May

31

It’s the law, stupid

May 31, 2007 |

lady-justice.gifIt appears that not only are some people in the Barisan Nasional government stupid, some judges in the judiciary are equally stupid.

Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia – the supreme law of the land, the last time I heard – clearly states that “every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.”

I’m not all that familiar with the intricacies of the Lina Joy case, but I do know that she converted to Christianity by her own choice.

Without even reading the judgments of Federal Court, I believe it’s safe to say that the Malaysia Boleh! spirit has done it again - do something stupid that no one in their right mind would.

Whilst reading about the court’s decision on Malaysiakini, I decided to view the accompanying video clip and saw my old friend Yusri Mohamad, who’s now the President of ABIM, speaking on the court’s decision.

I must say that I am very disappointed with my friend’s position on this matter. I don’t seem to remember him having such a conservative approach to religion and spirituality.

Anyway, he mentioned something about the majority of Muslims and non-Muslims being happy with the Court’s decision. Well, my friend, just in case you’ve forgotten, religion and spirituality is not about the majority. It’s about our personal relationship with God, however we may perceive him or her. And, by the way, Islam is submission to the will of God, not the majority.

If the fair conclusion of any matter is simply about the majority, then the lines that I just quoted from the Federal Constitution are completely meaningless and useless. And since we’re on that track, we may as well just have mob rule and victimise every soul who dares to have a different opinion or belief.

Or did I miss a new amendment to the Constitution? Did the Parliament surreptitiously insert the words “except Muslims” when we were all sleeping?

That’s not the end of it, though. Just before he concluded his speech, Yusri suggested that “less confrontational and less controversial” methods be used to address this issue. Isn’t it obvious that this is a matter that is fundamental to a person’s identity and being? What is a less confrontational and less controversial approach when the State tells me that I can’t believe what I want to believe?

And, correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t there a verse in the Holy Quran that says that there is no compulsion in religion? If this is not compulsion, I don’t know what is.


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

9 Comments so far

  1. NSK on May 31, 2007 8:30 am

    I look at the Lina Joy case this way. If what Tun Mahathir said is true. that any Malay can throw away his/her muslim tag as long as he/she is prepared to throw away his Malay Bumiputra special rights in this country, then what Lina Joy has to do is to go to the Syariah court and says she no more believes in Islam and is prepared to throw away her Malay Bumi special rights! Am I right Tun M?

  2. lucia on May 31, 2007 9:14 am

    the esteemed, intelligent, professional judges wanted to be stupid so that they will not offend the (majority?) muslims. oh, ain’t that smart? er… er… ???

    yusri, president of ABIM is known for his narrow-mindedness and conservative view of islam. i can recall vaguely some of his remarks in some other instances.

  3. xpyre on May 31, 2007 9:58 am

    Yah, but if she’s not Malay, then what is she? Since the constitution defines Malay as, amongst others, someone who is a muslim, an apostate Malay cannot therefore be Malay. It’s just horribly wrong-headed!

    As for “less controversial and less confrontational”, that’s something I just don’t get at all. Are these people saying it was bad manners for Lina Joy to “go to town” with her decision? God forbid propriety ever takes precedence over justice.

  4. Yusmar on May 31, 2007 10:04 am

    I agree and the fact is……all these numbskulls are afraid to rock the boat….and decided to conform to the norm…..the decision made left a bad taste in my mouth…..we’ve truly lost our freedom.

  5. Ibn Juferi on June 10, 2007 4:42 pm

    NSK says:

    I look at the Lina Joy case this way. If what Tun Mahathir said is true. that any Malay can throw away his/her muslim tag as long as he/she is prepared to throw away his Malay Bumiputra special rights in this country, then what Lina Joy has to do is to go to the Syariah court and says she no more believes in Islam and is prepared to throw away her Malay Bumi special rights! Am I right Tun M?

    There is no valid reason Lina Joy should go to a Syariah court especially since she rejected Islam! Under international human rights law formulated by the West, particularly 27-nation European Union (EU), Muslim-majority Turkey if it wants to be part of EU cannot impose Syariah on humans as this violates 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Syariah may say “you cannot leave Islam” but Christians and Jews believe it to be man-made law, while Muslims believe it to be divine. So, we must conclude 2 to 1, the 2 are right! Majority prevails always.

    There will be no Syariah laws in the West, particularly France which has a large Muslim minority that is larger than Chinese minority in Malaysia. France’s right-wing President Sarkozy has warned Muslims “to go back home” if they want to be barbarians.

    Finally, Lina Joy is a Malay and she is entitled to Malay rights. Why should CHinese who “masuk Melayu” by simply ucap Shahada enjoy Malay rights despite being Chinese racially and Muslims religiously, while Malay Christians (as natives) are deprived of their basic human rights!

  6. Openterminal on March 12, 2008 2:33 am

    Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia – the supreme law of the land, the last time I heard – clearly states that “every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.”

    On comment given above, you are right on Article 11(1) but your understanding on “Clause (4), to propagate it” is erroneous. What this clause really mean is “federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam” and further check to Article 12(2)you will find the following statement in it “…but it shall be lawful for the Federation or a State
    to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions
    or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such
    expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose….”. While dealing with Malaysian within Malaysia Constitution referring to EU Right or Russian Right is irrelevent.
    Malaysia Constitution is been drafted in such a way that “allowing others to safely settle down in used to be Malay land while navigating to preserve the malay/natives right or customs and Islam as the official religion of the land”… the constitution has given enough freedom to all but human trait is “Noting is enough..!” and this caused the problem.

  7. Jonson Chong on March 12, 2008 12:48 pm

    Dear Openterminal,

    Thank you for your comment.

    I sense that you are taking a strictly legal approach to the Lina Joy case. Before I go on, please allow me to concede that I was hasty in writing that particular posting.

    Insofar as I am concerned, the most important consideration in this case is justice, be it for the appelant or the community as a whole.

    Bearing in mind that Islam and faith are also important considerations for this case, that is why I referred to the Holy Quran. Frankly, I don’t recall referring to any Russian or EU laws.

    Anyway, I also would like to make an observation. At the juncture of 1957, there’s no doubt that Malays were the majority in Malaya. Thus, Muslims were also the majority.

    However, there are two fictions/myths we need to address: (1) All Malays are Muslims; and (2) Malaya/Malaysia is a Malay land.

    I think Fiction (1) is obviously a myth. As for Fiction (2), if we take a historical look objectively, we will note that Malays are also visitors from overseas.

    If we truly want to have a democratic and united Malaysia, all of us must be honest and objective in approaching whatever debate, regardless of whether it involves race and religion.

    Thank you.

    Peace,
    Jonson

  8. Openterminal on March 13, 2008 5:23 am

    However, there are two fictions/myths we need to address: (1) All Malays are Muslims; and (2) Malaya/Malaysia is a Malay land.

    I think Fiction (1) is obviously a myth. As for Fiction (2), if we take a historical look objectively, we will note that Malays are also visitors from overseas.

    Dear Jason,
    While I could not agree more on your argument for item (1), objectively, item (2) is not a fiction or myth. Arguing that Malay was also a visitor to the land is just like arguing that nobody should claim the land is theirs since initially it is a “GOD land” and thousand years ago this land was owned by pre-historic ape like human!!.

    It all depend on how far off we want to back track the history/time. And luckily the law has set the time limit for this. Else, before we know it, there will be someone who will just walk-in to our room and claimed it is theirs…LOL

    The whole area was located in the area named as “Malay Archipelago” and the land was called “Tanah Melayu” for sure is not for the fun of naming it that way before.

    But, legally, what really matters is the land was occupied/managed and ruled by Malay sultanate long time ago and for that matter this has been emphasize further by the fact that any trade with the land have to get permission from the sultan first. Objectively this is why your item (2) cannot be considered fiction/myth and legally that how the Malaysia Constitution is been drafted and recognised.
    This is the fact that cannot be denied.

    And on our way championing on democratic and united malaysia in which we strived for there is always a thin line that we shouldnt cross.
    And in life, theres always a limit on everything. Else we just over step into somebody shoes.

    I think this is pretty much wrapped up my comment.

    Best Regards.

  9. Jonson Chong on April 2, 2008 4:50 pm

    Dear Openterminal,

    Whatever they are, I believe the facts speak for themselves.

    And, by the way, thanks for reading and sharing your views.

    Peace,
    Jonson

Blogroll

WP Themes