Malaysia After Lina Joy Forum

The DAP organised a forum on the Lina Joy case last night. Much as it was vaunted to be dialogue, there was very little of that. For dialogue to exist, the two sides (and there are two sides here, there appears to be little middle ground) need to be talking the same language. And that seems to be impossible.

This was no reflection on the organisers or the speakers. Lim Guan Eng wasn't particularly compelling, but Leonard Teoh from the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) suprised me. In the past, I have been critical of the way in which they have phrased their statements, which basically seemed to me to lack backbone. I was highly critical of the way they handled the Moorthy case. Leonard however made some very pertinent points - most important, I think, that this is NOT an issue of Islamic theology, but an issue of Malay nationalism, looking at what the Mufti of Perak had said on al-Jazeera.

He also pointed out the contradiction - we insist that Malays profess Islam, but less emphasis is put upon the other definition of a Malay as one who regularly practices the Malay adat.

Tan Sri Khalid was also dull, but was succeeded by Azmi Sharom. The most important point he made, imho, was that this is not a merely administrative matter. It is a matter of detention without trial, a matter of civil liberties and suffering. And by refusing to take a stand on this matter, the civil courts are not living up to their responsibilities.

Yusri Mohamad from ABIM was next. He was understandably defensive, but to the point almost of insult, questioning the motives of DAP in organising the forum, stating openly that he hoped that it was not to mock Islam. He said very little, but basically asserted the rights of the Syariah courts, made the point that everyone thinks we are better than our neighbours in terms of integration and harmony (which most of the audience disagreed with!) and warned about 'extreme secular' views. Was generally elitist in outlook, as in we have to discount the views of those who are not educated etc.

Ambiga S., President of the Bar Council spoke after Yusri. Two main points here was that this is NEW - that previous judgements have upheld the Constitutional right to freedom of religion in similar circumstances, up to 1999. And that the minority judgement was diametrically opposed to the majority judgement on every point. This is the scary thing for me - there seems to be no common ground.

I missed Lim Kit Siang's speech, but caught some of the questions.

This was where it became more apparent that while we were using the same words, the two different sides (and that really is what exists) are not using the same language. Ambiga had said that referring criticisms about referring non-Muslims to the Syariah court is not a judgement on the courts themselves, whether they are fair or just. It is that non-Muslims and those not professing Islam should not be subject to the courts upholding the religious law of a religion not their own. It is akin to Muslims being subject to the Ecclesiastical court, and the views of non-Muslims are given less weight etc. The comment from the floor was that this is already happening because Muslims are subject to the civil courts on a daily basis.

Where is the space for dialogue? We can point out a million times that this is just inaccurate, that it is not the same thing as being subject to an ecclesiastical court, but it would make no difference.

So all we can hope is that there are fence-sitters, a silent majority, out there who do not think that compassion allows for Lina Joy to be subject to detention without trial on the grounds of her belief. I think that the silent/ silenced majority is out there, but our mis-education system, our castrated media and culture of mediocrity make critical discussion and debate less likely with each passing year, reducing the silent majority and increasing the strength of the forces who are rapidly turning Malaysia into a theocratic state.

Speak out, or you'll lose your voice.

Oh Zam!

The Western media, it seems, are running us down again, engaging in Islam-bashing because of the Lina Joy decision. And the Prime Minister has said that 'one must have a hole in the head' to think that this was a political decision.

Both of these are obviously wrong. Zam's barely bears answering, but the PM's statement is wrong because regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the Government, this was BOUND to be a political decision. Politics needs to be reclaimed from politicians, and acknowledging that the judiciary, and the public, play a role in politics is one of the ways of doing this. As Malaysians, we seem to be fond of saying that we're not interested in politics or that we shouldn't discuss politics. It's a form of abdication of responsibility, and one that allows politics and political decisions to be decided by anybody and everybody else.

The politics of the Lina Joy case:
1) Whether our Constitution is supreme - a decision with profound political consequences
2) Whether the Federal Court is supreme - likewise
3) Whether the judiciary is swayed by arguments outside the confines of the law (such as whether or not it would result in violence)

Which of course means that the court is deciding whether it is willing to uphold the rule of law. Or not. These are, undeniably, political decisions. Whichever way they're decided.

Dua, tiga dalang berlari

This excellent play by Mark Teh, performed by Fahmi Fadzil, Wong Tay Sy and Lim Chung Wei, looks at the history of two dalangs post-57, and by inference the history of the National Cultural Policy. It is a sympathetic look at what both dalangs lost in their individual ways of dealing with political change, slightly subtly directing attention to the changes in interpretation of Islam, the problems of mixing state and religion, and the unifying factor among all our politicians, the will to power.


(Visit www.kakiseni.com for more info).