Pandangan CLJ - berkenaan isu penasaban

mbhcsf

The Court of Appeal may have erred in the Bin Abdullah case – Aidil Khalid By admin - August 4, 2017

The narrative of setting ‘secular’ or civil laws at odds with the sharia in this country, and vice versa, is a dangerous narrative to pursue. It is dangerous because we risk destructing and destroying the framework of the Federal Constitution, being the grundnorm or the foundation upon which our society is built, as imparted by the great wisdom of our forefathers. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal pertaining to the name of a Muslim child who was conceived illegitimately, and the polemics that have ensued immediately thereafter, is but one of such example.


By holding that the child could have as his patronym his father’s name, despite the former’s illegitimate status, the Court had effectively held that Muslims in this country could in fact act against a fatwa issued by religious authorities, with impunity – the edict that illegitimate children cannot legally be identified as the progeny of the father. It is important to stress from the outset, that discussions into the intricacies of the legal issues involved — on whether to allow or disallow illegitimate children to bear their father’s name — is not meant to subject innocent children to the sins of their parents. It is a given that children are precious gifts from God, and they should not be made to suffer for the past mistakes of their parents.


The discussion, especially when it concerns religious rulings, must be strictly understood in the context of safeguarding the integrity of progeny from being inadvertently compromised, which would have far reaching effects on other substantive issues involving the administration of various branches of sharia, including on inheritance, marriage, guardianship, and others.








Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court- ... -case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

The practice of having surnames vis-à-vis patronyms Reading through the 29-page judgment of the Court of Appeal in A Child & 2 Ors v National Registration Department & 2 Ors penned by Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli, one would note that the thrust of the reasoning in the decision lies on the interpretation of section 13A(2) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 (BDRA), wherein the Court held that the provision allows for an illegitimate child to bear the surname of the father if he acknowledges himself to be the father of that child.


Therefore, the Court found that the National Registration Department (NRD) had acted irrationally and outside the scope of its power when the latter refused to register the father’s name as the child’s patronym and inserted instead “bin Abdullah”, simply because the child was illegitimate.







Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court-of-appeal-may-have-erred-in-the-bin-abdullah-case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

But a closer scrutiny of section 13A(2) would reveal that the Court of Appeal had not been fully circumspect in reading of the same. The section, verbatim, reads as follows:-



“The surname, if any, to be entered in respect of an illegitimate child may where the mother is the informant and volunteers the information, be the surname of the mother; provided that where the person acknowledging himself to be the father of the child in accordance with section 13 requests so, the surname may be the surname of that person.” (emphasis added)



Note that the surname refers to the surname of the father, and not the first name of the father. This is important, because In Dato’ Menteri Othman bin Baginda & Anor v Dato’ Ombi Syed Alwi bin Syed Idrus [1981] 1 MLJ 29, the Late Royal Highness Raja Azlan Shah (as HRH then was) cautioned that “[r]espect must be paid to the language which has been used and to the traditions and usages which have given meaning to that language.”


The learned judges of the Court of Appeal however seem to had taken it for granted, and without deeper or matured consideration, assumed that the term ‘surname’ used therein include the practice of the Muslims in Malaysia to have patronyms “bin [followed by the father’s first name]” after the child’s first name.





Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court- ... -case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

Whereas, that is neither the natural nor the legal meaning of the word. A surname refers to a family name that is common to all family members, not to the use of a father’s first name. Section 13A(2) would only be applicable to families that follow the practice of the use of family names, and  that is why it is stated clearly that the provision is applicable to surname of illegitimate child, if any. It is not a provision that applies to all, particularly not to Muslims in Malaysia, unless they have family names.




Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court- ... -case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

It is interesting to note that when the issue of the definition of the term “surname” cropped up in a British Colombian Court, the Court there, in Bienkowski (Guardian ad litem of) v Hersom [1985] B.C.J. No. 101 had had the wisdom to refer to several dictionaries to gather the authoritative meaning of the term, and held as follows: “Recourse to the Concise Oxford Dictionary Sixth Edition, 1976, for the word ‘surname’ gives: ‘Name common to all members of a family’. Black’s Law Dictionary (fifth edition, 1979) gives for ‘surname’: ‘The family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism. The name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents. The last name; the name common to all members of a family’.”

Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court-of-appeal-may-have-erred-in-the-bin-abdullah-case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

“Recourse to the Concise Oxford Dictionary Sixth Edition, 1976, for the word ‘surname’ gives: ‘Name common to all members of a family’. Black’s Law Dictionary (fifth edition, 1979) gives for ‘surname’: ‘The family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism. The name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents. The last name; the name common to all members of a family’.”

Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court- ... -case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

Reference to fatwas and religious authorities

• Another glaring and potentially fatal mistake that the learned judges of the Court of Appeal had made in the course of deciding the case, is when they held that since the BDRA does not clearly spell out the practice of having ‘bin Abdullah’ for illegitimate Muslim children, the NRD is therefore not empowered to introduce such policy by reference merely to the fatwa issued by the religious authorities. The Court in fact went on to say that for NRD to do so “would amount to an abrogation of his [i.e. the NRD] power under the BDRA and surrendering it to the religious body.”
  

• The above position taken by the Court is problematic on several fronts. First, because it is in direct contradiction to what was authoritatively decided by the Federal Court in the year 2006, being the highest judicial rank in the country. In the landmark case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Yang Lain, it was contended that it is wrong for the NRD to seek reference from religious institutions. But the Court disagreed, and held as follows:-
  
  
  “Rujukan kepada sesuatu pihak yang berkuasa atas perkara undang-undang Islam adalah diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang dan justeru demikian ianya tidaklah bersalahan dengan undang-undang seperti mana yang dihujahkan oleh perayu … Berpandukan dari keputusan ini nanti, adalah dalam budibicara JPN untuk memutuskan….” [Reference to the authorities on matters concerning Islamic law is provided for under the law, and therefore is not against the law as purported by the appellant … Based on the decision [of the said authorities], it would then be within the NRD’s discretion to make a decision….”
  
  
  
• Secondly, the Court of Appeal also failed to take into consideration of the NRD Order 8/2009 about the procedure of registering the birth of illegitimate children for Muslim couples under the provision of section 13 of the BDRA specifying the use of bin and binti for illegitimate children can only be followed by Abdullah or other 99 known names of God in Islam.
  
  
  While the NRD Order 8/2009 is not law, it is a policy that was issued based on reference to the position of Islamic law.
  
  
• This is in fact a fulfilment of the NRD’s constitutional duty to uphold the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation at all times. Lest we forget, there is a precedent in Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors v Titular Roman Catholic Arcbishop of Kuala Lumpur, that the powers that be owe a positive obligation to take appropriate state action to facilitate and encourage people to hold their life to the Islamic principle.
  

Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court-of-appeal-may-have-erred-in-the-bin-abdullah-case-aidil-khalid/

dovob

sy memang boleh faham bahasa inggeris. hari-hari speaking english di sekolah ye.

jgn lupa ye. hehehehe

mbhcsf

The Court of Appeal went beyond its competence


While the Court of Appeal admonished the NRD for supposedly unnecessarily minding itself on religious issues which the court is of the opinion falls not within the NRD’s competence, in the same breath the Court seem to have overstepped its own authority when it offered its unsolicited opinion on a matter that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Islamic authorities: “[I]n the case of a Muslim child,” said the Court, “the purpose is to announce to the whole world that the child is an illegitimate child by tagging the surname ‘bin Abdullah’ to his name in the birth certificate.

We believe Islam does not condone such open and public humiliation of an innocent child.” With due respect, whether that is the purpose, or whether Islam condones or not a certain thing is not within the competence of the learned judges of the Court of Appeal. Such argument, if at all, can only be argued in Sharia Court being the proper forum as provided for under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, because it relates to the administration of Islamic law. Since judges of the civil Courts are not properly trained on the jurisprudence of the sharia, they are not in any position to determine questions concerning Islam.
Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court-of-appeal-may-have-erred-in-the-bin-abdullah-case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

A balanced approach

• Ultimately, the Sharia and Civil Courts, like the so called ‘secular’ and religious laws, should not be seen to be at odds or to be competing against each other, but instead must be construed as complement to each other. This is the approach that should be taken by our Courts, be that the Civil or the Sharia Courts at all level. The oath of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 37(1), as the Supreme Head of the Federation, provides that the YDPA “shall at all time protect the Religion of Islam and uphold the rules of law and order in the Country.” This oath is taken in the name of God Almighty, “Wallahi, Wabillahi, Watallahi.” It is to this oath that all the three branches of the Government – comprising of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary — owe their allegiance to.
  

• The distinction between the Sharia and the Civil Courts, like the division of powers between the Parliament and the State Legislative Assembly, is administrative, in the sense that the Federal Constitution has spelled out the distribution of powers and jurisdiction between them, for administrative purposes – Article 121(1A) for Sharia and Civil Courts; and the 9th Schedule for the Federal and State powers. It is necessary for judges to accord religious edicts due respect and deference, in administering civil laws, in order to maintain the delicate fabric of our society.
• On this note, it would be most apt to conclude with a very enlightening passage from the luminous dissenting judgment of Hamid Sultan JCA in Pathmanathan Krishnan v Indira Gandhi Mutho & Other Appeals [2016] 1 CLJ 911: “Islamic Jurisprudence was already in place in Malaysia for more than five centuries and that too even before the British colonized Malaya.… In truth, dwelling into hair splitting arguments is unnecessary in a blessed land where bread, butter and honey pour to those who are industrious. Every Malaysian must take a balanced approach to maintain social order that is part of the public role in subscribing to rule of law which I repeat is part of Rukun Negara.” * Aidil Khalid is a lawyer practising in Kota Damansara and activist member of the Concerned Lawyers for Justice (CLJ). Views are of the writer and do not necessarily represent the position of Menara.my in a particular issue.
  

Read more at: https://www.menara.my/the-court-of-appeal-may-have-erred-in-the-bin-abdullah-case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

laman sesawang asal:

https://www.menara.my/the-court- ... -case-aidil-khalid/

mbhcsf

Semua agensi Persekutuan kena patuh fatwa, undang-undang Islam: Shamrahayu By admin

- August 5, 2017




BANGI, 12 Zulkaedah 1438H, Sabtu – Semua agensi Persekutuan bertanggungjawab untuk patuh kepada undang-undang Islam, tegas Pensyarah Undang-Undang Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM), Prof Madya Dr Shamrahayu Ab Aziz. Beliau berkata, adalah tidak adil undang-undang syariah diketepikan sebegitu rupa oleh mahkamah sivil dalam isu penasaban anak.

Beliau yang juga pakar Perlembagaan, tidak setuju dengan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang membenarkan penasaban anak luar nikah kepada bapa biologi dengan menolak keputusan Jawatankuasa Fatwa Kebangsaan. “Apabila agensi Persekutuan tidak tertakluk kepada undang-undang syariah, ia menafikan kebebasan umat Islam.


“Walhal, tanggungjawab ia adalah untuk taat kepada undang-undang Islam. Sekiranya tidak, ia akan ‘mengecewakan’ undang-undang itu sendiri,” katanya pada Forum Sudut Pandang yang dianjurkan oleh Arus Baru dan ismaweb.net di sini, malam tadi.

Read more at: https://www.menara.my/semua-agen ... g-islam-shamrahayu/









Read more at: https://www.menara.my/semua-agen ... g-islam-shamrahayu/

mbhcsf

   

Prinsip-prinsip asas, terutama menyentuh Islam dan Melayu tidak boleh dikompromi – Sultan Nazrin Shah

Read more at: https://www.menara.my/prinsip-pr ... sultan-nazrin-shah/










Putrajaya: Takhta dan Institusi Raja tidak boleh dipisahkan daripada hukum Allah SWT.


Ini adalah antara perkara yang dikongsikan di Konvensyen Memperkukuh Pasak Negara ke Arah Lebih Tersurat pada 5hb Ogos kelmarin di Hotel Marriott Putrajaya.


Hal ini dibangkitkan oleh Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Sultan Nazrin Muizzudin Shah semasa memetik kata-kata Almarhum ayahanda baginda sewaktu penganugerahan ijazah Kehormat Doktor Undang-undang oleh Universiti Sains Malaysia pada tahun 1980, di mana Sultan Azlan Muhibbuddin Shah menyatakan bahawa Institusi Raja tertakluk kepada hukum Allah.


Titah baginda, “Bahawa selagi rakyat menaruh kepercayaan terhadap Raja dan menghormati Institusi Raja, selagi itu takhta tidak akan dipindahkan dari istana ke muzium; bahawa takhta juga tidak boleh lari daripada hukum ALLAH, hukum yang ditetapkan ke atas seluruh umat manusia tanpa mengira Raja atau rakyat.”

Menurut Sultan Nazrin lagi, perlembagaan sesebuah negara bukan sekadar dokumen undang-undang. Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang wujud pada hari ini sebenarnya mengandungi semangat dan roh negara dan mencerminkan persetujuan-persetujuan yang dicapai sewaktu merdeka. “Perlembagaan Persekutuan digubal bersumberkan warisan sejarah, satu kesinambungan yang berjaya mengekalkan tradisi ketika mengharung modenisasi. Termaktub di dalamnya, aspek warisan berkerajaan – aspek sejarah bernegara, berpayungkan Raja, bertiangkan Islam, bersalut budaya dan bahasa peribumi,” titah Sultan Nazrin.


Sultan Nazrin juga bertitah bahawa terdapat perkara-perkara di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang tidak boleh dipinda tanpa perkenan Raja-Raja Melayu, ini termasuk Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan, Tanah Simpanan Melayu, Kedudukan Istimewa orang Melayu dan lain-lain lagi. “Terpahat secara tersirat – tertera secara tersurat di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan semangat menjunjung Tujuh Wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu, yang secara tegas menetapkan antaranya, kedaulatan Raja-Raja, Islam sebagai Agama Persekutuan, Bahasa Melayu sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan, Tanah Simpanan Melayu, Kedudukan Istimewa Orang Melayu dan kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain, diberikan jaminan untuk dilindungi pada setiap masa. Perkara-perkara ini tidak boleh dipinda di dalam Perlembagaan tanpa perkenan Raja-Raja.”



Menurut Sultan Nazrin, umat Islam perlu berdiri tegas di atas asas Islam dan tidak boleh berundur walau setapak sekalipun. Selain daripada itu, nasib ummah pada hari esok tidak boleh digadaikan demi mencapai matlamat jangka pendek oleh mana-mana pihak. “Prinsip-prinsip asas, terutama menyentuh Islam dan Melayu tidak boleh sama sekali dikompromikan. Walau apa sekalipun alasan, walau apa muslihatnya, matlamat jangka pendek oleh mana-mana pihak, jangan sampai ke peringkat menggadaikan nasib ummah di hari ini dan di hari muka. Ummah wajib berdiri teguh – berpendirian tegas, tidak berundur, walau setapak sekalipun.” Baginda Raja Nazrin juga memetik kata-kata Raja Ali Haji daripada kitab Tuhfat al Nafis, bahawa fungsi utama penyandang gelaran Raja adalah untuk menjunjung hukum Allah di muka bumi.

Read more at: https://www.menara.my/prinsip-prinsip-asas-terutama-menyentuh-islam-dan-melayu-tidak-boleh-dikompromi-sultan-nazrin-shah/