Candlelight vigil in support of Revathi

Hello everyone,

Please attend the vigil being organised in support of Revathi, to be held at 8pm next Tues, 19 June, at the flagpole at Dataran Merdeka. Kindly spread the word.

********************************************************************************

Candlelight Vigil In Support of Revathi’s Freedom of Faith

Please attend the following peaceful candlelight vigil in support of Revathi, and many others like her, who are unable to fully exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of faith.  The vigil is an initiative of civil society organisations including MCCBCHST (the Malaysian Consultative Council on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism) and various women’s rights groups (All Women’s Action Society (AWAM), Sisters in Islam (SIS), Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO), Women’s Centre for Change, Penang (WCC) and Women’s Development Collective (WDC)).

Date:              Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Time:              8 p.m.
Venue:           Dataran Merdeka (at the flagpole)

Please come to show your support in affirming the supremacy of the Federal Constitution and its protection of our fundamental liberties, including the freedom of belief.

Please bring candles, candle-holders and banners.

***********************************************************************

Summary of Revathi’s case:

Revathi, an ethnic Indian woman, has been held in a rehabilitation center run by Islamic authorities since January 2007 because she wants the State to acknowledge she is a Hindu and not a Muslim.

Revathi was born to Indian parents who had converted to Islam before her birth. She claims she was raised by her grandmother as a Hindu. She and Suresh were married according to Hindu rites in March 2004. Revathi was advised by the Malacca Islamic Religious Department to make an application at the Malacca Syariah High Court to confirm her status as a Hindu. She did as she was told.

However, the Syariah Court ordered her detained in a rehabilitation centre in Ulu Yam, Selangor under Melaka’s Syariah criminal laws for 100 days. This detention was extended in Revathi’s absence for a further 80 days supposedly because she had not “repented”. In the meanwhile, Revathi’s Muslim mother obtained a Syariah Court order granting her custody of Revathi and Suresh’s 15 month old baby. That order was enforced on Suresh’s Hindu family with the assistance of the police.

The family is now torn apart – with the mother in detention, the child with the grandparents and the father in limbo without his family.

Religious reforms needed for peace and harmony

In my interview with an Indonesian radio station last Monday, I reiterated my view that Lina Joy should proceed to bring her case to the Syariah Courts as instructed by the Federal Courts. The ball will then be in the courts of the Syariah Courts and this courts will have to prove its worth. Yes, one may argue that the Federal Courts should have taken upon itself to decide whether Lina Joy could or could not leave Islam. Since the Federal Courts has failed to perform, Lina should try out the Syariah Courts as a last resort. Many are now worried that the country is going down to the road of an Islamic State. This is something DAP has been expressing its concern for a long time. The danger has become “more real” after Lina Joy and several other cases concerning the converts in recent months. A solution or consensus must be reached by the authority soonest possible. Something must be done by all the religious leaders and political leaders in this country to stop the uneasy trend before it’s too late. we are disappointed with the Prime Minister because he has failed to lead on the matter. DAP also sees the importance and significance of establishing an Interfaith Council since the nineties. Mr Lim Kit Siang has spoken and written on the issue time and again inside and outside of the Parliament.We believe the Interfaith Council, if established, would be able to help drawing guidelines for issues concerning conversions and other issues related to the disputes between the different faiths. Malaysia will remain as a multi-religious nation for a long time. We need to find a solution for the good of its entire citizenry. All religions are equal. Everyone is talking about the same God. There is no supremacy of this religion over another religion. No? Please keep the dialogue open and free. Islam is not about anything as crass as power

Azmi Sharom Jun 4, 07 3:34pm Malaysiakini

This letter is a reaction to the decision of the Federal Court in the Lina Joy case. Taking heed of the prime minister’s concerns, I have two unemotional points to make. Firstly the Federal Constitution should guarantee the rights of all Malaysians to choose their religion. Secondly, this issue of apostasy in Islam is far more open to interpretation than what the orthodoxy claims.Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is very clear. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion. They can propagate it as well if they want unless the state laws say you can’t propagate to Muslims. It is also clear by Schedule 9 of the Constitution that whatever Islamic laws that we have is to be made by the state legislature (with the exception of the three Federal Territories).These Islamic laws are to be judged by the Syariah courts, whose jurisdiction is only over persons who profess to Islam. The types of Islamic laws that the state legislature can make and that Syariah courts enforce are also listed in Schedule 9. To summarise, they cover issues of family, inheritance and the administration of Islamic institutions and charities. There is no mention at all about apostasy.Where then does the state legislature get the authority to punish Muslims who declare that they wish to leave the religion? Where does it say in the constitution that you can fine, jail or ‘rehabilitate’ people who have chosen to believe differently? This ‘authority’ comes from a line in Schedule 9 that says states can make laws punishing Muslims who act against the ‘precepts’ of the religion. I must repeat here that apostasy is not expressly mentioned, therefore everything hinges on the question as to what makes up the ‘precepts’ of Islam.The constitution is not any mere legal document. It is not like an ordinary contract where you can have express terms and implied terms. It is a guarantee that the government and the law will not take away our fundamental rights as a human being. As such, it is unacceptable that a right as vital as the freedom of religion can be taken away with anything less than an express clause saying in no uncertain terms that this can be done.Justice Ahmad Fairuz, in his judgment, made the point that one can’t leave one’s religion on a whim and religious bodies would naturally want to have procedures to regulate this. This may be true, especially in this country where being Malay by definition means being Muslim and if one were to renounce Islam then legally speaking one can’t be Malay. Therefore all the special Malay privileges won’t apply to you any more. In that sense, I can see the logic of having some sort of system to determine whether a person is a Muslim or not. However, that process, if it must exist, must by necessity be purely administrative and automatic. It can not and must not be punitive. Because once it is punitive as it is in this country, (after all leaving Islam can mean imprisonment) in effect you are denying a person their freedom to choose their religion as enshrined in Article 11. The opposing argument to mine is that conversion out of Islam clearly goes against the ‘precepts’ of the religion. Apostasy is a crime that has to be punished. The degree of punishment ranges depending on which Islamic scholar you wish to quote, but the harshest is execution. This is not a universally accepted view. The Koran, after all, does mention the lack of compulsion in religion. The verse does not come with explanatory notes as to the extent of this statement. There are opinions that say it means no compulsion to join the religion, but once in, there are compulsions aplenty, one of which is that you can’t leave. There are others that say that it means exactly what it says, you can’t force religion on anyone and that once this is done religion can have no meaning. Furthermore, the Koran does not prescribe any worldly punishment for apostasy. Therefore this entire issue is the result of human interpretation of the Koran. It is thus surely open for debate. Let me provide an example of how changing times and values have affected how Muslims view the verses in our holy book. The Koran is ambivalent about slavery. It does not say that slavery is a sin. Neither does it encourage it. But there are verses that describe what one can do to one’s slave. In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim who will say that slavery should be reintroduced. Yet it seems to be allowed in the Koran. I am not being facetious. I do not believe that Islam, taken as a whole, encourages or even condones slavery. The verses were meant for a particular time in history when such practices did occur. But the point here is that if the values of the ‘ummah’ can change to the point that practices which are allowed in the divine Koran won’t be accepted anymore, why then can’t we do the same for what is essentially the mere opinion of human Islamic scholars on the issue of freedom of religion? Often, when the view is put forward that there is no compulsion in Islam and that if a person wants to leave they should be allowed to, there are the usual cries that such attitudes are the result of liberal, Western influenced minds. In all honesty, that is probably a fair ‘criticism’ of someone like me. However, Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), the Indonesian cleric and ex-president as well as the mufti of Al Azhar in Egypt are just two examples of people who also share this view. They can’t possibly be described in the same way. At the end of the day it is simply quite cruel to not allow someone to believe what they want to believe. It is not a decision made lightly and as can be seen in Lina Joy’s situation, one that can lead to misery and heartache. Just as I am sure many converts into Islam face misery and heartache from their respective community. It’s hard enough to face being ostraciced from family and friends without having to face legal persecution as well. When faced with two contesting human opinions on the ‘precepts’ of Islam, one which is harsh and one which is merciful, I choose the latter. Religion is one path towards personal peace and spiritual fulfilment. It is also something which depends entirely on faith. Even if the religion is a ‘way of life’, a term commonly used to describe Islam; it still needs belief and faith. How can one be forced to follow a ‘way of life’ if one simply does not believe in it? Once the element of force comes into the picture, be it in the form of fines, imprisonment or ‘rehabilitation’, then religion ceases to be about the spiritual and becomes instead a matter of power. I can not accept that the religion I was born into and my children are raised in is about anything as crass as power. And it is my right to believe that.

Gatekeeping will not stop apostasy

Azza Basarudin, Cairo Jun 11, 07 2:49pm Malaysiakini

I write in light of the larger debate currently taking place in Malaysia on the right to determine one’s faith and the need to uphold the secular Malaysian constitution. Lina Joy’s case has highlighted, above everything else, the Malay-Muslim obsession with the boundaries of who is considered an ‘insider’ and who is an ‘outsider’. Individuals, particularly women, who transgress the preset borders of racial and/or ethnic purity are seen as deviant communal actors with blatant disregard for the survival of the Muslim ummah, thus the act of transgressing these borders allows for racial and/or ethnic supremacy to be normalised, reproduced and reinforced (in this case, through manufactured consent of ethno-religious uprising).Why the obsession with demanding that Lina Joy remain a Muslim? Is this obsession a reflection of Malay-Muslim religiosity? Is it really about Islam? If we interrogate Malaysian history of ethnic relations and religiosity, it will be apparent that this debacle is not about one’s faith. It is about politics, or more accurately, the politicisation of religion in the public sphere. It is about maintaining Malay-Muslim hegemony and the power of the ruling coalition party. It is about preserving special privileges accorded to the Malays in the name of national unity and ethnic ‘tolerance’. More importantly, it is about having the Malay majority rule the country without contest, ever.Where do we locate Islam Hadhari (Civilizational Islam) in this controversy? Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s claim to fame has been hailed as the foundation for promoting a more liberal interpretation and legislation of Islam, but do we see this in practice in Malaysia? Is it ‘civilized Islam’ to deny Lina Joy justice and dignity in the name of politics? If Abdullah is sincere in promoting Islam Hadhari and conscious of the rising ethno-religious conservatism that might, in the near future, lead Malaysia down the road of religious extremism, than government-sponsored Islamic institutions responsible for monitoring ‘proper’ understanding and practices of religion should be re- evaluated, re-structured and eventually abolished.These institutions are not only dictating how a person’s faith should be practiced, but also dangerously narrowing the diversity of Islamic understandings and interpretations according to the limited worldview of its visionaries. Muslims of any race and ethnicity should value their own thought process and ability to understand and interpret religion (to a certain extent) for themselves. Islam is the religion for those who think and reflect. Privileging the doctrine of blind imitation (taqlid) denies Muslims the right to independent reasoning (Ijtihad) and the understanding that Qur’anic messages and teachings are amenable to change according to the socio-historical conditions of contemporary Muslim societies. The Qur’an is a blue print for living one’s life and not a blue print for oppression and tyranny. Gatekeepng is at best, an embarrassment to Malay-Muslims specifically, and to the ruling coalition generally because it reflects a mentality that is frozen in time. Gatekeeping will not ensure that more Malay-Muslim will not renounce Islam. Lina Joy was denied justice and dignity not because she transgressed the boundaries of the religion (remember, the Qur’an states that there is no compulsion in religion, Al-Baqarah 2: 256), but because she transgressed the boundaries of what is permissible and beneficial to Malay- Muslim hegemony. Lina Joy is punished because she dared question the power and authority of the gatekeepers who must, for their own political hegemony, maintain a tight rein over the main defining characteristic of the Malay-Muslim majority, that is all Malays are Muslims. Secularism the anti-thesis of Islam Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib, Cairo Jun 14, 07 3:02pm Malaysiakini I refer to the letter entitled Gatekeeping will not stop apostasy by Azza Basarudin. I regret that Azza chooses to view Islam from within a secular-liberal paradigm, instead of opting to view Islam from an objective perspective.Considering the fact that secularism is the anti-thesis of Islam, one cannot but help notice the wrong method of analysis being deployed by Azza. To view Islam in the light of secularism is to do injustice to Islam.Let me highlight one very important fact in Islam (with regards to the issue of apostasy). In Islam, there exists a consensus that apostasy is a felony. Therefore, all felonies, by any standards, must be subjected to some form of legal action. In other words, the legal action taken against Lina Joy is by no means contradictory to any article of human rights. Human rights does not exclude legal action against felonies. To not curb acts of felony is a society is to ensure the flourishing of felonious acts. That is why even though the current punishment for theft and robbery is not a 100 percent deterrent but to opt for not enforcing the law will not give us a feeling of comfort that such acts will cease to exist. Secularists believes that Islam (or religion) is a mere belief structure that is only relevant within an individual’s domain. Secularism then advocates that the function of religion should not breech the public domain. But one can see the confusion of such a notion when, in practice, this is something of an impossible task. Even in the most secular of all states, such as America, the Christian right has existed as one the most strongest and most influential political factions. Though they may sound irreligious in their policy statements, the content of their policies is very much based on religious values. Azza tries to quote the 02:256 verse from the Quran (which states ‘there is no compulsion in religion …). Yet his application of the verse to the issue of apostasy seems to be very much problematic. If Azza’s understanding holds true, it would then render all of the ‘order-verses’ stipulated in the Quran to be void. Orders such as prayers, fasting, alms, respect for one’s parents and marriage would be mere advice despite the usage of the ‘ordering tone’ based on the Arabic language used in the respective verses. Azza’s understanding of the verse would also introduce massive contradictions in the Quran. Azza should also be fully aware that the source of jurisprudence in Islam is not limited to the Quran alone. It is also based upon Al Hadeeth, Al Ijma and Al Qiyas. The Quran alone is not sufficient to answer all the needs for jurisprudence for the entire time until the Hereafter. That is why the Quran tells us to follow the Prophet SAW (Al Hadeeth) who then taught us how to use Al Ijma (consensus) and Al Qiyas (comparison) when making a ruling based on Islam. Azza should also realize that Islam has never existed as a mere belief-structure. From the time of the Prophet, Islam has been taught and practiced as a complete way of life encompassing matters with regards to government, the economy, legislation, law enforcement, jurisprudence, politics, society and many other aspects of life. In short, the legal action taken against Lina Joy will ensure that apostasy will not flourish in Malaysia. Untangling the knotty Lina Joy case Kim Quek Jun 13, 07 11:47am Malaysiakini The final judgment on the Lina Joy case has brought to head the increasingly controversial and divisive issue of religious freedom in Malaysia. In an apparent attempt to skirt a potential confrontation between the civil court and the syariah court, both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court (the nation’s highest court) had narrowed the case down to one of pure administrative issue – whether the National Registration Department (NRD) acted legally in rejecting Joy’s application to delete the world “Islam” from her identity card (IC). That attempt to avoid confrontation has obviously failed, for the Federal Court judgment in rejecting Joy’s request to delete the word “Islam” aroused even greater consternation, this time attracting world-wide publicity, most of which is adverse to Malaysia’s image. It is not difficult to understand why the Federal Court failed, for the bottom line of the Lina Joy case is not one of mere technicality involving only the NRD, but one that touches on fundamental issues relating to the Constitution as well as those surrounding religious faith. When confronted by this case, the first question we must ask ourselves should be: Is Joy a Christian or a Muslim? The answer to this question is vital, for if Joy is not a Muslim, then according to NRD regulations, she needs not stipulate her religion to the NRD, and the court should therefore readily grant her request. Joy is a Malay woman, born in 1964 and brought up by her family as a Muslim. In her statutory declaration, she said she had never professed or practiced Islam since birth, and that she had embraced Christianity in1990. She wanted to marry a Christian, but marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims are prohibited in this country. That prompted her to have her religious status of Islam in the IC deleted. In any society, she would have been deemed a Christian. But obviously, the Malaysian courts do not think so, hence the prolong controversies which threaten to split the country, mostly along religious and racial lines. Fundamental questions Arising from these controversies, are a host of fundamental issues that beg for answers. These relate to personal conscience, religion, the Constitution, Syariah laws, and peculiar to this country, the unique relationship between the Malay race and Islam. I will attempt to explore some of these by asking the following questions: 1. How do you define a Muslim? When is the point of entry and when is the point of exit? When is a Muslim considered having left his religion? 2. Is there or isn’t there religious compulsion in Islam? If negative, shouldn’t Muslims be allowed to leave the religion as their conscience dictates? Are punitive apostate laws then contradicting the religion? 3. Article 11 of the Constitution states: “Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion.” Does this include Malays and Muslims? 4. Article 8 of the Constitution proclaims all persons are equal before the law and prohibits discrimination on the ground of only religion, race, descent etc in any law. It does not, however, prohibit any provision regulating personal law. “Personal law” is understood to include family matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. Does it also include religion? 5. Islamic laws are legislated in the state assemblies and enforced by the Syariah courts. The scope of such legislation is prescribed in Schedule 9: List 2: para 1 of the Constitution. Among the items prescribed, which generally relate to family matters and administration of Islamic institutions, is one which empowers punishment on Muslims breaching the “precepts” of Islam. There is however no mention of apostasy. Does this “precepts” include apostasy? 6. In 1988, Article 121 of the Constitution was amended whereby civil courts “shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.” Arising from this amendment is the question of whether it is possible to have a clear-cut dividing line demarcating the boundary between the jurisdiction of the civil court and the jurisdiction of the Syariah court. What if the contending parties are Muslims vs non-Muslims – which jurisdiction does the case fall? What if there is a perceived conflict between the Syariah laws and the Constitution, or between the Syariah court and the civil court – which should reign supreme? 7. Should the Syariah system of justice be interpreted as parallel and independent of the Constitution and the civil courts? It will be seen that the above questions tend to touch the base lines of the present conflict. Divergent views to these issues are expected due to differing backgrounds. However, I strongly believe that if we discourse with rationality and good conscience, considerable common grounds can be established among conflicting parties. I will start the ball rolling by volunteering some answers to them. Answers  Islam and Muslims A person who believes in and consciously follows Islam is a Muslim. As for entry and exit, other than those born to Muslim families, Muslim converts have to go through a well defined ceremony just like most other religions. However, unlike other religions which treat religious drop-outs as non-events, Islamic apostasy is taken more seriously; but Islamic opinions on apostasy vary widely, ranging from the extreme of those advocating for punishment by death to those in favour of peaceful exit. As in all religions, leaving Islam is not so well marked as at the time of entry. For instance, in Malaysia’s Federal Territories, where Joy used to reside and where her apostasy case might have been handled, the Islamic laws there (Islamic Administration Act) have no provision regulating the leaving of Islam, though apostasy is considered catastrophic for Malays. The reason for not highlighting the leaving of any religion is simple – when one ceases to believe, that religion doesn’t exist in him any more. Why beat the drum about it? Religious compulsion In spite of the fact that the name of Islam has been contaminated by contemporary violence around the globe, I still believe that main stream Islam is for peace. Similarly, I think main stream Islam accepts the concept of non-compulsion in religion as mentioned in the Quran. The question I want to ask Malaysian Muslims is: why is apostasy treated with such severity in this country, subjecting apostates to state punishment and social ostracisms, not excluding threat to lives? Aren’t Malaysian Muslims in main stream Islam? Article 11 The wordings in this article of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion to every person in this country are clear and unambiguous. There is no “if” or “but”. The only exception is the empowering of state legislatures to enact laws controlling or restricting the propagation of other religions to Muslims. So, I don’t see any reason why Malays and Muslims in this country should not enjoy the same protection of the Constitution to have their religious freedom. If indeed religious freedom is not meant for Muslims and Malays, wouldn’t our founding fathers and drafters of the Constitution have inserted words to this effect in this article? Discrimination Article 8 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or religion but makes exception to those within the ambit of “personal law”. Do the latter include religion? I leave it to people well versed in law to advance their opinions. The answer to this question is relevant to the Lina Joy case, in that a negative answer would mean that NRD could not discriminate against Muslims by forcing them to declare their religious status in their IC while non-Malays are exempted from doing so. And that means it is illegal for NRD to reject Joy’s request to have the word “Islam” deleted from her IC. “Religious precepts” and apostasy The Constitution, under Article 74 (2), empowers state legislature to enact Islamic laws as prescribed in Schedule 9, among which is one pertaining to punishment for breaching “religious precepts” but with no mention of apostasy. Is apostasy included in “religious precepts” for punishment? If it is, does it not contradict Article 11, rendering such legislation ultra vires the Constitution? If it is not, from where do the state legislatures derive its power to enact such apostasy laws? Amendment to Article 121 In a country where almost half the population is non-Muslims, creating a Syariah legal system which has the appearance (though not in fact) of a parallel system on par with the civil courts is an invitation for trouble. And that is what the 1998 amendment to Article 121 has done. Legal experts should be able to tell that these two systems are in fact not parallel (in fact they converge somewhere), neither are they on par. This is because, Syariah laws are enacted in the state assemblies, and the latter derived its law making power from the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. And who administers the Constitution? The civil courts, of course. So naturally when a Syariah law contradicts the Constitution, the civil court has to step in. So is the case when a Syariah court judgment conflicts with the Constitution – the civil court must over-rule the Syariah court judgment. If that is the case, why should there be so much confusion and turmoil arising from Muslim vs non-Muslim legal conflicts. The problem lies with the wording of the amendment as well as the timidity of Muslim judges to adjudicate over issues involving Islam. Take another look at the amendment, which is introduced through inserting the complete sub-clause (1A), which reads in full: “The courts referred to in Clause (1) (meaning the civil high courts – insertion mine) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.” Without qualifying the limitation to this division of jurisdiction, this sub-clause tends to mislead the reader who is not well versed in law into thinking that, Syariah courts have absolute jurisdiction over matters related to Islam even when their adjudication may come in conflict with non-Muslims’ constitutional rights or contradict fundamental provisions of the Constitution. Unfortunately, even learned judges in the civil courts who are Muslims (who dominate our judiciary) also fall into this trap, therein lies the fermenting ground that gives rise to incessant inter-religious legal conflicts. It is no coincidence that in the Lina Joy case, both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court return a 2 –1 verdict that splits along religious lines, with two Muslim judges voting against the lone non-Muslim judge. Though in this case, the split is influenced less by lack of legal knowledge than by religious sentiments. Islamisation The increasing phenomenon of Muslim judges abdicating their jurisdiction to Syariah courts, or lacking courage or intellect to deliver a verdict free of religion as called for by the Constitution can be traced to one major cause. And that is the trend of Islamisation that has set in since the early eighties. There are indications that the fundamentalists have rapidly gained the upper hand under the weak leadership of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, (who ironically has advocated his pet Islam Hadhari to reverse the fundamentalist trend), as evident by the spate of suppression of discourse and dialogue promoting religious harmony such as the proposed inter-faith commission, Article 11, and the most recent abrupt cancellation of the World Christian–Islam dialogue, held annually since 9/11 and participated by top scholars of both faiths. These suppressions bear the unmistakable hallmark of religious intolerance, and bode ill for the future of this multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious country. The demographic make-up of this country is such that if Malaysia were to survive as a nation it has to overcome its ever worrisome religious and racial fault lines. But that may be a bit of wishful thinking under a decadent political power that is hell bent to exploit racial and religious fissures for its own political survival. KIM QUEK is a retired accountant with an interest in current affairs.

Dialogue: Malaysia after Lina Joy

Please bring your friends for the religious dialogue.

“MALAYSIA after LINA JOY”

Date: Thursday, 7 June 2007

Time: 7.30pm

Venue: Armada Hotel, PJ

Speakers: Ambiga ( Bar Council) , Yusri Mohamad (ABIM), Khalid Ibrahim (PKR), Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng (DAP)

Admision free. All are welcome!

The problem with us …

Jun 6, 07 9:18am Malaysiakini

… is that we mix religion with politics. This is a true and fast recipe for chaos. Leave religion and politics alone. Besides, the religious authorities do not run this country. Our leaders do. On Dialogue on Lina Joy judgment Nirmala Naidu: I agree with Lina Joy. You can’t force someone to believe in something that they don’t believe in. The moment Lina Joy renounced Islam, she is no longer a Muslim. I believe one must be free to choose which religion to profess. And what’s this about BN losing Malay votes? That’s nonsense. BN is a component party. The problem with us is that we mix religion with politics. This is a true and fast recipe for chaos and anarchy. Leave religion and politics alone. Besides, the religious authorities do not run this country. Our leaders do. Time to think who were are voting for. Our leaders need a wake up call. Amita Chong: The Syariah courts have jurisdiction over Muslims and those who profess Islam as their religion. Lina Joy has embraced another religion other than Islam as her own and does not call herself a Muslim anymore. So why do the Syariah courts still apply to a non-Muslim? What verse in the Koran gives the Syariah courts the right to determine someone’s beliefs? Indhran: I am writing this letter to voice my dissatisfaction over the Lina Joy decision. Basically I’m stunned by the 2-1 decision. Why did one judge rule in favour of Joy? How is it the other two judges voted a ‘No’? Article 11 of the Federal Constitution says there is freedom of religion so why does Syariah law come into Lina Joy’s case? It’s unreal that Syariah law can bypass the Federal Constitution. So which is which? Is the Malaysian government following the Federal Constitution or Syariah law? The Joy decision clearly shows that Syariah laws can supercede the Constitution anytime if there’s a need for it. No wonder the government refuses to talk or let any one talk about Article 11. I believe it’s high time Malaysians change their mentality and how they look at things. Last but not least, the government won’t exist if we – the people – are not there. We are the government and we decide on the government. Until Malaysians understand this concept no one can save Malaysia.. Untuk Mu Malaysia: The Federal Court has directed Lina Joy to refer her case to the Syariah courts. How sure are they that Lina Joy won`t be sentenced to death for apostasy? This may well turn out to be the case as the Syariah courts may see it fit to set a precedent. On another matter, ask the Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans, Orang Asli, Bajaus, Thais, Japanese, Koreans, French, Germans, British, Javanese, etc whether they must profess a certain religion in order to belong to their own race For example, must a Korean profess a certain religion so that he is a Korean? Many races in the world are not defined by religion. Race is race, religion is religion. For example, we have Muslim Chinese, Christian Chinese, Buddhist Chinese, Taoist Chinese, atheist Chinese and so on. Balanced: Lina Joy is at a crossroads where there seems to be a huge chasm into which all of us are peering down into. The most important thing then is to keep one’s balance. The civil courts could not possibly have come to any other conclusion in the interest of this nation. Dr Mazeni Alwi’s analysis would be taken with a pinch of salt in places like Turkey, Egypt and even Indonesia and Joy had a firm advocate in Judge Richard Malanjum. That was the balance in the decision if read between the lines. It would be extremely unwise for any party to take either a triumphant view or an imperialist view of the decision. Therein lies Mazeni’s sense of balance. There is enough hatred in this world to last us till the Second Coming. We need not add to this devil’s cauldron. There are many, many of our Muslim brethren who may or may not agree with the decision but nonetheless feel deeply for Joy. I fully trust the wisdom of the prime minister; he knows what it is like to be in the wilderness and yet be able to come came back and put this country right. Concerned Non-Economist: I cannot understand the fuss over this Lina Joy. A Hindu cannot renounce his religion in public in India and a Catholic cannot renounce his faith in Italy. Freedom of religion does not mean that you can renounce your faith in public. It means that you can practice your faith freely. In the Malaysian context, it is important to keep emotions in check with the emphasis that we are free to practice our religion but we cannot preach it to others. Tu Vong: I am concerned as a Malaysian citizen. As a result of the verdict on the Lina Joy case, I believe the world is watching or keeping an eye on Malaysia. I have read many articles regarding the Lina Joy case and I came to realise that people are watching. After reading the various articles, I came to this conclusion on what they think about our beloved country Malaysia. Firstly, the decision makes the Malaysian constitution a laughing stock among all nations on the face of this earth. Secondly, the Islam Hadhari which our prime minister introduced is now showing its ugly face after all. My sincere hope and appeal to all Malaysians regardless of our religious beliefs is to come to your senses and wake up and think of the implications as a result of the decision. Voice out your concern via e-mails to our prime minister. Previous Vox Populi

Counsel’s explanation on the Lina Joy case

Lina Joy, The Decision (Counsel’s Explanation)

Category: General

Posted by: Raja Petra

www.wanzafran.com

Islam has been the law of the Malay Peninsula since 1136, ever since the Hindu Sultan of Kedah, Merong Maha Wangsa converted to Islam and assumed the Muslim name of Sultan Muzaffar Shah. Before Merdeka in 1957, Islam was the official religion of all the Malay states. What the Constitution did was to state that Islam becomes “the religion of the Federation”, by virtue of Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution.

The British in their treaties with the Malay rulers had never interfered with the Rulers’ sovereignty over Muslim matters and Malay custom. The British came to the Malay Peninsula via Penang in 1786 and had gradually introduced their laws – mostly commercial laws. But they have not encroached upon Islamic laws. (In fact, when a British Resident (James Birch) in the 19th century tried to interfere with the powers of the Sultan over Muslim matters in Perak, the Resident was killed.)

Please understand that in the Lina Joy case the Federal Court does not say that Lina Joy cannot leave Islam. The Court merely says: Lina will have to go to a Syariah court if she wants to leave the Religion of Islam – this is a requirement of Article 121 (1A) of the Constitution. She can do this in her place of domicile – i.e. the state where she permanently resides. If she resides in Wilayah Persekutuan, then she has to go the Syariah High Court in Kuala Lumpur to make her application.

The right to profess and practise one’s religion in Article 11 (1) of the Constitution is interpreted differently for Muslims and non-Muslims for the simple reason that Islam is not only a faith but also a law. The Muslims have their own family laws (personal laws).

The right of equality in Article 8 of the Constitution is subject to personal law. When Lina wanted the word “Islam” to be deleted, she was to all intents and purposes asking the National Registration Department (NRD) to accept her statement on her legal (religious) status. This the NRD could not do. That is why they wanted her to acquire a declaration from the Syariah court. On the other hand if a non-Muslim wants to change his name to reflect his new religion (a non-Islamic religion) in the NRD records (not in the IC) the NRD cannot refuse; that would be illegal under the law.

The only communities that have their own personal laws in Malaysia are the Muslims of Peninsula Malaysia, and Bumiputras of Sabah & Sarawak (this expression includes Muslims). Other non-Muslims in Malaysia have no personal laws; they share the civil laws on family matters – these laws are based on English law. Examples are the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, the Wills Act, the Distribution Act, the Guardianship of Infants Act. For Muslims, they have their own body of laws, even if some are still uncodified in Malaysia.

Whether a person such as Lina will succeed or not in the Syariah court will depend on the grounds that she gives to the Court i.e. she will have to state why she is leaving the religion. Although Wilayah Persekutuan does not have specific provisions in the Islamic Administration Act on how to leave the religion, it does not mean that the Court cannot go through the body of Muslim jurisprudence in order resolve her problem.

In the state of Negeri Sembilan, there are special provisions for Muslims to leave Islam. The Court may impose counseling on the would-be apostate for a certain period until the Court is able to satisfy itself that there is no hope for the applicant to return to Islam. Once the court declares that she is an apostate, she cannot be charged for any offence which other Muslims are subject to. If she is charged, she can raise her defence under Article 11 (1) of the Constitution. If she was originally a Malay, she will lose this status by virtue of Article 160 of the Constitution.

Negeri Sembilan has recorded the highest number of applications to leave Islam. Of the 89 applications made between 1984 and 2003, 16 applications were allowed, 29 applications were dismissed and 39 postponed. In 2005, there were 5 successful applications; in 2006 (until August) there were 3 successful applications. This is based on a study carried out by two legal scholars; their article was published in a journal of the University of London early this year.

The application by a person to leave Islam is a civil suit/proceeding and not a criminal proceeding. No one will be charged under Islamic criminal law for making such an application. Federal Court judge Justice Malanjun (a Kadazan Christian from Sabah) is misled for saying in the Lina Joy case that a person will incriminate himself and can be charged for a criminal offence if he applies to leave Islam in a Syariah court.

Under the Malaysian Constitution, Syariah courts cannot impose punishments on convicted offenders beyond 3 years in jail, a RM 5,000/- fine or 6 strokes of the cane. (Lawyers call this the 3-5-6 rule.) Caning is Islam is humane – it is akin to caning in school – quite unlike the cane punishment imposed in Malaysian criminal courts – the latter is regarded by human rights advocates as torture.

As to the fact that some states have enacted Islamic laws making apostasy a crime, these laws are seldom enforced. State Islamic criminal laws that are enforced are often those relating to deviant teachings, adultery, sodomy, eating in public during the fasting month, etc. But they are subject to the 3-5-6 rule.

Lina Joy: What is freedom of religion?

I find Nathaniel Tan’s letter to editor (Malaysiakini) useful in understanding the issue of Lina Joy. I am reproducing it here for further discussion.I have, in my hands, a few cases of Muslim converts who wish to return to their previous religion. In that sense, their cases are slightly different from Lina who has renounced Islam ( a Malay who’s born as a Muslim). In my mind, I think they should be allowed to go back to their original religion.Even for Lina Joy, I really do not see the logic and reason to force her to stay as a Muslim. It’s pointless to keep a Muslim who has changed to other faith in his or her heart. I hold the the view that Lina should proceed to Syariah Courts to seek the permission to leave Islam. But to resolve cases similar to Lina in future, the Government must reform the Islam institutions in the country so that these institutions could handle such cases professionally. We do not need the courts to decide on conversion of religion, whether it’s Islam or other religions.But I do understand the strong feelings of some of my Muslim brothers and sisters. I know exactly where they were coming from.To them, they cannot accept a Muslim to leave Islam more of the fear factor (but you may argue that their fear was unfounded)rather than holding the view that Islam is a more superior religion. Yes, I do know that there were some who hold an extreme view that certain religion is more superior than other religion. But we do not have to agree with them. I wish to tell all my Muslim brothers and sisters that there ’s really no point to keep a Muslim if he or she has decided to embrace another religion. My reasons are simply these: 1. All religions share the same root. We are all children of Abraham. All religions is ONE. 2. There’s no such thing as a superior religion. 3.Other Muslims would not leave Islam just because Lina Joy was allowed to leave Islam. 4. Freedom of religion should include freedom to join and freedom to leave a particular religion. 5.Many have left Islam in the past but more have embraced Islam at the same time. 6.Like other religions, Islam is a good religion. 7. People who have left Islam without condemning it should not be seen as apostles. 8. Only people who condemn the religion (Muslim or Non-Muslim) could be considered as apostles (of Islam) and this must not be allowed in this country. No one should condemn or belittle other’s religion. 9. Malaysia, as a multi-religious society, needs freedom of religion for real harmony and peace among the peoples of different faith. The Prime Minister’s response on the Lina Joy’s case is pathetic. He just want to wash his hands and pretend that he has got nothing to do with it. He has once again failed to carry out his duty and responsibility as the prime minister of this country. I hope bloggers could also give their views on this important issue. Please leave your comments with Colour-blind. BTW, DAP will be holding a forum to discuss the case on 7 June 2007 in Petaling Jaya. Watch this blog closely for further details. Lina Joy: Let’s not leap to polemics

Nathaniel Tan May 31, 07 2:58pm Malaysiakini

I refer to the malaysiakini report No joy for Lina.We can expect a lot of emotional responses to the recent ruling involving Lina Joy. In navigating the understandable amount of passion surrounding this issue, it is perhaps worth ensuring that the details of this judgement are properly understood for what they are.Many are likely to say that this is the death of freedom in religion in Malaysia, because Lina Joy was denied of her right to convert. A closer look reveals a slightly more textured landscape. By way of brief chronology: Lina was a Muslim who renounced Islam. She went to the National Registration Department (NRD) to have the religion on her MyKad and on record changed. The NRD said: ‘For us to change the religion on your MyKad, we need a certificate from the Syariah Court stating that you have indeed renounced Islam’. Yesterday, the Federal Court upheld the ruling of the NRD. It is important to realise that technically and theoretically (if nothing else), the road is still open for Lina to go to the Syariah courts, apply for recognition of her decision to renounce Islam, obtain it and live happily ever after. Some make the argument, clearly not entirely without merit, that since Lina has renounced Islam, she should not in any way, shape or form have to submit herself to the jurisdiction of the Syariah under any circumstances as this would be subjecting a non-Muslim to Muslim laws. Others yet (again, perhaps understandably) are extremely cynical about the chances of the Syariah courts actually granting such a controversial recognition of apostasy. The hardcore religious, after all, are likely to fear the ripple effect this may cause – a wave of mass apostasy being the biggest fear (founded or unfounded) of all. Some might even see a political angle to this – where the ruling powers refuse to take any steps that would cost them Malay votes in a time where the non-Malay votes are swinging strongly against the government. A ‘miracle’ decision by the Syariah court – should Lina decide to apply there – to allow her renunciation might be a relatively successful compromise. It would appease some of the more religious parties who hold the Syariah in such high esteem, and espouse its ability to dispense justice fairly to non-Muslims (as in their much touted case of Nyonya Tahir), while essentially granting Lina the fundamental right to convert. In any case, it would be extremely mature of us to see the judgement for what it is and not be too quick to condemn it for what it is not (or what it isn’t yet). If we are to criticise it, which is our inherent right, let us be clear on what we are debating, rather than leap to polemics.

PM: Don’t be emotional over Joy decision

May 31, 07 11:31pm Malaysiakini

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today urged for an open mind and rational thinking from everyone over the recent decision in Lina Joy’s case.“If we allow ourselves to be overcome by emotion, we will begin to have all kinds of thoughts; we will have suspicions about this and that,” he was quoted as saying in Bernama. He also said that his government had played no role or brought any influence on the decision of the Federal Court. “That is the decision of the court; I don’t question them,” he said after chairing an Umno Supreme Council meeting today. Yesterday, the highest court in the country ruled on a 2-1 majority to dismiss Lina’s appeal to to have the word “Islam” removed from her identity card. Lina, 43, had claimed to have renounced Islam to embrace Christianity 17 years ago. The court however ruled that Lina had to obtain a certificate of apostasy from the Syariah Court before the National Registration Department could drop the word “Islam” from her identity card. Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Federal Court Judge Alauddin Mohd Sherif dismissed her appeal while Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum dissented. No religious divide Asked if the Federal Court decision would cause a religious divide in the country, Abdullah said: “I don’t think there is a divide although the discussion on religion becomes more widespread.” Bernama also reported that at the press conference, Abdullah also dismissed a suggestion from a foreign journalist that Islamic law was now above the Federal Constitution in the country. “There is no such thing (of Islamic law being above the Federal Constitution). The Federal Constitution is the Federal Constitution. “There is a set of laws we have to follow. It is something that we have to follow, that’s all,” he said.

A sad ruling for freedom of religion in Malaysia

It’s no joy for Lina. It’s also no joy for Ms Chan, no joy for Ms Wong, no joy for all Malaysians who cherish freedom of religion. My deep sympathy with Lina and all others who were affected by the sad ruling. Where can you go if you cannot get justice from the highest courts in our land? No joy for Lina

May 30, 07 11:18am Malaysiakini

Lina Joy’s long wait for her conversion to Christianity to be recognised by law is over – the Federal Court ruled today that she remains a Muslim and her religious status will not be removed from her identity card.Delivering the judgment to a packed gallery this morning in Putrajaya, Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim ruled that jurisdiction remains with the Syariah court.The chief justice stated that he concurred with the majority decision – Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff who was the last to read his judgment agreed with Ahmad Fairuz’s findings. Justice Richard Malanjun gave a dissenting judgment. The case hinged on a decision by the National Registration Department not to remove the word ‘Islam’ from Lina’s MyKad. The department said it needed a syariah court order certifying her renouncement from Islam before it could make the change. The three questions Following this, Lina filed a suit against the NRD director-general, the government and the Federal Territory Religious Council in 2001. After losing at both the High Court and Court of Appeal, the matter finally came to the Federal Court with these three questions: 1. Was the NRD entitled to require a person to produce a certificate or a declaration or an order from the syariah court before deleting “Islam” from his or her identity card; 2. Did the NRD correctly construe its powers under the National Registration Regulations 1990 when it imposed the above requirement, which is not expressly provided for in the regulations?; and 3. Was the landmark case Soon Singh vs Perkim Kedah – which held that syariah courts have the authority over the civil courts to hear cases of Muslims renouncing Islam – correctly decided? Delivering the much-awaited judgment today, Ahmad Fairuz and Alauddin answered in the positive to all these three questions. Richard however disagreed, stating that the NRD had no statutory duty to decide on apostasy. Ahmad Fairuz said the NRD, which is in charge of issuing identity cards, had the right to demand that a syariah court certify Lina’s conversion. “On the question that the National Registration Department has the right to demand a certification from the Islamic court that confirms the appellant’s renunciation of Islam, my answer is that NRD has the right,” he said. “The appeal has been rejected with cause,” he added. Shouts of Allahuakbar A large section of the 300-strong crowd waiting outside recited the tahlil or read the Quran while waiting for the decision. When the news reached them, they shouted Allahuakbar – their reaction resounded through the Palace of Justice. Born to Malay parents, Joy, 43, whose Muslim name was Azlina Jailani, converted to Christianity in 1998. [Full report to follow]

Dinner: Reclaim PJ Parliamentary and State seats

Congratulations to the PJ Action Team for the successful dinner held in Sg Way (Seri Setia) a while ago.

Sec Gen Lim Guan Eng and deputy sec gen Chong Eng came all the way from Bukit Mertajam and Kota Melaka respectively to give the potential candidates in PJ their greatest support.

Other speakers tonight include Lau Weng San (PJ Action Team Chairman), Ean Yong Hian Wah (Selangor state chairman), Liew Ching Tong ( DAPSY leader), Thomas Goh ( PJ Action Team Treasurer), Tony Pua ( Economic Advisor to Sec Gen DAP), Rama ( Chairman of Kg Tun Razak ).

In my speech, I criticised the MCA local elected reps for not helping the residents and villagers. I also explained what has happened to my OSA case ( no fruther development) and the compensation I won from the case against the former IGP some six months ago was still not paid to me.

I did an opinion poll on the spot and to our delight, majority of the supporters said Yes to opposition cooperation; only 3 persons said No. I have no time to ask them why but I did use the opportunity to explain why we should get the opposition parties to work together.

In my speech, I explained why DAP leaders believe that the coming GE will fall in November this year ( NOV 25, to be more precise) or latest by March 2008. 

I also expressed my deep regret that the voters who lived in Jalan 4 and Jalan 18, Sg Way were fooled by Chew Mei Fun and Dr Wong Sai Hau in the 2004 GE. They were promised land titles immediately after the GE but guess what, their homes were all demolished by the authority in 2006. Both Chew and Wong did not even give it a fight. Not only that, they even failed to get the rightful compensation for many of them: No monthly rental subsidy of RM120 per family. No transport/ moving cost subsidy. No homes for second family…

But it’s too late for the residents who have trusted Chew and Wong. Chew has even gotten a promotion after the 2004 GE. There’s nothing the villagers can do except for voting against the two in the coming general elections.

Other speaker touched on issues such as mother tongue education, quality of tertiary education, freedom of religion, the importance of voters registration, rampant corruption and abuse of powers, increasing crime rates in PJ and Selangor, the restructuring of police force to fight crimes, the reasons for strengthening the DAP and other opposition parties, the NEP and income divide, the sexist Umno MPs ( we played the video clips of the relevant Parliamentary seating) and what should we expect  from a state assemblyman and Member of Parliament.

Everyone in the audience agrees with DAP speakers that Malaysia is not a better place to live after Abdullah has taken over from Dr Mahathir. We were all greatly disappoineted with the performance of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

World Vision: Help the poor all over the world

This is an interview done by Guy Kawasaki (blog.guykawasaki.com). Trust me. You ‘ll like it. I must thank Ming Ern for sending this article to me.

  

Ten (or so) Questions with Richard Stearns, President of World Vision

Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision. This organization is a “Christian relief and development organization dedicated to helping children and their communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty.”

Stearns holds a bachelor’s degree from Cornell University and an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. From 1977 to 1985, he held various roles with Parker Brothers Games, culminating in his appointment as president in 1984. In 1985, he became a vice president at The Franklin Mint, then joined Lenox in 1987 as president of Lenox Collections. In 1995, Stearns was named president and chief executive officer of Lenox Inc., overseeing $500 million in annual sales. He joined World Vision as president in 1998.

1. Question: How much money does World Vision raise every year?Answer: Worldwide, World Vision raises about $2 billion annually; the U.S. office, which I head up, raises about half of the total.
2. Question: Is this the 80/20 rule where twenty percent of the people send in eighty percent of the money or are donations more spread out?Answer: World Vision’s strength is that we are supported by hundreds of thousands of faithful people who give us about a dollar a day by sponsoring children. Our “major donors” account for less than five percent of our total income. Also, for a non-profit, we have quite a diversified portfolio of revenue. Just over forty percent is cash from private citizens; thirty percent is government grants in food and cash; and about thirty percent are products donated from corporation–what we call “gifts-in-kind.”
3. Question: You had a nearly seven-figure salary, a corporate Jaguar, moved and took a seventy-five percent cut in pay. Why did you leave the corporate sector in 1998 after twenty-three years to run an international Christian humanitarian organization?Answer: It wasn’t something I planned. At the time, I didn’t even want the job. I had been a donor to World Vision for fifteen years when, through a long series of circumstances, I was approached by World Vision, interviewed and offered the position. As a committed Christian, I felt I couldn’t say no. When God gives you an opportunity to serve, you obey. I had “talked the talk” of being a Christian for many years, now I needed to “walk the walk.” It has turned out to be the greatest privilege of my life to serve the poorest of the poor in Christ’s name.
4. Question: What was the biggest adjustment to your new role?Answer: There have been lots of adjustments. Business travel now means getting shots and medicine for yellow fever, malaria, typhoid and hepatitis. I used to travel to London, Paris and Milan, sharing $1,000 dinners with the heads of other luxury goods companies. Now I’m visiting desperate people in places like Ethiopia, India, Peru and Uganda. I’m more likely to be visiting garbage dumps, brothels, and refugee camps than five-star hotels.
5. Question: What are the greatest differences and similarities between running a major corporation and running a large non-profit?Answer: They are both businesses with revenues, expenses, and a bottom line. Both have marketing, sales, finance, IT, HR, strategy, etc. Perhaps the biggest difference is that our bottom line is changed lives–money is simply a means to that end. Our shareholders are the poor, and our donors who make our work possible.
6. Question:Are you trying to end poverty or evangelize Christianity?Answer: As a Christian organization, we are motivated by our commitment to Christ to love our neighbors and care for the less fortunate. That’s why we do what we do. We don’t proselytize. We do not force our religious beliefs on anyone, and we don’t discriminate in our delivery of aid in any way. If the people we serve want to know why we are there, we tell them. St. Francis once said: “Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” Love put into action is a compelling and attractive worldview.
7. Question:How can people who do not want to radically change their lives make a difference in the lives of the poor?Answer:To really change the world, values must change. Consider the civil rights movement. Racial discrimination was once openly accepted in the United States. Today it is unacceptable to our mainstream culture. Very few of us are civil rights activists, but we let our values speak in our work places, our schools and to our elected officials.Today, we live in a world that tolerates extreme poverty much like racism was tolerated fifty-plus years ago. We can all become people determined to do something to change the world. We can speak up, we can volunteer and we can give. Ending extreme poverty will take money, political and moral will, and a shift in our value system. When enough ordinary people embrace these issues, things will begin to change. Margaret Mead once said: “Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
8. Question: In the eyes of God, do you think someone who goes to Africa and helps AIDS victims is better or worse than someone who writes a check every month?Answer:I can’t speak for God, but I believe God is pleased whenever anyone does something out of love to help the downtrodden. Hands, hearts, and checkbooks are all vital. If we all just did a little–our part–we could change the world.
9. Question:What keeps you awake at night as the CEO of World Vision?Answer:If I thought every moment about the incredible suffering around the world I would never sleep. I worry about keeping the covenant we have with the poor and with our donors. It is a very sacred responsibility.
10. Question: What are biggest hurdles to alleviating poverty?Answer:One word: apathy. The very frustrating part is that we actually have the knowledge and the ability to end most extreme poverty. The world just doesn’t care enough to do it. The U.S. government has spent more than $400 billion on the war in Iraq to date.Our annual humanitarian assistance budget for the whole world is only about $21 billion. We spend less than a half percent of our federal budget on humanitarian assistance and less than two percent of private charitable giving goes to international causes. People and governments make choices based on their priorities. Poverty is still not a high priority for the world.
11. Question: What’s the biggest obstacle to get rich people to care about poor people?Answer: The obstacle is that poverty is often not personal. If your next-door neighbor’s child was dying and you could save her for $100, you wouldn’t think twice. But a child 10,000 miles away whom you have never met, that’s just different.About 29,000 kids die every day of preventable causes–29,000! These kids have names and faces, hopes and dreams. Their parents love them as much as we love our kids. We’ve got to make poverty personal. Stalin once said: “A million deaths is a statistic, one death is a tragedy.” We must try to see the face of the one child.
12. Question: Why is World Vision so successful at fund raising?Answer: The real secret of our fundraising is the notion of child sponsorship. We allow people to see the face of that one child – we make that child real to them. It is very difficult to raise money for poverty eradication – much easier to raise money to help a specific child. It makes it personal.Of course we also have fiendishly clever and committed marketing people who really care about their cause. We also represent an amazingly compelling selling proposition: Where else can you spend your money and know that you may have saved a life, or changed the world for the better?
13. Question: How has technology affected World Vision’s work?Answer: Not enough. I think we have just scratched the surface in using technology and the Internet to change the values of Americans and to raise money for our cause. Technology can make this abstract and far away notion of global poverty real. We can take you straight to Africa via the web and let you meet your sponsored child. We can show you the village celebration when a drilling rig strikes clean water for the first time, or a clinic or school is dedicated. We are beginning to experiment with techniques to bring this stuff to life for people. Maybe some of your readers could help us.
14. Question: What advice would you give to someone reading this who is considering leaving a corporate job to “change the world?”Answer:There’s a tendency among those uninformed about global poverty to say, “This ain’t rocket science. People are hungry; let’s feed them.” What they don’t realize is that the deeper you get into relief and development, you realize it really is rocket science. Problems like poverty, disease and hunger are humanity’s most intractable problems. They haven’t been solved in 5,000 years, and they won’t be solved overnight.We need to systematically address a wide range of social, environmental, cultural, political, and religious issues. But the good news is that we do have the answers. Now, we just need the resolve to make poverty reduction a priority and persevere until we see results. We can fix this; we really can.
15. Question: Do the efforts of rock stars and movie stars really help alleviate poverty and AIDS or are these people just seeking more publicity to sell albums?Answer: They make a difference. Given the number of celebrities in our world it is actually shocking that so few of them are using their celebrity to make a difference. Bono is amazing. He has perhaps done more for the poor than anyone in the last century. I call him “Martin Luther Bono” because he has really been the leader of our movement.Bill and Melinda Gates are changing the global landscape for health and development. The media rarely want to talk to me about poverty, but many reporters gush at the chance to talk with Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, or Oprah. That’s just the way it is. I welcome celebrities who really want to make a difference.
16. Question: How do you want World Vision to be perceived twenty-five years from now?Answer: I want World Vision to be the best at what we do. There is too much at stake to be anything less. If it could be said of us that we gave the poor a voice, that we provoked the rich and the powerful to action and that we gave hope to people trapped in hopelessness, I would be deeply gratified. My favorite Bible passage is from the book of Job. It would make a wonderful epitaph for World Vision:
    

    Whoever heard me spoke well of me, and those who saw me commended me, because I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him.

    The man who was dying blessed me; I made the widow’s heart sing.
    I put on righteousness as my clothing; justice was my robe and my turban.
    I was eyes to the blind and feet to the lame.
    I was a father to the needy; I took up the case of the stranger.
    I broke the fangs of the wicked; and snatched the victims from their teeth.

Is that Islam Hadhari, Mr AAB?

Islam is Islam; but AAB thinks there’s a different brand of Islam called Islam Hadhari. What is Islam Hadhari then? Please ask AAB and see whether he could give you a good explanation. But judging from what he has allowed to take place in Malaysia (blocking discussion on interfaith, providing no solution to religious divide that caused disruptions to families etc), there was no substance in what he has been preaching. He doesn’t seem to know the importance of maintaining religious harmony in a plural society like Malaysia. I got an impression that the man does not know what he was talking about. No? Body blow to claim of tolerance

Baradan Kuppusamy May 21, 07 11:45am Malaysiakini

Malaysia’s 11th hour cancellation of an international interfaith conference between Islam and Christianity is a major blow to the country’s image as a tolerant multi-ethnic nation, opposition political leaders and civil society critics said.Even government officials expressed shock at the sudden cancellation of the ‘Building Bridges’ seminar which was set up in the wake of the Sept 11, 2001 aerial attacks on US cities. Founded, supported and organised by the Anglican Church, the seminar, sixth in an annual series under the theme, ‘Humanity in Context: Christian and Muslim Perspectives’, brings together the finest minds in the Christian and Islamic worlds.  The seminar has come to be seen as an opportunity to discuss issues of mutual interest like the spiralling hate among communities, the damage wreaked by the US-led ‘War on Terror’ and ways to promote inter-religious understanding and peace. Each year, it brings together senior scholars from both major faiths in either a Christian or a Muslim host country. Qatar and Bosnia Herzegovina have hosted this prestigious event. Distinguished Muslim scholars and academicians such as the late Zaki Badawi, Mustafa Ceric, Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli, Mustansir Mir, Azyumardi Azra and Tariq Ramadan have all participated in previous dialogues. This year’s event was to have been held between May 7 and 11 in Kuala Lumpur but, one week before it was to begin, the government told the organisers that it “cannot support the conference because it was not opportune” to hold the seminar (in Malaysia) this year. The conference was to coincide with the visit to Malaysia of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to consecrate a new bishop. “The last minute cancellation makes a mockery of the government’s claims of being a moderate Muslim administration. As a Muslim, I am embarrassed by the action of the Malaysian government,” opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim told IPS. “There are many common issues and values that Muslims and Christians share. A dialogue can enable us to quell the tensions that arise from our differences. Islam has always enjoined Muslims to engage in dialogue with other religions, from the Abbasids in Baghdad to the Andalucians in Cordoba.” Families torn apart The Council of Churches of Malaysia also expressed shock at the decision which comes in the wake of rising tension between Muslims and non-Muslims over intrusion of Islamic Syariah law into secular areas. Families have been torn apart, children taken away from parents and wives virtually abducted on the ground that one party is a Muslim and therefore not permitted to marry, live with or cohabit with persons of other religions. In March Islamic officials forcibly separated a Hindu from his Muslim wife of 21 years, and their six children. He won custody of his children, but the couple was barred from living together because he is a Hindu and she a Muslim. The court however gave her “full visiting rights”. In January, a Muslim woman living with a Hindu as his wife, was arrested and sent for rehabilitation, separating her from her Hindu husband. Her baby daughter was also seized, and handed over to her Muslim mother. This month, a Hindu truck driver Magendran Sababathy, 25, filed a suit alleging that Islamic authorities had illegally detained his Muslim wife. He said Islamic officials raided the couple’s home on April 28 and took away his three-year old daughter telling him that his marriage under Hindu rites is illegal. “All these cases are disturbing and reflect the rising Islamisation in the country, regardless of the price to national unity and interracial harmony,” said Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang. “The secular basis of the constitution is being eroded relentlessly. Many people beginning to feel helpless.” Under Syariah law anyone marrying a Muslim must convert to Islam and anyone born into a Muslim family cannot legally convert to another faith. Rights activists say that interfaith dialogue is all the more urgent because of the frequency of such cases. However, the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, stampeded by strong opposition from conservative Muslims, has stopped a series of dialogues initiated last year by human rights activists grouped under a coalition called Article 11. Civil society leaders now fear that opposition from conservative Muslims could be behind the reason why a government that initially supported the conference later pulled out. The Times of London on May 11 quoted Canon Guy Wilkinson, the Archbishop’s secretary for interfaith relations, as saying that some nine months had gone into organising the Malaysia conference. “The situation (in Malaysia) is delicate. A whole series of inter-religious cases are in front of the constitutional court and awaiting judgment. The view was that it would be better not to have an international gathering of Muslims and Christians at the moment in that context,” he said. One potentially explosive case is that of a Muslim woman Azalina Jailani, who converted to Christianity. Renamed Lina Joy, she has filed an appeal to have the word ‘Islam’ removed from her identity card. She wants a declaration that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution gives the right to convert to another religion. However Malays, invariably all Muslims, consider apostasy as a cardinal sin that merits the death sentence. Islamic clerics say if Malays are allowed to leave Islam it would open the floodgates. “That would be the end of the Malay race,” a prominent cleric said over national television recently. Islam is the official state religion and Muslims are subject to a mix of Syariah and civil laws. Non-Muslims who make up about 40 percent of the population of 26 million are governed solely by civil law on all matters. Blow to moderate Islam In was under this complex background and rising inter-ethnic tensions that the conference was cancelled. Instead of lowering tension, a furious round of criticism has begun against Malaysia in the local and international media and on the Internet. Under intense pressure, Abdullah backtracked but rejected speculation that the government had opposed the meeting because of religious sensitivities. He said the conference was only “postponed not cancelled”. While he suggested holding the conference in Malaysia at a later date, organisers are already looking for an alternative host. The cancellation is a blow to Abdullah’s own moderate brand of Islamic thought called Islam Hadhari or ‘civilisational Islam’ that he proclaimed in 2003 to keep the lid on rising orthodoxy which is feared is gaining ground within the Muslim majority. Initially, a year ago, when organisers approached him, he was enthusiastic and saw it as the perfect platform to promote his Islam Hadhari, officials said. But events over the year have changed the Malay-Muslim perception of Christianity, of interfaith dialogue and of religious tolerance. Civil society leaders, including moderate Muslims who had looked to Abdullah to show the way, now worry whether the divided between Muslim and others is now beyond repair. Prominent Malaysian Christian pastor Hermen Shastri said: “We need to pursue interfaith dialogue to foster and build mutual respect and understanding between the world’s religions.” Sisters in Islam, a Muslim feminist group, said it was time the government showed political will and uphold and safeguard the fundamental liberties of its citizens, including the freedom of religion as envisaged by the Quran, and as reflected in the Federal Constitution and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “The search for solutions to these challenges (religious divide) cannot be conducted in ways that violate the legitimate rights of all Malaysians,” said Sisters in Islam. “We also call on fellow Muslims to display the beauty, compassion, peace and wisdom of God’s message for it is a disservice to Islam that we merely stand by and watch the agony of families torn apart.”- IPS

NiK Aziz: Jais has no rights to split Hindu family

Tok Guru Nik Aziz, the Menteri Besar of Kelantan and also the spiritual leader of Pas , was said to have criticised JAIS for splitting up the P. Marimuthu’s family in Ulu Yam. It was reported that he has also criticised Sabah Umno for  stopping the construction of the Mazhu statue in Kudat.

I received these two pieces of ‘unconfirmed’ news from a Singaporean journalist. Strangely, none of the Malaysian newspapers have reported such news until today.

I would not be surprised if Nik Azizi has actually said these. Pas may be conservative in certain matters but Kelantan under the rule of Pas/ Nik Aziz has been more liberal than Umno in many matters concerning the welfare and rights of Non-Muslims. For instance, only in Kelantan you could find the largest sitting/sleeping Buddha statues, the mosque with Chinese traditional architecture, the sales of pork in open-air markets et cetera.

And unlike in Selangor, Melaka, Negri Sembilan, Penang, Kedah and Perak which were all under the ruling Umno-led BN coalition, the destruction of religious statues, temples, churches or kuils were unheard of in Kelantan.

Today, 57 NGOs and political parties including DAP issued a joint-statement on family and religion. Malaysiakini has the story…国内信仰纷争分裂家庭案日增 57团体疾呼人道须凌驾政治！

07年5月15日 下午3:45 Malaysiakini:

57个公民团体今日联署声名，促请关注国内一连串宗教信仰纠纷分裂家庭案日增的事件，不但威胁我国的多元文化、宗教与种族社会安宁，也危害婚姻与家庭体系。有关的联署团体涵盖面非常多元，涵盖了不同族群以及多元性质的民间组织，主要有人权、宗教、妇女、华团、印裔团体、社区、工会、政党、学术机构、新闻自由、青年、大专等组织。这项联署运动是由隆雪华堂民权委员会和青年团、大马人民之声(SUARAM)、妇女发展组织Women’s Development Collective (WDC)所发起，并由隆雪华堂民权委员会主席谢春荣，隆雪华堂青年团团长陈松林，大马人民之声执行总监叶瑞生，妇女发展组织执行总监玛丽亚陈阿都拉（Maria Chin Abdullah）所发出。 宗教局剥夺母亲抚养权 它们指出很不幸的，因宗教当局的政策与举措之故，已故登山英雄慕地（M Moorthy，左图）与已故拉雅班（A. Rayappan）的家属被迫承受难以想象的痛苦、忧虑与压力。数个政府单位利用法律缺陷，剥削像莎玛拉（S Shamala）以及苏芭丝妮（R. Subashini）这些母亲对自己孩子的抚养权，只因为她们离异的丈夫皈依了伊斯兰教。同样的，像丽娜佐尔（Lina Joy）这些想改变宗教信仰的人士，则因为一些掌权者根据狭隘的法律以及宗教教义诠释所采取的恣意决定，以致无权与自己心爱的人结合。 “最近发生另一件令人震惊的事。现年二十九岁的丽华蒂玛苏赛（Revathi Masoosai）（或名西蒂法迪玛，Siti Fatimah ）与其丈夫苏烈西威拉班（S. Veerapan）及十五个月大的女儿被马六甲宗教官员强行拆散（右图）。丽华蒂的父母是穆斯林，但被祖母以兴都教徒方式抚养成人，并与一名兴度教徒结婚。最初，她被送到宗教改造中心一百天，随后马六甲回教法庭裁定她必须再留在宗教改造中心八十天。丽华蒂的丈夫也失去了女儿的抚养权，而被判予丽华蒂的穆斯林母亲。” 丽华蒂案家庭被强行拆散 “近期发生连串类似丽华蒂个案的事件，更令我们非常忧心。我们失望地发现我们这个多元族群与宗教的社会，竟然不允许不同信仰的家庭成员融洽地生活在一起。近日媒体报导了另一个因宗教局介入而导致家庭分离的个案。雪兰莪州宗教局禁止娜吉拉法温莉(Najeera Farvinli Mohammed Jalali)与其丈夫马根兰萨巴迪（Magendran Sabathy）生活在一起。因为她是个穆斯林，而他们的兴都教婚姻被判无效。在另一起事件中，莱玛比比（Raimah Bibi） 不得不与其丈夫马里慕都（P Marimuthu ）和六个孩子分离，因为穆斯林与非穆斯林的婚姻不为法律所容。” 悲剧源自国家不当制裁举措 联署文告指出，人道精神必须凌驾政治。家庭内部为了个人安宁、和谐以及孩子所作的决定，必须受到尊重。所有关心社会的马来西亚人都应该站起来与其他思想进步的同胞和团体一起采取适当的政治及法律行动，阻止类似上述的悲剧继续发生。这些悲剧明显是因国家不当制裁举措所造成的。 “因此，我们赞同霹雳州皇储拉惹纳兹林殿下（HRH Raja Nazrin Shah）于4月3日在全国年轻律师委员会与公共政策研究中心联办的“青年圆桌论坛：大马国民团结与发展”研讨会上所发表的谈话。他认为，马来西亚是属于所有公民的，不论其族群、宗教与祖源地是什么。国族营造应该奠基于命运与目的共同体的认识之上。我们因而必须捍卫宪法的完整性，以达致这些共同目标。反之，高压手段只会破坏国族营造进程。如果我们在摆脱殖民者的统治后被迫面对新的专断政治威权，那么，独立对我国而言将失去意义。” 以下是57个公民团体联署声名全文： 尊重自由与多元价值，捍卫家庭与人道精神 国内一连串事件发展不但威胁我国的多元文化、宗教与种族社会安宁，也危害婚姻与家庭体系，我们以下56个联署公民团体在此表达深切关注。我国即将欢庆五十周年国庆，一些马来西亚人的行事却已失去人道精神的指导，因而对那些刚失去至亲或在外力干预下与至亲骨肉生离的痛苦，完全视而不见、听而不闻或者无动于衷；实在让人深以为忧。 每个人都有自由意志，因此，个人自由必须得到尊重。每个社群都有权表达与宣扬其价值观，政府、团体或个人都无权以威胁或暴力手段将价值观强加于他人身上。同样的，家庭的幸福与和谐是由其成员集体创造与界定，他们的选择必须受到尊重。 很不幸的，因宗教当局的政策与举措之故，已故登山英雄慕地（M Moorthy）与已故拉雅班（A. Rayappan）的家属被迫承受难以想象的痛苦、忧虑与压力。数个政府单位利用法律缺陷，剥削像莎玛拉（S Shamala）以及苏芭丝妮（R. Subashini）这些母亲对自己孩子的抚养权，只因为她们离异的丈夫皈依了伊斯兰教。同样的，像丽娜佐尔（Lina Joy）这些想改变宗教信仰的人士，则因为一些掌权者根据狭隘的法律以及宗教教义诠释所采取的恣意决定，以致无权与自己心爱的人结合。 最近发生另一件令人震惊的事。现年二十九岁的丽华蒂玛苏赛（Revathi Masoosai）（或名西蒂法迪玛，Siti Fatimah ）与其丈夫苏烈西威拉班（S. Veerapan）及十五个月大的女儿被马六甲宗教官员强行拆散。丽华蒂的父母是穆斯林，但被祖母以兴都教徒方式抚养成人，并与一名兴度教徒结婚。最初，她被送到宗教改造中心一百天，随后马六甲回教法庭裁定她必须再留在宗教改造中心八十天。丽华蒂的丈夫也失去了女儿的抚养权，而被判予丽华蒂的穆斯林母亲。 近期发生连串类似丽华蒂个案的事件，令我们非常忧心。我们失望地发现我们这个多元族群与宗教的社会，竟然不允许不同信仰的家庭成员融洽地生活在一起。近日媒体报导了另一个因宗教局介入而导致家庭分离的个案。雪兰莪州宗教局禁止娜吉拉法温莉(Najeera Farvinli Mohammed Jalali)与其丈夫马根兰萨巴迪（Magendran Sabathy）生活在一起。因为她是个穆斯林，而他们的兴都教婚姻被判无效。在另一起事件中，莱玛比比（Raimah Bibi） 不得不与其丈夫马里慕都（P Marimuthu ）和六个孩子分离，因为穆斯林与非穆斯林的婚姻不为法律所容。 人道精神必须凌驾政治。家庭内部为了个人安宁、和谐以及孩子所作的决定，必须受到尊重。所有关心社会的马来西亚人都应该站起来与其他思想进步的同胞和团体一起采取适当的政治及法律行动，阻止类似上述的悲剧继续发生。这些悲剧明显是因国家不当制裁举措所造成的。 因此，我们赞同霹雳州皇储拉惹纳兹林殿下（HRH Raja Nazrin Shah）于4月3日在全国年轻律师委员会与公共政策研究中心联办的“青年圆桌论坛：大马国民团结与发展”研讨会上所发表的谈话。他认为，马来西亚是属于所有公民的，不论其族群、宗教与祖源地是什么。国族营造应该奠基于命运与目的共同体的认识之上。我们因而必须捍卫宪法的完整性，以达致这些共同目标。反之，高压手段只会破坏国族营造进程。如果我们在摆脱殖民者的统治后被迫面对新的专断政治威权，那么，独立对我国而言将失去意义。 我们呼吁所有社会人士、团体与社群珍惜和包容大马社会的多元文化，并尊重来自不同族群与宗教背景的同胞。目前，某些思想狭隘的政客与官员的言行已给我们的家庭体系带来破坏，使到许多无辜的人承受巨大的打击与痛苦。所有来自不同族群与宗教背景的马来西亚人都必须设法阻止这种危险的趋势，否则，“五十周年国庆”对我们而言将会是一个空洞的口号。 联署团体： 1. 吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂 2. 大马人民之声(SUARAM) 3. Women’s Development Collective (WDC) 4. The Women’s Aid Organization (WAO) 5. 马来西亚佛教、基督教、兴都教、锡克教及道教宗教理事会 6. Herald-The Catholic Weekly 7. TENAGANITA 8. Women’s Centre for Change Penang 9. 马来西亚职工总会(MTUC) 10. 全国人权协会(HAKAM) 11. ALIRAN 12. 民主行动党 (DAP) 13. 马来西亚社会主义党(PSM) 14. 马来西亚华校董事联合会总会（董总） 15. 马来西亚华校教师会总会（教总） 16. 马来西亚留台校友会联合总会 17. 森美兰中华大会堂 18. 森美兰中华大会堂青年团 19. Group of Concerned Citizens 20. Jaringan Rakyat Terindas(JERIT) 21. Community Development Centre(CDC) 22. Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) 23. Alaigal 24. Vivekananda Youth Movement Seremban 25. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC) 26. All Petaling Jaya Pro Action Committee (APPAC) 27. 槟城自救会(Save Ourselves) 28. 大马选民力量(MALVU) 29. Penang watch 30. 维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟(WAMI) 31. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) 32. Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS) 33. 马来西亚青年与学生民主运动（学运） 34. Centre for Policy Initiatives 35. Coordination of Action Research on AIDS and Mobility ( CARAM Asia ) 36. Research for Social Advancement (REFSA) 37. 雪隆华校校友会联合会 38. 雪隆华校校友会联合会青年团 39. 森美兰华校校友会联合会 40. 白小保校工委会 41. 马来西亚华文小学家长会总会筹委会（家总） 42. 雪隆理华同学会 43. 坤成校友会 44. 巴生光华中学校友会 45. 隆雪惠安泉港公会 46. 森美兰永春会馆 47. 马来西亚乡青总团联谊会 48. 雪隆兴安会馆青年团 49. 雪兰莪福建会馆青年团 50. 雪隆广东会馆青年团 51. 柔佛州中华总会青年团 52. 全国大专联谊会 53. 马来亚大学新青年协会(UMANY) 54. 马大华文学会 55. 理大华文学会 56. 博大华文学会 57. 马六甲中华大会堂青年团