Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

About freedom of association in Malaysia

Posted: 07 Nov 2013 04:57 PM PST

Now, if we agree that there should not be any religious-based lawyers associations on grounds that it will cause disunity and disharmony, why should we stop at just lawyers associations? There are many other associations, movements, societies, etc., that are also religious-based. And if it is wrong for lawyers associations to be religious-based then it is equally wrong for other religious-based groupings as well.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Adding that he was appalled at the way he was attacked by certain political vultures, academicians and commentators, Karpal said that he had called for the deregistration of the Muslim Lawyers Association for its condemnation of the Bar Council.

"I stand firm over my call for the deregistration of the Muslim Lawyers Association which was formed in 1988 at the height of the Tun Salleh Abas dismissal, obviously with full support from Dr Mahathir Mohamad who was then the prime minister, which led members from that association to assemble and demonstrate quite violently in front of the Bar Council office near the Masjid Jamek station," he stressed.

Karpal's comments had come under the spotlight after he slammed the Muslim Lawyers Association for criticising the Bar Council. Karpal had said that it was time for parties and organisations operating on racial and religious lines to be deregistered. PAS responded by hitting out at Karpal, saying he had failed to understand PAS's struggle.

Last Saturday, Muslim Lawyers Association president Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar said the group would oppose any move by the Bar Council to support an appeal by the Herald against last month's Court of Appeal ruling on the use of the word "Allah". (The Malaysian Insider, 8 November 2013)

***********************************************

Zainur: Zaid should also personally apologise to the judiciary and the Bar

The proposal by the de facto minister for law to get the government to apologise for the serious transgression of the law and the injustice committed by the previous administration against Tun Salleh Abas, other judges and their families is to be welcomed. I applaud Datuk Zaid Ibrahim's proposal.

However, I feel that the apology should not only be made by this present administration on behalf of the previous "management".

The minister himself should also tender a personal apology not only to Tun Salleh Abbas and the other judges, but also to the Bar Council.

This is because, at the height of the judicial crisis between the Malaysian Bar and Tun Hamid Omar (the then lord president), Zaid, who was then the president of the Muslim Lawyers Association, issued a press release (NST, Nov 6, 1991) criticising the Bar Council.

He called upon the Bar Council to dissolve itself or have its members quit en masse.

Zaid also suggested that the government seriously consider setting up an alternative body that could work with the judiciary if the rift was not settled.

To prevent further public acrimony between the judiciary and the Bar Council, Zaid further proposed the formation of a Malaysian Law Academy to replace the Bar Council. (The Malaysian Bar, 26 March 2008)

***********************************************

I remember when Zaid Ibrahim first mooted the idea of a Muslim Lawyers Association. I felt that he was creating a monster plus opening a Pandora's box that may never be closed again.

What if the Jews, Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Mormons, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Adventists, Calvinists, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and so on, also want to create their own lawyers associations? More interesting would be what if they want to create an Atheist Lawyers Association?

Do we say no? And why do we say no? Does not Malaysia allow freedom of association? Article 10(c)(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia guarantees the freedom of association subject only to restrictions imposed through any federal law on the grounds of national security, public order or morality.

And since freedom of association is enshrined in Article 10(c)(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, is this not the right of all and any Malaysian to form an association as long as it does not threaten the peace and security of the nation?

Okay, the government may reject the application of all those non-Muslim lawyers associations on grounds that it will split Malaysians and cause disunity. And disunity can threaten the peace and security of the country. Hence no other religious (or anti-religious, such as atheists) lawyers associations can be allowed.

But would not splitting lawyers into two associations, one Muslim and the other non-Muslim, also trigger that same affect? The pious Muslims will all join the Muslim Lawyers Association while the atheists, non-Muslims, liberal Muslims, apostate Muslims, heretic Muslims, pro-gay Muslims, pro-free-sex Muslims, and what not, would all join the other group.

We cannot just target lawyers associations and declare that religious-based lawyers associations are bad for the country. The main reason we say they are bad is because they are religious-based. Hence anything religious-based is bad because it divides the people into them-and-us groupings.

In that case we should oppose all religious-based organisations -- political parties, Islamic movements, Church organisations, Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh societies, missionary organisations (Islamic as well as Christianity), and more.

But first of all can both the government as well as the opposition members of parliament amend Article 10(c)(1) of the Federal Constitution and abolish freedom of association in Malaysia?

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 8 November 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan