Keperluan Undang-undang Kripto

Dewan Rakyat lulus RUU mansuh hukuman mati mandatori

Dewan Rakyat lulus RUU mansuh hukuman mati mandatori

Sinar Harian

April 3, 2023 18:16 MYT

KUALA LUMPUR: Rang Undang-Undang Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 diluluskan sebulat suara di Dewan Rakyat melalui undian suara pada Isnin.

Rang undang-undang tersebut dibentangkan bagi bacaan kedua dan ketiga dibacakan Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri (Undang-Undang dan Reformasi Institusi) Ramkarpal Singh, mencadangkan hakim diberikan kuasa budi bicara dalam menjatuhi hukuman.

Rang undang-undang itu juga mencadang membenarkan hakim pilihan mengenakan hukuman penjara sehingga 40 tahun menggantikan hukuman mati mandatori.

Ramkarpal berkata, Rang Undang-Undang Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 adalah suatu akta 'omnibus' kerana merangkumi pindaan kepada Kanun Keseksaan, Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971, Akta Senjata 1960, Akta Penculikan 1961, Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, Akta Perdagangan Strategik 2010 dan Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.

Ia adalah untuk memansuhkan hukuman mati mandatori, mengubah hukuman yang berhubungan dengan pemenjaraan sepanjang hayat dan sebatan dan mengadakan peruntukan bagi perkara yang berhubungan dengannya.

"Hukuman mati mandatori adalah antara hukuman yang dianggap sebagai kaedah di mana keadilan dapat dicapai terutamanya apabila membabitkan kesalahan kejam.

"Namun tiada kajian lanjut yang dapat membuktikan bahawa hukuman mati adalah langkah pencegahan jenayah terbaik atau berkesan.

"Keberkesanan hukuman mati sebagai satu bentuk pencegahan tidak dapat dipastikan memandangkan terdapat banyak faktor yang mempengaruhi bilangan pendakwaan atau kadar jenayah," katanya ketika membentangkan RUU itu.

Dalam masa sama, beliau berkata, pemansuhan hukuman mati mandatori adalah satu bentuk pemulihan supaya mereka dapat kembali ke masyarakat dan menjadi individu yang dapat berkhidmat kepada keluarga dan negara selepas selesai menjalani hukuman.

Justeru, keputusan kerajaan berkaitan pemansuhan hukuman mati mandatori dilihat sebagai langkah yang tepat dalam usaha kerajaan untuk mewujudkan sistem perundangan yang dinamik, progresif dan relevan dengan keperluan semasa.

"Bagaimanapun, hukuman gantian kepada hukuman mati mandatori perlu setimpal dengan keseriusan jenayah yang telah dilakukan oleh pesalah dan tidak mengakibatkan ketidaksesuaian dengan hukuman lain yang kurang serius.

"Justeru, hukuman pemenjaraan bagi suatu tempoh berserta dengan sebatan dilihat sebagai hukuman gantian yang paling bersesuaian terhadap 11 kesalahan yang membawa kepada hukuman mati mandatori ini.

"Kombinasi hukuman pemenjaraan dan sebatan adalah wajar supaya dilihat sebagai hukuman yang lebih berat berbanding hukuman untuk jenayah lain," katanya.

Sembilan ahli Parlimen mengambil bahagian dalam perbahasan RUU berkenaan.

Mereka terdiri daripada lima ahli parlimen blok pembangkang daripada Perikatan Nasional (PN) iaitu Datuk Mas Ermieyati Samsudin (PN-Masjid Tanah), Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal (PN-Machang), Latiff Abdul Rahman (PN - Kuala Krai), Datuk Ahmad Saad @ Yahaya (PN-Pokok Sena),dan Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim (PN-Arau).

Manakala empat lagi dari blok kerajaan iaitu Teresa Kok Suh Sim (PH-Seputeh), M.Kulasegaran (PH-Ipoh Barat), Abdul ; Chiew Choon Man (PH-Miri), dan RSN Rayer(PH-Jelutong).

https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/dewan-rakyat-lulus-ruu-mansuh-hukuman-mati-mandatori-413871?utm_source=newsletter-7news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230404%20Newsletter?utm_source=newsletter-7news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230404%20Newsletter

Lecture in Maldives - December 2016

My lectures in Maldives organized by Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Maldives in December 2016 in the link below.

http://youtu.be/LIZCRPVlswY

 

Kes Bin Abdullah

 JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA & ORS v. SEORANG KANAK-KANAK & ORS; MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI JOHOR (INTERVENER) [2020] 4 CLJ 731

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; ABANG ISKANDAR FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01(f)-43-09-2017(W)]
13 FEBRUARY 2020

The decision of the Director General of National Registration (DGNR) in declining to allow a Malay Muslim illegitimate child to bear his biological father's name in his birth certificate is legal, rational and reasonable, and does not in any way militate against the purport of s. 13A(2) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 (BDRA) or the child's fundamental constitutional liberties. Section 13A BDRA, which allows a child's surname to be stated in his birth certificate, cannot apply to a Malay Muslim child, since a Malay Muslim child, in reality and by culture and tradition, never carries a surname, and also because the biological father's name by definition does not constitute a surname. Be that as it may, and whilst the DGNR in so registering the birth may apply the child's Islamic personal law to the registration process, his decision to ascribe "bin Abdullah" to the child's name upon the adoption of a fatwa issued by the National Fatwa Committee (NFC) is wrong in law and devoid of any legal basis. As the child was born in the State of Johor, and the State has not adopted nor gazetted the NFC's fatwa, the same cannot apply to the State, and consequently, the DGNR, in imposing the fatwa on the child, has usurped the power of the Fatwa Committee of Johor and violated ss. 49 and 52 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Johor) Enactment 2003. Consequentially, the words "bin Abdullah" must be removed from the child's birth certificate.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Judicial review - Challenge against decision of Director General of National Registration ('DGNR') - Application by Malay Muslim illegitimate child - Application to enter name of father of child in child's Birth Register - DGNR issued child's birth certificate and entered child's full name with 'bin Abdullah' instead of 'bin' father's name - Application to correct child's name from 'bin Abdullah' to 'bin' father's name dismissed by DGNR - Whether DGNR's refusal to correct or alter particulars 'bin Abdullah' to be substituted with 'bin' father's name in Birth Register made in accordance with law - Whether s. 13A of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 ('BDRA') applies to registration of births of Muslim children - Whether enabling child to be named with personal name of person acknowledged to be father of child - Whether 'surname' in s. 13A of BDRA includes patronymic surnames - Whether Malays have surnames

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Fundamental liberties - Personal liberty - Challenge against decision of Director General of National Registration ('DGNR') - Application by Malay Muslim illegitimate child - Application to enter name of father of child in child's Birth Register - DGNR issued child's birth certificate and entered child's full name with 'bin Abdullah' instead of 'bin' father's name - Child's birth certificate contained notation 'Permohonan Seksyen 13' as acknowledgment of registration of birth for illegitimate child - Whether entry of 'bin Abdullah' and notation 'Permohonan Seksyen 13' in child's birth certificate infringed child's fundamental liberties

ISLAMIC LAW
Legislation - Islamic law of State - Challenge against decision of Director General of National Registration ('DGNR') - Application by Malay Muslim illegitimate child - Application to enter name of father of child in child's Birth Register - DGNR issued child's birth certificate and entered child's full name with 'bin Abdullah' instead of 'bin' father's name - Child's birth certificate contained notation 'Permohonan Seksyen 13' as acknowledgment of registration of birth for illegitimate child - DGNR relied on fatwa by National Fatwa Committee ('NFC') in arriving at decision - Whether, in performing registration of births of Muslim children, Registrar of Births and Deaths may refer to and rely on sources of Islamic law on legitimacy - Whether DGNR could rely on fatwa by NFC when child is subjected to Islamic laws of State - Whether illegitimate Muslim child could be ascribed to name of father in Islam - Islamic Family Law (State of Johor) Enactment 2003, ss. 52 & 111

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwHNVzNHQGWqtvjpVLXwGvgvcph

Pemegang Serah Hak (Assignee) lebih berhak daripada pemegang amanah terhadap apa-apa hasil dan kepentingan harta serah hak (assignment property)

 SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK BHD v. PETRON OIL (M) SDN BHD [2020] 4 CLJ 811

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; AHMAD MAAROP PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-27-04-2018(S)]
17 FEBRUARY 2020

An assignee Bank who has created an absolute and unconditional assignment with an assignor and has thereby obtained an irrevocable transfer of the latter's legal rights and beneficial interests over a certain third party's contract proceeds, is entitled to recover the remittances and funds due under the said contract. Further, such of its entitlement as a lawful assignee will take precedence and priority over other competing claims to the same proceeds, including, as the case may be, claims by a purported trustee or constructive trustee to the said proceeds. The bank's ability to recover such proceeds at the expense of such trustee cannot at all be unconscionable, as otherwise, the security given by a borrower assignor to a banking institution would be rendered nugatory, or put in jeopardy by a finding of a trust or constructive trust by a third party claiming the same funds.

CONTRACT
Agreement - Sale of goods - Claim for recovery of debt by creditor - Absolute assignment of contract proceeds to bank as security for credit facilities - Effect of absolute assignment - Whether entitlement to recover proceeds transferred to bank - Whether creditor's claim premised on trust and/or constructive trust prevailed over bank's absolute assignment - Whether bank held monies in constructive trust for creditor - Whether freezing of first account and creation of subsequent account affected validity of absolute assignment - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 4(3)

CONTRACT
Assignment - Absolute assignment - Claim for recovery of debt by creditor - Absolute assignment of contract proceeds to bank as security for credit facilities - Effect of absolute assignment - Whether entitlement to recover proceeds transferred to bank - Whether creditor's claim premised on trust and/or constructive trust prevailed over bank's absolute assignment - Whether bank held monies in constructive trust for creditor - Whether freezing of first account and creation of subsequent account affected validity of absolute assignment - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 4(3)

TRUSTS
Constructive trust - Existence of trust - Claim for recovery of debt by creditor - Absolute assignment of contract proceeds to bank as security for credit facilities - Whether creditor's claim premised on trust and/or constructive trust prevailed over bank's absolute assignment - Whether bank held monies in constructive trust for creditor

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwHNVzNHQGWqtvjpVLXwGvgvcph

Syarikat tidak boleh didakwa di bawah Enakmen Jenayah Syariah

 ZI PUBLICATIONS SDN BHD & ANOR v. JABATAN AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR & ORS [2020] 9 CLJ 774

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA; SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: WA-01(A)-255-04-2018]
09 JULY 2020

Unlike a natural person, a company is incapable of practising or professing a religion, or assuming the religion of its shareholders. It follows that the sanctions of an Islamic Law Enactment such as the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 cannot apply to a company like the first appellant in this case. It follows further that the action of the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor and the Ketua Penguatkuasa Agama Selangor herein in raiding the first appellant's premises and confiscating 180 copies of books therefrom, and in further prosecuting the first appellant for alleged offences under the said 1995 Enactment, is null and void, unconstitutional and unlawful. The first appellant company having come outside the ambit of the 1995 Enactment and were incapable of committing the crimes so laid out thereunder, the decision to prosecute the company's shareholder, the second appellant, for like offence is also wrong in law.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Judicial review - Certiorari - Exercise of powers in course of criminal investigation - Issuance of search warrant and seizure by enforcement officers - Whether subject to review under O. 53 of Rules of Court 2012

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Federal and State law - Islamic law enactment - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 16 - Whether ultra vires Federal Constitution - Purpose - To control religious publications contrary to Islam - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly acted within legislative power in enacting s. 16 - Whether s. 16 fell within 'precepts' of Islam within meaning of Item 1, List II-State List, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 16 constitutional

COMPANY LAW
Corporate personality - Corporate veil - Prosecution against director of company at Syariah Court - Validity of - Whether attempt to penalise director for actions of company - Whether company could assume religion of shareholders - Whether Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 ('SCOE') only applicable to natural persons professing religion of Islam - Whether lifting of corporate veil necessary - Whether company could be prosecuted under SCOE

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwKjKqxQLRVzTKhVgrzVPzfmxGd

Perintah Mahkamah Syariah hendaklah diterima sebagai keterangan di Mahkamah Sivil

 MOHD ISHA AWANG v. MOHAMAD IDRIS SERAMAL BARIS [2020] 9 CLJ 760

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA; GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-02(NCVC)(W)-2426-12-2018]
05 AUGUST 2020

An order of the Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating that a marriage is not valid under the Syarak must be presumed to have been made according to the legitimate powers of the said court and must be taken as valid until proven otherwise; and more, upon the same being properly tendered and marked as an exhibit, its contents must be taken as true and undisputed. This being the case, it is erroneous of the learned Judicial Commissioner, after having admitted the order and marked it as an exhibit, to have then compelled the defendant adducer to prove the authenticity of the document inter alia by calling or examining the maker(s) thereof. Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act 1950 allows the court to presume that such judicial and official act of the Syariah Court of Appeal has been regularly performed with the result that the marriage between the plaintiff and the second defendant herein, on the facts and the evidence, and in consonance with the order of the Syariah Court of Appeal, must be held to be invalid. It follows that the appellant's claim for damages against the first defendant for allegedly enticing his 'wife', the second defendant, must crumble and fail.

TORT
Enticement - Claim for - Plaintiff alleged first defendant enticed his wife from matrimonial home causing breakdown of familial relationship - Whether there was valid marriage between plaintiff and wife - Whether there was order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents - Whether claim for enticement ought to fail

EVIDENCE
Documents - Judicial separation - Order of - Whether there was valid marriage between plaintiff and wife - Whether there was order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents

FAMILY LAW
Judicial separation - Documents - Whether there was an order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwKjKqxQLRVzTKhVgrzVPzfmxGd

Status Tanah Simpanan Melayu

BEBE SAKIMAH MOHD ASROF v. PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI PERAK [2020] 10 CLJ 413
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
SU TIANG JOO JC
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: AA-24NCVC-478-11-2019]
21 OCTOBER 2020

Not all Malay Reservation land is necessarily a Malay holding; it could also be a non-Malay holding. It is insufficient for the document of title of a piece of land to only be endorsed with 'Pengisytiharan Rezab Melayu' without the particulars of the land specified. Sections 6(i) and 2(a) of the Malay Reservation Enactment (FMS Cap. 142) ('MRE') provide three steps that must be complied with for a land to be declared, post the commencement of the MRE, a Malay holding. Under the proviso in s. 2(a), no interest shall be deemed to be a Malay holding until a requisition in the prescribed Form A in the First Schedule has been registered against the register document of title for such land.

LAND LAW

Malay Reservations - Malay holding - Registration of property expressly stated as Malay Reservation Land - Presentations for registration by purchaser rejected by Land Office - Whether purchaser Malay - Whether non-Malay could be registered as proprietor of Malay Reservation Land - Whether prohibitions and restrictions against dealings apply to all Malay Reservation Lands - Whether applied to property in question - Whether property Malay holding - Whether Land Office complied with necessary statutory steps to declare property to be Malay holding - Whether mere endorsement of Malay Reservation Land without particulars sufficient for property to be declared Malay holding - Whether purchaser could be registered as proprietor of property - Malay Reservations Enactment (FMS Cap. 142)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwKjdvMpKMMqXXqCSHbXkzjtvzh

Kes Iki Putra

IKI PUTRA MUBARRAK v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ANOR [2021] 3 CLJ 465

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[PETITION NO: BKA-3-11-2019(W)]
25 FEBRUARY 2021
[2021] CLJ JT(5)

Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, which criminalises unnatural sex, is in contravention of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. The section, while providing for the offences against the 'precepts of Islam', is limited by the preclusion clause contained in the State List, ie, 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List'. Criminal law being a federal matter, is exclusively for Parliament to enact; and is beyond the legislative competency of the State Legislature.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Legislation - Validity of legislation - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 28 - Offence against 'precepts of Islam' - Challenge against competency of Selangor State Legislature to legislate offences against precepts of Islam - Whether qualified by phrase 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List' in item 1, List II, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether States restricted from making laws on subjects within domain of Parliament - Whether criminal law within domain of Parliament - Whether s. 28 enacted in contravention of item 1 of State List - Whether s. 28 inconsistent with Federal Constitution - Whether void

ISLAMIC LAW
Legislation - Validity of impugned legislation - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 28 - Offence against 'precepts of Islam' - Challenge against competency of Selangor State Legislature to legislate offences against precepts of Islam - Whether qualified by phrase 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List' in item 1, List II, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether States restricted from making laws on subjects within domain of Parliament - Whether criminal law within domain of Parliament - Whether s. 28 enacted in contravention of item 1 of State List - Whether s. 28 inconsistent with Federal Constitution - Whether void

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwLtGlcchtFccQqSXsmFwLLcLCV

BBA bukan bermaksud pindah milik mengikut s.214 KTN

 MAPLE AMALGAMATED SDN BHD & ANOR v. BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BHD [2021] 8 CLJ 409

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-54-09-2020(A)]
23 JULY 2021

An agreement for the sale and purchase of an estate land by way of asset sale and purchase agreements pursuant to a Bai Bithamin Ajil financing is not in breach of s. 214A of the National Land Code; it remains so even if no prior approval has been obtained from the Estate Land Board. Taking heed of this court's decision in Gula Perak Berhad v. Datuk Lim Sue Beng & Other Appeals, and reading s. 214A NLC strictly while giving it and its subsections their natural and ordinary meaning in the context of the provisions' object and purpose, it is clear that a Bai Bithamin Ajil financing scheme is not caught by the words 'transfer, convey or dispose of' in s. 214A. The words 'transfer, convey or dispose of', being analogous, should have their meaning confined to Parliament's intention to prevent dispossession of land whether in law or equity. They were only meant to cater to a comprehensively narrow intent of preventing actual or outright transfers and fragmentation. Reading the law this way accords with commercial realities, avoids contravening any law and favours commercial transactions such as the one transacted in this case.

LAND LAW
Agreement - Unconditional agreement - Estate land - Parties entered into sale and purchase agreement - Bai bithamin ajil financing - No prior approval obtained from Estate Land Board before entering into agreements - Whether transfer of estate land could only be done with approval of Estate Land Board - Whether there was intention to 'transfer, convey or dispose of' land - Whether unconditional agreement in breach of s. 214A of National Land Code

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGljvJlGpNhMVZXGdkdHxKjTWxJ

Pihak Berkuasa Agama membuat tindakan kepada pemeluk agama Ahmadiyyah

MAQSOOD AHMAD & ORS v. KETUA PEGAWAI PENGUATKUASA AGAMA & ORS [2022] 2 CLJ 259

HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: 25-56-10-2015]
25 OCTOBER 2021

Abstract – (i) Members of the Ahmadiyya sect are generally not Muslims and are not to be subjected to the dictates of Islamic law or statute, or any Syariah investigation or prosecution. However, to properly determine their constitutional and legal status, a differentiation must be made between those who were adherents of the faith by origin, and those who were professing the religion of Islam before embracing the doctrinal beliefs of the Ahmadiyya sect. The Civil Court is seized with jurisdiction to deal with those in the first category but not in the second; for the latter category, the tight to determine belongs exclusively to the Syariah Court. (ii) The Ahmadiyya worshippers in this judicial review application are made up of those who were born into Ahmadiyya families and were Ahmadiyya adherents by origin, and Muslims who had subsequently come to adopt the Ahmadiyya faith. Clearly, the applicants in the second category who are Malaysians fall squarely within the ‘renunciation’ cases and would therefore come within the jurisdiction of the Islamic Authorities respondents, and be subject to the two fatwas herein, until and unless they obtain an order from the Syariah Court that they are followers of the Ahmadiyya sect.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGmthnkPqpFDqMzfnfdFXKjpqSC

KETUA PEGAWAI PENGUATKUASA AGAMA & ORS v. MAQSOOD AHMAD & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2020] 10 CLJ 748
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA; NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: B-01(A)-468-07-2018 & B-01(A)-513-08-2018]
25 AUGUST 2020

The Syariah Court's jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and what is spelt out in s. 74(1) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 is merely a restatement of a trite principle of law that a Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over non-Muslims. This said, the presumption in s. 74(2) thereof has no application to members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at religious group ('the Ahmadiyya') in the State of Selangor, because, following the 1953 trial before HRH the Sultan of Selangor and the subsequently gazetted 1998 and 2000 fatwas, an Ahmadiyya in the State of Selangor is not considered a Muslim, and he is also not, constitutionally speaking, a person 'professing the religion of Islam'. Indeed, for that matter, the 1998 and 2000 fatwas themselves have removed the legal status of the Ahmadiyya community as persons 'professing the religion of Islam'. It follows therefore that the actions of the Majlis Agama Islam Selangor in raiding the Ahmadiyya's place of worship and prohibiting them from performing their prayers thereat upon a purported violation of s. 97(2) of the Enactment ought to be subjected to a review before the High Court; and if the respondents herein have, by cogent and credible supporting evidence, showed that they are actually Ahmadiyya, then the High Court has the discretion to grant them the relief sought for, including to prohibit all syariah investigation and prosecution against them.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Fundamental liberties - Freedom of religion - Jurisdiction of Syariah Court - Matters related to Syariah as defined in Item 1, List II of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether confined to persons 'professing the religion of Islam' - Persons of Ahmadiyya religion - Fatwa removing legal status of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at religious group as persons 'professing the religion of Islam' in Selangor - Whether fell within jurisdiction of civil court - Federal Constitution, arts. 11(1) & 121(1A)

JURISDICTION
Courts - Jurisdiction - Offence under s. 97 of Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 ('ARIE') - Proper forum - Whether Syariah Court or Magistrate's Court - Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at religious group - Fatwa removing legal status of Ahmadiyya community as persons 'professing the religion of Islam' in Selangor - Whether s. 74(2) of ARIE applicable to Ahmadiyya in Selangor

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwKkHXKmWFDzTmKvKVzHFFtBbrM

Kuasa Mahkamah Sivil Terhadap Fatwa

 “Naturally, there is a difference between the making of a fatwa (as in the procedure and law to adhere to) and the substantive contents of the fatwa. As regards the procedure, it necessarily requires compliance with written law and the failure to do so might result in the issuance of public law remedies that can only be issued by the civil superior courts. The contents of the fatwa and their interpretation are a different story and a matter purely for the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts to the extent that it relates to “hukum syarak” or personal law and not matters which objectively might be taken to contradict any written law (Federal or State statutes or even the FC for that matter).”

“Thus, simply put, if the vires of any fatwa or the conduct of the Fatwa Committee is challenged purely on the basis of constitutional or statutory compliance, then it is a matter for the civil courts. If the question pertains to the matters of the faith or the validity of the contents of the fatwa tested against the grain of Islamic law, then the appropriate forum for review or compliance is the Syariah courts.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 CLJ 339

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpFqPVjHMszxSQpXFpnTPsCgrR

Mahkamah Syariah tiada kuasa semakan?

SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR; MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (INTERVENER) [2022] 3 CLJ 339
FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CASE NO: BKA-1-01-2021(W)]
21 FEBRUARY 2022

Section 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 which seeks to give the Syariah courts the jurisdiction and power to hear and decide on judicial review, being a provision which the Selangor State Legislature (SSL) has no power or competency to make, is unconstitutional and void. The substantive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts is strictly defined by Item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution; the issue of the absence of the power of judicial review or the power to grant public law remedies in Item 1 aside, it is plain that none of the limbs in Item 1 can be construed as conferring power on SSL to enact s. 66A or to enable the Syariah Court to engage in judicial review. This said, the judicial power of the Federation, of which the 'constitutional' and 'statutory' judicial review are a specie, is by constitutional design exclusively vested in the Civil Superior Courts, as to clothe them with supervisory jurisdiction over legislation passed by any Legislature, as well as the jurisdiction to decide on constitutional issues or to issue public law remedies; the Syariah Courts, on the other hand, for not sharing the same constitutional guarantees of judicial independence as the Civil Superior Courts, are as a matter of constitutional policy incapable of exercising judicial power.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGmvfTvmMfmKnpxcflNWqPqVDvf

“Judicial review is not merely procedural but a substantive and immutable component of judicial power - one which is inherent and which defines the very core function of an independent Judiciary. It is exclusively a judicial power of the civil superior courts.

Reading s. 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 as it stands and upon analysing the basis for judicial review in this country, I find that s. 66A of the ARIE 2003 is unconstitutional and void, as it is a provision which the SSLA has no power to make. I accordingly find that the petitioner has overcome the threshold of the presumption of constitutionality.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 CLJ 339

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpGTBXkhHqnVpLbPjMRJvMzdnG 

Tidak Boleh memberi komen mencemar martabat Mahkamah Syariah

 SM FAISAL SM NASIMUDDIN lwn. MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH [2022] 5 CLJ 634

MAHKAMAH TINGGI SYARIAH, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMED FOUZI MOKHTAR HS
[PERMOHONAN NO: 14400-099-0317-2019]
25 APRIL 2022

Apa jua komen yang dibuat mengenai Mahkamah Syariah dan sistem keadilannya hendaklah bersifat adil dan berdasarkan kebenaran fakta, dan sama sekali tidak boleh mencemar nama baik, reputasi, maruah atau martabat Mahkamah Syariah. Menulis artikel dan menuduh bahawa keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Syariah dalam satu perbicaraan adalah 'a disgrace to the judicial system' dan sebagainya adalah bersifat menghina; ia boleh menjerumuskan si pelakunya kepada satu tindakan pengkomitan.

MAHKAMAH
Menghina mahkamah - Perintah pengkomitan - Ahli Parlimen - Mendakwa Mahkamah Syariah mendiskriminasi Wanita Muslim, membiar mereka tidak terbela dan tidak bertindak terhadap bapa-bapa yang tidak membayar nafkah anak - Sama ada bersifat menghina - Sama ada salah nyataan dan tidak berdasarkan fakta sebenar - Sama ada menjejaskan reputasi dan martabat Mahkamah Syariah - Sama ada mewajarkan perintah pengkomitan - Akta Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syariah (Wilayah-wilayah Persekutuan) 1998, s. 229(3)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpGTBXkhHqnVpLbPjMRJvMzdnG

Parti Politik Tidak Boleh Menyaman Malu

 LIM LIP ENG v. ONG KA CHUAN [2022] 5 CLJ 847

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-25-03-2020(W)]
27 APRIL 2022

A political party such as the MCA in this appeal has no cause of action in defamation. Political parties, as registered societies, have no existence of their own separate from their members and are dependent on their members to sue or be sued; consequently, they do not have the requisite reputation to complain of or to be protected within the spheres of the law of defamation. It is also not right nor is it in the public interest to put the public in fear of a defamation suit by a political party; a political party must not be thin-skinned and must always be open to public criticism.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpGdjNJnStTZNzRvfhJQRlsnNr

Mahkamah Tinggi juga boleh membuat tafsiran kepada Perlembagaan?

 BERSIH & ADIL NETWORK SDN BHD & ORS v. TAN SRI DATO' HJ MAHIADDIN MD YASIN & ANOR; KHAIRIL NIZAM KHIRUDIN & ORS (INTERVENERS) AND ANOTHER CASE [2022] 7 CLJ 905

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NOS: WA-24-6-02-2021 & WA-24-22-04-2021]
04 JULY 2022

The power to interpret constitutional provisions is not exclusive to the Federal Court. Under the constitutional scheme, the Federal Court is generally a court of last resort for all constitutional questions. It is only in a narrow category of exceptional cases - those expressly stipulated in art. 128(1) of the Federal Constitution - that such questions must be determined by the Federal Court at first instance

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGqQJrPngPbWgkPqjmZBNzXHlKr

Namun boleh bandingkan dengan kes ini.

TEO CHEE KONG v. PP [2021] 8 CLJ 29
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA; RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: S-06A-18-06-2018]
14 JUNE 2021

The power of the High Court under s. 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is discretionary. The High Court is not duty bound to refer the constitutional questions posed by a party to the Federal Court in all cases. It is also unnecessary for the High Court to proffer any answer, 'negative' or 'affirmative' to the constitutional questions brought before it.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGkbDdlnmvtmmRFbWzTWgQQsNWL

Parlimen tidak boleh membuat perlembagaan baru?

MAHISHA SULAIHA ABDUL MAJEED v. KETUA PENGARAH PENDAFTARAN & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2022] 8 CLJ 697

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: W-01(A)-273-06-2020 & W-01(NCvC)(A)-531-09-2021]
09 AUGUST 2022

Parliament must take the necessary measure to ensure that any amendment to the Federal Constitution ('FC') must not result in a new Constitution, especially with regard to fundamental provision; likewise, the court is bound by the enacted laws and must strive to give effect to the intention of Parliament in enacting the laws. Hence, to declare the word 'father' in s. 1(b) Part II of Second Schedule of the FC to include 'mother' would mean to rewrite the FC and the courts must forbid itself from such an interpretation of the law.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGqQcvfprMvctlxHDGLDZjVwFTk

Kuasa Mahkamah mengarah ujian DNA untuk penentuan nasab?

 BSM lwn. BAA & SATU LAGI [2023] 1 CLJ 581

MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, TEMERLOH
ROSLAN MAT NOR PK
[SAMAN PEMULA NO: CB-24F-12-08-2022]
07 DECEMBER 2022

(i) Tiada undang-undang khusus di Malaysia tentang bidang kuasa mahkamah untuk mengarahkan seseorang menjalankan ujian DNA demi penentuan nasab. Walaupun apa-apa prinsip undang-undang yang terpakai di United Kingdom boleh diguna pakai di Malaysia, tertakluk pada pematuhan ketat s. 3(1) Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956, prinsip undang-undang keluarga dalam bidang kuasa lain berkaitan nasab tidak sesuai diguna pakai dalam sistem perundangan di Malaysia untuk memutuskan kes ini.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGrcFbggpwpnLkGGFrXlPwDDjNz

JKL v. ABC & ANOR [2022] 7 CLJ 376
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24F-363-11-2021]
24 MAY 2022

Notwithstanding the absence of any legislative provision in Malaysia on the power of the High Court to order DNA tests to determine paternity, a High Court Judge has inherent power to order a DNA test in disputed paternity cases. DNA testing ought to be ordered especially if the party claiming to be the father of the child has strong prima facie evidence that he is the biological father of the said child. It would also be in the best interest of a child to know his/her birth father/mother.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGqPzBWsWMQxwtHmTBmdQPWKqjv

CAS v. MPPL & ANOR [2022] 6 CLJ 713
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J

[WRIT NO: WA-22F-1-05-2019 (ORIGINALLY ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24F-107-07-2015)]
21 JUNE 2022
 [2022] CLJ JT (7)

Case laws are replete with decisions that the courts are not seized with the power, in civil proceedings, to compel adults to produce deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') samples to prove the paternity of a child. However, it has never been discussed nor decided whether the courts could order for a child to undergo a DNA test to determine the child's paternity. In this distinctive judgment, a prima facie case was established as there was an avalanche of evidence that there existed sexual relations during the conception period of the child, between parties engaging in an extra-marital affair. Also present were overwhelming documentary evidence of an intimate relationship akin to that of a family unit. As it was in the best interest of the child to know her biological father, the child was accordingly ordered to undergo a DNA test to conclusively resolve the ambiguity as to her paternity.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpHHKDKxnhJCqXPHKtHhdTDRQX

Tujuan Prinsip Duluan Di Mahkamah Sivil

 PP v. AHMAD SAIFUL ISLAM MOHAMAD [2023] 2 CLJ 714

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA; HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: W-09-282-11-2021]
20 JANUARY 2023

Courts are bound to observe judicial hierarchy for the orderly development of legal rules as well as for the courts and lawyers to regulate their affairs. The doctrine of stare decisis provides certainty and uniformity in the law and stabilises the law, hence, is an indispensable foundation to a decision. The Court of Appeal, as the highest court to determine appeals in criminal matters emanating from subordinate courts, when faced with two conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal, ought to follow the later decision for there to be a finality and certainty in the law.

JURISDICTION
Court of Appeal - Powers and jurisdiction - Court of Appeal highest court to determine appeals for criminal matters originating from subordinate courts - Application of doctrine of stare decisis - Whether principles governing Federal Court in Dalip Bhagwan Singh v. PP equally applicable to Court of Appeal - Whether later decision prevailed over earlier decision - Whether Magistrate correct in following later decision of Court of Appeal

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGrcrrGNBhLgfNHCPgGbtvBTdvg

Pemegang Amanah Bukan Pemilik Berdaftar Tanah

 SILVAM SELLAPAN & ANOR v. TAMIL SELVAM VELUSAMY & ORS [2023] 3 CLJ 371

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; NORDIN HASSAN JCA; MARIANA YAHYA JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-01(NCVC)(W)-374-08-2020]
25 JANUARY 2023

Trustees are not registered owners of a land and have no right to transfer a land to any other entity. Any transfer obtained by insufficient instrument and in clear violation of a declaration of trust ought to be set aside. In such case, there should be a reversion to the status quo ante; the name of the rightful owner should be restored to the issue document of title.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGslkkkbCbgVRfzCQlRmcGGkfdM

Siasatan Jenayah Terhadap Hakim Mahkamah Perlu Kepada standard yang lebih tinggi

 HARIS FATHILLAH MOHAMED IBRAHIM & ORS v. TAN SRI DATO' SRI HJ AZAM BAKI & ORS [2023] 3 CLJ 653

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ;
ABANG ISKANDAR PCA;
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH CJ (MALAYA);
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ;
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ;
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ;
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL REFERENCE NO: 06(RS)-4-07-2022(W)]
24 FEBRUARY 2023

Serving Superior Court Judges are not immune from criminal investigations or prosecution. They need not be suspended or removed before they can be investigated or prosecuted. However, because they are serving judges, criminal investigations against them are subject to a higher standard, in light of the doctrine of judicial independence. If an investigation or prosecution against a serving judge is found to have been commenced for collateral purposes, the courts are entitled, when reviewing them, to set aside or pass any other remedy that counts as a suitably moulded relief. As always, the remedy depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGsltSgSfbGZzgbHDVbzlLjnPsx

Tanggungjawab Hakim memberi alasan hukuman

 LOW OOI HOI v. PENTADBIR TANAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR [2023] 5 CLJ 376

COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA; CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA; SEE MEE CHUN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(A)-152-03-2021]
14 MARCH 2023

Giving reasons in a judgment is an essential requirement of the rule of law. A non-reasoned judgment could be held as a judgment not according to law. The rationale behind it is to provide a link between the facts and the decision made. More importantly, reasons introduce clarity to satisfy the party against whom the orders are made. In addition to that, a reasoned decision will act as a guard against any non-application of the mind and arbitrariness by the judge. Furthermore, reasons for judgment run parallel with the basic principle that justice must not only be done; it must also appear to be done.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGsmrHpTrGtpcJCfmLffCKQsnnB

Benefisiari boleh menamatkan sesuatu legasi

 B & ORS v. ROCKWILLS TRUSTEE BHD [2023] 7 CLJ 432

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JC
[CIVIL CASE NO: WA-24NCvC-4176-12-2022]
24 MAY 2023

Beneficiaries of a trust may lawfully end it if they are sui juris - of full age and of sound mind, that the assets under the trust are absolutely theirs. However, a beneficiary does not have indefeasible interest in the legacy if the deceased had clearly intended for him to only possess it absolutely when he attains a certain age. Thus, before reaching the required age, the beneficiary does not have legal interest to enable an application for early termination of the trust to be considered. In such situation, the principle of Saunders v. Vautier is not applicable.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwWGdVwSjznPLScLVGshlbXGV

Tanggungjawab Lembaga Pengarah Sesebuah Bank

 BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BHD v. ABDUL AZIZ ZAINAL & ORS [2023] 10 CLJ 44

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-22NCVC-357-06-2018]
04 SEPTEMBER 2023

A prudent, reasonable, honest and competent director ought to refer a major issue to the Board of Directors for consideration, investigation and a detailed deliberation. The failure of the directors of the financial institution in the instant case, to raise the matter concerning the request of the Prime Minister for the sponsorship of a book in a substantial amount of RM15 million to the Board of Directors, fell short of the standards expected of them, in breach of their contractual and statutory duties to the financial institution. The obligation of any members of the Board of Directors, as in this case, shall lie first and foremost to act solely in the best interests of the financial institution. It is not to ensure that any personal requests or demands of any third party are adhered to.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwHfnDbcNLJFqGWgrvmSrGXttB

Hak untuk menarik diri sesuatu kes perlu dengan kebenaran Mahkamah

MUHAMMAD RIFQI AMZAR FAIZO (A CHILD AND BRINGING THIS ACTION THROUGH HIS LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVE, FAIZO YAACOB) v. DR SIVAKUMAR SIVALINGAM & ORS [2023] 9 CLJ 609

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
SU TIANG JOO JC
[CASE NO: WA-23NCvC-89-09-2021]
27 SEPTEMBER 2023

The parties to an action before the court do not have the absolute right to withdraw a case on their own terms. The court has the power to take charge of each and every case registered with the court to oversee the administration of justice and where appropriate, refuse to accede to any term of settlement proposed by any party to the proceedings, in the interest of justice. The court should not act as a rubber stamp.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwHLmHGWVVXCBcDzjZTffSfSnM

Syed Othman al-Habsi (1985). Program Mengemaskinikan Kewangan Baitul Mal. Occasional Papers Kulliyyah of Economics, IIUM.

Salinan kertas ini ada dalam simpanan saya sebagaimana pautan di bawah. Tidak pasti siapa yang memberinya. Namun saya rasa Almarhum Dr. Abd Aziz Hanafi yang mengedarkannya kepada kami semua semasa beliau mengendalikan kursus Zakat dan Baitulmal pada tahun 1986. Ketika itu saya berada di tahun 4. Ini adalah kursus baru yang diperkenalkan di Fakulti Syariah, Akademi Islam. Berbeza dengan kursus-kursus lain ianya disampaikan di dalam Bahasa Melayu. Jadi Dr. Abd Aziz Hanafi banyak menceritakan pelbagai cerita. Ada yang mengelikan hati. Semoga Allah swt menempatkan beliau di Syurga Firdaus bersama-sama Anbiya', Syuhada', Siddiqin dan Solihin. Amin.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Z-0S3541i3RWlXQkJKTW5CQ2F5Q1h3Qk5zWFQ1M21RcGs4/view?usp=drive_link&resourcekey=0-UHawtgS5M8-yLTLh_48cUg

Undang-undang Sebagai Mekanisme Penyelesaian Pertikaian

 Undang-undang Sebagai Mekanisme Penyelesaian Pertikaian

Law as Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Kuliah Pada 7 Mac 2011

Bukan Penyelesaian Tapi Pengurusan Pertikaian

Pertikaian adalah perkara yang lumrah dalam penghidupan seharian manusia berpunca dari pelbagai faktor seperti ekonomi, politik, sosial dan juga emosi dan citarasa. Ini adalah kerana masyarakat dan negara berfungsi kerana perhubungan sesama manusia atau antara manusia dengan organisasi/kerajaan atau sesame organisasi/kerajaan.  Oleh itu amatlah mustahak pertikaian ini diselesaikan, kerana tanpa penyelesaian masyarakat dan negara tidak dapat berfungsi dengan baik dan lancar. Dalam masyarakat bertamaddun atau madani (civil society) penyelesaian pertikaian hendaklah dibuat secara yang teratur dan berlandaskan kepada nilai-nilai sejagat ataupun sekurang-kurangnya kepada nilai dan standard yang diterima oleh masyarakat berkenaan. Dalam hubungan ini sejak dari dahulu lagi undang-undang merupakan mekanisme yang utama dalam penyelesaian konflik. Tidak dinafikan terdapat pelbagai lagi cara atau keadah penyelesaian konflik dalam masyarakat dan negara namum undang-undang nampaknya menjadi asas utama penyelesaian kerana proses dan pendekatannya diterima dan diakui baik sama ada secara langsung/rasmi mahupun secara konvension. 

Memandangkan pendekatan undang-undang seperti yang dibincangkan di kuliah yang lalu bersifat menentukan hak serta melihat penyelesaian hanya kepada pertikaian yang dijadikan isu perundangan dan mementingkan keputusan sama ada salah atau benar, maka penyelesaian secara undang-undang dikatakan tidak menyelesai masalah atau pokok pertikaian secara memuaskan. Bahkan kadang-kadang penyelesaian undang akan menyebabkan bertambahnya lagi tekanan/persaingan/persengketaan. Sebagai contoh penyelesaian kes-kes kekeluargaan seperti perceraian atau hak jagaan anak tidak semestinya menyebabkan semua pihak berpuashati dan masalah kekeluargaan akan selesai. Namun pandangan ini mungkin tidak tepat memandangkan emosi manusia itu tidak akan atau sukar untuk menerima sesuatu yang tidak disukainya walaupun kehendaknya itu adalah sesuatu yang tidak wajar atau bertentangan dengan nilai masyarakat disekelilingnya. 

Disebabkan oleh kekurangan dari segi kepuasan ini ahli-ahli sosiologi perundangan tidak mengistilahkan mekanisme undang-undang sebagai penyelesaian pertikaian bahkan apa mereka menganggap apa cuba dilakukan oleh undang-undang untuk mengurangkan masalah atau tekanan daripada pertikaian daripada menjadi lebih parah melalui apa yang diistilah sebagai pengurusan konflik atau pertikaian (conflict regulation/management). Istilah dispute resolution juga dikenali dengan conflict resolution atau settlement.  Manakala istilah dispute proceeding merujuk kepada proses awal penyelesaian pertikaian manakala istilah conflict of laws bermaksud percanggahan undang-undang yang boleh menimbulkan konflik. Dalam perbincangan perundangan conflict laws merupakan satu displin jurisprudens yang mempunyai prinsip-prinsip tertentu. Berasaskan kepada huraian ini dapat difahamkan terdapat tiga elemen dalam penyelesaian pertikaian iaitu pengurusan atau pemprosesan pertikaian, (2) penyelesaian/penyuraian dan (3) kepuasan/pengentasan tension yang menjadi punca kepada pertikaian berkenaan.

Dispute	Managed/Processed/Regulated
	Solved/Resolved/Settled
	Tension Released/Alleviated

Punca dan Tahap-tahap Konflik/Pertikaian

Punca kepada konflik atau pertikaian adalah rasa tidak puashati (grievance) atau penentangan (resentment) kepada pihak lain terhadap sesuatu perkara yang berkaitan dengan hak atau tanggungjawab. Ia juga berpunca daripada persepsi bahawa keadilan tidak berlaku kepada diri seseorang akibat tindakan atau tinggalan seseorang atau pihak yang lain. Dalam pengajian sosio perundangan perasaan atau persepsi ini dikenali sebagai peringkat pra konflik (pre conflict stage). Di peringkat ini perasaan dan persepsi ini hanya terhad kepada satu pihak sahaja atau apa yang dikenali di peringkat monadic. Dalam sesetengah keadaan seperti yang akan dinyatakan nanti perasaan atau persepsi ini akan hilang atau diabaikan oleh pihak merasainya dan tiada konflik akan timbul sungguhpun ianya tidak bermakna masalah diselesaikan. Namun dalam banyak keadaan perasaan dan persepsi pihak yang menderitainya akan berhadapan dengan pihak kedua. Di peringkat ini berlakunya komunikasi antara dua pihak yang akan menzahirkan perkara-perkara yang selama ini dalam perasaan dan persepsi penderitanya. Di peringkat ini konfik dikatakan dyadic di mana pihak yang menderita akan berhadapan atau bersemuka dengan pihak yang dikatakan menjadi punca masalah untuk dizahirkan perasaan ketidakpuashatian tadi. Dalam sesetengah keadaan keazaman atau keberanian pihak yang menderita untuk berhadapan dengan pihak lain sudah merupakan satu perkara yang amat melegakan dan kadang-kadang boleh menjadikan penderita berpuashati dan tidak akan meneruskan lagi tindakannya. Oleh yang demikian dapatlah difahamkan bahawa tidak semua perselisihan faham akan membesar menjadi konflik atau pertikaian penuh (full blown dispute) kerana manusia yang mempunyai emosi dan naluri akan memilih jalan keluar yang tidak semestinya bersifat perundangan. 

Sekiranya konflik di peringkat dyadic ini tidak diselesaikan maka campur tangan pihak ketiga diperlukan untuk menyelesaikannya. Konflik antara kedua-dua pihak ini akan menjadi umum dengan penglibatan pihak ketiga ini atau apa yang dikenali sebagai triadic. Dalam konteks sosio-perundangan pihak ketiga ini terdiri daripada sesiapa sahaja baik secara formal atau tidak formal. Tumpuan kajian sosio perundangan ialah kepada penyelesaian masalah. Di peringkat triadic ini konflik antara pihak-pihak sudah menjadi pertikaian atau dispute yang perlu kepada penyelesaian. Cara dan bagaimana pertikaian ini diselesaikan bergantung kepada faktor-faktor sosial dan akses serta kewujudan institusi yang mengurus penyelesaian konflik. Sebagai contoh dalam masyarakat desa atau tradisional penyelesaian konflik lebih kepada saluran informal manakala dalam masyarakat kota atau moden penyelesaian konflik adalah secara mahkamah atau litigasi.