Renewed resolve on places of worship

New Straits Times
by Yong Huey Jiun

Since March 8, religious leaders have found more open doors in government offices. But, they tell YONG HUEY JIUN, they have a list of outstanding problems to address

THE Sri Maha Kaliamman Temple near Kampung Tasek Tambahan in Ampang has been demolished several times in its 19-year existence. Now it will be rebuilt for the third time -- once the Selangor government provides a new location.

Scores of non-Muslim places of worship have faced a similar fate, but with this issue swaying voters in the March 8 general election, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat members are speaking up for them.

In the mid-1990s, then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad ordered that the demolition of places of worship had to be approved by the respective menteri besar or chief minister, while he himself would decide on cases within the Federal Territory. But over the years, this directive has been ignored or forgotten.

Part of the problem is that many of these sites do not have land titles, notes Datuk A. Vaithilingam, president of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism.

The Malaysia Hindu Sangam, the country's umbrella body for Hindus, has been working to register an estimated 7,000 temples and 10,000 shrines. So far, they have been able to register only 2,000 because many are suspicious of the exercise.

Last year, the Hindu Sangam asked the Housing and Local Government Ministry to conduct the registration instead.

In some cases, places of worship are built "illegally" on land belonging to the government or private owners. The Sri Maha Kaliamman Temple, for example, was on Selangor forest reserve land.

As far as possible, religious leaders try to negotiate new sites with local authorities or developers before the bulldozers move in. But sometimes, they only find out about demolitions when it is too late.

The demolition of the 60-year-old Sri Maha Mariamman temple in Shah Alam on Oct 30 last year, just before Deepavali, may have cost BN the local non-Muslim vote in the polls.

When the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) demolished the Sri Maha Kaliamman Temple last September, both BN and Pakatan leaders protested. MIC Youth chief T. Mohan pointed out that the new Pakatan-run state government had promised not to demolish any places of worship, while Kapar member of parliament S. Manickavasagam threatened to resign as Parti Keadilan Rakyat's Selangor liaison committee deputy chairman if no action was taken against MPAJ officials.

Selangor's state committee on non-religious affairs, set up after the elections, temporarily suspended MPAJ deputy president Hamid Hussain and investigated the incident.

One of the outcomes was that owners of 27 plots of state land approved for places of worship in Selangor were told they need only pay RM1,000 quit rent for the first year and then a nominal RM1 for the remainder of new 99-year leases.

But although authorities are now more open to talks, it will take time for change to take effect.

"The government may have changed in some states," says Loka Ng Sai Kai, coordinator of the Malaysian Buddhist Solidarity Group, "but the local government officials are still the same. These officials don't necessarily understand the structural and cultural issues involved."

Bar Council's Roger Tan has been calling for a department of non-Muslim affairs to be set up in every state, stressing that religious leaders should be involved in decision-making on issues affecting their communities.

"If an illegal non-Muslim place of worship is demolished by a department of non-Muslim affairs, the impact and reaction would not be as great as it might be if the task were performed by the land office or local authority," he says.

Religious leaders complain of having faced political and bureaucratic hurdles for years.

Vaithilingam says the difficulty of establishing non-Muslim houses of worship leads to "illegal" temples and shophouses being turned into churches.

It is not uncommon for a decade to pass between application and approval of a non-Muslim house of worship. The Vihara Samadhi Temple in Shah Alam is a case in point. In the early 1990s, the Buddhist Missionary Society Malaysia (BMSM) submitted a building plan to the Shah Alam municipal council for 1.3 acres bought from the Selangor State Development Corporation.

The application was rejected -- after some five years -- on grounds that there was a large Muslim population there. BMSM was compensated with another piece of land nearby, which took the Shah Alam municipal council another three years to approve. Finally, after more than 10 years, the layout plan was approved just before the March general election.

Datuk Chee Peck Kiat, BMSM's honorary secretary-general, says impractical restrictions on building dimensions are as much to blame as the bureaucracy that stalls approval.

At a meeting with various non-Muslim representatives to discuss new guidelines for non-Muslim places of worship, Pakatan decided that such restrictions should be dealt with "on a case-to-case basis", taking into account the needs of the communities.

Another major hurdle is funding. The Federal Government has earmarked RM8 million for building non-Muslim places of worship from 2005 to 2008, with RM428 million allocated for Muslim facilities. Non-Muslim leaders say the meagre allocations compel them to rely on their own financing.

In his Budget 2009 speech last month, Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim proposed RM6 million for non-Muslim places of worship and RM103.5 million for the state Islamic Religious Department to build, maintain and upgrade religious primary schools, offices and mosques.

Religious leaders urge that places of worship not be seen as flashpoints but as nation-building blocks. Such institutions can help promote consciousness of morality and service to others, says Reverend Dr Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches Malaysia.

"The religious community is a vital link in this process," he says. "If people want to learn more about their own faith and offer services beyond themselves, the authorities should facilitate them."

Only 23 in Bar Council elections

KUALA LUMPUR: Only 23 members entered for the Bar Council elections for the 2009/2010 term at the close of nominations last Friday, fewer than the usual number from the 12,600 lawyers of the Malaysian Bar.

Two current councillors -- Roger Tan and Yasmeen Muhamad Shariff -- will not be seeking re-election.

The elections had attracted more than 30 nominees in previous years.

Tan, who has been a council member since 2004, has served in various positions, notably the deputy chair of IT & Cyberlaws Committee, chairman of the Conveyancing Practice Committee, chairman of the Solicitors Remuneration Order Enforcement Committee and organising chairman of the 14th Malaysian Law Conference.

"I have already given my best in the last four years in serving the Bar.

"It's time to move on so that others will have an opportunity to do so," said Tan.

Let Magna Carta be our beacon of justice

ABOUT 800 years ago, there lived a bad king in England. His name was King John.

King John was not only ruthless, but greedy as he extracted extortionate taxes from his people. He even killed his own nephew, Arthur, in 1206 and imprisoned Arthur’s sister, Eleanor to secure his throne, which he ascended on April 6, 1199.

Though he managed to quell the Welsh Uprising of 1211, his position was much weakened after he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent III in 1207 when he challenged the latter’s choice of Archbishop of Canterbury. When he lost in the 12-year War of Bouvines (1202-1214) with King Philip II Augustus of France while trying to reclaim Normandy in the Battle of Bouvines on July 27, 1214, his barons turned against him.

Today, John is perhaps better known as an enemy of the outlaws headed by the archetypical hero of English folklore, Robin Hood. But Winston Churchill best described John’s legacy as follows:

“When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns.”

How true indeed because we lawyers would always recall this date, June 15, 1215 — the day the barons and John met at Runnymede, near London, and there in a meadow, John attached his royal seal on an agreed document called the Great Charter of Liberty or better known as Magna Carta in Latin.

By divine intervention perhaps, John met an early death a year later on Oct 19 just as he was about to join forces with Pope Innocent III to renege on what he had signed. He was succeeded by his 9-year-old son Henry III who was too weak to take on the barons.

Though Magna Carta was signed with the nobles, it sought not only to restrict the powers of the monarch but to protect the rights of “all free men”. It is a document of outstanding importance because it contributed to the early establishment of the constitutional principles of democracy and rule of law.

Even though 793 years have passed, three of its 63 original chapters still have the force of law in England, and two of them are:

“38. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

“39. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

Hence, Magna Carta influenced the drafting of many constitutions around the world, including that of the United States. Its significance is best summed up by former British prime minister Anthony Eden as follows:

“June 15, 1215 is rightly regarded as one of the most notable days in the history of the world. Those who were at Runnymede that day could not know the consequences that were to flow from their proceedings. The granting of Magna Carta marked the road to individual freedom, to parliamentary democracy and to the supremacy of the law. The principles of Magna Carta, developed over the centuries by the common law, are the heritage now, not only of those who live in these islands, but in countless millions of all races and creeds throughout the world.”

In fact, Chapter 39 of Magna Carta also brought about the remedy against unlawful imprisonment by way of the great writ of habeas corpus when the Habeas Corpus Act was passed in 1679. Habeas corpus means ‘produce the body’ and is said to be the best safeguard of individual liberty because when a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court of law, the prisoner or détenu (detainee) must be released. Judiciary is, therefore, said to be the bulwark of an Englishman’s freedoms and liberties.

In Malaysia, the right to habeas corpus is incorporated into Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution.

However, it is ironic that when the British ruled Malaya from 1948 to 1957, Magna Carta was obviously not in their minds when they made Regulation 17 of the Emergency Regulations 1948 to allow the chief secretary to detain, by order, any person for a period not exceeding one year even though Section 4 of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance of 1948, which empowered the British high commissioner to make any regulations he considered desirable in the public interest, expressly stipulated the proviso that “no such regulation shall confer any right to punish by death, fine or imprisonment without trial…”

When the Emergency Regulations ceased after the proclamation of emergency ended on July 29, 1960, Regulation 17 was virtually transplanted into a new statute, called the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) which came into force two days later.

But the ISA is not the only preventive law in Malaysia. The other two laws are the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (POPO) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (DDA). POPO which came into force on May 16, 1969 after the May 13, 1969 riots allowed the minister to detain without trial any person for up to two years in the interest of public order or in order to suppress violence or prevent crime. Today, there are about 700 detainees under POPO. DDA which came into force on May 30, 1985 allowed the minister to detain without trial any person involved in drug trafficking for up to two years.

Interestingly, preventive laws are permitted under Articles 149 and 150 of the Constitution and such laws are valid notwithstanding that they are inconsistent with Article 5, 9, 10 or 13 of the Constitution or would be outside the legislative power of Parliament.

While it appears that our courts are prepared to order habeas corpus where the detention is made by the police under these laws (see Mohamad Ezam bin Mohd Noor v Ketua Polis Negara, 2002), our courts however will not review a detention order signed by the minister where such law contains a provision ousting the jurisdiction of the courts (see Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Nasharuddin bin Nasir, 2004 and Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan & Another Appeal, 2002) notwithstanding Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Hence, depending on which side you are on, there will be arguments for and against such preventive laws.

For the government, it is the state’s responsibility to protect national security.

Preventive laws are like pre-emptive strikes against terrorists, gangsters and drug traffickers. Proponents of such laws, including the victims of terrorism and serious crimes, will ask — do we need to wait until the day when Malaysians have to wake up like the Americans did after Sept 11, 2001 to realise that the shock, horror and revulsion caused by these horrendous acts of terrorism indeed justify preventive detention? This is akin to one reading about accidents in newspapers every day. One may only feel sorry for the dead and injured when reading about it, but if the dead and injured are your loved ones, it is a totally different matter altogether.

The government will no doubt find support in the celebrated words of Lord Denning in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball, 1977 that “when the state itself is endangered, our cherished freedoms may have to take second place”.

Employing the same argument, if you or your loved ones are the incarcerated, you will cry to high heaven when access to courts and justice is denied. This is particularly so when they are innocent or these preventive laws are abused not for their original intention. And when the matter is taken to the courts, the courts will tell you that in the absence of any ambiguity, the preambles to such laws are of no help in interpreting their substantive provisions (see Re Tan Boon Liat, 1976).

Unless one or one’s loved ones are victims of such travesty of justice, one may not appreciate why the fundamental rights to life and justice as enunciated as far back as Magna Carta are sacred and cannot be overridden.

The right to habeas corpus under Article 5(2) is not a “mere rope of sand”. Perhaps the real threat to the life of a nation is not the detainee but the law itself because it undermines civil liberties as there can never be such a thing as 100 per cent security.

In fact, apart from blaming the judiciary for inaction, I am of the view that the role of the three-member advisory board is equally important because Article 151(2) of the Constitution provides that no citizen shall continue to be detained under any preventive laws unless an advisory board has considered the representations made by the detainee, and made the necessary recommendations to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Article 152 provides that the board must be chaired by a judge or a person qualified to be one. Sadly, the strict rules of procedure and proof do not apply to hearings before the board, and the detainee’s counsel had been denied before the right to cross-examine witnesses.

While these oft-repeated arguments of balancing national security and cherished liberties rage on, my other concern with the use of these preventive laws is that it will only encourage and perpetuate poor police investigations when the state is not required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime. It is indeed an easy way out because the Penal Code already has the required provisions to deal with those who commit treason or offences against the state.

In the US and the UK, despite the governments there having passed laws after 9/11 to allow preventive detention, the US Supreme Court and the British House of Lords have fiercely stood their ground against any attempt to remove the right to habeas corpus, citing Magna Carta.

I can do no better by ending with the words of Lord Hoffman in the latter case: “Of course the government has a duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens. But that is a duty which it owes all the time and which it must discharge without destroying our constitutional freedoms. There may be some nations too fragile or fissiparous to withstand a serious act of violence. But that is not the case in the United Kingdom.”

Therefore, let Magna Carta live on, that is, to no one shall we deny justice.

Published in the New Sunday Times, 12 October 2008

When hope is gone, seek help

BANG! I was jolted out of my bed at 2.30am by this loud sound of glass shattering.

Thinking that somebody might be trying to break in, I rushed to the window to see if there was anything or somebody at the balcony. There was no one.

Then, to my horror, I spied sprawled on the ground a body clad in a white T-shirt and shorts in a pool of blood. It was a gory and yet poignant sight. The thought that immediately came to mind was that a man had jumped to his death.

Looking back now at this sad incident, which happened two months ago, I am amazed at how I plucked up the courage to run around in the middle of the night, with the body lying within sight, to look for the guards and other residents for help.

It turned out that it was actually a young woman who had fallen from the 12th floor. She was still alive because she fell through a glassed walkway without hitting the ground directly. But her hips and legs were broken with some bones protruding out. Her mother, when she rushed to the scene, wailed loudly and her cries broke the stillness of the night. It was heart-wrenching.

The ambulance arrived in 20 minutes but she died two hours later in the hospital.

I was rather traumatised by the incident: this ghastly scene kept flashing through my mind for a few weeks. I guess the experience could have been worse had it taken place during the just-concluded Hungry Ghost month.

Suicide is the antithesis of life and I find it ironic that a person who had no courage to face life had the courage to face a painful death.

It is said that for every person who commits suicide, at least five other people will suffer as they try to come to terms with the suicide of their loved ones. Studies have shown that children whose parents committed suicide could grow up to be depressed and, sometimes, suicidal adults if they do not receive proper care.

This explains why the wails of that grief-stricken mother still reverberate through my mind.

It is, therefore, disappointing to note that Sept 10, World Suicide Prevention Day, went past without any mention in our local media about suicide when it is a serious public health problem that is fast becoming our country's number two killer after heart disease.

Each year, nearly a million people around the globe commit suicide while 10 to 20 million attempt suicide at the same time.

Most religions do not approve of suicide as they view suicide as a sinful act of taking one's life which only God can take away.

It is interesting to note that only by this December will Malaysia know for the first time how prevalent suicides are when the first official data consisting of all suicide cases reported since July last year will be released by the National Suicide Registry of Malaysia.

However, from the little research I did, I discovered some disturbing facts about suicide in Malaysia and elsewhere:

- Between 1990 and 1995, about 400 people were admitted annually to University Hospital for injuries sustained in suicide attempts.

- In 2000, 53 children under the age of 11 and 1,837 people above the age of 12 attempted suicide and the youth suicide rate in Malaysia was estimated to be three in every 100,000.

- According to a Ministry of Health booklet published in 2004 entitled "Guidelines in the Management of Psychiatric Disorders", between 10 and 15 per cent of suicide bidders eventually succeeded in killing themselves and males were twice as likely to try again as females. The risk was particularly high in the first year after a failed attempt.

It also recorded that suicide rates increased with age with the highest among the elderly. Among men aged 65 and above, the suicide rate was 40 per 100,000, two to four times higher than the rate among women.

Among women, the findings revealed that most attempted suicides were in the 15-24 age group (283 per 100,000) and among men, the 25-34 age group (199 per 100,000). ("Unemployment driving men to attempt suicide" -- NST, Oct 31, 2004.)

- According to a 2006 estimate, 13 Malaysians in 100,000 kill themselves as opposed to eight in the 1980s. Of these, the suicide rate in the Indian community is the highest with 30 to 35 attempting suicide compared with 15 Chinese and six Malays in every 100,000.

However, the rates could even be higher as some cases were either unreported or under-reported due either to stigma and shame attached to suicide or because the deceased's life insurance would normally contain a clause denying payments on the ground of self-inflicted death.

- In Singapore, the total number of suicides in 2003 was 346. This went up to 419 in 2006 but it came down to 374 in 2007. Among those aged 65 years and above, suicides increased from 69 in 2006 to 87 last year. There, the suicide rate was 10.3 per 100,000 in 2006 and 9.15 per 100,000 last year.

- Kuwait and Iran have the lowest suicide rates in the world at two per 100,000 residents. Lithuania has the highest at 43 per 100,000 residents.

- In 2002, 18 out of every 100,000 Koreans committed suicide.

- In Japan, 30,000 people take their lives annually. This is about 90 suicides a day, which is the highest among developed countries.

It is said that the suicide rate is usually higher during an economic recession. Other common factors include stress, mental disorders, anxiety, depression, ailments, relationship problems, divorce, physical abuse, unemployment, drugs, bankruptcy and ageing.

The vast majority of those who committed suicide took poisons such as pesticides, jumped from high-rise buildings or hanged themselves.

Nevertheless, suicide is, in fact, a preventable death. Suicide is essentially due to a total loss of hope, which drives people wanting to rather die than live. Some experts have also described suicide happening when pain exceeds the resources of coping with it.

At the same time, many experts have advised that if we can get those who have suicidal thoughts to talk about their problems, there is still hope of preventing death.

Here, I find the information on the website of the Befrienders (www.befrienders.org.my) rather informative. According to the website, two of the many fallacies of suicide need to be debunked:

Firstly, persons who talk about suicide do not commit suicide. The fact is, of any 10 persons who will commit it, eight have given definite warnings of their suicidal intentions.

The second myth is that suicide happens without warning. Studies have revealed that suicidal persons give many clues and warnings regarding their suicidal intentions.

In this respect, it is good for the public to know the warning signs. The San Francisco Suicide Prevention Crisis Line has listed the following as possible warning signs:

- Talking about dying -- any mention of dying, disappearing, jumping, shooting oneself or other types of self harm.

- Recent loss -- through death, divorce, separation, broken relationship; loss of job, money, status, self-confidence, self-esteem, religious faith; and loss of interest in friends, sex, hobbies or activities previously enjoyed.

- Change in personality -- sad, withdrawn, irritable, anxious, tired, indecisive or apathetic.

- Change in behaviour -- can't concentrate at school, work or on routine tasks.

- Change in sleep patterns -- insomnia, often with early waking or oversleeping, or nightmares.

- Change in eating habits -- loss of appetite and weight, or overeating.

- Diminished sexual interest -- impotence or menstrual abnormalities (often missed periods).

- Fear of losing control -- going crazy, harming self or others.

- Low self esteem -- feeling worthless, shame, overwhelming guilt, self-hatred, or "everyone would be better off without me".

- No hope for the future -- believing things will never get better; that nothing will ever change.

- Other things to watch for -- suicidal impulses, statements, plans; giving away favourite things; and previous suicide attempts, substance abuse, making out wills, arranging for the care of pets, extravagant spending, agitation, hyperactivity, restlessness or lethargy.

It follows that our professional counsellors and rescuers must be well equipped and trained to prevent suicide attempts, especially those wanting to jump from high rise buildings.

I remember in 2001, a 32-year-old woman plunged to her death from her 16th floor apartment at Plaza DNP, Johor Baru, after she was allegedly taunted by a member of the public to jump as he thought the woman could be frightened off from jumping.

A fireman from the Larkin Fire and Rescue Department managed to grab her hand but lost his grip due to a struggle.

The rescue operation was hampered as the department did not have any airbags or safety net to break her fall. Four airbags were immediately purchased after that.

All in all, if any reader reading this is feeling suicidal, I pray you will seek help or talk to someone. You owe it to yourself and family to do so.

Always remember that no one on this earth is devoid of stress or personal problems. There are many secular bodies out there that are waiting to help you.

Otherwise, in your quiet moments, you can also turn to God for God loves you. There is nothing impossible or insurmountable with God and I am sure when you seek Him, He will grant you spiritual healing.

Always remember too that where there is life, there is hope. So do not give up hope and the precious life that God has given you.

Published in the New Sunday Times, 14 September 2008