Tag Archives: Rukun Negara

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.

SUARAM Man Questions “Belief in God”

Director of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Kua Kia Soong wrote an article, “Keep the Constitution secular and inclusive” which was published on SUARAM’s website on February 20, 2017, in which he stated his view on the move to make Rukun Negara as the preamble to our Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

What really caught my attention was the fact that the SUARAM leader:

  • claims the Federal Constitution as secular and,
  • disagree with the first principal of the Rukun Negara which is, “Belief in God”.

The arguments in the press statement are totally out of context as Kua Kia Soong fails to understand both the Federal Constitution and the definition of the word, “secularism”.

The fact is, t is just impossible for the Federal Constitution to be secular when Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

Of course, I too do not agree with the idea of making the Rukun Negara as the preamble to our Federal Constitution, but not because I do not agree with any of its five principals; instead my reasons are:

  1. The Rukun Negara it is not a law, therefore having the Rukun Negara as a preamble will undermine the supreme law of the Federation.
  2. Adding a preamble will not help the people to understand the Federal Constitution better.
  3. Having the Rukun Negara as a preamble will increase the probability of misinterpretation of the Federal Constitution.
  4. I cannot see any reason why we need a preamble to the supreme law of our Nation.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Kua Kia Soong’s article in red:

There is an attempt by some “eminent persons” to install the Rukunegara as the preamble to the Malaysian Constitution. If there is indeed a need for such a preamble, it ought to reaffirm the principles of secularism and inclusiveness in the Constitution.

There are no “principles of secularism” in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. The third Article of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the Religion of the Federation and that itself denies any allegation that our Federal Constitution is secular. Furthermore, neither can we find any Article in the Federal Constitution that says the Constitution is secular nor can we find the word, “secular” in the Constitution.

In my humble opinion, any attempt to have a preamble to our Constitution needs first to be discussed by all the communities in the country including the Orang Asli, debated and passed through Parliament; secondly, it has to be inclusive.

This “national philosophy” of Rukunegara was proclaimed on Merdeka Day, 1970 as a response to the racial riots of May 13, 1969, when the country was still under a state of Emergency.

Rukun Negara is drafted as a national ideology to bond Malaysians of all races in order to establish peace among the races and to prevent future racial tension in order to avoid racial riots like the May 13 tragedy.

Like the National Culture Policy, it was drafted by selected “eminent persons” rather than involving representation from all Malaysian communities and it did not go through a democratic process of debate, nor was it passed by the Federal Parliament.

The Rukun Negara “did not go through a democratic process of debate, nor was it passed by the Federal Parliament” because it is not a law and was not meant to be a law, therefore, it does not have to go through that process.

While most of its aspirations are noble and acceptable, namely, “achieving a more perfect unity…; preserving a democratic way of life; creating a just society…; guaranteeing a liberal approach towards her rich and varied cultural traditions; and building a progressive society…”; nevertheless, its principle of “Belief in God” is not inclusive of all Malaysian faiths.

There is nothing wrong with the first Principle of the Rukun Negara. “Belief in God” is chosen as the first Principle of Rukun Negara because:

 

The People and Nation were established based on our strong faith in God. It is indeed in the name of God that the People and Nation were established as a sovereign People and Nation. – Department Of National Unity And Integration (Prime Minister Department)

 

“Belief in God” is not against the Federal Constitution. Every religion has its god, even those who practice animism worship certain ‘figure of god’. In the case of atheism, there is no constitutional provision that recognises atheism or other liberal ideologies because our Nation is not established based on liberalism.

Any preamble should include all peoples and stress social justice and democracy

In the first place, there is no need for a preamble. Secondly, it is the peoples who must respect the laws and the ideologies of their countries and not the other way around.

The preamble to the US Constitution, for example is short and concise, stressing that their nation is defined and formed by its people and what it stands for:

“We the People … in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution…”

Although peopled largely by Christians, the preamble to the US Constitution makes no reference to a God or monarch. Apart from serving as an executive summary, it merely sets the stage for how the new government defined by the Constitution will establish justice and secure the blessings of Liberty. Thus, their preamble is absolutely secular and the first three words are perhaps the most important: “We the People…”

It is clear that Kua Kia Soong does not understand the basic principles of our Nation. It is illogical for him to expect our Federal Constitution to follow the Constitution of the United States that “makes no reference to a God or monarch” because: 

  1. The United States is a secular country while Malaysia is an Islamic country.
  2. The United States is a republic while Malaysia has nine sovereign Sultans.

The SUARAM leader wrote, “Although peopled largely by Christians, the US Constitution makes no reference to a God”. The US, as a secular country it is unconstitutional for the US Constitution to make any reference to any God. So, even if all of the United States’ citizens are Christians, it is still unconstitutional for its Constitution to make any “reference to a God”. And it is crazy for the US Constitution to make any reference to a monarch because the country does not have a monarch.

Perhaps India is a better comparison since it was a former colony like ours. The preamble to the Constitution of India actually makes its secularism explicit:

Again, Kua Kia Soong’s facts are wrong because Malaysia is not a former colony like India. According to Profesor Emeritus Tan Sri Dr. Khoo Kay Kim, British has never conquered the Malay States or the Tanah Melayu except for Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapura. The rest of the Tanah Melayu are independent sovereign countries as proven by a few court cases such as Mighell v. the Sultan of Johore (1983) and Duff Development Co v Kelantan Government (1924).

If the Malay States were conquered by British, then our nine sovereign Sultans will lose their sovereignty like what happened in India. The British attempted to conquer the Malay States through multiple ways but failed. (Please read: Kebenaran Di Sebalik Sejarah Penubuhan Persekutuan Malaysia“)

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…”

Thus the main purposes of having a preamble to the Indian Constitution are again, first, to refer to the source that is responsible for the authority of the Constitution (We, the People…), and to spell out the objectives of the Indian Constitution, namely, Equality, Justice, Fraternity and Liberty. Like the US constitution, there is no insistence on “Belief in God”.

Another out of context argument by the SUARAM leader. Again, unlike both India and the United States, Malaysia is neither a secular state nor a republic. 

The importance of being secular

Malaysia is not a secular state.

So what is the significance of including “Belief in (the monotheistic) God” in the hypothetical preamble to our Constitution?

The Federal Constitution does not need a preamble, so there is no “significance of including “Belief in (the monotheistic) God” in the hypothetical preamble to our Constitution”. 

Since the prevalence of Islamic populism in the Eighties, there has been attempts by politicians including one or two Prime Ministers to claim that Malaysia is an Islamic state. Nonetheless, this attempt has been rightfully frustrated by among others, Bapa Malaysia and the judiciary in the country.

Those are common statements made by people who either do not understand the Federal Constitution or purposely trying to misinterpret the supreme law. One must learn to accept facts and not to live in denial, or worst, trying to mislead the people with false facts. The supreme law of the country is the Federal Constitution, so any statement or any attempt by any politician or by any activist like Kua Kia Soong “which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”.

4. (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. – Article 4(1)

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution enshrines Islam as the Religion of the Federation hence making Malaysia an Islamic state no matter what were said by our former Prime Ministers. 

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. – Article 3(1) 

For example, on his 80th birthday on February 8, 1983, Tunku’s main message to the Barisan Nasional leaders was not to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State, stressing that Malaysia was set up as a secular State with Islam as the official religion and that this was enshrined in the Constitution. This was echoed a few days later by the third Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn on his 61st birthday on February 12, 1983.

The Barisan Nasional leaders do not have to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state because from the very beginning Malaysia is already an Islamic state. It is the Supreme law of the land, which is the Federal Constitution that enshrines Islam as the Religion of the Federation, making Malaysia an Islamic Nation. 

Statements made by both Tunku and Tun Hussein Onn are not above the Supreme law of the land and cannot change the words written in the Federal Constitution. 

The Alliance Memorandum submitted to the Reid Constitution Commission on Sept 27, 1956, clearly stated that “the religion of Malaya shall be Islam … and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state.” Thus, both the Reid Commission in 1957 and the Cobbold Commission in 1962 characterised Malaysia as a “secular state”.

The Reid Commission was only given the responsibilities to draft the Federal Constitution but it is the Malay Royal Rulers who had the final say on the matter and gave the endorsements for the Articles chosen. Both the Reid Commission and the Cobbold Commission are not law makers of our country hence their words and intentions are not laws. Their intentions cannot change the words written in the Supreme law of our Nation.

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 stated:

[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.

Most importantly, former Lord President of the Malaysian Judiciary, Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas in Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988), stated that the term “Islam” in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution meant “only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies… the law in this country is … secular law.” The previous Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim similarly wrote that Islam was made the official religion primarily for ceremonial purposes, to enable prayers to be offered in the Islamic way on official public occasions, such as the installation or birthday of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Independence Day and similar occasions.

Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55 is an old case which is no longer a good law. Furthermore, in the judgement of the case, Tan Sri Salleh Abbas has never said that Malaysia is a secular nation but Tan Sri Salleh Abbas only said that secular laws were used in Malaysia. 

We must look at the judgements of other more important and prominent later court judgements 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, and a lot more.

Against the background of confounding populist politicians, one would think that it is even more crucial – if there is a need for a preamble to our Constitution – for such a preamble to reaffirm the secular and inclusive character of our Constitution.

If there is a real need for a preamble to our Constitution, the preamble must reaffirm the Islamic character of our Constitution.

In a secular state, the state is officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor atheism. It treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion. Secularism is not merely desirable but essential for the healthy existence of a pluralist society such as ours. It implies a separation that exists between the State and religion. This does not detract from the fact that the right to religion is a fundamental right and the denial of this freedom is a violation of the basic principles of democracy.

This proves that Malaysia is not a secular state. The Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states, “Islam is the Religion of the Federation”,  so it is impossible to classify Malaysia as a secular state. 

Monotheism is not the only religion in this world

Monotheism is not a religion.

Secularism is also important in regulating the relation between the State and various religious groups on the principle of equality. When the Rukunegara espouses only “Belief in (Monotheistic) God”, it forgets that there are Malaysians of other faiths based on polytheism or animism and ancestor worship.

Malaysia is not a secular state because it has a religion, which is Islam. In fact, it is unconstitutional to regulate “the relation between the State and various religious groups on the principle of equality” because as the Religion of the State, Islam is not equal to other religions. 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 this matter:

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.

I am truly surprised that our “eminent persons” cannot see that such an imposition of “Belief in God” does not include polytheists, animists and ancestor worshippers. Their attempt to argue that, despite their inclusion of “Belief in God” in the hypothetical preamble, other faiths of minorities are in fact protected by the Malaysian Constitution, unwittingly demonstrates the secularism and inclusiveness of our Constitution.

Now, if the Constitution already guarantees the equal rights of Malaysians of all faiths – monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, animistic as well as ancestor worshippers – is it not presumptuous if not sacrilegious to try to impose “Belief in God” on ALL Malaysians?

There is no other religion that was mentioned in the Federal Constitution other than Islam which shows the status of Islam as the Religion of the land. The fact that Malaysia respects minority religions despite being an Islamic state proves the beauty of Islam that respects other religions.

It is a pity that not only there are people who cannot understand and appreciate this fact but they are trying hard to change the history, erase the Social Contract and challenge the Supreme law of the land by claiming that Malaysia is a secular country. As the one and only religion of the Federation, Islam must be respected by people of all faith.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions as long as it is in peace and harmony towards Islam, but there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions other than Islam, for example, the Article 11(4). The interpretation of the term, “in peace and harmony” in the Article 3(1) was clearly made 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:

The interpretation of the term, “in peace and harmony” in the Article 3(1) was clearly made 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:

[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.

To conclude, the concept of secularism is derived from the principle of democracy and secularism becomes meaningful only when it refers to democratic equality and includes diverse peoples of all faiths, beliefs and practices.

To conclude, neither the words “democracy” nor “secular” are ever mentioned in the Federal Constitution. Malaysia is an Islamic state with the DYMM Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the head of state and the Prime Minister as the head of the government which is democratically elected by the people through General Elections.

[BH] – Tiada Keperluan Rukun Negara Sebagai Mukadimah Perlembagaan

[Berita Harian}- KUALA LUMPUR: Cadangan menjadikan Rukun Negara sebagai mukadimah Perlembagaan Persekutuan berpotensi menyempitkan dimensi, sekali gus menyukarkan tafsiran kepada Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Sebaliknya, Rukun Negara yang hanya mencakupi sebahagian teks dan semangat Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang didakwa beberapa pihak dipinggirkan dan diketepikan memerlukan pemerkasaan menerusi sistem perundangan dan pendidikan.

Menyifatkan tiada keperluan untuk menjadikan Rukun Negara sebagai mukadimah Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Pakar perlembagaan, Prof Madya Dr Shamrahayu A Aziz, berkata peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan mencakupi ruang lingkup yang luas dan Rukun Negara tidak meletakkan kesempurnaan terhadap teks Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Beliau yang juga Felo Utama Pusat Kajian Syariah Undang-Undang dan Politik Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM), berkata Rukun Negara hanya menangani sebahagian perkara dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, antaranya hanya menyebut Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan tanpa pernyataan khusus mengenai kedudukan Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan, selain tidak menyatakan soal Persekutuan seperti termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Katanya, walaupun Rukun Negara bersumberkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, ia hanya sebahagian daripada Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang tidak menggambarkan keseluruhan peruntukan, semangat dan sejarah Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Ideologi dan semangat Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak sepenuhnya ada dalam inti pati Rukun Negara. Saya bimbang dalam perkembangan semasa, dunia luar menitik beratkan mukadimah sebagai sebahagian daripada Perlembagaan, bukan sebagai pengenalan semata-mata sehingga melangkaui niat sebenar

“Pada masa depan, mahkamah antaranya akan menggunakan mukadimah sebagai teks Perlembagaan yang nanti akan ditafsirkan melangkaui fakta dan dijadikan sebagai alasan penghakiman.

“Cadangan itu berpotensi menyukarkan tafsiran kepada Perlembagaan Persekutuan apabila peruntukan teks dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan mungkin didapati bercanggah dengan Rukun Negara,” katanya kepada BH.

Baru-baru ini, sekumpulan individu membabitkan ahli akademik, peguam dan aktivis dikenali sebagai Rukun Negara Mukadimah Perlembagaan (RMP) mengusulkan Rukun Negara dijadikan mukadimah Perlembagaan Persekutuan bagi mengatasi masalah yang timbul kerana Rukun Negara dipinggirkan dan diketepikan.

Pengerusi RMP, Dr Chandra Muzaffar dilaporkan berkata Rukun Negara perlu dikaitkan dengan Perlembagaan bagi membolehkan ia dirujuk secara tidak langsung sebagai garis panduan dalam penggubalan dasar dan undang-undang negara.

Ketika ini, Perlembagaan di 160 daripada 193 negara di dunia memiliki mukadimah, manakala Perlembagaan Persekutuan negara ini tidak memiliki sebarang mukadimah, sebaliknya bermula dengan peruntukan substantif.

Shamrahayu berkata, langkah terbaik untuk memastikan Rukun Negara menjadi lebih relevan ialah menjadikan peruntukan Rukun Negara sebagai sebahagian daripada peruntukan undang-undang lain termasuk undang-undang jenayah.

Selain itu, katanya Rukun Negara juga dijadikan sebahagian cara hidup tata negara kerana sebahagian lagi cara hidup sudah termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Beliau berkata, pemerkasaan Rukun Negara juga boleh diterjemahkan menerusi sistem pendidikan di semua institusi pendidikan rendah, menengah dan tinggi di negara ini.

“Jika kumpulan itu beranggapan mukadimah penting untuk Perlembagaan, ia perlu dibincang secara menyeluruh dengan mengambil kira kesan yang mungkin berlaku,” katanya.

Good Leaders Lead By Example

I do not understand what is the problem with certain politicians of late.

It seems that condemning Islam and questioning the rights of the Malays is now in trend, and so, lots of political leaders jump on the bandwagon as not to be left behind.

Recently, it was the Gerakan vice-president’s turn to make to make such statement, although he later retracted his statement.

According to Gerakan’s Dominic Lau Hoe Chai, “it is religious schools and not vernacular schools that are likely to threaten unity in the country”, as reported by Free Malaysia Today (FMT).

fmt-gerakan

FMT wrote, “He also claimed religious schools had the tendency to produce people with a more extremist interpretation of Islam” and Gerakan’s Lau as saying, “The reason we have problems like the unilateral conversion of children in this country is because we’ve moved away from this vision of a secular country”.

Please read and understand the Rukun Negara and the Federal Constitution.

Good leaders lead by example.

How could leaders lead a country and want the people to obey the law when they themselves failed to understand and respect the main principals and the supreme law of our country?

My question is, is political gains are more important to these politicians than the unity of the people?

Can they at least try to understand the Social Contract and the history of our country?

Talking about the actions and attitude that threaten that unity in the country, the ill and racist comments by FMT readers on articles about me mostly came from people who hate Islamic Schools and claim that Malaysia is a secular country.

By the way, does the Gerakan man think that Gerakan can win the election without the Malay votes?

An Answer To Boo Su Lyn’s, “Why don’t we eat together anymore?”

The Malay Mail Online columnist, Boo Su Lyn wrote an article discussing why she thinks the Malays and Chinese do not eat together anymore.

Interestingly, in the article, she seemed to put all the blame on the Malays, implying their “obsession with “halal” food“, as the main cause of the problem.

This is not the first time Boo Su Lyn makes malicious statements about Islam, the Malays, the Muslims and Islamic authorities.

(Please click here for MMO Did Not Apologise For Boo Su Lyn’s Seditious Article).

In her article, “Why don’t we eat together anymore?”, she wrote:

This unhealthy obsession foments suspicion on Chinese food sellers, even if they’re not selling pork, and discourages Malay-Muslims from dining with other Malaysians at the same table, at the same restaurant, or even at the same section in a food court.

She complained that the Malays do not even want to eat at pork-free Chinese restaurants.

She further accused the Malays of having, “persistent myth that associates the Chinese to pork”, saying:

Why can’t Malays eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants? Not all Chinese dishes contain pork. I don’t understand why there is a persistent myth that associates the Chinese to pork, or why there are irrational fears of so-called pork “particles” contaminating the air. Not only do such concerns sound ridiculous; there’s also an undertone of racism.

I feel really offended by people like Boo Su Lyn, who likes to insult other, calling others racists and behaving as if she understands Islam better than the Muslims.

Having negative perceptions towards the Malays, she wrote that the Malays avoid eating at Chinese restaurants because of racial reasons but says nothing about the Chinese who avoid eating at Malay restaurants.

The night before, my family and I enjoyed a wonderful dinner at a Chinese Muslim halal restaurant in Kota Tinggi, Johor.

The Chinese restaurant serves delicious Chinese food but the people eating there are mostly the Malays, I saw only one Chinese customer waiting for his order to be packed.

My question to Boo Su Lyn is, why must the Chinese avoid eating at the restaurant despite it is a Chinese restaurant?

Is it because the Chineseman who runs the restaurant is a Muslim?

So, by Boo Su Lyn’s logic, it is the non-Muslim Chinese who are actually racists.

The non-Muslim Chinese have no limitation in food affairs so they can eat at halal restaurants, and if non-Muslim Chinese like Boo Su Lyn eats at halal restaurant, everybody will be eating together.

Trying to teach the Malays again, Boo Su Lyn asked, “Why can’t Malays eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants?”

By asking the question, she is telling the Malays that they can eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants or in another word, the non-pork Chinese restaurants are halal restaurants.

Boo Su Lyn should check with JAKIM the criteria of halal food before making silly conclusion about halal food.

And to further insult the Malays, Boo Su Lyn wants the Malays to share a table with a Chinese who is eating “bak kut teh”, knowing that “bak kut teh” is a pork-laden dish where the word ”bak” refers to pork in Chinese.

Why can’t we have Malays eating nasi lemak, the Chinese dining on “bak kut teh and the Indians consuming roti canai at the same table? Do dietary restrictions really mean that one cannot dine with someone else who doesn’t have those restrictions?

If this is her idea of promoting unity, she must be a very inconsiderate and self-centered person for she fails to respect other people’s religion.

Instead of putting the blame on the Malays, why don’t Boo Su Lyn tell the people who have no dietary restrictions to eat at halal restaurants so that everybody can eat together?

As a non-Muslim, Boo Su Lyn has no constitutional rights to talk about Islam and teach the Muslims about what is halal and what is not.

In fact, she has to look at herself first, the fact that she is an atheist means that she is against the National Principles of our country because being an atheist is against the first Rukun Negara, which is, “Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan” or Belief in God.

She must learn to respect the National Principles and the Federal Constitution of Malaysia before telling Malaysians what they should do.

By making malicious statements regarding Islam and the Malays, it is her who does not respect the national unity and not the other way around.

Rukun Negara, The Foundation Of The Federal Constitution

How could a person talk about our national unity if the person does not understand the Rukun Negara or the National Principles of Malaysia?

Do all citizens of Malaysia memorised the five principles of our Rukun Negara and understand the importance of the principles in building a harmonious society where people respect each other regardless of our different races and religions?

In my opinion, all Malaysian must all least memorise the the five principles of Rukun Negara, which is the basic pillar of our nation.

Below is what I understand about our Rukun Negara after listening to a talk by Aunty Prof. Syamrahayu Abdul Aziz.

MAKA KAMI, rakyat Malaysia, berikrar akan menumpukan seluruh tenaga dan usaha kami untuk mencapai cita-cita tersebut berdasarkan atas prinsip-prinsip yang berikut :

  • KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA TUHAN;
  • KESETIAAN KEPADA RAJA DAN NEGARA;
  • KELUHURAN PERLEMBAGAAN;
  • KEDAULATAN UNDANG-UNDANG;
  • KESOPANAN DAN KESUSILAAN

The first principle of the Rukun Negara is “Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan” or “Belief in God”, which is in consistent with Article 11 of our Federal Constitution.

“Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan” means that all Malaysians must belief in god or in another word, every citizen of Malaysia must has a religious belief; we must remember that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is about “Freedom of Religion”, and not “Freedom from Religion”.

Religions tie us to god and and teach us to obey rules; religious people respect others, do not humiliate or cause trouble with others, including those from different races and religions.

Therefore, atheism is not recognised in Malaysia as it is against the first principle of Rukun Negara as well as the Article 11 of our Federal Constitution.

The second principle of the Rukun Negara is “Kesetiaan kepada Raja dan Negara” or “Loyalty to the King and Country”.

This is very important because the royal institution is the key to the stability of our country.

Article 32 of The Federal Constitution says that the King or the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is the Supreme Head of the Federation, so loyalty the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong also means loyalty to the country.

How could a person says that he or she is loyal to a country if he or she is not loyal to the Supreme Head of the country?

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 153, is the caretaker of the rights of the people of all races in Malaysia as agreed in the Social Contract or agreement made by our great forefathers in giving the citizenship to the non-citizen migrants before our Merdeka Day.

Article 153 (1) states that:

It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

Article 153 protects the rights of all races of Malaysians; so the Article unites the citizens of Malaysia as it ties us to our rights and at the same time we respect the rights of others.

Questioning the Article 153 is against the national unity because it is also questioning the citizenship given to the Chinese and the Indians; and that must not happen because all of us have our own rights as agreed by our forefathers.

A person is worthless if he or she demands his or her rights as a citizen but is not loyal to his or her country.

The third principle of the Rukun Negara is “Keluhuran Perlembagaan” or “Upholding the Constitution”.

Article 4 of the Federal Constitution states that the Federal Constitution is the “Supreme law of the Federation”, therefore it must be upheld by each and every citizen of Malaysia.

Article 4(1) states that:

This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Apart from being the supreme law, the Federal Constitution is also an agreement between us as the citizen and our nation; and upholding the Constitutions means that we must put the national interests and the loyalty to the Federation above others including our ‘states sentiments’. 

Honest people will uphold their promises at all time, so good citizens must uphold the Federal Constitution at all time; and respect all the Articles that had been agreed upon by our forefathers.

The fourth principle is “Kedaulatan Undang-Undang” or “Rule of Law”.

“Kedaulatan Undang-Undang” means that every citizen must respect the law, is subjected to the law and that our country must be governed by law.

If a person, even if he is a party leader, was found guilty by the Federal Court which is the highest court of our country, he must respect the rule of law and not asking foreign powers to interfere with the law of our country; for all citizens must not only uphold the rule of law but must protect the sovereignty of our country. 

The last principle of the Rukun Negara is “Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan” or “Good Behaviour and Morality”.

“Kesopanan dan kesusilaan” is the key to a harmonious society that is the core factor in ensuring the stability of a nation. 

It is impossible to live harmoniously in a country where each and every citizen exercises personal total freedom, either freedom of speech or freedom of expression without thinking of others because we will be end up hurting each other for our needs and interests are different.

Living in society, we cannot be individualistic and selfish but we need to also respect the rights of others in consistent to the Federal Constitution and the rule of law of the nation.

In fact, the Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia states the limits of one’s freedom of speech and expression.

Therefore, liberalism is against our Rukun Negara and our Federal Constitution because the liberalists want to be free from rules either rules of religion or rules of the country; and interpret all matters only the way they wish, according to their own personal interests.

Rukun Negara as the foundation of the agreement in forming the Federal Constitution must be understood and upheld by all Malaysian citizens.

* I want to thank Aunty Sham for helping me to understand the Rukun Negara that helps me to write this assignment given by my mother.

Kes Jacel Kiram: Tian Chua Tuduh Nurul Izzah Hilang Ingatan?

Star 3

Above is another arrogant and silly statement made by the PKR’s Batu Member of Parliament. Reading the news made me feel so humiliated and hurt because a politic leader of my country assumes that we Malaysian are unable to think straight and can be fooled by such illogical excuses over such a serious misconduct. And I cannot imagine the feelings of the families and friends of the victims of the Lahad Datu tragedy over the statement.

The Malaysian Parliament must conduct a course so that such Members of Parliament can learn the Rukun Negara and the meaning behind it so that they be patriotic and take their duties to the country seriously; and not putting their own selves above the sovereignty of our country.

The Star article is in red while my comments will be in blue.

PETALING JAYA: Batu MP Tian Chua has said that both he and PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar regret the uneasiness caused by the pictures taken with Jacel Kiram during their trip to the Philippines but he maintains that they were unaware that they were taking the pictures with the self-styled Sulu princess.

Does Tian Chua mean that both he and Nurul Izzah did not know the participants of that small meeting and thought that Jacel is just another citizen of the Philippines? 

They were only a very small number of people at the meeting. They would surely introduced themselves or be introduced by the organiser or the person who chaired the meeting. It is impossible for Nurul Izzah to not know that the lady in blue is Jacel Kiram, the daughter of the the self-proclaimed Sultan of Sulu except if she has such a short memory and cannot remember anything at all after a few minutes.

Or does Tian Chua meant to say that “they were unaware that they were taking the pictures with the self-styled Sulu princess” because when Jacel was enjoying the meal and chatting with Nurul Izzah as in the photo below, she was in disguise and was using another name?

Nurul Izzah (3rd from left) was talking to a man and a mysterious lady in blue (left) at the dinning table.

Nurul Izzah (3rd from left) was talking to a man and a mysterious lady in blue (left) at the dinning table.

 

Chua said that both he and Nurul were simply acting in accordance with the common practice of taking pictures with all parties when attending international conferences and that they did not realise who they were taking the photograph with.

From the photos published, that so-called “international conference” was not attended by hundreds of people that the participants do not know each other. Jacel Kiram is not unknown in Malaysia, and if Tian Chua and Nurul Izzah did not recognise Jacel Kiram or did not know her connections to the Lahad Datu tragedy; then they are not fit to be our Members of Parliament.

What an odd meeting when Nurul Izzah (left) was not introduced to the other people at the meeting table.

The so-called “international conference”. What an odd meeting when Nurul Izzah (left) was not introduced to the other people at the meeting table.

 

In fact, the news of former opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim being followed by the so called ‘Princess’ Jacel Kiram on Twitter went viral on the internet during the Lahad Datu tragedy in February 2013. It is a wonder that Tian Chua and Nurul Izzah who are very active on the internet did not recognise the popular daughter of the self proclaimed Sultan of Sulu even if she was introduced to her by another name at the meeting. 

A once popular screenshot from Jacel Kiram's twitter page.

A once popular screenshot from Jacel Kiram’s twitter page.

 

The MP also claimed that the issue of sovereignty was being politicised and that political parties should instead be united with regards to the issue of protecting the nations territorial integrity.

The issue of sovereignty was not politicised. Nurul Izzah is a Member of Parliament and like Jacel Kiram, she is not an unknown person. This issue is being raised because Nurul Izzah Anwar Ibrahim had a meeting with an enemy of Malaysia and later on took pictures with her, smiling as if Jacel is her best friend while holding placards calling for the release of a Malaysian prisoner, Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar Ibrahim's supporters. But Nurul Izzah (left) had no idea of who was the lady in blue.

Anwar Ibrahim’s supporters. Nurul Izzah (left) had no idea of who was the lady in blue.

 

Now, isn’t the whole actions by them is a humiliation to our country and the victims of the Lahad Datu tragedy? The actions show disloyalty to the King and the country for using an enemy of the State to pressure the State to release a prisoner that was found guilty by the Federal Court.

I must be dreaming because I thought all leaders of a country must be patriotic and loyal to their King and the country.

“We regret that this has cause uneasiness among the people and Nurul Izzah has already apologised to the families of the victims, so why are we playing up his issue?” asked Chua.

Is this the mentality of the opposition leaders? If any of them did something wrong, no matter how serious it is and in this case a humiliation to our country, and he apologises, then things are considered solved and nobody should question and talk about it anymore.

The sovereignty of a country must be upheld by each and every citizen of the country, especially the leaders. Both Tian Chua and Nurul Izzah are not patriotic and it is a pity that they were elected as leaders by their voters.

He added that he had no problem with the police investigating him, and that they should go ahead if they wanted to.

Chua also said that “more concrete action” was needed to guarantee Sabah’s safety from “invaders” and despite being debated many times, there is a lack of defensive improvements seen in Sabah.

Looking for ways to divert the story? After his above statement and what he did before, he has no rights to belittle the work done by the government, PDRM and ATM in order to protect our country.  It was the ATM that defeated the ‘Royal Sulu Army’ which was led by the uncle of Jacel Kiram, the lady in blue who participated in the ‘international conference’ together with Tian Chua and Nurul Izzah but whom they had no idea who was she.

The popular Jakel Kiram must be very sad that if she knows that Nurul Izzah has no idea of who she is even after the meeting, sharing the meal and took lots of photos together.

The popular Jakel Kiram must be very sad that if she knows that Nurul Izzah has no idea of who she is even after the meeting, sharing the meal and took lots of photos together.

And by placing inverted commas for the word invaders in the article, does The Star meant to imply that the ‘Royal Sulu Army’ are not invaders and that the attack on Lahad Datu that killed 10 victims from PDRM and ATM who were defending Sabah was just a fairy tale like claimed by Tian Chua in the video below?

Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had stated that Chua had been the person who arranged the meeting and that he was also responsible for contacting the Sulu sultanate.

Jacel is the daughter of self-styled Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III who ordered 200 members of his “Royal Sulu Army” to invade Lahad Datu in February 2013 to stake his claim over Sabah.

 

After international statements over international statements about our country made by Jacel Kiram with her photos all over the medias, it is so weird that the two Malaysian Members of Parliament who are internet savvy and actively complaining about the government, are still at lost of who she is. The Star reported, Tian Chua said “they were unaware that they were taking the pictures with the self-styled Sulu princess.”