The three bills proposed by the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) subjugate the position of Islam in the federation, undermines the judiciary and encourages atheism.

These are among the eight points put forth by Muslim NGO coalition MuslimUPRo chief Azril Mohd Amin in a commentary in Mingguan Malaysia on Sunday.

In a statement yesterday, NUCC law and policy committee member Mohd Zharif Badrul says Azril is further from the truth.

Malaysiakini condenses both sides of the debate below:

Argument 1

MuslimUPRo: Interested parties like the Rulers’ Council, Islamic authorities and Committee to Promote Interfaith Harmony and Understanding were not consulted, but groups like the Global Movement of Moderates were allowed to monopolise the discussion.

NUCC: The bills are at consultation stage and all input is welcomed, before they are sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, cabinet and Parliament.

Argument 2

MuslimUPRo: The bills disregard Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that Islam is the religion of the federation.

This means that the role of Islam cannot be sidelined in any discussion on unity or harmony.

NUCC: The purpose of the bills is to criminalise bigotry and unconstitutional discrimination, and as such does not contravene Article 3(1).

Argument 3

MuslimUPRo: Section 7 of the Natinonal Unity Bill criminalises racial superiority, exclusivity and control based on religion, belief and race.

Using such terms is a direct criticism of Article 153 of the Constitution, which safeguards the special position of Malays and other bumiputera, and legitimate interests of other races.

NUCC: Section 7 needs to be read with Section 9 which states that discrimination with legitimate purpose is allowed.  Further Section 2(2) states it does not breach Article 153.

Article 153 also does not denote racial superiority or exclusivity, rather gives special position to the bumiputera in limited areas as stated in 153 (2).

Argument 4

MuslimUPRo: The drafting is monopolised by a small elite consisting of the Bar Council and only three NUCC members.

Muslims, which will be mostly affected by the bills, were not consulted, while the Bar has no standing to discuss religious matters as it is a secular body.

NUCC: The drafting is intiated by NUCC’s law and policy committee, which is part of a body formed by the prime minister. The bills are uploaded on NUCC’s website for public feedback and improvement.

Argument 5

MuslimUPRo: Article 8 of the Constitution, which deals with equality, is the centerpiece of the bills but other articles, which are the basis for national harmony, are not considered.

International conventions against racial discrimination, which are based on European experiences, cannot be applied directly to Malaysia as the context is different.

NUCC: The Constitution has to be read in full. If Article 8 contravenes the other Articles it would have been declared void and removed from the Counstitution.

There is nothing wrong with making Article 8 the centrepiece of the National Harmony and Reconciliation Bill, as this article, too, is bound by other provisions of the constitution.

Argument 6

MuslimUPRo: The definitions for 'belief' and 'religion' of Section 4(1) of the National Unity Bill also makes references to “a lack of belief”, thus acknowledging atheism.

This is against the Rukun Negara, which calls for belief in God.

NUCC: The bill which criminalises bigotry does not discriminate between beliefs.

For example, if person A hurts person B, and person B is an atheist, person A should be punished in accordance with the law. Likewise, if an atheist hurts a Muslim.

It has nothing to do with encouraging anyone to not believe in God. Even the Quran states that hatred towards a community should not come in the way of justice.

Argument 7

MuslimUPRo: The formation of an Unfair Discrimination Tribunal to deal with inter-religious issues takes over from the judiciary and the Rulers’ Council, who head Islam in the nation.

It must be noted that the formation of an Interfaith Commission was once rejected wholesale by Muslim NGOs and the government.

NUCC: A tribunal is quasi-judicial and does not take over from the judiciary. The purpose is to solve disputes in a cost and time-effective manner.

Section 28 of the Harmony and Reconciliation Bill also states that the tribunal’s decision is subjected to judicial review.

Argument 8

MuslimUPRo: The tribunal’s powers to call witnesses to testify could see Islamic authorities called to the stand, thus subjugating Islamic affairs to a body which has little understanding of Islam.

NUCC: An Islamic authority testifies at a tribunal does not mean that Islamic affairs falls under the tribual’s purview.

If someone who is part of an Islamic authority cannot be called as a respondent or witness, the tribunal will not be able to decide justly.

Besides, Islamic authorities can already be called to testify at National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) tribunals, according to a law passed 15 years ago.

New bill has higher limit than Sedition Act