Al Jazeera 28 Oct 2013
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is the Immediate Past President of the National Human Rights Society of Malaysia and practices law in Kuala Lumpur.
The Catholic Church in Malaysia must not use the word 'Allah' for 'God', despite widespread usage of the term |
Earlier this month, the Malaysian Court of Appeal upheld an administrative direction by the government prohibiting the Catholic Church of Malaysia from using the word "Allah" to denote "God" in the Malay version of the Church's newsletter, The Herald.
The government asserts that the direction, along with a condition that the newsletter was only to be circulated among members of the Catholic Church, is aimed at preserving public order. The unimpeded use of the word "Allah" by the church, it explains, will result in confusion among Muslims.
The ruling was handed down in a controversial appeal brought by the government against a lauded 2009 decision of the first court striking down the prohibition as unreasonable for, among other things, it not being reconcilable with the long history of the use of the word by Christians in Malaya (later Malaysia), and the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, expression and association. It was also, in the mind of the court, irrational in light of the word "Allah" being freely used to denote God in the Malay translation of the Bible.
One Malaysia? Not so much
That the government felt it necessary to appeal the ruling in the first place was questionable. The government, led by Prime Minister Najib Razak, had spent much time, effort and money in a branding exercise, centred on the use of the slogan "1Malaysia", to showcase itself as a moderate and inclusive government. "1Malaysia", in Najib's view, was the blueprint for a participatory democracy that would be the envy of others. Justifiably, questions arose as to why it was necessary to pursue an appeal against a decision that did nothing more than state the obvious.
It would seem that the appeal was not prompted by concerns about the state of public order, Malaysia has, after all, shown itself more than capable of dealing with actual threats in the past. The fact that the government has in the wake of the decision of the Court of Appeal clarified that the prohibition only applies to The Herald and not to other publications, including the Malay version of the Bible, undermines any assertion that the national security of the country would be threatened by the unimpeded use of the word.
Rather, the decision of the government appears to have been a strategic appeal to the ethnocentric sentiments of a Malay, and as such Muslim, majority voter base in a move that Malaysians have come to recognise as a leaf out of the playbook of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the political party which Najib heads and which has led the coalition government that has ruled since independence.
The UMNO-led coalition suffered a setback at the 12th general election in 2008, when it lost its two-thirds majority in parliament and the popular vote in peninsular Malaysia. Persuaded by the meritocratic rhetoric of the opposition, led by Anwar Ibrahim, more Malays were voting against UMNO. UMNO placed the blame for this state of affairs at the feet of Najib's predecessor, Abdullah Badawi, whose attempts to reduce the emphasis on race and religion in the politics of the coalition that he ledwere characterised as weakness.
Ratcheting up racial and religious sensitivities was, in the minds of influential members of the party, the way to go. Reactions to the initial ruling point to that having been a factor in the decision to appeal the first ruling, as does government rhetoric surrounding the decision to appeal.
Political decision
Though it is tempting to blame the judiciary for the way things have turned out, this would be unfair. It cannot be overlooked that leading the charge was the attorney general, who appeared on behalf of the government. It was his arguments that ultimately led to the Court of Appeal concluding that the use of the word "Allah" was not integral to the Christian faith, and did not correspond with the supremacy of the Islamic faith in Malaysia.
Equally, the current home minister was in a position to withdraw the appeal when it came up for hearing in September. That he did not do so in the face of the then imminent UMNO elections, and a potential leadership challenge, and in the aftermath of the 13th general election that saw the ruling coalition lose the popular vote is, I think, not coincidental.
The self-evident truth is that the government, and as such Malaysia, is constrained by deeply divisive racial and religious politics. It is not the model multi-faith society that some characterise it as being. For it to be so, the government must recognise that it has no choice but to play the role of an honest broker in the public sphere, irrespective of its political ideology. That would mean that the government must give due recognition to the fundamental freedoms of all citizens, regardless of their race or religion. It must also, more fundamentally, recognise that the way forward for Malaysia does not lie in pandering to ethno-religious sentiment but rather in an empowering process for all its citizens.
Sadly, that does not appear to be the case at the present time. The initial ruling, and other hard-won decisions on various aspects of religious freedom, would not have been welcomed as landmark decisions if that were the case. They would have been nothing more than routine administrative law decisions. The reality is that Malaysians are confronted by a worrying state of affairs that, if left unchecked, will have disastrous consequences for the nation.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is the Immediate Past President of the National Human Rights Society of Malaysia and practices law in Kuala Lumpur.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
This is a few years old. What's the latest news on this issue? What are your thoughts?
Malaysia is an anomaly amongst Islamic countries, given its high rate of Human Development Index, which indicates the prosperity of its people. It is also an anomaly for its seemingly harmonic relationship between the Muslims and other people that belong to other religions. Malaysia might also belong to the same bracket as the likes of Japan and Singapore for their advancement in technology. However, religious states are always inevitably drawn to it natural conclusion: resentment. Muslims dominate the figures that assert authority, in this case, the governmental organisations. Therefore, whatever changes there are to be altered, the aspirations of the non-Muslims are often being overlooked. With the apparent blasphemy that is being shown here, in this case by the governmental body, the non-Muslims will have all their efforts considered futile, due to the bias towards the majority of the population. Had it been the other way around, the Muslims would be the ones that scapegoat the non-Muslims; it is always been that way.
ReplyDeleteMalaysia’s situation, to me, is a testament as to why religion should be kept separate from the state, because members of one religion can use the state to further its own interests and undermine the interests of others. An ideal state should stay neutral in religious affairs, and its only task in religious matters is to ensure the freedom of its citizens to adhere to any religion they want. If a state interferes too much in religious affairs, the state’s power would be misused to initiate petty religious disputes like the one told by the article. The usage of the word “Allah” is not exclusive to Islam because the word literally means “God” in Arabic. Christians in the Middle East, and even Southeast Asia say “Allah” to refer to God. Hence, I maintain that the state should minimize its interference in religious affairs, at least in very divisive contexts such as Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteI, within my self-principle, opposites the complete interference of the state to the church. I advocate an almost thorough separation of state and church as I believe the state should interfere extremely minimal. The country should only do censuses and facilitate the believers if the commune asked for it and no further.
ReplyDeleteThe motion of Allah and the state of Malaysia is nonsense as the name Allah is commonly to be exclusive to use by Abrahamic religions, even though the word itself meant “God” in Arabic, then what about the others? Politicizing a religion or a set of belief is the utterly immoral act of humanity that should be abolished, along with blasphemy laws. As it creates a divisive and diametrical society, therefore, Malaysia as a nation should be questioned because of its relatively high in Human Development Index is an abnormality as conservatism and outdated norms are still attached and run through society.
Sustaining an order of a nation is an obligation of the government. Any issue that leads to a conflict among the people will be the responsibility of the government to find a wise solution instead of making it into a worse situation. Although Catholic is a minority in Malaysia, it doesn’t mean that the government can create a policy according to what they want without considering the effect of the minority. Prohibiting the word of “Allah” for Catholic Church will absolutely bring an inequality for the Catholic.
ReplyDeleteThe first paragraph says about the obligation of the government. Is it fair? Of course not. Will the order be maintained? Time will answer wether the minority can stand with it or not. Therefore, religion is something which is highly sensitive. Why does the government disturb it when they can provide a more peaceful situation? By not interfering the religion, the government will be able to maintain the order of a nation. Instead of interfering the religion, the government can let their people to do and to believe their religion in every way as long as it doesn’t harm the society.
Religions are spread throughout the world long before states are separated. It is the struggle of the ancestors that have made the religions spread and with the continuous of time, each religion has developed more regulations for their sake to protect of their beliefs on which has been left by the ancestors. Between the Islamic states in the word, Indonesia are the biggest Muslim country, then there’s Malaysia. Malaysia is a developing country, even better than Indonesia, and I also thought that they’re more honest and discipline in their regulations, and also for me, they’re very good at copying others and it’s not a bad thing to do though, but with changing the names to call god in two different religions, it resembles that those religions are the same, while it is not. It broke the law from previous generations and even make the law more complicated than it ever was. The government should handle it with getting the issues done, but not making it worse than before.
ReplyDelete