Posted on

‘Allah’ decision a blot on our legal landscape (Part 1)

by Tommy Thomas
Malaysiakini
Oct 23, 2013

COMMENT The sustained public attack on last week’s decision of the Court of Appeal in prohibiting the Catholic Church from using the word ‘Allah’ in its internal publication, The Herald, is absolutely unprecedented, even in a nation used to bad court decisions.

From a constitutional perspective, the judgments of the three judges on the bench are poorly reasoned, the law misread and conclusions reached which will baffle any right-thinking student anywhere in the common law.

The decision is not just wrong, it is horribly wrong, and represents a terrible blot on our legal landscape, unless overturned quickly by the apex court, the Federal Court. Regrettably, what follows may seem unduly legalistic, but it cannot be avoided in a critique of a court decision. Continue reading “‘Allah’ decision a blot on our legal landscape (Part 1)”

Posted on

Asri, the voice of reason, urges politicians to steer clear of religion

by Elizabeth Zachariah
The Malaysian Insider
October 24, 2013

Malaysia will be a better place if politicians “stop politicising religion and academic matters” and leave both issues to the relevant parties to decide, says ex-Perlis mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin.

“People are confused. If they (politicians) had, from the beginning, followed this principle, then Malaysia will not be in this position,” he told The Malaysian Insider, referring to the chorus of criticism the country has been receiving following the Allah decision.

Last week, a three-man Court of Appeal bench unanimously overturned the 2009 Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling that allowed the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” in its weekly publication, Herald.

Muslim scholars and clerics worldwide have criticised the ban, pointing out that the word predates Islam and was a word that meant God in Arabic.

Asri, a 42-year-old Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) associate professor and known to supporters as the “voice of reason” and to critics as a “promoter of liberalism”, is one of those who had condemned the ban on Allah for non-Muslims.

He had previously said that as long as the word Allah was used to refer to “the Most Supreme Being”, the non-Muslims could use the word.

“So actually it is a non-issue. Muslims believe in one God. So how can we say your God is different from mine?” he had said before.

In an interview with The Malaysian Insider recently, Asri said it is ridiculous if they say the word is exclusive to Muslims.

“Civilisations that practised tolerance prospered and stayed as a society much longer than those that did not.” Continue reading “Asri, the voice of reason, urges politicians to steer clear of religion”

Posted on

‘Allah’ curbs hurting M’sia’s moderate Muslim image

Stuart Grudgings
Malaysiakini/Reuters
Oct 23, 2013

Malaysia’s self-styled image as a global leader of moderate Islam has been undermined by a court ruling that only Muslims can use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God, with a growing number of Muslim scholars and commentators condemning the decision.

A Malaysian court ruled last week that the word was “not an integral part of the faith in Christianity”, overturning a previous ruling that allowed a Malay-language Roman Catholic newspaper to use the word.

Since then, confusion has reigned over the interpretation of the ruling, with government ministers, lawyers and Muslim authorities giving widely diverging views on its scope.

Critics of the decision have said it casts a chill on religious rights in Muslim-majority Malaysia, which has substantial minorities of ethnic Chinese and Indians.

Commentators in some countries that practice Islam more strictly than Malaysia have condemned the ruling, arguing that the word ‘Allah’ has been used by different faiths for centuries. Continue reading “‘Allah’ curbs hurting M’sia’s moderate Muslim image”

Posted on

Muslim MPs, education groups say animal slaughter in school compound is wrong

by Elizabeth Zachariah and Yiswaree Palansamy
The Malaysian Insider
October 22, 2013

Muslim MPs from PAS and PKR as well as educational organisations have spoken out against the practice of carrying out ritual slaughter in schools during the recent Hari Raya Aidiladha celebrations.

PAS Kuala Krai MP Dr Mohd Hatta Ramli said any school should be off limits for the slaughter of animals.

“Be it religious schools, ethnic-based schools or national schools,” said Dr Hatta.

“In the truest nature of observing the holy Qurban, there is no need to openly slaughter animals in the presence of others, especially in an area where people of other faith reside, work or carry out activities,” he added, referring to the Arabic word for sacrificial slaughter. Continue reading “Muslim MPs, education groups say animal slaughter in school compound is wrong”

Posted on

Putrajaya desperately back-pedalling over Allah issue, say constitutional lawyers

by V. Anbalagan
The Malaysian Insider
October 21, 2013

There appears to be a conscious effort by Putrajaya to dilute the Court of Appeal ruling on the Allah issue, an approach driven by fear of losing further support among East Malaysians, say constitutional lawyers.

Speaking to The Malaysian Insider, the lawyers said Putrajaya was in “damage control” mode as the Court of Appeal ruling had far-reaching implications, having caused an uproar among non-Muslims.

Earlier today, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak told an audience in Sabah that East Malaysian Christians are free to use the word Allah in their worship and publications, including the Al-Kitab, which is the Bahasa Malaysia bible. Continue reading “Putrajaya desperately back-pedalling over Allah issue, say constitutional lawyers”

Posted on

Standing up for the right things, not the stable ones

NEWS ANALYSIS BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER
October 21, 2013

Time for some honesty. Twenty-five years ago when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dismantled one of the most respected judicial institutions in the Commonwealth and destroyed the concept of separation of powers in Malaysia, how many Malaysians were truly upset with his interference?

Not disappointed or perturbed, but truly upset.

Think back to the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 and the suspension of Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawan Teh and Datuk George Seah.

Think back to the constitutional amendments pummelled through Parliament by Dr Mahathir, changes which essentially divested the judiciary of some of its powers.

No shame in admitting that the incident called the judicial crisis of 1988 barely registered a blip on the radar of most Malaysians. Continue reading “Standing up for the right things, not the stable ones”

Posted on

It’s just another ordinary Sunday as Sarawak churches sound with the echo of Allah

by Desmond Davidson
The Malaysian Insider
October 20, 2013

Christian worshippers recited the word Allah as they fulfilled their Sunday obligation across churches in Sarawak today, shrugging off a court ruling that said the Arabic word for God was not central to their faith.

At the St Columbas Anglican church in Miri this morning, the native faithful intoned the words Allah Taala in Iban, God Almighty in English, as they have been doing all their life.

Parishioners who attended the 7am Iban service were reminded during sermon that there would be no change in the way prayers are said and that the church would continue using the word Allah.

The priest, referring to the statement made by Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok earlier this week, said the church would “continue to reverently worship their Allah until the Kingdom comes”. Continue reading “It’s just another ordinary Sunday as Sarawak churches sound with the echo of Allah”

Posted on

Government is Playing Politics with ‘Allah’

By Kee Thuan Chye
Yahoo! News
19.10.2013

Firebombs didn’t go off in mosques. Pigs’ heads were not thrown into mosque compounds. These things did not happen after the Court of Appeal ruled against the High Court’s 2009 decision to allow the Catholic weekly newspaper The Herald to use the word ‘Allah’ in referring to God.

They did not happen despite Muslim group Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia’s adding insult to injury by telling Christians to accept the verdict or leave the country. Its president, Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman, said, “They can choose to move to another country if they cannot accept the supremacy of Islam and the royalty that protects the supremacy of the religion.” It was irrelevant, uncalled-for and provocative, but the community that was targeted did not retaliate with violence. This of course is to its credit.

It did, however, react angrily to the verdict. Rev Eu Hong Seng, chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia, declared: “This is yet another erosion and infringement of the constitutional protection to the freedom of religious communities to profess and practise their faith and to manage their own affairs. The decision might encourage and fuel further misunderstanding and mistrust between the Muslim and Christian communities which will further undermine the unity of Malaysians.” Continue reading “Government is Playing Politics with ‘Allah’”

Posted on

Allah decision binding on all Malaysians, says retired AG Abu Talib

by V Anbalagan
The Malaysian Insider
October 19, 2013

All Malaysians are bound by the Court of Appeal ruling on the Allah issue, says former attorney general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, who is puzzled that Putrajaya believes the controversial judgment does not affect Christians in Sabah and Sarawak.

The appellate court agreed that the Home Minister could ban the word Allah in the Catholic weekly Herald, but two Cabinet ministers had insisted the decision did not include the Al-Kitab, the Bahasa Malaysia bible widely used in Sabah and Sarawak, and other Christian publications in East Malaysia.

“It has the effect of a binding precedent and all have to respect that decision, whether you agree or disagree,” he told The Malaysian Insider, adding it was binding until set aside by the country’s highest court, the Federal Court.

Abu Talib, who was the chief legal adviser to the government for 13 years from 1980, said there could be no two sets of law when “we have one nation and one supreme constitution”.

“So, there cannot be exemptions given to Sabah and Sarawak on this religious issue based on region or state,” he said.

Abu Talib said this in response to Cabinet ministers Tan Sri Joseph Kurup and Datuk Seri Dr Maximus Ongkili who had taken the position that Christians in the Borneo states were not affected by the appellate court ruling on Monday and could use the word in their religious practices. Continue reading “Allah decision binding on all Malaysians, says retired AG Abu Talib”

Posted on

Is ‘Allah’ issue interpreting the constitution or a will?

Mohamed Hanipa Maidin
Malaysiakini
Oct 17, 2013

MP SPEAKS Freedom of religion as enshrined in Article 11 of the federal constitution has never been absolute. Nowithstanding that, the constitution definitely allows Christians to use ‘Allah’ in their Catholic weekly publication The Herald.

Thus, it is indeed shocking to learn that the Court of Appeal unanimously invoked the constitutional ground to affirm the decision of the home minister in preventing The Herald from using the word Allah in its publication.

As far as I am concerned, the issue is rather simple and straightforward, namely whether Allah exclusively belongs to Muslims. If the answer is in the affirmative, then it is the end of the matter.

In other words the Christians or other religious adherents do not have any constitutional right to use Allah’s name. The rule is so simple – you cannot claim any right which is not yours in the first place.

Truth to be told, Allah is not the exclusive possession of any Muslim. The non-exclusivity of Allah to the Muslims is in fact derived from the Muslim’s main sources of guidance, which are the Quran and the hadith. Continue reading “Is ‘Allah’ issue interpreting the constitution or a will?”

Posted on

Strange reasoning

— Clive Kessler
The Malay Mail Online
October 16, 2013

OCT 16 — The more I think about the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in the case of the government’s appeal against the lower court’s determination in favour of The Herald, the crazier, and more infuriatingly wrong-headed, it seems.

The legal reasoning of Justice Mohamad Apandi Ali seems not just “innovative” but arguably bizarre and, to the historically minded, even absurd. It seems hardly sustainable.

It rests upon and promotes the radical idea that the enjoyment by minorities of their religious freedom “in peace and harmony” was, as a form of words, not intended as a constitutional guarantee or assurance to them but as a way of making that freedom of theirs subject to the pleasure, discretion and the inflationary whims of the majority.

With that “contrarian” spin, these words are now made to serve as the practically enabling condition or mechanism of the minority’s subordinate and infinitely ever more constrainable situation.

That is to say, of a situation where the exercise of any of the potential freedoms of religious conscience that the minority might claim is now to be made conditional upon continuing, and always revocable, majority consent — upon the majority’s increasingly reluctant and unlikely forbearance. Continue reading “Strange reasoning”

Posted on

Bar questions premise for ‘Allah’ judgment

Christopher Leong
Malaysiakini
Oct 16, 2013

COMMENT The Malaysian Bar is deeply concerned by the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on Oct 14, 2013 in what is commonly referred to as the ‘Herald’ or ‘Allah’ case.

The concerns arise from the court’s interpretation of Article 3(1) of the federal constitution on the status of Islam and other religions and Article 11(1) and (4) on the fundamental right to profess and practice a religion.

Any interpretation of the constitution must invite the greatest scrutiny as it impacts on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens. Continue reading “Bar questions premise for ‘Allah’ judgment”

Posted on

Jakarta Post: ‘Allah’ ruling risks spreading to Indonesia

By Boo Su-Lyn
The Malay Mail Online
October 17, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 17 — Malaysia’s court ruling on Muslims’ exclusivity over “Allah” could inspire Indonesians of the faith to lay the same claim over the Arabic word, Jakarta Post warned in an editorial yesterday.

The English-language daily in Indonesia noted that religious exclusivism was equally strong in Indonesia, “if not stronger” than in neighbouring Malaysia, citing previous debates like whether non-Muslims should be allowed to say the traditional Arabic phrases “Assalamu’alaikum” (peace be upon you), “Alhamdulillah” (praise be to God) and “Insya Allah” (God willing).

“It’s only a matter of time before someone takes the cue from Malaysia and starts raising objections to non-Muslims using the word Allah,” Jakarta Post wrote in an editorial titled “No one has monopoly claim to God: On the use of ‘Allah’ in Malaysia”.

“No one who believes in the power of one supreme God can really claim exclusivity. There is no such thing as the God for Catholics, just as there is no such thing as the God or Allah for Muslims,” added the newspaper.

Jakarta Post stressed that “those who claim exclusivity to God undermine their own faith, and inadvertently or not, preach polytheism”. Continue reading “Jakarta Post: ‘Allah’ ruling risks spreading to Indonesia”

Posted on

Election Courts are worse than the Election Commission

– P Ramakrishnan
The Malaysian Insider
October 12, 2013

Yes, the Election Courts are worse than the Election Commission (EC)! The recent disappointing decisions of the Election Courts have proved that there is no hope for parliamentary democracy even in the judiciary.

If the Barisan Nasional (BN) is a great let-down for democracy, the Election Commission is an even greater let-down for the electoral process. But shockingly, the Election Courts comparatively are far worse in that they cannot dispense justice to the aggrieved party even if there was a glaring injustice.

It is clear as daylight that the BN abused the electoral process by openly bribing voters through its many projects launched especially during the period leading up to the GE13 (including the campaign period itself) by dishing out goodies and cash inducements to win over the voters. Billions of ringgit in cash or projects was dispensed freely giving an unfair disadvantage to the Opposition who were cash-strapped. Continue reading “Election Courts are worse than the Election Commission”

Posted on

We Want to Know Who Killed Altantuya

By Kee Thuan Chye
Yahoo! News
24.8.13

The Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case has taken another appalling turn. First, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who seemed to have more of a motive for killing the Mongolian model, was acquitted in 2009, without his defence being called. Now the Court of Appeal has freed the two police commandos convicted by the High Court of actually killing her and blowing her body up with a C4 explosive.

The Court of Appeal acquitted Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar because it ruled that the judge who heard the case in the High Court committed serious misdirection. Among other things, he did not allow then deputy prime minister Najib Razak’s aide-de-camp, DSP Musa Safri, a key witness, to be called to testify, and he failed to establish how the two accused came to possess the C4 and whether there was common intention between them to commit murder.

The Malaysian layman, however, doesn’t want to know the legal implications. He is concerned only with the moral aspects. He knows that Sirul made a cautioned statement describing what he and Azilah did to Altantuya that fateful night, and that he mentioned the offer of a reward of RM50,000 to RM100,000 for killing her.

This cautioned statement was ruled not permissible as evidence by the judge, Mohd Zaki Yassin, and the two commandos were never asked during the trial as to who made that offer to them. But it seemed clear that Sirul and Azilah were merely hitmen. They didn’t know the victim. If they had a motive to kill her, it would appear to be only to collect the reward.

That being so, it was, however, never asked in court who instructed them to kill Altantuya. To the layman, it is extremely strange that the prosecution did not ask that crucial question. Continue reading “We Want to Know Who Killed Altantuya”

Posted on

In Borders case, common sense triumphs over bad faith

by Debra Chong
The Malay Mail Online
August 20, 2013

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 20 — In the face of Malaysia’s rising religious conservatism, a civil court judge has boldly ruled on reason and common sense to uphold a Muslim storekeeper’s constitutional right to sell a book Islam’s gatekeepers here found offensive.

The court case involving the local Borders’ sale of Canadian author Irshad Manji’s book “Allah, Liberty and Love” has been closely-watched since it hit national headlines last year after Islamic enforcement officials seized the stock and charged the store manager Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz with violating publication and distribution laws.

Five months after pronouncing the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (JAWI), the home minister and the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Islamic affairs guilty of abusing their powers to illegally prosecute the bookstore’s Muslim manager, Datuk Zaleha Yusof of the Kuala Lumpur High Court has finally released her grounds of judgment.

Though couched in the language of the court, the judge’s strongly-worded explanation kept to a strict interpretation of the law that has given hope to Malaysians that their civil liberties as laid down in the country’s founding document remain as robust as the day they were conceived half a century ago.

“I am satisfied that the applicants have shown existence of illegality, abuse of discretionary powers, irrationality, unreasonable exercise of power, unconstitutionally and that there exists procedural impropriety on the part of the respondents,” Zaleha wrote in her grounds of judgment released last week. Continue reading “In Borders case, common sense triumphs over bad faith”

Posted on

The role of public interest litigation

– Dr. R. Rueban Balasubramaniam
The Malaysian Insider
August 19, 2013

After the recent general election, Malaysian democrats have again been frustrated. Once more, the United Malay National Organization (“UMNO”) emerged victorious, though many believe this was the most fraudulent election in Malaysia’s political history. Now, democrats are redoubling their efforts to reveal such fraud and to seek electoral reform at least with an eye to winning the next election.

Democrats take solace in the fact that UMNO is on very vulnerable political terrain; it cannot compete fairly within upon a democratic playing field, but they should not just exert political pressure on UMNO. They can use another strategy: public interest litigation designed to embarrass UMNO’s ethnocratic political program, a program rooted in an authoritarian and discriminatory principle of Malay political dominance. Through such litigation, democrats can cast further doubt on UMNO’s claim to exercise legitimate political rule.

At present, Malaysia has no tradition of public interest litigation. This, despite the existence of a supreme written Constitution that contains a bill of rights and provisions that protect important group interests within a rubric of legal equality and provisions that express the principles of the separation of powers and federalism, which guard against the excessive concentration of power in any single organ of government. It is plain that the constitutional framework imposes legal discipline upon political power in a way that is hostile to authoritarian rule that is readily amenable to public interest litigation. Continue reading “The role of public interest litigation”

Posted on

Demanding that the accused prove innocence is utter rubbish!

— P Ramakrishnan
The Malay Mail Online
August 13, 2013

AUG 13 — The accepted legal norm is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. That is the basic law. That is the golden thread of the law. That is the basis of justice.

It appears that Ranjit Singh Dhillon, the Penang Bar Committee’s criminal law chairman, has totally ignored this time-honoured principle by demanding that Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Karpal Singh declare their assets to prove their innocence. This is ridiculous!

If this was Ranjit Singh’s personal view, that would be of no consequence. But this view was stated in his capacity as an official of the Penang Bar – that makes it preposterous!

Malaysians would like to know if the Penang Bar shares Ranjit’s absurd view or does it disassociate itself from this view? This must be stated immediately and clearly. Malaysians should not be left wondering what has happened to the Penang Bar. Isn’t justice and fairness the paramount concern of the Bar? This must rightly be so.

Ranjit’s sober position should have been to ask the accuser to make a police report and provide the MACC with the so-called evidence in his possession that suggests that there was corruption in the conduct of these two Pakatan leaders. In this manner, he would have facilitated the commencement of criminal investigation by both the police and the MACC. Unfortunately, Ranjit did not do this. He did not promote the cause of justice.

What are the facts? Continue reading “Demanding that the accused prove innocence is utter rubbish!”

Posted on

Stupid Prank and Double Standards

By Kee Thuan Chye
msn
23 July 2013

Alvin Tan Jye Yee and Vivian Lee May Ling, collectively known as Alvivi, are now in prison, awaiting trial. The judge denied them bail after they pleaded not guilty to three charges related to alleged sedition, causing enmity between people of different religions, and displaying pornographic pictures on their blog.

The charges – under the Sedition Act, the Film Censorship Act and the Penal Code – are pretty serious. If found guilty, they could go to jail for some years. Not a bright prospect for two supposedly smart people in their mid-20s.

But why were they not granted bail? What further harm could they inflict? Whom could they harm? How severe, really, is their offence? Even people charged with committing far worse offences, like rape, have been given bail.

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail says Alvivi were denied bail because of their tendency to post content on their blog that could potentially anger the public.

I think that’s being presumptuous. It is not backed up with any evidence. Besides, potentially angering the public is a poor excuse. And since we are engaging in making assumptions, I would hazard that it’s very unlikely that the duo would still opt to arouse public anger after having faced those serious charges. In fact, even before they were arrested, they had already apologised. Continue reading “Stupid Prank and Double Standards”

Posted on

Pakatan’s uphill GE13 battle in the courts

The Malaysian Insider
July 15, 2013

The simple summary of Pakatan Rakyat’s suit in court today is that it did not get a fair election. The question now is, what can and will the courts do?

No matter how you slice or dice it, it is tough for Pakatan to win its suit against the Election Commission (EC) because courts here are loath to disturb anything to do with elections. It is even rare for election courts to overturn polls results.

What more nullifying the whole Election 2013.

Also, Malaysian courts have in recent years not demonstrated a willingness to confront the government of the day on various issues – be it conversions of minors to land matters.

That said, it is remains important for Pakatan to thoroughly detail its cases in which it believed fraud prevented it from winning on May 5, 2013. In dispute are at least 43 seats before the courts.

But what is quite clear is that the EC’s handling of the indelible ink over the past five years would have made the Keystone Kops proud. Never have we seen a commission blunder and make a hash of things the way it has. Continue reading “Pakatan’s uphill GE13 battle in the courts”