THE CICAK.com

Freedom of religion, don’t get emotional?

By THE PIANIST

Kaliammal Sinnasamy was unable to mourn for her dead husband, as his body was seized by authorities and given a Muslim burial.

No court of law in Malaysia can offer Kaliammal restitution. And this happened because she is Hindu.

The ongoing political firestorm in Malaysia has created a chasm between Muslims and non-Muslims, from the nation’s top political brass to the average Malaysian blogger. The media has been overflowing with statements, commentaries, op-eds, and news concerning this issue.

But really, this is not “new” news.

To the uninitiated, this issue is not a problem of the Badawi administration. Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution was instituted during Tun Mahathir’s reign in 1988, and this should be the starting point from which we examine this fracas.

In the span of Mahathir’s 20-year authoritarian rule, citizens like Joshua Jamaluddin were incarcerated under the Internal Security Act for converting to Christianity. Jamaluddin later detailed his harrowing experience of his time in detention. Authorities, Jamaluddin said, tried to make him recant his beliefs.

Like Jamaluddin, Azlina Jailani - who adopted the name Lina Joy - was another Muslim who converted to Christianity. She was denied the right to register her marriage because the Registrar of Marriages only recognises unions of Malays if they are Muslim. And if the spouse-to-be is not Muslim, conversion is required by law.

The issue rests in Article 160 (2) or the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which defines a Malay to be as “… a person who professes the religion of Islam.� Thus Azlina, who by constitutional definition is only 75 percent Malay, was unable to marry.

In the government’s defence, we do have Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution which provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his or her religion. This seems like something plucked out of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While he was still prime minister, Tun Mahathir declared the country as an Islamic state. Most citizens automatically considered this legitimate because Mahathir proclaimed it. He was the then-leader of a race-based political organisation of Malay Muslims, the ethnic majority in the country. In addition, Mahathir also controlled more than two-thirds of Parliament. Thus when he spoke, people listened simply because they had to. Without substantial political clout and possible incarceration, who would dare challenge Mahathir’s Islamic state?

With political authority bordering on overkill, federal laws instituted by Mahathir such as Article 121 (1A) went unchallenged for 26 years, until now.

Enter the Moorthy case. Sgt. Moorthy Maniam’s body was spirited away from the hospital under allegations that he had converted to Islam before he died. Sworn statements by affidavits show discrepancies. The court’s refusal to discuss Moorthy’s status as a Muslim makes it impossible for his wife, Kaliammal Sinnasamy, to initiate a legal battle. As a non-Muslim, she could not appear before the Syariah court, which had jurisdiction over the case.

In an unprecedented move, 10 non-Muslim members of the cabinet submitted a memo to Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi to review this law. One cannot help but think that cabinet ministers and non-Islamic members of Barisan National are reconsidering the impact of an Islamic state.

However, various Muslim parties opposed their actions. Whilst the opposition was not unexpected, its swiftness was alarming. On Jan. 20, the day after the memo was submitted, there were two protests opposing any amendment to Article 121 (1A) – one by the youth-wing members of PAS and Parti Keadilan, and another by Muslim undergraduates. A day later, the cabinet members retracted the memo. Perhaps, they did not want to appear defiant, or worse, unpatriotic.

But here’s the real kicker: non-Muslims were told not to “get emotional� over the withdrawal of the memorandum that would affect them.

Don’t get emotional?

That is an ironic request since Muslims (especially Muslim politicians) are extremely emotional and defensive when their religion is questioned, using the Malaysian constitution as defence. With all due respect, such rights were instituted by men and can be amended and annulled.

What many fail to realise is that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as its official religion. Official is not synonymous with “supreme,” “onlyâ€? or “most important.â€? Of course, it’s difficult to remember this definition when the outstanding landmark in our nation’s new administrative capital, Putrajaya, is a picturesque mosque in all its grandeur.

This begs the question: where are the allocations for tokongs and kuils and churches as landmarks? Many people do not know that churches in Malaysia are registered as businesses. Perhaps there’s a subtle implication that Christians are trying to sell Christ?

There are those who say people are making too big a deal out of the Moorthy case.

These people are ignorant over an issue involving the constitution, which affects 9.6 million non-Muslims in Malaysia. It is a grave public concern that will affect future generations, and the widows and wives of national heroes.

Just ask Kaliammal Sinnasamy whether or not this is a big deal.

—
THE PIANIST is a contributing writer for theCICAK.

He is an aspiring writer and full-time student. In his free time, he enjoys writing and reading, and when he’s occupied he’s either reading or writing. To unwind, he fancies some Chopin or Debussy, or a cold Heineken with a good game on the idiot box.