Sunday, November 09, 2014

Could judges misinterpret the law for political agenda? [updated]

Bujai's title for his posting yesterday on the latest Court of Appeal judgement was truly appropriate. [Read "Human Rights defeat Islamic Law" here. ]

A three-judges bench led by Datuk Mohd Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus overturned a judgement by High Court and proclaimed Section 66 of the Shariah Criminal Enactment of Negeri Sembilan violated Articles 5, 8, 9, and 10 of the Federal Constitution.

They over-step the jurisdiction to make judgement on syariah matter. Naturally, it got the various western biased human rights groups championing LGBT pleased. [Read MI here.]

This judgement is sending a wrong signal legally and may raise suspicion on the conduct of judges in the higher courts. Are judges misinterpreting the law and Constitution for political agenda?

Prof. Shad Faruqi did say, "Constitutions are political documents. They reflect the ideals of the time, the raw realities and the workable solutions arrived at by the people who framed them." [read it in the Bar Council here].

But, judges are not lawmakers. Enter politics, get elected and ensure they have the numbers should they wish to change the Constitution and law!

Off late, there have been concern by certain section of the legal community that there is a trend amongst several judges in the Court of Appeal to make judgements that are superceding case precedents. Law and procedures are reinterpreted with a certain political bias for human rights agenda.

For instance, Shah Alam High Court given Nik Nazmi his third acquital for leading a public demonstration because the Court of Appeal have made a judgement that Section 9 (5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act was unconstitutional. Presumably the argument for the acquital was based on Part 2 of the Federal Constitution on Fundamental Liberties.

Court jurisdiction

In the latest judgement involving transgender or "pondan" as Malay would refer them, it is in contravention to Article 121 (1A), in which there had been many precedents set, that the High Court has no power to deal in syariah enactment matters. See below:

The article 121 (1) concerns the jurisdiction of the High Courts:

In the subsequent clauses 121 (2) and (3), it only mentions of Court of Appeal (CoA) as superior court to High Court (HC) and Federal Court (FC) superior to CoA. Does the latest judgement mean the CoA and FC have been conferred power over the Syariah Court?

It rises the question whether judges have basis to invalid any law passed by parliament? Article 128 (1) below say they do but under what circumstances?

Does the same power conferred to the FC also conferred to the CoA? Article 128 (2) and (3) mentioned that power of FC:

but jurisdiction of the CoA is limited to Article 121 (1)(B) below:

Since the High Court had heard the transgender appeal, does that mean the civil CoA could simply take up a case under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court and over rule case precedents and ruling by FC on the jurisdiction divide between civil and syariah courts?

The courts should have seek for FC clearance before presiding. In the case of the SIS Forum, they have applied the same similar trick for a judical review.

When Dato Marina Mahathir said they are challenging the process and not the fatwa [read in MMO here], it may seemed that the fatwa on their deviant status remain. It is not necessarily so. They are  trying to by-pass the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court by seeking for constional judicial review by FC (likely in line with Article 128 (2)) to deem the Fatwa making process unconstitutional?

It is similar to the Lina Joy case to bypass Syariah Court. There are arguments to say they could do so. [Read also this blog here] Thus, which precedent will the judges rely their judgement on? The Article 121 (1)(A) or CoA transgender precedent?

Fundamental Liberties

In the Transgender case, the judges led by Dato Hishamuddin took the Article 5, 8, 9 and 10 on Fundamental Liberties to override article 121 (1)(A) on the power of the Syariah Court.

In the Federal Constitution, all the freedom or rights given to any individual or groups does not have a blank cheque but come with it's own exceptions.

The "pondan" made their complain in accordance with Article 5(2) but article 5 (1) states the exception that:

personal freedom has to be in accordance with the law, in which article 5 (4) acknowledge the Syariah Court magistrate:

In all the Section 8, 9 and 10 mentioned by CoA, there are exceptions to those freedoms. There is NO ABSOLUTE FREEDOM or LIBERTY in Constitution, be it here in Malaysia or any other countries, because the freedom and liberty of the masses and selected groups are given due consideration too.

The freedom to equality promised in Article 8 comes with it's exceptions, below:

The freedom from banishment and movement in article 9 comes with it's own exception:

There is NO ABSOLUTE FREEDOM to assembly and association mentioned in article 10, below:

Judicial bias?

With all the exceptions provided for in the Constitution, what then is the basis for declaring the Syariah Enactment as unconstitutional? Under Article 11 (3), Islam has the right to manage it's own affair:

and more. The Islamic religious institution has the following constitutional right:

which could also enable them to restrict deviant religious doctrine and belief.

Engagement is not necessary especially when SIS have been engaged and advised on many occasions. They are lying through their teeth should they deny. It comes to a point MAINS has to  carry out their responsibility as authority.

To lay man with limited knowledge of law, it raises suspicion of judicial bias on the judgement led by Dato Hishamuddin. Surely the complainant could be exempted from punishment due to their psychological disorder but it is inconceivable for the Enactment to be cast as unconstitutional.

The judges is seen to interpret the law independently from the Constitution and in doing, could be deemed as having their own agenda, human right or most likely political.

Judges have misbehaved in the past and subjected to a Tribunal.

The judgement error could be intentional. There must be a study done to see the trend in the judgements of the likes of Dato Hishamuddin, former PAS candidate, Dato Mohd Arif Yusof, Dato Mah Weng Kwai and Dato Dr Hamid Sutan bin Abu Backer.

The last three judges suspiciously played along the opposition script to cast aside the indecisive Coroner verdict to fear the questionable testimony of strange looking Dr Porntip over the consistent testimonies of three other experts from local and abroad [read here].

In the first place, the opposition instigated the TBH family and the Chinese community to demand for a RCI and Coroner inquiry. Unsatisfied that the outcome did not met their agenda, they applied to the CoA.

The CoA judgement to cast aside Coroner's report is strange. They had no access and were in no capacity to deal with the technical issues. And Police was told to investigate. Wasn't that what the police wanted in the first place but DAP resisted and as a ploy, used the family to cover-up their wrongdoings?

What evidence is there left for police to investigate on now?

For over few years, blogs and media social have raised issue on  former PAS election candidate and now CoA judge, Dato Mohd Arif bin Yusof.

He had on many occassions refused to recuse himself from cases involving PAS and Pakatan Rakyat member.

Surely it is not by coincident that almost all the cases co-incidently favours the opposition personalities. [Read ABITW here, MyKMU here and Agendadaily here]

Sodomy II

The latest on the Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim is that the longest submission in FC history is completed and the judges reserves the judgement.

Tian Chua, Zuraidah, Rafizi and PKR supporters have openly threaten the court to acquit Anwar. He himself committed contempt of court for insulting an officer of the court. Will the court dare do anything to this charade?

The fear amongst lawyers that the bench may willingly bent their back to pressure from the opposition, so-called human rights activists, Bar Council, foreign NGOs and press, and dramatise public demonstration on the Dato Seri Anwar second sodomy trial.

Talk by certain lawyers is that the judges are not familiar with forensic.

Though one source from Johor familiar with the judges said otherwise, the lawyers claimed there are judges that have a tendency to lean in favour of their former peer.

The trend towards western human rights value, including rights to LGBT, could psychologically influence the court away from the case in hand of criminal carnal intercourse and consideration for the victim.[Read Dato Ariffin Zakaria here]

Those following closely the FC submission could clearly see the defense has no intention of disapproving Anwar had sodomise Saiful. Gopal repeated what late Karpal Singh and Christopher Leong said that it was a "suka sama suka".

They were raising minor and frivolous technical issues with the hope that one will stick as reasonable doubt to acquit Anwar. If unsuccessful, the judges opinion and judgement are fodders for opposition to campaign and blame the government for various uncalled for misdeeds. They will claim they had 42 doubtful issues but FC rejected

Pity that Tan Sri Shafee may have fell to their strategy to become defensive than being naturally offensive as prosecution. He may have not much choice.

* Updated and edited: 11/9 10 AM


Anonymous said...

.. it seems nobody up there look sober anymore .. frightening isn't it... where will we go after this?.. Libya?.. Afghanistan?.. Syria?.. nahh.. it wont, most probably it will be uniquely Malaysian.. all those scream goes into deaf ears.. ' que sera sera...

SolitaireHunter said...

Tak perlu marah.... ini sebahagian dari sokongan kepada polisi LIBERAlisasi Najib!

Anonymous said...

setuju sangat dengan solitairehunter.

Cross Dressing is haram said...

Mahkamah Rayuan hari ini memutuskan bahawa Seksyen 66 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah (Negeri Sembilan) 1992 yang memperuntukkan hukuman ke atas lelaki Islam berpakaian wanita adalah bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Sehubungan dengan itu, Hakim Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus mengisytiharkan Seksyen 66 itu sebagai terbatal.

Keputusan berkenaan secara tidak langsung mengiktiraf hak golongan transgender yang mengalami disforia gender dan berpakaian serta berkelakuan seperti wanita.


Kitab Hadis Sohih Al-Bukhari:

عن ابن عبّاس رضي الله عنه قال: لعن رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلّم المتشبّهين من الرجال بالنّساء والمتشبّهات من النّساء بالرجال -رواه البخاري

Dari Ibnu ‘Abbas radiallahuanhu, ia berkata, “Rasulullah melaknat lelaki yang menyerupai wanita dan para wanita yang menyerupai lelaki”.

[HR. Bukhari]

Dan dalam hadis lain disebutkan..

Kitab Hadis Sunan Abu Daud.
Dari Abu Hurairah radiallahu 'anhu dia berkata, "Rasulullah sallallahu'alaihiwasallam melaknat lelaki yang memakai pakaian wanita, dan wanita yang memakai pakaian lelaki".

[HR. Abu Daud juz 4, hal. 60, no. 4098].

Diharap pihak berouthoriti agama seperti JAKIM, Jabatan2 Agama,Jabatan2 Mufti, Badan2 NGO dll bangkit secara tegas Dan berhikmah utk menasihati dan menyuarakan hal ini kpd kerajaan agar seksyen 66 (enekmen jenayah syariah N.9) di KEKALKAN walaupun bercanggah dgn perlembagaan persekutuan, Diharapkan juga perlembagaan persekutuan mengikut Maqasid Syariyyah dgn acuan Ahlissunnah Waljamaah Asyairah Maturidiyyah bkn ikut acuan Wahabi / Syiah / Liberal dll.
Krn Akidah kita ialah tanzihullah " Allah Ada Tanpa Tempat".

FB: Alwi Al-Bakaniyy / Ustaz Haji Ahmad Hafiz

pemerhati said...

In my humble opinion, what the Court of Appeal has decided is solely based on the province of the fundamental human rights as Malaysian citizens as enshrined under our Federal Constitution, perhaps erroneously.

And this decision may still be challenged in the Federal Courts on the grounds that civil courts do not the have the jurisdiction in hearing or deciding cases involving the administration of the syariah laws.

There are ample of authorities which support such contention. So lets not jump to conclusion as if the whole world is crumbling down just because of the decision to annul section 66 of the NS Syariah Criminal Enactment.

The ratio decidendi of the decision did not in fact state that it is alright for men to wear women's clothings but it merely ruled that any laws that infringed on the constitutional human rights ( perhaps rights to dress) of an individual provided for by the Fed Constitution are ultra-vires.

But personally, i cannot agree with the CA decision that the provisions of sec 66 is ultra-vires to the Fed Consti because no where in the Fed Consti was provided giving rights to muslim men to don female clothes.

There are only 13 human rights including rights to life, education, to practice religion of their choice (although Islam is the Official Religion), freedom of speech, movement and association provided under BUT dressing codes for men is not one of them.

So I'm surprised why the CA says that sec 66 is ultra-vires. Am sure the Corum of the deciding CA may have their reasons in so deciding but their decision is still arguable and I hope the respondent (the NS Syariah Laws authoritis) will appeal the decision on the ground (1) that the civil courts did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide cases affection administration of syariah laws, and (2) that sec 66 is not ultra-vires to the Fed Consti bcos a right for muslim men to dress and behave like women is not provided for.

And further more each States has got the power to enact by laws on the proper administration of syariah or islamic laws and
requirement based on the Al Quran, Sunnahs and the Hadiths.

So my dear muslim skots... lets be patient, dont be over-emotional.

We must accept that Judges too, are merely humans like us and not Saints. Am sure that there are many smart and brilliant legal brains in NS, be they civil, syariah or criminal matters, so we just keep our fingers crossed and wait patiently for them to act.

I'm sure they are just as worried as we are. ALLAHUALAM.

PPMM said...

tidak bersifat mutlak dan ia perlu dibaca bersama-sama dengan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang lain. Perlembagaan Persekutuan mesti dibaca secara bersesama bukan diasing-asingkan antara satu sama lain (harmonious interpretation). Mentafsirkan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan secara berasingan akan hanya membawa implikasi percanggahan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan sesama sendiri.

Keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut juga gagal mengambilkira norma masyarakat Melayu Islam (grundnorm of the society) yang merupakan teras kepada jatidiri kebangsaan. Islam dan Melayu merupakan sebahagian daripada struktur asas (basic structures) yang membentuk Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Memusnahkan strucktur asas ini akan mengakibatkan jatidiri dan kerangka Perlembagaan Persekutuan itu sendiri terpecah.

Walau apapun penghakiman semalam adalah penghakiman yang sah oleh sebuah mahkamah yang kompeten. Ia perlu dihormati sehingga ada keputusan sebaliknya.

PPMM menyeru Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan dan pihak-pihak yang dinamakan di dalam prosiding tersebut memohon kebenaran merayu dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan. PPMM juga mendesak sementara menunggu permohonan kebenaran merayu diputuskan Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan memohon penggantungan perintah yang dikeluarkan itu. PPMM juga menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan yang merupakan “amicus curae” di dalam prosiding tersebut bekerjasama dengan Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan di dalam rayuan tersebut.

PPMM selanjutnya menyeru semua Majlis-Majlis Agama Islam Negeri-Negeri (MAINS) di seluruh Malaysia supaya memohon kebenaran mencelah di dalam prosiding rayuan kelak. Ini adalah disebabkan Majlis-Majlis Agama Islam adalah penasihat utama dalam hal ehwal agama Islam kepada Sultan/ Raja/ Yamtuan negeri masing-masing dan YDPA bagi negeri yang tidak mempunyai Raja. Keputusan ini juga memberi kesan kepada undang-undang yang sama yang ada di negeri-negeri lain. MAINS mempunyai kepentingan undang-undang yang jelas di dalam prosiding ini kerana ia juga akan memberi kesan kepada undang-undang di negeri berkenaan.

PPMM bersedia memberi taklimat, khidmat dan pandangan kepada MAINS khasnya dan semua Majlis Agama Islam amnya dalam perkara ini.

PPMM juga menyeru kepada semua umat Islam di Malaysia supaya bertenang bagi membolehkan proses undang-undang berjalan sewajarnya.

Dato’ Haji Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar
Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia (PPMM)

PPMM said...

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar
Date: 8 November 2014 16:01:40 GMT+8
Subject: semak


Berkaitan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan yang memutuskan Seksyen 66 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah (Negeri Sembilan) 1992 tidak berperlembagaan)

Bertarikh: 8 November 2014

Kepada semua media
Untuk Siaran Segera

PPMM berasa amat terkejut dengan keputusan sebulat suara Mahkamah Rayuan pada 7 November 2014 yang memutuskan Seksyen 66 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah ( Negeri Sembilan) 1992 adalah tidak berperlembagaan kerana mendiskriminasi golongan minoriti. Keputusan tersebut dibuat setelah tiga orang lelaki Islam merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan apabila Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonan mereka mengisytiharkan sekyen tersebut tidak berperlembagaan. Ketiga-tiga lelaki Islam berkenaan telah dituduh di Mahkamah Syariah Negeri Sembilan di bawah seksyen 66 tersebut kerana memakai pakaian perempuan atau berlagak seperti perempuan di tempat awam.

Seksyen tersebut berbunyi seperti berikut:

“Seksyen 66. Lelaki berlagak seperti perempuan.

Mana-mana orang lelaki yang memakai pakaian perempuan atau berlagak seperti perempuan di mana-mana tempat awam adalah melakukan satu kesalahan dan hendaklah apabila disabitkan dikenakan hukuman denda tidak melebihi satu ribu ringgit atau penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi enam bulan atau kedua-duanya.”

Sehingga siaran akhbar ini ditulis PPMM masih lagi belum mendapat salinan penghakiman yang diputuskan pada 7 November 2014 itu. PPMM juga tidak mendapat makluman berkaitan dengan hujahan-hujahan yang telah dikemukakan oleh kedua belah pihak semasa prosiding rayuan berjalan. Pada kebiasaan hakim-hakim akan membuat keputusan berdasarkan persoalan yang dihujahkan di hadapan mahkamah.

Oleh yang demikian siaran akhbar ini dibuat berdasarkan laporan-laporan yang dibuat di akhbar-akhbar dan media alternatif sahaja dan menyentuh aspek keabsahan dan kesan keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut.

Di dalam kes Sulaiman Takrib v Majlis Agama Islam Trengganu, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan bahawa Dewan Undangan Negeri mempunyai kuasa legislatif untuk membuat apa-apa kesalahan dan hukuman yang melanggar perintah agama Islam. Perintah agama Islam termasuklah juga isu-isu berkaitan akhlak atau moral bagi orang Islam seperti di dalam Seksyen 66 tersebut. Di dalam kes tersebut Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan makna ‘precepts of Islam’ bukan sekadar rukun Islam tetapi apa-apa perintah agama Islam. Menjaga akhlak adalah sebahagian dari perintah agama Islam dan lelaki berpakaian wanita adalah diharamkan di dalam Islam.

Manakala di dalam kes Titular Roman Catholic Archibishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri dan 8 yang lain pula, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan antara lain kebenaran dari Mahkamah Persekutuan perlu diperolehi terlebih dahulu di dalam sesuatu prosiding yang mencabar keperlembagaan sesuatu undang-undang.

Berdasarkan dua penghakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan di atas, PPMM berpandangan Mahkamah Rayuan telah khilaf di dalam penghakiman semalam. Malah ia juga tidak sejajar dengan beberapa peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan seperti Perkara 3 yang meletakkan Islam bukan sekadar agama rasmi tetapi agama bagi Persekutuan seperti yang diputuskan di dalam kes-kes Lina Joy melawan Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persecution (Mahkamah Persekutuan) dan Meor Atiqurrahman melawan Fatimah Sihi (Mahkamah Tinggi). Begitu juga obligasi berperlembagaan Yang Di Pertuan Agong di dalam Jadual Keempat Perlembagaan Persekutuan di mana YDPA bersumpah memelihara Islam pada setiap masa. Sebagai Ketua Eksekutif sebenar Negara (Perkara 39) sumpah YDPA tersebut menjadi suatu obligasi kepada semua cabang pentadbiran dan kehakiman negara untuk dipenuhi.

Isu diskriminasi kepada golongan minoriti tidak seharusnya timbul kerana kebebasan fundamental (fundamental liberties) seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan bukanlah suatu yang tiada batasannya. Hak tersebut

Anonymous said...

Golongan kafir, pluralisme, LGBT dan musuh2 syariat yg lain sentiasa mencari ruang untuk memanipulasi perlembagaan demi kepentingan golongan masing2. Umat Islam bukan sekadar perlu membaiki kerosakan yg mereka lakukan malah perlu lbh proaktif untuk mencari ruang2 yg ada dlm perlembagaan demi memperkasakan syariat Islam dlm negara tercinta ini.

اللهم افتح علينا بركات من السموات واﻷرض

Ya Allah. Bukakan ke atas kami keberkatan langit dan bumi. Amin.

Anonymous said...

Dato Hishamuddin mmg pro pembangkang. Dia bagi habeas corpus pd gobala dgn ghani haron masa reformasi pertama dulu.

Anonymous said...

Baca utk mengenal dan kesan islam liberal yg sesat

Anonymous said...

Laki pakai jubah.
Perempuan pakai jubah.

Anonymous said...

Bukankah ini menghina mahkamah?

Anonymous said...

Penghakiman CoA baru sahaja mwnghalalkan zina, khalwàt, tidal berpuasa di tempat awam dan semua hukum Islam atas peruntukan perlembagaan yg digunakan

Anonymous said...

i have known hishamudin yunus since before he became a judicial commissioner. he's not quite pro-oppo but he always tries to be a populist judge albeit always doing it the wrong way i.e. he would always favour an individual when pitted against the government. most of all, i consider hishamudin a very dumb person, not just a dumb judge. a man with a donkey brain. the dumbest decision he has ever made was making an ex-partner of a firm liable for a wrong or debt incurred by the firm after the ex-partners has left. also, i'm sure many lawyers remember the hire purchase case where he decided that a vehicle must be repossessed first before the bank could sue for money owing. the former decision clearly was against settled law, while the latter, for its "stupidness" no other high court judges wanted to follow.

apart from being dumb, hishamuddin is no less arrogant...bodoh sombong. selalu tak baca dokumen & buat keputusan berdasarkan argument yang dia sendiri tak berapa dapat nak digest. si celaka tu juga suka buat keputusan ikut suka hati dia, bukan ikut undang2. jadi bila aku tengok pengerusi panel hakim yang buat keputusan munkar tu, aku langsung tak terkejut tapi marah tetap marah.

maae said...

Masa untuk ilmuan dan pakar-pakar bersatu hati. Musuh dalam selimut bertambah ramai. Melayu atheis juga ramai. Melayu murtad juga makin ramai. Melayu liberalis, pluralis dan "zombi-ies" sentiasa bersekongkol dengan kafir harbi menyahkan Melayu Islam..

Masih buta, masih bisu ? Sesungguh PM Najib sudah melakukan kesilapan besar dengan agenda "moderate" yang di amanahkan kepada kaki-kaki pembangkang, musuh menggunting dalam lipatan !

Perkara serius jadi mainan. Semoga Allah SWT melaknat "Hakim" yang menjadi tuhan....

Anonymous said...

Bar Council Favorite

Bar Council: We were not consulted over judges' appointments

EXCLUSIVE: KUALA LUMPUR: While it is good that seven vacancies in the Federal Court and Court of Appeal will be filled today it is surprising that the Bar Council was not consulted this time.

There is no legal requirement even in the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) for the council to be consulted but it has the been the practice in the past to do just that, except for the years when relations were strained between the Bench and the Bar.

Council chairman Christopher Leong is overseas but responded via SMS: “No, the Bar was not consulted on the elevations to FedCt and COA to be announced.”

When contacted, immediate past chairman Lim Chee Wee confirmed that Tun Zaki Azmi, when he was CJ, had consulted him and his predecessor Ragunath Kesavan.

“Tun Arifin (Zakaria) also consulted me when he took over as CJ.

“The Bar should always be consulted on appointments and promotions because we are the users of the courts and would know who are the good and bad judges.

“The Bar, Judiciary and AG share a common goal of a world class legal system,” he added.

Was it an oversight this time?

The JAC was established by Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in 2009 when he was Prime Minister because he wanted to rebuild public confidence in the judiciary.

The decision on who gets appointed or promoted still lies in the hands of whoever is the Prime Minister but at least now, those interested in a career in the judiciary can apply for the job and not wait to be asked.

But because there is still a lack of transparency, that leaves judicial appointments and promotions open to innuendo.

It also makes it difficult for the public to understand why some good judges are leapfrogged by their juniors.

Take the elevations to the Federal Court today of Justice Datuk Sri Abu Samah Nordin, Justice Datuk Ramly Ali and Justice Datuk Apandi Ali.

The public congratulates them but they would also like to know why Court of Appeal Justice Datuk Hishammuddin Yunus was not elevated today, or even earlier.

Even his elevation from the High Court to the Court of Appeal in 2009 was unnecessarily delayed.

Justice Hishamuddin is known to be “an independent judge”, says a retired judge, which translates into “has on more than two occasions ruled against the Government”.

And of course, to many narrow-minded individuals, being independent equals anti-government or worse, pro-opposition.

As such, according to some, Justice Hishamuddin’s name was put forward but the Prime Minister asked for other recommendations for him to consider.

Anonymous said...

You also buat perangai Anwar Ibrahim & Pakatan Rakyat ah?

Kalau hakim tak berpihak kepada pemerintah, tiba2 persoalkan kredibiliti hakim & tuduh ada konspirasi politik.

Kalau hakim berpihak kepada pemerintah, terus junjung kata ini lah keadilan sejagat.

Anonymous said...

if they wanna wear woman's clothes, let them la.
It's not as if they are harming anyone.

Where is the tolerance I've heard so much about?

Anonymous said...

Anon 9.40 PM

If have not read the whole argument in this article because you don't understand English, I suggest you do not embarass yourself by displaying your lack of intelligence with such comments.

For your own sake, do stick to your lowly kind.

Anonymous said...





May I respectfully advise that we

do not use the word

pondan liberally. It is the

'kebangsatan bahasa malaysia'

that melayus like to use

derogatory words on unfortunate

quirks of God's creation.

Remember 'bahasa menunjukkan

budaya. Bahasa melayu koman

menunjukkan budaya melayu yang

koman '.

Judicial Review

When the defendants appeared at

the Syariah Court , [my take] they

were not given the justice due.

I accept that it is against the

law for men to dress the way

females do. The case in front of

us is- 3 transgenders were

caught dressing as females. Were

they breaking the law?

Answer: No
They may have names like men.

Ahmad etc but their biology is not

that of a man.

The Sharia Court should have

asked a medical examination of the

3 appellants.


Function of The Gomen
In the last Friday sermon of

Prophet Muhammad {SAW} , he

reminded the successive gomen

to make sure that the people get

justice and to provide all the

facilities for civil servants so

that they could do their function

well. Now obviously the

Sharia Court did not dispense

justice to the transgenders when

the biology aspect of the

transgenders were ignored. It is

manifestly unjust to

find them guilty merely because

they have the names of men.


Pak Ostat who become judges cannot

pretend to be stupid. Modern

science provide new tools to

establish identities. And if

sharia cannot dispense justice

surely the framers of the

constitution had forseen this and

accomodate their potential

shortcomings by allowing a

judicial review.


Biology oF Transgenders

Some time ago I have elaborate the

biological aspect of transgenders

and I noticed an ostad had

used my arguments in a Thurday

Night Live Seminary Session

On Tv. Apparently what I had

propounded on the transgender

issues were already discussed

by earlier muslim scholars. A

transgender invariably has 2 sets

of sexual organs - a penis

and a vagina. One may be prominent

and the other suppressed.

Combinations like - a prominent

vagina and a small penis, or a

prominent penis but a vague vagina

; both penis and organs small;

and finally both penis and

and vagina prominent. Apparently

past scholars has a way of

determining of which types of

transgenders could be classified

as females based on their

nature of their period. In the

past, Jabatan Agama had been

backward in their

decisions relating to whether a

transgender could have an sex

operation if the vagina

part and has period that qualifier

him/her to be a woman.


This where muslim lawyers could

contribute by holding forums and

seminars to get a proper fatwa

on this matter. Disgracefully the

PPMM was only noted when

Zaid as President was supporting

the appointment of Hamid Omar as

CJ soon after Salleh Abbas

was sacked by Dr Mahathir!



I had recommended in earlier

writing that gomen Najib follow

the Australians in identifying

transgenders sex as X . And a

reconciliation process is enabled

so that existing transgenders are

medically examined , and their sex

status updated in the Mycard.



khong khek khuat



My Say