Thursday, August 30, 2007

Respond to Savoeun and Professor,

Evening Savoeun and Professor,

Sorry to post on a blog's screen because i can't reply withing underneath of comment sign:

Evening Savoeun and Professor,

Thanks for questions:

I’ll apply human rights to approach this Lyna’s case if the Malaysian state did not sign the ICCPR. Moreover, base on, Human Rights and Malaysian Constitution, point Human rights under the constitution, part 2 of the constitution part 2 of the constitution protected “fundamental liberties” including liberty of the person, equality before the law, freedom of movement and freedom of religion, therefore, above statement it’s likely help to this case.

1. A way the Malaysian’s Government protect Islam more than other religions is right it’s base on the Constitution – Islamic is state religion.
In generally, everyone have their own opinion, belief and violation to individual rights is protected and it’s consider again the fundamental rights. Instead, the Malaysian’s Governments have right to limit their belief.

2. I think:
- Right to “Have and Adopt” but not “Change” means government won’t allow people to give up with original religion. There is a stability in state, if APOSTASY is not happen.
To give up religion in Malaysia consider as a crime in Islamic.

3. I think, there’ll be a conflict between a state and citizens. People not trust with the government because they can’t exercise their right in freedom of belief. It’s also affect to International Law.

Please comments me more if it’s not answer to questions.


1 comment:

Stan Starygin said...

Does the Malaysian Constitution explain the meaning of 'freedom of religion' or is it an undefined right?