How M’sian liberals like to pretend Article 3 is invisible
Today is the first installment of DANIAL ARIFF SHAARI’s multi-part series on the liberals deliberately skirting Islam’s status enshrined in our constitution
(TANJAK) – The Malay Mail Online‘s Boo Su-Lyn recently published an article titled ‘Should Malaysia ban campaigns based on race and religion?’ in which she ignorantly took off with a paradoxical premise.
Underlying Boo’s biased write-up are arguments reeking of anti-Islam sentiments.
Boo likely intended her Islamophobic readers to take home a proposition that whenever Islam is pronounced in a political candidate’s manifesto (perceived as a strict ‘ritual’ or ‘ceremonial’ sense), he or she may be disqualified from contesting. Or since it is not a law in our country, at least what they could do is refrain from voting such candidates.
In her Jan 6 article, she quoted a recent judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, which reads as follows:
“The State being secular in character will not identify itself with any one of the religions or religious denominations. This necessarily implies that religion will not play any role in the governance of the country which must at all times be secular in nature. The elections to the State legislature or to the Parliament or for that matter or any other body in the State is a secular exercise just as the functions of the elected representatives must be secular in both outlook and practise,”.
Citing her cherry-picked extract from that particular judgment, Boo extrapolated, claiming in “a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country like Malaysia, politicians and political parties shouldn’t be campaigning based on race and religion…”.
What she conveniently and selectively ignored in the Indian apex court ruling is the context.
