Malaysiakini.com（http://www.malaysiakini.com）
Introduce 'Religious Freedom and Fair Practices' bill, 19 February 2009
by Galileo Chino
In 1998, an Apostasy Bill was proposed to make it punishable for any Muslim to leave Islam. According to the new bill, an apostate could be charged in the syariah court and could be fined a maximum of RM5,000 and or sentenced a maximum three-year jail sentence.
This bill was proposed after a controversial dispute between the families of a Muslim Malay girl who wanted to leave her religion and of her Catholic Sino-Indian boyfriend. Her move was apparently viewed as a serious betrayal to Islam.
In actual fact, there were more than 11,000 new Islam converts while only 55 local Malays left the religion between 1994 and 1997.
An intent of hegemony leads to the need of for an apostasy law. It was made in the false impression that the Muslim community’s pride and survival were at stake, and it was meant to protect Muslim Malaya from leaving their religion.
Most of the time, the main purpose of conversion to any other religion is interracial and inter-religious marriage. With an apostasy law against the Muslim partner, the non-Muslim partner has to convert to Islam first in order to get married. This practically prevents inter-racial marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims.
In Malaysia, race is religion and religion is race as all Malays are Muslims according to the definition of the constitution. An overwhelming majority of Muslims are Malays and all non- Muslims are all non-Malays. Therefore, an apostasy law in favour of any religion would prohibit interracial marriages.
Laws of similar nature were also found in apartheid South Africa. During the apartheid era, South Africa had the Morality Act and the Prohibition of Interracial Marriages Act which prevented interracial sexual relations and marriages. These laws were made to protect morality and ‘purity’ of the white Afrikaners. Both racial and religious jargons were used to defend such laws.
Apostasy was also punishable criminal offense during the medieval Christian Europe. The Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other hand tolerated diversity much better than other religions. It thrived for 400 hundred years for their relative liberalism. Non-Muslims were not persecuted but allowed to ‘live’ and ‘survive’ though they were not the ‘same’ as Muslims.
No country in the world is now religiously homogenous. They are either multi-sectarian or multi-religious. People all over the world have to live in diversity. As diversity is an undying reality, one's religious freedom is everybody's business.
If one insists that when a Muslim embraces another religion it is a natter for Muslims only, then would non-Muslims embracing Islam be also a non-Muslim affair to be dealt with according to some draconian apostasy law which must be introduced by that non-Muslim’s religion?
The religious freedom stated in the Malaysian constitution is for all Malaysians. As everyone has the right to decide which religion he or she embraces, it concerns all of us if our religious freedom is impinged upon by laws for the hegemony of any single religion. Such injustice is everybody's business.
We should instead introduce a Religious Freedom and Fair Practices Bill whereby one has the right to choose his religion without state intervention and coercion. Non-Muslims, as a minority in this country, have more to fear than Muslims. Shouldn’t there be a law to ensure their religious freedom and free propagation of their religions?
More importantly, a law to also ensure that state governments allocate public land and funds impartially for religious worship purposes. Because all of us contribute equally to taxes, it is only fair if all Malaysian interests are taken into account.
At present, Catholic churches are not allowed to put a crucifix on top of their cathedrals. Chinese temples and churches have to retreat into shop lots in commercial areas because government allocation of worship places are rare in contrast to the numbers of mosques around the country.
When the state collects taxes, it does not draw religious or racial lines. Why should there be any discrimination in treating the various religious worship practices? Therefore, fair practices are to protect all religions in Malaysia. Constitutional assurance is inadequate as the majority tends to erode it and ignore calls for fair practices.
Affirmative sction does not work to further a majority's dominance. An apostasy law creates more fear towards Islam among the non-Muslims. It shows disregard for religious freedom while manifesting intolerance and a majority hegemony. It concerns all of us as inhumanity is at play.
The apostasy law is made only to further the majority’s dominance. On the contrary, affirmative action would ask for laws to protect the minorities' rights. Nothing is more sensible than the passage of a Religious Freedom and Fair Practice Law to enforce what has been clearly stated in our Malaysian constitution.
（End）
