THE CICAK.com

Lina Joy Verdict: Federal, or Petty Court?

By JOHN LEE

There is no reason to celebrate the verdict, even if you are a Muslim fundamentalist, and no reason to make grand proclamations of doom, even if you are a staunch secularist.

I think Lina Joy (or Azlina Jailani, whatever you want to call her) is right in principle. Why should she not have the freedom to choose what religion to practice, or what to label herself? No one can provide such a reason without resorting to “Because the Quran says so!” And since when was our secular Constitution (which, as I’m sure nobody needs to be reminded, is the supreme law of the land) subordinate to any religious text, be it the Bhagavad Gita or the Quran?

This was recognised by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, whose ruling focused solely on the legal technicalities of the case – narrowing its scope to petty questions like whether the National Registration Department can demand that people present proof of apostasy before removing “Islam” from their identity cards.

I am not sure if the dissenting judge, Richard Malanjum, noticed this, but he also steered clear of dealing with the broader principle at stake: whether the government can tell you that you believe something you don’t. For this reason, the case devolved from the issue of religious freedom to a question of having Joy’s apostasy certified.

The majority judgment focused on the issue of producing paperwork to prove to the NRD that one was an apostate, and secondly touched on the question of whether the Syariah courts had jurisdiction. Malanjum’s judgment focused on a similar line of thinking; Joy’s counsel was forced to make submissions on these questions.

It is already crystal clear that in Malaysia, the civil and Syariah courts are on the same footing. The civil courts are at complete liberty to say “Okay, this is a matter for the Syariah courts” whenever a case involves Islam, for whatever reason. When this is so, it is impossible to resolve questions of jurisdiction if the jurisdictional boundaries are not clearly defined.

But even that is not the main issue here — although obviously, we need to eventually end this silly coequal positioning of the civil and religious courts.

The true issue, which was never addressed, is why the government has to be so involved in a person’s religious choice. If someone wants to believe something, who are you to tell them that they cannot believe it? If they are not harming anyone else, why is it any business of yours what they believe, or what they call themselves? Does having the word “Islam” on a piece of plastic magically change a person’s beliefs?

The fact that Islam is our official religion does not give our government the right to tell people born into Muslim families that they must call themselves Muslims all their lives. The word “Islam” should not be on anyone’s IC. The government should not have a complex paperwork process for people to wade through in order to change their religion. I believe what I believe; for you to tell me that I believe something else is the height of insanity.

The head of the UMNO Wanita legal bureau actually acknowledged this when she said:

Religion is a matter of faith and it is difficult for us to try and distinctively define it by law. Regardless of the points of law and arguments, what Lina Joy wants to believe is personal to her but her identity (being born a Malay and Muslim) cannot change. The case should not have been brought to court because it affects and creates fear and sensitivity in our society.

Ridiculous charge of sedition aside, what this woman has acknowledged is striking. Your religion apparently doesn’t matter; you could pray to Baal and they could not care less. What they care about is making sure that you maintain your “identity”, because they don’t want anyone “changing”.

That is frankly a bunch of bull. Who are you to tell me what my “identity” is? I am who I am: the sum of my experiences and personal beliefs; nothing more and nothing less. If I decide that I am a Malaysian, not a Chinese or a Chinese-Filipino or a Chinese-Filipino Christian, or if I decide that I am simply just another human being, who the hell are you to tell me that that is not what I am?

And that doesn’t even matter, considering that what the UMNO woman is saying has no constitutional basis. The Constitution defines a Malay as a Muslim, but it does not say that a Malay is by definition Malay forever, or that a Muslim is by definition Muslim forever. Article 11 does not expressly forbid a Muslim’s conversion. Don’t read things into the Constitution that aren’t there.

I think the Lina Joy case has been blown out of proportion. Like it or not, the decision is an affirmation of the legal status quo in Malaysia. It is not a radical departure from the existing state of the law; it is legal, but illogical. The larger problems of my freedom to decide who I am, and the issue of the jurisdiction of different court systems, have been deliberately left dangling.

–
JOHN LEE is a contributing writer for theCICAK.

John is a 17-year-old Malaysian with a passion for reading and writing about current events on the local and global scene. In his spare time, he enjoys eating anything (especially roti naan) and walking his dog. Currently an A-Levels student at a local college, he hopes to pursue an economics degree in the United States. Visit his site.