The forum that never happened

Yesterday morning, the Bar Council attempted to hold a forum that was highly protested against. In the end, the forum had to be prematurely ended due to security reasons. 300 (some say 500) people, Muslims, gathered in front of the Bar Council HQ in protest, claiming that the forym was an act of provocation, and clearly trying to undermine Islam and its status in Malaysia.

To make my stand clear, I stand on the Bar Council’s side. I think a forum like the one that didn’t happen yesterday is an important step for the Malaysian community in general to voice their concerns and move towards solving the problems of grey areas when it comes to the law and religion.

I also disagree with the parties who said that the forum should have been a closed-door forum, instead of a public one. It is BECAUSE there are so many different views on this matter that it is important for the forum to be a public one. It is so that anyone who is interested can attend and hear of what transpires. If it were to be behind closed doors, there would be more cause for worry as there would be no way to know what exactly transpires during the forum. And most importantly, the public would not stand to gain as much.

But that being said, it’s not like the forum held yesterday saw much success. Contrary to what Ambiga said (that it was a success), I think the overall purpose of the forum was not even met, let alone it being a success. To me, the forum didn’t happen. The opposite of what the forum was supposed to have set out to achieve was instead what had happened. We did not see a more peaceful, civilised inter-religious discussion. We saw religious-polarisation.

To call the people who attended the forum names and to spout hateful sentiments towards the Bar Council for attempting to hold the forum is simply wrong. On the other hand, to call the demonstrators islamic-extremists who shame the beautiful religion of Islam is also plainly wrong.

To call each other barbaric and insulting names is the easy way out. But to truly create a multi-religious, multi-racial Malaysia where everyone respects everyone else, nothing is easy.

What do the demonstrators expect by calling the forum an “Islam-bashing exercise”? What do they gain by saying “Musnah Bar Council”?

What do we expect to gain if we call the demonstrators Islamic-extremists who don’t use their brains and are cavemen who don’t want to see development?

The answer is just one word: Nothing.

Forums as such will have to happen. It is for a better Malaysia if we can one day finally sit and talk about our concerns and differences without going at each other’s throats.

I don’t have any real suggestions or answers as to how such a forum can be held in the future. But I recognise its importance. I also recognise that there are some sensitivities that need to be addressed at the same time if we are to see forums like this become a successful event in the future. Nothing will happen if we thrust their concerns out the window, and deem them irrelevant. But nothing will happen if we sweep such “sensitive” issues under the carpet as well.

The protest that stopped the forum was unfortunate, not because there was a protest, but because it was one laced with vulgar words and attempted violence.

But no matter how I think they went overboard, the ISA should not be used against any one of them, assuming that it was, or will be. Two wrongs don’t make a right.


Renunciation of Islam

PUTRAJAYA, Aug 5 — A woman who converted to Islam failed today in her appeal before the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s refusal to allow her application for a declaration that she had the right to renounce Islam and embrace Christianity.

Justice Datuk Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud in a 2-1 majority decision said the appeal brought by the 35-year-old woman was incompetent before the court as the person (appellant) named in the originating summons at the High Court stage no longer existed — she had changed her name to a Muslim one.

Full article on Malaysian Insider HERE.

The general story behind this incident is that this woman first converted to Islam because she wanted to marry a Muslim man. What her religion was before this has not been stated. They divorced in 1997. In 2003, she fully embraced Christianity, affirmed through a deed poll and an SD. She also reverted back to using her original name.

She states Article 11 of the Constitution as one of her bases:

(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

(3) Every religious group has the right:

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

(4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

(5) This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

That’s Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.

My personal take on the renunciating of Islam, or any other religion, is that it shouldn’t be done on your own whims and fancies. Religion is a serious thing, and renunciating a particular religion, any religion, should be done only after giving it serious thought, and having considered the consequences.

For me, this woman has went to court in the attempt to change her name back to her original name, her contention being that she never really practised, or embraced Islam, and only converted to be a Muslim because of her marriage to her ex-husband.

To go to court is a serious decision. This shows her determination in wanting to fully embrace Christianity.

I don’t know if there are any laws in Islam that forbid people like her to convert to another religion. And I will not pretend to know any.

But if it is in accordance to Article 11, I would say that she has a right to profess to Christianity as her religion, and her way of life. And if to practice Christianity, she has to renounce Islam, why stop her?

Why bound her into something that she doesn’t even follow? Her heart is not with Islam, her heart lies with Christianity. And the courts have decided not to allow her to ‘divorce’ herself from Islam. It is almost like being stuck in a marriage that has lost all its love and hope, while carrying on with an extra-marital relationship.

She just wants to live the rest of her life as a Christian.

This is not even about disrespect for Islam. It is out of respect for Islam as a religion that she has decided to go to court to officially say that she is now no longer a Muslim, and wishes that her documents will also state the same. it is out of respect for Islam as a religion that she wants to make things clear. Wouldn’t it be more disrespectful if a person stayed a Muslim in name, but Christian in faith?

There are people in Malaysia who secretly don’t practice Islam as their religion anymore. I don’t know any of them personally, but I’ve read of their existence. They have not went to court, or gone through the ordeal that this woman or Lina Joy went through, but can we blame them when we have precedences like this?

And perhaps there was one part of the above article that I found especially difficult to accept:

Selangor legal advisor Datin Paduka Zauyah Be Loth Khan, representing the state, submitted that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant in her SD had used her Muslim name but when she signed the SD, she used her Chinese name.

Zauyah said even if the appellant used her Muslim name in the appeal, the appeal was also incompetent because in her SD and deed poll, she stated that she was not going to use her Muslim name anymore.

She cannot use her Chinese name, because she used her Muslim name in the SD. But in the same SD, she said she wouldn’t be using her Muslim name anymore, so she also cannot use her Muslim name.

Then pray tell, what name can she use?


PAS and UMNO to become a 2-in-1?

Politics in Malaysia is becoming weirder and weirder for me. Never in my right mind would I have imagined a scenario where PAS and UMNO are no more, and they both join to become another party, say.. PASNO or something like that.

But it seems that after Pak Lah revealed that both parties have indeed been carrying out dialogues for the sake of “Malay unity” (or “Islam-unity”, depending on what news you read), PASNO is becoming a possibility of sorts.

The Tok Guru, Nik Aziz, is not for the dialogues between PAS and UMNO. He sees it as akin to “sleeping with the enemy”. One wouldn’t blame him I suppose, for all the bad experience he had prior to this when PAS joined hands with UMNO for a brief stint back in 1969.

But now, the Tok Guru is suggesting this:

“Umno should dissolve, Pas should also dissolve. Set up another party on condition that it is based on Islam.”

Before the non-Muslims jump up and cry foul, the Tok Guru has this to add:

“Islam is for all communities, not just the Malays … the Chinese, Indians and Orang Putih (westerners) … they have to be united under the umbrella of Islam.”

Quotes from Malaysian Insider HERE.

I personally don’t think that this is very feasible at all. In my opinion, religion and politics should be kept far away from each other.

But I have to admit, the Tok Guru is pretty smart. He has now very effectively thrown the ball back to UMNO. He’s basically saying: “So, what say you? You want unity, then let’s talk unity, but under MY conditions”.

But I do have a few questions, assuming that UMNO is really willing to dissolve and join arms with PAS to form PASNO (or a party of some other name).

Will PASNO be under Barisan Nasional, or under Pakatan Rakyat? This is of utmost importance, because there are 70+ seats under UMNO, and 20+ seats under PAS. If PASNO comes under BN, then BN would have a 2/3 majority. If under PR, then PR would be the Fed Govt.

But the first question is assuming that all of them get to retain their seats. In the first place, are they allowed to still be MPs? Or would there be a need to call for snap polls? Would all of them have to give up their MP seats? If they do, how many are willing?

And they should also bear in mind, most of UMNO supporters are against PAS, and vice versa. How assured are they that if they form PASNO, their supporters wouldn’t go elsewhere?

Some serious thinking is needed, if at all they are considering this option.

_____________

That aside, I’m not for it. I repeat myself: I think religion and politics should be as far away from each other as possible.

And besides, I’m not too happy with what’s happening under PAS these days either.

For example, the cancellation of Inul’s concert. The one in JB was cancelled at the very last minute, and now even the KL concert was cancelled:

According to news reports, Nasir Abu Bakar of IMS Prima Sdn Bhd (the concert organiser) said that he was disappointed with the decision because the Central Committee for Filming and Performance by Foreign Artiste had given the green light for the event. “We received the directive from DBKL to cancel the concert due to national security. If that is the reason, there is nothing else I can say,” he told the media.

From the StarOnline HERE.

“National security”? I’m trying my best to see it the way they do, but I simply cannot see the reasoning. What national security?

Just because she dances “erotically” doesn’t mean that there are “national security” issues. If there are people who just cannot stand to watch women dance that way, I suggest that these people just stay away. The reasoning of “national security” makes it sound like as if though the concert and the sight of Inul dancing erotically will cause a wave of sex-drives awakening, followed by a tsunami of rape and extra-marital sex cases.

If men have that little self-control, they should probably start locking themselves in, instead of it being the other way round. I’m sure it’s not the case, not all men are sex-hungry fanatics. But PAS sure is making it seem that way.

I’m not Islamic, but I’m sure there are a lot more things in Islam than just covering up. Issues like poverty deserve more attention than whether an artiste’s dance moves are too sexual.


Khir Toyo’s “impian”

I was wondering if it was even worth writing about this. It seems more and more of the politicians today, be they from either side of the political see-saw, are spouting absolute nonsense.

But if we keep quiet about things, some people tend to mistake that silence for “support” and “agreement”. So here goes.

Excerpt from Khir Toyo’s blog:

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim memang tidak mahu Melayu bersatu kerana itulah beliau tubuhkan Pakatan Rakyat yang berjuang atas prinsip kesamarataan, menyamakan taraf agama Islam dengan agama lain, menyamaratakan kedudukan orang Melayu dengan bangsa lain, walaupun memiliki status bumiputera. Sebab itulah Anwar dapat menarik sokongan yang besar daripada golongan ekstremis Cina melalui DAP dan ekstremis India melalui Hindraf.

Saya tidak mengimpikan Pas dan UMNO bersatu dalam bentuk fizikal parti atau ideologi politik. Tapi saya mengimpikan kesatuan orang Melayu dalam erti mempertahankan kedudukan dan agenda Islam dan Melayu di negara ini.

Saya impikan biar parti mana pun yang menang pilihan raya, kedudukan agama Islam dan Orang Melayu kekal dan terus dipertahankan. Bukan seperti sekarang ini sudah terdapat “penggadaian” terhadap status quo Islam dan Melayu dalam usaha membeli pengaruh dan sokongan bukan Melayu.

Impian saya juga untuk melihat Melayu kembali menjadi tunjang politik negara yang akan menstabilkan politik tanah air, menjadi kenyataan.

I can’t really be bothered translating it word for word. Suffice to say that in a nutshell, Khir Toyo’s “dream” is that the Malays will unite to defend the status and agenda of Malays and Islam in Malaysia, unlike the “sacrifice” of the status quo of Islam and Malays in efforts to buy support from non-Malays that is apparently happening now.

Obviously, his dream doesn’t involve the non-Malays. it doesn’t involve the other 40% of Malaysia’s population. Oh, wait. It doesn’t involve the non-Malay Bumis as well, so maybe the percentage is slightly higher than 40%. i don’t know.

To me, he just shot himself in the foot. Why wouldn’t we want equality, kesamarataan? What problem does he have with that?

Whatalulu calls him a pompous racist idiot.
Crankshaft calls this a bad case of racism.
Malaysian Joe says he is trying tostoke more racial based statements“.
Other people on Malaysiakini have more to say.

To Khir Toyo, Hindraf is Indian-extremist. DAP is Chinese-extremist. Well, there have been comments that PAS is Islam-extremist, and UMNO is Malay-extremist. PKR have been described as power-extremist by some. As for the other parties, no such comments. Maybe they’re weak-extremists then.

I don’t know. Are any of them really extremists? “Extreme” is a very strong word.

ANYWAY…

He implicates that Islam should not be disamaratakan with other religions. If his argument comes from the Constitution, I beg to differ. The Constitution says that Islam is the official religion. Yes. But it also says that other religions are to be allowed to be practised freely in peace and harmony. Nowhere in the Constitution, even if you squint your eyes to read between the lines, does it say that Islam is one-up compared to other religions. Nowhere does it say that Islam reigns supreme over other religions in Malaysia.

If his argument comes from his own belief in Islam, I’m probably not in the best position to criticise. But I THINK I remember reading that in Islam, all men (and women) were created by Allah s.w.t. (or God). Not just Muslims, but ALL of mankind. And I believe that makes ALL of us brothers/sisters. Or is that not true?

Then, he implicates that the Malay race should not be made to be “on the same level” as other races, because the Malays are bumiputera. I assume he makes this judgement from the Constitution, where it says that Malays, along with the natives of Sabah and Sarawak have a “special position” in Malaysia. Nowhere, though, does it say that Malays and non-Malays have a different level of citizenship. Nowhere does it say that Malays are of a “supreme” race, or even a better one.

The “Malay unity” that Khir Toyo is dreaming of cannot happen until and unless all the Malays in Malaysia decide that they want to hold the power to be first-class citizens in Malaysia. It cannot happen until and unless all the Malays in Malaysia decide that they alone have the privilege to call Malaysia home, and anyone else of any other race and religion does not. It cannot happen until and unless there are no more non-Malays in Malaysia.

Sometimes I wonder, if this is what Khir Toyo and a few others are dreaming of. A Malaysia made up of only Malays, and no other people. A land of Malays-only.

For whatever it is that I “lack” by virtue of being a non-Muslim and a non-Malay, I think I make up for it by working harder, studying harder, thinking harder, praying harder, and striving harder for a better Malaysia. My love for the country is no less than that of the next person. My being not Malay and Muslim does not make me “one level lower” than those who are.

There can be no national unity if we talk of Malay-unity, or Chinese-unity, or Indian-unity or [race/religion]-unity. Because this nation is not monolithic. It is not made up of one race, one religion, one kind of people. We hail our diversity, we USE our diversity to attract tourists from other countries. We call ourselves “Truly Asia” not without a reason. We are many. We are so many. For us to be one, we have to find common ground. And that ground is that all of us are Malaysians.


We should now start running scared….

…I think that’s what Liow Tiong Lai is wanting to do. To make us run scared. In which direction? Doesn’t matter, as long as it’s away from Anwar.

KUALA LUMPUR: PKR’s de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has attempted to introduce Hudud Law by bringing the sodomy allegation made by his former assistant to Syariah Court, said MCA Youth chief Datuk Liow Tiong Lai.

He said Anwar should bring the case to civil courts instead as sodomy was a crime.

DAP should make it stand on this as Anwar is trying to bring Hudud Law to the country,” he said after presenting scrolls to Tunku Abdul Rahman College graduates at the college here Sunday.

Full article here.

This is just nonsense. Pure nonsense uttered either because (1) he didn’t use his brain, or (2) he thinks we don’t use our brains.

This started off as a civil case, yes. Saiful first reported the alleged sodomy to the police, and the police investigated it under civil law.

I personally don’t think it should be brought to the Syariah Court. But I don’t call the shots here. Neither am I a lawyer. But before Liow says something like this, shouldn’t he also know that the challenge from Saiful to mubahalah was what made it a religious affair? I don’t think swearing on the Qu’ran is something you do in Civil Court to prove your innocence.

So wouldn’t it be fair to say that it was Saiful who first made it a Muslim vs Muslim affair? And when it’s a Muslim vs Muslim affair, isn’t it also fair that the case be trialed in the Syariah Court, according to the provisions under Syariah Laws?

What has anything got to do with implementing, or introducing Hudud Laws?

When both sides are Muslim, and they wish so to bring it to the Syariah Court, it’s their choice. Both are willing. They both want to. Both Saiful and Anwar have NOT complained in any way against using the Syariah Courts to determine their case.

And Liow Tiong Lai want to make a fuss out of this? Out of nothing?

Because seriously, if he wants to make a fuss of “Hudud Laws”, perhaps he would want to look into the cases of “body-snatching”. Like, for example, when a member of a Hindu family dies, and the authorities say that he died a Muslim, but the family doesn’t agree. Does this case go to the Civil Courts, or the Syariah Court? It SHOULD rightfully be trialed in the Civil Court, because the family of the deceased are of Hindu faith. But NO, in dear old Malaysia, it goes to the Syariah Court. Isn’t this real-life example even worse than what Anwar has presented here?

And Liow Tiong Lai keeps his mouth shut on that one? Why? Because the family’s not Chinese? Or just because the parties involved are not politicians from the opposition?

Get real. There are more pressing issues to look into. Don’t go plucking non-issues like “Anwar trying to introduce Hudud Laws”. If anything, I’d say “Liow Tiong Lai is trying to scare the hell out of the non-Muslims”.