Dalam satu tindakan yang dianggap sangat efisien, proaktif dan sangat pantas, Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan atau Jawi dilaporkan akan mengeluarkan waran tangkap kepada tiga gadis bertudung yang video mereka berpeluk dan bercium dengan artis K-Pop Korea Selatan tersebar luas, baru-baru ini.
Pengarah Jawi, Paimuzi Yahya dilaporkan berkata, pihaknya memberi tempoh selama tujuh hari kepada ketiga-tiga gadis remaja itu untuk menyerah diri untuk siasatan dan sekiranya gagal, waran tangkap akan dikeluarkan.
Katanya, kes melibatkan mereka itu akan disiasat di bawah Seksyen 29 Akta Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah (Wilayah Persekutuan) 1997 (Akta 559) Perbuatan Tidak Senonoh Di Tempat Awam.
Kes ini akan dibawa ke mahkamah dan apa saja hukuman atau denda akan diputuskan, tambahnya lagi.
Walaupun menghargai kecekapan, sikap proaktif dan kepantasan Jawi terhadap perbuatan tidak senonoh gadis-gadis remaja ini sebagai usaha mencegah amalan maksiat dalam masyarakat, rasanya pihak berkuasa agama itu agak keterlaluan dan berlebih-lebihan dalam hal ini.
Ternampak bahawa, mentang-mentang isu melibatkan remaja itu menjadi viral di media sosial dan topik perbualan dalam masyarakat, Jawi seolah-olah ingin "tumpang semangkuk" menunjuk-nunjuk kuasa dan keprihatinan mereka terhadap amalan maksiat dalam negara ini.
Walhal, banyak maksiat lain yang terang-terangan berlaku dalam masyarakat, tidak pula Jawi bersungguh mahu membanterasnya. Maksiat, pergaulan bebas, adegan tidak senonoh di tempat awam, berpeluk dan bercium sebenarnya bukanlah sukar untuk dihidu oleh Jawi jika mereka benar-benar ingin membanterasnya.
Di pusat hiburan, pusat urut, disko, refleksiologi dan banyak lagi bercambah-cambah gejala maksiat, peluk dan cium setiap hari. Pusat-pusat itu pula terletak di tempat terbuka dan di tepi-tepi jalan, bukannya tersorok dan tersembunyi. Di malam minggu, adegannya lebih panas dan menggiurkan lagi.
Begitu juga di taman-taman bunga, taman di sekitar pusat membeli-belah, bahkan di dalam pusat membeli-belah sendiri, adegan berpeluk dan bercium di kalangan remaja ini seperti perkara biasa saja.
Jika ada majlis hiburan, majlis hari jadi atau parti-parti sosial peribadi yang selalunya diadakan di hotel-hotel ternama, pergaulan bebas, berpeluk dan bercium ini lebih dahsyat lagi perlakuannya. Tambahan pula jika turut disertai minuman keras, semuanya bak "dunia ana yang punya".
Dalam masa yang sama, di tv pula, sepanjang masa adegan drama-drama tempatan bukan sekadar berpeluk, bercium, bahkan ada juga aksi mandi berkemban dan berselimut berdua-duaan dengan mesra di atas katil, turut bagaikan perkara biasa juga.
Jika mahu dihuraikan sebenarnya banyak lagi maksiat nyata dan terang-terangan yang sepatutnya lebih diambil peduli oleh Jawi berbanding perlakuan gadis-gadis remaja dengan artis K-Pop itu. Memang diakui tindakan remaja itu salah, tetapi janganlah Jawi hanya "nampak kuman di seberang laut, namun buat-buat buta dengan gajah di depan mata".
Dalam konteks maksiat dan perbuatan tidak senonoh di tempat awam, banyak lagi yang boleh diambil tindakan oleh Jawi. Malah, jika bercium dengan artis boleh dianggap salah, bagamana pula dengan isteri Perdana Menteri, Rosmah Mansor yang juga pernah melakukan perkara yang sama sebelum ini?
Panggillah Rosmah untuk disiasat dan jika enggan, keluarkanlah waran tangkap juga? Kenapa ketika itu Jawi diam saja?
Begitu juga dengan pelakon-pelakon yang menayangkan aksi berpeluk, bercium, berkemban dan bermesra di atas katil sepanjang masa di kaca tv, ambillah juga tindakan yang sama?
Adalah penting untuk Jawi bertindak berdasarkan keutamaan dalam masyarakat. Maksiat dan adegan tidak senonoh lain berlaku sepanjang masa dan berleluasa, manakala aksi remaja dengan bintang K-Pop itu hanyalah aksi terpencil saja. Ia boleh ditangani dalam bentuk yang lain atau secara diam-diam sahaja.
Mengeluarkan waran tangkap seolah-olah penjenayah besar adalah agak keterlaluan dan boleh menjejaskan masa depan mereka sedangkan pesalah lain yang sepatutnya hadir ke mahkamah pun masih boleh lepas bebas hingga ke luar negara.
Dengan menghebohkan tindakan dalam perkara yang kecil dan remeh, tetapi mengabaikan maksiat yang lebih besar dan terang dalam masyarakat, hanya mendedahkan Jawi kepada kecaman dan pensendaan masyarakat semata-mata. Dalam kes remaja dengan artis K-Pop ini, tidak perlulah juga Jawi muncul setiap hari di media dengan menunjuk kuasa seolah-olah begitu gila publisiti.
Perlakuan itu sebaliknya hanya memperlihatkan Jawi seolah-olah tidak matang, terangsang dengan perkara remeh, gagal melihat keutamaan dan seperti lagak budak-budak yang belum "masuk jawi" saja.
Makanya, eloklah Jawi "bersunat" dulu agar tindakannya tidak kekok di mata masyarakat.- shahbudindotcom
Jawi - One-week deadline for tudung clad girls
Kenapa diam bila Rosmah peluk Chong Wei...
Penyelaras SAMM Johor, Hadzril Ridzal Hussin berkata, sepatutnya kritikan dilemparkan kepada rakyat tempatan terutamanya pelakon yang berani membuat aksi ghairah antara bukan muhrim.
Malah soalnya, kenapa tidak dipertikaikan tindakan isteri Perdana Menteri, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor yang memeluk jaguh badminton negara, Lee Chong Wei suatu ketika dulu.
”Apa pula reaksi kita melihat gambar Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor memeluk pemain badminton negara, Lee Chong Wei?” soal Penyeleras SAMM Johor, Hadzril Ridzal Hussin.
Beliau menambah: ”Apakah Rosmah dan Chong Wei ini adalah muhrim?”
Kata Hadzril, sekiranya benar-benar marah dan benci apabila melihat anak-anak dara dipeluk dan cium oleh bukan muhrim, mengapa hanya artis K-Pop menjadi sasaran.
“Bagaimana pula dengan aksi Ifa Raziah dalam rancangan Gegar Vaganza yang berpelukan di atas pentas siaran langsung diantara suami orang dengan isteri orang?” soal beliau.
Beliau mendakwa, masalah berpelukan atau sanggup dipeluk di khalayak ramai memperlihatkan kegagalan pendidikan agama dan penguatkuasaan yang bersikap menghukum, bukan mendidik.
“Pengajaran daripada insiden ini adalah hakikatnya kita sendiri leka dalam menitikberatkan kefahaman anak-anak muda kita berhubung hukum-hakam Islam.
“Sudah lama kita biarkan mereka hanyut dengan adegan separa lucah lakonan artis kita sendiri, tindak tanduk pemimpin negara yang berpeluk tanpa mengenal hukum dan sebagainya,” tambahnya.- fmt
Major Zaidi - who was really on trial...
The martial court had found Major Zaidi Ahmad guilty of two charges out of the seven charges preferred against him on Monday. As his lawyer, I was not surprised at all with that verdict.
After all he had been duly "punished" when he was assigned to an unknown job (read cold storage) even before his trial in the martial court commenced.
It happened when he decided to break the military convention by lodging a police report against the Election Commission over the indelible ink fiasco. No doubt he was merely exercising his constitutional right as a registered voter when he made the police report.
If a trial is akin to a game, then Zaidi's trial would definitely fall under the category of an unfair one.
Winning and losing in a game is a normal phenomenon but not when the game fails to follow the agreed procedures governing it.
A fair game demands an independent and impartial umpire whose primary function is to ensure the rival parties adhere to the agreed rules and procedures.
The umpire will never compromise his impartiality or else the fairness of the game would be severely prejudiced.
Unfortunately this happened in Zaidi's (right) trial. The fairness of the trial was severely compromised. It started when the presiding judge made disparaging remarks in Malaysiakini against the accused when the trial was still ongoing.
To add salt to the injury, the remarks were made a few days before a judgment implicating the accused took place. No doubt such remarks were not only uncalled for but also rendered the entire trial process as useless and meaningless.
The upshot of this was that a fair trial was no longer viable and possible.
As a Zaidi's lawyer I did what would any lawyer standing in my shoes would do. I duly advised my client to lodge an official complaint against the presiding judge to the top military officer, demanding a full investigation. My client duly made such a complaint.
I also filed in court a written motion supported by my client's affidavit, praying for the dissolution of the court under Section 111 (1) of the Armed Forces Act 1972. The section provides a legal remedy to the accused to apply to the convening authority for a dissolution of the court whenever elements of injustice have crept into the trial.
The contents of my client's affidavit were never rebutted by the prosecutor or the presiding judge himself, thus they were deemed to have been duly admitted.
Armed with such cogent evidence one would expect the convening authority would readily agree to the dissolution of the court. Unfortunately it never happened.
The convening authority, on the contrary, dismissed Zaidi's application without even hearing from him or his lawyers and without giving any reasons. So the trial went on.
We however never surrendered. We filed in High Court an application for judicial review challenging the decision of the convening authority.
The High Court fixed the hearing on Feb 6, 2015. We duly informed the martial court the status of our application for judicial review and prayed for the latter's mercy to adjourn the trial pending the disposal of the judicial review. But no mercy was shown to us. The trial went on.
Since there was a formal complaint made by Zaidi for an investigation against the presiding judge, we asked the court to halt the trial pending its outcome. Once again the court did not entertain our request. The trial, we were told, had to go on.
We reasoned with the court. How were we supposed to proceed before it, when its impartiality was called into question?
This was so elementary as a fair trial presupposes the existence of an impartial and unbiased decision maker. When a judge had already prejudged the case how would a fair trial be possible?
When this rudimentary principle is not even adhered to, is it fair for any lawyer to allow his client to be succumbed to such a trial?
However the court insisted that the case ought to proceed and in turn asked our client to enter his defence. We complied. We therefore informed the court that the defence wished to call the presiding judge as our witness.
The court was taken aback and hurriedly demanded justification from us for such an unprecedented move.
We gave our reasons. Our justification was crystal clear. We told the court that, given the unusual scenario in this case, Zaidi's prime defence would be the unfair trial. It was a justified defence and duly recognised in a criminal trial.
This defence was rooted in our supreme law of the land i.e the Federal Constitution. It is enshrined in Article 5 (1) and 8 (1) of our constitution. Article 5 (1) provides a safety net to any individual in this country against any state's aggression and the safety includes inter alia, the recognition of the principle of a fair trial.
Article 8 (1) of the Federal Constitution , also known as a "due process clause", on the other hand, jealously and vehemently protects a citizen from any form of oppression and arbitrariness.
An unfair trial tears down the safety net and it also invites tyranny, thus infringing the said two fundamental articles of the constitution.
We told the court that since the presiding judge was the source of this unfairness it was in the interest of justice that the court needed to hear his evidence and this could only be done if he gave evidence in court.
We needed to examine him and confronted him with the evidence showing his damaging remarks against our client in Malaysiakini when the trial was still ongoing.
Even if he was to be declared as a hostile witness, the law would give us some leeway to cross-examine him. The court, as expected, refused our application.
As all our requests were rejected, we were then asked to make a winding up submission. We did not call Zaidi to enter a defence as the reasons were too obvious.
No lawyer, standing in our shoes, would readily offer his client to the court whose integrity, impartiality and credibility have been called into question.
Thus came a final stage. We told the court our presence in court to present our winding up speech was done in protest. We never recognised the tainted court. We would submit only one point.
As the trial was surrounded by unprecedented events which duly compromised its impartiality and the justice process, we demanded the court to declare a mistrial.
We told the court a mistrial was the only remedy available to the court and to the accused. In the interest of justice, the court ought to declare a mistrial so that no more unnecessary stunts would be creep into the trial.
To our utter surprise, the court did not even allow us to submit on that point despite the fact we were armed with a plethora of legal authorities to support our submission.
As far as we were concerned, the denial of a lawyer to make a submission was too much to be condoned. Making a submission is the hallmark of a criminal trial and hence not to be compromised at any time and in any circumstances.
Such a flagrant violation of a rudimentary principle brought us ultimately to the exit door of the trial.
History would ultimately determine who was really on trial in Zaidi's trial. An Israeli judge, Ehud Barak, aptly shared this wisdom; "when a judge sits to judge, he is in fact being judged".- Mohd.Hanipa Maidin,MP Sepang,mk
Still many loose ends in Altantuya’s case...
Understandably, the father of the murdered Mongolian model, Setev Shaariibuu is still asking, “Why was my daughter killed?” This is still on the minds of many Malaysians who have been following the case.
In any criminal investigation, the motive behind the murder has to be established and presented in court. In the case of Altantuya’s murder, which has gone all the way to the Federal Court, this is largely still a mystery. We know who, what, where and how, but the questions to why she was killed have yet to be answered.
The source of the C4 explosives used by the two operatives, and how the explosives were smuggled out of the military depot, have yet to be established. To date, no one has been criminalised for the stolen C4, especially if there was negligence involved.
All that we know, is that Altantuya was involved with a special negotiation team, which included former TV3 broadcast journalist Abdul Razak Baginda, who was a confidante of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.
Najib was the then defence minister, who had also been involved in the controversial purchase of two Scorpene submarines from France.
Razak Baginda, who probably holds the answers why the Mongolian model was murdered, was unceremoniously released after he was acquitted by the High Court, even before the trial ended. He has since gone for “further studies” in the UK.
Even private investigator P Balasubramaniam - who was hired by Razak Baginda - has gone to the other world, only leaving behind what were two contradictory statutory declarations.
That the two police personnel were merely “operatives”, and they were supposed to do as instructed by their superior - without questions - makes it harder to understand why their immediate superior, DSP Musa Safri (Najib’s aide) was never called as a witness during the trial.
In the name of justice
According to Setev’s lawyers, both Najib and Musa are potential witnesses in the coming civil suit. In the name of justice, the question as to why Altantuya was murdered, has to be answered.
Sirul’s disappearance, and now claiming that he did not have enough money to return to Malaysia, is something unpalatable in this day and age. Sirul is said to have left for Australia two months ago.
Try doing that the next time you travel to Australia by purchasing a one-way ticket, and see if the Australian immigration would allow you to enter. It is hard to believe that Sirul had no return ticket when he landed in Australia.
Why and how Sirul entered Australia on a one-way ticket raises more questions. Was he given any special concession by the Australian authorities? Is he applying for asylum? Now that the warrant of arrest has been issued, if Sirul cannot afford to buy his ticket home, the Australian government has the power to deport him back to Malaysia.
The Malaysian government would have to alert Interpol and - after being arrested - apply for his deportation, since Sirul has been found guilty by the apex court. There are no two ways about it.
It is time that the police release the photographs of Sirul - who is now a wanted man - and that of Azilah. Netizens are saying that since the case is now over and both operatives have been found guilty, there is indeed no reason why their photographs cannot be released by the authorities.
The civil suit brought by Setev will hopefully bring out the truth of the case.- Stephen Ng,mk
Persoalan kes bunuh Altantuya tidak berjawab