Adat . . .
Adat, based on customary practices, has force of law. The Native Court is part of the court and legal system in Malaysia.
These customary practices are at the local level and vary from place to place.
These customary practices can’t be unified.
That’s tantamount to telling the Orang Asal to adopt new customary practices.
Customary practices in other places can only serve as advisory, opinion, in a particular locality, if there’s lacuna (gap) in the law, they are not compelling.
We must keep in mind what Adat is all about?
It’s about customary practices which have force of law
Adat is not like syariah.
Syariah is not based on customary practices but purportedly revelations from Allah through Mohd the Messenger.
So, if there’s no uniformity in syariah, it casts great doubts on the interpretations of the so-called revelations.
There’s no such thing as God’s law, divine law, perfect law.
The Supreme Court of India, for example, ruled that Syariah is not law but based on a person’s willingness to accept it.
It’s unconstitutional to impose syariah on anyone.
The syariah courts should be Tribunals under the sultans, not courts of law.
If Islam is under public scrutiny, it has nothing to do with the gov’t.
Lawmakers are sworn to uphold, honour, respect and Defend the Constitution which is based on rule of law.
The Oath taken by lawmakers is not about Islam. They are not here to defend Islam or the Quran, a rulebook that doesn’t rely on principles, or the Rulers.
Islam is a standalone clause in the Constitution.
Islam is not about law but sin.
The law is not about sin.
According to jurisprudence, God is not a source in law.
[20/06, 15:38] EJB:
How about the 10 commandments ?
[20/06, 15:43] JF:
If from God, they are not law.
If based on customary practices, they have force of law.
I believe that some of the 10 Commandments are law, but not based on 10 Commandments, but based on jurisprudence and international law.
International law is based on international customary practices, and therefore has force of law.
International law is also based on human rights. In fact, human rights is the basis of international law.
The right term . . .
Dayak the right term for the Orang Asal in Borneo.
Kalimantan and Sarawak were the first to accept the term Dayak. The Brookes used the terms Land Dayak (Bidayuh) and Sea Dayak (Iban).
Sabah accepted the term Dayak maybe only after Jeffrey Kitingan became President of Borneo Dayak Forum. I stand corrected.
Some people in Sabah told me Dusun and Murut are not Dayak.
They kept quiet after I pointed out that the first BDF President is a Dusun.
Then, they asked me about Bajau. I told them Bajau are not Dayak. They are from the Philippines.
Dayak is not about politics but NCR.
The Orang Asal are about Adat, i.e. customary practices which have force of law, Native Court, culture, customs, traditions, and languages and dialects.
The Native Court is a court of law, not Tribunal, and part of the legal system in Malaysia.
The Orang Asal, the indigenous people, are covered by Article 161A and Article 5.
Dayak is an anthropological term covering the Orang Asal, i.e. the indigenous people, in Borneo.
Batu Sumpah goes with MA63 and the other constitutional documents on Malaysia.