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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogging at the end of the world
That's what it feels like. The country I live in is on fire, the apocalypse is with us. A thousand homes burnt to the ground. Communitie...
-
While I support the right to peaceful protest, I'm not in support of the demands of Hindraf. It is problematic to ask for rights *as Ind...
-
For friends that missed my wedding, first off, don't worry! We'll be having a ceremony/ party in KL next year, hopefully around July...
-
As most of you (three) may have heard, Dorian and I are getting married, with the ceremony on 3 March, but the reception will be on 1 March....
2 comments:
thanks Sonia, for the informative update. I share with you the question about the "silent majority".
thanks for pointing me to the link .. I agree it was less a "dialogue" but more of an "awareness" or "hearing" exercise to let the public could hear in person the views which most of the panelist may have expressed in writing.
I saw you standing at the back. I was shuttled to the front row and observing the body language of the panelists when the others spoke was insightful :-) especially between Azmi and Yusri!
Post a Comment