cont. DAP English Forum: Malaysia After Lina Joy

I had to go out in the middle of the ‘dialogue’ causing me to missed speeches from Dr. Azmi, Khalid Ibrahim and Yusri Mohd. Something turn out that I was being ‘asked’ to pick something elsewhere.

Nevertheless, I manage to reach back in while Ambiga Sreenevasan (President of Malaysian BAR Council). Some of the points that I can catch up is that the BAR Council viewed that the majority judgment of the case stating that by applying conditions for a person to renounce Islam would not accord Article 11 of the Federal Constitution because the constitution itself did not provide a non-Muslim to be subjected to the Syariah Court as in Article 121 (1A).

I say, if that is the law (as interpreted by her), anytime that a Muslim is being caught for not fasting and eating in the public in the month of Ramadhan, he or her can just simply say that he was no longer Muslim although his IC says so. Then, the religious officer would not have any authority to handle him because a Muslim can freely apostate without complying with the Syariah Court procedure. And it will also cause Islam to be mockery religion where people can freely come in and come out from Islam.

This is why in the majority judgment of Tun Fairus stated that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution did not permit person to apostate at any time he wants.

I say, there must be something that is very fundamental regarding this issue due when we touch on this specific topic. I am in view that the most crucial issue here is that there is a grey area of the Syariah Court jurisdiction as what we can see happened to Lina Joy. But, after the judgment of the respective case, it has confirmed the Soo Singh case that apostacy must go through the Syariah Court procedure. Thus, it has become binding as the principle of stare decisis applies.

I ask all of us; just try to imagine a football player who is about transfer himself to another football club while he is still in a contract with his current club. Can he just simply turn his back to the contract he made with his current club? And transfer himself to another club just because it is his right to do so? Of course NO!

And then Lim Kit Siang’s (Parliamentary Opposition Leader-DAP) turn in. I was busy taking his and the other panelist individual photo which makes me busy with the camera rather than hearing his speech. But, there is part of his points that takes my attention when he says that any states in the world would fail to bring happiness to her subjects if it is administered by Islam. He said that he quote it from Tunku Abdul Rahman.

I really doubt that statement. Not because of its authority is ambiguous but the fact is simply difference. How about Arab Saudi? How about Jordan? How about Maldives? If he quotes it just because Tunku said so, then he should think again. Arab has prospered as one of the largest supplier of oil in the world and she is being administered by Islam. Although some of us never heard of Maldives, but know this, Syariah law is being applied there. How could you say state bening administered by silam can not bring happiness? It just happens as in Malaysia because the Syariah law being applied here by taking part of it and leaving another part. And how could Uncle Kit quote a statement being made ages ago, while the other round can be proven by facts today.

Post a Comment