“In order to be a part of the totalitarian mindset, it is not necessary to wear a uniform or carry a club or a whip. It is only necessary to wish for your own subjection and to delight in the subjection of others.”
- Author Christopher Hitchens
Rational Malaysians should be rightly afraid of the proposed Federal Territories Mufti Bill, which will get its day in Parliament soon.
Any time a religious law is introduced into the legislative body, it makes it easier for religious agendas to dominate how the country is run. It is as simple as that.
Latheefa Koya, in her must-read piece about this proposed bill, which in essence is merely a religious power grab by the Madani state, issues this chilling warning - “It will give power to the government through the mufti to control or police every aspect of the life of Muslims in this country. No government should have such powers over its people in a democracy, purportedly under the guise of religion.”
Sisters in Islam (SIS), which the Selangor state fatwa committee labelled as deviant (SIS last year obtained a Federal court leave to appeal the issue), said this - “Without oversight and recourse for appeals or legal challenges, the unchecked powers of institutions or figures directly undermine the rule of law and justice.”
The always vocal (why this woman is unelected is, I dare say, criminal) Siti Kasim, who knows a thing or two about religious malfeasances and how it affects the majority community, reminded non-Muslims in this country in a Facebook post.
“Don’t think you’ll escape, for eventually there’s bound to be a domino effect … If the bill gets through, it’ll be difficult to turn back; I hope MPs in Parliament will take notice by not letting the bill through.”
Passing the buck, as usual
Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil, in defending the legitimacy of this bill, pushed a disingenuous Madani narrative that needs to be debunked. These four talking points are typical Madani deflections.
1. The first involves the rather wonky claim that this bill mirrors the Sabah Fatwa enactment.
Notice how Fahmi does not elaborate on the similarities or the similarities in civil and religious standings between the proposed bill and the Sabah fatwa but merely makes a general claim as to the similarity between the two.
Furthermore, unlike Sabah, religious disruption between the various communities emanates from the federal government. For example, the recent backtracking of the mandatory halal certification for non-Muslims came from Putrajaya.
2. Fahmi claimed - “At the same time, there is no increase in the mufti’s powers; it remains the same as now. The difference is that we want to bring it as a parliamentary Act to clarify its jurisdiction, so there are no claims or disputes about the mufti’s authority,”
The question we should ask is if the powers of the mufti are the same, then why is there a need for clarification of jurisdiction? For any rational person, I think the answer is obvious, right?
So what the Madani state wants is this - “….the mufti’s position will have more constitutional and legal order in our country,” which is the objective of the “Green Wave”.
3. “Do not view this matter with prejudice; we need to be legally aware.” cautioned Fahmi, which is strange because the personalities offering the most vocal criticisms are all lawyers.
4. And finally, this gem. Fahmi also pointed out that the group’s definition of an Islamic state has a negative connotation, implying a transformation similar to that in the Middle East or other regions.
Here it is, the charge of Islamophobia when it comes to dissent against religious laws or agendas. This is the play of the Madani state and the “Green Wave” whenever anyone dares to dissent against the theocratic agendas of power brokers.
It is not enough that you believe in the position of Islam in the state; you must be complicit in the strengthening of its scope and powers as well. Otherwise, you are labelled ignorant or Islamophobic.
Islamisation agenda
I would argue that this proposed bill is the Madani version of PAS’ Act 355 bill to enhance syariah punishments, and it is being used by the Madani state as a test case for how far they can push the state’s religious agenda.
And what did the DAP think of this proposed Act 355? Well, then DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said it best in 2021 when he stated - “Malaysians remain unconvinced with Idris Ahmad’s assurances in Parliament yesterday that the religious rights of freedom of non-Muslims will not be affected by the proposed Act 355 and the bill to restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religions.”
So, when DAP’s Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan said, “The provision relating to a fatwa in the mufti bill is not novel. Many provisions in state enactment relating to mufti’s fatwa bind Muslims,” this lends credence to the idea that this really is a test case for the Madani regime and how they intend to shape religious policies in the states they run and on a federal level.
Let me be very clear. There is not one shred of empirical evidence that the religion of the state and policies from religious laws do not affect non-Muslims in this country.
Whenever a religious and racial bully warns non-Muslims not to trespass into Islamic domains, it is with the understanding that religious laws do affect non-Muslims. That is the whole point of the bullying.
Mariam Mokhtar wondered if the recent controversies involving the Umno youth leader and DAP were merely bully-boy tactics to subdue opposition to this bill.
Who knows, which is why the title of this piece is “Will the DAP support the mufti bill?” and not “Will the DAP oppose the mufti bill?”
DAP must stand fast
The DAP should object to this proposed bill, and they should do it because the people who vote for them would be affected by this proposed bill. Keep in mind that the DAP is supposed to have a secular agenda, and it is hardwired in its party’s constitution.
DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke not only reaffirmed the party’s secular agenda but also noted that all parties in the coalition understood this agenda and had agreed to play nice.
As reported in the press - “…..the DAP secretary-general said his party need not drop the secular nation agenda and its slogan ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ merely to reap support from other ethnic groups.”
Loke also said - “Before forming the unity government, all parties agreed not to touch on each party’s principles and constitutions.”
So this is the perfect opportunity to test these ideas. The DAP not only has to object to this bill but this should not come as a surprise to its coalition partners.
The state wants its non-Muslim partners to be complicit in the formation of religious laws. Why? Because it not only gives a fig leaf of democratic legitimacy but also demonstrates religious and racial superiority over its partners.
Any kind of religious law - no matter the religion - is, in reality, a suicide pact.
We are constantly told not to interfere in the affairs of Muslims even though these issues affect us as Malaysians. Do you think that Muslim politicians in this country will ever sign a document that pledges that non-Muslims will not be affected by Islamic law?
They will never even moot such legislation or debate it; they would instead use the system’s security apparatus to crack down on such speech or proposals.
What they will do is create legislation like this proposed bill, which they say only affects Muslims but has far-reaching consequences for all Malaysians.
The prime minister has asked the religious minister to explain this bill, but we have to remember that it is the same minister who caused problems within the coalition with his proposed mandatory halal certification for businesses not serving pork and alcohol, and this reeks of passing the buck.
If you are a non-Muslim in this country, you only have to answer one question. Do you believe that laws affecting the majority will not affect the minority? - Mkini
S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.