Tag Archives: Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali

Buku Harapan – Dimanakah Agenda Islam Dalam Manifesto PH?

Pakatan Harapan telah mengeluarkan buku manifesto mereka yang bertajuk Buku Harapan dengan janji “akan memastikan semua rakyat pelbagai bangsa dan agama dapat berkongsi hasil kemakmuran dan kemajuan negara secara adil dan saksama”.

Banyak yang telah diperkatakan tentang buku manifesto ini namun terdapat satu perkara teras yang amat penting yang pada saya telah menimbulkan persoalan yang amat besar tentang ideologi dan asas negara yang cuba dipinda oleh pakatan DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM dan sekutu mereka secara halus tanpa disedari oleh majoriti rakyat Malaysia.

Pada muka surat 10 dokumen yang setebal 195 mukasurat itu, antara perkara penting yang disebut adalah mereka akan mempertahankan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, termasuklah Perkara 3.

Saya terkejut apabila membaca ayat diatas, namun ianya tidaklah menghairankan kerana ini bukanlah kali pertama pakatan yang diketuai oleh DAP ini gagal memetik, atau dengan sengaja salah petik Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan!

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

Malah tulisan saya itu telah mendapat perhatian daripada Tun Dr. Mahathir sendiri; sila baca, Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan.

Apakah niat Pakatan Harapan menukar dua perkataan daripada ayat sebenar Perkara 3(1) di dalam teks Bahasa Melayu Perlembagaan dimana:

  1. Perkataan “tetapi” telah ditukarkan kepada “dan”
  2. Perkataan “damai” telah ditukarkan kepada  “harmonis”

Mungkin ramai yang menganggap ini bukanlah persoalan yang besar, kerana ayat di atas kelihatan hampir sama dengan apa yang tertulis di dalam Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan:

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

Namun, walaupun ia dilihat sebagai hampir sama, tetapi hakikatnya, ayat yang tertulis di dalam Buku Harapan itu membawa maksud yang amat jauh berbeza dari segi tafsiran perundangan berbanding dengan maksud sebenar Perkara 3(1), akibatnya:

  1. Merendahkan  kedudukan Islam kepada setaraf dengan agama-agama lain.
  2. Merendahkan kepentingan Perkara 3 menjadi sebahagian daripada Perkara 11 (tentang kebebasan beragama).

Implikasi megUBAH perkataan “tetapi” ditukarkan kepada “dan”:

Dalam konteks ini, apabila perkataan “tetapi” diubah kepada perkataan “dan”; implikasinya ialah kedudukan agama-agama lain di naikkan kedudukannya menjadi setaraf dengan kedudukan Islam; sedangkan kedudukan Islam di dalam Perlembagaan adalah amat tinggi berbanding agama-agama lain; sila baca Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam.

Perkara ini telah ditegaskan oleh Hakim Mohd Noor Abdullah di dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi kes Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393:

Pada pendapat saya “Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” bermakna Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara ini seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu dan selainnya. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain, bukan duduk berganding bahu atau berdiri sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, ia berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati – tinggi, teguh dan terampil. Jika bukan sedemikian Islam bukanlah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di negara ini dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan manamana ugama yang dianutinya, tiada lebih satu dari yang lain. Peruntukan ‘Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan’ hendaklah ditakrif dan ditinjau tujuannya dengan membaca bersama peruntukan lain dalam Perlembagaan khususnya Perkara 89, 152, 153 dan 14.

Perkara 3 adalah Perkara yang memperuntukkan kedudukan Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan namun ada pihak yang merendahkan dan menyalah gunakan Perkara 3(1) untuk membuktikan bahawa Perlembagaan memberi kebebasan kepada agama-agama lain, padahal kebebasan beragama termaktub di bawah Perkara 11 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Tan Sri Apandi Ali di dalam penghakiman kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, menegaskan “Kebebasan Beragama” di dalam Perkara 11 adalah tertakluk kepada Islam kerana kedudukan Perkara 3(1) adalah “di dalam lingkungan Bahagian I Perlembagaan” (within the confines of Part I of the Constitution) sementara Perkara 11 berada di Bahagian 2 Perlembagaan.

Tujuan ungkapan “tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” dalam Perkara 3(1) ialah untuk memperincikan bahawa walaupun Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan, namun penganut agama lain masih dibenar  mengamalkan agama mereka, selagi mereka mematuhi undang-undang dan tidak menimbulkan potensi yang boleh mengganggu kehidupan masyarakat Malaysia, khasnya penganut agama Islam; dan bukannya memberi kebebasan kepada mereka untuk berbuat sesuka hati atas dasar amalan agama mereka.

Implikasi apabila perkataan “damai” telah diUBAH kepada “harmonis”:

Apakah tujuan Buku Harapan menggunakan “aman dan harmonis”; walhal di dalam teks Bahasa Melayu Perlembagaan Persekutuan, perkataan yang diguna adalah “aman dan damai”?

Mengubah satu perkataan ini telah membawa implikasi yang amat besar, iaitu telah merendahkan kedudukan Islam di Malaysia.

Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) mendefinisikan perkataan damai sebagai:

1 tidak berperang atau tidak bermusuh-musuhan dll; aman: Rakyat Malaysia hidup dgn aman.

Manakala perkataan harmonis didefinisikan sebagai:

IB selaras, seimbang, sepadan, sesuai atau bersesuaian (antara satu sama lain). (Kamus Dewan Edisi Keempat)

Ini membuktikan bahawa penggatian perkataan “damai” kepada “harmonis” telah sekali lagi menyamaratakan kedudukan semua agama; dan ini bercanggah dengan tafsiran Perlembagaan oleh Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali semasa penghakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia:

[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.

Jelas, dengan mengubah perkara yang nampaknya kecil kepada Perkara 3(1), pembangkang bukan sahaja telah mengubah maksud Perkara 3, tetapi juga Perkara 10(2), 11(4), 153 dan sebagainya kerana semua Perkara di dalam Perlembagaan mesti dibaca bersama dan tidak boleh bercanggah di antara satu sama lain seperti yang telah ditegaskan oleh DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah Di dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi kes Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187.

Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself.

Di dalam Buku Harapan, Pakatan Harapan sekali lagi menjelaskan apa maksud Perkara 3 yang mereka ingin pertahankan; iaitu ‘Perkara 3’ yang telah mereka ubah selaras dengan niat dan kehendak mereka dan bukannya berjanji untuk mempertahankan Perkara 3(1) seperti yang tertulis di dalam Perlembagaan yang ada sekarang. 

Amat tidak masuk akal apabila orang Islam menyokong Pakatan Harapan, sedangkan janji mereka di dalam Buku Harapan jelas mengkhianati kedudukan agama Islam di dalam Perlembagaan.

Berdasarkan manifesto mereka, menyokong Pakatan Harapan adalah seolah-olah memberi mandat untuk mereka merendahkan kedudukan agama Islam di Malaysia.

Malangnya ramai orang Islam yang tertipu dengan janji manis pakatan DAP!

Sila baca: Kit Siang Akan Pinda Perlembagaan DAP?

G25 Yang Terlalu Keliru

Saya amat tertarik membaca tajuk tulisan G25 yang disiarkan oleh  Free Malaysia Today (FMT), namun saya hairan kenapa G25 menggunakan ungkapan ‘place of pride’ sedangkan ungkapan yang betul dan tepat ialah “pride of place”, jika apa yang cuba G25 gambarkan dengan ungkapan itu ialah ‘mempunyai tempat yang penting dan istimewa’.

Menariknya kini G25 mengakui bahawa Islam adalah agama Persekutuan dan tidak lagi agama rasmi negara seperti dakwaan ahlinya Tawfik Tun Dr. Ismail: tetapi pendapat mereka masih sama; seolah-olah tiada bezanya di antara ‘agama negara’ dan ‘agama rasmi negara’.

Di bawah tajuk, “G25: The word “liberal” has place of pride in Rukun Negara”, G25 mendakwa perkataan “liberal” seperti yang dilabelkan ke atas mereka, telah digunakan untuk menghina umat Islam yang percaya kepada nilai demokrasi sejagat, hak asasi manusia, kesaksamaan gender dan menghormati kepelbagaian budaya dan segala bentuk kepelbagaian.

“G25 has often been labelled as “liberal” by its critics, using a word which is becoming a derogatory term in Malaysia to describe Muslims who believe in the universal values of democracy, human rights, gender equality and respect for multiculturalism and diversity.” – G25

Malah, G25 menuduh bahawa perkataan “liberal” disalahgunakan olen pihak penguatkuasa agama dan “ekstrimis” untuk memburukkan golongan yang mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza tentang bangsa, agama dan politik.

“It is a word which has been abused by the religious authorities and extremists to demonise those who have different opinions on matters of race, religion and politics.” – G25

Kenyataan-kenyataan di atas, jelas menunjukkan kumpulan G25 bersikap ‘double standard’, mereka tidak senang bila dilabelkan “liberal”, namun pada masa yang sama, G25 merasa mempunyai hak untuk mengutuk dan melabelkan orang lain sebagai “ekstrimis”!

Lebih teruk lagi, G25 berhujah bahawa perkataan “liberal” mempunyai ‘tempat yang penting dan istimewa’ di dalam Rukun Negara!

“We, the members of G25, would like to remind our critics that in the Rukun Negara, the word “liberal” has a place of pride in the five principles of the national ideology aimed at bringing the various races together for national unity and development.” – G25

Hujah G25 lagi “liberal” sebenarnya ialah satu sikap yang positif, malah menjadi salah satu hala tuju negara, selah-olah Rukun Negara dan hala tuju negara kita ini bersifat “liberal”. 

“In the preamble to the Rukun Negara, it states that one of Malaysia’s aims are: “menjamin satu cara yang liberal terhadap tradisi-tradisi kebudayaannya yang kaya dan berbagai corak”.” – G25

Nampaknya G25 sudah terlalu keliru sehingga gagal memahami maksud “liberal” dalam ayat di atas, yang hanyalah merujuk kepada kebudayaan sahaja; dan bukannya kepada soal agama atau kepercayaan.

Perkara ini disahkan sendiri oleh Prof. Dr Shamrahayu Abd Aziz, di mana Aunty Shamrahayu menerangkan kepada saya bahawa “liberal” dalam ayat tersebut bermakna keterbukaan menerima budaya pelbagai kaum, dan bersifat dan bersikap inklusif dengan prinsip asas; tetapi tanpa mengabaikan Tuhan dan prinsip kesopanan dan kesusilaan.

Ini kerana Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam, yang tidak mengabaikan prinsip-prinsip agama; sampai ke tahap Perkara 37 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa setiap Yang Di-Pertuan Agong sebagai Ketua Utama Negara mesti bersumpah atas nama Allah untuk pada setiap masa memlihara agama Islam sebelum menjalankan tugas baginda sebagai Ketua Utama Negara.

G25 adalah puak Islam liberal kerana mereka berusaha meliberalkan agama Islam, menolak, menentang dan mempertikaikan hukum-hukum Islam termasuk hukuman ke atas pesalah syariah.

Sebagai contoh, G25 mendawa kesalahan syariah hanyalah ‘personal sin’ di sisi Perlembagaan dan bukannya satu jenayah yang mesti dihukum oleh mahkamah, sedangkan kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

“… LGBT, free sex etc are wrong but that these are personal sins, not crimes as defined in constitutional law.” – G25

Nyata G25 gagal memahami Perlembagaan Persekutuan khasnya Perkata 3(1) dan sewenang-wenangnya telah memfitnah Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara demokrasi sekular!

 “We in G25 will defend the country’s secular democracy based on the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the country.” – G25

Bagaimanakah Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang jelas mengangkat Islam sebagai agama negara boleh dituduh menjadikan Malaysia bersifat demokrasi sekular sedangkan perkataan demokrasi dan sekular tidak pernah tertulis di dalam Perlembagaan?

Saya mencabar G25 untuk membuktikan di dalam Perkara atau Jadual manakah dalam Perlembagaan yang  menyebut bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara demokrasi sekular!

“The constitution was written with the intention that while Islam is the religion of the federation, the laws of the country should follow the universal values of justice which were in existence long before independence.” G25

Kenyataan di atas membuktikan bahawa G25 mesti kembali belajar daripada orang yang lebih pakar kerana G25 bukan setakat buta Perlembagaan, malah buta sejarah.

Sejarah negara membuktikan bahawa kerajaan-kerajaan Melayu dahulunya adalah Kerajaan Melayu Islam yang mana sistem perundangannya adalah berasaskan Islam dan bukannya mengikut nilai keadilan sejagat seperti yang direka oleh G25.

Maka, di atas dasar apakah G25 mahu berhujah jika ternyata mereka sendiri yang sebenarnya tersangat keliru dan yang gagal memahami asas kenegaraan Malaysia?

Malah, fakta yang mereka berikan bukan sahaja tidak benar, malah adalah bercanggahan di antara satu sama lain!

G25 memperakui bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan tetapi pada masa yang sama mendakwa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara demokrasi sekular serta menuduh pihak penguatkuasa agama melampaui batasan Perlembagaan dan menganggap perlaksanaan undang-undang Islam adalah melanggar prinsip-prinsip demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia!

Adalah tidak masuk akal jika sebuah negara Islam boleh bersifat sekular pada masa yang sama kerana sekular bermakna memisahkan agama dari pentadbiran negara sedangkan kerajaan Malaysia mempunyai tanggung jawab keperlembagaan untuk menjaga kesucian Islam di negara ini.

G25 lantang memburukkan pihak berkuasa agama yang menjalankan tugas mengikut Perlembagaan untuk mempertahankan kesucian Islam:

“… religious authorities go beyond the limits of the constitution in exercising their powers, and introduce laws to control and police the behaviour of Muslims against the principles of democracy and human rights, G25 has a duty to respond by raising the issues of law and order …” – G25

Lebih parah, G25 yang liberal ini mahu menyesatkan umat Islam di negara kita dengan mendesak kerajaan membenarkan golongan liberal dan sesat yang G25 dakwa mempunyai pandangan yang “controversial and radical” untuk bebas menulis dan berucap di negara ini, sebagai contoh buku mereka, “Breaking the Silence: Islam in a Constitutional Democracy” yang diharamkan oleh kerajaan; walaupun perkara itu bertentangan dengan undang-undang negara.

Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri jelas membuktikan hal ini, di mana YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim menegaskan bahawa:

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.”

Hujah dangkal G25 seterusnya yang menuduh ‘founding forefathers’ mahukan Malaysia menjadi sebuah negara demokrasi sekular yang liberal dapat saya patahkan dengan hujah Hakim Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

“Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law.”

Seperti golongan liberal lainnya G25 sengaja memfitnah bahawa Perkara 10(1) memberikan kebebasan bersuara sehingga bebas menghina dan menafsir Islam secara liberal dan sesuka hati; atau menurut G25 pendapat yang “controversial and radical”, malah mendakwa pendapat sesat sebegitu adalah satu budaya yang sihat dalam memahami Islam.

Ini adalah satu lagi fitnah kerana di dalam penghakiman kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali yang ketika itu ialah Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, berhujah:

“[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).”

G25 dengan sendirinya telah membuktikan bahawa mereka adalah sebuah golongan liberal yang keliru, bercakap melawan fakta, ‘double standard’ dan tidak profesional; mereka bebas menuduh orang lain sebagai extrimis dan melanggar Perlembagaan sedangkan mereka sendirilah sebenarnya yang gagal memahami ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya serta buta Perlembagaan.

Anehnya bila mempertahankan suara liberal, G25 melaungkan hak kebebasan bersuara walaupun ianya “controversial and radical” namun menentang suara pejuang Islam yang mereka gelar extrimis serta tugas pihak berkuasa Islam yang mereka fitnah melampaui batas Perlembagaan, seolah-olah “constitutional guarantee on the freedom of speech and expression” hanya sah kepada puak liberal dan penentang Islam sahaja!

Semoga G25 yang telah sedar bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan, boleh belajar memahami ajaran Islam  yang sebenarnya  serta suatu hari nanti akan bersama-sama mempertahankan Islam Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, mazhab Syafie daripada anasir yang mahu meruntuhkan akidah umat Islam di Malaysia, Amin.

Related Article:

Shazni Munir PAN Fitnah ADUN Johor Pada Jelajah Hasutan?

Menariknya Naib Ketua Pemuda PAN itu berucap di pentas program jelajah YB Rafizi anjuran Invoke.

YB Rafizi Ramli pada satu majlis pembangkang telah menegaskan bahawa, “Tugas kita ialah menghasut…”

Bila agaknya YB Lim Kit Siang akan mengingatkan Naib Ketua Pemuda PAN dan YB PKR itu dengan dua ayat daripada Surah al-Baqarah iaitu “Janganlah kamu merebakkan bencana kerosakan di muka bumi” (2:60) dan “Dan janganlah kamu campur adukkan yang benar itu dengan yang salah, dan kamu sembunyikan yang benar itu pula padahal kamu semua mengetahuinya” (2.42) seperti mana yang dilakukannya kepada Peguam Negara Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali?

Related Articles:

  1. Jom Layan Video Promosi Program Jelajah Seorang Penghasut

  2. Video Kebenaran Yang Rafizi Tidak Mahu Anda Tonton

  3. Video: Rafizi Ramli Kaki Hasut

Constitutionally Illiterate!

“We cannot accept Shariah law, for Malaysia already has a supreme law, which is the Federal Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution declares it simply: ‘This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation’,” Baru said as reported by Borneo Post Online with the tittle, “Baru concurs with Abg Jo on concerns over proposed amendment to Act 355”.

Constitutionally illiterate! This senseless statement makes me wonder if the PKR leader knows what he is trying to say. In fighting against a law that has nothing to do with him as a non-Muslim, the PKR man said, “Hadi Awang and Umno may say this is Syariah and not hudud, but as far as I understand it, hudud is part of the Syariah and the proponents had said this bill was to pave way for hudud punishments in Kelantan. This attempt at RUU355 is but a political contest between Umno and PAS to champion the implementation of Syariah Law in Malaysia.”

Yes, Article 4 of the Constitution declares that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation, therefore the Shariah Court system is constitutional because Article 121(1A) confers the Syariah Courts systems as part of the Malaysian legal systems. Federal Constitution as the Supreme law of the land must not be misinterpreted and must be read as a whole.

In the judgement of the Federal Court case, Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, the then Federal Court Judge, DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah stated that, “Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself”. Hence, it is wrong for Baru Bian to cherry-pick what he likes or bypassing other Articles in order to make his own interpretation to suit his argument and agendas.

If Baru Bian respects the Article 4, he must respect the fact that the Article 3(1) that says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” for it is placed before the Article 4, hence stating the importance of Article 3. 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 explained that , “The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution”. So by denying the acceptance of the Shariah laws, Baru Bian is literally against the Article 3(1) and therefore he is also against Supreme Law of the Federation.

If Baru Bian reads the Federal Constitution, he’ll understand that as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution defines the principles of our country, the sovereignty of Islam as the religion of the country, the sovereignty of the Rulers, the rights of the people, judicial system and other important laws but the Federal Constitution does not describe punishments and offences. It is the judiciary that interprets and applies the law in the name of our country through Act, Ordinance, Enactment and others. And there is no unconstitutional elements in the proposed amendment of the Act 355 because the Act 355 is an existing law, the proposed amendment is only to increase the Syariah punishments which are currently too low and not to introduce new sets of laws or seeks to widen the scope of its current jurisdiction.

Furthermore has Baru Bian forgotten or unaware of Article 11(3)(a) which says every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs? After all, why must the non-Muslims try so hard to deny the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage our own religious affairs as granted by Article 11(3) of our Federal Constitution?

This is not a Hudud Bill and it is impossible for the amendment of Act 355 to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015 because it is not within the power of the Syariah Courts to implement capital punishment nor the jurisdiction over offences punishable under the Penal Code.

So, please stop debasing the Federal Constitution and as a leader, please at least learn to respect and uphold our supreme law.

 

Related Posts:

Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan

Yesterday evening I was stunned when my father showed me a letter that was address to me from former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in replying to my blog article, Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?

The letter was sent by the Office of Datuk Badariah Arshad, Director of Operations, Perdana Leadership Foundation (Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana) to my father via e-mail, to be forwarded to me.

I want to thank Tun M for writing to me, I am very honoured to receive a letter from a former Prime Minister and to know that someone as important as him reading my blog article.

Below is Tun M’s letter that was addressed to me.

tun-m-letter

In my article, I commented that the opposition parties’ agreement, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM that was signed by DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM, had misquoted the Article 3(1) by adding the word ‘bebas‘. Please click here for my article.

In explaining about the added word, Tun M wrote:

It is true that the word “bebas” is not in the sentence referring to Islam as the official religion of the Federation.
But the word “bebas” is not meant for Islam the official religions but for “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity.

From what I understand, Tun M explains that the word, “bebas” in the agreement refers to the freedom to convert to other religion where Tun M further wrote that, “But the word “bebas” was not meant for Islam, but for the followers of “other religions” (agama-agama lain). We know that the followers of other religions can freely change their religions. This is necessary as many have converted to Islam and to Christianity”.

I am sad to say that not only Tun M’s explanation does not answer my question, but it also makes the matter more confusing because the fact that the Article 3(1) is the Article that explains about Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions.

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.

or

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

I do not mean to be rude but it seems like Tun M is confused about what is written in the Article 3(1) and therefore Tun M’s explanation about the reason for adding the word “bebas” is totally out of context, because adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) means that the followers of other religions are given the freedom do anything they wish in the name of practising their religions even though if it disrupts the peace and harmony of the community.

Hence, I questioned the opposition parties’ intention of the adding the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) because the added word “bebas” distorts the interpretation of the Article 3(1) and undermines the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

I have to stress that the Article 3(1) that places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution and that is grouped under Part 1 of the Constitution, must not be confused with the Article regarding the “freedom of religion” which is the Article 11 that is grouped under Part II of the Constitution.

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 wrote that:

[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.

And I also wrote that as the supreme law of the Federation, each word in the Articles of the Federal Constitution was chosen for a very specific reason, therefore adding just a word can change the interpretation of the Article and can disrupt other related Articles.

Another important matter that I have to highlight is, it is incorrect to say that Islam is the official religion of the Federation as written by Tun M in his letter because Islam is not merely the official religion, but it is the religion of the Federation as what was said by Tun M himself during his years as the Prime Minister, that Malaysia is a “Negara Islam” .

I made the video below to help people understand that Islam is actually the religion of the Federation because a lot of us are still confused about this important fact.

It seems like Tun M’s principals has changed, for, during Tun M’s reign, in order to maintain peace and harmony among the people in Malaysia, Tun did not give the freedom to the people; but now as a leader of an opposition party, Tun M went against his own principle and is fighting for total freedom.

Lagi Usaha Parti Pembangkang Menipu Umat Islam

After posting my article, “Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)“, I had a discussion with law experts to confirm another part of the agreement that makes me question the intentions of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM  in their chosen words for the agreement in the context of Article 3(1).

In the agreement, it was written, “… dan agama-agama lain … ” whereas in the original text of the Federal Constitution, the Article 3(1) says ” … tetapi agama-agama lain …”; meaning in their agreement, the opposition parties had not only add the word “bebas” but also changed the word “tetapi” (but) to the word “dan” (and). 

These are not small matters, important agreements are written by lawyers and lawyers are very specific in choosing each word for such agreements, to make sure that it covers specifically the important matters that were asked by their clients.

And we as the citizens must know and protect our rights as provided by our Federal Constitution and do not let others fool us with sweet promises of protecting our rights but at the same time cheat us behind our back.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:

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

or

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

As in the case of adding the word, “bebas to the Article 3(1), replacing the word tetapi” with the word “dan” to the same Article seems to reaffirm their intention to rewrite the Article 3(1) and to undermine Islam.

The word “tetapi” in the Article 3(1) signifies the supreme position of Islam as the religion of the Federation as compared to other religions in Malaysia.

So, by replacing the word “tetapi” with the word “dan” in the context of the Article 3(1), the opposition leaders who signed the agreement has distort the interpretation of the Article 3(1) by positioning other religions at the same level as Islam, which is a distortion of the truth; not only to the Article 3(1) but also to our Federal Constitution.

In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah has clearly clarified this matter:

Pada pendapat saya “Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi ugama-ugama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai” bermakna Islam adalah ugama utama di antara ugama-ugama lain yang dianuti di negara ini seperti Kristian, Buddha, Hindu dan selainnya. Islam bukan setaraf dengan ugama lain, bukan duduk berganding bahu atau berdiri sama tegak. Ia duduk di atas, ia berjalan dahulu, terletak di tempat medan dan suaranya lantang kedengaran. Islam ibarat pokok jati – tinggi, teguh dan terampil. Jika bukan sedemikian Islam bukanlah ugama bagi Persekutuan tetapi adalah salah satu di antara beberapa ugama yang dianuti di negara ini dan setiap orang sama-sama bebas mengamalkan manamana ugama yang dianutinya, tiada lebih satu dari yang lain. Peruntukan ‘Islam ialah ugama bagi Persekutuan’ hendaklah ditakrif dan ditinjau tujuannya dengan membaca bersama peruntukan lain dalam Perlembagaan khususnya Perkara 89, 152, 153 dan 14.

Hence, the intention of the phrase, “but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” in the Article 3(1) is to specify that even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, people of other religions are allowed to practise their religions but their actions must be in peace and harmony with the people of other religions, especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation; and not to give them the freedom to do anything they wish.

In other words, even though Islam is the religion of the Federation, Malaysia does not discriminate people of other religions, they are allowed to the practise their religions as long as they obey the laws and not to do things that have “the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community”.

In the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali states:

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

In fact, by doing what some people may think as small changes, the oppositions are not only giving a totally different meaning to the Article 3(1) but they are also interfering with other important Articles in the Federal Constitution such as Article 10(2), 11(4), 153 and others; as the Articles of the Federal Consitution cannot stand alone or cannot be read singularly, but must be read as a whole because each Article are ‘connected’ with other Articles.

In the judgement of the Federal Court case, Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, the then Federal Court Judge, DYMM Almarhum Sultan Azlan Shah stated:

Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself.

So when they replace the word “tetapi” with the word “dan”, they are positioning other religions at par with Islam which is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and by adding the word “bebas” to the same Article, they are giving the freedom to people of other religions to do whatever they want in the name of practising their religions even though it can cause disorder in the community.

As stated by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, the “Freedom of other Religions” which is Article 11 is subjected to Islam since Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution is “within the confines of Part I of the Constitution” while Article 11 is under the Part 2 of the Constitution.

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

Just one word can make a very big different, and in this case, not only it distorts the interpretation of Article 3(1) and interfere with other Articles of the Federal Constitution but discriminate and take away the rights of the Muslims as provided by the Federal Constitution.

Since In the “Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM, the leaders of DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM on behalf of their parties agree to uphold the Federal Constitution, “Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan bebas, aman dan damai di negara ini sejajar dengan Perkara 3”, the people must understand that DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM only vow to uphold their edited version of the Article 3(1) and not the one that is written in our Federal Constitution.

This action by them is consistent with their stance that Malaysia is a secular country whereas Malaysia is not and has never been a secular country.

Related Article:

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.

15439895_1820054294933619_5239681811501991150_n

{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:

15419650_1820054354933613_2455664813730344125_o

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?