LGE Lantik Pengkhianat Raja Sebagai Pegawai Penerangan Tentang Islam?

Penang Chief Minister’s Office today announced the appointment of PKR liberal activist Wan Ji Wan Hussin as the information officer “to help counter false narratives hurled at the state government on matters concerning Islam”.

The infamous Wan Ji whose plan to remove the monarchy system in Malaysia was exposed on video, took his oath of office before Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng in Komtar today.

And as a lawmaker, Lim Guan Eng must be aware that the Section 121B of the Penal Code says that anyone whoever compasses, imagines, invents or intends the deposition or deprivation of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong from the sovereignty of Malaysia shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Isn’t it an insult to the Royal Institutions, for a state government to appoint a person who plans to bring down the Sultans who are Heads of Islam to a position related to Islamic matters?

Or does Lim Guan Eng agree with Wan Ji’s illegal plan as well?

 As they say, birds of a feather flock together.

Related Articles:

  1. Lim Guan Eng v. Donald Trump: Siapa Yang Dungu?
  2. Lim Guan Eng, Lama Berpolitik Tetapi Masih Buta Perlembagaan
  3. Is Wan Ji’s Arrest Part Of His Plan?

Lim Guan Eng v. Donald Trump: Siapa Yang Dungu?

Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng baru-baru ini telah membuat satu kenyataan yang kasar terhadap Presiden Amerika Syarikat, Donald Trump, dengan mengatakan bahawa Presiden Trump itu adalah seorang yang ‘dunggu’ dan menambah walaupun ada peluang, beliau tidak mahu berjumpa dengan Presiden Amerika Syarikat itu kerana “jumpa orang macam ini, kita sendiri jadi bodoh”.

Apakah benar Lim Guan Eng tidak akan berjumpa dengan Presiden Amerika Syarikat itu yang dikatakannya sebagai “seorang yang rasis, seorang yang kolot dan seorang yang tak hormati pendidikan” jika diberi peluang?

Seterusnya, Lim Guan Eng mempertikaikan pemilihan Trump sebagai presiden oleh rakyat Amerika Syarikat dengan berkata, “…tapi sayapun tak tahu macam mana dia boleh dipilih menjadi presiden”.

Ada dua perkara tentang kenyataan ini yang mahu saya sentuh:

  1. Seseorang pemimpin mesti menghormati dasar diplomatik negara dan Lim Guan Eng sebagai seorang Ketua Menteri tidak boleh dengan sesuka hati menghina dan memburukkan pemimpin negara lain, apatah lagi seorang Presiden. Jika pemimpin negara lain mengatakan bahawa Guan Eng itu dungu, saya pasti beliau akan tersangat marah dan membuat kenyataan balas terhadap perkara itu.
  2. Sebutan perkataan dungu adalah seperti ejaannya iaitu ‘dungu’ dan bukannya ‘dunggu’ seperti yang disebut berulang kali oleh Lim Guan Eng. Lim Guan Eng adalah seorang rakyat Malaysia yang telahpun hidup di Tanah Melayu ini selama hampir 55 tahun, takkanlah sebutan Bahasa Melayunya pun belum betul lagi. 

Saya tidak faham keperluan Lim Guan Eng ‘mendunggukan’ Presiden Trump, tetapi jangan kerana terlalu seronok ‘mendunggukan’ orang lain membuatkan beliau sendiri yang nampak dungu.

Persoalan seterusnya ialah, apakah orang yang tidak memahami dan menghormati protokol layak menjadi seorang pemimpin negara?

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.

Ceramah PAN: Kit Siang & Guan Eng Akan Masuk Islam?

I am not sure who is the speaker but he looks like Wan Ji and sounds like him too.

What will DAP say about this?

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?

 

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

 

Police Report On Lim Guan Eng’s False Statements

whatsapp-image-2016-11-24-at-11-54-16-am

Yesterday, as a loyal citizen of Malaysia, I filed a police report on Lim Guan Eng’s blog article regarding Act 355 at the Ampang Jaya Police Station.

In the article, the Pulau Pinang’s Chief Minister (CM) made four seditious false accusations:

  1. DAP opposes the hudud-like laws because it is contrary to the Federal Constitution.
  2. Our Federal Constitution is secular in nature with Islam as the religion of the Federation. Raising the punishment cap so that it can come closer to Hudud provisions would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance.
  3. 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.
  4. DAP reiterates that the failure of MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN now is seen as a form of tacit approval of the unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move to raise the punishment cap of Islamic laws that moves closer to Hudud-like laws.

DAP opposes the hudud-like laws because it is contrary to the Federal Constitution.

This is a recycled accusation that I’ve answered many times before.

Neither the Act 355 nor the amendment of the Act is contrary to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and the amendment of Act 355 it is not about implementing hudud-like laws as falsely accused by the CM of Pulau Pinang.

The fact that the Federal Constitution recognises the institution of Syariah Courts as stated in the Article 121 (1A) and the Part 1 List II  of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, proves that the Act 355 is not contrary to the Federal Constitution.

Furthermore, the Act 355 is an existing Act and it is already part of the laws of Malaysia.

“Our Federal Constitution is secular in nature with Islam as the religion of the Federation. Raising the punishment cap so that it can come closer to Hudud provisions would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance.”

In his above accusation, he made two contradicting statements, saying that the “Federal Constitution is secular in nature” and “with Islam as the religion of the Federation”.

How can our Federal Constitution that states Islam as the religion of the Federation be secular in nature, when George Jacob Holyoake who is the creator of the term secularism, defines secularism as separating government and religion?

In fact, if our Federal Constitution is secular in nature, the Act 355 cannot be part of the laws of Malaysia and the Syariah Courts cannot be part of our judicial systems.

And if our Federal Constitution is secular in nature, the flag of Malaysia must not have any symbol of religion, such as the crescent and star in our flag that represents the religion of Islam.

“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.”

What a defamation and malicious falsehood!

The amendment of Act 355 is not contrary to the Federal Constitution and it is a lie made in bad faith to accuse UMNO as “willing to work together with PAS to bypass the Federal Constitution to allow these laws to take effect”, when everything was done according to the law.

“DAP reiterates that the failure of MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN now is seen as a form of tacit approval of the unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move to raise the punishment cap of Islamic laws that moves closer to Hudud-like laws.”

It is clearly said in the Act 355 that the Act only affect the Muslims, so why must the CM who is non-Muslim politicise the issue?

By calling MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN, and accusing the two biggest Muslim parties, PAS and UMNO as working together to bypass the Federal Constitution, Lim Guan Eng is trying to create religious and racial tension among the citizens of Malaysia.

Not only that, Lim Guan Eng’s words are against the call made by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong’s in the parliament on the 7th of 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.”

Lim Guan Eng has gone against four parts of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 3(1)(a), Section 3(1)(c), Section 3(1)(e), and Section 3(1)(f), an offense which is punishable under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948.

Section 3(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 states:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mendatangkan kebencian atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan tidak setia terhadap mana-mana Raja atau Kerajaan;

The CM of Pulau Pinang’s seditious words which contradict to the call made by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong can be seen as a “seditious tendency” that could “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government.”

Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 says:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mendatangkan kebencian atau penghinaan atau bagi membangkitkan perasaan tidak setia terhadap pentadbirankeadilan di Malaysia atau di mana-mana Negeri;

Accusing the amendment of Act 355 is a hudud-like law that “would contravene the Federal Constitution in both spirit and substance”, is an insult to the Syariah Courts, hudud law and Islam as well as giving bad impressions to the hudud law and Syariah Courts which could “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State”.

Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act 1948 states:

Sesuatu “kecenderungan menghasut” ialah kecenderungan—bagi mengembangkan perasaan niat jahat dan permusuhan antara kaum atau golongan penduduk yang berlainan di Malaysia; atau

By making statements that:

  • 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.
  • Calling MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP to leave BN because of the “unconstitutional measures adopted by UMNO to support PAS’ move”,

Lim Guan Eng is playing a religious and racial games by falsely accusing the Malay Muslim PAS and UMNO “bypass the Federal Constitution” and “taking unconstitutional measures” which could “promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia”.

This will cause the non-Muslims to think that the government and the Muslims are up to something bad and doing things against the law which can cause anger and disharmony among the people of different races and religions.

Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act says:

bagi mempersoalkan apa-apa perkara, hak, taraf, kedudukan, keistimewaan, kedaulatan atau prerogatif yang ditetapkan atau dilindungi oleh peruntukan Bahagian III Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau Perkara 152, 153 atau 181 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is the head of religion of Islam of the country and “to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution is against the Sedition Act.

It is the rights of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong to make decisions on matters concerning the religion of Islam as stated in the Federal Constitution thus making statements against the statement made by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong regarding this matter is interfering with the rights of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-13316" src="https://ahmadalijetplane.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/whatsapp-image-2016-11-24-at-11-23-30-pm.png" alt=""whatsapp-i

Related Posts:

Lim Guan Eng Pleads Not Guilty

DAP’s Lim Guan Eng pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to two charges under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and Section 165 of the Penal Code at the Penang High Court.

Judicial Commissioner Azmi Ariffin sets bail at RM1millon with one surety and ordered Lim to notify the court and Attorney-General’s Chambers two days before he plans to travel outside the country.

Earlier, the prosecution team which was led by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, applied for the case to be transferred to the High Court.

 

Is Muhyiddin Racist?

Please watch the video of Tan Sri Muhyiddin’s speech on Article 10 of the Federal Constitution : “Muhyiddin: Tiada Pihak Boleh Persoalkan Pembentukan Negara Malaysia (Video)”.

The opposition parties are very busy complaining about everything that they can think of instead of working to solve the problems in Selangor, Penang and Kelantan.

Now they and some human rights activists are fighting for a total freedom of speech because they want to be free to say everything they wish, including matters related to sensitive issues such as the Federal Constitution, the Royal Institution and others.

Like when Lim Kit Siang humiliate the Khutbah Jumaat that reminded the Muslims of the Surah Al-Baqarah: verse 120.

Insider 9

Tony Pua also humiliated JAKIM’s Khutbah Jumaat (about Valentine’s day.)

Hannah Yeoh went against the Sultan of Selangor’s decree on Allah issue as well as Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988,  and Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

I wonder if Khalid Ibrahim would obey Hannah Yeoh.

PAS’s Wan Ji made lots of rude statements against the teaching of Islam, Islamic authorities and the Royal Institution.

Wanji 1

And lots of human rights activists do not respect the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

Insider 10

They use Article 10 of the Federal Constitution as the reason why they are free to say anything they wish; claiming that Article 10 Clause 1 (a) granted them total freedom of speech’.

Article 10 Clause 1 (a) says:

“every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”

Is it true that the Article 10 of the Federal Constitution gives us a total freedom of speech?

No, because Article 10 of the Federal Constitution says:

“10. (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)—
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;”

That means Article 10 (1) of the Federal Constitution is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4).

And Clause 2 (a) of the Article 10 says:

“Parliament may by law impose— on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;”

So, the oppositions and human rights activists who support them, only use Article 10 (1) (a) and purposely ignore Article 10 (1) which says that the article is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4).

That means, they just skipped the part of the article that says there are restrictions to freedom of speech.

That is wrong because we cannot use only a part of an article of the Federal Constitution and skip the rest of the article as we wish. 

They did the same when they refer to Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution by purposely leaving the part saying, “subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”.

Anyway, freedom of speech that they are fighting for is only a total freedom for them to say what ever they want but not for others.

Does Anwar respect freedom of speech if he wanted to sue the reporter who asked him a question that he is not happy with?

Another example is the issue between the Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng and PAS’s Nasruddin Hassan Tantawi.

Is freedom of speech respected by people who always talk about freedom of speech in the above examples?

I am tired of the opposition’s tactics to destroy the stability of our country with the help of those human rights activists who support them.

They must look at themselves before telling others what to do.

They are worse than the pot calling the kettle black.