The beginning of a new Malaysia

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

The new government’s priorities should be to restore the rule of law, redress miscarriages of justice and bring about reforms to our public institutions.

ON May 10, Malaysians woke up to a new country, signaling the dawn of a new era.

The unprecedented GE14 results have obviously proved to the world that we the citizens are the masters of our own ship – we decide when and whether to repair, sink and rebuild it, let alone rock it! We should also take pride in the smooth and peaceful transfer of power. 

But GE14 victors should not use it to exact revenge on the vanquished in that they have received their comeuppance or take delight in their political schadenfreude. Instead, the new government’s priorities should be to restore the rule of law, redress miscarriages of justice and bring about reforms to our institutions of government. 

What then is the rule of law? This concept of the rule of law is also the fourth guiding principle of our Rukun Negara. To make it simple for our readers, it is best summed up in the words of Dr Thomas Fuller, who wrote in 1733, “Be you never so high, the law is above you.” In other words, no one including the king could disregard the law with impunity. As the English jurist, Henry Bracton (c. 1210 – c. 1268) put it, “the king is under no man but under God and the law because the law makes the king”. 

In Malaysia, the ascendancy of the law is also enshrined in Article 8 of the Federal Constitution that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. 

It is ironic that the reforms are now being pursued at great pace by the new Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who was also the old Prime Minister who had pursued Machiavellian policies and undermined some of the institutions during his previous rule. 

But he is now one person most loved by Malaysians and best suited to undertake this restoration, and rightly so because without him, whether one likes it or not, Pakatan Harapan would not have won GE14. 

What is most gratifying, however, is what Tun Mahathir said when he first took office, that the component parties in Pakatan are of equal standing, regardless of the number of seats respectively secured by them. This is unlike the component parties in Barisan Nasional who had to kowtow to the dominant party UMNO. 

Likewise, the Prime Minister’s relationship with his cabinet will be governed by the concept of primus inter pares or first among equals. 

It is hoped that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who has turned 70 will be now wiser. My generation remembers the damage caused by his pursuit of ethnocentric policies and ‘crony capitalism’ when he was a deputy prime minister. 

It is also good for him to always remember that when he was at his lowest ebb when first arrested on September 20, 1998, it was those from the opposition such as Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh who had gone to his aid. Hence, it remains a prayer of all Malaysians that when he takes over the reins, he will be a benevolent leader pursuing inclusive policies, making every Malaysian feel that they have a sense of belonging in this great nation. After all, it is a Malaysian tsunami that swept Pakatan into power.

Religion and the law

The Sunday Star

Legally Speaking by Roger Tan

The Jais raid on the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia has put into focus the Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 of SelangorThe Jais raid on the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia has put into focus the Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 of Selangor.

THE Jan 2 raid by the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (Jais) on the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM), in which 331 copies of Malay and Iban Bibles were seized, has brought to national attention a piece of state legislation hitherto unknown to many Malaysians – the Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 of Selangor (Selangor Enactment).

So far, Jais has argued they were empowered to do so under Section 9 (1) of the Selangor Enactment, which prohibits any non-Muslim to use in writing or speech any of 25 words or any of their derivatives and variations, as stated in Part 1 of the Schedule, pertaining to a non-Islamic religion.

The 25 words are Allah, Firman Allah, Ulama, Hadith, Ibadah, Kaabah, Kadi, Ilahi, Wahyu, Mubaligh, Syariah, Qiblat, Haj, Mufti, Rasul, Iman, Dakwah, Injil, Salat, Khalifah, Wali, Fatwa, Imam, Nabi andSheikh.

Section 9 (2) also prohibits a non-Muslim to use 10 expressions of Islamic origin set out in Part II of the Schedule, including Alhamdulillah and Insyallah.

Non-Muslims can, however, use the words and expressions by way of quotation or reference.

Jais contended that Section 9 (1) had been contravened because the Malay and Iban Bibles contain the word “Allah”. Further, they were entitled to arrest without warrant the BSM chairman, lawyer Lee Min Choon, and manager Sinclair Wong as section 11 provides that all offences and cases under the Selangor Enactment are deemed to be seizable offences and cases under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), that is, offenders of seizable offences can be arrested without any warrant of arrest.

A fortiori, as this is a law passed by a state legislature, it has the force of law and quite rightly it can, therefore, override the 10-point solution decided by the Federal Cabinet and communicated via the Prime Minister’s letter dated April 11, 2011 to the Christian Federation of Malaysia.

GE13: Do not politicise the pulpit

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

When spiritual leaders start to use the church to make fun of the government or endorse a particular political party or candidate, this is wrong.

ON April 15, Roman Catholic Bishop Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing lambasted the government for holding the 13th general election on a Sunday. Tan warned, as reported in a Malaysiakini article, “Bishop says Sunday ballot a bane to Christians”, that for this reason, he would urge Catholics in his diocese to consider carefully before voting.

It is surprising that this Bishop of the Diocese of Malacca-Johor who was also someone who had helped found the Catholic Research Centre could have got his facts so wrong. In this respect, I could not have agreed more with Austin Gonzales’ response to Tan’s unwarranted outbursts (see “Is Bishop Paul Tan being insensitive and callous?”, The Star, April 18) except to reiterate that, firstly, it is not the government but the Election Commission that fixed the election date. Secondly, the 7th, 8th and 11th general elections were all held on a Sunday – Aug 3, 1986, Oct 21, 1990, and March 21, 2004.

If Tan feels so strongly that Catholics in his diocese should not be inconvenienced on a Sunday because it is a holy day, then all the more he should urge them to consider carefully before voting for PAS as the weekly holiday may well be changed to a Friday should they come into power!

I am sure Tan’s sentiments are not shared by many Christian Malaysians. In fact, I am rather concerned that lately the pulpit has been misused for political purposes. Just last Sunday, one woman pastor in an established Kuala Lumpur church purportedly said over the pulpit without any substantiating evidence that thousands of foreigners would be voting in this election.

In the Facebook Group of the Anglican Diocese of West Malaysia, someone was even allowed to post that Sunday had been chosen in order to enable phantom votes to take place in the morning when Christians are worshipping in church! This is indeed a colossal exaggeration. There was also another posting there heaping praise on PAS for fielding Hu Pang Chow, a Christian, in this coming election.

To my mind, what Tan and the woman pastor did was to sow hatred and make their believers angry. They have obviously forgotten the Prayer of St Francis of Assisi to become instruments of peace so that where there is hatred, may they sow love, and where there is injury, pardon.

Tan, in particular, should be reminded by what Pope Francis said recently that hypocrisy has undermined the church’s credibility. In the pontiff’s words: “Inconsistency on the part of pastors and the faithful between what they say and what they do, between word and manner of life, is undermining the Church’s credibility … Those who listen to us and observe us must be able to see in our actions what they hear from our lips, and so give glory to God.”

Undo the acts that hurt others

IN a multi-religious country like ours, religion is one issue which always invokes and provokes strong passions and reactions if not handled carefully.

In the last general election, many non-Muslims turned away from Barisan Nasional and voted for the opposition.

In some cases, church leaders even openly encouraged their Christian congregations to vote for Pas - something hitherto unthinkable, especially when Pas has always been advocating the establishment of an Islamic state.

But why had non-Muslims voted for the opposition so resoundingly this time?

The reason is obvious. The non-Muslims' gravamens are essentially these:

• the authorities were trigger-happy in demolishing illegal places of worship.

• the government's inaction, especially by the non-Muslim component parties in BN, in resolving the conflicts of civil law and syariah arising out of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The problem is compounded when non-Muslims could more or less predict the outcome of the decisions of civil courts whenever a remedy was sought there.

• religious polarisation caused by the rivalry between Umno and Pas, each wanting to outdo the other in being more Islamic.

• non-Muslims find it increasingly difficult to build their places of worship.

Of these, I would only like to deal with the last grievance.

Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares that non-Muslims are entitled to practise their religions in peace and harmony while Islam is the religion of the federation.

This is reinforced by Article 11(1) which provides that every non-Muslim has the right to profess and practise his religion. Article 11(3) also states that every religious group has the right, inter alia, to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes and to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

Sadly, in practice, this is not the case. The time taken to obtain approvals to build non-Muslim places of worship is incredibly long. In almost every case, it takes years. The application and approval process is most cumbersome. For a start, it is almost unheard of that state governments would alienate lands for erection of non-Muslim places of worship. Hence, the lands involved are usually private lands and so before it could be used for religious purposes, the land has to be first converted for religious use. So an application will have to be made to the state authority (which is the state executive council), and it will be processed by the land office.

However, because it involves the erection of non-Muslim places of worship, most states require the matter to be first referred to a district security committee. At the district security committee level, the district office will have to obtain comments from various government departments, including the police.

The least palatable aspect of it all is that views from the Religious Affairs Department will also be sought.

Even if the district security committee approves it, the matter would still have to be referred to the state security committee, which is chaired by either the chief minister or state secretary.

In most cases, the process of obtaining comments from the various government departments is repeated.

If the state security committee okays it, it does not mean the application has been approved. It then goes to another committee chaired by the state executive councillor in charge of land matters, a position usually held by the chief minister.

If the committee approves it, the state executive council has to give its final approval.

As the process takes such a long time, it is no surprise that along the way, the file is either misplaced or goes missing. In addition, sometimes there is a delay in submitting the papers for deliberation by some over-zealous junior government officers, who are mono-religious and feel that it is against their religion to support it.

The story does not end there even when the land has been converted for religious use. The next thing is to put up the building.

To do that, an application will now have to be submitted to the local authority for approval of the building plans.

But because it involves a non-Muslim place of worship, the process of going through the district and state security committees has to be repeated.

Even if the final approval is obtained, it still takes a few years for the building to come up. The reason being the costs of financing the construction and completion of these places of worship have to be privately raised and borne. All in all, it is not uncommon for at least 10 years to pass by the time a project comes to fruition.

It follows that because the approval process is so difficult, it is no wonder illegal places of worship mushroom here and there.

What is most insulting to them is the erection of their places of worship is viewed as a security threat. Often, it has to be referred to a security committee whose composition includes representatives from the Religious Affairs Department.

On the other hand, the erection of mosques is efficiently co-ordinated by one body - the state Muslim Council (Majlis Agama Islam).

Land is easily made available and whenever a new housing development is completed, a place will be reserved for the construction of either a mosque or surau. Financing its construction is not a problem either.

Some two years ago, I suggested in this column ("Religious freedom the keystone" - NST, Jan 8, 2006) that each state government should set up a non-Muslim religious department to look into the religious issues affecting non-Muslims and to co-ordinate applications and funding for non-Muslim places of worship.

I repeat this call and it is hoped that all state governments, whether under BN or Pakatan Rakyat, will consider this.

I am confident that any step taken to expedite the approval process and provide funding for non-Muslim places of worship will, in turn, expedite the healing process among these Malaysians who certainly feel aggrieved by this course of events.

By allowing them to freely and easily exercise their constitutional right to establish their religious sanctuaries will go a long way towards winning their hearts and minds.

In this respect, the Selangor government's decision to waive quit rent and assessment rates for all registered places of worship and schools in the state is laudable. They now only need to pay a token annual fee of RM1.

Likewise, the statement from the Pahang state secretary that it will now adopt a more liberal approach to matters concerning religion and places of worship is most welcome. Similarly, the prime minister has pledged to improve the situation.

But the most assuring of all came from the Sultan of Selangor, who said that although he is the head of Islam in Selangor, he will not hesitate to take action against any extremists and that it is important to ensure that religious freedom is defended by all.

It is hoped that everyone, be he a leader of BN or Pakatan, a Muslim or otherwise, will now take heed of the voice of the people expressed in the last general election.

It is hoped, too, that politicians will be often reminded by what the regent of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah said exactly a year ago at the Young Malaysians' Roundtable Discussion on National Unity and Development in Malaysia that Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians equally, and all have an equal right and responsibility to take ownership of their country and its future.

He added that the sine qua non of building a strong nation is when its citizens feel a sense of belonging and a common destiny and in our case, when Malaysians of all races, religions and origins are bound together in a common purpose.

Therefore, history has always shown that suppression of a person's inherent right to freedom of religion is a recipe for disaster.

Consonantly, our leaders have also much to learn from the fair and just Muslim ruler in Sultan Abu Bakar, who ruled the state of Johor from 1886 to 1895.

Though a Muslim, he was much loved by his non-Muslim subjects. Hailed as the Father of Modern Johor, he granted many plots of land for the erection of churches and temples throughout Johor.

The best testimony of his sense of fairness and justice is reflected in the Johor constitution promulgated during his reign, wherein it still contains an article proclaiming as follows:

"All the laws and customs of the country shall be carried out and exercised with justice and fairness by all the Courts of Justice and all Officers and Servants of the State between all the people of the country and the aliens who sojourn and reside under its protection, whether for a season or for a lengthened period, that is to say, without their entertaining in the least degree more sympathy or regard to partiality towards those who profess the religion of the country, namely the Muslim religion, or making any difference between those who are the subjects of the State and those who are not."

Let us all Malaysians join hands as one people respecting each other's right to practise his religion in peace and harmony.

Let us take pride rather than cringe with shame if this country is filled not only with mosques but also churches and temples. If it is so, it is only because Malaysia is truly Asia.