Sunday, January 31, 2010

安华和民联何去何从?


朱基菲里

公正党及民联的至高领袖安华,2月2日将面对鸡奸案二(1998年鸡奸案一)审讯。安华算是幸运的,鸡奸案是刑事案,却被允许保释。但当案件正式开审后,他是否会被拒保释而身陷囹圄?安华的内忧不仅官司缠身,还有党内的分歧。而外患则是来自国阵的一系列利民转型计划,对他要成为首相之路已构成阻挠。

回想安华在308大选率领在野阵线锐挫国阵后那几个月的威风凛凛表情,还策划916改朝换代的目标,依然历历在目。现在却看到脸上表露几分倦容,这是否表示他对改变政治的斗争已经信心下滑呢?此时安华只顾要求获得公正兼公平的审讯,让他早日摆脱官司的重担,以落力为估计两年多即举行的全国大选备战。

民联三党,经过几轮的协议和好后,往往平静的时日只维持一阵子。现在互相对峙仍然不断,令支持者无不感到担心。三党当中,胜出最多的是公正党,但最多问题的也是它。支持者以为带来麻烦的会是回教党,但看起来公正党更难搞。无他,须知道大多数的公正党党员是前巫统党员,他们是背着不良包袱过来的,没筛选是否投机分子,这样的人思想很难改变。

现在公正党党员闹辞职及退党,包括领袖级人物,对党员肯定某程度打击军心的。居林国会议员朱基菲里为宗教大发热心,借助“阿拉”课题发挥与安华唱反调。他的言论也挑起种族课题,其实蛮煽动性的,但政府却出乎意外的平静。而安华却没有严厉地对付他。而亲信再益却认为应该把他砍掉,以大局为重。但安华还不出手,到底他怕什么?

从朱基菲里的嚣张态度,可见他已经有一盘分裂民联的大计划在心。他不可能加入回教党的,因为后者已经知道他必成事不足,败事有余的。拉惹柏特拉直言朱氏是卧底,是为别人效劳来分裂民联的。

安华必须看到朱氏带来严重性的破坏,为此人的事情,再益已经与前者意见分歧了。若安华不以快刀斩乱麻的手法与朱氏一刀两断的话,可能会引发更多党员辞职或退党。稳住军心,安华必须够狠,短痛好过长痛,失去朱氏和一些其支持者,好过失去执政的机会。

安华欲当首相之路一波三折,他不够果断还是他看不清楚前面的方向?抑或他没有当首相的福分呢?他是否已经失去他的魅力呢?倘若他真的被定罪,谁是接班人呢?

倘若民联真的成功改朝换代的话,谁会当首相?安华?再益?哈迪阿旺?聂阿兹?或旺阿兹莎?或东姑拉沙里(最近公开在追讨政府5%石油税给丹州,很不寻常;连林吉祥都不愿否定姑里的可能性)?世事如棋局局新,且让我们拭目以待,不过必须恳切为国家祷告。

Thursday, January 28, 2010

入教脱教

读了莫哈末依沙叶的“改变宗教信仰须审慎”,欲作个回应。我认为不仅改信回教必须审慎,改信其他宗教都都是一样须要审慎。

在基督教圈子,也有人入教并非因懂得基督教信仰才这样作。因着某些原因,包括为了结婚而跟从配偶信仰,父母需要倚靠孩子而跟从孩子的信仰,及年轻人配上时潮身分等,大有人在。

与回教不同的是,改信基督教是一种选择,基督徒的孩子并不自动出生为一个信徒,不过父母会从旁指引,到了孩子懂事的年龄,他们必须自己作个抉择。而当信徒脱教也没有手续,一旦那人以后不跟基督教信仰有关系,就算是非信徒了。

我认为宗教信仰本应该是人人自由选择的,上帝赋予人的特质之一就是自由意志。既此,宗教方便人进来,也应该方便人离开。耶稣和穆哈默德以及两者的经书并没有训示入教后不可以脱教。

这方便莫哈末依沙叶也承认回教在大马是属于一种建制化了的宗教。而所谓“建制化”就是人为的,而不是经训的。人意不应该超越经训,若以“国情”为理由乃违反教主的原意。换句话说,一旦入教不能脱教并非古兰经经训。看看印尼这全世界最大的回教国家,回教徒脱教并不是一件困难的事情。

莫哈末依沙叶说回教在出教上比入教更简单,只要那人已经“完全”不再相信有上苍的存在,并“完全”不再相信穆圣为先知,在宗教上,他也就不再是回教徒。我国近来不少争尸事情,丧偶后欲脱教事情,母亲为孩子申请脱教事情,琳娜卓伊(Lina Joy)申请在大马卡删除“回教徒”字眼事情等,闹得极其不欢。

我认为大马应该仿效印尼,对于判案更加放宽,尊重人民自己的选择。既然人的心已经不再是回教徒,勉强留住那人又有什么意义?每个宗教应该通过加强教导,使信徒信心稳固。
-------------------------------------------------------

以下资料来源:http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13306

改变宗教信仰须审慎
2010-01-28 11:54

林晓微事件,让我想起有许多人因为婚姻等关係“勉强”改信回教;心里面没有信仰,却背负著一个教徒的身份,確实是件痛苦的事。

本人是一名华裔回教徒,在教会的聚会上,就曾遇见这么一个没有信仰的华裔“回教徒”,直觉上感到他本人缺乏自信心,而回教並未为他带来任何正面的力量。

对此,我觉得很可惜,觉得他“入宝山却空手回”,因为回教作为一种宗教,若认真履行其教义,確实会改善生活。若是对这个宗教没有信心,却因为信仰以外的原因而进行“口头上的改教”,这是一种非常不负责任的做法。不但对不起自己和家人,事实上也是对“回教社群”的冒犯!因为这属於一种欺骗。

回教在大马的地位与其他宗教不一样,在宪法上它是属於国教,而回教徒也受到回教法的管辖。

它是属於一种建制化了的宗教(sebuah agama yangdirasmikan),入教或出教,已不是单纯的宗教事务,而是一种复杂的法律事务。

从纯宗教上来讲,一个人只要发自內心的,並在两名回教徒的见证下,念了两次清真言(dua kalikalimah syahadah)就是一名回教徒。至於出教,其实更简单,只要那人已经“完全”不再相信有上苍的存在,並“完全”不再相信穆圣为先知,在宗教上,他也就不再是回教徒。但回到大马法庭,那却可能是个冗长的官司。

我本人在改信回教之前,並没有上过任何甚么“3个月的宗教课”。当时我走进宗教局,表明来意后,官员只是问了一句:“来真的?”(sungguh?)我说是,他就安排多一名官员,见证我念清真言。过程不到15分钟。我想,所谓的“上了3个月宗教课才能进回教”只是个美丽的误会。

我希望各界对回教能够有比较正面的看法,毕竟它也是个宗教,只是因为建制化后,才產生了这许多法律问题。
星洲日报/沟通平台‧读者:莫哈末依沙叶(Muhammad Esa Yap Abdullah)‧2010.01.28

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Reality bites for Avatar: China renames 'floating' mountain



Cashing in ... Heaven and Earth Pillar in Zhangjiajie in China's southern Hunan province has had its name changed to Avatar Hallelujah Mountain.

A craggy peak in a scenic part of southern China has been renamed after the floating mountains featured in Hollywood blockbuster Avatar, with the province hoping to cash in on the movie's massive success.

The majestic peak in Hunan province previously known as Heaven and Earth Pillar or South Sky Pillar has been officially renamed Avatar Hallelujah Mountain, the Zhangjiajie city government said in a statement.

The Government said the floating "Hallelujah Mountains" in the movie were inspired by the pillar, as a Hollywood photographer spent time shooting there in 2008.

"Many pictures he took then become prototypes for various elements in the Avatar movie, including the 'Hallelujah Mountains'," the Government's website said.

Avatar, directed by James Cameron, has so far sold $1.841 billion worth of tickets worldwide, making it the biggest international release of all time.

Chinese cinemas last week began taking the 2D version of Avatar off their screens to make way for domestic movies over the upcoming Chinese new year holiday, though the wildly popular 3D version is still available.

Avatar has so far made about $80 million in China, and has become the country's most popular film ever.

Zhangjiajie hopes to capitalise on that fame.

Tourists can now join a "Magical tour to Avatar-Pandora" or a "Miracle tour to Avatar's floating mountain", the Zhangjiajie branch of China International Travel Service Corp said on its website.

"Pandora is far but Zhangjiajie is near," the municipal government added on its website.

"Welcome to Zhangjiajie to see 'Avatar Hallelujah Mountains' and discover the real world of Pandora."

Places of Worship attacked

As at January 27, 2010

As a Christian, I strongly condemned the acts of cowards who attacked places of worship in this country. I prayed against these spirits of lawlessness.

Friday, January 22, 2010

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001



Dr. Mahathir, I assured you that you have my support on this Conspiracy Theory.
-------------------------------------------------------
by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
January 22, 2010 12:05 PM

1. In my speech (http://www.perdana4peace.org/)at the conference on the support for Palestine (Al Quds) on Jan 20, 2010, I said that if they can make the film Avatar, they can stage the attack and collapse of the World Trade Centre in New York.

2. The press report seems to suggest that there was no real destruction of the two towers but it was just some kind of theatrical trick. It is of course a fact that the two towers were destroyed after two aircrafts crashed into them.

3. A lot of people in America (the apologists will dismiss them as conspiracy theorists) questioned whether the towers collapsed because the planes crashed into them or that something else caused them to come down. These people have reproduced videos taken by media people showing the attack and the collapse of the towers, pointing out certain peculiar features. I have seen the three-hour long video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413#docid=-7577672657056760447) which is widely distributed.

4. Those people who watched the live telecast of the attack and the collapse of the towers will remember as I remember, that both towers collapsed straight down, floor upon floor. They did not lean to their sides as they collapse. The manner of their collapse was like the pictures we see of multi-storied buildings being demolished by demolition experts. When demolishing a skyscraper in a built-up area the experts ensure that as the towers collapse they would not lean to the side and strike neighbouring buildings.

5. The collapse of the two towers was typical of demolition of skyscrapers by experts in America. It was too clean, each tower collapsing upon itself, not touching each other or the buildings surrounding them.

6. One thing that is never mentioned almost is the collapse of a third building which was neither hit by aircraft or by the two towers. This building, described as building number 7, is slightly more than half the height of the WTC towers.

7. This building also collapsed down upon itself. Again it looked like a demolition job. Why did it collapse? Nothing struck it. It did not catch fire. Yet it collapsed straight down without touching any other building or the towers.

8. The American investigators also showed pictures of the Pentagon where the third aircraft was supposed to have crashed into. There was no aircraft or debris. I have never seen the picture of the crashed aircraft.

9. Nor have I seen pictures of the fourth aircraft which crashed somewhere. Maybe others have seen pictures of these two crashed aircrafts. I would like to see them.

10. The American media work very fast. They are usually on the crash scenes minutes after the accident. Yet I do not remember seeing pictures of the crashed aircrafts which were supposed to hit the Pentagon and the one which crashed somewhere.

11. In the video structural engineers and other experts were asked to comment. They doubted that the twin towers collapsed because the aircrafts crashed into the upper stories.

12. I met a janitor who worked on the staff of the two towers. He helped to rescue a lot of people before the building came down. He was proclaimed a national hero. However, the official report did not carry his statement that there were explosions in the building which appeared to be quite unrelated to the plane crash.

13. As I said in my speech I am not so certain now that the Arab "terrorists" hijacked four commercial aircrafts simultaneously and flew them into the twin towers, the Pentagon and somewhere unknown (farm).

14. Some people have condemned me for doubting that the attack was mounted by Arab Muslim terrorists.

15. Perhaps one of the television stations would care to air the videos mentioned without censorship.

16. I really feel sorry for the consultant who profusely apologised for the Americans and the Jews. He should learn to be honest to himself. I pray that his services would be recognised and appreciated by his principals.

Source: http://chedet.co.cc/chedetblog/2010/01/september-11-2001.html#more

新山加略山城市教会教神学和讲道

1月10日傍晚从梳邦机场乘搭飞机抵达新山士乃机场。科目是“基督生平”,本来有20个学生报名,临时两个有事取消。

11日至15日晚上上课,16日从上午到下午。星期日下午两小时30分。星期六晚在金成功加略山讲道,牧师是唐爱芬。星期日上午在加略山母会讲道,牧师是黄佩姗。星期日傍晚乘搭飞机回梳邦机场。

我要向黄牧师和唐牧师致谢,她们的邀请和让我有机会教导和讲道。向苏永良传道和传道娘致谢,为着他们接待我的住宿和饮食。向吴伟强传道致谢,为着他在交通和饮食上的接待。致谢的还有: Grace姐妹(早餐和送去主日崇拜);陈秀凤和丈夫阿黎(载送);Alice和儿子(送去课室);彭牧师夫妇(午餐)。



阿凡达和911



郑丁贤先生:

您好。想跟你分享关于你的文章“阿凡达和911”,及我对马哈迪的言论看法。因为我知道若我这样的言论将不会获得星洲日报刊登的。

根据老马的言论,他并没有指金马仑是911的策划师,他的意思是若美国有这样一个头脑的金马仑,美国哪里会没有策划大动作计划如911事件的人才?

关于阴谋论,其实马哈迪并不是第一个指责的,911不久已经有了。美国也有不少人曾经发表过。美国有一个组织曾经揭发阴谋论而要政府负责,要求全世界支持它们向政府的伸冤。我电邮它们,就收到一张VCD,是专家研究的各种证据,以画面详细描述。

其中有几个疑点:


一、小布什收到电话时,并没有显示很紧张,还悠悠闲闲的,他或许先前早已经知道那事件。

二、世贸大厦向来是犹太人聚集的地方,但整3千死亡的人当中,竟然没有一个犹太人!是否已经先通知他们?

三、飞机撞击后,马上在另一层楼巨大爆炸,那爆炸程度必须要有好多吨的炸药才能够有如此威力。是否一早已经预先置了炸药?飞机爆炸的热量就引爆该楼炸药。

并非卡伊达不是策划者,而是也有报道美国情报局已经知道它们的计划,却不及时拦阻,反而就顺水推舟“配合”。

问题不是美国的领袖有阴谋,而是“世界单一政府”组织的领袖。美国总统某时期开始都是必须认同该组织的斗争宗旨才能获得支持的。怎样能够引进单一政府?就是通过制造紧急事故,那么就能出师有名地“执行正义”,以达到控制世界的一天。

而使用的策略包括推行作买卖的方式,就是通过密码植入人体作为操纵世界的贸易。日后谁人没有密码就不可以作买卖。或许你在想我也如金马仑那样的幻想,想出如此高深莫测的怪东西来!

其实马哈迪真的看到那些西方野心家的阴谋,他看到他们的可恶,我很认同他对西方那般的抨击。虽然穆士林有史以来长期至今皆对峙犹太人,但真正杀害犹太人最多的是谁?是西方人,希特勒屠杀了600万犹太人。马哈迪已经看到,西方人在利用犹太人。看看欧盟,现在对以色列的态度怎样了,已经软化其支持了。到后来伤害犹太人的,少数从穆士林来,多数将从那些单一政府的西方人来。

陈亚伦
-----------------------------------------------------
作者:郑丁贤
2010-01-21 19:04


每个人看了电影《阿凡达》,都会有不同的感受;观后感各有不同,写出来或讲出来,就是本身的影评,各自精彩。

然而,我从来没有看过如此精彩,不……,神奇的影评。

伟大的马哈迪说,他看了《阿凡达》,发觉既然美国人有能力拍出这么高科技的电影,那么,他们也有能力自己策划911恐怖袭击。

了不起,史上最有创意的影评。

奥斯卡金像奖应该增加一个奖项,


不用投票,就直接颁给马哈迪了。

按照马哈迪的逻辑,911的幕后策划人,当然不是奥沙马宾拉登先生,而极有可能是《阿凡达》的导演占士金马仑(James Cameron)。

我查了金马仑先生的资料,他在1997年拍了《铁达尼(Titanic)》,创下票房纪录,还夺得奥斯卡几项大奖,名利双收。

Hmm……,很有可能,从那时起,他就被美国中央情报局收编,替政府工作。

正如中国导演张艺谋声名大噪之后,就被政府徵召,成为中共的宣传大师。

不是吗?金马仑先生拍了《铁达尼》之后,几年来深居简出,神秘兮兮,不知他在干些甚么。

你们说,在这期间,他是否有可能忙著导演911恐怖袭击这部世纪大戏,而不能分身?直到事件告一段落,他才有空开拍《阿凡达》。

如此说来,911事件有两种可能。

其一,一切都是假的,世贸中心被毁的一幕,只是电影特技;2000多名罹难者,都是临时演员;他们现在都还好好活著,只是隱姓埋名,或者改头换面。

其二,一不做,二不休,假戏真做。金马仑先生用飞机炸了世贸中心,也把这些临时演员都干掉了。

当然,奥沙马宾拉登先生,他也是美国的临时演员,在戏中演大反派而已。否则,怎么没见过他为自己申冤呢!

或者,奥沙马宾拉登根本就是金马仑自己客串的。

这么解释之后,马哈迪先生,您满意了吧?美国人自导自演,目的就是要进攻回教世界。

911之后,美国攻打阿富汗和伊拉克,死了上万美军,这些也是临时演员吧。

而美国花了5500亿美元的军费,丟进战场,也是拍戏的预算?

果真如此,金马仑至少可以拍2000部《阿凡达》了。

接下来,马老太爷可以说,二战的珍珠港事件,是美国自己炸的;阿波罗登月,是大导演库布列克在棚內拍摄的;南北战爭,是林肯的家家酒。

总结,美国人就是外星人,他们的任务就是毁灭地球;就好像电影中的地球人,要摧毁潘朵拉星球的纳美族人一样。

马哈迪担任22年的首相,就是以这种逻辑思维来治国的吗?

怪不得,马来西亚在他手上,变得怪怪的。

来源:http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13211

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Dr. M says 9/11 attacks staged to hit Muslim World

AVATAR? Is the movie that high-tech? Since Malaysia former PM Mahathir mentioned it, I will get the DVD soon and watch it. This round I agreed with his insight. He seems to know much about the One World Government conspiracies, and the dirty ambitions of the European Union Antichrist. These people were Anti-Semitic and forever the same till End-time. They would persecute the Jews in the Last Days. Kudos, Mahathir.
-----------------------------------------------------



by Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 20 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today claimed the 9/11 attacks in the United States, that killed nearly 3,000, was staged as an excuse to “mount attacks on the Muslim world”, saying killing as an excuse for war is not new to the US.

The former prime minister also argued that Israel was created to solve the “Jewish problem” in Europe, saying the Holocaust had failed as a final solution against the community.

“In September 2001, the World Trade Centre was attacked allegedly by terrorists. I am not sure now that Muslim terrorists carried out these attacks. There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything,” said Dr Mahathir during his speech at the General Conference for the Support of Al-Quds here. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem.

“Killing innocent people to provide an excuse for war is not new to the US. But whether the real or staged 9/11 attacks have served the United States and Western countries well. They have an excuse to mount attacks on the Muslim world,” he added.

Dr Mahathir also argued the creation of the Jewish state was decided after Europeans failed to massacre the community.

“The Jews had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom.

“Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world. The Holocaust failed as a final solution,” said the outspoken Malaysian leader who was noted for his anti-Western and anti-Zionist stand while in power for 22 years, until October 2003.

Dr Mahathir added that it was easier for the European powers to set up a Jewish state in Palestine.

“Creating a state for them was thought to be a better solution. It could be if some European territory had been allocated to make a permanent ghetto for the Jews. But of course if this was done then the affected European state would rise in arms and kill all the Jews the way they had been doing before. So the debate was about creating an Israeli state in Uganda, Africa, or somewhere in Latin America or Palestine of course.

“It was so easy to decide on Palestine, a British mandated territory. Restrictions on the disposal of mandated land could be ignored. This is nothing new — reneging on solemnly given undertaking is endemic with Europeans,” he said.

Dr Mahathir also accused democratic countries for being “hypocritical” and pointed out that the world is “partially civilised.”

“We live in a world that is only partially civilised. I say this because we still believe that the way to resolve conflicts between nations is to kill people in what is called war. The winner is the side which succeeds in killing the most number of people. Yet we vehemently declare that killing people is murder, a terrible crime worthy of the most severe punishment.

“We are being openly hypocritical. Mass killing is glorious but killing one man is a heinous crime,” he said in his speech.

Dr Mahathir also expressed his disappointment in Barack Obama and said that the US president has failed. Obama celebrated his first year in office today.

“Well, I am a bit disappointed because so far none of his promises have been kept. He promised to get out from Afghanistan but he ended up sending more troops there instead. He promised to close down Guantanamo but he has not closed down Guantanamo. Even other things he has not been able to do.

“It is quite easy to promise during election time but you know there are forces in the United States which prevents the president from doing some things. One of the forces is the Jewish lobby, IPAC,” he said.

Dr Mahathir had previously blamed the Jews for causing the Asian financial crisis.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/50190-dr-m-says-911-attacks-staged-to-hit-muslim-world

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

虎年苦年


要责怪就只怪我是讲广东话一辈,当有人对我讲到虎年时即下意识连贯为“苦年”。华人的十二生肖充满神秘性,多年来不少人受到它主宰。

本来西方情人节是不少情人举行结婚的大热日子,加上今年它碰巧与将来临的春节落在同一天,应该更加是结婚热门首选日子吧。但根据庙宇的婚姻注册官,今年情人节申请结婚冷淡,因为顾忌虎年不利。

虎,给人的印象是凶狠,杀气很大。华人惯常形容凶的女人为“雌老虎”,所以虎年不结婚。当然也有不信运程者明知山有虎,偏向虎山行!且倘若以广东话来念“虎年”则是“苦年”,唉,华人什么东西都有得联想和挂钩的。

对于风水命理,读读就好,不必太在意。难道我们的生命就由十二只动物和时辰八字所主宰吗?遗憾向来不少相爱的鸳鸯遭父母和命理师拆散,到底是两个情人为自己的终身大事作主还是父母和命理师作主?事实上,我们也看到不少以命理“相配”的婚姻破裂,离婚告终,那怎样解释?现实上,婚姻靠夫妻互相尊重,而不是靠命理。

至于那些一窝蜂按照时辰方向接财神的人士,不少人还不是没有发达?如果每个华人接财神都发达的话,那么华人中岂没有穷人了?但事实穷人还是满街都是。

不过真实的,虎年的确是苦年,不是根据运程,乃是根据国家政策。一、大马经济仍然疲弱,同时近来外资减少。二、燃油政策举棋不定,一方面说用大马卡添油啦,一方面又说只津贴100公升啦,总之目的就是想减少津贴。三、废除白糖津贴后,以白糖为原料的物品价格飙涨将在今年陆续出现。这些物品和燃油涨价会导致通货膨胀骨牌效应。

四、金马仑菜农公会声称,春节蔬菜将涨价30%。其实这不仅是在春节的短暂涨价现象。过去一年,蔬菜已经因气候变化歉收而令消费人吃贵菜了,虎年不大可能会恢复年前价格。五、春节猪肉涨价,即使在春节前后几天把它列统制品也只是短期效益。在此举出数据,生猪从去年10月至今已涨价了4%,即从每公斤730令吉涨至760令吉。而猪肉则从每公斤14令吉涨至22令吉。随着猪饲料持续上涨,消费人年内或许还会吃更贵的猪肉。六、全球天灾人祸恐怖事件接二连三,打击全球经济复苏。

综观上述分析,我认为与其把命运交给命理学来定我们一生,倒不如用头脑自力更生找出路。钱不会从天掉下来的,人类能够在这世界生存几千年至今,乃是懂得在逆境中求存。

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

培养先进国国民意识

槟城钟灵中学赛龙舟训练,翻船导致1老师5学生淹死,令人感到遗憾。增广贤文说得有理:“欺山莫欺水”。人是陆地族,不是水族。在水中没顶,短短一分钟即可能就窒息。

我在此分享一次跟朋友出海的经验,或许对我国各阶层作启发提升出海安全意识。两年前我拜访在澳洲柏斯的朋友,他有自己的游艇,带我出印度洋钓鱼。

他作足安全措施:一、从互联网查当天的气候和浪潮(澳洲当局频密更新资讯)。二、预先知会海事局我们出海(方便官员不时联络,不然失踪了也没人知道)。三、携带无线电电话(遭遇不测可轻易发出求救讯号)。四、船上救生器具齐全。

可见如澳洲一个这样的先进国,政府和人民的安全意识是有口皆碑的。试问在我国,上述的措施,多少人会去办?我国多少出海人士不嫌麻烦去查气候和海潮?而我国的气象局的气候和海潮,有最新的资讯让人通过互联网查到吗?我国的海事局会鼓励人民出海前预先知会它们吗?我看大马人也不晓得它们的联络管道。我国出海人士,多少人会携带无线电电话?众知手机一在海面不远距离就没讯号的了。我国的出海人士,救生器具都备上了吗?龙舟悲剧,报道说“18人仅2人穿救生衣,那么不严谨,实在令人惊讶!”

我国只剩下10年就要成为先进国的目标,我恐怕很难实现。政府如果不积极提升公务员的服务态度,教育的范围,及改变人民的各种意识的话,恐怕先进国只停留在喊口号上。我们必须积极参考先进国的各种办事的方式,积极推行,并装备人民培养先进国的国民意识。

Monday, January 18, 2010

高庭基於4理由准《先锋报》用“阿拉”字眼



* “阿拉”字眼判决风波
* 大马
2010-01-17 18:24


(吉隆坡)高庭法官拿督刘美兰是基於4项理由,裁决天主教会週刊《先锋报》可以使用“阿拉”字眼,理由包括內政部长和政府禁止《先锋报》使用“阿拉”字眼的行动是非法、违反宪法、不合理,以及不能证明对国家安全造成威胁。

陈先生是经常在外跑动的高级执行人员,除了用电话来沟通之外,他也大量使用短讯。现在他使用BlackBerry®方案,不用一直去找地方上网来回答电邮,更不用塞车赶回公司处理一大堆邮件。

她在共有57页的书面判词中,点出了联邦宪法和不同州属的法律之间的衝突,以及部份回教组织声称此案不能交由民事法庭审理的立场。

根据《马来西亚局內人》获得的书面判词,她列举了她於去年12月31日作出的口头判决的理由和法律引据。

刘美兰指第一和第二答辩人,即內政部长和政府在印刷与出版法令第12条文下,有权批准或撤销准证给申请人,即大马天主教吉隆坡总教区主教丹斯里莫菲帕金,以出版《先锋报》,但她强调,答辩人禁止《先锋报》使用“阿拉”字眼的决定是不合法和不符合宪法。

以下是主要爭议的摘录要点:

●內政部长发出的禁令是非法的理由:

法官认为,內政部长行使权利,决定对《先锋报》出版准证实施加附带条件,並没有考虑到涉及的问题,包括包括“阿拉”是马来文的“上帝”,而《圣经》马来文译本的“上帝”被译为“阿拉”。

她说,15世纪时,在使用阿拉伯语的国家,基督教徒与回教徒也使用“阿拉”称呼上苍;大马和印尼的天主教堂,甚至在以基督徒为主的地区,认为“阿拉”是马来文的“上帝”。

因此,她认为內政部长犯了法律上的错误,所以法庭有权作出干预,並认为答辩人於2009年1月7日作出的决定应该撤销。

●內政部长发出的禁令不符合宪法的理由:

法官认为,毫无疑问,基督教是一种宗教,问题是,使用“阿拉”字眼是否是基督教的惯例。

她说,歷史证据说法了,基督教使用“阿拉”字眼是无可爭辩的,证据明显显示,使用“阿拉”字眼成为了大马天主教会中的马来语使用者,在崇拜和教学时的惯例,也成为他们实践和传播信仰时不可或缺的做法。

她指出,下一个考虑的问题是,要在何种情况下“禁止”使用“阿拉”字眼,而內政部长指使用“阿拉”字眼將会危害公共秩序和国家安全是受到质疑的论据。

她表示考虑到所有因素后,她认为对《先锋报》出版准证施加附带条件,已令內政部长抵触联邦宪法第3(1)、11(1)和11(3)条文,因此是违宪的。

●內政部长发出的禁令不合理的理由:

法官认为,如果有人违反法律,有关当局將会採取適当的行动,而內政部在发出准证时,已限制了《先锋报》的流通;同时,《先锋报》已在封面註明仅供教堂与基督教徒阅读。

●无法证明对国家安全构成威胁:

內政部长声称《先锋报》使用“阿拉”字眼,將引起混淆,並威胁与危害公共秩序,但是他却无法提供支持性的法律证据证明这一点。

来源:http://www.sinchew-i.com/node/135592?tid=3

Allah Case: Govt wrong on all counts



* Asia Pacific disasters
2010-01-17 21:14


KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 17 — High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan’s controversial ‘Allah’ ruling that rocked the nation over who had rights to the term cited that the Home Minister and government’s actions had been illegal, unconstitutional, irrational and had failed to satisfy that it was a threat to national security.

She also wrote about the apparent conflict in the matter between the Federal Constitution and the various state enactments apart from claims by Muslim groups that the matter cannot be taken to a civil court.

The judge released the written grounds of her Dec 31 judgment late on Friday while the increasingly acrimonious public debate over who has the right to use the word “Allah” continues to rage on.

The Malaysian Insider obtained a copy of her 57-page judgment where the judge lays out the reasons and the laws behind her oral pronouncement.

In laying out her judgment, Justice Lau ruled that the Home Minister and the Government of Malaysia, who were named as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, has the discretion under Section 12 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act to issue or revoke a permit to the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam (the Applicant) to publish the Church’s newspaper, Herald — The Catholic Weekly.

But, she stressed, the respondents had made decisions that were illegal, unconstitutional and irrational when they barred the Catholic newspaper from publishing the word “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

The case was brought by the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam on February 16 last year when he filed for a judicial review against the Home Minister for barring it from using the word “Allah” as part of conditions for getting a publishing permit.

Pakiam is officially the Herald’s publisher.

The Home Ministry has successfully applied for a stay of execution in the ruling pending an appeal.

Below are excerpts highlighting the main disputes.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is illegal

“The Applicant submits the 1st Respondent has failed to take into account one or more of the relevant considerations...

1. The word “Allah” is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” and in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, “God” is translated as “Allah” and “Lord” is translated as “Tuhan”;

2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking countries have been using the word “Allah” in reference to the One God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater majority of other Christian denominations hold that “Allah” is the legitimate word for “God” in Bahasa Malaysia;

3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;

4. The word “God” has been translated as “Allah” in the “Istilah Agama Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia” first published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;

5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated “Deus” (the Latin word for God) as “Alla” as the Malay translation;

6. The Christian usage of the word “Allah” predates Islam being the name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;

7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word “Allah” has been used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru and the Alkitab;

8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he translated the word “God” as “Allah”;

9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in existence before 1957 which translation was carried out by the British and Foreign Bible Society where the word “Allah” was used;

10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word “Allah” was used;

11. There was also a publication entitled “An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine” published in 1895 where the word “Allah” was used.

12. Anther publication entitled “Hikajat Elkaniset” published in 1874 also contains the word “Allah”

13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for generations;

14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word “Allah” for generations and the word “Allah” is used in the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught Malaysia;

15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein the word “Allah appears;

16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is not for sale or distribution outside the Church;

17. The said publication is not made available to members of the public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;

18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant’s use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

19. In any event the word “Allah” has been used by Christians in all countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these countries;

20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a state matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such matters of Islam save in the federal territories

21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church uses the word “Allah” for worship and instruction and that the same is permitted in the Al-Kitab.

“The Applicant further submits that none of the above-mentioned factual considerations were ever disputed or challenged by the 1st Respondent as factually incorrect. I am incline to agree with the Applicant as the response of the 1st Respondent to the factual averments is a feeble denial in paragraph 41 of the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent which reads “Keseluruhan pernyataan-pernyataan di perenggan-perenggan 50, 51 and 52(i)-(xxii) Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon adalah dinafikan...” (Emphasis added)

“Therefore I find the 1st Respondent in the exercise of his discretion to impose further conditions in the publication permit has not taken into account the relevant matters alluded to above, hence committing an error of law warranting this Court to interfere and I am of the view that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 ought to be quashed,” she ruled.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is unconstitutional

Justice Lau also said the applicant’s grounds for the reliefs of certiorari and declaratio is premised on the unconstitutional acts and conduct being inconsistent with Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution...”

“Applying the principles enunciated in Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak (supra) to the instant case, there is no doubt that Christianity is a religion. The next question is whether the use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. In my view there is uncontroverted historical evidence allueded to in paragraph 52 (i) to (xxii) alluded to above which is indicative that use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. From the evidence, it is apparent the use of the word “Allah” is an essential part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and is integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.

“The next consideration is the circumstances under which the “prohibition” was made. The circumstances to my mind would be the factors which the Respondents rely on to justify the impugned decision which have been alluded to in paragraph 9(i) to (ix) above.

“As to the ground in paragraph 9(i) in my judgment, this is unmeritorious for the reason which has been dealt under the issue of whether the use of the word “Allah” endangers public order and national security. As to the ground in paragraph 9(ii), (iii), (v) and (ix), I have shown unchallenged evidence that there is a well established practice for the use of the “Allah” amongst the Malay speaking community of the Catholic faith in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak and the origin of the word and its translation...

“Considering all the factors, in my judgment, the imposition of the condition in the publication permit prohibiting the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication, “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s exercise of powers under the Act contravenes the provisions of Articles 3(1), 11(1) and 11(3) of the Federal Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional,” she added.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is irrational

“The Applicant challenges the impugned decision under this head of irrationality/ Wednesbury unreasonableness which applies to “a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it...”

(a) It is utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents on the one hand not to prohibit the congregation of the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and instruction in their faith and in the AL-Kitab and on the other hand to state that the same word cannot be used in the said publication which serves to assist these persons in their worship and provide a medium of instruction in their faith and to disseminate news and information (see paragraph 52(xxii) of Applicant’s Affidavit).

(b) It is also utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents to require the Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church to use another word to denote the Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” instead of the word “Allah” when such is and has always been the word used for the word “God” in the Catholic Church and throughout the Bahasa Malaysia speaking community of the Church in Malaysia...

“In relation to the 2 additional grounds mentioned in paragraph 17.1 above, the Respondents responded —

1. Merujuk kepada perenggan 20 Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon, Responden-Responden menegaskan bahawa Pernyataan YAB Perdana Menteri tersebut yang telah dikeluarkan melalui media cetak “The Star” pada 20/4/2005 adalah amat jelas mengarahkan agar di kulit “Bible” dalam versi Bahasa Melayu dinyatakan secara jelas bahawa ianya bukan untuk orang Islam and ianya hanya dijual doi kedai-kedai orang Kristian. Walau bagaimanapun saya sesungguhnya mempercayai dan meyatakan bahawa kenyataan media yang dirujuk itu adalah berhubung dengan Al-Kitab (Bible) sahaja dan tidak relevan kepada isu permit Herald – the Catholic Weekly yang mana syarat yang dikenakan adalah amat jelas dan perlu dipatuhi oleh Pemohon (paragraph 22 of the 1st Respondent’s Affidavit); and

2. the circulation of the Al-Kitab vide P.U.(A) 134 dated 13.5.1982 was made subject to the condition that its possession or use is only in churches by persons professing the Christian religion, throughout Malaysia.

“I find the 2 additional grounds submitted by the Applicant in paragraph 17.1 above to be of substance. It is to be noted that a common thread runs through like a tapestry in the Respondents’ treatment of restricting the use of the word “Allah” which appears in the Al-Kitab are (i) that it is not meant for Muslims; (ii) to be in the possession or use of Christians and in churches only. In fact, these restrictions are similar to that imposed as a second condition in the impugned decision save for the endorsement of the word “Terhad” on the front cover of the said publication. Relying on the chapter on maxims of interpretation at paragraph 44 p.156 of N.S Bindra’s Interpretation of the Statute, there is a maxim “Omne majus continet in se minus” which means “The greater contains the less”. One would have thought having permitted albeit with the usual restrictions the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and in the Al-kitab, it would be logical and reasonable for the Respondents to allow the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication drawing an analogy by invoking the maxim “The greater contains the less”. Indeed I am incline to agree with the Applicant that the Respondents are acting illogically, irrationally and inconsistently and no person similarly circumstanced would have acted in a like manner...

“I find there is merit in the Applicant’s contention that when viewed on its merits, the reasons given by the Home Ministry in the various directives defies all logic and is so unreasonable,” Justice Lau wrote in her judgment.

On the seeming conflict between the Federal Constitution and the state enactments to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine among Muslims

She also wrote that, “Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, ten States have enacted laws to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. The laws are –

(i) Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1980 (State of Terengganu Enactment No.1/1980)

2. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1981 (Kelantan Enactment No.11/1981)

3. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Malacca Enactment No.1/1988)

4. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Kedah Darulaman Enactment No.11/1988)

5. The Non Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 (Selangor Enactment No.1/1988)

6. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Perak Enactment No.10/1988)

7. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1989 (Pahang Enactment No.5/1989)

8. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1991 (Johor Enactment No.12/1991)

9. The Control and Restriction (The Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Amoing Muslims) (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Negeri Sembilan Enactment NO.9/1991); and

10. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Religious Belief and Doctrine which is Contrary to the Religion of Islam Enactment 2002 (Perlis Enactment No.6 of 2002)

“It is not disputed that s. 9 of the various State Enactments provide for an offence relating to the use of certain words and expression listed in Part 1 or 11 of the Schedule or in the Schedule itself as the case maybe of the State Constitutions and which includes the word “Allah”. Further, all these State Enactments are made pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution which reads “State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added)...

“Mr Royan drew to the Court’s attention (i) that Article 11(4) which is the restriction does not state that State law can forbid or prohibit but “may control and restrict”; does not provide for State law or for any other law to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing a religion other than Islam...

“I find there is merit in Mr Royan’s submission that unless we want to say that s.9 is invalid or unconstitutional to that extent (which I will revert to later), the correct way of approaching s.9 is it ought to be read with Article 11(4). If s.9 is so read in conjunction with Article 11(4), the result would be that a non-Muslim could be committing an offence if he uses the word “Allah” to a Muslim but there would be no offence if it was used to a non-Muslim. Indeed Article 11(1) reinforces this position as it states “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”. Clause 4 restricts a person’s right only to propagate his religious doctrine or belief to persons professing the religion of Islam. It is significant to note that Article 11(1) gives freedom for a person to profess and practise his religion and the restriction is on the right to propagate.

“I find Mr Royan’s argument is further augmented by the submission of Mr Benjamin Dawson, learned Counsel for the Applicant which I find to be forceful stating that this rule of construction is permissible in the light of the mischief the State Enactments seek to cure and the provision has to be interpreted to conform to the Constitution. … For completeness I shall now spell out the preamble in full “WHEREAS Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that State law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. AND WHEREAS it is not desired to make a law to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added) …

“Applying the said test to the factual matrix of the present case the Court has to bear in mind the constitutional and fundamental rights of persons professing the Christian faith to practise their religion and to impart their faith/religion to persons within their religious group and in this case, the Catholic Church comprises a large section of people from Sabah and Sarawak whose medium of instruction is Bahasa Malaysia and they have for years used religious material in which their God is called “Allah”; for that matter there is a large community who are Bahasa Malaysia speaking from Penang and Malacca. On the other hand the object of Article 11(4) and the State Enactments is to protect or restrict propagation to persons of the Islamic faith. Seen in this context by no stretch of the imagination can one say that s.9 of the State Enactments may well be proportionate to the object it seeks to achieve and the measure is therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“As to the concern of the Respondents there is no guarantee that the magazine would be circulated only among Christians and it will not fall into the hands of Muslims, I agree with Mr Royan there is no requirement of any guarantee be given by anyone in order to profess and practise an even to propagate it.

“In my view if there are breaches of any law the relevant authorities may take the rleevant enforcement measures. We are living in a world of information technology; information can be readily accessible. Are guaranteed rights to be sacrificed at the altar just because the Herald has gone online and is accessible to all? One must not forget there is the restriction in the publication permit wich serves as an additional safeguard which is the word “TERHAD” is to be endorsed on the front page and the said publication is restricted to churches and to followers of Christianity only,” she added.

On the claim that the Home Minister’s ban was to safeguard public security and order

“There is merit in the Applicant’s argument that the Respondents in paragraph 45 of his Affidavit (also in paragraphs 6, 25 and 46) sought to justify imposing the condition in purported exercise of his powers under the said Act on a mere statement that the use of the word “Allah” is a security issue which is causing much confusion and which threatens and endangers public order, without any supporting evidence. A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was necessary on the ground of national security without adequate supporting evidence is not sufficient in law....

“I find there is merit in Mr Dawson’s argument that the Court ought to take judicial notice that in Muslim countries even in the Middle East where the Muslim and Christian communities together use the word “Allah”, yet one hardly hear of any confusion arising (see paragraph 52(xix) of the Applicant’s Affidavit which is not rebutted). Further, I am incline to agree that the Court has to consider the question of “avoidance of confusion” as a ground very cautiously so as to obviate a situation where a mere confusion of certain persons within a religious group can strip the constitutional right of another religious groiup to practise and propagate their religion under Article 11(1) and to render such guaranteed right as illusory,” Justice Lau said.

On claims from the Muslim groups that “Allah” cannot be challenged in court

On this, she wrote, “I had on 31.12.2009 dismissed the applications of the Majlis Agama Islam (MAI) of Wilayah Persekutuan, Johore, Selangor, Kedah, Malacca, the MAI and Adat Melayu Terenggganu and MACMA to be heard in opposition under O.53 r.8 of the RHC (It is to be noted that the MAI and Adat Melayu Perak and MAI Pulau Pinang did not file any applicatio under O.53 r.8). That being the case, their submission contending the issue of whether any publication in whatever form by a non-Muslim individual or body or entity that uses the scared word of “Allah” can be permitted in law is one that is within the absolute discretion of the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) (in respect of Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories) as the respective Heads of Islam and is therefore non-justiciable is irrelevant at the substantive hearing of the judicial review application and need not be considered by this Court.

“I adopt the following responses of the Applicant contending the application is justiciable and I am of the view there is substance –

1. the Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions clearly provide that the Rulers and the YDPA as the Head of Islam in the States and the Federal Territories have exclusive authority only on Islamic affairs and Malay customs;

2. subject to Articles 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution, the control and regulation of all publications and matters connected therewith are governed by federal law namely the Act and only the Minister for Home Affairs is involved in the implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Under this Act, only the Minister can decide what is permitted to be published and in this regard the Rulers and the YDPA have no role whatsoever under the scheme of this Act;

3. the present judicial reiew is not a judicial review of the decision of the Rulers or the YDPA as Head of Islam concerning the exercise of their duties and functions. It is only a judicial review of the 1st Respondent’s decision to impose a prohibition on the use of the word “Allah” by the Applicant in a publication. Since the Rulers or the YDPA cannot make any decision in respect of any publications and matters connected therewith, the issue of non justiciability does not arise.

On what the Court really ordered

She also listed out the orders from the court in the landmark case, “ In conclusion in the circumstances the Court grants the Applicant the following order:

1. an Order of Certiorari to quash the decisio of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter;

2. Jointly the following declarations:

(i) that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter is null and void;

(ii) that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applica’ right that religions other than Islam may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation;

(iii) that Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation does not empower and/or authorize the Respondents to prohibit the Applicant from using the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly”;

(iv) that pursuant to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of speech and expression;

(v) that pursuant to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s freedom of religion which includes the right manage its own religious affairs;

(vi) that pursuant to Article 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s right in respect of instruction and education of the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion.

(By DEBRA CHONG,TheMalaysianInsider)


Source: http://www.mysinchew.com/node/34085?tid=14