COMMENT The protest against a simple cross on the façade of Taman Medan Community of Praise church in Petaling Jaya has indeed shocked the nation, but what is more shocking is that certain groups, claiming to be lawyers, are still harping on the issue.

Calling themselves the Concerned Lawyers for Justice (CLJ), the group in a letter published by The Malay Mail had disputed Selangor state exco member Elizabeth Wong’s statement that churches may operate in commercial areas without permits.

Their counter-argument to the stand promoted by the Selangor state committee on non-Islamic affairs (Hesi) represents the group’s attempt to undermine the supremacy of the federal constitution.

In the first place, the writer of the press statement was hiding behind a non-personal entity and there is no record of who these people are. But a check of their website clearly shows that they are a group that has a certain political leaning.

The constitution is supreme

I feel compelled to point out the fallacy of their argument.

The group’s statement read: “Even a cursory glance of Article 11 would reveal that freedom of worship and the right of religious organisations to own and manage any place of worship is not absolute but must be done in line with the law.”

It continues to say that “Article 11(3)(c) in particular states that every religious group has the right to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.”

“In accordance with law” is what the group claimed to be the basis of its argument against Wong’s recent statement.

In rebuttal, Article 11 of the federal constitution has to be reiterated - it “provides that every person has the right to profess and to practice his or her religion and (subject to applicable laws restricting the propagation of other religions to Muslims) to propagate it.”

Meanwhile, Article 3 says that the constitution also provides that Islam is the religion of the country but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.

We are all very clear that there are no prohibitions against the practice of any religion, except its propagation to the Muslim community in this country. Period.

In the case of the Taman Medan church, it is also clear that the congregation comprises mainly of Christians from a particular ethnic community. There were no Malay converts within the congregation.

Hence, why did CLJ bring in Subsection 70(12) of Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133) into its argument if not to use it to hit at Hesi and Wong?

If CLJ continues to insist that places of worship must be premises designated for religious activities, then, it should address a major issue affecting the non-Muslim community, who make up the other 50 percent of the total population.

There has been a scarcity of religious land and burial grounds, throughout the country since Independence. This is the thorny issue that at least someone in the rank of a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department should address immediately following the Taman Medan cross protest.

Hesi did justice

In my opinion, Hesi’s decision in 2008 has at least done justice to the non-Muslim community in what previous state administrations had failed to do, by bringing us back to the original spirit of the constitution, as envisaged by our founding fathers.

Hesi’s argument is plain common sense: If a building is already designated for commercial use, there should not be any further restrictions or need to apply for permit for the same premises to be used for religious activities in the same way these premises are already used for other activities of a similar nature, such as tuition centres, karaoke, multilevel marketing talks or even private colleges.

After all, these commercial premises would have met all the strict conditions under Act 133 before they were issued certificates of occupation.

The same premises in the vicinity of Taman Medan, and that of Subang Jaya and Bandar Sunway, have become a beehive of vices for more than a decade, but we have not heard of even a squeak of protest by the same group of politicians, who claim that the young people are easily misled by the mere symbol of a cross.

Abdullah Abu Bakar ( right ), who is Taman Lindungan Jaya Umno branch chief and brother to the inspector-general of police, or even the Umno candidate for Taman Medan in the last general election, would have been given the thumbs-up, if they had urged the police to raid the vice dens in the neighbourhood without creating a politically-charged scene. Thereafter, the local councils can use the Street, Drainage and Building Act to even seal the premises.

Instead, both had used their positions and influence for a wrong reason - to force a church to remove its cross. I suspect that they had not even given a 10-day notice to the police about intent of the street demonstration; else, the police would have stationed their men at the site to avoid an untoward incident, knowing that this touched on religious sensitivities.

The CLJ’s press statement, which tried to point out that Article 11 of the federal constitution can only be exercised subject to Subsection 70(12) of Act 133, has made the federal constitution subservient to an Act of Parliament which, in the first place, did not prohibit religious organisations from using the premises of a commercial building.

This is where the CLJ, despite being ‘concerned’ lawyers, have erred, because no law should be deemed as supreme except the federal constitution. While the laws are restrictive, the constitution encapsulates the original spirit of the founding fathers, and any laws that are not aligned to the constitution, should therefore be repealed or revised.

Even if a permit is required (which is really unnecessary), it should be just a matter of formality and strictly on the basis of having met the requirements under Act 133; else, it will be an endless wait, because a list of other requirements including some ridiculous ones may be imposed by the local council, making it more difficult for the religious community to obtain the permit to meet even once a week.

If a permit is still required in states other than Selangor, these religious organisations which have to apply for permit should from now on, if permits are not forthcoming, apply pressure on their state assemblypersons, especially from the ruling coalition, for failing to protect the constitutional rights of non-Muslims to practise religions other than Islam after 58 years of Independence.

To ensure that the BN is not disadvantaged in the next general election, Hesi’s stance on this issue should be adopted throughout the country.

STEPHEN NG is an ordinary citizen with an avid interest in following political developments in the country since 2008.