Perlindungan Di Bawah Undang-Undang Dan Klasifikasi - Satu Ringkasan

1 comments


Apakah yang di maksudkan dengan perlindungan yang sama rata dari segi undang undang di bawah Artikel 8 (1) Federal Constitution.

Article 8 of the Federal Constitution reads as follows:
• 8 (1)
All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Perkara ini dapat di lihat d bawah Artikel 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan pada bahagian kedua ayat tersebut...equal protection of the law.

Perlindungan sama rata di bawah undang undang bermaksud perlindungan dari undang undang yang sama rata.

Equal protection of the law means the protection of equal laws .It forbids all invidious discrimination but does not require identical treatment for all persons without recognition nof differences in relevant circumstances.

Di dalam kes di bawah ini isu Artikel 8 telah di bawa berkaitam dgn samada transgender termasuk mereka yang perlu di berikan pelindungan di bawah undang undang.

Muhamad Juzaili Bin Mohd Khamis & Ors v State Government Of Negeri Sembilan & Ors [2014] MLJU 1063

Di dalam kes ini Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyatakan bahawa....
The Indian Supreme Court has in a number of cases laid down the proposition that Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution (our Art. 8(1)) guarantees that unequal objects, transactions or persons should not be treated equally. Just as a difference in treatment of persons similarly situate leads to discrimination, so also discrimination can arise if persons who are unequals, that is to say, are differently placed, are treated similarly: Venkateshwara Theatre v State ofAndra Pradesh and Ors [1993] 3 SCR 616 at p 637A.

Malangnya di dalam kes Juzaili ini tidak membincangkan akan isu klaifikasi undang undang,sama ada kalisfikasi undang undang boleh dilakukan terhadap golongan golongan tertentu sebagaimana yang di putuskan di kes seterusnya ini

Public Prosecutor v. Khong Teng Khen & Anor., the same arguments as those of counsel for the accused were advanced in the Federal Court about Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and Suffian 

L.P. in his judgment says as follows:—
"Article 8 guarantees to all persons equality before the law and its equal protection. Regulations 6, 7, 13, 19, 20 and 21 prescribe rules of procedure and evidence different from those applicable under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act and to that extent they are discriminatory, but as between all persons charged with security offences within the meaning of regulation 2(1) they are not discriminatory and do not therefore offend against Article 8. It would have been different if the regulations provide that some persons charged with security offences are to be subject to one set of rules and others charged with similiar offences to another set of rules.

The principle underlying Article 8 is that a law must operate alike on all persons under like circumstances, not simply that it must operate alike on all persons in any circumstance, nor that it 'must be general in character and universal in application and that the State is no longer to have the power of distinguishing and classifying persons … for the purpose of legislation', Kedar Nath v State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 404 406. In my opinion, the law may classify persons into children, juveniles and adults, and provide different criteria for determining their criminal liability or the mode of trying them or punishing them if found guilty; the law may classify persons into women and men, or into wives and husbands, and provide different rights and liabilities attaching to the status of each class; the law may classify offences into different categories and provide that some offences be triable in a magistrate's court, others in a sessions court, and yet others in the high court; the law may provide that certain offences be triable even in a military court; fiscal law may divide a town into different areas and provide that ratepayers in one area pay a higher or lower rate than those of another area, and in the case of income tax provide that millionaires pay more tax than others; and yet in my judgment in none of these cases can the law be said to violate Article 8. All that Article 8 guarantees is that a person in one class should be treated the same as another person in the same class, so that a juvenile must be tried like another juvenile, a ratepayer in one area should pay the same rate as paid by another ratepayer in the same area, and a millionaire the same income tax as another millionaire, and so on.

Isu terbaru mengenai hudud juga akan di timbulkan isu perlindungan yang sama rata di bawah Undang undang di Artikel 8

Adakah semua rakyat harus di tadbir di bawah satu undang undang jenayah atau sebaliknya?Adakah di boleh kan orang islam di klasifikasikan menurut undang undang sebagaimana yang di putuskan di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Khong Teng Khen & Anor.

Sebenarnya jawapan ini telah lama wujud sejak 1977 lagi yamg di putuskan di dalam Kes Datuk Harun Idris di bawah ini

DATUK HAJI HARUN BIN HAJI IDRIS v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR[1977] 2 MLJ 155
Article 8 itself envisages that there may be lawful discrimination based on classification — thus Muslims as opposed to non-Muslims (para. (b) of clause (5) of Article 8); aborigines as opposed to others (para. (c)); residents in a particular State as opposed to residents elsewhere (para. (d)); and Malays and natives of Borneo as opposed to others who are not (Article 153).
Undang undang hendaklah di kuatkuasakan kepad semua bagi klasifikasi yang di sebutkan di dalam kes Datuk Harun ini.

In Public Prosecutor v Khong Teng Khen & Anor [1976] 2 MLJ 166 p 170, Suffian, Lord President writing for the Federal Court had this to say:

The principle underlying art 8 is that a law must operate alike on all persons under like circumstances, not simply that it must operate alike on all persons in any circumstance, nor that it 'must be general in character and universal in application and that the State is no longer to have the power of distinguishing and classifying persons … for the purpose of legislation' … In my opinion, the law may classify persons … the law may classify offences into different categories; fiscal law may divide a town into different areas … All that art 8 guarantees is that a person in one class should be treated the same as another person in the same class …

Di Singapura satu pihak menyatakan bahawa pihak LBGT tidak di berikan perlindungan yang sama rata di bawah perlembagaan dan di diskriminasikan .Artikel 12 Perlembagaan Singapura adalah sama dengan Artikel 8 Perlembagaan Malaysia.

Mr Lim and Mr Chee feel that s 377A of the current Penal Code reinforces this discrimination, and that the very existence of this provision, whether or not it is enforced, labels them as criminals. Whilst Mr Lim and Mr Chee do not live in fear every day of being arrested, they say that it is always at the back of their minds that if the authorities wanted to, they could arrest them and charge them with an offence under s 377A of the current Penal Code.

On 30 November 2012, Mr Lim and Mr Chee (collectively referred to hereafter as “the Plaintiffs”) filed OS 1135 seeking, in effect, a declaration that s 377A of the current Penal Code is inconsistent with Art 12 of the Constitution, and is therefore void by virtue of Arts 4 and 162 of the Constitution day of being arrested, they say that it is always at the back of their minds that if the authorities wanted to, they could arrest them and charge them with an offence under s 377A of the current Penal Code. On 30 November 2012, Mr Lim and Mr Chee (collectively referred to hereafter as “the Plaintiffs”) filed OS 1135 seeking, in effect, a declaration that s 377A of the current Penal Code is inconsistent with Art 12 of the Constitution, and is therefore void by virtue of Arts 4 and 162 of the Constitution

Dalam Membuat keputusan Mahkamah telah membincangkan tentang konsep klasifikaasi sebagimana di bawah ini.

In Taw Cheng Kong (CA), the Court of Appeal cited with approval the following passage from the judgment of Salleh Abas LP (which, although a dissenting judgment, was not disputed in terms of the law applied and the approach taken) in Malaysian Bar v Government of Malaysia [1987] 2 MLJ 165 (“Malaysian Bar”) at 166–167:

The requirement for equal protection of the law does not mean that all laws passed by a legislature must apply universally to all persons and that the laws so passed cannot create differences as to the persons to whom they apply and the territorial limits within which they are in force. Individuals in any society differ in many respects such as, inter alia, age, ability, education, height, size, colour, wealth, occupation, race and religion. Any law made by a legislature must of necessity involve the making of a choice and differences as regards its applications in terms of persons, time and territory. Since the legislature can create differences, the question is whether these differences are constitutional. The answer is this: if the basis of the difference has a reasonable connection with the object of the impugned legislation, the difference and therefore the law which contains such provision is constitutional and valid. If on the other hand there is no such relationship the difference is stigmatized as discriminatory and the impugned legislation is therefore unconstitutional and invalid. This is known as the doctrine of classification which has been judicially accepted as an integral part of the equal protection clause. [emphasis in original]

It is therefore clear and important to note that Parliament, in dealing with the issues arising within and without the country, is entitled to pass laws that deal with, inter alia, the myriad of problems that arise from the inherent inequality and differences pervading society. In so dealing with specific problems and specific groups of people, it is inevitable that classification will produce inequality of varying degrees. It is now settled law that equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Art 12(1) does not mean that all persons are to be treated equally, but that all persons in like situations are to be treated alike: see, eg, Taw Cheng Kong (CA) and Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 (“Ong Ah Chuan”).

The “reasonable classification” test

The test for constitutionality under Art 12(1) has been termed the “reasonable classification” test (see Nguyen Tuong Van v Public Prosecutor [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103 (“Nguyen”) at [70] and Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2010] 3 SLR 489 (“Yong Vui Kong”) at [111]). This test is well established in the common law. The Court of Appeal in Taw Cheng Kong (CA) distilled the “reasonable classification” test from the Privy Council decision of Ong Ah Chuan at [37], the Indian Supreme Court cases of Ram Krishna Dalmia and Ghulam Sarwar v Union of India [1967] 2 SCR 271, and the Malaysian cases of Datuk Haji and Government of Malaysia v VR Menon [1990] 1 MLJ 277. It also cited with approval two of the three judgments delivered in Malaysian Bar, namely, the judgment of Salleh Abas LP (see [43] above) and that of Mohamed Azmi SCJ (see Malaysian Bar at 170), quoting (inter alia) the following extract from the latter judgment (see Taw Cheng Kong (CA) at [58]):

(b) Discriminatory law is good law if it is based on ‘reasonable’ or ‘permissible’ classification, provided that

(i) the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and

(ii) the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law in question. The classification may be founded on different bases such as geographical, or according to objects or occupations and the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the law in question.

This test is the same as the two-step Tan Eng Hong test set out at [18] above, which is binding upon me. In accordance with that test, where the impugned legislation has a differentiating measure, that legislation will only be consistent with Art 12(1) if:

(a) the classification prescribed by the legislation is founded on an intelligible differentia (“the First Limb”); and

(b) the differentia bears a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by that legislation (“the Second Limb”).

The First Limb – intelligible differentia

The First Limb requires that the classification prescribed by the impugned legislation must be based on an intelligible differentia.

“Intelligible” means something that may be understood or is capable of being apprehended by the intellect or understanding, as opposed to by the senses. 14

“Differentia” is used in the sense of a distinguishing mark or character, some attribute or feature by which one is distinguished from all others. Scientifically, one talks of an attribute by which a species is distinguished from all other species of the same genus.

Applying this to the present case, it is quite clear that the classification prescribed by s 377A – viz, male homosexuals or bisexual males who perform acts of “gross indecency” on another male – is based on an intelligible differentia. It is also clear from the differentia in s 377A that the section excludes male-female acts and female-female acts. There is little difficulty identifying who falls within this classification and who does not. The Court of Appeal seemed to say as much in Tan Eng Hong at [125]–[126]. In my view, the First Limb is satisfied and few can cavil with this conclusion.
Ujian Inteliigable differentia boleh di gunakan di dalam isu mengklasifikan di dalam isu Hudud di Kelantan ini.Dan Ianya di dapti melepasi ujian yang digunakan oleh Mahkamah Singapura tanpa membicarakan isu isu akidah dan sebagainya.

Mat Shuhaimi bin Shafiei v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 MLJ 145
Clause (1) of art 8 of the Federal Constitution does not state that all persons must be treated alike, but it does say that persons in like circumstances must be treated alike. It is for the court to decide what constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. However, rational classification is permitted.


Oleh itu dalam undang undang Hudud di Kelantan,mengenakan undang undang Hudud terhadap orang islam di Kelantan bukanlah satu tindakan yang bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan sebagaimana yang di nyatakan oleh perbagai pihak yang tidak langsung menyentuh tentang keputusan keputusan mahkamah sebagaimana di atas.

Oleh Syed Azimal Amir

Read More »

Gaji Hampir 50Ribu Sebulan? Biar Betul???

2 comments



Nama saya Sulaiman bin Ismail, dah bekerluarga mempunyai seorang anak. Sekarang ini saya tinggal di Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.

Dulu saya bekerja sebagai penguatkuasa di agensi Anti Dadah Kebangsaan, di Kementerian Dalam Negeri selama 6 tahun. Ketika itu gaji pokok saya adalah RM2,100 sebulan.

Saya memulakan bisnes ToneExcel ini pada 16 Julai 2012, lebih kurang 2 tahun 11 bulan (sehingga saya buat karangan ini pada 20.6.20150.

Bila saya menjalankan bisnes Toneexcel ini, komisyen bulan pertama saya adalah RM7.20. Saya anggap tu sesuatu yang luar biasa, kerana baru sebulan saya menjalankan bisnes ini, baru sebulan saya pakai simkad ToneExcel, sudah dapat sebanyak itu, sedangkan saya pakai talian Digi selama hampir 10 tahun, saplusen pun tak pernah dapat. Apa kata saya pakai simkad toneexcel dan terus menjalankan bisnesnya selama 2 tahun, berapa saya buleh dapat, mungkin saya boleh dapat RM500 tiap2 bulan. Bagi saya sebulan tambahan RM500 setiap bulan sudah tentu boleh bantu serba sedikit perbelanjaan bulanan saya, boleh bantu tambah2 gaji utama saya sebagai ADK ini. Saya boleh jalankan bisnes ini guna teknik Hasil100fb. Bukan ganggu kerja utama saya.


Selama 2 tahun 11 bulan, saya menjalankan bisnes ToneExcel ini menggunakan teknik hasil 100fb, rupanya ia benar2 mengganggu bisnes utama saya. Sebabnya sekarang ini komisyen bulanan yang saya terima, hampir RM50,000 setiap bulan, dulu target RM500, tapi Tuhan nak bagi 100 kali ganda.
Jadi baru2 ini, saya buat keputusan untuk berhenti kerja sebagai ADK, maka jadilah saya menganggur bergaji General Manager yang hampir RM50,000 setiap bulan dari ToneExcel.

Dengan rezeki yang sedemikian, kehidupan saya dan keluarga bertambah baik, dari segi makan, tempat tinggal dan hubungan dengan ahli keluarga semakin erat. Saya pula dapat membantu kluarga jiran2 dan rakan2 lain untuk tambah pendapatan. kehidupan bertambah gembira dengan masa yang lebih berkualiti dengan keluarga.. alhmdllh

Syukur, dengan rezeki melalui ToneExcel ini, saya dapat beli tanah 10 ekar, sebuah kereta dan juga membina rumah diatas tanah tesebut.

Nasihat saya kepada rakan2 yang belum buat bisnes ToneExcel ini, daftar segera, kerana simkad ini mempunyai banyak kelebihan dan kelebihan utamanya adalah menambah pendapatan anda. anda boleh bekerja sambil menjana pendapatan menggunakan simkad ini. dengan cara dan teknik yang betul..

saya sangat yakin suatu masa nnt pendapatan yg anda perolehi daripada simkad ini lebih banyak daripada gaji bulanan anda... kerana saya telah melaluinya... tidak ada kerugian menggunakan simkad ini, kerana kita memang akan guna simkad lain... jadilah pengguna bijak, sambil guna hp sambil jana pendapatan. anda tidak perlu buat kerja lebih masa.. tidak perlu kerja sampingan yang memerlukan masa dan tenaga yang banyak.. guna dan promosikan simkad toneexcel.. pasti anda akan dibayar... rakan2 sekalian.. kami sekeluarga dahulunya hidup dalam serba kekurangan, alhmdllh... dengan izin ALLAH.. dengan rezki yang di berikannya melalui toneexcel ni.. dapat mengubah kami semua... kehidupan kami bertambah baik..


sekarang saya suda ada kebebasan masa, saya tidak bekerja,saya ada kuasa membeli, apa yang saya nak saya boleh beli Alhmdllh... ingat pesan saya rakan2.. saya sangat2 sarankan anda mendaftr bukan kerana anda tidak cukup duit.. saya sarankan anda mendaftar kerana anda juga adalah pengguna handphone... tidak mustahil suatu hari nanti anda perlukan handphone itu untuk tambah pendapatan anda... siapa tahu... jangan buang masa, daftar segera, lebih baik anda yang ajak rakan2 anda guna simkad toneexcel ini dahulu daripada mereka yang akan mengajak anda" semoga anda juga berjaya dan bahgia dunia dan akhirat.

Terima kasih

Sulaiman Ismail

p/s:-senang-senang call/whatsapp Harith jer lah di talian 011 3233 1831



Read More »

Hati-Hati Bila Berkata-Kata Nanti Nasi Menangis

3 comments
gambar hiasan

Ucapan, percakapan atau pun kata-kata memang memainkan peranan yang penting dalam hidup kita. Kadang kala Harith nampak dan dengar juga ada rakan-rakan sering menggunakan perkataan yang kurang enak yang mungkin dianggap sebagai satu gurauan bagi mereka. Contohnya ialah perkataan yang tiada dalam kamus seperti "Phuiii atau Puiii" atau yang seerti dengannya. Moga-moga video ini menjadi ingatan buat kita. Salam Ramadhan Buat Semua




~orang dulu-dulu pernah berkata " Nanti nasi menangis"... Lihat dan hayatilah ;)

Read More »

Ambil Kisah Sebelum Memulakan Perjalanan

2 comments


Ambil kisah. SILA Periksa kenderaan anda sebelum memulakan perjalanan pulang untuk berhari raya di kampung. Ingatlah orang yang tersayang.

Read More »

PANDUAN KESELAMATAN SEBELUM PULANG KE KAMPUNG

0 comments

1. Maklumkan kepada balai polis terdekat mengenai maklumat diri iaitu alamat rumah, tarikh dan masa anda tidak berada di rumah.

2. Minta tolong jiran sebelah untuk tengokkan rumah sepanjang ketiadaan anda.

3. Pasang alat-alat tambahan pada pintu utama seperti lubang pandangan, mangga dan selak keselamatan.

4. Jangan tinggalkan sebarang nota yang menyatakan ketiadaan anda di rumah.

5. Henti penghantaran akhbar dalam tempoh ketiadaan anda di rumah.

6. Sentiasa pasang lampu di waktu malam.

7. Pastikan pintu/tingkap dan pintu pagar berkunci sebelum meninggalkan rumah.

8. Layari Portal Rasmi Polis Diraja Malaysia di www.rmp.gov.my dan klik pada banner Borang Maklumat Balik Kampung untuk muat turun borang. Borang yang telah lengkap diisi hendaklah diserahkan ke balai polis berhampiran.


Sumber : Utusan Malaysia

Read More »

Sumbangan Derma Madrasah Tahfiz Al-Quran An-Nur Kesang Laut Muar

0 comments

InsyaAllah bersama-sama kita menderma ke jalan kebaikan. Untuk maklumat lanjut boleh hubungi nombor telefon  tersebut atau layari laman web yang tertera. Info ini Harith dapat dari fb Denaihati Network .

Read More »

Tune Talk Kad Prabayr Yang Membayar Anda

0 comments
Masa join dulu macam ni lah...
Bila dah lama sikit...
ALHAMDULILLAH
Pokok dah besar
Tak muat tangan...

Anda Buat...
Anda Dapat...



...ramai yang mengeluh gaji tak cukup, harga minyak naik, gst dan berbagai lagi, jadi bertukarlah kepada prepaid Tune Talk yang membayar anda setiap bulan. Tak susah pun. Tukar kad prepaid saja. Boleh guna nombor lama. Saya dah pakai...OK saja. SENANG saja. Lepas tu minta saja sesiapa yang memakai kad prepaid untuk tukarkan kepada prepaid Tune Talk. Saya boleh buat...Anda juga boleh.

Malaslah nak cakap banyak...sila KLIK SINI http://toneexcel.biz/467669

...tapi kalau penyakit MALAS tu berjangkit tak nak tengok preview BOLEH whatsapp Harith di talian 011 3233 1831. Jumpa saja kat mana-mana nanti kita sembang kay ;)



Read More »