Malaysia After Lina Joy - DAP dialogue

Travelled after 4.30pm to PJ Armada Hotel to hear a first ever dialogue organise by the DAP introducing very distinguished speakers representing a large spectrum of civic minded people. The talk started at 8.00 pm, chaired by Tony Pua, Special Advisor on economics to DAP Sec Gen.

When I arrived at about 7.35pm, the room was already pack, and many was seen coming into the hall until there were no chairs available. People were standing by the sides of the room with some sitting on the carpet of the hotel. The turn out was very unexpected due to the lack of advertisment. But than again nothing compare to the announcement made in the blog world and the conventional word of mouth. We though to have a reasonable 300-400 but looks like it crosses the 500 nearing 600 mark. People from all walks of life came notably from women groups, religious organisation and a small group from ABIM.

The first speaker is Lim Guan Eng, who spoke about the need of compassion instead of rigidity in issues of conversion. He saw family break ups because of conversion. Children were taken away forcefully, wives were sent to forced rehabilitation even though nothing was mention in the constitution especially Sch 9 of the State List. He also states the need for review as this case involved constitutional issues that has to be deliberated in great length. As such for the purpose of clarity then there should be a review. Since the Federal Court can review it's own decision, a 9 9-man bench should be appointed to revisit and reevaluate this position once and for all.

Then came Leonard Teoh, legal advisor of MCCBCHS who mentioned that issues of conversion is never straightforward so long so long as Muslim are not seen to be rebeling. He felt also the need for Malaysian to live not tolerating one another but it should be in harmony for the progress and purposes of nation building. He continue to say that the word tolerate is a bad word and should be changed to living in harmony.

Third Speaker was Tan Sri Khalid (Sec Gen of KeAdilan) whom I feel did not really touch the mark. He basically read a statement from Anwar Ibrahim stating his thank the people for keeping calm during the pronouncement of the judgement. He blamed the government of the day for the lackadaisical attitude in issues regarding conversion. There should be a need to streamline the syariah laws of every state.

Fourth was Dr Azmi Sharom Associate Professor from UM law faculty. He gave knowledge on the constitution and told the gathering that he did not see anything stated about apostasy in the Constitution. He also feel that the authorities are over zealous, stopping another from converting out of Islam. The things of the conscience and legal should be separated and be distinct between one another.

“Is apostasy something that is wrong?” he asked. “Yes, it is a sin. It's stated clearly that it’s a great sin. But the Qur’an does not say what the earthly punishment should be. . . . The issue is still open for discussion. What punishment for apostasy that does exist is created by Islamic scholars. This means it’s a man made issue.”

What is more, “if the constitution does grant jurisdiction to the Shariah Court to punish offenders against the precepts of Islam, what are these precepts? This is not explained in the constitution,” Azmin noted.

Instead of focusing on punishment, Muslims should “look inwards” and ask themselves why “young Muslims want to leave their religion.”

“This country,” he explained, “is moving away from a system of secular government and towards an Islamic state.” Instead he insisted: “I believe in a secular system. I believe a secular state is the only system that can protect all religions.”

Fifth came Yusri Mohammed, President of ABIM representing the dissenting and minority views that night talking about the religion of Islam as the way of life and the his opinion that apostasy is a criminalised crime in Islam .

Sixth speaker was Ambiga Sreenevasam, President of the Bar Council, who spoke at length on the constitution starting from Art 3 on Islam as the religion of the federation. Art 4 the Constitution is the supreme law, Art 11 freedom of religion and the list goes on. The Bar Council felt that fundamental rights should not be impliedly created by the courts.

And lastly YB Lim Kit Siang, who spoke about Malaysia is not an Islamic State but a secular democratic country whereby Islam is the religion of the federation. Secular should not be seen as anti god or religion. It should be seen as a guide toward multi religious, multi language and culture in a national building for a greater Malaysia. This is pronounced in the Constitution, the Social Contract, the Malaysia Agreement, Cobbold Commission and other historical documents and facts including Tunku and Hussein Onn's proclamation that Malaysia is NOT an Islamic State. Many landmark decision such as the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v PP (1988) where his Lordship Tun Salleh Abas LP said : "We have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of law..."

He further stated that the judiciary these days is being polarised along religious line, with Muslim judges ranged against a non Muslim judges according to their religion on cases raising religious issues. Are judges these days religion first and Malaysian second or the other way around? This is shown in the recent cases.

It was definitely educational for me and the many that came. To some it is an eye opener and at least a dialogue where civic mindedness prevails over emotional and fanatical cries of God is great'. Anyway God is definitely great. His awesome powers are always prevailing. We should not condemn another for his or her belief. Let God decide in the thereafter.

My personal observation after attending the dialogue is simply, the first ever in Malaysia during my generation. AT least DAP is seen to be history makers. There must be more inter religious dialogue for the understanding of various religion and culture so as not to offend anybody. Malaysia is a civic society that must refuse any form of tension and irresponsible conduct. Everybody must sit together and discuss things instead of sweeping under the carpet. This dialogue prove that Malaysians can sit together and agree to disagree with the many sensative issues.

I must also say thank you to Yusry for his willingness to come and to share his part of the story. It is only hope that Yusry and the others in PEMBELA to also acknowledge the existence of believe and understanding between ourselves. We are not a threat to Islam. And at the same time we are all living under the Supreme law of the Land