Lawmakers are in violation of their Oath if they talk about their religious beliefs in Parliament

Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man can make the argument in court.

It will refer him to the nearest hospital for an evaluation before institutionalising him for life to keep the public from harm.

The rule of law is the basis of the Constitution.

Lawmakers are sworn to uphold, respect, honour and defend the Constitution.

They are not in Parliament to talk about their religious beliefs.

Lawmakers are in violation of their Oath if they talk about their religious beliefs in Parliament.

Islam is not about law but sin. The Quran is a rule book with no principles cited.

The law is not about sin.

The court is about law.

The court is not about ethics, moral values, theology, sin, God, justice or the truth.

According to jurisprudence, God is not a source in law.

Law must have source to have jurisdiction, authority and power.

Law exists, and has always existed, based on common sense, universal values and the principles of natural justice.

Hijabisation is the public face of the DeepState, Islamisation, at work.

DeepState is an alternative approach to getting political power, one that sidelines the Constitution which is based on rule of law.

Islamists degenerate into rhetoric and polemics on the Prophet said this, he said that, he did not say this, he did not say that.

Spiritual nature of truth . . .

Revolutions are not created by the elite but the Middle Class.

There’s no need for the elite to create Revolutions.

Revolutions displace the elite from power.

Karmic forces exhaust themselves sooner or later.

That’s a spiritual nature of truth.

So, why should an artificial prohibition be imposed by the caste system on upward social mobility?

Hinduism as referred to by the Mughal Emperors — and Sanatana Dharma — is not a belief system but about seeking with or without the aid of Knowers (Guru).

Why seek and yet not seek?

So, seekers should be able to realise the spiritual nature of truth.

They are self-evident.

The Holy Bible, the Word of God, is about the spiritual nature of truth.

Money laundering . . .

Money laundering has been defined under international law, since 911, as having assets far in excess of what can be legitimately accumulated during a lifetime.

Such assets can be frozen by civil action, seized and forfeited by the state.

If the civil action is challenged, criminal suits will be instituted. Those who challenged the civil action would have to prove their assets were legitimate.

Having said that, MACC declared after probing Taib twice that gov’t contracts are not corruption “since gov’t procedures are followed”.

The reality is that gov’t contracts may have been inflated i.e. costing the tax payers double, triple and even up to ten times what it should cost them.

The difference that goes into somebody’s pocket is money laundering.

Now, all MPs would have to declare their assets to Parliament.

Those who refuse to comply will be suspended until they do so.

Probably, they are willing to risk losing their seats rather than declare their assets and face further action.

Read further . . .

Author: fernzthegreat

Joe Fernandez holds a honours degree in management, majoring in economics, and has opted from academia in law to being a jurist. He was trained professionally on the job as a journalist. He's a longtime Borneo watcher, keen on the history and legal aspects of Malaya's presence in Sabah and Sarawak. He teaches the English language privately and has emerged as a subject matter expert in public examination techniques.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: