Where Should The Allegiance of the Armed Forces Lie

Malaysian Armed Forces Veterans

I received this copied in a Veterans’ WhatsApp group. I omitted some parts of the message as it was just gibberish talk:

_Copied from write up by Mej **** ***** TUDM (Rtd)_

Good afternoon to all. The fight for a free Malaysia must go on!
Let us get one thing clear – the country and the government are separate entities. Governments come and go, the country is eternal.

We owe our allegiance to the country, not to the government. Therefore, saying bad things about a bad government is not being anti-national. Most important of all, voting against a bad government is not being anti-national. A bad government does not deserve loyalty. Disloyalty to the government is not disloyalty to the country; in fact, voting out a bad government is being loyal to the country.

Clean elections
Clean government
Right to dissent
Save our economy


Fine words they are, but for someone with some legal training to write as such shows how much understanding the author has of the Federal Constitution.

Let us address this “call”:

Point 1:

“Good afternoon to all. The fight for a free Malaysia must go on!
Let us get one thing clear – the country and the government are separate entities. Governments come and go, the country is eternal.

We owe our allegiance to the country, not to the government. Therefore, saying bad things about a bad government is not being anti-national. Most important of all, voting against a bad government is not being anti-national. A bad government does not deserve loyalty. Disloyalty to the government is not disloyalty to the country; in fact, voting out a bad government is being loyal to the country.”

The country and the government cannot be separated, neither can a state be separated from its state government.  Yes, governments come and go, but a government is still a government.  Officers and men of the civil service, the Armed Forces, the Police owe their allegiance to the King and Country.  The King rules the Country, as do the Sultans their respective state, through a government that was picked by the people. Be they the Federal Government or the State Government, they administer the country and the states on behalf of the King and Sultans, as well as the Governors.  This is prescribed by Article 39 of the Federal Constitution where the Executive Authority of the Federation is vested in the Yang DiPertuan Agong by him, or by the Cabinet, or by any Minister authorised by the Cabinet.

In the case of the Armed Forces, the King exercises his power through the Minister of Defence.  Which is why the officers and men of the Armed Forces are required to salute the Minister of Defence who represents the King’s executive power over the Armed Forces, and the Prime Minister who is the King’s Chief Executive, representing the King.

Article 41 states that the King is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and therefore those representing the King as prescribed by Article 39 are performing their duties on behalf of the King.

Therefore, it is imperative that the Armed Forces, as well as the civil service and the Police, remain loyal to the government of the day as the government of the day represents the King – be it bad or otherwise. Whether or nor a member of the Armed Forces, or the civil service, or the Police subscribes to the government of the day politically is a secondary matter.  The oath that was taken was to be loyal to the King and Country; therefore loyalty shall be given to the government of the day.

The Minister who represents the King in matters of defence is also made the Chairman of the Armed Forces Council which is responsible for the command, the discipline and the administration of the Armed Forces, except for matters relating to their operational use.  This is prescribed in Article 137 of the Federal Constitution.

And it is the Parliament that passed an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the establishment, government and discipline of the Armed Forces is made which is called the Armed Forces Act, 1972.

It is also the Armed Forces Act, 1972 that gave the powers to the Armed Forces Council to enable Brigadier-General Datuk Fadzlette Othman Merican Idris Merican be promoted to Major-General while she is being seconded to a Federal Government Department.  Section 5C of the Armed Forces Act, 1972 determines that she remains a member of the regular forces but her remuneration shall be paid by that Federal Government Department.

By the same token, even the ordinary people who are citiens of Malaysia must realise that the Federal Government represents the King, the state governments represent the resective state’s Ruler.  These are governments chosen by the people but was appointed by the Rulers to administer the country and states on their behalf.  The only way to change these governments is by a democratic process called ELECTIONS (unless you have not heard of that word before).

Point 2:

“Clean elections”

Since 1955, Pulau Pinang, Perak, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Selangor and Sabah have all seen a change in government.  If the elections were not clean, would it have been possible for the Opposition to have won cash cows such as Pulau Pinang and Selangor?

Point 3:

“Clean government”

I must admit there are bad hats in the government, be it the Federal government or the states government.  This is why we have seen people like Harun Idris, Mokhtar Hashim, Khir Toyo, Lim Guan Eng charged in court for corruption. All but Lim Guan Eng have served jail time.  Guan Eng, who said that he is not afraid to go to prison, has been delaying his corruption trial using technical issues.

Many more state excos have also been arraigned in a court for corruption.  This is not possible without agencies such as the Auditor-General’s Office and the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission which act as checks and balances to ensure that the Federal as well as states governments are run efficiently and cleanly.

Of course there are those who have yet to face the music. For example those responsible for the Maminco scandal in 1985 that saw a loss of RM1.6 billion (about RM2.56 billion in today’s terms); the Perwaja scandal in 1982 that saw a loss of about RM10 billion (RM18.73 billion in today’s terms); the BMF scandal of 1983 that had caused a loss of RM2.5 billion (RM4.5 billion today); the 1986 Deposit-Taking Cooperative Scandal that caused a loss of RM1.5 billion (about RM2.58 billion today); the RM30 billion loss by Bank Negara Malaysis through foreign exchange gambling in 1994 (RM45.25 billion today); the Malaysia Airlines scandal of 1994 with the loss of RM9.4 billion (RM14.18 billion today); the PKFZ scandal of 1999 with a loss of RM12.5 billion (RM13.5 billion in today’s terms).

The above all happened during the tenure of a certain former Prime Minister.  The grand total of losses is RM67.5 billion (or RM101.3 billion in today’s terms).  The amount shown does not include the bailouts reported in various books, Opposition leaders’ blogs and so on.

I do hope that the cry for a clean government will also call for the arraignment for the Prime Minister during whose tenure the financial scandals happened.  Had the RM101.3 billion been put to good use during those 22 years, Sabah and Sarawak would have had SIX toll-free Pan Borneo Highways, or 1,013 80-bedded Government hospitals all over the country!

Instead, it enriched the few and killed one person.

Point 4:

“Right to Dissent”

I have not seen any Opposition-leaning media being taken off print or air, unlike during a certain 22-year period of my life.  Malaysiakini et al are still spinning their version of what they call “balanced news” (read: news the way we want you to see it).  The way these media operate reminds me of a character in Netflix’s limited series called “Godless” called A.T Grigg, a newspaper owner-editor who writes news the way he sees it, not how it truly happens.

The ISA was repealed six years ago by this present administration. Although replaced with SOSMA and POTA, it doesn’t give powers to the authorities to hold anyone without trial as the ISA did. And the ISA was being used a lot against political dissenters especially in the late 1990s during the tenure of a certain former Prime Minister.

This administration also introduced the Peaceful Assembly Act, 2012 that has allowed more freedom to assemble peacefully, unlike during those days of a certain former Prime Minister where at the slightest hint of a political dissent, you get whisked away to the University of Kamunting.

Has the author of the message been arrested yet?  Of course not.  Even when he actually committed sedition against Malaysia by encouraging Sarawak to secede from Malaysia.

How is it that a legal-trained person does not know that his act is seditious escapes me

Now, how is that seditious?  If you look at Section 2 of the Sedition Act, 1948 it tells you the following:

Section 2 defines how an act is seditious. He has committed a seditious act by definition of Section 3(1)(a)

This former Armed Forces officer also committed a crime of sedition under Section 3 (1) (b) of the same Act for encouraging Sarawak to leave Malaysia:

Section 3 (1) (b) of the Sedition Act, 1948

And you thought that the Federal Constitution protects freedom of speech?  Yes, it does.  But as with all other liberties, they are subjected to restrictions.  Article 10(1) guarantees that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, but at the beginning of the Article it also says the following:

You cannot just say anything you like although you have the freedom of speech and expression

To dissent is okay. To dissent seditiously, or criminally, or dangerously, or incitingly, is not okay.

Any legal-trained person ought to know this, right? What more a former officer of the Armed Forces!

Point 5:

“Save Our Economy”

In April 2017, the World Bank forecasted that Malaysia’s GDP would be at 4.3 percent.  This was revised in June 2017 to 4.9 percent due to an acceleration in domestic economic activities (people in Malaysia are actually spending more) by 5.7 percent year-on-year.  The GDP growth was revised again in October 2017 to 5.2 percent.

Let me quote several reports here by the World Bank.

World Bank Group lead economist Richard Record said at a media briefing on the update that Malaysia’s robust GDP growth in the first half of 2017 was largely underpinned by strong private-sector expenditure, with additional impetus from an improvement in external demand.

“Private consumption expanded firmly this year, supported by favourable income growth amid stable labour market conditions, and improved consumer confidence. Private investment also sustained rapid growth rates during the period, reflecting mainly continued capital spending in the manufacturing and services sectors,” said Richard Record.

“On the external front, gross exports rebounded strongly from the subdued growth experienced in 2016, supported by double-digit growth in commodity and manufactured exports,” he added.

Economic watchdogs are generally bullish on the Malaysian economy’s performance, buttressed by strong expansion in private consumption and private investment. In the latest update on its World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund has upped its GDP growth projection for Malaysia in 2017 to 4.8 percent from 4.5 percent previously.

Apart from that, the Asian Development Bank has also upgraded its 2017 growth outlook for Malaysia to 4.7% from 4.4%, and indicated that the two-year slowdown in economic growth is likely to have bottomed out last year.

Richard Record also predicted Malaysia’s economy for 2018 and 2019.

“We are forecasting Malaysia’s GDP to grow by 5 percent next year (2018) and 4.8 percent in 2019. Our prediction reflects how we are seeing the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals’ performance and the baseline scenario,” he said.

Online economics portal ‘Focus Economics’ also said the following:

“Economic momentum remained robust in Q3 as confirmed by more complete data. Export growth expanded by a double-digit pace in September, underscoring thriving external demand for Malaysian goods. Household spending was buoyed by a low unemployment rate in September and by higher wages, which were propped up by a thriving manufacturing sector, the key driver of industrial production growth in the quarter. The 2018 budget passed on 27 October is focused on fiscal consolidation and is expected to narrow the fiscal deficit from 3.0 percent in 2017 to 2.8 percent in 2018. Despite the tightening, the budget has consumer-friendly components that will increase disposable income. These include lower income tax rates, especially for middle-income earners; higher public wages; and increased assistance spending.”

By contrast, Brunei’s fiscal deficit had hit 16 percent in 2016.

Of course, with the oil prices continue to stay below the USD70 per barrel level, Malaysia as well as other countries will continue to experience some sluggishness in the economy. However, good fiscal policies have allowed us to grow unlike a neighbour of ours that is often quoted as being a model economy.  That country’s growth have been at 2 percent in 2016, and 2.5 percent this year.

The outlook for the construction sector has taken a sharp turn for the worse, with poll respondents tipping a contraction of 4.2 per cent. The previous survey, released in June, had respondents forecasting 0.2 per cent growth in the sector.

The outlook for the accommodation and food services sector in this model country has also worsened – it is now expected to shrink 1.5 per cent, from previous estimates of a 1 per cent expansion.

Economists polled expect overall economic growth of 2.5 per cent next year for this model country, the same pace as this year.

Perhaps the author of the message we are discussing here should go down South and help revive the economy of that model country.


So, there have you.  I really do not know what the fuss is about.  All I can deduce is that the author of the message is all hot air – you can feel it blowing on your face, but there is no real substance there.  This is the same as BERSIH, and the recycling of petty but stale issues by the Opposition just so that they can remain relevant, and justify for the allowances they receive from the pockets of the rakyat.

You can express your dissatisfaction, but always do so constructively. Especially if you are a member of the Malaysian Armed Forces and Malaysian Armed Forces Veterans.

The Creeping of the Republicans

The Republican Creeps

I blame our history books.  In our eagerness to instill the spirit of nationalism, we took an easy way out by saying that we were colonised by the British, when in actual fact the whole of Malaya came under British rule only during the Malayan Union period.  Only Melaka, Pulau Pinang, Singapore, and for a while Pangkor and the Dindings were under the direct rule of Britain when they were  part of the Strait Settlements.  Other than that, the British advisers administered the Malay states through treaties, and the administrators were under the payroll of the respective Sultans or Rajas, not the British.

One of the leading evidence of the sovereignty and independence of the Malay states was a landmark case in England where in 1885 the Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor went to England, and according to the plaintiff of the case, Miss Mighell, took the name Albert Baker and promised to marry her.

It was held by court that the Sultan was entitled to immunity even though up to the time of suit ‘he has perfectly concealed the fact that he is a sovereign, and has acted as a private individual.’ ‘When once there is the authoritative certificate of the Queen (Victoria) through her minister of state as to the status of another sovereign, that in the courts of this country is decisive’.

To an argument that Sultan Abu Bakar had waived this immunity, the court held that the only way that a sovereign could waive immunity was by submitting to jurisdiction in the face of the court as, for example, by appearance to a writ. If the sovereign ignored the issue of the writ, the court was under a duty of its own motion to recognise his immunity from suit.

The roles of the Malay Rulers are somewhat misunderstood.  While many often think that the Institution of the Rulers mirror that of the British’s Westminster-style monarchy, it is not.  The Rulers ruled this land even when the British were here to administer the land on behalf of The Majesties.

When 31 August 1957 arrived, the powers that the Rulers had invested in the British was duly transferred to a government that was chosen by the people through a process of democracy called Elections.  It is untrue that during the British administration of this land, and now, that the Rulers have no other power other than having a say in the matters of the Religion of Islam and the Malay custom.

The Rulers, as keepers of this land, continue to enjoy their position with their income regulated by the respective laws, and receive advice from the Menteris Besar (or in the case of the Yang DiPertuan Agong, the Prime Minister). This is evident in Article 181(1) of the Federal Constitution which states:

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,” the “sovereignty, prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Rulers…as hitherto had and enjoyed shall remain unaffected.

The same was noted by Mark R Gillen of the Faculty of Law, University of Victoria (Gillen 1994:7). In the words of the late Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, former Lord President, it is:

a mistake to think that the role of a King, like that of a President, is confined to what is laid down by the Constitution, His role far exceeds those constitutional provisions” (Azlan Shah 1986:89)

In other words, the Rulers may be Constitutional Monarchs, but they are not limited to what have been spelt out in the Federal Constitution.

When Syed Saddiq, the runner for Mahathir wrote to the Sultan of Selangor after His Royal Highness expressed great displeasure over Mahathir’s labelling of the Bugis as “pirates who should return to their own land” and pleaded for the Sultan’s support to “fight against corruption and injustice with the people” it shows this great-person-wannabe’s lack of understanding of the position of the Rulers in the Federal Constitution.

The Rulers are apolitical.  The Rulers do not take sides, or do not express openly whom they prefer over those they do not.  For instance, when the Menteri Besar of Selangor does something that is deemed un-Menteri Besar-like, the most the Sultan would do is to express a reminder for the Menteri Besar to improve his performance so that the lives of the subjects of His Royal Highness are not in any way adversely affected.  To encourage certain courses of action is part of the duty of a Sultan, but the Sultan is above politics.

In the words of Sultan Nazrin Muizuddin Shah of Perak in July 2011:

Rulers must use wisdom to calm situations, but they do not have a ‘magic lamp’ to keep unity, especially when the situation has become chaotic.

When racial strife hit Malaysia on 13th May 1969, the Sultan of Terengganu as well as other Rulers took steps to protect their non-Malay rakyats (Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, Faculty of Humanities, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Kobkua 2011:364). This goes to affirm the special press statement made by the Conference of Rulers in October 2008 explaining that the Institution of Rulers is a “protective umbrella ensuring impartiality among the citizens.”

After 2008, we have witnessed how lawmakers from a certain party have been rude towards the Malay Rulers, forgetting their place in the Federa Constitution.  The Rukunegara  – means nothing to them: there is no Loyalty to the lawmakers themselves are rarely guided by the belief in God as they lie as if God does not exist, they show no loyalty to King and Country except when they need favours or awards which also means they do not subscribe to the supremacy of the Constitution, they don’t believe in the Rule of Law when it does not work according to their overall game plan, and by being rude to the authorities beginning with the Malay Rulers show that they do not practice courtesy and morality.

And are we surprised that we now have common people threatening the police, council enforcement officers, biting court officers, or show gross disrespect for the authority of the Malay Rulers?  They learn such absence of manners from their political idols.

If I were to write a letter to His Royal Highness The Sultan of Selangor, it would be to plead to His Royal Highness to pressure the authorities to hasten their investigation into the seditious nature of Mahathir’s remark.

Dunce Accumulating Party

A dunce refers to a person incapable of learning.

In short, a moron.

And the DAP is filled to the brim with it. Let us start with evangelist Nga Kor Ming whose response to PAS severing ties with PKR is to say that the PAS Ulama use religion as a front.


Now wait a minute. Aren’t ulama supposed to use religion for their reasonings? What else are they supposed to use? Home science?

But this speaking before the brain neurons could connect is a character very peculiar to Nga Kor Ming.

However, the statement below is true.


And I say that the DAP is filled to the brim with morons such as Nga Kor Ming simply because they call themselves lawmakers and want to govern this country.

Yet they know nothing about the Federal Constitution or the laws of the land when they fight, as they claim, for their rights.

For example, they are willing to breach the Federal Constitution when they select their election candidates.

Enter someone from the DAP known in Australia as Dr Tiong Ting otherwise known as former Pujut state assemblyman Dr Ting Tiong Choon.


Ting found himself the target of attacks last year when someone claimed that he is in fact a naturalised Australian citizen.


Today, it has been proven that Ting had taken up an Australian citizenship which automatically annuls his citizenship of Malaysia as per Article 24(1) of the Federal Constitution.

He is an Australian citizen who had contested in one of OUR state elections!


Yet, in a press conference aired on the DAP’s Facebook Ting said that although he had taken up an Australian citizenship, he never lost his Malaysian citizenship.


Seriously?

And this is the person you voted into office and expect him to fight for your rights according to the Federal Constitution?

What is wrong with you people?

Now you can see that even the so-called learned leaders and LAWYERS in the DAP are ignorant of the Constitution!

Either that, or they would breach the Constitution and break laws as long as they come into power.

And that, my friends, is dangerous as you would be coting in people who advocate lawlessness. In simple language – gangsters.

As for Ting Tong, he can go sit in the corner until he grows a brain.


It makes me wonder now – what kind of monkeys is TalentCorp bringing back?

When The Bar Is A Place To Drink

I am not sure if I am supposed to be surprised or if I should express shock at the latest statement issued by the President of the Bar Council of Malaysia, because no matter the President, they all speak like they have been doing nothing but drinking.

The courts should not refer to laws, says the Bar Council President

The currrent President, George Varughese explained that tort of misfeasance in public office is derived from British common law, which is unwritten but fully applicable in Malaysia.

“The action was therefore not brought under the Federal Constitution or any written legislation, and the High Court should therefore not have relied on either of these in determining whether the prime minister is a public officer. The nature of the powers of the office of the prime minister ought to have been examined to determine whether that office qualifies as a public office under common law,” said Varughese in a statement yesterday.

In striking out the suit, Justice Abu Bakar Jais had ruled that Najib, as the prime minister, is not a public officer and hence the suit has no cause of action. He based his decision on Article 132 of the Federal Constitution and the Interpretations Act 1948 and 1967, under which the prime minister, ministers, deputy ministers, and political secretaries are not considered public officials but as members of an administration.

This is the first time that I am hearing a call for judges not to refer to any written laws or the Constitution under which laws are made and enacted.

Firstly, Varughese himself explained that the tort of misfeasance in public office is derived from British common law, the ‘common law‘ being the operative phrase here.  Malaysia’s legal system operates three kinds of laws: the common law, the Shariah law, and the customary law.

Under the common law, what Varughese is suggesting is for Justice Abu Bakar Jais to have tried the case under primae impressionis, a legal case where there is no binding authority and the findings adjudicatory in nature.

However, the learned judge (which is why he is a judge, and the present AG also is an ex-judge) knows he is bounded by laws and the Constitution, and therefore has to make interpretations based on the laws and the Constitution of which his ratio decidendi is derived.

I see lots of negative comments have been made because of the decision of the learned judge.  Some cite American laws and interpretations of the Australian law on the definition of the”public officer” but forget that this is a Malaysian common law case applied in a Malaysian court of law.  If one wants to cite Section 3 of the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 of Western Australia, we might as well refer to and use the Saudi Arabian Criminal Law here and let us see if more than 95 percent of the population would wish to migrate!

This is why Justice Abu Bakar Jais is a judge, and not some gobbledydook like the commentators are.

And another gobbledydook commented that if Najib Razak is not a public officer, then he is a coolie. He would know that word. That is the occupation of his ancestors when they were brought here from Kerala to toil the rubber estates.

I cannot imagine how many judges would have been fired from their job for deciding in favour of the opposition if he is being given powers again.

Fortunately, Najib Razak is not a dictator like this coolie-descendant is.

Says the descendant of coolies

A Much Friendlier PM

Najib has the Pan Borneo Highway go without toll al the way to Sabah – photo courtesy of Sabahkini

Today, the PAS Secretary-General Datuk Takiyudin Hassan said that the Najib Razak-led government is more open towards the party.

We have always wanted to attend federal programmes, but it was never allowed and we were never invited.  But now, they are more open to having PAS. Maybe that is the new approach,” he said.

Recently,  PAS President Haji Abdul Hadi Awang attended a federal government programme and was seen to be very close to Minister Ahmad Shabery Cheek in a photograph that had set the tongue of his foes wagging.

Najib Razak is in Sabah again today, announcing more initiatives for the youth of Sabah at the launching of Gathering of Rising Entrepreneurs, Act Together (GREAT) 2017 at the Magellen Sutera Harbour Resort in Kota Kinabalu.

Najib said the Sabah government should also set up a centre for young entrepreneurs similar to that of Sarawak’s Borneo744 in Kuching.

If there is a suitable site, I wish to propose the setting-up of a Blue Ocean Entrepreneurs town, making it the second of its kind after Sarawak,” he said.

We must find ways to increase the participation of young people with education, skills, leadership skills and entrepreneurship,” he added.

In another development, Sabah’s Special Tasks Minister Datuk Teo Chee Kang said the state cabinet led by Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman had a fruitful breakfast meeting with Najib.  Teo said that the state cabinet had put forward its claims for a review of the special federal monetary grants, mandatory every five years under Article 112D of the Federal Constitution.

Among the things on Sabah’s wishlist given to Najib is for Sabah to be given back the power to make laws and regulate the production and distribution of gas and electricity be delegated back to Sabah, a state power which was taken away during U-Turn Mahathir’s time in 1983.

Wasn’t Mahathir a Sabah-friendly PM?

According to Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan in 2016, Mahathir was the worst PM for Sabah.

He introduced ‘Project IC’ and told me not to ‘teach’ the people what they didn’t know (Sabah rights),” he said in his statement via Whatsapp to Borneo Post.

Jeffrey also pointed out in 2013 that it was vital that the federal government clean up the mess created by (former prime minister) Dr Mahathir Mohamad in Sabah which had put Sabah and its citizens at perpetual risk.

They made Sabah insecure by supporting Muslim rebellion in the Philippines and supplying them weapons, giving them refuge and training facilities in Sabah and, worst still, by deploying them as voters in Sabah through the ‘Project IC Mahathir’, despite knowing full well that the same group of people from the Philippines have unsettled claims over Sabah.”

Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Maximus Ongkili said Mahathir’s admission that he was a dictator during his 22-year reign as Malaysia’s prime minister “is a classic understatement of the century.”

Dr Maximus added this to his description of Mahathir: “He was a tyrant, bully and oppressor, especially towards Sabah political leaders.”

Living on borrowed time that God has given for him to repent, Mahathir still has his dreams unrealised.  The only person between him and achieving his dreams is Najib Razak.  Which is why the only thing that he has not done is to leave Islam to help DAP achieve its racist ideas.

Mahathir has licked all the gob he had spat out at the DAP since 1969.

Today, Mahathir again called upon the voters in Pekan to not vote for Najib Razak.

The residents and voters of Pekan have the opportunity to save the nation by causing the defeat of Datuk Seri Najib,” he said.

I don’t know what it is that he wants to save the nation from when all that he had achieved single-handedly was to further divide the nation and opress its people.

This is nothing new to Sabah’s Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan.

Once he makes up his mind he does not like a person, just like how he did not like me, he would go all out to dislodge that person.  He tried to do that with me,” Pairin said.

Mahathir once claimed that he had saved all his earnings (RM20,000 a month) as the Prime Minister and left the job with RM5 million in his savings.

In my opinion, his story that he had been saving is purely hogwash.

Najib is trying hard to give back as much as possible to the people of Sabah what Mahathir had taken away from them.  There was hardly any change in the state during Mahathir’s 22-year rule.

Perhaps this is, as PAS’s Takiyuddin had pointed out, the new approach by the Najib administration.  An approach where he listens and tries to help every quarter out.  Try asking for the same during Mahathir’s time.  His favourite song, “My Way” by Frank Sinatra says it all.

Dr Maximus also pointed out and referred to Mahathir’s claim that even though he was a dictator, no one went to the streets to demonstrate against him.

Says who (that no one protested against Dr Mahathir)? Many of us who questioned his policies and actions ended up being detained under the ISA. (Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri) Zahid Hamidi and I myself ended up 59 days in detention by Mahathir’s orders,” he said.

It is time for Sabahans to allow Najib to help them, and bury Mahathir for good.

Kurang Adat Kurang Adab Kurang Ajar

Undang-undang di Malaysia adalah hasil pergabungan di antara akal, adat dan ugama.  Adat adalah merupakan kanun yang tidak bertulis yang dijadikan pegangan hidup oleh orang-orang Melayu sejak dari dahulu lagi.  Untuk dijadikan pegangan rasmi, maka adat diterjemahkan kepada undang-undang bertulis, dan digabungkan dengan akal dan syarak sepertimana yang terdapat dalam undang-undang terdahuu seperti Undang-Undang 99 Negeri Perak dan Undang-Undang Darat/Laut negeri Melaka yang berlandaskan adat dan syariah.

Maka, undang-undang syariah di Tanah Melayu ini telah wujud sebelum pihak Inggeris memperkenalkan undang-undang sivil untuk digunapakai pihak pentadbir selain hal ehwal adat istiadat Melayu dan agama Islam.

Kassim Ahmad berkata kerajaan tiada hak untuk campurtangan dalam hal ehwal Islam

Semalam, kita dikejutan sekali lagi oleh bekas tahanan ISA Kassim Ahmad yang berkata kerajaan tidak sepatutnya campur tangan dalam hal ehwal agama.

Beliau berkata sedemikian dalam satu artikel portal Malaysian Insight yang bertajuk “Kerajaan Tak Perlu Campurtangan Urusan Islam, kata Kassim.”

Kassim berkata, adalah perlu untuk meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan dengan mengeluarkan “Islam adalah agama Persekutuan.

Portal yang dikendalikan oleh Jahabar Sadiq yang didakwa oleh portal Malaysia Today sebagai dibiayai oleh parti DAP itu memberi gelaran “Sarjana Islam” kepada Kassim yang terkenal dengan pendirian anti-Hadithnya.

Kassim pernah ditahan oleh pihak Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI) atas dakwaan menghina Islam dan mengingkari pihak berkuasa agama pada tahun 2015 dalam satu seminar bertajuk “Seminar Pemikiran Kassim Ahmad: Satu Penilaian” yang turut dihadiri oleh U-Turn Mahathir.

Kassim pernah ditahan di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) pada November 1976 kerana berfahaman sosialis komunis.  Fahaman ini didokongi beliau sejak zaman universiti lagi apabila menganggotai Kelab Sosialis Universiti semasa menuntut di Universiti Malaya Singapura.

Petikan Hansard Parlimen pada 23 Mac 1979 yang membincangkan penahanan Kassim Ahmad

Pada 23 Mac 1979, P Patto dari parti DAP telah menyoal Allahyarham (Tan Sri ketika itu) Ghazali Shafie selaku Menteri Dalam Negeri mengenai tahanan Kassim.  Ghazali berkata adalah masih perlu bagi penahanan Kassim di bawah ISA diteruskan.

Namun, dua minggu setelah menjawat jawatan Perdana Menteri, U-Turn Mahathir merupakan orang yang menandatangani arahan pada 30 Julai 1981 supaya Kassim Ahmad dibebaskan.

Kassim adalah pelopor anti-Hadith yang sering menggunakan alasan bahawa hadith telah ditulis sekitar 200 tahun selepas kewafatan Nabi Muhammad SAW.  Fahaman beliau ini berlandaskan penulisan Dr Rashad Khalifa dari Mesir dalam sebuah buku bertajuk “The Computer Speaks: God’s Message to the World.”

Buku ini memberikan bukti-bukti secara saintifik bahawa Al-Quran tidak memerlukan sokongan Hadith kerana telah cukup memadai untuk dijadikan rujukan pedoman umat Islam.

Rashad Khalifa adalah pengasas United Submitters International, sebuah gerakan Qur’aniyun yang menolak hadith.  Rashad juga mendakwa diri beliau sebagai seorang nabi dan mendakwa juga telah diberitahu oleh Jibril bahawa Ayat 3 Surah Yasin adalah merujuk kepada beliau (Rashad).

Fahaman Rashad juga tidak jauh dari seorang lagi “Sarjana Islam” dari Hungary iaitu Ignác Goldziher.  Goldziher, atau nama sebenarnya Yitzhak Goldziher adalah seorang Sarjana dari budapest berbangsa Yahudi.

Yitzhak Goldziher

Goldziher pernah menulis kajian beliau bertajuk Muhammedanische Studien pada tahun 1890 yang mendakwa hadith adalah rekaan manusia 200 tahun setelah kewafatan Nabi Muhammad SAW.  Dakwaan Goldziher ini disangkal oleh Patricia Crone pada tahun 2002 dalam buku beliau bertajuk Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law terbitan Cambridge University Press.

Berdasarkan ajaran Rashad, Kassim telah menolak Hadith sebagai bida’ah yang direka manusia setelah kewafatan Nabi Muhammad SAW dan punca perpecahan umat Islam.  Maka hadith adalah ajaran sesat yang diada-adakan oleh manusia.

Sedangkan pakar hadith dari Universiti King Saud, Muhammad Mustafa Al-A’zami, membuktikan bahwa penulisan hadith sudah dimulai sejak Nabi Muhammad SAW masih hidup.

Sahabat-sahabat Nabi yang telah menulis hadith termasuk Umul Mu’minin Aisyah, Abdullah bin Abbas, Jabir bin Abdullah, Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-Asy, Umar bin Khattab dan Ali bin Abi Thalib.

Dan orang seperti Kassim ini boleh diberi gelaran “Sarjana Islam” oleh portal Malaysian Insight dalam artikel yang menghina agama Islam dan mempersoalkan kedudukan Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan Malaysia.

 

Orang yang sesat lagi menyesatkan inilah juga yang disokong rakan seperjuangan beliau.

Sokong Kassim! Jangan tak sokong!

Tidaklah menghairankan kerana U-Turn Mahathir juga pernah menyokong buku tulisan Kassim bertajuk “Hadis: Satu Penilaian Semula” yang pernah diharamkan oleh Majlis Fatwa pada tahun 1986.

Dia yang anti Hadith, UMNO juga terpalit

Kassim juga setakat gagalkan mengemukakan bukti bahawa perpecahan umat Islam adalah akibat Hadith dan bukan politik. Beliau yang gemar menggunakan ayat-ayat Al-Quran tertentu bagi menguatkan hujah beliau telah dengan sengaja tidak mengutarakan sekali Firman Allah SWT dalam surah An-Nahl ayat 64 iaitu:

“Dan Kami tidak menurunkan kepadamu (wahai Muhammad) Al-Kitab (Al Quran) ini, melainkan agar kamu dapat menjelaskan kepada mereka apa yang mereka perselisihkan itu dan menjadi petunjuk dan rahmat bagi kaum yang beriman.”

Adakah golongan Qur’aniyun ini akan menidakkan Firman Allah SWT seperti di atas?

How The RUU355 Is Unconstitutional

What everyone fears most is for the Malays to unite.  I wrote this a few months back.  All the lawmakers know that the RUU355 amendments have no impact whatsoever to the non-Muslims, and even if all the Muslims MPs from both PAS and UMNO were to vote for the amendments, they will never attain the 2/3rd majority required to pass the bill for it to go to the next stage.

Which is why the Malays in the DAP, PAN, PKR and Pribumi are the tools for the DAP leadership to use, as in the words of Superman Hew, “to screw the Malays using the Malays.”

Objections are raised using mainly the Malay tools.  The screen-capture of a Twitter conversation between a BERNAMA journalist and a PAN MP is the evidence to that.

In the run up to its tabling, the RUU355 has met with lots of resistance.  I don’t believe that the lawmakers don’t know that it is the right of each religious group to manage and administer its own affairs.  I also don’t believe that the lawmakers do not know that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

But the resistance towards it is mainly to avoid the provision of an opportunity for Muslims and Malays to unite just before the next general elections.  They oppose just for the sake of opposing.

And then in comes the individuals who do not see or understand that in Islam, protecting the rights of a community supercedes the rights to protect an individual’s rights, nor understand the separation of jurisdiction between the civil law and Syariah law.

This dual system of law first existed in the Malay states in Perak in 1807 with the introduction of the Royal Charter of Justice of 1807 in Pulau Pinang.  Prior to that, laws based on the Syariah has been the lex loci of this land.

Islam first came to this land in the ninth century A.D and flourished in the 13th century, 200 years before the kingdom of Melaka was founded. The first evidence of a coded Syariah law was from the Terengganu’s Batu Bersurat, written in 1303, a full century before Melaka.

The kingdom of Melaka produced two major legal digests, which formed the main source of written law in Melaka – the Hukum Kanun Melaka , and the Undang-Undang Laut Melaka .  The Hukum Kanun consists of 44 chapters, which touched upon matters such as the duties and responsibilities of the Ruler, prohibitions amongst members of society and penalties for civil and criminal wrongs and family law.  The Undang-Undang Laut consists of 25 chapters, which covered maritime matters, such as the duties and responsibilities of ships’ crew, laws pertaining to voyages and trade.  The law contained in the above written codes are said to be based on Islamic law of the Shafie School, together with elements of local custom.

Melaka’s written codes were responsible for the growth of other written codes in other states of the Peninsula: Pahang Legal Digest 1595, the laws of Kedah 1605, the Laws of Johore 1789, and the 99 Laws of Perak, 1878.

Therefore, the question of the Syariah creeping into the lives of the Muslims of the land does not hold true.  The reverse however is.  The RUU355 is not about amending the offences but merely seeking the agreement to enhance the punishments to be meted out for the offences.  And as explained in previous writings as per clickable links above, the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and therefore offences already covered in the Penal Code as well as in other civil laws made canoot be tried under the Syariah laws of Malaysia.

Furthermore, the separation of jurisdiction of the legal systems provided by the Constitution also ensures that the rights of non-Muslims are protected – only Muslims can be subjected to the Syariah law.

On the question of the Muslims being subjected to dual laws, this is not a problem. If a Muslim commits theft, he will not get his hand amputated in Malaysia.  Theft is an offence under the Penal Code and therefore the Muslim offender gets punished according to what is provided for by the Penal Code.  The punishments that the Syariah court can mete out cannot go beyond the Second List of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

DAP Emperor Lim Kit Siang was against the introduction of Section 298A of the Penal Code of Malaysia.  In a Parliament debate on the 9th December 1982 on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 1982 he said the following:

I quote:

I was aware that the new Section 298A of the Penal Code has also been drafted in order to punish the non-Muslim partner in a khalwat offence until I read a Bernama write-up on the amendment the other day. The Bernama report exulted that now both the Muslim and non-Muslim parties to a khalwat offence would be punishable, the non-Muslim under the Penal Code amendment.

A Muslim found guilty of khalwat is usually fined $200 or $250 under the Muslim enactments of the various States. I have caused a check of the penalties for khalwat, offences in the various states, which vary from State to State but they all range from the lightest penalty of $100 or one month’s jail in Kelantan to the heaviest penalty of $1,000 or six months’ jail, as is to be found in Johore. However, the non-Muslim partner charged under the Penal Code Section 298A for khalwat activity which causes or attempts to cause or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity on feelings of ill-will would be exposed to an offence which is punishable with three years’ jail, or fine, or both.

This is most objectionable and unjust where for the same act, different persons are charged under different laws where one of them imposes much heavier penalties. Or is the Muslim partner in a khalwat charge going to be charged under the Penal Code in the Criminal courts? I am sure that the Shariah Courts in the various States would vehemently oppose this as a serious erosion of the jurisdiction and powers of the Shariah Courts.

So, in 1982 Lim Kit Siang opposed the introduction of Section 298A because a similar offence tried under the Syariah law would only provide for a much lesser sentence.  Why is he complaining now about Hadi wanting to introduce higher punishments for the same?  Wouldn’t it be fair for the non-Muslims?

He added:

As the purpose of the 2M government is to uphold the sanctity of Islam, defend true Islamic values and Muslim unity in the country so as to be able to deal with the problems of kafir mengafir, two imam issue, separate prayers and burials, in the Muslim community, the government should confine its legislative efforts to the Muslims only, and not draft a Bill with such far-reaching consequences in allowing for State interference in the practice, profession and propagation of non-Muslim faiths.

35 years later, he backtracks on the need for Muslims to make better its laws for the Muslims only. Which is why I say Lim Kit Siang is opposing for the sake of opposing so that the Muslims do not rally behind this bill months before the general election is due.

Even PKR’s Wong Chen acknowledged back on 29th Aril 2013, six days before the 13th General Elections that in order to gain support from the Malays, PAS, which was a partner in the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, needed to play up the Hudhd issue and had the full support from the parties in the Pakatan Harapan.

Hannah Yeoh, who is the Speaker of the Selangor State Assembly even allowed the Hudud motion to be brought into the assembly.  So why oppose the same motion when it is brought into Parliament? Why the double standard?

And why must Lim Guan Eng ask the BN components such as MCA, MIC and others to bear responsibility for the tabling of the RUU355?  Why don’t he ask his party’s Anthony Loke and Hannah Yeoh instead? They both supported Hudud and the tabling of Hudud in the Selangor State Assembly (as in the case of Hannah Yeoh).

Anthony Loke even went to town with his support for Hudud telling his Chinese audience not to be aafraid of Hudud:

Yet, the RUU355 is not even about Hudud. So, what is unconstitutional about the RUU355?

Only the objections by the vapid non-Muslims against the RUU355 is unconstitutional, as it is a right given to all religious groups, not just the Muslims, to manage its own affairs.  I don’t have to agree with the amendments proposed by the RUU355, but it is my religion and therefore it should be left to the Muslims to manage its own affairs – as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

And as for the atheists, just stay off my social media accounts. You don’t have the locus standi to participate in this debate.