Racial ties under threat: Act now!
Claudia TheophilusPublished: Jan 5, 2006 7:52 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Tensions ran high during a DAP-organised parliamentary roundtable discussion today which adopted five resolutions warranting urgent action by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
This is the hard-hitting message from participants of a roundtable discussion to the prime minister following the controversy surrounding the late M Moorthy.
Tensions ran high during a DAP-organised parliamentary roundtable discussion today which adopted five resolutions warranting urgent action by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The roundtable discussed problems caused by Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution currently illustrated by the controversial circumstances surrounding M Moorthy's case.
Present at the Parliament House were 70-odd participants comprising leaders from the Indian Malaysian community, interfaith groups, lawyers, social and human rights activists and concerned individuals.
The resolution was to restore Article 121 to its original form prior to the amendment in 1988, which means sub-article (1A) would be automatically repealed. The latter was inserted in a simultaneous amendment.
The amendments on March 17 and 18, 1988 was proposed by then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad who wanted to prevent civil courts from over-riding syariah decisions.
As it stands now, Article 121 (1A) denies civil courts any jurisdiction over matters falling within the purview of the Islamic or syariah judicial system.
Select committee
In the second resolution, the roundtable participants wanted Abdullah to establish a Parliamentary Select Committee to identify and address the problems created by Article 121 (1A).
A third resolution recorded the civil society's grave concerns hinging on the denial of justice in a series of cases where religious authorities were being pitted against non-Muslim relatives of deceased converts, the latest being the dilemma faced by Moorthy's widow S Kaliammal.
Another registered the grave concerns displayed over the highhandedness of state Islamic law enforcers.
The remaining resolutions called for the Attorney-General's Chambers to act in the public's interest in Moorthy's and all similar cases and for equal representation of all citizens' constitutional rights irrespective of race and religion.
Among the 11 panellists were former AG and Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) chairperson Abu Talib Othman, DAP leader Lim Kit Siang, Kota Baru MP and lawyer Zaid Ibrahim and Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) representatives.
Lim said he will be sending a letter attached with the resolutions to Abdullah soon.
In his opening remarks, he said Mahathir had said in a brief note on the insertion of sub-article (1A) that it was to resolve the conflict between civil and syariah laws.
"But it involved situations where both parties were Muslims.
"I daresay that the first three PMs would be in consternation with Article 121 (1A) because it goes against nation-building," added the opposition leader.
Grave consequences
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said Kaliammal's predicament highlighted the accumulated unhappiness of non-Muslims who have no legal remedy.
He warned of grave consequence arising from the High Court decision in returning the case to the syariah court.
"I met some very disillusioned Malaysian Indians in Teluk Intan recently and witnessed deep-seated dissatisfaction. They were very upset over the court decision.
"It shouldn't be the case where conversion to Islam automatically denies others their fundamental rights. I hope the government realises that these concerns are real and not to create disturbance," he said.
Mahathir blamed
Bar Council representative Ramdas Tikamdas blamed Mahathir's proclamation of an Islamic state for contributing to the mess faced by non-Muslims now.
Citing a written reply to Suhakam's query on Malaysia's status as an Islamic state, he said the chief secretary to the government stated that the country was indeed one because, among other reasons, it was founded by Muslims.
The three-hour session saw highly-charged emotions and angry outbursts when it was opened to questions from the floor.
Some participants vented their frustration by posing questions and scathing remarks which bordered on a warning of potential riots among a particular community if such problems persisted.
Malaysiakini columnist and lawyer Salbiah Ahmad urged for a louder civil society voice over ongoing injustices.
"The amendment was drafted while I was still in varsity discussing these very issues. Malaysians must speak because judges cannot just sit in court without knowing how their decision impacts people's lives."
Counter-productive
Malaysian Hindu Sangam president A Vaithilingam said it had objected to the 1988 amendments but was asked not to worry as it was merely to prevent Malays from leaving Islam.
MCCBCHS vice-president Harcharan Singh said that as a member of the National Unity Panel, it was hard to unite Malaysians when such decisions are divisive by nature.
"We want the Federal Constitution to be re-emphasised as the supreme law of the country, not the syariah law as the case seems to be now."
His colleague Rev Wong Kim Kong said the reality is that non-Muslims are "uneasy, uncomfortable, feel threatened and fear that syariah laws will be taken as the supreme law".
"We think judges should be judges first, not Muslims first while politicians should be the people's representatives first and work in the people's interest."
The council expressed concerns over the interpretation of Article 121 (1A), the absolute power given to the syariah court to determine a person's faith, the dubious mode of conversion to Islam, unfair trial and the insensitivity and inconsiderate action of religious authorities.
"This would lead to a mistrust of government agencies including the armed forces, adverse effects to the family institution, and hostility and uneasiness between Muslims and non-Muslims."
Several participants also expressed a loss of confidence and suspicion in government policies, the armed forces, the national service programme and other agencies.
The roundtable discussed problems caused by Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution currently illustrated by the controversial circumstances surrounding M Moorthy's case.
Present at the Parliament House were 70-odd participants comprising leaders from the Indian Malaysian community, interfaith groups, lawyers, social and human rights activists and concerned individuals. The resolution was to restore Article 121 to its original form prior to the amendment in 1988, which means sub-article (1A) would be automatically repealed. The latter was inserted in a simultaneous amendment.
The amendments on March 17 and 18, 1988 was proposed by then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad who wanted to prevent civil courts from over-riding syariah decisions.
As it stands now, Article 121 (1A) denies civil courts any jurisdiction over matters falling within the purview of the Islamic or syariah judicial system.
Select committee
In the second resolution, the roundtable participants wanted Abdullah to establish a Parliamentary Select Committee to identify and address the problems created by Article 121 (1A).
A third resolution recorded the civil society's grave concerns hinging on the denial of justice in a series of cases where religious authorities were being pitted against non-Muslim relatives of deceased converts, the latest being the dilemma faced by Moorthy's widow S Kaliammal.
Another registered the grave concerns displayed over the highhandedness of state Islamic law enforcers.
The remaining resolutions called for the Attorney-General's Chambers to act in the public's interest in Moorthy's and all similar cases and for equal representation of all citizens' constitutional rights irrespective of race and religion.
Among the 11 panellists were former AG and Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) chairperson Abu Talib Othman, DAP leader Lim Kit Siang, Kota Baru MP and lawyer Zaid Ibrahim and Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) representatives.
Lim said he will be sending a letter attached with the resolutions to Abdullah soon. In his opening remarks, he said Mahathir had said in a brief note on the insertion of sub-article (1A) that it was to resolve the conflict between civil and syariah laws.
"But it involved situations where both parties were Muslims.
"I daresay that the first three PMs would be in consternation with Article 121 (1A) because it goes against nation-building," added the opposition leader.
Grave consequences
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said Kaliammal's predicament highlighted the accumulated unhappiness of non-Muslims who have no legal remedy.
He warned of grave consequence arising from the High Court decision in returning the case to the syariah court.
"I met some very disillusioned Malaysian Indians in Teluk Intan recently and witnessed deep-seated dissatisfaction. They were very upset over the court decision.
"It shouldn't be the case where conversion to Islam automatically denies others their fundamental rights. I hope the government realises that these concerns are real and not to create disturbance," he said.
Mahathir blamed
Bar Council representative Ramdas Tikamdas blamed Mahathir's proclamation of an Islamic state for contributing to the mess faced by non-Muslims now.
Citing a written reply to Suhakam's query on Malaysia's status as an Islamic state, he said the chief secretary to the government stated that the country was indeed one because, among other reasons, it was founded by Muslims.
The three-hour session saw highly-charged emotions and angry outbursts when it was opened to questions from the floor.
Some participants vented their frustration by posing questions and scathing remarks which bordered on a warning of potential riots among a particular community if such problems persisted.
Malaysiakini columnist and lawyer Salbiah Ahmad urged for a louder civil society voice over ongoing injustices.
"The amendment was drafted while I was still in varsity discussing these very issues. Malaysians must speak because judges cannot just sit in court without knowing how their decision impacts people's lives."
Counter-productive
Malaysian Hindu Sangam president A Vaithilingam said it had objected to the 1988 amendments but was asked not to worry as it was merely to prevent Malays from leaving Islam.
MCCBCHS vice-president Harcharan Singh said that as a member of the National Unity Panel, it was hard to unite Malaysians when such decisions are divisive by nature.
"We want the Federal Constitution to be re-emphasised as the supreme law of the country, not the syariah law as the case seems to be now."
His colleague Rev Wong Kim Kong said the reality is that non-Muslims are "uneasy, uncomfortable, feel threatened and fear that syariah laws will be taken as the supreme law". "We think judges should be judges first, not Muslims first while politicians should be the people's representatives first and work in the people's interest."
The council expressed concerns over the interpretation of Article 121 (1A), the absolute power given to the syariah court to determine a person's faith, the dubious mode of conversion to Islam, unfair trial and the insensitivity and inconsiderate action of religious authorities.
"This would lead to a mistrust of government agencies including the armed forces, adverse effects to the family institution, and hostility and uneasiness between Muslims and non-Muslims."
Several participants also expressed a loss of confidence and suspicion in government policies, the armed forces, the national service programme and other agencies.
View Comments0