Jamil Khir defends M'sia 'not secular' claim
BernamaPublished: Jun 19, 2014 1:37 AM | Updated: Jun 19, 2014 2:22 AM
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Jamil Khir Baharom said Malaysia was not a secular state because there was no provision for it in the federal constitution.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Jamil Khir Baharom said Malaysia was not a secular state because there was no provision for it in the federal constitution.
He referred to the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh versus the Public Prosecutor in 1988 where Justice Mohd Salleh Abas while saying the law used in this country was secular law did not say that Malaysia was a secular state.
"Even he (Mohd Salleh) said that the secular legal system can be changed. There is no provision in the federal constitution which states that Malaysia is a secular state," he said in a media statement late yesterday.
Jamil Khir had made his ‘not secular’ remark in the Dewan Rakyat on June 16 in his reply to a question from the MP for Sibu, Oscar Ling Chai Yew, who asked whether Malaysia was a secular state or an Islamic state.
He stressed that a secular state meant a separation between the state and the religion as interpreted by the Oxford Dictionary with ‘secular’ meaning ‘not connected with religious or spiritual matters’.
Earlier reply quoted
"This is in contrast to other secular states such as the United States, India and Turkey that explicitly say that they are secular in their constitutions."
Jamil Khir said a secular state does not recognise any religion as an official religion but the people are allowed to practice their own religions.
"Their religions are separate and practised by individuals."
He said then Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz (right) when replying to a question from the MP for Seremban, John Fernandez on Oct 22, 2012 had said:
‘The government recognises that in the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh, the Supreme Court never decided or declared that country is secular but decided secular law continues to apply.
‘Under Article 162 of the Federal Constitution, the word used to refer to the law drafted before Independence Day was existing law, not secular law.
‘Based on the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh, the legal provision and explanation, it is clear that Malaysia never decided to be a secular state.’
Jamil Khir said his answer was consistent with Nazri’s answer given earlier and does not mislead the Dewan Rakyat.
- Bernama
He referred to the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh versus the Public Prosecutor in 1988 where Justice Mohd Salleh Abas while saying the law used in this country was secular law did not say that Malaysia was a secular state.
"Even he (Mohd Salleh) said that the secular legal system can be changed. There is no provision in the federal constitution which states that Malaysia is a secular state," he said in a media statement late yesterday.
Jamil Khir had made his ‘not secular’ remark in the Dewan Rakyat on June 16 in his reply to a question from the MP for Sibu, Oscar Ling Chai Yew, who asked whether Malaysia was a secular state or an Islamic state.
He stressed that a secular state meant a separation between the state and the religion as interpreted by the Oxford Dictionary with ‘secular’ meaning ‘not connected with religious or spiritual matters’.
Earlier reply quoted
"This is in contrast to other secular states such as the United States, India and Turkey that explicitly say that they are secular in their constitutions."
Jamil Khir said a secular state does not recognise any religion as an official religion but the people are allowed to practice their own religions.
"Their religions are separate and practised by individuals."
He said then Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz (right) when replying to a question from the MP for Seremban, John Fernandez on Oct 22, 2012 had said:‘The government recognises that in the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh, the Supreme Court never decided or declared that country is secular but decided secular law continues to apply.
‘Under Article 162 of the Federal Constitution, the word used to refer to the law drafted before Independence Day was existing law, not secular law.
‘Based on the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh, the legal provision and explanation, it is clear that Malaysia never decided to be a secular state.’
Jamil Khir said his answer was consistent with Nazri’s answer given earlier and does not mislead the Dewan Rakyat.
- Bernama
View Comments0