COMPARISON OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Comparison of distinct religious beliefs could be interesting if it is pursued with an open mind to discover the unifying thread of all faiths; but, it can turn out to be dangerous, harmful and catastrophic if the comparison-exercise, while extolling the grandeur of one’s own religion, is aimed to ridicule, undermine and abuse other faiths. Based on this premis, comparison of religions could be an unrewarding, futile exercise if it is done to promote disbelief and pave way to inject hatred against other faiths.

We must admit that unreasonable differences in religious belief are very real, but, when you are talking about the faiths, one cannot discard the dangers that are so inherent because of prevailing warped notions: especially when a faith takes the position that its dogmas are superior to others, forgetting that beliefs are simply beliefs.

Perhaps it is because of this inherent human weakness in religious matters Article 3(1) was entrenched in the Federal Constitution. A very unique provision which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation, and adds in no unequivocal term that other religions could be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. It could be seen that Islam being the religion of the State, other religions’ protection is guaranteed.

The secure constitutional protection of Islam in the Constitution is burdened with a unique responsibility and that is, Islam has the duty to protect the religions of minorities. It is clear, then, the religions of the minorities should not be questioned and their faiths cannot be called in question, and most importantly there should be no condemnation of other religions’ existence.

It follows, therefore, Malaysia and all its member States have the paramount duty to ensure that the foundation of religious harmony envisaged in Article 3(1) is preserved. Those who venture to condemn and criticise other religions are doing so out of spite and in violation of Article 3(1) and other provisions in the Constitution which guarantee the existence of all religions. And those who transgress these protective constitutional safeguards cannot be regarded as persons with noble intentions. They, indeed, are perpetrators who work to retard mutual understanding and harmony among all faiths. We must make it plain that those who do not appreciate the fragile racial and religious balance in this country, its significance, dignity and worth are indeed ignoring human values.

                                                                                                                                      K. Siladass

Valuation of Immovable Property

by K. Siladass

         

          When a person wants to buy a house there are few things he will have to consider, and the most important facts would be whether the house is sold free from encumbrances, whether the price asked for is reasonable compared to other properties in that locality. When it is a house which is for sale the question is whether it is vacant or it is occupied. The price of a house would much depend on various factors, especially, whether the sale is with vacant possession or without it. If there is a tenant occupying the house, the value will depend on the desire of the buyer: whether, he wants it for his own occupation or he is just buying it as an investment. If the buyer is thinking to occupy the house upon completion of the sale the price would be higher. On the other hand if the house has been tied down with a tenancy for a long period the chances are that the buyer who wants immediate occupation would not venture to buy. If it is an investment the buyer will consider the duration of the tenancy, if it is too long then, his investment will not be too lucrative considering the fluctuating temperament of the property market. The value may appreciate but that is a long term plan. For the immediate purchase the price of the house would not fetch a higher value because of the sitting tenant.

          It is possible that the willing seller is tied down with a long tenancy may sell the house to the sitting tenant at price less than the market value because the owner need not go into the cumbersome process of getting the tenant out.

          If the price is agreed and the parties conclude the sale and purchase, say for three million ringgit, documents would show that amount; but, when it is submitted for valuation, the valuation office would have their own value. They do not consider the tenancy of the house and its value. Therefore, if the valuation is more than the sale price, it does not mean that the purchaser has bought it at a lower price. If that is the case at least fifty percent of property transactions in the country would be subjected to adjustment of the sale and purchase price after valuation by the valuation department. Are we going to say that the sale price to be adjusted according to the valuation? Ludicrous.

         

Assuming that the government valuer values the property less than the sale and purchase price could the buyer turn to the seller and say that he has paid more than the actual value, therefore, there should be an adjustment on the price? Unheard of. Only those with warped thoughts would venture into this type of unrewarding exercise with the hope of political gains. It is just lying on one’s back and spitting. You know where the spittle will land.           

Parliamentary Privilege

by K. Siladass

         

          Although a member represents one parliamentary constituency needless to remind that his or her duty, obligation and responsibility are towards the country. He has to protect the integrity of the august house. Furthermore, it must be remembered that members of Parliament represent the people who had empowered them to enact laws for the good and safety of the country, and of its people. It is, therefore, incumbent of every member of Parliament to speak the truth, and when he or she says something capable of evoking sensation, or cast aspersion on any person whether that person is a member of Parliament or otherwise, the member who levels accusation carries the additional burden to prove what he or she said in Parliament is actually true, or that there was reasonable cause which made it essential to bring it to the notice of Parliament, and be brave to face the consequences.

          A legislator must be brave to express the views he feels – genuinely feels – which calls for an explanation and must stand by what was expressed, and most importantly when impugned, must be ready and willing to substantiate what has been said in Parliament, rather that shielding behind parliamentary privilege.

          When a member of Parliament says something which is scandalous, the immediate reaction would be for the person affected, whether a member of Parliament or not, to challenge the member who uttered the defamatory statement to repeat them outside parliament relinquishing parliamentary privilege. And if the member who uttered the defamatory statement accepts the challenge, then, the same statement could be repeated at a place out of Parliament. But, not all members who enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege would be ready to accept the challenge because their motive may not be to elicit the truth, but to sow the seed of suspicion in the fertile ground of malicious falsehood thus confuse the people, therefore, they will not repeat the scandalous, libellous statement outside parliament fearing the loss of privilege and immunity. Such a member who seeks the umbrage of Parliamentary privilege after having made scandalous remarks cannot be any better than a coward.

          The affected person is not without any remedy. Parliament has the procedure to deal with any unfounded allegation that may be made by any member in Parliament, thus, it would be worthwhile to look at the parliamentary standing orders.

          A case on point is Abdul Rahman Talib v. Seenivasagam & Anor [1965] 2 MLJ 142; and [1966] 2 MLJ 66*, there Seenivasagam, a prominent opposition leader and parliamentarian made a statement in parliament of corrupt practices by Abdul Rahman Talib, a Minister. Rahman Talib challenged Seenivasagam to repeat the statement outside parliament and which challenge was accepted. Seenivasagam repeated what he had already said in Parliament in a public place. In his speech at Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur on 11 September 1963, Seenivasagam stated:

“You allege that I besmirched your character in the House (Parliament). You are wrong, because you could have asked the House to punish me under standing orders with a maximum penalty of $1000 or two weeks jail.”

          Rahman Talib did sue Seenivasagam but lost.

          The House itself in appropriate circumstances take action on its own to preserve its dignity when a member speaks or acts which tantamount to scandalous abuse of parliamentary privilege.

* MLJ (Malayan Law Journal)