Christians in Malaysia use BM in worship and prayer - odd to allow only Sabah and Sarawak Christians to use certain words

The lingua franca in Malaysia is Bahasa Malaysia - no more English, and that is also the language used for worship and prayer for Malaysian Christians. In the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, particularly the major towns, the grasp of English is still strong, and many a Churches have numbers to have services wholly in English, Chinese(Mandarin), Tamil and/or Bahasa Malaysia. But in many other communities, services are multi-lingual, and BM is used a lot. In Bahasa Malaysia services, the word 'Allah' has been used for years in songs and prayers.

Many of our Malaysian friends from Sabah and Sarawak are now in Peninsular Malaysia, and have been for a very long time. They are in the Universities, Colleges, military camps, in the civil service and even the private sector. In communion, during worship, Christian communities do it together and as mentioned the lingua franca is now Bahasa Malaysia (or some say Bahasa Melayu) - and so the usage of the word 'Allah' is used all over Malaysia.

It is makes no sense for this Malaysian government to be ignorant of this fact, and it is odd for the government to be saying things like  'The word 'Allah' can be used by Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians in their worship, including in the Malay-language bible al-Kitab...' - We are Malaysians, all of us. What do you want? Separate churches and worship for Sabahans and Sarawakian Christians where 'Allah' can be used? 

The restriction in our Federal Constitution is that there should be no proselytisation of Muslims (i.e. the attempt to convert Muslims in Malaysia to another religion), and that is tolerated and accepted by all other major religious groups in Malaysia. Now, the new 'infringement' into the other religions by the imposition of restrictions of the usage of certain words generally is stepping over the accepted boundaries. What next? The restriction of the usage of Bahasa Malaysia(Melayu) by other religions? 

It is odd that there are those that come out now and say respect the decision of the court - but the question is why now? Did they also come out and say respect the decision of the court after the High Court decision? Court decision can be criticized and courts comprised of human judges are fallible and do 'err' (make mistakes). Even decisions of the highest court of the land have been overruled by subsequent courts. Even decisions of the highest court have been 'dismantled' through the amendment of laws or the passing of new laws by Parliament. 

The Catholic Herald is an official publication of the Catholic Church, and it reaches Catholics all over Malaysia, even Sabah and Sarawak - as such, it makes little sense for comments that Sabah and Sarawak Christians can use the word 'Allah' - but Herald that read cannot use the word. So, what if it is a 'special edition' only for Sabah and Sarawak Christians, is that OK for that publication to use the word 'Allah'? 

So like political party publications, which have restrictions that it is 'only for party members', we may have new publications that use to word 'Allah' to have the words 'only for Christians from Sabah and Sarawak'? Come to think about it, what about Orang Asli Christians from Peninsular Malaysia? 

True, we are in a period just before the UMNO elections - and I do wonder whether the position taken by some in this Malay party could be just some form of 'campaigning' to win in the upcoming party elections? Or maybe worse, it may be 'campaigning' to regain the lost Muslim citizen support? But as government, let it not be forgotten that Malaysia is a multi racial and multi religious country, with a citizenry that really is very tolerant and respectful of their fellow Malaysians (even foreigners) irrespective of their differences arising by reason of ethnicity, religion or other matters...

I also wonder at times whether this issue, like many other 'ethnic or religious issues' are sometimes just distractions to divert Malaysians from the other very real concerns - like equitable distribution of wealth amongst individuals/households in Malaysia, the deterioration of worker and trade union rights including the loss of the right to regular employment until retirement, the TPPA and implication to Malaysia and its effect to the future advancement of the quality of life in Malaysia, Lynas, Bukit Koman, Free and Fair Elections, Detention Without Trial, ... 

There seems to be some confusion. It is important to note that the Court of Appeal case was only about the ability of the publication Catholic Herald to use the word 'Allah' - although in the judgment the judges seem to have strayed into the general question as to whether Christians (nay non- Muslims) should be using the term 'Allah'.

  

Sabah, Sarawak Christians free to use 'Allah', says gov't

12:09PM Oct 17, 2013

The word 'Allah' can be used by Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians in their worship, including in the Malay-language bible al-Kitab, the government has said.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Joseph Kurup was reported by Sin Chew Daily as saying that this was decided by the cabinet in their meeting yesterday.

He said the cabinet decided to fall back on the 10-point solution, which allows for the importation into and printing of Bibles of any language in Malaysia, including al-Kitab which uses the word ‘Allah'.

"The cabinet has discussed the Court of Appeal decision because this issue has created much dissatisfaction and worry among Sabah and Sarawak Christians.

"They are worried if the Malay-language Bible that uses the word 'Allah' will be banned. Therefore the cabinet feels there is a need to clarify," he was quoted by Sin Chew as saying.

He added that the cabinet will also follow the case closely, due to the level of concern it has raised among the public.

Among others, the 10-point solution also states that there is no prohibition on Christians from carrying Bibles of any language from Sabah and Sarawak into the peninsula.

However, Bahasa Malaysia or Bahasa Indonesia Bibles brought into or printed in the peninsula must have the words 'Christian Publication' and a cross printed on its front cover.

The Court of Appeal on Monday overturned a High Court decision which allowed Catholic publication The Herald to use the word 'Allah' in its Malay-language edition.

The High Court decision in Dec 31, 2009 led to scattered attacks against Christian and Sikh places of worship.

The Herald is appealing the Court of Appeal decision at the Federal Court. - Malaysiakini, 17/10/2013, Sabah, Sarawak Christians free to use 'Allah', says gov't

Malaysian Bar:- It is Wrong to Deny Fundamental Rights on the Premise that Others May Be Confused

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Press Release

It is Wrong to Deny Fundamental Rights on the Premise that Others May Be Confused

 

The Malaysian Bar is deeply concerned by the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 14 October 2013 in what is commonly referred to as the “Herald” or “Allah” case.

The concerns arise from the Court’s interpretation of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution on the status of Islam and other religions, and Articles 11(1) and 11(4) on the fundamental right to profess and practise a religion.

Any interpretation of the Constitution must invite the greatest scrutiny as it impacts on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens.

We are particularly concerned with the following findings, that:

I. The insertion of the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam and “also to insulate against any threat…to the religion of Islam”;

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution expressly provides that “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.

The Court of Appeal found that this Article was inserted as a byproduct of the social contract by our founding fathers, and that the purpose and intention of the words “in peace and harmony” was to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and to insulate it against any threat.  This is an unnatural reading of the provisions in Article 3(1).  The words in their clear and ordinary meaning provides for the right of other religions to be practised unmolested and free of threats.

In referring to the social contract, effect should be given to the understanding as at 1957 and not to the numerous amendments that have since been made to the Federal Constitution in violation thereof.  Paragraph 57 of the White Paper in 1957 which gave rise to Articles 3(1) and 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides as follows:

There has been included in the proposed Federal Constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular State, and every person will have the right to profess and practice his own religion and the right to propagate his religion, though this last right is subject to any restrictions imposed by State law relating to the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion.

II. The use of the word “Allah” in the Malay version of the Herald would cause or create confusion amongst persons professing the religion of Islam;

It is unreasonable and contrary to the Constitutional scheme that a fundamental liberty is liable to be denied on the basis that some person or persons would be confused.

The decision does not in any way aid in addressing or resolving the alleged confusion amongst persons professing the religion of Islam, when in fact that word “Allah” is used by more than one community in this country and by people of different faiths in the Arab world and other Muslim countries.  Rather, the effect of the decision would be to encourage a perpetual state of confusion or ignorance as justifiable grounds for denying the rights of others.  The course that ought to have been taken should be to educate those persons who would be confused and not to restrict or injunct the exercise of rights by others.

III. The use of the word “Allah” in the Malay version of the Herald would have the potential to threaten or harm public order and safety; and

Having recited that religious sensitivities are a threat to public order and safety, the decision unfortunately serves to reinforce the notion that the use or threat of violence would win the day in court.  It is unacceptable that citizens are denied their Constitutional rights of religious freedom and expression on the basis that others who disagree or who are confused would resort to aggression.

The law should not be interpreted and declared so as to condone, encourage and perpetuate such aggression and threats of violence.  Rather, the law ought to be visited upon those who would resort to threats or violence.

IV. The finding that the word “Allah” is not an essential and integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity.

There appears to be no basis for the findings by the Court of Appeal that the word is not an integral part of the faith or practice of Christianity other than what has been described in the written judgments as “a quick research” and research conducted on the internet.

It is troubling that the Court would conduct research on its own via the internet and come to conclusions of alleged facts with respect to a person’s religion without its veracity being tested.

In any event, it is for a party asserting exclusive rights to the use of the word “Allah” to establish that they have such exclusive rights, rather than for others to have to establish that the use of the word is integral to their faith.  By most accounts, there is no prohibition on the use of the Arabic word “Allah” by people of different faiths in the Arab world and other countries.  It is difficult to discern how we are able to declare exclusivity of a word over which we do not have proprietary rights.

The Malaysian Bar calls upon all quarters to address the issue with maturity and calmness.  It must be reminded that everyone must respect the right of the publishers of the Herald to seek to appeal the matter to the Federal Court, if they so wish.  They should be permitted to pursue this without any threats or intimidation.

Christopher Leong
President
Malaysian Bar

16 October 2013

ARTICLE 19, ALIRAN, PROHAM, NUBE,WH4C & 111 Others say Drop Charges against Lena Hendry

Joint Statement – 2/10/2013(as of 15/10/2013)

DROP THE CHARGES AGAINST MALAYSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER LENA HENDRY

NO TO PRE-CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR APPROVAL FOR USAGE OF FILM/VIDEOS

We, the  116  undersigned  civil society groups, trade unions and organizations are shocked that the Malaysian government, after the recent General Election has resorted to charging human rights defender Lena Hendry on 19 September 2013 for being involved in the screening of a documentary "No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka" at a human rights event in Kuala Lumpur on  9 July 2013.

Lena Hendry was charged for an offence under the Film Censorship Act 2002, in connection with the screening of a video  which  was not  vetted and approved by the Film Censorship Board of Malaysia. If convicted, she faces the sentence of a ‘…fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than thirty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both…’ She is charged under Section 6 of the Act that makes it an offence to, amongst others, to produce, manufacture, have in one’s possession, circulate, distribute and display such film or film-publicity material which has not been approved by the Board. This may include video material ranging from family videos, videos of political and human rights material including recordings of forums and speeches, videos about citizen rights including the right to free and fair elections or worker rights, and even videos about rights violations in other countries including Palestine.

A ‘…videotape, diskette, laser disc, compact disc, hard disc and other record of a sequence of visual images, being a record capable of being used as a means of showing that sequence as a moving picture, whether or not accompanied by sound…”, is also included in the definition of ‘film’ as provided for in Section 3 of the Film Censorship Act. It is absurd that in Malaysia, the law requires one to get approval of the Malaysia’s Film Censorship Board for all such material.

The Act is also discriminatory as it does not apply, amongst others, to “...any film sponsored by the Federal Government or the Government of any State...”. The government does not need to obtain approval from the Censorship Board, but everyone else is expected to do so.

At present, the practice of getting approval from the Film Censorship Board usually applies to films screened in cinemas and cineplexes to a paying audience. Even when it comes to television, it is believed that there may be no pre-requirement for getting approval from the Censorship Board for all that is shown except for feature movies.

The charging of Lena Hendry in September 2013 by the Malaysia government is seen as an effort to limit access to information and alternative views particularly those highlighting human rights violations and alternative perspectives. This violates individual and civil society and public rights to information, freedom of expression and opinion.

If the screening and usage of such material incites a criminal act, or violates another person’s rights, there are existing laws to address this. There is no requirement for any prior government approval or ‘censorship’.

In Reporters Without Borders’ 2013 World Press Freedom Index, Malaysia has fallen to its lowest-ever position because of the decreasing access to information. Malaysia embarrassingly dropped 23 places, and now ranks 145 out of 179.

Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states clearly that “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at  national and international levels.” 

Lena Hendry, has the right to ‘…freely  publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms…’, and that should include the right to use films, documentaries and other video materials.

To advocate a policy or a law that says that film or video material must be pre-approved by the government before it can be used is in itself a violation of principles of human rights and the UN Human Rights Defender Declaration.

Therefore, we

a)      Call on the Malaysian Government to immediately and unconditionally drop the criminal charges against Lena Hendry;

b)    Call for the repeal of provisions in the Film Censorship Act 2002 that obligates persons to seek approval of the government vis-à-vis the Film Censorship Board before a film, videotape, diskette, laser disc, compact disc, hard disc and other record of a sequence of visual images can be used;

c)    Call on the Malaysian government to recognize, promote and respect human rights, including those contained in the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration

Charles Hector

Pranom Somwong

For and on behalf the 116 organisations listed below

ALIRAN

All Women’s Action Society (AWAM), Malaysia

Angkatan Rakyat Muda (ARM), Malaysia

Aksi  For Gender, Social And Ecological Justice, Indonesia

ASEAN Youth Assembly

Asia Pacific Forum on Women, law and Development (APWLD)

Academy of Tamil Studies, Malaysia

Boat People SOS

Burma Partnership

Cambodian Human Rights Association ( ADHOC )

Campaign for a Life of Dignity for All (KAMP), Philippines

Civil Right Committee of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Malaysia

Center for Orang  Asli Concerns (COAC), Malaysia

Centre of Education. Research and Development (CEDAR) Malaysia

Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia

Child Development Initiative Malaysia

Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), Malaysia

Community Action Network, Malaysia

Community Resource Centre

Council of Temples Malaysia

Dapur Jalanan Kuala Lumpur

Dignity International

Empower Foundation, Thailand

ENGAGE

Federation of Indian Non-Governmental Organisations

Foundation for Women, Thailand

Friends of Burma, Chiang Mai

Gabungan Pertubuhan-pertubuhan Masyarakat India Selangor

Gender and Development Advocates (GANDA) Filipinas

Group of Concerned Citizens Malaysia

Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com, UK

Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) Indonesia

Indian Malaysian Active Generation (IMAGE) Malaysia

Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) , Malaysia

JERIT, Malaysia

Kelab Bangsar Utama, Malaysia

Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja Pekerja Perusahaan Alat Alat Pengangkutan Dan Sekutu(NUTEAIW)

Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan Semenanjung Malaysia (KSIEWSSM)

Kuala Lumpur Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals

Law and Society Trust, Colombo Sri Lanka

LLG Cultural Development Centre, Malaysia

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Malaysian Association of Indian University Graduates

Malaysian Dravidian Association

Malaysians for Beng Hock

Malaysian Hindu Youth Council

Malaysian Indian Business Association

Malaysian Indian Development & Unity Association

Malaysian Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals

Malaysian Indian Historical Association

Malaysia Indian Progressive Educational Society

Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation

Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility

Malaysia Youth & Students Democratic Movement

Malaysia Tamil Artiste Association

MAP Foundation, Thailand

MARUAH, Singapore

Migrant CARE

MTUC(Malaysian Trade Union Congress) Pahang

National Union of Bank Employees, Malaysia (NUBE)

Nationwide Human Development And Research Centre Malaysia

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia ( NAMM)

Network for Democracy and Development

Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)

Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)

Pax Romana ICMICA

Peace Institute of Cambodia

Peace Women Across the Globe Indonesia

Peoples' Empowerment Foundation (PEF), Thailand

Peoples Service Organisation (PSO) , Malaysia

PERGERAKAN Indonesia

Perkumpulan Tafena Tabua, Kupang - Indonesia

Persahabatan Semparuthi Johore, Malaysia 

Persatuan Alumni PBTUSM KL & Selangor

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor (PSWS), Malaysia

Projek Dialog, Malaysia

SABM Melbourne, Australia

Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee, Malaysia

SALT(School of Acting Justly Loving Tenderly and Treading Humbly), Malaysia

Sarawak Dayak Iban Association

Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)

Selangor Indian Entrepreneurs and Professionals

Semparuthi Iyakkam Malaysia

Sisters In Islam, Malaysia

SUARAM (Suara Rakyat Malaysia)

Tenaganita, Malaysia

The Asian Muslim Action Network (Aman) Indonesia

The Association of Women Lawyers, Malaysia

The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec, Canada

VIVAT International-Indonesia

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

Women's Centre for Change (WCC) Penang

Women's Network for the Advancement and Peace, Thailand

Women's Rehabilitation Center (WOREC) Nepal

World Tamil Federation – Malaysian Chapter

Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI), Malaysia

Yaung Chi Oo Workers Association, Thailand

Yayasan LINTAS NUSA Batam - Indonesia

Youth for Peace Cambodia

Advocacy and Policy Institute (API), Cambodia

Labour Behind the Lablel, United Kingdom

ARTICLE 19

Forum for Democracy in Burma

Bersihkan Malaysia Perth, Australia

Women's Aid Organisation, Malaysia

WAC, Phillipines

Housing Rights Task Force, Cambodia.

NLD LA Malaysia

Tourism Employees Association of Maldives" (TEAM)

CEREAL (Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral)

Cividep India

Think Centre, Singapore

Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Polyplastics Asia Pacific, Malaysia

PROHAM -Persatuan Promosi Hak Asasi Manusia