بِسْمِ
اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ , الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
, الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ , مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ , إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ
وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ , اهْدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ المُسْتَقِيمَ , صِرَاطَ
الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ , غَيْرِ المَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ
الضَّالِّينَ.
Assalamualaikum w.b.t/السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُه
Allah decision is a breach of Malaysia agreement, say politicians and lawyers.
Constitutional
lawyers also weighed in on the issue, saying it was a clear case of a
breach of the 1963 Malaysia agreement if East Malaysian Christians are
barred from using the word Allah in any part of the federation.
As
the debate over the Allah decision rages, politicians from East
Malaysia argued that the controversial Court of Appeal ruling is a
breach of the Malaysia agreement.
Constitutional lawyers also weighed in on the issue, saying it was a clear case of a breach of the 1963 Malaysia agreement if East Malaysian Christians are barred from using the word Allah in any part of the federation.
Sabah State Reform Party (Star) chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan said the Court of Appeal ruling went against the first point of the agreement which touched on freedom of religion.
Point 1 of the 20-point condition that Sabah drew up and the 18-point condition Sarawak drew up, which Malaya had to agree to before forming Malaysia, stated that: “While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no state religion in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah), and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to Borneo.”
Kitingan, a vocal proponent of restoring the full autonomy and rights of Sabah and Sarawak under the 20 and 18-point agreements, also pointed out that the country's first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, had given a clear assurance on religious freedom in Parliament on October 16, 1961.
He the quoted Tunku: “One reaction in the Borneo territories was that the Malaysia concept was an attempt to colonise the Borneo territories... the answer to this was, as I said before, it is legally impossible for the federation to colonise because we desire that they should join us in the federation in equal partnership, enjoying the same status between one another, so there is no fear that Malaysia will mean that there will be an imposition of Islam on Borneo... so everybody is free to practise whatever religion...”
Kitingan said Sabah natives marked the assurance of religious freedom in the Malaysia agreement by literally carving it in stone, the Batu Sumpah or Oath Stone.
“It essentially states that as long as this religious freedom is respected, we shall be loyal to Malaysia,” added Kitingan, who in 2010 founded the United Borneo Front (UBF), a non-governmental organisation aimed at safeguarding the rights of Sabah and Sarawak in the 20-point and 18-point agreements.
Echoing Kitingan's view that the Court of Appeal ruling had breached the agreement was Sarawak PKR chairman Baru Bian.
“This decision is a betrayal of the undertaking given to our forefathers when they agreed to join in the formation of Malaysia,” Baru said.
“The rights of Sarawakians and Sabahans were also protected in the Government Paper 'Malaysia and Sarawak' dated January 4, 1962.”
Baru said the paper stated that “although Malaysia would have Islam as the official religion of the enlarged federation, there would be no hindrance placed on the practice of other religions. Complete freedom of religion would be guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.
“This repugnant and oppressive decision of the court confirms the fears of our forefathers and gives justification to the voice of the 60% who were against joining the formation of Malaysia in 1963.”
Baru, who is also the assemblyman for the rural seat of Ba Kelalan, said the people of Sarawak are getting very close to, if they have not yet reached, “the sour end of the sugarcane” – a reference to the scepticism and doubts voiced by one of Malaysia's founding fathers, Tun Jugah Barieng, on the sincerity of Sarawak's long-term position in Malaysia.
"Today, not only it is the end of the sugarcane, it also leaves a bitter taste in our mouths,” added Baru.
Lawyer Karpal Singh said the constitutional guarantee did not limit East Malaysians to practising their religions in their own territories.
"As such, Christians from Sabah and Sarawak must be allowed to use the word in other parts of Malaysia or this will violate the agreement," he told The Malaysian Insider.
He said it was unfortunate that the agreement and its impact on Christians were not highlighted in the Court of Appeal.
The Bukit Gelugor MP then took a dig at Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who, at a press conference on Tuesday, said Christians from East Malaysian could not use the word in the peninsula.
"East Malaysia has no state laws to disallow the use of Allah, but here, we have," said Nazri who was once de facto law minister.
He said if East Malaysians were to come to the peninsula, they have to respect the laws as West Malaysians were not used to Christians using Allah.
Said Karpal, "This is irrational and perverse logic. Sabah and Sarawak are accorded powers of immigration, another right under the agreement."
Another lawyer, Fahri Azzat, said Nazri's statement on state laws that restricted the use of Allah was misleading.
He said state laws only regulated Muslims with regards to personal matters like divorce, custody and maintenance and syariah criminal laws.
"Those laws cannot be enforced on non-Muslims. So, East Malaysia Christians living and working in the peninsula can use Allah in practice of their faith."
Fahri added that only Federal laws like the Penal Code could be used against non-Muslims if they committed an act like attempting to convert Muslims.
Constitutional lawyers also weighed in on the issue, saying it was a clear case of a breach of the 1963 Malaysia agreement if East Malaysian Christians are barred from using the word Allah in any part of the federation.
Sabah State Reform Party (Star) chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan said the Court of Appeal ruling went against the first point of the agreement which touched on freedom of religion.
Point 1 of the 20-point condition that Sabah drew up and the 18-point condition Sarawak drew up, which Malaya had to agree to before forming Malaysia, stated that: “While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no state religion in Borneo (Sarawak & Sabah), and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to Borneo.”
Kitingan, a vocal proponent of restoring the full autonomy and rights of Sabah and Sarawak under the 20 and 18-point agreements, also pointed out that the country's first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, had given a clear assurance on religious freedom in Parliament on October 16, 1961.
He the quoted Tunku: “One reaction in the Borneo territories was that the Malaysia concept was an attempt to colonise the Borneo territories... the answer to this was, as I said before, it is legally impossible for the federation to colonise because we desire that they should join us in the federation in equal partnership, enjoying the same status between one another, so there is no fear that Malaysia will mean that there will be an imposition of Islam on Borneo... so everybody is free to practise whatever religion...”
Kitingan said Sabah natives marked the assurance of religious freedom in the Malaysia agreement by literally carving it in stone, the Batu Sumpah or Oath Stone.
“It essentially states that as long as this religious freedom is respected, we shall be loyal to Malaysia,” added Kitingan, who in 2010 founded the United Borneo Front (UBF), a non-governmental organisation aimed at safeguarding the rights of Sabah and Sarawak in the 20-point and 18-point agreements.
Echoing Kitingan's view that the Court of Appeal ruling had breached the agreement was Sarawak PKR chairman Baru Bian.
“This decision is a betrayal of the undertaking given to our forefathers when they agreed to join in the formation of Malaysia,” Baru said.
“The rights of Sarawakians and Sabahans were also protected in the Government Paper 'Malaysia and Sarawak' dated January 4, 1962.”
Baru said the paper stated that “although Malaysia would have Islam as the official religion of the enlarged federation, there would be no hindrance placed on the practice of other religions. Complete freedom of religion would be guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.
“This repugnant and oppressive decision of the court confirms the fears of our forefathers and gives justification to the voice of the 60% who were against joining the formation of Malaysia in 1963.”
Baru, who is also the assemblyman for the rural seat of Ba Kelalan, said the people of Sarawak are getting very close to, if they have not yet reached, “the sour end of the sugarcane” – a reference to the scepticism and doubts voiced by one of Malaysia's founding fathers, Tun Jugah Barieng, on the sincerity of Sarawak's long-term position in Malaysia.
"Today, not only it is the end of the sugarcane, it also leaves a bitter taste in our mouths,” added Baru.
Lawyer Karpal Singh said the constitutional guarantee did not limit East Malaysians to practising their religions in their own territories.
"As such, Christians from Sabah and Sarawak must be allowed to use the word in other parts of Malaysia or this will violate the agreement," he told The Malaysian Insider.
He said it was unfortunate that the agreement and its impact on Christians were not highlighted in the Court of Appeal.
The Bukit Gelugor MP then took a dig at Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who, at a press conference on Tuesday, said Christians from East Malaysian could not use the word in the peninsula.
"East Malaysia has no state laws to disallow the use of Allah, but here, we have," said Nazri who was once de facto law minister.
He said if East Malaysians were to come to the peninsula, they have to respect the laws as West Malaysians were not used to Christians using Allah.
Said Karpal, "This is irrational and perverse logic. Sabah and Sarawak are accorded powers of immigration, another right under the agreement."
Another lawyer, Fahri Azzat, said Nazri's statement on state laws that restricted the use of Allah was misleading.
He said state laws only regulated Muslims with regards to personal matters like divorce, custody and maintenance and syariah criminal laws.
"Those laws cannot be enforced on non-Muslims. So, East Malaysia Christians living and working in the peninsula can use Allah in practice of their faith."
Fahri added that only Federal laws like the Penal Code could be used against non-Muslims if they committed an act like attempting to convert Muslims.
Sumber: (news.malaysia.msn.com/malaysia-news) .
Perhatian: Pemaparan
tajuk-tajuk, gambar-gambar dan segala bagai, adalah pandangan dan
pendapat peribadi yang lebih menjurus kepada sikap dan sifat untuk
menjadi lebih baik dengan mengamalkan gaya hidup menurut perentah dan
larangan Allah S.W.T., antaranya bersikap dengan tiada prasangka, tidak
bertujuan untuk kebencian, tidak berkeperluan untuk bersubahat dengan
perkara bohong dan tiada kaitan dan berkepentingan dengan mana-mana
individu. Jujur., aku hanyalah hamba Allah S.W.T., yang hina dina.
BERSANGKA BAIK KERANA ALLAH S.W.T..
abc. 
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan