Islamization of Malaysian Laws

Prominent Sabah-Sarawak Leaders Reject Hadi’s Bill

Sabah and Sarawak leaders: Reject Hadi’s Bill – The Star Online 8 May 2017 Prominent leaders in Sabah and Sarawak have refuted claims that amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, or RUU355, will not affect non-Malays and Muslims in the two states. Writing in an open letter, they urged the people to preserve … Continue reading “Prominent Sabah-Sarawak Leaders Reject Hadi’s Bill”

Sabah and Sarawak leaders: Reject Hadi’s Bill – The Star Online 8 May 2017

Prominent leaders in Sabah and Sarawak have refuted claims that amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, or RUU355, will not affect non-Malays and Muslims in the two states.

Writing in an open letter, they urged the people to preserve the country as a secular state and to reject Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s Private Member’s Bill to amend RUU355. The letter, signed by 20 leaders including politicians, former civil servants and the G25 group of eminent Malays, was made available in four languages – English, Malay, Kadazandusun and Iban.

Malaysia, they said, was founded together with Sabah and Sarawak as a secular federation, in which Islam as the “religion of the federation” only played a ceremonial role.
“Lest we forget, religious freedom was stressed and assured in the merger negotiations of Malaysia. Hudud punishments were never placed on the agenda. “Had hudud punishments been on the cards, the Malaysia project would have likely been rejected by the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak,” they added.

Introducing hudud, they warned, would breach both the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Federal Constitution…“Together with the disproportionality of the offences and punishments, the introduction of these three hudud punishments (in Kelantan and Terengganu) will qualitatively alter the secular nature of the legal system,” they said. Sabahan and Sarawakian Muslims working and living in Peninsular Malaysia would also be subjected to hudud, they added…

“For Malaysia’s sake and to preserve our country as a secular federation, we must say no to Bill 355,” they said.

FULL STATEMENT GIVEN BELOW:

Continue reading “Prominent Sabah-Sarawak Leaders Reject Hadi’s Bill”

Black Magic and Beauty Contest. Shariah will be Applied to non-Muslims. No Thanks!

Non-Muslims Decline Invitation to Have Tea in Shariah Parlour “Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly, ‘Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, And I’ve a many curious things to shew when you are there.” Oh no, … Continue reading “Black Magic and Beauty Contest. Shariah will be Applied to non-Muslims. No Thanks!”

Non-Muslims Decline Invitation to Have Tea in Shariah Parlour

“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
‘Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I’ve a many curious things to shew when you are there.”
Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne’er come down again.”

PAS and UMNO politicians are quick to reprimand non-Muslims for refusing to support their proposal to amend Act 355, despite being given assurances that the Act will not affect non-Muslims. These politicians ignore the fact that non-Muslims have good reasons to be wary of enhanced shariah courts since their freedom has been violated many times by Shariah officials. See Shariah Law has no Consequences on Non-Muslims? HUMBUG (HAM-BAK)!

Non-Muslims are eminently reasonable when they argue they should have a genuine say in drafting laws that impact their lives, and that it is the civil court rather than the shariah court that should be enhanced since only the civil court can provide a fair and natural platform to ensure equal protection under the law for citizens from diverse religions seeking to forge a common life in a plural society.

Non-Muslims remain wary of Muslim legislators who have demonstrated that they are prepared to act unilaterally as they press ahead with Shariah-complaint laws with a view of imposing them on non-Muslims. Given below are two further examples of disturbing rhetoric from Muslim legislators who insist that Shariah law should be applied to non-Muslims. This rhetoric can only heighten the anxieties of non-Muslims.

Note that the proposed law to abolish black magic will be applied to non-Muslims. More disturbing is the proposal that the special body of Islamic experts advising (supervising?) the court are exempted from cross examination, and that its judgment in a trial will be accepted by the court as conclusive. Continue reading “Black Magic and Beauty Contest. Shariah will be Applied to non-Muslims. No Thanks!”

MCCBCHST OPEN LETTER TO MPs TO VOTE AGAINST HADI’S HUDUD BILL

RELATED POST: Shariah Law has no Consequences on Non-Muslims? HUMBUG RELATED POST: MCCBCHST: WE REJECT THE PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL ON HUDUD ** Note to the reader. There will be some amendments to Hadi’s bill as it goes through the various readings in Parliament. Supporters of Hadi’s bill will then claim that the statement of MCCBCHST’s … Continue reading “MCCBCHST OPEN LETTER TO MPs TO VOTE AGAINST HADI’S HUDUD BILL”

** Note to the reader. There will be some amendments to Hadi’s bill as it goes through the various readings in Parliament. Supporters of Hadi’s bill will then claim that the statement of MCCBCHST’s is no longer relevant. We disagree!

In any case, the statement is shared as documentation about the baseline or ultimate goal of the Islamic Hudud agenda which will be “implemented in phases”. The statement also reminds us the hudud context even as the next stage will be on explaining why the bill with the new amendments is still unacceptable.

** Call your MPs to make sure they vote against Hadi’s Bill (UMNO Assisted).

————–

The Malaysian Counsultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taosim (MCCBCHST) is gravely concerned with Hadi’s Private Members Bill which will be coming up for debate soon in our Federal Parliament. As the Bill will have far –reaching consequences for the Nation, the MCCBCHST feels duty bound to issue this open letter to Members of Parliament to do their duty as required by their oath of office to protect our Federal Constitution.

Excerpts from the 8-page MCCBCHST Open Letter to MPs
I. Is HADI’s Private Member’s Bill a Bill empowering HUDUD offences?
The answer is a clear ‘YES”. Here it is why…

The AIM of HADI’s Private Member’s Bill is to seek Parliament’s approval to enhance the Jurisdiction of the SYARIAH COURTS…

The proposed new Section 2A is very wide and states that Syariah Courts can impose punishments which are allowed by Syariah Law in relation to punishments which are listed under the above Section, other than the death penalty. Continue reading “MCCBCHST OPEN LETTER TO MPs TO VOTE AGAINST HADI’S HUDUD BILL”

The Federal Constitution, Islamisation and the Malaysian Legal Order

Related Post, Highly Recommended: Interfaith Council Urges MPs to Vote Against Hadi’s Upgrade Shariah Courts Bill by Guest Writer Mr. Lim Heng Seng. [The policy introduced by the Mahathir administration in the early 1980s, innocuously promoting Islamic universal values, became a platform for certain quarters to embark on a drive to change the fundamental … Continue reading “The Federal Constitution, Islamisation and the Malaysian Legal Order”

by Guest Writer Mr. Lim Heng Seng.

[The policy introduced by the Mahathir administration in the early 1980s, innocuously promoting Islamic universal values, became a platform for certain quarters to embark on a drive to change the fundamental character of the Malaysia polity and its legal order.

Will Malaysia end up as an Islamic or quasi-Islamic state by the gradual and subtle re-writing of her foundational document, the Federal Constitution? Or will she retain her character as an essentially secular nation?

These developments in Islamisation threaten to subvert the very foundation on which we, the citizens, and the territorial components of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak have held together as one nation.]

Continue reading “The Federal Constitution, Islamisation and the Malaysian Legal Order”

Why Recent Court Judgments Which Restrict Religious Freedom May be Questioned.

This article demonstrates how the current view that only the Syariah Court has the jurisdiction to rule on the status on those who had renounced Islam began with a misreading of a minority view in an earlier Supreme Court’s judgment in Dalip Kaur and treating it as setting a binding precedent. The non-binding minority view … Continue reading “Why Recent Court Judgments Which Restrict Religious Freedom May be Questioned.”

This article demonstrates how the current view that only the Syariah Court has the jurisdiction to rule on the status on those who had renounced Islam began with a misreading of a minority view in an earlier Supreme Court’s judgment in Dalip Kaur and treating it as setting a binding precedent. The non-binding minority view subsequently turned into ratio decidendi when the Federal Court in Soon Singh case approved the High Court’s judgment which ‘followed’ the minority view instead of the ratio of the majority judgment in Dalip Kaur.

Confusion between ratio decidendi (“the reason for the decision” which has legal binding effect) and orbiter dictum (“an incidental, by the way statement” which has only persuasive value) also arose in cases relating to religious freedom in Malaysia.

I refer readers to the careful analysis by Kuek Chee Ying & Tay Eng Siang in “When Orbiter Dictum and Minority View Become Ratio Decidendi” published in the Malayan Law Journal (2015) volume 3, pages lxxxii-xcvi Continue reading “Why Recent Court Judgments Which Restrict Religious Freedom May be Questioned.”

Be Assured that Syariah Law WILL be Imposed on non-Muslims

PAS politicians and some UMNO government officials repeatedly assure non-Muslims that that Syariah law will not be applied to them even as Abdul Hadi Awang tables the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 2016 to widen the scope of the criminal jurisdiction of Syariah Courts. However, non-Muslims have reasons to doubt whether the assurance is empty, if not disingenuous, when the authorities in Kelantan and officials in various government departments repeatedly impose public policies that infringe on the fundamental liberties of non-Muslims. It is the duty of every conscientious Member of Parliament to reject any proposed legislation that violates the provisions in the Federal Constitution that protect the rights of non-Muslims and Muslims against punitive criminal actions based on religious precepts.

Beware when the wolf ‘courteously’ invites the lamb for supper in his den when it is seen sharpening its claws and teeth.

To read the full article, visit a new post at Religious Liberty Watch: Be Assured Syariah Law WILL be Imposed on non-Muslims

Malaysian Bar: Supremacy of Federal Constitution and Syariah Court Enactments (2016) June 8, 2016

Malaysian Bar Press Release | Preserve, Respect and Uphold the Supremacy of the Federal Constitution 8 June 2016 The Malaysian Bar is extremely concerned over recent attempts by certain parties to ignore or reject entrenched principles in our supreme law, namely the Federal Constitution.[1] It was reported that Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Dato’ … Continue reading “Malaysian Bar: Supremacy of Federal Constitution and Syariah Court Enactments (2016) June 8, 2016”

Malaysian Bar Press Release | Preserve, Respect and Uphold the Supremacy of the Federal Constitution
8 June 2016

The Malaysian Bar is extremely concerned over recent attempts by certain parties to ignore or reject entrenched principles in our supreme law, namely the Federal Constitution.[1]

It was reported that Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Dato’ Seri Jamil Khir Baharom (“Minister”) said that “the laws to ban unilateral conversion contravenes [sic] Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution which states the religion of a minor under the age of 18 can be determined by their respective mother or father”.[2]

The Minister’s remarks are erroneous. Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution provides: “For the purposes of Clause (3), the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian” (emphasis added).[3] Article 12(4) must be read with the interpretation provisions in the Federal Constitution — Article 160 and the Eleventh Schedule — that provide that all words in the singular also include the plural. Hence, the religion of children under the age of 18 is to be decided by both parents, where both parents are alive. Continue reading “Malaysian Bar: Supremacy of Federal Constitution and Syariah Court Enactments (2016) June 8, 2016”

MCCBCHST: WE REJECT THE PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL ON HUDUD

Henceforth, the new Hudud Bill or the “Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 2016” that is tabled in Parliament should be called UMNO-PAS Hudud Bill. After all, without special assistance from UMNO, the Bill that was tabled by PAS (Hadi) would not get a chance to be debated in Parliament. If passed, the Bill will place the Federal Constitution on a slippery slide leading to a Shariah dominated Constitution. Malaysia will go the way of Pakistan where religious minorities (Christians) are often subject to false accusations and punishment under the Islamic Blasphemy Law. Nearer home, we should be alarmed at the prospect of non-Muslims being caned for ‘violating’ Islamic offences: Re: “Woman, 60, Caned for Selling Alcohol in Aceh” StraitsTimes (14 April 2016); See Also “For First Time in Indonesia, non-Muslim Caned under Islamic law” LosAngelesTimes (16 April 2016).

Perhaps, it would be good to refresh our understanding of the Kelantan Hudud Law: LINK

In the face of this present danger, Non-Muslims (especially East Malaysians) must go beyond a adopting poster of resignation and quiet skepticism toward the hollow assurance from the Prime Minister. They must call upon their Members of Parliament and insist that their MPs vote against the UMNO-PAS Hudud Bill.

To read and comment on the full post, please visit my other blog, Religious Liberty Watch: MCCBCHST: WE REJECT THE PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL ON HUDUD LINK

Call for Rational Debate of Hudud and Implementation of Syariah Compliant Govenment Policies on Non-Muslims

It is encouraging to find Malaysians across the race-and-religion divide coming together to call for rational debate on hudud and the related Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (1993), and affirming that: – As all Malaysians, Muslims or non-Muslims, Kelantanese or non-Kelantanese, are rightful stakeholders in the enforcement of KSCC, no one should be penalised, threatened or … Continue reading “Call for Rational Debate of Hudud and Implementation of Syariah Compliant Govenment Policies on Non-Muslims”

– As all Malaysians, Muslims or non-Muslims, Kelantanese or non-Kelantanese, are rightful stakeholders in the enforcement of KSCC, no one should be penalised, threatened or ridiculed for having or expressing any opinion on the matter.

– The success of Islamic banking in winning over the hearts and minds of non-Muslims through rigour and proven benefits, rather than a deceiving assurance of non-Muslim exclusion or a sloppy “trial-and-error” attitude, should be an inspiring example.

– The implementation of KSCC must not be decided on a winner-takes-all manner, such as a simple majority in the Dewan Rakyat, for this will risk tearing the country apart.

– The inclusive spirit of the Federal Constitution and the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, which lay down the secular basis of the Federation of Malaysia, must be upheld.

First, the provisions of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code is so evidently ultra vires the Federal Constitution that there is a prima facie case to reject it out of hand. It is agreed that the call for rational dialogue should not be restricted to debating whether one should support or oppose hudud. It is a call to all Malaysians to respect the provision related to the status of Islam and other religions in the Federal Constitution which is premised on a secular framework. Put concretely, the starting point for dialogue should be the original intent of the Federal Constitution as a secular-state where there is no establishment of religion, or provision for a dominating position for Islam. In this regard hudud or any Islamic law should not be part of our legal system, except in matters of personal law specifically enumerated in the Constitution. See related post: Malaysia Social Contract (Part 1): Religion and Equal Citizenship and Historic Documents on the drafting of the Constitution.

Second, the rational debate should publicly call into question not only the overt hudud agenda of the Kelantan government, but also the arguably, clandestine introduction of syariah compliant provisions in various State enactments in UMNO dominated State Legislative Assemblies (Dewan Undangan Negeri), and imposition of syariah compliant policies in the government departments affecting non-Muslims. Hudud naturally elicits strong and vocal opposition from all reasonable Malaysians as its implementation is an obvious and undeniable act of injustice against non-Muslims. In contrast, the introduction of syariah compliant laws and departmental policies are subtly and incrementally implemented so that non-Muslims remain unaware of the gradual erosion of their fundamental liberties.

In either case, the inclusive spirit and universal justice enshrined in the Federal Constitution would be shattered by the fatal blow of hudud, or gradually extinguished by the covertly introduced syariah compliant laws of the State Legislative Assemblies and government department policies. Continue reading “Call for Rational Debate of Hudud and Implementation of Syariah Compliant Govenment Policies on Non-Muslims”

Freedom of Religion after the Catholic Herald Court Judgments. Part 2/2

Part 2/2: Implications for Freedom of Religion arising from the Catholic Herald Court Judgments The Federal Constitution provision for freedom of religion has been undermined when the higher courts ruled that the ‘sanctity of Islam’ defines and limits freedom to practice other religions. Surely this unconstitutional restriction also applies to all other fundamental liberties enshrined … Continue reading “Freedom of Religion after the Catholic Herald Court Judgments. Part 2/2”

Part 2/2: Implications for Freedom of Religion arising from the Catholic Herald Court Judgments

The Federal Constitution provision for freedom of religion has been undermined when the higher courts ruled that the ‘sanctity of Islam’ defines and limits freedom to practice other religions. Surely this unconstitutional restriction also applies to all other fundamental liberties enshrined in the Federal Constitution since fundamental liberties are an inseparable whole, like a ‘seamless cloth’.

Preview of Conclusion
As a result of the decision by the Court of Appeal in the Catholic Herald, the law as it currently stands appears to be that the term ‘Allah’ should not be used by any non-Muslim group in Malaysia as it is not an essential and integral part of the religion. Article 11 only protects what is mandatory in a religion which according to the CA’s interpretation is a severely restricted freedom. Article 11 has to be read with article 3 which was inserted to protect the sanctity and supremacy of Islam. This means that other religions can be practiced in peace and harmony throughout the Federation as long as it does not affect the sanctity of Islam.

Read the attached document “Freedom of Religion after the Catholic Herald Judgments” for a careful and insightful analysis of these disturbing developments:

Freedom of Religion after the Catholic Herald Continue reading “Freedom of Religion after the Catholic Herald Court Judgments. Part 2/2”