Unfair new Bill 'disguised' as Islamic law: CABINET HELD RESPONSIBLE!

The Malaysian Consuttative  Council Of Buddhism, Christianity,  Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST)  vehemently objects to some  provisions  found in the RANG UNDANGUNDANG PENTADBIRAN  AGAMA  ISLAM (WILAYAH-WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN) 2013 tabled in Parliament  for its first reading on 26 June 2013 as they affect the Non-Muslims.

The Bill under disguise  of lslamic Laws is unilaterally  trying to alter the Federal Constitution by translating  the word "parent" in the Federal  COnstitutiOn to mean "lbu atau Bapa" as opposed  to "lbubapa".

Any conversion of a minor by a single parent will cause  serious injustice  to the non-converting parent and the children of the marriage - Section 107 (b) "jika dia belum mencapai  umur lapan belas tahun, ibu atau bapa atau penjaganya  mengizinkan  pemelukan agama  lslam olehnya"

This provision  would further  creates social injustice and is contrary to the constitutional scheme of things.

Cabinet held responsible

We hold the Federal Cabinet accountable  for this transgression,  that is, in spite of the Cabinet decision of 2314/2013  whereby it was decided  that a single parent cannot convert a minor child of the marriage.

Despite that public  statement, the Cabinet  deem it fit to introduce  the above  provision in D.R. 112013.|t appears  that the Cabinet promise  and undertaking  on this issue was not sincere.

The MCCBCHST  wishes to reiterate that any unilateral conversion of their children by one parent encroaches into the lives of Non-Muslims. Such conversions are not only unconstitutional but are morally  and ethically  wrong.

We ask Cabinet members how they will feel if their children are unilaterally  converted. Do not do things  to others, which you do not want to be done to you.

Absurd and against the spirit & letter of the Federal Constitution
We must warn that if "Parent"  in Article 12(a) is to be interpreted  to mean "single" parent",  it will go against the spirit and letter of Article 4 of the Federal Constitution  - the Supreme Law of the land.

lf this lnterpretation is advanced,  then there is nothing  to stop the other  single parent to convert  back the child to the Original religion.  No religious  law can over-ride  the constitution.  This would  produce  an absurd result and therefore  this could  not be meaning intended.

Reliance on the case of SUBASHINI (2008), may not be in order as the case appears to be wrongly decided due to the following:-

i) The Court did not apply the Statutory Interpretation  clause. Art. 160(1) (Eleventh Schedule) under which "words importing the masculine  gender lnclude female" and "words in the singular  include  the plural, and words in the plural include  the singular.

ii) The guardianship of Infants Act, 1961 which provides for equality  of parental rights.

iii) lf single "parent"  can convert,  then it would lead to an absurd result, as the nonconverting spouse can similarly by virtue of being a single parent convert back her child to the original faith.

Syariah and not civil court to decide if a person is Muslim or not

We understand  that the Bill also provides for Syariah High Court to decide whether a person is a Muslim or not. See Section  51(3Xb)  (x) and (xi). This power has always been with the Civil High Court and not the Syariah  Court. The amendment  thus proposed  is unconstitutional.

The MCCBCHST,  therefore calls upon the Cabinet to withdraw the above Bill, until its provisions have been thoroughly debated by all the stake holders.

Any bull dozing through of the Bill will not be accepted and would also be unconstitutional, giving no choice to the affected persons to look for remedy peacefully through other legal channels locally and internationally.

Politicising Agong’s birthday.

Have our rulers lost touch with the grassroots reality? The ‘glass wall’ that separates the rulers from the rakyat so often leads to their failure in listening to the rakyat and their problems.

At best, the rulers as the rakyat see it symbolise the Malay heritage; reality however has proven that politics always supercedes the monarchy, many a times at the expense of the rakyat’s welfare.

Apart from the time and again reminders to the people to keep away from the issue of the Malay rights and privileges, the rakyat has yet to recall a subject or issue that has affected the country’s rulers to the extent that they make it a priority to raise the matter at the available platform.

One good avenue which avails itself to the rulers is the speech they make in conjunction with the celebration of their official birthday.

Sadly, this platform too has been hijacked by the BN government to push for an agenda of their own.

One example is the speech made by the 14th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, which was broadcast live on May 31, the eve of the official celebration of his birthday.

In his speech, the Agong called on Malaysians to accept the 13th general election results for the sake of the country’s peace, stability and security.

However, to PKR de-factor leader Anwar Ibrahim, the Agong’s speech was in no way going to halt his plans in going ahead with is Black 505 rally to protest against the alleged rigging of the May 5, 2013 general election.

The June 15-planned rally was postponed to June 22 due to the unavailability of the venue Padang Merbok on the previous date.

But to the BN sycophants, Anwar’s insistence in executing the rallies is nothing short of his disrespect for the Agong.

Anwar however begs to differ for he believes the Agong’s speech was not worth heeding for it was fabricated by the Prime Minister’s office.

Anwar alluded that the BN federal government had used the Agong’s speech to ‘pressure’ the rakyat to accept last month’s general election results; this stand has gone on to earn Anwar the ‘traitor’ tag, with some BN MPs going so far as to suggest that an Anti-Treason Act be put in place to ‘safeguard’ the Agong.

Constitution reigns supreme
The irony of it all however is that the Agong’s speech enjoys no immunity and can be questioned, said constitutional expert Abdul Aziz Bari.

Indeed, who better to ‘separate the wheat from the chaff’ if not Abdul Aziz, the former law lecturer at International Islamic University Malaysia who courted controversy in 2011 when he described the Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s intervention in a raid by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church as unusual and inconsistent.

And the very Umno MPs who then accused Abdul Aziz of treason are today creating a palaver by crying foul over Anwar’s gumption to question the Agong’s and labelling the PKR adviser a traitor.

Abdul Aziz matter-of-factly says there is nothing wrong in Malaysians criticising the Agong’s speech and to question the election results as both actions are their rights guaranteed by the federal constitution.

“We must always remember that in this country, it is the constitution that reigns supreme and everybody, including the Agong, is subject to it.

“No one, and this includes the Agong, has the power to deny the rights guaranteed under the country’s laws and constitution.

“These include the right to question the election results, so long as this is done in accordance with the constitution,” he told Malaysiakini.

But then as before, Umno-BN is paying no heed to Abdul Aziz’s words, the latter who like many Malaysians holds the view that the Umno-BN government has spared no effort in distorting the notion of the Agong as the symbol of authority even to the point of condemning those MPs who criticised the Agong’s speech.

“As in any Westminster system, such a speech is essentially the government’s speech and policy even though it is read out by the monarch. As such the criticism is neither disrespectful nor seditious.”

Hence, Anwar did nothing wrong by questioning the Agong’s speech.

Politicising Agong’s birthday

The concern and worry as far as Abdul Aziz goes is the shenanigans of Umno-BN in abusing the Agong’s birthday, turning it into a political stint.

The law expert wants Umno to refrain from misusing the Agong’s birthday to put across a political agenda.

“I think the office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as well as the Conference of Rulers need to distance themselves from the political stance taken by the government.

“Constitutional monarchy does not necessarily mean the King must follow everything the government has to say; the benchmark is the constitution and the values it contains.

“The speech prepared by the government for the Agong on this particular occasion does not fit within these ideals,” Abdul Aziz said.

With much damage done, will BN and in particular Umno be ‘respectful’ enough in listening to the expert and forgo ways and means to act as the ‘Rock of Gibraltar’ between the rakyat and the monarchy, further alienating the duo?

Jeswan Kaur is a freelance writer and a FMT columnist.

No, Dr M - it time for Malaysians to get tough with YOU!

The former premier’s no-holds-barred warning to Najib that it is time to get tough with the opposition again riles up the ralkyat who have been in recent pasts, unleashing their loads of criticisms and condemnations against this one man who once garnered undivided support from the entire nation.

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad must be told that the opposition politicians in Malaysia are neither terrorists nor uninvited creatures of this beautiful nation. They deserve respect as much as you would expect the same for your UMNO-lama members for as long as Malaysia chooses to remain a democratic nation.

The Tun’s latest smoke-signal that the opposition politicians cannot be sparred and that it is time to get tough not only hurts the legitimate political block of PR but also implies more damage to his own UMNO-baru, let alone the citizens, the Sovereign status of this nation and the country’s reputation as a democracy.

Why should Dr M be above the law?

It is a foregone conclusion that this one man who once had the audacity to clip the powers of our revered Rulers by hoodwinking His majesty’s subjects, is very much apparently above the law. He can say anything, anywhere and anytime and yet get away with it all. Even when his words are deemed seditious and are laced with hints of treason, no law can catch up with him.

Just imaging, at an international platform – never mind the fact that the participants at the Langkawi-do (LID) were not from the developed circles of planet earth, he insults the Constitutional democracy that we preach and aspire to be.

By addressing an international community and allowing the global threads to report his statements, he is also embarrassing the very government headed by Najib.

By saying that it is time to get tough with the opposition, he is also implying that Najib is incapable of doing his job.

By condemning the opposition he is also belittling the majority of voters who cast their ballots in favor of the opposition parties. And in doing so he insults the very subjects of His Majesty DYMM Yang DiPertuan Agung.

By belittling the citizens who exercised their democratic right he is conclusively condemning the very democratic principles that he himself proclaims to protect.

Time for Dr M to take his own medicine

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad does not have a license to say whatever plagues his mind and still get away with it scot free. If a simpleton citizen can be immediately hauled up for what is deemed treason against our revered Ruler, right-minded citizens are asking how come the Tun is spared for insulting the very subjects of His Majesty.

Many citizens had in the past almost begged the Tun to be the mortar that seals the cracks between the BN and the Opposition. Many had appealed to him to be a true and blue-chip Statesman who brings honor to our nation and our Rulers.

Many too had lambasted the Tun for his divisive and disparaging views.

But all of these are not working rightly on the Tun. The general perception is that he is dead bent on keeping to his drumming war.

Why can he not dutifully be subservient to the Constitutional Monarchy and do his personal bit as a loyal subject of His Majesty and paly his part in nation-buulding and not fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his legacy intact.

It is time that we put an affirmative and decisive stop to the antics of destruction, insult and embaressment coming out from the mind of our past Prime Minister who ought to remain ‘Honorable’.

This is one man who must learn fast that he must take his own medicine – if you are not happy with what you see then use the right channels to register your protest. Do not insult citizens, King and nation at public platforms.

And if the Tun remains adamant with using his ‘above the law’ license to shoot as he pleases, then the law enforcers who are subservient to the Crown must act decisively. We cannot continue to dismiss the Tun’s continuing stabbing at the nation’s heart of democratic principles as the ‘rumblings of an old man’.

Insulting the Rulers, UMNO-style

TMI - MCMC: Woman detained for insulting King on Facebook
Malaysiakini - Facebook user held for allegedly insulting Agong 

RPK of Malaysia-Today said in his post Criticism is mandatory in Islam:

I feel His Majesty the Agong should pardon that woman who was arrested for insulting His Majesty in the spirit that Muslim leaders and rulers are not exempt from criticism. I know I said that insults are not criticism and that there is a difference. 

Nevertheless, let this be a lesson to all Malaysians that under Islam criticism of leaders and rulers is allowed as long as you know the difference between a criticism and an insult.

What that woman did was an insult to His Majesty the Agong. The problem is most Malaysians do not understand the difference between criticism and insult. And they think that freedom of speech means freedom to vilify and disparage. Maybe with this latest episode they can become a bit wiser. If not then expect a few more arrests and this time with no pardon.

Sweetie, there's obviously a mighty and probably painful difference between insulting Michelle Yeoh and HM.


Be that as it may, please flash back to 10 December 1992.

On that day, in Parliament, Dr Affifuddin Omar, an UMNO man from Padang Terap, no doubt given the imprimatur by his party leaders, said this:

"How can we continue to uphold rulers who are known to be robbers, adulterers, drunkards and kaki pukul (thugs)?" [...]

"They (the rulers) must be made to realize that they do not own this country. They are not Superman but placed on their thrones by the people."

"The real power did not lie with them, but with us - the representatives of the people."

"The 'syndrome of religiosity' associated with the Rulers was only to cloud the people's view of who the Rulers actually were."

Which ‘non’ could have said that and got away? None!

Only UMNO and UMNO alone could have gotten away scot-free with its abuse of the raja whom they claim to defend today.

Then in that same parliamentary session, when the UMNO-led government tabled a motion to amend the Constitution to strip away the Rulers' immunity from prosecution, the Rulers Conference rejected (but of course, what did you think?) that amendment (but which was achieved in a subsequent parliamentary session in January 1993 via a motion tabled personally by the PM Dr Mahathir), Wan Hanafiah Wan Mat Saman (UMNO-Kota Setar) preferred the Malay Rulers to be treated the way the Indian Maharajas were treated.

He said in his speech:

"After the struggle for India's independence in 1947, Deputy Prime Minister Sardar V Patel was given the task of negotiating with the Rulers to phase out them.:

"Patel rounded up the Maharajas and put them in a hotel. On the first day of discussion, he could not get them to agree to the Government's proposal.”

"On the second day, he placed soldiers around the perimeter of the hotel. On the third day, he cut the electricity supply; on the fourth day, he stopped the water supply and on the fifth day, he stopped food from being brought in. On the sixth day, all the Rulers, who were confined to the building, agreed to the government proposals.”

"When Patel was asked why he did not obtain the consent of the Rulers in a normal fashion, Patel replied, 'Do you ask the consent of the chicken before it is slaughtered?'"

Continuing his speech, Wan Hanafiah said that "a similar approach could have been taken to solve the present problem with the Rulers."

[above quoted from a post at Dewan Pemuda PAS Serdang blog]

Francis Bacon once said: “The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays”, but obviously UMNO has done it the other way around, first betraying the rulers, now (deceitfully) defending them.

UMNO has been the biggest hypocrite of all.

The difference between a saint and a hypocrite is that one lies for his religion, the other by it.