Not Just A Matter Of Labels

Secular State, Islamic State, Muslim Country. I have been asked why be concerned over what we call ourselves. After all, does political rhetoric really have an impact on our lives?

I think there are two primary reasons why what we call ourselves is important and does have an impact.


The Undermining Of The Rule Of Law

Firstly, our democratic institutions are weak. In theory, the primary organs of state - the Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary, the Attorney General, the Auditor General - are meant to operate independently and in constant supervision of the other organs. This process is what we refer to as the process of 'check and balance'. The independence which underpins is the 'separation of powers'.

The reality is that the separation of powers in Malaysia is illusory. The Government controls more than 90% of Parliament. In this way, the Executive controls Parliament. An attempt to suborn the Judiciary to Parliament was made in 1988 when the Constitution was amended to remove the entrenched power of the Judiciary to review executive action by limiting the jurisdiction of the High Court to matters vested in it by Federal Law. Leaving aside the constitutionality of the amendment and its effect, the popular notion, even within the Judiciary, is that there is Parliamentary Supremacy (as opposed to Constitutional Supremacy) in Malaysia.

Additionally, as I have previously written, the Prime Minister ultimately decides the appointment of judges (respect of the decisions of the Conference of Rulers could be argued as being a convention rather than a legal obligation). In this way, it could be said that the Executive controls the Judiciary and those who are appointed or promoted may, for one reason or the other, not necessarily be the most qualified or most capable. Seen from this perspective, there is in effect no check and balance. It could be said that the nation is in effect ruled by dictate or decree. Perhaps this is why the mainstream media is fixated on the views of the Prime Minister on almost everything and also why the wishes of the leadership elite is often seen as having force of law.

The foregoing is further complicated by a 'ketuanan melayu' policy articulated through an aggressive policy of affirmative action in favour of the majority Malay community and a close linkage between the Malay ethnicity and Islam. It is a truth that the civil service and the Judiciary is predominantly Malay who are, in turn, Muslim.

As more recent history has shown, this has allowed for a translation of the ambiguous statements of the leadership, particularly where Islam is concerned, into a belief on the part of administrators and bureaucrats that Islam, and as such its administrators, has a role to play in the governance of this country and has a more 'superior' role than other religions or faiths. This belief is given further foundation by the policy dictates that are seen to be conveyed by declarations that Malaysia is an Islamic State.

This has several implications. For one, it results in attempts to reinterpret law to make it more Islamic compliant. This is wrong in light of the understanding underlying the Fedeal Constitution. As has been judicially recognised, the founding fathers put in place a constitutional democracy in which public law was not meant to be predicated on any one religion.

Additionally, though it is often argued that Islam espouses universal values, in practice this is not necessarily the case. The practical Islam that we have been exposed to in Malaysia is one which is unforgiving and premised on punishment. The Islamic administration in this country seems more focused on form than substance.

Further, for administrative convenience and the ease of enforcement only selective versions of Islamic precepts determined to be acceptable are apermitted to become the basis of Muslim practice. In this way, we have seen a codification of a narrower swathe of Islam than the diversity of the religion itself contemplates. The Islamic law in this country is premised on the shafii madzhab or school (within the Sunni grouping) even though there is nothing objectionable about the other madzhabs. The Imams that founded these madzhabs were careful to ensure that their teachings did not become definitive. This appears to have been forgotten in our rush towards building, albeit on the quiet, an Islamic State.

In this context, a crucial question is who defines Islam for the purpose of reinterpretation of law and the development of an 'Islamic' policy. The monopoly over Islam potentially hurts Muslims as much as it does non-Muslims. The freedom of Muslims themselves to delve into God given diversity is in this way compromised.

The net effect is one where the Rule of Law is undermined resulting in the kind of controversies we have seen these last few years. No matter how you analyse and characterise these controversies, the painful truth is that injustices have been occasioned, more usually in the name of Islam.


Whither Unity

Secondly, labels are divisive. They exclude in as much as they include. One would have thought that as this nation turned 50 we would no longer be struggling with forging a national identity and that we would be striving as one nation.

Sadly, this is not the case and it is not difficult to see why. Continued emphasis on race and religion have led to alienation. They have also, riding on the back of the aggressive affirmative action campaign launched in 1969, created a context in which discrimination has become the norm in a way not countenanced by the Constitution. As I have said elsewhere, as long as article 153 of the Constitution remains in force I will recognise it as the law and for that reason accept the special status of Malaysa and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. But the NEP and its successor policies has gone far beyond the contemplation of those who drafted article 153.

The extended campaign has also created a privilege rather than special right attitude amongst the Malay community (I am generalising). This attitude is fueled for political reason to an extent that many cannot see an inconsistency between the affirmative action policy and the universality required by Islam. The truth is that many non-Malay Muslims do not qualify for special privileges simply because they are not Malay.

In this murkiness, labels do have an impact. They fuel resentments, they entrench further the belief amongst that while all are equal, some are more equal than others. So, even if there is value in labels such as Islamic State, does this value outweigh the more pressing need to ensure that all of us feel like we have our rightful and equal place in this country? I think not.

MIS

Extremism Does Not Define Religion

(Published in the New Sunday Times, 14th January 2007 as "Extremism, Not Religion, Begets Violence")

I HAD not been told that my workshop was potentially the most controversial. At an international conference in Prague last November, to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the United Nations' Declaration on the Elimination of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion of Belief, I was co-facilitating a workshop on the relationship between the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression.

My presentation focused on the twin pillars of freedom of religion: The freedom to profess (or not to profess as the case may be) as a personal or internal expression of one's belief; and the freedom to manifest, or externally express that belief through an act of worship or by not worshiping. The experience I had gained, in cases dealing with the denial of the freedom of religion, had led me to understand that while no one could impede another's internal expression, much could be done to restrict the manifestation of that belief.

The nuances of expression in religion must be explored at all levels, from the right of the individual to profess and practice a religion of choice, to a state's justifications for clamping down on free discussion concerning religious practices. My involvement in various efforts has led me to the conclusion that, other than to genuinely preserve public order, free expression on matters of religion is vital if a community is to defend against intolerance and extremism. This is at the heart of the 1981 Declaration.

Out of the 50 participants in our session, more than half were diplomats. And everyone wanted to talk about the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.h.) and the controversial speech by the Pope. The European diplomats were keen to defend their position on the freedom of expression underlying these events. Representatives of Islamic countries were, on the other hand, driven to point to the insensitivity and the underlying insult. All indicators pointed to a potentially explosive morning.

As my co-facilitator, a senior director from Amnesty International, and I began to navigate through the session, it became apparent that in order to ensure a meaningful dialogue we needed to ensure that the language was kept civil and the concepts objective.

This was to prove challenging as one of the first salvos into the fray was from a British academic. He scathingly made two points. First, that Islam demanded sensitivity and acceptance of its particular idiosyncrasies but was unwilling to reciprocate with tolerance and understanding. Referring to the cartoon episode, he pointed out that the Islamic world had not attempted to understand that in allowing for the publication, the publisher may not have intended to insult Islam but rather uphold a universal freedom of expression. The violence of reactions was proof of the rejection of any other view. In this vein, secondly, he went on to characterize Islam as a religion of violence.

Objectively, one could see why he might have thought so. I do not mean that he was right in his conclusions. The sad truth, however, is that a lot of violence is done in the name of Islam. The violence is not limited to acts of terrorism but includes aggression, abuses of power and insensitivity. I have seen some of that violence first hand. There was, as such, a basis for his skewed perceptions of Islam.

However, not everyone in the room was prepared to consider his position with the necessary objectivity. The outrage was immediate and loud. This was ironic as it served to reinforce the point the academic was making. Where were the objectivity, rationality and broad-mindedness that one associates with Islam, I found myself wondering.

Amidst the protests, I thought it might be useful for the others to hear a clarification of his stance. I believed that he might not be anti-Islamic and that he might sincerely hold the view that he was espousing. I also recognised that there was a possibility that he could not see that he was confusing issues, much as the others were. The premise of his argument was tenuous at best; the same reasoning could be employed against any religion. World events, past and present, reflect that.

There was, however, some value in the academic's point of view. It highlighted the fact that the use of religions, all religions in one form or the other, to justify violence pointed to a single painful truth: Religion is too often misused for political purpose. Such misuse is made possible by a propensity on the part of some towards extremism. In this way, extremism is harnessed not for religious purpose but for political purpose.

Perhaps it was more important then to understand why extremism existed.

Exploring this notion, I asked the academic whether he could agree that it was extremism, as opposed to religion, that led to violence. He was gracious enough to agree, conceding the point immediately. He also agreed to the suggestion that in allowing for diversity, religions were not monolithic. This, he further conceded, disallowed any generalizations about any particular religion.

Muslim participants were quick to agree as well. I believe their willingness lay in recognition of the fact that the violence we have seen done in the name of Islam - from effigy-burning to death threats to killings to terrorism - cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as being definitive or characteristic of Islam.

This agreement was echoed by other participants from different backgrounds, some completely secular or atheistic. Discussing the matter further, the workshop very quickly agreed that extremism was largely caused by factors that were independent of religion. Core amongst these are poverty, a lack of education and the denial of social justice. These factors have allowed for the entrenching, and misuse, of extremist thought and the galvanizing of extremist action.

Recognising this, the workshop readily agreed that the fight against extremism was one that had to focus, as a global concern, on eradicating the root causes of extremism.

The workshop ended on a high note, its recommendations a testament to the fact that more often than not, so many of us are shackled by fear and prejudice. Constructive and meaningful dialogue, and the truths it bears, can be achieved where there is the will to do so.

MIS