Pakatan: Agree to disagree on 121(1A) but disagree to agree on RUU355?
How does the evangelical party square its stance on syariah now that DAP has new Muslim allies PPBM and PAN?
By Ahmad Ali Abdul Karim, Tanjak
I must say I am not surprised that DAP’s Zairil Khir Johari, who claims to be Muslim, should yet dispute the ultimate standing, status and jurisdiction of the syariah courts as provided for by our federal constitution.
In his article ‘Kembalikan kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan sebagai pemutus muktamad isu undang-undang‘ published in RoketKini.com, Zairil called into question Article 121(1A) of the constitution which prevents the High Court from interfering in the matters under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.
Zairil — the DAP’s Malay face
Not stopping there, the DAP Parliamentarian also proposed that exclusive jurisdiction currently vested in the syariah courts by virtue of the said Article, including matters involving fundamental liberties in which the High Court has no jurisdiction, be allowed to be challenged if not encroached upon.
Worse still, after painting an unflattering picture that Article 121(1A) is unjust as well as a “dilemma of our judicial system”, the Bukit Bendera MP suggested a shortcut method of stealthily usurping the jurisdiction of the syariah courts.
His suggested backdoor approach presupposes that undermining the power of Syariah Court can be accomplished without amending the constitution or even altering Article 121 as it is presently worded.
Is this suggestion by Zairil not a stealth attempt to ‘bypass’ our apex law?
Article 121(1A) of the Constitution, which Zairil wants to bypass
Zairil said in Parliament (translated from Malay):
“Therefore, I would propose that the Federal Court be restored as the final arbiter of our laws, that is, as a constitutional court. This can easily be done without amending the constitution or altering Article 121 as presently worded in any way.
The solution to the dilemma is found in amending the Courts of Judicature Act (1964) in two respects. First, the definition of the Federal Court must be widened [by adding words] stating that the jurisdiction of the court is not limited to that of a High Court only.
Second, a procedure should be put in place allowing the Federal Court to be petititioned in matters relating to rights and fundamental liberties, including in cases involving Article 121(1A) where the HIgh Court lacks jurisdiction.”
Guan Eng — the DAP’s caliph Umar Abdul Aziz
If before DAP sec-gen Lim Guan Eng had accused Umno of working with PAS to “bypass the federal constitution to allow these laws (RUU355) to take effect”, now we know who are really the ones willing to bypass the constitution in order to further their own agendas.
Lim Guan Eng said:
“MCA, MIC, Gerakan and SUPP deserve public condemnation for betraying their principles and promises to uphold and defend the federal constitution but also for their political expediency to continue to deceive the people by supporting Umno that is willing to work together with PAS to bypass the federal constitution to allow these laws to take effect.”
Moreover, Zairil’s excuse for disputing Article 121(1A) borders on the absurd:
“If we look at the constitution, Article 75 thereof states that federal law precedes state law, and Article 4 states that the federal constitution is above all other law. This is clear and is not in dispute.”
The fact is although syariah laws are under state jurisdiction, the syariah judiciary is a creation of federal law under the constitution as the syariah courts have been provided for by Article 121(1A).
Apart from Zairil, Lim Kit Siang is also a critic of Article 121(1A).
