CITING how Lebanon’s 80% Christians population “got wiped out from their land due to their past tidak apa attitude”, human rights activist Siti Kasim has urged non-Muslim Malaysians to oppose the Mufti Bill (Federal Territories) 2024 which is slated for second and third readings on Oct 16 or 17 in the Dewan Rakyat.
Stating that the said Bill which she deemed as unnecessary will not only rob the constitutional rights of Muslims but also that of non-Muslims, the legal eagle regarded the Bill as an attempt to empower the Syariah Court in the long-term.
“Those people (non-Muslims) who think that this won’t affect you, please think again wisely,” she berated in a three-part Facebook video.
“Look at Lebanon which in the past boasted 80% Christian population yet they (the Christians) didn’t say anything (allowing Muslims to gain foothold in the country and Islamisation to thrive).
“Apparently, Lebanon becomes what it is today. Don’t think you’ll escape for eventually there’s bound to be domino effect … If the Bill gets through, it’ll be difficult to turn back; I hope MPs in the Parliament will take notice by not letting the Bill through.”
For the uninitiated, historians are still baffled yet impressed at how Lebanon went from being majority Christian in the early 20th century to predominantly Muslim in less than 100 years. Whatever the case is, this demonstrates how political Islam is capable of conquering a non-Muslim state even in the contemporary age.
Apart from Siti Kasim, former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has recently hit out at the Mufti Bill (FT) 2024 as he contended that Muftis are not the people’s elected representatives while elevating their influence would eventually result in “the whole Federation being ruled by Muftis”.
“If I walk in to have my sushi or oyster bar at BSC (Bangsar Shopping Centre), I could have committed an offence for such places do not usually carry the halal sign,” fumed the former defence counsel of now incarcerated former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
“Do I have any personal liberties left, a constitutional right to eat wherever I please? Under Madani, no.
“What happens to democracy and religious freedom? What if the Muftis ruled that Muslims could no longer shake hands with their female colleagues? Or deny Muslims to wish Merry Christmas? Or Happy Deepavali?”
Earlier, Siti Kasim has lambasted the Bill as having “challenged our constitutional rights, our intellectual freedom and the balance of power between the religious and civil authorities”.
“We’ve to ask if fatwa (Islamic jurisprudence) can be made a law – if yes, then wouldn’t it be right to question how individuals who were not elected are accorded the authority to enforce binding law and order,” the Orang Asli advocate echoed the opposition-slant Zaid.
“Section 11 of the Bill states that it is binding to all Muslims in FT to adhere to the fatwa and that this is recognised by the court of law. Does this mean it only refers to the Syariah Court or both the Syariah Court and civil court?”
Added Siti Kasim: “I really don’t understand why the Madani government needs to introduce this Bill. Is PMX (Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) trying to do what he did in 1987 with the inclusion of new clause (1A) into Article 121 whereby there is now a problem of which court (between Syariah Court and civil court) to go to?”
If two Muslims have a problem involving their personal law (for example, a divorce between a Muslim couple), then this is a “matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts”. The civil courts should not interfere when one party comes to the civil court after losing a case in the syariah courts.
Source : Focus
New mufti bill unconstitutional, undermines Agong and harms Muslims through government control, says Latheefa
Lawyer Latheefa Koya has come out strongly against a proposed bill governing the office of Federal Territories mufti, saying it would grant far-reaching powers to an unelected official appointed by a minister while dictating the lives of Muslims and how they should practise the Islamic faith.
Latheefa urged MPs debating the Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024 in the Dewan Rakyat next week to overwhelmingly reject it, and slammed ruling MPs for remaining silent on the issue more than three months after the bill was first tabled in July.
“In this regard, the silence and timidity of the DAP and Sabah and Sarawak MPs on this bill is greatly disappointing. I urge them to act for the good of the people and to uphold the Constitution as they have sworn to do.”
Agong undermined
Latheefa said the bill effectively creates “two chief authorities” for Islamic affairs in the federal territories, a mufti in addition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is the constitutional head of Islam as well as the federal territories and states without a sultan.
She said by making the mufti the highest authority “next to the Agong”, the bill “derogates from the position of the Agong as the head of Islam in Malaysia” as stipulated in Articles 3(5) and 34(1) of the Federal Constitution.
“The mufti is appointed upon advice of the minister, and therefore the federal government will obtain wide power and authority over every aspect of the religious practices of Muslims in this country once the Bill is law.
“This is not the role envisaged for the federal government under our constitution. It is against the basic structure of our constitution and thus unconstitutional,” Latheefa, a rights lawyer who is also former chief commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, said in a statement.
The bill, which is promoted by religious affairs minister Mohd Na’im Mokhtar touches on the role of the FT mufti, the structure of the fatwa committee, as well as committees on astronomy, the sighting of the moon to determine the Islamic calendar and prayer direction (qiblah) among others.
Latheefa said the bill gives unprecedented jurisdiction to fatwas issued by the FT mufti as they would be binding on every Muslim.
“There is no exception or qualification,” she said, adding that in contrast, current FT Islamic laws exempt fatwa in matters of personal observance, belief or opinion.
“The edict of a mufti under the proposed Bill is iron-clad and immutable,” she added.
Unprecedented powers to control Muslims
She warned that the bill could expand the list of shariah offences under the FT “to cover almost every aspect of a Muslim’s social, economic and political life”.
“In other words, any fatwa on any aspect made by the mufti can potentially give rise to an offence under the Syariah Criminal Offences (FT) Act 1997.
“Thus, the bill will lead to the unfettered increase of the types or categories of offences enforceable against Muslims.”
The bill, Latheefa said, will “give power to the government through the mufti to control or police every aspect of the life of Muslims in this country”, including on matters of dress and food.
“No government should have such powers over its people in a democracy, purportedly under the guise of religion.”
She said the bill allows the mufti to issue fatwas on his own initiative.
“This is a blank cheque given to the mufti, who is an unelected official, to govern and direct the lives of Muslims.”
Latheefa also questioned the provision for a Muslim representative of the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to sit on the fatwa committee, saying that it is against Article 8 of the Constitution for religious preferences to apply to such positions involving AGC.
“It is also plainly absurd, as the Bill itself will be debated and voted upon by non-Muslims MPs in the Dewan Rakyat as well as Muslim MPs.”
Source : Malaysia Now
If passed into law, the bill will sideline the constitutional monarchy and promote sectarianism in the country
Non-governmental organizations in Malaysia have expressed concerns over a proposed law alleging that, if enacted, it would sideline constitutional monarchy and promote sectarianism in the country.
In a joint press statement, 14 NGOs in Sabah and Sarawak states alleged that the proposed “Mufti Bill” is part of the continued federal breaches of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement (MA63), the Dayak Daily reported on Oct. 11.
If passed into law, the Mufti Bill would “effectively sideline the constitutional monarchy, the madani [secular] government, and the secular parliamentary democracy that Malaysia is built upon,” the NGOs alleged.
Mufti is an Islamic legal authority that gives a formal legal opinion (fatwa) in answer to an inquiry by a private individual or judge.
Issuing a fatwa usually requires knowledge of the Qurʾān and the Hadith (narratives concerning the Prophet’s life and sayings), as well as knowledge of exegesis and collected precedents, and might be a pronouncement on some problematic legal matter.
Activist Peter John Jaban, the founder of Saya Anak Sarawak (SAS), said that the ongoing violations of the MA63 have reached a critical point.
The MA63 agreement signed between Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo (now Sabah), and Sarawak outlined the terms and conditions for the union, including governance, citizenship, and the protection of the rights of the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak.
Singapore later separated from Malaysia in 1965 to become an independent nation.
Jaban pointed out that a slew of recent bills and the impending passage of the Mufti Bill were all pointing toward the violations.
The Mufti Bill is also opposed by Muslims who are concerned that it “marks a more explicit sectarian turn in the bureaucratization of Islam since the 2000s, aiming to institutionalize Sunni Ash’arism as the state-sanctioned version of Islam.”
Sunni Ash’arism, or Ashʿarī theology, is a school of Islamic theology that is based on rationality and scriptural authority. It was founded by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī in the 9th–10th century.
Jaban also warned that the politicization of ideologies “will foster intolerance and radicalism by promoting dehumanizing values and undermining democracy.”
“These actions constitute direct attacks on the secular system, which was a fundamental guarantee to Sabah and Sarawak when Malaysia and also the Malayan Federation were set up,” he added.
Jaban also warned that the bill, which is set to be passed on Oct 16 or 17, “erodes the damaged secular structure of Malaysia where it could grant sweeping powers to the mufti.”
The bill will enable “the issuance of religious decrees that could have significant impacts on both Muslims and non-Muslims.” Jaban warned.
The bill effectively creates “two chief authorities” for Islamic affairs in the federal territories, Malaysia Now reported, citing lawyer Latheefa Koya
The bill gives the provision to appoint a mufti in addition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malaysian King, who is the constitutional head of Islam as well as the federal territories and states without a sultan.
By making the mufti the highest authority “next to the Agong“, the bill “derogates from the position of the Agong as the head of Islam in Malaysia” as stipulated in Articles 3(5) and 34(1) of the Federal Constitution, Koya warned.
The bill promoted by religious affairs minister Mohd Na’im Mokhtarif passed will give “unprecedented jurisdiction to fatwas issued by the mufti as they would be binding on every Muslim,” Koya said, Malaysia Now reported.
Source : Ucanews
The bill aims to grant these Islamic leaders powers to issue legally binding rulings without parliamentary oversight
Lawyers, Islamic leaders and secular groups in Malaysia have raised alarm over a new parliamentary bill that they say will enforce a rigid Sunni orthodoxy on Muslims and threaten the country’s multicultural make-up.
The Mufti Bill 2024 aims to redefine the role of muftis – Islamic leaders who advise on religious matters – and grant them powers to issue legally binding fatwa, or religious rulings, without parliamentary oversight.
The bill, which has the backing of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and will be debated next week, requires the mufti to follow the Shafie school of Sunni Islam, which is the officially sanctioned interpretation of the state religion.
It has sparked concerns of an infringement of the religious freedoms of Muslims who follow other Islamic sects.
On Friday, a coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) issued a statement rejecting any move to be “ruled by muftis”, calling the bill unconstitutional.
“This would effectively sideline the constitutional monarchy, the government, and the secular parliamentary democracy that Malaysia is built upon,” the group said.
“Such a change would transform Malaysia into an Islamic state overnight.”
Introduced to parliament in July, Religious Affairs Minister Mohd Naim Mokhtar on Friday confirmed that the bill would be debated in the coming Parliament session from Monday.
“This has been approved by the cabinet,” Mohd Naim said.
With Anwar’s ruling coalition enjoying an unassailable two-thirds majority in parliament, the bill is set to pass into law.
While Malaysia is officially a multi-religious and secular nation, Islamisation has steadily increased since the 1980s, gradually blurring the lines between religion and state.
Despite religion being a state-level matter under the constitution, the federal government has increasingly taken an active role in Islamic matters.
Comprising secular Borneo-based rights groups, the NGO coalition argued that the broad powers of the muftis under this bill would directly threaten the separation of state and religion and affect non-Muslims who could be forced to comply with Islamic decrees.
The rising Islamisation of Malaysia has worried more non-Muslims, who make up 36 per cent of Malaysia’s 34 million population, despite constant reassurance from the government.
A Chinese lawmaker recently faced fury after speaking out against a suggestion to make halal certification mandatory for all restaurants in the country instead of the current voluntary method.
In Terengganu, which voted the Islamist PAS into all seats in their state assembly, a Chinese temple was recently banned from having female singers perform at its jubilee celebration.
Lawyer Latheefa Koya warned that the Mufti Bill was a “clear and present danger” to Muslims’ rights to practise their religion freely without interference from the government or unelected religious officials.
“It will give power to the government through the mufti to control or police every aspect of the life of Muslims in this country,” Latheefa said in a statement on Thursday.
“No government should have such powers over its people in a democracy, purportedly under the guise of religion.”
The bill has also drawn criticism from the president of PAS, Abdul Hadi Awang, who has argued that restricting Malaysia to one school of Islamic thought contradicts the broader spirit of Islam.
“It is only said that Islam needs to be the state religion,” said Abdul Hadi, who was the deputy president of the World Muslim Ulama Union and a proponent of Muslim unity.
Sunni Islam comprises four major schools of thought: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafie, and Hanbali. The Shafie school, which follows the teachings of 9th-century scholar Imam Al-Shafie, is widely practised in Malaysia, Indonesia, Yemen, and parts of the Horn of Africa.
Following a close election in 2022, Anwar’s government has been accused of shifting toward conservatism and further Islamisation to appease the majority Malay Muslim voters, many of whom supported PAS in recent elections in what has been termed the “green wave”.
Anwar, who founded the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (ABIM) in his youth, maintains close ties with Islamic scholars and figures worldwide.
Source : SCMP
If passed, the Mufti Bill will set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of personal liberties, religious autonomy, human rights and democracy
In light of the proposed Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024 (Mufti Bill), which was announced to be debated in Parliament on 16-17 October by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Naim Mokhtar, there is an urgent need to draw attention to the far-reaching consequences this legislation poses.
The Mufti Bill is part of a broader five-year roadmap to strengthen Sharia laws within the Federal Territories, as announced by then deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Ahmad Marzuk Shaary in 2021 when Perikatan Nasional was in power.
Besides the Mufti Bill, three other bills would be introduced as part of this roadmap – the Wakaf Bill, the Sharia Court Bill, the Control and Restriction on the Propagation of Non-Muslim Religions Bill and the amendment to seven existing legislations.
The Mufti Bill, which was first read in Parliament on 2July under the “unity government” threatens to undermine individual freedoms, human rights and institutional accountability in the Constitution of Malaysia.
Additionally, it risks violating Malaysia’s commitments to humanity and Islamic moderation under the Amman Message.
Bill emboldens religious authoritarianism
The Mufti Bill proposes significant changes that will grant unprecedented powers to religious authorities and entrench these powers with protection against suits and legal proceedings.
This means the mufti, deputy mufti, akidah consultants and members of the newly formed religious committees – including the fatwa committee, Falak Syarie committee and Islamic teaching supervisory committee – further consolidates religious authority into a state-driven apparatus and will be shielded from legal accountability.
Without oversight and recourse for appeals or legal challenges, the unchecked powers of institution or figures directly undermine the rule of law and justice.
Additionally, the bill seeks to entrench religious control over both the public and private lives of Malaysian Muslims, further complicating the relationship between personal religious freedom and state-sanctioned restrictions.
Legality of gazetted and ungazetted fatwas
While the bill outlines the procedure of issuing a fatwa more distinctly, it also blurs the legal status of gazetted and ungazetted fatwa.
Malaysia is the only country in the world that constitutes a gazetted fatwa (ie published in the Gazette) as having the force of law. In Section 34 (3) of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, upon publication in the Gazette, a fatwa shall be binding on every Muslim resident in the federal territories.
In addition, Muslims, while required to abide by and uphold the fatwa, are still permitted to depart from the fatwa in matters of personal observance, belief or opinion.
Additionally, the fatwa shall be recognised by all (Sharia) courts in the federal territories as all matters laid down therein.
In the proposed Mufti Bill, Section 11 seeks to make fatwas binding on all Muslims in the federal territories, not just residents of federal territories. It is silent on Muslims being permitted to depart from the fatwa in matters of personal observance, belief or opinion.
In addition, the fatwa shall be recognised by any court regarding all matters stated in the fatwa and doesn’t indicate the scope of jurisdiction to the federal territories only.
This raises the question of whether Section 11 applies to fatwas that are both gazetted (diwartakan) and ungazetted (tidak diwartakan).
Additionally, Section 13 outlines the procedure for issuing fatwa affecting the national interest.
Thus, does a fatwa constitute law? If so, why is an unelected body or individual being granted the power beyond the democratic remits to create binding laws that affect the personal and religious lives of millions of Muslims in the federal territories?
Role of the akidah consultant
Of particular concern is the role of the akidah consultant (Section 29), who will be tasked with advising on cases of apostasy or perceived deviations from religious belief.
There is already an existing akidah consultation unit with very specific functions, thus raising the question why there is a need to legislate person(s) as akidah consultant who shall also perform any other function as directed by the mufti (Section 29(3)(d)) and who may determine his own procedure based on the guidelines as may be determined by the mufti (Section 29(6)).
Given this vague yet vast provision, there is high concern that such interventions risk violating Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution which protect personal liberty and guarantee equality.
This role will likely lead to coercion in personal matters of faith, infringing on the right to religious self-determination.
Malaysia’s reputation as a diverse, multi-faith nation is at risk, and the bill threatens to plunge the country into a situation where religious conformity is mandated and enforced by law, thus stripping away the core tenets of personal freedom.
Mufti, fees and services rendered
The drafters of the bill have done the most enormous disservice to making the mufti as an individual vulnerable to public scrutiny even before the act is passed through Section 30:
(1) The Mufti may impose fees for the services rendered under this Act and that
(2) the Mufti may exempt any person from the payment of any fee in relation to services rendered on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.
What services are being rendered by the mufti that would require fees to be charged?
In addition, Section 32 protects the mufti and all related persons in the act to be protected against suits and legal proceedings.
Without an oversight body or any legal recourse, these provisions do not protect the integrity of the mufti and all persons and committees related to this act.
At a time of high public distrust against institutions or causes related to Islam and vulnerable persons or communities where money is concerned, it is untenable for individual religious figures to be given carte blanche, especially with a legislative mandate to make decisions that affect the lives of millions of Muslims in the federal territories.
International scrutiny
The implications of the Mufti Bill also extend to Malaysia’s international commitments under human rights conventions.
During the constructive dialogue session at the 88th Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw), Sirajuddin Suhaimee, the current director general of Jakim, stated that female genital cutting is “none obligatory by law and purely voluntary” in Malaysia.
He further acknowledged that Malaysians have become more aware that the practice is grounded in culture and carries no health benefits.
First, the statement from one of the highest bureaucrats in the religious institution suggests that fatwas are not inherently binding. Therefore, it is perplexing that the Mufti Bill would now seek to make fatwas legally binding contradicting the statement made at Cedaw and other international platforms.
Second, this shows the evolving awareness among Malaysian Muslims that not all fatwas are universally applicable.
This move raises the question: why are fatwas now being elevated to the status of law when even culturally sensitive issues like female genital cutting are not legally enforced?
Leaders’ commitment to Amman Message?
Malaysia is known as a moderate Muslim nation.
However, the Mufti Bill could harm this long international reputation, particularly given Malaysian leaders’ endorsement of the Amman Message.
The Amman Message, issued on 9 November 2004, by King Abdullah II of Jordan, was a significant effort to promote tolerance and unity within the global Muslim community. It clarified the nature of Islam, aiming to counter global misconceptions and tensions linked to Islam following events like the 9/11 attack.
Crucially, the Amman Message included:
- Recognition of all eight legal schools of Islam, including Sunni, Shia and Ibadi
- A prohibition on declaring other Muslims as apostates (takfir)
- Guidelines for issuing religious edicts (fatwas) to prevent illegitimate rulings and abuses of authority
Malaysian leaders, including Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, are signatories to the Amman Message.
This endorsement obliges Malaysian leaders with a moral responsibility to respect Muslim diversity, prohibit takfir or excommunication of other Muslims, and ensure that fatwas are issued with caution and respect for differences in religious interpretation.
The Mufti Bill flies in the face of these commitments. By proposing legally binding fatwas and elevating a single-state interpretation of Islam, the bill threatens to marginalise minority sects, disregard the diversity of Islamic thought, and empower religious authorities to impose their views unchecked.
Religious and human rights
The Mufti Bill places Malaysia at odds with international human rights norms, particularly those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Beirut Declaration.
By creating legal frameworks that discriminate against certain religious practices or beliefs, the bill could lead to systemic oppression of minority sects within Islam, as well as the marginalisation of non-Muslim communities.
If this bill is allowed to pass, Malaysia’s standing in the global community could be compromised, with international organisations and human rights bodies taking note of the sharp decline in religious freedom and the rise of authoritarianism in religious governance.
The bill sends a clear message that Malaysia is moving away from its commitment to human rights and constitutional protections.
Recommendations
- The provisions of the Mufti Bill must be immediately reviewed. The existing legal framework under Act 505 already governs the administration of Islamic law, and it would be far more prudent to strengthen this act rather than create new, standalone legislation with the potential for abuse
- The dangerous precedent of granting legal immunity to muftis and their committees must be abolished. Regardless of their position, citizens should be equally held accountable under the law and democratic processes
- Fatwas should remain advisory rather than legally binding. Making fatwas enforceable by law threatens to encroach on individual freedoms and personal beliefs, leading to coercion and discrimination
- Malaysia’s legal system must uphold the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution, including freedom of religion, belief and thought, equality before the law, and personal liberty. These rights are the backbone of the nation’s democratic values and must not be compromised to expand religious authority
- Malaysia must ensure that its laws align with its endorsement of the Amman Message and other international human rights conventions. Respecting Islamic diversity, refraining from takfir and ensuring that fatwas remain non-binding are essential to preserving religious harmony and peace
If passed, the Mufti Bill will set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of personal liberties, religious autonomy, human rights and democracy.
It is imperative that the public, legal experts, civil society and human rights organisations rally to oppose this bill before it irreversibly alters Malaysia’s legal and religious landscape.
The time to act is now – before the forces of authoritarianism and religious control overwhelm Malaysia’s democratic institutions and global commitments.
Source : Aliran
Why are non-Malay political parties tight-lipped on controversial Mufti Bill (FT) 2024?
IT WOULD be interesting to know the stance of multi-racial political parties such as DAP and PKR on the Mufti Bill (Federal Territories) 2024 which may soon proceed to its second and third readings in Parliament.
Although the legislation is intended for Muslims in the Federal Territories, its long-term effects on non-Muslims in the country cannot be dismissed.
Such legislation raises important questions about whether Malaysia remains a truly multi-religious and multi-ethnic society.
Some Muslim human rights activists and political observers have warned that while the legislation targets Muslims, there is no guarantee it won’t eventually affect non-Muslims.
Unfortunately, both DAP and PKR which adopt the view that the law only impacts Muslims have failed to alert non-Muslims to the potential long-term consequences.
Certain Malay leaders within DAP – perhaps acting as apologists for the bill – argue that the Bill mainly concerns Muslims.
Often viewed as symbolic figures within the party, they have not adequately addressed the broader implications of such legislation.
Some commentators have even suggested that Malaysia’s trajectory toward becoming an Islamic state is becoming clearer with the passage of such laws.
Comparisons with similar legislation in Sabah are overly simplistic and fail to address the complexities of the issue.
Hadi, Dr MAZA oppose Bill
Even PAS president Tan Sri Hadi Awang has called for the Bill to be re-considered, stating that it does not reflect the pluralism of Islam in Malaysia. In echoing his view, vocal Perlis Mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin a.k.a. Dr MAZA argued that the Bill is heavily skewed towards the dominant school of Islamic thought in the country.
While little is expected from PKR on this matter, the silence from the DAP’s core leadership on the Bill’s implications for non-Muslims is troubling.
This has led to accusations that DAP – by prioritising power, positions and perks – has effectively abandoned its non-Muslim constituents.
Some have argued that DAP leadership has fallen into a trap set by UMNO Youth Chief Datuk Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh who warned of the repercussions for questioning Muslim rights in Malaysia.
Lastly, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim – in his bid to appease the Muslim bureaucratic and right-wing forces – may choose to sidestep the issue rather than challenge the appropriateness of the Mufti Bill (FT) 2024.
As I have argued earlier in my writings, Anwar will perform the proverbial role of an eel when it comes to certain controversial matters. – Oct 14, 2024
Former DAP stalwart and Penang chief minister II Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is chairman of the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) interim council.
Source : Focus
The Coverage Malaysia
