COMMENT Kampung Medan in Petaling Jaya, Selangor, this month witnessed a repeat of the ugly incident that left a black mark in its history a decade ago.  

A volatile and fast-growing suburban community, it underwent one of the most intense tests of race relations in Malaysia when neighbours turned on each other in racially-motivated violence .

Now more commonly known as Taman Medan, it is back in the centre of a controversy with a protest against a Christian symbol .

This issue must be seen in the larger context of freedom of religion and sensitivity of religious symbolism in a multi-religious society. It is also vital, given the historical hostility among the Abrahamic religions and its impact on our community and the country at large.

Though the incident prompted discussions on bigotry and sedition, yet there seems to be a lack of debate on the best way to uphold our democratic values, in light of the recent developments.

The Kampung Medan incident is not the first, nor is it exclusively a case of Muslim bigotry.

Like the Malays, Christian indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak, who make up the majority in the two states, fuse their identity through ethnicity, custom, religion and land. Hence, the notion of territory is considered sensitive.

In 2014, residents and political activists cried foul over alleged plans to build a mosque in Penampang, Sabah. The protest also received endorsement from Pakatan Rakyat leaders, including the Penampang Member of the Parliament Darell Leiking and Moyog assemblyperson Terence Siambun.

Arguments put forth included the suitability of a mosque in a so-called Christian zone, planning approvals, as well as the state that is just about 10 to 20 minutes’ drive away.

The rationale behind protests against places of worship is best illustrated by Prof W Cole Durham, director of the International Centre for Law and Religion Studies, in his paper ‘Places of Worship: Enhancing Implementation of a Core Human Right’ presented during the session of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

Durham said despite public acceptance of freedom of religion as freely-accessible places of worship or assembly, honouring this most fundamental commitment remains a problem in all countries.

The practical problem is this - while virtually everyone gives lip service to freedom of worship, the common response when a religious community seeks to lease, acquire, build or occupy a place of worship is “Not in my back yard!”

Religious freedom is fine, but let religious institutions be located somewhere else...

Politics, Islamic state and religious pluralism

The Penampang and Kampung Medan cases beg the question of the larger issue of freedom of religion and management of places of worship in sensitive areas, sensitive by way of religious demographics and protection of indigenous areas.

At the macro level, the issue is political. It deals with the tug-of-war between a conservative and liberal-pluralist Malaysia.

Umno/BN clearly profess a conservative position, where freedom of religion and rights are organised under the existing position and structure of an Islamic state and the position of the monarchy.

The Umno position is to regulate all religious practices as per Article 3 of the Federal Constitution and existing Islamic governance rules, hence benefiting the party, which has Islamic structures contributing to its power base.

However, this position is different with Pakatan, which is seen as having quietly established religious pluralism and freedom of religion as an absolute right.

The position is such due to the differences between PAS and DAP on the use of religious structures and politics as the power base, and mode of outreach and identity.

The position of freedom of religion as an absolute right was made clear when the Selangor Committee on Non-Islamic Affairs recently said places of worship have not required the scrutiny and approval of the local councils since Pakatan took over the reins in 2008.

The Selangor government had, in the past, also faced serious conflicts pertaining to the demolition of unauthorised temples, in cases where sacred places come in the way of modern development.

Be it during or before Pakatan rule, the role and effectiveness of local councils in managing places of worship and facilitating changes in community amicably comes into question.

Lessons from next door

Reality calls for better regulation and management of religious freedom.

Freedom of religion, interpreted as absolute and without proper management and engagement on places of worship or conversion, is a recipe for conflict and religious tensions. This is especially so in urban and suburban areas with diverse religious communities.

We can best learn from our neighbour.

In 2011, Paramadina Foundation, a Muslim civil society organisation with its focus on religious tolerance, along with several civil society organisations with similar missions, produced a research document, ‘The Controversy of Churches in Greater Jakarta’.

The report sheds light on the factors for constructive interfaith relations, and concludes that three things are crucial to safeguard the right to build a place of worship.

The first is support from the local government and police. These groups have the power to accept or to reject building applications and to stop mobs who want to disrupt the construction process.

In a case of a Presbyterian church, the GKI Terang Hidup Church in Jakarta, for example, the local council and police facilitated dialogues between the church building committee and the groups resisting the construction of the church.

The police also provided security and informed the surrounding communities about the process.

The second is support from religious elites in the surrounding area, including a strong and positive local religious leader with a strong popular base in the surrounding community.

The third factor is successful dialogue with the community in the area to avoid misunderstandings and to address and facilitate issues like proselytisation and the raising of religious symbols.

Policy reforms needed

The ball is Pakatan’s court to lead the way to reform and to put an end to this on-going religious tension, beyond statements and media events.

The Pakatan government owes a moral duty to its grassroots who are hoping for religious pluralism and secularism as a way to resolve such issues amicably.

The current structure of an Islamic affairs department is representative of an Islamic state, as seen in Bangladesh and Pakistan and many Islamic jurisdictions.

Will the Pakatan governments in Selangor and Penang, (and perhaps to a lesser extent, Kelantan) have the political will to move away from this and reform their state executive structures to reflect their liberal aspirations?

Should it maintain a state department on religion and Malay culture that is exclusive to Islamic affairs or have a state executive councillor overseeing all races and religions, as seen in other plural jurisdictions such as Indonesia?

An inclusive state executive department would be able to deal with inter-religious issues and other legal reform and walk the talk on pluralism.

Such an inclusive structure would also oversee policy and its implementation in the right places to ensure the rights of followers all religions. The other functions would include addressing issues of definition, regulation, authorisation, registration and best practices from other jurisdictions.

The state exco for all religions is also purely within the purview of the state government and does not require a change in constitution.

Such a structural reform would therefore reduce tension and inter-religious issues beyond populist and short-term political sentiments deemed divisive and dangerous in the context of multicultural Malaysia.

This will be in line with Pakatan’s vision for a secular and multicultural Malaysia, as seen in neighbouring Indonesia, where there is a federal ministry of religious affairs for all the approved religions in its constitution.

Act like a government

It is crucial for Pakatan to review its liberal policy on religious activities and places of worship and strengthen the local councils to act as an inclusive and consultative mediator and facilitators, as proposed by Indonesia’s Paramadina Foundation.

The current practice of absolute freedom to set up places of worship will, in the long term, create tension among competing religions like the Abrahamic religions and between those who deem a land as sacred, and the force of development.

This will also ease the challenges faced by minority religions in setting up suitable places of worship.

In the progressive jurisdictions in Europe, even the setting up of a fast food restaurant like McDonald’s requires dialogue and consultation with residents on its suitability.

This is a key factor for preserving good relations between majority and minority religious groups.

This is ‘Reformasi’. This is also what the DAP needs to do as part of its local council agenda, outside of its usual polemic and sentiment politics.

You are now the government. Act like one.

K SHAN is chairperson of the National Institute for Electoral Integrity (NIEI).