The year 2006 was an eventful and fruitful one in the young life of the coalition of civil society groups called Article 11, although not one without its share of hurdles and disappointments.
The group was practically unheard of at the dawn of the year, yet a public forum it organised in mid-March drew a crowd of several hundred. By late July, Article 11 had been propelled to the front page of the mainstream English press as a result, unfortunately, of the Prime Minister’s firm warning for it to halt its series of public forums. Coupled with a governmental directive to the media to cease reporting on religious issues, by year’s end the coalition reluctantly relegated its role to one away from the public eye.
Background
The coalition is named after Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees every person the right to profess and practise his or her religion. Its members are drawn from a spectrum of diverse organisations including religious, women’s rights and human rights groups as well as the Bar Council.
Article 11 was formed in mid-2004 in response to cases that highlighted the problems faced by some Malaysians, involving the interpretation of certain provisions of the Federal Constitution. The predicaments of S. Shamala, Lina Joy and M. Moorthy’s widow S. Kaliammal are examples (see boxed text).
|
S. Shamala is a Hindu mother whose husband converted to Islam. He converted their two infant children to Islam without her knowledge or consent. The civil High Court did not recognise Shamala’s equal rights as a parent of the child, and ordered her to raise her children as Muslims and not expose them to her own Hindu faith. It said that since the children are now Muslims, the Syariah Court is the only qualified forum to determine their religious status, even though the judge acknowledged that the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction to hear Shamala’s case since she is not a Muslim. As a result, Shamala did not have any avenue to seek relief. |
|
Lina Joy has unwittingly become a household name, and her case has attracted widespread attention both in Malaysia and abroad. She was born to Malay parents and raised as a Muslim. After embracing Christianity, she unsuccessfully sought to have her administrative records amended to reflect her new faith. She is currently seeking legal remedy in the courts but has so far been told that the item “Islam” can only be removed from her identity card upon confirmation from the Syariah Court, or an appropriate Islamic authority, that she has renounced Islam. She asserts that this is an infringement of her Constitutionally-guaranteed right to profess and practise the faith of her choice. |
|
M. Moorthy, the Malaysian hero who climbed Mount Everest, died in December 2005. The Islamic religious authorities obtained a Syariah Court order, in his widow S. Kaliammal's absence, declaring him a Muslim when he died. Kaliammal tried to have her deceased husband declared a Hindu at the time of his death, but the civil courts refused to hear her case. She was therefore left with no remedy and no access to justice. |
Shamala’s lawyers had approached the women’s groups and requested they provide counselling to Shamala and assist her during her court case. The groups mounted an advocacy strategy around her case by holding a joint watching brief and inviting other groups like the Bar Council and the Association of Women Lawyers to do likewise.
The various groups that met in relation to Shamala’s case shared case studies and realised that hers was not an isolated one. Many non-Muslim individuals, largely women, were being confronted with unforeseen problems - as a result of their spouses’ conversions to Islam - relating to custody and guardianship of children, divorce, division of assets, maintenance, distribution and inheritance.
Shamala’s case brought home the point that the constitutional role of the civil High Court as the protector of the rights of the ordinary citizen was fast becoming illusory. The implications of this case became the rallying force that drew together a small number of concerned organisations and members of civil society. The groups agreed to collaborate to champion the rights of Shamala and others in like circumstances, and Article 11 was born.
Article 11’s first public event, a seminar on “Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion” held on 26 June 2004 at the Bar Council Auditorium in Kuala Lumpur, drew a modest crowd of 170 participants.
Mission and Objectives
Article 11’s early concerns centred on freedom of religion - hence its name - including the right of non-Muslim parents like Shamala to have equal say regarding the religious upbringing of their children when their spouses embraced Islam.
As cases such as Shamala’s, Lina Joy’s and Moorthy’s unfolded, it became evident that other significant issues were also at stake, such as the areas of conflict between civil law and state Islamic law enactments, protection of fundamental liberties and access to justice. Furthermore, these cases, along with various concurrent events, exposed how the status of the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land was being gradually undermined. Contentions that Malaysia is an Islamic (as opposed to secular) state and that Syariah law is the supreme law governing Muslims have crept in, reflecting an apparent trend towards “Islamisation”.
This slant, however, also affects non-Muslims and has an impact on their rights, as laws and policies have been, and continue to be, developed or implemented with “Syariah compliance” rather than “Constitutional compliance” as their underlying principle. As a result, the minority ethnic and religious communities perceive that their interests are marginalised and that they do not enjoy the equality of rights enshrined in the Constitution. The coalition is concerned about the growing dissatisfaction within, and the widening divide among, the various communities, and the factors that have contributed to this situation.
Article 11 consequently evolved and expanded the
scope of its work to encompass these issues. Its current mission is to ensure a
Malaysia that (i) upholds the supremacy of the Federal Constitution; (ii)
protects every person equally, regardless of religion, race, descent, place of
birth or gender; and (iii) is firmly established in, and upholds, the rule of
law.
|
What does Article 11 hope to achieve? Article 11 aims to promote awareness towards, advocate for and contribute to achieving a Malaysia where all Malaysians in our daily lives:
|
Key Activities
As stated, soon after its formation Article 11 organised its first public seminar in June 2004 to highlight issues relating to the freedom of belief. For the next year-and-a-half, the coalition observed from the sidelines while the service organisations in the coalition continued to provide counselling and legal advice in relation to specific cases that came to them.
However, with Moorthy’s death in December 2005 and the ensuing burial dispute, it became obvious that the Malaysian public knew little, and possibly understood even less, about the Federal Constitution and its provisions. This galvanised the coalition to develop its open letter petition and plan a series of forums to raise public awareness.
Open letter
In March 2006 the still relatively unknown coalition embarked on a campaign to collect signatures for its open letter to the Prime Minister, entitled “Reaffirming the supremacy of the Federal Constitution”. The open letter called upon the government/judiciary to uphold the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the nation and to ensure governance in accordance with it, to reaffirm that Malaysia shall not become a theocratic state, and to recognise the judiciary as an independent and equal arm of Government.
The initiative garnered broad public support and was successful in raising public awareness of these matters and of the coalition’s goals. In addition, the campaign provided a valuable yardstick of public interest and concern in this area as Article 11 was able to hand over the open letter to the Prime Minister’s office along with approximately 20,000 signatures within a mere three-month period.
Public forums
Article 11 spearheaded a road show of public forums entitled “Federal Constitution: Protection for All” as its principal public education activity in 2006. The forums were staged in four different cities and featured activists, academics, lawyers and politicians as speakers. The discussion focused primarily on the rights that the Federal Constitution guarantees to all persons living in Malaysia, and also drew attention to the dilemmas of various individuals who claim their constitutional rights have been infringed.
The response to the first forum, organised collaboratively with the Bar Council and held in Petaling Jaya in mid-March, was overwhelming -- over 800 persons packed the forum hall on a Sunday morning. Several individuals queued patiently during the question-and-answer session to take advantage of this platform to voice their concerns and dismay regarding the direction in which they perceived the country was heading. Subsequent forums were also well-attended.
Nevertheless, although the first two forums proceeded smoothly, the remaining two forums were severely disrupted by aggressive protests organised by a group calling itself BADAI, an acronym for Badan Anti IFC (the Anti-Interfaith Commission). BADAI incorrectly accused Article 11 of attempting to revive the Interfaith Commission (IFC)1, encouraging apostasy and insulting Syariah law and Islam. The police called off the third forum in Penang – co-organised with Aliran on 14 May – soon after it began, citing the fear of violence. The following day, there was scant press coverage of the fracas, other than in the vernacular newspapers and the Sun, although several reporters from the English and Malay press had attended the press conference held after the forum was closed down. Only after Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, publicly labelled the mob’s actions as “stupid” did the incident make a splash in the mainstream press. A few protestors have been charged for their participation in the demonstration and their court cases are pending.
Two days after the forum, BADAI circulated a press statement that portrayed Article 11 as an “enemy of Allah”. Various member organisations of Article 11 lodged police reports against BADAI as the statement also contained a menacing warning that the coalition would face bigger risks if it persisted.
In the wake of the Penang episode, Article 11 encountered difficulty finding a hotel that would host its fourth forum in Johor Bahru. Similarly, there were no takers when the coalition sought a local partner to assist with the logistical arrangements. When Hotel Selesa stepped forward, the coalition decided to proceed without a co-organiser. Fully expecting another demonstration, Article 11 alerted the police prior to the event and requested their assistance.
A few days before the forum, posters appeared on walls near the venue, calling on Muslims to assemble to oppose the forum. Only heavy police protection allowed the forum to proceed for two hours on 22 July before being ultimately cut short as well due to the fierce opposition. The protestors, numbering approximately 300, were very well-organised. They had gathered at a nearby rendezvous early that morning and put up an impressive show of strength as they marched towards the forum venue. They stationed themselves as close to the doors as they were allowed to, chanting in unison and brandishing posters, some of which read, “We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Islam”, “ Defend the rights of Muslims”, “Don’t challenge us” and “Don’t threaten the sanctity of Islam”. The police performed commendably – their professionalism and restraint kept the mob in check and there were no untoward occurrences.
Despite the increasing public support for the forums, a few days later the Prime Minister called for a halt to all interfaith discussions and the Article 11 forums in particular, stating that these would cause tension in Malaysia’s multi-religious society. According to Bernama news agency the Prime Minister said, “I hope all of us can understand that if we play with sensitive issues like religion, it will create an uneasy situation . . . It may force the government to take action.”2 The media was also warned not to stir up unrest and create friction among the public with reports on religious issues, which was interpreted by most newspapers to be a gag order on reports relating to the coalition.
Consequently, the coalition has been compelled to discontinue its road show and is severely constrained in its public education activities. On the other hand, its opponents have carried on some similar activities, for example by utilising mosques, without fear of being curtailed as no protestors threaten the peace at these events.
Court and media advocacy
Article 11 members regularly represented persons who required assistance to pursue legal remedies. One such case is the suit filed against the Terengganu government by Sulaiman Takrib, who has been charged with religious deviancy. He has challenged the law-making powers of the Terengganu government and the constitutionality of the offences he has been charged with. Another ongoing case is R. Subashini’s, with facts similar to Shamala’s.
In addition, Article 11 members hold watching briefs in court cases relating to constitutional rights, such as Lina Joy’s, Shamala’s and Moorthy’s cases. Even this role has ruffled some feathers, as human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar discovered when, in mid-August, a death threat against him was circulated via e-mail and SMS (short messaging service, available on mobile phones), ostensibly targeting him due to his role as one of the watching brief lawyers in Lina Joy’s case. The threat depicted him as a “traitor to Islam”. An active member of Article 11, he was a featured speaker at each of the coalition’s public forums.
As part of Article 11’s media advocacy work, coalition members have granted interviews and released press statements and letters to press editors. Since the Government’s gag order, however, the coalition’s statements are no longer carried by the press. In contrast, the groups opposing Article 11 continue to have access to the media and various other machineries to perpetuate disinformation about the coalition.
What Next?
Article 11 firmly believes that it is crucial to discuss and explore different viewpoints to facilitate the search for peaceful solutions to the issues that jeopardise our national unity. Curbing discussion because an issue is “sensitive” will perpetuate its sensitivity and enhance the prejudices that will exist and grow among respective groups or communities because opportunities for dialogue are absent. The coalition is exploring alternative avenues of information dissemination, public education and dialogue as it currently has little access to conventional means.
Although the Prime Minister has stated he would meet Article 11, the group has yet to receive a response to its repeated requests for a meeting to clarify its objectives and discuss issues of concern. On the other hand, he met representatives of Islamic groups and the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism, separately, in February 2007. The coalition will persist in this endeavour.
Article 11 is planning certain activities to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Malaysia’s independence in 2007.
Watch this space.
Contributed by:
Chin Oy Sim
Programme Officer, Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)
March 2007
1. The IFC was a separate initiative intended to establish a statutory body with a conciliatory function to promote the national unity of the people of multiple faiths in Malaysia. In 2005, due to objections by certain Muslims, the Prime Minister announced that the IFC initiative was to be put on hold.
2. “PM warns of action against religious debate”, Malaysiakini, 27 July 2006 (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/54541).