Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Q & A on the Hudud and Qisas Enactment
- Many reasons why it’s actually “Janji tak ditepati”
- M'kini subscribers' comments earn wrath of Muslim NGOs
- Is Lim Guan Eng running Penang Berhad or Penang State Government?
- MCA willing to give up seats to BN partners
- When different yardsticks are applied
- JMM lodges report over Malaysia Today post
- M'sians may not be financially ready to retire: survey
- ‘I may have said tokong’
- Two come to Tuan Tat’s defence over forgery accusations
- Tiada alasan menangguhkan Hudud, kata Nik Aziz
- Umno penghalang hudud
| Q & A on the Hudud and Qisas Enactment Posted: 25 Aug 2012 07:27 AM PDT
In countries with a population that are not predominantly Muslim (e.g Nigeria and Sudan), the laws are not applicable to non-Muslims. In countries where non-Muslims are of very small minority or non-existent and where an Islamic state is established (such as in Saudi Arabia, Iran), Hudud offences and punishments are incorporated into the law of the land and apply to all citizens. 1. What is the Hudud and Qisas Law? Hudud and Qisas laws deal with offences and punishments that are interpreted by Muslim juristic scholars to be derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah (of the prophet). Hudud literally means limit. According to some scholars, the word "hudud" is not used in the Qur'an specifically in terms of punishment. However juristic opinion has reduced hudud to mean mandatory punishment. Under Hudud law, theft, robbery, illicit sex, alcohol consumption and apostasy are considered offences. Punishment for these offences are corporal in nature, involving whipping, stoning to death and amputation of limbs. Qisas (law of retaliation) refers to offences that involve bodily injury or loss of life. The punishment is death or imprisonment, but compensation in the form of a sum of money or property (diyat and irsy) is accepted if the guardian of the victim forgives the offender. In Malaysia both Hudud and Qisas offences are contained in the set of legislation known as the Syariah Criminal Code Enactment. In Kelantan the law is formally called the Syariah Criminal Code (11) Enactment 1993 and was passed on November 25, 1993. In Terengganu the Syariah Criminal Offences (Hudud and Qisas) Bill was passed on July 8, 2002. 2. What offences are covered in the Kelantan and Terengganu Enactments? Six offences are recognised under the Enactment as Hudud offences, namely:
3. What are the punishments prescribed for the offences?
Every offence except zina must be proven by the testimony of 2 adult principled male Muslim witnesses who have not committed any major sins nor continue to commit minor sins. Zina is to be proven by the testimony of 4 adult principled male Muslim witnesses. Zina can also be proven by pregnancy of or birth of a child by a woman not then married unless she brings proof to the contrary. In the event there is insufficient evidence for the purposes of meting out hudud punishments, then the offender may nevertheless be punished by the court with non-hudud punishments. This is known as ta'zir punishment. 5. Can Hudud punishment be reduced and adjusted? Hudud punishment is mandatory. Section 50 of the Terengganu Enactment provides that hudud punishments may not be reduced, substituted, stayed or in any way varied. Nor can the offender be forgiven. 6. What is the difference in the notion of crime between Hudud and any secular penal code? Under secular laws, an action is considered criminal if it brings about serious harm or death to another party or when there is victimization involved. The violation of private property rights, including bodily rights (as in physical assault and rape) is also construed to be a crime. Although Hudud and Qisas are informed by these premises, there are additional areas in the Islamic law which are outside the bounds of these justifications. For example, under secular law, a sexual relationship between consenting adults is not a crime as it does not bring injurious harm to another party. Drinking of alcohol is not a victimizing act, hence it is also not a crime. However, drunken driving is, as it can potentially cause serious harm to another party. The right to renounce one's religion is also not a crime as it is considered a human right to religious freedom, with no repercussions of victimization. In contrast, Hudud law "criminalizes" all of these actions, namely, sex outside marriage, drinking of alcohol and the renouncement of the Islamic religion. Hudud proponents say that these laws are divinely ordained by God. However, the codification and formalization of these laws are mediated by human actions and subjected to human interpretations. 7. How can Hudud be subjected to human interpretations? The hudud provisions have been formed through the opinions of jurists in Muslim jurisprudence. The methodology of interpretation that is used involves ijtihad (independent reasoning) and qiyas (analogy). Their views are further subjected to sanctions through a politico-legal process of ijma or consensus of the jurists or through majority opinion (jumhur). The founding of the four schools of jurisprudence by the four great imams (Abu Haniffa, Malik ibn Anas, Shaf'i and Hanbal) were all in the Abbasid period, stretching from the 8th to the 13th century, or 100 years after the Prophet's death. 8. What other countries have a similar law? Hudud laws were introduced in Pakistan in 1979 under the rule of General Zia ul-Haq. In Sudan President Numeiri introduced Hudud by replacing the old Penal Code of 1974 with the new Penal Code of 1983. In the new Penal Code of Sudan, Hudud offences such as adultery are unlawful and the punishment will vary for Muslims and non-Muslims and whether one was married or unmarried. In Nigeria the northern state of Zamfara was the first to introduce the Hudud law in January 2000. Nine other Muslim-majority states in Northern Nigeria have subsequently adopted the Hudud to a lesser or greater extent. 9. Is Hudud only applicable to Muslims? In countries with a population that are not predominantly Muslim (e.g Nigeria and Sudan), the laws are not applicable to non-Muslims. In countries where non-Muslims are of very small minority or non-existent and where an Islamic state is established (such as in Saudi Arabia, Iran), Hudud offences and punishments are incorporated into the law of the land and apply to all citizens. 10. Is there a chance that Hudud may overstep the legal rights of non-Muslims? In all likelihood it will. As Malaysia is a plural society and where the concentration of one ethnic community is not necessarily confined to one region or state there are bound to be clashes and overlaps in application. For example in any crime the victim and perpetrator may be of different religions. If the alleged rapist is a Muslim and the victim is a non-Muslim, there will be the question as to under what law the charge would be brought about. Under Hudud the alleged male perpetrator may stand to gain because of the impossibility of getting the testimonies of four Muslim male witnesses. Under Hudud, Muslims who commit robbery of property that is valueless in Islam e.g. liquor or entertainment equipment will have a chance of escaping any prosecution. In another worst-case scenario, such as in an incident of gang-rapes, where there are multiple perpetrators and victims (comprising Muslims and non-Muslims), eye-witness accounts of the rapes which may be offered by the victims would not be admissible as evidence as they may not be Muslim and male. In all of these hypothetical cases non-Muslims will stand to see justice taken away from them. READ MORE HERE
|
| Many reasons why it’s actually “Janji tak ditepati” Posted: 25 Aug 2012 04:41 AM PDT
Daniel John Jambun This year's slogan for the national day celebration, "Janji ditepati" has courted a lot of controversy not only because it violates the sanctity of the national celebration by converting it into a BN election campaign but also because it is so easy to argue with. It was a mistake on the part of BN to have chosen the slogan because the statement of the slogan itself invites criticisms and arguments. BN has forgotten that the national celebration is for all Malaysians regardless of party affiliation, so BN is really making an outrageous blunder, or showing plain arrogance, by making even the national celebration its own celebration. By doing so, BN has alienated the rakyat who are in the opposition. Now there is no reason for the opposition to celebrate the national day together because it has become "BN's Day"! There is no reason for people in the opposition to be patriotic with the national day because to celebrate it means to support BN! BN has forgotten that its duty is to celebrate the national day on behalf of ALL the people. The national day belongs to the people NOT to BN! No wonder the number of flags being put up on shops, offices, houses and vehicles have suddenly dwindled to ALMOST ZERO compared to previous years. Now even the Jalur Gemilang has a strong tinge of BN's arrogance so much so that many people no longer feel any patriotic feeling when they see flapping in the wind. Is BN so desperate or so frightened of losing the next general election that it is using everything and anything it can get its hands on, even the people's patriotic heritage to glorify itself? Or is it so overconfident or simply super-arrogant that it thinks that it will gain a lot of political mileage by making it a part of the BN propaganda? Apparently that is the case, and because of this the whole meaning of patriotism has been hijacked and damaged. From the BN's viewpoint patriotism means supporting the BN while from the viewpoint of the opposition patriotism means saving the nation from the abuses of the BN! So now it is meaningless for the BN to appeal to the people's sense of patriotism because when the Prime Minister or any top BN leader talks about patriotism they know it means only one thing, "Come and support the BN" and "Supporting the opposition means destroying the country." So, in a way, being patriotic in Malaysia nowadays is to come in cahoots with robbers! But back to the problem of "Janji Ditepati." If we were to list and discuss all the issues which prove that this is not an honest statement, it would fill up several books. But here is a sampling of only a few cases. One, the security for Sabah in Malaysia. When Sabah was considering whether to join the formation of Malaysia, the rational bandied about for doing so was the supposed threat from the Philippines which had been claiming Sabah and the threat by Sukarno's konfrontasi to "Ganyang Malaysia" before the cockerel crows on the dawn of September 16, 1963, that without Malaysia, Sabah would be invaded and colonized by Indonesia. But strangely history had shown that these threats didn't go far as proven by the fact that Brunei not only survived but prospered. And when we became part of the federation we didn't really get the security that we were promised. Very ironically it were the Filipinos and Indonesians who actually invaded Sabah, not as military forces, but as illegal immigrants, and all the security forces of Malaysia – the army, the border police, the immigration officials – couldn't or wouldn't stop them! Where was the promise to guarantee us security? Two, the promise not to 'colonization' of Sabah. Donald Stephens biggest worry was that Sabah would escape from the clutches of British colonialization and fall into being a colony of Malaya. The Tunku then made a promise that Sabah and Sarawak would not become the 12th and 13th states of Malaya. But this is what had happened. We are now unitary states instead of being independent, equal-partner nations in the federation as was originally understood. The promise not to colonize Sabah was flagrantly broken. Three, there is no compliance by the federal government on the five constitutional documents and/or constitutional conventions (the Federal Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement, the 20 Points, the IGC Report, and the Batu Oath Stone) which formed the basis for Sabah & Sarawak's equal partnership as nations in Malaysia. Four, why wasn't there a proper constitution drafted and passed? What we have is actually the constitution of the federation of Malaya amended to become what is now the "Federal Constitution" which is the real reason why it is not called the "Malaysian Constitution." When they came up with the decision to use the Malayan constitution as a basis for the constitution we have now, there was already a hidden agenda. We were played out from even before the start of Malaysia. Five, the rights and autonomy for Sabah. The 20 Points has many points which promised certain rights and autonomy for Sabah. These have now been taken away, eroded or simply denied, often without any proper legal process. That is why we no longer have freedom not to have any official religion, right to arrange our own education system, to determine our own immigration rules and to retain the collection of our own taxes and use it in accordance to our own economic plans. The 20 Points in fact is a list of not only broken promises but a list of rights and autonomy which were then taken away unceremoniously. Six, we were not consulted before the decision was made to expel Singapore from Malaysia. This means Malaya thought that the views of Sabah and Sarawak as components of the federation were immaterial and irrelevant in matters of such a critical and vital decision as expelling a partner. This was simple arrogance, a condescending attitude, taking us for granted because our leaders in Sabah were seen as people who could be forced to accept Malaya's decision. Only one leader, Donald Stephens, demanded for a review of the Malaysia Agreement and to silence him he was sent or "ice-boxed" to Australia as Malaysia's ambassador. Seven, the Sabah Baru promise. When BN took over the state government in Sabah in 1994, there was a huge announcement of a promise to create "Sabah Baru" (a New Sabah) within 100 days. Now after 18 years we do have a 'new Sabah' – a Sabah depleted of its natural forests which had caused the death of ecosystems and many rivers, a Sabah mired in poverty and abject poverty with 40 percent of Malaysia's poor, a Sabah which is the poorest in Malaysia. BN had promised a dream but delivered a nightmare! And the situation is not improving. In fact things are getting worse. The state continues to be flooded with illegal immigrants, and the solution is not forthcoming because the recently-announced RCI is not expected to solve it largely because it has no provision to penalize those culprits behind the problem, and that obviously it was announced only as an election ploy. Janji ditepati? You be the judge.
|
| M'kini subscribers' comments earn wrath of Muslim NGOs Posted: 24 Aug 2012 09:51 PM PDT
(Malaysiakini) - Several NGOs have lodged police reports on allegedly inflammatory comments posted on the Malaysiakini website, threatening to hold protests in front of its office as well as that of the Home Ministry's if no action is taken. "Some 200 subscribers used pseudonyms in Malaysiakini to criticise and lower the status of Islam. "This would have consequences and bring chaos to this peaceful country," read three largely identical police reports from each NGO.
"We don't want these kinds of things to happen in this country," said IRIMM president Amir Amsaa Alla Pitchay (left), commenting on one of several readers he quoted. "(They said) a lot of things, you know. I didn't print them all out... We want Malaysiakini to put a stop to such things. We don't want these kind of things. 'Don't publish sensitive issues' In the Wednesday article, Malaysiakini reported that a group of Hindu devotees lodged police reports against Penang Islamic Affairs Department (JAIPP) for confiscating the ashes of M Nagamah, who was cremated in accordance to Hindu rites.
|
| Is Lim Guan Eng running Penang Berhad or Penang State Government? Posted: 24 Aug 2012 09:09 PM PDT
Khoo Kay Peng Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng did it again. After the controversial sale of Bayan Mutiara prime land to private developer linked to Danny Tan and Vincent Tan, he is involved in the RM11mil sale of a 0.4ha land in Taman Manggis, which was previously earmarked for affordable housing. The Taman Manggis land, which Barisan claimed to have been earmarked for affordable housing by the previous state government, was instead proposed by the present administration for a private medical centre. Barisan had also contended that the land at the junction of Jalan Zainal Abidin-Lorong Selamat had been sold to the Kuala Lumpur International Dental Centre at RM232 per sq ft or RM11mil, far below the market price of RM450 per sq ft or RM21,562,200. In an immediate response, Lim said the land had been awarded via open tender to the bidder with the highest price. The main point is not whether the land is being sold to the bidder with the highest price. There are several other considerations: 1) Why would the state government sold a land earmarked for affordable housing to a private business group? 2) The present government affordable housing scheme is flawed. It is not about just providing low cost housing but the state must take cognizance not to push out the working class and lower middle class from the island. A few people remarked to me that Penang island is soon becoming a place for the rich locals and foreigners. Workers enclave must be created near to economic hubs/areas on the island and not only on the mainland. 3) Using the highest price to justify a sale of land earmarked for affordable housing makes Lim sounds like a CEO of a private company who is just interested to make the highest profit. Is Lim now being overly business friendly and neglecting the interests of 70% lower-middle class Penangites?
|
| MCA willing to give up seats to BN partners Posted: 24 Aug 2012 08:53 PM PDT
(Bernama) - MCA is willing to give up seats it has contested all along to its Barisan Nasional (BN) partners on the condition they are confident of winning them and get the nod of BN chairman Datuk Seri Najib Razak, its president Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek said today. He said MCA had total confidence in Najib's leadership and that the party was willing to forego seats it stood no chance of winning. "As for me, there is no need to discuss seat distribution, we have confidence in the wisdom of the BN leadership under Najib. "I am stating openly that MCA will not demand seats that we will not win or are not cofident of winning. We are not a component that likes to "syok sendiri" (likes self flattery)"," he told reporters after meeting hawkers at the Gunung Rapat market here. He said this when asked to comment on reports that MCA's BN partner Gerakan stood a better chance of winning the Gopeng parliamentary and Malim Nawar state seats, which are traditionally MCA seats, in the next general election. The report came about following an earlier report in an English daily on Aug 14 which said that MCA would be contesting the Puchong parliamentay seat which had been contested by Gerakan in the last two elections. On this, Dr Chua said the two parties need not swap seats if each was confident they were more "winnable". "I am of the opinion that whether a candidate of a certain party can win or not depends on some criterias, firstly the division (of the party) must be active, second, do they have sufficient members and third, is their election machinery up to the task? "Fourth, are they united, committed and willing to go the extra mile to ensure the BN candidate wins and lastly, which party the voters prefer, whether it is MCA, Gerakan, Umno or MIC. That is why were prefer to leave it to the (BN) leadership to decide," he said. As such, he said, MCA was confident that Najib, who is also Prime Minister, had many sources of feedback to decide which of the parties would be the most suited (for a particular seat). Following the visit, Dr Chua also announced that Perak state executive councillor Datuk Dr Mah Hang Soon would be holding discussions with the hawkers at the market on upgrading the facility using a RM500,000 allocation that would be made available by the Housing and Local Government Ministry. |
| When different yardsticks are applied Posted: 24 Aug 2012 07:58 PM PDT If I were a non-Muslim, I would not get involved in the Hudud debate, knowing that the Malays-Muslims themselves will never come to an agreement on the matter. Once I get involved, then we face the danger of the Malays who oppose Hudud agreeing with those who propose Hudud merely because they want to defend Islam from what they view as an attack by the non-Muslims. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin When we apply two different approaches to a subject, invariably, we will not be able to reconcile the answer we seek. For example, seeking the answer to our existence would not give us the same result when one is guided by theology and the other applies sociology, anthropology, history and archaeology. Why do we exist? Is it by accident or is it by design? And is our existence the ultimate purpose, which will end when we expire, or is it merely a temporary step to a final destination, which will be determined by how we live our life in this world? Such a basic question but not one that can be answered that simply. The answer, invariably, will be determined by what 'logic' we apply. And is the logic we are applying really logical? How, in the first place, can we define logic when different yardsticks are being applied? And when should logic be discarded for a higher discipline, that of the word of God, which is above logic and requires faith? No, it is not a simple puzzle to solve. Even the matter of freedom of expression falls victim to many different viewpoints. Is name-calling and labelling someone Keling Pariah, Mamak Tongkang or Cina Mata Sepet, exceeding the boundaries of freedom of expression and falls within the classification of racial slurs or is this what freedom of expression is all about? Try calling a British of Pakistani origin a Paki here in Britain and see what will happen to you. Is not a British a Brit and an Australian an Aussie and an American a Yank? So what's wrong with a Pakistani being called a Paki? It is not that a Pakistani is not a Paki but the fact that it has been 'agreed', by whom I do not know, that the word Paki is a racial slur. And it is not just that society accepts the word Paki as a racial slur. It is also how you say it -- the tone of your voice and the look on your face. A Malay is certainly a Melayu, there is no denying that. But it is how you use the word Melayu that counts. Using the 'correct' tone of voice and with the 'right' look on your face, the word Melayu can be turned into an insult. So how do we resolve the matter of Hudud, the punishment for crimes under the Islamic laws known as the Sharia? Before that, can this matter even be resolved in the first place? Well, not if we apply two different yardsticks in arguing the case for or against Hudud. No issue can be resolved when two different yardsticks are applied and both are considered logical to the proponents as well as the opponents of Hudud. A Pakistani is a Paki to a non-Pakistani but an insult to a Pakistani. Both are right. Yet both can never come to an agreement as to whether it was meant as an insult or not. Maybe it was a statement of fact. Maybe it was an insult. The only way to avoid the crosswire would be to call a Pakistani a Brit and leave it at that. After all, Britons no longer exist anyway. Every Brit is a son or daughter of an immigrant. The only thing is did they migrate to Britain 100 B.C. or 2,000 years after that? Invariably, every Brit, if the roots are traced, came from somewhere outside Britain. That is the reality of the whole thing. At best, they can claim some British blood but can never lay claim to a thoroughbred Brit. Hence, the Pakistani is as British as the Royal Family or the Prime Minister of Great Britain. When would we consider the cut-off date? If the year 100 were the cut-off date then the Italians would be Brits. If 300 were the cut-off date then the Scandinavians would be Brits. If 500 were the cut-off date then the Germans would be Brits. If 1100 were the cut-off date then the French would be Brits. If 1990 were the cut-off date then those from the Indian subcontinent would be Brits. If there is no cut-off date then everyone is a Brit. There are no Pakistanis in Britain, and hence no Pakis as well. See how simple it is in Britain. Britain never saw independence because it never lost its independence. Britain was conquered by one power after another over more than 2,000 years and the conquerors became Brits, even when they spoke French and not a word of English. So everyone in Britain is a Brit and there are no pendatangs. If there are pendatangs, then every single person in Britain is a pendatang. It is as simple as that. But in Malaysia it is more complicating. Malaysia never existed until 1963. From 1957 it existed as Malaya. Before that there was no Malaya. The British created Malaya. And in creating Malaya they also created Malays, who also never existed until the British created them. And the British declared that Malaya belonged to the Malays and everyone else is an immigrant. But what is the cut-off date? The cut-off date is not clear. If the cut-off date were 1700 then the entire Selangor Royal Family would be pendatang. If the cut-off date were 31st August 1957 then only those born outside the country after that date would be pendatangs. Those born outside Malaya before 31st August 1957 and those born in the country after 31st August 1957 would be Malaysians. Nevertheless, the British had decided that Malaya would be given independence on 31st August 1957 and with independence we would receive a written Constitution, something that the British themselves do not have. And in this written Constitution it would be stated plus implied that the Malays own the land. And to reinforce this ownership, Islam would be the religion of the land, Malay would be the official language, and Malays would be accorded certain privileges. This was the agreement, whether stated or implied. And it was an agreement that all the races in Peninsular Malaysia agreed to adopt. It was not unilateral. It was bilateral. Was this a mistake, especially on the part of the Chinese and the Indians? On hindsight it is always easy to talk. Everyone is an expert on hindsight. It is foresight that matters. Did the Chinese and Indians not have the foresight to see that an open-ended agreement with no expiry date would be binding to future generations of Chinese and Indians who would still be regarded as Chinese and Indians and 'secondary' Malayans? And this is why we are currently facing a problem regarding Hudud. To Malaysians who are not Muslims, Hudud is viewed as a legal matter. It involves the punishment meted out for certain crimes. Hence Hudud needs to be discussed under the ambit of the legal system. They are, of course, correct. To Muslims, however, Hudud is not about the law. It is about what God has commanded. And God's command is beyond discussion. It is about acceptance without argument. To reject God's command is like the Catholics rejecting the Trinity or the Jews rejecting the Ten Commandments. It is a matter that cannot be compromised. They are, of course, also correct -- at least as far as each religious faith is concerned. So both are correct, no one is wrong. So how do we resolve a situation where both are correct and no one is wrong but the 'correctness' of their views places them at odds? As long as the Muslims in Malaysia believe that Islam is the religion of the land and hence whatever is mandatory in Islam becomes mandatory for the whole country then this is not a matter that will see a solution. All other religions will be allowed, but Islam is the religion of the land, not the other religions. The Malays are masters of the land. Non-Malays will be allowed a place under the Malaysian sun but will be secondary to the Malays. This is what the British intended for independent Malaya. And the British made sure that this intention was clearly stated in a written Constitution. Basically, we are faced with a belief system here, the belief that the Malays are the masters of the land and Islam is the religion of the land. And belief systems are not easy to eradicate. Can we convince the Christians that Jesus Christ was a mere man and not divine or the Son of God, hence the Trinity does not exist? Can we convince the Muslims that the Qur'an was not the word of God because it was compiled by a 'committee' years after the death of the Prophet and 'strengthened' by the Hadith, which was a creation of 'spin-doctors'? I fear that would be an impossible task. Both the Christians as well as the Muslims would never change their belief system just because you say so. Belief systems are carved in stone. And the belief that the Malays are masters of the land and Islam is the religion of the land is not a belief system that the Malays or Muslims will readily reject. So what do we do about Hudud? What can we do about it? As long as the Malays believe that the Qur'an is God's word and that Hudud is God's command and that Islam is the religion of the land there is nothing we can do about it. Can we resist or oppose Hudud? Well, can we resist or oppose the law that forbids Muslims from leaving Islam to become Christians, Hindus or Buddhists? The only 'good' thing about the Hudud issue -- if you were the eternal optimist who always tries to see good in everything, like the 'blessing in disguise' thing -- is that Hudud has been reduced to a political issue. Hence, when it becomes a political issue, one side will oppose when the other side proposes. And this would mean that even amongst the Muslims the Hudud issue would never be resolved. If I were a non-Muslim, I would not get involved in the Hudud debate, knowing that the Malays-Muslims themselves will never come to an agreement on the matter. Once I get involved, then we face the danger of the Malays who oppose Hudud agreeing with those who propose Hudud merely because they want to defend Islam from what they view as an attack by the non-Muslims. Let me put it another way. When the Chinese are of the opinion that Chinese education is 'under attack', even the MCA and DAP people can sit at the same table under the umbrella of Chinese education to hammer out an issue of common interest. And this is what can happen when Hudud is viewed as 'under attack' -- the Malays will share a common platform in the interest of 'mempertahankan kedaulatan Islam' (in defence of the sanctity of Islam). So be careful with what you say. Calling a Pakistani a Paki may be kosher to you. The Pakistani, however, may view it as an insult and you can go to jail in Britain if you pass racial slurs. In that same spirit, labelling Hudud as barbaric and those who propagate it as stupid is certainly your right under freedom of expression. To the Muslim, however, that is an insult to God and freedom of expression does not include insulting God. So what do we do then? Do we just shut up and accept the fact that we must lose certain freedom of expression? Or do we speak our mind whatever the consequences in the interest of freedom of expression? Honestly, I really do not know. When two different sets of values are applied I am at a loss. My solution would be to just let the two sides argue and we see where the cards fall. Most likely they will continue to argue into the next generation without any resolution. In that case nothing will happen so we do not need to address anything. Is this a solution? Maybe not! It is more like ignoring it and hoping it will go away. But that is how I sometimes handle the common cold and it does go away. Then, sometimes it may become pneumonia, who knows? But next month I will be 62 and I am still alive. So maybe I have not come out the worst for ignoring the common cold and just allowing it to run its course after all. But, yes, I know, we all want to speak and say something. We do not want to allow the 'other side' to speak unchallenged. So we speak even when what we say is not going to achieve anything. And we will all scream and oppose or scream and defend Hudud when we know nothing is going to happen in the end. And we will find out that loose lips sink ships. But never mind if the ship sinks as long as we can talk while it sinks. Such is the folly of mankind. And aren't wars fought in defence of national pride and dignity when all that is merely another word for ego? And who am I to take away your right of free speech, never mind what is being said will see no light at the end of the tunnel? That, in the end, is what will prevail. |
| JMM lodges report over Malaysia Today post Posted: 24 Aug 2012 07:07 PM PDT
(Bernama) - Jaringan Melayu Malaysia (JMM) lodged a report at the Hulu Kelang police station here regarding an article titled 'The day I met private investigator P Balasubramaniam', which was posted on the Malaysia Today portal on Aug 10. JMM president Azwanddin Hamzah said the police were urged to investigate the revelation by blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin which alleged that M Puravalen, Abdul Razak Baginda's former lawyer; Subang member of parliament, R Sivarasa; and private investigator P Balasubramaniam were involved in a conspiracy to defame the prime minister and threaten national security.
|
| M'sians may not be financially ready to retire: survey Posted: 24 Aug 2012 03:56 PM PDT
(Bernama) - A study on retirement trends in East Asia has revealed the increasing vulnerability of Malaysians due to early retirement age as well as low rates of pension receipt under the Employees' Provident Fund and the lack of old-age poverty floor. The study report, "Balancing Tradition and Modernity: The Future of Retirement in East Asia", is based on a survey that the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conducted in Malaysia, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, according to Prudential in a statement on the survey findings. The CSIS East Asia Retirement Survey reveals that an astonishing 92 per cent of current retirees in Malaysia report that they had already left the workforce by age 60 and suggests that Malaysia's pattern of premature retirement will likely persist. Malaysia is the only country in the survey whose fertility rate is above the 2.1 replacement level and the only one that will have a growing population and workforce in the coming decades, the report said. "In China, the elderly share of the population will be approaching 30 per cent by 2040 -– and in Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan it will be approaching 40 per cent. In Malaysia, it will still be under 20 per cent," it said. Malaysia's early mandatory retirement age, however, offsets its demographic advantage in building an adequate and sustainable retirement system, it added. Co-authored by Richard Jackson and Neil Howe, it is part of the multilayer Global Ageing Preparedness Project, which was launched by CSIS and British insurance giant Prudential plc in 2010. The survey found four out of five of today's retirees in Malaysia worry about "being poor and in need of money," becoming "a burden on their children," and being "in ill health and having no one to care for them" – much larger shares than in any of the other survey countries. Their vulnerability is attributable to Malaysia's unusually early retirement ages, which leaves retirees at risk of outliving their savings, as well as to low rates of pension receipt under the EPF and to the lack of an age-old poverty floor, the survey said. Retirement prospects are improving for the younger generations, who expect to be less dependent on the extended family than today's retirees are and to rely more heavily on their own savings, it said. But with one in five current workers still expecting to receive no pension benefits of any kind, the outlook for many is far from secure, it added. Donald Kanak, Chairman of Prudential Corporation Asia, which is part of Prudential plc, said: "Responding to the challenges caused by an ageing population is critical to Asia's future. "It is critical that policy makers and the industry work together to address this vital question." Charlie Oropeza, Chief Executive Officer of Prudential Assurance Malaysia Bhd, said: "The findings of the CSIS Study reinforce the need for Malaysians to better plan and secure their financial position towards retirement. "While the policymakers as well as the Malaysian Government have been introducing frameworks such as the Financial Blueprint to provide greater length and breadth of financial products and services, Malaysians need to be more aware and make themselves financially ready through prudent investment decisions.
|
| Posted: 24 Aug 2012 03:47 PM PDT
(The Star) - Deputy Chief Minister I Datuk Mansor Othman has denied labelling his boss "cocky and arrogant" at a press conference attended by a serious and sombre-looking Lim Guan Eng. Throughout the press conference, the Chief Minister hardly said a word. They later linked hands with Penang PAS commissioner Datuk Salleh Man to smile for photographs before ending the brief media session at Komtar here yesterday. Mansor, who is Penang PKR chairman, had allegedly uttered the words angkuh (cocky) and sombong (arrogant) to describe Lim at a party meeting in March to discuss preparations for the general election. The Deputy Chief Minister I had allegedly also remarked that Penangites viewed Lim as a tokong (deity). The words, allegedly recorded in the minutes of the meeting, were published in a blog "Gelagat Anwar" in its postings on June 16, June 18 and June 19. Mansor said the words angkuh and sombong never left his mouth. "I don't know how it came about. I never thought the chief minister as proud or arrogant," he said as he added to a written statement distributed to the press. However, he admitted that he may have uttered the word tokong but claimed that the blog had taken it out of context. "I may have said the word tokong but it was actually meant to refer to the honour and high respect given to the chief minister by the people of Penang," said Mansor. Pressed by reporters, Mansor repeated: "I don't think I stated the words angkuh and sombong. "I said tokong, but angkuh and sombong? I don't think so." He also denied that the March meeting was a strategic planning meeting. "It was an informal meeting with a group of PKR members centred on party matters and the polls preparations and there were no minutes taken at the meeting," he said.
|
| Two come to Tuan Tat’s defence over forgery accusations Posted: 24 Aug 2012 03:42 PM PDT
(The Star) - Ex-Sepang DAP parliamentary liaison committee member Tan Tuan Tat, who was accused of forging 149 membership forms, has produced two former party supporters to back him up. Mahful Wahid said he had collected membership forms from some 100 people in Kampung Teluk Manggis and Taman Kedidi as they were interested in becoming DAP members. "I approached Tan for help to submit the forms to Selangor DAP. Why was he accused of forgery?" he said, adding that he, too, had been interested in joining DAP. Such accusations, added Mahful, had caused him to lose confidence in Pakatan Rakyat. DAP disciplinary committee chairman Tan Kok Wai said that Tuan Tat, who had been in the party for 18 years, had been charged with forging the membership forms to set up three pro tem branches in Sungai Pelek, Sepang. He also claimed that the MyKad of people from Sungai Pelek were used without their knowledge to enrol them as DAP members. Former Pantai Sepang Putra DAP chief R. Veerasamy echoed Mahful's views, saying that he had also approached Tuan Tat for help to forward the forms to the state DAP's office. "In the end, I was found guilty of falsifying the applications and sacked," he said during a press conference here yesterday. Denying the accusations, Tuan Tat said it was meant to slander his integrity and credibility. "Don't defame me. I did not forge any forms. "The forms were genuine and came from people who wanted to join DAP," he said. Tuan Tat, who used to be Taman Sri Sungai Pelek branch chairman before leaving the party last week, said DAP had deviated from its original spirit and essence. He also disputed Tan's charge that he was sacked from the party. "How can I be sacked when I resigned first?" he said.
|
| Tiada alasan menangguhkan Hudud, kata Nik Aziz Posted: 24 Aug 2012 03:04 PM PDT Kata Menteri Besar Kelantan itu, alasan supaya rakyat faham terlebih dahulu sebelum melaksanakan hukum Hudud tidak boleh diterima. (FMT) - Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat menegaskan tidak ada alasan untuk menangguhkan dari melaksanakan hukum Hudud di negara ini. Kata Menteri Besar Kelantan itu, alasan supaya rakyat faham terlebih dahulu sebelum melaksanakan hukum Hudud tidak boleh diterima. "Bagi saya tidak ada asas hukum dan keperluan atas dasar logik untuk melengah-lengah pelaksanaan kerana Hudud adalah sebahagian daripada perundangan syariah yang diwajibkan dalam Islam. "Ini kerana tidak ada hukum atau undang-undang di dunia ini, sama ada di bawah sistem demokrasi mahu pun komunis yang menunggu rakyat faham dan setuju dulu, baru dilaksanakan. "Atas kerana itu, apa sahaja undang-undang di Malaysia, ia dibuat dan dilaksanakan tanpa menunggu semua pihak faham atau setuju. "Termasuklah pihak Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu sendiri pun yang menguatkuasakan pembentukan negara Israel di bumi Palestin yang ditentang hebat oleh orang Palestin sendiri. "Hatta Presiden Amerika, Barrack Obama sendiri turut bersetuju dengan perundangan 'kahwin sejenis' meskipun majoriti masyarakat dunia menolaknya," kata beliau dalam satu kenyataan hari ini. Laut berombak Tambah Mursyidul Am PAS, persoalan sesuatu hukum boleh dilaksana setelah ada kefahaman dan persetujuan semua pihak, ia sesuatu yang tidak tepat dalam kaedah perundangan yang ingin mengawal dan mendidik masyarakat ke arah kebaikan. Tambahan lagi, soal hukum Islam (Hudud) bukannya pilihan untuk menusia menolak atau menerima. Tugas pihak berkuasa atas nama Islam adalah kewajipan dan tanggungjawab. Jadi keperluan kepada suasana kondusif bukanlah penghalang ke arah pelaksanaan hukum Allah. Katanya, sampai bilakah segala alasan tanpa keimanan dan hujah akal sentiasa dijadikan alasan untuk menidakkan penerimaaan dan pelaksanaan hukum Allah SWT ini? Apa yang pasti, hukum Allah SWT tetap serasi dengan hukum alam dan makhluk ciptaan-Nya. "Kalaulah menunggu alunan ombak reda, sampai bila nelayan akan dapat ke laut? Ketika laut berombak itulah, nelayan boleh meluncur perahunya ke laut bagi menangkap ikan," kata Nik Aziz.
|
| Posted: 24 Aug 2012 02:58 PM PDT HAPPY BIRTHDAY DATUK Menurut Datuk Mahfuz Omar, DAP bersetuju dengan pelaksanaan Hudud, Umno tetap menghalang dan sejarah membuktikan perkara ini K Pragalath, FMT Naib Presiden PAS Datuk Mahfuz Omar menegaskan bahawa Umno tetap menjadi batu penghalang terhadap pelaksanaan hukum Hudud yang diinginkan oleh PAS. "Kalau DAP bermesyuarat dan menerima pelaksanaan Hudud sekalipun, PAS masih tidak boleh melaksanakannya kerana dihalang kerajaan pusat pimpinan Umno/BN," kata Mahfuz yang juga ialah ahli Parlimen Pokok Sena. Beliau berkata demikian sebagai mengulas kenyataan bekas Timbalan Presiden PAS Nasharuddin Mat Isa yang mencadangkan PAS keluar dari Pakatan Rakyat sekiranya gagal melaksanakan hukuman Hudud di bawah Pakatan Rakyat. Mahfuz turut mempertahankan kerjasama PAS dan DAP yang diakuinya baik kerana wujud perkara kebersamaan. "DAP dan PAS menentang pelaksanaan judi bola sepak. "Kerajaan Umno beri lesen. Vincent Tan cadang saja. Umno terus ikut telunjuk Tan," kata Mahfuz merujuk kepada cadangan projek judi oleh jutawan Vincent Tan dua tahun lalu. Beliau turut menjelaskan usaha-usaha Umno menjadi penghalang kepada pelaksanaan hudud di Kelantan dua dekad lalu. Enakmen Jenayah Syariah II Kelantan diluluskan dalam tahun 1993. "Ketika itu Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad menghantar surat kepada kerajaan Kelantan untuk menghalang pelaksanaan Hudud," kata Mahfuz.
|
"These people are trying to act funny in this country. 
Her family claims that she had lived and died as a Hindu, while South Seberang Perai (SPS) Religious Department said records show that she had 
Desmma president Mohd Fazil Abdullah (right), who lodged one of the reports, also urged Malaysiakini not to publish such sensitive issues.
"I recommend whoever who converts into Islam to contact the relevant religious departments and to practice the religion. Don't cause an issue when you pass away," said Mohammed Shariff (right).
"We may do a protest in Pulau Pinang against Karpal Singh where we would probably burn his effigy," said Zainol Abidin (left).
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan