Absurd to stop East Malaysians using Allah in other states

Home Minister cannot rely on a one-sided directive which violates constitutional rights under the fig leaf of national security and public order.

PUTRAJAYA: Lawyer Lim Heng See, acting on behalf of Jill Ireland of Sarawak at the Court of Appeal on Thursday, raised the intention of the framers of the Federal Constitution when Sabah and Sarawak entered into Federation with Malaysia.

Lim held, in a cross appeal filed by Ireland on her constitutional rights, that even Parliament could not impose restrictions on freedom of religion. “If Sabahans and Sarawakians could use the term Allah for God, in their states, it would be absurd to stop them in other states.”

“Ireland, who is from Sarawak, has the right to use Allah in any part of Malaysia.”

The Orang Asal Christians in Sabah and Sarawak, Lim added, had used Allah since 1647. “Parliament could impose restrictions on fundamental rights when it came to matters of subversion and acts prejudicial to public order but not freedom of worship.”

The issue arose following the seizure of Christian CDs from Ireland at the Low Cost Terminal in Sepang on 7 July, 2008. The decision was conveyed to her by Customs Officer Suzanah Muin, on behalf of the Home Minister, vide a letter signed by her. She was then en route home from Medan, Indonesia, where she had purchased the CDs with the word Allah.

Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, who represented the government, submitted that the Home Minister was relying on a 1986 government directive which prohibited Christian publications from using “Allah”, among others. Some other terms, he added, were “kaabah”, “solat” and “baitullah”.

The reasons, he argued were grounded in preventing threats to national security and public order by ensuring no misunderstanding between Christians and Muslims. He described the directive as a “pre-emptive strike” to prevent violence breaking out – presumably between Christians and Muslims – and stressed that the 5 December 1986 directive was still in force.

“Ireland’s constitutional rights took a back seat because the Home Minister’s decision was based on national security and public order.”

Lim, in reply, said that Ireland wanted a declaration that the Home Minister could not rely on the 1986 directive and could not use the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) 1984 to curtail her constitutional rights. “The Home Minister did not exercise his powers properly as no reason was given why the CDs were deemed a threat to public order or in breach of Islamic Development of Malaysia (Jakim) guidelines.”

Ireland’s cross-appeal, being closely watched by constitutional lawyers, could be used to revisit similar cases.

For one, the Home Minister cannot hold that the term Allah only becomes an issue of national security and public order when used by Christians, but not Muslims. The issue of Islam being the religion of the Federation, it’s considered, has no bearing on the matter. Besides, there’s no religion in Sabah and Sarawak under the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

For another, the question of procedural fairness arises. The Home Minister can argue that he was only following procedures but the Court has to consider whether such procedures were fair and whether they violated the Federal Constitution.