Such an order to stop all discussion on Article 11 will not defuse the problem that affects all rakyat, argues a reader.
On Article 11 wants to meet PM
Disappointed Minority Malaysian: In my personnel opinion, this is the biggest letdown by our PM. I can't believe my eyes when I read the headline yesterday. Such an order to stop all discussion will not defuse the problem that affects all rakyat.
Why should we be cowed by some hooligans who refuse to listen before they protest! I don't know much about religion, but I'm sure this is not the type of Islam Hadhari that the PM is promoting.
Ahmad Kamal: It is good to know that there are reasonable voices to confirm the necessity of ensuring freedom of speech in discussing a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, that of freedom of religion. The prime minister, an Islam Hadhari man, has no clue as to how to develop mechanisms to ensure the protection of this guarantee under his Islam Hadhari. Or rather his Islam Hadhari has no place for a rational discussion on freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
An Islamic University in Jakarta whose dean is Indonesian intellectual, Azyumardi Azra, is awarding Abdullah Badawi for his Islam Hadhari. Perhaps they should rethink that, because frankly Islam Hadhari a.k.a "Islam Badawi" on blogsites, has not shown its merits in battling the many challenges of his administration.
Scarlet Pimple: It's the same story. Whenever minorities want to discuss their feelings about the impact of Islam on their lives, blackmail through threat of violence always works and the government is the same always, bowing to the threat rather than doing what is right.
Nobody wants to tell Muslims how to live their lives. However, when their spouses convert in secret or openly, and the rest of the non-Muslim family are directly enfranchised, surely their rights cannot be extinguished?
Increasingly, non-Muslims in Malaysia are detaching themselves from Muslims in Malaysia in social encounters and engagement on social issues. This will be the future of Malaysia - part of it for Muslims and the other part for non-Muslims. And so Bangsa Malaysia will always be a pipe-dream and maybe only for a few people too as it seems that nobody cares anymore.
BOLH: When I read the Star this morning: "Article 11 forums to discuss inter-faith issues must stop immediately because they are deemed to cause tension in our multi-religious society, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said," I felt nothing but utter despair.
It appears to me that the prime minister, who is supposed to be impartial and represent Malaysians from all walks of life, colour, creed and belief, has given in to mob pressure and have now made known which side he is on. When he became PM, he swore to uphold the Constitution and the Article 11 [not interfaith council] forum was about the constitution. By stating his stand, he has firmly also made it known he has reneged on the oath.
The PM further said that by allowing the forum to continue , "... would create a tense situation among the country's multi-racial and multi-religious people." By preventing the non-Muslims from having a platform to air their concerns is exactly tantamount to that as everybody would feel bottled up with fear and anxieties. This is certainly very unhealthy for the rakyat. Either way it is a win-lose or lose-win situation. My suggestion is that we should go back to the original spirit of our Federal Constituion.
So, if the PM is not with us [non-Muslims] and the Constitution appears to be now irrelevant, who do we turn to? My only regret is that the government no longer appreciates the 90% mandate given to them, and as such, I shall be withdrawing my vote in the next general election.
Finally, Mr Prime Minister, despite the predicament we are facing under your Islamisation programme, unlike some people, we shall not resort to violence and fear intimidation.
Devan: Today, the world is ruled by an open and freely accessible information regime - issues like religions, beliefs, cultures, trades, politics, economics, etc, are becoming "borderless" and thus we need to think out of box.
The open discussion on Article 11 is to give awareness to our society, and in doing so, the misunderstanding about the Article 11 can be clarified.
By just halting the forum, we snuff out the opportunity to make people understand the issues. Thus the problem is not solved but it only increases tension and mistrust. Thus, we hope that our PM would allow the forum to be continue, and at the same time initiate steps to explain to the people of the important of the said Article.
BDP: I am relatively ignorant in respect of the debates concerning faiths and religions. As a Muslim (at least I truly hope I am), I have always believed that it stresses many reasonable and fair practices. In particular, the election of leaders is exactly done as such; via elections.
So I have always been intrigued by the dynastic tendencies observed within societies that deem themselves Islamic. Can I clarify the position of dynasties and hereditary rulers (not legitimised by any form of election) within the Islamic political and administrative structure?
If it is frowned upon (eg, by arguing that all humans are equal in the eyes of God save for their faith, and so, no man can be more equal than another simply by birth), surely there has to be some revisiting of certain paradigms within such societies.
