Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: On the “Allah” judgement

ARCHIVES 2013

By admin-s On Oct 21, 2013

By this logic, curbs on using the Malay language can be extended beyond “Allah” or any of the other words that the Home Ministry and various state laws have declared are exclusive to Muslims. Now, if the use of Malay for religious purposes is meant for Muslims only, can Malay still be the national language? How can a language be a national language if its use can be limited to a particular racial or religious group?

By Jacqueline Ann Surin, The Nut Graph

THE 14 Oct 2013 Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the ban on the Catholic Church from using “Allah” in its publication, The Herald, wasn’t unexpected. And it has been criticised both nationally and internationally, including by Muslims.

Barisan Nasional (BN) component parties and leaders from Sabahand Sarawak have also cried foul over the government’s actions and the court’s decision. And in what can only be described as confused, the cabinet has decided that despite the Court of Appeal’s ruling, “Allah” can still be used in Christian worship and in the Bahasa Malaysia bibles in Sabah and Sarawak.

The Catholic Church can still appeal the appelate court’s decision at the Federal Court and several quarters believe that would be the right thing to do because much is at stake. Dr Wong Chin Huat expounds on the implications of the Court of Appeal ruling, how Malaysia has come to this, and what needs to happen for the mess to be undone.

TNG: What are the implications of the Court of Appeal decision?

Firstly, Judge Mohamed Apandi Ali has attempted to redefine our nationhood with implications more far-reaching than Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s 2001 “Islamic state” declaration. How so? The judge makes the guarantee of fundamental liberties dependent on a peculiar and expansionist reading of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. Article 3(1) states that, “Islam is the religion of the federation but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the federation”.

What’s problematic is that Mohamed Apandi ruled that the intention of “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) was to “protect the sanctity of Islam” and to “insulate” it against any threat. The judge also claimed that this was part of the social contract intended by the nation’s founding leaders. However, it is well-known that the original purpose of Article 3(1) was to provide a ceremonial role for Islam while ensuring that Malaysia remained a secular state where other faith groups could worship in peace and harmony. It was not meant to do what the judge claims it is supposed to do.

The judgement’s second implication is it affirms a culture of impunity. In effect, the judgment is saying that the state can curb your constitutional rights if by exercising these rights, you upset others who decide to act violently because they are confused. Judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim cites the arson attacks on churches and mosques after the 2009 High Court judgement which overturned the ban on “Allah” to justify the ban among non-Muslims. By doing so, the judge completely relieves the state of any responsibility to ensure law and order.

The third implication concerns the status of Malay as the national language. Making an explicit reference to Article 160, Mohamed Apandi further justifies his judgement by stressing that the constitutional definition of Malay is “a person who professes the religion of Islam” and “habitually speaks the Malay language”. Hence, the judge drives home the point that since Malays, who are by default Muslims, speak the Malay language and “Allah” is deemed to be from the Malay language, then the use of “Allah” by non-Muslims may disrupt peace and harmony.