Sunday Interview: A case for civil society to function

21 May 2006
Shamini Darshni

Uncalled for. Stupid. These are among words used to describe the protest against a forum entitled ’Federal Constitution: Protection For All’ in Penang last Sunday.
A group of people turned up at the forum entitled ‘Federal Constitution: Protection For All’ in a bid to stop it.
Police stepped in when the situation became untenable and the forum, organised by a 14-member non-governmental organisation called Article 11, was called off midway.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in castigating the protesters, however, cautioned the organisers of the forum to be careful not to hurt anyone’s sensitivities.


Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz said it was wrong to stop a legitimate activity.
Haris Mohamed Ibrahim, one of the organisers of the forum aimed at educating the people on rights in a civil society, says the forum was not aimed at focusing on inter-faith issues.
This was the first time that the forum, part of a roadshow put together by the 14 NGOs, had run into problems after earlier stops in Selangor and Malacca.
The protesters, going under the name of the Anti-Inter-Faith Commission Body, may face police action.
Haris spoke to SHAMINI DARSHNI about the need for Malaysians to understand that everyone has rights under the Federal Constitution and the need for mutual appreciation of this fact.

Q: What happened that morning?

A: At 8am, I got a call to say there was already a rather unfriendly-looking crowd starting to gather outside the Cititel hotel.

When I got there, we found that Penang Road had been blocked at both ends.

There was already a crowd of about 40 with placards. The crowd grew to about 150.

Rama from Aliran and I approached the OCPD who told us that police were there to ensure that nothing untoward happened and that we were at liberty to proceed with the forum.

The forum started at 9.30am with some of the protesters coming in to register. We allowed it as we thought this would enliven the debate.

At 9.40am, the OCPD said there was an attempt by protesters to break through the police barrier and disrupt the forum. He advised us to call off the forum as police might not be able to guarantee our safety.

We explained that a lot of people had come from far and near and that it was not fair to call off the forum.

The OCPD said we had 15 to 30 minutes to do so. We started but a protester took the mike followed by another in a delaying tactic. We asked the hotel management to cut off the PA system and asked the police to have the protesters removed.

Twenty minutes later, the police told us to stop. They were very strict. I appealed to them to allow Kota Baru MP Datuk Zaid Ibrahim to speak but they refused. The forum then came to an end.



Q: Those protesting against the forum say it was to discuss inter-faith issues.

A: That’s not true. We must dispel this misconception once and for all.

If you look at the flyers advertising the forum, the thrust of the discussion would have been about the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the concerns of civil society arising from certain controversial cases that our courts have seen over the last two or three years, and the concerns of civil society over the actions on the part of certain quarters in wanting to take this nation to theocracy. They want to take us away from a secular position to an Islamic one. So, the forum was not about inter-faith issues.

Some newspaper reports have been saying that the forum was to address concerns on the rights of minorities. Not true.

We have written to some media houses who erroneously reported that this was an inter-faith forum.

We’re not talking about minority or majority rights. We’re talking about the complete basket of rights that the Constitution has guaranteed every citizen.

I believe the organisers of the protest fed false information to the public and persuaded them that the series of forums were anti-Islam.

We invite them to participate with an open mind and assess for themselves whether or not the issues we raise are in reality civil society issues and nothing to do with inter-faith and intra-faith issues.



Q: Is Article 11 asking for the Federal Constitution to be amended to ensure civil rights?

A: We have never once asked for amendments to the Constitution. Our concern is this: We want the judiciary restored to its original position in the Constitution as was the case before 1988.

That year, the judiciary was interfered with. We are talking about the amendment to Article 121 (1) where the powers of the judiciary in the two high courts were apparently changed. We’re saying the Constitution intended that the Government comprises the executive, the legislature and the judiciary — all equal. As lawyer Datuk Dr Cyrus Das said, let’s take the Constitution off the shelves, dust it, and make it a part of our daily lives.



Q: Can you elaborate on this ’inequality’ between the executive, legislative and judiciary?

A: It appears that some members of the judiciary may feel that way. Some may feel that some of their powers have been removed. We’ve got a decision from the Court of Appeal by Justice (Datuk) Gopal Sri Ram, which said otherwise.

But some members of the judiciary may not be comforted with that until we see a reversal of the position on (Article) 121. Not 1A, let me make this very clear.

One gets the sense that some of the members of the judiciary may be under that perception. That has to be changed and if it means an amendment, then so be it. Confidence in the judiciary, by the judiciary themselves, has to be restored.



Q: Do you think the Government is receptive to amendments to the Constitution?

A: Yes. If members of civil society stand up and say this is what we want and not to force us to make it an election issue. Civil society must be heard.

One of the reasons for the forum is to give civil society an opportunity to register its point of view to the Government.

Many in the civil society have been for a long time been asking where they should be taking their concerns to. How do we register our position?

This is the opportunity. The silent majority has been silent for too long. If you are not happy with the way things are being done, speak up. We must reclaim our rights.



Q: Do you think that a sufficient number of people are speaking out on the issue of civil liberties?

A: We launched a very humble letter (http://www.PetitionOnline.com/constsup/petition.html) on March 12. By May 5, we had 18,054 signatures.

That means that in two months, these people with concerns but no way to air them, had found the mechanism. I think we will begin to see more in civil society speaking up.

It’s an empowering, emboldening exercise and I’m always hopeful that people care enough. It’s just that for certain reasons they have remained silent.

With this effort and hopefully with more efforts to come, people will speak up. I think the Abdullah administration is sensitive to the views of the silent majority. We are proposing to deliver the first batch of signatures to the Prime Minister. We hope he will give us a little time to explain our position.



Q: Why has civil society not asked these questions earlier although they appear to have been simmering below the surface for some time?

A: We have been a very apathetic society for some time. Our line may have been: If it hasn’t affected my family, I’m staying out of it.

For a while, the non-Muslim community thought this was a Malay-Muslim issue and so hands off it. They thought that Muslims should be allowed to resolve it themselves.

The case of M. Moorthy (who converted to Islam without his wife’s knowledge) and Shamala Sathayaseelan (who sought the help of the courts to nullify the conversion to Islam of her two children by her converted husband) blew the lid off that notion. Suddenly they saw these developments affecting non-Muslims. So people sat up and took notice.

There is also the fear tactic of a repeat of the spectre of May 13, 1969. We were told to be careful so that this incident does not recur.



Q: Will the roadshow continue?

A: We want to continue. The civil society also wants to hear what these issues are.

We have found comfort in the support of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) and many segments of civil society. In fact, we will take it back to Penang. We have had inquiries from new parties who want to help us organise this soon.



Q: How does the Penang incident augur for freedom of expression and alternative views?

A: There were two points of view that day: One inside the hotel and another outside.

As long as neither party was breaching the law, each had the right to their say. But the moment the group on the outside chose to use the threat of disruption to silence us, law enforcers had to step in.

There was an unwillingness to allow space for an alternative view and an unwillingness to engage in civilised discourse.