TUN ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD
Former Chief Justice of Malaysia
RESPONSE TO ALL MY CRITICS
RESPONSE TO ALL MY CRITICS
By
Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad
On 11 November 2014 I wrote a commentary on the case of Muhamad Juzaili Bin Mohd Khamis v State Government of Negeri Sembilan. That article was written in Malay and Published in Utusan Malaysia. I believe that Malaysiakini reporter who had been following me must have got hold of it, translated it and turned it into a news article as it was referred to by a Malasiakini subscriber whose comment was published by Malaysiakini. As usual, Malaysiakini invited comments. Subsequently, Malaysiakini published ten selected comments by Malaysiakinisubscribers.
What had drawn them to comment on the article? Because the case involves two Muslim transgenders who were charged under section 66 of the Syariah Criminal Law Enactment (Negeri Sembilan) 1992 (SCRENS) for dressing up as females. They applied to the High Court for a declaration that section 66 SCRENS was unconstitutional and void. The High Court dismissed their application. They appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed their appeal and declared that the section was unconstitutional.
I argued that the constitutionality of “offences against the precepts of Islam” under List II of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution should not be tested against the provisions of Articles 5(1) (personal liberty), 8(1) (Equality), 8(2) (discrimination), 9(2) (freedom of movement) 10(1) freedom of speech (indeed Article 11 (Freedom of Religion – added) as was done by the Court of Appeal in that case.
The only applicable test is whether it is an offence “against the precepts of Islam”. That is because it is specifically provided for by the Constitution. (See my article on the topic on my website.) That is an academic discussion on legal and constitutional issues.
These are examples of what they say.
“Any Malaysian with common sense…..could have made a better chief justice than Abdul Hamid Mohamad.”
“Hamid is the picture of extremist unreasonableness.”
“It looks like he is playing God after retiring from his previous job.”
“As an ex-CJ, this statement is truly disappointing.”
“The mind-numbing thing about this news article is the apparent lack of even a basic understanding of constitutional law, as it applies to the creation of law under a constitution, by a former chief justice.”
“Former CJ Mohamed Suffian Hashim must be rolling in his grave. If this sets a benchmark for the rest of the judiciary then Malaysia is in big trouble.”
“You are publicly exposing your ignorance.”
‘With his kind of mentality, how did Abdul Hamid get appointed to be CJ in our country?”
“Thank God, Abdul Hamid is no longer a judge. He has done a lot of injustice already.”
“Too late, we should have found out that he was a bigot and racist when he was a judge.”
“I hope one day Abdul Hamid will have a grandchild who is born a transgender.”
“It’s really sad to find a bigoted ex-judge spewing hatred every day.”
“Will this foolish old retired judge…..”
“Shocking! Ex-CJ who’s obtuse on the constitution.”
What have all these got to do with the constitutional and legal issue under discussion? Where are their arguments to counter my arguments? How many of them read my article in Malay in Utusan Malaysia or on my website? Why are they so concerned about shariah which is only applicable to Muslims? It seems they even want to control the shariah. Can Malaysiakini be proud of its subscribers? And, what kind of people subscribe to Malaysiakini?
No comments:
Post a Comment