Source: http://peguampas.blogspot.com/2006/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:04:53+00:00

Document:
Berikut adalah hujah yang saya kemukakan di Mahkamah Persekutuan semasa mewakili tiga orang pelajar yang dibuang sekolah kerana mamakai serban ( yang dikenali sebagai kes Meor ).
Fakta ringkasnya adalah semasa di Mahkamah Tinggi Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan tuntutan pelajar tersebut dan pihak kerajaan telah membuat rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan rayuan pihak Kerajaan dan mengenepikan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut . Pihak tiga orang pelajar tersebut telah membuat rayuan di Mahkamah Persekutuan . Mahkamah Persekutuan yang diketuai oleh Yang Amat Arif Hakim Tan Sri Malek Ahmad, Y.A Hakim Tan Sri Steve Shim dan Yang Arif Hakim Dato Hamid Mohamed telah mendengar rayuan tersebut pada 8/3/2006 ( hari rabu ) dan telah menangguhkan keputusan rayuan tersebut.
Berikut adalah hujah yang saya berikan di Mahkamah Persekutuan.
1. Let me begin my argument by inviting Yang Arif to look at page 219 of the Appeal Record i.e the photo of the Appellants wearing their school uniform when they were expelled from school by the First Respondent. The only different between the Appellants and other students at that school was that the former were wearing a serban apart from the usual school uniform.
2. What the Appellants were doing if I may draw an analogy is equivalent what Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, one of the Malaysian prominent lawyer, has been doing that is being a lawyer he is wearing what other lawyers do except that he is having his serban on his head . In doing this Haji Sulaiman is in fact exercising his religious practices and hitherto he has not been asked to remove his serban for the same is protected by Article 11 ( 1 ) of the Federal Constitution ( FC ). So the same applies to the Appellants.
4. The first , second and third Appellants were male students in a primary school aged eleven , nine and eight respectively. They had been expelled from school by the First Respondent, who was the headmistress of Sekolah Kebangsaan Serting Hilir, Negeri Sembilan ( the school ).
5. Prior to that the First Respondent , in a letter dated 4/8/1997 addressed to the guardian of the first appellant requested the Appellants to stop wearing serbans to school. However the Appellants continued to wear it .
6. Throughout the months of August and September that year the First Respondent repeatedly ordered the Appellants to stop wearing the serban but the Appellants did not budge on the ground that was the tradition of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ( s.a.w ). Consequently by a letter dated 3/11/1997 the First Respondent issued a letter dismissing the Appellants from school.
7. The Appellants in their statement of claim pleaded that the action taken by the Respondents was contrary to the provisions of the Federal Constitution on the right to freedom of religion and the prohibition for discrimination on the basis of religion , race , creed and place of birth.
9. This case deals with freedom of religion enshrined in Art 11 ( 1 ) of the Federal Constitution.
10. Based on Art. 11 ( 1 ) FC every person has the following rights ,viz;.
• And subject to Art 11 ( 4 ) of FC to propagate his religion.
12. Art 150 ( 6A ) provides that “ Clause ( 5 ) shall not extend the powers of Parliament with respect to any matter of Islamic law or the custom of the Malays, or with respect to any matter of native law or custom in the State of Sabah or Sarawak, nor shall Clause ( 6 ) validate any provision inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution relating to religion , citizenship, or language.
14. For the purpose of this appeal the related right is on the right to practice one’s religion. But Article 11 ( 1 ) uses the phrases “profess and practice” . Thus it is submitted that the word profess and practice must be read together .
16. The right to practice one’s religion which is protected under Art 11 ( 1 ) of FC can only be restricted if by exercising such rights it affects public order , public health and public morality enshrined in Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC.
20. In other words it is part of religious practices enjoined by Islam. Be that as it may this right has to be jealously protected and under the FC it is guaranteed by virtue of Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC.
D. WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL SAID IN RESPECT OF ARTICLE 11 ( 1 ) ?
22. It is not disputed in this case that the wearing of serban has religious basis from Islamic point of view. In other words it is part of religious practices as far as Islam is concerned. Such being the case this religious practice is protected and guaranteed under Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC and this practice could only be restricted under 11 ( 5 ) .
23. The Court of Appeal, with due respect, was clearly wrong when it decided that only the ‘integral or essential parts” of religion are protected by Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC. ( May I humbly refer Yang Arif at page 13 ( para 4 ) ; page 21 ( para 14 ) of the Rekod Rayuan ) .
24. Yang Arif , if this interpretation is accepted it means that only the integral religious practices are guaranteed under Art 11 ( 1 ) of the FC whereas the word `integral` part is nowhere in Art 11 ( 1 ).
25. And the problem will also arise if we accept this restrictive interpretation because under Art 11 ( 1 ) there are three rights available to a person as far as freedom of religion is concerned and these rights are the right to profess, practice and propagate.
27. Let me give one example i.e the case of prayer in Islam. In Islam there are mandatory prayer and there are recommendatory ones ( the muslims call them sunnat prayer where the numbers of sunat prayers are more than obligatory prayers ). If we follow the CA’s interpretation the muslim’s rights of professing and practicing prayers is only confined to obligatory prayers under Art 11 ( 1 ) whereas the recommendatory prayers are not protected under Art 11 ( 1 ) .
28. And the other problem with this interpretation is that it begs for other interpretation of the word integral ! Who determines such and such religious doctrines/practices are integral/essential or non integral/non essential ? and on what basis ?
29. By interpreting right to practice of one’s religion to be confined only to the ‘integral” or mandatory part of religion” the Court of Appeal, we submit, in actual fact is rewriting Article 11 ( 1 ) or putting a new or an extra/additional restriction on the right to profess and practice one’s religion apart from the existing restrictions contained/enshrined in Article 11 ( 5 ) of the FC . Such rigid interpretation had unduly caused the Appellants to be subjected to additional restriction apart from the existing restrictions under art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC. This , we submit , should not be allowed.
30. What the court of appeal did in this case, in actual fact , with respect , is that it had embarked on something beyond its power i.e interpreting the religion and in this case is the religion of Islam.
33. It is our submission Yang Arif that the Court Of Appeal should not unduly wary to allow a person to practice his/her religion be it an integral/essential part or non integral/non essential part as the freedom of practicing one’s religion, like other freedoms enshrined under FC is not absolute. The right to freedom of practicing one’s religion is constitutionally restricted under Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC.
35. It is humbly submitted that the proper and correct test in interpreting the phrase ‘ right to profess and practice his religion’ in Art 11 ( 1 ) is as stated by the then Supreme Court in Minsiter For Home Affairs & Anor v Jamaluddin bin Othman ( 1989 ) 1 MLJ 418 i.e “ the guarantee provided by Art 11 of the Constitution i.e freedom to profess and practice one’s religion , must be given effect unless the actions of a person go well beyond what normally be regarded as professing and practicing one ‘s religion”.
37. It was very unfortunate that the CA failed at all to refer to the case of Jamaluddin bin Othman ( supra ) in their judgment and this , we submit, amounts to non direction by the CA and be that as it may, we humbly submit ,that non direction was fatal and it warrants this court’s interference.
41. It is also germane to state here Yang Arif that our Federal Constitution is not similar to Indian Constitution. So the court should be very cautious and meticulous in relying upon Indian authorities. In India , the Preamble to the Constitution categorically declares India to be a secular state. There is no official state religion in India ( see at page 59 of The Appellant’s BOA ). On the contrary Article 3 of the FC provides that Islam is the religion of the Federation ..
42. The ambit of the positive obligations cast on the Federation by Article 3 , according to Prof Imam in his article , to defend , protect , and promote the religion of Islam and facilitate and enable Muslims its practices ( see Prof Imam”s article at page 11 of the Appellants’ ABOA ).
A. first , identify as to whether what is practiced by a person is part of his religious doctrine .
45. Sadly speaking in interpreting Art 11 ( 1 ) the Court of Appeal, with respect, failed at all to look into or consider Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC and decided whether by exercising their rights under Art 11 ( 1 ) to practice their religion the Appellants were proven to have jeopardized public morality , public health or public order enshrined under Art 11 ( 5 ) of the FC .
46. If the Court of Appeal really considered the evidences adduced in this case it would certainly make a finding that there was no iota of evidence whatsoever that the Appellants’ act of wearing of serban had caused public disorder or affected public health or morality thus caught by Article 11 ( 5 ) of the FC. In fact on the contrary the facts and evidences in this case had shown that the Appellants were a bright students and had no records of causing any disciplinary problems .
47. The Court of Appeal , with respect, was also wrong in interpreting the phrase “ ‘ right to practice” in Article 11 ( 1 ) rigidly whereas the Constitution unlike other legislations should be interpreted broadly and with less rigidity and an interpretation leaning towards protecting fundamental rights and liberties of a person should have been adopted by the CA.
53. The facts of the case were that the appellant, a female muslim student had applied for judicial review of a decision of the Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School, Luton who had refused to allow her to attend the School if she was not willing to comply with their school uniform requirements. So the case was concerned with the School’s uniform requirements for girl.
“ As Brooke L.J has pointed out, there are two different views in the Muslim community about the appropriate dress for women one , held by very strict Muslims, being that it is mandatory for women to wear jilbab. The fact that this view is held by a minority, or even a small minority in my judgment nothing to the point in considering the issue whether Article 9 ( 1 ) is engaged. There is in my view force in the criticism that it is not for the school authorities to pick and choose between religious belief or shades of religious belief.
55. The Court of Appeal had also relied on the case of Halimatusaadiah ( supra ) in holding that the Appellants’ constitutional right was not jeopardized despite being prohibited from exercising their religious practices.
56. With the greatest respect , it is our humble submission that the decision of Halimatusaadiah no longer represents a good law as far as the interpretation of Article 11 ( 1 ) is concerned.
“ Instead of looking to see whether the act of the Plaintiff by wearing the purdah militated against or violated art 11 ( 5 ) of the Constitution , the learned Judge instead looked the other way around to see if the conditions imposed by the circular militated against or violated art 11 ( 5 ).
“ Dalam Hajah Halimatusaadiah , seorang kakitangan awam yang mengenakan tutup muka ( purdah ) telah dibuang kerja kerana dianggap mengengkari pekeliling yang melarangnya berbuat demikian. Kakitangan tersebut menyaman kerajaan di Mahkamah dan menghujah bahawa larangan tersebut menafikan haknya untuk mengamalkan ajaran agamanya . Mahkamah tidak menerima hujah ini kerana Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa purdah tidak diwajibkan oleh ajaran Islam. Ini agak meragukan : apa kaitan antara kebebasan beragama dengan wajib atau tidaknya sesuatu amalan yang bersumberkan kepada agama ? Adalah dicadangkan bahawa keputusan ini menimbulkan persoalan kerana soal wajib atau tidaknya purdah itu adalah soal yang lain. Yang jelas purdah tidak menyalahi ajaran Islam. Sesetengah pendapat malah menyatakan bahawa pemakaian purdah , dalam keadaan tertentu , boleh menjadi wajib. Dengan kata lain , memakai purdah adalah sebahagian daripada ajaran Islam. Denga itu adalah dicadangkan bahawa menafikan seseorang memakai purdah mempunyai kesan menafikan seseorang mengamalkan sesuatu daripada ajaran agamanya dan dengan demikian bertentangan dengan hak yang diberikan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
“ Does freedom of religion extend only to those practices and rituals that are essential and mandatory, or does it also cover practices that are non essential and optional ? Halimatussaadiah v PSC ( 1992 ) 1 MLJ 513 implies that a non mandatory ( like wearing purdah ) is not protected by Article 11. The case also distinguished between beliefs and practices. The latter may regulated if they lead to public disorder. Affect public health or public morality. However , Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak v Fatimah binti Sihi ( 2000 ) 5 MLJ 375 correctly holds that the constitutional freedom extends to practices ( like waering a serban ), which , though not mandatory, are part of the religious tradition.
The applicant’s manifestations of his religion by the wearing of dreadlocks fell within the protection of freedom of conscience afforded by s 19 ( 1 ) of the Constitution….
63. Based on the aforesaid submissions we humbly ask this appeal to be allowed with cost.

References: Art 11
 Art. 11
 Art 11
 Art 150
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 Art 11
 art 11
 art 11