Archive for the ‘Islamization’ Category

Media Statement by MP Baru Bian on Curtailment of Religious of Non-Muslims

September 9, 2021

MEDIA STATEMENT – 9 SEPTEMBER 2021

UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CURTAIL RIGHTS OF NON-MUSLIMS

The announcement by Ahmad Marzuk Shaary, deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s department (religious affairs) that the federal government is drafting a bill on control and restrictions on the development of non-Muslim religions is an unwelcome piece of news for all non-Muslims in Malaysia, and especially in Sarawak. This is like a recurring nightmare that won’t go away, and reliving it this close to Malaysia day certainly gives us more reason to reflect on wisdom or otherwise of the decision taken by Sarawak in 1963.

Yesterday’s statement by the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) on this matter points out correctly that Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution gives the right to every person: “to profess and practise his religion and, subject to clause (4), to propagate it”. Clause (4) provides that there is to be no propagation of other religions doctrine or belief to Muslims. Clearly, the Constitution safeguards the right of non-Muslims to practise and propagate their religions so long as that does not involve Muslims. I strongly support the call by the MCCBCHST that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakub clarify the issue, as it has caused much unhappiness and anxiety for the non-Muslims in this country.

I note that the deputy minister had remarked that the bill was in response to the recent High Court decision that non-Muslims are free to use the word ‘Allah’. That decision is consistent with what we understand to be the rights of all Malaysians under the Federal Constitution and particularly the rights of Sarawakians and Sabahans pursuant to the recommendations set out in the Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962 and the terms of the Malaysian Agreement 1963. During the talks leading to the formation of Malaysia, the non-Muslim communities of Sarawak had voiced their reservations about Islam being the religion of the Federation. It was finally agreed that ‘While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be no State religion in Sarawak, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to Sarawak’. The absence of a state religion was key to Sarawak’s agreement to join in the formation Malaysia in 1963, a fact which all political leaders should bear in mind. There is no official religion in Sarawak, and all are free to profess and practise the faith of their choosing.

De facto Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar sought to downplay the issue, saying that religious matters are under state lists and such laws propagated by the Federal government are not legally binding on states. This does not address the issue of why the government keeps attempting to violate the rights of non-Muslims which are entrenched in the Federal Constitution. It is not good enough to brush the matter aside by saying some politicians shoot their mouths off. As the de facto law minister and a Sarawakian, he has to give us a better and more reassuring response that he and all the other Sarawakian ministers and deputy ministers will speak up against the bills when they are presented at the cabinet level. Better still, he should advise the deputy minister in the prime minister’s department against proceeding with it at this early stage.

Sarawakian MPs from GPS and Bersatu must take note that all Sarawakians are watching them closely – will they have the courage to stand up for our rights or will they be meek and mild minions to their Malayan masters? This is a crucial test for them. The direction the country has been heading is certainly not what our forefathers signed up for and Sarawakians are weary and bitterly resentful of certain Malayan politicians’ unceasing efforts to oppress the minority’s rights. We are slowing but surely becoming a country where religious and racial intolerance is increasing, and religious extremism growing. Passing more laws to control and restrict religious freedoms only encourages religious intolerance and bigotry.

This latest move by the government makes a mockery of the ‘Malaysian Family’ concept propounded by the new PM in his maiden speech. It will divide rather than unite Malaysians.

Baru Bian
MP 214 Selangau

New Laws on control and restrictions on the development of non-Muslim religions

September 7, 2021


What has Islam to do legally with the other religions in Malaysia? After all, shariah law has no jurisdiction over non-Muslims. Are the authorities planning to interfere with the Constitutional freedom of the non-Muslim citizens to profess, practice and propagate their faith? Looks like the authorities are back with their mischievous business.

Added on 8 Sept 2021 – The response from MCCBCHST (see below).

Four new shariah laws in the works, says deputy minister

Free Malaysia Today 6 Sept 2021

PETALING JAYA: Four new shariah laws are being drafted by the federal government, including a bill on control and restrictions on the development of non-Muslim religions, a deputy minister was reported to have said.

Ahmad Marzuk Shaary, who is deputy minister in the prime minister’s department (religious affairs), said a Wakaf Bill, Mufti Bill and Syariah Court Bill were the other new laws being planned.

The new laws are part of a five-year plan by the federal government in which 11 changes will be made to strengthen shariah laws, which will include amendments to existing legislation and eight subsidiary shariah laws, as part of the government’s ‘Empowerment Plan.’

“The government has drafted a plan to strengthen shariah laws, especially in the Federal Territories, over a period of five years from 2020 to 2025,” he said, Harakah Daily reported. “In this empowerment plan, the government has proposed to enact 11 key shariah laws, which include the enactment of new laws and amendments to existing laws.”

Amendments to the controversial Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 are part of the plan, he was quoted as saying.

The proposed amendment bill (commonly referred to as RUU355) gave rise to an opposition outcry with politicians and civil society groups accusing the federal government of seeking to allow the implementation of “hudud” as part of the Islamic penal code.

Islamic laws and the Islamic penal code come under the jurisdiction of state governments, but are handled by the federal government in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan.

Road Map for New Shariah Laws

Official Response from MCCBCHST

No photo description available.
No photo description available.

On the Secular State Debate: G-25 Responds to Dr Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil

February 1, 2020

On the secular state debate: A response to Dr Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil — G25 Malaysia

Malaymail Online 27 Jan 2020

Dr Mohamed Azam outlines three arguments as he challenges G-25 which says that Malaysia is a secular state.

1. First, he asserts that the Federal Constitution does not contain, or make any reference to, the word ‘secular’, and in fact, it is only the religion of Islam that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

2. Second, he asserts that Article 3(1) which places Islam in a ‘special’ position favours those who argue that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

3. Finally, Dr Mohamed Azam justifies his position by referring to the then Supreme Court decision in Che Omar bin Che Soh, the High Court decision in Meor Atiqulrahman, etc.

 

G-25 Responds:

First, just because a state is not explicitly characterised as ‘secular’ in its constitution does not detract from the fact that it is ‘secular’.

Likewise, the fact that a state privileges a particular religion (perhaps, as in Malaysia, to give recognition to the cultural and historical significance of the privileged religion in the country) does not mean that it is not a secular state.

Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi argues that Islam as the religion of the Federation in the Constitution does not prevail over other constitutional provisions and guarantees, including fundamental liberties. This has to be read together with Article 4, which provides that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What this means, simply, is that any laws (including Islamic laws promulgated by the Parliament or state legislatures) are null and void if they are contrary to the Constitution. (more…)

Why ‘Islam’ is on Malaysian Muslims’ Identity Cards

January 28, 2020

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 28 — Last week, the Home Ministry once again reiterated its stance that it will not remove one’s religious status on the MyKad.

But why do Malaysian Muslims have “Islam” printed prominently on their MyKads while non-Muslims only have their religious information recorded on the chip?

Why do Malaysians’ identity cards even contain information on what faith they profess? Why does the government collect information about the religion of each individual Malaysian?

The short answer is because it’s the law. But the actual journey to where we are today may surprise you. (Stay with us, since much of the information below is really hard to get publicly.)

Here’s Malay Mail’s quick summary of everything you need to know about the law and history behind the government’s keeping tabs on Malaysians’ religious affiliations:

1. What law?

The National Registration Act 1959, which only has eight short provisions, does not explicitly say what details should be shown on Malaysians’ identity cards.

But Section 6 of the law says the home minister may make regulations, including rules on how Malaysians’ identity cards will appear and what the details they must display.

As such, the real details are instead in the National Registration Regulations 1990, which has 30 regulations and contains procedures such as what to do if you lose your identity card and how much has to be paid when applying for new or replacement identity cards.

2. It wasn’t always like this

While “Islam” on Malaysian Muslims’ identity cards feels like it has always been there, it was not the case even just a few decades ago. (more…)

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

February 24, 2017

“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.”

You may be interested to read the post and download the 8-page document in PDF format at  http://www.krisispraxis.com:

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

Shariah Law has no Consequences on Non-Muslims? HUMBUG

February 10, 2017

** You may be interested to visit  www.krisispraxis.com to read full post and comment it:

Shariah Law as no Consequences on Non-Muslims? HUMBUG.

UMNO will be lending a helping hand to PAS to push a Bill through Parliament which would amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, also known as Act 355. The amendments would extend power to the Islamic courts to enforce heavier punishment for Islamic offences. PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang and UMNO leaders assure non-Muslims that the proposed amendments will not affect non-Muslims. Re: Hadi to Make More Amendments to Shariah Bill] [FMT 23 Nov 2016]

Non-Muslims are naturally skeptical towards the assurances from PAS and UMNO. Both the local and international media have sounded the alarm that the amendments would encourage further imposition of Islamic regulations onto non-Muslims.

The reality is that the Civil services and shariah authorities have periodically taken the liberty to impose Islamic scruples and regulations onto non-Muslims, even though they are technically not empowered to do so. Having been victimized by ‘over-zealous’ officials from both the Civil services and shariah authorities (who are never taken to task for their abuse of power), non-Muslims can only regard the assurance from Hadi and UMNO leaders to be both hollow and disingenuous.

It is sobering to recall some of these alarming incidents. (more…)

Interfaith Council Urges MPs to Vote Against Hadi’s Upgrade Shariah Courts Bill

October 18, 2016

Vote against Hadi’s Private Members Bill — Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism

OCTOBER 15 — The  Malaysian  Counsultative  Council  of  Buddhism, Christianity, Hindusim, 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 Consitution.

I Is Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill a Bill empowering HUDUD offences?

The answer is a clear ‘YES’. Here 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. Presently the Syariah Courts can only impose punishments up to 3 years imprisonment, fine up to  RM5,000.00 and whipping up to 6 lashes (commonly known as 3-5-6 limits). This is provided for by the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355).

(more…)

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

August 10, 2016

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.

Read also Shad Faruqi’s analysis on the wider implications of the Syariah Courts Amendment Bill given below: Enhancing Syariah Courts’ Powers. (more…)

G-25 Rejects Syariah Courts Bill 2016 (UMNO-Pas Bill) as it Opens Doors to Hudud Implementation

June 1, 2016

G25’s Statement on Dato’ Seri Najib’s Press Statement on the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 2016

In an unprecedented move last Thursday, the government had tabled a motion to suspend its business in the Dewan Rakyat in order to fast-track a Private Member’s Bill brought forth by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang (MP for Marang). The motion to prioritise the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 2016 (‘Hadi’s Bill’) was moved by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Azalina Othman.

The prime minister in a press statement had denied that Hadi’s Bill was meant to implement Islamic criminal laws, that is to say, hudud. He was reported to have said: “I would like to clarify to our friends in BN that there was a misunderstanding…I would like to state that it is not for the implementation of hudud. It is just to give Syariah Courts enhanced punishments. From six-strokes of the cane, to more depending on the offences.” (Malay Mail Online 27 May, 2016)

We, members of G25, are not convinced by Najib’s assertion in his press interview on Friday that the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 2016, is not about implementing hudud. (more…)

MCCBCHST: WE REJECT THE PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL ON HUDUD

June 1, 2016

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). (more…)