AYE TO ARTICLE II

is a coalition of NGOs, which was formed after the High Court’s judgement on the S. Shamala case in 2004. In the highly-publicised case, Shamala failed to nullify her two children’s conversion to Islam, which was secretly done without her consent by her husband who had earlier converted to Islam.

The civil court had reasoned it had no jurisdiction over the case as the children were already Muslims and the correctness or otherwise of their conversion was a matter for the Syariah Court.
Shamala’s case brought home the point that the constitutional role of the civil High Court as the protector of the rights of the ordinary citizen was fast becoming illusory.

The implications of this case became a rallying force that drew together concerned NGOs and members of civil society, thus giving birth to Article 11.

Currently, Article 11 comprises 13 non-governmental organisations representing women’s concerns, human rights, lawyers and various religious groups including the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhishm, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (of which NECF Malaysia is a member of through Christian Federation of Malaysia). Sisters in Islam and the Women’s Aid Organisation are the group’s joint secretariats.

Contrary to accusations from certain quarters, the group was not set up to undermine the special position of Islam as enshrined in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. Neither was it to challenge the Syariah as family and personal laws of those professing Islam pertaining to items listed in the 9th Schedule of List II of the same Constitution.

Its purpose was simply to reaffirm the supremacy of the Federal Constitution (Article 4) and to reiterate the fundamental right of all Malaysian citizens to equality before the law (Article 8), and therefore, all have access to legal remedy.

Article 11 also calls for restoration of judiciary to its original position in the Constitution as was the case before 1988. That means vesting the judicial power of the Federation into the civil high courts.

Article 11 has thus far held two forums, one in Petaling Jaya and another in Malacca, to educate Malaysians on their rights. Forum speakers discussed the Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas... remarked that the religion of Islam in Article 3 was meant only for the purpose of rituals and ceremonies, and it was never intended to extend the application of Syariah to the sphere of public law. parameter of citizens’ legal and constitutional rights as well as the dilemma created by the dual-legal system (civil and syariah) involving cases such as Shamala’s children’s custody, the death of M. Moorthy, and Lina Joy’s application to delete the word ‘Islam’ from her identity card.

Entitled ‘Federal Constitution: A Protection for All’, the two forums were held peacefully. However, the coalition was not so fortunate when it held the forum in Penang on May 14 when a crowd of 500 angry protestors demonstrated outside the venue. They accused the organiser of challenging the Syariah and protested the formation of the Interfaith Commission, which was completely unrelated to the forum.

Malaysians are concerned about the strong influence of Islam, advocated by certain quarters, that has been encroaching into our daily lives for some years now.

This influence is evident in, for example, the civil courts’ refusal to exercise their jurisdiction on cases relating to freedom of religion and Islam Hadhari’s role in the Government’s Ninth Malaysia Plan.

(Page 9 of the 9MP states: “Islam Hadhari was introduced in 2004 as a comprehensive and universal development framework for the nation. The framework was formulated as an approach that enjoins progress and advancement as an imperative for the people, while being rooted in the universal values and injunctions of Islam”.)

The Islamic trend is also expressed in the religiosity of the local authorities, and the civil service departments’ unconscious acceptance of Malaysia as an Islamic state due to the constant proclamation of Malaysia as one.
Some have argued that since the Federal Constitution recognises Islam as the official religion, therefore Syariah should be the underlying principle of all civil laws.

This may have led the Attorney-General’s Chambers to set up an in-house Syariah unit whose functions are to “take steps toward the realisation of a set of laws and specific body that will be responsible for the harmonisation of civil law and syarak (the laws of Islam)” (Source: Attorney General’s website: www.agc.gov.my)

My pressure to follow religious laws is pressure to follow religious laws is the result of political parties striving to prove their Islamic credentials.
Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas, in ruling the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor (1988) after reviewing Malaysia’s constitutional history, remarked that the religion of Islam in Article 3 was meant only for the purpose of rituals and ceremonies, and it was never intended to extend the application of Syariah to the sphere of public law.

“If it had been otherwise, there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the junction of Islam would be void,” he said.

In other words, the Federal Constitution was never intended to raise Islamic law above civil law.
No doubt, “Islam is the religion of the Federation” as stated (Article 3), but it is not the basic law of the land. However, recognising that Malaysia, as a hybrid state, is neither strictly secular nor ‘un-islamic’, it can be best described as a Muslim country because the majority of our citizens are Muslims.

The coalition has initiated a signature campaign to reaffirm the supremacy of the Federal Constitution (FC). To date, it has collected over 20,000 signatures, which have been submitted to the Prime Minister.

The ongoing petition draws urgent attention to fears that constitutional rights are steadily being undermined by executive and legislative decisions.

The petition reminds parliamentarians, cabinet ministers and judges to honour their oath of office in defending the FC , to reaffirm the country’s secular nature and to ensure judicial independence.

The petition is online at www.petitionline.com/constsup/petition.html