Posts Tagged ‘Hadi Awang’
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 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?
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.
- In: Daily Whatevers
- Comments Off on And What If The Malays Unite?
Three years ago yesterday, I wrote about how more than a hundred Malays were slaughtered in just one night in the small village of Bekor. Interesting to note is that the effort to kill the Malays was supported by a number of Malays:
” Shamsiah Pakih pakai baju kebaya putih datang kerumah mengajak Tok masuk komunis Tok tak mahu. Pada masa itu siapa yang tidak mahu masuk kominis akan di bunuh. Orang Bekor banyak terlibat dan berdosa kerana bersubahat dengan kominis dan membunuh orang melayu yang tidak mahu masuk kominis. ”
The above is an excerpt from this blog that I had quoted when writing about Bekor.
When Malaya gained independence in 1957, the Malays made up only 49 percent of the population of 6.835 million, a marginalised minority in their own land since the 1930s [Department of Statistics, Federation of Malaya 1957 – Population Census of the Federation of Malaya Report, No.14 by H.Fell].
Of course there was the Penang Hartal of November 1967 and subsequently the 13 May 1969 racial clashes. But by then, the Malays were more united than they were in the late 1940s. Sadly, the Malays are no longer united and not only are they being attacked on anything that is Malay or Muslim by the other races but they are also being undermined by the likes of Rafizi Ramli, and Mahathir Mohamad.
And then came the opposition to the amendments of the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965 dubber the ‘Hudud’ Bill, subsequently ‘Hadi’ Bill. I wrote about how non-Muslims especially the President of MCA who, I assume being ill-advised by his ignorant adviser and MCA’s Religious Harmony Bureau Chairman Ti Lian Ker, decided to oppose the Bill for the sake of opposing, even after the clarification made by the UMNO President, Najib Razak, in a recent speech at the UMNO General Assembly.
This resulted in UMNO delegates calling for the unity of Muslims to support the Bill, also known as the RUU355. While Liow Tiong Lai calls the amendments ‘unconstitutional’ little does he realise that by interfering in the Muslims’ right to manage their own affairs, he is being unconstitutional.
I have seen little or no effort taken by MCA to understand the Bill, or to even explain the current government policies and efforts to assist the rakyat in times of need. There may have been such efforts but they somehow have escaped my radar. If you go to the MCA’s Twitter account, between 21 October 2016 until its last post it has not made any effort to convey the correct message to its audience. Rather, topics on RUU355 are all negative.
Every single day be it on Facebook, Twitter or in comments to online news articles, you will see more often than not the non-Malays taking a swipe at every single effort by the government to make lives better.
The most aired ‘grouse’ is of the rising cost of living. In his closing speech yesterday, Najib Razak stressed that in the seven years as the Prime Minister, he has never approved any application to have the price of 21 essential items like rice, flour, sugar and cooking gas to be increased.
As a matter of fact you can see for yourselves the items which are zero-rated under the GST scheme. If you find any increase in any of the prices of the listed goods, it is your duty to report it to the relevant agencies, especially the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism. You can download its Apps in Google Play or Apps Store and use the Apps instead of using the Internet to spread lies or complain to the general public where you will only make things worse instead of solving the problem!
Najib Razak also pointed out that to date 185 Kedai Rakyat 1Malaysia have been established to bring low-priced goods to the people. So, don’t blame the government if you prefer to shop at Jaya Grocers, Cold Storage, Mercato or B.I.G. That is the choice that you have made, not the government’s.
The problem lies with the retailers. And they will continue to fleece you for as long as you don’t report them.
The same also goes to medical treatments. There are 195 Klinik 1Malaysia established nationwide to date, 2,836 government clinics, 139 goverment hospitals, where you can seek treatment for as low as RM1.00! I cannot understand why would anyone, especially kampung folks, seek treatment at private hospitals when they cannot afford it, then make pleas for donations from the public?
And you blame the government saying it does not provide affordable healthcare?
The most terrible whiners are those who go on saying the Ringgit is the worst performing currency that it is no longer accepted anywhere outside Malaysia.
On 31 October 2016, it was the British Pound that was the worst performing currency in the world.
It is no secret that the Ringgit has lost a percentage of its value against the Greenback since Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. But are we really the worst in Asia? Take a look at the performance of several Asian currencies versus the Greenback as on the 2nd December 2016:
While the Ringgit has dropped by 0.23% against the Greenback in the last two days, Singapore Dollar has dropped by 0.46% while the Japanese Yen dropped by 0.52%!
Do we see the JPY or SGD not being accepted in other countries? Of course not. But the zombies refuse to believe this. Among this year’s worst performers (year-to-date) in East Asia are actually the Philipine Peso and China Yuan.
According to Twitter’s @econsmalaysia, since Trump’s victory the Japanese Yen has lost 9.1% of its value against the Greenback compared to 5.6% for the Ringgit. So pray tell how is the Ringgit the worst performing currency in Asia?
There seems to be nothing good to come out of anything a Malay would say or do, and any move made to strengthen Islam in this country is regarded by the non-Muslims, as unconstitutional or done not in consultation with the non-Muslims. Since when does Article 11 of the Federal Constitution requires the management of affairs of one’s religion needs the accord of others? Why are the other races not respecting the position of Islam as the Federation’s religion? Does this not reflect what was done to the Malays back in 1947 when the religion of the land was not respected by other races?
“The violation of the sanctity of Islam also became a factor in the bloody Sino-Malay conflict (WO 172/9773. No.30: 478) when the Bintang Tiga/CPM disrupted religious activities in Muslims places of worship. This started in Batu Pahat, Johor, just before the surrender of the Japanese occupiers, during the Muslim month of Ramadhan. Muslims were forbidden from congregating at mosques or suraus to perform the Terawih prayers (Hairi Abdullah, 1974/5: 8-9).
The same occurred in Perak and some parts of Batu Pahat where Muslims were gunned down and burnt together with the mosque they were in during Friday prayers.
Mosques and suraus were often used as places of meeting for the Chinese community (WO 172/9773, No.30: 478) and were tainted by incidents such as slaughtering of pigs, and mosques’ compound was used to cook pork, where Malays were forced to join the larger Chinese groups.
Pages were torn from the Quran to be used by the Chinese using these mosques as toilet paper.”
And you want to blame the Malays for wanting to unite?
This morning I was labelled a ‘Malay supremacist‘ by two non-Malays on Twitter for presenting my views on the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill to be proposed by PAS President Haji Hadi Awang. They claim that I was trying to push my idea to them but at the same time ignore the fact that they were pushing their views to me for me to accept.
Then, I saw this on The Star and cannot believe my eyes that this is being said by our very own lawmakers!
Imagine our lawmakers, all born before Malaysia was formed, do not know that the two legal systems have been in place even before 31 August 1957, and was adopted into the Federal Constitution of 16 September 1963 when it was accepted by both North Borneo and Sarawak that entered a Federation with the other states of Malaya to form Malaysia. The Federal Constitution even says that the Attorney-General does not have any jurisdiction over Syariah matters – clearly drawing the line between the two systems.
I have written at length on this matter prior to this. Please refer to the following:
The fear came about when Kelantan state assembly passed its Syariah Offences (II) Enactment last year that includes crimes of theft, fornication and so on prescribing the amputation of limbs, stoning et cetera. Since the punishments prescribed are ultra vires in nature, Hadi Awang sought for the amendments to the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965 (Act 355), dubbed by the uninformed as the Hadi Bill or Hudud Bill.
Citing the Bill as unconstitutional, the ill-informed began to attack the Bill at its earliest stage; while the Opposition uses it to mount attacks on UMNO for supporting the proposal to be tabled in Parliament, conveniently forgetting that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
What Can Hadi Propose?
The following is the list of items that Hadi can seek amendments to:
Only the ones in red (Enabled) are the ones Hadi Awang could hope to propose in his Private Bill.
Does The Bill Affect Non-Muslims?
Like I mentioned, the two legal systems have co-existed in Malaysia since the formation of Malaysia. Let us see Section 2 of the Act:
And did Hadi Awang seek to include the non-Muslims in his amendments?
So, no. Whatever you say or think, this law DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-MUSLIMS!
THIS LAW WILL PROMOTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Have you no brain?
Hadi Awang merely seeks to increase the penalties, not expand the jurisdiction of the Syariah court! As per the table above, all offences covered by either the Penal Code or by any other law that was made under the ambit of the Federal Constitution cannot be charged under the Syariah law.
So how can there be double jeopardy? Murder, robbery, rape, sodomy, are all offences under the Penal Code of Malaysia. You cannot charge these offences under the Syariah law.
How Is The Process Now? What Does Hadi Awang Have To Do?
Any Member of Parliament not representing the ruling government who wants to table a Private Bill will have to apply to the August House for leave to do so. At the same time the said MP is to submit the Bill with an explanatory statement of reasons and objectives of the Bill.
Every such application will have to be in the form of a motion. Only when the House agrees with the motion will the Bill to have been deemed as being read for the first time.
After the first reading the Bill will then be printed and circulated to all members and the Minister in-charge of the subject of the Bill for scrutiny. Only when the Minister in-charge is done with the Bill will it then be reported to the House. After this report is made, the Bill shall be set down for second reading.
There are more stages and hurdles for the Bill to have to go through before it finally makes it as an approved Act, or thrown into the bin.
We are now still at the first stage – the application.
What Else Does The Federal Constitution Say About Each Other’s Religion?
We have Article 11(3)(a) in our Constitution which states:
Every religious group has the right to manage its own affairs
By intruding, isn’t this right given also to the Muslims in Malaysia being denied by the non-Muslims? Remember, Islam is the religion of the Federation and others are given the rights to practice theirs in peace and harmony.
So, why intrude into our affairs?
- In: What da f***!!
- Comments Off on Being Hard Over Hadi
I wrote on Saturday how silly it is for people to go berserk over the private bill by Abd Hadi Awang of PAS seeking to enhance the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965.
The religion of the Federation of Malaysia is Islam as given by Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. However, other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony. The words peace and harmony are written explicitly to underscore the fact that other religions are being protected by the Constitution. One must also remember the first part of that article stating that Islam is the religion of the Federation. It is the religion and not the official religion.
The British came to Malaya through treaties. The states of Malaya, save for Pulau Pinang and Melaka, were never colonies of Britain. Malaya consists of nine sovereign states. Four were the Federated Malay States while five were Unfederated. The religions of these states have always been Islam. This is evident in a letter from Stamford Raffles to his cousin, Reverend Thomas Raffles that “Religion and laws are so united” in Muslim dominated areas that the introduction of Christian beliefs will bring about “much mischief, much bitterness of heart and contention”. You can read more on this in a previous writing of mine called The Case for God .
I had had a lengthy debate with MCA’s Ti Lian Ker, a senior partner at Messrs Wong, Law & Ti, as he had went on to conduct a session for MCA members on the “far-reaching consequences of the Hudud bill.” When asked, Ti could not even tell me the name of the proposed bill.
For the benefit of the rest, the bill seeks to enhance the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965; a law that is prescribed to Muslims only!
Ti asked me two questions: first – why the hush-hush before allowing Hadi to speak in Parliament about it? For a senior politician to not know the processes of a private bill tickles me. Hadi was merely seeking the August House’s permission to table the bill. He was not tabling the bill. And it is not a BN or UMNO bill. A private bill is a bill that is not proposed by the ruling government. It is proposed by members of the Opposition or backbenchers.
In this respect, Hannah Yeoh as the DAP Speaker for the Selangor State Assembly summed it up real well when Selangor UMNO actually wanted to table a Hudud bill for the state. Watch from 0:38.
Hadi, has as much right that has been accorded to other members of Parliament to table out anything, with the agreement of the House. For once I agree with PKR’s N Surendran who explained the process above.
Ti’s second question to me was:
This is what happens when you speak before your brain could even begin to think. Then you add chaos into the confusion. Article 145 of the Federal Constitution clearly states that the Attorney-General has no jurisdiction over Syariah laws. Syariah laws are made according to the sub-articles of Article 3. Imagine a senior partner of a law firm not knowing this. For the record, Ti never replied me.
And isn’t it detrimental to the cohesion of the Barisan Nasional that a very ill-informed and non-Muslim person such as Ti to go around explaining to members of the MCA something even he does not grasp? Maybe he should have asked a very recently former MCA member to give clarification on the issue instead:
Some of Ti’s followers, concerned that actual Hudud would eventually be enforced, refused to read Articles 3(1), 11(1) of the Federal Constitution that protects the right to practice one’s religion in peace and harmony. Instead they cited Pakistan as an example of extreme Syariah laws.
I don’t know what is it with people who don’t read. The official name of Pakistan itself is a dead giveaway. Since 1973, the country is known as The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Even in the preambles of its Constitution clearly states the intent and spirit of the state and its Constitution:
Every religious group has the right to manage its own affairs
By intruding, isn’t this right given also to the Muslims in Malaysia being denied by the non-Muslims? Remember, Islam is the religion of the Federation and others are given the rights to practice theirs in peace and harmony. So, why intrude into our affairs?
None of Ti’s followers or defenders quoted me those Articles as asked. Instead they continued to make comparisons between Malaysia and Pakistan.
Their concern is the “protection of the Constitution.” I have written on Saturday how the Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. All the proposals submitted by Hadi that trangress the limits given by the Constitution have been shot down as shown in this table that has now been widely shared:
Let me ask you this: is there anywhere there that says the amendments include its application to non-Muslims? Any proposal for non-Muslim houses of worship to be torn down?
Now, remember! Hadi is merely seeking the permission to table the private bill. Until then he cannot do so. The house will have to debate this and vote on it. So instead of making monkeys out of themselves, shouldn’t the BN non-Muslim MPs take a step back and digest the House rules like smart people should? The following would have been totally unnecessary:
Really? We know that you did not get the lion’s share of your respective community’s votes and this is a good opportunity to try and garner support. You could have done it smartly by saying “we will seek clarification from Hadi and explain to our community” instead of jumping up and down without knowing head or tail about the proposal. It should be the Muslim community to react and not the rest as it would be their liberties affected. Mind you, most of the proposals are already laws in all the states.
It is Dood Day + 3. And already there is a storm in the BN hood over Hudud.
Yesterday afternoon, a Kedah MCA man quit the party citing the failure of the MCA to stop UMNO from supporting the tabling of the Hudud bill in Parliament by PAS President Hadi Awang, and UMNO for failing to safeguard the Federal Constitution.
And today, MCA’s President, Liow Tiong Lai said that the tabling of the Hudud bill transgress the limits and is against the spirit of the Federal Constitution.
“Spirit of the Federal Constitution”
Big words coming from the two gentlemen who have no inkling whatsoever of the meaning of those terms.
Firstly, the Federal Constitution through Article 3 explicitly states that Islam is the religion of the Federation. Article 11(1) guarantees those other than Muslims the freedom to practice their religion. That still holds true to this day although many non-Malays do unconstitutional acts such as the propagating of other religions to the Muslims (in contravention of Article 11(4).
Let us go back to the year 2014 when PAS was in the heart of all DAP supporters:
proposed to table specifically a Hudud bill in Selangor. Now I want you to remember the words in BOLD above.
“The DAP speaker in Selangor also welcomes the tabling of Hudud in Selangor.”
They must be kidding, right? Karpal Singh would not have allowed this to happen (although his son never objected to this). Let us see what were said by both Anthony “Olok-Olok” Loke and Hannah “The Lamb Chop” Yeoh:
Now what have we here? Two DAP stalwarts support the tabling of the Hudud back in 2014. One even went to town telling people not to be afraid of Hudud, explaining what are involved and why people shouldn’t be afraid. This is what MCA should be doing.
Of course that was then and this is now.
Alas! MCA is NOT in the position to do so. You only see a handful of MCA people actually still fighting the real fight, like Tan Khai Beng, Lee Beng Seng, Ang Chor Keong, while the rest have mostly blended in with the Chinese supporters of the DAP as not to be left out, and the following is why:
MCA could only garner less than 900,000 votes (including votes of the non-Chinese)!
Both Leong Yong Kong and Liow Tiong Lai probably suffer from this:
The bill that is being tabled by Hadi Awang is actually to seek amendment to the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965. Remember nine paragraphs ago I asked you to remember the words in BOLD? The difference here is that this bill proposed by Hadi is NOT a Hudud bill, but one that seeks the enhancement of punishment for only a certain number of offences. This is to allow the Kelantan state government to apply such amendments in Kelantan.
And true to the spirit of the Federal Constitution, the proposals that went beyond the limits of the ones set by the laws made and passed under the Federal Constitution have been shot down even before the tabling of this bill!
And what did Najib say about this yesterday?
Even if this bill gets passed in Parliament it still needs the consent of the Rulers Council as well as the respective state religious authority to agree before it can be passed. And none affects the non-Muslims.
Where, oh Liow and Leong, is the transgression of the spirit of the Federal Constitution may I ask?
Next time do seek clarification before you start chewing on your foot, or use the stop-and-start method to prevent similar political premature ejaculation.