KES MUHAMAD RAYAPPAN MENIMBULKAN BANYAK TANDATANYA

oleh : Mohamed Hanipa Maidin
Thu | Dec 21, 06 | 03:41:07 AM

Kes perebutan mayat melibatkan orang Islam sekali lagi menjadi isu panas dalam negara ini. Kes terbaru melibatkan perebutan mayat A.Rayappan di antara Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Mais) dan keluarga simati.

Setelah meneliti kes ini berdasarkan laporan yang disiarkan di akhbar, terdapat banyak perkara-perkara yang menjadi tanda tanya.
Berdasarkan laporan akhbar di dalam kes ini kita boleh menyimpulkan fakta-fakta berikut sebagai fakta-fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan:

Pada 20 Januari 1990, Anthony Rayappan meninggalkan isterinya M. Lourdes Mary dan berkahwin dengan seorang wanita Indian Muslim dan menukar namnya kepada Muhamad Rayappan Abdullah di dalam kad pengenalannya.

Pada tahun 1999 dilaporkan bahawa Muhamad Rayappan kembali kepada isterinya.

Dalam bulan Mei 1999 simati telah membuat permohonan kepada Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara bagi menukar butir-butir kad pengenalannya dengan mengemukakan akuan bersumpah dan deed poll bagi menukar namanya kepada Anthony Rayyappan dan juga agamanya kepada Kristian.

Pada tahun 2000 Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara mengeluarkan kad pengenalannya dengan memuatkan dalam kad pengenalan simati pertukaran yang beliau pohon iaitu nama dan status agamanya.

Pada 29 November 2006 Muhammad Rayappan meninggal dunia di Hospital Kuala Lumpur dan pihak Jabatan Agama Islam cuba menuntut mayatnya untuk tujuan pengebumian mengikut hukum Islam. Keluarga simati membantah.

Pada 1 Disember 2006 Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Shah Alam memutuskan Mais boleh menuntut mayat simati.

Pada 4 Disember 2006 Mahkamah Syariah menggantung perintah yang dibuat pada 1 Disember 2006 dan ketiga-tiga anak simati yang disapina untuk menghadiri Mahkamah Syariah tidak mengendahkan sapina tersebut.

Lourdes telah menyaman Hospital Kuala Lumpur dan Kerajaan bagi mendapatkan mayat simati dan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur menetapkan 11 Disember 2006 sebagai tarikh pendengaran permohonan tersebut.

Pada 5 Disember 2006 keluarga simati membuat laporan polis ke atas JAIS kerana tuduhan harassment.
Kabinet dan PM meminta pihak Peguam Negara campurtangan dalam isu ini.

Pada 6 Disember 2006 jam 4.50 petang, Mais menarik balik tuntutan ke atas mayat simati. Sejam sebelum itu Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah memutuskan antara lain bahawa waris simati hendaklah dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan berkaitan status agama simati dan simati adalah seorang Islam di masa kematiannya melainkan ada keterangan sebaliknya.

Beberapa persoalan timbul daripada kes ini:

A. Persolaan bagaimanakah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) tidak meletakkan status agama Islam dalam kad pengenalan simati.

Di dalam laporan akhbar bahasa Inggeris seperti the Star dan the Sun dinyatakan bahawa tertulis perkataan Kristian di dalam kad pengenalan simati. Ini ternyata laporan palsu kerana sebenarnya tidak tertulis status agama simati di dalam kad pengenalannya.

Kerajaan wajib bertindak terhadap laporan palsu ini kerana di atas laporan palsu inilah ada ahli parlimen UMNO yang membuat komen memandangkan dalam Kad Pengenalan simati tertulis agama Kristian, maka amat wajar mayat tersebut diberikan kepada keluarga simati.

Bagaimanapun timbul persoalan mengapakah JPN gagal meletakkan status agama Islam dalam kad pengenalan simati dalam keadaan tiada perintah Mahkamah Syariah yang memutuskan simati adalah murtad.

Berdasarkan kes Lina Joy yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan adalah jelas bahawa pihak JPN tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk meluluskan permohonan menukar status agama Islam di dalam kad pengenalan orang Islam jika permohonan tersebut tidak disertakan dengan perintah daripada Mahkamah Syariah yang secara jelas memerintahkan pemohon itu telah bertukar agama.

Apa yang berlaku di dalam kes Azlina Jailani @ Lina Joy adalah beliau telah membuat permohonan untuk membuang nama Islam di dalam kad pengenalan beliau dan menggantikan dengan agama Kristian dan sebagai sokongan permohonan beliau itu, Azlina telah mengemukakan sijil baptsime yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak Gereja.

Berikut apa yang dinyatakan oleh pihak JPN semasa menerima permohonan Lina Joy tersebut sepertimana yang dilaporkan di dalam keputusan di Mahkamah Rayuan:

" By a letter dated 11 August 1997, the Director General, treating the appellant's report as an application for a change of name, informed the appellant that her application was refused. No reasons were stated in the letter. In the appeal the Director General explained by affidavit that the application was refused because the NRD had no jurisdiction to approve an application for a change of name by reason of change of religion without documentary proof of the change of religion, which in the case of the appellant would, he said, be a certificate or order from the Syariah Court or any appropriate Islamic religious authority confirming that she had renounced Islam, of which there was none."

Dan ini pula keputusan majoriti Mahkamah Rayuan berhubung isu tersebut:

" Renunciation of Islam is generally regarded by the Muslim community as a very grave matter. This is reflected in the very things reported in the newspapers that constituted one of the reasons that the appellant said it was necessary that her right to renounce Islam, and her position as no longer a Muslim, be recognized. The Muslim community regards it as a grave matter not only for the person concerned, in terms of the afterlife, but also for Muslims generally, as they regard it to be their responsibility to save another Muslim from the damnation of apostasy.
The incidence of apostasy is therefore a highly sensitive matter among Muslims. Apart from the spiritual aspect, Muslims in this country, where Islam is the official religion, are subject to special laws that no other community is subject to. In particular there are statutory offences that are committable by Muslims as Muslims that are not committable by others.

Against that background must be mentioned the fact that whether a person has renounced Islam is a question of Islamic law that is not within the jurisdiction of the NRD and that the NRD is not equipped or qualified to decide. What the Islamic law on the matter is has not been ventilated in this appeal. One might be tempted to think that the fact that a person affirms in a statutory declaration that he is no longer a Muslim or the fact that he has been participating in a Christian form of worship, or the fact that he has been baptized is sufficient, according to Islamic law, to warrant others to treat him as having-apostatized and as being no longer a Muslim.

But is that so in Islamic law? The NRD would be right in taking the stand that it is not for it to decide. It may be that according to Islamic law no Muslim may be treated as having apostatized, no matter what he may have done or failed to do, unless and until he has been declared an apostate by some proper authority. If the NRD were to accept that a person has apostatized merely on his declaration, and on that basis officially stamp him a non-Muslim by deleting the word "Islam" from his identity card, it runs the risk of mistakenly stamping a person a non-Muslim who according to Islamic law has not apostatized.

It will also be making it easy for persons who are born and bred as Muslims but who are indifferent to the religion to get classified as non-Muslims simply to avoid being punished for committing the offences that I have mentioned. It will consequently be inviting the censure of the Muslim community.

Jadi adalah jelas bahawa JPN tidak akan membenarkan permohonan menukar status agama Islam dalam kad pengenalan seseorang tanpa perintah daripada Mahkamah Syariah yang menyatakan orang itu murtad.

Berdasarkan laporan akhbar tidak langsung dinyatakan bahawa terdapat perintah Mahkmah Syariah yang memutuskan simati telah murtad dan atas dasar itulah Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah telah memutuskan bahawa ketika kematiannya simati adalah seorang Islam.

Dalam keadaan begini mengapakah JPN tidak meletakkan status Islam di dalam kad pengenalan simati. Bagi saya JPN tidak boleh lari dari tanggungjawab untuk menerangkan kepada rakyat tentang perkara ini.

B. Persoalan mengapakah Majlis Agama Islam Selangor ( MAIS ) menarik balik tuntutan mayat simati

Sepertimana yang dilaporkan bahawa pada 1 Disember 2006, Mahkamah Syariah telah membenarkan permohonan Mais untut menuntut mayat simati dan mayat tersebut diperintahkan untuk dikebumikan mengikut hukum Islam.

Malangnya pada 6 Disember 2006 jam 4.50 petang Mais telah membuat permohonan menarik balik tuntutan mayat tersebut. Dan yang lebih menghairankan keputusan Mais tersebut dibuat setelah Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah memutuskan bahawa simati masih seorang Islam semasa kematiannya.

Keputusan Mais ini bukan sahaja tidak menghormati keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah tetapi juga menghampakan dan menghiris perasaan orang Islam dalam keadaan Mais diharap melindungi kepentingan Islam dalam isu ini.

Kita percaya orang Islam boleh menerima dan lebih berpuashati keputusan Mahkamah Syariah misalnya yang menyatakan simati adalah bukan Islam semasa kematiannya daripada tindakan unilateral Mais yang dirasakan tidak bertanggungjawab menarik balik keputusan tuntutan mayat tersebut.

Apa yang berlaku sekarang ini amat celaru. Dari satu segi terdapat keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah yang menyatakan simati adalah orang Islam (dan keputusan tersebut tidak dibatalkan) manakala dari satu segi yang lain simati yang masih Islam dibenarkan dikebumikan mengikut agama Kristian!

Apa yang lebih mencurigakan adalah MAIS berubah sikapnya serta merta apabila Kabinet dan Perdana Menteri membuat kenyataan sehari sebelum penarikan balik tuntutan mayat oleh MAIS yang mana PM meminta pihak Peguam Negara campurtangan. Ini sekaligus menimbulkan prasangka yang munasabah bahawa MAIS " was acting under dictation".

C. Persoalan kenapakah kabinet Abdullah Badawi mahukan Peguam Negara campurtangan dalam isu ini.

Berikut adalah kenyataan PM dan anggota kabinet sepertimana yang dilaporkan oleh akhbar the Sun:

" The Cabinet today discussed the Anthony Rayappan body tussle case and directed the Attorney-General to determine his religion. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in confirming that the matter was discussed, said "if the AG's Chamber finds that he is not a Muslim, his body should be returned to his family".

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Tan Sri Bernard Giluk Dompok told the Sun in a telephone interview: "The Cabinet is very sympathetic towards the family. The sentiment of the Cabinet was that he should be allowed to be a Christian." He said he brought up the matter for discussion, explaining to his colleagues that Rayappan had gone back to his original faith as a Catholic, after his conversion to Islam in 1990 (to marry a Muslim woman). He said it was a clear-cut case as "everyone knows he (Rayappan) went back to Christianity".

Berdasarkan kenyataan tersebut di atas adalah jelas Abdullah dan anggota Kabinetnya tidak memahami ataupun keliru berhubung perkara asas undang-undang apatah lagi Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Kenyataan PM bahawa pihak Peguam Negara ( AG ) hendaklah menentukan agama simati adalah kenyataan yang begitu dangkal dan juga boleh dikatakan satu kenyataan yang amat lucu.

Sejak bila AG diberi peranan di sisi undang-undang untuk menentukan status agama simati. Telah menjadi satu prinsip undang-undang yang tuntas bahawa kuasa menentukan agama orang Islam, jika berlaku pertikaian, adalah di tangan Mahkamah Syariah sahaja. AG bukan sahaja tidak mempunyai kuasa tersebut malahan tidak dibenarkan menurut Perlembagaan untuk campurtangan urusan Mahkamah Syariah.

Arahan Kabinet dan kenyataan PM bukan sahaja tidak bertanggungjawab malahan mencelarukan kes tersebut dan dari pandangan yang lain ianya dilihat sebagai satu campurtangan eksekutif dalam badan kehakiman dan ini amat bertentangan dengan prinsip pengasingan kuasa (separation of powers).

Jika pun AG perlu berperanan dalam kes ini ianya boleh dilakukan semasa pihak AG mewakili pihak kerajaan di mahkamah sivil di dalam pendengaran permohonan pihak keluarga simati. Dalam hal ini pendirian AG seharusnya konsisten sepertimana yang ditunjukkan di dalam kes Mohamad Moorthy yang mana pihak AG berhujah bahawa berdasarkan Perkara 121 (1A) mahkamah sivil tidak mempunyai bidangkuasa dalam menentukan status agama orang Islam.

Saudara dan saudari

Berikut adalah hujah yang saya kemukakan di Mahkamah Persekutuan semasa mewakili tiga orang pelajar yang dibuang sekolah kerana mamakai serban ( yang dikenali sebagai kes Meor ).

Fakta ringkasnya adalah semasa di Mahkamah Tinggi Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan tuntutan pelajar tersebut dan pihak kerajaan telah membuat rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan rayuan pihak Kerajaan dan mengenepikan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut . Pihak tiga orang pelajar tersebut telah membuat rayuan di Mahkamah Persekutuan . Mahkamah Persekutuan yang diketuai oleh Yang Amat Arif Hakim Tan Sri Malek Ahmad, Y.A Hakim Tan Sri Steve Shim dan Yang Arif Hakim Dato Hamid Mohamed telah mendengar rayuan tersebut pada 8/3/2006 ( hari rabu ) dan telah menangguhkan keputusan rayuan tersebut.

Berikut adalah hujah yang saya berikan di Mahkamah Persekutuan.



THE APPELLANTS’ WRITTEN SUBMISSION



Yang Amat Arif , Yang Arif and Yang Arif

A. INTRODUCTION

1. Let me begin my argument by inviting Yang Arif to look at page 219 of the Appeal Record i.e the photo of the Appellants wearing their school uniform when they were expelled from school by the First Respondent. The only different between the Appellants and other students at that school was that the former were wearing a serban apart from the usual school uniform.

2. What the Appellants were doing if I may draw an analogy is equivalent what Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, one of the Malaysian prominent lawyer, has been doing that is being a lawyer he is wearing what other lawyers do except that he is having his serban on his head . In doing this Haji Sulaiman is in fact exercising his religious practices and hitherto he has not been asked to remove his serban for the same is protected by Article 11 ( 1 ) of the Federal Constitution ( FC ). So the same applies to the Appellants.

B. FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The facts of this case may be summarized as follows :-

4. The first , second and third Appellants were male students in a primary school aged eleven , nine and eight respectively. They had been expelled from school by the First Respondent, who was the headmistress of Sekolah Kebangsaan Serting Hilir, Negeri Sembilan ( the school ).

5. Prior to that the First Respondent , in a letter dated 4/8/1997 addressed to the guardian of the first appellant requested the Appellants to stop wearing serbans to school. However the Appellants continued to wear it .

6. Throughout the months of August and September that year the First Respondent repeatedly ordered the Appellants to stop wearing the serban but the Appellants did not budge on the ground that was the tradition of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ( s.a.w ). Consequently by a letter dated 3/11/1997 the First Respondent issued a letter dismissing the Appellants from school.

7. The Appellants in their statement of claim pleaded that the action taken by the Respondents was contrary to the provisions of the Federal Constitution on the right to freedom of religion and the prohibition for discrimination on the basis of religion , race , creed and place of birth.

C. ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL

8. This appeal deals only with one issue and the issue is as stated in the Appellants’ Memorandum of Rayuan . May I humbly invite Yang Arif to look at page 2 -3 of the Rekod Rayuan

9. This case deals with freedom of religion enshrined in Art 11 ( 1 ) of the Federal Constitution.

10. Based on Art. 11 ( 1 ) FC every person has the following rights ,viz;.

• Right to profess
• Right to practice
• And subject to Art 11 ( 4 ) of FC to propagate his religion.

[ please see at page 64 of the Appellants’ Additional Bundle of Authorities ( ABOA ) ]

11. It is interesting to note here Yang Arif that freedom of religion under art 11 ( 1 ), unlike freedom of speech or assembly enshrined in art 10, is not only confined to citizens but also to every person and such fundamental right is so sacred and entrenched in the FC so much so even during an emergency the right of a person to freedom of religion cannot be touched or restricted - ( Please see Art 150 ( 6A ) of the FC at page 70 of ABOA )

12. Art 150 ( 6A ) provides that “ Clause ( 5 ) shall not extend the powers of Parliament with respect to any matter of Islamic law or the custom of the Malays, or with respect to any matter of native law or custom in the State of Sabah or Sarawak, nor shall Clause ( 6 ) validate any provision inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution relating to religion , citizenship, or language.

13. It is our humble submission Yang Arif that the rule prohibiting students from wearing serban is violative of Art 11 ( 1 ) of the Federal Constitution ( FC ). The relevant impugned rule may be found at page 317 ( from page 313 ) of the Rekod Rayuan

14. For the purpose of this appeal the related right is on the right to practice one’s religion. But Article 11 ( 1 ) uses the phrases “profess and practice” . Thus it is submitted that the word profess and practice must be read together .

15. The right to practice one’s religion we submit includes every religious practices which have some basis or become part of that religion whether they are mandatory or otherwise

16. The right to practice one’s religion which is protected under Art 11 ( 1 ) of FC can only be restricted if by exercising such rights it affects public order , public health and public morality enshrined in Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC.

17. Art 11 ( 5 ) provides that “ This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.”

18. It is also our humble submission that the right to wear serban even though is not mandatory is part of Islamic and prophetic teaching. In this respect we would like to refer at the evidence of SP 3 at page 155 – 159 of the Rekod Rayuan )

19. SP 3 inter alia testified that “ Hukum pakai serban sunat iaitu tidak wajib. Orang beriman sepatutnya membenarkan pakaian serban terutama dalam masyarakat majmuk di mana kaum sikh umpamanya dibenarkan memakai serban. Sunnah itu dianggap sebagai ibadah tuntutan agama yang kita wajib beriltizam. ( see at page 157 of RR )

20. In other words it is part of religious practices enjoined by Islam. Be that as it may this right has to be jealously protected and under the FC it is guaranteed by virtue of Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC.

D. WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL SAID IN RESPECT OF ARTICLE 11 ( 1 ) ?

21. It is humbly submitted that the learned Judges of Court of Appeal ( CA ) erred in their judgments when they decided that the Respondents had acted entirely in accordance with the Constitution when they expelled the Appellants from school for wearing serban. ( see at page 21 of Rekod Rayuan )

22. It is not disputed in this case that the wearing of serban has religious basis from Islamic point of view. In other words it is part of religious practices as far as Islam is concerned. Such being the case this religious practice is protected and guaranteed under Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC and this practice could only be restricted under 11 ( 5 ) .

23. The Court of Appeal, with due respect, was clearly wrong when it decided that only the ‘integral or essential parts” of religion are protected by Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC. ( May I humbly refer Yang Arif at page 13 ( para 4 ) ; page 21 ( para 14 ) of the Rekod Rayuan ) .

24. Yang Arif , if this interpretation is accepted it means that only the integral religious practices are guaranteed under Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC whereas the word `integral` part is nowhere in Art 11 ( 1 ).

25. And the problem will also arise if we accept this restrictive interpretation because under Art 11 ( 1 ) there are three rights available to a person as far as freedom of religion is concerned and these rights are the right to profess, practice and propagate.

26. If only the integral part of religion may be practiced the same is also applicable to one`s right of professing and propagating his religion . In other words , by applying the CA`s interpretation a person may only profess, practice and propagate the integral/ essential part of his religion . This will create a lot of problems to religious adherents particularly the muslims

27. Let me give one example i.e the case of prayer in Islam. In Islam there are mandatory prayer and there are recommendatory ones ( the muslims call them sunnat prayer where the numbers of sunat prayers are more than obligatory prayers ). If we follow the CA’s interpretation the muslim’s rights of professing and practicing prayers is only confined to obligatory prayers under Art 11 ( 1 ) whereas the recommendatory prayers are not protected under Art 11 ( 1 ) .

28. And the other problem with this interpretation is that it begs for other interpretation of the word integral ! Who determines such and such religious doctrines/practices are integral/essential or non integral/non essential ? and on what basis ?

29. By interpreting right to practice of one’s religion to be confined only to the ‘integral” or mandatory part of religion” the Court of Appeal, we submit, in actual fact is rewriting Article 11 ( 1 ) or putting a new or an extra/additional restriction on the right to profess and practice one’s religion apart from the existing restrictions contained/enshrined in Article 11 ( 5 ) of the FC . Such rigid interpretation had unduly caused the Appellants to be subjected to additional restriction apart from the existing restrictions under art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC. This , we submit , should not be allowed.

30. What the court of appeal did in this case, in actual fact , with respect , is that it had embarked on something beyond its power i.e interpreting the religion and in this case is the religion of Islam.

31. The Court of Appeal in reality had sent a message to any religious adherents in this country that you are prohibited from professing, practicing and propagating non essentials of your religion even such practices are recognized by your religion. In other words the CA is saying ` Ok, your religion may allow you to profess , practice and propagate your religious teachings but they must go through our screening/ filter process . If that religious practices are mandatory/essential, yes you pass our screening test if otherwise we are sorry you are prohibited.”

32. Prof, Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi , a leading constitutional expert in this country said in his article “ Secularism or Theocracy – A Study of the Malaysian Constitution”

“ In respect of religion , every person has the right to three things :

• to profess
• to practice
• and , subject to Article 11 ( 4 ) , to propagate his religion : Article 11 ( 1 )

The first refers to beliefs and doctrines, The second refers to exhibition of these beliefs through acts, practices and rituals. The third is about attempts at propagation , The right to beliefs and doctrines is generally regarded as absolute. The last two aspects are, subject to regulation on grounds of public order, health , morality etc

Does freedom of religion extend only to those practices and rituals that are essential and mandatory, or does it also cover practices that are non essential and optional ? Halimatussaadiah v PSC ( 1992 ) 1 MLJ 513 implies that a non mandatory ( like wearing purdah ) is not protected by Article 11. The case also distinguished between beliefs and practices. The latter may regulated if they lead to public disorder. Affect public health or public morality. However , Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak v Fatimah binti Sihi ( 2000 ) 5 MLJ 375 correctly holds that the constitutional freedom extends to practices ( like waering a serban ), which , though not mandatory, are part of the religious tradition. ( see at page of the Appellants Bundle of Authorities ( BOA )

33. It is our submission Yang Arif that the Court Of Appeal should not unduly wary to allow a person to practice his/her religion be it an integral/essential part or non integral/non essential part as the freedom of practicing one’s religion, like other freedoms enshrined under FC is not absolute. The right to freedom of practicing one’s religion is constitutionally restricted under Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC.

34. What happened in this case was that the CA was heavily influenced by the Indian authorities in interpreting Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC without considering Art 11 ( 5 ) and/ or the decision of the then Supreme Court in the case of Minsiter For Home Affairs & Anor v Jamaluddin bin Othman ( 1989 ) 1 MLJ 418

35. It is humbly submitted that the proper and correct test in interpreting the phrase ‘ right to profess and practice his religion’ in Art 11 ( 1 ) is as stated by the then Supreme Court in Minsiter For Home Affairs & Anor v Jamaluddin bin Othman ( 1989 ) 1 MLJ 418 i.e “ the guarantee provided by Art 11 of the Constitution i.e freedom to profess and practice one’s religion , must be given effect unless the actions of a person go well beyond what normally be regarded as professing and practicing one ‘s religion”.

36. It is unthinkable to suggest that the Appellants’ act of wearing serban, which derived its basis from the prophetic tradition ( hadith ), went beyond what normally be regarded as professing and practicing one’s religion

37. It was very unfortunate that the CA failed at all to refer to the case of Jamaluddin bin Othman ( supra ) in their judgment and this , we submit, amounts to non direction by the CA and be that as it may, we humbly submit ,that non direction was fatal and it warrants this court’s interference.

38. Speaking about heavily relying on other countries’ constitutions in interpreting our constitution, as what the Court of Appeal unfortunately did, Y.M Justice Raja Azlan Shah had this to say i.e in the case of Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia ( 1977 ) 2 MLJ 187

“ Whatever may be said of other constitutions , they are ultimately of little assistance to us because our Constitution now stands in its own right and it is in the end the wording of our Constitution itself that is subject to be interpreted and applied , and this wording “ can never be overridden by the extraneous principles of other Constitutions” – see Adegbenro v Akintola & Anor . Each country frames its constitution according to its genius and for the good of its own society. We look at other Constitutions to learn from their experiences and from a desire to see how their progress and well being is ensured by their fundamental law.” ( see at page 90 of the Appellants ABOA )

39. Prof Mohammed Imam in his brilliant article entitled “ Freedom of Religion Under Federal Constitution of Malaysia – A Reappraisal ( 1994 ) 2 CLJ lxvi commented that

“ The Indian Supreme Court has also made the distinction between “essential part of religion” and superstitious beliefs and unessential accretion to religions’ but that was in the context of specific provisions of Article 25 ( 2 ) of that Constitution which permitted regulations or restrictions on economic , financial , political and other secular activities associated with religious practices , and for social welfare and reform. That question does not arise under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, as no specific provisions are contained in it. Certain religious practices amongst Hindus and Chinese ( Taiosm, Confucious, Ancestor Worship ) e.g Sin Chew may have their basis in superstitious , yet they all will be protected by Article 11 ( 1 ) provided they are regarded as religious practices by that respective religion . Parliament’s power to derogate from the right to religious freedom by a general law on grounds of public order, public health and morality extends to every aspect of religion and religious practices, be they the essential part , unessential accretion or superstitious.”( please refer at page 17 of the Appellants’ ABOA )

40. Prof Imam also said in the same article that

“ Unlike what the Indian Courts have been doing, there is no scope under Article 11 for the state to regulate , control or restrict religious practices , regarded by that religion as part of the religion on grounds of their being practices secular, superstitious, extraneous and unessential accretion to religion because by the express term of Article 11 ( 5 ) , the freedom of religion could be subject only to ‘any general law relating public order, public health or morality. ( see at page 20 of the Appellants’ ABOA )

41. It is also germane to state here Yang Arif that our Federal Constitution is not similar to Indian Constitution. So the court should be very cautious and meticulous in relying upon Indian authorities. In India , the Preamble to the Constitution categorically declares India to be a secular state. There is no official state religion in India ( see at page 59 of The Appellant’s BOA ). On the contrary Article 3 of the FC provides that Islam is the religion of the Federation ..

42. The ambit of the positive obligations cast on the Federation by Article 3 , according to Prof Imam in his article , to defend , protect , and promote the religion of Islam and facilitate and enable Muslims its practices ( see Prof Imam”s article at page 11 of the Appellants’ ABOA ).

43. Prof Imam also said in his article that “ Art 3 is not a self executory provision. It only imposes a general obligation upon the Federation to protect, defend, safeguard the Islamic religion, assist , enable and facilitate Muslims to practice Islam , and give effect to or enforce Islamic injunction , spiritual and mundane alike , as far as it is capable of as a juristic person acting through its human agent using the coercive power at its command. This obligation is dischargeable by appropriate state action ,viz legislative, executive, administrative , judicial , quasi judicial etc and the Muslims have the legitimate constitutionally created interest , as distinct from judicially enforceable right, to secure such a compliance. Article 3 being subject to the other provisions of the Constitution ( Art. 3 ( 4 ) , any such state action should steer clear of other constitutional provisions , the most significant of such provisions is Article 11 freedom of religion of not only non Muslims but also of the Muslims.” ( see at page 13 of the Appellants’ ABOA )

44. So the right approach in dealing with freedom of religion under Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC is to

A. first , identify as to whether what is practiced by a person is part of his religious doctrine .

B. and if such practice is part of that religion/ or enjoined by that religion, than it must be jealously guaranteed and protected by the court under art 11 ( 1 ) irrespective whether it is an integral or essential part or otherwise unless by practicing it offends Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC

45. Sadly speaking in interpreting Art 11 ( 1 ) the Court of Appeal, with respect, failed at all to look into or consider Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC and decided whether by exercising their rights under Art 11 ( 1 ) to practice their religion the Appellants were proven to have jeopardized public morality , public health or public order enshrined under Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC .

46. If the Court of Appeal really considered the evidences adduced in this case it would certainly make a finding that there was no iota of evidence whatsoever that the Appellants’ act of wearing of serban had caused public disorder or affected public health or morality thus caught by Article 11 ( 5 ) of the FC. In fact on the contrary the facts and evidences in this case had shown that the Appellants were a bright students and had no records of causing any disciplinary problems .

47. The Court of Appeal , with respect, was also wrong in interpreting the phrase “ ‘ right to practice” in Article 11 ( 1 ) rigidly whereas the Constitution unlike other legislations should be interpreted broadly and with less rigidity and an interpretation leaning towards protecting fundamental rights and liberties of a person should have been adopted by the CA.

48. Justice Edger Joseph Jr ( SCJ ) clearly stated in the case of Dewan Undang Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin bin Salleh & Anor ( 1992 ) 1 MLJ 697 that

“ in construing constitutional documents it is axiomatic that the highest motives and the best of intentions are not enough to displace constitutional obstacles. Whenever legally permissible the presumption must be to incline the scales of justice on the side of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution , enjoying as they do, precedence and primacy” ( see at page 20 of the BOA )

49. In the same case , the then Lord President Justice Abdul Hamid Omar also held that

“ In testing the validity of the state action with regard fundamental rights, what the court must consider is whether it directly affects the fundamental rights or its inevitable effect or consequence on the fundamental rights is such that it makes their exercise ineffective and illusory.” ( see at page 17 ( held 1 ) of the Appellants’ BOA )

He further held that

“ A constitution should be construed with less rigidity and more generosity than other statues and as sui juris, calling for principles of its own , suitable to its character but not forgetting that respect must be paid to the language which has been used.”

50. Y.M Raja Azlan Shah J in the case of Loh Kooi Choon v The Government of Malaysia ( quoted by Justice Gunn Chit Tuan SCJ in Nordin’s case ) held that

“ As fundamental rights are not the same as ordinary rights, they can only be suspended or abridged in the special manner provided for in the Constitution .” ( see at page 36 of the Appellants’ BOA )

51. By rigidly interpreting the right to profess and practice one’s religion in Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC the inevitable consequence of that is that it renders the right to profess and practice one’s religion enshrined in Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC ineffective and illusory.”

52. In The Queen on the Application of SB v Headteacher And Governors of Denbigh High School ( 2005 ) EWCA Civ 199 whereby the case dealt with Article 9 ( 1 ) of European Conventions of Human Rights ( UCHR ) which provides that

“ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion , this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief , and freedom …in public or private to manifest his religion or belief

53. The facts of the case were that the appellant, a female muslim student had applied for judicial review of a decision of the Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School, Luton who had refused to allow her to attend the School if she was not willing to comply with their school uniform requirements. So the case was concerned with the School’s uniform requirements for girl.

54. Lord Justice Scott Baker said in that case

“ As Brooke L.J has pointed out, there are two different views in the Muslim community about the appropriate dress for women one , held by very strict Muslims, being that it is mandatory for women to wear jilbab. The fact that this view is held by a minority, or even a small minority in my judgment nothing to the point in considering the issue whether Article 9 ( 1 ) is engaged. There is in my view force in the criticism that it is not for the school authorities to pick and choose between religious belief or shades of religious belief.

… every shade of religious belief , if genuinely held, is entitled to due consideration under Article 9 . .. ( see at page 54 of the Appellants’ ABOA )

E. IS THE DECISION OF HJH HALIMATUSSAADIAH V PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION , MALAYSIA ( 1994 ) 3 MLJ 61 STILL A GOOD PRECEDENT/LAW IN RESPECT OF ARTICLE 11 ( 1 ) OF THE FC



55. The Court of Appeal had also relied on the case of Halimatusaadiah ( supra ) in holding that the Appellants’ constitutional right was not jeopardized despite being prohibited from exercising their religious practices.




56. With the greatest respect , it is our humble submission that the decision of Halimatusaadiah no longer represents a good law as far as the interpretation of Article 11 ( 1 ) is concerned.

57. It is our respectful submission that the Supreme Court in that case , in affirming or upholding the decision of Justice Eusoff Chin ( as he then was ) of the High Court , was applying a wrong test in interpreting Article 11 ( 1 ) particularly in respect right to practice one ‘s religion as rightly pointed out by Encik Zainur Zakarian in his article “Religious Freedom – Right To Wear The Purdah ( 1993 ) 3 MLJ xxv that

“ Instead of looking to see whether the act of the Plaintiff by wearing the purdah militated against or violated art 11 ( 5 ) of the Constitution , the learned Judge instead looked the other way around to see if the conditions imposed by the circular militated against or violated art 11 ( 5 ).

58. Prof Dr Aziz Bari, another constitutional expert, had also criticized the decision of Halimatusaadiah in his book “ Islam Dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia” at page 124 & 125 of the said book when he said

“ Dalam Hajah Halimatusaadiah , seorang kakitangan awam yang mengenakan tutup muka ( purdah ) telah dibuang kerja kerana dianggap mengengkari pekeliling yang melarangnya berbuat demikian. Kakitangan tersebut menyaman kerajaan di Mahkamah dan menghujah bahawa larangan tersebut menafikan haknya untuk mengamalkan ajaran agamanya . Mahkamah tidak menerima hujah ini kerana Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa purdah tidak diwajibkan oleh ajaran Islam. Ini agak meragukan : apa kaitan antara kebebasan beragama dengan wajib atau tidaknya sesuatu amalan yang bersumberkan kepada agama ? Adalah dicadangkan bahawa keputusan ini menimbulkan persoalan kerana soal wajib atau tidaknya purdah itu adalah soal yang lain. Yang jelas purdah tidak menyalahi ajaran Islam. Sesetengah pendapat malah menyatakan bahawa pemakaian purdah , dalam keadaan tertentu , boleh menjadi wajib. Dengan kata lain , memakai purdah adalah sebahagian daripada ajaran Islam. Denga itu adalah dicadangkan bahawa menafikan seseorang memakai purdah mempunyai kesan menafikan seseorang mengamalkan sesuatu daripada ajaran agamanya dan dengan demikian bertentangan dengan hak yang diberikan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

59. Prof, Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi , a leading constitutional expert in this country indirectly commented the correctness of Halimatussadiah in his article “ Secularism or Theocracy – A Study of the Malaysian Constitution” when he said that

“ Does freedom of religion extend only to those practices and rituals that are essential and mandatory, or does it also cover practices that are non essential and optional ? Halimatussaadiah v PSC ( 1992 ) 1 MLJ 513 implies that a non mandatory ( like wearing purdah ) is not protected by Article 11. The case also distinguished between beliefs and practices. The latter may regulated if they lead to public disorder. Affect public health or public morality. However , Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak v Fatimah binti Sihi ( 2000 ) 5 MLJ 375 correctly holds that the constitutional freedom extends to practices ( like waering a serban ), which , though not mandatory, are part of the religious tradition.

60. Last but not least it is our humble submission that the court’s duty is to interpret the Constitution and this case the provision of Article 11 of the FC and not to interpret the religion. In this regard it is germane to cite here what the European Court’s of Human Rights ( at page 46 of the Appellants ABOA )

“ The court recalls that , for every exceptional cases, the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Convention excludes any discretion on the part of the state to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate.”

61. In one case decided by Zimbabwean Supreme Court i.e the case of Re Chikweche ( 1995 ) 2 LRC 93 it was held that

“ Freedom of conscience and religion had to be broadly construed to extend to conscientiously held beliefs whether grounded in religion or secular morality. The wearing of dreadlocks was a symbolic expression of the beliefs of Rastafarianism , which had the status of a religion in the wider and non technical sense , or in any event was a system of belief founded on personal morality. The court was not concerned with the validity or attraction of Rastafarian beliefs , but only with the sincerity with which they were held …

The applicant’s manifestations of his religion by the wearing of dreadlocks fell within the protection of freedom of conscience afforded by s 19 ( 1 ) of the Constitution….

He was forced to choose between adherence to the precepts of his religion , which meant foregoing the right to practice the profession he had chosen , or sacrificing an important edict of his religion in order to be able to practice and it followed that the Judge’s ruling violated his constitutional right to freedom of religion under s 19 ( 1 ) … ( see at page 78-79 of the Appellants’ ABOA )


62. Prof Dr Aziz Bari in his article entitled “ Islam in the Federal Constitution : A Commentary on the decision of Meor Atiqulrahman (2000 ) 2 MLJ cxxix had this to say

“ The right to freedom of religion was particularly evident when one looked at the facts in Meor Atiqulrahman namely the humiliation , embarrassment and pressure suffered by the plaintiffs at the hands of the first defendant which they were simply at her mercy..”

The learned Judge was right in stating that while putting on a turban is not incumbent on every muslim male, it was nonetheless the tradition of the Holy Prophet which meant that it was very much part and parcel of the religious teachings . To deny it tantamount to denying right to profess one’s belief .” ( see at page 114 of the Appellants ABOA )



63. Based on the aforesaid submissions we humbly ask this appeal to be allowed with cost.

Article I21 (1A): Non Muslim’s fear is unfounded

Article I21 (1A): Non Muslim’s fear is unfounded

By : Mohamed Hanipa Maidin

Prior to the amendment of Article 121 (1A ) in 1988 the finality of shariah court’s decisions remained uncertain. There were plethora of decided cases showing how the civil courts had successfully set aside various judgments of the shariah courts despite the fact the cases dealt with Islamic law and the parties or litigants were muslim.

In so doing the civil courts’ judges, in spite of not being well versed in Islamic law, had usurped the power of shariah court as if the muslim’s rights of practicing his own religion had no constitutional value.

Needless to say Article 11 ( 1 ) of the Federal Constitution ( FC ) guarantees anyone including muslims their fundamental rights to practice their own religion and by virtue of Article 3 ( 1 ) of the FC which places Islam as the religion of Federation such basic rights ought to be protected at all cost. Practising religion includes determination of muslims’ religious rights and duties , in the event dispute arises, by a competent forum i.e shariah court in accordance with Islamic law.

By the insertion of Article 121 (1A ) in the Federal Constitution the jurisdiction of civil courts and syariah courts has been clearly demarcated thus avoiding the clash of jurisdictions.

In Soon Singh al Bikar Singh v PERKIM Kedah & Anor (1999) 1 MLJ 489 the Apex court of this country followed the decision of Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah, Balai Polis Daerah, Bukit Mertajam & Anor (1992) 1 MLJ 1 ( another Federal Court’ s decision) and held inter alia that the appellant’s application for a declaration that he was no longer a Muslim came within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court and not that of the High Court.

It is interesting to note that notwithstanding the absence of any express provision dealing with conversion out of Islam ( apostacy ) in the State Enactment the Federal Court in Soon Singh ( supra ) still held that Syariah court has the jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning conversion out Islam.

The Federal Court in Soon Singh also followed the decision of the then Supreme Court in Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah bte Dato Talib ( 1992 ) 2 MLJ 793 which held that the intention of Parliament by art 121 (1A) of the Constitution was to take away the jurisdiction of the High Courts in respect of any matter within the jurisdictions of the Syariah Court.

All those above cited cases might have been decided differently if Article 121 ( 1 A ) was not in existence. It goes without saying that Article 121 (1A ) really gives life to shariah courts.

It is a common knowledge that the Muslims in Malaysia are still legally and practically barred from practising the whole teachings of their own religion as enjoined by Al-Quran and Al-Sunnah. The jurisdiction of Shariah court is still narrow and limited to matters enlisted in the Ninth Schedule of the FC which basically deal with family law ( al-akhwal shaksiyyah ). Why is that so is a matter of history and the muslims have to ask UMNO leaders the reasons why are they hitherto denied their religious rights to practice Islam as al-deen ( a way of life ).

Despite such limited jurisdiction we still hear irresponsible voices asking such limited jurisdiction to be further eroded or abolished at all by amending Art 121 (1A). It is further aggravated by the thoughtless demands of 9 non Muslim Ministers contained in their memorandum to the Prime Minister.

Their concerns as reported in the newspaper were that if Article 121 ( 1A ) is not amended the rights of non muslim would be jeopardized and how such baseless conclusion is arrived at is not very clear. For a start Article 121 (1A ) deals with Islam and muslims only thus any anxiety of the non muslims that such privision would prejudice their rights is a non starter or non issue at all. The non muslims’ fears are therefore not only unreal but also unfounded. In fact , on the contrary the muslims are those would be severely prejudiced if Article 121 ( 1A ) is amended as it pertains to their rights of practicing their own religion enshrined in Article 11 ( 1 ) of the Federal Constitution.

If at all the Mohamad Abdullah Moorthy’s case was perceived as a threat to the non Muslim’s rights as the Shariah court could make an ex parte decision even though the matter indirectly involved his wife’s rights as a non muslim such perception should not be taken as a valid ground for the amendment of Article 121 ( 1A ).

After all not all cases, either in civil or shariah courts , were free from flaws and inaccuracies . The weakness of shariah court ‘s decision in Moorthy’s case , if any, could still be remedied in future without any legislative interference or constitutional amendment of Article 121 ( 1A ).
In fact if the shariah court’s judges , with the help of sharie lawyers, are aware of their inherent powers and duties to establish justice to all based on the principles of shariah, they may in future, even in this type of case, decide it differently or in a more fair and just manner so that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

There is nothing which prohibits shariah judges from resorting to the original sources of Islamic laws and applying them if there is a lacunae ( loophole ) in the present Enactments of the Administrations of Islamic Law particularly as regard to the absence of express provision of non muslims being given their rights to be heard in shariah court. But a caveat needs to be entered here i.e regardless of the litigants’ background appearing in shariah court the law that shall be applied here must be Islamic law alone.

The fact that the memorandum was withdrawn on the advice of the PM yet the matters can still be discussed in the Cabinet indicates that they are far from being closed. It was the memorandum which was withdrawn not the contents. The latter are still much alive. Even though the cabinet has the rights to discuss this issue it has also a corresponding duty not to discuss something which is so clear and considered trite and closed i.e Article 121 (1A) has nothing to do with the non muslims. Period.

In fact what the cabinet must discuss is that why the non muslims Ministers who took part in handing over the memorandum to the PM should not be penalised for raising something in an unconventional way . Like it or not it is their shallow understanding of the history and the Federal Cosntitution coupled with their irresponsible act that turned the issues from bad to worse. How serious Abdullah tackles and resolves this issue is to be judged inter alia by his fearless and stern action against these 9 ‘ trouble makers”.

WEARING TUDUNG IS GUARANTEED BY CONSTITUTION
By : MOHAMED HANIPA BIN MAIDIN

Utusan Malaysia today reports that “ Seorang pengarah akaun sebuah hotel bertaraf lima bintang di ibu negara kecewa apabila terpaksa melepaskan jawatan yang dipegangnya sejak lebih 10 tahun lalu semata-mata kerana memakai tudung. Habsah Jaafar, 46, mendakwa beliau terpaksa berbuat demikian setelah diberi kata dua oleh pengurusan hotel terbabit sama ada mematuhi peraturan yang melarang pemakaian tudung ketika bekerja atau melepaskan jawatannya”.

Puan Habsah further said in her press statement that :-

``Mereka (pengurusan hotel) bimbang jika saya datang kerja dengan bertudung, ia akan mempengaruhi pekerja-pekerja lain untuk berbuat demikian,'' katanya pada sidang akhbar di Ibu pejabat Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO di sini, hari ini.

According to her the issue emerged for the first time when she had asked for a leave to go for a hajj on last December. As a result of that decision she was then called by her employer and given an ultimatum either to uncover her aurat or leave her job for good.

This is what she said as quoted by Utusan :-

“ Sebagai orang Islam, bila mereka suruh saya buka tudung, saya rasa seolah-olah mereka suruh saya berbogel,'' katanya yang sudah lebih 20 tahun berkecimpung dalam bidang perhotelan.”

Presumably the actual facts are as stated in the said report this is my legal advice to her and anyone facing such predicament.

What had been done to this lady was against Article 11 ( 1 ) of the Federal Constitution ( FC ) which provides a person a right to profess and practice his/her religion. In her case her religion is definitely Islam. Wearing tudung ( part of covering "aurat ) is part and parcel of professing and practising her religion and in Islam observing such aurat is mandatory. Be that as it may such fundamental right cannot be restricted let alone denied even during an emergency [ see the case of Jamaluddin bin Othman v Menteri Dalam Negeri ] .

What her employer did to this pity yet bravest woman was unconstitutional as it had made her fundamental rights of practising her religion enshrined under Article 11 ( 1 ) ineffective and illusory. If she has the right to practice her religion the employer on the other hand owes her a duty to honour and observe such right and the latter by refusing to honour such right had clearly breached that sacred duty . The employer is therefore liable in tort.

The court of appeal in the case of Fatimah Sihi & 2 Ors v Meor Atiqulrahman ( the case is now pending in Federal court ) held that practising one's religion means practising an integral or essential part of such religion. As wearing tudung is mandatory and becomes an integral or essential part of her religion she could not be given an ultimatum by her arrogant employer i.e either wearing tudung or leaving the job. Consequently her dismissal was invalid and unconstitutional. She is therefore entitled to be reinstated to her job and in turn be compensated with damages vis-a vis her right of wearing tudung remains intact.

Apart from Article 11 ( 1 ) of the FC , her employer’s conduct also attracts Article 5 ( 1 ) of the FC which provides that “ no one shall be deprived his/her life and liberty save in accordace with law”. By asking her to leave her employment the employer in actual fact had deprived her liberty and life not in accordance with law. It is interesting to note the court in one case decided that the word “life” in Article 5 ( 1 ) includes one’s right of employment. Clearly her right to life was deprived not in accordance with law and the law in this case refers to Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC.

Alas, in my view, she needs a lawyer rather than UMNO ! Doesn't she ?

Student takes UIA to court over campus polls
9/23/2005

Beh Lih YiMalaysiakini.com

In an unprecedented move, a Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) student today filed a legal suit against his university and wants the court to cancel the upcoming campus elections. Mozahiri Shamsuddin, a final-year human science student, filed the suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court via Mohamed Hanipa & Associates.

He is also seeking for a judicial review on a Sept 8 notice issued by the UIA Students Representative Council’s Election Commission pertaining to election rules. The campus polls is slated for next Thursday.

Apart from declaring the notice unlawful, Mozahiri also wants the court to fix a new date for the polls as well as to declare the Election Commission an unlawful body and thus powerless to manage the elections. In his nine-page affidavit, the student said the formation of the Election Commission was not provided in any law. The campus' Election Commission is headed by the deputy vice-chancellor who oversees the student affairs department besides comprising other university officials.

Mozahiri also questioned several election rules that were introduced for the coming polls which he said were illegitimate as they denied an individual's rights as guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. He said the amendment of the academic requirement for a cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 2.8 - set for this year's candidates - was not officially proposed to the board of student affairs or tabled at the students representative council annual general meeting. The CGPA was set at 2.5 last year. Candidates vying for a seat on the student representative council must meet this requirement to be eligible to contest in the polls. Other conditions stated in the university’s notice were: A candidate must possess good proficiency of the English language and that he or she must ‘understand the university’s expectations as well as appreciate the government’s aspirations, not only by understanding but through actions’.

Mozahiri also questioned the new rules which required aspiring candidates to pass an English public speaking test and interview session under the supervision of university officials. According to him, these rules were not issued by a legitimate body but the unlawful Election Commission. He said the rules contradicted the students representative council’s constitution and went against the equality principle as provided under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution. “These rules are unreasonable, illogical, unfair and oppressive from every perspective. They are unconstitutional because the right to association under the Federal Constitution has became meaningless, ineffective and illusory,” read the affidavit.

Although Mohaziri was not present in court today, some 60 UIA students turned up to show their support.

Met later, his lawyer Mohamed Hanipa bin Maidin (far left) said his client had the blessings of his parents and students to file the suit.He also hoped that the university would not take any disciplinary action against Mohaziri. “The issue involves public interest, we hope the university will come to court and rebut the statements made in the affidavit.“This is the first time a student is taking campus elections to court,” he said, adding that an injunction will be filed on Monday to stop the polls. Also present were lawyers Mohd Fadzli Mohd Ramli and Abdullah Abdul Karim.

In a related development, PAS Youth submitted a memorandum to the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) today on the alleged abuse of power and violation of democracy by campus authorities in the run-up to the campus elections. The memorandum also contained documents and media reports on the interference of the government, namely Umno, in the campus polls.The five-page memorandum was handed over by PAS Youth secretary Ahmad Sabki Yusuf to Suhakam commissioner N Siva Subramaniam, who promised to look into the cases.
back to top of page

ISA SAMAD WAJAR LETAK JAWATAN AHLI PARLIMEN DAN DIDAKWA DI MAHKAMAH

Majlis Tertinggi UMNO telah pun memutuskan untuk mengekalkan hukuman penggantungan keahlian terhadap Mohd. Isa Samad, matan Naib Presiden UMNO walaupun telah mengurangkan hukuman enam tahun kepada tiga tahun. Hukuman tersebut diputuskan selepas Mohd. Isa didapati terlibat dalam politik wang, berkuat kuasa 24 Jun lalu. Dengan keputusan itu, Mohd Isa perlu melepaskan jawatan menteri Kabinet.

Sebagai satu peringatan pada 25 hb Jun 2005 yang lalu Pak Lah telah menyatakan Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR) boleh menyiasat kes rasuah politik membabitkan Mohd.Isa. ( lihat Utusan Malysia 26/6/2005 ).

Memandangkan proses rayuan Isa telah tamat maka adalah wajar pihak BPR memulakan penyisatannya secara terperinci bagi memastikan beliau dibawa ke muka pengadilan. Berdasarkan keputusan Majlis Tertinggi UMNO yang mengekalkan hukuman penggantungan keahlian terhadap Mohd. Isa, walaupun telah mengurangkan hukuman enam tahun kepada tiga tahun UMNO dilihat cuba menonjolkkan kepada rakyat bahawa seolah-olah kes ini telah selesai dan Isa seharusnya tidak diganggu lagi.

Terdapat beberapa perkara yang perlu dijelaskan di dalam isu Isa ini :-

Pertama, meskipun pada zahirnya kes Isa ini melibatkan isu disiplin dalaman UMNO namun ia melibatkan seorang pemimpin kerajaan yang dipilih oleh rakyat melalui proses pilihanraya. Isa bukan sahaja sekadar pemimpin tertinggi UMNO beliau juga adalah seorang pemimpin yang mewakili rakyat atas kapasitinya sebagai Ahli Parlimen dan Menteri Wilayah Persekutuan. Yang demikian apabila beliau telah pun diputuskan terlibat dengan rasuah ( politik wang ) maka hak UMNO untuk mengatakan isu ini sebagai isu dalaman UMNO telah hilang. Ia kini menjadi isu rakyat dan demi kepentingan rakyat pemimpin rasuah seperti Isa wajar dibawa ke muka pengadilan. Diberitakan bahawa di dalam pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas beliau oleh Lembaga Disiplin ianya melibatkan tuduhan Isa menyalahgunakan pejabat Kementeriannya bagi melakukan rasuah politik wang tersebut. Memandangkan Isa telah didapati bersalah oleh UMNO maka dakwaan tersebut boleh dianggap satu dakwaan yang betul dan ianya adalah satu penyalahgunaan kuasa yang jelas dan nyata. Tanggungjawab untuk mengambil tindakan selanjutnya ke atas Isa kini beralih daripada UMNO kepada BPR, Peguam Negara dan Mahkamah.

Kedua, memandangkan Lembaga Disiplin UMNO mempunyai bukti-bukti yang kukuh bagi mendakwa Isa dengan tuduhan rasuah politik wang , tidak ada sebab untuk BPR menghadapi masalah untuk melakukan penyiasatan ke atas Isa. BPR mempunyai kuasa yang luas di bawah Pencegahan Rasuah 1997 (Akta No. 575 ) untuk memanggil kesemua ahli lembaga disiplin UMNO bagi mendapatkan maklumat berhubung kes Isa tersebut dan tidak timbul ahli-ahli lembaga disiplin untuk tidak memberi kerjasama kepada BPR bagi tujuan tersebut. Pak Lah sendiri ketika ditanya oleh wartawan sebelum ini mengapakah kes Isa mengambil masa begitu lama untuk disiasat, berkata, Lembaga Disiplin terpaksa mengambil kira dan menghalusi semua maklumat. Beliau berkata ``Kes (Mohd.) Isa bukan diputuskan dalam masa sehari tetapi telah disiasat dan dihalusi sejak Oktober tahun lepas,'' ( lihat Utusan Malaysia 30/6/2005 ).

Kenyataan Pak Lah itu membuktikan siasatan telah dilakukan terperinci dan sudah tentu dengan bukti yang kukuh dan kuat.

Seksyen 22 (1) Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1997 memperuntukkan bahawa " Seseorang pegawai Badan yang menyiasat sesuatu kesalahan di bawah Akta ini boleh-

(a) memerintahkan mana-mana orang supaya hadir di hadapannya bagi maksud diperiksa secara lisan berhubungan dengan apa-apa perkara yang mungkin dapat, pada pendapatnya, membantu dalam penyiasatan kesalahan itu;

(b) memerintahkan mana-mana orang supaya mengemukakan di hadapannya apa-apa buku, dokumen atau apa-apa salinan diperakuinya, atau apa-apa benda lain yang mungkin dapat, pada pendapatnya, membantu dalam penyiasatan kesalahan itu; atau

(c) dengan notis bertulis menghendaki mana-mana orang memberikan pernyataan bertulis yang dibuat dengan bersumpah atau berikrar yang menyatakan dalamnya segala maklumat yang dikehendaki di bawah notis itu, iaitu maklumat yang, pada pendapat pegawai itu, akan dapat membantu dalam penyiasatan kesalahan itu."
Ahli-ahli lembaga badan disiplin adalah mereka yang berpotensi untuk dipanggil sebagai saksi-saksi sekiranya pendakwaan dilakukan ke atas Isa. Oleh itu BPR wajar memanggil mereka memberikan keterangan bagi membantu penyiasatan.

Ketiga, apabila rakyat memohon agar Isa dibawa ke muka pengadilan ianya tidak seharus dilihat sebagai satu penganiyaan kepada Isa. Sebaliknya pendakwaan secara terbuka yang dilakukan di Mahkamah Awam secara terbuka lebih adil hatta kepada Isa sendiri. Melalui pendakwaan di Mahkamah Isa akan dianggap tidak bersalah dan beban kepada Pendakwa untuk membuktikan beliau bersalah. Beliau juga berhak mendapatkan peguambela yang terbaik ( dengan kekayaan beliau penulis tidak nampak beliau mengalami kesukaran ) bagi membela beliau. Harus diingat pendakwaan di Mahkamah adalah berbeza dengan perbicaraan di dalam lembaga disiplin. Di Mahkamah , tidak seperti di dalam lembaga disiplin , penerimaan bukti dan keterangan tertakluk kepada tatacara dan kaedah-kaedah yang lebih teliti seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah Akta Keterangan . Oleh itu jika bercakap soal keadilan Isa lebih wajar dibicarakan di Mahkamah .

Keempat, UMNO dan Pak Lah tidak seharusnya merasakan bahawa hanya kerana Isa telah digantung keahliannya di dalam UMNO dan mungkin akan kehilangan jawatan Menteri sudah cukup sebagai hukuman ke atas Isa. Rakyat berhak lebih daripada itu dan pendakwaan ke atas Isa adalah perlu untuk rakyat menerima bahawa Pak Lah serius memerangi rasuah dan tidak sekadar beretorik dari semasa ke semasa.

Kelima, kenyataan Isa bahawa beliau tidak akan meletakkan jawatan sebagai ahli Parlimen kerana tidak mahu kerajaan membazirkan duit membuat pilihanraya kecil adalah satu hujah yang dangkal dan amat meleset. Amat malang beliau masih tidak malu bercakap tentang pembaziran duit tanpa menyedari politik wang bukan sahaja membazirkan duit malahan haram dan berdosa. Sebagai ahli politik maruah dan kehormatan ( dignity ) pemimpin adalah segala-galanya. Perletakkan jawatan beliau hendaklah dilihat di dalam konteks tersebut- perlunya pemimpin yang mewakli rakyat bukan sahaja perlu bersih, bermaruah dan ada kehormatan tetapi hendaklah dilihat bersih, bermaruah dan ada kehormatan . Come on Isa that was very basic in politics !!!

DEMOCRACY IS "MURDERED" IN THE NAME OF ISLAM HADHARI


If there was any residual hope after Pak Lah took over premiership from Mahathir it was on the issue of democracy. If all the avenues for democracy were tightly closed by Mahathir the people could still accept it because that was Mahathir's cup of tea -manslaughtering democracy.

Speaking about democracy at least it deals with these rights and liberties viz; freedom of speech ( inclusive of free press ) ; freedom of assembly and association ; a free and fair election ; rule of law ; freedom from unjust and draconian laws and an independence of judiciary.

Any civilisied nation should not deny their rakyat from enjoying these basic and fundamental rights. These are the basic rights and not the privileges. In Mahathir's era the people may have known such rights did exist in theory nonetheless they were practically prohibited from exercising them. If the people tried to exercise such rights they had to pay a very heavy price- deprivation of their dignity and honour. What was more painful the court being the guardian of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution was very reluctant to ensure that the people could enjoy such rights without any unreasonable restrictions and intimidations by the State. In other words the freedom guaranteed by the highest law of the land i.e the Constitution were merely a mirage.

The issue now is whether Pak Lah is able to bring out the people from the darkness of democracy. The answer was a big NO. And I would like to add further that in his premiership Pak Lah has been deliberately and happily destroying democratic pillars and institutions in this country.

Pak Lah and for that matter UMNO has to face a sad reality that in Pak Lah's premiership we have seen the first and ugliest general election ever held in this country . Unfortunately we are now witnessing the cancer of our last general election spreading out to the students's election in our local university. What had happened in the recently concluded students's elections in various local universities only reinforces one thing - our public universities has become pariah not even the third world standard let alone the first class univesities.

The students were systematically forced to ensure that only pro -aspiration and Umno sponsored candidates must win the election. This was done by manipulating to the hilt all the puppet leaders of the universities and various bodies inside and outside universities and also by flouting the laws. Ironically Pak Lah's party was very proud with this undemocratic victory.

For the first time in history a student from the International Islamic University ( IIU ) has brought the latter to court challenging the legality of the election. Off course the student has some merits to challenge the conditions imposed by IIU against any students who wanted to be nominated as a candidate. Apart from the requirement of 2.8 in CGPA , the students were also required inter alia to pass english and public speaking test , to attend an interview with the the Election's Commission and to attend a session with the Rector, the Deputy Rector and the IIU"s President - none other than an ex-UMNO leader Sanusi Joned.

Who can deny the fact that in Pak Lah's time we have seen academicians being stripped off their credibility and intellectual freedom . With the introduction of aku janji the academicians of our local university have their mouths sealed, ears plugged and eyes blindfolded. Yet they are asked to be the first class lecturers. What a paradox !!!. What had happenned to Prof Azly Rahman and his wife ( Both were dismissed by UUM for refusing to sign an akujanji) , Prof Edmonce Gomez, Prof Jomo and Prof Ramasmy is more than enough for the rakyat not to place any hope on Pak Lah to reform the already deformed democracy.

Even though there is a minor development in freedom of press yet the publication of newspaper is still subject to the draconian law -the Printing and Publication Act. This Act still receives Pak Lah's blessings. Hitherto Harakah has not been able to be published twice per week. The conditions imposed by the Home Ministry led by Pak Lah himself on Harakah still remain the same - it cannot be published more than two times per month, it cannot be sold to the public ( only to Pas's members ) and it can only publish news on Pas's activities.Period.

The people's right to a peacefull assembly remains uncertain. What is certain that the police will brutally diperse the oppositions' ceramah if UMNO lodges a complaint. Despite the establishment of the Police Commission , the police without any reservations violently dispersed assembly organised by PAS in Trengganu. It is very hard not to dismiss the rumuors that Idris Jusoh was not behind the police's brutal acts against PAS's supporters.Hitherto the police's wrongful interpretations of Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 has been used justifying the use of violence to deny the rakyat from exersing their fundamental rights of organising and participating in a peacefull assembly. You tell me what kind of democacy if an assembly organised by PAS's youth in a private premise in Besut, Trengganu had invited dozens of police's water cannons and trucks, plenty of land rovers and hundreds of FRU personnel equipped with arms !!!

The Draconians laws such as ISA, OSA, Police Act, Sedition Act , University and College Act , Printing and Publication Act which have succesfully instilled fears to Malaysians remain intact. To date no moves have been made by Pak Lah to amend those laws let alone repeal them altoghether. ISA- the mother of all evils- has been used to extend Nik Adli and friends another two years in Kemunting with the blessing from Pak Lah. All the petitions and appeals from the families of detainess and various NGOs, local and international, received neither reply nor sympathy from Pak Lah.

Anyway congratulations Pak Lah ! You have "murdered" democracy in the name of Islam Hadhari.

Pak Lah hancurkan demokrasi atas nama Islam Hadhari

Jika ada pun harapan yang boleh disandarkan oleh pembangkang kepada Pak Lah sebaik sahaja beliau mengambil alih tugas Perdana Menteri daripada Tun Mahathir adalah adalah berhubung isu demokrasi. Jika segala pintu demokrasi ditutup dengan begitu rapat di zaman Mahathir rakyat masih boleh menerimanya kerana memang Dr Mahthir terbilang di dalam hal tersebut.

Bercakap soal demokrasi sekurangnya-kurangnya ianya menyentuh hak-hak berikut

· Kebebasan bersuara ( termasuk kebebasan akhbar ),
· Kebebasan berhimpun dan berpersatuan,
· Pilihanraya yang adil, bebas dan bersih ,
· Kedaulatan undang-undang ( rule of law ),
· Rakyat bebas daripada undang-undang yang tidak adil dan draconian ; dan
· Kebebasan badan kehakiman.

Negara yang bertamadun tidak sewajarnya menafikan rakyatnya menikmati hak-hak tersebut. Hak-hak tersebut adalah suatu hak yang paling asas dan bukanya satu “privilege”. Di zaman Mahathir rakyat mungkin hanya mengetahui bahawa hak-hak tersebut wujud ( mungkin juga ramai yang tidak tahu ianya wujud ) di dalam Perlembagaan tetapi mereka tidak dibenarkan untuk menikmati hak-hak tersebut. Jika ada pun ada rakyat yang prihatin cuba melaksanakan atau menuntut hak-hak tersebut mereka terpaksa membayar harga yang sangat mahal- dilucutkan kehormatan dan kemanusiaan mereka. Malahan Mahkamah sendiri masih keberatan untuk memastikan hak-hak asasi tersebut benar-benar dapat dikecapi oleh rakyat.

Persoalannya adakah Pak Lah berjaya membawa rakyat keluar daripada “zaman kegelapan demokrasi” di era Mahathir tersebut ? Jawapannya hanya satu : TIDAK. Dan saya ingin menambah bahawa demokrasi di zaman Pak Lah telah dengan secara terancang diangin ahmarkan oleh beliau sehingga ianya menjadi kaku dan beku.

Pak Lah dan UMNO perlu menerima hakikat bahawa pilihanraya di zaman Pak Lah telah diarkibkan sebagai pilihanraya yang paling kotor dan jijik yang pernah berlaku di Malaysia. Malahan yang lebih malang lagi penyakit pilihanraya yang kotor dan tidak adil yang dilakukan oleh BN telah mula menjadi wabak dan menular secara berleluasa di kampus-kampus universiti tempatan. Apa yang berlaku di dalam kampus pada masa ini adalah PAKSARAYA bukannya PILIHANRAYA.

Warga kampus dipaksa untuk memenangkan calon-calon aspirasi yang ditaja oleh UMNO dan ini dilakukan dengan memanipulasi secara maksimum pemimpin-pemimpin boneka universiti atau badan-badan tertentu di dalam dan luar universiti dan juga melalui perlanggaran peruntukkan undang-undang secara terbuka . Ironisnya parti Pak Lah bangga mencapai kemenangan secara tidak bermaruah begitu.

Siapa yang boleh menolak hakikat bahawa di zaman Pak Lah inilah kita melihat tokoh-tokoh akademik betul-betul dicucuk hidung mereka dan ditelanjangkan kebebasan mereka. Apa yang terjadi kepada Prof Azly Rahman seorang cendikiawan melayu yang tersohor ( diambil tindakan tatatertib oleh UUM kerana enggan menandatangani akujanji ), Prof Edmonce Gomez, Prof. Jomo dan Prof. Ramasamy sudah cukup menutup segala pintu harapan untuk rakyat mengharap Pak Lah melakukan reformasi terhadap demokrasi di negara ini.

Kebebasan besuara khususnya kebebasan akhbar meskipun terdapat sedikit perubahan namun ianya masih dikawal oleh Akta Penerbitan dan Percetakan yang masih direstui oleh Pak Lah untuk terus dikuatkuasakan. Kebebasan untuk menerbitkan harakah dua kali seminggu masih belum direstui oleh Pak Lah. Sehingga sekarang permit Harakah yang wajib diperbaharui setiap tahun masih tertakluk kepada syarat-syarat berikut - tidak boleh diterbitkan melebihi dua kali sebulan ; tidak boleh dijual kepada orang ramai ( hanya kepada ahli PAS ) dan hanya boleh memuatkan berita tentang PAS sahaja !!!.

Hak rakyat untuk berhimpun masih tidak menentu. Meskipun Pak Lah menubuhkan Suruhanjaya Pembaikan Polis , rekod polis di dalam kes hak-hak asasi masih belum dapat dan sangat sukar untuk dibaiki. Polis masih bermaharajalela menyuraikan perhimpunan rakyat di Trengganu dengan menggunakan kekerasan. Hatta sehingga kini tafsiran pihak polis terhadap seksyen 27 Akta Polis 1967 yang tidak betul digunakan untuk mewujudkan suasana takut untuk rakyat berhimpun mendengar ceramah pembangkang. Demokrasi jenis apa apabila perhimpunan rakyat di dalam premis persendirian ( PASTI ) di Besut anjuran pemuda PAS Besut dengan kehadiran puluhan rakyat menyaksikan berbelas trak polis dan water cannon, berpuluh-puluh land rover polis dan beratus-ratus anggota FRU bertopi merah dan bersenjata !!!

Akta-akta draconian seperti ISA, Akta Rahsia Rasmi ( OSA ), Akta Polis, Akta Hasutan, Akta Penerbitan dan Percetakan, Akta Universiti dan Kolej yang telah berjaya mewujudkan suasana takut di kalangan rakyat bukan sahaja dikekalkan malahan tidak kedengaran langsung suara Pak Lah untuk meminda jauh sekali untuk menyahkan akta-akta tersebut. ISA yang zalim masih terus dikekalkan. Pak Lah masih terus merestui Akta tersebut.

Nik Adli dan rakan-rakan kini dilanjutkan untuk tempoh dua tahun lagi di bawah Akta zalim tersebut. Segala rayuan, rintihan dan protes daripada pelbagai pihak termasuk keluarga tahanan ISA ( yang kebanyakan daif dalam segala hal ) kepada Pak Lah langsung tidak mendapat apa-apa jawapan jauh sekali harapan daripada Perdana Menteri yang diprojekkkan imej baik dan bersih.

Tahniah Pak Lah kamu berjaya ‘membunuh’ demokrasi atas nama Islam Hadhari.

WE ARE MUSLIM- WHY SO MANY UNISLAMIC AGENDA

BY MOHAMED HANIPA BIN MAIDN

"No hugging please, we are Muslims" . This was Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s message in hitting out at such actions being promoted by certain TV reality shows and programmes. Najib should be commended for this frank advice to all the participants of realities shows . Coming from leader of secular party such as UMNO this advice may be highly regarded . Thank you Ustaz Najib.

Indeed " we are muslim" attitude sholud be extended to other arena as well. Just imagine if our muslim politicians in this country embrace this policy in their political struggle. Do you think the muslim politicians would ever indulge in gambling activities if they were true muslims. Do our present muslim leaders need to resort to electoral frauds and money politics in securing victory in the last General Election if they are true muslims. Do our muslim leaders still claim that they are muslims if they maliciously yet happily defamed Anwar . Does our Prime Minister who justifies the use of ISA- a law which allows a detention without trial- against his own rakyat realize that a muslim should not condone this unjust and inhumane law. Oh ye who claims that you are muslim leaders free the ISA detaines or prosecute them in court.

Realising that we are muslim may solve a lot of problems. It will safeguard us from various types of lusts encircling our life. Being a muslim means we are ready to submit ourselves wholeheartedly to Allah's will. No excuses. No Ifs . We will do anything if such action is blessed by Him. We will not do anything if it invites His wrath. What is enjoined by Him is always good and beneficial likewise what is forbidden by Him is always bad either to individual or society at large.

If Najib"s remarks i.e " No hugging please, we are Muslims" is indeeed sincere he must go steps further or else his remarks are seen another political rhetoric lacking in subtance. He must proclaim his stand loud and clear on many unIslamic activities or agenda endorsed by the present government. The muslims in this country are entitled for instance to ask him are we muslims when we allows gambling by issuing licence. Are we muslims when we let Zaid Ibrahim to challenge the hudud enactment in Kelantan. Are we muslims when we let corrupt leaders holding an office as cabinet members. Are we muslims when we allow all form of hedonistic entertaintments to be swallowed by our youths in the name of modernity . Are we muslims when we let the Trengganu Government demolished the mosque and people"s houses. Let me remind you Mr Deputy Minister a true muslim must answer the above questions truthfully .

ISU AP- DEDAH DAH DAKWA BILA ?

Kini rakyat sudah mengetahui siapakah raja AP di Malaysia. Menurut senarai yang dikeluarkan oleh Pejabat Perdana Menteri pada petang 18hb Julai 2005 yang lalu terdapat empat orang iaitu Tan SriNasimuddin SM Amin, Datuk Syed Azman Syed Ibrahim,Datuk Mohd. Haniff Abdul Aziz dan Datuk AzzuddinAhmad, yang telah diberikan lebih 25,000 permit import(AP) untuk mengimport kereta mewah pada tahun ini.

Daripada jumlah itu, Syed Azman, Mohd. Haniff danAzzuddin menerima sejumlah 16,214 AP menerusi beberapa syarikat manakala Nasimuddin, pengarah urusan NazaMotor Group, memegang 9,412 AP kebanyakannya menerusi Naza Kia Sdn. Bhd.

Senarai meliputi 67,158 AP itu bagi tahun ini dikeluarkan oleh Pejabat Perdana Menteri ekoran timbulnya kontroversi mengenai pemberian AP. Adalah suatu yang agak aneh senarai penerima AP tersebut tidak dikeluarkan oleh MITI meskipun isu AP di bawah MITI.


Terdapat dua jenis AP iaitu AP terbuka dan AP francais. Bagi AP terbuka, pemegangnya dibenarkan mengimport kereta baru dan kereta terpakai dari mana-mana sumber tetapi pemberian AP ini dihentikan pada 1988 manakala AP francais pula diberikan kepada syarikat-syarikat yang mempunyai perjanjian agensi eksklusif dengan pengeluar kereta asing.

Antara penerima lain dalam bilangan besar ialah HyumalMotor Sdn Bhd yang dimiliki oleh Berjaya Group Bhd, Sime Darby Bhd dan Tan Sri Vincent Tan yang diperuntukan 8,573 AP bagi kereta Hyundai.

Isu AP itu menjadi hangat apabila bekas PerdanaMenteri Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad berkata, pemberiannyayang terlalu banyak telah menyebabkan berlakupersaingan tidak adil kepada kereta nasional, Proton.

Dr Mahathir merupakan penasihat kepada Proton. Katanya ramai pengimport membuat pengisytiharan harga yang rendah dan menjual kereta-kereta ini lebih murah daripada harganya yang sebenar.

Mahathir juga mempersoalkan bagaimana 20 syarikat diberikan sebahagian besar daripada 50,000 AP sedangkan matlamat kerajaan adalah untuk membantu sebanyak mungkin peniaga Bumiputera dengan mengagih-agihkan permit berkenaan.

Syarikat-syarikat milik Nasimuddin ialah Naza Kia Sdn,Next Car Sdn Bhd, NZ Wheel (M) Sdn Bhd, Nasim Sdn Bhddan Naza Brabus, yang mengimport kereta-kereta sepertiKia, Mercedes Benz, Peugeot, Ferrari, Modena,Maserati, Rolls Royce, Bentley dan Brabus.

Syed Azman dan Mohd Haniff mengimport kereta mereka menerusi syarikat-syarikat seperti Westcar MotorsportSdn Bhd, Atlantic Star Auto Sdn Bhd, Auto Pacific StarSdn Bhd, Go Smartstar Sdn Bhd, Global World Trade SdnBhd dan Territorial Star Sdn Bhd. Seorang lagi pemilik saham di Weststar ialah Azzuddin. Syarikat mereka mengimport kereta-kereta seperti Honda, Ford,Chevrolet, Smart, Suzuki Audi.

Sebagai rakyat kita berterima kasih kepada Kerajaan kerana bersedia mendedahkan senarai penerima AP kepada umum. Bagaimanapun jika Kerajaan merasakan tugas mereka telah selesai dengan pendedahan senarai penerima AP ia adalah satu kesilapan yang besar.

Sebagai pembayar cukai, rakyat berhak untuk mengetahui sama ada pemberian AP tersebut benar-benar dibuat mengikut prosedur undang-undang. Isu AP ini membenarkan apa yang dikatakan oleh Lord Acton bahawa "power tends to ccorrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Charles Raj di dalam artikelnya di Malaysian Business pula menyatakan bahawa isu AP ini lebih banyak menimbulkan persoalan daripada jawapan. Seratus peratus tepat .

Beberapa persoalan undang-undang boleh dibangkitkan di dalam isu pemberian AP ini yang antara lain adalah seperti di bawah ini :-

a. Mengapakah tidak terdapat pembahagian AP yang adil dan saksama kepada rakyat di negara ini ?

b. Mengapakah terdapat inidividu-individu tertentu seperti Tan Sri Nasimuddin SM Amin, Datuk Syed Azman Syed Ibrahim, Datuk Mohd. Haniff Abdul Aziz dan DatukAzzuddin Ahmad, telah diberikan lebih 25,000 permitimport (AP) untuk mengimport kereta mewah pada tahun ini dan apakah asas dan kriteria yang digunakan dalam pemberian AP tersebut ? Adakah unsur-unsur kronisme benar-benar bersih dalam pemberian AP kepada individu-individu ini ?

c. Mengapakah terdapat beberapa matan kakitangan MITI yang diberikan AP dan adakah pemberian tersebut benar-benar bersih daripada unsur-unsur salahguna kuasa ( malpractices ) dan rasuah ?

d. Mengapakah terdapat ahli kabinet seperti MenteriPelancongan Datuk Dr. Leo Michael Toyad yang memiliki15 peratus saham Mega Otomobil Sdn. Bhd. juga dikurniakan AP ? Bukankah ahli kabinet dilarang sama sekali menceburi bidang perniagaan ?

e. Mengapakah MITI menukar polisi isu pengeluaran APtahun lepas tanpa kebenaran ( approval ) daripadaKerajaan ? Isu ini telah dibangkitkan oleh PengerusiBackbencher ( BBC ) Dato' Shahrir Samad . Dato'Shahrir telah mempersoalkan tatacara yang digunapakai dalam pengeluaran AP. Menurut beliau bilangan AP pada asalnya berdasarkan 10 peratus pengeluaran kereta tetapi pada tahun 2004 ianya ditukar kepada 10 peratus daripada jumlah keseluruhan pengeluaran kenderaan ( 10 percent of total vehicle production ) yang mana pertukaran polisi tersebut telah mengakibatkan terdapat peningkatan yang mendadak terhadap pengeluaran AP daripada 20,000 kepada 60,000 .

f. Mengapakah MITI secara mudah menukar polisi baru tanpa kebenaran Kerajaan dan mengapakah Kerajaan sendiri tidak membuat pemantauan terhadap perkara tersebut?Mengapakah Rafidah sebagai Menteri Kabinet tidak melaporkan pertukaran polisi dalam mesyurat kabinet yang diadakan setiap minggu ?

g. Mengapakah tokoh-tokoh melayu yang menerima AP tidak terlibat dengan mana-mana perniagaan penjualan kereta yang diimpot sedangkan banyak tokoh-tokoh pernigaan Cina yang tidak dikurniakan AP terlibat dalam menjual kereta import ?

Persoalan undang-undang di atas bagi saya perlu dijawab dan bagi menjawab persoalan -persoalan tersebut adalah penting bagi Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR ) mengambil sikap proakatif membuat siasatan secara terperinci tanpa gentar dan tanpa memihak . Kita tidak mahu pendedahan isu AP ini hanya gimik dan retorika politik semata-mata. Masa untuk bertindak PakLah bukan berlakon !!!

Tadika Kemas dibantu SAR dibiarkan mati- adilnya Barisan Nasional

Tabika Kemas dibantu SAR dibiarkan mati- adilnya Barisan Nasional

Lebih 200,000 orang murid Tabika Kemas di seluruh negara akan menerima bantuan geran per kapita sebanyak RM100 setiap orang mulai sesi persekolahan Januari tahun depan.

Bantuan itu adalah untuk membantu ibu bapa membayar yuran bulanan, membeli pakaian seragam dan buku.

Di samping itu 80,000 daripada 200,000 pelajar tersebut yang datang dari keluarga miskin itu pula akan mendapat geran tambahan sebanyak RM100 lagi.

Menteri Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah, Datuk Seri Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin berkata:

``Pemberian geran kepada murid-murid berkenaan akan dimulakan pada sesi persekolahan pada bulan Januari tahun depan dan kita harap ia tidak akan membebankan ibu bapa dan waris,'' ( Utusan Malaysia 15/7/2005 )

Kenyataan di atas mengesahkan amalan diskriminasi kerajaan BN di dalam sektor pendidikan. Meskipun kita boleh bersetuju dengan pemberian geran tersebut kita juga berhak untuk bertanya mengapakah pemberian geran kepada Sekolah Agama Rakyat ( SAR ) sehingga kini masih dihentikan. Tidak cukup dengan pembatalan pemberian geran kepada SAR pelbagai tuduhan liar dilemparkan kepada SAR termasuklah menjadi sarang pengganas. Kalau ini bukan diskriminasi apakah namanya ?

Perkara 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan melarang amalan diskriminasi. Perkara 8 memperuntukkan apa yang dinamakan kesamaan di sisi undang-undang ( equality before the law ) .

Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah undang-undang tertinggi negara ini . Sebarang peraturan dan amalan yang bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah tidak sah dan "unconstitutional".

Jelas dengan pemberian geran kepada Tadika Kemas dan meneruskan polisi memberhentikan geran perkapita kepada SAR adalah tindakan yang bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan. Dengan lain perkataan pemimpin BN bukan sahaja mendera pelajar-pelajar dan guru-guru SAR malahan tidak langsung menghormati ketinggian Perlembagaan.

Memandangkan Tabika Kemas akan dibantu oleh kerajaan maka bantuan yang sama juga harus diberikan kepada tadika-tadika yang lain termasuk PASTI . Sehingga kini PASTI bukan sahaja tidak dibantu oleh kerajaan malahan telah beberapa kali cuba ditutup oleh kerajaan . Beberapa buah PASTI di Melaka kini sedang dihadapkan ke Mahkamah .

Kerajaan BN perlu sedar dengan penubuhan institusi-institusi pendidikan selain daripada institusi pendidikan yang dibiayai oleh kerajaan sepenuhnya rakyat sebenarnya membantu tanggungjawab sosial kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab memberikan pendidikan kepada rakyat. Dengan penubuhan institus-institusi pendidikan swasta termasuk SAR kerajaan telah dibantu secara tidak langsung dalam menjimat kos menyediakan segala prasarana pendidikan kepada rakyat. Oleh yang demikian sebagai tanda terima kasih, kerajaan seharusnya bersedia menolong institusi-institusi tersebut bagi memastikan hak rakyat mendapatkan pendidikan yang terbaik bagi diri mereka sentiasa dijamin. Dalam soal ini seharusnya ada satu liberalisasi bukannya diskriminasi.

Sayugia diingatkan isu pendidikan seharusnya merentasi garisan politik sempit. Berpolitik seharusnya bagi membaiki kehidupan rakyat bukan menyeksa mereka.

Who Else Is Responsible for the London Carnage?

Who Else Is Responsible for the London Carnage?
By Ramzy Baroud*Freelance Writer – Qatar
July 10, 2005

Innocent Londoners have paid the price for Blair’s policies. “Barbaric”; there is hardly any other term that is capable of depicting the murder of over 50 people and the wounding of hundreds more during London’s rush hour on Thursday, July 7. “Unexpected,” however, is the least relevant term.

But why would “mass murder”—an expression used fittingly by London’s highly regarded Mayor Ken Livingstone following the attacks—become an “inevitable” event, is another dreadful component in this disastrous episode.

It was Livingstone who warned in September 2002, “An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardize security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international cooperation and global security.”

The mayor’s words were poignant and ring true today more than ever before. However, they were of little consequence for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, so adamant in his quest for war, so incessant in maintaining his country’s dangerous alliance with Washington’s self-serving and now debauched “war on terror.”

Although Britain can only claim a small portion of the subsequent carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq, Blair was and remains an unyielding partner in both wars. He has, so pompously, overlooked untold atrocities against innocent civilians in both countries while maintaining an active role in the “ridding the world of evil” farce, which continues to plague the world and increasingly, albeit misguidedly define the correlation between the West and the Muslim world.

It is quite a paradox that Blair was the first to infuse the term “barbaric” following the London carnage—a paradox because the barbarism in London had an undeniable kinship with the years of barbarism in Iraq, barbarism which continues to unfold in full force.

Terrorism is not random; it’s a callous mirroring to an equally callous legacy of terror and violence.

In May 2003, following protests from human rights groups regarding the British army’s use of cluster bombs in and around the Iraqi city of Basra, British officials had nothing but unabashed rationalization as a response.

Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram justified the use of cluster bombs, in an interview with BBC radio, on military grounds, arguing: “Cluster bombs are not illegal. They are effective weapons. They are used in specific circumstances where there is a threat to our troops.”

Those “specific circumstances,” according to British media, compelled the dropping of 2,000 Israeli-made cluster bombs on Basra and its surroundings in April 2003 alone.
Richard Lloyd, Director of Landmine Action, asserted that he had seen maps—provided to the UN by the US military—showing cities that were almost completely masked by a heap of symbols indicating where cluster bombs had been used. “These weapons were used in and around virtually every built-up area where there was major fighting,” Lloyd said.

Hundreds of these bombs are still there, not yet detonated and just waiting to go off among hoards of scavenging children, a dreadful and recurring episode in both Afghanistan and Iraq—utterly barbaric indeed.

Its a catastrophe that innocent Londoners, who have fought so earnestly for the cause of justice from the very beginning, objecting so earnestly to the war, mass protesting and taking on their government like in no other capital in Europe, had to pay the profound and sorrowful price for Blair’s reprehensible lies and forgeries—his groundless case for Weapons of Mass Destruction and his unsubstantiated claims that regime change in Iraq means security for his country. But who ever said that barbarism subscribes to any rules of conduct?

Terrorism is not random; it’s a callous mirroring to an equally callous legacy of terror and violence, this time ensued in part by relentlessly arrogant and self-congratulating statesmen like Tony Blair.

Commenting on the slaughter in London, Blair’s response failed to abandon the highly predictable and self-observed rhetoric: “My opinion is that those people who kill the innocent and cause such bloodshed … are solely responsible.”

But isn’t the above so twisted an underlying of a principle? It’s another cruel irony that following years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq with a human toll that has been put past the one hundred thousand mark and a price tag of hundreds of billions of dollars, to pin the “sole responsibility” on a few terrorists, who—despite their reprehensible acts—pale in comparison to the Bush-Blair mega-crimes against humanity.

Is it possible that we have not learned a single thing since the massacres of September 11, Jenin, Kandahar, and Fallujah? Such erroneous logic will persist with pundits like Gerard Baker of The Times blaming “14th century [Islamic] fanaticism” for the London bombings, while strongly rebuffing any linkage between group and state terrorism.

Terrorism and militancy are thriving all around, with Iraq as a base and a cause.
And when will the Bush and Blair crowd wake up and smell the decomposed Iraqi bodies and forever quit utilizing the ever handy “we will not change our way of life” comeback to terrorism, based on the fallacious conclusion that terrorists are blowing people up because they hate freedom?

The reality that Blair conveniently wishes to neglect is as plain as it is tragic. Terrorism and militancy are thriving all around, with Iraq as a base and a cause. The Anglo-American war has wrought nothing but murder and mayhem, which crossed the borders of many countries and cities with London as its latest target.

The intelligence failure that led to war in Iraq is repeated with another disastrous failure that couldn’t intercept a major bombing scheme that disabled a major city like London. This is yet another attestation of which neither sheer military strength nor superior intelligence holds the answer.

The answer lies in an immediate halt of all military aggressions perpetrated in the name of civilization and democratization by the super powers against vulnerable and defenseless countries. This void can only be filled by sensible diplomacy, cultural integration, and dialogue to achieve what cluster bombs have utterly failed to deliver. Otherwise the “inevitable” attacks on London will go on with the same certainty as the promise of each new day.

* Ramzy Baroud is the author of the forthcoming book A Force to Be Reckoned With: Writings on the Second Palestinian Uprising, to be published by Pluto Press.

news from harakahdaily.net

Islam semakin teruk di era Abdullah- HanipaMonday, July 04 @ 12:38:17 MYT Oleh Ismail HashimALOR SETAR, 4 Julai (Hrkh) -

Masyarakat Islam dalam negara ini sudah dapat melihat bagaimana kedudukan agama Islam di Malaysia semakin terpinggir di bawah era Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sebagai Perdana Menteri.Banyak peristiwa yang berlaku di dalam negara yang membabitkan agama Islam tetapi dipandang sepi oleh Abdullah yang dikatakan mempunyai kuasa malah pengetahuan mengenai perkara itu.

Demikian dijelaskan oleh AJK PAS Pusat, Mohamed Hanipa Maidin ketika menyampaikan pandangannya di dalam forum khas di sini 2 Julai lalu.

Forum bertajuk Malaysia di zaman Pak Lah itu diadakan sempena Ekspo Perdagangan Islam Kedah 2005 anjuran PAS Negeri Kedah yang bermula sejak 30 Jun hingga 5 Julai ini.
Turut serta di dalam forum yang diadakan di Kompleks PAS Kedah itu adalah mantan YDP ABIM Kedah, Haji Ahmad Kassim, Penulis terkenal, Azizi Haji Abdullah dan Naib Ketua Pemuda Keadilan Kedah, Ir. Zamri Yusoff.

Exco Pemuda Umno yang juga Exco Kedah, Dato' Azimi Daim dijemput menyertai forum itu sebagai panelis tidak dapat hadir dan gagal untuk menghantar wakil walaupun penganjur berusaha menghubungi mereka sehingga menjelang majlis bermula.
Dalam ucapannya juga, Hanipa menyebutkan tentang sikap Abdullah yang dilihat tidak menghentam Islam secara langsung tetapi mengambil sikap berdiam diri bila Islam dihina oleh segolongan mereka yang mempunyai hubungan dengan beliau.

“Gelagatnya yang tidak ‘ikhlas’ di dalam menentang Islam ini amat mengelirukan masyarakat dan rakyat terutama Muslim di negara ini Berbanding era Dr Mahathir yang secara ‘ikhlas’ menentang dan menuduh Islam dengan berbagai-bagai.

“Tetapi mesti diingat ketika Pak Lah menjadi Menteri Dalam Negeri, beliau telah mengarahkan supaya ceramah-ceramah agama dan politik ditegah sama sekali.

“Begitu juga di dalam isu Majlis Perunding Antara Agama (IFC) beliau hanya menangguhkannya bukan menolak terus sedangkan majlis perundingan antara agama itu dengan nyata cuba menjatuhkan imej Islam,” tegasnya.

Hanipa di dalam hujahnya berkata, rakyat amat terkeliru dengan Islam Hadhari yang dibawa oleh Abdullah kerana semua yang berlaku di dalam media terutamanya hiburan yang menjauhkan umat terutamanya muda-mudi dari hidup beragama.

Beliau turut senaraikan beberapa perkara yang merosakkan keyakinan dan keimanan rakyat di dalam negara ini antaranya IFC dan merebaknya pengaruh mereka yang mengambil agama secara mudah termasuk mereka yang keluar agama.

Hanipa yang juga peguam syariah dan sivil terkenal dengan kes-kes sensasi, baru-baru telah menang di dalam tuntutan kes Dato' Dr Hassan Ali terhadap kerajaan Negeri Selangor.

Sementara itu, Azizi menyifatkan siapa sahaja yang memegang jawatan di dalam Umno tetap akan berperangai yang sama kerana 'bekasnya' adalah sama.
Kalangan penonton yang sempat ditemui melahirkan kekesalan kerana wakil Umno gagal hadir dalam satu majlis perbincangan yang sangat penting nilainya kepada pemikiran dan sikap rakyat negara ini.

Kata mereka, apa salahnya jika Umno hadir di dalam majlis PAS kerana sangat elok berbincang suasana terbuka dan boleh dimanfaatkan oleh rakyat keseluruhannya.
Seorang dari mereka, Saudara Sulaiman Mohd Noor, 42, dari Hutan Kampung berkata, sewajarnya Umno melihat bagaimana PAS yang sanggup hadir dalam mana-mana jemputan Umno termasuk program Debat Perdana.

“Kenapa perlu takut untuk hadir mengemukakan pandangan dalam satu majlis terbuka yang boleh dinilai oleh masyarakat awam,” tegasnya.

Pengarah Epik, Saudara Aris Awang bagaimana pun menerima alasan Dato’ Azimi melalui surat rasmi Exco Kerajaan Kedah yang menyatakan beliau mempunyai program di Langkawi walaupun pada peringkat awalnya dimaklumkan tiada pertembungan jadual pada tarikh itu.
Epik akan berakhir pada 4 Julai (malam ini) dengan ceramah umum penutup yang akan disampaikan oleh Naib Presiden PAS, Haji Mohamad Sabu dan Pesuruhjaya Kedah, Ustaz Azizan Abdul Razak bermula jam 9 malam. -zs

Osu Sukam gagal sebagai pemimpin - bagaimana Pak Lah ?

" Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi menyifatkan bekas Ketua Menteri Sabah, Datuk Seri Osu Sukam gagal sebagai pemimpin yang baik kepada rakyat ekoran kegiatannya dalam perjudian sehingga berhutang sebanyak RM7.1 juta.
Perdana Menteri yang melahirkan rasa sedih dengan keadaan itu menegaskan, Osu sepatutnya menunjukkan nilai-nilai yang baik serta boleh dicontohi iaitu kepimpinan melalui teladan.

``Perkara ini telah mencemar kepimpinan beliau kerana pemimpin tak sepatutnya terlibat dengan kegiatan yang haram di segi agama dan tak bermoral dipandang masyarakat,'' katanya.
Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita ketika ditemui selepas merasmikan Persidangan Antarabangsa Mengenai Pengurusan Pengetahuan anjuran Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) dan Pusat Pembangunan Akademik (CADe) di Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putra (PWTC) . ( lihat Utusan Malasai 7/7/2005 )

Seterusnya Pak Lah juga menegaskan bahawa sebagai pemimpin Osu mesti mengelak daripada melakukan perkara-perkara yang boleh mencemarkan kredibiliti mereka.

``Seorang pemimpin yang baik ialah pemimpin yang dapat membawa kebaikan dari semua aspek dan boleh dicontohi serta berpegang kepada prinsip kepimpinan,'' kata Pak Lah..

Jika dilihat kepada komen Pak Lah di atas nampak seperti beliau benar-benar jijik dengan perjudian. Dengan lain perkataan Pak Lah tidak boleh menerima seorang pemimpin yang dikaitkan dengan judi. Bagimanapun tidakkah Pak Lah sedar Osu Sukam juga boleh berhujah bahawa Pak Lah juga gagal sebagai seorang pemimpin kerana sebagai Perdana Menteri dan Presiden Umno yang sibuk mencanangkan Islam Hadhari beliau secara sedar merestui kewujudan industri judi di negara ini. Judi di negara ini adalah suatu yang sah di sisi undang-undang melalui pelesenan yang dibenarkan oleh Kerajaan Islam Hadhari.

Kerajaan Persekutuan melalui Kementerian Kewangan diberi kuasa memberi lesen kepada mana-mana syarikat yang menjalankan perniagaan judi. Kerajaan Negeri pula diberi kuasa mengeluarkan lesen premis perjudian (gaming house). Kedua-dua lesen ini mendatangkan hasil lumayan kepada negara melalui cukai perlesenan.

Osu Sukam hanya terlibat berjudi di luar negara tanpa terlibat menggalakkan orang lain berjudi manakala Pak Lah meskipun tidak berjudi terlibat menggalakkan orang ramai berjudi di negara ini dengan membenarkan industri judi bermaharajalela di negara ini melalui pelesenan. Melalui skim pelesenan judi kerajaan Islam Hadhari secara terang-terang membenarkan hasil negara ini diambil daripada sumber yang haram.

Di sini elok rasanya kita melihat kepada jawapan yang diberikan oleh Setiausaha Parlimen Kementerian Kewangan, Datuk Hilmi Yahya di Parlimen pada 15 Disember 2004 yang dilaporkan oleh akhbar Utusan Malaysia ( 16/12/2004 ) di mana beliau berkata :-

"Kerajaan tidak bercadang menghentikan aktiviti perjudian secara berlesen di negara ini kerana mahu bersikap adil terhadap masyarakat bukan Islam di samping membendung kegiatan bookie haram. Sehingga kini terdapat 1,822 lesen diberikan kepada syarikat yang menjalankan aktiviti ini, sama ada cabutan loteri Magnum, Toto, 1+3D dan kegiatan judi di premis-premis hiburan,'' .

Beliau seterusnya memberitahu, kerajaan tidak berhasrat menghentikan kegiatan itu kerana perjudian merupakan satu budaya kepada kaum-kaum tertentu.

"Ada kaum yang mempunyai budaya berjudi, jadi kita perlu bersikap adil kerana walaupun kita adalah negara Islam tetapi Malaysia mempunyai rakyat berbilang kaum dan dan agama,'' katanya ketika menjawab soalan Senator Datuk Ratnam a/l Muthiah dalam sesi Dewan Negara.

Beliau memberitahu, kerajaan tidak berhasrat mengurangkan hari cabutan loteri Magnum, Toto dan 1+3D kerana ia akan mengurangkan pendapatan melalui cukai.

"Jika kita kurangkan kepada satu minggu sekali cabutan, kita akan kehilangan cukai RM620 juta dalam tempoh satu tahun,'' katanya.

Kerajaan Persekutuan dan kesemua kerajaan negeri yang diperintah oleh BN ( baca UMNO ) sehingga kini sedang meratah harta haram atas nama Islam Hadhari. Ulama UMNO yang ada "coklat" dimulut mereka tak bisa bersuara kerana hasil judi amat berbisa. Kerajaan Islam Kelantan yang disekat ekonominya oleh Kerajaan Pusat sejak daripada awal pemerintahannya pada tahun 1990 sehingga kini tidak langsung mengaut hasil judi melalui lesen premis perjudian meskipun terpaksa kehilangan jutaan ringgit. Bukan tidak terliur dengan hasil tersebut tetapi takutkan Allah dan memastikan harta yang didapati mestilah halal dan berkat mengelakkan Kelantan terjebak dalam harta yang haram.

Kesimpulannya Pak Lah dan Osu Sukam adalah dua kali lima. Kedua-duanya gagal sebagai pemimpin. Malahan Pak Lah lebih bahaya kerana beliau terlibat dengan perjudian di bawah topeng Islam Hadhari.

Dr Hassan Ali menang kes

Isu hutan simpan Hulu Langat: Dr Hasan berjaya tuntut ganti rugiWednesday, June 29 @ 15:40:16 MYT Oleh Hafiz Mohd BaqiKUALA LUMPUR, 29 Jun (Hrkh) -

Naib Presiden PAS, Dato' Dr Hasan Ali melalui syarikatnya, Sabha Total Training Centre Sdn Bhd berjaya menuntut ganti rugi daripada pihak berkuasa negeri Selangor yang membatalkan permit kepada syarikatnya menggunakan hutan simpan Hulu Langat.Malahan larangan kepada Sabha Total untuk penggunaan kawasan tersebut oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Selangor, juga dibatalkan.

Keputusan tersebut telah diumumkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam, Dato' Suriyadi Halim Omar di mahkamah Shah Alam kelmarin, selepas empat tahun kes tersebut dibicarakan.
Dalam perbicaraan tersebut, hakim telah meminta peguam kedua-dua pihak mengemukakan hujah masing-masing secara bertulis tetapi pihak kerajaan negeri tidak berbuat demikian.

Dr Hasan (pemohon) telah diwakili oleh peguamnya, Mohamed Hanipa Maidin manakala pihak penguat kuasa negeri Selangor (responden) diwakili oleh pegawai undang-undang negeri.

Menurut Hanipa yang ditemui Harakah semalam, dalam kes tersebut, pihak responden telah gagal mengemukan sebarang hujah walaupun telah beberapa kali diminta berbuat demikan.

Manakala katanya, pihak pemohon antara lain telah berhujah bahawa responden tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk membatalkan permit penggunaan kawasan hutan tersebut kerana kuasa terletak di bawah bidang kuasa Pengarah Perhutanan Negeri.

"Justeru hanya Pengarah Perhutanan sahaja yang boleh menolak atau membatalkan permit bukannya pihak responden seperti yang terjadi dalam kes ini," kata beliau.

Kata Hanipa lagi, responden juga telah bertindak di luar bidang kuasa yang diberikan kepadanya secara jelas dan tindakan tersebut adalah salah satu penyalahgunaan kuasa.

Kata beliau, pemohon juga berhujah bahawa keputusan penolakan memperbaharui permit daripada responden itu dipercayai didasarkan niat jahat (mala fide) dan dicemari oleh amalan diskriminasi disebabkan pengerusi eksekutif pemohon telah menjadi ahli Parti Islam Semalaysia (PAS).

Kes melibatkan Sabha Total dengan pihak berkuasa negeri Selangor bermula apabila pihak pemohon menerima surat daripada Pejabat Daerah pada 29 November 2001.

Dalam surat tersebut pejabat Daerah telah memaklumkan bahawa responden telah membuat keputusan menolak permohonan Sabha Total untuk memperbaharui permit sekali gus permit tersebut dibatalkan.

Lantaran itu, Dr Hasan telah memfailkan permohonan kepada mahkamah bagi membatalkan keputusan pihak berkuasa Negeri Selangor yang telah membatalkan permit (use permit) kepada syarikatnya untuk menggunakan kawasan hutan simpan Hulu Langat.

Beliau telah memohon supaya mahkamah mengarahkan pemberian semula permit kepada syarikatnya di samping pihak terbabit membayar ganti rugi hasil daripada tindakan tersebut.
Beliau telah menganggarkan Sabha Total telah mengalami kerugian sebanyak RM1,291,984,66 akibat daripada tindakan pihak berkuasa negeri Selangor itu.


Sabha Total sebelum ini telah dibenarkan menggunakan kawasan hutan simpan Hulu Langat semenjak tahun 1993 lagi untuk menjalankan aktiviti seperti 'jungle trekking', 'orienteering' dan perkhemahan di kawasan tersebut. - lanh