkamah syariah itu sendiri.

Pindaan ini selari dengan kedudukan dan peranan Mahkamah Syariah dan “tidak berlaku percanggahan sehingga boleh menyebabkan kedudukan dan peranan sediada Mahkamah Syariah terjejas dan terganggu”. Jadi, tidak ada sebab Khalid Samad dan PAN menolak pindaan ini.


4. AMANAH telah membuat sidang akhbar pada 6hb Sept dan diikuti dengan penghantaran surat kepada YB Marang selaku Presiden PAS, meminta penjelasan mengenai empat perkara utama berhubung pindaan yang ingin dibawa beliau pada sesi Parlimen bulan Oktober ini. Malangnya soalan yang dikemukakan tidak dijawab dan dengan itu AMANAH terpaksa menentukan pendirian berhubung pindaan yang dicadangkan tanpa menerima apa-apa penjelasan tambahan.

Kesemua soalan PAN sebenarnya telah berkali-kali dijawab oleh pelbagai pihak. Amat jelas bahawa tujuan pindaan Akta 355 adalah untuk memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah dan mengurangkan kes jenayah syariah dengan menaiktarafkan had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah yang sekarang ini terlalu rendah iaitu 3 tahun penjara, 5 ribu ringgit denda dan 6 kali sebatan syariah. Seolah-olah PAN sengaja menutup telinga, membuat berbagai kenyataan negatif dan mempolitikkan pindaan Akta 355.

5. Pindaan yang dicadangkan YB Marang didapati kabur dan tidak jelas khususnya berhubung apa yang dimaksudkan dengan “memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah”. Pemerkasaan bagaimana yang ingin dicapai melalui pindaan tersebut? Adakah pemerkasaan yang diinginkan adalah melalui menghilangkan had dan bentuk hukuman yang boleh dijatuhkan, kecuali hukuman mati? Sekiranya itu adalah apa yang dimaksudkan YB Marang maka AMANAH ingin menyatakan bahawa bukan itu yang dimaksudkan DYMM YDP Agung dalam titah Baginda pada bulan Mac lepas semasa pembukaan sesi Parlimen bagi tahun 2016. Adalah jelas DYMM YDP Agung memaksudkan pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah dari sudut kecekapan perlaksanaan undang-undang dan bukan memberi ‘blank cheque’ kepada mahkamah syariah.

Titah DYMM YDP Agung

Titah ucapan DYMM YDP Agung di istiadat pembukaan parlimen, 7 Mac, 2016.

Jelas bahawa pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah yang dimaksudkan di dalam titah DYMM YDP Agung di istiadat pembukaan parlimen adalah pemerkasaan yang menyeluruh termasuk mempertingkatkan kuasa Mahkamah Syariah. Bagaimanakah dapat diperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah jika had hukuman yang sedia ada adalah terlalu rendah dan tidak seiring dengan peredaran zaman?

Banyak hukuman kesalahan sivil telah dinaiktarafkan berberapa kali selepas kali terakhir Akta 355 dipinda. Contohnya dibawah Peraturan 11(1), Peraturan-Peraturan Kawalan Hasil Tembakau 2004, had hukuman merokok di tempat dilarang ialah “denda tidak melebihi 10,000 ringgit, atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun”, seperti yang tercatat dibawah Peraturan 11(3) Peraturan yang sama. Ini bermakna had hukuman kesalahan merokok di tempat yang dilarang adalah jauh lebih tinggi daripada had hukuman meminum arak di tempat awam atau lelaki berpakaian wanita atau ‘crossdressing’.

Sebagai seorang Ahli Parlimen, YB Khalid Samad sepatutnya faham bahawa pindaan ini hanya akan menetapkan had maksima dan bukannya akan menentukan hukuman syariah. Peruntukan hukuman syariah adalah di bawah bidang kuasa kerajaan negeri. DUN perlu meminda enakmen hukuman kesalahan syariah untuk meningkatkan had maksima hukuman setelah pindaan Akta 355 diluluskan. Jadi pindaan Akta 355 tidak memberi ‘blank cheque’ kepada Mahkamah Syariah.

6. Pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah yang diinginkan AMANAH adalah dari sudut peningkatan kecekapan pengurusan dan pentadbirannya dan juga peningkatan sokongan dari badan-badan sokongan terhadapnya. Ini adalah supaya Mahkamah Syariah boleh memainkan peranannya dengan lebih berkesan. Peningkatan kemampuan dicapai melalui latihan dan pendedahan serta penambahan human resource. Skim pembayaran gaji dan elaun hakim dan kakitangan dengan kadar yang lebih berpatutan perlu juga dipertimbangkan. Pada masa sama sokongan dari institusi sokongan seperti Polis dan semua majikan yang mempunyai pekerja Islam perlu dipertingkatkan.

Saya tidak faham di manakah pindaan Akta 355 akan bercanggah dengan perkara di atas.

Peningkatan kadar hukuman dan mempelbagaikan jenis hukuman juga perlu untuk menjamin keberkesanan pencegahan serta hukuman itu sendiri.

Inilah yang diperjuangkan melalui pindaan Akta 355. Ternyata PAN sngat keliru atau cuba mengelirukan orang ramai.

7. AMANAH maklum bahawa usaha pemerkasaan seperti yang dimaksudkan sedang diusahakan oleh pengurusan dan pekerja Mahkamah Syariah itu sendiri. AMANAH berpandangan bahawa segala usaha pemerkasaan mahkamah Syariah, termasuk melalui pindaan ke atas Akta 355, perlu diselaraskan dengan usaha yang sedang giat dilakukan pihak mahkamah syariah sendiri.

Mengikut undang-undang, pindaan ke atas Akta 355 mesti dibentangkan di Parlimen dan diluluskan oleh Ahli Dewan Rakyat dan bukannya boleh “dilakukan pihak mahkamah syariah sendiri”.


8. AMANAH telah turut bertanya sebab mengapa keseluruhan seksyen 2 perlu digantikan. Tanpa adanya jawapan mahupun penjelasan, maka AMANAH ingin menyatakan bahawa tidak ada keperluan untuk perenggan pertama Seksyen 2 Akta 355 diganti. Lebih-lebih lagi apabila perenggan baharu yang dicadangkan YB Marang teramat kabur bila dibandingkan dengan yang sediada.

Seksyen 2 memberi had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah dan jika ia tidak dipinda, had itu juga tidak boleh dinaikkan. Dan pindaan itu tidak akan ada makna jika Seksyen 2 tidak dipinda. Ayat ‘intro’ kepada Seksyen 2 pula dipinda kerana ia menggunakan istilah rukun-rukun agama Islam sedangkan Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan perkataan ‘precepts’ bermaksud perintah-perintah agama dan bukan terhad kepada rukun Islam.

Perenggan sediada merujuk kepada pembentukkan Mahkamah Syariah melalui undang-undang yang digubal di peringkat Negeri, sambil perenggan yag dicadangkan YB Marang menggambarkan Mahkamah Syariah sebagai seolah-olahnya datang dengan sendirinya dan terus berkuasa ke atas ummat Islam. Ada yang berpandangan ayat-ayat seperti yang dicadangkan YB Marang boleh mendedahkan Mahkamah Syariah kepada fitnah kerana kedudukannya dalam kerangka struktur kenegaraan sendiri menjadi tidak jelas sepertimana juga haknya untuk menggubal dan menentukan undang-undang. Oleh kerana keperluan untuk menggantikannya tidak dijelaskan, maka risiko ini tidak wajar dihadapi.

Tiada perkataan di dalam pindaan kepada Seksyen 2 yang mengubah keadaan “pembentukkan Mahkamah Syariah melalui undang-undang yang digubal di peringkat Negeri” atau “mendedahkan Mahkamah Syariah kepada fitnah” kecuali sengaja difitnah oleh mereka yang menentang usaha pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah.Telahpun disebut di dalam Butiran 1 Senarai II Jadual Kesembilan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia bahawa undang-undang syariah mesti digubal di peringkat negeri dan bukannya di peringkat persekutuan seperti undang-undang sivil.


9. AMANAH telah juga bertanya mengenai kebijaksanaan seksyen 2A yang dicadangkan YB Marang yang memberikan ‘blank cheque’ kepada Mahkamah Syariah berhubung hukuman yang boleh dijatuhkan olehnya. Had yang ditetapkan adalah hanya sekadar “yang dibenarkan syariah” dan “selain dari hukuman mati”. Sekali lagi AMANAH terpaksa membuat keputusan tanpa penjelasan dan jawapan berhubung sebab mengapa pindaan sebegitu rupa dicadangkan.

Menurut pakar undang-undang dan perlembagaan, Dato’ Prof Mahamad Naser Disa, draf Seksyen 2 yang tidak mengikut format lama bukanlah bertujuan untuk memberi ‘blank cheque’ kepada Mahkamah Syariah, sebaliknya ia bertujuan untuk memberikan ruang kepada DUN untuk memperkenalkan hukuman lain selain daripada denda, penjara atau sebat.

Bagi pandangan AMANAH memberi ‘blank cheque’ dalam soal had dan bentuk hukuman kepada mahkamah syariah adalah kurang bijak. Ini adalah kerana sebahagian besar kesalahan yang akan dihukumkan adalah kesalahan di bawah hukuman takzir. Ini bererti ianya tidak ditetapkan oleh syariat sepertimana hudud dan oleh itu berbagai-bagai jenis dan kadar hukuman boleh dikenakan. Ini juga boleh mendedahkan mahkamah syariah kepada fitnah yang besar sehingga menjejas imej dan reputasinya.

Adalah satu fitnah menuduh bahawa pindaan kepada Seksyen 2A memberi ‘blank cheque’ kepada Mahkamah Syariah kerana bentuk dan had hukuman syariah digubal oleh DUN di peringkat Negeri dan bukannya oleh Mahkamah Syariah itu sendiri. Soalnya apakah YB Khalid Samad tidak yakin akan integriti Mahkamah Syariah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman?

10. Ada yang mengatakan bahawa mahkamah sesyen juga diberi ‘blank cheque’ sedemikian rupa maka apa salahnya ianya turut diberi kepada mahkamah syariah? Umum mengetahui bahawa mahkamah sesyen terikat dengan Kanun Kesiksaan dan Kanun Acara Jenayah di mana jenis kesalahan serta had dan jenis hukuman telah dinyatakan secara jelas dan terperinci. Oleh itu adalah tidak benar bahawa mahkamah sesyen diberi ‘blank cheque’ sepertimana yang ingin diberi kepada mahkamah syariah melalui pindaan ini.

Menuduh pindaan Akta 355 sebagai “ingin diberi” ‘blank cheque’ “kepada mahkamah syariah melalui pindaan ini” adalah satu fitnah jahat oleh mereka yang tidak mahu undang-undang syariah diperkasakan di negara ini.

11. AMANAH bersetuju pindaan perlu dibawa ke arah pemerkasaan undang-undang mencegah jenayah syariah di bawah mahkamah syariah. Pada hakikatnya sekadar inilah apa yang dibawa YB Marang. Ia boleh dicapai dengan meningkatan had hukuman (3 tahun penjara, 5 ribu ringgit denda dan 6 kali sebatan) kepada tahap yang lebih tinggi. Berapa hadnya hendaklah ditetapkan oleh satu jawatan kuasa yang dibentuk terdiri dari ketua-ketua hakim mahkamah syariah setiap negeri bersama golongan ilmuan di mana realiti masyarakat dan kemampuan mahkamah syariah serta jabatan-jabatan sokongannya turut diambil kira. Pada masa sama, bentuk hukuman yang menumpu kepada persoalan mendidik dan menanam semangat membantu masyarakat boleh juga ditambah melalui pindaan ini.

Apakah PAN terlalu keliru atau sengaja mencari sebab untuk menegakkan benang yang basah dalam usaha menjustifikasikan bantahan mereka terhadap pindaan Akta 355?


12. Memandangkan AMANAH mengambil berat usaha memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah, maka AMANAH mencadangkan supaya pindaan yang ingin dibawa YB Marang dipinda supaya mendatangkan pemerkasaan yang lebih menyeluruh dan bermakna. Ini memungkinkan sokongan padu dari Pakatan Harapan.

Hasil perbincangan bersama ramai pihak, termasuk wakil-wakil parti anggota PH, AMANAH berpandangan bahawa Usul pindaan itu hendaklah berbunyi seperti berikut :-

“Dewan ini menerima bahawa Mahkamah Syariah adalah institusi dan syiar keadilan Islam. Oleh itu kecemerlangannya dalam memainkan peranannya, sepertimana ditentukan oleh perlembagaan, hendaklah sentiasa diusahakan. Ke arah itu adalah dicadangkan penubuhan satu jawatan kuasa khas yang terdiri dari Ketua Hakim Mahkamah Syariah setiap negeri, golongan cendiakawan dan ilmuan agama serta pegawai-pegawai berkenaan, untuk mengkaji dan mencadangkan langkah-langkah pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah untuk dipertimbangkan oleh Dewan ini. Langkah-langkah pemerkasaan ini hendaklah meliputi persoalan –

a) Meningkatkan kecekapan Mahkamah Syariah melalui peningkatan kemahiran para hakim dan kakitangan Mahkamah Syariah dengan diperbanyakkan pendedahan dan latihan serta penambahan kakitangan ke tahap yang diperlukan

b) Meningkatkan lagi fahaman dan sokongan institusi dan jabatan-jabatan kerajaan serta pihak swasta terhadap peranan Mahkamah Syariah supaya memungkinkan ia memainkan peranannya dengan lebih berkesan

c) Mengkaji kembali skim gaji para hakim dan kakitangan mahkamah Syariah supaya ditetapkan skim yang lebih wajar dan berpatutan demi mengelak ‘brain drain’ dan menarik minat mereka yang berpotensi dan

d) Mengkaji keberkesanan had dan jenis hukuman berkaitan jenayah syariah di bawah Mahkamah Syariah seperti yang termaktub dalam Akta 355. Sekiranya ianya didapati kurang berkesan, maka jawatan kuasa khas ini hendaklah mencadangkan ianya ditingkatkan kepada satu had yang dianggap lebih berkesan sebagai satu usaha pencegahan dan pengajaran. Dalam menentukan had baharu, keadaan masyarakat dan kemampuan Mahkamah Syariah hendaklah diambil-kira. Jawatan kuasa khas ini diberi mandat untuk mengkaji corak hukuman lain, selain dari tiga jenis yang disebutkan di dalam Akta 355, yang bersifat mendidik dan membentuk akhlak, yang boleh turut dibenarkan sebagai corak hukuman yang boleh dijatuhkan mahkamah syariah”.

Dalam melakukan usaha pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah ini, langkah-langkah yang ingin dicadangkan hendaklah selari dengan kehendak perlembagaan untuk elak dari berlakunya krisis perlembagaan.

Jawatan kuasa khas ini hendaklah bersifat ‘non-partisan’ di mana segala usaha yang sedang dan telah dilakukan,kalau ada, oleh ‘kerajaan-kerajaan pembangkang’ seperti di Negeri Kelantan, Terengganu (1999 – 2004), Kedah (2008 – 2013), Selangor dan Pulau Pinang, hendaklah turut dikaji dan diambil-kira.


WaLlahu ‘Alam
Pengarah Komunikasi Parti Amanah Negara

PAN seharusnya jujur dalam membuat kenyataan tentang isu pindaan Akta 355. Menurut Presiden Persatuan Peguam-peguam Muslim Malaysia, Datuk Zainul Rijal, cadangan PAN berhubung cara penambahbaikan sistem Mahkamah Syariah sebenarnya sudah pun dilaksanakan Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia dan Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Negeri.

“Misalnya Jawatankuasa Kerja Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Syariah yang dianggotai ketua hakim negeri dan jabatan berkaitan untuk melicinkan proses mahkamah. Jawatankuasa Kaedah Mahkamah Syariah pula untuk menggarap modul agar perbicaraan dapat dipercepatkan,” katanya kepada FMT.

Perkara yang dibangkitkan di bawah tajuk ‘kesimpulan’ adalah perkara sama dan telah dijawab di atas. Soalnya, apakah Khalid Samad sudah lupa bahawa pindaan Akta 355 telah dicadangkan oleh pemimpin parti pembangkang dan terdapat ramai ADUN dari parti pembangkang di dalam DUN di Malaysia? Kesimpulannya, Khalid Samad bagi pihak pemimpin PAN yang kesemuanya beragama Islam menentang pindaan Akta 355 dengan memberi berbagai sebab yang mengelirukan dan berbelit-belit supaya mereka tidak dianggap menentang usaha untuk memperkasakan undang-undang syariah di Malaysia  selaras dengan Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan.


Kita wajib menuntut ilmu, jika kita kurang faham mengenai pindaan Akta 355, bertanyalah kepada mereka yang memahami perkara ini dan janganlah kita terpedaya oleh agenda musuh. Malu bertanya sesat jalan. 

Undi PAN Untuk Kuatkan DAP?


(Photo credit to MyMassa)

I saw this interesting photo of PAN’s billboard for the Sungai Besar by-election on MyMassa.

If that billboard is real, it looks like PAN is not only powered by DAP but also a puppet of DAP to get the votes from the Malays.

Is this another “wayang terbaik” directed by DAP so that PAN’s Malay candidate can “skrew” puak Melayu sendiri”.