Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

I refer to the statement from the former Chief Justice (CJ) of Malaysia, Abdul Hamid Mohamad allegedly made during a breaking fast event during the holy Ramadan month that the Penang state government under Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng didn’t provide funds or means for the Islamic activities carried out in the island.

In addition to that, he allegedly said recital of prayers from other faith groups for an opening ceremony of a building in the island goes against the federal constitution.

I would like to quote the federal constitution of Malaysia, Article 11 which states that;

Though Islam is the religion of the Federation, Article 11 provides that every person has the right to profess and practice his own religion. Every person has the right to propagate his religion, but state law and, in respect of the Federal Territory, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religion, doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion. There is, however, freedom to carry on missionary work among non-Muslims.

The former chief justice ought to know the significance of Article 11 in the federal constitution of Malaysia with regard to the allegedly seditious statement given by him. This statement also clearly contradicts the concept of 1Malaysia which was initially conceived to break the prejudice amongst the various races to live and prosper peacefully in this land.

Is this the 1Malaysia concept echoed by our PM Najib Abdul Razak through ex-CJ Abdul Hamid Mohamad?

If a person from the Malay rights NGOs like Isma, Perkasa or the likes of the so-called learned scholar, Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, shared this sentiment with the media, it shouldn’t be a big surprise, but coming from a person higher up in the Malaysian judiciary who should be without any shroud of bias or prejudice towards the minority communities in Malaysia, then it is very disturbing thought indeed to expect fair and just treatment for non-Muslims for generations to come.

As for his days spent in the highest judicial office in Malaysia, do we feel whether an important judgment was meted out in accordance with the rule of law? Probably not with his current views, and which throw the issue of impartiality of the Malaysian judiciary into doubt.

Therefore, I think that a senior retired judge giving comments like this is uncalled for as it hampers the effort of racial integration in our country - in challenging times where we can witness religious bigots are running amok spewing ethnic-related hatred amongst us almost in the every nook and corner of our country, it is in good faith that he should apologise for his statement and retract it.

In law, interpretation and understanding is extremely wide. It depends on the individuals. Thus, I have interpreted Article 11 to put forth my arguments on why recital of prayers of other faiths should not be against Article 11 of the federal constitution.

ADS