The Malaysian Concord (Part 1) – The Sanctity of Islam

Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia as enshrined in its Constitution after being agreed upon by all those party to her establishment (Photo credit: Azirull Amin Aripin/Getty Images)

HRH Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah is known to be a private person and rarely voices out.  The only times that he would voice out is when matters pertaining to the Constitution is touched upon, and yesterday was one of those times.

He said that the act of a certain group questioning the sanctity of Islam, the special rights of the Bumiputeras, the national language, and the function and position of the Malay Rulers enshrined in the Federal Constitution need to be immediately addressed and curbed.

I have come across such people, and unfortunately, many are young Malays.  They do not seem to understand that the social contract made between the various races of Malaya prior to 31stAugust, 1957 and Malaysia prior to 9thJuly 1963 are now part of the Federal Constitution.

Nor do they know the parties who signed both agreements for the independence of Malaya, and the formation of Malaysia, and understand why those agreements were made.  I put a partial blame on the education system where we were taught that we were all colonised by Britain when that is not true, except during the Malayan Union period.

Although Islam had been preached in the Malay Archipelago, Indo-China and China as early as the seventh century, it is largely held that Islam arrived in the Malay peninsula in the 12thcentury.  Syariah laws such as the Batu Bersurat of Terengganu, Hukum Kanun Melaka, Undang-Undang 99 Perak became the laws of the land.

In 1908, Richard James Wilkinson, a British colonial administrator who, with the backing of Sultan Idris I, was responsible for the establishment of the Malay College in Kuala Kangsar, and who was also a scholar of Malay and history, wrote on the status of Islamic law in the Malay states:

There can no doubt that Moslem law would have ended up becoming the law of Malaya had not British law stepped in to check it.” (William R. Roff, Patterns of Islamization in Malaysia, 1890s-1990s: Exemplars, Institutions and Vectors, Journal of Islamic Studies Vol. 9, Is. 2 (1998), 210-228, at 211).

This was reinforced by two British judges in the landmark case of Ramah binti Ta’at v Laton binti Malim Sutan 6 FMSLR (1927).

It is due to these facts that the sanctity of Islam was retained in the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948, and was introduced into the Federation of Malaya Constitution of 1957.

The English law was only introduced to Pulau Pinang as it was the original British colony.  It was on 25thMarch, 1807 that a Charter of Justice was granted by the Crown establishing a Court of Judicature in Pulau Pinang, with jurisdiction and powers of the Superior Courts in England. This was then introduced to Melaka and Singapore when they became part of the Straits Settlements under British rule.

Only with the arrival of the British residents in the Malay states in the last quarter of the 19thcentury was the English law introduced there in the form of Orders, Regulations and Ordnances, save for the laws and regulations affecting the Malay customs and the administration of Islam.  These laws provided for the administration of justice, the law of contract, sale of goods, bills of exchange, company law, criminal law and procedure, the law of evidence, land law, labour law, and the regulation of many matters of public interest.

The Civil Law Enactment, 1937 (No.3 of 1937, FMS) introduced the whole body of the common law of England and of equity of minor modifications.  It provided always that the common law and rules of equity are “subject to such qualifications as local circumstances render necessary”.  Local laws and custom were made applicable.

Islam was made the religion of the Federation of Malaya.  Although Lord Reid felt it was unnecessary to have such a provision as the Sultans would be the Head of Islam in their states, it was added to the draft of the Federal Constitution at the suggestion of Justice Hakim Halim bin Abdul Hamid of Pakistan, who was a member of the Reid Commission, because he said the suggestion by the Alliance party that represented the people of Malaya to have that proviso added was inoccuous.

Sir Donald Charles MacGillivray personally felt that such a provision would be advantageous because the Yang DiPertuan Agong could at the same time become the head of the faith in the Settlements of Penang and Malacca (CO 1030/524 (10), MacGillivray to Secretary of State, 25 February 1957; See also CO 1030/524 (18), MacGillivray to Secretary of State, 21 March 1957).

This accord was reached between those who were party to the discussion – the Malay Rulers, the British who administered the Rulers’ sovereign states on their behalf, and the multiracial government chosen by the people in 1955 to represent them.

There is even a separation of jurisdiction when it comes to the position of Islam in the Federal Constitution.

The Syariah Law comes under the purview of the respective Rulers, and the Attorney-General of Malaysia, under Article 145(3) does not have the jurisdiction over proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court of a court-martial.

This separation of jurisdiction is also present as provided by Article 121(1A) where both the High Court of Malaya and High Court of Sabah and Sarawak do not have any jurisdiction over Syariah matters.  Therefore, any claim that the Syariah law infringes on the rights of the non-Muslims is fallacious.

The Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee chaired by North Borneo’s (later Sabah) Donald Stephens (later Tun Fuad Stephens) stated in its memorandum dated 3rdSeptember 1962 that the acceptance of Islam as the religion of the to-be-formed Federation of Malaysia would not endanger religious freedom within Malaysia nor will it make the country less secular (Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee Memorandum on Malaysia, 3 Sep 1962, p.p 120).

And that is how Islam became the religion of Malaysia.

(This article was first published by The Mole)

Talibanistic Japan

Everyone seems to have a field day being anti-Islam nowadays including Malays. I did not use the term ‘Muslim’ on purpose.

The Star is one of the culprits (again) for shining the spotlight on these issues over and over again.

Sira Habibu is one of the culprits in The Star

Without even making an attempt to understand the reason behind the issue. Yes, Muslim male have aurat to cover, and that is between the navel and the knee.

You may think it sounds silly until you find a Anwar Ibrahim-like person rubbing your thighs and crotch. Not all macho guys are attracted to girls if you noticed.

Separation of facilities also made headlines

The issue of the Muslim-only laundry in Muar was also highlighted until His Majesty The Sultan of Johor had to step in and decreed that the owner take down the seemingly-offensive sign.

The anti-Islam league cheered even more when His Majesty the Sultan said that “Johor is not a Taliban state.

While I disagree with the proprietor of the laundromat for having such rules, I respect his choice. But I fail to understand why one’s choice of limiting his market to only Muslims not being celebrated by the rest? Why get angry? You get money from those who choose to frequent a open-to-all laundromat such as I.

If such a thing is racism in practice, why has the anti-Islam league ever kicked a fuss over this issue? Because the Chinese is the minority and they can get away with reverse-racism?


The other thing that I don’t get is this:

The police said they are not giving out permits for this festival over security reasons

Every day Malaysians drink to glory so much that between 2010 to August 2015, 618 died due to drink driving.

So far, nobody really cared how much they want to drink or if they would still be alive the next day. Suddenly, when the police and DBKL deny permits for Beer Fest and Oktoberfest, everyone screamed in anger as if their 364 days of binge-drinking has been curbed by a Talibanistic government.
The police said that security could be compromised and that lives could be lost if terrorists carry out their threats against the event.

The pro-drinkers wouldn’t have that. They accuse Najib Razak of kowtowing to PAS as part of an election deal.

Look, if that is the only deal that Najib Razak is capable of doing then that is downright stupid. If I were the PM I would just give a state to PAS in exchange for parliamentary seats. What on Earth can stopping a binge-drinking festival earn you?

Just go buy your crates of beer and drink at home with friends and enjoy your own Oktoberfest. If you want more privacy and a spacious venue, I know of a bungalow on Jalan Pinhorn. At least you don’t have to worry about falling into a swimming pool and drown.

Malaysia is far from being Talibanistic. What it is is becoming more idiotic. There are more and more idiots being zombified by both mainstream and social media.

I wonder what they would say to Japan which is also now being very Talibanistic?

A Japanese restaurant with a Muslim-only section. Photo credit: Mohd Mozas

Sabah 20-Point Agreement: Religion

Colonial passport for the colonised people of North Borneo

For the previous installment on the background, please click here.

In his book on Page 101, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan wrote that although there is no objection to Islam being the religion of the Federation there should not be a STATE RELIGION in North Borneo.  Therefore, anything pertaining to Islam in the MALAYAN CONSTITUTION cannot be applied to NORTH BORNEO.

His grouse on this matter came about as a result of the late Tun Datu Mustapha expelling Christian priests from Sabah and accused both Tun Datu Mustapha and Datuk Harris Salleh of acting in such manner to strengthen their political position with the Federal government, therefore Islam should not be the religion of the state of Sabah.

The above controversial statement goes against the agreements reached as recorded by the Cobbold Commission, the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC) , and the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) in 1962.

According to the memorandum of the MSCC that was chaired by Donald A Stephens (later Chief Minister of Sabah, Tun Fuad Stephens) with representatives from Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo, the MSCC found that the acceptance of Islam as the religion of the Federation does not endanger religious freedom as evident on Page 120 of the MSCC memorandum dated 3 February 1962:

MSCC Memorandum dated 3 February 1962 PP 120

MSCC Memorandum dated 3 February 1962 PP 120

The MSCC had scrutinised the position of Islam in respect of states other than the Malay States and found no objection was made against the then-present arrangement for Pulau Pinang and Melaka to also be adopted by North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore.

Each of the states above would have its own constitution to address the requirement with Yang DiPertuan Agong as the Head of Islam in those states.  The respective State’s Assembly will enact laws to govern Islamic affairs and form a Board to advise the Yang DiPertuan Agong on matters pertaining to Islam.

On pages 120 and 121 of the memorandum mentioned it is stated so:

 

MSCC Memorandum dated 3 February 1962 PP 120-121

MSCC Memorandum dated 3 February 1962 PP 120-121

In the Report of the Commission of Enquiry (Cobbold Commission), North Borneo and Sarawak, dated 21st June 1962 found that there was everywhere agreement that as the Muslims are minorities in North Borneo and Sarawak, there should be no restrictions on complete freedom of other religions in those states.

Cobbold Commission Report dated 21 June 1962 PP 39

Cobbold Commission Report dated 21 June 1962 PP 39

In relation to that, the Inter-Governmental Committee, headed by Lord Landsdowne produced a report in 1962 and made the following recommendations on religion on Pages 5 and 6 which have been passed by the Sabah (and Sarawak) state assembly as follows:

IGC Report 1962 on Religion PP 5-6

IGC Report 1962 on Religion PP 5-6

The IGC, which has representation from the Federation of Malaya representing the states in the Federation, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak, recommended that Article 3 needed no amendment.  However, the provision of financial aid to Muslim establishments should only come with the concurrence of the states of North Borneo and Sarawak.  This has since been provided for via Section 3 of the Sabah Islamic Laws Administration Enactment, 1992 where the Yang DiPertuan Agong is the Head of Islam in Sabah, and a Council (Majlis Agama Islam Sabah) was formed to manage and administer the Islamic affairs in Sabah. This has also been provided in the Sabah State Constitution (Articles 5B(1) and 5B(2)).

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan was angered by Tun Datu Mustapha’s action to chase out Christian missionaries from Sabah in 11972.  Dr Jeffrey used this as the basis of raising the religion issue that was presented as part of the 20-point memorandum for the inclusion of Sabah into the Federation of Malaysia.

Having understood the reason for his raising the issue again, we must also understand the events that had taken place after Tun Datu Mustapha’s ousting of the Christian missionaries.

Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) won the state elections and formed the Sabah state government in 1985.  From that point up until 1991, the Sabah state government built 825 churches compared to only 216 suraus and mosques.

The state government’s refusal to entertain a request by the Sabah Islamic Council made on the 2nd August 1986 and again on the 12th August 1986 to amend the state’s Shariah Law (Administration) Enactment No.15/77 to accord to the Yang DiPertuan Agong the power to administer Islam in the state of Sabah as required by Article 3(3) of the Federal Constitution (as amended on the 12th August 1976) and Article 5B of the Sabah State Constitution (as amended on the 28th December 1985) clearly denied the Yang DiPertuan Agong His Majesty’s prerogative that was agreed by the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Council, the findings of the Cobbold Commission as well as the Inter-Governmental Committee, and the wishes made by the Muslims of North Borneo in 1962.

The ousting of the Christian missionaries in 1972 was made because the nine missionaries who were foreigners abused the work permit given to them to work in Sabah, not to conduct evagelical missions.  They were Roman Catholics, Anglicans, the Basil Mission and from the Borneo Evangelical Mission.

As Immigration affairs is a Sabah prerogative as accorded in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the first act by the Sabah state government under Tun Datu Mustapha was to deny them an extension of their work permit.  They were then given a 14-day special pass to enable them to make arrangements to leave Sabah.  However, the missionaries refused to obey the 13-day order.

Consequently, they were removed from Sabah through a Removal Order issued by the Sabah Immigration Department made under Section 32 of the Immigration Ordinance 12/59.

The Federal government had no role whatsoever in the removal of these missionaries.  It was purely a state decision that was made based on a sound reason – the people of Sabah, regardless of race or religion had been living harmoniously.  However, these missionaries have been sowing the seeds of hatred among the Christians of Sabah towards the Muslims by telling them to fear the “Islamisation” of Christians through forced conversions, a claim the missionaries themselves could not substatiate.

There was a plea made by the Christians in Sabah to the then-Prime Minister for the missionaries to be allowed to remain in Sabah.  Tun Abdul Razak however recommended to the Christians of Sabah to instead allow priests from the Peninsular and Sarawak to replace the nine missionaries.

In his book, Jeffrey Kitingan had profusely spoken about alleged digressions from and breach of the Federation of Malaysia Agreement but avoided on the issue of the Sabah state government of 1985 breaching agreements made by the MSCC, findings of the Cobbold Commission, the IGC as well as the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

On the contrary, the Federal government has been fulfilling its end of the agreement by allowing the freedom for other religions to be practiced by its followers as per the agreement.

At no point was there any intrusion made by the Federal government in the affairs of Sabah, and that the removal of the missionaries from Sabah for violating the conditions of the work permit was totally a state issue, made using the powers accorded to the state of Sabah, as agreed by all parties that had agreed on the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.

In the next installement, we shall talk about the second point – LANGUAGE.

The Star Needs Some Moderation

This was the headline on the first day of Ramadhan, 27 May 2017.

It would have read differently had it read Muslims Observe Ramadhan Today and left the ‘terrorist’ headline on Page 3. It cannot be THAT important if its report was on Page 3.

The headline above sparked anger among Muslims in Malaysia from the first day of Ramadhan until almost the end of the second day. A full 36 hours after it was published which prompted The Star to issue a half-hearted apology.


This only further incensed the Muslims.


Veteran journalist Datuk Ahiruddin Atan aka Rocky Bru wrote on his Facebook account:


What is more interesting is the comment left by renowned blogger BigDog:


Joceline Tan, a The Star columnist who writes mostly leaning towards the current government was not defended by her GEIC (Group Editor-in-Chief) when attacked at the Group’s AGM.

It has also come to light that the GEIC, Datuk Leanne Goh, transferred a senior journalist who writes a lot about the DAP out of Pulau Pinang.

Yet when pastors went missing it was The Star that played up the issue religiously, and little was said by the tabloid when one came back from Thailand conveniently after Songkran ended.


We are now made to wonder why is this MCA-owned tabloid pandering to the evangelists in the DAP.

Just two days before the headline was printed media editors were summoned by the KDN and were told to refrain from publishing offensive materials.

This story was carried by The Star.

Two days later The Star decided to offend the Muslims and called it a mistake. How can it be a mistake if it has eleven prepress workflow before it gets published?

Coincidentally the GEIC fled the country on the day the offensive headline went to press. She is said to be in San Francisco now, avoiding the summon by KDN today.

Instead, a low level Malay has been chosen to face KDN.

Six years ago, The Star published a recipe for Ramadhan feast.  It was a pork dish. The Star was summoned by KDN and it issued an apology much like the most recent one promising it would not happen again.

Back in 1987, The Star had its printing license revoked for fanning racial sentiments. It is now seen to do the same and getting the backing of Malay liberals to justify its tasteless articles.

It is about time the KDN slap it with a three-year ban.

Kit Siang No.1 Racist – Final Part

I have written on how racist Lim Kit Siang is in Part 1 dan Part 2 prior to this final part.

Lim Kit Siang is not only a racist, he was also against any attempt by the government to counter communist revolutionary ideology.

Two days prior to the 3rd General Elections (1969), Kit Siang held a press conference to accuse his now right-hand man Christopher Ross Lim’s stepfather as “Lying Education Minister.”  Christopher Ross Lim now uses the name Zairil Khir Johari. No “bin (Arab for ‘son of’)”.

Kit Siang accused the Alliance government then of enrolling Malaysia into the World Anti-Communist League, an accusation denied by Khir Johari.

Question: why did Kit Siang slam the government even if it was true that Malaysia had joined the World Anti-Communist League?

Answer: the Opposition at that time was teemed with members and sympathisers of the Communist Party of Malaya.

Communist slogans displayed in anti-government rallies

Communist slogans carried by Opposition supporters

A month before that, on 24 April 1969, an UMNO worker, Encik Kassim bin Omar, who was on his way home after the end of campaign hours for the day was stopped by Opposition supporters as he passed the Datuk Keramat section of Pulau Pinang and brutally murdered.  His face was smeared with red paint used to paint anti-government slogans by the Opposition supporters. This is among the reasons long campaign periods can be detrimental to public safety and order.

Since July 1968, that is a month after the commencement of the Second Malaysian Emergency (second armed uprising by the Communist Party of Malaya) that ended 21 years later, Kit Siang fired up racial hatred among the Opposition supporters.

Among the events of incitements that he did were:

  1. On 27 July 1968, at a DAP rally in Tanjung Malim, Perak, Kit Siang on purpose twisted the facts of the National Education Policy by telling the audience that the policy had been designed to eradicate the Chinese newspapers, Chinese schools as well as the Chinese language.
  2. On 24 August 1968, at a rally in Slim River, Perak, Kit Siang intentionally twisted the facts of the policy on the National Language to raise suspicion of and hatred for the Malays .
  3. On 7 September 1968, at a DAP rally at KM38, Jalan Sungai Besi, and on 21 September 1968, at the Sungai Way new village, Kit Siang intentionally incited hatred towards the Malays and the Government by slandering MCA accusing the party of assisting a Malay government to eradicate the Chinese language by not recognising the Nanyang University project.
  4. On 29 September 1968, at a DAP rally in Batu Pahat, Johor, 2 November 1968, in Lawan Kuda Bahru, Gopeng, Perak, and on 26 January 1969, at Jalan Yow, Pudu, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang incited hatred by informing the audience that the government’s policies are racist policies by giving priority to the Bumiputera to enter the public universities, automatically placing the other races as second-class citizens.
  5. On 12 February 1969, at a DAP rally held at Jalan Lengkongan Brunei, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang once again incited racial sentiments by telling the audience that the Government has shown its racist character by giving priority to the Malays to enter public universities, giving government jobs and distribution of land.

What Kit Siang did not tell any of his audience is that even in government posts (except for the Malaysian Armed Forces), the percentage of non-Malays in the civil service far surpassed the number of Malays as evident in the excerpt from the National Operations Council’s (MAGERAN) White Paper below:

It is evident that Kit Siang’s racist and agitative character has never diminished till today.  The General Election was conducted on Saturday 10 May 1969.  The Alliance party (UMNO, MCA and MIC) won 66 seats, 23 lesser than in the 2nd General Election while the Opposition won 54.

At 5.30pm, 11 May 1969, DAP held a victory parade without police permit that comprised of five cars and 15 motorcycles that started from Brickfields towards Jalan Lornie (now Jalan Syed Putra).

When they passed in front of the Brickfields Police Station (now demolished), the mostly Chinese participants shouted:

What can the police do? We are the rulers! Throw out all the Malay policemen!

At 10pm on the same day, while parading in front of the Jalan Travers Police Station, they shouted:

Death to the Malays! Sakai (derogatory term for aborigines) go back to the jungle!

The same insults were hurled at policemen on duty when they again passed the Brickfields Police Station.

At the same time at Changkat Thamby Dollah near the old Pudu Jail (behind Berjaya Times Square), about 40 Opposition supporters shouted:

“Kuala Lumpur belongs to the Chinese!

On the next day, Monday 12 May 1969, 500 scooters rode by Opposition supporters passed Jalan Ipoh, Jalan Parlimen, Jalan Gombak, Jalan Raja Laut before returning to Jalan Ipoh shouting at every Malay person they encounter:

The Malays are now powerless. Now we are in control!

When this convoy arrived at the threshold of Kampung Bahru, they shouted to the Malays:

Malays get out! Why are you still here? We’ll beat you up! Now we are bigger (more powerful)!

At night, more insults and abuses were hurled at Malay policemen on duty:

Mata-Mata Lancau! (Penis Constables)

Butoh Melayu! Pergi matilah! (Fuck the Malays! Go and die!)

I did not make all the stuff above up.  You can read them in the MAGERAN report as per the images below:

Where was Lim Kit Siang when abuses and insults were hurled at the Malays in Kuala Lumpur?

Lim Kit Siang on the morning of Tuesday 13 May 1969 was ready to flee to Kota Kinabalu so that he would not be in Kuala Lumpur if any untoward incident was to happen.

The moment he arrived in Kota Kinabalu he immediately went to a DAP public rally in Kampung Air. Sabah was scheduled to vote on the 25 May 1969 and Sarawak on 7 June 1969. In Kota Kinabalu he not only incited hatred towards the Malays but also towards the religion of Islam.

He told the audience that the Government was trying to create a Malay Malaysia by dividing the rakyat into Bumiputera dan Non-Bumiputera.  He also lied by saying that the Government wants to turn the Sabah Government into a Malay Government.  He also incited hatred towards Islam by saying that the Government would send Malaysians including non-Muslims (including Sabah Christians) to fight and die in the Middle East to help other OIC members to free Jerusalem from the clutches of Israel.

That is how racist and despicable Lim Kit Siang is as well as the DAP that he leads.  Almost 48 years have passed since 13 May 1969, Kit Siang is still attacking what he calls the ‘Malay’ government.  Back then, the Malays were united in protecting their rights that have been in existence way before the arrival of Lim Kit Siang’s ancestors – rights that have been agreed upon by representatives of all the Nation’s races and enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

Unfortunate for us now there are those who claim that they are Malays but forget easily.  Now this traitor and his worshippers stick a straw up Lim Kit Siang’s rear orifice and suck up to the DAP Supremo.

Not So Brave Now

Courtesy of Dr Aznil Hisham

Raveentharan a/l V Subramaniam, former Parti Keadilan Rakyat state assemblyman for Batu Uban in Pulau Pinang is in hot soup after the Inspector-General of Police instructed the Royal Malaysian Police for the former’s seditious post in hi Facebook account.

Raveentharan’s apology and the post that got him into trouble – courtesy of Dr Aznil Hisham

 

The IGP instructs the Bukit Aman Media Social Monitoring Team to haul up Raveentharan

Raveentharan, a Georgetown-based lawyer who was dropped from the candidates’ list during the 13th General Elections quickly apologised to Muslims in Malaysia saying that he did not mean to offend Muslims and that his best friends are Muslims.

Raveentharan is not new to controversies. In 2009, two SMS messages were made viral, sent by an unknown alleging that he sodomised and physically abused his ex-wife.  In 2013, he was dropped from PKR’s list of candidates for the 13th General Elections in favour of T Jayabalan.

Below are screen captures made from his Facebook account, courtesy of Dr Aznil Hisham:

Suddenly Raventharan is not so brave anymore. And as for his apology, I leave that to you and for the authorities to decide.

I would like to see him charged in courts.

Opposing For The Sake Of Opposing

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!

A screenshot of The Star on the objection to having two legal systems
A screenshot of The Star on the objection to having two legal systems

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:

  1. Being Hard Over Hadi
  2. A Storm In The Hood Over Hudud
  3. Lighting The Wrong Path

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:

img_3913-1

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:

Oh! The Act applies only to Muslims! So why are people jumping like monkeys?
Oh! The Act applies only to Muslims! So why are people jumping like monkeys?

And did Hadi Awang seek to include the non-Muslims in his amendments?

It still says 'those professing Islam' as religion. Again, why do people jump like monkeys?
It still says ‘those professing Islam’ as religion. Again, why do people jump like monkeys?

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?