When are Pakatan Rakyat governed States going to amend Control and Restriction of the Propagation of non-Islamic Religious Enactment?

Control and Restriction of the Propagation of non-Islamic Religious Enactment - this apparently exists in 10 States - including Selangor and the other Pakatan Rakyat States.

The enactment makes provisions for a number of offences. This includes the use of any of the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment. The word “Allah” is one of the listed words which currently number 25 altogether, the schedule being amendable by each state Ruler in Council. Other words include “Firman Allah”, “Ulama”, “Illahi”, “Salat”, “Wahyu” and “Qiblat” — to name a few.

On the use of the prohibited words, an offence is committed if a person uses any of the listed words —

(a) in any published writing; or

(b) in any public speech or statement; or

(c) in any speech or statement addressed to any gathering of persons; or

in any speech or statement which is published or broadcast and which at the time of its making he knew or ought reasonably to have known would be published or broadcast,

to express or describe any fact, belief, idea or matter pertaining to any non-Islamic religion. [See section 9(1) of the State of Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988.

It is a State Enactment, and it was passed with a simple majority - and it can also be amended with a simple majority. But, the questions is whether the Pakatan Rakyat States will table the Bill and amend the law to be consistent with the position of PAS, PKR and DAP...or the position of Pakatan Rakyat.

From my understanding, PAS is of the opinion that the word, 'Allah' is not exclusive to the religion of Islam or Muslims, and that it can be used by others. I believe PKR and DAP are also of the mind.

So, why have they not yet tabled an amendment to the Enactment which was tabled and passed during a time when the UMNO-led BN held the majority of the seats in the State Legislative Assembly, and was government of these States..

Religion is under the State List - and it is up to the State to enact or repeal laws with regard to Islam.

Oh, is positions and principles not important for Pakatan Rakyat - because there is some worry that it may be exploited by the UMNO-led BN to woo Muslim voters. I do not believe that this would be a problem as most Malaysian Muslims are more inclined to take the position of PAS.

Take a stand Pakatan Rakyat...

Are they waiting for the court cases to be over ... hoping that the courts will resolve the problem without they having to come out and do the needful. We are not talking about repealing the law - but doing the needful amendments to that Enactment to reflect the correct position.

On the prohibition against the use of the word “Allah”, a question has been raised: why now? Up until quite recently “Allah” was used commonly and by everyone in Malaysia without objection.

Well, to start with let’s look at the law. Since 1988 in 10 states in Peninsular Malaysia, it has been passed into law an enactment to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among Muslims. The exceptions for Peninsular Malaysia are Penang and the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.

The enactment makes provisions for a number of offences. This includes the use of any of the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment. The word “Allah” is one of the listed words which currently number 25 altogether, the schedule being amendable by each state Ruler in Council. Other words include “Firman Allah”, “Ulama”, “Illahi”, “Salat”, “Wahyu” and “Qiblat” — to name a few.

On the use of the prohibited words, an offence is committed if a person uses any of the listed words —

(a) in any published writing; or

(b) in any public speech or statement; or

(c) in any speech or statement addressed to any gathering of persons; or

in any speech or statement which is published or broadcast and which at the time of its making he knew or ought reasonably to have known would be published or broadcast,

to express or describe any fact, belief, idea or matter pertaining to any non-Islamic religion. [See section 9(1) of the State of Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988. The provision obtaining in other states is similar.]

It is noteworthy that the provision is so broadly worded that it covers the use of the prohibited words even by Muslims to describe matters pertaining to non-Islamic religions.

Now, let’s bear in mind that the enactment, which is state law, is constitutionally sanctioned. Under the authority of Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, state law may restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine among Muslims.

So, while Article 11(1) grants to every person the right to profess and practice his religion, the right to propagate is made subject to Article 11(4). Thus it would be constitutional for a law, state or federal, to be enacted to restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religions among Muslims.

Article 11(4) is a pre-Merdeka provision and has been commented upon by noted constitutional scholars. Professor Andrew Harding views it as having been inserted because of public order considerations. According to him, the restriction therein contained has more to do with the preservation of public order than with religious priority. [Law, Government and the Constitution of Malaysia (1996), p 201]

Another scholar, Professor Shad Faruqi, acknowledges the concern among many non-Muslims that Article 11(4) “amounts to unequal treatment under the law because Muslims are allowed to propagate their religion to non-Muslims.” He however respectfully submits that it is part of the pre-Merdeka “social contract”. He writes:

“Its aim is to insulate Muslims against a clearly unequal and disadvantageous situation. During the colonial era, many non-indigenous religions were vigorously promoted by the merchants, the military and the missionaries of the colonial countries. Even today, the proselytising activities of many Western-dominated religious movements that are internationally organised and funded have aroused resentment in many Asian and African societies. Some aspects of their activities, like seeking deathbed conversions, generous grant of funds to potential converts and vigorous proselytising activities among minors have distinct implications for social harmony …. A pre-Merdeka compromise between the Malays and the non-Malays was, therefore, sought and obtained that any preaching to Muslims will be conducted only by authorised Syariah authorities. Missionary work amongst Muslims — whether by non-Muslims or Muslims — may be regulated by state law under the authority of Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.”

[Document of Destiny: The Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia (2008), p 139]

Be that as it may, what needs to be emphasised is that freedom of religion — like all freedoms — cannot be absolute. It is subject to direct and indirect restraints. Article 11(4) and the state enactments mentioned above are some of such restraints.

To this may be added Article 11(5) which makes the exercise of freedom of religion subject to public order, public health and morality. So that, any legislative or administrative regulation of the freedom of religion is justiciable.

So it appears that there is a valid legal objection to the use of the word “Allah” for God. The fact that the objection is raised only now does not make an apparently unlawful act lawful. Ignorance of the law excuses nobody. - Malaysian Insider, Using ‘Allah’ is restricted under state law — Hafiz Hassan

Now, the courts will have to act in accordance to law - and if it is a bad law, that is the bad law that the court will follow. The Pakatan Rakyat states can now amend that enactment so that there will be no more inhibition for Christians and Sikhs to continue use the word Allah in their own religious communities worship, prayers, publications, etc ....