Since the judgment of Justice Lau Bee Lan was reported in the newspaper, thousands words had been uterred by the Malaysian decision on the worthy of the decision. Everybody is entitled to their own viewpoint, nevertheless in an issue that touches the very heart of the Malaysian community, the interest of the Malaysian community should be the prime considerations.
Thus leaving aside the interest of a section of the community who eagerly pressed for the right to use the kalimat, exploration on the laws and regulations that involved in answering whether the Catholic Church ought to use the kalimat is vital.
We should starts with the Constitution, the highest law of the land, the Muslim ( I mean here the general public used Art 11 as the ground in restricting the usage of the kalimat "Allah", The Catholic Church on the other hand argued that the restrictions is unconstitutional and violates the freedom of religion.
Thus both parties are relying on the same Art 11. However, if we closely read clause (5) of Art 11, which reads, this act does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health and morality. Thus, this will bring us to one conclusion, namely, if in the exercise of religous freedom we're bound to violate any restrictions imposed by any law passed by Parliament on the grounds of public order, public security or moral, such act is prohibited. The case of Halimatussaadiah [1992] explains on this point. A lady was prohibited from wearing purdah, because government secrets and interests must be protected at all cost.
Now we move to the legislations that might restrict the usage of the kalimat "Allah" by the Catholic Church, the Penal Code in s 298A on Causing etc, disharmony, disunity, or feelings or enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing, etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion, provides;
(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner-
(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or
(b) prejudices or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,
on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.
The provision also states in clause (7) that, It shall not be a defence to any charge under this section to assert that what the offender is charged with doing was done in any honest belief in, or in any honest interpretations of, any precept, tenet or teaching of any religion.
However, we shouldn't impute any criminal intent on the Catholic Church at this stage.
Secondly, Sedition Act 1948 (rev 1969) in s.4 (1) provides that, Any person who -
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;
(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
While s.3(1)define seditious tendency "is a tendency -
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution."
Realising the response of the Muslim community on the issue, there is a strong probability that the usage of the Kalimat Allah by the Catholic Church had promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia. If we carefully read the statement made by the Catholic Church since the bringthe matter the the court they are fully aware of the sentiment of the Muslims.
in s 7 (1) ,on the power of the Minister to impose conditions on publications that he considers as "undesirable publications that reads:
(1) If the Minister is satisfied that any publication contains any article, caricature, photograph, report, notes, writing, sound, music, statement or any other thing which is in any manner prejudicial to or likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, the relationship with any foreign country or government, or which is or is likely to be contrary to any law or is otherwise prejudicial to or is likely to be prejudicial to public interest or national interest, he may in his absolute discretion by order published in the Gazette prohibit, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, circulation, distribution or possession of that publication.
And finally, in a law that I myself call upon to be abolished, Internal Security Act 1960 (Rev 1972), section 22 provides for the Prohibition of printing, sale, etc., of documents and publications.
(1) Where it appears to the Minister charged with responsibility for printing presses and publications that any document or publication -
(a) contains any incitement to violence;
(b) counsels disobedience to the law or to any lawful order;
(c) is calculated or likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or to promote feelings of hostility between different races or classes of the population; or
(d) is prejudicial to the national interest, public order, or security of Malaysia, he may by order published in the Gazette prohibit either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed therein the printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation or possession of such document or publication.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may, if the order so provides, be extended so as -
(a) in the case of a periodical publication, to prohibit the publication, sale, issue, circulation, possession or importation of any past or future issue thereof; and
(b) in the case of a publication which has or appears or purports to have issued from a specified publishing house, agency or other source, to prohibit the publication, sale, issue, circulation or importation of any other publication which may at any time whether before or after the date of the order have or appear or purport to have issued from the specified publishing house, agency or other source.
Thus, considering all the above lega lprovisions, it is quite difficult the perceive that the restriction of the use of the word "Allah"is unconstitutional since Art 11 (5) permits restrictions on any act contrry to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.
I stand to be corrected.
FARIDAH
(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner-
(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or
(b) prejudices or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,
on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.
The provision also states in clause (7) that, It shall not be a defence to any charge under this section to assert that what the offender is charged with doing was done in any honest belief in, or in any honest interpretations of, any precept, tenet or teaching of any religion.
However, we shouldn't impute any criminal intent on the Catholic Church at this stage.
Secondly, Sedition Act 1948 (rev 1969) in s.4 (1) provides that, Any person who -
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;
(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
While s.3(1)define seditious tendency "is a tendency -
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution."
Realising the response of the Muslim community on the issue, there is a strong probability that the usage of the Kalimat Allah by the Catholic Church had promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia. If we carefully read the statement made by the Catholic Church since the bringthe matter the the court they are fully aware of the sentiment of the Muslims.
in s 7 (1) ,on the power of the Minister to impose conditions on publications that he considers as "undesirable publications that reads:
(1) If the Minister is satisfied that any publication contains any article, caricature, photograph, report, notes, writing, sound, music, statement or any other thing which is in any manner prejudicial to or likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, the relationship with any foreign country or government, or which is or is likely to be contrary to any law or is otherwise prejudicial to or is likely to be prejudicial to public interest or national interest, he may in his absolute discretion by order published in the Gazette prohibit, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, circulation, distribution or possession of that publication.
And finally, in a law that I myself call upon to be abolished, Internal Security Act 1960 (Rev 1972), section 22 provides for the Prohibition of printing, sale, etc., of documents and publications.
(1) Where it appears to the Minister charged with responsibility for printing presses and publications that any document or publication -
(a) contains any incitement to violence;
(b) counsels disobedience to the law or to any lawful order;
(c) is calculated or likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or to promote feelings of hostility between different races or classes of the population; or
(d) is prejudicial to the national interest, public order, or security of Malaysia, he may by order published in the Gazette prohibit either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed therein the printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation or possession of such document or publication.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may, if the order so provides, be extended so as -
(a) in the case of a periodical publication, to prohibit the publication, sale, issue, circulation, possession or importation of any past or future issue thereof; and
(b) in the case of a publication which has or appears or purports to have issued from a specified publishing house, agency or other source, to prohibit the publication, sale, issue, circulation or importation of any other publication which may at any time whether before or after the date of the order have or appear or purport to have issued from the specified publishing house, agency or other source.
Thus, considering all the above lega lprovisions, it is quite difficult the perceive that the restriction of the use of the word "Allah"is unconstitutional since Art 11 (5) permits restrictions on any act contrry to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.
I stand to be corrected.
FARIDAH
No comments:
Post a Comment