News reports that the cabinet has decided to veto the use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims in Malaysia despite renewing the Herald's publishing licence which first led to the controversy is a major step backwards for democracy.
The government is wrong in restricting the religious liberty of Malaysians as many East Malaysian Christians have been using the word for a long time. Why the sudden concern now? Why resurrect a dead issue?
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi rescinded the ban on the Al Kitab in 2002 and blamed the resulting fiasco on an ‘overzealous bureaucrat’ so why is he back-flipping again and allowing the Christian community to feel the full brunt of the cabinet's bizarre ban?
It does not add up. On one hand, PM Abdullah talks about a progressive nation and freedom of religion and on the other, we see more and more erosion of the fundamental liberties of Malaysians guaranteed under the Malaysian constitution.
Since the impetus to make Malay the pre-dominant language in the country many Malaysians are now more conversant in their national language and many Christians prefer to use the Indonesian Bible, the Al Kitab.
We must remember that any act even a decision taken by the cabinet can be challenged if it contravenes the provisions of the constitution. This one certainly does. The decision to ban the use of words traditionally used in non-Muslim religions is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. In an independent court the ban will not stand. Article 11 of the Constitution speaks nothing of the ban on religious terms of non-Muslim religions and gives no power for the government to interfere in non-Islamic religions.
The issue is one of religious liberty, more than a quibble over words. It is also about how important Malaysians, especially the government views the country's constitution. Is it supreme or only symbolic and political expediency rules the day? Does the cabinet understand the ramifications of its decision?
By imposing gratuitous restrictions on religion the country, it will surely be seen as totalitarian and undermining its own constitution and aim in creating a progressive society. It is one way to lower the esteem of the country in the eyes of a free world . And it deserves to be criticised for its lapse of wisdom and sense of justice and immaturity in tackling a world of differences.
What is wrong with the Christians using the term anyway? What is the real worry?
The form over substance approach to religion is one reason why actions by the government's religious departments have created disunity and feelings of resentment in the community. The government now is responsible for more acts that divide than unite. This latest ban is another typical example. The effect is to polarise people and leave them with a bitter sense of injustice.
When people can't live with differences and try to impose their will upon others, then conflict inevitably results. The cabinet's decision is yet another piece in the jigsaw of its image of a police state. The ominous signs of religious fascism are very clear.
They are doing and are only pampering to certain narrow-minded extremists who like to burn down Hindu temples and poke their noses into other people's religions and are paranoid about Christians converting Muslims.
It does not augur well for the nation's future.
By its decision the government has signalled to the world that it is pursuing a policy of intolerance and censorship of religion against all known conventions of religious liberty and human rights. While it takes pride in its economic progress, it is sadly sinking in the bog of religious persecution and treading in the footsteps of the Taliban in controlling how people think and behave.
Today it is the word 'Allah'. Tomorrow?
