Johore a key battle ground for the vision of a Malaysian Dream as a unifying factor for all Malaysians and an antidote to the revival of extremist and intolerant racist politics in five months after 13GE

Johore is a key battleground for the vision of a Malaysian Dream as a unifying factor for all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region and antidote to the revival of extremist and intolerant racist politics in the five months after the 13th general elections on May 5, 2013.

In fact, the Vision of a Malaysian Dream was given expression in the Battle of Gelang Patah in the 13th General Elections, as a direct response to irresponsible and reckless campaign by UMNO politicians, led by former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir, to racialise the Gelang Patah contest in particular and the 13th general election in general.

But Gelang Patah was a major failure for Mahathir, particularly his irresponsible and reckless campaign to racialise the Gelang Patah battle between former Mentri Besar Datuk Ghani Othman and myself by falsely and mischievously alleging that I had wanted to create a “racial confrontation” and that I was seeking to incite the Chinese to hate the Malays.

In fact, far from trying to racialise the electoral battle, it was in pursuit of the Malaysian Dream as a rallying point of unity for all races in the country  that was behind my high-risk decision to leave the Ipoh Timor parliamentary seat, where I had won with a majority of over 21,000 votes in the 2008 GE, to contest in the Barisan Nasional fortress of Gelang Patah which BN had won with some 9,000-vote majority in the 2008 GE and a humoungous 31,688-vote majority in the 2004 GE.

There was no surety that I could win in Gelang Patah. In fact, there was a lot of concern that I would lose as I had seemed to have bitten more than I could chew, especially with top UMNO campaigners like Tun Mahathir and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin calling on the voters to make Gelang Patah my “graveyard”.

There was not an ounce of truth in Mahathir’s allegations, but it was most significant that Mahathir’s allegations and lies failed to make any impression on the voters, particularly the Malay voters, as I could not have won Gelang Patah with a majority of over 14,000 votes without the support of the Malay voters.

In the past five months, UMNO leaders led by Mahathir are back on their irresponsible and reckless campaign trail, with their preposterous allegations and lies that the 13th General Election was proof that the Chinese in Malaysia were out to oust the political power of the Malays and to dominate Malaysian politics.

This is why there is a need for  Malaysians to embrace the Vision of a Malaysian Dream as an antidote to the revival of extremist and intolerant brand of racist politics, totally antithetical to the Bangsa Malaysia concept in Vision 2020 conceived by Mahathir himself  more than two decades ago or the 1Malaysia Policy of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

As the state which had wrought the greatest changes in the 13th General Election, ending Umno and MCA’s hitherto unchallenged stranglehold  on Johore as a “fixed deposit state” and with Pakatan Rakyat winning the most number of increased State Assembly seats – from 6 in 2008 to 18 in 2009, one seat short of denying Barisan Nasional two-thirds majority in the Johore State Assembly – Johore will be a key battleground for the Vision of Malaysian Dream.

This is most appropriate as  it was in Johore 62 years ago that the great Johore Malay leader and founding UMNO President Datuk Onn Jaffar proved he was  far ahead of his times when he made the historic call for the opening up of Umno to non-Malay members and to change Umno to mean United Malayans National Organisation.

This will be the greatest challenge for the DAP and Pakatan Rakyat leaders, MPs and State Assembly members in Johore in the next few years, how to get the people of Johore to play a leading role in the country in the fulfillment of the Malaysian Dream, viz:

Firstly, to get all voters of DAP and Pakatan Rakyat to be advocates of the Malaysian Dream to build a Malaysia for all Malaysians and not a Malay Malaysia, Chinese Malaysia, Indian Malaysia, Kadazan Malaysia or Iban Malaysia; and

Secondly, to spread the message of the Malaysian Dream to non-DAP and Pakatan Rakyat areas to enlist the support of more Malaysians to the Vision of a Malaysian Dream to call for the end of politics of race, corruption, cronyism and abuses of power.

As Johore DAP State Secretary, Tan Chen Choon (Assemblyman for Jementah) said to  the press yesterday, 15 DAP elected representatives in Johore (four DAP MPs and 11 State Assembly members) who met in Simpang Rengam on Saturday night have reached a consensus on building a more united, cohesive and purposive political force in Johore – that internal party problems should be resolved through  internal party channels.

With this consensus by the DAP Johore leadership, the stage is set for the great challenge of the DAP Johore as well as DAP Pakatan Rakyat – to transform Johore as the key battle ground in the country for the vision of a Malaysian Dream as an antidote to the revival of extremist and intolerant racist politics in the past five months.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 14 October 2013, 4:06 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Malaysian Dream
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Parliament Must Replace Najib with Tengku Razaleigh

M. Bakri Musa

14.10.03

Malaysia cannot afford Najib Razak’s continued inept leadership. As UMNO has failed to terminate his leadership, and the next election is too far away, it is now up to Parliament to do the necessary. Najib, who is also Finance Minister, will table his budget on October 25, an opportune time for Parliament to pass a no-confidence vote on the budget – and hence his leadership – thus forcing the son of Tun Razak (TR-1) to resign. MPs have a far greater duty beyond loyalty to their leader, and that is loyalty to their country.

            With the Will and Guidance of Allah, SWT, Najib can spare himself this unprecedented disgrace and simultaneously relieve his fellow parliamentarians of this distasteful chore by ceding the Prime Ministership to Tengku Razeleigh (TR-2). By gracefully withdrawing now, Najib could return later to lead his party for the 14th national election, and would be a better leader for this voluntary hiatus.

            Should Najib contemplate being stubborn, he should remind himself of similar parliamentary practices resulting in the ejection of his contemporaries. In August, British MPs denied Prime Minister Cameron his motion to intervene in Syria. This defying the leader is also not alien to UMNO. TR-1 did it to Tunku Abdul Rahman, albeit in a soft, subtle way. The wise and sensitive Tunku readily saw the signals.

            A parliamentary no-confidence vote would not affect Najib’s UMNO presidency. The constitution does not mandate the leader of a ruling party should also be prime minister. That is only tradition, tenable only as long as he has Parliament’s confidence.

            As UMNO has the largest parliamentary representation, it is appropriate that one of its members should be the Prime Minister. There is no better choice than TR-2. He is a glittering gem to the sparkle of pebbles that is the current UMNO leadership. He also has the exquisite synthesis of talent and experience.

            Rest assured that TR-2 would not be preoccupied with reelections and the consequent pandering to various constituencies, Najib’s destructive obsession. He would focus exclusively on running the country. With no children, TR-2 would have no grandiose pretensions of starting a political dynasty, yet another preoccupation of current leaders.

            Malaysians can be assured that TR-2, like TR-1, would pick only the competent and untainted to be his ministers and advisors. They would reflect the man; his team would be the antithesis of Najib’s. TR-2 has no need for courtiers or cheerleaders.

            Unlike Najib, TR-2’s executive and leadership abilities have been tested inside and outside of government. Malaysians can be assured that there would be no freelancers or lone rangers in TR-2’s team spouting out offensive racial taunts. Najib on the other hand could not restrain the extremist ulamas on his payroll who think that the marriage of a Muslim to a non-Muslim is invalid.

            Najib is not up to par even when compared to his lackluster predecessor, Abdullah Badawi. With Abdullah, Malaysians within and beyond his party clearly expressed their disapproval; some politely, others less so. The man recognized this and wisely withdrew.

            Dissatisfaction with Najib is palpable even or especially within his party. However, he is a stubborn mule, and with as much insight. He must be told in no uncertain terms by Parliament that his leadership is wanting. As a dumb mule responds only to a big stick, anything less would not do it.

            Relieved from running the country, Najib could focus on ridding UMNO of its fortune seekers. They mock the party’s aspiration of Agama, Bangsa, Negara(Faith, Race, and Country). There is nothing Islamic or Malay about corruption, cheating and the plundering of our nation’s wealth. There is no reflected glory for Malays to see UMNO leaders grow glutton on hogging the public trough. Malaysia would be far better without these scoundrels.

 Leadership Crisis Akin to Post-May 1969

Parliament has the right – indeed obligation – to terminate Najib’s tenure. Malaysia today has a critical leadership crisis comparable to the post-1969 period. That too was triggered by an electoral setback suffered by the ruling coalition. We are fortunate so far to be spared the associated tragedies and destruction, despite the incendiary taunting by many.

            We cannot allow this dangerous situation to fester lest a mere spark would trigger an explosion. Already our current racial poison will take generations to detoxify, assuming it stops right now. Najib however, shows no inclination or competence to do so. Inter-racial as well as intra-racial – specifically intra-Malay – relationships are deteriorating rapidly.

            As with a fish, this rot begins at the head. The solution must therefore begin with getting rid of Najib.

            As with post-1969, citizens today yearn for a more representative or “unity” government to de-escalate the dangerously heightened social and racial polarizations. The unprecedented failure of the ruling coalition to gain the majority popular votes adds to this demand. Granted, in our “first past the post” system, the number of seats won would not necessarily correlate with the popular votes, nonetheless the stunning size of the discrepancy triggered the angst.

            Such a wide discrepancy could still be accepted if the institutions and personnel conducting the elections were truly non-partisan and have unchallenged integrity. The Malaysian Election Commission is far from either.

            That 1969 tragedy led to the resignation of Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. His successor, TR-1, set up a unity government through enlarging the old Alliance coalition to the current expanded Barisan Nasional. Such strategy would not be the best route today. The objective of a representative and reconciliative government would best be served by having the new Prime Minister invite a few talented opposition members into his administration. Consider that US President Obama, who secured a far stronger mandate than Najib, has an opposition Republican Chuck Hagel as his Defense Secretary.

            TR-2 is TR-1’s protégé. No one else, least of all Najib, could claim that. The late TR-1 was a sharp spotter of talent. He put TR-2 to set up and lead Pernas when he (TR-2) was only 32 years old, and four years later, Petronas. At Petronas, TR-2 took on the powerful global oil companies and pioneered unique and highly profitable production-sharing contracts with the oil majors that later became the model for other state oil companies. Malaysia continues to reap the bounty from that brilliant and courageous initiative.

            Unique among UMNO leaders, TR-2 has cordial relationships with the opposition; he has the credibility to execute a “unity government”. TR-2 could spot talented MPs from the opposition to be in his cabinet in the manner of TR-1.

            Those ministers from the opposition would serve as individuals and not as representatives of their parties. They would continue to serve until such time they could no longer support the government’s policy pertaining to their respective portfolios. The opposition is blessed with many bright members. It would be a great shame not to tap their talent.

            Such an initiative would break the current incestuous coupling of party positions with governmental appointments, and go a long way towards “cleansing” UMNO of its “fortune seekers.”

            Decoupling would also relieve ministers of their party’s chores. The duties of a minister are onerous enough. American cabinet secretaries for example, are freed of these extraneous burdens. Consider this UMNO election season. For months now, those UMNO ministers and government appointees have effectively abandoned their official duties; they are busy campaigning.

            UMNO is the single greatest contributor to public corruption because of the close nexus between party and government. Decoupling would sever this sinister link.

            Those party positions now held by ministers would become vacant, allowing greater upward mobility for the members. At another level, those senior party leaders would provide a much-needed system of checks and balances on their party’s governmental appointees. Currently there are no such checks and balances.

            TR-1’s unity government was instrumental in quickly restoring normalcy post-1969. Today we need Parliament to strip TR-1’s son, Najib, of his leadership to pave way for TR-2 to lead a new, invigorated unity government. We may contemplate the irony, but the action is an absolute necessity.

            Najib Razak could spare his fellow parliamentarians this distasteful chore by resigning and paving the way for TR-2. Such an action would portray Najib as someone thinking of the country ahead of himself, the very definition of a patriot. It would also be a great tribute to the memory of his father, Tun Razak.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 14 October 2013, 11:35 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Razaleigh Hamzah
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Court wrong in Allah decision, says law expert

Malaysiakini

 Oct 15, 2013

The Court of Appeal was wrong in its decision banning Christian weekly Herald from using the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God in Bahasa Malaysia, said a constitutional law expert.

 “By linking religious rights under the chapter on fundamental liberties with Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which effectively makes Islam the benchmark for everybody, this runs counter to the general meaning of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution itself,” Dr Abdul Aziz Bari told Malaysiakini today.

 “The plain meaning of Article 3(1) is simply this: that despite the fact that Islam has been made official religion, non-Muslims may go on practising their religions freely without restriction,” said the former Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) law lecturer.

He said that the implication of the decision is that it might make non-Muslims feel “unsafe” and this is contrary to the essence of the Article 3 in the constitution.

Abdul Aziz also noted that the court decision yesterday sounded like a “policy decision” – a decision that is not strictly based on law.

“Like in most countries, the judges – in critical cases – do not feel they have the strength to depart from the line taken by the executive. Not too different from what we have seen in cases involving preventive detention, election petition and Altantuya (Shaariibuu)’s murder,” he said.

 “Like many, many other decisions which the minister claimed ‘security and public order’, the judges just went along with them. In short, the judges were not willing to be proactive here.

“They obviously still live under the wartime decisions where the government has the absolute power to decide anything under the guise of security and public order,” he said.

No evidence

 Abdul Aziz said that with the court decision, the government has interfered with the way Christians practice their religion when there is no evidence that using the world ‘Allah’ can jeopardise national security and public order.

 “I do not believe the use of ‘Allah’ among Christians would create problems for the Muslims. For one thing, the Christians have their own doctrine and they are not out to tell the Muslims about it.

“As for the Muslims, they have their own doctrine that has been developed by their ulama for ages. This is the guarantee that the use of ‘Allah’ by Herald – which is not circulated among Muslims anyway – will not affect Muslims,” he said.

 Abdul Aziz also described the judges’ statement that fundamental liberties provision must be read along with Article 3 of the Federal Constitution as “startling”.

 “The only provisions that is allowed by the Constitution to override provisions for fundamental liberties – or human rights – are Article 149 on power to deal with subversion and Article 150 which deals with emergency,” he said.

 “The fundamental principle is that the court is there to protect and enhance the provisions for fundamental liberties, not to narrow them down. It is wrong for the Court of Appeal to do that.”

Link disturbing

 According to Abdul Aziz, the alleged link asserted by the judges between Article 3(1), which declares Islam as “the religion of the federation”, and Article 11(4), which allows the legislatures to protect Muslims from being proselytised (converted) is disturbing.

 “The most one could say about Article 3(1) is that the provision declares the federation’s character and perhaps, ideology.

“But Article 3(1) is not one to be used to judge or becoming benchmark for the non-Muslims. I think this is the reason why the phrase ‘other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony’ is being added towards the end of the provision.

 “I find it strange as to why the Court of Appeal did not concentrate on the right to religious freedom and instead chose to highlight the link between Article 3(1) and Article 11(4), which has less relevant here.

 “In fact, Article 11(4) could stand on its own without the support from Article 3(1).”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 11:22 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What is wrong with Umno?

― Koon Yew Yin

The Malay Mail Online

October 15, 2013

Oct 15 ― The last few weeks have seen the Umno Vice President candidate Datuk Seri Ahmad  Zahid Hamidi pull out all the stops to endear himself to the Malay heartland.  His campaign tactics have included:

1.      Promoting a shoot first policy amongst the police aimed at wiping out suspected bad hats and criminals

2.      Accusing the Chinese underworld of being masterminds behind criminal activities; Indians as hit men; and Malays as the primary victims

3.      Implying that the Tiga Line Gang, a banned Malay gang, is actually misunderstood and quite harmless, and tacitly supporting the activities of the gang. The Tiga Line is believed to have links with Malay NGO Pertubuhan Kebajikan dan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Pekida), which in turn is strongly linked with Umno.  The group is alleged to be involved in drug distribution, car-jacking and night-club protection.

Columnists from the mainstream media, notably from The Star, have tried to downplay his irresponsible and inflammatory and racially divisive speeches, claiming that he is simply burnishing his “tough-guy image” and linking his comments to the on-going leadership campaign for the three vice president positions in the party.

As articulated by The Star’s main political writer, “[a]fter all, Umno is the abbreviation for United Malays National Organisation. Its members are essentially Malay nationalists, patriotic to king and country and bound together by the religion” (see
here
).

Should we Malaysians accept this rationalisation for some of the most rabid public speeches ever made by a senior government minister?  Should we see it as just “halal” or “kosher” political talk and agree that there is nothing wrong with such talk because Zahid is a Malay nationalist?  Should we simply shrug our shoulders and accept that what Zahid and his supporters, and similar contenders for other positions, are sprouting is simply campaign talk – a position which The Star would prefer its readers to accept?

Political behaviour in Malaysia

In most other democratic countries of the world, guilty politicians making such utterances ― when exposed ― would be forced to commit political hara kiri.  Zahid’s defence of extra-judicial killings is especially contemptuous. Make no doubt about it – it is a tacit invitation to the police to engage in killings whenever they feel remotely threatened. Any other politicians with any sense of personal honour would resign or would be compelled by his superior ― in this case, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak ― to leave office.  In any other multi-racial society, the public shame and odium of these racist views would condemn the miscreant to resign and retire from public office and politics.

But not in Malaysia where they get away scot-free with the connivance of the mainstream media which not only looks the other way but also makes excuses for them.  As the cynics put it, “Malaysia Boleh!”

Far from being chastised or publicly shamed, Zahid and his supporters now think of him as the “chosen one”.  Most polls have him as the front runner amongst the vice president candidates and presumably in the running for the country’s top position in the foreseeable future.

Let’s also not forget his chequered past when he was an ally of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim but was welcomed back into the Umno fold for stating that Anwar had put him up to raising allegations of cronyism and nepotism during Tun Dr Mahathir’s time and that Anwar had also abused his position as Finance Minister to direct business opportunities to him.

Can such a man be trusted?  Apparently Umno supporters and rank and file seem to think so. The results of the race for vice president will soon be out. Meanwhile the mainstream mass media is trumpeting the election of Khairy Jamaluddin and Datuk Seri Sharizat Abdul Jalil as proof of the triumph of the liberal and progressive faction in Umno.

Rot in Umno runs deep

Many Malaysians beg to differ. One contributor to one of the most popular pro-Umno blogs has described the situation in the party well:

UMNO is being controlled by disillusioned, clueless treasure hunters.

Most ― not all ― consider Umno as second chance. The number of bankrupt aspirants vying for party positions is a case in point.

To change Umno the usual way will not work as result of current party election show.

The current govt manifests the choice of poor Malays and it is in the interest of Umno office bearers to keep them poor because they can easily be swayed by BRIM and other form of bribes. Therefore it is understandable that the more educated Malays are drifting towards PKR. It is more of “perasaan malu” to be a part of a party which has morphed into something terrible.

From this and other accounts, it is clear that the rot in the party is deep and runs from top to bottom. There are still some good people within the party but they need to put a stop to Zahid and other similar leaders or bail out from the party before they too are sucked into extremism, corruption and mis-governance.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 10:57 pm and is filed under
UMNO
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In Umno, battle is between incumbents and challengers, not reformers and right wingers

NEWS ANALYSIS BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

October 16, 2013

Malaysians should disabuse themselves of any notion that the Umno elections are a battle between reformers and conservatives or the enlightened and blinkered, as the victors of last weekend’s Umno Youth and Wanita polls would like to see it.

It is really a battle between incumbents and challengers and nothing separates them in terms of ideology. It is me first, Umno, Malays and then the national interest.

Both Khairy Jamaluddin and Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil won because they had the power of incumbency, and were supported by a push from the top which wanted to keep the status quo.

And their challengers were minnows.

Everything also points to the incumbents being returned as vice-presidents this weekend, no matter the strong challenge from the popular Tan Sri Isa Samad, Datuk Seri Ali Rustam and Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir.

Interestingly, the new enlarged electoral system tips the scale for the incumbents – Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal and Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

Why? The traditional power brokers, the division chiefs, have become even more powerful now because it is impossible for challengers to reach out to all the 146,000 voting delegates.

They can only reach out to the expanded electoral college through the division chiefs, who hold sway in their respective fiefdoms.

But the fact remains that most Umno division chiefs are motivated by personal gain, contracts, projects or just plain cold cash. They are also much closer to their peers in power than to the challengers.

In most cases, it is the incumbent with a position in government and a large war chest who is able to sway the division chief, who in turn influences the delegates in his division.

Also, with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak already returned as president and with him giving clear signals that he wants incumbents to win, not many division chiefs are willing to incur his wrath.

They might talk up the need for transformation that Najib has promoted but the reality is Umno is a feudal party and the leader decides the top party line-up in what is seen as an old boys’ network.

In the end, the challengers are just trying to break into the old boys’ network and move on up, too, rather than promote any conservative or parochial agenda.

It is about power, not a certain ideology or principles for the party. Whoever wins, the party will remain the same. – October 16, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 11:06 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in 2030

Liew Chin Tong

The Malaysian Insider

October 16, 2013

In discussing the issues we face in 2013, it will be instructive for us to find new perspective by looking beyond the horizon to consider the possibilities that 2030 holds.

Both Tun Abdullah Badawi who was Prime Minister from October 2003 till April 2009 and Dato’ Seri Najib Razak who took over from him since then have missed the boat to reform Malaysia. Likewise, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Vision 2020 is just a distant dream, a castle in the sky.

Post-13th General Election, discussions about Malaysia’s future is no longer depending on Barisan Nasional. The government-in-waiting Pakatan Rakyat and the rakyat (people) need a broader horizon as a reference for this kind of conversation.

What will 2030 look like?

Barring any unforeseen circumstances, Malaysia’s population is expected to increase in tandem with the rise in world population. Coupled with the rising life expectancy rate, this will increase Malaysia’s median age and leave us with an aging population.

The resulting demands of a population increase deserve conscientious deliberation – the needs of food security, housing, transport, water, energy, healthcare and aged care, and education – all these must be considered.

Currently the BN government’s approach towards energy and water management appears to be a race to build more water facilities and infrastructure to meet the so-called future demand. However I would argue that this is in fact the demand of cronies.

In the long run, a supply oriented water management system alone will not be sustainable without water conservation efforts. Population increase will give rise to unlimited demand but those in power have yet to recognise that the earth’s natural resources are limited.

Fundamentally, demand management is the long range goal of water conservation efforts. In the context of Selangor’s water woes, do the people really benefit from creating new water sources such as the Pahang-Selangor water transfer project? Or are such infrastructure projects a cash cow for federal government-appointed contractors?

Instead, a forward-thinking government should strive to reduce the percentage of non-revenue water (source water lost due to pipe leakage, pilferage, or spillage) from 35% to at least the 15% benchmark set by Penang, as well as implement other water conservation strategies.

By 2030 when global warming severity increases, resource conservation and carbon emission reduction will be the inevitable steps we must take, not only in Malaysia but the world over. Our approach towards energy management also requires input from a demand-management angle.

Unless we rethink our traffic system and cities, the surge in private vehicle ownership will turn our highways into car parks. In other words, building more roads will not solve the problem of traffic congestion.

Urban sprawl grows as housing developers continue to build further into the suburbs and expand cities’ borders. Forced by rising house prices to live further away, consumers will become economic victims of rising fuel prices in a private vehicle oriented transport system.

Moving away from outdated models

Malaysia’s development model has always been capital city-centric, marginalising other states, particularly Sabah and Sarawak. The peninsular North-South highway (built with private vehicles in mind) reduced the usage of and planning for our railway system, precipitating the “hibernation” of many once-bustling railway towns.

We must build an affordable national public transport system, which should be mostly bus-based (for affordability) but also comes with a new vision for the railway. Our railway has not expanded much since independence. It is still essentially a north-south link with very little “branches” and loops to more cities and towns. The railway can be a viable mode of transportation for people and cargo.

With a bigger population in Malaysia and the world, food security is highly crucial for the stability of the nation. Hence there is a dire need to make the agriculture sector more vibrant.

With an aging population, Malaysia needs to think about the quality and economics of our healthcare system. Education and research have important roles to play as drivers of our economy.

We must also be alarmed by the fact that the current low-income environment would result in a very poor cohort of senior citizens as retirement needs are almost determined by one’s saving with very little state or collective support. Therefore, we must address the question of inequality and low-income now to avoid a societal breakdown.

Evaluating 2013 in the light of 2030, much deconstruction and reconstruction of our current train of thought are needed. We have to move away from outdated models of development. Unfortunately the BN government is not prepared to do so, putting our not-too-distant future at a serious risk.

We need a new way of seeing Malaysia and the world. We need to understand the challenges ahead of us. When we start to think in the new framework or terms of reference, we shall see beyond the old racial perspectives and work on our common agenda. – October 16, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 10:35 am and is filed under
environment
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Muslim judges’ decision all politics, no law

By
Joe Fernandez
 | Wednesday, 16 October 2013 01:04

CPI

CPI introduction

We are reproducing two newspaper articles which have appeared in response to the ruling by the Court of Appeal banning the use of the word ‘Allah’ in the Herald. The first article from the Borneo Insider provides a succinct analysis of the political underpinnings and ramifications of the COA decision and the costly impact it will have on the Barisan government. The second from one of the leading papers in the Middle East points to how irrational and unjustifiable the ruling is from any point of view – legal or theological or other.

********************************

In a dramatic first in world history and law, the Court of Appeal (COA) sunk to an all-time new low on Monday (14 Oct 2013) in allowing an appeal by the government of Malaysia against a High Court decision on 31 Dec 2009 which held that the Herald, a Catholic weekly, has the right to use the term Allah for God in its Malay language edition on the faith.

Judges Mohamed Apandi Ali, Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, and Mohd Zawawi Salleh presided.

Earlier, the High Court had ruled that the Home Minister was wrong, in law and the constitution, to impose a restriction in the licensing regulations that the Herald should not use the term Allah in Malay print in matters involving the Christian faith.

The Herald can apply for leave to appeal to the Federal Court (FC) against the COA decision.

The fear is that it will be turned down on the grounds that it has not demonstrated that it has a case to be heard.

Alternatively, the FC may sit on the appeal if allowed or nothing more may be heard of it. This has been a standard tactic employed by the government in the past in other cases.

The fear among Muslim judges of going to hell for not being sufficiently Islamic, whatever it means, is another worry among those committed to the rule of law. The Judiciary in Malaysia, often the subject of numerous complaints about creeping Islamisation, is packed with Muslim judges. It’s estimated that non-Muslim judges comprise less than ten per cent of the Judiciary although the non-Malays form 40 per cent of the 28-odd million population.

The fact that the COA was composed of three Muslim judges whose credibility was suspect, presiding over a case involving the Christian faith, meant that the cards were stacked against the Herald from the very beginning. The judge at the High Court level, where the Herald won, was a Buddhist and was widely seen as viewing the matter dispassionately i.e. being confined to the law and Constitution and ignoring the theological rhetoric emanating from across the divide.

The COA painted itself into a corner when it could not comment on the term Allah for God in Malay print in the Bible, Allah in Christian mass, prayer, song and music; and on the Sikhs using the same term in the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Bible, in the Gurmukhi script in various dialects and languages. The COA merely confined itself to whether the Home Minister had acted improperly in administrative law – i.e. government policy – in restricting the Herald. It then went on to pontificate sanctimoniously on issues where it should not have treaded even if they were subject matter experts, which they were not. The COA ignored the intention of the framers of the constitution.

Does anyone have a copy of the ‘social contract’?

If both Muslims and Christians differ on their interpretation of Allah, as the COA claims to have discovered, what business is it of the COA anyway? Indeed, what business is it of the COA or the Home Minister for that matter to decide the Muslim version is Allah and the Christian version isn’t? In Islam, Allah is not the term for God but an attribute of God. God, in Islam, has 99 known attributes.

The possibility of Muslims in Malaysia being “confused” by Christians using the term Allah as well was another worry raised by the COA. The confusion theory does not hold water either because no one anywhere in the world outside Malaysia has raised it as an issue. The COA even conceded, while ruling against the Herald, that Arab Christians were using the term Allah for God in the Arab Bible.

Getting into politics, the COA claimed that its decision was in line with the ‘social contract’ forged between the Malays and non-Malays in Malaya at the time of independence in 1957. The only ‘social contract’ that matters is the constitution. However, that does not appear to stop many extreme rightwing Malay politicians from claiming from time to time that there’s a social contract between Malays and non-Malays on the governance of Malaya. No one has yet produced this so-called social contract.

Clutching at straws, the COA claimed in explaining the Herald decision that it had a duty to protect Islam and Malays.

In fact, the question of any such protection by the judiciary does not arise as that role has been reserved for the Conference of Malay Rulers – the sultans — under the constitution.

Besides, the real protection for Islam and the Malays lies in not removing certain articles from the Constitution i.e. Article 3 on religion, Article 152 on the Malay language, Article 153 on reserving for them and the Orang Asal a reasonable proportion of places in the civil service, institutions of higher learning, scholarships and opportunities to do business; and Article 160 which among others defines the term ‘Malay’ as a Nation in Malaya, not as Orang Asal (native).

If anyone needs protection, it’s the Malay Rulers from the federal government which is bent on usurping their position as heads of Islam and Malay culture, customs and traditions in their states.

Islam is a state, not federal, matter

Lawyer Lim Heng Seng left no doubt in a paper he presented at a recent Forum in Kota Kinabalu on Malaysia 50 years, Constitution, Religion and Freedom, that constant attempts were being made by the federal government under the ruling Umno to subvert the secular nature of the constitution.

He maintained that Articles 3(1) and 3(4), read together, underlined in no uncertain terms the secular nature of the Malaysian constitution and nation-state and its commitment to the rule of law and a common nationality.

The federal government, Lee pointed out, had no business meddling in Islam which was a matter for the Malay sultanates to handle, and the

Syariah Court

– being an inferior Court — could not encroach into the jurisdiction of the civil court.

He warned the federal government against practising a form of warped logic all on its own and going out on a limb to ensure that any law in Malaysia was Syariah-compliant. Such so-called compliance was unconstitutional, thereby unlawful and therefore illegal.

The COA decision will be considered as having no relevance in Sabah and Sarawak where the majority of the Malay-speaking Christians and Orang Asal in Malaysia live. The 20 Points and the 1963 Malaysia Agreement (20P/MA63) drawn up to facilitate these two nations in Borneo being in federation with Malaya held that they would not have any religion.

It appears that the COA has now gone out on a limb, and against the 20P/MA63, and made it its business to decide on the Christian faith: what is an essential or non-essential part.

What anyone calls his or her God is an essential part of one’s faith.

The Allah decision is likely to further stoke nationalist passions in Borneo.

Already, activists are planning to petition the Queen in England for an official inquiry into the exact nature and actual circumstances surrounding the British departure from Sabah and Sarawak on 16 Sept, 1963 when the Federation of Malaysia came into being.

This follows the discovery of disturbing contents in declassified colonial documents on the issue.

Apparently, these documents make it clear that the British were convinced that Malaya would colonize Sabah and Sarawak after their departure.

These revelations clearly demonstrate, according to the activists, that the United Kingdom abandoned Sabah and Sarawak to Malayan colonialism.

This is held to be a violation of the UN Charter, the mandate of the UN Decolonization Committee, the UK’s responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and stewardship of the Commonwealth of Nations which the Queen heads.

The story first appeared in
Borneo Insider
 yesterday.

Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez is a graduate mature student of law who also tutors at local institutions. He subscribes to Dr Stephen Hawking’s ‘re-discovery’ of the ancient Indian theory that “the only predictable property of the universe is chaos”. He feels compelled, as a semi-retired journalist, to put pen to paper – or rather the fingers to the computer keyboard – whenever something doesn’t quite jell with his weltanschauung (worldview).

************************

Word ‘Allah’ is not exclusive to Islam

Editorial from The National, an United Arab Emirates newspaper

Like the history of most religions, the history of Islam is complex and much debated. But there are a few elements that are not in dispute, chief among them that the God of the Quran is the same as the God of the Bible and of the Torah before it. The mission of Islam, as expressed in the Quran, is not to bring a new faith, but to update the messages of the monotheistic faiths before it.

It is therefore surprising to see, as The National reports today, that a Malaysian court has ruled that a Christian newspaper may not use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God. The court overturned a previous decision by a lower court, ruling that ‘Allah’ as a term is not exclusive to Islam. This causes a problem for the country’s substantial Christian minority, who have used the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God for decades.

In a fellow Muslim country with substantial Christian and Hindu populations, this feels like the wrong decision. The UAE is rightly proud of its society that allows people from all over the world to practise their faiths openly and without discrimination. Indeed, that inclusiveness is inherent in Islam. One of the reasons Islam was able to spread so far, so rapidly, was the inclusive nature of the faith: for at least two centuries after the coming of Islam, the Arabs ruled vast regions where the majority were not Muslims.

The word ‘Allah’ is never exclusive to Islam – indeed, both Christians and Jews used the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God even before the coming of Islam.

That remains the case today.

When Christians across the Middle East pray to God, they use the term ‘Allah’.

Walk into a church in Cairo, Baghdad or Beirut this coming Sunday and you will hear the name of ‘Allah’ invoked. That also applies to the Jews of the Arab world, who for centuries have prayed to ‘Allah’. The Quran itself is explicit on this subject, declaring, in Surah Al Ankabut, that Muslims should tell People of the Book (Christians and Jews) that “our God and your God is one”.

The Malaysian decision overlooks not merely the theology, but also the etymology of the word. The word ‘Allah’ is derived from the Arabic “al-ilah”, the god. It’s found its way across the world and entered Malay from Arabic.

Arabic as a language is a vehicle for faith, be that Christianity, Judaism or Islam. The God of the three monotheistic religions is the same god. It is unsurprising, therefore, that all three faiths in the Arabic-speaking world (and beyond) refer to God as ‘Allah’. And if they have the same God, they should have the right to call their deity by the same name.

The story first appeared in
The National
 on 14 Oct 2013.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 1:32 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After the Allah decision, Putrajaya in futile bid to salvage Malaysia

NEWS ANALYSIS BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

October 17, 2013

There is irrationality and irony in the Cabinet’s decision that the word Allah can be used in worship and in the Bahasa Malaysia bibles in Sabah and Sarawak – because one cannot compartmentalise religion by regions.

Nor can the Cabinet override the court’s decision.

Or the fact that the Bahasa Malaysia section of the Catholic weekly, the Herald, is actually meant for East Malaysians where most of the Catholics speak and read the national language more than anywhere else in the country.

After all, what are the chances that a non-Catholic would be able to lay his or her hands on one of the 14,000 copies printed weekly in Malaysia for some one million Catholics in the country?

If anything, the Cabinet decision that the Court of Appeal ruling would not affect Christians in Sabah and Sarawak shows that at the end of the day, everything is about politics.

While the ruling was specific to the Herald’s appeal against the Home Minister’s ruling, there was also the wider issue of considering the Archbishop’s argument that it infringed his right to freedom of religion.

What really is there to stop the enforcement of Syariah laws that prohibit usage of certain words by non-Muslims, now that the civil courts have agreed that the Home Minister is well within his rights to limit the Herald from using the word Allah?

As it is, several muftis have voiced their opinions that such religious laws can be used to punish non-Muslims and excommunicate Muslims who support a Christian’s right to use the word.

The Cabinet cannot just decide that it is fine to issue a letter limiting the words used by a publication depending on the religion and region or allowing it to be freely used elsewhere.

This makes a mockery of such laws and regulations.

While the appeal court have made its decision, the government of the day has to ponder the ramifications of its ruling and the subsequent challenge in court. State Islamic authorities too will have a larger say on the matter, even in Sabah and Sarawak.

Where will this end? Not with a Cabinet ruling on the matter because this country has separation of powers. To ignore a court decision brings with it the possibility that others too will ignore the ruling.

Stopping a low-circulation weekly from using the word Allah or confusing practice with propagation has turned Malaysia into an international joke as far as religious ties are concerned.

Trying to cover it up with more assurances is even more comical, if not sad.

The reality is that the government has decided it can regulate the words used by worshippers of any faith, without considering how futile that can be. But that is what politics is all about, the art of the possible. – October 17, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 17 October 2013, 6:25 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


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.

We are particularly concerned with the following findings, that:

The insertion of the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam and “also to insulate against any threat…to the religion of Islam”;

Article 3(1) of the federal constitution expressly provides that “Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the federation”.

The Court of Appeal found that this Article was inserted as a byproduct of the social contract by our founding fathers, and that the purpose and intention of the words “in peace and harmony” was to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and to insulate it against any threat.

This is an unnatural reading of the provisions in Article 3(1). The words in their clear and ordinary meaning provides for the right of other religions to be practiced unmolested and free of threats.

In referring to the social contract, effect should be given to the understanding as at 1957 and not to the numerous amendments that have since been made to the federal constitution in violation thereof Paragraph 57 of the White Paper in 1957 which gave rise to Articles 3(1) and 11(4) of the federal constitution provides as follows:

“There has been included in the proposed federal constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the federation.

“This will in no way affect the present position of the federation as a secular state, and every person will have the right to profess and practice his own religion and the right to propagate his religion, though this last right is subject to any restrictions imposed by state law relating to the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion.”

The use of the word ‘Allah’ in the Malay version of The Herald would cause or create confusion amongst persons professing the religion of Islam;

It is unreasonable and contrary to the constitutional scheme that a fundamental liberty is liable to be denied on the basis that some person or persons would be confused.

The decision does not in any way aid in addressing or resolving the alleged confusion amongst persons professing the religion of Islam, when in fact that word ‘Allah’ is used by more than one community in this country and by peoples of different faiths in the Arab world and other Muslim countries.

Rather, the effect of the decision would be to encourage a perpetual state of confusion or ignorance as justifiable grounds for denying the rights of others. The course that ought to have been taken should be to educate those persons who would be confused and not to restrict or injunct the exercise of rights by others.

The use of the word ‘Allah’ in the Malay version of The Herald would have the potential to threaten or harm public order and safety; and

Having recited that religious sensitivities are a threat to public order and safety, the decision unfortunately serves to reinforce the notion that the use or threat of violence would win the day in court.

It is unacceptable that citizens are denied their constitutional rights of religious freedom and expression on the basis that others who disagree or who are confused would resort to aggression.

The law should not be interpreted and declared so as to condone, encourage, and perpetuate such aggression and threats of violence. Rather, the law ought to be visited upon those who would resort to threats or violence.

The finding that the word ‘Allah’ is not an essential and integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity.

There appears to be no basis for the findings by the Court of Appeal that the word is not an integral part of the faith or practice of Christianity other than what has been described in the written judgments as “a quick research” and research conducted on the Internet.

It is troubling that the court would conduct research on its own via the Internet and come to conclusions of alleged facts with respect to a person’s religion without its veracity being tested.

In any event, it is for a party asserting exclusive rights to the use of the word ‘Allah’ to establish that they have such exclusive rights, rather than for others to have to establish that the use of the word is integral to their faith.

By most accounts, there is no prohibition on the use of the Arabic word ‘Allah’ by peoples of different faiths in the Arab world and other countries. It is difficult to discern how we are able to declare exclusivity of a word over which we do not have proprietary rights.

The Malaysian Bar urges all quarters to address the issue with maturity and calmness. It must be reminded that everyone must respect the right of the publishers of The Herald to seek to appeal the matter to the Federal Court, if they so wish. They should be permitted to pursue this without any threats or intimidation.

——————————————————————————–

CHRISTOPHER LEONG is the president of the Malaysian Bar.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 17 October 2013, 2:27 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Judiciary
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


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”.

The republic’s newspaper said it was ironic that religious exclusivism, “which goes against the grain of Islamic teaching”, was now formally entrenched in Malaysia, a country that takes pride in its racial and religious diversity.

The daily also noted that while Malaysian Muslims went for religious exclusivism, Pope Francis headed the opposite direction towards inclusivism by saying recently: “I believe in God, not in a Catholic God”.

“Monotheism is the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths – including Judaism, Christianity and Islam – and it entails that their followers pray to the same God Almighty. The Pope is only reaffirming the very principle of monotheism but at the same time he is promulgating the inclusivity of the deity,” said Jakarta Post.

“Every monotheistic religion will obviously claim exclusivity in their proximity to God, but that is not the same thing as claiming that God only listens to them and no one else,” it added.

On Monday, the Court of Appeal ruled against a High Court decision allowing the Catholic Church to refer to the Christian god with the Arabic word “Allah” in the Bahasa Malaysia section of its weekly paper, the Herald.

The court adjudged the usage of the word “Allah” as not integral to the Christian faith and said that allowing such an application would cause confusion in the Muslim community.

The 2009 High Court ruling, which found that the word “Allah” was not exclusive to Muslims, had sparked a string of attacks like arson and vandalism against non-Muslim places of worship, including Christian churches and Sikh temples.

Besides Sikhs, Christians in Arabic-speaking countries use the Middle-Eastern word “Allah” to describe their god.

Jakarta Post noted that Indonesian Muslims, who shared the linguistic similarities with Malaysians, translate the phrase “Lailaha Illallah” to “Tiada tuhan selain Allah” (No God but Allah), instead of the literal translation “No god but God”.

“This erroneous translation may have become the basis that put Muslims in much of Southeast Asia to claim exclusivity to God,” it said.

The daily theorised that the distinction between Allah and God may have been made to help convert polytheists, since the people in the region were mostly Hindus and Buddhists before Islam arrived in the 14th century.

“The late Islamist scholar Nurcholish Madjid drew sharp rebukes when he suggested that Indonesians should translate the term to ‘No god but God’, so the idea was dropped prematurely,” said Jakarta Post.

The newspaper noted that Malaysia and Indonesia have, so far, practised a more moderate and tolerant strand of Islam, compared to Muslims in the Middle East, the origin of Islam, or in South Asia.

“But there is only a thin line dividing tolerance and intolerance, so we should not take this moderation for granted,” said Jakarta Post.

“With the rising exclusivism that the Muslim majorities in these two countries are pushing, we may be witnessing the Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia becoming less and less tolerant. In fact, it may already be happening,” added the daily.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 17 October 2013, 1:36 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Judiciary
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Would Malaysia be formed 50 years ago if Court of Appeal Allah judgment was the law of the land

Barely a month after the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, the recent Allah Judgment has raised many important questions for the founding of and the future of our country.

The first point of the 18 point Sarawak agreement and the 20 point Sabah (then North Borneo) agreement emphasized the freedom of religion that must be enjoyed by Sarawak and Sabah as minimum demands for the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.

It should be noted that in the Cobbold Commission Report of 1962, the views of the Chairman and the British members of the Commission were for the insertion into the state constitutions of Sabah and Sarawak a specific provision to guarantee the freedom of religion.

It should also be noted that the Malayan members of the Commission, Ghazali Shafie and Wong Pow Nee both agreed that while Islam would be the national religion for the Federation, they were ‘satisfied that the proposal in no way jeopardises freedom of religion in the Federation, which in effect would be secular’.

Given the importance of the freedom of religion to the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak, would there have been widespread support for the formation of the Federation of Malaysia if the Court of Appeal Allah judgment was the law of the land?

What would have been the reaction of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak to the findings of the judgment prohibiting the usage of the word “Allah” in the Herald and that the usage of the name “Allah” is “not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity”?

Or would history have been overturned and Malaysia, as we know it today, comprising of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak not be in existence?

It must also be asked whether the founding fathers of Malaya – Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Dr. Ismail, Tun Tan Siew Sin and Tun V.T. Sambanthan  – as well as the key leaders of Sarawak and Sabah – among them Temenggung Jugah, Ong Kee Hui and Donald Stephens – would have agreed even to the basis of the actions taken against the Catholic Herald newspaper on the usage of the word “Allah” by the Ministry of Home Affairs?

Or would they have recognized that such an action was a direct contravention of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution which protects the freedom of religion not only in Sabah and Sarawak but also the whole of Malaysia?

These questions reveal the extent the Court of Appeal judgment on the Allah case affects the constitutional rights of Malaysia but also  the spirit of the founding of the Federation of Malaysia,  the position of Sabah and Sarawak within the Federation of Malaysia and the rights enjoyed by the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak as spelt out in the Federal Constitution and as described in the Cobbold Commission Report.

This is a time when all Malaysians must exercise great responsibility and leadership to unite Malaysians regardless of race, religion or region in greater harmony and solidarity instead of further dividing them.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 17 October 2013, 1:31 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Islam
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Don’t secede, just leave BN!

 – Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

October 18, 2013

We do not have to wait for GE14 to oust Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Barisan Nasional (BN). Nor have we reached a stage where conscientious lawmakers forget about being partisan and agree on a vote of no confidence against the PM. BN presently has the numbers and has the support of an equally partisan speaker.

Any motion of no confidence will be defeated. Jeffrey Kitingan’s talk about secession is super brave. It can be seditious or can be treated so. If the government wants to, it can treat Kitingan’s proposal as seditious. Umno and BN foot soldiers will likely do what they normally do – make police reports against Jeffrey and others dong the same brave talk.

If you look at point 7, it says there is no right of secession. What do Sabahans and Sarawakians want? Since secession is not possible, the next best thing is to kick out the Federal government which is the source of much of the East Malaysians’ discontent. Work with people who can make that possible.

What is to be done? All we need do is persuade the 8 non-Muslim MPs in Sabah and the 11 non-Muslim MPs in Sarawak to leave BN. BN will be reduced by that number and will only have 114 left in Parliament on their side. Out of that 114, the 14 comes from PBB – Taib Mahmud’s party.

Taib hasn’t forgotten Najib’s humiliation of him – Najib went to Sarawak and in front of thousands announced that Taib Mahmud is leaving. Najib must have been seized by a temporary bout of political insanity or he was plain excited. Did he forget that PBB isn’t Umno at all.

Taib Mahmud certainly wasn’t an Umno serf always forced to pay obeisance to the lord. Taib Mahmud is like the PM of Sarawak. There is no Umno in Sarawak and after the Allah ruling and seeing the belligerence of Umno leaders, Taib Mahmud will now make sure Umno will never set foot in Sarawak.

It is good business to cultivate Taib Mahmud. Maybe the Umno people overestimate their importance. They are in power because 56 Parliamentary seats from East Malaysia gave them majority. All Taib Mahumud needs to do, just to give Najib a lesson in real politic, is to stay neutral. Just by staying neutral is as good as withdrawing support from BN.

With PBB’s 14 and the 19 from East Malaysia, BN can lose effectively 33 seats. That leaves BN with 100 seats in Parliament. What happens then? The 33 can talk terms with likeminded politicians in West Malaysia.

PR has 89 seats. Even if they don’t want to talk directly to PR because maybe some people object to Anwar, they can organize themselves around a political personality respected by many such as Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. Rally around Tengku Razaleigh to get credibility and legitimacy. Without factoring in Malay leadership, whatever agenda the 33 have, will not work.

Work with Razaleigh then, because he is the only honourable Malay leader around. Is this possible? Yes indeed.

As soon as BN loses it majority it will have to resign. Umno can’t do it alone because nobody wants to work with Umno. If MCA has got any quotient of self-worth left, they would leave BN too. It’s unimaginable to see MCA in the same stable as PR where DAP is present. DAP is the Chinese big brother. But MCA can work with the 33 from East Malaysia and can accommodate Tengku Razaleigh.

Tengku Razaleigh can be invited to head the 33 plus MCA. And Tengku Razaleigh isn’t coming in alone – he will bring along some progressive Umno MPs. For starters, five Umno MPs would be enough.

If Tengku Razaleigh becomes the de facto leader of the 33 plus MCA plus Umno MPs  – Tengku Razaleigh represents a solid bloc that can negotiate with PR. Together with PR, Tengku Razaleigh can form a new government. Once the new government comes into being, before you an even finish your teh tarik, dozens of Umno MPs will hop on the bandwagon for the sake of self-preservation.

While we may argue as some do that the Allah ruling by the Appeal Court applies to its usage in the publication Herald, the extremists in our midst are already pushing for its general application. If this were merely an instance of case law, then it will be used as precedents subject to variations at judges’ rulings.

Now that will in itself become a source of legal instabilities and therefore confusion. If it were that specific, then Christian practitioners in the Peninsular can publish other papers using the term because the term is Herald specific. The problem here is the ruling is and will be subjected to endless permutations. Certainly the ruling will be extended into a general rule that bans the term Allah because as the ruling says, Allah is not an integral part of Christian teaching.

How do we ordinary Muslims know? We have never studied Christian Bibles before. How do we know Christians do not use the term in reference to the One True God? We have never been confused precisely because commitment and devotion to our OWN beliefs make the conduct of people of different beliefs irrelevant to us. As long as our beliefs are not persecuted or we are not prevented from practising our own beliefs, we were never confused. The judges forgot that the term was already used by Christians in Arab countries even before Islam came to the Arabian Peninsula.

If that isn’t proof of the term being an integral part of Christian teaching, we don’t know what. How is the Allah ruling part of this argument about secession talks? Allah ruling casts dark tyrannical shadows on the fragile and often condescending treatment of East Malaysia by the BN government. The right wing agitators in Peninsula may want to recognise that point 1 in the 20 point agreement with North Borneo(now Sabah) states: While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be no state religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo precisely because its case law and not present in the present constitution of Malaya makes it fluid and flowable into East Malaysia.

It will open the flood gates. Case law means it can apply anywhere and at any time depending on judicial activism. It will eventually be a cause of great concern and anxiety on East Malaysians. The East Malaysians had an opportunity to carve out a new beginning in the last GE. That opportunity was lost when more East Malaysians chose to hang on with BN despite years of ill treatment and condescension.

Now, Sabahans and Sarawakians are bullied by Umno and BN. what happens to Sabahans will certainly be an object lesson to Sarawakians who will do their best to prevent Umno entering Sarawak. I don’t think that the issue about the usage of Allah prompted Jeffrey and others talking about possible secession; no doubt it is an important issue that becomes the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. It’s the culmination of a long series of ill-treatment, condescension and years of being talked down that has reached the boiling point and Jeffrey sees the issue as enhancing his own personal agenda.

Jeffrey’s vitriol wasn’t directed at the court but at Najib. The issue is therefore with Najib’s leadership. That’s the real issue. It isn’t about disgust at the court ruling because the general perception here, if anyone cares to think about it, the courts are always seen to validate the demands of the government. Over here, we have issues with the judiciary. If the East Malaysians work with the opposition we can carry out judicial reforms. All we need do, once we are the government is to pension off the top 15-20 judges and we have reform of the judiciary and the judicial system overnight.

We can catch out the corrupt judges and magistrates. Yes, our judges and magistrates are not monkish abstainers. So Jeffrey doesn’t have to implore our east Malaysian brothers to secede. The sweetness of redemption is in kicking out Najib and his government. The East Malaysians must pressure the federal government to honour the 20 and 18 point memorandum and if the Najib government pussyfoots on the demands, kick them out. The 19 non-Muslim MPs can do this by aligning with PR. Let’s forge a new political alliance.

If the East Malaysian MPs have any sense of self respect, they must leave BN. why do you want to stay on with a political party that treats you despicably? Pakatan Rakyat has no problems with allowing Christians to use the term Allah in Christian teaching as it has been an integral part of Christian teaching in East Malaysia as it is in Middle Eastern countries. It pains me to say this, but the court ruling presently serves to confirm the “Malaynisation” of Islam instead of the Islamisation of the Malay. What Jeffrey has said could not but find resonance and support among the non-Muslim MPs in Sabah and Sarawak.

The whole thing of religion and race relations in our country is made possible by the continued inelegant silence from the PM who has shirked his responsibility as leader of Malaysians. Those who oppose Umno and BN need not emigrate, those who need to leave us are the purveyors of envy driven and hate politics. Let Umno leave us and let them form a separate country where like-minded bigots can stay together. The whole sad episode about the Allah issue and renege on an agreement made in 1963, serves to confirm that Najib is a hypocritical leader and a fraudulent salesman pushing around a faulty dream in the form of 1Malaysia that has now been replaced with a nebulous product by the name of endless possibilities.

Is that a new brand of perfume? The solution I say, need not be the extreme solution as Jeffrey thought out aloud; Jeffrey or anyone else just need to convince the 19 non-Muslim MPs now with BN to leave BN. this will topple the government and its perfectly legal. Reaffirm and execute the 20 point memorandum with a new partner. Find a new leader that commands respect and confidence. Najib is not that leader. – sakmongkol.blogspot.com, October 18, 2013.

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de guerre of Datuk Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz who is the Raub MP.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 18 October 2013, 2:33 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Constitution
,
Parliament
,
Religion
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Has Najib’s 1Malaysia Policy degenerated in four years into a 2Malaysia Policy with different interpretations of constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion for two different regions in Malaysia?

Has Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia Policy degenerated in four years into a 2Malaysia Policy with different interpretations of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion for two different regions in Malaysia?

This is a question that cries out for answer after the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Joseph Kurup told Sin Chew Daily that the Cabinet had decided after the Court of Appeal judgment on the “Allah” case that in keeping with the earlier 10-point solution, the word “Allah” can be used by Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians in their worship, including in the Malay-language bible Al-Kitab.

Many queries have been spawned, including whether the Cabinet can override the Court of Appeal judgment by executive fiat, which no lawyer, whether in Cabinet, government, Parliament or in the country would ever claim.

What then is the legality, legitimacy and longevity of the Cabinet decision attempting to override the Court of Appeal “Allah” judgment?

Never in the nation’s history has a judgment like the Court of Appeal “Allah” judgment and the Cabinet decision attracted so much flak, both nationally and internationally, and the disquiet created must be answered rationally and soberly by the powers-that-be, like those in the following sample comments:

•	If the word can be used among Christians in Sabah and Sarawak, it shows that there is really no legal rationale for banning the use of the word by Christians in the first place! It also suggests that the issue is politically motivated rather than one that arises out of real concern for the faith of the Muslims. Does it make sense that a Malay speaking Christian is allowed to refer to God as “Allah” when in Sabah and Sarawak, but he must stop doing so once he steps into Peninsular Malaysia? If there is anything really wrong with the use of the word by Christians then the ban must be applied to the whole nation. The inconsistency in applying the “law” reveals the absurdity of the ban.

•	What kind of laws or country do we have in Malaysia? Federal Laws can be applied differently to different regions and groups of people? Cabinet can approve exceptions and violations of Federal Laws? Can a person caught for corruption in East Malaysia be excused by Cabinet decision? Might as well close the PDRM, MACC, Judiciary, etc. Will save Malaysia lots of money. The Cabinet can be the judge, prosecutor, police, etc. Malaysia the no 1Joke in the World…LOL.

•	Foreign investors lose confidence in our courts. More and more foreign investors will put the term in case they want to fight for justice they don’t want the judgment from Malaysia. 1 country 2 sets of law. If I’m foreign investor I will attach extra term and condition before I invest in Malaysia. If the BN government does not agree then I will go to another country. Today there are  so many choices where to invest. Malaysia no more the only country.

But equally pertinent, is Najib aware that the “Global Movement of Moderates” which he had painstakingly promoted and fostered in international forums (although not in the country) in the past four years is the greatest casualty of the furores created by the  Court of Appeal “Allah” judgment and the Cabinet decision?

Most pertinent of all, when is Najib going to end his inelegant silence and respond to the many queries about 1Malaysia, Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and  the independence of the judiciary which have been thrown into sharp and frontal focus, both nationally and internationally, by the “Allah” judgment controversy.

Or are Malaysians seeing the first fruit of Najib’s new slogan and stance of “Endless Possibilities”?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 18 October 2013, 1:24 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


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.

Allah transcends racial and religious boundaries

The first chapter of the Quran, known as Al Fatihah (The Opener) categorically states that Allah is the God of the universe, embracing all mankind. Allah, as far as Islam is concerned, transcends racial and religious boundaries.

Be that as it may, I am indeed puzzled when some Muslims vehemently assert the exclusive right to use the word Allah, to the exclusion of others.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him ) had also shown his par excellent tolerance on this issue. This can be gleaned from Hudaibiyyah’s treaty. In that treaty, the Meccan infidels represented by Suhail ibn Amr refused to let the Name of Allah the Most Benificient, the Most Merciful be written in the treaty.

Instead, Suhail ibn Amr demanded the following words to be used: Bismika Allahumma. The Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him ) agreed to the request, despite the fact the Meccan infidels had a different understanding of the word Allah . Do our Muslim brothers in this country claim superiority than their own prophet?

That Allah is not to be confined to Muslims is indeed the opinion of many great Muslim scholars, such as Dr Yusuf Al Qardhawi and Dr Wahbah Zuhaily. In subscribing to such a view, these Muslim scholars in fact, inter alia, relied on the above  verse quoted from Al Fatihah as their basis.

Be that as it may, any different stand deviating from such a view, I believe, is nothing to do with religious grounds.

Unfortunately, preconceived fear among the majority of Muslims in this country, fuelled by provocative and irresponsible elements, contributes to this sad state of affairs.

Allah not a Muslim’s exclusive right

Since Allah is not a Muslim’s exclusive right, the Christians must never be restrained from using the word Allah in their religious practice. Any restrain is unlawful and unconstitutional.

It is against the fundamental liberty enshrined in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. Article 11(1) guarantees freedom of religion and it applies to any person, including non-citizens. So fundamental such a constitutional right, it cannot be abrogated or suspended, even during an emergency.

Of course the right of the non-Muslims to freedom of religion in Article 11 is not unlimited. The Christians are constitutionally protected to profess and practice Christianity and such a right definitely includes the right to use the word Allah by The Herald – a newsletter exclusively for the Catholic adherents.

So long as The Herald is distributed to Christians only – despite the word Allah appearing in it – the constitution will recognise and jealously protect it. No law, or any minister, can supersede such a fundamental right.

Of course, The Herald cannot be distributed to Muslims because it will tantamount to propagation. Article 11(4) prevents The Herald from doing so. To its credit, there is no evidence proving that The Herald has been distributed to Muslims.

If at all there is any proof that The Herald has been distributed to Muslims, it would be an offence not because there is Allah’s name in the publication.

Any Christian publication distributed to Muslims obviously contravenes Article 4 of the constitution, irrespective of whether the word Allah appears or not in it.

In its written judgement, the Court of Appeal, inter alia, invoked Article 3(1) of the constitution to deny The Herald using the word Allah in its publication. I must confess that I have great difficulties to fathom the reasons given by the court.

Now, why invoke the White Paper?

With the greatest respect to the learned judges, I fully subscribe to Dr Aziz Bari’s view that the meaning of Article 3(1) is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity whatsoever.

The article clearly supports The Herald’s fundamental right to peacefully practise its religious freedom. In fact, Article 3(1), in my opinion, is a boon to The Herald and thus a bane to the home minister. The Court of Appeal surprisingly twisted it.

In his judgment, Justice Apandi Ali stated that Article 3(1) was initially absent in the Reid Commission’s report but it was later inserted, having been suggested by Justice Abdul Hamid.

Justice Appandi also stated that there was an assertion in the White Paper that in spite of the existence of Article 3(1), it does not change Malaysia as a secular state.

To be honest, I am unable to detect any relevancy of invoking the said White Paper. On the contrary, by invoking the White Paper, Justice Appandi had in fact given a new bullet to The Herald.

If it is true that our constitution is secular in nature in spite of the existence of Article 3(1), why would a secular constitution have any say or interference in any religious practices by any religious adherent?

I believe the only caveat, if at all exists, to restrain The Herald from using the word Allah is Article 11(5) of the constitution. This article may be used to deny any right to freedom of religion if the practice of such a right is proven to have duly affected public order or morality or health.

But to completely deny such a right, the decision maker, such as the home minister, must present cogent evidence to the court.

Any flimsy and hypothetical perceptions should have never be allowed by the court to replace evidence.

Suspicion, however strong, is not evidence. In interpreting the highest law of the land, the court must never allow itself to be seen as an appendage of the executive .

I am of the view that the Court of Appeal, with due respect, made an erroneous judgment by resorting to ambiguous interpretation of a very clear provision in our constitution dealing with religious freedom.

Let us be reminded, again and again, that the constitution will die if it is interpreted like a will.

MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN, the Member of Parliament for Sepang, is a lawyer by profession and a PAS central committee member.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 18 October 2013, 9:54 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Judiciary
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


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.

What this means practically, when things are stated bluntly, is that the enjoyment of minority rights is conditional upon the continuing readiness of the most extreme members of the majority not to create conditions of general social “un-peace” and “disharmony”. Not in the face of anything that may be uncongenial to any of the majority’s most implacable members. Not even at the imagined prospect of any affront, genuine of contrived, to their sectional sensibilities.

This is a foundation not for underwriting minority rights and religious freedom but for ensuring their uncertain and constrained nature, of placing them in question.

This kind of reasoning is deceptive and insidious. It provides for the narrowing and negation of minority rights and ultimately of human rights generally, even for members of the majority.

It does so by means of a denial that is voiced in the name and couched in the terms of an affirmation, an affirmation of religious liberty and human and political freedom.

Its plain implication is this. So long as nobody, no crazy extremist, objects, the minority may quietly enjoy their entitlements and “do their thing”.

But, by this new affirmation of the supposedly conditional nature of minority rights, the radically and irremediably discontented among the majority are now given every incentive to object. And to do so, precisely, in ways that raise the spectre of unrest, disharmony, conflict and social violence.

More, the restless malcontents with their ever more exorbitant demands are now provided with an unstoppable instrument, a constitutionally affirmed and protected means, to do so.

Once they wield it, once there is an objection — any possible objection — then it is the minority who have disturbed the peace, or threatened to do so, and who must therefore be denied and stopped.

So, in sum, it amounts to a denial of rights couched in the form of an affirmation of freedom. An old saying holds that “justice delayed is justice denied”.  Here we might say “freedom affirmed, yet freedom is thereby denied”.

But no surprise! The logic here is not new.

It is the same logic that was employed by the Islam-invoking “ethno-supremacist” hard-liners when Pak Lah was PM, when it was used to undermine his leadership. Notably, for example, in the opposition to the creation of an Interfaith Council and to the coalition of supporters of Article 11.

It’s the same logic here, now, as then — except now it is voiced by and applied via the courts, rather than asserted by rowdies in the street.

To make the “peace and freedom” wording of Article 3 serve this purpose, to make those words serve as a widely available means of legal intimidation rather than as the basis of the constitutional assurance of minority protection, seems nothing short of wrong-headed, perhaps even perverse.

It goes against the “plain sense” of those words as they were generally understood when the Constitution was promulgated and against the entire history of constitutional interpretation and reasoning.

* Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology & Anthropology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 18 October 2013, 2:21 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Judiciary
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


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.

The Muslim Lawyers’ Association of Malaysia had also weighed in on the issue, saying the ban only applied to the Bahasa Malaysia section of the Herald.

Abu Talib said the central issue decided was whether people and institutions other than Muslims could use the word.

“The Court of Appeal has made a finding that the name Allah is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity and, by that extension, the word is exclusive to Islam and Muslims,” he said.

Abu Talib, who was Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) chair after retiring as AG, said in view of sensitivity of the issue, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Tun Arifin Zakaria, must give priority to this case which is of public interest.

“If not properly handled, this hot issue will give rise to further controversies as we live in multi-racial and multi-religious society,” he said.

He said the matter must be brought to a finality and once the issue had been decided, “all must move forward”.

“The position of Islam as the religion of the Federation and freedom of other religions could come under scrutiny if the merit of the appeal was heard in the apex court.

“It boils down to freedom of non-Muslims to practice their faith and any decision under the Federal Constitution binds all, irrespective of state and region,” he said.

Abu Talib said there were irresponsible comments and responses following the Court of Appeal ruling with some bordering on contempt of court.

“You can criticise the judgment but there is limit to it. At the end of the day, the independence and integrity of the judiciary must be maintained and observed,” he added. – October 19, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 19 October 2013, 9:28 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Judiciary
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Allah’ verdict continues to draw ridicule abroad

Malaysiakini

Oct 19, 2013

Five days after the Court of Appeal ruled on the ‘Allah’ issue the controversial decision is still drawing ridicule from some Muslims worldwide as, among others, “bizarre” and “grossly wrong”.

“Now, as a fellow Muslim, I will be honest to the Malaysians who have given this verdict or those who support it: This is one of the most illogical, insensible and childish decisions I have heard in my life. It is sheer nonsense,” wrote a columnist for Turkish daily Hurriyet Daily News today.

Mustafa Akyol, who appears to write for several Turkish and international publications, called the verdict that The Herald cannot use the word ‘Allah’ as it leads to confusion amongst Muslims and brings the threat of propagation “grossly wrong”, “un-Islamic” and “irrational”.

“Why? Well, first of all, the word ‘Allah’ simply means ‘the God’ in Arabic, and it certainly is not exclusive to Islam,” he wrote, mirroring the much repeated explanation that seems to fall on deaf ears amongst the local Muslims in authority.

He added in his commentary that Islam itself in fact encourages others of the Abrahamic religions to embrace the term.

“…If Malaysian Muslims should have done anything about the word ‘Allah’, it should have been to call on Christians to use the term freely,” he argued quoting from Quranic verses.

Commenting on Muslim “confusion” over the Christians’ use of ‘Allah, Akyol said, “Well, nobody’s ‘confusion’, or lack of comprehension, can justify the destruction of other people’s freedom.

“Otherwise, should Christian countries ban the usage of terms such as ‘Jesus’ or ‘Mary’, which are prominent in the Quran, by their Muslim minorities?”

The columnist did not mince his words that those who advance such ideas of a “Muslim copyright for ‘Allah'” does nothing but “reveal the burning lack of intellectual self-confidence among Muslims”.

“Why, otherwise, does the slightest chance of ‘the propagation of other religions’ provoke so much fear – and so much compulsion?” he concluded.

‘Sad behaviour on holy day’

Earlier on Wednesday, an editorial in Pakistan’s English paper Daily Times lamented the sad state of Islamic practice while reflecting on the week’s holy day Eid Al Adha, citing the ‘Allah’ ruling as one of the examples.

“The problem with practising Muslims today is that they treat Islam like an insecure entity that needs care, due attention and a special shelter lest it gets smeared and nullified…

“Who has given Muslims the liberty to copyright the name of Allah? It is His name, and He is the God of the universe, as He has said in the scriptures,” wrote mufti Abdul Aziz al Sheikh in his commentary that included incidents of violence in Syria and Pakistan.

“There is no religion that does not believe in the existence of god. Why are we trying to deny people owning god in all his attributes? Is this how piety in Islam is preserved or managed?” wrote the mufti.

Calling the move to limit the use of the name “retrogressive”, Abdul Aziz asked how Muslims were to attain their spiritual goal.

The highly anticipated ruling on Monday to bar the Catholic publication The Herald from using ‘Allah’ to refer to god, and the aftermath of consternation as well as confusion both among the public and the government alike, has reverberated across the world in a chorus of criticism.

In the UK a Sudanese Muslim writer said the verdict was merely an attempt by the majority in “subordinating” the minorities and had no basis in theology.

United Arab Emirates’s (UAE) newspaper The National was one of the first to react, arguing in an editorial on the same day as the verdict that the word ‘Allah’ was “not exclusive to Islam”.

Meanwhile a senior editor at Indonesian daily Jakarta Post commented, “Can Muslims, who profess belief in one almighty god, seriously claim exclusivity in God?

“Those who claim exclusivity to God undermine their own faith,” wrote Endy M Bayuni on Thursday.

Ibrahim Ali: Who cares what you think?

In the face of the onslaught abroad, firebrand and pro-government lobbyist Ibrahim Ali in The Malay Mail Online yesterday slammed critics of the ruling, saying there were also ignorant Muslims in the Arab countries, and that some in Indonesia even “eat pork”.

“Why should we be bothered … Don’t think that every Arab knows or understands Islam. That there is no one ignorant there.

“Those (from the Arab world) that support the US are socialists and Christians…

“The same can be said about Indonesia…it is far worse. Those who don the ‘songkok’ are not necessarily Muslim …there are those who consume pork. It’s all possible in Indonesia,” the Perkasa chief told the English daily.

Ibrahim, who last year courted controversy for calling on Malay language bibles containing the word ‘Allah’ to be burned, repeated his stunt on Thursday now calling for such bibles to be banned.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 19 October 2013, 3:58 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.