Let me start with two preliminary observations:
Firstly, this dialogue on “Malaysia after Lina Joy” has not been organized by the DAP to mock or ridicule Islam or any other religion.
I am bold to say that Malaysians from all faiths and races who have produced this more-than-capacity turnout to this dialogue tonight have come not to indulge in Islam-bashing or bashing of any other religion.
We are gathered here as Malaysians who love our country and are concerned that on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of our nation, religious polarization has become a great threat to the unity, well-being and future of Malaysia and we want to find ways and means to surmount this challenge.
Whatever our religious, political or personal differences, there must be one common and unifying bond, that as citizens of multi-racial and multi-religious nation, everyone of us respect all the religions which have made religious pluralism a distinctive characteristic of our country.
We must all be conscious that this respect for all religions in Malaysia by every Malaysian is an essential prerequisite for the success and future well-being for the country.
Secondly, this inter-religious dialogue tonight is a history of sorts for Malaysia, some form of substitute for the “Building Bridges Inter-faith Dialogue” which had to be aborted recently.
It proves that it is possible to hold a public dialogue to address in a rational, cool and collected manner the delicate and sensitive issues of religious differences and polarization in the country, as such public discourse had been virtually banned and driven underground in the past two years.
Religion has become a major cause of national disunity and polarization after half-a-century of nationhood and these issues should be brought into the open to be dialogued in a rational manner instead of being driven underground causing divisions to fester and become increasingly explosive.
The overwhelming success of tonight’s dialogue is a signal to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that the time has come to do what he had avoided doing in the past two years — to provide leadership for inter-religious dialogues to be held in the country to find a solution to close the national divide caused by religious polarization.
The Prime Minister has said that “a happy prime minister can do a lot of great work” and let us hope that this is one “great work” Malaysians can look forward to from him.
The case of Lina Joy has far-reaching constitutional implications affecting seven of the nine fundamental liberties entrenched in the Constitution, namely:
Article 3 – Religion of the Federation
Article 4 – Supreme law of the Federation
Article 5 – Liberty of the person
Article 8 – Equality before the law
Article 10 — Freedom of speech, assembly and association
Article 11 — Freedom of religion
Article 12 — Rights in respect of education.
The many constitutional questions that have been raised by the Lina Joy case, apart from her personal plight, are:
1. Has Malaysia progressively become an Islamic State against the 1957 “social contract” agreed by our forefathers from the major communities that Malaysia is a democratic, secular and multi-religious nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state, which is buttressed by constitutional, political and legal history of over four decades, starting from the Reid Constitution Commission Report 1956, the Government White Paper on the Constitutional Proposals, the Federal Constitution 1957, the Cobbold Commission Report 1963 and the highest political and judicial pronouncements in the land. I have here three newspaper clippings going back to 1983 showing:
(i) On 8th February 1983, when celebrating his 80th birthday, Tunku Abdul Rahman said Malaysia should not be turned into an Islamic state, that Malaysia was set up as a secular State with Islam as the official religion which was enshrined in the Constitution. Tunku said:
“The Constitution must be respected and adhered to. There have been attempts by some people who tried to introduce religious laws and morality laws. This cannot be allowed.
“The country has a multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion.”
(ii) Utusan Malaysia editorial on 10th Feb. 1983 entitled “Malaysia Negara Sekular” which said:
“Nasihat Tunku ini sangat kena pada masanya kerana sejak akhir-akhir ini kita mendengar bermacam-macam keghairahan timbul di kalangan pemimpin dan rakyat yang mahu menukarkan undang-undang negara ini kepada undang-undang Islam dan menjadikan Malaysia sebagai ‘Islamic state’.
“Kita sendiri menyaksikan betapa negara-negara yang mendakwa mengamalkan system pemerintahan Islam telah gagal membawa kebahagiaan kepada rakyatnya, malah negara-negara tersebut hanya dipenuhi dengan kacau bilau sahaja.”
(iii) Five days later, on his 61s birthday, Tun Hussein Onn told reporters that he supported Tunku Abdul Rahman’s view that Malaysia should not be turned into an Islamic state. (“HUSSEIN SAYS NO TO ISLAMIC STATE TOO” – Star 13/2/83).
2. Whether the Malaysian Judiciary has become more Islamist instead of being strictly Constitutionalist in the past decade, repudiating the Constitution and 30 years of precedents that Malaysia is a secular state and not an Islamic state, such as the landmark case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v PP [1988] where Salleh Abas LP said:
“… we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of law.”
3. Whether the judiciary is being polarized along religious lines, with Muslim judges ranged against non-Muslim judges according to their religion on cases raising religious issues, as happened in recent cases, which was not evident in the first four decades of nationhood. Are the judges Malaysians first and their religion second, or have their religious identity taken first place with their Malaysian identity relegated to second place?
4. Why has the fundamental right of freedom of religion in Article 11 suddenly been interpreted as belonging to only half the population — and whether it is conceivable that when the 1957 Merdeka Constitution was enacted, it was only meant for half the population, i.e. non-Muslims.
It is important that the process of dialogue among Malaysians of different religions must be allowed to take its rightful place in the public sphere if the religious pluralism Malaysia prides itself in international fora is to be unequalled assets instead of unfortunate liabilities for the country.
(Speech at the “Malaysia after Lina Joy — Dialogue” organized by DAP at Hotel Armada, Petaling Jaya on Thursday, 7th June 2007)
// The Prime Minister has said that “a happy prime minister can do a lot of great work†and let us hope that this is one “great work†Malaysians can look forward to from him.
The case of Lina Joy has far-reaching constitutional implications affecting seven of the nine fundamental liberties entrenched in the Constitution, namely: //
Now that the PM is HAPPY, he should do some great work and let Lina have her JOY.
YB LKS,I regret for not being able to attend the dialogue session held last night,but I strongly feel that all right thinking people including myself should support and recognise that Malaysia is a secular state.Malaysia defintely cannot be an Islamic state based on constitution and the diversity of the population.
The ultimate wisdom here to be reminded is that not only is Malaysia originally intended to be secular but that turning it into an Islamic state was always thought as a bad idea. The fact that a bad idea is appealing enough to people and unscrupulously exploited by idiotic and ambitious politicians reflects the character of our statehood after 50 years i.e., that we have not progressed as a state but rather still hung on debates and the means of debates screams of yearning for an asnwer from someone else rather than being responsibile for it.
This merdeka should not be a celebration but a sombre reflection of our poverty of ideas, independence and character.
Bigjoe – I think the best argument for a secular state is that if you look at all the economically successful countries, without fail, they are all run on a secular basis. On the other hand, all the failed states are run on religious lines or where religions have a huge influence on the politics.
The counter-argument will of course be that economic well-being should not be the sole consideration. It boils down to this – as a country, should we be more concerned with this life here on earth, or should we be more concerned about the after life?
. . .
Rankings > GDP per capita – purchasing power parity (Top 25)
Rank Country / US$ GDP per capital
1. Luxembourg 55,100
2. Norway 37,800
3. United States 37,800
4. Bermuda 36,000
5. Cayman Islands 35,000
6. San Marino 34,600
7. Switzerland 32,700
8. Denmark 31,100
9. Iceland 30,900
10. Austria 30,000
11. Canada 29,800
12. Ireland 29,600
13. Belgium 29,100
14. Australia 29,000
15. Hong Kong 28,800
16. Netherlands 28,600
17. Japan 28,200
18. Aruba 28,000
19. United Kingdom 27,700
20. France 27,600
21. Germany 27,600
22. Finland 27,400
23. Monaco 27,000
24. Sweden 26,800
25. Italy 26,700
. . .
Rankings > GDP per capita – purchasing power parity (Bottom 25)
Rank Country / US$ GDP per capital
1. East Timor 500
2. Sierra Leone 500
3. Somalia 500
4. Burundi 600
5. Malawi 600
6. Tanzania 600
7. Afghanistan 700
8. Comoros 700
9. Congo, Democratic Republic of the 700
10. Congo, Republic of the 700
11. Eritrea 700
12. Ethiopia 700
13. Guinea-Bissau 800
14. Kiribati 800
15. Madagascar 800
16. Niger 800
17. Yemen 800
18. Zambia 800
19. Mali 900
20. Nigeria 900
21. Kenya 1,000
22. Liberia 1,000
23. Tajikistan 1,000
24. Tokelau 1,000
25. Benin 1,100
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_GDP_per_capita_purchasing_power_parity_top25.htm
Congrats on a successful dialogue.
At least it could be held without any mobs gathering outside as what happened during the Article 11 Forum in JB a few months back.
I think that the whole issue about the Muslim religion is that some extremists are exploiting it go gain power and/or popularity.
The government should counter such views as well as insists on a secular state.
The influence now lie on the hand of the multiracial and non-malay political parties eg DAP, MCA, MIC, PKR and the rest work hand in hand to ensure the current muslim dominated political parties especially UMNO and PAS respect the “social contract” that have been drawn by the forefather of independence. If they are unable to respect and follow this “social contract” why must we follow the other “social contract”????
A gap analysis should be done on why Muslims in Indonesia are allowed to convert, but not in Malaysia. By far, Indonesia has a much larger Muslim population than Malaysia. This is more of a political problem than a religious one.
Congrats on the inter-religious dialogue, but unfortunately UMNO the problem maker will turn a deaf ear to it
For decades the country’s leadership was weak, narrow and ineffective…..allowing religious intolerance and extremism to cause enormous damage to the country.
sotong
How sure are you that some political leaders are not taking advantage of the religious groups to stay in power?
In Indonesia IIMNM the government does not fund the religious enforcers. Most of the religious enforcement is done by the followers who become vigilantes.
Now the Syariah courts in Malaysia is seeking to set up an enforcement agency. I hope they get funding from Muslims only for such an agency.
Article 3 – Religion of the Federation
Article 4 – Supreme law of the Federation
Article 5 – Liberty of the person
Article 8 – Equality before the law
Article 10 – Freedom of speech, assembly and association
Article 11 – Freedom of religion
Article 12 – Rights in respect of education.
We have been ignorant for far too long to let those currently in power to abuse the Constitution of Malaysia. I felt raped.
We as the PEOPLE of MALAYSIA , A NATION OF GREAT WEALTH AND DIVERSITY, begin our changes by changing ourselfs. UNITE as a NATION and do way with the current ruling PARTY. If they arent going to fight for all MALAYSIAN’s right, they shouldnt be the RULING PARTY.
May we sleep in peace for once!
Many human values are universal…..two separate systems for Muslims and non Muslims are very messy, confusing, costly, grossly divisive and totally unnecessary.
“Bring rational inter-religious dialogues into the open instead of allowing religious polarisation to fester underground” Uncle Kit
To claim that there are religious polarisation in Malaysia is something non-muslims can approved of, but to the muslims I am afraid such claim is an issue they themselves don’t know how to deal with for now. So I don’t see rational inter-religious dialogues as a way to counter religous polarisation that is festering underground in our country. By saying underground, what do DAP means? is there some kind of religious extremist movement in the country that the public didn’t know of? I am just curious of DAP’s keen continueous participation in championing religious issue, because all I see is DAP has given rare opportunity and platforms for the religious extremist to further their cause whatever that maybe, by painting DAP as muslim’s enemy.
dawsheng,
I am pretty sure you can see some form of polarisation festreing in recent times. Inter-religious dialogues are an important avenue to discuss and assure each other that we mean no harm. The notion that you do not see the rationale behind such talks only means you are not aware of any religious polarisation and it’s implications. What the title means by “underground” is simply meant to indicate that it is not openly discussed and the element of religious extremist movement you mentioned does exist and the public is aware of it. Please read the other contributors on this forum and you’ll know what I mean.
I appreciate the DAP’s stand on making this topic an issue to discuss, if not for political mileage, then at least for the benefit of those of us who are not in politics. Seriously, if you want to make a difference, then become a politician. Study our history and decide to make a better future for us. Unfortunately, many politicians nowadays enter politics to better themselves and their families.
The dialogue was a good start.
Other groups such as ABIM, UMNO, PAS, and Sisters of Islam should be encouraged to hold such dialogue sessions where they host instead of just by opposition parties.
In any public dialogue, it is important to note that we need to help others understand our faith claims and practice. It also means a clarifying of one’s faith in the light of questions others may have of our faith. When such a situation occur, it must not be construed that our faith is being attacked. When we can reach this stage, our society will come of age.
If others perceive that our faith practices seem to encourage injustice and unfairness, surely it is natural to expect that questions will be raised and hence, rational answers should be given, not emotional outbursts and mob violence. I agree with Dr. Azmi Sharom that we Malaysians should end the culture of mob intimidation and violence.
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War 2 owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. “Very few people were true Nazis,” he said,” but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority,” the “silent majority” is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China’s huge population, it was peaceful as well; but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Think about it
I wish the ABIM president can set a clear guidelines to help people like Lina Joy that if, A BIG IF, that’s what is he trying to preach. And also another guidelines how to debate without they being offended. Perhaps he can also provide a clear guidelines.
since the FC amendment more more states actually make it criminal to leave the religion but nowhere any guidelines provided for genuine case.
Quote from Malaysiakini
“Before any dialogue can take place about Islam, there first must be respect for the religion, says Abim president Yusri Mohamad. ”
How does one have a rational dialogue with someone like Yusri of Abim.
It shows his and islam’s insecurity. Respect cannot ever be demanded. Respect is always earned. Perhaps Yusri should show how he and islam can earn that respect which he so craves and demand.
Until then all the talk by people like Yusri about respect for islam is hypocritical and meaningless. Earn your respect first before you talk.
If DAP persists and continues to dwell on the issue of religions which it politicise by claiming the constitution is in danger of being replace by an Islamic one, just because of a few related cases? particularly with Lina Joy just because her case has caught international attention? Sooner or later DAP will be percieves as a religious organization with political ambitions for the non-muslims on par with PAS, just that the other is on the other side. Where is this going to end?
Religion is a double-edged sword. It cuts both ways. Are we ready to engage in a rational discourse on religion? But religion is not the issue here – but freedom of religion, fundamental liberties are.
Still it does not make religion or anything to do with religion, a less divisive issue.
By continued saber rattling under the guise of freedom of religion to non-Malay converts who wish to return to their original faiths, or even religious freedom to the Malays the DAP is helping to polarize Malaysians along racial and religious lines.
Look, the average Malaysian ill-informed as he or she is, is able to see through it all. The DAP is not fighting for the religious freedom of the Malays or even defending the freedom of the non-Malay converts. It is fighting to uphold the fundamental liberties under the Constitution – the broader issue. It is not just Article 11 but all the other Articles that affect our fundamental liberties.
The Conference ought to have been on the fundamental liberties and not “Malaysia after Lina Joy”. Malaysia, before and after Lina Joy, is the same.
“Unfortunately, many politicians nowadays enter politics to better themselves and their families.”
There is nothing wrong with this so long as they carry out what they have been elected to do. No matter what your opinion is, what do they say about power? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
“A gap analysis should be done on why Muslims in Indonesia are allowed to convert, but not in Malaysia. By far, Indonesia has a much larger Muslim population than Malaysia. This is more of a political problem than a religious one.”
Indonesia has used principles incorporated under the Pantjasila to mould a nation based on religious tolerance. We find families with husband following one faith and the mother another and the children yet another – and they all live happily ever after. We tried to do the same with our RukunNegara which has all but forgotten.
But make no mistake. In Indonesia the Christian minorities mostly Chinese of the Catholic faith have suffered persecution over the years especially in 1978 when large numbers were murdered and their women raped. Chinese Christians have sought asylum in countries throughout the world, seeking protection under the asylum laws of the host countries.
It’s a surprise that no violent mob tried to disrupt this dialogue. Perhaps the fear of bad publicity has prevented them from gathering and causing havoc.
They know this is the internet age & whatever they do can be posted on Youtube within hours. Perhaps the age of intimidation is slowly fading away.
“The DAP is not fighting for the religious freedom of the Malays or even defending the freedom of the non-Malay converts. It is fighting to uphold the fundamental liberties under the Constitution – the broader issue.” Undergrad2
No doubt about DAP’s intention is a noble one but DAP must not forget it is also a multi-racial political party, to the conservative muslims, DAP’s move may be seen as extreme as well because to them all issues fall under the Islamic jurisdiction as far as their religion concerns should be address in the syariah court, and it is none of our matter and non-muslims should stay out of it. Asking the muslims to change this is preparing to have a fallout with them. And in no order I see DAP can fight to uphold fundamental liberties as stated in the constitution by bringing more rational inter-religious dialogues, it must first win enough votes through election.
Dwsheng,
I am with you on this.
The DAP has unwittingly allowed itself to be at the eye of the storm over the issue of religious freedom in the light of the Lina Joy case. What it should do is to consider developments like that within the broader context of the Party’s struggle to protect and safeguard the fundamental liberties of all Malaysians.
The DAP is on quick sand here. Voters are not naive.
“It’s a surprise that no violent mob tried to disrupt this dialogue.”
The country’s highest court has spoken in their favour. So why should they act when the status quo has been preserved.
A religious belief should be kept at a personal level.
A state power should not encroach into the personal domain.
Let there be free flow of belief whatever one wants to believe.
If someone wants to change his/her belief, let it be. Why should it be controlled by the the state law or power.
Is there a benefit for one to manipulate this personal domain?
If I want to fast or not to fast, pray or not to pray, why does someone want to bother me?
When my belief in God is strong or weak, let it be between me and God. Why should anyone be bothered? If I don’t believe in God, what is that to you?
If you try to police me, then you’re tryng to act on behalf of God. Why should you? Let God judge accordingly in His time. Ok!?
So, I can’t fathom why anyone should be trying to police a personal belief. Can someone shed some light on this?
June07,
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
June o7,
Peace-loving muslims have better take heed. If they remain silent, they will find that their greatest enemies are the fanatics right at their doorsteps.
“A religious belief should be kept at a personal level.”
That we all can agree!
The problem is a little more complex than that. Under Islam there can not, conceptually speaking, be a separation of state and religion – as we have here in the United States where there is a clear separation of church and state. You cannot even pray before school starts. You cannot have the Ten Commandments displayed outside the court house.
Malaysia’s federal Constitution unfortunately or fortunately is neither secular nor religious. It is a hybrid of the two and in that respect Malaysia is unique. We do not have the benefit of experience of other countries who may have a similar constitution to fall back on.
Malaysia is also the only country that rotates its King through the Conference of Rulers, a committee of rulers from the different states who sit together to elect one of their own to become King!
…and as if to add to the already complex situation, religion has been politicized in Malaysia!
Hey see this :
”
Malaysia Nominates Rais As Commonwealth Secretary-General
KUALA LUMPUR, June 8 (Bernama) — The Malaysian government has nominated Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim as the new secretary-general of the Commonwealth.
”
Kinda late isn’t it? India announced its candidate two or three days ago.
And is Rais really that qualified?
As I said before :
Lim Kit Siang for Commonwealth Secretary.
I personally think Rais is a poor candidate.
June 5-6 2007
India has named career diplomat Kamlesh Sharma as its candidate for the post of Commonwealth Secretary General.
The successful candidate will replace New Zealand’s Don McKinnon, who completes his tenure next March.
Mr Sharma is currently India’s high commissioner to Britain.
He has been on the Board of Governors of the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation since 2004.
The Cambridge-educated, 66-year-old was India’s permanent representative to the United Nations between 1999 and 2001.
He also served in 2002-2004 as the UN secretary general Kofi Annan’s first Special Representative to independent East Timor.
Mr McKinnon’s successor is to be elected at the Commonwealth meeting in November.
“…and as if to add to the already complex situation, religion has been politicized in Malaysia!” Undergrad2
Religious polarisation and racial polarisation goes hand in hand in Malaysia, two double-edged swords cut both ways into many bits and pieces in every Malaysians. We are divided and falling out as a nation not because we have different kind of beliefs, we are divided and falling out because our economy is in a pathetic state, religion and race is used by politicians to divide and rule, only to prolong their mismanagement of the country, at the same pludering the nation’s wealth at the rakyat’s expense, we can now hardly breath. I took a cab of a Malay pakcik this morning, a small talk grew into his call to change the present govt, he told me Malaysians must be brave to make change, and if the change is not good enough then change again, he has two main reasons; all the corruptions must stop and something must be done about the economy because Malaysia will be doom if we continues with BN govt. He shares the same sentiments as me.
There is a lot to be said about ‘change’ for the sake of ‘change’. At least we could stop some of the massive corruption going on. But rest assured that we would be trading one band of robbers for another!
But even then ‘change’ for the sake of ‘change’ is still good. And as the cabbie says we keep on changing until we have nothing left to change. Some call this democracy. Some call it anarchy. Democracy or anarchy, it is time for change.
Let them know that ordinary Malaysians have the power to change any government they do not like every five years, and that the power is not illusionary. It is real.
Undergrad2, the majority of christians in Indonesia are actually from the indigeneous peoples, such as the bataks, and many other suku kaum and even some javanese. There is inter marriage and more freedom there. And the racial rioting that killed the chinese was more recent ca 1988 I think.
In fact many countries allow mixed muslim-non-muslim marriages without the need for either person to convert. I have lived with such a couple from Trinidad who later migrated to Canada. Marriage and religion are personal choices that should not come under government control.
It’s time for the muslims to wake up and open up their eyes. ABIM’s Yusri would be able to do more good if he reads and understands the Quran and gets more muslims to do so, so that they better understand what it says, rather than blindly follow what the Government says.
lakshy,
“Let’s not be shy about what the Qur’an said about Muslims who leave their religion:
“The Qur’an vigorously denounces those who renounce Islam, for the Devil has seduced them away from the true faith (67:25). Abu Bakr, and jurists since then condemned secession from Islam (ridda) as doubly heinous: it is not only a violation of the compact of submission, but also a breach of contract with Allah’s representatives on earth. It is an offense both against God and the state, it is both apostasy and treason, Far from having the right to become non-Moslem, the Moslem faces the death penalty as a sanction for such a charge..”
Undergrad2, if the muslim God is all powerful, and is the only true God, and is more powerful than Satan, then as the Quran says, God himslef has led the person away from Islam. Why then should man stop someone fgrom converting out or punish the apostate?
He will receive his just rewards in the hereafter!
The Quran also says: “[3.84] We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim, Ismail and Ishaq and Jaquob and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinctions between any of them, and to Him do we submit.”
So what was told to Moses and Jesus is also to be followed. So how can a person who leaves Islam and embraces Christianity be found to be wrong? He is still following the teachings from the same book.
More “O you who believe surely the majority of the priests and rabbis consume the peoples’ money illegally and they keep you from the path of Allah..” Surah 9:34
The one I like is this:-“Do you not see that God sends down water from the sky to produce fruits of various colours? The mountains show white and red streaks of different shades, and the ravens are black. Also the people, the animals and the livestock are of different colours. That is why the servants of God who truly reverence Him are the knowledgeable (ULEMA). God is almighty, forgiving’ Surah 35:27-28
Now if you try to extrapolate this, the same God who gave us variety in colours, food, fruits, vegetables, skin, eye and hair colours, is he such a cruel God that only gave us one path?
What of the millions of people who have not been preached about Islam, and exposed to Islam, are they doomed to hell no matter how good a life they have lived? If that were what God (in Muslim interpretation) is saying, then he is a cruel God, and not a merciful God.
Surah 2:268 “The Satan promises you poverty and enjoins you to be niggardly, and God promises you forgiveness from Himself and abundance; and God is Ample-giving, Knowing”
Surah 20:2 We did not reveal this Quran to you to cause you any hardship”
And the clincher
Surah 6:38 “And there is not a single animal that walks the earth and not a single bird that flies with wings except they are communities (ummah) just like you. We have not left anything out of this Book. And in the end they will all be returned to their Lord”
So not only dogs, but all the rest too are Ummah who will return to their Lord……….Amen and Hallelujah!
The measurement of any religion is based on supply & demand based on market forces of the number of adherents and faithfuls embracing and not leaving it on their own accord without compulsion due to the merits and strength of its teachings and appeal. Any religion standing on its merits of teachings does not require protection of either the State or some of its overzealous followers. On this principle our Article 11 enshrines freedom of religion. Religion requires no state support like NEP subsidies for it to flourish and meet challenges of the modern world.
My view is that DAP and Kit did right to champion Lina Joy’s Cause for freedom of Religion. DAP’s Guan Eng had paid the price of being jailed for defending the honour of a young Malay girl. He was charged at the Malacca High Court with sedition for stating “that he was dissatisfied with the laws of Malaysia because of the double standard which resulted in the rape case involving Rahim (Thamby Cik) not being brought to court and the Attorney-General had stated that Rahim was not involved in a rape case involving the minor. Now the DAP champions Azlina Jailani aka Lina Joy’s right to freedom of religion. There may be many moderate Malays requiring a voice to speak for them. They do not necessarily want to leave Islam but are not in agreement with the many strictures and curbs on individual liberties by their more extremist brethren. These acts by the DAP are consistent with its “not forgetting that it is a multi-racial political party†which representation includes not just the right of non Malays but also Malays by birth in the instances cited above. The Argument that DAP/Kit’s support for Lina may alienate many Malays and hence jeopardizes its chances of booting the BN out and winning elections, implicitly places greater emphasis on realpolitik expedience in priority over principle. If the price to pay for that is to be condemned to forever stay on sidelines criticizing, never to ascend to power in dislodgment of the BN, it is burden only the righteous would carry with fortitude. The DAP/Kit have earned the respect and gratitude of Malaysians because of their unequivocal commitment to principle being more important than realpolitik considerations at all times.
“The DAP/Kit have earned the respect and gratitude of Malaysians because of their unequivocal commitment to principle being more important than realpolitik considerations at all times.” Tai Lo Chin
Everyone know this. But where is DAP now? We have been robbed left right center in broad daylight, what can DAP do? Fifty years is a long time for a political party to progress and by logic it should grew from strength to strength and by virtue of principle DAP should deserves to govern Malaysia today. But it is not working for DAP isn’t it? DAP must strike the balance, there is no such thing as principle being more important than realpolitik, both are equally important consideration at all times simply because we are dealing with human beings.
While this dialogue is a good idea, I’m not hopeful that a positive outcome will be reached. The dialogue may also be interrupted by muslim zealots who see any conversations with non-muslims as sinful.
The main reason for my hopelessness is that we are dealing with Islam. While all other religions have undergone their trials & tribulations, and, new modes of thinking has arisen from each of their renaissance periods, Islam has not. A meeting of the minds of the moderates and zealots must happen, and, a new understanding must be born.
In M’sia, I fear that only regression has happened, which shows up as religious discrimination, as in the Lina Joy case and other cases.
So to improve the current situation, it is not an inter-religious dialogue that is needed, but, a dialogue between moderate muslims & their zealot brethren.
“So how can a person who leaves Islam and embraces Christianity be found to be wrong? He is still following the teachings from the same book.”lakshy
True. But only as far as the Old Testament goes. What of the New Testament which says that Jesus is the Son of God? We are talking Bible here.
But it is true Christians, Muslims and Jews are referred to as People of the Book. As people of the Book, they are allowed to marry without having to convert. The late Tun Suffian’s wife remained true to her faith as a Jew and never converted at least not formally.
Prophet Ebrahim is the prophet of all three faiths. Ishmael if you remember was the son of the prophet from his ‘domestic help’ when Sarah could not bear him children – or so it was thought. Ishmael and his mother were asked later to leave them when Sarah bore him a new son. From Ishmael new tribes were born and among them are todays Palestinians.
Muslims believe in the Old Testament prophets just like Christians and Jews do. But the Old Testament God is cruel it would appear to be. What kind of God would expect his servant to sever the neck of his son as a form of sacrifice and a show of faith? A cruel and unforgiving God.
The New Testament God is loving and forgiving. He loves his people so much that he sent his only Son to save them. For those who believe in Him will have eternal life.
But then pops up the question: what of those good people who never had the opportunity to know the Faith – like Buddhists and Hindus? The answer: the God of the New Testament is a loving God. We are all his creation. They are left to his mercy.
“If the price to pay for that is to be condemned to forever stay on sidelines criticizing, never to ascend to power in dislodgment of the BN, it is burden only the righteous would carry with fortitude.”
Do not misunderstand.
Nobody here is implying that Kit’ struggle to bring in a more just and fair society for all Malaysians should go unappreciated. No one can disagree with his vision of a more just and fair society, a society based on meritocracy and dedicated to egalitarian values. No one can rightfully disagree to DAP championing the cause of the likes of Lina Joy. I question the timing and the way it is being done!
Malaysian politics is at the cross roads here. The Opposition has the best chance to form a new government that may never come again for another fifty years! Religion however one sees it is a divisive issue. It is hard to control. It is a double edged knife. It is a genie in the bottle. It is the elephant in the room.
It is best left alone.
But of course we are not talking religion here but freedom of religion! It is hard to separate the two and is easy to confuse both.
“These acts by the DAP are consistent with its “not forgetting that it is a multi-racial political party†which representation includes not just the right of non Malays but also Malays by birth in the instances cited above.” Tai Lo Chin
If DAP is a multiracial party dedicated to ‘multiracial principles’ how is it that its membership is almost exclusively Chinese??
The Constitution expressly prohibits proselytizing of Muslims in the country. Is the DAP to be seen as a political party which advocates the adherence to the Constitution and Constitutional principles only when it suits the Party? The way to change the Constitution is to win the general elections with more than two-thirds majority. Until then all political parties must adhere to the Federal Constitution of 1957 irrespective of what ideologies they may hold. The Constitution is supreme, remember?
The essence of the DAP’s struggle is that the present BN run government has deviated from the ‘underlying social contract’ that forms the Federal Malaysian Constitution of 1957. It is part of that underlying ‘social contract’ that Islam and Muslims be given special consideration. If that means less than full recognition of the fundamental rights of our Muslim brothers and sisters then so be it.
“If DAP is a multiracial party dedicated to ‘multiracial principles’ how is it that its membership is almost exclusively Chinese??” – Undergrad2.
The multiracialness of DAP is determined by its principles that by character are multiracial ie a Malaysian sun for all and no hegemony of any group over the rest. It is not determined by racial composition of its membership. It is not multiracial in membership because other groups may not support Malaysia for all Malaysian in equality concept.
“Is the DAP to be seen as a political party which advocates the adherence to the Constitution and Constitutional principles only when it suits the Party?”
When did the DAP advocate “the adherence to the Constitution and Constitutional principles only when it suits the Party?”
Although “the way to change the Constitution is to win the general elections with more than two-thirds majority”, until then, the way is to make sure that the Constitution is adhered, ie Article 11 on Freedom of Religion applies equally to all Malaysians of all races .
“It is part of that underlying ’social contract’ that Islam and Muslims be given special consideration”.
No one is challenging that Islam and Muslims be not given special consideration. But does the fact that Islam and Muslims be given special consideration necessarily imply that a Malay Muslim has no freedom of religion and cannot avail themselves to protection of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution? On what basis does one conclude such? Article 11 provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion in which “every person†include a Malay. Had the constitution intended Malay Muslim to be precluded from such protection in Article 11 it would have been worded ‘Every person “BUT a Malay by birth or a Muslim” has the right to profess and practise his religion’ but Article 11 does not state this. Or is anyone suggesting here that Syariah or its interpretation transcends and is above the Constitution and in particular article 11?
“DAP must strike the balance, there is no such thing as principle being more important than realpolitik, both are equally important.†– dawsheng
Everyone also knows that it is best to strike the balance. But the controversial cases that DAP/Kit raises are those where balance of principle and realpolitik cannot be struck. Where there is an inevitable conflict between the two, I am saying that DAP/Kit have more often than not been true to principle. Which should be the case like Lina Joy’s predicament.
Dawsheng further said “But where is DAP now? We have been robbed left right center in broad daylight, what can DAP do? Fifty years is a long time for a political party to progress and by logic it should grew from strength to strength and by virtue of principle DAP should deserves to govern Malaysia todayâ€Â.
I would dispute a few points here.
In respect to “we have been robbed left right center in broad daylight, what can DAP do?†my answer is that the DAP has done a lot (since the Bank Bumi scandal highlighted by it where no one else dared to) and had DAP not continued “to make noiseâ€Â, we might have been robbed left right center in broad daylight in even greater way without realizing or knowing about it ie the country which is presently in a sorry state of affairs could have turned out worse.
It is very wrong to think that DAP serves no purpose for a better Malaysia when it has failed in 50 years to gain power. How would you know that if DAP has gained power it would not turn into another MCA or Gerakan? I am not talking of Kit here whose integrity tested by sacrifice is above question but I’m talking about DAP’s second and third echelon leaders. Besides you don’t know as a fact that had the DAP not been a playing the role of a “barking dog’, the country today would not be worse of.
I regret to say it but it smacks of ingratitude to denigrate the DAP’s contribution to democratization of Malaysian feudal political landscape just because for 50 years it has remained a barking dog and not been able to win a substantial segment of the Malay voters. The course lies in helping through discourse and highlighting to Malay voters the abuses of ruling coalition that have been perpetrated under the sweetener of the NEP and racial politics. The course does not lie in making compromises to racial policies or religious extremist interpretation just to win their votes.
“The Constitution expressly prohibits proselytizing of Muslims in the country” – Undergrad2. This is true because article 11(5) of Constitution says so. But Lina Joy was not proselytized by any Christian. She wants to opt out on her own accord. She may do so for personal reasons including wanting to marry a Christian cook. By no stretch that constitutes ‘proselytizing of Muslims’. The distinction is fine but real. Where there is no ‘proselytizing of Muslims’, which is constitutionally prohibited, the right to freedom of religion even for a Malay by birth kicks in under article 11(1) which should be upheld. Islam is no less an official religion (as stated in the Constitution) just because a muslim chooses to exercise his or her right in article 11 to cease to be a muslim. Otherwise how can article 11 be a right available to all malaysians? It seems to me that the proposition that article 11 (freedom of religion) is a right only for Minority non Malay Malaysians and not the Majority Malay Malaysians is neither supportable in logic nor constitutional law.
As I said earlier: “It is part of that underlying ’social contract’ that Islam and Muslims be given special consideration. If that means less than full recognition of the fundamental rights of our Muslim brothers and sisters then so be it.”
Respecting the “underlying social contract” which has become the DAP banner, is a two way street. You cannot chose to select which part of the ‘underlying social contract’ to follow and which not to follow.
‘Constitutional safeguards’ have been built into the document referred to as the Federal Malaysian Constitution of 1957 to guarantee the position of the religion of Islam therein referred as the ‘official religion of the federation’. Public monies are used to finance the religious education of Muslims, the construction of mosques are funded by public funds, and Malays and Muslims are protected from being proselytized by followers of other religions. A constitutional monarchy with Malay Rulers as heads of the religion of Islam in their respective states is funded through the use of federal funds. As heads of the religion of Islam their role is to uphold of the dignity of the religion and ‘protect’ it.
These are expressed provisions within our Federal Malaysian Constitution of 1957. They are not mere symbolism.
Lina Joy was never free to change her religion.
I think she should be free to do so.
“Had the constitution intended Malay Muslim to be precluded from such protection in Article 11 it would have been worded ‘Every person “BUT a Malay by birth or a Muslim†has the right to profess and practise his religion’ but Article 11 does not state this.”
Here you’re playing the same game as UMNO conservatives. You have chosen to ignore the fact that fundamental liberties given to Malaysians are heavily qualified. A first year student in Malaysian Constitutional law would be all too eager to scream into your ears that freedom is qualified. You have chosen to ignore Article 160(2).
You cannot take a provision out of its context and make your argument. The Federal Constitution of 1957 is one document and to understand it we need to see all the relevant provisions together and not singly.
My argument is there was an intention to protect the religion of Islam and Muslims. Malays were regarded as Muslims as no Malay was ever anything else then. Many among the English educated may have taken to drinking, gambling etc. But they are Malay Muslims who drink and gamble. None was a church going Malay.
To give Malays like Lina Joy her freedom to change her religion, the federal Constitution would have to be amended – not by interpretation of one Article to the exclusion of another, not by stretching the meaning of terms within the Constitution.
Article 121(1A) by creating a double tracked system of justice for all Muslims completes the process set in motion in 1957.
Undergrad2 argues that “you cannot take a provision {like article 11(1)} out of its context and make your argument†{without looking at article 160(2)}.
I have no quarrel with such an approach when construing the Constitution. It is a right approach. So reviewing the constitution as a whole what does it tell me?
Undergrad2 is right in the sense that the Constitutional provisions weigh heavily to protect, as he says, the official religion of Islam and Muslims : to cite some examples, Article 11(2) prohibits proselytizing of Muslims; article 121(1)(A) makes sure that civil courts cannot encroach on Islamic matters and Article 160(2) prescribes that all Malays by constitutional interpretation must profess to be Muslims. The last raises the mind-boggling question, when a Malay stops being a Muslim, what is he/she? As it is constitutionally undefined, he/she becomes socially and legally a persona non grata.
What is not in dispute here are:
§ The Constitution protects Islam/Muslims and weighs against a Malay by birth leaving the religion;
§ In Islam apostasy is proscribed (though we are reminded we are not discussing Islam injunctions here but the Constitution).
In spite of the above, I would say a Malay by birth such as Azlina Jailani should by article 11(1) (Freedom of Religion) be allowed to leave the faith to be whether a Christian Buddhist or even an atheist PROVIDED THAT she acknowledges she is no more a Malay entitled special privileges under article 153 of the Constitution.
Though I would agree that article 11(1) promising freedom of religion to all persons (which necessarily include a Malay by birth) is inconsistent with the constitutional bias in the rest of the provisions {articles 160(2), 121(1A) and so on}, I hold that freedom of conscience is too fundamental a human right to be abrogated unless with under the authority of the clearest of provisions stated in article 11(1), which fortunately for Lina Joy, cannot be said to be the clearest in relation to her exercise of freedom of religion.
I therefore make no argument here that the Constitutional provisions are stacked against a Malay leaving the religion. (Rightly or otherwise, it is the Constitution).
I am only arguing that making it difficult to leave is equal to making it impossible in law for one such as Azlina Jailani to leave and become Lina Joy, if she were prepared to pay the price of giving up her constitutional position as a Malay and the privileges attached to being one. Necessarily my view, if accepted, implies that the one committing apostasy should not be imprisoned under the guise of rehabilitation etc.
I repeat here Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that provides: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.â€Â
Although I agree that Malaysia is not a signatory, yet we cannot ignore this and hold claim to being the most modern muslim nation in the world in which there are many muslim nations impose no sanctions on those born of the faith to leave.
I believe that everyone has a right to choose his faith and even race if by constitutional definition one cannot remain the race of one’s birth out of constitutional bias for a religion that one freely chooses to leave out of conscience.
I may be guilty of picking up article 11(1) (Freedom of Religion) out of context in the special sense that it is not in line with rest of constitutional provisions but it is something I would do with buoyancy and not apology because the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted to uphold human rights rather than denigrate human rights for suspected reasons of politicization of religion for maintenance of political power.
And I would do it again and again to take advantage of the lack of clarity in the expression “every person†in article 11(1) on freedom of religion to argue this position because it is a settled rule of construction in law including constitutional law that for a fundamental human right to be taken away, the provision of law or constitution must be so express and so obvious that even a ten year old child will, on reading it, say, yes this is obviously the case. Until such, sorry I am pro – choice. :)
I must say something on this “social contract” that Islam and Muslims be given special consideration raised by Undergrad2.
The Social Contract in 1957 is privileges and special protection for Malay muslims in exchange quid pro qou of citizenship rights to non malays and non muslims.
In ordinary experience, privileges and special protection are given to a group like Malay muslim to favour and benefit them. They are not to disfavour, detract and minus their entitlement.
My argument is that if I were for example given privileges and rights for my benefit, I will have every right to waive, forgo and dispense twith these privileges and rights on my own accord. Whiklt others are not at liberty to take away the entitlement from those who are intended to be benefited by it, the converse is not true that the beneficiary cannot on his/her own accord give away and relinguish his/her entitlment and benefit on his/her own free accord. To say otherwise is absurd and not in accord with human experience. One however cannot dispense with one’s duties and obligations. Benefit/protection and entitlement should be viewed differently.
“Everyone also knows that it is best to strike the balance. But the controversial cases that DAP/Kit raises are those where balance of principle and realpolitik cannot be struck.” Tai Lo Chin
You obviously think DAP is doing the right thing to uphold the Federal Consitution and I won’t disagree with that. Like Undergrad2, I am also questioning the timing and the way it is done. I don’t see Lina Joy’s case as where balance of principle and realpolitik cannot be struck, DAP chose to forgone realpolitik and opted for principle instead, probably it is the only forte DAP has as a poltical party to win votes. This is what I found in wikipedia about realpolitik and I reproduce it here so we can take some time to ponder about it.
Realpolitik in contrast to ideological politics
The policy of realpolitik was formally introduced to the Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger. In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics  for instance, Nixon’s diplomacy with the People’s Republic of China, despite the U.S.’s opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where he persuaded the Israelis to partially withdraw from the Sinai in deference to the political realities created by the oil crisis.
Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules, but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies. Since realpolitik is ordered toward the most practical means of securing national interests, it can often entail compromising on ideological principles. For example, the U.S. under the Nixon, Carter, and Reagan administrations often supported authoritarian regimes that were human rights violators, in order to secure the greater national interest of regional stability. Detractors would characterize this attitude as amoral, while supporters would contend that they are merely operating within limits defined by practical reality.
In contrast, political ideologues tend to favor principle over all other considerations. Such groups often reject compromises which they see as the abandonment of their ideals, and so sacrifice short-term political gain in favor of adhering to their principles.
As an example, in the U.S. elections of 2000, the third party presidential candidate Ralph Nader decided to campaign in states where the Democrats and Republicans were closely matched. After the Democrats lost the close election, Nader was widely criticized among Democratic partisans who believed Nader had cost the party the election by splitting the liberal vote. Despite this criticism, Nader was unapologetic and ran again in 2004, preferring to stand by his principled opposition to the Democratic Party, even if it could mean, in practical terms, a greater probability of the Republicans winning elections, undermining his liberal causes.
“Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules, but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies.†We have to be careful of advocates of Realpolitik over principles. With this end justifies means approach, one goes down the slippery slope until one does not know what one originally stood for.
To give some concrete illustrations:
PM said in his speech on the occasion of the conferment of the honorary degree of doctor of technology by Curtin University of Technology, Perth on 22 Feb 2006 that “ Islam Hadhari is also an approach to achieve reform and renewal in Islamic countries and in Muslim societies as a whole. Malaysia feels comfortable in commencing this journey of reform and renewal because the approach is eminently suited for adoption in a multi-racial and multi-religious country like ours….Islam Hadhari is not a new religion… It is a way for appreciating and practising the religion in these modern times but firmly rooted in the noble values and injunctions of Islam.†This is sound ideology. It accommodates dialogue and promotes bridges between peoples of different faiths which is what Article 11 Forums sought to do. But when certain Islamic groups protested outside meeting of Article 11 forum, the PM imposed a gag order. That is realpolitik. It is a fear of alienation of Muslim votes. Where would this lead to?
Another example the NEP. When he first became PM he said in his first UMNO Assembly (the 55th annual general assembly) of UMNO that malays should not rely on crutches. The deputy chairperson Badruddin Amiruldin immediately cautioned against questioning the Bumiputra’s special rights, and was met with thunderous applause from delegates when he waved May 13 book and declared, “Let no one from the other races ever question the rights of Malays on this land. Don’t question the religion because this is my right on this land.” Since then the UMNO president had not repeated his message that malays should discard their crutches. He extended it to 2020 under the 9th Malaysia Plan. That is realpolitik.
Hishamuddin Hussein is British trained barrister. Personally he is unlikely a racist, mixing well people of all races. In UMNO Assembly however, he, as UMNO Youth chief, waved the keris. That is Realpolitik.
It appears to me that we already have too much relapolitik in this country that is bringing to her nothing good. We need a return to steadfast principles.
In another place and time “the policy of realpolitik was formally introduced to the Nixon White House by Henry Kissingerâ€Â. Nixcon had no principles but plenty of insecurities : read Henry kissinger’s book on “The White House Yearsâ€Â. Henry formulated realpolitik to suit his boss’s temperament. What legacy did Nixon leave behind? Whatever good there is in reopening pingpong diplomacy with Mao’s China was neutralized and sullied by the Watergate Scandal and bugging of Daniel Ellsberg’s office? The first American president in recent times to be forced out of office under threat of impeachment? That is Realpolitik over principles.
‘My argument is there was an intention to protect the religion of Islam and Muslims. Malays were regarded as Muslims as no Malay was ever anything else then.’ undergrad2
Malays may not be all born as Muslim if not because of absolute power of the early days SULTANs….When Parameswara converted to Muslim, all the rakyat(the Malays then) must convert to Muslim too… or else, their heads would be chopped off for DERHAKA…. SO NOT SURPRISING ALL MALAYS ARE MUSLIM IN THIS COUNTRY…. BECAUSE THOSE WHO WERE NOT ALREADY DIED BY EXECUTION…
so this mean some of the Malays’ ancestors might not have converted to Islam with free will …… but we should not force the descendants to stay on if they have choose to do so with what they believed in.
With Lina Joy case, it may hinder non-Muslim to marry Muslim…. because it is a 1-way ticket…If you are to marry a Muslim, you need to convert to Islam….but if you later found out that it is not the truth that you are seeking for, you have no way out(constitutionally) from the religion….Even your dead body would be forced to be buried in their ways..
THE JOY FOR LINA
Lina may have ended her long journey through the legal labyrinth, negotiating her way from one court to another at enormous cost to her freedom hoping to be allowed to keep her dignity. A journey of a different kind awaits her now that the country’s highest court has confirmed that as an ethic Malay she is still a Muslim and must remain one.
Her case has been followed closely and reported widely by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Technically she has joined the long line of refugees from countries with scant regard for human rights among which Malaysia is one. Freedom of religion is a basic fundamental human right and to deny anybody the freedom to believe, as in Lina Joy’s case, in the faith of one’s choice rather than the faith of one’s birth would make the persecuted a refugee. As a refugee Lina Joy can now seek the protection of the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (to which Malaysia is not a signatory); but many countries are and these include countries like Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. Article 33.1 of the 1951 Convention provides “No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refoulerâ€Â) in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.â€Â
Countries like these have incorporated the United Nations law regarding the status of refugees in their own domestic laws. In the case of New Zealand it is known as the Refugee Convention and in the case of the United States it is the INA or Immigration Nationality Act Sec. 101(a)(42)(A). The difference in the language used in the domestic laws of such countries does not affect the substantive rights of refugees seeking asylum be it on political, religious, racial, or on the grounds of nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion. You only need to prove persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of these five statutory grounds.
Lina Joy may want to consider seeking asylum in countries like Australia and New Zealand where there are relatively large Asian populations. If and when she does she will not be the first and will not the last.
In the mid 1995 there was the New Zealand case (Re: HBS and LBY Refugee Appeal No. 1039/93) of a Malaysian couple. The man, a half Malay half Chinese, a painter and decorator by profession and his intended spouse an accounts clerk from a Malay Chinese family who was Buddhist by religion. The former was not a practicing Muslim and the latter was not a practicing Buddhist by their own admissions. Their original application to remain in that country was on the basis of job offers they received but they changed their application to that of refugees who would face persecution on their return to the country of origin. Although he suffered no actual harassment or persecution in Malaysia for failing to adhere to the life expected of a Muslim (despite having a Muslim name) his marriage to a non-Muslim created a real chance of future persecution. They were granted asylum status and were allowed to remain and work – and eventually become citizens.
Since then there have been other cases.
What faster and easier way can there be to become legal permanent residents or LPRs and then finally citizens of a country of your choice?
So to Lina Joy and the thousands of Malaysia’s apostates, here is an opportunity to keep your self dignity and your freedom. I say “Get yourself into line and join the millions of the world’s persecuted for a better life in your adopted country†be it in the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave†or Down Under.
The joy can still be yours.
“I may be guilty of picking up article 11(1) (Freedom of Religion) out of context in the special sense that it is not in line with rest of constitutional provisions but it is something I would do with buoyancy and not apology because the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted to uphold human rights rather than denigrate human rights for suspected reasons of politicization of religion for maintenance of political power.” Tai Lo Chin
You do not pick and choose, cut it out and hang it to dry and then examining something that is written out of context. That’s not the way. At least that is not the way to do so if one wants to look at things objectively, understand and then move forward for a change. I would like to believe that despite everything that has been happening this nation is a nation of laws. This issue of freedom of religion for the Malays here is a political one brought on by the fact that our Constitution does not separate state from religion nor does it seek to do so. They wanted to have a Westminster type democracy with Islam and Islamic values and Malay customs followed at state functions. I do not think they wanted to have anything like an Islamic state.
Since the 80s religion has been politicized by both sides of the political divide. The only way out of the impasse is to work for a change in government, making sure that you would not just have majority control of our Parliament but two-thirds majority control. Many of the changes that you and I seek would not be possible without first amending the Federal Constitution of 1957.
You argument is if the intention was to prevent Malays from changing their religion, then the Constitution should make it clear. You are being naïve here.
Malays being prevented from changing their religion is in truth a human rights issue and best viewed as such. You do not write the preamble, for example, to a document like the country’s Constitution by saying that the country does not care if the issue is a human rights issue (!) or that we condone the enslavement of one race to a set of religious values in return for citizenship.
As I wrote earlier: “Technically Lina Joy has joined the long line of refugees from countries with scant regard for human rights among which Malaysia is one. Freedom of religion is a basic fundamental human right and to deny anybody the freedom to believe, as in Lina Joy’s case, in the faith of one’s choice rather than the faith of one’s birth would make the persecuted a refugee. As a refugee Lina Joy can now seek the protection of the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (to which Malaysia is not a signatory); but many countries are and these include countries like Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. Article 33.1 of the 1951 Convention provides “No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refoulerâ€Â) in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.â€Â
When legal documents are written legal ambiguity is often built into it for a purpose – usually because the parties cannot foresee what could happen but sometimes ambiguity is relied on as a way to find consensus ad idem – or else there would not be an agreement. Then and in the event of disputes later on, it is left to the courts to decide what was agreed and what was not between the parties. It is not the role of the courts, however, to re-write a contract. Our civil courts over the issue of apostasy, have adhered to this principle with some difficulty but only because of the ambiguity rather than an attempt at partisan politics. I say “rather than†because I am not prepared to say that the courts’ judgments have not been tainted by the political affiliations of the judges themselves. Much as we would like to believe that our judiciary is independent, it is not. Neither is it free from political interference.
I respectfully submit here that the ambiguity about the Malays having to be Muslims and not Christians (or Hindus and Buddhists or atheists) in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is for a purpose. That purpose is evident if one reads the rest of the document.
To assume that the constitutional draftsman seeks only to define Malay as an ethnic group under Article 160(2) without more is to be politically naïve. It is a matter of political expediency, clarity since many provisions in the Federal Constitution of 1957 makes references to Malay – Article 153 in particular and Article 11 another. The Constitution is among other things a trade-off between competing interests. It is never meant to withstand legal, anthropological scrutiny etc. Credit must be given to the constitutional draftsman for attempting to do the impossible, and for his encourage in doing what most others would not. The Federal Constitution is not just a legal document.
As if to add to the complexity, there have been so many amendments made to the Federal Constitution of 1957 that one could argue that we find it hard to recognize the original from the amended version. Do you know how many amendments there are to the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Constitution is over 200 years old and ours not even 50 years old!
How do I view DAP’s latest attempt at taking the moral high ground when it comes to the issue apostasy among Malays? Not clever.
My post is lost forever in cybespace like the space debris circulating the Earth.
“….the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted to uphold human rights..” Tai Lo Chin
First, it is not a living document in the sense that you are at liberty to use whatever canons of construction you feel expedient to give substance to the ideals you hold dear to yourself. It is a living document in the sense it can be amended.
Secondly, the issue of human rights should be viewed separately from the country’s Constitution. That is why we have the U.N. Convention of 1951 which has been incorporated into the domestic laws of signatories to the Refugee Protocol of 1967. Is it not small wonder that Malaysia is not a signatory to it.
‘My post is lost forever in cybespace like the space debris circulating the Earth’. I have said it before, that according to my observation, the Word Press Platform of this blog apparently sometimes (though not all times) does not support real time posting (especially where post is bit long, I think). The posting may appear an hour or maybe even 6 hours later, if not as long as 12 hours. Posters sometimes make two or three postings as a result of this, thinking that the first posting, not appearing on the screen, has failed. This deferred posting process makes the maintenance of sequence in running exchanges between commenters extremely difficult, at times.
Thanks Jeffrey, as always.
But a few of those postings never appeared at all!
“First, it is not a living document in the sense that you are at liberty to use whatever canons of construction you feel expedient to give substance to the ideals you hold dear to yourself. It is a living document in the sense it can be amended.†– Undergrad2
This, I beg to disagree. Amendment is but one way where the provisions are so clear that it cannot permit another interpretation even if its clear provisions lead to absurd and unjust results. The other case is where the document says nothing of a situation and there exists a lacuna. In these cases there is a case for legislative amendment if Parliament by majority is willing. In other cases where there are gaps which may be filled by interpretation, it will be so filled by the judges’ interpretation whether they admit it or not. For so long as the meaning of Constitution (or any legislation) is dependent on judicial interpretation, it is a living document. It is not so much to interpret it in a manner deviating from the original intent of its originators or promulgators. It is to interpret such as to divine its original underlying principles.
Dear Undergrad2 I wouldn’t expect you to say that amendment is always the preferred course to judicial interpretation when you were on record to say in some past postings that the problem and controversies of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution would best be addressed via the process of judicial interpretation and not amendment or repeal.
As much as interpretation is necessary for 121(1A) of Constitution, I would argue that article 11(1) (Freedom of religion) could equally be given the appropriate interpretation to assist Lina Joy’s exercise of her rights to freedom of religion.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion….Although I agree that Malaysia is not a signatory, yet we cannot ignore this ..†Tai Lo Chin
Who says we should? Who says Lina Joy should?
She could take advantage of the asylum laws of countries like Australia and New Zealand which are countries in Malaysia’s neighborhood where there are large Asian communities. When others are prepared to give up everything – family and friends and material wealth – for the opportunity of living in a foreign country like Australia and N.Z. Lina Joy seems not to recognize the gift that God has given her.
“…//…But a few of those postings never appeared at all!..//…” per Undergrad2.
YB Kit: I can confirm what he says, though in my experience, it happened in the rarest of occasions. Is there an explanation behind this phenomenon?
Tai Lo Chin,
Perhaps I should add that the Constitution is a living document in the sense that Parliament may amend the Constitution to allow new laws to be made, even insert new provisions where such provisions were non-existent.
Judicial interpretation is not an alternative to constitutional amendment.
“For so long as the meaning of Constitution (or any legislation) is dependent on judicial interpretation, it is a living document.”
This is a rather narrow interpretation of ‘living’.
In fact the aim of judicial interpretation that the courts indulge in is to give essence to the document and not to deviate from it.
It is not the role of judges to make law – a role that belongs to the country’s highest law making body, the legislature.
Undergrad2,
We need separation of powers and three branches of government for check and balance because where Parliament (by majority – in our case the BN MPs) are reactionary and not prepared to legislate by amendment, at least an independent judiciary, prepared to do justice, can ameliorate the situation by interpretation.
I know that there is huge debate prevailing in legal land everywhere on the extent to which Constitution or law may be interpreted as living document. Even politicians differ. Al Gore for example was on record for saying “I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people”. So would the darling of first year law students Lord Denning. Those of a more conservative cast of mind would disagree. Fact remains no one has monopoly or finality of authority on this subject, and views differ. We all know there is always a degre of interpretation permissible when one looks at words in law or constitution because words are not vested the precision of mathematics. It is a question of permissible range. The intent of law, as you would have learned in jurisprudence, is not just to regulate and bring certainty to rules in structuring affairs of man. It is also to do justice. That is paramount. One cannot do that if one does not treat a piece of legislation or the basic law like Constitution a living document, breathing as it were, to adapt to evolving standards of decency justice and good sense that mark the progress of a maturing society, especially one where certain sections of it mature faster than the polticians in control of the legislating process. On your the other point on Lina Joy, I would not presume Lina would embrace migration via process of asylum as some of the younger and more western educated ones amongst us would ermbrace with alacrity. Though ostracized by her community, she may have ties with relatives and friends. She is entitled to remain in her homeland and to fight for her constitutional rights. Asylum to her or her cook husband may be like exile. We can’t speak for her.
“It is not the role of judges to make law – a role that belongs to the country’s highest law making body, the legislature”. Thats the theory but we all know that judges do make law but to be faithful to that theory they say they are divining the real and original intent of legislature when enacting the law or constitution. The difference is in degree of interpretation which depends on the temperament, political affliliation and judicial philosophies of the judges concerned. In the case of Lina Joy you can see two Muslim Judges had a different interpretation than the Christian judge giving dissenting view.
Undergrad2,
Looks like there’s a real QC.
Dear Tai,
Thanks for the postings. No offence intended here. :)
Dear YB,
I also made a posting here, sometime ago, an hour ago but like what Undergrad2 said, it appears lost in cybespace……..I’m also curious why this should be.
“She (Lina Joy and those like her) is entitled to remain in her homeland and to fight for her constitutional rights. ”
That’s the point I have been making. She has no such constitutional right to be a Muslim.
The there is the matter of state constitution and state enactments and religious dogma that a person like Lina Joy would have to deal with. They are very clear.
Article 121(1A) merely completes the process started some fifty years earlier i.e. by placing jurisdiction of such matters within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the syariah courts and syariah judges.
Lina Joy like every other citizen has the right of choice to stay and live under the constant threat of persecution and prosecution. But that is her personal choice and nobody is about to take that away from her. Is the government of Malaysia about to take away her Malaysian citizenship? They are eager to make an example out of her, yes. They cannot do that with her gone!
Whilst still on the subject of Lina Joy, you may (for your reading pleasure) want to read what Farish Noor writes in this link –
http://www.malaysiakini.com/link/eNoVyFEKgCAMANATpcPAJIguIshIM0lx5EK8ffQ+38VMq5S9d+Ex5cGphCaOWgTd0ocT38wCG+2EMWwKYLGgLRjbuD7DmUlPfzqKs1MfNmQaDA==
Sorry to all. I didn’t know that inserting the Farish’s link would distend/distort the whole reading page.
“We need separation of powers and three branches of government for check and balance because where Parliament (by majority – in our case the BN MPs) are reactionary and not prepared to legislate by amendment, at least an independent judiciary, prepared to do justice, can ameliorate the situation by interpretation.” Tai Lo Chin
I cannot find anything to disagree here.
On the issue of the preparedness of the judiciary to do justice where justice is due, are you saying the courts can ignore Article 153 because it is wrong to discriminate?
I am sorry, Jeffery but I feel intellectuals like Dr. Azly and Farish tend to make intellectual gibberish of such issues.
“It appears to me that we already have too much relapolitik in this country that is bringing to her nothing good. We need a return to steadfast principles.” Tai Lo Chin
I agree, too much is no good. None at all probably will not bring us anywhere. The examples you cited above on realpolitiking of UMNO is a clear case on how real realpolitik would probably destroy our beloved nation but it is this realpolitik that kept them in power. I agree also we need to return to steadfast principles, however the journey from now till then cannot be achieved just by acting on principle alone, it is a reality that Malaysians of all races each held on to different principles and beliefs, and in Lina Joy’s case we saw how complicated it can be. What I meant by DAP should considers applying realpolitik approach is to find a unifying agenda that can cut across all these differences, ultimately is the amount of votes DAP got that counts.
Undergrad2 asks, “are you saying the courts can ignore Article 153 because it is wrong to discriminate?”
My answer is no. Courts cannot override legislative intent. Article 153 is derived from social contract and deliberately enacted by Parliament. Article 11(1) however stands on different footing. It provides “every person has the right to profess and practise his religion”. Although Article 160(2) defines a malay as one professing muslim faith, it should not be interpreted as stopping a person from exercising his/her right to the religion of his/her choice guaranteed under article 11(2) if he/she were prepared to willingly cease or drop the status of being a considered in law a Malay within meaning of article 160(2), and with it, the attendant benefits of special privileges in article 153.
For these reasons, I would not consider articles 11(1) and 160(2) of the Constitution as necessarily irreconcilable. The expression “every person” in Article 11(1) without the qualification (“malay muslims excepted”) opens the way for judicial interpretation in the manner aforesaid to do justice for Lina Joy and avail her the rights under article 11(1).
The reference within the context of this issue of religious freedom and the definition of Malay is as ridiculous as it is to link it with the issue of special Malay privileges. This comes from the mouth of a former Prime Minister who declares that Malaysia is “already an Islamic state”.
Assuming that Lina Joy is enjoying special privileges given to her under Article 153, are you saying that the syariah courts would give their approval for her to convert out of the religion of her birth if she gives them up – like repaying bank loans given to her at a preferential rate of interest, paying back the discounts given to her on that first purchase of property allocated to bumiputras?
There goes another posting into cyberspace.
I give up!
“The expression “every person†in Article 11(1) without the qualification (â€Âmalay muslims exceptedâ€Â) opens the way for judicial interpretation in the manner aforesaid to do justice for Lina Joy and avail her the rights under article 11(1).” Tai Lo Chin
It opens the way for judicial interpretation providing consistency and meaning and consistency to the intent of Parliament when read together with Articles like 160(2) and not limited to it.
Who in their right minds would draft something as important as a Constitution of a country to include “Malay Muslims excepted” in any of the provisions? That is offensive to say the least and a blatant disregard of human rights.
You have not addressed the issue of the numerous state enactments passed under the state constitutions which makes apostasy a crime.
There goes another posting made only to be lost in deep space.
Good afternoon. Have a good weekend!
Judicial interpretation is not a vehicle to be used to usurp the rights of Parliament.
I would think it is a more blatant disregard of human rights to not say “Malay muslims excepted†in Article 11(1) and yet exclude them from the right to freedom of religion expressly given in that article.
I am thinking of 2 points Tai Lo Chin made in this running exchanges that weigh on my mind:
The first is that he said something earlier about the provision in article 11 having to be very clear and express – “that (I quote)even a ten year old child will, on reading it, say, yes this is obviously the case” to deprive a person the right as fundamental as the freedom of religion, the “constitutional bias” in other articles notwithstanding; and
the second: the reasons he gave in posting of June 10th, 2007 at 10:30 pm above as to why articles 11(1) and 160(2) of the Constitution (depending on how one argues it) “are not necessarily irreconcilable”.
To Undergrad2
By the way, I don’t view Dr. Azly and Farish Noor as at same level. The latter is more coherent and less airy fairy. My personal view only. :)
Quote undergrad:
“The late Tun Suffian’s wife remained true to her faith as a Jew and never converted at least not formally.”
This is to correct this mistaken fact. I have known Tun Suffian and his wife from the 1950s to their death. I was with Bunny (Tun Suffian’s wife in hospital before she died) She was a catholic and was a catholic at the time of her death. She expressed her wish to be cremated and Tun Suffian confirmed this. Tun Suffian confirmed that she was a catholic to the hospital authorities and said he had been married to her for over 50 years and she has remained a catholic ever since he knew her when he was a student. Yet the muslim authorities insisted that she be buried as a muslim despite her wishes confirmed by her husband.
It was mentioned in the FEER of that year that she was a Jewish. Let me check on that and come back.
“I would think it is a more blatant disregard of human rights to not say “Malay muslims excepted†in Article 11(1) and yet exclude them from the right to freedom of religion expressly given in that article.” Jeffrey
That’s the point. Articles 11 and Article 160(2) should be interpreted in a way consistent to one another – not the other way round.
I gotta go guys! A Chinese buffet is waiting for me when a fistful of dollars would allow me to eat prawns and crabs, scallops all afternoon. This is in preference to one piece of roti canai which costs RM 16.00.
undergrad2 said:
**But it is true Christians, Muslims and Jews are referred to as People of the Book. As people of the Book, they are allowed to marry without having to convert. The late Tun Suffian’s wife remained true to her faith as a Jew and never converted at least not formally.**
Your statement is only partly true.
Only the women are not required to convert. This means it’s possible for a Muslim man to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. But the children have to be brought up as Muslims.
Where-else a Jewish or Christian man has to convert if he wants to marry a Muslim woman.
So only the Muslim man has the privelage of marrying any female from the People of the Book. A Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man, none else.
Thanks for the clarification. We learn new things everyday!
Hermes,
OK. It is my bad! It was not Toh Puan Bunny but the wife of Tan Sri Azraai who was Jewish and retained her faith after marriage but converting only later to help him in his promotion.
Guys, the postings I said disappeared finally appeared. So please scroll up and we shall have a discussion on the issues raised.
Thanks.
I refer to June 10 at 5.58 “THE JOY FOR LINA” and at 7.33 my reply to Tai Lo Chin.
///Fifty years is a long time for a political party to progress and by logic it should grew from strength to strength and by virtue of principle DAP should deserves to govern Malaysia today.///
The saying is the people deserve the government, and not the other around. So, the political party needs not change its stand. If the majority prefers to be stupid, then the minority has to suffer along.
“…/…The saying is the people deserve the government, and not the other around. So, the political party needs not change its stand. If the majority prefers to be stupid, then the minority has to suffer along….// “ – Loh.
The necessary implication of your statement (which, by the way, I can agree with) is that it is futile for the minority (most of us here in this Blog) to keep on criticizing such a government (except to vent frustrations) because nothing ever changes for so long as the majority refuse to change their support for it, and that a more constructive way is to identify the ultimate target – the majority – and use a combination of criticisms as well as education (through discourse or whatever other methods conceivable) to persuade the majority to change their stance. And if they still don’t or can’t, then the minority has “to suffer along†or emigrate.
Yes. We call that ‘democracy’.
Now who would be so stupid as to believe or articulate that the majority is always or necessarily right or righteous???!!
Except the few who despite being in the minority thought they have the monopoly to everything righteous and right.
“If the majority prefers to be stupid, then the minority has to suffer along.” Loh
Whoever heard of anybody “who prefers to be stupid” – unless he is stupid to begin with and does not know the difference. Wonder if Loh fits that description.
He sure does.
When I say what other prefers, it is my point of view. So, the others do not have a say on the way other perceive them to be. I thought that was a simple logic. But then there is always a reader who likes to exhibit his right to settle what he considered an old score.
Islam will mock itself if it continues to be mishandled, mis-disseminated, mis-preached by the so-called scholars of Islam who propagate a non-tolerant attitude towards others and their religions. Why I say this is clearly a case of “Do unto others what others cannot and should not do to us”. The world’s vision of Islam has been distorted by the unease, unrest and violence caused in the name of Islam – epicentre now in the middle-east where there seems to be no end to the violence there – and spreading out into the Muslim world. Who brought this state of affairs into the muslim world? Even if it was done by the “infidels”, what have the muslims done to lessen or kill its deadly spread? Sadly one just have to look at the state of such affairs to know the answer.