Kit's says.....

Another Case of Misreporting

Nasharuddin berkata dasar perjuangan PAS yang berpaksikan Islam menuntut dakwah diterapkan kepada semua yang masih belum memahami apa itu Islam yang sebenar.

“Kalau kita boleh bersekutu dengan DAP yang menentang Islam dari dulu sampai sekarang dan dengan PKR, mengapa kita tidak boleh dekati Umno?

This is from a Bernama report on the speech by the Deputy PAS President Nasharudin Mat Isa at the opening of the PAS Youth annual assembly in Ipoh yesterday.

DAP opposed to Islam from the past to the present? Not true. Never. We have Muslims in DAP and could not be anti-Islam. We are for all religions for the good, virtuous and noble values they teach human beings to cultivate and cherish.

What DAP is opposed to is for any breach of the Merdeka social contract that Malaysia was founded be a multi-racial, multi-religious, democratic and secular nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state.

Another case of misreporting – misquoting Nasharudin as saying that DAP “yang menentang Islam dari dulu sampai sekarang…”?

YAB Lim Guan Eng has stated ..... Penang is not an Islamic State

I am disturbed when people of all walks came to me and demanding the stand of DAP regarding the recent call by PAS Youth that the Pakatan Rakyat states to push for Islamic states and what have you... That is PAS Youth Wing's right to call for an Islamic state and since I respect the right of free speech and democracy, so be it. I am not condemning PAS or even asking PAS to retract. That is their RIGHT. But as far as I am concerned, Malaysia is NOT an Islamic state.

YAB Lim Guan Eng, Chief Minister of Penang and DAP Secretary General spoke it loud and clear. As far as DAP stand is concern, Penang and Malaysia is NOT an Islamic State. Islam is the religion of the Federation (and we respect that) and all other religions are practised freely. This was stated in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution. Nothing in our constitution states that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

An Islamic state would mean like the Islamic republic of Pakistan which proclaimed Pakistan to be an Islamic Republic and that all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions. Now having said that, and comparing Malaysia and Pakistan, nothing in our Constitution drafted in such a way as stating it's framework as ISLAMIC and that Article 4 explicitly declared that this Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. That in itself declared Malaysia is not an Islamic state. Though we may have Islamic banking or Islamic education or that the society lives in an Islamic environment that does not construed to be establishment of an Islamic state.

So as far as DAP is concerned, and insofar as our constitution is concerned, Malaysia is NOT an Islamic state. So whosoever declares anything to that effect would remain just a mere statement, void against the Constitution.

--------

©The Star (Used by permission)
by Nik Khusairi Ibrahim

GEORGE TOWN: Penang will allocate state funds fairly to all major religions to ensure that none is discriminated against or marginalised, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said.

He said the state government would treat all religions equally.

“We have also formed an inter-religious council called Majlis Silaturahim to promote goodwill and understanding among all religions,” he told newsmen after opening the National Maha Sanghika Dana 2008 at Penang International Sports Arena here yesterday.

“All religions are equal, according to Buddhist teaching,” he said.

He also reiterated that Penang would not become an Islamic state.

“Islam is the official religion of the country, but the freedom of worship is enshrined in our Federal Constitution.

“Nobody can take away this freedom and this right must be enjoyed by all of us forever,” he added.

The event is organised annually by the Malaysian Buddhist Youth Foundation to provide a platform for devotees to do good deeds.

Lim noted that Buddhism which has 370 million followers was the fourth largest religion in the world after Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

Earlier, at another function, he said the state government was promoting the “Faith, Hope and Love” concept to restore lost trust, to give hope to future generations and to create a loving environment.

“We want to restore the lost trust among the people. Government that comes from the people should serve the people.

“We also want to give hope to the young generation that there is a future in Penang where there will be equal opportunity for all to benefit from the growing economy,” he said.

He said the state was keen on promoting the loving culture to create a cohesive and harmonious society.

Lim said this after flagging off a convoy of luxury cars participating in an overland trip to Bangkok.

The event was organised by the Lions Club of Bayan Baru.

He Found His Voice

Wait a-minute. The MCA President just found his voice after a long long time. My ANSWER is in THIS COLOUR

©Bernama (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR, April 11 (Bernama) -- Malaysia is not an Islamic state under the Federal Constitution and it should never become one, MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said Friday. Helooooo, we all know that except the Barisan Nasional coalition partners. Malaysia is NEVER an Islamic state. The Federal Constitution provides in Art 3 which clearly states that Islam is the religion of the federation. So any declaration by anybody that Malaysia is an Islamic state contravene the sacredness of the constitution which is the highest law of this land : Article 4.

He said MCA held firm to the constitution and would not tolerate any Pas statement on turning the country into an Islamic state. So what about the declaration by the then Prime Minister during the Gerakan General Assembly and the recent proclamation and declaration by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister? So is MCA still going to agree? Or is it because they lost many seats in Parliament and State Assemblies. Seriously once bitten twice shy. I can never believe MCA any more.

Such a statement, he added, was not only unacceptable and dangerous to the multiracial society but also breached the constitution. Hmmmm he now ONLY knows

"MCA is totally against it. Our forefathers have already discussed and agreed that all different races would be accommodated. So, we will hold firm to the spirit of the constitution," Ong told reporters after chairing the Presidential Council meeting at Wisma MCA here. Of course MCA is against it. But that was during the days of the fore fathers and not during the era of Tun Ling Liong Sik or even Datuk Seri Ong Kah Ting. Why only now a sudden change of thought?

He was commenting on PAS deputy spiritual leader Datuk Dr Haron Din's statement in the party's mouthpiece, Harakah Daily that PAS would amend the constitution and turn Malaysia into an Islamic state if it held control of the federal government. PAS always wanted to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State. So between PAS and MCA, at least we know who are more principled in their ideology. I rather argue with a person who I know their ideology rather than another who follows the wind. AND we all know that PAS can never change the constitution unless they have 2/3 in Parliament. So at least for now they can't do anything except dreaming on it.

To a question that when similar issues arose last year and both Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his deputy, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had said that Malaysia was an Islamic country, Ong replied:

"No matter who used what term to discuss about Malaysia, they can't change the fact that the constitution protects people of other faiths. I think we should not debate this. This is clearly stated in the constitution". Duh... we know that except MCA

Ong also demanded Pas allies, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and DAP to state their stand on the issue to the people. PKR and DAP stand is so clear. Malaysia is NEVER an Islamic State. I think Ong Kah Ting is saying that just to correct himself. As far as I know DAP will never agree to PAS Islamic state ideology. AND as at for now PAS in their Manifesto just stated 'Islam is for all'. Nothing in their manifesto states the forming of an Islamic State.

Meanwhile, MCA Youth chief, Datuk Liow Tiong Lai has asked the Pakatan Rakyat (People's Alliance) to apologise to the people as it had made promises to the voters that it would not push for the creation of an Islamic state during the general election. Hmmmm another really stupid fool. So long as PKR and DAP lives, Malaysia is not an Islamic State or Islamic Country. I believe the people are more mature now days in determining their own future. Chinese voted for PAS and Malay voted for DAP. So what's the problem?

The health minister said DAP and PKR should apologise for cheating on the voters, adding that the opposition was beginning to show its true colours. The only cheaters are MCA. MIC and Gerakan. They cheated the people's right together with UMNO. So please MCA, MIC and Gerakan take the first step to apologise to the people. You have frustrate the trust given by the rakyat.

Another Idiot CRYING out

Another idiot talking. My guess UMNO. I must say, that under the leadership of DAP-PKR-PAS, the Malay race will never be isolated. Bangsa Melayu tidak akan dipinggirkan oleh kerajaan Baarisan Rakyat. If Penang state government led by DAP can look at the general population that everybody is treated equally, I have hope for Perak. SO I don't understand the objective of these NGOs. Buty looking at all the said NGOs, more usual than not are members of the idiot UMNO groups.

Perak Malay Teachers Association (BN led government servant groups)
Perak Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) (this is notable for being pro UMNO)
Perak Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (Abim) (I thought they supported PAS)
Perak Association of Muslim Students
Perak 4B Youth movement (this is a sure bet of UMNO members as the group Malacca are mostly by them led by their former boss Ali Gostan)
Perak Council of Former Barisan Elected Representatives (Mubarak) (the name suggest that they are BN representatives-chronic idiots),
Perak Malay Traders Association (am not too sure about this)
Perak Wanita NGO (too general NGO. I wonder whetherthey represent all wanita in Perak)

So these NGOs are crony base. Be OBJECTIVE lah kawan...

--------

NGOs 'concerned over fate' of Perak Malays

By HAH FOONG LIAN

IPOH: A group of some 20 Perak Malay non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has voiced its concern over the fate of Malays under the new DAP-PKR-PAS government in the state.

The group, which held a special meeting at Tambun Heights here on Sunday, will submit a memorandum to the Sultan of Perak.

Among those who attended the meeting were leaders of the Perak Malay Teachers Association, Perak Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS), Perak Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (Abim), Perak Association of Muslim Students, Perak 4B Youth movement, Perak Council of Former Barisan Elected Representatives (Mubarak), Perak Malay Traders Association and Perak Wanita NGO.

Nonee Ashirin Mohd Radzi, who chaired the meeting, said they could not accept the six-three-one formula to be used in the make-up of the state executive council.

Nonee Ashirin, one of the founder members of Perak Pertubuhan Profesional dan Pewaris Bangsa (Prowaris), said the formula did not reflect the composition of the state population where Malays are the majority.

The formula agreed upon by the new state government would see the DAP taking up six exco posts, PKR three and PAS one.

“There should be more Malays in the exco line-up,” Nonee Ashirin said, adding that the exco should instead have six Malays and four non-Malays, like the representation under the Barisan Nasional rule.

She said the NGOs also rejected the creation of two Deputy Mentri Besar posts because it was not provided for in the state Constitution.

“The two positions are there just to fulfil the DAP's political interest,” she claimed.

Datuk Kamilia Ibrahim, who represented Perak Wanita NGO, said the popular votes showed that more voters supported the Barisan instead of the Opposition.

She said the Barisan garnered some 333,000 votes compared to 282,000 that went to the opposition front.

Based on this, she said Barisan had a simple majority and should be allowed to form a minority government.

MCA kowtowing to UMNO...as usual

I cut and paste a press statement by Guan Eng on MCA usual political stunt on the issue on Islamic State.

PRESS STATEMENT BY LIM GUAN ENG

Ong Ka Ting should prove that MCA is fighting for the rights of all Malaysians and not for UMNO’s interests by demanding that the Prime Minister state clearly that Malaysia is a secular state where non-muslims are not subject to the jurisdiction of syariah courts

______________

Press Statement

by Lim Guan Eng

__________________

(Petaling Jaya, Monday): Despite his puzzling and confusing explanation that Malaysia is neither a secular state nor a theocratic state but a parliamentary democracy, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s latest statements show that he has clearly defined Malaysia as an Islamic state. By stating in an interview with The Edge September issue that the syariah courts can be fair to non-Muslims and that non-Muslims can get justice from syariah courts is a dangerous indication that the jursidiction of syariah courts extends to non-Muslim.

Abdullah even said that the adminstration of the syariah courts shall be improved to prove that it is not against non-Muslims. For the Prime Minister to declare that syariah courts can be fair to non-Muslim and is not against non-Muslims is a statement of intent to compel non-Muslims to seek justice in syariah courts.

This goes against the fundamental constitutional principle that non-Muslims are not subject to syariah courts but only to civil courts. For Abdullah to extend the syariah courts’ jurisdiction to cover non-Muslims is both wrong and a dangerous extension that is illegal and contrary to our 1957 social contract that gave rise to Merdeka and our Federal Constitution.

MCA has issued a statement expressing disagreement with Abdullah. However such statement again only appears in the Chinese press but not in the non-Chinese press. This proves that both Gerakan and MCA are playing “double-faced” politics in saying a different thing to the Chinese community but showing their true version in the Malay community of quiet submission and complete obedience to UMNO.

MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting should prove that MCA is fighting for the rights of all Malaysians and not for UMNO’s interests by demanding that the Prime Minister state clearly that Malaysia is a secular state where non-Muslims are not subject to the jurisdiction of syariah courts in accordance with the Federal Constitution. Failure to do so would show that Ong does not comply with his own statements that the Federal Constitution is the guiding principle in the resolution of all disputes.

Secular or Islamic?

Secular or Islamic? This is in the mind of every Malaysians since the controversial proclamations by our UMNO leaders. People are confused, some would just couldn’t be bothered but for me, I’m a defender of secularism not because I’m anti Islam but it is an agreed format of governing Malaysia as agreed by our founding fathers when Sabah and Sarawak was incorporated into what we call now Malaysia.

As such I must give definition what is a secular state, and why Secular was chosen as a form of understanding in this country. A secular state is where a state or country that is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices. It is not anti God or anti religion as claimed by some quarters notably UMNO, in which the state officially opposes all religious beliefs and practices. In some secular states in the world, there can be a huge majority religion in the population e.g. Turkey who are predominantly Muslim and yet upholding their constitution to be religiously neutral. This shows maturity in her citizen.

A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions. In Malaysia however our constitution in Article 3 states the religion of the federation is Islam should have only a symbolic meaning, not affecting the ordinary life of its citizens.

A secular state is defined as protecting freedom of religion as pursued in state secularism. It is also described to be a state that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs, and prevents religion from controlling government or exercising political power. Laws protect each individual including religious minorities from discrimination on the basis of religion.

Not all legally secular states are completely secular in practice. In France for example, lots of Christian holidays are official vacations for public administration, and teachers in Catholic schools are salaried by the state. So this is the same in our country whereby the building of the mosque or the salaries of the religious teachers are paid by the federation and yet there is a hoo haa over Islamic or Secular.

In Malaysia, it is a clear fact that our founding fathers refuse to accept Malaysia to be an Islamic state as this will cause discontent among its people. Even the Supreme Court, notably in the case of Che Omar Che Soh in 1988 where it was held that Malaysia is not an Islamic State but Secular. This decision has not been reversed or departed from. In fact, during the recent Lina Joy Federal Court appeal, the court asked whether it was being asked to depart from the principle in Che Omar Che Soh. Counsel opposing the appeal indicating an acceptance that declared law in this country is as it stands in Che Omar Che Soh. The Court states:

‘... we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of the law … Until the law and the system is changed, we have no choice but to proceed as we are doing today.’

Malik Imitiaz in one of his article “Artcle 11 Setting The Record Straight” states that “We must not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which the majority are Muslims, and is thus an Islamic country, and a country in which the supreme law is the Syariah, an Islamic state. In Che Omar Che Soh, the Supreme Court stated:

‘If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution), on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution …’

Unless of course the Constitution in itself declared that Malaysia is an Islamic State like what was written in the Pakistan Constitution which had the provision that which declared Syariah law as the supreme law of this land. In Malaysia, Article 4 states that the supreme law of the country is the Federal Constitution that in itself intended Malaysia to be Secular and not Islamic. Why not our founding fathers at that point of time insists that Malaysia is an Islamic state, of course that did not happen as it was not intended to be Islamic. Anything that is inconsistent with that of Article 4 will be null and void.

Syariah -vs- British Common Law

Our legal system follows very much that of the English Legal as we were part of the Commonwealth as were formerly a British Colony since the 18^th century. Just to digress a little as the United Kingdom do not have a written constitution, a lot of reliance on Acts of Parliament and Judge make law which also calls judicial precedent whereby the lower courts are bound to follow the decision of the higher courts (this principle is known as stare decisis in Latin). This body of precedent is called what we understand as the “Common Law” and if this law is declared in the House of Lords for example, the lower courts below it must follow that declared law which we call it the ratio of the case.

Having said that, it means “Common Laws” are laws judicially made to fill in the gaps and actually life to the relevant Act of Parliament so as to give life to the interpretation and application of the laws so as to give intention to what Parliament intended. If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases or that the particularity of facts are not usual, the courts will try to give meaning to what is Just, Fair and Equitable. This is so because some areas of life may not be covered by any Act of Parliament a good example would be area on copyleft such as open source or open office which does not have any cover in the area of copyright laws as such an adoption of it through the relevant case laws in other jurisdiction would be excellent to fill in that gap.

If situation such as this arise, the Courts as the bulwark of Civil Liberties and Justice would have to give meaning to what is Just, Fair and Equitable in which the Courts will resolve the matter itself, with reference to general legal guidelines such as reading of the Hansard (Parliamentary report), Legal Text book writer, customs, conventions, or adopting other precedents in different jurisdiction (meaning other country). Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.

Malaysia as we all know adopted the English Common Law as a foundation of our laws as we are a very young country. So logically, our laws are shaped according to well established environment, principle and understanding of the complex areas of laws which sometimes our judges may not be able to understand the difficult technicalities of the various area of the law. So to make things simpler, our Malaysia Parliament, enacted the Civil Law Act 1956 particularly section 3 and 5 which permits judges with wide discretion to import English common law, equity and statutes into our legal system to fill gaps in Malaysian laws should there exist difficulty in the interpretation and the application of the various laws in our country.

As we are comfortable with the interpretation of British Common Law as part of our laws due to its adoption of fairness, just and equitable principles is seen to be a better source of law as compared to the Syariah laws which arises a number of uncertainties between itself due to different interpretation. So, to do away with establish principles of application and interpretation to that of Syariah may cause confusion as to its application. Syariah laws are a matter of ONLY private matters for example, marriage, inheritance, and apostasy. AND applies only to Muslim.

So what are Syariah Laws (Islamic law) then. Theoretically in my understanding, there are two areas of Syariah.

(i) Islamic law. Meaning the “the way” which of course a system of devising laws, based on the Qur'an, ijma (consensus of the Ummah), qiyas (Islamic jurisprudence) and the centuries of debate, interpretation and Arabic precedent.

(ii) Fiqh is Islamic jurisprudence that expand Syariah complemented by Arabic rulings such as the Malaysia Fatwa Council which consists of Islamic Jurist to direct the lives of Muslim such as what is required (wajib), forbidden (haram), recommended (mandūb), disapproved (makruh) or merely permitted (mubah)".

In short Syariah deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including economics, banking and loan, business law, contract law, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

So the question all of us intend to understand is IF Syariah is to take precedence against Common Law, would there be fairness and justice IF issues of non Muslim are involved. Secondly should we, the non Musims subject ourselves to Islamic principles stated in the Syariah laws?

Gloomy 50th Merdeka

I’m so sad. What a gloomy 50^th Merdeka. Looks like this country is doing away with the Merdeka social contract which clearly states in our constitution which our founding fathers wanted it to be. Looks like this current administration is slowly trying to do away with what our founding fathers wants.

-------

PM: Yes, we ARE an Islamic state

Monday, 27 August 2007, 07:36pm

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Yoges Palaniappan

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has today for the first time said that Malaysia was an Islamic state and not a secular state.

Abdullah, in a parliamentary written reply, said that Malaysia was an Islamic state ruled by Islamic principles, and at the same time, was also a country that believed in Federal Constitution.

"Malaysia is an Islamic state, ruled based on Islam Hadhari which I have introduced," he stressed.

This is a clear departure from his stand made earlier this month that Malaysia was neither 'a secular nor a theocratic state' without saying the country was an Islamic state.

Abdullah said this in response to Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang who asked if the cabinet would reaffirm the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia was a secular state with Islam as the official religion.

"Islamic principles that I mean can be seen from Islam Hadhari that I have introduced. Under Islam Hadhari, the government stresses development based on knowledge and physical building, as well as the building of human capital," said the prime minister.

"Islam Hadhari is a guideline for the government to be fair and equitable to all communities in the country," he said, adding that however Islam Hadhari does not imply that Malaysia was a theocratic state.

Abdullah, who explained that the uniqueness of Islam Hadhari formula has been proven in its success, said: "I would like to refute allegations that my way of ruling the country is against the social contract signed before the Independence."

The prime minister also stressed that the government allowed voices of all communities to be heard. However, he said the government would not hesitate to take action against those who abuse the freedom.

"We have to take into account the country’s stability and ethnic diversity. Any statement that could threaten the stability will be punished."

Contradictory remarks

Abdullah also said that the debate on whether or not Malaysia was an Islamic state has been dragged for a long period by opposition parties for their own political interest.

"As the country’s 50th Independence celebration is just around the corner, we can see the opposition party questioning the status of our country and Merdeka social contract."

This latest remark by the premier is clearly contradictory to his previous stand that Malaysia was neither a secular nor a theocratic state.

His response then had come just after his deputy Najib Abdul Razak had upset minorities here by describing the country as Islamic.

Abdullah had said then that the country can be best described as a multiracial nation that practices parliamentary democracy with freedom of religion for all.

“We are not a secular state. We are also not a theocratic state like Iran and Pakistan ... but we are a government that is based on parliamentary democracy,” he was quoted as saying in Penang on Aug 5.

At that time, he did not specifically said that Malaysia was an Islamic state.

I told you so.....

I opened up my e-mail this morning and found a very disturbing news from the PM's department where the Minister in the PM Department Datuk Dr. Abdullah Zin is reported to have agreed to the replacement of the English common law to the Syariah. This is a damn bad news I've ever heard since the 1988 Judicial Crisis (of course May 13 was a black history, but then I was not born yet to understand).

The Malaysia contract, all of us accept and agree is the fact that Malaysia is not an Islamic state and that we are a secular democratic nation where Islam is the religion of the federation. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that we abide by the laws of this land enacted by Parliament.

As such hearing news from the PM department regarding the propose change to Syariah laws will definitely going against the ideals put forward by our founding fathers. I am sad to note that the oath the PM and his cabinets, the legislature in Parliament and the Judiciary took for office have failed to defend the constitution. I am sad that the PM's department is entertaining the thought on switching to Syariah, that in my opinion is a step backwards towards an Islamic State, not only an Islamic country but also a theocratic state.

What is so wrong with the common law that the Chief Justice wants it to do away with? The common law has been proven to be the foundation of laws that can be applicable and adopted into Malaysia through Sections 3 and 5 of the Civil Law Act which permits judges wide discretion to import English common law, equity and statutes into the legal system to fill gaps in Malaysian laws and it is a fact that lawyers whilst preparing their cases relying on these common laws should the difficulty arise in the interpretation and the application of the various laws.

As for the Syariah laws, where right now, in terms of jurisdiction alone, there have been much confusion in the interpretation and application of the Syariah. That alone, each states have different interpretation and codes which regards Syariah. As such do I have the faith on Syariah?

My question to you Mr CJ, are you not suppose to defend the constitution? Which hat are you wearing, the Hat as a CJ of Malaysia or a politician?

Will the goverment be fair?

Maybe I should say enough is enough. Will the government be fair? Will the PM be a PM to all regardless of political ideology, racial, religion and cultural differences? I must say I doubt the words and honesty of the PM. I believe Malaysians all walks have heard this again and again. His Deputy said it a couple of weeks ago and that was echoed by the UMNO youth wing very loud and clear. So will PM back away from the statements by his fellow members who vote him as the President of the ruling UMNO? I doubt.

The PM even when as far as to say that any decision on the issue would be guided by the Constitution, the principles of the Rukun Negara and other policies. As I said I have been hearing all these promises for quite a long time. We don't want a 'talk only PM' but we want a walk the talk PM. A PM that would be able to lead this country in a multi racial and religious environment. Unfortunately Malaysians all over saw how racial and ultra his party is.

The non Muslims, as far as I'm concern, holds the view that Malaysia is not an Islamic State and that the only avenue for remedies available for non Muslims is the Civil Courts. Non Muslims will not submit to the jurisdiction of the syariah courts and that the civil courts must hear every application made by non Muslim affected party.

Case like Subashini would be clear example of such a conflict as she was told that by virtue of Article 121 (1A) she has no recourse to the civil High Court against her husband as he had converted to Islam. That suggest she has to make an application before the syariah court which she herself do not believe in. If she submits to the jurisdiction of the syariah court and if the court assume jurisdiction notwithstanding the express ouster of jurisdiction over non Muslim, she will have subjected herself to syariah family law pertaining to custody of children. This would seem in my opinion a violation to her fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.

As such if the PM is sincere about this, there are no two ways about it. Either confess that Malaysia is an Islamic State or a secular state (not meaning anti-religion) as stated by our founding fathers.

Wor Pu Huey Ming Pai Ni Chang Se Mok (I dun understand what th' hell you are talking?)

Reading PM's Bernama Post make me all the more confuse. The title in Bernama, "Malaysia not a secular or theocratic State, says Abdullah" literally trying to understand what is he talking about. Looks like Najib the Deputy PM and himself have conflicting views as to what system of government Malaysia is. DPM says it's Islamic State, whereas PM is saying it's not theocratic state like Iran and Pakistan and at the same time not a secular state. It Parliamentary Democracy. Well to a certain extent what he says is correct but in reading in between the lines, I think the PM himself is confuse. Why can't he just say Malaysia is a secular state base on the Social Contract and the Malaysia Agreement where Islam is the official religion of the country thus making Malaysia an Islamic country. Is that not so difficult.

To emphasize 'Islamic state' would mean to establish a legal system base on Islam. The concept of the state can be distinguished from two related concepts with which it is sometimes confused: the concept of a form of government or regime, such as democracy or dictatorship, and the concept of a political system. So base on that, PM is I would say unsure as to what it is. AND that makes us all the more very confused.

Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, how I wish there are more likeminded people like you in the Government

This was not reported in our local press. I found this in http://whatalulu.blogspot.com/. I must urge all especially the Christian community and like minded individual who cherish freedom of religion to pray for Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, a kadazan-dusun Christian who is Minister in the Prime Minister Department. (I will call him thereafter as Tan Sri), who today broke ranks from his Barisan Nasional counterpart on the issue of Islamic State (as you may have noted that our DPM have raised the issue again recently). Just a brief history on Tan Sri unprecedented move.

In Jan 2006, non-Muslim ministers submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister yesterday calling for a review of laws affecting the rights of non-Muslims and Tan Sri was one of the signatories. Unfortunately shortly after that, it was retracted. The retraction came in the wake of an outcry by Muslim Cabinet members and Barisan Nasional leaders. I believe Tan Sri did not retract the statement (I stand corrected).

In May this year, Tan Sri, issued a statement saying he had resigned as chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) as he “would not be able to do justice to the tasks assigned to the committee by Parliament.” Shortly after that, Najib issued statements like, "Dompok had been strongly influenced by Lim Kit Siang, who is DAP MP for Ipoh Timur.

Today, it was reports that Tan Sri broke ranks on the Islamic state issue by arguing that the nation’s founders did not have that in mind when the Federation of Malaysia was formed in 1963. He said this at the launch of ‘The Merdeka Statement’ by the Centre for Public Policy Studies in Kuala Lumpur today. This is what he says, "I think my colleagues in the government will forgive me for saying that I will not agree that we are an Islamic state,” and that “For all intents and purposes, I think Malaysia was not meant to be an Islamic state,”

I, for one, would not think that his BN counterpart especially UMNO, the BN Political master will look at his statement favourably. I'm seeing an attack on him very soon. There will be consequences for that statement Tan Sri had made. As he is a good man who would stand up for his principles, we should pray for him, so that God's covering will be upon him and that all attacks engineered against him will be nullified in Jesus' name. Tan Sri, as we all know is a religious man who have the support from the Christian organisation. A man who would stand up and be counted.

Ban ar?

I wonder whether is there a ban on the recent ban by the government in discussing the issue of Islamic State in the media. Is there a ban? I'm a little puzzle as to whether there is a ban or not since people in UMNO keep on talking about the issue and issuing unnecessary threats. Hmmmm maybe the ban only applies to MCA ONLY whereas it's political master UMNO is not subjected to the so called ban.

This time Khairy Jamaluddin joined the fray as reported in today's Berita Minggu. He states that Malaysia is not a secular state but an Islamic State that is not autocratic. He further states that Islam is the official religion that was enshrined in the federal constitution and as such is not secular like Turkey, Indonesia or France. Seriously, what is the hell is he talking about. Maybe he should get the AG to advise him on what is meant when one say "STATEHOOD" He is just blaring, like what a politician is good at. Again election is nearing. And again PAS days are numbered.

Yesterday, Hisham issued a really unwarranted and unbecoming threat which I think make him real stupid. In conclusion, only those who are in UMNO are able to dictate policies even how discriminating the policies are which MCA, MIC, GERAKAN, PPP, PBB, LDP, SUPP, PBS, and the other ampu parties ALL are slaves to their political master. Do you call that power sharing? Dream on....

Unwarranted Statement of the Year

Unbelievable and unwarranted especially it comes from a man who is the current education minister. As a Minister of an important portfolio and a former lawyer who have read the law and understand our constitution, he must know that Malaysia is never an Islamic State except that this is a country where Islam is the official religion.

Hisham's threat and warning is nothing short of political speech and ploy trying to win the hearts of the Malays just like his cousin, the DPM recently. I guess UMNO is trying hard to win the hearts of the Malays. Now coming back to his statement, he feels that it this will cause tension. Now what is the tension about and who creates the tension first? Who is the one that cause all the disunity and the disharmony among all race? Who is the one that divides each races with such discriminating policies? The answer is staring at our face. Not the opposition parties, not the NGOs BUT they that have spoken and threaten all Malaysian. I remember every time when there is an election, somebody from the 'dacing' must say '1969'. AND every time in their general assembly a dagger is raised.

Therefore, Hisham's threat is nothing but a mere political wayang kulit. Why can't he and his cousin just shut up. Can't they just accept that Malaysia is a nation of many religion and culture with the various races across the country, such as Malay-Chinese-India-Eurasian-Kadazan-Iban-Sakai- Negrito and the others. The late Tunku must be MAD and FURIOUS if he is still around for he himself had declared that Malaysia should not be an Islamic State. This country must be defended with all cost.

Is this true?

Is this true? If it is so than Malaysia is liken to be a child throwing tantrum to mummy. As such we will never grow up and take responsibility and be accountable to our nation. A blanket ban on the issue of Islamic State in the media is not warranted. I believe the non-Muslims would want the matter be debated on as the term Islamic State has a wide reaching effect over the future of this country. So with this total ban, Malaysia will never see the truth but a cover up by the powers that be. Like I said in my previous blog, a denial syndrome. So what if MCA or those in the government speaks? Still they are subjected to their political masters in UMNO. Will they resign from their position should UMNO continues with their own agenda?

----
Ministry bans Islamic state debate in media
©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Ng Ling Fong & Soon Li Tsin

The Internal Security Ministry has confirmed that they have given a directive to all mainstream media not to publish any news on the issue of Malaysia being an Islamic state.

Internal Security Ministry’s Publications Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit senior officer Che Din Yusof told malaysiakini that they are afraid that allowing such discussions would cause “tension”.

“Yes we have given the directive to all mainstream newspapers. Islam is a sensitive issue. They cannot publish any news on whether the country is secular or Islam.

“Stop harping on this. The debate would never end,” he asserted when contacted today.

However, he said newpapers can still publish statements from Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his deputy Najib Abdul Razak on the country being an Islamic state.

On Tuesday, Najib said Malaysia is an Islamic state and not a secular one while carefully assuring members of minority faiths that their rights will be protected.

He said the mainly-Muslim Malaysia has never been a secular nation as the government has always been driven by the fundamentals of Islam.

“Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state," Najib told reporters after he opened an international conference on the role of Islamic states.

“But as an Islamic state, it does not mean that we don't respect the non-Muslims. The Muslims and the non-Muslims have their own rights,” he was quoted saying.

No negative reactions

His comments have since drawn protests from the Opposition, civil society groups and MCA.

Che Din pointed out that while the two top leaders of the country can make such statements, any reactions from political parties and the public will not be allowed to be published.

“Reaction from political parties and the public cannot be published especially the negative reactions,” he said.

Several journalists and editors were contacted and they confirmed that they will adhere to the instruction.

Some of the editors also noted that they have already retracted some commentary on this issue from their newspapers.

Deputy Internal Security Minister Fu Ah Kiow could not be reached for further comments and clarification.

Dismal ignorance

Responding to Najib statement, MCA yesterday said that historical facts and documents showed that Malaysia was a secular state.

MCA Secretary General Ong Ka Chuan yesterday issued a statement stating that documents prepared by the British authorities before granting independence to Malaysia in 1957 clearly stipulated that “the members of the Alliance delegation...had no intention of creating a Muslim theocracy and that Malaya would be a secular state”.

“This was the consensus and social contract agreed upon by our forefathers,” he said.

Today PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim also lambasted Najib over his remark, calling it as "exposing his (Najib’s) dismal ignorance" of what an Islamic state was all about.

He said Najib's statement was calculated for political mileage.

Islamic State? The Bar's answer

PRESS STATEMENT FROM THE BAR COUNCIL

The statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in this 50th year of Merdeka that Malaysia has never been a secular state is startling as it ignores the undisputed constitutional history of the country as well as the social contract by which the multi-racial and multi-religious people of this nation came together.

The Federal Constitution was a carefully thought out, carefully negotiated document that evolved after much debate and discussion. Some historical context is necessary. In 1956, Tunku Abdul Rahman had headed a Merdeka Mission to London to negotiate for independence. The negotiations were conducted by 4 representatives of the Malay Rulers, 4 representatives of the then Alliance Government and representatives of the British Government. The Reid Commission was then appointed to draft a constitution for independent Malaya. The Reid Commission held 118 meetings in Malaya. It met a wide cross-section of people and organisations and received 131 memoranda.

One of the striking features of the Reid Commission report and the Federal Constitution is the inter-communal compromises. These compromises were essentially the result of proposals set out in a memorandum by the then Alliance party which had in turn been vigorously debated over many months by a core group from UMNO, MCA, and MIC under Tunku’s chairmanship. The Alliance Memorandum referred to the issue of religion as follows:

“The religion of Malaya shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State.” (Emphasis added)

Subsequent to the issuance of the Reid Report, further reviews were carried out by a Working Party that again consisted of representatives from the Malay rulers, the Alliance party and the British Government. The Alliance party set up its own sub-committee chaired by its then deputy president, Datuk Abdul Razak. Again the Alliance maintained its position that they had no intention of creating a Muslim theocracy and that Malaya would be a secular State. A white paper subsequently issued by the British Government in June 1957 confirmed this by stating “This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular State”.

Since then Tunku himself, respected Academics, and our own Supreme Court in 1988 have reiterated in one way or another that we are a secular State and not an Islamic State. Thus for more than 40 years (until 2001), no-one had suggested that Malaysia is an Islamic State.

One has to only look at the Articles in the Federal Constitution, our system of government and the administration of justice to know that we are not an Islamic State. The Civil Courts set up under the Constitution dispense secular justice on a daily basis to all the citizens of this country. Secular law governs contracts, commerce, international relations and trade and every aspect of the lives of a citizen. Islamic law governs specific matters set out in the Federal Constitution in relation to persons professing Islam.

In the context of our history and the Constitution itself that proclaims its supremacy, it is the Bar Council’s view that there is no doubt whatsoever that Malaysia is a secular state and not an Islamic state. It is noteworthy that the Prime Minister in his speech delivered at the conference yesterday and in his propagating Islam Hadhari has never referred to Malaysia as an Islamic State.

It is time that the proposition that Malaysia is not secular, (which is a rewriting of the Constitution), be put to rest once and for all and that there is due recognition and reaffirmation of the clear legal and constitutional position that Malaysia is, and has always been, a secular State.

What the.....

The general election is definitely VERY NEAR. This time a loud cry by DPM stating that Malaysia Malaysia is not a secular state but an Islamic nation with its own interpretation. Meaning 'own interpretation' that would probably leave it to all the extremist and fanatic mind of what it means by an Islamic State. Is it a legal meaning like the one in Pakistan or Afghanistan that literally declared in the constitution? If it is not than what is by the DPM means by 'own interpretation'.

Now there are two interpretations. I stand to be corrected. In winning the hearts of the Malay in the coming election, a proclamation like that would give some caps to the DPM to spearhead the challenge to capture Kelantan and completely destroy PAS in all Malay heartland constituencies. Meaning a political gimmick. OR on the other hand, the ala UMNO style of Islamic State that never is one. Be that as it may, the 'own interpretation' is a dangerous formula as it gives many interpretation. However as far as I'm concern, our founding fathers have declared loud and clear that Malaysia is a secular state and that Islam is the religion of the Federation as declared in our Constitution.

I won't go into the laws as there are many blogs that have already state the law as it is. Blogees can find it in Haris Ibrahim's blog on some interesting points and arguments on the issue. However I must state this in 32 years as a Malaysian citizen, I have never heard the term “Islamic State” used in anywhere but only recently. AND as I said above elections are near, and the two Malay Parties are trying their best in outbeat one another in showing to the world at large who is more Taliban. Worst still, Parliament has been turned into a battleground between PAS and UMNO to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. This is so going against the spirit of true Malaysia.

For over four decades coming five, the defence of a secular Malaysia with Islam as the official religion was the mainstream nation-building agenda. All regardless of race and religion must challenge the so cll cry by DPM. Malaysian must know that all first three Prime Ministers have all declared that Malaysia is a secular state. Tunku went even further in 1988 to declare the formation of Islamic State as it will kill the social contract build over the years by all Malaysian.

Please don't allow cries by DPM as it is legally wrong and unbecoming of the office of the DPM. What about the exclamation by PM that he is the PM for all race and religion?