So, state law more powerful than constitution?
Published: Jan 26, 2014 10:25 AM | Updated: Jan 26, 2014 10:32 AM
FREE
YOURSAY
‘Najib's answers on 10-point solution actually raise even more questions.’
YOURSAY ‘Najib's answers on 10-point solution actually raise even more questions.’
Najib: 'Allah' ban stands in states with such laws
Tan Kim Keong: Former Bersih co-coordinator S Ambiga has urged that the 10-point solution be entered as a consent order in the Federal Court. Once it is a consent order, the 10-point solution then supersedes the state enactments regarding the Bible and usage of the word ‘Allah’.
Come on PM Najib Razak, for once be upright instead of always betwixt and between. Tell Malaysians that you were indeed very wrong when you directed the government to appeal against the High Court decision regarding the usage of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims.
Be an authentic leader for all and you can start by following through with Ambiga's recommendation.
Sali Tambap: What this means, if it's true, is that when a Malay-speaking East Malaysian steps into Selangor, a state within Malaysia, he will find the persecution of the Christians here even worse than in Saudi Arabia.
At least, the Saudis allow Christian foreigners to use the word ‘Allah’ even though they prohibit the bibles to be brought into the country, but in Selangor it is even worse - he cannot bring his Bible and on top of that, cannot use the word ‘Allah’.
Kim Quek: Point no 9 of the 10-point solution does mention the need to take into consideration the “constitution and other relevant laws”, but such reference refers to religious issues “other than the Bible issue”, and the Bible issue is the subject matter of the 10-point solution.
Hence, it is wrong for Najib to use point no 9 to assert that the 10-point solution contains an escape clause to justify the subordination of the lifting of Bible ban to state laws.
On the contrary, it is the federal authority in form of the Home Ministry that is vested with the power to ban a Bible under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, not Islamic bodies established under state laws.
Hence, the 10-point cabinet decision is valid for all states, and it will remain so for as long as it is not ruled unconstitutional by the court.
FellowMalaysian: It is a little ridiculous for Najib to deny the Christian communities from using the ‘Allah’ based on point no 9 when the crux of the matter lies wholly on the Alkitab's use of ‘Allah’ in reference to god but point no 9 clearly begins with 'Beyond the Bible issue...'
On the same note, as had been pointed out so lucidly by many esteemed scholars and legal fraternities recently, the entire content of the 10-point solution has not made any reference to the restrictions on the use of ‘Allah’ in Alkitab.
Little wonder why Najib took such a long while to deliberate on this matter before issuing his stand as there seems to be little ground for the government to back the recent court ruling.
Fair Play: I wouldn't call it an evasive answer, but an astute tactical move. Penang and Selangor had passed such state laws under previous BN rule.
Pakatan Rakyat has to live with the s**t created by BN or clean up the mess. Cleaning up the mess would require amendment of the relevant state legislation. This is a highly charged issue encompassing, political, religious and racial sentiments.
Their ultimate goal is to show that Pakatan cannot rule without 'offending' the Agong, the sultans and Muslim Malaysians.
Bluemountains: The state enactment is clearly in conflict with the federal constitution and is therefore ultra vires. Why is the federal government allowing such inconsistencies to exist and causing hardship to the Christians.
But when PAS wanted to introduce hudud in Kelantan, the federal government immediately warned that action will be taken because hudud is against the federal constitution.
Why is no action taken to correct the discrepancy in the Selangor state enactment even though it is against the federal constitution?
Since the federal government has allowed the Selangor state enactment to exist, it must now allow hudud law to exist in Kelantan. PAS must make hay while the sun shines.
Yummy: I'm confused, Mr PM. Is the constitution the supreme law of the land, or is the state law the one we should be following instead?
Unafraid: It is very important now for the Bible Society of Malaysia to test the case in the courts to expose the anomaly of a state law overriding the federal constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion to all races.
The Christians and the Sikhs cannot give up without challenging this in court. Not to do so will be giving in to intimidation and bullying and future generations will curse us for keeping quiet.
Apa Nama: It seems states where these enactments existed is more powerful than federal as far as 'Allah' word and other words are concerned. This is clear from Najib's speech. Now it left to individual state to enforce it or not.
If enforced, how far they go is also subject to individual state. So people with one faith will be leaving in fear not knowing when the enforcement will take place and how. Najib's answers actually raise even more questions.
Lim Chong Leong: So the federal constitution is subject to state enactments? And when a Malay-speaking Christian like a Sabahan travels through Malaysia, his own homeland, he has to give up surrender his Bible every time he goes through certain states?
Ib: People like Sarawak leaders James Masing and Idris Jala must feel like fools today. But they have a choice - they can choose to stay with Najib and have their integrity questioned or they can be independent and sleep better at night knowing they have their integrity intact.
Kanasai: As a non-Muslim, it means that I can stop and participate in singing the state anthem where there is the word ‘Allah’ in it. If so, will I be prosecuted?
Najib’s solution: One country, two systems
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
Najib: 'Allah' ban stands in states with such laws
Tan Kim Keong: Former Bersih co-coordinator S Ambiga has urged that the 10-point solution be entered as a consent order in the Federal Court. Once it is a consent order, the 10-point solution then supersedes the state enactments regarding the Bible and usage of the word ‘Allah’.Come on PM Najib Razak, for once be upright instead of always betwixt and between. Tell Malaysians that you were indeed very wrong when you directed the government to appeal against the High Court decision regarding the usage of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims.
Be an authentic leader for all and you can start by following through with Ambiga's recommendation.
Sali Tambap: What this means, if it's true, is that when a Malay-speaking East Malaysian steps into Selangor, a state within Malaysia, he will find the persecution of the Christians here even worse than in Saudi Arabia.
At least, the Saudis allow Christian foreigners to use the word ‘Allah’ even though they prohibit the bibles to be brought into the country, but in Selangor it is even worse - he cannot bring his Bible and on top of that, cannot use the word ‘Allah’.
Kim Quek: Point no 9 of the 10-point solution does mention the need to take into consideration the “constitution and other relevant laws”, but such reference refers to religious issues “other than the Bible issue”, and the Bible issue is the subject matter of the 10-point solution.
Hence, it is wrong for Najib to use point no 9 to assert that the 10-point solution contains an escape clause to justify the subordination of the lifting of Bible ban to state laws.
On the contrary, it is the federal authority in form of the Home Ministry that is vested with the power to ban a Bible under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, not Islamic bodies established under state laws.
Hence, the 10-point cabinet decision is valid for all states, and it will remain so for as long as it is not ruled unconstitutional by the court.
FellowMalaysian: It is a little ridiculous for Najib to deny the Christian communities from using the ‘Allah’ based on point no 9 when the crux of the matter lies wholly on the Alkitab's use of ‘Allah’ in reference to god but point no 9 clearly begins with 'Beyond the Bible issue...'
On the same note, as had been pointed out so lucidly by many esteemed scholars and legal fraternities recently, the entire content of the 10-point solution has not made any reference to the restrictions on the use of ‘Allah’ in Alkitab.
Little wonder why Najib took such a long while to deliberate on this matter before issuing his stand as there seems to be little ground for the government to back the recent court ruling.
Fair Play: I wouldn't call it an evasive answer, but an astute tactical move. Penang and Selangor had passed such state laws under previous BN rule.
Pakatan Rakyat has to live with the s**t created by BN or clean up the mess. Cleaning up the mess would require amendment of the relevant state legislation. This is a highly charged issue encompassing, political, religious and racial sentiments.
Their ultimate goal is to show that Pakatan cannot rule without 'offending' the Agong, the sultans and Muslim Malaysians.
Bluemountains: The state enactment is clearly in conflict with the federal constitution and is therefore ultra vires. Why is the federal government allowing such inconsistencies to exist and causing hardship to the Christians.
But when PAS wanted to introduce hudud in Kelantan, the federal government immediately warned that action will be taken because hudud is against the federal constitution.
Why is no action taken to correct the discrepancy in the Selangor state enactment even though it is against the federal constitution?
Since the federal government has allowed the Selangor state enactment to exist, it must now allow hudud law to exist in Kelantan. PAS must make hay while the sun shines.
Yummy: I'm confused, Mr PM. Is the constitution the supreme law of the land, or is the state law the one we should be following instead?
Unafraid: It is very important now for the Bible Society of Malaysia to test the case in the courts to expose the anomaly of a state law overriding the federal constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion to all races.
The Christians and the Sikhs cannot give up without challenging this in court. Not to do so will be giving in to intimidation and bullying and future generations will curse us for keeping quiet.
Apa Nama: It seems states where these enactments existed is more powerful than federal as far as 'Allah' word and other words are concerned. This is clear from Najib's speech. Now it left to individual state to enforce it or not.
If enforced, how far they go is also subject to individual state. So people with one faith will be leaving in fear not knowing when the enforcement will take place and how. Najib's answers actually raise even more questions.
Lim Chong Leong: So the federal constitution is subject to state enactments? And when a Malay-speaking Christian like a Sabahan travels through Malaysia, his own homeland, he has to give up surrender his Bible every time he goes through certain states?
Ib: People like Sarawak leaders James Masing and Idris Jala must feel like fools today. But they have a choice - they can choose to stay with Najib and have their integrity questioned or they can be independent and sleep better at night knowing they have their integrity intact.
Kanasai: As a non-Muslim, it means that I can stop and participate in singing the state anthem where there is the word ‘Allah’ in it. If so, will I be prosecuted?
Najib’s solution: One country, two systems
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
View Comments0