‘Bebas’ cannot be used in relation to Islam’s status, insists blogger
(TANJAK) – The word ‘bebas‘ (freely) cannot be used in relation to Islam’s special status as the religion of the Federation per Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, insisted a young blogger, Ahmad Ali Karim, in his latest blog posting today.
The blogger, who is the son of a noted commentator on Malaysian public and political affairs Abdul Karim Omar and is a prominent blogger in his own right, said this in response to Tun Dr. Mahathir’s written reply to him on account of his earlier blog posting pointing out how the Agreement dated 13 December 2016 between the three component parties of Pakatan Harapan (PH) on one hand and the Tun Dr. Mahathir-formed Parti Peribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) violates the Constitution for having inserted the word ‘bebas‘ (freely) into the text of Article 3(1) of the apex law declaring Islam as the religion of the (Malaysian) federation.
Article 3(1) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution declares Islam as the religion of the Federation while stating that other religions may be practised dengan aman dan damai (in peace and harmony) in any part thereof. The word ‘bebas‘ (freely) is not present within the text of the Article.
Tun M confused
The reply letter dated 11 January 2017 sent by Tun M to Ahmad Ali Karim
Ali Karim pointed out that far from clarifying the issue, Tun Dr M’s letter only served to add to the confusion, as Tun postulated therein that the word ‘bebas’ is not used in relation to Islam but “to other religions” as Malaysians of other religions “are free to change their religions” and the addition of the word is necessary as many “have changed their religion to Islam and Christianity”
The blogger stressed that Article 3(1) of the Constitution was about Islam’s position vis-a-vis other religions in Malaysia and not about the right to convert to other religions. The Article should not be conflated with another constitutional provision, the right to convert to other religions as contained in Article 11(1).
Tun M therefore, would appear to be confused, the blogger claimed, citing the judgment of Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal in the case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia. The judgment stressed that the words ‘in peace and harmony’ in Article 3(1) were not for show but had significance, in that other religions may be practised only insofar as they do not breach the peace and harmony enjoyed by citizens of the Malaysian federation.
