Coming of theocratic rule in Malaysia?

On 11 March 2002 in Saudi Arabia, 15 schoolgirls in Mecca were barred by the Mutaween, Saudi religious police, from leaving a burning building because they had not worn the correct Islamic dress required of Muslims. All 15 died.

Witnesses reported that the Mutaween didn't want the girls to come into physical contact with the civil defense forces for fear of sexual enticement, and that the girls were locked in by the police, or forced back into the building.

Sexual enticement in an uncontrolled blazing situation? Well, f**k my camel!

Back here in Malaysia, specifically in Kelantan, the Islamic officials have not been so cruel. In their Operasi Gempur Aurat, Muslim caught not wearing apparel to cover up their aurat would be fined RM500, heaps more kind than to be locked up in a blazing building for fear of being sexually enticing or sexually enticed.

But lately the Islamic-influenced codes on dressing have been seen not to be only confined to Muslims. Recently we have witnessed an increasing imposition of such religiously-driven codes of dressing on non-Muslims as well, at places like the Road Transport Department (RTD), the Selangor state secretariat and the Sg Buloh public hospital.

The intrusions into non-Muslims' rights have thus put paid to the assurance by PAS that the far more frightening hudud, the Islamic penal code for punishments, will not affect non-Muslims.

In those cases where non-Muslims were forced to wear sarongs and towels, the respective departmental heads had commendably come out to say those impositions had been the individual actions of lil' Napoleons, it nonetheless sends us the signal, as reported by the Malay Mail Online "... that religious conservatism could supplant Malaysia’s secular administration and drive the country towards theocratic rule as seen in Iran and Saudi Arabia."

But far more disturbing, the Mail warned us that while "... media coverage of incidents have elicited criticism of the agencies by the English-speaking audience, the reverse is true in Malay."

"On social media, Malay-speaking users have instead targeted the women barred from entry over their attire, which include knee-length skirts, dresses and, in one instance, shorts."

What it ominously means for non-Muslims is that Malay Muslims objecting to such impositions on non-Muslims are only the English-educated Muslims, a minority, while the majority of Muslims are in support of syariah laws, or at least its codes for dressing, being applied to non-Muslims as well.

This is hardly surprising when you consider that as far back as in 2001, Malaysiakini had reported (of course bearing in mind the news report was in 2001):

Terengganu Mentri Besar and PAS national deputy president Abdul Hadi Awang was quoted as saying that once an Islamic state is established, non-Muslims will be subjected to Islamic laws involving public interests although there will be exceptions for certain areas.

Gulp gasp omigosh, so there you have it, our dear Pak Haji Hadi and his belief that 'non-Muslims will be subjected to Islamic laws involving public interests'.

Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, a former session court judge, told Malay Mail Online yesterday: “My view is that if these unhealthy developments are not checked by the government, our secular state and our secular Federal Constitution are at risk. If we don’t take action now to arrest this trend, we may end up like ... [Saudi Arabia and Iran].”

I have always been against religion getting involved in politics, regardless of the religious denomination, be this the Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Hindu (etc) organizations.

It's dangerous and unchallengeable when clerics use (or more likely misuse) the name of Divinity to influence their political standing, policies and rulings.

The 'church' (I use 'church' here in a generic sense, implying the establishments of any religion) is already in power in Saudi Arabia and Iran, while it exerts very influential but unhealthy pressure in the USA, Israel, Pakistan, even some states in India*, and ... you-work-out-the-rest.

* In February this year, the state of Maharashtra in India which has banned cow slaughter has extended that ban to include buffalo, which make up the majority of the beef consumed in and exported from India. It's reported by ABC that anyone in Maharashtra caught selling or in possession of beef faces a five-year jail term and a $200 fine.

Additionally, the state government of Haryana had reportedly been considering making the crime of killing a cow akin to murder, which would attract a life sentence.

Meanwhile in New Delhi, PM Narendra Modi's Hindu Nationalist (federal) government of India is considering a national prohibition of cow slaughter.

So don't think only Muslims are fanatics. Hindus are as well as Christians while we learn, to our shock, that a Buddhist monk in Myanmar would advocate killing the Rohingyas. He should be immediately de-frocked. But it teaches us that religions must not be allowed to play a part in politics.

Take for example what was reported by Free Malaysia Today in August 2012 in its article GE 13: What would Jesus do?

In that piece of news, there was a public forum in PJ, Section 8, at the Dignity International, A-2-7 Pusat Perdagangan, on the upcoming general election from a Christian perspective.

And the topic of discussion: What will Jesus be doing in Malaysia today?

You wonder, wouldn't you, about Jesus coming to Malaysia to interfere with a Malaysian general elections? But then, that's the Christian Church dropping name again.

The speakers were Rev Dr Hermen Shastri and Paul Sinnappan.

FMT reported:

A media statement on the forum explained that the cowardly fence-sitters are the sole obstacle in preventing political change in Malaysia.

“As the winds of change blow in this most exciting times of political change in Malaysia, the only obstacle that is preventing the change from actually taking place is the Malaysian ‘fence-sitters’ who for the last 54 years have been afraid to make that choice for change. 

“Many among this also reside in our Churches and sit glued to benches and pews during Sunday service without fail, listening fervently to what Jesus may be saying to them,” it read. 

The statement added that there is a growing awakening among all Malaysians on the need for real change – a reform of the political landscape for Malaysians.

“Yet there seems to be a disjoint of the faith growth within the Churches and the growth without among all Malaysians. This seemingly two worlds of faith and politics are a challenge to all Christians. Are there two lives or only one life, [which] we live according to the will of God?,” it said.

The speakers, read the statement, will take the audience through the Bible to study the political implications and experiences of being a Christian.

“This is to help us enter into present-day reality of the Malaysian political context, and answer the perennial thought: what would Jesus do in Malaysia Today?” it added.

Just as Islam in Malaysia has been highly politicized, so it seemed too with the Christian church, at least in 2012 prior to GE-13.

As a most lovable adorable atheist, I wasn't impressed at all by what those clerics were attempting to hint to their congregation, especially more so when Yehoshua ben Yosef ('Jesus' if you're into Greek names) told us in Matthew 22:21, to wit:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

And that's what Yehoshua ben Yosef would have done and said if he was here at the Church organized public forum at the Dignity International, A-2-7 Pusat Perdagangan in August 2012.

In other words, the state is the ruler's (or government's) domain, and the church should bloody damn well keep out of state affairs.

Isn't it troubling enough that we already have so many Islamic clerics politicizing their religion for political gains? We certainly don't need any more clerics of other religious denomination interfering in politics. We urgently need a clear separation between State and Church.

State secularism does NOT mean the prohibition of religious worship, but only that the State (and thus the government and all its institutions and agencies) does NOT bloody well get itself involved with religious matters, especially on issues that can impact on the individual's democratic and human rights. Religion under a secular state is a private matter for the individual.

Likewise, the 'church' should stay out of politics!

Under our Constitution, (Malaya had been, and subsequently) Malaysia is a secular state but which uniquely recognizes Islam as the official religion. What does this mean will be explained further on in this post by none other than former Lord President Salleh Abas (in a ruling he made 15 years ago) and again earlier this year by a three-judge panel of Malaysia’s second-highest court led by Justice Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Yunus.

But despite former Lord President Salleh Abas' ruling, this constitutional fact was thrown into confusion and ambiguity for 15 long years, and became a fertile ground for ambitious clerics to plant their unConstitutional seeds of intended domination, when former PM Dr Mahathir made his declaration on 29 September 2001 that Malaysia was an Islamic State, and as if that wasn't enough for his UMNO political agenda to out-flank PAS in the Heartland, made a further declaration the following year, on 17 June 2002, that Malaysia was not just an Islamic State but a fundamentalist Islamic State.

The two questionable and very ominous declarations came to be respectively (note, not 'respected') known as the 929 and 617 Declarations, both of which were adoringly supported (no, not by PAS but) by Dr Mahathir's kutus, MCA and Gerakan. MCA even creatively came up with a new disingenuous incredulous preposterous term, namely, 'secular Islamic state' to ameliorate the party's blind support for Dr Mahathir's unilateral declarations.

But alas, those declarations gave free reins to the UMNO Islamists to drive our multi-racial and multireligious nation in a caravan direction different to what what our founding fathers, Onn Jaffar, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn had determined and written into our Constitution.

Former Lord President Salleh Abas pointed out that the highest law in the country is the Federal Constitution, with Syariah law (Islamic law) being only a branch within the constitution.

Malaysiakini (12 Nov 2001) reported: Salleh said that his stand on Article 3 was clearly stated in a 1988 judgment which ruled that the term 'Islam' in Article 3 referred only to acts relating to "rituals and ceremonies".

He stressed that Malaysia can only be converted into an Islamic state when the word 'Islam' in Article 3 is amended so that Syariah could be applied fully to at least all Muslims.

Early this year we read again the same Salleh judicial ruling in the recent Court of Appeal decision reaffirming the limits of Shariah law to only familial matters.

Note the word 're-affirming' means the limited powers of the syariah courts were long since affirmed, as per what former Lord President Salleh Abas had ruled.

The Malay Mail Online reported in its Review Shariah law ambit, observers say after landmark court ruling (extracts):

[...]

The three-judge panel of Malaysia’s second-highest court led by Justice Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Yunus cited former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas, who had ruled that the framers of the Federal Constitution had confined the word “Islam” in Article 3 — which says that Islam is the religion of the Federation — to the areas of marriage, divorce and inheritance law, based on the history of Islamic legislation in Malaya during British colonial times.

“In short, the Supreme Court takes the position that it was the intention of the framers of our Federal Constitution that the word ‘Islam’ in Art. 3(1) be given a restrictive meaning,” Hishamudin said in the appellate court’s full judgment released on January 2 in the case of three Muslim transwomen fighting a cross-dressing ban under Negri Sembilan Shariah law.

The news also said former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim lauded the “clear thinking” judges for the decision and said that it took “lots of courage from Muslim judges to pronounce the appropriate place of Islamic law under the Constitution.”

He noted however, such decision has already been made decades ago but today’s ruling is an affirmation to that. He said:

“If our judges had been willing to make the correct pronouncement of the law, the country would have been spared the uncertainty and confusion which 20 years of ambivalence has generated.”

Now get this, and believe me or not wakakaka, the second Malaysian leader to dispute Dr M's Declarations that Malaysia was an Islamic State was none other the late spiritual leader of PAS and Menteri Besar of Kelantan, Allahyarham Pak Haji Nik Aziz who had then said:

“You can talk all you want. You can declare a piece of wood to be gold, or a wheelbarrow as a Mercedez, but in reality, nothing has changed.

For us, an Islamic country is one which is governed according to the tenets of the Quran and Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammed). Malaysia is a secular State. If the present Malaysia is already an Islamic state, then what do you call the state ruled by Prophet Muhammed and his friends?”

But thanks to Dr Mahathir and his too-clever-by-half politicking, and the opportunistic zealots, we are now seriously affected by the mess he left behind where lil' Napoleons have exploited his Islamic (but in reality UMNO-interests-driven political) declarations, making life difficult for ordinary non Muslims.

We dread the days of the Big Napoleons coming in with more religiously-driven intrusions into non-Muslim lives.