Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 10:06 PM PDT

For now the "Allah" issue can come handy in elections at hand. Like the Sungai Limau by-election in Kedah which Umno want to wrest from PAS. An "ideal" situation for "Islamic issues".

Mohsin Abdullah, Fz.com

What's this talk that Putrajaya can override the Appeals Court's decision in the usage of the word "Allah" by Christians? And the need for Putrajaya to revisit a proposal to have different laws for Sabah /Sarawak and the peninsula? A case of one country, two laws.

Such talk came from cabinet members of the Najib administration - Datuk Seri Maximus Ongkili and Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahalan.

Could this be sort of an "afterthought"? In the wake of a fierce reaction from a substantial number of Malaysians? In groups as well as individuals. But wasn't such an angry response expected? Or are we right to sense signs of "panic" in the administration? Major or minor, regardless.

Abdul Rahman did not outline clearly what he exactly meant but Ongkili is seen as suggesting that Christians can use the word "Allah" in the Bible or Al Kitab as it is known.

And what about de facto law minister Nancy Shukri (and others in the government as well), "taking pains" to remind us rakyat that the court ruling "is restricted to Catholic weekly The Herald".

As if right on cue, Umno-linked Malay newspaper Berita Harian took the liberty to "explain" in its editorial recently, that "Malaysians need to understand the use of the word "Allah" by the Herald has no connection with the use of the word by Christians in Sabah and Sarawak".

And as such Berita Harian wants us Malaysians "not to be easily fooled by the provocation of certain parties that are intent on affecting racial and religious harmony in the country". One need not be a genius to know the "certain quarters" Berita Harian was referring to.

As for the Appeals Court ruling involving only The Herald - how true.. We must thank Nancy Shukri and Berita Harian for reminding us. But tell that to the likes of Perkasa and the Malays who turned up at court the other day when the ruling was made.

They, well the majority of them anyway, were and are still under no illusion that the word "Allah" cannot be used by non-Muslims. Namely Christians. Period. Their t-shirts and banners said it all.

Perkasa boss Datuk Ibrahim Ali however opted for a "read the court ruling in toto and up to the authorities to interpret it" stance. At least moments after the ruling was made.

However wasn't The Herald issue portrayed by the authorities as a "fight to save the akidah or faith of the Muslim ummah in Malaysia?" As such didn't many Malays believe or were led to believe that the "enemies of Islam are out to get us"? Didn't Friday sermons call for "Muslims to unite to fend off the enemies?" The "enemies" were not named of course but the message was clear. The word "Allah" must be defended and Christians must not be allowed to use it?

And in the middle of it all ,wasn't Umno portrayed or seen as "championing Islam" and being the only party "determined and strong willed in defending the word "Allah"? And didn't Umno benefit from the issue, enough for it to bag Malay votes in GE 13? At the expense of PAS which had to back paddle?

Yes, now we are hearing Umno supreme council members denying comments made by BBC News a few days ago that the ban on the "Allah" word was to "boost Umno's Islamic credentials and to win back Malay support."

Despite that, we still have Umno leaders taunting PAS asking via twitter if the Islamic party is agreeable that the "Biblical God be replaced by Allah"?

But now BN components are saying - out loud - the coalition risks losing GE14 because of the court ruling which has been hailed by Umno.

Too many implications

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 05:39 PM PDT

Nevertheless, churches have made the stand that they will continue to use the word in their services. As Association of Churches Sarawak (ACS) chairman Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok said, "Christians in Sabah and Sarawak continue to reverently worship their Allah until the Kingdom comes. What are you going to do about it?"

Sharon Ling, The Star

WE have been left with more questions than answers following the Court of Appeal's decision banning the Catholic weekly The Herald from using the word "Allah" in its Bahasa Malaysia publication.

Along with shock and disappointment at the ruling, there were immediate concerns about its implications, particularly for Christians in Sarawak and Sabah.

The bumiputra Christian community here has long used the word "Allah" to refer to God in the practice of their faith, whether in worship, prayer or Bahasa Malaysia and native-language Bibles.

Our use of "Allah" for hundreds of years predates the birth of Malaysia and surely comes under the religious freedom promised to Sarawak at the formation of the country.

So Christians are right to be concerned over the decision, which overturns a 2009 High Court ruling that the Home Ministry's ban on the use of the word was unlawful and unconstitutional as it violated Article 11 of the Consti- tution, which provides for freedom of religion.

The situation is not helped by the judges' finding that "the use of the name 'Allah' is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity", despite the well-documented history of its use in Sarawak and Sabah.

Various groups and politicians have tried to assure Christians in the two states that the court decision only applies to The Herald and does not affect them.

Now it appears that the Federal Cabinet has also decided that there will be no restrictions on Christians in Sabah and Sarawak using the word "Allah" in their services and Bibles.

On the face of it, this looks like a piece of assurance to be welcomed by the Christian community in the two Borneo states.

But a pair of Sarawakian lawyers have warned that it would be naive for us to accept such pronouncements.

According to Baru Bian, the decision is now a legal precedent for similar cases anywhere in Malaysia.

He said the controversy over using "Allah" had been affecting Sabahans and Sarawakians even before The Herald brought its case to court in 2009.

"May I remind you about two cases that are pending decisions in the High Court. The first case was brought by Borneo Evangelical Church Sabah against the Home Ministry in 2007 for confiscating its Malay-language Sunday school materials containing the word 'Allah'.

"The second concerns the 2008 government seizure of audio CDs belonging to Sarawakian Christian Jill Ireland Lawrence which also contain the word 'Allah'," he said in a statement.

Furthermore, he noted that thousands of native Christian Sarawakians and Sabahans who live and work in Peninsular Malaysia would be affected by the decision.

Baru's colleague See Chee How said it was a "fallacy" to think that the ban is confined to The Herald because the court decision did not specify such a limitation.

He made the point that the Cabinet, as the executive branch of Government, had no overriding power over the judiciary. In other words, the Cabinet cannot confine or restrict the enforceability of a court decision except by amending the law to annul or invalidate it.

"Where does it say in the judgement that it only applies to The Herald? So the Cabinet cannot say it affects The Herald only and does not apply in Sarawak and Sabah.

"The enforcement agencies can prohibit the use of the word in other Christian publications in Sarawak and Sabah based on the grounds of the judgement, regardless of what the Cabinet says. It would be very naive to accept what the Cabinet says or believe that the decision does not affect Sarawak and Sabah," he said.

See also said the most important thing Sarawakians could do now was to speak up on the issue.

"Sarawak has an important role to play in this matter. Because of our multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, we are unique and inherently a check and balance on racial politics.

"We must use our significant position to say we cannot have this kind of prejudice against any community in Malaysia. We should say we stand together with all other Christians in the peninsula. If we don't fight for this, no one else will," he said.

In the midst of the controversy, one thing is clear: We must not be silent but keep speaking up against injustice and prejudice. In doing so, let us steer clear of hatred and insults so as not to provoke greater intolerance, division and bigotry, but aim for reconciliation and unity while standing firmly for the right of every Ma- laysian to practise their respective faiths freely.

Experience & Facts About Police Shootings

Posted: 17 Oct 2013 10:32 AM PDT

But chances are the police will be on a charm offensive when they take Surendran along, or at least they will behave with great restraint. And then what? Will Surendran then announce that the police behaved well when confronted by people they suspect to be carrying arms? And will that then be generalized by Police leaders to suggest that this is standard operating procedure and the police always behave well?

Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser

The Malaysian police seem to be on a charm offensive to dispel any notion of their trigger happy reputation when they agreed to allow Surendran MP to follow them when they do go out on a "raid". Sankara Nair has pointed out some valid legal implications of such a police action. But what is Surendran's outcome in wanting to tag along on a police outing when they confront alleged gangsters? Are the police likely to be on their best behavior with an advocate present or are they going to carry on as they normally do?

The first important question is to ask: What is their Standard Operating procedure when the police go out on a raid? Well, the Home Minister provided us with the answer a few days ago when he said that the police have a "shoot first" policy when they confront anyone they suspect to be carrying arms. That alone speaks volumes about past, present and future police practice unless an institution such as the Independent Police Complaints & Misconduct Committee (IPCMC) is quickly set up to rein in our police force and prevent more people from being killed.

The night of generalisations

Such generalisations about police practice have happened before. I remember during Operation Lalang in 1987, when some detainees were in the hands of the "good cops" and were released during the first sixty days, they came out singing the praises of the police and the Special Branch based on their own personal experience. Some went on to condemn those who had exposed the torture of other detainees by the "bad cops". After reading about the torture of detainees such as Joshua Jamaluddin, we had a factual basis for challenging the wisdom of those who extrapolate their "good" individual experiences into a generalized "truth" regarding police behavior.

The facts surrounding police shootings

I would say the most significant admission of the police' "shoot first" policy was provided by the Home Minister himself in a moment of macho nakedness when he was addressing UMNO delegates in Malacca last week. But the facts also speak for themselves:

Besides the fatal shooting of 15-year-old Aminulrasyid, there were 37 recorded shootings by the police in 2012, incidents in which the police opened fire and which resulted in deaths. According to SUARAM's documentation and monitoring in its annual human rights reports, this has been a consistent trend for past years. Other facts and statistics can be gleaned in "Policing the Malaysian Police" (edited by Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM 2005).

Established code of conduct for the police

It is worrying that the Home Minister is not aware that in 1979, Malaysia adopted Resolution 34/169 on a Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials at the United Nations General Assembly. Article 3 of the Resolution clearly states:

"…law enforcement officials must use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty…"

Further, in 1990, the government of Malaysia participated and adopted the basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by law Enforcement Officials in the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.

IPCMC is the only solution to police impunity

In the light of the facts surrounding police shootings, only an Independent Police Complaints & Misconduct Committee can deal with any abuse of police powers. Whenever there is a police shooting and especially if there is a fatality, the police must immediately step aside for the IPCMC to begin investigations. This is the SOP in countries such as the UK and it should be the case in our country as well.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 18 Oktober 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan