SOROTON BUKU TUNKU

Sesungguhnya, laporan Suruhanjaya Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu menyatakan, “bahawa sebagai hasil daripada perjanjian-perjanjian yang asal dengan Negeri-Negeri Melayu yang ditegaskan dari masa ke masa, maka kedudukan istimewa. orang Melayu itu sentiasa diperakui, dan perakuan ini telah dinyatakan sekali lagi -dalam Perjanjian. Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948.”

Janganlah kita mengetepikan hakikat bahawa sebelum kita menjadi sebuah negara yang merdeka. kita cuma sebuah tanah jajahan Inggeris yang dipecah-pecahkan. Kiranya semua kaum tidak bersatu untuk kemerdekaan, negara kita tentulah masih lagi menjadi Tanah Jajahan British sehingga hari ini.

Setelah perjuangan kemerdekaan yang dipimpin oleh orang Melayu dan disokong oleh kaum-kaum lain dilancarkan, maka timbullah semangat hendak menghalau dan menamatkan penjajahan di negara ini, dan dengan kemerdekaan itu dapatlah kita mengambil tempat kita yang hak sebagai sebuah negara yang berdaulat. Kita mestilah menyedari bahawa perubahan yang seperti inilah juga yang telah membawa negara-negara lain di Afrika menjadi bangsa yang merdeka dan berdaulat.

Saya ingin menegaskan sekali lagi bahawa negara ini ialah sebuah negara Melayu, tetapi terpulanglah kepada orang Melayu sendiri memainkan peranan yang cergas untuk merebut peluang pada masa hadapan. Sambil itu mereka mestilah sentiasa ingat bahawa Perlembagaanlah yang dapat menjamin keselamatan dan kemajuan kita semua. Jika “pelampau” Melayu mahu menunggangbalikkan Perlembagaan, maka mereka akan membuta tuli terjerumus ke jurang kemunduran dan terperangkap dalam keadaan kacau-bilau.

Petikan buku '13 Mei - Sebelum dan Selepas' oleh Tunku Abdul Rahman (terbitan 1969)
Sumber: sahabatmantap2.wordpress.com

Islam Historical Legal Perspective

Historical School of Jurisprudence
Interpreting or indulging in history


The Supreme Court's (SC) judgement in the case of Che Omar Che Soh v. PP (1988 - later referred to as Che Omar) is considered a landmark case concerning the interpretation of the status of Islam as enshrined in Article 3 of the Constitution of Malaysia. At the time, the SC was the highest court in the country's judicial system.

Certain figures from among academics, politicians and the legal fraternity have argued that this case laid to rest the question surrounding the law of the land, that is secular law. Any attempt to change this law is unconstitutional and therefore void.

Article 3(1) proclaims that "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation". Some people interpret this Article wide enough to mean that ‘Islam' encompasses all aspects of human life, while some others narrowly construe it to refer only to certain aspects.

The counsel for Che Omar sought to prove the first interpretation, arguing that (i) since Islam does not provide any ‘qisas' or ‘hudud' punishment for the trafficking of dangerous drugs and firearms offences, and (ii) that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; therefore (iii) a mandatory death sentence for those offences is against Islam, and therefore, unconstitutional and void.

The apex court then had to decide on the possible meaning relative to the term ‘Islam' in the said Article 3. If the meaning is confined only to acts related to rituals and ceremonies, then the argument does not hold any weight.

But if ‘Islam' is an all-embracing reality and constitutes a comprehensive system of life beyond the ritualistic or ceremonial aspects, to include jurisprudence and moral standards, then the argument raised by the counsel had wide implications in the sense that every law has to be tested according to that yardstick.

To make it clear, any legal provision that runs counter to the abovementioned second interpretation, if deemed correct, such a provision must be considered unconstitutional and void. To put it in legal language, any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

In Che Omar, it was held that the term ‘Islam' in Article 3 meant such acts as relating to the ritual and ceremonial only. Salleh Abas L.P, leading the five-member bench observed that "If it had been otherwise, there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such [a] provision, Article 162, on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution."

Not rejecting the fact that Islam is "a complete way of life covering all fields of human activities, ... private or public, legal, political, economic, social, cultural, moral or judicial", Salleh Abas however explained that this was not the meaning intended by the framers of the Constitution.

The learned judge concluded that the real intention of these framers was this: Islamic law was to be understood in an isolated manner, confined just to the law of marriage, divorce and inheritance only. He put the responsibility of relegating the scope of Islam, i.e. Islamic law to the British colonialists following their rule of the land.

Appeared
The Star, March 2009

INGAT KITA NI PUSSYCAT KER?

Sorry, we are no pussycat.

Quotable quote:
"The vast array of national issues, be they real or perceived or sexed up, triggered no ordinary addiction on the part of some quarters to exploit maximum opportunity available for brewing a state of persistent chaotic confusion to bring the downfall of a social order and hence the eventual collapse in the constitutional signature of this country"
per Shali, Rajamenangis Group