Di Mana Mereka? Where Are They?

Pastor Joshua Hilmy and wife, Ruth; Pastor Raymond Koh; and Amri Che Mat had two things in common – they were all religious workers helping the poor and needy. The other similarity among the four is more ominous – they have all disappeared without a trace. The first to disappear was Amri on November 24 last year, followed by Hilmy and wife several days later on November 30 and Koh on February 13 this year. And it is their disappearance, which has raised concerns among their families, civil society and religious bodies, who want answers from the authorities. Below are details of the missing four:

Pastor Raymond Koh

The 62-year-old was abducted after a group of well-trained men stopped his silver Honda Accord along Jalan SS4B/10 in Petaling Jaya. CCTV footage of Koh’s abduction went viral on social media, showing a professionally executed abduction involving more than 10 men in three black SUVs. Police had previously arrested 31-year-old Lam Chang Nam, who was later charged with blackmailing Koh’s son, Jonathan. But police said he was not involved in the abduction of Koh. There has been no ransom demand made for Koh’s release. His family have offered a RM100,000 reward for information on his whereabouts. Local media reported that Koh and his NGO, Haparan Komuniti, were accused of proselytising Muslims, following a raid by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) at a thanksgiving dinner in 2011. Church groups have been rallying around Koh’s family in a show of support.

Pastor Joshua Hilmy and Ruth

Hilmy’s disappearance was first highlighted in an Australian website, xyz.net.au, on February 23, 10 days after Koh’s abduction. It was reported that the pastor of Malay descent, who was also a former Muslim, went missing on November 30, 2016. The article stated that Hilmy had received threatening phone calls prior to his disappearance. It said Hilmy’s car was also missing. Petaling Jaya police chief Mohd Zani Che Din had told TheSun daily that police didn’t have enough information on the background of Hilmy and his wife Ruth, who is believed to be missing, too. Police, however, confirmed that a report was lodged by a man who claimed to be a close friend of Hilmy and his wife on March 6. Zaini told TheSun that the report was lodged in Klang but the case was referred to PJ police, as the complainant said the missing duo lived in Kampung Tunku, Petaling Jaya. The case was classified as a missing persons’ report.

Amri Che Mat

Amri’s case resurfaced after opposition leader Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail held a press conference on March 23, highlighting the disappearance of the 43-year-old social activist from Perlis. Amri, who was part of the 1997 Mount Everest Malaysian expedition team, went missing on the night of November 24, 2016, after he reportedly told his eldest daughter that he was going out. His wife, Norhayati Ariffin, 43, who lodged a police report the next day, said there were cars and bikes parked near their house when her husband left home. The vehicles had their lights off despite having occupants. Amri’s car was found about 20km away from his house, near an abandoned sports school. Norhayati said her husband did not receive any threatening calls and there were no abnormal transactions in his bank accounts. 

Read more here: https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/1347/

Meanwhile in Malaysia...

Ten institutions at the forefront of Malaysia's efforts to help Malays and Muslims are in danger of folding or losing their power if the opposition, led by the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP), takes over the country, Prime Minister Najib Razak said yesterday.

Not so fast, said a constitutional lawyer and the opposition.

Datuk Seri Najib was trying to paint a dark picture for his core Malay-Muslim voters so that they remain loyal to him, analysts say.

Many of these government agencies are much loved by the bumiputeras - Malays and other indigenous races - and Muslims. This is because the public-funded institutions have for decades provided them with state-endorsed privileges such as scholarships, education and job quotas, and subsidies for businesses and Islamic pilgrimages.

But experts say most of these agencies are formed from statutes passed in Parliament, and it would be much harder to eliminate them than Mr Najib's speech implies.

"You'll need an Act to abolish these institutions and DAP doesn't have the numbers to do that," said constitutional lawyer Syahredzan Johan.

Amending laws in the federal Parliament requires a majority vote, but DAP won only 38 seats out of 222 in the 2013 General Election.

"It's fear-mongering at its worst, and at best, it's political rhetoric. As the elections draw closer, we'll see more of this rhetoric," he added.

In the past, opposition parties have questioned how some of these agencies were run, citing corruption or financial mismanagement allegations. But none has publicly called for the agencies to be dismantled.

Chief secretary Saifuddin Abdullah of opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan said that as part of the coalition's agreement, DAP had signed on "to uphold the Constitution, including the provisions on Islam, Malay special rights, Malay language and Malay rulers".

"Najib is using racial rhetoric and lies to demonise DAP to divert attention from his multitude of scandals involving 1MDB and SRC International," said DAP MP Tony Pua, referring to the scandal-hit state funds.

These are the agencies named by Prime Minister Najib Razak and their main functions:

•UiTM: university and college education body

•Mara: education and business trust

•Jakim: Islamic development department

•Tabung Haji: Islamic pilgrimage fund

•Felda: land development agency for farmers

•Felcra: rural land development agency

•Risda: Rubber smallholders development authority

•Jawhar: Islamic property, tithes and haj department

•Teraju: small businesses development agency

•State zakat boards: collection of annual Muslim tithes

Link: http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/islamic-bodies-at-risk-not-true-say-some

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on December 02, 2016, with the headline 'Islamic bodies at risk? Not true, say some'. 

#Bersih4

Boycott Chinese businesses, minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob tells Malays

A minister has called on the Malays to band together and boycott businesses that refuse to lower product prices despite the price of fuel having nosedived.

In a Facebook posting that has since been pulled down, Minister of Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Ismail Sabri Yaakob told Malays that since they formed the majority of consumers in the country, they should boycott Chinese establishments as a means of forcing the owners to lower prices.

He said that although the government through the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism, could tackle errant businesspeople using the Price Control Act and the Anti-Profiteering Act, it was consumers who ultimately wielded the greatest power when it came to lowering market prices.

He lamented however that Malays continued to frequent these establishments although many of these food outlets either did not have “halal” certifications or if they did, had certificates that were “suspect”.

He fingered out Old Town White Coffee and wondered why Malays did not instead go to the thousands of other Malay restaurants that were genuinely “halal”. He said, “but still the Malays refuse to boycott…more so when the owner is said to be from DAP Perak’s Ngeh family who is widely known to be anti-Islam…”

He also said that it was time Malays changed their consumer behaviour patterns in order to stop the Chinese from exploiting them any further. “…as long as the Malays do not change… the Chinese will continue to take the opportunity to suppress the Malays”.

Read more here:

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/02/02/boycott-chinese-businesses-minister-tells-malays/

Ismail Sabri has adamantly refused to apologise for his call to Malays to boycott Chinese traders who refused to lower the prices of their goods because he believes his views were spot on and beneficial to people of all races.

He said many Chinese consumers were also disappointed with the high price of goods in the market despite the slump in oil prices and told the Malaysian Insider, “No way nak minta maaf (I will not apologise).”

Turning the tables on MCA who have demanded an apology from him, the minister of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry said instead, “My message is thank me for defending the Chinese, too.”

He also believed that despite all the threats from MCA last week, the party would not re-open the matter in the next cabinet meeting simply because the prime minister had already issued a formal statement and the matter was considered closed.

In the statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office, Najib Razak said Ismail was not specifically singling out the Chinese per se, but referring to errant traders of all races who refused to lower the prices of their goods.

Read more here:

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/02/09/apologise-no-way-sabri-tells-mca/

Malaysia to retain and prop up Sedition Act, says PM

Published by Reuters on 27 Nov 2014.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak on Thursday bolstered a law protecting the sanctity of Islam and the country's traditional rulers, the sultans, in an about-turn to scrap a law banning criticism of the government.

Najib pledged in 2012 to repeal the Sedition Act - a relic of the British colonial era intended to keep a tight lid on racial tensions and social unrest in the multi-ethnic country - as part of a raft of liberal reforms to promote openness.

Rights groups and lawyers have criticized the Sedition Act, saying it inhibits freedom of speech.

The Malaysian leader told a meeting of his ruling United Malays National Party (UMNO) party that the act would be maintained and strengthened.

The 1948 Sedition Act, which criminalizes speech with an undefined "seditious tendency", will be boosted with additions to defend the sanctity of Islam, and penalize those who call for the separation of Sabah and Sarawak states from Malaysia, said Najib.

In a flurry of cases this year, Malaysian prosecutors have charged anti-government activists and opposition politicians with sedition. Out of more than a dozen prosecutions under the Act this year, at least five have centered on comments voiced about the sultans or their powers.

The three-party opposition, which has eroded the ruling coalition's majority in two straight elections, says the Sedition Act is being employed selectively against its members, allies and social activists to undermine the alliance.

(Reporting By Al-Zaquan Amer Hamzah and Ebrahim Harris; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)

Link: 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/27/us-malaysia-sedition-idUSKCN0JB0BG20141127?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

Malaysia’s Deplorable Sedition Act

Photo from Asia Sentinel.

Published by The New York Times on 6 October 2014. By the Editorial Board.

The Malaysian government has increasingly employed the Sedition Act, a British colonial era law, to intimidate and silence political opponents. The law criminalizes speech uttered “to excite disaffection” against the government and defines sedition so broadly that it is an invitation to authoritarian abuse.

Prime Minister Najib Razak had promised to repeal the act, but, since the general elections in May last year, his government has made full use of the law to hound his critics. While Mr. Najib’s ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, won 60 percent of the parliamentary seats in the election, for the first time since independence in 1957, the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, won a 51 percent majority of the popular vote.

The elections seem to have shaken the government enough for it to arrest and prosecute an array of politicians, journalists, academics, students, religious leaders and civil society activists who did not advocate the overthrow of the government. For example, a senior opposition politician was charged with sedition for criticizing a decision by the appeals court in a statement to the news media. A local state assemblyman was charged for allegedly saying “damn, damn” about the government’s United Malays National Organization to several assemblymen. Since 2013, at least 14 people have been charged. Those found guilty can face up to three years in prison.

Mr. Najib’s crackdown is a deplorable attack on free speech and a serious threat to democracy. He appeared to understand this danger when he promised to repeal the Sedition Act. He should do so immediately.

Link: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/opinion/malaysias-deplorable-sedition-act.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A8%22%7D

Abolish Sedition Act 1948!

Mais has refused to comply with instruction of AG & state government

By Md Izwan. Published by The Malaysian Insider on 25 June 2014.

The Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) today insisted it will continue to seize Bibles that contained the word Allah in the state, adding that it had every right to destroy the holy books it had already seized earlier this year from the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM).

Its chairman Datuk Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa (pic) said operations to counter the distribution of such Bibles in Selangor will continue and warned that it will not hesitate to arrest those distributing it. "This process will go on and we will also make arrests," he said in his speech at an event in the Tabung Haji Complex in Kuala Lumpur today.

Adzib also stressed that Mais will not accept the decision of Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail in the seizure of the BSM Bibles, adding that it will not return them to the BSM. Gani decided to close the case against BSM after finding the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) had erred in the seizure of the Bibles, which he said were not a threat to national security as alleged. However, Mais has refused to comply with instruction from the A-G and the state government but instead said that it would be getting a court order to dispose of the holy books.

The religious council said that it will not close the case as was ordered by Gani and insisted that there is a provision in the 1988 state enactment to charge BSM. Adzib today said that although the council would accept the A-G's decision not to prosecute BSM but it maintained that the reason given not to take action against the society was not valid. "We accept the decision not to prosecute as it is under the purview of the A-G. But we do not agree with the reasons he gave," he added.

"On the seized Bibles, actually Jais could dispose it themselves. But because we care about harmony and justice, we leave it to the prosecutor to decide."

On January 2 this year, Jais seized the 321 AlKitab (Bahasa Malaysia Bible) and Bup Kudus (Iban-language Bible) from the then BSM office in Damansara Kim, sparking an outcry and criticisms aimed at the religious authority.

Read more here: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/we-will-continue-to-seize-bibles-with-banned-words-says-muslim-body

Published by The Malay Mail Online on 23 June 2014.

Malaysian Christians are free to call their God “Allah” in churches, a government official said today, reiterating the Najib administration’s commitment to its 10-point solution from 2011... The official stressed that the Federal Court’s decision only upheld a ban on the Catholic Church from publishing the word in its newspaper, Herald. “Malaysia is a multi-faith country and it is important that we manage our differences peacefully, in accordance with the rule of law and through dialogue, mutual respect and compromise,” the statement added.

Christians make up about 10 per cent of the Malaysian population of 30 million. Almost two-thirds of the Christians are Bumiputera and live in Sabah and Sarawak, where they routinely use Bahasa Malaysia and indigenous languages in their religious practices, which include describing God as “Allah” in their prayers and holy book.

Christian groups and churches nationwide voiced concern today over the validity of the government’s 10-point solution allowing the distribution of Christian bibles containing the word “Allah” in the select states in the wake of the Federal Court’s refusal to hear an appeal on the usage of the word.

Bishop Datuk Dr Thomas Tsen, president of the Sabah Council of Churches, said the Federal Court’s decision in dismissing the Catholic church’s application to appeal the government ban on the word “Allah” in its weekly was a “huge disappointment”.

“People will bring this decision of the highest court and say no, even though the prime minister has the 10-point solution, the highest court still says you cannot freely use the term ‘Allah’ to address your God,” Tsen told The Malay Mail Online today.

“Even though the prime minister did say this will not affect East Malaysia, it’s no guarantee because this is the law. And we wanted the guarantee from the legal side,” he said. Tsen said Christians in Sabah and Sarawak have for centuries worshipped in the Malay language and have been using the Al-Kitab replete with the word Allah to refer to God. “Our freedom of religion is being restricted,” he said. “Since we were born, we have been using the term. That is our language,” Tsen added.

He also expressed concern that the Selangor Islamic authorities might use the Federal Court ruling to justify their seizure of 321 copies of the Malay and Iban-language bibles from the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM) last January.

A seven-member bench at the country’s highest court decided by a 4-to-3 majority this morning to deny the Catholic Church the right to appeal a lower court decision preventing it from using the word ‘Allah’.

Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria, Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Federal Court judge Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar had rejected the Catholic Church’s application.

The dissenting judges were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, and Federal Court judges Datuk Zainun Ali and Tan Sri Jeffrey Tan.

Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that “Allah” was not integral to the Christian faith and that the home minister was justified in banning the Herald from using the Arabic word on grounds of national security and public order... The Cabinet, through Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jala, stated in the resolution that the large Bumiputera Christian population in Sabah and Sarawak could use their holy books in the Malay, Indonesian, and indigenous languages.

Read more here: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/malaysian-christians-can-use-allah-in-church-putrajaya-says

Ignore letter to remove Bibles from hotel rooms, lawyers tell hoteliers

By V. Anbalagan, Assistant News Editor. Published by The Malaysian Insider on 29 April 2014.

Lawyers have urged hoteliers in Pahang to ignore the directive from the state Islamic council to remove non-Muslim religious materials from their premises as it has no authority over such matters.

The constitutional and administrative lawyers said the Pahang Islamic and Malay Customs Council (Muip) was not in any position to penalise any individual or company as hoteliers were not licensed by religious bodies.

They were responding to a recent directive from Muip prohibiting hotel proprietors in the state from placing religious reading materials of other religions other than Islam in their rooms.

Lawyer Razlan Hadri Zulkifli said hoteliers could just ignore the letter because the council had no jurisdiction over them. "They cannot raid to seize any non-Muslim religious material like the Bible," he told The Malaysian Insider.

Razlan said the council could be hauled to court if its officers conducted raids to seize non-Muslim religious books and literature. "The council as a public authority can be subjected to a judicial review and the court can make a declaration that its action was illegal," he said. Razlan said at this point of time, there was no reason for hoteliers to seek judicial intervention because they had not been adversely affected by mere issuance of the letter.

It was reported that the state religious body had sent a letter to 147 hotels across the state since March 6, warning that those who defied the directive could be subjected to legal action. The letter was issued under the Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions among Muslims Enactment 1989, in line with Article 11 (4) of the Federal Constitution.

Muip deputy president Datuk Seri Wan Abdul Wahid Wan Hassan reportedly said the placement of the materials in the hotel rooms could be regarded as an act of spreading other religious beliefs to Muslims. If convicted, those involved could be fine up to RM5,000 or jailed for up to two years, or both.

Another lawyer Shukor Ahmad described the letter to the hoteliers as "irrational, unreasonable and unconstitutional". He said assuming even if the non-Muslims religious books, like the Bible, were banned by the Home Ministry, the council officer had no business to seize them. Furthermore, the council, he added, had no power to act against non-Muslims or business entities. "At best, they can only advise Muslims about non-Muslims religious books and symbols being placed in hotels. Anyway, it is for the hotel guests to decide where they would like to stay."

He said some hotels distributed mainstream newspapers to their guests but that did not mean the management compelled their guests to read the newspapers. "You have the option. Similarly, Muslim guests may have access to non-Muslim religious books but that does not mean they can be influenced by reading them in the hotel rooms," he said.

Shukor said the council was acting outside the scope of the enactment and misreading the article on freedom of religion under the Federal Constitution. "The council's action is so ridiculous that no reasonable person could accept," he added.

Hotel proprietors have called on Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Adnan Yaakob to intervene since Islamic matters came under the jurisdiction of the state.

Non-governmental organisation Centre for a Better Tomorrow (Cenbet) said the council directive went against the freedom of choice of the hotels to supply such materials in their rooms. "Conversely, it is the freedom of choice of anyone not to stay in such hotels if they disagreed with the hotel policy," said its co-presidents Lim Chee Wee and Gan Ping Sieu in a statement last week.

Politicians from both side of the political divide have also expressed concern over the council's directive.

Link: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/ignore-letter-to-remove-bibles-from-hotel-rooms-lawyers-tell-hoteliers

#MH370 Most people don’t know enough about Malaysia and its government. Here’s what you should understand.

By Adam Taylor. Published by The Washington Post on 20 March 2014.

Malaysia's government is in the spotlight due to its handling of the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, which disappeared just 40 minutes after leaving Kuala Lumpur en route to Beijing on March 8.

It's an unusual situation for the country. Malaysia doesn't usually make headlines -- it's not a huge tourist destination, like its neighbor Thailand, and it hasn't had a recent disaster like the Philippines or Indonesia. Instead, Malaysia has mostly become known as a quiet success in Southeast Asia in recent years, where GDP per capita was well ahead of Thailand and Indonesia and the economy was expected to grow between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent in 2014.

Now, with the Malaysian government facing scrutiny from all corners, everyone is beginning to wonder: Is there more to Malaysia than meets the eye?

The geography and history of Malaysia

Look at a map of modern Malaysia and the geography of the place may strike you as unusual. Roughly half of the country exists on the Malay Peninsula, bordering the lowest tip of Thailand. The other part of the country is on the northern part of Borneo island, which it shares with Indonesia. In both of these two parts there are smaller states: the city-state of Singapore, which sits just off the coast of the Malay Peninsula, and Brunei, which is in the Malaysian part of Borneo.

The modern Malaysian state began with the Federation of Malaya's independence from the British Empire in 1957, but the area had been populated for a far longer time -- in Sarawak's Niah Caves in East Malaysia, there's evidence of human remains from 40,000 years ago. The first independent state covering the region is commonly considered to be the Malacca sultanate, an Islamic Malay monarchy that controlled the area from 1400 to 1511, when the city of Malacca was captured by a Portuguese invasion. After a long period of Portuguese rule, the Dutch took it over in 1641, with the British Empire gradually taking over Penang in 1786, Singapore in 1819, and Malacca itself in 1824, ultimately securing control of what would later become Malaysia.

British rule continued until World War II, when Japanese troops were able to overrun the unprepared British authorities and take over the area. After Japan lost the war, the British returned but could not regain the authority they had before due to their war. An anti-colonial insurgency known as the "Malayan Emergency" began in 1948, compelling Britain to create the Federation of Malaya that same year, which in turn became became independent in 1957. In 1963, modern Malaysia was created with the Malaysia Agreement; North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore joined it in a new independent state, though Singapore would be expelled two years later. (Brunei, which had once been at the center of the Bruneian Empire, remained an independent, and oil-rich, sultanate).

Malaysia's complicated ethnic politics

Toward the end of British rule, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) emerged as a political force dedicated to protecting ethnic Malays and the Islamic religion. Since independence, the party has been a part of every government alliance.

Today, Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy, loosely modeled after the United Kingdom: The head of state is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, effectively a monarch elected by Malaysia's traditional Malay rulers. The prime minister is the head of government, officially appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to lead a majority in Malaysia's lower house of parliament. While the constitution of Malaysia, which came into force in 1957, says all Malaysian citizens are equal, Bumiputera (a designation that refers to the indigenous people of Malaysia, including ethnic Malays) are singled out for special treatment in Article 153. That section of the constitution begins: It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

The logic behind Article 153 was that Chinese and Indian immigrants to Malaysia had been favored during British rule, and both had subsequently gained economically while Malays and others remained in poverty. After independence, these economic disparities had begun to cause problems in the country: Singapore's removal from Malaysia was based in part upon a number of race riots that took place in the country between Chinese and Malay groups in 1964, and Kuala Lumpur had its own race riots in 1969. In 1971, economic measures referred to as the “New Economic Policy” (NEP) were implemented to favor Bumiputera, offering them positive discrimination in the civil service and business in a bid to improve their economic standing.

The quiet, yet successful, economy

Under British rule, Malaysia became one of the world's biggest exporters of tin, palm oil and rubber. And as one of the three countries that controls the Strait of Malacca, an important shipping route, it still plays a key role in international trade. High-tech manufacturing has  become a successful part of Malaysia's economy, and Kuala Lumpur is now a global center for Islamic banking. The city is also home to Petronas Towers, which replaced Chicago's Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) as the world's tallest building in 1998 and held the title until 2004.

All this has resulted in a pretty favorable economy. The Doing Business Project recently ranked the country as 6th in its annual rankings, and GDP per capita is higher than neighbors like Thailand and Indonesia.

Despite these good signs, there have been criticisms that the country's ethnic policies were in effect creating a lack of competition and stifling opportunities for non-Bumiputera. The Economist recently noted that 25 percent of the population is thought to be Chinese and to control much of the country's business, while Indians were said to be around 7 percent and overrepresented in professional careers. The magazine warned that Malaysia faces a brain-drain unless more opportunities are put in place for non-Bumiputera ethnic groups.

An angry opposition

As you might expect, 50 years of virtually uncontested rule has resulted in some problems. Writing recently for Bloomberg Businessweek, Joshua Karlantzick argued that the country's ruling coalition only managed to win elections last year due to "gerrymandering, outright thuggery, and opposition parties’ inability to stop squabbling and make connections with rural voters." Despite some minor signs of change, the NEP remains a significant factor in Malaysian political life and its business world, with the ruling parties apparently afraid to alienate the Malay majority who make their base.

The Malaysian government's manner of dealing with opposition leaders also appears to show it's on the back foot. The best-known opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, was sent to jail on corruption and sodomy charges in 2000. While the sodomy charges were overturned in 2004 and he was released, Anwar is now facing the threat of jail again on more sodomy charges.

An ethnic Malay and former member of UMNO, Anwar was once deputy prime minister of Malaysia but fell out with leaders. He now leads a multi-ethnic three-party opposition group called Pakatan Rakyat, running on a manifesto that aims to end the NEP ethnic policies and promote a system of meritocracy.

Why this all matters to MH370

The response to the disappearance of MH370 from the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines (a state-run company) is seen by many as evidence of a lack of ability among the country's political and business elite -- a result of decades of positive discrimination in favor of Malays and a lack of competition in business and politics. Malaysian officials aren't used to dealing with a free and open press, and they have blundered in their attempts to deflect questions about the plane. While they are no longer suspected of involvement in the plane's disappearance, the fact that two passengers were traveling on fake documents has embarrassed both the airline and the state.

It's possible Malaysia's internal politics could have played a direct role in the plane's disappearance. It's true, for example, that pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah was a member of an opposition party and distantly related to Anwar (Anwar himself has said that the speculation about political motives was "grossly unfair" to the pilot). The country's Muslim Brotherhood-styled Islamist party, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), is also a part of Anwar's opposition coalition and increasing in popularity, though speculation about an Islamist-backed terrorist attack remains just speculation.

A more likely problem for Malaysia is that of perception. A country once known for its quietly strong economy is becoming better known as something else: a disorganized, unmeritocratic country completely unable to cope with a real emergency.

[Correction amended 3/25/2014] Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/20/most-people-dont-know-enough-about-malaysia-and-its-government-heres-what-you-should-understand/?utm_content=bufferbbc30&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

#Allah: Government figures suggest Christianisation did not happen

By Leven Woon. Published by Free Malaysia Today on 24 March 2014.

The widely-touted theory that Christianisation is taking place in Malaysia cannot be valid when official data suggests that no Muslim has converted to Christianity in the last 10 years, said Kampar MP Ko Chung Sen.

He said according to a government reply in Parliament today, no Muslim including those who are new converts to Islam had renounced the religion. This was based on Syariah Court records whereby no such applications had been received.

There were however, applications by individuals seeking to verify conflicting recording of their religion status on their birth certificate and identity card.

“A lot of them have said Islam is under threat, Christiantionisation is happening in the country. But actual figures suggest that none of this has ever happened in this country,” Ko told FMT.

He said politicians and NGO’s should not raise the spectre of Christianophobia out of thin air, and should only speak based on concrete evidence. “And this figure comes from the Prime Minister’s Department,” he said.

Meanwhile, the ministry said there were at least 4,520 individuals who had embraced Islam between 2008 -2012.

Read more here:

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/03/24/govt-figures-suggest-christianisation-did-not-happen/

Diterbitkan oleh Malaysiakini pada 24 Mac 2014.

Setakat ini tiada penganut Islam termasuk saudara baru yang keluar daripada Islam, tegas Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom.

Ini, katanya, berdasarkan rekod, tiada permohonan untuk keluar Islam dibuat di Mahkamah Syariah.

Dalam jawapan bertulisnya, Jamil bagaimanapun berkata terdapat permohonan menentukan status agama yang dipohon oleh individu berikutan kekeliruan pada sijil kelahiran, kad pengenalan atau sijil akuan memeluk Islam.

"Mahkamah Syariah akan menimbang permohonan tujuan menentu status agama dalam keadaan berlakunya kekeliruan semasa pendaftaran nama terutama di negeri Sabah dan Sarawak di mana nama mereka seperti nama orang beragama Islam tetapi mereka bukan beragama Islam," kata Jamil.

Jamil (BN-Jerai) berkata demikian bagi menjawab soalan Dr Ko Chung Sen (DAP-Kampar) mengenai jumlah orang Muslim-Melayu yang keluar daripada Islam dalam tempoh 10 tahun lalu.

Bagi menjawab soalan Ko berhubung jumlah bukan Islam yang memeluk Islam, Jamil berkata maklumat yang tepat hendaklah dirujuk kepada jabatan agama atau majlis agama Islam negeri-negeri.

Beliau berkata pendaftaran masuk Islam berada bawah kuasa jabatan dan majlis itu, seperti yang termaktub dalam Senarai 2 Jadual Kesembilan, Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

"Dalam konteks ini, bagi Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur mengikut rekod Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI), bilangan orang yang memeluk Islam bagi tempoh 2008-2012 adalah seramai 4,520 orang," kata Jamil.

Link: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/258048

从《联邦宪法》角度看我国宗教自由

这是我整理的一篇关于阿拉事件的文章. 刚重修过. 这篇文章从法律角度, 厘清一些錯误的见解. - 杨培根  [6 -2- 2014 重修].

最近 (2013年10月14日), 我国上诉庭三司会审, 对 “阿拉” 上诉案作出判決, 推翻高庭的判決. 这是违反我国 《联邦宪法》 的一个判決.

从《联邦宪法》角度来看, 上诉庭三司的判词是錯误的. 他们在判词中所提出的理由, 无法令人折服. 他们对相关法律作出了錯误的诠释. 他们所达致的结论, 会令那些念过宪法的学生, 感到滿头雾水. 他们的判決, 不仅仅是錯误的, 而是錯得太离谱了. 在我国法律史上, 它成了一个污点. 这个判決只能由联邦法院 (我国最高层的法院) 加以纠正.

这场官司从高庭打到了上诉庭. 令人震惊的是, 上诉庭的判決竟然是违宪的. 这究竟是怎么一回事呢? 让我们先了解案情, 才进一步从宪法角度, 剖析上诉庭三司的违宪判词.

1. 案情:  2013年上诉庭 - 禁止基督教徒使用 “阿拉” 字眼

其实, 案情很简单. 天主教教堂在他们的內部周刊《先鋒报》(Herald) 使用了 “阿拉” 的字眼.  (“阿拉” 译自基督教 “上帝” 一词.) 上诉庭却判決, 基督教徒不能使用 “阿拉”这个字眼. 上诉庭公开判定, 不准基督教徒使用 《阿拉》 字眼, 那是史无前例的事.

2. 1999 - 高庭承审法官维护宗教自由

事情经过是这样的:

1986年21月5日, 时任內政部长马哈迪医生发出禁令, 不准非伊斯兰教出版刊物使用 “阿拉” 字眼. 1999年, 天主教堂出版了一本周刊《先鋒报》. 內政部于是发出警告信, 要天主教堂遵守禁令. 同年, 內政部只允准 《先鋒报》继续出版, 但附带条件是: 不准使用 “阿拉” 字眼. 可是, 大主教不接受这个条件, 故入禀高等法庭, 要求高庭对此禁令进行司法审查.  1999年12月31日,  吉隆坡高庭法官 (Lau Bee Lan J.) 撤销内政部长的禁令. 法官作出判決时, 所提出的一些理由是:

(1). 內政部长沒考虑到一个不争的历史事实: 几百年来, “上帝” 一词,     马来文和印尼文都译成 “阿拉”.

(2). 內政部长錯误地考虑一些无关紧要的因素, 如:  伊斯兰教是 “联邦宗教” 的地位; 任何人不得向穆斯林 (回教徒) 传播其他宗教.

(3). 內政部长并沒提出确凿的证据证明, 使用 “阿拉” 字眼对国家安全或公共秩序会构成威胁.

(4). 內政部长的禁令, 侵犯宪法保障下的基本权利, 如: 言论自由, 宗教自由和教育权利等.

[见 Dr Ronnie Ooi 的文章(Aliran 期刊 2013 第 37 卷 第30 页)]

这篇论述文章探讨的是技术性的宪法问题. 不过, 本文将尽量采用淺显易懂的文字, 来阐明有关法律条文和法理.

高庭司法审查程序

高等法庭进行的是司法审查的程序, 不需要证人亲身出庭供证. 法庭只依赖证人的宣誓书和律师的陈词来作出判決. 于是, 高庭法官依据基督教堂所提呈的书面证据, 作出下列裁定:

(1)  圣经的马来文译本中, “阿拉” 是 “上帝” 的正确翻译.

(2)  自15世纪以来, 使用阿拉伯语国家的基督教徒和穆斯林, 谈到一个 “上帝” 时, 都一直在用 “阿拉” 这个字眼. 马来西亚和印尼的天主教以及其他基督教徒都认为, “阿拉” 是在马来文中 “上帝” 的合法用词.

(3)  在1631年出版的马来文- 拉丁文词典里,  “上帝” (Deus) 在马来文中译为 “阿拉” (Alla) .

(4)  在旧版本的 “阿拉伯文圣经” 以及在现代版本的 “阿拉伯文圣经” 中, 基督教徒一直都在惯用 “阿拉” 字眼. 时间已相当久远,  伊斯兰教产生前就已采用了. 当时, 这些基督徒生活在埃及、黎巴嫩、伊拉克、印尼、马来西亚、汶萊等亚非国家.

(5)  从1629年起, 印尼和马来亚的马来文 “马修的福音” (圣经) 中, 就已使用 “阿拉” 字眼. 从1733年起, 第一部完整的马来文圣经, 以及从1879年起, 第二部完整的马来文圣经, 都使用 “阿拉” 的字眼, 从未曾间断过.

(6)  现代马来文学之父孟希.阿都拉 (Munshi Abdullah) 曾经把基督教的福音译成马来文. 他也把 “上帝” 一词译为 “阿拉”.

(7)  讲马来语的马来半岛、沙巴、砂劳越的原住民基督教徒, 世世代代都在使用 “阿拉” 字眼; 整个马来西亚都在使用印尼文圣经, 也采用 “阿拉” 字眼.  

(8)  至少在过去的30年, 天主教堂都一直在自由使用印尼文的圣经 (Alkitab) . 印尼文的圣经也在使用 “阿拉” 字眼.

(9)  所有使用阿拉伯文、印尼文、马来文的国家中, 基督教徒都在使用 “阿拉” 字眼, 沒产生过问题, 也沒破坏或违反公共秩序, 也沒影响伊斯兰教徒的情绪.

            上面所说的, 就是本案的实情. 每个案件的判決都必须以实情为依据. 但是, 料想不到的是, 上诉庭三司的判词完全沒考虑到高庭法官判词所查实的案情. 这点肯定是严重的錯误.

3. 最高法院有重要案例可遵循, 但上诉庭判词却只字不提

不可思议的一件事就是, 上诉庭三司各自分別写的判词, 其中沒有一个判词提起过我国宪法以往极其重要的案例. 上诉庭法官必须考虑与遵循这些案例, 因为这些案例和本案有密切关联.

1992年最高法院《诺丁沙列案 》 : 不得使基本人权变得 “虚幻,毫无意义”

举例说, 1992年, 我国最高法院有个重要案例 《诺丁沙列案 》 (Nordin Salleh case) [1992 MLJ 697]. 这个案例确认： 在检测政府的行动是不是侵犯宪法所阐明的基本人权时, 法庭的职责所在就是, 关注这政府的行动所引起的后果. 如果其后果会使到基本人权变得 “虚幻、毫无意义” 的话 , 那就是违宪的行动.

如果 《先鋒报》一案中, 上诉庭三司曾考虑过上述最高法院的案例, 判決可能就不同了. 禁止基督教徒在膜拜时使用《阿拉》字眼 , 将使宗教自由基本权利变得 “虚幻与毫无意义”. 这是简单不过的道理. 仅仅以这个理由, 上诉庭就应驳回內政部长的上诉.  

4.  上诉庭误解 “伊斯兰教是联邦宗教” 的含义

上诉庭误解了“伊斯兰教是联邦宗教” [宪法第3条] 的含义. 同时, 还忽略了其他两项重要条文的內容. 毫无疑问, 伊斯兰教是联邦宗教, 但是, 有关条文下半段已交代清楚, 人民可以和平与和谐地信奉其他宗教. (宪法第3 条)

参照一下加拿大的宪法 《前言》: “加拿大国体是建立在确认上帝至高无上与法治的原则上的”. 要注意的是, 我国宪法条文沒赐予伊斯兰教 这样的 “至高无上” 的地位. 我国宪法起草人非常了解法律与权利, 有高低主次之分.

5.《联邦宪法》 才是我国 “至高无上” 的法律

宪法规定了伊斯兰教是我国联邦宗教后, 接下去另一项条文立即就阐明, “我国《联邦宪法》 是国家 “至高无上” (supreme) 的法律”. 这就是说, 宪法高于其他一切法律 [第4(1)条], 包括第3 条文的伊斯兰教是联邦宗教的条文.  伊斯兰教是联邦宗教的宪法条文 (第3 条) 沒有 “至高无上” 这个词语. 也就是说, 这项条文必须屈服于 (而不可凌驾于) 第4 条文 “宪法至高无上” 的条文.

另外一点, 新兴的马来亚独立后, 沒有意思把国家变成一个 “神权国”, 而是长期保留了 “世俗国” 的地位. 这点, 有历史事实、独立前东姑等对我国宪政所发表的言论、独立前的相关备忘录等文件、最高法院对宪法作出的、有权威性的判例等等, 足以证明我国是个世俗国. 这不是別有居心者随心所意, 基于政治权宜之计, 发表毫无事实根据、无视法治精神的言论, 所能抺煞的!

更重要的是, 信奉自己所选择的宗教权利, 是宪法基本自由权利的章节里所明文规定的. (第11条). 基本自由权利就是基本人权. 其他基本人权的条文, 包括: 人身自由、法律面前人人平等、不得有歧视现象存在、言论自由、集会结社自由等, 对享有宗教自由都有密切的关系.  

6.“宗教自由” 是绝对的基本人权

在 《联邦宪法》 下, 宗教自由是基本人权之一. 宪法保障人民可信仰、奉行、传播自己的宗教 [第11(1)条]. 每个宗教社群有权管理自己的宗 教事务[第11(3)条].

要注意的是, 宪法对待所有的基本人权, 不是一视同仁, 不是一律平等的. 在宪法下,  基本人权可分为两类:

(1)  有些基本人权是绝对的, 不受任何限制.

(2)  另一些基本人权是有限度的; 可以受到某种限制.

膜拜宗教的权利是绝对的, 不可加以限制 (见第10, 11条). 自由信仰宗教的权利, 就包含了以下的绝对权利:

a.信仰和奉行任何宗教的权利; 

b..豁免或不必为某特定宗教 (不是自己所信仰的宗教) 缴纳稅务的权利; 

c..每个宗教社群有权管理自己的宗教事务, 建立和维持宗教和慈善机构的权利. 

d. . 有权不接受其他宗教的膜拜仪式或膜拜行为.

“绝对权利” 和 “有限权利” 如何区分?

   要如何区分宪法保障下的绝对权利和有限权利呢? 一个最好的例子就是: 国会可制定法律限制言论自由和集会结社自由 (第10条). 但是, 国会不可制定法律限制或削弱宗教自由[第11(1), 11(3)条]. 

   举个具体的例子: 某些人想组织一个气功协会. 这和行使结社自由权利有关. 政府可以施加条件, 控制和监管太极协会的活动. 宪法对待宗教团体的情況则不同. 国会不能通过法律, 对宗教团体施加类似的限制或监管. 宪法所施加的唯一限制是: 在享有绝对宗教自由时, 宗教团体的活动不可触犯一般的法律, 如: 维护 “公共秩序、公众健康、或道德准绳” 的一般法律 [第11(5)条].

再举一个实际例子: 每年在大宝森节, 到黑风洞朝圣的印裔族群, 不得侮辱其他宗教. 不然的话, 政府就有权以破坏公共秩序为理由, 采取措施对付相关人士. 不过, 公共秩序是不是已受到影响, 政府必须拿出证据来证明.

在私人场地, 情況则不同. 如果有宗教社群在基督教堂或庙堂里祈祷膜拜, 或者家庭成员在自己家里膜拜祈祷, 政府就不可以援引相关的限制条文 [第11(5)条], 以破坏公共秩序等为由, 来对付他们. 这是因为教堂、庙宇、住所, 都是私人场地, 不是公共场所. 

7. 人人都享有绝对的宗教自由权利

此外, 在《联邦宪法》下, 言论自由、集会自由、结社自由的基本人权, 只限公民才能享有. 非公民不能享有这些自由权利. 但是, 宗教自由基本人权则不同. 在我国, 不论是公民, 还是非公民, 人人都可享有宗教自由的权利.

   只要身在马来西亚的每个人, 都可享有绝对的宗教自由权利. 这就是宗教自由基本人权和其他基本自由权利不同之处. 上面已说过, 每个人都享有宗教自由的基本人权, 不分公民、国民、 或戶籍.  只要他身在马来西亚, 他就可享受宗教自由的基本人权. 他有权选择信奉任何宗教. 他可以信仰、奉行、传播任何宗教.

   政府或有关当局无权规定, 你必须选择某个宗教, 放弃某个宗教 (穆斯林除外), 改变宗教信仰, 或完全不信教 (指无神论者、不可知论者等). 这个宗教自由是绝对的权利, 不可剥夺的权利.

如何检验宗教自由是绝对的基本人权?

要检验宗教自由的绝对性, 可从三方面着手：

(1)  我国宪法有对付危害社会秩序的条文. 那就是, 如果有大批人采取行动 (或威胁要采取行动) 危害国家,  国会可以制定法令, 剥夺人民的许多基本人权, 如: 人身自由、行动自由、言论自由、集会结社自由、财产权等. 但是, 宗教自由则是一个例外; 国会不可制定法令限制或削減宗教自由. (宪法第149条,)

(2)  同样的, 我国宪法有条文规定, 在某些情況下, 元首可以颁布紧急状态, 接着, 可以制定紧急法令, 削減或剥夺我国人民的一切基本人权; 但是, 这类紧急法令, 不可削減或剥夺宗教自由权利 [宪法第150(6A) 条].

(3)  我国法庭早已有判例, 确认宗教自由基本人权的重要性. 自从制定 《1960年內安法令》 以来, 总共有将近10,000人在 《內安法令》 或其他防范性扣留法令下, 被扣留. 他们是在未经法庭审讯的情況下被扣留的.  有不少被扣留者向法庭申请, 挑战这类无审讯扣留案, 认为那是不合法的. 但是, 往往都不成功. 在众多案件中, 挑战成功的少数重要案件之一, 就是涉及宗教自由的加马鲁丁案 ([1989] 1MLJ418).

8.  1989年最高法院《加马鲁丁案》 :  政府不可援引ISA剥夺宗教自由

那是1989年的案例. 加马鲁丁向穆斯林弘扬基督教教义. 结果, 他在1987年的 “茅草行动” 大逮捕中被扣留. 经高庭审讯后,高庭法官判他无罪释放. 政府把这案子上诉到最高法院去. 然而, 最高法院还是确认, 高等法庭的判定是正确无误的. 两个不同的法院法官都确认: 只因加马鲁丁选择了他自己的宗教信仰, 并且还向穆斯林传播他的宗教 (基督教), 政府就援引 《內安法令》 扣留人, 那是违宪的.

根据这个案例, 在宪法下, 天主教徒有权阅读和翻译圣经. 这是他们信仰和奉行自己的宗教的基本人权. 他们有权管理自己的宗教事务. 这个基本人权是绝对的, 不容剥夺或削減的. 政府, 或者有关当局, 无权从中作梗和干预.

各宗教的信徒, 对他们的宗教经典都享有平等权利.  各宗教的圣书或宗教经典, 都应受到大家的尊重, 并且, 应受到世界各国的保护, 除非他是希特勒等盖世魔王. 这就意味着, 任何政府机构都沒有权利, 改写这些圣经里的字眼, 或要求改写任何字眼. 

上诉庭三司各自的判词只字未提这些触及信仰自由核心地位的案例.

9.上诉庭判词的基本结论太过广泛  后果影响深远

虽然法庭审理的是天主教 《先鋒报》 的出版问题, 但是, 上诉庭的判決却超越了这个范围, 影响了所有书籍和出版刊物. 这是案件的基本结论. 它将成为先例. 往后, 在同样的情況下, 所有法院都必须遵循这个先例.

因此, 这个判例也影响了东马人民一路来使用的马来文圣经. 这些圣经不能再使用 “阿拉” 字眼了. 这个上诉庭判決的严重性在于: 这等于说, 基督教的圣书得受审查. 其实, 这是全世界任何世俗国家, 都不应该做的事. 

东马人民宗教自由也受影响

就在沙巴和砂劳越庆祝马来西亚成立50周年之际, 我国布城的法院却告诉我国人民, 东马人民不准阅读他们自己选择的圣经译本. 这是令人惊讶的事.

在马来西亚成立之前, 砂劳越和北婆罗州 (现称沙巴) 人民的基本要求之一, 就是一项保证. 那就是: 英帝国主义不应由马来亚帝国主义所取代; 英殖民统治不会由吉隆坡殖民统治所取代.

如果1961- 1963年间, 讨论成立马来西亚时, 有人提出, 在马来西亚成立50 年內, 东马人民不准阅读含有 “阿拉” 字眼的马来文圣经, 对东马人民来说, 可以肯定, 是件极其不合理的事.

10. 法官不应自行引述 “资料”  无视双方代表律师意见

上诉庭其中一名法官, 似乎沒花心思在斟酌案中的实情, 却在网络上自行搜索资料. 其实, 法庭应根据诉讼双方提供的资料来判案. 但是, 在此案中, 诉讼双方都未提供这类网络资料给上诉庭. 也就是说, 法官私自在进行搜索资料的工作. 实际上, 这么做是违反自然公正法则的, 因为他沒邀请诉讼双方的代表律师, 針对这些资料, 发表他们各自的意见. 在这种情況下, 法官又犯了一项严重的错误.

我国最高法院 - 联邦法院 - 审理这个案件时, 不应考虑这名法官所 自行 “发现” 的证据.

11.  悬而未決的问题: 法庭要如何执行这项判決?

法官所作出的判決, 必须要有实际用途. 是不是能执行判決, 那是极为重要的. 如果天主教《先鋒报》执意继续使用 “阿拉” 字眼, 他们可能要面临准证被吊銷的危机. 但是, 圣经里的 “阿拉” 字眼, 要如何处理呢?看来, 政府可以采用两种方法, 来执行上诉庭的判決:

(1)从基督教堂和每个教徒的住家搜出圣经, 然后, 全部充公. 最后用一把火将圣经烧掉.

(2)走访基督教堂和每个教徒的住家, 把圣经里的 “阿拉” 字眼全部刪掉, 或者, 把圣经里有 “阿拉” 字眼的页面撕掉.

当你考虑到政府要如何执行判決时, 判決的严重性立刻就浮出水面. 可以想像得到, 基督教堂和每个教徒家庭可能群起抗议政府人员触动他们的圣经. 如果圣经受损坏的话, 其后果更加不堪设想.

如果这些人顽抗到底, 政府会不会使用暴力对付? 为了国家利益, 政府应采用细腻的技巧和有理智地处理这件事, 因为所涉及的是少数社群的基本人权, 尤其是宗教自由权利. 

12. 政府获得的只是 “得不偿失的胜利”

我们不是在危言耸听. 法庭判決可能产生不可避免的不良后果. 总检察长究竟有沒有忠告过政府, 可能发生这类后果?  法庭的判決令政府获得的, 只是得不偿失的胜利, 以极大代价換取到的胜利. 这是因为这样的判決已破坏了多元文化社会的族群关系. 付出的代价确实是太大了. 这怎能是具有责任感的当权者所实施的一项良好施政?  

13. 听听我国最杰出的法官敦苏芬语重心长的一番话 

1982年, 我国最杰出的法官, 也就是前最高法院院长敦苏芬, 曾经在新加坡国立大学, 发表过一篇重要演词. 在演词中, 他语重心长地说:

“在一个像你们 (新加坡)和我们的多元种族和多元宗教的社会里, 我们的法官可能是马来人、华人、或印度人, 也可能是穆斯林、兴都教徒等. 但是, 我们会尽量避免分辨自己属于哪一个特定种族或宗教.  如果把我们的名字从判词中刪除, 沒有人能分辨出我们属于哪一个种族或宗教. 这么一来, 就可保证各族群的权利, 特別是少数族群的权利, 不会被人踩在脚底下. ” (见FA Trinidade 与 HP Lee 合编的 《马来西亚宪法》 1986年版本, 第200, 216页)

自从敦沙烈 (另一名前最高法院院长), 于1988年,  遭前首相马哈迪医生撤职后,  我国司法独立受到严重侵蚀. 自此以后, 敦苏芬就变成了直言不讳地批评我国司法的著名人士. 敦苏芬肯定不会认同上诉庭三司对此案的处理方法.  一般公众人士都认为,  針对天主教 《先鋒报》 一案的上诉庭判词, 三司本身的宗教信仰, 起着举足轻重的影响.最后, 希望我国目前的最高法院 – 联邦法院, 能作出维护宗教自由的判词, 结束这场引起各族群之间紧张关系与社会不和谐的无谓争议.  (完)

 [注: 这篇法律文章, 基本上, 取材自我国资深律师通美.汤姆斯 (Tommy Thomas) 的文章: “The Allah Decision is Wrong in Constitutional Law ” [见2013年Aliran 期刊 (第 37 卷 第33-40页)]. 由于他纯粹以法律专业水平撰写这篇文章, 一般读者要完全理解它, 可能有些难度. 本文采用较为浅显易懂的文字加以整理, 以供大家参考. 通过本文, 希望读者们对 “阿拉” 事件, 能有个较为客观、符合宪法的正确看法.]

'Allah' rings out in Malaysian churches despite ban

By Julia Zappei. Publised by AFP on 26 January 2014.

Malaysian churches defiantly continued to use the word "Allah" to refer to the Christian God in Sunday services despite the Muslim-majority country's leader saying they must obey rules against it.

Malay-speaking Christians prayed and sang hymns using the Arabic word, a practice they have observed for hundreds of years but now the focus of an increasingly tense religious row in the Southeast Asian nation.

"They all contain the word 'Allah'," a pastor at a church near the capital Kuala Lumpur said of the songs sung by his congregation.

"(The Malay-language Bible) contains the word 'Allah'. When we preach we have to read the text. It's a really difficult situation," he added, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the passions surrounding the issue.

Under pressure from Muslim conservatives, Prime Minister Najib Razak said on Friday that Malaysian Christians must heed rules forbidding them from using the word.

Islamist leaders in the country say "Allah" -- which also is used by Malay Muslims to refer to their creator -- is exclusive to their religion and must not be used by non-Muslims.

Muslim ethnic Malays make up more than 60 percent of the diverse country's 28 million people.

Malaysia has sizeable ethnic Chinese, Indian and other communities. About 2.6 million people are Christians.

Church leaders have vowed not to back down.

"Christians in Malaysia have no choice but to use the Malay-language Bibles. To say they cannot use these bibles, it means saying 'you are not allowed to worship in the language that you want'," Rev. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, told AFP.

The government in 2007 ordered a Malaysian Catholic weekly newspaper to cease use of the word, arguing it could entice Muslims to convert, which is illegal for adherents of Islam in Malaysia.

The newspaper has launched a long-running court challenge, angering Muslim conservatives, who have demanded Christians use alternative Malay words.

"Why insist? They have an option. They don't really have to use 'Allah' to worship," said Yusri Mohamad, chairman of Muslim rights group Pembela. "This is unnecessary provocation... This is not healthy for Malaysia."

Muslim conservatives have suggested Christians use other Malay words, such as "Tuhan", to refer to God.

Malaysia has avoided overt religious conflict for decades and is generally seen as a moderate Muslim country. But non-Muslims allege growing intolerance by influential Islamic conservatives.

"We feel angry. It's unfair," a Christian church-goer said after Sunday's service. "It's no longer peaceful between Christians and Muslims now."

The Malaysian Catholic church argues "Allah" has been used by Christians in the country for hundreds of years and that the word predates Islam's founding.

Tensions sparked by the issue triggered a spate of attacks in 2010 on places of worship, mostly churches.

Najib's Muslim-dominated government responded in 2011 with a compromise allowing Christians limited use of the word. But he backed away from that Friday, saying the compromise was subservient to state laws and royal decrees forbidding non-Muslim use of "Allah".

Those rules have historically been rarely enforced. But as pressure from Muslim conservatives rose, Islamic authorities cited one such law earlier this month to seize hundreds of Bibles from a Christian group.

Link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRNLzYUvB1n-A21QVnBbm7kwuVZw?docId=3f8319f5-31fe-4616-ba93-8e2ab36d8a51

By Lee Shi-Ian. Published by The Malaysian Insider on 26 January 2014.

While Putrajaya dithers over the 'Allah' issue, a group of ordinary Malaysians gathered today to promote inter-faith solidarity and peace at the Kuala Lumpur City Centre Park.

Dressed in purple, they handed out flowers, candies and bookmarks in the hope of promoting diversity in Malaysia.

Social activist Azrul Mohd Khalib said the 'Allah' issue, allegations of conversion and propagation of Muslims are all threatening to tear apart the fabric of Malaysia’s multi-cultural community. "The individuals who are currently speaking on these issues are not promoting national unity and solidarity in the country. Instead, they are promoting hate and distrust, and pushing the various ethnic groups into their respective communities," Azrul said while explaining that they had picked purple as they wanted to use it to symbolise religious tolerance among the different races.

"We must reject this hatred, we believe in a pluralistic society, one which is united regardless of different creed, religion and race."

Cynthia from Petaling Jaya told The Malaysian Insider that the gathering was a fantastic way of showing that they all loved Malaysia. "I decided to participate in today's gathering because I want to do something positive and help build the nation."

Cheryl Fernandez, 50, said she supported peace in Malaysia and did not want to see the country torn apart. "The keywords for today’s outing are diversity and solidarity," said the Kuala Lumpur native.

Anna Koh, also from the capital, said she wanted unity for Malaysia, not division. "I believe that the ordinary rakyat do not want to be divided. Everyone wants peace and harmony," said the 52-year-old.

Tengku Yasmin Nastasha, 16, was spotted by The Malaysian Insider handing out flowers to visitors at the KLCC Park. "I want to celebrate peace and solidarity for Malaysians. I like peace and I feel there is no need for all these unnecessary commotions," she said.

Her mother, Nik Elin, 52, said she had been part of the mixed-faith solidarity group which had gathered at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in Klang three weeks ago. "I think that Malaysia needs a lot of healing and what better way than to give peace and love? Peace and solidarity are the key ingredients if we want to celebrate diversity," said Nik Elin.

On January 5, Azrul co-coordinated the solidarity gathering at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in Klang. He said that the purpose of the gathering was borne out of concern over the state of religious freedom in Malaysia...

After a long silence on the 'Allah' issue, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak finally roused himself to say that the use of the word 'Allah' was up to the states. His statement was met with bitter disappointment and indignation from various quarters including the Council of Churches Malaysia and the whole Christian community.

Read more here: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/concerned-citizens-take-message-of-peace-and-solidarity-to-klcc-park