291. What would God say?

Bible Raid: Federal Govt Cannot Act Like Pontius Pilate Wash its Hands

Bible Raid – Betwixt and Between Federal and State By Andrew Khoo
Malaysiakini 19 Jan 2014 LINK
Quite early on in the aftermath of the raid on the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia on Jan 2 by officers from the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor, accompanied by members of the police, politicians from the government and also federal ministers, had begun suggesting that instead of criticising the federal government, blame for the raid should be directed at the Selangor state government, since issues relating to the religion of Islam are a state matter under the federal constitution.
That view was very clearly encapsulated by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Law, Nancy Shukri (right), in remarks she was reported to have made after the opening of the legal year ceremony of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak in Kuching on Friday.
With respect to the honourable minister, the situation is not quite as simple as she is reported to have made it out to be.
Article 10(1)(a) of the federal constitution states that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
Article 10(2) states that “Parliament may by law impose – (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence.”
For the present purposes, the key words in Article 10(2) of the federal constitution are “Parliament” and “restrictions”. It is only Parliament that can pass laws to impose “restrictions” on a citizen’s freedom of speech and expression.
Not a state legislative assembly, not their royal highnesses, the Malay rulers. Only Parliament. And only “restrictions”, not outright prohibitions.
Further, paragraph 4 of the federal list under the ninth schedule to the federal constitution clearly places “civil and criminal law and procedure and the administration of justice” within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Paragraph 21 of the federal list places “newspaper, publications, publishers, printing and printing presses” also within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
It is therefore the duty and responsibility of the federal government to ensure that state legislation does not encroach into areas which are clearly within the purview of Parliament and/or the federal government.
Policy statement
In the case of the 10-point solution, which is a policy statement of the federal government in relation to the freedom of the Christian community in Malaysia to express the name of God in one’s own language in print, and to distribute such publication, it is the duty and responsibility of the federal government to ensure that state law in Semenanjung Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak does not restrict such freedom of expression.
Any such restriction would be ultra vires the federal constitution. Therefore, the federal government cannot wash its hands Pontius Pilate-like and say that it has nothing to do with this issue.
But what then do we make of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution, which states that “state law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”
This is a clear provision of the federal constitution, and cannot be ignored. However a harmonious reading of Articles 10 and 11 of the federal constitution would entail a careful and delicate understanding of the interplay of the provisions of these two equal articles of the federal constitution, whilst again bearing in mind that Article 11(4) uses the words “control” and “restrict” but does not contain the word “prohibit”.
It remains to be seen whether any existing “control” or “restriction” will have gone too far and constitute an outright prohibition, which would then be a violation of the federal constitution.
The best way to appreciate this interplay is to analyse one of the state enactments that purports to apply Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
Since the raid on the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia was carried out in the state of Selangor pursuant to powers allegedly contained in the Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988, it would be useful to analyse the wording of this enactment.
The preamble to this enactment cites Article 11(4) of the federal constitution, thus outlining at the outset that the provisions of this enactment have been made pursuant to the provisions of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution. They must therefore be consistent with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
Section 9 of the enactment is entitled “Offence relating to the use of certain words and expressions of Islamic origin” and reads as follows:
“(1) A person commits an offence if he -
(a) in any published writing; or
(b) in any public speech or statement; or
(c) in any speech or statement addressed to any gathering of persons; or
(d) in any speech or statement which is published or broadcast and which at the time of its making he knew or ought reasonably to have known would be published of broadcast, uses any of the words listed in Part I of the schedule, or any of its derivatives or variations, to express or describe any fact, belief, idea, concept, act, activity, matter, or thing of or pertaining to any non-Islamic religion.
(2) A person who is not a Muslim commits an offence if he, in the circumstances laid down in subsection (1), uses any of the expressions listed in Part II of the schedule, except by way of quotation or reference.
(3) A person who commits an offence under subsections (1) or (2) shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit.
(4) The ruler in council may, by order published in the Gazette, amend the Schedule.”
Several observations need to be made in respect of the enactment. For there to be an offence under Section 9 of the enactment, one of the four circumstances (a) to (d) laid down in Section 9(1) must exist.
In the raid on the Bible Society of Malaysia premises, did any one of these four circumstances exist?
Did anyone at the Bible Society of Malaysia write any published writing, write any speech or statement, give any speech or statement to a gathering of persons, or publish or broadcast any speech or statement using any of the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment?
Or did anyone at the Bible Society of Malaysia use any of the expressions listed in Part II of the schedule in any one of the four circumstances (a) to (d) laid down in Section 9(1) of the enactment? If not, no offence would appear to have been committed.
But even if someone did, it would be pertinent to ask the question, who was the audience?
Bearing in mind the provisions of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution, the use of the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment or the use of any of the expressions listed in Part II of the schedule to the enactment cannot be unlawful unless the context is “the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”.
If the enactment seeks to make it an offence to use the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment or the use of any of the expressions listed in Part II of the schedule to the enactment outside of the context of “the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”, then that would be ultra vires the federal constitution.
Context is all-important
In this case, the context is all-important.
Using certain words and phrases in the context of a church service where all those attending the service would be expected to be Christians, or at least non-Muslims, would take it out of the context in which there would be a commission of the offence under Section 9 of the enactment when read within the context of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
Again, this is something that the federal government should be in communication with the various state governments about – explaining the proper context of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
It cannot be the case that this is simply left to the respective state governments to decide, since the interpretation of federal law is also within the jurisdiction of the federal government under paragraph 4(e)(i) of the ninth schedule to the federal constitution.
Something has also been made of the fact that the Malay rulers, as head of the religion of Islam in their respective states, may have issued decrees or edicts on the use of certain terminology deemed the exclusive use of the religion of Islam.
The Malay rulers have always been accepted as the head of the religion of Islam in their respective states, and this was confirmed even when the British as colonial powers took over control of the Malay states beginning in Perak in 1874.
Article 181(1) of the federal constitution certainly affirms that “the sovereignty, prerogative, powers and jurisdiction of the Rulers and the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Ruling Chiefs of Negri Sembilan within their respective territories as hitherto had and enjoyed shall remain unaffected.”
However it should be noted that such “sovereignty, prerogative, powers and jurisdiction” are, in the opening words of Article 181(1) of the federal constitution, “Subject to the provisions of this constitution.”
The Yang DiPertuan Agong, and the Malay rulers, function as constitutional monarchs and are also subject to the provisions of the federal constitution.

Thus, the fundamental liberties of a citizen, such as freedom of speech and expression, have to be respected.
ANDREW KHOO is co-chairperson of the Human Rights Committee of the Bar Council Malaysia. He writes here in his personal capacity.

290. ASC Amendments for EGM

After writing the earlier comments on the All Saints’ Cathedral’s proposed Amendments (see below) and in the light of recent decision at the High Courts, I would like to make the following comments:-

The implication of the non legal entity of House of bishop of the Anglican province on churches in south east asia has great impacts (illegalities) on the ADOS & ASC where bishop of sabah has an important role to play.

Is Bishop of Sabah appointed by HoB of APSEA legal?  If not legal and so are the ADOS and ASC.  So why are we amending an illegal constitution of ASC?

How can we go to amend any item of a constitution where due notice must be given when there is a error in ITEM 6, the 7 (what?) days, working days, weeks, months?  I call this the hand of God to call off this EGM.  Let this be an exposure draft.

Also if 7 (what) days is considered appropriate, which I don’t agree as it is too short and an honourable person can go outstation for a week or more.  Also there is no provision to appoint or elect a new treasurer.  This can be handled by the standing orders of PCC.

Also how do anyone to sign off any cheque to be bounced off if there is no fund in the bank account or any unusual expenses like bonus of say RM100,000 not provided in the budget.  no pcc or any committee can approve that.  the treasurer should not have any reason not to sign any cheque when properly approved by pcc as a normal expense item if the supporting facts and items/documents are available.

There are no urgency for the EGM and the issues can be dealt with the AGM due in two months time.  First establish the legality of APSEA, ADOS and ASC.

Joshua Kong  6013-8394513  4^th of February, 2013

Dear rev C fu,

I do not intend to defeat the Proposed Amendments as it is.

I hope the EGM can be called off as it is still CNY.  The Proposed Amendments can be refined and then tabled at the AGM on 12th Of April, which is not an Election year and save the church and members time and effort/money for a possible futile exercise as it is.

There is not even a half way house to better days.

The Amendments as proposed would have to get the green light from the Bishop and then table for the members to approved or otherwise it can be ding dong.  This is the first time ASC is doing this as far as I can remember.

The last amendment were done in 1996 by the bishop alone.

Also the existing ASC Constitution is technically an illegal one for the notice of 14 days and not corrected to 21 days but the ASC admin used to inform the members of the AGM well ahead of 21 days.

We need to do a better job than what had been done that cannot be undone.

If we check the Anglican Irish Constitution (parent one), it is 153 pages and how many pages are ours in ASC and  ADOS?  So to be comprehensive we must have clauses to deal with all the possibilities and not let lop holes to be obvious.

We don't want AVCF to point at the Treasurer and so "I told you so and now rectified".  If this is the standard constitution for all churches in ADOS, then we can accept that.  That is permanent damage and we need to make it straight now.

The sack issue of any PCC members can be done in the Standing Order. We are not a public NGO as such but we a body of Christ and so we need to show the way. 

It was indeed a very sad episode on the case of ex-Teasurer who was doing her work very well and we will see what is to come in AGM 2014.  In the AGM 2013, there was a mighty effort to remove the ex-Treasurer by all the below the belt measures.  I hope she (not him/he) will stand again in 2015.  The latest amendment unfortunately is to make her as a target unjustified.

God already defeated this Proposed Amendment on 8th February, 2014.

Thank you,

Joshua


Dear Rev Clarence,

So the draft is the work of 5 persons as authorised by Dean Chak and no green light from the Bishop yet.  I think this is the first time this is happening  in ASC and ADOS.

I think drafting the amendment is one thing and should have gone

through an exposure draft for the congregation to comment to refine it.

I am sorry to say that it is not good enough to work to promote fairness,
justice and transparency plus practicality.

Why should ASC stands out to sack a honourable treasurer at this stage to

throw a bad light on the previous treasurer to live her life resulting in such an action?  That is what AVCF wants to see and by having such a clause, it is indeed a nightmare for Rosalind.  The sacking of the treasurer or any elected officials can be handled by the Standing Order within the PCC.  The ASC constitution even does not have a clause to remove an elected PCC member for failure to perform like absent from three consecutive PCC meeting without any reason.  Anyway God has His hand in this amendment.

Any amendment must also ensue that only genuine Malaysians are in the electoral roll.

Why does this amendment needs to go through the Synod?  I thought in the

past it is the Bishop who decided everything.  So if it needs to go through the Synod, there must be a model constitution already and that is not the case, I believe.  ASC must be the model in ADOS.

BTW, is "his" in the amendment as repeated means only a man can be a treasurer?  I know the law can be funny like only male can be priest in Anglican tradition of Sabah. Elsewhere we have women priests.

Synod is coming soon and we must curb the tenure of the Bishop as acting Dean to maximum two years only otherwise ASC Constitution is going to be abused and denied by a recalcitrant bishop with the prerogative power.

Finally, would you permit to publish your reply in my blog?

Thank you for your prompt reply and God bless you.
Joshua

 The above is a reply to Rev. C. Fu
 <><><>

I wonder why this AGM 2014, there is no election of the PCC, why is it so urgent to hold EGM at additional cost and why not wait for two months on 12th April, 2014 when the AGM would be held and the Amendments can be held then ? 

All Saints’ Cathedral

This is very important constitutional Amendment

1.             Since we started the change of the Constitution since late 2011, it is only now we see something on the very important Constitutional Amendment which is still very lacking in substance to anything near the revamp of the ASC vis-à-vis ADOS.

2.             Why is the notice of EGM for the amendments not attached to the proposed amendments sheets?

3.             Is the proposed amendment originated from the Bishop or the Dean or members of ASC?

4.             Since the Bishop has the prerogative to approve such amendments even after the EGM which may approve all the proposed amendments or some of the amendments.  I wonder if the proposed amendments in such sketchy stage would be finally approved in principle by the Bishop and how quickly would that be done?  Otherwise it is a futile EGM.

5.             Overall the proposed amendments are inadequate to deal with the problems and crisis since 2011 in ASC vis-à-vis ADOS as the fundamental causes are not really dealt with.

6.             If I have a say – the whole proposed amendment should go back to the drawing board as EGM and Constitutional Amendments are not regular affairs for an expanding church like ASC.

7.             The main reason for the crisis which I call BISHOPGATE is that we had a bishop cum dean who had violated the existing Constitutions which were highlighted in the AGM of ASC in 2012 where two major Constitution issues were put to the vote in two Resolutions.

8.             Both these issues were not addressed in this Proposed Amendments namely there is no curb in the term of the bishop and dean holding both positions for an extended time and that the power of the normal PCC was very much diluted by excessive nominees of the bishop cum dean.  A bishop cum dean can be a recurrence anytime.

8.1    Instead of improving the performance of PCC, it is another ‘laughing stock’ to belittle the elected Honorable Treasurer who is expected to performance out of good heart and much sacrifice for holding such non remunerated office.  How can an elected Treasurer be sacked for whatever reasons unless the person decides not to continue to serve?  I have been pioneers of formation of NGOs and have to see first time that the elected or appointed Treasurer can be sacked as stipulated in the Constitution.  I think such clause or term is against public interest and it is happening in ADOS.  Better still to go ahead with a civil suit if the Treasurer refuses to sign any cheque.  Then the question is ASC would be without a Treasurer as sacked and how to get a replacement by appointment or election?  There is no provision in the amended Constitution to deal with a PCC without a Treasurer.  Why is there such a thing to move forward with such a clause in ASC giving the impression all is not well with ADOS?

8.2  We must recognize and define what is the role of PCC in a church environment ?  Is it about the play of numbers in PCC?  If that is the case it is already a ‘political’ maneuver in every move for every act and decision in PCC.  If that is the case the quality of the performance in the PCC to manage the church is to be questioned.  I see in the elected lay council members to the PCC, equal numbers from the three main sections while the least section (Filipinos) would be ignored.   Is this a healthy development?  In the recent decades until AVCF comes in, there was never such division of the members to be elected as we were more interested to get committed, capable and matured members to serve in the PCC.  Such division mired by self interest is designed to serve some people.  This system of equal numbers from the three divisions would mean more sitting ducks.  The amended Constitution does not spell out how the elections would take place?  Would the English division votes for their 4 members in PCC and likewise with Chinese and BM?  If this is not the system, the results would be awry as it was seen in the AGM 2013 where chaos reigned supreme as there was menu from certain quarters later exposed by emails and this can destabilize the church in its machinery as any divide and rule cannot go on for long in God’s church.

8.3   Also on what basis are that the three divisions have equal representations?  Why are we doing that as a church?  By all means, we must stop all manipulations from any quarter at any AGM’s elections.  After the elections, most of those members from certain divisions disappeared and not interested in the affairs of the church and is that what we want as all credibility would be lost.

8.4    If the representation is based on the confirmed members who are local and citizens, then if the English divisions has 4 members, the Chinese should only have 2 and possibly also 2 for the BM if all the members in the Rolls are genuine Malaysians.  Can ASC clean up the electoral rolls for the BM division by checking their identity cards?

(NB:  All Christians or otherwise can attend church but to be in the Electoral Roll is a  separate matter)

8.5    If the representation is based on financial contributions annually, the ratio as in paragraph 9.4 should be a fair one.

9. As there is no determination on the voting system in the Constitution (old and amended) and if all the members vote on one ballot paper as in AGM 2013, the winners for the English division would get the low or least votes giving a very degrading impression for the elected members in PCC hence their voice could be weakened (also sort of demoralized) in PCC as the number of the winning candidates .  We always pray to God for the election to get the right people into the PCC but any manipulation would be counterproductive.  Tell me how would those least interested (traditionally) in the affairs of the ASC can select any one from the English division to serve in PCC effectively and efficiently?  Please enlighten me if this view of mine is to be challenged.

10.  So far it is enough for me to deal with the proposed Amendments and I strongly believe the Amendment should not be passed individually or in total on 9^th of February, 2014.  We need to do much more to make ASC a vibrant and a model church in ADOS and the Constitution should be in place to do that.

Joshua Y. C. Kong

6013-8394513 

289. AVCF for allah????

Has AVCF declared his known stand on Allah???  Joshua

My dear  friends who love God or Allah as some claim the same,

Again I want to keep this article very short as this story can stretch into thousands of pages.

Who is God ? Who is Allah?  Is God=Allah?   Is Allah a religion?  If not a religion, it is not sensitive item although it is a “banned” word for non Muslims.

If God is not Allah, then why some people use both terms as interchangeable?

For the Christian God there is no such an exclusive God as God is for all, if an exclusive God, then something is definitely wrong.  But everyone must know God.

Now some people want to claim Allah as exclusive to them.

If we want to avoid any confusion on this term Allah, let the users specify which God or Allah they refer to.  But there maybe an Islamic God or Islamic Allah but there is no such thing as the Christians’ God as Christians only call their God – Trinity God.

This dispute is not new but had been there for centuries but Malaysians have brought the dispute on Allah to the civil Court because of the word is sort of banned.

When it goes to the Courts, it has become a Constitutional issue embracing human rights and to some religious rights.  Federal Constitution overwrites all other enactments by the States.

The two rounds of civil court have not found the answer as to who is wrong or who is right.  So it is proceeding to the highest Court for a solution, and I wonder if it is ever to reach the decision of the Federal Court going by the fire burning on the ground.

It is indeed a dilemma for the top justices to make any decision because there is no precedent as no one has ever brought the case to the civil courts in the world.

To avoid emotion to get better of many people, we need to find the solution soon.

My proposed solution would be based on the great wisdom of King Solomon in biblical time when two women want to claim on the living child.  This case is indeed famous and solution was found very quickly. 1 King 3.16-24.

Although the ALLAH case may not be the same as the one handled by Solomon, it is worthwhile to consider this case in similar vein.   In Solomon’s case, there were two children – one dead and one living from a common bed both women shared.  In multi racial and multi religious Malaysia, we all share common heritage and community.

In the Allah case, everyone believes that there is only ONE God but some want to raise red flag to claim there are more one versions which is not really true.

To avoid the complexity and complicity  of the term, maybe we need to ask the people if they want to cut into halves the ALLAH?  Isn’t it very frightening indeed to cut up God or Allah?  How would we cut up the Almighty spiritual being or we cut up the word “ALLAH”?  Never.

I hope to solve this crisis when I become the Prime Minister of the Interim Good Governance Government (IGGG) of Malaysia.

In the meantime, it is very good enough to let God be God and keep the peace in Malaysia.

 

Joshua Y. C. Kong

288 - What a sick AVCF doing here?

http://bm.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=116902%3Akenapa-putrajaya-terus-membisu-tentang-isu-allah-yang-semakin-panas-keluh-badan-kristian&Itemid=2#axzz2qRfAVberhttp://bm.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=116902%3Akenapa-putrajaya-terus-membisu-tentang-isu-allah-yang-semakin-panas-keluh-badan-kristian&Itemid=2#axzz2qRfAVber

Rabu, 15 Januari 2014 17:18

Kenapa Putrajaya terus membisu tentang isu Allah yang semakin panas, keluh badan Kristian

Artikel Penuh: http://bm.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=116902%3Akenapa-putrajaya-terus-membisu-tentang-isu-allah-yang-semakin-panas-keluh-badan-kristian&Itemid=2#ixzz2qWRFvHoP
Follow us: @MsiaChronicle on Twitter

Persekutuan Kristian Malaysia (PKM) hari ini mempersoalkan kebisuan Putrajaya ke atas penyelesaian 10-perkara antara mereka dengan kerajaan dalam situasi negara yang semakin tertekan dengan isu agama.
Pengerusi PKM, Dr Eu Hong Seng mengatakan bahawa empat kejadian terbaru terhadap pengarang akhbar mingguan Katolik, Herald, Paderi Lawrence Andrew, membuktikan perkara ini.
Sekumpulan Muslim baru-baru ini membakar patung paderi katolik itu dan mengugut untuk mengadakan demonstrasi besar-besaran terhadap Andrew.
Kejadia

Artikel Penuh: http://bm.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=116902%3Akenapa-putrajaya-terus-membisu-tentang-isu-allah-yang-semakin-panas-keluh-badan-kristian&Itemid=2#ixzz2qWRXUixp
Follow us: @MsiaChronicle on Twitter

287. Elohim Amein instead of Amen

http://whynotamenfornow.blogspot.com/

Amen is considered the name of the pagan's god.. read on till the end.

286. Dr Kong H L, please give Medical Report

I think AVCF told many that he had got two months to live and now it is more than 3 months.
Isn't it a scam using others people money to treat himself when he is not really ill without a Full Medical Report?  If he is really sick as claim why not let the church see the medical report?
How can there be treatment by any doctor if AVCF continues to work full time?

Is he going to stay in KL when the Court makes the judgement on 24th of January, 2014?
It is known that the property where the FCC is sited cannot be owned Bishop of Sabah as that is illegal.
Is the FCC owned by St Patrick Church?  If so how can SPC owns any Anglican church outside of Sabah?
Is the FCC owned by the AVCF himself?  If so, why should ADOS commit so much financial assistance over to the FCC?  So FCC is an illegal set up ?  Is AVCF to be held responsible for the abuses of power when he was Archdeacon of SPC, Tawau?
Finally, why do we still allow a very man in mind, body, emotion and also in the spirit to be the Bishop of Sabah?  Something is definitely wrong with the Anglican HoBs of SEA. !!!

Are all these activities going to bless God?





Paragon MC, please give the Sabah Anglicans a Full Medical Report.

The purpose is to clear all the doubts in the following areas :-

1.  Can a grievous  cancer patient  still work full time?
2.  If the doctor had given sick leave, can the patient work full time?
3.  What happen if the employer does not recognise the Medical Leave Certificate, who is at fault?
4.  Who is the employer of AVCF?
5.  Should anything happen to AVCF without a Will, the ADOS would suffer tremendously.
6.  Should the doctor continue to treat the cancer patients still working in defiance of the MLC?
7.  Should the doctor be blamed later if anything unpleasant happen?
8. ADOS may face the consequence of the possibility dead while under treatment, and what is next?

285. The rebel of God is AVCF

Beware,
AVCF is really the great enemy of God and avcf is very sick in body as he said so,  very sick in mind as his thoughts are conflict within himself, very sick tongue as lashing always, devilish eyes as you all know now, and how can God allow such a person aka "madman" to go on in ADOS?  




Is what Rev Chin's preached in CCL repeated in other Anglican churches in Sabah and if that is done all those priests should repent and apology and resigned as they are unfit to remain serving God?

When rebelling against God is a reality in ADOS, it is AVCF and all his gang under his influence who are the rebels as the Bride of Christ is destroyed by their immorality, crimes and misrepresentation of the TRUTH already so much exposed and yet to be exposed.