KJ John: Whither Malaysia?

Updated! This opinion piece by KJ John captures the essence of the deteriorating religious problem Malaysia is facing in its 50th year as a nation. I reproduce it here (hoping he doesn't mind) because it is a must read for all Malaysians concerned at the rate our nation is heading towards a disaster if nothing is done to put a stop to the continual subversion of our Federal Constitution. Do check out Haris Ibrahim's blog as well for a look into the same problem from a legal angle.

Update (7 July, 1:47pm):You would have remembered that Tun Dr Mahathir in an interview had said that a Malay could renounce Islam as long as he/she is willing to also give up the special privileges due to them due to the way a Malay is defined in the Constitution. Now Pak Lah was apparently reported to say to reporters at the sidelines of an international Islamic seminar that we should not forbid Muslims from converting if that is what they want. Quoting him:

"I have always told the religious departments to listen to their grouses why they want to leave the religion. We have to be ready to listen and to resolve the problem," he told reporters on the sidelines of an international Islamic seminar.

"This is not something that cannot be done (leaving Islam). It has happened before. For those who don't want to be Muslim anymore, what can you do?"

The thing is, would his voice (after being in "elegant silence" for so long) regarding this increasingly worrying problem be repeated in our country, and be turned into action and put a final stop to all the mess created by self-righteous folks hell-bent in subverting this nation to suit their own religious agenda? Let's all pray and hope that he will act on his words, even if it is for this one thing only.

-----------------------------

Whither Malaysia?
KJ John
Jul 10, 07 12:17pm
http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/69709

Something is going fundamentally very wrong in Malaysia today. We have a written 50-year-old Federal and Secular Constitution which clearly defines the limits of jurisdiction of Islamic or Syariah law as, it applies only to personal and family matters.

But, it appears that there are more and more cases of jurisdictional abuse by the religious or morality police, called the Majlis Agama Islam. The most recent cases were the “abuse” of a Malay singer in Ipoh for being improperly attired and the raid on Indian restaurants for displaying different religious symbols. These are not personal and family matters. They are civil and public square issues.

Last week, we had the release of M Revathi from an Islamic rehabilitation centre. She was born to Muslim parents, grew up as a Hindu with her grandparents, claims to be one and was married to another Hindu and the couple have a child. Recently she was taken into custody for rehabilitation for almost six months.

Her case in the Civil Court was up for hearing but she was released before that. The attempt to cleverly release her made the matter only an academic one, according to the judge. The matter is more than academic, and I am sorry that the judge found the easy way out.

The case involves fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and abused by the Islamic religious department. It also shows their insincerity and lack of willingness to test the jurisdictional issue before the federal civil courts of law. The religious police and the Syariah Courts have now given their views on the matter of her personal faith. To them she is and always will be Muslim.

She turns up in court clearly wearing the symbols of being a Hindu and has sworn that she is not a Muslim; and never was. But who is the definer of the truth and who is the enforcer? Now, to really enforce the decision, is it now the responsibility of the Syariah Department to set up a criminal division to enforce their law? How else can they do it? I thought this was the very reason that the police advised the state government in Terengganu not to enforce the so-called Syariah Islamic Administration in the state because the police have no authority to enforce it, under our Constitution?

Where are we heading?

What has really changed? Or, are we now saying that the Islamic religious department can enforce their ruling that she live with her grandparents? Have they become the new moral and religious police in the public spaces of Malaysia? But really, under which jurisdiction and is it still consistent with the Federal Constitution? Come on Malaysia, where are we really heading?

The word and concept of ‘secular,’ was always used by the Constitutional drafters to define our document of destiny. It does not mean being “anti-religious” or “anti-theistic” but rather denies that any one specific and particular religious worldview of right and wrong was the guiding and sole parameter for the rules and regulations of Malaysia. Another way to understand it is that the Federal Constitution is religion-neutral when enforcing its principle and articles.

Therefore, in the specific case of Syariah law, the ninth schedule clearly defined its status within the state enactments. It was designed to be limited to private and personal family matters, wherein such laws already exist for procedures to fulfill some Islamic teaching.

Therefore, while the Constitution is secular, in its reading and interpretation of rights, the framers’ worldviews were not atheistic. We can therefore view the secular as always a subset of a sacred worldview. The late Tun Suffian quote I used in the last column clearly defines that there is a clear and specific domain in which reason and logic of universal truth forms provide the underlying basis of laws and regulations, rather than the dictates of any one specific worldview.

Often, these guiding values are “the mores of the culture,” or the “morality” of that particular culture at any point in time is what reigns in public space. Such public space morality is always defined premised upon religious values, and especially originating from many religious value systems which are commonly accepted as agreeable by the culture. Usually they are a local, global and of universal value.

Secular system

As such, as crafted in our secular Constitution, even the words, “Islam as the religion of the Federation” cannot be used to create an over-riding value system for our civic rules and regulations. That would be arbitrary and careless to the spirit of the original Federal Constitution and all her related Articles. For, even within the same Article, the roles of every other religion of the federation and their concomitant freedoms of worship are equally protected and preserved. Moreover the freedom of worship is recognised as a personal and private matter in Article 11.

Therefore, whether we like it or not, our current Federal Constitution guarantees our multi-religious framework of existence and we can therefore only remain a secular system, in the purest meaning of what is secular.

Real politick would dictate that unless we can amend major segments of the Federal Constitution with a two-thirds majority; and the Rulers Council agrees, there can be no major changes in this specific construction of the Constitution. Thereby, even an idealist party like PAS may have to realistically refine their mission to realise that their vision of an Islamic state in Malaysia can only operate within the constraints of the current Federal Constitution. This is purely a rational and legal position on the subject.

The case of Revathi has now hit the world press and has demonstrated the current confusion in Malaysia’s judicial system; and the full and apparent existence of two standards of justice in the public spaces of life - one for Muslims, as dictated by the State Enactments, and another by profession for the non-Muslims by their choice of conscience. This was never intended by the framers of the Constitution.

How can we possibly have a case where a person who says she is a Hindu but is put in rehabilitation for six months under the Islamic Religious Department. The case is fundamentally really no different than the Lina Joy case, with a slight twist. Now that Revathi is released with certain conditions, my question is who is responsible to “enforce the decision?” What if her elderly parents cannot enforce the conditions; or do not want to enforce these conditions, do we put them in prison as well under rehabilitation?

After all, as she has stated, after her time in rehabilitation; she is not ever going to become a Muslim, try as much as they all want. What then is the real resolution? For her to migrate as well to another country? What about her personal rights and civil liberties as a citizen?

Or, is the government-based religious department willing to confine her to life imprisonment? Would that be within the law of the land? Is that what Islam is really all about; faith practiced through force and compulsion? Surely not, because there is no compulsion in Islam! How then does one rationalise all this that is happening in the 21st century? Maybe it is time for all civil-minded and moderate Malaysian citizens to hold a peace march for Revathi. Maybe it is time to stop our 50th year celebrations to think through the ugly nation we are slowly but surely turning ourselves into.

Seriously, this thing cannot go on; when the religious department officers become thugs and enforce their own non-public space rules. They have no federal power of the law on such matters which are not criminal but seem to treat people as if they are criminals. Things are really getting out of hand, and I believe that the nation must not be careless with what is happening, as we are fanning emotions among the Hindu adherents and all non-Muslim citizens, even as the world watches.

It is to our shame therefore that we claim to be a progressive Islamic nation when there is lack of integrity and credibility in how the Federal Secular Constitution is understood, interpreted and enforced in Malaysia. I hope the judicial system and the attorney general will take charge of the matter before it is too late. We are not an Islamic state and can never be one based on the current Constitution. The current crop of the Rulers’ Council are all well trained and studied in matters of the law.

Raja Nazrin, the Regent of Perak, has already made his very clear articulation to defend the dignity of the Constitution. Maybe the Bar Council must consider a civil action suit to test the Constitutionality of the Revathi case and many other cases wherein the Federal Constitutional rights and privileges of basic civil liberties which are guaranteed and protected, are being abused in the name of religion.