So are you happy now?
Bibles are released....
Now you claim "defacing"....yeah rite...all the Quran's in the Holy Mosque also got chop ma...if there is no chop they CHUCK it OUT......can't even be put inside the Mosque...not up to standard.....ever heard ANY MUSLIMS Complain??????? You can validate this with anyone who has been to Mecca and Madina
I've always said that the key is How to enforce the Control on the "Propagation of Other Religion to the Malays"
Yang buat gua tak puas hati about this whole thing is that apesai bingai nak mampus Kementrian Dalam Negeri....
Haven't you heard of INVISIBLE ULTRA VIOLET INK?
Bingai siut....
Anyway the game is set......
The beginning of the WAR against the Yang Di Pertuan Agong....
Huh??
Let us go back to a case in 1987, A Malay Priest Jamaluddin Othman @ Yeshua Jamaluddin was detained under the ISA...
Bahawa kamu, Jamaluddin Othman alias Yeshua Jamaluddin, sejak tahun 1985 hingga ditangkap pada 27 Oktober 1987, telah melibatkan diri dalam satu rancangan untuk menyebarkan agama Kristian di kalangan orang-orang Melayu. Kegiatan kamu itu boleh mendorong kepada timbulnya suasana ketengangan dan permusuhan di antara masyarakat Islam dengan masyarakat Kristian di negara ini dan boleh memudharatkan keselamatan negara.
The important words in that statement are ‘telah melibatkan diri dalam satu rancangan untuk menyebarkan agama Kristian di kalangan orang-orang Melayu’. Or in English ‘was involved in a plan or programme to propagate Christianity amongst Malays’
You wanna know how the case turn out.....
Take a wild guess......
Who won ISA Or Article 11???
Not sure? read below reproduced in full...the Malaysian Government Appeal after losing its case...
The respondent was detained pursuant to an order made under s 8(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (‘the Act’). According to the affidavit of the Minister for Home Affairs he was satisfied that the detention of the respondent was necessary with the view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia. This conclusion was apparently arrived at after receiving reports and information relating to the ‘conduct and activities’ of the respondent. This is expressed in para 3 of the affidavit of the Minister for Home Affairs dated 16 September 1988. The grounds for the detention of the respondent were contained in a statement made under s 11(2)(b) of the Act which was served on the respondent.
It is already settled law in this country that whilst the grounds of detention as stated in the detention order are open to challenge if alleged to be not within the scope of the legislation, the allegations of fact are not subject to review. This principle was reiterated in Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia v Karpal Singh. Thus the only question for us to determine here is whether the grounds are within the scope of the Act.
The trial judge relied solely on art 11 of the Federal Constitution on the freedom of religion as the basis for his ruling that the detention of the respondent was unlawful. The crucial part of his judgment appears at p 108 of the appeal record where he said, when referred to s 8 of the Act:
Although under s 8(1) of the Internal Security Act the minister may detain a person with a view to preventing that person from ‘acting in any manner’ prejudicial to the security of Malaysia, I am of the view the minister has no power to deprive a person of his right to profess and practise his religion which is guaranteed under art 11 of the Constitution. If the minister acts to restrict the freedom of a person from professing and practising his religion, his act will be inconsistent with the provision of art 11 and therefore any order of detention would not be valid.
Without hesitation we say that we agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed by the learned judge. However, to get our perspective right we feel obliged to add a rider to what the learned judge said. His Lordship’s ruling must be read subject to the following. The freedom to profess and practise one’s religion should not be turned into a licence to commit unlawful acts or acts tending to prejudice or threaten the security of the country. The freedom to profess and practise one’s religion is itself subject to the general laws of the country as expressly provided in cl (5) of art 11 of the Constitution which states that:
This article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality. This is also alluded to in Mamat Daud v Government of Malaysia. Thus the protection conferred by art 11 of the Constitution cannot be a complete umbrella for all actions.
Coming back to the present case the grounds for detention are reproduced from p 21 of the appeal record as follows:
Alasan-Alasan Untuk Perintah Tahanan
Bahawa kamu, Jamaluddin Othman alias Yeshua Jamaluddin, sejak tahun 1985 hingga ditangkap pada 27 Oktober 1987, telah melibatkan diri dalam satu rancangan untuk menyebarkan agama Kristian di kalangan orang-orang Melayu. Kegiatan kamu itu boleh mendorong kepada timbulnya suasana ketengangan dan permusuhan di antara masyarakat Islam dengan masyarakat Kristian di negara ini dan boleh memudharatkan keselamatan negara.
The important words in that statement are ‘telah melibatkan diri dalam satu rancangan untuk menyebarkan agama Kristian di kalangan orang-orang Melayu’. Or in English ‘was involved in a plan or programme to propagate Christianity amongst Malays’.
The grounds become clearer when we look at the allegations of fact contained in the statement. The first allegation concerned participation in a group (in November 1985) at the First Baptist Church, Pantai Road, Petaling Jaya called the ‘Philip Cheong’s group’ said to be formed for the purpose of spreading Christianity among Malays. The second, third and fifth allegations concerned participation (in 1986) in a ‘khemah kerja’ (work camp) and participation in a ‘seminar on Islamic consultation’ (in Singapore). The fourth allegation alleged that the respondent converted into Christianity six Malays.
The sum total of the grounds for the detention was therefore the supposed involvement of the respondent in a plan or programme for the dissemination of Christianity among Malays. It is to be observed that the grounds do not, however, state that any actions have been done by the respondent except participation in meetings and seminars and that the fourth allegation alleged that the respondent converted into Christianity six Malays.
We do not think that mere participation in meetings and seminars can make a person a threat to the security of the country. As regards the alleged conversion of six Malays, even if it was true, it cannot in our opinion by itself be regarded as a threat to the security of the country.
As stated by this court in Inspector General of Police v Tan Sri Raja Khalid the Act was enacted under art 149 of the Federal Constitution and it is a piece of legislation essentially to prevent and combat subversion and actions prejudicial to public order and national security.
In Re Tan Sri Raja Khalid the authority had stated that they had reason to believe that the substantial losses suffered by a bank (with deposits from members of the armed forces) caused by the manner in which loans were approved through the acts of the detainee/applicant could evoke feelings of anger, agitation, dissatisfaction and resentment amongst members of the armed forces which in turn could lead them to resorting to violent actions and thereby affecting the security of the country. The trial judge there thought it to be incredible that losses sustained by a public bank where the depositors also included members of the public at large could result in any organized violence by the soldiers. This court was of the view that it would be naive to preclude the judge from making his own evaluation and assessment from an obvious statement of fact.
In the present case we are of the view that the grounds for the detention in this case read in the proper context are insufficient to fall within the scope of the Act. The guarantee provided by art 11 of the Constitution, i.e. the freedom to profess and practise one’s religion, must be given effect unless the actions of a person go well beyond what can normally be regarded as professing and practising one’s religion.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Go here
So now what??
I stumbled upon an interesting analysis in Facebook the author thinks that Jamaluddin's act is tantamount to an act of War against the YDPA...read below
Allowing the appeal, the learned Judge posed that under Art.149 of the constitution, any provision in the ISA designed against action prejudicial to national security is declare valid notwithstanding that it is inconsistent with any provision of Art.5, 9 or 10 of the Constitution. It is therefore clear that any provision in the Act, which is inconsistent with the provision of Art 11 of the Constitution shall not be valid.
The trail judge added although S.8 (1) of ISA give the power to the minister concerned to detain a person for preventive measure from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the nation, the minister has no power to deprive a person of his right to profess and practice his religion which is guaranteed under Art.11 of the Constitution.
It was noted by the learned Judge, that the control or restriction of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam of a Muslim fall under jurisdiction of the State Islamic Authority. At the relevant time there was no such law prohibiting such propagation. It is settle in law that any inconsistency of law in the ISA 1960 which infringe Art.5, 9 or 10 of the Constitution of a person is invalid (16)
Should the situation arise now, what could be said to a Malay born Muslim whom later in life decided to convert to any religion or following any cult movement and like any other missionary movement the propagation and instigation of religious doctrine to the society? It is the objective of any cult and religious movement to recruit new membership and the increase in number could be interpreted as a threat to Muslim population and the country socio-political stability.
It was an interesting obiter statement by Allahyarham Tun Mohd.Azmi SFJ (As he was then) in Mohammad Habibullah bin Mohammad v Faridah bte Dato Talib (18)“The very fact that people professing religions other than Islam are constitutionally guaranteed the right to practice their faith in peace and harmony, must necessarily mean that Muslims are also similarly guaranteed the right to practice Islam in the like manner.Being the religion of the Federation, Islam has a special position in Malaysia”(19)
Do ISA 1960 applicable or could the very same Art.11 (1), the guarantee of religious freedom and it practices it content is constitutionally right?
In arguing this point we have to look at the purpose objective and the Golden and Hidden Rule of Statutory Interpretation when interpreting Article 3 of the Federal Constitution.
Art.3 (1) cited: ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religion may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation and
Art.3 (5) stipulate ‘notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang diPertuan Agung shall be the Head of the Religion of Islam in the Federal Territories and for this purpose Parliament may make law for regulating Islamic religious affair and for constituting a Council to advise the YDPA in matters relating to the religion of Islam”
Following the hidden rule of the statutory interpretation of Art.3.is the protection of Islam as the religion of the State and the YDPA as the Supreme Head of the religion of Islam is well protected against any aggression, subversion or propagation against him, his government, his agent, his Muslim subject, his heir and his state by instigating any Anti Islamic activities.
Thus, could it be that if such a new situation arise Penal Code s.121 could be used because any aggression instigation against His Majestic official religion of the state is an act of aggression against his Majestic and thus it is wagging a war against the YDPA as defined in s.121 of the Penal Code (Act 574).
It should be noted, that the code also includes the protection of the State Rulers and the heir and agents and the Yang DiPertuan-Yang DiPertuan Negeri. Since Islam is under the jurisdiction of the State Rulers any aggression towards Islam could be define as wagging a war against the Rulers since he is the Head of Islamic Religious Affairs.
Could Jamaluddin’s action be defined a wagging a war against the YDPA?
Should the definition of war be limited to physical war i.e. two conflicting state or should it be broader as the situation now is beyond borderless and the effect of “cyber-ism” to the society, demands a new perspective on the definition of wagging a war. Go here for those with FB Account
Lawrance Andrew of Herald knows this....
A Former "Malay" can be a Christian and Propagate Christianity...and they are preparing for their ground troops to execute this backed by Our Constitutional Guarantees and International Media Pressures...
 |
| Source Gerakan Kristianisasi di Malaysia |
So where do we go from here?
State enactments won't work ....
We saw that in the Herald's Vs Government "Allah" Ciplak case you may read the full judgement here
I will now go back to what I wrote in January last year
The actions of the Catholic Church and the corresponding High Court judgment on 31st Dec 2009 will test the Collective Consciousness of the Malay Muslim Majority of the Malaysian Population .........at what price will it be? go here
Can Christianity now be practiced within the parameters of "peace and harmony" in any part of the Federation as per our Constitution??
I will leave you today with a reproduction of my post called "Melayu....think again" in 2008
Salam Pak Rahmat…..oops…..lupe siut..he’s a non Muslim…..for the middle eastern Arabs OK la but around here…”Assalamualaikum: Peace be Upon U” is reserved to Muslims…..I typically have to do a prevalidation to avoid committing the occasional faux-pas in offering my salam to a non-Muslim pribumi looking Indonesian…..man they even go to Sunday mass wearing songkok….
So here we are a nation divided trying to find our identity..in search for the "elusive" Bangsa Malaysia amidst our cultural diversity…..fast forward say…30 years ahead…we all live in harmony after years of total assimilation into becoming the Bangsa Malaysia…all happy and dandy speaking bahasa fluently….the Kamus dewan would have added another 50 page by then…no more borrowing from Bahasa Indonesia…..Our underlying political landscape revolves around a very complex race based game theory…same game for 51 years……what would happen if there is a significant conversion of Malays Muslims into Christianity…..how would the game be then?
Most of the Indonesian Christian pribumis were muslims a generation before…poverty lead them to conversion…..On the ground in Banda Aceh …days after the devastating 2004 tsunami…..people were walking around like zombies searching for loved ones…….the missionaries were extremely quick to set up camp……and before long make-shift mobile churches dots the ravaged landscape…….thousands converted and relocated into other parts of Sumatra…
Final questionArticle 11 n 12 in our fed consti provide for the right to religious freedom……but are we ready to face it and defend the constitutional rights of our Christian Malays? Will we be ready for Christian Malays walking about town in full view……i bet even now some of you out there would probably know one or two Malay Christian converts…….how do u feel about it? Will they still belong to your definition of “Malay”?
How many Malay Converts would it take before the "event" can be considered as a National Threat?