Bishop: 'Allah' decision not written in stone
Terence NettoPublished: Jan 23, 2015 12:57 PM | Updated: Jan 23, 2015 4:06 PM
Catholic Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing described the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss the Catholic Church’s review application in the ‘Allah’ case as the “triumph of politics over judicial reasoning based on the constitution”.
Decision has long way to go before becoming settled doctrine, says prelate.
Catholic Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing described the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss the Catholic Church’s review application in the ‘Allah’ case as the “triumph of politics over judicial reasoning based on the constitution”.
The long-running legal dispute over the right of Catholic weekly the Herald to use the term ‘Allah’ for God in the Bahasa Malaysia pages of the paper ended on Tuesday when the apex court unanimously held that there was no procedural unfairness to an earlier panel of judges’ decision to dismiss the Roman Catholic Church’s application for a review.
“In effect, the Federal Court was saying that the powers-that-be can interfere in the way that people professing minority religions in Malaysia practise their faith,” said Tan, who is head of the Johor-Malacca diocese of the Catholic Church.
“This decision has ominous implications for the Federal Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion to Malaysian citizens,” opined the Jesuit-trained prelate.
“Whichever way you look at this protracted dispute, you cannot run away from the fact that the final finding of the apex court justifies executive shackles on the way that those in minority religions in Malaysia practice their faith,” expatiated the bishop.
“Nobody with due regard for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion can help but be distressed by this development,” Tan declared.
In criticising the apex court's decision, he joined his Anglican counterpart in Sarawak, Bolly Lapok, who is also Anglican Primate for Southeast Asia, in expressing concern that the religious rights of minorities were being endangered.
Lapok (right) hoped that the decision has “not mired ourselves in greater complication.”
Similar misgivings were aired by another church leader, Jerry Dusing, who is president of the Sabah Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB).
In lamenting the Federal Court’s decision, Dusing wondered if the government was not being insincere with the Christian community in Malaysia.
Tan’s criticisms of the court decision were more nuanced in that he drew comfort from his understanding of constitutional history wherein he said judicial decisions on the great questions of the day do not become settled doctrine until they have met with repeated tests at the bar of judgment.
‘Judicial reasoning evolves’
“The findings of one panel today may be overturned by the deliberations of another panel tomorrow as judicial reasoning evolves and takes account of new imperatives and considerations,” he reasoned.
Tan said he took heart that even as an apex court panel has, in effect, rejected the right of Catholics to use the term ‘Allah” for God, an appellate court has come out with a decision that says the primacy rendered Islam in the constitution does not supersede the grant of fundamental liberties rendered citizens by the same document.
He was referring to the Court of Appeal’s written judgment that declared as unconstitutional the decision of the 1992 Negeri Sembilan Syariah Criminal Enactment that bars men from cross-dressing as females.
A Court of Appeal panel, headed by Justice Hishamuddin Yunos, declared that the constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties were sacrosanct and therefore the Negeri Sembilan syariah enactment was void.
“This is what I mean when I say that judicial deliberations on the great questions of the day are not written in stone but evolve in response to the felt necessities of the times and the prevailing moral and political theories,” Tan argued.
The long-running legal dispute over the right of Catholic weekly the Herald to use the term ‘Allah’ for God in the Bahasa Malaysia pages of the paper ended on Tuesday when the apex court unanimously held that there was no procedural unfairness to an earlier panel of judges’ decision to dismiss the Roman Catholic Church’s application for a review.
“In effect, the Federal Court was saying that the powers-that-be can interfere in the way that people professing minority religions in Malaysia practise their faith,” said Tan, who is head of the Johor-Malacca diocese of the Catholic Church.
“This decision has ominous implications for the Federal Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion to Malaysian citizens,” opined the Jesuit-trained prelate.
“Whichever way you look at this protracted dispute, you cannot run away from the fact that the final finding of the apex court justifies executive shackles on the way that those in minority religions in Malaysia practice their faith,” expatiated the bishop.
“Nobody with due regard for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion can help but be distressed by this development,” Tan declared.
In criticising the apex court's decision, he joined his Anglican counterpart in Sarawak, Bolly Lapok, who is also Anglican Primate for Southeast Asia, in expressing concern that the religious rights of minorities were being endangered.
Lapok (right) hoped that the decision has “not mired ourselves in greater complication.”Similar misgivings were aired by another church leader, Jerry Dusing, who is president of the Sabah Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB).
In lamenting the Federal Court’s decision, Dusing wondered if the government was not being insincere with the Christian community in Malaysia.
Tan’s criticisms of the court decision were more nuanced in that he drew comfort from his understanding of constitutional history wherein he said judicial decisions on the great questions of the day do not become settled doctrine until they have met with repeated tests at the bar of judgment.
‘Judicial reasoning evolves’
“The findings of one panel today may be overturned by the deliberations of another panel tomorrow as judicial reasoning evolves and takes account of new imperatives and considerations,” he reasoned.
Tan said he took heart that even as an apex court panel has, in effect, rejected the right of Catholics to use the term ‘Allah” for God, an appellate court has come out with a decision that says the primacy rendered Islam in the constitution does not supersede the grant of fundamental liberties rendered citizens by the same document.
He was referring to the Court of Appeal’s written judgment that declared as unconstitutional the decision of the 1992 Negeri Sembilan Syariah Criminal Enactment that bars men from cross-dressing as females.
A Court of Appeal panel, headed by Justice Hishamuddin Yunos, declared that the constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties were sacrosanct and therefore the Negeri Sembilan syariah enactment was void.
“This is what I mean when I say that judicial deliberations on the great questions of the day are not written in stone but evolve in response to the felt necessities of the times and the prevailing moral and political theories,” Tan argued.
View Comments0