YOURSAY | ‘If a former chief judge of secular law now favours Islamic law, it brings his past judgments into question.’
P Dev Anand Pillai: Why should we challenge these suggested amendments in court when we simply don't trust the judges and the judiciary anymore?
It has been stated many times by the proposers of the bill to amend Act 355 that PAS intends to make as law that they wish to see a situation like Aceh, North Sumatra, over here.
It may be applicable to Muslims now, but what guarantee is there that it will not apply to non-Muslims later? If syariah is to supersede the Federal Constitution, then why do we need a constitution?
Anticonmen: The original constitution was worded by wise men to ensure equality, freedom and rule of law for everyone. These are checks and balances to prevent the rise of dictatorship and theocracy.
Negarawan: It is truly shocking how former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim could even qualify as a chief justice with his extremist views. Former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram had stated it correctly that Ahmad Fairuz should not read Article 3(1) in isolation to assert the applicability of Islamic law in Malaysia.
With such a myopic and biased view of law, it brings to serious question the validity of all his past judgments. A review of all his past cases might be warranted.
Angel: What happens if one cannot pay the RM100,000 fine? Did God specify a RM100,000 fine and 30 lashes? If it is PAS' law and not God's law, why follow it?
Vision2020: The former chief justice has no respect for our Federal Constitution, which our forefathers created based on secular government and not a theological state. All Malaysians should be treated equal under the rule of common law and not rule by Islamic law, which perverts our constitution.
Meh: On such an important matter, Muslims should have a referendum to determine what they want. We must give the moderate Muslims a chance to express themselves without the help or persuasion of extremists like Ahmad Fairuz.
David Dass: I am not sure how the Article 8 argument was framed. Article 8 simply says that all Malaysians are equal under the law and enjoy the equal protection of the law. Not all Muslims support Act 355. Are they not allowed to complain?
There are many other arguments against Act 355. But we repeat them ad nauseum. It is time for MPs to vote. The future of Malaysians and Malaysia hangs in the balance.
Well Thats Fantastic: All of these old men making decisions on my behalf whilst fearing their nearing demise. They should man up and leave us all alone, for we don't want unjust laws. Why would we want to be compelled further than we are already when it is not part of our religion?
David Dass: An often heard argument is that syariah law means lower crime rates. Of the 10 countries with the lowest crime rates, eight are in Europe and two are in Asia.
Singapore is the country with the lowest crime rate followed by Japan. Singapore, like us, follows the Common Law system and Japan follows the civil law system.
Aziz Kader: What is Islamic law? Is it stated in Quran? Has anyone claimed to be able to define Islam written law?
Anonymous S303: By the way Ahmad Fairuz, why was there no public announcement when you were appointed chairperson of Astro? Which company's director are you now?
Wake up: Common sense will tell you that no law can eradicate crime. Laws are to mete punishment. You can make it as severe as you want, but those who want to commit crime will continue to do discreetly.
Criminals are also smart. English laws are not antique. It is the way we think that is antique. Address the root cause for all these evils.
R Venugopal: A corrupt judge would be stoned and shamed for his actions
Katusha: Correct! Correct! Correct!- Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.