Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?
(Ahmad Ali Karim) – Four Malaysian opposition political parties, DAP, PKR, PAN and PPBM had signed an agreement on the 13th of December 2016.
In the agreement which is named, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM, the four parties agreed on several main issues including to uphold the Federal Constitution.
{For the full document, please >>>click here<<<}
I read the agreement and since I am familiar with the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, the below sentence below caught my eye:
Screenshot taken from the agreement
The above sentence says, “To fight in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Constitution 1957/63 especially to uphold the Federal Constitution”, but then it went on saying, “… dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan bebas, aman dan damai di di negara ini sejajar dengan Perkara 3 …”
Well, let us take a look of what is stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution:
“Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan ; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.”
Now, where did the word, “bebas” comes from and more importantly, why did they add the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1)?
Are the opposition parties trying to rewrite the Article 3(1) in order to undermine Islam as the religion of the Federation?
As the supreme law of the Federation, each word in the Articles of the Federal Constitution was chosen for a very specific reason.
The Article 3(1) states that, “… other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony” or “agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai“; there is no such word as ‘bebas‘ in the clause, and adding the word ‘bebas‘ gives the Article a totally different meaning.
Thus, it is a violation of the Article 3(1).
How could the opposition parties pledge, “To fight in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Constitution 1957/63 especially to uphold the Federal Constitution“, when they clearly changed and violated the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution?
To understand this matter, we need to know the meaning of the words, “aman dan damai” or “peace and harmony” in the context of the Article 3(1).
The word, “aman dan harmoni” in the Article 3(1), has been interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia:
