Dr. Ng Kam Weng is Research Director of the Kairos Research Centre in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Previously, he had been a fellow at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies and a member of the Center for Theological Inquiry at Princeton University. He also writes the blogs Krisis & Praxis and Religious Liberty Watch. From 1989 to 1992 he taught at the Malaysia Bible Seminary Graduate School. He has a PhD from Cambridge University.
EVENTS (3)
Ninth Building Bridges Seminar: Tradition and Modernity
May 24, 2010
Eighth Building Bridges Seminar: Science and Religion
June 15, 2009
Seventh Building Bridges Seminar: Communicating the Word
May 4, 2008
Sixth Building Bridges Seminar
December 2, 2007
Liberty Sentinel（http://libertysentinel.wordpress.com）
MAIS -Rulers have no Prerogative Power Over Other Religions, says MCCBCHST, 5 February 2013
by Dr. Ng Kam Weng
Recently, the Selangor lslamic Council (MAIS) issued a statement to the effect that the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims is prohibited. The statement by MAIS also gave the impression that its ruling would be binding on non-Muslims. This is tantamount to imposition of restrictions by an lslamic Council or body against non-Muslims. lt could also be seen as an attempt to control the religious practice of a non-Muslim religion by an lslamic body or organisation…
ln this regard, in the “Herald’s ” case the High Court had held: ‘… (i) The Rulers and YDPA have no prerogative powers to govern the affairs of other religions and the fact that the affairs of other religions are governed not by the Rulers and YDPA but by their own religious group is clearly enshrined in Article 1 1(3) of the Federal Constitution. lf any action is taken by Rulers and YDPA which affect affairs of non-lslamic religions, such action would be construed as unconstitutional. Further, if any laws other than those set out in Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution are passed, such laws would also be construed as unconstitutional.
Given below is the full text of Press Statement by MCCBCHST
MCCBCHST Press Statement- 05.02.2013
Press Statement – 5 February 2013
MCCBCHST: MAIS STATEMENT UNPRECEDENTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Malaysian Consultative Council Of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) is of the view that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution sufficiently provides for and safeguards the right of each person to profess and practice one’s religion of choice. Further, Article 11 (3) expressly provides that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.
Accordingly, any attempt by any party to dilute the rights expressly provided for by the
Federal Constitution would be tantamount to denigrating the supreme law of the country.
Recently, the Selangor lslamic Council (MAIS) issued a statement to the effect that the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims is prohibited. The statement by MAIS also gave the impression that its ruling would be binding on non-Muslims. This is tantamount to imposition of restrictions by an lslamic Council or body against non-Muslims. lt could also be seen as an attempt to control the religious practice of a non-Muslim religion by an lslamic body or organisation.
Any attempt to govern non-Muslims or interfere with non-Muslims’ practice of their religion by any Muslim body must be stopped immediately. lt would be against the Federal Constitution. This unhealthy practice could also lead to unwanted social repercussions and raising of tensions between communities.
The Federal Constitution clearly provides and guarantees religious freedom and the right for each religious body to regulate their own affairs. The Federal Constitution under Article 11(4) allows the States to enact laws to restrict propaoation of other religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of lslam.
However, there are no laws whether Federal or State that enables any Muslim body or organisation to impose rulings or “fatwas” on non-Muslims. In any event, any laws that are inconsistent with the Federal Constitution would be void pursuant to Article 4 of the Federal Constitution.
The only restriction imposed on non-Muslims in the Federal Constitution, pursuant to Article 11(4), would be pertaininglo”propagation of religious doctrine or belief among persons professtng the religion of lslam.” However, there are no restrictions imposed on the practice or propagation of a religion among persons who do not profess or practice lslam. ln other words, if you do not profess or practice lslam then no restrictions may be placed on you as to how you practice your religion. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.
ln this regard, in the “Herald’sn’ case the High Court had held: ‘… (i) The Rulers and YDPA have no prerogative powers to govern the affairs of other religions and the fact that the affairs of other religions are governed not by the Rulers and YDPA but by their own religious group is clearly enshrined in Article 1 1(3) of the Federal Constitution. lf any action is taken by Rulers and YDPA which affect affairs of nonlslamic religions, such action would be construed as unconstitutional. Further, if any laws other than those set out in Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution are passed, such laws would also be construed as unconstitutional.
We further view with concern the statement by fhe former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheik Abdul Halim that “non-Muslims cannot use the word “ALLAH” as it is enshrined in the constitution of 10 states that restricts its usage to Muslims only”.
We fail to understand how the former Chief Justice could overlook the fact that all the enactments of the 10 states are made under Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, and that Article 11(4) only provides for the ‘ocontrol or propagation of any religious doctrine or belief amongst persons professing the religion of lslam” This article does not forbid other religions from propagating to their adherents.
Therefore, the provisions in the State Enactments, forbidding the use of certain words by non’ Muslims is clearty unconstitutional and was therefore rightly held so by the High Court in December 2009.
The fact that “lslam is the religion of the Federation” in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution is not disputed by anyone. However, we must point out that it is balanced by the word “and” and the second limb of Article 3 need to be read together with the first limb that is “other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”‘
The provisions of Article 3 (4) that is “Nothing in thls Article derogates from any other provision of this constitution, means that Article 3 stands independently and does not affect other provisions of the Federal Constitution.
Lord President Salleh Abas in Che Omar bin Ghe soh V PP (1988) 2 MLJ 55 (SC) stated
“…the intention in making lslam the official religion of the Federation was
primarily for ceremonial purposes for instance to enable prayers to be offered in the lslamic way on official occasions such as the lnstallation of the Yang di Pertuan Agong, Merdeka Day and similar occasions. This explanation was accepted by the Rulers and accordingly Article 3 enacts that “lslam is the religion of the Federation”. The Supreme court went on to say that the law in the country today is secular law.”
Accordingly, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism (MCCBCHST) supports the decision of our respective member organisations to continue the use of the word “ALLAH” as found in their Holy Scriptures. To otherwise impose any restrictions on any religious group on the practice of its own religion would be unconstitutional.
Signed:
Daozhang Tan Hoe Chieow, AMS
President MCCBCHST
Sardar Jagir Singh
Deputy President
MCCBCHST
Venerable Singh Kan
Vice President
MCCBCHST
Reverend Dr. Thomas Philips
Vice President
MCCBCHST
Y. Bhg. Datuk RS. Mohan Shan, PMW, JMW, AMK, BKM, PJK
Vice President
MCCBCHST
Mr. Prematilaka KD. Serisena
Hon. Secretary General
MCCBCHST
February 5, 2013
（https://emmanuelj.wordpress.com）
10 Things Malaysian Muslims Need to Know/Remember/Realize About Malaysian Christians, 21 January 2013
Disclaimer:
Written below is my opinion, as a Christian, as a Malaysian. Its not the official view of any church body and not all Christians. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
And you need listen,listen,listen, to know and understand this, and just trust me on this.
1. We are not using the kalimah to convert Muslims to Christians. Of the THREE documented ‘conversions’ NONE were because of a Malay Bible.One was due to adoption, one read the English Bible (which he got himself) and the third was because of marriage.Contrast this to the tens of thousands of Christians converting to Islam in Malaysia and you will see, we are really the ones who should be worried.
2.Semenanjung Christians do not use the word because we PREFER it, we simply follow the word used in the Indonesian Bibles used by our Sabahan and Sarawakian brothers and sisters who attend service here in Semenanjung.Trust me, my priest struggles with Bahasa but does it just to accomodate them. Bahasa is the only language they really understand apart from their own native tongue. We’re not talking about the Bians and Bumburings and Ikings and Kitingans of the world here, we’re talking about students from the interior, manual workers and entry level staff.They are mostly Catholic and SIB (Sidang Injil Borneo), though many churches also have Sabahan and Sarawakians, and don’t forget the Indonesians, who have a large Christian population- Batak and Flores are technically almost entirely Christian.
For those asking, why not bring in a local Iban or Kadazan or Indonesian priest or localize the services…..they, like us are scattered. In Klang alone, there are four Catholic churches, many chapels, and more than thirty Protestant churches.Anyway, the law you are supporting, will affect them either way, whether they remain in Semananjung and East Malaysia.
3. By LAW , WE cannot give you ANY material regarding Christianity, be it a CD, or a Bible or an email. ALL Printed Material needs to be printed with ‘FOR CHRISTIANS ONLY’ Any attempt by a Muslim to obtain this is equally unlawful, as there are Syariah provisions against this.BY CONVENTION, Muslims do not attend Mass in Church. So HOW CAN something you CANNOT READ, CANNOT SEE, and CANNOT HEAR ever offend you? The idea that we would desecrate the kalimah equally illogical.Why would we insult God?
4. The usage of the word is not something new, it is something that predates Malaysia’s formation, the British Occupation. The Bible was originally Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Hebrew is very similar to Arabic.The Bible was translated first to Latin, then to another 1223 languages, 471 of which is commonly used. There are still efforts to translate another 1500 languages, mainly for academic purposes. Generally Christians believe the message of God is best delivered in the hearer’s own tongue. That is why Christian missionaries those days, spent years, learning the tongue, before translating the bible into it, then only preaching to them.It was the same with the Native Americans, Chinese,Japanese,South Americans, Africans. This is the opposite of how Islam was spread, which would be to teach the converts Arabic terms.
5.Malaysia is the only country in the world with this problem. Saudi Arabia, the world’s bedrock of Islam and Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, doesn’t.
6.Hostility towards us is clearly politically motivated, we have been living amongst you for many, many years, we’ve shared and built schools, orphanages,hospitals, old folks homes for Malaysians of all ages.There is zero proof ZERO, of any attempt other than feeble pseudo-hard-to-believe gossips and murmurs. Has anyone brought forward any concrete proof of any conspiracy to convert Muslims?Had we wished to do so, don’t you think we could have used ALL we’ve built above for Malaysians to convert everyone who stepped into those hospitals, schools, clinics or orphanages?
How come this has never been an issue before? Have you thought about it? Check most Christian hospitals, orphanages,schools. Look for the plaque and see who officiated these buildings and you will find many of them opened by the Rulers. Check the plaque at YMCA Kuala Lumpur. See who was their first patron.
7. Lest you forget this bond of friendship, we are the only religion in Malaysia that is mentioned by name in Acts of Parliament apart from Islam.The large proportion Malaysian Christians are mostly from the Straits Settlements- they were already British Overseas Citizens. So the argument that we were poor, desperate and sought shelter here and have a hidden agenda to subvert the nation is not quite accurate.In fact its quite stupid.
8. Rights granted should not be revoked without good reason. We’re not asking for any new rights. In fact, many of our old rights were taken away- including restrictions on places of worship,removal of crosses from buildings we’ve built. But this one, this is a bit too raw a nerve to touch.Christians feel quite worried and insecure.
9. Malaysian Christians are not the only ones using the word. Malaysian(and global) Sikhs and Baha’is use it as well.As do some Hindus. ALL of the world’s main religions came from Asia,and all Abrahamaic religions from a very small part in Asia Minor, hence, the etymological similarity should not be entirely unexpected.
10. Malaysian Christians , like most Christians are engaging and peaceful people. So please, don’t bully us. Please don’t allow yourselves to be consumed by blind hate led on by blind politicians.Many will provoke and ask you this question ‘WHAT MORE DO THEY WANT?’ My answer would be, ‘We just wanna be left alone’.
(End)
