Tweet Puan Speaker semalam, bawah:
BAWAH: Screenshot komen oleh ‘On Your Toes’ – orang yang rapat kepada pucuk pimpinan evangelista DAP – di rencana Malaysiakini bertajuk ‘Jais raids Bible Society, seizes Malay Bibles‘:
“Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Malaysia today”
Rujuk juga, ‘Terserah kepada Puan Speaker Hannah Yeoh untuk mansuhkan enakmen Selangor 1988‘
Evangelista ada banyak kuasa sekarang di Selangor.
Helen Ang 
Evangelistas should also respect the rights of others, Muslims and Non Muslims.
Cakap tak serupa bikin ?
We should wait the outcome of discussion between Mdm speaker and MB..
Maybe she will instruct MB to teach JAIS a lesson..
Yup. The Sleepy MB under her thumb.
We know who wears the pants but …..
what brand ?
She is the 2d highest paid and the most powerful civil servant and politician in Selangor, not to mention the Speaker. And some more an Aussie trained lawyer. Yet she doesn’t seem to realise that under the state law and constituition, all Islamic affairs comes under the Sultan.
Perhaps she plans to summon the HRH Sultan to the state assembly or her office to give a lecture and tick off to show who really the Boss in the state.
I think the appropriate heading for this post is not “HY cabar JAIS” but “HY Cabar Sultan Selangor”.
Perhaps she plans to summon the HRH Sultan to the state assembly or her office to give a lecture and tick off to show who really the Boss in the state.
Very powerful woman.
Everyone has the right to their own religion. Jails job is to catch Muslims khalwatting, tak puasa and the likes. Their jurisdiction lies only onto Muslims. Now they try to be idiots by acting on non Muslims. Depa tak baca constitution kot. Btw Titah by anyone is not a law. We are a constitutional mornacy not an absolute mornachy. So you can Titah all you want, IT DOES NOT BECOME LAW. You can take out fartwa after fartwa , it does not affect non Muslims. Ini pun you arang tak tau. Pi baca constitution again, THE supreme lw of this land. Leaih dash baca baru cakap, I bet 99.9%of commenters here don’t even know the contents of the constitution.
Wow ! So perpetually hysterical. I understand that the state of Colorado just legalized the use of marijuana but I didn’t know you were there to get the first taste of the legalized stuff. Man, I really respect you. The stuff must be really intoxicating judging from your reaction to this piece by Helen.
I bet that 99.9% of people who commented don’t even know the contents of the constitution. So therefore I would really, I mean really appreciate it if you hold a class to explain the contents of the constitution since you have said that 99.9% of us here know absolutely nothing.
By the way, about the marijuana, could you please tell us, how did you get the stuff into Malaysia without getting caught ? Since your lot accuse our government of being corrupt, did you gave the immigration officers some “coffee” money ?
Tak tau berbahasa Melayu jangan la sibuk-sibuk menggunakan bahasa Melayu. Bible yang kononnya berbahasa Melayu dah memporak-perandakan bahasa Melayu itu sendiri. Tak belajar bahasa Melayu ke kat sekolah jenis kebangsaan dulu?
Dalam bahasa Melayu terjemahan God adalah Tuhan; terjemahan Gods adalah Tuhan-Tuhan. Dalam bahasa Melayu Allah tiada terjemahan kerana ianya adalah nama khas. Sama seperti pemilik nama Bush yang tidak diterjemahkan kepada Belukar; Hunter juga tidak dipanggil Pemburu apabila diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Melayu. Pi belajar bahasa Melayu again.
Apo nak di kato. Dah peghangai cam tu. Di ajar tak nak paham, Di sughuh tak nak ikut. Di khobar buek tak ghoti. Tu lah jadinyo. Nampak jo chantek tapi bobal. (Helen, I’m using the Negeri slang)
:Dsarah
Aiseh…kantoi den. Hahaha.
Kalau orang Melayu masih beragama Hindu, agaknya nama tuhan dalam bible bahasa Melayu jadi Brahman kot. Kelas gitu… nama tuhan boleh berubah ikut bahasa.
Why not you ask your DAPster to change the Selangor’s respective law that disturbing your mind.. no need to perpetually hysterical.. please read constitution again.. DAP got 2/3 majority..
Mr. Meezal,
Any human being, Muslim or non-Muslim, has the right to address our common Creator as ALLAH, but . . . know that this is a proper noun designated for the one particular Being we acknowledge as the Lord of all creation, and ALLAH is The Unique One, Absolutely unlike anything in His creation, Eternal and Everlasting, All-Knowing and Almighty. He has bestowed upon humanity the Holy Quran as the Criterion of Divine Truths; and in the Quran ALLAH has warned humanity against proclaiming Jesus Messiah as the Son of God or that Jesus shares in ALLAH’s Divinity.
“Everyone has the right to his own religion” as you boldly stated. It is therefore imperative that the Trinitarian Pauline Christians do not impose themselves upon the Unitarian beliefs of the Muslims of the Quran and Prophetic tradition, (the majoritarian creed of the Malays) that is, ALLAH neither begets nor is begotten (as in mundane creaturely procreation). Never forget that the Quran affirms the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth from the Virgin Mary.
With reference to the evidence presented in my comments dtd. Jan. 2, 9:34 pm in the posting below:
https://helenang.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/imitating-and-irritating-the-malays-najibrazak/
know that Prophet Muhammad and the Noble Quran are the genuine heirs to the spiritual ministry of Jesus the Messiah, and Islam is the one true “Unitarian religion” from the time of our common ancestor Adam a.s. It was no accident that Waraqah bin Naufal, the chief priest of the Ebionite Jewish Christians in Makkah, was the cousin of the beloved wife of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. It was Waraqah who confirmed the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) the beloved of ALLAH, Lord Most Merciful and Compassionate.
The Secret Family of Jesus a.s.: [YouTube]
Mr. Meezal, it may not be far off the mark to say that 99.9% of Trinitarian Christians living today are ignorant of the true reality of Jesus’ original ministry to the Jews in Palestine.
A correction, in Al Quran there is not ‘Jesus’ ,only Al Masih or Isa son of Mariam as son of god for christian and the jews says Uzair as son of god. Surah At Taubah.
Meezal periksa balik kelas Constitution anda. Jangan ponteng.atau tidur. Apa yang anda cakap ni hanya tahap pelajar tahun 1 atau 2 ijazah perundangan.
Titah baginda hari itu bukan untuk undang-undang baharu atau fatwa. Titah baginda hari itu ialah untuk rakyat Selangor supaya jangan lupa akan Perkara XLVII, Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor 1959 dan juga Fasal (1) Perkara 3, Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang meletakkan Islam sebagai agama negeri dan Persekutuan.
Keduanya sebagai seorang yang tergolong dalam 0.1% yang membaca Perlembagaan Meezal seharusnya faham bahawa Malaysia ini ialah PERSEKUTUAN.- Malaysia ini bukan satu Sebuah NEGARA macam Brunei atau Indonesia atau Singapura.
Selangor ialah negeri yang berdaulat (sovereign State) Selangor bukan WIlayah dalam Malaysia.
Selangor dalam STATEHOOD sama tarafnya dengan Thailand, Brunei, Indonesia. Selangor ialah sebuah negara. Harap faham itu.
Secara benarnya Federal Constituion bukanlah the Highest law of the LAND. Orang selalu silap tafsir. Federal Constitution cuma the highest law across the FEDERATION. Artikel 4 (1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Mesti Meezal mahir atas Artikel ini kan Meezal? Mesti Meezal nampak perkataan supreme law of the LAND? eh- eh tak adalah Meezal. Nampaknya Meezal tertidur masa kelas ni.. Cuma sebut supreme law of the Federation. Aisehman Meezal.
Federation itu apa? Federation bukan sebuah negara. Federation secara kewujudannya bukanlah satu STATEHOOD. . Federation wujud atas perjanjian dan persetujuan STATE-STATE (yang ada STATEHOOD) untuk hidup bersama. Federal Governement juga bukanlah KERAJAAN. Federal Goverment ialah satu PENTADBIRAN.. Tolong Faham ini. Ini bermakna Federal Constitution ialah dokumen persetujuan bagaimana hendak mentadbir PERSEKUTUAN. Nak kasi Meezal faham lagi – AGONG bukan KING of Malaysia. Atau Sultan of Malaysia. Dia cuma HEAD OF FEDERATION. Kenapa ? Sebab Malaysia tidak ada STATEHOOD/KENEGARAAN. AGONG tidak ada “KINGSHIP” atau sultanship (ada ke perkataan ini?)
Bila orang sebut Malaysian Government orang selalu tafsir dalam bahasa Malaysia bahawa ianya = KERAJAAN MALAYSIA. Ini TIDAK BENAR. Tafsiran yang betul ialah PENTADBIRAN KERAJAAN MALAYSIA. Bahasa Inggeris secara mudahnya Government= kata akar govern= tadbir.
Ok. maka persoalannya “LAND” Malaysian Government itu apa? Jawapanya hanya WIlayah Persekutuan. Sebab itu Federal Constitution sebut SUPREME LAW of the FEDERATION bukannya SUPREME LAW of the LAND.
Jadi apakah SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND untuk SELANGOR sebagai satu STATE yang mempunyai STATEHOOD yang menyertai PERSEKUTUAN ? Jawapannya ialah Undang tubuh kerjaan Negeri selangor. Adakah undang-udang Tubuh Selangor bertentangan dengan Federal Constitution? Jawapanya sudah pasti tidak kalau tidak sudah lama Hanah Yeoh tidak boleh jadi Speaker. Dari undang-undang tubuh SELANGOR SEBAGAI SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND UNTUK SELANGOR maka LAHIRLAH Seksyen 10 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah 1995. Meezal kan pakar constitution ma……. Meezal mesti tahu akan perkara ini.
Maka dalam perkembangan terkini ini NON-Muslim bukan kena force untuk submit ke JAIS tetapi tertakluk kepada SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND UNTUK SELANGOR. Kalau TIDAK SUKA AKAN UNDANG_UNDANG ini dan tidak bersetuju akan undang-undang ini maka ikut lah cadangan HELEN di sini. Bukankah ada kuasa untuk pinda? . Kucing mengeow, ayam berkeletak, rimau mengaum, Khinzir beroink Anjing menyalak, gajah bertrumpet, keldai berheew haw tidak dapat meminda perundangan. Tapi di Dewan Negeri Selangor boleh. Tunggu apa lagi?
Jika Selangor adalah sebuah negara, mengapa tiadanya Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia? Mengapa tak ada Menteri Luar Negara dalam kerajaan Selangor?
Ralat: Jabatan Imigresen Selangor.
pi baca senarai persekutuan, senarai negeri dgn senarai bersama. di situ jurisdiction federal dgn negeri. senang citer macam USA pun asasnya federation jugak. bunyik pun “United States of America” atau “Kesatuan Negeri2 Amerika” (kenapa boleh jadi Amerika Syarikat pun x tau). cuma jurisdiction state2 di Amerika lg besar berbanding di Malaysia mungkin sbb state meka pun besar2 bahkan lg besar dr satu Malaysia .
mcm state of new york contoh ada polis, bomba dan cikgu sendiri. federal goverment dia kawal hubungan luar negara dan ketenteraan je. ada jumpa Jabatan Imigresen California atau Menteri Luar Negara New York? cuma kurang setuju skit dgn en talhah pasal selangor tu negara. kalau dulu YA sbb sejarah kita terbentuk berdasarkan city state, selangor, melaka, pahang, johor dll. sama jg mcm amerika.
skrg atas persetujuan Majlis Raja2 pun dipersetujui negeri2 di Semenanjung bergabung dalam satu Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Malaysia lahir bila Sabah dan Sarawak join persekutuan ni dan memandangkan bumiputera di sana majoriti bukan Melayu dan tidak beragama Islam, maka atas dasar timbal balik guna la nama Malaysia dan bukan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
talhah 72,
Re: Selangor dalam STATEHOOD sama tarafnya dengan Thailand, Brunei, Indonesia. Selangor ialah sebuah negara.
Selangor adalah negeri, bukan negara. Selangor adalah salah sebuah negeri dalam Persekutuan Malaysia. Jika Selangor adalah sebuah negara, mengapa bidang kuasa seperti imigresen, tentera, diplomatik dll bukan di bawah Selangor tetapi di bawah kerajaan persekutuan? Rujuk Perlembagaan untuk Senarai Persekutuan, Negeri dan Bersama.
Re: Sebab itu Federal Constitution sebut SUPREME LAW of the FEDERATION bukannya SUPREME LAW of the LAND.
Perlembagaan memang ‘supreme’. Agong tertakluk kepada Perlembagaan. Undang-undang negeri yang bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan akan terbatal sekadar mana yang bercanggah. Kuasa negeri untuk mengubal undang-undang mengenai Islam dan adat istiadat Melayu juga berasal dari Perlembagaan,. Rujuk Senarai Negeri.
Contoh. Kes Nordin bin Salleh vs Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan Tahun 1992
Kelantan buat undang-undang negeri supaya ADUN yang lompat parti akan kehilangan kerusi DUN. Mahkamah Agung memutuskan undang-undang tersebut tidak sah kerana melanggar Perlembagaan.
Mana awak belajar undang-undang?
Re: Selangor dalam STATEHOOD sama tarafnya dengan Thailand, Brunei, Indonesia. Selangor ialah sebuah negara..
Periksa IC anda. Lihat nombor di tengah. Contoh untuk saya ialah 04. Kod untuk Melaka. Inilah kod kerakyatan saya. Lihat kod anda. Katakan 04 juga. Cuba anda memohon untuk biasisiswa anak Perak dari Yayasan Perak. Agak-agak dapat tak? Tidak sebab anda bukan rakyat Perak. Anda cuma Warga Malaysia tetapi bukan rakyat Perak. Ada beza kerakyatan dan kewarganegaraan.
Siapa Mufti MALAYSIA walaupun perkara 3 menyatakan ISLAM agama PERSEKUTUAN? Kalau dah Islam mesti ada MUFTI kan?Tidak ada. Kenapa agaknya? Sebab Malaysia bukan satu NEGARA seperti BRUNEI. Perak ada Mufti sendiri seperti Brunei juga..
Katakan Perak. Jika Perak itu negeri (yang mana membawa makna dan konotasi subservient kepada Malaysia ) Adakah Sultan Perak misalnya perlu merafak sembah atau mempunyai protokol yang lebih kurang dari Agong? Jawapnya tidak.
Bidangkuasa yag saudara sebut itu ialah BIDANG KUASA STATE/SULTAN juga asalnya tetapi sudah di serahkan PENTADBIRANNYA kepada PENTADBIRAN KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN apabila negara-negara tersebut bersetuju untuk bersekutu di bawah MALAYSIA..Jangan lupa dahulu sebelum 1990an hendak masuk Sarawak bagi bukan rakyat Sarawak kena ada sejenis PAS LAWATAN IMIGERSEN tetapi telah di hapuskan. Pas ini langkah sementara untuk mengelakkan perubahan demografi Sarawak. Ini satu contoh di mana penguatkuasaan imigresen dan persempadanan berlaku di antara NEGARA_NEGARA yang bersekutu di dalam PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA. Ada juga individu politk dari Semenanjung (saya tidak ingat siapa ) yang di halang memasuki SABAH ATAU SARAWAK.
Saya ulang supaya tidak salah faham . BUKANNYA SERAH KUASA (surrender the authority) tetapi SERAH KUASA PENTADBIRAN (administrative power) Penyerahan ini berkuasa kuasa selagi BERSEKUTU
Nota tambahan Sultan Johor ada tentera sendiri.
Re: Sebab itu Federal Constitution sebut SUPREME LAW of the FEDERATION bukannya SUPREME LAW of the LAND..
Rujuk Artikel 4(1) Federal Constitution.
Saudara terkeliru di sini.
Saya merujuk kepada sebutan pengepos asal Meezal atas perkataan beliau “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND”. dan hendaklah di baca dalam konteks Selangor. Saya tegaskan bahwa Federal Constitution bukan supreme law of the land (ie Selangor) tetapi SUPREME LAW of the FEDERATION (yang mana Selangor bersetuju untuk bersekutu dan menjadi ahlinya.)
“the Land” membawa makna NEGARA yang mempunyai tanah air, Negara yang ada STATEHOOD. Supreme Law of the Land untuk Selangor ialah Undang-Undang- tubuh Selangor pada zaman ini dan pada zaman feudal dahulu Sultan itu sendiri. Persekutuan Malaysia tiada “Tanah air” sebab ianya BUKAN satu STATEHOOD.
Seterusnya SUPREME LAW of the LAND ialah untuk PERHATIAN RAKYAT atau individu. Antara State dan rakyatnya/individu.
SUPREME LAW of the FEDERATION pula ialah untuk PERHATIAN NEGARA-NEGARA yang bersekutu dan ENTITI FEDERATION. Rakyat atau individu bukannya entiti FEDERATION. Dengan kata lain FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ialah satu dokumen perundangan yang supreme untuk Entiti Persekutuan .. Ianya bukannya secara lansung untuk perhatian rakyat dan mengikat secara lansung rakyat secara individu. Tidak ada individu yang tindakannya “Unconstitutional”. Cuma Entiti Federation yang boleh jadi Unconstitutional . Ahli Parliment ialah entiti Federation seperti MP Lim Kit Siang Mp Gelang Patah (dalam perbahasan Parliment beliau di rujuk sebagai GELANG PATAH bukannya akan di sebut nama individu beliau Lim Kit Siang) tetapi Encik Lim Kit Siang sebagai individu bukan entiti Federation. . State seperti Selangor ialah entiti Federation. Contoh lagi seperti YDP Agong ialah entiti FEDERATION tetapi Tuanku Alhaj Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Badlishah (YDPA sekarang) sebagai individu BUKANNYA Entiti Federation. (saya kurang pasti nama individu baginda – Nama yang ini ialah nama baginda dalam entiti kesultanan baginda. Seperti Raja Azlan Shah ialah nama individu Sultan Perak. Nama entiti kesultanan baginda ialah Sultan Azlan Muhibbuddin Shah Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Yussuf Izzuddin Shah)
Contoh lain jika individu mengamalkan slavery (bertentangan peruntukan artikel 6 Perlembagaaan) tindakan beliau tidak di kira “Unconstitutional” tetapi satu jenayah bawah Kanun Kesiksaan. Tetapi jika Selangor membuat peraturan dan perundangan mengimport slave dari China untuk industri rumah urut di Selangor dan mengutip hasil cukai dari perniagaan ini ianya di kira “Unconstitutional”
Kesimpulannya Federal Constitution hanya boleh di sebut sebagai Supreme Law of the Land untuk negara seperti Thailand dan Singapura. tetapi tidak di Malaysia. Di Malaysia dan tak silap saya Amerika juga ianya supreme law of the federation.
Kalau masih keliru silalah baca ini. Mudah. je cari untuk orang malas seperti saya.
“…… Jadi dalam keadaan ini, perkataan state akan diterjemahkan sama ada sebagai “negeri” atau “negara” mengikut konteks.
Kekeliruan sering timbul dikalangan penutur bahasa Melayu akan perkara ini kerana kebanyakan mereka tinggal di dalam Persekutuan Malaysia dimana perkataan state seringkali dirujuk sebagai negeri. Hampir tiada kesedaran di kalangan mereka akan maksud lain perkataan state sebagai merujuk kepada negara.” Wikipedia – ini link dia http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negeri
Juga baca di atas dalam konteks artikel 2(1) Federal Constitution. Jika State di tafsir dalam konteks negeri sebagaimana yang saudara faham (negeri = subservient kepada Malaysia) negeri apa yang boleh kita bawa masuk lagi? Mana ada lagi kan? Acheh? Acheh bukan negeri. dalam Malaysia. Ini bermakna STATE dalam konteks Perlembagaan membawa maksud negara luar atau sebahagiannya seperti wilayah mereka ke dalam persekutuan.. Contohnya Singapura/Brunei. Kalau nak masuk Malaysia boleh dengan perencanaan Parliment. Ini juga bermakna sebenarnya Negeri (versi BM) dan States (versi Inggeris) membawa makna NEGARA dalam konteks ini. Maka Perak Selangor etc ialah Negara-negara.
Seterusnya saudara bolehlah kaji sendiri tentang asal-usul perkataan ‘STATE” dari segi falsafah dan jurisprudence nya. Persekutuan Malaysia tidak memenuhi ciri-ciri “STATE”
Maka dengan penerangan ini Kes Nordin tiada kaitan sebab saya tidak kata Federal Constitutions itu tidak supreme. Lagipun kes ini sudah di kira kes “Unconstitutional” kerana kuasa untuk menyekat kebebasan individu terletak pada Parlimen bukannya State lagi. (artikel 10 kalau tak silap saya) Undang-undang yang di gubal dan diluluskan hendaklah di anggap sebagai “Unconstitutional” atas dasar Federal Constitution ialah SUPREME law of Federation bukannya atas dasar SUpreme law of the Land. Akan tetapi jika state hari itu mempunyai cukup kuasa untuk meminda .Undang-undang tubuh Negeri yakni Supreme law of the Land dan meminda undang-undang tubuh untuk mengasingkan diri dari Persekutuan saya tidak tahulah. Ianya mungkin jadi satu kes yang paling menarik dalam sejarah.
Saudara pun tulih tidak habis. Saudara berhenti pada takat perkataan supreme. Supreme of the land ke atau supreme of the Federation? Saya hanya kata Federal Constitution bukanlah SUPREME LAW of The land. Ianya SUPREME LAW of the FEDERATION. Ada beza FEDERATION and “the land”. Ada bezanya PERSEKUTUAN dan NEGARA. Malaysia bukannya satu State tetapi satu PERSEKUTUAN.
re: “Ada beza kerakyatan dan kewarganegaraan”
Boleh tolong perincikan.
talhah72,
Re: Cuba anda memohon untuk biasisiswa anak Perak dari Yayasan Perak. Agak-agak dapat tak? Tidak sebab anda bukan rakyat Perak. Anda cuma Warga Malaysia tetapi bukan rakyat Perak.
Perlembagaan Perak ada peruntukan mengenai kerakyatan negeri Perak? Boleh tunjukkan? Kalau saya bukan rakyat Perak, saya akan ditahan di Kastam ketika nak masuk sempadan Perak?
Re: Ada beza kerakyatan dan kewarganegaraan.
Mengenai kad pengenalan, bukankah ia dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara yang terletak di bawah kerajaan persekutuan? Bukan dikeluarkan oleh kerajaan negeri. Mohon penjelasan.
Re: Ada juga individu politk dari Semenanjung (saya tidak ingat siapa ) yang di halang memasuki SABAH ATAU SARAWAK.
Ini kerana atas dasar Perjanjian 20 Perkara di mana negeri Sabah/Sarawak diberi kuasa dalam bidang tertentu seperti imigresen ketika membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia. Contoh, Ambiga pernah dihalang daripada memasuki Sarawak. Tetapi Perak dan Melaka tidak boleh berbuat demikian.
Perbincangan yang sangat akademik dengan pelbagai istilah. Agak mengelirukan untuk golongan bukan dari latar belakang undang-undang.
Apa-apa pun, perlembagaan adalah ‘supreme law’ tak kira sama ada untuk Federation atau Land. Negeri-negeri di Malaysia adalah ‘subservient’ kepada perlembagaan. Kes Nordin Salleh adalah contoh terbaik untuk menunjukkan ketertinggian perlembagaan.
Beberapa insiden di negeri Pakatan juga menunjukkan mereka tidak mampu menbuat apa-apa perubahan kerana dihalang oleh kuasa perlembagaan. Contoh Kelantan ingin laksana Hudud dan Penang ingin memulihkan pilihan raya untuk kerajaan tempatan dan memperkenalkan undang-undang untuk menghalang ‘katak lompat parti’.
Hak warganegara juga dijamin di bawah perlembagaan. Bukan undang-undang atau perlembagaan negeri. Contoh seseorang boleh dilucutkan kewarganegaraan mengikut perlembagaan persekutuan dan bukannya perlembagaan negeri.
Seorang pembaca menyebut “Ada beza kerakyatan dan kewarganegaraan.” Saya nak tanya:
Kalau seseorang itu ‘rakyat Selangor’ dilucut kewarganegaraan, adakah dia masih ‘rakyat Selangor’ tetapi bukan warganegara Malaysia? Setelah ICnya dibatalkan, adakah kerajaan Selangor akan keluarkan IC baru?
Re: Titah by anyone is not a law. We are a constitutional mornacy not an absolute mornachy.
Correct.
Re: You can take out fartwa after fartwa , it does not affect non Muslims.
Also correct.
Fatwa could, indirectly.
e.g. Fatwa haramkan yoga
Say, a Malay health club member signs up for exercise package which includes yoga class.
If the Religious Dept wants to enforce the anti-yoga fatwa, they might raid the premises (theoretically speaking), just like night clubs are raided and Muslim drinkers arrested.
The raid would disrupt the business of the health club plus inconvenience the yoga instructor (all of whom could be non-Muslims).
Helen,
Re: The raid would disrupt the business of the health club plus inconvenience the yoga instructor (all of whom could be non-Muslims).
This is the problem here. Why create trouble for the non-Muslims when enforcing Islamic laws? If want to enforce a fatwa to ban yoga, please also create a rule to disallow yoga instructors from taking in Muslim students. Need to do simultaneously. Let say after invading a yoga class, there is no Muslim students at all. Yoga instructor suffered a loss. He should be allowed to sue Islamic authorities for damages.
We cannot just have fatwa to ban yoga but forget to look at the implications on the non-Muslims.
re: “If want to enforce a fatwa to ban yoga, please also create a rule to disallow yoga instructors from taking in Muslim students.”
(1) Genting Highlands casinos disallow Muslim patrons
(2) Entertainment outlets serving alcohol do not specify Muslims cannot enter
Boleh ke sultan lucutkan jawatan speaker huh?
THIS IS kerja JAIS. Because THIS IS berkaitan dengan Islam. Sebab, if the kalimah ‘Allah’ is given to the Christians, ia akan meggugat kedudukan Islam dan mencabar Islam secara lansung. So if you think this is not berkaitan dengan Islam, mimpilah Hannah!
Enakmen agama bukan islam 1988 itu diluluskan oleh DUN Selangor. Enakmen ini secara ringkasnya antara lain membolehkan orang bukan islam di bawah penguatkuasaan JAIS.
DAP boleh batalkan enakmen ini sebab mereka ada 2/3 majoriti. PAS pasti tunduk dengan DAP.. MB selangor dah kata yg perkenan Tuanku tidak diperlukan lagi..
Why must have the bible in BAHASA Malaysia .
Chinese schools don’t use BAHASA Malaysia
Do you think that there is an ulterior motive.
HY CLAIMED TO BA ANAK MALAYSIA.
Then should fight that vernacular schools be closed and use BAHASA.
HY should not underestimat intelligence of others.
People observe, hear and evaluate.
Don’t be hypocrites .
Kerana ada orang Kristian yang menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia.
Sebenarnya, golongan Kristian yang menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia (Bumiputera seperti etnik Sabah Sarawak dan orang asli) melebihi golongan Kristian kaum Cina atau India.
Sebenarnya, golongan Kristian yang menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia (Bumiputera seperti etnik Sabah Sarawak dan orang asli) melebihi golongan Kristian kaum Cina atau India.
Jadi orang Cina dan India pun mahu menyembah Allah.
让我们祈求阿拉.
tu ya pelik tu. kalau guna logik dia ni maka sekolah cina kena guna bahasa pengantar Bahasa Malaysia jugaklah memandangkan bukan semua pelajar sjkc tu cina. ada melayu dan india jugak.
Tak boleh. Kan bahasa melayu itu milik melayu umno.
Nanti kena saman pula kalau bertutur dalam bahasa melayu.
Nanti kena berkas Jais dan polis.
Bila penguasa Islam ambil tindakan dia bising. Bila dia buat perkara yg dilarang undang2 kenapa dia diam aja? Minoriti membuli majoriti..
Kita tgklah, Mdm Speaker power ke atau Sultan.. Too much already
Speaker Bodoh.
JAIS bawah KUASA SULTAN BUKAN MB.
PERLEMBAGAAN NEGERIPUN TAK AHU…….PUAN SPEAKER.
JANGAN CAMPUR URUSAN ISLAM.
Haven’t she learned a lesson or two from Iguana Eng vs. The Sultan of Johor case and Nizar Jamaluddin vs, The Sultan of Johor case as precedent?
Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution:
State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
Art 11(4) is very general and gives wide powers to state authority to legislate laws prohibiting propagation, including the banning of certain words.
The ‘state law’ referred above in Selangor is the Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam Negeri Selangor (Kawalan Pengembangan Di Kalangan Orang Islam) 1988. This Enactment is created under Art 11(4) above. Refer to this link:-
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Dalam_Negeri/20131223/dn_04/Masih-tidak-endah-larangan
The relevant part of the link:-
“…………yang digubal selaras dengan Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan bertujuan menjamin kesucian agama dan umat Islam daripada dipengaruhi oleh doktrin atau ajaran agama lain.”
Section 9 of the Enactment prohibits the non-Muslims from using, inter alia the word Allah.
The Enactment was created under Art. 11(4) that says “……….restrict the propagation……….”.
Question: Whether the use of the word Allah in Bibles constitute an act of propagation on Muslims?
Depending on the situation:
1. If the Bible is given to Muslims, yes.
2. If the Bible is given to public, still yes.
3. If the Bible is given to non-Muslims, no.
Now, some people may suggest that JAIS was trying to pre-empt the Bibles from being distributed to Muslims hence the seizure.
If JAIS is empowered to do so, then the seizure is legal.
As I understand it, the 9(1) of the Selangor 1988 enactment is on a different tack altogether from what you cite about the Allah-Bible being “distributed” to Christians only. Your argument is on the distribution of the printed material and the recipients.
This section of the law that Jais is invoking is a straightforward, outright ban on the use of the word ‘Allah’ as it refers to the God(s) other religions.
While I may agree that the ‘Allah’ word is a proper name and exclusive, I can’t agree that other words such as ‘nabi’ (prophet) or ‘rasul’ (apostle) be made equally exclusive because Christianity have Nabi and Rasul too, and these are words we can’t avoid if we’re using BM.
So how about the 10 points agreement proposed by Putrajaya? Just another carrot to fool the east Malaysian Christian?
Sabah & Sarawak do not have similar enactments. They are only in the peninsula.
However, the states of Penang, Sabah and Sarawak do not have such an enactment. State legal provisions are as follows:
1. Control & Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Johore) Enactment 1991 (Enactment 12/1991);
2. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Kedah) Enactment 1988 (Enactment 11/1988);
3. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Kelantan) Enactment 1981 (Enactment 11/1981);
4. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Malacca) Enactment 1988 (Enactment 1/1988);
5. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Enactment 9/1991);
6. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Pahang) Enactment 1989 (Enactment 5/1989);
7. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Perak) Enactment 1988 (Enactment 10/1988);
8. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Selangor) Enactment 1988 (Enactment 1/1988);
9. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Terengganu) Enactment 1980 (Enactment 1/1980);
10. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religion (Perlis Enactment No. 6 of 2002).
Re: This section of the law that Jais is invoking is a straightforward, outright ban on the use of the word ‘Allah’ as it refers to the God(s) other religions.
Take note that Selangor derived its powers to enact state laws to prohibit propagation from Art.11(4) of the Constitution. As such, the banning of the word Allah must be made in the context to prohibit propagation.
In my opinion, ‘straightforward and outright ban’ is in fact an act of disregard the provision of Art. 11(4). That is why I say the use of Allah for ‘internal consumption’ within the Christian community without any element of propagation is lawful. Selangor could not enact a state law beyond the powers given by Art. 11(4).
re: “Selangor could not enact a state law beyond the powers given by Art. 11(4).”
Fair enough (not beyond anything that contravenes the FedCOn). Since I’m not a lawyer and far less a constitutional expert, I don’t have anything to add at this point.
If you have academic citation to take your argument further, you’re welcome to provide us the article/paper link.
Sorry Helen,
I don’t have any citation or authority. It is merely my opinion. I am surprised by the fact that the Enactment was made in 1988. Until now no one actually challenged the legality of the prohibition on certain words.
I suppose no one was actually charged under the Enactment. That is why no one raised the legality of section 9 of the Enactment. But I am quite sure that from 1988 until today, there must be people committed offences under the Enactment. But why no action taken?
Now Ong Kian Ming said this:
“In a statement, Ong said he had a copy of the Alkitab, where the word “Allah” was used.”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/will-jais-raid-private-homes-next-asks-dap-lawmaker
Will JAIS please go to his house and seize the Alkitab?
re: ” I am surprised by the fact that the Enactment was made in 1988. […] I suppose no one was actually charged under the Enactment.”
I don’t supposed all that many Malaysian men were charged for consensual sodomy either until Anwar’s case came along.
re: I don’t supposed all that many Malaysian men were charged for consensual sodomy either until Anwar’s case came along.
Then what is the point of having laws but no enforcement? Or perhaps we have selective prosecution here?
In one interview with foreign media (WSJ if I’m not mistaken), Anwar said the sodomy law was archaic.
They’re just there, left for us in the statute books long ago by the British.
Even new laws, like the Peaceful Assembly Act, is not enforced (was not enforced on the Turun protesters on New Year’s eve).
Re: They’re just there, left for us in the statute books long ago by the British.
We have AG Chambers. They can always review archaic laws and propose to repeal. There is Department of Law Review/Research.
Re: Even new laws, like the Peaceful Assembly Act, is not enforced (was not enforced on the Turun protesters on New Year’s eve).
Why? At least investigate, detain and charge. Let the court decide later. If there is no efford on the very 1st step, i.e. investigate then how to proceed? We have police, Parliament, MACC, AG and Court. All parties must play their role.
Laws in malaysia are plenty. However because of the multi- racial mix in the country, it becomes an issue whenever the laws are enforced.
Bet you if they had enforced the peaceful assembly act, the pakatan goons would have gone ballistics.
Re: If you have academic citation to take your argument further, you’re welcome to provide us the article/paper link.
You may refer:-
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/bar-says-jais-has-no-power-to-regulate-other-faiths-its-raid-on-the-bible-s
The relevant part:
“Leong said these provisions purport to make it an offence to use the listed words or phrase and are general blanket prohibitions and offences, irrespective of whether the words or phrases are used in the course of, or for the purpose of propagation of a non-Islamic religion to Muslims.
“In such circumstances, resort to sections 9(1) and (2) would be ultra vires the said Selangor Enactment itself, as they go beyond the purpose and ambit of the said Selangor enactment as set out in its preamble, and as self-evident in its title.
“The impugned provisions are unconstitutional, inasmuch as they are unsupported by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution,” he said.”
And also here:
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Dalam_Negeri/20140104/dn_14/Mahu-pinda-Enakmen-1988
The relevant part:
“Kalau menyentuh mengenai fungsi JAIS, jabatan itu telah diberikan kuasa oleh negeri berdasarkan kepada Perkara 3 dan Perkara 11 (4), Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Jadi, apa yang dilakukan oleh JAIS adalah dalam ruang lingkup yang diberikan pihak berkuasa negeri berdasarkan Perlembagaan,” tegas beliau.”
In summary, the Selangor Enactment 1988 was legislated under Art. 11(4) that control or restrict propagation. Section 9 of the Enactment has a blanket prohibition on 35 words and is general in nature. Since the Enactment derived its power from constitution, Section 9 has to be limited to the purpose stated in Art. 11(4), i.e. to control or restrict propagation.
In may opinion, the Enactment 1988 may restrict 350 or even 3500 words. That is not an issue. The real issue is the enforcement/implementation. The prohibition on words has to be be confined for the purpose to control or restrict propagation.
The question now is can JAIS prove that the bible containing the word Allah is meant to be used for propagation?
Isn’t the issue Section 9(1) of the Enactment which are “blanket prohibitions” on word use?
Wong Chin Huat has also raised the same issue. It would be difficult to use BM if the non-Muslim language user is forbidden from employing words like nabi, iman, firman, wahyu, etc.
I would not go the ‘extreme’ way of alleging section 9 as illegal or unconstitutional. Assuming the said section is indeed unconstitutional, only the ‘blanket prohibition’ is affected. Not the entire provision as the Constitution allows state law to control or prohibit propagation, including banning of certain words but not on a ‘blanket’ manner.
Let us see whether JAIS or police will press charges. Alternatively, the Bible Society may still challenge the legality of the seizure.
” prohibit propagation” This is what I think the most important point. Is there any concrete evidence that this Allah word is used to propagate Christianity to Muslim and convert them? Even if one thinks that some maybe confused by this word and be easily converted, is there any concrete proof and data? Can this be proven in court? How come the East Malaysian Muslim won’t be affected but the moment they land in LCCT or KLIA, they are perceived to be easily influenced?
Does Putrajaya say those 10 points specifically only in East Malaysia or only for East Malaysian or only for East Malaysian in East Malaysia only?
It appears to apply to locality. But in any case, Sarawak DAP has thrown the ball into Najib’s court. Let’s wait and hear what the PM says.
I’ve always been sceptical about the official % of Christians in this country. I would put the figure closer to 20%. I’m very certain the Chinese, more than other races. I suppose Christianity will be synonymous with Chinese in the future, in Peninsular at least.
It also does not help that MCCBCHST has become more partisan, specifically in politics. But then again, the reason MCCBCHST was formed tells a lot about the rights of minority groups here.
It appears politicians, for obvious reasons, prefer confrontation rather than consultation. And I suppose the people would prefer this approach as well? Except for Zaid Ibrahim, I don’t see anyone offering a sensible solution.
re: “I’ve always been sceptical about the official % of Christians in this country.”
So am I wrt to peninsula.
re: “I would put the figure closer to 20%”
So would I.
TMI always put Christian as 9% of Malaysian population. Majority of Chinese are not Christian unless you want to include those who celebrate Christmas parties as Christian. They are more Christian Bumiputra in numbers compare to Christian Chinese if you take East Malaysia into consideration. MCCBCHST have to be appeared as “partisan” as they have no choice because Islam is viewed as superior religion in Malaysia and not subject to any negotiation with MCCBCHST.
If it was 20 percent, it would have been recorded in the previous Census. There is little incentive for Chinese Christians or Indian Christians to hide their faith.
Well, just read this
http://selangorchronicle.blogspot.com/2014/01/tiga-adun-bukan-islam-selangor-cabar.html
It’s sure gonna get more interesting.
So this pesky OnYourToes is probably a Christian? He mentioned the word persecute. Lilian Chan said the same thing.
That’s not persecution. Let me give examples of persecution:
1. Here’s one from The Land of the Free -http://www.countercurrents.org/ghazali020114.htm
Amid the concerted Islamophobic campaigns the America Muslim community was stunned to know that the New York Police Department (NYPD) has secretly designated mosques as “terrorist organizations.” The Associated Press reported on August 28 that the designation allowed the police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams, even without any evidence of criminal activity.
2.Europe – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12240433
Baroness Warsi, the chairman of the main party in Britain’s governing coalition, has said that anti-Muslim prejudice has “passed the dinner table test” and become socially acceptable in the UK.
3.http://www.onislam.net/english/news/europe/467681-uk-students-decry-anti-muslim-group.html
A UK Student pressure group has come under fire after facing accusations of waging anti-Muslims’ witch-hunt and fueling bigotry and Islamophopia in Britain.
4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/angola-accused-banning-islam-mosques
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8385069.stm
Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets, official results show.
6. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21997089
The debate about Islamic headscarves which gripped France in 2004 has been reignited by a controversial court ruling.
President Francois Hollande, a Socialist, has backed cross-party moves for further curbs on headscarves.
Shall we suggest to the Christians to hold a public referendum on religious issues here? Maybe then they’ll understand the meaning of democracy.
re: “the police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams, even without any evidence of criminal activity”
Urm … does anyone share my suspicion that the SB are doing the same in the controversial Malaysian churches, similarly even without any evidence of criminal activity?
They are everywhere la Helen…that’s why in some high profile case, they will always wearing full face mask when appear in papers.