On Sept 29 last year, our premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced that Malaysia is an Islamic state. His declaration was roundly received and endorsed by the various national front component parties.
Since then, Mahathirs pronouncement had attracted considerable debate amongst different segments of the Malaysian population, as reflected in the media and a host of Islamic state forums organised by different groups — MCA, Gerakan, DAP, Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Catholic Research Centre, amongst others. While serious concerns have been voiced by some quarters, it appears that a large portion of the citizenry is still in the dark over what an Islamic state entails.
At present, there appears to be three distinct but entirely different voices competing for public attention and legitimacy. Of the three, the most domineering voice is of course the governments position that Malaysia is already an Islamic state.
The arguments for this are found in the latest booklet published by the Information Ministry entitled Penjelasan mengenai Malaysia sebagai negara Islam (An explanation of Malaysia as an Islamic state) and an earlier publication by the ministry, Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam (Malaysia is an Islamic state — subsequently revoked after protests were sounded against its contents, deemed offensive to non-Muslims), as well a couple of articles found on the Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim) website. Some consider the basis of the governments pronouncement flimsy and shallow, merely a political tool aimed at countering PAS insistence of setting up an Islamic state.
PAS, on the other hand, denies that Malaysia has already become an Islamic state. The party argues that the Syariah must be put in place before the country can be rightly called an Islamic state. The fact that corruption, nepotism, discrimination and injustices are still widespread simply disproves the governments contention that the country is an Islamic state.
However, the Malaysian public is still waiting with bated breath for PAS to unveil its version of an Islamic state, as promised by its president, Fadzil Noor. Indeed, the partys notion of such a religious state has created fear and unease amongst both the Muslim and non-Muslim communities, as a result of its association with the controversial hudud law and aggravated by what appears to be discriminative pronouncements made by its deputy president Abdul Hadi Awang and spiritual adviser, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, vis-a-vis women and non-Muslim rights.
Secular or Islamic?
Caught between the two dominant voices is the call for the preservation of Malaysias secular character, championed by the DAP and other concerned organisations. This group objects to Malaysia being made an Islamic state, whether an Islamic state a la Umno or a la PAS, on the ground that the countrys constitutional and political history points undeniably to its status as a secular state. Evidence for this is the social contract entered into by our nations founders, providing for the countrys secular basis — as is clearly outlined in the Merdeka Constitution, affirmed in various official government documents (Reid Commission Report, Cobbold Commission Report and the White Paper tabled in Parliament in 1957) and upheld in numerous landmark judicial pronouncements.
What are we to make of these opposing claims? Is Malaysia secular or Islamic?
The governments declaration that Malaysia is an Islamic state but the status quo remains (no change to existing policies and legislation) is really quite misleading if we accept the definition of an Islamic state as one where the Syariah is the governing law. Since the Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, it would mean that our country is essentially still a secular state but with an Islamic state tag placed on it. This has prompted some to say that Mahathirs pronouncement is merely a matter of semantics or word play, adding fuel to the claim that it is nothing more than a convenient counter to PAS.
If indeed Malaysia is already an Islamic state as the government contends, why should PAS dismiss the formers claim and persist in setting up its own — unless the country is still secular in reality.
Furthermore, the official stance that Malaysias status as an Islamic state cannot be disputed (as reflected in the latest Information Ministry publication) is baffling as much as it is disconcerting when non-Muslims are told at the same time that they are free to consider the country as a secular state if they so wish. This only serves to highlight the logical inconsistency in the governments Islamic state proclamation.
Need for separation
In the midst of this muddled and confused state of affairs, two pertinent questions need to be addressed particularly:
With respect to the first question, it is difficult to envision how an Islamic state can be considered appropriate for a pluralistic country like ours with diverse races, culture and religion. While the majority of Malaysians are Muslims, it must not be forgotten that the non-Muslim segment is also considerably sizeable, constituting about 42 percent of the countrys population. It is improper therefore to subject the administration and governance of the country to the dictates of a particular religion, whether Islam or any other religion for that matter.
History has proven the need for separation between state and religion, institution-wise. In Iran, for instance, the iron-fisted rule of the clerics had caused the predominantly Muslim population to revolt against it. An Islamic state, one religious in nature, is likely to affect adversely and restrict the free exercise of the full plethora of basic human rights, not just those of non-Muslims but even that of Muslims, especially when power is concentrated in the hands of a select group with a narrow-minded and hegemonic mindset which is disposed to define the ambit of what is acceptable and what is not rather it is Malaysians who should rightly determine whether they want to abandon the countrys basic secular character for a religious one.
Masses must awake
Significantly, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS), which represents the major non-Islamic religious groups in the country, had publicly reiterated its stand on Jan 31, 2002 that the government should take cognizance of the fact that Malaysia is constitutionally a secular state, in addition to respecting the right of every person to freedom of religion.
In its booklet A Declaration on Freedom of Religion or Belief & Elimination of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief , the Council expressed inter alia its conviction that the promotion of Islamisation process without due regard to the sensitivities and rights of other religious communities may impair the social fabric and threaten the fundamental nature of a multi-religious, multi-cultural and pluralistic nature of society. The worry is that such a phenomenon, which had been gradually increasing over the years, is likely to escalate further with the establishment of an Islamic state.
On the whole, the governments declaration that Malaysia is an Islamic state has not sparked off too much opposition, primarily because it is seen as modern and progressive, and therefore does not threaten the present scheme of things.
However, what substantive guarantee is there that the status quo will not change in the face of continued and ever-increasing rivalry between the two Malay/Muslim parties, Umno and PAS, to outdo each other and command legitimacy in their quest for religious and political supremacy? Should the Malaysian citizenry be caught in the middle of this religious politicisation, forced to choose between a PAS-type Islamic state and an Umno-type, or is there the real option of insisting on the preservation of the countrys secular polity?
Clearly, the silent masses cannot afford to remain passive but must awake and state its stand as to whether they approve of the displacement of a secular government by one that is Islamic — provided of course they could be made fully aware of all the material facts and implications involved.
In this connection, the recent enunciation by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in his Royal Address at the first meeting of the fourth session of Parliament that Malaysias status as an Islamic country did not jeopardise the lives of our multiracial society and the practice of religious freedom as provided for in the Federal Constitution is certainly reassuring.
However, the preposition assumes in effect the non-disputability of Malaysias Islamic character, lending credence to the governments position of Malaysias status as such and further strengthening the claim that the objections raised by certain quarters against an Islamic state are a non-issue.
Islamic state or Islamic country?
There is also the added confusion caused by the usage of different terms, namely negara Islam , Islamic country and Islamic state. Is negara Islam to be construed as Islamic country or Islamic state? Clarification of the intended meaning of those terms used is therefore pertinent and necessary since words have special designated meanings which reflect the nature of the object referred to and help form certain ideas and concepts that may become reality in time.
Considering the circumstance, is the declaration that Malaysia is an Islamic state still open to challenge? Why the powers that be resorted to making such a proclamation when there is to be no substantial change in government — such declaration being clearly contrary to the legal and constitutional history of our country as a secular polity — is still a lingering question left unanswered.
While allaying on the one hand some of the fears pertaining to the exercise of non-Muslim rights and liberties engendered by its Islamic state proclamation, the government must not on the other hand ignore the very fundamental issues involved, which has underlying and deep-seated repercussions not immediately obvious as yet to the Malaysian citizenry at large.
The worry is that these concerns may be cast aside or rationalised, resulting in the legitimate voices objecting to an Islamic state of any form increasingly marginalised and isolated.
JOHN CHUNG is a young and idealistic twenty-something law graduate from Universiti Malaya. Deciding to eschew a stressful career in legal practice, and wanting to lend his energies to a vocation in which he can make a difference, he thus landed himself in a political party as a research executive.
