Picture Credit: Ong Cheng Zheng
When religious matters are politicised, they require political solutions, not legal battles!
PRESS STATEMENT . . .
In recent times, social media has been inundated with discussions surrounding halal certification, hijab, and the role of Jakim (the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia). These debates have often polarised public opinion, leading to division rather than understanding. It is essential to recognize that the truth often lies in the middle ground, where dialogue and respect for personal beliefs can flourish.
1. The Legal Framework and Personal Choice
The legal system, particularly the courts, should not claim jurisdiction over matters of halal, haram, hijab, or Jakim unless there is clear evidence of abuse of power. These issues are deeply rooted in personal discretion and belief, rather than codified laws. Imposing regulations without a legal basis undermines the concept of discretionary power and infringes upon individual freedoms.
2. Private vs. Public Space: A Fundamental Distinction
At the heart of this debate lies the crucial distinction between private and public spaces. The government has no place in regulating personal matters that belong to private lives. Exercising prerogative and discretionary powers over individual choices constitutes an abuse of authority. While legal precedents exist in Commonwealth countries regarding these matters, a significant gap (lacuna) in Malaysian law leaves many issues unresolved.
A notable example was the Allah case, where the Malaysian Federal Court's decision restricted the use of the word "Allah" among Christians in Malay print, based on misinterpretation of Indian case law. The subsequent advice for an out-of-court settlement in the Jill Ireland case was ignored by the Home Ministry. The High Court ruled in her favour. Such cases illustrate that many issues in Malaysia are not purely about religion; they have become entangled with political agenda. When religious matters are politicised, they require political solutions, not legal battles.
3. Model Of Unity: Sabah And Sarawak . . .
In the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak, people of diverse religious backgrounds coexist harmoniously, often sharing meals and celebrating cultural differences. The notion that non-Muslim businesses serving no pork should require halal certification is unthinkable in these regions. Jakim's involvement in various government departments for religious oversight appears unnecessary and encroaches upon the boundaries between public and private spheres.
4. Upholding Personal Freedom and Religious Choice . . .
Issues such as halal certification, hijab, and sexual orientation belong to the realm of personal choices. These matters should not be regulated by the government, Parliament, or religious institutions. Just as there is no law mandating hijab or dress codes in private spaces, individuals should be free to make personal choices regarding what to eat and how to express their beliefs.
Attempts to impose such regulations on private matters infringe upon personal freedom. For instance, public figures like Teresa Kok have faced undue harassment over halal certification for restaurants that do not serve pork or alcohol. Similarly, sexual orientation is a personal matter that should remain private and free from governmental interference.
5. Religion As Catalyst for Peace . . .
When disputes arise between conflicting parties, invoking religion often complicates matters further. Islam, like all faiths, fundamentally promotes peace, respect, and love rather than control or suppression. The rule of law, grounded in the Constitution, must prevail in regulating human relationships and resolving conflicts. Many issues can often be settled through dialogue or other political means, rather than through legal confrontation.
6. Clarifying Nature Of Islamic Law . . .
It is essential to clarify that Islam was not synonymous with law. "Syariah", like other religious practices, was based on personal choice and the willingness to accept its principles. It would be unconstitutional to impose Syariah on individuals. In secular and pluralistic society, law must be based on common sense, universal values, and the principles of natural justice.
In Malaysia, there is a pressing need for Tafsir (interpretation) of religious texts to promote progressive thought. The late Kassim Ahmad, a prominent Islamic thinker, advocated revisiting the Quran but faced severe backlash.
7. True Purpose of Religion . . .
Religion, in its true essence, was meant fostering love, peace, and harmony among people.
It should serve as guide for helping individuals respect one another, regardless of differing beliefs and cultures. When wielded as a political weapon, religion creates chaos, division, and injustice. The teachings of all religion emphasise compassion, tolerance, and understanding. It's this spirit that should guide society and governance, rather than using religion for suppressing others or advance political agenda.
Let's work together and ensure that religion remains source of unity and respect, not tool for control and division.
Daniel John Jambun,
President, Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation
Peter John Jaban, Publicity and Information Chief, Sarawak Association for People's Aspirations (SAPA)
Dr Kanul Gindol, Chairman, Gindol Initiative for Civil Society Borneo
Moses Anap, President, Republic of Sabah North Borneo (RSNB)
Jovilis Majami, President, Persatuan Pembangunan Sosial Komuniti Sabah (BANGUN)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this Press Statement do not necessarily represent those of the Center for Policy Initiatives (CPI).
Related Internal Link . . .
