Freedom under the constitution – Gerard Lourdesamy

Source: The Malaysian Insider

BY GERARD LOURDESAMY

I am constrained to respond to the comments made by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court at the recent ceremonial opening of the legal year, which certainly merits debate and contemplation.

As the head of the judiciary, he rightly touched on matters pertaining to the Constitution, rule of law, human rights and the administration of justice in this country.

The fundamental freedoms provision in Part II of the Federal Constitution does not have its origins in any particular religious texts or from our Malay or Malayan norms and values pre-1957.

They have their origins in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, the US Constitution of 1787, the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Magna Carta of 1215.

The Rukun Negara is not a constitutional document, and neither does it have the force of law, because it is devoid of any statutory basis.

It is merely a national ideology that was constructed by the government in response to the race riots of 1969.

The Rukun Negara does not take primacy over the Constitution and neither should it be a point of reference when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution. Read more

Mahkamah tolak percubaan kumpulan Melayu hentikan TPPA

Sumber: The Malaysian Insider

Tindakan 3 NGO memfailkan semakan kehakiman pada November lepas tidak dapat diadili kerana mahkamah tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa mendengar dan membuat keputusan mengenai TPPA yang masih belum ditandatangani. – Gambar fail The Malaysian Insider, 12 Januari, 2016.

Tindakan 3 NGO memfailkan semakan kehakiman pada November lepas tidak dapat diadili kerana mahkamah tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa mendengar dan membuat keputusan mengenai TPPA yang masih belum ditandatangani. – Gambar fail The Malaysian Insider, 12 Januari, 2016.

Tiga pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) Melayu gagal dalam cubaan mereka untuk menghentikan kerajaan Malaysia daripada menandatangani Perjanjian Perkongsian Trans-Pasifik (TPPA) selepas Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur menolak permohonan tanpa mendengar merit kes mereka.

Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (Abim), Urusetia Menangani Gejala Sosial (Unggas) dan Persatuan Teras Pendidikan dan Kebajikan Malaysia (Teras) memfailkan semakan kehakiman pada November lepas.

“Perjanjian itu belum ditandatangani lagi dan perkara itu tidak boleh diadili,” kata Hakim Hanipah Farikullah dalam ketetapan itu dibuat dalam kamar mahkamah.

Tidak boleh diadili bermakna mahkamah tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar dan membuat keputusan mengenai perkara itu.

Mahkamah tidak menyatakan kos (yang perlu dibayar) kepada kerajaan kerana ia adalah isu kepentingan awam.

Peguam Mohamed Hanif Khatri Abdulla yang mewakili ketiga-tiga pemohon berkata, beliau akan mendapatkan arahan sama ada untuk merayu keputusan itu. – 12 Januari, 2016.

MENYUSUL LAGI Read more

Uphold 2009 decision on unilateral conversion, Proham tells Cabinet

Source: The Malaysian Insider

Kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi’s case against her husband who unilaterally converted her three children, can now only be referred to shariah courts. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, January 12, 2016.

Cabinet must uphold its 2009 decision, that there should be no unilateral conversion of children, a human rights group said today.

The Society for the Promotion of Human Rights Malaysia (Proham) said Cabinet had decided back then that if one parent converts to Islam, the children must continue to be raised in the common religion at the time of the marriage.

Proham secretary general, Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria said that in the case of kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi, her rights as a wife and mother under civil law came to nought when she was told the courts accepted the unilateral conversion of her children.

“Proham fully supports each individual’s absolute right to profess the religion of his or her choice.

“However, in a marriage when the converting spouse takes away the rights of the non-converting spouse, the law must not only offer redress but uphold the rights of members of the family whose rights are affected,” he said in a statement. Read more