Boo Su-Lyn Supports Nanyang’s ‘Monkey Act’

The Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of our country has to be respected in order to maintain a harmonious society.
We are governed by law and regulations to maintain law and order of our country and living in a civilised world, we should adhere to proper social etiquette that defines a civilised society hence, a total freedom of speech like mocking people’s religion cannot be accepted.
In a malicious article, entitled “Making monkeys out of us”, Malay Mail Online’s Boo Su-Lyn tries to justify the controversial and spiteful Nanyang Siang Pau’s ‘Monkey Act’ caricature on the pretext of press freedom.
Claiming it is not even offensive, Boo questions the actions taken by the authority and the complains made by the people and want the government to allow people to say whatever they want, as long as they do not advocate physical harm”; a situation made possible only in a fantasy world.
For most opposition-inclined activists, freedom of speech only applies to them, hence they are free to slur and mock others but not the other way around.
Below are with my answers (blue) to all Boo’s “Making monkeys out of us” (red).


APRIL 14 — When I applied seven years ago to be a journalist, my boss told me that my job was to report the “facts”, not the “truth”, since I was a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed wannabe-activist then.
Along the way, I gradually learned the difference between the two. Now, of course, we have “alternative facts” and “fake news.”
For example, Boo Su-Lyn’s “alternative facts”, “fake news”, fake facts and malicious accusations regarding Islam.
What is worse – beyond those terms that Malaysia has long used even before Donald Trump became US president – are the increased incidents of censorship and attacks on press freedom and freedom of speech.
We do not live in the dark ages and we are a civilised society. A gross slur on the country’s religion and the authorities on the pretext of “press freedom and freedom of speech” is wrong and uncivilised. Furthermore, Malaysia is not a lawless country, we are all governed by law. 
It’s hard to report the facts under such circumstances.
Yes, it is hard to report real facts when the truth must be spun.
In the latest incident, the Home Ministry has summoned the editor-in-chief of Nanyang Siang Pau over its cartoon on the RUU355 issue that depicted PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang and Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia as monkeys.
Is Boo saying that the apology from Nanyang Siang Pau is not sincere and that the slur on Islam and the parliamentary procedure is only part of  Nanyang’s “press freedom and freedom of speech”?
The Tuesday announcement came hours after PAS Youth and several Muslim NGOs staged a protest outside the Chinese-language newspaper’s office.
If it is true that the Nanyang Siang Pau’s apology is just a deception as indirectly implied by Boo, no wonder PAS Youth members took the action. Furthermore PAS Youth and the Muslim NGOs are just expressing their freedom of speech” and freedom of expression.
The police have also waded in and said they’ll launch an investigation, with the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) warning the media against publishing “sensitive” cartoons.
It seems like the PDRM, especially the Inspector-General of Police is the ‘prime target’ for Boo and her gangs; therefore it proves the integrity and professionalism of the police force so far.
Nanyang was simply mocking the RUU355 debacle that has seen the fifth tabling of Hadi’s Bill – which seeks to enhance Shariah punishments – without resulting in a debate and vote.
The way Boo puts it, when she refers the parliamentary procedure as “the RUU355 debacle”, shows that she herself is mocking and debasing the long process of tabling the Act; which shows people like Boo Su-Lyn have no empathy and respect towards the rights of others.
The amendment of Act 355 is important to the Muslims who are the majority population of Malaysia. It is a move to uphold Islam as the religion of the Federation, so mocking such a very sensitive matter is uncalled for.
Alas, the arrogant Boo is mocking the process by referring it as “the RUU355 debacle”.
Last Thursday, the Speaker postponed the debate after allowing opening arguments from PAS, saying: “If you don’t use your power, you are a bloody fool. Today, I don’t want to be a bloody fool.”
The Speaker had to deal Lim Kit Siang and a few other opposition Members of Parliament who were behaving like spoiled children trying to disrupt a parliamentary process and denying the rights and the power of the Speaker in carrying out his duty as the the presiding officer of the Dewan Rakyat.
The Nanyang cartoon shows the “Hadi” monkey offering the RUU355 “hot potato” to the “Pandikar” monkey, who leaps off the tree saying, “Keep it for next time”, as a bunch of monkeys get into a fight below. The cartoon is captioned: “Monkeys playing tricks”, with the word “tricks” referencing the Bill.
Was the cartoon offensive? Opinions are sure to differ.
A person does not have to be smart to answer the above questions.
 1) The cartoon is offensive to the supporters of the amendment of Act 355 because matters relating upholding Islam is a “no-mocking’ matters to the Muslims.
 2) The cartoon is not offensive to people like Boo Su-Lyn because they are the ones who are the mocker or the trouble makers.
To me, calling someone a “bitch” or a “slut” is far more offensive than calling them a “monkey.” Yet, the police aren’t hunting down people who make such offensive remarks against women online.
Another deception of truth using an out of context argument. This is not just another case of name-calling or people make rude and offensive remarks as published daily by the opposition and the ‘opposition-inclined’ news portals, for example Free Malaysia Today and Malay Mail Online.
Nanyang is bounded by regulations and law because we are not living in dark ages or in a lawless country where anyone can do just anything they fancy.
Even if Boo Su-Lyn tells people to call her monkey, she has no right to tell the Muslims to let non-Muslims humiliate Islam by implying the amendment of Act 355 is like a monkey business; after all the caricature was titled “Monkey Act” (as translated by most reports) for a reason, isn’t it?
Why should a newspaper face State action over a caricature when Hadi is free to call the DAP a piece of “shit”? To be clear, I’m not advocating for police investigations against Hadi.
Is she serious? The newspaper insults Islam while Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi did not insult any religion. Islam is the religion of the Federation but DAP is only a political party and not even a religion. Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi said that DAP is a piece of “shit” from PAP, a rude way to say that DAP is a spin-off from PAP. It is rude but not seditious nor malicious. DAP leaders not only slur PAS but they also make offensive and seditious statements towards Islam. In fact, Boo herself wrote a lot of malicious and seditious articles which are offensive to the Muslims. If Haji Hadi must be investigated, so must Boo Su-Lyn and DAP leaders.
The point is everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, no matter how crude and offensive they are.
So, Boo must now fight for the Speaker’s, PAS Youth’s and Muslim NGOs’ rights to their freedom of speech. It is not fair if the rights to go on a “crude and offensive” mocking spree is only bestowed on Boo and her gangs.
The Nanyang cartoon wasn’t even mocking Islam; it was just taking a jibe at the way Hadi’s Bill has been politicised for two whole years since it first appeared in Parliament’s Order Paper in April 2015.
Islam is a way of life and as a non-Muslim and especially an atheist Boo Su-Lyn has no right to comment about Islam. Neither PAS nor UMNO politicised the Bill.
A piece of legislation cannot be equated to a religion.
As an atheist, she fails to understand how people feel about their religion as she doesn’t even have a religion.
Malaysia is a multi-cultural society, which means that our lawmakers in Parliament come from diverse backgrounds. Just because a certain Bill touches on religion (in the case of RUU355, it’s specifically on the Shariah court system), it does not mean that those of other faiths cannot question it.
One need to be constitutionally literate in order to talk about legal matters. The fact that Malaysia is a multi-cultural society makes it crucial for the people to respect the rights of others as provided by the Federal Constitution. Please refer to Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution before making a statement on this matter.
If that were the case, then we might as well prevent non-Muslim MPs from debating and voting on RUU355.
Muslims leaders obey the Federal Constitution and do not do things based only on emotion.
Or we might as well prevent Muslim MPs from debating and vosion ting on the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, since its proposed ban on unilateral child conversions deals primarily with the rights of non-Muslim parents and children.
This is the problem when a person who is constitutionally illiterate comments on parliamentary procedure. It is unconstitutional to restrict the non-Muslims Members of Parliament from voting on matters regarding Islam in Parliament.
The intellectual growth of the nation will be stunted if people are not allowed to question or to make criticisms on topics like religion. Any religious belief, or even the lack of belief like atheism, should be subject to debate, criticism, and yes, even satire.
Please study the law of our country before making senseless comments. Boo Su-Lyn’s ‘logic’ on matters of religion is only accepted by the liberals. By the way, atheism is against both our Federal Constitution and Rukun Negara, so it has no legal standing according to the supreme law of our country.
Freedom of speech is especially necessary in cases where religion is used as a basis for policymaking, be it healthcare, education, marriage, or childbearing.
Policy making must be based on the ideology and the law of a country. We cannot force a secular country to make state policies based on religion and like wise we cannot force an Islamic country like Malaysia to make policies based on freedom of speech.
In Malaysia, religion features in many of our policies, which makes it all the more important to ensure that the interests of the citizenry are not sacrificed for someone’s personal beliefs.
In Malaysia, Islam is not merely “someone’s personal beliefs” but it is the religion of the Federation as enshrined by the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. “The interests of the citizenry are not sacrificed” by Islamic policies because it is only for the Muslims. Regarding the amendment of Act 355, it is the non-Muslims who are trying to deny the rights of the Muslims.
If Malaysia really wants to go all out in preserving “national harmony”, then they can look at Singapore which prosecuted teenager Amos Yee for insulting Christians and Muslims and more recently, fined and deported a Muslim imam for saying during Friday prayers: “God help us against Jews and Christians.” Singaporean authorities even gave stern warnings to two Facebook users in the imam’s case.
I agree that Malaysia should take stern actions on people who try to interfere with other people’s religion especially Islam, the religion of the Federation. Unlike Malaysia, Singapore is a country without a religion, thus all religions are at par as according to the Constitution of Singapore; so legal matters regarding religions cannot be the same for both countries.
Christians and Muslims are minority groups in Singapore, forming 18 per cent and 15 per cent of the population respectively in the 2010 census. Buddhists and Taoists comprise the biggest religious group at 44 per cent. A significant percentage, 17 per cent, say they have no religious affiliation.
So Malaysia can take the Singapore route if it wants to and prosecute criticism and insults of any religion, without being biased towards a certain faith.
In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah had clearly clarified that other religions have no equal standing as Islam:

In my opinion, “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practied in peace and harmony” means that Islam is the main religion among other religions that are practied in the country such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others. Islam is not equal to any other religion, not sitting together or stand upright. It sits on top, he walked past, located in the field and his voice heard. Islam is like teak trees – tall, strong and skilled. If not so Islam is not the religion of the Federation but is one among several religions practised in the country and everyone is equally free to practice any religion he professes, no more one than the other. Provisions ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’ shall be defined and reviewed with the objective to read other provisions of the Constitution, especially Article 89, 152, 153 and 14.

If “national harmony” is the reason for clamping down on freedom of speech, it’s preferable to go after those who mock any religion rather than take action against people who criticise a certain faith.
Boo Su-Lyn is either delusional or in a bad faith accused that it is lawful to mock any religion but Islam in Malaysia.
This way, everyone will be happy and there will be genuine “national” peace and harmony across race and religion.
In case Boo is unaware, the president of Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) was charged in court under the Sedition Act 1948 for questioning the citizenship of the Chinese.
Of course, the best way for our country to develop intellectually is to truly protect fundamental liberties and to allow people to say whatever they want, as long as they do not advocate physical harm.
Fundamental liberties is stated in Part II of the Federal Constitution and as we live in Malaysia, we follow the Malaysian laws.
We shouldn’t try to be like robotic Singapore. Instead Malaysia should aim higher and allow the diversity of thought and opinion to flourish.
The opposition had always named Singapore as an example which Malaysia should follow, but now they don’t want Malaysia to become like “robotic Singapore”; cherry picking again.
Singapore has both the Internal Security Act 1985 and Sedition Act 1948, while Malaysia was forced to abolish the Internal Security Act 1960 by human right activists and is left with only the Sedition Act which is now under attack by the same group. Weirdly, the same group praises Singapore for its law-and-order policy.
If Boo lives in Singapore, I am doubtful if she dares to do what she is doing now. If Malaysia is as what portrayed by Boo, she would have been charged under the Sedition Act a long time ago. But she is still free to slur seditious and spiteful statements with malicious intent about Islam that can promote ill will and hostility or hatred between different races and religions of Malaysia, which is chargeable under both Section 3(1)(e) and Section (3)(1)(ea) of the Sedition Act 1948.
She must be thankful that at least she is has yet  to be charged for making seditious statements. This proves that Malaysia does support freedom of speech. If not, not only Boo but a lot others including some online portals have been charged for making or publishing malicious and spiteful contents.

Related Posts:

Lim Guan Eng, Lama Berpolitik Tetapi Masih Buta Perlembagaan

Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng hari ini telah mengeluarkan satu kenyataan media berkenaan cadangan pindaan Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang kuasa Jenayah) 1965, atau lebih dikenali sebagai pindaan Akta 355. Dalam kenyataan media yang dimuatnaikkan di laman facebook beliau, Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang dan Ahli Parlimen Bagan itu membuat berberapa tuduhan liar dan bersifat fitnah terhadap pindaan Akta 355, termasuk tuduhan basi seperti ‘pindaan ini tidak berperlembagaan’.

Kenyataannya itu jelas membuktikan bahawa bukan sahaja Lim Guan Eng buta Perlembagaan, malah lebih parah lagi, Setiausaha Agung DAP itu nampaknya langsung tidak memahami sistem pengundian di Parlimen. Amat memalukan bagaimana seorang Ahli Parlimen tidak faham sistem undian di Parlimen. Apakah Lim Guan Eng tidak pernah mengundi di Parlimen sebelum ini? Lebih memalukan lagi ialah apabila Lim Guan Eng cuba bertindak mengulas hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, seolah-olah dia adalah pakar dalam bidang tersebut namun jelas terbukti betapa dangkal dan tidak berasasnya hujah Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang itu.

Lim Guan Eng menabur fitnah bahawa pindaan Akta 355 ini tidak berpelembagaan walaupun pelbagai penerangan telah dibuat untuk memperjelaskan perkara ini. Beliau juga mempertikaikan cara pengundian yang telah ditetapkan untuk pindaan Akta ini dengan memberi pelbagai sebab untuk mempertahankan kenyataannya. Namun, apakah Lim Guan Eng sebagai seorang Ahli Parlimen betul-betul tidak tahu tentang peruntukan di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang mengatakan dengan jelas tentang perkara ini? Perkara 62(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Tatacara Parlimen, telahpun mengatakan bahawa untuk meluluskan apa-apa undian, mereka hanya perlu mendapat majoriti biasa daripada ahli parlimen yang mengundi; kecuali jika mereka mahu meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang dimaktub di dalam Perkara 159(3) di mana undiannya mestilah tidak kurang daripada dua pertiga daripada jumlah bilangan ahli Majlis Parlimen itu.

PERKARA 62(3):

Tertakluk kepada Fasal (4) dan kepada Perkara 89(1) dan 159(3) dan kepada seksyen 10 dan 11 Jadual Ketiga Belas, setiap Majlis Parlimen hendaklah, jika tidak sebulat suara, membuat keputusannya mengikut majoriti biasa ahli-ahli yang mengundi; dan orang yang mempengerusikan itu, melainkan jika dia menjadi ahli Majlis Parlimen itu semata-mata menurut kuasa perenggan (b) Fasal (1A) Perkara 57, hendaklah membuang undinya apabila perlu bagi mengelakkan undi sama banyak, tetapi tidak boleh mengundi dalam apa-apa hal lain.

PERKARA 159(3):

Sesuatu Rang Undang-undang bagi membuat apa-apa pindaan kepada Perlembagaan (selain pindaan yang dikecualikan daripada peruntukan Fasal ini) dan sesuatu Rang Undang-undang bagi membuat apa-apa pindaan kepada sesuatu undang-undang yang diluluskan di bawah Fasal (4) Perkara 10 tidaklah boleh diluluskan di dalam mana-mana satu Majlis Parlimen melainkan jika Rang Undang-undang itu telah disokong pada Bacaan Kali Kedua dan Kali Ketiga dengan undi sebanyak tidak kurang daripada dua pertiga daripada jumlah bilangan ahli Majlis Parlimen itu.

Oleh kerana pindaan Akta 355 adalah satu pindaan bagi Akta dan bukannya meminda Perlembagaan; maka ianya tidak tertakluk kepada Perkara dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang dengan secara harfiahnya dipanggil Pindaan Perlembagaan. Maka di manakah logiknya hujah Lim Guan Eng yang mahukan peruntukan Perlembagaan tentang pindaan Perlembagaan digunakan untuk meminda Akta?

Hujah Lim Guan Eng amat memalukan bilamana seorang yang mempunyai kesetiaan yang agung terhadap parti masih keliru tentang perkara asas ini. Kalaupun had hukuman yang mahu dinaikkan itu menjadikannya lebih tinggi daripada had hukuman lain yang sedia ada dijadikan alasan; bagaimanakah parlimen meluluskan pindaan-pindaan untuk menambah hukuman sebelum ini? Sudah tentulah pernah ada pindaan yang menaikkan had hukuman sesuatu jenayah tertentu melebihi had hukuman yang tertinggi yang ada semasa pindaan tersebut dicadangkan. Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak melarang perkara ini, malah kita boleh menaikkan had sampai kepada 100 tahun penjara pun, ia tidak ada masalah dari segi Perlembagaan.

Bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah dan Sivil telah di tetapkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan punca kuasa Mahkamah Syariah datangnya daripada Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah pula tertakluk kepada Akta 355. Kerana itulah untuk meminda Akta 355, Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak perlu dipinda. Malahan, pindaan ini tidak menyentuh apa-apa perkara yang akan menjejaskan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Ini lah masalah dengan orang yang buta Perlembagaan tetapi cuba menunjuk pandai dan bercakap tentang perkara yang dia sendiri tidak faham.

Akta 355: Lim Kit Siang dan ‘Pakatan Harapan’ BiaDAP!

Zairil Dakwa Tun M Mencadangkan Pindaan Semberono?

Saya tidak terkejut apabila ahli Parlimen DAP Bukit Bendera, Zairil yang walaupun mengaku beragama Islam tetapi menentang taraf, kedudukan dan bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia seperti yang telah termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Di dalam artikel yang bertajuk, “Kembalikan kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan sebagai pemutus muktamad isu undang-undang”, yang telah disiarkan oleh RoketKini.com, Zairil mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang menghalang Mahkamah Tinggi untuk membatalkan keputusan Mahkamah Syariah.

>>>Tekan sini untuk baca artikel tersebut<<<

Tidak setakat itu, ahli Parlimen DAP itu juga mencadangkan agar bidang kuasa yang telah diperuntukkan kepada Mahkamah Syariah untuk menghakimi “hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa” itu dirampas atau ditarik balik.

Lebih parah lagi, dengan memberi gambaran bahawa Perkara 121(1A) itu seolah-olah tidak adil dan satu “dilema sistem kehakiman”, pemimpin DAP itu mencadangkan satu jalan pintas diambil untuk merampas bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah melalui jalan belakang, seperti kenyataannya, “Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121”.

Bukankah cadangan Zairil itu bermakna menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah secara ‘bypass’ Perlembagaan Persekutuan?

Kenyataan Zairil:

Oleh itu, saya ingin mencadangkan agar Mahkamah Persekutuan dikembalikan tarafnya sebagai pemutus muktamad dalam segala isu undang-undang, yakni sebagai Mahkamah Perlembagaan. Malah, ini boleh dibuat dengan mudah tanpa pindaan Perlembagaan atau apa-apa perubahan kepada Perkara 121.

Penyelesaian kepada masalah ini boleh dicapai melalui pindaan kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman dalam dua perkara. Pertamanya, pendefinisian bidang kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan harus menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak dihadkan kepada bidang kuasa yang sama dengan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Kedua, satu prosedur harus diperkenalkan bagi membenarkan pengemukaan petisyen secara langsung kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam hal-hal yang melibatkan hak dan kebebasan asasi, termasuk dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan Perkara 121(1A) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa. 

~Zairil (DAP)

Kalau dahulu Lim Guan Eng dengan celuparnya membuat fitnah dan hasutan jahat menuduh UMNO sanggup bekerjasama dengan PAS untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect” dalam hal Akta 355, kini terbukti siapa sebenarnya yang berniat jahat untuk “bypass the Federal Constitution” untuk mencapai hasrat mereka.

“MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP deserve public condemnation for betraying their principles and promises to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution but also for their political expediency to continue to deceive the people by supporting UMNO that is willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect.”

~Lim Guan Eng

Lebih teruk lagi, Zairil juga telah memberi sebab yang tidak masuk akal dalam mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A):

Jika kita kembali kepada Perlembagaan, Perkara 75 menyatakan bahawa undang-undang Persekutuan mengatasi undang-undang Negeri, manakala Perkara 4 menyatakan Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengatasi semua undang-undang lain. Hal ini jelas dan tidak dipertikaikan.

~Zairil (DAP)

Walaupun undang-undang Syariah itu dibawah negeri, namun sistem Mahkamah Syariah adalah sebahagian daripada sistem perundangan Persekutuan; kerana kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

Selain daripada Zairil, Lim Kit Siang juga mempertikaikan Perkara 121(1A).

Menariknya pada masa yang sama, rakan sekumpulan mereka iaitu PKR menyangkal tuduhan DAP dan mengiktiraf Perkara 121(1A) sebagai penting dan baik sehingga mendakwa pemimpin mereka, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahimlah yang memainkan peranan utama dalam usaha untuk menambah Fasal 1A kepada Perkara 121.

At the Federal level, upon the initiatives of the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Article 121 (1A) was introduced to the Federal Constitution. The introduction upgraded the legal position of the Syariah Courts without infringing the civil on the court rights of non-Muslims. It must be stress that this initiative was discussed by the Islamic Consultation Body, the Islamic Centre (now JAKIM), and the Cabinet.

~Strengthening Islamic Jurisprudence in Malaysia – Page 20

Malah, bukan setakat itu sahaja, tetapi jika mereka membaca Hansard Parliamen, mereka akan mendapati bahawa rakan baik terkini parti DAP, Tun Dr. Mahathirlah yang merupakan orang yang mencadangkan penambahan Fasal 1(A) kepada Perkara 121 di Parlimen pada tahun 1988.

Jadi, apakah Zairil menuduh Dr. M seorang yang tidak cermat dan tidak berfikiran panjang sehingga mencadangkan satu “pindaan semberono” yang “telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita”?

Pindaan semberono yang dibuat pada tahun 1988 telah meninggalkan warisan yang buruk kepada negara kita dan mencetuskan krisis Perlembagaan dan penafian hak dan kebebasan asasi rakyat seperti yang berlaku dlm kes-kes S. Deepa dan Indira Gandhi.

~Zairil (DAP)

Apakah pindaan Perkara 121(1A) yang dituduh satu “pindaan semberono” oleh Zairil akan benar-benar menjadi satu “dilema” kepada DAP, PKR dan PPBM?

Maka persoalannya ialah:

  1. Apakah pendirian bersama parti DAP, PKR dan PPBM mengenai Perkara 121(1A)?
  2. Siapakah yang akan beralah dalam soal ini atau adakah PKR dan PPBM hanya bermain politik dan akhirnya akan akur akan semua kehendak DAP?
  3. Sanggupkah PKR dan Tun Dr. Mahathir bersekongkol dengan DAP untuk menarik balik bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah?
  4. Di manakah suara pemimpin Islam mereka yang pernah berkata mahu memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah?
  5. Apakah inilah yang mereka maksudkan sebagai pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah versi mereka?

 

Mengarutnya Tun Mahathir… (Video)

Dalam satu sidang media selepas sambutan Tahun Baru Cina oleh PKR Bandar Tun Razak di Flat Seri Johor di Cheras, pengerusi Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM), Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed membuat berberapa tuduhan yang amat mengarut tentang pindaan Akta 355.

Dalam sebuah video oleh KiniTV, Tun M sekali lagi membuat beberapa tuduhan liar seperti Himpunan 355 bermotifkan politik dan juga pindaan yang dicadangkan ini akan membolehkan perlaksanaan hukuman potong tangan dan lebih pelik lagi, penyembelihan orang.

“Tetapi nampak dia orang ni yang seronok sangat nak potong tangan orang, nak sembelih orang…”

~Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed

Persolannya, adakah Tun M tidak faham tentang pindaan Akta 355 atau Tun sengaja mahu mengelirukan orang ramai dengan tuduhan yang tidak masuk akal seperti menyembelih orang?

Memang pelik bila Tun M seperti tidak faham tentang Akta 355, kerana hakikatnya, Akta ini telah dipinda dua kali semasa zaman Tun menjadi Perdana Menteri.

Malah Tun M sendiri telah menyokong usul pindaan Akta 355 pada tahun 1984 bertujuan untuk menaikkan had hukuman bagi Mahkamah Syariah pada ketka itu.

Seperti pindaan Akta 355 pada tahun 1984, pindaan yang dicadangkan ini juga hanyalah untuk menaikkan had hukuman kesalahan di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah dan bukannya menentukan hukuman kerana ini adalah di bawah bidang kuasa kerajaan negeri.

Malangnya, kini Tun sudah senada dengan kumpulan SIS Forum Berhad yang gagal memahami perkara yang mudah ini.

Hukuman berat atau ‘capital punishment’ seperti potong tangan tidak termasuk di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah, apatah lagi hukuman bunuh.

Tambahan, di bawah hukum Islam, pesalah tidak boleh dibunuh secara kejam seperti dengan cara sembelih apabila dihukum mati, dan Tun M sudah salah di situ.

Tun M juga nampaknya tidak faham akan cara perlaksanaan sebatan Syariah apabila menuduh bahawa perlaksanaan seratus sebatan akan membunuh pesalah.

“Ini nak sebat orang sampai seratus kali, mati kalau sebat seratus kali.”

~Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed

Sebatan Syariah amat ringan berbanding sebatan sivil, dan sebatan akan dijalankan di bawah pengawasan doktor perubatan yang mengawasi keadaan pesalah semasa disebat dan sebatan akan ditangguhkan jika kesihatan pesalah tidak mengizinkan.

Kata Tun, “Melayu mudah lupa” tapi nampaknya Tun yang sudah lupa atau buat-buat lupa.

Related articles:

  1. Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan
  2. Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?
  3. Tun Dr Mahathir, From A Statesman To A Street Demonstrator
  4. Tun Dr. Mahathir, “Kalau Marahkan Nyamuk Jangan Bakar Kelambu”
  5. Tun M Has Gone Too Far
  6. Is Tun M’s Rights Above The Rights Of Agong
  7. Tun M, Janganlah Menghina Nabi S.A.W.
  8. Tun M: “Perdana Menteri Buat Demonstration” (Video)
  9. Tun M: Jangan Menang Sorak, Kampung Tergadai
  10. Tun M and TMI vs Bukit Aman
  11. Video: Tun M Sings “Imagine”, Is He Okay?

Dato’ Naser Disa, Dato’ Zainul Rijal, Dr Yusri Di Himpunan 355

Anda masih belum betul-betul faham tentang apa itu Pindaan Akta 355?
Datanglah ke Himpunan 355 di Padang Merbok untuk mendengar penjelasan daripada peguam-peguam terkenal negara pada malam Sabtu 18 Februari 2016.

Aturcara tentatif:

Dato’ Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar (Presiden Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia – PPMM)
9:16 P.M.

Dato’ Prof Hj. Mahamad Naser Disa (Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia – IKSIM)
9:32 P.M.

Dr. Yusri Mohamad (Majlis Amal Islami Malaysia – MAIM)
10:10 P.M.

Kebenaran Di Sebalik Sejarah Penubuhan Persekutuan Malaysia

JataNegara-681x443

Dibawah adalah artikel terbaru saya untuk Menara.my.


Persekutuan Malaysia ditubuhkan pada 16 September 1963, bilamana sebelas negeri dari Semenanjung Tanah Melayu bergabung bersama Sabah, Sarawak dan Singapura untuk membentuk sebuah persekutuan baharu. Namun begitu,  sejarah Persekutuan Malaysia bukanlah hanya bermula pada tarikh tersebut, tetapi telah bermula sejak lama dahulu ketika negeri-negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia masih merupakan negara-negara Kerajaan Melayu Islam berdaulat yang berasingan kerana tanah air kita ini asalnya milik Raja-Raja Melayu.

ali-karim-petak-2-203x300Peristiwa demi peristiwa yang berlaku akhirnya membawa kepada persepakatan sembilan Raja-Raja Melayu untuk mengorbankan kuasa mutlak baginda semua ke atas negara masing-masing dan bergabung di bawah satu kerajaan yang baharu.

Dahulunya, rakyat bersatu, taat kepada Raja-raja dan setia kepada negara. Apabila orang-orang Melayu menyedari tipu muslihat licik British untuk menjajah kerajaan-kerajaan Islam di Tanah Melayu melalui Malayan Union, mereka telah bangkit membantah dan akhirnya berjaya membawa kepada pembubaran Malayan Union pada 31 Januarii 1948. British terpaksa menurut kehendak orang-orang Melayu yang bertindak melalui UMNO untuk membentuk Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang membawa kepada kemerdekaan Tanah Melayu.

Sebenarnya, menurut pakar-pakar sejarah negara seperti Profesor Emeritus Tan Sri Dr. Khoo Kay Kim,  British tidak pernah menjajah seluruh Tanah Melayu, yang dijajah hanyalah Pulau Pinang, Melaka dan Singapura. Perkara ini dibuktikan oleh dokumen Pemasyhuran Kemerdekaan (Declaration of Independence) yang dengan jelas menyebut, “Melaka dan Pulau Pinang … tamat daripada menjadi sebahagian daripada jajahan takluk Baginda Queen, dan Duli Yang Maha Mulia Baginda Queen tidak lagi berhak menjalankan apa-apa kedaulatan baginda ke atas kedua-dua buah negeri yang tersebut itu”.

Dokumen Pemasyhuran Kemerdekaan merupakan sebuah dokumen persetujuan di antara Raja Inggeris, Queen, dan Duli-Duli Yang Maha Mulia Raja-Raja Melayu yang bersetuju bermula daripada tarikh 31 Ogos 1957, sembilan buah negeri di bawah Raja-raja Melayu bersama Melaka dan Pulau Pinang menjadi sebuah Persekutuan baharu bernama Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Menariknya, dokumen rasmi ini dimulakan dengan nama Allah, tahmid dan selawat kepada Nabi Muhammad S.A.W., menunjukkan ciri-ciri Islam jelas terpahat pada dokumen negara yang amat penting ini. Perkara ini membuktikan ketinggian agama Islam di dalam kerajaan kita sejak dahulu lagi. Malah, British sendiri telah mengiktiraf kedudukan Islam di negara ini, apabila moto negara yang tertulis pada Jata Negara bagi Negeri-Negeri Melayu Bersekutu yang dinaungi oleh Raja Inggeris pun menyebut nama Allah, iaitu, “Dipelihara Allah” yang ditulis dalam tulisan Jawi.

Kerajaan-Kerajaan Melayu di Tanah Melayu ialah kerajaan Islam. Maka atas asas inilah lahirnya Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia, yang menyebut, “Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan”, yang mana membawa maksud bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara Islam. Hujah ni diperkuatkan lagi oleh Perkara 37 yang mewajibkan Yang Di-Pertuan Agong untuk bersumpah di atas nama Allah S.W.T. untuk memelihara pada setiap masa agama Islam, seperti apa yang tertulis di dalam Jadual Keempat Perlembagaan Persekutuan, sebelum memulakan tugas Baginda sebagai Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang merupakan asas kenegaraan kita dengan jelas meletakkan Islam di tempat yang sangat tinggi iaitu hanya selepas ‘Nama, Negeri-negeri dan wilayah-wilayah Persekutuan’, dan ‘Penerimaan masuk wilayah-wilayah baru ke dalam Persekutuan’. Perkara ini dengan sendirinya jelas menafikan fitnah jahat yang mendakwa bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara sekular atau Perlembagaan negara bersifat sekular. Sejarah negara kita jelas membuktikan bahawa negara kita tidak pernah bersifat sekular.

Amat malang kerana pada hari ini, ramai orang bukan Islam dan golongan liberal yang buta sejarah, atau sengaja menafikan sejarah. Mereka melupakan Kontrak Sosial, pengorbanan Raja-Raja Melayu dan jasa pemimpin yang terdahulu. Mereka mendakwa bahawa Perlembagaan Persekutuan bersifat sekular dan Islam hanyalah sekadar agama rasmi sahaja. Malah mereka mahu memadam segala sejarah sebelum penubuhan Persekutuan Malaysia.

Di atas nama hak asasi manusia, mereka mendakwa boleh melakukan apa sahaja hatta menghina Agama Persekutuan, Raja-Raja Melayu, pemimpin negara dan hak rakyat Raja Melayu. Golongan ini menentang asas-asas agama dan asas-asas negara dan dengan sengaja menyalahtafsirkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Suara-suara sumbang ini membantah usaha untuk memartabatkan agama negara, contohnya dalam hal Pindaan Akta 355. Walhal, rakyat Malaysia sepatutnya bersatu dalam hal ini, kerana kita mesti ingat akan dua tiang kepada pembentukan Persekutuan ini iaitu Islam dan Kesatuan. Kita mesti bersifat patriotik, memahami asas negara kita dan menjunjung tinggi Perlembagaan Persektuan.

Janganlah kita leka sehingga kita lalai dan tertipu dengan agenda musuh yang mahu membinasakan negara kita. Kita tidak mahu melihat tragedi malang 13 Mei berulang kembali atau negara kita kembali dijajah.

logo-head

Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn

Boo Su-Lyn’s Malay Mail Online article, “Why we must stand up against Hadi’s Bill” is full of false, slanderous and malicious accusations that undermine Islam, the religion of the Federation. She is instigating disunity among people of different races. She is disloyal to the DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as she refutes the DYMM Agong’s oath to uphold Islam at all time and she also went against the decree of the former DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong which was made in the parliament on the 7th March, 2016:

“Beta berharap langkah-langkah ke arah memperkukuhkan institusi agama dan kecekapan perlaksanaan undang-undang pentadbiran agama Islam melalui pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah dapat disegerakan.”

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”. That means Boo Su-Lyn has no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs and to question the implementation of our Syariah Laws.

One of the causes of religious conflicts in Malaysia is instigation made by people like Boo Su-Lyn who seems to think that she knows everything, has the right to interfere with everything and has respect to others.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Boo Su-Lyn’s article in red:


JANUARY 20 — If we fear that PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s Bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) may irrevocably change our beloved country, then we must stand up against the Bill in a united show of protest.

PAS president’s Private Member’s Bill is an amendment to enhance the Act 355, which was last amended in 1989 in order to empower the Malaysian Judiciary Systems, specifically the Syariah Courts. Lots of other Acts had been amended more than twice since Act 355 was last amended.

Today, the maximum punishment for smoking in public places is higher than the maximum punishments for any Syariah offences, thus, giving an impression that the offence of smoking in public places is more serious than any Syariah offences including apostasy.

It’s not enough to merely issue press statements as our voices are scattered.

Boo Su-Lyn is beginning to echo what was said by Jamal Yunos about Bersih, so she must stop complaining about him. Bersih rallies are illegal, affect everybody including Jamal but Act 355 is constitutional and does not affect the non-Muslims including Boo. 

PAS knows that there is significant opposition to Hadi’s Bill, which is why they themselves are organising a mass rally on February 18 to gather support for the Bill, even though the prime minister himself has announced that the government will take over the proposed legislation.

On the February 18, Muslims will rally in solidarity as a united Muslim ummah, regardless of their political parties, to urge their MPs to support the amendment of Act 355. PAS does not need to gather support from the Muslims because the majority of the Muslims support the private Bill.

Likewise, if we Malaysians across race and religion feel strongly against Hadi’s Bill which threatens to alter the secular structure of our country, then we must mobilise ourselves and express our opposition on a single, visible platform.

By calling Malaysia a secular country, Boo Su-Lyn slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

George Jacob Holyoake who is the creator of the term secularism defines secularism as separating government and religion. Therefore, as said in many of my previous posts, it is impossible for Malaysia to be defined as a secular country when Islam is stated as the religion of the Federation in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Hence, Boo words, “threatens to alter the secular structure of our country” is indeed a malicious lie.

Proponents claim that Hadi’s Bill is not about hudud, conveniently ignoring history when PAS has always wanted to amend Act 355 and even the Federal Constitution to allow it to implement hudud in Kelantan.

Boo is wrong again.  It is a slanderous lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill or it will legalise the Kelantan’s Hudud  because:

  • The offences under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts are not the same as the offences listed under the Hudud law.
  • Hudud’s punishments include capital punishment which is not included under the Act 355.

The Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions. Therefore, this Bill is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) 2015 or known as Kelantan’s Hudud.

A working paper by the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) that was leaked in 2014 had even argued that the Islamic penal code should be applied to all Malaysians on the basis that Islam is the religion of the federation.

The amendment of Act 355 is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) because Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II contradicts with our judicial systems.

It has only been of late that PAS claims that Hadi’s Bill is not aimed at introducing hudud law, but merely at expanding the punitive powers of the Shariah courts. The proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic — increasing jail term limits from three to 30 years, hiking up fines by 20 times from RM5,000 to RM100,000, and multiplying lashes of the cane from six to 100.

For those who do not bother to check their facts right like Boo Su-Lyn, will claim that “the proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic”. Actually, the hike in the proposed amendment seems high because the current punishment limits are much too low and are overdue for a revised since the last increase in the punishment was done 33 years ago.

In reality, even though the maximum punishment for the civil offence of smoking in public places is RM10,000 fine or two years of imprisonment, some activists are still fighting for the increase in the punishments. 

In the case of whipping, there is a huge difference between Syariah whipping as compared to civil whipping, both in terms of the way of conduct and also the size of the cane. I trust the Syariah Courts’ judges and I’m sure they are as professional as the Civil Courts’ judges and not to punish people cruelly.

What religious offence would merit imprisonment of up to three decades?

A lot because Islam is a way of life.

In the Penal Code, rape and culpable homicide not amounting to murder are punishable with 30 years’ jail. What offence which merely violates certain religious instructions can possibly be equivalent to the violent crimes of rape and homicide?

A lot including apostasy and offences under Islamic Family Laws.

MCA is against PAS’ “Himpunan 355” rally, claiming that it will cause disunity.

MCA should have banned their members from taking part in the illegal Bersih 5 because not only Bersih causes disunity, it condemned the government and caused chaos all around the city for its selfish decision to demonstrate around the city instead of holding a rally in a stadium or a field.

I don’t think we should try to prevent PAS from organising their rally. It’s well within their rights to assemble peacefully for whatever cause they hold dear.
Just as it’s within our rights as Malaysian citizens to protest against Hadi’s Bill.

Make sure that it will be legal, hold the rally in a stadium or a field and do not turn it into street demonstrations like Bersih. It will be interesting to see if the Malay leaders of PPBM, PAN and PKR dare to take part.

Hadi’s supporters say that non-Muslims are interfering with Muslim affairs by questioning and criticising Hadi’s Bill, which they claim will not affect non-Muslims.

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”.

It’s a spurious argument.

Are you challenging the Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution?

Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. We do not live in silos. We eat, work and live together.

Wrong. Malaysia is a multi-racial but not a multi-religious country. Malaysia’s only religion is Islam, as stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. But Malaysia is a country with multi-religious citizens.

Non-Muslims may not want to see their Muslim friends, family or neighbours subjected to an unjust law that is opposed by some Muslims themselves.

In the judgment of the Federal Court case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

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

Claiming Syariah laws and punishment as unjust is challenging the Federal Constitution because the Syariah Courts are part of our judicial systems as written in Article 121(1A). It has a seditious tendency as stated in Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, which is, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State.

Non-Muslims may also end up being victimised, which has already happened in several interfaith child custody cases involving Muslim converts. A 60-year-old Christian woman was publicly caned in Acheh, Indonesia, last April under Shariah law for selling alcohol.

Another lame and out of context argument. Malaysian Syariah Courts have never punished any non-Muslim and the proposed amendment does not give the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction to do so.

Everyone has the right to talk about Hadi’s Bill because it is just like any other ordinary piece of legislation. This is not interference in someone else’s religious affairs; it’s about exercising our roles in democracy as equal Malaysian citizens.

Everyone has the right to talk but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs as stated in Article 11(3).

Hadi’s opinions must be open to scrutiny just like those of any Malaysian politician. No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else.

Agreed, that is why I hope Boo Su-Lyn will be professional enough to write about the seditious statements made by opposition leaders toward the religion of Islam.

We cannot separate “Muslim” and “non-Muslim” affairs as if they’re different slices of a cake.

Boo Su-Lyn must go back to school and learn about Article 11(3) and other basic facts about our Federal Constitution before writing on matters related to the Constitution because everyone is subjected to the laws of our country including Boo Su-Lyn. “No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else”.  

Taxpayers’ money that goes towards maintaining the Shariah courts and Islamic departments and enforcing Shariah legislation, just like it’s used to upgrade roads and to pay the salaries of civil servants, comes from both non-Muslim and Muslim taxpayers.

Boo must go back to school. Islam is the religion of the Federation. Therefore, the Federal Government is allowed to spend for the Syariah Courts using the taxpayers’ money. And Article 12(2) of the Federal Constitution allows the Federal Government to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam. In fact, the government is not at all allowed to spend taxpayers’ money for secular reasons or on anything that could cause any negative effect on the religion of Islam.

Laws that are passed in both the state legislative assemblies and in Parliament, including state Shariah legislation, involve the participation of both Muslim and non-Muslim lawmakers.

These state assemblymen and MPs must also remember that they represent voters across race and religion, even if most of their constituents may be predominantly of a certain ethnicity. Hence, their vote on Hadi’s Bill must be representative of their entire constituency, and not merely come from personal religious convictions.

Precisely. Boo Su-Lyn must remind the MPs that they represent their voters, so they are supposed to listen to the voters in the case of Hadi’s Private Bill and not to make their own decisions. Non-Muslim MPs must not forget who voted them into office, especially those from MCA, MIC and Gerakan.

Both non-Muslims and Muslims, as Malaysian citizens who vote and pay taxes, have just as much right as each other to talk about various issues and policies, including Shariah law and vernacular schools.

All Malaysian citizens have the rights to talk about the bill but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to fight against the amendment of Act 355 because it is regarding the Muslims religious affairs as it is against the Article 11(3).

So, everyone should not be afraid of speaking up against Hadi’s Bill.

The can talk about it as long as they know their limits.

It is our right as citizens to stand up for what we think is right and to stop Malaysia from turning into an intolerant state like Brunei or Acheh.

Boo Su-Lyn must stop making slanderous accusations and remember that nobody is above the law, including her. We are governed by law and our supreme law is the Federal Constitution.

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

[36] The alleged infringement of the fundamental liberties of the respondent can be negated by trite law that any freedom is not absolute. Freedom cannot be unfettered, otherwise, like absolute power, it can lead to chaos and anarchy. Freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1) are subjected to restrictions imposed by law under Article 10(2)(a). Freedom of religion, under Article 11(1), as explained above is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).

Related posts:

TANJAK – Young blogger expects senior leaders to understand constitution

Last week, news portal, Tanjak contacted me for my reaction towards the baseless and bias comments made by Lim Guan Eng and his supporters in order to ridicule my ability and knowledge on the matters concerning my November 23, 2016 police report against LGE.

Below is the article taken from Tanjak regarding this matter.


Prominent young blogger Ahmad Ali Abdul Karim, who lodged a police report against Lim Guan Eng, is unfazed by the scurrilous attacks against his person made by hardcore pro-opposition and leftist elements.

Ali’s police report concerned the Penang chief minister cum DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng with regard to the latter’s Nov 24 last year statement on the proposed bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction Act) 1965 commonly known as RUU355 that was proposed PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang.

Lim Guan Eng, DAP party secretary-general and Chief Minister of Penang

According to Ali’s police report lodged, the statement made by Lim contains seditious elements designed to mislead the Malaysian public on the nature of the amendment proposed, among others by claiming that RUU355 contravenes the federal constitution.

Young blogger subjected to insults, derision

While the young blogger’s action in lodging the report has received glowing praise, including from Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, supporters of the Penang Chief Minister did not mask their contempt for the move as well as the blogger himself.

The Dapsters were sceptical of the deputy minister’s opinion that the young lad knew the constitution better than Lim.

Their comments deluged the social media and pages of leftist news outlets such as MalaysiaKini attacking Ail’s credibility and accusing the teenager of being a stooge for the BN-led federal government.

MalaysiaKini report quoting Deputy Minister in the PM’s Dept over blogger Ali Abdul Karim’s police report against Lim Guan Eng

One commentator on MalaysiaKini, ‘JusticeNow!’ likened the move by Ali to the use of children as soldiers by corrupt regimes dominating the African continent, saying that just when one would think that Umno/BN “cannot go any lower”, they go ahead and do so and that Ali is a “forced recruit child soldier under the hegemony and exploitation of (the) BN/UMno (government)”.

Another, “Thickskin” suggested that Karim be made the new attorney-general since he knows more about the constitution.

Astoundingly, one commentator, “Anonymous_1429175092” went as far as to accuse the young blogger of being “jealous” of how the Penang state government was currently run, stating blithely that he had “no standard whether in merit, capability, knowledge, and foresight” and was childish to boot.

The response of the leftists on MalaysiaKini is hardly surprising given the pro-DAP news portal’s tendency for far-left slanted reporting, which has attracted fanatical supporters of the much maligned ethnic Chinese-based party.

Groups of DAP supporters have been known to regularly converge on pro-opposition Malaysian news portals to engage in race-baiting and bashing everything that is Malay and Islamic in origin as inferior to their Western and Chinese counterparts.

Tthe Red Bean Army (RBA), an organised group of DAP cybertroopers, is the best known example of these.

Previously, a sImilar responses had been recorded in response to the proposalby Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GMPS) president Zamri Mohd Isa in response to his urging of prime minister Najib Razak not to grant official recognition of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) in last Novermber.

Blogger doubles down on LGE’s misrepresentation

When contacted by the Tanjak news team for comment, the blogger denied he was being used as an agent by any party nor that he had any political motive, save to maintain Malaysia’s racial and religious harmony and defend the constitution.

Ali was also unfazed by the barrage of personal attacks mounted by the abovementioned elements on social media.

He responded that the commentators would seem to be deliberately overlooking the attempt by certain non-Muslim leaders, including the Penang chief minister, to undermine Islam’s position as enshrined in the constitution.

DAP, MCA and Gerakan all work together in defending and promoting Chinese interests in Malaysia and undermining Islam as the religion of the federation

He referred to Articles 3(1) of the constitution (on Islam’s status as the religion of the Federation) and 11(1) (freedom of religion) (as applied in the case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia) as the constitutional provisions that non-Muslim leaders such as Lim were guilty of wilful violation, in particular with regard to the position of Islam in the public sphere and the right of Muslims to practice their faith respectively.

He also stated that it was misleading of Lim to claim that he was merely expressing his opinion as a citizen and that “blocking” him using the Sedition Act would amount to the rakyat “not being able to have opinions anymore”.

“As a chief minister, [Lim] must understand that the four sensitive issues mentioned in section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act 1948 cannot be questioned, even in Parliament. Even the president of Isma [Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman] was found guilty under the Act,” the young blogger told Tanjak.

Clear elements of seditious tendency in LGE’s statement

The young lad cited at least two parts of Lim’s statement that were clearly seditious in nature.

The first was the call by Lim for non-Muslim BN component parties to “leave” BN over the proposed tabling of RUU355, which the blogger claimed would exerbate racial and religious relations. The second would be the claim by Lim that Umno and PAS were working together to “bypass” the constitution.

The blogger argued that Lim in his capacity as chief minister of Penang ought to have known better as his public statements may influence the way his supporters view issues as after all, they would naturally trust his judgment on public matters.

“I may be immature but I understand that I cannot intepret the [constitution] for my own gain. [The constitution] is the foundation of my country and I want our leaders to respect our supreme law,” he added.

tanjak-logo-head

BH – Laporan Polis Oleh Remaja 13 Tahun

Semalam, wartawan Berita Harian, Cik Siti Azila telah menemuramah saya tentang laporan polis yang saya buat terhadap ketua menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng, kerana kenyataannya pada 23 November lalu.

Sila baca: Police Report On Lim Guan Eng’s False Statements

whatsapp-image-2017-01-14-at-01-07-35