Nothing unsaid was said at last night forum:"Malaysia, After Lina Joy: A Dialogue Lina Joy"
However I am happy to note that it was one of the rare occasion where the audience was well represented by all the races.
The discerning sharp division of opinion between our Malay brothers/sisters and the non-moslem among the audience, pervaded the atmosphere at the Hotel Armada.
The Malays, quoting liberally from the Koran, maintained that Islam came as a package. There are procedures for entering and there are procedures for leaving.
The non-moslem on their part emphasized the fundemantal rights as enshrine in the constitution. For them the decision on Lina Joy is a violation of human rights.
There were a couple of Malays, like the 3 moslem speakers on the panel, maintaining a middle ground calling for healthy dialogue to solve the problem.
One Malay even went to the extend of saying that the Shariah requirement, was only applicable in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. According to her the Federal Court had jurisdiction. As such she said the Federal Court decision was wrong.
The Muslim Organizations in Defence of Islam took the opportunity at the Forum to distribute their statement on the case. It advised that the decision should not be seen as a victory for Muslims and a loss for non-Muslims in Malaysia. It maintained that the decision should instead be seen as a rejection of an attempt to deconstruct and radically revamp the current formula.
The DAP through panel speaker Lim Kit Siang renewed its call for secular state status for Malaysia. He said a secular state should not be seen as against Islam but one that transcended religion to ensure Malaysia’s future.
Another panel speaker Lim Guan Eng described Lina Joy’s decision as one that had denied the individual a right guaranteed under the Constitution such as a right to freedom of conscience and choice of religion.
Ambiga Sreenevasan, Malaysia Bar Council President expressed her pessimism the protection of these fundamental rights following Lina Joy’s decision, however, on legal grounds.
The question of whether the decision was political, religious or legal in substance, was not directly tackled. Muslim alluded it as religious while the non-muslim implied it was political.
Ms Ambiga, on her part, maintained that it was a legal issue hijacked by the politicians. In other words politicians meddling in a legal issue, and politicians meddling in religious issue and thus causing problems to Malaysians. However in the Malaysian context, it is obvious that such meddling is a manifestation of Malay phobia of the erosion of their political dominance in the country. They not only fear losing their numbers out of Islam but also fear of onslaught of other Muslim denominations such as Shitism and other “deviationist” sects.
“Healthy dialogue” as advocated by Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, PKR Secretary-General, should address this issue otherwise we can talk until the cows come home…
